Missed Opportunities Of Sept. 11 (part 1)

End Part I
© 2001 Robert Parry. In the 1980s, Robert Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra scandal for the Associated Press and Newsweek.

The Congressional Grab Bag
Question: What's the opposite of progress? Answer: Congress.

When it comes to serving the common good, the public interest, this bunch just can't seem to keep from going backwards. In the first session under the Bushites, the congress started off by handing a trillion-dollar tax giveaway to the wealthiest one-percent of our country??the people who least need it. Then they failed to make progress on things the majority of folks actually need: Prescription drug benefits for seniors, health care for all, a patients bill of rights, an energy program based on conservation and renewable fuels, campaign finance reform, and an economic stimulus package based on working families.

But I'm pleased to report that at the very end of the 2001 congressional session our lawmakers did stand up for a segment of our population that claims to be especially needy and deserving of taxpayer help: Themselves!

Under cover of darkness, in the last moments before congress adjourned for the year, the members snuck through a $4,900-a-year payraise for themselves. This is their third hike in four years, lifting them to $150,000 a year. Oh, they say, it's just a little cost-of-living adjustment. Hello. Did you get a COLA last year? Did your paycheck go up three times in four years? Do you make $150,000 a year?

In fact, most Americans are in a downturn. From janitors at the World Trade Center to dot-com employees in the Silicon Valley, from steel workers to Enron workers, millions of regular Americans were knocked down in 2001 and were unable to simply??abracadabra!??raise their own pay. Worse, our congress critters did it on the sly, using procedural maneuvers to avoid having to go on record.

This is Jim Hightower saying...This is not about the value of a lawmaker, but about the value of the common good??whether we're all in this together. Note that in the Depression, Congress cut it's pay...twice. But today's congress is not into cutting??it's into grabbing.
© 2002 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates," is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition.

Determined Struggle Brings A Radio Network Back To Life
By Norman Solomon

The art of the deal is a media dream: Savvy achievers get to the top. Guile and artifice -- even outright deception -- may well be part of the game, but there's nothing like success. One way or another, money and centralized power end up calling the tunes. Or so the media script often goes.

From its beginnings a half-century ago, the Pacifica radio network set out to be quite different. Listeners tuned in for something else -- a much more inclusive embrace of human creativity and political dissent. Like most endeavors, there were failures and crises along the way. But even with Pacifica's tumultuous history, the last three years have been times of extraordinary upheaval.

Two words -- "censorship" and "democracy" -- summarize much of what has been at stake in the national battle over Pacifica.

Now, some very good news: Democracy is winning.

As the owner of noncommercial radio stations based in five metropolitan areas -- San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, New York and Washington -- the nonprofit Pacifica Foundation operates with a national board of directors. During the 1990s, a succession of power grabs enabled a board majority to emerge with ill-disguised contempt for the progressive principles and grassroots innovation that had long enlivened the Pacifica airwaves.

In 1999, turmoil reached a boiling point at the Pacifica station headquartered in Berkeley, Calif. -- the nation's oldest listener-sponsored radio outlet, KPFA. Long-simmering conflicts erupted after Pacifica's national management tried to prevent KPFA from airing news reports about firings at the station.

People at KPFA refused to knuckle under. They resisted in ways that journalists and activists have resisted for hundreds of years -- by speaking out and by organizing. Apparently baffled that so many employees would take principled positions at the risk of losing their jobs, the Pacifica management called in police, even ordering the arrest of longtime reporters in the KPFA newsroom.

During a lockout that lasted several weeks, the outpouring of support for KPFA included a series of large demonstrations. One afternoon, more than 10,000 people marched by the boarded-up station. Pacifica management felt compelled to relent. The station reopened.

The Pacifica picture turned bleaker at the end of 2000 when a "Christmas coup" at WBAI in New York City resulted in the firing and banning of dozens of longtime staffers and programmers. Opponents of the crackdown mobilized to resist the takeover while the station's new management retaliated against critical voices. Producers for Pacifica's hard-hitting "Democracy Now" program, the most popular in the network's history, were harassed until they moved out of the WBAI studios. At that point, the Pacifica-owned stations -- except for KPFA in Berkeley -- stopped broadcasting the program.

At KPFK in Los Angeles, KPFT in Houston, WPFW in Washington and WBAI, station managers went along with a national Pacifica regime eager to censor criticism of their own censorial policies. Hundreds of program hosts and other volunteers were purged from the four stations because they refused to remain silent about the suppression.

In contrast to the self-selecting power consolidation by Pacifica's board majority, KPFA moved ahead with a democratizing process that initiated regular elections -- so that thousands of supporters, as members of listener-funded KPFA Radio, could vote for a "local advisory board" to represent them.

For years, the corporate-minded new regime atop Pacifica had a grip on the network. Along the way, it was sometimes grim to see the responses from left-leaning institutions that had for decades been among key constituencies of the Pacifica network. Some accommodated themselves to the network's new regime.

But a lot of other organizations protested the new censorship and thereby risked being frozen off Pacifica's airwaves. Nationwide, dozens of community radio stations helped by condemning Pacifica actions and boycotting its news show. Across the nation, countless listeners became media activists as they devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to a movement aimed at recreating Pacifica as an unabashedly progressive grassroots network.

Because of such efforts, ranging from lawsuits and picket lines to boycotts and public education campaigns, the pressure became too much for the corporate-minded majority on the Pacifica national board. In late December, a legal settlement reconstituted the board. And now, for the first time in many years, the board's majority is committed to progressive principles.

Many challenges are ahead. The ousted regime left the network with massive debt, largely due to sky-high bills from law firms, security services and public-relations outfits. Managers who've been in place at four Pacifica stations have clear records of censorship that suited the network's former board majority. As those managers update their resumes and look for jobs elsewhere, they can boast of extensive experience at opportunism.

For understandable reasons, many people are cynical about media these days. But we shouldn't succumb to defeatism. "Democratic media" is not necessarily an oxymoron.
© 2002 Norman Solomon writes a syndicated column on media and politics. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."

The War So Far

Most of the world has rallied to our side in the campaign against terrorism. The United States also has had a free ride in pursuit of its goals. But it could lose that sympathy and support if it overplays its winning hand. President Bush should choose the next step very carefully.
© 2002 Helen Thomas

It's All Bill Clinton's Fault

It's normally my policy to let "Voices" readers have their say. A sad event last week, however, shed light on what one knucklehead wrote recently about my habit of quoting others, a sign of intellectual weakness, he thought. Actually, it's the opposite, as noted author Stephen Ambrose learned to his rue after several of his best-sellers were shown to contain lengthy unattributed passages lifted intact from earlier books. A professional historian with a Ph.D., Ambrose had to know precisely what he was doing. This is one on which I'm a no-alibis hardliner. Slate's David Plotz got it exactly right: "The plagiarist is, in a minor way, the cop who frames innocents, the doctor who kills his patients. The plagiarist violates the essential rule of his trade. He steals the lifeblood of a colleague. A few paragraphs have made Stephen Ambrose a vampire."
©2001 Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.

Is George W. Bush God's President?

So perhaps Mr. Bush?s supporters should reconsider their political epiphany. The followers of the last public figure who claimed to be executing God?s will are now dodging daisy-cutters.
© 2002 Joe Conason. You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com

I Can See Clearly Now The Pain Is Gone

And a front-page story in the January 9 New York Times reveals that "the United States is preparing a military presence in Central Asia that could last for years," including a building permanent air base in the Kyrgyz Republic, formerly part of the Soviet Union. (The Bushies say that they just want to keep an eye on postwar Afghanistan, but few students of the region buy the official story.) Many industry experts consider Unocal's revived Afghan adventure fatally flawed and expect the U.S. to ultimately wise up and pursue an Iran deal. But thus far the Bushies have given the conspiracy theorists a lot to think about.
© 2002 Ted Rall, the cartoonist and columnist, is covering the Afghan war for The Village Voice and KFI Radio in Los Angeles. .

The insurers have gone to court to force Enron to divulge detailed information about the alleged contracts, and J.P. Morgan and Enron have fought them. As of New Year's Day, according to the Wall Street Journal, only Travelers had not joined in that court battle, possibly in part because parent company CitiGroup and J.P Morgan are Enron's lead bankers.
© 2002 Edward Ericson, Jr.

Eye Of The Beholder

I know there are lemons everywhere, I just wonder how you make lemonade with such a rotten tree?
© 2001 Tally Briggs email Tally at: tally.briggs@usa.xerox.com

Dear John
by Isaac Peterson

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,

I never thought I would be writing to you, but as you've said, these are unusual times.

I've wanted to talk to you, but you haven't been very good about returning my calls, so I'm writing you this letter. I hope you can make the time to read it. I know how busy you are, what with rewriting the Constitution and all.

John (I can call you John, can't I? Your salary is being paid by my, and all of our tax dollars, after all. I guess that kind of means you work for me and all of the rest of us, but I would never let that come between us), you've been catching a hard time lately from some people who want to ask questions about what the hell you think you're doing. When you appeared before the Senate committee last month, you didn't seem to understand why that is. Maybe I can help a little.

First off, John, it looks like you have a different idea about how this country is supposed to work than a lot of people do. I know this is true about the Second amendment. On May 17, 2000, you said "...The text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms". I'm not so sure the Supreme Court sees it that way, since they've never ruled that way in a case that came before them. Not in the 18th century, not in the 19th, the 20th, or so far in the 21st century.

I think what must be hanging you up are the words that the NRA leaves out, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....". The tricky part is where it says "militia" and "state". I can see how that might be confusing.

Now, one of the things that's got some people bent out of shape is how you figure the Second Amendment applies to fighting terrorism. First you go on a big racial profiling spree and lock up lots of people who look like the guys who flew airliners into buildings last September. Then you refuse to release information about who they are. And on top of that, word gets out that they may be getting treated pretty rough in prison, and at least one has died there. But you say you don't want step on their rights and release any information about them. 3 or 4 Amendments are just flushed down the toilet, but that's okay, because they're not Americans. And when the FBI wants to investigate whether any terrorists have bought guns in this country, all of a sudden the detainee's rights matter a whole lot. You won't let them do it. You held up a manual last month and explained how terrorists are trained to take advantage of this country's loopholes in gun sale laws. But you don't want to violate their rights to buy guns. I have to admit I'm a little confused about that one. And I'd be willing to bet that if the people you're holding had their say, they'd rather have you pay attention to the part of the Bill of Rights that says unreasonable search and seizure is a bad thing that we just will not do, than the part that talks about guns. But maybe that's just me. Maybe you could ask them yourself to make sure. Especially since you say that only maybe 1% of them had anything to do with terrorism.

You see, John, when I and a lot of people like me were still in school, we were told certain things about the Constitution. It feels kind of weird to be telling the Attorney General about constitutions, but like I said, I'm just trying to help. Maybe you just simply missed that day in school.

In school, they told us some stuff like this: Countries have constitutions for a reason. These constitutions are rules which are applied to everyone-they level the playing field between the landowner and the pauper and between the majority culture and minorities. People feel like they are actually a part of a nation and that they might be treated equally when justice is blind. Even though this justice system might not completely ensure equal treatment of everyone, it is a huge step in that direction. However, without a constitution, the citizens of a country can be guaranteed that arbitrary laws will be applied to them based on their standing in society. In other words, constitutions are a big step in eliminating the arbitrary application of laws-laws which can essentially become a means of revenge, racism and political agenda when they are enforced outside of an impartial set of basic rules, such as the Constitution.

And a lot of what you've been up to even before Sept. 11, 2000, looks real arbitrary to a lot of folks here. And in other countries, too. And I'll tell you for free that USA PATRIOT Act you came up with looked arbitrary as hell. A lot of people who've studied terrorism and security said that the things you put in that act wouldn't have done a thing to stop the attacks last year-spying on internet surfing, roving wiretaps, warrantless search and seizure and unlimited detention, all that stuff has more people wondering how far you're going to go. Especially when you're the one who decides the definition of terrorism.

Now when you went through your confirmation hearing, you assured the Senate that you would enforce the laws in this country, even the ones you don't agree with. Some people are showing their lack of character by expecting a man to do what he said he would do. But I guess it's different if you just change the ones you don't like. Some people are petty enough to be honked off about that one, too.

Now I've been as respectful as I can so far. I haven't called you any names like the Count of Monte Crisco or anything like that, and I won't because we're all friends here, right?

But let me tell you, John, I've been doing a lot of thinking about what you said to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This part where you said "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil." I've been known to spout off my opinion when I think something is wrong. And I know when something is wrong. Like when the Supreme Court makes an arbitrary (actually, partisan) ruling in a case that they had no business being involved in that put a guy in the White House who didn't win the election. We probably don't see eye to eye on that one since it meant you got a great job out of the deal. I won't even stoop to mention that you were available for the job because you lost the Senate election in your state to that dead guy, though. That would be wrong, and I know the difference between right and wrong.

But now it sounds like you're saying that if I say what I think is wrong, I'm supporting terrorism. Maybe I can help you out here because you seem a bit confused on this one too. I wrote an essay in college about patriotism once. The dictionary I used had as one definition "One who shows concern for one's country". I wish I could find that dictionary so I could make sure you know I didn't make it up, but I didn't.

Anyway, when I talk about the problems I believe I see, it's because I'm concerned about who we are and where we're going, John. Let me put it another way. Let's say someone you care deeply for, your wife, husband, child, father, mother, friend or whoever, is gravely ill. Do you ignore it, say "oh well", and let that person die? Or do you do whatever is in your power to get someone to come in and try to do something that will help? Do you give up without a fight, or do you try every thing or person or resource that could possibly help? That's the situation a whole lot of us are in, John. You see, it was still America we woke up in after September 11, 2001. It's just that some of us want to see a different America than the one that we feel some of you want to shove down out throats. We want the America we were promised and that we tell the rest of the world that we are. Can you chalk this up to an honest, legitimate difference in opinion? And can you be a big enough man to understand that trying to force us to see it your way is going to make us feel less free, instead of more?

I know this is going long, but I wanted to leave you with one more thing. It's a quote from a Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson. He said "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, free press, freedom of worship & assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Including the last one. That part was from me. I know this isn't likely to come up in the morning prayer meetings you hold on government property, but think about it some, will you?

We know all about what you say your values are. My mother always told me that your values aren't what you say, but what you do. Think about that one a little too, would you? A lot of people, including me, are real concerned about the difference between what you say you believe and what you do. We could be more convinced that when you ask yourself "What would Jesus do?" that you listen long enough to get the answer right.

I'll end this now. I know it was long, but look at the bright side: if you read this at work, you got paid to do it.

I hope I was able to help a little.

With all the respect you've shown me and the Bill of Rights,

Your friend,

Isaac Peterson

P.S. I think it was real good that you decided not to get involved in that whole Enron mess. You said you thought you should stay out because they were contributors to your campaign, but I think you're too modest. If somebody gave me $50,000 or whatever it was, they're not "contributors" or even "friends". Anybody that gave me that much money would be my "pal for life". But that's just me. Don't be so modest.
© 2002 Isaac Peterson you can reach Isaac at: isaac3rd@mediaone.net

Dead Letter Office

Heil Bush,

Dear Propaganda Ansager Fineman,

Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2002. 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 Clarence (slappy) Thomas.

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 03-15-2002. We salute you Herr Fineman, Sieg Heil!

Signed,
Deputy Fuhrer Cheney

Heil Bush

Inserting The Word `Security' In Everything Doesn't Hide Stupidity
By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN -- The president has taken to saying peculiar things again. "Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes," announced the president. Well, we know what he meant. According to bipartisan budget experts, we're back in deficit for at least the next several years. That didn't take them long, did it? Nobody is proposing raising taxes, but some fiscally prudent voices have been raised on behalf of postponing some of the generous tax cuts the Republicans gave to the rich in April. You may think Americans are smart enough to tell the difference between raising taxes and postponing tax cuts, but apparently Republicans don't. You can already see what a great political debate this is going to be.

This has an eerie familiarity to Texans, where Bush pushed through not one but two tax cuts that left the cupboard so bare, the state is now stuck with some hideous choices. With an estimated $5 billion deficit, Texas will probably have to follow the lead of Gov. Jeb Bush in Florida and cut funding for the schools. Jeb just signed a bill there slashing $600 million from education.

One of the most ridiculous myths about government is that politicians just love to raise taxes and are always looking for ways to do so. Pols consider raising taxes certain death, and they are often right. The last time the feds raised taxes, in 1993, in the face of deficits the size of the Grand Canyon and a $2 trillion debt, the Democrats got it through by one vote in the House and Al Gore voting in the Senate. They lost at the next election, bringing us all the joys of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott & Co. Poor Big George Bush, who had done yeoperson service by agreeing to raise taxes in 1990, also paid with his political life, you recall.

Nobody ever has liked taxes and nobody ever will like taxes, but nobody hates raising taxes worse than a politician. It is so notoriously difficult that the late Rep. Jumbo Ben Atwell has carved on his stone in the Texas State Cemetery, "He passed a tax bill." That's why stupid tax cuts are so infuriating (almost as infuriating as stupid spending). For Bush to come back now and trumpet his "economic stimulus" package is pushing folly beyond permission. The package was so bad, it has been widely reported that when they ran it by focus groups, people refused to believe the accurate description of what was actually in it.

The good news is, they are changing the name of the bill! They've put the word "security" in the title! Now instead of economic stimulus, it's the "economic security" bill. This is such an improvement. Also, the former Bush energy plan is now the "energy security bill." Since the normal danger when discussing public issues is oversimplifying them, I suggest only warily that this debate may be simpler than it looks.

The Republican theory of ec-stim is that we should cut taxes, especially for rich people and big corporations. This, the theory goes, will inspire them to invest their new loot in job-creating enterprises, thus ginning up the economy. The Democrats tend to favor public spending, especially focused on those who have lost their jobs, on the theory that these folks are so hard-up, they'll rush out and spend it on new shoes for the baby, this driving up demand and stimulating the economy to produce more again. Some judicious souls believe in a mixture of both.

The trouble with the Republican theory is there's absolutely no guarantee tax cuts will be put into increased production, and thus job creation, and considerable evidence that it won't be. The rich can sit on their money-- they don't have to spend it. Corporations have no reason to increase production when there is no increase in demand, plus they can use the money in other ways, for leveraged buy-outs or buying back their own stock or whatever they'd like to do with lots of money. The Democrats' theory is more direct and, depending on which economist you listen to, works better.

And even simpler way to look at this is as a debate between demand-siders and supply-siders. As some of you will recall from the Reagan era, supply-side economics didn't work. That Laffer curve turned out to be a steep one down. So the question is: How long is a national memory?
© 2002 Molly Ivins To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

Ask Why
By Ann Thomas

Enron Enron Enron. It's the gift that keeps on giving, at least for those of us who have waited patiently (or not so patiently) for the media to quite fawning over Shrub and actually report a bit of news. Come to think of it, Enron was also the gift that kept on giving for many politicians, and that's what I'd like to discuss.

Ari Fleischer had the unmitigated gall to say, with regard to the Enron scandal, "Americans are sick and tired of partisan witch hunts and endless investigations". This was, undoubtedly, an effort by good ol' Fleischer to discourage Democrats from turning Enron into a political issue, but it was a monumentally stupid thing for him to say. First, if Americans are tired of partisan witch hunts (and I have no doubt that they are), then that presupposes that Americans have recently been subjected to partisan witch hunts. To wit, the Clinton scandals. Thank you, Ari, for admitting what we knew all along -- Whitewater, Travelgate, and all the various and sundry Clinton-era scandals were nothing more than Scaife-funded, right-wing partisan witch hunts. We're glad that you've finally decided to acknowledge this, and we will be sure to help you avoid any forgetfulness on this matter in the future.

The second reason that Fleischer's comment was stupid is because it presupposes that the Enron investigation is a partisan witch hunt. Nothing could be further from the truth. It isn't a witch hunt, you see, if there's something THERE. That there was wrongdoing on the part of Enron and its accounting firm is beyond question; ergo, an investigation is in order. And given the fact that Enron's campaign contributions have gone primarily to Republicans (73% , to be exact -- let's repeat that number as many times as it takes for it to sink into the national psyche. 73%. Seventy-three percent. To Republicans), well, it stands to reason that an investigation into whether Enron sought and/or received favors and influence from the Bush administration is a perfectly reasonable endeavor.

The regressives are already engaging in concerted spin-control. The first trick to throwing people off track is to go on the offensive right out of the gate, and that's what we're seeing with Fleischer's little threats and the comments from right-wing pundits about how Democrats, too, received contributions from Enron. Byron York of the conservative National Review has written a cute little article (The Enron List: Liberal Democrats like the bankrupt energy company, too) suggesting that anyone who casts Enron in a partisan light is dishonest, because Democrats also benefited from Enron's largesse. He writes: "So in the coming weeks, watch for Democrats, and some Republicans, to try to keep the Enron issue tightly focused on the White House. Taking a broader view might raise more questions than anyone on Capitol Hill wants to answer."

It is a certainty that in the days to come, right-wingers will throw out names of Democrats who received contributions from Enron in an attempt to gloss over the fact that Enron gave 73% of its contributions to Republicans. It is also a certainty that the corporate media will give more time to the fact that Enron gave money to both parties than the the fact that 73% of that money went to Republicans. If some counterspin isn't put into place, and I mean pronto, the general public is going to come away with the impression that Enron simply flung money at every passing politician and that both parties were equally "bought".

So here are some facts. In the Senate, the question isn't "which Senators received contributions from Enron", but rather "which Senators DIDN'T receive contributions from Enron". Over 2/3 of our current Senators got a piece of the Enron pie. Therefore, it makes sense to look at the amounts. Out of the top 10 recipients in the Senate, eight are Republicans and two are Democrats. The top two recipients, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Phil Gramm, both of Texas, received approximately $99,000 and $97,000 respectively; the third recipient, Conrad Burns (R-MT) received approximately $23,000 and the fourth recipient, Charles Schumer (D-NY) received approximately $21,000.

Speaking of Schumer (we'll be hearing a good bit more about him, mark my words, and his $21k will be mentioned more often than Hutchison's $99k), he is on two of the committees currently looking into the Enron collapse, and he should leave those committees right away. I've always liked Schumer, but I have a serious problem with two things: one, that he's on those committees, and two, that he pushed for the energy deregulation Enron so desperately wanted. Yes, I know, it's par for the course with Republicans, but we're talking about a Democrat, not a Republican. I hold Democrats to a higher standard, because they're not a lost cause and Republicans are, and in my opinion Chuck's got some 'splainin to do.

The best part of Byron York's article was his utter inability to keep from mentioning the H-word. Yes, that's right, Hillary Clinton received a campaign contribution from Enron. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly will belabor the point, so let's be sure that we know exactly how much money Senator Clinton received: $950. Of the seventy-something Senators who received Enron's money, only one received less than Hillary -- Jim Bunning of Kentucky. It bears repeating that Kay Bailey Hutchison received $99,000...if my math's correct, and I believe it is, that's one hundred times the amount that Hillary received (actually, it's a little more, but I'm cutting Kay some slack here because that's just the kind of nice person I am). If a right-winger plays the Hillary card during an Enron debate, you shouldn't hesitate to laugh in his or her face.

The Shrub himself has given us clear and undeniable proof that he'd got something to hide -- he's wiggled and tap danced his way around the issue of his relationship with Ken Lay, pretending that Lay was a supporter of Ann Richards in Texas' '94 gubernatorial race (a lie) and that he didn't get to know Lay until after the race (another lie). Now, I've never believed that where's there's smoke, there's ALWAYS fire, but I do know that when one spots smoke, one should check to be sure there IS no fire.

So what does this all come down to? It's simple -- Enron is a scandal, and needs to be aggressively investigated. It is not a "partisan witch hunt", though we should all be glad that the Bushies tried to label it as such, because in doing so they have irrevocably labeled the Clinton "scandals" as nothing more than partisan witch hunts.

Enron bought political influence, and then committed fraud, financially ruining many innocent people while its top bigwigs enriched themselves. And these are undeniable facts: Enron met with Cheney at least six times to discuss energy policy, a fact Cheney tried to suppress. Ken Lay is a close personal friend of George W. Bush and has flung more money at him than I can count. When Enron was in trouble, they went straight to the Bush administration for help. Seventy-three percent of Enron's campaign donations went to Republicans. And on and on and on.

Enron's advertising slogan was "ask why"; their commercials showed happy people around the world set to a backdrop of inspirational music, and ended with the "ask why" slogan up on the screen (with a cute little chorus of people singing "ask why....why...why"). I never understood the point of the commercials, since they never explained what Enron did or why we should care (I guess we were supposed to ask, huh?), but by golly, I sure see the point now. Of course, Enron doesn't seem to be into the whole "ask why" philosophy anymore. But that's all right...we can ask for them.
© 2002 Ann Thomas is editor of The Practical Radical

The Cartoon Corner

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Kirk Anderson

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke

THE PETITION

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 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 - with only blame on, but no action from, bin Laden. Ensure that Bush cannot in ANY way cause or allow to be done the releasing in ANY FORM of any virus or anthrax that can harm we, the people.

12. People have already been concerned that FEMA would have totalitarian powers if a national emergency were declared. Bush has now sought the same power for himself. He has stripped all rights from "foreigners" (racism) the diversity of which made this nation great. With quarantine powers, he can strip all rights from citizens -? WE, THE PEOPLE, and prevent movement within the country. (Read this as Hitler's Germany.) He can imprison (quarantine) people in stadiums. Entire cities could be herded into unsheltered, unhealthy environments. He has taken the power to turn hospitals into prisons. WE, THE PEOPLE demand that Congress overturn this Executive Order, for it does NOTHING to stop terrorism.

13. Bush has set in motion SECRET military tribunals, once again declaring "needs of security." He has made it law that a person's home is not longer his castle, and it can be entered and searched without a warrant. He has made it a law that one is no longer innocent until proven guilty. One now only needs to be "suspected." One now has no guarantee of a fair and democratic trial. One can be tried by a secret military tribunal and be executed â?? in total secrecy. This constitutes a police state and NOT a democracy. We, the people, DEMAND that this power be stripped away and never set in motion. We demand that Bush be IMPEACHED for granting himself "unusual powers" for a "war" that is phony - and not declared by Congress, and for further destroying the character of America in the world community.

14. Bush is buying all satellite images of Afghanistan, he has locked down presidential papers, and he wants to conduct secret executions â?? to prevent the airing of any testimony that might incriminate him and his role in the attacks used to set in motion all of these assaults on American citizens. We, the people, demand IMPEACHMENT for his destruction of the ELECTION PROCESS and his intent to grant himself FULL DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY.

15. The anthrax distributed in the mail - and sent only to Democrats -is the variety held by our own military. We, the people, demand investigation of our own military and administrative authorities who have command over U.S. supplies of anthrax. Imprison all who participated in its release, and IMPEACH the highest authority.

16. Bomber pilots are saying that they are being prevented from bombing military complexes in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld declared the "anonymous" pilots to be "royal thumb suckers." Rumsfeld tripped over his own lies as he first denied the charges with that idiotic remark, and then admitted it when someone rephrased the question. He stood LAUGHING at some of the questions. Excuse me, did someone say this was about "war"???? Investigate WHY the military is under such discretionary control, and the reasons for it. IMPEACH all who are calling the orders in this phony "war."

17. We, the people, demand an investigation into who controls the news media so that it is not screaming from the headlines, and at the top of the hour, about these acts that are TREASON to our nation. The news media's purpose is not to amuse and deceive.

18. Investigate "profiteering through government" during this time of assault upon the American people via permission by you in Congress who have failed in your purpose to represent WE, THE PEOPLE. You have handed BILLIONS of our tax dollars to Corporations â?? letting these corporations "take the money and run" â?? even as individuals lose their jobs, and will wind up working for $6 an hour to pay for the massive government debt being created by Bush - and yourselves! STOP and REVERSE these handouts.

19. Investigate WHY Congress has cooperated so fully in Bush's destruction of our democracy under the pretext of "war." If there has been any threat, or collusion to deceive the American people, IMPEACH all who participated.

20. Investigate the role of OIL in this entire charade, and the monies paid by "religious" influences who also seek destruction of American rights and freedoms. Clean up our government, beginning with your own apologies to the American people - and to the world. We could FEED the world with the BILLIONS that Bush is giving to war barons and corporations. This is a dark hour in our history, and each of you need to bring all of these TREASONOUS and TRAITOROUS acts into the LIGHT.

Representing We, The People,

SUPPORT THE OREGON DEMOCRATS' PROPOSAL TO IMPEACH THE FELONIOUS FIVE!

Here's what you can do to help:

1. Write your members of Congress and urge them to support the Democratic Party of Oregon's resolution.

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!

Supreme Injustice
by STEVE COBBLE

Lest we forget--just over six months ago, the Rehnquist Court stole an election in broad daylight. In fear of the truth, the Scalia Five intervened to block all votes from being counted, an action "unprecedented" (both historically and judicially) in US history. Though the June 12 "anniversary" went unnoticed by the media, we must never forget.

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.
©2001 STEVE COBBLE

Send $100 or $1000 to The Heritage Foundation or Other Right-Wing Groups

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!

TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

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.