BuzzFlash Mailbag for October 9, 2009

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here. You also may comment below; post articles yourself at BuzzFlash.net; or send urls for BuzzFlash to post to: www.buzzflash.com/contact/newstip.html.

Subject: Nobel Peace Prize

So far, two major networks, in announcing President Obama's award, have in the next breath made negative statements. "He should be spending more time working on the creation of jobs"; "He shouldn't get too excited over international awards, he better be more concerned with his national reputation". If GWB had won the award, they would have been gushing as they announced it, and would never have mentioned the death and destruction that administration inflicted upon the world.

Creed Ballew
Arkansas

---

Subject: Congratulations President Obama

Congratulations President Obama on your Nobel Prize award.

The world saw what We the People saw when we elected President Obama, and they awarded him for it.

Republicans, you gave President Obama your best shot, and you are wrong as usual! Consider yourselves defied! The EGO has landed indeed, as LIAR LIMBAUGH, (considered yourself slapped down, Limbaugh) has said.

President Obama you deserved this award, and we are so proud of you, we who worked and voted for you, are validated for our efforts.

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: editing the Bible

Hi, Buzz!!

Finally, Andy Schlafly has come right out and said what a lot of us have always known: Everything is politics with the right wing. Religion is a stalking horse for their ideology, and the Bible is "true" and "inerrant" only as long as the wingnuts can find verses that support their prejudices. Now we hear it from the horse's mouth.

This is not only hypocrisy, but something close to blasphemy. Rewriting the Bible!? Is it God's Word or not? And if it is, who are we to alter it?

Proceeding from the sublime (sort of) to the ridiculous: As far as I can tell, Schlafly and his cohorts are starting, not from the Greek and Hebrew, which our buddy Andy admits he's never studied, but from the King James Version! Its sources were incomplete, and its vocabulary and syntax are about 400 years outdated. If you want something more modern, look no further than the many recent translations, starting with the Revised Standard. Schlafly assures us that he's not going to "dumb down" the text. Adjusting vocabulary and syntax to make the text more accessible isn't the same as dumbing down. Take for example the "Good News" Bible, which as I understand it was translated for people whose first language is not English. At Jesus' trial before Pilate, most versions have the crowd shouting, "Crucify him!" In "Good News" they say, "Nail him to the cross!" Easy to read, easy to understand, but the meaning is not changed. "Nail him to the cross!" also sounds uglier, which is probably better, considering the barbarity of crucifixion. But if you like your Scripture elegant, you can always do as I do, and read the Revised English Version. It's very readable, but also graceful, and poetic when poetic is called for.

As you might guess, this whole "conservative Bible" thing has my blood pressure up!

Jane Hawes
Edmond, OK (red-state Democrat)

---

Subject: How did Hoover and Bush bring on the great Depressions?

In attempting to cope with the depressions both Hoover's and Bush's favoring of the highest income people was exactly the wrong thing to do. The wealthy bought luxuries, of course, but hardly enough to sustain a consumer economy. In the Great Depression and even the middle class joined in the speculative stock market which sent stock higher and higher. This was base not on the performance of companies whose stock was bought, but on the false perception that stocks held an intrinsic value.

As a consequence the market suddenly and finally collapsed resulting in tremendous losses of capital during the period from 1929 to 1932. Foreign economies also collapsed with the greatest losses in Germany, Britain and France. Germany among others could not pay its debts with cash flow across the entire world soon bringing a world-wide depression. The GOP president Hoover tried many thingsnone of which worked. The notion that high tariffs were good for the country caused the congress to pass the Hawley-Smoot bill in 1930, among the worst things to do. Foreigners could not sell goods in the U.S., wo with few dollars they could not buy American goods nor pay their debts. American banks were then place in gravest danger. Huge amounts of money had been loaned out when buying on margin became a widley dysfunctional practice at a time when more and more buyers were overextended to take advantage of the soaring stock market.

With extensive borrowing interest rates were raised while big banks went along wanting nothing more than government protection. This didn't happen. The banks and their depositers went into a panic trying to control the market which went into a tailspin. Money supply was let to dry up by almost a third of pre-depression amounts. In fact, every thing that was done seemed to exacerbate the depression. Hoover was said to be a do nothing preident while the nation went into the worst of the depression. Hoover, however, did act as best he could to halt the economic catastrophe but to no avail while even worsening the conditions such as in creating high tariffs. Bound by the GOP philosophy, and surrounded by those of like mind, Hoover could do virtually nothing.

In creating or meeting the depression, Hoover and Bush were very much alike in a number of ways. Hoover was stubborn and short sighted. He rejected advice from those with whom he disagreed and insisted that things were much better than they were. Bush kept seeing his tax cuts as improving the economy when actually they were obviously deteriorating it. Following whatever Hoover did he failed miserably in raising the spirit of the people to overcome financial gloom, Bush suffered in the same way with his ratings plumating. It was through the party philosophy and the stern operationalizing of it that these two men brought on some of the worst economic times in the nation.

J. Burgess
Syracuse, NY

---

Subject: These Paid Protesters Outside The White House Are Reminiscent Of The Agent Provacateurs Who Overthrew The Iranian Govt. In 1953

"Based on?"

"The Rachel Maddow program last night which featured video clips of for hire 'protesters' holding up posters proclaiming that President Obama is a socialist."

"Shades of Iran in 1953 where the CIA paid Iranians to stage street protests falsely claiming that their populist president Mohammed Mossadegh was a communist."

"Just as those CIA bought Iranian protesters helped bring down Iran's President Mossadegh, could these paid for Washington D.C. protesters be the prelude to a military overthrow of our own government?"

"Unless, of course, the announcement* yesterday of a campaign to impeach President Obama was coincidental and not coordinated with the for hire street protests."

"The answer being?"

"That we rise up en masse."

"Paid for, like these right-wing protests?"

"Spontaneous, as in our nation's founding revolution."

*last night's Rachel Maddow program

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

What a wonderful surprise this was this morning. Just in time for the weekend news shows.

This will be a riot. Can't wait to hear, read, and see what the Republicon Conservatard Wing-nuts will have to say about this.

Is it a marxist plot? A socialist plot? A communist plot? A liberal left wing conspiracy? Will the birth certificates of the Nobel Selection Committee be requested en masse? How about Alfred Nobel's birth certificate?

Of course, it became "political" literally right away. Some are musing this is a "stinging rebuke" of George W. Bush. Scarborough ran his mouth off this morning -- "Obama promised he would close Gitmo and he hasn't yet." Guess what Joe - Obama's taken more steps to that end in less than a year than Bush did in 8. Did you forget about that Joe?

The extent the Republics and their slimy ilk are trying to hold Obama to much higher standards than they ever did their hero Bushie would be positively nauseating if it weren't so ironically hypocritical.

Let the spin begin! The Repubs are sure to win a gold medal for the 2009 Brainwashing Olympics. /snark off for now.

L M Johnson
Tacoma WA

---

Subject: Cheney "consulting" firm

...and what will the Cheney family call their new consulting busuness...how about "Strangelove and Associates."? "Evil and Stupid, Inc."? Amazing.

Phil
Vermont

---

Subject: Escalating The Afghanistan War Will Only Delay The Inevitable

"Namely?"

"A U.S. military defeat."

"Based on?"

"That's what happens whenever an Empire tries to conquer Afghanistan."

"Doesn't the Pentagon know this?"

"Definitely."

"Then why is General Stanley McChrystal bypassing the chain of command by going public with his request for additional troops?"

"The top echelon is desperate to avoid the fate of Argentina's military junta after it took that country into the disasterous 1982 Falkland Islands War."

"Disasterous how?"

"Argentina's defeat not only brought down that junta but its armed forces suffered a total collapse of public support from which it has yet to recover, with several senior military officers, including former junta president, General Jorge Rafael Videla, being tried, convicted and sent to prison for crimes against humanity."

"But would the American people rise up en masse the way the Argentinans did in '83?"

"Who's to say for sure, but haunted as it is by memories of the Vietnam War, our military brass doesn't want to find out."

"Perpetually inconclusive wars with heavy casualties is better than defeat?"

"In the minds of the top brass whose worst nightmare is being defeated in a war, thereby begetting popular disillusionment with all things military, followed by demilitarization, followed by the swords into plowshares conversion, whereupon, no wars no more, nowhere, never, not even one, not to mention the possibility of some of them ending up in prison, as per General Videla and associates."

"Wouldn't that be nice?"

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: New Web site

Many have already registered the concerns about the new design that I have: difficulty reading the white lettering on gray and difficulty telling what I've already read. Plus, it seems the snarky comments in the headlines - which really made it more fun to read - have become plain vanilla. Dear Buzz, you should have asked how people actually USE the site before changing. I'm adding my plea to many others for you to put it back the way it was. Smirking Chimp, a former favorite, updated their site and I never went back.

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: Your "New" Format

Short and to the point. I. DON'T. LIKE. IT.

It is too busy, more difficult to find things. More distracting with all the different colored text boxes.

Simpler is always the best. Less can go wrong and it's not as distracting as the new one is.

Enuff said.

L M Johnson
Tacoma WA

---

Subject: New Web site

Please tell me what about the new Web site doesn't totally suck.

1) All you see when you open the home page is a tower of small video pictures that don't work when you click on them (sound plays, but no video).

2) The main headline is buried below the bottom of the window.

3) The small headlines are written in sans-serif (which has been proven harder to read), white type on a grey background. It is a REAL STRUGGLE to read those headlines. There could not be a harder to read format.

4) Also, those headlines are broken up by being in individual boxes, which makes it more difficult to move to the next one, scanning to find an interesting one. Scanning your clever headlines was what BuzzFlash is all about.

Tell me what about this new format DOESN'T SUCK. You have been my homepage for years. I have purchased hats, t-shirts, buttons, stickers, videos. But now you are TOTALLY USELESS.

Please get back to the old, beautiful format quickly before you lose all readership and relevance in the world of ideas!! The new format looks like you were bought by Rupert Murdoch who wanted to KILL YOU.

Dale Stephens
Fairfield, Iowa

---

Subject: New format

I have been a long-time daily visitor to BuzzFlash, but not only do I not like the new format...I hate it! The old format was great... it wasn't broke... there was no need to "fix" it!!! I especially liked knowing at least six or more of the most important video clips of the day would be at my fingertips... that I could scan at least a dozen of the most vital political articles of the day at a glance... and that it became immediately apparent when I had read or visited any of the articles! I'm sorry, but the new format is not worth the visit...

Lola Virginia
Chicago, IL

---

Subject: New Format

I have had BuzzFlash as my home page for over two years. It will go soon.

It takes nearly 15 seconds to load and I have a very fast connection. That is unacceptable as a home page.

Sorry guys, it sucks. Give it up and bring back the old one. The comments about readability and scrolling are also valid.

Techies who designed it are idiots.

Jim Kubiak
Hudson, WI

---

Subject: New BuzzFlash Home page

At first I didn't know if I would like it, but now I'm used to it. It is orderly and easier for me to read. People do not like change even if it's for the better. Maybe a little fine tuning, but that's all. I've been with BuzzFlash since the year 2000, and I feel this change was needed for the new era of today. It's time we all moved on with our new President, and enjoy all changes from the reminder of the dark days of the Bush/Cheney years.

Yes, BuzzFlash's new Home page is a good thing.

Angela
Phila

---

Subject: new format

The new format for your homepage is very hard to read. Cant you at least give us the option of using the classic format? It was my favorite news site till the other day.

A. Payne
Ohio

---

Subject: New Design

I'm a long time visitor to BuzzFlash and I must join the chorus of those who hate the new design. 15 seconds on the site and I'm ready to leave. I really hope you abandon it before I abandon you. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.

Mark
Tecumseh, MI

---

Subject: another non understanding, bitchy outpouring of "the site sucks"

Hey, of course it was better back then...but, would you rather Buzz got a bunch of rightwing INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BUY TIME ON THIS SITE??? HELL NO!!! We all knew all along that their draw to us was the fact that they remainded indepedent,,,what is it that readers do not understand about DONATE! I am not critcizing those who do not..I have not been able to either. But the last thing you will hear from me is criticism..ITS MONEY...WAKE UP! I JUST PRAY THEY CAN HANG ON,UNTIL THE BUSH/CHENEY MESS IMPROVES...IF IT DOES! THANK YOU CREED BALLEW

Lib
S'hampton

---

Subject: New Design

I have been a longtime reader and supporter of BuzzFlash. I hate the new design, I hate that some of my dollars may have gone to paying for this new design. When the marketers take over at BuzzFlash, where are we supposed to turn for our news? Don't tell me this is not going to change the fundamentals of the site, because this design just screams We're Trying To Appeal To Those Who Are Only Attracted to Bright And Shiny Objects. Too bad.

Chris
Morgantown, WV

---

Subject: New Web site Design

I agree with the others who say go back to the old design. It was simple, fast and easy to read. This new design is none of those things. Keep it simple. Its not about the looks or how fancy the site is. Its about the content. As much as I love BuzzFlash and refer to it daily, I'm afraid that I will find myself loading the site less and less with the new design. All the colors are distracting. Go back to the quick loading black text on white background with three columns that doesn't require javascript turned on to load properly. I'm sure you had the best of intentions, but it would be best to keep it simple like it was before.

Joe

 

---

Subject: New Web site

The mobile phone delivery on 3g or wireless cable is impossibly slow. I am an occasional contributor so I even feel entitled to bitch. I really mean impossibly slow. Can no long read during my lunch hour :-(

A Blue Buzzer
MA

---

The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18.

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG