U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action

June 24, 2003. In a stunning split decision with Sandra Day O'Connor providing the deciding vote, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld affirmative action—a direct slap in the face to Mr. Bush, who personally stepped in to lobby for the students in their case against University of Michigan Law School. While the law school's admissions criteria were upheld by the court, the university's undergraduate admissions point system was voted down because it was too inflexible and impersonal. The court remarked that it is not only legal but highly advantageous for states, schools, and school communities to foster diversity. This decision was praised by labor unions like the AFL-CIO and even large corporations like General Motors.

Zoe Owens, Ph.D. philosopher and author of such introspectively religious works as “Jesus Holy Christ Almighty,” was on hand to offer her observations on the landmark decision: “I can't tell you how relieved I am that affirmative action has won the day—slim though the margin of victory was. For one thing, anything that directly thwarts George W. Bush has got to be a good thing—it sure put a smile on my face! But we progressives must remain wary—we must put this victory into perspective. One caveat is that the victory was so slim. That gives hope and impetus to those who would overturn affirmative action—they have lost the battle, but, judging from today's political climate in America, they will fight on, determined to win the war at all costs. And we must be prepared to defend affirmative action at all costs. But the larger caveat is this: if America's culture is such that affirmative action is truly necessary—and I contend that it is—then we must all step back and acknowledge the deep-set, widespread social disparities that demand such protections for minorities and women.

“If one considers Bush's words praising a truly 'colorblind' society, one might be lulled into believing that Bush is not prejudiced—until one also considers the sum and total of Bush's actions, legislation, lobbying, and arm-twisting since he has been in office. A president who values diversity does not cut taxes for the rich in order to eliminate America's New Deal social safety net. So, as he did re Iraq's WMD, he is clearly lying once again. Business as usual for the Bush White House. In short, if Bush really were colorblind, he would set about eliminating the social injustice, poverty, and other factors that make affirmative action necessary—but he would leave affirmative action in place until it became clear that it was no longer needed. Clearly, Bush is not willing to undertake any action of substance to promote social justice—at least, not while he can slavishly serve the big corporations that serve him.

“That means that promoting social justice is up to us.”

Bush Pushes World to Accept Genetically-Mutilated U.S. Crops

June 24, 2003. At a three-day sales conference in Sacramento, CA (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/23/1431228), Bush's minions in the Department of Agriculture pushed his rich, corporate agenda to fob off genetically-mutilated (GM ... do those initials sound familiar?) crops on the hungry of the world. “Look!” said one U.S. official, “These GM crops resist pests, like poor people trying to pick them from your fields! And the genetic mutations they cause in the people who eat them aren't that bad at all. I mean, it's not like they're life-threatening or anything. We feed nothing but experimental GM crops to our prisoners—I mean, “guests”—at our Guantanamo Bay resort. And they don't at all seem to mind urinating spider silk or having it come out of their noses or ears—at least, they seem to prefer that to having us milk it from their nipples. Involuntarily excreting spider silk distracts our valued guests from the tortured—I mean, “pleasured”—screams of their neighbors in adjacent cages—I mean, “condos.” And we make a tidy profit selling that silk once we recover it and clean it up a little.”

Africa, one of the nations targeted by the American sales pitch to buy GM products, is home to many government officials and activists who pooh-pooh the idea of feeding genetically-mutilated crops to the poor. They claim that no manipulation of crops, beneficial or otherwise, will ever address the underlying problem that creates widespread hunger in the first place: poverty. They also protest America's swaggering approach that sweeping international food policies need only be promoted and obeyed rightfully by one select wealthy, powerful nation and, perhaps, a select few of its wealthy, powerful cronies.

Bush's War on Women: Did He Say “Women”? He Meant “Terrorism.”

June 23, 2003. At a New York fundraiser held from 5:00 to 7:00 this evening, Mr. Bush offered a few words to his adoring public of rich, powerful, democracy-smashers. The Scallion hereby presents a transcript of Mr. Bush's speech (note: the editors removed the copious vacant pauses and absent-mindedly repeated words, but there was a limit to how much clean-up we could do without losing the flavor).

“It is always my privilege to address a representative population of the unanimous American people what have elected me fairly and squarely as their perpetual ruler, I mean 'king,' I mean 'emperor,' I mean 'President.' Yup, that's me—unanimously elected POTUS from now 'til the day I die.” [Pause to bask in grateful audience cheers and applause]

“As you know, America is a nation at war against women all over the world. Oops, did I say, 'women'? What I meant was 'terrorism.' These terrorisms cannot be allowed to receive realistic, anatomically-correct sex education as girls. Nor can they be taught about contraception—and God forbid they should ever be allowed to receive birth control devices for free, especially without having to prostrate and humiliate themselves to a superior man and pay him their life's savings. Whether they live in Africa or America, these terrorisms cannot be allowed access to any form of reproductive education, health care, or choice. Especially not the 'A' word—which we all know means 'adulteress.'” [Pause for more cheers and applause]

“Once Poppy bought me this nifty POTUS job, one of my top priorities has been to eliminate social programs of every shape and size by tax-cutting them out of existence. As you all know from your record-topping bank balances, I've been doing a land-office job in that quarter. First, we signed the partial-birth abortion ban into place. And we've been working behind the scenes to get a lot more anti-choice legislation approved—like the media would care even if they did know. And we're well on our way toward eliminating public health services—which will really screw women ... uh, I mean 'terrorisms' ... especially the poor ones.” [Audience loudly applauds and cheers; some are on their feet]

“Now, maybe it's the truth or maybe it's a lie if I tell you that my own two ditzes, what are old enough to squeeze out puppies at any time, don't know where babies really come from. Maybe I'm truthing or maybe I'm lying if I say that they think they've sat on a razor blade once a month when Eve's curse overtakes them. And you'll never know for sure if the only reason I'm not hip-deep in gran'chilluns is that we installed chastity belts on the ditzes as soon as they were potty trained and out of their diapers three weeks ago ... ” [Interrupted by cheers and applause] “ ... I mean, after all, only you yourself can decide whether to keep your ditzes in the dark or whether, since they are the product of your own privileged seed, you want them to have the power of information and control so that they don't inadvertently slip up and dump a few extra mouths to feed onto your unwilling hands. But, even if it were true that my ditzes learned about the birds and bees and birth control, which I'm not saying one way or the other for sure, everybody here knows that not one single other woman—I mean, terrorism—has the right to that information. Not nobody, not nowhere, not no-how. Not in this country ... and certainly not in them turd-world countries, like Europe or Asia, although I'm sure we could do with a few less French bastards. Barefoot and pregnant is the only acceptable state for a terrorism to be in, unless she is also cooking, cleaning, boot-licking, and suck-upping to her superior male owner.” [Appreciative laughter interspersed among cheers, applause, foot stomping, and fist-pounding on tables]

“I mean, if we let women—terrorisms—determine for themself how many chilluns to have and when to have 'em, then where and how in almighty America are we supposed to get all our cheap, disposable, free slave labor? It's gotta come from somewhere, and it'd cost us way too much to let the baby factories have control of themself.” [Interrupted by loud standing ovation]

“As I see it, this war on wom—er, terrorisms serves not just my Christian fundamentalist buds—y'all rule, by the way, and I thank y'all for your financial and moral support—but also my big bidnith buds what really need that free cheap slave labor. So, everybody's happy! And the terrorisms will be too busy squeezing out puppies and appeasing their superior male overlords to question much of the decisions we're making for them here today. Is everybody with me on this?”

At that point, the standing, cheering crowd hoisted Mr. Bush on their shoulders and paraded around the room with him, proclaiming him “Savior not only of immoral America but also the pagan rest of the world” and “The Victorians were pagan, godless, permissive hedonists! Today's Christian right are the only ones who understand and enforce God's true morality!” until they had all had enough ... and the fundraiser's wait staff showed up with trays of optional, $750-each desserts consisting of Sno-Cones, some little variety of Popsicles, and those cute little waxed Dixie cups of ice cream that always have more vanilla than chocolate and come with those annoying little flat wooden paddle-spoons that taste like tongue depressors and never fail to leave splinters in your tongue.

(For more information on Bush's war on, er, “terrorisms,” The Scallion wishes to refer the reader to the following website: http://www.ppfa.org/about/pr/030121_war_intro.html)

The Homogenization of America

June 22, 2003. In a land founded on the principle of rugged individualism, homogenization has become the new law of the land. The issue: even the tiniest semblance of individualism threatens the security of the ruling Christian right, just as the tiniest semblance of liberality and democracy threatens the tenuous security of the neo-ultra-“conservatives” who now overpoweringly rule the United States. They cannot happily rule what they cannot confidently predict. Within the last ten years, it has become undeniable even to the slowest or most unwilling observer: along every highway, every town has its obligatory MacDonald's, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and approved gas station(s). There are no more mom-and-pop outfits, no more charming diversity to brighten one's travels. There is no choice: no Burger King to challenge MacDonald's, no Lowe's to thwart Home Depot, and nothing anywhere to compete with Wal-Mart. The deregulation of radio and, recently, the remaining media appease and comfort not only the media conglomerates who profit financially but the Christian right, who wish to profit morally from the homogenization of America.

Go into a store—any store—and try this scavenger hunt: can you find 6-oz. or 8-oz. paper cups? Styrofoam cups? Plastic tumblers? Can you find roll-on deodorant? If so, can you find more than two name brands? Can you find a jar of name-brand, not store-brand, mayonnaise in a size you would actually use—something between the overpriced 8-oz. single-serving jar and the two-ton industrial-size vat? Can you find a product that you have been using for at least ten years that has remained unchanged in its packaging and its price? Something that hasn't been super-sized beyond all usefulness and recognition? Can you find every single item on your shopping list without having to compromise on brand, size, or anything else? Friends, if nothing else does, this should prove to you that you are being manipulated. You may think that America is the land of plenty and that you can find anything you want wherever you go; if so, you are sadly mistaken. Your brain and your wallet are being taken for a ride.

For the time being, those of us who are fortunate enough to have access to computers can go online to buy what we wish or find readable news that we trust. If we are smart, we can find ways around the manipulation that seeks to turn us into sheep.

How long will the establishment let us get away with our cherished individualism—at least, before they start charging us an arm and a leg for it?

North Korea Says “No Fair!”

June 20, 2003. North Korea is officially throwing a tantrum. Back in March 2003, as the U.S. made overtures toward invading Iraq, North Korea piped up, “Hey! We actually HAVE nukes! What are you going to go play with them for?” Alas, North Korea's effort to engage the U.S. in a war game came to no avail—the U.S. insisted on invading Iraq anyway, despite the lack of nuclear weapons or indeed, as it turns out, any weapons of so-called mass destruction. The biggest kid on the block, the U.S. has declared that a weapon of mass destruction is any weapon that is used unfairly—apparently, this does not apply to the U.S.'s own use of toxic depleted uranium on and around civilian populations or Israel's use of bulldozers, machine guns, and other heavy armaments against Palestinians armed only with rocks.

But we digress.

North Korea piped up repeatedly about having nukes while the U.S. played with Iraq. North Korea tapped the U.S. on the shoulder several times and even got in the U.S.'s face but stopped short of punching the U.S. on the arm. The U.S. refused to respond to these overtures, saying, “Don't pay any attention to him. If you do, he'll just keep following us around.” Recently, North Korea went to the U.S.'s house, rang the doorbell, and asked the U.S.'s mother if the U.S. could come out and play with North Korea and its nuclear weapons. But the U.S.'s mother said that the U.S. wasn't home—he was already across the street accusing Iran of having nuclear weapons because he wanted to invade Iran next.

At that point, North Korea officially threw a tantrum, yelling, screaming, crying, jumping up and down, and eventually curling up into the fetal position on the U.S.'s doorstep, from which it refused to be moved. Eventually, the U.S.'s mother went back inside the house, called North Korea's mother, and had her come pick up her ill-behaved little boy. “Maybe he can come back when he's a little better behaved,” observed the U.S.'s mother. “Well, I hardly think that's fair,” replied North Korea's mother, “After all, your boy announced that he would invade any country that had nuclear weapons. North Korea has had them all along, but your boy insists on invading countries that have never had them. I think your boy is being more than a little fickle—and more than a little spoiled. If he wouldn't just make up whatever rules he wanted on the fly, my boy and other boys in the neighborhood wouldn't feel so left out.” “Hmm, well, maybe you're right. He has been acting awfully spoiled lately. I'll give him a good talking-to when he gets home.”

The U.S.'s mother then invited North Korea's mother in for a nice cup of coffee and fixed up a nice cold chocolate milk for North Korea that made him feel a lot less cranky.

Bush White House Has Global Warming Effects Removed from EPA State of Environment Report

June 20, 2003. As reported on the “Democracy Now!” website (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/20/1424233&mode=thread&tid=25), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been instructed to delete from its 2003 State of the Environment report any and all global warming conclusions that are unfavorable to big-moneyed corporate interests. Negative results regarding automobile emissions and smokestacks were deleted from the original draft before the final was submitted for approval. The statement “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment” was also deleted and, thus, does not appear in the EPA's final report. Who needs revisionist history when you can revise the present?

Bushies in Bed with Taliban

June 19, 2003. With all the infighting and chaos in Afghanistan, the Bush regime is currently negotiating with the Taliban, saying that there may be a place for them in the government of the country. Yet another stunningly stellar example of rampant hypocrisy in the Bush White house. What's next—restoring Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athists to “power” in Iraq?

Embattled Phoenix Bishop O'Brien Resigns

June 19, 2003. Shortly after admitting that he shielded sex offender priests from accusations and prosecutions and reassigned them to new parishes where they could perpetuate their predation, Bishop Thomas O'Brien of Phoenix, AZ was involved in an automobile accident where he struck and killed a pedestrian and left the scene of the crime: a fatal hit-and-run. According to the Washington Post, O'Brien is the first American Roman Catholic Bishop to resign in the face of criminal charges—not to mention, the first to be charged with a felony. However, we of The Scallion won't be saying much about the Catholic Church these days: the Church has worked long and hard to make itself thoroughly irrelevant. We have bigger fish to fry.

Riots in Michigan after Black Man Killed in Police Chase

June 19, 2003. After a handful of Blacks have recently been killed by New York City and other police during arrest attempts, a similar situation has erupted in Michigan, causing race riots in its wake. Articles on the “Democracy Now!” website (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/23/1435218 and http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/19/1431240&mode=thread&tid=53) do not discuss details of the police chase that killed 27- or 28-year-old motorcyclist Terrence Sturm in this disturbing trend of needless deaths.

Congress to Consider Overturning Part of FCC's Deregulation

June 19, 2003. The setting: it's payback time—time for Bush to pay the media conglomerates that have supported him ideologically and financially throughout his political “career.” Huge media conglomerates like VIACOM (that includes CBS, UPN, and others) and FOX, already over the federal limits for media ownership, comprised many of the forces clamoring for deregulation. In a Congressional hearing earlier this week, Michael Powell greasily and infuriatingly weaseled out of Senator Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) direct question by claiming that he “didn't know” that media conglomerates were the ones cheering the FCC's decision. To add to the FCC sleaze, lobbyist Victor Miller's firm, Bear Sterns, which has lobbied the FCC with a big thumbs-up positive rating for deregulated companies' stocks, has a banking relationship with VIACOM. For more details on this story, refer to the “Democracy Now!” website: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/18/1423256&mode=thread&tid=57

NEWS FLASH UPDATE: as reported on the “Democracy Now!” program for June 20 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/20/1418203&mode=thread&tid=25), Congress's Senate Commerce Committee has voted to curb the nation's largest media conglomerates from FCC-approved expansion! While this is good news and a huge relief to those who fought the ill-advised FCC decision, the Center for Digital Democracy warns that the uphill battle is not yet over—stay alert, and stay tuned to The Scallion for more breaking news!

Ken Lay's Bulletproof Vest

June 18, 2003. Why does Martha Stewart get raked over the coals while federal enforcement is assiduously ignoring Ken Lay's much more egregious offenses? It could have something to do with Ed Gillespie—Bush's new appointed RNC head—who earned millions of dollars from Enron to lobby for them, especially regarding energy deregulation. And Enron, of course, lavished millions of dollars on Bush before and during his presidential campaign. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Judges Approve Secret Arrests

June 18, 2003. Following are some excerpts from the story as reported in “Democracy Now!” (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/18/1428214&mode=thread&tid=57): “The federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C. yesterday ruled the Justice Department can secretly detain immigrants without ever publicly releasing their names, the reason for the arrests or the names of their attorneys.

“The decision reverses a lower court ruling last August that ordered the government to make public the names of the detainees and their lawyers.
“The three-judge court ruled against a coalition of more than 20 civil liberties groups and other organizations who invoked the Freedom of Information Act to challenge the secret arrests. The ruling also said the government could keep secret the dates and locations of the arrest, detention and release of all the detainees.
“'For the first time in US history, a court has approved secret arrests,' said Attorney Kate Martin.

“Martin, who heads the Center for National Security Studies, said her organization and others in the case may appeal the ruling. A coalition of civil liberties groups had filed suit in order to obtain the names of the more than 750 immigrants who were secretly picked up after Sept. 11.

“A Washington Post editorial described the Court’s move as a 'dreadful decision.'”

According to the “Democracy Now!” article, Kate Martin is the Director of the Center for National Security Studies.

The real issue here is that, in a compromise to keep the Christian extreme right within the Republican party (i.e., to keep fundamentalists like Pat Robertson from striking off to form their own party), Presidents Reagan and Bush and Pretender Bush have been slaving to turn America's courts over to the fundamentalists so that they can control the issues that concern them: abortion, homosexuality, and other “moral” issues. What makes the June 17 decision so dangerous is that the majority of landmark decisions are being made not by the Supreme Court but by the federal circuit courts, of which there are twelve. A number of those courts are either Republican-Democrat split or are in Democratic hands. Before Resident Bush leaves the White House, each and every federal circuit court will be firmly held in the hands of Christian fundamentalist Republicans: extremists whose beliefs are far right of those of moderate Republicans.

To read more about the incestuous embroilment of American law in American politics, refer to “Courting Disaster: The Supreme Court and the Unmaking of American Law” by Martin Garbus.

Bush Breaks Law—Again!—by Inciting Riots

June 18, 2003. George W. Bush has recently broken U.S. laws against inciting riots by encouraging student protests in Iran. His administration, which applauds the riots, is now clamoring for U.S. liberation of the Iranian people from their oil.

“We do it just like we did last time with Eye-rack,” Bush drawled and paused on his way to his weekly high-security session of finger painting. “Part of the fun has been accusing the Eye-ranians of having nukes. We yell, and we scream, and we jump up and down real loud. Of course, we tried to get the U.N. nuke-yoo-ler wartchdog agency to pass a resolution condemning Eye-ran's nuke-yoo-ler program, but they were too hoity-toity. Oh well. Our sometimes buddy, Mohawk L. Baraday, is the secretary general of the IAEA—he tried to get the Eye-ranians to agree to more and deeper inspections. Luckily for us, though, they wouldn't do it. Heck, they wouldn't even let the IAEA inspect an electric plant—of course, we're claiming that they're enriching yoo-ranium there. Their refusals will give us just the excuse we need to take them over just like we did with Eye-rack. I guess it's a good thing those dumb Eye-ranians don't know about the depleted kind of yoo-ranium—if they knew how useful depleted yoo-ranium is, they'd never be wasting their time trying to enrich the stuff.”

Mr. Bush also had a message for Iran's anti-government protesters: “America stands squarely by your side. And we will continue to incite you to riot against your government and give us even more excuses—like we need an excuse! Just ask Saddam about his duhbya-oh-em-dee weapons!—to take you over and, if you're all nice little boys and girls and play your cards right, annex you into the gool ol' U.S. of A.”

Donald Rumsfeld remarked, “Well, it worked out so well for Iraq and we had such a great time at Saddam Hussein's people's expense that we're just itching for sloppy seconds with a nice Syria-py sweet dessert!”

U.N. Really Has Lost its Mind

June 18, 2003. Kofi Annan has recently proven that the U.N. has well and truly lost its mind by suggesting that the U.S. should send troops into Israel, the greatest military power in the Middle East and the fifth largest military in the world, to squash Hammas and other Palestine resistance. While terrorism committed by either side is equally deplorable, it remains to be seen whom the U.N. will call in to squash the Israeli government for bulldozing, assassinating, sniping, curfewing, and otherwise terrorizing the Palestinian people, destroying their homes, and encouraging Israelis to occupy Palestinian territories and build Israeli homes on Palestinian lands. It is also unknown whom the U.N. will call in to squash the U.S. government for its century-long history of invading sovereign lands and taking them over, overthrowing democratically-elected leaders to install dictators, arming and funding dictators, promoting genocide when it's convenient for business, and otherwise being a bunch of pompous arrogant bastards.

As U.S. troops Kill More Demonstrators, Human Rights Watch Holds U.S. Military Accountable in al-Fallujah

June 18, 2003. Just this morning, U.S. troops opened fire on Iraqi protesters, killing two outside the main gate of what used to be one of Saddam's presidential compounds. This slaying coincides with efforts of Human Rights Watch (HRW) to investigate what really happened in Fallujah on April 28, 2003, as seventeen Iraqi protesters were killed and seventy wounded.

So far, HRW has uncovered no evidence to confirm the Pentagon's allegations that soldiers fired in response to “effective fire” from the demonstrators—meaning that the Pentagon contends that the protesters fired on the soldiers first. HRW is also unable to confirm troops' allegations that they “concentrated their fire” by aiming only at the demonstrators that had fired on them.

Fred Abrahams, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch who authored the new report “Violent Response: The U.S. Army in al-Falluja," (available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/) reports that there is zero evidence that Iraqis fired on the school-house the troops occupied that day; furthermore, the evidence strongly suggests that the American soldiers sprayed a broad area of the demonstration with bullets—contrary to soldiers' claims of “concentrated fire.”

Abrahams concludes that American troops are effective and highly trained to conduct violent military action swiftly and efficiently; however, they are not trained or qualified to conduct peacekeeping afterward. He theorizes that there may have been some rock-throwers or instigators in the crowd and that the troops, lacking an organized response plan to such provocation, felt threatened and thus sprayed the crowd with bullets—not an entirely unreasonable response, given their training. From the human rights standpoint, however, the military's response of firing on a crowd of seemingly unarmed demonstrators is unacceptable.

If the U.S. had truly been interested in peacekeeping and preserving the lives of the Iraqi people, it would have devised and implemented a plan to maintain order in occupied Iraq by employing troops trained to keep peace rather than kill anything that moves.

Fast Food Fundraising for Bush

June 18, 2003. Bush raised over $3.5M toward his presidential campaign by serving hot dogs, hamburgers, and nachos to eager—and, of course, rich—supporters for $2k per plate. According to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, the meal was rounded out by a “Gold Circle Fixin's Area” for the more generous supporters. (See http://www.adn.com/24hour/front/story/920231p-6407688c.html for the complete story.) Bush plans to raise over $200M in campaign funds before the primaries. We of The Scallion agree with The Daily Show report that this amount grossly exceeds what Bush will actually need for his “campaign.” In addition, we'd like to know how he plans to spend the largess that he pockets from the windfall.