PaulKrassner.com In 1967, Paul Krassner published Mad artist Wally Wood’s parody as a centerspread for his satirical magazine, The Realist, and then as a poster. Now here it is, available again, the original poster on high-quality paper, digitally colored, 18"x24" – suitable for framing – mailed in a protective tube. –for $35 ***** Excerpt: None Dare Call It Stolen Ohio, the election, and America's servile press Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005. Originally from August 2005. By Mark Crispin Miller. Harpers.org Taking the oath of office, August 1897 Whichever candidate you voted for (or think you voted for), or even if you did not vote (or could not vote), you must admit that last year's presidential race was—if nothing else—pretty interesting. True, the press has dropped the subject, and the Democrats, with very few exceptions, have “moved on.” Yet this contest may have been the most unusual in U.S. history; it was certainly among those with the strangest outcomes. You may remember being surprised yourself. The infamously factious Democrats were fiercely unified—Ralph Nader garnered only about 0.38 percent of the national vote while the Republicans were split, with a vocal anti-Bush front that included anti-Clinton warrior Bob Barr of Georgia; Ike's son John Eisenhower; Ronald Reagan's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe Jr.; former Air Force Chief of Staff and onetime “Veteran for Bush” General Merrill “Tony” McPeak; founding neocon Francis Fukuyama; Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and various large alliances of military officers, diplomats, and business professors. The American Conservative, co-founded by Pat Buchanan, endorsed five candidates for president, including both Bush and Kerry, while the Financial Times and The Economist came out for Kerry alone. At least fifty-nine daily newspapers that backed Bush in the previous election endorsed Kerry (or no one) in this election. The national turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had swept the ruling party from the White House. And on Election Day, twenty-six state exit polls incorrectly predicted wins for Kerry, a statistical failure so colossal and unprecedented that the odds against its happening, according to a report last May by the National Election Data Archive Project, were 16.5 million to 1. Yet this ever-less beloved president, this president who had united liberals and conservatives and nearly all the world against himself—this president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes. How did he do it? To that most important question the commentariat, briskly prompted by Republicans, supplied an answer. Americans of faith—a silent majority heretofore unmoved by any other politician—had poured forth by the millions to vote “Yes!” for Jesus' buddy in the White House. Bush's 51 percent, according to this thesis, were roused primarily by “family values.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called gay marriage “the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term.” The pundits eagerly pronounced their amens—“Moral values,” Tucker Carlson said on CNN, “drove President Bush and other Republican candidates to victory this week”—although it is not clear why. The primary evidence of our Great Awakening was a post-election poll by the Pew Research Center in which 27 percent of the respondents, when asked which issue “mattered most” to them in the election, selected something called “moral values.” This slight plurality of impulse becomes still less impressive when we note that, as the pollsters went to great pains to make clear, “the relative importance of moral values depends greatly on how the question is framed.” In fact, when voters were asked to “name in their own words the most important factor in their vote,” only 14 percent managed to come up with “moral values.” Strangely, this detail went little mentioned in the postelectoral commentary.[1] The press has had little to say about most of the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them. This animus appeared soon after November 2, in a spate of caustic articles dismissing any critical discussion of the outcome as crazed speculation: “Election paranoia surfaces: Conspiracy theorists call results rigged,” chuckled the Baltimore Sun on November 5. “Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud Is Dismissed,” proclaimed the Boston Globe on November 10. “Latest Conspiracy Theory—Kerry Won—Hits the Ether,” the Washington Post chortled on November 11. The New York Times weighed in with “Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried”—making mock not only of the “post-election theorizing” but of cyberspace itself, the fons et origo of all such loony tunes, according to the Times. Such was the news that most Americans received. Although the tone was scientific, “realistic,” skeptical, and “middle-of-the-road,” the explanations offered by the press were weak and immaterial. It was as if they were reporting from inside a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting that there was no fire.[2] Since Kerry has conceded, they argued, and since “no smoking gun” had come to light, there was no story to report. This is an oddly passive argument. Even so, the evidence that something went extremely wrong last fall is copious, and not hard to find. Much of it was noted at the time, albeit by local papers and haphazardly. Concerning the decisive contest in Ohio, the evidence is lucidly compiled in a single congressional report, released by Representative John Conyers of Michigan, which, for the last half-year, has been available to anyone inclined to read it. It is a veritable arsenal of “smoking guns”—and yet its findings may be less extraordinary than the fact that no one in this country seems to care about them. * * * To read the remainder of this essay, pick up a copy of the August issue of Harper's Magazine, on newsstands near you. Looking for a newsstand? About the Author Mark Crispin Miller is the author of The Bush Dyslexicon and, most recently, Cruel and Unusual. His next book, Fooled Again, will be published this faU by Basic Books. Notes 1. Another poll, by Zogby International, showed that 33 percent of voters deemed “greed and materialism” the most pressing moral problems in America. Only 12 percent of those polled cited gay marriage. 2. Keith Olbermann, on MSNBC, stood out as an heroic exception, devoting many segments of his nightly program Countdown to the myriad signs of electoral mischief, particularly in Ohio. This is Excerpt: None Dare Call It Stolen, originally from August 2005, published Thursday, August 4, 2005. It is part of Features, which is part of Harpers.org. ***** Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 14, 2005 Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage. It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret — a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel. Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car. Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb — all for about a quarter. He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling. And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too. So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them. "They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy." The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg. "The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference." Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power. Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price. But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids — and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones. Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message. Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence. Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism. "The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said. DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available. Others are modifying hybrids, too. Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said. University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban. Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag. Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations. "They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially." ___ On the Net: CalCars Initiative: http://calcars.org ***** Now It Can Be Told (Conspiracy Nation, 08/14/05) -- Almost incidental to Ravi Batra's latest book, Greenspan's Fraud, are revelations about the economic situation during the past 25-or-so years. The common thread is Sir Alan Greenspan of the "Federal" Reserve, harshly criticized by Batra in contradistinction to Bob Woodward's fawning Maestro. To mature persons who lived through these times and were affected by them, the true economic picture of what was going on provides insight into how their lives were shaped by financial legerdemain. While the business press cheerleaded, the robbery of Americans was not especially noticed. Your hardships and those of your children paved the way for Greenspan's fraud. From 1885 through 1982, the Dow Jones average had been under 1000. Then, in just 20 years, the Dow skyrocketed past 11,000. Along the way, on October 19, 1987, occured the worst crash in the history of the New York Stock Exchange. The ratio of drop was 22.6 percent, twice the ratio of the 1929 crash. Just two months previously, Alan Greenspan had been chosen as the new chief of "the Fed." He is now the longest-reigning "Fed" chair in history. Those worried about "the sky is falling" can ponder what Greenspan's retirement next year will mean. Say's Law, named after French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, had proposed, "Supply creates its own demand." Along came John Maynard Keynes, who proposed, to the contrary, "Demand creates its own supply." Keynes advocated budget deficits to stimulate demand. Demand would increase with a rise in debt, since money is borrowed for the purpose of spending it. Of course, one had to pay off the debt when prosperity returned; deficit spending obviously could not continue indefinitely. Some are confused about deficit vs. debt. They hear about "government budget deficit" and "government debt," and they wonder, "What's the difference?" The deficit is yearly. Each year, contrary to Keynes' overall advice, the government runs a deficit. That is like the borrowing on a credit card, which gets added to the total debt. The debt is total, an accumulation of past years' deficits. In 1975, annual inflation was 9 percent and the unemployment rate was 8.5 percent. By 1980, annual inflation had risen to 13.5 percent. President Jimmy Carter went on television, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "This nation is in trouble." For his honesty, Carter was widely ridiculed. Along came Ronald Reagan, in 1980, and he said, "No, no, we are not in trouble. It is morning in America." Carter, in his classic "spiritual crisis" address, had said, "It is mourning in America," but many people didn't want to face facts. Instead, the nation began a borrowing binge. It would be like you having credit cards of which someone else would have to pay the bills, later, after you were gone. Like with credit cards, as debt accumulates there are interest payments one must pay. Each year's budget deficit added to the total debt, and interest payments on that debt increasingly ate away at government's annual revenue. Somehow, more money had to be obtained. In the 1960s, the state sales tax burden averaged at 2 percent. That crept slowly upward until now the average sales tax is over 7 percent. There began to be a "tax revolt," in the 1980s, with citizens up in arms about being "taxed to death." Ronald Reagan's "voodoo economics" somehow promised to increase military spending yet lower taxes. How could that be done? By borrowing massively and sending the bill to the future. Another bit of voodoo magic involved Social Security. In 1983, Reagan's budget director David Stockman warned, "Social Security is about to face the most devastating bankruptcy in history." So the Social Security taxes were raised. Once at 2 percent, shared by employer and employee, FICA now takes over 15 percent, of which you pay half. "Suppose your financial adviser earnestly told you some 25 years ago to invest more money in his brokerage firm, so you could enjoy a decent living upon retirement," suggests Batra. Then, years later, this same adviser tells you the money is gone. He has not invested it, he has spent it on other things. "Believe me," writes Batra, "something like this has happened to the Social Security Trust Fund." The Social Security money, hard-earned dollars from working people, was not invested but was frittered away as a prop for a debt bubble. In 1983, as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Greenspan had "persuaded lawmakers to overtax the American worker in advance and create a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund that would meet the pension needs of baby boomers, who were expected to retire in large numbers around 2010." However this money was not left to sit, but was used to mask budget deficits. The money was hauled from Social Security and IOUs were left in its stead. Political irresponsibility, allowed by both parties, Democrat and Republican, affected the U.S. dollar. If you have huge credit card debt, there begins to be doubt whether you will finally pay. Your credit rating may suffer and/or you may find the interest charges on your monthly bill have risen. In 1969, the dollar/yen ratio was 1/360. One dollar bought 360 yen. In 1980, the dollar/yen ratio had sunk to 1/226. Now that ratio is about 1/110, with a dollar equal to 110 yen. This pattern is the same relative to other currencies. "Not to worry," say some. As the dollar devalues, the balance of trade improves. American exports become less expensive abroad, this causes a rise in sales, increased demand, a boost to U.S. manufacturing and an increase in jobs. Except there is no U.S. manufacturing to speak of, since the factories have relocated. Why is it, for example, that Mexico devalues its currency and her trade balance improves, yet the same does not happen for the United States? Answer: lack of manufacturing in the U.S. The economy had been sandbagged in the 1970s, due to deficit financing and tremendous rises in oil prices. Carter pleaded for sanity, but his was not a happy message and folks changed channels. On the Happy Channel was Ronald Reagan, a rooster crowing about sunshine. But the sunshine was artificial, energized by debt. To pay for the illusion, average Americans worked harder. The productivity climbed. A new mode of life, the "two-income trap," was a necessary adjustment for many. At first, both spouses working ameliorated the situation. Slowly however that stopgap eroded. Now, "even two earners" (the "liberated" female and her mate) "cannot do today what a sole provider could do for the family in the 1950s and the 1960s." The real productive wage peaked in 1973 at $331/week then declined. By 1995 it was $258/week. All this has influenced your life, especially if you are of mature years. The manufacturing jobs evaporated. Sneakily, your taxes climbed. Your money was also robbed from you in a different way, through inflation, precipitated by a borrowing binge benefiting the well-to-do. You have had to work harder, since productivity would rally Gross Domestic Product and massage creditor confidence. Your wages, unfortunately, have trailed your productivity, leading you into debt which benefits the bankers. The productivity has risen but the wages have not. Since the market crash of 1987, and exacerbated by the Nasdaq crash of 2001, debt bubble pressure has been building. And it all occured during the "maestro's" -- Greenspan's -- reign. Greenspan, sneers Batra, is the "poster boy for free debt." (Further info at http://www.ravibatra.com) ------- Conspiracy Nation http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html