 |
Have some fun with Google StreetView |
©2001 chadsux
©2001 Chris Whitehouse
|
In This Edition We spotlight the cartoons of Lisa Casey with additional cartoons from Cunningham Strikes, Chris Whitehouse and Chadsux. In part IV of 'Gimmie That Old Time Religion' Kelly Cogswell talks about "Bush: Civility, Suckers and American Saviors." Patrick Martin explains how the "Bush Goverment Gap Could Lead To A Secret Goverment." Greg Palast talks about the "Silence of the Lambs: The Election Story Never Told." In Quotable Quote M.E. Cowan tells the truth about Republican lies! Eric C. Jacobson & David Harnden-Warwick explain what we can do about the 'Gang of Five' in "An Open Letter to the American People." Daphne Eviatar tells us every thing about "Murdoch's Fox News." Thomas L. Friedman shows Smirky another possibility to his tax cut in "You're Clear To Land." Molly Ivins explores Smirky's foreign policy in "A Go Round on Foreign Policy Ride." Steve Capozzola has a protest idea in "A Note of Protest." The Onion reports that an "'80s Retro Craze Sweeps Executive Branch" but first Uncle Ernie says he has "A Change Of Heart." Plus we have all your favorite departments plus two new ones. "Activist Alerts" will tell you where it's at and how you can get involved and "Friends Of The Revolution" will give you other links that you can use in our fight to restore the Republic! So welcome once again to "Issues & Alibis." We hope you enjoy your stay! 
As a writer I have always found it necessary to do all the research first and to check it's accuracy before I write a single page. With a major in Political Science and minors in History I have a good background to write about politics. When I gather the stories for this ezine I take my time to check the facts, always looking before I leap so as not to look the fool but more importantly not to mislead my readers. It must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with the exception of the obvious comedy pieces we run. We run the comedy pieces of course because sometimes you need to laugh to keep from crying.
The reason I started Issues & Alibis wasn't for profit or fame or whatever but only to show my outrage at the election. I have a historical horror book that is supposed to be finished by the end of summer and it will be but I don't think it's going to be this summer. This ezine was something as an American citizen I was compelled to do. I was the last person on earth I ever thought would turn into a patriot. After my stint in the US Army I had enough of the federal government to last a lifetime and other than voting in every election, except for the last one, I let it go at that.
I wasn't sure if I should be happy, because with the exception of two emails, I hadn’t heard any complaints. Both authors agreed with me about Smirky the Chimp but said they didn't like the use of the Swastikas. Well I don't like the Swastika either, except for its original use as a symbol in India as well as several Native American nations for the quartering of the universe into active and passive principles. However, one must admit that it's modern use is certainly suitable as a symbol for Smirky. The other nearly 300 letters pretty much sang the praises of the site. I read Bartcop almost daily and he is forever having to debate some brain dead ditto head and I was beginning to wonder where I went wrong. I mean, how come the right wing doesn't mess with me? Don't they see me as a threat too? But this week I finally got my very own hate mail!
It was written by a Nazi lady or a very strange Nazi man, who took exception with the entire concept of "Issues & Alibis. I smiled to myself as I read her venom until the last line in which she accused me of presenting a one sided argument. Where was my ‘Liberal’ fair play? Shouldn't I really show both sides of the story and let my readers make up their own minds?
That got me thinking about fair play and such
and I had to admit that this thing has been one sided. Sure the Nazi's control almost all the television news, radio and the print media. But by doing the same thing that they were doing wasn't I falling to their level? Wasn't I by doing this becoming my own enemy? Shouldn't I be fair and present both sides of the argument?
Well needless to say that sent me off on several hours of deep inner thoughts. And I finally came to the conclusion she was right and perhaps George wasn't all that bad and maybe, if we all gave him a chance he could be the best president this country has ever seen and by golly that’s exactly what I'm going to do! From now on things are going to change. No longer just a liberal outlook, from now on I'm going to give the other side fair play! Isn't that what the Republic was based on? The free exchange of ideas and the right to debate them. So from now on it's a brand new day America! Oh yes, and one other thing, April Fools!
Bush: Civility, Suckers, and American Saviors
In his inaugural manifesto, the heir to the American
presidency, George W. Bush proclaimed "...some needs and hurts are so deep
they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church
and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity,
and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws."
In less than fifty words, Bush established his belief in the inhumanity
and ineffectiveness of the non-religious, and his intention to install his
fundamentalist, Christian beliefs in U.S. law. Perhaps he was talking
about Church and State when he called himself a uniter and not a divider.
The Theocracy
Bush literally began turning words into flesh last week, by winning the
58-42 Senate confirmation of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-minority,
religious fundamentalist activist John Ashcroft as attorney general of the
United States.
His first action as President had been to announce his intention to ban
all U.S. aid to any family-planning group overseas that as much as
whispers to women the word "abortion," even if they do so in their own
time and with their own (non-U.S.) money. The favorite mainstream media
phrase "defunding family-planning groups" does not begin to capture the
truth. This is what it means:
You're a family-planning nurse in a remote, desperately poor African
village. A pregnant woman with AIDS comes to you. She's very ill. You have
no expensive retroviral cocktails to offer her, no sophisticated
post-natal care to offer her newborn. You know she will probably die in
childbirth or shortly thereafter, leaving a possibly HIV-positive newborn
and 5 other orphans (the father having already died of AIDS).
You know your ethical and humanitarian duty is to tell this woman that
abortion, which is legal in her country for someone as sick as her, is an
option. However, if you do so, you'll loose the U.S. funding that keeps
your clinic afloat. In other words, a pregnant African woman with AIDS
must die, and condemn her children to poverty and possibly illness, to
satisfy the ego of overfed American fundamentalists.
In the Field
This is not a far-fetched scenario: it's daily life for those who are
trying to save real human lives in the field, instead of fiddling with
human souls from their cushiony Oval Office. Bush is not just restricting
women's control over the number and timing of their children, without
which, even the U.N. now agrees, their countries are doomed to remain the
poorest of the poor, but undermining health care in general, in particular
AIDS prevention.
AIDS is the millennial Black Plague to the global poor, the grim reaper of
emerging economies, and, according to the CIA, a national security risk.
No doubt, funding for AIDS and related services, especially those managed
by godless gay groups, will feel the axe next.
Which is right in line with Bush's determination to lavish federal funding
on sectarian charity organizations. One of the supposed moderates heading
up Bush's plan to bankroll religion with taxpayers' money is former Mayor
Stephen Goldsmith of Indianapolis, who has argued that homeless shelters
should be allowed to ask recipients to pray.
Immoral Dissent
While the implementation of theocratic policy is bad enough, worse for
U.S. democracy is how Bush and his speech writers have made dissent
immoral. They've carefully established that our appointed Bush not only
has a divine right to rule by virtue of genes and fortune, but that he is
acting on God's orders. "We are not this story's author, who fills time
and eternity with His purpose. Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty...."
The way Bush protects his position that there is no morality outside his
particular fundamentalist mania—which even seems to exclude moderate
pro-life Christians, and fundamentalist African Americans with more than
one issue on their plate—is by pairing his divine purpose with a mandate
of civility for dissenters.
In our age, as much as in Edith Wharton's or Emily Post's, civility is
just code for sit down and shut up. But this charming, charmed gentleman,
applauded even by Democrats, has made it a religious imperative, tying
obedience to God and goodness, and painting the opposition, not only as
rude and uncouth, but frankly, in league with the devil.
Innocent Americans
His pitch is effective because our national character is sharply defined
by a narcissistic love of our own innocent goodness, our respectable
modesty, our niceness. We are do-gooders and self-improvers. We believe in
appearances, which is why so many voted for Bush and can still be wowed by
him. And why, when the votes were not counted in Florida, most of us
didn't take to the streets, but sent circumspect letters and emails, made
sedate phone calls, thinking it couldn't happen here.
In fact, American democracy has always been more and less imperfect,
fragile, and corrupt. We've made some strides, but equality is still a
pipe dream for many of us. And we won't get it unless we yank the sheets
off of our greed for skin-deep goodness, innocence, and civility, and show
the rot underneath.
As the one-time preacher, and black, gay, American James Baldwin wrote in
The Fire Next Time, "...this is the crime of which I accuse my country and
my countrymen, and for which neither I nor time nor history will ever
forgive them, that they have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of
thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it. One can
be, indeed one must strive to become, tough and philosophical concerning
destruction and death, for this is what most of mankind has been best at
since we have heard of man. (But remember: most of mankind is not all of
mankind.) But it is not permissible that the authors of devastation should
also be innocent. It is the innocence which constitutes the crime." 
By Patrick Martin "In the initial stages of the Bush administration, there were attempts to put a good face on the president's less than strenuous activity level, suggesting that Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney would team up in the style of a corporate CEO and Chief Operating Officer—one setting policy, the other supervising its day-to-day execution. Another interpretation was that Bush would act as ceremonial head of state, with Cheney serving as de facto prime minister. Such musings ignore a fundamental fact of the US constitutional structure: there is not a separation, as in other capitalist democracies, between the head of state and head of government. While in many countries a constitutional monarch or president carries out ceremonial functions, while the prime minister actually directs policy-making and the daily operations of government, in the United States these roles are combined in a single office. The US president is ultimately answerable to the ruling corporate and financial oligarchy, but his office is not that of a mere figurehead. The presidency is at the center of a vortex of conflicting social and political forces. The occupant of the White House holds the highest office in a massive, highly complex and volatile society. Recent events—the impeachment of Clinton, the election crisis of 2000—have revealed an enormous sharpening of tensions, both between the major social classes, and within the ruling economic and political strata. There are many signs of deep divisions and the growth of centrifugal tendencies within the political establishment. Especially under such conditions, the political, emotional and intellectual demands on the president are considerable. "The divisions that exist within the US ruling elite as a whole are reflected within the Bush administration. Overseas commentators have raised concerns over the apparent lack of cohesion within the Bush administration, especially in foreign policy matters. It is well known, for example, that there are divisions within Bush's foreign affairs team over US policy toward Iraq, with Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld skeptical, at best, over the proposal of Secretary of State Colin Powell to scale back the sanctions regime against Baghdad. But with the installation of Bush—in a manner that has compromised his legitimacy from the outset—the American ruling elite has elevated a man wholly unqualified and unequipped to meet the demands of his office. There exists a gaping vacuum of leadership at the center of the American government, a vacuum that, like the tax cut plan, expresses both disorientation and recklessness on the part of decisive sections of the US ruling elite. They are consumed by the most short-term considerations, above all, by the state of their stock portfolios. All other issues are subordinated to the overriding question of how to enrich those who are already wealthy beyond belief.
"Not since the waning days of the Reagan administration has a US president been so visibly out of his depth and politically disengaged.
The consequences then were the Iran-contra affair and the emergence of a secret "government within the government"—a network of military and intelligence
operatives that carried out its own foreign policy, with the tacit approval of the president."
Here's how the president of the United States was elected: In the
months leading up to the November balloting, Florida Governor Jeb
Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered local
elections supervisors to purge 64,000 voters from voter lists on the
grounds that they were felons who were not entitled to vote in Florida.
As it turns out, these voters weren't felons, or at least, only a very few
were. However, the voters on this "scrub list" were, notably,
African-American (about 54 percent), while most of the others wrongly
barred from voting were white and Hispanic Democrats.
Beginning in November, this extraordinary news ran, as it should, on
Page 1 of the country's leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the
wrong country: Britain. In the United States, it ran on page zero — that
is, the story was not covered on the news pages. The theft of the
presidential race in Florida also was given big television network
coverage. But again, it was on the wrong continent: on BBC television,
London.
Was this some off-the-wall story that the Brits misreported? A lawyer for
the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called it the first hard evidence of a
systematic attempt to disenfranchise black voters; the commission held
dramatic hearings on the evidence. While the story was absent from
America's news pages (except, I grant, a story in the Orlando Sentinel
and another on C-Span), columnists for The New York Times, Boston
Globe and Washington Post cited the story after seeing a U.S. version
on the Internet magazine Salon.com. As the reporter on the story for
Britain's Guardian newspaper (and its Sunday edition, The Observer)
and for BBC television, I was interviewed on several American radio
programs, generally "alternative" stations on the left side of the dial.
Interviewers invariably asked the same two questions, "Why was this
story uncovered by a British reporter?" And, "Why was it published in
and broadcast from Europe?"
I'd like to know the answer myself. That way I could understand why I
had to move my family to Europe in order to print and broadcast this
and other crucial stories about the American body politic in mainstream
media. The bigger question is not about the putative brilliance of the
British press. I'd rather ask how a hundred thousand U.S. journos
failed to get the vote theft story and print it (and preferably before the
election).
Think about "investigative" reporting. The best investigative stories are
expensive to produce, risky and upset the wisdom of the established
order. Do profit-conscious enterprises, whether media companies or
widget firms, seek extra costs, extra risk and the opportunity to be
attacked? Not in any business text I've ever read. I can't help but note
that the Guardian and Observer is the world's only leading newspaper
owned by a not-for-profit corporation, as is BBC television.
But if profit-lust is the ultimate problem blocking significant investigative
reportage, the more immediate cause of comatose coverage of the
election and other issues is what is laughably called America's
"journalistic culture." If the Rupert Murdochs of the globe are
shepherds of the new world order, they owe their success to breeding
a flock of docile sheep, the editors and reporters snoozy and content
with munching on, digesting, then reprinting a diet of press releases
and canned stories provided by officials and corporation public
relations operations.
Take this story of the list of Florida's faux felons that cost Al Gore the
election. Shortly after the UK and Salon stories hit the worldwide web,
I was contacted by a CBS network news producer ready to run their
own version of the story. The CBS hotshot was happy to pump me for
information: names, phone numbers, all the items one needs for a
quickie TV story.
I also freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the
governor of Florida, brother of the Republican presidential candidate,
had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls
— real felons, but with the right to vote under Florida law. As a result,
thousands of these legal voters, almost all Democrats, would not be
allowed to vote.
One problem: I had not quite completed my own investigation on this
matter. Therefore CBS would have to do some actual work, reviewing
documents and law, and obtaining statements. The next day I
received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story
didn't hold up." Well, how did the multibillion-dollar CBS network
determine this? Why, "we called Jeb Bush's office." Oh. And that was
it.
I wasn't surprised by this type of "investigation." It is, in fact, standard
operating procedure for the little lambs of American journalism. One
good, slick explanation from a politician or corporate chieftain and it's
case closed, investigation over. The story ran anyway: on BBC-TV.
Let's understand the pressures on the CBS producer that led her to kill
the story on the basis of a denial by the target of the allegations.
(Though let's not confuse understanding with forgiveness.)
First, the story is difficult to tell in the usual 90 seconds allotted for
national reports. The BBC gave me a 14-minute slot to explain it.
Second, the story required massive and quick review of documents,
hundreds of phone calls and interviews, hardly a winner in the
slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am school of U.S. journalism. The BBC gave
me two weeks to develop the story.
Third, the revelations in the story required a reporter to stand up and
say the big name politicians, their lawyers and their PR people were
freaking liars. It would be much easier, and a heck of a lot cheaper,
to wait for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to do the work, then cover
the Commission's canned report and press conference. Wait! You've
watched "Murphy Brown," so you think reporters hanker every day to
uncover the big scandal. Bullshit. Remember, "All the President's Men"
was so unusual they had to make a movie out of it.
Fourth, investigative reports require taking a chance. Fraudsters and
vote-riggers don't reveal all their evidence. And they lie. Make the
allegation and you are open to attack, or unknown information that
may prove you wrong. No one ever lost their job writing canned
statements from a press conference.
Fifth — and this is no small matter — no one ever got sued for not
running an investigative story. Let me give you an example close to
home. The companion report to my investigation of the theft of the
election in Florida was a story about Bush family finances. I wrote in
the Guardian and Observer of London about the gold-mining company
for which the first President George Bush worked after he left the
White House. Oh, you didn't know that George H. W. Bush worked for
a gold-mining company after he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992? Well,
maybe it has to do with the fact that this company has a long history of
suing every paper that breathes a word it does not like — in fact, it has
now sued my papers. I've gotten awards and thousands of letters for
these stories, but, honey, that don't pay the legal bills.
Finally, there's another little matter working against U.S. reporters
running after the hard stories, papers printing them or TV broadcasting
the good stuff. I'll explain by way of my phone call with a great
reporter, Mike Isikoff of Newsweek. Just before the elections, Isikoff
handed me some exceptionally important information about President
Clinton, material suggesting corruption in office — the real stuff, not
the interns-under-the-desk stuff. I said, "Mike, why the hell don't you
run it yourself?" and he said, "Because no one gives a shit!" Isikoff
was expressing his exasperation with the news chiefs who kill or bury
these stories on page 200 on the belief that the public really doesn't
want to hear all this bad and very un-sexy news. These lambchop
editors believe the public just doesn't care.
But they're wrong. When I ran my first story in the London Observer
about the theft of the Florida vote, Americans by the thousands
flooded our Internet site. They set a record for hits before the
information-hungry hordes blew down our giant server computers.
When BBC ran the story, viewership of the webcast of Newsnight grew
by 10,000 percent as a result of Americans demanding to see what
they were denied on their own tubes. Obviously, some Americans
care.
And it's for them that I say, This is Greg Palast reporting from exile.  An Open Letter To The American People FELLOW CONCERNED CITIZENS:
It is time to take Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas to the proverbial woodshed. Since handing down Bush v. Gore, the Court's rulings (most notably, Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v.Garrett) demonstrate that these five justices have set out to usurp the powers of the Congress and the states in the name of their reactionary agenda, improvising rationales as they go. Their conduct fortifies the growing consensus among legal scholars, political scientists, and ordinary citizens that the five-member majority responsible for Bush v.Gore is out of control and even threatens the very continuation of our democratic experiment.
We recognize that for many, especially progressives, this is an uncomfortable realization in view of the historically
constructive role of the Supreme Court in post-war American history—in particular, the civil and individual Constitutional rights gains made under Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. We too respect and strongly support the power of the Supreme Court to hear and independently decide any judicial question before it, no matter how politically controversial. However, in our view it would be utterly irresponsible and dangerous for concerned citizens to tolerate quietly Supreme Court justices who willfully and cynically appropriate the powers of other branches of government by taking upon themselves the resolution of purely political questions, as these five justices did in Bush v. Gore.
We wholeheartedly agree with New York University law professor Larry D. Kramer that failure to confront these five
partisan, power-hungry justices would be horribly misguided and naive.
In an article entitled "The Supreme Court v.Balance of Powers", which appeared in the March 3, 2001 issue of the New York Times, Professor Kramer warns: "[T]he conservative court's decisions have met with only tepid responses from critics in the rest of government. This may be because liberals and moderates are inhibited by a false belief that the Supreme Court is a fragile institution that needs to be protected from public censure. Many liberals now assume that criticizing the court plays into the conservatives' hands. Precisely the opposite is true. Conservatives never hesitate to attack a court that does things they don't like. Just ask the justices of the Florida Supreme Court. Liberals never used to hesitate, either. By sitting on their hands now, critics merely encourage the court's conservative majority. . . . We need to hear from our political leaders."
Liberals and moderates alike must awaken now from their enabling slumber. The time for quietude and restraint is over. A line must be drawn, and the locus of protest must be the unforgettable, outlandish, overreaching decision of
Bush v. Gore. The five justices responsible for this ruling engaged in a dangerous act of judicial imperialism, one
that tragically altered the course of American history. And, like fingerprints left behind on a smoking gun at the scene of a crime, Bush v. Gore created a damning bill of particulars against the five justices, one amply justifying a forceful Congressional response. Specifically, Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas:
In other words, for partisan political reasons this "Gang of Five" wanted Bush to win and made sure he did. Period. Over 600 of the nation's law professors likewise affirmed in a statement published in major newspapers in January that the Bush v. Gore case simply did not present the Supreme Court with a judicial question for resolution at all—it presented a classic non-justiciable political question. In choosing to abjure restraint, the Supreme Court exercised powers they do not possess under any reasonable reading of the Constitution's separation of powers provisions and case law precedents going back to the 1840s.
While likely nothing can now be done to undo the effect of the illegitimate Bush v. Gore edict, we believe these justices must, at the very least, face a stern reprimand. Otherwise, their unchallenged actions mock the American commitment to representative government and separated centers of power. Therefore, if the proper balance of governmental power between and among the three federal branches and the
states is to be restored, and we are to regain our standing as an exemplar of democratic ideals and the rule of law, we must begin by introducing a Congressional resolution of censure against Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas for their betrayal of the American people and the Constitution in Bush v. Gore. We of course recognize that passage may not be possible until Democrats regain control of Congress. But the chances of this occurring would be magnified were we the people to take a definite stand against the five justices who wrongfully prevented the 2000 presidential election from being concluded in conformity with prescribed constitutional and statutory procedures.
We have drafted what we believe to be a prudent, measured resolution of censure against the five justices for their
wrongful conduct in Bush v. Gore. This resolution is posted online here and is formatted for easy printing.
After reviewing our work, we hope you'll agree to contact your members of Congress and ask that they take a look at
our resolution and support its passage. Our heartfelt thanks in advance. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  ©2001 Lisa Casey @ http://allhatnocattle.net/ Murdoch's Fox News
It was the last Sunday in January, and Vice President Dick Cheney was making the morning talk-show rounds.
On ABC, Sam Donaldson posed hard-hitting questions about the new Administration's failure to alleviate
California's energy crisis, the wisdom of George W. Bush's proposed tax cut and John Ashcroft's elusive
answers to questions during his confirmation process. On NBC, Tim Russert challenged Cheney on the President's
plans for deterring a recession, his commitment to campaign finance reform and how Ashcroft's pledge to enforce
the law on abortion squares with the President's antichoice positions.
And on Fox? Brit Hume and Tony Snow--two of the news
channel's most conservative anchors--pitched softballs to the new
Vice President, prodding him to denounce the Clinton
Administration and positioning him to pronounce the energy crisis
in California the product of federal clean-air regulations and
evidence of the need for offshore oil drilling. About Ashcroft, in a
soundbite replayed on Fox throughout the day, Hume asked: "Do
you sense in some of the opposition to him, that his faith and his
devotion to it is being held against him? And do you sense in that,
perhaps, a kind of anti-Christian bigotry?"
It was a typical question on a typical Sunday on the Fox News
Channel. Although its right-wing talk-show hosts like Bill
O'Reilly have received copious press attention, the conservative
slant of Fox's regular news coverage has not. And while much has
been written about Fox's gaffe on election night involving George
W. Bush's cousin (which some think caused the public to regard
Bush as the legitimate winner), there's been far less focus on the
blatant partiality of Fox's regular staff, contributors and guests. It all combines to create a calculated mouthpiece for
the right that remains thinly veiled behind its misleading mantra, "fair and balanced." And Fox could have real
influence: According to Editor & Publisher magazine, a TV monitor in the White House press briefing room that
aired CNN throughout the Clinton Administration was recently switched to the Fox News Channel.
It takes only a few hours on any given day to see Fox's political predilections in action. The Cheney interview, for
example, began an ordinary Sunday of conservative cheerleading. Fox Washington correspondent James Rosen,
covering the controversy over the Ashcroft nomination, portrayed the Senate opponents as political opportunists
"venting" to appease their constituents. The features were no different. A segment about an effort to teach religion
in public school was promoted repeatedly with the teaser: "Are we as a nation more or less spiritual today than we
were twenty-five years ago? Are we a country that is losing faith?" Viewers were asked to call in answers. Later
that same day, a tabloid-style piece on teen abuse of crystal methamphetamine was a virtual banner ad for
right-wing policies of strict law enforcement and lengthy incarceration; in the approximately quarter-hour segment,
drug treatment or addiction's causes were never once mentioned.
Such slants should come as no surprise, given the cast Rupert Murdoch has chosen to run Fox News Channel, the
latest venture of his News Corporation. At the top is Roger Ailes, a onetime strategist to Presidents Nixon, Reagan
and the elder George Bush. Ailes's lineup of talent, in addition to Hume and Snow (the latter a former chief
speechwriter for the elder Bush), includes David Asman, former Op-Ed editor at the Wall Street Journal, and Sean
Hannity, whose personal website features links to Rush Limbaugh's show and the National Rifle Association.
Frequent Fox contributors include Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard; Monica Crowley,
former assistant to Nixon; Jim Pinkerton, former Reagan and Bush staffer; John Podhoretz, editorial page editor of
the New York Post and former Reagan speechwriter; and John Fund, a member of the Wall Street Journal's
editorial board and collaborator on Limbaugh's political diatribe, The Way Things Ought to Be.
Of course, paying lip service to its "fair and balanced" refrain, Fox is careful to include token moderates on
its talking-head shows. But the middle of the road is routinely pitted against the ultraconservative. So-called
liberal contributors, who are at best centrists, include NPR's Juan Williams and Mara Liasson and Roll
Call's Morton Kondracke. Murdoch has never been shy about using his news outlets, which include the
New York Post and The Weekly Standard, to disseminate his politics. What's particularly insidious about the
Fox channel, though, is that Murdoch has gone out of his way to cloak its politics in slogans like "We Report, You
Decide" that lull the audience into believing it's hearing not a conservative viewpoint but the unadulterated truth.
The heights of distortion are reached on prime time. Since December, The O'Reilly Factor, a shout-show starring
Bill O'Reilly, has been a top-rated talk show on cable, frequently surpassing MSNBC's Hardball With Chris
Matthews, Rivera Live and even CNN's Larry King Live. O'Reilly is a step up from Rush Limbaugh--better
looking and more reasonable--but he's an equally staunch conservative. The evening of January 16 was typical. To
debate the controversial Ashcroft nomination, O'Reilly pitted the powerful Christian Coalition's Pat Robertson
against Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of an obscure Wisconsin-based atheist advocacy group. When Gaylor
expressed concern about Ashcroft's position on abortion, O'Reilly cornered her into making the irrelevant
pronouncement that she wouldn't personally support anyone for public office who was antichoice. Now O'Reilly
could dismiss her entirely: "That's an extreme view, Miss Gaylor, so you're an extremist." And so, by implication,
was everyone else who opposed Ashcroft's nomination.
 ©2001 Lisa Casey @ http://allhatnocattle.net/
If you can make it through O'Reilly, stick around for Hannity & Colmes, Fox's higher-decibel version of
CNN's Crossfire. Though the idea is to pit left against right, Alan Colmes, the awkward-looking designated
lefty of the pair, is no match for his right-wing matchup, Sean Hannity. Hannity smugly rolls right over
Colmes and his Democratic guests while coaxing conservatives to pontificate without interruption. During Fox's
postelection coverage Hannity bellowed repeatedly that "the Vice President because of his blind ambition has
brought us to the brink of a constitutional crisis" and charged that the Democrats were trying to "steal the election"
by demanding a vote recount. Meanwhile, "they might as well have a scarecrow in the liberal seat," says media
critic and University of Illinois professor Robert McChesney.
Even Fox's supposedly "straight" nightly news anchors take
regular swipes at Democrats. Covering the postelection litigation in
Florida, for example, anchor John Gibson railed that "the
Democratic lawyers have flooded Florida" because "they are afraid
of George W. Bush becoming President and instituting tort reform
and their gravy train will be over." Fox further blurs distinctions
between news and opinion by having anchors and political
commentators switch roles from one day to the next. O'Reilly, for
instance, played anchor just after the Supreme Court handed down
the decision that ended Gore's fight for the presidency.
Fox's murkiest judgment call may have been hiring John Ellis, the
President's first cousin, to analyze election exit-poll results. Lo
and behold, Fox was the first network to declare erroneously that
Bush had won the election, prompting the avalanche that followed.
We now also know that Ellis was discussing confidential exit-poll
information with his cousins throughout election night. At
Congress's mid-February hearings on election night coverage,
Ailes said in his prepared testimony that Ellis was merely acting as "a good journalist talking to his very high-level
sources."
But the bias didn't stop there. Peter Hart of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting notes that after Bush was named the
winner of the election, "on Fox, the question was posed as, 'Will Bush compromise or will he stand tough on his
principles?'" On December 17, for example, Snow asked Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card: "Now, the
President-elect says that he wants to reach across the partisan divide, and a lot of people are interpreting that as
meaning that he has got to water down his views to appease liberal Republicans and Democrats. Is that what he's
going to do?"
This blending of news with right-wing partiality dismays many Fox employees. Although staffers say they don't
receive direct orders to include or ignore stories for political purposes, "I've been at editorial meetings," says one
Fox News Channel employee who did not want to be named. "Certain stories fly and certain stories don't. I'm not
blind and neither are my colleagues. Everyone is aware that something is at work. There's a reason that there's a
perception that Fox leans to the right."
A manager at the Fox News Channel who's been in broadcast news for six years and who also declines to be
identified says the tilt is reflected in the enterprise pieces aired. "The ideas come from the bureau chiefs, and they
want to get their reporters on the air, so they're going to pitch stories that management will approve." Says Sarah
Barrows, a former production assistant and booker at the Fox News Channel, "They know who their audience is,
and they pick stories based on that." Barrows, now an associate producer at Oxygen Media, says that during the
Clinton impeachment investigation, for example, "that story probably led nine out of ten times." The Whitewater
investigation was another popular front-runner. "Fair and balanced? Give me a break," says a former Fox
producer. "During the Clinton impeachment--which they were just loving--it was OK to run a Newt Gingrich
soundbite by itself. But if you ran a soundbite by a Democrat you also had to run a soundbite by a Republican."
Though this producer had worked at CBS News and at an ABC affiliate, "I had never experienced a newsroom that
was that conservative." Fox management's far heavier hand than at other networks is in part a reflection of the fact
that Murdoch owns 30 percent of the stock of News Corporation; the other major television networks are all owned
by large corporations with widely held shares.
The Fox spin has even crept into its website; each week it posts a new "PC Patrol," in which columnist Scott
Norvell bashes liberal organizations like the ACLU for trying to separate church from state or ridicules feminist
organizations for criticizing the comments of Fox favorite Rush Limbaugh.
So there's no question that under Fox's guise of neutrality lurks the right-wing designs of its management.
But is that a problem? Contributors don't think so. "Fox reports the news from a more conservative mindset
than conventional journalism," says Kondracke, a Fox regular. "And that's good. Because if you only have
the perspective of the standard liberal outlook, that distorts reality too. Fox is an antidote to conventional
news media." NPR's Juan Williams says that at Fox, "I've never felt so intellectually free." Sure, it's slanted, he
says, but "the widespread perception of the American people is 'all these people have bias.'" Fox management,
meanwhile, denies any partiality. "We feel that other networks have a liberal bias to them," says Bill Shine,
executive producer for the Fox News Channel. "But Mr. Ailes pounds this into us at every staff meeting, every
time we get together: 'fair and balanced.'" Ailes declined to comment.
True, studies have shown that Washington journalists are more likely to vote Democratic and identify themselves as
liberal. One frequently cited survey by the Freedom Forum/Roper Center in 1996 found that 61 percent of the 139
Washington-based journalists queried professed to being either "liberal" or "liberal to moderate," while only 9
percent said they were "conservative" or "moderate to conservative." But how that plays out in news coverage is a
different matter. A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the last weeks of the presidential
campaign, Bush was twice as likely to receive positive coverage as Gore. And the group's study examining five
scattered weeks between February and June revealed that more than three-quarters of the campaign coverage
included discussion that Gore lies and exaggerates or is tainted by scandal, while the most common theme about
Bush was that he is a "different kind of Republican." No Democratic bias there.
Still, Fox is obviously filling a niche. Since it started in 1996, ratings have soared, climbing more than 200
percent in the last quarter of 2000 from the same period the year before. During the fourth quarter of 2000 it
started turning a profit, a year ahead of schedule. And in December, its ratings beat CNN in prime time, even
though CNN reaches about 22 million more homes. So does Fox's success attest to a huge conservative audience
out there? Not necessarily. Sure, there's the Limbaugh crowd, which wants to hear right-wing vitriol. But plenty of
people tune in to be titillated by the news channel's brash, infotainment style. "People come up to me on the street
and say, 'I hate that Sean Hannity,'" says University of Southern California law professor and frequent Fox
contributor Susan Estrich, one of the news channel's few truly liberal regular commentators. "But I say, 'Do you
hate him five days a week?' They say, 'Yes.' They watch it."
Murdoch has done something ingenious: He's created an
entertaining news channel that disseminates his viewpoint far and
wide and also makes good business sense. It costs far less to get
two people to snipe at each other on the air than to pay reporters
and producers to dig up real news. And although Fox may be
leading the transformation to econo-news, it is not alone. The
pressure to attend to the bottom line is yielding a watered-down
form of journalism at all TV news outlets. "My views of
contemporary journalism are so disheartening at the moment that I
find it very difficult to point just to Fox and say, 'Tsk, tsk, look
what they're doing,' without pointing at the same time to all of the
networks and saying, 'Tsk, tsk, what have you done?'" says
Marvin Kalb, Washington-office director of the Shorenstein
Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and a former
broadcast journalist for CBS and NBC.
Murdoch may be the most blatant, though, about putting profits
above principles. In the mid-1990s he eliminated the BBC from
his Hong Kong-based Star Satellite news service because the Chinese government didn't like the channel's critical
programming. And his publishing house, HarperCollins, dropped former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten's
East and West, which included less than flattering descriptions of Chinese leaders. At a Fox-owned station in
Florida, award-winning reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson claim their contract was canceled in 1997 because
they refused to soft-pedal their investigative story about the effect of bovine growth hormone on the state's milk
supply after BGH producer Monsanto complained directly to Roger Ailes. They sued. Wilson couldn't prove his
case, but Akre won hers, which charged that Fox fired her for threatening to blow the whistle on its action.
But every network has its closetful of stories killed, buried or neutralized to serve the owners' or advertisers'
interest. A study last year by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press and Columbia Journalism Review
found that more than 40 percent of nearly 300 journalists surveyed said they had intentionally avoided newsworthy
stories or softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. That fear of offense
radically restricts the range of opinion that makes it onto the news networks, redefining the center and relegating left
speakers to the fringe, seemingly out of touch with their audience.
So what to do? Media critic McChesney proposes stepping up FCC regulations, boosting funding for public radio
and television, and revamping the antitrust laws to set limits on media ownership. Lawrence Grossman, former
president of NBC and PBS, advocates making broadcast companies pay to use the public airwaves and using that
money to fund public service programming and a stronger public broadcasting system. Realistically, however,
given Bush's picks at the FCC and the Justice Department, additional fees and stricter antitrust scrutiny are unlikely
to happen anytime soon. And it's hard to imagine this sharply divided Congress putting significantly more money
into public broadcasting.
Can liberals compete? Yes and no. "I hope there's a revolt out there that wants to have ten liberal O'Reilly
Factors," quips Fox contributor Estrich. "Where are these guys on the left who can do a news channel that covers
the news well and also provides an opportunity to get their views across?"
These days, that's an enormously expensive proposition. When Murdoch entered the game, on top of capital and
production costs he paid cable operators $10 per household to carry the Fox News Channel. "That escalated the
cost of starting a channel to $500 million," estimates Jay Levin, founder and former owner of the alternative LA
Weekly, who tried to launch an environmental cable channel in 1993 that was ultimately unsuccessful. But there
are alternatives. Digital television is finally becoming a reality and should vastly increase the number of channels, at
least temporarily reducing startup costs. And the newest broadband technology creates an opportunity for an
endless number of televisionlike stations via the Internet.
Fox started in 1996, when anti-Clinton sentiment burned bright. The new Bush Administration offers ample
targets for left-wing fire. And there's a market for it, insists John Schwartz, president of Free Speech TV, a
nonprofit station based in Boulder, Colorado, that's carried on the satellite Dish Network and reaches 5
million homes. "There's a fanatical viewership," says Schwartz.
Of course, without a media magnate like Murdoch behind it, an independent station's reach will never rival Fox's.
But done with intelligence and wit, left TV could at least be a potent thorn in its side. For now, though, Murdoch
and Fox remain unchallenged.
 You're Clear to Land
My friend Stephen Kobrin, a professor at the Wharton School, called the other day with a great proposal for
how to deal with all the air traffic delays in America these days: "faith-based air traffic control."
Seriously, think about it. The federal government, we're told, can't afford more air traffic controllers or radars. But
most international airlines — like El Al, Gulf Air, Alitalia, Thai Airways, Air India — land in major cities, like New
York and Los Angeles, where there would be plenty of mosques, synagogues, Catholic churches or Buddhist
temples to guide them in, using shortwave radios and secondhand police radar guns, says Steve. Jews would land
El Al planes, Muslims Gulf Air, Buddhists Thai Airways, etc.
"Think of the possibilities for innovation that will emerge from thousands of small faith-based groups trying to
guide planes safely and efficiently through our overcrowded skies," Steve adds. "It will transfer tax dollars from
overfed government bureaucrats back to the people. The airlines will be forced to become self- reliant, instead of
depending on the public dole and publicly funded air traffic controllers. And while proselytizing may happen while
planes are being guided in, at least passengers will have the chance to listen to stirring, faith-based messages full
of family values, instead of watching a movie full of sex and violence."
Steve's real point, of course, is that to listen to President Bush, you'd think our only two choices today were a tax
cut that returns the surplus to the people or having it wasted by the government. He never discusses a third
possibility — that government provides essential services in our lives, that we as Americans are fortunate to have
the services we have, and that we constantly need to be reinvesting in them because we have a collective
responsibility to our children's future, and to the less fortunate, to ensure that the government always has the
resources to provide. Being a U.S. citizen is a privilege and a responsibility. It's not just a transaction about how
much you paid in taxes and how much you get back.
So when Mr. Bush repeats his mantra that the budget surplus "is not the government's money, it's your money,"
he's right. But the sentence is incomplete. We must finish the thought:
"It's not the government's money. It's your money. But it's also going to be your responsibility to pay your parents'
nursing home bills when they get old and you find that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded because of
today's excessive tax cut."
"It's not the government's money. It's your money. But it's also going to be your traffic jam, when the government
can't afford to invest in mass transit around cities so your 20- minute commute becomes an hour."
"It's not the government's money. It's your money. But it's also going to be your dilapidated public school, because
of a lack of funds for new school building."
"It's not the government's money. It's your money. But it's also going to be your busy signal, when you call a
federal agency for help in five years and you're put on hold for a week because it's understaffed."
"It's not the government's money. It's your money. But then, it's also your favorite national park that will be
underfunded, provided Mr. Bush hasn't sold it off to an oil company."
"It's not the government's money. It's your money. Of course it's also going to be your home alarm system that
you'll need to install to deal with the rise in crime when all those kids who should have Head Start today but don't
for lack of funds, or the 44 million Americans without health care, become desperate adults."
I suppose all this won't hit home until the Republican Party realizes that, without the surplus, there won't be any
more federal buildings to name after Ronald Reagan. It isn't enough that you now drive past the Ronald Reagan
office building in downtown D.C., past the George Bush Sr. C.I.A. building, until you get to the Ronald Reagan
National Airport building (and fly over the Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier), but Republicans now want to erect a
memorial to Mr. Reagan — while he's still alive! — on the capital Mall.
No, on second thought, once the surplus is gone there will still be a boomlet in one area of federal buildings —
prisons. Indeed, it would be rather fitting that the newest one be named the "George W. Bush Federal
Penitentiary."  Dead letter office
Heil Bush,
Dear Gruppenfuhrer Conrad,
Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2001. Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling and last years winner Volksjudge Wilhelm Rehnquist. With your vote to allow Herr Ashcroft to take command of the Gestapo we will soon certainly put those Darkies and Jews back in their place und make Jesus das King. Along with this award there will be an Iron Cross 2nd class presented by our glorious Fuhrer Herr Bush at a gala party in das Fuhrer Bunker, formerly the White House on 7-4-2001. We salute you Herr Conrad! Sieg Heil!
Signed,
Heil Bush
 A Go-Round On Foreign Policy Ride
DALLAS -- Our new president has just committed foreign policy.
Run for your lives!
He's going to Git Tuff on North Korea.
North Korea consists of several million people who are the verge of starvation.
Our ally President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea has been working to open a
dialogue with the North. In fact, he got the Nobel Peace Prize for it last year.
Kim believes that there is only a narrow window of opportunity to get North
Korea out of its dangerous isolation. George W. Bush just slammed that
window. Despite two years' worth of efforts by the Clinton administration,
Bush says he is not interested in resuming missile talks or in the eventual
normalization of relations with North Korea.
Since the end of the Korean War a half-century ago, the United States has
been maintaining an expensive army -- now at 37,000 soldiers -- between
North and South Korea. It was one of those deals where we didn't have an
exit strategy at the time and no one has thought one up since.
President Bush II said the reason that he doesn't want to deal with North Korea is:
"We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements."
But we only have one agreement with North Korea, and according to the people
in charge of it, there's no evidence that North Korea has broken any of the
terms. So later a White House spokesman explained that the president meant
future noncompliance with future accords -- the ones that Bush doesn't want
us to have -- even though he did not use the future tense. The spokesman said
(watch carefully -- this may become one of the most famous phrases of Bush II):
"That's how the president speaks."
Is our children confused yet?
This is enough to make us devoutly grateful for President Cheney's most recent recovery.
Or perhaps not.
Foreign policy happens, and last week it happened that Secretary of State Colin Powell "signaled"
(don't you love diplomatic language? One envisions him standing out on a runway with colored flags)
that we would go for "smarter" and smaller sanctions against Iraq.
This would be good, because although it is rarely mentioned in this country,
our sanctions in Iraq are believed to cost the lives of 5,000 children every
month, causing other nations to think of us as hideously brutal and callous.
You can't imagine how surprised many of our allies were when George W. put a
gag order on women's clinics in foreign countries because he couldn't stand
the idea of little babies' lives being taken in abortion. This is widely
believed to be an example of inconsistency.
In any case, Cheney was not happy with Powell's plans to relax the sanctions.
And who, after all, would know better than Cheney how little they matter?
(Except maybe the 5,000 kids who die from hunger and lack of medical attention each month.)
You see, Cheney's former employer Halliburton (an oilfield services company)
has been trading with Iraq for quite some time despite the sanctions.
Halliburton subsidiaries Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. helped
reconstruct Iraq's oil industry, according to `The Washington Post' and
numerous other publications. This was going on while the United States was
regularly bombing Iraq. In 1999, Iraq emerged as the fastest-growing source
of U.S. oil imports, and as Bush has reminded us, more and more of our
imports come from overseas.
According to the `Financial Times' of London, Halliburton under Cheney also
operated in Iran despite the sanctions against that country, by means of
foreign subsidiaries, mainly in Europe. Cheney has urged the easing of the
sanctions against Iran, too.
Cheney, according to `The Baltimore Sun,' lobbied long and hard (as recently
as June 2000) to lift sanctions against Iran because of Halliburton's
interest in the Caspian Sea region -- currently the biggest oil and gas lode
in play outside the Middle East. There's a huge fight over where to run the
pipeline to bring the oil out, but running it through Iran would be
cheapest, which is why business favors it. Because of the same oil play,
Cheney wants to repeal sanctions against Azerbaijan, which doesn't get U.S.
aid because of its ethnic cleansing of Armenians. (Hope you're following all this.)
So the Bush foreign policy so far may not be perfectly clear to all of us,
but think of it this way: Our enemies are bound to be just as confused as we are.
A Note of Protest:
It is likely that 50% of the U.S. population is strongly dissatisfied with
the ascendancy of George W. Bush to the office of President. There are
three likely reasons:
In the interest of democracy, one could discredit election gripes (point
number one) as being unfair to our longstanding electoral college process..
Also, one might disregard Bush’s agenda (point number two) because the
hallmark of the United States Constitution is tolerance for divergent
political and moral beliefs.
However, point number three leads to a more egregious problem, namely that a
rather anonymous man, with no distinguishing ambition or vision has, by
virtue of family wealth and connection, been installed as President of the
United States. Even the most cursory glance at George W. Bush’s history and
character builds a strong case for charges of nepotism and cronyism. Such a
glaring display of favoritism, to benefit an individual with no considerable
talent, runs counter to the spirit of competition and fair play that has
driven the engine of American capitalism for more than two hundred years.
There is a way to tangibly and immediately raise a voice in protest of
George W. Bush as President. For the remainder of his term, conscientious
Americans should simply write "George W. Bush is an Idiot" on all U.S.
currency that passes through their hands.
This protest has already begun. The first bills were marked and spent in
San Francisco as of January 26, 2001. What is important, though, is to not
only begin marking all currency (and to continue the effort throughout the
Bush presidency), but to forward this memo as much as possible so as to
replicate the message throughout our money supply.
In an effort to mark money more industriously, many of us have ordered a
BUSH IS A FRAUD rubber stamp; these self-inking rubber stamps are useful for
marking the "Fraud" message in red ink.
Make your voice heard, This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Lisa Casey.
Navy Submarine
Sung to the tune of "Yellow Submarine" (instrumental intro)
Boat went down when it was torn
Those who sailed when this was done
These fat cats
Bush's friends were all on board
These fat cats drove the Navy submarine
(Spoken during instrumental break:)
As the loss of life is grieved
These fat cats drove the Navy submarine
(repeat chorus and fade)
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke Fux News Protest Alert
On Friday April 6th between 12 and 2, DemocracyMarch.org, in coordination with Project Blackout, will hold a rally at Fox News Cable Studio at 6th Ave. btwn. 47th and 48th to protest the media bias which has resulted in a virtual media blackout of the stolen election Fox cable news being one of the most egregious offenders.
Speakers include Bob Fertik of Democrats.com; Phil Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, filing Class Action Lawsuit to in Florida overturn Presidential Election; Maia Cowan, writer with mediawhoresonline.com and
failureisimpossible.com; Chris Acosta, Outreach Coordinator of VoterMarch.org; Aton Edwards of the International
Preparedness Network; and others to be announced, interspersed with some entertaining interludes.
On Saturday, May 19, 2001, Voter March will sponsor the Voter Rights March at the Mall in
Washington, DC from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm to voice our outrage over the fraud and
disenfranchisement of voters in the latest Presidential election, to call for critically-needed
voting and electoral reforms, and to protest the illegitimate President's right wing agenda to
turn back gains in the environment, a woman's right to choose, and the separation of church and
state. BLUE RIBBON VISIBILITY The National Strike will
begin on Thursday, May 17, and continue through Monday, May 21. The weekend
will land in the middle of the strike, making it essentially a three "working
day" strike.
This national strike will be called "Strike One", because it's just the
start. If the first strike doesn't work, we do it again. Perhaps it will go
to three strikes and Bush is out. The strike is to let our government know,
and all the mega corporations who bought Bush the White House know that Al
Gore got more votes in Florida and the USA. Since they had so much trouble
counting our votes, and since so many Americans were wrongly prevented from
voting, this strike will be another election where we cast our vote by not
going to work; calling in sick. No matter how large and powerful a
corporation is, it cannot exist without the people who work for it. Likewise,
our government could not exist without the taxes that come out of our
paychecks.
We The People are the fourth branch of government, which, by our consent,
the other three branches may govern. It is our duty to help the other
branches of government protect democracy. They cannot strongly act without
our power visibly behind them. |
|
Parting Shots...  WASHINGTON, DC--Remember SDI, deregulation, and tax cuts? The new administration does. That's right, '80s retro fever is sweeping the executive branch, with President Bush and his nostalgia-crazed colleagues going wild for the people and policies of that "totally tubular" decade. "The '80s were so awesome," said Bush, grabbing a handful of Jelly Bellys from a jar on his Oval Office desk. "They had, like, the best policies back then, like trickle-down economics and communist containment. And the Cabinet members were the coolest: Ed Meese, Caspar Weinberger, George Shultz. I'm so totally going to find a position for Donald Regan in my administration." Bush has already begun indulging his love of all things '80s, nominating James Watt for Secretary of the Interior. "Remember in '83, when Watt didn't want The Beach Boys to play that Fourth Of July party because he said they were unwholesome?" Bush asked. "And then when he said the thing about his staff having a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple? That was hilarious." Nearby, vice-president and fellow '80s-lover Dick Cheney reclined on a couch. "You know who else we should nominate?" Cheney asked. "Robert Bork for Supreme Court!" "Bork? Who's that?" Bush responded. "Oh, wait--that's the arch-conservative judge with the funny little chin beard, right? God, I totally forgot about that guy! Yeah, we should definitely nominate him!" Bush also tapped Donna Rice for White House press secretary but retracted the offer when he realized he was thinking of Fawn Hall. "I always get those two confused," Bush told Cheney. "I know one was with Oliver North and the shredder, and the other was with Gary Hart and the Monkey Business, but I forget which was which. Then there's Jessica Hahn. She was the one with Jim Bakker, right? Or was it Jimmy Swaggart? Anyway, I want the Ollie North gal." Bush praised Hall, calling her "a major-league babe." Cheney affirmed the appraisal, saying, "Yeah, big-time." Though too young to remember much of the decade, Bush nevertheless said he had "tons of fun" in the '80s. "Once, when I was 36, my dad took me to the CIA to meet William Casey," Bush said. "It was one of the best days of my life: I got to watch a National Security Council meeting. Then, afterwards, Mr. Casey let me sit in his big leather chair. Even though I was really young at the time, I remember the whole thing like it was yesterday." "Even the enemies were cooler in the '80s," Bush continued. "Back then, there was Russia, Libya, and Iran. Now, those were some bad guys. What do we have today? North Korea? How lame is that?" "Know what else was awesome about the '80s? The respect for human life," said Bush, sporting a retro "Choose Life" T-shirt, made popular by George Michael during his Wham! days. "This is the same one [Michael] wore during the 'Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go' video." Bush has vowed to pursue a number of '80s-retro initiatives while in office, including a revival of the Star Wars missile-defense system, the firing of 12,000 air-traffic controllers, and a boycott of the 2004 Summer Olympics. He is also organizing a Hands Across America event for later this year to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the 1986 original. "As a uniter, not a divider, I recognize the importance of feel-good gestures like Hands Across America, USA For Africa, and that 'That's What Friends Are For' song," Bush said. "Back in the '80s, people used to come together and lend a hand to those in need. It's important to make the occasional token effort toward helping others." Added Bush: "We also need more Americans like New Jersey's own Bruce Springsteen, in whose songs live the hopes and dreams of every one of us." On Monday Bush showed his love for the '80s by issuing pardons to convicted Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, as well as John DeLorean and Claus von Bulow. He also pledged $240 million in federal tax breaks to Union Carbide, whose Bhopal, India, chemical plant was the site of a 1984 chemical disaster that Bush "totally remembers." Later in the day, Bush suffered his first retro international-relations gaffe, when, during an official greeting to the people of China, he said, "We begin bombing in five minutes." Bush apologized, explaining that he was only joking and did not realize the microphone was on. Though committed to leading America into the future, Bush said he can't help but wish he could have been president back in the decade of Pac-Man, skinny ties, and illegal arms deals with Nicaragua.
"Man, that would've been so cool to be the leader of the free world back then," Bush said. "I was born 15 years too late."
|
Issues & Alibis Vol 1 # 5 ©4/1/2001
on the 1st & 15th of every month.
It is not affiliated with any political party but
is dedicated to the restoration of the American Republic.