May 4, 2006

The BuzzFlash Mailbag

The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. More reader opinion is at "Contributors." You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18.

Subject: Thank You, Stephen Colbert

I just thought all your readers NEED to know about the brand new website located here:

http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org

I also think it might be an excellent idea for EVERYONE to add their little thank you note to the total. No, they probably won't ever all be read, but a big enough quantity of posts will make 'em sit up and take notice.

And the rightwads will HATE it!

Angel Of Mercy

Subject: Bush Policies

If you are angry at gas prices, concerned about your Social Security, Medicare, job, border security,the national debt or the Iraq war, please visit the Web site below.

This Web Site will give you a glimpse into my new book, George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich.

This book documents the impact of the President’s policies and offers some concrete alternatives to help solve the major issues facing our country.

www.saveusanow.com

Thank you,

Col. Gene Abel
Cape Coral, FL

Subject: How Much Worse If He Were on the Other Side?

Let's see, in Iraq our best and brightest are dying at the rate of two or three a day. At the same time in New Orleans (nearly ten months post-Katrina now) the unofficial count is more than two thousand dead (mostly drowned) with thousands of victims still missing. Then there's the eighteen thousand in America who die every year for lack of health care coverage, the here one minute, gone the next pension plans, not to mention the lay-offs, the outsourcing and the take-backs, let alone global warming. So what's left to get worse, were the president to change sides? What harm could he possibly do that he hasn't already done or is planning to do? Start a nuclear war? Yes, but he's already said that, in the event that war breaks out between the USA and Iran, he won't rule out the nuclear option.

So how much worse would it be if our president were on the other side? It wouldn't be any worse. Why? Because nothing will have changed. He's already on the other side.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Re: 2006/2008

Okay, folks, after we get Congress straightened out this year (Democrats rule in House AND Senate), it's time to get Al re-elected in 2008! We need the help of Independents and disgruntled Republicans both times, so we've got to really work hard at this. Ya think???

Robbie Small
Tamarac, FL

Subject: Moussaoui

Once again this government did not get things their way. Most of the people running this country wanted this man put to death ... but apparently, many of the jurors did not. They heard a lot more than we are told ... and they made up their minds. The first person I saw ... on the channel I was watching ... said we judged by what we heard ... and since we know that bin Laden is still out there, and no one is trying to get him, life in prison was what we could come up with. I would imagine any Bush sympathisers on that jury wanted death ... but I, for one, think they picked the right punishment.

I have a feeling that Moussaoui is a blowhard who may or may not know one thing about 911, but if he does ... he will likely meet with an 'accidental' death in prison because, hey, they cannot take a chance on what the administration knows ... now can they? Some woman I knew of said when they caught Moussaoui, "They are going to have to get rid of him" ... I was told this ... and it was for what he knew ... not what he did. So all we can do now is wait and see because if he does know something about it that the powers that be do not want told ... he will be taken care of ... and if he is just a patsy he will spend his life in prison ... maybe!

A town in Virginia, cannot remember the name, today voted out everyone who is for undocumented workers ... voted them right out. Why wasn't it that way for us ... in the second Bush term? Because he had not started to show us his true colors by then ... gas was still affordable, he hadn't made the remark about bin Laden being marginalized and the Republican party had not begun to show their true selves ... the criminals that they are. I am still concerned about the poor man who is elected ... or woman ... having to clean up the mess the Bush administration has wrought!

God help us all ...

Shirley ... St. Louis

[BuzzFlash Note: Here's the Virginia story: Vote Heartens Illegal Immigration Foes (LA Times).]

Subject: Rule of Law/Presidential Cherry-Picking Re: Laws of the Country

Dear BuzzFlash:

Re: your current headline: The Boston Globe Story Virtually Ignored by the Rest of the Mainstream Press. A Lawless White House. "Our Monarch, Above the Law....Yet it will probably take something much more dramatic than Specter's tentative threat to remind George W. Bush that he's president, and not king."

You are right to scream it from the rooftops!

Every day seems to bring news of a fresh outrage, but Bush's cherry-picking approach to the law -- implement what he likes, ignore or violate the rest, and to do so secretly! -- is such a clear and fundamental danger to American democracy.

The thought of this President arrogating to himself the task of constitutional interpretation is simply mind-blowing. Well, I suppose that with the President taking on this duty, we can tell judges and constitutional law experts to go home. Their job is done.

Charlie Savage and the Boston Globe are to be commended for pursuing these stories. Stephen Colbert was great. But he does need help from some good old-fashioned investigative reporting and research. This is the real thing. Readers: Let the Globe know you support this kind of work!

Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and Reid issued statements condemning this president's signing practices and Senator Specter says he'll hold hearings.

But, really, what is to be done? How do we restore the rule of law in this country?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Legal Drugs in Mexico

We should be encouraging the legalization of drugs in Mexico not discouraging it. Then we would have millions of American dopers immigrating to Mexico. That would balance with the number who have come across from the south. Fair trade!

Mexican President Vicente Fox backed off a bill that would have decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, sending it back to Congress for changes rather than signing it into law. 5/4

Larry
Iowa City

Subject: Mexico's Drug Laws - Insanity?

It is amusing to see everyone so upset over Mexico's pending tolerance of drug usage. Politicians are spouting the line that this approach will somehow allow people to use drugs. Let's see now ... people having been using drugs since there have been people (many politicians use drugs), laws against that drug usage have always failed to stop people from using drugs, and allowing controlled drug usage has always benefited society. Yet the very profitable war on drugs continues unabated. What's that old saying about the definition of insanity?

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: John Gibson vs. Pink

John Gibson penned an editorial piece mocking Pink (and Neil Young) for being critical of Bush. You can read it here:

FOXNews.com - Neil Young and Pink Blame Wrong Leaders - John Gibson

The theme is that Young and Pink are misguided in their criticisms because Bush is protecting them from a larger evil. According to Gibson, they are too stupid to realize that their criticisms are misguided and should be directed toward the islamic terrorists that want to kill them. Bush is shielding them from this unfortunate fate and they should accept his actions and write songs (I presume) that oppose the islamic terrorists.

Here's an impressive video of Pink performing her song "Dear Mr. President" live:

Crooks and Liars

Here are the lyrics:

PINK LYRICS - Dear Mr. President

Gibson's critical editorial only addresses the war issue and mocks Pink for not understanding the threat, wrongly criticizing Bush, etc.....

If you watch the video and/or read the lyrics, the only portion of her song "Dear Mr. President" that can be interpreted as a criticism of the war is the line in the chorus that says: "How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye."

The rest of the song is dedicated to social commentary about Pink's perception that Bush is of low moral character because of his domestic policies regarding education, the poor, homosexuals and the working class. She also calls him out on the issue of his past as a substance abuser.

Gibson doesn't address any of the issues that are the focus of the Pink song. His only point is that Pink should blame someone other than Bush for all the issues she raises in her art. Apparently, Saddam or Osama are responsible for Pink's perception of Bush as a hateful patrician that is out of touch with Americans and the working class. Who knew?

Gibson's only point can be that Pink should shut up and accept what Bush does because he's better than Islamic terrorists that want to kill her.

Can the bar go any lower? Now domestic policy is beyond question unless it involves killing you as a terrorist would do. Otherwise you should shut up because you aren't being killed.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: World War I Critics - Get Pardons (AP/CNN)

I guess that means there is hope yet for me... in about a hundred years.

John L. Johnson
Laingsburg, Michigan

Subject: US does not consider Taliban terrorists; Even as the Taliban attacks US, Canadian, and British forces, organization is left off terrorist list in 'political' decision. Whuhhhhh? 5/4

What do you mean "Whuhhhhh?"

They are Afghans fighting inside Afghanistan. Religious extremists, yes. Is it their methods that make them "terrorists," because they don't have copters and heavy artillery? Would that be more acceptable? Less "terroristic"?

What do you mean "Whuhhhhh?" Please explain.

A BuzzFlash Reader

[BuzzFlash Note: The article debates the point, and notes: "a defense expert at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, describes the group as 'an insurgent organization that will periodically use terrorism to carry out its operations.'" So, they use terrorism but aren't terrorists?]

Subject: Laura Bush does a 180 in 2 interviews

Laura Bush flips her answer as to whether our anthem should be sung in Spanish after she hears Georgie's answer was different from her first view.

The below diary from My Left Wing has live links to the AP interview, etc.

In an interview with CNN's John King, it seems that First Lady Laura Bush has a different view which was reported by AP. It doesn't seem to be getting that much attention because of her different take on this matter. Her message to Dudya and the rest of the xenophobic cyborg nation is to get over themselves.

Mrs. Bush said, "I don't think there's anything wrong with singing it in Spanish." She noted that "we are a nation of many, many languages" and that the country has already heard many versions of the anthem "like at the Super Bowl."

"What people want is it to be sung in a way that respects the United States and our culture," she said.

One thing that is very suspicious is her backtracking when it was pointed out that Dudya answer was not the same as hers.

But when it was pointed out that this position differed from her husband's, Mrs. Bush had a different answer. "Well, I think it should be sung in English, of course," she said.

Very interesting. So why would she be in favor of it being sung in Spanish, "I don't think there's anything wrong with singing it in Spanish." then do a 180 and say nope, it should be sung in English, "I think it should be sung in English."

I guess she was not given the updated meme or it could be she is recalling a time when Dudya sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish at Hispanic festivals or she was recalling the time she heard it sung in Spanish by Jon Secada at her first inaugural ceremony or maybe the librarian in her remembered seeing some where that the U.S. government had commissioned four different Spanish-language versions, La bandera de las estrellas of "The Star Spangled Banner," back in 1919.

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8186

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: The End of History

A few years ago a book was written by one of the separate-reality neocons predicting the "end of history." He seemed to mean that everything that needed to be invented, or at least any meaningful ideas, had already been "thought." Now I understand this guy has renounced his own writing. Well, it's obviously too late, because his neocon-job friends ALL READ IT, AND THEY INTEND TO FULFILL THE PROMISE OF ITS TITLE.

Ironically, the beginning of the end of civilization will start where civilization started ... in Iraq\Iran etc. So, Mr. Fukuyama, thanks a lot.

George in PA
(Where the machines select the winners, NOT the voters)

Subject: "Immigration Rallies Fuel Resolve of Port Truckers (business section in today's L.A. Times)"

Changing the world is like cranking on the engine of an old Model T. While one is confident that the engine's gonna start, one never is quite sure just when said breakthrough will take place, nor does one know in advance which particular ratcheting-up effort will turn out to be the one that ignites the chain reaction that actually turns the engine on. Like what happened last Monday. Feel it, everyone?

A BuzzFlash Reader