mowabb: politics

So You Thought Retirement Might Be Nice

Less than a week ago I was talking about the problem with Social Security and the fact that a majority of Americans aren't going to be able to pay their way through retirement. Now, USA Today says the same thing:

The prognosis is grim, especially for middle-class families. "The average American household has virtually no chance to reach an adequate retirement savings in the next 50 years," says Christian Weller, a retirement specialist at the Economic Policy Institute. Retirement dreams are taking a beating:
37% of those saving for retirement say they are doing only a fair job of managing their retirement portfolios, and 7% say they are doing a poor job.

44% of those saving for retirement say they expect to live less comfortably in retirement, according to the poll.

29% of retirees say their standard of living has gone down in retirement.
Single women are among the most vulnerable. Linda Peterson, 57, works as a freelance writer in Arlington, Va., after being downsized out of a job. Widowed more than a decade ago, she has a small pension from her husband's job and another from a job she previously held. Together, they will provide about $800 a month in retirement.

So what are we going to do? If things don't change, here's what will happen: The U.S. will become increasingly bankrupt by spending everything on destroying all the "evildoers" on the planet. Then, when it can't pay its debts, it will continue to destroy its creditors (saying they, too, are evil), and it will either be successful in bringing the whole planet under its military rule, or its citizens (you and me) will become slaves or prisoners to the countries of the world who finally stand up and say enough is enough. Do you think my vision is too bleak?

Opportunity for Whom? And for What?

If you have any doubt about the truth of Madison's statement (below) that war is basically the root of all evil in a democracy, check out the Citizen Corps homepage, which features this quote from Shrub:

"We want to be a Nation that serves goals larger than self. We have been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass." President George W. Bush - State of the Union, January 29, 2002

Think about that for a minute. Who is the "we" to which Shrub refers? What is the opportunity? Who benefits? So far, the Bush and Co. agenda to remake the U.S. in its pro-business, militaristic image has been the greatest beneficiary of 9-11. This should come as no surprise. (Again, see Madison's quote, below.

War is the Enemy

War is the Enemy And if we're going to demand real change to make our world a better place, we need to add this whole "war without end" business to the top of the list. On April 20, 1795, James Madison said:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

As I said below, "the people," (that's you and me) have let ourselves become subdued, and Madison's predictions about the effects of war seem more true every day. For more on this, including suggestions for things we might do about it, see MoveOn.org (the source of the Madison quote, above).

Don't Assume Anything

In his most recent DaveNet, A New Beginning, Dave Winer seems to be trying to muster up some enthusiasm to jump back into the fray of the working world after his recent heart surgery. The kind of hope and enthusiasm he's looking for is kind of in short supply these days, it seems to me, and for good reason. But Winer seems to be going with the "if we build it, they will come" approach. He writes:

From this point we'll get much better information about how companies are doing. Stock options as we knew them, are over. Salaries and benefits matter. Transparent management. Time to ride the Cluetrain, for real. Companies must make identifiable products for real people that they communicate with honestly, directly and openly. You can't view your customers, shareholders or readers as fat, dumb and happy; or they'll take you down the Enron-WorldCom road. It's time for the philosophy of the Web to become the philosophy of business. View your constituents as people with minds, and treat them accordingly.

That all sounds great, except for one thing: Corporate America (and our Corporate government in the form of Bush and Co., especially) treats customers, shareholders, and readers as fat, dumb, and happy because that's how they (we) have been behaving for decades now (since the 1960s, I'd say). We have become complacent and lazy, and far too trusting, which has forced us into the jam we're in today. All of which is to say I fear Winer's hopeful optimism about the changes we're going to see might do more harm than good. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change, unless and until we all actively demand that it does. And that means more than watching the news and saying "me too" when someone says he/she is shocked! shocked! about all this greed and fraud. Real, active demands for change mean marches on Washington, letter-writing campaigns, and voting only for candidates who really get it. For example, despite Winer's optimism, and despite the dueling bills in the House and Senate, there have been zero changes to "stock options as we know them." So what's changing, really? Nada. And what are "customers, shareholders, and readers" (we) doing about it? Nada, really. So where's the hope?

Operation TIPS

People are talking about a new U.S. Government initiative to provide a formal way for average Americans to spy on each other, called Operation TIPS. Tom Tomorrow points to what he calls an alarmist article about it, but I agree that it deserves some alarm. Tomorrow's take is priceless:

I know that many of you prefer to live as if you awaken each day in a world made anew--why on earth would we worry about giving the FBI broad and sweeping new powers?--but I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say flat out: there are things to be learned from the lessons of history. And an official government system by which citizens are encouraged to spy on their neighbors should really set the alarm bells ringing.

What does your new world look like today? Perhaps if we all set our alarms to "lessons of history" the world might become a better place.

Accountability What?

How can America's corporate and political leaders do their jobs if they know nothing? Um, they clearly can't:

Remember when George W. Bush was celebrated as the first president with an MBA, the CEO of the entire country? Remember all those oozing news accounts of the early days of the presidency, which noted how the White House was being run like a tight corporate ship for the first time ever? Makes you a little nervous now, doesn't it? Because even the Executive in Chief himself doesn't appear to know too much about his own past business dealings. When asked by reporters why certain crucial SEC forms concerning his sale of $850,000 worth of Harken stock back in 1990 were filed 34 weeks late, he shrugged: "I still haven't figured it out completely." Why, he just doesn't know.

Out with the lot of them, I say. CEOs should make no more than 10% more than their average employee, and people with an income more than 10% above that of the average American should not be eligible folr public office -- including and especially the office of President of the United States. I predict those measures would reshape American society for the better, across the board. Meanwhile, a new meme seems to be spreading, namely: Politicians are juggling the Federal budget books just like corporate America does. First I saw it in Ted Rall's strip, now it's made its way to this AP story. And as everyone's honest aesthetic advisor Martha Stewart says, "That's a good thing."

Bill/Steve

What a great idea: Bill and Steve are getting it on! Bill who? Steve what? Read the stories and see for yourself. I hadn't thought of this before, but I wonder if there are any slash stories about, oh, I don't know, Shrub and Cheney? No! Shrub and Putin (reportedly Shrub calls the Russian president "Pooty-poot" or something like that). Hmmm...

Earth to McCain

So John McCain is trying to outdo Shrub in cracking down on corporate crooks. In McCain's speech at the National Press Club he described his thoughts on the matter, including this brilliant gem of wisdom:

I believe I still believe that the best way to ensure the solvency of the Social Security system, to honor the solemn promise that in exchange for the payroll taxes they have rendered all their working lives, all Americans will receive a minimally adequate retirement income, is to allow them to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in the financial markets. In fact, I can see no other viable way to ensure that those entering the workforce today will receive the benefits promised to them upon their retirement. Markets fluctuate. We are in a down cycle today. But it won't last forever. And investments in the stock market have over time always yielded higher returns than any other responsible investment. Allowing Americans to invest responsibly a small part of their payroll taxes will not only save Social Security, but will provide them with greater retirement income than those who now or will soon depend on Social Security checks.

Wow. That sounds like a really good idear. Perhaps McCain should look at some of the effects of those "market fluctuations" on people who were planning to retire on stock market investments:

The oldest retirees, those over 70, tend to have pensions and so rely less on the stock market, economists say. Those approaching retirement are far more likely to have 401(k) plans, which became the primary retirement option offered by companies over the last two decades. As the stock market swelled in the 1990's, so did those plans, and many people looked at the big gains and thought they could retire early. "Many retirees became complacent," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a consulting firm in Pennsylvania. "There was so much money being made, they didn't do the normal shifting most people do. Many of them were putting more in the market, thinking this was a quick way to fund their retirement. They got caught." According to Labor Department numbers quoted by AARP, the nation's largest lobbying group for retirees, the number of people over the age of 55 in the work force rose by 8.4 percent, or 1.6 million people, between June 2001 and June 2002, compared with far smaller gains in previous years. Every other age group declined in that period. "What do you do if you find yourself at retirement age without enough to retire on?" asked John Rother, AARP's policy director. "You keep working."

If we listen to McCain and his Repub friends and invest Social Security funds in the stock market, we'll be effectively giving corporate America billions of dollars to play around with. That's just an awesome idea! I wish millions of Social Security dollars had been tied up in Enron stock, or Worldcom. The world would really be a better place right now, don't you think?

Wanna Play?

In Now, the Personal Ethical Assistant, Matt Richtel suggests some new technologies to help keep corporate crooks on the straight and narrow. How about:

THE TIME MACHINE This is a handy application for the Palm Pilot that can help keep you on the righteous path. Simply enter your plans for overstating revenue, doing off-book transactions, or telling all your friends to dump your stock. This program will help you automatically calculate how much time you can expect to serve. Made by the finest Silicon Valley and legal minds, the algorithm deftly accounts for any legal breaks you may receive for past political contributions. And it doubles as a phone! Version 2.0 will offer virtual landscapes of a white-collar prison so you can see where you can expect to spend the next 18 months. It will also include a daily organizer, games and e-book function that comes with two complimentary titles, "Seven Highly Effective Habits of People Who Aren't in Lockdown" and "Who Moved My Cellmate's Cheese?"

This gave me an idea: Is there a recent video game that lets people pretend to be a corrupt CEO? I mean, we've got the infamous Grand Theft Auto that lets players pretend to be a car thief and have all the fun running people over and beating them to death that they can never have in real life. Now we need something like "Grand Theft Life Savings" that lets us pretend to be creating shell corporations, hiding cash in off-shore tax havens, and otherwise amassing huge sums personal wealth while making our employees and stockholders think we're doing our jobs. To win the game, you'll have to escape with your loot while your failed corporation tumbles into dust. You'll get extra points for bankrupting widows and orphans (because their life savings was in mutual funds which were heavily invested in your company's stock since you paid the analysts to give it a huge buy rating for the few weeks leading up to your company's collapse). The sequel to the game will be "Grand Theft America" where you buy the U.S. Presidency and proceed to run the country into the ground in the same way you ran your corporation into the ground. What fun! (See Ted Rall's brilliant comparisonof current corporate scandals and Shrub's recent tax cuts.)

Same Games, Different Playing Field

William Saletan's Harken Hypocrisy compares Bush on Monday, July 8, to Bush on Tuesday, July 9, showing how he contradicts himself and expects us not to notice. Saletan's conclusion is eloquent and devastatingly simple:

Bush was elected on a promise to end the contradiction between presidential rhetoric and presidential rationalization. So far, all he's done is change the subject from sex to money.

Whether Bush was actually elected at all is still debatable, as far as I'm concerned, but otherwise, Saletan is absolutely right: Bush is not delivering what he promised. Of course, that should surprise no one. What also shouldn't be surprising is the fact that somehow the media and politicians can whip up more moral indignation and righteous anger over sex scandals than they can over money scandals. I wonder if this is because the Repubs are just better manipulators of public opinion (playing the "morals" card on sex is always a winner for them), or if perhaps it's simply that we all second-guess ourselves before getting angry at greed, since we're all greedy, too. Oh, and then there's the fact that media organizations are probably less eager to pounce on corporate fraud and corruption since they are themselves fraudulent and corrupt corporations. Sigh...

White Collar Crime and You

Craig's Booknotes from the last couple of days has some great coverage of the whole pot calling the kettle black business as Bush and Co. pretend to crack down on corporate crime. But this isn't just about crooked corporations or politicians. There's a structural problem here: the U.S. simply relies too heavily on the stock market to take care of people in their old age. For example, a friend of mine makes $40-50k/year and has been contributing to her 401k plan every month for many years. She told me yesterday that she lost nearly $5,000 in the last quarter, and the fund has been losing value more or less steadily for the last two years. That matches my own experience w/my meager retirement accounts. And, of course, stock people always say that you have to be patient w/stocks, that over time they will increase in value, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fine. That's great. But I don't think we should have to gamble with our life savings and play the odds in the hope that we'll be lucky enough to retire when the market's up. What's happening to people who are reaching retirement age right now? Not to mention the employees of these corrupt and soon-to-be bankrupt companies like Enron and Worldcom -- what about them? You might see this as something of a leap, but what all this corruption on Wall Street shows more than anything is that we need a national health care and retirement system that's funded by corporate taxes, not by stock dividends. If people's health care and retirement money came out of corporate profits via taxes, when companies like Enron crashed and burned their employees wouldn't be left high and dry -- they'd already be taken care of. Social Security on steroids. It's time.

Vote With Your Remote

If you're getting bothered by the direction of politics in the U.S. (and the world -- see Bush Threatens Future of Peacekeeping to see the most recent reason the global community has for being angry with the U.S.), you may have a chance to do something serious about it in November when it comes time to vote for your representatives in Washington. But why wait when you can vote w/your remote by choosing to watch television w/a progressive slant? According to Vote with Your Remote: Phil Donahue for National TV Host, you can do just that:

The new Phil Donahue show that debuts next Monday is up against the heavily watched O'Reilly Factor on right-wing Fox News Channel, and a new show on establishment CNN featuring familiar face Connie Chung, who was just snagged from CBS for $2 million a year. This contest is the clearest national political race since the muddy results from Florida in 2000. Viewers can opt for the conservative O' Reilly; for Chung, the play-it-safe corporate candidate; or for Donahue, who appears ready to speak some truth to power in the populist seat.

Sounds like some good tv.

Cheney: Also A Crook

Ridgeway convincingly shows why Bush is not doing much about all this corporate fraud, but Bush isn't alone. Check out the lawsuit against Cheney for doing basically what Enron did:

Judicial Watch alleges that Halliburton overstated profits to the tune of $445m during the period 1999 to 2001, resulting in some investors "suffering huge losses".

Update: Learn everything you ever wanted to know and more about Crooked Cheney from MoveOn.org.

George Bush, Failed Corporate Crook

Damn! James Ridgeway's latest edition of "Mondo Washington," Nitwit Scion Turns Avenger, kicks ass and takes names as it connects the dots on pResident Bush's crooked past. Why isn't Bush and Co. doing more to stop the corporate fraud that seems to be steadily destroying the global economy? According to Ridgeway, it's not because Bush and Co. doesn't have the tools it needs to take action:

If Bush really wanted to address the situation, all he'd have to do is to pick up the phone, call Attorney General John Ashcroft, and ask him to launch an investigation of any one of these CEOs for fraud, conspiracy, theft, obstruction of justice, or perjury. The president could also turn to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can refer a civil case for criminal prosecution. Bush doesn't need additional legislation to do this. All he has to do is call. He refused to do that in the Enron case, even though his administration knew about the scandal months before the company went public with its bankruptcy. And he hasn't done it with any of the subsequent double-dealings.

Regardless of your political leanings, the expose is definitely worth your time. Consider: If you have a retirement plan through your job (millions of Americans don't), your retirement is probably funded by a 401k. That means that if the market continues to plunge or stays flat, you'll have nothing to retire on. That means it doesn't matter what you think of Bush's performance in other areas, his inaction w/corporate fraud is something you really can't afford to ignore. Literally. [via MLWebblog] Later: Joe Conason offers related commentary on the fraudlent Shrub in his new "weblog" on Salon.

The Business of America Is...

Lying, stealing, and cheating: Some business people are saying that the popular opinion of corporate America has reached an all-time low as scandal after scandal reveals the fact that corporate America will literally stop at nothing to make a buck. But what about popular opinion of our very own corporate president, the first President with an MBA, Shrub? Shrub's approval rating is still hanging around 70%. Why? How? As Paul Krugman points out in Succeeding in Business, Bush is a much bigger scoundrel and crook than his immediate predecessor ever was. As we all know, a big chunk of Shrub's personal wealth was earned from an accounting scandal at Harken Energy that was just like what happened at Enron, yet we're supposed to trust him to reform business in this country? Republicans loved to snipe at Clinton and they did everything they could think of to defame him and get him out of office. The dirtiest dirt they seemed able to find on him, though (at least prior to the Monica thing, which, really is debatable as far as political merit is concerned), was Whitewater. And as Krugman notes:

Oh, and Harken's fake profits were several dozen times as large as the Whitewater land deal [~] though only about one-seventh the cost of the Whitewater investigation.

So basically, if Clinton would have been caught doing what Georgie has done, Clinton would have been impeached. Tell me again why anyone listens to Shrub? On a related note, in Shocked by Scandals? These are Nothing!, Daniel Akst offers a concise speedboat ride through the history of American business corruption to show that it's nothing new. The reminder is great, and Akst comes to an interesting conclusion:

the idea that regulators or auditors can protect us from our own excesses is absurd. The point is not that corruption is our natural state, or that capitalism will always be crooked. It's caveat emptor. Let the buyer [~] and voter [~] beware. Don't invest in companies with no real businesses. Don't vote for politicians who won't deliver some decent regulation. Don't expect to become rich overnight. Maybe most important, don't forget history.

Maybe so. In a way I agree -- corruption certainly doesn't have to be our "natural" state. However, I'm less sanguine about the possibility that capitalism won't always be crooked. So long as profit is the only value, capitalism will be crooked. Akst is correct that no amount of regulation will stop the corruption of capitalism, because when regulations get tight enough to stop the corruption, we won't have capitalism anymore because profit will no longer be a value in itself. Put that in your pipe and smoke it a while: What would the world be like without the profit motive? Blasphemy!

The End of the World As We Know It

According to a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF):

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate. ... The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

But this is America, dammit! We have a right to consume more per capita than any other nation on the planet and then declare that global warming is a hoax! This is truly scary stuff. And note: if you're 35 or younger (which I am), the end of the world could easily come in your lifetime,, so it's not like we can afford to remain unconcerned about this. (The pessimist in me predicts the U.S. media will hardly cover this. Yes? No?) [via DayPop]

Why We're So Hated

While some people dismiss the idea that we need to be asking more serious questions about what prompted the 9-11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, Gore Vidal has been ploughing ahead. Here's an example of some of the dots he's connecting:

I was in Guatemala when the CIA was preparing its attack on the Arbenz government [in 1954]. Arbenz, who was a democratically elected president, mildly socialist. His state had no revenues; its biggest income maker was United Fruit Company. So Arbenz put the tiniest of taxes on bananas, and Henry Cabot Lodge got up in the Senate and said the Communists have taken over Guatemala and we must act. He got to Eisenhower, who sent in the CIA, and they overthrew the government. We installed a military dictator, and there's been nothing but bloodshed ever since. Now, if I were a Guatemalan and I had the means to drop something on somebody in Washington, or anywhere Americans were, I would be tempted to do it. Especially if I had lost my entire family and seen my country blown to bits because United Fruit didn't want to pay taxes. Now, that's the way we operate. And that's why we got to be so hated.

Why isn't this in the news? Why isn't this part of the Congressional debate about a proper and fair response to the 9-11 attacks and to dealing with "terror" in the world? Why is "terror" only what we, the U.S., don't like? On a somewhat related note, Matt Welch ponders whether the moratorium on Bush-bashing is over, and concludes that, yes, Viriginia, it just might be. We can only hope.

Bush and Co's Fiscal Mismanagement

Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics and former chief economist for the World Bank, says:

The fiscal mismanagement of the current administration -- leading to a change in the fiscal position of the United States over the past year -- is absolutely phenomenal; going from huge surpluses to huge deficits and the deficits are probably going to be larger than people anticipated. That means that foreigners are already losing confidence in the United States because the United States had earned a reputation for sound fiscal management -- and now that reputation is being destroyed. The United States had a reputation for the best accounting standards in the world; now people are saying, we don't know.

Um, I know: U.S. corporate accounting and regulation statndards are basically rotten to the core. But really the standards aren't the issue, it's the ethics and values of the people supposedly implementing or following them. When the bottom line is all that matters, there may be no amount of regulation that will stop people from screwing other people for an extra buck. All hail the "free" market!

How Do You Measure Progess?

Today the U.N. Development Program released a first-of-its-kind "Arab Human Development Report 2002." A Google search turns up three different stories, each of which highlights the major areas in which Arab nations lag behind "developed" and/or "Western" nations -- "freedom, women's empowerment and knowledge." Plus, all the articles talk about the high rates of unemployment, the low GDP in these countries, the low per capita incomes, etc. All bad bad bad. Yet, none of those stories really mentions the areas in which Arab nations have improved over the last 30 years. According to the report's Executive Summary (a pdf file):

There has been considerable progress in laying the foundations for health, habitat, and education. Two notable achievements are the enormous quantitative expansion in educating the young and a conspicuous improvement in fighting death. For example, life expectancy has increased by 15 years over the last three decades, and infant mortality rates have dropped by two thirds. Moreover, the region[base ']s growth has been [base "]pro-poor[per thou]: there is much less dire poverty (defined as an income of less than a dollar a day) than in any other developing region.

So the fact that all the coverage of this report highlights all the negatives should give us pause. What's the purpose of this report? Or maybe the better question: Why is the press covering the report this way? It seems clear that both the report and the media coverage of it are designed to give "Western" readers more ways to justify Western intervention in Arab affairs. And while we shouldn't overlook the fact that these countries are not "free" in the ways that we think are pretty important, it's hard to see how current international initiatives (bombs and tough-guy rhetoric from Bush and Co.) will do much to encourage such freedoms. Furthermore, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Per Capita Income (PCI) are really lame measures when it comes to talking about the "health" or quality of life in a country, unless we all agree that western capitalism -- which values the bottom line above all else in all questions -- is the way all nations and economies should be organized. As long as we use these numbers as our measuring sticks, the WTO and the IMF are winning. (And if I haven't explained the connection well enough, well... I'm a bit cynical recently about the value of connecting dots like this. Maybe later.)

Pledge of Allegiance

As politicians and pundits continue to rage about the fact that anyone would dare question the Pledge of Allegiance, more, um, reasonable people are asking questions about the pledge. NPR's "All Things Considered" (the afternoon/evening news program) ran a good story on the history of the pledge yesterday. And today Craig's Booknotes points to another history of the pledge. According to Cheryl Taylor:

The original pledge was: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The pledge was changed in 1924 (replacing "my flag" with "the flag of the United States of America") and again in 1954, when the "under God" was added. Both the early 1920s and the early 1950s were times when certain American traditions (including the American tradition of thinking ourselves more secure in the world than any other people) were under threat from a changing world. We seem to be in a similar period today, so perhaps we should just dispense with this whole nonsense of this old pledge and go all the way. "I pledge blind and happy obedience to anything multi-national corporate interests want to do to me, to anyone else on the planet, or to the planet itself." Ok, it needs work, but you get the idea. p.s.: I just noticed, Craig's Booknotes also points to a few more salient facts about the pledge. I betcha didn't know it was written by a socialist, didya? And waddayaknow! The pledge's author, Francis Bellamy, was the first cousin of Edward Bellamy who wrote Looking Backward, an important but rather overlooked American utopian novel.

The Cost of Economic Power

Today's NY Times reports that:

From South Korea to Indonesia, China is rapidly strengthening its economic presence across Asia, gobbling up foreign investment and chipping away at the United States' position as the region's economic engine.

Meanwhile, a quick Google search shows one of the big reasons China is becoming such a strong economic power -- it doesn't protect the environment or the workers who drive the economy. You don't want to be a miner in China, for example. You don't want to have to commute to work in a major city either, because you'll probably find it difficult to breathe. If you have ever wondered what those "anti-globalization" protesters are all excited about it, China provides one answer. A lot of the money funding the industries that are killing or injuring workers and polluting the environment in China is global -- it comes from U.S. and multi-national corporations who like to invest in China (and other "developing" nations) because the cost of doing business is so low. Of course, the cost of doing business is so low because corporations don't have to pay for things like worker safety or environmental protections. So next time you hear someone tell you "free markets" and "globalization" are good for the future of the world and the world's poorest people, think again. Oh, and have a great Friday! :-|

Pledge of Jingoism

Have you heard the one about the federal appeals court in San Francisco that said the U.S. "Pledge of Allegiance" is unconstitutional because the phrase "one nation under God" violates the separation of church and state? Better yet, have you heard the one about the politicians who fell all over themselves in their haste to disagree w/the ruling?

The panel's decision prompted an immediate reaction in Washington, where senators unanimously passed a resolution condemning the ruling and where dozens of House members gathered on the Capitol steps to recite the pledge and sing "God Bless America." The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said President Bush called the decision "ridiculous," and many legal experts said they expected it to be reversed on appeal.

Even better, did you hear about the "personal and scary" threats to the man who filed the lawsuit in the first place? The dictionary would call the response to the court's decision jingoism:

Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism. 1: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions [syn: flag waving] 2: fanatical patriotism [syn: chauvinism, superpatriotism, ultranationalism]

I only wish this were a joke.

What World Do They Live In?

Speaking of the Kyoto Treaty Bush and Co. broke, a recent Paul Krugman piece makes the obvious connection between global warming (which the Kyoto Treaty aimed to reduce) and obscene wealth. Speaking of the compensation of America's 10 most highly paid C.E.O.'s, Krugman writes:

In 1981 those captains of industry were paid an average of $3.5 million, which seemed like a lot at the time. By 1988 the average had soared to $19.3 million, which seemed outrageous. But by 2000 the average annual pay of the top 10 was $154 million. It's true that wages of ordinary workers roughly doubled over the same period, though the bulk of that gain was eaten up by inflation. But earnings of top executives rose 4,300 percent. What are we to make of this astonishing development? Stealing (and modifying) a line from Slate's Mickey Kaus, I'd say that an influential body of opinion has reacted to global warming and the emergence of an American plutocracy the same way: "It's not true, it's not true, it's not true, nothing can be done about it."

Glad to see a mainstream source pointing this out. Krugman goes on to posit that eventually the gap between the rich few and the poor multitude is going to become so wide that no one will be able to deny it, but I think he's too hopeful. How bad would it have to get?

Bush = Unconstitutional

According to John Nichols, Republicans are trying to protect Bush from a lawsuit by preventing a senator from joining it.

The Senate Ethics Committee has denied US Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wi., permission to join a lawsuit that asks the federal courts to clarify whether it was appropriate for President Bush to unilaterally end participation by the United States in the thirty-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Did this make the mainstream news anywhere? And when are we going to have a serious challenge to this supposed "war" that has not been declared as such by anyone but Bush and Co.? Just a question... Oh, and speaking of Bush the Treaty-Breaker, what about Kyoto? If Bush's withdrawal from the climate treaty wasn't unconstitutional, it was certainly tragic, horrible, unethical, and shortsighted. According to Michael Gelobter at Alternet:

Had the U.S. respected our commitment to action on this critical issue, recent studies, including our own, have shown that the net cost to American fossil fuel industries could have been more than $45 billion a year. By contrast, estimates of the benefits of good climate policy to the economy as a whole range as high as $120 billion a year by 2020. While our economy took the hit, the energy industry walked away from the President's policy with its biggest payday ever.

And that's on top of the more serious consequences of Bush's action, which basically involve a much more rapid deterioration of the environment than we would otherwise have had. Not only are the most wealthy elites in the world calling all the shots and getting rich off the suffering of everyone else, they're destroying the world we live in while they're at it. So why do they call themselves "conservatives"?

You're Paying, You Should Know What You're Buying

The Guardian, London Times and BBC are better sources of news on U.S politics than any U.S. paper, including the New York Times, so the net result is that we have politics run by polls of people who are not told the truth. One bright spot on tv, Bill Moyers Now, will talk about polling this Friday (PBS, check local time).

[MLWebblog]