 |
|||
| May 17, 2006 |
GET BUZZFLASH ALERTS | MAILBAG ARCHIVES | |
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. BuzzFlash Note: Mailbag readers might want to see What You Can Do - A BuzzFlash Perspective. We created this 7-point "action outline" in response to comments from readers anxious to help promote the pro-democracy agenda. Dear Buzz, I'd like to stick my two cents worth in, pardon my bluntness 1. The "war on terror" is a scam to keep us busy. The "war on terror" has been tried before, England vs. Irish insurgents known as the IRA. They even had people locked up for no reason other than suspicion and hunger strikes in the jails. It just made martyrs out of the prisoners. Their "war on terror" did not work and they finally had to negotiate with them to bring even a modicum of peace. Israel has been fighting a war on terror for decades now and the only thing they have accomplished is to make themselves targets and live their lives behind walls guarded by soldiers. ( I said years ago that the thing that Israel should do is make Palestinians their best friends and support their desire for a country, bankroll their first years as a country and stand by them in every way possible. Suicide bombers would be few and far between and the nation of Palestine would be beholden to them.) 2. This immigration thing is another scam appealing to our racism and xenophobia. Making our borders safe is a stupid illusion. Have you heard about the guards at the Canadian border who, unarmed, at times face the threat of armed American criminals on the run trying to leave our country to evade capture? We cannot and do not make promises about keeping our people from harming Canadians. Keeping our borders secure, my eye. We only think about the border down south. 3. This immigration thing is just another effort to get us to a national ID. But I will bet good money that even if that is passed into law, GW Bush and his family will never carry one in their wallets. 4. Republicans have been working since about 1972, that I noticed, to have a one-party government. That is their goal and we should mention that we notice this, make it a campaign issue. They were so mad about Nixon being "hounded from office" by Democrats that they vowed they would never be in that position again. Is it a coincidence that so many of the people in power today started in the Nixon administration? 5. "We must vote out all the incumbents" or variations thereof. First we must get all the republicans out and then work on the stupid republican lites. And we can if we all pull together instead of apart. 6. The Iraq war is not winnable. We cannot pacify all countries and probably shouldn't try. All we end up doing is supporting tyrants (the list is too long) because we FEARED commies the same way we now FEAR terrorists. The basis of democracy is to run a country based on the desires of the populace. If they want to be socialist--LET THEM. Would it kill us, or promote peace? I'll shut up now. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Snow Job Did anyone except me think that Tony Snow turned on the water works a little too much? Don't misunderstand, cancer is a very serious thing...and I feel for anyone who has been through that, but he was a little too emotional...but no tears. And, someone tell me if you know any more, now that you have seen the Pentagon film...than you did 2-3 years ago? Was it just me...or did anyone actually see a plane go into the building?? This is getting more and more curious! Since they were ordered to show the film, by judicial watch....it could be anything...but it looked much more like a missile than a plane....since the film is from their [parking lot security camera]...it should show the plane coming in...don't you think?? Shirley ...St. Louis Subject: Is the Blossom Off the Turd? Seriously people, these pathetic moves being made by the Maestro of Manure are hardly up to his usual stuff. Perhaps this human-excrement hybrid has finally stayed out too long in the sun. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: National Guard to the Border Just read Marc Cooper's article about baby bush's immigration speech where he says the Guard will be employed doing "behind-the-scenes, low-profile, mostly invisible tasks of pushing paper, driving vans, and manning computers". If that's the case, why doesn't baby bush just give out one of his famous no-bid contracts to a contractor who will supply people to do these jobs, with the provision that only people who are looking for jobs be hired. That way, the Guard members will be able to stay with their civilian jobs and their families, their employers won't have to limp along without a full workforce, and people who need jobs will have them. Oh never mind, I think I know the answer---baby bush can only play general if he calls out the Guard. R. M. Johnson Subject: Is It True? I had a dream that BuzzFlash was going into the retail business. That there's a store named BuzzFlash with every type of anti-GOP product that's sold. It's in a mall somewhere? Is it true? Matthew Habben [BuzzFlash Note: Our store is where it's always been ... online and accessible from the top of our home page: http://www.buzzflash.com/store/.] Subject: Fl 77 Tapes Just Released By Judicial Watch I backed the tape up to watch just before the red ball of flame over and over. So when Judicial Watch says this should lay to rest any thought that it wasn't AA flight 77 that went into the Pentagon...I can only say they must have greatly enhanced viewing capabilities compared to mine. Maybe other viewers will see something more. Thanks, though, for showing it, because, although this wasn't one for me, I want definitive answers, I don't know what they are, but I do know what they aren't, and that is whatever Bush Inc. says. Suzanne Subject: Tony Snow and Health Care ... someone should ask tony - since he talked about the fabulous technology, etc., and the great health care he got - what he thinks about the 46 million folks in the usa that have no health care at all. i would like to know what bush and snow think, wouldn't you? nice topic to bring up. karin dicker Subject: Bush's Polls -- Approval Ahead of Disapproval in 3 States Idaho (pop. 1,393,262): 52% approve of Bush (or 724,486.24 people), 45% don't. Utah (pop. 2,289,039): 51% approve of Bush (or 1,167,409.89 people), 46% don't. Wyoming (pop. 506,529): 50% approve of Bush (253,265.5 people), 49% don't. These numbers add up to 3,266,790.74. New York City's population is 8,104,079. I just thought it was interesting. Ellen Subject: Which Side, Progressives? What's going on? Based on the Mailbag we're split between those of us who are rallying behind immigrants and those who, along with the Minutemen and the KKK, are against them, the undocumented, at least. The split isn't over the facts, as there's agreement that the undocumented are lured here by employers for the purpose of depressing wages and that they make use of our education and health services, although there's disagreement as to how much, if any, these services cost the public after making allowances for payroll withholding taxes. The split, instead has to do with disagreement as to the measures to be taken for halting or reducing the South to North exodus. Generally speaking, pro-immigrant progressives advocate solidarity with the immigrants, the better to raise the pay and working conditions for all workers, together with demands that the same be done in Mexico, so as to remove the pressure upon workers there to immigrate to El Norte. To facilitate said south of the border improvements, pro-immigrants insist that NAFTA & CAFTA be revised so as to acknowledge workers and human rights. Anti-immigrant progressives, on the other hand, want walls or fences put up between the USA & Mexico, enhanced border enforcement, penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers and either forced or encouraged voluntary deportation of the undocumented. How to explain these differences? It's pretty straight-forward. Anti-immigrant progressives are for treating the symptom ("illegal" immigration) while pro-immigrant progressives are more interested in the root cause (the disease), which is capitalism. Pro-immigrants recognize that the recent mobilization of immigrants and their supporters has all the makings of a genuine liberation movement with the potential to not only lift all boats but to make history. Why can't anti-immigrant progressives see this? It's not too late, perhaps they yet will. One suggestion is that they measure the energy and the spirit of this new liberation movement. Is it positive and full of hope, or is it, like those Minutemen marches, jam-packed with hate and threats of violence? Then, after this comparison, if they'll only ask themselves which way can change the world and on which side do I really belong? A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Two Party Betrayal I understand why Democrats are in favor of illegal immigration. 1. Courting the Hispanic vote. Do you think we don’t see that? You obviously think we are as stupid as the Republican Kool-Aid drinkers. 2. Democrats pander to the corporate interests who want cheap labor. 3. You think the needs and wants of your advantaged position is the norm. You are losing a large share of your base and you are too busy watching the Republican meltdown to see that. Reading an article about how much we need immigrants to do things for us this morning was an eye-opener. "They cut our grass and edge our lawns"? Not in my world they don’t. We cut our own grass, edge our lawns and do our own yard work. Most of us couldn’t afford to hire someone to do these jobs even if we didn’t take pride in doing things for ourselves. "They diaper our babies"? Excuse me but it may come as a shock to you but most mothers diaper their own kids. Working class folks don’t have Nannies. I am so disgusted with Republicans I want the words “Republicans suck at governing” tattooed on my forehead. Incompetence is another brick in the wall that separates me, as an Independent, from voting for a Republican. It appears the Democratic Party is determined to build just such a wall too. Working class Americans have watched their jobs disappear. We have watched as the government that is supposed to be working for us has sold out to the corporations. Now they have sold out to the illegal immigrant community. Democrats have their collective heads so far up their butts they can’t see what is going on out in our part of the country. We are hurting. The “booming” economy doesn’t work for us. Jobs have disappeared. We retrained and those jobs disappeared too or else were given to immigrants holding H15 visas who will work for less. Quit celebrating the downfall of the Republicans and start listening to the people who elected you. Those weren’t ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Or maybe they were. There is so much chicanery involved in our voting system who knows who elected who. You didn’t do squat about that either. You might also want to quit accusing the Republicans of using fear tactics when you keep raising the specter of the “$5.50 tomato.” Pathetic. Marjorie L. Swanson Subject: Forever Pregnant (Washington Post) Oh my ... Will the good doctors soon issue guidelines for pre-fatherhood, telling men to abstain from alcohol, smoking and hazardous hobbies? Elizabeth Subject: Net Neutrality & RawStory I just sent the following e-mail to RawStory. I think it's self-explanatory:
Sincerely, Heidi Monson Subject: Net Neutrality I don't have a lot of money. Recently, though, I gave $50 to you and $50 to RawStory, thinking that I was doing something for the good. Now that I've seen RawStory's continuation of the anti-Net Neutrality ad (and their specious editorial implicating atheism as extremist), I'm sorry not to have given the entire $100 to BuzzFlash. Although it may be awhile before I can again make a donation, you can be sure that the entire amount will go to BuzzFlash. RawStory will not get a penny from me. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Impeachment Impeachment would be nice. A guaranteed pardon if he gets impeached. Can't have that. So let bush ride out his term. Whomever promises to try him for war crimes will get my vote in 2008. Paul Subject: Internet Ad Irony Dear BuzzFlash, I just got my morning "Top Five Headline" email from BuzzFlash -- the one with the great editorial on the Internet ads that deceptively tout saving Internet freedom while promoting its corporate takeover. After first reading that editorial, I next opened the first link, and there on the Crooks and Liars site -- just above the Jon Stewart story I was sent to -- was another of the "ghastly ads." I agree with the BuzzFlash take on the issue, that "[t]hese progressive bloggers -- and others carrying the ad -- are enabling the enemies of the pro-democracy Internet." So, too, I'm sure BuzzFlash will agree, is promoting them as a featured headline link. Fortunately, it is not only a mistake easy to correct, but also a situation that BuzzFlash can use to influence other progressive bloggers to do the same -- by letting them know they will not be featured on your site until they do. Sincerely, David Heckman Subject: Chernobyl Went Global Re: the Masters of War have plans to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. You know how we’re being kept safe from terrorists using a dirty-bomb? As you know, a dirty bomb is simply conventional explosives with radioactive materials attached. The idea is that when the bomb goes off, the radioactive stuff will be blown all around and present a health hazard and a clean-up problem. Dirty-bombs sound scarier than they actually are. However, what happens if you drop tons and tons of really powerful explosives onto facilities believed to contain large amounts of fissionable material – enriched uranium, stuff like that? Wouldn’t that make for the biggest dirty bomb that any one can imagine? The answer, my friend, is [soon to be] blowing in the wind. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: "Appropriate Members of Congress" I have been rereading the Constitution lately, especially Article I and Article II. I am searching for that section which gives the Executive Branch the power to determine which members of Congress are “appropriate” members of Congress and those that are “key” members of Congress. You know, there isn’t one! Our Founding Fathers seemed to have made members of Congress equal. Or, for us laymen: There is no Congressional ranking. A president’s party has no “favored Congressman/woman” status at all. The Executive (Bush, at the moment) can not pick and choose those he briefs, which Congressman to remove “from the loop,” or which Congressman he keeps in the dark. Now, the reason for this is clearly spelled out in Article I and Article II. Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House members are elected from districts every two years for the sole purpose of representing We the People who live in these districts. Rich or poor, one district isn’t less, or more, important than any other district. And every elected representative goes to Congress with the same amount of power; whether it is Hastert or Conyers. What they DO in Congress can give them stature. Number of times elected can give them seniority. Republicans voted to make Hastert the House leader, but Conyers has made a legislative name for himself. However, none of this gives them any right to be singled out for special secrets by the President. The Senate is the same way. One reason you see more rich Senators than Representatives is because we elect two from each state; and an awful lot of money and power go toward putting “the right person” in the Senate. Sometimes it’s a Democrat (Kennedy), sometimes a Republican (McCain), BUT, not one of them has “more power” than the other. Kennedy, in spite of his wealth and seniority, is not designated “appropriate” or “key,” while others with less seniority and money languish in the “inappropriate” zone. The President can not pick and choose among them for the most sympathetic ear and fill it with government secrets. And regardless of what we have been told, it is the duty of the Executive to inform Congress honestly and fully what is going on. Nothing in Article II relieves him of this responsibility. He is the Commander-in-chief of our Army and Navy - BUT he can not use this power without Congressional authorization. He can make treaties, WITH the advice and consent of the Congress, but he can not authorize treaties by himself, nor can he only inform “appropriate members of Congress” or “key members of Congress”; it has to be ALL the members of Congress. In fact, everything he does has to be approved by Congress at some point; which in turn, is approved by We the People with our votes. The latest excuse for not keeping Congress informed seems to be just another ploy around that Constitution that always gets in Bush’s way. He has no legal authority under our Constitution to inform just a chosen few about his plans. That’s why it is MANDATED that he stand in front of Congress and report on the State of the Union. Carol Hagner [BuzzFlash Note: And as pointed out yesterday in the Mailbag ("False framing of NSA story"), there is supposed to be judicial oversight. The FISA court was created for the specific purpose of assuring oversight in cases of surveillance by the Executive Branch.] Subject: No Nosecone Shown in New Pentagon Hit Video I just viewed the new videos released by the Pentagon. Nothing can be seen but an explosion, but the camera is aimed in such a way that if a plane or anything else hit the building you would see it. in the last second before the explosion an object can be seen moving fast in the general direction of where the explosion will take place. Stop the video at just that point and you can see the outline of a 4 door car complete with 2 sets of side windows. Click play and pause quickly a few times and you will see that whatever the object is, its still there during the explosion. This video does more to support a conspiracy theory than to disprove it! No plane is seen approching the Pentagon at all! Where are the other videotapes? There were reportedly half a dozen surveilance cameras trained in the general direction of the Pentagon blast whose tapes were immediately confiscated. Video Catches Moment Plane Crashes Into Pentagon on 9/11 (Bloomberg News/NY Sun) Tim Clarke
|
|||
| back to top | |||