Op-Ed

The recent decision by General Motors to pull its advertising from the Los Angeles Times has not gone over very well.

“Blame the press,” Daily Variety scoffed in mid-April, after several days of publicity about the automaker’s move. “That’s the latest coping mechanism for General Motors, whose slumping share price and falling profits have generated a wave of negative media coverage. ... GM isn’t the first Fortune 500 company to retaliate against a newspaper’s editorial coverage by taking a punch at its ad division. But most companies understand the tactic just doesn’t work; it only generates more bad coverage.”

In the Motor City, the Detroit News business writer Daniel Howes told readers that the monetary slap at the L.A. Times exposes “GM’s thinning corporate skin.” Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam had this to say: “On the one hand, the decision, which may affect up to $20 million in ad spending, sends a powerful message to the Times. On the other hand, it sends a powerful message to the country about the idiots who are running GM.”

President Bush just told reporters that he has no intention of setting any timetable for withdrawal. "Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself," he said. Powerful pundits keep telling us that a swift pullout of U.S. troops would be irresponsible. And plenty of people have bought into that idea -- including quite a few progressives. Such acceptance is part of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

Sometimes, an unspoken assumption among progressive activists is that the occupation of Iraq must be tolerated for tactical reasons -- while other issues, notably domestic ones, are more winnable on Capitol Hill. But this acceptance means going along with many of the devastating effects of a militarized society: from ravaged budgets for social programs to more authoritarian attitudes and violence in communities across the country.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Happy tax day, fellow citizens!

My favorite authority on taxes is David Cay Johnston of The New York Times, who won a Pulitzer for reporting on the terminally unsexy topic of taxes. His book "Perfectly Legal -- The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super-Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else" is the single best work on public policy of recent years, I think.

Johnston reports: "Through explicit policies, as well as tax laws never reported in the news, Congress now literally takes money from those making $30,000 to $500,000 per year and funnels it in subtle ways to the super-rich -- the top one-one hundredth of one percent of Americans.

"People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more."

AUSTIN, Texas -- Freshly returned from a week of intellectual sparring at the Conference on World Affairs, the annual gabfest in Boulder, Colo. (the late jazz critic Leonard Feather called it "the leisure of the theory class"), I find making connections between headlines mere child's play.

After a week of contemplating Persian poetry, the possible aphrodisiac effect of black licorice, American foreign policy, what we do in the name of God (an actual panel title), war and medicine, I scarcely blink, much less boggle, at such simple topics as tax policy, international finance, terrorism and offshore money laundering.

I was glad to open the New York Times last Monday and see the headline: “In Steinbeck’s Birthplace, a Fight to Keep the Libraries Open.” After visiting Salinas, Calif., over the weekend, I was eager to find out whether the disturbing and uplifting events there would gain any significant national coverage.

It was a close call. Other than the medium-length Times article, accompanied by a photo of an 8-year-old girl standing next to an endangered library, the media coverage was sparse. And the Times piece -- while doing a good job of focusing on the danger that all three public libraries in Salinas might close by midyear -- bypassed the connections that many participants in a 24-hour “read-in” had made between lavish spending on war overseas and a funding crisis for libraries at home.

Even if you've heard more than enough about Terry Schiavo, it seems useful to consider why Bush's political grandstanding backfired. Over seventy percent of Americans, including solid majorities of self-described evangelicals, opposed the intervention of the White House and Congress. Those surveyed mistrusted the Bush administration's blatant disregard for local control, the rule of law, and the right to be protected from a capricious federal government.

Their responses also speak to a broader shift in how we deal with difficult end-of-life issues. For twenty years, gradually increasing majorities have agreed that for all our technological inventiveness, what some people need most is the right to die in peace.

You'd think that this belief--that the most difficult intimate decisions must be our own--would also raise support for maintaining the right to abortion. But it hasn't. In the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, support for keeping abortion legal, and without onerous restrictions, has stayed even, at most, and new onerous restrictions keep getting imposed.

AUSTIN -- Why in the name of sanity, you may ask, should an aging, overweight spinster like myself agree to go bungee jumping with her nephew? My fellow aunts will understand immediately, however, when I explain that the nephew in question is 15, wears his baseball hat backward and has attitude.

As a veteran aunt (helped raise one set of two, am working on the next set of three), I have been enjoying my recent stint as non-parent in residence. Being an aunt is a great gig. You get to hand the kids back at the end of a week or a month, so discipline is not your problem. Veteran aunts never insist on vegetables or museums. Aunts without children of their own have an extra edge, since we're not really, exactly grown-ups. As permanent non-parents, we can still side with kids. We can Mame it up all we want. (All this may hold true for uncles as well. I'm just not well-informed on that angle.)

"April Fools!  We're not really going to wreck the bankruptcy system and turn families over to the gentle mercies of credit card companies!  We just wanted to see how extreme we could get and have the media still believe it!"

That's what I'd like to hear the United States Senate announce today, but I won't hold my breath.

When a majority of U.S. Senators, including 19 Democrats, voted to pass the bankruptcy bill, some of them may have thought that no one was watching.  Certainly consumer groups, labor, community organizations, and civil rights groups had written the bill off as virtually unstoppable.  Stopping it was not at the top of their agendas, each already overloaded with other defensive battles against the Bush onslaught.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Some days, it's hard to pick the outrage du jour, but hypocrisy is always an inviting target, and the United Nations oil-for-food scandal provides a two-fer. We have been hearing much right-wing huffing over the dreadful, terrible, awful, unprecedented, worst-ever scandal in all history. One indignant winger was livid because The New York Times devoted more coverage to the collapse of Enron than to the earth-shaking U.N. scandal.

Those throwing conniption fits over the United Nations' misdeeds (failure of oversight, according to the Volcker Report) might want to meditate a bit on the role of the U.S. government in all this before they further embarrass themselves denouncing perfidious foreigners.

The first quarter of 2005 brought significant media dividends for the Bush-Cheney limited liability corporation.

Stakeholders received windfalls as mainstream news outlets deferred to consolidation of power from the November election.

A rollout of new “democracy” branding -- kicked off by the State of the Union product relaunch -- yielded at least temporary gains in psychological market share. For instance, repackaging of images in the Middle East implemented makeovers for several client governments. Actual democratic threats, inimical to Bush-Cheney LLC interests, remain low.

Our major domestic financial goal, the privatization of Social Security, is out of reach for the next several quarters. However, in view of the magnitude of potential profits, this massive effort will continue.

More problematic, in retrospect, was the March expenditure of political capital in the Schiavo gambit. Returns on media investment, as gauged by opinion poll data, have been disappointing. However, base earnings are likely to accrue to beneficial levels due to high volume from fundamentalist buy-ins.