Score: truth 1, pro-free trade zero
   On Nov. 26, CNN's Lou Dobbs hosted a segment featuring Dr. Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University and Thea Lee, chief international economist with the AFL-CIO. Their subject was the effect of free trade and globalization on the U.S. economy.
   Clearly a defender of free trade and globalization, Meltzer put forth the notion that these plagues on America, far from costing us 3 million jobs over three years, have actually produced 800,000 jobs this year. (Huh?). Not only that, but America has scored a net gain in the quality of jobs. Pressed on those points, Meltzer fell back on saying, "Well, that's what the household survey says. I don't claim that's right."
   Ahem.
   We think the following exchange at the end of the segment, from the program's transcript, is a particularly good and telling one, offering insight into where the two sides in this controversy are coming from.

   Meltzer: May I say one thing about the jobs? What are the facts? The facts are, if you look — you check with the U.S. trade representatives' office, 13 percent to 16 percent higher wages in the export industries than in the industries that — we're losing. So, when we shift the mix of jobs in the country by losing low-paying jobs we gain high-paying jobs. And those jobs are 13 to 16 percent better paid than the jobs that we're losing. So that's good for the standard of living of American people.
   Lee: Actually that's not true. The jobs — export jobs pay higher than the average job in the economy because the average job is a service sector job. But the import-displaced jobs lost are pretty high paid as well. And when you have half a trillion dollar trade deficit, then you're losing more of those import jobs than you are creating on the export side. And that's what our trade agreements have done, have in fact caused a huge flood of imports and have — and a lot outsourcing as you said, Mr. Dobbs — have encouraged and rewarded companies that have shifted jobs overseas instead of opening up export markets (for) the products.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:50 PM

 
Dvorak wrong about blogging demise
   John C. Dvorak, the PC Magazine columnist, says blogging's days are numbered, that the phenomenon that has won the participation of millions will soon be taken over completely by corporate professionals.
   The trend is already under way, the handwriting on the wall is obvious, he says. Dvorak also points to 132,000 people abandoning their weblogs after a year of regular posting, although he admits startups are still somewhat ahead of shutdowns.
   There is a strong vein of been-there, seen-this cynicism to Dvorak's comments. He attributes his downbeat assessment to what happened when a big corporation, IBM, jumped into the personal computing revolution pioneered by (supposedly) counterculture-type Apple aficionados.
   It's true, writing is work, as Dvorak points out on the way to claiming about the only people who will continue to do it on weblogs are those being paid, presumably well, by big-media corporate masters who will exert strong control and influence over what gets published.
   We disagree. Writing is a means of self-expression some people truly find rewarding. We're sure there will also be quite a few who will maintain a weblog for the long haul, even if their readership is very modest, comments are few and far between, and fame never knocks at their door.
   Furthermore, there will always be people dedicated to specific causes and purposes who will find in blogging a near matchless opportunity to publish to the whole wide world. Causes will come and go, and with their passing weblogs will fade and dissolve. But look for people who've gained the experience and acted on their passion through weblog publishing to be ignited anew as time passes.
   No, blogging cannot continue to be the brash, new, "we're going to change the world" kind of in thing it's been. It must mature, morph, adapt. The wonderful thing about this medium is precisely that it is so fluid, so adaptable, so readily available when desired or needed.
   Blogging doesn't have to be a revolution or a counterculture venue, Dvorak. It won't be killed if some big-media types move in and stake out a piece of the blogosphere. It just has to be there for the interested, inspired, expressive person to take up and use when the need, purpose or inspiration arises. We see that as a phenomenon with a long and fruitful future.

Dvorak's piece can be read here.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:48 PM

 
No bargain worth trampling someone
   Today's news included a story out of Orange Park, Fla., where a 41-year-old woman had been trampled by people stampeding into a Wal-Mart in search of holiday bargains.
   The victim's sister pleaded with people not to step on the woman, but to no avail. The victim, who says she doesn't remember exactly what happened, is in a hospital with extensive cuts and bruises. The kind of trauma incident she suffered is commonly associated with internal injuries and presumably she's being examined and observed to rule that out. The story said she apparently had a seizure after falling down.
   A couple of people, including a store employee, did reportedly come to the woman's aid. Still, it's just lucky she was not hurt worse or even killed. She was at the store to get a $29 DVD player, and a Wal-Mart representative later called to offer sympathies and say they would hold one of those DVD players for her.
   This kind of incident, which though not common is by no means rare, should never occur. Let's make one be a cautionary tale for everyone.
First, for parents who let their youngsters show up for super sales, concerts and the like. Secondly, for store owners, who have a moral, and should have a legal, responsibility to ensure the safety of those who come crowding in for their ultra-low-price, "door-buster" sale items.
   Finally, people generally would do well to reflect on the risks they're willing to take and the harm their willing to risk doing to others to acquire material items for cheap. Can a few dollars saved for the likes of a DVD player really be worth the Florida woman's injuries? And what if someone had killed her? Would any amount saved be worth having that on their conscience for the rest of their lives?

   We all need to remember that crowd dynamics can take over in certain circumstances, causing ourselves and those around us to behave in ways we'd normally have nothing to do with. We need to realize when we're getting into a situation with a strong stampede potential — and resolve not to contribute to it. Better yet, we should resolve to try and restrain those around us from doing the wrong and dangerous thing. Research has shown that if even one take-charge type of person intervenes when people are panicked or stampeding, or otherwise behaving in dangerous ways, it can make a dramatic difference in the outcome.
   These are matters of safety worth impressing on our children, as well, in hopes that in future years these incidents will become fewer, maybe even become things of the past.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:23 PM

 
Baghdad gig also a campaign freebie
   President Bush dropped into Baghdad's airport on Thanksgiving Day to cheer our troops and help serve the holiday meal.
   The president's trip to the war zone on the far side of the world began in secrecy, from his Crawford, Texas, ranch. His stay in Baghdad was only about two hours long.
   We're sure many of our troops in Iraq did get a lift from Bush's visit, at least many of those who had a chance to see the president in person. We would like to think this stint as good-ol'-boy-in-chief was done strictly or even primarily for the stated purpose.
   However, it's obvious that for security's sake it would've made a lot more sense to publicize Bush's Baghdad visit after he was safely in the air and well out of the Middle East, not while the visit was taking place. Of course, doing that might have lessened the wall-to-wall news coverage on what is typically a drought day for hard news — especially a hardship for cable news channels, with their content-hungry, 24-hour news operations.
   We're left with the impression that Bush, reportedly at the suggestion of his advisor, Andrew Card, planned, executed and publicized this outing for maximum political image-building advantage. It was done with an eye to wowing a few hundred or thousand troops in Iraq and wooing millions of voters at home.
   We realize presidents get to do this kind of thing and that Bush's predecessors also indulged. It's nevertheless galling to think that Bush, who has amassed more than $100 million for his re-election campaign, put this largely political and incredibly expensive junket on the taxpayers' tab.
   You don't take Air Force 1, plus a large entourage of press and security people, plus Air Force fighter cover and airborne electronics surveillance coverage, halfway around the world for a pittance. We suspect this trip's cost runs to the tens of millions of dollars, at least. We further suspect that the public will never be given an accounting of how much of their money went to buy Bush some really good TV exposure and video footage for use later on in his 2004 campaign commercials.
   Oh!pinion sincerely hopes our troops enjoyed their brief time with the president and the turkey and dressing he served up. But as a taxpayer and political nonfan, we feel Bush has ripped us off again and pulled yet one more bait and switch. We're left with heartburn and a bitter taste in the mouth.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:06 PM

 
Sugarplum dreams and job-loss nightmares
   Wal-Mart has a cheery TV ad running now, with two clean-cut young sales associate types beckoning viewers to hurry in for all their Christmas shopping needs. The two emphasize, "Always low prices — always!"
   Among the low prices they proudly display are Huffy bicycles for the impressively low price of $24.95. No doubt, many a cost-conscious American parent will hurry in to Wal-Mart, happy to be able to buy a Huffy bicycle for their child. No doubt, many an American child will be overjoyed to find a shiny new Huffy among their Christmas gifts.
   We're aware of some American parents who won't want to buy a Huffy for their kids this Christmas, even at Wal-Mart's low price. Some of them may not be able to afford a new bicycle for their kids this Christmas, even for $24.95. We're pretty sure the children of these families wouldn't want a Huffy for Christmas, even if they were offered one.
   These Ohio parents and kids are in families of the more than 800 Huffy employees who lost their jobs this year, when the company sent all its manufacturing jobs to China.
   That's how Huffy could meet Wal-Mart's stringent standards for always low prices — always. The flipside of which is always high profits — always. Not that there's anything wrong with high profits; it's just how they're obtained.
   The made-in-China Huffys are a small part of the $12 billion worth of goods Wal-Mart imports from China yearly, making this country's largest employer and retailer China's fifth-largest trading partner.
   Wal-Mart, Huffy and the 800-plus workers who had their lives turned upside down and their source of income destroyed are parts of a much larger reality: the selling out of millions of middle- and working-class Americans for the benefit of other, more-wealthy Americans, with full support and encouragement of what is supposed to be the government of all Americans. Add to that the ignorant bliss of consumers who don't know — or want to know — how the low prices that draw them to America's Wal-Marts, Kmarts and so on, were achieved.
   This situation brings to mind how the Rev. Martin Niemoeller described the rise of the Nazi scourge in his homeland:
   "In Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up."
   Americans of every income level, in every area of the economy, society and in government service, would do well to contemplate what Niemoeller said and how it applies to the free trading and globalization, the rampant greed and know-nothing avarice, that are gutting the economic future of so many of their fellow Americans today.
   When will they come for your job, your company, your wealth? And, when they come, will there be anyone left to speak up for you?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:53 PM

 
Hatch's white hat stands out in GOP crowd
   Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the contentious Judiciary Committee, has put a staff member on administrative leave for stealing data from Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Hatch also told the Associated Press this week that a former Republican staffer may have also improperly accessed Democrats' computers.
   "I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch," the AP quoted Hatch as saying.
   Hatch undertook an investigation after Durbin and Kennedy complained memos concerning strategy for opposing several of President Bush's nominees to the federal bench had been taken, and that the information was later made public by The Wall Street Journal and Washington Times.
   Capitol Police and a forensics expert are examining backup tapes as part of the investigation. Federal prosecutors have questioned 50 people. The AP reports investigators found at least one staff member had accessed at least one of the documents in question. The staff member denies leaking the information "to the press," Hatch said. The information has also been posted on the Internet.
   The Republican staffer or staffers' dirty tricks don't surprise us at all. Activities like these are in keeping with election day and post-election actions by Republicans in 2000. They reveal a cynical, anything-to-win modus operandi sharply at odds with the religious and family values virtuosity image the GOP likes to present.
   But Hatch's forthright, pro-active approach to getting to the bottom of this incident sets him apart from the Bush administration, and from inside-the-Beltway Republicans generally. He may be so conservative he squeaks, but he's an honorable, conscientious senator.
   What a marked contrast with the belated, going-through-the-motions sham the White House has conducted after someone outed a CIA operative for spite, example-setting, or both, a few weeks ago. Based on results so far, it's a safe bet the little man or woman who wasn't there will remain unidentified until sometime after they book the Winter Olympics in hell.
   Hatch's stand up response should also be emulated by Republicans in the matter of sharing information about what went on as Bush was hard-selling and misleading the country on the need to go war with Iraq. That's been a smorgasbord deal, where unnamed administration officials get to pick what will be revealed, and to whom, and how the information will be viewed, and so on.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:49 AM

 
Happy Thanksgiving
   For blessings received, for sorrows we've been spared; for patience shown us when our shortcomings were apparent; for the loyalty of friends and loved ones; for the chance to bask in the sun's warmth, have our spirits lifted by a brilliant, azure sky and smell the clean mist of a forest at dawning; for laughter shared and tears shed on our account; for spirits lifted by the wonder in a small child's gaze; for the hard-earned wisdom of our elders; for all the years of friendship with our beloved pet; for the many incomparable blessings of being part of our home, community and this land of liberty, we humbly thank God and the good people with whom we share this life.
   A special thanks for the bravery, steadfastness and sacrifices of all those in our armed forces around the world, especially those in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq. May they all return home safely and soon.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:33 PM

 
Dell un-offshores tech support
   Here's a good news, bad news story about Dell Computer, the 800-pound gorilla among direct sellers of personal computers.
   The good news is that corporate customers seeking tech support for Dell Optiplex desktop PCs and Latitude notebooks will now be assisted by American workers in three states, not workers in far-off India.
   That's welcome news for Dell's corporate customers, who had "complained that Indian support operators are difficult to communicate with because of thick accents and scripted responses," according to a Nov. 25 Associated Press story. It's also good news for American service-industry workers who've seen more and more of their jobs being sent off shore, to India, the Philippines, Eastern Europe and other places where labor is dirt cheap, not unionized, and regulation of business is all but nonexistent.
   The bad news is that Dell brought the jobs back to America not out of any sense of loyalty to or preference for American workers, only because the low-priced alternatives were unsatisfactory.

   Dell founder Michael Dell is a legendary success story. He grew his business from its modest start in a college dorm room in the 1980s to the multi-billion-dollar mass-marketing operation it is today, becoming a billionaire along the way. He earned success by being bright, hard-working, innovative, aggressive and by taking risks.
   It's equally true that American workers and consumers helped make Dell successful. To put it another way, Dell's ideas, work and enterprise would've amounted to little if well-educated, healthy, talented and hard-working Americans hadn't been willing to work for him. Even then, Dell would've gotten nowhere if relatively affluent, basically honest and mostly patient American consumers had not bought his products.
   There's one more characteristic to describe quite a few Americans involved in Michael Dell's fabulous success: loyalty. Scaling a company up and up and up, through extended years of constant, rapid growth is a high-stakes, high-stress proposition. As surely as Dell managed to pull it off, he had loyal employees solving problems and going extra miles, time after time, to make it happen. Another certainty is that Dell benefited from the loyalty of many customers who came back when upgrading.
   Yes, people worked for Dell because the company offered attractive pay and benefits. Yes, customers bought Dell PCs because of a good reputation and bought again because they had been satisfied the first time. Yes, Dell is in an extremely competitive business. Nevertheless, loyalty was vital to Dell's success.
   Yet in a choice between American workers and Indians who'd work for a few dollars less, Dell blew off the chance to return loyalty, opting instead to maximize profits. The really bad news is that this is standard operating procedure in American business today.

   Oh!pinion believes it's impossible to induce loyalty in people who lack that valuable attribute; a person has it or does not. We've also observed that hugely successful selfish people become steeped in their selfishness on the way up.
   The one remonstrance we can think of that might make a difference to Dell and those similarly impaired is: How many Dell PCs and notebooks do you suppose those ultra-low-wage Indian workers could buy from you? And, if you and others like you keep giving low-wage foreign workers Americans' jobs, how many Americans do you suppose will be able to buy from you?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:18 PM

 
Chinese also dumping color TVs
   Our great friend and valuable trading partner, China, is now in the Department of Commerce's crosshairs for dumping color televisions in the U.S. market. So is Malaysia.
   In a case resulting from complaints by Five Rivers Electronic Innovations of Tennessee, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, color TV producers in the People's Republic of China and in Malaysia have been investigated by the Commerce Department, which found substantial harm being done. So, the Chinese manufacturers will be required to pay anti-dumping duties of 28 percent to 46 percent on TVs exported to the U.S., beginning next month.
   Dumping is the practice of selling export items in a targeted country for less than the items' price in the country of origin, or for less than the cost of production. It is done to destroy competition by driving producers in targeted countries out of business.
   In a Monday news release, Five Rivers President Thomas Hopson said: "Dumping can seriously injure or destroy an entire industry. U.S. workers lose jobs when employers are forced to compete with unfair imports, which pressure U.S. manufacturers to lower prices in what is typically a futile attempt to maintain market share. If these unfairly priced foreign televisions remain unchecked, Five Rivers could become a victim of the dwindling American manufacturing base."
   The news release further explained: "The unfair trade petition filed with the Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission (ITC) on May 2, 2003 tracked imports between 2000 and 2002. The data reflect that total CTV imports from both countries between these years skyrocketed from 209,887 units to 2,656,456 units in 2002, an explosive 1,166 percent.
   "Import penetration rose tenfold during the same period. The data also presents evidence of a causal link between lost U.S. market share due to the rising volume of unfairly traded imports and the domestic industry's declining revenues and profits, lost sales, and the resultant impact on the work force. The petition notes that U.S. production lines have closed, causing layoffs and the loss of numerous jobs."
   Hopson said he expects a final determination by Commerce will result in similar action being taken against Malaysian producers.
   See also our Monday post on China's saccharin dumping. The full press release on dumping of color TVs can be read here.

   This development simply adds urgency to the glaring need for the U.S. to thoroughly review and then completely restructure all its trade arrangements, first and foremost its trade arrangements with China.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:55 PM

 
Bush is literally going for broke
   It becomes more clear with each passing month that the underlying theme of the George W. Bush administration is to not repeat the sins of the father. Sins, at least, as George W. Bush and his Rasputin-in-residence, Karl Rove, perceive key features of George H.W.'s White House years.
   Thus, whereas George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq but played by U.N. rules, pulling back short of taking out Saddam Hussein, George W. was determined to keep the U.N. at arms length. He would not only send U.S. troops to invade Iraq but destroy the regime and occupy the country. And, despite pressure from within and without, he's keeping the U.N. as far out of it as he can.
   Whereas George H.W. Bush went back on his no-new-taxes pledge, George W. has made it a point to be the tax-cuttin'est politician in U.S. history.
   George H.W. Bush was comparatively moderate in pushing the rapacious agenda of the corporate, big-money backers Republicans exist to serve, sometimes compromising with Democrats and taking into account the potential political consequences of stepping on the middle class. He courted and catered, but not with the full zeal of a born-again supply sider. George W., by contrast, has opted for a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach. This can be seen in the energy bill he so wanted and the privatization Trojan horse and giveaway to drug companies and HMOs that's been peddled as Medicare reform.
   Then there's the matter of appealing to the cultural and religious right. George H.W. by temperament is a churchgoer and strong family man, certainly, but not a doctrinaire cultural or religious conservative. He said many of the right (wing) things, but didn't do so with the requisite tent revival meeting gusto. George W., as we know, lapses into lay-preacher mode at every opportunity.
   It's been said George H.W. missed out on a second term because a lot of unenthusiastic conservatives stayed home on election day. George W. and his handlers have made keeping "the base" in a state of dynamic tension at all times a high priority. This explains this spring's constant baiting about Al Sharpton's candidacy and the ongoing baiting about Hillary Clinton surely plotting to run, never mind about her repeated assurances to the contrary. Bush knows that having either for an opponent would mobilize the ardently conservative base as nothing else could.
   The problem with all this for Bush is that, policy-wise, it represents a series of high-stakes gambles. So serious are these gambles that, should he win a second term, Bush could find himself in deep doo-doo (a George H.W. expression) of his own making.
   Any halfway savvy high school sophomore could figure out how to goose the economy for a year or two, given the chance to blow enough borrowed money on the project. Eventually, however, the bills come due. And, as we've seen before, the trickle-down, supply side approach to managing the economy does not produce the kind of sustained growth voodoo economists claim. It's a gimmick that doesn't really work.
   Structural changes brought about by crackpot free-trade theories and the economy-wrecking effects of unfettered globalization will continue virtually unabated. Even if the business cycle trends upward, growth advances and the near-rich go all the way, while the already rich ascend to the stratosphere, more and more of the not-rich will suffer more-frequent, longer-lasting joblessness, with the economy still shedding jobs, killing off small businesses and exporting whole industries at a painful rate. Expect growing armies of unhappy campers as a result.
   So, come 2006 or so, Bush may face harsh political consequences of still-high unemployment, having failed spectacularly to generate enough jobs to cover the job losses from his first administration.
   By 2008, at the latest, a lot of senior citizens are going to realize, up close and personally, what Bush, Grassley, DeLay and the rest of the right-wing Republican crowd have gotten them into with Medicare "reform." Oh!pinion expects they're not going to be happy campers, either.
   Expect sentiments ranging from worry to seething dissatisfaction about the huge debt Bush has run up to hang like a dark cloud over any new schemes he advances. Not least among those resenting this aspect of Bush's "leadership" will be fiscal conservatives in his own party.
   Last but not least, we expect that by 2007 U.S. losses in Iraq will have reached a point of complete unacceptability to all but a handful of the most zealous Bush loyalists and far-right hawks. That's if Bush hasn't engineered a politically motivated pullout by then.
   In any case, we strongly suspect that before the end of any second Bush term, we're going to see an Iraq that is anything but a genuine, functioning democracy where people live in peace, enjoying the blessings of liberty. A fractured state of locales ruled by gangsters, Saddam loyalists and Khomeini-like Muslim clerics seems most likely. Should this come to pass, the voting, taxpaying U.S. public just may decide Bush stupidly, stubbornly and dishonestly got us into a mess that cost a lot of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, all of it for nothing.

   These all-too-possible outcomes, however much poetic justice might be involved, are not things to be desired as means to political gain. Indeed, we end up with the chilling realization that if Americans choose to make a regime change of their own in 2004, whoever succeeds Bush will probably have to set aside ambitions of forging ahead on long-term, pressing problems. Job 1 will be straightening out all the costly messes Bush has made.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:17 PM

 
Such a sweet and sour deal
   In trade jargon, "dumping" is the practice of deliberately selling export goods into foreign markets at prices lower than the producer charges in the home market. In some cases dumping involves selling export goods at prices well below the producer's cost of production.
   Why would a company want to sell at a loss? To ruin producers of the same goods in the foreign market and drive them out of business.
The leading U.S. supplier of the artificial sweetener saccharin went to the federal government and International Trade Commission in July 2002 seeking action against China because of dumping of its product.
   After investigating PMC Specialties Group's charges and finding them valid, the Department of Commerce slapped anti-dumping duties of 249 to 330 percent on Chinese saccharin exported to this country. As a result, PMC says, China stopped exporting saccharin directly to the U.S.
   Instead, China is transshipping saccharin to the U.S. through third countries, which is a clear violation of U.S. and international laws and trade agreements. PMC cites Canada, Spain and India as the third countries of choice. And, to make this work, the Chinese saccharin exporters are falsifying documents and/or mixing the saccharin with another substance _ all dishonest, unethical and illegal practices.
   This is an example of how China treats the U.S., its biggest customer, which ran up a monstrous $103 billion trade deficit buying Chinese goods in 2002 and is buying even more _ and running up an even bigger trade deficit _ with China this year.
   Back when the President Clinton, Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin and others were selling free trade with China and seeking fast-track trade authority to bargain most-favored-nation (now call normalized) trade status with China, the talk was all about China being a model citizen of the new world order.
   The same assurances were advanced when President Bush sought, and got from Congress, fast-track authority, normalized trade with China, then ushered China into the World Trade Organization.
   As with free trade overall, the assurances about China were worthless. China is a predatory economic power. China does as it pleases with impunity. The World Trade Organization gets nowhere with China. Bush is utterly feckless about China, his main concern being catering to his corporate backers, many of whom profit from trading with China. Free traders of both parties in Congress are as culpable in this as they are determined to ignore or deny the problem.
   Comprehensive reform of all U.S. trade arrangements is desperately needed, nowhere more so than in the case of China.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:44 PM

 
Loaner bus not helping Gephardt
   Campaigning all out to win Iowa, which many hold is a must for him, Rep. Dick Gephardt this week picked up a United Autoworkers Iowa component. But the union's executive board declared it will not make an endorsement in the Democratic primaries, which must've come as a disappointment.
   Gephardt also traded barbs with Gov. Howard Dean, with neither scoring any notable gain. Gephardt raked Dean over the coals for repeatedly being quick to cut vital people-helping programs when the Vermont budget was stressed. Dean fired back that Gephardt was a leader in the House who failed to come up with a majority and never had to make an executive decision.
   This is the kind of bruising, no-win exchange that is too common in the primaries. What they're good for is providing Republicans ammunition for use when the general election gets rolling.
   Gephardt might do better to turn his attention from trying to drive up Dean's negatives to trying to keep the journalists covering his campaign happy. ABC's Sally Hawkins filed a story making clear where Gephardt could get started on this: replacing the bus from hell.
   As Hawkins describes it: "The bus is about the size of a rental car airport shuttle, with an enormous photo of Rep. Gephardt on the exterior next to the words `Boilermakers for Gephardt' in huge writing. The Boilermakers Union, which endorsed Gephardt, loaned the vehicle.
   "Where to sit? On one side, there was a long bench that was hard and slippery. On the other, a counter of sorts, and two swivel chairs in the back — that were taken."
   Granted, Gephardt, who is living within public financing limits, can't run a money-is-no-object campaign at this point. Granted, no one promised the reporters a rose garden experience in the plains of Iowa.
   Still, human nature being what it is, a reasonably well-cared-for reporter is more likely to see the candidate's efforts and results in a positive light if not butt-sore and miserable. Find the rest of Hawkins' story here.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:23 PM

 
Former spy deems Bush `delusional'
   Oh!pinion has never heard of Robert David Steele before, but we're impressed with his blistering assessment of what's going down in postwar Iraq and his thoughts about President Bush's leadership.
   A news release describes Steele as a former spy, national security expert, author and book reviewer for amazon.com. Here's a sample of what Steele has to say:
   "Bush is delusional if he thinks our invasion and our continued occupation of Iraq — without any benefits for the indigenous population that lacks electricity, clean water, or adequate food and medical resources seven months after our arrival — is about liberty. It is not. It is about American corruption run amok.
   "Iraqis are building cement factories for $80,000 after US corporations renege on $15 million dollar contracts to do the same work. Iraqis are offering to rebuild bridges for $300,000 and being spurned in favor of $50 million contracts to favored U.S. contractors. The Iraqi occupation is not just looting Iraq, it is picking the pockets of every American taxpayer.
   ". . . American capitalism has lost its moral roots, and what is being done today 'in our name' is perpetuating poverty for billions overseas at the same time that it's impoverishing 80 percent of the American population and placing every American, every Westerner, every Israeli and Jew, at greater risk of suicidal terrorism."
   Here's a link to the rest of Steele's remarks.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:58 PM

 
Free trade with fatal consequences
   As millions of Americans will testify, free trade can be fatal to your job, even your career. Free trade and globalization are the chief reasons we have real unemployment of more than 10 percent.
   Now, it's becoming clear, free trade can even cost you your life. Under NAFTA, fruits, vegetables, meats and other edibles cross freely between countries, so that American markets are filled with produce from Mexico. Some of that produce winds up in restaurants.
   Cox News Service reports green onions were confirmed yesterday as the source of this country's largest-ever hepatitis A outbreak, which this month infected 575 people, three of whom died, in an area north of Pittsburgh.
   Some 250 people in the Atlanta and Macon areas of Georgia have also been infected with hepatitis A in recent weeks, as have 80 in Knoxville, Tenn., and another dozen in Asheville, N.C. Looking at viral strains in the contamination, health officials believe the outbreaks are connected.

   Those contaminated onions in Georgia and Tennessee came from Mexico. The FDA is trying to learn whether the green onions sold to those sickened and killed in Pennsylvania came from Mexico as well. The story names several restaurant chains as the places where victims ate the contaminated onions.
   When those of us who adamantly opposed ratifying NAFTA on a wide range of sensible grounds that included the vast differences in health, sanitation and safety standards among the countries involved, our objections were met with grand assurances and demeaning put-downs. There would be stringent standards and rigorous inspections of produce and other foodstuffs. We were just drumming up any excuse to avoid change.
   Try telling that now to the family members and friends of those who needlessly died this month because of hepatitis A-infected onions from Mexico.
   Mexico is a poor and backward Third-World country with primitive sanitation, where there are any sanitation facilities at all. It is a place where desperately poor people, children among them, pick through fly-infested, open dumps for scraps of food. It's a place where sewage too often goes to open lagoons and human waste floats freely along rivers and streams.
   Even in the more-modern cities and specially built and regulated tourist destinations, visitors are advised to not drink the water. Viral gastroenteritis has long been known as Montezuma's revenge for good reason.
   News reports and TV documentaries over the past two decades have shown how both effluent and every known form of toxic waste have been found in surface and subsurface water sources all along the U.S.-Mexican border. Mexico has weak environmental standards and, for the most part, lax enforcement.
   The second reason so many U.S. corporations flocked to northern Mexico in the past 20 years, right behind the greed-driven compulsion to exploit dirt-cheap labor, was to be able to operate with complete disregard for harm to public health, safety and the environment. That is, with fewer costs and more profits.
   Hell-bent on promoting economic growth, the Mexican government is no more pro-active about health, safety and sanitation than it is about improving wages, hours and working conditions for the virtual prison-labor workers in the maquilladora plants that line the south side of the border.
   In this country, warnings and worries about the potential for health and safety consequences to U.S. consumers of having so many foodstuffs, especially raw fruits and vegetables, being brought in from Mexico and other low-standards places, have largely been ignored. The Department of Agriculture and health officials occasionally urge consumers to wash these things thoroughly. As for greatly increased numbers of inspectors, greatly enhanced inspector training and such, well, mañana is good enough for us.
   Even if all U.S. consumers were to get and faithfully heed the good food-washing advice, there's always great potential for some restaurant worker(s) to cut a corner, out of laziness, ignorance, from being squeezed for time. So, some lettuce heads, onions, peppers or whatever don't get washed well or maybe at all. So, a few people get sick, maybe somebody dies.
   Our final thought on free trade, globalization and health threats: Wouldn't it be one hell of a note if it turns out that food handlers in the restaurants where the contaminated onions were served include illegal aliens from Mexico? And if that were to be the case, would anyone be the least bit surprised?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:35 PM

 
Bad energy bill short circuited
   The energy bill from hell crashed in flames today, shot down by a determined, bipartisan group of senators armed with grit and the light of day.
   The Bush administration and people in both houses of Congress responsible for concocting the bill will tell the public it fell victim to politically motivated obstruction. Indeed, sometimes serving the people means obstructing bad legislation.
   Those put out because the bill failed to gain the 60 Senate votes needed for cloture, to fend off a certain filibuster, should place blame where it really belongs. That begins with Vice President Dick Cheney, who chose to begin work on it in secret, at closed-door meetings with undisclosed participants.
   Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, House Whip Tom DeLay and other Republican leaders continued this theme by: 1, working up the bill behind closed doors, excluding Democrats completely; 2, filling lobbyists' orders instead of exercising good legislative judgment, so that the final product wildly overreached what moderates in both parties could support; 3, dumping a huge, complicated package before senators two or three days before they were expected to vote on the bill and hard against the Thanksgiving holiday.
   Concerning No. 3, it's also notable that Today (Friday), Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a staunch opponent, was still complaining he had not seen a copy of the whole bill. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., is no rookie. He has to know many senators would not vote blindly, in lockstep, for such a big, costly and complicated bill without reasonable time to go over the whole thing.
    The only conclusion we can draw from this gaffe is that Domenici realized his bill was so packed with pork, boondoggles, giveaways and detritus that the fewer details senators had time to dig out, the better. Things such as, as McCain pointed out, the squandering of taxpayers' money for "Hooters and polluters." He was referring to millions allotted for a Louisiana shopping mall that included a Hooters eatery.
   The Associated Press reports six Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill. Thirteen Democrats joined Republicans in support of the legislation. The bill was two votes shy of imposing cloture, with Majority Leader Bill Frist voting against cloture so the thing could be brought back later. Domenici and others vowed it would be brought back.
   Oh!pinion salutes, among others, Sens. McCain and Sununu, R-N.H., on the Republican side, and Democrats Dick Durbin, Ill., Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Calif.; Chuck Schumer, N.Y.; and Maria Cantwell, Wash.
   We hope Domenici, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, House Whip Tom DeLay and others responsible for this lousy piece of work and, ultimately, for its demise, will learn a lesson — not that we're holding our breath. You all may have sold out or maybe think your role is to be lobbyists-in-office, but others see things differently.

   Some senators, on principle, will so resent being frozen out of the lawmaking process until they're presented with a last-minute pig in a poke that they will vote to block, even if the bill includes goodies for their states.
   We hold Cheney in special contempt. We see in his role in the energy bill yet more evidence the vice president is a disciple of the devious and dishonest Richard Nixon.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:24 PM

 
Honor for Limbaugh falls through
   We're frankly not sure if this is a case of deranged conservatives acting out ludicrously or a spoof, but will pass it along for what it's worth.
   This is from the Web page of Claremont Institute, Los Angeles:
   "The Claremont Institute regrets to inform you that Rush Limbaugh will not be in attendance at the Institute's annual Churchill Dinner on Friday, November 21, 2003. Mr. Limbaugh was to receive the Claremont Institute's Statesmanship Award at that time."
   The site then quotes Limbaugh as saying he regrets he will be unable to attend because he must limit his travel for the rest of this year. Instead, Claremont Institute will host former education secretary and itinerant moralist scold Bill Bennett.
   A Google search turned up this page, cached, on which Brian T. Kennedy gushes:

   Oh!pinion considers Winston Churchill one of the finest men of the 20th, or perhaps any, century. This planned co-opting of his good name to honor a pompous windbag who has amassed millions by badmouthing political targets in the most mean-spirited, sarcastic, below-the-belt way is disgusting. That is, if it's for real.
   "Buoyancy and optimism"? Limbaugh? Either this is a put on or the Claremont crowd has taken over Cheech & Chong's recreation franchise.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:40 PM

 
Brace for all Michael, all the time
   Here we go again, folks — all scandal, all the time, with this episode starring Michael Jackson, pop star, freaky persona and accused — again — child molester.
   Cable news organizations have been thrown a BIG ONE and they're gleefully off on another disgustingly predictable feeding frenzy. News judgment? Proportionality? Attention to critically important matters affecting millions of Americans? The hell with those.
   Hey, there's scandal mongering to be done. Wolf Blitzer gets to breathlessly shout the news that Michael is expected to turn himself in and promptly be booked, and bonded out, so he will get to spend the night at home. Wow.
   All these infotainers are clucking their tongues and panning an unseemly news conference held yesterday, starring the local sheriff and prosecutor, where the officials yucked it up. Gee.
   As this is written, CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" is showing — better sit down if you can't take all this excitement — Michael Jackson's SUV being slowed down in heavy traffic! Live coverage from a chopper overhead!
   Call it son of OJ and son of Kobe. Call it parent of a strong desire to barf.
   Let's see, we've got what has to be one of our all-time poorest-performing presidents over in Britain. Hundreds of thousands of people from among the best friends this country has in the world are bitterly protesting his hideously misshapen rendition of leadership.
   We have a Democratic primary race going on. We have Muslim madmen killing our soldiers in Iraq and blowing up buildings in Istanbul.
   We have Republicans in Congress passing off corporate giants' latest greed stratagems as comprehensive energy policy and Medicare "reform" legislation. Together, those rotten pieces of work will probably set this country's beleaguered, ripped-off and otherwise abused working people back $300 billion or more in the next decade if, God forbid, they become law.
   So, what do our 24/7 TV "news" organizations go bananas over? The Michael Jackson scandal. So, we're treated to segments featuring everyone who's ever been in Michael Jackson's presence for more than 30 seconds, speculating on every minute speck of the weird one's life and every non-event and insignificant "development" in the case against him. We have lawyers coming out of the woodwork, speculating on everything under the sun to do with Michael Jackson, including what other lawyers are speculating about.
   To use an expression we particularly dislike but find regrettably appropriate here, this sucks.
   If the truth is ever to come out — highly uncertain, given what happened the last time Jackson faced such a charge — it will happen in court, months or years from now. Everything else is speculation, scandal mongering and, most of all, cheap filler for long talk-show segments strung out, one after another, into the indefinite future.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:39 PM

 
Domenici needs remedial law course
   Should the merits of a case of damage allegedly done to a person, community or state be decided in a court or be pre-empted by Congress and the president?
   According to Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., those who claim they've been harmed by MTBE should be locked out of the courts without so much as a hearing.
   MTBE is a gasoline additive used for years, at the government's direction, to reduce harmful vehicle emissions. The potent, slow-to-break-down chemical was later found to be contaminating ground water and soil in 49 states. It was also found to be a potential cause of leukemia, lymphoma and other cancers.
   In Senate debate this morning on the energy bill Domenici is a chief architect and manager of, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told of communities forced to shut down their water supplies because of MTBE contamination, and other harm done.
   Durbin said he's adamantly opposed to the bill because of the MTBE provisions alone. First, he said, there is the huge ($1.75 billion) sum to be given to industry, to transition from MTBE use. On top of that, Durbin was incensed that those who may have been harmed by MTBE will be denied their day in court.
   An indignant Domenici responded with an analogy that left us shaking our head and wondering which was more lacking, Domenici's reasoning ability or his debating skills. Whatever is going on with him, it's obvious he has a loose grip on the concept of legal justice.
   As Domenici would have it, the producers of MTBE should no more be held liable for harm from its use than Folger's Coffee should be held liable if McDonald's were to give someone a too-hot cup of Folger's coffee, so that the purchaser would be burned after spilling the coffee on him or herself. So, if after MTBE was produced and sold to gasoline makers and others, and "they splashed it around" or otherwise misused it, don't sue the manufacturer.
   Of course the harm done, as Domenici describes it, would not be Folger's fault, would not be MTBE producers' fault. But it's equally obvious to anyone with a even a rudimentary appreciation of how our justice system works that such a case would be thrown out by any judge with half a brain.
   What's at issue regarding harm done by MTBE and this energy bill is whether it's right to deny people the chance to bring their case to court in the first place.
   If those who bring cases obviously err in assigning blame, it's for a court to rebuff them.
   It is most certainly not the business of the United States Senate, Congress as a whole, or Congress and the president together to slam the courthouse door shut in people's faces. Doing so is as wrong as wrong can be, and Domenici, as a veteran lawmaker, ought to know better.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:12 PM

 
Good insight into bad bill's backers
   The corporate-political forces mobilizing to win passage of the Medicare so-called reform legislation egg the Republicans have laid is big and formidable.
   Nick Confessore at TAPPED has an excellent post that provides insight into who the forces pushing for this bill are and how they are configured, being in fact a veritable GOP takeover of Washington, D.C.'s lobbyist corps.
   If you're interested in what's going down and opposed to or on the fence about this standout example of bad legislation, you really ought take a couple of minutes to read Confessore's piece.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:04 PM

 
AARP sells out in snake-oil deal
   The pharmaceutical industry, HMOs and Republicans have concocted a prescription drug assistance plan the American Association of Retired Persons should be gagging on and running away from.
   Instead, AARP plans to "pull out all the stops," squandering up to $7 million to get the bill passed. AARP decision makers have evidently developed a taste for caustic drain cleaner passed off as something good for what ails older Americans.
   Start with the 15 percent discount the drug makers are so generously giving senior citizens until 2007, when money from the main plan provisions kick in. To begin with, 15 percent is paltry. The pharmaceuticals industry is one of the most profitable U.S. industries. Its corporate giants spend billions yearly on advertising, marketing, lobbying and campaign donations — especially to Republicans.
   One reason the pharmaceuticals industry is so profitable is that it has had free rein to gouge U.S. consumers. For a more-realistic look at what drugs should cost, consider that the same medications U.S. consumers must pay top dollar for are available from Canada, Mexico and in Europe for 50 percent or even 60 percent less. So that 15 percent discount is a miserly concession.
    Even so, AARP chief William Novelli and other true believers better hurry to take advantage of the discount. The ink will no sooner be dry on President Bush's signature on this awful bill and the drug makers will start bumping up the price of their products. Well before 2007 seniors will effectively pay the same high prices they pay now.
   Of course, ever mindful of the long-term best money-making interests of their corporate patrons, Republicans wouldn't hear of building in a price freeze between passage and 2007. Can't do that kind of thing in a free market, now can we?
   Free market? Competition? How about free trade — as in reimportation of drugs from Canada, so seniors get a real price break? Republicans will let the secretary of Health and Human Services decide whether to allow that. No one should hold their breath, in other words.
   The bill apparently calls for a $35 monthly charge along with increased deductibles and co-pays, which is bad news for low-income seniors, although some additional help is supposed to be targeted to them. Then there's the "donut hole," a bizarre gap in coverage when a senior's outlay for drugs gets up to $2,200. Between there and $3,600, the prescription-buying senior is on his or her own.
   The capper, though, has to be provisions designed to undermine Medicare and insinuate private-sector preferred-provider, or HMOs, into the system. The idea, Republicans hope, is to create the beginning of the end of Medicare. Such an outcome would be disastrous for a whole lot of seniors and could even be bad for many private-sector providers, in the long run.

   Tellingly, this lousy piece of work, running to hundred of pages, hadn't been written as of a week ago. It has been literally thrown together at the last minute.
   Tellingly also, it is designed to take full effect well after the next election. The Republicans behind this monstrosity, Bush foremost among them, obviously don't want Americans overall, seniors especially, to be fully aware of what this legislation means when they go to vote a year from now.
   Just this evening, Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, speaking on the House floor, blasted the bill. He cited several articles pointing out that Novelli is actually in charge of a $100 million insurance company and that Novelli once wrote an introduction to a Newt Gingrich book on privatizing Medicare. So, Novelli is apparently a right-wing mole, not the advocate for needy seniors most people would expect an AARP president to be.
   Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has threatened a filibuster to kill this so-called Medicare reform bill. Oh!pinion hopes his success in doing that will be among the things we can be thankful for during the upcoming holiday.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:43 PM

 
Billions for biggest contributors
   Details of the Republican-crafted energy bill provide shocking proof, as if more were needed, that the GOP is taking care of business, lavishly and at the expense of everyone else.
   Mention "welfare queen" and many Americans think of a ghetto-dwelling minority woman who has six kids, no husband and no job. It's more accurate these days to instead visualize well-heeled oil industry giants because, thanks to the Republicans' generosity with your money, they stand to gain $1.75 billion to help them "transition" from using MBTE.
   The additive MBTE came into use years ago to help gasoline producers meet clean air standards. But more recently states have begun banning MBTE after finding worrisome amounts of it in groundwater samples. MBTE has the potential to cause cancer in humans.
   Why can't highly profitable oil refiners and gasoline producers finance their own transition from using MBTE? Well, if they can induce Republicans to reach into your wallet to pay the way, why should they? A few million in well-placed contributions to reap $1.75 billion is a no-brainer investment when you're greed-driven and unscrupulous.
   Fact: In the election years of 2000 and 2002 alone, according to according to opensecrets.org, energy industry sources of various kinds contributed more than $90 million to Republicans, which was 74 percent and 73 percent, respectively, of their total political contributions.
   The same source details contributions to Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, from 1999-2003. The top six, in order, are: 1, Retired, $220,018; 2, oil & gas, $181,808; 3, electric utilities, $178,970; 4, lawyers/law firms, $133,448; 5, real estate, $112,900; and 6, lobbyists, $70,603.
   For 1997-2002, Domenici received: $21,600 from energy conglomerate the Southern Co., $19,000 from FirstEnergy Corp., $18,165 from PNM Resources, $11,950 from Los Alamos National Laboratory, $10,000 from Anadarko Petroleum and $10,000 from El Paso Corp, among many others on his way to raising $4.6 million.
   How about Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, who shepherded this cornucopia of goodies for the energy industry through the House? For his 2002 re-election race, electric utilities kicked in $140,876 and oil and gas interests contributed $121,750 toward his total of $1,983,854. Together, those generous gifts made the energy industry Tauzin's chief source of campaign funds.
   And, according to opensecrets.org, Tauzin has already raked in $480,789 for the 2003-2004 election cycle, $98,813 of it coming from electric, oil/gas, mining, chemical and related manufacturing interests.
   PAC contributions to Tauzin include: energy/natural resource, $118,313; oil and gas, $33,530; mining, $13,000; electric utilities, $67,283; and miscellaneous energy interests, $1,500.
   Excellent additional information is provided in an Associated Press story and at The Nation/Daily Outrage.
   Money lavished on these two strategically placed Republicans and the $1.75 billion of taxpayers' money being channeled to refiners represent just one buy-off/giveaway outrage in the Republicans' energy bill. Clearly, energy industry and related interests want the best government their money can buy. Clearly, with this energy bill, they are getting just what they've paid for — and lots more besides.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:08 PM

 
Bush presidency really a hedge fund
   "We can have a democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

President George W. Bush's re-election campaign war chest now holds more than $100 million. That total is, by far, much more, much earlier, than any incumbent president has ever amassed.
   Oh!pinion strongly believes people put up huge sums of money for political campaigns when — and only when — they're convinced that doing so will soon increase their wealth. Applying that proposition to the Bush presidency, we come immediately to who got how much out of three budget-busting, deficit-ballooning tax cuts. But those tax cuts are only part of the story.
Two worthwhile places to learn more about what's going on in this respect are whitehouseforsale.org and Common Cause's JustWatch Access site.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:42 PM

 
GOP serves up mystery meat
   Ever had the mystery-meat experience? It usually occurs in a cafeteria, hospital or on a plane, where you're served a nondescript meat portion bathed in camouflage gravy. Looking, sniffing and tasting fail to reveal just what it is.
   The thing about mystery meat is that, even though you realize it probably nourishes, overcomes hunger and won't permanently damage health, you don't much like it on general principles. Definite beef, pork or poultry is always preferable.
   Imagine then how enthusiastic Democrats are about the mystery-meat energy bill Republicans are serving them this weekend.
   Sure to be considered a delectable feast by energy, utility and construction industry interests, this concoction had its origins in secret "task force" meetings conducted by Vice President Dick Cheney and representatives of — guess what? — the energy industry, of course. As best we can determine, people representing taxpayers, consumers and the environment had no place at the table.
   In keeping with this Republican "feature" of cooking up policy and laws, unidentified House and Senate Republicans have been slaving away in the kitchen to produce the mystery-meat blue plate special being served up by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., this weekend. Democrats, of course, were not allowed into the kitchen.
   But, according to the Republicans' meal plan, Democrats will be allowed just a wee sample tasting period today and tomorrow, of the more than 1,700-page bill, before they are to vote their approval of the whole mystery-meat feast, in conference committees Monday, the House Tuesday and the Senate Wednesday.
   Pass the salt, please, one large grain at a time.
   Looking at ingredients fed to the Associated Press Friday by Domenici and Tauzin, critics are saying the mystery meat is loaded with fattening and unhealthy pork giveaways to all the big, fat corporations involved. Those include the energy corporations so beloved by folks in California, Oregon and Washington for having manipulated, lied, cheated and stolen billions from them, bankrupting California government, hurting all manner of consumers and businesses, only a short time ago. How quickly they hope we forget.
   But no, the idea, as Republicans see it, is that these corporations that have grown fat on a diet of ever-increasing profits gained through ordinary sales, plus as many billions as they've managed to supplement their diet with in ill-gotten gains, are somehow in need of incentives. They're in business, making terrific profits, yet require incentives to invest in increased future business and profits, plus whatever ill-gotten gains they can extract from us, of course. Got that?
   And what, exactly, are incentives? They are, among other things, big, fat tax breaks. That means your Republican president, senators and members of Congress expect you to cough up more money, somewhere down the line, for government services and activities, so these big, fat corporations can pay less or nothing at all. Then, with all the money these big, fat corporations won't have to pay to help keep up the nation they operate so profitably in, they can enhance their businesses. And that means they can increase their diet of money made from sales to you and to us. Got that?
   If not, don't worry. With help from President Bush, Sen. Domenici, Rep. Tauzin and their friends, who are the majority in Congress, you're going to get it. Believe us, you're going to get it.
   With this mystery meat on the menu, you'd better stock up on antacids — while you can still afford them.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:32 PM

 
Senate scoldfest a sorry spectacle
   Senate Republicans staged their almost-40-hour marathon hissy-fit this week, gaining hurrahs from the country's Dittohead contingent, no doubt with an outpouring of campaign donations to follow.
   Prompting the Republicans' indignant volleys of hot air was the promise of filibusters to block votes on four judicial nominations completely unacceptable to all but two Senate Democrats.
   The event ran Wednesday through Friday. In the end, cloture votes that if successful would've precluded filibusters failed to win the necessary 60 votes, getting only 53. That total included all the Republicans plus Democrat-in-name-only Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
   This unseemly and ultimately futile scoldfest was largely engineered by Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, one of the most ideologically bound far-right Republicans in the Senate. His wind-up diatribe, complete with adolescent-sounding threats that worse will befall Democrats, that they will never see another liberal judge appointed, ever, was perfectly in keeping with what we've come to expect from him.
   Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont took particular umbrage at Republicans' repeated attempts to smear uncooperative Democrats as being anti-Catholic, anti-Hispanic, anti-women or anti whatever category a given judge nominee could be assigned to.
   Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, with all the fiery vehemence one would expect from a woman scorned, lit into a Republican who had played the anti-woman card. We doubt any senators will try that tack in her presence again.
   Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, a staunch liberal Democrat, was taken bitterly to task by Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma, a Santorum-class radical right-wing zealot. Harkin's infraction was mentioning a couple of fellow senators by name in the same breath with the word "hypocrisy." We would be willing to swear we had heard the very same reference applied to several Democrats by name, along with quotes of the Democrats' past statements, by at least two Republicans.
   Unfortunately, Democrats failed to get through this wasteful ordeal without soiling their white hats. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York had no business referring to the nominees as "turkeys." Sen. Ted Kennedy did himself, his party and the Senate no favor by referring to the nominees as "Neanderthals."
   However unacceptable their political leanings or perceived temperament, the nominees are people of some accomplishment who come to the Senate in good faith, seeking approval for a job. They have family, friends and colleagues watching. They have feelings. They deserve, if not cordiality, at least courtesy and respect.
   The Senate has had a long tradition of relative civility and comity. It was for decades referred to as "the Club," signifying a stark contrast between its more genteel and considerate norms, and the rough-and-tumble, cut-and-dried ways of the House. In the wake of the so-called Reagan revolution, and especially since the upheaval of 1994, with the infusion of doctrinaire, far-right-wing neoconservatives such as the sometimes sarcastic and mean-spirited Nickles, the often bombastic former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas and frequently caustic Santorum, the Club concept now exists only in the nostalgic recollections of old timers these days — a regrettable situation for the Senate and the country.
   Santorum and his party win no laurels for going out of their way to make matters worse.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:32 PM

 
Excessive-overtime folly detailed
   We've said it before but now comes fresh evidence the concept of doing more with (and frequently for) less quickly becomes a greed-driven exercise in pushing past the point of diminishing returns.
   The 20 percent of workers in extended-hours businesses that put in 60 percent of the overtime are doing so with impressively bad impacts on the workers and even negative consequences for their employers.
   That's the finding in a report released recently by a consulting firm that studies businesses operating night and evening shifts, or at times other than between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
   According to Circadian Technologies, Inc., "some employees are at or beyond the point at which long hours will negatively impact productivity, health and safety." There is a definite downside to downsizing and/or refusing to hire in the face of increased business. It includes everything from rapidly declining productivity in the overtime hours to increased injuries, customer-annoying screw-ups, more absenteeism and rising turnover rates.
   One phenomenon being seen is called "presenteeism." It's described as workers being on the job with their mind at home or somewhere else.
   Evidently business decision makers don't know or particularly care, however, because Circadian says it finds the businesses it studies have pushed the average overtime to 12.6 percent beyond the standard 40-hour week. The measure was at 11.9 percent last year.
   Further details of Circadian's findings are available here.
   This is just one more brick in growing wall of evidence that the hardest-working, longest-working people in the world are stuck in a race to the bottom, struggling with a seemingly interminable "jobless recovery" that's stranding more working and middle class families, more medium and small businesses, in dire straits with each passing month.
   Corporate America is spending big, donating millions to get what it wants. And what it wants, what it's profiting so greatly from, is what is hurting so many people in so many ways.
   The way out of this mess is through the ballot box. Maybe next November a sufficient number of Americans will have had a belly full of supply side stupidity and free trade/globalization self-destruction to make the big changes in leadership that a better future for all Americans requires.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:22 PM

 
MoveOn contest seeks Bush truth ad
   Somewhere in America there's a creative individual with a compelling idea for a TV ad that shows President Bush's leadership for the ongoing, unremitting debacle it is.
   MoveOn.org wants to find that person and put his or her ad on national TV during the week of Bush's next State of the Union Address, the organization announced this week.
   MoveOn said in a news release that 30-second ad submissions will be judged first at its new Web site, http://www.bushin30seconds.org, during December and later by a panel of "entertainment and political experts." Those will include Donna Brazile, James Carville, Margaret Cho, Hector Elizondo, Janeane Garofalo, Stan Greenberg, Michael Moore, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Gus Van Sant.
   A MoveOn spokesman noted the Bush campaign's goal of amassing hundreds of millions of dollars so it can manipulate public opinion, especially in swing states, and said MoveOn intends to counter that with the truth about Bush's record at home and in Iraq.
   The release described the MoveOn.org Voter Fund as "a Section 527 political organization affiliated with MoveOn.org, which will create and run powerful political ads in swing states to challenge President Bush's policies and his administration. MoveOn.org, the Voter Fund's sister, is an online grass roots advocacy organization with over 1.6 million members nationwide."
   An unspecified prize was mentioned. Contest rules are at the Web site.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:32 PM

 
On to mismanaging the occupation
   Stepped up coalition attacks on purported insurgent targets being carried out in Iraq may be necessary, but they're almost certain to make matters worse.
   Decision makers in the Bush administration and the coalition command really don't have much choice but to authorize our forces to strike back in the face of intensifying attacks by insurgents. This is because it has become clear to everyone that our forces have been put in an untenable situation.
   Our troops are subject to being picked off, one, two, a half-dozen at a time, day in, day out, virtually without letup. Yet our intelligence is so lacking that our forces have so far had few opportunities to do much more than maintain a defensive posture, often in hostile urban settings. Pre-emptive and retaliatory attacks that would be justified and potentially helpful if based on sound intelligence become a short-term pain reliever and long-term liability in the current situation.
   This is a perfect setup to create fear and frustration leading to demoralization. Our forces are trained and organized to fight identifiable armies in a wide range of settings. They rely on coordinated action among special forces, infantry, artillery and mechanized units on the ground, and several kinds of air support. They have extensive capabilities for probing and tracking conventional enemies that are not within sight in daylight.
   The hit-and-run and suicide attacks perpetrated by insurgents in Iraq are calculated to deny our troops the ability to call any of their advantages into play, while extracting a small but maddeningly steady price in blood and peace of mind. So giving our people the order to strike back is good therapy, if nothing else — they're not just standing around waiting to get picked off.
   The joker in this deck is that by taking out houses, neighborhoods or parts of a town suspected of harboring insurgents, and by conducting SWAT team-type raids and hauling people in, all on the basis of poor intelligence, our people are sure to anger ever more Iraqis. The liberation fig leaf gets blown away and the reality of occupation cannot be denied.
   This virtually ensures the insurgents, domestic and imported, will be joined by more and more Iraqis in resisting our forces as time goes on.
   It's clear President Bush and his glory-seeking band of neoconservative hawks have gotten our military into a no-win, quagmire situation. First, they deluded themselves, then they misled Congress and the nation. Now they're scrambling, with one eye on the deteriorating situation in Iraq and the other on sagging polls and what those might mean for the president's re-election prospects. The president's father had a good term for this sort of thing: "deep doo-doo."
   Oh!pinion strongly believes coalition forces should be withdrawn from cities within the Sunni Triangle. That area should be encircled and surveilled. All comings and goings should be carefully scrutinized. Intensified efforts to gather intelligence within the encircled area should be undertaken. When sufficient information becomes available, special forces raids and/or air strikes should be undertaken.
   This may not be a perfect strategy but would be less costly in lives and Iraqi alienation than anything Bush & Co. have come up with.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:52 PM

 
Bush goes where the money is
   President Bush pushed his re-election campaign fund to $98 million Monday, at his 36th and 37th fund-raising appearances of the year, the Associated Press reports.
   Bush visited Little Rock and South Carolina, holding a town hall meeting at a South Carolina BMW plant between fund raisers. At the factory he talked up free trade, saying, "We want free trade because we want you to be able to sell what you make here out of the state of South Carolina overseas."
   No such concern was shown for the tens of thousands of out-of-work textile workers left high and dry as their industry abandoned the Carolinas in recent years, thanks to free trade. They weren't on hand in the BMW plant where ultra-expensive sport roadsters and SUVs are produced.
   On July 31, the South Carolina State newspaper reported that just since June, 2000, South Carolina had lost 21,600 textile industry jobs, while North Carolina had lost 53,300 — one third of those states' jobs in that industry.
   It's as doubtful any of those jobless textile workers could afford to attend Bush's fund raiser as it is unlikely any would want to. None of them are likely to be in the market for a BMW any time soon, either.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:22 PM

 
E-1, you're in the company of heroes
This is for the newest recruits just starting their basic training in any branch of America's military, and for all those who've ever been new recruits.

   At 05:30, longing for even five minutes more of precious sleep, you form up with your fellow Basics in front of the dorm. You peer into the predawn gloom with bleary eyes, shaking off the morning chill. Then a loud, suddenly familiar voice ends all the shuffling and whispering.
    "All right, fall in. Ten-hut!"
   There before you, as you'll soon come to realize if you haven't already, is Sgt. Bad Attitude, your mentor, taskmaster, teacher and tormentor. That training or drill instructor got the job because of demonstrated talent and skill at being your finest example of soldiering, your best hope, your worst nightmare, your recurring source of trepidation and frustration, all rolled into one. And, what a set of lungs!
   Tall or short, lean or beefy, dressed in fatigues so starched and pressed they can stand at attention all by themselves, is someone who surely thinks you're a poorly coordinated, dim-witted slacker whose only redeeming feature is that you came to him or her potty trained.
   Your TI paces before you, looking the front row over, then jabs a finger at an unbuttoned shirt pocket while screaming displeasure in a fellow basic's face so loudly you feel it, five bodies away, and tremble.
   Buck up, Basic, for this person is going to be with you day and night for weeks, marching you to breakfast, sick call, classes and maybe chapel, pulling, pushing prodding and screaming you into what it takes to make wearing the uniform something more to your soul than donning a costume and playing a part. Your TI will show you how to get past obstacles that look impossible and how to really make a bed. If it's been awhile, your TI will reacquaint you with the taste of dirt, the value of eating chow you don't like, the aroma of sweat, the benefits of a 90-second shower and the special anguish of getting painstakingly polished footwear caked with mud, again. Your TI will hustle you to the limits of your wind, your endurance and patience more than a few times, strengthening your body, honing your spirit, and welding you and your fellow Basics into a team.
   In his or her care you'll experience moments in which you've never felt so alone and vulnerable, yet end up feeling more a proud, valued, fully belonging part of something worthwhile than you've ever felt before. Let someone treat you or your unit badly, take unfair advantage or, especially, endanger you, and you'll see a demonstration of fierce protectiveness from your TI that would do a mama lion proud.
   If you're like most, you came to military service as much kid as adult, all rough edges and full of yourself, and at some level convinced of your own immortality. Your TI, of course, knows that. Chances are, he or she is someone who also knows what it means to lose a buddy, someone who's familiar with loss of an eye or a limb, with injuries that portend a lifetime of disability. That's in large part why, more than anyone you've ever known, your TI will impose strict discipline upon you and all your fellow Basics. You'll start out believing that's done to control you. In time, you'll appreciate that it's really a way of instilling in you a soldier's most essential strength, self-discipline, because self-discipline is what gives spine and staying power to the will o' the wisp of courage.
   Basic training is only a few short weeks, but by the time your TI gets through with you, he or she will be as indelibly stamped on your memory as your own mother. And you will be forever different — and better — because of your TI's skill, spirit and dedication.
   "Dress right, dress!"
   Look right now, Basic, past the next person, to the shadow forms that extend beyond your mortal ranks. There, shoulder-to-shoulder in silent formation, are the spirits of brave souls who plied the Delaware with Washington and stood their ground at Yorktown, or at the Alamo; who battled, bled and died at Bull Run and Vicksburg, at Belleau Wood and the Marne; who fought on land, air and sea at Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima and across Europe; who have given their all at Inchon, at An Loc and, now, in Fallujah. Know them, honor them and be of their quality.
   You're only an E-1, just starting out, but may God bless and keep you always, for you march in the company of heroes.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:21 PM

 
Bit of good news going a long way
   That 7.2 percent jump in gross national product for the third quarter is getting a workout. It's topic A, B and C for President Bush as he goes around the country raising money for his 2004 campaign. Bush's position, of course, is that it's all due to his big tax cuts.
   After such a long siege of lousy news on the economic front, maybe Bush can be excused for leaping at the chance to spread a rare piece of good news. As well, he may be trying to make an impression with it before it gets revised downward — not uncommon for reports on recent economic performance.
   Marty Jezer at AlterNet has an interesting opposing view about the GNP increase, including:

   Read all of Jezer's excellent post here.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:57 PM

 
Democrats better work on the basics
   "Our political life is becoming so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public relations men that the idealist who dreams of independent statesmanship is rudely awakened by the necessities of election and accomplishment."
— John F. Kennedy, "Profiles in Courage," young readers edition.

   The Harris Poll at midweek reported confidence levels in President Bush's handling of Iraq were 41 percent positive, 58 percent negative. That's notably down from 47 percent and up from 51 percent, respectively, for that poll as recently as September.
   In the same poll 51 percent say they're not confident of a good outcome in Iraq, while only 25 percent expect a good outcome.
   CNN reported yesterday, "In the Newsweek poll, 50 percent of registered voters who were queried said they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 44 percent said they do." The sampling of 1002 registered voters was conducted in the two days preceding and has a margin of error of three points in either direction.
   The Newsweek poll also showed 16 percent of Democrats giving Gov. Howard Dean the lead among competitors for the 2004 presidential nomination. Gen. Wesley Clark was second with 15 points, Rep. Dick Gephardt third with nine points.
   Is all this cause for rejoicing among Democrats and independents who desperately want to see President Bush's horrendously bad management at home, wreckage of foreign relations, and entrenchment of social and economic Darwinism brought to an end 12 months hence? Maybe, just maybe.

   Before getting all bullish and ebullient, let's keep in mind that there's many a slip twixt cup and the lip. Bush, after all, has goosed the economy like no one has goosed it before. Even the most rapacious and callous CEOs may realize they've reached a point of diminishing returns through dumping bodies and requiring survivors to do more with (and sometimes for) less. They may have to start hiring again in good numbers. And you can bet his political Darth Vader, Karl Rove, will pull out all the stops to cut Bush's political losses and make an early exit from the quagmire-prone shooting gallery Iraq has become if things don't get better there soon.
   But let's say for a moment it all goes wrong for Bush & Co. and that voters send him back to Crawford, Texas, with a stunning defeat. Let's say people are so disgusted that any of the competing Democrats will do, just so Bush gets replaced. Time to sing "Happy Days Are Here Again"?
   Not quite.
   If they're smart, Democrats, led by whomever is their victorious candidate, will realize that, important though it is, winning the White House is not the whole ball of wax. If they're dumb — and the capacity for that seems considerable — they will replay the nonsense of the Clinton years.
   That's right: nonsense of the Clinton years. That's not heresy, just common sense. Noted for getting himself into terrible binds and coming back, Clinton's remarkable ability to bounce back not only was not conferred upon or shared with his party, his time as president was a period in which the party overall rode a down escalator that was accelerating.
   There is a phenomenon in presidential politics called "coattails." The term derives from the days when gentlemen wore coats with tails, and the allusion is to lesser men holding on to the tails of someone very successful, riding to victory with him — and thanks to him. Clinton was the anti-coattails president, presiding over the debacle of 1994, when even well-entrenched incumbent Democrats from supposedly safe states and districts were turned out of both houses of Congress, with control of the House going to Rep. Newt Gingrich and his mean-spirited cohort.
   Democrats, so long the clear majority party, have found the going increasingly rough ever since. The out party typically manages to gain seats in Congress in off-year elections, but not last year, when about the only bright spot for Democrats was Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's impressive runoff win against a strongly Bush-backed challenger. Democrats did score some gains in governorships then. But just last week, the governorships of Mississippi and Kentucky were won by Republicans. In Mississippi, an incumbent lost. In Kentucky, a preference for Democratic governors more than three decades old was shattered.
    The downward trajectory of Democratic prospects and election results — aside from the presidency — are shown graphically and depressingly in a revealing series of charts you can see in the Nov. 6 article at the Undernews Web site (which has lots of good stuff).
   The discomfiting truth is that there's more to getting somewhere in American politics than winning the presidency. Even in the occasional situation where Democrats have a young, attractive, charismatic winner out front, like John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton, actually making a difference in the country's future direction requires a supporting cast of senators, representatives, governors and state legislators. Even having a bunch of bright, savvy, good-government city councilmen across the country is important because some of them will go on to win and serve well in higher office. It is in this matter that Democrats have been on a losing course for many, many years.

   Oh!pinion doesn't claim to know all the answers required for rectifying this, but will make a couple of suggestions.
   First, and despite what we said about coattails, Democrats need to get past the cult of the personality, to build the party, to win over more hearts and minds.
   Democrats need to work beyond election campaigns and related fund raising. Ever have friends or relatives who never show up except at mealtime or when they want to borrow something? Pretty soon you begin to feel used and wish they wouldn't show up at all.
   Americans take as a given that anyone running for office will say anything they think voters want to hear. They also expect office-seekers to have a hand out for donations. That's exactly why Democrats not running for office, not spending a lot of time soliciting donations, can put forth Democratic ideas, ideals, the thinking behind programs and plans, with more credibility, to audiences that are more receptive.
   In doing this, there's a need for Democratic speakers to concentrate on what we call basic things — how and why, as Jim Carville put it, "we're right and they're wrong." They should be head-on in doing it, telling, for example, how and why government plays such a diversified role in modern American life, telling how and why it's better to enlarge the whole economic pie than to set people to trying to enlarge their own piece by taking bites out of other people's pieces (what supply siders promise while delivering opposite results).
   Finally, Democrats need to come up with effective means to match and counter the multifaceted, prolific, highly vocal, well-funded and well-coordinated infrastructure conservatives have created to mold public opinion, and enthuse and mobilize their core supporters. We mean everything from think tanks cranking out books, magazines and articles, white papers and free newspaper editorials, to scholarship essay contests, to speakers bureaus, to talk radio "personalities."
   Maybe you can come up with more ideas along these lines. If so, please leave a comment.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:29 PM

 
Iraq a subject Bush wants to change
   After weeks of talking about Iraq, in concert with the administration's Good News PR offensive, President Bush devoted his weekly radio message to talking about the economy. That comes as no surprise because there's some encouraging news on the economic front. Iraq is, literally, a bloody disaster.
   Thirty-six U.S. personnel were killed in Iraq during the first week of November, which is more than in all of September, when 31 were killed. Six perished near Tikrit Friday in the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter.
   In all, 269 Americans have been killed in Bush's war in Iraq, the Associated Press reported today.
   The International Red Cross announced it will close offices in Baghdad and Basra for the time being, citing extremely dangerous conditions. Two Red Cross employees were killed in an Oct. 27 attack. In recent weeks, following two vicious attacks that resulted in considerable loss of life among its personnel, the United Nations has all but fled the country.
   Earlier in the week, U.S. TV news viewers were treated to the sight of Iraqis celebrating at the scene of a downed helicopter in which American soldiers had lost their lives and at another location where a U.S. truck convoy had been blown up, with more loss of life.
   News reports during the week indicate that our intelligence capabilities in Iraq are virtually no better than before the war and during the invasion. We have too few people who speak the local language, too few translators and too few trustworthy informants. Consequently, we don't know precisely who is attacking us and where they're coming from.
   On Friday Turkey reversed course, saying it will not send in 10,000 troops. The administration a month ago hailed Turkey's agreement to send troops to neighboring Iraq as a show of support and a chance to add the coalition's first sizeable contingent from a mostly Muslim country. The problem, evidently, is that the Iraqi interim ruling council did not want Turkish military troops in Iraq.
   Also during the week, Sen. John McCain and others continued to question the size of our force in Iraq, concerned that "more boots are needed on the ground" there.
   The giant contractor corporation Halliburton, of which Vice President Dick Cheney used to be CEO, it was learned, is charging U.S. taxpayers an outrageously inflated price to bring gasoline into the country — under a no-bid, no oversight contract.
   The administration's current strategy seems to consist of keeping the lid on any way it can, while rushing Iraqis through training to become police officers and soldiers, and putting together some sort of government, all in the midst of a wide-open, Beirut-style shooting gallery. To support this, the president this week signed an $87 billion supplemental budget measure, about $20 billion of it a gift to be used for a wide range of nation-building projects. That brings the total this calendar year to about $166 billion in direct outlays for Iraq, all of it borrowed from future taxpayers.
   Oh!pinion believes a brass-tacks accounting that includes incidentals and indirect expenses would boost the total outlay for Iraq to about $185 billion for the past 12 months.

   So, what we have here is an elective war, undertaken on the say so of President Bush, purportedly to extinguish an imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's many and varied weapons of mass destruction — examples of which have yet to be found — resulting in American troops being mired in a deadly shooting gallery in the midst of a largely hostile and heavily armed population.
   The WMD rationale, having proven hollow, has been replaced by a glorious mission (the word "crusade" is not to be mentioned) to democratize Iraq, on the way to transforming the entire Middle East. The Keystone Kops strategy is being proven as deadly for our people, cooperating Iraqis and others, as it is ineffective in stabilizing the country. And all the while, some big corporations are making a windfall killing to the tune of hundreds of millions, soon to be billions, of taxpayers' dollars.
   Oh, by the way, CNN reports there is ominous evidence of backsliding in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has failed to follow through with funding and other support to back up promises made following the invasion of that country. Terrorist attacks are on the rise, warlords basically run the country outside of Kabul and illegal drugs are the country's main export.
   God help whoever gets the job of cleaning up the incredible mess Bush has made.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:31 PM

 
Weekend whacks
`Rock the vote' rumble no way to score points
   This week's whacks go to Sen. John Edwards and the Rev. Al Sharpton, for their attack on Gov. Howard Dean at CNN's "Rock the Vote" event.
   They piled onto Dean for saying Democrats must forge a link to white Southerners who have a Confederate flag on their pickup. They castigated him for everything from stereotyping to meddling in a Southern matter, to dealing in some kind of racism, although precisely what kind of racism wasn't very clear.
   Rather than indulge in demagoguery, Dean's assailants should've said something like, "Hey, he's got a point."
    What Dean was getting at, as he has explained before and since this tempest in a teapot, is the need for Democrats to reach out to Southern whites who are not rich, powerful and well connected. Those Southern whites, in Dean's view, have been voting for Republicans for 30 years and haven't been well served in return.
   Had Dean's assailants said he had made a poor choice of metaphors in using the confederate flag to symbolize the nonwealthy and not politically powerful segment of Southern whites, they could've avoided looking quite so desperate to take Dean down a peg. No doubt their theatrics were fueled by a certain amount of frustration. They are engaged in, to borrow Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's phrase, a long, hard slog.
   Dean came close to earning a whack himself, however, for later apologizing for what the others said he'd said. He would've done better to acknowledge that any reference to the "stars and bars" is liable to raise hackles one way or another, at the same time insisting his point is valid and that he'll continue to make it without that reference.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:27 PM

 
Judicial nominee is being used
   With their man in the White House, a Republican majority in the other body and having a slight-but-sufficient majority in their own house, you'd expect Senate Republicans to be happy campers.
   In reality, they're so uptight these days you'd swear they came to work in Fruit of the Looms two sizes too small. There are several reasons: heat from home about all the jobs they insist on free-trading away, more heat about President Bush's $1 billion-a-week Iraq habit, yet more heat about making the hundreds of billions we're lavishing on an oil-wealthy nation a gift instead of a loan — further ballooning our already huge deficit.
   But what really has Senate Republicans in an industrial-strength snit is judicial appointments. Four of 168 Bush nominees have been stymied by Democrats so far. Indications are that another will bite the dust next week, if Democrats have to filibuster to make that happen.
   So, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is going around looking like he's one shallow, rapid breath short of blowing a gasket. And last night, after the committee voted on some appointments, 19th-century conservative Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was the picture of white-knuckled frustration as he discussed Republican intentions to find some way around the filibuster.
   Senate Republicans apparently envision a 30-hour marathon during which they will likely complain at great length about how unfair this situation is. They hope at some point to be able to slip in a vote on a judge appointment, if they can just catch Democrats on the floor a few senators shy to stop them. Or, Republicans might find some way to jigger the rules. Santorum said "options" were being examined.

   Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court justice with right-wing extremism issues, is at the center of current hostilities. From modest beginnings in rural Alabama, Brown became an attorney, former Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs secretary and ultimately won appointment to the state's highest court. President Bush nominated her this year for a position on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
   As an African American woman who studied and worked hard, and attained a high position in her profession, Brown is the sort liberal Democrats usually celebrate.
   Her manner before the Judiciary Committee, which aired on C-SPAN, was gentle, polite, at times almost reticent. Newspaper reports tell of decisions that register moderately conservative, politically, and an American Bar Association rating of just barely qualified.
    Brown's real problem is a record of writings and speeches that are enough to make a moderate Democrat like Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin label her out of the mainstream, and leave veteran liberals like Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., apoplectic. Brown's sentiments are stridently anti-government and unkindly disposed toward workers and consumers.
    Much was made at her confirmation hearing, for example, about her opinion in an age discrimination case. Brown's writing came off as callous, suspicious and dismissive of the notion age discrimination is even a legitimate problem.
   In a case involving a San Francisco law requiring owners of residential hotels that change those properties to help fund low-income housing, Brown wrote, "private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco." Feinstein, incredulous, pointed out that Brown's contention is blatantly wrong.
    All the committee Democrats, however, pointed to Brown's blast at government in a speech made in 2000 as clear evidence she lacks the impartiality and judicial demeanor to serve on a high-level court that decides many crucial cases involving federal agencies:

   Without taking anything back, Brown defended her statements as deliberately strong because they were intended to provoke thought and discussion. Committee Democrats deemed them revealing of a completely unsuitable mindset and voted accordingly.
   Committee Republicans, who were lavish in praising of Brown, and who have a one-vote majority, cleared her way for a vote by the entire Senate. Thus, the stage is set for a filibuster and the planned Republican effort to somehow prevail anyway.
   Although Brown's statements make her clearly unsuitable in Oh!pinion's view, we have sympathy for her feelings. Her hopes have been raised. She has been made a pawn in a larger political game by Bush, nominally, but in all likelihood by his political adviser, Karl Rove, in reality. The idea, we believe, is to try to hold Democrats' feet to the fire by putting them in the position of rejecting a successful African American woman. It's a way to win points with Bush's base, because her words are those of a hard-edged conservative, and to try to drive a wedge between Democrats and African American voters whose support will be crucial for Democrats in 2000.

   Whoever at the White House decided to nominate Brown had to know there was no way Democrats would approve her, that her hearing would be rough, that a filibuster would ensue, that she would utlimately be rejected. If our suspicions are correct, Justice Brown is being used in a despicably cynical way.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:27 PM

 
Gephardt trade views laudable
   In New Hampshire on Monday, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., made official his candidacy for president in 2004. The announcement comes as no surprise, of course, as he's been running in earnest all year.
   One of the most crucial concerns facing the country heading into the campaign year proper involves trade, jobs and the future of our badly skewed economy. Gephardt addressed these issues in an Aug. 27 speech. Below, brief excerpts from that speech:

   ". . . Here at home, millions of Americans have also suffered from misguided trade policies. Jobs have been lost, lives shattered and families torn apart. Democratic reforms earlier this century may have raised American workers out of the depths of poverty but political indifference threatens the safety and security of the American middle class, the very heart and soul of this country."
   "In the United States, it began with the loss of manufacturing jobs that too many of our leaders are willing to throw away — steel, automobiles, textiles, shoes, furniture — a list we all know too well. But that list is just the beginning of the jobs we will lose, not the end.
   ". . . These high-tech jobs are moving overseas to Indonesia, India, and China. These are the jobs that were to be America's future. Remember how we were promised that these new trade agreements traded industrial age jobs for information age jobs?
   "Well, we now face the reality that the jobs of the twenty-first century may not be American jobs. We are shipping them all overseas in pursuit of higher corporate profits and lower corporate overhead, a fool's bargain that can only end with fewer American consumers and a weaker American economy."
   Gephardt had more to say, all of it worthwhile. Surf over to his site to see all of, "Trade and the Global Economy."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:09 PM

 
Ironies attend abortion bill signing
   President Bush today made a showpiece event of signing a law prohibiting so-called partial-birth abortions.
   With conviction, emotion and uncharacteristic eloquence, Bush said that government's duty is to protect the lives of the innocent, that government mustn't take what it cannot give. That, he said, is the province of the Creator of all life.
   The signing ceremony nominally marked the end of a long, hard struggle for religious and social conservatives vehemently opposed to all abortion, and especially opposed to the kind addressed by the law. Nominally, because the ink was barely dry on the president's signature before legal challenges were being filed.
   The now-banned procedure is nearly as rare as it is grisly. In practice, it's something no ethical doctor would employ except in the most desperate circumstances. Pro-choice critics of the bill say it omits provision for the health of the mother.
   Therein lies a telling irony, given Bush's inspired words about sparing lives and about who gets to decide. For in supporting and signing this law, the president has taken the decision into his own hands: baby over mother. Make no mistake: The stakes during childbirth can escalate in a brief moment from struggling to ensure the mother's health to fighting to save her life — or not. Now, fear of federal prosecution must be factored into a doctor's decision making.
   A further irony is that this president, a conservative ideologue, has decided that government — the power of the state — will intervene decisively in what opponents of the law rightly consider a matter to be decided by the mother, her family and her physician.
   There may be portent for the 2004 election in the makeup of the assemblage for the bill signing. NBC reported there was not a single female.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:23 PM

 
Republicans can't hack freedom
The vast right-wing pressure network is in high dudgeon and high gear about . . .
   More than 3 million Americans unable to find decent jobs, or any jobs? Forty-three million Americans without medical insurance? The U.S. squandering in our ill-conceived war in Iraq the lives of some our best people and $1 billion a week, the money being borrowed from future generations?
   No, what has the demagogues of the right in a state of quaking hysteria is a made-for-TV movie about Ronald Reagan that none of them has even seen. But hey, the star of the show is James Brolin, whose only crime is that he's married to Barbra Streisand, who is a liberal. The very thought is enough to give a conservative a case of the vapors.
   So, the Republican National Committee demanded to see the movie ahead of time, the better to demand an unprecedented right to pre-emptively censor it.
   Never mind that this movie, whatever it's really like, was not created, or to be presented, as a documentary. The producers apparently did not intend to characterize it as true-to-life, just as based on. That's not a new wrinkle in moviemaking. Many a film has been made mixing characters from real life with largely or entirely fictional incidents and dialogue.
   Not surprisingly, CBS has decided not to show the movie on broadcast TV. Instead, the movie will be shown on a cable movie channel. The reason: it lacked balance. What a bunch of nonsense. Since when is a nondocumentary TV movie obligated to be "balanced"?
   This episode provides clear evidence of how dedicated right-wing Republicans are to freedom of expression. The more power and influence they have acquired, the more arrogant, overbearing and abusive of fundamental rights and freedoms they've become.
   We have no idea if the movie in question is good, bad or indifferent. We have no idea if the movie gratuitously or in some inaccurate way cast Reagan in a bad light. In our view, CBS should've been free to air it. Americans should've been free to watch it and make up their own minds, turning away from it if they found it objectionable.
    That's called freedom. Freedom is supposed to be the American way. Republicans, conservatives, are supposed to be OK with that. Obviously, they are not.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:32 PM

 
Alabama junket nets $1.85 million
   President Bush dropped in on a prospering Alabama crane leasing business today, trumpeting the wisdom of his economic policy of tax cuts on top of tax cuts. Those were the right thing to do, at the right time, he said.
   Bush told the 350 small-business owners and employees on hand that the country's economy and entrepreneurial spirit are strong but added that there is more work to do, the Associated Press reports.
   With well over 10 percent real unemployment and more than 3 million jobs eliminated on his watch, that acknowledgement marks Bush as a master of understatement. Alabama, with 5.1 percent unemployment, a percentage point less than the U.S. as a whole, was a fairly safe place to understate.
   That is apparently so, even though in 2001 the Economic Policy Institute cited Alabama as one of 10 states suffering the worst job losses because of free trade and globalization between 1994 and 2000, 3.1 percent of the state's jobs having succumbed to those footings of Bush's ideological foundation.
   But no one there apparently broached the subjects of downsizing, free trade and globalization with Bush. It would've been interesting, for example, to hear what he might have to say about a report of the American Textiles Manufacturers Institute that projects Alabama is destined to lose 30,000 textile and apparel jobs by 2006.
   Titled, "The China Threat to World Textile and Apparel Trade," the 22-page report begins with this ominous look ahead:

   That no such incommodious questions were asked is not surprising, of course, because this kind of speaking engagement is one step up from a Rose Garden photo op — an image-building, message-emphasizing exercise deliberately made before an audience selected for the high likelihood of its being friendly and receptive. Toward the end of our seemingly interminable, tragic involvement in Vietnam, President Richard Nixon would give such talks, about how we must persevere, from inside the high fences and guarded gates of major Air Force bases, safe from the unwelcome jibes and questions of America's burgeoning antiwar majority.
   Ultimately, the crane business engagement was but a preliminary for an economic concern that appears to be even closer to Bush's heart these days. His next stop was a reception for big-bucks fund raisers and then a luncheon with $2,000 contributors at which he picked up another $1.85 million for his re-election campaign, boosting his total to $92 million, the AP story says.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:41 PM

 
China's WMD tycoon visits D.C.
   With U.S. homes, stores and remaining businesses filling up with goods made in Communist China, to the tune of a $103 billion trade imbalance last year alone, it bears mentioning that the People's Republic is about more than exporting aluminum cookware and DVD drives.
   Last week, during a sparsely reported visit in Washington, D.C., Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan met with Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and, separately, with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. During the latter meeting, President Bush put in an appearance.
   As reported in the Washington Times, Gen. Cao is quite a guy. Think of him as the J.C. Penney of the weapons of mass destruction biz — missiles, poison gas, biologicals, you name it. During a lengthy and highly successful career, Cao has been involved in China's other kind of industry, the one where the Red Army operates factories and prisons, some of which are themselves factories. Think slave labor.
   If you're high up in, or at the head of, a Middle East country full of radical fundamentalist Muslims, a country with an attitude, in other words, you want the latest in deadly weapons. Gen. Cao is sure to be on your short list of people to see.
   That may be why Rumsfeld, a conservative hawk and veteran Cold Warrior, begged off attending a Chinese embassy dinner in Cao's honor, citing a previous engagement. Cao hardly had to dine alone, however. The Washington Times reports that former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former National Security Adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger showed up.
   The apparent snub was not mentioned by the China Daily in its Oct. 31 story on the Cao-Rumsfeld meeting. This account was purely positive, stressing closer ties and mutual cooperation.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:08 AM

 
It's time to alter strategy in Iraq
   Sunday morning talk shows full of discussion about Iraq, with that herald of unreported Good News and oracle of stay-the-course positivism, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., nowhere in sight. Well, well.
   Maybe even McConnell finds daunting the prospect of selling stories about Iraqi kids in the street giving thumbs-up to passing Americans on a morning full of news about a Chinook helicopter being brought down by a shoulder-fired missile, with 15 of our soldiers killed, 21 injured. Plus, a soldier and two American civilians were killed in separate incidents.
   Without abandoning the foolish and deadly dangerous Bush course in Iraq entirely, a good case can be made for making a substantial course correction.
   Most of the big killing is going on in the Beirut-like shooting gallery, the Sunni Triangle region of central Iraq. Specifically, in and adjacent to cities within the triangle. It would thus be wise at this point to withdraw our troops from triangle cities and create a perimeter of steel and surveillance around the region. An exception should be made for the Baghdad airport and immediately surrounding territory.
   Operate the perimeter so that nothing bigger than a sand flea gets in our out without our knowledge and approval. Within the triangle, to the greatest extent possible given our apparent weaknesses in human intelligence activities, infiltrate moles and recruit informants.
   Then, wait, watch and listen. The insurgents and their enablers are hotheads and desperadoes. Denied easy targets and a steady string of kills, they'll get bolder, take more chances. Before long they will assert themselves and reveal themselves. If they attack perimeter forces, our troops will get to fight them in the open, on more-conventional terms and probably at night, where the Army has boasted, "We own the night."
   Within the cities, whenever intelligence-gathering and surveillance make doing so possible, execute surgical attacks, arresting and eliminating groups of insurgents quickly and quietly, destroying weapons caches and breaking up networks. At the same time, loudly, saturate the contained area with the message that by turning over the insurgents to coalition forces, ordinary Iraqis can hasten the time when Iraqi leadership will take over, the ring of steel will go away and the coalition will depart.
   There is no guarantee this strategy will eradicate all the insurgents. There is good reason to believe it will make it possible for our troops to get many more of them while denying them so many easy targets and easy kills.

   Another take: Here's an excerpt from today's New York Times Op-Ed pages we believe underscores the wisdom of instituting this ring-of-steel strategy:

   Read the full Times piece here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:04 PM

 
Weekend Whacks: Hot air, hot licks
   Forty whacks this week go to the TV squawking heads who keep saying that Democratic presidential candidates whine and complain about President Bush's postwar Iraq policy without offering an alternative of their own.
   This is what we call selective hearing loss. It's a common affliction among spouses who don't want to take the garbage out, kids who aren't ready to go to bed and deadbeats who don't want to pay up. Neoconservative squawking heads who've succeeded in making a lucrative career out of propelling hot air seem to be especially susceptible.
   Thus, CNN's Bob Novak, Tucker Carlson and Kate O'Beirne, Fox's Brit Hume and Sean Hannity, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow all qualify for our weekly allotment of whacks.
   In fact, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has said repeatedly, loudly and clearly that if elected he would turn Iraq over to the U.N. and have the U.S. out of there as quickly as possible.
   In fact, Gov. Howard Dean, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, and Rep. Dick Gephardt have all offered variations on this theme: Go back to the U.N. and to the traditional allies with which relations have been soured during the Bush years, this time seeking their help and cooperation as full partners, not as flunkies requiring close supervision at all times.
   Oh!pinion has had no trouble discerning what the Democratic candidates intend to do. Maybe that's because we're not quite so caught up in the sound of our own voice.


CNN, MSNBC roll the tape, turn the stomach
   CNN and MSNBC decision makers earn whacks this week for: A, running a grisly videotape of Iraqi fiends' acts of torture, dismemberment and brutal assault; and B, gratuitously carrying water for the Bush administration. While we're at it, let's whack the administration for releasing the tape in the first place.
   The videotape in question was apparently given to news media this week after having been in U.S. hands for months. CNN not only showed the tape, it repeated the tape all day and into the night.
   First, while these cable news operations have a perfect right to air this disgusting showcase of barbarity, they could have and should have described what was on the tape instead. Spoken warnings about "graphic" content that might not be suitable for "sensitive viewers" uttered a split second before the tape rolls do zero good, where keeping children from seeing this garbage is concerned. These broadcasting and journalism geniuses obviously assume a responsible adult is always in the room, channel-zapper in hand, when small children are watching. They assume too much.
   Secondly, there is a reason this ugly tape was released this week. It has to do with the White House taking heat because of stepped-up attacks that began last weekend on our forces in Iraq and cooperating Iraqis, and the associated loss of life.
   There is a well-established pattern, which Oh!pinion attributes to Bush "political advisor" Karl Rove, that when the president comes under particularly harsh criticism or intense questioning, something dramatic is done to redirect people's attention. This pattern became fully apparent when, in early 2002, Bush began talking up the need to do something about Saddam Hussein.
   That get-Saddam offensive began at a time of increasing questioning and criticism across the country because Osama bin Laden had not been caught or killed. There was more criticism and questioning because the president had no discernable economic policy, much less an effective plan for dealing with an exploding trade deficit and high and rising unemployment. To make matters worse, the adverse talk continued into the spring and summer — dangerously close to the November 2002 congressional elections. It was time to change the subject and Bush did just that.
   Tip: Whenever the Bush administration undertakes some sudden, dramatic move, stop and ask yourself, "Why this and why now?" You'll usually notice it closely follows a sharp increase in criticism or some other setback for Bush & Co.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:28 PM