[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The destruction of Linda Chavez for what she did for that woman and in fact
> many others is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have ever seen
You're kidding, right?
I happened to be watching the tube when they broke in to
cover Chavez' press conference, which was very interesting.
After making it clear what a wonderful person she is, and how
she is a victim of character assassination, she brought up about
six Hispanics, one a child, to tell the world how wonderful Ms.
Chavez is and how she changed their lives. Fine and good.
And immaterial to the question, which one of the reporters asked:
Did you know Mercado was an illegal while you employed her?
Yes, she said, I've known for ten years.
She admitted on television that she had broken the law yet
failed to see why she was being challenged for one of the
highest gov. jobs in the land.
To those who are wringing their hands over the wolf pack:
How many milliions were wasted on the Ken Starr debacle?
I can understand professional politicians bickering over all
this stuff-they are fighting for power. When WE argue about
it we are just arguing over which flavor of fascists we want
to lord over us. Did Clinton commit criminal acts? Yes,
absolutely. Did George Bush Sr? Yes, absolutely. Did
Reagan? Aplenty. They are all criminals and shills for
the folks who really run things; the moneyed interests. When
you start looking at foreign and domestic policy in terms of
how it benifits the multinational corporations who tell our leaders
what to do, you see it in a whole different light. Check out
"What Uncle Sam Really Wants" by Noam Chomsky for
a vividly clear analysis of all that.
As to Kakki's [good] question about whether we should feel
just as squeamish about Gore's born-again Baptist orientation
(or Leiberman, who can't seem to produce a sentence that
doesn't refer to God) as we are about George W's deep ties
to the religious right, the answer is yes.
RR
