"Israeli Raid: Statist Logic to its Deadly Extreme"

[algernonsidney]

http://c4ss.org/content/2680?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+c4ss+%28Center+for+a+Stateless+Society%29

The Israeli government faces condemnation for its attack on a flotilla of ships carrying relief supplies to Gaza. Its excuses for the nighttime airborne assault show what the logic of state superiority looks like when taken to its deadly extreme. Supposedly the raid had to be done, because the flotilla challenged Israel’s control of Gaza. When a mindset is adopted that the state must control everything within a certain area, then anything the state does not have a hand in is seen as a threat. But transporting medical supplies and “luxuries” like toys and unapproved foods really only threatens a government’s control.

Essentially, the activists on the ships were attacking Israel’s concept of the border by transporting supplies in violation of the rules made by those who drew the boundaries with force. Believing that a border must be defended from those who peaceably defy it leads to attacks on human beings. The preservation of power comes before the preservation of human life.

One can see parallels in United States border politics. Immigrants from a certain demographic are thought of as less-worthy humans and blamed for the harm that the ruling class has done. Those apprehended by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement are regularly treated worse than actual criminals. New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee and The Nation reporter Jacqueline Stevens have described routine abuse and secretive detention centers used to punish those who infringe on a statist concept.

Israeli officials have whined about a heavily armed boarding party getting struck with bludgeons and sharp objects. The ships’ crews and passengers had every right to repel boarders from their ships — even if they had used firearms, which there is no evidence of anyone on board possessing. And even if Israeli forces did not begin shooting before landing on the ships, as some allege.

The concepts of sovereignty and authority mean that some people are assigned higher worth than others. The king’s men may assault you, and resisting them automatically legitimizes any violence done against you, including the violence against you that began the exchange. It is like when cops batter and cage an individual for pushing them back, or shoot a person during a drug raid.

As Roderick Long notes in his aaeblog.com post The Logick of Kings: “The Israeli government explains that it had to kill innocent people because they defended themselves when attacked.”

Israeli officials have told the media that weapons had been found aboard the ships. Maybe they should present evidence of these weapons, unless we’re just to assume that the pipes and sharp pieces of metal used to defend against the raiders represent a significant threat to the Israeli military. Of course, since the ships are under control of the Israeli government, it probably wouldn’t be too hard for some government agents to plant a few crates of weapons on board.

Israeli forces, unlike the Free Gaza flotilla, are thoroughly equipped with the latest in military hardware. We are not supposed to question the massive amount of military aid the United States Government gives to the Israeli government, because it’s not considered criminal when certain armed gangs attack civilians to keep control of their turf.

One obvious bit of statist logic in the attempts to justify the Israeli attack is the “with us or against us” mindset. If you are not assisting the state expand its power, then you are an enemy, and you will be equated with all of the state’s rivals, whether they be Stalinists or Hamas. Those who acted against the interests of Israel’s ruling policy are automatically assigned to the same category as terrorists who fire rockets into cities.

The logic of the state is the logic of control. When we look for consistency, we find only attempts to institute total control. The antithesis of the state is the true liberty, equality, and solidarity advocated by anarchists.

[anthony]

Chris,

I'm right behind you in loathing of any form of Statism.

Israel is predominantly Socialist, but with a healthy and largely unhindered economy.

In fact, it is just one more mixed economy amongst scores; So why use this one occurence?

In trying to illustrate your point of government interference, I believe you have over-reached.

Can you not presume the simplest explanation here?

That what happened in the Med, was another case of fear and paranoia, initiated by some idealistic glory-seekers and head-line hunters who should not have been there in the first place? All finished off by human error.

This was imo, a "face-off", at a checkpoint, though this one was at sea. Checkpoints are dangerous and delicate places to be (I've been through some), and with trigger-happy soldiers around, one knows better than to be aggressive.

The initial action in dropping one Navy Seal on board was stupidly casual by the Israelis - however, doesn't this indicate their innocent motives?

There are a few details you neglected: that Israel had offered to convey the aid cargo themselves; that the ship had been warned off several times; that they have published a photo of a pile of clubs and "sharp pieces of metal"(kitchen knives) found on board... without any "crates of weapons" planted among them, as you suggest.

From the start, the Free Gaza Movement, seemingly invited public confrontation with the IDF, so naturally they would not carry any incriminating guns, etc.

Then, it went tragically out of control, and escalated beyond their own expectations. (I'm guessing from the evidence this far.)

I am not an automatic apologist for Israel - in fact I tend to hold her to the highest standards, and be critical when she falls short - but using this one nation (and single stupid tragedy) as a whipping boy for all Statism, is ridiculous and unjust.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

That flotilla that Israel stopped was engaged in a de facto act of war. Israel had the right and moral duty to protect itself and its citizens. The mistake was sending soldiers aboard armed with paintball guns instead of automatic weapons. If that had happened the nine dead could easily be still alive.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

Tony,

First of all, I am sorry I did not make this more clear. I AM NOT THE AUTHOR of the article. I am merely posting it here. I certainly do endorse just about everything in the article.

In fact, it is just one more mixed economy amongst scores; So why use this one occurence?

That is mainly because it is one that a lot of people are talking about.

In trying to illustrate your point of government interference, I believe you have over-reached.

It seems to me that private individuals were simply engaging in a charity mission benefitting other private individuals.

That what happened in the Med, was another case of fear and paranoia, initiated by some idealistic glory-seekers and head-line hunters who should not have been there in the first place? All finished off by human error.

I agree.

This was imo, a "face-off", at a checkpoint, though this one was at sea. Checkpoints are dangerous and delicate places to be (I've been through some), and with trigger-happy soldiers around, one knows better than to be aggressive.

Do you have a right to set up a checkpoint so you can "check" other people? What gives anybody such a right?

[syrakusos]

This is one anarchist who is not in solidarity with the comrades of true equality.

1. The ships were manned by martyrs seeking a deadly confrontation of their own making.

2. There are known and working mechanisms for importing and exporting to and from Gaza and the West Bank.

3. The misery of the Palestinians is as much the doing (or not doing) of the frontline Arab states. A billion in oil money would do wonders. However, the Palestinians have few friends. One wonders why.

4. If I were to stand in Detroit and fire a rocket across the river into Windsor, the United States governmment would have no problem finding me and prosecuting me. The Palestinian Authority is not so assiduous in similar situations.

5. I advocate for a full peacemaking solution to the problem of self-defined Jewish society within the geographies of Palestine, Transjordan, Gaza, and Sinai. ... and Shanghai and Shaker Heights.... But the problem is complicated on many levels with many aspects within many dimensions. Perhaps we can discuss it.

In this case, given that Israel has overwhelming force including submarines, why did they board the ships? Why not just sink them? The reason why is that Israel's intention was to redirect the ships to known facilities at Haifa. The martyr brigade sought to prevent that.

[Brant Gaede]

When the real world collides with the fantasy of an ideal world, guess which will be the last man standing. It is true that 90% of Israel's problems come from the fact that they turned the Palestinians over to Arafat which in turn led to the even more ruthless Hamas. But aside from a big bomb destroying its major city, Israel will only be destroyed by demographics as Jews get out-bred. I don't see how the essential viciousness of the socialist-Israeli model will ever be broken. Too many Jews are mush-headed liberals who can't stop voting for Democrats to save their lives and the European economic model which Jews took to Israel is just as immutable it would seem.

--Brant

WWIII started 30 years ago when Iran seized the US embassy and Iraq attacked Iran. Sadat correctly stated it was the first of the oil wars. The overall situation has continued to generally deteriorate. It's going to get worse.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about the Hamas logic?

Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel

By the CNN Wire Staff

June 2, 2010

From the article:

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

If there is a philosophical objection to Israel setting a border and not allowing humanitarian aid to get through to Gaza, then surely there must be the same objection to Hamas setting a border with the same result.

I'm just sayin'...

Michael

[anthony]

How about the Hamas logic?

Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel

By the CNN Wire Staff

June 2, 2010

From the article:

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

If there is a philosophical objection to Israel setting a border and not allowing humanitarian aid to get through to Gaza, then surely there must be the same objection to Hamas setting a border with the same result.

I'm just sayin'...

Michael

Michael, yes.

Who is in a state of seige here? Both countries, perhaps.

Sometimes the whole scenario is reminiscent of fortified cities in the Middle Ages being besieged by an enemy army for years, with the besiegers not gaining an inch, and the besieged living quite comfortably, just waiting for them to give up and go away. B)

After a while, it's hard to tell who is the greater captive of the two in this symbiotic relationship ... and that about sums up the attitude of many Israelis that I've listened to.

Tony

[sbeaulieu]

I'm unable to view this from work, so maybe this can be viewed by some members to see what they make of it. Given the sensitivities of the global community, Israelis might have done the one smart thing to fight against any ambiguity of what went on aboard the Mavi Marmara - record the engagement?

Stun Grenade Thrown at Soldiers - Video Evidence?

I had read yesterday that there were suspected terrorists aboard the flotillas. I would have done the same thing, not yield ground (or water) until absolutely certain all cargo aboard had been cleared. Our Coast Guard does the same thing when patrolling waters known as avenues for transporting drugs. What would the difference be for Israel trying to protect its territories?

~ Shane

Edited June 2, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[BaalChatzaf]

It is all very simple. No contraband to the Hamas Rocketeers. Period.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Greybird]

[...] I am sorry I did not make this more clear. I AM NOT THE AUTHOR of the article. I am merely posting it here. I certainly do endorse just about everything in the article.

I'm surprised and gratified that you had the courage — or chutzpah, language irony intended — to post such a statement of truth amidst the countless Israeli apologists on this site.

[...] If there is a philosophical objection to Israel setting a border and not allowing humanitarian aid to get through to Gaza, then surely there must be the same objection to Hamas setting a border with the same result.

That's the whole point of the posted article. Both such strictures are artificial, arbitrary, and constructs of statist "logic."

[Brant Gaede]

[...] I am sorry I did not make this more clear. I AM NOT THE AUTHOR of the article. I am merely posting it here. I certainly do endorse just about everything in the article.

I'm surprised and gratified that you had the courage — or chutzpah, language irony intended — to post such a statement of truth amidst the countless Israeli apologists on this site.

[...] If there is a philosophical objection to Israel setting a border and not allowing humanitarian aid to get through to Gaza, then surely there must be the same objection to Hamas setting a border with the same result.

That's the whole point of the posted article. Both such strictures are artificial, arbitrary, and constructs of statist "logic."

It's a good thing Cuba wasn't inhabited by Palestinians in 1962 and the United States threw up a naval blockade supporters of which might be described as "countless" US "apologists."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[...] If there is a philosophical objection to Israel setting a border and not allowing humanitarian aid to get through to Gaza, then surely there must be the same objection to Hamas setting a border with the same result.

That's the whole point of the posted article. Both such strictures are artificial, arbitrary, and constructs of statist "logic."

Steve,

Funny how I missed the part claiming this about Hamas in the article.

I saw things like "Israeli officials have whined...", "The Israeli government explains that it had to kill innocent people...", and (referring to the Israeli government) "...it’s not considered criminal when certain armed gangs attack civilians...".

Could you show me a quote where this author objects to the same practices he objects to, but this time ones performed by Hamas? Or does he only object to statism when it is practiced by Israel and the USA?

I certainly didn't get the "whole point" you mentioned from the words. I got a different point altogether. I don't know this author's work, but the slant of his article gives me a clear impression that he is anti-USA and antisemitic. That's the main point I got.

To get the "whole point" in your meaning, the article would have to be fair and balanced in who it criticizes. But fair and balanced it ain't.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is the following a clash between "statists"?

Or are the inspiring and manly, noble and brave, freedom fighters, the "innocent people" (according the the article), on the Free Gaza fotilla merely conscientious objectors?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd-W4vLdN0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd-W4vLdN0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd-W4vLdN0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

[Greybird]

That's the whole point of the posted article. Both such strictures are artificial, arbitrary, and constructs of statist "logic."

Funny how I missed the part claiming this about Hamas in the article. [...]

Are you capable of bringing your attention to a principle when it's put in front of you?

No, Hamas was not among the examples that particular author brought to bear. A broader principle was outlined, against the assertions of all governments. It is applicable here, and I chose to apply it.

To get the "whole point" in your meaning, the article would have to be fair and balanced in who it criticizes. But fair and balanced it ain't.

Why would it have to be "fair and balanced"? It's an analysis and commentary. What is unfair, and the murderous essence of this case, is force being wielded for upholding arbitrary boundaries of States, or (here) their asserted additional territory. Force evicts one from the confines of a rational argument. Ever heard Rand's aphorisms on this topic? Do I actually need to quote them here?

The Israeli government has no right to assert this for the people of Gaza — or its own, against their individual consent. Nor does Hamas. For Brant's case of Cuba, the U.S. government had no right to assert such a blockade in 1962. And as for the article's examples, the same U.S. government has no right to do so with respect to private property owners now, at or away from its own asserted borders.

[...] the slant of his article gives me a clear impression that he is anti-USA and anti-Semitic.

It is neither. It inveighs against both the Israeli and U.S. governments. Which has nothing to do with those living here or there, apart from those actively abetting or working for those governments.

I referred above to this site's Israeli apologists — who routinely, and illegitimately, equate criticism of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism, as you have here — and they report to this thread, right on schedule. I should stop being surprised.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Greybird

[anthony]

Well, sure, a blockade is a form of force. Similar, if not equivalent to, to economic sanctions.

Does one oppose the implementation of sanctions on a 'rogue' State?

I lived in South Africa during the period of sanctions here, and must say they were partially the cause of bringing down the apartheid regime - not at all because we ran short of goods and produce, but because of the psychological effect of being seen as moral pariahs to the world.

The often unspoken reason for imposing sanctions, or a blockade, is the 'punishment factor'. Also, the blackmail factor.

The threat is explicit: step into line, or else.

Central, here, is does a group of nations have the right to unite in boycott against a single country and refuse to do business with it? Does one nation have the right to control what enters and leaves its neighbour's borders, when the two are at some level of conflict?

Is this legitimate, and principled, use of force? Is it effective?

What, in fact, are the principles?

I do not approve of Israel punishing Gaza as a reprisal for past 'misdemeanours' - and I believe there is an element of that. But self-defence is their primary concern. To state the obvious.

Tony

(an Israel unapologist)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you capable of bringing your attention to a principle when it's put in front of you?

Steve,

As a matter of fact I am capable of bringing my attention to a principle.

Are you capable of recognizing patterns? Like when the concretes used to illustrate a principle are presented in a bigoted manner?

I am capable of that, too. Maybe you have difficulty?

No, Hamas was not among the examples that particular author brought to bear. A broader principle was outlined, against the assertions of all governments. It is applicable here, and I chose to apply it.

Right. Funny how this "broader principle" always gets lopsided examples.

Sorry, but "broader principles" to me have to be broad for real, not disguised bigotry and USA-bashing.

What is unfair, and the murderous essence of this case, is force being wielded for upholding arbitrary boundaries of States, or (here) their asserted additional territory. Force evicts one from the confines of a rational argument. Ever heard Rand's aphorisms on this topic? Do I actually need to quote them here?

The Israeli government has no right to assert this for the people of Gaza — or its own, against their individual consent. Nor does Hamas. For Brant's case of Cuba, the U.S. government had no right to assert such a blockade in 1962. And as for the article's examples, the same U.S. government has no right to do so with respect to private property owners now, at or away from its own asserted borders.

I have no common ground with this kind of discourse. I support a constitutional republic as social organization, not anarchism. As to "Rand's aphorisms," I don't know what you have in mind (maybe that part about assigning a monopoly on the use of force to the government? -- nah... I doubt it...), but I recall that she loathed anarchists. Loathed them. (I don't, but that's beside the point.) I can actually cite chapter and verse. "Do I actually need to...?" (yada yada yada)

It is neither. It inveighs against both the Israeli and U.S. governments.

Which is exactly my point. Not the Hamas government.

I read a message in that kind of selectivity within the context of this affair. And it stinks.

I referred above to this site's Israeli apologists — who routinely, and illegitimately, equate criticism of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism, as you have here — and they report to this thread, right on schedule. I should stop being surprised.

Here's some unsolicited advice. If you stop looking down your snooty nose at everybody and actually read what they write, you will see that this last part you wrote is a load of crap.

Maybe you should take a look at an OL member called Adonis and my attitude towards him, even as he bashes Israel. Of course, I am acting on a "broader principle." And to be frank, I'm not sure you know what that principle is.

Go on... Keep getting personal...

I assure you I can get just as nasty as you can.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Well, sure, a blockade is a form of force. Similar, if not equivalent to, to economic sanctions.

Does one oppose the implementation of sanctions on a 'rogue' State?

I lived in South Africa during the period of sanctions here, and must say they were partially the cause of bringing down the apartheid regime - not at all because we ran short of goods and produce, but because of the psychological effect of being seen as moral pariahs to the world.

The often unspoken reason for imposing sanctions, or a blockade, is the 'punishment factor'. Also, the blackmail factor.

The threat is explicit: step into line, or else.

Central, here, is does a group of nations have the right to unite in boycott against a single country and refuse to do business with it? Does one nation have the right to control what enters and leaves its neighbour's borders, when the two are at some level of conflict?

Is this legitimate, and principled, use of force? Is it effective?

What, in fact, are the principles?

I do not approve of Israel punishing Gaza as a reprisal for past 'misdemeanours' - and I believe there is an element of that. But self-defence is their primary concern. To state the obvious.

Tony

(an Israel unapologist)

"Central, here, is does a group of nations have the right to unite in boycott against a single country and refuse to do business with it? Does one nation have the right to control what enters and leaves its neighbour's borders, when the two are at some level of conflict?

Is this legitimate, and principled, use of force? Is it effective?

What, in fact, are the principles?"

No state has any rights whatever. Only individuals - the victims of states - have rights.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

"Central, here, is does a group of nations have the right to unite in boycott against a single country and refuse to do business with it? Does one nation have the right to control what enters and leaves its neighbour's borders, when the two are at some level of conflict?

Is this legitimate, and principled, use of force? Is it effective?

What, in fact, are the principles?"

No state has any rights whatever. Only individuals - the victims of states - have rights.

JR

Then no state has a right to exist as such. But they do exist and they do act. In the context of clashing states what is our proper conduct as individuals except to be refugees and victims generally? The world is a cesspool of statism. Take this latest incident. If I were a Jew living in Israel would I have the moral right to get in my boat with a great big cannon and go out and sink the oncoming flotilla which bottom line is a statist enterprise threatening my life and freedom?

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

Sorry, but "broader principles" to me have to be broad for real, not disguised bigotry and USA-bashing.

If there's one phrase I'm really sick to death of hearing, its "USA-bashing" or "America-hating" or their equivalents. Steve was not bashing the USA. He was bashing the US government. Just to restate it for about the 1000th time, the US government is not the country of the United States, which consists of about 300,000,000 people. The US government is merely the band of criminals and thugs that just happens to rule the place. This idea of equating the ruling thugocracy with the people over whom it rules is the ultimate essence of statism -- the idea that the state is everything, or the "liberal" idea that the people and their government are the same thing. Every time someone launches into an attack on some criminal act perpetrated by the US government, someone like you will immediately accuse them of being anti-American, as though hating the criminal acts of the US government is somehow the same thing as hating the country itself. A very convenient idea for the ruling elite to deflect criticism of itself.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Martin,

I happen to be aware of everything you said. And I have been aware of it for years.

(Talk about being sick of hearing the same old thing all the time...)

I still stand by every word I said.

Once you guys start bashing governments other than the USA and Israel, I, for one, might start paying attention.

Until then, I hear you. But I hear the WHOLE message, not just the part you want me to hear...

(btw - I never claimed Steve was bashing anything. That was the article. I claimed he was being nasty--essentially bashing those who disagree with him. So I returned the favor.)

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Martin,

I happen to be aware of everything you said. And I have been aware of it for years.

(Talk about being sick of hearing the same old thing all the time...)

I still stand by every word I said.

Once you guys start bashing governments other than the USA and Israel, I, for one, might start paying attention.

Until then, I hear you. But I hear the WHOLE message, not just the part you want me to hear...

Michael

Michael,

I don't know what you think the whole message is. If you think that spending most of one's time bashing the US government rather than other governments around the world somehow implies approval of or even preference for these other governments, you're completely misunderstanding the message. As for me, I happen to loathe every single government in existence, although clearly some more than others. There are several reasons I spend so much time attacking the US government while ignoring the depradations of other governments, none of which has anything to do with my approval of any other government. The following are several of these reasons:

1) I happen to live under the dominion of the US government. Therefore, my life is hugely affected by what it does. An enormous percentage of my income is confiscated in taxes to pay for the US government, which uses the money to commit attrocities both here and around the world to which I am utterly opposed.

2) The US government is the dominant power in the world today, controlling an empire of hundreds of military bases around the world and thousands of nuclear warheads, enough to incinerate pretty much the entire world. Since the end of WW2, the US government has been pursuing a policy of trying to establish global hegemony, and it has taken many steps especially since 9/11 to turn the United States into a police state. This has a far greater impact on my life than anything that the government of Iran happens to do.

3) It is really not necessary to frequently express my opposition to the government of Iran or other totalitarian governments, since everyone hates the government of Iran and noone tries to defend it. By contrast, a huge number of Americans, including many objectivists, are constantly defending the US government's criminal actions. The same holds true of the government of Israel, which has many staunch defenders among objectivists, despite its history of criminal behavior.

In any case, none of this is relevant to my original point, which is that it is totally misleading to equate attacks on the US government with attacks on the United States as a society. If you accuse someone of anti-Americanism, the burden of proof is on you to back this up with evidence that they hate the United States as a society. That they may hate the US government is no proof whatever of this. And neither are attacks on the government of Israel proof of antisemitism.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Martin,

What is "America" to you?

A piece of real estate? People who happen to be on that piece of real estate? An ideal of some sort? What?

I'm curious. Seriously.

I, for one, cannot imagine an American country without an American government, unless I am thinking in science fiction or fantasy terms or something like that. In dealing with human beings in reality and looking at human history as it has unfolded up to now, I don't see a minimum possibility of one existing without the other.

This is part of my premise for my judgments against the constant selectivity shown by anarchists when they feel like bashing.

And, no, I do not condone the crap the USA government has done, as many of my previous posts attest.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Martin,

What is "America" to you?

A piece of real estate? People who happen to be on that piece of real estate? An ideal of some sort? What?

I'm curious. Seriously.

I, for one, cannot imagine an American country without an American government, unless I am thinking in science fiction or fantasy terms or something like that. In dealing with human beings in reality and looking at human history as it has unfolded up to now, I don't see a minimum possibility of one existing without the other.

This is part of my premise for my judgments against the constant selectivity shown by anarchists when they feel like bashing.

And, no, I do not condone the crap the USA government has done, as many of my previous posts attest.

Michael

Martin, your analysis is absolutely correct in every particular. But, as you can see, you'll never get it through the thick heads of those you're attempting to communicate with.

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Does America include my thick head to you?

Or is it someplace without my thick head?

(The point being that there are a lot of us thick-heads out here in reality.)

Michael