Olive oil

I ordered four tins. Olive oil is good. Helping Palestinians is good.

Joanna
________________________________

Sending you a tin can of olive oil from Jayyous to your door step
anywhere in the United States or Europe takes less than 4 weeks.   By
buying from the farmers of Jayyous, the first to suffer from the wall,
you help them at a crucial moment.  Hundreds of Palestinian families
will benefit from your choice of using their  quality oil .

To buy just click on the link below

http://pcwf.org/artifacts/oliveoil/oliveoil.htm

and please tell in the message that you want the oil to come from
Jayyous. To learn more about Jayyous please click and read and learn and
support the struggle of the people of Jayyous.

http://www.jayyousonline.org/english.HTM
(among other things full text of Avnery speech "The Wall Will Fall")

---

Monday April 12: David Barkin on Alternative Approaches to Globalization

Kerry's Tax Cut Makes Me Wanna Ralph

*****   March 29, 2004
KERRY'S TAX CUT MAKES ME WANNA RALPH

. . . I do not look forward to a restoration of the economic policy
of Robert Rubin, but the release of Kerry's first major economic
proposal promises exactly that. The personnel are certainly falling
into place - Roger Altman and Gene Sperling, for two, both veteran
Clintonoids.

Kerry is foregrounding his corporate tax reform as a jobs measure.
Right from the jump, he is mixing up the difference between an
anti-recession, counter-cyclical policy, and a long-run structural
one. His proposal is structural. As such, whatever its merits, it
glosses over the fundamental issue of fiscal policy - deficits and
monetary expansion. The implication is that the latter run on
automatic pilot. In other words, Kerry has no short-term fiscal
policy. Insofar as Kerry fails to distinguish between the harm from
long- as opposed to short-term deficits, his fiscal policy stance is
perverse.

To its credit, the campaign has commissioned a memo from Harvard
wunderkind Lawrence Katz, who testifies that 4.1 percent unemployment
is a reasonable goal. This statement is much welcomed, but Dr. Katz
offers nothing to support the claim that Kerry's proposals could get
us to 4.1. Perhaps worse, Katz presents the 4.1 goal as something
other than a counter-cyclical goal -- a goal to be reached over four
years. The implication is that we need structural measures to get to
4.1, not a more effective counter-cyclical policy.

In this vein, some bloggers' claims
<http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2004_03_01_econopundit_archive.html#108038969080992205>
that 10 million jobs would be gained under normal circumstances are
exaggerated, though they are not completely out of the ballpark.
150,000 jobs a month for four years get you over seven million, which
is almost three-quarters of the way to ten. Getting 'normal' might
not prove to be so easy.

At the same time, Katz's memo suggests that ten million would be
gained by reaching 4.1 percent unemployment. In general, Kerry's
commitment is not quite as great as it may look, but if it means
getting to 4.1 percent unemployment, that would be all that MaxSpeak
could ask for in the vein of fiscal policy.

If only Kerry had a fiscal policy.

What about the tax measure as structural policy? The notion that this
proposal would be decisive in bringing ten million jobs (compared to
what?) could not be more ridiculous. Whether it's worthwhile in and
of itself is another mtter. There are three main pieces which have
little to do with each other, as far as economics goes.

One is the elimination of special treatment of repatriated foreign
earnings of U.S. corporations. This might have the multiple merits of
simplifying the corporate tax code and raising revenue. The
anti-off-shoring part is iffy, since firms don't necessarily
outsource for tax reasons.

The measure would have little expected impact in the big ten million
jobs plan. We're talking about $12 billion in corporate tax revenue a
year, out of about $200 billion. A problem is that Kerry proposes to
distinguish foreign earnings that are required to serve foreign
markets - they would continue to enjoy a tax preference - from the
other, bad kind. Good luck writing the regulations for this baby.
Will there be more money for more IRS corporate auditors?

The second piece is the proposed cut in the corporate tax rate. That
this would have any impact on U.S. jobs is to be doubted
<http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000176.html>. In and of itself, it's
a revenue loser. It embodies a rotten principle. If cutting the rate
2.5 percentage points is good, why not ten percent? Why have a
corporate income tax at all? What's the trade-off here - on one side,
a revenue loss that could have financed spending, deficit reduction,
or progressive tax cuts, and on the other, some potential increase in
investment and economic growth.

This is the essence of Clinto-Rubinomics. Propose a tiny change that
fails to roil the base and embodies a fundamentally bad notion, then
step back and let the Right practice one-upmanship with the bad idea.

The third piece is a payroll tax credit for new job creation in
"manufacturing." Nothing simplifying came come of any exercise of
this type. I would also question the cost estimates. Job turnover
means a continuous cycling of jobs from taxed to tax-favored status
for the favored categories. Jobs that would have been created in any
event - it's got to start happening sooner or later - would enjoy the
credit. And what happens to the Trust Funds?

On the positive side, we could expect workers to see some part of the
tax cut, since less tax allows the employer to offer higher wages.
MaxSpeak is committed to payroll tax relief
<http://www.maxspeak.org/tax1.html>, albeit of our own particular
sort <http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000042.html>. Our own could
have a similar impact on hiring, though we would not tout it on the
basis of short-term fiscal policy, nor as a significant long-run
boost to employment. The virtues of our approach lie more in
simplification of the worker's taxes and tax relief for families with
children. You remember them.

Broadly speaking, Kerry's plan aims to improve price signals. It
could be called marginalist in inspiration. That's what's wrong with
it. Elevating improved price signals as a fundamental job creator is
supply-side economics. At bottom, it's a crock. It's amusing to see
conservatives say price signals don't matter much
<http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001186.html>. Except when
Larry Lindsey is waving the semaphore flags, apparently. Supply-sider
Bruce Bartlett provides background and relevant citations
<http://www.trendmacro.com/a/talkingpoints/2004_03_01_TParchives.asp#108041815347893015>.

Kerry's tax relief is aimed at employers, ours at workers. What else
is there to say, except . . .

El pueblo contra los poderosos
<http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00000508.html>!!

[DISCLAIMER: No statements on this site should be construed to
represent the view of anyone at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
No material on this site bearing on the author's preference for
electoral candidates is posted with the benefit of any EPI resources.]

<http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000276.html>   *****
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>

2004 Primary Turnout Low

*****   2004 PRIMARY TURNOUT LOW
March 9, 2004

GROUPED PRIMARIES LOWER THAN INDIVIDUALS
BETTER SELECTION METHOD NEEDED
Curtis Gans

Contrary to some published reports and with the singular exception of
the New Hampshire Democratic primary which set a new record high,
Democratic turnout in the party's Presidential primaries through
Super Tuesday was generally low - in the aggregate, the third lowest
on record. . . .

In all, an estimated 14,500,000 eligible citizens or 7.2 percent of
the national eligible electorate participated in the Presidential
primaries through Super Tuesday. Only an estimated 10,300,000
citizens or 5.1 percent of the 200,482,000 eligible Americans
nationally participated in the selection of Sen. John Kerry as the
Democratic nominee. (Estimations made necessary by more than one
million still uncounted absentee ballots in California.)

A comparatively high turnout, greater than either 2000 or 1996 and
perhaps equaling or exceeding the 58.1 percent turnout of 1992 is
expected in November. But turnout is not expected to reach the 60
percent plus levels of the 1960s. These are some of the highlights of
a report issued today on Presidential primary turnout (and other
issues) by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate
(CSAE), a non-partisan, non-profit research organization specializing
in voter turnout issues.

Among the other highlights and lowlights of this report:

-- Democratic turnout (an estimated 10.3 million) constituted 11.4
percent of the eligible electorate in the 20 states which held
primaries through Super Tuesday, higher than the 9 percent which
voted in the uncontested 1996 Presidential primaries and the
virtually (after New Hampshire) uncontested primaries in 2000 in
which 10.1 percent of the eligible electorate voted. But it was lower
than the turnout for every other Presidential primary season in these
states and more than 50 percent lower than the primary turnouts of
1968 and 1972. . . .

Democratic turnout was a record in New Hampshire and a near record in
the Iowa caucuses in part because of the enormous amount of time and
money spent in those states, the latter (money) a record, because
competing in those contests involved retail campaigning and
mobilization and because Democrats (along with some independents and
Republicans) are united in their distaste for President George W.
Bush, had the time to comparison shop and were propelled to the polls
by that animus.

That turnout fell off sharply after those contests was not
surprising. The campaign moved immediately (within one week) to
grouped contests (see below) which were underfunded (resources having
been severely depleted by Iowa and New Hampshire), which had to be
conducted through television ads and one-shot visits to get free
media coverage, which minimized grassroots mobilization and in which
candidates other than Sen. Kerry could compete in only a limited
number of states. . . .

It is also not surprising that after a primary campaign in which
voter involvement was limited to six weeks and which was conducted in
only 20 of the 50 states and which was a brief wholesale campaign in
most of them, in almost all polls, between 20 and 30 percent of
Americans still do not know enough about either Sen. Kerry or Sen.
John Edwards to determine whether they have a favorable or
unfavorable opinion of either. But this truncated schedule, created
by the Democratic Party, may come back to haunt it, as it gives the
GOP five months to define Sen. Kerry before he has his optimum
opportunity to present himself in the best light at the Democratic
national convention.

What continues to be disturbing is the low level of voter turnout --
between 30 and 50 percent lower than turnouts in the 1960s and 70s. .
. .

But whether the turnout increase is large or small, turnout this fall
will not reach the mid-60 percent levels of the 1960s. There are two
concrete indicators that demonstrate this: Contrary to public
impression, the turnout for last year's California recall election
was not, at 47.1 percent of the electorate, particularly high,
despite the deep divisions in the state, the massive media coverage,
the enormous amounts of money poured into it and the star quality of
the elected governor. . . .

This [moving up their primaries to theoretically exert more influence
on who would be the party's nominee] led to an ever-shortened
campaign and an ever-greater grouping of primaries, which was further
exacerbated this year, when, in the belief that it was in the
Democratic Party's interest to end the primary season as early as
possible, the party eliminated what had been a window of a few weeks
between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and allowed
seven states to hold primaries and caucuses a week later.

The result has been lower turnout in the primaries which are grouped,
due to campaigns run largely through television advertising with
little personal contact and grassroots mobilization, often with
diminished resources to conduct these campaigns, lesser information
about the candidates and consequent progressively lower voter turnout
when compared to primaries which are held individually. . . .

But by truncating the process, they [Democrats] lost the advantage
they had in the daily coverage of criticism of the President and his
policies, propelled themselves into a four-month dead period before
the national conventions in which citizen interest will decline, the
opposition will have the opportunity to define the nature of the race
and the party will have to remobilize its supporters. . . .

<http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/pressrelease.htm>   *****
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>

Khodorkovsky's mea culpa

He's writing under duress, and it might not even be him at all, but even so... In two parts.

The Indisputable Crisis of Russian Liberalism

By Mikhail Khodorkovsky

(snip)

I do not mean to say that Anatoly Chubais, Yegor Gaidar et al. set themselves the objective of deceiving the
country. Many liberals of the first "Yeltsin wave" sincerely believed in the historical rightness of
liberalism and the need for a "liberal revolution" in a tired country which had hardly known the benefits
of freedom. However, having suddenly got their hands on power, the liberals were too superficial -- if not
downright frivolous -- in their attitude towards the revolution. They only thought about the 10 percent
of the population that were prepared for the sweeping changes which came with the end of state
paternalism, while they forgot about the other 90 percent. And more often than not, they resorted to
deception to gloss over their tragic policy failures.

They cheated 90 percent of the population with their lavish promises that each privatization voucher
would be worth two Volga cars. Certainly, an entrepreneurial person with access to closed information
and the necessary skills to analyze such information could figure out how to make the equivalent of 10
Volgas using his privatization voucher. But the promise was made to everybody.

They turned a blind eye to social realities when they conducted sweeping privatization, ignoring the
negative consequences and disingenuously claiming the process was painless, open and fair. We know full
well what ordinary people now think of mass privatization.

They did not stop to consider the catastrophic consequences of decimating people's Sberbank deposits,
even though it would have been perfectly simple to resolve the problem through state bonds, which could
have been redeemed through a capital gains tax (or using stakes in the country's top privatized
companies). The imperious liberals could not spare a minute of their precious time, and anyway they did
not want to overtax their gray matter.

In the 1990s, no one took upon themselves to reform education, healthcare, the housing sector; nor did
anyone get around to addressing the issue of targeted support for the poorer sections of society. Yet
these were and remain critical issues for the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

Russian liberals ignored social stability, the only basis for any long-term and wide-reaching set of
reforms. A huge gulf separated them from the people -- a gulf which they tried to fill with rosy liberal
notions about the state of things, and manipulative PR. Indeed, it was in the 1990s that the myth was born of
the omnipotence of certain PR specialists, who were purportedly able to compensate for the absence of
real policies in this or that area.

The 1995-96 election season amply demonstrated that the Russian people had rejected their liberal
rulers. As one of the major sponsors of Yeltsin's 1996 re-election campaign, I know just what a gargantuan
effort it took to make the Russian people "vote with their heart."

What were the country's liberal top managers thinking when they insisted that there was no alternative to
the 1998 default? There was an alternative: devaluation of the ruble. Moreover, in February or even June
1998, it would have been possible to get away with devaluing from five rubles to 10-12 rubles to the dollar.
I, along with many of my colleagues, supported such a plan for averting the impending financial crisis,
but despite the considerable influence we had at the time we were unable to get our point across -- and
therefore must share moral responsibility with the irresponsible incompetents then in power for the default.

Liberal leaders liked to call themselves kamikazes and martyrs, and at the outset it seems that was indeed
the case. By the mid-1990s, however, they had developed expensive tastes for Mercedes, dachas, villas,
night clubs and gold cards. The stoic fighters for liberalism, who were prepared to die for their ideals,
were superseded by effete bohemians, who did not even attempt to conceal their indifference towards the
fate of ordinary people, the silent masses. This Bohemian image, coupled with the overt cynicism, did a
great deal to discredit the cause of liberalism.

Liberals told fairytales about how standards of living were getting better and better because they
themselves neither knew nor really understood what life was like for the majority. Now they have to listen
to, and acknowledge, these facts, and I hope they do so with a sense of shame.

Even regarding their declared values, adherents of liberalism were often dishonest or inconsistent. For
example, they spoke about freedom of speech, and yet they did everything within their power to establish
financial and administrative control over the media for their own ends. Often this was justified by
reference to the "threat of communism," arguing that the end justified the means. However, not a word was
uttered about the underlying causes of the "red-brown plague," i.e. the liberal leadership's ignorance
of the people's real problems.

Media outlets choked on the words "the diversified economy of the future," when in reality Russia remained
firmly dependent on raw materials. Needless to say, the profound technological crisis experienced at
this time was a direct consequence of the Soviet Union's collapse and a sharp drop in investment due to high
inflation. It was the liberals' job to deal with this problem by, inter alia, recruiting into government
strong professionals from the left end of the political spectrum. But, instead, they preferred to ignore
the problem. Is it any surprise, then, that millions of people who make up the science/technology
intelligentsia (the driving force of the democratic movement in the late 1980s) now vote for Rodina and
the Communist Party?

Dismissing all assertions to the contrary, the liberals always insisted that you could do whatever you
liked with the Russian people, that "in this country" everything is decided by the elite and there's no
need to worry about hoi polloi; in their view, the people would swallow any old rubbish or lies like it was
manna from heaven. That is why the need for "social policies," "sharing" and the like was brushed aside and
rejected with a smirk.

Well, Judgment Day finally came: In the December parliamentary elections, the Russian people bid a firm
and tearless farewell to the official leaders of the country's liberal parties.

This reflected general disgust at the gaping gulf between the imperious liberals and the rest of the country.

So where was big business all this time? Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal rulers. We were
accomplices in their misdeeds and lies.

We never entertained any illusions about the authorities, of course, but neither did we oppose them, not
wanting to jeopardize our own piece of the pie. It is laughable to hear propagandists call us "oligarchs."
An oligarchy is a small group of people who genuinely hold power. We, however, were always dependent on
some mighty bureaucrat in his ultra-liberal thousand-dollar suit. And our collective visits to Yeltsin
were a complete sham: We were being trotted out as the main culprits responsible for the country's woes,
although we did not immediately understand this.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/04/01/006.html

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/03/31/006.html

[Fwd: Cuban Media, Response from Dangl and Howard]

This is a reply from Benjamin Dangl and April Howard, who co-authored a
critique of Cuban media on Counterpunch that I critiqued on Marxmail a
week or so ago. They mention the Gehry Art Center at Bard below. I
should add that the building had a cost overrun of $45 million,
conceivably more than the operating budget of the entire college during
the four years I was there, even after factoring in inflation! An
article on Gehry's fading allure that mentions this and other fiascos
can be read at:

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040324/GEHRY24/TPEntertainment/TopStories>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Cuban Media, Response from Dangl and Howard
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:46:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Ben Dangl <theupsidedownworld@...>
To: Louis Proyect <lnp3@...>

Hello Louis Proyect,

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism of our article on Cuba.  We are
both current, (April) and previous (Ben) Bard students.  Ali is a good
friend of ours, we spent a lot of time with him here at Bard on various
activist projects and organizing.  We also remember reading a great
article by you against the Frank Gehry building at Bard and who was
paying for it.  We were doing our part here by building a Student's
Performing Arts Center, which was low maintenance, open to the public
and cost a total of $50 instead of 62 milion.

While we agree with your argument that the US Government has done its
utmost to undermine Cuba in every possible way, we still feel that Cuban
media simplifies and generalizes the news it portrays beyond the needs
of government security.  A five minute visit to the Granma website is a
fairly self explanatory argument: http://www.granma.cu/ingles/

In many ways, Cuban media portrays the US in a realistic way.  The US is
an empire which has posed a very real threat to countries in Latin
America for decades, most recently in Haiti and Venezuela. Although our
intentions were not to undermine the strength and conviction of the
Cuban Revolution and the impressive changes implemented by that system,
we do not feel that any government should be immmune to criticism.  We
are disturbed by the ways in which the left has tended to hold up Cuba
as a paragon of virtue and defend all of its governments repressive
actions as completely necessary and justifiable.

In our second trip to Cuba, it never ceased to amazed us how much better
off the average Cuban was compared to the average Nicaraguan or
Bolivian.  But Cubans exchange some rights and privileges for others.
They are guaranteed the right to eat, have a job, education and
dependable health care, but they are not guaranteed other basic civil
liberties, similar to the ones currently under attack in the US.
In niether place is the restriction of civil liberties a positive or
constructive aspect of life.  Perhaps a comparison of Cuba and the
United States would be ridiculous in any case, but during our trip, we
found that, oddly enough, Cubans were comparing their country almost
exclusively with the United States.

Maybe you would like to take a look at another article we wrote on
public opinion in Cuba, we look forward to hearing any feedback on that
article as well:
http://www.americas.org/index.php?cp=item&item_id=13995
<http://www.americas.org/index.php?cp=item&item_id=13995>

We hear the Bard administration is planning to build a dorm between
Manor and Robbins dorms, with a lap pool and a computer center...any
under reported information that could "pre-empt" this project would be
highly appreciated!

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on our work.  We look
forward to hearing back from you.

Take care,
Benjamin Dangl and April Howard

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Kerry's Tax Cut Makes Me Wanna Ralph

I appreciate the recirculation.
I'd like to note that in the beginning of the post I said
I was voting for Kerry, though that could change.

mbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1@...>
To: <PEN-L@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Kerry's Tax Cut Makes Me Wanna Ralph

> *****   March 29, 2004
> KERRY'S TAX CUT MAKES ME WANNA RALPH
>

air america radio

At 9:37 AM -0800 3/31/04, Devine, James wrote:
>does it mean anything that "Air America" has the same name as the
>old CIA-sponsored "independent" airline in Southeast Asia (involved
>in war and drug smuggling)?

It appears that "Air America" has failed to take off:

*****   The New York Times, April 1, 2004
CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK
Talk Network Makes Debut, With Rage a No-Show
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

The tone of Air America was supposed to be as bold and belligerent as
Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, an unapologetically liberal riposte to
the conservative radio talk shows that dominate the airwaves.

The comedian Al Franken even named his three-hour program the "The
O'Franken Report," to tweak his conservative nemesis, Bill O'Reilly,
yet his maiden show proved to be oddly subdued and, at times,
defensive.

Mr. Franken interviewed the salt-of-the-earth parents of his best
friend in Minnesota to prove that liberals do not hate America, as
the conservative commentator Ann Coulter has charged.

"That's unbelievable," Carol Griffin, 77, said of the accusation
while on vacation in Florida. "Liberals are the ones that love
America. Honestly."

There is little chance that Air America will overtake its
conservative competitors any time soon. Rush Limbaugh is heard on
more than 600 stations, including WABC in New York.

The Air America Radio network made its debut in five markets: New
York; Chicago; Los Angeles; Portland, Ore.; and San
Bernardino-Riverside, Calif.

Air America may yet grow as a radio network, but the first day mostly
highlighted the difficulty of trying to match the fervor and ferocity
of right-wing radio. Satire and sarcasm come more easily than rage to
Mr. Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" performer and writer. And
rage - unbound by reason or reticence - is what fuels the most
successful political talk shows.

Mr. Franken began his show by saying, "Yeah, we are angry," but he
never let loose with the kind of colorful, free-flowing rant that has
proved so cathartic to like-minded listeners. (That sort of diatribe
was provided later in the afternoon by the longtime liberal radio
talk show host Randi Rhodes, who likened the Bushes to the Corleone
family in "The Godfather" and said the president was Fredo.) Mr.
Franken stuck instead to a middle ground of mockery and mild
indignation.

The Bush administration's handling or mishandling of the war on
terror after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was the main topic on all
the shows on Air America, which began at noon with Mr. Franken's show
and ended with "Majority Report, " with the actress Janeane Garofalo
and Sam Seder as hosts.

Mr. Franken's guests included Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic
senator from Nebraska who is now a member of the Sept. 11 commission,
the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore and, as a caller from
Tennessee, former Vice President Al Gore. ("Hi, Al," Mr. Franken
said. "Hi, Al," Mr Gore replied.)

Mr. Gore's call was one of the show's highlights. Mr. Moore, who
supported Ralph Nader in the 2000 election, had a few words to say to
the Democratic nominee who won the popular vote but still lost the
election to George W. Bush.

"We're really sorry, Al," Mr. Moore mumbled. Mr. Gore paused for a
beat, then asked, "For what, Michael?" Mr. Moore then began a long,
winding explanation of how he himself had not campaigned for Mr.
Nader in swing states. Mr. Gore again paused, then added politely,
"What are you saying?"

For the kickoff, Mr. Franken invited some of his more famous friends
to make call-in cameos; Ben Stein, a former speechwriter for
President Richard M. Nixon, was one. The other was G. Gordon Liddy of
Watergate fame. They did not bring great material with them.

Neither did Bob Elliott, who was the Bob of the old "Bob & Ray Show,"
and was tapped by Mr. Franken to perform a skit about a terrorist
sneaking weapons onto an airplane. In the skit, a would-be
hijacker-terrorist explains that he made his dog swallow a box-cutter
before takeoff, saying, "He gets airsick, or so we hope."

The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, referred to as
Condi, came under attack, as did Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney
and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (Mr. Franken does a very
funny impersonation of Mr. Rumsfeld). But most of Mr. Franken's ire
was directed at conservative commentators, including Mr. Limbaugh and
his drug problems and the outrageous statements of Ms. Coulter, whom
Mr. Franken described as a "walking horror show." On the show, Mr.
Franken pretended to lock an irate Ms. Coulter, impersonated by the
actress Bebe Neuwirth, in the green room.

And clearly, it is conservative talk radio that galls Mr. Franken the
most. "The radical right wing has taken over the White House,
Congress, and increasingly, the courts," he complained in his
introductory remarks. "And most insidiously, the airwaves."

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/national/01RADI.html>   *****
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>

Re: Kerry's Tax Cut Makes Me Wanna Ralph

>I appreciate the recirculation.
>I'd like to note that in the beginning of the post I said
>I was voting for Kerry, though that could change.
>
>mbs

The more you think about Kerry's program, the less likely it is for
you to vote for him.  
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>

FW: sad saddam shocker

MELANCHOLY SADDAM LONGS TO SHUT DOWN A NEWSPAPER

Former Dictator in ‘Deep Funk,’ French Lawyer Says [by Andy Borowitz]

The U.S.’s shuttering of an Iraqi newspaper sent Saddam Hussein into a “deep funk,” his French
lawyer said today, as the former Iraqi dictator increasingly longs to shut down a newspaper himself.

“Shutting down newspapers was an activity that Saddam always enjoyed,” lawyer Jacques Verges said.
“When he heard that the U.S. had done it without him, it was a bitter pill to swallow.”

Monsieur Verges said that when he first told the Iraqi madman that the U.S. had padlocked the Baghdad paper,
Saddam was despondent and inconsolable, shouting, “That should have been me, damn it!” 

Saddam then demanded to speak to the U.S. interim administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, to give Mr.
Bremer “a list of helpful tips” on how to shut down newspapers in the future.

“Saddam felt that the shutting down of this newspaper was the work of amateurs,” Monsieur Verges said.
“For one thing, when you close a paper down, you never explain why you do it – that’s a huge no-no.”

But so far, Mr. Bremer has rebuffed Saddam’s offer of assistance, saying that the U.S. was “perfectly
well-equipped to shut down newspapers on our own, thank you very much.”

All of this has left Saddam increasingly depressed, M. Verges said: “Telling Saddam Hussein he can’t
shut down a newspaper is like taking away Tiger Woods’s golf clubs: it’s just plain cruel.”

In other news, Condoleezza Rice announced today that her 9/11 testimony would be scheduled to coincide
with the finale of “American Idol,” the decisive NCAA championship game, and the reading of the
verdict in the Kobe Bryant trial.

--------------------------

Jim D.