Byrd puts Iraq costs in perspective
   Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., this morning brought out some interesting facts, for comparison's sake, about the administration's spending intentions for President Bush's Iraq War and its aftermath.
   Speaking on the Senate floor, Byrd pointed out that the $87 billion supplemental budget request for Iraq, which includes both military outlays and an expansive shopping list of upgrade and development projects, is for a greater sum than all the money in the economies of 166 of the world's nations. It's also for more than all the money in the economies of about half the states of the Union. The Iraq war's cost is approaching the cost of World War I, he added.
   Byrd, who had expressed extreme skepticism about the wisdom of and need for a U.S. invasion of Iraq before the fact, made the following points in a Sept. 17 speech:

   "A generation of `sacrifice' may also mean a slow sapping of key national priorities, including repairing the infrastructure which fuels our economic engine and funding the institutions and programs which benefit all Americans.
   "Compare the latest request for the Iraq Supplemental with the commitment in dollars to other vital programs and the picture becomes clear. President Bush is asking for $87 billion for Iraq, but only $34.6 billion for Homeland Security. He wants $87 billion for Iraq, but only $66.2 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services. The President seeks $87 billion to secure Iraq, but only $52.1 billion for the Department of Education. He wants $87 billion to shore up Iraq but only $29.3 billion for America's highways and road construction.
   "For the State Department and foreign aid for the entire world, President Bush sees a need for only $27.4 billion, yet Iraq is worth over three times that much to this White House.
   "Remember that that $87 billion is just for 2004 alone. Does anyone really believe that it will be the last request for Iraq?"

   One thing's for sure. When a president of the United States buys the country a pig in a poke, the price always weighs heavily on those who must pay the bill.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:48 PM

 
Weekend whacks
Abyss at one end of the bridge to 21st century department
   Commerce Department figures for July show the U.S. had bought $126.5 billion in foreign goods and services, increasing the difference between what we sold to the world and bought from it by a whopping $40.3 billion. We're well on track to blow the 2002 trade deficit figure away by year's end with a $600 billion-plus deficit for 2003.
   We can't keep this up, folks. Foreign countries finance all that difference cost — read debt — and, at some point, they're going to start demanding more money for their money. That means higher interest rates ahead for American businesses that might want to borrow money to finance expansion, hiring, new ventures, etc. It means higher interest ahead for home, vehicle and appliance buyers. Those higher interest rates inevitably mean many business and consumer spending plans will be inhibited, dampening the whole economy and throttling President Bush's already lame, underpowered and largely ineffective bid for economic stimulus.
   This is a case of horrendously bad trade policy compounded by diabolically dumb economic policy. Please, everyone, pay attention and vote accordingly.

Aesthetics department
   Is it just us here at Oh!pinion or are some of the new sport utility vehicles just plain ugly? Oversized, overstyled, overpriced and all over the place. Some of the worst bear the biggest price tags. We saw one today that looked like its body design was inspired by an overstuffed 1930s-style sofa, with plastic accents all around. No, we're not eco-freaks opposed to SUVs, it's just the looks of some of them that put us off.

Parsing words department
   Applying strict standards of verbal communication, President Bill Clinton's relentless enemies dubbed him "Slick Willie." Turnabout being fair play, Oh!pinion applies those standards to Vice President "Slick Dick" Cheney. (Come on, minds out of the gutter, please; "Tricky Dick" won't do because it was retired with the passing of Richard Nixon; besides, "slick" and "Dick rhyme). We refer, of course, to Cheney's too-cute-by-half denial he's connected to Halliburton any more. Any source of hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing Oh!pinion's way (in our dreams, anyway) is a source we're connected to — big time. Boy, would we be connected.
   Sorry, Slick, but having princely sums coming in like clockwork from that big, well-connected and oh, so grateful corporation makes you connected, too. And that fact makes your statement to the contrary an exercise in deception.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:36 PM

 
No gloss, just an honest-to-goodness liberal
   As a presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich would benefit mightily from a generous helping of Sen. John Edwards' boyish charm. Add to that some of Sen. John Kerry's height. A dose of the Rev. Al Sharpton's ability to inject humor into the debates wouldn't hurt. And, while we're making the Ohio Democrat over, let's give him a Peter Jennings voice and throw in a few of JFK speechwriter Theodore Sorensen's elegant phrases. Wow, we've got a winner!
   Just fantasizing, of course. Kucinich is who and what he is: a determined, spunky guy who brings to the race a sharp mind and impressive energy. What's more, he's dedicated to the most thoroughgoing set of liberal-Democrat ideas and ideals to work the presidential campaign trail since Sen. George McGovern ran in 1972. After a long siege of Democratic candidates and officeholders who could best be described as Republican-lite types, Kucinich comes across as the real deal. For one thing, he doesn't hide behind the euphemistic "progressive" label all the time. He uses it, but also defiantly refers to himself as a liberal. At times, he comes across as a latter-day Truman.
   The neoconservatives who labored tirelessly (some would say fiendishly) for nine years to depict Bill Clinton as the great Satan of socialism would, in all likelihood, be driven completely 'round the bend by a Kucinich presidency. While such a denouement seems unlikely, it's fair to say that in a better America Kucinich would at least be well up in the polls in return for all his hard campaigning.
   The political landscape in the U.S. has shifted far to the right of where it was in the 1970s, so Kucinich no doubt puts many independents off, as well. Even they should respect the straightforward way in which he presents himself and his ideas. He doesn't shade his meanings for the crowd at hand and makes no apologies for his can-do liberalism. There should be a full-bore liberal in the Democratic Party and in the presidential race, and in 2003, Kucinich is that liberal.

   A visit to Kucinich's Web site makes clear this candidate isn't just after the perks and trappings of office. He's every bit as much about ideas and initiatives as Gov. Howard Dean, Kerry or any of the others. He is especially acute when it comes to trade and economic policy. Here's a sample:
   "With work that needs to be done, and people needing to work, what America needs is a way to put unemployed Americans to work rebuilding America's neglected infrastructure. The Kucinich plan will make that happen. The Kucinich plan calls for the creation of a low-cost federal financing mechanism to administer $50 billion in zero-interest loans every year to localities for infrastructure projects for ten years. Twenty percent of these funds would be targeted for school construction and repair.
   ". . . The Kucinich plan will put Americans back to work. Two million Americans would find jobs in such enterprises as rebuilding schools, designing roads, refurbishing environmental projects, manufacturing steel for water systems. And the Kucinich plan will increase the quality of life in America, by making highways safer, water cleaner, and schools more conducive to learning."
   To learn the full details of Kucinich's economic recovery plan, surf over to his Spirit of Freedom Web site.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:38 PM

 
Privatize air traffic control? Not on your life!
   Who in their right mind would want to turn the responsibilities of America's firefighters over to private businesses? Who in their right mind would turn the duties of all our police departments over to commercial interests? If the U.S. were to be offered 400 skilled former Soviet fighter pilots for half of what U.S. Air Force pilots cost, would anyone say, "Go for it; let's save some money"?
   Some services we pay for are too critically important to our health, safety, sense of well-being and notions of identity to turn over to some corporate appendage of a GE, Time Warner or Enron. We've kept these services in the public sector because we want the public's best interest, not the profit imperative of corporate management and stockholders, to come first in all that they do.
   Air traffic controllers are solidly a part of our public-service sector, trained, certified and employed by the Federal Aviation Administration to work in high-tension settings throughout the country. Over the years they have earned everyone's respect, and on Sept. 11, 2001, they performed exceptionally well under uncertain, unprecedented circumstances. But never mind all that, President Bush and Republicans in the House of Representatives are determined to impose changes on the nation's air controllers — changes not requested by the flying public, changes not wanted by the controllers themselves.
   HR 2115 is the House version of the $60 billion air transportation funding reauthorization bill due to replace legislation that expires Sept. 30. A provision designed to start an air traffic control privatization process was injected into the bill when Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee began playing hardball this summer.
   Here is an excerpt from an Aug. 28 letter alerting House Democrats to problems with HR 2115 and its conference report, and calling them to a Sept. 3 briefing on the matter. The letter was signed by Reps. James Oberstar, D-Minn., ranking member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., ranking member, Subcommittee on Aviation; Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., Democratic leader; and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Democratic whip.

   "The House and Senate bills that were taken to Conference had bipartisan support. In the Conference process, the Republicans decided to abandon bipartisanship. Shortly before the August recess, the Republicans determined that they would unilaterally decide a number of controversial issues that were before the Conference, including proposals that were not in either bill. There was a hastily summoned meeting of the conferees for which the agenda was limited to opening statements. The Democrats were permitted to make a substantive proposal on only one issue, after which the Conference was adjourned. The Republicans then unilaterally drafted a report and had Republican Conferees sign it. There was never a vote of the Conferees approving any portion of the Conference Report, much less an opportunity for Democrats to offer their own proposals.
   "The Report that came out of this sham process contains several provisions that jeopardize aviation safety and security, and that are strongly objected to by transportation workers and their unions, as well as the national AFL-CIO.
   "Despite strong House and Senate votes supporting a provision banning privatization of the FAA's air traffic control system, the bill authorizes FAA to contract with private industry to operate control towers at 69 airports, which includes the eighth busiest tower in the country, and six other towers in the busiest 50. Significantly, the Alaska delegation protected towers in their state, two of which were on the original list, against privatization."
   Since then, the Associated Press reported today, Bush offered to omit the part of the bill that would privatize air traffic control at 69 smaller airports, while insisting he has the power to privatize air control operations as he sees fit, presumably at a later time. Bush also agreed to remove language keeping air controllers in the public sector for only four years. Oberstar and DeFazio say there is really no compromise at all. They want an outright ban on privatization.
   Marion Blakey, head of the FAA, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's subcommittee on aviation this week that her agency already oversees private air controllers, who operate safely and save the agency "about $1 million per private tower." Currently, 219 or the country's 484 private airports have private contract air controllers.
   Blakey is under fire from the National Association of Air Controllers and the 11,000-member Professional Airways Systems Specialists union. A PASS news release charges Blakey with using "bullying tactics with its own employees" after she "sent a `Dear Colleague' e-mail to many (FAA) employees today . . . claiming there might be `the possibility of a furlough' if the administration's version of its reauthorization legislation doesn't pass as is before the end of this fiscal year, Sept. 30." The term "furlough" registers as a stinging provocation to air traffic controllers because it's the term Ronald Reagan used early in his presidency when he fired 11,000 members of the PATCO union.
   Air traffic controllers testifying before the subcommittee this week said contract air traffic control companies typically keep costs down by cheapskating training and understaffing towers they operate.

   Anyone who doubts private aviation businesses would ever do anything to compromise safety need only recall the chilling story of Alaska Airlines Flight 261. On Jan. 31, 2000, Flight 261 from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, en route to San Francisco and Seattle, crashed off the California coast with 88 souls on board. All of the men, women and children on that plane died.
   The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board spent three years investigating the crash. News reports said a former employee of an Oakland contract maintenance firm had told investigators that Alaska Airlines pressured his employer to minimize repair costs and plane downtimes. As a result, this informant said, Oakland maintenance had routinely pencil-whipped such checkout items as the condition of the tail stabilizer's jackscrew. That component, which gives the pilot control of the up-down movement of the plane's nose, was described as hard to get to and time-consuming and expensive to service. So, mechanics just marked it off on their checklists, gaining short-term savings of time, trouble and money.
   The NTSB final report attributed Flight 261's crash to lack of lubrication of the stabilizer's jackscrew.
   Long term, the mechanics' unconscionable corner cutting cost 88 innocent people their lives, caused horrendous pain and loss for countless loved ones and friends of the dead, and left Alaska Airlines and the Boeing Co. with tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars to pay out in settlements and wrongful death suit judgments.

   Who in their right mind would want to turn air traffic control duties over to businesses whose primary concerns are maximizing profits and minimizing costs? Better ask President Bush and the radical-right Republicans of the House. And then, ask them why.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:10 PM

 
What will our $87 billion really buy?
   Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, who heads the U.S. mission to restore and transform Iraq, testified before the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee Monday. Bremer's appearance, one of five he's to make before congressional committees this week, was clearly a bid to win support for President Bush's $87 billion supplemental budget request to finance the Iraq project.
   In the midst of questioning by the senators and almost off-handedly, Bremer revealed what could be an especially bitter pill for skeptical U.S. taxpayers to swallow. It came in response to a question from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-S.D., who had asked why Iraq's oil revenues couldn't be used to rebuild the country.
   Bremer responded that "it would be a mistake to lay any more debt onto the backs of the Iraqis. They are under a burden, an extraordinary burden, about roughly $100 (billion) to $120 billion of debt, entered into by Saddam's regime over the last 20 years or so, and another $90 (billion) to $100 billion in claimed reparations from countries because of Saddam's wars."
   Incredulous, Dorgan asked if the U.S. has really taken on the national debt Saddam Hussein ran up during his three decades in power. Bremer said that, under international law, the U.S. is obligated, at least "until something is done about that debt by a sovereign government, which will come into being after the elections."
   On further questioning, Bremer told the committee most of the debt is owed to France, Russia, Germany and Japan.
   From the $21 billion of the supplemental request to be allotted for reconstruction, as opposed to military operations, Bremer itemized the following planned outlays:

   � $5.7 billion for the electrical system
   � $2.1 billion for the oil infrastructure
   � $3.7 billion for clean water, sewer systems and related public works
   � $3.7 billion for water resources, transportation, telecommunications, housing/construction, health, private-sector development.

   "The main thrust of what we're trying to do here," Bremer said, "is get the fundamental preconditions, the economic and essential service preconditions that will allow Iraq to create a vibrant private sector which can then pay for itself." He also said he expects that Iraq should be able to finance its government and pay for some additional projects from the sales of its oil — by 2005.
   On Tuesday, a CNN report showed residents of central Iraq, some of them armed, celebrating triumphantly while several coalition military vehicles burned in the background. CNN's correspondent reported that the attack was the second of its kind in recent days. The defiant Iraqis claimed to be fighting for Saddam Hussein, for Islam and to get all Westerners out of their country. CNN's correspondent said the attackers appeared to be Iraqis, not hostiles from other countries.

   It's reasonable to ask, and members of the Senate Appropriations Committee should've asked, how likely it is that the good works purchased with another $21 billion of Americans' hard-earned money will meet the same fate as the destroyed trucks. Or the same fate as the destroyed U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Or the same fate as Iraq's oil pipelines that are being sabotaged as a matter of routine.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:26 PM

 
Class acts do homework ahead of time
   Attractive, charismatic characters with great name recognition come and go in politics all the time. Now and then, Americans benefit from the service of an outstanding leader. The key to this distinction can be appreciated in differing approaches to seeking high public office in the first place.
    In the late 1950s, Nelson A. Rockefeller brought together a number of academics and people from business, government and the professions to create several "white papers" about New York State's problems and possibilities. The resulting documents were detailed in newspapers, discussed at Rotary Club luncheons, corporate boardrooms and campus conferences throughout the state.
   When Rockefeller ran for governor in 1958, he had earned a list of public-service credits ranging from a stint on a county health board to high-level State Department positions and presidential commissions. He did all the usual campaign things — sampling pizza in Little Italy, hot dogs at Coney Island, blintzes in the Bronx, sipping Beaujolais on Manhattan's Upper West Side, kissing a baby here and there. But when he spoke, Rockefeller drew on those white papers, suggesting well-thought-out remedies for specific problems and new general approaches to fashioning the state's future.
   People got the impression Rockefeller was not just wealthy, well known and politically ambitious, but also a man of ideas and innovation, that he was serious about getting worthwhile things done.
   New Yorkers elected Rockefeller and he delivered. In his first four-year term he turned a budget shambles into a surplus, funded thousands of college scholarships, enhanced transportation and education infrastructure, won friends and influenced people to be helpful with his initiatives. His success can be measured in three successful re-election bids, 14 years in office.
   When Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had never run for even a school board seat, decided to run for governor of California this summer, he did a guest shot on Jay Leno's "Tonight" show to announce his candidacy. He had little more to say than that he was going to be Gov. Gray Davis' terminator. Since then, the popular actor and successful bodybuilder-entrepreneur has run a campaign marked by such profound statements as "hasta la vista, Baby" and that he will see to it children are first in line when the budget is written. Specifics about how he would manage one of the country's biggest, most diverse, populous and complicated states have been conspicuously absent.
   Last week, Gen. Wesley Clark, a man of splendid education, sharp intellect and considerable career attainments, announced he will seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president. His announcement, made in his hometown of Little Rock, was dignified, positive and public-spirited. While there is clear reason to believe Clark has much to offer by way of leadership skills and judgment, he entered the race saying little more than that he will do a better job for the average American than President George W. Bush is doing. Specifics, presumably, will be revealed as his campaign goes along.

   America is a land where anything is possible and leaders come from many corners of society and walks of life. There is a chance Schwarzenegger will win the governorship and do a good job. There is a chance Clark will win the nomination and go on to successful years in the White House. But the likelihood for both seems so much less than was the case for candidate Rockefeller in 1958, and the reason is simple. Rockefeller had done his homework before running, so he had lots more to offer people than just himself.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:02 PM

 
Toning up those conditioned responses
   A lowly junkyard owner I'll call Dan doesn't know it, but he has something in common with some high-level figures in American media and politics.
   Like many a junkyard, Dan's operation is located in a neighborhood where rents are low, taverns are near and crime is common. After several thefts and break-ins, Dan developed a highly effective security system.
   First, Dan built a taller, sturdier fence. Second, he brought in two very large, very menacing dogs, Bam and Ripper. Bam got his name by running through the door of his previous owner's home a couple of times — when the door was shut, locked and deadbolted. Ripper once got so mad at an SUV that made a growling noise on startup that he bit a five-inch chunk out of one of its all-terrain tires.
   Before going to bed most nights, Dan would emerge from his nearby mobile home for a stroll around the outside of his junkyard. He always carried a bamboo pole, which he would use to rattle several pairs of cans tied at intervals along the outside of the fence. This would get Bam and Ripper barking. The more they heard those cans, the louder and angrier their barking became. They would be in a frenzy by the time Dan rattled the last pair of cans.
   "Woe be unto the intruder those dogs catch up with, especially after I've revved 'em up a little," Dan liked to say, adding, "It helps to keep 'em in a high state of tension."

   Dan and his dogs came to mind this week when several cable talk show hosts and news anchors mentioned how the right-wing media machinery — radio squawk shows, Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. — were suddenly all abuzz with surmise about Sen. Hilary Clinton becoming a 2004 presidential candidate. The noise is reportedly based on something Bill Clinton said about there being two stars in the Democratic Party, his spouse and Gen. Wesley Clark.
   Now, it's no more possible to tell for sure whether the senator will break her vow to serve out her Senate term than it is to tell whether there's some central coordination behind all the chatter about her future career moves. For all that it's loud and widespread, the talk is only that, talk. All of it is based on a flimsy premise, just as it was the last time the Hilary's-running speculation ricocheted around in far-right mediaspace.
   The only certainty in this recurring exercise is that, at the mere mention of the remote possibility of another Clinton presidency, 20 to 25 percent of the U.S. adult population can be sent into an advanced state of agitation. In such a state, these Clinton-phobic people are more likely to tune in and call in to squawk shows (benefiting ratings and ad rates), and to encourage others of like mind toward greater expressions of, to them, soul-satisfying Clinton bashing. No doubt, many are also inspired to contribute more generously to any group committed to keeping the Clintons out of all elected offices.
   That being the case, it's reasonable to wonder whether it has dawned on those in this roughly one-fourth of the population that they might be well-trained subjects of manipulation — that they might have a lot in common with Bam and Ripper.

   If these people are being manipulated, it's reasonable for the rest of us to wonder who's rattling the cans. Could it be that Bush political mastermind Karl Rove, Fox News major domo Roger Ailes, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh, et al, know all about Dan and his splendid security setup?
   The similarities are striking.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:43 PM

 
It's time for a little myth debunking
   Right-wing Republicans have had to set aside one of their favorite rants of late. Recriminations about huge budget deficits and irresponsible fiscal policy ring hollow coming from President George W. Bush's supporters these days, and they know it. But they still like to get off a good one at every chance about how Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, are, in their view, a faith-challenged and unpatriotic lot.
   President Harry S. Truman was a liberal Democrat, a justly proud and determined New Deal Democrat. He was also one of the fiercest campaigners to ever run for the presidency on the Democratic ticket. He came from among America's common people — not rich, famous or well connected — and so understood them, believed in them and fought tirelessly and with considerable success for their best interests. In short, he was the stuff of Ann Coulter's worst nightmare.
   On Oct. 13, 1948, Truman delivered insight into Democrats' core values with this statement:

   "Hitler learned that efficiency without justice is a vain thing. Democracy does not work that way. Democracy is a matter of faith — faith in the soul of man — a faith in human rights. That is the kind of faith that moves mountains — that's the kind of faith that hurled the Iron Range at the Axis and shook the world at Hiroshima. Faith is much more than efficiency. Faith gives value to all things. Without faith, the people perish."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:53 AM

 
Unlike Fox, Gephardt needs no disclaimers
   Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt was a guest this morning on Fox Network's talk show hosted by Brit Hume. The veteran Democrat House leader from Missouri delivered a series of biting criticisms of President Bush's leadership and decisions, no surprise, and said what we should be doing instead. His points were all well aimed and solid.
   Gephardt, who stands in especially well with organized labor, is a top-quality candidate. His career in Congress was marked by conspicuous honesty and decency. He maintained a willingness to deal, to keep things from degenerating into complete, ongoing deadlock, when the other side chose to consider compromise at all. Managing a loyal-opposition resistance in a House dominated by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay is not the stuff idealistic political dreams are made of. Gephardt walked a twitchy tightrope over a deep ravine. Overall, he walked it effectively and with good grace.
   This morning, Hume had nothing particularly new or insightful to ask and Gephardt repeated themes and positions he's sounded for weeks in his appearances in the early primary states. What was revealing about this appearance was the appellation in Hume's closing words for the segment:
   ". . . the partisan Dick Gephardt."
   Well, Hume, just what did you expect?
   Gephardt has been locked into a grueling campaign schedule all year. Mostly, the Democrats who've come out to see him and his eight tough competitors for the Democratic nomination are not the sunshine soldier type. They're definite Democrats. They're people who've had three years of seeing how George W. Bush's promises to be a "uniter and not a divider," to "leave no child behind," to take good care of the environment, to see to it that all who want to work have a chance to get a decent job, work out in practice with this administration.

   These are Democrats who've spent nearly three years dealing with the disgusting notion that the outcome of the last election was nothing more or better than the pulling of a fast one. It's the idea that the uncertain post-election atmosphere in 2000 was deliberately worsened by the hell-raising of recruited, expenses-paid protesters from out of state who militated against vote recounts in Florida. It's an abiding resentment that a group of judges who owe their splendid jobs to the partisan Ronald Reagan and the partisan George Herbert Walker Bush came through on cues from fast-talking, radical-right-wing-activist lawyers.
   In short, Gephardt has been spending a lot of time among Democrats who want a substantial change in both the style and substance of presidential leadership of this country. So yes, Hume, Gephardt comes across as very partisan — about on par with Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and little more so than Fox News, which, despite its constant disclaimer, "fair and balanced," is in reality an operating extension of the Republican National Committee.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:51 PM

 
Microsoft: Start Me Up vs. Shut Me Down
   Here we go again. Open the paper, look at the business/tech section and there it is. Microsoft warns users of its products to download yet another patch to block yet another vulnerability. Hmm, it seems that with this one we're not only in danger of having our address book hijacked, porn ads sent to all our contacts and our hard disk erased, but it also turns the eprom that handles cold boots into something resembling molten guacamole. Swell.
   So, let's all go over to Microsoft's Web site, download and install the latest patch. How many has it been now? Who knows? And will this patch really provide protection without screwing up our Windows installation or some program we use all the time? Who knows? Will we learn that to install the patch, we must first download and install Service Pack 7, a project that will tie up our phone for oh, say, three solid days or so? Who knows? And then will it be seven, five or three days before we must go through this nonsense all over again? Who knows?
   Here's the capper. Let's say that Windows gets to a point, as Windows is inclined to do, of just not working reliably any more. You know, the mysterious bootup problems, the more-frequent error messages soon leading to regular appearances of the fabled and hated Blue Screen of Death. Yup, time to back up the data files, copy down, as best you can, the tree structure scheme of your system, then wipe the disk and reinstall the operating system. Then reconstruct your tree structure. Then reinstall your applications and utilities. Then . . .
   Oh #@!%! What about all those patches? That's right — the ones Microsoft's Web site so helpfully advised you to run immediately, as opposed to saving them on your hard disk. With a sinking feeling, you realize you've got a whole lot of downloading and installing left to do. Alternatively, you can say the hell with it, run Windows naked and take your chances. Either way, lots of luck.
   Microsoft became the leader in its field and made money beyond the wildest dreams of the most avaricious Walter Mitty in a remarkably short time. Repeatedly, to its customers' grief, it performed those feats by rushing products to market that were flawed in various ways. The products really would've benefited from more time in development, more field testing, more bulletproofing. It can be argued that such preparation can be overdone, running up costs and the final price. But consider how much time and money everyone from Granny Cratchett, who does her family tree on her PC, to the small-business operator with a PC and a laptop, to major corporations with thousands of Windows PCs scattered all over the world, all lose playing the updates-and-patches game. Why should Microsoft's paying customers be volunteered without choice as the company's de facto beta testers?
   This all goes a long way toward explaining why Microsoft's success story is marred by one of the worst corporate image problems this side of Enron. There is a growing army of people in this world who use Windows every day and hate Microsoft and Windows a little more every day. Not quite as big but growing at a rate that has Microsoft clearly worried is an army of defectors — to Linux, the un-Windows that works, works and keeps on working. No, it's not perfect, but it's damn good. And oh, by the way, you can get a really solid rendition of Linux for free.

   Remember the Roadrunner cartoon in which the plucky little critter lures his pursuer, Wylie Coyote, over the edge of a cliff? For a few seconds, Wylie looks at you, the audience, with a befuddled expression, his legs spinning wildly beneath him in midair. Then he looks down, sees the canyon floor a looonngg way down there, looks at the audience again and says, "Uh-oh!." And then he plummets to the canyon floor, hitting with a loud thump and a puff of dust.
   Like Wylie Coyote, Microsoft is for the moment defying something analogous to the law of gravity. At some point before long, Bill Gates and his crew are going to have to look down, say the magic words and take a hard fall.
   Perhaps there's a way out that would serve everyone well. Here's a remedy that would make things right for the millions of PC users who've made Microsoft so rich. It could redeem Microsoft's badly tarnished reputation, possibly even save the company from an early demise.

   Microsoft should take a year off from developing Longhorn, or anything else, go back and redo everything from Windows 98SE to XP and 2000. This time, make them bulletproof. Bring in hackers, script kiddies and others, pick their brains and let them try to foil new defensive measures. Incorporate all the updates, all the patches, add the new defenses and the kind of repairability that should've been included in the first place. This would be a massive and costly undertaking, but Microsoft would learn a lot about doing things right the first time — a lesson that could prove invaluable in the long run. When all the R&D, coding and debugging are done, publish the fixed products on CD ROMs and offer to send them to any and all registered users and all those who can show proof of ownership of a Windows product, for the price of shipping and handling. Offer the corrected and improved products on the Net as well, for the relative few who have a high-speed Internet connection.
   That's what Microsoft should do. What will it do? Most likely, it will bring Longhorn to market, late and yet really much too soon, to start the whole rigamarole all over again.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:50 PM

 
`Homeland security' is an oxymoron
   If you're looking for homeland security in America, take a peek behind all those weapons of mass destruction brought back as trophies from Iraq. That's just a way of saying it doesn't exist — a fact most recently proven by a homesick shipping clerk and a big box.
   Last Friday, Charles D. McKinley, 25, got into a crate he had arranged to have shipped from New York City to Dallas as air cargo. According to news reports, his journey took 15 hours, during which, McKinley said, he got out of his crate a couple of times and walked around. His itinerary began with a truck trip from Kennedy Airport to Newark. He was loaded onto a Kitty Hawk cargo plane there and flown to Niagara Falls, N.Y., then to Fort Wayne, Ind., and on to Dallas.
   Fortunately for all concerned, McKinley's crate was placed in the plane's heated, pressurized cabin, not in the unheated, unpressurized cargo hold below deck. That could've been fatal. In Dallas, a delivery truck brought the crate to the home of McKinley's parents in nearby DeSoto. McKinley then emerged, safe and sound, reportedly to the astonishment of his mother and the truck driver, who called the police.
   Also fortunate for all concerned is the fact that McKinley is a naive young man with a misguided sense of frugality. His reported motive for flying as freight was to save money, albeit the $550 charge (to his employer) would've easily bought a passenger ticket. He was being held in jail in Dallas this week on unrelated, relatively minor charges.

   Had McKinley been an Arab terrorist with mass murder in mind, he would've had little trouble dealing with an unarmed crew not protected by a reinforced cockpit door and taken completely by surprise. He then would've had at his command a freshly fueled aircraft. On the eve of the second anniversary of the deadliest sneak attack ever committed against Americans on their own soil, it takes little imagination to appreciate what could easily have followed.
   Over the summer, commercial pilots have complained bitterly about security lapses. Airline pilots called a news conference to point out that the Transportation Security Administration has made the hoops they must jump through to carry a firearm during flights as difficult and inconvenient as possible. They said the training schedule appears designed to get as few pilots through the program as possible, as slowly as possible. It's no secret that TSA officials, from Secretary Norm Mineta on down, opposed the arming of pilots from the beginning.

   Air cargo pilots recently complained that freight goes basically uninspected all over the place, ending up in the holds of passenger planes as well as on cargo planes. So, while Ms. and Mr. passenger are taking their shoes off and standing by while a stranger mucks about the Fruit of the Looms and frilly li'l nothings in their luggage, Ahmed Bin Psycho might well be tucking himself and his weapons, and/or explosives, into a box in preparation for the same flight.
   What's more, the cargo pilots said, their carriers haven't secured their planes, cockpits or facilities, or backed their so far futile requests to be part of the firearms training and arming of pilots.
   Pilots have also charged smaller airports off main routes and far from hubs typically have no security, even though they feed into the larger airports.
   Elsewhere on the homeland security front, a security consultant interviewed on CNN mentioned that, at most, only 3 percent of the millions of steel cargo containers moving into and through U.S. ports are inspected.
   ABC News just reported that, as part of a congressional investigation, a group of people set out this summer to get driver's licenses and other documents in several states, using phony documents to establish their identity. They succeeded every time.

   Huge sums of taxpayers' money are being spent on homeland security. Air travelers face many inconveniences. The people responsible for making the U.S. more secure, especially its air transportation system, are clearly failing the first test of leadership, which is to apply common sense. They're failing the rest of us, providing somewhat of the appearance and impression of increased security when, in fact, incredible gaps and ridiculous gaffes abound.
   When all it takes to beat the system is a foolhardy-but-lucky shipping clerk, a box and phone call, big changes are in order. The leadership problem begins at the top. Voters would do well to make changes there in November 2004. Any adult citizen who believes homeland security is important would do well to register to vote and become part of the effort.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:19 PM

 
Reality bites cyberspace music thieves
   Real people write songs. Real people compose and arrange music. Real people sing, play instruments, create and perform in videos. Well-paid executives and less-well-paid mailroom clerks and secretaries at recording companies and film studios are real people, too.
All these people need to make a living so they can eat, dress, have a roof over their head and afford a dentist visit when pain strikes, put new tires on the car or send a kid to college.
   Obviously, when musical recordings are stolen by the millions, 24-7, 365 days a year, by people who do so because they have the necessary technical know-how and equipment, real people suffer serious losses.
   Because that's what's going on, on a vast scale, the Recording Industry Association of America today launched 261 more lawsuits against individuals the organization claims have stolen and "shared" 1,000 or more recordings, using such Internet services as Kazaa. RIAA says more lawsuits are on the way. Defendants who lose these suits may pay a high price for being dishonest. Four college students previously sued by RIAA have already settled for sums ranging from $12,500 to $17,000, the Associated Press reports.
   The same story says RIAA claims a loss of nearly one-third of sales over the past three years. Other news reports have said most of those "file-sharing" copyrighted music and other material off the Net are teenagers and young adults. One wonders what these "file-sharers" would say to someone convicted of stealing from their parents' business, workplace or home, to the tune of one-third of product, service or belongings over three years. It's unlikely they would try to rationalize the stealing the way thieves of copyrighted material usually do.
   New technologies make it easy to reduce people at a distance, at the other end of a slender wire, to just so many anonymous, amorphous others. Such others easily become an abstraction: unreal people. And, to those given to acting on greedy, selfish tendencies, unreal people are especially easy to victimize. If unreal people get hurt, so what?
   What RIAA is doing is about more than recovering losses — a hopeless task given the scale of the thievery. When someone who has made out like a bandit, literally, stuffing his/her 200-gigabyte hard drive, CD, DVD and MP3 player with songs by the thousands, all the while distributing the ill-gotten gains to countless others, a very real person, a process server, might just show up on their doorstep. The process server will deliver a real message in behalf of some very real people who've been stolen from and want the stealing to stop.
   The lawyer the music thieves must then hire, the judge they must answer to and the hundreds or thousands of dollars they must fork over are not abstractions. Life holds real consequences imposed by real people on those who do wrong.
   In pursuing these high-tech cases, the RIAA is reaffirming a simple, ages-old truth: honesty is the best policy.

   PC World columnist Stephen Manes provides another take on the consequences of illegal sharing of copyrighted material in the magazine's September issue.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:15 PM

 
It's Clark Griswold: The White House Years
   Sometimes this is like watching "National Lampoon's West Wing Fling," with George W. Bush taking over Chevy Chase's character, becoming President Clark Griswold. There's certainly plenty of fodder for a farce of historical proportions.
   Let's see:
   The Palestinian-Israeli morass was not something the president was going to get involved in (it was just much too Clinton). Then, the Sept. 11, 2001, attack reordered Bush's priorities real quick-like.
   Bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice or to fatal just desserts was going to be Job 1. Although when that didn't work out the president, the neoconservative hawks who had been egging him on and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld started saying things like, "we have no idea," "not important" and "so what?"
   Creating a Cabinet-level homeland security department would just add another big, clumsy bureaucratic structure to the already overgrown federal government and waste money. But, on second thought, we must — must — create a Department of Homeland Security, right now!
   Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda and other forces of international terrorism. While many Americans believed this (and apparently still do) little or nothing in the way of actual linkage was ever found.
   We were going to build a broad and mighty "coalition of the willing," but wound up paying Turkey a lot of money for almost no help and basically going into Iraq with the British, plus a few token forces from other lands.
   Once our resolve was demonstrated and we were winning in Iraq, other nations such as Germany, France and Turkey would fall in line, cooperating with us and even actively backing our efforts, except that hasn't happened.
   Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were said to be thick as fleas on a hound, yet, inexplicably, they weren't used in the war and five months' worth of extensive unhindered searching has yet to turn up any of them.
   Iraqis were going to welcome our troops as liberators, but instead the Iraqis ran amok, looting, pillaging and further damaging their own infrastructure.
   The president flitted onto an aircraft carrier to announce major hostilities were at and end in Iraq, clearly giving the impression that the shooting war was over. But somehow, more American soldiers have been killed in the three months since his announcement than were killed in the invasion — and the killing goes on.
   Other nations and terrorist elements in the Middle East were going to see a demonstration of American might and resolve that would dampen their ardor for messing with us. The president confidently said of outside fighters, "Bring 'em on." Iraq has quickly become a focal point of terrorist infiltration and deadly sneak attacks. Last week, a U.S. C-130 aircraft was the target of two ground-to-air missiles (both of which missed, fortunately).
   Iraq's oil fields would quickly be returned to production so they could generate income to help pay for rebuilding the country and restoring its economy. As it turns out, saboteurs keep blowing up pipelines and equipment, making that impossible.
   We weren't going to have anything to do with bringing U.N. meddlers and foot draggers in to compromise our hard-earned victory in Iraq, although with the body count of our soldiers rising and even people in his political base starting to grumble about costs and losses, the president has suddenly perceived new possibilities for a U.S-U.N. partnership in postwar Iraq.
   President Griswold . . . er, Bush, wasn't going to engage in nation building (that being a smarmy, Clinton thing to do). Even so, he now wants $21 billion of our hard-earned dollars to rebuild Iraq -- out of a total tab of $87 billion he expects American taxpayers to fork over for the whole arguably unnecessary and gratuitous takeover of Iraq.
   The "pro-liberal" media continue to refer to the Republican Party as the party that's strong on defense and foreign policy, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

   Have we arrived at Wally World? Are we having fun yet? Does anyone in their right mind want this show to go on for five more years?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:27 AM

 
Why all's quiet along the money trail
   President Bush has been as busy as a one-armed paperhanger in a windstorm the past 12 months, what with campaigning for various Republicans running for Congress, pushing his latest tax cut, justifying his Iraq war, conducting his Iraq war, backtracking and changing his story about his reasons for his Iraq war, justifying gross misrepresentations in his justification for his Iraq war, justifying his tax cut and finessing the $480 billion budget deficit his tax cuts have caused.
   Yet Bush still managed to find time to travel coast to coast in a successful quest to raise money for his re-election campaign. By late July, 15 months ahead of the 2004 vote, with nary a Republican primary challenger in sight, he amassed $30 million.
   Notable by its absence from his busy schedule, though, is a truth-telling session in which Bush lays before the people he expects to foot the bill what his Iraq project will cost when completed. For that matter, Bush has been opaque when it comes to defining "completed" and saying how long that might take.
   Most Americans had expected to pay for rooting out Saddam Hussein and his regime, plus some settling down and straightening up afterward. We've been through that kind of thing before. The idea of a full, nationwide infrastructure overhaul that various sources predict will cost $60 billion to more than $100 billion, is something else again. That's especially true because the massive construction work must be done in the midst of continuing violence and sabotage, and run parallel to improvising some form of government that's not an abomination to the Iraqis or us.

   Bush no doubt realizes that at some point Americans will make certain comparisons about where their money is going. Forty-six of the states are deep in budgetary crisis. Federal assistance? Forget that; the money's gone. It went for tax cuts and fighting the war. So, states and localities resort to such drastic measures as closing schools weeks early for the summer, shortening school days, laying off teachers and cops, giving criminals early outs from prison and putting off indefinitely badly needed road and bridge repairs and upgrades. Part of the reason states and localities are hurting is because, with unemployment at 9 million, income, sales and other tax revenues are anemic. Beyond that, 34.8 million Americans are living in poverty, up by another 1.4 million in 2002, according to a U.S. Census Bureau survey.
   The truth is, the poor and the out of work aren't much help with boosting tax revenues. Much of Bush's tax cut money, when spent, will end up enhancing employment and revenues in China and other Third World countries where manufacturing is booming. And, in Bush's economic scheme, the country's wealthy are given a pass whenever and wherever possible, so they're not much help. Finally, predictably — again — trickle-down doesn't work.

   So Bush, or at least his political advisor, Karl Rove, no doubt realizes a truth-telling session that fully and plainly discloses the cost of his magnificent adventure in Iraq will surely serve to focus people's attention on certain facts not helpful to his re-election effort. Worse, it would trigger such uncomfortable questions as, "How come the Iraqis get new schools, roads, airports, electric utilities, water systems, highways and lots of cops, compliments of us, while we're deep in the hole and struggling to make do with the old stuff?" And, "How is it right that the Iraqis get services and jobs while our jobs are disappearing all over the place, our services are being cut and yet our state and local taxes keep going up?"
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:24 PM

 
TrendSpotter: Saw it in the want ads
   TrendSpotter is an occasional feature in which Oh!pinion focuses on developments that reflect trends shaping the future of American society.

   Wanted: Seeking tech-savvy videographer of cutting-edge musical tastes, w/some form of shaking palsy, to record emerging rock bands' breakthrough gigs. Attention-deficit disorder required, vision problems a plus, but must be able to show up at Dysentarium Productions studio when scheduled. Send resume to radrez@dysntstudio.biz.

   Wanted: As an RNC America Centurion, you know your way around housing projects, group homes, halfway houses and day-labor waiting rooms. You're comfortable dealing with union, temp, unemployed, veteran and older people, fast-food workers, pizza deliverers, motel maids, etc. You know how to get those in targeted groups to contribute, so you'll bring in $100k/mo., all cash. And because you're someone who can make donation yields soar, even against a strong headwind, RNC America has a $25k +exp. place for you in its Blow-by-2004 campaign. Blow-by is a patriotic drive to ensure four more years of unique economic policy and unforgettable leadership by offsetting donation expenses of President Bush's top campaign donors. Must be 21, pass drug test, no criminal history, clean credit record. Resume to anti-robinhood@republican-national-charity.org
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:37 PM

 
Chinese having none of Bush's Snow job
   There's a charming if mindless naiveté to Treasury Secretary John Snow's mission to Beijing this week. Snow's assignment is to sweet-talk the Chinese into floating the value of the yuan, China's currency.
   China pegs the yuan to the U.S. dollar at a fixed rate — a very low fixed rate. Forty percent low, as some trade and currency experts see it. Let it float and up it will go.
   One consequence of undervaluing the yuan is that U.S. dollars have more buying power for goods produced in China. That, in turn, makes for more sales of Chinese-produced goods in the U.S. Raising the value of the yuan against the dollar would make Chinese-produced goods more expensive in the U.S., reducing sales to Americans.
   Slowed U.S. sales would mean the huge store of dollars China is holding, probably well above $400 billion by now, would grow more slowly. It would mean reduced growth in market share, with a resulting slowdown in the rate at which U.S. companies are being forced to move to China or outsource production to China or to some other Third World venue, or go under.
   Slowed sales of Chinese goods in the U.S. would also delay the day when China's leaders can dictate to a U.S. president the outcome of some controversy or conflict, with all the clout that comes from having the U.S. so dependent on Chinese-made goods as to make a break in relations extremely damaging to the U.S. economy and therefore unthinkable.
   Also, if China were actually up for allowing large quantities of U.S.-made goods into its growing markets, which it is not, floating the yuan up would make those U.S. goods cheaper to Chinese buyers, encouraging sales. (China does allow importation of some items that suspicious Western types have said are desirable for reverse-engineering and copying purposes, however.)
   Reuters reported today that, "Snow said he strongly pressed the case that a fixed currency system carried a risk that `discontinuities' will develop as China tries to manage the huge inflows of capital.
   "He added: `I think they listened to that point."
   One suspects the Chinese barely waited for Snow to leave the room so the belly laughs could begin. Reuters quoted a spokesman for China's central bank as saying, "There won't be any change in the exchange rate just because someone is visiting China." Chinese officials did agree to consider making changes in "capital controls." Such measures are expected to have no real effect on the gargantuan U.S.-China trade imbalance.

   This Bush administration initiative is a marvel of going-through-the-motions nonsense. It's on a par with — if you can imagine such a thing — President Harry Truman, during the height of the Cold War, sending a diplomat to suggest to Josef Stalin that he empty the gulags of political prisoners, so the Soviet Union could enjoy the benefits of a healthy give and take of differing opinions about how the country should be run. Unlike the current president, Truman had a well-informed, no-nonsense understanding of who he was dealing with and what would constitute a fool's errand.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:06 PM

 
Business-labor imbalance must be resolved
   Labor Day is an especially good time to point out that for the last quarter century too many Americans have mistakenly concluded that unions are passé. With the decline of smokestack manufacturing and the rise of white collar suburbia, too many have chosen to identify with the CEO, the board member, the stockholder, while precious few have chosen to identify with the union president, local president or shop steward. That's not good for Americans who are not financiers and CEOs, and it's not good for the country.
   That is because, despite all the changes that have taken place in the U.S. economy, U.S. politics and the world, the basic law of workplace physics remains as it has always been: Them that has, gets. Anyone who doubts this need only reflect for a few seconds on the fact that today's average corporate CEO makes upwards of 400 times what the average worker in his organization makes, up from about 45 times more a generation ago. And, the gap is widening.
   For so long as we have corporations, Americans need knowledgeable, talented, responsible corporate leaders and people willing to put their money behind corporate endeavors, to make these enterprises the best engines of wealth creation and productivity that they can be. But Americans also need balance in the economic arena — the sharing of decision making that results in safe workplaces, reasonable hours, work rules and conditions, and fair compensation for workers. Balance also requires that ownership, management and workers command, engender and provide a measure of loyalty to one another.
   But in 2003, with traditionally unionized industries hardest hit by dislocations of the past 30 or more years and with the percentage of working Americans participating in organized labor significantly reduced, with only 16.1 million as members now, the needed balance just isn't there.
   As if that wasn't bad enough, powerful financial interests such as Wall Street investment banks and firms, huge pension, mutual and hedge funds and corporate management have conspired by all the extensive means at their disposal — wealth, access, clout — to tilt things even further in their favor. Much too far in their favor.
   The result is an America where too many people have lost sight of the fact that corporations are supposed to exist to serve people, and not the other way around. "People," of course, meaning, first and foremost, those directly involved in the corporate structure and investors, but also referring to the community, society and the whole nation. The result is an America where things corporate and criminal are morphing, where the public coffers are regularly raided for corporate welfare, where corporate lobbyists lavish too much money on politicians and wield too much influence in politics and policy making. Perhaps worst of all, the result is an America whose people increasingly accept the idea that the end justifies the means when it comes to maximizing profits .
   To be sure, unions have had their problems over the decades, with corruption, excessive demands, overbearing work rules and wildcat strikes. For the most part these problems have been recognized and resolved. Overall, like most American workers, most American unions are honest, decent and fair-minded.

   For America's economy and businesses to work best for all, neither unions nor ownership-management should dominate completely, at least not for very long. What is in everyone's best interest is an ongoing state of dynamic tension, with both sides vying, under reasonable, defined rules, to gain the upper hand, yet with neither actually having the upper hand for very long.
   If we are to re-establish this missing healthy balance, we've all got work to do — beginning in the voting booth.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:00 PM