 |
|||||
|
December 1, 2003 |
|||||
Important Note: Because we can't always determine your intentions, we need to ask a favor of you when you send us email. If you DO NOT WANT YOUR EMAIL PUBLISHED in the Mailbag or in the Contributors section, please write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the Subject line or at the top of your email. That way we'll know it's just a comment to BuzzFlash. Additionally, if you submit a mailbag item and DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME associated with your submission, sign your email, "A BuzzFlash Reader." If you send email unsigned, we will post your name with your submission, or, if that's not available, your email name (not the full address, just what's on the left side of the email address). Please try and keep your word count under 400. We can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
BuzzFlash Note: Because of holiday vacation schedules, some of the comments below were received before Thanksgiving. We apologize for any confusion. Thanks for your understanding. Subj: Class action suit against AARP? Dear BuzzFlash: This is a quote from my 2001 (the year I joined) AARP Membership Guide: "Among AARP's priorities are: the protection of Medicare and Medicaid..." In light of what we've learned this week about Novelli's connection to Gingrich, who has said clearly and repeatedly that he wants Medicare to "wither on the vine", it seems to me that millions of us were lied to about AARP's true agenda. They represented themselves to us all as an advocate for seniors, yet they have shown themselves to be advocates for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of the well-being of seniors. I think that state Attorneys General should be asked by all of us to see if AARP's misleading and untruthful statement of mission constitutes grounds for prosecution. I've already written to AARP to cancel my membership and to demand a refund of my dues on those grounds. Sincerely, Rita Weinstein Subj: What?? RE: "U.S. General Says Bin Laden 'Out of the Picture'" Excuse me, but am I mistaken? Wasn't this the whole (made-up) reason why we going to fight the war in Iraq? If bin Laden is out the picture, then Bush is giving up on what he went to war for in the first place. Is Bush admitting defeat? So now, they just want to kill Iraqis daily and have Americans killed daily with no reason in mind?!? Plus, a front page headline on the Sacramento Bee today, reads "Bush, Blair say Iraq war not behind terror attacks." Oh really? How did they come to that conclusion? Did bin Laden tell them? Do they really think we Americans are so dumb as to believe this? I think they've gotten so high and mighty that they think they can say whatever they want, and we'll believe it. Judy Subj: Limbaugh's Addiction I am tired of hearing Rush Limbaugh say that he became "addicted" to Oxycontin while under a doctor's care for back pain. Since there has been no suggestion that his doctors were anything but responsible practitioners, this is certainly false. Mr. Limbaugh was very likely "physically dependent" on Oxycontin (i.e., he would experience withdrawal symptoms if the medication were suddenly stopped) while in his doctor's care. This is not "addiction" which, by definition, involves abuse. I also have no doubt that Mr. Limbaugh's doctors prescribed the standard tapering-off protocol to eliminate physical dependence, and that when they decided to no longer prescribe Oxycontin for his pain he was neither dependent upon, nor addicted to, Oxycontin. His addiction began when he decided to bypass his doctors and to obtain illegally the drug they would no longer prescribe. If he did so for pain, then he made a conscious choice to ignore his doctors and the many highly effective pain management options they could have offered him. He made that choice to break the law every day, apparently for years. No one made Mr. Limbaugh a drug addict but Mr. Limbaugh. That he should try to make his doctors responsible, even in part, for his criminal behavior is appalling. Albert Clark, NY Dear BuzzFlash, They never got Capone for murder and mayhem...they nailed him for tax evasion. Maybe... just maybe... they'll nail the "fat boy" for something other than dealing in the illegal purchase of drugs... Rush Limbaugh the homophobic, right wing bigot, on the radio adhominem attack guy, makes an estimated $35 million a year and has no shortage of legally earned money to buy the dangerous powerful drugs to which he became addicted.
Damn it sure pays to be a rich SOB...especially if you live in Florida where the Bush Family values are in play. Hopefully the DA in New York will nail him. Then again, we all know while justice waits...money walks. J. Gocht sends... Subj: A View from London Yesterday (Ed.: 11/20/03) I marched in the largest weekday protest in London's history as part of the "Expats Against Bush" contingent. During the day, many Brits came up to us to assure us that they were not Anti-American, just Anti-Bush. If Americans are seeing only the Bush PR version of his visit here, that was NOT the case. Even the police estimated 110,000 were in Trafalgar Square to cheer the toppling of the Bush effigy. (That is about 109,800 more than the number who witnessed Saddam's statue being hauled down last spring!) It would speak volumes if you could post two pictures side-by-side on your website: A view of the single lines of polite British police in their bright yellow jackets managing 110.000+ protesters yesterday next to one of the many rows of robot-cops in black riot gear in Miami. BTW, as an over 60 year old living in London, I have all of my prescription drugs provided FREE -- no premiums, deductibles or percentages! The new legislation proposed in the USA is OBSCENE for the richest nation in the world. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Mother of a Perle Although pretty much the rest of the world already knew it, Richard Perle has openly admitted that Bush War II was in violation of international law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html This is not a big surprise based on Perle's past history of shooting off his mouth. On two separate cable talk shows he admitted that administration officials had far more warnings about the 9-11 attacks than what we've already been made aware. On Washington Journal this past Sunday Perle made an incredulous statement in defense of Wolfowitz's"moral war" to establish democracies for safety's sake: "Democracies don't attack other countries". Unless the Coalition of the Killing had recently converted to dictatorships or communist states, I believe there were two separate wars started by the world's model democracies in just the past 3 years. Bush made a similar statement in his speech to the Brits in stating that he and Blair had to take care of violent men. I'm surprised that they didn't immediately attack each other on the rostrum. Since Bush and Blair took care of the terrorist problem in the Middle East there have been two sets of very attacks each in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey. Yes sir, they sure got them those terrorists carrying out their attacks over there and not over here. I'm sure our two most important Muslim allies in the region really appreciate this asinine strategy. YT Cai Subj: The difference between Martha Stewart and Rush Limbaugh So Rush is a junkie, launders hundreds of thousands of dollars, spouts a few " positive affirmations," and is rewarded by getting right back on the air, all's forgiven. Martha pulls a boneheaded move to save herself a couple thousand, tells the truth about it, and it looks like she's going to the big house. What on earth could be the difference here? Well: Rush is
Martha is
Now if you were the Bush Administration, wouldn't you side with Rush, who can guarantee his dittoheads march lockstep into the voting booth in 2004? Martha's big mistake here was she didn't hand over protection money to GW's election campaign like a good little girl. And she's paying for that "mistake" big time. I swear, these bastards give me the biggest headache. Lynne Keeley where was gw bush when john kerry was getting shot at in vietnam while fighting for his country? oh thaaaat's right, he was awol! :) pass this on................... a BuzzFlash reader Subj: Hopes DASCHLED again AURGHHHHH!!!! Daschle dithers and does diddly....AGAIN. Christ! I have come to the conclusion that it is time for democrats to organize, demand and press for his resignation. Surely there is worthy South Dakotan we could back. Even though I live in California, I would be willing to send the maximum allowable to any Democrat who declares his/her intent to succeed Daschle. Daschle simply is unwilling and is incapable of fulfilling his obligation as opposition leader. At this point, even if a Republican were to fill his seat we would be no worse off, since he is in effect doing the Republican party's bidding through acquiescence. At least with having an actual Republican in his seat we would then have someone with whom we can engage and or challenge. As is, we are are left in the position of having to prop up a dead dog for nothing more than the perception of party unity. There is simply no point in supporting Daschle when he is unwilling to to do the same. Let's get real folk. Ever hear the saying of "throwing good money after bad"? Past performance is the only true indicator of future performance. Daschle's record is one of letting the party down on key vote after key vote. It's time for him to go. Jay Bagi Subj: Reenact the coffins BuzzFlash has often reported on the administration rules against the filming of the flag-draped coffins arriving at U.S. military bases, the lack of Presidential attendance at funerals, the cordoning of media at Arlington National Cemetery, and other acts to prevent the images portraying the true costs of this unnecessary war from reaching voters. To offset this unbalanced portrayal, those who oppose this war and seek to remove this President from office should invest in the production and distribution of filmed reenactments of these events. The footage would be clearly labeled "reenactment", which would have the dual effect of presenting the true costs of this conflict and underscoring this administrations ban on media access to the actual events. Brian Hamon Subj: Kudos on the Terrific Work and a Hypothetical Question. Greetings BuzzFlash, You guys are doing an outstanding job here. Keep up the great work. Hopefully, more and more people will find your site and start to get a real education as to what is really going on in our country and world. Now, on to the gist of my reason for emailing. A hypothetical question came to mind last night. In the midst of watching with growing outrage as Democrats were forced to vote on a resolution authorizing the war in Iraq via the use of trumped up intelligence now proven false, watching as Democrats were forced into approving $87 billion for the same war, watching as Republicans forced the redistricting of electoral districts to ensure a Bush victory in ’04, watching as Republicans rammed bill after bill of their sole authorship through both houses, watching as Republicans wasted our money complaining over 6 judicial nominees, watching with disgust as a bill restructuring Medicare was forced through via Mafia-esque tactics, watching with outright disgust as the Supreme Court appointed President spent untold thousands of dollars of our money to spend two hours in Iraq while families of those who have lost loved ones there wonder why he’s not doing the same with them, and finally, waiting with a growing fear that the Republicans are turning a cyclopean eye towards Social Security –I realized that, as a collective whole, Democrats truly need to find a way to truly have their voices heard. I was wondering if you could pass this thought along to more knowledgeable individuals to get their opinions as what I’m proposing is rather extreme in a politically. The State of the Union address is coming up January 2004. We all know that the President is no listening to the concerns of the Democratic party and is already smearing them in his campaign ads with typical Texan mud-slinging tactics (see Ann Richards vs. Clayton Williams in the gubernatorial race in Texas, circa 1990 to refresh ones self on how Republicans truly operate). Now I think it is time Democrats show the President that they are no longer going to listen to him or following his sorely misguided direction. Here is my hypothetical question:
An extreme idea, to say the least, but what say you? J. Peurala Subj: GOP Convention As a New Yorker living in Manhattan, I was thrilled to see that there just might be a chance that Tom DeLay’s plan to house all the GOP conventioneers in a huge luxury cruise ship anchored over on the West Side might actually occur. It will cost the city some money, but in the long run it might be much cheaper than having to fumigate the entire city of the stench our lock-step Republicans would leave behind. You know that stench of big-big money, fascistic ideology, special interests, secrecy, incompetence, and general distaste for democracy and its adherents. And wasn’t Mr. DeLay somewhere along the line an exterminator/fumigator, or such? How self-sacrificing of him to spare us New Yorkers the services of such as he. Norman Weinstein Subj: Those Bush Family Perks Great article by C. Clack...the double standard is so obvious. This media simply does not measure the Bush family and extended politicos by the same yardstick. In direct contradiction to the espoused "family values" of Babs (my beautiful mind) and Poppy, as well as the curiously timed outcry from bro Duh-bya against the sex trafficking during the talks about the colonization of Iraq - it seems to me that Neil brings new meaning to the Dire Straits song line "your money for nothin' and your chicks for free." We watched "The Reagans" last night and I don't see what all the fuss was about by Repugs...unless you consider that it wasn't Ronnie's image they were trying to protect but Nancy's! Many of us knew when it was happening, just as we know it is happening with Bush, Inc. L.L.C. (very limited), that it wasn't really Reagan running anything - he was a prop. I was also very concerned that mostly liberal California decided to wait until 2006 to enforce a paper ballot trail. By then it will be too late!!!!! The Repugs have had two national elections (2002 mid-terms and the Recall in CA) to hone their skills and will not hesitate to use them in 2004. I have a very simple solution, similar to the Australian model, only having MANDATORY paper trails on all machines BEFORE 2004 and having it also mandatory that there be dual/parallel counts of BOTH electronic and paper ballots for at least two national election cycles and only when these numbers absolutely agree can we use only the electronic count. For every cycle where they do not agree, we add another cycle to that mandatory dual count, and use the paper ballot count in every instance until they agree. I agree this is a burden on the poor (?) Repug companies that give us the machines but as they love to remind us...freedom isn't free and it sure ain't cheap. I urge EVERYONE who reads BuzzFlash to contact their representatives, newspapers, radio and TV stations and anyone else you can think of to push the Ruch Holt legislation HR2239 to get action NOW...not after the 2004 (s)elections. Who knows...if we can take back the country perhaps we can straighten out this new Medicare/Drug company welfare program. I strongly urge anyone who can to donate to BuzzFlash as a Christmas gift that really means something. Suzanne
Bailey It would be uplifting if you could put some of the positive achievements of Kucinich-RE: diebold and voting machines, etc. I already know Bush is dangerous but I would like to have you report about those who are doing something positive for the country. Constant negativity is a downer and we need to focus on the light and good energy. Balance is always good! It brings HOPE and the feeling that we can change this country for the GOOD. Thank you. I enjoy your website but I am exhausted! Light some candles and takes deep breathes. It also helps to make a gratitude list for the good things in our lives. Kina KIng Buzz, Just this note concerning media bias: CNN.com always, and I mean ALWAYS, posts major breaking news items in a large red text banner at the top of their site. They break everything there and post the supporting story down in the body of their page. After a few hours the banner goes away. Today however, the Colorado Supreme Court announcement concerning Republican redistricting maneuvers in that State received no such red text banner. If this isn't big news I don't know what is, and yet CNN did NOT post their red banner. In fact this story doesn't even rate the "More Hot Stories" section, which today is reserved for such major breaking news as SUV safety ratings. Rather the Colorado redistricting story is relegated down page to the Politics section. Here is the link so you can see what I mean (note time and date of the story): http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html I read CNN regularly because at least they have links to generally reasonable accounts of items in the news, and it's a good springboard for deeper reading. I mean, try finding a real news site these days. Anyway, their bias is clear. I bet if this case were against Democrats in some way they would plaster news of a major Supreme Court defeat all over the place. Steve in LA Dear BuzzFlash, Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. Boy, they just couldn't stop raving about the moron's visit to Iraq all weekend. It's all you could hear about on any channel. As if it's the most amazing thing a president has ever done. One more campaign commercial, that's all. Are we sure he had this planned for 6 weeks, or did he maybe decide to go at the last minute because Hillary Clinton was going to Afghanistan and Iraq? And isn't it interesting that the very same cloak and dagger, covert methods had to be used when he visited England, our "best" ally, that were used in Iraq, allegedly our "bitter enemy". Think about it. The man can't go anywhere. Keep up the great work. Barbara in NYC Subj: Daschle: The Enabler? No, Much Worse... I submit Daschle is not an enabler; he is much much worse. He deliberately blocks Democratic attempts to resist absolutely horrendous Republican measures. This guy cannot be considered just a wimp, or a benign enabler, or even just corrupted by campaign contributions. Tom is actually playing for the other side, deliberately standing in the way of principled Democrats who are trying to do what they think is right and stop the GOP juggernaut. It's time to take the gloves off and quit griping about Daschle's "failed leadership". This guy is leading alright, just not for our side. The sooner Democrats recognize this isn't about weakness, it's about undermining Democrats who try to fight back. If he was just weak and wimpy, he'd quietly acquiesce while other Democrats took the heat and fought back. But that is not what he does. He repeatedly and deliberately undermines Democrats' ability to resist. The guy is not on our side. It's time Democrats stop and recognize that the captain of our team wants the other side to win. He must be fired and the sooner, the better. The GOP is now aiming at gutting SS and we can't have Tom "leading" that fight for the Democrats. A BuzzFlash Reader |
|||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
