17 Reader Responses

1. Citizen Candy Cane Says:
   May 15th, 2006 at 6:29 pm

   Well, there was this poll putting Bush at 29% and he’s loosing the support of pot-bellied conservatives. Despite the fact that Bush has cut spending on additional border securtity in the past, and has streched the national guard thin, it will help him boost his image and maybe bring his approval number back up to 33%.
   Heck, even Madonna had this to say

   Bush badly needed to stop the erosion, which was now eating into support from his core conservative, Republican constituency. But even if he succeeds in that, a substantial rebound may be a longshot.

   What’s really going on somebody? Good question indeed for an occult investigator!–
   Part 2
   The almighty dictionary says Occult means
   1.Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
   2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
   3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious.
   4. Hidden from view; concealed.
   My guess is definition #1.
   ever see the movie Dusk to Dawn? well I have a feel some metaphysical vampires are smuggling themselves inside the bodies of Mexicans and they want to turn America into a gigantic Vampire Castle, but I could be wrong.

2. alistair Says:
   May 15th, 2006 at 7:37 pm

   6000 troops isn`t a massive troop build-up. unless they`re in one spot they won`t even be noticed. it`s a political manoever in all likelyhood. it won`t even run the risk of being a deterent.

3. M5 Says:
   May 15th, 2006 at 8:40 pm

   2006… 6000 troops. It’s the year of the Beast man, c’mon get with it.
   Like the 7 seconds (or was it minutes) fiasco while he was reading “the pet goat”
   to those cute little kids in Florida on the morning of 9-11…
   Yes I’m a afraid the next 6 or 7 years have been planned out for all of us
   to a T (or is that a t)…

4. channel null Says:
   May 15th, 2006 at 11:31 pm

   I’ve been thinking about this all day, this is a really unexpected move by Bush. I mean, come on, his empire practically runs on low-wage immigrant labor and needs the profits from drug money. Not only that, he’s a committed globalist; most of his advisors get wet over the idea of populations (i.e., “human capital”) migrating hundreds of miles for a single goddamn under-the-table below-minimum-wage paycheck. And while I would chalk it up to a political move on one hand to try and gain support from a strong base, while torpedoing any chance with the Hispanic population, I have another reading.

   What if we’re seeing the Terrordome starting to rise? What if they’re building up the Terrorscape. 6000 troops along a few hundred miles is a joke, for sure, even if they catch every fourth border hopper. The “Go zone,” Mr. Wilson tells us, is all about the appearance of safety while the planet embraces chaos–and appearance of safety means just that. But do cops standing on the subway stop bombs? I’ve heard people complain about the lack of police prescence on subway lines–those of us who are likely to complain about the increased prescence know “to keep a secret.” What the cops do for the remaining members of the privileged classes feel safe, these border guards do for the conscious of a few fat racists. While the smoke darkens the horizon.

   As something of an aside, I sort of believe the border ought to be policed, but only to curtail the flow of heroin and coke ( which ought to be regulated, not illegal) and to reduce the number of workers who are driving down wages by working for ultra-low pay; I’ve seen a guy take $200 for forty hours of carpentry. That’s worth three times as much if you’ve got a social security card, and rightly so…. but my solution for that would be to periodically grant everyone amnesty. Not illegal, can’t be paid illegal dirt-wages quite as easily anymore.

5. alistair Says:
   May 16th, 2006 at 12:08 am

   is chaos the plan, or is it just the natural byproduct of administrative cluster-fucking? bush is merely representitive of one side of the tax/spend coin. the democrats produce just as much red tape in thier evengelical zeal to robin-hood the shit out of the economy. a technocrat is a technocrat regardless of thier political dogma.
   bush is an easy cartoon to draw. mrs.clinton is a similar species in a different guise. in some ways i hope s/he is elected next. i would be interested in what david icke thinks about her and what her skills are in the game of risk(tm) that is being played in the world.

6. albion Says:
   May 16th, 2006 at 2:12 am

   desperate and pathetic pandering by a loser on the ropes. even stupider than the hundred dollar gas rebate. still, it’s not a good precedent.

7. JP Says:
   May 16th, 2006 at 10:39 am

   i think the xenophobe rhetoric surrounding all of this is hilarious, b/c when looked at with even the slightest modicum of objectivity, it shows just how freakin’ terrified so many people are. this guy on npr yesterday was saying how we need to ‘protect the borders by any means necessary,’ including building a giant wall along the whole thing. he came across as this deep-voiced he-man patriot, but you could really feel how afraid he was. perfect garmonbozia for the archons and their servants.

   overall tho’, i think yeah, it has lots to do with bushco’s dropping popularity and his need for a ‘war’ on ‘american soil.’ the only thing about this that still creeps me out is the whole halliburton detention centers aspect, since they’ve admitted that they’re being built in case of some kind of ‘immigrant emergency.’

8. fantastic planet » Border Guard-monbozia Says:
   May 16th, 2006 at 11:08 am

   […] Mixed up in the xenophobic rhetoric surrounding the news that we’ll be sending National Guard troops to the border with Mexico is an incredible undercurrent of abject, quivering fear. A quick scan of the xenophobisphere reveals an overwhelming number of individuals from both sides of the politcal coin who want to build walls along the border. Obviously, the rhetoric is strongest from the “right,” especially among the weirdo xenophobe pundit set– Michelle Malkin, Lou Dobbs on CNN, etc. But reading this stuff, no matter how patriotic and chest-thumping it sounds, I can’t help but notice that the xenophobes are really big fat chickenshits. They’re making up these weird fantasies of persecution about a fictional “reconquista” — they *actually seriously consider Mexican occupation of the American Southwest a threat.* Some guy on NPR yesterday was talking about how we need to “secure our borders by any means necessary” so that someone can’t sneak across with a nuclear weapon (never mind that the only time a terrorist has tried to cross a border with evil intentions, it was the Canadian border, and he was caught). […]

9. Gnomely Says:
   May 16th, 2006 at 12:15 pm

   I strongly disagree with Alistair about drawing cartoons. Now, I am not sure if he is a supporter of Stephen Harper, who is a cartoon action hero himself, but he is also nothing more than a lap-dog for the American military. Canada is going to become a fascist nation just like the USA http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3438/1/32/

   As far as the Democrats go- they are more humane and competent than the Republican party. Sorry, but my rich uncle doesn’t need any more tax cuts (so he can buy some expensive wigs)- but I’m sure my Uncle could benefit from increased funding in cancer research or increased environmental regulation so he doesn’t die from acid rain. Anyways, hispanics are going to vote for Democrats in droves come next election. And I say Non Perche!

10. MJ Says:
    May 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Now, I know this seems like a scary deal, and in many ways it is. But, I’m not ready to buy into the conspiracy side, sorry guys I’m still working my way up the chain. This is strictly a show of power from Bush. The man is desparate not to get hit again on his watch, if we do then everything he has done and the war in Iraq will have been for not. He’ll be impeached and his regime will be ripped out of office faster than the blink of an eye. Of course, the President should do everything in his power to protect us from terrorism, within reason. We can see his frantic and misguided view of the subject by his ready sacrificing of our civil liberties.

    The state residents and governors are very hostile to this move. None seem to agree that this is the right move. And, it probably isn’t. But, as we’ve seen time and time again that this President doesn’t have any right moves. After the speech last night NPR had a response from the ultra-facist Minute Men who called this move nothing but “smoke and mirrors” which it is. This is the only way the President can try to look like he’s doing something. It’s an intimidation technique to would be crossers, workers and terrorists alike. If, no, when we get hit again I have no doubt that the suspect will be traced to having crossed the southern boarder. Yes, this is nothing but an idiot trying to cover his ass, so to say. Cheers.

11. Tim Boucher Says:
    May 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    If, no, when we get hit again I have no doubt that the suspect will be traced to having crossed the southern boarder.

    Sounds like conspiracy theory to me!

    As far as terrorism goes, the president only briefly seems to have mentioned that word twice in his speech:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/wash...038;ex=1147924800&pagewanted=all

    His really relevant mention of it is “The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.”

    So the idea that he’s sending Guard troops to the border to protect us against strictly terrorism seems to be a reading into the situation beyond what he explicitly stated. But if it’s not entirely overt, then it seems definitely intentional.

    The power of the “terrorist threat” seems to be fading in the minds of most Americans. You can only keep people scared of one thing for so long before they become accustomed to it and bored. So you invent a new overwhelming threat which is suddenly our nation’s “top priority” even though its been around for decades without so much as a peep about it.

    Smart move for them though, because the immigrant threat makes use of the same tribal/race hot buttons as the terrorist threat: racial differences, an apparent threat to security and economic well-being, the fact that these people “lurk among us”. It’s all very convenient. And whether you want to call it a conspiracy, it seems obvious that its been manufactured and steered from the start towards some specific ends.

    What ends? Bush himself mentioned some interesting ones about “detention centers”

    For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable and we will end it.

    We’re taking several important steps to meet this goal. We’ve have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more.

    Detention centers? Troops being deployed on the border to stop people from doing *what* again? Whether or not its a “conspiracy” is a matter of semantics. SOMETHING is going on here.

12. alistair Says:
    May 16th, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    gnomely, harper isn`t so much a cartoon as a wax doll, but i guess that`s really a distinction without a difference. i`m not a political animal at all. i find it tiresome. though these people do tend to be caricatures of humans stretched out into uber-doers that we have been convinced are able to actually effect change. bureaucrats create chaos by thier will to control. it`s thier only product. if you think i`m wrong, just wait. never in the history of societies have we been able to get successfully out of our own way. why is this one any different?

13. Jennifer Emick Says:
    May 16th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    My husband works at a large port; he and the other managers been ordered to appear at a “Homeland Security meeting” to turn over all of their employment records to the government. everyone who works at the port will now have their names, addresses, social security numbers, etc., in a database.

14. Jennifer Emick Says:
    May 16th, 2006 at 7:16 pm

    The machine guns are no fun (we used to have to pass them just to get home- stationed just a few blocks from our door!), and i expect we’ll see more of that. I imagine they’ll also have a use for their shiny new domestic detention centers.

15. alistair Says:
    May 17th, 2006 at 4:54 am

    it is interesting that a citizen would be afraid of a man with a gun who has sworn allegence to the flag and to protect him. i would be comforted to know that people from my community are armed and trained to protect me on the way to work. i travelled in mexico in the nineties and there were armed guards at the resorts because there were threats of terrorists or freedom fighters or insergents or something going on that they felt could effect the safety of the flow of american dollars into thier community. so they had a miniature g.i. with an mp5 on each bus and at each checkpoint at the places we visited. and at the airports now that i recollect. it didn`t bother me. i wasn`t carrying anything i shouldn`t have. though one guy got a little panicky when i walked too close to thier group at customs. i guess a big grinning white guy with a peeling tan is a threat to a pack of five foot tall incas with machine guns after all. i just wanted to know where the bathroom was.

16. slomo Says:
    May 17th, 2006 at 10:35 am

    it is interesting that a citizen would be afraid of a man with a gun who has sworn allegence to the flag and to protect him. i would be comforted to know that people from my community are armed and trained to protect me on the way to work.

    You might not feel the same way if you happened to look like Jean Charles de Menezes.

17. Jennifer Emick Says:
    May 17th, 2006 at 11:25 am

    it is interesting that a citizen would be afraid of a man with a gun who has sworn allegence to the flag and to protect him.flag is meaningless- and I guarantee that the man with the gun is going to follow orders, whether they are to ‘protect you” or to shoot you. You really trust an eighteen year old who has probably never read the Constitution to uphold it, or to follow oiders and receive his next paycheck? (Check out Abu Ghraib if you’re not sure)

    When they put armed patriot soldiers outside the ghettos of Warsaw they told them they were for their “protection.”

    The soldiers who blocked my way in and out of my home after 9-11 were not here to protect me- they were there to guard the military installment next door and would have shot me on site if they perceived me as a threat.

    Putting soldiers to work ‘protecting’ anything on a long term basis has never ended well, as history teaches us again and again. When armed soldiers turn up to ‘protect’ you, god help you.