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 500. 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 BuzzFlash Mailbag:

Upon reading the article today on Potassium Iodide pills being offered to UPS workers, (USPS Workers Get Potassium Iodide Pills) I find myself either amused or confused. Of course being a "canuck" who's country ranks #4 in the world for education as compared to #18 for USA, I ask forgiveness for my perplexity.

If I have this right, (cause it surely ain't "left"), UPS workers have had a "reputation" in the past of "losing it at times due to stress in the workplace". Then come 911, we find the anthrax invading their field, the man occupying the white house, pumps them up with drugs, for their protection. (Now let's take a moment and reflect on the mysterious appearance of anthrax, still unidentified). Then of course we have the big spiel on smallpox. Vaccinations being purchased and offered, which I assume will include UPS workers seeing as they handle letters which are sent by potential smallpoxers. Now we have the "infamous" brilliant minds in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, offering free Potassium Iodide to all 750,000 workers as a "proactive approach safety and health approach to them.

Is it just me or has the Bush govt literally gone "postal", and replaced lab rats with postal workers, to carry out their experimentation on?

Its bad enough the "war on drugs" has not succeeded, and society has already become dependent on antidepressants, and a plethora of other prettily packaged pills from the pharmaceuticals, but in my humble, cold Canadian great white north opinion, this latest offer to UPS gives a new meaning to "gone postal".

Yours in kind and humor,

Ev
From the Other country in North America
BC, Canada

p.s. always remember: "If all else fails, blame Canada"

Subj: "DiIulio Knocks His Own Criticisms of White House" - are you SERIOUS !?!??

Dear BuzzFlash,

I thought you and fellow readers may get a kick out of this e-mail that I sent to FoxCartoons concerning their spin on the DiIulio revelations and subsequent attempt at a cover-up.

The link to the article on their website is attached. You will find it interesting.

Subject: "DiIulio Knocks His Own Criticisms of White House" - are you SERIOUS !?!??

I simply cannot resist responding to your article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71919,00.html on John J. DiIulio Jr.'s alleged apologies to the White House and to Esquire magazine for his assertions of the White House's pervasive politicking.

You have absolutely GOT to be joking. You are entirely misleading in this article . . . . and any free-Thinking individual who is not a "Fall in Lock-Step-sean-hannity-'I'm-a-rush-limbaugh-wannabee'-Right Wing Lemming" knows this.

FoxCartoons LAUDED the fact (of course, when it was politically advantageous) that GeeDubya nominated a Democrat to serve as the first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives when DiIulio was first appointed. Your network couldn't WAIT for the first sentence of this piece to point this out. Now that DiIulio pens a piece in Esquire . . . IN HIS OWN WORDS . . . that calls into question the policies of this lame administration being led by politics and the antics of Karl Rove, you attempt to portray this as a misrepresentation. You repeatedly state that DiIulio "is quoted as saying" and "is also credited as saying" . . . yet this was a piece that was WRITTEN by DiIulio HIMSELF!!! Are you trying to say that DiIulio was mis-quoted by . . . none other than DiIulio !?!? C'mon, you may fool the masses that comprise the RWLemmingdom-Pubbiehood, but the premise of your referenced article is a joke, and you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't have the courage and decency to admit it. In fact, this kind of dishonesty is unquestionably un-patriotic!!

For a . . . ahem . . ."news" . . . network that laughingly touts itself to be "fair and balanced", you have unabashedly reached an unprecedented low. rogerailes really needs to take a step back and re-evaluate where he thinks he can get away with allowing this kind of phony rhetoric to reach the public domain. Perhaps he can do so on this absurdly ridiculous network, or perhaps in his council to the so-called "commander-in-chief", but not in the real world.

Your network salivates at dredging up Clintonian references . . . . . imagine how outraged you would be if the prior administration had pulled this stunt . . . . . you wouldn't be able to contain yourselves.

Please don't bother wasting my time by responding - unless, of course - you are willing to address the fact that your pathetic attempt at damage control is nothing more than rhetorical spin.

If you want to be considered a legitimate news network, then call it like it is. Don't simply succumb to your pathetic ideology. After all, you ARE "fair and balanced" . . . isn't that right ?!?

I anxiously anticipate your attempt at a legitimate rebuttal.

Warmest Regards,

A BuzzFlash Reader

Dear BuzzFlash,

As I awoke this morning I heard a piece of national news about Bush canceling a Clinton directive that he made putting aside money made available to the states to help parents take time off to care for a sick child. The states could pay the money out as a replacement for a paycheck. The reason for canceling this directive according to Bush was the "weak economy" and the fact "that the unemployment benefits was going to run out and they (gov) need the money for that."

I've looked around but could not find anything up about this.

A BuzzFlash Reader

[BuzzFlash Note: It's all right here: "Bush to End Rule Allowing Jobless Money for New Parents," http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/politics/04LEAV.html. Bush is a moron AND a jerk.]

Subj: Naomi Klein

Dear BuzzFlash,

Typical Republicanism. If people aren't buying your product, spend more on advertising. God forbid that you design a better product; that would be admitting there was something wrong with the earlier one. And that would make you a "Blame-America-First-er!"

That's the reason the GOP needs to spend more money on campaigns; it costs a lot more to sell something people really don't want. Campaign finance reform is SO unfair.

Richard Peterson

Sent to BuzzFlash and ray@raytal.com:

Hi -

Just seen on the CNN news ticker-tape: Bush is trying to reverse the "Family Leave" act that Clinton put in place which allows people to be away from their jobs without losing them in order to attend to sick family members.

I just alerted people about your great program last night including the two resource items re: Saudi Arabia/Oil Dependence. And, I told them where to listen and where to find the BuzzFlash page. You & BuzzFlash really keep people informed!

Barb Mauz

Subj: Shrill and Dim-witted

Dear BuzzFlash,

Shrill? The WSJ editorial page called YOU shrill? That is like George Will calling someone condescending. Incredible. And dim-witted? Their recent editorial deploring the low rate of income taxes on low-income workers was the most dim-witted editorial I have ever read. The logic seems to be that if low-income workers were taxed at higher rates, they would be mad enough to vote Republican, who would then, I suppose, give them a tax cut, putting them right back where they started. That editorial is about as dim-witted as they come.

Gerald Gherardini

Subj: NY Times Full Page Ad

Dear Buzz,

I hope many of your followers are aware of a full page ad placed in the NY Times today 12/4, by "religious leaders from every faith..." It begins with the headline "President Bush: Jesus changed your heart. Now let Him change your mind." Later on: "Your church leaders have sought private hearings with you .... they've been denied."

To sign up for their on-line campaign, visit TrueMajority.com

Pamela of the Poconos

Subj: DiIulio Recants?

Many pundits have made note of the language John DiIulio used in his apology (to whom?) for the Esquire letter at the core of Ron Suskind's "Esquire" article. "Baseless and groundless" appear lifted directly from Ari Fleischer's dismissive comments about the piece.

DiIulio is a very clever and intelligent man. By inserting Fleischer's words into his own repentant offering, could he be trying to tell us he was strongly coerced into denying his original statements? Are we even sure DiIulio authored the apology? Perhaps the release was penned in Rove's office and was sent to DiIulio for his signature?

This should be the bigger story. The events leading up to the DiIulio recant need to be exposed and reported.

F Calandra
NY State

Hi BuzzFlash,

Good reply, from the gentleman, Bill Moyer.

Mr. O'Reilly is NO competition for anyone who is with the truth (truth to him is like the cross is to a vampire). *He can't handle the truth!* He actually believes his own lies. Try as he may, Bill Moyers, is one person O'Reilly can not spin to suit his lying ways. Side by side with Bill Moyer, O'Reilly is a tiny, little man, one of the many tiny people from Faux (and the media in general)!

My opinion, you be the judge!

A BuzzFlash Reader

Dear BuzzFlash,

An amusing note.....

On today's CNN site, the headlines read "Strom Thurmond Turns 100", and right underneath it is another headline, "Oldest American Skull Found".

Love the buzz.....

A reader

Dear BuzzFlash,

Thanks for Naomi Klein's interview. I especially thought her observations and theories about the quashing of dissent by the media were right on target, in that she holds the belief that besides the media feeling a desperate need to serve their corporate owners and advertisers, there are also personal issues with many people in the news media. Many of them were liberal in their ideology and many of them were anti-war protestors and activists back in the 60's and 70's. This is something that I've wondered a lot about lately. I know that a lot of these talking heads know that what they're reporting is bull crap. So I ask myself all the time how they live with themselves. I guess it's a pretty naive question. Sure, I know, the money is unbelievable, the fame is addictive, the stock options are seductive. But what about their principles? Isn't there anyone that will refuse to sell out? Naomi Klein points out that a lot of these people may feel the need to suppress dissent and perpetuate the impression that activism today is naive in order to justify their complete change in values. They do not want to give up the lifestyles that they traded their principles for, and they rationalize this by mocking, or basically ignoring the dissent and protesting that is now occurring. So there is a combination of reasons for the media wanting to declare activism dead. We're not gonna let them get away with that, are we? Anyway, it was an enlightening interview, and I'm also with her 100% in her encouragement of media activism.

Barbara in NYC