Jeff's Lunchbreak

Thanks for your article, Jeff, I sent it on to ten or so people who had received that Ken Huber chain letter. Keep up the good work.

OYVEY, jeff, it took you quite a lot of space to dismiss a letter to an editor that was rather brief and based on facts, only ... you start by saying it's right wing, displaying your bias for all to see ... you are unable to dispute the facts, so, instead, you attack the person who mentioned them ... i would have asked whether you're ashamed of yourself yet, but now i realize: your kind do not know the meaning of the word ...

Was hoping for a balanced argument but this one is very liberal based and basically the author seems like an angry liberal who is sticking it to the conservatives. I will check the other sites and hopefully find a better, more balanced opinion. Boooo! Im so tired of the political games...I guess that is what America has actually come to these days. Its playground antics. Your a good writer just not looking for opinion but a real assessment of these contradictions.

Peter- I agree that the original article was brief, but I disagree with it being based on sound facts. That was much of the point of my response. I don't see how calling the article right wing is particularly biased. Do you disagree that it was right wing? I have another blog entry, Ask and Ye Shall Receive - A Dubious Left Wing E-mail, where I debunk a left wing e-mail. I hardly discussed Ken Huber at all, so I don't see how I attacked him personally. I did add a bit of personal commentary to my response, but I tried to respond largely factually, and even included links to external sources to back up my claims.

So, to answer the question you decided not to ask - no, I'm not ashamed of this blog entry.

"if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right;"

I think the double standard he was referring to here that it seems any time someone disagrees with President Obama based on his policies and actions [the content of his character], they are branded as racist. Yet, the Black Panthers can scream about how much they hate white crackers and want to kill them [which is indeed racist], or other groups make media presentations about white priveledge and call to attention all the things white people need to do to 'make up' for the color of their skin, yet they are given a free pass by the media.

Many of his other points were quite valid, I think the problem was he did not elaborate on them enough for you to understand them. In effect, your responses then became strawmen arguments.

"in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process;"

I think his problem here is that parents rights are being taken away - usually, for any school subject, parents can get an exemption. [homosexuality is not about tolerance, btw. Christians already see homosexuals as free and equal people of the same worth as anyone else, you will find some christians sho strucggle with the sin themselves. The difference is the *act* is a sin, like gossip or adultery or cheating on a test). So, it is not appropriate (and there have been cases) for a school to force the teaching of the subject matter or take a child to an event promoting the ideology without even giving the parent the option to remove their child [something you can do even if you take, say, minor offense at a book they are reading in class]. I also think it is innapropriate for the matter to be taught, especially to younger children, but even to older, in the methods it has been - with pamphlets being given out asking them to experiment or explore their sexuality. That is neither a matter of tolerance nor even information, but is an overt form of sexual education. Since homosexuality is a behavioral enetic trait - with biological, social, and personal choice components - introducing them to overt and forced social triggers at a young age is heavily influencing their future choice. Teacher;s are no even allowed to promote apolitical party - why then can they push such a sensitive matter onto a child?

"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work;"

Since I live quite well on about 8,000 a year, and people who make over $34,000 a year are int he top 1% of the world's income bracket, this does seem a topic heavily influenced by greed and ;but look at what my neighbor has!'
Really, its the statistical outliers (the .001%) who have the extreme wealth, and while their are problems, they are not going to be fixed while everyone is under the mindset that equality can be "made" - instead of something that man already has.

"we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology;"

There is no seperation of chrch and state - what constitution have you been reading? That comes from an out of context, mangled paraphrase from a non-binding letter Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that their religious rights were not something that could be legislated by the government. The Supreme Court in the mid 20th century, decided that Jefferson was an authority on the first amendment (he was in France when it was written), and went against their prior usage of the full letter in past cases (always used as originally written to protect the church from legislation by the government) to decide that the phrase restricted the church from its normal freedom of religion!

If there was 'seperation of church and state" why did Jefferson and other presidents attend church in government buildings like the Treasury and Capitol, where government funded military chaplains often preached and military bands played? ;)

Freedom of religion means that we - private citizen or public official - are free to act on our faith (including public expressions, public preaching, etc). The governments restriction isd that it cannot establish a religion/set up a state church, it cannot penalize people for their faith, and it cannot force people to worship in any given manner.

So, the government -restricting- religious excercise (saying you can only act religiously at certain times, but not at school or public events, for example) is unconstitutional. Likewise, the government forcing anyone to act against their religious belief (ie, forcing a religious teacher to teach evolution or teach homosexuality) is also unconstitutional.

"Who has been labeled a terrorist for protesting Obama's policies"

Were you not around for Nancy Pelosi implying that the tea party was would be violent rebels, or the national security report that came out calling returning soldiers from overseas who were patriotic, anti-abortion, anti-Obama, and owned a gun potential terrorists?

"we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct;"

He was not complaining about the right to burn an effigy or free speech. He was complaining about the double standard - that when the tea party or unpopular free speech is engaged in, it gets considered the work of "an angry mob" or racism or terrorism - yet free speech by groups liek occupy wallstreet [even ones that -do- break laws by getting violent] are given proper treatment in regard to their free speech.
For your comments on right wing commentators - there was the 'war on fox' a while back, in which the white house was rather prominantly attacking the free speech of Fox News.

"if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right;"

I think the double standard he was referring to here that it seems any time someone disagrees with President Obama based on his policies and actions [the content of his character], they are branded as racist.

This point of Huber's never mentioned Obama, so I don't think he was referring to people criticizing Obama. I do think there are some racist people who dislike Obama simply because of the color of his skin, but I also agree that some people are too quick to use that term on anyone disagreeing with Obama. However, that doesn't seem to be a very widespread problem.

Yet, the Black Panthers can scream about how much they hate white crackers and want to kill them [which is indeed racist], or other groups make media presentations about white priveledge and call to attention all the things white people need to do to 'make up' for the color of their skin, yet they are given a free pass by the media.

Seriously, have you never heard of Storm Front? I will not give them the dignity of a link to their site, but here's a link to the Wikipedia Entry. To be honest, I've heard very, very little about Storm Front in mainstream media, despite how odious their positions and statements are. In fact, I've heard about the Black Panthers more, particularly in regards to their violent reaction to the Trayvon Martin shooting, so I don't think the Black Panthers get a free pass (here's an example of the media reporting explicitly on the New Black Panthers calling for violence, New Black Panther leader: Hunt down and kill white people, and here's an article where their violent response to the Martin shooting gets mentioned, Air marshal took Zimmerman in when the going got rough - i.e. the media does call them out).

Many of his other points were quite valid, I think the problem was he did not elaborate on them enough for you to understand them. In effect, your responses then became strawmen arguments.

"in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process;"

I think his problem here is that parents rights are being taken away - usually, for any school subject, parents can get an exemption. [homosexuality is not about tolerance, btw. Christians already see homosexuals as free and equal people of the same worth as anyone else, you will find some christians sho strucggle with the sin themselves. The difference is the *act* is a sin, like gossip or adultery or cheating on a test). So, it is not appropriate (and there have been cases) for a school to force the teaching of the subject matter or take a child to an event promoting the ideology without even giving the parent the option to remove their child [something you can do even if you take, say, minor offense at a book they are reading in class]. I also think it is innapropriate for the matter to be taught, especially to younger children, but even to older, in the methods it has been - with pamphlets being given out asking them to experiment or explore their sexuality. That is neither a matter of tolerance nor even information, but is an overt form of sexual education. Since homosexuality is a behavioral enetic trait - with biological, social, and personal choice components - introducing them to overt and forced social triggers at a young age is heavily influencing their future choice. Teacher;s are no even allowed to promote apolitical party - why then can they push such a sensitive matter onto a child?

I have seen rumors of inappropriate materials being given out to students, and I wouldn't be too surprised if this did happen in some cases, but every time I can remember personally researching these rumors, they turn out to be false. Can you provide a reference to an actual case of this happening? Is it more than just isolated cases?

And let's be clear. Despite what you say about the issue not being about tolerance, bigoty and bullying against homosexual students is a real problem. Here's a short page with some stats on the problem: Bullying and Gay Youth. According to that page, "22 percent of gay respondents had skipped school in the past month because they felt unsafe there." And here's an article listing some examples of tragic outcomes due to bullying against gay students, Special editorial: Bullying, gay teen suicides, and a need for a solution.

Given the scope of the problem and the tragic consequences, I do question whether parents should be allowed to pull their kids from some of these programs. I want to respect parental authority, but kids are dying here. Where does a parent's right to dictate their child's education interfere with someone else's right to survive?

"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work;"

Since I live quite well on about 8,000 a year, and people who make over
$34,000 a year are int he top 1% of the world's income bracket, this does seem a topic heavily influenced by greed and ;but look at what my neighbor has!'
Really, its the statistical outliers (the .001%) who have the extreme wealth, and while their are problems, they are not going to be fixed while everyone is under the mindset that equality can be "made" - instead of something that man already has.

I suppose we interpreted Huber's point differently. I thought he was referring to wealth redistribution in the U.S., but it appears that you think he was referring to international wealth redistribution.

Anyway, if it was domestic, the stats I put up still stand. There isn't a large scale redistribution of wealth to the poor in this country.

I also disagree a bit with that final sentence of yours. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'equality', but it's obvious that not everyone is born equal. I myself, for example, was born into a middle class family with great opportunity. My whole life, it was just assumed that I would go to college, because there was no question of my parents being able to pay for it. Sure, I had to keep my act together and study and put in some effort on my part, but it wasn't super difficult. I mainly just had to avoid screwing up. If I look to my wife's family, she and her siblings were born into less fortunate economic circumstances. For them, even a high school diploma wasn't assumed - it was actually expected of the older siblings that they would drop out to get a job to help support the rest of the family. So, 3 of 3 out of my parents' children got degrees, while only 1 out of 7 siblings in my wife's family got a degree. It wasn't that my brothers and I were any smarter, we were just lucky to be born into the family we were. And you could argue that that's just the way of the world, and that there's nothing the government should do to try to help out those less fortunate, but don't pretend that everyone's born equal.

"we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology;"

There is no seperation of chrch and state - what constitution have you been reading?

The one that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The first part says congress can't support religion. The second says they can't restrict it. It may not literally have the word 'separation', but that certainly sounds like separation to me.

That comes from an out of context, mangled paraphrase from a non-binding letter Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that their religious rights were not something that could be legislated by the government. The Supreme Court in the mid 20th century, decided that Jefferson was an authority on the first amendment (he was in France when it was written), and went against their prior usage of the full letter in past cases (always used as originally written to protect the church from legislation by the government) to decide that the phrase restricted the church from its normal freedom of religion!

If there was 'seperation of church and state" why did Jefferson and other presidents attend church in government buildings like the Treasury and Capitol, where government funded military chaplains often preached and military bands played? ;)

Here's a link to the full text of Jefferson's letter on the Library of Congress website:
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, The Final Letter, as Sent

And here's a link to their discussion of the letter:
'A Wall of Separation', FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft

I just re-read the letter again myself, and don't see 'building a wall of separation between Church & State' is 'an out of context, mangled paraphrase'.

Freedom of religion means that we - private citizen or public official - are free to act on our faith (including public expressions, public preaching, etc). The governments restriction isd that it cannot establish a religion/set up a state church, it cannot penalize people for their faith, and it cannot force people to worship in any given manner.

So, the government -restricting- religious excercise (saying you can only act religiously at certain times, but not at school or public events, for example) is unconstitutional. Likewise, the government forcing anyone to act against their religious belief (ie, forcing a religious teacher to teach evolution or teach homosexuality) is also unconstitutional.

If you took out 'public official' from that first paragraph, I would agree with this statment. And even public officials, when not acting in their official positions, have these freedoms. However, when someone is acting on behalf of the government, they must remain neutral on religion. For example, a teacher is completely free to go to church on their own time, believe whatever they want, pray privately anywhere or anytime they want (even on school grounds), or pray publicly outside of school. What they cannot do is lead students in prayer while acting as a teacher, or other similar actions that cross the line of 'respecting an establishment of religion'.

And I completely disagree with saying that teachers can use their religion as an excuse to not teach evolution or any other topic required by school standards. They are public servants, and have a responsibility to carry out their duties as such. If you can't perform your duties, find a different line of work. I mean, would you seriously allow a science teacher to refrain from teaching how lightning works because they claimed it went against their religious belief that lightning was a spark from Thor's hammer, or to teach that the world was flat because that was their religious belief? (Yes, flat earthers still exist.)

However, I do agree that there are cases where people's religious freedoms are infringed upon. Here are some examples from the ACLU fighting against restrictions to religious freedom: ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression.

"Who has been labeled a terrorist for protesting Obama's policies"

Were you not around for Nancy Pelosi implying that the tea party was would be violent rebels, or the national security report that came out calling returning soldiers from overseas who were patriotic, anti-abortion, anti-Obama, and owned a gun potential terrorists?

The Tea Party was not labeled as violent simply because they opposed Obama's policies, but because of their incendiary speech and actual acts of violence. I've already discussed the right wing's violent rhetoric in an entry titled Thoughts on the Arizona Shooting & Violent Rhetoric from the Right.

Here are a few articles with examples of violence from the extreme right:

• CBS News - Tea Party Getting Violent? 10 House Dems Report Threats, Vandalism
• Think Progress - Tea Party sign threatens gun violence if health care passes
• AZ Republicans Resign After Giffords Shooting, Citing Threats From Local Tea Partiers

"we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct;"

He was not complaining about the right to burn an effigy or free speech. He was complaining about the double standard - that when the tea party or unpopular free speech is engaged in, it gets considered the work of "an angry mob" or racism or terrorism - yet free speech by groups liek occupy wallstreet [even ones that -do- break laws by getting violent] are given proper treatment in regard to their free speech.
For your comments on right wing commentators - there was the 'war on fox' a while back, in which the white house was rather prominantly attacking the free speech of Fox News.

I've read the Texas Republican Platform. They actually do want to outlaw burning the flag, which is why people have to explicitly defend it as a First Amendment right. I've not seen any mainstream political figures arguing that it should be illegal to criticize the president. So I don't see a double standard like you're trying to set up. (And are you really saying that burning the flag is not unpopular?)

See above for examples of violence from the Tea Party. And here's an article detailing the different treatment OWS and Tea Party protesters received from the police:

• Daily Kos - Police Violence: Another Big Difference Between The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street

Can you provide any documentation of the White House trying to take away Fox News's right to free speech? I haven't seen any. They criticized Fox for their ideological positions and biased coverage, but never tried to take away their right to hold those positions or to promote them. In the original post, I specifically said not to confuse people criticizing someone's opinions with trying to take away their right to express them.

If you come back to leave further comments, I would ask one thing. Please provide references to back up your claims. The commenting system here has a limit on number of links per post, but if you just e-mail me right after you post it, I can log into the system and mark your comment as legitimate so that it does appear.

You are seemingly stupid and either cannot or just ignore to see where this mans views are coming from.

This was originally in the Iosco County News/Herald and/or The Oscoda Press, originating from East Tawas, Michigan. The editor of the paper is VERY right wing and Mr. Huber is a regular contributor to the "Letter to the Editor". He used to spar back and forth with my husband via that column.

So, you are correct in assuming he is right wing and on a rant. I seem to recall this was written several years ago and it seems is just now being discovered. I can't tell you if it was re-printed during the last election cycle as I no longer read the local "rag". When they get a new editor...I'll start reading the paper again!

You are trying to reason and make sense of a small town mind. Why this would go viral is beyond me...

I think you ALL need to get a life!

"mostly didn't stand up to any scrutiny"

You think just because you took the time to type words on your computer that you have discredited this letter? Every word the man wrote is true. YOU are full of shit.

You are an ass!

To the likes of David, Brent, and Latisha - I don't mind dissenting opinions on this blog. In fact, I have fun arguing with people with whom I disagree (family reunions are fun). But it's only fun if the arguments are substantive. Simply calling people names doesn't add anything constructive. So, I would ask that anybody leaving a comment who disagrees with me at least take the time to point out where and why they think I'm wrong. And ideally, include references and facts to back up your statements. Calling me an ass without offering any reasons for why you think I'm wrong isn't going to do very much to win me over to your side of the argument.

Thank you for Jeff for that concise and thoughtful reply. My right wing friend sent me the Ken Huber e-mail. Reading some of the comments you've recieved, I'm convinced of the futility to respond to my friend. Conservative ideology has become a religion.

Keep defending the lying administration and his minions and lay down before them.
Hope you have to pay an additional $379 per month for health insurance like I do and all the other retired Dade County Police and Fire retirees. Hope you get what you want when you vote for Hillary in 2014. She is the post child of the next Pinocio movie along with her husband.
Open your eyes and see that we are going down the tubes. Merry Christmas

YOU Sir....are an IDIOT. EVIL SOB!

Speaking of rants, Jeff's posting represents a perfect example.

Ken Huber for President. Everything he said is 100% true. To argue with it is to be ignorant of the real issues affecting people all over this great nation. But, yes, its your right to argue with it. Open your eyes people, this nation is falling apart.

I think Jeff's lunch breaks are w-a-y too long. Can't help but wonder if he is in fact working, does his boss know?

Pam - just in case it wasn't obvious, I rarely write blog posts in one sitting. Particularly long ones can take a couple weeks, and sometimes I'll even work on them from home.

I am sure this article has touched all the internet viewers, its really really pleasant post on building up new webpage.

I'm gonna assume your a left side leaner. What's the matter, someone speaks truth and you don't like it? Were you trying to track this man down so you could try and ruin him?Get a clue, open your eyes and just look around you. Not in your "kumbyya" group, but past that; and see what's happening. Mr. Huber is SPOT ON. GOD BLESS! YEA that's right...I said it. GOD BLESS!

So should I assume your writing a 'retort'from a leftist perspective? Mr. Huber hit the nail on the head. So what's your plan? Try and find him ...ruin his life? Wake up and look around. That article was concise. GOD BLESS, YEA I SAID IT...GOD BLESS.

GetwithGod - if you do leave another comment, I would ask that you please post something of substance about the actual issues discussed, or pose a real question you'd want me to answer rather than just hurl insults.

Who is stealing from the poor? Surely you don't mean money they did not earn

I won't take the time to respond to every point here; the first couple should be sufficient to illustrate that Jeff is missing the point on most of the points Ken Huber was trying to make.

Lying to Congress vs Congress lying to us - yes, Jeff, politicians have always lied, and probably always will. The point is that they've passed laws that makes the reverse "illegal."

Regarding "racism," Jeff comments, "Huber's complaint would be much more persuasive if organizations like the KKK weren't allowed to spew their hatred, but they're free to speak just like everyone else."

As you pointed our, Jeff, freedom of speech is a fundamental foundation of our society, whether or not you like or agree with that speech. The point was that, according to leftists/"progressives," only white people can be racist. You made it plain that you don't agree with that (congratulations, we agree on something), but then you went off the rails somewhat about the KKK and "spewing hatred," which leaves me puzzled about the relevance.

you know what he means! don't twist his meaning!

order generic lipitor 40mg atorvastatin oral buy atorvastatin pills for sale

atorvastatin for sale online order atorvastatin 40mg pill atorvastatin 40mg uk

buy ciprofloxacin without prescription - ethambutol 1000mg ca amoxiclav pill

cipro 1000mg canada - buy bactrim 480mg pill purchase amoxiclav online cheap

buy ciplox 500mg pills - order erythromycin online erythromycin pill

flagyl buy online - buy oxytetracycline for sale cheap azithromycin 500mg

stromectol for humans for sale - oral sumycin order tetracycline generic

buy cheap generic valacyclovir - zovirax 800mg sale order zovirax 400mg online cheap

buy generic acillin purchase vibra-tabs without prescription amoxil for sale

how to buy metronidazole - metronidazole 200mg brand order zithromax 250mg generic

buy lasix 40mg pill - buy prazosin 1mg sale purchase capoten generic

generic glycomet 500mg - combivir online buy purchase lincocin without prescription

order retrovir 300mg for sale - allopurinol 100mg uk order zyloprim 100mg without prescription

clozapine 50mg canada - order accupril generic buy famotidine

purchase quetiapine for sale - zoloft uk eskalith canada

order clomipramine 50mg without prescription - buy sinequan 25mg generic sinequan cheap

purchase hydroxyzine generic - order fluoxetine 40mg pills amitriptyline 25mg us

buy augmentin 625mg online cheap - purchase ciprofloxacin online buy cipro online cheap

amoxil ca - amoxicillin order buy ciprofloxacin medication

order azithromycin 250mg online - buy flagyl 200mg pills cost ciprofloxacin 500mg

buy generic cleocin online - oxytetracycline 250 mg capsules purchase chloramphenicol

stromectol buy - order levofloxacin 500mg generic order cefaclor capsules

buy ventolin inhalator online - promethazine 25mg sale theophylline us

order medrol - methylprednisolone 4 mg for sale buy astelin no prescription

clarinex 5mg uk - order beclomethasone ventolin order online

glyburide order - glucotrol 5mg cheap pill dapagliflozin 10 mg

purchase glycomet pills - purchase glucophage acarbose ca

order repaglinide 1mg without prescription - buy prandin 2mg generic order generic jardiance 10mg

semaglutide buy online - buy generic glucovance desmopressin over the counter

terbinafine online order - order fluconazole 100mg without prescription order grifulvin v

buy nizoral 200 mg generic - order itraconazole for sale cost sporanox 100 mg

buy famciclovir pills for sale - buy acyclovir 400mg generic valaciclovir 1000mg pill

digoxin online order - order calan pill lasix pills

medication to stop heart attack - buy nifedipine 30mg for sale adalat 30mg tablet

buy microzide 25 mg pill - norvasc 5mg over the counter bisoprolol 10mg price

buy nitroglycerin generic - valsartan 80mg generic valsartan sale

simvastatin boy - simvastatin short atorvastatin self

rosuvastatin pills misery - pravastatin online catch caduet buy dozen

asthma treatment clue - inhalers for asthma hold inhalers for asthma common

acne medication sprawl - acne medication deny acne medication machine

prostatitis pills salt - prostatitis pills under prostatitis medications dawn

uti antibiotics remember - uti treatment owl uti antibiotics gang