U.S. Gives Little to Poor Nations
4/30/03
Conservative blogger Daniel Drezner has a quote from the Financial Times summary of a Center For Economic Development study that shows that the United States is near the bottom of the 21 richest nations in aid to poor nations:

Japan and the US are the least helpful of the rich countries towards the developing world, according to a new measure from a leading think tank.... The best performers tended to be smaller countries, with the Netherlands and Denmark at the top of the list. Germany was the only one of the Group of Seven rich countries in the top half, with the UK at 11th.

The index measures each country's generosity and usefulness of overseas aid, openness to exports from developing countries, role in global peacekeeping and policies on migration and the environment. Drezner thinks this reflects poorly on the United States: The report deservedly takes the U.S. to task for being foreign aid misers and for tying American aid to U.S. purchases. The report also slams the U.S. for its poor record on legal migration. However, he also suggests that the report is skewed because it fails to account for the United States contribution to world security in the form of its huge military budget. He quotes Gregg Easterbrook's comment in Sunday's New York Times:

Last year American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the United States, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.

The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $1.3 trillion, and has been declining since, to $840 billion in 2002. That's a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over.

A major election issue the next time around ought to be: do we want to be the world's policeman? What is it going to cost? Is this what we want our country to be, and to be known for? What kind of world order could we help create if we spent an equal amount of money on foreign aid? And how long does Easterbrook think it is going to be before China, at the very least, is able to match us in military spending? To say that the arms race is over is wishful thinking.
 

More On Why We Went To War
Robert Scheer writes in the Nation on our willingness to ignore the false premises given for the war by our leaders, since we won so easily: That claim of urgency--requiring us to short-circuit the UN weapons inspectors--has proved to be a whopper of a falsehood. Late Sunday, the US Army conceded that what had been reported as its only significant WMD find--two mobile chemical labs and a dozen 55-gallon drums of chemicals--"showed no positive hits at all" for chemical weapons...

It is expected that despots can force the blind allegiance of their people to falsehoods. But it is frightening in the extreme when lying matters not at all to a free people. The only plausible explanation is that the tragedy of September 11 so traumatized us that we are no longer capable of the outrage expected of a patently deceived citizenry. The case for connecting Saddam Hussein with that tragedy is increasingly revealed as false, but it seems to matter not to a populace numbed by incessant government propaganda.

I think the last chapter is a long way from being written on this story. We got into the war, and won it, so fast that there was very little time for mainstream questioning of the motives of the President. And once the troops were on the ground, there was a natural groundswell of support for them and their efforts, regardless of the reason we were there. But the peace is a long way from being won, and there is no guarantee that the government that emerges will be friendly to the United States, or better than the one we deposed. There is going to be ample time for the Administration's deception to become a matter of public knowledge and debate.

Why We Went To War
4/29/03
One thing is perfectly clear in the aftermath of our war with Iraq: Iraq posed no immanent threat to the United States. While evidence of weapons of mass destruction may eventually be found, it is clear that the Iraqis possessed nothing that posed an immediate threat. In addition, their armed forces were depleted and demoralized and far below the strength levels they had in the first Gulf War, when they were also easily defeated. As Paul Krugman points out in the New York Times today, the Bush Administration vastly overstated the threat, and he thinks we should be asking some hard questions about their motives:

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade. Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

Krugman wonders whether the American public will eventually learn, or care, that the reasons given for the war were false, and that the Administration likely knew they were false.
 

More on Tax Cuts
The Star Tribune picks up where Wy Spano left off yesterday on the myth that being a high tax state hurts Minnesota's economy: As the 2003 Legislature enters its final weeks, lawmakers are hearing a new reason why they can't raise taxes to balance the state budget: It would stifle the fragile Minnesota economy. The argument has been circulating at the Capitol for some weeks, and it got a new outing on Minnesota Public Radio last week from David Strom, legislative director for the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

The logic has a certain intuitive appeal at a time when many people are fretting about the weak economy. But as a matter of economic analysis and fiscal policy, it is utter claptrap. To balance the budget, the Legislature will have to pull $4.2 billion out of the state's economy during the next two years. Whether it does this by raising taxes or by canceling road projects and slashing payrolls, it will exert an equal drag on local purchasing power.

The Tribune points out that while both options hurt the economy, raising taxes supports government programs that put money into the hands of people who spend that money immediately and, hence, help the economy. To the argument that our state's higher taxes puts us at a competitive disadvantage the Tribune writes:

A related argument is that tax increases will drive away business and destroy jobs. This idea has been repeated so many times that some Minnesotans have come to believe it. But it has nothing to do with the facts. Publicly available data from the U.S. Census Department and Bureau of Economic Analysis show that Minnesota has consistently outperformed the national averages in job creation, wage growth, business formation, economic growth and personal income during the last decade, despite its high tax ranking. This argument scores Conservatives political points in the suburbs, but it is going to hurt our state.

Are You Going To Get Your Gun?

The Governor of Minnesota signed new legislation yesterday that makes it easier to get a permit to conceal and carry a handgun. According to the Star Tribune: Eventually, according to an official legislative estimate, it could increase the number of people licensed to tote guns on Minnesota streets from fewer than 12,000 now to about 90,000. With every legislative victory by the Republican legislature and governor it feels more and more like we are living in Texas.
 

At What Price Tax Cuts
4/28/03
The New York Times reports today on the Medicaid crisis that is hitting the states: Millions of low-income Americans face the loss of health insurance or sharp cuts in benefits, like coverage for prescription drugs and dental care, under proposals now moving through state legislatures around the country. And it isn't just low-income folks who are being affected: Medicaid insures one-fifth of all children in the United States and helps pay for two-thirds of all nursing home residents, many of them from middle-class families whose assets have been depleted by nursing home costs, which average more than $50,000 a year. Medicaid insures more than 50 million Americans and is the foundation of the entire health-care system in the country. But medical costs have been sky-rocketing, forcing virtually every state to cut benefits. It is a politically charged issue. Conservatives argue that the program, a legacy of the Great Society, is broke and want to limit grants to states and curb eligibility. But moderate Republicans and Democrats have introduces legislation to increase federal funding. Even John Breaux, the conservative Democrat from Louisiana who has been a backer of the President's tax cuts has started questioning the wisdom of more tax cuts in the face of this crisis: The problems we're facing now make you wonder why we're contemplating a tax cut of this size. Republicans are right. The healthcare system is broke. But the answer is a universal healthcare plan for all Americans.

High Taxes Don't Hurt The Economy
Conservatives in Minnesota argue endlessly that Minnesota's high taxes hurt our economy. (See this letter to the editor in the Star Tribune for a recent example.) But Wy Spano responds in today's Star Tribune that the facts tell a different story: Unfortunately for conservatives, the opposite has proven to be true in American politics and Minnesota is the poster child concerning that reality. Through the 1980s and through two-thirds of the 1990s, before we began a five-year period of leading the nation in cutting and rebating taxes, Minnesota actually was one of the highest-taxed states in the country. During that same high tax period Minnesota also had an excellent economy. Ours was the only Great Lakes state to manage to stay out of the Rust Belt. Our unemployment rate was generally about 2 percentage points lower than the national average. Our per capita income is still 8.6 percent above the national average, even though toward the end of the '90s and into the 2000s, our growth relative to other states began to slow down. (Wisconsin's personal income is 3.9 percent below the national average; Michigan's is 2.2 percent below that average.) Spano says that basic economic theory tells us why: when taxes are cut on wealthier Americans they don't spend the money; they save it. On the other hand state money that is spent to provide services that money boosts the economy because it is spent immediately and provides jobs. Spano also notes that Former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus reportedly has been telling economic development conferences for some time that if low taxes and little spending were the hallmark of a great state, Mississippi should be the country's greatest state. He then makes a startling admission for an ex-governor: that his state wasn't and isn't the greatest state in the nation, because Mississippi doesn't tax and spend enough for a good quality of life.
 

The Monk in the Lab
4/26/03
In today's New York Times the Dalai Lama writes about what neuroscientists are discovering about meditation: Using imaging devices that show what occurs in the brain during meditation, Dr. (Richard) Davidson (University of Wisconsin) has been able to study the effects of Buddhist practices for cultivating compassion, equanimity or mindfulness. For centuries Buddhists have believed that pursuing such practices seems to make people calmer, happier and more loving. At the same time they are less and less prone to destructive emotions. According to Dr. Davidson, there is now science to underscore this belief. Dr. Davidson tells me that the emergence of positive emotions may be due to this: Mindfulness meditation strengthens the neurological circuits that calm a part of the brain that acts as a trigger for fear and anger. This raises the possibility that we have a way to create a kind of buffer between the brain's violent impulses and our actions. The Dalai Lama suggests that this inexpensive, non-pharmaceutical practice is just what the world needs to teach us to deal with our inner violence and the violence in the world.
 

Two Civilizations Defined By Religion
4/24/03
Bernard Lewis writes in The Atlantic about the similarities and differences between the two civilizations, Christian and Islam, defined by their religions. He notes that one of the problems we have in comparing them is that in Christianity their are two words to distinguish religion and culture: Christianity and Christendom. There is no such distinction in Islam: "Christianity is a religion, a system of belief and worship with certain ecclesiastical institutions. Christendom is a civilization that incorporates elements that are non-Christian or even anti-Christian. Hitler and the Nazis, it may be recalled, are products of Christendom, but hardly of Christianity. When we talk of Islam, we use the same word for both the religion and the civilization, which can lead to misunderstanding...In looking at the history of civilization we talk, for example, of 'Islamic art,' meaning art produced in Muslim countries, not just religious art, whereas the term 'Christian art' refers to religious or votive art, churches and pious sculpture and painting. We talk about "Islamic science," by which we mean physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and the rest under the aegis of Muslim civilization. If we say 'Christian science,' we mean something totally different and unrelated."

He has an interesting discussion on our understanding of tolerance. For "relativist" religions, like Judaism, tolerance means everyone can have a different path to God: "Other religions, such as Judaism and most of the religions of Asia, concede that human beings may use different religions to speak to God, as they use different languages to speak to one another." For "triumphalist" religions like Christianity and Islam, tolerance isn't really very tolerant: "Tolerance is, of course, an extremely intolerant idea, because it means 'I am the boss: I will allow you some, though not all, of the rights I enjoy as long as you behave yourself according to standards that I shall determine.' That, I think, is a fair definition of religious tolerance as it is normally understood and applied." He quotes George Washington on the shortcoming of the idea of tolerance: "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." This, he says, continues to be a problem with both Islam and Christianity, whose followers often continue to believe in their hearts that they have the only truth, and struggle to allow tolerance.

For all the history of fighting between the two civilizations, Lewis contends they are very much alike and have a mutual understanding of each other that distinguishes them from other cultures and civilizations: "During this long period of conflict, of jihad and crusade, of conquest and reconquest, Christianity and Islam nevertheless maintained a level of communication, because the two are basically the same kind of religion. They could argue. They could hold disputations and debates. Even their screams of rage were mutually intelligible. When Christians and Muslims said to each other, 'You are an infidel and you will burn in hell,' each understood exactly what the other meant, because they both meant the same thing. (Their heavens are differently appointed, but their hells are much the same.) Such assertions and accusations would have conveyed little or no meaning to a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Confucian." It is these similarities that give Lewis hope as we continue to engage one another.

No Critical Reporting
Mary Lynn F. Jones writes in The American Prospect about the continuing soft touch the press gives the President: "After eight years of bludgeoning the Clinton White House, reporters have been remarkably tame in going after George W. Bush. The trend of positive coverage has only increased leading up to and during the war against Iraq. And some news outlets have even taken a direct role in promoting the president's positions. In one of the most egregious examples, Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., which owns more than 1,200 stations in the United States, organized pro-war rallies in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Charleston, S.C., and Richmond, Va., in March, according to the Chicago Tribune." She comments on the President's ability to control the flow of information coming from the White House and his practice of rewarding or punishing reporters based on the tone of their writing. She also notes the way the journalists embedded with American troops were not reporting on but promoting the war effort. She doesn't see much prospect for change anytime soon: "Unfortunately there is no indication that the media will provide a check on power by offering more thoughtful or critical coverage anytime soon. The growing popularity of conservative news outlets, such as talk radio and cable news, make for friendlier audiences for Bush and fatter profits for media CEOs. A press defensive about being labeled liberal, especially in wartime, will bend over backward to prove that it's not. An administration famous for being tight-lipped will only become more so as it wages war."

No Weapons of Mass Destruction
A good example of the soft touch by the press is the lack of coverage on finding weapons of mass destruction. This was one of the two major justifications for the war (the other being liberation) and so far nothing has been found. As Los Angeles Times columnist Steven Scheer notes in The Nation: "Having taken over the country, we now know with a great deal of certainty that if chemical or biological weapons were extant there, they were not deployed within the Iraqi military in a manner that threatened the United States or anyone else." Scheer believes, like everyone else, that something will be found. But it is clear the threat was overblown. And the question Scheer poses is -- did the President know this? If so, he contends it was an abuse of Presidential power.
 

Policing The Bedroom
4/23/03
This is what Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the other day to the Associated Press: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.
All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution." The Senator was commenting on a case, Lawrence vs. Texas, before the Supreme Court that is challenging a Texas Sodomy law. But as Andrew Sullivan notes in Salon (subscription only): "Santorum is actually making a substantive and radical political point under the guise of a serious constitutional one. And that point is the government should have no restraint in enforcing sexual morality -- even if it means knocking on your bedroom door." According to this quote, and so far the Senator has stood by it, he believes that in the name of protecting the "traditional family" the government should have the right to police the bedroom.
 

Ideology Trumps Economy
4/22/03
What happens when conservative ideology about tax cuts and limited government runs into a growing economic crisis in the country? We are about to find out. At the national level and in many state houses like Minnesota, Republicans in power have been systematically reducing the size of government, with the exception of defense spending. The President's tax cut proposal would speed up this process by taking even more money out of the hands of the government. But the states are facing one of their worst budget crunches in history, and even some Republican-controlled state houses are beginning to rebel against the President's current tax cut proposal. In a New York Times editorial by Francis X. Clines, here is what Maine Representative Peter Mills, "a rock-ribbed Republican and fiscal conservative", had to say about the President's current proposal: "They can't talk to us," Mr. Mills warned, stunned at the tax-cutting hubris of the White House. "We're in no mood to listen." The article goes on: "But from his seat on the appropriations committee, Mr. Mills estimates that at least 25 cents of every dollar in his state's deficit emergency can be traced to the first Bush tax cuts. The detax fever means parallel losses here unless the state decouples its rates from the shrinking federal schedule. Other losses come from the slowdown in federal spending to make up for tax cuts, a worsening state problem as fresh cuts are enacted. The chance of emergency federal help for deficit-bedeviled states wanes as each new tax cut is sold in Washington."

Paul Krugman comments in today's NY Times that we are in the midst of a Works Progress Administration (the Depression era government program that put people to work) in reverse: "That is, as a nation we're about to reduce spending on basic needs like education, health care and infrastructure by at least $100 billion, maybe more. And these spending cuts — the result of the fiscal crisis of the states — amount to a job destruction program bigger than any likely positive effects of the Bush tax cut. Until recently it has been hard to get people excited about the states' worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. For about two years state governments were able to use fancy financial footwork to put off the full effects, and the public probably regarded warnings about looming catastrophe as exaggerated. But now, as Timothy Egan reported yesterday in The New York Times, states are 'withdrawing health care for the poor and mentally ill. They are also dismissing state troopers, closing parks and schools, dropping bus routes, eliminating college scholarships and slashing a host of other services.' Not to mention unscrewing every third light bulb in Missouri government offices. (Honest.)"

Here in Minnesota Republicans are still in denial about the fiscal reality. The Governor came into office promising no tax increases, but as the economy has worsened the Republican-controlled House, loathe to buck their standard-bearer, has instead been proposing budget-fixing ruses like a huge increase in state gambling to bring in more revenue. When a Republican Political Party that is dominated by conservative Christians who traditionally regard gambling as sinful is proposing a dramatic increase in gambling to stop the fiscal bleeding, you can palpably feel ideology and reality moving towards a head-on collision.
 

War And Profit
4/21/03
When former General and President Eisenhower left office in 1961 he famously warned of the dangers of allowing the buildup of a huge military-industrial complex. His prescience now seems both brilliant and quaint as government leaders and defense and defense-related industry executives play musical chairs without so much as an ethical hiccup, and as huge government contracts are awarded, often in secret, to companies whose leaders have close ties to the government. The latest example of this kind of business-as-usual is the awarding of the government contract for the rebuilding of Iraq to Bechtel. There is no doubt that Bechtel is highly qualified to do the job, but as Bob Herbert opines in today's New York Times, the way in which the bidding process was conducted, in secret with a limited number of well-connected companies invited, is highly suspicious. And it doesn't help the the former president of Bechtel, George Schultz, who was once Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State and continues to sit on Bechtel's Board of Directors, was openly calling for the war while at the same time lobbying for post-war work for his company. Herbert notes that some in Congress are challenging this process, but my bet is their efforts will go nowhere. The lobbying power of these companies, and the vast sums of money moving back and forth between the government and these industries, and the ability to shield everything from oversight in the name of national security, make the military-industrial complex the very untouchable force that Eisenhower feared.

The Role of Congress in Authorizing War
For many progressives, one of the most embarrassing moments of our entry into conflict with Iraq was the way the U.S. Congress, including most Democrats, gave the President an early blank check to deal with Iraq as he saw fit. Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and the author of Social Justice in the Liberal State and We the People, comments on this in The American Prospect. He notes that in the first war with Iraq, led by President Bush #1, the President first went to the United Nations to seek support for the war, and then, with that support in hand, he came to the Congress asking for support: "These actions presaged two great principles for the new world order emerging out of the Cold War. The first was the principle of double veto: There could be no major war without the consent of both Congress and the United Nations. The second was the principle of Congress' last say: Only after the UN Security Council established that war was consistent with the UN Charter would Congress decide whether it was in the best interests of the United States." But the current President Bush reversed the process.

He first went to the Congress and asked them to cast their support for his Iraqi policy in order to use it as a bargaining chip with the United Nations. But this muddied the waters for Congress in terms of what members were supporting: "The authorization of war typically raises a profound but straightforward question: Are you for it or against it? But suddenly lawmakers could vote for war and say they were voting for peace -- they were merely providing the president with a much-needed bargaining chip. Rather than a solemn act of accountability, the vote turned into a buck-passing operation." But when the United Nations process broke down, the President did not come back to Congress to say "the world community cannot agree on whether to support this war and now I want to wage war without them and I want your support for that." Instead, he argued that he already had their support and went ahead with the war. The Constitutional check on the President's war-making powers was subverted. Ackerman argues that we must not allow it to happen again: "...we must insist on the principle of the last say. In the future, Congress should insist that the president first go to the international community and gain as much support as he can for any war initiative. Only then should he return to the American people, as represented by Congress, to determine whether war is justified by the national interest and the opinion of humanity."
 

The Other Wars
4/16/03
While we have been transfixed by the conflict in Iraq, and assured that our goal is the liberation of Iraq's people, in other parts of the world wars have been raging for decades, perpetrated by ruthless leaders with no regard for civil liberties and human rights. And, according a Star Tribune editorial, they are rarely on our nation's radar screen. Consider the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo: "Launched in 1998 when Rwanda and Uganda invaded to upend the Congolese government, the conflict is blamed for 3.5 million deaths -- most a result of disease and starvation. The melee now involves six nations and innumerable local militias, all of which have joined in stealing Congo's mineral wealth and pillaging its countryside. Tribal bickering has grown bloody as indigenous Congolese have acquired arms from outsiders and new cause for vengeance." Two weeks ago 1,000 Congolese were massacred in a new military offensive. The death-toll in this conflict far exceeds the death-toll in Iraq, before or during the war, according to representatives of Refugees International who noted "that more people died from war-related causes in the Congo during the previous week than have died in the war in Iraq.

Many of those deaths might have been prevented if the United Nations had the money it needs to sustain the 2.7 million civilians now living in Congolese refugee camps. But of the $202 million the U.N. requested for that purpose last year, it received just 46 percent. This year's bid for $268 million likely will fare even worse." The Star Tribune points out that there are more than four dozen wars ongoing in the world right now. The question raised by this editorial is -- why are we not more aware and involved in settling these conflicts? The answer is that we have no strategic interests at stake in these conflicts. If the world's largest known reserve of oil was in the Congo and not in Arabia, we would know all about the conflict in Africa. To be fair, the Bush Administration is no more guilty of this practice than any other former President or world leader. And for that very reason I remain skeptical about their new-found interest in championing the liberation of oppressed peoples.
 

Franklin Graham in Baghdad
4/12/03
Franklin Graham, son of Billy, and the most influential evangelical Christian in America today, is poised to go to Iraq and participate in relief efforts. Graham, who has built a large and respected relief organization Samaritan's Purse, also has made a name for himself by repeatedly calling Islam evil and making it known that he thinks it is part of his Christian duty to convert Muslims. Writing in Slate Magazine, Steven Waldman thinks having Graham, who is a friend of the President, in Iraq is a very bad idea: "But I'm not sure any of this means that America's foreign-policy objectives are served by having a Bush-loving, Islam-bashing, Muslim-converting Christian icon on the ground in Iraq tending to the bodies and souls of the grateful but deeply suspicious Muslim population. Or, to put it more simply, the idea is absolutely loopy." Waldman notes that the Administration has insisted that it can't keep Graham out of Iraq because he is operating as a private citizen. Waldman also notes that it would be very difficult politically for Bush to do so since Graham is very influential with millions of Bush voters. But Waldman thinks that having Graham in Iraq will hurt the Administration's effort to convince the Muslim world that it has no crusade-like tendencies, and it might very well put American troops at a higher risk if it inflames Muslim passions. Waldman thinks there is a better way for Graham to help: "There is a way Graham can help Iraqis without hurting America. He could organize a national fund-raising effort to help Iraqi families and pledge that all funds will be distributed by a neutral group like Mercy Corps, Save the Children, or Doctors Without Borders. Better yet, he could give the money to the Red Crescent. Imagine the photo of Franklin Graham—and George Bush—handing over a check, generated by gifts of millions of Christians, standing in front of a great big Islamic crescent. This would not only help the Iraqis in the aftermath of the war, but could improve interfaith tolerance."

War Critics Wrong?
The worst fears of those opposed to the war have apparently not panned out. While there is no denying the reality of death and destruction in Iraq, it was not as bad, or as long, as some predicted. Does that mean the war critics were wrong? Supporters are quick to say they are vindicated by victory. But Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate Magazine, is not so ready to concede the issue. The issue, he says, was never about whether the United States could win the war, and quickly. It was about whether waging this kind of war was right. And on this score lots of questions remain: "Factual questions: Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11? Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading? Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

Predictive questions: What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)? Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive? How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it? Political questions: Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies? Without the approval of the United Nations? Moral questions: Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future? When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war? Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently? Does consistency matter?" It is going to be very difficult for politicians who opposed the war to ask these questions; already some are beating a hasty retreat. All the more important that those of us in the progressive camp keep talking about these questions.

The Cost of Rebuilding Iraq
Yesterday I questioned the Administration's commitment to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to help the country rebuild. Today in the New York Times Thomas R. Pickering and James R. Schlesinger write about what it might cost in both money, military presence and time. They also explain why oil money, which prior to the war was used to fund the Oil for Food program, will still be needed for food, meaning it won't pay for our presence there or for other costs of rebuilding.
 

Short Attention Span
4/11/03
Remember Afghanistan? That was the last country we "liberated" in the name of national security. We also promised them massive amounts of aid: $3.3 billion over the next four years. But when the Administration submitted its 2003 budget, guess how much was in the budget: $0. The Administration says it assumed Congress would add the money and it did add $295 million. Afghanistan's experience "doesn't bode very well for the upcoming one," says Steven Bourke of the Center for International Conflict Resolution, at Columbia University, who just returned from 16 days in Afghanistan in early March. "It's a country that needs attention and commitment, but there's been an inclination to withdraw."

Bourke's quote is reported in an article in Salon Magazine Online (subscription required) written by Jake Tapper. Tapper notes that despite lofty promises by the Bush Administration about its commitment to Afghanistan and its democratic future, the country has been largely forgotten by the United States. Says Ahmed Karzai, brother of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai who represents the government is southern Kandahar: "What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing ...There have been no significant changes for people." Ahmed Karzai says he doesn't "know what to say to people anymore." Tapper reports that slightly more than 9,000 American soldiers remain in Afghanistan, hunting for remaining elements of the Taliban. But the country is essentially lawless and dangerous. The government controls only the capitol. The State Department warns it is not safe to travel anywhere in the country. The Red Cross has ceased field operations after two of its workers were ambushed and killed.

All of this doesn't bode well for the future of Iraq. The Administration officially denies that there are major problems in Afghanistan and suggests that a similar sized force can keep the peace in Iraq. Tapper reports: "On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, host Tim Russert posed that question to his two guests, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Gen. Peter Pace, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- after the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, had estimated 200,000 troops. Wolfowitz called that figure 'wildly off the mark,' and Pace used Afghanistan as a comparison, noting that 'the U.S. coalition forces there is around 10,000,' even though it has a larger population than Iraq. When Russert said that 'the only secure place is actually Kabul,' Pace disagreed. 'The only part that's really insecure is the part in the southeast border area,' he said." Apparently the State Department hasn't heard that yet.

I remember how we were glued to the televisions when our troops were in Afghanistan and how we were quickly educated on the geography and political history of that country. It lasted for about a month and then we were on to the next big thing. Now we are having the same experience in Iraq. In the name of American security and "liberation" for native peoples we have used our massive military might to overthrow repressive and brutal governments. There is no denying the awful nature of the Taliban and Saddam. But unless we press our government to commit to a long-term rebuilding and security effort, there is no guarantee that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq will be better than the recent past, and there is no guarantee that we will be more secure. If we don't make and keep those kinds of commitments then what we have done takes on the appearance of nothing more than massive military exercises to give our troops fighting experience and to use and then re-supply our military hardware. And for those of us in this country it takes on the feel of just one more "reality" show, at moments awful, titillating, and entertaining. But then we lose interest and begin looking for another rush of excitement. It's no way to run a country.
 

Tax Cuts During War
4/9/03
"Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," said Tom Delay recently, speaking on the president's proposed three-quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut. But as Natasha Hunter points out in TomPaine.com, no President has ever proposed tax cuts during war-time: "Taxes increased during the First World War, and the first mass income tax was instituted during World War II. The number of Americans paying income tax rose from 4 million to 44 million between 1939 and 1944, and collections skyrocketed from $1 billion to $19 billion. The Treasury Department commissioned cartoons and advertisements to sell the change, with Donald Duck sputtering that it was Americans' duty and privilege to pay taxes while soldiers were risking their lives overseas. Irving Berlin even wrote a song for the Treasury called 'I Paid My Income Tax Today.'" President Johnson also raised taxes to support the war in Vietnam.

So maybe we should support tax cuts. If I thought cutting taxes would starve the war machine I would support them. Unfortunately, whether taxes go up or down we know what federal program is not going to suffer -- the Pentagon. The tax cuts are going to starve government services for the elderly, children, and veterans, among others. It is the a sign of just how much the Right is controlling the agenda that we are debating whether the tax cut should be $750 or $350 billion and we are not talking about how we are going to fund a prescription drug program or shore up social security or pump money into the economy to create jobs.
 

The Press and the Myth of War
4/8/03
Chris Hedges is a columnist for the NY Times who has covered wars all over the world for many years. In a recent article for The Nation he talks about the reality and the myth of war and how the press gets caught up in the myth that shields us from war's awful reality. The reality is this: "War itself is venal, dirty, confusing and perhaps the most potent narcotic invented by humankind. Modern industrial warfare means that most of those who are killed never see their attackers. There is nothing glorious or gallant about it. If we saw what wounds did to bodies, how killing is far more like butchering an animal than the clean and neat Hollywood deaths on the screen, it would turn our stomachs. If we saw how war turns young people into intoxicated killers, how it gives soldiers a license to destroy not only things but other human beings, and if we saw the perverse thrill such destruction brings, we would be horrified and frightened. If we understood that combat is often a constant battle with a consuming fear we have perhaps never known, a battle that we often lose, we would find the abstract words of war--glory, honor and patriotism--not only hollow but obscene. If we saw the deep psychological scars of slaughter, the way it maims and stunts those who participate in war for the rest of their lives, we would keep our children away. Indeed, it would be hard to wage war."

But we don't see the reality; instead we see the myth: "For the myth makes war palatable. It gives war a logic and sanctity it does not possess. It saves us from peering into the darkest recesses of our own hearts. And this is why we like it. It is why we clamor for myth. The myth is enjoyable, and the press, as is true in every nation that goes to war, is only too happy to oblige. They dish it up and we ask for more. War as myth begins with blind patriotism, which is always thinly veiled self-glorification. We exalt ourselves, our goodness, our decency, our humanity, and in that self-exaltation we denigrate the other. The flip side of nationalism is racism--look at the jokes we tell about the French. It feels great. War as myth allows us to suspend judgment and personal morality for the contagion of the crowd. War means we do not face death alone. We face it as a group. And death is easier to bear because of this. We jettison all the moral precepts we have about the murder of innocent civilians, including children, and dismiss atrocities of war as the regrettable cost of battle."

The press unwittingly gets caught up in the myth and shields us from the reality and from the hard questions about why we are fighting this war: "The coverage of war by the press has one consistent and pernicious theme--the worship of our weapons and our military might. Retired officers, breathless reporters, somber news anchors, can barely hold back their excitement, which is perverse and--frankly, to those who do not delight in watching us obliterate other human beings--disgusting...The reasons for war are hidden from public view. We do not speak about the extension of American empire but democracy and ridding the world of terrorists--read "evil"--along with weapons of mass destruction. We do not speak of the huge corporate interests that stand to gain even as poor young boys from Alabama, who joined the Army because this was the only way to get health insurance and a steady job, bleed to death along the Euphrates. We do not speak of the lies that have been told to us in the past by this Administration--for example, the lie that Iraq was on the way to building a nuclear bomb. We have been rendered deaf and dumb." Embedding journalists with the troops only makes the press more compliant; their well-being is completely in the hands of the military. They become part of the team and have a vested interest in promoting the myth of war. Hedges thinks that at some future point these journalists will realize what has happened to them and regret it, but until then they are shielding us from the truth instead of reporting it.

Moderate Arabs Despair
"To most people in this area, the United States is the source of evil on planet earth. And whether we like it or not, it is the Bush administration that is to blame." These are the words of Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, one of Egypt's best-known intellectuals, a senior aide to former President Anwar el Sadat, and a consultant to the United Nations. In an article today in the New York Times, Aboulmagd talks about the war that is being lost among moderate Arab voices, among those who are traditionally friends of the United States but feel that the United States is waging a war on Arab land in the name of justice and human rights but ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. According to the article: "While the 1991 Persian Gulf war, under Mr. Bush's father, was waged with the understanding that the United States would engage itself in the search for peace, he said, this war was launched without a parallel American effort to compel Israel to forge a genuine peace with the Palestinians." Put together this lack of effort on behalf of a solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- with a war on Arab land -- with the Presidents belief that his Christian God is guiding his hand, and even moderate Arabs are being offended.

In a NY Times editorial today Paul Krugman makes the same point. The administration has gone out of its way to court Arab moderates and Arab media, but the effort is largely falling on deaf ears: "Moreover, as Raghida Dergham, a columnist for Al Hayat, an Arabic newspaper published in London, notes, 'It's the policy, stupid.' Arab perceptions of America are framed by Mr. Bush's coziness with Ariel Sharon. No amount of spin can soften that; it will take a serious and balanced Middle East peace initiative of the kind that Tony Blair is urging."
 

The Reason Why
4/5/03
The President tells close friends and family members that he feels he is guided by God's hand in this conflict. But in The Nation former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern wonders: "But if God guided him into an invasion of Iraq, He sent a different message to the Pope, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the mainline Protestant National Council of Churches and many distinguished rabbis--all of whom believe the invasion and bombardment of Iraq is against God's will. In all due respect, I suspect that Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice--and other sideline warriors--are the gods (or goddesses) reaching the ear of our President." The former Senator thinks the President is taking American down an imperial road while at the same time crippling our national security and well-being with tax cuts: "Meanwhile, such fundamental building blocks of national security as full employment and a strong labor movement are of no concern. The nearly $1.5 trillion tax giveaway, largely for the further enrichment of those already rich, will have to be made up by cutting government services and shifting a larger share of the tax burden to workers and the elderly. This President and his advisers know well how to get us involved in imperial crusades abroad while pillaging the ordinary American at home." Octogenarians have a way of not mincing words.

The Future of the Peace Movement
The Nation has a series of articles on where the peace movement goes after the war. It is a good read.

Welfare to Work
Drake Bennett reports on Administration's new welfare proposals in The American Prospect Article Freedom to Fail. When President Clinton signed into law The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996 welfare as a federal entitlement program ended. Instead the federal money was turned the money over to the states as fixed block grants. The idea was that the states would have freedom to experiment with their own welfare to work policies and the country would find some workable models. The shift in policy reduced welfare rolls by 50%, increased unemployment among those formerly on welfare, and reduced poverty.

The welfare to work program benefited, however, from three factors -- 1) federal money was given to the states to help the states fund programs; 2) states were given flexibility to create their own programs; and 3) the economy was booming. Now, all three are disappearing. The economy is stuck and jobs are scarce. And the President has proposed new reauthorization guidelines that would limit job training programs that the states have been defining as work -- in order to meet the previous federal requirement that 50% of welfare recipients be working (not to mention the fact that the training programs teach needed jobs skills) -- and penalize the states if they didn't have 70% working by 2007. But in addition to forcing the states to do more to end welfare, the President is proposing a freeze on the block grants. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that over the next five years, the President's new work requirements would cost $8 billion to $11 billion more than the current budget, mostly on increased child-care costs and workfare programs.

The welfare reform act was the right thing to do. Getting people off of welfare and into work is a winner for everyone. Working to increase the percentage of people moving from welfare to work is also laudable goal. But it still takes federal money to make it happen, especially when the economy is not producing jobs. Now is not the time to be cutting taxes and freezing funds for programs that help people find meaningful work. If anything, this is the kind of program that should be receiving a substantial increase in funding. It is our tax dollars being put to the best kind of use.
 

War and Private Gain
4/4/03
David Batstone, in Sojourners Online, raises ethical questions about the close ties between policy makers in the Administration and private industry: "The Bush team is often characterized as a collection of strong ideologues who operate out of deep convictions for a New America. But a closer look suggests that personal wealth management is never far from mind." He notes that Richard Perle, a close associate of many in Bush's national security team, recently resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board after questions were raised about his lobbying efforts for telecommunications giant Global Crossing. What is Perle doing for Global Crossing? "His job was to get Pentagon support for the proposed sale of Global Crossing to a foreign firm controlled by investors from China and Singapore. Under his arrangement with Global Crossing, Perle was to be paid a $125,000 retainer and would earn an additional $600,000 if the deal is approved by a government review panel, upon which sits the Secretary of Defense and close Perle associate Donald Rumsfeld," reports Batstone. Interestingly, both the CIA and FBI oppose the sale because it would give the Chinese government access to state of the art fiber-optic technology. Batstone adds that at least 10 of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board are lobbyists for private firms that regularly do business with the Pentagon.

This is business as usual politics for our defense industry. The reason we know Saddam has at least the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction is because it once suited our geopolitical purposes to sell him the materials. It also made money for the American companies who built and supplied the materials, and it lined the pockets of the revolving door lobbyists who move back and forth between the government and industry. Perle is one of many who has been at this for a long time. The question is -- how can so many people of faith, like our President, see nothing wrong with this? The answer seems to be a belief that there is nothing wrong with private financial gain by "good people" as long as it serves the cause of a country that God has so blessed. But -- remember Kenneth Lay -- without transparency and oversight even "good people" can be corrupted by greed and hubris. The defense industry is a prime candidate for this kind of trouble because they resist transparency and oversight tooth and nail in the name of national security.

And then there is the larger issue of the too easy equation with God's will with America's will with capitalism. It is possible to be a patriot and a believer in free markets and critically question both in the name of one's faith. In fact I think it is an essential part of faith. But many American Christians don't see the potential conflict and then wonder why the rest of the world views us so suspiciously.

War and Oil
John Balzar, in an editorial in today's Star Tribune reprinted from the L.A. Times, takes issue with fellow progressives who are still protesting the war. He thinks they are are encouraging Saddam to hang on and that is a bad thing: "Would the world be better off, really, if the United States pulled back and Saddam became the towering hero of Arabs?" On the other hand, he thinks that once the war is over progressive need to make sure everyone knows what this war is really about -- oil: "You don't have to be a war protester to understand that oil is at the root of this conflict. The United States didn't set out to rid the world of a tyrant. No, we sided with Saddam when he battled the fundamentalists in Iran, didn't we? Are we up in arms because he gassed the Kurds? Well, what took so long and why were we eager to do business with him in the intervening years? Would the United States have mobilized in 1991 to expel the Republican Guards if they had invaded, say, Sierra Leone? Doubtful. Oil set in motion the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the momentum from that propelled the United States into this one."
He notes that our appetite for foreign oil is growing at an alarming rate: "Consider the numbers: In 1973, the United States imported 35 percent of its oil from abroad, and only 5 percent from the Persian Gulf. That year the Arab nations imposed a five-month embargo on oil exports to the United States, sending the economy reeling and undermining our national sense of security. We resolved to do something about it, but of course we didn't stick with it. By 1990, when Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, U.S. reliance on foreign oil had grown to 42 percent of our needs, with 12 percent coming from the Persian Gulf. Today, the United States imports 53 percent of its petroleum. By 2020, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that dependence will reach 64 percent." The President, he says, is waging this war in the name of national security, but even if we win the war and topple Saddam we will not hang on to security for very long as long as our appetite for oil goes unchecked. And yet the administration "has made clear that it will not challenge the habits of consumption. In fact, during the first week of this war, the administration was reportedly at work on new gas mileage regulations to encourage the production of heavier cars -- an amazingly wrongheaded approach." In order to avoid the next war this needs to be challenged.

Embarrassing Us Again
Belief.net reports that "Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham and one of the nation’s most outspoken critics of Islam, said Wednesday he has relief workers 'poised and ready' to roll into Iraq to provide for the population’s post-war physical and spiritual needs." Graham has repeatedly called Islam wicked. The article reports that "last summer he said Muslims hadn't sufficiently apologized for the terrorist attacks--and he challenged Muslim leaders to offer to help rebuild Lower Manhattan or compensate the families of victims to show they condemn terrorism." In a telephone interview with Beliefnet Graham said, “We realize we’re in an Arab country and we just can’t go out and preach,” and than added, “I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son….We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ.”

No Biblical Support for Pacifism?
This letter to the editor appeared in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription only):
"Praying for our enemies . . . making them our friends . . . preserving life, and learning to return evil with good." These are all cited as basic Christian teachings by the Rev. Anderson in his defense of the very liberal political and theological positions of Bishop Griswold. But these are directed to individuals only and not to heads of state and those acting as their agents. God has a very different mission for them as set forth in Romans 13:1-6. Verse 4 describes the "One in authority" as not bearing the sword (i.e. the power of life and death) for nothing. Rather, "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." There is no biblical support for pacifism, appeasement and "conscientious objection" when confronted with an obviously just war. Robert Hendley, M.D.

I hope he is a better doctor than he is a biblical scholar.
 

Push to Drill in ANWR is Back
4/3/03
No sooner did the U.S. Senate kill a bill that would have opened the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling than the House is pushing through a new energy bill that would bring the issue back to the table. The Associated Press reports that the House was "moving swiftly to enact energy legislation, hoping to revive a proposal for oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge and, in a boon to farmers, expand the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive." The measure was being pushed by Alaska Representative Don Young, who said ``We're talking about a very small amount of land.'' Rep. Ed Markey D-Massachusetts instead offered an amendment that would force automakers to increase fuel efficiency but that amendment was easily defeated by the Republican controlled committee. The proposed legislation would also allow producers to forego paying federal royalties when developing deep offshore wells in search of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska, remove limits on how many acres coal companies may lease and require the government to reimburse energy companies for the cost of meeting environmental reviews. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., called it ``a buffet table'' for the oil and gas industry."

There are two issues here that we need to keep talking about for just as long as they keep pushing to open up the ANWR. One is the importance of protecting one of the few pristine pieces of land in the country, even if it is just a "very small amount of land." Somewhere in our country beauty has to be more valuable than commerce. The second issue is the our complete failure to develop an sustainable energy policy. What does it say about us that we choose to support repressive regimes in places like Saudi Arabia and overthrow unfriendly ones in Iraq -- that contribute to terrorism and that put our soldiers and thousands of others at risk -- so we can keep the flow of oil uninterrupted, instead of putting our incredible people and technological resources to work to develop alternative energy resources that could free us of dependence on oil? By this measure alone the war is a huge policy failure.
 

What Will Post-war Iraq Look Like
4/2/03
Mother Jones questions the wisdom of the Administration's plans for post-war Iraq, suggesting that it is missing a key ingredient -- democracy: "Now, as US and British troops fight towards Baghdad, we're being given a sense of the 'inspirational' structure the Bush administration is preparing to build in post-war Iraq. And, despite calls for the United Nations to have a role, despite assurances that the new Iraq would be run by Iraqis, it is a very American plan. Or, to be more accurate, it is a very Pentagon plan, almost entirely orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his hawkish deputies. Moreover, while run by Americans, post-war Iraq as envisioned by Rumsfeld & co. would seem to lack one defining American characteristic: an attachment to democratic principles." The article outlines the public plans for post-war administration and notes that the plan is to have retired General Jay Garner run the transitional government. He has been a staunch advocate of regime change and a foe of United Nations involvement in post-war Iraq. He is also a close associate of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and members of the neo-conservative circle who advocate further regime change in the region.

As Thomas Friedman notes in his New York Times column today, the Arab world will be watching closely to see what the United States does in post-war Iraq. He argues that American cultural values have had an ongoing revolutionary impact in the Arab world but American political values have not been seen. Instead American policy has supported the status quo in order to keep regimes stable and the oil flowing. This war, he says, is the first attempt to export Americas revolutionary political ideals. He shares this quote from American Studies professor Mohamed Kamel in Cairo: "if you don't deliver, it will really have a big impact. People will not just say your policies are bad, but that your ideas are a fake, you don't really believe them or you don't know how to implement them."

Time To Move On From Protesting?
In an article linked here The American Prospect Online Editor Richard Just and TomPaine.com Executive Editor Nick Penniman recently argued that it was time for liberals to begin focusing their attention on pressuring the Administration to keep its democratic promises for post-war Iraq, but in a dissenting American Prospect article, James K. Galbraith argues that the war is far from over, and could potentially become deadly for American forces and Iraqi civilians and soldiers if the fighting moves into the cities. Galbraith thinks it is important to continue to dissent from the wrong policy choices that have brought us into this war: "Let us remind our leaders at every turn of their recklessness and miscalculation. The American public may, if it chooses, reject the liberal position and support the hawks. But let us give them a choice. It is quite sure anyway that no one, in a situation as grave as this, will line up behind a platform of preemptive cringing."
 

The Other Superpower
4/1/03
Jonathan Schell, The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent writes about the rise of a global peace movement in response to the U.S. led attack in Iraq: "Not only is the whole world watching, as people used to say, the whole world is defending itself." Schell admits that the protest has not stopped the war but it has sparked a world-wide debate about the legitimacy of pre-emptive war: "The candles in windows did not stop the cruise missiles. The demonstrators did not block the tanks rolling north to Baghdad. Pope John Paul II did not stop President George W. Bush. Yet against all expectation, a global contest whose consequence far transcends the war in Iraq had arisen. Dr. Robert Muller of Costa Rica, a former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, caught the mood of the new peace movement when, at age 80, he received an award for his service to the UN. He startled his discouraged audience by saying, "I'm so honored to be here. I'm so honored to be alive at such a miraculous time in history. I'm so moved by what's going on in our world today." For 'never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war.' This was what it looked like, he said, to be 'waging peace.' It was 'a miracle.' Shock and awe has found its riposte in courage and wonder." The online edition profiles the peace movement in a number of countries.
 

Marine's Duty: Prayer for President
From Matt Bivens in The Nation:
Before this Administration came along, it was hard to imagine that something as intensely personal and private as a man's prayer before going into battle could be appropriated in a business-like fashion. Now, according to "A Christian's Duty in Time of War" -- a pamphlet given out to thousands of Marines in Iraq -- our soldiers in the war zone are supposed to fill out a form pledging to pray every day for George Bush. The pamphlet has a tear-out section which the soldier is to sign and mail to the president: "I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff ..." The pamphlets were created by In Touch Ministries, an evangelical group that says "We may not all be in the military, but we are all engaged in warfare ... spiritual warfare."

Today's prayer: "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics." (Translation: Pray that, even if all agree this war is a horrific catastrophe, even if Congress leaps to its feet in anger and despair, even if millions of Americans pour into the streets begging to bring you home -- even then, pray that the president will wave aside his critics and order you forward.) Wednesday's: "Pray that the President and his advisers will be safe, healthy, well-rested and free from fear." (Well-rested?) Friday's prayer cuts to the chase: "Pray that the President and his advisers will recognize their divine appointment ..." It includes some helpfully illuminating scripture, Romans 13:1: "Every person is to be in subjugation to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

Progressive Fed Up With Media
Richard Blow, former executive editor of George Magazine and author of American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., writes in TomPaine.com about the left's increasing frustration with the media. Even NPR has been getting criticism from progressives for uncritical journalism. Blow thinks this reflects a simple reality -- the progressive voice has become marginalized: "Progressives have become American outsiders, as marginalized as conservatives used to be. They don't influence the Congress; they hardly even influence the Democratic Party. They're a minority on the Supreme Court, as the decision that put George W. into office demonstrated -- a decision that kept liberals out of the White House. Sure, the Left controls Hollywood, but as the reaction to Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech showed, it's pretty tepid about talking truth to the man. The media, however, are always up for grabs. In recent years, conservatives (Fox, The Weekly Standard, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage) have steamrolled liberal opposition."

The response to Michael Moore's rant on the Academy Awards is a poor example of anti-liberal bias. He had every right to express his opposition to the war and the President's policies, but he stepped way over the line in the way he did it. The mainstream media has become more conservative, however. I think that is one of the reasons the progressive groundswell noted above, which has largely been organized through the internet, is so important and effective. One of the realities of media and marketing today is you are not limited to the voice of the big players. Thousands, even millions, of people can be reached and mobilized with the click of a mouse.