|
|
©2001 chadsux
|
In This Edition Robert Parry reports on our national embarassment in, "W Makes Fun Of A Bald Guy." Greg Palast's spills the beans on the crime family Bush in, "Bush Family Finances: Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Mary McNamara looks forward to the future in, "Activist to Bush: Wait Till Voters Wake Up." Joe Conason shows us the republican race card in, "Social Absurdity." Gene Lyons explains the politics of, "Stem Cell Decision: A Political Action." Adam Clymer reports on the republican plans to gut Social Security in "Social Security Panel Says Cuts In Benefits Are An Option." Denis Wright and Chris George report on, "A Death In The Congressman's Office." Cheryl Seal compares "Hitler and Bush." Rush Limbaugh wins the Vidkun Quisling Award Molly Ivins keeps an eye on the Smirkster in, "That Slurping Is Bush's Raccoons At Work On Our Societal Nest Eggs." Tally Briggs shares her feelings about, "The 4th Of July" And finally in "Parting Shots" Hank Blakely searches in vain for republican decency in "Gone Missing: Police Discontinue Search For Vanished Trait" but first Uncle Ernie says it's, "The Death Of American Journalism." This week we spotlight the cartoons of Tony Auth with additional cartoons from Lisa Casey, Bush Beer.Net, Destonio, Eliphant, Rushlimbaughonline.com, Wright, Chris Whitehouse, GWBush Art, Political Strikes and Chadsux.
Plus we have all of your favorite departments! Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis." We hope you enjoy your stay! |
|
Why are you not dead? Why do you live? How can you live? Why do you not lie in the deepest hole in the sea, bloodless and bloated and at peace with honorable death?
What has happened to the reporters in this country? Why are we being treated to one side of the news and then only certain news? Most people in this country aren't aware that they are getting only a small portion of the news and then what they hear has generally been spun so often that little truth remains in what is told.
Sure there are some such as Palast and Parry who still tell it like it is but you'll notice that they no longer work for any American newspapers or magazines. They've been driven onto the net or off the continent completely in order to keep reporting the facts and the truth.
Well aren't I a journalist as well? Not hardly folks. I'm a DJ that became a novelist but I'm not even a editor except as that applies to picking and choosing what appears in this magazine. It is no doubt a very sad day for American Journalism when the likes of me have to come forward to fill the shoes of those who have been bought and payed for. Most of the writers even in magazine can no longer be called journalists because even though they report bits and pieces of the news, few have the guts to tell the full truth. Can't blame them much as they are doing what they can without crossing over that line that leads to quick unemployment. Just because I quit working my day timer to do this I cannot expect others to join me in a starvation diet or the various brushes with the "LAW" that I have encountered with this quest. If you think the blacklisting in Hollywood was a bitch you ain't seen nothing yet. Quite a few Journalist no longer have a paycheck for daring to tell the truth.
Oh yes I've had to explain some things I've written to several policemen who questioned what I've written about some powerful people, c'est la guerre! See the difference between myself and the other journalist, other than their talent, is I no longer give a rats ass about it. I'm going to keep screaming the truth and barking at the moon until they come and take me to the Stalag for a little regrooving.
Today's rant is sponsored by the death of a republican. A young goose stepper who got her head caved in a congressman's office. No it wasn't Levy. Rumor has it Chandras been staying at Tom Delays house until Condit either quits or looses the next election. Don't get me wrong I'd like to see Gary get tossed myself but not because of Levy but because he's what they used to call a Dixie Democrat. Gary was one of those holier-than-thou types who got caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Yes Gary's a whore but so are all politicians. Not a whore, sorry but you can't run for office. Gary is what Tweety Bird used to call a Hypo-twit.
NO the lady I'm referring to is Lori Klausuitis who gave her all for republican congressman Scarborough who represented the Red-neck Riviera section of Florida before he quit after her death, think OJ in the white Bronco. For all the details read the article below i.e., A Death In The Congressman's Office.
Now ask yourself why this isn't being run day and night on Fox news? Where is CNN non-stop coverage of it at. You've no doubt seen it on ABC, NBC, CBS right? Yes I know, you've heard nary a word about it, have you? Would you care to speculate why? Hmmmm could it be he's a republican? Eureka methinks you've solved it! Could it be that the corporate masters of Americas TV networks and Newspaper chains have stopped any reporting about it? Could be! Perhaps they were to busy chasing Condit's cock to have noticed? When did the American press become so interested in politicians penis' that a little thing like a murder or a Coup De' Etat became not worth reporting?
I'm sorry America but I guess your stuck with me and a few others who have the balls to tell it like it is. Forgive this poor prose but like McCoy used to say, "Damn it Jim I'm a DJ not a Journalist!"
For those of you who like a good murder mystery you might try my historical horror novel which is just starting as a serial this month at my literary site. This month we have the prolog which will set the stage for the novel. On the first of each month we'll have a new chapter and as always your critiques are more than welcomed. Set in 1702-1703 it's the story of a dashing young English lord Captain Sir James Wilson and his trusty servant Patsy who must solve the bizarre and bloody murders occurring every month on the full moon. Join Sir James and Patsy as they search old New England for, "The Red King's Horror." Just click on the banner below.
|
|
W Makes Fun of a Bald Guy By Robert Parry A presidential milestone passed almost unnoticed Friday. For the first time in the history of televised news conferences, a president of the United States made fun of a bald person. The moment arrived as the press conference in Crawford, Texas, was going poorly for George W. Bush. He had just struggled through an answer about why he had believed there were 60 stem-cell lines that could be used for finding cures to debilitating human ailments, from spinal-cord injuries to Alzheimer’s disease. Beyond the question of whether those 60 stem-cell lines actually exist for federally funded research, it now appears that most or all of those lines have been mixed with mouse cells and might be dangerous if used to develop cures for humans. The stem-cell lines were intended for only initial stages of research, though Bush's stem-cell decision of Aug. 9 now prevents untainted lines from being created for the advanced research. [Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2001] Bush, who had made his intensive personal research into the stem-cell issue a counterpoint to critics who consider him intellectually lazy, put the blame for this crucial oversight on scientists at the National Institute of Health. He said they "came into the Oval Office and they looked me right in the eye and they said, ‘We think there is ample stem cells – lines to determine whether or not this embryonic stem-cell research will be – will work or not.’" Seemingly flustered by this embarrassment to his widely lauded stem-cell decision, Bush turned to a familiar reporter who had covered him as Texas governor. In a boisterous bonhomie, Bush called the Texas reporter "a fine lad, fine lad," drawing laughter from the national press corps. The Texas reporter began to ask his question, "You talked about the need to maintain technological …" But Bush, acting like an excited party guest who couldn’t keep a funny comment inside, interrupted the reporter to deliver the punch line. "A little short on hair, but a fine lad. Yeah," Bush said, provoking a new round of laughter at the reporter's expense. The young reporter paused and acknowledged meekly, "I am losing some hair." The reporter then soldiered on with a question about whether the administration would "go forward with the V-22" warplane, a question of particular interest to the economy of Fort Worth, Texas. Bush, however, wasn’t through having fun with the young reporter, who "represents Fort Worth," Bush noted, prompting another round of knowing laughter from the national press corps.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was with Bush, joined in on the joke. "I never would have guessed," he cracked, eliciting
more laughter.
A Bush Pattern Going bald is not a matter of choice. It is caused by family genetics or illness and is a sensitive point to millions of men and women who have lost their hair for no fault of their own. But Bush seemed oblivious to the possibility of hurt feelings, like some office jokester who pokes fun at co-workers when they return from vacation a little plumper than when they left. Indeed, over the past few years, Bush has found his loose tongue a political asset as many of his supporters view it as a sign that he’s a straight-talking guy of the Rush Limbaugh mold. Ribbing the young Texas reporter for his thinning hair fits with a long pattern of Bush making others the butt of his jokes. Sometimes the comments seem playful, such as giving reporters slightly demeaning nicknames. Other times, they have a touch of malice. Early in Campaign 2000, Bush was traveling around with conservative writer Tucker Carlson, who was preparing a profile. Carlson later recounted Bush’s ridicule of convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker as she pleaded for her life. Asked about her clemency appeal, Bush mimicked what he claimed was the condemned woman’s message to him: "With pursed lips in mock desperation, [Bush said,] ‘Please don’t kill me.’" Carlson wrote in Talk magazine.
Other times, Bush makes jokes at the expense of his friends. Again early in the campaign, Bush lined up for a photo at an event in
Texas and fingered the man next to him. "He’s the ugly one!" Bush joshed. Then, spotting a reporter, Bush offered the explanation that
he was only kidding an old buddy. [NYT, Aug. 22, 1999]
Harsh Words Bush spotted Hunt having dinner at a Dallas restaurant with his wife, Judy Woodruff, and their four-year-old son. Bush stormed up to the table and started cursing out Hunt. "You [expletive] son of a bitch," Bush yelled. "I saw what you wrote. We’re not going to forget this." [Washington Post, July 25, 1999] Bush’s supporters have excused his behavior before his 40th birthday on the ground that he was often drunk. However, last year, he continued to lash out at journalists who wrote what he considered critical stories. In one of the campaign’s most memorable moments, Bush uttered an aside to his running mate Dick Cheney about New York Times reporter Adam Clymer. "There's Adam Clymer -- major league asshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said as he was waving to a campaign crowd from a stage in Naperville, Ill. "Yeah, big time," responded Cheney. Their voices were picked up on an open microphone. Bush also continued to make light of people facing the death penalty in Texas. In the second presidential debate, for instance, Bush argued that a stronger hate-crimes law was not needed in Texas because three men were facing the death penalty for the racially motivated murder of James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death behind a pickup truck. "It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they’re put to death," Bush said, with an out-of-place smile across his face.
Beyond the inaccuracy of his statement -- one of the three killers had received life imprisonment -- there was that troubling smirk again
when discussing people on Death Row.
'Politically Incorrect' In olden times, kings felt free to ridicule their subjects, who knew that any insubordination in return would be most unwelcome. Bush seems to enjoy the same one-sided delivery of put-downs. Beyond his comments, some critics even contend that Bush's clumsy use of words – his gaffes, his mispronunciations, his poor grammar – fits with a dynastic sense of entitlement toward the presidency. "Although the GOP machine has spun his elementary goofs as signs of kinship with the Common Man, they are in fact an insult to the people," writes Mark Crispin Miller in The Bush Dyslexicon. "Every bit of broken English, every flash of comfy ignorance, reminds us of a privilege blithely squandered: Bush attended Phillips Andover Academy, then Yale – olympian institutions that would never have admitted him if he were not a Bush," Miller continues. "However, he was both too limited and too secure to take full advantage of an opportunity that countless brighter, poorer folks have worked for, prayed for, and then been denied. Bush did the minimum at Yale, mainly partying and making good connections. … "Thus, in the matter of his education, this president, despite his folksy pretense, is something of an anti-Lincoln – one who, instead of learning eagerly in humble circumstances, learned almost nothing at the finest institutions in the land. "When he comments on how many hands he’s ‘shaked,’ or frets that quotas ‘vulcanize’ society, … he is, of course, flaunting not his costly education but his disdain for it – much as some feckless prince, with a crowd of beggars watching from the street, might take a few bites from the feast laid out before him, then let the servants throw the rest away." Much like this prince taunting the beggars, Bush asserts a privilege to speak condescendingly to commoners in his presence. He puts them down with little jokes that they feel they have no choice but to accept.
Yes, the young Texas reporter responded to the president of the United States, "I am losing some hair
|
|
Last week, I mailed my overseas ballot for the US presidency - and
you can wipe that smug little grin off your face. I won't put up with
condescending comments about America's democratic rituals from a
nation with an unelected House of Lords occupied by genetic fossils
and, soon, Chris Woodhead.
In fact, you could think of the $3 billion spent in the US campaign in
positive, New Labour terms. Call it 'the efficient privatisation of the
democracy' - though an outright auction for the presidency would be
more efficient still.
If the guy who lost the vote, George W Bush, nevertheless wins the
White House, he'll have surfed in on a crushing wave of nearly half a
billion dollars ($447 million), my calculation of the suffocating plurality
of cash from corporate America, a good 25 per cent more than Al
Gore's take.
George W could not have amassed this pile if his surname were Jones
or Smith. The key to Dubya's money empire is Daddy Bush's
post-White House work which, incidentally, raised the family's net
worth by several hundred per cent.
Take two packets of payments to the Republican Party, totalling
$148,000, from an outfit called Barrick Goldstrike. That's quite a
patriotic contribution from a Canadian company. They can afford it. In
1992, in the final hours of the Bush presidency, Barrick took control of
US government-owned property containing an estimated $10bn in
gold. For the whole shooting match, Barrick paid the US Treasury only
$10,000.
Barrick made deft use of an 1872 gold rush law meant to allow
pan-and-bucket prospectors to gain title to their tiny claims. In 1992,
Clinton's newly elected administration was ready to prevent Barrick's
stunning grab. But Barrick is a lucky outfit. Bush's Interior Department
expedited procedures to ram through Barrick's claim stake before
Clinton's inauguration.
Ex-Pres George Bush was lucky, too. When the electorate booted him
from the White House, he landed softly - on the Barrick Goldstrike
payroll, where he comfortably nested until last year.
Who is Barrick? Its founder, Peter Munk, made his name in Canada in
the 1950s as the figure in an infamous insider stock-trading scandal.
Munk headed a small speaker manufacturer that went belly-up, just
after he sold his stock. This is not quite the expected pedigree for an
international minerals mogul.
If we look in the shadows behind Munk we can see the more
accomplished player who provided the capital to set up Barrick - Saudi
arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
During Bush's presidency, Khashoggi was identified as conduit in the
Iran-Contra conspiracy. He had already run into trouble with US
lawmen when, in 1986, he was arrested and charged - but not
convicted - of fraud. He was bailed out of the New York prison by
Munk, who provided the $4m bond. Bush performed an even bigger
favour for Khashoggi: as his last act in office, the president pardoned
Khashoggi's alleged co-conspirators, key members of Bush's own
cabinet. As a result, no case could be made against Khashoggi.
In 1996, a geologist prospecting in Indonesia, Mike de Guzman,
announced his discovery of the world's richest gold field. Munk rapidly
deployed his president. Bush, on behalf of Barrick, contacted officials
of the former dictator Suharto who were in control of mining
concessions. Thereafter, De Guzman's company was told it would have
to turn over 68 per cent of its claim to Barrick.
Barrick didn't have long to gloat. Jim-Bob Moffett, the tough, old,
Louisiana swamp dog who heads Freeport-McMoRan Mining, had a
private meeting with his old benefactor Suharto. At the end of the
meeting, Jim-Bob and the dictator stood on the steps of the
presidential palace to announce that Freeport-McMoRan would replace
Barrick. (Ironically, Barrick lucked it again. The gold find was a hoax.
After Jim-Bob learnt he'd been suckered, his company invited geologist
De Guzman to talk it over. Sadly, on way to the meeting, De Guzman
fell out of a helicopter.)
While Mr Munk's president did not pay the cost of his rental in
Indonesia, Bush could redeem himself in Africa. In 1996, as genocide
in Rwanda fomented civil war in Zaire, Barrick smelt opportunity. We
have learnt that, at that time, Bush spoke with his old golfing buddy,
Mobutu Sese Seko (then dictator of Zaire) about diamond concessions.
I don't know what ex-CIA director Bush told the panicked dictator, but
we do know that Mobutu granted Barrick exclusive rights to mine gold
in north-west Zaire.
Maybe Bush talked about Barrick's mining experience in neighbouring
Tanzania where, according to Amnesty International, Barrick's
subsidiary carried out 'extra-judicial killings'. Amnesty reports that 50
independent miners who refused to move off the Barrick unit's
concession were buried alive in the pits by company bulldozers. Barrick
denies the allegations.
Beyond Barrick, Daddy Bush has many other friends who filled up his
sonny-boy's campaign kitty while Bush performed certain lucrative
favours for them. In 1998, Bush père created a storm in Argentina
when he lobbied his close political ally President Carlos Menem to
grant a gambling licence to Mirage Casino corporation.
Bush wrote that he had no personal interest in the deal. That's true.
But Bush fils did not do badly. After the casino flap, Mirage dropped
$449,000 into the Republican Party war chest.
The ex-president and famed Desert Strormtrooper-in-Chief, also wrote
to the oil minister of Kuwait on behalf of Chevron Oil Corporation. Bush
says honestly that he, 'had no stake in the Chevron operation'.
Following this selfless use of his influence, the oil company put
$657,000 into Republican Party coffers. Most of that loot, reports the
Center for Responsive Politics, came in the form of 'soft money' That's
the squishy stuff corporations use to ooze around US law which, you
may be surprised to learn, prohibits any donations to presidential
campaigns in the general election.
Not all of the elder Bush's work is voluntary. His single talk to the
board of Global Crossing, the telecoms start-up, earned him $13m in
stock. The company also kicked in another million for his kid's run.
And while the Bush family steadfastly believes that ex-felons should
not have the right to vote for president, they have no objection to
ex-cons putting presidents on their payroll. In 1996, despite pleas of
US church leaders, Daddy Bush gave several speeches (he charges
$100,000 per talk) sponsored by organisations run by Rev Sun Myung
Moon, cult leader, tax cheat - and formerly, the guest of the US federal
prison system.
There are so many more tales of the Bush family daisy chain of
favours, friendship and campaign funding. None of it is illegal - which I
find troubling. But I don't want to seem ungrateful. After all, the
Bushes helped make America the best democracy money can buy.
Blackout in Florida
Vice-President Al Gore would have strolled to victory in Florida if the
state hadn't kicked up to 56,000 citizens off the voters' registers five
month ago as former felons.
In fact, only a fraction were ex-cons. Most were simply guilty of being
African-American.
A top-placed election official (not a Democrat) told me that the
government had conducted a quiet review and found - surprise! - that
the listing included far more African-Americans than would statistically
have been expected, even accounting for the grievous gap between
the conviction rates of blacks and whites in the US.
The source of this poisonous blacklist: Database Technologies, a
division of ChoicePoint, and under the direction of Governor Jeb Bush's
frothingly partisan Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. My thanks to
investigator Solomon Hughes for informing me that DBT, a division of
ChoicePoint, is under fire for mis-use of personal data in state
computers. ChoicePoint's board is loaded with Republican sugar
daddies, including Ken Langone, finance chief for Rudy Giuliani's
aborted Senate run against Hillary
Clinton.
|
|
Activist to Bush: Wait Till Voters Wake Up Author says Americans are still reeling from the chaos surrounding the 2000 presidential election, but soon there will be hell to pay. By Mary McNamara If Mark Crispin Miller is right, the White House is occupied by a right-wing cabal, fronted by a man so sure of his dynastic ascendancy that he does not even bother to adhere to the rules of common English, so complacent in his privilege that he flaunts his ignorance as if it were the ultimate mark of superiority. If Miller is right, this man was not elected president in any legal or moral sense. If Miller is right, a sophisticated right-wing propaganda machine, operating with the aid of corporate-influenced big media, has brainwashed Americans into believing that he was. If Miller is right, the presidency of George W. Bush dealt democracy a potentially murderous blow, a blow that left millions of voters mentally and emotionally stunned, unable to truly comprehend the enormity of the Supreme Court's decision nine months ago. If Miller is right, these voters are just coming to, and once they are fully conscious, there's going to be hell to pay. And Mark Crispin Miller seems pretty sure he is right. "I believe there is a subterranean momentum of outrage out there that will continue to build," says the longtime media critic and New York University professor whose work regularly appears in the Nation and on various editorial pages. "It's as simple as this: If we can live with this gross miscarriage of justice, then we have lost the right to call ourselves a democracy." These are the words of a man whose midnight outrage over what he refers to as "the 36 days of Florida" forced him to put aside a book he had been working on for years and pound out in a cold fury "The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder" (W.W. Norton). Miller, who also directs NYU's Project on Media Ownership, is fairly well-known for his leftist politics and activism on behalf of media reform, so his take on last year's election is not entirely surprising. Already in its fifth printing, it is an odd, angry and much more frightening than funny book that has been getting mostly good reviews (although the Washington Post slammed it). In the introduction, Miller acknowledges that it was quickly written, and that while he had begun with the idea of making sport of Bush's tendency toward forensic fumbling, it soon became clear that it wasn't funny at all. That far from being the understandable blank spots caused by too many hours in front of the press or endearing syntax contortions of a simple Texas boy, Bush's frequent inability to articulate even the simplest thoughts is a clear sign of his disrespect for most of his constituency. His lack of concern about this inability is not a hallmark of humility, but its opposite. "His sloppy speech," Miller writes, "is not his way of saying, 'I am one of you,' but rather of asserting 'the rules don't apply to me.'" Distressed by Seeming Ignorance of Basic Facts Rumors of dyslexia, Miller argues, may or may not be true, but they do not explain in any way the president's woeful, and seemingly willful, ignorance of simple geography or the nature of the government he heads. "To believe that Social Security is not a federal program [as he did when complaining in USA Today that the Democrats "want the federal government running Social Security as if it were some kind of federal program] ... ," Miller writes, "to confuse Slovenia with Slovakia [as he did when he met the foreign minister of Slovenia] and the judicial branch of the government with the executive [as he did during an interview in Austin, according to Slate, the online magazine]—is to suffer from no disability but ignorance," an ignorance for which the Yale-educated Bush has no excuse. The real dyslexia, Miller believes, is the one suffered by the American people, who were shown one presidential candidate—a man who would not answer simple questions about his past, who could not answer simple questions about his policies, who, according to one account, leered and joked when he spoke of a death row inmate's plea for mercy, who seemed incapable of putting in more than a four-hour workday—while media pundits described another man altogether. Caught between visual reality and professional spin, Miller argues, the body politic began doubting its sense of perception and soon was almost clinically dissociated, unable, or unwilling, to protest the enormous shell game the Bush campaign was orchestrating. The book delivers what the title promises—a disheartening array of stupid statements, unsettling jokes, untruths and stonewalling. But more than that, it tries to reconstruct the forces that allowed Bush, the unsuccessful scion of a wealthy and politically elite family, to successfully portray himself as a can-do, down-home, Washington outsider. At work, Miller says, were the weird double-edged power of television, the history of recrimination and paranoia in the Republican Party, the ongoing accusations of liberal bias in the media and the media's seeming unwillingness to hold candidate Bush to the same standards that applied to candidate Al Gore. Book Was Written Quickly—and It Shows Miller tries to recuse himself from partisanship by stating that he voted for Ralph Nader, which he seems to believe absolves him of any charges of sour grapes. Yet even he admits that his vote would have been different had he lived in a state with a less-than-solid pro-Gore base, which makes his objectivity a bit suspect, and perhaps beside the point. This is clearly an anti-Bush tirade, and it is by no means unflawed—it was written quickly and that shows, in structure and the form of Miller's argument. But Miller's point that we don't know yet what happened and what it will mean seems prescient. Revelations regarding the election proceedings continue to be made—that many of the overseas ballots were counted despite postmarks past the deadline and other discrepancies, that some Florida voters may have been erroneously listed as convicted felons and stripped of their right to vote, that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush may have indeed been involved in the proceedings despite publicly recusing himself. News outlets that continued to recount those ballots with chad issues conjectured that Bush likely would have won the state. Those recounts did not take into consideration any other alleged irregularities. Meanwhile, larger analyses are beginning to hit the bookstands—the lawyers have already had at it with at least two opposing books on the legality of the Supreme Court's role. Wearing its politics on its sleeve, Miller's book speaks for those Americans who are still very angry, whose bumper stickers and T-shirts read: "He's not my president," who are turning over their tax refunds to various Democratic and anti-Bush organizations, who choke the Internet with furious rehashes of what happened in Florida, with indictments against various media for stories they did or did not run with. "The facts are that even with the remarkable con the GOP pulled, more people voted for Gore than Bush," Miller says in a phone conversation. "And these people have not gone away. They are not happy. You look at the polls—we have a country that is, at best, deeply divided about what this administration is doing. And even if it were, say 30% of voters who were outraged, that would be quite a force." (A recent USA Today poll gave Bush a 57% approval rating.) Still Emotional About '36 Days of Florida' When speaking about "the 36 days of Florida," Miller becomes quite a force, apoplectic almost, in a very articulate kind of way. "I was in the midst of a book on war propaganda ['Mad Scientists' will be published by Norton in the fall], and I was just stunned to see how faithfully the Republicans were living up to the model in my book. Winning a propaganda war is not just a matter of pretense and tactics, but also of paranoid conviction. Watching Jim Baker's neck turn red while he fulminated about the Democrats' 'mischief' when there was no evidence of any such thing, I was very frightened. But they knew how to handle it." Miller reserves most of his vitriol for the Republicans—he says he will not use the term "conservative" to describe those driving the party because they are far too right-wing to be considered conservative—but he is not warm and fuzzy when discussing their rivals. Democrats, he believes, have not only been too mealy-mouthed in their opposition toward GOP initiatives; they themselves have adopted conservative positions on a host of issues, including the drug war, free trade, military spending and media concentration. Leftist politics, he says, have dissolved into a morass of identity politics obliterating the historical Democrat roots of class activism and leaving the party in a perpetual state of shifting priorities. During a crisis like the one in Florida, the upper hand goes to the better-organized force. "And while the Democrats were in disarray the Republicans moved to Florida. They moved everything they owned to Florida. They were not going to leave Florida until Bush was declared president. One way or another. And they kept saying that the votes had been counted when they hadn't, and that time was of the essence, when it wasn't, and that Bush had won the election when he didn't." Meanwhile, he says, the television networks, long conditioned to avoid any hint of the liberal bias with which the right-wing has calculatedly accused them of for years, continued to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Which is why, Miller says, "you had Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson resorting to these inane clichés on Inauguration Day, about how orderly the process was, about how the system could weather such storms, instead of reporting that many Americans felt completely numb and worked over, and that many were indeed protesting right there in Washington." This journalistic complacency, he says, gives the impression that "we're OK with what happened, and we're not. I think many people have felt a deep denial. Nobody wants to face what has happened because it is too huge. But I think more people will come around to the view that something is wrong here. Already we're seeing a reduction in jokes about Bush, not, I think, because people like him, but because they are realizing that he is not an imbecile, that it is dangerous to dismiss him as such." Miller speaks in complete paragraphs that suffer not at all from literal transcription. His tone is forceful, but even; he does not seem to draw breath for alarming amounts of time. Although he says he is surprised and disappointed at certain media decisions not to report on his book—NPR's rankles most—he has been at countless book signings and on radio and television shows. Everywhere he goes, he says, he is more and more convinced that far from moving past those 36 days, people are just starting to realize what happened. At every appearance, he asks the audience how many are unable to watch the nightly news, how many are in some sort of denial that Bush is president. "At least half raise their hands," he says, "usually two-thirds. But they don't know what to do." The lack of a true opposition party in this country, he says, makes it difficult to transform that frustration into action, but he believes that protests—against the World Trade Organization, against various policy decisions, against threats on the environment—will likely increase as the electorate locates its rage and its voice, and he has great hopes for the off-year election, in which voters could express their outrage by voting ultra-right Republicans out of office.
"It is alarming that some of the subsequent revelations about what happened in Florida
have seemed to vanish so quickly," he says. "But I don't think that means they will come
to nothing. If we accept what has happened, well, we should just call ourselves a
plutocracy and be done with it. It's that simple." |
 Social AbsurdityRepublicans are now playing the race card to try to sell Social Security privatization. The conservative chorus is making schizophrenic noises. In one breath, they praise Jesse Helms on the occasion of his long-overdue retirement from the Senate. Then, with scarcely a pause, they fret about African-Americans' supposedly being swindled by Social Security. Right-wingers claim to detect "racism" in the retirement system, but perceive no such sin in the career of North Carolina's senior senator. Bizarre as this juxtaposition may seem, it does possess a certain twisted logic. Just like old Jesse, his ideological soul mates can play the race card with cynical finesse. Though they complain bitterly (and sometimes justifiably) when Democrats and liberals employ racial symbolism, they simply can't resist the same tactic when hundreds of billions of retirement dollars are at stake. The new conservative canard, drawn from the latest report of the Bush commission on Social Security, is that African-American males pay the retirement tax throughout their working lives, but don't live long enough on average to draw the benefits to which they are entitled. Like so many of the arguments for privatization, this one vaporizes under impartial scrutiny. But the sudden outpouring of racial propaganda does suggest one reason why political operatives in the White House chose a couple of prominent black business executives as members of their stacked commission -- including co-chairman Richard Parsons, the chief operating officer of AOL Time Warner. Presumably, Karl Rove believes black voters will be more receptive to the privatization message if it is delivered by a brother. Rather than helping black Americans, however, privatizing Social Security is likely to injure them because of the burden it would impose unfairly on all lower-income workers. To understand why, it's important to remember that the current system provides survivors benefits and disability benefits as well as retirement income. Every month, nearly one-third of all the funds paid out by the Social Security Administration go to survivors and the disabled -- and those payments are skewed significantly to favor minorities and women. While African-Americans are about 12 percent of the total population, they constitute 18 percent of Social Security disability beneficiaries. Given the outsize cost of funding almost any privatization scheme -- estimated at roughly $1 trillion -- those nonretirement benefits are sure to be slashed by as much as 40 percent. Although Bush promised last year that no such cuts would occur under his plan, his regressive tax cut has made them inevitable, as even his commission has now conceded. Moreover, because the average wages of black Americans continue to languish below those paid to whites, they will face disproportionate risks if Social Security is privatized. At the moment, the system is somewhat progressive, since low-wage workers receive a larger return on their "investment" than those who earn more. For low-wage male workers born between 1956 and 1964, the return on their payments into Social Security is nearly 5 percent, or more than twice what they could realistically expect from a privatized annuity. The return is almost 7 percent for low-wage women workers in the same age cohort -- another group that is disproportionately African-American. The academic study cited by the Bush commission to denigrate Social Security carefully noted that the racial disparity affects only those black men earning incomes equal to those of white men who are the same age. Those widely quoted mortality statistics are skewed by the high death rate of young black males who haven't lived long enough to pay much into the Social Security system. Meanwhile, the Bush commission (and its right-wing publicists) dishonestly ignore that same study's broader conclusion: African-Americans receive somewhat higher-than-average benefits overall from Social Security because the system favors low-wage workers. As even privatization proponents will occasionally admit, Social Security is the most successful government program ever created in this country. For black families especially, but for millions of Americans of all races, it has meant the difference between dignity and impoverishment for the elderly and disabled. That is the system Bush and his appointees are recklessly seeking to dismantle with phony predictions of financial crisis and fake promises of fat stock funds.
To hear politicians and pundits who habitually oppose every measure designed to lift up the poor and
powerless now pretend that they want to "spread the wealth" would be comical if their purposes
weren't so destructive. Before black Americans buy into this Republican scheme to make them rich,
they should keep hold of their wallets, examine the fine print and never forget that they're still dealing
with the party of Jesse Helms.
Frank Zappa 
|
|
Stem Cell Decision: A Political Action By Gene Lyons Whenever Republican pundits start talking about their party's deep reverence for human life, it's a sure thing somebody's about to get shafted. Just about all of them, for example, have railed against lawsuits awarding damages to dying cigarette smokers. How could anybody be dumb enough to smoke? What's about individual responsibility? Are we a culture of victims? Should we let bloodsucking trial lawyers doom free enterprise? Needless to say, George II owes his job to Big Tobacco as much as anybody else, even the Texas-based oil companies and the National Rifle Association. To my father, his brothers and millions of working stiffs in the so-called "greatest generation," Camels and Lucky Strikes were the he-man brands. It was to counter the notion that filtered cigarettes were for sissies that some ad genius invented the "Marlboro Man." My dad and my uncles had no illusions that smoking was good for them. But in 1942, who expected to live long enough to die from cigarettes? "Smoke 'em if you got 'em," the sergeant said, and smoke 'em they did. Uncle Frank, the youngest, died of a heart attack when he was barely 40. Uncle Jim's heart gave out next. My father died of lung cancer, Uncle John of emphysema. Me, I stole a pack of Camels from the old man's dresser drawer at 15, puffed one, then threw the pack away and never lit another. Coach told us cigarettes would ruin our wind. But when I went to school in Virginia, I imported untaxed cartons of Camels back to New Jersey until my father's doctor made him quit. So I was interested to read recently of tobacco giant Philip Morris' efforts to persuade the Czech government that smoking cuts costs by killing off useless geezers like my dad and his brothers before they become an economic burden. According to the BBC, the company claimed that the Czech Republic "saved about $147 million in 1997 through the deaths of smokers who would not live to use health care or housing for the elderly.... Compiled as a cost-benefit analysis and delivered to the Czech government, the study weighted the savings against the income tax lost and cost of caring for smokers before they died." Read that again. It's simply beyond parody. Yet if a single one of the pundits who've worn out the thesaurus hunting synonyms for "reverential" and "life-enhancing" to praise George II's incoherent stance on embryonic stem cell research mentioned this grotesque bit of news, I missed it. The BBC story added that tobacco company lawyers have used similar arguments in U.S. lawsuits. No wonder juries have been making $3 billion awards. Unrelated as it seems, that's exactly the kind of cost-benefit analysis HMOs and insurance companies will turn to if George II's misnamed patients' bill of rights becomes law. As Congressman Marion Berry recently pointed out on CNN, "A right you can't enforce in a court of law is no right at all." A single provision of the Bush-GOP version of the bill practically guarantees it: the one permitting you to sue in federal court, but limiting damages to $1.5 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but not after you deduct attorneys fees, the cost of hiring expert witnesses, etc. Any halfway creative insurance company lawyer can drive up legal costs to where pursuing even the most outrageous injustices will be all but impossible. They'll offer a pittance to settle, and your lawyer will advise you to take it. That pittance will in turn become the HMO's unspoken "fail-safe" line: If it costs more to treat your sickness than it would cost to deny coverage and settle a lawsuit, the temptation will be to deny coverage and dare you to do something about it. The Bush bill takes away rights citizens in many states--among them Texas, whose legislature ultimately forced then-Gov. George W. Bush to accept a law he'd vetoed twice--already have. There's been no avalanche of lawsuits in those states, either, although insurance companies do have to behave. But rest easy, because the estimated 200,000 microscopic embryos in fertility clinic freezers across the country are safe from harm. About one in eight will be implanted in a woman's womb. The rest will be tastefully discarded in a manner soothing to columnist George Will and all the other pious and learned commentators who argue that Bush's transparently political action is too "rigorous" and "sophisticated" for simpletons like you and me to fathom.
As for the 60 former embryos reformatted into stem cell lines, most are privately owned. Bush has granted their owners a
near-monopoly. How long before we learn that White House aides own stock in the companies?
|
 Social Security Panel Says Cuts In Benefits Are An Option By Adam Clymer WASHINGTON, Richard D. Parsons, co-chairman of President Bush's commission on Social Security, said today that the panel had looked at benefit cuts as one means to ensure the program's long- range stability. But he insisted that no conclusions had been reached on that or anything else. Mr. Parsons, chief operating officer of AOL Time Warner, also told a news conference between morning and afternoon meetings of the commission that putting some of a person's Social Security taxes into private investment accounts would not guarantee greater retirement benefits. They "could be greater, could be less," he said, "depending on the performance of the securities in which you invested." The commission, whose meeting was a quiet oasis in a series of news conferences by groups attacking or supporting private investments, plans to issue a report this fall. President Bush, who campaigned on the issue of private investments and chose commission members who supported it, will make a proposal to Congress next year. At the news conference, Mr. Parsons and his co-chairman, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, sought to minimize the importance of political factors, like today's announcement of a smaller budget surplus. "I wish you wouldn't get too preoccupied with day-to-day events," Mr. Moynihan said. "There will be some effects as things go up and things go down. But we're trying to think in half-century terms." The commission's interim report said the Social Security system would be in severe trouble in 2016, when it started paying out more than it took in each year. Today, Mr. Parsons said the system had "$10 trillion of unfunded liability," backed only by a government "promise." Mr. Moynihan jumped in to say, "The promise will be kept." Mr. Parsons continued, "As far as we can see, the promise will be kept." "The issue," Mr. Parsons said, "is where is the cash going to come from" after 2016. This afternoon the commission heard from the managers of two private investment systems, each with about three million investors, one for federal workers and the other for college teachers, administrators and other workers. The commission used their experience as evidence to debunk fears that large chunks of investment accounts would be eaten up in administrative costs. Roger Miehle, who runs the program for federal workers, said the costs for its common stock index fund were only about 60 cents for every $1,000 invested. But commission members' questioning indicated that Mr. Miehle did not know what it cost the various federal agencies to handle their part of administering the accounts, a cost that Mr. Moynihan said later the commission saw as a potential problem for small-business employers. Now companies send Social Security taxes in lump sums covering all their employees every pay period, but they are allocated to the credit of individuals only when W-2 forms are filed in January of the next year. Commission members said that would not be quick enough for people to deal with investment accounts. But any additional reporting costs imposed on small businesses would trouble the National Federation of Independent Business, one of Washington's most powerful lobbies. "It's something that we're keeping our eye on," said Amy Jensen, the federation's director of public policy for the House. "Over all, we're supportive of the commission and the concept of personal accounts. But how much paperwork burden and administrative costs" would result was a significant question. The commission met this morning in two groups. One heard from Treasury Department officials about the financial estimates that had been developed in the Clinton administration on private accounts, Mr. Moynihan said. The other dealt with ways of administering a new system, Mr. Parsons said. Two Democratic representatives from California, Robert T. Matsui and Henry A. Waxman, had complained that those meetings were closed to the public. "The public has a right to know what information is being presented to the commission and how its proposals to privatize Social Security are being developed," they said in a letter to the panel. Mr. Parsons insisted that the commission's counsel had ruled that the closed meetings were proper, and explained, "These were information- gathering and comprehension-enhancing sessions." He added: "There was no deliberation. There was no decision making." That was also Mr. Parsons's attitude on the issue of cuts in benefits, or, as he put it, "benefit adjustments downward." He said the commission had looked at that idea, but, "Have we reached any conclusions? No." Occasionally, the questions at the commissioners' news conference dealt with the complaints other groups had voiced while the commission was having its closed meetings. To the argument that privatizing part of Social Security would threaten members of minorities, Mr. Parsons said, "Somehow, the led get out in front of their leaders." He added that he had seen polling data that showed that African-Americans and Hispanics were very interested in private accounts. Their view was, he said, "Let us build wealth and get a stake in the American pie."
To the suggestion that the panel might change disability or survivors' benefits, which are a part of Social
Security along with retirement benefits, Mr. Moynihan said, "In no circumstances will disability benefits,
survivors' benefits be touched. We won't even approach the question." |
|
Once upon a time, the phrase "investigative reporter" actually meant something. It
usually involved hard work, possibly even mentation. Now, it seems, they just make
stuff up. Especially on the Fox News Channel, where an uninitiated viewer could easily
think she/he had tuned in Comedy Central. It's "Chandra-Chandra-Chandra" with the
occasional "Condit is just like Clinton" thrown in. Given our media's 24/7 obsession
with the Gary Condit "scandal", you might assume that there is a real dearth of hard
news to pursue.
In reality, there is indeed a news story percolating out there. The story bears
remarkable and ironic similarities to the Condit/Levy story. Both involve Congressmen,
rumors of infidelity, and the fate of a younger female subordinate. The details are so
similar as to remind one of two alternate universes. The difference between the two
stories? First, in the Klausutis case as not in the Levy case, there is a real body, very
dead. Second, the Klausutis case involves a Republican.
The story had a brief flutter in the Northwest Florida press, which ran a few very short
stories on Lori's death. With the exception of the Northwest Florida Daily News, they
were of the "Aw-what-a-shame/ nothing-to-see-here-move-along-now-folks" variety.
But nationally, this mysterious death earned a mere one paragraph mention in The
Washington Post's NATION IN BRIEF column:
"FORT WALTON BEACH, FL. - Lori Klausutis, a 28-year-old office worker for Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fl), was
found dead in the congressman's district office. Police said preliminary findings from the medical examiner's
office showed no foul play or any outward indication of suicide."
Unbelievably, that was it. The story was simply dropped. A young female employee of one of Florida's Congressmen had died
unexpectedly in the Congressman's office. There were no witnesses to her death and the cause of death was not apparent.
Klausutis' boss, Joe Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his
marital fidelity and soon after a divorce. He had also abruptly resigned as publisher of the Independent Florida Sun, claiming that
resigning from Congress and as publisher was necessary to spend more time with his sons.
Such circumstances make one pause. Sick to death of the clear bias of the corporate owned media, and suspicious of the odd
nature of this death, we began to dig for answers. The more information we discovered, the more unlikely, and the more newsworthy
the story became.
Here are the facts. Lori Klausutis had a seemingly happy life. A devoted husband who listed on his online homepage "being married
to Lori" as one of the honors he enjoyed, a new home in Niceville and a Catholic congregation where she was a cantor and in
whose choir she sang, were some of the elements of the Good Life she enjoyed. Her husband, Dr. Timothy Klausutis, did research
and development for the munitions group at nearby Eglin Air Force Base, where he presumably made a good livelihood. Although
Lori hailed from the Atlanta, Georgia area where she had attended school, there were numerous family members in the area.
According to her obituary in the Fort Walton Daily News, Lori had served as President and, later, Treasurer, for the Emerald Coast
Young Republicans and as a aide to Congressman Scarborough, she was active during the Florida recounts. A former neighbor,
Barbara Cromer, said "Every morning, I would see her run while I walked. We'd wave to each other as we passed. I loved Lori so
much. She was wonderful. She was a kind, generous person, so sweet.
Then, on Friday, July 20th, the body of Lori Klausutis, 28, was found slumped next to a desk on the floor of Florida Republican
Congressman Joe Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach office where Lori had served as a constituent services coordinator since May,
1999. Her body was found around 8:00 a.m. on Friday morning by a couple arriving for an appointment. She had been dead for
some time. A second employee, who would have normally arrived for work at around the same time, was away on vacation. Police
cordoned off the area for investigation, later announcing that there was no reason to suspect foul play, nor were there signs of
suicide.
Scarborough's office released a statement several hours after the discovery:
"My staff and family are greatly saddened by the loss of Lori Klausutis. I know Lori will be missed by the thousands of
citizens who regularly contact my office to seek assistance with a variety of problems. May God grant Lori's family the
grace, comfort and hope that will get them through this difficult time."
The Congressman returned to Florida that same day, and his office was quick to point out that it was not unusual for him to fly home
for the weekend.
There was a great deal of ambiguity over whether Lori had suffered past medical problems. Scarborough's press secretary, Miguel
Serrano, made mention of health problems in Lori's past, but could not be more specific. In response, Fort Walton Beach Police
Chief Steve Hogue is quoted as saying "That's part of our investigation, checking into her medical history." Associate Medical
Examiner Dr. Michael Berkland said "She had a past medical history that was significant, but it remains to be seen whether that
played a role in her death". Soon after a member of the immediate family rejected out of hand that Lori had any significant medical
problems. She was, in fact, quite an athlete, having recently run an 8K with a very respectable time and she belonged to the
Northwest Florida Track Club.
The results of the mandated autopsy, however, were deemed "inconclusive" by Dr. Berkland, who ordered more specific toxicology
tests. These results were expected by the middle of the following week, around the first or second day of August. Dr. Berkland
commented at the time "This turns over several puzzle pieces in the case of her death and reveals more of the picture". ?
Welcome to the Wheel of Fortune.
Michael Berkland, it turns out, has a very interesting background himself. Recently relocated to Florida, it is a matter of public record
that Dr. Berkland's medical license in the state of Missouri was revoked in 1998 as a result of Berkland reporting false information
regarding brain tissue samples in a 1996 autopsy report. Berkland does not deny the charges.
It's also a matter of public record that he was suspended from his position as Medical Examiner in the State of Florida in July, 1999.
Quincy, he's not.
Repeated requests to Dr. Stephen Nelson, Chairman of the Medical Examiners Commission, Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, have failed to verify that Dr. Berkland's suspension was lifted and that his licensure and disciplinary record are clear at
the present time. Dr. Nelson was appointed Chairman of the Commission by Governor Jeb Bush.
As for Lori Klausutis, rumors began to swirl as time passed with no resolution to the case, rumors that included whispers of suicide,
some emanating from inside the Beltway. Family members, angered at what they considered unfair and exploitive coverage wrote
the editor of the Northwest Florida Daily News, Ralph Routon, saying "For those who knew Lori, the thought of suicide, as your
published reports suggested, is absolutely unthinkable. Suicide was contrary to her faith and being. She did not suffer from
seizures, nor did she have a history of medical problems." Meanwhile, the final report has been issued that Lori died as a result of a
blow to the head because an undiagnosed heart condition caused her to collapse and fall, hitting her head on the desk.
The initial reports from the Medical Examiner's office denied any trauma to the body that would indicate cause of death. But Berkland
acknowledged on Monday, August 6th, that Lori had sustained a "scratch and a bruise" on her head and that his original denials
were to prevent undue speculation about the cause of death. "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury", he
said.
And so, what we have here is the death of a healthy young woman who died of a blow to the head and a lie from the Medical
Director's office about this blow which was quite obvious to the naked eye. They then had to go search for some reason why she
might have "fallen" and hit her head. And they have found an "undiagnosed cardiac arrhythmia". But a number of questions remain to
be answered, and we have requested opinions from Dr. Nelson, the Chairman of the Medical Examiners Commission.
The questions are:
- Were Lori's medical records thoroughly examined for any evidence of the pre-existing heart condition? It
would seem that someone must have examined her heart if she ran 8Ks.
- Did Dr. Berkland personally examine the site of death in undisturbed condition in order to support his later
conclusion that the physical evidence was compatible with his later conclusions?
Presumably the heart valve condition alluded to is Mitral Valve Prolapse. This may be associated with arrhythmias, but rarely with
VTach (ventricular tachycardia) or VFib (ventricular fibrillation), the only arrhythmias which would stop the flow of blood to the brain.
Generally, with syncope of whatever cause the "guarding reflex", wherein one raises a hand to protect the head, is preserved.
There are several problems with the head injury. Generally, for a closed head injury to cause bleeding inside the skull, there is a
much more severe injury on the outside of the skull. Do the autopsy notes, indeed, describe such a severe injury on the outside of
the skull? In fact, the only closed head injury which usually may cause bleeding inside the skull involves a fracture of the temporal
bone, with rupture of the underlying artery. The most important discrepancy that should be answered is how intracranial bleeding
could continue if the cardiac arrhythmia had caused a cessation of blood flow to the brain!
- Were the toxicology studies entirely negative? Was there evidence of any legal or illegal substance in the
blood stream which could have caused her to lose consciousness?
- Was she pregnant? If so, were fetal blood specimens obtained to determine paternity?
These are the questions being asked by some in the medical community of Dr. Stephen Nelson and Dr. Michael Berkland, and they
continue to go unanswered.
Why is there a complete media blackout on this story? Why the complete preoccupation with the similar but largely speculative
Condit/Levy story? What does this say about the state of our press? What does corporate ownership of the press do to what gets to
be news? How much of what we think we know as fact is actually based on selective and distorted reporting? How does that "fair
and balanced" cable network explain the complete hypocrisy and contempt for truth in their handling of these two similar tales? Will
we ever know the truth of how Lori Klausutis died?
A recent check of the Young Republican's web site found no mention of Lori or her contributions, nor any tribute to her memory nor
comments about her passing. In fact, you will find no mention of her at all. If you go to The Pensacola News Journal's online pages,
one of the few papers that actually covered the story, and search the site for "Klausutis" you will come up empty, even though the
same search will pull up numerous stories matching "Scarborough". It seems as though someone wants to erase all traces of Lori
Klausutis from the record and bury the story with her.
It's an increasingly puzzling case. We are reminded of the famous Kitty Genovese case, in New York, in 1964, where a young woman
pleaded for her life over the period of 30 minutes, while neighbors ignored her cries. The assailant returned three times to stab her.
With Lori Klausutis, it seems possible that a corrupt North Florida establishment is determined to keep the lid on the case, even if
that means silencing the news. And our esteemed news media, from the supposed mainstream liberal press stalwarts to the near
delusional on air shouters of the channel that just reports so that you can decide, willingly turn the other way and ignore Lori
Klausutis. But they continue to chatter endlessly in speculation over Chandra Levy. In so doing, they ignore the cries of truth, they
deny their viewers access to the truth and they utterly, once and for all, betray our faith and trust in the media.
|
|
Hitler and Bush
BUSH AND HITLER:
Is History Repeating Itself?
No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about
everything he had ever undertaken until he discovered politics. In the
world of spin and power plays, a superficial gift of gab and bullish
determination could replace intelligence and idealism without missing a
beat. Hitler found that the path to the top was short: Just tell a discontent
people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention to keep.
In Hitler's first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30,
1933, he pledged [this is a direct quote from that address] "to revive
in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation" and invoked God's
blessing on the German government. (Hitler was a fervent Christian - a
fact too many have either forgotten or never knew, thanks to sanitized
school history books). But, the Fuhrer soon proved he had no intention
of being a uniter. The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had
been "down with the liberals!" Once in office, Hitler made "liberals" (a
mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any
threat to Hitler's model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.
As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action
after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels,
head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains
behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: "The struggle is a light one
now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the
judiciary]. In addition, he noted, "Radio and press are at our disposal."
Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an
"enemy of the state." Contrary to popular belief, the first "enemy"
Hitler formally targeted was not the Jews but the Communist Party. Why?
Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime.
Hitler was thus the first to invoke the spectre of "the Red Menace." He
intentionally sought to provoke party activists to violent protest so,
under his new aggressive laws suppressing public dissent; he could round
them up and arrest them. Aware of this ploy, the Communists laid low,
believing that Hitler was merely a puppet of reactionaries and his regime
would not last. But the Fuhrer, becoming progressively more drunk
with his new power, was not so easily thwarted.
To facilitate his demonization of the "reds," he sent provocateurs to orchestrate
a staged act of "terrorism." Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der
Lubbe, who was implicated in (i.e. framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag
(the equivalent of the Congressional building). This incident gave Hitler the excuse
he needed for "cracking down" on "enemies of the state." He rallied the Germans
against the "terrorists" and passed the odious "Enabling Acts," in which the government
was granted the right to bypass any due process for "suspects." One human right after
the other was revoked: the Jews were stripped of all rights, trade unions were broken,
and rival parties were made illegal. In addition, Hitler began to isolate Germany from
the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw
from the League of Nations.
From the start, Hitler courted the conservative Christian clergy. To their shame,
historically, many clergymen became his closest allies and most effective tools,
as propagandists, spies, and suppressors of dissent. The clergy's most important role
in the beginning, was to fuel anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism. Jews, according to Hitler,
were "the source of every ill that had befallen Germany and of every continuing threat."
[Substitute the word "liberal" and you have the new GOP's main party philosophy].
Historian John Weis pointed out that "Hitler inspired only those who shared his anger."
Hitler made public dissent first all but impossible, then illegal. At
first, whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech,
he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall. Hitler
also made sure that the media did not provide the public with any
coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was "encouraging of
destructive elements." [Recently when I asked a reporter at the
Associated Press why protests are not being covered, he said reporters
are instructed not to because to do so "would be encouraging of
destructive displays."]. So, what the media faithfully recorded was
Hitler and Hitler supporters. To see an old German newsreel, you'd never
guess there were plenty of dissenters around - at least until they were
all shot or sent to concentration camps.
Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form
of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with
shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families; he especially liked
being photographed with school children. At the same time, Hitler
actively promoted "family values" and high moral standards. He believed
women should go back to being at home with their families and not in the
work force. He also believed there should be little or no separation
between the state and his brand of Christianity, especially since he
firmly believed that the emotional fervor of religion could be used to
effectively to promote the state's objectives.
Under Hitler, worker protections were dismantled, one by one. Soon
workers were laboring for longer hours for less pay. Worse yet, all
trade unions had been smashed, so there was no recourse. Unfortunately,
the Social Democrats were not organized and did not offer a solid front
for opposing Hitler and his initiatives. Soon, they found themselves
overwhelmed by a highly organized, aggressive and fanatically
single-minded army of Nazi Party appointees who did whatever Hitler told
them to do without questioning.
Here we end the story, because we all know what happens next:
the Holocaust and World War II. |
|
Dead Letter Office
Heil Bush,
Dear Propaganda Ansager Limbaugh,
Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2001. Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling and last year's winner Volksjudge Antoni (light-fingers) Scalia.
Without your help shilling for us, spinning the truth, telling out right lies and ignoring the real news, holding onto power after our Coup D' Etat would have been impossible. With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Media Whores," you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account.
Along with this award there will be an Iron Cross 2nd class presented by our glorious Fuhrer Herr Bush at a gala celebration in der Wolf's Lair (formerly Rancho de Bimbo) on 9-03-2001. We salute you Herr Limbaugh! Sieg Heil!
Signed,
Heil Bush
|
|
AUSTIN -- More bizarre appointments by
the Bush administration. This problem is reaching tidal wave proportions. It's not so much a matter of setting the fox to guard the
chicken coop as it is letting the raccoons loose in the henhouse.
Those of you who know how government works are fully aware of the difference that agency heads and other top officials can make in
the workings of a bureaucracy. With a president who is notoriously uninterested in details, those in charge of the details often actually
set the policy. As we have seen in Texas, even when George W. has what might be a good idea, like charter schools, sloppy execution
can result in disaster.
"Captive agencies" are a constant problem in government. They are agencies supposedly in charge of regulating an industry or group
that has acquired undue influence over (or even control of) the agency. In Texas, the most spectacular example is the state's equivalent
of an environmental protection agency, to which then-Gov. Bush appointed three commissioners who literally represent major groups
of polluters. Texas is, of course, No. 1 in toxic pollution. The pattern continues in Washington.
* Bush has nominated B. John Williams, a corporate tax attorney, as chief counsel to the Internal Revenue Service. According to `The
Wall Street Journal,' Williams won a case that could jeopardize the government's attempts to crack down on corporate tax havens. The
decision allows two companies to post the same loss when one sells a money-losing unit to the other. Sure, that's fair, just the way you
get to double your deductions, right? If the decision stands, it is expected to cost the IRS $10 billion in annual revenue.
In another case, also reported in the `Journal,' B. John Williams (beware the man who parts his initials on the wrong side) tried to justify
disputed tax credits taken by his client, Shell Oil Co. He did so by hiring a private investigator who provided false information to destroy
the credibility of the government's expert witnesses. One witness later sued for defamation, a case that was settled out of court, the
settlement paid for by Shell.
* The curious case of John Graham, the "regulatory czar," who can block any new regulation from his position inside the Office of
Management and Budget, has attracted some attention because of Graham's unusual public record. While serving on an EPA
subcommittee on dioxin, Graham said that reducing dioxin levels too far might "do more harm than good." He argued that dioxin might
prevent cancer in some cases, an argument so outlandish that it produced more amusement than outrage. He also claims that the
problem of pesticides on foods is "trivial," that the public has "paranoia" about toxic chemicals (it is to be hoped), that safe housing
codes kill people, and all manner of other dandy theories.
Graham was director of the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard, which tries to apply cost-benefit exams to health, safety and
environmental protection. This curious idea -- of assigning a dollar value to human life, illness and harm to eco-systems and then
seeing if that outweighs the cost of regulation -- is like some chilling, mad-scientist fantasy. You say it will only cost three lives per
million dollars spent, and so it's not worth it? Fine -- then let one of them be your wife and the others your son and daughter.
* J. Steven Griles, new deputy secretary at the Interior Department, was a top lobbyist for the oil, gas and coal industries. The new
solicitor, William Myers III, was top guy at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and represented the grazing interests in lawsuits
against the policies that he will now be enforcing. The new No. 2 at the EPA was a lobbyist for Monsanto. And as the new chairman of
the Council on Environmental Equality, Bush wants the lawyer who represented General Electric in its fight with the EPA over toxic
waste sites.
* A sentimental favorite of mine is Jon Huntsman Jr., the new deputy trade representative, who is hot to trot on a new round of trade
liberalization under the World Trade Organization. Huntsman resigned from the privately owned Huntsman Corp., a familiar name in
Bush's hometown. Huntsman is famous in Midland-Odessa for its "upsets," burn-offs of benzene, butadiene and other carcinogens.
Huntsman gets fines even under Texas' toothless standards, and it has already paid millions to the plant's neighbors over "upsets."
Some of these appointments are merely ironic, if you have a strong stomach. Others literally involve matters of life and death. As Arthur
Miller once wrote, "Attention must be paid."
|
|
But this year, it just doesn’t feel the same.
Yes, there will be days off. There will be baseball and Dodger Dogs, and maybe even Barry Bonds will hit another
homerun or two when the Giants meet our Boys In Blue in spectacular Chavez Ravine. There will be barbeque, and
swimming. There will even be fireworks. But the warm and fuzzy feeling I normally get, the one that brings a tear to
my eye and gets me all choked up, isn’t there.
I know that my freedom has changed and is in danger of disappearing altogether if the Cheney-Bush monster has
anything to do with it. Almost eight months have passed and I have witnessed the biggest and most rapid dive this
country has taken in my lifetime, and the current appointistration has shamed this nation like never before.
Honest folk were systematically denied the right to vote. People were told they weren’t registered, even though
they had their voter registration cards in hand. There were roadblocks in largely black neighborhoods. Polling
places ran out of ballots or closed early. There were confusing ballots and I witnessed people across this nation,
who did not use these ballots personally, ridicule and malign these people for being confused. There was even a
contingent of GOP operatives who were paid to riot, threaten, and do everything in their power to stop a legal
recount of votes, breaking the law, then were personally congratulated by Dubya for a job well done. Think about
that for a moment – a man who aspires to be president of the free world, actively encouraging illegal, dishonorable,
sleazy behavior.
And that was only the beginning.
The pride of our nation, the most hallowed and respected institution in the land, the Justices we designate as
"Supreme", broke the law themselves by illegally getting involved with a national election. An act strictly forbidden
by the US Constitution, a
document they are bound and sworn to uphold, thereby disenfranchising the entire nation by disregarding the
votes of the citizens of this once beloved country. Where is my protection by the Fourteenth Amendment? Spock
must have been wrong. The needs of the many apparently do not outweigh the needs of the few.
Since that black day of December 12th, 2000, the market went from being somewhat stable apart from the tech
sector, to acting like a blind bull in a china shop - afraid of the least clink and clatter. Investor confidence is at an all
time low. Thousands of people have lost their jobs, and are soon to lose their homes.
The prime rate has been cut six times in six months. The people who couldn’t afford a house, still can’t because
now they don’t have a paycheck, and the people who are trying to live off of their interest since Social Security
won’t pay the monthly grocery bill, are
losing their interest incomes as well.
There has been outrageous manipulation of the energy markets that has gone almost entirely unchecked. Billions
of dollars have been bilked from private citizens just to line the already fat pockets of the very people who swore
an oath to protect and serve them.
The ABM treaty has been thrown out with the Kyoto Protocol and the pristine ANWR may soon be little more than a
memory.
There have been ethics violations by prominent members of the administration; some might even cry insider
trading and other illegal activities that private citizens could face prison terms for if caught. Between Rove
(holdings in Intel, Enron and others), O’Neill (Alcoa), and the Anti-Ethics Corruption King - the VP himself, Dick
Cheney (Haliburton, with not only his refusal to name the people who met privately with his energy task force, but
his constant lies about how Haliburton and its affiliates illegally traded with Iraq.
The media has been guilty of not only complicity in this gross rape of democracy, but blatant lies as well and is no
longer to be trusted. I feel as though we need our own modern version of Radio Free Europe.
Will we ever see another presidential election? Will there be election reform that is fair? Will the press ever rise
above corporate greed and get back to reporting the truth? Will there be campaign finance reform to the point it
truly levels the playing field to the point it doesn’t matter how much money a candidate or political party has
access to?
I don’t know. I do know things aren’t the same now. This isn’t the Land of The Free and Home of The Brave
anymore.
This 4th of July I’ll barbeque and swim and hopefully watch the fireworks. I’ll have my beer and peanuts and Dodger
Dogs and even though he’s on the other team, I’ll be proud to be a part of history if Bonds racks up a few more
homers. But I won’t have that warm and fuzzy feeling during the National Anthem before the first pitch is thrown.
Things are different now.
This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Tony Auth |
|
To End On A Happy Note ... Jenna's Got Some Rum
Sung to the tune of "Janie's Got A Gun"
Dumb, dumb, dumb, honey what have you done?
Jenna's got some rum
They say when Jenna was arrested
Jenna's got some rum
They said they set-up little Jenna
Chug it down, chug it down, chug it down
(instrumental break)
Jenna's got some rum
She had to start a cryin'
Chug it down, chug it down, chug it down
Jenna's got some rum
Jenna's got some rum
|
|
Activist Alerts "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke
http://www.orgop.org/OR2001-WesternLdrshpRegist.pdf
The Republican Leadership Conference has scheduled Katherine Harris, secretary of State, FL as a guest speaker
on Friday October 5th.
The "subjest" is VOTER FRAUD!! There is a registration form at the link above if anyone wants to attend & I
assume, learn how to commit voter fraud! Did you Florida voters know that there is a special provision in the new
Florida "Reform" to allow military to vote by FAX and WITHOUT BEING REGISTERED TO VOTE?!!
FOR FLORIDA VOTERS WHO ARE TIRED OF PAYING FOR KATHERINE HARRIS'S LUXURY TRIPS.....this is the info
given on the hotel. There are 160 luxury guest rooms at The Resort at the Mountain. Several other lodging places
are mentioned but:
Do you have any doubts as to where Katherine Harris will be staying? I would think that this is the time to write to the
unhonorable Sec. of State and tell her to pay her own damn bills. She was born with more money than God and we
should not have to pay for the flozzie to take luxury trips with Jebbie, Dubya, etc.
Something's rotten in Florida? Are we going to just sit idly by and do nothing?
Maggie
New Protests From Voter March
August 22, Wed., Voter March NY General Meeting
September 9, Hempstead, Long Island, NY, Scalia Protest
A protest is planned at the Hofstra University School of Law on Sunday,
September 9, where Antonin Scalia, one of the 5 Supreme Court Justices
who stopped the hand counting of votes in Bush v. Gore, will give a
keynote address at the Legal Ethics 2002 Conference. Scalia is scheduled
to be a speaker from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm and at 6:00 pm there will be a
banquet in honor of Justice Antonin Scalia. The banquet will be at
Carlton on the Park at Eisenhower Park, near Hofstra University School of
Law. Hofstra University is located in Hempstead, Long island, about 25
miles east of Manhattan, less than an hour away by train or automobile.
September 24, Monday, United Nations, New York City
To protest Bush at his appearance and speech at the General Assembly of
the United Nations. We will gather before noon at Dag Hammarskjold
Plaza Park at 47th Street and First Avenue in Manhattan. Voter March has
a permit pending and is inviting all pro-democracy groups to join in
with this protest action. We will have a stage and sound system. For
additional information, contact info@votermarch.org
For updates and additional information on all these events, see
Voters March
SUPPORT THE OREGON DEMOCRATS' PROPOSAL TO IMPEACH THE FELONIOUS
FIVE!
Here's what you can do to help:
2. Contact your local and/or state Democratic Party office urging them to also
support the resolution.
3. Contribute to the Democratic Party of Oregon. We plan to continue to promote
this resolution and your contribution, no matter how small, will help us in this fight
for democracy. Click on Democratic Party of Oregon to send your support today!
Was it the worst Supreme Court decision in US history, as
American University Constitutional scholar Jamin Raskin has
suggested? Considering that Raskin is a staunch civil rights
advocate, the very thought that he would rank Bush v. Gore
lower than both the Dred Scott and Plessy rulings is instructive.
Nor does Raskin stand alone in his opinion of this judicial coup.
Justice John Paul Stevens: "One thing, however, is certain.
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity
of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the
loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as
an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "In sum, the Court's
conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is
a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested.
Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the
United States. I dissent." And related is the unsigned per curiam
decision of the Scalia 5, a transparent attempt to try to avoid
history's scarlet letter.
Hendrik Hertzberg, former presidential speechwriter: "The
election of 2000 was not stolen. It was expropriated."
David Kairys, Temple University: "We had a constitutional
crisis, and it was Bush v. Gore. History will not be kind."
Suzanna Sherry, Vanderbilt University: "There is really very little way to reconcile this opinion other than that
they wanted Bush to win."
Jeffrey Rosen, legal scholar: "They have...made it impossible for citizens of the United States to sustain any
kind of faith in the rule of law as something larger than the self-interested political preferences of William
Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor."
Randall Kennedy, Harvard University: "But we should also insist that there be no confirmation for Scalia-like
champions of the right-wing agenda. The Supreme Court has hurt its own reputation by wrongly intervening to
ensure the victory of George W. Bush. Those who abhor what the Court did should say so and say so loudly and
clearly."
Jesse Jackson and John Sweeney: "But if it comes down for justices to the 14th amendment and the promise
of equal protection, one can only hope for the sake of the country that they consider how not counting all the votes
mirrors too closely the habits of heart and mind that brought us slavery and segregation--the original sins of our
nation that the equal protection clause sought to repair."
And, of course, Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of Charles Manson and author of several bestselling true-crime
books, in The Betrayal of America: ". . . the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate
for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law.... [The Court searched] mightily for a
way, any way at all, to aid their choice for president, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their
judicial coup d'État, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal
protection clause..."
Recent polls indicate the public's growing dissatisfaction with the results of the Scalia Five's decision. A survey
conducted by the Pew Research Center and Princeton Survey Research Associates (June 13-17) showed George
W. Bush's job approval rating at just 50 percent, down six points from March; the New York Times survey with
CBS News (June 14-18) put the rating at 53 percent, down seven points from March. And Democracy Corps's
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll (June 11-13) found that 48 percent of likely voters think the nation is currently on
the "wrong track." Perhaps most tellingly, 25 percent of voters in the Democracy Corps poll said that the phrase
"not really elected President" describes Bush "very well," with another 15 percent saying that it describes him
"well"--in other words, six months after the Scalia Five coup, 40 percent of likely voters still believe Bush was not
really elected President.
What then, is to be done?
The least we can do is know our own history, and to understand that what the Injustices did was an insult to the
dreams and ideals of Lexington and Concord, Valley Forge and Jefferson and Paine, Gettsyburg and Lincoln and
Douglass, Selma and King, Seneca Falls and Anthony, Delano and Chavez, Flint and Debs and Lewis. We can
bear witness to injustice, in the nonviolent protest tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Havel, Robinson, Chavez.
The Scalia Five's judicial coup came down on the second Tuesday last December. So, on the second Tuesday of
July, July 10, 2001, the Tuesday after the Pro-Democracy Convention in Philadelphia, the Tuesday between
Independence Day and Bastille Day, the Institute for Policy Studies and friends are calling for a peaceful,
nonviolent vigil at the Supreme Court building, at noon.
On July 10--and each Tuesday at noon from then on--let's gather at the scene of the crime, and bear witness to the
truth. The Scalia Five won't be there; but we should be.
Bring a candle or a bell, like the Czechs a decade ago. Bring a copy of the Voters' Bill of Rights, or the US
Constitution. Send an e-mail to all your friends, with your favorite quote from this list. Bring Pablo Neruda's and
Marge Piercy's poems. Bring the next generation, so they will never forget. Bring your commitment to restore,
rebuild, and expand American democracy. The Supreme Court cheated. Democracy lost. For now.
This ultra-conservative group needs donations! Lend them a helping hand by sending them a few $100 or $1000 bills ... Confederate ones! Click
here to print or download the bills. Send them to other right-wing groups as well!
And if you still want to annoy the Heritage Foundation, you can always go to their
online donation form as soon as you try to leave the page, a pop-up window appears asking why you decided not to donate. Give them an explanation, but remember to be polite!
We, the undersigned voters, know that our cherished democracy is endangered from
within by the grave and potentially fatal flaws in our voting systems exposed by the
Presidential Election of 2000.
As our elected representatives, you have the duty, the opportunity, and the privilege to
correct these flaws and to restore fair and honest elections throughout our nation. To this
end, we charge you to construct and pass a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS, which shall
include:
Strict enforcement and extension of the Voting Rights Act to prevent the
disenfranchisement of voters and require full investigation and criminal prosecution of
any offenders;
Standardized, easily understandable federal election ballots
Funding to replace old and unreliable voting machines to ensure that every vote is
counted fairly and accurately
Genuine campaign finance reform that bans campaign contributions from special
interests
Replacement of the Electoral College with a majority-rule election, or substantial reform
of the Electoral College to allow for proportional representation
Measures to increase voter participation by eliminating bureaucratic hurdles to voter
registration and turnout, including language barriers, physical barriers, archaic
equipment, and lack of resources
Enactment and enforcement of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS will restore trust in our
government and encourage participation in our democratic processes. The linchpin of a
democracy is the process by which we select our representatives and leaders. The right
to vote is our defining right as citizens of this nation. We call upon our elected
representatives to protect our Constitution from abusive exercise of government power
by enacting a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS.
We pledge our full and constant support for enactment of a VOTERS BILL OF
RIGHTS.
It is likely that 50% of the U.S. population is strongly dissatisfied with
the ascendancy of George W. Bush to the office of President. There are
three likely reasons:
In the interest of democracy, one could discredit election gripes (point
number one) as being unfair to our longstanding electoral college process..
Also, one might disregard Bush’s agenda (point number two) because the
hallmark of the United States Constitution is tolerance for divergent
political and moral beliefs.
However, point number three leads to a more egregious problem, namely that a
rather anonymous man, with no distinguishing ambition or vision has, by
virtue of family wealth and connection, been installed as President of the
United States. Even the most cursory glance at George W. Bush’s history and
character builds a strong case for charges of nepotism and cronyism. Such a
glaring display of favoritism, to benefit an individual with no considerable
talent, runs counter to the spirit of competition and fair play that has
driven the engine of American capitalism for more than two hundred years.
There is a way to tangibly and immediately raise a voice in protest of
George W. Bush as President. For the remainder of his term, conscientious
Americans should simply write "George W. Bush is an Idiot" on all U.S.
currency that passes through their hands.
This protest has already begun. The first bills were marked and spent in
San Francisco as of January 26, 2001. What is important, though, is to not
only begin marking all currency (and to continue the effort throughout the
Bush presidency), but to forward this memo as much as possible so as to
replicate the message throughout our money supply.
In an effort to mark money more industriously, many of us have ordered a
BUSH IS A FRAUD rubber stamp; these self-inking rubber stamps are useful for
marking the "Fraud" message in red ink.
Make your voice heard, Top twenty Republican donors with global consumer brands:
1 Philip Morris - $4,554,732
|
CONTRIBUTING LINKS
Parting Shots... 
TALLAHASSEE (ANP) - Tallahassee police today abandoned a three-month search for the Last
Vestige of Republican Decency.
"Let's face it," said Chief of Police, Claude Reason, "He's probably pushing up daisies right
now."
Vestige, in failing health since the November 1994 Congressional elections, was recently seen
at the party-switching announcement of former Republican Senator, James M. Jeffords (I - VT).
"Gee, I'm gonna miss him," said the ailing attribute, "He was just like family to me. They're all
gone now, y'know," he said, appearing to choke back tears, "Rockefeller, Baker, Percy,
Weicker...all gone."
Despite what friends and associates describe as Vestige's "generally distraught" state of mind,
police are unwilling to rule his disappearance a probable suicide. Instead, investigators have
shown a keen and continuing interest in the fact that his disappearance occurred on the same
day as the signing of Florida's new Equal Voting Rights Act (EVR). The questionable
coincidence has fueled suspicions of foul play. "Oh, yeah, he's sleeping with the fishies tonight,"
said Chief Reason.
The EVR represents a major overhaul of a voting system considered by many to be racially and
politically biased. The new legislation represents an attempt to respond to the torrent of criticism
that followed the controversial 2000 presidential election.
Many Republican legislators considered the state's previous voting system to be riddled with
loopholes that encouraged racial and ethnic minorities to vote. The new law plugs most of those
loopholes, now requiring, for example, that voters "study and know candidates and issues" - an
apparent return to the infamous "literacy tests" of Florida's past. The act also makes it all but
impossible for persons erroneously disenfranchised as "felons" to correct their records. "But let's
face it," commented one unconcerned Republican state Representative, "Most of 'em probably
did something wrong some time or the other, anyway."
Critics claim that these provisions are a throwback to the type of minority voting obstacles that
once typified southern electoral politics, and that were thought to have been eradicated by the
federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. "This takes us right back to 'Jim Crow'," said ACLU attorney,
Richard N. Strange.
"Hogwash! Utter hogwash!" counters a Florida Senate member who - in one of those intriguing
coincidences that often occur in mock news items - is named James R. Crowe. "The new law
simply returns us to the days when men were men, and women and minorities enjoyed the clarity
and comfort that derives from a strong sense of place," he said.
Although the new Florida law was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor "Jeb"
Bush, investigators have focused most intently on Florida Secretary of State Katherine A. Harris,
with an eye to her possible involvement in Vestige's disappearance. Ms. Harris, best known for
her key role in the events leading to George W. Bush's murky election victory, has been widely
criticized for what many regard as partisan behavior during and after the election. "About as
neutral as a whore at a temperance meeting," was the description offered by one observer.
Republican Party officials have mounted a vigorous and occasionally truculent defense of Ms.
Harris. At a recent press conference, Senator Crowe commented, "I am shocked and
disheartened to hear of news reports linking Ms. Harris with the recent disappearance of the
presumably unfortunate Mr. Vestige. I would remind all of you that Ms. Harris is not a suspect, for
the simple reason that there has as yet been no crime to suspect her of. Y'all could at least
wait for the body to turn up - I mean, if there is a body, I mean."
Mr. Crowe then added, "I would suggest that you ladies and gentlemen of the press go back
and re-read your constitution, and reflect upon its insistence that every man - and woman - is
innocent until proved guilty, or hanged - whichever come first." The balance of Mr. Crowe's
remarks focused on a castigation of the "Scandalmongers", "scalawags" and "scumbag
Interlopers" that had "infested the Capitol of late".
Family and friends of Vestige have announced a candlelight vigil to be held this Friday. |
Issues & Alibis Vol 1 # 25 © 08/31/2001 
Issues & Alibis is published in America every Friday. We are not affiliated with, nor do we except funds from any political party. We are a non-profit group that is dedicated to the restoration of the American Republic.
In regards to copying anything from this site remember that everything here is copyrighted. Issues & Alibis has been given permission to publish everything on this site. When this isn't possible we rely on the "Fair Use" copyright law provisions. If you copy anything from this site to reprint make sure that you do too. We ask that you get our permission to reprint anything from this site and that you provide a link back to us. Here is the "Fair Use" provision ...
In determining whether the use made of a work in
any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall
not itself bar a finding of fair use if such
finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
The 4th Of July