LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Don't Like Borosage
We really like your paper, better than most of the publications we read.
We look forward to it and happily read every word. Your columnists are great--every
one, erudite, informative good reading. Except Borosage.
Since 1992, Borosage has been a perennial sycophant of Bill Clinton providing
volumes of analyses in support of the Clinton administration's agenda, and
Clinton's scraps thrown to the public. He portrays Clinton as acting in
the best interest of the Democratic Party and providing the country with
a brighter future.
Listen to his current piece: "He represented the 1960's culture. He
is the Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, the anti-war movement
incarnate. He is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and sympathetic to
How blind can he be? And, how stupid? Does he think the rest of us are so
dumb that we don't know the detailed history of Bill Clinton in Arkansas;
covered with Tyson chicken shit and Wal-mart dollars, and manipulating the
legislators with corporate money?
Borosage consistently subverts the pro-business, pro-capitalist (the working
class be damned) priorities of Clinton's actions. His is a love-note to
the Democratic Party while all along Clinton has captured the Republican-Right's
agenda and goals. Clinton is a Machiavellian Manipulator, a Flim-Flam man
of the worst kind. The best Republican President we ever had. Clinton sold
out to the Multinational corporations and the "Free Trade Uber Alles"
crowd from the start. That is how he got elected, and he owed them and has
done everything to pay back. He is a felonious fraud in the White House.
I can think of lots of people I'd rather spend my time reading.
CLARA & BERNARD MASLOW
Editor replies: Borosage files a dissent from Clinton's "State
of the Union" on page 8.
We Need Borders
The piece by Gonzales and Rodriguez "The Age of 'Borderless Borders'"
(12/98 PP) mixes astronomy, business and economics in an irrational blend
to support the proposition that there should be no political borders for
the United States. It is apparent that they argue for unlimited immigration.
While Gonzales and Rodriguez are certainly entitled to their views, there
is a concern that is shared by many which must be considered and that concern
is population. At the risk of being labeled racist and of being accused
of "the greening of hate", I believe that the impacts of uncontrolled
immigration on the United States need to be called-out before we buy into
the "borderless borders" concept.
The number of legal immigrants for 1997 was estimated to be 1,000,000 with
another 300,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants entering the United States
each year. At the present rate of immigration, the U. S. population will
increase by up to 200 million persons in the next 50 to 60 years. The suggestion
has been made that the U. S. needs the supply of cheap, hard-working immigrants
to insure future prosperity. If this is so then 70 to 80 percent of our
population growth during the next century will come from our immigration
policy and it will be just a matter of time before the U.S. population surpasses
that of India and China. The U. S. population is already growing at the
fastest rate among the industrialized nations.
Is such rampant, out-of-control population growth really what we want? Will
we be able to protect our environment with such growth? Will our cities
still be livable and will we still be a truly a United States? I don't think
Why is it that The Progressive Populist will print an article supporting
"borderless borders", but has never printed an article opposing
such views? Is it because it has become a "feel good", liberal
axiom which can no longer be questioned? If The Progressive Populist
is interested in printing an opposing view to "borderless borders",
this writer will be pleased to suggest the names of any number of experts
on the subject of immigration.
HOWARD A. PELLETT
Libertarians vs. Populists
I like everything that I have read so far of your articles on the web except
that I do not share Mr. Cullen's praise of Jesse Ventura. How does he reconcile
Libertarianism with Populism? Libertarians are anti-government anti-tax
laissez faire right-wingers just to the left of the anarchists. They want
to deregulate big business so Corporations can "have their way"
(to put it politely) with us workers and consumers. Ventura wants to cut-off
government funding to public radio and television which certainly is an
insignificant fraction of 1% of the government budget. Most of the money
for these services come from private donations. Public radio/TV is a welcome
escape from the corporate propaganda, commercials and content censored programming
of the commercial stations. The Right extremists want smaller government;
translation: They want to eliminate regulatory agencies and social programs
and deny us common citizens access to legal recourse when we are injured
or killed from dangerous "deregulated" working conditions or products
or uninspected food or poor medical care. At the same time they want to
increase military spending so we can bully more countries around the world
and make the way safe for the invasion of American capitalist imperialism
and find new sources of near slave labor.
We don't need "big government" but we need a strong people-orientated
government. Get the big money both private and Corporate out of the election
process and the legislature. The FCC is "supposed" to have authority
over both wire and airwave communication. If they had any teeth (not to
mention other parts of the anatomy) they would tell broadcasters to give
free time to political candidates during the pre-election season as their
public service duty if they would like their license renewed.
Editor replies: Libertarianism is not incompatible with populism.
Not all libertarians are stereotypical anti-government, anti-tax laissez-faire
right wingers. Many of them are rightly concerned with the intrusion of
government into everyday affairs. At The Progressive Populist we
try to encourage a healthy disrespect for corporations as well as governments,
but recognize that we need government to rein in corporations, ensure liberty
and provide opportunity for the common good.
'Corporate Assassins' on the Mark
The article "Corporate Assassins" by Russell Mokhiber and Robert
Weissman (1/99 PP) was excellent. It should be required reading in high
schools and colleges.
Over the past 20 years I have watched our government go from providing a
check to keep a balance between the private and public sectors, to a government
of, by and for the corporation. The sad and dangerous part is our "feel
good" corporatized citizenry don't even realize it while losing the
ability to think and reason.
It is now clearly evident that we have been slowly but surely moving toward
an ignorant and permanent debtor society under corporate rule. Unfortunately
there is no corporate constitution or Bill of Rights.
Miami Springs, Florida
Stand Up for Partisanship
President Clinton's support of bipartisanship has resulted, among other
bad legislation, in NAFTA, GATT agreements that threaten certain agricultural,
small business and consumer interests.
He has also endorsed some of a Republican plan to give stock market operators
a crack at some social security funds.
The stock market reminds me of a gambling casino--the house never loses
in the long run.
"Bipartisanship" hasn't resolved the nightmare of a health care
system that ignores over 40 million men, women and children.
Even in death, the funeral industry has a deadly grip on fixed costs to
the families of the deceased!
Our two-party system, financed as it is by well-heeled corporate and financial
interests, thrives at the expense of the general population.
They figure a small cut at a time in social services won't be noticed until
it is too late.
We need a Partisan Party to protect and defend our people and country from
its real enemies!
Clinton And Constitution
During these impeachment proceedings, we hear our elected representatives
shouting in their loudest voice that they must uphold the Constitution.
My question is this: Do they mean what they say? Or do they share Clinton's
stated views of the Constitution.
Remember what President Bill Clinton said on MTV's show "Enough is
Enough", 3/22/1994. He made this statement and I quote: "When
we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution
with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom
to Americans ..."
"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When
personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what
we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects,
about how we're going to have weapons sweeps and more things like that to
try to make people safer in their communities."
Yet he lays his hand on the BIBLE and swears to defend and uphold the Constitution,
when he takes the oath of office. Our elected Representatives also take
an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Now in his "State of The Union' speech. Clinton already states his
intention to violate the Constitution, and once again seek "Fast Track
Trade Authority". The Constitution does not give him this right. And
he has been defeated in the last two sessions of Congress.
So my question to my elected Representatives is this: Do you believe in
the Constitution and its guidance when you take your oath of office? Or
do you share Bill Clinton's view that it is a radical document? Perhaps
you too should ask your elected representatives what their view is concerning
C.W. MILLER, Reform Party
Fort Madison Iowa
Reclaim Broadcast 'Airways'
This is about the "Public Airways" being used for free by commercial
radio and television stations.
I am opposed to this. Why? Because the $$ corporate interests are getting
a free ride! Presently this is the case but the question is why does the
public policy permit it? After all, we citizens own the airways.
"For, By and Of the People" should make the for-profit corporate
interests "PAY" instead of the present no-charge free use. The
money obtained could then be used for public stations and programs of all
kinds "without" commercial advertising. The program trash we now
have to see or listen to makes the point!
When 30 seconds of advertising (brainwashing) on a "Bowl Game"
Sunday show costs $1,000,000, something is rotten in Denmark, as we in the
The corporate money makers who are in control of our public airways in this
way do so without cost for the use of the airways. The Congress was paid
In my opinion, the time has come to change the rules of the present "no
Readers, why not write your Congress members and senators. After all, do
the corporations own the country or "We the People"?
Judge Not, GOP
How could the Republican House Judiciary members like Henry John Hyde of
Illinois and Bob Barr of Georgia, who had adulterous affairs, sit in judgment
on President Clinton. Hyde had a "youthful indiscretion" at 41
years [of age] over a 5-year period with his amour--Cherie Snodgrass. Her
husband later got a divorce. Hyde's affair has been broadcast to all the
ships at sea, from coast to coast and is well known in Canada. How can Hyde
serve as a judge in the case?
Bob Barr is almost as well known. He barely escaped political defeat in
November over an unknown and poorly financed opponent. Barr has been married
three times and recently has been cited for an extra affair.
Of course there is Congressman Bob Livingston of the Southern Mafia, Helen
Chenoweth of Idaho and Cong. Dan Burton of Indiana. This is the party of
"Family Values and Moral Standards." No wonder the approval rating
of GOP/Christian Coalition Party is at only 37%
The Real Deal
Other mags I've read cater to severely compartmentalized audiences. I've
seen papers for caterwauling psycho-anti-sex Maoists, guilt-ridden anemic
liberals and vicious preppies in Brooks Brothers mufti.
Never have I read a paper which caters to my liberation theology, left-populist
leanings. Class war is being waged upon working America, U.S. taxpayer-financed
brutality is being rained upon every corner of the globe, yet most journals
of the left want to bicker about trivialities.
Yours is the real deal to the left as the [Wall Street Journal] is
to the oligarchs and plutocrats. Again, thank you. God Bless,
MICHAEL JOHN HERZBERG
St. Louis, Missouri
Independent Counsel Reform
There is a need to reform the Independent Counsel Act because major problems
exist. Because of partisan politics from both sides, and conflicts of interest,
the need to reform will prevent the Independent Counsel from having strayed
away from their original investigations.
One might ask how and why did Starr's mission mutate from an investigation
of a 20-year-old land deal in Arkansas, to producing a tabloid story of
the President's sex life? Also, the three-judge panel, which chose Starr,
shows how this important judicial tool has been corrupted by partisan politics.
This is why rewriting this important Counsel Act will stop giving the Independent
Counsel or anyone else a form of a blank check to act as the sole overseer
of the Executive Branch. Currently this creates a gang of prosecutors, almost
like a fourth or fifth branch of Government.
Reform rather than scrap this important law. Non-partisan judges should
be appointed to oversee the Independent Counsel. This important reform would
prevent manipulation and "Stacking the Deck," [and] also see that
the original investigation doesn't veer off course.
Editor's Note: The judges already are supposed to be non-partisan.
Send your letters to:
Letters to the Editor
PO Box 150517
Austin, TX 78715-0517
Or email email@example.com
Please keep them brief.
News | Current Issue
| Back Issues | Essays
About the Progressive Populist | How
to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 1999 The Progressive Populist