February 26, 2004
Important Note: Because we can't always determine your intentions, we need to ask a favor of you when you send us email. If you DO NOT WANT YOUR EMAIL PUBLISHED in the Mailbag or in the Contributors section, please write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the Subject line or at the top of your email. That way we'll know it's just a comment to BuzzFlash. Additionally, if you submit a mailbag item and DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME associated with your submission, sign your email "A BuzzFlash Reader." If you send email unsigned, we will post your name with your submission, or, if that's not available, your email name (not the full address, just what's on the left side of the email address). Please try and keep your word count under 400. If your letter includes hypertext links, please include the entire URL. We can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
THIS IS PART 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. CLICK HERE FOR PART 1.
Subj: Federal Review and Management of Conjugal Relations and Wifely Duties
So the President is calling for a change to our Constitution to make it a crime for two gay individuals to get married? This, from the party that prides itself on speaking for the "family"?
I need some questions answered:
-- If you're married and you're against gays getting married because you feel that would be a threat to the institution of marriage, aren't you really saying that the concept of marriage is somehow "cheapened" by these other people getting married? Doesn't that really say that you have no concept of what your own marriage is all about? Since when does someone else getting married affect the value of your own marriage? And really, you can only speak about your own marriage, right? Otherwise you've got your nose in a certain place where it doesn't belong.
-- What are we going to do about divorce? Doesn't a high divorce rate "cheapen" the sanctity of marriage more than two gay people attempting to get married? For this we can question Republican dignitaries such as Rush Limbaugh since he's apparently an expert in nuptials. He and his current wife are each on their third marriage -- so that means between he and Marta, they've had five, count 'em five, marriages between them. Is that what we consider to be a healthy respect for the institution of marriage?
-- What about people who live together without the bother of making it official? For those who are living in sin, do we take them away in handcuffs and stone them, or do we just mind our own business and let them get on with their lives? Come on now, we've got to cover all the bases here when it comes to marriage, and for those who deem that an official wedding isn't worth their time, then there's got to be some sort of penalty paid to society. We're trying to protect and maintain the sanctity and value of marriage as an institution and if two gay people threaten the process, then so does a couple who live together in sin. David Letterman should rethink his priorities in life, don't you think?
-- What about people who are confirmed "singles"? If you're not married by a certain point in your life (say mid-30s) then you've obviously not considered marriage to be worth your time. This is a direct insult to those of us who have done their Constitutional duty and gotten married, right? So you've got to be married by a certain birthday, otherwise you might be in violation of federal statutes and guidelines.
-- Does the federal government need to regulate the issuance of marriage licenses, or will that be left to the states, or maybe an "official" church entity. I'm thinking the "Secretary of Conjugal Relations and Wifely Duties" probably. I don't see any other way for the Federal Government to manage marriage and to keep it "pure" than by direct regulation and annual certifications. Let your imagination run free with this, you'll see what I mean.
So, if you know of anyone who is really bent out of shape about this gay-marriage thing, have them answer the questions I've presented. We are talking about a change to the Constitution aren't we?
Dubya's Continued Deception
Dubya's really feeling the heat. Imagine that the same day the Consumer Confidence Index falls 9.1% he suddenly finds it necessary to call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. His little speech certainly did what it was intended to do: namely, refocus the public's attention away from his scandalous failure to resurrect the economy or the creation of exponential deficits or the lack of decent jobs or to adequately explain his rationale for going to war or to simply answer his critics in a straightforward manner.
He's our uniter, not divider-in-chief, don't you know. My question is, what's he going to do for an encore when the press tires of this nonsense in a few weeks?
If dubya wishes to amend our CONSITUTION and twist it to please the zealots on the far right, I hereby make this humble statement. First, he should study it, learn it and see why it has endured for over two centuries as the bedrock of our democracy. If he is capable of that, which I seriously doubt, he should then appear on world-wide t.v. with-out the benefit of a teleprompter or crib notes and recite it and explain to everyone why he and his henchmen are doing their level best to dismantle it!!
Keep it up cause you're the best.
Subj: Newsflash-City of Dallas passes anti-Patriotic Act resolution
Just before 4 pm today The City of Dallas' City Council passed an anti-Patriotic Act Resolution
vote was 9 FOR resolution, and 6 NO (against resolution)
A BuzzFlash Reader
Greenspan spoke today and basically he said that the boomers are f**ked. He said to continue giving large tax cuts to the wealthy and f**k the boomers. These comments played just too nicely into the bush administration's hands as they go forth with their plan to privatize Social Security. Seems if the boomers want any of the money they have paid into Social Security they should contact Halliburton. Apparently the bush administration has already invested our SS money in the form of rebuilding Iraq. Remember that's the country that we bombed the hell out of because bush had a wet dream about a war and wmd?
Remember when Gore was running for Pres. and he vowed to never touch the SS surplus? Remember he said that bush's tax cut plan could not work and that it would deplete the SS surplus? Well, chalk one up for legally President Gore. Too screwin' bad no one listened to him because he sure as hell was correct.
So here we are over three years later and our economy freakin sucks, the conditions in Iraq suck, an amendment to ban gay marriage sucks, the Secretary of Education sucks, and our relationship with most of the world sucks. How in the name of anything that you might consider holy, can anyone question the fact that we must have a new President and administration in the white house. I mean you would have to be brain dead to believe that this country is better off today than it was before this freakin freaky bush took office. Insanity has become a way of life for this administration. That's gotta change!
pissed off patricia
Subj: Gay Unions?
Is there something terribly wrong with me, a heterosexual, married for many years to the same man..mom of three and grandmom of 6....that this Gay Marriage/Union thing does not bother me at all??
I have other things to do...I am very intent on getting Crooks out of the White House. I have lived by gays...my daughter living in a very upscale neighborhood, in Nashville, $250,000 homes....lived next door to a gay couple...both doctors!
They never, ever attacked them..I am sure...she would have told me, it did not bother her either!...Are there not enough horrible things in this country to think and worry about other than what two people do in the privacy of their abodes?
I will admit that I turn my head when they kiss each other on the lips...the marriages are different..but, folks, it ain't gonna take anything away from me.
Just because it is not my lifestyle....It is not as bad As George Bush, Dick Cheney, or John Ashcroft, or Rummy. My life would be much happier if they were out of office.....even if there were gay marriages.
What the hell???
Everyone who wants This administration out....should concentrate on that!
Lets all get a life...and some guts...and a backbone...and trip them all so they will fall on their heads....likely the weakest point....right???
The BuzzFlash reader's letter to General Clark calling for all the Democratic primary candidates to sit down and plan how to ensure that Bush is removed from office next election day is an excellent suggestion. Please, BuzzFlash, use your influence to call for such an approach.
Thank you, Collette Howell
Subj: The word "AMERICA"
Is it just me or does anyone else outside of the U.S. get really irritated when the U.S. continues to call itself "America"?
Excuse me, but the U.S. has to remember that "America" consists of two continents...North America and South America. Consider this: we are all "Americans". Our countries have names like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Paraguay, etc. We, in Canada, could call ourselves the "United Provinces of America" but, we don't, our country has a name, "Canada". Mexico is Mexico, Brazil is Brazil, and so on. Maybe it's time the U.S. adopted a real name for their country so those of us from other North and South American countries don't have to do the let's make it perfectly clear that we are NOT "Americans". Unfortunate as it is, citizens of other American countries do not consider it a compliment to be lumped in with George W. Bush and his arrogant, goose-stepping regime.
[BuzzFlash Note: You have a point. However, should we call ourselves United Statesers? Also, there are a lot of people in THIS country who "do not consider it a compliment to be lumped in with George W. Bush and his arrogant, goose-stepping regime."]
Subj: Social Security Cuts
Greenspan says we need to cut Social Security so that rich republicans can keep their tax cuts. I remember 4 years ago when Clinton was president that Social Security was in good shape - we had a surplus - and everyone was making lots of money. I say - getting rid of Bush is the best solution to fixing Social Security. Lets go back to taxing the rich rather than throwing old people out on the street.
Re: Democrats Blast Greenspan's Call For Social Security Cuts
That's exactly as believable as everything else that comes out of this asshole's mouth
Good. Kerry or Edwards or whoever winds up debating this moron (unless Rove figures out a way to prevent a debate) should have worked up the precise #'s of what would have happened to American workers retirement accounts under the Bush plan since he took office. Something like "If your $250,000 social security fund in 2000 would have been one of Bush's proposed personal retirement accounts it would have shrunk to $109,212.09 since he took office. Social Security was a great idea when the Republicans fought against it in 1934 and it's a great idea 70 years later when Republicans are still trying to kill it."
Subj: A Couple of Things
As a retired educator, the remark about the NEA being a terrorist organization did not sit too well. It is a fact that W would like to do away with Unions, no matter how much good they have done. As a former teacher, I know that if it were not for the Union, I would not have made headway in class size, salary nor many other areas that the union guided. The remark might have been off the cuff but it was entirely thoughtless.
Another issue that has appeared in the last twenty-four hours has to do with cutting into Social Security to help with the deficit. W is still pushing for the personal accounts malarkey. As it is in the US today, many couples find that both have to work to make ends meet. Where would they find funds to put into an individual account? Dimbulb simply is so out of touch that he thinks that anyone can be as easy with this idea as he is. And further, who created the deficit? Dimbulb, of course. So he wants help in solving the problem of the deficit. How about coughing up some of the money he has?
I know that Ralph Nader poses a problem, ( I sent him an e-mail, pleading with him not to run...did he listen to me? No.) and we have to work on that somehow. But, it is imperative to keep some issues on the front burners. W's lack of service in the National Guard, the economy, the ever growing deficit, Iraq and the long term, and now Social Security, to name a few.
And somehow, we have to fight the dirty tricks and remarks made by people who obviously do not have a conscience. The terrorist remark is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Subj: Social Security Cuts
Dear BuzzFlash - you're great! I recently came across you and not only are you informative but your sense of humor is a wonderful addition to the grave state of the news. Anyway - just a suggestion - for maybe a day or two - I suggest you make the Social Security cuts suggested by Greenspan a major headline. The arrogance of him (and those on "his side") to suggest that the tax cuts remain, the pentagon budget remain, the doubtless wasteful spending at the Department of Homeland Security, etc., remain while the average citizen's retirement gets cut is just appalling. I am 52 and many, many people I know are in debt to their ears (thanks to our society which encourages accumulating debt to the benefit of banks and lending institutions) and have very little savings. What the hell do the Republican's think the end result of their plans will be - having two thirds of the citizenry living on the streets! Please give this more publicity for a day or two - people have to get that this is the beginning of the move to separate the country literally and completely into a top tier of a few with most of the wealth, and a vast bottom with nearly nothing. Thanks again. I will donate when I can.
Isis Douglas, Boulder, Colorado.
Subj: What They Have to Lose
Just thinking, and not to state the obvious...we know what we have to lose this November. I was wondering about them. I imagine they're thinking 2004 is the year to consolidate power for the century. If they lose in November, all the lies about 9/11 and Iraq and Plame-gate, etc. etc. etc. will be exposed. The right wing dominionists and neo-cons will lose their power forever. They have everything on the line, and furthermore, they think their success is preordained. The right wing plans have been in the works for 20 years or so. This will be all or nothing, and they will act accordingly. Not that anyone on BuzzFlash needs convincing, but we need to be prepared for some ugly times ahead. Keep your wits about you at all times!
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Clark's Ego and Vanity?
Wynn Spell said, in his open letter to Gen. Clark:
Ego? Vanity? Is this a General Clark from a parallel universe? That does not in any way resemble the Wes I know and love. Please tell Wynn Spell that his Wes Clark is a figment of his overactive imagination, and that he should take a closer look at the real General, here on planet Earth in *this* universe.
Subj: my heart is breaking
oh my, my heart just breaks for the poor people in this country. does mr. bush know we have so many people like the ones working at walmart, mccdonalds, nursing homes and others that barely pay enough for them to buy food? mr. bush seems to think everyone has millions in the bank. my dear friend madge is 59, she works in a nursing home here. she is a diabetic and is on her feet all day. she makes $7.10 an hour. when she gets off work her feet look like water melons. hard work all of her life has taken it's toll on her body. she has not had the good health care and sit down jobs all her life like mr. bush. where is the compassion?
Subj: Eating Ourselves Alive
About the caustic Nader bashing (which I participated in) and the equally vehement Nader defending -- it's beginning to make me very, very nervous. It would be a mistake if we let this issue divide us.
Hey -- let's listen to what Nader has to say -- think we can all agree he has some points -- but stay focused for now on the first priority, which is defeating Bush. None of our other issues matters for squat while he's eating off white house china.
The one thing the Repubs really have going for them is that they're unified (or pretend to be) behind their guy. They've managed to put aside their differences (which are legion, if you think about it) and have melded themselves into quite a formidable block.
It's maybe the only thing about them we should consider emulating.
Marg in NY
Subj: Bear Trap
Dear BuzzFlash, So, the unctuous Bill Frist and his fellow Senate reactionaries are setting a "bear trap" for John Kerry. Oh, really? Who's going to get trapped in the trap? Unless you're a Democratic Leadership Council official or Joe Lieberman, you'll quickly realize that when a Senator takes a principled stand on any given issue, irrespective of how "controversial" that issue may be, there is no danger in taking such a stand. It is a logical fallacy that liberal Democrats need to feel ashamed over their stands on such subjects. If we stand up and forcefully argue our positions -- taking the fight directly to the enemy -- there is nothing to fear. Instead, we should view each vote as an opportunity to score points. The minute we concede one square inch of rhetorical turf to Karl Rove, Bill Frist or Trent Lott, we're subscribing to a formula for disaster. Please, let's stop wallowing in the Al From/DLC guilt trip from the nineties. Running away from our beliefs is what delivered us a Republican Congress and President. We've got a President, for Pete's sake, who says that sending jobs to India is a good thing for the economy. Where is this ominous, obvious "trap" for Kerry? I don't see it. We want to make Bush run on his record (he wants to ignore it) and in order to do that, we have to serve up an alternative to that horrific record. As far as the judicial nominees are concerned -- are we supposed to assume that there's this huge reservoir of support for somebody like Bill Pryor of Alabama? Who's kidding who, here? As Kerry would say: Bring it on. Bring on the votes, let's take 'em one by one. Kerry was the captain of his college debating team. Even the Republicans concede he's the best senator on his feet in a debate. Why in God's name should he ever feel the need to shrink away from the ideologues who are trying to set the "bear trap"? The bear trap will prove to be a boomerang. In this campaign, we need to take the fight to the enemy, not wait for them to come knocking at our doors. Let the battle be joined -- we've got nothing to apologize for, nothing to explain, nothing to defend. The issues are our friend, they are not our enemy. Bush succeeds by obfuscating issues, not by clarifying them. The only pitfall for Kerry, in my opinion, is that he might not point out the stark contrast to Bush's position, every times he votes on a particular issue. Every time he votes, he should literally run to give a press conference, pointing out and emphasizing how diametrically opposed he is to the Republican/Bush position on that particular vote. Someone like Joe Lieberman, in contrast, tries to meld his own position to that of Bush's. Is there really anyone out there who believes that we really can win by running away from these votes? Something tells me that John Kerry is looking for more issues to debate, rather than less.
Donald P. Russo, Bethlehem Pa.
To Whom It May Concern;
I regularly take public transportation. Many people do not, due to the claims that it is for the poor and uneducated only. (I don't know where that comes from)
But if this is true, that the poor and uneducated use public transportation, then that means many people who listen to scream radio use public transportation.
May I offer a suggestion for a little subversive "advertising"?
Many times I will find religious pamphlets "accidentally" left on board the buses.
Perhaps we can add "accidental" advertising to our arsenal.
Printing short messages about how this admin is both deceitful and criminal on business cards and "accidentally" leaving them in buses would be an easy, inexpensive and polite way of keeping the idea in people's minds about what is going on.
Here are some suggested phrases:
A BuzzFlash Reader
Why is the Justice Department getting subpoenas of physicians and hospital records on women's abortions, but are fighting to keep RUSH LIMBAUGHS medical records secret?
Subj: On NPR Morning Edition Presidents' campaign manager claims Bush volunteered for Vietnam
I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR this morning (February, 23 2004) and was floored when I heard an interview between Juan Williams and Ken Mehlman the head of President Bush's reelection committee. During the interview Mr. Williams asked about how the military records will affect the upcoming election, especially if the Democratic candidate is Senator Kerry. Ken Mehlman said some nice things about Senator Kerry's service and then stated that he did not feel it would play much because Senator Kerry's record is so similar to the President's.
First I was flabbergasted at such a statement, then I was disappointed that Mr. Williams seemed to accept this statement as a fact.
Yes being a jet pilot can be dangerous and men do die in accidents, but it should have been pointed out that there is a huge difference between serving in Texas and Alabama for one weekend a month and seeing major combat in Vietnam. Whether or not the President showed up for service in Alabama or not, he was not flying there so his service offered absolutely no risk. How then can his sacrifice or record be compared to a man who earned 3 purple hearts? This did not completely surprise me though, because I have heard similar comments made by supporters of the President before. One supporter, I believe a Republican Congresswoman even suggested that the President was one of the best pilots that the Air National Guard ever had, which was surprising since the records show he was marginal at best, barely kept up with his flight hours when he was attending and had scored the lowest allowable points to gain his flying status. So I was shocked but not completely surprised.
Then Mr. Mehlman went on to state, "President Bush volunteered for Vietnam, but was not accepted," and I was floored. Yet Mr. Williams did not follow up with this. Mr. Williams went on with the interview, not reacting at all to this comment, which I thought was odd and could not believe. I have followed this controversy pretty extensively for a couple of years now and this is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that President Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam. He volunteered and did not get accepted? This is very doubtful, for when the President joined the guard the US military was hurting for volunteers, and was sending thousands to Vietnam.
Now this statement could be true, I cannot be sure, yet it strikes me as odd that when the President was on Meet the Press, he did not make such a statement. I felt Mr. Williams should have followed up with a question or two about this revelation. This was a major statement and Juan Williams seemed to just brush by it.
Could you please look into it? If this is another lie we need to expose it and show the world what a liar the Bush administration is.
Please let me know what you think or what you find out.
Subj: Another True Lie of Bush
Relating to #24, in Jeremy Warren's article, let me remind you of a lie Bush told that can actually be prosecuted:
Bush once told a judge that he shouldn't be a juror on a case because he may have to pardon the defendant someday. You see, he was governor of Texas at the time. And we know how predisposed to pardoning people he is.
Don't go around saying that the real reason was to conceal Bush's drunk driving conviction, which would have certainly been exposed upon juror selection questioning (unless hidden by direct perjury), and thus would have abruptly cancelled his political future.
This was a drunk driving case, so the question would have come up even if the attorneys didn't ask the very general questions about connections, histories, etc., with the law.
I am convinced that he committed at least a misdemeanor, and he and Mr. Gonzales conspired to do this thus committing a felony. (No statute of limitations on that one.)
Subj: Put your money where your politics is . .
I HATE insurance companies! I hate paying car insurance to some huge corporate conglomerate [donating to W as Pioneer? and getting favors in return], and receiving nothing but trouble and cold-indifference in return. But today that all changed.
Peter Lewis owns Progressive Insurance. Both he and George Soros [Buzz interview 2/25] are contributing millions to pro-democracy groups working to unseat the unelected W. I called Progressive today for a quote, talked to an informative, efficient and friendly fellow, and when I got off the phone, had Progressive as my new car-insurance carrier - saving $250/year to boot! [The fellow gave me a few lower rates from the competition -SnakeFarm and Allstate - but no-go as their politics are way wrong]. The premiums I now pay will go to an insurance company owned by a man who is actively working towards democracy for all of us.
Fighting for democracy demands we all pay close attention to where we place our dollars [e.g., locally-owned stores rather than slave-wage walmart - the local store price tags may be a bit higher but the disastrous cost of wally-world mentality [driving to the edge of town in your SUV to get cheap imported junk from some bigbox store] is incalcuable.] I switched today to Progressive and I tell you, it feels great!
Subj: Will 9/11 just fade away?
The 9/11 victims and their survivors need your support if the truth is ever to emerge from the "Independent" Investigative Panel. Please contact them, and then demand from your representatives, the President and Vice-President a complete, unfettered accounting of the details. This panel is composed of members who owe their allegiance to this administration which makes the task of illuminating the facts a near impossibility, made even more daunting if the force of the country is not behind the effort. Lawyer Stephen Berg is suing under the RICO Act on behalf of widow Ellen Mariani. You can find information about this separate case at 911forthetruth.com. Do not stand for a cover-up.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Deja Vu All Over Again!
In a book by John Helyar titled Lords of the Realm, about baseballs owners, the following quote about G.W. Bush appears on page 444:
"Actually, he was only one of two general partners, the other one being the brains of the operation.... Bush was the out-front guy, a role in which he exulted. 'Does he know that he doesn't really run this team?' a writer once asked a Rangers official. 'No, no,' said the official, 'and don't you dare tell him.'"
As Yogi Berra once said: Déjà vu all over again.
Subj: True extent of US casualties in Iraq still unknown ???
A BuzzFlash Reader
No one should be surprised by events in Haiti. After all Clinton stopped a civil war, restored the president and sent in the marines. No one got killed so what happens, Bush pulls the rug out from the president, the country is in civil war again and now Bush gets to send in the Marines. It won't be so bloodless this time.
Subj: Alan Greenspan
Now today Alan Greenspan threw fuel on the fire, stating that future Social Security benefits must be cut back because the country faces the spectre of bankruptcy in coming years. This statement comes only two days after he endorsed making the rPresident's tax cuts permanent, stating they are good for the economy. Frankly, Alan Greenspan is no longer credible. Let's ask him to retire.
Even the GOP is stepping back from this proposed amendment and with good reason. The proposed amendment reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." [emphasis added]
Those four words are intended by the drafter to be vague, but the intent behind them is transparent to a discerning eye and broad in scope. In other words, draconian. Such "incidents" would encompass higher personal income tax brackets, Social Security death benefits, life insurance proceeds, tax-free inheritance, community property rights, parental rights, decision-making authority for incapacitated spouse/life partner. Once amended to our Constitution all unmarried couples, whether same sex or not, would be denied these and a multitude of other benefits that many states, municipalities, and business entities have already approved.
One Republican official let the cat out of the bag during an interview last evening. He expressed the opinion that Social Security already bears a heavy burden and that allowing such unions would only make matters worse. In essence, his "religious" objections are merely a cover-up for his greed.
The chances of passage and codification of such an amendment are a long shot at best. Dubya, our ever more desperate coward-in-chief, caved to his base -- and the press is wasting no time pointing out the politics behind his decision -- and leaped out onto this quaking branch, this November would be a fantastic time for the true patriots of this country to lend a hand at sawing it off.
Subj: More Bushit Towards Vets
__Bush Program Pays Lip Service to Hiring Vets, But Won't Actually Provide Them with JOBS!
Now here's a classic example of the Bush corporate modus operandi, we call "Much Ado About Doing Nothing," this "effort" directed at Vet employment. The Labor Dept. has formed a committee, appointed members from all sorts of companies and organizations, put out a press release, and touted the virtues of the Veterans' Employment and Training Service. But as you read this press release you will notice one detail conspicuous by its absence: Jobs. Nowhere is it stated that the committee will actually FIND jobs for vets, only that it will push the IDEA of hiring vets. Also, the Vet training service does not actually create vet jobs, anymore than the unemployment agency does! Yet another Bush promise that amounts to nothing but smoke and mirrors.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Hastert Tells W.House He Won't Extend 9/11 Panel BOYCOTT
I just sent the below to my congressmen in response to Hastert. Would you share this with your readers? thanks.
I want you to STOP the daily business of Congress in response to Speaker Dennis Hastert refusal to allow the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, to have at least a 60 day extension of their report deadline. I want you to BOYCOTT all congressional business just as the Texas senators stopped their State congress from doing business because of a lack of enough members to constitute a quorum. BOYCOTT business as usual until the extension is granted. This matter is that serious. We have invaded and defeated two countries because of the 9-11 Attacks against us. Over 600 of our troops have died in the process. And we don’t have a thorough investigation of the terrorist attack on us yet!
John V. Ferrero Jr.
Subj: Bush is selling the Lincoln bedroom???
I am floored! This republican administration is selling the Lincoln Bedroom....to the Perrys!??? Lordy, Lordy...and no one is saying a thing.
Bill Clinton didn't even do it, and he got excoriated for it...
That is the reason this democratic party is not winning anything...so far! We are not playing dirty....lets get that back bone, folks!(and get down in the gutter with them)
We just must become what they are...even though it does not come naturally to the democrats....they were so bashed for so many years...from the time Bill Clinton took office, we cowed under their horrid attacks...then it, of course, got much worse after the Monica syndrome. He was a murderer, he was a thief...and adulterer, etc. etc.
And, not one of the people who died, was he even near when they died...!.. He supposedly 'murdered' people who died of cancer, heart disease, thousands of miles away at the time of their deaths...even Poor Buddy the dog....it was Clinton's fault, even though he was in Mexico!
And, this Arkansas Project, that Mr.Scaife and our own Chief counsel for the Supreme court, Theodore Olson, was responsible for, was sold, and sold........even Jerry Falwell sold 60,000 from the pulpit of his church...Great Christian, ain't he??? He disgusts me...to think that he thinks he is a man of God, as do the many who go to that misled church.
You know, if you were a baptist before, you would change just because of Jerry Falwell!
And, for the article on the Indian Casinos investigating Tom Delay's aide.....better check old Tom out, too. He will think of some real super lie to get out of this one. I would imagine that the Indians of any tribe, would scare the peewater out of Tom...he loves to act tough...he lies...and knows it...and we do not call him on it. So, let the tribe have him...good riddance...I would bet this goes further than what is now being reported! (his reason for getting out of service in VietNam? Too many blacks, no place for him)
I am sorry, I am such a disappointed democrat right now....but, I am, make no mistake a DEMOCRAT!!!! From everything I have seen in my lifetime...they are the only ones with a conscience! I get screamed at because of it, yeah..but, it is getting less and less all the time...The rightwingnuts are being cowed a little right now...they also wonder where the WMD is....and why Bush's ratings did not go though the roof when Saddam was caught....and even if they trot Usama out in oh, say, about Oct.04...by then, they even have to know, that everyone in the world knows by now, another stunt!!!
I just hope we can get in there and turn this mess around, and make no mistake, it is a mess and may take some time to clean up!!!!
Subj: A Better Way to Defend Marriage!
It occurs to me that when people in high places--people like, say, Henry Hyde--commit adultery without losing their power or position, it sends a message to our nation's youth that it's OK to break the Holy Vows of Matrimony!
Accordingly, I'd support a "Defense of Marriage" bill that would make it illegal for anyone who has committed adultery within the past ten years to hold public office; any current, future, or former act of adultery would be grounds for immediate removal from office.
I think this is an appropriate standard for government officials who feel inclined to legislate morality. Obviously, we can't have moral hypocrites writing laws about morality...that'd be logically indefensible, and ultimately self-destructive!
Please note that although I'm a liberal--and should thus be publicly executed, according to that tawdry female impersonator Ann Coulter--my proposition is actually quite conservative: it's a return to the Good Old Days when acts of sexual immorality resulted in the offender being cast out of polite society. Only 100 years ago, the mere hint of an adulterous relationship was enough to destroy the career and life of Charles Sanders Pierce, the most eminent philosopher--and one of the most eminent scientists--America has ever produced. Surely, what's good enough for a man like Pierce is more than good enough for men like Dan Burton and Ann Coulter (assuming Coulter ever sees fit to "tie the knot," that is).
If politicians choose to live in the depraved manner of a Newt Gingrich-- if they choose to be dead-eyed monsters of lust, with torrents of drool coursing down their slack jaws while they pound their syphilitic penises into anything with a hole and a heartbeart--how on Earth will they inspire America's children to devote themselves selflessly to public service? Mark my words: Every iota of undeserved respect accorded these sexual outlaws is another nail in the moral coffins of our nation's youth.
This madness must stop. I only hope a constitutional amendment won't be necessary...but if it is, let's not let misplaced respect for that document get in the way!
Subj: Eternal Damnation?
I have friends who have all intentions of voting for Bush this year. They intend on continuing to vote Republican not because they are among the wealthiest 2% who have benefited from Bush's tax cuts. They intend on voting Republican strictly because they are Christian and feel that Bush's values represent their own. They say they could never vote for someone who supported the killing of innocent babies through abortions or who promote a new generation of Sodom and Gomorrah by voting for someone who would agree to Gay marriage. They call abortion murder, but Bush's record of executions while governor of Texas, justice.
When I try and remind them that protecting fetuses from abortions seems futile when we aren't protecting children in our country with adequate education or healthcare... they give me some line that that's not the governments role and if these poor children's parents were good Christians their churches would help feed, clothe and educate them.
Any argument I present to the hypocrisy of the Bush administration is met with justification that seems like it was beamed down to them directly from God Almighty all about the virtues of our Leader and Chief.
They rationalize the war in Iraq, our lack of attention to people starving or dying of AIDS worldwide, growing poverty and joblessness in our own country.... with a moral righteousness that is just plain scary.
I guess they have come to the conclusion that anything the Bush administration does is okay because Bush intends to protect the rights of fetuses and be the only administration in history to actually try to add discrimination to our constitution through the gay marriage ban. They must justify the fact that Bush and his cronies have rolled back legislation that protects the environment that even the Pentagon now says Global Warming will effect us in our lifetime. They say to themselves who cares if Bush's dollars for his campaign comes from corporations who are destroying our environment. Global warming really doesn't matter...even if it will eventually destroy our planet. ... the rights of fetuses and protection of traditional marriage are what really matter.
Maybe it's a self fulfilling prophecy to bring the apocalypse to us a little sooner......
As for me.... I'd like this little blue planet to be around for at least a few more generations...and equal protection under the law and a women's right to chose to be protected by our Constitution through those generations.
So I'm voting for anyone but Bush. Even though I've been warned by my Christian friends...I may face eternal damnation.
Subj: Thanks to Buzzers
Thanks so much for the intelligent conversation and debate among people that can put more than 2 sentences together. I've never visited a right wing mailbag on the web (I get enough of that through our local paper), so I can only imagine what that letter must be like.
I've been upset regarding Nader's announcement to run, but after reading today's mailbag (Feb 25th) there are several letters causing me to reconsider. (I've often wondered why it's always been a sin in Washington to change your mind over the years on issues, like they're accusing Kerry of doing. Times change, circumstances change, and it's just when you're changing your mind 10 times over why you went to war that's a problem.) I think the debate with Nader involved is positive.
It's been good to have Sharpton in the mix to keep it stirred up (although his campaign manager stalking around the debates worries me). I'm a Dean supporter and we all know he's done nothing but energize the party again. I want Dean to stick around to keep real issues alive and the party progressive. I read in the mailbag that Nader said he would get out before the election. I hope that's true, but I think he will keep progressive issues to the campaign as well.
I believe this administration is slowly but surely pissing off so many individuals and groups, that if they keep this up there will be plenty of people voting against gwb. Environmentalists, middle class, vets, and now teachers. I agree with Xavier Lopez, Jr. aka Gremlin. Just like in San Francisco, people are going to get tired of all this suppression and do what they damn well please. Think what would happen with another term of this!
Dot Dedman--excellent letter regarding the amendment banning same sex marriages.
People from Florida--you have my sympathy living in a state governed by little jeb. Of course we're still cleaning up the mess here in Illinois after getting rid of our own (bound for prison) King George (Ryan).
Subj: Help, I live near a terrorist camp!
The band of evildoers is just down the street! "Phoenixville Area Middle School" they call themselves - as if!
Well, at least I still have my stock of plastic sheeting and duct tape. What is the threat level today, chartreuse?
Derek in Phoenixville, PA
Hastert To 9/11 Families: Drop Dead
I supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000 because of their stand on NAFTA, the WTO, and the Environment.
I was a rabid Anti-bushite, as I live in Austin and saw first-hand, the wolf-in-sheeps-clothing that is gwbush.
He is totally anti-environment and pro-business, irregardless of the situation, policy or outcome....Nader provided a great pulpit to publicize the truth of bush and his cronies, but the truth is, whether anyone blames Gore for "losing" the election or not...had Nader not removed the voters from the Democratic Party, the election would not have been close enough for the right-wing to steal it. It would have been an easy win for Gore.
Nobody is trying to restrict Nader's right to be a candidate; what we are doing is asking, no imploring, that he not run in this election, simply because the stakes are too high.
We MUST remove bush and his cronies from office in November...If not, this fundamental right-wing, neo-con bunch of pseudo-christians will create a Theocracy right here in the USA. This Theocracy will be as bad as the Taliban in Afghanistan or any other power-hungry extremist government based on repression, restriction and power.
If Mr. Nader wants a pulpit, let's give him one...Let's welcome him into the Democratic process and the Democratic Party and give him access.
Maybe then we can move on and embrace what has always made this country great...Real Freedom and Real Democracy.
Geoff in Austin.
Subj: Social Security and Medicare - Let's Keep It Real
Hey, I'm getting rich, living on Social Security and living the high life. Yessiree! My COLA (Cost of Living Allotment) this year -- allocated at 2.1 percent -- was a whopping $25.00 a month. Wow, let me peruse the "wish books" from Gucci and Sharper Image! I can't wait to spend the windfall. Oh, but did I tell you that my monthly premium for Medicare was increased also? Yeah, out of that $25.00 a tidy sum of $13.00 is deducted for that increase. Gee, maybe a Sears catalog is a better idea, what with that additional $12.00 to splurge with. Now wait just a minute. Let me rethink that a little bit. My pharmacy bills went up 40 percent last year, and I don't want to calculate what that actually breaks down to per month, but I estimate, oh, an additional $550.00 ; I could be wrong on that. It's probably more. Let me think: if I skip two meals a day, live under a bridge, stick out my thumb, I can probably afford a wad of Double-Bubble.
Yes, Mr. Greenspan, you have vision. Let's make those tax cuts permanent and "downsize" Social Security and Medicare. After all I'm at my wit's end trying to spend all the government largesse, and you'd be doing me a big favor.
Subj: first time tragedy; second time, farce
Early in the first Reagan administration, changes had to be made in the SS retirement system. Since 1975 it had been running a negative balance--that is, payroll tax revenues were not covering the payment of retirement and disability benefits. This was partly because in 1975 the yearly cost of living increase had been in effect. Of course, their was no equivalent increase in payrolls, so, benefits grew more than payrolls.
The Reagan tax cuts had produced a serious deficit in the federal budget, and deficits looked permanent.
Then a light dawned.
While fixing the SS revenue/benefit gap, the general fund revenue shortfall could also be covered. How? Reduce SS benefits and increase payroll taxes far beyond anything required by the SS system. The law required excess payroll tax revenues be invested in Treasury securities--so-o-o-o, what happens? The payroll tax revenue excess is spent by the general fund; the treasury issues bonds to the "SS trust fund"; since this is a paper transaction it has no effect on the financial markets as would borrowing in those markets to finance the general fund deficit.
Now, it's twenty-odd years later, there's another tax cut that guts the revenue sources for the general fund. But this time, the SS gambit is also coming home to roost. All that money borrowed from the SS trust fund is soon going to be needed to cover the cost of benefits to an accelerating number of SS beneficiaries. For the first time, income tax revenues would have to be used to pay part of the SS retirement and disability benefits.
If the payroll tax revenues were supplemented by the income tax revenues "owed" to the SS trust fund, the system would be in good shape through about 2075. But this won't work because of the revenue losses to the general fund incurred as a result of the big tax cut.
So guess what?
There's another emergency in the SS system, declares the financial guru, Greenspan. Benefits must be reduced; taxes (payroll) must be increased. Same song, same dance.
The details of the revenue and benefit record of SS through 2003 can be seen at the url below. You'll note that there's $1.5 trillion in trust fund at the end of 2003.
If this were gradually drawn down to supplement the payroll tax revenue, the system would be in balance for the foreseeable future. But, as noted above, this would require using income tax revenue that's gone, because of the Bush tax cut.
If this were happening in Honduras or Nicaragua, we'd sneer "banana republic". What shall we call ourselves?
otherwise noted, all original