http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_6147989
Rep. Lee's food tab: $21 for week
Grits, chicken thighs help lawmaker survive test of food-stamp life
By Sara Steffens, MEDIANEWS STAFF
Inside Bay Area
06/15/2007
She ate grits and toast for breakfast, lunched on bananas and crackers, and stretched the same package of chicken thighs over several dinners, accompanied by peas from a dented can.
For Rep. Barbara Lee, surviving for a week on $21 worth of groceries was a lesson in why poverty and chronic health problems often go hand in hand.
"I've been eating grits and a lot of carbs, because they fill you up," said Lee, D-Oakland. "You really become aware of the choices people have to make, which are unhealthy choices."
Like the handful of other lawmakers who took last week's Food Stamp Challenge, in which public officials were asked to eat for a week on the average allotment given a food stamp recipient, Lee found the tight budget left no room for fresh fruits or vegetables.
Her attempts to make healthy choices were thwarted by cost. Whole-wheat tortillas were twice as much as flour, and grits proved cheaper than her usual oatmeal.
"Canned greens — the sodium content is off the scale," said Lee, who completed the challenge Tuesday morning. "I wanted the fresh greens, but the canned is cheaper."
And although food stamps cannot be used at fast food restaurants, Lee supplemented home cooking with cheap items from Taco Bell, McDonalds and White Castle.
At one point, she so craved vegetables she bought a dollar-menu taco just for the smidgen of lettuce.
Given those choices, Lee said, it's no wonder low-income populations suffer disproportionate rates of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol and obesity.
Researchers long have noted the link between not being able to afford food and suffering from poor health, including conditions related to obesity.
"The simplest way to put it is the right sort of foods cost more, and poverty makes that very difficult for a family to afford," said Matt Sharp of California Food Policy Advocates. "The food-stamp program helps close part of that gap, but needs to be strengthened in several ways. ... The obvious one is to increase the benefit amount."
Among the 2.5 million California adults with food insecurity — that is, who are sometimes short of food — more than 40 percent report they are in poor health, Sharp said.
The Food Stamp Challenge was created by anti-hunger groups to call attention to the debate on the federal Farm Bill, which includes reauthorization of the food stamp program.
Advocates want to improve the program by expanding eligibility, simplifying enrollment and increasing the average benefit.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Rep. JoAnn Emerson, R-Mo., have introduced a bill that would invest an additional $20 billion in the food stamp program over the next five years, adding about $37 to the monthly benefit for a family of three.
California Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, also completed the Food Stamp Challenge this week, while promoting his bill to remove a requirement that Californians be fingerprinted to qualify for food stamps.
"It clearly communicates, intentionally or not, that there is something criminal about being poor and hungry," said Leno.
The bill passed the state Assembly last week and has been sent to the Senate.
Knowing last week's busy legislative schedule wouldn't permit time to cook, Leno ate mostly cereal, chicken soup and peanut butter sandwiches.
"The little that I could eat at best dulled the hunger, and it never went away," Leno said. "After three or four days, my energy level was depressed, and I did experience some lethargy. It really dampens the spirit."
In the final days of the challenge, Leno ran out of food and dined at a Haight Ashbury soup kitchen where he used to volunteer.
Though food stamp benefits average $94.05 a month per person, larger households can often extend their buying power, said Suzan Bateson, executive director of the Alameda County Community Food Bank.
"Four people in a household could qualify, and that could be maybe $400 a month in extra money to acquire nutritious food," she said.
Still, a month's worth of food stamps typically lasts an East Bay family two or two and a half weeks, Bateson said, so many families also rely on school lunch programs, government commodities and emergency supplies from food pantries.
To help boost nutrition for low-income families, the food bank now offers fresh fruits and vegetables, which are not only expensive, but can be hard to come by in low-income communities that lack grocery stores.
The Food Stamp Challenge reflects the choices low-income families are forced to make every day, said Bateson.
"People are very overwhelmed when they go to the store and realize they have a limited amount of money to spend and they have to nourish their families."
Lee relied on tricks she learned as a college student, when she received food stamps to help feed her two sons.
On a Saturday visit to Grocery Outlet in Berkeley, she bought a 25-cent box of macaroni and cheese and a 35-cent can of tuna, ingredients for a makeshift tuna casserole.
Lee found herself thinking about food constantly, worried about how to make her money stretch.
"A couple of days, you got in a panic mode," she said. "What if the food I bought doesn't last? What if I run out of money?"
"It's a very hard thing to do," Lee said. "I worry about the people who after Tuesday are still on food stamps."
Thursday, June 21, 2007
'Cream of Wheat' man gets grave marker
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_fe_st/odd_cream_of_wheat_man
'Cream of Wheat' man gets grave marker
Associated Press
Fri June 15, 2007
A man widely believed to be the model for the smiling chef on Cream of Wheat boxes finally has a grave marker bearing his name.
Frank L. White died in 1938, and until this week, his grave in Woodlawn Cemetery bore only a tiny concrete marker with no name.
On Wednesday, a granite gravestone was placed at his burial site. It bears his name and an etching taken from the man depicted on the Cream of Wheat box.
Jesse Lasorda, a family researcher from Lansing, started the campaign to put the marker and etching on White's grave.
"Everybody deserves a headstone," Lasorda told the Lansing State Journal. He discovered that White was born about 1867 in Barbados, came to the U.S. in 1875 and became a citizen in 1890.
When White died Feb. 15, 1938, the Leslie Local-Republican described him as a "famous chef" who "posed for an advertisement of a well-known breakfast food."
White lived in Leslie for about the last 20 years of his life, and the story of his posing for the Cream of Wheat picture was known in the city of 2,000 located between Jackson and Lansing and about 70 miles west of Detroit.
The chef was photographed about 1900 while working in a Chicago restaurant. His name was not recorded. White was a chef, traveled a lot, was about the right age and told neighbors that he was the Cream of Wheat model, the Jackson Citizen Patriot said.
Long owned by Kraft Foods Inc., the Cream of Wheat brand was sold this year to B&G Foods Inc.
'Cream of Wheat' man gets grave marker
Associated Press
Fri June 15, 2007
A man widely believed to be the model for the smiling chef on Cream of Wheat boxes finally has a grave marker bearing his name.
Frank L. White died in 1938, and until this week, his grave in Woodlawn Cemetery bore only a tiny concrete marker with no name.
On Wednesday, a granite gravestone was placed at his burial site. It bears his name and an etching taken from the man depicted on the Cream of Wheat box.
Jesse Lasorda, a family researcher from Lansing, started the campaign to put the marker and etching on White's grave.
"Everybody deserves a headstone," Lasorda told the Lansing State Journal. He discovered that White was born about 1867 in Barbados, came to the U.S. in 1875 and became a citizen in 1890.
When White died Feb. 15, 1938, the Leslie Local-Republican described him as a "famous chef" who "posed for an advertisement of a well-known breakfast food."
White lived in Leslie for about the last 20 years of his life, and the story of his posing for the Cream of Wheat picture was known in the city of 2,000 located between Jackson and Lansing and about 70 miles west of Detroit.
The chef was photographed about 1900 while working in a Chicago restaurant. His name was not recorded. White was a chef, traveled a lot, was about the right age and told neighbors that he was the Cream of Wheat model, the Jackson Citizen Patriot said.
Long owned by Kraft Foods Inc., the Cream of Wheat brand was sold this year to B&G Foods Inc.
Kellogg to raise nutrition of kids' food
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_he_me/kids_food
Kellogg to raise nutrition of kids' food
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 14, 2007
Kellogg Co., the world's largest cereal maker, has agreed to raise the nutritional value of cereals and snacks it markets to children.
The Battle Creek, Mich., company avoided a lawsuit threatened by parents and nutrition advocacy groups worried about increasing child obesity. Kellogg intends to formally announce its decision Thursday.
The company said it won't promote foods in TV, radio, print or Web site ads that reach audiences at least half of whom are under age 12 unless a single serving of the product meets these standards:
_No more than 200 calories.
_No trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat.
_No more than 230 milligrams of sodium, except for Eggo frozen waffles.
_No more than 12 grams of sugar, not counting sugar from fruit, dairy and vegetables.
Kellogg said it would reformulate products to meet these criteria or stop marketing them to children under 12 by the end of 2008.
"By committing to these nutrition standards and marketing reforms, Kellogg has vaulted over the rest of the food industry," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "This commitment means that parents will find it a little easier to steer their children toward healthy food choices — especially if other food manufacturers and broadcasters follow Kellogg's lead."
Jacobson's nutrition advocacy group, along with two Massachusetts parents and the Boston-based Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, had served notice in January 2006 of intent to sue Kellogg and the Nickelodeon cable TV network under a Massachusetts law to stop them from marketing junk food to kids.
Center spokesman Jeff Cronin said Kellogg contacted the plaintiffs shortly thereafter and began negotiating the new standards, so the lawsuit was not filed and will not be filed.
"We are pleased to work collaboratively with industry and advocacy groups to unveil these standards," said David Mackay, Kellogg's CEO. "We feel the Kellogg Nutrient Criteria set a new standard for responsibility in the industry."
With 2006 sales of almost $11 billion, Kellogg is not only the No. 1 cereal-maker but also a leading producer of snack foods. Its brands include Kellogg's, Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies and Famous Amos.
Globally, 50 percent of the products Kellogg markets to children do not meet the criteria, said Mark Baynes, Kellogg's chief marketing officer. A third of the cereals it markets to children in the U.S. fall outside standards.
Pop-Tarts and Froot Loops don't meet the criteria, though most cereals fall inside the calorie guideline, Baynes said. Meeting the sugar and sodium standards could be the most challenging.
Kellogg also announced that it will continue to refrain from advertising to children under age 6, and will not in the future:
_Advertise to children any foods in schools and preschools that include kids under age 12.
_Sponsor placement of any of its products in any medium primarily directed at kids under age 12.
_Use branded toys connected to any foods that do not meet the nutrition standards.
_Use licensed characters on mass-media ads directed primarily to kids under 12 or on the front labels of food packages unless they meet the standards.
The advertising agreement does not apply to marketing characters Kellogg owns, like Tony the Tiger, but it does apply to characters the food company licenses, like the cartoon figure Shrek, said Susan Linn, co-founder of the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood.
She said Kellogg was the first food company to agree to restrict advertising using licensed media characters like Shrek.
"These characters play an incredibly important role in children's lives. Kids see them every day; they have toys of them," Linn said. "The media characters are much more powerful (than company-owned characters like Tony the Tiger). The food companies want to keep using them because they sell a lot of food; kids really respond to them."
Earlier this month, a Federal Trade Commission study found that half the ads for junk food, sugary cereals and soft drinks are on children's programs, double the percentage 30 years ago. Children between ages 2 and 11 saw approximately 5,500 food ads on television in 2004, half of them on kids' shows with audiences of 50 percent children or greater.
American companies spend about $15 billion a year marketing and advertising to children under age 12, the Institute of Medicine said last year when it warned that one-third of American children are obese or at risk for becoming obese.
In response, Kellogg and McDonald's Corp. joined eight other major food and drink companies last November in an industry-sponsored pledge to promote more healthy foods and exercise in their child-oriented advertising. A year earlier, Kraft Foods Inc. had promised to curb ads to young children for snack foods, including Oreos and Kool-Aid.
___
Associated Press writer Ann Sanner contributed to this report.
Kellogg to raise nutrition of kids' food
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 14, 2007
Kellogg Co., the world's largest cereal maker, has agreed to raise the nutritional value of cereals and snacks it markets to children.
The Battle Creek, Mich., company avoided a lawsuit threatened by parents and nutrition advocacy groups worried about increasing child obesity. Kellogg intends to formally announce its decision Thursday.
The company said it won't promote foods in TV, radio, print or Web site ads that reach audiences at least half of whom are under age 12 unless a single serving of the product meets these standards:
_No more than 200 calories.
_No trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat.
_No more than 230 milligrams of sodium, except for Eggo frozen waffles.
_No more than 12 grams of sugar, not counting sugar from fruit, dairy and vegetables.
Kellogg said it would reformulate products to meet these criteria or stop marketing them to children under 12 by the end of 2008.
"By committing to these nutrition standards and marketing reforms, Kellogg has vaulted over the rest of the food industry," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "This commitment means that parents will find it a little easier to steer their children toward healthy food choices — especially if other food manufacturers and broadcasters follow Kellogg's lead."
Jacobson's nutrition advocacy group, along with two Massachusetts parents and the Boston-based Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, had served notice in January 2006 of intent to sue Kellogg and the Nickelodeon cable TV network under a Massachusetts law to stop them from marketing junk food to kids.
Center spokesman Jeff Cronin said Kellogg contacted the plaintiffs shortly thereafter and began negotiating the new standards, so the lawsuit was not filed and will not be filed.
"We are pleased to work collaboratively with industry and advocacy groups to unveil these standards," said David Mackay, Kellogg's CEO. "We feel the Kellogg Nutrient Criteria set a new standard for responsibility in the industry."
With 2006 sales of almost $11 billion, Kellogg is not only the No. 1 cereal-maker but also a leading producer of snack foods. Its brands include Kellogg's, Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies and Famous Amos.
Globally, 50 percent of the products Kellogg markets to children do not meet the criteria, said Mark Baynes, Kellogg's chief marketing officer. A third of the cereals it markets to children in the U.S. fall outside standards.
Pop-Tarts and Froot Loops don't meet the criteria, though most cereals fall inside the calorie guideline, Baynes said. Meeting the sugar and sodium standards could be the most challenging.
Kellogg also announced that it will continue to refrain from advertising to children under age 6, and will not in the future:
_Advertise to children any foods in schools and preschools that include kids under age 12.
_Sponsor placement of any of its products in any medium primarily directed at kids under age 12.
_Use branded toys connected to any foods that do not meet the nutrition standards.
_Use licensed characters on mass-media ads directed primarily to kids under 12 or on the front labels of food packages unless they meet the standards.
The advertising agreement does not apply to marketing characters Kellogg owns, like Tony the Tiger, but it does apply to characters the food company licenses, like the cartoon figure Shrek, said Susan Linn, co-founder of the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood.
She said Kellogg was the first food company to agree to restrict advertising using licensed media characters like Shrek.
"These characters play an incredibly important role in children's lives. Kids see them every day; they have toys of them," Linn said. "The media characters are much more powerful (than company-owned characters like Tony the Tiger). The food companies want to keep using them because they sell a lot of food; kids really respond to them."
Earlier this month, a Federal Trade Commission study found that half the ads for junk food, sugary cereals and soft drinks are on children's programs, double the percentage 30 years ago. Children between ages 2 and 11 saw approximately 5,500 food ads on television in 2004, half of them on kids' shows with audiences of 50 percent children or greater.
American companies spend about $15 billion a year marketing and advertising to children under age 12, the Institute of Medicine said last year when it warned that one-third of American children are obese or at risk for becoming obese.
In response, Kellogg and McDonald's Corp. joined eight other major food and drink companies last November in an industry-sponsored pledge to promote more healthy foods and exercise in their child-oriented advertising. A year earlier, Kraft Foods Inc. had promised to curb ads to young children for snack foods, including Oreos and Kool-Aid.
___
Associated Press writer Ann Sanner contributed to this report.
Burger King ignites Spam war with rival
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_bi_ge/burger_king_spam
Burger King ignites Spam war with rival
By JAYMES SONG, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jun 11, 2007
For many Americans, spam is a four-letter word for unwanted e-mail. In Hawaii, Spam is a beloved comfort food, with cans of the gelatinous pork bricks found in virtually every cupboard.
Hoping to cash in on Hawaii's love affair with the pinkish meat product, Burger King Corp. last month began offering Spam for breakfast — going head-to-head with rival McDonald's Corp., which has been featuring Spam in the islands for years.
Burger King is offering the Spam Platter — two slices of Spam nestled between white rice and scrambled eggs. The fast-food giant also offers the Croissanwich or Biscuit Sandwich with Spam.
Denise Yamauchi, Burger King managing director in Hawaii, said sales have been "very good and very promising."
"It's so popular with the locals, we wanted to cater to them," she said.
Putting Spam on the menu, alongside more traditional items such as the Whopper, has been in the works for about a year, and Burger King's corporate headquarters finally signed off on the idea.
"It's something that was a little unique and a little different for them, so it was a bit of a hard sell to bring to Hawaii," Yamauchi said. "But they finally realized it is a unique flavor and something the locals really like."
At a Burger King near downtown Honolulu, where a poster in the window proudly advertises "Spam in the A.M.," the Spam Platter was selling for $3.49. The nearly identical Spam, Eggs and Rice plate across the street at McDonald's was $3.39.
Melanie Okazaki, marketing manager for McDonald's Restaurants of Hawaii, said Spam has been offered at the chain's 75 island restaurants since 2002.
"In Hawaii, it is a very popular menu item and we will continue to offer it to our customers," she said.
Burger King's latest offering is counter to the chain's push to offer healthier fare, including salads and the meatless BK Veggie Burger. But no one can deny Hawaii's appetite for Spam.
Despite being one of the least-populated states, Hawaii leads the nation in consumption of the Hormel Foods Corp. product. It's been a hit ever since World War II. Isle residents consume more than 5 million pounds of Spam a year, an average of about six cans for every man, woman and child.
Spam "musubi" — a slice of Spam atop a block of rice and wrapped in seaweed — is an island favorite sold at nearly every convenience store, including 7-Eleven. Spam fried rice is a local classic.
There are also more varieties of Spam sold in Hawaii than anywhere else. There's Spam Garlic, Spam Bacon, Spam with Cheese, Spam with Tabasco, Spam Turkey and Spam Lite, which featured less sodium and less fat.
"We're pleased to see more and more restaurants adding it to their menu, providing Hawaiians additional opportunities to experience the savory, salty-sweet taste they love," said Dan Goldman, Spam's product manager.
___
On the Net:
Spam: http://www.spam.com/
Burger King ignites Spam war with rival
By JAYMES SONG, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jun 11, 2007
For many Americans, spam is a four-letter word for unwanted e-mail. In Hawaii, Spam is a beloved comfort food, with cans of the gelatinous pork bricks found in virtually every cupboard.
Hoping to cash in on Hawaii's love affair with the pinkish meat product, Burger King Corp. last month began offering Spam for breakfast — going head-to-head with rival McDonald's Corp., which has been featuring Spam in the islands for years.
Burger King is offering the Spam Platter — two slices of Spam nestled between white rice and scrambled eggs. The fast-food giant also offers the Croissanwich or Biscuit Sandwich with Spam.
Denise Yamauchi, Burger King managing director in Hawaii, said sales have been "very good and very promising."
"It's so popular with the locals, we wanted to cater to them," she said.
Putting Spam on the menu, alongside more traditional items such as the Whopper, has been in the works for about a year, and Burger King's corporate headquarters finally signed off on the idea.
"It's something that was a little unique and a little different for them, so it was a bit of a hard sell to bring to Hawaii," Yamauchi said. "But they finally realized it is a unique flavor and something the locals really like."
At a Burger King near downtown Honolulu, where a poster in the window proudly advertises "Spam in the A.M.," the Spam Platter was selling for $3.49. The nearly identical Spam, Eggs and Rice plate across the street at McDonald's was $3.39.
Melanie Okazaki, marketing manager for McDonald's Restaurants of Hawaii, said Spam has been offered at the chain's 75 island restaurants since 2002.
"In Hawaii, it is a very popular menu item and we will continue to offer it to our customers," she said.
Burger King's latest offering is counter to the chain's push to offer healthier fare, including salads and the meatless BK Veggie Burger. But no one can deny Hawaii's appetite for Spam.
Despite being one of the least-populated states, Hawaii leads the nation in consumption of the Hormel Foods Corp. product. It's been a hit ever since World War II. Isle residents consume more than 5 million pounds of Spam a year, an average of about six cans for every man, woman and child.
Spam "musubi" — a slice of Spam atop a block of rice and wrapped in seaweed — is an island favorite sold at nearly every convenience store, including 7-Eleven. Spam fried rice is a local classic.
There are also more varieties of Spam sold in Hawaii than anywhere else. There's Spam Garlic, Spam Bacon, Spam with Cheese, Spam with Tabasco, Spam Turkey and Spam Lite, which featured less sodium and less fat.
"We're pleased to see more and more restaurants adding it to their menu, providing Hawaiians additional opportunities to experience the savory, salty-sweet taste they love," said Dan Goldman, Spam's product manager.
___
On the Net:
Spam: http://www.spam.com/
Bush aides may have illegally lost e-mail, Dems say
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1839309320070618?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
Bush aides may have illegally lost e-mail, Dems say
Mon Jun 18, 2007
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Karl Rove and dozens of other White House staffers appear to have illegally routed official e-mails through a Republican group that subsequently deleted them, a congressional report said on Monday.
By using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for official business, senior White House aides may have broken a law requiring them to preserve presidential records, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in an interim report.
"This should be a matter of grave concern for anyone who values open government and the preservation of an accurate historical record," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires White House officials to save official correspondence. While the White House automatically archives its e-mail the RNC typically deletes messages on its server older than 30 days, the report said.
The White House and the RNC said Waxman's committee was jumping to conclusions.
"We have seen a number of times right now where people have been putting together investigations to see what sticks. They have had very little success so far," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
White House officials have for years used RNC e-mail accounts to comply with the Hatch Act, which forbids public servants from using government property to conduct political business.
At least 88 White House staffers had RNC accounts and there are signs that many of them used those accounts extensively for nonpolitical matters, the committee said.
Rove, a top political adviser to President George W. Bush, sent more than 100 e-mail messages and received more than 200 each day through his RNC account in 2007, the report said.
More than half of the 140,000 Rove messages saved by the RNC was correspondence with other government officials, the committee said. Most of his correspondence from Bush's first term has not been preserved, it said.
Rove thought his messages were being archived, his former assistant Susan Ralston told the committee. His lawyer has said he never intentionally deleted e-mail from any accounts.
The RNC said it is still searching for the missing e-mails.
"There is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said by e-mail.
The report also points a finger at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, currently facing pressure to resign over U.S. attorney firings that Democrats say were political in nature.
As White House counsel, Gonzales may have known that Rove and others were using RNC accounts but did nothing to stop it, the report says.
A Justice Department official referred questions to the White House.
The committee said it will investigate Gonzales' role further and search federal agencies for copies of the missing e-mails. It also said it plans to subpoena Bush's 2004 re-election campaign for additional e-mails because the campaign has not cooperated.
Bush aides may have illegally lost e-mail, Dems say
Mon Jun 18, 2007
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Karl Rove and dozens of other White House staffers appear to have illegally routed official e-mails through a Republican group that subsequently deleted them, a congressional report said on Monday.
By using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for official business, senior White House aides may have broken a law requiring them to preserve presidential records, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in an interim report.
"This should be a matter of grave concern for anyone who values open government and the preservation of an accurate historical record," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires White House officials to save official correspondence. While the White House automatically archives its e-mail the RNC typically deletes messages on its server older than 30 days, the report said.
The White House and the RNC said Waxman's committee was jumping to conclusions.
"We have seen a number of times right now where people have been putting together investigations to see what sticks. They have had very little success so far," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
White House officials have for years used RNC e-mail accounts to comply with the Hatch Act, which forbids public servants from using government property to conduct political business.
At least 88 White House staffers had RNC accounts and there are signs that many of them used those accounts extensively for nonpolitical matters, the committee said.
Rove, a top political adviser to President George W. Bush, sent more than 100 e-mail messages and received more than 200 each day through his RNC account in 2007, the report said.
More than half of the 140,000 Rove messages saved by the RNC was correspondence with other government officials, the committee said. Most of his correspondence from Bush's first term has not been preserved, it said.
Rove thought his messages were being archived, his former assistant Susan Ralston told the committee. His lawyer has said he never intentionally deleted e-mail from any accounts.
The RNC said it is still searching for the missing e-mails.
"There is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said by e-mail.
The report also points a finger at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, currently facing pressure to resign over U.S. attorney firings that Democrats say were political in nature.
As White House counsel, Gonzales may have known that Rove and others were using RNC accounts but did nothing to stop it, the report says.
A Justice Department official referred questions to the White House.
The committee said it will investigate Gonzales' role further and search federal agencies for copies of the missing e-mails. It also said it plans to subpoena Bush's 2004 re-election campaign for additional e-mails because the campaign has not cooperated.
EW Names 'Die Hard' Best Action Movie Ever
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/movies/articles/_a/ew-names-die-hard-best-action-movie-ever/20070615065909990001
EW Names 'Die Hard' Best Action Movie Ever
Reuters
LOS ANGELES (June 15) -- "Die Hard," starring Bruce Willis as a tough cop battling terrorists, was named the best action film ever by Entertainment Weekly magazine -- two weeks before the series' fourth installment, "Live Free or Die Hard," hits theaters.
The magazine on Thursday unveiled a list of top 25 action movies picked by its writers and editors spanning a wide range of films: from 1938's "The Adventures of Robin Hood" to director Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" in 1954 (No. 6) and the 2004 computer-animated film, "The Incredibles" (No. 25).
Space adventure "Aliens" followed "Die Hard" in the No. 2 slot with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" at No. 3 and "The Road Warrior" and "The Matrix" at No. 4 and No. 5, respectively.
But it was 1988's "Die Hard," starring Willis as tough-as-nails New York cop John McClane who battles terrorists in a Los Angeles high-rise, that blew the biggest Hollywood fireball for the magazine's staff.
Back in summer 1988, "Die Hard" was notable mostly for its gun battles and explosions, including blowing up an L.A. high-rise. The movie raked in $138 million worldwide and made Willis a major movie star.
Two sequels, "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" and "Die Hard With a Vengeance," followed in 1990 and 1995, respectively.
The fourth film, "Live Free or Die Hard," lands in theaters on June 27, and this time McClane is saving the world from a mad genius mounting a digital attack on computer networks.
An Entertainment Weekly spokeswoman said the list was picked without any regard to "Live Free's" opening date or its interview with Willis that hits newsstands on Friday.
"After we finalized the list, we asked for interviews with key players in the movies we picked," the spokeswoman said. "'Die Hard"' was going to be No. 1 anyway."
Some of the more recent films making the top 25 included "Spider-Man 2" and "Kill Bill -- Vol. 1," while older titles ranged from 1964 James Bond movie "Goldfinger" to 1973's martial arts flick "Enter the Dragon," starring Bruce Lee.
EW Names 'Die Hard' Best Action Movie Ever
Reuters
LOS ANGELES (June 15) -- "Die Hard," starring Bruce Willis as a tough cop battling terrorists, was named the best action film ever by Entertainment Weekly magazine -- two weeks before the series' fourth installment, "Live Free or Die Hard," hits theaters.
The magazine on Thursday unveiled a list of top 25 action movies picked by its writers and editors spanning a wide range of films: from 1938's "The Adventures of Robin Hood" to director Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" in 1954 (No. 6) and the 2004 computer-animated film, "The Incredibles" (No. 25).
Space adventure "Aliens" followed "Die Hard" in the No. 2 slot with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" at No. 3 and "The Road Warrior" and "The Matrix" at No. 4 and No. 5, respectively.
But it was 1988's "Die Hard," starring Willis as tough-as-nails New York cop John McClane who battles terrorists in a Los Angeles high-rise, that blew the biggest Hollywood fireball for the magazine's staff.
Back in summer 1988, "Die Hard" was notable mostly for its gun battles and explosions, including blowing up an L.A. high-rise. The movie raked in $138 million worldwide and made Willis a major movie star.
Two sequels, "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" and "Die Hard With a Vengeance," followed in 1990 and 1995, respectively.
The fourth film, "Live Free or Die Hard," lands in theaters on June 27, and this time McClane is saving the world from a mad genius mounting a digital attack on computer networks.
An Entertainment Weekly spokeswoman said the list was picked without any regard to "Live Free's" opening date or its interview with Willis that hits newsstands on Friday.
"After we finalized the list, we asked for interviews with key players in the movies we picked," the spokeswoman said. "'Die Hard"' was going to be No. 1 anyway."
Some of the more recent films making the top 25 included "Spider-Man 2" and "Kill Bill -- Vol. 1," while older titles ranged from 1964 James Bond movie "Goldfinger" to 1973's martial arts flick "Enter the Dragon," starring Bruce Lee.
Lou Pearlman Charged With Bank Fraud
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400657.html
Lou Pearlman Charged With Bank Fraud
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 14, 2007
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Lou Pearlman was forced out of hiding Thursday after being expelled by Indonesian authorities and turned over to the FBI. He was flown to Guam to appear before a judge, officials said.
Pearlman's arrest on one felony count of bank fraud ended several months of hiding for the boy-band mogul, who created the Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync. He also faces several lawsuits and two involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, but hasn't responded to court subpoenas and doesn't have an attorney in either bankruptcy case.
"We expect that he will be returned to Florida," said Steve Cole, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tampa.
Pearlman was also involved in airplane charters, talent scouting, restaurants and other ventures.
Banks are hounding Pearlman and his companies for more than $120 million, according to bankruptcy court documents. It wasn't entirely clear how he allegedly committed bank fraud in the federal charges, which were filed in a criminal complaint March 2 and sealed until Thursday.
However, court documents filed by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation and in lawsuits against Pearlman allege he created a fake accounting firm that prepared bogus statements for investors.
Federal and state authorities raided Pearlman's home and offices in February.
The FBI forwarded information about Pearlman to Indonesian authorities. He was deemed an "undesirable visitor" and thrown out of the country. Pearlman was apprehended at a hotel on the resort island of Bali, the FBI said.
Pearlman lost control of several companies in February when a state judge appointed a receiver to take over the books.
The receiver, Jerry McHale, said Pearlman appears to have defrauded about 1,000 individual investors of more than $315 million.
Pearlman allegedly sold a bogus savings-account plan promising large dividends, then transferred payments to himself, his associates and across his companies.
Soneet Kapila, the court-appointed trustee in the bankruptcy cases, said the arrest should help authorities sort through Pearlman's confusing financial picture.
"I'm looking forward to seeing him on American soil," Kapila said. "I'm anxious to see what he had in his possession, where he was located, and how anything he had in his possession will help me locate the assets."
Pearlman's books are convoluted and incomplete, investigators say. He apparently created more than 100 companies _ a separate one for each business venture _ but treated them all as one by blindly transferring assets and paying bills.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Ellis in Orlando contributed to this report.
Lou Pearlman Charged With Bank Fraud
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 14, 2007
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Lou Pearlman was forced out of hiding Thursday after being expelled by Indonesian authorities and turned over to the FBI. He was flown to Guam to appear before a judge, officials said.
Pearlman's arrest on one felony count of bank fraud ended several months of hiding for the boy-band mogul, who created the Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync. He also faces several lawsuits and two involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, but hasn't responded to court subpoenas and doesn't have an attorney in either bankruptcy case.
"We expect that he will be returned to Florida," said Steve Cole, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tampa.
Pearlman was also involved in airplane charters, talent scouting, restaurants and other ventures.
Banks are hounding Pearlman and his companies for more than $120 million, according to bankruptcy court documents. It wasn't entirely clear how he allegedly committed bank fraud in the federal charges, which were filed in a criminal complaint March 2 and sealed until Thursday.
However, court documents filed by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation and in lawsuits against Pearlman allege he created a fake accounting firm that prepared bogus statements for investors.
Federal and state authorities raided Pearlman's home and offices in February.
The FBI forwarded information about Pearlman to Indonesian authorities. He was deemed an "undesirable visitor" and thrown out of the country. Pearlman was apprehended at a hotel on the resort island of Bali, the FBI said.
Pearlman lost control of several companies in February when a state judge appointed a receiver to take over the books.
The receiver, Jerry McHale, said Pearlman appears to have defrauded about 1,000 individual investors of more than $315 million.
Pearlman allegedly sold a bogus savings-account plan promising large dividends, then transferred payments to himself, his associates and across his companies.
Soneet Kapila, the court-appointed trustee in the bankruptcy cases, said the arrest should help authorities sort through Pearlman's confusing financial picture.
"I'm looking forward to seeing him on American soil," Kapila said. "I'm anxious to see what he had in his possession, where he was located, and how anything he had in his possession will help me locate the assets."
Pearlman's books are convoluted and incomplete, investigators say. He apparently created more than 100 companies _ a separate one for each business venture _ but treated them all as one by blindly transferring assets and paying bills.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Ellis in Orlando contributed to this report.
An attack on academic freedom
Chttp://wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/fink-j18.shtml
An attack on academic freedom
Critic of Zionism denied tenure at US university
By Joe Kay
18 June 2007
Earlier this month, DePaul University denied tenure to Norman Finkelstein, a professor of political science who has written numerous works criticizing the policies of Israel and the misuse of the charge of anti-Semitism against opponents of Zionism. The denial of Finkelstein’s tenure, and with it the termination of his position at DePaul, is a clear attack on academic freedom and the victimization of a professor because of his political views.
The denial of Finkelstein’s tenure at DePaul, a Catholic university that is one of the largest private universities in the country, was confirmed in a June 8 letter from DePaul’s president, Dennis Holtschneider. Holtschneider affirmed a 4-3 vote by the University Board on Promotion and Tenure. In a highly unusual step, the board overruled both the department of political science faculty and a university-wide faculty committee, both of which supported Finkelstein’s tenure bid. Finkelstein’s tenure was opposed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Charles Suchar.
“I met the standards of tenure DePaul required, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the political opposition to my speaking out on the Israel-Palestine conflict,” Finkelstein said. He called the decision an “egregious violation” of academic freedom.
Also denied tenure at the same time was Professor Mehrene Larudee, who works in an unrelated field but who had helped organize support for Finkelstein. Larudee had received the unanimous backing of the college faculty and Dean Suchar.
In the months leading up to the June vote, opposition to Finkelstein’s tenure had become a national campaign, spearheaded by Harvard University Professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who has most recently achieved notoriety for his arguments in favor of torture, has been one of the targets of many of Finkelstein’s writings.
Finkelstein, a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors, has been a professor at DePaul since 2001. He is best known for his 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, the central thesis of which is that the Holocaust has been exploited for ends that had nothing to do with historical truth or the victims of the Nazi genocide—including support for Israel and calls for reparations. Finkelstein has also written critical studies of Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which argued that the cause of the Holocaust could be located in the inherent anti-Semitism of the German people as a whole.
Finkelstein’s most recent book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, continues on these themes, as well as documenting in detail the human rights violations of the state of Israel. Among the targets of the book, published by the University of California press, are Dershowitz and others who have used the charge of anti-Semitism to suppress criticism of Israeli policies.
The campaign to suppress Finkelstein’s views did not begin with the attempt to deny him tenure. When The Holocaust Industry first came out, it was the subject of vicious attack in the American media. A review in the New York Times by professor Omer Bartov slandered it as “a novel variation of the anti-Semitic forgery, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’” Other reviews were no less objective, seeking to create a false amalgam between Finkelstein and anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.
As Finkelstein sought to publish Beyond Chutzpah, Dershowitz organized a campaign to try to prevent its publication, threatening expensive libel lawsuits against anyone who decided to print it. He even wrote to Arnold Schwarzenegger in a failed attempt to get the California governor to intervene and stop UC from publishing the book.
When Finkelstein’s tenure came up for review, Dershowitz produced a memo attacking him, which he sent to DePaul faculty and administration. Nevertheless, Finkelstein received strong support from fellow faculty members and prominent scholars in the field, including Raul Hilberg, considered one of the fathers of Holocaust studies.
Given this support, the quality of Finkelstein’s scholarship could not be the rationale given by the university in denying him tenure. Instead, the members of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure, along with Dean Suchar and President Holtschneider, focused on the alleged “hurtful” character of Finkelstein’s writings and their supposed failure to follow strictures of “collegiality.”
In its statement rejecting tenure, the board acknowledged that Finkelstein is “a nationally known scholar and public intellectual, considered provocative, challenging and intellectually interesting.” It also wrote, “By all accounts, he is an excellent teacher, popular with his students and effective in the classroom.”
However, the board when on to declare without providing any examples, “some might interpret parts of his scholarship as ‘deliberately hurtful’ as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect than to carefully critique or challenge accepted assumptions.” Carefully using the passive voice to avoid attribution, it declared, “Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks in his writings and intellectual debates ... It was questioned by some whether Dr. Finkelstein effectively contributes to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues.”
While not indicating who fell under the category of “some” people, and while denying that the board was subject to the pressure of the campaign against Finkelstein, it is evident that the board and top university administrators were reacting to the pressure of Dershowitz and his backers, no doubt including some prominent donors to DePaul.
The concern of those seeking to deny Finkelstein tenure had nothing to do with “collegiality.” If there were any group best able to evaluate Finkelstein’s performance in this regard, it would certainly be his colleagues at DePaul, who the university was forced to overrule in making its decision. In any case, such reasons are generally considered to be insufficient for denying tenure to a professor, especially one who has the backing of his fellow faculty members and students.
President Holtschneider ended his letter to Finkelstein explaining the decision with the incredible statement, “Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul.”
If the decision stands, as appears likely, Finkelstein will serve one more year at DePaul before being dismissed. Faculty at DePaul are considering advancing a vote of no confidence against Dean Suchar and President Holtschneider. Students staged a sit-in of the President’s office, but were driven off by campus police and threatened with expulsion last week.
The attack on Finkelstein is by no means unique. Other academics in the US have been victimized for their views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, including Joseph Massad of Columbia University and Sami al-Arian of the University of South Florida. Al-Arian was imprisoned and is to be deported on the basis of trumped up conspiracy charges.
Students on college campuses who have campaigned for divestment from Israel have been smeared as anti-Semitic, and organizations have been set up, including Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch web site, to monitor and intimidate professors critical of Israeli and US policy. These campaigns have been part of a growing attempt to suppress debate and intimidate oppositional sentiment at universities in the US.
An attack on academic freedom
Critic of Zionism denied tenure at US university
By Joe Kay
18 June 2007
Earlier this month, DePaul University denied tenure to Norman Finkelstein, a professor of political science who has written numerous works criticizing the policies of Israel and the misuse of the charge of anti-Semitism against opponents of Zionism. The denial of Finkelstein’s tenure, and with it the termination of his position at DePaul, is a clear attack on academic freedom and the victimization of a professor because of his political views.
The denial of Finkelstein’s tenure at DePaul, a Catholic university that is one of the largest private universities in the country, was confirmed in a June 8 letter from DePaul’s president, Dennis Holtschneider. Holtschneider affirmed a 4-3 vote by the University Board on Promotion and Tenure. In a highly unusual step, the board overruled both the department of political science faculty and a university-wide faculty committee, both of which supported Finkelstein’s tenure bid. Finkelstein’s tenure was opposed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Charles Suchar.
“I met the standards of tenure DePaul required, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the political opposition to my speaking out on the Israel-Palestine conflict,” Finkelstein said. He called the decision an “egregious violation” of academic freedom.
Also denied tenure at the same time was Professor Mehrene Larudee, who works in an unrelated field but who had helped organize support for Finkelstein. Larudee had received the unanimous backing of the college faculty and Dean Suchar.
In the months leading up to the June vote, opposition to Finkelstein’s tenure had become a national campaign, spearheaded by Harvard University Professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who has most recently achieved notoriety for his arguments in favor of torture, has been one of the targets of many of Finkelstein’s writings.
Finkelstein, a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors, has been a professor at DePaul since 2001. He is best known for his 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, the central thesis of which is that the Holocaust has been exploited for ends that had nothing to do with historical truth or the victims of the Nazi genocide—including support for Israel and calls for reparations. Finkelstein has also written critical studies of Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which argued that the cause of the Holocaust could be located in the inherent anti-Semitism of the German people as a whole.
Finkelstein’s most recent book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, continues on these themes, as well as documenting in detail the human rights violations of the state of Israel. Among the targets of the book, published by the University of California press, are Dershowitz and others who have used the charge of anti-Semitism to suppress criticism of Israeli policies.
The campaign to suppress Finkelstein’s views did not begin with the attempt to deny him tenure. When The Holocaust Industry first came out, it was the subject of vicious attack in the American media. A review in the New York Times by professor Omer Bartov slandered it as “a novel variation of the anti-Semitic forgery, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’” Other reviews were no less objective, seeking to create a false amalgam between Finkelstein and anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.
As Finkelstein sought to publish Beyond Chutzpah, Dershowitz organized a campaign to try to prevent its publication, threatening expensive libel lawsuits against anyone who decided to print it. He even wrote to Arnold Schwarzenegger in a failed attempt to get the California governor to intervene and stop UC from publishing the book.
When Finkelstein’s tenure came up for review, Dershowitz produced a memo attacking him, which he sent to DePaul faculty and administration. Nevertheless, Finkelstein received strong support from fellow faculty members and prominent scholars in the field, including Raul Hilberg, considered one of the fathers of Holocaust studies.
Given this support, the quality of Finkelstein’s scholarship could not be the rationale given by the university in denying him tenure. Instead, the members of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure, along with Dean Suchar and President Holtschneider, focused on the alleged “hurtful” character of Finkelstein’s writings and their supposed failure to follow strictures of “collegiality.”
In its statement rejecting tenure, the board acknowledged that Finkelstein is “a nationally known scholar and public intellectual, considered provocative, challenging and intellectually interesting.” It also wrote, “By all accounts, he is an excellent teacher, popular with his students and effective in the classroom.”
However, the board when on to declare without providing any examples, “some might interpret parts of his scholarship as ‘deliberately hurtful’ as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect than to carefully critique or challenge accepted assumptions.” Carefully using the passive voice to avoid attribution, it declared, “Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks in his writings and intellectual debates ... It was questioned by some whether Dr. Finkelstein effectively contributes to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues.”
While not indicating who fell under the category of “some” people, and while denying that the board was subject to the pressure of the campaign against Finkelstein, it is evident that the board and top university administrators were reacting to the pressure of Dershowitz and his backers, no doubt including some prominent donors to DePaul.
The concern of those seeking to deny Finkelstein tenure had nothing to do with “collegiality.” If there were any group best able to evaluate Finkelstein’s performance in this regard, it would certainly be his colleagues at DePaul, who the university was forced to overrule in making its decision. In any case, such reasons are generally considered to be insufficient for denying tenure to a professor, especially one who has the backing of his fellow faculty members and students.
President Holtschneider ended his letter to Finkelstein explaining the decision with the incredible statement, “Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul.”
If the decision stands, as appears likely, Finkelstein will serve one more year at DePaul before being dismissed. Faculty at DePaul are considering advancing a vote of no confidence against Dean Suchar and President Holtschneider. Students staged a sit-in of the President’s office, but were driven off by campus police and threatened with expulsion last week.
The attack on Finkelstein is by no means unique. Other academics in the US have been victimized for their views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, including Joseph Massad of Columbia University and Sami al-Arian of the University of South Florida. Al-Arian was imprisoned and is to be deported on the basis of trumped up conspiracy charges.
Students on college campuses who have campaigned for divestment from Israel have been smeared as anti-Semitic, and organizations have been set up, including Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch web site, to monitor and intimidate professors critical of Israeli and US policy. These campaigns have been part of a growing attempt to suppress debate and intimidate oppositional sentiment at universities in the US.
God & Sarah Silverman
God & Sarah Silverman
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_sarah_silverman_program/index.jhtml
God: "I had a really good time. A really, really good time."
Sarah: "Thanks. Me too."
God: "Come to Heaven with me today."
Sarah: "Today?"
God: "We can see the past and the future. We can fly. And I will introduce you to Thomas Jefferson."
Sarah: "Oh, awesome. I told my friend Natalie I would help her move, though."
God: "I could stop time."
Sarah: "That is so sweet. Oh your pants are over there. I mean not like I'm asking you to leave. I just mean if you can't see it from this angle of still being in my bed."
God: "Right. I should go."
Sarah: "Okay. Um. Alright. I guess I'll see you around sometime."
God: "Do you mean it? Or are you just saying that?"
God & Sarah Silverman the morning after having sex on The Sarah Silverman Program. (Note: God is a black man.)
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_sarah_silverman_program/index.jhtml
God: "I had a really good time. A really, really good time."
Sarah: "Thanks. Me too."
God: "Come to Heaven with me today."
Sarah: "Today?"
God: "We can see the past and the future. We can fly. And I will introduce you to Thomas Jefferson."
Sarah: "Oh, awesome. I told my friend Natalie I would help her move, though."
God: "I could stop time."
Sarah: "That is so sweet. Oh your pants are over there. I mean not like I'm asking you to leave. I just mean if you can't see it from this angle of still being in my bed."
God: "Right. I should go."
Sarah: "Okay. Um. Alright. I guess I'll see you around sometime."
God: "Do you mean it? Or are you just saying that?"
God & Sarah Silverman the morning after having sex on The Sarah Silverman Program. (Note: God is a black man.)
Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995
ConsortiumNews.com
Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995
From the Desk of Robert Parry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it's hard to assess progress. You keep chugging forward but often it doesn't seem like you're getting that far or at least not as far as you'd like. Over the past 11-plus years, that's how it's felt editing this investigative news Web site.
We started out in 1995 with the idea that the Internet - then still in its infancy - could permit the kind of serious journalism that was becoming an endangered species elsewhere.
In the mid-1990s, there was tabloid 24-hour cable news; there was hate-filled talk radio; there was inconsequential insider journalism from the Washington press corps. What there wasn't was a commitment to give the American people the information they needed to be informed citizens.
As a mainstream reporter who investigated the Iran-Contra Affair for the Associated Press and Newsweek - and saw how the full truth of that scandal was obscured - I feared that the United States was stumbling into dangerous terrain, a place where important news vital to a democratic Republic was devalued in favor of "content."
So, I cashed out my Newsweek retirement fund and started Consortiumnews.com. From the first, we had two primary goals: to generate well-written stories about real news and to alert the public to the disturbing transformation underway in the U.S. news media.
We achieved some notable successes - salvaging the history of the early Republican contacts with Iran's Islamist regime, exposing secrets about covert U.S. dealings with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, chronicling the CIA's extraordinary contra-cocaine admissions, explaining the corrupting financial influence of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's organization on the GOP, and many more.
Regrettably, however, I couldn't match our journalistic achievements with my fundraising skills. So, in early 2000, I put the Web site on a part-time basis and went to work as an editor at the business wire service Bloomberg News to pay off the bills.
One of our last stories before that change was an article describing how mainstream and right-wing reporters were distorting Election 2000 by falsifying the words of Vice President Al Gore, such as the apocryphal quotes about "inventing the Internet" and having "started" the Love Canal clean-up. [See "Al Gore v. the Media."]
Though we did keep the Web site alive and wrote some valuable articles during Campaign 2000, we could have done a lot more. I firmly believe that full-time reporting at our site could have contributed to a different outcome for the country.
Similarly, our part-time operation did the best it could in the crucial years of 2001-2004. We challenged the intelligence case for invading Iraq and warned about the military dangers that lay ahead. But again it was not enough.
In spring 2004, I quit Bloomberg News to write Secrecy & Privilege and to pick up the pace at Consortiumnews.com.
Over the past year or so, we have transformed the Web site into an almost daily source for news, posting fresh stories on a variety of topics, though still with our focus on the Bush administration's ongoing lies about the Iraq War and the erosion of civil liberties in the United States.
In 2006, for the first time, our annual budget topped $100,000, reaching $109,000, still an amazingly small amount for the impact that our journalism has. Not only do our stories reach hundreds of thousands of readers a month at our free Web site, but they are re-posted widely across the Internet, reaching millions of people worldwide.
We also are putting the finishing touches on a sequel to Secrecy & Privilege, entitled Neck Deep. While Secrecy & Privilege concentrated on how George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for the Bush Dynasty, Neck Deep examines how George W. Bush restored his family to power and what that has meant to the American Republic.
Despite our journalistic accomplishments, however, I must admit I'm still slogging along on the fundraising front.
For us to maintain our current pace - and hopefully expand our work - we need the support of you, our readers. Some have put in good words for us with institutional funders, such as Working Assets, and we certainly hope those initiatives bear fruit.
But the bottom line is that we are reliant on the generosity of our readers to pay most of the bills. Without your help, we simply won't have a future.
We have set a target of $25,000 for our mid-year fundraiser, which represents a bare-bones amount for producing the journalism and paying other expenses.
So, if you can, please consider a tax-deductible donation to the Consortium for Independent Journalism, our parent organization.
For donations of $100 or more, you can receive an autographed, special pre-release-date copy of Neck Deep (expected out in early July) or a signed copy of my previous two books, either Secrecy & Privilege or Lost History.
You can make a contribution either by credit card by clicking here or by sending a check to:
Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Suite 102-231
2200 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22201.
For those who use PayPal, donations can be made to our account, consortnew@aol.com.
(If you wish to receive a gift book, please specify which one.)
Thanks so much for your support.
Robert Parry, Editor
Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995
From the Desk of Robert Parry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it's hard to assess progress. You keep chugging forward but often it doesn't seem like you're getting that far or at least not as far as you'd like. Over the past 11-plus years, that's how it's felt editing this investigative news Web site.
We started out in 1995 with the idea that the Internet - then still in its infancy - could permit the kind of serious journalism that was becoming an endangered species elsewhere.
In the mid-1990s, there was tabloid 24-hour cable news; there was hate-filled talk radio; there was inconsequential insider journalism from the Washington press corps. What there wasn't was a commitment to give the American people the information they needed to be informed citizens.
As a mainstream reporter who investigated the Iran-Contra Affair for the Associated Press and Newsweek - and saw how the full truth of that scandal was obscured - I feared that the United States was stumbling into dangerous terrain, a place where important news vital to a democratic Republic was devalued in favor of "content."
So, I cashed out my Newsweek retirement fund and started Consortiumnews.com. From the first, we had two primary goals: to generate well-written stories about real news and to alert the public to the disturbing transformation underway in the U.S. news media.
We achieved some notable successes - salvaging the history of the early Republican contacts with Iran's Islamist regime, exposing secrets about covert U.S. dealings with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, chronicling the CIA's extraordinary contra-cocaine admissions, explaining the corrupting financial influence of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's organization on the GOP, and many more.
Regrettably, however, I couldn't match our journalistic achievements with my fundraising skills. So, in early 2000, I put the Web site on a part-time basis and went to work as an editor at the business wire service Bloomberg News to pay off the bills.
One of our last stories before that change was an article describing how mainstream and right-wing reporters were distorting Election 2000 by falsifying the words of Vice President Al Gore, such as the apocryphal quotes about "inventing the Internet" and having "started" the Love Canal clean-up. [See "Al Gore v. the Media."]
Though we did keep the Web site alive and wrote some valuable articles during Campaign 2000, we could have done a lot more. I firmly believe that full-time reporting at our site could have contributed to a different outcome for the country.
Similarly, our part-time operation did the best it could in the crucial years of 2001-2004. We challenged the intelligence case for invading Iraq and warned about the military dangers that lay ahead. But again it was not enough.
In spring 2004, I quit Bloomberg News to write Secrecy & Privilege and to pick up the pace at Consortiumnews.com.
Over the past year or so, we have transformed the Web site into an almost daily source for news, posting fresh stories on a variety of topics, though still with our focus on the Bush administration's ongoing lies about the Iraq War and the erosion of civil liberties in the United States.
In 2006, for the first time, our annual budget topped $100,000, reaching $109,000, still an amazingly small amount for the impact that our journalism has. Not only do our stories reach hundreds of thousands of readers a month at our free Web site, but they are re-posted widely across the Internet, reaching millions of people worldwide.
We also are putting the finishing touches on a sequel to Secrecy & Privilege, entitled Neck Deep. While Secrecy & Privilege concentrated on how George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for the Bush Dynasty, Neck Deep examines how George W. Bush restored his family to power and what that has meant to the American Republic.
Despite our journalistic accomplishments, however, I must admit I'm still slogging along on the fundraising front.
For us to maintain our current pace - and hopefully expand our work - we need the support of you, our readers. Some have put in good words for us with institutional funders, such as Working Assets, and we certainly hope those initiatives bear fruit.
But the bottom line is that we are reliant on the generosity of our readers to pay most of the bills. Without your help, we simply won't have a future.
We have set a target of $25,000 for our mid-year fundraiser, which represents a bare-bones amount for producing the journalism and paying other expenses.
So, if you can, please consider a tax-deductible donation to the Consortium for Independent Journalism, our parent organization.
For donations of $100 or more, you can receive an autographed, special pre-release-date copy of Neck Deep (expected out in early July) or a signed copy of my previous two books, either Secrecy & Privilege or Lost History.
You can make a contribution either by credit card by clicking here or by sending a check to:
Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Suite 102-231
2200 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22201.
For those who use PayPal, donations can be made to our account, consortnew@aol.com.
(If you wish to receive a gift book, please specify which one.)
Thanks so much for your support.
Robert Parry, Editor
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
HR 811 / Holt's bill - why its critics are WRONG
HR 811 / Holt's bill - why its critics are WRONG
6/9/2007
Lisa Pease
lpease@gte.net
I'm a few days late in sharing this because I've been doing battle via private email lists with well-meaning but misinformed activists. I can't believe how many of the claims circulated about Rush Holt's bill HR 811 are simply not substantiated by the explicit language of the bill. I'm sharing this with you because certain anti-Holt bill points keep getting echoed, even though they are without merit. I encourage anyone with the interest to read the bill. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h811rh.txt.pdf) I downloaded it, printed it, and marked it up with post-it notes so I could more quickly refute these mythologies which are strangling are last best chance we have for voting reform before 2008.
I'm in touch with Holt's office, and am informed that the counties are pressuring hard to move that date back to 2010. It's IMPERATIVE, if you want to see paperless voting banned by 2008, and audits of the paper ballots instituted by 2008, that you call your representative TODAY and urge them to support this bill with the 2008 deadlines, paper trails and audit provisions intact. I'm not kidding - we're very much in danger of losing the 2008 goal. 2010 is too far away. Please act, and please ask your friends to act. You can find your Congressperson's contact info at www.house.gov.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Nancy Tobi's article in OpEd news a couple of days ago REALLY took the cake for dishonest representation. There were so many errors in her first paragraph alone that I've numbered them so you can follow along. Here's what she wrote:
"HR 811 has a long and controversial history. It is embraced primarily by well funded lobbyists (1), while the general citizenry (2), election officials, and activists (3) oppose the bill. In the ultimate bait and switch, all carrots dangled in front of activists have been eaten up: full software disclosure is now full nondisclosure (4). Implementation on key aspects is moved from 2008 to 2010 (5), effectively quashing the "Let's get it straight by 2008" bullshit campaign by MoveOn, Common Cause, VoteTrustUSA, PFAW and other large lobbyists pouring money into passage of this bill (and who is funding those guys anyway???) (6)."
(1) HR 811 is NOT primarily embraced by well-funded lobbyists. It has been primarily OPPOSED by the lobbyists for the electronic voting industry, who would much rather operate as they do now, without accountability or oversight. HR 811 is primarily embraced by groups like MoveOn, Norman Lear's People for the American Way, Common Cause, and concerned Congresspeople who understand more viscerally than anyone how their own re-election votes are at risk if they don't get this bill in place.
(2) HR 811 is NOT primarily "opposed by the general citizenry." That can only be described as an outright lie, because there have been no polls, no studies done. Nancy is taking her anecdotal evidence and making an unsubstantiated claim of gigantic and misleading proportions. That, my friend, is what we call a lie.
(3) HR 811 is SUPPORTED by quite a number of activists. David Dill of Verified Voting, Avi Rubin, and many others realize that a perfect bill is not on the menu, and the time has come for us to order, or go hungry. Many of us are now choosing to order from what's on the menu. And of the few bills in Congress that address this issue, HR 811 is by far the superior choice.
(4) Her next statement is perhaps the MOST misleading. She talks about "secret software." Under HR 811, the only software that is allowed to be secret is that which is NOT election-related!
It takes a lot of very specific code to run an election. It changes for a given election. The number of races and ballot measures and candidate names and positions on the ballot are not coded into "commercial off-the-shelf software." No "commercial off-the-shelf" software is going to be the problem in a hacked vote scenario. If hacking takes place, it has to be done in the ELECTION software, and THAT software is specifically made available for review under HR 811.
I used to work for Microsoft. I know the software development cycle for "commercial off the shelf software" ("COTS") The code is locked down many months in advance of the release date. There is simply no way to sneak election altering code into something when the code has to be frozen many more than six months in advance of the election, since no ballot positions have been assigned, etc. There is no credible scenario in which someone could hide election-altering code in COTS. It's just not possible. The only code that could be altered to change an election would be the ELECTION SOFTWARE, which IS FULLY DISCLOSED under Holt's bill HR 811.
Here are the provisions in HR 811 for reviewing all election-related software:
* ALL election software must be both deposited with an accredited laboratory AND disclosed, upon request, to anyone meeting ANY of the following criteria. (Note: "technology" is defined as being the "voting system software".)
* "A governmental entity with responsibility for the administration of voting and election-related matters for purposes of reviewing, analyzing, or reporting on the technology."
* "A party to pre- or post-election litigation challenging the result of an election or the administration or use of the technology used in an election, including but not limited to the certification of the technology"
* "...an expert for a party to such litigation" ("all parties to the litigation shall have access to the technology")
* "A person not described [above] who reviews, analyzes, or reports on the technology solely for an academic, scientific, technological, or other investigation or inquiry concerning the accuracy or integrity of the technology."
* Anyone specified under their own state laws (Holt's bill being a floor, not a ceiling, for reform - states can have additional criteria)
Here's some additional language from Holts' bill regarding the non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"):
An NDA cannot be used under Holt's bill in reference to our voting equipment and software unless it SPECIFICALLY:
* "allows DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE OF CRIME, including in response to a subpoena or warrant"
* "allows the signatory to perform analyses on the technology (including executing the technology), DISCLOSE REPORTS AND ANALYSES that describe operational issues pertaining to the technology, (including vulnerabilities to tampering, errors, risks associated with use, failures as a result of use, and other problems), and DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN WHY OR HOW a voting system failed or otherwise did not perform as intended.
And does the bill stop there? No. Because lawyers WILL enter the picture, and try to get an injunction against those who may wish to examine the code. So the bill SPECIFICALLY PROTECTS US by offering this ban against injunctions. An NDA can only be valid under this bill if it:
* "prohibits the use of injunctions barring a signatory from carrying out any activity authorized under subparagraph (C), including injunctions limited to the period prior to a trail involving technology" - meaning, the courts can't stop someone from examining the code by trying to bring an injunction. Any NDA that would imply that cannot be used for our election systems under HR 811.
(Subparagraph C allows anyone who is either (i) a government official, (ii) a party to a lawsuit, or "a person not described above in clause (i) or (ii) who reviews, analyzes, or reports on the technology soley for an academic, scientific, technological, or other investigation or inquiry concerning the accuracy or integrity of the technology.")
(5) Tobi said key aspects of the bill are not implemented until 2010. In fact, there is only ONE key aspect which is delayed until 2010. DREs that currently produce a paper ballot that the voter can verify, but which is on a thermal roll, do not have to be replaced until 2010. But all other key provisions MUST be implemented in 2008. That's sooner than any other bill on the table, and just barely in time to forestall a stolen election in 2008.
(6) Tobi's last comment is the most libelous of all. She asks, who is funding MoveOn, PFAW, Common Cause, etc. Why, THE PEOPLE, Nancy. The PEOPLE who believe these organizations have been around the block and understand better than newcomers to activism how laws are made, the give and take of the process, and how you never get everything you want. But what's especially ironic about this is that Nancy is asking the very question she was outraged by when the question was directed at her recently (i.e., who is SHE working for).
I could go on - the next paragraph was just as bad. But why? Nancy Tobi is not a credible spokesperson on this issue. We need people who want to move us beyond what we'll have without Holt's bill - paperless elections - and forward to a day when all machines give paper trails, voters are informed that they MUST check those paper trails for accuracy, and when the paper trails will not only be audited, but will have the upper hand, legally, in any dispute. THAT is what Holt's bill HR 811 offers us.
On the other hand, if HR 811, Holts' bill, goes down, no one in Congress will want to touch this issue. It will be tainted with loss, and politicians need wins, not losses.
If we pass HR 811, however, we'll gain momentum for passing even stronger election reform. And we'll have the best chance we've had in eight years of ensuring that our vote was actually counted as cast. If we lose our vote to paperless machines, we lose our voice, and cease to be a democracy. Yes, it's that serious. And time is running out.
Please help. It takes one minute. Call up your Congressperson (found at www.house.gov - enter your address/ZIP and you'll be pointed to your Rep's site.) Find the "Contact" info. Dial the phone number.
Say, "I'm a constituent of Congressperson [NAME] and I want to urge him/her to support HR 811, Rush Holt's bill on voting reform." That's it. That's all you need to do. The staffer who answers the phone might ask for some name and address info to verify that you are, in fact, a constituent. But it's really that simple. For those who are terrified of calling up strangers, remember, these are your employees, and they are very kind and gentle! :D
Thank you so much for your attention, and for your activism on this matter.
----------------
Permission to forward the above or to post it anywhere is granted.
Many of you are leaders in your own circles. Please feel free to call me directly (310-202-1793) with any questions or concerns you have about the bill. I want to help people understand what REALLY is, and isn’t, in the bill. I’ll ruffle through my post-it flagged copy to get you the answers quickly.
PLEASE GET THE FACTS before you too become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. The full current bill text can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h811rh.txt.pdf
Lisa Pease
lpease@gte.net
Blog: http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com
Site: www.realhistoryarchives.com
Book: The Assassinations
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." - Thomas Jefferson
6/9/2007
Lisa Pease
lpease@gte.net
I'm a few days late in sharing this because I've been doing battle via private email lists with well-meaning but misinformed activists. I can't believe how many of the claims circulated about Rush Holt's bill HR 811 are simply not substantiated by the explicit language of the bill. I'm sharing this with you because certain anti-Holt bill points keep getting echoed, even though they are without merit. I encourage anyone with the interest to read the bill. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h811rh.txt.pdf) I downloaded it, printed it, and marked it up with post-it notes so I could more quickly refute these mythologies which are strangling are last best chance we have for voting reform before 2008.
I'm in touch with Holt's office, and am informed that the counties are pressuring hard to move that date back to 2010. It's IMPERATIVE, if you want to see paperless voting banned by 2008, and audits of the paper ballots instituted by 2008, that you call your representative TODAY and urge them to support this bill with the 2008 deadlines, paper trails and audit provisions intact. I'm not kidding - we're very much in danger of losing the 2008 goal. 2010 is too far away. Please act, and please ask your friends to act. You can find your Congressperson's contact info at www.house.gov.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Nancy Tobi's article in OpEd news a couple of days ago REALLY took the cake for dishonest representation. There were so many errors in her first paragraph alone that I've numbered them so you can follow along. Here's what she wrote:
"HR 811 has a long and controversial history. It is embraced primarily by well funded lobbyists (1), while the general citizenry (2), election officials, and activists (3) oppose the bill. In the ultimate bait and switch, all carrots dangled in front of activists have been eaten up: full software disclosure is now full nondisclosure (4). Implementation on key aspects is moved from 2008 to 2010 (5), effectively quashing the "Let's get it straight by 2008" bullshit campaign by MoveOn, Common Cause, VoteTrustUSA, PFAW and other large lobbyists pouring money into passage of this bill (and who is funding those guys anyway???) (6)."
(1) HR 811 is NOT primarily embraced by well-funded lobbyists. It has been primarily OPPOSED by the lobbyists for the electronic voting industry, who would much rather operate as they do now, without accountability or oversight. HR 811 is primarily embraced by groups like MoveOn, Norman Lear's People for the American Way, Common Cause, and concerned Congresspeople who understand more viscerally than anyone how their own re-election votes are at risk if they don't get this bill in place.
(2) HR 811 is NOT primarily "opposed by the general citizenry." That can only be described as an outright lie, because there have been no polls, no studies done. Nancy is taking her anecdotal evidence and making an unsubstantiated claim of gigantic and misleading proportions. That, my friend, is what we call a lie.
(3) HR 811 is SUPPORTED by quite a number of activists. David Dill of Verified Voting, Avi Rubin, and many others realize that a perfect bill is not on the menu, and the time has come for us to order, or go hungry. Many of us are now choosing to order from what's on the menu. And of the few bills in Congress that address this issue, HR 811 is by far the superior choice.
(4) Her next statement is perhaps the MOST misleading. She talks about "secret software." Under HR 811, the only software that is allowed to be secret is that which is NOT election-related!
It takes a lot of very specific code to run an election. It changes for a given election. The number of races and ballot measures and candidate names and positions on the ballot are not coded into "commercial off-the-shelf software." No "commercial off-the-shelf" software is going to be the problem in a hacked vote scenario. If hacking takes place, it has to be done in the ELECTION software, and THAT software is specifically made available for review under HR 811.
I used to work for Microsoft. I know the software development cycle for "commercial off the shelf software" ("COTS") The code is locked down many months in advance of the release date. There is simply no way to sneak election altering code into something when the code has to be frozen many more than six months in advance of the election, since no ballot positions have been assigned, etc. There is no credible scenario in which someone could hide election-altering code in COTS. It's just not possible. The only code that could be altered to change an election would be the ELECTION SOFTWARE, which IS FULLY DISCLOSED under Holt's bill HR 811.
Here are the provisions in HR 811 for reviewing all election-related software:
* ALL election software must be both deposited with an accredited laboratory AND disclosed, upon request, to anyone meeting ANY of the following criteria. (Note: "technology" is defined as being the "voting system software".)
* "A governmental entity with responsibility for the administration of voting and election-related matters for purposes of reviewing, analyzing, or reporting on the technology."
* "A party to pre- or post-election litigation challenging the result of an election or the administration or use of the technology used in an election, including but not limited to the certification of the technology"
* "...an expert for a party to such litigation" ("all parties to the litigation shall have access to the technology")
* "A person not described [above] who reviews, analyzes, or reports on the technology solely for an academic, scientific, technological, or other investigation or inquiry concerning the accuracy or integrity of the technology."
* Anyone specified under their own state laws (Holt's bill being a floor, not a ceiling, for reform - states can have additional criteria)
Here's some additional language from Holts' bill regarding the
An NDA cannot be used under Holt's bill in reference to our voting equipment and software unless it SPECIFICALLY:
* "allows DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE OF CRIME, including in response to a subpoena or warrant"
* "allows the signatory to perform analyses on the technology (including executing the technology), DISCLOSE REPORTS AND ANALYSES that describe operational issues pertaining to the technology, (including vulnerabilities to tampering, errors, risks associated with use, failures as a result of use, and other problems), and DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN WHY OR HOW a voting system failed or otherwise did not perform as intended.
And does the bill stop there? No. Because lawyers WILL enter the picture, and try to get an injunction against those who may wish to examine the code. So the bill SPECIFICALLY PROTECTS US by offering this ban against injunctions. An NDA can only be valid under this bill if it:
* "prohibits the use of injunctions barring a signatory from carrying out any activity authorized under subparagraph (C), including injunctions limited to the period prior to a trail involving technology" - meaning, the courts can't stop someone from examining the code by trying to bring an injunction. Any NDA that would imply that cannot be used for our election systems under HR 811.
(Subparagraph C allows anyone who is either (i) a government official, (ii) a party to a lawsuit, or "a person not described above in clause (i) or (ii) who reviews, analyzes, or reports on the technology soley for an academic, scientific, technological, or other investigation or inquiry concerning the accuracy or integrity of the technology.")
(5) Tobi said key aspects of the bill are not implemented until 2010. In fact, there is only ONE key aspect which is delayed until 2010. DREs that currently produce a paper ballot that the voter can verify, but which is on a thermal roll, do not have to be replaced until 2010. But all other key provisions MUST be implemented in 2008. That's sooner than any other bill on the table, and just barely in time to forestall a stolen election in 2008.
(6) Tobi's last comment is the most libelous of all. She asks, who is funding MoveOn, PFAW, Common Cause, etc. Why, THE PEOPLE, Nancy. The PEOPLE who believe these organizations have been around the block and understand better than newcomers to activism how laws are made, the give and take of the process, and how you never get everything you want. But what's especially ironic about this is that Nancy is asking the very question she was outraged by when the question was directed at her recently (i.e., who is SHE working for).
I could go on - the next paragraph was just as bad. But why? Nancy Tobi is not a credible spokesperson on this issue. We need people who want to move us beyond what we'll have without Holt's bill - paperless elections - and forward to a day when all machines give paper trails, voters are informed that they MUST check those paper trails for accuracy, and when the paper trails will not only be audited, but will have the upper hand, legally, in any dispute. THAT is what Holt's bill HR 811 offers us.
On the other hand, if HR 811, Holts' bill, goes down, no one in Congress will want to touch this issue. It will be tainted with loss, and politicians need wins, not losses.
If we pass HR 811, however, we'll gain momentum for passing even stronger election reform. And we'll have the best chance we've had in eight years of ensuring that our vote was actually counted as cast. If we lose our vote to paperless machines, we lose our voice, and cease to be a democracy. Yes, it's that serious. And time is running out.
Please help. It takes one minute. Call up your Congressperson (found at www.house.gov - enter your address/ZIP and you'll be pointed to your Rep's site.) Find the "Contact" info. Dial the phone number.
Say, "I'm a constituent of Congressperson [NAME] and I want to urge him/her to support HR 811, Rush Holt's bill on voting reform." That's it. That's all you need to do. The staffer who answers the phone might ask for some name and address info to verify that you are, in fact, a constituent. But it's really that simple. For those who are terrified of calling up strangers, remember, these are your employees, and they are very kind and gentle! :D
Thank you so much for your attention, and for your activism on this matter.
----------------
Permission to forward the above or to post it anywhere is granted.
Many of you are leaders in your own circles. Please feel free to call me directly (310-202-1793) with any questions or concerns you have about the bill. I want to help people understand what REALLY is, and isn’t, in the bill. I’ll ruffle through my post-it flagged copy to get you the answers quickly.
PLEASE GET THE FACTS before you too become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. The full current bill text can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h811rh.txt.pdf
Lisa Pease
lpease@gte.net
Blog: http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com
Site: www.realhistoryarchives.com
Book: The Assassinations
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." - Thomas Jefferson
Screwed
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/634
Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It (Paperback Edition)
By Thom Hartmann, With New Afterword by Greg Palast. Introduction by Mark Crispin Miller.
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
From the Publisher:
The American middle class is on its deathbed. Ordinary folks who put in a solid day's work can no longer afford to buy a house, send their kids to college, or even get sick. If you're not a CEO, you're probably screwed.
America wasn't meant to be like this. Air America Radio host Thom Hartmann shows that our Founding Fathers worked hard to ensure that a small group of wealthy people would never dominate this country--they'd had enough of aristocracy. They put policies in place to ensure a thriving middle class. When the middle class took a hit, beginning in the post-Civil War Gilded Age and culminating in the Great Depression, democracy-loving leaders like Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower revitalized it through initiatives like antitrust regulations, fair labor laws, the minimum wage, Social Security, and Medicare.
So what happened? In the last twenty-five years, we've witnessed an undeclared war against the middle class. The so-called conservatives waging this war are only interested in conserving--and steadily increasing--their own wealth and power. Hartmann shows how, under the guise of "freeing" the market, they've systematically dismantled the programs set up by Republicans and Democrats to protect the middle class and have installed policies that favor the superrich and corporations.
But it's not too late to return to the America our Founders envisioned. Hartmann outlines a series of commonsense proposals that will ensure that our public institutions are not turned into private fiefdoms and that people's basic needs--education, health care, a living wage--are met in a way that allows the middle class to expand, not shrink.
America will be stronger with a growing, prospering middle class--rule by the rich will only make it weaker. Democracy requires a fair playing field, and it will survive only if We the People stand up, speak out, and reclaim our democratic birthright.
Summary:
By the bestselling author and Air America Radio host heard on more than eighty radio stations coast to coast seven days a week
Reveals how the middle class, nurtured as the backbone of democracy by our Founding Fathers, is being undermined by so-called conservatives
Shows how we can reverse the erosion of the middle class and restore the egalitarian vision of the Founders
Expanded edition with a new chapter on immigration and a new afterword by Greg Palast
Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It (Paperback Edition)
By Thom Hartmann, With New Afterword by Greg Palast. Introduction by Mark Crispin Miller.
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
From the Publisher:
The American middle class is on its deathbed. Ordinary folks who put in a solid day's work can no longer afford to buy a house, send their kids to college, or even get sick. If you're not a CEO, you're probably screwed.
America wasn't meant to be like this. Air America Radio host Thom Hartmann shows that our Founding Fathers worked hard to ensure that a small group of wealthy people would never dominate this country--they'd had enough of aristocracy. They put policies in place to ensure a thriving middle class. When the middle class took a hit, beginning in the post-Civil War Gilded Age and culminating in the Great Depression, democracy-loving leaders like Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower revitalized it through initiatives like antitrust regulations, fair labor laws, the minimum wage, Social Security, and Medicare.
So what happened? In the last twenty-five years, we've witnessed an undeclared war against the middle class. The so-called conservatives waging this war are only interested in conserving--and steadily increasing--their own wealth and power. Hartmann shows how, under the guise of "freeing" the market, they've systematically dismantled the programs set up by Republicans and Democrats to protect the middle class and have installed policies that favor the superrich and corporations.
But it's not too late to return to the America our Founders envisioned. Hartmann outlines a series of commonsense proposals that will ensure that our public institutions are not turned into private fiefdoms and that people's basic needs--education, health care, a living wage--are met in a way that allows the middle class to expand, not shrink.
America will be stronger with a growing, prospering middle class--rule by the rich will only make it weaker. Democracy requires a fair playing field, and it will survive only if We the People stand up, speak out, and reclaim our democratic birthright.
Summary:
By the bestselling author and Air America Radio host heard on more than eighty radio stations coast to coast seven days a week
Reveals how the middle class, nurtured as the backbone of democracy by our Founding Fathers, is being undermined by so-called conservatives
Shows how we can reverse the erosion of the middle class and restore the egalitarian vision of the Founders
Expanded edition with a new chapter on immigration and a new afterword by Greg Palast
Skateboarding could be Olympic discipline in 2012
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=219573
Skateboarding could be Olympic discipline in 2012
June 8, 2007
Associated Press
LONDON -- Skateboarding could make its Olympic debut at the 2012 London Games.
The International Olympic Committee said Friday it has held discussions with cycling's world governing body about introducing skateboarding as a discipline for the London program.
Skateboarding events are part of the X Games, and the IOC is eager to modernize the Olympic program with sports and disciplines that appeal to youth. It has already added snowboarding to the Winter Games and BMX cycling for next year's Beijing Olympics.
"The IOC wants to make the program relevant for young people," IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau said.
Moreau said officials of the International Cycling Union met with the IOC sports department this week to discuss their proposal for adding skateboarding to the London Games.
The IOC does not recognize an international skateboarding federation, so the sport would first need to be adopted as a discipline under the UCI umbrella. After that, the UCI could make a formal proposal to the IOC for its inclusion in the Olympics.
The proposed venue for skateboarding in London is the velodrome in the Olympic Park.
"We are doing our best to introduce skateboarding for 2012," UCI sports director Olivier Quejuiner told the London Evening Standard. "We have a clear strategy ... The venue could be wonderful. All we need now is the green light from the IOC. Technically, logistically and in terms of cost, it would not be a problem to stage the event in 2012."
Twenty-six sports are on the London Olympic program. While it is too late to add any sports, new disciplines can still be brought in.
The X Games feature skateboarding "vert," "street" and "big air" events.
Travolta Is 'Divine' in 'Hairspray' Film
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277008,00.html
Travolta Is 'Divine' in 'Hairspray' Film
Friday , June 01, 2007
By Roger Friedman
And now, “Hairspray,” the John Waters musical film based on the Broadway musical that was based on the original 1988 John Waters non-musical film that launched Rikki Lake.
It’s brought to us by the producers of the movie musical version of “Chicago” and directed by Adam Shankman, a choreographer with some pretty awful movies on his resume.
Into this mix comes John Travolta, looking a little like Barney the dinosaur (except not purple) as Edna Turnblad, previously played on Broadway by Harvey Fierstein and in the movie by Divine, Waters’ late transvestite of choice. Who can forget Divine in “Pink Flamingos”? Did we ever think that Vinnie Barbarino would play his/her part?
And yet, you really have to see Travolta to believe him, especially toward the end of “Hairspray” when he finally lets loose — dressed in a fat suit as a woman in a red tutu and high heels — and dances up a storm in the film’s finale. He’s remarkable.
I don’t know if it’s an Oscar performance, but I do know that when “Hairspray” is shown in big theaters (I saw it in a screening room, still a little unfinished), audiences are going to go wild with cheers and whistles.
Travolta even signals the audience with his now-trademark "cat eye” from “Pulp Fiction” as he launches like a spinning top onto the stage of the fictional Corny Collins Show. You can only love it. Somehow he brings that old Travolta warmth and charisma to a crazy costume (what a change from his last strange outfit, in “Battlefield Earth”).
“Hairspray,” if you don’t know, has a very simply plot. Circa 1959, 17-year-old Tracy Turnblad of Baltimore — wide as she is tall with a huge beehive hairdo — only wants to dance on the local “Corny Collins Show.” It’s like Dick Clark’s “American Bandstand.”
Tracy is played by newcomer Nikki Blonsky with such infectious ebullience, a whole new cult may quickly grow up around her.
Corny Collins, though, is the revelation: James Marsden, known previously from a series of cardboard performances in “Superman” and “X-Men,” turns out to be a terrific song and dance man. He’s an absolute knockout. I wouldn’t be surprised if Broadway producers start contacting him to play leads in shows.
Anyway, Tracy’s parents are played by Travolta and Christopher Walken, who almost steals the movie as the proprietor of a joke shop. Her best friend is Amanda Bynes, and Bynes’ mom is “West Wing” star Alison Janney returning to her comedy roots.
There isn’t a lot more to “Hairspray” except for the subplot. Not only does Tracy want to dance on the "Corny Collins Show," she wants to integrate it. The show occasionally features “Negro Day,” hosted by Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah) and showcasing R&B then known as “race music.”
It’s Tracy’s one desire “to make every day Negro Day” and bring the black kids who dance on the satellite show onto the main stage. One of the funnier bits is a running joke where all the really cool kids (read: black) get detention on purpose. The detention room is really a juke joint, where there’s great music and cool dancing. It’s very funny.
Right now, New Line Cinema is downplaying “Hairspray,” hoping to avoid the hype machine that nearly killed “Dreamgirls” last year. This may work. Enough fans of the Broadway show will want to see this movie. As word spreads, others will come, too.
“Hairspray” is like a big colorful carnival, with loads of cotton candy. It’s never anything but happy, even when it’s trying to be profound.
More importantly, the performances are so well-defined that each one of them is going to be noticed. My favorite was Queen Latifah, whose voice is so amazing, and performance so mesmerizing, I wouldn’t be surprised if she wound up with a lot of awards and nominations. Once again, as with “Chicago,” she is the breakout star of the movie.
Travolta, Blonsky, Walken and Michelle Pfeiffer as the uptight producer of “Corny Collins” are all excellent. Teenagers, I’m told, will flock in to see Zac Effron of “High School Musical” as the heartthrob of Corny’s show. And Jerry Stiller reprises his role as Mr. Pinky from the original movie.
“Hairspray” opens on July 20, on an open weekend with competition only from Adam Sandler and TV’s Kevin James in “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.” It’s a tricky weekend, since NFL pre-season is still three weeks away. Guys, John Travolta in a dress awaits you like it or not.
Travolta Is 'Divine' in 'Hairspray' Film
Friday , June 01, 2007
By Roger Friedman
And now, “Hairspray,” the John Waters musical film based on the Broadway musical that was based on the original 1988 John Waters non-musical film that launched Rikki Lake.
It’s brought to us by the producers of the movie musical version of “Chicago” and directed by Adam Shankman, a choreographer with some pretty awful movies on his resume.
Into this mix comes John Travolta, looking a little like Barney the dinosaur (except not purple) as Edna Turnblad, previously played on Broadway by Harvey Fierstein and in the movie by Divine, Waters’ late transvestite of choice. Who can forget Divine in “Pink Flamingos”? Did we ever think that Vinnie Barbarino would play his/her part?
And yet, you really have to see Travolta to believe him, especially toward the end of “Hairspray” when he finally lets loose — dressed in a fat suit as a woman in a red tutu and high heels — and dances up a storm in the film’s finale. He’s remarkable.
I don’t know if it’s an Oscar performance, but I do know that when “Hairspray” is shown in big theaters (I saw it in a screening room, still a little unfinished), audiences are going to go wild with cheers and whistles.
Travolta even signals the audience with his now-trademark "cat eye” from “Pulp Fiction” as he launches like a spinning top onto the stage of the fictional Corny Collins Show. You can only love it. Somehow he brings that old Travolta warmth and charisma to a crazy costume (what a change from his last strange outfit, in “Battlefield Earth”).
“Hairspray,” if you don’t know, has a very simply plot. Circa 1959, 17-year-old Tracy Turnblad of Baltimore — wide as she is tall with a huge beehive hairdo — only wants to dance on the local “Corny Collins Show.” It’s like Dick Clark’s “American Bandstand.”
Tracy is played by newcomer Nikki Blonsky with such infectious ebullience, a whole new cult may quickly grow up around her.
Corny Collins, though, is the revelation: James Marsden, known previously from a series of cardboard performances in “Superman” and “X-Men,” turns out to be a terrific song and dance man. He’s an absolute knockout. I wouldn’t be surprised if Broadway producers start contacting him to play leads in shows.
Anyway, Tracy’s parents are played by Travolta and Christopher Walken, who almost steals the movie as the proprietor of a joke shop. Her best friend is Amanda Bynes, and Bynes’ mom is “West Wing” star Alison Janney returning to her comedy roots.
There isn’t a lot more to “Hairspray” except for the subplot. Not only does Tracy want to dance on the "Corny Collins Show," she wants to integrate it. The show occasionally features “Negro Day,” hosted by Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah) and showcasing R&B then known as “race music.”
It’s Tracy’s one desire “to make every day Negro Day” and bring the black kids who dance on the satellite show onto the main stage. One of the funnier bits is a running joke where all the really cool kids (read: black) get detention on purpose. The detention room is really a juke joint, where there’s great music and cool dancing. It’s very funny.
Right now, New Line Cinema is downplaying “Hairspray,” hoping to avoid the hype machine that nearly killed “Dreamgirls” last year. This may work. Enough fans of the Broadway show will want to see this movie. As word spreads, others will come, too.
“Hairspray” is like a big colorful carnival, with loads of cotton candy. It’s never anything but happy, even when it’s trying to be profound.
More importantly, the performances are so well-defined that each one of them is going to be noticed. My favorite was Queen Latifah, whose voice is so amazing, and performance so mesmerizing, I wouldn’t be surprised if she wound up with a lot of awards and nominations. Once again, as with “Chicago,” she is the breakout star of the movie.
Travolta, Blonsky, Walken and Michelle Pfeiffer as the uptight producer of “Corny Collins” are all excellent. Teenagers, I’m told, will flock in to see Zac Effron of “High School Musical” as the heartthrob of Corny’s show. And Jerry Stiller reprises his role as Mr. Pinky from the original movie.
“Hairspray” opens on July 20, on an open weekend with competition only from Adam Sandler and TV’s Kevin James in “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.” It’s a tricky weekend, since NFL pre-season is still three weeks away. Guys, John Travolta in a dress awaits you like it or not.
"Battlestar" gets grounded by Sci Fi
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070601/tv_nm/battlestar_dc
"Battlestar" gets grounded by Sci Fi
By Nellie Andreeva
Reuters
Fri Jun 1, 2007
The upcoming fourth season of Sci Fi Channel's "Battlestar Galactica" will be its final one after all.
After months of speculation, the show's producers are set to make the announcement at a press conference Friday.
Ending "Battlestar" with the upcoming 22-episode fourth season was a creative decision made by the hit show's executive producers Ronald Moore and David Eick.
"This show was always meant to have a beginning, a middle and, finally, an end," Eick and Moore said in a statement Thursday. "Over the course of the last year, the story and the characters have been moving strongly toward that end, and we've decided to listen to those internal voices and conclude the show on our own terms. And while we know our fans will be saddened to know the end is coming, they should brace themselves for a wild ride getting there -- we're going out with a bang."
The fourth and final season of "Galactica" will kick off in November with "Razor," an extended two-hour episode, with the rest of the season slated to run beginning in early 2008.
Sci Fi executive vp original programming Mark Stern said the channel's brass "respect the producers' decision to end the series."
For months, Sci Fi had dispelled rumors about "Battlestar" ending its run after the fourth season.
A couple of weeks ago, one of the show's stars, Edward James Olmos, was quoted as saying that the upcoming batch of episodes were definitely the last ones. Sci Fi issued a statement denying such a decision had been made.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
"Battlestar" gets grounded by Sci Fi
By Nellie Andreeva
Reuters
Fri Jun 1, 2007
The upcoming fourth season of Sci Fi Channel's "Battlestar Galactica" will be its final one after all.
After months of speculation, the show's producers are set to make the announcement at a press conference Friday.
Ending "Battlestar" with the upcoming 22-episode fourth season was a creative decision made by the hit show's executive producers Ronald Moore and David Eick.
"This show was always meant to have a beginning, a middle and, finally, an end," Eick and Moore said in a statement Thursday. "Over the course of the last year, the story and the characters have been moving strongly toward that end, and we've decided to listen to those internal voices and conclude the show on our own terms. And while we know our fans will be saddened to know the end is coming, they should brace themselves for a wild ride getting there -- we're going out with a bang."
The fourth and final season of "Galactica" will kick off in November with "Razor," an extended two-hour episode, with the rest of the season slated to run beginning in early 2008.
Sci Fi executive vp original programming Mark Stern said the channel's brass "respect the producers' decision to end the series."
For months, Sci Fi had dispelled rumors about "Battlestar" ending its run after the fourth season.
A couple of weeks ago, one of the show's stars, Edward James Olmos, was quoted as saying that the upcoming batch of episodes were definitely the last ones. Sci Fi issued a statement denying such a decision had been made.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Route 66, Iraqi sites among most at risk
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Route_66_Iraqi_sites_among_most_at__06062007.html
Route 66, Iraqi sites among most at risk: heritage group
Published: Wednesday June 6, 2007
AFP
America's famed Route 66 and Iraq's archeological sites are among the world's most threatened cultural treasures, according to a list published Wednesday by a leading US-based heritage group.
The World Monuments Fund's 2008 watch list includes 100 sites from around the world deemed at risk from man-made threats such as climate change, conflict, urban development and unchecked tourism.
"Human activity has become the greatest threat of all to the world's cultural heritage," the non-governmental group said in its report.
"But, just as we caused the damage in the first place, we have the power to repair it," the group's president Bonnie Burnham added.
Among the best known sites on the list are Machu Picchu in Peru, which the fund said was at risk from rampant and unmanaged tourism.
Similarly, the skyline of 18th century St Petersburg in Russia was threatened by the proposed construction of a new skyscraper, it said.
Other cities facing similar threats were parts of Shanghai built in the 1920s and 30s and Damascus, where historic buildings were being torn down to make way for modern developments.
The watch list was compiled by an international panel of experts in archaeology, architecture, art history and preservation.
The fund said that cultural sites of Iraq had suffered catastrophic loss since the US-led invasion of 2003, while fragments of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, largely destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, were also at risk.
Other sites threatened by conflict included Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, one of Christianity's oldest churches, which the fund said was deteriorating as a result of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Sites deemed at risk due to climate change included the Antarctic hut from which Captain Scott led his fateful bid for the South Pole in 1912. The hut was suffering from increased snowfall believed to be caused by climate change.
Chinguetti Mosque in Mauritania, located in one of Islam's seven holy cities, was threatened by shifting deserts, while Leh Old Town in India, a rare medieval city in the Himalayas, was at risk from changing weather patterns.
Historic areas of New Orleans, much of which were badly damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, were also threatened, as were sites along Route 66, once the only all-year road linking the United States' east and west coasts and now popular with tourists making road trips.
Perhaps surprisingly, the latest list also included some modern sites, such as a 1940s university in Florida designed by pioneering architect Frank Lloyd Wright and the Joan Miro Foundation in Barcelona, from the 1970s.
The fund also identified the threat to Main Street Modern -- the post war civic buildings that dot American towns but are considered out of date and are being demolished across the country at an alarming rate.
Founded in 1965, the World Monument Fund provides millions of dollars in grants to help preserve sites at risk, but also works to help raise awareness -- something it says sparks local interest and draws in far more funding.
"By recognizing the endangered heritage it becomes possible to do something about it," said Marilyn Perry, the fund's chairman.
Previous watch lists have included landmarks such as the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, and the devastated city of Pompeii in Italy, along with a host of lesser known heritage sites from more than 70 countries.
USA: We're Number One!!!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3239464
Man Beats World Hot Dog Eating Record
Calif. Man Scarfs More Than 59 Hot Dogs in 12 Minutes, Shattering World Record
By BOB CHRISTIE
The Associated Press
A California man smashed the world record for hot dog eating at a contest Saturday, gobbling up more than 59 franks in 12 minutes.
Joey Chestnut, 23, of San Jose, shattered the record held by Takeru Kobayashi of Japan by downing 59 1/2 "HDBs" hot dogs and buns during the Southwest Regional Hot Dog Eating Championship at the Arizona Mills Mall in suburban Tempe.
Kobayashi's old record of 53 3/4 was set last year at Nathan's Famous Fourth of July Hot Dog Eating Contest, held at Coney Island in New York, said George Costos, who helps runs the regional contests for Nathan's.
Chestnut placed second in last year's world championships, consuming 52 hot dogs.
"He's unbelievable he just keeps on going," said Ryan Nerz, who works for Major League Eating, which he describes as "a world governing board for all stomach-centric sports."
"These guys' numbers have just been going up at a tremendous clip," Nerz said. "I always thought there was a limit a limit to the human stomach and a limit to human willpower but I guess not."
Chestnut won a free trip to New York, a year's supply of hot dogs and a $250 gift card to the mall.
He flew to New York on Saturday night for a previously scheduled trip to throw out the first pitch Sunday at a game between the New York Mets and the Arizona Diamondbacks, Costos said.
JFK News
JFK News
By Kenn Thomas
SteamshovelPress.com
Developments in the study of JFK’s assassination occur in the media right about at the same time cute animal stories and Loch Ness monster sightings begin to appear as well. It signifies that not much else is left to say about the war, since the sea change in the US political landscape has ended all but the fighting now, and even audience tolerance for the tiring tales of celebrity misbehavior has been exhausted.
So these developments get tossed in the media mix and many readers never get a chance to actually see them pulled together in one spot. To remedy this, following is list of recent JFK news:
Scientists at Texas A&M conducted a new forensic analysis of bullets from the batch used by the sixth floor assassin. These new tests established that the JFK assassination bullet fragments could have come from more than three separate bullets. While critics scoff at the “could have” nature of the news, it nevertheless ends the certainty with which the notion that all the major damage was done by bullets from the same gun. The paper reporting these results appears online at:
http://imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
Howard “St. John” Hunt surfaced a January 2004 taped confession from his father E. Howard Hunt that presented an LBJ-did-it theory, with Cord Meyer as point man for the overall operation. Cord Meyer was at one time married to JFK’s last mistress, Mary Pinchot Meyer, whose exploits (possibly including dropping acid with JFK at the White House) and strange murder once comprised a four-part series in Steamshovel. As Hunt puts in on the tape, which aired on Coast to Coast on April 28, 2007: “I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist (like himself) and a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ, who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers—quite the contrary.”
Two other JFK connected obituaries happened. Jack Valenti, the film industry lobbyist responsible for the movie ratings system, also happened to be riding in the Dallas motorcade that day. Most recently he, the late president Gerald Ford and PBS commentator Bill Moyers pressured the History channel into censoring one of its “Men Who Killed Kennedy” programs. Interestingly, like Hunt’s deathbed confession, the program involved an LBJ-did-it-theory.
The other significant death was that of John K. Lattimer, a urologist and lone nutter who also supposedly owned the remains of Napoleon’s penis.
Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has written a 1600 page book that answers all questions about the assassinations and resolves every doubt about the lone nut hypothesis—not. Also, Tink Thomason summarized Bugliosi’s book well in the June 3 edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
“What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened. From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered. The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission. What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest….What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.”
Of Bugliosi’s book, Real History blogger Lisa Pease notes: “Seriously, every page I’ve flipped to by searching or randomly browsing so far is fraught with lies, errors, and omissions -- the very things he accuses the research community of doing. Is he just an anti-conspiracy zealot, out to defend a world view he can’t afford to have shaken? Or is something more sinister at work? Maybe a look into his past would give us some answers.”
( http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com )
Before all of this, actor Bruce Willis apparently got caught up with the work of the conspiracy research community. According to:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_bruce_willis_says_jfk_killers_still_in_power.htm
Richard Linklater, who had an animated Alex Jones in his 2001 movie A Waking Life, passed around various “9/11 Truth” DVDs, including Jones’ Terror Storm, on the set of his 2006 movie, Fast Food Nation, which had Willis in the cast. Whether that happened or not, Willis wound up telling the New York Post that “They still haven’t caught the guy that killed Kennedy. I’ll get killed for saying this, but I’m pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted.”
And with that, the JFK business got thrown back into the media mix.
By Kenn Thomas
SteamshovelPress.com
Developments in the study of JFK’s assassination occur in the media right about at the same time cute animal stories and Loch Ness monster sightings begin to appear as well. It signifies that not much else is left to say about the war, since the sea change in the US political landscape has ended all but the fighting now, and even audience tolerance for the tiring tales of celebrity misbehavior has been exhausted.
So these developments get tossed in the media mix and many readers never get a chance to actually see them pulled together in one spot. To remedy this, following is list of recent JFK news:
Scientists at Texas A&M conducted a new forensic analysis of bullets from the batch used by the sixth floor assassin. These new tests established that the JFK assassination bullet fragments could have come from more than three separate bullets. While critics scoff at the “could have” nature of the news, it nevertheless ends the certainty with which the notion that all the major damage was done by bullets from the same gun. The paper reporting these results appears online at:
http://imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
Howard “St. John” Hunt surfaced a January 2004 taped confession from his father E. Howard Hunt that presented an LBJ-did-it theory, with Cord Meyer as point man for the overall operation. Cord Meyer was at one time married to JFK’s last mistress, Mary Pinchot Meyer, whose exploits (possibly including dropping acid with JFK at the White House) and strange murder once comprised a four-part series in Steamshovel. As Hunt puts in on the tape, which aired on Coast to Coast on April 28, 2007: “I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist (like himself) and a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ, who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers—quite the contrary.”
Two other JFK connected obituaries happened. Jack Valenti, the film industry lobbyist responsible for the movie ratings system, also happened to be riding in the Dallas motorcade that day. Most recently he, the late president Gerald Ford and PBS commentator Bill Moyers pressured the History channel into censoring one of its “Men Who Killed Kennedy” programs. Interestingly, like Hunt’s deathbed confession, the program involved an LBJ-did-it-theory.
The other significant death was that of John K. Lattimer, a urologist and lone nutter who also supposedly owned the remains of Napoleon’s penis.
Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has written a 1600 page book that answers all questions about the assassinations and resolves every doubt about the lone nut hypothesis—not. Also, Tink Thomason summarized Bugliosi’s book well in the June 3 edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
“What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened. From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered. The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission. What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest….What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.”
Of Bugliosi’s book, Real History blogger Lisa Pease notes: “Seriously, every page I’ve flipped to by searching or randomly browsing so far is fraught with lies, errors, and omissions -- the very things he accuses the research community of doing. Is he just an anti-conspiracy zealot, out to defend a world view he can’t afford to have shaken? Or is something more sinister at work? Maybe a look into his past would give us some answers.”
( http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com )
Before all of this, actor Bruce Willis apparently got caught up with the work of the conspiracy research community. According to:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_bruce_willis_says_jfk_killers_still_in_power.htm
Richard Linklater, who had an animated Alex Jones in his 2001 movie A Waking Life, passed around various “9/11 Truth” DVDs, including Jones’ Terror Storm, on the set of his 2006 movie, Fast Food Nation, which had Willis in the cast. Whether that happened or not, Willis wound up telling the New York Post that “They still haven’t caught the guy that killed Kennedy. I’ll get killed for saying this, but I’m pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted.”
And with that, the JFK business got thrown back into the media mix.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
