[Vision2020] responding to Neo-Confederates

rodney johnson rodneyjohnsoniii@hotmail.com
Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:58:20 +0000


<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>Bill London provided a link to the new and improved Quinlan/Ramsey piece.&nbsp;&nbsp;I read through the “second revision” and noticed only some minor changes — mainly that their embarrassing spelling errors have now been corrected, they finally got the names right, and some of the more libelous lines have been altered.&nbsp;&nbsp;I think there are a couple of real stories in this.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, how many academic reviews by professional historians — the ones really worth their salt — need a revised edition published to correct their errors within a month of the original publication?&nbsp;&nbsp;Second, why does the website to which it is posted (Diversity and Human Rights) have a redesigned presentation, with a newly-issued statement (disclaimer), to present the Quinlan/Ramsey piece in a more objective manner?&nbsp;&nbsp;The answer is because it would have been really, really embarrassing for an “Office of Diversity and H!
 uman Rights” to be&nbsp;potentially liable for a civil rights violation under 42 USC 1983. </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>But let’s face it.&nbsp;&nbsp;Any Vision 20/20 archivist can verify that this whole controversy was going on way before any juicy morsels were Googled up to be gobbled up by the “slavery” connect-the-dotters.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am sure that Joann Muneta had been patiently salivating for a long, long time for just the right moment, the just-right mixture of timing, events, temperature, chemistry, and missing ingredients, to launch her cause celebre, her historic display of “tolerant” intolerance.&nbsp;&nbsp;Or is it “intolerant” tolerance?&nbsp;&nbsp;(I’m still having trouble with “diverse” uniformity vs. “uniform” diversity.)&nbsp;&nbsp;In any event, we are progressing as a community.&nbsp;&nbsp;We are broadening our outlook.&nbsp;&nbsp;We started with NIMBY, and have expanded to NIOT.&nbsp;&nbsp;Our backyards were never big enough for us; now we want them out of “our town.”&nbsp;&nbsp;That’s right, it’s <EM>OURS!</EM></DIV>
<P>I think the most “threatening” and “controversial” and “divisive” and “presumptuous” thing that the CC/NSA folks ever did, and I mean, this had to be the icing on the cake!—was to purchase the old Verizon building.&nbsp;&nbsp;How <EM>dare</EM> they?! [gasping]&nbsp;&nbsp;Without <EM>our</EM> permission?! [feeling light-headed]&nbsp;&nbsp;How <EM>could</EM> they?! [nearly fainting…]&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, my … my… [teacup and saucer with crumpets shatter as they hit floor]&nbsp;&nbsp;If there was ever a local piece of secularly hallowed ground, if there was ever a focal point&nbsp;for all progressive movements in Moscow, it would have to be the sacred Friendship Square.&nbsp;&nbsp;For Moscow’s liberal establishment to be unable to visit <EM>THEIR</EM> Farmer’s Market on a Saturday morning without having to pass by even the shadow of <EM>THEM</EM> must be pure torture.&nbsp;&nbsp;Talk about casting your cruelty-free oyster products before swine! </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Yes, there is a left-wing clique in Moscow that thinks they own the place.&nbsp;&nbsp;And if there is ever the slightest hint that their Maypole of Hegemony might be threatened, well then, well, I mean you may think you’ve heard a squeaky wheel or two in your time, son, but you ain’t ever heard nothin’ prepare you fore what you ‘bout to hear now! </P>
<P>And while he's more of&nbsp;a broken record than a squeaky wheel, Tom Hansen is definitely not the only one with a Screw “Loose on the Palouse!” </P>
<DIV>- Rod Johnson</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2737??PS=">It’s our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it now! </a> </html>