![]() |
|

Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor


|
In This Edition
Greg Palast puts us on, "The Fast Track Trade Jihad."
Al Martin shows us the frightening future in, "Citizen, Can I See Your ID?"
Mary McGrory gives us, "Fear In A Handful Of Dust'."
Norman Solomon tunes us into, "The Televised Greatness Of George W. Bush."
Joe Conason explains NYC politics in, "Ferrer’s Friends Could Hurt Green."
Gene Lyons talks about, "Bush's Wasted Opportunity."
Ann Thomas cuts through the spin in, "Suffer The Little Children."
Ted Rall gives us, "Bombing Without Thinking: A Rational Alternative."
Stan Goff says, "The So-Called Evidence Is A Farce."
Chris Floyd explains the rules to these, "Mind Games."
Peter Jennings wins the Vidkun Quisling Award
Molly Ivins is, "Seeking Short, Simple Solutions."
David Podvin and Carolyn Kay report on, "Democracy, General Electric Style."
And finally in "Parting Shots Hank Blakely is back with another tale of Smirky in, "The Big Bamboozle: Danger Are My Bidness" but first Uncle Ernie laments, "Sometimes I Wish I Was Wrong."
This week we spotlight the cartoons of Doug Marlette with additional cartoons from Tom Tomorrow, Ben Sargent, Lederman, Ted Rall, Rayberry, Rex Babin, Jeff Danziger, Bill Day, Chris Whitehouse, GWBush Art, Chadsux and Political Strikes.
Plus we have all of your favorite departments! Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis." We hope you enjoy your stay! |

|
Since the coup d' etat was all about giving Poppa a second chance at ruling the world I knew sooner or later we'd be going back to Iraq but every word out of Foggy Bottom was screaming Osama, Osama, Osama. This struck me as funny until I realized Vice-Emperor Cheney had a deal to pipe Russian oil and gas through a rather hostile Afghanastan. Yes lets take care of business first before we seek revenge. Now that the end of the Taliban is in sight I see where our attention will fall next, right on Iraq. This along with the certain overthrow of the military regime in Pakistan for backing us, should give Osama and pals the "Holy Jihad" against this country that they've been dreaming of.
Like the once sane Cat Stevens said the other night, although he didn't agree with the hit put on Salmond Rushdie being a good Muslim he would have to go along with it, oh joy. If a once liberal person like Stevens would okay murder because someone told him too what will the rank and file Muslims do? Will we soon have 1,000,000,000 potential suicide bombers heading for America? Will our own citizens heed the call of the Imams and Mullahs? Still like that old time religion do you?
Meanwhile our own political masters are setting up the Office of Fatherland Security, yes I know but lets call a spade a spade shall we. Who do you fear more America, a hand full of running scared terrorist or our own home grown types? Now off go the National Guard and Army reserves to urban commando school to learn how to man the check points. To ask us for our papers at the airports, the checkpoints around government offices, the check points on the major highways, the checkpoints at our schools, the checkpoints at sports arenas, the checkpoints at concerts, at train stations, at bus stations, at shopping malls, at your front door, at well ... you get the picture! If not read Al Martin's column below, a very scary read indeed!
Of coursed Smirky and his Nazi pals have been quick to take advantage of America's fear. The corporate controlled media have been fanning the flames of panic making much ado out of molehills, spreading panic every time you turn on the tube or radio or pick up a newspaper. The reich-wingers are having a field day stealing money from tax payers, the poor and old folks to pay for this madness. And the really scary thing is America is lining right up to proudly march off behind our Texas Prairie Monkey all the way to Doomsday.
Normally I would laugh at them a bit, shake my head and wonder how people can be so stupid. But the ante has been upped. The rules have been changed and there is no longer anything to laugh about. We are certainly standing on the brink of destruction. And unlike our atheist opponents in the cold war our current enemies both foreign and domestic are all counting on an afterlife. The Russian and Chinese knew there was no afterlife and took great pains to keep from ending the only life we have. Now we have an Emperor who thinks he's going to meet Jesus and group of guys who are happy to die for their god in order to get to paradise and get at all them virgins. Be afraid America, be very afraid.
You may want to start stocking up on freeze drieds, large caliber weapons, a good solid granite cave and a large drug supply! Knowing when to leave and where to hide may be lives most important lessons!
Last chance to read the 1st chapter of my new book,
And finally for all you trick or treaters here's my Halloween poem, |

![]() The Fast Track Trade Jihad by Greg Palast for the Observer After the attack on the World Trade Center, some enterprising hucksters here in New York tried to sell little bags of ashes to victims' families, supposedly of their missing kin. The stomach-churning commercialization of mass murder didn't bottom out there. Barely had the towers hit the ground when U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick proclaimed the way to defeat Osama bin Laden was to grant George W. Bush extraordinary 'fast-track' trade treaty negotiating authority. Ambassador bin Zoellick, speaking from what looked like a cave on Capitol Hill, surrounded by unidentified Republicans, said Americans had to choose: for free trade or for terrorism. You'd think Democrats would blast Zoellick for this crude, heartless and somewhat oddball maneuver to jam through Bush's big business agenda while a nation mourned. But this week, war-spooked Democrats in Congress are expected to vote to revive the moribund trade legislation. 'Fast-track' gives Bush carte blanche authority to bargain a big expansion of the World Trade Organization's powers in anticipation of the WTO confab scheduled for Qatar in three weeks. 'Fast-track' also greases approval for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The announcement was followed by a disturbing CNN video tape of corporate lobbyists dancing in the streets and handing out sweets to children. In a September 24 speech before the Institute for International Economics, Trade Ambassador Zoellick laid the groundwork for a new McCarthyism aimed at anti-globalization dissidents. "Terrorists hate the ideas America has championed around the world," he said. "It is inevitable that people will wonder if there are intellectual connections with others who have turned to violence to attack international finance, globalization and the United States." The implied evil link between opponents al-Queda and opponents of the WTO came to him, he said, from New Republic Magazine. This is the same journal, by the way, whose featured columnist suggested, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Exactly what are the particulars of the US trade agenda for the WTO that are supposed to make terrorists shake with fear? There are two holy grails in Zoellick's trade crusade which go by the benign namesm "national treatment in services" and "investor-to-state dispute resolution." Want to keep the Royal Post - pardon me, Consignia - in government hands, or air traffic control? Not a chance, says John Howard of the US Chamber of Commerce. As Howard explained it to me, a WTO 'national treatment' clause will take that decision out of the hands of pesky parliaments, requiring government agencies to bid against foreign operators. Which brings us to the Machiavellian side of these trade proposals (already promoted, by the way, by EU negotiators). Should Bechtel or any other foreign corporation challenge the continued public ownership of the London Underground, it will fall to Tony Blair to defend government ownership. If you suspect Blair's minions might not argue too forcefully before the disputes panel, you'll never find out. Unlike British and American court proceedings, WTO tribunals are closed and secretive. A Blair or a Bush or any potentate hostile to state-owned enterprises can use a 'national treatment' rule as a sword in their jihad against their own government's agencies. The other codicil sought by fast-track globalizers, "Investor-to-state dispute resolution," has already been deployed in the NAFTA zone. (NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is where US industry uses Canada and Mexico for target practice to test trade weapons they will take international through WTO.) Investor-to-state dispute resolution allows a foreign corporation wronged by violations of a trade pact to receive compensation from the miscreant nation's treasury. It all sounds quite fair. In practice under NAFTA, corporations have used the system to demolish local governments' environmental and consumer protections. In 1997, a state government in Mexico attempted to stop an American operator building a toxic waste dump in an ecological preservation zone. A NAFTA disputes panel ordered Mexico to pay $15.6 million (£10.4 million) to Metalclad for delay of its polluting plan. The most dangerous case comes before a NAFTA panel this week. Loewen Corp, a big Canadian funeral home chain, is deeply unhappy about American tort law. In 1996, a Mississippi jury ruled that Loewen breached a contract and bullied a small operator as part of a schme to monopolize the industry and raise prices. Rather than appeal the verdict to a higher court, Loewen settled for $150 million - then whipped around and demanded the US government refund the sum and then some -- $725 million. In LOEWEN V. MISSISSIPPI JURY, the Canadian operator demands that a NAFTA panel overturn basic procedures of the US civil justice system as an illegal barrier to trade. While the case is pending on the facts, the disputes panel has accepted jurisdiction. That ruling in effect makes NAFTA, not the US Supreme Court nor our Constitution, the ultimate legal authority of North America. Small wonder that American and European business chiefs are chanting "Disputes Resolution is Great!" outside the walls of Doha, Qatar, as the WTO prepares for the ministerial meeting. If Zoellick's statements on terror and trade sound a bit over the top, he is only reflecting the Bush Administration's sense of panic over the Qatar confab which, even before September 11, was heading toward collapse and cancellation. WTO President Michael Moore failed to stampede less developed counties into putting a new round of comprehensive trade talks on the Qatar agenda. Add to that the US President's lack of authority to negotiate, and who would bother to fly to the Gulf state, especially now? Hence, Zoellick's whipping skeptical Democrats about the head and shoulders with the Stars and Stripes. The Trade Representative had a second target in his trade-or-terrorism tirade: the alliance of greens, populists and unionists who beat back prior attempts at 'fast track' legislation even when Congress was in Republican hands. Zoellick hopes to discredit this effective coalition by wrapping the anti-globalization movement in bin Laden's turban. Lamentably, Zoellick is getting a lot of help on his smear campaign from befuddled souls within the anti-globalization movement itself. Bush's trade chief quotes gleefully from an Earth Island Journal writer who took the ill line that the attack on the Trade Center was some kind of extension, if misguided and criminal, of the struggle against globalization. Bin Laden, born with a silver Rolls in his mouth and a stock portfolio to rival any Rockefeller, hardly qualifies as a class warrior. Nevertheless, Earth Island Journal's opportunistic hijacking of the mass murder to promote its agenda is not exceptional. There's a horrific weirdness in hearing both Zoellick and an unforgivable number of European Leftists (friends who should know better) calling the twin towers symbols of American capitalism. EXCUSE ME, but until I began scribbling for The Observer, I worked on Floor 50 of the North Tower - which stood, among New Yorkers, as a symbol of American SOCIALISM. These government-owned skyscrapers housed the Port Authority, proprietor of subways, bridges and more, America's first line of defense against the privatization jihad sweeping the rest of the planet. It is eery, anguishing and vile to watch Bush's free-market fanatics join together with a self-absorbed element of the left to use this tragedy to sell us their phoney little bags of political ashes.
Special thanks to Mary Bottari of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch for expert explanation and nonpareil research
material.
|

|
There was a barrier that went across the road.
To the right was an elevated shed like structure,
elevated perhaps fifteen feet in the air. It had a
small second story that was open. On it was a sign
that read "Homeland Security Internal Checkpoint."
There were sandbags and the wooden arm that
crossed the road read "100% ID Checked." Then
there was a small shed to the right with a small
barbed wire area behind that. On this structure was
a sign, which read, "All citizens not having proper
identification will be detained. All foreign nationals
will be detained. All citizens who are deemed to be
acting in a suspicious manner will be detained." At
each of these posts there will be six armed Army or
National Guard reservists with M-16's with full field
kit. On top of the structure to the rear, the open
structure on top, there's a man with a machine gun
emplacement.
They showed the actual mockup used for
training purposes. They had new uniforms. They
weren't in their regular uniforms. It's a new gray
uniform with a gray helmet and a visor so you can't
see their eyes. The only thing you can see is from
their lips down because they said that's "to prevent
any retribution" from people who don't like this new
idea.
This uniform looked exactly like the Imperial
Storm Troopers from "Star Wars" except instead of
white, it was gray. All the helmets have little
transceivers so they can communicate with each
other. There will be six guards at each internal
security checkpoint. And there's another warning on
the inside of the barbed wire enclosure, "Any
detainees attempting to escape will be shot." It was
a yellow and red sign inside the detainment area.
The only person who actually spoke on camera
during this story was a sergeant, an Army Reservist
sergeant. You could tell that he completely
disagreed with what was going on. You couldn't
hear the question being asked, but he was looking
at the camera and he said, "We're here to protect
the people." Then he put his head down and shook
his head, and you could tell he didn't believe a word
of what he was saying -- like it was some big
frigging joke.
Then they showed the procedure they were
using to train these guys. An average American car,
like a Ford or a Chevy, drives up and there's
supposed to be a husband and wife in the front
seat and a couple of kiddies in the back. So they
drive up to the checkpoint, and the corporal comes
up to the car and says, "May I see your
identification, citizen."
They call everyone "citizen." I swear to God, I'm
not making this up. Then the guy asks for his
driver's license, then something else and
something else. Then he says, "Very good, citizen."
There's a spot on the gate that goes across the
road that they had x-ed out. But you could tell what it
said because the sergeant alluded to it. It said, "All
citizens are required to present their National
Identification Cards." But they left it blank as a black
spray-painted out spot because the legislation for
that hasn't happened yet.
The big sign on the side of the one and half
story shed with the machine gun nest on top said
"Homeland Security Internal Checkpoint." And now
we're all supposed to say, "Hail the Republic."
That's the new mantra. They showed a bunch of
guys being trained at Fort Campbell, Kentucky,
probably enlisted and reservists and such. And
they kept raising up their right arm saying, "Hail the
Republic."
The sergeant even said that they are duplicating
the ancient Roman Legions salute to Caesar,
using the right arm upraised with the fist. Instead of
"Hail Caesar," though they say, "Hail the Republic."
This is what's coming. People don't believe it or
people don't understand it but when 80% of the
people support whatever "security" measures are
necessary.
What does it all mean? We all better start
worrying when George Bush starts to play the
fiddle.
Congress is supposed to be recessed for the
rest of the year, but they will be giving the
Administration extraordinary wartime authority --
pursuant to all remaining legislation. In other
words, they will simply allow the Administration to
act under pending statutes. They are simply going
to transfer to the Administration emergency
wartime power to act under bills, which are still
pending, even though they haven't been passed.
The implication is that we will be under a
defacto state of martial law soon. There are
100,000 military being trained for these internal
security checkpoints.
When they were showing the lines of enlisted
and reserve people being trained in this camp, with
M-16s in their hands, I can tell you I don't think any
of them would hesitate to shoot at American
citizens. I think they're being indoctrinated. The
indoctrination they're going through is obvious. The
enlisted people are being told by the drill sergeant
that they are being given extraordinary authority that
"your job is to protect the security of the State at all
costs."
There is a direct parallel between the old Soviet
Union and the East Bloc and what we are doing.
We are establishing internal travel restrictions on
the American people. We are essentially following
the Soviet textbook. In the Soviet Communist Bloc,
for example, there were checkpoints in every city.
You had to have what's called an "internal travel
visa." You had to have that visa stamped at every
checkpoint in every city. Then they checked you out
at every entrance to every city. Then if you checked
out, they would affix a visa stamp and charge you
ten marks for it. It was a real racket.
What will be interesting to see is what kind of a
racket is going to go along with these internal
security check points. In other words, how much of
a "toll" are they going to charge? They're going to
have to do something to pay for all of this and one
of the obvious ways to pay for it would be to charge
everyone a one or two dollar "toll."
And this is what we should be looking forward
to - toll booths around the nation. They're not saying
this yet, but obviously in an effort to pay for this,
there's going to be some sort of a "security tax."
Since this system is incredibly cumbersome
(having to stop every single vehicle and check
identification) and we've been taught to be
suspicious of driver's licenses because it's so
easy to obtain false driver's licenses, the
implication is that national security cards are the
only thing that will eventually be accepted as
identification. The further implication is that in order
to accommodate traffic (this will create traffic jams
miles and miles long), there would be a separate
line for those carrying pre-approved internal visas
whose allegiance to the government has already
been checked.
The sergeant on the news report said that all
the people involved (100,000 military people) are
being forced to swear new loyalty oaths to the
United States. He just mentioned the government's
overall policy, which Bush talked about last week,
that all federal civilian employees are going to have
to take new oaths of allegiance to the "Republic."
And that extends to some members of the military
who will be involved in internal security.
Surprisingly enough all these border checks,
you would think, would be handled directly by the
military - or under the auspices of the military.
They're not. They're under the auspices of
"Homeland Security." What it means is that you
have 100,000 troops (reservists and national
guards people) based in the United States, which
will be seconded to the Office of Homeland
Security. Their ultimate jurisdiction is being
transferred from the Department of Defense to the
Office of Homeland Security.
In other words, the Office of Homeland Security
is gaining a militarized division of 100,000 troops.
It's finally getting some of the liberals nervous.
But it's coming. Day after day, they're showing polls
that seventy to eighty percent of the American
people are prepared to approve whatever security
measures are "necessary" to "fight terrorism."
* * *
MILITARY FRAUD DEPT.: According to the
Friendly Colonel, the Redstone Arsenal base
commander was chortling over the fact that the
accuracy of the missile strikes in Afghanistan thus
far was 37%. He was actually chortling on how
"high" the accuracy rate has been. The general's
exact words were that "the defense contractors will
get paid as long as the things go off and hit the
right country."
Also, the Friendly Colonel realizes the reason
the FBI didn't stop all those weapons shipments
from Huntsville Alabama (See previous story
http://www.almartinraw.com/column22.html)
What they were doing was pre-positioning
materiel in Pakistan. That leads one to the
conclusion which he had already made earlier -
that somebody knew this war was going to happen,
possibly as long as six months ago (May 2001). In
other words, they didn't know specifically the target,
but somebody thought it likely that a "terrorist event"
would happen that would precipitate a response by
the US in Afghanistan.
And Where Did the "Mushrooms" Go? (See
previous column
http://www.almartin.raw/column32.html) They were
intended for use by US armed forces. In other
words, they were pre-staging supplies. That's
where the "mushrooms" (anti-personnel land
mines) went. He got an explanation how these
"mushrooms" are used by Special Forces when
they are clearing an area. When an area is being
swept, they drop this weapons system behind
them - to protect their rear and also to prevent
anyone else from re-infiltrating an are which has
already been cleared. The specific use of these
mushrooms is in a sweep operation. When forces
sweep an area and they don't want the area
re-infiltrated they leave this passive weapons
system behind. These weapons are principally
used in an urban warfare environment.
The only correlation that can be made is that
there would be an attack against the United States
of sufficient size which would warrant a response,
hence the predisposition of these weapons
system, like these mushrooms which are under
intense international criticism by an anti-land mine
group in London.
The general also said that they're "re-ordering
missiles like crazy - the Cruise and Tomahawk
missiles." They are being reordered and Rockwell
is building them as fast as they can. Cruise
Missiles are about $1.6 million each, and the
Tomahawks, which are larger, longer range, more
advanced with a heavier payload, are about $3.5
million each.
He estimated that about 300 missiles have
been used so far. It's not big money, but these
missile systems are extremely profitable to build.
They have a simple guidance system, a simple
conventional explosive, and the micro-processors
necessary for the look-forward view capacity is
pretty simple. All they have to do is not hit the side
of a mountain on the way to their target…
* * *
MEDIA DEPT.: According to a reliable inside
source, all the mainstream media outlets have
received a confidential memorandum from the
White House asking that they change the monikers
they're using "Homeland Security" to "Home Front
Security." Apparently they believe that "Home Front
Security" sounds more patriotic and less sinister
than "Home Land Security."
They have also asked the media not to show
any more footage of the urban training and internal
security checkpoints and to minimize the coverage
of any "future" troop movements within the United
States. The implication is that when these internal
security checkpoints get set up, there will be a lot of
movement of troops, helicopters, etc. So as not to
disturb the domestic tranquility of the people by
telling the people the truth, the government is
asking the media to limit coverage of any domestic
troop movements.
All the media will comply because they're all
dying to jump on the government line. MSNBC has
in fact changed their moniker form "Homeland
Security" to "Home Front Security." "Home Front" is
more homey sounding and much more patriotic. It
strikes a chord with a lot of people especially older
people who remember this being so extensively
used for security measures put in place during the
Second World War.
* * *
EDUCATION/ INDOCTRINATION DEPT.: A
warning of note -- Mothers of America beware. Last
week during National Patriotism Day, sixty million
American schoolchildren were supposed to stand
up and say the Pledge of Allegiance together.
There was a little known and briefly shown
incident on TV about a teacher in New Jersey. He
was a fifth grade teacher who changed the words
of the Pledge of Allegiance from "I pledge
allegiance to the flag" to "I pledge allegiance to the
Office of Homeland Security." Subsequently it was
noted that in his opinion children are never too
young to be taught obedience to the State. It should
also be noted that the teacher in question who
professed to be a loyal Vietnam veteran with a flat
top hairdo, a Marine Corps. tattoo on his arm and a
Timex watch, and replete with a polyester tie. He
rather looked like some sort of reject for the corner
stool at the local VFW, when he explained that "he
never saw a commie he didn't want to bomb."
* * *
HISTORY OF FBI ANTI-TERRORISM SUCCESS
DEPT.: In 1995, pursuant to the first round of
"anti-terrorism" legislation a/k/a HR1701, the FBI
was given a special $300 million grant to track
down terrorist assets worldwide.
After a five-year search and an expenditure of
$300 million of American taxpayers' money, they
managed to find one bank account belonging to the
Hamas terrorist group. It was in a savings bank in
New Jersey, and it had $17000 in it.
The Treasury Department's current
pronouncements that the terrorist assets they're
freezing every day is just so much nonsense.
They're not giving us any details about who owns
these accounts or how they know they're connected
to terrorist groups. One of the accounts they seized
in California? Upon further investigation, it turned
out that the account with $346 in it was in fact the
coffee and donut fund for the local Arab American
Chamber of Commerce.
* * *
FREEDOM OF SPEECH DEPT.: Having gone
out to the $8.99 All You Can Eat Chinese Buffet with
a bunch of cohorts, we found out that unbeknownst
to us, there was an FBI agent sitting in the booth
nearby. He was there not in an official capacity, but
just having dinner with his wife. Anyway, we were
talking about the new Office of Homeland Security
and what the internal checkpoints were going to
look like and what the new parameters of our new
National Identity cards will be and, of course,
referencing George Bush as George "Never Saw a
Document He Didn't Want to Shred" Bush. And we
talked about the number of civil rights that the
American people will be giving up in this new
campaign against terrorism.
When we got up to leave, the FBI agent said to
me, "Hey pal, best flap your gums while you can
because a year from now I'll have the power to
arrest you for such seditious talk."
He was wearing his FBI badge on the inside to
ensure that he would get his 15% discount at the
restaurant.
My pals are all older and they're afraid that they'll
get their Social Security checks taken away from
them for hanging out with me. Then I told the FBI
agent that, "Hey, we're just speaking the truth." And
he said, "Like I said, seditious talk."
So remember - the new government mantra is
"Speaking the truth about government misdeeds
and abuses of power equals sedition."
* * *
AS SEEN ON TV DEPT.: The new checkpoints
have been established and they look just like the
mockups that were shown on TV. There's a large
red and yellow placard that says "Homeland
Security Internal Checkpoint." You have to show
your driver's license to go through and you're told
that soon even that will not be sufficient. There was
a company of National Guard setting up an
ancillary facility. They had their new gray helmets
with the visors on, so you couldn't see their eyes.
And it is true. We went through the checkpoint.
And yes, they really do address you as "Citizen." |

|
A handful of anthrax particles sent through the mail to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has sent Capitol Hill into an orbit
of jitters and confusion and set off a civil war (luckily only of words) between the House and Senate.
On Tuesday afternoon, Daschle set off alarm bells by calling the bacteria in his mail "potent." On Wednesday, he sponsored a news
conference where a military expert claimed that the anthrax was "garden variety." Were the terms mutually exclusive? No one knew
enough to know or ask.
The House reacted strongly to the news that terrorism had blasted through the ancient privileges and new barricades that protect the
Senate to invade the Hart Office Building. Thirty one employees tested positive for exposure, which is not to say infection, a distinction
overlooked in the rush to panic. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert announced that the House would shut down. Actually, the Senate is doing
pretty much the same thing, to do an environmental sweep. It just isn't saying so.
The Senate entrance offered a strange sight at 11 o'clock Wednesday morning. Tense groups of reporters surrounded senators
emerging from an emergency bipartisan session in their dining room. Their message: The show must go on. The House was
condemned for overreacting. The buzz around the edges of the little clots was that Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was
going to have a word with Hastert to straighten him out about the protocol and priorities of not giving in to terrorists, whoever they are.
Farm boys among the senators comprised the instant new elite that has sprung up since the horror at the Hart Building, a third of
which has been sealed off ever since. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was offering the morning's most potent reassurance: "I grew up with
anthrax, we had it all the time. You just took penicillin."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) was another with first-hand knowledge of the barnyard plague who didn't think it should be allowed to shut
down the government, which of course, was the terrorist vision. "Just because the stuff was highly concentrated doesn't mean
necessarily it was potent."
At 12:45 p.m., in the little park opposite the Capitol, Daschle appeared, accompanied by Republican leader Lott and a phalanx of
experts in the fields of environment and public health, all of whom offered various forms of reassurance.
A much-decorated major general from Fort Detrick named Jon Parker pronounced the Daschle strain to be "a garden variety of
anthrax" and found it to be "sensitive to all kinds of antibiotics." This was good news to the hundreds, including Sen. Joe Lieberman
(D-Conn.), who had taken Cipro.
But within the hour, Hastert had resurfaced to restate his fears that the anthrax might have traveled through ventilating ducts or
tunnels, which necessitated a shutdown for proper house cleaning. House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.) chimed in
unhelpfully with a first-time claim that the Daschle strain was "weapons grade."
With all the speculation and expertise being flung around, no one wanted to talk about the greatest mystery, which is not the strength
of the anthrax or its contagious quality, but who's spreading it around. Is Osama bin Laden laughing up his sleeve again, or is this the
work of home-grown, garden-variety terrorists? How did it strike a 7-month-old baby who visited ABC News, or get into the offices of
New York Gov. George Pataki's police detail? The governor was not tested for anthrax but took Cipro anyway, against all medical
advice.
As the crisis unfolded, the chief executive was taking his own advice. President Bush took off for Shanghai on schedule. He has
played a confusing hand in the reassurance game. When the FBI issued a warning last week of further trouble, he dismissed it as
more evidence, without specifics, of a vigilant government at work.
Perhaps his most baffling prescription for peace of mind was his curious treatment of the vice president. While the rest of us were
flying or buying or going to baseball games, Dick Cheney was stashed out of sight in an undisclosed safe location. He was not even
allowed to go to his office, in the interests of "continuity." Was someone after the vice president? Did the president know something
we didn't know?
Legislative and executive have both struck out now in helping us learn to live with terrorism. Maybe it's time for homeland security czar
Tom Ridge to speak up. |
The Televised Greatness Of George W. Bush By Norman Solomon President Bush's upward spike of popularity owes a lot to his presence on television -- a medium that has not always been so kind. At times, under pressure, he has earned many comparisons to a deer in headlights. But after a wobbly performance on Sept. 11, Bush got into a groove of seizing the TV opportunity and making the most of it. Today's television environment is, more than ever, warmly hospitable to simple -- and simplistic -- declarative statements. That's just as well for Bush, who has shown a distinct tendency to get entangled in a morass of fragmentary linguistic riffs. Last year, on many occasions, he seemed painfully anxious to make his way to the end of sentences without further embarrassment. But now, for the most part, it's a very different story. For insights about recent shifts of George W. Bush's persona on television, I contacted media critic Mark Crispin Miller, whose 1988 book "Boxed In: The Culture of TV" was a groundbreaking analysis of the tube. In the book, he disputed the customary image of the U.S. president as a "mighty individual" -- and identified that image as "a corporate fiction, the careful work of committees and think tanks, repeatedly reprocessed by the television industry for daily distribution to a mass audience." Boosted by family ties and powerful corporate backers, Bush won the presidency (though not the popular vote) while projecting an affable personality that some have found endearing. But even while carrying out weighty duties of the presidency with all its trappings, he struck many Americans as a lightweight, ill-suited for the job. A turning point came with his dramatic speech to a joint session of Congress in mid-September. The rave media reaction "was understandable," Miller told me, "because it actually reflected less on Bush's speech per se than on the moment's strange and terrifying context. The speech was deemed 'Churchillian' because the audience (the American people, the Congress, the media) was so desperate for a proper leader at that fearful moment. At that moment of catastrophe, there was so fierce a hunger for a national father-figure that the audience saw one in the president, who therefore came across like Churchill, or like FDR, despite his lack of stature -- which, prior to the shock, had been quite clear to most observers." Miller's book "The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder," published a few months ago, warns against assuming too much about the significance of Bush's habitual tongue-tangles. It's a cautionary note that now rings especially true. The man in the White House is shrewd and capable of high-impact rhetorical feats. Since Sept. 11, Miller says, President Bush "has continued, by and large, to speak with more authority than usual." While acknowledging that Bush "has at times reverted to his usual gaffery" (as in his announcement that "ticket counters and airplanes will be flying out of National Airport"), Miller observes that "on the subject of 'America's new war' -- 'the focus of this administration' -- Bush has managed to ad lib with an overall coherence that is, for him, extraordinary." Miller adds that "the president has lately spoken relatively well for the same reason that he's always broken into sudden fits of lucid English -- because, in speaking of our national mission of revenge, he's speaking from the heart." In fact, George W. Bush "has always spoken clearly on those subjects that genuinely matter to him. Thus it is that, when he talks about baseball, say, or about his property in Crawford, he has no problems with his syntax, grammar or vocabulary." Professor Miller, who specializes in media studies at New York University, contends that Bush also "is most articulate when speaking cruelly -- on the value of the death penalty, or when cracking jokes, or when saying no. It's when he tries to sound a higher note -- idealistically, or out of magnanimity, or on his trademark theme of 'compassion' -- that Bush starts speaking broken English, because, like most of us, his tongue will not cooperate when he is being insincere."
These days, President Bush is evidently sincere about wanting the
missiles to keep flying and the bombs to keep falling on Afghanistan --
circumstances that notably enhance his verbal skills. The fact that large
numbers of Afghan people are now facing imminent starvation due to the
ongoing attacks does not seem to bother our nation's leading compassionate
conservative. "The president," says Miller, "has lately spoken with unusual
coherence in his off-the-cuff remarks -- because his subject nowadays is war." |
Ferrer’s Friends Could Hurt Green It’s hard to tell exactly what Fernando Ferrer and his prominent supporters think they’re doing right now. Assuming that the final vote counts in the Democratic primary runoff eventually show that Mark Green won, the post-primary media crusade that the Ferrer camp is mounting against him right now can only depress Democratic turnout in November and perhaps elect a Republican Mayor. Much worse, it could exacerbate racial and ethnic tension. This is a very curious activity for activists and officeholders who profess to be progressive Democrats. Among them are several Democratic members of Congress, most notably Charles Rangel of Harlem; the chairman of the Democratic organization in the Bronx, Roberto Ramirez; former Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, who holds the rank of vice chairman on the Democratic National Committee; and Dennis Rivera, the president of the hospital-workers’ union, Local 1199. They’re angry about the negative tactics used by the Green campaign in the final hours before the runoff on Oct. 11. They point not only to a Green television commercial whose tagline—"Can we afford to take a chance?"—struck them as an appeal to white fear, but to anonymous telephone calls and fliers that warned about the Reverend Al Sharpton’s influence over Mr. Ferrer. Conversations with several of the furious Ferrer backers suggest that their anger is genuine, however exaggerated and tinged by previous personal animosities toward Mr. Green. They have produced no proof whatsoever that the Green campaign was responsible for those racially charged fliers and phone calls, which he has disowned and denounced. And their complaint about the TV ad sounds pretty silly, since that sort of tagline is a cliché of negative political advertising, used by all kinds of candidates against one another regardless of race, creed or color. As this dispute grows nastier, there are several facts that voters of all ethnic groups should remember. The Ferrer campaign depended heavily on Mr. Sharpton—a lifelong, enthusiastic and unapologetic exploiter of racial tensions—to mobilize its vote. The Ferrer campaign launched the first negative assault during the runoff, when its candidate stood chortling alongside Ed Koch while the former Mayor brayed so loudly about the "obnoxious" personality of Mr. Green—a theme Ferrer supporters continued to emphasize. The Ferrer campaign attempted to smear William Bratton as an enemy of minority communities, even though Mr. Ferrer had eagerly praised the former police commissioner years earlier, when that seemed more opportune. Embittered critics of Mr. Green now portray the Ferrer candidacy as a historic bid for Latino empowerment, and grumble that his defeat represents a betrayal by the Democratic Party of loyal constituencies long awaiting their turn in City Hall. There is a false note in this woeful song, however. If the Ferrer campaign represented a crusade for political equity, then why did Mr. Rivera, for example, dawdle so long before endorsing him at the last minute? Why did Mr. Rivera’s union almost choose Mr. Green instead, just after Labor Day? Why did Mr. Sharpton flirt so ostentatiously with a Green endorsement? Presumably they were just playing the games that power brokers play, hedging and bargaining in the traditional style that often lurks behind progressive rhetoric. Both Mr. Rivera and Mr. Sharpton have found reasons to cozy up to Republican candidates in years past when that best served their institutional interests. Just four years ago, Mr. Rivera unceremoniously dumped the Democratic challenger to Rudolph Giuliani, despite all of the Mayor’s many offenses to minority voters and union workers, and stood beside him for a smiling photo op just before Election Day. In 1986, Mr. Sharpton essentially sold his support to Senator Alfonse D’Amato, in exchange for a $550,000 federal grant to a drug-rehab center run by a Sharpton ally. (That episode became one of many counts in Mr. Green’s ethics complaint against the former Senator.) Indeed, Mr. Sharpton regularly threatens to bolt to the Republicans, whenever he isn’t seeking a Democratic nomination for himself. Power brokers like winners, and cynics might think that Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Rivera were initially attracted to Mr. Green because he appeared so likely to win the Democratic nomination all year. Yet there was another factor that permitted the Public Advocate to come as close as he did to winning the support of the hospital workers and even the Sharpton faction. Before their memories were clouded by the pain of defeat last week, people like Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Rivera surely recalled that Mr. Green was among the few white politicians in New York who was unafraid to stand by David Dinkins during the worst days of his Mayoralty.
Both Mr. Green and his angry critics face an important test. He has to set aside his pride to
reassure them that he really seeks to unify the city across racial lines, regardless of past
conflicts. And they must abandon the impulse for retribution at a moment when New Yorkers
need unity more than ever.
|
Bush's Wasted Opportunity By Gene Lyons At this writing, it's hard to say anything worthwhile about how the war on terrorism is going. As most Americans understand, bombing defenseless Afghanistan is the easy part. All the hard choices and the tough fighting lay ahead. Complex military and geopolitical puzzles will need to be solved. Sad to say, one's confidence in President Bush's ability to make the right calls has not been enhanced by recent cave-ins to the dimwit right on the relatively mundane domestic issues of stimulating the economy and airline safety. Even as Washington pundits exult over his newfound "legitimacy," Bush appears to be blowing the political opportunity of a generation. With the nation united behind him and the "religious right" weakened by the crackpot pronouncements of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the president had an excellent chance to move toward the center and away from the puerile anti-government rhetoric and save-the-millionaires economics of House Republicans like Dick Armey and Tom de Lay. Instead, the White House has embraced them for reasons that virtually defy rational explanation. Last Oct. 12, the House Ways and Means Committee shoved through a bogus economic "stimulus" bill in the form of $100 billion tax giveaway to the same wealthy individuals and corporations who were already the prime beneficiaries of Bush's earlier tax cut. Passed on a party line vote, the House bill would do little to help the economy in the short run, and much to destabilize the federal budget years hence. At Democratic insistence, $300 checks will be sent to workers whose salaries were too low to get income tax rebates last summer. Because it's sure to be spent at once on necessities, this cash should give the economy a modest boost. But what have income tax cuts that award an added $39 billion to the richest one quarter of taxpayers between 2003 and 2005 got to do with today's recession? Absolutely nothing. Ditto for repealing the corporate minimum tax on profitable companies which would otherwise pay none. Temporarily speeding up depreciation on business investment might help in the short run; doing so permanently weakens the incentive and hurts the treasury. And so forth. Even Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has called the bill "more than we'd like" and mocked the House drafting session as "show business for lobbyists." Its spirit was parodied by Washington Post columnist Mike Kinsley, who urged Congress "to seriously consider special tax considerations, regulatory relief and possibly even direct financial subsidies for people named "Mike" or "Michael." In this time of crisis, we cannot allow superficial considerations of fairness to prevent us from doing what is necessary to ensure that this essential group of Americans is fully engaged in the war effort." The White House wants to trim the numbers some, but basically supports the House bill. The Wall Street Journal reports rumors that if O'Neill doesn't get on board, he'll be fired. Which can only mean that President Bush, as many suspect, either can't do the arithmetic, or means to use the campaign against terrorism as a pretext to return the country to rising interest rates and permanent budget deficits. Apparently just so the Scrooge McDucks of the GOP right can hoard heaps of currency to roll in. If Bush's economic policies are unwise, going along with de Lay and the boys on the crucial issue of airline safety is downright irrational. As a 1996 commission chaired by, yes, Al Gore, tried to convince GOP pols in the first place, preventing terrorists from using domestic airliners as weapons of war is a national security issue. Last week the U.S. Senate voted 100-0 to put the Department of Justice in charge of airport security and impose a $2.50 tax on airline tickets to pay for it. Amazingly, House anti-labor union fanatics led by de Lay and Armey oppose the bill on the stated grounds that the private rent-a-cop firms who've done such a fine job so far can continue to do so more efficiently. Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia has indicted officials of Argenbright, the nation's largest airline security firm, for repeatedly violating FAA standards-including falsifying records to hide employees' criminal records.
What de Lay and company really fear is adding 28,000 unionized
workers to the federal payroll. Somebody needs to remind them that the New
York City cops and firemen who responded so heroically to the World Trade
Center attacks were members of the strongest municipal unions in the
country-career professionals whose pride, dedica-tion, and, yes,
brotherhood, have everything to do with the fact that making the force
isn't a minimum wage stopgap but the ambition of a lifetime.
Astonishingly, President Bush has sided with the House
know-nothings, and threatened to enforce their wishes by executive
order--bad politics, bad for the country, but good in the long run, I
suppose, for the Democratic party. |
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation
must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." ... Ben-Jamin' Franklin
Suffer The Little Children By Ann Thomas Pardon me if I don't fall all over myself praising Bush, as many pundits and mouthpieces did last night, for his new plan to "help" the children of Afghanistan. The Shrub has announced that he'd like for all children to send a dollar to the "Fund for Any Surviving Afghan Kids" or whatever it's called. There are approximately seventy million children in the U.S., so if each one of them sent in a dollar, that'd be a whopping $70 million in aid. Of course, Bush is hoping that their parents will kick in a bit as well to increase the pot. Why does this make me angry? The U.S. has pledged to give $320 million in aid to the people of Afghanistan. That's certainly better than nothing, but does it mean that Bush gives a flying damn for the civilians whose lives are being further destroyed by his new oil war? Of course not; it's a PR move and nothing more, and anyone with a grain of common sense knows it. Now Bush has decided that the Afghan people need a bit more help. Is he pledging more aid? Hell, no - he's asking our kids to give it. The people of America, he claims, are "the most generous in the world", though how he could know this without visiting other countries and actually getting to know the people there is beyond me. Last night, shortly before Bush's press conference, John King of CNN said that Bush planned to bring up the subject of humanitarian aid (I suppose his plan to milk the American people for relief money was supposed to be a big deal) because, and I quote, "He wants to feed the Afghan people even while he bombs their country". Well, bully for him. He wants to make sure they have a peanut butter sandwich before we drop a bomb on them. What a guy. Speaking of dropping bombs, the US military has been dropping food packages on Afghanistan - your tax dollars at work. First, we dropped 37,000 food packages, which was touted by the media as evidence of Shrub's compassion. Thirty-seven thousand meals don't go very far in a country where millions are starving. And of course, there's no guarantee that the Afghan people will get to eat those meals...there are more land mines in Afghanistan than in any country in the world. You'd have to be pretty hungry to run across a mine-strewn field to get to a meal, but the people there ARE pretty hungry, so you can bet that's what they're doing. The children, whom Bush professes to care so much about, are no doubt among those risking - literally - life and limb to get a meal. We claim that we have to drop the food packages because it's the only safe way to get food to the people. Yet the reason it's no longer safe to take food into the country by traditional methods is because we're bombing the hell out of the country. But no fear - we're going to help those children, according to Bush. We're going to help them by coercing the people of the US to donate money, which will no doubt pay for more pretty packages to be dropped over a mine-ridden field. And if it's not enough food for the Afghan people now, it might be eventually, because they are dying. We've already killed at least one child with our bombs; he won't be the last. What, I wonder, was the cost of the bomb that killed him? How many children would it have fed? Some might say that the US, in this current economy, can't afford to give more than $320 million in aid to Afghanistan. Well, perhaps we can't. But we could sure afford to give $15 BILLION in aid to the airline corporations, a portion of which will be kicked back to the Republicans and the Bush administration in return for letting the airlines "police themselves" with regards to security. Fifteen billion dollars averages out to roughly two hundred and ten dollars for every child in the U.S. I'll tell you why I'm angry. I'm angry because our government gave an ungraspable sum of money to corporations whose skinflint practices may have enabled the terrorists to hijack four planes and kill thousands of people, but when it comes to giving money to starving people who have done nothing - NOTHING - to us, Bush gives a paltry $320 million and then states that anything more will have to be donated voluntarily by the American people, who are already feeling the pinch of the Bush economy. Oh, but not the American people in general -- the CHILDREN. I don't doubt that many, many children will faithfully send in their dollar and actually believe that they are helping their counterparts in Afghanistan. They'll do it because their parents will tell them it's the right thing to do, and of course, helping starving children IS the right thing to do. But what are our children learning? That it's okay to bomb people if we also send them a meal now and then? That our government can't afford to help starving children because it's spending too much money on corporate welfare and tax cuts, so it's up to us to do so? Here's an idea: have our government give $15 billion in aid to the people of Afghanistan, and $320 million in aid to the airlines. And then encourage the American people to donate to the airlines to help them out further. We could call the project "Schoolkids for Corporations".
In a perfect world... |
Bombing Without Thinking: A Rational Alternative by Ted Rall Beware collateral damage, for today's hey-nothing-personal victims give rise to tomorrow's terrorists. As this goes to press, a bestiary of bombs-a few 500-pounders here, some "bunker busters" there-is falling on Afghan cities. Gulf War mythology of ordinance IQ notwithstanding, 21st century bombing is hardly a precision art. Smart or dumb, some bombs will always go off-course. And bombs hit things that then blow up, killing people who weren't themselves targets. Sometimes civilians hang out where they shouldn't. And sometimes information about bombing targets is just plain wrong or out-of-date. The bottom line is this: Ordinary Afghan people, men and women and children who have never done anything wrong to anyone, are getting mangled and killed by American bombs. The innocents have spouses, parents and friends, and these spouses, parents and friends may quite naturally end up hating those who mangled and killed their loved ones. That hate festers, and some of these people will eventually be persuaded that vengeance will soothe their pain. And one day they'll fly planes into office buildings or blow themselves up in shopping malls or do something else we haven't dared imagine yet. Needless to say, getting even for the 9-11 attacks doesn't do much good if our vengeance only creates more terrorism, which we will then feel compelled to avenge. And yet: the right-wingers are absolutely correct when they assert that doing nothing is not a viable option. Whether September 11th was something we "had coming" or not, giving peace a chance is not something we can imagine at the moment: there is no peace to give a chance to. And no nation is worthy of the name unless it's willing to react to the murder of its citizens with force. Bush is, like it or not, doing something. People respect that, even if that something later turns out to be counterproductive. There is, however, an intelligent middle ground between mindless bombing and mindless pacifism. A thoughtful solution - neither "liberal" nor "conservative" -- can be found by applying what we Americans are best at: simple common sense. The Objectives Like the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty", a "war on terrorism" is too vast, vague and nebulous to "win". Our first priority ought to be to bring the surviving perpetrators of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center to justice; if they end up dead in the attempt, so be it. Second, while we'll never eradicate the possibility of terrorist attacks on American soil we can minimize their number and their intensity when they do occur. This requires a delicate combination of force and tact: We must be kind as well as forceful. What To Do Afghanistan's Taliban regime is at most indirectly involved with the September 11th hijackings. (The Bush Administration admits that it couldn't indict Osama or the Taliban on the evidence it currently possesses.) Follow the passports: 18 out of the 19 hijackers were Egyptian; 1 was Saudi. The smart money points to one of the Middle East's most venerable militant Muslim organizations, Gama'at al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Group. Founded by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Gama'at al-Islamiyya is best known for the November 1997 massacre of 62 tourists at the Temple of Luxor in Egypt and the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981. Though the Islamic Group is composed of numerous splinter cells whose ideologies vary, they share a common aim: the replacement of the secular government of Hosni Mubarek by an Islamic theocracy. The Islamic Group resents the U.S. for propping up the Mubarak government, and for its support for Israel. According to most reports, Egyptians are the main suspects for September 11th. So why are we attacking Afghanistan? American intelligence should work with the Egyptian government to track down any members of Gama'at al-Islamiyya who had anything to do with the New York and Washington attacks and put them on trial for mass murder. Arresting murderers ought to take precedence over bombing the places where they trained. A targeted approach would demonstrate to all but the most fanatic elements in the Arab world that the United States is a nation whose retribution is measured and just. It would also serve to destroy the one network to have drawn the most American blood-and reduce the odds of a repeat performance. Though we should continue providing economic and military assistance to Israel, that aid ought to be predicated on several conditions. First, all Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories ought to be closed. Second, Israel should guarantee an end to its more egregious human rights abuses, such as the demolition of Arab homes and rocket attacks on civilian targets. Finally, internal border blockades of Gaza and the West Bank should be permanently halted. This bilateral policy-supporting Israel while refusing to tolerate religious apartheid-would show that we stand behind our friends but only to the extent that they behave in a civilized fashion. Best of all, it would end the absurd state of affairs in which a superpower is repeatedly manipulated by a resource-free desert nation the size of New Jersey. We should drop sanctions and military action against Iraq and Afghanistan in exchange for verifiable assurances that neither nation will harbor terrorists who target the United States. Then we should pour in humanitarian assistance to show ordinary Muslims that Americans care about their plight. Let a co-opted postwar Taliban root out Al Qaeda and other groups in their territory; it's a hell of a lot easier to let the locals do the dirty work than to send in American ground troops.
But first, let's stop this stupid bombing. |

|
But I wasn't just in the army. I studied and taught military science and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the
Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at West Point. And contrary to the
popular image of what Special Forces does, SF's mission is to teach. We offer advice and assistance to foreign
forces. That's everything from teaching marksmanship to a private to instructing a Battalion staff on how to
coordinate effective air operations with a sister service.
Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated conflict areas from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say
that the story we hear on the news and read in the newspapers is simply not believable. The most cursory glance
at the verifiable facts, before, during, and after September 11th, does not support the official line or conform to the
current actions of the United States government.
But the official line only works if they can get everyone to accept its underlying premises. I'm not at all surprised
about the Republican and Democratic Parties repeating these premises. They are simply two factions within a
single dominant political class, and both are financed by the same economic powerhouses. My biggest
disappointment, as someone who identifies himself with the left, has been the tacit acceptance of those premises
by others on the left, sometimes naively, and sometimes to score some morality points. Those premises are
twofold. One, there is the premise that what this de facto administration is doing now is a "response" to
September 11th. Two, there is the premise that this attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was done
by people based in Afghanistan. In my opinion, neither of these is sound.
To put this in perspective we have to go back not to September 11th, but to last year or further.
A man of limited intelligence, George W. Bush, with nothing more than his name and the behind-the-scenes
pressure of his powerful father-a former President, ex-director of Central Intelligence, and an oil man-is
systematically constructed as a candidate, at tremendous cost. Across the country, subtle and not-so-subtle
mechanisms are put into place to disfranchise a significant fraction of the Democrat's African-American voter
base. This doesn't come out until Florida becomes a battleground for Electoral College votes, and the magnitude of
the story has been suppressed by the corporate media to this day. In a decision so lacking in legitimacy, the
Supreme Court will neither by-line the author of the decision nor allow the decision to ever be used as a precedent,
Bush v. Gore awards the presidency of the United States to a man who loses the popular vote in Florida and loses
the national popular vote by over 600,000.
This de facto regime then organizes a very interesting cabinet. The Vice President is an oil executive and the
former Secretary of Defense. The National Security Advisor is a director on the board of a transnational oil
corporation and a Russia scholar. The Secretary of State is a man with no diplomatic experience whatsoever, and
the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other interesting appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of
Defense. Rumsfeld is the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney were featured as speakers at the
May, 2000, Russian-American Business Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this cabinet are petroleum,
the former Soviet Union, and the military.
Based on the record of Daddy Bush, in all his guises, and the general trajectory of US foreign policy as far back as
the Carter Administration, I feel I can reasonably conclude that Middle Eastern and South Asian fossil fuels are one
of their major preoccupations. Not just because this klavern has some very direct financial interests in fossil fuel,
but because they surely know that worldwide oil production is peaking as we speak, and will soon begin a
permanent and precipitous decline that will completely change the character of civilization as we know it within 20
years. Even the left seems to be in deep denial about this, but the math is available. And, no, alternative energies
and energy technologies will not save us. All the alternatives in the world can not begin to provide more than a tiny
fraction of the energy base now provided by oil. This makes it more than a resource, and the drive to control what's
left more than an economic competition.
I further conclude that the economic colonization of the former Soviet Union is probably high on that agenda, and in
fact has a powerful synergy with the issue of petroleum. Russia not only holds vast untapped resources that
beckon to imperialism in crisis, it remains a credible military and nuclear challenger in the region.
We have not one, but three members of the Bush de facto cabinet with military credentials, which makes the
cabinet look quite a lot like a military General Staff. All this way before September 11th.
Then there's the subject of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO might have expected consignment to the
dustbin of the Cold War after the Eastern Bloc shattered in 1991. Peace dividend and all that. But it didn't. It
expanded directly into the former states of the Eastern Bloc toward the former Soviet Union, and contributed
significant forces to the devastation of Iraq-a key country in the world oil market, over which control translates into
the ability to manipulate oil prices.
NATO is a military formation, and the United States exerts the controlling interest in it. It seemed like a form without
a function, but it remedied that pretty quickly.
Then when Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International Monetary Fund, the US and Germany began a
systematic campaign of destabilization there, even using some of the veterans of Afghanistan in that campaign.
NATO became the military arm of that agenda-the break-up of Yugoslavia into compliant statelets, the further
containment of the former Soviet Union, and the future pipeline easement for Caspain Sea oil to Western European
markets through Kosovo.
You see, this is important to understand, and people-even those against the war talk-are tending to overlook the
significance of it. NATO is not a guarantor of international law, and it is not a humanitarian organization.
It is a military alliance with one very dominant partner. And it can no longer claim to be a defensive alliance against
European socialists. It is an instrument of military aggression.
NATO is the organization that is now going to thrust further along the 40th parallel from the Balkans through the
Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. The US military has already taken control of a base in
Uzbekistan. No one is talking about how what we are doing seems to be a very logical extension of a strategy that
was already in motion, and has been in motion for two decades. Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed
to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and contain and colonize the former
Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to go to pursue that agenda.
Afghanistan borders Iran, Pakistan, and even China but, more importantly, the Central Asian Republics of the
former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These border Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan borders
Russia. Turkmenistan sits on the Southeastern quadrant of the Caspian Sea, whose oil the Bush Administration
dearly covets.
Afghanistan is necessary for two things: as a base of operations to begin the process of destabilizing,
breaking off, and establishing control over the South Asian Republics, which will begin within the next 18-24
months in my opinion, and constructing a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver
petroleum to the Asian market.
The BBC was recently told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that senior American officials were warning
them as early as mid-July that military action for mid-October was being planned for Afghanistan. In 1996, the
Department of Energy was issuing reports on the desirability of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998, Unocal
testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that this pipeline was crucial to transport Caspian
Basin oil to the Indian Ocean.
Given this evidence that a military operation to secure at least a portion of Afghanistan has been on the table,
possibly as early as five years ago, I can't help but conclude that the actions we are seeing put into motion now are
part of a pre-September 11th agenda. I'm absolutely sure of that, in fact. The planning alone for operations, of this
scale, that are now taking shape, would take many months. And we are seeing them take shape in mere weeks.
It defies common sense. This administration is lying about this whole thing being a "reaction" to September 11th.
That leads me, in short order, to be very suspicious of their yet-to-be-provided evidence that someone in
Afghanistan is responsible. It's just too damn convenient. Which also leads me to wonder-just for the sake of
knowing-what actually did happen on September 11th, and who actually is responsible.
The so-called evidence is a farce. The US presented Tony Blair's puppet government with the evidence, and
of the 70 so-called points of evidence, only nine even referred to the attacks on the World Trade Center, and those
points were conjectural. This is a bullshit story from beginning to end. Presented with the available facts, any
16-year old with a liking for courtroom dramas could tear this story apart like a two-dollar shirt. But our corporate
press regurgitates it uncritically. But then, as we should know by now, their role is to legitimize.
This cartoon heavy they've turned bin Laden into makes no sense, when you begin to appreciate the complexity
and synchronicity of the attacks. As a former military person who's been involved in the development of countless
operations orders over the years, I can tell you that this was a very sophisticated and costly enterprise that would
have left what we call a huge "signature".
In other words, it would be very hard to effectively conceal.
So there's a real question about why there was no warning of this. That can be a question about the efficacy of the
government's intelligence apparatus. That can be a question about various policies in the various agencies that
had to be duped to orchestrate this action. And it can also be a question about whether or not there was
foreknowledge of the event, and that foreknowledge is being covered up. To dismiss this concern out of hand as
the rantings of conspiracy nuts is premature. And there is a history of this kind of thing being done by national
political bosses, including the darling of liberals, Franklin Roosevelt. The evidence is very compelling that the
Roosevelt Administration deliberately failed to act to stop Pearl Harbor in order to mobilize enough national anger
to enter the World War II.
I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on
the day of the attacks.
Follow along:
Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all the while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked
between 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
Who is notified?
This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary
school to hear children read.
By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing
teachers.
By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush is settling in with children for
his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never
before seen in history, and one has just dived into the worlds best know twin towers, and still no one notifies the
nominal Commander in Chief.
No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.
At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade Center building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the
Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to George W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber" according to reporters.
Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No.
He resumes listening to second graders read about a little girl's pet fucking goat, and continues this banality even
as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of
Washington DC.
Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force? No.
An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they
already have figured out; that there's been an attack by hijacked planes on the World Trade Center.
There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet?
No.
At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.
The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that the Pentagon might be a target, and that they
thought Flight 77 was headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has already flown South and past
the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact tearing through the sky at over 400 nauts.
At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and
the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and
DC.
Now, the real kicker: A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs
and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half
minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon,
and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that
they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving
game. It's horse shit!
There is a story being constructed about these events. My crystal ball is not working today, so I can't say why.
But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff that we are all supposed to follow blindly into
some ill-defined war on terrorism is criminally negligent or unspeakably stupid. And at the worst, if more is known
or was known, and there is an effort to conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going on.
Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence of crises from which they were temporarily
rescued by this event. Whether they played a sinister role or not, there is little doubt that they have at the very least
opportunistically pounced on this attack to overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame for the encroaching
recession from capitalism to the September 11th terror attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy
agenda, and to establish and consolidate repressive measures domestically and silence dissent. In many ways,
September 11th pulled the Bush cookies out of the fire.
And given them the green light to begin constructing a long-term scenario within which to establish fascistic
control measures at home and abroad as a citadel for the ruling class in the catastrophic conjuncture that we are
entering based on the end of oil.
This elephant in the living room is being studiously ignored. In fact, the domestic repression has already begun,
officially and unofficially. It's kind of a latter day McCarthyism. I participated in a teach-in at Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, on the 17th of September, and though not a single person on the panel excused or justified the attacks,
and every person there offered either condolences and prayers for the victims, we were excoriated within two
days as "enemies of America." Yesterday an op-ed called for my deportation (to where, one can only guess). Now
Herr Ashcroft is fast tracking the biggest abrogation of US civil liberties since the so-called anti-terrorism
legislation after the Oklahoma City bombing - which by the way hasn't resulted in anti-terrorism but in the
acceleration of the application of the racist death penalty. The FBI has defined terrorist groups not by whether any
given group has ever acted as terrorists, but by their beliefs. Some socialists and anti-globalization groups have
already been identified by name as terrorist groups, even though there is not a single shred of evidence that they
have ever participated in any criminal activity. It reminds me of the Smith Act that was finally declared
unconstitutional, but only after a hell of a lot of people served a hell of a long time in jail for the crime of thinking.
I think this also points to yet another huge problems that the Bush regime was facing. Worldwide resistance to the
whole so-called neoliberal agenda, which is a prettied up term for debt-leverage imperialism. While debt and the
threat of sanctions has been used to coerce nations in the periphery, we have to understand that the final
guarantor of compliance remains military action. For a global economic agenda, there is always a corresponding
political and military agenda.
The focal point of these actions in the short term is Southern Asia, but they have already scripted this as a
worldwide and protracted fight against terrorism.
It's far better than drug wars as a rationalization, and the drug war thing was being discredited in any
case. Leftists are regaining power and popularity in Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia, the
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, and Argentina. Cuba has gained immense prestige over the last few years. The
empire is beginning to unravel. We can hardly justify intervention in these places by saying they are not towing the
economic line by allowing the absolute domination of their societies by transnational corporations. That exposes
the agenda. So we simply claim they are supporting terrorism.
It's for all these reasons I say the left has missed the boat on this one, by allowing them to get away with rushing
past the question of who did what on September 11th. If the official story is a lie, and I think the circumstantial case
is strong enough to stay with this question, then we really do need to know what happened. And we need to
understand concretely what the motives of this administration are.
And we need to understand more than just their immediate motives, but where the larger social forces that
underwrite our situation right now are headed. I do not think this administration is engaged in the deliberative
process of a political grouping that is on top of their game. They are putting together some very deliberative
technical solutions in response to a larger situation that it slipping rapidly out of their control. Like clear cutting.
There's a very smart technology being employed to do a very dumb thing.
What they are responding to is not September 11th, but the beginning of a permanent and precipitous decline in
worldwide oil production, the beginning of a deep and protracted worldwide recession, and the unraveling of the
empire.
This brings me to a point about what all this means for Americans' security, which they are perfectly justified to
worry about. The actions being prepared by this administration will not only not enhance our security, it will
significantly degrade it. Military action against many groups across the globe, which is what the administration is
telling us quite openly they are planning to do, will put a lot of backs against the wall. That can't be very secure.
The concept of war being touted here is a violation of the principles of war on several counts, and will inevitably
lead to military catastrophes, if you're inclined to view this from a position of moral and political neutrality.
And the people who are now in possession of half the world's remaining oil reserves are subject to destabilization
for which we can't even pretend to predict the consequences-but loss of access to critical energy supplies is
certainly within the realm of possibility. Worst of all, we will be destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear power in an active
conflict with its neighbor, and we will be provoking Russia, another nuclear power. The security stakes don't get
any higher, and Americans can ill afford to ignore nukes.
And I think that this domestic agenda is a tremendous threat to the security of anyone who is critical of the
government or their corporate financiers, and we already know that the real threats are against populations that
can easily be scapegoated as the domestic crisis deepens.
There is a very real threat right now of creeping fascism in this country, and that phenomenon requires its
domestic enemies. Historically those enemies have included leftists, trade unionists, and racially and nationally
oppressed sectors. This whole "state of emergency" mentality is already being used to quiet the public discourses
of anti-racism, of feminism, of environmentalism, and of both socialism and anarchism. And while there is token
resistance by officials to anti-Muslim xenophobia, the stereotypical images have saturated the media, and the
government is already beginning to openly re-instate racial profiling. It is only a short step from there to go after
other groups. We have long been prepared by the ideologies of overt and covert racism, and racism as both
institution and corresponding psychology in the United States is nearly intractable.
It's for all these reasons that I say emphatically that we can not accept anything from this administration; not their
policies nor their bullshit stories. What they are doing is very, very dangerous, and the time to fight back against
them, openly, is right now, before they can consolidate their power and their agenda. Once they have done that, our
job becomes much more difficult.
The left, if it has the capacity to self-organize out of its oblivion, needs to understand its critical roles here. We have
to play the role of credible, hard-working, and non-sectarian partners in a broader peace-movement. We have to
study, synthesize, and describe our current historical conjuncture. And we have to prepare leadership for the
decisive conflict that will emerge to first defeat fascism then take political power.
Rosa Luxemburg's words are truer than ever right now. We are not faced with a choice between socialism and
capitalism, but socialism or barbarism.
And what we can least afford are denial and timidity.
|

|
Mind Games
"These events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of the infidel." -- Osama bin Laden, Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001.
They say that great minds think alike -- and not-so-great ones do, too, apparently. Thus here we are: two spoiled rich boys made by their fathers' money and connections have now divided the world up between them, and are basically proposing to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them.
Ah yes, welcome to the 21st century!
The Mirror Crack'd
"Tweedleedum and Tweedledee/They're throwing knives into the tree/Living in the Land of Nod/Trusting their fate to the hands of God." -- Bob Dylan, from "Love and Theft," released Sept. 11.
Both Bush and bin Laden spent sybarite youths, indulging idly and amply in the pleasures of the flesh -- on someone else's dime -- before embracing a fundamentalist religious faith that provides divine sanction for a narrow set of self-selected cultural norms while consigning all unbelievers to eternal damnation. Bush, for example, is on record as saying that all Jews are going to hell; a belief no doubt shared by his semblable, bin Laden. True, Bush later weasel-worded the issue, but his literalist faith, which he publicly affirms at every possible opportunity, is crystal-clear on this point.
Now both of these zealous believers have shimmied up the greasy pole of power -- without the nuisance of actually being elected by popular vote -- from whence they can rain death on their enemies, secure in the knowledge that they are fulfilling the will of God.
Or rather, the will of an Iron Age deity cobbled together out of the noblest aspirations, deepest fears and foulest hatreds of myriads of different tribes; a will derived from ancient grab-bags of diverse texts and fragments -- accretions of mangled history, confused traditions, inspired poetry, mystical ecstasy, mass murder, chaos and longing.
Their own limited understanding of these makeshift compendiums is the ultimate authority by which the two unchosen ones send out men to kill and die.
Plainly, this is madness. But this is the world we all must live in now. "There is no neutral ground." If we oppose or question the policies of the U.S. government, then we are supporting terrorism and "must pay the price." If we oppose the cold-blooded slaughter of innocent people by stateless renegades, then we are "infidels," marked for death.
That "choice" is the limit of our freedom in this glorious new age: trapped between two Tweedles.
Dark Valley
But if we must choose, then of course we will go with Bush. After all, of the two, he is the greatest hypocrite, and therefore there's a little more room for maneuver under his dread edict. For he doesn't really mean it when he says he will attack and punish all those who "harbor and succor terrorism." He's certainly not going to bomb, say, Saudi Arabia, which has bankrolled the deadly Hamas terrorist network for years, and spent billions during the 1980s on Saddam Hussein's efforts to build a nuclear bomb -- an attempt at terror on a global scale, which the U.S. knew about and tacitly approved as part of its years-long succor of the bloodthirsty autocrat.
And certainly, Bush is not going to bomb the U.S. government, which has provided major succor to state and private terrorism over the years, in Indonesia, Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, the Congo (remember George Senior's good buddy, Mobutu?), Angola, Chile, Lebanon, Cambodia (remember U.S. support for the genocidal Pol Pot when he was fighting the Vietnamese infidels?), El Salvador, Colombia, and that first bold step toward empire, the Philippines, where more than 200,000 natives died as U.S. forces set out to, in President McKinley's words, "Christianize" the country. The Filipinos were already Catholics, but McKinley obviously shared Bush's self-selected fundamentalist Protestant cultural norms.
And Bush is surely not going to send cruise missiles into the George Bush Center for Intelligence, headquarters of the CIA, which trained, harbored, and succored the living daylights out of the same rabid Islamic extremists who've lately been practicing the agency's "covert ops" techniques to such deadly effect in New York and Washington. Nor will he direct the forces of "Operation Enduring Freedom" to overthrow the enduring despotisms of his good friends and allies in Saudi Arabia (whose draconian brand of Islam was the Taliban's model) or Pakistan (the military dictatorship that succored the Taliban and now harbors terrorists rampaging in Kashmir) or the Afghan Northern Alliance (that collection of warlords whose depredations, which include tying miscreants to two separate tanks and tearing them in half, are scarcely less heinous than those of the Taliban).
No, George is true-blue for God, but he also has a soft spot for Mammon; and an even softer spot for Dick Cheney, who spent much of the last decade scheming with his fellow oil barons to get a pipeline from the virgin fields of the Caspian Sea -- where $4 trillion in profits are waiting for them -- through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. Cheney's business interests in oil and arms, temporarily divested while he helps direct American policy in energy and defense, rival those of the Bushes and bin Ladens. Or as the Chicago Tribune noted last year: "War is big business, and Dick Cheney is right in the middle of it."
And now we're all "right in the middle of it." But the all-too-human greed of Pious George and Deadeye Dick will no doubt trump the apocalyptic implications of Bush's political theology -- a welcome hypocrisy in the face of bin Laden's homicidal sincerity. The hypocrites will triumph, as they usually do, thank God, and their depredations will be lighter, more bearable (unless you happen to live in Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Congo, etc.). But the price will be high: a "free world" less free, less tolerant, more brutalized; a world passed into the shadows.
The Mirror Crack'd |
|
Dead Letter Office
Heil Bush,
Dear Propaganda Ansager Jennings,
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 Fuhrer Bunker (formally the White House) on 12-15-2001. We salute you Herr Jennings! Sieg Heil!
Signed,
Heil Bush
|
|
There are some signs of what could become a dangerous division
in what has been an unusually unified America since this crisis
began, and they have to do with a class difference in information.
To oversimplify, those who are getting their information from the
Internet and/or a broad range of publications are having
conversations with one another that are radically different from
those heard on many radio talk shows. This is more than the
simplistic jingoism that is a constant in American life; this is
simplistic jingoism with a dangerously short attention span. The
"let's nuke 'em" crowd is still looking for a short, simple solution,
and there just isn't one. More stark evidence of this is the poll of
Pakistanis just released by Newsweek, and the numbers need to
be read carefully: While 51 percent support their government's
cooperation with the U.S. during the crisis, 83 percent are
sympathetic to the Taliban, and almost half believe Israel was
behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Fortunately for us, bin Laden and the Taliban are taking care of that
theory. I think one of the few mistakes the Bush administration has
made so far in this was to criticize the networks for putting on bin
Laden -- we want everybody to hear him claim credit for those
attacks.
While some of us search for the answer to the question, "Why do
they hate us?" the voices on radio talk shows are answering, "Who
cares? Nuke 'em." Those inclined to think that's not a bad plan
might keep in mind the already-classic lead by Barry Bearak of The
New York Times: "If there are Americans clamoring to bomb
Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, they ought to know that this
nation does not have far to go. This is a post-apocalyptic place of
felled cities, parched land and downtrodden people." One
downside to the short-simple-answer school is that those folks are
going to become extremely frustrated. As others have observed,
talk radio is often not so much a forum for discussion as it is a
medium for venting anger, so perhaps it serves a useful purpose.
But it also seems to foment anger.
In a continuing effort to focus on the practical, I see no reason not
to lay out the evidence against bin Laden. It's being leaked to the
media so widely one can only assume that's a policy. The Taliban
are now saying they will turn bin Laden over to a third party if they
see evidence. We don't want to negotiate? Fine, we don't have to
talk to them. We can just make the information public for everyone,
with the exception, obviously, of shielding investigative tools. The
money trail offers insights on the daunting complexity of what we
face. Some of the charitable money we are questioning, from Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere, goes to the madrasas -- religious schools
of varying quality. Some offer education, some educate solely for
jihad; many of the Taliban are graduates of these schools. The
madrasas, in addition to religious education, provide room and
board for the boys of poor families. In Pakistan, where almost the
entirety of the budget goes to the military and debt service, the
madrasas represent almost the whole of civil society for the poor.
When experts talk about building a civil society, they mean from
scratch.
While some of us are talking about how to build a civil society,
achieve energy independence and settle long-standing
international disputes, others are reacting like the waitress in an
Austin drinking establishment, who refused to serve the East
Indian guest of a regular patron, repeatedly calling him a terrorist
and insisting that he leave. That's the reaction gap that concerns
me.
|

|
Welch told several people at GE that the conversation with Rove
convinced
him that a Bush presidency would ultimately result in billions of
dollars of
additional profits for General Electric. Welch believed that it was his
responsibility to operate in the best interest of GE shareholders, and
that
now meant using the full power of the world’s biggest corporation to
get
Bush into the White House.
Toward that end, Welch said that he would finally deal with a
longstanding
grievance of his: the ludicrous idea that news organizations should be
allowed to operate in conflict with the best interests of the
corporations
that own them.
Since the beginning of the country, it has been considered appropriate
for
the business community to exercise its right to aggressively support
the
candidate that best represented its interests. The new dimension that
Welch
introduced was the concept that the mainstream media should
aggressively
advance the political agenda of the corporations that own it. He did
not see
any difference between corporate journalism and corporate manufacturing
or
corporate service industries. Business was business, and the difference
between winners and losers was profit, whether you were selling nuclear
power or ads on the network news. From Welch’s perspective, it was
insanity,
not to mention bad business practice, for the corporate owners of the
mainstream media to restrain themselves from using all of their assets
to
promote their financial well being.
In general, he saw corporate news organizations as untapped political
resources that should be freed from the burden of objectivity.
Specifically, NBC News was an asset owned by the shareholders of
General
Electric. It existed to make profits and to serve the interests of
those who
owned GE stock. Period.
Anything else, Welch told associates, was "liberal bullshit".
In 1988, NBC News president Lawrence Grossman insisted to Welch that
news
was a public trust and should not be subjected to the same pressure to
make
profits that was applied to other GE units. Welch fired him.
In 1999, the GE chairman decided that it was no longer good enough for
NBC
News to just be profitable. Seven years of a frequently uncooperative
Democratic Administration, combined with the Rove-inspired vision of
spectacular profits through deregulation, now motivated Welch to take
action.
He began to aggressively, but very discreetly, evangelize the gospel of
corporate media as corporate lobbying tool. It was not a new concept;
in the
opinion of many, it was already the status quo. But from Welch’s point
of
view, the corporate news organizations were not living up to their
potential.
The mainstream media could make George W. Bush president.
That would be good for Americans who believed in free markets and the
merit
system, Welch said.
Better yet, it would help to make General Electric even more successful
and
dominant, which had been Welch’s obsession for decades.
Jack Welch believed that, despite earning millions annually in salary
and
bonuses, he was the most underpaid employee at GE. From the time he
started
running the company in 1981 to the end of 1999, the stock's total
return
(price appreciation and dividends) had been seven thousand percent.
Given
the brilliance of that performance, how could he possibly be overpaid,
or
even fairly paid? From Welch’s perspective, it was the pennies-per-hour
workers in General Electric’s Asian sweatshops who were overpaid,
because
their individual contributions to the big picture were so meager.
The philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, "The actual performance of men in
society is
a constant, fierce, undefined struggle between the genius and the
parasite…"
To Welch, although George W. Bush might not be a genius, his policies
would
encourage those who were geniuses to be even more innovative and
productive.
Fewer government regulations and lower corporate taxes would create
technological advancement, thereby benefiting society more than all of
the
do-gooder social programs combined ever could. The country would be run
for
the benefit of the "A" people who achieved great things, not the "C"
people
who merely existed. In such a laissez faire environment, the powerful
would
be unshackled to become even more powerful, and no corporation in the
world
was more powerful than General Electric.
By contrast, Welch viewed Al Gore as the candidate of the parasites.
Gore
voters were not the generators of wealth; they were the consumers of
taxes.
Welch privately described the typical Gore voter as "someone who needs
all
these goddamned social programs because she’s too goddamned dumb to
keep her
legs crossed and too goddamned lazy to get an abortion."
This view of the world led Welch to implore associates at GE that doing
whatever it took to get George W. Bush into the presidency was not only
good
for General Electric, it was good for America.
Having satisfied himself that his cause was just, Welch focused on
putting
his candidate in the White House with the tireless determination of a
man
whom Business Week described as having "an unbridled passion for
winning".
He had previously personally reviewed the launch of CNBC. He now turned
his
attention to "reforming" the editorial content of NBC News. Welch had
already secured his place as one of the business titans of the
twentieth
century. He expressed few regrets to confidantes, but he was wistful
about
his belief that GE would have made even more money if NBC News had just
been
tougher on a politically vulnerable Arkansas governor in 1992. With
only
about two years left prior to his mandatory retirement, one of Jack
Welch’s
last significant contributions would be to permanently eliminate the
irrational belief that corporate journalists should ever be allowed to
act
in a way that damaged the corporate balance sheet.
For public consumption, he said the obligatory things about GE’s
commitment
to "journalistic integrity and independence". Privately, he saw only
two
differences between his employees who reported the news and those who
made
toasters: one, the toaster makers were "less full of shit", and, two,
the
journalists were not working in the best interests of the GE team.
This second point infuriated him. It galled Welch to hear what he
considered
to be holier-than-thou pronouncements of personal moral superiority
coming
from journalists whom he viewed to be inferior to himself in just about
every conceivable way. GE signed their paychecks, and then in the name
of
"journalistic integrity and independence", they reported things that
damaged
the company. NBC News had even publicized that the federal government
caught
a GE defense subsidiary stealing massive amounts of taxpayer money.
From the
Welch perspective, tolerating this kind of insubordination was crazy.
He did
not view reporters as guardians of the truth or gatekeepers of
democracy;
for the most part, he saw them as "leftist slackasses".
Welch was absolutely determined to make his employees at NBC News
finally
genuflect to the most sacred words in his vocabulary: GE bottom line.
He perceived that there was a widely believed American myth of
well-intended
journalists selflessly seeking the truth, and that there would be hell
to
pay if a business leader like him were to overtly force reporters to be
good
corporate soldiers. So, being a very bright guy, he largely left the
journalists at NBC alone.
Publicly.
In private, Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert
from a
"lefty" to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch
sincerely
believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in
"buying
their leftist souls", watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like
Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of
their
former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert
was
now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could
take
pride.
''It's a double-edged sword to be under Jack's detailed look,'' one GE
executive told Fortune Magazine. ''If you do well, it's great. If you
don't,
it's bad news."
It was bad news for NBC correspondent Claire Shipman, who made the
mistake
of offering a positive opinion of Al Gore on the air. Jack Welch,
chairman
and chief executive officer of a $350 billion conglomerate, responsible
for
overseeing the highly diversified activities of hundreds of thousands
of
employees working in over one hundred countries, was so incensed by her
disobedience that he took time out of his busy schedule to personally
confront her about it.
She no longer works for NBC. And her managing editor, Tom Brokaw, did
not
stand up for her right to journalistic independence from the corporate
lord.
"I think Jack Welch’s the smartest boss I’ve ever had and he signs my
paychecks," said Brokaw, exhibiting a profound understanding of the
situation.
Over the years, Welch had occasionally interfered with NBC News. During
the
1987 stock market crash, he ordered Grossman to forbid his journalists
from
using the term "Black Monday" out of concern that a panic by investors
would
depress GE stock.
The Welch mission was to tame the rest of them at NBC News, and to do
so in
a way that did not cause any journalistic prima donnas to attract
unwanted
public attention by openly revolting. Beyond that, Welch hoped to
quietly
convince other media conglomerates that the great visionary (himself)
was
once again in the vanguard of an exciting and highly profitable
corporate
trend: the total destruction of any wall that separated the newsroom
from
the boardroom.
Welch decided that the key factor in bringing the corporate newsrooms
into
line would be to change the process through which journalists were
compensated and promoted. When he took over at GE, Welch believed that
the
way in which people were being advanced rewarded mediocrity. The
unworthy
candidates were being weeded out, but so were the most worthy. As in
many
companies, managers were hesitant to promote highly gifted subordinates
who
could later become rivals.
Welch has repeatedly been named the most admired executive in America,
an
assessment that he considered to be valid years before anyone outside
GE had
heard of him. His supreme self-confidence allowed him to demand that
the
best and the brightest be promoted, secure in the knowledge that no one
could possibly be better or brighter than Jack Welch. As a result of
aggressive management training that cost hundreds of millions of
dollars, GE
developed the strongest stable of managers in corporate America.
Welch believed that the promotion practices at NBC News encouraged
disloyalty to General Electric. It was his observation that
"journalistic
excellence" seemed to be the flimsy, intangible standard for getting
ahead
in the news division. He decided that the criteria had to be changed to
encourage loyal contributions to the employer, which was GE. The
crucial
step that Welch took was to make it well known throughout NBC News that
the
standard for the promotion of journalists would be the same as it was
for
every other employee in the corporation: outstanding contribution to
the
financial well being of General Electric.
The journalists who had their paychecks signed by Welch knew that
favorable
coverage of George W. Bush would be considered an outstanding
contribution
to the financial well being of General Electric.
In fairness, it should be noted that Jack Welch did not believe he was
doing
anything wrong by covertly maneuvering news coverage in favor of Bush.
Apparently, Jack Welch has never believed that he was doing anything
wrong.
Author William Greider documented the criminal and civil record of
General
Electric during the late 1980s and early nineties. Over a five year
period,
Jack Welch’s company attempted to pay a $1.25 million bribe to a Puerto
Rican official for a $92 million dollar power plant contract and three
GE
executives were imprisoned as a result; GE defrauded the army on a $254
million contract for battlefield computers and paid tens of millions of
dollars in fines; GE allegedly overcharged the army for battle tank
parts
and paid a $900,000 settlement; GE paid a $32 million settlement for
discriminating against women and minorities; GE defrauded the air force
on a
missile contract and paid $1 million in fines; GE was identified as
being
responsible for at least 47 Superfund toxic cleanup sites; GE paid a $3
million settlement for allegedly altering labor vouchers in order to
overcharge the Pentagon on jet engine contracts; and GE paid an
undisclosed
amount for knowingly selling defective nuclear reactor parts.
The scandals for Welch and General Electric continued through this
year.
Since 1992, GE has been forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars
in
court judgments and fines for endangering Americans by illegally and
repeatedly dumping toxic waste and chemicals, stealing from the
military,
operating unsafe workplaces, engaging in deceptive advertising,
contaminating the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers, selling defective
nuclear
reactor parts (again), allowing safety violations at a fuel fabrication
plant, polluting the air and contaminating the soil and groundwater in
several states, creating asbestos-related health hazards in England,
contaminating drinking water in Puerto Rico and bribing the Puerto Rico
Water Resources Authority, polluting several northeastern states with
PCBs,
overcharging on mortgage insurance, practicing money laundering and
unfair
debt collection, bribing a foreign government, and knowingly
broadcasting a
phony news story. The company also had to admit that it invented three
hundred fifty million dollars in nonexistent profits.
This is a partial list of the illegal activities perpetrated by General
Electric under the leadership of Jack Welch. Mr. Welch claimed that the
quickest way for a GE employee to get fired was to commit "an integrity
violation". Employees who committed the "integrity violation" of
missing an
earnings target usually did get fired; those who committed the
"integrity
violations" listed in the preceding two paragraphs rarely got fired.
America’s most admired executive prided himself on knowing every aspect
of
his company, but he also passionately declared that he was ignorant of
all
wrongdoing by his company. The leader who micromanaged GE to the point
of
insisting on reviewing the scripts for refrigerator commercials
contends
that he only learned after the fact that General Electric was
constantly
committing serious crimes.
Following the conversation with Rove, Welch instructed a subordinate to
impress on senior NBC executives that the news division would now be
expected to show the same unqualified devotion to General Electric that
was
required of every other unit. He was unusually circumspect because he
realized that Clinton appointees in the Federal Communications
Commission
would have taken a dim view of his activities. Welch knew from his
company’s
countless run-ins with the law that the authorities could be
outmaneuvered
if things were handled with finesse.
He quietly began to dramatically change the way that things were done
at NBC
News. A link was established between the producers of the Sunday
morning
program Meet The Press and the opposition research team of the
Republican
Party. Delighted G.O.P. operatives were soon boasting that Tim Russert
would
go on the air just minutes after receiving their allegations of
wrongdoing
by Al Gore, and would repeat their charges verbatim. Russert was not
functioning as a journalist; he had crossed the Rubicon and was acting
as a
mouthpiece for General Electric’s favorite political party.
Welch greatly appreciated Russert, whose multi-million dollar contract
he
personally negotiated. The message circulated throughout NBC News that
Russert was an excellent role model for reporters who wanted to succeed
in
the organization. Reporters at NBC News did not have to be verbally
instructed on how to get ahead; they clearly saw that the Russert
approach
was handsomely rewarded by top management.
Reporter Andrea Mitchell of NBC Nightly News was married to Federal
Reserve
Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who was a longtime Republican and
protégé of
Ayn Rand. Mitchell was a Welch favorite because he liked her
"objectivity",
which meant that she never had a positive word to say about Democrats.
After
the election, it was Mitchell who repeatedly lied when reporting that
Clinton aides had vandalized the White House and stolen from Air Force
One.
Bush operatives were later quoted as saying that the phony vandalism
story
was a big help in creating the desired contrast between the "sleazy"
Clinton
years and the "breath of fresh air" that George W. Bush wanted to
represent.
Mitchell never retracted or apologized when the Government Accounting
Office
proved that she had been dishonest, and she was never disciplined.
There is also no evidence of Mitchell ever being angrily confronted by
Jack
Welch.
Welch told associates that he enlisted two members of the GE board to
assist
him in shaping the coverage of the election by other news
organizations.
Robert Wright had previously been appointed by Welch to run NBC. Welch
assigned him and his fellow GE board member, money center bank
executive
Sandy Warner, to use their contacts in broadcasting and finance. They
quietly encouraged the executives of the mainstream media organizations
to
rethink the relationship between news divisions and business
objectives.
Wright offered the carrot. Usually through underlings, he contacted the
executives of America’s most influential media conglomerates. Bush held
a
huge post-impeachment lead over Gore in the early presidential polls.
The
executives were told that Bush was going to have a massive advantage in
campaign finances, and that he was almost certainly going to be elected
president. Under a Bush administration, the big media outfits would be
free
to prosper as never before, because the federal government would cease
to
put limitations on their operations and expansion. A Bush
administration
would mean untold riches for the industry.
Wright was also the former chief executive of GE Capital, a money
center
powerhouse that contributes more than a third of GE’s profits, and
would be
the nation’s twentieth largest corporation as a stand-alone company. He
knew
that General Electric would win big, even when it was not directly
involved
in the inevitable media mega-mergers that were certain to be approved
by a
Bush administration. According to Fortune Magazine, "Capital's growth
comes
in many forms, but nothing equals the bottom-line boost of a big
acquisition." GE would make huge profits by purchasing media
conglomerates
and by financing the deals of others.
Warner and his associates wielded the stick. As chairman of banking
institution J.P. Morgan, he had great credibility when he argued that
the
key to winning the media competition in a laissez faire Bush era would
be
access to investment capital for the purpose of acquiring competitors.
Those
who had the best relationships with the big international banks,
brokerage
houses, and investment banking firms would be the predators; those who
had
trouble raising money would be the prey.
There were never any explicit threats, but the implication was
unavoidable:
Bush is going to win, so you can join the team now or you can be on the
outside looking in later. The only thing that will be affected is your
livelihood.
They did not have to use pressure tactics to convince Mel Karmazin of
Viacom/CBS. Karmazin had always viewed news as an underprofitable
millstone
around the neck of the entertainment division. His vision was to make
Viacom
a vast network of interlocking media interests that would cross promote
their products in order to maximize profit. Though CBS News had a
reputation
for being more liberal than its counterparts, Karmazin’s only political
objective was to expand his business. The prospect of having an
administration that would allow him to build an empire without
interference
was compelling.
Karmazin was also excited by assurances that Bush would appoint an
ineffectual lackey to head the Federal Communications Commission.
Karmazin’s
Infinity Broadcasting had been acquired by CBS in the deal that gave
him
operational control of the entire network. Over the years, the FCC had
fined
Infinity millions of dollars because of the profane and lewd behavior
of
Karmazin’s most profitable broadcaster, Howard Stern. The Stern
broadcasts
generated massive profits and wonderful cross promotion, so the fines
could
have been viewed as the cost of doing a phenomenally profitable
business.
However, the painful aspect to Karmazin were the delays in approving
broadcast mergers that occurred because FCC commissioners were
alienated by
Stern’s scornful defiance of them. Karmazin seethed at being harangued
by
the federal government just because his meal ticket spewed profane and
racist epithets over the public airwaves, and performed social services
like
arranging for a high school boy to attend his prom with a porn star
whose
claim to fame was having intercourse with five hundred men in one day.
Millions of Americans supported Bush because they believed he would
promote
family values; Karmazin threw the support of CBS News behind Bush on
the
basis that family values were a campaign mirage, and that Bush had no
intention of implementing them into public policy. While Bush has been
president, Stern has continued to shout the same vulgarities and peddle
the
same sleaze over the air, but the intense pressure that was applied by
the
FCC during the Democratic era has not continued during the "family
values"
administration.
Karmazin personally contributed a thousand dollars each to the
presidential
campaigns of Vice President Al Gore and John McCain, who was the Senate
chairman of the Commerce Committee before which Viacom would have to do
business.
The contribution that George W. Bush received from Mel Karmazin was
infinitely more valuable: uncritical coverage by CBS News. When Bush
stumbled and lost the New Hampshire primary, and when he repeatedly
tripped
over his invented facts in the first debate, and even when he staggered
at
the very end of the campaign after having been caught lying about his
drunk
driving arrest, the adjective that CBS News reporters most frequently
used
to describe him was "likeable".
The attitude at ABC was an extension of the personality of Disney
Chairman
Michael Eisner. Eisner does not like those who make waves, as the host
of
Politically Incorrect recently learned. After Bill Maher said that it
was
cowardly of America to fight battles by launching missiles from a safe
distance, Eisner went out of his way to very publicly slap Maher down.
This
episode provided outsiders with a rare glimpse inside the corporate
culture
of the happy company that Mickey Mouse built: do not rock the boat or
you’re
in trouble. "Eisner will always stand up for principle, no matter what
the
cost," says a former Disney executive, "as long as that principle
involves
increasing his personal compensation."
As a result, the candidate who held out the prospect of fabulous wealth
for
the broadcast industry got favorable coverage from ABC News. In fact,
Bush
received better coverage than Gore from the entire mainstream media.
A study produced by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the
Princeton Survey Research Associates examined 1,149 stories from 17
news
publications, programs and websites. The research revealed that there
were
almost twice as many positive stories about Bush as there were about
Gore.
Even more important than this blatant pro-Bush bias, the study found
that
the coverage de-emphasized the philosophical differences between the
candidates. This was critical, because public opinion polls showed that
the
voters agreed with Gore on the issues. By robbing Gore of his greatest
advantage, the media organizations were Bush’s greatest allies.
A study by the Pew Research Center examined 2,400 newspaper, TV, and
Internet stories. Researchers reported that three quarters of the
coverage
emphasized allegations that Gore was dishonest and corrupt. The study
found
that a majority of the stories about Bush emphasized that he was a
"different kind of Republican," which was the Bush campaign’s chosen
theme.
This was not a conspiracy, nor was it an accident. It was
self-interest.
The rapacious values of the networks mirrored those in the management
of
print journalism and the banking community in general. The emphasis in
private meetings and phone conversations was that Bush would definitely
call
off the federal watchdogs, which would allow the giant media
conglomerates
to grow as large as they chose. The inconvenient pretense of federally
licensed broadcasters having to serve the public interest would finally
be
gone. Without the intrusive feds butting in, the media giants would be
free
to "maximize their potential". Translated into English, this meant that
the
extraordinarily valuable public ownership and control of the airwaves
would
essentially be transferred to the media conglomerates for no cash down
and
monthly payments of zero.
"A promise made is a promise kept." This was George W. Bush’s frequent
pledge during the campaign, and when it came time to repay his media
allies
for providing him with an uncritical convoy to the White House, he kept
his
promise. Soon after assuming office, Bush appointed Colin Powell’s son
to
head the Federal Communications Commission. Michael Powell could not be
doing a better job of aiding the media conglomerates at public expense
if
his name were Michael Welch, Michael Karmazin, or Michael Eisner, Jr.
One of
Powell’s first moves was to announce that the regulation prohibiting
ownership of both television stations and newspapers in the same city
is
going to be changed. "There is something offensive to First Amendment
values
about that limitation," he said.
There is something extraordinarily profitable to the media giants about
having that limitation lifted. Without the federal government insisting
on
diversity in local markets, the vast multinational media corporations
will
be able to monopolize the flow of information in cities across America.
Their potential for greater power and wealth is almost incalculable.
The deregulation of the American media, quietly promised by Bush and
currently being implemented by Powell, will create countless billions
of
dollars of profits for the broadcasting industry. Al Gore opposed
deregulation on the basis that a greater concentration of media power
would
damage the ability of the American people to get a diversity of
information.
More than any other position he took, it cost him the presidency.
Welch’s successful behind-the-scenes campaign to influence media
coverage in
a way that would get Bush into the White House has not been visible to
the
public, with one exception. On election night, according to an
eyewitness,
Welch was so angry that his own NBC News team would not call the race
for
Bush that he personally went to the studio from which Tom Brokaw was
anchoring the coverage. Welch quietly watched the broadcast for a few
minutes. Two people who were present claim that, when Brokaw and Tim
Russert
did not take the hint that their boss had come into the newsroom
because he
wanted something from them, he explicitly announced that he wanted them
to
call the election for Bush.
They did. As a result, Bush entered the Florida recount phase with the
tremendous advantage of having already been declared the winner.
Congressman Henry Waxman questioned NBC News president Andrew Lack
about the
incident. Waxman requested that Lack turn over to Congress the
in-studio
tapes that were recorded that night, so that what Welch had allegedly
done
could be verified. Lack, testifying under oath, agreed to do so.
As of this writing, he has refused to honor his commitment.
Aside from his one emotional faux pas on election night, Welch did a
masterful job of discreetly maneuvering behind the scenes. He convinced
his
media conglomerate competitors that they all had a compelling interest
in
discarding journalistic objectivity and helping Bush into the
presidency.
For the public, the only telltale sign of the Welch effort was the end
product: the campaign coverage itself. From the mainstream media’s
unprecedented pre-primary build-up of George W. Bush to their
declaration
that he had won the Florida recount before all of the votes had been
reviewed, never before has a presidential candidate received such
active
support from corporate journalism.
There were two men who had stood in the way of a George W. Bush
presidency.
Prior to facing Bush, John McCain and Al Gore both had reputations for
being
decent men who had honorably served their country in Vietnam and
Washington.
Based on their résumés, each of them was much more qualified to be
president
than Bush.
After the mainstream media got through with them, the two men were
hardly
recognizable. In the Republican primaries, McCain was recast from an
ethical
war hero to a mentally unbalanced flake who was in favor of breast
cancer
and whose wife was a junkie. In the general election, Gore was
transformed
from a bright and decent public servant into a congenital liar, a
delusional
criminal, and a traitor.
At the same time, George W. Bush somehow managed to fecklessly stumble
through the entire campaign obstacle course without being harmed by his
almost total lack of leadership experience, his highly suspicious
military
record, his two decades of alcohol and drug abuse, his alleged
involvement
in an illegal abortion, his shady business dealings, his record of
corruption while governor of Texas, his losing battle with the English
language, his unfortunate habit of repeatedly being caught telling
blatant
lies, and his positions on the major issues that consistently
conflicted
with the majority of voters. It helped that his opponent was unwilling
to go
for the jugular; it helped even more that the mainstream media
considered
any and all Bush vulnerabilities to be "charming".
The only real harm that the media did to Bush during the whole campaign
was
the revelation that he had been arrested for drunk driving in Maine.
This
story was not broken by ABC or NBC or CBS or The New York Times or the
Washington Post or any member of the media Consortium; it was made
public by
a relatively obscure newspaper in Maine. In fact, the immediate
reaction by
all of the aforementioned media giants was to falsely accuse Gore of
leaking
the story. This flailing, ad hominem defense of their chosen candidate
betrayed a certain unhappiness on the part of the mainstream media that
the
news of Bush having lied about his crime had become public knowledge.
The New York Times typified the mainstream media’s coverage of the 2000
election. The editorial board of the Times officially endorsed Al Gore
for
president, but it is the news section of the Times that is the common
reference point, and that sets the tone for the rest of the media’s day
to
day coverage. In the all-important news section of The New York Times,
George W. Bush was being followed by softer than mush reporter Frank
Bruni,
whose coverage of the candidate was so lovingly tender that Bush
identified
Bruni as "my favorite reporter".
The Times reporter who was assigned to track Gore was Katherine Seelye,
who
sat on the campaign plane alongside her pal Ceci Connolly of the
Washington
Post. Together with the Times’ Richard Berke, they were able to wreak a
level of havoc on the Gore campaign that the Bush team never even came
close
to approaching. Between them, these reporters who were working for
America’s
two leading "liberal" newspapers managed to falsely accuse Gore of
taking
credit for having invented the Internet, falsely accuse Gore of
claiming to
have discovered the toxic waste at Love Canal, and falsely accuse Gore
of
lying about being the inspiration for the male lead character in "Love
Story".
They also falsely accused Gore of insisting that he had been serenaded
to
sleep as a child to the tune of "Look For The Union Label". The
candidate
had actually been making a joke that was greeted with laughter by his
union
audience.
After the crucial first presidential debate, the unholy triumvirate
falsely
accused Gore of lying about an anecdote involving an old lady and her
prescription medicine (the lady confirmed Gore’s account), falsely
accused
Gore of lying about an anecdote involving a Florida schoolgirl having
to
stand in class because of equipment shortages (the girl confirmed
Gore’s
account), and falsely accused Gore of lying about going to a fire in
Texas
with the head of FEMA (it was actually the number two man at FEMA, but
the
mainstream media did not allow for the possibility that Gore made
inadvertent mistakes).
These phony accusations, not the Times low impact endorsement, had a
major
effect on the campaign. Every time Gore generated some momentum, the
three
deceitful journalists wrote of another unsubstantiated allegation that
claimed the Democratic nominee was crazed with a compulsion to lie.
The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company will both
make
massive deregulation-related profits under Bush that they could never
have
gained under Gore. Their reporters who lied about Gore were never
punished,
just as Andrea Mitchell of NBC was never punished for repeatedly lying
about
White House vandalism. In fact, all of these dishonest reporters have
greatly prospered.
Once again, it is wrong to confuse self-interest with conspiracy. This
is
the Welch paradigm in action: It is the job of corporate reporters to
help
advance the corporate cause. There was no conspiracy on the part of the
mainstream media organizations to usher Bush into the presidency. There
was
also no conspiracy on the part of the mainstream media organizations to
lie,
en masse, about Clinton aides vandalizing the White House and
burglarizing
Air Force One.
But the mainstream media organizations did lie.
Some people have expressed skepticism that at least one intrepid
corporate
reporter has not revealed the truth about what transpired in 2000. If
the
charges of the mainstream media coordinating an effort at the highest
levels
to skew their campaign coverage in favor of Bush were true, the
skeptics
contend, then certainly one reputable mainstream reporter would have
gone
public with the story.
Daniel Schorr has been enshrined in the Hall of Fame of the Society of
Professional Journalists. In 1976, he was fired by CBS News when he
sent a
secret congressional intelligence report to the Village Voice after CBS
had
refused to reveal the story to the public. According to Schorr, he was
punished by network executives who had reached a deal with the White
House
to go easy on the administration.
Schorr was fired for reporting the truth when it conflicted with the
interests of his employer.
Two Fox News reporters in Tampa, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, assembled
a
report revealing the covert use of a potentially harmful synthetic
milk-producing hormone that was being injected into dairy cows
throughout
much of America. Fox executives killed the story out of concern that
the
dairy industry would retaliate by refusing to purchase commercials on
the
network. The reporters were so concerned about the safety of consumers
that
they defied their bosses and released the report to the public. Fox
immediately fired them.
Akre and Wilson were fired for reporting the truth when it conflicted
with
the interests of their employer.
NBC’s own Arthur Kent was a star foreign correspondent after gaining
fame as
the intrepid "Scud Stud" during the Gulf War. But when Kent was
reassigned
to the NBC news magazine Dateline, he was appalled to see what
corporate
journalism in America had become.
"A climate was being created in which corruption was imminent," Kent
told
the Ottawa Sun. "Once I had been convinced to join Dateline, I warned
them
in writing that the editorial direction of the program was dangerous
and
that the manipulation and re-editing of stories was going to cause
trouble."
Kent offered to resign, but Jack Welch would not allow an uncooperative
journalist to get off the hook quite that easily. Kent was reassigned
to
cover the war in Bosnia under ridiculously hazardous conditions. When
he
refused, NBC publicly called him a coward, effectively ending his
career
with the network.
After an expensive battle, Kent won a court ordered apology and
substantial
financial damages. He stated that the important aspect of the trial was
the
revelation of how General Electric and NBC now operate.
"It was a GE-style, hardball approach: If you're not going to work for
us,
you're not going to work for anybody," he said. "They were seen by the
public to have lied."
But the ethical journalist who called them on their lies had now gone
off to
Europe in search of a country with freedom of the press. And every
journalist who remained at NBC learned from watching the Kent episode
that
insisting on telling the truth in their reports was extremely hazardous
to
their vocational health.
Kent was fired for demanding to report the truth when it conflicted
with the
interests of his employer.
The process of natural selection is the answer to the skeptics who
question
why no mainstream journalist has reported on this matter. The
mainstream
reporters who had the integrity to tell the truth, even if doing so
would
get them fired, have already been fired. The reporters who currently
work
for corporate news outlets keep their jobs by obeying the implicit
corporate
rules that have been put in place by executives like Jack Welch.
If not for the successful effort by Welch to manipulate media coverage
of
the election and the Florida recount, George W. Bush would not be
president
today. The Consortium ballot study was started by the same forces that
had
carried Bush across the finish line. The study was their attempt to
universally legitimize the Bush presidency at a time when it looked as
though there would otherwise be congressional gridlock that would limit
how
much Bush could accomplish for his campaign contributors.
Welch and the others who have been involved in covertly promoting Bush
interests did not expect that the ballot study would reveal a decisive
Gore
victory. Although Consortium members disingenuously claim that the
outcome
of the study is unknown, they are aware that the observers in the
coding
rooms who were familiar with Florida voting patterns were able to
perceive a
dominant Gore trend.
The members of the Consortium are now stuck with a result that they
view as
being counterproductive to attaining their financial objectives. There
is
increasing recognition on the part of the public that something about
the
current delay in publishing the ballot study is not kosher.
The public pressure to release the results is making it likely that the
Consortium will feel the need to reveal something. The precedent in
this
situation is the Miami Herald method of distortion, wherein the recount
numbers proved that Gore won but the headlines claimed that Bush won.
The
Consortium could reprise that approach.
It could seek to obscure and confuse the situation by having various
Consortium members issue conflicting accounts of who won. This would
explain
why the Wall Street Journal is participating in a recount after
editorializing that any further recounts would be "un-American".
few more votes than Bush, but it really was too close to call, and the
Consortium members can’t even agree among themselves who won, so it is
impossible to ever really know for certain."
It is now improbable that the Consortium will claim that Bush got the
most
votes because too many people who are intimately familiar with the
process
would publicly refute such a blatant lie.
Patriots who believe that democracy must be more than an empty cliché,
and
who want the unvarnished truth about the real winner of the 2000
presidential election, are severely limited in what they can do. We
live in
a pseudo democracy that has neither a free mainstream press nor a
functioning opposition party. The current occupant of the White House
is
illegitimate by any standard other than "the ends justify the means".
The
Supreme Court is corrupt. Most Americans have "moved on" and "gotten
over it".
For the minority in this country, those who are emotionally capable of
confronting unpleasant facts, the truth is as clear as it is unpopular:
America is now a place in which the son of a former leader who used to
control the secret police was appointed to run the country by his
daddy’s
judges after his brother pulled an electoral fast one for him in the
southern part of the country. The military contributed to the outcome
by
accusing the opposition leader of being "unpatriotic", and by demanding
that
illegally cast military votes for Bush be counted as valid. The
mainstream
media protects its financial interests by smearing any dissidents as
"fringe
people".
Many Americans prefer to dismiss these contentions as a "conspiracy
theory".
Doing so is far less painful than coming to terms with the fact that
this
type of election result happens routinely around the world, but only in
countries where self-government is rhetoric instead of reality. We are
programmed from early childhood to recite that America is a democracy,
yet
even the most powerful programming is vulnerable to being overwhelmed
by the
truth. The unresolved question is how much truth will be required
before it
registers with the general public that they really have lost, in the
words
of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the right to have their votes
counted.
In 2000, Americans witnessed convoluted vote counting methods in
Florida
that were designed to disqualify as many voters as it took in order to
declare that the winner was the candidate who received fewer votes
statewide
and nationally. We saw a Supreme Court decision that was so
surrealistically
disgraceful that none of the five members of the majority was willing
to
claim authorship of it and, for the only time in the history of the
Court,
the majority declared that its decision did not establish a precedent.
There was no conspiracy involved in the Supreme Court decision, either.
There was only the self-interest of five amoral judges taking advantage
of
an opportunity to increase their power by disregarding the law and
selecting
a president who would add to their conservative majority.
The Consortium now has ironclad proof that the wrong man is in the
White
House, and the mainstream media preemptively insist that it doesn’t
matter.
NBC News analyst and Welch protégé Tim Russert recently said, "The
issue of
legitimacy has been resolved." He does not want the results of the
ballot
study to be released.
Neither does Mr. Berke of The New York Times, a member of the
Consortium.
Berke recently wrote that releasing the results would be divisive, and
that
it really doesn’t matter who won. It is unusual, to say the least, for
a
reporter to write that a project on which his newspaper has just spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t matter. It is even more
unusual for
the paper to then publish such heresy.
Of course, Berke knows that reporting the truth would not be divisive
if the
ballot study had proven that the man who really won the election is
currently president. Berke has at least one contact inside the ballot
study
who has also spoken with MakeThemAccountable. We can therefore report
with
certainty that Mr. Berke wrote his rationalization for withholding the
truth
only after he was informed by an inside source that the study
definitively
proves that Al Gore won Florida.
Berke also claimed that the reason the Consortium members have delayed
releasing the results of the ballot study is that the war on terrorism
has
monopolized the attention of all of their political reporters. This is
an
uncommonly transparent lie, even for the congenitally dishonest Mr.
Berke.
He is a political reporter who works for a Consortium paper, and his
own
attention has not been monopolized by the war on terrorism. He has
spent his
time since September 11 continuing his two-year disinformation campaign
to
sell George W. Bush to the American people. Berke wrote on October 20
that
Gore supporters are privately expressing to him that they are
"relieved"
that the Supreme Court selected Bush to be president.
Brave reporters like Walter Cronkite are now distant memories of the
pre-Welch era of journalism; the modern guardians of the truth are
opportunistic prostitutes like Tim Russert and abject liars like
Richard
Berke. It is difficult to find any journalists in the corporate media
who
believe that the true outcome of the balloting in Florida matters. The
people whose lives are supposedly dedicated to reporting the truth are
adamant that, in the case of which candidate actually won the
presidency,
reporting the truth just doesn’t matter.
In a democracy, it would matter. In a democracy, the identity of the
person
who was given the right to govern by the voters would be of paramount
importance. In a democracy, the will of the people would be the single
most
important story possible, even more important than salacious stories
about
Democratic officials cavorting with Washington interns.
Who won the election does not matter when there is General Electric
style
democracy. GE has a long history of participating in governance around
the
world. The company has protected its financial interests by involving
itself
through active intervention and bribes in Indonesia, Mexico, Lesotho,
Egypt,
Israel, and Japan, among other countries.
For many years, human rights activists have cautioned that allowing
multinational corporations to impose their will on people in foreign
countries is a dangerous policy. There have been warnings that one day,
corporations like General Electric might not feel constrained to limit
their
interference in the leadership selection process to places like
Indonesia.
They might decide that there is nothing sacred about national
boundaries
anywhere. Liberals have been called paranoid for warning that the same
corporations that tampered with governments in Latin America, the
Middle
East, Africa, and Asia would eventually decide that the will of the
voters
in the United States is not sacrosanct, either.
In 2000, the paranoid warnings became reality. General Electric and
like-minded interests were able to defy the will of the majority of the
American people and drag into the White House the least qualified major
party presidential candidate in the history of the country. Since
gaining
office, George W. Bush has been slavishly devoted to enacting the
corporate
agenda. Even during a time of war, he has been focused on relentlessly
advocating the interests of those who made him president.
Six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
Bush
FCC appointee Michael Powell announced a ruling that affected
corporations
having licenses to operate 130 UHF TV stations broadcasting on certain
frequencies. The FCC gave the media companies approval to sell those
taxpayer-owned licenses and keep the tens of billions of dollars that
will
be generated by the sales.
It was never a conspiracy. It was always greed.
The corporate elite and their media Consortium have literally hundreds
of
billions of reasons to do what it takes to keep Bush in power. Whether
they
ever publicly report the inconvenient truth of the decisive Gore
victory is
problematic. It ultimately depends on whether the American people are
so
insistent in their demand to see the accurate outcome, that continuing
to
conceal the truth will cause more trouble for the media conglomerates
than
it is worth to them.
In the absence of overwhelming public pressure by citizens who value
democracy more than multinational corporations value money, the members
of
the Consortium will honor the paradigm of Jack Welch: They will
disregard
all principles of journalism, in order to do what is best for the
corporate
bottom line.
Epilogue: Jack Welch retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
General Electric on September 7, 2001. According to Business Week,
"Welch's
leadership style has become so embedded in the organization that even
his
retirement is unlikely to erode his impact". He is currently employed
as a
management consultant to major corporations that he refuses to
identify.
This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Doug Marlette |


|
To End On A Happy Note ... SKY PILOT
He blesses the boys as they stand in line
He smiles at the young soldiers
He mumbles a prayer and it ends with a smile
You'll never, never, never reach the sky
In the morning they return ![]()
|

|
Activist Alerts "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke
Yesterday, after I sent out the first batch of messages regarding the cover-up of the final results of the
Florida vote count, I received a telephone call from someone who, like David Podvin’s source, does not
want to be named. He worked on the NORC recount. Although he was not privy to any final numbers,
he confirmed David’s story, in the sense that the trend was obviously toward many, many more votes
for Gore than were included in the totals certified by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
The Florida Ballot Project page of the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center
(NORC)’s website contains the following text:
We have now completed all data-collection operations for the Florida Ballot Project. In
recent weeks, we have developed computer databases that contain the results of the
ballot examinations. At this moment, the databases are essentially complete.
The next step is to release the data to our clients, the media group, who will analyze the
data and report initial findings. After a brief embargo, we will make the databases
available to the public through our website.
No schedule has been set for that process. The media group has postponed release
because of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
I received a telephone call this morning from someone who also wants to remain anonymous, a member
of the political press who has contacts in the higher echelons of both the Democratic and the
Republican parties. He spoke to a University of Chicago official this past Monday (The New York
Times’ announcement of an indefinite postponement was made on the previous Thursday), who said
that the results "will be released soon."
Let’s make sure that happens. I invite you to write to members of the consortium and to NORC
demanding the release of the data.
The New York Times Co., letters@nytimes.com
I’ll keep you updated on any additional information I receive.
I have rewritten a suggested letter for requesting a Proclamation in recognition of the events of December 12th. I
suggest the you get these written and in the mail as soon as possible. I have always requested these from the Governor
of my state. I have tried to write this so as not to give the Republican Governors an excuse for not issuing you a
proclamation. In Florida, the governors office issues very a very fancy proclamation that would rival the Declaration of
Independence to organizations, groups requesting them. They are fantastic attention getters when trying to get
media coverage for your event. When I send out my announcements to the local TV stations, Radio, Newspapers, etc, I
always include a copy of the proclamation. Other suggestions would be to ask your Senators, your Mayor, to also
prepare a similar proclamation. I ask all of them. The worst that can happen is that they will say no. If they say no,
chalk it up on your little list of who NOT to vote for next time!
Submit the wording for the proclamation below to your elected officials and ask them to prepare a proclamation for
your event. The National Candlelight Vigil- 2001 December 12, 2001 I hereby officially recognize and honorThe National Candlelight Vigil-2001 and I urge all citizens of ( Your State name )to join me in this recognition. The National Candlelight Vigil to be held on December 12, 2001, to remind citizens of the United States of America of the need for Voter Reform to and protest the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision. This Vigil will also remember those killed in the senseless criminal terrorist acts committed upon New York City, Washington, DC & Pennsylvania. These acts of terrorism killed U. S. citizens as well as citizens of many other nationalities. As Governor of (State Name ) I commend The National Candlelight Vigil, 2001 for their dedication to people entitled to vote & in remembrance of those innocent people killed by acts of terrorism. © 2001 G.A.G.
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. Top twenty Republican donors with global consumer brands:
1 Philip Morris - $4,554,732
|
Parting Shots...
I knew she was trouble the minute she come through my door.
It started back in January, when I got the call from Rove. It was a cool night in
D.C., the kinda night what got a thousand stories - alluva 'em sad. It was the
kinda night your granma'd tell you about when she was a few over the line. It
was the kinda night what makes a man's hand itch to hold a dame or a glass
a' ice-cubes - splashed with just enough Jack to keep 'em from gettin' lonely.
It was the kinda night made a man sorry he'd give all that up. That's the kinda
night it was.
"It's your 37.5 cents, Rove," I said, forgettin' for a moment, and reachin' down
into my desk drawer. My hand come up empty. And sad. "But let's make it
quick. I got a lotta regrettin' ahead a' me, and only the night to do it in".
"George," he said, "what's that music you're playing in the background?"
"It's a little thing called 'One More for the Road', Karl," I said, "What's on your
mind, fella?"
"I just talked to Christie Whitman. I think she's ready to play ball"
"You can't play ball without what you know the game. Does she know the
game, Karl?"
He didn't say nothin' right away. "I have no earthly idea what you are talking
about, George," he said finally.
I chuckled. "I guess you don't Karl. I guess you don't" I chuckled again, this
time for emphasis.
"George," he said, sighing, "Do you want to talk to her or not?"
"Sure, Karl, sure," I said, "What's the difference, in a kill-crazy town like this?"
He sighed again and hung up.
I swiveled my chair to face the night. It was the kinda night that - but then you
know all that.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
She showed up in my doorway the next afternoon, right on time. My doorway
looked pretty happy about it, and I could see why.
She was wearin' a black dress with about a thousand polka dots - each one
a center a' lastin' interest. She had on a wide-brimmed black hat that shaded
her face so that all's you could see was her eyes; eyes that cut right through
you, eyes that went clear on out the wall behind you, then around the corner
and down the street a ways. Them kinda eyes.
She come in like a cool drink a' water on a hot day, and poured herself into
the chair across from me.
Governor Whitman," I said, 'cause we had to start somewhere.
"Call me Christie," she breathed, "Christie Todd."
"What can I do you for...Christie Todd?"
She took a unfiltered Camel from a silver case. I got a match and flick-lit it
with my thumbnail. It flared up, got caught in my nail. Burned my thumb. I
dropped it.
Third time today.
I lit another one. She covered my mitt with her slim fingers and drew it to her
cigarette. She leaned back and blew a smoke ring in my direction. "You know
what I want," she said. Her voice was hot and smoky like a trash fire, cool and
distant like a union audience, a kick in the gut like by a Emu, that's what they
was like.
Yeah. Yeah, sure. I knew what she wanted. But I knew I had t' be careful. She
was tough, plenty tough. I seen the news pictures with her friskin' suspects
and wearin' a big grin. They say humans is the only ones what show their
teeth when they're happy.
But then they say a lotta things.
"You want the EPA.," I said simply. You think you're woman enough to handle
it?"
She looked at me hard, like a SAT test. "Yeah. You man enough to give it to
me?"
I heard this question lotsa times before, and I didn't have no better answer
this time than all the others.
"Listen, sister," I said, "I ain't got the time for all this Percy Flage. This is
politics, baby. It's the big supermarket. It's a fast flight on the red-eye to a little
town called 'mid-term elections' - ever hear a' it? Sometimes your ticket gets
stamped 'No Return'. So I gotta know, baby, and I gotta know now, you on
board or what?"
She just stared at me for a moment. "You, know," she said finally, "You're
really something."
"Thanks," I chuckled appreciably, "You're aces with me too, kid." For a
moment our eyes locked and our hands almost touched, then I come to
myself, and sat back. "I could listen to you butter me up all day, sweetheart,
it's good for my girlish complexion. But just to move this pow-wow off the
dime, why don't you lead the next dance?"
"Okay," she said, "But I need to explain something first."
"Sure, kid, I said. It's your 37.5 cents". I sat back and absent-minded reached
down into the drawer again.
Damn.
"You see," she said, "I work in a dirty state -"
"They're all dirty, baby," I consoled.
"No, no," she said, "I mean it's got a lot of pollution. New Jersey is the most
polluted state in the country"
I chuckled inside my head. Actual, my own Texas is the most polluted, but I
wanted to see how she handled herself when she thought the game was
goin' her way. There'd be plenty a' time later to see how she did when it
wasn't.
It was late afternoon now, and the sun slantin' through the blinds casted
zebra stripes over the room. When the stripes come to her, they seemed to
go crazy, makin' all kinds of fascinatin' twists and turns 'all over her, like a
drunk's ski-trails.
For a while I was imaginin' myself skiin'.
"Please understand," she went on, "When I first became Governor, I was
pretty disdainful of all the environmental preaching. I thought most of the laws
were silly and anti-business. But, after a while, I began to see that they had
helped to bring pollution down without hurting the economy at all - quite the
reverse."
She shrugged. "So, for the rest of my term I've been increasingly
pro-environment. Now people who wouldn't even talk to me in the early days,
people whom I now respect, have come to respect me, too! I...I think it would
kill me to lose that respect."
She leaned forward, and her perfume rang my bell like the he-man test in a
carnival "I must know," she said, "That I can count on you; that I can depend
on you to back me up. I want so badly to do a good job. It's the only reason I'm
thinking of leaving the Governorship."
I wasn't havin' none a' that on my plate. "I like violins, too, sweetheart, why
don't you play yours a little louder? Or, better still, why don't we can the
malarkey and get down to the real reasons you're pullin' out early."
I leaned forward and started tickin' points off on my fingers. "In the first place,
Jersey's a two-term state. You're at the end a' the road next year anyhow.
Second, your tax-cut chickens is comin' home to roost this year, and the
Governor's chair is gonna turn into a hot seat right soon. Third, you only won
the last two elections by a one-point margin, so I wouldn't give you two cents
for your chances in a real Senator race. Finally, Colin's gettin' Secretary a'
State, and I don't see no other Cabinet spot for you. Way I see it? EPA's about
the only shot left on your table."
I leaned back again. "That sound right to you?"
She looked at me like she'd fell off the roof. She wasn't ready for that. I may
not be a genius, but if it's one thing I know, it's all the ways somebody can be
behind the eight-ball. It's my best area of expert. I can be real smart about
that.
She lowered her head quietly. I thought I heard a sniffle. "All right! All right!"
she said, finally, "It's true! I've no where else to turn! But promise me you'll be
on the level with me." She wiped her eyes, "Will you give me a square deal?"
she said.
I said, "Yes," right off, 'cause I've discovered how much it depresses people if
I answer that question any other way.
"I knew it," she said, all relieved, "They told me you were a right guy". Which
caused me to raise my eyebrows a little. I didn't know who'd said that, but I
didn't think I liked it. I been in the GOP a long time, and I know once they hang
that "trustworthy" label on you, brother, you're finished,.
But I put my paw over hers, and said, "I promise. You got my word on it as a
honorary Junior Texas Ranger."
Then I sat back. "What's your first prioritizin'?" I asked.
"I've been thinking about that," she said, "I think we should focus on global
warming and the Kyoto accords. I remember that you campaigned on
reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which I fully support too. Then there's the
Clinton administration's initiative on reducing arsenic levels - that looks pretty
good to me too. Are those all right with you?"
"Listen," I said, "When it comes to the environment you got cart blank, you are
It, the big kahuna, numero uno 'round here"
"But what...what about your advisors on the Council on Environmental
Quality? Won't they want a say in all this?"
"I don't even know what that is. How many ways I gotta say this, sweetheart?
You're the boss, the big cheddar, the last word, la ultima, and you don't need
to clear nothin' with nobody 'cept me. Got it?" And I shook her hand.
She looked at me grateful. Then, without a word further, she got up and was
gone. Gone like a prayer in a crap game, gone like a rose in a hail storm,
gone like a mother's kiss on the first day of school. That kinda gone.
I just sat there for a few minutes, reflectin'. Then with a slow sigh, I started my
calls. First I called Karl to tell him I got his recommendations about how we
should dump the Kyoto accord, Carbon Dioxide emissions reduction, and
scotch the arsenic regulations. Told him if he liked it, it was jake with me.
Then I called Condie, told her Christie would be comin' on board and would
need a little watchin', and that I was makin' her personal responsible for
seein' to it that Christie took things in the right direction.
Then I hung up and reached into my drawer.
Empty as a party platform.
I kinda hated to do it to the poor kid, but it's a tough game in a tough town,
and she ought a' know the score by now. Way I see it, she's like what in my
flyin' days we useta call a "wind dummy." Sometimes when you're about to
land, and you don't know which way the wind's blowin' you push the wind
dummy out and watch how it falls. All the way down.
Other thing is, EPA Administrator's just about the only job in the government
where you is guaranteed to catch hell from all sides all the time. It may not
hurt to have Christie in a place where she can't make nothin' but enemies for
a few years. We ain't all that far from 2004, and intra-party rivals got a habit a'
poppin' up like Whack-A-Moles.
I sighed again, turned up the volume on "One More for the Road", turned out
the lights, and let the night swallow me like a goldfish at a frat party.
It was that kinda night. |
Email:
issues@uncle-ernie.com


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."