[at-l] Shocking Photos of a hike WAS policing the trail

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Y'know - I've basically been gone from at-l for over a year - first because 
double vision isn't conducive to playing on email - then because a pinched 
cervical nerve severely limited my typing time before the pain got 
unbearable - then by the time I recovered from that, I'd gotten involved in 
"real" life as opposed to the ersatz electronic arguments.  But with respect 
to this thread, I'm gonna ask some questions.

Bob C wrote:
>Hmmm. The Auntie Coosa Blog strikes me as both right wing and weird.

The first question is - While you're entitled to your opinion as to what's 
"weird", why do you think it merits conversation on this list?  Especially 
in terms as insulting as you used?  Coosa has been right wing for a lot of 
years.  The only purpose in mentioning that would be to be maximally 
insulting.  Why?  Are you trying to silence another of the few conservative 
voices on this forum like you have in the past?  Or do you just miss me and 
want me to come back and play kissy-kissy with you?  <g>

Back to the point though, there was no legitimate reason for you to broach 
this subject in this forum.  In doing so, you have labelled yourself as 
"rude, crude, obnoxious - and a discourteous guest."  You ARE, after all, a 
guest on Ryan's forum.  And he HAS, on multiple occasions asked that this 
kind of conversation be taken elsewhere.  Why is it that you still lack the 
self-discipline to refrain from being a poor guest?  Would you walk into 
someone's house and shit in the living room?  Well - you did exactly that.

If you really wanted to talk about this with Coosa, there's a "comments" 
section on her blog.  It was unnecessary for this conversation to ever 
appear on at-l.

>Are you seriously opposed to voting rights for blacks and females?

Next question - Are you serious?  There's NOTHING in that blog entry that 
indicates that either Coosa or the actual author(s) of that piece espouse 
the views you imply.  The main points in that entry are pure, unadulterated 
Marxist theory and have been circulating for at least 50 years in one form 
or another - including having in the past been posted on the CPUSA website.

For the rest, each point is accompanied by examples of the kind of 
government actions or bureaucracy which illustrate the point.  Not a perfect 
fit, but not all that bad either.  You weren't asked for an opinion.

But there is no indication whatever that anyone involved (including whoever 
"expanded" the list) is opposed to "voting rights for blacks and females."  
That could be called "hyperbole" on your part - it could also be called 
other things - like a "personal attack" on Coosa.

>REgular perusal of Newsweek would truly provide a bit of badly needed 
>perspective.

Oh - you mean the Newsweek that accused US troops of atrocities and the US 
government of running a "gulag"?   And then had to retract and apologize 
because they had no evidence to back up their claim when they were called on 
it?  For Jim B's edification - there were 5 incidents of Koran 
"mis-handling" - every one of which was handled by the chain of command - 
prior to the "revelations" by the press.  Or did you miss the admission by 
Amnesty International that the whole thing was a publicity stunt to increase 
their membership and revenues?  Or maybe you missed the part about many of 
the detainees "mishandling" (tearing, pissing on, flushing, etc) of the 
Korans that they were given - even though we (meaning the US) have no 
obligaton whatever to provide such things to them.  Or did you miss the 
condemnation of Newsweek by the Afghani clerics while they were convened to 
"defrock" the Talibani Mullah Omar?


Bob C continues:
>Just a suggestion. Most any mainstream reading would help a blog that 
>prints material claiming that only communists think former slaves should be 
>citizens, that women should vote, and that civil rights are important.

Two points here -
1. I assume you're talking about the mainstream media that refuses to print 
anything but the most horrendous news from places like Iraq and Afghanistan, 
that failed entirely to report on the Jordan Eason/CNN implosion, that 
failed to follow up on the Swift Boat Vets, that consistently continues the 
fantasy that Iraq is ONLY about oil and WMD's, that defended Dan Rather in 
the face of overwhelming evidence of fraud and an attempt to influence a 
national election via that fraud, that has had a continuing string of 
reporters who've faked major stories, that continually practices 
"pre-conceptual science", that fails to accurately report on the UN scandals 
in the Congo (among a dozen or so other places), etc, etc, etc.  I'm not 
sure why you think the mainstream media would provide any useful 
information.

2. NOBODY (except you) has claimed that: "only communists think former 
slaves should be citizens, that women should vote, and that civil rights are 
important."  I think you may have a reading comprehension problem.  The 
point is that there were people who were doing things that were inimical to 
the survival of the United States before Communism became a world-wide 
problem.  Since the stated purpose of World Communism was to "acquire" 
control of the US/European industrial capability (preferably intact), why 
would you be surprised that the Communists thought those "anti-US-survival" 
actions were a good idea - and adopted them in order to further their cause?

Bob C  continues:
>I don't want to make too much of this thread. I think Coosa is a very 
>bright, and nice, person.

Yes, Bob -- Coosa is all of that.  But she's also a loving, giving person 
who's been of great value to the AT and the hiking community.

>If her views were just silly, I would probably just ignore them. But her 
>Sunday offering is blatantly racist and factually absurd. There was no 
>communist party as we knew it when the 14th amendment was passed creating 
>citizenship for freed slaves.

And that statement is blatantly asinine and factually absurd. You've made a 
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" type statement without providing 
the smallest shred of evidence for your assertion.  And yes, dear, I've read 
the entry - several times.  I saw nothing "racist" there.  Please point out 
and explain the specifics of your supposed "racism."  In detail, please. 
Otherwise you're doing nothing but running an extremely nasty personal 
attack and I'd have to ask - WHY???

So anyway, for arguments sake, let's assume you DO present something I've 
missed - then I've gotta ask - I'm getting the idea that you object to it 
because you don't agree with it.  And that you want it removed.  Which then 
leads to the conclusion that you only want those things published with which 
"YOU" agree.  Which then leads to the conclusion that you would be a 
fascist.  So - are you a fascist, Bob?  I've never thought about that 
before, but inquiring minds and all that, y'know?

Gotta love those who scream "First Amendment rights" - and then want to shut 
up anyone who disagrees with them.  Usually without even being capable of 
presenting a coherent argument about why their opponent is wrong, so they 
scream "racism" or "discrimination" or some such blatantly negative 
accusation.

Fact is that is IS HER BLOG.  She has every right to put anything she wants 
in there.  If she wanted to espouse infant sacrifice then neither you nor I 
would have any reason to criticize her for it - (as long as it didn't get to 
the "practicing" stage).  Whether you like it or not, the First Amendment 
applies even to those ideas that you don't like.

>I do believe, however, that responsible people have a duty to question 
>blatant racism, regardless of the nice-ness of the source.

So do I.  Therefore, I'm debating whether to tell you what I refrained from 
telling you several years ago.  Remember when you told your story about 
"introducing" two couples (one black, one white) while you were on the AT? 
Well, I printed that post and dropped it on my boss's desk - without 
comment.  My boss was black (he still is, as a matter of fact, but he's just 
not my boss anymore).  And, by your own words, he still believes you're a 
racist.  I'd suggest that you get your act together before you accuse others 
of your own failings.  If memory serves, that's called "projection" - and 
it's more common than the house fly or the common cold on the left side of 
the aisle.

I'll discuss this with you if you like - privately.  But it would involve 
discussion of the real nature of "racism."  And I'm not sure you could 
handle that.

>Bob C continues:
>
>Nothing is perfect in this world. I've spent most of my adult life 
>criticizing the mainstream media. But if you want to be informed about the 
>world you have to at least know what it's saying.

If you really want to know what's happening, you should pay more attention 
to people like Arthur Chrenkoff, for example, who reports on things like 
this: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/06/hysteria-of-charles-rangel.html

Or, more importantly, this about Iraq: 
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/good-news-from-iraq-part-25.html

Or this about Afghanistan: 
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/good-news-from-afghanistan-part-10.html

You'll get little or none of that kind of inforrmation in that mainstream 
media.  The media is so anti-Bush, anti-military, and anti-American that 
they're reporting less than half the news and, in the process, becoming 
minor players.  Or did you miss the point that the old-line institutions 
like the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc are losing readership?  
Betcha missed the part about how some of them have been lying for years 
about their sales and subscription levels, too?

Now - for JimB - yes, the blogs ARE held to a much higher standard than the 
mainstream media.  The media has had a monopoly on what the public 
hears/sees for a long time (forever?).  The contentions that the media 
checks it's data/information, presents the "whole story", presents that 
information from a neutral position and is trustworthy - are ALL myths that 
have been blown out of the water in the last 5 years - and most particularly 
in the last year.  Thanks to the Internet the media no longer has a monopoly 
on information flow.  And when a blog has 1000 or 10000 - or 100000 readers, 
it has 1000 or 10000 - or 100000 fact checkers.  Makes it a lot more 
accurate and trustworthy than the media.  Of course, if you don't agree with 
the blog contents - then don't  read it.  But don't bitch about it on at-l 
either - if you don't like it, then go start your own blog.


>With all their faults, the media are generally more accurate than a blog 
>that thinks only a communist conspiracy engineered the passage of the 14th 
>amendment that allowed former slaves to become citizens, and the 19th 
>amendment that allowed women to vote.

With all their faults, even the media is more accurate than that asinine 
misstatement of what's on Coosa's blog.  I've rarely seen anything as 
bass-ackwards as that.  Just as a matter of interest does your ignorance 
really extend to NOT knowing that the 14th amendment was a "REPUBLICAN" 
concoction meant as a punitive measure on the Southern States and to ensure 
the continuance of Republican power over the South by extending the vote to 
those with a vested interest in not returning to the "old" system?  (You 
might want to compare that to the voting situation today with regard to 
Democrats and illegal immigrants.)  You might also not want to be reminded 
that women's suffrage was not a "liberal" concoction.  I believe the first 
State to embrace women's suffrage was Wyoming - and Wyoming was not then, 
nor is it today, a "liberal" state.  <G>

>Even folks like me and Auntie, who from time to time question the wisdom of 
>allowing female voting, doubt if it was really a product of those sneaky 
>communists.

It's nice to know you have doubts - you should extend those doubts to your 
own interpretation of what you've read.

But I'll disagree with both of you - this country NEEDS to hear the voices 
of people like Coosa both in places like at-l - and at the ballot box, if 
it's to survive.

As for the "sneaky communists" - they've either gone underground and become 
"centrist Democrats" or they've gone to the Universities and become 
professors so they can teach a new generation about the joys of Marxism.  
Without, of course, reminding those poor benighted students that the 
Socialist/Marxist system has consistently and persistently failed every 
place and every time it's been tried, that it provided the worst 
environmental disasters ever perpetrated by humankind, that it was 
responsible (conservatively) for at least 100 million "excess" deaths or 
that it was the perpetrator of the most repressive regimes ever devised.

I wonder if you've got any answers to my questions?
Have a good day anyway,
Jim

http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/