“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’ sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.” –President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Okay, this is where an actual sob escaped me. A small one. Here was the promise I was hoping for – the return to the rule of law, not malicious caprice. The impending death of the “Patriot Act”. The cessation of spying on fellow countryman and clearing the air of paranoia. We are indeed waking up from the nightmare, America.

Here we go, people — you wanted change, well hang on tight! It’s gonna be a bumpy ride…

Not that you couldn’t find it without me, but if you’re interested, here is the full text of President Obama’s (I do love the sound of that!) inauguration speech.

**A note: I just took on a new advertiser, Rainebrooke Colorful Laptop Bags. I only mention it because of the reasons I took them: This is a woman-owned and run company with a proactive commitment to the environment and leaving a zero carbon footprint. You can read about it here. I don’t get paid for writing about them. I only get paid if someone clicks on that ad in the sidebar and buys a bag. This is part of the new green economy, guys, and I think worthy of our support. No pressure.

If you think you get plenty of ranting political e-mails from friends and acquaintances on an average day, they just seem to multiply exponentially during Political Season, don’t they? I have a favorite antagonist – normally the sweetest guy on the planet – who, if you were to judge solely by the e-mails he forwards to me, can’t decide if he’s a Libertarian militiaman or a Fascist. This week, he’s a secret Democrat — he just hadn’t really given it quite enough thought before he forwarded this one:

—Original Message from xxxxxxxx@comcast.net:

I just can’t resist tweaking this guy… it’s become one of my favorite sports:

Thank you and God Bless You for my smile of the day. I didn’t know in how high regard you hold ol’ liberal Democrat Harry Truman!

I thought you’d like to know more about your new favorite former President.

From the Truman Library’s biography of Give ‘Em Hell Harry:

“In his domestic policies, Truman sought to accomplish the difficult transition from a war to a peace economy without plunging the nation into recession, and he hoped to extend New Deal social programs to include more government protection and services and to reach more people. He was successful in achieving a healthy peacetime economy, but only a few of his social program proposals became law. The Congress, which was much more Republican in its membership during his presidency than it had been during Franklin Roosevelt’s, did not usually share Truman’s desire to build on the legacy of the New Deal.

The Truman administration went considerably beyond the New Deal in the area of civil rights. Although, the conservative Congress thwarted Truman’s desire to achieve significant civil rights legislation, he was able to use his powers as President to achieve some important changes. He issued executive orders desegregating the armed forces and forbidding racial discrimination in Federal employment. He also established a Committee on Civil Rights and encouraged the Justice Department to argue before the Supreme Court on behalf of plaintiffs fighting against segregation.”

From the White House’s biography:

“In June 1945 Truman witnessed the signing of the charter of the United Nations, hopefully established to preserve peace.

Thus far, he had followed his predecessor’s policies, but he soon developed his own. He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, “symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right.” It became known as the Fair Deal.”

I know you like quotations, so here are a few that I’m sure you’ll enjoy:

“Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

“When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.”

“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.”

My personal favorite from Truman’s Special Letter to Congress on the Internal Security of the United States (August 8, 1950) (click for the full text… substitute the word “terrorists” for “Communists”, and boy, that sounds familiar!):

“…[T]here are some people who wish us to enact laws which would seriously damage the right of free speech and which could be used not only against subversive groups but against other groups engaged in political or other activities which were not generally popular. Such measures would not only infringe on the Bill of Rights and the basic liberties of our people; they would also undermine the very internal security they seek to protect.

Laws forbidding dissent do not prevent subversive activities; they merely drive them into more secret and more dangerous channels. Police states are not secure; their history is marked by successive purges, and growing concentration camps, as their governments strike out blindly in fear of violent revolt. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

We must, therefore, be on our guard against extremists who urge us to adopt police state measures. Such persons advocate breaking down the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in order to get at the communists. They forget that if the Bill of Rights were to be broken down, all groups, even the most conservative, would be in danger from the arbitrary power of government.”

So, hats off to you for admitting your admiration for one of the greatest acknowledged unapologetic liberal Presidents of the 20th Century!

Changed your Voter’s Registration to Democrat yet?

So, if you’ve been following along, on Tuesday, I posted about some pro-Obama mass e-mails I had received from a friend. Those e-mails had been replied to by someone else on the mailing list, a woman who had obviously imbibed the Republican/fundamentalist/right-wing Kool Aid. Repeatedly. I then responded to her, in what I thought was a (mostly) civilized and rational manner, and sent my responses to the whole list, as she had.

The next morning, I received an e-mail from several people who supported my remarks, and a couple from people who did not. Mostly, the “nots” requested that I not e-mail them with my views. A wholly irrational concept, if you think about it. After all, it was not my e-mails that originally began the exchange, and it is not my address list. I’m not psychic, people.

As it turns out, the original responder (“R”) is a sister of my friend who sent the original correspondence. And one of the people who requested that I not tax their brains with an opinion that runs counter to their deeply-held Rove-inspired fantasies or – God forbid! – actual facts, is another of her sisters (“A”). This last, privately sent e-mail, got under my skin for some reason. I guess, because of its sheer childishness. And because it’s a core sample of Uber-Conservative American thought. It’s classic avoidance behavior – I don’t like what you have to say, so shut up so I don’t have to hear it.

Again, I have reproduced her e-mail and my response. The names have been redacted to protect the guilty.

“Please do not copy me on your email replies. I do not know you and do not care about your political stance, stupid or otherwise. If you received a reply from me in regard to an email, it was an accident – I hit “reply all” when replying to my sister M. I am not interested in your views and would appreciate you not sending me anymore emails.

M – please talk to your angry democratic friends and tell them to stop emailing me.”

My response:

A -

I wasn’t going to reply, but you have succeeded in irritating me sufficiently that I can’t write my Project Runway recap until I did.

I’m sorry that you were upset by reading my responses to R’s e-mails. They were not directed to you. R chose to respond to M’s e-mails via the entire e-mail list. Hardly an accident, since she did it 3 times. I merely did the same thing she did, only I happen to have actual facts on my side. I did receive your reply. Despite what you say, yours was not directed to M, either. It was obviously intended to be seen by the group as well. What did you say? Wait a minute, let me dig it out of the trash…… Oh yeah, here it is:

“R – thanks for speaking up for all of us that know the REAL truth.” Whatever that is. Would you be at all interested in knowing that the New Testament bible that you cling to so fiercely, was assembled by a barbarian (non-believer) king? He picked and chose for inclusion only the parts he felt wouldn’t incite the newly-minted Christians to rebellion against him and his fellow monarchs. Left a lot of the good stuff out. Actual, historical, documented fact. No, I guess you wouldn’t be interested.

I’m not angry, A. No, I take that back. Yes I am. I’m angry because this country that we all love and call home, was founded by immigrants looking for religious freedom. They left their homes, countries, and everything they ever knew to come to a place where they could worship as they pleased, without fear. Our families immigrated to this country, because it is the best hope for freedom and prosperity in the world. That includes your family, too.

Yet, here we are, several hundred years later, and we’re back at the beginning, with one group of people who believe that their way is the only way, trying to impose their beliefs and their way of thinking on the rest of us. And when someone calls you on it, instead of having a reasonable conversation or civilized debate, the best you can do is stick your fingers in your ears like Peewee Herman – LALALALALALA! I can’t hear you! and tell me that my opinion is stupid and I should just go away and never darken your doorway again. Figuratively speaking, of course.

I can’t guarantee that you won’t get anymore e-mails from me, A. If M sends something out to the list and I feel like responding to that, or to someone else’s comments, by way of the mailing list – which is my prerogative, by the way, just like you and R – you just might get another e-mail from me. I’m not going to sit here and pick through all the names on the list simply to make someone whose name I’ll probably forget next week, more comfortable. As I see it, if you see my e-mail address in your mailbox, you have three choices: 1) You can read it and act like a grown-up; 2) You can tell M to remove you from her mailing list; or 3) click “Delete”.

And by the way, you do sort of know me. I am a friend of M’s for many years, and you and I met at your father’s funeral. I am still very sorry for your loss.

Best regards,

RJ