Bush heads north, into the Canadian cold
resident Bush traveled to Ottawa today, purportedly to mend a relationship more damaged during his first term in office than at any time since the Vietnam War.
   At a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Bush acknowledged the obvious, saying yet again he realizes not everyone agrees with his decision to invade Iraq (story).
   Then, along with the usual insistence we're on the way to seeing a free, peaceful and prosperous Iraq join the ranks of the world's democracies, Bush went past spin to all-out con job.
   Just as he had done about various things along the 2004 campaign trail, Bush dropped in an implication-by-association that something he wants to be true is true. He mentioned that the U.S. invaded Iraq after that country repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions. The con job, of course, is conveying to the uninformed and poorly informed the notion that the U.S. invasion was justified by Iraq's defiance of the U.N. — and, by extension, might even have had the U.N.'s blessing.
   In truth, in early 2003 Iraq had handed over weapons information demanded by both the U.S. and U.N. In truth, U.N. weapons inspectors were at work in Iraq when Bush ordered the preinvasion buildup and positioning of U.S. military forces. In fact, when Bush told the U.N. to get the inspectors out because invasion was imminent, the U.N. was busy telling Bush to hold off, to let the inspectors do their work, to avoid precipitous military action.
   And as we so well know, it turned out Saddam Hussein had done a lot more to comply with the U.N. resolutions than the Bush administration knew or else would admit to knowing. As we so well know now, the U.N. weapons inspectors found no weapons of mass destruction because Iraq didn't have them. But President Knowitall invaded anyway.

   We suspect few Canadians are so poorly informed as to be misled by Bush's spiel. Clues of that could be seen in sizeable protest demonstrations and in the single-finger salutes Bush alluded to during the press conference. It's also indicated by poll results showing 58 percent of Canadians think Bush's re-election was a mistake, as reported by ABC News this evening.
   Never one to face a less-than-adoring audience if he can avoid doing so, Bush passed on the traditional address visiting U.S. presidents make to Canada's Parliament. That's probably just as well, since he obviously has little to say beyond spin they've already heard.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:48 PM

 
Ridge will leave small shoes to fill
   Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (sigh) announced today that he's resigning (yawn) as of Feb. 1, or sooner if a replacement gets the OK from Congress (story).
   The affable, well-spoken Ridge's tenure as the first Cabinet-level appointee for homeland security will be remembered for his making colored alert warnings at politically useful times during an election year and little else. Overall, Ridge's service in what should've been a tough, demanding post has been a go-along, get-along exercise in underperforming mediocrity. However, he's been as loyal as a pet poodle.
    All of which is to say he's the quintessential Bush appointee.
   Ridge says he wants to spend more time with his family. He's also said to be a shoo-in for a job as the trophy executive at a major, unnamed defense-industry corporation. That ought to be good for making mountains of money in return for molehills of effort — he'll be a natural.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:25 PM

 
Story says Oklahoma e-voting totals rigged
   According to a Saturday report on the Web, e-voting machines in 57 Oklahoma counties somehow started counting backward, all of them providing winning totals for President George W. Bush in the Nov. 2 election. That conclusion is apparently based on a report of early vote results, when the counts were at about 70 percent of votes cast, published in the Tulsa World newspaper.
   This story, "Voting Machines Count Backwards in Okla.," from okimc.org claims the early totals reported by the conservative newspaper had Kerry ahead, but when the state's official totals became known, Kerry had lost in all of Oklahoma's 77 counties.
   Further adding to suspicions, the okimc.org story says "All 77 counties use the Optech Eagle voting machines and Tabulators made by ES&S, Sen (Chuck) Hagel's Republican company."
   If proven true — and we're not saying this is true, based only on a single Web posting — such a fixing of Oklahoma vote totals wouldn't change the election outcome. What it might do to the good is focus public attention on the need for much better e-voting machines along with rigorous oversight and auditing of their use, before during and after elections. To that end, we hope the possibility of rigged vote tallying in Oklahoma is investigated and either verified or debunked.
   Whatever the outcome in Oklahoma, it remains true that these hi-tech toys are a perfect setup for stealing elections. If e-voting systems aren't substantially improved, and soon, you can be sure it's only a matter of time until we have a major election fraud scandal.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:56 PM

 
Don't expect school violence decline to last
   Violent crimes against students in the nation's schools have declined by 50 percent over the last decade. That's welcome news, but schools still aren't out of the woods.
   An AP story reports:
   And the next time you hear someone bashing public school teachers, consider this:
   Obviously, one of these crimes is too many, especially considering the lifelong damage that can be done when a youngster is brutalized. And each incident creates a potential ripple effect. Other kids witness violence, which is bad. Desire for vengeance can escalate, involving more kids and more-destructive, even deadly, violence.

   One especially good thing the Clinton administration did was to create a federal program adding 100,000 police officers across the country. The COPS program, as it was known, made it possible to put officers into thousands of schools, including some of those most wracked by violence. Credit COPS with helping bring the school (and community) violence stats down.
   But here, too, it's a good-news, bad-news situation. The Bush administration has eliminated funding for the COPs program, after reducing funding severely during the first term. As a result, communities across the country, many struggling to make ends meet during our jobless and otherwise very uneven economic recovery, have had to cut their police forces. Invariably, that has resulted in school-based officers being reassigned elsewhere.

   Don't be surprised if the school violence numbers start going back up. However, take comfort in the fact we're spending megamillions to train, equip and deploy more Iraqi police officers.
   Oh, and then there's the pending matter of making Bush's many tax cuts permanent. Better a millionaire should keep getting his $130,000 annual refund than that our most troubled schools should have police officers to help keep the peace. After all, that millionaire might need the money to send his kid to a nice, safe private school.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:28 PM

 
Edwards: Democrats must express values
   “In order for us to unite the country ... those voters have to believe that our values — my values and the values of other Democratic leaders — are the same values they believe in. That means we have to be touching them, reaching out to them.”
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:01 PM

 
Cost of Bush's war blunder keeps going up
   There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no native resistance movement within Iraq begging us to invade and set them free. Saddam Hussein, fiendish despot though he was, was not in cahoots with al Qaeda in any substantial or meaningful way, where U.S. security was concerned. Iraq did not figure in our war against terrorism, except in the rhetoric of the Bush administration.
   Those who opposed invading Iraq were right about our troops becoming bogged down in a deadly quagmire. They were right about the country breaking down into lawless chaos. President George W. Bush and his neoconservative crusaders were as wrong as they could be in nearly everything they told the American people and the world to justify invading Iraq.
   Despite Bush's stated and restated intention of holding elections in Iraq by the end of January, the country is less secure and stable than the day our troops pulled into Baghdad. Obviously, without the country being secure and stable any election result will be suspect in the eyes of Iraqis and most people around the world. Any new leader, any new government in Iraq,will desperately need to be perceived as legitimate. As of now, the chances of that being the case next February appear to be slim to none.
   That's the situation as the price our military people are paying for Bush's wilful, foolish blunder rises inexorably, day after bloody day. Here's what the Association Press reports that cost to be this weekend:
   To paraphrase, a foolish nation and its soldiers are soon parted.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:01 PM

 
Wyoming voters went over the top, literally
   Wyoming, a solidly Republican red state and home of Vice President Dick Cheney, managed an amazing feat of electoral . . . ahem, enthusiasm? . . . in the recent election.
   From the Wyoming secretary of state's official Web site, no less, comes news that 106 percent of registered Wyoming voters turned out to vote. Look down the page, on the right.
   How did they do that? Oh, we'll pass. Don't want to be put down as a whacko conspiracy theorist, or anything. If you've got an idea, however, feel free to leave a comment.
   Final thought: We hope this doesn't get back to Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his henchme . . . er, associates back in Texas. They don't need any more ideas.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:02 AM

 
Boortz on par with allegedly bad principal
   Just imagine, a school principal prohibiting a teacher from presenting materials to his students that refer to God. That means no Declaration of Independence, no George Washington's journal, no John Adams' diary and no Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists."
   That's the charge teacher Steven Williams of Stevens Creek School in the Cupertino suburb of San Francisco makes against Principal Patricia Vidmar and the school district in a lawsuit. Williams says he's being discriminated against because he's a Christian and that his First Amendment right of free speech is being denied.
   Williams says that for months Vidmar required him to submit lesson plans and handouts for her prior approval. She censored out all those with references to God and Christianity, he claims.

   Along with apparently being an exercise in stupidity, this is perfect fodder for the right-wing propaganda industry. Expect Limbaugh and all the little limbaughs to jump all over it. Expect OReilly and the rest of Fox News to have a field day with it. Expect the right-wing bloggers to chime in. They will all demagogue it as evil liberalism at work.
   Back in the real world, if Williams' allegations hold up in court, Vidmar's career as an educator should promptly be prohibited. Anyone who can't appreciate the difference between teaching history in which important historical figures mention God and teaching religion in a promotional way isn't fit to teach or to manage a school.
   Of course, the news story on this is woefully incomplete, with no information at all coming from Vidmar, from the Cupertino Unified School District or from the district's attorney. That's not because the reporter didn't try to get both sides of the story. It's because only one side, the one bringing suit, would comment. That's typical in our lawsuit-ridden society.
   This means that unless Vidmar, the district or its attorney speaks up, only Williams' side of the story will be out there, ricocheting through the right-wing noise machinery.

   Neal Boortz, whose Atlanta right-wing talk radio show is syndicated around the country, describes himself as, "The Talkmaster, Mighty Whitey and The High Priest of The Church of the Painful Truth." He's already cranked up the volume on this at his Web site.
   After presenting the facts from the one-sided story, without mentioning the one-sided nature of it, of course, Boortz offers these predictable observations:
   "Out there in Pelosi-land," Boortz says, of course without having checked with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to see what she actually thinks of the case. But hey, when you've got a microphone and your own set of dittoheads, why bother with facts? Your listeners want demagoguery, so give them what they want.
   The case as presented pits an apparently ill-treated teacher against an apparently dim-witted school principal. We don't know at this point if the crux of this is a personality conflict, idiotic overzealousness, an incredible misinterpretation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, or some combination of those things. It's clear, though, that it's not about all school principals or all schools. But that doesn't stop Boortz from politicizing it and demagoging away.
   Ah so, based on half a story about a lawsuit that's only just been filed, not tried, much less proven, Boortz indicts all public schools everywhere — nay, all government — as utterly incompetent and not to be trusted.

   In another, better time in this country, this would be enough for most people to write Boortz off as a raving crackpot, an anti-American crackpot at that. But today, Boortz and similar know-it-alls-with-a-microphone enjoy large audiences of people who share their unwillingness to let truth get in the way of a few cheap shots at schools, government and all the people who serve in both.
   By contrast, one inadequately checked story and prize-winning newsman Dan Rather gets run out of his CBS anchor seat, written off as an irredeemably biased hack by Boortz and others like him. The truth is, Boortz and his ilk are no better than the school principal in question is alleged to be.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:10 PM

 
Happy Thanksgiving
   Relax and have a wonderful holiday. May the enjoyment of closeness with family and friends bring warmth to your heart. May good food and shared laughter satisfy you, body and soul. If you're traveling, may your journey be safe and not too tiring.
   We're taking this day and perhaps Friday off from posting. But since you're here, why not scroll down to see if there are items of interest that you may not have read before? As always, your comments are welcome.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:17 PM

 
Rendell should clear way for Philly broadband
   Philadelphia wants to provide low-cost broadband Internet to its citizens — a move telecom industry lobbyists are doing their best to kill (story).
   City officials see creating a municipal wi-fi system as a way to bridge the digital divide that leaves too many less-affluent, inner-city people out of access better-off suburban dwellers take for granted. The need to bridge this gap is especially important for schoolchildren, they say.
   Industry people claim it's unfair competition because the city can use tax revenues to fund the project, estimated to cost $10.5 million to set up and more than $1 million yearly to operate. Private-sector outfits have to secure and pay for their financial backing.
   That argument would be more persuasive if more telecom companies had actually gone after Philadelphians' business. In fact, they have not — just as they have not in many cities and towns across America, as well as many rural areas. The telecoms have shown a strong preference for cherry-picking locales, favoring those likely to yield high subscribership quickly among businesses, educational institutions and consumers.
   Furthermore, although they like to talk about the benefits of competition, as they did in testifying before Congress last year, the record of these outfits shows them to generally averse to competing. The result is higher prices and fewer choices for consumers, greater profits and easier sledding for the companies.
   In the Philadelphia case, lobbyists have gotten language outlawing municipal, for-a-fee services into a catchall bill that Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell has until the end of the month to sign or veto.
   Here's hoping Rendell torpedoes the bill. Let the telecoms earn their keep by actually competing for a change, rather than getting fat off the toil of their lobbyists, as they've done to too great an extent so far. Let the have-nots in Philadelphia, especially their kids, catch a rare break. Who knows, in time some of those kids may as grownups be among the well-heeled demographic segment the telecoms prize.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:30 PM

 
Woe be unto U.S. if foreign creditors get antsy
   "In furtherance of moral values, Congress now has to raise the debt limit by another $800 billion. We actually reached the debt ceiling in early October, but obviously the R's didn't want that vote coming up before the election. Then after they finish spending a staggering amount of money, the R's will return to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent.
   "Now, I realize that the Bushies consider it a point of pride to pay not one iota of attention to what the rest of the world thinks about us. But I would like to point out that the rest of the world is holding our paper. And foreign investors have demonstrated elsewhere that they are quite capable of taking alarm over unsound fiscal practices and pulling out completely, leaving bankrupt countries behind."


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:12 PM

 
Quiz time; See if you can spot the suckers

   Time now for our Mideast Logic Quiz.
   Question 1: Chaotic, war torn, economically prostrate Iraq, overrun with Western-infidel occupiers to boot, is more than $30 billion in debt to other nations. Creditor nations have evolved into two camps. Those in one are willing to write off 80 percent of Iraq's debt to help the country get back on its feet. Those in the other camp say they might write off some of Iraq's debt, but only if and when the country has its own internationally recognized government with which to deal. One country in this camp additionally requires that its companies get a piece of the Iraq reconstruction pie.
   The two camps are A, the United States (itself a major debtor nation), Japan, Russia and European countries, none Arab or Muslim; and B, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and the United Arab Emirates, all Arab and Muslim, all extremely wealthy. So, which camp is stepping up right now?

   Question 2: What's wrong with this picture?

   Answers: If you responded A to question 1 and something along the lines of "everything" to question 2, you, unlike the national leaders of the A group, don't deserve to be known as a world-class sucker. Details in this news story. Read it and weep.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:17 PM

 
Give Palestinians a choice: fight on or eat
   Bolt out of the blue — not:
   Well, what do you know about that?
   It turns out that making and keeping an ignorant, selfish thug, Yasser Arafat, for their leader, and following his formula for never-ending struggle, terrorism and suicide, attracting the overwhelming force of a resolute adversary with predictably disastrous consequences, leaves Palestinians in poverty.
   Thank you, World Bank, for making that clear to the world. Now, could your people give the Palestinians a clue? They've suffered for a very long time for not having, or apparently wanting, one.

   But it gets better: The story says the bank's report was issued ahead of a meeting of donor countries next month — the U.S. and European countries whose handouts are keeping the Palestinians from starving. We suggest a little tough love, sending this year's donations to Darfur and telling the Palestinians to make peace or war on their own dime, then live with the consequences. If that means starving, so be it. If they choose peace, move in with more-than-double aid the following year.
   If this sounds harsh, consider that extremist crazies among the Palestinians have subverted every move toward peace for decades, doing their damnedest to step up violence whenever a deal appeared to be near. Only their fellow Palestinians can really stop them from perpetuating this cycle. Maybe the pain of real hunger and deprivation will motivate these fellow Palestinians to do what they must do to free themselves from the fanatics' tyranny. Nothing else ever has.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:43 PM

 
Maybe Bush should just stay home
   President Bush's visit to Chile leaves another black mark on an already poor diplomatic record. Bush arrived in Chile Friday for for an Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering.
   On Saturday night, while entering a dinner for heads of state attending the APEC meeting, Chilean security officers tried to keep the leader of Bush's Secret Service detail from going inside. Bush went to where a scuffle was taking place and hauled his man in. The Chileans had been given to understand no security personnel would go inside for the dinner. Apparently, Bush was the only one there to bring them in.
   On Sunday, 230 people invited to a state dinner hosted by Chile's President Jose Lagos were disinvited at the last minute. The reason: Bush's Secret Service detail insisted all the guests go through a metal detector while they watched; something the Chileans found "humiliating," according to a New York Times story.
   Imagine the lasting impression left with 230 of Chile's leading officials and citizens — for seats at state dinners are reserved for the likes of top-ranking government and military officials, high-court judges, university presidents, religious leaders and prominent business people. Most of these Chileans no doubt had felt honored to be invited, had looked forward to the event for months and had told family and friends about it. Imagine their disgust at having the big event canceled at the last minute because Bush's guards considered them potential threats to the president's safety.

   We appreciate that the Secret Service has an important and extremely demanding job protecting the president, especially with a war against terrorism going on. Even so, it appears Bush's Secret Service agents went too far during the Santiago visit. They gave their Chilean counterparts an unmistakable and insulting message: "We don't think you're competent to keep President Bush safe and we don't trust the leading citizens of your country. So we're going to do what we're going to do."
   This was a situation where Bush could've and should have exerted some of his much-balleyhooed decisiveness — by telling his Secret Service people to forgo the metal detector routine before the state dinner, relying on a going over of the guest list with their Chilean counterparts instead.
   Bush flew from Chile to Colombia Monday. Asked about the security flaps in Chile during a press conference with Colombia's President Uribe, Bush said of the substitute Sunday "working dinner" he attended with Lagos and a dozen of Lagos' staff people, "We had a fabulous time." He said it as though he couldn't imagine why he was even being asked about the matter.
   That figures. And that's why he's such an embarrassment.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:08 AM

 
Boycott sick murder-JFK 'game'
   A Scottish videogame maker, Traffic, thinks a game in which players try to re-create the shots that assassinated President John F. Kennedy will reignite people's interest in history. Traffic is to release the game Monday as a $9.99 download, according to a news story.
   The company's managing director, Kirk Ewing, will award a $100,000 prize to the first person "to duplicate the shots which killed the president."
   David Smith, a spokesman for Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., called the game "despicable." We'll second that.
   Ewing can say whatever he wants about getting people interested in history. What he's getting people — mostly young people — interested in is coldblooded murder as a recreational pastime. The truth is that this is about generating shock-value PR and making money.
   Consumers should greet JFK Reloaded with the most resolute and complete boycott in history, then see to it Traffic comes to the end of its road by ignoring all its games. Of course, it's more likely that a whole lot of people with horse pucky for brains will pay the $9.99 and try to win Ewing's $100,000 blood-money prize. After all, lowlifes know what lowlifes like.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:26 PM

 
NBA should rid itself of violent troublemakers
BA players Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and Ben Wallace were handed indefinite suspensions Saturday for their part in a brawl that ended a Friday-night game.
   Indiana Pacers players Artest, O'Neal and Jackson, and Ben Wallace of the Detroit Pistons not only threw punches at other players, they also went into the stands to attack spectators, one or more of whom allegedly threw things at the players when the melee started.
   A news story on this incident says Wallace started the trouble with a "hard, two-handed shove to Artest" during the last minute of play. It quotes NBA Commissioner David Stern as calling the brawl "shocking, repulsive and inexcusable." The NBA and local law enforcement are reviewing the matter to see what if any further action may be warranted.
   Meanwhile, team officials were talking about adding more security people to maintain order.

"Obviously, character, self-discipline and sportsmanship count little or not at all when teams hire their players."

   We suggest the NBA toss these troublemakers out on their butts, permanently. While the association is at it, it might start bouncing any players who exhibit violent behavior, period.
   Friday's violence eruption is a direct result of team owners, coaches, the NBA and TV interests favoring height and basketball skills to the exclusion of all other considerations. Obviously, character, self-discipline and sportsmanship count little or not at all when teams hire their players.
   By sportsmanship, we mean the kind of deep, abiding respect for their game and for the blessing of being able to make terrific money doing what players presumably love doing, that would make turning a game into a brawl unthinkable. By character, we mean people who know and honor the difference between self-respect and a macho image.
   Artest appears to be a perfect example of what's wrong. The news story includes some of his career highlights:
   Can there be any doubt Pacers officials knew they had a violence-prone player with poor self-discipline on their hands?
   Adding more security personnel isn't the answer. The added workers may suppress brawls more quickly but won't prevent them.
   The answer lies in dealing with the problem at its source. That means adopting a "whole man" approach, looking into prospective players' backgrounds, favoring those who, along with exceptional playing ability, have good records in school, in previous jobs, in their community. It means favoring Eagle Scout types over gang banger types.
   What can the association do if team owners, managers and coaches won't make the needed changes? Start eliminating uncooperative teams, replacing them with new ones willing to adopt the new approach from the start. It's that simple.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:24 PM

 
'Branding campaign' for Democrats rocks
   Inspired by the Firefox Web browser campaign, Oliver Willis has come up with a whole series of terrific graphics for a Democrats' branding campaign.
   Here's part of what Willis has to say:
   And here's a splendid example of what he has in mind for this branding campaign.

            

   Other items reflect history, humor and food for thought. All exhibit the kind of spirit Democrats need a shot right now. They're all really good stuff. Comments on the page add more suggestions and examples, many of them also very good.
   By all means, go see for yourself.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:26 PM

 
Bush MO requires lightweight loyalists
   "I would not have been troubled to learn there was to be a 'purge' at the CIA of those responsible for giving bad information to the administration about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Even a 'purge' of those who caved in under pressure from the White House to confirm the dubious WMD theory might be useful. (George Tenet is already gone.)
   "But that's not what they're fixing to do here. This is not a purge of incompetent officers or of those who have caved under political pressure — this is a political purge of those 'disloyal to George W. Bush.'
   "That's what I've been most afraid of in the next four years: the complete closing of the circle, the old Bush emphasis on loyalty as the first and most important asset — above brains, judgment or expertise.
   "Bush has been making this mistake for years, and it is clear it will now get worse. The clash of ideas is not welcome in his office. He wants everything solved in a one-page memo. This effectively limits him from being exposed to anything but obsequious, third-rate thinking. It's precisely how he got into Iraq."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:15 PM

 
More reasons to doubt Florida results
   Indications of irregularities in the 2004 presidential election results in Florida where electronic voting machines were used continue to emerge.
   On Thursday, the University of California's Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team released a statistical study, which it says is the only available way to monitor e-voting accuracy. The team found irregularities that "may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida."
   In a news release, the team said:
   Read the rest, including information about the team's statistical methodology, here.
   Next, there's another eye-opener from CommonDreams.org. It's a story about Volusia County election officials appearing to play games and stuff Dumpsters when Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org and people from Florida Fair Elections showed up in person to check out printout tapes that are supposed to be the means of verifying the e-voting machines' vote tallies.
   This saga doesn't provide conclusive evidence of falsified vote-counting results, but it certainly raises plenty of cause for concern and finds plenty of reasons for further investigation.
   For the rest, see "Stinking Evidence' of Possible Election Fraud Found in Florida."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:31 AM

 
Mass protests greet Bush's arrival in Chile
   No, Mr. President, this isn't Chillicothe. In that Ohio town you might've been welcomed by a crowd of carefully screened supporters, but Chile's a whole 'nother place to visit. As this news story makes clear:
   President George W. Bush arrived in Chile today to attend the yearly Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. As usual, though, he was carefully insulated from those not enthusiastic about his policies, leadership and results. The demonstrations, in their fourth day, took place in downtown Santiago, far from where the conference is being held.
   During the presidential campaign, Bush and his adoring supporters dismissed the charge that in most of the world he's a pariah. It's mainly just the snooty French, the difficult Germans, who have a problem with Bush's leadership, they said. Obviously, some voters bought that. Others no doubt prefer having a president most people around the world, citizens and leaders alike, consider a dangerous clod.
   In any case, Chile's not France or Germany. The news story describes the Santiago protesters' sentiments:
   Why do these people so despise Bush? Why would they say such things?
   Clearly, they have a bad attitude about a war undertaken for justifications that turned out to be false and misleading. They no doubt are made uncomfortable about forced regime change that results in large-scale loss of life, including many noncombatants. All that in a country reduced to shambles with war raging in the streets and terrorists committing largely unchecked murder and mayhem.
   But that's OK. See, the problem's not Bush. No, he's right and millions of people all over the world have got it all wrong. And when freedom and democracy as American as apple pie are the norm in Fallujah, the people in Chile will learn what those Bush supporters in Chillicothe already know: this president is just being misunderestimated again.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:04 PM

 
Kerry's $15 million stash inconsequential
   All the accusatory questions and harrumphing about $15 million the Kerry campaign didn't spend comes off as so much venting of post-defeat frustration.
   What came to mind here when this surfaced was that the Kerry campaign had earmarked the money for a legal and ground battle, had the election ended in a 2000-type cliffhanger. Sure enough, an AP story on this brouhaha includes this:
   OK, $10 million to $15 million is the stuff of daydreams here at Oh!pinion. But along a campaign trail papered with $200 million-plus on each side, $10 million to $15 million is petty cash. As it is, Kerry's people say the money will be given to the party, to boost campaigns in 2006.
   Could Kerry's money stash have made all the difference? Maybe in some elections but not this year's. Who, really, was left to convince with another TV or radio ad? Who, really, was prepared to do anything but tune out another TV or radio ad? Could Kerry have flown into more places for more rallies? Not many, because time and his oomph were both approaching exhaustion.
   Spending $3 million to $6 million on ads last spring to quickly repudiate the vindictive, mean-spirited Swiftboat Vets for Truth might've made a big difference. Spending a few more millions last summer to make a concerted pitch for North Carolina and at least make a credible bid for more votes in Montana and South Dakota (giving Tom Daschle a boost) might've made some difference. But that's all hindsight speculation.

   Forming a circular firing squad may be a Democratic tradition after losing an election, but this is not the year to indulge. Democrats must draw together, think, talk, plan and work in harmony. The need for this is greater than at any time in the last 75 years. So, let's all just shut up about the money. What's unspent will be needed soon enough.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:49 PM

 
Religious right sure to get payback
   "The fact is, anyone who thinks the GOP is stiffing its 'moral values' backers hasn't been paying attention: George Bush, for one, has been paying them back for the past four years. He's promoted a raft of anti-choice legislation — including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and a law making it easier for health professionals to deny women abortions and even birth control for 'reasons of conscience.'
    "He's packed the federal bench with anti-choice reactionaries, and he's seeded the federal bureaucracy and the government's international agencies with hard-line social conservatives like the faith-healing Dr. W. David Hager of the FDA reproductive health panel. These people wield immense power over regulations and funding and the flow of information. It did not take a Senate majority to keep emergency contraception from being sold over the counter; all it took was compliant Mark McClellan, willing to overlook the recommendation of his own expert panel and the overwhelming weight of medical opinion."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:12 PM

 
Season's best comedy troupe: House GOP
   The capital good ol' boys club more formally known as the U.S. House of Representatives may not have a budget, health care or energy legislation to show for its efforts, but it's got a measure keeping Majority Leader Tom DeLay's butt out of a crack.
   DeLay is under scrutiny by a Texas grand jury and a prosecutor who just may find reason to indict. This would be because of machinations of a DeLay-affiliated political machine to get Texas redistricted between federal censuses (which some hold is unconstitutional from the git-go), employing money moves not in keeping with state law. The redistricting, of course, went through, putting so many Democratic members of Congress at such great disadvantage in the recent election that they were decimated.
   So Wednesday, House Republicans let all manner of crucial issues languish while they voted to ensure that if he's indicted, DeLay won't lose his leader's position. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, served as a spokesman after the vote. CNN recorded the following statement:
   Now, let's get this straight. Investigators — law enforcement professionals — in Texas have provided a prosecutor and grand jury made up of sworn citizens evidence and testimony that could result in a felony indictment being handed down for the House majority leader.
   But forget all of that. No, the Republican Brain Trust, with infinite wisdom, has divined in advance that any prosecutor who brings an indictment against one of its leaders or committee chairpersons is presumed to be a "crackpot" pursuing a political agenda unless a steering committee made up of — ready for this? — Republican Brain Trust members decides otherwise.
   Now, you can just forget all about professional law officers, about grand jury members, about a prosecutor who logically would be protective of his reputation and credibility by not bringing flimsy or trumped-up charges against a high-profile suspect with infinite legal-defense resources. No, naming a House Republican leader in a felony indictment is prima facie evidence of being a politically motivated crackpot, and that's all there is to it. And so, that being the case, the charges will surely be groundless. No need then for the leader to step down.
   These people would have us believe that, about 1,000 miles removed from the scene, acting after the fact, taking no witness testimony, evaluating evidence secondhand, not talking with investigators and, presumably, consulting neither the grand jury nor the prosecutor, they can make a more accurate and just assessment of the case. They would have us believe that, unlike those political hacks bringing the indictment, they're free of political taint in deciding the fate of one of their own leaders.

   No, this is not a "Saturday Night Live" skit. Mel Brooks didn't write it for a movie about political life in a banana republic. It's not even from "The Daily Show," although it'll surely be featured there.
   This is the real nitty-gritty — Republican government, red-state values, Texas politics, all rolled into one. We're reminded of the immortal words of that GOP icon, Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook."
   Yeah, right.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:08 AM

 
Britain's smoking ban a bit of all wrong
   Britain's government is proposing a ban on smoking in nearly all enclosed public places by the end of 2008. A news story on this says private clubs and pubs that do not serve food would be exempt.
   The story quotes a spokeswoman for the British Beer and Pub Association as saying, "We're concerned that we could see a reversion back to the drinking dens we used to have 30 to 40 years ago when all we served in pubs was alcohol." Other critics are calling the measure too much "nanny state" and warning that smokers will be likely to double up at home, increasing the exposure of their children.

   Requiring segregated smoking and no-smoking sections, with adequate separation and proper ventilation, is a much better solution than prohibition. For our reasons, just review the self-inflicted national disaster known as the Volstead Act.
   "Prohibition," as it was known, was designed to make the U.S. a land of teetotalers. The law utterly failed at that but was wildly successful at proliferating organized crime and spawning official corruption while doing more to undermine people's respect for the law than anything in U.S. history.
   While Britain's anti-smoking proposal falls just short of complete prohibition, its most likely result will be a substantial decline in food-serving pubs and a concurrent increase in the number of private clubs and drinks-only establishments. Will it have a dramatic impact on the number of people using tobacco? Don't bet on it.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:15 PM

 
Bush will keep us safe — supposedly
y many accounts, keeping us safe loomed large in the minds of the 51 percent of voters nationwide who opted to re-elect President Bush. There is serious reason to believe, as there has been throughout Bush's presidency, such faith is misplaced.

Past performance:
   First, the recent past. Former U.S. senator John Kerrey, who served on the 9-11 Commission, was interviewed recently by CNN's Paula Zahn. In laying out a crucial part of Bush's national security record, Kerrey explained that since the election was over, he was no longer bound by an oath to refrain from making politically judgmental statements .
   Here's what Kerrey had to say about Bush's keep-us-safe performance prior to Sept. 11, 2001:
Securing nuclear weapons:
   During the campaign, Sen. John Kerry forcefully called attention to the need to secure nuclear materials, weapons and technical experts around the world, especially in Russia. The Bush administration has, as best we can tell, said and done nothing at all about securing Russian nuclear materials and weapons. The danger, of course, is that those materials and/or weapons could wind up in the hands of terrorists, whose interest in carrying out a nuclear attack against the U.S. is well known.

Seaports:
   Then there is the matter of port security. Strides are being made to better inspect the millions of containers flooding into this country, but there's still a very long way to go.
   The Chicago Tribune ran a quite thorough, balanced story on this aspect of security last Sunday. It explained that current measures involve profiling shippers and cargoes, rating about 5 percent of shipments high risk and the rest low risk. High-risk shipments are set aside for opening and hand inspection. The rest are sent to U.S. ports, and on to their final U.S. destinations.
Borders:
   Meanwhile, although there are efforts afoot to beef up border security, illegal entries into the U.S. are running at an estimated 3 million a year, the lion's share entering from Mexico. The economic impact of that influx is cause for alarm by itself. The security implication is that if so many Mexicans looking for work can breach the border, how hard would it be for Muslim terrorists — maybe Muslim terrorists packing nuclear and/or biological weapons, to do likewise?
   Substantially more better-trained and equipped border guards could make a difference. We question whether progress toward truly secured borders — south, north and coastal - is being hampered by the fact that the federal government is hard up against record-high deficits. Thank Bush's counterproductive policy of huge annual tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers for those deficits.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:15 PM

 
Candidates' Web sites attracted millions
   One in six Internet users, 25 million-plus, turned to political Web sites in October, according to comScore Media Metrix, an outfit that tracks "consumer behavior." Those in search of candidate information called on Sen. John Kerry's site more than President Bush's.
   Here are highlights of comScore's findings:
   It might be helpful during this season of post-election analysis to learn a lot more about the motivations, interests and impressions of all those people who visited the candidates' Web sites, especially Kerry's.
   Our first survey question would ask whether visitors were put off by the gateway page that encouraged people to sign up for the campaign before seeing the main page. While we understand the campaign's desire to get people on board as active supporters, we suspect more than a few who were still on the fence felt it was a presumptuous and annoying speed bump.
   Secondly, we'd like to know how many, if any, spent quality time with the extensive policy statements and fairly detailed plans Kerry's site laid out. The health care plan was one of Kerry's best proposals and it was explained well. Did that make a difference to many visitors?
   Democrats involved in campaigning had better get a good handle on these and similar matters quickly. It's clear many people are willing to visit a candidate's Web site, apparently seeing it as a logical place to scan information or perhaps find the answer to one or more questions they have. Unless their forays are satisfying they'll turn elsewhere, maybe never to return.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:20 PM

 
Brooks way late with lame apology
   How 'bout that David Brooks? What a piece of work.
   The New York Times columnist used his major-media platform to publicize an erroneous piece of information. This little ditty of Brooks' made Sen. John Kerry appear to be either poorly informed or as though he had tried to mislead voters.
   The item ran on Oct. 30, 2004, hard against election day, leaving Kerry's campaign little chance to get it straightened out.
   Election day came, millions voted, the concession speech was made, the inevitable postmortems blossomed across the media like daisies over a springtime meadow. Days passed. Finally, on Nov. 13, Brooks managed to get out a terse acknowledgement that he'd gotten the story wrong and owed Kerry an apology.
   This really rankles, really makes Brooks come off as a two-bit, no-class hack. That's not because Brooks put something false and misleading in his column right before the election. It's unlikely he got it wrong intentionally.

   What really stinks here is that it took the man two weeks to run a correction. And when Brooks finally did own up, well, let's just say there was a certain no-class puniness to what he wrote for an apology.
   One other thing: Why do we suspect that if Tom Oliphant or some other pro-Kerry columnist had done this to George W. Bush, the right-wing propaganda industry would've gone ballistic, long about Oct. 31?
   Credit Media Matters for America, where you can read more specifics on this ugly little episode.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:19 PM

 
Democracy is a people thing, not a format
f the holding of elections could be depended on to make a democracy, the Soviet Union, with its 200 republics, would've been a sprawling showcase for that mode of governance.
   If elections could be counted on to guarantee nations would have enlightened, peaceable, humane leaders, Adolf Hitler would never have become chancellor of Germany. (Few today seem aware that Germans actually elected Hitler head of state before he elevated himself to fuehrership.)
   In fact, the format and functions of democracy are one thing, while the ongoing system of governance enjoyed by people of the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Sweden, to name a few countries, is something else again.
   One key difference between democracies in form only and those reflective of the free will of a majority of their citizens lies in the attitudes and expectations of the populations involved. In short, what people bring to a democracy is at least as important as what democracy brings to a population.
   President George W. Bush and the neoconservative architects of a new, democratic Iraq are by all appearances and utterances oblivious to this nuance. Bush insists, somewhat indignantly, that he rejects the notion certain peoples, cultures and countries cannot become democracies, implying skeptics are guilty of cultural or ethnic bigotry. He expresses as an article of faith the notion that human beings are endowed with an innate desire for democracy, in the sense of having a desire to be free.
   In fact, the skeptics have a broader, deeper knowledge of history and the nature of various peoples and cultures than Bush apparently does. Feudal serfs located themselves within or near a lord's manor voluntarily, benefiting from their lordship's protection and paying for that with their loyalty and a portion of their crops or earnings. They equated protection from marauding bandits and other, less-benign, nobles with freedom. Iraq is essentially a feudal land, the presence of cell phones, motor vehicles and other modern inventions notwithstanding.
   The implication, the danger, that our involvement in Iraq could be for naught is that a majority of Iraqis just may want a strongman to enforce a level of control over the population that effectively precludes diverse political parties and dissenting political leaders from saying and doing the things that would make it possible for them to win power and govern.
   No doubt an election will be held in Iraq in the coming months. Whether whatever results from that exercise will survive and evolve into a genuine, popular, ongoing democracy remains to be seen. Iraqis, excercising their free will and right to vote, once, might very well choose to slam the door of democracy closed behind them.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:06 PM

 
Clinton: Democrats must define themselves
   "If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:35 PM

 
Big win in Iraq spawns big wind from D.C.
   Thumbs up and a salute to all the troops who helped bring Fallujah under civilized control. By all accounts they've done an extremely hard, dangerous job well.
   Our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the 24 U.S. troops who lost their lives in the assault. We're keeping a good thought as well for the 170-plus reportedly wounded.
   Here at home the election is over but President Bush remains in spin mode. In his weekly radio address, Bush was all hard sell in talking up progress made, especially when it comes to how our Iraqi, ahem, "allies" are joining the fight.
   An Associated Press story quotes Bush as saying, "Ultimately, Iraq must be able to defend itself, and Iraqi security forces are taking increasing responsibility for their country's security." Yet the same story includes this unsettling tidbit:
   The story also notes that as Coalition forces were closing in on the final 20 percent of Fallujah still not under their control, "a U.S. infantry battalion was diverted from Fallujah to the northern city of Mosul, where the regional governor said 'the betrayal of some police members' had spawned an armed uprising in recent days."
   In another apparent fender bender with reality, Bush said international "support continues to grow" for the Coalition's efforts in Iraq. Yet, soldiers from the Czech Republic and Holland are due to leave in the next few months, and the Bulgarians and Japanese may not be around that much longer.
   Meanwhile, we continue to wonder what happened to all those billions in contributions for the rebuilding of Iraq from other countries that Bush used to talk so confidently about went to. We sure don't hear about them any more. What we do hear is Bush coming back to Congress — and U.S. taxpayers — for more and more billions of our dollars to continue this unnecessary war and to do more projects for the insurgents to destroy.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:10 PM

 
CNN plays Fox fans a come-hither Thune
   Ah, Saturday brings fresh evidence — as if any were needed — that CNN's lusting after red-state, red-meat Fox News viewers with even greater vigor, now that the Forces of Darkness are in power for four more years.
   Here, on the network's "Capital Gang," we have senator-elect John Thune, darling of the neocons for unseating Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.Dak., as this week's special guest. And what's he discussing? The wisdom and efficacy of President Bush's freshly stated determination and plans to bring about a lasting, democratic resolution to the millennias-old enmity between Jews and Palestinians.
   The guy hasn't gotten his foot in the Capitol door yet, and CNN has him weighing in on a bloody, explosive conflict whose resolution has eluded the last nine presidents.
   Or, maybe the good folks of South Dakota spend a lot more time talking Mideast politics and the dynamics of various Arab leaders and factions than we give them credit for. Well, if that's the case we couldn't tell it from Thune's predictably enthusiastic endorsement for whatever Bush wants to do, however Bush wants to do it.
   No, on final thought, this is just another dumb, obvious bid on CNN's part to suck up to Fox News fans. If CNN wanted a South Dakota senator with some actual experience in dealing with Mideast policy, the network would more logically have called on Daschle. But no, that would send the conservatives they're trying to attract the exactly wrong message, wouldn't it?
   CNN did the same thing with Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who was hailed into CNN's studios to wax prophetic and share his expertise on weighty matters of geopolitics before the glue was dry on his Senate door sign. What a joke.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:56 PM

 
Moderates? OK, but likeability still crucial
eligious conservatives may be getting all the buzz, but President Bush owes a greater debt of gratitude to moderate voters, according to columnist E. J. Dionne.
   In one of the most potentially useful analyses of this year's election we've seen so far, Dionne points out that hard core conservatives make up only 34 percent of the electorate, while moderates are 45 percent. Dionne looks at the exit polls and points out:
   Bush courted his right-wing base and catered to moderates' sensibilities at the same time, Dionne says, using such tried-and-proven stratagems as wrapping himself in the flag and promising to keep them safe, and opposing gay marriage.
   Dionne's bottom line is that future Democrats need to compete effectively for moderates, following Bush's lead in going to outlying suburban and across broad rural areas to reach them.

   The main thing unmentioned in this otherwise worthwhile analysis is a factor we've mentioned before: likeability.
   Many just like Bush, even knowing full well his Iraq war was a foul-up or dishonest deal from the git-go; even knowing he's run up the federal budget and national debt worse than any previous president; even knowing his tax cuts heavily favor people hardly in need of assistance from their less-well-off fellow citizens; and maybe also with some perverse satisfaction in knowing Bush is not most foreigners' idea of a good time.
   Think "I just sorta like the guy" isn't reason enough to get an awful lot of Americans past what they on some level know is not such a good choice? Think again.
   Recall how Americans poured money into Detroit iron back in the day, when three years in a northern climate meant serious body rot, chrome trim coming loose and ominous motor noises? Think Chevys, '58-'65, or those beloved T-birds of old. People just sorta liked them, even though they had to replace them after three or four years, or face big maintenance outlays. A Mercedes might cost what two or three Impalas cost up front, but would long outlast two or three Impalas. Even so, most Americans preferred Impalas.
   The irony of this situation is that all was not as it seemed between this year's candidates. We recall articles last winter that told about how in person, in small groups, John Kerry was so much more warm, engaging, humorous — likeable. It was only when speaking to larger groups that he slipped into his more-formal senator-speak and seemed relatively dry and a little remote.
   We also recall articles and asides along the way this year describing Bush. He, apparently, assumes a folksy openness and approachability in front of large campaign crowds that's different from his demeanor much of the time at the office. There, it's said, he tends to be quite businesslike — cooler, more aloof, often impatient and stingy with his time. It's not unknown for him to be curt and cutting when annoyed, which isn't all that rare.

   The bottom line: Likeability is not a factor to be overlooked in presidential elections. We've seen this year just how bad a record people will accept in a president, provided they just sorta like the guy.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:50 PM

 
Cable news types make verdict a trial
   Scott Peterson was found guilty today and the crowd went wild. No, not the courtroom crowd, not the public crowd — the cable news media crowd. You'd think it was bigger news than the Red Sox winning their World Series or the Marines ridding Fallujah of its rat infestation.
   Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak. From Wolf Blitzer, who appeared so excited we worried he was going to blow a temporal artery, to grating Gloria Allred, to arresting Nancy Grace, to breathless Dan Abrams — yak, yak, yak, yak, yak.
   OK, the verdict, like the trial, is news.
   But does the fact that there is at long last a verdict in the Peterson case mean the news chewers will move on? Sure, but only until the inevitable appeals, the presentencing proceedings, the sentencing proceedings — and on and on, yak, yak, yak.
   The trouble is that all these cable news organizations go wildly overboard discussing and speculating about this story's every minor twist and major turn to the point of absurd sensationalizing. What lies behind this is almost certainly a determination to sell the story, plus the fact that it's an especially cheap and easy kind of story to cover.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:43 PM

 
Dr. Frist prescribes a dose of snake oil
   Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wants to jigger the rules to make President Bush's judicial appointments filibuster-proof.
   "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," Frist is quoted as having told the radical-right lawyers group, the Federalist Society.
   For all of Frist's getting wrought up about Democrats thwarting President Bush's clear desire to pack the federal bench with copacetic conservatives, the score is pretty tepid. During Bush's first term the Senate OK'd 200 of his judicial nominees, while 10 were blocked because Democrats threatened to filibuster. That's a 95 percent approval rate.

   Monkeying with Senate rules the way Frist wants to is bad business. Someone ought to take him aside and recite the admonition of a truly great congressional leader, the late House Speaker Sam Rayburn. To a colleague in need of a clue, Rayburn once and famously served notice that "what goes around comes around."
   Considering how U.S. political history can best be described by the swinging back and forth of a pendulum, Rayburn's advice merits respect.
   Over its long history, the U.S. Senate has been notable for the ongoing knowledge of, and respect accorded, its institutional history by virtually all members, the leadership especially. Over the last, largely regrettable, decade we've noticed a steady decline in this regard, which is not good.
   Here's hoping the pendulum starts its return swing in '06.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:20 PM

 
Taking names, preparing to count in Ohio
   Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, himself a former presidential primaries candidate, has posted an informative "Note On The Presidential Election in Ohio," at Commondreams.org.
   We found the following highlights especially interesting.
   This leaves us wondering how the moral values folks can rationalize away lying and cheating to get their chosen brother-in-Christ re-elected.

   Looking forward, Kucinich says the official vote count in Ohio begins Saturday, to include provisional and other ballots.
   Good guy, that Kucinich. When the pendulum of American politics swings back, as it inevitably will, we hope Kucinich's exemplary decency, values and leadership will be put to good use.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:42 PM

 
Jobs of the future? Go east — Far East
   Here's an interesting set of factoids from
AmericanEconomicAlert.org:

   Jobs of the Future Just Keep Vanishing
   U.S. Employment Trends:
   Computer industry layoffs, August, 2004: 5,004
   Computer industry layoffs, September, 2004: 24,300
   Telecom industry layoffs, August, 2004: 5,617
   Telecom industry layoffs, September, 2004: 10,982
   New jobs created in computer industry, September, 2004: 0
   New jobs created in telecom industry, September, 2004: 0

   Lest we be accused of misunderestimating our MBA president's brilliant economic policy, we'll point out that jobs are being created, fast and furiously. It's just that they're being created in places like China and India.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:50 PM

 
Requiem for a deadweight*
   Yassir Arafat has died, but it's clear the Palestinian people are not yet free of him. For that they are to be pitied.
   Arafat's long career stands as a testament to the adage, "Where there is no vision the people perish." He had opportunities to lead his people toward peace, order, enlightenment and prosperity. At every chance he opted for violence, ignorance, backwardness and corruption. He could have arranged nationhood and stability for them but chose eternal struggle instead.
   Arafat's adult life was dedicated to eternal struggle, to never-ending blame shifting, to needless victimhood, yielding ceaseless setbacks and unconscionable losses.
   Hijackings, bombings, suicide attacks and duplicity were the tools of Arafat's no-win strategy for piling up blood-feud grudges, building around his people a wall of deadly hatred no Palestinian man or woman of peace could hope to breach.
   Arafat brought to his eternal-struggle franchise none of the learned discipline of a soldier, none of the visionary diplomacy of a statesman or even the deal-making skills of a politician. Get past his defiant rhetoric and mercurial posturing, and you find all that filled Arafat's rumpled uniform was a sad-sack thug grown more garrulous with age.
   We see Arafat's people on TV, wailing and crying, and suspect their tears offend the arid soil upon which, thanks largely to him, they are just impoverished, angry squatters.

   *With apologies to the late Rod Serling.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:21 PM

 
Top insurance brokerage busted, big time
n business news, we learn that alleged major greed eruptions at the nation's largest insurance brokerage will cost 3,000 employees their jobs.
   Marsh & McLennan had to do something because its third-quarter net income was down 94 percent. To make matters worse, the company's income going forward will continue to be a lot less since it will no longer profit from alleged illegal practices that had boosted its bottom line — it appears to the tune of many millions — prior to mid October.
   That was when New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued Marsh & McLennan, charging the company had engaged in rigging bids and had wrongfully steered customers to favored insurers.
   Another financially painful fact of life for M&M is that it must set aside at least $232 million for a possible settlement.
   With it all, M&M was looking at bringing in $21 million in net income in its third quarter this year, down from $357 million in the same period last year. That nosedive resulted in M&M shareholders receiving a pre-holiday treat of steep declines in share prices along with serious earnings-per-share declines.
   So, the yield of greed-driven crooked operations is job losses for 3,000 employees — ones, presumably, who had no decision-making responsibility for the wrongdoing — and financial losses for investors who had put their money and faith into the company. Oh, by the way, the company's CEO, one Jeffrey Greenberg, resigned after the you-know-what hit the fan.

   Increasingly, among America's biggest corporations, it seems like the more you look, the more lying, cheating and stealing you find. The line between corporate culture and organized crime is becoming so blurred, it's hard to tell which is which or sometimes which is worse.
   And yet, not since the 1920s have the powers that be in big businesses wielded more clout and amassed greater personal and corporate wealth. Not since the earliest days of the New Deal have regulators been so circumspect and so tethered.
   Adherents to the free-market faith would have us believe that left to their own devices, the grand-high poobahs of corporate America will be solid, law-abiding citizens, doing the right thing to grow their businesses, the economy and our country. The contrary truth is that too many of these CEOs and executives are sleazy greedmongers in expensive suits: give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
   As we see it, the nation's prisons would serve honest Americans better if they were holding fewer small-time marijuana sellers and users, and holding a lot more busted CEOs, executives and corporate board members.
   Related commentary: Please see the post below.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:37 PM

 
Christian Right oddly selective about sins
   Over the last three decades the Christian Right has grown into a powerful social and political force. The movement's power and influence have grown to the point where, with credibility, it's claiming credit for re-electing President Bush.
   The Christian Right's agenda has changed little over the years. It opposes allowing women the right to decide whether to give birth or abort. It opposes extending to gays and lesbians rights comparable to those enjoyed by heterosexuals.
   Christian right people find nudity offensive and most of so-called pop culture unacceptable. Let Janet Jackson flash a breast on TV or Whoopie Goldberg wax nasty at a political party and they go ballistic. Let a president engage in sexual mischief in the Oval Office and they want him impeached.

   Yet, there's a remarkable myopia to the Christian Right's outrage and militancy.
   Over the same three-plus decades the movement has been on the march, more and more U.S. businesses, and the people who own and run them, have been found guilty of all manner of serious crimes and breaches of ethics and morality. Greed is running amok in corporate America, costing innocent people their jobs, their retirement nest eggs, money saved for their kids' college education and more.
   But there's more than moneygrubbing to corporate evil. People have lost their lives, their loved ones, to corporate wrongdoing, with the typical response being attempted cover-ups, followed by gonzo legal tactics, followed by delaying tactics. If the consequences are huge and the impending loss disastrous, errant corporations seek refuge in bankruptcy court.
   U.S. airlines are a very special case and a damning example of the U.S. corporate mindset. After years of cheaping out on security, hiring a lowest-bidder, thoroughly incompetent European company to handle that dirty detail, the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers brought the liability roof down on American Airlines, United Airlines and the rest of the industry. Airline executives had not taken reasonable and effective security precautions, and they knew the jig would be up if they were taken to court.
   No surprise, then, that the World Trade Center rubble was still burning and yielding victims' bodies, and the wreckage of their airliners were still smoldering at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania, when airline lobbyists and executives were walking the halls of Congress, pounding on doors and begging for pre-emptive relief. They got their relief, with a large bailout for good measure, of course. Families of victims and others would not get to sue the grossly negligent airlines; too bad about them and their loved ones who had died.
   Another example: How many innocent people have died of a heart attack precipitated by taking Vioxx? Drug maker Merck reportedly knew Vioxx posed a serious heart attack risk, but decided to cover that unprofitable bit of information up for several years.

   This brings us to a question for the Christian Right:
   Why, exactly, are you folks so proactively obsessed with a select few kinds of wrongdoing and so silent about the sins and crimes of corporate America?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:31 PM

 
Leery Nader seeks N.H. vote recount
   Ralph Nader is challenging New Hampshire election results, charging "irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected."
   A news story on this quotes Nader's letter to New Hampshire's secretary of state: "We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire."
   Concern about the honesty of results from these machines would be justified in any election year. Given the reputation of President Bush's chief political strategist and the clearly stated intention of Diebold's CEO to do whatever he could to get Bush re-elected, there's just cause for alarm and suspicion.
   A Nader spokesman said a check for $2,000 will be sent to the state to initiate a recou