Getting the Truth Out
Form Letters Sent Home With School Children Raise Questions Several million identical letters, touting the success made in freeing Iraq, were sent home with elementary school children this week. Each of the crayon-written, block-script, letters was addressed to the child's parents and signed with the child's name. Suspicion was aroused when some parents noted that the letters began by making a reference to having served in Iraq, in the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment -- and since they couldn't recall their children having been in the Army lately, the parents compared notes with other parents in the neighborhood. It soon became apparent that this was a form letter, pinned to the jackets of millions of children across the country (the exact number can't be ascertained, as many children, suspecting that the letters were in reference to their misdeeds or failing grades, are thought to have destroyed them before reaching home). Here's the text of one of these letters, turned over to World O'Crap by Mrs. Rodney Johnson of Burley, ID. Dear Mom and/or Dad,
Mrs. Johnson said she feels confident it was not her son Tommy, a first grader at Lincoln Elementary, who wrote this. "It's not his writing," she said. "He's only 6 years old! But Tommy is no dummy--he does NOT think Bush is a good leader." After Mrs. Johnson brought this letter to our attention, we interviewed four other children who had brought home identical letters. Each child said they hadn't written the letter, although two said they agreed with its substance. Brittany Deavers denied signing it -- she said she usually makes her "e" backwards, and her purported signature had rightways "e"s. She said she thinks Karl Rove did it, but admits she has no proof. Once we learned that several million letters, all identical to the one Tommy brought home, were appearing in homes across America, we asked White House spokesman Scott McClellan what the deal was. McClellan said that this was a local school board matter, and the White House really didn't know anything about it. "But if it ever was proven that a Senior Administration Official was somehow involved, then it would be the fault of the national media, who wouldn't get the President's message out to the people," he added. McClellan remarked, "We believe that parents need to know the good news about Iraq, and we feel that innocent, trusting school children are more interested in spreading it than the cynical national media is. The President just wants America to know the truth, and if the NY Times or the Washington Post continue to harp on the deaths instead of the POSITIVE things that are happening, we'll seek other ways to disseminate the message. Not that we had anything to do with this letter incident, of course." Later in the day, we got an email from John K. Beck, principal of River Heights Elementary, in River Heights, IL. He indicated that he was responsible for all of the form letters. He said that he just wanted to highlight the children's work, and to share their accomplishments with their parents, and had meant no harm. He claimed that the children are working at an extremely fast pace, and what with soccer practice, homework, and Playstation II, they rarely have time to tell their parents about their war work. "I just wanted their moms and dads to know how well they were doing, and to reassure them that Iraq is safe now, and that President Bush is a really great leader," the message read. Attempts to reach Beck directly were unsuccessful. PTA officials said they were unaware of any plans to discipline Beck, or of him even existing. Scott McClellan said while the White House has never heard of Beck either, they disapprove of how his delivery system might have given some people the wrong impression. However, they don't think anybody should try to track him down, because it is obvious that his intentions were honorable. 11:58:21 PM  |
Undercover Conservative Pt 2: Dating With the Enemy As I stated yesterday, in an effort to expand my horizons, I began clicking on the links on the Usual Suspects' sites. It has turned out to be enlightening, in a horrifying kind of way. Here's my report on dating-related advertising Links from RushLimbaugh.com, Lucianne.com, BillO'Reilly.com, and Townhall. First, RushLimbaugh.com. Which, btw, now features this new inducement to join Rush's "24/7"club:
While I would be happy to reach out to Rush, I'm not paying to do it. And personally, I'm waiting until they add the super-secret decoder ring, so Rush can send me private messages during his program (D-R-I-N-K-M-O-R-E-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E), to the package before I join 24/7. But of course, all that is on hold for another 29 days, 10 hours (they have a clock counting down the time until Rush gets out of rehab, which I thought wasn't exactly the right message to be sending about rehab, or to be sending to the Rush addicts who are counting down the minutes). Anyway, the link that appealed to me (but which doesn't seem to be there today) was for Elephant Dates. I guess the link was removed because the outfit isn't in business yet, but here's the message you get when you go to their site:
Hmm, what conservative love qualities am I looking for in a man? Well, I guess the traditional ones: selfishness, intolerance, hardheartedness, and the subsidization of big business. But since they don't actually have any eligible conservatives on tap, there's little hope for conservative love and marriage abounding as yet. So, they just link back to Rush to give you hope that someday your lonely conservative nights won't be so empty. Specifically, they refer you to an archived account of how "Dee" called Rush's show and complained about how she couldn't meet any red-blooded conservative men, and so had to date "liberal lemons." She wanted to know where in the country she should move in order to meet conservative cauliflowers. Rush told her:
Be careful you don't go out in THAT shower without an umbrella. So, while Elephant Dates sounds great (what a nice story to tell your children: you met their mother at Elephant Dates!), I wanted a Conservative Dating service that was already in business. Lucianne.com is pushing two dating services, Eharmony and Matchmaker.com -- I guess she figures her readers are SERIOUSLY in need of dating help. But neither of these businesses seem to cater exclusively to conservatives (although I did notice that Eharmony was also being pitched by Bill O'Reilly's site, and wondered if there was some hidden conservative bent to it -- and when I read that its founder has appeared on "Focus on the Family," I realized that there probably was.) Anyway, a quick look at Matchmaker.Com found just 3 men in my age range and geographic area: one heavily into "alternate sexuality," one who whose favorite movie is Demolition Man, and one who describes his intellect as "smart" and indicates under reading habits, "I might read a book while on an airplane." So, I passed on Matchmaker.com, despite the fact that two of these guys described themselves as staunch conservatives (yes, the smart one and the alternatively sexual one). Eharmony's claim to fame is that you answer a zillion questions, and THEY find the perfect match for you. So, it's computer dating right out of the 1960s! It's expensive ($40 a month) and apparently doesn't find many perfect matches for most people, but they do promise to provide you with a free personality analysis if you fill out their questionnaire. I decided to try it, since I find my personality quite intriguing, and thought they might enjoy it too. But after about 10 screens of questions (with 20 or so questions per screen), we were only 20% done with the survey, and I was getting tired of their interrogation. So, when I got the question: "How often do you think they're all out to get you?", I quit. I was never going to find my conservative match this way! So, I turned to Town Hall, and was delighted to see that they were recommending "Conservative Singles: A place for conservative singles to meet. Liberals need not apply where single conservatives go online:Conservative Matchmaker.com " So, I had to go undercover again, in search of the story of what happens when single conservatives go online. Their home page seems innocuous enough:
So, they aren't a matchmaker so much as a traditional online dating service. Or so it would seem! I clicked on the "Learn More" button:
Um, okay, I'll pray for you to perservere. Anyway, another click revealed they only have 147 active members, which kind of reduces the odds of finding true conservative love there, at least for now. But I was willing to do further exploration. But to get to the next step, seeing their questionnaire, you have to join up. So, I became Ayn Colter, a 40-something woman is search of true love with a manly man who would keep me barefoot and pregnant. The first part of the questionnaire asks the basics, (age, location, what you're trying to hook up with), but after a couple of screens, we got to the heart of the program:
And while they say that "liberals need not apply," one of your choices from the pulldown menu is indeed "liberal." But maybe that choice is just there so will admit your socially unacceptable views, and so not be accepted. Or maybe you really can join, but nobody will date you. Or maybe, since they only have 147 members, they've relaxed their standards. Anyway, since "fascist" wasn't one of the choices, I picked "conservative" for Ayn. On the next question, "Where within the spectrum of the previous choice would you place your views?" Once again my first choice ("lunatic fringe") wasn't listed, so I went with "far right." Now on to "Party Affiliation." They had several to choose from, including many that I didn't know had parties, like Constitution, Reform, American Heritage, and Indifferent. (Now that I know it exists, I think I'll try running for President on the Indifferent Party ticket.) I next was grilled on my political involvement, with the Matchmaker wanting to know:
I decided that Ayn is a member of the Republican Party (although her views are probably more aligned with the Rabid Party), and that she claims to be very active in it, and to further its causes. However, she rarely votes and never contributes financially to political causes. She's just that kind of girl. And then Conservative Matchmaker asked for:
Ayn is against abortion, for Capital Punishment, and thinks we need less welfare, less taxes, and way less gun control. Any was then asked for her views on the current President. (Choices are limited to: He's horrible; He's okay; I like him; I love him! I assume that if you say he's just "okay," the Matchmaker washes her hands of you. If you merely "like" him, you get matched up with the guys whose favorite movie isTitanic. And if you think he's "horrible," you're reported to the Secret Service, and subsequently deported. Ayn 'loves!" him, of course.) But does she listen to any of these talk shows?
I decided that she probably listens to Matt Drudge, and maybe Dr. Laura -- but that's it, since she's a busy gal and doesn't have time to sit in front of the radio all day. She has countries to invade and leaders to kill! The type of relationship she's interested in is long-term (she's already had more one-night stands than Casey Kamem's Countdown has had one-hit wonders). Her height is 5'8" and her weight is 90 pounds. She is blonde. Her view on kids is that every fertilized egg is a baby, and once said babies are born they should be seen by somebody else, and not heard. The "My view on alcohol" question made me stop and think, since the only choices are:
Where is "I drink to stop the accusing voices of those I've wronged"? Or "I drink anti-socially"? But then I realized this is just asking for your VIEW on alcohol, and not your actual drinking practices, do I picked "I drink on special occasions." Nobody needs to know how many occasions end up being special in Ayn's life. Then we covered views on smoking ("I view it as a nature's way of decimating foreign countries"); money handling ("I practice the patrician value of extreme cheapness myself, but think men should buy me expensive gifts if they expect any action"); How were you raised by your parents? ("Not very well, evidently"); and How will you raise your kids? ("In a well-run state institution') I answered a question about makeup (which is there so guys can say they only like women who wear "natural" makeup, and so women can lie and say they don't wear any at all). I responded yes to a string of questions on Ayn's likes (I like movies! I like to read. I like to travel. I'm into making stuff (Crafts / Woodworking / false citations and the information in my book.) But when we got to "Are you ticklish?" I decided this was getting entirely too intrusive, even for a diva like Ayn, and quit. Therefore, I'm sorry but I can't report on the profiles of the other members of Conservative Matchmaker.com. I will never know if I (or rather, Ayn) would have found true love there. I wasn't able to chat with the one active member of Conservative Matchmaker who was online. But I will, of course, continue to pray that they perservere. And that's Love, Conservative Style! Tomorrow I'll conclude my mission report with a recap of the National Review Online's plan for kids, and a look at the site with the best ads anywhere: Newsmax! But for now, let me leave you with a couple of quotes from the Newsmax pundits. First, here's Jim Quinn with Rush Limbaugh and the Grandmother Test
And next, here's John LeBoutillier, recounting the inspirational message Rush Called to Higher Purpose (calm down, everyone--he's NOT DEAD):
And while I am sincerely glad to hear that God has told Rush to shut up about Big Government Liberalism, and to instead lead by example a campaign against prescription drug addiction, I do have to say that "God called Rush to get addicted to pain killers" is a certainly a rationalization I never would have thought of. And Jim, my grandmother is not a hypocrite. For even if she had gotten "strung-out on her pain meds" (which seems unlikely, since she didn't like taking drugs, even when dying of a painful infection), she was a very kind-hearted person who never said anything bad about anyone, and certainly never presumed to judge them. I hope this restores your faith in grandmothers. 4:26:29 AM |
Pat Robertson Clarifies Remarks: GUT, Not Nuke Rev. Pat Robertson, denounced by the State Department for saying that he thought "the answer" to the agency was to bring in a nuclear weapon into its Foggy Bottom headquarters and "blow that thing up," tried to smooth things over recently.
Robertson, apparently a fan of dynamiting fish in order to get a big haul quickly, was just indicating that one can also clean (or "gut") the fish by using high-powered explosives, like a nuclear device, although obviously this is rather messy. Robertson insisted that he didn't mean any harm to State Department employees. Or fish. He just thinks that they should follow Joel Mowbray's advice and conduct negotiations Ronald Reagan style. What needs to be done, [Mowbray] said, is to "bring in outside leadership, fresh blood and infuse the place with a different mind set, one that does not have this dual emphasis on stability and making friends." Because obviously one can't be stable and also have friends. 1:00:19 AM |
No comments:
Post a Comment