A response from a right-wing editorialist. (Catherine Moy)

[Alexander]

Complete with a response from me. I wrote her a letter regarding Sheehan. You might find it somewhere in GD.

>From: [e-mail]
>To: Me.
>Subject: Re: 'Mother already met Bush'
>Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:58:41 EDT
>
>HI,
>
>Thanks for writing to me. I did go to the recruiting office. They turned me
>away because I've had diabetes since I was a child.

That's unfortunate, it certainly must be difficult to cope with such a disease.

>I did vote for Bush. I bet you didn't.

That's a good guess - I don't like voting for chickenhawks and liars.

Not only that, they lied about the rationale for going to war. First, Saddam and bin Laden were chums who caused 9/11. That wasn't true. Then, Saddam was producing WMDs. Also a lie. Then, we had to invade him because he killed his own people. Well, some in the military aren't doing a bad job themselves (Abu Ghraib ring a bell? Guantanamo?).

So Clinton lies about a sexual affair and gets impeachment proceedings. And some deserved humiliation. But Bush lies about our rationale for a costly war. So where's your indignation? Or does the right-wing like to play double standards?

>I'm in the minority when it comes to supporting the war or another visit
>between President Bush and Mrs. Sheehan. Does that mean I get special treatment
>under affirmative action?

Nope, it means you get the same rights as everyone else. As you should.

If you want to go on that tangent, the rich white guys already have their own version of affirmative action. We call it "legacy admissions". In fact, Mr. Bush would probably never have gone to Yale if not for that practice. So why can't minorities have their own kind of "legacy admissions", and get the same rights as the rich white guys? Oh, wait. When Bush does it, it's okay. When a poor black kid does it, it's "special treatment".

>Just because most of the country disagrees with my
>position, should I silence myself?

Of course not. But many of your persuasion thought the "minority" opposing the Iraq War in the first place was "unpatriotic" and "treasonous". Now it appears that "treasonous" minority is the MAJORITY. My, how times change! So do we all get sent to Gitmo, or what?

>I think not. I'll take a play from the
>left-wing in this country that has been losing elections consistently since 1992
>and keep on with my dissent. It is so American.

1992? Surely you aren't referring to that paragon of right-wing conservatism, Bill Clinton?

Yeah, he had such reactionary proposals like national health care and letting gays serve in the military. What's more, this guy got re-elected!

To top it off, his vice-president actually got more votes than George W. Bush! Yup, the leftists sure lost out on THAT deal.

>Thanks again for your time.

And you for yours. I was pleasently surprised to receive a response, and look forward to continuing a civil discussion, if you are willing. It sure beats shooting guns in the air and running over crosses in a pickup truck.

>God Bless You,
>Catherine Moy

I am a secular rationalist, but I appreciate the sentiment.

[MrBenchley]

1. Wonder how often she urges her readers to enlist....

You'll notice few of the right wing pundits ever try to appeal to their braindead readers/listeners to join the fuehrer's war...

[jobycom]

2. I'll give her today's "You'd do it for Randolph Scott" Award

for excellence in non-sequiturs, bad logic and smug whining.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. that is a good one