Contact Starbucks! Tell Them NO on Crow!

[jonalvy44]

Email going out to all my conservative friends at PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood):

Starbucks is promoting Sheryl Crow...Contact them to inform them of this distasteful decision of theirs...

http://www.starbucks.com/hearmus....ci=2133 (http://www.starbucks.com/hearmusic/artistschoice/sherylcrow/default.asp?ci=2133)

"We talked with Sheryl Crow about her favorite music.
Bring your laptop and hear what she had to say on your next visit to Starbucks. Exclusively at Starbucks stores you can hear clips from our interview with Sheryl, listen to her favorite songs and even download a couple of tracks to your laptop through T-Mobile® HotSpotSM. This cutting-edge digital music experience is our way of introducing you to the Sheryl Crow Artist's Choice™ CD from Hear Music: 15 songs chosen by Sheryl as the music that influenced her and the songs she can't stop listening to."



http://www.starbucks.com/customer/contact_forms.asp?na v=3c
Contact Page for Online Feedback Form

My Comments:

Dear Starbucks:
As much as I enjoy your coffee, I will not be frequenting your stores until you stop playing and promoting Sheryl Crow's music in your stores.
She is an anti-war celebrity whose irresponsible message emboldened America's enemies. As a patriotic American who loves his country and supports President Bush in the War on Terror, I find her distasteful, and thus, you will not receive my hard earned dollars for your products and services.
Regards,

Jon Alvarez
Syracuse, NY

spread the word folks...let Starbucks know how you feel!

[ALLEN L. WELLS]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif JON THANKS FOR PROVIDING THE LINK FOR STARBUCKS. *I SENT THEM A MESSAGE SIMILAR TO YOURS. *I AM CURIOUS WHAT THEIR RESPONSE WILL BE, IF ANY.

[Heffalump]

Ditto, Allen! I'm glad I make my own frappaccino. And it's great! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Heffalump

[jonalvy44]

We shall see...I've not heard anything. Of course, for us to remain silent means we forgive and forget...And we can't let Hollywood get away with their traitorous behavior as we approached war with Iraq. They will be held responsible for playing partisan politics. I will support them no more.

[Shane]

As a Democrat, I would like to encourage you to continue boycotting large American corporations. With our economy already in the dumps, I'm sure what it really needs is more boycotts!

Thanks!

[azwhitewolf]

Quote[/b] ]As a Democrat, I would like to encourage you to continue boycotting large American corporations. With our economy already in the dumps, I'm sure what it really needs is more boycotts!

Thanks!

Funny, it sure didn't bother you when K-Mart and Wal-Mart started cutting the foul language out of records that your fellow Democrats decided to boycott them, yelling "censorship". *What's censorship about cutting the words "g#d-d@mn mother-F#####" out of an album that a kid can buy?

Or when the same stores continued to sell guns and ammunition, despite the gun control freaks screaming hysteria about the sale of a freedom of a constitutional right, you Demmies did the same. *Boycott Wal-Mart!!!

We're not complaining about Starbucks in what they sell - it's who they use to carry the vehicle of advertising. *We don't like their spokesperson - Sheryl Crow doesn't do it for us. *

Well, neither did Rosie O'Donnel, BUT.... look what happened to K-Mart! *Ut-oh..... *

So you see, we're doing Starbucks a favor. *We're letting them know with our letters and giving them the chance to appeal to their customers. *It's "better for the economy" for them to smarten up and re-think their decisions than staying quiet and just watching them close their doors, right? * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I mean we could all just shut up, and leave a few CEO's wondering why sales are down....

[m.s.u.matt]

Nice points AZ.

Shane, I hate to burst your bubble, but the economy is recovering. We've had 6 consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth. Also, the economy has GROWN by over $500 billion the last 3 years, and thats not even taking into account Q1 of this year.

[Shane]

Quote[/b] (m.s.u.matt @ May 05, 2003 -- 8:19 am)]Nice points AZ. *

Shane, I hate to burst your bubble, but the economy is recovering. *We've had 6 consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth. *Also, the economy has GROWN by over $500 billion the last 3 years, and thats not even taking into account Q1 of this year.
Well, I'm sure those 500,000 jobs that were lost in the last three months signify a massive recovery. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Bill Hodges]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I'm sure those 500,000 jobs that were lost in the last three months signify a massive recovery.

Name a year under ANY Administration that there was never any job losses, share losses, profit fluctuations, or corporate bankruptcies. I didn't think you could. Welcome to modern day economics.

William (Bill) Douglas Hodges
T/O Ranch
Erick, Oklahoma



http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[Shane]

Hmmmm, I'll take a stab at that question. 1996-1999?

[m.s.u.matt]

Shane, Shane, Shane. *Come on buddy, I never said the recovery was "massive" and I'm not implying that you think I did, I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

But like it or not, we are in recovery.

As far as the unemployment numbers go, I'm sure you know that when someone in the Reserves is "called up" to active duty, the government records that as a job "lost." *But yet when that person returns from duty the government does NOT record it as a job "created." *I've never fully understood that, but whatever. *However, it does show how economic indicators gauging unemployment/non-farm payrolls could make it look like there were more jobs "lost" than there actually was, especially given the large number of Reserves that were activated.

No, its not a "massive" recovery. *But it IS a recovery. *Positive GDP growth for over a year and a half, expansion of the economy by half a trillion dollars. *What about inventories? *Inventories are extremely tight right now, meaning there will be MORE of a natural demand on manufacturing, as opposed to the extremely high inventory levels of the Clinton administration that helped throw us into a recession. *

Don't forget us consumers. *Consumers' discretionary income has been growing over the last year. *Now couple that with the increase in corporate capital spending that started in Q2 of last year....and we're hummin' along on many of the engines that help provide growth to the economy.

P.S. Sorry about the use of the following words, I know they offend democrats *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif :

"positive GDP growth"

"expansion of the economy"

"Consumers' discretionary income"

"corporate capital spending"

"growth"


http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Bill Hodges]

Quote[/b] ]Hmmmm, I'll take a stab at that question. 1996-1999?

Really? I would then suggest you explain all the bankruptcies and loss of jobs during the "Dot.Com" corporate failures and the major cutbacks in jobs in computer related manufacturing during those years.
Now, would you prefer taking another 'stab at' a more accurate answer? Be careful though, apparently a Liberal's memory does seem to be short.

William (Bill) Douglas Hodges
T/O Ranch
Erick, Oklahoma



http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[republicrat]

Since when did Patriotism preclude the right to express dissent? Am I wrong that one of the strengths of our Democracy is the willingness to entertain multiple sides in a debate? Since when did the party who made famous the slogan "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it" become the party whose current slogan is "If you disagree with our President, you are unpatriotic, and if you disagree with us, we will boycott you, sue you, or do anything else possible to get you to shut the hell up?"

The effects of the sort of behaviour we are seeing from Republicans these days with regard to free speech and its unwillingness to accept the right of citizens to disagree is absolutely chilling. That sort of behaviour is what I expect from fascists, not the GOP.

[jonalvy44]

it's called consumer backlash...these celebs make their living off of our good will. They chose to enter the fray, we happen to take it very seriously...

BTW, Starbucks email is info@starbucks.com

MCI has cancelled the Glover ads!
Madonna's album is falling fast, sales down 62% this week...She may have to return to England to live out the rest of her days as a broken down old hag.

Good News!!!

And talk is Bush may be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize!!!

[azwhitewolf]

Quote[/b] ]Since when did Patriotism preclude the right to express dissent?
Heh, that's a good one. Since the beginning of the history of the United States.

You see, the Founding fathers expressed dissent with each other too. But there's one MAJOR difference between the Founding Fathers disagreeing, and what liberals are doing today.

The Founding Fathers wanted to see America flourish.

The liberals want to see America destroyed.

Here's a classic liberal conversation.

Republican: If you don't like how the US is, move.
Liberal: I don't have to. I'll just change it for me.
Republican: Why change America into another country?
Liberal: It's my right.
Republican: You can have socialism in MANY other countries
Liberal: I'll have it here if I want. It's my FREEDOM.

Hmmmmm... sounds like the American communists are too lazy to move - so they'll just make America a $#!thole.

PATRIOT: one who loves and fights for the cause of his country.

Liberals fail the patriot litmus test, pal. Try again.

[fundament.]

blah blah blah

[azwhitewolf]

Quote[/b] ]The founders were the liberals of their day, in case you've forgotten, AZ.
Good point, fundament.

But the Founding Fathers are the conservatives of today. You see, conservatives want to have a smaller government, less taxes and LESS government intervention on local issues. These are issues that made people LEAVE a country and form their own. The Democrats today are the Great Britan, dictating their own brand of secular humanism, instead of Britan's Catholocism, and decrying anything that doesn't suit their "political (dare I say 'religious') taste" or is "not nice" should be outlawed. Thought-crimes go both directions.

Quote[/b] ]Of course it's patriotic to want to change the country, if you want to change it for the better. It changes on its own, anyway, and all we can do is exercise our RIGHTS to nudge things in the direction we prefer.
I wholeheartedly agree with you there. But changing it for the better is the concept that we quite possibly disagree on. If you think abortion is helpful to a woman's health, much less a woman psychologically, then fine - change it for the better. I won't judge you on that.

But if we're enacting laws to pay for these things, not out of the sake for "changing it for the better", but instead for the cause of "convenience", then we have disagreement.

If fighting a war allows us to continue surveilence-on-site, catch operatives in this country, find terrorist plans and distract terrorists, great. We've stopped, what, at least 50 terrorist attacks in Britan and the US? I'd say the war was worth it. If you spoke against the war, I think your intentions was to be a wuss and just "love the world" into peace. I'm not willing to die for that. I think that's the point where you decide not to back the leader of the US, and basically, decide that your allegiance to the US is not important. THAT is where most people get offended.

Quote[/b] ]There is no magical essence of "United Statesness" that attaches itself to the people or the soil - what makes this country the Unites States are the practices of it's citizens, one of which is the expression of dissenting opinions.
I'm not sure I follow. Well, some people still well up with tears at the old patriotic tunes, and some don't. Some love our flag, and some love to burn it. I guess it's just childish to have pride in the fact that you love the US and hate to see Her desecrated. That kind of flag burning "free speech" incites me. Too bad MY FEELINGS weren't part of the supreme court decision on that... I mean, it's all about feelings, right?

You know what the world saw, thanks to all the hippie peace squatters? The losers that emailed supporive "Letters to the Editor" FOR IRAQ in Iraq? The websites from Michael Moore? Hollywood morons travelling to safe parts of the conflict to spout their HATE for our leader? The DIVIDED States of America. Thanks to dissenters, we looked like complete @$$holes to the world.

Remember, even Conservatives backed Clinton when he went to Bosnia, or Serbia. That was OUT OF RESPECT for the Presidental Office. You certainly know we didn't like Clinton, and we did indeed "take issue" with him later, but we gave him room to do his job, even when it wasn't our borders that needed protecting - something the Liberals just can't bring themselves to do. Sure, we had questions, but we didn't cause a world-wide stupidity parade over the issue.

Now our borders NEED protecting, you guys go after him? I'm just missing the obvious answer, I'm sure??

[fundament.]

blah blah blah

[m.s.u.matt]

Quote[/b] ]Since when did the party who made famous the slogan "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it" become the party whose current slogan is "If you disagree with our President, you are unpatriotic, and if you disagree with us, we will boycott you, sue you, or do anything else possible to get you to shut the hell up?"


I think AZ already answered this one, "since the beginning of history of the United States." *Boycotts, embargoes, etc...were effective measures used by the 13 colonies on numerous occasions.

The Stamp Act of 1765 placed a tax on legal papers, business papers, newspapers, etc.... *Through successful boycotts, mostly by merchants, the act was repealed.

The Townsend Acts. *Again boycotts lead to the repeal of the acts. *More importantly, on the day the acts were repealed British soldiers shot and killed unarmed civilians. *This incident help foster and flourish the idea of separation from the crown. *Pretty powerful notion sparked (indirectly) from a boycott, ey?

Of course Sheryl Crow has a right to protest, to speak her piece. *And yes Starbucks has a right to promote her in that endeavor and sell her cd's. *But it "swings both ways." Does she or people who promote her products believe they are 100% protected from the consequences that could arise form their actions? *Especially given the gravity of the situation in Iraq. *I have a RIGHT to disagree with her, and because Starbucks promotes Sheryl Crow music in their stores I have a right to withold my financial support, for both her and Starbucks if I wish. *

More importantly, I have a right to tell my friends, or anyone for that matter, in hopes of finding people who feel the same way I do. *I have the right to then try to get these people to take a course of action (say a boycott) for what I/we believe is an important and justified cause. *Hey, why not, Sheryl Crow (and alot of other hollywood cronies) did it!

[azwhitewolf]

Quote[/b] ]I'll never say that there aren't plenty of maddening and annoying liberals, but the same's true of conservatives
Of course, I'll give you that - gladly. *However, when you consider Tom Dasc-hole, and compare him with, say Dan Quayle, there's no contest. *

Gingrich, on the other hand, is a moron, and did a complete dis-service to the RNC. And still does. *Quote[/b] ]We might get somewhere (at least in these kinds of exchanges) if we understood each other's definition of patriotism. * Mine's pretty simple - and it basically comes down to loving the idea of the country abstractly and caring about it's citizens concretely.
I'm not looking to modify definitions, but I defined patriotism. *Patriotism under any other name is something else... but it's NOT patriotism.

But taking your definition, I'll address two points. *
1. *If you love your country, then you'll do whatever is necessary to protect it. *Including unpopular measures to defend and protect the people in the borders. *The liberals fail this test miserably when it comes to illegal immigrants, war, supporting a president whose attempts have been thwarted numerous times with loud opposition and the organization of militant peacenics. *Under the guise of "human rights", liberals as a group (weather or not all in the group agree) have put America in danger by SHOWING the world that we can't even agree as a country, and many have even gone over and said that "Republicans and Bush" are the only people supporting this war. *Does that sound like making out the Republican voters to be "somewhat compared to" the Al-Qaida itself? *That's not solidifying Americans, that division. *And nations are best conquered divided. *
2. *Caring about it's citizens: *Citizens are not to be cared for in this style of government. *That's the mantra for socialism. *Communism. *Marxism, even. *It's my belief that the citizens need to care for themselves, using government as a national protection. *Ok, so maybe we disagree on that at a small level, but the point is that it's not the job of the government to run the people - it's the other way around, and any historian would show that the Founding Fathers intended that. *Quote[/b] ]I think many of the (articulate) liberal opponents of the war did so as realists, not idealists. *They did not want to "love the world" into embracing peace.
Jokes aside, fill me in on what the liberal opponents would have rather done. *Most said that war "under any circumstance" was unjustifiable. *You can only threaten so many times before either a) your threats become meaningless, or b) you do something to curb the problem. *Threatening a country "to death" does nothing except make you look weak. *Quote[/b] ]and umbrage people take at the more ridiculous excesses of a particular kind of PC, new age liberalism. *That kind of liberalism is not the mainstream, just as most conservatives aren't extreme bible-thumping assault-rifle-toting yokels terrified of immigrants. Well, besides the "terrified" part, I hate to say that I'm pretty much everything you quoted above. * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif * But you're right, that's not exactly the definition of conservatism, but those things if understood fully, would have actually a positive impact. *Everyone loves their First Ammendment Rights, but not everyone loves the Second. *I don't understand that, but I digress. *

The problem I see is that even if you're right, that the (what I call) "insane liberalism" isn't that extreme, it's working. *It's successful. *Our kids are dumber today than 50 years ago, and it should be the other way around. *One of my cubs is getting ready for Jr. High, and finally learning about division in school. *(we worked a little ahead, mind you) *When I was in 5th grade, we were finishing algebra. *I would think that in 5th grade 10 years later, had the conservatives been allowed to do what they wanted, the kids would be taking apart and building computers. *And the money'd be there, if the conservatives had been able to use money for that instead of educating illegal immigrants kids. *

BUT... the kids know how to put a condom on a banana, isn't that amazing? *Liberalism has infiltrated to our KIDS, and THAT is a major issue with me. *And to the liberals, this is success. *I argue that the mainstream is different than, say, teaching a kid about gun safety, or the 3 R's. *Do you disagree?
Quote[/b] ]They believed, and still believe, that the architects of the war took too much relish in flexing American muscle and did not thoroughly consider the impact this might have years from now. * Like I said, they might be right and they might be wrong, but it's hardly unpatriotic of them to make their stands. * Who was flexing muscles more? *Who made the biggest show? *Who made the loudest noise? *While Bush didn't look into the TV cameras and say, "we're about to give you an old-fashioned Texas @$$-whoopin'", he did give plenty of opportunity for Saddam to come clean, and did what any good businessman would do. *It wasn't like a SURPRISE attack - Bosnia/Serbia come to mind here, if you catch my drift...

It's NOT unpatriotic to make a stand. *I'll totally agree with you. *I LIKE arguments - they bring out the issues. *That said, HOW THEY MADE the stand was complete insanity. *Dixie Chicks selling out America to sell concert tickets in other countries - and who gave Uncle Sam the black eye? *Our own senators pandering and giving comfort to Saddam Hussein - even Peter Jennings! *What kind of "stand" was that? *It was NOT journalism, it was fuel for his anti-war supporters, plain and simple.

The US citizens saw through that, because of our unique position. *But I can't say I think the REST of the world saw throught that - I think they BELIEVED Saddam, and took Peter Jennings as a "reporter who asked the hard qeustions". *But we didn't expect hard answers... *Oh, yes, but they also hate him, but so what, right? *(sarcasm directed at extreme liberals here) *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] ]the founders were hardly social democrats, but I think it's wrong to suggest that theirs was a patriotism that discouraged dissent.
If anyone knew about dissent, I think it WAS the Founding Fathers who maybe INVENTED dissent, the way THEY played it out! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif *And again, I don't mind disagreements. *But when you have prominent senators and political leaders whining like a shunned 8 year old on the playground, you have to realize exactly how unprofessional that is. *How insanely immature - and if the world DOES respect the fact that we WERE indeed defending our country (and I think they would have, if they didn't see the liberal circus we saw played out with the die-ins, vomit-ins and blocking traffic and $#!t), they would dismiss us soley on the stamping of feet and screeching coming out of our prominent liberals. *

I don't think the liberals can complain that the world doesn't respect us. *They alone, singlehandedly made us look more stupid that the Bush Administration could have done. *Seriously.

If dissent it be, then it must be - fine. *But let's act like adults with a win-a-few-lose-a-few, or even Let's-step-outside-after-meeting-adjourns attitude, and get on with life. *The childish remarks coming out of the Senate towards the President by the liberals is completely unbecoming, and I don't think my country's leadership time should include 2 minutes from each state for their "continuing update" on their opinion of the President, be it Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.

In the meantime, my cubs have more respect and maturity than some of the mindless screeches, both Dem and Repub. *And as a parent, I'm quite proud that they left that immaturity at age 10. *Looks like some of our senators are almost over 50, and still haven't learned. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif

Thanks, BTW, for being so to-the-point and mature. *You're the kind of guy I like to go back-and-forth with. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twothumbsup.gif

[lm8077]

Here's the address of a site that lists some other business' we need to boycott. www.nowanow.com/speakingout/fightback.htm

We conservatives have to keep the heat on against the liberals.

[republicrat]

Quote[/b] (azwhitewolf @ May 10, 2003 -- 5:09 pm)]But taking your definition, I'll address two points.
1. If you love your country, then you'll do whatever is necessary to protect it. Including unpopular measures to defend and protect the people in the borders. The liberals fail this test miserably when it comes to illegal immigrants, war, supporting a president whose attempts have been thwarted numerous times with loud opposition and the organization of militant peacenics. Under the guise of "human rights", liberals as a group (weather or not all in the group agree) have put America in danger by SHOWING the world that we can't even agree as a country, and many have even gone over and said that "Republicans and Bush" are the only people supporting this war.
The first point that I'd like to make about this is tangential. One of the problems with our dual-party system is that it causes people to reduce most issues down to two-sides: liberal-conservative, democrat-republican.

Most of the issues that you raise below have more than 2 sides. The kind of reductionism which does not take into account that most issues are multi-faceted is dangerous for our democracy insofar as it limits the kinds of discussions that we have about issues into right versus left, which really lends nothing to the debate itself, and permits people on both sides of the political spectrum to attack the messenger rather than think about the message.

As to the issues you have raised ...

WRT, the immigration issue: Regardless of what you hear from Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage, neither political party has any real interest in militarizing the American border. It is not a liberal/conservative issue, at least not among mainstream politicians.

The problem is not the fact that immigrants come to the United States to work. The United States was built on an open and inclusive immigration policy.

In most cases, the people who come here are filling job roles in agribusiness, service industry, and construction that many Americans simply will not shoulder, at wages that many Americans would not consider. These people are among those who are helping to make America strong by keeping production costs for housing and produce low, thus encouraging consumption.

In my view, what we need is immigration reform that would decriminalize the act of coming into this country to do that sort of work while making it harder for people who come to the country, but who don't want to work, to stay in the country and/or obtain services.

That's a position that neither party wants to look at or adopt, but it is a rational and fair policy.

With regard to the war, I strongly disagree that a division of public opinion weakened the war effort. Clearly, public opinion, and world opinion were irrelevent to the outcome of the war, and suggesting that people can be divided on an issue sets America up to be conquered is absurd.

I take political dissent as a sign of a healthy body politic. Particularly when there is no debate about the need for war within congress. Congress abdicated its war-making responsibility to the President last fall, and in the absense of congressional debate, Democracy manifested itself in the form of large-scale protests and direct political action both for and against the war.

In my view, the war with Iraq was a case where perfectly intelligent and rational people could have fundamental disagreement about the correct course of action.

Opposition to the war drew heavily from the left, but it also drew heavily from mainstream, or even conservative churches, who generally believe that a doctrine of pre-emption, something that in the past would have been called "war of aggression" is not morally permissable. Those people have international law, such as the Nuremburg trials to justify their beliefs in addition to scriptural support based on their interpretations of the Bible, Torah, or Koran. They might have also believed that the money spent financing the war would have been better spent at home in the form of tax cuts or improvements in services.

Support for the war drew heavily from the right, but there were plenty of people on the left who argued that A) moral considerations need to take a back seat to national security or B) removing a brutal dictator from power was, in fact, the moral course of action, and that the cost of the war was a necessary one in light of September 11.

My own view is that we need to protect ourselves, but we also need to be very careful about engaging in a policy of pre-emptive strikes. I disagree with Donald Rumsfeld with regard to his nuclear policy, which appears to call for the use of smaller scale nuclear weapons in future conflicts. I share Dick Armey's concern about the reduction of many of our civil liberties after 9/11, and am wary of people like Orrin Hatch who want to extend the Patriot Act and John Ashcroft, who crafted Patriot II, and who, in my view, is using some rather questionable tactics in prosecuting suspected terrorists.

All of which ties back to my earlier point: There are more than two sides to every issue, even within political parties. Our democracy is made healthier by debate and discussion which reflects this.