(Copyright 2002 The Blacklisted Journalist)


Subject: FW: please look into your hearts......
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:30:50 -0800
From: "Paul McDonald" <>

Now that the holiday season has passed, please look into your heart to help those in need.

Enron executives in our very own country are living at or just below the seven-figure salary level...right here in the land of plenty!

And, as if that weren't bad enough, they could be deprived of even that as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings and potential outcome of current SEC and other investigations.

But now, you can help! For only $20,835 a month, about $694.50 a day (that's less than the cost of a large screen projection TV) you can help an Enron executive remain economically viable during his time of need. This contribution by no means solves the problem, as it barely covers their per diem, ...but it's a start!

Almost $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, but to an Enron exec it could mean the difference between a vacation spent sucking ass in DC, golfing in Florida or a Mediterranean cruise. For you, seven hundred dollars is nothing more than rent, a car note or mortgage payments.

Your commitment of less than $700 a day will enable an Enron exec to buy that home entertainment center, trade in the year-old Lexus for a new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio.


Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the exec you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds, 401(k), real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to your home.

You'll also get information on how he plans to invest his golden parachute.

Imagine the joy as you watch your executive's portfolio double or triple!

Plus, upon signing up for this program, you will receive a photo of the exec (unsigned-for a signed photo, please include an additional $50.00). Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you of other peoples' suffering.


Your Enron exec will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who just wants to help in a time of need.

Although the exec won't know your name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special operator just in case additional funds are needed for unexpected expenses.


I would like to sponsor an Enron executive.

My preference is checked below:

[ ] Mid-level Manager

[ ] Director

[ ] Vice President (Higher cost; please specify which department)

[ ] President (Even higher cost; please specify which department)

[ ] CEO (Contribution: Average Enron janitor monthly salary x 700)

[ ] I'll sponsor the Exec most in need. Please select one for me....

Thank you.

* * *


Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 12:19:41 -0500
From: "vanna"

The killing of Daniel Pearl

By David North

23 February 2002

For reasons that have nothing to do with jingoism, let alone sympathy for the war policies of the Bush administration, the murder of reporter Daniel Pearl has been met not only with revulsion, but also with deep sadness. From the release of the initial photos that showed Pearl as a captive. With his hands bound and with an automatic weapon pointed at his head, the young man was seen as a human being in a desperate situation, held responsible for events over which he had no control.

Now comes the news that Daniel Pearl has been killed, and many people, far beyond the sphere of his family, colleagues and friends, mourn his death. Daniel Pearl was a highly cultured man and a talented journalist. His writings exemplified the schizophrenic character of the Wall Street Journal, where the reactionary frothings of the editorial board are regularly contradicted by the conscientious dispatches of the newspaper's best reporters.

A review of Pearl's writings shows that he maintained an objective and independent attitude toward the events that he covered, and was willing to present information that challenged the claims of both the US government and editorialists of the Journal. In 1998 Pearl traveled to the Sudan in the aftermath of the destruction of the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries plant by US cruise missiles. The Clinton administration had justified the attack on the grounds that the plant was engaged in the production of chemical weapons [as per information supplied to the Clinton Adminstration by the Central Ignorance Agency]. Pearl's investigation called the administration's claims into question.

He wrote that "links in the chain of evidence outlined by US officials are weaker than past reports have suggested." Pearl noted that much of the information used by the administration to justify the attack had been obtained from Sudanese dissidents, who had their own interests and axes to grind. Another notable series of articles dealt with allegations of Serbian genocide in Kosovo. While acknowledging that the Yugoslav forces had done "heinous things," Pearl (in an article co-authored with Robert Block) wrote that "other allegations of indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums, mutilation of the dead? haven't been borne out in the six months since NATO troops entered Kosovo. Ethnic-Albanian militants, humanitarian organizations, NATO and the news media fed off each other to give genocide rumors credibility.

Now, a different picture is emerging. It is highly doubtful that Pearl's killers were in the least interested in what he wrote or thought. Those who murdered Pearl demonstrated not only an appalling degree of callousness, but also political bankruptcy. Even if one were to leave aside all considerations of a moral and humane character (which is hardly possible in serious politics), the murder of Pearl does not, in any conceivable way, undermine the war policies of the Bush administration. The cruel and pointless killing of an individual, "one who obviously bears no responsibility for the actions of the American government," serves only to provoke disgust and perpetuate a political environment that facilitates far more terrible acts of mass violence by the United States against the people of Central Asia and the Middle East.

The efforts of the US government and the media to use the death of Pearl for their own reactionary and militaristic purposes must be resisted and rejected. To recognize that the murder of Pearl has political causes whose roots go far deeper than the immediate motives of those who plotted his kidnapping is to provide neither an excuse nor a justification for terrorism. The terrible truth is that Pearl's tragic end, however unjust and undeserved, is the consequence of the policies of American imperialism. When the Wall Street Journal writes in its eulogy of Pearl that "Danny is no different from the thousands of Americans who died on September 11," it is saying far more than it intends.

Daniel Pearl, like the 3,000 innocent people who died in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, is a victim of policies pursued by the United States. Their deaths are the consequence of reckless and reactionary decisions made in Washington, in pursuit of oil and other imperialist geo-strategic interests, over the last 20 years. We repeat: to explain the social and political roots of terrorism is not to justify it. The Wall Street Journal's declaration that Pearl's death "is a terrible reminder, like so many others since September 11, that evil still stalks this world? is Manichaean nonsense that explains nothing. Is it so difficult to understand that the violence meted out by the United States to all those who get in its way incites anger and rage among millions throughout the world?

To cite one small example of American arrogance and brutality: on the very day that Pearl's murder was confirmed, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that US troops had mistakenly killed 16 anti-Taliban Afghan fighters, but refused to apologize. It does not require exceptional political insight to realize that in the decision to murder Pearl, the desire for revenge was a major subjective factor. At least in this respect, the outlook of Pearl's killers is not all that different than that of the most widely read columnists in the United States. Just one week ago, in a column praising Bush's "axis of evil? speech, Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times had the following to say:

'sept. 11 happened because America lost its deterrent capability. We lost it because for 20 years we never retaliated against, or brought to justice, those who murdered Americans ... innocent Americans were killed and we did nothing." So our enemies took us less and less seriously and became more and more emboldened..."America's enemies smelled weakness all over us, and we paid a huge price for that."

By changing only a few words, the Pakistani terrorists could use Friedman's argument to justify their murder of Pearl: "We have failed to retaliate against America ... innocent Arabs, Afghans and Moslems were killed and we did nothing ... America took us less and less seriously and became more and more emboldened."

The thought patterns of the pompous and belligerent American columnist and the Islamic terrorist have far more in common than either imagine. Both think in terms of ethnic, religious and national stereotypes. Both believe in and are mesmerized by violence. And neither imagines for a moment that there exists the possibility of a world liberated from the quagmire of communal strife, based on genuine social equality and solidarity and cleansed of all violence and oppression  ##.

* * *




The Blacklisted Journalist can be contacted at P.O.Box 964, Elizabeth, NJ 07208-0964
The Blacklisted Journalist's E-Mail Address: