[Mb-civic] Michael, my today's repartee with my religious right-wing friend, Carlene

[BRYAN.PETERSON at lw.com]

My writings are in small light blue font, and large pink font.  Her's
are in the dark blue.  Firstly, scroll down to the bottom of the page
and see her comments to me which precipitated our lengthy back and
forth to each other.  I think you'll find this interesting, although,
you must remember, we're both writing very quickly while at our
offices.  Sometimes my writing misses a word....
 
 
 
From: BRYAN.PETERSON at lw.com [mailto:BRYAN.PETERSON at lw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:18 PM
To: cpeterson at LUCE.com
Subject: I understand....
Importance: High


	I know you're not "happy" about war...no thoughtful person
would be.  But I feel Iraq was totally unjustified from the very
beginning because the reasons we were told we needed to invade were
all based on, and I'll be kind here...mistruths and mistakes--which is
what the progressive community kept saying from the outset.[Peterson,
Carlene]  I think Bush and the administration also believed our
intelligence about Iraq which was flawed.  But I also don't want to
put our head in the sand and think we don't have to defend our self
so we "defended" ourselves by invading Iraq?  Iraq was about to attack
the United States?  With what, some mysterious ray gun?  And you're
blatantly wrong about Hussein and Al Qaeda--The President's very own
WMD report could not find any link between 9/11 and Saddam being in
cahoots with Al Qaeda--the report stressed that there was no
connection.  I think you forget that Hussein ran a SECULAR gov't--not
one based on religious laws like Iran.  Ultimately, the Al Qaeda would
have gone after Hussein, just like they are now going after the Saudi
royals.  Although Hussein would banter about the word "Allah" when
railing against us...it was more of a cultural expression than his
holding any credence as being a religious leader.   
	 
	  until we are attacked again by whomever. I think we need to
be looking at some other countries and have our guard up.   When these
mistruths were finally proven, then (and only then) we changed the
story of our being in Iraq in order to "spread democracy"--we could
never have justified invading another country for the simple reason of
"spreading democracy," even if the country was being run by a tyrant.
How could we then justify all the tyrants we've "supported" in years
past--like those in Central and South America, or those that still
rule Saudi Arabia, or even our support of the Shah of Iran and his
dreaded secret police for years.  I don't think the American people
and Congress would ever have bought into the idea of the United States
invading a foreign country just to "spread democracy."  [Peterson,
Carlene] I still believe that Iraq (as well as other countries which
I've said before) are threats to us.   I think you'd be hard-pressed
to find that, ultimately, nearly every country in the world ISN'T a
threat to us in different ways--economically, militarily,
ideologically.  So what then, we should invade them all because they
are a threat?  Invade China, Southeast Asia,  North Korea, the Middle
East, Russia, Eastern European countries--the list goes on and on.  We
don't INVADE COUNTRIES because they are a threat.  And therefore the
huge argument Iraq has posed within the world community about
"preemptive war."  And just what threat was Iraq to us?  They could
barely lob missiles at Israel to great effect.  Israel would have
nuked them faster than you could say boo had they had the capability
of REALLY wreaking damage.  So how do you feel they were such a threat
to us here in the United States, unless it was by withholding oil from
us--but we had them under embargo which had totally stifled their
weapons program.        
	 
	  I think we are not just saying it is because of democracy
alone that we are in Iraq - I think Bush has also mentioned the threat
aspect.  I believe Iraq help to train some of the al queda and other
militant factions.    You can believe that all you want.  The
President's report to Congress doesn't agree with you.  In other
words, what you believe and what the Bush Administration finally
fessed up to are in conflict with each other.     
	 
	   But somehow the Bush administration had to keep justifying
the reasons for our being there, so the idea of "spreading democracy"
was bandied about and became the reason after the others were proven
nonexistent.  What I REALLY wish we could see is more tangible
democracy right here in our own "backyard"--that we supply health
insurance for our own people, for example.  [Peterson, Carlene]  I
agree with you on many of these issues (to some degree).  I think when
you mention health care issues - I look at that situation and many
others (jobs, schools, programs to help minority, etc.) that could be
better for Americans if we better controlled and changed some of our
laws governing illegal aliens.   Carlene, I think you need to put the
illegal alien problem into perspective.  We don't have 45,000,000
uninsured people in this country because of illegal aliens.  There are
45,000,000 American CITIZENS who don't have insurance.   Illegal
aliens aren't sucking the lifeblood out of the United States of
America.  It's a problem for some states:  mostly California, Arizona
and Texas.  Those that have borders directly with Mexico.  But it is a
very real problem for those states, I agree.  However, this country
can well afford to take care of each and every one of its citizens
regardless of whether there are 5,000,000 illegal aliens (a high
figure) crossing back and forth across the border with Mexico among
the 300,000,000 who live here.  Sometimes the way you talk about
illegal immigrants really makes you sound racist.  It's the "blame the
others for our problems mentality"--if it isn't the illegal
immigrants, then it's the Jews, or the liberal media, or the gays.
We've got the resources to more than care for all our people, even if
you INCLUDE the illegal aliens.  We just have differing priorities of
HOW MUCH we want to care for people, period.  Whether legal or not.
I just don't view the illegal immigrant problem as one of being hugely
disruptive on a national level.  
	 
	   Many of our systems are being soaked drive (especially here
in California) because of the illegal alien problem.  I think if we
fixed certain things - many other things would fall into place better,
but we seem to be wanting to get the cart before the horse - instead
of addressing the root of many of these problems.  My taxes and my
benefits should not be going to illegals (criminals).    I have quite
a few "illegal friends" who live here.   Again, you're talking about a
regional problem as opposed to a national problem.   Whether you like
it or not, California is being populated by more and more
Hispanics...the people who hold power in the State government are
reflecting that shift...many are Hispanics.  And we'll soon have a
Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles...Villaragosa.   But, if you think the
health and welfare system of the United States is in trouble because
of illegal immigrants, I think you're misguided.  I do, however,
believe there are big issues for the state of California.  The Nazis
would have exterminated them in concentration camps.  What gameplan do
you have?  Have you tried to come up with some great ideas and talked
to your state and federal officials about what you perceive to be the
problems?  Again, I'd rather see much more dialogue devoted to issues
like these rather than to the Christian right-wing preoccupation with
gays.  Criminy, you'd think the gays were destroying America. 
	 
	  The hundreds of billions of dollars being spent now in Iraq
could pay for the as yet unfunded "No Child Left Behind" act.
[Peterson, Carlene]  Again the children would not be so left behind if
the illegals were not getting in front of them  so then if an infant
and/or little children accompany their parents illegally into the
United States, they should be what, exactly?  Denied medical care,
education, the right of being treated like a decent human being of
value and worth?  How do you want to handle this?  Really doesn't gel
with your very Christian viewpoints on other matters, and smacks of
racism and intolerance--but then I find Christian morality to have
huge levels of intolerance towards groups "different" than they are.
I REALLY doubt the No Child Left Behind Act isn't being funded by Bush
because the illegal children in this country are somehow sucking up
all the money from the federal government.  Again, this is a regional
problem--mostly in the southwest.      
	 
	 . Bush makes these grandiose gestures of wanting better
things for our own people, passes them into law, then doesn't fund
them--because all the funds are being used to support this war.  Now
even his own state of Texas is suing the federal government about the
No Child Left Behind Act because it's a farce.  And yet Bush STILL
wants to give tax cuts to the richest class of the American
population.  [Peterson, Carlene] I think there needs to tax reform -
and I don't agree with all Bush's ideas in this arena - it NEEDS TO BE
FAIR FOR EVERYONE. It just doesn't make sense to me.  [Peterson,
Carlene]  I hear ya on some of this, bro.   Yippee!  Why wouldn't we
progressives think this smacks of nothing more than his kowtowing to
the big corporate powers interests at the expense of the poorer and
middle classes?  [Peterson, Carlene] I don't think he's doing that -
but I think he needs to have some better ideas.   You don't think that
by being a Republican President, he isn't espousing the Republican
ideals of big business over the ideals of the Democrats which are
based in more social equality?  He didn't give the poorest Americans
the biggest tax cuts.  He gave them to the richest Americans--probably
in that "hope" it'll somehow trickle back to do us lowly pee-ons.
Yeah, sure.    
	 
	You know, Carlene, I really wouldn't have such a problem with
this man if he'd only admit to certain mistakes--people, including me,
are usually always able to forgive others' mistakes when they admit to
them.  [Peterson, Carlene]  I think unfortunately in politics - you
rarely hear that from any side - because that would then just open up
the can of worms (and words from the other side) too much.  You're
probably right.   I'd just love to hear Bush say to the American
public something like, "Look, things haven't turned out the way we
were expecting them to in Iraq.  We based our original assumptions
about this war on inaccurate information, fed to us by our various
intelligence agencies and perhaps some over-zealous individuals.
[Peterson, Carlene]  I think your statement above is accurate.  I
think the feds need to be held harder to wall for their bumblings -
but that arena started way back - back to Clinton, Daddy Bush, Ford,
Carter - not just George W.  And this is EXACTLY what we progressives
always fight so hard for--more openness in government, more access to
public documents, less censorship so that we as citizens can ALWAYS
find out what's going on, i.e., Watergate, Iran/Contragate,
Lewinskygate, etc., less ability for the government to run roughshod
over personal rights and personal affairs--allowing people to make
choices and having the ability to receive all the information from
which to make informed decisions.  Republican administrations have
historically been those that are the most secretive and it is your
dreaded liberal press and institutions like the ACLU that FIGHT for
our rights as citizens to know the truth so that we don't become a
people who are like sheep blindly following what people (like those in
this Bush government) tell us TO BE THE TRUTH--the progressives fought
long and hard to know about these so-called "weapons of mass
destruction."  And the same holds true for how we're fighting to know
what's going on in these "internment camps" in Guantanamo (and the
Supreme Court ruled in our favor on that!) and what's been happening
to prisoners in Abu Gharaib.  Do you think for one minute that if it
hadn't been for your dreaded "liberal press" we would have ever even
heard about the TORTURE we were inflicting upon Iraqi prisoners? No
way, Jose--the information would have been buried--under the adage,
"heck, the prisoners deserve it anyway--nothing worse than a college
prank!'   Let's just show them happy pictures of soldiers holding
babies and adoring kids.  No bad stuff at all.  Everyone knows there's
good stuff, Carlene, but it's the "bad stuff" which helps us to
remember the REAL COSTS OF WAR.   Bush tells us "we don't keep records
on civilian deaths"--you bet your bippy they do, and the progressives
dig to get information like this.  Because it reminds the world the
WARS ARE TERRIBLE.  Bush didn't want the press to have pictures of
flag-covered coffins when they were coming back to the U.S.--not for,
as they would have us believe, "out of sensitivity" to the families,
but because it cast a bad light on our occupation of Iraq when
Americans start to realize how many soldiers are dying in order for us
to fight this war.  Bad press.  Keep it quiet.  Censorship. So we
fight fight fight for these right against conservatives who want to
maintain secrecy and take away the choices of the population on many
levels. And I and MY administration are sorry for that. We didn't find
any weapons of mass destruction like we thought we would.  We didn't
find evidence of Hussein working with Al Qaeda.  [Peterson, Carlene]
I've heard various reports that do run a line between Hussein and Al
Qaeda (we listen to very different reports it seems).   And what
reports might those be?  Laura Inghram's guesses?  Again, the
Presidential report to Congress gives you the facts on that.  From
your very own President.   But we're there now, and we can't just
allow the country to implode into civil war, which would affect the
whole reason.  So let's all work together to help them form a
democratic government, rebuild their security forces and try to
extricate ourselves as soon as we can."  Wow!  I'd feel so much better
about that.  [Peterson, Carlene] I think that what you've said is how
most of us feel.  Like your article you sent me on the Catch 22.  I do
believe that is somewhat right.  We can't leave them now.  Hopefully
we can reduce our troops (we have troops all over the world), and Iraq
can be self sufficient quickly. Your dreaded Clinton even made an
statement like that the other day--asking the progressive community to
start "getting behind" our efforts in Iraq.  [Peterson, Carlene] I
don't think Bill was dreaded.  I think he also made mistakes as
president just like George W.  I just REALLY don't like Hilary
Carlene, can you be more specific about this dislike of Hillary in a
thoughtful way for me...you expressed your huge dislike of her, but
I'd really like to know the reasons.  You've said the same thing about
Ariana Huffington.  I get the impression that you aren't a fan of
certain kinds of women, but I don't know why.  Does it relate to your
religious beliefs about a woman's place in society?  I don't get it.
Sometimes I feel like you are like those Christian men who believe a
woman's place is to be seen but not heard.    . Did that surprise you?
[Peterson, Carlene] No really didn't surprise me.  Various
"Progressives" are changing their tune a "bit."   And that goes right
to my comments about being able to change, say "I made a mistake," or
move on to solve problems in a new way.    But Bush, even when asked
directly by a reporter in a news conference whether he could possibly
have made any mistakes during his Presidency, responds with that
smirky smile, "I can't think of any."  Doesn't that bother you at all?
[Peterson, Carlene]  I think we all make mistakes.  It would probably
be better if W. said that we all make miscalculations, but I have to
stand behind my beliefs.  From your comments, you seem to like that
"air of superiority" about him.  That NEVER CHANGING HIS MIND is a
good thing--he's not "wishy-washy."  [Peterson, Carlene]  I think
people have to stand for something - the old saying "if you don't
stand for something, you'll fall for anything" mentality doesn't work
for me.  Even if a person makes mistakes, errors, whatever, I can
still trust that they are a man or woman of their word.  It's like the
people in every day life that say one thing to your face, oh, darling,
you're wonderful, etc., and then they go behind your back and say "who
the hell does she think she is?"  She's so ridiculous, etc. You can't
trust those types of people. So that's a GOOD THING, huh?  I beg to
differ with you.  I think that REAL human strength and generosity of
spirit comes from acknowledging our weaknesses, being able to change
our mind about things, [Peterson, Carlene]  If need be - yes - but
still be able to stand firm when necessary admit to mistakes
[Peterson, Carlene]  yes, I think being able to say your sorry for
offenses, etc. is right and then try to rectify them as best we can
and move forward.  [Peterson, Carlene]  I think we agree on most of
these fronts - but you have to stand for something and be willing to
go the distance even against adversity and ridicule.  That's what I
like cuz I'm the same way.  I'll stand up against anything and
everything if I believe it is the right thing.  I don't care to be
"politically correct" etc.  Humility is one of the greatest gifts.
[Peterson, Carlene]  Yes, it can be.  Bush could well learn something
about humility.[Peterson, Carlene]   I think he is humble in many ways
- but he's not a pushover. I think he just doesn't want to give any of
his political foes any leg to stand on - or ammunition to use against
him.
	 
	And the whole social security thing is just more of his
pig-headed "I won't change course NO MATTER WHAT"--even though 68% of
the American public now is against what he is trying to do.  Why can't
he just say, "Hey, listen, I believed in my idea of private accounts,
but if the American people don't think that's a good idea, then I'm
willing to give up that idea altogether in order to find a way that we
can REALLY make Social Security viable."  [Peterson, Carlene]  I think
we need to find some way to revamp it - I'm just not sure what that
should be - but I think we have to listen and try and see what the
proposals are.  Many people just shot it all down without even
listening.  But there has to be some change.  I see what my parents
get and what the little statements I get says I'll get.  It's chump
change - and I'd have to retire at like 72 to get anything at all
close to a living wage.  That's stupid.  I don't want to work til I'm
72!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But he doesn't say things like that.
And I'm sure the huge Wall Street Lobbyists are putting so much
pressure on him NOT TO GIVE IN on that...they'll make FORTUNES when
money has to flood into the stock market by government mandate.
Instead, Bush would rather allow the super rich pay social security
taxes on only the first $90,000 of their income.  [Peterson, Carlene]
I haven't researched enough about this - but $90,000 to someone like
Gates is absurd!   My sentiments exactly.  I say raise the social
security taxes on the really rich and make them pay more into the
system to support the poor.  But that isn't the Bush (or Republican)
way.  What would it hurt someone who is making, say, $2,000,000 a year
(and that's even chump change to the rich guys!) to be paying Social
Security taxes on that full amount, rather than only on the first
$90,000 of what they earn and no more social security taxes on the
remainder of that income.  You and I must pay social security taxes on
$90,000 worth of income, even though we make much less than that.  So
in effect, we pay social security taxes on 100% of our income, while
the rich pay taxes on only a MINISCULE amount of their income.  Now
why can't the Christian conservatives harangue their leaders like Bill
Frist and Tom DeLay to talk about issues like these?  HELP!!!!  This
is what I mean about about the difference with progressives vs.
conservatives--we think these issues are what REALLY affect the
well-being of Americans, rather than worrying what people are doing in
their bedrooms.  What someone is doing in their bedroom in Pacoima
doesn't interest me in the least--I can happily as an American citizen
without any of my rights being infringed no matter what someone is
doing in their bedroom in Pacoima.   Get my drift?   Under his plan,
it's YOU and I who would pay the price by huge cuts in the amount of
social security we'd be allowed to receive upon retiring.  From 29 to
48% cuts.  I just got my Social Security statement in the mail last
week that says under the current plan, at age 67 I will receive $1698
a month in Social Security.  Under Bush's plan, I'll receive only
about half of that amount, and can make up for it between now and then
(only 17 years) by having a private account to invest in the stock
market supplement the loss of those payments.  But who's to say that
things won't go BONKERS in the world (like the Holy Rollers portend!)
and the stock market will fall drastically and come time for my
retirement THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING TO TAKE OUT OF THOSE PRIVATE
ACCOUNTS.  And therein lies the rub.  [Peterson, Carlene]  There are
no easy answers.  I know my statements say about what yours do. I
think there needs to be more options in social security just like a
401K account.  We choose when and how much and where to invest.  If we
don't like the mix - we can change it - etc.  The middle class always
get the shaft - that's why we need to come up with and vote for better
systems, fair systems for all.   Exactly!!!  Help!   People need to be
more aware like you are of what's going on and then we need to stand
up and fight to change this stuff.  Get more of us (the little guys)
in politics fighting for our causes.  Why don't you run for office?
The Right Wing Christians would crucify me. 
	 
	The Medicare and Medicaid programs are REALLY what are what we
should be focusing on...they are the programs with dire problems RIGHT
NOW.  Not a word about that issue from the conservatives.  Missouri
will be completely phasing out their Medicaid program over the next
few years, putting 1,000,000 more people on the uninsured roster--no
health coverage of any kind for 1,000,000 more people--those are the
poorest of the poor.  Because the government can't afford to maintain
Medicaid in that State...yet it would cost less to maintain than
ONE-HALF the amount we've paid to Halliburton so far for "rebuilding
Iraq after we've destroyed it."
	 
	Your "faction"--the right-wing Christian community--would
rather rail on and on about Gays, Abortion, "Radical" Judges (funnily
enough, some of whom are REPUBLICANS, if you look at those who
presided over the Terry Schaive lawsuits, oh dear!), "Liberal" Media,
etc.,  rather than rail on about the millions of people living in
poverty, disappearing Medicaid coverage, 45,000,000 uninsured
Americans, prescription drug coverage for the elderly and needy AND
MIDDLE CLASS, etc.  Somehow, you're convinced that whether someone is
gay, or whether someone has an abortion is WAY MORE IMPORTANT AN ISSUE
TO ARGUE AND REGULATE AND FIGHT AGAINST than whether a person who
needs prescription medication to stay alive has to choose between
buying food or the medication.  That being Gay is more of a detriment
to society than killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, or
helping an American child out of poverty.  That someone's being gay
PRECLUDES YOU from living a happy, productive, fulfilled life if you
so choose to.
	 
	I just don't understand the right-wing Christian ethics about
these issues.  The funny (I should say SAD!) part is, you'd all be
rah-rah-ing Bush from your breadlines because of all the tax cuts he'd
rather give to the wealthiest Americans.  His big-business policies
would leave even you, the Christian right-wing, behind to fend for
yourselves when it comes to figuring out how you'll pay for medical
bills for yourself and your uninsured child to keep you well enough to
attend church whenever you wanted to.
	 
	These are the big differences between us, I believe.
	 
	   

________________________________

	From: Peterson, Carlene [mailto:cpeterson at LUCE.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 12:08 PM
	To: Peterson, Bryan (LA)
	Subject: RE: Pictures From Iraq
	
	
	I'm not "happy" about any war - but I am encouraged to see
good benefits from the sacrifice our military men and women make every
day.  I think freedom and democracy are on the rise.  I thank the
military and pray for them for the job they do.  No one loves war.
Said all this before - any death in war is sad (whether it is on any
side), but I still believe that freedom is worth fighting for.  As for
the attacks in Iraq and the middle east as a whole - death would be
going on whether we are there or not - just look at Israel.  The
various factions kill one another.  The dictators kill their own
people.  But I still believe freedom is worth the fight.  I think this
will make the entire world a safer place when the civilized people of
the world come together to combat tyranny.
	 
	Also, we have made mistakes time and time again in our country
throughout history.  It is always hindsight that is 20/20.  And also -
as we look back men like Abraham Lincoln are viewed very different
than they were in their own life time.  I wonder how history (if we
are still around in 100 years) will view George W. Bush.  I happen to
think you might be surprised what history will say about him.  At the
very least - he stands his ground.  I don't agree with everything he
does - but I agree more with him than someone like Al Gore or John
Kerry - who stands for nothing.  He tosses to and fro with the wind.
	This email may contain material that is confidential,
privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or
forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete
all copies.
	
	Latham & Watkins LLP
	
	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050504/2c00ead9/attachment-0001.html