The BuzzFlash Mailbag
April 2, 2002
After reading Ann Coulter's rantings "I Like Black People Too" regarding Halle Berry and Julia Roberts, I am wondering: when will the paddy wagon take this pathetic excuse for a writer away?!!!! I find that I am never truly angry with her inane comments because I believe that the woman is ILL! I blame her publishers and supporters because they know that something is wrong with her. How can anyone pay her to write this drivel and have a conscience? On this Easter Sunday I can only ask that the Creator will have mercy on "such as she" and spare us from her hatred!
Given the following:
the current Bush administration would like to neutralize the INS
How do you characterize the arrival of INS issued visas for two of the hijackers at a flight school in Florida 'exactly six months' to the day after the September terrorists attack on the World Trade Center? Bizarre? Shocking? Coincidental? Unbelievable? Bureaucratic SNAFU? Diabolical?
You be the judge!
I, for one, do not buy that Bush Version 2.0 is FOR Women anywhere, anytime. I say THANKS OPRAH for turning down the "opportunity" to tour with the Bush junta in Afghanistan for the latest right-wing propaganda tour.
Bush pro-women??? NOT!!!!
I read a good article in the magazine "Fair-Extra" about how Bush is trying to attract women votes by "propogandizing" the war in Afghanistan. This story is PRE-OPRAH "no thanks, Dubya" news. A scan of this article (page one | two | three) is attached for your reference.
The article includes information on:
how the voices of actual women in Afghanistan are not heard at all
love your site. I thought I was the only one of my kind left in this world,
til I found you. Keep up the good work.
Where is the public outrage at the GOP budget? This is what America gets, after the OUTRAGEOUS tax cut for the rich that depleted the surplus and now threatens social security?
Is this not more proof of right-wing plan to take down economy and throw middle class into poverty levels? Is this not more proof of a series of actions, including Enron and NAFTA and so called "war on terrorism" schemes, to demoralize Americans with war and poverty?
Our leaders wouldn't do anything to hurt business industry, you say? As it turns out, most U.S. big industries have already moved to more lucrative markets overseas. Already the Chinese are being "shaped" into consumer robots, much like Americans were.
The actions of the Bush clan leaving our country and world in shambles and war torn seem very deliberate. Likewise, their actions designed to cover and hide their hidden agenda are equally deliberate. The Bush clan has no plans to restore our economy, any more than they have to establish peace ANYWHERE in the world! Collectively, their actions seem nothing short of an overthrow of our Federal democratic government!
Impeachment is in order! Repeal of the tax cut is a must! Investigation of 9/11 oddities should be demanded! And, WHERE is that special counsel to investigate Enron?!
Subj: Recess Appointments - Bush up to no good on Good Friday
Congress was in recess to observe Good Friday, Bush had the audacity to
bypass the Senate and simply appoint a GOP lawyer to oversee elections
in our country. And not just any lawyer - Michael Toner was the Bush Campaign
general counsel. As such, he was at the center of their legal maneuvering
that overturned the 2000 presidential election and in essence had the
Supreme Court appoint Bush. Toner's appointment to the FEC makes mockery
of a free and open election process. Friday's action by Bush was particularly
despicable on Good Friday, from a man who calls himself a Christian.
"...The list, published in the Fortune issue that reaches newsstands April 8, did have some surprises, most notably the appearance of bankrupt Enron Corp., which moved up two notches to No. 5 despite its downward spiral into bankruptcy..."
A BuzzFlash Reader
sent to the la times book review upon the "review" of "stupid white men":
Sirs and Madams:
I'd like to respond to Larry Bensky's review of Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men" in the 3/31 issue of Book Review. I'd like to, but unfortunately, Mr. Bensky chose not to actually review the book. With the exception of one paragraph detailing the admitted "laundry list" of things Mr. Moore doesn't like, Mr. Bensky did not really address any of the material in the book.
Rather than analyze the book's content and how it might account for its popularity, he chose to discuss the fact that it was in the process of being published when events of Sept. 11 occurred. Therefore, Mr. Bensky reasons, the circumstances surrounding the publishing created such a sensational story that the story itself, and Mr. Moore's publicizing of the story, must account for why the book is at the top of most best seller lists in the nation.
I must admit I myself have not read Mr. Moore's book, although it's not because I haven't tried. Strangely enough, the last 4 times I have been to (2 different) Barnes and Noble, the book has been out of stock. Boy, that must have been some great publicizing about the book's back story, because it is continuously sold out! What a PR genius Mr. Moore must be!
As if to emphasize the irrelevance of the book's polemic, Mr. Bensky does mention one of Mr. Moore's points, and is quick to dismiss it. Mr. Bensky states "it is hard to find very many folks…still feeling daily outrage at the way George W. Bush became president." I would submit that this is because Mr. Bensky hasn't bothered to speak to any African-Americans, who were disenfranchised to the tune of 8,000 legitimate voters in Florida that were not allowed to cast their ballots.
I would also submit that it's not really very hard to find people like
Mr. Moore who are still outraged at Election 2000; it's just hard to hear
them, because that point of view is not allowed access to mainstream electronic
or print media. It's usually shouted down or completely ignored. That
viewpoint, like the book's "irreverence," which Mr. Bensky postulates
will gain an audience sometime in the future (but not now, apparently),
I am not at all surprised that the "review" does not actually review the book, address the issues or concerns raised, or deal with the validity of the facts and points therein. Most reviews of David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right," which is similarly placed on the political spectrum, also avoid actually addressing the issues raised in it. And perhaps most of corporate America feels good reading such non-reviews of anti-establishment rhetoric.
But the truth remains that both books are at the top of the best seller lists. And that alone speaks volumes more than any review.
To Whom it may Concern:
The national US "newspapers of record" (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) and other major media have disgraced themselves both by their collaboration in the Clinton witchhunt and their servile support for the inept and sinister G. W. Bush administration and its open-ended, never-ending war. Many Americans have already turned to the weekly Guardian or the internet Guardian as their primary news source.
I have written to the Guardian requesting that they publish a daily American edition. This is a serious request and I think it is doable. A circulation network covering much of the country (and pretty much coinciding with the distribution of the other national papers) could be put together instantly and almost effortlessly. Much of the content could be identical to that of the present Guardian, with only an increased coverage of specifically-American topics. (Financing is a problem but I think that could be managed).
The center-right media stranglehold, as we all know, is one of the the deadliest causes of our nation's presently execrable political situation. Making the Guardian more easily available on a daily basis would break this stranglehold. (It would also be a fine, fine example of globalist economic competition!)
A first step is to tell the Guardian that we're ready and waiting. Below is my own letter. I am sending this message to every site I regularly visit, hoping that some or all of them will make it their project.
Write the Guardian requesting an American daily edition: firstname.lastname@example.org. Permission is granted to forward all contents of this letter or the letter below freely to anyone.
To the editor:
I recently read a report that since 9/11 the Guardian site's hits from the US have increased enormously. There's a reason for this. Already before the attacks, the major US newspapers were regarded as untrustworthy by many Americans. When these newspapers "rallied around the flag" afterwards, many thoughtful Americans found themselves with no good indigenous daily news sources at all.
A distribution network could be set up effortlessly almost instantly in the major cities and big college towns. No change would need to be made in the Guardian's international and European coverage. All that would need to be done would be to replace news specific to Britain with news specific to the US. (I am as willing as anyone to criticize American provincialism, but even I have little or no interest in cricket scandals or in Scottish crises relating to sheep.)
Regardless of what one thinks about the civilizing mission of the British Empire, a stronger British civilizing presence in the American Empire is desperately needed at this point. An American Daily Guardian would be a major contribution in this task.
I read Gloria's media watch column from a link over at DU, and I have to say, what planet are you on? The new Crossfire show was absolutely fantastic, as evidenced by the 100+ people over at DU screaming about wonderful it was. It is about damn time some Democrats had the guts to shout right back at the intimidating and rude right-wing thugs that populate most of the political TV shows. Why is it when Republicans scream and shout, it is okay? But when Democrats scream right back at them, it is considered a comedy or the WWF or undignified?
As far as I am concerned, Carville and Begala's strong presence were one of the things that shaped public opinion and prevented Clinton's impeachment. They are some of the only strong liberal voices on TV that are not afraid of the GOP, and they make the same points which are made on many of the Democratic internet sites. I welcome their presence on CNN and am amazed CNN would actually put strong liberals on their network.
All I can say is for every one Democrat who has panned the show, I have heard a hundred others praise it. I personally needed a cigarette after that show, and I don't even smoke. Go James Go. Go Paul Go.
Just a quick message to let you know that all of your interviews have been fantastic!!
Every one of them has been deeply appreciated. I just sent a message to Congressman Kucinich to let him know that his pro-democracy vision is vitally important to the U.S. and the world.
Keep up the great work and keep the light of freedom shining.
A loyal American
Re: IMPORTANT!! WASHINGTON TIMES SHOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT!!
An article in today's Washington Times accuses Clinton Administration of being soft on terrorist fund raising organizations in the US by blaming the Clinton Administration of being soft on a man of questionable credentials, namely Sami Al-Arian, a former University of Florida professor. Yes this is the same Sami Al-Arian who has WORKED WITH Grover Norquist by Norquist's own admission!
Here's the Article from Washington Times:
Here is an old article from the New Republic documenting the fact that Mr. Al-Arian's organization, the American Muslim Council (AMC) gave Mr. Norquist an award for his service in 1999. The New Republic also refers to meeting with Republican hierarchy and the American Muslim Council that were arranged by Norquist.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Here is an article about how the U.S. Treasury is tapping a civil service retirement fund to avoid hitting the government's borrowing limit, the first time since 1995.
Although the article mentions several times how Robert Rubin tapped into that same fund in 1995, it fails to mention the fact that it was during Newt Gingrich's forced shut down of the government. The Clinton administration borrowing money from the "G-Fund" had nothing to do with outspending revenues. It had to do with the republicans trying to blackmail the President into signing a budget without proper negotiation. Rubin was just trying to keep the government functioning, while the republicans played their devious (and dangerous) games. Even so, the GOP was extremely vocal in their condemnation of Rubin's actions.
Here is an article from 1995 that describes what was really happening.
otherwise noted, all original