---

Subject: Et Tu Harry?

Dear BuzzFlash,

Democrats really showed the nation what they were made of in their initial reaction to the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Bush's Attorney General. "He's a nice guy." "He's not as bad as Ashcroft." Confirmation is guaranteed.

After weeks of struggle by activists, concerned citizens and journalists who, unlike our Senators, had done their homework, the stunning unsuitability of Alberto Gonzales was revealed. Democrats began to stir. Speeches were given. The sins of Gonzales were aired publicly. Spines appeared.

Gonzales is a scofflaw. His incontrovertible link to the Bush administration's widespread use of torture was highlighted. His chilling performance as Bush advisor regarding prisoner executions and his questionable behavior as a member of the Texas Supreme Court were discussed. It was pointed out that other than a position with Vinson and Elkins advising other scofflaws Halliburton and possibly Enron, Gonzales owes his meteoric rise entirely to the House of Bush. Newspapers responded. A Vote for Gonzales is the Ratification of Torture. The New York Times pointed out he was the wrong candidate for the job. A number of Senators withdrew support.

In addition to occupying Bush's breast pocket, it has been pointed out that Gonzales as AG is a "get out jail free card" for Bush and administration biggies in case the country finally awakens to the emergence of even more stomach-turning evidence of how the Bush administration does business. In case the House is shamed into starting an investigation by public outcry, Bush knows he can rely on Alberto to bury any evidence of criminality. It has been pointed out that he has performed this service before. It may even be an explanation for the famous Bush smirk.

Today the minority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid let the cat out of the bag. Democrats have no intention of blocking his nomination. They will not filibuster. They just wanted to have a discussion. How special.

Not all that long ago Democrats were willing to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada as a judge because of his extremist views. The number of lives impacted by Estrada's judgeship are miniscule compared to those that "author of torture" Gonzales as Attorney General will touch. 

As if any more evidence were necessary to sink this nomination, today Gonzales's name has been added to the war crimes investigation opened in Germany that led to Donald Rumsfeld canceling a recent meeting taking place in Germany.

The Senate Democrats under Reid seem to have adopted a peculiar, low energy response to pressure from the White House. They have decided that during the next four years they will only work to defeat one of the numerous outrages being unleashed on the public by the Bush administration.

They have chosen their issue, Social Security and the rest be damned. Simply put, the Democrat's position seems to be that an Attorney General who is linked to war crimes and who will be in a position to make decisions regarding the quality of justice in America is considered unworthy of the effort it takes to read a repair manual or phone directory in Congress until Bush relents and finds someone else.

I wonder if anyone has asked the honorable Senator and his fellow Democrats what good they think our Social Security will be if we are locked up by Bush and Company or if we are unable in our golden years to see the world because we have been made pariahs by our own government? Will we be collecting our old age annuity and mourning the loss of a son, grandson or daughter in another of Bush's bloody corporate wars?

Will we be spending our twilight years caring for a family member with a spinal cord injury from an improvised explosive device? Perhaps we'll die before we can collect very much because we can't afford or obtain the medical attention we need.

I wonder if the good people of Nevada who sent Harry Reid to Washington meant him to ignore or support the extremist policies and nominees put forth by the Bush White House? If they favored these policies, why didn't they vote Republican? Just maybe they wanted him to go to Washington to fight for them with both hands. It could be they want him to dust off his parliamentary expertise, his filibuster and his point of order and do something. Maybe the good people of Nevada are disgusted and frightened by the fact that our government is torturing other human beings who may be guilty of absolutely nothing, since there has been no process to determine their guilt or innocence. Maybe they don't want Reid and the Democrats to ratify torture. Maybe they want him to say no, mean no and make no happen.  

As minority leader, Reid is responsible for establishing the Democratic position on issues. Do the more than 55,000,000 voters that cast their ballots against Bush's policies want the Democrats to let this slide?

Do they want an attorney general that doesn't believe all people have a right to due process; that the government at the behest of one man can incarcerate you indefinitely and if they decide you are a terrorist, torture you with impunity? Do the 80% of Bush supporters who voted for him without understanding his positions or policies want this man for their Attorney General?

There is one more caveat that Reid and all Senators should consider before turning a blind eye to outrage.

The community of nations, including the United States, have spoken regarding torture. They have banned it completely and forever. Current law states that torture is always wrong everywhere and by everybody. Torture committed in one nation can be prosecuted in and by another. The most severe penalties apply, even death. Condoning torture is a crime as well as conducting or ordering torture. Reid and those that refuse to oppose this nominee could well find themselves on the wrong side of the law themselves in the not too distant future. 

GONZALES ADDED TO WAR CRIMES COMPLAINT IN GERMANY; NEW EVIDENCE SHOWS FAY REPORT ON ABU GHRAIB PROTECTED OFFICIALS (Center for Constitutional Rights/CCR)

Carol Davidek-Waller
Kirkland WA

---

Subject: Social Security

This is commentary I have been sending to columnists and editors in response to their comments on Social Security.

The Third Rail of Social Security seems to be telling the truth about it.

Bush in lying about the crisis is playing off old against young, black against white, women against men.

As a crisis based on Social Security funding, there is none.

But there is a Social Security crisis based on ideology and on the total national debt.

There are those that would destroy all social programs. Dave Stockman wrote of this. The Reagan ideologues hoped to create such deficits that social programs could not be maintained. Paul O'Neill in interviews with the Financial Times in 2001 as much as said that SS should be eliminated and old people could work longer and save more. And one can argue that privatization is a gift to Wall Street political contributors.

But the real crisis is with the national debt and how Social Security and the other trust funds hide our true debt.

When we say that the next fiscal year will produce a deficit of $423 billion we hide the fact that were it not for the trust funds the real deficit would be $600 billion or so.

If it were not for the trust funds the government would have to go into the market for $600 billion. The trust funds are buying $180 billion of that debt. Without the trust funds the government would have a harder time financing deficits in the open market and there would be upward pressure on interest rates, further increasing indebtedness.

As the baby boomers retire, starting in 2008, presumably the yearly SS surplus will decrease reaching 0 in 2018. This means that to finance the operating deficit the government will have to go to the general market with larger and larger demands. Will that market be there, and if it is at what interest rate?

Starting in 2018 this problem becomes compounded by the liquidation of the special treasury bonds. The government redeems bonds all the time either through tax revenues in times of surplus or in refinancing debt. These special securities are no different as a government obligation then those owned by a Japanese investor.

But if, as result of tax cuts, unending wars, and irresponsible spending we are still running deficits in 2018, then these redemptions will increase the pressure on the market for US debt issues. The market may not be there or if it is there, only at exorbitant interest rates.

That's what no one wants to talk about. Obviously our government could not afford to default on debt to Central Banks or other investors.

But it can default without penalty (other than political) on trust fund debt. That is something the ideologues would welcome and that the result of decreasing trust fund surpluses, continuing operating deficits, redemption of trust fund securities, and rising interest rates could dictate.

In other words the question should be asked, "Are they planning to steal the Social Security funds to pay for war, tax cuts, and irresponsible spending?"

As for the president's plan for privatizing, it brings the crisis closer.

They have suggested that of the 12.4% of payroll 2%, 4%, or 6% be used. That's 16, 32 and 48% of the 12.4%. Even though they may cap it at $1000 a year, that will have a substantial impact on the SS yearly surplus. What does that mean? It means that the surpluses will disappear before 2018, and that the point at which the trust fund will be exhausted will be sometime before 2042.

If we keep running deficits it is unlikely we can save SS. But it's not because there is something wrong with SS, it's because they plan to default and in effect steal the money.

bob reynolds
orange park, fl

---

Subject: Alberto Gonzales

I have a very simple reply to anyone who supports the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales. Real Americans Don't Torture - Period.

Bruce Martin
Mill Valley, CA

---

Subject: How To Help Social Security

Increase to Social Security Trust Funds ANNUALLY by Increasing minimum wage to $7.00

CURRENT LEVELS
$5.15 Minimum Wage
 
$5.15 x 12.4% = $0.6386
 
Breakdown
Employee Contribution
$5.15 x 6.2% = $0.3193
Employer
$5.15 x 6.2% = $0.3193
 
Week
$0.3193 x 40 = $12.772
 
Combined
$12.772 x 2 = $25.544
 
Annual Combined
$25.544 x 52 = $1328.288
 
+ 6% Interest Annual
$1328.288 x 6% = $79.69728
 
$1328.288 + $79.69728 = $1407.98528
 
Employed
100,000,000
 
100,000,000 x $1407.98528 = $140,798,528,000
 
TOTAL Combined Employer/Employee Contribution Annual + Interest
$140,798,528,000 Current Social Security Input

PROPOSAL
Increase Minimum Wage To $7.00
 
New Basis Formula
$7.00 x 12.4% = $0.868
 
Breakdown
Employee Contribution Social Security
$7.00 x 6.2% = $0.434
Employer Matching Contribution Social Security
$7.00 x 6.2% = $0.434
 
SubTotal Increase: $0.868
Weekly Combined
$0.868 x 40 = $34.72
  -
Annual Combined
$34.72 x 52 = $1805.44
 
+ 6% Annual Interest
$1805.44 x 6% = $108.3264
$1805.44 + $108.3264 = $1913.7664
 
TOTAL GROSS ANNUAL COMBINED
$1913.7664
 
Employed x Gross
100,000,000 x $1913.7664 = $191,376,640,000
 
TOTAL Combined employee/employer/+interest Annual
$191,376,640,000
 
DIFFERENCE
$191,376,640,000 Proposed
-$140,798,528,000 Current
$50,578,112,000 Increase to Social Security Trust Funds ANNUALLY by Increasing minimum wage to $7.00

Simply- Increase Wages to offset Baby Boom Shortfall. This may be done in stages.

A BuzzFlash Reader

[BuzzFlash Note: We'll leave it to others to support/dispute the math...but the concept is interesting.]

---

Subject: Jeff Gannon's past

A Google search revealed Jeff Gannon's name connected to a website called "The Conservative Guy." The website is only a header now. I checked the Internet Archive and found cached pages going back to 2002 and ending in January of '04. Looking at the picture of The Conservative Guy, I noticed the pictures looked just like Mr. Gannon. And lo and behold, the GOPUSA logo appears on the cached pages. The links are below.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://WWW.THECONSERVATIVEGUY.COM

http://web.archive.org/web/20030319062907/http://theconservativeguy.com/

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: Hillary on "common ground"

Hi, Buzz!!

Hillary has a point about pro- and anti-choice people finding common ground. But I don't think it's going to happen. If the goal really were to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., the two sides could get together. But alas, I fear that isn't the goal. The real purpose of the antis is to score political points off their opponents. I don't think they really care much about how common abortion is, except as a subject for a stump speech.

It apparently has not occurred to them that to outlaw abortion wouldn't make it go away, but merely drive it underground. Meaning that mothers as well as fetuses would be lost. But women's lives don't mean much to the antis. A lot of the anti-abortion folks are also opposed to contraception, which means really that they are opposed to women having any choice about their lives. The antis don't care much about children either; otherwise, how could they stand for the government's efforts to make it harder for kids to get medical care?

Anti-choice people are hypocrites, and it's about time we said so. They are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Pro-birth, no matter what. Pro-birth, even if you are pregnant as a result of rape. Pro-birth, even if carrying the pregnancy to term results in your own death.

Making overtures in the direction of "common ground" might be good for the Democrats (and other pro-choicers). The antis will not respond to such overtures, and then their hypocrisy will be out in the open for all to see.

Jane Hawes
Emporia, KS (a red-state Democrat)

---

Subject: Social Security Private Accounts, the only way it will work.

President Bush wants Private Accounts for Social Security, his reason for them in my opinion is dubious. I believe it is just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that Bush's fiscal policies have put the US government in an untenable position in regard to being able to honor the obligation of the Bonds Social Security will be redeeming to pay the checks of the Retiring Baby Boomers. Had Bush not ignored the wisdom of the previous Administration and Congress to establish an annual US Budget surplus that would have serviced the Bond obligation, the US would not be facing this crisis. With that said...

The only way that Private Accounts will work, is that NEW individuals to the work force will be given the OPTION to have ADDITIONAL funds taken out of their paychecks to be contributed to these accounts. This way the flow of money into Social Security will not be affected NOW, and there is no need to float the 2 Trillion in Bonds needed to immediately finance the next Bush fiscal folly.

The World Finance markets will not tolerate additional irresponsible fiscal polices of this Administration. The real threat of no longer using the US Dollar as a world standard and switching to the Euro or the Swiss Franc could be seriously considered.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Fear is security. Welcome to Bush World 1984.

Sean Lewis

---

Subject: Depleted Uranium

Did you run an article on this recently?  If 11,000 are dead from Iraq War 1, how many will die from Iraq War 2, given the length of time they are in Iraq? 

Subject: Gonzales

Regarding the appointment of this torturer...I really do not think the democrats in either
house will ever again be able to stop anyone that this crooked administration tries to confirm. It really does not matter what they have done...lies, torture...bring it on!!!

Shirley..........St. Louis

---

Subject: American troops kill inmates in election day riot

The following is from the Independent in London. Is it just me or do you wonder why we have not seen this story given prime time coverage?

A BuzzFlash Reader
Orlando, FL

---

Subject: Orrin Hatch and Alberto Gonzales

I just called the Capitol and spoke with an aide to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). I said I am appalled that we are now nominating people to serve as Attorney General of the US based on his immigrant family-of-origin history. I said that Senator Hatch should be ashamed of trying to use the "race-culture" card when many Hispanic-based organizations are themselves condemning the nomination.

I said that this man's history of belittling international law, disregarding the humanity of prisoners, demonstrating contempt for Congress and the Judiciary Committee all should keep him from even being considered. I stated that I know of many other people who come from poor and immigrant families who are more honest, and demonstrate a higher regard for the people of this nation and our Constitution. I asked why they aren't being nominated.

I also said that Judge Gonzales represents people who will do anything the "boss" says to get ahead, and that is not who I want for my Attorney General. I said that I deserve better than Alberto Gonzales, and so does my country.

You can call Senator Hatch's office, or any other senator or congress man/woman by calling this toll free number...1-888-508-2974. Save it and use it often.

Leslie
Evanston, IL

---

Subject: Op-Ed Piece in Today's SF Chronicle by Torture Memo Authors

Geneva Convention isn't the last word (San Francisco Chronicle) written by Robert J. Delahunty and John C. Yoo who authored the Justice Dept. memos which stated that the Geneva Convention did not apply to terrorists. They argue that the Geneva Convention is obsolete when dealing with terrorist organizations AND "pseudo-states," which interestingly enough includes (read down to 4th paragraph from the end) "the Saudi Royal Family."

The Saudis -- a "Pseudo-State" for whom the authors feel the Geneva Conventions do not apply. I say let's put the Saudi Royals in Gitmo and find out who REALLY was responsible for 9/11!!

Regards,

BC

---

Subject: Either dance or quit the ballroom! (An old Greek Proverb)

Howard Dean has come to dance and will teach the Democrats some new steps if he is their DNC Chairman! Howard Dean has what is needed to succeed! Without Governor Dean we would not have had the interest or the turnout in the last election. The Democrats seem to be without fresh ideas. Their lack of backbone in refusal to sign on to the voting challenge and their “aye” vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State was disillusioning to many loyal Democrats. Eloquence without action is useless!

Dr. Dean has more than enough backbone and has the frankness to speak the truth along with the backbone to support his words! In front of our eyes, Howard Dean invigorated and assembled a grassroots organization with fresh ideas and efficiency! In his position of Governor he had proven budgetary command and organizational abilities.

Governor Dean is a force the Bush-Rove political machine won’t easily decipher as there is no precedent for his actions. Unlike the tepid, “ride the fence” Democrats, Dean will be quite a handful for the Republicans. When the past has not worked to our advantage, we should be able to give up our loyalty to it and those that represent the “old” way of thinking! The time has come where the need for change has been forced on us. Howard Dean has been tested and he has both the capacity and fortitude needed to change the tide. He will show us he has the confidence to try new directions and will not be afraid to go against the common trends.

Martin Luther King said, “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus!” Howard Dean represents that kind of leader! By the way, I LOVED THE SCREAM!

Susan Carr
Tucson, Az

---

Subject: Hmmm........

China & India are poised to become the world's newest members of the "global gas guzzlers" club, as their economies continue to grow and expand, and their thirst for energy grows in tandem. This is in part why the oil wars have been raging so fiercely for 2 + years now. Neither China nor India wants to be at the mercy of those who control this oil. So why don't they both begin to take a new and mammoth lead in the development and expansion of renewable energies, in order to avoid this? If China and India could do this, or at least put in a sincere effort towards achieving some sort of energy independence from OPEC et al., maybe their commitments to this effort could take some of the heat off the world.

Just a thought. Anyone who knows any senior members of either govt., please pass this idea along. Money talks.

Joshua Martin
Massachusetts

---

Buzz,

Thank you to Judy Maclean for informing us about A Million Roses for Barbara Boxer.  It is such a fantastic idea.  I've already made my pledge.  Please everyone who can, do so.  Maybe she will receive so many, that - well, I may be dreaming here - but perhaps the media will be forced to cover it.  I'm going to forward it to every activist website and person I know.  It's a great message and gesture for not so much money.  In case you missed the post - the number is 1-888-501-ROSE.  It's $10.00 for 3 roses delivered to her with a message of gratitude.  Let's get 2 million!  Thanks for posting it Buzz.

Barbara in NYC

---

Subject: RE: Liberal Bias (as sent to columnist Howard Kurtz)

Howie,

Today you Wrote: "And, of course, there's still the liberal media, liberal academia and liberal Hollywood to get the juices flowing."

It really troubles me every time you use the phrase "Liberal Media"--You are only adding to the myth created by the conservatives. Why must you continue to use this phrase? It seems to me that the Vast majority of the media is not liberal. You yourself must concede that Fox and MSNBC are definitely Conservative. A lineup of their hosts and pundits confirms that. You even wrote this about Fox which is pretty much the generic description of all Fox coverage: "On Fox News, former coalition spokesman Dan Senor, now a Fox analyst, was praising the process, followed by a parade of mostly pro-administration guests."

Pretty much confirms my point about Fox. Now if we take the total hours of time of all news programs, including the so called "news analysis" programs-it would seem to me that amount of hours of conservative-tilted coverage would far outweigh the alleged liberal coverage based on total propaganda time. Even you, Howie, would have to admit that Fox's Conservative coverage is far more biased than the slight alleged liberal tilt to the network news.

Now, Howie, I have a question. You wrote: "The main thing that's happening is that the Democrats have no power these days, in the White House or on the Hill, and so they get far less media attention."

If there were a Liberal Media, why would the democrats have trouble getting Media attention?

I doubt you will acknowledge that rhetorical question, since you haven't actually ever answered any of my questions over the years. I have been writing you for a few years and you still keep pushing the same old crap.

You know I used to care, and even spent 2-3 hrs per day online visiting online news sites like Wash Post, NYT, etc. This gave me the actual facts which made me an informed viewer of cable news. But I can't do that anymore, so rather than be a misinformed viewer of the news, I choose to be ignorant. I just don't care anymore. I don't watch cable news or get my news through the internet. This week I decided to give you guys one more chance and you all failed miserably. I once was proud to be in the percentage of Americans who knew there were no WMDs and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but what good did it do me? A majority of the misinformed re-elected the President.

Well, they won, thanks in part to a hapless media that was b**d into submission. It's the media's job to inform the public, not mine. You guys should all be proud of yourselves. I hope there's a special circle in hell for all the pundits and journalists, where it's 110º and you have to stand barefoot in a frying pan with a microphone reporting all day that it is a beautiful 80º where you are.

Thanks again for converting me into one of the mindless masses. It really is easy living with eyes closed.

thank you,

stevie gardiner
somerdale, nj

---

Subject: Iraq elections

Go to truthout . There William Rivers Pitt quotes a reporter writing for Inter Press Service " Many Iraqis expressed fears that their monthly food rations would be cut if they didn't vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies". I felt sick when I read that...

A Devoted Reader
Amherst Junction, WI

---

Subject: Who exactly is Bush kidding?

Social Security is not having a crisis, no matter how frequently Bush says it is. It *may* have some easily fixable problems in 40 or 50 years.

Borrowing money on the Bond Market to invest it in the Stock Market will not increase wealth, no matter how much Bush says it will. If it did, the government would already do that and would thus pay off the debt.

The budget and trade deficits are important, no matter how much Bush says they don't matter. The Chinese and Japanese now [account] for most of our deficit, as well as our credit cards and our Real Estate boom. They may not always do so.

Who is Bush kidding?

A BuzzFlash Reader

---

Subject: Bush's State of Union

I took notes on Bush's state of the Union. Seems like there's a lot of doublespeak and not actually saying things but getting the meaning across. For example, he first said that the government shouldn't mess with moral affairs and then he proposed a constitutional amendment on the "Sanctity of Marriage." He did get his point across that we should privatize Social Security and invade Iran though he didn't say those things directly. Overall Bush said freedom 15 times and in his concluding passage he said it 4 times! It looked like Bush had kissed Lieberman at the end on the cheek! Was he? What was that wire I saw running down Bush's suit?
 
Rose Petersky
Bellevue, Washington

---

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2005 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG.

---