|
|
Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor
|
In This Edition
Greg Palast introduces, "The British Invisibles."
Jim Hightower exposes, " War Profiteering."
Donna Ladd reports on, "The Lynne Cheney Doctrine."
Robert Parry confirms what we knew all along about, "Gore's Victory."
Joe Conason says, "Bush Tries To Close The Vault Of History."
Gene Lyons proves the rat-wing really misses Bill in, "Right-Wing Media Continue To Savage Clinton."
Jerold M. Starr wraps up his three part report on PBS with, "Corporate Sponsorship Leads PBS To Feature 'Safe Programming.'"
Reggie Rivers dares to speak the truth about Asscroft in, "The Return Of The King!"
Kelly Patricia O'Meara explains how the "Patriot Act" gives Smirky and pals the power to create the American, "Police State."
David Johnston says, "Ashcroft Plan Would Recast Justice Dept. In A War Mode."
Doctor Laura Schlessinger wins the "Vidkun Quisling Award!"
Molly Ivins watches as the, "Edginess Quotient Rises."
Bryan Zepp Jamieson introduces, "Osama Bin Ashcroft."
And finally in "Parting Shots The Democratic Underground gives us, "The Top Eight Conservative Idiots but first Uncle Ernie reports on, "Fear & Loathing In America. "
This week we spotlight the cartoons of Bill Day with additional cartoons from Ben Sargent, Mediaone, Bush Beer, In Yer Face, Mike Smith, 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! |
|
They're painting the passports brown The beauty parlor is filled with sailors The circus is in town Here comes the blind commissioner They've got him in a trance One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker The other is in his pants And the riot squad they're restless They need somewhere to go As Lady and I look out tonight From Desolation Row Desolation Row ... Bob Dylan
I have never in my life seen and heard so many frightened people as I have of late. The terrorists and media should be very proud of their efforts but then again aren't they the very same thing? America created Osama and his terror network and after terrorizing the Russians, Arabs and Israelis and Americans over seas he is being blamed for the WTC/Pentagon. If true, what is truly amazing is that it's taken all this time for it to happen.
We have been exporting terrorism all over the world to every Nazi dictatorship we could find or create and it's taken over a hundred years for the chickens to come home to roost. Of course before that time we had a lot of experience practicing terrorism and genocide on the native Americans until we got very good at it. You noticed I didn't mention slavery because that is not unique and in no way just an American experiment. The native Americans and the Africans as well as everybody else on this planet were into slavery long before even the native Americans arrived on this continent.
How fortunate that Spain was nice enough to roll over for us when our "Great White Fleet" destroyed two Spanish Navies and give us new lands to exploit. Timing is everything, just when we had sewed up all the native American lands on the continent and had no where else to go, we were soon exporting our expertise around the globe.
In would go the marines followed closely by the carpet bagging corporations to immediately steal everything worth taking and to turn the local population into slave labor for the corporates and their puppet governments. This has endeared us to 60% of the world for over 5 generations. So that it took over 100 years for a little payback to get here is astounding. Whether the Crime Family Bush and their good friends the Bin Ladens whose son was trained by Poppa Smirk were behind this remains to be seen but they have certainly taken advantage of this none-the-less!
Those in the know say that the WTO/Pentagon was the work of the Iraqi Bath Party and just Sadoms way of saying fuck you to Poppa Smirk. The whole song and dance in Afghanistan is not about terrorism but how to get that Russian oil out and into American Corporate bank books! I'm inclined to agree and add we knew about the impending attack as we were told by the German, Israeli, French secret services and chose to let it happen.
The sheep in this country have bought the "Big Lie," lock, stock and barrel and are shaking in their condos expecting a billion bomb carrying Arabs to be on their door step trying to get in. The intelligentsia are just as afraid but not of hoards of Arabs but of our own ruling Junta who have done more damage to our freedoms and Constitutional Rights in the last ten months than in the 225 previous years. These are some very sick and very, very dangerous people who have their sights on nothing less than control of the world. They have a few more things to do in this country first to insure we are helpless to stop them. When they have finished with us the rest of the world had better beware!. The Smirkster has already told you this is an never-ending war, a war without end.
Consider what Albert Einstein once said, Until next time, Peace Y'all!
Chapter 2 of my new book "The Red King's Horror." is now viewing. I post a new chapter on the 1st of each month. Although it seems a bit early it's that time of the year again. Time for a tale that has become a Christmas tradition all over the world, |
 The British Invisibles By Greg Palast LONDON -- Three confidential documents from inside the World Trade Organization Secretariat and a group of captains of London finance, who call themselves the "British Invisibles," reveal the extraordinary secret entanglement of industry with government in designing European and American proposals for radical pro-business changes in WTO rules. One set of documents, minutes of the private meetings of the Liberalization of Trade in Services (LOTIS) committee, obtained by BBC television's Newsnight program and CorpWatch, record 14 secret meetings, from April 1999 and February 2001, between Britain's chief services trade negotiators, the Bank of England and the movers and shakers of the Euro-American business world. Those attending the closed LOTIS include Peter Sutherland, International Chairman of US-based investment bank Goldman Sachs and formerly the Director General of the World Trade Organization. LOTIS is chaired by The Right Honorable Lord Brittan of Spennithorne Q.C., who, as Leon Brittan headed the European Union. He currently serves as Vice-Chairman of international banking house UBS Warburg Dillon Read. Other LOTIS members include the European chiefs of US service industry giants Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Prudential Corporation and PriceWaterhouseCoopers. LOTIS is an outgrowth of the self-styled, "British Invisibles," more formally known as the Financial Services International London group. They were joined at various times by specially-invited members of the European Commission's trade negotiating team. The minutes indicate that the government officials shared confidential negotiating documents with the corporate leaders as well as inside information on the negotiating positions of the European community, the US and developing nations. At the meeting held on February 22nd of this year, Britain's chief negotiator on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) made reference to the European Commission's paper on industry regulation which had been privately circulated to LOTIS members for their comment. GATS is a far reaching agreement that would affect every public service from healthcare and education to energy, water and transportation. It would challenge national environmental, labor and consumer laws as barriers to trade making these and other critical services totally unregulated, say critics. Barry Coates, director of the WTO watchdog organization the World Development Movement, said he was surprised to learn that the LOTIS industry members received documents which the British government had refused to give his organization, even papers "which they told us did not exist." Coates, in Qatar today to monitor the WTO confab, was somewhat amused that the minutes indicate that LOTIS members, whose companies represent over $100 billion in assets, seemed fixated on countering the arguments and actions of Coates' low-budget organization. Two of the LOTIS meetings concentrated on hiring consulting firms and academics to provide the government agencies with answers to the World Development Movement's arguments which question GATS and the wider globalization agenda. The minutes noted that "the pro-GATS case was vulnerable when the NGOs asked for proof of where the economic benefits of liberalization lay." Reuters executive Henry Manisty offered his news service to the LOTIS propaganda effort. Manisty told the LOTIS group he "wondered how business views could best be communicated to the public." Reuters, he said, "would be most willing to give them publicity." "For a long time conspiracy theorists thought there had been secret meetings between governments and corporations," said Coates. "Looking at these minutes, it was worse than we thought. [The WTO GATS proposals] are a stitch-up between corporate lobbyists and government."
A Question of Necessity? At least one such gathering with the Article 133 committee, held on October 30th has been independently confirmed by investigators from the Dutch think tank Corporate Europe Observatory. Two other sets of documents suggest that LOTIS and other corporate lobbyists appeared to have been astonishingly successful in getting Western governments to adopt their plans to radically expand the reach of the GATS treaty. A confidential memo dated March 19th obtained from inside the WTO's Secretariat, written four weeks after the LOTIS meeting on the matter, indicates that European negotiators had accepted industry-favored amendments to GATS Article VI.4, known as the "necessity test." The necessity test requires nations to prove that their regulations -- from pollution control to child labor laws -- are not hidden impediments to trade. Industry wants the WTO to employ a necessity test similar to the one in the North America Free Trade Agreement which has worked to reverse local environmental rules. For example, Mexico has been forced to pay $17 million to an American corporation, Metalclad, for delaying the operation of the company's toxic waste dump and processing plant. Local Mexican officials had attempted to block the plant's operation on the grounds that it was built without a construction permit, and would not have received one, as the plant handling toxins was placed above the area's drinking water supply. According to the secret March 19 memo from the Working Party on Domestic Regulation, issued to WTO members by the organization's Secretariat, European negotiators reached a private consensus to change the worldwide GATS agreement to include a much stronger form of the necessity test than found even in NAFTA. The Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico only requires that a nation's regulations be "least trade restrictive." Under the GATS, as proposed in the memo, national laws and regulations would be struck down if they are "more burdensome than necessary" to business. The difference between the NAFTA language and the proposal for GATS is subtle, but the effect would be enormous. The language in the WTO memo effectively removes trade from the equation. Rather, a nation would have to adopt rules which are, in the memo's words, the most "efficient" -- that is to say those which carry the lowest cost to business.
NAFTA on Steroids California is fighting Canada's interpretation of the necessity test before a NAFTA disputes panel. But under the language proposed for WTO, the state would have no defense. Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch, Washington DC, calls the proposed language GATS language changes, "NAFTA on steroids." The WTO Secretariat's proposals follow lines suggested in another confidential document from the European Community's Working Group dated February 24 and entitled "Domestic Regulation: Necessity and Transparency," issued just after LOTIS meeting on the matter with European trade negotiators. Spokespersons for Britain's Department of Trade and Industry, a leader in the EC Working Group, responded to our discovery of the documents by stating that the GATS changes, as proposed, would still allow nations their "sovereign right to regulate services" to meet "national policy objectives." However, according to the confidential March 19 memo, in the course of secret multilateral negotiations trade ministers have agreed that, before a WTO tribunal, a defense of, "safeguarding the public interest... was rejected." In place of a "public interest" defense, the WTO Secretariat suggests in the memo that the trade body adopt an "efficiency principle." This has the advantage, states the official Working Group paper, of allowing Presidents and Prime Ministers hostile to environmental protection regulations to eliminate them -- not through votes of a nation's congress or parliament, but through an edict of WTO which a nation would be powerless to reverse. "It may be politically more acceptable," says the memo, "to countries to accept international obligations which give primacy to economic efficiency." If, for example, the Bush Administration would rather not reduce the arsenic contamination of water from mining operations, despite congressional legislation and decisions by regulatory panels, it could eliminate the anti-pollution laws by acceding to orders of a WTO disputes panel that found regulation "more burdensome than necessary." Unlike US congressional, regulatory and court proceedings, WTO disputes panel deliberations and submitted evidence are closed to the public and the records sealed. A World Trade Organization spokesman acknowledged the authenticity of the March 19th note. However, he said the internal discussion document could not be read to suggest that WTO have the, "power to strike down national laws or regulations."
Barry Coates of the World Development Movement disagrees, "At its heart, it is a direct attack on the democratic
process."
|
|
In an editorial cartoon by Pulitzer-Prize winner Ben Sargent, a barrel overflowing
with the glop and stench of corporate tax breaks is being decorated by Martha
Stewart. She's shown painting it with the red-white-and-blue design of
America's flag. As she applies the stars and stripes, she says to the reader:
"See? There's nothing so ugly or appalling you can't disguise it with this
pattern."
So disgustingly true, as Washington has demonstrated again and again since
September 11. Already, Bush, the congress, and a gang of Gucci-clad corporate
lobbyists have wrapped the flag around such legislative dreck as "Star Wars"
and "Fast Track," declaring it a matter of high patriotism to pass both. Then
there are star-spangled multibillion-dollar bailouts that richly reward CEOs and
big investors, but leave hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers out in
the cold.
But the most rancid of all, so far, is the sickening "economic stimulus package"
that the Republican leadership recently muscled through the house. This is raw
garbage, which will stimulate nothing but more campaign contributions from the
corporations and speculators who get all the money. In addition to a special
capital gains tax break tax break that will put 80 percent of the money into the
pockets of the wealthiest two percent of Americans, this package includes a
retroactive elimination of the "corporate minimum alternative tax." Under this
greasy giveaway, $25 billion will be given to a handful of profitable corporations
as a full refund of taxes they've paid for the past 15 years!
Among these wartime welfare mooches are Enron, getting $254 million, in
refunds, GE getting $671 million, and Ford getting about $2 billion.
This is Jim Hightower saying...This isn't partriotism...it's war profiteering. To
stop it, call the Campaign for America's Future: 202-955-5665. |
|
Since Sept. 11, the young woman who cleans my home
is one of the few people around me here who has
questioned our government's attack of Afghanistan. She
plans to read the Qu'ran on the Internet. She's haunted
by the footage of Afghan women being cowardly shot in
the head by their own people. In her 20s, she knows little
about the Cold War, much less the Soviet skirmish with
US-armed fighters. She's just heard that the US armed
Osama bin Laden and his fellow "freedom" fighters in the
1980s. She's shocked that the US deserted the war-torn
region after the war. She's hungry for history: "I want to
know. I want to understand what caused all this," she
tells me.
Listening to her, I think of comments last week by vice
presidential spouse Lynne Cheney -- or is that Mrs. Dick
Cheney? -- and shudder at how sheltered our future
generations will be if that woman has her way. On Oct.
5, speaking to the Dallas Institute of Humanities and
Culture, Cheney excoriated Judith Rizzo, a deputy
chancellor of the New York City schools. In the
Washington Post, Rizzo said that Sept. 11 shows the
necessity of teaching multiculturalism: "We have to do
more to teach habits of tolerance, knowledge and
awareness of other cultures."
Whoa doggy. Teaching about world cultures is fine,
Cheney retorted, but "to say it is more important now
implies that the events of Sept. 11 were our fault, that it
was our failure to understand Islam that led to so many
deaths and so much destruction ... that somehow
intolerance on our part was the cause."
Does it really imply that? Perhaps it could mean that we
want our young people to understand that not all
Muslims support terrorism. Maybe it indicates that as the
US is courting the world for favors, we Americans should
understand our place, and track record, in the
international community. It might be about
understanding our international reputation so we can
counter it when it's not skewed. But in the small
Bush-Cheney black-or-white, dead-or-alive,
with-us-or-with-the-terrorists world, we're now told that
understanding other cultures somehow undermines our
own patriotism and resolve.
Cheney's defensiveness is no surprise, though: She is a
star in the world of conservative think-tankism -- the
"freedom means freedom to be conservative" crowd.
Called a "right-wing warrior" by The Nation, Cheney --
formerly an American Enterprise Institute fellow and a
Lockheed Martin director -- seems steeped in paranoia
that unfiltered knowledge of international history is going
to tear apart America-the-great and make our white guys
look bad. A former angry pundit, Cheney stayed quiet as
her husband and his protégé ascended to the White
House. Had she not remained muzzled, more Americans
might have gleaned the true meaning of "compassionate
conservatism" (tough trickle-down love, not some
namby-pamby moderate niceness). But now amid all the
flags, pledges and talk of restoring Christian prayer to
the schools, it's a great time to tell the schools the
propaganda she deems acceptable to teach kids.
This is familiar turf for Cheney. When she was head of
the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1994, she
targeted the National History Standards, developed at
UCLA with input from 6,000 teachers as a baseline for
schools. In her book, Telling the Truth, Cheney
complains that the standards talked too much about
women and minorities. She protested that they
mentioned the KKK 17 times, McCarthyism 19 and the
Great Depression 25, while giving short shrift to white
heroes like George Washington and Thomas Edison and
to American tech advances. She wants a pro-US bias:
"[T]he Cold War is presented as a deadly competition
between two equally culpable superpowers, each bent
on world domination," she writes.
Cheney says the "most irresponsible section" asked
students to read a book about a Japanese girl who died
a painful death from radiation from the atomic bomb the
US dropped on Hiroshima. "What fifth- and sixth-graders
would be likely to conclude is that their country was guilty
of a horrible -- and completely unjustified -- act of cruelty
against innocents," she writes. Later she criticizes
proponents of multiculturalism who say that uninformed
patriotism can lead Americans to believe they're superior
to other nations, and thus support all-out wars. She
defends a Florida school board for demanding
instruction that the US is "superior to other foreign or
historic cultures."
The New York Times called Cheney's rhetoric a
"misrepresentation." University of California-Irvine history
professor Jon Wiener wrote in The Nation that white
men were included on about every page of the
standards. Students would be asked to consider both
sides of issues like affirmative action, the Equal
Amendment and even the Brown v. Board of Education
decision. No matter, though: Victory was sweet for the
woman who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that schools
should tell kids what they need to know instead of
allowing them to discover it themselves. The US Senate
voted to kill the standards 99-to-1.
Now Cheney's back, ready to milk these difficult times to
ensure that schools teach the glories of the US
government and the federal flag -- as long as it's waving
over her beliefs. But equating "understanding" with
"agreeing" is a terrifyingly naïve approach to educating a
populace, but to Cheney the alternative may be worse.
She seems to assume that if kids learn about other
cultures and their problems, they will hate America. She
is probably right that many young Americans will balk at
this country's resource-grabbing abroad in order to
protect our prosperity at home. Like my friend today,
they might be shocked to hear that we wouldn't sign the
Land-Mine Treaty, or the Kyoto Protocol, or that 500,000
children have starved in Iraq under US sanctions. But
they should have that democratic choice of deciding
where to stand based on an international reality, not
propaganda disguised as "American ideals." And, surely
if America is ultimately as infallible as Cheney argues, it
can withstand a bit of critical analysis on the part of
fifth-graders who might, in turn, learn from the mistakes
of the past.
Instead, we're imminently faced with a Bush education
plan with testing requirements that are an ideological
attempt to teach to the test of certain American
"standards" weighted to keep our young consumers
ignorant and compliant and, hopefully, conservative.
This is no way to help democracy, or our American
melting pot, survive. Yes, we need to improve reading
and math skills, but teaching to standardized tests is not
going to do that. (Pushing low scorers to drop out of
school might make it seem like it will, however.) What
these tests will do is limit the amount of time for creative
learning and critical thinking, and that is by design.
On Oct. 11, Cheney announced that she will author
America: A Patriotic Primer to help "define the ideas and
ideals that define the United States." The A-to-Z listing of
American ideals -- let me guess: G won't be for Greed --
will help children learn "the foundation of America's
freedom and understand why we hold this nation dear,"
she said in a statement, reported by the Associated
Press.
Her timing couldn't be better. Christianity and the flag
are all the rage in public schools right now. But Cheney's
propagandizing will push the type of limited, lopsided
education that is rampant in hate-US curricula around
the world. Many bin Laden supporters and other
extremists haven't been taught what the world thinks of
their beliefs or their methods, either, just that they are
superior to people not like them. That's surely not a
standard we should emulate in our schools. As my
helper told me today, "We need to know everything."
Like it or not, that includes the painful stuff. |
 Gore's Victory By Robert Parry So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won. Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed "butterfly ballots," or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls. Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times. Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16.]
The Spin Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, "George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever," in which Kurtz ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists" those who thought Gore had won. "The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush," Kurtz wrote. "That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time." Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. "Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century – and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?" he wrote. In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it." Only "Gore partisans" – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print. The Actual Findings While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots. "Full Review Favors Gore," the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome. Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards. The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes. This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush. Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the "butterfly ballot" and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots. The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December. The new articles make much of Gore’s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to examine only "undervotes," those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election. "Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish. The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture." The Bush Strategy Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to his official lead of 537 votes out of some 6 million cast, Bush counted on his brother Jeb’s state officials to ensure the Bush family’s return to national power. To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up the decibel level in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore of trying to steal the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman." With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush’s supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration and in the streets by Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more details, see stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000] Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state courts, where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving the Florida Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy. Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of "undervotes." This tally would have excluded so-called "overvotes" – which were kicked out for supposedly indicating two choices for president. Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount on Dec. 9 and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush’s claim that the varying ballot standards in Florida violated constitutional equal-protection requirements. At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting results, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the state courts to devise a recount method that would apply equal standards, a move that would have included all ballots where the intent of the voter was clear. The hitch was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave the state only two hours to complete this assignment, effectively handing Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the White House to Republican George W. Bush. A Third Hypothetical The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties – by 225 votes – and the state Supreme Court’s order – by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news stories, while Gore’s statewide-recount victory was played down. Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory. The U.S. Supreme Court’s proposed standards mirrored the standards applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story. "Ironically, it was Bush’s lawyers who argued that recounting only the undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount only to undervotes," the Post wrote. "Had the high court acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore’s chances would have been dramatically improved." In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters – both nationally and in Florida – might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States. Favored Outcome But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of the news organizations, which apparently wanted to avoid questions about their patriotism. If they had simply given the American people the unvarnished facts, the reality that the voters of Florida favored Al Gore might have bolstered the belief that Bush indeed did steal the White House. That, in turn, could have undermined his legitimacy during the current crisis over terrorism. In its coverage of the latest recount numbers, the national news media also showed little regard for the fundamental principle of democracy: that leaders derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from legalistic tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations maneuvers. It is that understanding that is most missing in the news accounts of the latest recount figures.
Presumably, the American people are supposed to accept that everything just turned out right – the Bush dynasty was restored to
power, the proper order was back in place. Anyone who begs to differ is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "Gore partisan." |
 Bush Tries To Close The Vault Of History Whenever the press attempts to define a new Presidency, there is a tendency to make comparisons with its predecessors. Aside from the obvious echoes of his father in George W. Bush’s wartime demeanor and choice of advisers, there have been evocations of others who came before, sometimes intentional and sometimes unconscious. In his effort to soften his party’s negative image with the slogan of "compassionate conservatism," there was more than a hint of Clintonian cleverness. In his retrograde economic policy, there are almost daily imitations of Reaganism at its worst. But a parallel to this administration’s obsession with secrecy and hostility to open government can only be found by looking back much further. The description that seems increasingly and disturbingly apt is Nixonian. Last week Mr. Bush signed a sweeping executive order that, in the name of national security, blatantly seeks to revoke the Presidential Records Act of 1978. That law, passed in response to the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s subsequent attempt to treat White House documents as his private property, granted scholars, journalists and other citizens reasonable access to such materials within 12 years after a President departs office. Both substantively and symbolically, it represents one of the most important reforms of the post-Nixon era. Not coincidentally, the first set of Presidential papers to be affected by the act are those of the Reagan administration, including the documents of a Vice President named George Bush and others involving former top officials who have returned to positions of power this year. Ever since this administration took office in January, it has been maneuvering quietly to withhold 68,000 pages of confidential communications between Mr. Reagan and his staff which the National Archives and the Reagan Library had previously agreed to release. Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel who drafted the executive order, promptly assured reporters that his purpose is not to cover up "embarrassing" documents. Ari Fleischer, the press secretary who announced it, told the press corps that the order merely creates an "orderly process" so that "more information will be forthcoming." It will, he said, "help people to get information" and was designed to "implement" the Presidential Records Act. Like so many of his other pronouncements, Mr. Fleischer’s description deserves to be treated skeptically. To Bruce Craig, director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, a coalition of historians and archivists, the clear intent of Mr. Bush’s order is to undermine and virtually undo the act. He points out that the order would set up huge bureaucratic obstacles, giving a former President or members of his family the right to veto any request and requiring anyone requesting certain kinds of sensitive papers to prove a "specific need" for them. Both the present and former President would have to agree before such sensitive materials could be released, and if either said no, the only way to obtain them would be to go to court. Mr. Craig calls the order "a giant step backward," probably the "first in a series of executive orders" that will restrict access to public documents and government information. In fact, the pattern has already been established in this administration. Attorney General John Ashcroft recently instructed federal agencies to apply the most restrictive interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act, again supposedly for national-security reasons. That specious justification was not even broached when Vice President Dick Cheney withheld the most basic information from Congress about his Energy Task Force, a violation of fundamental democratic principles for which he has escaped accountability. Most Americans will perhaps regard the Bush executive order as a trivial matter, of little or no concern at a time when the nation is struggling against murderous enemies abroad (and possibly at home). Yet as we ought to have learned during the Cold War, it is precisely at such moments that loyalty and patriotism require resistance to the curtailment of basic liberties. The President’s attempt to close the vault on history has nothing to do with prosecuting the war against terrorism, and everything to do with covering up embarrassments both past and future. The American people are fortunate that citizens like Mr. Craig and his coalition are determined to hold that vault open, in Congress if possible and in court if necessary. Their efforts are especially critical because other individuals and institutions are failing to uphold the responsibilities invested in them by the nation’s founders. The best-selling celebrity historians haven’t said much about this outrage, even though they depend on access to public records. So far, the only significant comment on the Bush executive order in the mainstream press has come from the Los Angeles Times, which published a scathing editorial on Nov. 6. The other national newspapers and the fawning commentators have remained silent, too busy burnishing the President’s image to worry about his administration’s contempt for their profession.
These watchdogs of freedom have deteriorated terribly since Tricky Dick’s downfall. Today
they almost never bark, let alone bite.
|
 Right-Wing Media Continue To Savage Clinton By Gene Lyons Many things have changed in this country since Sept. 11, but not the brazen distortions of the right-wing media nor the craven failure of "mainstream" journalists to confront them. The result is a decadent national press unwilling to stand up for the ethical standards that supposedly govern the "profession" of journalism, and a steep decline in the quality of public discourse in our democracy. Last week saw yet another ludicrous, but ugly controversy stirred up by journalistic fraud. As usual, the malefactors were the Washington Times, the National Review, Fox News, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and his army of talk radio imitators. The hyperventilating shills of the World Wrestling Federation have nothing on this bunch. Even a normally skeptical Democrat-Gazette columnist got taken for a ride. Also as usual, the immediate target was Bill Clinton. Next time you're flabbergasted by some preposterous lie in the gutter press of Baghdad or Cairo, remember that this bunch duped millions of credulous boobs into believing that Wicked Bill told a college audience, as one outraged letter to the Washington Times put it, that "America got what it deserves" at the hands of Arab terrorists. Or, as the Democrat-Gazette columnist wrote, that he delivered a "rant of justifiable homicide" which "vindicated" Osama bin Laden. The fierce intellectuals of the National Review declared that having "pardoned the unpardonable, now [Clinton] has justified the unjustifiable." Remember too that hardly anybody in our vigilant national media pointed out what an alert golden retriever would have suspected, that the whole flap was caused by a comically grotesque distortion of what Clinton actually said. Here's how it happened: on November 7, Clinton spoke at his alma mater, George-town University. A next day front page account in the Washington Times was misleadingly headlined "Clinton says U.S. is paying for its past." The article, written by one Joseph Curl, turned his speech upside down, insinuating that an inconsequential (and factually indisputable) aside he'd made about 19th century mistreatment of slaves and native Americans constituted an excuse for terrorism. Almost the direct opposite is true. "I am just a citizen," Clinton said at the outset, "and as a citizen I support the efforts of President Bush, the national security team, and our allies in fighting the current terrorist threat. I believe we all should." Clinton brought up past atrocities only to illustrate his point that terrorism is morally abhorrent and militarily futile. "The killing of noncombatants for economic, political, or religious reasons," he observed "has a very long history, as long as organized combat itself, and yet, it has never succeeded as a military strategy." At no point, did Clinton suggest any causal or moral connection whatsoever between America's ancient sins and contemporary terrorist acts. He did say that this country is "still paying a price" for its past. Who can deny it? But he also said that "the people who died represent, in my view, not only the best of America, but the best of the world.The terrorists killed people who came to America not to die, but dream, from every continent, from dozens of countries, most every religion on the face of the earth, including Islam. They, those that died in New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania are part of a very different world and a very different worldview than those who killed them." He described the campaign against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda as a "struggle for the soul of the 21st century."
In a pungent essay on his Daily Howler website, Bob Somerby has
shown that the phony claim that Clinton "basically said we are getting what
we deserve in the terrorist attack," as a GOP spokesman parroted on CNN
later that day, was created by techniques journalists profess to abhor:
yanking partial quotes out of context and the dark art of malicious
paraphrase. (Anybody who doubts me and wants to fight about it can find
Clinton's entire speech online at Salon.com or the Georgetown University
website. The rest of you can stick to the time-honored "Voices" tactic of
name-calling. "Clinton apologist," with its heady whiff of Stalinist
orthodoxy, is the one Washington professionals prefer.) Even the
Clinton-phobic pundit Andrew Sullivan, after denouncing the former
president before troubling himself to read the speech, subsequently
admitted that the Washington Times account was "appallingly slanted."
Yet nary a syllable was emitted by the so-called "liberal
Establishment" press. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz produced a
bemused item about the right's obsession with Bad Bill, but nowhere hinted
at the Times' unethical methods. It's simply not done. Two reasons: first,
it's seen as futile, like starting a campaign to convince 20 million morons
that pro wrestling is fixed. Second, fear. The crack-pot ideologues of the
far right are shameless, relentless, and well-funded. Why provoke them
merely to defend democratic values?
|
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." ... A.J. Liebling
|
Corporate Sponsorship Leads PBS To Feature "Safe Programming" ... Nature And How-To Shows. By Jerold M. Starr While 75 percent of public broadcast funding comes from the public in one form or another, corporations are the single largest source of underwriting for programs. This has two consequences. One is a paucity of news and public affairs. As WGBH's Victoria Devlin once observed: "Corporations are not big risk-takers when there's perceived controversy." The result, TV critic Marc Gunther points out, is an overabundance of "safe programming," like "nature and science" and "how-to" shows. The second consequence is that what news and public affairs there is tends to be as conservative as one would find on the commercial networks. Take the nightly "NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer. The show is two-thirds owned by AT&T and, over the years has been sponsored by several large corporations. Lehrer claims: "We try very hard to represent all of the relevant positions ... on any given issue as best as we can." However, research by Vassar College Professor William Hoynes found that all public interest group advocates combined accounted for a mere six percent of "NewsHour" guests. In 1995, anticipating his retirement, former "NewsHour" co-host Robert MacNeil acknowledged, "We [at PBS] are not as provocative, innovative, creative or original as we should be." The PBS green light to corporate and conservative foundation underwriting and ban on labor and public interest group funding amounts to a de facto censorship. To make matters worse, PBS systematically bans independent productions that receive even partial support from labor or public interest groups. PBS claims this is necessary to avoid the "perception," however unfounded, that the program content might have been influenced by its funding. Examples of such discrimination are legion, but two should make clear how rigidly this dictum is enforced. In 1997, PBS was scheduled to air "Out at Work," an award-winning documentary about three lesbian and gay workers' struggles for justice and dignity in the workplace. PBS suddenly cancelled, claiming it discovered that 23 percent of the film's modest $65,000 budget came from such "problematical" sources as a lesbian action foundation and some labor unions. One of the film's directors, Kelly Anderson, said: "None of the funders in question gave more than $5,000 to the project, and most gave $1,000 or less." PBS official Sandy Heberer insisted: "PBS guidelines prohibit funding that might lead to an assumption that individual underwriters might have exercised editorial control over program content even if, as is clear in this case, those underwriters did not." Journalist James Ledbetter asked PBS official Barry Chase if this decision meant that a labor union could never fund any program on public television that had to do with issues of the workplace. Chase replied: "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying." However, corporations have been allowed to sponsor programs that featured their products. Financial institutions sponsor business news; in fact, "Wall Street Week" host Louis Rukeyser even has interviewed analysts touting certain companies with which they had an undisclosed financial relationship. In 1994, PBS refused to air "Defending Our Lives," winner of the Academy Award for "Best Documentary Short." The film critically examines the problem of battered women. PBS turned it down on the grounds that one of the producers was a member of a nine-member prison support group concerned with the issue. The producers said the woman neither funded, profited from nor controlled the film, but PBS said the "perception" that shows are being "created to advance the aims of [a] group" is "as important as the fact." In contrast, earlier this year former CBS and ABC news correspondent Jerry Landay revealed that three conservative foundations -- Bradley, Olin and Scaife -- subsidized at least 17 single programs or series on PBS from 1992 through 2000. All the programs served as "a platform for the views" of the foundations' grantees and their organizations. These included a program on "scientific creationism," another that blamed lack of self-reliance for problems in the ghetto, an attack on "political correctness" based on alleged "reenactments," a three-part series on the "gender wars," dominated by anti-feminist voices and a debate on "school choice" with 38 of 42 guests supporting public funding of private schools. Not only did these shows air, but there was no public acknowledgement of PBS violation of the "perception" guideline. The PBS green light to corporate and conservative foundation underwriting and ban on labor and public interest group funding amounts to a de facto censorship of program content. As if to make certain, PBS also invokes a "balance and objectivity" standard for programs with a critical message that manage to find funds from "disinterested" sources. This standard has nothing to do with the separate questions of fairness, accuracy or truth. Such criteria are important and can be respected through a case-by-case editorial review, as is standard practice in the academic world. As with the funding standard, the balance standard is applied selectively. Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders' documentary on American socialist Eugene V. Debs was rejected by every station he went to on the grounds that it didn't show both sides. Sanders reflected: "I gather they wanted a plug for capitalism. Can you imagine if I had done a film celebrating the accomplishments of John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford -- those stations would never have insisted on hearing the socialist side. They would never have complained about objectivity." From Nixon to Reagan to Gingrich, conservative political officials have used the power of the purse to intimidate PBS. The source of this bias is patently clear. From Nixon to Reagan to Gingrich, conservative political officials have used the power of the purse to intimidate PBS into making significant concessions in its programming. In 1993, former PBS President Ervin Duggan stated revealingly that balance across the schedule was not sufficient. Failure to provide balance within all programs "would cause the debate" (read conservative attack) over "fairness in broadcasting" to "erupt again, threatening the enterprise." The political officials policing PBS represent corporations and conservative groups who have no problem with censorship. Liberals, on the other hand, have deliberately avoided any comments on programming. As a consequence, the pressure only comes from one side. In Landay's view, PBS "should reflect the totality of American political thought." He recommends: "'Balance and objectivity,' a political bludgeon, must be replaced with the guiding principle of 'representative access.'" This, in fact, is policy in the U.K., Netherlands and other democracies that support their own public broadcasting systems.
Unfortunately, the only way this will ever happen is if the United States follows the lead of the other democracies
and provides independent funding for public broadcasting; giving it the financial security required for journalistic
integrity. Opening up the PBS National Program Service is only half the battle, however. Since PBS member
stations have final control over their broadcast schedule, a more democratic service requires change at that level
as well. Local stations must move away from the commercial culture that has taken root; away from ratings, focus
groups, branding and merchandising and toward authentic community responsiveness.
|
 Return Of The King By Reggie Rivers Denver Post columnist Were you aware that the attorney general of the United States now has the power to arrest someone without probable cause, hold that person without presenting evidence, and ultimately give that person a life sentence without ever having a trial? That's the power Congress has given to the attorney general, which is stunning because I've always believed that the United States was a nation where due process could not be voided. With this legislation, we've put a rule on the books that puts us on the level of evil, repressive dictators who rule by arbitrary and capricious whim and who lock people up on the authority of a king with no opportunity to challenge the order. Is the attorney general the new king of the United States? The anti-terrorism bill states that "the Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is engaged in any activity that endangers the national security of the United States." That "certification" means the king suspects this person of terrorist activities and wants to deport him. The first problem is that the king is not required to produce any evidence before making this "certification." As long as he believes that the individual somehow endangers national security, he can order the detention. The bill also says, "the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien " Under this legislation, a French citizen vacationing in New York could be arrested, "certified" without evidence, jailed without trial and incarcerated for the rest of his life without ever being charged with a crime. Even if he were able to get a hearing before a judge who determined that there was no evidence of terrorism, the legislation specifically undermines the judge's authority by giving the attorney general permission to maintain custody of the alien regardless of "any relief from removal granted the alien." The legislation gives a false impression of restraint. It reads, "An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed and whose removal is unlikely in the foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person." It's a false promise, because the alien was "certified" without the king having to produce any evidence, and he can be held for additional periods of time if the king, again without producing any evidence, says that the alien is a threat to national security. In addition, the length of the detention is entirely at the discretion of the king. This is America. How could Congress, even in its darkest moment of panic, eliminate due process and put the United States on par with terror states that arrest people and throw them away without trials? Already there are nearly 1,200 people being held by the Justice Department, but nothing about their identities or charges against them is being released.
This level of secrecy is unprecedented, and the amount of power being granted to the attorney general goes against everything the United States stands for.
Are we a nation of laws, or are we to be governed by the arbitrary rule of a king?
Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers (reggierivers@clearchannel.com) writes Thursdays on the Post op-ed page and is a talk host on KHOW
Radio (630 AM, weekdays from 3 to 7 p.m.).
|
|
Police State By Kelly Patricia O'Meara If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill — a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it — and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting." Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it. What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated. The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine. Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept. 3), has a pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. "I don't like the sneak-and-peak provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen." The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination." Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peak provision is just one that will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking about the sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other places. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous problems with due process. By not notifying someone about a search, they don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search." Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property. Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support." Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There is no connection," insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this legislation. Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes but to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the 1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution." "I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the 'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under the new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most people think of as terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to slide down the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British Parliament, investigators can get information from Internet-service providers about their subscribers without a warrant. Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to minor crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes. Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal spying. The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation: minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities. expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches. gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them. grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime. leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes. More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated. Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police. According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans — something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s." Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia. Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions. Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications. In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House. And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism. Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old same old. "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one." Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests." For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of liberty."
What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our
forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first
place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression." |
|
The plan envisions a reorganization of the Justice Department and important
component agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, each of which would be overhauled
to take a more aggressive stance in the effort to ward off terrorism.
"Today, I am announcing a wartime reorganization and mobilization of the
nation's justice and law enforcement resources to meet the mission of the
Department of Justice," Mr. Ashcroft said in a speech to managers at the
Justice Department.
He offered only a few specifics, but outlined a fundamental shift in
priorities that would occur in the next five years under a plan to be
submitted to Congress. The changes could require Congressional approval —
if, for example, the F.B.I. ceded its authority over drug trafficking to
the Drug Enforcement Administration, as some law enforcement officials have
suggested.
Some changes Mr. Ashcroft discussed today have been discussed in news
reports. Some are new, like the proposal to redirect 10 percent of the
Justice Department's budget, about $2.5 billion, to counterterrorism
efforts, mainly for upgrading technology.
Among the new initiatives disclosed today was an order by the attorney
general to allow federal prison authorities to eavesdrop on attorney-client
conversations involving people suspected of posing a direct threat to
national security.
Mindy Tucker, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said the order, published
in the Federal Register on Oct. 31, would apply to about 100 federal
prisoners. The authorities would not be allowed to use information
overheard in criminal cases against the suspects, she said.
"The team that listens is not involved in the criminal proceedings," Ms.
Tucker said. "There's a firewall there."
The order drew criticism from civil libertarians, who said it impinged on
constitutional protections of attorney-client confidentiality.
In recent days, the F.B.I. has been criticized for its inability to track
down the source of anthrax
mailings and for issuing vague terrorism alerts that offered no idea of the
potential targets or weapons. Although the time period of the warnings has
lapsed, officials said the country should remain on alert.
The Congressional response to Mr. Ashcroft's plan seemed positive, if less
than fully enthusiastic. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who
is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which would review the proposals,
said he agreed with realigning the bureau to focus on terrorism.
But Mr. Leahy seemed unwilling to allow Mr. Ashcroft complete control of
the reorganization. He
recommended that the bureau's counterterrorism program be reviewed by an
existing commission led by William H. Webster, a former F.B.I. director.
Mr. Webster is examining the bureau's counterintelligence operations as a
result of the unmasking of a senior agent, Robert P. Hanssen, as a Russian spy.
"You cannot plan for the future effectively without knowing what went wrong
in the past," Mr. Leahy said.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who has long been an
F.B.I. critic, said the changes at the bureau should redefine its
institutional attitudes. "As with any reorganization, the devil will be in
the details," Mr. Grassley said. "I hope for new accountability measures,
not just structural changes."
Mr. Ashcroft said that the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, who has
been conducting a review of the bureau since taking office in September,
plans to present preliminary reorganization plans to the Justice Department
by the end of the year. So far, the bureau's top national security official
and deputy director have announced their retirements, and Mr. Mueller is
expected to shake up the entire managerial ranks.
The immigration service will also be given a new mission. "In the war on
terrorism, the restructured Immigration and Naturalization Service will
focus on preventing aliens who engage in or support terrorist activity from
entering our country," Mr. Ashcroft said. "It will lead the campaign to
detain, prosecute or deport the terrorist aliens who are already inside the
nation's borders."
Mr. Ashcroft said that James W. Ziglar, the immigration commissioner, was
planning to close some of the gaps in immigration procedures that made it
relatively easy for the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks to enter the
country. The plan includes stricter enforcement of existing regulations and
reducing the backlog of visa and immigration applications.
Mr. Ashcroft also said he intends to break up the immigration service,
separating border enforcement and immigrant-service functions, an idea
raised early in the Bush administration that had languished until now.
Mr. Ashcroft's announcement was the latest step in his aggressive
stewardship of the Justice
Department since the Sept. 11 attacks. It was also a forceful assertion of
his dominance of the
government's legal and law enforcement establishment, a position of power
all of his predecessors have sought, but few ever obtained.
Some senior career officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have
privately complained that Mr. Ashcroft, in his insistence on cracking down
on terrorists, may go too far to weaken rules that bar investigations of
people and groups based solely on their political leanings.
Mr. Ashcroft has said he would defend the rights of all Americans, but
legal rights groups say he has shown little concern about the erosion of
civil liberties.
"Defending our nation and defending the citizens of America against
terrorist attacks is now our first and overriding priority," Mr. Ashcroft
said. "To fulfill this mission, we are devoting all the resources necessary
to eliminate terrorist networks, to prevent terrorist attacks, and to bring
to justice all those who kill Americans in the name of murderous ideologies." |
|
Dead Letter Office
Heil Bush,
Dear Propaganda Ansager Schlessinger,
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 Frau Schlessinger, Sieg Heil!
Signed,
Heil Bush
|
|
It has seemed to me the media have been engaging in a slightly unseemly amount of
navel-gazing concerning our nerves, with perhaps excessive media temperature-taking of
anxiety levels, crooning over stress on the home front, etc. Americans on the front lines of
this war, including the NYFD, are handling their jobs without swooning, and from my own
travels around the country, it seems to me most of the rest of us are managing to comport
ourselves with reason and dignity, whatever our anxiety levels.
Unfortunately, the few nincompoops among us now have fresh occasion for hysteria: the
always-timely advice THINK comes to mind. The absolute last thing we need is another
round of Arab-bashing.
Our most valuable resource against terrorism in the long-run will almost certainly be
Arab-Americans. Among them are the bravest of the brave. Look at why many of them are
here: They are Iraqis who fought Saddam Hussein, Syrians who fought Assad and Iranians
who opposed the Ayatollah. They are Lebanese who saw their country torn to shreds by
fanatics. They have the language, the culture and the commitment. We can't send blond,
blue-eyed Texans to infiltrate Al Qaeda. (I have a life-size vision of a Texan in the back of
some terrorist meeting room saying, "Don't mind me, y'all.")
The misguided zeal of our most pinheaded patriots has already led to attacks on individuals
(including one dead Sikh from India) and on mosques. Most of us agree such attacks are
criminal folly, but there are still many who condone and encourage prejudice and
discrimination in the name of patriotism. Since Sept. 11, Arab-Americans have not only
been physically attacked, but also harassed, discriminated against, fired because of their
ethnicity and treated shabbily in a variety of ways, up to and including being rounded up
and held on the flimsiest imaginable grounds. This is, among other things, profoundly
stupid.
We all understand the pressures on law enforcement. Heaven forbid anyone should let an
actual terrorist go. Of course they'd rather err on the side of caution. But even our flimsy
visa system should have provided evidence by now about who is an established American
citizen and who is here illegally.
When in doubt, hold them -- fine. But it is not the fault of Arab-Americans that we had a
visa system so full of holes. The Boston Globe has reported the families of Arab-Americans
who died in the World Trade Center are having an especially difficult time with the hostility
directed against them because of their ethnicity.
If we had our wits about us, we would be showering Arab-Americans with tender loving
care. In fact, the more thoughtful among us have already circulated lists via e-mail about
what those who know Arab-Americans can do to help -- call, offer escort, etc.
The situation of the Sikhs, turbaned Indians of a different religion entirely, is pathetic.
Perhaps we need one of those old National Brotherhood Weeks -- Take a Sikh to Lunch.
Older Japanese-Americans are in a special position to understand what Arab-Americans
are going through, as are other Americans who have experienced racism. The
Transportation Department has already put out a circular to airport security personnel
advising them of the humiliation suffered by Sikh men and Arab women forced to uncover
their heads in public.
Also on the hysteria front, assorted armchair warriors have advocated using torture against
the detainees. Look, we got through two world wars without stooping that low -- and,
sticking to the "whatever works" program, torture doesn't. You can torture someone into
confessing anything, but that doesn't help move an investigation forward. As all cops know,
false confessions just screw up an investigation. Put the bastinados away.
Most Americans are behaving noticeably well -- that astringent Midwestern sensibleness is
so helpful in a crisis. How many times has President Bush said this is going to be a long,
difficult struggle? He's right. And one of the things we can do to help is try to prevent our
more easily excited citizens from going off half-cocked against Arab-Americans, one of our
most valuable national resources.
|
|
Never mind what 650,000 voters in Oregon decided. Never mind that the Supreme Court, in 1997,
ruled unanimously that states have the right to determine so-called "right to die" laws. We have a crackpot
religious whack for attorney general, and his Jesus has whispered in his ear that good, god-fearin’ Amerkins
like Jesus don’t hold with letting people die without a whole lot of pain and suffering.
For anyone not familiar with John Ashcroft, he’s a right wing religious nutcase who likes to anoint
himself with Crisco oil when making important career moves. Never mind that there is nothing in the bible
that justifies this behavior. Ashcroft has decided that the bible thinks anointing is a good thing, and since all
it says is that oil is used for anointing, then cooking oil ought to work just fine. The bible doesn’t say
anything about anointing yourself, but Ashcroft apparently figured some kind of dodge around that.
He’s also, believe it or not, the Attorney-General of the United States of America, and our chief law
enforcement officer. I kid you not.
The man simply likes to get greased up and jam his weird religious views down everyone’s throats.
Nowadays those views tend to involve our civil rights and liberties.
Ashcroft’s version of God told him that assisted suicide is wrong. Perhaps he believes that if you
commit suicide, you’ll go to hell. Of course, he also believes that if you don’t accept Jayzus into your life as
yuh puhsunel sav-yer, you’re going to go to hell anyway, so it doesn’t make much sense for him to worry
about the immortal souls of non-believers. He should just remind his fellow religionists of what he believes,
and let the heathen go to hell in their own way.
He’s a religious nut, and he just can’t see it that way. If you don’t believe what Ashcroft’s god believes,
then you are defying that god, and since that particular diety is incapable of taking care of you himself, then
it’s up to John Ashcroft, as god’s personal representative on earth, to take care of you.
Oregon voters passed "death with dignity" not once, but twice, and by hefty margins. It went through
the courts, all the way to the top, where the SC ruled that a doctor could not be compelled to assist a
patient in dying (something the Oregon law didn’t do, anyway) but that otherwise, it was a law legal and
constitutional for any state to enact.
Doctors prescribe lethal doses of medication every day. I can buy lethal doses over the counter, for
that matter. I’ve got a bottle of 300 Motrins in my bathroom that I could swallow all at once, and it would
cause my liver to shrivel up and try to climb out my rectum. It would definitely kill me if I took all that Motrin,
but it would be an excruciating death.
What the death-with-dignity law did was permit doctors to prescribe medication that would cause an
easy death, and protect them from liability. It also, of course, allows patients to secure an easy death, since
most forms of suicide tend to be extremely uncomfortable and messy, and traumatic to the survivors.
Every day, doctors prescribe "final friend" dosages with a wink, and can only hope that the patient
doesn’t have any religious whacks – an Ashcroft – in the family who will come in two days later, claiming
that prayer was going to save Uncle Fred from his end-stage metastatic bone cancer any time now, and the
doctor thwarted god’s will.
The law in Oregon demanded that the patient be rational and capable of requesting the
death-with-dignity prescription, and that two other physicians examine the patient independently, and
independently determine that he is in a terminal condition, with less than six months to live.
No doctor is required to prescribe the lethal dose, and no doctor is required or even obliged to consider
it. The two independent physicians know that unless there is either extreme pain and discomfort, or
immediate prospects of same, the patient will not qualify for death-with-dignity at that time.
It’s rational, it’s humane, it’s the right thing to do, and it is a kindness to those who need it the most.
Naturally, Ashcroft hates it, and says that God hates it too. The same man who is cheerfully pushing
for genocide by starvation in Afghanistan says that he’s against death with dignity because the bible says
you shouldn’t take innocent life.
Now, the good news is that a Federal Court judge, one U.S. District Judge Robert Jones, has granted
a temporary restraining order until the courts can process it. The courts will almost certainly strike Ashcroft’s
arbitrary order down on the grounds that it is a state issue and he doesn’t have jurisdiction. Of course, if it
reaches our corrupt Supreme Court, all bets are off.
In the meantime, Ashcroft is continuing to be the poster boy for Christianity: along with an all-out
assault on civil rights and freedoms, he is now talking about getting permission to torture suspected
terrorists who are in custody.
What a great Christian and American he is!
Of course, most Americans might have something to say about that.
I’m sure every Christian reading this will want to pray tonight.
But I’m betting that most of those prayers won’t be something that Ashcroft would want to hear.
This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Bill Day |
|
Killer Of Giants
If none of us believe in war
Giants sleeping giants winning wars
Mother nature people state your case without its worth
Killer of giants threatens us all
Killer of giants threatens us all
It's Only A Matter Of Time
In a 5-4 Midnight Ruling, A U.S. Supreme Court injunction cancelled the results of the ninth inning of
Game 7 of the World Series, giving the New York Yankees their 4th straight World Championship of
Baseball. Saying they were not interfering with Private Enterprise, the Court said established historical
rule of Baseball and Federal Right to Regulate the Collective Bargaining agreement prevented the
4-year-old upstart Arizona Diamondbacks from claiming victory. The Yankees won 2-1, taking the series
4 games to 3. Dissenters on the Court said the umpires were the Regulating Agent on the Field, but the
Court Majority ruled there exists no higher controlling legal authority than Supreme Court Justices in
Washington. |
|
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
|
CONTRIBUTING LINKS
Parting Shots... 
It's been over a year since Election Day, the votes have finally been counted, and Al Gore is the
winner. Unfortunately, the Media (1) still insists on spinning the Bush angle. We've got something
of a southern theme this week. Mike McKinney (2) tries to kick a little ass, Texas-Style. The state
board of Ed (3) tries to teach science, Alabama Style. John Ashcroft (5) shows his commitment to
states rights. And some racist frat boys (6) show how to have a little fun, Klan style.
#1The Media
We had to wait a year for the votes to get counted, but the results are finally in. Last night the official
results of the Florida recount by the media consortium were released, and it looks like the winner is…
(drumroll please) … Al Gore! It doesn't matter whether you count dimpled chads, hanging chads, or
cleanly-punched chads - if you count every legally-cast vote in the state, Gore is the winner. But if you read any of
the coverage of the story in the liberal media, you'd have to look pretty closely to get the facts. The headline on the
Washington Post's website was: "Study Shows Recounts Would Have Elected Bush." The lead sentence in New
York Times: "George W. Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount
that the Florida court had ordered to go forward." And CNN: "Florida recount study: Bush still wins." All along, we
thought that the point of the study was to determine who really won. In reality, they were just looking for another
opportunity to kick Al Gore. Surprisingly, only Drudge got the story right: "Big Media Florida Database: Gore Topped
Bush if all Under/Over Votes Counted; Legal Strategy Destroyed Chances."
#2 Mike McKinney
Here's the latest from the party that brought you "traditional values" and "compassionate conservatism":
a good old-fashioned brawl at a football stadium, followed by abuse of government power. Yes, Texas
Governor Rick Perry's chief of staff, Mike McKinney, went on a rampage with a pair of binoculars at Texas
A&M's football stadium last week after a fight broke out. When Reginald Wallace allegedly attempted to push fans
back into the stands during the melee, McKinney hit him with his binoculars - but it was literally "one in the eye" for
McKinney after Wallace proceeded to, um, punch him in the face. McKinney then continued to swing his binoculars
"with full force," attempting to hit people on the field. Then, after the fight broke up, he threatened to use his "high
governmental position" to get back at local police, according to the Houston Chronicle. Hmmm... must be that
"personal responsibility" thing conservatives are always going on about. Isn't it nice to see our elected officials
behaving so responsibly in public? And setting such a wonderful example for others.
#3 Alabama State Board of Edumication
Cue dueling banjos! The Alabama's State Board of Education recently decided to continue their policy of
placing disclaimers on biology textbooks, voting unanimously last week to put stickers stating that
evolution is a "controversial theory" on 40,000 new textbooks. Yeehaw! What next? Stickers on physics
textbooks stating that "the sun may, in fact, rotate around the earth?" How about geography textbooks? "According
to some people, our planet may not be flat." Apparently John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition, was
disappointed that the new sticker was not as strongly worded as the old one (and, presumably, was also
disappointed with the removal of a section on the boiling point of witches and a whole chapter about trepanning.)
#4 American Renewal
It's funny how criticizing the President - or indeed, reporting the news factually and accurately - is now
considered "unpatriotic" in these times of trouble. Yet directly comparing the Senate Majority Leader to
Saddam Hussein for the purposes of selling an environmentally disastrous drilling plan is just fine. Last
week the conservative lobbying group American Renewal announced that they would run an ad in this week's
Aberdeen American News, stating that Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein make "strange bedfellows" because
"neither man wants America to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Wha? Why, by that logic I could
argue that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein are strange bedfellows because they both like American cars and
have a fondness for executing people. Whoops, am I being unpatriotic?
#5 John Ashcroft
Hey - that's John "States Rights" Ashcroft to you. So how states' rights is John Ashcroft? He's so states'
rights that the interview he conducted with Southern Partisan magazine (remember that?) was entitled
"John Ashcroft: Champion of States' Rights and Traditional Southern Values." Ah, but ya know what?
Nix the states' rights part. I guess Mr. Ashcroft has decided that they're not that important after all. In Idiots week 43
we reported that the Crisco Kid was urging the FBI to trample California state law and shut down "cannabis clubs"
which aided terminally ill patients. Another week, another state law to ignore - and it seems that Ashcroft's latest
target is Oregon, where he's now urging the FBI to crack down on doctors who perform assisted suicides. The
assisted suicide law was approved by the voters of Oregon last year, but the "Champion of States' Rights" obviously
doesn't really care much about that. See, for people like John Ashcroft, states rights are only good IF they are used
to support "Traditional Southern Values" (you know, things like flying the Confederate flag on public buildings and
praying in school.) States rights for liberal laws are obviously ridiculous. Thanks, Mr. Attorney General!
#6 Racist Halloween Frat Boys
I tried to come up with something funny to say about this one, but it just makes me ill. Last week we
learned of two separate Halloween incidents involving racist frat boys and their stupid friends. Two
University of Mississippi students have been expelled from the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity after an
Internet photograph showed one dressed as a police officer holding a gun to the head of the second, who had
painted his face black. Meanwhile, in Alabama, racist frat boys at Auburn University dressed up in Klan robes, and
some even put nooses around the necks of their buddies, who were in blackface. Photos indicate that other
partygoers thought the costumes were just hilarious. Shame.
#7 Television News Networks
Foolishly we assumed that the job of the TV news networks was to, um, report the news. I mean, it
wasn't like they left any stones unturned during the National Fellatio Crisis of 1998 now was it? But it
would appear that the networks have been leaving a lot of stones unturned in their coverage of the war
in Afghanistan (which is, admittedly, much less important than getting a blow job). That's right - bowing to pressure
from conservatives, the news media have deemed it "unpatriotic" to report on Shrub's War On Terism (c) - at least,
unless they can skew the reporting so it heavily favors the US side of the story. According to the New York Times,
"twice in recent days, networks made decisions, at least in part, to smother accusations that they lacked patriotism or
were skewing coverage toward the enemy." Pardon me, but does anyone else think it's a bit strange that the "news"
networks have not only decided but announced that they're essentially going to become nothing more than
propaganda machines for the government? Oh well, frankly The Daily Show has been far more informative than
CNN lately anyway.
#8 General Tommy Franks
And finally, ask any idiot on the street why we're dropping bombs on Afghanistan, and he'll tell you, "To
get that sonofabitch bin Laden." Somebody better tell that to the U.S. combat commander in
Afghanistan, General Tommy Franks. General Franks admitted last week that apprehending Osama bin
Laden isn't actually one of the missions that US troops are in Afghanistan to perform. Now, forgive me, but I was
under the impression that the reason we were there was to smoke bin Laden out of his cave and bring him to justice,
dead or alive. Oh well - guess not. "We have not said that Osama bin Laden is a target of this effort," Franks said at
a Pentagon briefing last week, leaving us to wonder what the hell George W. Bush has been waffling on about for
the last two months. See you next week!
French Method 52% |
Email:
issues@uncle-ernie.com
Issues & Alibis Vol 1 # 36 © 11/16/2001 
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
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."
