WTO STILL PARTIES LIKE IT'S 1999

on 10th Anniversary of the Battle in Seattle
Bankers' scheme to re-open finance casino worldwide
by Greg Palast for Air America's Ring of Fire

GENEVA — Apparently, one meltdown isn't enough for the World Trade Organization. They meet today in Geneva on the tenth anniversary of the "Battle in Seattle," the first mass protest against globalization.

In a special investigation for Air America's Ring of Fire, I recently gained access to several documents from inside the file cabinets of the WTO, the World Bank and other centers of globalization.

According to one marked "Ensure This Text Is Not Made Publicly Available," the big banks, via official trade negotiators, are secretly demanding that emerging nations, starting with Brazil, open their markets to trading in derivatives, credit default swaps and other exotic—and toxic—financial products.

It's not enough that they have brought the US and Europe to their financial knees. Now banks, under the guise of the WTO's free trade treaty, want to expand the casino to the new big emerging powers with their trillion-greenback reserves. A derivatives crash in those markets could easily trigger a financial China Syndrome—a second meltdown from New York to Beijing to Brasília.

Here in Geneva, at the grand compound on the shore of Lake Geneva, I confronted the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, about the secret demands of the world's biggest financiers. I asked how, after the disaster in the US economy in 2008, the prime movers of the globe's economy would go along with the world's largest banks to start up still more gambling operations in Brazil and India?

Lamy insisted that, "Trade is not the problem. The problem is whether what you trade is regulated or not."

The WTO chief did however admit that, were a nation to attempt to shutter any particular bank's trading desk, that nation would have to pay a hefty penalty under WTO rules. "There's a price to pay to claw back," said Lamy, himself a banker. (Lamy was Director-General of French giant Crédit Lyonnais.)

The exposure of the secret demand on Brazil to allow banks to go double or nothing on a second crisis runs counter to the public position of US and European governments. Paul Volker, President Obama's advisor on preventing another crisis, has called for re-regulating banks, and in particular, barring commercial banks from trading in derivatives and other risky financial instruments.

This contradiction between public position and private lobby for the banks infuriates Martin Khor, Geneva-based trade advisor to Brazil and 50 other emerging nations. Khor, known as the intellectual leader of the Seattle anti-WTO protests of 1999, told Air America, "If I were Mr. Obama or (British Prime Minister) Brown, I would tell my financial services organization, please lay off the developing countries; let's get our own act together."

But apparently, the banks and global-crats at the WTO want to party like it's 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report was funded by the Palast Investigative Fund, a 501c3 charitable trust and Ring of Fire.

The Fund is offering Greg Palast's investigative reports on DVD and his bestselling books, signed by the reporter, for the holidays at: www.gregpalast.com/store

Hear the "Ring of Fire" podcast with Mike Papantonio and Greg Palast.

Special thanks to Public Citizen's GATS Watch and Oliver Shykles.
***********************
HOLIDAY Special: Support the work of the Palast Investigative Fund by making a donation today: www.gregpalast.com/store We are now offering Palast's investigative reports on DVD and his bestselling books—personally signed by the reporter—in time for the holidays:

http://www.gregpalast.com/store

Al Franken's Race Counted on Flawed Systems

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6641

Al Franken's Razor-Thin MN Senate Race Counted on Flawed Optical-Scan Systems
PLUS: Details on 'What in the Hell Happened in Alaska' and Georgia and Oregon...
Posted By Brad Friedman On 5th November 2008
Diebold/Premier, Oregon, Georgia, Alaska, Election 2008, Minnesota, Al Franken 38 Comments

I'm exhausted, so forgive me if I make this quicker than it deserves. And if I haven't yet been able to jump into a myriad of other elections of serious concern around the country still today.

But just a few quick facts on the Al Franken (D) / Norm Coleman (R) U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, which we noted last night [1] (with some updates today) stands at some 700 votes currently between them. More hopefully after I've figured out how to sneak in some rest.

Here are three quick, bullet-point facts that Franken may want to know, since his was the only show on Air America which never had me on as a guest, as he simply refused to discuss serious issues concerning Election Integrity, now - ironically enough.

(And see below these for some quick skinny on serious concerns about the outstanding Senate races in AK, OR and GA...)

While all of Minnesota [2] votes on paper ballots, thankfully. Though all of those ballots are scanned, rather than counted, on proprietary optical-scan systems made by either ES&S or Diebold. Both companies produce systems that regularly fail to count and/or record ballots correctly.

The majority of counties use the ES&S M-100, precinct-based optical scanner. As we noted on Monday [3], that same scanner was found, according to a letter sent to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) by a county in MI, to have failed pre-election "logic and accuracy testing". The M-100, according to the letter from county officials, “reported inconsistent vote totals", such that “The same ballots run through the same machines, yielded different results each time.” Public Record has more details tonight [4].

Two of Minnesota's three largest counties (Anoka and Dakota) use the Diebold AccuVote OS scanners to "count" their ballots. That system is the same one seen being hacked via its memory card in the Emmy-nominated HBO documentary Hacking Democracy [5]. You can watch the actual hack from the film below (appx 9 mins)

(By the way, the Diebold op-scanner used above, and in MN, was also used in January's New Hampshire primary when pre-election polls and exit polls determined Obama would be the winner, only to see him lose to Hillary Clinton. Obama was found to have won in the 20% of NH which counts their ballots by hand. While Clinton won, by an almost precisely flipped margin, in the 80% of NH that used the Diebold op-scan system seen being hacked in the mock-election seen being manipulated in the clip above.)

In late August of this year, Diebold admitted [6], while being sued because of it by the state of Ohio, that their GEMS central tabulator system routinely drops thousands of votes, without giving notice, while they are being uploaded from memory cards to the main server. That failed GEMS tabulator model was used yesterday, with both Diebold's touch-screen and op-scan systems, in some 34 states across the country.

An automatic recount has been triggered in the Franken/Coleman race, and will take place mid-November. I haven't checked yet as to whether it'll be a machine or hand recount --- hopefully the latter --- but it looks like I have time to find out later (Updated: News accounts say it will be by hand). Either way, hopefully the ballots --- both voted and unvoted --- will be carefully guarded and their chain of custody will be secure, transparent and well-documented between now and then.

If you'd like more details on all of these concerns, Al, feel free to contact me. All is forgiven. Sorta. Just as long as you don't concede before every vote is counted, and counted accurately.

Other U.S. Senate Races of Concern...

While I was writing this, Kim Zetter at WIRED posted a similar story [7] on the failed ES&S scanners used across much of MN. She also tosses in a quick summary of several of the other outstanding Senate races still in question in Alaska, Georgia and Oregon, and the types of voting systems used in each. Given my exhaustion, I'll hope both she and you will forgive if I simply repost those summaries here, along with a couple of my own quick additional points on each...

Alaska

Republican Senator, and convicted felon [8], Ted Stevens is leading Democratic challenger and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich by 48.2 percent to 46.7 percent. Some 49,000 absentee, early votes and provisional ballots remain to be counted. If Stevens wins, it's unclear if he'll resign or face possible expulsion by his Senate peers. If either happens, there's talk of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin running for his seat. Voting System: Alaska uses optical-scan machines made by Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) statewide.

Note: Alaska is one of the few places where the Democratic Party actually went to court to fight for transparency against the Electoral-Industrial Complex, successfully suing the state for the release of Diebold databases detailing how voters voted in the 2004 election. The state fought tooth and nail, including the invocation of "security threat" claims, to avoid releasing the information, even after they'd lost the suit. Alaska is very much a Diebold "company town."

Additional Note: A source of ours in Alaska, has contacted us to let us know about concerns of "shenanigans" in the counting up there. I hope to get more soon, but I'm told that Palin's Lt. Governor is in charge of overseeing the counting and that some are being denied access from observing the counting. So what's happening up there?

We're not the only ones wondering, as Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com asks today [9]: "What in the Hell Happened in Alaska?"...

Although Ted Stevens holds a small lead in Alaska and is the favorite to retain his seat, the outcome is not as inevitable as it might appear to be. Stevens currently holds a lead of 3,353 votes, or about 1.5 percent of the votes tallied so far. But, there are quite a large number of ballots yet to count. According to Roll Call [10], these include "at least 40,000 absentee ballot, 9,000 early voting ballots, and an undetermined number of questionable ballots".

Indeed, it seems possible that the number of "questionable" ballots could be quite high. So far, about 220 thousand votes have been processed in Alaska. This compares with 313 thousand votes cast in 2004. After adding back in the roughly 50,000 absentee and early ballots that Roll Call accounts for, that would get us to 270 thousand ballots, or about a 14 percent drop from 2004. It seems unlikely that turnout would drop by 14 percent in Alaska given the presence of both a high-profile senate race and Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket.

But even if Begich were to make up ground and win a narrow victory, this would seem to represent a catastrophic failure of polling, as three polls conducted following the guilty verdict in Stevens' corruption trial had Begich leading by margins of 7, 8 and 22 points, respectively.
...
[T]he polling failures in Alaska weren't unique to Stevens. They also applied to the presidential race, as well as Alaska's at-large House seat. In each case, the Republican outperformed his pre-election polling by margins ranging from 12 to 14 points.

Troubling? Um, yup. Silver offers some more numbers and details.

But back to Zetter's summaries...

Georgia

Incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss seized only 49.9 percent of votes [11] so far, narrowly missing the 50 percent majority that is required in Georgia to avoid a runoff race. Therefore he'll likely face off against Democratic challenger Jim Martin in a December 2 runoff election if some 50,000 absentee and other ballots that are still being counted fail to tip his percentage numbers. Voting System: Georgia uses AccuVote paperless touchscreen machines made by Premier Election Solutions statewide.

Note: Speaking of "company towns", GA was the first, along with MD, to adopt Diebold's wholly unverifiable touch-screen systems across the entire state. MD has since decided to replace the system with paper-based optical-systems, following scientific report after report warning about failure after failure with those Diebold touch-screen systems. MD will be replacing them for the 2010 election. The error-prone, easily-hacked, inaccurate touch-screens were first used in 2002 in GA, when Chambliss defeated incumbent Max Cleland in a surprising and controversial upset which has raised many questions about the machines, and Diebold's now-admitted secret patching of the systems, with uncertified software, just before the election.

Oregon

Incumbent Republican Senator Gordon Smith is currently leading Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley by less than 1 percent. Voting System: Oregon uses mail-in paper ballots statewide [12]. It's the only state that has gone entirely postal.

Note: The move to Vote-by-Mail is one of the unfortunate side-effects of the raised awareness about problems with touch-screen voting machines. It's a bad idea for democracy, as we detailed some months ago here [13]. (Special note for Oregon readers: You needn't send me emails disagreeing with my position. I already realize many of you love your VBM system very much and don't share my concerns with it. Nonetheless, I stand fully by the points made in that referenced article.)

As long promised, The BRAD BLOG [14] has covered your electoral system 2008, fiercely and independently, like no other media outlet in the nation. Please support our work with a donation [15] to help us keep going. If you like, we'll send you some great election integrity documentary films in return. Details on that right here... [16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URLs in this post:
[1] we noted last night: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6634
[2] all of Minnesota: http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/searched.php?ec=standard&state=MN&equipment_type%5B%5D=All+Types&vendor%5B%5D=All+Vendors&model%5B%5D=All+Models&vvpat=all&submit=Search&rowspp=50&topicText=&county=St.+Louis&stateText=

[3] we noted on Monday: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6613
[4] Public Record has more details tonight: http://pubrecord.org/politics/474-e-voting-machines-used-in-disputed-franken-coleman-race-failed-tests.html
[5] Hacking Democracy: http://HackingDemocracy.com
[6] Diebold admitted: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6309
[7] Kim Zetter at WIRED posted a similar story: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/ess-machines-th.html
[8] convicted felon: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6088781&page=1
[9] Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com asks today: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/what-in-hell-happened-in-alaska.html
[10] Roll Call: http://www.rollcall.com/news/29893-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
[11] seized only 49.9 percent of votes: http://www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/election_results/2008_1104/swscroll.htm
[12] mail-in paper ballots statewide: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88074936
[13] detailed some months ago here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6003
[14] The BRAD BLOG: http://www.BradBlog.com
[15] a donation: http://www.bradblog.comhttps://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Brad@BradBlog.com&item_name=Support+for+The+BRAD+BLOG&item_number=2008
[16] Details on that right here...: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6472

WHAT'S THAT UP IN THE SKY?!

It's Bobby Kennedy and Greg Palast releasing the flaming hot full-color investigative comic book, STEAL BACK YOUR VOTE!
Pow! Zap! No more joking with our rights, Mr. Rove!

Get the 24-page investigative comic book by Greg Palast and Bobby Kennedy: STEAL BACK YOUR VOTE.

With the full story of the investigation you'll soon see Rolling Stone magazine - illustrated by razor-sharp pencils of Ted Rall, Lukas Ketner and Lloyd Dangle.

SIX ways they're STEALING your vote - and SEVEN ways to STEAL IT BACK.

(C'mon - 'fess up - do you really know what to do if they hand you a 'provisional' ballot?)

Make a $100 tax deductible donation at StealBackYourVote.org and we'll send you 25 to pass out to troublemakers of your choice.

And, for every $100 donation, we will give away another 400 to voters to vulnerable voters in swing states. We just sent eight cases to Santiago Juarez. Santiago's working with young Hispanic voters of New Mexico.

Can you help us send him more? Or donate $75+ and get a half dozen comix plus the DVD(signed), 'The Election Files' - my BBC reports on the vote snatchers.

Pick up 10 copies of the guide for a donation of $50. We send'm right away by priority mail.

Get five hundred copies for your local school or group for a $1000 donation at http://www.palastinvestigativefund.org/print-copies-of-steal-back-your-vote.

Or give us the donation, we'll send'm to a church designated by our co-sponsor Jesse Jackson's Operation Rainbow/PUSH.

Thanks to your prior generosity, we're offering the printing plates FREE of any fee to us to any magazine or weekly that wants to insert comic. (You want to reproduce the guide on a mass scale - you got it. Contact zach (at) gregpalast.com)

Or you can download the comic for a donation of a penny or more (more, PLEASE), at StealBackYourVote.org.

Hey, radio stations: download the Willie Nelson PSA for 'Steal Back Your Vote.'

Spread this link! Pow! Zap! Take that, Katherine!

Steal Back Your Vote is a project of the not-for-profit non-partisan Palast Investigative Fund.

WHAT'S THAT UP IN THE SKY?! It's our Super Sponsors! Voto Latino, Operation Rainbow Push, Air America Radio, Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now! and other crusaders for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Contact us at interviews@StealBackYourVote.org.

Map that named America is a puzzle

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/usa_map_dc

Map that named America is a puzzle for researchers
By David Alexander
Mon Dec 3, 2007

The only surviving copy of the 500-year-old map that first used the name America goes on permanent display this month at the Library of Congress, but even as it prepares for its debut, the 1507 Waldseemuller map remains a puzzle for researchers.

Why did the mapmaker name the territory America and then change his mind later? How was he able to draw South America so accurately? Why did he put a huge ocean west of America years before European explorers discovered the Pacific?

"That's the kind of conundrum, the question, that is still out there," said John Hebert, chief of the geography and map division of the Library of Congress.

The 12 sheets that make up the map, purchased from German Prince Johannes Waldburg-Wolfegg for $10 million in 2003, were mounted on Monday in a huge 6-foot by 9.5-foot (1.85 meter by 2.95 meter) display case machined from a single block of aluminum.

The case will be flooded with inert argon gas to prevent deterioration when it goes on public display December 13.

Researchers are hopeful that putting the rarely shown map on permanent display for the first time since it was discovered in the Waldburg-Wolfegg castle archives in 1901 may stimulate interest in finding out more about the documents used to produce it.

The map was created by the German monk Martin Waldseemuller. Thirteen years after Christopher Columbus first landed in the Western Hemisphere, the Duke of Lorraine brought Waldseemuller and a group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France to create a new map of the world.

The result, published two years later, is stunningly accurate and surprisingly modern.

"The actual shape of South America is correct," said Hebert. "The width of South America at certain key points is correct within 70 miles of accuracy."

Given what Europeans are believed to have known about the world at the time, it should not have been possible for the mapmakers to produce it, he said.

The map gives a reasonably correct depiction of the west coast of South America. But according to history, Vasco Nunez de Balboa did not reach the Pacific by land until 1513, and Ferdinand Magellan did not round the southern tip of the continent until 1520.

"So this is a rather compelling map to say, 'How did they come to that conclusion,"' Hebert said.

The mapmakers say they based it on the 1,300-year-old works of the Egyptian geographer Ptolemy as well as letters Florentine navigator Amerigo Vespucci wrote describing his voyages to the new world. But Hebert said there must have been something more.

"From the writings of Vespucci you couldn't have prepared the map," Hebert said. "There had to be something cartographic with it."

MISGIVINGS ABOUT AMERICA

Waldseemuller made it clear he was naming the new land after Vespucci, describing how he came up with the name America based on the navigator's first name.

But he soon had misgivings about what he had done. An atlas Waldseemuller produced six years later shows only part of the east coast of the Americas, and refers to it as Terra Incognita -- unknown land.

"America has gone out of his lexicon," Hebert said. "(No) place in the atlas -- in the text or in the maps -- does the name America appear."

His 1516 mariner's map, on the same scale as the 1507 map, steps back even further, showing only parts of the new continents and reconnecting the north to Asia. South America is labeled Terra Nova -- New World -- and North America is labeled Terra de Cuba -- Land of Cuba.

"Essentially he's reconnecting North America to the Asian mainland, suggesting a continual world of land mass rather than separated by those bodies of water that separate us from Europe and Asia," Hebert said.

Why the rollback? No one knows.

In writings accompanying the 1516 map, Waldseemuller comes across as if he "has seen the better of his error and is now correcting it," Hebert said.

He speculated that power politics played a role. Spain and Portugal divided the globe between them in 1494, two years after Columbus, with territory to the east going to Portugal and land to the west to Spain.

That demarcation line is oddly absent from the 1507 Waldseemuller map, and flags marking territorial claims in South America suggest Portugal controls the region's southernmost land, even though it is in Spain's area of influence. On the later map, the southernmost flag is Spanish, Hebert said.

"It is possible one could say the 1507 map is influenced strongly by Portuguese sources and conceivably the 1516 map may be influenced more by Spanish sources," he said.

Although the map conceals many mysteries, one thing is clear: it represents a revolutionary shift in the way Europe viewed the world.

"This is ... essentially the beginning or first map of the modern age, and it's one that everything builds on from that point forward," Hebert said. "It becomes a keystone map."

(Editing by Eddie Evans)

Randi Rhodes of Air America, No Holds Barred

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/063

Randi Rhodes of Air America, No Holds Barred
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 05/29/2007
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

I was a woman and in the Air Force. ... I ... understood that the reason why the American military is the proudest and the most fierce fighting force on the planet is because we feel like we’re doing a legitimate job for a legitimate government. When you look at why the Iraqis won’t fight, they don’t feel like they’re legitimate, and they don’t feel they’re fighting for a legitimate government. ... Plus, I can’t imagine being on foreign soil making thirteen hundred dollars a month, with a family at home, car payments and house payments and the whole nine yards, and serving next to a guy who’s getting eighty grand to pump gas. In my military experience, that can’t happen. You don’t serve alongside somebody who’s making eighty grand to put the gas in the vehicle. I put the gas in the plane. I put the jet fuel in the plane. I put the oxygen in the airplane. I can’t imagine having to serve with somebody who is making a fricking fortune and is on the payroll of the company, not the country. That screws up the entire camaraderie, the entire feeling that you are a legitimate fighting force. All of a sudden, you see it’s for profit, and you don’t feel legitimate anymore.

-- Randi Rhodes, Air America Radio Host

* * *

Yes, Randi Rhodes did serve in the military, so unlike Dick Cheney -- let's say -- she can tell you a thing or two about what it means to be in the Armed Forces.

Randi is the second interview in our series of conversations with progressive talk show hosts, because BuzzFlash is very supportive of making sure progressive radio succeeds. (By the way, there is nothing to read into the order that our interviews are posted. It is random, although we are interviewing some of the top-rated progressive hosts upfront.) Thom Hartmann was our first.

BuzzFlash, according to Randi, played a key role in getting her a national program. You see, way back when, we interviewed her about how the mainstream media wouldn't give a progressive radio host a chance to go country wide, even though she was an enormous success in the West Palm Beach, Florida, market. After the interview with BuzzFlash, she got a flurry of phone calls, which led to her contract with Air America -- and a move back to her native New York (although she is quick to point out that she was raised in Brooklyn, not Manhattan).

We listen to all of the progressive talk show hosts in this periodic BuzzFlash series of conversations. They each have their different styles.

Randi, as her fans know, gives an informed, passionate voice to the outrage felt by patriotic Americans who think the nation has lost its Constitutional anchor, and sailed far adrift of the vision formed in 1776.

As you will see in the interview, we don't think Randi is a flaming liberal at all. She's a gal from Brooklyn who just applies common sense and the facts to what she sees. And applying common sense to the blinded, destructive zealotry of the Bush cabal can infuriate a person.

You get the feeling that if George Bush had to spend five minutes alone in a room with Randi Rhodes, he'd end up wimpering in the corner and crying out for mercy.

* * *

BuzzFlash: First, I just want BuzzFlash readers to know what stations you’re on -- and at what times -- and where your show can be accessed on the Internet.

Randi Rhodes: I would say go to AirAmerica.com, or therandirhodesshow.com. And if you click on the left sidebar there, the affiliates come up.

BuzzFlash: And you can downstream it on Air America?

Randi Rhodes: AirAmerica.com, yes. You click on "Listen Live."

BuzzFlash: All the progressive talk show hosts whom we’re talking to have a different style. How do you describe your style?

Randi Rhodes: It’s fact-based scatological rants. The stuff is in my head because I read everything in the morning. And of course, all weekend long I’m watching C-span. So I have the facts. But it’s scatological. It just comes out. And one thing leads to another, and another, and another. Sometimes I don’t know how I got there, you know? I need to follow my own train of thought. And then, a caller can change the whole fricking show. Somebody calls in and they have something on their mind that is just like wild, or wildly wrong, or they fricking hate me. And it could change the whole direction of the show.

BuzzFlash: Let me ask a Barbara Walters question here. If we were at a bar, would it be the same Randi Rhodes that I hear on the air?

Randi Rhodes: Yeah, except drunk. Except drunk and really horny.

BuzzFlash: So it’s safe to say you represent the rage that a lot of people feel about what’s going on politically.

Randi Rhodes: I don’t even know that I’m raging. It's just beyond belief because -- people take the oath and then you hear like Gonzales lately, you just hear him lying his ass off. And you say, how come I see him walking out of there not in handcuffs? I mean, if you went into a courtroom and you told this crap, you’d be in handcuffs. Or you look at their tax returns, and they’re submitting their assets as somewhere between 20 million and 120 million. And you’re thinking to yourself, let me try that. I’m going to put on my tax returns that I made somewhere between $70,000 and 150,000. Let’s see if I can get away with that? And you just wonder how are they not in jail?

So it’s frustration, not really anger. I know sometimes I come off angry. I’m not really angry. I’m frustrated beyond belief. And sometimes I’m just plain sickened. Katrina was sickening. The Iraq war -- you just look at it and you just can’t believe it. Every day I look at the body counts and I hear them saying 60,000 Iraqis are dead. And The Lancet, the British medical journal, has got the number, oh, a little higher, at 655,000 or 650,000 if you want to be conservative. And I’m like: Why are they not in jail?

BuzzFlash: When I listen to your show, a lot of what you say is based on common sense. Bill O’Reilly would portray you as some liberal, Islamo-fascist lover. But I’m listening to it, and it’s common sense.

Randi Rhodes: Yes.

BuzzFlash: What sort of happened to common sense? Is that part of your frustration?

Randi Rhodes: I think people wanted to believe that the government, after 9/11, would never lie about what happened that day, because it was just too awful. And they wanted to believe that we were going to be protected and taken care of by this government. When they found out that it was all a lot of bulls**t, I think they just couldn’t believe it.

It was almost like people had been stunned. Like when a car is coming at you and instinct kicks in and, partly, it’s what you’ve been taught, an, partly, it’s what your body tells you to do. Some people innately know to fight. Some people innately know to flee. Some people just freeze. They just freeze. And it’s really no fault of their own. It’s just how they’re hard-wired. A lot of people froze. And a lot of people wanted to fight. And a lot of people just wanted to flee from the truth. I don’t think it’s really common sense. I think it’s like prayer -- like the insides dictated what they were going to do about this information that we were attacked by an unfamiliar country.

BuzzFlash: On a daily basis you bring up common-sense things about people. You'll say that this doesn’t make sense. Or it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Randi Rhodes: I was just brought up to question authority. I was. I was brought up to be curious, and to question authority. Of course, when you grow up in a neighborhood that’s rough, you find survival skills. Mine was if I was funny, I could live. So I just learned how to look at a situation and figure it out real quick, and know what my place in it was.

A lot of people haven’t figured out what their place in America is. They just don’t know where they belong. So they throw in with this side or that side, or they don’t. But nuance means figuring out where your place is, you know? A lot of people don’t want to do that. They just don’t want to figure it out. They talk a great game about being citizens, but they don’t really know what that means. When they find out it means that you have to pay attention, they’re like, no, that’s for somebody else. Their common sense tells them that the government will take care of it, that the President doesn’t lie, that the people who stand in the pulpit on Sunday are only asking for money so they could run a daycare center. Their common sense -- the way they were nurtured -- tells them one story, and the facts tell them another. And they can’t reconcile it, so they tend to just shut down.

BuzzFlash: Let’s take one for instance -- the infamous visit by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then Chief of Staff Andrew Card to the hospital room of then not-for-the-moment Attorney General John Ashcroft. It was about getting him to try to sign off on whatever Draconian domestic spying program Bush was involved with that we don’t know the nature of. We only know it was bad enough that John Ashcroft wouldn’t sign off on it. In the White House, Tony Snow said last week that, well, what’s the big deal? If you have an appendectomy, you still have a brain -- I believe that paraphrases his comment.

What common sense says is, we had two guys go here. The Acting Attorney General Comey indicates that Bush called to get Card and Gonzales in, because Ashcroft’s wife had put an FBI seal around the room. Comey calls Mueller, the head of the FBI. And they both race over to the hospital room, so there are witnesses to this encounter. Card and Gonzales were actually talking to Ashcroft, who did not have the legal authority to sign any papers, because Comey was officially serving as the Attorney General. So common sense would say, if you look at that situation, that this was an attempt to illegally procure from a man who is highly medicated, and whose wife felt he was in no condition to see anyone, and they were going to force him, in essence, to sign this document that he had originally and still objected to on Constitutional grounds. But he wasn’t even Attorney General at that moment because he was so ill. So Card and Gonzales were going to have to pre-date the document or something to make it legal. Yet the press hardly even picks up on this. This was like a Mafia job. Fortunately, Comey was able to get their fast enough, along with the head of the FBI, to prevent an illegal act from being carried out -- and Ashcroft was conscious enough not to sign the unConstitutional wiretapping authority for Bush.

Randi Rhodes: With Tony Snow, common sense says Tony Snow has colon cancer. That would be like me saying: oh, Tony, why are you whining because you have an enlarged prostate? That’s how it minimizes the condition that Ashcroft was in. So that was insulting right there. And common sense would tell you that a guy who is fighting cancer currently -- colon cancer -- would not want you to say: oh, Tony, stop whining. It’s an enlarged prostate, you know? That’s number one. Number two, the idea of going in there when Ashcroft was was just out of surgery, the sixth day of intensive care, with pancreatitis on top of the removed gall bladder 24 hours earlier -- to make it real simple for people, it’s like doing a tattoo when you’re drunk versus forcing your friend to get tattooed while you are drunk. It doesn’t happen. How does it happen that the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States and the counsel to the President of the United States go into an Attorney General who’s recused himself and passed power to a subordinate -- and they say you are going to sign off on this because we can’t find anybody else to. And we know that you think it’s illegal, but you’re compromised now, so we’re taking advantage of you. It’s crazy.

BuzzFlash: A key point we keep pointing out on BuzzFlash, because we really haven’t seen it pointed out much elsewhere at all, is that Ashcroft -- who was apparently lucid enough to recognize this -- did not have any legal authority at that time. He had turned the Attorney General’s position over to Comey, who was the Acting Attorney General. So even if Ashcroft had signed it, technically it would not be a legal document.

Randi Rhodes: There’s a lot of law that needs to be brought out in that scenario. First is that, yes, he had passed power to Comey, so he wasn’t legitimately able to sign anything as the Attorney General of the United States. He had said I’m not the Attorney General -- there’s the Attorney General [pointing to Comey].

BuzzFlash: He told this to Card and Gonzales in the hospital room with the head of the FBI and Comey there as witnesses.

Randi Rhodes: Right. Second thing is, they’re discussing issues of national security -- something so secret that, to this day, because of national security, we don’t know what was in that program. We don’t know what was in the warrantless wiretapping program. Arlen Spector was asked on "Meet the Press," does he know what was in it? And he said, “No, no, I don’t know what was in it.” It’s so secret that no one knows what’s in it. So that’s the second. The counsel to the President of the United States is well aware of where issues of national security need to be discussed, and that, of course, is in a protected environment -- either the Oval Office or a secret situation hearing room. They’re not supposed to be talking about issues of national security in a public place, which a hospital is.

And, Comey keeps his mouth shut until this testimony, right? He keeps his job, too. He threatened to resign, but he doesn’t. Ashcroft threatens to resign, but doesn’t until after the election. The real hero, believe it or not, is Mrs. Ashcroft, who knows to call Comey. She knows to call. She knows why they’re coming. And she knows that they’re trying to take advantage of her husband, who is not the Attorney General at that moment, and who is in excruciating pain, and is fresh out of surgery, and is in his sixth day in intensive care. She knows that he’s not supposed to have phone calls from the White House. She knows that the orders were no visitors. She calls Comey. She’s the hero in this story, as unlikely a hero as you might think. Mrs. Ashcroft is the one who actually sent up the red flag.

America is desperate to hear the truth. Comey kept his job, did not resign, he knew about this when the wiretapping program was reauthorized without anybody in Justice signing off on it. Finally, he is called to testify under oath, and only then he tells us the bad news. So it’s interesting who gets to be a hero in this country, simply for telling a truth that should have been told, you know, in 2003.

BuzzFlash: That’s an example of where you apply common sense. You come in as an outside observer, and you ask the questions. What’s going on here? There’s an ill man. His wife has said no one should come in. Yet they try to muscle in on an extremely ill man into signing a document that he has determined prior to that, and they know it, not to be legal. Common sense, to us and to you, is just, well, this is an enforcement kind of hit man activity going on, not a respectable Administration.

Randi Rhodes: It’s way beyond Mafia. This is almost Abu Ghraib stuff, where you take advantage of a guy with a tube, you know?

BuzzFlash: We should recall before we move on that the intention was that only Gonzales and Card would have been in the room with Ashcroft. And no one would have known what had gone on except for the fact that Mrs. Ashcroft alerted Comey, and he then got Mueller to come down with him to witness this and stifle their efforts.

Randi Rhodes: That’s why Mrs. Ashcroft gets props for knowing that something was wrong with that. I don’t know what she knew, but she knew something was wrong with that scenario.

BuzzFlash: Let’s get back to your kind of radio personality and style. You’ve got a comic edge to you. You're very open about yourself, and self-deprecatory. You tell wonderfully comic anecdotes. Where does that side of you come from? And do you think ahead about how to integrate these comic elements into your program, or do they just sort of emerge?

Randi Rhodes: Like I say, it’s scatological, fact-based chaos in my head. Yes, I give thought to it -- to how I can make it accessible. I mean, you watch C-Span and suddenly your eyes glaze over. But I sit there and go: ooh, good TV. So I have got to make it accessible, and entertaining.

Maybe it just comes easy because I really want people to know. I really want them to wrap their brains around it. And why should it be work? Everybody’s got a job. So my job is to do it so that you can see how simple it all is. There’s no reason you can’t make this understandable to somebody with a little bit of comedy. I can say, I’ve gotten drunk and gotten tattooed, but I don’t remember taking my mother with me. Or when someone says things like obesity is a disease, I might say, well, what’s the disease? Is it everything tastes good? Is that a disease now? An idea gets elevated into the political discourse, and it becomes almost unrecognizable, when it’s really very basic stuff, like obesity as a disease. I’m like, well, what is the disease? You can’t stop eating fries? If government is going to decide a lot of things about your life, and if it can come from me, then people might understand how stupid it all is -- that this is what they’re concentrated on.

BuzzFlash: You don’t have any compunction talking about yourself or some comic situations you’ve been in -- involving girdles, for instance.

Randi Rhodes: Believe me, I’m picking and choosing what I’m going to share with you. I’m not telling you everything. All talk show hosts pick and choose.

BuzzFlash: Obviously you enjoy your program. It's not just, sort of like, oh, I’m glad when I’m going to be able to retire. What would you be doing if you weren’t doing radio? That’s my Barbara Walters second question.

Randi Rhodes: I told you. I’m serious as a heart attack about this. Right now, it sounds ridiculous, I know. But I’m a woman, first and foremost. And I got to tell you that the idea of girdles and making them gorgeous, and helping women smooth out underneath those dress -- I want to do that so bad!

BuzzFlash: Well, you’re in New York. The garment district is there.

Randi Rhodes: I have been trying so hard to find out how you get things manufactured, because I really want to do it. And I won’t be happy until I’m on QVC. That is really what I want to do. I know -- everybody laughs. A girl’s got to have a dream, and that’s mine.

BuzzFlash: You aren’t living your dream? Because it certainly seems like you’re living your dream.

Randi Rhodes: Well, I’m lucky. I wanted to do this more than anything -- for a really long time. And then I started doing it, and, you know, you helped me. You know that you did at the beginning. I was sitting in the 47th market in the country. My God, it was like, I’m defending this program ‘til my fricking spleen came out of my nose, and nobody cared. It was a tiny little place.

I was very happy there, though. I had a wonderful, wonderful situation and I had great people. I worked there for a long time. Had friends at work that were just irreplaceable. Had a family, a house. My kid was young. Things were good. But when she got accepted into college, then I realized I could focus on my career again. And I wanted to be national more than anything. And you guys totally helped put me on the radar screen to the point where people said, oh, who’s this girl? So I got the shot and made the most of it. But now that I’m doing that -- you got to have another dream, and you’ve got to keep dreaming and dreaming big. So girdles are huge now. I’m serious -- I really want to do this. You’ll laugh. But when everybody’s wearing Randi Wear, you’ll say, oh, my God! When I’m on Oprah, and she’s declaring me the manufacturer of the best -- I mean, she does bra shows -- Oprah’s obsessed with this, too.

I will never be on Oprah for my politics, because she doesn’t do politics. We’ll be on Oprah for body wear, for shape wear.

BuzzFlash: From my Mom, who shops at QVC and sends us automatic sealers and many other things -- I’m expecting a supply of Randi Rhodes girdles. What I will do with them, I don’t know.

Randi Rhodes: I want to do this. That’s my next thing.

BuzzFlash: Okay, but now while you’re on this show, you’ve got this audience. I just feel, listening to you, that you are totally into this.

Randi Rhodes: I am into the show. But the situation I’m in is a difficult one. It’s the most difficult one that I’ve ever been in. The three hours I’m on are mine, and I protect the content from any interference so I can do with it what I want. Nobody has input into the show at all as far as management or owners or whatever. But it’s been a really, really difficult three years.

BuzzFlash: Nonetheless, you are gaining market share.

Randi Rhodes: I’m number one in New York City. But people don’t know how radio ratings work. We can’t tell people how to vote for us, which always just amused me. It’s like, let’s have an election and not tell anybody how to vote. That’s something that makes radio a frustrating enterprise.

But in New York, I’m number one in this crowded radio market, in time spent listening, which is my job. A host’s job time you keep them listening to you. Are you compelling? If you’re interesting or if you’re funny, can you keep them listening to you through the commercials for the longest period of time possible? I’m number one in time spent listening in New York City, but I’m number 33 in how many people are listening to. That’s the company’s job. The company’s job is to market it, and to bring the people in. Your job is to entertain them once they’re in the seats. I’m succeeding at my job.

BuzzFlash: Well, and deservedly so. Technically, how do you decide when to break -- how to build up to a break and get people to keep listening through the break?

Randi Rhodes: Well, I have some fundamental problems with doing radio that I will always have. When I throw in with you, I’m really throwing in with you to have a conversation with you. I swear to God, when people meet me, they shake. Now it’s really overwhelming, because I’m nervous anyway. I get very star-struck, and I shake when I meet famous people. I wish I could be at ease, but I’m one of those babbling idiots that doesn’t know what to say. I shake and sweat. So when people do it when they meet me, it makes me feel like I have to help them, because I know how that feels.

So I don’t know how to move on and walk away, and meet the next person. And it’s the same thing on the radio. I don’t know how to take the break. I never did. I don’t tease the next segment properly -- tease what you have coming up, promote your guests, give the phone number. I have a hard time giving out the phone number because my mother raised me that a grown woman does not give out her number, and that’s engrained in me. It’s amazing. I succeed in spite of myself. It’s really weird. I break all the rules. I don’t know how I do it.

BuzzFlash: That reminds me of Eric Bogosian in the film, Talk Radio. He did a tremendous job conveying the sense of intimacy that radio involves. Without the visual element that you have on television, it’s the person’s voice, and your trust in that person’s voice, and your relationship with them that carries the program.

Randi Rhodes: Right.

BuzzFlash: So if they’re listening, if they’re a Randi Rhodes fan -- they’re feeling a trust in you and a comfort level with you that they can follow you on your path and your journey, particularly because of the nature of your show. And radio is an intimate medium.

Randi Rhodes: It is. Because you’re almost always talking to one person. You know, listening to talk radio is a very solitary experience. You’re alone in your car or you’re in your house late at night. It’s a real one-on-one thing. That’s why I look at it as meeting somebody or a conversation with them. But it also has anonymity. The more public I become, the less I have anonymity, but I still have some. And people can’t see what I’m gesturing to my producer to do, or when I’m rolling my eyes at a caller, or writing down something so that I can revisit what they said. They can’t see what you’re doing. And you can’t see them. And half the time, they don’ use their real name. It’s almost like going on an Internet dating site. You’re posting a picture that’s thirty years old. It’s all a big surprise when you finally meet.

But with television you’re watching with somebody else -- your kids, your husband, your wife. You watch sports in a group. Radio is a more solitary thing. But I will say, the power of radio is that it gets under your skin, it gets in your soul. The power of TV is the visuals get in your head, and it’s the same thing with the government. People trust TV entirely too much. They think that the news media is credible, and that they’ll never lie, they’ll never distort, they’ll never put something on the TV that isn't 100% untrue, like there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s reconstituted nuclear weapons. They just can’t believe it would be on TV and be that untrue.

And I don’t get that. I don’t know why people aren’t more skeptical of the media that they ingest, whether it’s radio or TV. And I’m always telling people: I know what company I keep on talk radio. Don’t believe a word you hear, including me. Don’t believe me. Go look it up. And I provide the links that I relied on to make that show. I tell them, you've got homework. If they go to read one article, read this one.

BuzzFlash: Let's talk about how you handle callers. I would say, if I can, that you don’t suffer fools gladly.

Randi Rhodes: No.

BuzzFlash: Sometimes someone is calling you, and there’s a pause. Are you basically saying, so what’s your point?

Randi Rhodes: Like I said, people don’t have to show themselves or use their real names. So sometimes they take the opportunity to tell me their personal story, or to get caught up in minutia, or to argue based on somebody else’s talking point, or something somebody said which is wholly untrue. And there are people who get the facts wrong. As long as they’re asking the question -- is this right? -- I have no problem with them. But when they’re insisting that they’re right, it drives me crazy. Like I said, I don’t think it’s anger as much as frustration.

The other day, I got something wrong, and a woman called me up. In a very easy-to-follow, easy-to-research manner, she told me how I was getting it wrong. And I said to her, “I didn’t know that. This is a good day. I learned something.” So I don’t care if I’m wrong. I just care when people are wrong and insist that they’re not. I can’t take it.

BuzzFlash: How do you end a call?

Randi Rhodes: If I have to hang up on someone, I do it in an obvious way -- like, no, I will not have this on my show. Or, I make it clear that you don’t start a conversation with an insult, because you’re not going to last very long. I will tell them that and hang up on them.

Unfortunately, in national radio, there are hard breaks, which means the computer is going to cut you off, and there is nothing you can do about it. And it’s so specific. It’s like at 27 minutes and 40 seconds, you’re getting cut off. And it happens again at 57 minutes -- I think 57 minutes and 10 seconds, you’re getting cut off. So sometimes, I have to let somebody go as soon as they finish their point, and I have to drop the call and finish it up so I can do a time check or whatever. It’s one of the things I don’t like about being on a national feed. You've got to break at certain times, and everybody has to be on the same page, so there’s no wiggle room.

BuzzFlash: I recall a few months ago -- I think this was a day when some birdbrain proposed that people who are of the Islamic faith go in separate lines at airports for security. You had two or three callers who actually supported this idea. And you were becoming more frustrated and upset with each caller.

Randi Rhodes: Well, what do you want to do? Do you want people to drop their drawers and see if they’re circumcised or not?

BuzzFlash: A woman called in, and she was just as hot as blazing nails about this. You know -- Randi, I know people who died in 9/11 and so on. And you just kept coming back to the question. Well, but how would you know? As a practical matter -- we’re talking common sense again. I mean, even if you accepted this very racist sort of approach, how would you enforce it?

Randi Rhodes: Syrians have red hair and green eyes. Indonesians are Asian-looking -- and Malaysians, too. It’s one of the largest religions in the world. There are people who think every Muslim is Arab. It’s just not true, and it plays into the stereotype. But, you know, the Bush Administration is very keen on having your think that Muslims look the same. I don’t get it. I don’t understand.

BuzzFlash: And only Muslims are terrorists. And that most of them are risky.

Randi Rhodes: How do you know who is and who is not Islamic? Why do you think that the only terrorists on this planet are Islamic? Does anybody in America know about Northern Ireland?

BuzzFlash: The feeling that I get in listening to a call like that, the one that I’m recalling, is that this woman just believed they’re going to kill all of us. She was just a totally unhinged. When people have a real strong opinion, and they’re kind of slugging it out, how are you feeling in a moment like that?

Randi Rhodes: Frustrated. The frustration with a call like that is, how can you possibly have lived through 9/11 and still be so ignorant? How can you just sit there and think that there’s no reason that we were attacked, but that they hate us for our freedoms? Does anybody realize the kind of crap we pulled in the Arab countries? Does anybody understand what's happened in our recent history?

I mean, when 15 hijackers were flying into the World Trade Center, we weren’t in Iraq. We were in Saudi Arabia. I don’t understand how people don’t think -- they hear a sound bite, and it sounds good enough for them. We’re talking about the largest attack on American soil since the Civil War -- to me, not knowing the facts is just a stunning thing.

BuzzFlash: Let me ask how your service in the military, which you occasionally speak about, reflects or relates to your empathy for what is happening to our service people in Iraq, and how the Bush Administration is betraying them by under equipping them, underpaying them.

Randi Rhodes: Well, I never fought. I wasn’t asked to fight. I was a woman and in the Air Force. We’re not usually ground-pounders. So it’s limited. I can’t speak for everyone who joins the military, but I can speak for a lot of people that joined. People like me join because there was no future. There was no college ahead. There was no great job. In my case, my father said, “You know, you’re smart and you’re not pretty. Men don’t like that. You’re not going to marry well. You need to get a job.”

And women’s jobs -- it was secretarial work. That was all I could get. So I drove over to Fort Hamilton and signed up for the Air Force. I thought, if I have to go to war, I’ll be in an airplane. I’ll probably be taking the dead people out -- that kind of thing. So I understand why some people enlist. I understand why they join, and why they’re willing to surrender their civil rights -- because you do. You literally surrender your civil rights. You can’t question authority. You will wear the same clothes. Your buttons will all be in a row. You will make your bed, and get dressed, and be downstairs in two minutes flat. You will stand at attention. You’ll salute garbage cans. I understand what it is to be brainwashed. I understood I was being brainwashed.

I understood why I was being brainwashed, which most people don’t. But I understood that I had to fold my t-shirts in little four-inch squares because, God forbid, one day I had to pack a parachute, I’d have to really be a good folder. I understood it was paying attention to detail. I understood that you were only as good as the weakest among you because that person could get you killed. I understood why I was going through it, and what they were trying to teach me.

But I also understood that the reason why the American military is the proudest and the most fierce fighting force on the planet is because we feel like we’re doing a legitimate job for a legitimate government. When you look at why the Iraqis won’t fight, they don’t feel like they’re legitimate, and they don’t feel they’re fighting for a legitimate government. So it helps me understand the problems. It helps me understand the underfunding of the troops -- that they’re not giving them the best equipment in the world. They’re not giving them what they need to do their job. I understand because I was in the Air Force. And if they give you a sick plane, you could die. If the plane wasn’t fixed by a mechanic who knew what he was doing, you could die. When they are giving them substandard vehicles -- they’re dying. So I have insight into it in that way.

BuzzFlash: You’ve expressed on your show the sense of betrayal.

Randi Rhodes: Oh, there’s insidious betrayal. Plus, I can’t imagine being on foreign soil making thirteen hundred dollars a month, with a family at home, car payments and house payments and the whole nine yards, and serving next to a guy who’s getting eighty grand to pump gas. In my military experience, that can’t happen. You don’t serve alongside somebody who’s making eighty grand to put the gas in the vehicle. I put the gas in the plane. I put the jet fuel in the plane. I put the oxygen in the airplane. I can’t imagine having to serve with somebody who is making a fricking fortune and is on the payroll of the company, not the country. That screws up the entire camaraderie, the entire feeling that you are a legitimate fighting force. All of a sudden, you see it’s for profit, and you don’t feel legitimate anymore.

BuzzFlash: Well, it is, to a great extent, a war for profit. Much of the hundreds of billions has gone to the private contractors.

Randi Rhodes: When people of good faith and common sense call me and say why don’t we cut off the money for the contractors, they’re absolutely right. I went up to the Senate -- I get to talk to the senators every once in awhile privately -- just the Democrats and me -- or a couple talk-show hosts and the Democrats only. And I posed this question: Why don’t you just cut off the money to the contractors? This war will end tomorrow. The President will stop it tomorrow if there’s no profit in it. And you get this look, like you don’t understand how politics works. This is why they don’t want to come on my show, too.

Because if I interview -- like today, there’s a canned interview with John Kerry. I was trying to be nonconfrontational, because I was under orders not to be confrontational with these canned interviews, which really just blew my mind. So I asked him in a nonconfrontational way: What regrets do you have from the 2004 election. I was thinking and hoping that, with all this information about the U.S. attorneys and that it was all for election rigging, and to make sure swing states swung in the right direction, you know, he would have an opinion. When I asked him that, he said, “I don’t look backwards. I only look forward.” And you can hear that I wanted to start something,, but I was in the room with somebody who was like shaking their head no -- don’t go there. It really cast a shadow over this what I do and what I do best.

I understand that that limits my access to senators. But why do I want to waste my listeners’ time with a senator -- and it’s typically the senators, not the congressmen -- the House is much more open and honest and upfront. I can only conclude it’s because they don’t need as much money to run as senators do. But they don’t want to talk about anything, so why do I want to waste my time talking to them? I’d rather not waste my listeners’ time with interviewing somebody who’s going to talk in sound bites.

He literally says to me, “I don’t look backwards. I look forwards. I’m thinking today about global warming and this war in Iraq.” And I’m like: this is bulls**t, you know? If you don’t look at 2004, it’s going to happen in 2008. I don’t get it. I mean, I do get it. I understand what that is. But why do we let them get away with it? Why are the people who are in control of interviewing these politicians agreeing to these ground rules? They say, oh, she won’t be confrontational with you -- she’s not going to press you. What the hell’s that?

BuzzFlash: You occasionally have a mutual colleague who we also love, Greg Palast, on your show. What do you find so interesting about Greg? We certainly find him to be invaluable.

Randi Rhodes: I love him that he doesn’t stay in the Beltway. He does not stay there. He lives in New York. He’s a BBC reporter. When I first talked to him, it was years ago. It was probably when I first talked to you. It was like right around 2000, after the election. Greg was the only guy who knew what happened to us in West Palm.

I voted in Palm Beach County, and I remember that day. I’ll never forget that day. I went and I voted. I came back, and was a known, trusted person in the community. I came back and the first thing I said was something’s wrong. I had trouble voting today. What the hell were those punch cards? I couldn’t figure out who I voted for. The phone lines lit up like a Christmas tree, one after the other, after the other. And then the voters spoke up -- the people who were suppressed from voting. And then the stories about they never got the registration card. And the stories about the polling ... And I didn’t understand the story. It was a big, big, huge, detailed multi-faceted voter suppression story that had so many angles. They thought of everything.

And I just remember the weeks leading up to the actual vote -- the news media said it’s all going to come down to Palm Beach County. I kept thinking: Why Palm Beach County? I knew I was in a special place, but I didn’t know why. And then I went and voted. So then I called the first person. I called Joe Lieberman's office, because I had interviewed his wife Hadassah. I was at a level of broadcasting where you didn’t get to talk to the candidates, but you could talk to their wives, grudgingly. Hadassah was on my show complaining about the Port-A-Potties on the campaign trail. She hated them. And she hated campaigning, and she hated the bus, and she hated the Port-A-Potties. And so I had their number. My producer had their number, and it was a cell phone. So I said, get me Joe Lieberman. Call his wife, because we have her cell phone. And get me Joe Lieberman now, because they’re about to lose this election, and it’s going to be for nefarious reasons.

I get him on the air and he says, “Oh, it’s all going to be fine. Everything’s fine.” And of course, it wasn’t fine. And at one o’clock in the morning they switched who got what. And it was just so bizarre. And I couldn’t figure out the story. I tried and tried and tried. And I looked everywhere. And I became a Florida State election law maven. And I thought, you know, the contest period, and the protest period -- and then I came across Palast on the BBC because I was reading BuzzFlash.

I found him. I called him up. I talked to him. And he told me, "You don’t know what happened to you?" And I said no. And he started telling me what happened. I put him on the air. And I remember the first time I ever heard his voice -- I thought he’d be British like everybody there, right? He said, no, I have to come here [to Britain] to report the truth. [Palast now lives in New York.] And I realized we are in for a really strange time. This Bush Administration thing is going to be a really strange time. So he was my lifeline. He was like my umbilical cord, really. He kept me breathing. He says he had information that no American hears.

BuzzFlash: And he’s a statistician from the University of Chicago by background, so I’m sure you’ve seen his laptop presentation.

Randi Rhodes: He is a shameless self-promoter. I wish I had half of what he’s got. I don’t know how he does it. He’s a great public speaker, and I get stage fright. I really, really freeze. My brain locks up when I have to look at people. It’s funny. He says to me, you talk to millions of people every day, which still to me is just amazing. I can’t even process that, so I don’t think of it like that.

BuzzFlash: When you’re sitting there, doing the program, and light goes on. You have your cue to begin. Who are you talking to in your mind?

Randi Rhodes: Well, I’m actually talking to the control room, you know? So I get my reaction from them. I’m actually talking to a person. For all these years, I’ve been talking to whoever is sitting in that producer chair. I can actually see if they’re laughing. I can get real-time reaction from a real human being. It’s not like I have to sit there and rely on my sick fantasy, because I’d probably be talking to some ultimate dungeon master.

BuzzFlash: Randi, thanks so much.

Randi Rhodes: And here's part of this cool story that I wanted to tell you.

BuzzFlash: Okay.

Randi Rhodes: I was at a big, big New York AIDS walk. I mean it’s huge. There’s hundreds of thousands of people. And so I’m out there at a table with no banner, by the way. When I would say, I’m from Air America, they go: Oh, my God, you’re Randi. And I was hunched over a table because they forgot to bring me a chair. So I’m sitting at the card table signing autographs, and trying to do it as fast as possible because the line was long. But people always want to know what do you read? What do you read? How do you do your show?

I can’t tell you how many people I talked to said: I love BuzzFlash -- first thing I do in the morning is I go to BuzzFlash. It was amazing because, you know, there’s a lot of competition now. And when you first started, you were uniquely available. It was just like this little tiny piece of diamond in the middle of the sand. There was something there that you could get -- a compilation of news from every newspaper. I loved BuzzFlash. Every day, I use it. But I was stunned because I can’t tell you how many people said BuzzFlash to me -- so you should be really excited.

BuzzFlash: Thank you, Randi.
* * *
BuzzFlash Interview conducted by Mark Karlin.