May 3, 2002

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. Thank you.

The BuzzFlash Mailbag is updated on an ongoing basis, with the newest material and comments on top. Again, 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.

Keep up the good work - I love your Web site!

Printed below is a link to a 4/26/02 Denver Post story you may want to show on your Web site. GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo (who is a conservative extremist gasbag) is inaccurately blaming environmentalists for the current wildfire problems in Colorado. The story contains an admission from Tancredo's office that the environmentalists' action was in relation to an area separate from the wildfires (and therefore has nothing to do with them), but he is blaming environmentalists anyway, simply because he doesn't like them. The GHP never lets facts stand in the way of some good environmentalist-bashing!

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,
36%257E23447%257E571761%257E,00.html

Steve Heilman

Dear Buzz,

Would anyone except me, love to know what goes on in the minds of people like Scaife and Limbaugh? What is it that they hate so much about him? Are they just that jealous...that I could understand..but the venom that comes from these two, and has since the first time the man entered politics, no one should have to endure!

Shirley, St.Louis

[BuzzFlash Note: Please don't ever ask us to imagine what "goes on in the minds" of Scaife or Limbaugh. That's the kind of stuff that'll ruin a good meal.]

Dear BuzzFlash,

Did you notice that "Blinded by the Right" didn't make the top 50 of the USA Today's best-selling book list. Whereas it made the top 10 of the NY Times list. Isn't that a bit odd?

- Brad

Dear Buzz,

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=humannews&StoryID=905337

Why on earth are we Americans booing the Canadians & their National Anthem?? What is this world coming to? Has everyone gone plain crazy?

Linda Kekumu

DEAR BUZZFLASH:

The news media has been full of reports in the last couple of months about the GOP's efforts to make W's economic stimulus package -- corporate tax cut -- permanent. W touts how well the economic stimulus is working so far, even though the recovery is at best anemic and faltering as we speak, and little brother Jeb is pushing the Florida legislature to pass legislation to give the state's major corporations a $262 windfall this year (with over a $1 billion deficits currently totaled up).

So you have to imagine my hearty belly laugh when I read the following article in BuzzFlash today: "Government to borrow $1 billion this quarter to cover shortfall." Golly gee, I'm not the brightest bulb, but the tax cut seems to me the same misbegotten thinking as the supply-side economics of the Reagan era, which led to a terrible recession. The Reagan policy was termed "voodoo economics," wasn't it?

I recall that in the past month and a half, two separate efforts have been made to raise the debt ceiling -- unsuccessfully. Hmmm. The fact is, the cat's out of the bag. Dang it, W and O'Neill must be athinkin'. Try as it might, the administration now can't cover up the fact that "(t)he government, in a sharp reversal of earlier borrowing plans, said Monday that it plans to tap $1 billion from the credit markets this quarter to compensate for lower-than-expected income-tax payments and to cover the cost of this year's economic stimulus package." Excuse me, borrowing to cover the cost of this year's portion of the economic stimulus package? Ahem. Isn't that an oxymoron?

It's remarkable that "(i)t marked the first time since 1995 that the government needed to borrow in the April-June quarter. That quarter is generally flush with cash because of a flood of income tax payments flowing in Treasury's coffers." Do you suppose that's because the rich and political patrons of W are paying a lot less in taxes? Or maybe it's because so many taxpayers have been laid off. The layoffs continue. That's confusing, isn't it. In an upturn hiring ramps up, but we see layoffs continue, and businesses are very, very slow to hire call back those that it already laid off.

Well, I'm no economist, so maybe I'm just confused. Must be one of those tricky Chinese puzzles.

Sharon Andrews

Hi Buzz:

Just heard on tomorrow's Crossfire, Matt Drudge, the Walter Winchell wannabe, will be on the show defending his website. Please, who's been picked on more than you guys? How about you getting a hold of Paul B. and asking for a spot to defend our great website? You could bring one of your terrific shirts showing the WSJ quote on the back. After all, you have been mentioned on the show, so you certainly deserve the same time as that little creep Drudge does.

If I can do anything to help, let me know. I would be soooo delighted to actually see someone I feel I know. I'm positive you would be terrific and what great exposure for your site....I'm sure regulars who visit your site from Washington would love to get tickets for the show. Anyway, just a thought. Take care.

Regards,
Marlene

Dear BuzzFlash,

As a former officer in the US Navy with many liberal sentiments, and a fan of BuzzFlash, I want to point out that the following headline: "Install sniper towers around nuclear plants, study suggests. And We All Know How Effective Sniper Fire is Against A Plane Flying 500 Miles an Hour Right At You. Hey, Here's a Crazy Idea . . . No Nuclear Reactors Means No Targets! 5/2", reveals a lack of knowledge of available weapons systems.

The Close In Weapons System (or CIWS), installed as a defense of last resort on Naval ships would be perfectly capable of chopping up an airline heading for a nuclear power plant. This is a high speed automated gun that fires spent uranium bullets that could slice and dice any plane in its range. The question one might ask is: Do we want to install such a weapon? (as elegant a recycling solution for nuclear power plant waste as it is) If you leave it on (which is the only way it is effective) you run the risk of destroying any plane running innocently off-course. If it is used accidentally or on purpose, there is a major clean-up problem. The Navy seldom leaves these things on unless there is a real threat.

Yours truly,
John Bonanno

[BuzzFlash Note: We learn something new every day. BuzzFlash has never claimed to be an authority on (or even aware of) small weapons that are "capable of chopping up an airline heading for a nuclear power plant" -- Youch! Is that a Ginzu product? It still doesn't downplay the significance of getting rid of nuclear plants as a means of making them terrorist-safe -- it's hard to blow up something that doesn't exist. More importantly, four thousand windmills or 200 square miles of electricty-generating heat panels, besides being more difficult to destroy, won't create the level of destruction and long-term devastation as one, mind you, ONE Cheney-sponsored nuclear reactor.]

Dear Buzz,

Regarding David Rowland's letter of May 2nd, he is absolutely right to say that something stinks.

As a matter of fact, in January of 2001, I was researching an article about the alleged oil and gasoline shortages of Winter 99-00 and Fall/Winter 2000. Via articles that included comments by politicians and oil industry insiders, as well as statistics and data available on the web, the evidence showed that the shortages were artificial - and did indeed cause an economic slowdown (not a recession).

Most interesting, I found that where the artificial shortages occurred corresponded to more Democratic parts of the country. Lay a map of these areas over the infamous "red and blue" map and see what you think.

Lastly, by comparing presidential campaign contributions at opensecrets.org given by the
companies and individuals that were manipulating the oil/gasoline markets, I found that the donors overwhelmingly favored Bush/Cheney and were - I believe - making a strategic effort to strangle certain regions to squeeze votes out for Bush.

Was it a coordinated strategy, discussed between the clubby, back-slapping corporate officers who run these companies? Or was it just a coincidence because they all wanted their boy Bush in the White House? We may never know, but the effect on us and the economic health of our nation was the same.

Mike Kress
Everett, WA

Dear BuzzFlash,

Firstly I wish to congratulate you for some of the excellent commentaries you have made available regarding the current crisis in the Middle East. Intelligent, insightful and well balanced. It is to your credit that you have provided your readers with such quality information. Having said that, I have come to expect no less from BuzzFlash! Secondly, I sense a change in the wind. Is it just my optimistic personality, or are you sensing that
chinks in the armor of the 'Bush Gang' are starting to appear. Certainly one does not have to search so far to find those in the mainstream media, poking their noses out from under the sheets, and starting to ask the hard questions. Possibly even a growing disquiet amongst the people? You guys would have a much better feel than I about all of this. What do you think?

D.M.Reid (NZ)

[BuzzFlash Note: It does seem like we've seen a few more articles on the Bush Administration's penchant for stupendous blunders and their lamprey-like ties to the butt of corporate America. Let's keep our fingers crossed that journalists will keep asking questions.]