|
Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor
|
In This Edition
Michelle Chihara hears, "The Silence On Terrorism."
Jim Hightower shows us, "Rip Offs Galore."
Norman Solomon explains that it's, "Bad News When Madmen Lead The Blind."
Helen Thomas says, "President Bush Is Wartime CEO."
Joe Conason says, "Whitewater Critics Quiet About Enron."
Top_View says, "Air Force Spokesman: FAA Did Issue Alert IMMEDIATELY On 911; AF Was
Prevented From Scrambling."
Ted Rall takes us to the, "The Wonderful Horrible Life Of John Walker."
Eric Alterman explains the reich-wing in,
"Idiocy Watch: The New Republic."
William Rivers Pitt gives us part one of a two parter, "First Principles: A Manifesto For 2002."
Bartcop explains that it's, "No Way To Get Their Message Out!"
Maggie Gallagher wins the "Vidkun Quisling Award!"
Molly Ivins reports that there is, "No Security For Natural Resources."
Helen Branswell reports on Jerry Rivers in, "Geraldo: Proof You Don't Believe Everything You Hear."
And finally in Parting Shots Jacob G. Hornberger shares, "A Foreign-Policy Primer for Children: The Fable of the Hornets" but first Uncle Ernie says he's, "Still Alive And Well!"
This week we spotlight the cartoons of Ed Stein with additional cartoons from Tom Tomorrow, Ben Sargent, Shakti, Jeff Danziger, Bush Speaks, Chris Whitehouse, GWBush Art 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! |
|
Everyone I thought was cool is six feet under ground! They tried to get me lots of times and now they're coming after you! I got out and I'm here to say that baby you can get out too!
Still alive and well. Still Alive And Well … Johnny Winter
2001 has come and gone and forever changed the world. We've seen the end of the American Republic replaced by a Reich-wing dictator. The 'Bill of Rights' gutted by politicians that didn't have time to read what they voted for. After all they didn't come to Washington to read but to lead. To lead us all down that path from peace and prosperity to death and destruction, a goal that we are accomplishing at record speed. If you thought the Germans made great Nazis you ain't seen nothing yet. Give the emperor another year or two and see what we'll become!
I have no doubt that this country is primed to go goose-stepping off to steal the riches of the world and we all know deep down how this will end. It will end with American cites dissolved under mushroom clouds. The cheering you will hear from the rest of the world will be short lived as we nuke everybody else, friend and foe alike back to the 'Stone Age.' Bush has set his sights on being the biggest mass murder in history and America will gladly give up her sons and daughters in a murdering frenzy to back this monster. I've been talking to three rat-wing moms who are all hot to trot to send their children off to war. Of course none of these "ladies" are enlisting themselves but are prepared to except the flags off the coffins of their husbands, sons and daughters. Wonderful folks these Rethuglicans, eh?
As terrible as that is they aren't satisfied with destroying their families but would demand the same of yours. I give the congress about 3 or 4 months before reinstituting the draft. For those of you who are too young to remember the draft and the riots, division, destruction and mayhem they caused you are in for a ring side seat on the madness to come. Some of you will be forced at gun point to go and burn villages, men, women and babies. If you're lucky you'll be shot dead and won't have to deal with the visions for the rest of your mutated lives. You understand that there are far worse things than death to look forward to.
Still got a job? Do you think you'll have it this time next year? Out of work already? Think you'll be able to find something other to do than say, "Would you like fries with that sir?"
Not since WWII have we had the corporates take over the world as they did in Germany, Italy, Japan and America. This coup d' etat is just one of many in this country since then. The only difference between the Kennedy and Ford coups is that this one fully worked. The corporate rat-wing has been waiting 150 years for this to happen and now that it's here have no doubt they will take full advantage of it.
How do you feel about Jesus? I'm not talking about the Mexican kid down the block either.
I refer of course to the myth Jesus. Not just any Jesus but a Reich-wing Jesus. Don't believe in that god or no gods at all, you will! You will or they will come and get you and put you to work in some great capitalistic prison camp. Remember the Bush's are the ones that taught der Snifter how to do it. Wasn't it Walker who came up with the motto, "Work Makes You Free?"
Like the Johnny Winter song above I guess I should be happy to be alive so far but with this 'New World Order' it not worth much any more to be alive. Of course this dread of seeing what's next on the Nazi agenda is all part of their plans. At the very least some corporate drug empire is there to sell me some brain damaging drug to cheer me up. No thanks I'll be just find with this Acapulco Gold and my trusty pipe. (A few tokes later) Ah much better, now lets go get those Bush bastards!
Chapter 3 of my new book
It's that time of the year again. Time for a tale that has become a Christmas tradition all over the world. Be sure and read it to the kids! Happy Holidaze! |
|
The Silence On Terrorism Michelle Chihara, AlterNet Everyone professes to love free speech -- the president of the University of Texas calls it the "bedrock of American liberty," the American Council for Trustees and Alumni supports it, the mayor of Modesto defends it, the president of the University of Florida -- they are all committed to free speech. Just not on their dime, not on their campus, not in their backyard. Not when it disrupts or upsets. Everone is all for free speech, but a closer look at a number of recent cases suggests that when right-wing pundits stir up controversy -- which, it's important to mention, they have every right to do -- people in power, from city councils to boards of trustees, are responding by silencing the troublemakers. And a troublemaker, these days, is anyone who dares to criticize any aspect of the war on terrorism as waged by the Bush administration. In Sacramento, California, a speaker is booed off the stage at a graduation ceremony because she urged citizens to protect their rights to free speech and a fair trial. In Modesto, California, the city withdraws its funding for a speech by Danny Glover because of comments he made against the death penalty and criticizing Bush. In Austin, Texas, the president of the university responds to comments from one of his faculty by calling the professor "a fountain of undiluted foolishness on issues of public policy" in the Houston Chronicle. In Washington, D.C., the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an organization founded by second lady Lynne Cheney, publishes a report calling professors the "weak link" in America's response to the terrorist attacks because their positions are "distinctly equivocal and divided." (Cheney, who once served as the head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is now a fellow at the conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute. She is quoted in the report, but said she was not involved in its production.) In Florida, a professor is fired at a meeting of a board of trustees. The professor is not given the chance to defend himself. The board of trustees was not selected from the academic community, instead, most of the trustees were appointed by Governor Jeb Bush. The university president stated that the professor lost his job because of the "disruption" that the University had to endure, because of the "manner in which a professor exercise[d] his right to express political and social views." The president of the University of South Florida, Judy Genshaft, along with University of Texas president Larry Faulkner, Modesto Mayor Carmen Sabatino, Anne Neal at the ACTA, and University of Florida President Judy Genshaft have all paid lip service to free speech. But none of them have actually come out in public and disagreed with the substance of what Professor Al-Arian or Robert Jensen or Danny Glover or anyone else has to say. The common role of conservative right-wing talk shows in these incidents is noteworthy. Conservative columnist David Horowitz did the groundwork for the ACTA's report, many of the quotes in the report were cited to his and other conservative publications. The ACTA's report in turn brought increased attention to the comments of professor Robert Jensen. Jensen wrote an article for the Common Dreams Web site arguing that America, too, is guilty of violence against civilians, entitled "Stop the Insanity Here, U.S. just as guilty of commiting its own violent acts." He was then called a fool by the president of his institution. Bill O'Reilly, Fox TV's right-wing talk show host, brought civil engineering professor Sami Al-Arian onto his show on September 26. The professor said in a press release that producers lured him onto the show under false premises. Once Al-Arian was on the show, O'Reilly badgered Al-Arian and insinuated that Al-Arian is a terrorist. Al-Arian, an out-spoken critic of U.S. policy in Israel, has, in fact, been investigated by the FBI. Two of his former colleagues have turned up as terrorists. Many others, of course, have not. The FBI never found any evidence of wrong-doing, and Al-Arian has never been accused of any crime. But the show prompted death threats against Al-Arian. Upon firing him, the university's letter to Al-Arian, according to Florida newspapers, cited the death threats against Al-Arian as security concerns -- part of the reason for his dismissal. At Princeton university, famous actor and activist Danny Glover gave a speech at an anti-death penalty forum. During the question and answer session, a student asked Danny Glover if he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden. Glover replied that no, he didn't support the death penalty under any circumstance. Right-wing talk shows stirred up further controversy, and soon Danny Glover found the city of Modesto backing out of a Martin Luther King day speaking engagement. These cases, taken as a whole, are frightening for two reasons: first, because of the number of instances where those in power not only failed to defend the minority opinion's right to be heard, but also act against those who dare to voice those opinions. Second, they're distressing because what is missing in all of these cases is actual debate. In the current climate, what is being debated is not the validity of dissenting opinions, but whether dissenting opinions have the right to be heard. Attorney General John Ashcroft set the first example of favoring inflammatory controversy versus true debate, when he stood before Congress to defend his agenda. He didn't defend its specifics, nor did he respond to most of the questions raised by Congress. Instead, he attacked those who would question him, accusing them of "aiding the terrorists." The American Council of Trustees and Alumni made the same kind of insinuations -- that if you're not with us, you're with the enemy -- in their report, entitled "Defending Civilization." The report called professors the "weak link" in America's response to the terrorist attacks. That lanugage parrots the language used by the House Un-American Activies Committee, McCarthyism's organized body in the House of Representatives, which used the same label for one of the scientists they pursued. Then, in Ashcroftian language, the ACTA wrote, "We learn from history that when a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give aid and comfort to its adversaries." The report cited university fora and teach-ins as evidence that these professors were not willing to defend their civilization. In defense of the report, Anne Neal, the report's author says, "It's noteworthy that mainstream public reaction was fairly uniform, but the academic community was divided in its reaction. It was often equivocal, it sometimes blamed America first." Neal denies that her criticism of the academy's "equivocal" reaction in face of public uniformity goes against free speech. "No one is seeking any unanimity in thought," she says. Instead, students should be taught more history of the United States and Western civilization. Asked whether she was implying that by learning more history, students would be less "equivocal," she replied that "there is no implication." The point of history, she said, was for "students to make up their own mind, and have critical thinking. And I mean that in the broad context, not necessarily negative thinking but critical thinking." Neal's report was taken to task in the press, the subject of critical articles in the New York Times, The Boston Globe and a number of other major outlets. Its heavy-hitting political allies are holding "Defending Civilzation" well at arms length. Cheney herself denied having read the report in the New York Times, and Senator Joe Lieberman has issued a letter expressing his disagreement with the report. He is listed as a founder of the ACTA on their Web site, but his spokesman says, "that's a mischaracterization." But the ACTA is a well-funded organization, with ties to places like the University of South Florida, where Al-Arian was just fired. And the ACTA's report also brought increased attention to journalism professor Robert Jensen's comments, which led to the university president calling him a "fountain of undiluted foolishness." The president sets the example for debate on campus in his position as the head of the institution. He paid homage to the first amendment, but then engaged in an ad hominem attack on Jensen. Never, as Jensen himself points out, did president Faulkner engage with Jensen's opinions, never did he offer something along the lines of, "In the spirit of democratic engagement, I would like to offer my critique of Jensen's argument..." Instead, the president's led his campus by attacking a professor's character without responding in any way to the substance of his arguments. On most of the college campuses cited in the ACTA's report, professors say that their institutions have supported their right to express themselves. An email petition is even circulating on college campuses bidding professors to email the ACTA and demand to be included in the list. Professor Erin Carlston at UNC Chapel Hill writes, "I can fervently affirm that I am every bit as treasonous as [my colleagues on the list]." Carlston ends by affirming her dedication to reasoned debate and independent thinking, and asks, "please include me on any future blacklists you choose to publish." But where is the reasoned debate that Carlston longs for? While most of the college campuses report having speakers both supporting and criticizing the Bush administrations' policies, what seems to be lacking is an engaged discussion, a give and take, between the two sides. "A student came to me and said she wanted to organize a public forum on civil liberties. I said, fine, I'd be happy to do it," says Jensen. "She got the state director of the ACLU to agree to speak. But she had to cancel the event. 'I can't find anybody to speak on the other side,' she told me. I said, 'You can't find anyone who supports Bush and Ashcroft?' And she said she could find people who have the other view, but they wouldn't debate. If you're part of the majority, then why debate in public if you're already winning? It's why the leading presidential candidate doesn't want to debate the second place guy. You've got not much to gain and a lot to lose." "You can't have a healthy democracy if you don't have ongoing and spirited public dialogue," Jensen continues. "What passes for public dialogue -- TV talk-shows and radio shows -- that isn't dialogue, it's show biz." In Modesto, California, the mayor of the city, much like Faulkner or Anne Neal, affirms that "This has nothing to do with censorship." He insists that Danny Glover had simply proved too expensive for the city. He says he "didn't know" why the Modesto city college had withdrawn its offer to host the event, or why the Modesto Bee had repeatedly reported that the city had withdrawn its support for Glover. He admitted that as recently as last year, MLK speakers have received both city funding and spoken in city-owned venues, but offered no explanation. Nor did he offer any explanation for why previous MLK speakers, as recently as last year, had spoken in city-owned venues and received city funding. But the city official who spoke to the Modesto Bee did explain himself. He said he thought the controversy surrounding some of Glover's comments would "overshadow the celebration of Martin Luther King." In other words, once Glover was tainted with a whiff of non-support, a trace of controversy, then he immediately lost city funding. The committee that invited Glover was quick to respond by pointing out that Dr. King himself was an eminently controversial figure in his time. But no one is arguing with them. Instead, Glover is trying to fight the free-floating taint of being "pro-terrorist," while angry letters to the editor in New Jersey call for him to be sent "back to Afghanistan," as they have for anyone else who has dared to criticize our administration and its policies. Perhaps the most disturbing case, however, is Al-Arian's. He is a controversial figure. But until an FBI probe or some other legal organization returns with proof and/or actual charges against him, then he is guilty only of unpopular speech and guilt by association. Guilt by association was McCarthyism 's strong suit. Al-Arian is not talking to the press on the advice of his lawyers, who are not confirming or denying that he may sue. But he has been silenced by his university. And once again, whatever his unpopular opinions may be, the debate now revolves around their very right to be expressed -- not on their relative worth. In a statement published on the Web, some of the University of Florida and South Florida faculty wrote this in support of Al-Arian: "Professor Sami Al-Arian says unpopular things in public, and he and USF now face demands for his resignation or dismissal, and even threats of violence... By the principles upon which this Nation was founded, each person has the right to speak -- indeed is encouraged to speak -- as an individual. And a scholar has a greater obligation to be honest than to be agreeable. Therefore, while we have varied opinions on what Professor Al-Arian says, we defend his right to speak. We believe that only out of a debate that includes all voices will the truth come forth." But in the debate that is making it out of the universities and into the public sphere, we are arguing about whether a tenured professor should be fired for "security concerns" raised by the criminal threats made against him. We are arguing about whether professors who participate in teach-ins are a "weak link." In Sacramento, when a group of people at a commencement ceremony disagreed with the speaker, they didn't stand and walk out in protest (as students did at UC Berkeley two years ago when they wanted to protest against Madeleine Albright's speech). They silenced the publisher of the Sacramento Bee, Janis Besler Heaphy. We are now arguing about whether a commencement speaker has the right to speak her mind. The press grossly mischaraterized Danny Glover's statements as a plea for Osama Bin Laden's life instead of an unqualified stand against the death penalty. Now the debate centers on how and if his speech will proceed.
Of course, not everyone will agree with Danny Glover, or with Janis Besler Heaphy, or
Professor Sami Al-Arian. But calling someone "un-American," or firing him, is the semantic
equivalent of booing him off the stage. It does not constitute debate. It certainly does not
constitute that debate which we so desperately need, a debate that includes all voices. |
|
Time for another trip {space theme} into the Far, Far, Far-Out Frontiers of Free
Enterprise.
Today, Spaceship Hightower takes you into GoofyWorld, otherwise known as
product advertising. With Consumer Reports magazine as our guide, we visit
some rather amazing advertizing claims. Let's begin with the "wood library
ladder" from Eddie Bauer. It's handmade, folds for easy storage, and costs $99,
exclaims the ad for the ladder. But the ad's small print gives a perplexing
warning: "Not for use as a ladder."
If that makes no sense to you, consider the label on a package of Prospirit
socks, proudly boasting that the socks include "Antimicrobial Protection." Go to
the small print again, however, and you're informed that "The antibacterial
properties in these socks are for the protection of the socks only and do not
protect users agianst bacteria."
OK, but surely we can all rejoice that Duncan Hines "Dark 'N Chunky" brownies
mix now produces "20% thicker brownies." The package hails this "new size!"
which might lead you to think there's 20% more mix inside. But, nooooo. It's the
small print again that explains how the same amount of mix gives you 20%
thicker brownies: Put the mix in a smaller pan, and —voila!—you'll get thicker
brownies.
At least you get brownies. In an ad run by a Massachusetts Dodge dealer,
there's a photo of a Dodge pickup truck, complete with a big snowplow attached
to the front. In bold print, you're told that if you buy the truck it comes with "Heavy
Duty Snow Plow Prep Package." But here comes the small print: "Snowplow not
included." Apparently the prep package consists of some bolts and stuff in case
you want to buy a snow plow separately.
This is Jim Hightower saying . . . Heres a final touch from the telephone giant,
MCI Sprint which raised recently rates for some customers by $1.30 a month.
On the bill, it explains that this is necessary "for Sprint to continue to provide our
customers low competitive rates." Thanks, Sprint . .. . for nothing.
|
|
The autumn started with a huge national jolt of shock, fear, grief
and anger. Winter has begun with many worries here at home and grim
satisfaction about warfare abroad. A line from "King Lear," early in Act
4, is hauntingly appropriate:
"'Tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind."
Shakespeare's observation fits the current era, and not only with
reference to the murderous qualities of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda
network. Few media outlets -- and certainly none of the major national
brands -- are willing to scrutinize the unhinged aspects of the adulated
leadership in the White House.
Deep introspection for any society is difficult. Precious little
danger of that, in the here and now. After more than 100 days of big-type
rhetorical questions, the media answers are largely self-satisfied. "Why
do they hate us?" Because we're great, though sometimes clumsy on the
world stage. "How can the violence in the Middle East be stopped?" By
continuing to back Israel, no matter what.
Since Sept. 11, many journalists have commented that the United
States is unaccustomed to the role of victim. Left unsaid is how
accustomed we are to being victimizers while preening ourselves as a
nation of worldly do-gooders. The 3,000 human beings who lost their lives
at the World Trade Center are casting an enormous shadow -- as they
should. But what about the uncounted people killed, one way or another, by
U.S. policies?
The list of countries that the Pentagon has attacked in recent
decades is long. The list of governments using American-supplied weapons
to repress and massacre is even longer.
And there's quieter slaughter, on a grand scale. During every hour,
more than 1,000 children in the world die from preventable diseases. Basic
nutrition, medical care and sanitation would save their lives. A fraction
of the Pentagon budget would suffice.
But we still live in a society with the kind of priorities that
Martin Luther King Jr. described a third of a century ago -- spending
"military funds with alacrity and generosity" but providing anti-poverty
funds "with miserliness." If he were alive now, his voice would still cry
out against "the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth."
King would have good reason to reiterate words from his speech on
April 4, 1967, when he denounced "capitalists of the West investing huge
sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits
out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."
Today, advocates for humanitarian causes might see the United States
as a place where "madmen lead the blind." But that's kind of a harsh way
to describe the situation. Our lack of vision is in the context of a media
system that mostly keeps us in the dark.
In American media's echo chamber, much of the genuine anguish from
Sept. 11 has segued into a lot of braying about national greatness. Like
many other pundits now in their glory days on cable TV networks, Chris
Matthews knows how to dodge difficult truths. "Patriotism is more
important than politics," he proclaimed the other day. What "unites us" is
"democracy, freedom, human rights, the right to pursue happiness."
And what about the "right to pursue happiness" for the kids dying
from lack of food or clean water or medicine, while Matthews and thousands
of other journalists fawn over the U.S. military?
Anyone watching TV news since early October has seen lots of idolatry
lavished on the latest Pentagon weapons. Uncle Sam's immense military
power and Washington's role as the number-one arms dealer on the planet
add up to a colossal drain of resources -- and a powerful means of
enforcing the bonds between the U.S. government and scores of regimes that
combine repression with oligarchy, amid rampant poverty.
Winners get to write history, and that starts with the news. While
victory in Afghanistan gets presented as ample justification for going to
war in the first place, the message that overwhelming might makes right is
ever-present, even if no one quite says so out loud. And when human flesh
goes up in flames and human bodies shatter -- but not on our TV screens --
did it ever really happen?
Several decades ago, peace activist A.J. Muste observed: "The problem
after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and
violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?"
|
 President Bush Is Wartime CEO By Helen Thomas WASHINGTON -- President Bush is running the war in Afghanistan as a low-key CEO. He doesn't pick targets. Nor does he agonize over the death toll or take the suffering of the survivors personally. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer explained to reporters this week that "the president sets and defines (the goal) for the military, and the military implements it." He said Bush is "pleased that things are going so well and has not had many surprises" in deploying America's military might. It all sounds so easy, doesn't it? "We're on a roll," as one official put it. Unlike former President Lyndon Johnson, who was intimately involved in the ill-fated Vietnam War and clearly anguished over it, Bush is detached, leaving the details to his confident pros from previous wars and previous Republican administrations. After dropping more than 10,000 bombs on Afghanistan, the Pentagon has issued no estimates of enemy or civilian casualties. The official attitude seems to be: Why should we? When three Americans were killed by so-called "friendly fire," correspondents in Afghanistan were held in a warehouse and barred from covering the removal of the bodies. You see, it's that kind of war -- focus on the good news. When asked about the destruction inflicted on the country by the U.S.-led bombing campaign, Fleischer noted that the United States was dropping food packages as well as bombs. Most of the president's comments on the war amount to threats against terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, such as: "He can run but he can't hide." Does Bush worry? Maybe. His hair is a little grayer, and the lines in his forehead are a little deeper. But he is still upbeat and flamboyantly confident that he will get bin Laden "dead or alive." Although officials insist they are going after the entire terrorist network, the Saudi-born bin Laden is the prize Bush really wants "to bring to justice" for the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Pennsylvania catastrophes of Sept. 11. Victory over Afghanistan's Taliban rulers was always in the cards. There was no way they could have beaten the United States, especially with the whole world against them and no comparable weapons to combat the superpower's arsenal. With war still topping his agenda, Bush meets every morning with his national security advisers, as well as the directors of the FBI and CIA, to get updates from all fronts. But mostly he relies on such pros as Vice President Richard Cheney, who was defense secretary in the Bush I era when a U.S.-led coalition defeated Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who also held the same post in the Gerald Ford administration. Rumsfeld, in frequent news conferences, warns that the war is not over. That is the administration's mantra. It doesn't want the country to assume the battle has been won or to let its guard down. The president is enjoying popularity ratings between 80 percent and 90 percent. There are no significant protest demonstrations although there is some apprehension, particularly among our allies in the Afghan war, over where Bush will take us next. It's questionable that he would have the solid backing of the American people if he insisted on an open-ended campaign to pursue terrorists everywhere in the world. In the mid-1960s President Johnson was often preoccupied with the Vietnam War. He shared with reporters his anxiety and soul-searching as well as his own suffering. And we worried, too, especially when he told us, "I'm commander-in-chief, and I haven't used all my power yet." That threat gave us pause, but ultimately we knew that Johnson would never use the nuclear bomb. Walking fast, he would answer questions from the press corps during news conferences around the South Lawn of the White House. Running at times to keep up with his giant strides, we dubbed these sessions "walkie-talkie news conferences" and "the Bataan death marches." But through them and other Q-and-A dialogues, we gained a real understanding of his Hamlet-style approach to his dilemma. He had to deal with a war he could not win. Nor could he tolerate the thought of retreat. The late Vermont Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., gave him the best advice when he suggested, "Declare a victory and leave." But Johnson rejected it although it could have saved his presidency. In historian Michael Beschloss's book, "Reaching for Glory," Johnson is quoted as telling Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in a taped conversation: "Now we're off to bombing these people. ... I don't think anything is going to be as bad as losing, and I don't see any way of winning."
Bush is lucky that he does not have Johnson's dilemma or doubts. But he needs to understand the moral limits of military power and not overplay the United
States' hand.
|
 Whitewater Critics Quiet About Enron While the implosion of Enron is almost as murky as the bankrupt company’s financing schemes, its self-dealing and scamming have evoked memories of other great business scandals, such as Teapot Dome and the South Sea Bubble. Whether or not those analogies ever prove to be justified, the most compelling political comparison for the moment is with another scandal that turned out, despite the investigative zeal of journalists, pols and prosecutors, to be more squib than bombshell: Whitewater. Consider the stated purposes of the long, costly probe into that tiny, troubled land deal, as expressed in the final report of the Senate’s Special Committee to Investigate the Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters (Alfonse M. D’Amato, chairman). According to the report’s preface, its mission was to investigate "the complex web of intermingled funds, fraudulent transactions, political favors and conflicted relationships," all of them "woven together by common and recurring themes of abuse of power, fraud on federal institutions and theft of public funds, and frequent neglect, if not deliberate disregard, of professional, ethical, and at times, legal standards," including "clearly identifiable patterns of motivation, conduct and, at times, concealment." If those damning phrases sound familiar, then perhaps you’ve been reading some of the better coverage of Enron in periodicals like Fortune, which concluded that even if no one ever goes to jail, "it feels as though a crime has been committed." That question will be decided by the courts, which must determine whether Enron was sunk by "fraudulent transactions" as well as more mundane abuses of corporate authority. But there is no question that Enron’s corporate history is laden with "political favors" and "conflicted relationships" with leading figures in the White House, regulatory agencies and the Senate itself. Those relationships extend well beyond the $2 million bestowed on the President and other politicians by Enron executives, or the substantial blocks of stock held by Bush appointees, or the formidable cadre of connected lobbyists, consultants and officials that make the White House resemble an Enron branch office. One place to start untangling the Enron tale might be the moment in early 1993 when Bush appointees on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted to exempt energy traders from its anti-fraud regulations. The commissioner who initiated that convenient rule-making process, following a post-election request from Enron and several similar companies, was Wendy Gramm, wife of the Texas Senator. She left the CFTC just before the actual vote and, five weeks later, joined the Enron board of directors. This was merely a coincidence, as she and her benefactors in Houston later explained. Coincidence or not, that decision pulled open the "regulatory black hole" in which Enron thrived and connived. It also represented the beginning of an unwholesome pattern that culminated earlier this year, when Enron’s generosity to the Bush-Cheney campaign evidently won its executives the right to choose their own regulators in Washington. (Meanwhile, those same strutting geniuses were unloading their watered-down stock into the pension portfolios of their unfortunate employees.) The immediate justification for the Senate probe of Whitewater was that Madison Guaranty, the storefront savings-and-loan operated by small-time hustler James McDougal, had cost the government about $65 million in bailout funding. Setting that pitiful amount against the $60 billion or so that suddenly evaporated from Enron’s market capitalization–as Gene Lyons and Molly Ivins have noted–offers a way to chart the difference in magnitude. Yet so far, thanks to the "war on terrorism" and perhaps other, less patriotic factors, the level of public indignation is inverted; Enron seems to generate about one-tenth of 1 percent as much concern as Whitewater did. The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are examining Enron, of course, and various committees of Congress are also looking into the matter. Their approach, however, is strangely desultory and deferential. Enron founder and chief executive Kenneth Lay blew off an invitation to appear before a House committee the other day, prompting an audible yawn from the same media outfits that screamed incessantly about "the Whitewater scandal" year after year. Those excitable editorialists at The Wall Street Journal have dismissed Enron’s problems as an example of "bad accounting." Imagine the outcry if, instead of providing a million pages of documents to the Senate Whitewater Committee, the Clinton White House had withheld all relevant papers. That is precisely what Vice President Dick Cheney has done to date, in response to requests from the House Government Reform Committee about private meetings that he and his energy task force held with Enron executives. And imagine what Mr. Lay might have said to Mr. Cheney and Larry Lindsey, the former Enron consultant who now serves as the President’s chief economic advisor, during those secret sessions.
You’ll have to imagine, at least for now, because the Vice President and his cronies aren’t talking–and
because nobody in the media is even asking.
|
|
Air Force Spokesman: FAA Did Issue Alert IMMEDIATELY On 911; AF Was Prevented From Scrambling TOP_VIEW conducted a phone interview this morning (12.09.01) with a spokesperson for the U.S. Air Force, located in New York. This person was ordered to the Ground Zero, Pennsylvania and Pentagon 9.11 crash sites within several days of the events, as part of an Air Force investigative probe. We were apprised of crucial information related specifically to the entire matter of IF or WHEN FAA/ATC personnel alerted appropriate Air National Guard/Air Force units, that four large passenger jets were significantly off course and that all standard communications with these craft had been broken. We were informed that STANDARD procedures FULLY IN EFFECT on the morning of September 11 WERE ABSOLUTELY followed to a "T" by U.S. Air Traffic Control personnel; that via established channels and according to established guidelines, U.S. Air National Guard and Air Force units -- which are ALWAYS on alert to be scrambled for intercepts of either distressed OR suspicious and possibly hostile aircraft 365/24/7 in these United States -- WERE DEFINITELY contacted by FAA/ATC on 9.11 IMMEDIATELY after Air Traffic Control had become aware of the developing situation with the jets. The Air Force spokesman confirmed that AFTER the alerts and requests for INTERCEPTS of the aircraft were received from FAA/ATC, orders from the HIGHEST LEVEL of the executive branch of the federal government were received, demanding that the Air Force stand down and NOT follow through with ESTABLISHED scramble/intercept procedures that morning until further notice. The U.S. Air Force's hands (wings) were DELIBERATELY TIED on the morning of September 11. It was conveyed to us that the "story" is by no means over yet; that the fat lady has by NO means yet "sung", and that this large percentage of the military who DO support, uphold and defend the U.S. CONSTITUTION are NOT going let all this just "slide". They are simply waiting for the right time, to do all within their power to set things straight in the United States. Furthermore, our source fully-concurred with the assessment of ourselves and others that a crucial element in the government being able to "SELL" to the public their utterly false fables about WHY 9.11 death planes were NOT intercepted by Air Guard/Air Force units has to do with a deliberate, major and blatant distortion and twisting of the truth by none OTHER Dick Cheney himself in the following manner... Cheney, while being interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC TV's 'MEET THE PRESS on September 16th, claimed that the military needed authorization from the president before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77. THIS IS A BIG, BIG, LIE, plain and simple. For example: remember two years ago, when golf pro Payne Stewart's small PRIVATE Lear jet went off-course and out of communication just after takeoff in Florida? Within MINUTES, on an IMMEDIATE alert from the FAA, U.S. Air Force and Air Guard jets were SCRAMBLED to INTERCEPT Stewart's jet and see what was up (not that it helped much in that case...): "Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." --CNN, 10-26-99. Interceptors were in direct proximity to Stewart's seriously messed-up aircraft within about TWENTY MINUTES of him having taken off. NOBODY had to go pull Clinton away from Vice-president Monica Lewinsky and get him to AUTHORIZE the INTERCEPT of Payne Stewart's jet that day. Moreover, according to the same CNN article: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center. -- CNN, 10-26-99. Air Traffic Controllers request military intercepts of private and commercial planes REGULARLY. Sometimes it's because communications have broken off; sometimes it's to inform a pilot that his plane has gone off course; other times it's to observe the situation directly - for instance, to see who's actually flying the plane and things like that. NONE of this requires presidential approval. But there's MORE to how Cheney twisted the truth here regarding what is PROVABLY one of the BIGGEST holes in the FedGov's 9.11 tapestry of lies; since anyone of even MINIMAL intelligence would realize that such intercepts are VERY common, do NOT require any "presidential authorization" and SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE on September 11. So, what arch-spin-meister Cheney DID was to very subtly and cleverly FUDGE the distinction between a common, often-executed INTERCEPT and a SHOOT-DOWN of an aircraft already determined to be hostile. Cheney put the entire situation in the context that there was a terribly troubling, agonizing ethical decision to be made whether or not to SHOOT DOWN a number of passenger aircraft which "seemed" to be hostile, and that only the president (who WAS after all (don't forget) VERY busy reading rabbit stories to Florida schoolkids at the time) could have authorized this shoot-down. Well. FIRST of all, there was no NEED for any order to SHOOT DOWN; there was ONLY a need for Air Force/Air Guard units -- which are ALWAYS standing by to respond to FAA alerts about troubled and/or suspicious aircraft -- to carry out STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. And keep in mind that military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is definitely serious, high-ranking military officers from the NMCC (National Military Command Center) in the Pentagon can take charge. So: even IF such intercepts had yielded information showing that the aircraft were INDEED hijacked, were under hostile control and about to be used as guided missiles/fuel-air bombs, there is still, according to our Air Force contact, NO REQUIREMENT that any order to shoot down hostile aircraft must come from the president himself. There ARE, according to our FULLY-knowledgeable Air Force contact, procedures are fully in place for NMCC commanding officers and the DOD to order such shoot-downs, when it's obvious an attack of some kind is underway. After all, the "commander-in-chief" might be too busy reading about rabbits to school kids to be bothered making such decisions about shooting down hostile aircraft! Cheney knows this probably better than ANYONE -- except for those military officers and personnel who were DIRECTLY SAT ON by the Executive Branch on the morning of 9-11, until it was FAR TOO LATE to take any preventive actions whatsoever. Moreover, when jets were finally scrambled, they were DELIBERATELY scrambled from more distant bases from which it was a FOREGONE CERTAINTY the interceptors would NEVER be able to reach the hijacked planes in time. As an example of the blatantly false/disinformative statements made by Cheney (ONCE AGAIN) to give some credibility to this highly-manipulated, non-timely "response" scenario, Cheney claimed that there were NO intercept aircraft ready for action at Andrew Air Force Base -- only TEN MILES from the Pentagon -- on the morning of 9.11. This has also been proven to be a TOTAL LIE. (For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base to the Pentagon go to: http://emperors-clothes .com/indict/andrewsmap.htm) BEYOND ANY DOUBT: the Executive branch of the federal government -- whether President Bush or more likely VP Dick Cheney himself -- EXPRESSLY AND UNILATERALLY FORBADE Air Guard/Air Force units from responding in a TIMELY manner to FAA alerts on the morning of September 11, as they were fully ready to do. This is the truth, and large numbers of Air Force and other military personnel KNOW it, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
And no doubt THAT explains exactly WHY Cheney has been in HIDING for so
much of the past three months!! |
 The Wonderful Horrible Life Of John Walker: Piling on an American Talib By Ted Rall As usual, George Bush the First spoke for attribution when keeping it zipped would have served him better. "He's just despicable," Bush said of captured American Talib John Walker. "I thought of a unique penalty: Make him leave his hair the way it is and his face as dirty as it is and let him go wandering around this country and see what kind of sympathy he would get." Meanwhile, on the literate side of the political spectrum, the New York Times gave Walker the Jabberwocky treatment: "To be 20, American and Taliban is to have fallen down a rabbit hole of one's own making." Which is worse, getting piled on by simple-minded bullies or analyzed by amateur psychologists? The weeks since a wounded Walker was literally flushed out of a basement in Mazar-e-Sharif have been a sorry spectacle, as opportunists of all stripes exploited his dilemma to score cheap political points. "Traitor Dodges Death," the New York Post shrieked in response to a report that the Bush Administration will seek a mere 10-year prison sentence for this Marin County, California native. An American Taliban makes for amusing headlines and right-wing rants, but the life and liberty of a real, living human being are at stake. You wouldn't know it from watching CNN, but this is serious business. And no matter which dictionary you own, John Walker is not a traitor. According to Ahmed Rashid's seminal "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia," the United States provided both direct and indirect financial support to the Taliban regime through 1998, when Osama bin Laden's operatives bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Even after that faux pas, we secretly funneled cash and arms to Afghanistan's extremist rulers via Pakistan. It was only after the 9-11 attacks, when the Bush Administration targeted bin Laden, and by extension his Taliban hosts, for September 11th, that the U.S.-Taliban partnership truly came to an end. According to Time, Walker last contacted his family in May 2001, when he was studying at a madrassa in Bannu, Pakistan, near the Afghan border. He told his mother that he was "moving somewhere cooler for summer" and vanished. Mountainous Afghanistan is significantly cooler than Pakistan. Available evidence indicates that he spent the summer training to become a Taliban warrior. Though he claims to have met Osama bin Laden and may have worked for an Al Qaeda-funded group, no one is accusing him of a role in the September 11th attacks. When Walker went to Afghanistan, he joined a government with testy, but often cozy, relations with the United States. The weapons he trained with were partly paid for by American taxpayers. A traitor is a person who tries to overthrow his own government. As far as we know, Walker's sole offense was to try to defend another government against an overthrow attempt by his own government. It's a strange case to be sure, but treason it ain't. In late September, Bush began the bombing campaign that ultimately led to Walker's arrest. But is he a prisoner of war? In fact, the United States has still not declared war against Afghanistan. There were several reasons that Bush wasn't willing to commit to actual war-uncertainty about public support for large-scale casualties, our continued diplomatic recognition of the rump Northern Alliance government, his unwillingness/inability to provide proof of Taliban guilt for 9-11. Not only did the bombing campaign go ahead without a basis in American law, but some international legal experts consider it an act of terrorism. Even in an illegal war, the victor writes history. Nonetheless, it's difficult to imagine how John Walker's acts could be labeled as treasonous. He fought for an American-installed, American-backed regime against an America that changed its opinion of that regime virtually overnight. Had the U.S. formally declared war against the Taliban, Walker would have been morally and legally required to throw away his gun, come home and help defend America. Only then, if he had continued fighting, would he have become the traitor that so many libel-suit-seeking media outlets have proclaimed him to be. Instead, Bush's political cowardice has given Walker a possible ticket home.
What should be done with-really, to-Walker? If he participated in the planning or execution of
terrorist acts against civilians, he certainly deserves to be prosecuted. Otherwise he's not a
criminal, just a kid whose youthful quest for meaning in a meaningless world led him to a
place few of us have any interest in visiting. Walker, he of the newly-acquired phony accent,
may be a victim of overindulgent, divorcing parents from that bastion of anything-goes cultural
anarchy, Northern California. His pretentious zeal for imported religion-he left Yemen because
they weren't as "strict on Islam" as he'd expected and hoped-may be a symptom of quirkiness
with which few of us can identify. But based on the information we have, there's more here to
forget than forgive.
|
 Idiocy Watch: The New Republic by Eric Alterman The New Republic's advertising copy promises "vital intelligence in the war against terrorism." Inside the magazine, its editors publish an "Idiocy Watch" devoted to allegedly dumb things that have been said and written about same. I fear someone has been mixing up the two. TNR's editors have not merely been spectacularly wrong about the war but frequently nonsensical. In the magazine's November 19 editorial, for instance, it complained that we were losing the war because, like President Clinton, who had "stupidly" "ruled out the use of ground forces" in Kosovo, George Bush was now sending "the same lulling message: the United States will not put large numbers of troops on the ground." Oddly, the very same editorial noted that ethnic cleansing in Kosovo ended only when "Slobodan Milosevic was confronted with the threat of an imminent deployment of American ground forces." Since Clinton had supposedly ruled that out, one can only imagine who it was that threatened their "imminent deployment." President Gore? In that same remarkable editorial, the editors grumbled that US military efforts had "gotten us exactly nowhere." The clear result: "The Taliban will rule Afghanistan through the winter, thereby handing the United States a humiliating and gratuitous defeat." Note that these examples of TNR's deeply misguided defeatism come only from those articles written under the magazine's editorial voice. When editor Peter Beinart wrote a TRB column intending to smear The Nation as "anti-American," he deployed as evidence a single article written by someone whose name appears nowhere on the masthead and who enjoys no institutional affiliation with the magazine. (This was not only sleazy, it was also quite lazy, as some genuine Nation writers would have provided pretty inviting targets if Beinart had bothered.) As any editor knows, a vibrant political magazine must publish articles with which its editors do not necessarily agree. During TNR's most recent golden age--under Michael Kinsley and Hendrik Hertzberg--opinion was so diverse, its advertising campaigns embraced "schizophrenia" as a virtue. While TNR's editors may have destroyed their credibility as critics of the war, the damage to the public discourse the magazine has wrought does not end there. Over the years, it has helped launch the careers of a bevy of hawkish writers who have carried the talent for malevolent invective with them like a communicable disease. (Involuntary) ex-editors Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly are doing their best to revive the tactics of Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn during this war by whipping up hysteria about "Fifth Columns," in Sullivan's words, and those who are, as Kelly put it, "objectively pro-terrorist" when characterizing those deemed to lack sufficient enthusiasm for the current war effort. Ex-senior editor Jacob Heilbrunn also sounded very much like the armchair warriors in his former office. Writing in the Los Angeles Times on November 4, Heilbrunn prematurely credited the Taliban with victory. "His administration has bungled the challenge," he complained. "The war effort is in deep trouble. The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it." This analysis echoed that of former TNR senior editor Charles Krauthammer, who complained on October 30: "The war is not going well. The Taliban have not yielded ground. Not a single important Taliban leader has been killed or captured or has defected." In virtually every one of these cases, the pundits' prescription was the same: Bring in the ground troops and expand the fighting or risk humiliation and defeat. Perhaps most egregious has been the magazine's vendetta against Secretary of State Colin Powell. When Powell spoke of the need to find a solution so the Israelis and Palestinians could live in peace, the magazine's editors treated the former general as if he were an underprepared affirmative-action student in a cutthroat Harvard seminar. TNR found "the banality of Colin Powell's address on American foreign policy" to be "breathtaking." As if that weren't churlish enough, the same magazine that provided a cheerleading section for that highly naturalistic and deeply inspirational orator, Al Gore, had the temerity to complain of Powell's allegedly "irksome manner of the motivational speaker for whom every trivial remark is more proof of his mettle." TNR went so far as to accuse Powell of providing "a kind of bizarre ratification of Osama bin Laden's view of the problem." Why? "There is bin Laden attempting to persuade the Muslim world that what he wants is justice for the Palestinians, and here is Powell attempting to persuade the Muslim world that what he wants is justice for the Palestinians." Yes, you read that right. Even to appear to care about "justice for the Palestinians" is to give aid and comfort to the terrorist bin Laden. It used to be possible to parody TNR, in the phrase Calvin Trillin borrowed from Frank Mankiewicz, as a "Jewish Commentary." But the editors are now occupying so much territory inside the land of self-parody, they might as well build settlements.
While the magazine is home to a number of talented and eloquent liberal writers on many domestic, legal and
economic issues, and still boasts some of the finest literary criticism to be found anywhere--along with Elizabeth
Rubin's fine coverage on the ground in Afghanistan--TNR's post-Kinsley/Hertzberg decline continues apace. No
wonder owner Martin Peretz was eager to unload controlling interest in the magazine to investors Michael Steinhardt
and Roger Hertog. The latter is also a major funder of the right-wing Manhattan Institute and the American
Enterprise Institute. A Washington Post writer who has apparently been either asleep or on Mars in recent decades
wondered why a conservative would wish to place his millions at the service of this alleged "liberal bastion." Duh. A
better question is how Peretz managed to pull it off. Politics aside, it can't be much fun to shell out millions
advertising your "intelligence" and attacking others' "idiocy" only to discover that the entire time, you've been
looking in the mirror.
|
 First Principles: A Manifesto For 2002 By William Rivers Pitt "The proclamation and repetition of first principles is a constant feature of life in our democracy. Active adherence to these principles, however, has always been considered un-American. We recipients of the boon of liberty have always been ready, when faced with discomfort, to discard any and all first principles of liberty, and, further, to indict those who do not freely join with us in happily arrogating those principles."- David Mamet In the early morning hours of December 31, 2000, my grandfather passed away. Strength of character had lent him an air of invincibility, despite his demonstrably failing health, and the shock of his passing was as sudden and wrenching as a meteor strike. For sixty years he had been an attorney without peer within the celestial atmospheres of the Boston legal community, one of the great minds of the century. I used that mind as a whetstone to sharpen my own wits, and am much the keener for it. That evening, gathered with friends to ring in the new year, I contemplated the future without him. Still roiled by the devastating weeks leading up to the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court ruling on December 13th, I was chilled by shadows of dark portents. Somehow, the passing of my grandfather had drawn a shroud around the coming year. Nothing good, I feared, could ensue. As the clock winds down towards another New Years Eve, the omens I sensed that night have whispered their fanged truths into the soul of the world. 2001 will be marked by history as perhaps the darkest year since World War II. If the pestiferous potential of the events of 2001 ever find the time and opportunity to achieve full bloom, the year may well be recorded as the worst our fragile human race has ever experienced. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were the defining events within a year that saw so very much go wrong. The reaction of the current administration has exacerbated the fallout from that traumatic day to such an incredible degree that one is forced to wonder if the terrorists have not already won this undeclared war. This is not the same America that saw the dawn on September 10th, a fact that is sure to bring smiles to the faces of Al Qaeda warriors from horizon to horizon. So be it. The past cannot be changed. The future, however, is another matter. The world was born again by fire on the morning of September 11th, 2001. In its wake lies the tattered remains of a nation that once was considered a beacon of freedom that lit the world. We are tasked to live on in the wreckage, and are faced with a defining realization: At the bottom, the passivity of the American people invited the catastrophes of 2001. We were unconcerned, unprepared, disinformed, disinterested, willfully blind. September 11th jarred us into comprehending a fundamental truth that had for too long been obscured. In the final analysis, each and every American has a personal stake in the dispensation and cultivation of true justice and equality within our borders and around the world. When there is economic disenfranchisement, boiling poverty, political suppression and abridged freedom, we American civilians become the targets of murderous hate and violence. Religiously extremist fundamentalism breeds like a virus in such circumstances, both here and abroad, and is the last bastion of the desperate and the disenfranchised. If we are to survive and flourish in this brave new world, we must acknowledge the hand we have played in the flourishing of these circumstances. Our addiction to oil, our propensity for diplomatic expediency for the sake of that poisonous ooze, the globalization of the vicious immoralities and inequities found within the gears of unrestrained capitalism, and the profound ignorance of our populace regarding all matters pertaining to the aforementioned, have led us inexorably to the realities presented in the wake of 2001. We must not let it happen again. What follows is a petition of grievances. Our will and ability to address them in a comprehensive fashion will determine the fate of this nation and this world. There can be no more compromise, no more patience, no more passivity. We cannot survive another year like 2001, yet if we fail to act, this dying year will be marked as mere preamble to horrors beyond comprehension. A Constitutional Amendment: The Right to Vote Americans make much of their rights, but few are aware that technically there is no right to vote in this country. We are allowed to vote by our legislators and our leaders but, if they feel the need, those votes can easily be taken away. This was outlined succinctly in the Supreme Court Opinion from Bush v. Gore: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College…the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself." The 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution do not grant an affirmative right to vote. Rather, they seek to thwart any actions that may thwart certain groups - women, minorities, immigrants - from casting a ballot. At the end of the day, the right to vote lives within the largesse of those who hold elective office in whatever state you vote in. When drawing the first dim outlines of our national charter, the Founders specifically left off a Constitutional right to vote. At the time, each state had its own set of voting standards, and it was feared that an all-encompassing Federal rule pertaining to voting rights would impede ratification and scuttle the deal. As time passed, more and more freedoms were outlined within the voting charter: women, then immigrants, and then minorities were given Constitutional voting protections by the Courts, but none were given the specific right to cast a ballot. Many of these leaps forward came in the aftermath of war - women gained suffrage after WWI, the poll tax was eliminated after WWII, the voting age was dropped after Vietnam, and minorities were given protections slowly but surely throughout the Cold War. A Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote for all citizens is essential as we approach a new election season in 2002. The catastrophes of Florida in 2000 cannot be repeated; indeed, many of the problems from that election would have been much more easily handled if Americans had the solid right to vote, instead of merely the opportunity. The mistakes made by ChoicePoint in the compilation of Florida voter roles, mistakes that stripped voting privileges from tens of thousands of minorities, would have been a Constitutional issue instead of an example of corporate malfeasance. Secretary of State Harris and Governor Jeb Bush would not have dared to act as they did had voting been a Constitutionally-protected activity. The Republican-dominated Florida legislature would have been unable to muddy the waters by threatening to choose their own electors. The Supreme Court would likely have not been able to toss aside 50 million votes in their decision. The document says We the People for a reason. If Americans are truly supposed to decide their own fate, if we the people are meant to rule, our right to exercise power at the voting booth must be Constitutionally protected. An amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote for every American citizen must be introduced, and passed, by Congress in 2002. Campaign Finance Reform: End Legalized Bribery The fundamental concept underlying a Constitutional right to vote is that each American individual has an equal say in determining the fate of the republic. Sadly, that pure democratic ideal has been grossly undermined by the profligate use of 'soft money' in campaigns - funds raised by corporations, interest groups and wealthy contributors that goes almost completely unregulated. These funds are collected by the two main political parties, who act as a middle man because it is illegal to give such funds directly to a candidate. Those funds are then used to promote one candidate or to smear another. In the 2000 election cycle, some $457 million in special interest funds were collected by both parties: $239 million by the GOP and $218 by the Democrats. This is as bipartisan an issue as can be found on the political landscape, for both parties are guilty of the practice. Because such massive amounts of unregulated funding are poured into campaigns by wealthy contributors, those contributors necessarily have far more influence over legislative decisions than you or I. Politicians who need this money to compete, because their opponents can outspend them with their own contributions, become swayed by the donors and wind up making decisions based upon the needs of the rich moneylenders, rather than the needs of their constituents. These actions undermine the fundamental principle of one person-one vote, and do great damage to our democracy. The final determination of this issue holds the key to solving dozens of other problems in this country. If the wealthy special interests are no longer able to be the dominant voice in government, true reform based upon the needs of the people will come. Two pieces of legislation were introduced for Congressional consideration not long ago: the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold reform bills. They have languished since, thwarted at every turn by anti-reformers like Tom Delay (R-TX). In 2002, these bills must be reintroduced and passed, and must be signed into law by George W. Bush. If he is a reformer with results as he claims, he can prove it in the coming year in a manner he has thus far failed miserably to do. No More Tax Giveaways to Corporations and the Rich When George W. Bush took office in 2001, his first priority was the passage of a massive tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the wealthy. Nearly half of the trillion+ dollars he stripped from the Federal budget went to these two groups, leaving average Americans to collect a paltry $300 per person. The geometry of this action was determined in no small part by wealthy donors who, using financial influence described above, were able to lobby Bush and Congress to great effect. They didn't need the money. The tax laws in this country already enormously benefit corporations and rich people. They did not need this tax break. Rather, they are offended by the very idea that they are required to pay taxes at all. Bush, clearly under their sway, resolved to give them their money back. The result of this decision has been disastrous. With the slowdown of the economy, the vast Clinton surplus projections became depleted. The tax cut further stripped money from the Treasury. The events of September 11th required massive spending by the Federal government for clean-up operations, investigations, and military preparations. Today, because of these factors, the United States has returned to the ruinous days of deficit spending. Had George W. Bush not gutted the Treasury with his tax giveaway, the Federal Government would not be spending in the red. The ultimate motivation for the tax cut is clear: Bush is influenced by those who believe the Federal government is too large, and should be, in the words of one hardcore anti-tax advocate, shrunk to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. The attacks on September 11th, and subsequent reactions to same, have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Republican rhetoric regarding the size of government has been terribly misplaced. Had the Federal government not been as large as it is, had it not been equipped to deal with the fallout from those attacks, thousands more would have died and the republic may well have fallen into total disarray. Even with these facts staring him in the face, Bush and his Republican cohorts tried last week to ass yet another tax giveaway package, disguised patriotically as a 'stimulus package' for the economy and the people. In truth, the package would have been an early Christmas present: billions of our dollars for corporations already operating in the black. Only the determination of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who refused to allow passage of the House bill in the Senate unless protections for the million or so newly-unemployed Americans were included, kept this farcical 'stimulus package' from passing. In an astounding example of aerobic backpedaling, Bush responded by claiming that, in reality, he wasn't sure if the stimulus package was actually necessary. It is worth noting the thin margin Daschle had in his decision. Had James Jeffords not switched parties early in 2001, giving majority power to the Democrats, the ruinous House bill would have likely passed through the Senate with ease. Twenty two years ago, George H.W. Bush referred to Reagan's trickle-down economic theory as 'voodoo economics.' He was more right than he knew. Reagan's folly left millions of the living dead walking the earth: AIDS victims, crack addicts, millions of Americans suffering the deprivations of recession, all left exposed by a plundering of the Treasury that fed wealthy corporations at the expense of vital social programs. George W. Bush would see this flawed trickle-down concept returned to government. It must not be allowed to happen. Congressional Democrats, as well as Republicans of good conscience, must at all costs continue to thwart any move Bush makes to further undermine the ability of government to aid the people in these trying times by giving more of our needed money away to those who do not need it. Furthermore, they must revisit the tax plan already passed and restructure it accordingly, with the current circumstances clearly in mind. 2001 was a bad year for the average American, but a boon for the rich. 2002 will be worse if our government is too poor to help us. Accountability for the Airline Industry Many factors allowed terrorists to commandeer those commercial airplanes on September 11th. One factor that has been largely ignored is the criminal negligence of the airline industry, whose security precautions were and continue to be so weak as to be non-existent. This is a failure of catastrophic proportions, and is largely responsible for the death and ruin we have experienced. For years now, the airline industry has lobbied Congress through the unregulated use of soft money contributions in an effort to keep any laws demanding that they beef up security off the books. On September 11th, the terrorists passed through security checkpoints manned by people with little or no security training and who earn only the minimum wage. These security personnel were employed by companies under contract with the airline industry, such as Argenbright in Boston's Logan airport, whose safety records are nothing short of abysmal. The subsequent passage of a bill Federalizing airline security has shored up the security failures to some degree, but nothing has been done to address the accountability of the airline industry in the attacks of September 11th. Instead, $15 billion of our tax money was given to the industry as a bailout, with no strings attached. This must not stand. The recent capture of an airline passenger with explosives in his shoes demonstrates that security on passenger airlines is still less than adequate; the suspect raised suspicions on Friday because of a questionable passport, but was still allowed to board an airplane on Saturday. The airline industry's negligence, years in the making, came about because they did not want to spend money on security. They must be called to task for it. Congress must in 2002 instigate a penetrating investigation into the vast array of failures and greed-motivated negligence that permeate this industry. We the people must exert market pressures upon these companies by instigating a nationwide boycott of their services. They will do nothing on their own, as has been demonstrated, unless we compel them to. END PART 1
|
|
This is a good example of smart writing and even better marketing.
If Goldberg had written the truth, that the media is nothing but right-wing pimps working for Bush,
if would sell about as many copies as Fortunate Son and be withdrawn from book stores right away.
But since he's selling the LIE that left-wingers control the media,
something very different will happen to Mr. Goldberg and his book.
He'll get to go on:
The Rush Limbaugh show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
Then,
David Horowitz will write a column saying conservatives have no voice in the media.
Isn't it a shame that the radical right-wing has no way to get their message out?
...And Mr. Goldberg?
He's going to make millions selling red meat to the dittoheads. |
|
Dead Letter Office
Heil Bush,
Dear Propaganda Ansager Gallagher,
Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2001. Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling and last year's winner Volksjudge Antoni (light-fingers) Scalia.
Without your help shilling for us, spinning the truth, telling out right lies and ignoring the real news, holding onto power after our Coup D' Etat would have been impossible. With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Media Whores," you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account.
Along with this award there will be an Iron Cross 2nd class presented by our glorious Fuhrer Herr Bush at a gala celebration in der Wolf's Lair (formally Rancho de Bimbo) on 12-31-2001. We salute you Frau Gallagher, Sieg Heil!
Signed,
Heil Bush
|
|
I did not fully subscribe to the theory, but having noticed a number of
adorable-child ops in the past few weeks, I decided to check for what might
be flying under the radar, with the following results:
-- The Bush administration has reversed Clinton-era regulations for mining on
public lands, including a measure that gave federal officials power to block
mining operations that could cause "substantial and irreparable harm." The
Environmental Protection Agency says about 40 percent of Western
watersheds have been polluted by mining. From California to Alaska, bankrupt
and abandoned gold mines leak acid and heavy metals into streams. There are
500,000 abandoned mines around the country with cleanup costs estimated in
the tens of billions.
More than a third of the Western United States,
including Alaska and Hawaii, is owned by the public,
which receives no royalties from mining companies
that exploit it. Mark Rey, undersecretary of
agriculture for natural resources, told the Northwest
Mining Association the administration wants to
reinvigorate mineral exploration in national forests,
according to The New York Times. The 1872 Mining
Law, meant to help small-time pick-and-shovel
miners back in the day, is now the protector of giant
corporations mining for gold, silver, copper and
uranium. The gold mines use cyanide to leach out
their product, which makes an unholy mess. The
Mineral Policy Center had already sued the
administration, challenging the revisions.
-- Charles Peters of Washington Monthly notes that
the Bushies did decide to keep the Clinton standards
on arsenic in drinking water, giving us a policy of
arsenic-no, but cyanide-yes.
-- The administration has proceeded with plans to
allow more road-building in national parks, a
notorious subsidy for the timber industry.
-- It has decided to push back the planned
phase-out of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks. The original plan was to shift
over to the less-polluting snow coaches, which also
have far less impact on wildlife, over three years.
-- In another move, the administration has relaxed
the rules on developing wetlands: malls in the
marshes, just what we need.
-- The EPA has pulled information about chemical
plants and pipeline safety off the Web, apparently on
the theory that terrorists might use the information.
"There are numerous information purges occurring," Paul Orum of the Working
Group on Community Right-to-Know told the Charleston Gazette.
It's hard to see what terrorists could do with information on the pollution of
drinking water by chemical companies, but it's sure easy to see why the
chemical companies would like to keep it quiet. As Robert Rackleff, chairman of
the National Pipeline Reform Coalition points out, the lack of information allows
companies to "conceal existing safety problems from any independent
scrutiny."
-- The EPA has diverted about 40 percent of its criminal enforcement division
to anti-terrorist activities, also moving hazardous waste inspectors to the
World Trade Center site. This may well be advisable as we all struggle to get a
grip on "homeland security," but it also be smart to remember that more people
were killed by the 1984 chemical plant accident in Bhopal (3,000 died
immediately and 200,000 were injured -- more have died every day since, so
the tally is not final. It's generally put at 5,000) than died on Sept. 11 (3,273,
according to The New York Times).
-- And, of course, the prize environmental move of all is the administration's
insistence that it is necessary to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge because of Sept. 11. The Philadelphia Inquirer refers to this as the "It's
patriotic to pollute" theme. Of course, drilling in ANWAR will do nothing for our
dependence on foreign oil. Even the most optimistic estimates of ANWAR's
output won't make a dent in the 50 percent of the oil we use that comes from
abroad.
I suspect that when the history of this era is written, the lack of vision on the
part of our government will be deemed the greatest tragedy of all. This was
the opportunity, this was the great shining moment when we could have
reversed energy policy -- as Bush so stunningly reversed his foreign policy --
and moved toward energy independence based on conservation and the
development of renewable resources.
The president had only to ask: Americans are so eager to help. Instead of
asking us to begin to conserve and convert, he asked us to go shopping
instead. So we will remain dependent on some of the most backward and
unstable regimes in the world.
Our entire transportation system is based on oil, and we know it is poisoning
the planet, but still we do nothing. Well, Bush always did have trouble with the
vision thing. Watch out for those adorable-kid photo ops.
|
|
But the man who has been a leading figure - some might say offender - in the blurring of the lines
between news and entertainment has found himself a figure of fun instead.
The former investigative reporter turned down-market talk show host turned war correspondent is being
ridiculed publicly for a Dec. 6 report from what he described as "the hallowed ground" where three
American special operations soldiers were killed by friendly fire.
That event took place in Kandahar. But "the hallowed ground" Rivera stood on when he did his report
was hundreds of kilometres away, near Tora Bora.
While competitors can't resist the temptation to crow - CBS ran an item on its website earlier this week
captioned: Where's Geraldo? - media analysts are indignant.
Rivera's error and the overall tone of his reporting from Afghanistan are casting journalists in a negative
light, they suggest. "This is terrible for the profession," says Jim Naureckas of the New York-based
media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
"When there are questions about his honesty, folks think about Rivera as part of the world of
journalism," agrees Bob Steele, director of the ethics program for the Poynter Institute, a renown
journalism school.
Rivera quit his high-paying job as a talk show host on CNBC in November to join Fox News and a
chance to get into the field. Such was his zeal to get into the action that he took a 25 per cent cut in pay.
Like the network he works for, Rivera made no effort to keep partisanship out of his work, openly
admitting he wanted a chance to put a New York City fire department hat on Osama bin Laden's corpse.
"It's deeply personal, on the one hand," he said last month. "On the other hand, it is my professional
calling."
Others argue it is anything but the professional duty of a journalist to become so heavily involved in the
story.
"For Geraldo, it's all about getting into the story. It's sort of a performance art piece," Naureckas says.
"You don't watch Geraldo Rivera to find out what's going on in Afghanistan. You watch Geraldo Rivera
because you enjoy the spectacle of one man's defiance of the Taliban."
Rivera has also vowed that if he found bin Laden he would "kick his head in, then bring it home and
bronze it." He has been shown carrying a gun on camera, a move most media analysts suggest could
further endanger the lives of journalists covering the war.
"If the combattants in a war believe that journalists are potential combattants themselves, you might as
well put a target on their back," Steele says.
He believes Rivera blurs the lines between news and entertainment, but persists in calling what he does
journalism - to the detriment of the profession.
"Is he a journalist or is he an entertainer? Is he a professional or is he a patriot? Is he a reporter or is he
a bin Laden bounty hunter? Is he a correspondent or is he a gunslinger?
"If it comes down in each of those cases on the side opposite journalism, then I think there are profound
questions as to why he should be doing there what he was doing as a journalist. Or portraying himself,
if you will, as a journalist," he said.
But until the hallowed ground incident, the grumbling was quiet. When it appeared that Rivera as
blurring the line between truth and fiction, it turned into open criticism.
Called on the discrepancy by the Baltimore Sun, Rivera put it down to a mistake caused by "the fog of
war."
He said he confused the Kandahar incident with another he'd witnessed in Tora Bora in which several
northern alliance soldiers were killed by friendly fire.
His explanation was quickly exposed as fiction, however. It turned out that the friendly fire incident in
Tora Bora occurred three days after Rivera filed the Dec. 6 report.
"The explanation he gave, whether a justification or an excuse, doesn't fly," Steele says.
"So if you put all these facts together and assuming that they are correct - and neither Rivera nor Fox
has disputed that - I'm deeply troubled. It raises significant questions about his professionalism and
about his ethics."
Rivera, who left Afghanistan this week for what Fox says was a scheduled trip home for the holidays,
has not addressed the fact that his explanation was exposed as being patently untrue. Nor has the
network, which has said Rivera will return to Afghanistan at some point.
Ed Stein |
| Chicago
Though your brother's bound and gagged
In a land that's known as freedom
We can change the world —
Politician, sit yourself down,
Don't ask Jack to help you
We can change the world —
It's dying — if you believe in justice
Somehow people must be free
From the bottom to the ocean
We can change the world —
It's dying — if you believe in justice
We can change the world
Many of you may find it hard to remember,
but before we had President Bush, our
wonderful leader and father to our
Christian nation, we had a horrible,
criminal president called Clinton, who was
infested with dozens of filthy diseases.
Because of him, millions of people who
might seem good were actually corrupted into traitorous enemies of
the state. Are your mommy and daddy among them? President Bush
needs your help to find out! So be an Eagle Eyes snitch - and get rich!
Because for every family member you help put in front of a military
tribunal, the government will send you a whole dollar!
SIGNS THAT YOUR PARENTS SECRETLY HATE AMERICA:
When people with skin darker than hamburger buns come in
your house, they do things other than cleaning, fixing stuff or talk
about their Supreme Court concurring opinions
You have two Mommies
You have two Daddies
Mommy or Daddy talk about something called "the popular vote"
Mommy and Daddy never play CDs of the great patriot Lee
Greenwood. Instead, they play songs by a Jewish woman who
spells "Barbara" with only two a's. (Kids, this is a great spelling
lesson. So go check Mommy and Daddy's CD covers!)
If your parents are exhibiting any of the symptoms above, you must CONTACT THE F.B.I. IMMEDIATELY! And remember, in addition to your
generous monetary reward, you'll be entered to win an
all-expenses-paid trip to Florida's Walt Disney World - to be personally
chaperoned by President Bush's very own baby brother "Jebby."
|
|
Activist Alerts "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke
We, the people, do hereby demand that Congress investigate the following
actions taken by George W. Bush and his administration, and call for the
IMPEACHMENT of Bush, John Ashcroft, the five members of the Supreme Court
who violated State's Rights to select Bush, every member of the
administration who also served in George H.W.Bush's administration, and
every person who has executive and monetary ties to the oil industry.
The Republican Party spent $40 million of our tax dollars trying to
crucify Bill Clinton for his sexual activities, and there has barely been a
whimper â€" but one is finally emerging -- about GWB's desecration of the
very foundations of our democracy. We, the people, demand investigation of
the following crimes of treason -- with the intent to impeach:
1. Tampering with the 2000 presidential election process, e.g. hard
plastic inserts causing "no vote" in the Gore column of Florida ballots.
(Cited by Diane Feinstein.) We demand investigation and imprisonment of
all those in the State of Florida who participated in this obstruction and
the blocking of recounts in Florida.
2. Violation of State's Rights by the last and final bastion of law in
the United States â€" the Supreme Court. Violated State's Rights to
recount, and Florida State Law that automatically requires a recount in
close elections. We demand impeachment of all "Justices" who desecrated our
democratic process and appointed Bush to the White House.
3. John Ashcroft, to gain office, said he would not let his personal
beliefs interfere with his position that wields power of the laws of our
nation. Investigate and impeach for violating State's Rights by
overturning the will of the people of Oregon that allows assisted suicides.
4. Investigate and impeach John Ashcroft for implementing laws that are
so vague in describing "terrorist" that they potentially violate the civil
rights of citizens and residents of our country, thus destroying the
tenets of democracy that made this country great.
5. Investigate and imprison members of our "intelligence" who met with
bin Laden in July 2001. Since bin Laden was, even then, a "war" criminal,
investigate why he was MET WITH and NOT ARRESTED. Impeach the final
authority who directed the visits.
6. Intelligence members have stated that Bush TOLD them to back off from
bin Laden to NOT investigate him and his cohorts. Investigate and IMPEACH
the final authority who directed that surveillance of bin Laden and his
cohorts be stopped prior to the attacks.
7. Members of our "intelligence" placed PUTS on United and American
airlines two days before the attacks sent the stocks plummeting. Although
software supposedly tracks abnormal trading, the 1200% gain in PUT activity
on those two airlines was not revealed. Investigate and imprison all who
profited from these puts. Investigate and IMPEACH the final authority who
gave notice that the event would happen.
8. Bush has attached his unpopular agenda items to his so-called "war"
bills, and has used the "war" as an excuse to undermine every tenet of
civil rights inherent in our democracy. Compile a list and remove his
agenda items, as well as every "law" that erodes and violates our civil
rights. Note that every participant in this agenda commits TREASON and is a
TRAITOR to this
great nation.
9. Bush is buying up every satellite image of Afghanistan â€" with our
tax dollars. His daddy didn't do this, and reviews of satellite photography
after the Kuwait "war," where GHWBush didn't bring in Hussein, showed that
there was NO enemy presence in Kuwait - hence our soldiers died from
"friendly fire." Investigate and impeach anyone who endeavors to maintain
exclusivity and secrecy in our democracy. Democracy works by keeping WE,
THE PEOPLE, informed of all actions of our politicians, in order that we
may more properly select who will REPRESENT us. SECRETS are TREASON to
democracy.
10. Bush has by Executive Order hidden all presidential papers -- that
BELONG to WE, THE PEOPLE. His order locks other presidential records,
including his daddy's and Reagan's. The order has a "double lock" on it,
so that if either the creating or the sitting president says "no" to
releasing the records, they remain locked from the public. We, the people,
demand that Congress act in unison to destroy this "Executive Order." We
demand investigation of what the Order seeks to hide, and full revelation
to the people.
11. Bush has requested power to "quarantine" American citizens in the
event of a smallpox (or communicable disease) breakout. He has refused to
discard American supplies of the smallpox virus. History has proven that
quarantines do NOT WORK. Should he accuse bin Laden of threatening with
smallpox, and then mandate a nation-wide inoculation, he will set the
"bio-terrorism" in motion himself, as there are always people who become
sick from the vaccine, and the American people today already have massively
corrupted immune systems. Recall Ford's attempt to force inoculations for
Swine Flu - and that he killed people. Every person with a weakened immune
system has the potential of contracting the disease, and then contagion
will have been set in motion |
