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). 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 the not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.

Dear Buzz,

STUNNED is the only word to describe my reaction upon reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/20/politics/20SECU.html in The New York Times today.

The first sentence in the article: "Bush administration officials acknowledged today that the Department of Homeland Security would need years to organize itself fully and that the logistics involved in merging 22 agencies and nearly 170,000 government workers into a giant new bureaucracy could threaten to divert the department from its central mission of safeguarding the American public from terrorist attacks." leaves me gasping for air.

Following is the letter I sent to the executive editor of The New York Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: "Establishing Homeland Security Agency Is Expected to Take Years"

Dear Howell Raines,

I have to wonder why The New York Times is publishing this story today. Twelve hours ago, the United States Senate voted 90-9 in approval of the new Homeland security department. Many senators voted "for" the legislation believing, probably correctly, that the American people would accuse them of not moving speedily enough to protect America if they did not support this legislation.

This article could have been written yesterday or last week or last month. There is nothing in it that is news.

The startling news we stare at (on the Internet version of The Times) this morning informs us that "The logistics involved in the bureaucracy could threaten to divert the department from safeguarding the public from attacks."

The Times knew this a month ago and yet failed -- yes, failed -- to inform America that this rush to pass the Homeland Security bill was phony. Not only was there no need for speed in passing this bill but we now learn that by passing this legislation and throwing the federal government agencies into Moving Day turmoil actually puts Americans at MORE risk than we would have been if there was no agency reorganization.

This is stunning news. And it is old news.

Wasn't it the responsibility of The New York Times to inform its readers (and Americans, in general) -- in a timely manner -- about the REAL effects of this legislation? Why could The Times not have informed Americans, while the senate was still debating the merits of this legislation, that the "benefits" from this agency reorganization would not occur for years?

The first sentence in the article: "Bush administration officials acknowledged today that the Department of Homeland Security would need years to organize itself fully and that the logistics involved in merging 22 agencies and nearly 170,000 government workers into a giant new bureaucracy could threaten to divert the department from its central mission of safeguarding the American public from terrorist attacks." leaves me gasping for air. The Times did not just learn this from the Bush administration after the senate vote. You must have learned about the Bush administration's "acknowledgment" earlier, or -- if you didn't -- you should be FURIOUS at the Bush people for deceiving you and the American people.

I don't know whether The Times really knew and withheld the information (in which case I would be angry at The Times editors and you) or the Bush administration withheld this stunning revelation until after the vote (in which case I do not understand your lack of rage at the deception involved here).

Someone needs to answer for this hideous withholding of significant information from the American people. I am certain that if the American people had known before the final vote last night that this reorganization, advertised as a move to improve our safety, would actually jeopardize our safety for the next few years, there would have been an avalanche of protests against this reorganization.

The Times is a day late.

Yours sincerely,

Lois Erwin

Subj: What the hell are we gonna do?????

Dear BuzzFlash,

For well over 2 years now I have visited your site literally several times a day! At your site I always found at least a few articles that contained at least some hope for saving our Democracy.

But with the capitulating, and wimpy Democrats and since the Repugs "won" this mid-term election handing them absolute power, your site has become a real horror show! (not your fault!)

I can't believe that I am watching before my eyes the final dismembering of our Constitution, our Republic and its Democratic process! I see all of this and then I look outside my window to see people going about their business as if nothing at all was wrong! This is crazy! It seems the Democrats in Congress and the American people are on drugs while the Pugs proceed to concentrate power in the hands of one unstable and idiotic man--George W. Bush!

What the hell are we gonna do????????

Nancy Lynn Nagy (TN)

Subj: Homeland Security

Dear BuzzFlash,

The sight of the new logo for the Homeland Security Scam makes me sick. But, as as Dubya says, "you're either with us or against us," so...... I've decided to write the Homeland Security Dept. myself weekly. I will detail my purchases, send copies of my emails, send receipt copies of everything I've bought. My doctors bills, dentist bills and copies of all my paid utility bills. If I've taken any pictures of my family and friends, I'll send them along too, because YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE HOMELAND SECURITY PEOPLE MAY HAVE MISSED! I'll be sure to include the titles of any books or magazines I may have read, even if they are from my personal stash of romance paperbacks. I'll print out a copy of my website logs, and send a detail on my meals, what I have eaten, and which medicine I have taken throughout the week, and which television shows I have watched. If I call in sick to my job, I'll be sure to let Mr. Ridge know that, too. However, if we all sent in weekly or monthly reports on our daily activities they would have no place to house the massive amounts of mail. They already have 17 trailers filled with unread mail, dissenting opinions most of it. How convenient that anthrax made the reading of mail by Bush Inc. impossible. To get around this problem, we can address the envelope with "Attn: Homeland Security" then they would only need to irradiate that portion of the mail that contains information. See how we can make a difference? God Bless America!

From a loyal Buzzer.

Re: Ron Paul

"An idiosyncratic libertarian..."

Having read quite a few of his commentaries, as I'm sure you have, I find your describing him as an "idiosyncratic libertarian" objectionable.

Wouldn't Patriot be a better choice? If you must, Right Wing Patriot.

The issues involved are American issues. They are not Democrat or Republican or Libertarian. Those objecting to what is happening to our country are from all segments of the political scene. Byrd, Waxman, Bob Barr, Wm. Safire, etc. They are taking a patriotic stand. They are standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Those going along and betraying us also come from all segments of the political scene. Lott, Hastert, Daschle, Gephardt, etc. They are aiding the fascist cabal of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc. in destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It is not idiosyncratic to be a patriot. He's on your side in fighting these fascist bastards.

bob reynolds, orange park, fl

Dear BuzzFlash,

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/20/politics/21CND-JUDG.html

I love how "democrats sell out consumers and abortions rights activists" becomes "a gift is given to Strom "I Used to be in the Klan" Thurmond." What is the point of voting for democrats? You might as well cut out the middle man and vote straight GOP!

Brendan Skwire

Dear BuzzFlash,

The quotation where Bush says he doesn't have to explain anything to anybody. Now why should we be surprised by that. He never has - the "sleaze" from Maine pretending he's from Texas living on an old "family ranch" and the paint is so new (& wet) he still can't find the liquor cabinet. He has been a total failure at everything he's done. Why do the American people have any respect for someone born with everything given to him and try to trash a man who had a goal in mind from the time he was 12 years old and pulled himself up by his bootstraps and attained the American dream. The "sleaze" needs to be removed from office - he fully intends to declare martial law and we will not have another presidential election - and you know what - I believe he would get away with it while we all sit out here saying "save me, save me" with the country going straight to hell as fast as "the sleaze" can get us there.

Sharon

To Norma Tofanelli,

I know just how you feel but let's keep things straight. Ted Kennedy was in the Senate to vote against Homeland Security--one of the lonely nine.

--- Jo Ann McNamara

Hi BuzzFlash,

Although King George keeps prattling about leading a "coalition of the willing" against Iraq, I haven't seen a single news report about who might actually be in this coalition, other than Tony Blair. Have I missed something, or is it just a case of the news media not wanting to rattle the cage of Boy George?

Jon Krampner

Dear Buzz:

One of your contributors (Lawrence Mcmanus) had the good idea that each of us donate $25 to the Mary Landrieu campaign. I did. He also wondered how much impact it would have. Good question.

Buzz has been doing a sensational job over the years keeping us informed and giving expression to our feelings. But still . . . Things are not going well for us. Indeed they're getting worse. What can be done to make us a more potent force? I mean, our representatives still lack courage. In spite of our ranting, they continue to behave like quasi-Republicans. Hell it took Safire to spell out the pernicious effects of Homeland Security. Today, they allowed Thurmond's judge to go forward. Clearly, we have no effect upon them. We should have been able to stop Daschle from being anointed as leader again.

We know that they're weak. We know that they're all cowards. So all we really have to do is to find a way to make them more scared of US, than they are of the Repuglicans and of FOX "News". How can we make a difference?

WLC.

Subj: Last Night on Fox

Dear BuzzFlash,

Was it just me or did Casper Weinberger (Iran/Contra) say that James Earl Carter (A GREAT president and human being) hated this country. It was on Hannity and Combs last night. Are we liberals going to keep letting the conservative neo fascists say that we hate this country? Who will ask them "Have you no shame as last"?

Michael Hawk

Subj: Daschle's Remarks

Dear BuzzFlash,

So what interested me most in the article on Daschle and Limbaugh was Daschle's description of Republican listeners as: "people [that] aren't satisfied just to listen.... They want to act because they get emotionally invested."

Maybe Daschle should try to figure out what Limbaugh is doing that the Democrats aren't. Not that anyone should be making death threats or being violent in any way... it would just be nice to get the majority of people who are against the Homeland Security Act and other policies "emotionally invested" enough to take (nonviolent) action for their beliefs.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subj: The BBDB

Dear Buzz,

In reference to the impending Big Brother Database (BBDB), I have heard various Bushies make statements similar to the following one made in a Fox News story:

"I find it somewhat counter intuitive that people are not concerned that telemarketers and insurance companies can acquire this data but feel tremendous trepidation if a government ventures into this arena. To me it just smacks of paranoia," said David Rivkin, an attorney for Baker & Hostetler LLP.

What an idiot! How can he compare telemarketers to government agents? The worst a telemarketer can do is disturb your dinner. Thanks to the Patriot act, the worst the government can do is raid your home in the middle of the night without a warrant, then whisk you away to an undisclosed location where you can be held in secrecy and interrogated for an indefinite period and denied access to a lawyer. Then they can put on trial in front of a military tribunal which can sentence you to death without the benefit of a jury of your peers. Yeah, I AM totally paranoid. But as a famous psychopath once said, "Total paranoia is total awareness".

Dave