Cuba travel strictures a political ploy
s a kid growing up in the 1950s, one of the things we learned about the difference between American freedom and communist oppression was that Americans were free to travel as they saw fit. Russians, on the other hand, had to get government permission, even to travel within their own country.
   Russians, East Germans, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Chinese — all those living under the heavy yoke of communist dictatorships — were routinely denied travel permits, usually because their rulers feared loss of political control.
   My, how times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell years ago and communist regimes today are rare anachronisms. But here in the U.S. President George W. Bush, in the worst tradition of Josef Stalin, of Mao Tse Tung, of Josip Broz Tito, is severely restricting travel — to and from Cuba. (Story.)
   Why would Bush do such a thing? The official line is that the U.S. wants to bring down the oppressive regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The idea is to deny Castro's weak economy the $150 a day each that a few thousand visitors and tourists from the U.S. have been allowed to spend in Cuba. Up to now, people with family in Cuba could legally visit once a year. Henceforth, it's to be only once in three years, spending only up to $50 a day.
   Apparently, Bush and those who advise him so badly believe this petty nonsense will inflict such excruciating hardship on the Cuban people that they will finally rise up and overthrow their aged hero.
   Who is really being hurt by this? Ordinary Cubans in Cuba and Cuban-Americans in this country. Families are being denied the ability to get together. As for the Cuban economy, it's doing a steady business with virtually the whole rest of the world, tourism included.
   (It just keeps getting harder to maintain our resolve against referring to Bush as a stupid jerk, as so many bloggers understandably do.)

   The new travel restrictions are being tagged onto four decades of economic sanctions that flat have not worked. What's more, the whole package of ineffective measures aimed at making the Cubans oust Castro stand as a monument to hypocrisy. The U.S. could pursue a policy of "constructive engagement" with the oppressive regime of South Africa for decades, no problem. The U.S. could count Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein among its friends in the Mideast, no problem. The U.S. could advance from detente with the massively oppressive regime of communist China to being in bed with it — and screwed, blued and tattooed by it, trade-wise — no problem.
   But Cuba? Oh, hey, beyond the pale — nothing doing. Esto es problemo grande!

   We would have more respect for Bush if he were to be honest about his motive. While he no doubt wants ever so much to remove Castro's death grip on power, the real end he's got in mind here is purely political: winning the votes of Florida's anti-Castro diehard zealots.
   Georgi Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Lavrenti Beria would understand perfectly. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin would approve. It's a case of craven political ends justifying mindless means. What great philosophical and political company for the president of the United States to keep. What a miserable political hack we have for a president. Here's hoping that on Nov. 2 Cubans who've been so foolishly cut off from their homeland and families will make this backfire on Bush.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:42 PM

 
Politics no place for nice guy like God
   Today brings another example of why we consider syndicated columnist Molly Ivins' good sense a national treasure:
   We'd like to have that last pearl of wisdom engraved on a brass plaque, for mounting on the door to the Oval Office.
   To read the rest of Ivins' column, click here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:52 PM

 
Iraq's new status? Big hat, no cattle
raq is now officially headed by the interim government picked by people picked by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Those in this interim government, from minute 1 of their tenure, owe their lives to the 138,000 U.S. troops and other coalition forces in their midst.
   President George W. Bush, who ordered up our involvement in Iraq at a cost so far of 850 American soldiers' lives, an estimated 10,000-plus Iraqi lives and nearly $200 billion out of U.S. taxpayers' pockets, expects us to hail the moment as a great achievement and cause for optimism. We are expected to believe Iraq is suddenly, really autonomous, as opposed to still being an occupied land.
   As they say on the street, who's zoomin' who?

   Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Trudy Rubin took this juncture as a good time to recap the "accomplishments" of Bush and his administration thus far in our Iraq misadventure. Her article is a well-laid-out indictment revealing poverty of insight, shallowness of thought, absence of planning, consistently bad decision making and predictably horrible results.
   Here's how Rubin begins her excellent piece:
   Small wonder prime minister-designate Iyad Allawi wanted to have the handover as soon as possible. He no doubt believes whatever he does is bound to be an improvement.

   Less secure than the day after we invaded, with oil pipelines repeatedly breached, electricity still intermittent, unemployment sky high, neither the U.N. nor NATO willing to send in forces to help suppress frequent kidnapping-killings and constant eruptions of gun and bomb violence, we're expected to believe a new Iraq is at hand.
   As they say down Crawford, Texas, way, big hat, no cattle.
   Click here to read the rest of Rubin's article.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:55 PM

 
Competition — talk's cheap, anyway
   We've noticed, going back many years, how often and how well business types talk up the concept of competition. We've heard them making luncheon speeches, being interviewed on TV, testifying before Congress, read their statements in magazine articles and annual reports.
   "We thrive on competition," they tell us, adding, "we can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world." They go on to spout the textbook verities about how competition ensures consumers benefit from ever-improving products and services at ever-lower prices. Which all sounds good.
   But we keep seeing things like this, from a ( news brief) about a dustup between Amazon.com and Toys R Us:
   Wow, $200 million. As a consumer, learning that Toys R Us is willing to pay $50 million a year to keep competition off Amazon.com leads me to suspect several things: 1, Toys R Us can charge more for toys than it could if competing with other sellers; 2, Toys R Us can impose marketing power on toy producers, forcing wholesale prices down by controlling a huge segment of the marketplace; and 3, Toys R Us can force small-scale producers unable to satisfy its demands for super-low prices and super-high-volume out of business — or, these days, out of the country.
   The upshot of this manipulation, had Toys R Us succeeded in becoming the lone Amazon.com toy seller, would've been higher costs, a more limited selection and, almost certainly, poorer service for consumers.
   The consequence for Joe Schmoe, inventor of some dandy gadget, or what have you, that kids love is that he'd be unlikely to ever find a manufacturer to mass produce it or a marketing channel to sell it nationally.
   Think of all this as a lose-lose situation — one the high priests of commerce and the free market from the American Enterprise Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce never seem to get around to discussing.
   It also bears mentioning that over the last quarter century of mostly Republican administrations, which is to say rabidly pro-corporate, pro-big-business administrations, U.S. antitrust laws haven't always been enthusiastically enforced.
   Elsewhere, Microsoft has won a stay from the European Commission of a ruling requiring the software colossus to unbundle its media player from its operating system and fork over Eu 497 million, for what the commission determined were anti-competitive practices. (Story)

   Everyone who's tired of paying jacked-up gasoline and diesel fuel prices has probably noticed how most in the oil industry point fingers at government, at consumers, at voters, at environmentalists and foreign interests. Those consumers should be particularly interested in what Tyson Slocum, research director for energy at Public Citizen, has to say (story) about the cause:
   Interestingly — and blatantly — an industry spokesman reassures us the fox says everything's under control at the hen house:
   There, don't you feel better paying well over $2 a gallon, now that you know everything's legal and everyone's blameless?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:39 PM

 
Respect for picket line — imagine that!
   Today's conservative Republican worldview insight: In any dispute between business owners/management and working people, the former are always correct and the latter are always wrong — just troublemaking upstarts out to get something for nothing. If the working people belong to a union, they're lumped in with thugs and horned devils.
   This attitude isn't new. Republicans have been honing and polishing it for more than a century. Columnist and CNN squawking head Bob Novak hasn't been around for quite that long, but he's classic example of the breed and the attitude.
   He exhibited it today, voicing shock and disgust that Sen. John Kerry would actually come down on the side of members of a labor organization. In the conservative Republican worldview, decent, sensible people just don't do that sort of thing.
   Here's the exchange from today's "Crossfire," with Paul Begala trying to get a balancing word in edgewise:
   Had time allowed, Begala might've pointed out that in this time of terrorist danger that could erupt anywhere, anytime, the Bush administration saw fit to eliminate funding for the Clinton program to put 1,000 more police officers on the job in cities and counties across the country.
   He might've added that Democrats are serious about homeland security, while Republicans are serious about tax cuts for their big-bucks campaign contributors. That's another feature of the conservative Republican worldview.
   Kerry is right to honor the police and firefighters' picket line. Some visible, pro-active support for labor from national political figures is long overdue. With anti-union, anti-working-people Republicans in control of the federal government, it's a modest move toward badly needed balance.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:10 PM

 
`Cry from the heart' tells painful truth
   Theodore Sorensen, who was a White House counsel and exceptional speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, delivered the commencement address May 21 at the New School University.
   Deeply disturbed by the Iraq war and outraged at the prisoner abuse scandal, Sorensen told listeners he tore up the speech he had written for them and would instead issue a "cry from the heart" over what has been done, and is being done, to our country and its reputation in the world. The result is a ringing denunciation that's crystal clear and a brilliantly phrased call to conscience.
   We hope the following excerpts will whet your appetite for the full text of "A Time to Weep."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:36 PM

 
Fighting economic cult menace with facts
   Americaneconomicalert.org puts out a terrific weekly e-newsletter covering the many ways free trade and globalization are not good for our country or the overwhelming majority of Americans.
   Like Oh!pinion, the good people at Americaneconomicalert.org are fighting a strange sort of uphill battle. That's because you'd expect that with simple logic, indisputable facts and statistics, easily observable consequences plus the real-life experience of millions of people on our side, killing this two-headed beast would be a slam dunk.
   In reality, we're up against an alliance of the gullible and deluded, and the greed driven and shortsighted. They're joined in a marriage of convenience in which the latter lavish money and clout on the former (politicians) who in turn cheerfully oversee the gutting of our economy, the undermining of our middle class and the unconscionable compromise of our national security.
   Free trade and globalization, as currently practiced, aren't just economic policies or programs. They're a kind of religious cult based on a crackpot theory. We in opposition to this ruinous nonsense are in the position of trying to talk the pope out of believing in Christ or trying to reason with fundamentalists who refuse to get medical treatment for a child at risk of dying from appendicitis, believing if God wills it, the child will heal.
   Here's a sample from this week's Americaneconomicalert.org e-newsletter, one especially indicative of the greed component of what's going on. It appears under the headline, "Globalization Follies."
Depending on where you come down on this dangerous two-headed beast, we invite or challenge you to click this link, go and sign up for the newsletter.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:26 PM

 
With Cheney, V.P. stands for venting profanity
   The United States Senate is an institution rich in history and steeped in tradition. Members are obliged to adhere to a code of conduct, one formulated to maintain an atmosphere of courtesy and respect within and without.
   Suffice it to say, hurling the F-word at another member on the Senate floor is not in keeping with that august body's code, history or tradition.
   Vice President Dick Cheney breached the code big time on Tuesday by reportedly telling Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., something employing the F-word. Doing as one damn well pleases, hang everybody else and what they say or think, is standard operating procedure for the Bush administration. But it runs sharply counter to an approach that has served senators well for 200-plus years.

   A certain double standard comes into focus when we try to imagine what would've happened had then-Vice President Al Gore done such a thing five or six years ago. Let's see . . .
   First, we expect TV news programs would've been filled with negative reactions from alarmed and dismayed Republican senators.
   Then, the cable news squawk shows would've spent several days getting input from the itinerant scolds of the Republicans' religious right: the Revs. Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, and Bill Bennett. Let's all pray for the wayward who descend into such a deplorable coarsening of public discourse. How shabby, how like those who've mortgaged their mortal souls to peace, love, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Three'll get ya five Gore's got more going on in the gutter than his mouth.
   Those would've been augmented by hourly calls for Gore to be horsewhipped in a public square, subjected to a near-death experience via a public dunking, or burned at the stake, from Reps. Bob Barr and David Dreier; Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham; and Tony Blankley and Peter Fund, respectively. On top of all that, the "personalities" of talk radio would've enjoyed a bottom-feeders feast for weeks.
   So, what do you suppose is going to happen to Cheney? About what you'd expect to happen to the nation's No. 2 privileged character, that's what.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:39 PM

 
Frist due lesson in what comes around
   It was a move worthy of the current Republican leadership of the U.S. House, but it was perpetrated in the Senate.
   Sen. John Kerry took the day off from campaigning Tuesday, returning to the Capitpol for a vote on a veterans health benefits bill. Senate Republicans who had scheduled the bill, found a variety of ways to delay it.
   Kerry called that petty. We call it pure damn spite.
   We had thought Majority Leader Bill Frist to be a cut above this sort of thing. It's the kind of mean, small-minded gesture we'd associate with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lowdown and dirty, in other words.
   One of these days, Minority Leader Frist is going to need a break from President Kerry.
   Heh heh.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:38 PM

 
Ohio survey shows trickle-down reality
   President Bush has made it a point to spend lots of time in the battleground state of Ohio this year, talking up his economic policy of huge tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthy and big business interests.
   Indeed, with the most lopsidedly pro-corporate/big financial interests administration in power since Herbert Hoover's, with the stock market months into a recovery, interest rates at four-decade lows, with business news heralding strengthening manufacturing, retail sales and high profits all over the place, one might expect business types to feel prosperous, giddy, hopeful — even in the mood to share some of the wealth.
   Sorry, but in Ohio as in many other places across America, that would be expecting too much. That's what the employment and labor law firm Littler Mendelson recently found out in its fifth annual survey of Columbus-area CEOs and business leaders.
   Among the survey results: 52 percent of respondents said reducing employee benefits is likely or very likely within the next year.
   This is just the latest evidence trickle-down economics is nothing but a con game. It's pure sucker bait that gullible voters fall for every few years when a likable conservative Republican comes along to pitch it to them one more time.
   How telling, too, that this factoid comes out of Ohio, known as the home of presidents because it has given the country a string of them, all conservative Republicans: Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Howard Taft and Warren G. Harding. (Additionally, there was Benjamin Harrison, a Whig, and Ulysses S. Grant, both of whom were born in Ohio but residents of other states when elected.)

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:26 PM

 
Polls show more Americans are wising up
   President George W. Bush's poll numbers are becoming enough to strike terror in the White House. Not fear of a suicide-bomber, of course, but rather the knowledge that Bush's leadership has bombed, big time.
   The ABC/Washington Post poll of June 17, for example, asked whether people approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Fifty-one percent disapprove, while only 47 percent approve — the reverse of results for that question in mid-April.
   A Washington Post story on that poll includes this:
   The poll report also notes just 51 percent believe the war has improved U.S. security, the lowest score for that question ever. However, 75 percent say it has damaged this country's reputation around the world.
   A new CNN/Time magazine poll mentioned on the network today showed Sen. John Kerry a point ahead of Bush in public approval. While that margin is slim, the kicker is that Bush's lead has declined sharply in recent weeks.
   While the numbers and trends are both interesting and encouraging, we have months to go before the ultimate polling takes place — the election where voters get to decide who will lead the country for the next four years. At least, we hope the voters will get to decide this time. In the meantime, various poll results will probably go up and down, and mostly will be exasperatingly close to dead even.
   We do hopefully recall one of those C-SPAN panel discussions of a few weeks back, however. Republican and Democratic pollsters participated, but the consensus was that, based on history, any incumbent president whose overall approval falls below 50 percent in June of the year in which he's seeking re-election had better start practicing his goodbyes.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:56 PM

 
Jackson speaks up for the working poor
   The Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Appalachia earlier this month to call attention to economic ills and injustice there. He then wrote an excellent op-ed piece for the Chicago Sun-Times. Here's how it begins:
   Jackson's piece sparkles with clarity, richness of language and nobility of purpose. That is, to advocate for working Americans whose short end of the stick just keeps getting shorter thanks to the Bush administration and the economic Darwinists who control Congress. Appalachia is his focus, but what he says applies to millions throughout America.
   The rest of "What Appalachia says about U.S." is well worth a few moments of your reading time.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:04 PM

 
Costs of Bush's war keep going up
   What a pricey proposition this war President George W. Bush couldn't wait to get us into is turning out to be.
   Four U.S. soldiers were found dead west of Baghdad, today, lying crumpled in a compound, their flak jackets stolen (story). As of today, 837 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of operations there.
   Meanwhile, the fate of a South Korean civilian, Kim Sun-il, 33, remains unknown. He was kidnapped by Islamic crazies who threatened to behead him if Korea doesn't withdraw its troops from Iraq. He was shown in a videotape on TV in the region Sunday, pleading for his life. The crazies are apparently the same beasts who murdered Nicholas Berg. It doesn't look good at all for Kim. Today, Korea announced it is sending more troops into Iraq.
   USA Today reports that we taxpayers are on the hook for many millions of dollars in workmen's compensation for civilian hires in Iraq. As explained, the risk level is horrendous and the payouts can run up over $1,000 a week for life, for the injured party or survivors.
   But hey, even those many millions adding up by the week pale in comparison to the $1 billion U.S. Comptroller General David Walker finds has been misspent in Iraq (story).
   Fittingly, this horror story's next chapter will open with a whimper and not a bang. When the big handover takes place, there will be no grand public ceremony, interim Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi announced last week.
   Implicit in Allawi's taciturn statement was the certain knowledge that a public ceremony would only invite a bloodbath, given his violence-torn country's lack-of-security situation. And, of course, no one in Iraq seems to have even thought about holding a celebration.
   What's to celebrate? Iraqis did not ask to be invaded and bitterly resent being occupied. They're making it clearer by the day how little interested they are in the democracy President George W. Bush and his neoconservative, swivel-chair crusaders are about to bestow on them.
   Come on, all together now: Are we having fun yet?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:05 PM

 
Clinton past: Seeing `60 Minutes' worth
   Bill Clinton's "60 Minutes" segment of last night brought back the good, the bad and the ugly of his remarkable political career.
   Nearly four years out of office and shortly before release of his massive memoir, "My Life," Clinton still exudes charisma, exhibits intelligence and has about him the specter of priceless opportunities missed and sacrificed.
   We looked and listened for a conspicuous gain in wisdom. Not political savvy or continuing resolve that he was right to defy and prevail over those who underhandedly sought his personal ruin and political destruction. We know he's had both of those attributes in spades all along. No, we longed to hear some gritty wisdom. We hoped to hear the sort of simple, straightforward good sense sometimes heard from the lone survivor of a bloody battle or from the pilot who lives to walk away from a burning wreck.
   Clinton came to the presidency, as he admits he had years earlier come to the governorship of Arkansas, a somewhat green and incomplete person. What we heard about his background and early years last night was certainly helpful in understanding why some pieces of his inner puzzle are shaped in certain ways or are missing altogether.

   Dan Rather's questions were probing and direct. Many struck us as inevitable forays into emotionally tender areas. Clinton seemed determined to answer each one candidly, not taking issue or answering with a question. Yet there were clearly areas where he wouldn't take us, perhaps because he doesn't go into them himself. We suspect some of the wisdom we listened for can be found just beyond those places.
   Some moments were unquestioningly genuine and poignant, as after Rather showed Clinton a videotaped expression of love, pride and support from his mother, who had died of cancer two years into his presidency. Clinton fought back tears as he thanked Rather for showing him the clip, which he said he'd never seen.
   Clinton was spritely and enthusiastic in showing his library, now under construction, with its life-size replica of the Oval Office. With his book written, published and soon to be released, the library is clearly his next big thing to get done.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:52 PM

 
Clinton future: a just and fitting project
   We wish Bill Clinton well with his book and library. We also wish that, once they are taken care of, he'd tackle another piece of unfinished business, one that could bring him great personal and political satisfaction.
   In 1994, in no small part because of Clinton, Democrats suffered massive losses in the U.S. House of Representatives. Control of "The People's House" passed to the most malignantly partisan and narrow-mindedly ideological pack of lockstep-marching Lilliputians to come along in many decades.
   Ironically, these neoconservative Republicans billed themselves reformers. They gained control of Congress by flim-flamming voters with their "Contract With America" that turned out to be a pack of mostly false claims and empty promises. What they actually brought to the House was the worst features of Congresses long past: iron-fisted control by ruthless, ethically deficient speakers, leaders and whips; similar so-called leadership from committee chairmen; and substitution of the one-party fast shuffle, the overbearing fait accompli, for bipartisan debate and deliberation.
   Compromise is the hallmark of democracy generally and a staple of a successfully functioning House. In the long years since Newt Gingrich's revolution, ideology has reigned supreme in the House. Ideologues, of course, disdain compromise as weak-kneed selling out.

   What we'd like Clinton to do is take a year out of his life, some money out of his account, and do everything in his power to elect a new Democratic majority in the House.
   The fruits of such a victory would be sweet in terms beyond partisanship and legacy enhancement. By helping end the neoconservative Republicans' seeming death grip on the House, Clinton would deliver a painful reversal of fortune to some of his most ardent tormentors and would-be political assassins — the names Dreier, Hyde and Barr leap to mind.
   Certainly, ending the regrettable reign of Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay would secure Clinton's place in history as a good-government reformer and Democratic champion.
   If we could whisper in Clinton's ear, we'd urge him to undertake this noble project, reminding, Mr. President, don't stop thinking about tomorrow.

   For more about Congress under Republican hegemony, see USA Today's excellent article, "GOP comes around to a majority view."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:51 PM

 
It's past time to tell the Saudis `or else'
he obscene murder of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia last week is only the latest evidence that our heavy involvement with that country is ill advised and should be drastically altered — ASAP.
   As if to punctuate that notion, there is the aftermath of conflicting reports about Saudi authorities killing the culprits after one or more of them was spotted disposing on the body. But then it comes out that the culprits were killed 10 miles away from the body, or crime scene, or something. No, hold on — now it seems the Saudis are searching for Johnson's body.
   Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir is all over American TV assuring us Saudi authorities did all they could, are doing all they can, etc. And he's shocked — shocked! — that anyone would suggest that the various stories coming out of his country might be received here as anything less than the God's honest truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
   Meanwhile, U.S. officials are stepping forth to congratulate the Saudi authorities for their massive effort on this case and for eliminating several important al Qaeda figures. Some officials reasserted a warning that U.S. citizens aren't safe anywhere in Saudi Arabia and should leave. But then Secretary of State Colin Powell said Americans shouldn't do that because it's what the terrorists want. (We're left to wonder how consoled loved ones of beheaded American civilians will be by the knowledge that the one they lost annoyed the terrorists for a while longer.)
   Count us among those highly skeptical about the Saudis' efforts to deal with terrorists in general, and now, with Johnson's murderers. How do we know that the people slain and labeled as the culprits Friday are indeed the responsible parties?
   It would certainly be in the Saudis' interest to wrap this ugly business up as fast as possible, preferably giving Americans satisfaction that the bad guys have paid with their lives. The problem is, they have reason to be less than open and honest about this. They have a history of being less than open and honest about such things. How can we believe them now — and why should we?

   Friday, CNN's Kyra Phillips interviewed the network's consultant, former Delta Force soldier Eric Haney, who specializes in the Middle East. Phillips asked Haney what to expect from the military and Saudi perspectives. Here's what he had to say:
   Haney goes on to point out that the terrorists want to drive western craftsmen and technicians out of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and turn it into a pure, extremist Islamic land. He said slayings like Johnson's are part of the terrorists' strategy. Phillips asked if driving westerners out would result in economic hardships.
   Haney really brought together and capsulized similarly damning descriptions of the Saudi royals and their kingdom that we've heard from others in recent years. These are facts U.S. governments have chosen to politely ignore — foolishly and dangerously, in our view.
   For too long, Saudi rulers have succeeded in having it both ways. They get to rule, get to profit incredibly selling Saudi oil. In return, the fiends of Wahabi Islam have been free under their rule to spew hatred in Mosques and elsewhere, to inculcate hatred and terrorism in the young attending madrassahs, not only in Saudi Arabia but throughout the Islamic world.

   The most sensible thing for the U.S. to do is tell Saudi Arabia's ruling prince that from now on, words won't suffice. We expect to see decisive action — or else.
   Here's what that means. If in a year the mosques that are terrorist armories and indoctrination centers aren't shut down or destroyed; if the madrassahs aren't closed down and their teaching staffs hauled off to prison; if the police, military and other government agencies aren't cleansed of al Qaeda accomplices and sympathizers, the U.S. will sever diplomatic relations and lay on draconian economic sanctions, beginning with a total shutdown of the country's oil exports. In fact, we'll limit goods coming into the country to food, medicine and medical supplies. Exports will cease.
   Such a consequence is sure to trigger a civil war and could cost the House of Saud its monarchy.
   The point is that Saudi Arabia has a some sorting out to do. A civil war may be the only way this sorting out is ever going to take place. If that's the case, so be it. If the Saudi royals really go to work to rid their country of the Wahabists and the jihadist crazies, wind up in a civil war and appear to be losing, we'll provide support, if asked.
   What we should not do is maintain the status quo with Saudi Arabia — the status quo that cost poor Paul M. Johnson, Nicholas Berg, 175 U.S. Marines and plenty of others their lives. The same status quo that helps make our war against terrorism a badly aimed, poorly executed exercise in deadly, costly busywork.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:30 PM

 
Tainted donation not scandalworthy
   Oh brother, here we go: a South Korean with a less-than-pristine past dropped two grand in the hat for Sen. John Kerry. This kind of thing is inevitable for a big national campaign. Not every hand that writes a check is going to be squeaky clean.
   But it's just too soon. Our favorite, long-awaited summer weather is here in all it's glory. Life seems especially sweet right now, so we're just not ready for the coming week's likely blown-out-of-proportion scandal-that-isn't.
   We dread all the finger-wagging and harrumphing, the demagoguery and innuendo that's sure ensue, thanks to the right-wing Republican noise machine. This is especially the case since this isn't even a molehill, forget mountainous.
   As the Associated Press story reports, in almost no time after being asked about Chun Jae-yong's donation, the Kerry campaign said the money was being returned.

   For the record, we believe national politics is toxic with money poisoning. Campaigns cost too much. Candidates and officials have to spend too much time, thought and energy on fund raising. Too many special interests pump too much money into campaigns, into groups seeking to influence the outcome of elections. The effects are especially deleterious when it comes to the incredible advantage House and Senate incumbents have over challengers.
   Let's add this, however. If a hubbub comes out of this unwelcome, returned donation to Kerry, how about some real scrutiny for the mother of all special-interest money-stuffing operations: the Bush-Cheney campaign?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:39 PM

 
Free trade — don't say you weren't warned
ome calamities, like the Pearl Harbor or 9-11 attacks, hit suddenly and seemingly without warning. Others come on slowly, like the home found to be good only for demolition because, bit by bit, for years, termites have eaten away at it. For both types, only in retrospect do we realize there were warning signs aplenty that something bad was in store.
   Here's a termite damage-type warning about our economy, from a Friday Reuters story:
   There are several things you need to know about this situation. First, we Americans have been importing a lot more than we've been exporting, ever since Ronald Reagan was president. Quarter after quarter, year after year, decade upon decade, nonstop, we've been buying a lot more than we could sell — and racking up mountains of debt in the process.
   Can we keep on doing this indefinitely and get away with it? No.
   Second, the way international trading is supposed to work, if we buy too much for too long in relation to our exports, our currency should decline in value. When that happens, foreign goods become more expensive for Americans to buy, while American goods become more affordable for those in other countries to buy. In time, our exports increase and our purchases of foreign goods decrease, tending toward some semblance of balance.
   But, as the Reuters story notes, other countries are acting swiftly and on a large scale to keep that from even beginning to happen. They want to keep selling more cars, electronics, clothing, furniture and 10,000 other things to us in great disproportion to what they buy from us. For now, that is.
   Can this, will this, go on forever? No. At some point other nations will out of desire or necessity start calling for payments of huge amounts of the incredible debts we've racked up. There's no telling exactly what's going to happen then, but you can count on it being ugly.

   True believers of the free-trade religion in both the Clinton and Bush administrations insist the only thing to do is pile on more free-trade agreements, upping the size of our trade deficit and, ultimately, the scale of the reckoning. If this strikes you as stupid and wrong, welcome to enlightenment. You now know more and better about international trade and economics than they do.
   Oh, but wait. They do insist also that we're going to have "fair trade." We've got to take steps "to level the playing field," these highly placed, extremely well-paid errand boys for the World Trade Organization tell us.
   They told us these things, along with how we can compete with anyone, anywhere, when they were applying the hard sell to get NAFTA passed. They told us these things again when they signed the U.S. up for the World Trade Organization. They repeated their free-trade homily when they got communist China most-favored-nation trading status with the U.S. and then got China into the WTO.
   We've had time to see what happens. The fair trading, the leveling of the playing field are always on each administration's to-do list. They're always off in the indefinite future, but they never get done. They never come close to getting done.

   So, month after month, the U.S. trade deficit gets bigger. Our economy becomes more hollowed out. We owe more foreigners more of what we have, what we are. A few well-placed individuals and corporate interests become steadily richer and more politically powerful, thanks to their ravenous greed and lobbying clout. They're benefiting from free trade and will stop at nothing to keep things as they are. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer other Americans can find really good jobs that will support a family, provide decent benefits and even minimal job security.
   We can't keep on this way. There's a day of reckoning coming and when it gets here, those of us who haven't gotten obscenely rich off the termite damage of free trade are going to be very sorry for a very long time. Our economic home is going to collapse and we're not going to be in any position to fix or replace it.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:42 AM

 
Gephardt would be excellent running mate
   As good a No. 2 as Sen. John Edwards would make for John Kerry — and Edwards would be very good — adding Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri to the Democractic ticket would trigger our biggest grin and loudest applause.
   In our view, while Edwards might have more initial appeal as a candidate, were anything to ever happen to a President Kerry, the country couldn't have a better vice president to step up than Gephardt.
   Aside from being about as clean and ethical a good-government public servant as you're likely to find in national politics, Gephardt's commitment to the purposes and ideals of the Democratic Party are second to none. And few have more and better knowledge of every aspect of government, of how to get worthwhile things done, than he does.
   Gephardt's losing bid for the Democratic nomination, which hinged on and died in Iowa, had to be a heartbreaker. No one in the whole long primary trek leading up to the Iowa caucuses put in more heart and energy. Except for a brief lapse in which he and Howard Dean went at each other negatively, Gephardt ran an uncommonly positive, good-spirited campaign. And when it was over, no one was more gracious in defeat.
   We mention all that not to indicate Kerry should select him to provide a consolation prize. What's key is what Gephardt would bring to the ticket. With Gephardt, Kerry could be sure of having a battle-tested, skilled campaign partner who fights hard, fights clean and hangs in there to the end. What's more, Gephardt is a proven team player. Last but not least, Missouri is one of the so-called contested states whose electoral votes would come in handy.
   For more: The New York Times is running an interesting story today on Gephardt and on Kerry's vice presidential deliberations, "At a Fork in Gephardt's Path, a Job Interview of Sorts."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:09 PM

 
In Bush-speak repetition makes for validation
t was so very George W. Bush, justifying thoroughly discredited previous statements with a repetition of what he said before, the whole of it amounting to no more and no better than saying, because I said so.
   Here's the president, holding forth following a Cabinet meeting today, as reported by the Associated Press:
   He went on to insist he never said Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots for the 9-11 attack.
   Well, no, he didn't specifically, precisely say that. But Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and a few others did say a whole lot of things that led most Americans to believe Saddam was implicated in the 9-11 attacks, then let them go right on thinking and saying that for many months before specifically stating otherwise.
   Bush's insistence today takes us back to those thrilling days of autumn 2002, when after a speech, a couple of reporters somewhat timidly pressed Bush about the need and justification for going to war in Iraq. Bush did the same thing then: he repeated what he'd already said, and that he had already said it, as justification for what he was saying then and there -- which was the same thing.
   No additional facts or supporting evidence. No additional sources or details. Just the same WRONG, flimsily backed things he'd said before, stated again, with impatient, somewhat testy emphasis, as though the reporters were either a little slow-witted, or maybe hard of hearing, because they seemed to have so much trouble getting it.
   Bush might as well have said: What part of `because I said so' is so hard for you to understand? I don't need facts and evidence. I just have to say this is how it is, and that's it.
   In today's re-assertion, never mind what the 9-11 Commission had to say. Never mind what all the people who testified before the commission, all the sources who provided information and supporting evidence to the commission, had to say. Who are they? What do they know?
   Hey, after all, this is George W. Bush, the president who never gets anything wrong; who can't think of a single mistake he might've made since the Supremes elevated him to the White House.
   Little wonder, then, that we keep getting surprises from Bush. Like an unnecessary war that's cost us nearly 900 lives and most of $200 billion. Like a scientific report with some politically unwelcome details lined out with a marking pen. Like a human rights/Geneva Conventions abuse scandal of major proportions. Like a Medicare so-called reform bill that was supposed to cost us a whopping $470 billion when it was being peddled to Congress and the public, but which a few weeks later, after it became law, was revealed to really cost at least $530 billion.
   Now for something we've said before: Joe Isuzu is alive and well, and holding down the most powerful office in the free world.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:24 AM

 
Record $100 million keeps Kerry competitive
   Sen. John Kerry raised $140 million for his presidential campaign through the end of May, $100 million of that in the three months after emerging victorious from the primaries.
   Of $44 million Kerry raised on the Internet since Super Tuesday in March, the average donation was just $108, according to an Associated Press story.
   Although Kerry's fund-raising sets a new record for a Democrat, it is dwarfed by President Bush's $216 million.
   What we see in the money sweepstakes is that, clearly, a whole lot of people who don't normally contribute to political campaigns are opening their wallets, mailing checks and clicking to help replace Bush with Kerry. They haven't overcome the giving of big-money, special interests, many of them huge corporate and financial interests, backing Bush. But Democratic givers' smaller donations are adding up and keeping Kerry competitive.
   The Bush campaign tried mightily, sparing no expense, to Bash Kerry's candidacy to death this spring. It turned out to be $70 million largely wasted, as Kerry's poll numbers actually pulled ahead of Bush's.
   Unfortunately for Bush & Co., a combination of the president's own bad-policy chickens coming home to roost, public skepticism resulting from his serious, ongoing credibility problems, and fact-checking and reporting by the media, including bloggers, basically nullified his negative ad barrage against Kerry.

   We hope others will join us in backing Kerry financially, even in modest amounts, adding the important boost word-of-mouth support can provide. We've all had nearly four years to learn what a George W. Bush presidency is capable of. That knowledge should be the equivalent of an extra $100 million in Kerry's campaign account.
   Yes, it really has been that bad.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:11 PM

 
Impose tax surcharge when going to war
   Experience shows it's much too easy for hawkish presidents to commit the U.S. to questionable military interventions and especially to all-out wars, such as our current, allegedly pre-emptive, misadventure in Iraq.
   Indeed, a president holds nearly all the cards. There's a general assumption that a president is privy to the latest, most complete and accurate intelligence on a prospective target nation. Some senators and representatives have much of the same information, but the president always has the first and fullest access, presumably the most comprehensive overview.
   Because of this and out of an understandable preference to err on the side of protecting the nation and its interests, presidents get the benefit of the doubt. That's how it was when President Lyndon Johnson parlayed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution into a decade-long war that ended up with a half-million Americans in harm's way in Vietnam, 55,000-plus losing their lives in the conflict. On top of all that, there was the financial hit, which was astronomical.
   It was also that way when President George W. Bush decided Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bursting at the seams with weapons of mass destruction, all of them dedicated to helping al Qaeda destroy Western civilization, America first and foremost — "imminent threat" and all that, if you'll recall.

   Wars are financed almost completely on credit, with warmaking adminstrations usually doing everything in their extensive power to defer dealing with as much of the expense as possible for as long as possible. In the case of questionable wars, especially, jacking up taxes is sensibly perceived as a really good way to turn quiescent doubters into vocal anti-administration voters, some even into anti-war activists.
   Another way of numbing the pain is to keep as low a profile as possible where casualties are concerned. Forbidding the photographing of caskets arriving at Dover Air Force Base, Del., as the Bush administration has done, is a good example. Presidential visits to war wounded in hospitals might receive slight publicity, but funerals for our soldiers are purposely kept off the commander in chief's busy schedule. Better he should be seen visiting air bases, naval stations and Army posts, where a backdrop of smiling, cheering, whole, healthy and highly motivated young Americans makes a better impression on the TV-viewing public.
   Vietnam went on for so long, involved such horrendous losses and exacted such incredibly high costs that eventually, Congress saw fit to pass a 10-percent surcharge on income taxes to help pay the bills. Oh!pinion believes such a tax should be made automatic. Any time a president orders the invasion of another country by more than a small contingent of special forces troops sent on a specifically limited mission, the surcharge is triggered, effective the day invasion begins.
   The added potential for political fallout from such an added tax burden just might serve as an additional brake on some of our more war-prone presidents. Additionally, revenues would lessen the burden on future generations of taxpayers — people who, as is the case with Vietnam and the Iraq shooting gallery, in the end are not one iota safer or more secure for our country's having gone to war in those places.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:47 PM

 
Polls: Most Iraqis and Americans dissatisfied
   Iraqis and Americans may be poles apart in what they pay for gasoline — Iraqis are charged 5 cents a gallon, thanks to U.S. taxpayer subsidies, while American consumers and taxpayers shell out more than $2 a gallon — however, the two populations are in sync on one thing.
   Polls indicate most Iraqis and Americans see our military misadventure in Iraq as bad business.
   Here's what a June 15 Associated Press story reported about Iraqi public opinion:
   For this we've sacrificed well more than 800 lives. Care to speculate why the poll results weren't released to the American public?

   On June 12, Britain's The Guardian newspaper reported the results of a poll of U.S. public sentiment about President George W. Bush's war in Iraq:
   The poll also found 60 percent of respondents believe "Bush's Iraq policies had hurt America's image abroad." Amazingly, one in five actually believe those policies have improved attitudes toward the U.S.
   While public sentiment is helping boost Sen. John Kerry's presidential prospects, he's clearly got work to do. The poll notes Kerry's plans for handling Iraq were accepted as a clear alternative to Bush's by only 15 percent of those queried, while 34 percent believed Kerry's plans do not provide a clear alternative.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:32 PM

 
Reform-seeking doctors should stay off low road
   We're sitting here trying to imagine a physician's reaction on learning his spouse had been refused representation by an attorney — because the physician was known to support limits on malpractice lawsuits.
   The thought comes to mind because of two incidents reported by CBS yesterday. In one, a North Carolina Surgeon reportedly frustrated over what he calls "a broken system," proposed at an American Medical Association meeting Sunday that the organization declare it ethical to refuse to treat attorneys involved in malpractice cases and their spouses.
   In the other recent incident, the daughter of a Mississippi lawmaker seeking repair of scars says she was turned away by a plastic surgeon because of her father's position against limiting damages sought in lawsuits.
   This all paints a disturbing picture of the state of fair-mindedness among some of America's best-educated and best-paid working people. It also serves to undermine public regard for what has long been regarded as a hallmark of professionalism: putting service above self, even when the going gets rough, even when doing so is awkward or even distasteful.
   Neither medical treatment nor legal counseling should ever be used as a political weapon, as a vehicle for extortion or for spite. It's particularly repugnant that the North Carolina surgeon included spouses in his bad proposal, and the the Mississippi plastic surgeon took his displeasure out, not on the lawmaker, but on the lawmaker's daughter.
   In fairness, we note that adults in the room at the AMA event vigorously protested the North Carolina surgeon's proposal, which he withdrew in very short order, saying he had put it forth to draw attention to the issue. The story makes no mention of the Mississippi plastic surgeon relenting.

   Reform is overdue in the area of malpractice lawsuits. Doctors in various parts of the country are being forced to give up practicing medicine, to act as their own insurer or "run naked" — without malpractice insurance of any kind. Many others pay exorbitant insurance fees that just keep going up and up.
   Doctors, of course, pass as much of the insurance cost increases as possible on to their patients, boosting medical bills and in turn jacking up the cost of medical insurance for everyone.
   There are unquestionably patients and lawyers who abuse the system. Even so, reforms must formulated with great care. It would be easy but wrong to simply slam the courthouse door shut on all but the most extreme cases. Justice demands legal remedies for people seriously let down by a medical care provider.
   Even so, we've no enthusiasm for undertaking this delicate reform while Republicans control the federal government. We've got zero faith in their willingness and ability to seek a fair, balanced result. Republicans have cast their lot entirely with big insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and financial institutions — typically, large-scale donors to Republican campaigns, from President Bush's on down.
   With John Kerry in the White House and Democrats in control of at least one body of Congress, the chance of obtaining a fair, balanced outcome would be greatly increased. We urge understandably frustrated and irate physicians and other care providers to help create that better federal configuration for enacting just reform.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:35 PM

 
Diplomats-commanders group targets Bush
   A new group, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, has formed to work for President George W. Bush's defeat in November.
   The group is made up of 26 high-caliber retired military officers and diplomats who are acting out of dissatisfaction with Bush's leadership and his administration's policies and performance.
   An Associated Press story details some of the members and quotes one of them:
   Harrop, who said he's been a Republican in the past, went on to explain that those in the group are motivated by concerns about what they see as mishandling of the Iraq war, the Middle East, the environment, AIDS policy, ethnic and religious conflict, and weapons proliferation.
   Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change is to hold a press conference Wednesday to introduce itself and tell more about its agenda. While aware of the possible political impact of its efforts, the group is not specifically endorsing Sen. John Kerry.

   Oh!pinion's view: Welcome to the club, Diplomats and Military Commanders. May your efforts be widely heralded and well received across America.
   While all the issues mentioned in the AP story are both critically important and telling areas where Bush & Co. has served the country's long-term best interests poorly or disastrously, we'd like to see you include the administration's screw-the-working-people, grow-the-trade-deficit lunacy in your list of particulars.
   We hope that once this group has a chance to introduce itself and start getting its message out, Kerry and his proactive supporter from the diplomatic corps, Richard Holbrooke, will invite all 26 members to meet for discussions. If consensus on the issues can be reached, the group would find important parts of its agenda — probably all of its agenda — well up on Kerry's to-do list, both in the campaign and after election. The group's endorsement and some speaking on behalf of his effort to become the next president could only be helpful for Kerry.
   This has the makings of a win-win linkup. Here's hoping.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:29 AM

 
British voters put more handwriting on the wall
   Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair may not only be in for a penny, in for a pound, but also for his political future, because of his devotion to President George W. Bush's elective war in Iraq.

On Friday, the New York Times reported:
   A few weeks back, Spain's prime minister rode to defeat at the polls, no doubt thanks in part to public reaction to his government's mishandling of information about a terrorist train bombing in the country. But he definitely lost many votes because he had ardently backed Bush's war, despite overwhelming public sentiment against that war.
   They say things happen in threes. Well, we've got voter reaction in Spain, now in Britain, and U.S. elections are coming up in November.
   With Bush's poll numbers already hugely disappointing for him, especially given the upwards of $70 million his campaign has spent in recent weeks on negative TV ads intended to poison the public's opinion of Sen. John Kerry, there's cause for optimism.
   Maybe America's voters are ready to reward bad thinking, bad policy and the overbearing application of notions arising from a radical, broadly unacceptable ideology, with a decisive defeat at the polls.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:46 PM

 
Army rules forbid privatizing interrogation duties
   The whole, wrong-way-to-go business of turning soldiering duties over to private contractors is even more officially wrong than we thought.
   This New York Times story says the use of private contractors for such intelligence-gathering activities as prisoner interrogations is against Army policy.
   An Army spokeswoman admits the Army is operating in violation of its own policy, but says commanders in Iraq have discretion to do that for military necessity. Then, there's this particularly important explanation:
   Ah yes — that belongs in the "self-fulfilling prophecy" file. That's because, when the Defense Department and/or the Army goes out into the private sector to get contractors for, say, intelligence work, guess how people in uniform who do intelligence work respond.
   If you guessed that many of them exit the service as fast as they can, so they can sign up for much higher pay and greater career independence working for private contractors, you get the stupidly inflated tax burden.
   How is that? Well, first, when bright, promising young recruit John Smith is assigned to the intelligence specialty, you the taxpayer foot the bill for his technical training, which can be extensive and expensive. If Smith remains in the service for a 20-year career, you get a good deal. If he exits after three or four years, you get to pay to replace him prematurely.
   And, if Smith goes to work for a private contractor, you get to pay him through the nose for doing the same work he did in uniform. Except that now, military commanders have less oversight and control over his activities, which can mean big trouble if he violates international law and participates in abuses that wind up creating a huge scandal. Another big difference is that if Smith doesn't like the way things are going, he can up and leave at any time, maybe compromising the mission, maybe creating a security problem, when he departs.
   These are just a few of the sensible reasons the Army prohibits the use of private-sector workers to go into war zones and do things such as interrogations.
   So, why would the Army go against its own rules and make considerable use of these contract workers? The most likely reason is that the neoconservative ideologues in the Bush administration are hell-bent on privatizing as many government activities as they possibly can — never mind the trouble doing so causes or the added expense for taxpayers. As they say in Texas, bidness is bidness.
   The Bush administration — the more you know, the more obvious it becomes these incompetents have no business controlling our government.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:57 PM

 
Spouse evidently decides Rush is wrong
   Rush Limbaugh and his third wife are about to end their marriage of 10 years, CNN reports, noting the radio personality denies his drug-abuse problems have anything to do with the breakup.
   We would like to be able to say we can't imagine why any woman would want to split with a famous multimillionaire who's such a good-hearted, decent, fair, thoughtful and intelligent guy. However, Oh!pinion has a policy against making things up.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:50 PM

 
Investors, duh, favor Bush, despite his record
   A Reuters story offers some interesting insight into how investors and financial industry people perceive the presidential race.
   Much of it comes as little surprise, but there is this gaping paradox. Barry notes:
   OK, so here's where we're at. Wall Street did well most of the time under Reagan, then boomed as never before under Clinton. This election year, we've got Bush, on whose watch investors have suffered mightily — war, record-high deficits, a staggering trade deficit, stocks just recently crawling out of a Mariannas Trench-deep trough of three-plus years duration, interest rates in the basement, hurting the fixed-income crowd — and he's running against John Kerry, who has said he intends to reinstitute the economic policies of the Clinton administration. Those would be the boom-producing policies of the Clinton administration.
   So, which candidate is the favorite of America's investor class? Better be sitting down for this:
   The sticking points, according to the story, are uncertainty about who's going to win — investors generally prefer keeping the president they know — and worry that Kerry will act to restore some fairness and sanity to the income tax policy.
   This all brings to mind recurring reports over the years that America's investors are masters at doing themselves in through such feats of folly as repeatedly trying to time the market, most of them selling when they should be buying; and buying "winners" high, on the theory the stocks wouldn't be high-priced if they weren't winners. Alas, they're evidently just as foolish when it comes to politics.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:37 PM

 
Fox adds insult to an orgy of overkill
   It's the TV news coverage equivalent of pouring maple syrup over your candy bar, then covering the whole thing with sprinkles and a dusting of powdered sugar. And, how about a cup of Hershey's syrup, straight up, to wash it down?
   After a solid week of wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast, minute-to-minute, saturation-level coverage of every minute detail of Ronald Reagan's whole life; after interviewing seemingly every Republican/conservative politician, friend, teacher, neighbor, doorman, photographer, reporter, commentator, etc., who ever had anything to do with him, some several times over; after he's been biographied, memorialized, eulogized and praised, literally, to the high heavens; and after he's finally been laid to rest on a hilltop at his library in Simi, Calif., all with the highest of military honors and greatest of public expense, the cable TV networks just keep right on going with all Reagan, all the time.
   Well, almost. Fox News just announced a break, a real treat — one that seems perversely fitting. Geraldo Rivera is going to sit down tomorrow evening with Mark Fuhrman, to rehash the obscene orgy of excess the cable networks perpetrated a decade ago: the O.J. Simpson murder trial debacle. Doesn't that just figure?
   We've stood by quietly, respectfully, knowing Reagan was idolized by millions. While we don't share their enthusiasm for his politics or presidency, we recognize that as a man he had some exceptional gifts and good qualities. So, this isn't a gripe about Reagan himself. We don't begrudge his family and fans their time of celebrating his life and career, and mourning his loss.
   Our beef is with the media, especially the cable news component. We fully expected and had no problem with the networks providing plenty of coverage, even extra-generous coverage. But what took place was so excessive, we believe decision makers behind the cameras ought to be replaced with people who exhibit better judgment — specifically, a much better sense of purpose and proportion.
   For now and for awhile, we predict a jump in book sales and Net surfing, lots of long outdoor walks and people heading to bed early. Soon, if not already, even many Reagan enthusiasts will surely ache to move on.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:15 PM

 
Good Boy Scout Gaddafi behind murder plot?
   When Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi so suddenly turned over a new leaf last year, it struck us as good news, yet maybe just a little too easy.
   It's commendable that Gaddafi has admitted U.S. personnel into Libya to assess what nuclear materials and capabilities his country possessed, and has allowed what was found to be removed.
   But now, here's this story that Gaddafi is the prime mover in a plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The details aren't entirely clear and fully verified, but it has a fair level of credibility.
   Gaddafi denies having anything to do with such a plot. President Bush says the matter is being looked into.
   The problem for the U.S. is how Bush rushed to embrace the new, improved Gaddafi and brag up the Libyan dictator's seeing of the light. The worry is that this may be one more instance of the president and his people being too ready to hear what they want to hear, see what the want to see, while being entirely too unwilling to examine and analyze people, issues and events in depth and at length.
   Whatever else comes out of this story, it would make quite a plot for a movie.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:30 PM

 
Bush supporters desperate to find fault
   Here's an interesting look at how some from the other half are conducting themselves during this week of saturation media coverage of, and lavish praise and emotional tributes for, all things Reagan, conservative and Republican.
   Keep in mind that all Sen. John Kerry has done this week is make a gracious statement about the former president, cancel two big fund raisers, plus all or nearly all appearances and events, and all campaign TV ads today. Oh, and he did travel to California to pay his respects at the Reagan Library. Kerry did that briefly, quietly and in a respectful, dignified way. We know because we watched the coverage.
   We stopped by the Web site blogsforbush.com on Wednesday to see what some of the most avid pro-Bush people might have to say. First, we present some comments from the site's regulars. Then you can see the post that triggered the comments.
   Now, given those mean-spirited, vindictive sentiments, you might think the commenters were responding to a post that had cited some vicious outrage perpetrated by Kerry and/or his supporters. Well, here's the post that triggered those comments. Judge for yourself:
   "Shameless and soulless"? "Taking a few shots"? How completely uncalled for. How utterly pathetic.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:02 PM

 
Ray Charles — the music was in him all his days
   Ray Charles did not just sing and play the piano, didn't just make music. The music was in him and it came out in thousands of performances that graced our lives for decades — splendid melodies, soulful blues, driving boogie, jumping jazz, rock 'n' roll, gospel and so much more.
   The music was in Ray Charles all his days, but now his days are done. CNN reported late this afternoon that Charles has died of complications of a liver infection. He was 73.
   The music was in him, and the incredibly good way it came out often turned songs performed by many others into Ray Charles classics — songs that will forever be remembered, and treasured, for the incomparable way he sang them. He gave them a depth, a richness, an emotional edge.
   The word "style" seems too shallow. Just call it soul.
   "Your Cheatin' Heart" is a perfect example. Hank Williams had written it and made it a big hit years earlier. But Charles knew there was more to the song than the bouncy and superficial country-swing treatment Williams had given it while duded up in Opry-chic, strumming his guitar and tapping his toe.
   "Cheatin' Heart" was really about a guy who'd opened up to someone, given her his heart only to have it broken. "Cheatin' Heart" was really about a guy sitting all alone, out on the back steps at night, a beer in his hand, an ache in his heart. He's saying you've done me wrong and it's going to get around, it's going to come back to you.
   ". . . When tears fall down, like falling rain, you'll walk the floor and call my name. But sleep won't come, the whole night through. Your cheatin' heart will tell on you."
   Charles, backed by a great chorus and orchestra, slowed the tempo, sang "Cheatin' Heart" in a gritty, bluesy style — and it was no longer just a song; it was an experience relived for everyone who had ever been unlucky at love. "Cheatin' Heart" was never the same again. Suddenly, Williams' delivery looked quaint, dated and oddly glib. Charles' version became an even bigger hit. He owned that song from then on.
   The same thing happened with "Georgia On My Mind." It was an old standard that had been sung by hundreds, but after Charles sang it, Charles owned it. Even as fine a balladeer as Willie Nelson, who recorded it again decades later, couldn't top Charles' rendition.
   Over the years, Charles appeared regularly on all sorts of TV shows, in movies and in clubs. His big, warm grin, ready laugh and Hollywood-big sunglasses became emblematic of enjoyable entertainment. He didn't even have to sing. The music that was in him came out of his fingers, too, working sheer magic on the ivories.
   From his Web site:
One of his greatest musical feats was to bring really good innovation to "America The Beautiful." We've heard several talented people try to do something distinctive on that one over the years. None of them succeeded. Then Ray Charles took it on — and we were blown away. (It was said on CNN today that President Reagan was so taken with Charles' rendition of "America The Beautiful" that he asked that the singer perform it at a Republican National Convention.)
   Yes, the music was in Ray Charles all his days. And now, sadly, his days are done. Thankfully, we can still enjoy his recordings, his appearances in videos and movies.
   May God bless and keep Ray Charles. And please, let him know we rate him as one of the best singers and musicians ever. The music was in him, and it now lives on in us.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:11 PM

 
Some bad news for tax-dodging Accenture Ltd.
   The House Appropriations Committee has voted to deny a tax-dodging corporation the $10 billion contract for providing visitor-control security in the U.S.
   Accenture Ltd., headquartered in Bermuda, is formerly the U.S.-based Andersen Consulting.
   A news story reports the committee voted 35-17 for the amendment, which denies the contract to companies not based in the U.S. To take effect, the measure must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by President Bush.
   The contract originates from the Department of Homeland Security, which claims Accenture qualifies under current law.

   Oh!pinion's view: Good for that better than 2-1 majority on the Appropriations Committee. Accenture should not qualify under U.S. law.
   We urge everyone reading this to let all those who represent you in both the House and Senate know this lucrative deal, funded with your hard-earned money, ought to go to an outfit that hasn't skipped the country to dodge paying its already chintzy share of the U.S. tax burden.
   Today, U.S. corporations are taxed at the lowest rate since the 1950s, having gotten the lion's share of the tax burden shifted to individual working Americans and families. And the bigger corporations are, the less likely they seem to be to pay taxes at all. Yet for greed-driven Benedict Arnold corporations like Accenture, even all that advantage isn't enough. They want to enjoy sales and profits at U.S. rates, but pay taxes at Bermuda rates.
   Congress and the president should tell Accenture to peddle its wares to the government of Bermuda. U.S. tax money should be used for services provided by a U.S. company employing Americans. The fact that Accenture claims 28 percent of its people are in the U.S. cuts only 28 percent of the ice - not good enough.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:42 PM

 
Sharp-lawyering, as opposed to doing right
   War is a brutalizing, potentially uncivilizing experience. The business of killing or being killed, of seeing your buddies injured and killed, takes a toll.
   Training, discipline and leadership provide armor for the psyche and basic decency of good soldiers sent off to war. Training, discipline and leadership keep armies of good soldiers from degenerating into mobs that murder, rape, pillage, and maybe even turn on their own leaders and people.
   Part of the traditional training, discipline and leadership for our good soldiers has been the teaching and careful observance of the Geneva Conventions' rules regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. It's also true that adhering to these rules gives the U.S. justification for demanding that our soldiers be afforded Geneva Convention protection — and a leg to stand on when prosecuting violators.

   What does it do to training, leadership and discipline when the highest officials in our government go to lawyers seeking loopholes and ways to skirt or bend the rules covering prisoner treatment? What does it do for the prospects of our soldiers held captive by others when the news gets out that the U.S. government doesn't honor the letter and spirit of the Geneva rules?
   These are timely questions, as news emerges that as far back as March 2002, the administration was consulting Justice Department lawyers for ways to bend and get around the rules concerning torture of prisoners. And, we learn that again in 2003, Defense Department lawyers were at work on the same seamy task.
   The Geneva Conventions' rules are simple, clear and concise. An eighth grader of average reading skills would have no trouble understanding them. Yet the administration had lawyers busy coming up with the likes of this, from the cited news story:
   Along with, "I was only following orders," that sounds like it could've come out of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi concentration camp guards, doesn't it?

   Attorney General John Ashcroft sat down with the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, in part to answer questions about the Bush administration's exercises in sharp-lawyering it's way around POW treatment rules. Democrats on the committee made Ashcroft's appearance extremely uncomfortable — and rightly so.
   Pressed to produce the memorandums in which Justice and Defense Department lawyers told how to beat the POW humane-treatment system, Ashcroft refused. He did not cite executive privilege, which he said is for the president to do, but instead claimed doing so would interfere with the president's ability to get legal advice from executive branch attorneys.
   More than one senator told Ashcroft he appeared to be acting in contempt of Congress. As Ashcroft probably knows, that's a crime.
   We now wait to see whether Ashcroft will respond to the senators' reasonable request or will consult with department lawyers about how to fight or get around yet another law.

   Keep in mind that Ashcroft is the chief law enforcement officer of the Unites States. Keep in mind that the proper task of Justice and Defense Department lawyers is to know the law, know international rules of conduct, and help steer U.S. officials and soldiers clear of committing violations.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:52 PM

 
Put Reagan on reissue of $10,000 bill
   There's much talk right now about honoring Ronald Reagan's memory by putting his image on some denomination of U.S. currency. So far, we've heard the $10 and $20 bill, and the dime mentioned.
   Obviously, putting Reagan on any existing bill means removing the image of another president or historical figure. The same is true of the dime. We prefer another alternative, one that avoids changing any existing currency design.
   Let's reissue the $10,000 bill, with Reagan's image on it. This seems fitting, given how Reagan's policies tended to favor those in our society more likely to come by large-denomination currency.
   Some will protest that there's little need for such a high-denomination bill and that few Americans would ever get to see, much less own, one. To that we say, think of the future.
   As successive conservative Republican presidents persist with so-called supply-side, better known as trickle-down, economic policies, with the inevitable result of driving up huge deficits; and as successive administrations persist with free trade and policies favoring globalization, hollowing out our economy and ensuring ever-deepening indebtedness to other countries, an economic reckoning of major proportions becomes a certainty.
   In the aftermath of that reckoning, we expect those fortunate enough to still have employment and some degree of personal wealth will find themselves spending $10,000 bills for, say, a bag of groceries or a fuel fill-up. Thus, the Reagan bill will get plenty of circulation.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:16 PM

 
Bush gets a high-stakes break
   Will Ronald Reagan's passing and the saturation-level attention given to all things Reagan over several days boost President Bush's re-election prospects?
   No one really knows, but Washington Post writer Steve Balz takes a good stab at finding out. Not surprisingly, his findings are mixed.
   One aspect of this is clear. All the Reagan-related goings on have yanked attention away from Iraq, which has been a huge, growing liability for Bush for weeks. A breather from constant, close attention to the messy dealings going on there and at the U.N., plus the ongoing violence and steadily rising death toll, must be a huge relief for Bush & Co.
   In fact, a break from close attention to all the uncertainty, expense, risk and loss that Iraq represents is surely a welcome relief for most Americans. As a people, we tend to grow weary, impatient, even cranky, when presented with troubling uncertainties over long periods. Some begin tuning out. Others start demanding some kind of resolution: Do something, do whatever, let's just get this over with.

   We think the more lasting impression will come following this breather. If violence is tamped down, if the Iraqis appear to be assuming a greater share of the security burden — especially if they're getting traction doing it — if our formerly alienated NATO allies and the U.N. are seen to be playing a larger, helpful role, Bush's prospects will be strengthened greatly.
   However, if Americans' attention is snapped back to Iraq by a major eruption of violence, by spreading insurrection among people demanding some kind of Islamic-dominated rule, by a backing-off of NATO countries or the U.N., the impact on Bush may be cumulatively worse. Many Americans are likely to conclude all the things Bush and his people don't want them to conclude about his elective war in Iraq. Those include that it was a terrible mistake, a war we never needed to get into in the first place; that the administration went in with too few forces, too few partners, no coherent plan for restoring the country and no viable exit strategy.
   If it's August or September when people's attention is drawn back closely to Iraq and things are obviously continuing on a deadly, costly, uncertain path, or worse, going downhill, Bush's chances at the polls in November will suffer greatly. That's especially so if challenger John Kerry doesn't stumble.
   There is perhaps a measure of justice in this. Bush went a long, long way out of his way to get our country into this war. Now, his political future is in the hands of people who never asked Bush or America to invade and occupy their homeland, however dissatisfied they may have been with Saddam Hussein's rule. It's also, to a fair extent, in the hands of the terrorists and "dead enders" Bush sought to destroy.
   Yet ultimately, if Iraq proves to be his political downfall, George W. Bush will have himself to blame.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:07 PM

 
Amazing Rumsfeld statements lost in the din
efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made some striking statements Saturday, while in Singapore for a big security conference. They're so striking, we have to wonder if President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the deskbound democratizers at the Defense Department didn't blanch and require an emergency change of underwear when they heard about them.
   That is, if Bush, Cheney, et al, did hear about them. Right now, with the D-Day doings and Reagan's death getting all the air time, there's no telling.
   This is from the Associated Press story on Rumsfeld's talk:
   Rumsfeld is nothing if not outspoken, but as the reporter notes, he rarely wanders off the reservation, policy-wise. Yet his statements in Singapore echo those made for months by critics of the administration.
   Those are that the administration's compulsion with regime change in Iraq actually distracted from the war against terrorism around the world, funneling money and manpower to a place almost devoid of terrorists when we invaded. Meanwhile, too little has been done to deal with terrorists elsewhere, much less prevent more people from joining the terrorists' ranks.
   Rumsfeld is further quoted:
   It's good that someone in the administration gets it, at long last. But we note with a sigh that Rumsfeld went to the far side of the world to speak good sense. And he uttered his statements just when his boss - who needs to hear more good sense — was in France for D-Day anniversary events, plus, the country was enthralled with the passing of Ronald Reagan.
   We'll have to wait awhile to see whether a change in administration policy is brewing or if Rumsfeld's words will just earn him recriminations for having deviated from the party line. From what we've seen so far, the Bush administration has a zero-tolerance policy toward outside-the-box thinkers and their breakthrough thoughts.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:09 PM

 
One good turn deserves more negative ads?
   Campaigning in Toledo, Ohio, Sunday, Sen. John Kerry announced he's suspending five days of campaign events out of respect for former President Ronald Reagan, who died Saturday. Canceled events include fund-raisers in New York and Los Angeles. Kerry spoke graciously of what he recalled as Reagan's willingness to lead in a bipartisan way.
   Will the anything-to-win gang hyping George W. Bush's re-election campaign reciprocate? Not in our area. Upon turning on the TV this morning, the first thing we saw was one of the Bush campaign's lie-laced, Kerry-bashing ads.
   A respectful stand-down is apparently as unlikely from the Bush camp as bipartisan leadership is from Bush himself.
   Warning to Kerry: Unfortunately, there's plenty of truth in the old saw that nice guys finish last. Beware.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:43 AM

 
And now, it's mourning in America
   Ronald Reagan, 40th president of the United States, has died at age 93.
   He lived a life of accomplishment, as a radio announcer, actor, president of the Screen Actors Guild, spokesman for various corporations and products, as governor of California, and as president. He exhibited exceptional charm and charisma. Both attributes were powered by his skill as a speaker, his buoyant optimism and his sense of humor.
   Reagan began his political career as a Democrat and later became a Republican. He was staunchly anti-communist, pro-business, a proponent of traditional family and social values, and strong in his Christian faith. He was a devoted husband to the love of his life, Nancy Davis Reagan, throughout their 52 years together.
   Reagan led a charmed and wonderful life for all but his final decade of decline as an Alzheimer's victim.
   Much will be said and written in the coming days about Reagan the man, the president, the conservative icon. Inevitable excesses should be met with compassion and understanding by those of us who usually did not agree with his politics. Reagan unquestionably loved this country and intended to serve its people honorably and well. A respectful salute is in order at his passing.
   God rest his soul in peace. May his loved ones and many friends find comfort, strength and peace in their time of loss.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:17 PM

 
Bush lawyers up; John Dean explains
   At the very time when America especially needs reliable intelligence operatives capable of underground work, some vindictive jerks revealed the identity one of those operatives.
   The operative, whose usefulness has undoubtedly been ruined, is Valerie Plame, wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson's honesty and candor about what he did not find concerning yellowcake during a trip to Nigeria intended to get some dirt on Saddam Hussein, WMD-wise, apparently earned him the enmity of powers that be in the Bush administration. Hence the mean-spirited bit of payback, apparently.
   Author and attorney John Dean, who has exquisite first-person experience about White House scandals and skullduggery going all the way back to the Nixon years and Watergate, has written a remarkably insightful piece at Findlaw.com on the latest development in the Plame case. That is, President Bush and just now, Vice President Dick Cheney, lawyering-up.

   Dean finds great significance in the fact that they've opted for private counsel, as opposed to relying on regular old White House counsel. The inescapable inference is that they know more than they've told in interviews on the matter and now want to know how to handle themselves in a grand jury proceeding, should it come to that.
   Dean goes on to explain why they and other government officials can no longer avail themselves of already-hired, supposedly high-caliber attorneys just down the hall. We won't give the plot away but have to mention that at the center of it there is one of our all-time-favorite sanctimonious screwups, Kenneth Starr.
   For those who came in late, Starr is the Clintonphobic right-wing former judge who blew the better part of 60 million of taxpayers' dollars on a multi-year quest to destroy President and Mrs. Clinton over an old, unprofitable Arkansas land deal. When that proved fruitless, he expanded his operation to seeking whatever dirt he could dig up, wherever he could find it.
   Bush has said he wants to get to the bottom of the outing of Plame and that he told his people to cooperate with investigators. Time will tell.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:02 PM

 
Golly gee, jobs are finally coming back
   The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 248,000 jobs were added to the economy in May, 32,000 of them in manufacturing, putting the overall unemployment rate at 5.6 percent.
   That's good news for Americans in many states, although pockets of high unemployment persist in some states.
   Not surprisingly, Associated Press writer Leigh Strope, in a story on the employment situation, opines:
   There being very little justice in American politics and no shortage of fanciful notions about economics and economic policy among voters, that assessment is probably right. However, anyone ready to buy into the idea that President Bush's rendition of trickle-down economics has produced a bonanza for one and all should read on . . .
   Let's say Mrs. Smith decides to have a nice Sunday family dinner at noon. At 11 a.m., she asks her husband, Joe, to go to the store and pick up some dinner rolls.
   Bypassing the family car, Joe hops in his semi-truck, fires up the motor and sets out for the store, which is about a mile away. But on the way he takes two wrong turns and gets his big rig stuck cab-first in a cul-de-sac. Police have to oversee a touchy backing-out operation. Traffic is tied up on a busy arterial for blocks. Before it's over, Joe receives an expensive ticket.
   Upset by all that's transpired, Joe stops off at a nearby tavern for a little something to calm his nerves. As a result, on the next leg of his journey he gets pulled over and ticketed for inattentive driving (he just passes the blood alcohol test). The rest of the errand goes only slightly better.
   Finally, as the clock strikes 2 in the Smith home, Mrs. Smith watches as Joe pulls up in front, shuts down the rig and comes to the door, a bag of fine, fresh dinner rolls in one hand and two expensive tickets in the other. Incredibly, he's grinning as though nothing had happened. Needless to say, Mrs. Smith is not pleased with Joe or impressed with the rolls.
   The moral to this little story comes in the form of a three-part question you might want to ask Bush before giving him an attaboy and your vote: How late, how ineptly and at how great a cost?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:07 PM

 
Crawford, Texas, mayor prefers Kerry
   Deep in the heart of Texas, which has produced an especially regrettable strain of Republican politicians, President George W. Bush being the most conspicuous current example, there lies the small community of Crawford. And deep in the heart of Crawford there is Mayor Robert Campbell, who says he plans to vote for Democrat John Kerry in November.
   A Dallas Morning News story quotes his honor: "I don't see where I'm better off than I was four years ago. I don't see where the city is any better off."
   As Paul Harvey likes to say, "My, my, my."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:53 AM

 
How do you say `laughs last' in Arabic?
   Nabil al-Marabh is probably hard at work advancing terrorist madness somewhere in Syria, maybe even in Iraq, by now — having been deported by U.S. authorities.
   We read the AP story on this character twice and must admit to being baffled by the whole thing. Get this:
   On top of all that, an informant told authorities al-Marabh and Raed Hijazi had plotted to detonate a fuel truck in a New York City tunnel.
   Apparently, the Justice Department ultimately declined to charge and try al-Marabh for national security reasons. What those might be are beyond our modest ability to conjure through any surmise based on logic. Maybe if we could just fall through a looking glass and put the question to a time-conscious hare, or something.
   Do read the story, which has to be true. We say that because we don't think anyone could make this stuff up.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:03 PM

 
Army's `stop-loss' likely to be a costly Band-aid
he Army-wide stop-loss order just given to make ends meet for the rest of this year (story), at least, could yield a steep cost later on.
   Stop-loss cancels any retirement and separation plans of personnel whose units are selected to go to Iraq, from 90 days preceding deployment to 90 days after return. People in affected units now are subject to a de facto draft.
   The potential for resentment is high, especially among National Guard and Reserve members who, rightfully or not, never imagined repeat extended deployments to a shooting gallery on the far side of the world.
   Following the Cold War, defense planners — Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld especially — concluded future wars would be fought with lots of technology, from air, sea and space. They expected to need relatively few combat troops on the ground. The war on terrorism, as we're engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, turns that notion on its head. Critics point to our inability to achieve a high level of security in Iraq and to backsliding in Afghanistan as evidence too few troops are committed in both countries.
   It's reasonable to speculate that a much larger deployment in Afghanistan could go a long way toward denying al Qaeda/Taliban residual elements or insurgents a chance to proliferate. At the same time, a larger force could provide a more Osama-tight screen along the border with Pakistan.
   Now it's too late, but had a larger force been put on the ground in Iraq, borders could've been sealed so that al Qaeda or other infiltrators could not have gotten in to stage attacks and serve as a cadre for native anti-coalition fighters and suicide-bombers.
   Of course, committing more troops would've required expanding the military overall, the Army especially, months ago — preferably before launching an elective invasion of Iraq. But, of course, President Bush was in too much of a hurry for that. And even if he had not been, whether because of intellectual/conceptual inertia or plain stubbornness, Rumsfeld and his people at Defense were not about to alter course in the face of new realities.

   The die is cast in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least for now. But going forward with the worldwide war against terrorism, which could call our forces to other Iraq-like shooting galleries, we need new leadership that is willing to undertake fresh, more-realistic planning.
   Oh, and one more thing. That new leadership is sure to face an initial challenge of defusing widespread resentment and turning around a high rate of separations and commission resignations. Those would be defections by good people who were prepared to serve, even sacrifice, but not to be jerked around and jeopardized by thick-skulled planners and ham-fisted managers.

   Postscript: CNN reports Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as saying the military in undermanned and that he intends, if elected, to expand it by 40,000 personnel. Right on.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:24 PM

 
Chalabi? Is that an Asian burrito or something?
   Pressed by investigators about what he knew and when he knew it about illicit arms sales to fund an illegal war effort in Central America, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush pleaded ignorance, saying he was "out of the loop" on that.
   Now his son, President George W. Bush, is inching toward an out-of-the-loop defense of his own concerning Ahmed Chalabi.
   Suddenly, Bush wants it known he was never really good buddies with the Iraqi exile and fugitive from a Jordanian conviction for bank fraud and embezzlement. This takes on added urgency as bad news about Chalabi piles up, the latest being that he told the Iranians the U.S. had broken their communications code — an accusation Chalabi denies.
   Up until very recently, Chalabi was a favorite of the neocon movers and shakers behind Bush's elective war in Iraq. Now, the president's distancing maneuver comes across with all the subtlety of a "Saturday Night Live" skit — and even less believability.
   Atrios has a revealing post that details this emerging charade. Makes you wonder how trashing the truth squares with "returning honor and dignity to the office."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:31 PM

 
CAFTA a bad deal whose time should never come
oes anyone in their right mind actually believe the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, is going to be good for most Americans?
   Likewise, does anyone really think this insult poised to be added to the injuries of NAFTA and WTO is not all about exploiting poverty-ridden people and the environment of their homeland?
   Free trade agreements were supposed to be all about gaining access to foreign markets for American goods and services, removing arbitrary restrictions and high tariff barriers. That was the sales pitch for NAFTA and our entree into the World Trade Organization. Had that occurred, we'd be enjoying splendid prosperity, with businesses large and small humming. Employment and wage rates would be strong, with private profits and public revenues well in the black. As it turned out — and as predicted by many, us included — that was all just a come on, a spiel for the suckers.
   The reality is that businesses, especially large, multinational corporations, gain access to endless supplies of ultra-cheap labor in places where the authorities are so anxious for development they won't tolerate workers getting uppity about pay and working conditions, much less quibble about what happens to the environment. The reality is that Americans' relatively well-paying jobs go away, now reaching into the millions, while the real wages of those still working stagnate or decline, benefits diminish or disappear and the work gets longer and harder. The reality is that, for millions, the term "job security" is an oxymoron.

   Does anyone really believe Central American countries are about to be lucrative markets for U.S.-made Boeing jets, Caterpillars, medical specialty equipment, $30,000 SUV's and $100,000 motor homes?
   No, but with dollar signs in their eyes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Apparel & Footwear Association and promoters in South Florida are all for CAFTA. So are the Bush administration and most Republicans in Congress. All their many speeches hailing the impending birth of democracy in Iraq and how we've freed Iraqis from Saddam's oppression belie their eagerness to get on with expanding economic oppression at home and abroad.
   However, as explained in an excellent story by the Miami Herald's Jane Bussey, that won't be so easy this time. It's an election year and people all over America have begun to wise up about free trade, globalization, outsourcing and offshoring. Bussey quotes Sen. John Kerry, who's out to get Bush's job:
   Well said and right on target. The story also notes the Bush administration's assurance that "the accord has strong provisions to ensure that countries enforce their own labor laws or face formal complaints in special tribunals."
   This statement is so George W. Bush it takes our breath away! It's at once so banal, yet so sanitary and correct sounding. What it really means is that these poor countries, barely one step removed from straight-up feudalism, if that, can enforce laws typically formulated to maximize the exploitation of workers and make unionization deadly dangerous and extremely unlikely if not outright impossible.
   Fortunately, the fact that the free trade/globalization cat is out of the bag and that this is an election year means CAFTA is unlikely to come up for a vote before the November elections. If Americans get the election right, CAFTA, certainly in its present form, is a goner.
   Ending free trade as we know it is just one more reason to elect Kerry, deny Republicans control of Congress, and thus begin to end this nightmare.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:34 PM

 
Bush accentuates the negative, for little gain
   Among the first things to go out the window once George W. Bush settled into the Oval Office was all that warm-fuzzy campaign prattle about being "a uniter and not a divider." This campaign year he isn't going near that theme, probably sensing no one would buy it if he did.
   In fact, Bush is running a campaign that comes close to being all negative, all the time, fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly from those who want the best government their money can buy.
   Sunday, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux put numbers to Bush's hardline negativity:
   Malveaux relayed a couple of other campaign tidbits indicating that all that bashing isn't doing Bush much good:
   Oh!pinion's view: Given Bush's record, his campaign has little choice but to try to make the opposition look like a worse choice. We're encouraged by the apparent willingness of so many to tune out Bush's negative advertising. We say that because Sen. John Kerry is a good man and a much better presidential prospect than Bush, but also because we'd like to see negative campaigning mostly go out of style.
   A final question: If this trend of Bush bashing away with expensive TV ads but not getting any traction continues, how long will his deep-pockets backers continue to write the checks?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:28 PM