"Globalization" and its malcontents
One of the big media buzzwords to emerge in recent years is
"globalization." By now, we're likely to know what it means. That's
unfortunate -- because at this point the word is so ambiguous that it
doesn't really mean much of anything.
News outlets have reported that key international pacts like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization gained U.S. approval during the 1990s because most politicians in Washington favor "globalization." According to conventional media wisdom, those globalizers want to promote unfettered communication and joint endeavors across national boundaries.
Well, not quite. These days, at the White House and on Capitol Hill, the same boosters of "globalization" are upset about certain types of global action -- such as the current grassroots movement against a war on Iraq.
For the most part, the same elected officials and media commentators who have applauded money-driven globalization are now appalled by the sight of anti-war globalization. The recent spectacle of millions of people demonstrating against war on the same day around the world was enough to cause apoplexy at the White House.
News outlets have reported that key international pacts like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization gained U.S. approval during the 1990s because most politicians in Washington favor "globalization." According to conventional media wisdom, those globalizers want to promote unfettered communication and joint endeavors across national boundaries.
Well, not quite. These days, at the White House and on Capitol Hill, the same boosters of "globalization" are upset about certain types of global action -- such as the current grassroots movement against a war on Iraq.
For the most part, the same elected officials and media commentators who have applauded money-driven globalization are now appalled by the sight of anti-war globalization. The recent spectacle of millions of people demonstrating against war on the same day around the world was enough to cause apoplexy at the White House.
Patriotic or Not?
AUSTIN, Texas -- Before we all work ourselves into such righteous snits we can't even talk to one another anymore, let's see what we can agree on. Wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein does not make anyone a bloodthirsty monster or a tool of the oil companies. Being worried to death about the consequences of invading Iraq does not make anyone unpatriotic or in favor of Saddam Hussein.
Whether t'is better to kill the snake or leave the snake alone, that is one question. But the question we're stuck on now is whether there's a better choice. Some of us think containment can work, and the reason we think so is because it already has. More Iraqi weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors in the ‘90s than were destroyed by the Gulf War. Why not see if it will work this time? What about a U.N. resolution saying, "Any place Saddam Hussein doesn't let the inspectors go into gets bombed immediately"?
Whether t'is better to kill the snake or leave the snake alone, that is one question. But the question we're stuck on now is whether there's a better choice. Some of us think containment can work, and the reason we think so is because it already has. More Iraqi weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors in the ‘90s than were destroyed by the Gulf War. Why not see if it will work this time? What about a U.N. resolution saying, "Any place Saddam Hussein doesn't let the inspectors go into gets bombed immediately"?
Don't boycott the French!
AUSTIN, Texas -- As our coaches used to say, "OK, people, settle down and listen up." We have been enjoying a lovely little spate of French-bashing here lately. Jonah Goldberg of The National Review, who admits that French-bashing is "shtick" -- as it is to many American comedians -- has popularized the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to describe the French. It gets a lot less attractive than that.
George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Hitler.
On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.
George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Hitler.
On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.
Playing the "Terrorism" Card
These days, it's a crucial ace up Uncle Sam's sleeve. "Terrorism" is
George W. Bush's magic card.
For 17 months now, the word has worked like a political charm for the Bush administration. Ever since the terrible crime against humanity known as 9/11, the White House has exploited the specter of terrorism to move the GOP's doctrinaire agenda. Boosting the military budget, cutting social programs and shredding civil liberties are well underway.
Like the overwhelming majority of politicians on Capitol Hill, most journalists in Washington are too timid to do anything other than quibble about fine-tuning and get out of the way of rampaging elephants.
The word "terror" has become a linguistic staple in news media. For keeping the fearful pot stirred, it's better than the longer word "terrorism," which refers to an occasional event. The shortened word has an ongoing ring to it. At the end of February's first week, when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced an official hike in the warning code, the cable networks lost no time plastering "Terror Alert: High" signs on TV screens.
For 17 months now, the word has worked like a political charm for the Bush administration. Ever since the terrible crime against humanity known as 9/11, the White House has exploited the specter of terrorism to move the GOP's doctrinaire agenda. Boosting the military budget, cutting social programs and shredding civil liberties are well underway.
Like the overwhelming majority of politicians on Capitol Hill, most journalists in Washington are too timid to do anything other than quibble about fine-tuning and get out of the way of rampaging elephants.
The word "terror" has become a linguistic staple in news media. For keeping the fearful pot stirred, it's better than the longer word "terrorism," which refers to an occasional event. The shortened word has an ongoing ring to it. At the end of February's first week, when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced an official hike in the warning code, the cable networks lost no time plastering "Terror Alert: High" signs on TV screens.
What the hell is going on?
AUSTIN, Texas -- "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Dwight David Eisenhower, April 16, 1953.
The news is not good. Osama bin Laden wants us to invade Iraq. We're at orange on the alert code. The economy is tanking. We're spending $1.08 billion a day on the military.
The president wants a $674 billion tax cut. In the first year, 50 percent of that tax cut would go the richest 1 percent of Americans and three-quarters of it would go to the richest 5 percent. In the years beyond that, the concentration at the top actually gets worse, according to citizens for Tax Justice. To pay for that, he wants to raise the rent on subsidized housing for the poorest people in the country and break up Head Start, sending it down to the states, where governments are frantically cutting everything they can. Money to pay for everything from cleaning up Superfund sites to leaving no child behind is being slashed to pay for this obscene tax cut.
The news is not good. Osama bin Laden wants us to invade Iraq. We're at orange on the alert code. The economy is tanking. We're spending $1.08 billion a day on the military.
The president wants a $674 billion tax cut. In the first year, 50 percent of that tax cut would go the richest 1 percent of Americans and three-quarters of it would go to the richest 5 percent. In the years beyond that, the concentration at the top actually gets worse, according to citizens for Tax Justice. To pay for that, he wants to raise the rent on subsidized housing for the poorest people in the country and break up Head Start, sending it down to the states, where governments are frantically cutting everything they can. Money to pay for everything from cleaning up Superfund sites to leaving no child behind is being slashed to pay for this obscene tax cut.
Of tax evasion and denials
AUSTIN, Texas -- And another thing CEOs should probably avoid ... Sprint Corp. has just fired its two top executives for (I love this part) a conflict of interest. It seems these worthy gentlemen felt perfectly entitled to pay zero taxes on more than $100 million in stock-option gains. Isn't that special? But that's not why they were fired.
They were fired because Sprint's accounting firm Ernst & Young set up these lucrative tax shelters. After the IRS disallowed the shelters, the execs were at war with their own company's auditors. Not nice.
It gets better. In return for giving the two execs what turned out to be very bad advice, Ernst & Young got $6 million -- paid by Sprint. Now the execs owe the taxes and penalties, but they no longer have the money, since Sprint's stock price hit the skids in the general implosion of telecommunications. Plus, they are no longer employed
Pretty big mess, and it's happening all over.
They were fired because Sprint's accounting firm Ernst & Young set up these lucrative tax shelters. After the IRS disallowed the shelters, the execs were at war with their own company's auditors. Not nice.
It gets better. In return for giving the two execs what turned out to be very bad advice, Ernst & Young got $6 million -- paid by Sprint. Now the execs owe the taxes and penalties, but they no longer have the money, since Sprint's stock price hit the skids in the general implosion of telecommunications. Plus, they are no longer employed
Pretty big mess, and it's happening all over.
Conservatives in Action
AUSTIN, Texas -- Normally, I don't bother to follow the doings of the far right. Having lived in Texas all these years, I figure I don't have much to learn on that score. But I was much struck by a report in Salon, the online magazine, on the recent conference of the Conservative Political Action Committee.
It sounded no more than usually loony to me -- equating Islam with fascism and terrorism, attacks on feminazis, the dread environmentalists, family planning, Harry Potter and other menaces to civilization. No crazier than the John Birch Society or the militia movement I've known all these years. But reporter Michelle Goldberg noted one striking difference: The conference was attended by people in power. Vice President Dick Cheney gave the keynote speech, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spoke, as did House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Senate Whip Mitch McConnell, Republican National Committee Chair Marc Racicot, etc.
It sounded no more than usually loony to me -- equating Islam with fascism and terrorism, attacks on feminazis, the dread environmentalists, family planning, Harry Potter and other menaces to civilization. No crazier than the John Birch Society or the militia movement I've known all these years. But reporter Michelle Goldberg noted one striking difference: The conference was attended by people in power. Vice President Dick Cheney gave the keynote speech, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spoke, as did House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Senate Whip Mitch McConnell, Republican National Committee Chair Marc Racicot, etc.
Colin Powell is flawless -- inside a media bubble
There's no doubt about it: Colin Powell is a great performer, as he
showed yet again at the U.N. Security Council the other day. On
television, he exudes confidence and authoritative judgment. But Powell
owes much of his touted credibility to the fact that he's functioning
inside a media bubble that protects him from direct challenge.
Powell doesn't face basic questions like these:
* You cite Iraq's violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions to justify the U.S. launching an all-out war. But you're well aware that American allies like Turkey, Israel and Morocco continue to violate dozens of Security Council resolutions. Why couldn't other nations claim the right to militarily "enforce" the Security Council's resolutions against countries that they'd prefer to bomb?
* You insist that Iraq is a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East. But, with the exception of Israel, no country in the region has made such a claim or expressed any enthusiasm for a war on Iraq. If Iraq is a serious threat to the region, why doesn't the region feel threatened?
Powell doesn't face basic questions like these:
* You cite Iraq's violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions to justify the U.S. launching an all-out war. But you're well aware that American allies like Turkey, Israel and Morocco continue to violate dozens of Security Council resolutions. Why couldn't other nations claim the right to militarily "enforce" the Security Council's resolutions against countries that they'd prefer to bomb?
* You insist that Iraq is a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East. But, with the exception of Israel, no country in the region has made such a claim or expressed any enthusiasm for a war on Iraq. If Iraq is a serious threat to the region, why doesn't the region feel threatened?
Deficit at record high
AUSTIN, Texas -- "We will not pass along our
problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations." --
George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003
"Even though hundreds of other government programs would be squeezed, the president projects the deficit will still hit record highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 2004. Over the next five years, the deficits would total $1.08 trillion. ... Taken together, the new stimulus measure and making the tax cut permanent would add up to $1.3 trillion in new tax relief, on top of the $1.35 trillion tax reduction Congress passed in 2001." -- Associated Press, Feb. 3, 2003.
The question is, does the President believe himself?
"To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform, which must now be carried out in every school, in every classroom, so that every child in America can read, and learn, and succeed in life." -- Bush, ibid.
"Even though hundreds of other government programs would be squeezed, the president projects the deficit will still hit record highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 2004. Over the next five years, the deficits would total $1.08 trillion. ... Taken together, the new stimulus measure and making the tax cut permanent would add up to $1.3 trillion in new tax relief, on top of the $1.35 trillion tax reduction Congress passed in 2001." -- Associated Press, Feb. 3, 2003.
The question is, does the President believe himself?
"To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform, which must now be carried out in every school, in every classroom, so that every child in America can read, and learn, and succeed in life." -- Bush, ibid.
State of the Union
AUSTIN, Texas -- The state of the union is that money talks and
public policy is sold to the highest bidder. Those who give money in
political contributions -- less than one-tenth of one percent of the U.S.
population gave 83 percent of all campaign contributions in the 2002
elections -- get back billions in tax breaks, subsidies and the right to
exploit public land at ridiculously low prices.
This system in turn costs ordinary Americans billions of dollars, not to mention the costs to health, safety and the environment, and the cost of not having enough money for good schools.
Public Campaign, the group working for public financing of political campaigns, has put together some of the salient information in the form of a poster, available at www.publiccampaign.org -- and perhaps the most depressing thing about it is the size of the payoffs for relatively small investments in political campaigns.
This system in turn costs ordinary Americans billions of dollars, not to mention the costs to health, safety and the environment, and the cost of not having enough money for good schools.
Public Campaign, the group working for public financing of political campaigns, has put together some of the salient information in the form of a poster, available at www.publiccampaign.org -- and perhaps the most depressing thing about it is the size of the payoffs for relatively small investments in political campaigns.