Byline: Peter Hartlaub Daily News Staff Writer
Rafael Salazar's get-out-of-jail-free card didn't work.
After he hit a trailer truck and spun into a center divider on the Pomona Freeway and Interstate 215 in April 1997, the Counsel flashed his identification for a CHP officer, expecting diplomatic immunity. Instead he was handcuffed, driven to the station and given a breathalyzer used to detect alcohol on a suspected drunk driver's breath. Later, he was charged with drunk driving just like anybody else.
Salazar responded by suing just about everyone connected to the case - including a Municipal Court judge. He claims that Article 41 of the Vienna Agreement makes him immune from misdemeanor arrest. He's seeking $1 million from the state, the California highway patrol and the officer who took him in. ``When Barney Fife arrests a foreign diplomat in Mayberry, the ripple effect spreads to all foreign governments,'' attorney Stephen Shikes said. ``This case opens up a world of harassment for consulates everywhere.''
Meanwhile, Salazar was promoted by his government to be an ambassador in another country. Salazar's decision to file a lawsuit might seem unusual, given that police say his blood-alcohol level was 2-1/2 times the legal limit. Perhaps even more unbelievable: He may have some legal ground to stand on. From parking tickets to suspicion of drunk driving, laws are set up to protect diplomats like Salazar from arrest. In recent years, however, law enforcement officials have been challenging immunity protection with several successful prosecutions of foreign government officials who thought they were legally bulletproof. I think it's been tougher for diplomats. The political winds are shifting, ''The police used to turn the other way in these cases. Now I don't think it's in their interest politically.''
International law
By international law, consul generals enjoy an intermediate level of freedom from arrest - Salazar's Identification told officers not to arrest him ``except on a warrant for felony offense.'' In any case, CHP and officials say they can always restrain a diplomat who endangers the public safety. ``We'll put them in a taxicab, call a consulate or do whatever we have to do to stop them from hurting others,'' LAPD Lt. Wallace Graves said. But once the immediate danger is thwarted, Graves said police are instructed to treat the diplomat differently from a U.S. citizen. ``Once we've stopped them from doing things that are dangerous to other people, we can't arrest them per se,'' Graves said. ``If they want to walk off, they can walk off.''
On duty?
In defending the lawsuit, Deputy District Attorney Richard De La Sota noted Salazar was not booked at the station and was taken home by a CHP officer because his car was wrecked. ``The real issue is whether Mr. Salazar was engaged in the performance of his consular functions while driving on the Pomona Freeway in his own automobile with a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 and slamming into the rear of a tractor-trailer rig,'' De La Sota said.
A letter from U.S. State Department legal counsel backed De La Sota's assessment, pointing out that Salazar's ``consular immunity'' is dependent on whether or not he is at work. Salazar's attorneys claimed he was en route to his office when the crash occurred and that CHP officers made an illegal arrest.
Municipal Court Judge Conrad Aragon turned down Salazar's motion to dismiss the case in February and set a July 27 trial date. Salazar responded with a lawsuit in federal court, asking for dismissal of the charges and damages to be assessed. The case is pending.
Promotion for Salazar
Lutz says state prosecutors' best chance of convicting a consul or diplomat is to convince a lawbreaker's own government to waive immunity. . . . Rather than cut a deal in Salazar's case, the Guatemalan government promoted him twice since the incident, and he now is ambassador to Belize, according to consulate officials. Under U.S. law, an ambassador has even more immunity than a consul general.
Shikes acknowledged that some U.S. citizens may not want to believe that a diplomat can claim immunity. But he feels that foreigners won't understand the district attorney's action. `There's a higher and more important consideration - the relation between the U.S. and the rest of the world,'' Shikes said.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
WHO IS CALLING WHO NAMES?
ALI:
So sorry to have missed all this! May I ask that everyone posting here speak for themselves... not for me thank you. and Mr. Shikes, may I just say that when you call people names you just appear to be irrelevant.
ME
Ali, you not only missed all this. . . you missed the point. The protesters in Washington were well represented by the people we saw on that video. They are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America. That's not name calling; that's an accurate description. Ahhh, If only name calling was irrelevant. Unfortunately however, calling has been raised to fine art by right wing instigators like Limbaugh, Beck, O'reilly, Hannity, and Savage.
I'm glad to see that I'm not nearly so irrelevant that you felt the need to acknowledge me - even if it was only to dismiss me. Don't just read these comments. Do your research. Go to the source - and then use the common sense that god gave you before you go to the defense of people who are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America.
And then we hear, once again, from Brooke. Remember Brooke? Brooke chimed in with an all encompassing one word response.
BROOKE
. . . fool.
Jane, who apparently had posted a comment at about the same time I had, and asked back if Brooke's insult was directed at her or all of us commenting in this thread.
JANE:
You, me, or all of us combined? lol While I am glad people are so passionate with their beliefs, I would prefer we all play nice in the sandbox together....after all, we all do live in the same sandbox and we all want the same goals, we just have different strategies to achieve them.
It turns out however that the insult was narrowly focused - on me.
BROOKE:
sorry that was a rash comment. it was directed at stephen.(emphasis added) i retract it. on the most respectful of terms i would like to point out that there was no playing nice in the sandbox until the strong republican joined in on the topic. the very act of posting the link was not playing nice in the sandbox, and virtually all the moments past it were increasingly bad. finally you bring up the bigger picture of us all living in the same world and having to share it together. if you truly believe in those words you typed i encourage you to not spread media that will only divide us, instead spread media that furthers your own viewpoint and educate others who may not see the same as you. dont continue to tear down your neighbors. the world will be a better place if we finally see that throwing sand at your brother will only leave you with less sand in the end.
ME:
Brooke. You are babblling.
JANE:
When I see a video such as this, I can either ignore it or speak out and say, "This type of bigotry and racism is not okay, and I will continue to speak against it until someday maybe it goes away altogether."
So sorry to have missed all this! May I ask that everyone posting here speak for themselves... not for me thank you. and Mr. Shikes, may I just say that when you call people names you just appear to be irrelevant.
ME
Ali, you not only missed all this. . . you missed the point. The protesters in Washington were well represented by the people we saw on that video. They are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America. That's not name calling; that's an accurate description. Ahhh, If only name calling was irrelevant. Unfortunately however, calling has been raised to fine art by right wing instigators like Limbaugh, Beck, O'reilly, Hannity, and Savage.
I'm glad to see that I'm not nearly so irrelevant that you felt the need to acknowledge me - even if it was only to dismiss me. Don't just read these comments. Do your research. Go to the source - and then use the common sense that god gave you before you go to the defense of people who are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America.
And then we hear, once again, from Brooke. Remember Brooke? Brooke chimed in with an all encompassing one word response.
BROOKE
. . . fool.
Jane, who apparently had posted a comment at about the same time I had, and asked back if Brooke's insult was directed at her or all of us commenting in this thread.
JANE:
You, me, or all of us combined? lol While I am glad people are so passionate with their beliefs, I would prefer we all play nice in the sandbox together....after all, we all do live in the same sandbox and we all want the same goals, we just have different strategies to achieve them.
It turns out however that the insult was narrowly focused - on me.
BROOKE:
sorry that was a rash comment. it was directed at stephen.(emphasis added) i retract it. on the most respectful of terms i would like to point out that there was no playing nice in the sandbox until the strong republican joined in on the topic. the very act of posting the link was not playing nice in the sandbox, and virtually all the moments past it were increasingly bad. finally you bring up the bigger picture of us all living in the same world and having to share it together. if you truly believe in those words you typed i encourage you to not spread media that will only divide us, instead spread media that furthers your own viewpoint and educate others who may not see the same as you. dont continue to tear down your neighbors. the world will be a better place if we finally see that throwing sand at your brother will only leave you with less sand in the end.
ME:
Brooke. You are babblling.
JANE:
When I see a video such as this, I can either ignore it or speak out and say, "This type of bigotry and racism is not okay, and I will continue to speak against it until someday maybe it goes away altogether."
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
By the way, I didn't see any black people at the demonstration.
The video of the recent demonstration in Washington elicited different reactions.
Michael
Wow! This is very revealing. I find it very scary that the powers of plutocracy can manufacture this level of fear and hate and so easily manipulate people to fight like hell against their own self interest. Even scarier is how much of the debate these people are capturing. I wish I had a clue about how to counter it or neutralize it effectively. The video itself is brilliant. My complements to the chef.
Mon at 11:58pm
Susan
Brooke
ME
ME
Michael
Wow! This is very revealing. I find it very scary that the powers of plutocracy can manufacture this level of fear and hate and so easily manipulate people to fight like hell against their own self interest. Even scarier is how much of the debate these people are capturing. I wish I had a clue about how to counter it or neutralize it effectively. The video itself is brilliant. My complements to the chef.
Mon at 11:58pm
Susan
This reminds me of "Jay Walking" When you get a group of tens of thousands of people and start asking them questions, it is easy to find a dozen or so who are idiots. The same thing happened with the Million Man March, abortion rights protests at the capital, impeach Bill Clinton rallys, etc. There are extremists (and morons) in all walks of poilitical life. They don't represent the majority. They're just the loudest.....and usually most ignorant....right or left.
Brooke
although i do agree that few are the extremists, i disagree on the idea that the majority is not represented. the majority is idiots that are poorly educated, ignorant, fearful, and bandwagoners.
Yesterday at 7:37am
ME
I think that, when we are confronted by an ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America and threaten insurrection or secession, we should reach out with compassion and understanding and patiently explain that Glen and Rush and Sean are lying to them, . . . and when they don't get it,. . . then smack 'em up side the head. That is something that they can understand.
Yesterday at 5:33pm
Brooke
Brooke
I think that puts salt in the wound and you become part of the problem. And that is my mother you are speaking about and i would appreciate it if you engaged in politics with respect and patience.
ME
Brooke, are you saying that your mother is an ignorant uneducated bigoted racist moron who hates America and thrreatens insurrection and secession? I hope not. Iignorant uneducated bigoted racist morons who hate America and believe the crap that's spewed by the Glen Becks and Sean Hannitys don't deserve respect for their stupidity or tolerance for their hateful and hatefilled political agenda. And quite frankly I've run out of patience with them
Brooke
Brooke
What I am saying is that my mother was one of those protestors, and I do believe that she is ignorant to many aspects of american politics. she is not a college graduate, but she is still incredibly brilliant in many aspects of her life. She frowns upon me dating people of other races, and at times, like anyone else she can be irrational. But she is by no means a hater of america. None of those people hate america. that is why they are fighting for it. it may not be how you would like them to fight for it, but is the pride and love for their country and what their country stands for that they choose to act. I dont know much about glen beck, but i do consider hannity to be a very well educated individual even though i rarely agree with his politics. There is hate in both sides agenda, and I too am disheartened by it. But I can choose to sit on my computer and squabble over the issue on facebook with you or I can choose to try to help the situation by respectfully talking to my mom and others. No good will come from the mocking and bickering. It will only divide us even further. What we need is respectful conversation in order to understand one another rather than try to change eachothers opinions. The ancient people of athens did this. We all need to help eachother grow, and in doing so we will all be ... Read Morecloser to truly embracing not only an American community byt a global community. But it has to start from the bottom up. thats me and you. We need not think alike to love alike.
ME
ME
Brooke, you have a gentle view of, and a reasonable prescription for, a better world. Unfortunately however, the President's attempt to create areas of respectful conversation has not been met with either respect or conversation. I didn't see any pride nor love; not for god not for country, in thdemonstrators.
You are right though, no good should come from mocking or insulting the President. Unfortunately however, the Becks, Hannitys and Limbaughs have made fortunes misinforming, propagandizing and inciting their audiences. - Good for them I guess.
Right now you've got Americans who can't embrace other Americans because the other ?Americans? are Black (americans) - some "American" community. America a part of a global community? What community would want 2009 America to be a part of it?
6pm
Brooke
You are right though, no good should come from mocking or insulting the President. Unfortunately however, the Becks, Hannitys and Limbaughs have made fortunes misinforming, propagandizing and inciting their audiences. - Good for them I guess.
Right now you've got Americans who can't embrace other Americans because the other ?Americans? are Black (americans) - some "American" community. America a part of a global community? What community would want 2009 America to be a part of it?
6pm
Brooke
So many countries would! I mean i understand why you would think otherwise, but I just got back from studying abroad in 9 different countries. I have grown to realize through my journey that i am not "proud" to be an american, rather I am honored. Despite the bitterness encountered at times by locals, overall everyone couldnt imagine their country without america in their global economy. the second people found out i was american they would respond with Obama! You like? I love Obama! or some rendition very close to that. from greece to croatia, turkey to egypt, morocco to spain, america is very much embraced and they are all eager to see where Obama takes us. Ill let you know how asia feels when i go there in 3 months.
Susan
Susan
Wow, Brooke! Very insightful for someone so young.
It is easy to say someone is misinformed but I don't see any facts from the fingerpointers that would support their attacks. I'd love to read what Stephen Allan Shikes thinks of Ann Coulter.
ME
It is easy to say someone is misinformed but I don't see any facts from the fingerpointers that would support their attacks. I'd love to read what Stephen Allan Shikes thinks of Ann Coulter.
ME
Thanks Susan; it's important that Brooke realize that all those finger pointing protesters didn't have a fact to support their attacks on the President or his call for Health Insurance reform. It's a sad comment on Americans that the hatred of our President finds such an angry and belligerant voice in America when the President has been so well received abroad.
Given America's role in the global economic crisis, I have no doubt that people in other countries have no trouble imagining how much better their economies would have been today if America hadn't led the world economy to near economic collapse.
As for Ann Coulter; I have heard hear speak. I don't think that she has anything to contribute to this or any other political discussion. I tjink that she is a good example (along with Glen Beck, Hannity, etc.) of the kind of hate monger that upsets Brooke. They are not a good source for facts, philosophy, theology or politics. They are a good source for false facts.
Given America's role in the global economic crisis, I have no doubt that people in other countries have no trouble imagining how much better their economies would have been today if America hadn't led the world economy to near economic collapse.
As for Ann Coulter; I have heard hear speak. I don't think that she has anything to contribute to this or any other political discussion. I tjink that she is a good example (along with Glen Beck, Hannity, etc.) of the kind of hate monger that upsets Brooke. They are not a good source for facts, philosophy, theology or politics. They are a good source for false facts.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Somebody shoulda smacked that boy upside the head
Ah, yes, this was the week of Joe Wilson, Republican thug "Congressman cracker", the Confederate Congressman from South Carolina, Ofay with a big mouth and no self restraint. Joey is a neo-nazi punk who needs a lesson in etiquette. How about - stripped naked, dipped in tar, rolled in feathers, tied to a log and ridden out of Wahington on a rail? Populist politics the good ol' fashioned way.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
an "ugly american"
There were parents ( and if their conduct is considered "parenting", I use the term loosely) who vehemently objected to The President of the United States. . . . It was not an objection to a President speaking to school children; it was an objection to who the President is. The obvious and incontovertible fact so clear as to avoid any misunderstanding is that their reaction to anything this President's does is to object to it, condemn it and do everything possible to obstruct it, prevent it and destroy it.
They are certainly angry. They are also ignorant and uneducated, driven by fear and paranoia generated by twenty four hour a day, seven day a week anti-american propaganda. They think of the corporately sponsored propagandists who disseminate fear and hate as their friends and neighbors despite the astronomical disparity in their incomes and life styles (and health insurance). They are easily whipped into a frenzy about the most inane issues while they are lulled into a placid disregard of immediate and significant crises.
A typical exchange with a know nothing named Ruth:
It all started when Jane commented "I swear, I JUST got a permission slip from M's school asking if it was okay to let her watch this. Are you kidding me? This whole country is starting to scare me."
Lynea followed that with: "People don't want their kids to think, question, hear other points of view. Have an intellectual debate. It's just sad."
Then Ruth had this to say: "Depends on what you mean by intellectual. What makes people think Obama is so intellectual? He may be smart but I see him as more manipulative. I think he does a whole lot of talking but never says very much and never directly answers a question. Stages everything to be one sided b/c he doesn't really want an "Intellectual debate." He wants his opinion heard. He seems a little arrogant to me. And why does he need to talk to the kids? What is the goal? I respect his office and him as the president but I don't ageree with some of his goals and he doesnt appear to listen to anyone b/c he thinks he "has all the answers." I hope he proves me wrong. Other presidents give the speech but don't find it necessary to send "curriculum" for kids to work on before the speech. I don't even have kids in school anymore but I think it's a little wierd.
What do you say to that? This from me. "What is weird is the question " why does he have to talk to the kids?" What is even more weird is the hysterical mob that a few multi-millionaire corporate talk radio DJs have been able to whip up.
Jane tried to explain to Ruth that other presidents give the "stay in school, work hard" speech to the kids. Jane explained, "The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate. This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school.Obama's speech, is not unprecedented. President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington D.C., school in the fall of 1991, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard."
Ruth didn't buy Jane's explanation. Ruth wrote back: " Really? You think that a president who is far removed is going to give some magical speech to make a kid stay in school? Any president for that matter. Does anyone really think a kid is going to impacted by a speech to "stay in school and work hard and stay off drugs". That would have to be one powerful speech to "dramatically reduce the dropout rate!" I kind of think it will be those daily heros that speak into those lives that will be the real input. (you know...parents, teachers, coaches, pastors...) The weird part is the "curriculum" that students should review ahead of time not so much the speech."
Ruth is troubled by a far removed President giving "magical speeches"and who "does alot of talking but doesn't say very much", "doesn't really want an intellectual debate", and that "he seems a little arrogant to me" , or "he doesn't listen to anyone because he thinks he has all the answers".
Ruth's language is the language of innuendo and insult based on prejudice and presumtion. ( I love alliteration) But more importantly it is the language of the angry, uneducated, misinformed (lied to), and frightened. So I wrote back, " Drug abuse and drop outs are problems that have been ignored for eight years while the Bush Administration poured American blood into Iraq and squandered America's wealth, and earned the enmity and ridicule of the rest of the world. Clearly the input of the so-called "daily heros" hasn't done very well in solving the drug or drop out problem - too busy eavesdropping, torturing, and protecting corporate profits. Now that the everyone can read the President's speech it is clear that its critics have nothing to say about it. What exactly is weird about curriculum - what is the content that is objectiionable; and why is it "weird". And what is wierd, or even unusual, about students having a curriculum to follow?
Steve, the instigator of this thread wrote "I just think it's bizarre that we're debating this at all. Time was when the president telling kids to stay in school would be viewed as no big deal. Sure, most kids won't care one way or another, but it's just the kind of thing presidents do. The fact that it becomes a political football--along with everything else it seems--is depressing. I despised Bush Jr., but would never in a million years consider pulling my kids from school to avoid hearing him talk about the importance of education.
Sat at 10:44am
Jane wrote "The average child will watch 8000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school. I don't see parents getting hysterical about that. In its 10th annual back-to-school survey, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University found that 62 percent of high school students and 28 percent of middle school students ... Read Moreattend drug-infested schools....where are the picket signs now? The President of the United States wants to give a pep talk to the kids and NOW you want to get involved? Glad to see this isn't political."
But Ruth wouldn't buy it. She wasn't about to see anything positive in the President of the United States doing anything. She wrote back, "Still don't think the answer is in a speech by any president no matter who he is. Or what party he's from. I could care less if he gives a speech. Just think it's like "kissing the babies" at election time. All these problems that have been mentioned have been around way longer than George W Bush's adm. I hardly think all the nations problems can be blamed on just that adm. Seems like they have been in the making for many, many, years. I'm frankly sick of all of them in Washington and think most of them really don't care. - Simply self absorbed and not serving the country -- only themselves.....Both sides. I say fire them all and start over. They all sicken me. I don't feel like I need to defend either "side." Yeah, where are all those picket signs? I've always been involved in my kid's education. I don't need a political agenda for that. My kids are now all productive citizens and involved with the communities around them. I think I did that. Not anyone from Washington.
You don't get away so easily Ruth. "The fact that you "don't care" to hear what the President of your ( and I use the word "your" loosely) country has to say is a sad commentary on your patriotism. In fact, I find your attitude and commentary un-american. Where have you been for the last eight years? Did you carry picket signs protesting the War against Iraq. Did you protest the rendition and torture of prisoners? Did you complain that our soldiers were being sent into battle without the necessary equipment? Did you write to your congressperson to ask for an investigation of Cheney's involvement into the torure of prisoners. No and no and no and no. But now we hear from you about the President of the United States because he, like Bush, Bush, and Reagan, is going to give a speech to encourage kids to study hard, work hard, and be good citizens. Me thinks thou protesteth too much."
Ruth was offended and wrote: " Did you? Give it up. I'm not "protesting". I'm stating my opinion which I think we still can do in this country, if I'm correct and I'm also free to disagree with whoever and whatever I choose. What makes you think you are the poster boy for patriotism? I believe this is "my" country as much as "yours." Or am I using "your" loosely? I can ... Read Moredisagree with someone without having to attack them. Grow up. I've listened to every speech my president (Obama) has given. I just don't have to agree with everything he says. Just like I didn't agree with everything Bush did. Doesn't make me unpatriotic! Make me still able to think for myself. Guess what....I won't even picket when I disagree with this adm. I think that's ineffective. I didn't disagree with war in Iraq. Doesn't makes me less "patriotic" than you. I have written to my representatives on issues that I wanted to address. I even vote in all the elections. Really...I think you protesteth too much.
I didn't respond. It would be an exercise in futility. But, there is enough there to let us know who Ruth really is and what she, and others who parrot the same groundless acusations, are all about. Ruth didn't disagree with the invasion of Iraq. And in fact, it does make her less patriotic than those who believe in an America and protested the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us, and certainly less patriotic than anyone who spoke out against the rape of the Constitution or called for the investigation of the Bush administration for treason and war crimes.
Ruth, by the grace of god and the fact that she fell out of her mother's uterus on American soil, gets to call herself an American. - an ugly american.
They are certainly angry. They are also ignorant and uneducated, driven by fear and paranoia generated by twenty four hour a day, seven day a week anti-american propaganda. They think of the corporately sponsored propagandists who disseminate fear and hate as their friends and neighbors despite the astronomical disparity in their incomes and life styles (and health insurance). They are easily whipped into a frenzy about the most inane issues while they are lulled into a placid disregard of immediate and significant crises.
A typical exchange with a know nothing named Ruth:
It all started when Jane commented "I swear, I JUST got a permission slip from M's school asking if it was okay to let her watch this. Are you kidding me? This whole country is starting to scare me."
Lynea followed that with: "People don't want their kids to think, question, hear other points of view. Have an intellectual debate. It's just sad."
Then Ruth had this to say: "Depends on what you mean by intellectual. What makes people think Obama is so intellectual? He may be smart but I see him as more manipulative. I think he does a whole lot of talking but never says very much and never directly answers a question. Stages everything to be one sided b/c he doesn't really want an "Intellectual debate." He wants his opinion heard. He seems a little arrogant to me. And why does he need to talk to the kids? What is the goal? I respect his office and him as the president but I don't ageree with some of his goals and he doesnt appear to listen to anyone b/c he thinks he "has all the answers." I hope he proves me wrong. Other presidents give the speech but don't find it necessary to send "curriculum" for kids to work on before the speech. I don't even have kids in school anymore but I think it's a little wierd.
What do you say to that? This from me. "What is weird is the question " why does he have to talk to the kids?" What is even more weird is the hysterical mob that a few multi-millionaire corporate talk radio DJs have been able to whip up.
Jane tried to explain to Ruth that other presidents give the "stay in school, work hard" speech to the kids. Jane explained, "The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate. This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school.Obama's speech, is not unprecedented. President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington D.C., school in the fall of 1991, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard."
Ruth didn't buy Jane's explanation. Ruth wrote back: " Really? You think that a president who is far removed is going to give some magical speech to make a kid stay in school? Any president for that matter. Does anyone really think a kid is going to impacted by a speech to "stay in school and work hard and stay off drugs". That would have to be one powerful speech to "dramatically reduce the dropout rate!" I kind of think it will be those daily heros that speak into those lives that will be the real input. (you know...parents, teachers, coaches, pastors...) The weird part is the "curriculum" that students should review ahead of time not so much the speech."
Ruth is troubled by a far removed President giving "magical speeches"and who "does alot of talking but doesn't say very much", "doesn't really want an intellectual debate", and that "he seems a little arrogant to me" , or "he doesn't listen to anyone because he thinks he has all the answers".
Ruth's language is the language of innuendo and insult based on prejudice and presumtion. ( I love alliteration) But more importantly it is the language of the angry, uneducated, misinformed (lied to), and frightened. So I wrote back, " Drug abuse and drop outs are problems that have been ignored for eight years while the Bush Administration poured American blood into Iraq and squandered America's wealth, and earned the enmity and ridicule of the rest of the world. Clearly the input of the so-called "daily heros" hasn't done very well in solving the drug or drop out problem - too busy eavesdropping, torturing, and protecting corporate profits. Now that the everyone can read the President's speech it is clear that its critics have nothing to say about it. What exactly is weird about curriculum - what is the content that is objectiionable; and why is it "weird". And what is wierd, or even unusual, about students having a curriculum to follow?
Steve, the instigator of this thread wrote "I just think it's bizarre that we're debating this at all. Time was when the president telling kids to stay in school would be viewed as no big deal. Sure, most kids won't care one way or another, but it's just the kind of thing presidents do. The fact that it becomes a political football--along with everything else it seems--is depressing. I despised Bush Jr., but would never in a million years consider pulling my kids from school to avoid hearing him talk about the importance of education.
Sat at 10:44am
Jane wrote "The average child will watch 8000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school. I don't see parents getting hysterical about that. In its 10th annual back-to-school survey, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University found that 62 percent of high school students and 28 percent of middle school students ... Read Moreattend drug-infested schools....where are the picket signs now? The President of the United States wants to give a pep talk to the kids and NOW you want to get involved? Glad to see this isn't political."
But Ruth wouldn't buy it. She wasn't about to see anything positive in the President of the United States doing anything. She wrote back, "Still don't think the answer is in a speech by any president no matter who he is. Or what party he's from. I could care less if he gives a speech. Just think it's like "kissing the babies" at election time. All these problems that have been mentioned have been around way longer than George W Bush's adm. I hardly think all the nations problems can be blamed on just that adm. Seems like they have been in the making for many, many, years. I'm frankly sick of all of them in Washington and think most of them really don't care. - Simply self absorbed and not serving the country -- only themselves.....Both sides. I say fire them all and start over. They all sicken me. I don't feel like I need to defend either "side." Yeah, where are all those picket signs? I've always been involved in my kid's education. I don't need a political agenda for that. My kids are now all productive citizens and involved with the communities around them. I think I did that. Not anyone from Washington.
You don't get away so easily Ruth. "The fact that you "don't care" to hear what the President of your ( and I use the word "your" loosely) country has to say is a sad commentary on your patriotism. In fact, I find your attitude and commentary un-american. Where have you been for the last eight years? Did you carry picket signs protesting the War against Iraq. Did you protest the rendition and torture of prisoners? Did you complain that our soldiers were being sent into battle without the necessary equipment? Did you write to your congressperson to ask for an investigation of Cheney's involvement into the torure of prisoners. No and no and no and no. But now we hear from you about the President of the United States because he, like Bush, Bush, and Reagan, is going to give a speech to encourage kids to study hard, work hard, and be good citizens. Me thinks thou protesteth too much."
Ruth was offended and wrote: " Did you? Give it up. I'm not "protesting". I'm stating my opinion which I think we still can do in this country, if I'm correct and I'm also free to disagree with whoever and whatever I choose. What makes you think you are the poster boy for patriotism? I believe this is "my" country as much as "yours." Or am I using "your" loosely? I can ... Read Moredisagree with someone without having to attack them. Grow up. I've listened to every speech my president (Obama) has given. I just don't have to agree with everything he says. Just like I didn't agree with everything Bush did. Doesn't make me unpatriotic! Make me still able to think for myself. Guess what....I won't even picket when I disagree with this adm. I think that's ineffective. I didn't disagree with war in Iraq. Doesn't makes me less "patriotic" than you. I have written to my representatives on issues that I wanted to address. I even vote in all the elections. Really...I think you protesteth too much.
I didn't respond. It would be an exercise in futility. But, there is enough there to let us know who Ruth really is and what she, and others who parrot the same groundless acusations, are all about. Ruth didn't disagree with the invasion of Iraq. And in fact, it does make her less patriotic than those who believe in an America and protested the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us, and certainly less patriotic than anyone who spoke out against the rape of the Constitution or called for the investigation of the Bush administration for treason and war crimes.
Ruth, by the grace of god and the fact that she fell out of her mother's uterus on American soil, gets to call herself an American. - an ugly american.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
