Saturday, January 24, 2004

Stat of the Day
brought to you by ...The Bush Brothers

Number of votes G.W. Bush won the presidency by......1 (Scalia)
Number of votes G.W. Bush "won" Florida by
according to the Supreme Court..... 537

Number of primarily African American voters
illegally purged from the Florida voting rolls
in 2000, as ordered by Governor Jeb Bush ....... 91,000


Democratic candidates have won the popular vote for President in the last three elections. There are many good reasons that the Democratic candidate in 2004 should as well, with enough electoral votes to stop Bush from doing any more damage. But there is growing evidence of serious trouble in the electoral machinery, and growing suspicion that the subversion of the very process of voting successfully used in Florida will be repeated in various ways, in Florida again, but also in several other states. In particular, the new touch-screen voting systems, widely regarded as unreliable, adopted in several key states at the behest of the Pentagon, are coincidentally manufactured by companies with strong ties to Bush and the Republican party.

Now is the time for citizens to be aware of this, and to ensure the integrity of this last possibility for any semblance of democracy. If voting becomes corrupted on this scale, nothing can save the United States of America.





Friday, January 23, 2004

Stats of the Day

percentage of Americans without health
insurance who have jobs.........................80

Number of Californians without
health care coverage.............6.4 million

Number of Californians without
health coverage whose income
is over $50,000 a year...... 1.6 million

...over $70,000 a year.....640,000

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Stat of the Day

Number of British troops on the ground in Iraq...... 9,900
Number of private military contractors
on the ground in Iraq...... 10,000

Proportion of the $87 billion for
Iraq and Afghanistan going to corporations...... 1/3

Amount of Halliburton Iraq contracts..... $5 billion+

Monday, January 19, 2004

Instant Analysis

The Iowa results: Kerry wins, electability a big factor. John Edwards a strong second, his "two Americas" theme resonating, along with positive campaign and attractive personality. Howard Dean a distant third, Dick Gephardt so far out that he is withdrawing from the race.

The spin: the same on every network, the animus against Howard Dean by the media came rushing out. They called him mean and unlikeable, and criticized him for not having his wife and children campaigning. The spite was not even disguised, it was blood in the water time.

The change: New Hampshire now becomes a Kerry (Mass.) v. Dean (Vermont) race. If either of them wins, it keeps them going---for Kerry it becomes confirmation, for Dean a comeback. But if Edwards or Wesley Clark wins, it throws the race into a turmoil because neither is a favorite son of a neighboring state. An Edwards win with South Carolina next would be a huge boost to his campaign, and would probably get him the money to play out the race to the end.

Here's hoping: We're anxious to see Kerry campaigning, for the results indicate he's starting to connect, which he hadn't done before. Whoever goes up against Bush has to be at the top of his game, and so far that's been Dean. But obviously Kerry and Edwards have made great strides in the past week or two.

A Kerry-Edwards ticket could be the strongest the Democrats could hope for.

Judging from an interchange W Clark had on CNN, he's not ready for prime time. Candidates with an edge do seem appealing---that is, ones that might self-destruct but don't. Clark seems like he could self-destruct completely. The one with the least risk of that is Edwards.

Howard Dean defined the race so far, and pushed these candidates to be strong against Bush, and to define a real vision. Even if he doesn't become the candidate, he's done a great service. So has Gephardt, who left his expediency back in Washington and became passionate on the campaign trail. He should still be looked at as a v.p. candidate.

There was some cooperation between the Edwards and Kucenic campaigns in Iowa. Look for Dennis, if he drops out soon, to support Edwards. We doubt Gephardt will endorse anyone when he drops out on 1/20.
The Quotegeist

"It's very hard to draw the line now between oil and the military."
--Kevin Phillips on C-Span

"Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction."
--Dr. James Forbes, Riverside Church NYC

Sunday, January 18, 2004

Numbers of the Week


Total number of American soldiers killed in Iraq......... 500

Number of Americans who die each year
because they have no health insurance ........ 18,000

Sunday, January 04, 2004

Global Week in Review 1/2/04

PHINEAS
Sappy blue ear!

CHRISTOPHER
What's this 'let old acquaintance be forgot' stuff? I never understood that. Forget your friends, it's a new year? Who wrote that song? Lobbyists?

THERON
It's the Alzheimer's Anonymous fight song.

PHINEAS
How quickly we degenerate.

MORGAN
It must be time to talk politics.

PHINEAS
Conventional wisdom is, it's going to be Bush vs. Dean. What does this tell us?

MORGAN
After Bush vs. Gore? That the major qualification to run for President is that you have four letters in your last name?

PHINEAS
Conventional wisdom also is, Dean loses.

CHRISTOPHER
O Canada!

MORGAN
I'll take Italy. At least they get mad about their corruption.

THERON
The GOPers would like to make Dean into a McGovern, and since they've got the media in their pockets, maybe they will. But it depends on whether Dean has a coherent image and message from the convention on. And picks a good v.p. Right now I'd say a Dean-Gephardt ticket could really shake things up. If they fight hard. Pull no punches. Craft a message, stick it relentlessly, and take no crap.

CHRISTOPHER
That would be fun.

PHINEAS
But if not Dean, who?

MORGAN
What did we say last time, anybody but Lieberman? I'll refine my position: if Bush were running against a toad, I'd vote for the toad. If Lieberman were running against a toad, I'd vote for the toad. But if Bush is running against Lieberman, I'll vote for Lieberman.

PHINEAS
Any other v.p. ideas for Dean?

THERON
Clark and Edwards have said they won't do it. Kerry is also New England. Graham of is a supposedly politically astute choice because he's from Florida, but that stuff doesn't work anymore, does it?

PHINEAS
Gore couldn't carry Tennessee and he was the top of the ticket.

THERON
Right. Graham's a good enough guy, but he looks boring.

MORGAN
On the other hand he's got heart problems, and that seems to be a new qualification for vice president.

PHINEAS
Gephardt can mobilize the industrial Midwest, Pennsylvania. Maybe some farm states.

THERON
The way to win Florida is for a black organization to go down there right now and work on registering people. Stay the course, be at the polls on election day. Make sure the votes count this time.

PHINEAS
Any other predictions for 04?

MORGAN
It will be discovered that G.W. Bush is the bastard grandchild of Mussolini. He has genetically confused Iraq with Ethiopia.

GABRIEL
Morgan's been writing too much science fiction.

CHRISTOPER
Speaking of which, I have some predictions for the expanded DVD version of the last Lord of the Rings movie. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there will be no new battle scenes---just another three hours of endings. Twelve additional endings in all. Forensic evidence on cause of death of the Darth Vader guy, and the Hunchback of Notre Dame monsters.

MORGAN
And the Klingons in the ships?

CHRISTOPHER
Right. Then the signing of the treaties among the victors. The lawyers alone supply six of the new endings. Then there's Frodo's new life in San Francisco.

MORGAN
Which leads to a new series, Fellowship of the Mings, in which Frodo, Flash Gordon and Luke Skywalker all come out, and do a cool makeover of the Emperor Ming's palace.

PHINEAS
And this is the kind of year we can expect?

THERON
If we're lucky.



Monday, December 22, 2003

The Right Christian

By Theron Dash

While some of you contemplate an early moment in the Christian gospels, I have been thinking about the final moments in one of them. The Apocalypse. And I've come to the conclusion that it's all true. The anti-Christ is here. His name is George W. Bush.

It doesn't matter if he is sincere, if he is a "good person" in his denying heart. He fulfills the prophesies. He sows discord in the Middle East. He brings destruction through deception. He has somehow convinced Americans that the Republicans are against Big Government and for Fiscal Responsibility as he inflates federal power and plunges the nation into debts and it will take generations of suffering to recover from---and that's the best case scenario.

He has apparently convinced ordinary Americans that he is on their side, as he impoverishes them, yokes their very health and livelihoods to the whims of conscienceless corporations. He convinces them he is protecting them even as he abandons them with impunity. And he tells them he's born again.

He ignores global heating, defiles the air, delivers the water to corporate bullies, slices away the lungs of the planet. He has managed to get Congress to pass a law that allows him to invade Denmark if he doesn't get his way with the International Court at the Hague. He is bringing on the apocalypse, grinning all the way.

If you think capturing Saddam has turned things around in Iraq, just wait awhile. He seems to have bullied Europe into talking concessions on loans, but payback is inevitable. You can bully people when you're strong, but few bullies get much help from their victims when they themselves are hurting.

He is getting plenty of help from Democrats who still would rather fight among themselves than win an election. And he still has his minions, who are smart, ruthless and will do anything to win. Expect Saddam's trial to be televised during the Democratic Convention this summer.

It's not hopeless. But it's essential to understand that we're dealing with Biblical proportions.
What's Really Going On Part 2

The first part of the domestic Plan has been obvious for awhile. The Bush Conspiracy found a way to reward its rich supporters and corporate cronies with a huge tax cut (the richest bunch of them will reap $8 million this year just on the cut) and thereby forcing government to "shrink" (that is, turn over its legitimate functions to corporations) because state governments and the federal government won't have enough tax money to meet the needs of the people.

It had to be done this way because voters haven't fully bought into the GOP message of destroying government. They like the rhetoric all right, but when it comes down to the decisions, they'd rather have the services, the protections, the functions of government that seed the economy, encourage a vibrant society, fulfill our common commitment to justice and a civilized society.

But the GOP of today has also found their fatal flaw---people want a robust government but they don't want to pay the taxes that support it. So promise them everything, especially tax cuts. It's a very successful strategy that can't last any longer than the machinations of Enron, and it will have even more tragic results. But that's all right, because the corporate interests that Bush represents will make plenty of money anyway. That's the second part of the Plan that we didn't quite understand.

Because the basic conundrum is obvious to everybody: if the rich keep stealing from the not rich, they will have all the money, and nobody will be making enough to buy the consumer products that currently drive the economy. So pretty soon the consumer economy will collapse and lots of corporations will stop making profits. Can't they see this?

We got the answer from James K. Galbraith in an article in the October issue of The Progressive entitled "Why Bush Likes A Bad Economy." "The oil, mining, defense, media, and pharmaceutical firms who form the core of their constituency rely on monopoly power, patents, and the control of public resources for their profits," he writes. "They do not depend, very much, on strong consumer demand."

So we have seen the future and it is called Urinetown. The premise of the play of that name is that all public and private toilets are controlled by corporations, who demand a fee. That's what will happen as government is forced to shed social security, education, social services, etc. and they are picked up by private interests, who will display all the compassion and cost efficiency of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Of course the Bushies know which focus group buttons to push. They prey on the apparent common sense notion that business can be more efficient than government, because a profit motive is incentive to cut waste and fraud, and to please customers. You know, what would buying a Big Mac be like if government was in charge of hamburgers? Pretty scary, right?

In the real world however we all should have learned by now that pleasing customers is hardly necessary for making profits, and that the method of choice for many huge corporations is fraud on a scale no government bureaucrat could dream of. Lying, manipulating, bilking people out of their life savings, their future and their very lives is standard procedure these days, as long as the quarterly report is favorable. For even making a profit isn't the main goal---the goal is SHOWING a profit, quarter by quarter, stock blip by stock blip.

They make money by manipulating the systems---the financial systems, through favorable laws, secret deals and simply pushing money around. There are billions to be made that way once they get their hands on Social Security.

Then there are the unfortunate differences between businesses and government, one of which is a very painful lesson for a town in California, as reported on Friday's "Now" on PBS: businesses can move somewhere else, but governments can't. In this case it was the biggest corporation and most successful retailer in the world, Wal Mart, that extracted millions of dollars from a local government for the construction of its store in their municipality, promising that government even more in tax revenues over the long run. But the long run never happened. The month the government made its last payment to Wal Mart, the corporation announced it was closing that store and building a couple more in nearby municipalities. So Wal Mart stole the money, and now will add further injury by further destroying the remaining tax base as it drives smaller retailers out of business.

That's how consumer businesses are surviving these days: by cutting costs the Wal Mart way: paying way less than a living wage to employees, treating them shamefully, forcing mini-management to act unethically and illegally, and when they aren't making a "competitive" profit (that is, enough money to keep expanding like a nightmare cancer) they go elsewhere. In this of course they follow the shining example of manufacturers and now service businesses that take their plants and office parks to other countries where wages are miniscule and health, safety and environmental regulations are even more fictional than they've become in America.

Yes, it's likely that Governor Arnold would prefer to move his government to South Korea, but unfortunately it's stuck in California. Maybe he'll get a nice payoff loan from Bush in exchange for trying to deliver the state’s votes to him in November, but in the meantime the schools are quickly dwindling to a state of depressed disorganization, the vitality is being leached out of the bones of public institutions that will cripple California for years to come. And it's happening in most other states as well, though perhaps less dramatically.

In California the Governator precipitated a crisis by cutting the motor vehicle fee increase (which was actually a reinstating of fees that had been cut just a few years ago when the state was flush.) That money had been destined to go to hard-pressed localities to support basic services. So it meant cutbacks in fire protection and police, and the now famous basic function of government: the roads don't get fixed. And health and social programs incidentally would have also suffered, along with thousands of children, elders and sick people.

But the Governator dramatically rescued the state from his own destructive act. Sort of like how the Terminator is the bad guy in the first movie but comes back as the good guy in the second movie? In this case, the Governator issued an emergency order to fund the localities out of other state revenues, specifically by making additional cuts in the budgets of the two state university systems. Very dramatic, perhaps illegal, but hey, he was elected to be an action hero, and a little dictatorial power is part of the script.

In the meantime, the universities have been hacking away at themselves for several years already, and are looking at cuts of up to 30% next year, even before this last bit. Now there are rumors that the most prestigious state funded universities are looking for ways to go private. If UC Berkeley and UCLA, for instance, succeeded in doing that, the collapse of state higher education for the middle class would probably follow in a big hurry. This might result in a reverse Gold Rush, except, where are people going to go? South Korea?

Friday, December 12, 2003

What's Really Going On, Part 1

They said it couldn't be done, but the Dash Brothers have been walking around in stunned silence, thanks to the increasingly tragic and increasingly surreal situation in Iraq.

"The hallmark of the Bush foreign policy has been a naïve radicalism married to an operational incompetence," writes Robert Kuttner in the November American Prospect. "A small clique with a preconceived blueprint took advantage of a national emergency and a callow president, blowing a containable threat into war while dismissing more ominous menaces. These people are out to remake the world, with little sense of risk, proportion or history."

Of course we've been saying all this for months, and as we've also said, one remarkable feature of this context is that the above analysis has quickly become the conventional wisdom among several if not nearly all of the Democratic candidates for president, as well as the established "liberal" or what's left of the Left within the ruling class, from Washington to Hollywood, the Nation magazine to Doonesbury. It took years for this kind of critique made by outsiders demonized as radical leftists to enter the public commentary of establishment liberals during the Vietnam sixties and seventies.

And if this analysis has any impact on the 2004 presidential election, we suspect political historians will refer to this past week as a key moment. That's because two sets of events happened almost simultaneously. One set was a series of almost incredible missteps and disasters for the Bushies.
Just hours before Bush himself was scheduled to get on the phone to heads of state of France, Germany, Canada and Russia, to pitch them on forgiving debt to Iraq and otherwise help the U.S. get out of this mess without going into bankrupt Depression, the Pentagon announced that major reconstruction contracts would be banned from going to companies in France, Germany, Canada and Russia. This carries the policy of preemptive destruction to new heights.

The fallout from this appalling act has already caused international furor, and will likely lead to incalculable consequences, probably in a number of small and subtle ways that will add up to real damage to U.S. internal security and interests in the world. But it may have greater consequences domestically and politically. There are lots of people supporting Bush in Iraq who don't have the resources to ignore consequences to themselves. The Bush government may feel free to plunge the country into massive debt, and strain society to the limit by sending thousands of National Guard weekend warriors to get picked off one by one in the Middle East, but American families will feel the real pain. Nobody except well paid ideologues are going to be happy that the U.S. is alienating allies who could help and share the burden. Now it will take a change of administration for that to happen.

Stories in the Boston Globe and elsewhere are already charging that this policy, ostensibly to reward Bush's allies among other nations, is more likely to reward only Bush's allies in U.S. business, because the countries excised from consideration are precisely the countries that have companies with the capabilities to compete for major contracts.

Shortly after this Pentagon announcement, another Pentagon office announced that Halliburton, one of the two U.S. companies to benefit most richly from the occupation of Iraq, has overcharged the government for gasoline. Every report mentions that Halliburton was headed by vice-president Cheney.

These reports hurt immediately because they say that things are not likely to get better in Iraq in the future. Other reports dramatized how wrong things are going right now. Besides the guerrilla war and terrorist bombings, the growing suspicion that more civilians are being killed and injured and the charges that information about all of this is being covered up, there was the report that between a third and half of the recently recruited new Iraqi army has quit. We assume this is going to set back the timetable for turning over security and so on to Iraqis.

That's the first set of events. The second set concerns the political opposition. Al Gore, whose timing was suspect in his own 2000 campaign, came up with a thunderbolt of timing and surprise. He unexpectedly endorsed the candidacy of Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination, before even the first caucuses in Iowa let alone the first primary in New Hampshire.

The endorsement by the man who won the popular vote in 2000 is politically powerful, but what's more important is the basis for it. Gore said it was because of Dean's position on foreign policy and the war in Iraq specifically. Until now, the zeitgeist was unsure what issue was going to be emphasized in the election, the war or the economy. Of course they are related and they will both be debated, and no one knows which will be more important to voters ten months from now. But Gore's endorsement put Iraq at the top for the political moment. He emphasized its importance by saying he endorsed Dean now because the issue is so important, Democrats need to be uniting behind one candidate with this message ASAP. And the events described above as the first set, all happened shortly afterwards, making Gore's move not only bold but prescient.

Dean had other good news this week, solidifying his position at the frontrunner. But even if another candidate emerges later, Gore's endorsement has set the bar. And if it happens, this week may have been crucial to ending the Bush reign in 2004.

Sunday, November 23, 2003

The Speed of Right and the Right to Lie


With a little historical memory, the speed of change in what you hear through the media about Iraq is really amazing. It took years for members of Congress (except for the few usual mavericks) to gingerly question the Vietnam war, and they were very careful just how much they could challenge. Even George McGovern in 1972 had to be fairly circumspect. And almost anyone from 1965 to 1974 who condemned leaders for the war risked being pilloried for being unpatriotic. Questioning the motives of Nixon and Kissinger was left to anti-American radicals and radical playwrights.

Six months ago we were writing in these columns about the post Iraq war freeze on criticism, citing the most feeble notes of questioning by reporters who were summarily quashed.

But try listening to a bona fide presidential candidate, a retired army general yet, Wesley Clark. He is saying out loud what only the most “extreme” (i.e. knowledgeable and sensible) observers and experts were saying just before and just after Iraq II, about weapons of mass destruction, motives for going to war, the overall highjacking of the post-9/11 emotion, the perils of occupation and “reconstruction.” He’s questioning the veracity of the President and his puppets (or puppeteers.)

The amazing thing isn’t so much that all these folks were right, and we’re forced to watch the tragedies inevitably unfold as U.S. violence injects growth hormones into anti-western insurgencies. The startling thing is that the opposition critique has become establishment so quickly.

But that’s an observation without much effect, for it doesn’t change things much, and unless one of several Democrats is elected President, it never will. Part of the reason is that no matter how fast the truth catches up, lies are faster. And lies work.

There probably isn’t a more salient or depressing fact about American politics these days than that: lies work. Get enough powerful officials with powerful rich friends to say the same thing over and over, and lies work. You get the war you wanted, a cynical and dangerous fraud instead of real health care help. Buy enough TV time and tell the right lies, and you can convince poor people in Alabama to vote against tax reform which would benefit them more than any other group. That’s what happened in the referendum there, and the role of TV is particularly clear in the companion fact that a higher proportion of poor voted against reform than did the rich, who were going to see their taxes go up. So were corporate taxes, which even after being raised would be nowhere near what corporations pay in other states, and that’s where the money for all the lying ads came from.

Lies work also because there is no legal, moral or cultural opposition to them. Lies of all kinds get on the air as long as they’re in political advertising, with no legal penalty or remedy. Lies are so outrageous and frequent that there is no cultural sanction—the public isn’t scandalized by them, especially if the lies are exciting enough. The excitement is more important than the truth. Besides, these are focus group tested lies. They are lies crafted to evoke particular fears, or play to particular prejudices.

Political lies paid for by corporations don’t get newspapers too upset. After all, their existence depends on pages full of corporate lies called advertising.

The Right to Lie is the lifeblood of the Rabid Right. It’s become a kind of science: the rapid-fire attack of one lie after another, the more sensational and provocative and outrageous the better, because that gets more attention. By the time a lie can be confronted, ten more have replaced it (gone but not forgotten.) This is augmented by the slick lie, the well-done lie by highly paid and highly skilled professional liars in concept and execution. There is a gleeful excitement to all this. Lying is great for the adrenal glands. Lying brings people together. Can you top this one? How did you get them to fall for that one? Let’s work together and blitz them with one Big Lie. Repeat it and repeat it. They’ll try to refute it, but by next week we can refer to it as if were proven truth. Because everybody will remember it. Lying is fun. It’s the game of politics. It’s how you win the right friends and influence the right people. So you won’t wind up being one of those wimps sitting on the sidewalk singing Kumbaya, or living in a hovel or a cardboard box. No more sniveling: lie your way to power. It’s easy, it’s fun and it’s oh so profitable.

So maybe some folks are getting away with telling some uncomfortable truths. But don’t worry, there are more lies on the way. The Bushies will have a quarter of a billion dollars to play with, and that’s just the A team. Corporations have trained us and acculturated us to the thematic lie, the specific lie, the implied lie, the bold lie, the narrated and dramatized lie, the visually dazzling lie. Crash some images together, create the right emotion and the same corporations that sell you drugs you don’t need will sell you the candidates who will make sure that those drugs stay really really expensive.

They’ve dumbed down the country, shafted schools to build prisons, and they’re busy sealing the deal with all morons all the time television. But you can’t blame the victims here. Most people know they’re being lied to. It’s just hard to live thinking the worst of the people running your world. And the lies are so many, and they are so good at finding the vulnerabilities, that they still work. As long as lies and liars get a free ride, we’re going nowhere but down the drain.


Thursday, November 06, 2003

Democracy? Or Something Else?

President G.W. Bush has done his vision thing. He claims that his vision is to bring democracy to the Middle East. But his record in Iraq tells a different story. There he is bringing a particular kind of imitation democracy: the kind with pay-to-play elections, and above all, one dominated by the military corporate political complex, with global corporations as the dominant governors and beneficiaries. It is a corporate democracy without labor unions, or protection for workers, families or the environment.


What's going wrong in Iraq? Bloody political struggles, vicious guerilla warfare, the chaos of the tragically unforeseen or just inadequate planning, the accumulating consequences of self-righteousness and hubris---all these are widely reported and discussed. But just reading the newspaper and surfing the net yields another answer, as bitter as any and more familiar than most: greed.

The dots are there to be connected. They outline a portrait of corporate greed, arm-in-arm with political greed, an all-too familiar marriage in America, now being exported instead of democracy.

The United States government has taken on the responsibility of running and rebuilding Iraq. But even now, some 70% of the Iraqi workforce is unemployed. High unemployment preceded the war to some extent, but there were government subsidies for basic needs that now are gone. The army of some 400,000 men was disbanded, without pay or pension. The country's manufacturing has shut down. Basic services like electricity and water are still spotty and uncertain. For a society with a substantial middle class, with an urbanized and educated population, this is catastrophe. This is slow motion forest fire, combined with daily earthquakes.

And, of course, it is recipe for violence. For the angry and desperate, modern arms are easily obtained. It is apparently easy to steal as well from virtually unguarded American ammo dumps; military manpower has reportedly been diverted to searching for phantom weapons of mass destruction. This is not to claim that all the violence is spontaneous and unorganized, nor to attempt to identify any of the perpetrators.

What is the American occupation doing about all this? Apart from recruiting for a security force and hiring a few Iraqis to pick up trash and scour sewers for paltry wages, the U.S. is providing a huge object lesson in how corporate democracy works.

Most of large contracts for Iraq's reconstruction have gone to a small number of U.S. corporations, and as the Center for Public Integrity recently reported, most were large donors to the Bush 2000 campaign. The corporations with the closest ties to Bush and members of his administration are among those reaping the biggest benefits.

San Francisco based Bechtel and its subsidiaries alone got 10 contracts worth more than $1 billion. (Several of its officials serve on important Bush administration boards, and former Bechtel executive and Bush advisor George Shultz remains on its board of directors.) But the star so far is energy conglomerate Halliburton, which vice president Cheney ran until 2000. Thanks largely to its Iraq contracts, Halliburton's sales rose 39% in the third quarter this year to over four billion dollars. The profits of its Kellogg, Brown and Root unit operating in Iraq quadrupled on an 80% increase in sales. In just three months, KBR delivered an operating profit of $34 million on revenues of $900 million. Its contracts in Iraq were worth more than $2 billion.

These profits were registered while two U.S. Members of Congress accused KBR of importing gasoline into Iraq at inflated prices, with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill. (This is not the first time KBR has been accused of gouging the U.S. government. In 1997 the company was sued for overcharging the U.S. army on plywood.) Iraqi importers are bringing in oil and gasoline for much less, as Halliburton itself admits. Which raises a very interesting question: why are U.S. companies getting contracts to do what Iraqi companies could be doing? After all, Iraqi companies and professionals built much of what needs to be re-built. Wouldn't the sane-not to mention the decent-thing be to give Iraqis these contracts, and employ Iraqi workers?

One answer is that this may be happening, in a way. Bechtel claims to be employing some 30,000 Iraqis. Iraqi companies are indeed subcontracting to do reconstruction work, but these contracts are controlled by huge American corporations. According to at least one usually dependable as well as eloquent Iraqi blog ("Baghdad Burning" at www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com) these Iraqi firms are doing so often at much lower costs than U.S. corporations estimated. The documented case of the Iraqi gasoline importer lends credence to this generalization. But the blog goes on to assert that savings doesn't go either to the Iraqis or back to U.S. taxpayers. It goes in the pocket of the corporations that overestimated the costs and got the contracts. This is certainly worth investigation by American journalists.

There are other disquieting assertions. U.S. companies are importing unskilled labor from Southeast Asia and elsewhere to work on their projects in Iraq. Officially this is because of security concerns, but getting workers at less than Iraqis would be paid adds to corporate profits. Labor journalist David Bacon has also charged that the Bush administration is systematically destroying labor unions in Iraq, and ignoring labor rights in its planning for Iraq's future. "Baghdad Burning" reports that Iraqi businesses must go through the KBR corporation, rather than the provisional government, in order to do business in their own country. This observer within Iraq concurs with western journalists who conclude that there is a concerted effort to privatize even basic services in Iraq, so global corporations rather than any Iraqi government will essentially control Iraq.

Journalist Bacon claims that none of the $87 billion just appropriated by Congress will go to Iraqi workers or to the Iraqi unemployed. (Others assert that there is no indication within the bill of how the figure of $19 billion for reconstruction was arrived at, nor are there provisions for how it will be spent.) If workers and the unemployed are left out, at least the Bush administration is consistent. That $87 billion is money that will not go to the unemployed in America (and despite the purported spurt in growth this quarter, more jobs were lost). None of it goes to hard-pressed workers or their families: to the parents who will see their Social Security dwindle and the children who will have their futures mortgaged by deficits. Short-sighted greed rules here in the U.S. as well. Yet no one will be surprised if those same corporations currently at the trough for Iraq, soon pony up again to contribute to the Bush war chest, expected to exceed $200 million for the next campaign.

What might be expected of the American electorate is a complex question. But even considering the other factors operating in Iraq, it's not hard to see how such bold greed would contribute to the kind of violence and tribulation we are probably just beginning to see there. It also provides a picture of what the Bush Vision truly means.



Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Global week in review: the Dash Brothers of the Roundtable


PHINEAS
Gathered again at the old Drink & Think, to mull over the events of the week, with some mulled wine perhaps.

GABRIEL
Weak mulled wine.

MORGAN
Very weak.

CHRISTOPHER
Any good news?

THERON
Depends. Civilization continues its increasingly swift decline into self-annihilation accompanied by tragic self-parody. Is that good or bad?

MORGAN
The Yankees lost.

PHINEAS
There you go.

CHRISTOPHER
What's the first legalese phrase any of us learned?

GABRIEL
Any rebroadcast of the pictures and accounts of this game without the expressed written consent of Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited.

CHRISTOPHER
You got it.

THERON
The war against terrorism got clarified. According to one of the Generals, it's the Christians against Islam.

CHRISTOPHER
The Crusades 2003. Another sequel.

MORGAN
It's more like Judeo-Christianity/Islam against Buddhism. That's the real conflict, in effect. On every level.

THERON
I don't know, you've got to give Dick Cheney credit. He said there were al qeda in Iraq and sure enough, there are.

GABRIEL
A whole new meaning to self-fulfilling prophesy.

THERON
Pretty soon there'll be WMD too.

PHINEAS
Speaking of Halliburton, our reconstruction money is not only going to good old lobbyist-heavy American companies instead of the Iraqi companies and professionals who built the stuff in the first place-you know, the stuff we bombed-but our efficiency minded companies there are hiring cheap labor from really poor countries to improve their bottom line, while half of the Iraqi workforce is unemployed.

THERON
Lessons in free enterprise don't come cheap.

PHINEAS
The Red Cross got bombed. The idea that wars had rules was always absurd in a way. But now that wars don't have rules---

THERON
Like pre-emptive defense?

PHINEAS
Exactly--then it's beyond absurd. It's not absurd horror. It's pure horror.

CHRISTOPHER
That's what we've got cable news for--absurd horror.

GABRIEL
How about them Democrats?

MORGAN
It's Anybody But Bush. And Lieberman.

GABRIEL
Look at the best seller list--all those liberals.

MORGAN
Only if you have "lies" in the title. The public may not know much. The public may not want to know much. But they know everybody is lying. And they want everybody to know that.

THERON
So to sum up: Iraq is fiery chaos, as are southern California suburbs and the sun. You know, the solar flares thing. Anything else?

CHRISTOPHER
The Kansas City Chiefs were kind of fun to watch this week.

PHINEAS
We're coming closer and closer to some ultimate understanding of our place in the universe.

MORGAN
And some woman at a coffee bar will get the final insight just as the Vorgons destroy the planet to make way for a cosmic bypass.

PHINEAS
Something like that. Though truth is stranger than even science fiction.

THERON
Happy Halloween!

Thursday, October 23, 2003

Here it comes...

Here's Allen Ginsberg in a 1982 interview talking about his sudden realization of 1958: "And so in 1958, on Independence Day, I wrote an essay saying that America was going to have a nervous breakdown, and that part of the cause of it could be located in that year's 30 billion dollar military budget and the growth of the military police state; that one aspect of it was the persecution of the junkies and the drug people who were basically sensitives who may or may not have been fucked up but needed compassion and medical care rather than Swatsika-like police agencies chasing them down with guns, calling them fiends, which is a terrible violation of the human spirit to create a class of people in America called fiends,--I mean, it's diabolical...once you realize you've got a class of armed police calling another group fiends you've really got a situation so surrealistic and hallucinatory and violent that there could be no outcome but some massive nervous breakdown in America when people find out that they've not only been lied to but drawn into a dream of reality which is not only false but painful and bitter and murderous."

So you notice that the total military budget he's talking about is about half of what Bush is asking for the military for Iraq alone this year. Thirty billion could buy you a nuclear arsenal in those days. And now we have the ongoing War on Some Drugs, which is the war on the class of fiends, losers, non-white cultures and non-corporate capitalists. Maybe the junkies today are more than proportionately more dangerous in some ways, but likely mostly to themselves.

What's interesting here is: how long has it been since anybody has called this a violation of the human spirit? Who talks like that anymore? Here in this false and painful and bitter and murderous nightmare of reality. Maybe it's a stretch to see the street junkies as sensitives, but on the other hand, many addicts are, or were. We hear a little more about treatment now thanks dubiously to Rush Limbaugh, but basically the war goes on.

How did we avoid that nervous breakdown? Denial is apparently a very powerful thing, aided by shopping. Our prisons are chock full of black men, but of course no racism is involved. The poor were joined by the working poor and now by the lower middle class and the middle middle a family crisis or two behind in being driven to insolvency and therefore homelessness by medical bills. But to talk about the rich paying a fair share of taxes is to engage in class warfare.
We dare not ask why terrorists find supporters in their countries, any more than we ask why people in our cities and towns turn to drugs. Well, they sure can't turn to us.

Think about this: everybody knows that more people are murdered in America than anywhere else. (We don't count revolutions and genocides of course.) So we get tough on crime and we watch cop show after cop show after cop show, all those tough smart guys solving homicides and struggling with the perverse legal system to make the bad guys pay because somehow this helps the dead victims. But what we don't know, can't admit, sure can't face, is that there are fewer homicides in America than suicides.

(cue: song) Here it comes...here it comes...

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

Film at 11

by Morgan Dash

On the night that the conglomerate media candidate claimed victory, the Turner Classic Movie Channel happened to be running all three Boris Karloff Frankenstein films. A fine counterpoint and counterpart to what must have been shown on the cable news channels.

I expect to be watching the Turner Classic Movie Channel exclusively for the foreseeable future. Thank you and goodnight from California.

Dictatorship Made Easy

One of us here at American Samizat suggested some months ago that the Bush Administration attack on Iraq, and in fact its basic response to 9-11, would reverberate throughout the world, emboldening new violence from friend as well as foe. The evidence of this sad unfolding continues its deadly march.

Allies most conspicuous in their frequent, continuing and escalating assertion of the right to various new violent policies have been Israel and Russia. Israel's attack on Syria is the latest instance. It may have been a single attack on a terrorist base, but it shattered the precedents that had limited violence in the region, with consequences that could be extremely dire. The U.S. had little choice but to agree that Israel could attack a sovereign nation in order to fight terrorism.

The point is not that any specific move is or isn't justified by circumstances. But that violent reaction is now the first reaction, a first resort rather than only with the most extreme justification. Iraq did that, and so did the response to 9-11, a combination of cynical exploitation and giving in to the reflex of fear, a sad abdication of leadership and an even sadder abdication of the people's responsibilities in a republic.

Israel is not the only instance. In moves that have not made conspicuous headlines here, Russia has recently asserted its right to preemptive strikes on other countries, and it has followed the Bush administration in considering the use of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons. While the U.S. has in fact used weapons in Iraq that push closer to the definition of nuclear, and the Bush administration wants to pursue several avenues of research into smaller scale nuclear weapons, Russia has suggested it might actually use battlefield nukes. But about the only people who noticed were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the city governments protested such a policy.

There is little that the U.S. can say about other nations breaking peaceful precedents or consensual restraints without being more obviously hypocritical than usual. The Bush administration is encouraging a more violent, more dangerous world.

George Orwell pointed out that what dictatorships require more than anything else is an enemy. That includes dictatorships of the proletariat, and this brazen attempted dictatorship of the oligarchy. But what the Bush administration is creating is a world of enemies. All the better to scare you with, my dears.

Stanley Crouch points out that the real lesson of the death camps is often missed, and it is that a supposedly educated, advanced, modern society is not automatically saved by those conditions from committing acts of genocidal barbarism. This may be the greatest country in the history of the world and all that, but that's no guarantee of virtue or self-knowledge.

Let's get a little perspective here. Nearly a month after a hurricane brushed by, one of the wealthiest communities in the world (in suburban Virginia) is still without telephone service. Millions of people were without electricity for days and some for weeks. These and other accidents and acts of nature reveal vulnerabilities that aren't likely to be addressed by bombing people in foreign countries. Our homeland isn't even secure against hurricanes, let alone terrorism. In our homes we are not secure against illness or unemployment. At the same time the health care system is falling apart because the health insurance system is crazed and collapsing under its own weight, it is more and more acceptable morally, culturally and socially for medical care to be denied those who need it but can't pay, and for those who can't get decently paying work or any work at all to slip into homelessness from the middle class in a matter of months.

Out of fear and self-righteous denial, lost in a televised delusion, we are becoming a cruel and callous people. We may wallow in our sentimental attachment to the television tragedy of the hour, but we are numbed to the crises around us. As long as we are distracted by speed and yoked to the chariots of fashion as we cycle endlessly through the maze of earn and spend, blind to our real motivations and the consequences of our public attitudes and actions, we will continue to be so easy to manipulate that dictatorship may as well be automated, carried out by computer chips in every appliance of our lives.

Monday, October 06, 2003

Can they recall?

In little more than 24 hours, the CA polls will open for the recall election. What will voters be thinking about? Will they recall the reasons so many thought Bush was more likable than Gore and therefore should be president, because 4 years of him on TV would be easier to stomach? Or that there was really no difference between Bush and Gore so it didn't matter which one you voted for, or especially if you voted for someone else?

Do they recall that when they took out their frustrations on their ballots, the U.S. was at peace, and the federal government had huge surpluses predicted into the indefinite future--enough to fix social security and Medicare and redress the inequities and injustices and meet the federal responsibilities pretty much everybody agrees on, but that the Reagan-Bush era bled of funding?

Arnold was a bad idea before, and for California, quite possibly a tragic idea. Now of course it's worse. On Sunday the allegations against him virtually disappeared from TV news. But to read a detailed story about even the latest round (which brings the number of women lodging accusations to 15) is to be convinced that there's something really wrong here.

Hold your nose, California, and vote against recall. Vote for Bustamante. Despite the conventional wisdom, which is puzzling at best, that he has run a bad campaign, he remains the most viable, honorable and most attractive candidate. He'd probably make a better governor than Davis. He'd certainly shake things up, and the issues would be defined for all to see, instead of this murky muddiness coming out of Sacramento.

But what we definitely don't want is the kind of whim and denial in the voting booth that gave us Bush, war, confusion, billions of dollars of debt and responsibilities way into the future, crippling our own country, causing untold suffering and hardship, and leaving us more vulnerable than ever.

Unfortunately this sorry circus probably won't even be over soon---the vote counting may turn into another extended nightmare. Yet as weird as this campaign has been (when the guy who promoted the recall ends up advising people to vote against recalling Davis, and one of the candidates drops out and throws her support against the recall) this isn't virtual reality. What happens Tuesday will have real consequences for real people throughout California, the U.S. and the world. As well as for the world that will face beings not yet born.

Sunday, October 05, 2003

Fairness

In the last frenzied weekend of the recall campaign, the Arnold army is screaming that he isn't being treated fairly. Arnold is being accused of a variety of possibly criminal acts, allegedly committed at various times and in various places over the past thirty years. As of Saturday, the number of women publicly making these charges reached 11. The election is Tuesday.

The rhetoric on both sides heated up, with Governor Davis suggesting some of the alleged offenses are of a criminal nature, and likely to distract a governor from governing the state. At the same time, Arnold charged that Davis was behind these "dirty campaign" tactics, and his campaign manager fumed that the L.A. Times was politically motivated, and not fit to own a printing press.

The Los Angeles Times newspaper, which broke these stories, claims it printed them as soon as they were deemed ready, using ordinary professional journalistic standards. Arnold's opponents claim they are not the sources of the stories, nor has any evidence surfaced that they are.

A barrage of such charges so close to election day allows little time for point by point refutation, and unleashing them at this time certainly seems unfair. But the entire recall process is unfair. Apart from its basic injustice, especially when it resembles a prosecution of a duly elected governor on unspecified crimes, the recall does not follow the normal rules of elections. The Arnold campaign didn't balk at the comparatively short period of campaigning when it was to Arnold's advantage.

As a major celebrity, Arnold had an easy time promoting his candidacy. Major media was quivering at his feet. His visibility and celebrity persona behind a feckless but focus group tested emotional message moved the polls. Together with the money this celebrity and this apparently foregone coronation attracted, his millions bought still more air time for slick celebrity commercials. There was not very much time to look at his ideas, his policies, his past, and his fitness for office. Millions got a chance to see and hear him. No one got a chance to know him.

In a normal campaign cycle, these allegations might well have surfaced weeks or months before the election. The Arnold people must have hoped they would outrun this barrage. They didn't quite make it. Arnold may still become governor, but it's not clear he could govern.

Still, there is another issue of fairness that is quite troubling. Last week the polls seemed to indicate that Arnold would win. Someone interpreted the numbers to a single story line: it was an Arnold vs. Davis race. This despite the actual poll numbers which showed Governor Davis being recalled by a margin greater than that between Arnold and his main challenger, Cruz Bustamante.

This so-called campaign began with a media blitz of Arnold images. Despite that first barrage, early polls showed Bustamante ahead. He was actually seen on television news and interview programs a few times after that. Then new polls showed Arnold ahead, and Cruz completely disappeared. Even after these allegations became news, the pictures were still of Arnold and occasionally of Davis. Bustamante had to be content with debating the other Republican on state PBS stations.

Cruz Bustamante is Latino. He has been criticized for championing, and being supported by, California Indian casinos. In a week that saw a powerful white male media creation get booted from a sports show for a "racially insensitive" (and pretty stupid) comment concerning a black quarterback, there was no visible awareness of the racial implications of this campaign and how it is covered.

But even apart from issues of fairness concerning race, there are basic issues of fairness in covering elections. As electronic media in this country grew, a civic culture that treated elections as serious matters and news as important, together with laws and FCC regulations such as "equal time" provisions and the Fairness Doctrine, generally ensured as a matter of course that the major candidates would get fair and more or less equal treatment. There would be some attempt at balance, and it was likely that on every news report, what each major candidate said and did that day would be reported. On television, pictures of one candidate would invariably be followed by pictures of the other.

As limited as it was (especially on non-major candidates) all of that is gone now. The basic fairness necessary for fair elections has been sacrificed to the same market-driven, celebrity-dependent and sensationalist priorities as rule entertainment and commercials.

The Reagan era death of the Fairness Doctrine has permitted the wholesale takeover of radio and cable TV talk by self-righteous, self-promoting rabid right know-it-alls. The wholesale takeover of broadcasting frequencies and cable bandwidth by a handful of conglomerates keeps discourse within profitable bounds. They have all learned how to push the glandular fight-or-flight buttons of the public, and so they compete for the highest numbers with lowest common denominator violence seasoned with eye-candy and brain-nicotine.

After all those sweaty monosyllabic epics, Arnold the Barbarian should have figured out by now that he who lives by the sword can die by the sword after the next commercial.

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Arnold Inflames Racism Against California Indians: Not To Be

We thought it would be classism that defined the California recall campaign, but maybe we were wrong. It's turning out to be racism.

We thought that Bustamante's call to tax the rich and the corporations at higher rates would inspire the traditional Republican reflex, always done with a straight face, of charging "class warfare." Instead, we've got Arnold, the Aryan strongman, inciting race warfare. And he's doing it with great success, it seems.

It's really the only explanation for the traction he's getting by making false charges against American Indians and the casinos that some tribes operate. It is of course true that the casinos provide money for these tribes to contribute to politicians, just as corporations provide money to contribute to politicians. But we don't hear about corporations or the rich having undue influence, or not paying their fair share to the state government. We hear Arnold braying his false charges about the tribes not contributing, even though they do pay millions of dollars directly to the state, as well as relieving the state of millions of dollars more they would be spending for social services and schools and health in a number of communities.

Arnold, who makes his money in one branch of entertainment, is pandering to the guilt involved in a different form of entertainment. The kind of people who gamble are not much different from the kind of people who go to Arnold's movies, but actors are no longer considered innately sinful.

Most non-Indians don't understand what the relationship of tribes is to the state government, to local communities or to the federal government. It is admittedly a complex set of relationships, but Arnold is exploiting that lack of understanding. He's lying, but it's a lie that plays to prejudices derived from ignorance. Focus group tested pandering, no doubt.

Behind this ignorance, feeding these prejudices, is the oldest form of racism in California's history. It is racism against American Indians. In the past it resulted in Indian slavery, in massacres both notorious and unheralded, in policies of extermination, in cultural destruction, in the all-American genocide. It continues to result in injustices every day of the week. This racism is exhibited in the habit of turning Indian reservations into toxic waste dumps, as well as in apparently "small" ways such as racist names and logos for sports teams like the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians, that would not for a moment be tolerated if they involved any other ethnic group.

So it is this racism that may tip the balance. (Interesting that the media swallows whole the rabid right vocabulary: repeating the "inciting class warfare" line, but calling racism "playing the race card." Why don't they call it "inciting race warfare" and "playing the class card"?)

It makes sense in that unconscious racism is of a piece with the appeal to the undifferentiated anger towards everybody in government for the mess we're in, as if "sending a message" is what voters are actually going to be responsible for doing in the recall election. They are apparently poised to lose their minds and go with their raw rage, and then find themselves with a governor who must lead and make decisions. And nobody has the first clue as to what he will do. Will he gut Medicaid to balance the budget? We have absolutely no idea.

His big appeal is hollow in terms of policy. There is in fact nothing a governor can do to force Indian tribes to cough up more money---that's a fantasy on the order of sending Arnold over to Iraq to clean up the Taliban in ninety-five minutes, while we munch popcorn and cheer.

Arnold seems to think that the governor's job is promotion. Wonder where he got that idea? He's been watching too many old Ronald Reagan G.W. Bush cowboy movies. He's also made it clear that promoting is how you make something "successful" (like bodybuilding) and anything you say can be morally justified if it is done to promote something.

In one of his movies (which he promotes along with his campaign) he recites the famous Hamlet line as he decides whether or not to kill the "bad" guy. To be or not to be? Not to be, he concludes. That's the quality of his solution. It's very satisfying. It isn't real.

Apparently a lot of Californians want to get rid of "the bad guy," or at least the only one they can in this election (polls also show that legislators, Republican as well as Democrat, are as unpopular as Governor Gray Davis). They are currently being aided and abetted by the media that has been promoting Arnold relentlessly, and now seems breathless in anticipation of a star quality governor with media savvy handlers who will provide them with great video and magazine covers.

The problem isn't getting rid of the bad guy. The problem is having a governor who can govern, and electing that governor--even in the sham of a recall election no longer supported by the man who started it---on the basis of policies and political abilities. What are Arnold's policies? Are they based on oversimplified and distorted information as are the few statements he has let slip concerning what he would actually do as governor? What are his political, as distinguished from promotional and "acting" abilities? We don't know that either. The question to be or not to be may hinge on the question of whether enough Californians care about what we know and what we don't know.

There's still a week to go. The election itself may still hinge on turnout. But if the media blitz for Arnold and the accompanying perception that the only choice is Davis or Arnold (though Cruz Bustamante is within eight poll points of Arnold, he has utterly disappeared from media reporting) combine to discourage union and Latino voters and real Democrats from voting, then California will enter its own nightmare. (Another California nightmare would be if Bustamante loses by a vote total equivalent to the Green Party candidate's total.) It will only amplify the national nightmare--let;s face it, the global nightmare---of the Bush administration, and not just for Californians.

A White House divided

At the moment of this musing, there is a furor over the outing of a CIA undercover operative, who happened to be the wife of a turncoat Bush I appointee who represented the U.S. in Iraq during Gulf War I but who recently has criticized Bush II and Gulf War II. Someone described so far only as a "senior Administration official" named the name to columnist Robert Novak and perhaps five or six other journalists, violating federal law. This is high crimes stuff, as well as being the latest hoist by their own petard turnabout for the Bushies, for it seems the motivation of the outing was to intimidate and punish a supposed political traitor, the kind of vicious "hardball" that's become a standard weapon in the arsenal of the self-righteous rabid right.

But what makes this additionally interesting is how it might relate to earlier evidence of a White House cracking and splitting under pressure.


At first the main publicized conflict was State v. Defense, the big rivalry in the Bush administration, though Iraq proved that to be less than a drama hungry press made it out to be. There was something called "The White House" that choose actions and policies from those offered by the moderate internationalist State or the American Empire rabid rightists of Defense and Justice, like items off a mix and match menu.

But in the quagmire phase of the Iraqi occupation, the central control of the White House seems to be unraveling, and the entity itself is showing fractures. It used to be the Bush-Cheney White House, with Bush the on-air personality and marketing guy, and Cheney the invisible string-puller from his undisclosed location behind and above the stage.

The first major sign of a serious divide, though little noted at the time, was the public repudiation by the Bush wing of v.p. Cheney's contention that Saddam and the Iraqis were implicated in 9-11 terrorism. This could indicate that while the Bush people aren't backing off the course previously set in Iraq, they aren't anxious to continue the headlong rush to defeat the axis of evil, the suicidal recklessness of which must be obvious even to them by now. At the very least it was cautioning to the Cheney wing to not get publicly ahead of the Bush line.

This, as well as GW's smug challenge for anyone with information on who told who what concerning the CIA exposure to come forward, suggests that the revenge play originated with the Cheney people, either in the White House or elsewhere in the government.

While we may yet see a sacrificial lamb offer itself up, we may also be looking at the possibility of a Cheney withdrawal from the 04 ticket, for health reasons. But even if it plays out very differently, these signs suggest a White House divided against itself. Meanwhile, the Iraq situation deteriorates, Bush's big UN speech didn't get him any international help, the U.S. armed forces are getting restive over the dithering and wasted by the strain of being overcommitted, American voters are wondering why Iraq schools are getting money and U.S. schools are being bled. Meanwhile, the poverty rate has gone up for the second year in a row, confidence in the economy is down, and the number of Americans without health insurance jumped last year by the highest percentage since the last time the Republicans lost the White House. It's a time for action in the public interest, and this White House, incapable of such so far on ideological grounds, may be too divided to respond even if it wanted to.