 |
Sign up for a free web hosting account at 741.com |
|
In This Edition We spotlight the cartoons of Chris Whitehouse with additional cartoons from Cunningham Strikes, Lisa Casey, C.D. Norman, Tom Paine and Chadsux. In part V of "Gimmie That Old Time Religion" Laurie Goodstein explains that "For Religious Right, Bush's Charity Plan Is Raising Concerns." Maia Cowen is back with the speech she gave at the Fox TV News protest April 6th in New York with, "A Jaundiced Look At Yellow Journalism." Kevin Sweeney says President Bush's decision to pull the US out of the Kyoto Protocol is "A National Disgrace!" Douglas Jehl reports on Smirk's bid to poison us in "EPA To Abandon New Arsenic Limits For Water Supply." US Senator Barbara Boxer grows some backbone in a statement, "On President Bush's Record." Reuters observes the "Arkansas Legislators Monkey Around With Evoltion Theory Ban." Gary Kamiya gives thanks for, "The Unspeakable Bush." The Daily Brew asks, "Will Bush Kill Us?" In the Dead Letter Office US Senator Dodd wins the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2001! Molly Ivins watches, "Bush, Rove & Co Swimming In Denial." David Goldstein points out the loonies in, "Group: Reagans Lagacy Merits More Markers?" We hear a call for a "Voters Bill Of Rights." In 'Parting Shots' Left Jab shows us "How To Tell If You're A Republican" but first Uncle Ernie salutes, "Good Old Yankee Ingenuity!" Plus we have all your favorite departments so welcome once again to "Issues & Alibis." We hope you enjoy your stay! 
After our Republic was kidnapped by Tony (lightfingers) Scalia, abetted by his pals on the Extreme Court and the criminals of the Republican Party a growing movement sprang up overnight. All over America the little guy stood up and began to shout, "I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!" America had watched for years as politicians did their best to unravel Mr. Jefferson’s "Declaration of Independence", "The Bill of Rights," and other documents that gave us the freedoms that the rest of the world could only envy.
But Corporations being the ‘Demons from Hell’ that they are couldn’t wait to get this great Republic back to a slave state with them as the masters. Perhaps not understanding that the very laws that they’ve tried to destroy were the ones that allowed them to grow and prosper in the first place. The very reason that America was a Republic and not the Democracy that the politicians had long pretended it was, is the very reason that no form of government really works like it is supposed to. Don’t pretend that China is communist, it isn’t, nor was the USSR because of the same reason the founding fathers didn’t want a real democracy, "GREED!" Still the old Republic is much better than most other forms of government, corrupted as it’s always been. Still for the right wing minority being just a millionaire wasn’t enough, not when there were billions to steal.
So when the "Coup D’ Etat" went down I was more than a little surprised to see the reaction as reported in America’s press. According to them everything was hunky dory, and do get over it and let's get on with business. Then I found myself doing something I had avoided like the plague since my bout with the army, actually caring about my country. Imagine that! I was suddenly becoming quite irate about the sedition and treason going on around me and I had to do something about it. I had to stop work and create this magazine. It was something that I didn’t want to do; it was something I HAD to do!
What I found when I looked around was that I wasn’t the only one. From all over America the patriots came. From all age groups, from all walks of life, from all income brackets, they came. No one was drafted for the cause; we all gladly volunteered to it. It was something we all HAD to do. Cartoonist sprang up, where there had been a few i.e. C.D. Norman and Cunningham Strikes. Suddenly we had Lisa Casey of "All Hat and no Cattle, " Arthur Carrol of "Chadsux," Tom Paine, Chris Whitehouse all telling the truth, all pointing out the treason, something that the newspaper cartoonist still can’t do if they want to keep their jobs. Corporate America has spoken and the few that stood up to it are no longer employed by it.
The average Joe or Jane in the street started fighting back opening little web sites giving their ideas on how to fight back. Sites like "The Mourning Bow Campaign," where you are instructed how to make a black mourning bow to hang on your front door to show your displeasure. Or "Protest Illegal President With US Mail," where you can download stickers to place on your envelopes showing your displeasure. "The Walk For Democracy" where a lady will walk from Washington State to Washington DC. "National Strike One" which has organized a series of strikes to start with the Voters March in May. The Blue, Gold and Black ribbon campaigns that would have you wear a simple ribbon to show your displeasure. An idea to write, or if you can, have a stamp made to use to write things like, Bush is a Fraud or (the one that I use) Resist the Republican Coup D’ Etat in the margins of US paper currency. Or sites like Fringe Folk where everyone can gather and show their anger at the Coup and its ruling Junta. Throughout the land the little guy is stepping up to the plate and hitting a home run. No one is getting paid for this nor would anyone want to. It’s about what has made America number one in the world, good old "Yankee Ingenuity."
I started this magazine as a monthly because I didn’t think I could get the material to do it any faster, boy was I wrong. By the time the first edition was finished I found I could easily do two a month. A few more editions down the line and I decided that this bi-monthly magazine would soon become a weekly and it will. Beginning April 27th we will publish every Friday! This magazine is one of a growing number that seek to give America a place to come and read the truth. The Corporations now own and control all of the major US sources of information. The Press for the most part is controlled, radio and TV are totally controlled. Whether you watch ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN for your news you’re only getting part of it. If you watch something like Fox News you aren’t getting any truth at all. The future for honest reporting can be found here on the web. Now that is not to say that all web sites speak the truth. I’ve been to Republican sites that wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. However you still can find the truth here. Until they catch me, tattoo me and put me into a "Retirement Camp," I for one will continue to publish the truth. I thought this patriotism thing would be a lonely life until I looked up and found myself surrounded by patriots. I think King George and his pals are finding out what Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto knew would happen after Pearl Harbor, "We have awakened a sleeping Giant!" 
For Religious Right, Bush's Charity Plan Is Raising Concerns
President Bush's plan to funnel government money to religious charities is
generating unlikely criticism from some conservative Christian leaders who
had promoted the idea for years but are now voicing reservations about
putting it into effect.
The White House, which opened its Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives just last week, was prepared for attacks from civil libertarians
and religious leaders who have said his plan will undermine the separation
of church and state.
But now the initiative is under fire for different reasons from conservative
religious leaders who should have been Mr. Bush's staunchest allies. In
recent days two longtime Bush supporters, the religious broadcaster Pat
Robertson and Marvin Olasky, author of the book "Compassionate
Conservatism," have attacked the idea of encouraging partnerships between
government and religious groups, and other conservatives are raising similar
doubts.
Their concerns reflect long-held fears among conservative and evangelical
Christians that by accepting government financing for endeavors from
homeless shelters to job training programs, religious programs invite
government meddling in their mission and message.
Some of the religious groups that have offered tepid support, or none at
all, for Mr. Bush's program are the same ones that for years argued that the
government discriminates against religious programs by primarily financing
secular ones. The Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board
said that while "optimistic," it had urged its ministries to "proceed with
caution," explaining, "There can be a tendency over time for the government
to attempt to control that which it subsidizes."
A spokesman for Focus on the Family, the multimedia ministry led by Dr.
James C. Dobson, said it was still studying the initiative. And only half
the leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals said in a survey
last year that they were in favor of government financing for religious
charities. The board is to vote on a resolution of support next week.
The president has said he will not require charities to suppress their
religious doctrines in order to receive government financing. But Mr. Olasky
says he and other conservative Christians he has spoken with have grown
concerned that the Bush administration, under scrutiny from the church/state
separationists, will backpedal and refuse to finance programs that are the
most overtly evangelistic, or will try to limit the religious component of
their work.
"It is a tightrope they may not be able to walk," Mr. Olasky said in an
interview. "Any time they say, `We're going to allow evangelism,' they will
be shot at by the left. If they say, `We're not going to allow evangelism,'
they will be shot at by the right."
And Mr. Robertson raised different doubts on his television program "The 700
Club" last week, calling it "appalling" that the plan could result in
government contracts for programs run by non-Western religions and newer
religious movements like the Church of Scientology and the Unification
Church.
"This thing could be a real Pandora's box," Mr. Robertson said on the
program. "And what seems to be such a great initiative can rise up to bite
the organizations as well as the federal government."
The initiative has also attracted criticism from a wide variety of other
religious leaders. Fourteen liberal and moderate Baptist leaders issued a
statement urging rejection of the initiative last week. About 350 leaders
with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs interrogated John J. DiIulio Jr.,
who heads the new White House office, at a meeting in Washington this week.
Executives of Lutheran Services in America and Catholic Charities have
criticized the part of Mr. Bush's initiative that permits aid to religious
agencies that discriminate in hiring. And even a coalition of wiccans and
pagans has complained in a letter to the president.
Mr. DiIulio did not respond to requests for an interview. In speeches, he
has suggested that the controversy has detracted attention from the other
goals of his office: increasing private charitable giving, and examining
previous contracts of federal agencies with religious and community social
service programs.
Mr. Bush defended his initiative in a news conference on Feb. 22, saying, "I
believe that so long as there's a secular alternative available, we ought to
allow individuals who we're helping to be able to choose a program that may
be run by a faith- based program."
A survey of more than 1,200 religious congregations in 1998 conducted by
Mark Chaves, a sociology professor at the University of Arizona, found that
only 28 percent of politically conservative congregations were willing to
apply for government financing for charity work, compared with 51 percent of
politically moderate or liberal congregations.
Only in recent years, with a younger generation of evangelical Christian
pastors coming into leadership, have these churches considered going to the
government for financial support for their social services, said Richard
Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association
of Evangelicals.
"The younger generation is far more receptive than the older generation, who
is worried about government infringement on religious integrity, and the
government aiding and abetting groups whose views they don't endorse, and
who they may find complete anathema," said Mr. Cizik, who supports the Bush
initiative and has been hearing the objections as he tries to drum up
support among evangelicals.
The Rev. Ray Gimenez, an evangelical leader in Clinton, Iowa, is a supporter
of government aid for religious charities, even though he has his own
cautionary tale. His ministry for the homeless, Victory Center Rescue
Mission, won a $367,750 contract from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to open transitional housing.
It had already spent $100,000 of the money to buy and rehabilitate a
building, when HUD insisted that it form a separate tax-exempt organization
from the ministry, with a separate board. The ministry refused, and now HUD
wants its money back, which Mr. Gimenez says his board is resisting.
In another example cited by Mr. Olasky, the Agriculture Department stopped
delivering surplus food to a Memphis soup kitchen because of sermons after
meals. Such situations have made Mr. Olasky wary of direct government
grants. He thinks the Bush administration should focus on the less divisive
part of its plan to offer more tax credits for individual givers.
"That way, if people want to support Judaism or Christianity or Islam or
Scientology, they can," Mr. Olasky said. "It's not a question of a
government official deciding. I think that approach would win support from
evangelicals, and the American Civil Liberties Union." 
A Jaundiced Look at Yellow Journalismby Maia Cowan(An expanded version of my speech at the rally outside Fox News headquarters in New York City, 6 April 2001.)
|
I've been a technical writer and editor for 15 years. This experience makes me very, very picky about information. I want it correct, complete, unambiguous, and unbiased. Reading the news these days is an exercise in exasperation. Too much journalism these days is Yellow Journalism. It wouldn't be so bad if the journalists flat-out lied. False information can be refuted by comparing it to verified correct information. Yellow Journalists are more insidious than liars. They use rhetorical tricks to make insinuations look like facts and bias look like objectivity.
Night Is Day, Up Is DownNews editors know that most people read only the headlines, and maybe the first paragraph or two, not the whole article. The headline, therefore, is "what they'd like you to believe." It often doesn't match the story. (We can't blame the reporters for this one; they have no control over the headlines.)For example:
A Tilted PyramidNews stories should be written in "inverted pyramid" style: the most important information in the first paragraph, down through the least important details at the end. Many stories that present more than one side of an issue, however, sort the information according to "what they'd like you to believe." People who read only the first few paragraphs miss crucial information that would lead to a very different conclusion from that suggested by the lead.For example:
Information-Free ContentHow do you write a news story about something that never happened?It's easy: base it entirely on speculation, using weasel words like "may be," "suggests," "reportedly," "alleged," "if." We naturally and often unconsciously resolve such uncertainty, filling in the gaps as needed to draw a conclusion. Since few people read (or watch) something that they expect not to be reliable, a Yellow Journalist's audience will resolve the uncertainty in favor of the statements being factual and true. For example:
"Who Are Those Guys?"News reports about the pressing issues of the day always include quotes from Experts. When an issue is hotly contested along partisan lines, the opinion of an impartial outsider provides credibility or refutation, as appropriate, for the assertions of the partisans (for example, the White House vs. Congressional Democrats).I've been checking the backgrounds of the "outside" experts cited in news reports about the Bush regime. The overwhelming majority are from right-wing think tanks. A significant number have close associations with the Republican Party and/or the Bush family. For example:
It's Not What They Say, It's What They Don't SayYou can "prove" anything, depending on what evidence you ignore. Yellow Journalists frequently omit details that could ruin their story by contradicting their preordained conclusion. Such deliberate omissions are much harder to counter than other journalistic fallacies. The best you can do is learn to avoid "unreliable sources" after you catch them leaving out crucial information.Such as:
Caveat LectorThese are only a few of the many tricks Yellow Journalists use to lead us to the desired conclusions in the absence of (or in spite of) the facts. So what's a Seeker After Real News to do?The rhetorical tricks only work if we're not aware of them. Crank up your skepticism to "high" when reading or listening to the news. If you can filter out the "yellow," what's left can be reliable information. If you see an egregious example of skewed news, write to the journalist, the editor, and a few media watchdogs (such as the Columbia Journalism Review): if enough of us tell the Yellow Journalists that their cover is blown, we may even force them to try their hand at straight journalism. Journalists have a responsibility (no matter how often they neglect it) to give us good information. But we, too, have a responsibility — to think about what we read or hear, not just absorb it. As you read or watch the news, ask yourself:
©2001 Maia Cowan 
President Bush's decision to pull the U.S. out of the
Kyoto Protocol insults our history, our spirit and our greatness. There are many reasons to criticize President Bush's recent move to withdraw the United States from negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The world's most powerful leader is deliberately avoiding one of the most significant issues facing the world. He is jeopardizing U.S. credibility and standing in the global community. He is threatening to keep the U.S. economy behind a trend toward energy efficiency that the rest of the developed world has clearly embraced. But there is another reason, one that is of concern to every American, regardless of political affiliation. George W. Bush's statements on climate change are fundamentally unpatriotic. In a letter to four U.S. senators, Bush said he won't support the Kyoto Protocol because it does not yet command participation from developing nations, including China and India. He says their absence makes the approach "unfair." He is saying, quite concretely, that the U.S. won't participate unless everyone else does. He is saying, quite directly, that we, the United States, would prefer not to lead on this issue. It's a position -- an excuse, really -- that would be plausible coming from Lesotho, Paraguay or the Czech Republic. But not from the United States. I respect all nations and all peoples, but I love my country. Like many, I happen to believe I was born in, and live in, a genuinely great country. This is no empty pledge of allegiance; my sense of patriotism requires one to be specific about those national characteristics that one loves. (It is a process that allows for many forms of greatness; it recognizes that all countries can be great in their own way.) One of the things I love most about my country and the people who live here is that we're able to tackle the most immense problems and challenges -- and solve them. This is our history, our deserved claim to fame. Our legacy of originality, creativity and ingenuity has its roots in our nation's very beginning. We toppled a monarchy and tried out a new experiment in democracy. We created the process of mass production to bring highly technical products to vast numbers of people. We built an arsenal to defend freedom on several continents at once, and did it overnight. Want to go to the moon? Get Uncle Sam on the line. As the world's only remaining superpower, our unique burden and enormous distinction has been that we must lead the way on the world's most critical issues, its most intractable problems. It is our huge responsibility. But it is also our particular joy. We're Americans. Give us a few minutes under the hood; we'll get this baby going. In a 1962 speech in Bush's home state of Texas, John F. Kennedy identified a great challenge and magically captured this American spirit. "Why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, did Lindbergh fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard." So it once was. Suddenly, it's different. President Bush would have us slouch to the end of the line, step to the periphery as hapless bystanders. He would have us defer, regardless of our history, regardless of the certain peril in such deference. Now, as China goes, so goes the U.S. (That's right, we'll only sign on to the global compact on greenhouse gas emissions if it is first signed by the Communist regime in China -- Red China, as they presumably say at the Bush dinner table.) We will wait, blushing and shuffling our feet, for some energetic leader of another country to take the initiative, to drag us along for our own good. Kennedy knew what the rest of us know: A strong country is not afraid of high standards. In fact, a strong country tries to set the highest standards possible, knowing that it, as much as any other nation, possesses the skills and energy to meet those standards. That was the America in which I was born. George W. Bush's statements notwithstanding, it is the America in which I live. The United States should be doing all it can to support the ratcheting up of standards on the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is a challenge worthy of the American spirit. And it is an effort that would bring tremendous economic benefits to the American people. Bush's limited view allows him to see the costs -- his letter to the senators claimed Kyoto would harm the U.S. economy -- but prevents him from seeing the economic benefits of leading the way. U.S. investments in the war effort of the 1940s gave our automotive and aeronautics industries competitive advantages that lasted more than three decades. Kennedy's commitment to the Apollo program (he did not spend his limited time in office trying to line up support from developing nations) led to our economic dominance of the information age. The same can be true when the new energy age rolls around -- as it surely will in the coming decade. If we commit to dramatic reductions in our carbon emissions, we'll spend much of the decade developing new and efficient energy systems and appliances. And the world will buy them. People in China and India will buy them as well -- even if their countries haven't yet signed on -- because they will be the best and most cost-efficient systems. Bush's decisions, if unchecked, could have a disastrous impact on the American spirit. His path would have us suddenly afraid of our strength. It would have us recoiling from a responsibility we have earned and cherished. It would have us relinquishing a leading role in the preservation of the planet. This isn't just the latest nail that Bush is pounding into the coffin of a beleaguered environment. It isn't just one in a litany of ecological horrors his administration has unleashed in a scant two months. This move is national capitulation. Bush is handing off the torch, declaring himself -- declaring us -- to be unworthy of leadership.
Among the many American things that I love and that are a source of great pride,
two come to mind at this moment. There is the wondrous and diverse natural
beauty of the American landscape. And there is our vital role as a leader on the
global stage. With his decision on Kyoto, Bush has trashed both in one fell
swoop.
WASHINGTON, The
Environmental Protection Agency said today
that it intended to withdraw a new
drinking-water regulation approved by the Clinton
administration, saying it did not believe that the decision was supported by the best available science.
The rule, which would have reduced by 80 percent the permissible standard for arsenic in drinking water,
had been a priority of environmental groups for more than a decade. It had been vigorously opposed by the
mining industry and by some municipalities on grounds that the cost of compliance could reach into the
hundreds of millions of dollars.
The decision, announced by Christie Whitman, the E.P.A. administrator, leaves in place, at least for now,
an arsenic standard established in 1942. It is the Bush administration's most significant departure from the
environmental policies of the Clinton administration.
The withdrawal came just days before the new rules, approved in President Bill Clinton's last week in
office, were to become final.
The agency's decision turns on the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to determine the level at
which arsenic poses an unacceptable risk to human health when it is in drinking water. Arsenic, a naturally
occurring substance, is also a known carcinogen.
A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the current arsenic standard of 50 parts
per billion "could easily" result in a 1-in-100 risk of cancer. The report went on to recommend that the
acceptable levels be revised downward "as promptly as possible." The 10 parts per billion standard
approved by the Clinton administration is identical to the one adopted several years ago by the European
Union and the World Health Organization.
A former E.P.A. official who helped draft the Clinton policy used strong words in condemning today's
action.
"I'm stunned," said the ex-official, Chuck Fox, who until January was the agency's assistant administrator
for water. "This action will jeopardize the health of millions of Americans, and it compromises literally a
decade's worth of work on behalf of developing a public health standard."
The action was the second victory in a week for the mining industry, which was a big contributor to
President Bush and the Republican party and which had sued to block the Clinton rules. Last week, coal
producers embraced the administration's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants.
John Grasser, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, called the administration's decision to
withdraw the drinking-water rule a source of significant relief.
"The Clinton administration rushed this out in the midnight hour," Mr. Grasser said. "We felt all along that
it was really a political decision unsupported by the science."
Advocates for the mining and chemical industries, along with some people representing cities that would
have been affected by the new rule, argued that the new standards were arbitrary and would have exacted a
huge financial cost.
Ms. Whitman cited that argument in explaining today's decision.
"It is clear that arsenic, while naturally occurring, is something that needs to be regulated," Ms. Whitman
said in a written statement today.
But, she continued, "certainly, the standard should be less than 50 p.p.b., but the scientific indicators are
unclear as to whether the standard needs to go as low as 10 p.p.b."
Earlier, in announcing the decision in a speech to the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Ms.
Whitman pledged, "When we make a decision on arsenic, it will be based on sound science and solid
analysis."
At least 11 million Americans, most of them in small towns and rural areas but some in cities as large as
Albuquerque, rely on drinking water that contains more arsenic than the 10 parts per billion that would
have been allowed under the Clinton rules, officials of the environmental agency said.
But they would not be immediately affected by the Bush administration's decision to withdraw the Clinton
rules, the officials said, because the new standard would not have begun to take effect for three years.
A senior E.P.A. official said the administration hoped to come up with its own recommendation by
sometime this summer.
The rules on arsenic in drinking water fall under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Congress had set a
deadline of June 2001 for the E.P.A. to come up with a new standard.
The Associated Press reported tonight that the administration would seek to suspend another environmental
action taken under President Clinton. The change would set aside stricter rules on hardrock mining that
required compliance with tightened environmental standards.
On the arsenic rule, among lawmakers who had been most outspoken in urging the Bush administration to
withdraw the Clinton rules was Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, whose state has
high naturally occurring arsenic levels.
In a letter to Ms. Whitman earlier this year, Senator Domenici said the rules would impose "an excruciating
financial burden" on his state, affecting one in four municipal water systems, imposing a price of
compliance of $400 million to $500 million.
Congressional Democrats reacted bitterly today to reversal of the Clinton policy.
"This is another example of a special interest payback to industries that gave millions of dollars in
campaign contributions," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who was the
author of the safe drinking water legislation.
Arsenic is a common byproduct of mining operations, so stricter standards for its content in drinking water
would translate into stricter standards for many mining sites.
The wood products industry also supports the administration's ruling because arsenic is used to pressure-
treat lumber. The industry's trade association, the American Wood Preservers Institute, which had
supported the mining industry in a lawsuit welcomed the news today.
"We're very relieved and delighted about what we hear," said Mel Pine, the organization's spokesman.   On President Bush's Record A statement by Senator Barbara Boxer In an interview with the New York Times, President Bush said "Prosperity will mean little if we leave future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers and vanished forests." [New York Times, 4/4/00] Well, after 60 days of the Bush Administration prosperity is in trouble, air quality is in trouble, lakes, rivers and forests are in trouble and our drinking water is in trouble too. Let's look at President Bush's environmental record after only 60 days in office. He wants to drill in a wildlife refuge. He backed down on a promise to the American people to curb the greenhouse gas, C02. He moved to block efforts to protect a third of our national forests from roads and logging. He repealed the rule that requires mining companies not to destroy the environment or endanger public health. Now in a stunning announcement, the Bush Administration repealed tough scientific based standards for arsenic in drinking water. I've been in elected office for 25 years and I have never met one person who defends high levels of arsenic in our drinking water. The arsenic standard that the Bush Administration has put into effect as of now, is a standard set in 1942. It ignores years of scientific research. And it does not come close to meeting the worldwide accepted standard of 10 parts per billion. Every one of our trading partners in the European Union has this 10 parts per billion standard that he is repealing. Yesterday, Christie Todd Whitman said the 10 parts per billion standard wasn't based on science and it was done too quickly. Well, here is the 10 parts per billion rule as published in the Federal Register. It is 92 pages long and is based on at least 5 years of Congressionally mandated studies. Let's be clear. We believe that George W. Bush has declared war on the environment. But, we are here today to tell him that we will fight him in that war -- regulation by regulation, legislation by legislation, standard by standard, confrontation by confrontation. We know that exposure to unsafe levels of arsenic causes all kinds of cancer. Lung cancer, skin cancer, and bladder cancer. We know that it causes other severe health problems, including damage to the central nervous system and cardiovascular disease. We know that it can cause reproductive problems and birth defects. Studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences have shown that 1 in every 100 people who drink water containing arsenic at the old standard may develop cancer. That's a risk factor 10,000 times higher than the amount allowed by EPA in food. Congress recognized the undeniable health threats posed by arsenic several years ago, passing the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This legislation, which passed unanimously by the Senate, called upon EPA to update its standard for arsenic in drinking water by January 2001. EPA followed through with this task by setting a new drinking water standard in January at 10 parts per billion. This standard is based on a decade of sound, peer-reviewed science and will improve drinking water for 13 million people once fully implemented. We need this standard. But instead, the Bush Administration has ignored the science. That is why my colleagues and I are announcing several steps that we plan to take to ensure that this standard is not repealed by the Bush Administration. First, we are asking Acting EPA General Counsel Anna Wolgast to defend Administrator Whitman's cancellation of this new standard. Second, we are prepared to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Bush Administration's repeal of this new standard. Third, I have drafted legislation with Chuck Schumer that would set the same standard for arsenic levels in our drinking water at 10 parts per billion, recommended by EPA in January. I understand that Bill Nelson is working on similar legislation. As a long time supporter of efforts to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water, I urge Administrator Whitman and the Bush Administration to reconsider their proposal to withdraw this standard. President Bush, we will NOT stand by while you turn back the clock on our public health standards. But rest assured: If you won't do what is in the best interest of the American people, we will. Handwritten letters are the most effective. To find out who your lawmakers are and their contact information visit: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.phtml You can also send email comments directly to the President at: president@whitehouse.gov The online comment section for the White House seems to have been eliminated. We suggest sending an inquiry to the webmaster at the site listed below. Ask why you can no longer comment online other than to the President's direct email. There is also no longer an (800) number given for calling the White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ 
LITTLE ROCK, AK -- A committee of the Arkansas legislature on Wednesday recommended banning the theory of evolution from textbooks in the
latest challenge by state officials to the scientific view of how life develops, Reuters reported.
According to Reuters, a committee of the state House approved the legislation and forwarded it to the full House, 20 years after the state legislature
passed a similar bill later struck down in federal courts as unconstitutional.
The measure advanced despite a warning from the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that it could violate the constitutionally mandated
separation of church and state.
``Would anybody here pretend that this isn't about religion?'' Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas, asked the committee.
``Do you believe you were descended from a monkey?'' Representative Denny Altes shot back. ``If we teach kids that they were descended from
monkeys, don't you think they'll act like monkeys?''
Fundamentalist Christian activists have had little success in repeated attempts at the state level to block the teaching of biological evolution, which
holds that humans developed from animals, or to promote divine ``creationism'' as a competing theory.
The most recent failure was in Kansas, where a newly elected state board of education last month overturned a 1999 decision by the previous board
to drop evolution from state education requirements.
The Arkansas legislation was approved by the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental affairs.
It would bar the topic of evolution or related radio-carbon dating of animal and plant fossils from state-funded textbooks used in schools, museums,
libraries and zoos.
In books already on hand, the bill would require teachers to instruct students to mark ``false evidence'' or ``theory'' in the margins next to
references to evolution and the carbon dating of fossils.
``We have been elected to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and only for truth,'' Rep. Jim Holt, a freshman Republican and
self-described Christian conservative, told the committee.
Political observers questioned whether the bill would survive the state Senate if it makes it through the full House. The Senate is traditionally less
conservative than the House.
Rep. Barbara King, a retired teacher, was the lone vote against sending the bill to the House floor. She said the measure was unnecessary and was
probably unconstitutional.
The committee vote came exactly 20 years after Arkansas passed a law requiring public school teachers who referred to evolution in the classroom to
give equal treatment to the Biblical account of creation.
A federal judge overturned that law in 1982 in a challenge brought by the ACLU.
Arkansas along with Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee barred the teaching of evolution in their public schools in the 1920s, a move hailed by
failed Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.
Bryan was a key figure in the 1925 prosecution of John T. Scopes, a Tennessee high school teacher charged with violating the ban. Scopes, who
was defended by the ACLU, was convicted and fined $100. The state's high court later acquitted him, saying he had been fined excessively, but
upheld the law.
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional any laws barring evolutionary teaching in public schools.
As President Bush announces
he won't hold any more press
conferences, a relieved America
comes together in gratitude.
The unelected president has become the unspeakable president. Literally.
President George W. Bush, his spokesman announced Wednesday, will not be
holding any more press conferences. Instead, he'll talk to reporters in a less
"formal" way. "The president prefers an informality about certain things," said
Ari Fleischer.
Welcome to the wonderful world of George W. Bush's
brain, where it's always Casual Friday!
You can't really blame Bush for fleeing from the press
with his larynx between his legs. You see, reporters
have this annoying habit of asking questions. And
when you don't know the answers and don't want to
know the answers and there's no way when you're
standing up in front of all these people for Dick or Colin
to give you the answers, it's just like that horrible day in sixth grade when you
had to give a report on the Mayans and you hadn't done any of the reading and
didn't even know who the Mayans were and Jimmy Burton was going to slip
you a crib sheet but he was sick that day and Mr. Snider made you get up in
front of everybody and you couldn't get out of it and you had to say something
so you said the Mayans were the people who invented Mayannaise.
That was a really bad day. And when you're president, you shouldn't have to
have days like that. Otherwise, what is the point of being president?
And when you're the American public, you shouldn't be subjected to them
either. It's embarrassing and hurtful to our national image. In fact, it's
un-American. Even the people who voted for Bush knew he was a few beans
short of a full burrito, so why make him stand up there and pretend he knows
what he's talking about? That isn't him! It's unfair to him! And it's not why we
elected him!
What America, or at least five old geezers in black robes, wanted was a genial,
figurehead-type CEO who is incapable of defending or even explaining the
decisions made by his corporate masters on the board of directors, but who can
make ignorance seem charming.
And if that is what America wanted, that is what America should get!
In the Age of Bush, silence is golden.
 Will Bush Kill Us? Though it is only a few short months into the Bush administration, it is hard to imagine how he could have moved any more quickly to make the world a far more dangerous place than it already was. Let's start with the traditional bogeymen; large militarized nation states. Right out of the chute, Bush essentially restarted the cold war by loudly proclaiming his disdain for the nuclear test ban treaty. Never mind that the treaty is the linchpin holding together 30 years of US-Russian security agreements. Our formerly former adversaries were forced to reassess their commitment to 30 years of painstaking diplomacy and negotiations, along with it the resultant arms treaties. So much for the "peace dividend." No better is Bush's ill-conceived missile defense program. Even though the prototype systems have failed basically every test they have ever run, and thousands of our top physicists have loudly and repeatedly proclaimed the system will never work, Bush knows better. The Chinese response was entirely predictable; a massive increase in their defense budget. Moving on to the lesser bogeymen, the small militarized nation states, Bush fared even worse. The Arab world has largely come to view the continued sanctions against Iraq, which kill thousands of poor Iraqi children a year, as unduly punitive and counterproductive. Bush's response? He hadn't been in office two months before he tossed a few smart bombs at Iraq. Bush's spokespeople called the attacks "routine." Is that the new paradigm? Bombing Iraq is just part of running the government; sort of like getting the social security checks out on time? Sort of makes you wonder how exactly Bush is planning on convincing his "friends" in OPEC to reverse their present course and increase oil production, like he promised us in his campaign. Of course, lower oil prices would hurt the folks who dropped a cool $100 million into his campaign, so that promise had about as much weight as his pledge to regulate CO2 emissions. But I digress. Bush went on to antagonize the North Koreans, blithely letting out this gem: "Part of the problem in dealing with North Korea," he said, "there's not very much transparency. We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements." Of course, the U.S. has only one agreement with North Korea -- the 1994 plutonium agreement. So what the hell was Bush talking about? White House spokesmen told reporters that Bush was speaking about "possible future agreements." Huh? The North Koreans promptly canceled diplomatic meetings with the South Korean government, meetings which had been strongly encouraged by Western powers worried about global security threats should tension continue between the two countries. Now, lets think about this for a minute. If Bush gets a rogue state like North Korea or Iraq mad enough at us, do you think they would attack us in a bold, Pearl Harbor type assault, thinking they could win an all out war with the United States? Or do you think they might try to hit us with a terrorist type attack, say detonating a nuclear bomb on a boat in San Francisco Bay or cracking open a vial of a biological weapon on international flight bound for Laguardia? How is Bush's inoperable star wars defense system going to stop that? No matter; Bush didn't carry California or New York. They can just suffer those indignities along with the rolling blackouts. Well, how about our allies? Surely Bush has done a better job with them? Not quite. Bush's fat cat Republican donors killed a bunch of Japanese fishermen while joy riding in a nuclear submarine. Oops. How about Europe? No luck there, either. Practically every policy with international implications Bush has articulated has been received horribly. Western Europe has the most to lose if a remilitarized Russia tests Bush's non-functioning missile defense shield. They were much happier with the idea of Russia decreasing its nuclear stockpile, but Bush has stopped that cold in its tracks. Western Europe lacks a big oil industry to con fundamentalists with bogus research on global warming, so they worry about catastrophic climate change. That means they were more upset with Bush's reversal on CO2 emissions than your average Southern Baptist. A short two months into his term, friend and foe alike, Bush has pissed off everybody. About the only people on the planet who Bush hasn't given some reason to hate us are the members of the federalist society. They are too busy getting vetted for vacant federal judgeships. Heaven help us.
 Dead Letter Office
Heil Bush,
Dear Gruppenfuhrer Dodd,
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 Dodd! Sieg Heil!
Signed,
Heil Bush
Bush, Rove & Co. Swimming In Denial
AUSTIN -- OK, here's what I think the problem is with George W. Bush and Karl
Rove. After the 36-day, post-election war, the R's kept saying to the D's, "Get
over it."
Although not kindly intended, this happened to be very good advice. The
problem now is not that the D's can't get over it -- the problem is that the R's are
in denial. They are in total denial of the fact that they not only lost the popular
vote by fairly spectacular numbers, but they also lost Florida.
I'm not here to beat a dead horse -- Bush won a 5-4 decision in the Supreme
Court, and that's the way it goes. I'm just talking about what would make a
smart guy like Rove drop the ball this big-time. Denial, as they say in Alcoholics
Anonymous, is not just a river in Egypt.
The single most dangerous thing you can do in politics is shut off information
from people who don't agree with you. Surround yourself with sycophants, listen
only to the yea-sayers . . . then stick a fork in it, you're done.
The dinner in Austin last week honoring Rove as the greatest political genius of
our time is not the kind of thing that's conducive to clear thinking. Bush himself
is no genius, but he has in the past surrounded himself with smart people. Bob
Bullock, the late lieutenant governor of Texas and Bush's political mentor, was
capable of behaving like a blind mule for short periods, but when did Bullock
ever fail to have an active intelligence operation out among the opposition?
Bullock cribbed ideas and help from the LBJ School (which is the Texas
equivalent of the John F. Kennedy School of Government) and was proud of it,
too.
Of course, you can cut the American Bar Association out of judging judges and
ring in the Madison Society, with Ken Starr and all his friends, instead. (And may
I say on behalf of Little Jamie Madison, that giant of man, that the movement
conservatives are doing disservice to his name.)
I watched Rove and Bullock steer George W. through most of his time as
governor of Texas. I say again: With Bush, what you see is not what you get;
what you hear is not what you get; what you get is all you get. We already knew
the W. Bush motto: "Talk moderate; govern right."
But you can't govern from the right of where you ran if you didn't win in the first
place. What is the point of behaving as though you had a mandate when you
don't have a mandate?
In almost every speech, Bush says, "I was elected because the people expected
me to (do X, Y or Z)." Or his staff says after yet another controversial call,
"People knew this was what he stood for when they voted for him." But they
didn't.
If you will recall, the polls consistently favored Al Gore on most issues, even
though Bush carefully presented himself as a moderate, not a right-winger.
Bush's tax program, which he originally sold as the perfect package for a
booming economy, has mysteriously morphed into a recession cure. But you
can't stimulate the economy by giving the richest people in the country an
enormous tax break effective 10 years from now.
Arsenic in the drinking water, subsidizing the timber industry by having the
taxpayers fund roads in the national forests, dropping the Kyoto treaty, cutting
funds to safeguard Russia's crumbling nuclear weapons system -- none of this is
smart, politically or in terms of policy.
However, there is one sign that the administration is alert at least to media
reactions. On March 28, they announced that Bush would hold no more formal
press conferences. The next day, he held one, and they announced that there
would be one a month.
Granted, Bush is no Jack Kennedy when it comes to wowing people at press
conferences, but the people are always willing to cut an inarticulate president a
lot of slack, even if the press isn't -- viz., Dwight D. Eisenhower and Daddy Bush.
The complaint that there's a pro-Bush fraternity of reporters who traveled with
him on the campaign and that they're the only ones who get called on may be
just sour grapes. But it does follow his Texas pattern. Lou DuBose of the `Austin
Chronicle' (and my co-author on a Bush book) observed on Fox News last week
that most of the Texas press corps had the same relationship with Bush that
Monica Lewinsky had with Bill Clinton.
On the other hand, Bush continues his jihad against organized labor and,
according to `The Wall Street Journal,' will announce today that it is dropping
rules that require federal agencies to assess whether companies seeking
government contracts are habitual violators of labor, environmental or other laws.
Favoring companies that obey the law over those who break it is not a radical
step. In fact, it's kind of hard to argue that three-strikes-and-you're-out should
apply to individuals, but not to corporations that have figured out they can afford
to ignore the law and just continue to pay fines in the unlikely event of being
caught.
When one tries to understand why this bizarre lurch to the right is occurring, the
only answer seems to be denial, denial, denial. I have a suggestion: Get over it. 
"Hamilton wasn't a president," said Grover Norquist, a
conservative Washington lobbyist and president of the Ronald
Reagan Legacy Project. Hamilton was the first treasury secretary.
But Norquist's group, whose advisory board includes former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Attorney General John Ashcroft
and enough House Republicans to fill a bus, has more than $10
bills in mind.
The legacy project has asked state officials to "put their thinking
caps on," as Norquist put it, and come up with at least one
proposal for a Reagan landmark in each state.
Norquist envisions a Reagan Range of mountains in Alaska. He
said the South Dakota highway leading to Mt. Rushmore could
have a more impressive name than U.S. Route 16. No word on
whether he has an idea for Michigan.
"There are 600 things named after John F. Kennedy and 600
named after Martin Luther King, which are both appropriate,"
said Norquist, "It gives some sense of the scale."
Reagan, who is 90 and has Alzheimer's disease, already is
prominently commemorated in Washington. A mammoth office
building three blocks from the White House bears his name.
Congress named a new aircraft carrier after him and also renamed
Washington's National Airport to bear his name.
Not enough, said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., another member of the
Reagan legacy group. Barr wants the airport subway stop
renamed for Reagan.
Otherwise, he's threatening to hold up the subway system's
federal money.
The Reagan legacy group, which tends to think big whatever the
obstacles, also wants a Reagan memorial on the capital's National
Mall, the presidential reserve of George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Robert Dallek, a presidential historian at Boston University,
rejected the idea as absurd and reeled off his reasons: "The
Washington Monument did not get completed until 85 years after
he was dead. The Lincoln Memorial wasn't opened until the
1920s. The Jefferson Memorial came 117 years after he died. The
Roosevelt Memorial opened in 1997, 52 years after Roosevelt
died."
There's also the small matter of a law that Reagan signed that
forbids any memorial on the mall until 25 years after the
honoree's death.
To which Norquist replied: "The reason you wait for somebody
to die is so they won't embarrass you."  ©2001 Sally Basille
TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS We, the undersigned voters, know that our cherished democracy is endangered from within by the grave and potentially fatal flaws in our voting systems exposed by the Presidential Election of 2000. As our elected representatives, you have the duty, the opportunity, and the privilege to correct these flaws and to restore fair and honest elections throughout our nation. To this end, we charge you to construct and pass a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS, which shall include: Strict enforcement and extension of the Voting Rights Act to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters and require full investigation and criminal prosecution of any offenders; Standardized, easily understandable federal election ballots Funding to replace old and unreliable voting machines to ensure that every vote is counted fairly and accurately Genuine campaign finance reform that bans campaign contributions from special interests Replacement of the Electoral College with a majority-rule election, or substantial reform of the Electoral College to allow for proportional representation Measures to increase voter participation by eliminating bureaucratic hurdles to voter registration and turnout, including language barriers, physical barriers, archaic equipment, and lack of resources Enactment and enforcement of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS will restore trust in our government and encourage participation in our democratic processes. The linchpin of a democracy is the process by which we select our representatives and leaders. The right to vote is our defining right as citizens of this nation. We call upon our elected representatives to protect our Constitution from abusive exercise of government power by enacting a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS. We pledge our full and constant support for enactment of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS. This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Chris Whitehouse.
Incensed Republicans
Sung to the tune of "Incense & Peppermints"
(long instrumental intro)
Nonsense, violence afflicts their kind
They swear, they blame, they'll lose
Incensed Republicans, meanies denounce
They divide their cockeyed world in two
They swear, they blame, they'll lose
(instrumental break)
Nonsense, violence afflicts their kind
They swear, they blame, they'll lose
Incensed Republicans
Dubya
(fade)
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke
If anyone desires information they can e-mail march@now.org or go to the NOW website.
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.
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,
|
|
Parting Shots...  ©2001 Shining Shakti
1. You must never use facts in any argument.
2. If proven wrong by a liberal you must never admit that you're wrong, and claim that all evidence that is used to prove you wrong is lies made up by the liberal media.
3. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is a punishment from God visited only on depraved homosexuals and therefore not worthy of any type of public interest or expense.
4. You have to believe that guns, like money are key to determining any and all questions regarding personal worth, or status in society.
5. You have to believe that the 2nd Amendment is more important than the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
7. You have to believe that women, like other minorities are second class citizens, to be exploited for your own personal financial gain.
8. You have to believe that there was no pollution before the EPA was established.
9. You have to believe that there were no injured workers before OSHA was established.
10. You have to believe that poor people are poor because they are genetically inferior to you.
11. You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because it defends all 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, not just the second.
12. You have to agree with the NRA that all FBI, DEA and BATF agents are "Jack Booted Thugs" lurking in the shadows waiting for a chance to spring out and take your guns.
13. You have to believe that God needs a public address system in order to hear your prayers.
14. You have to believe that George W. Bush actually made his millions all by himself.
15. You have to believe that the standards of conduct to which you hold the rest of the world do not apply to you.
16. You have to believe that poor performance by public school students is the teachers fault, yet good performance by students is the product of hard work and determination, in spite of the teachers.
17. You have to believe that the way to balance a budget is to cut revenues and increase spending.
18. You have to believe that a woman who has been made pregnant by a rapist, somehow deserves what she got and that she should be forced to carry the fetus to term.
19.
20. You must believe that starving poor children to death is the best way to get their lazy parents off welfare and into a job.
21. You must believe that Democratic Congresses have more power than Republican Presidents and that Republican Congresses have less power than Democratic Presidents.
22. You must believe that the 1st Amendment actually was meant to establish the Baptist Fundamentalist brand of Christianity as the official American religion, and that all those other people should "go back where they came from".
23. You must look like the person in this photo, when you take your clothes off.
©2001 Left Jab
|
Issues & Alibis Vol 1 # 6 ©4/15/2001
will begin publishing every Friday.
We are not affiliated with any political party but
are dedicated to the restoration of the American Republic.