Mozilla Firefox Start Page
Tom Delay and Bill Frist speech
via American United (our thanks to AU)
The Family Research Council, a Washington-based Religious Right group, held a closed-door “Washington Briefing” March 17-19, 2005. During the event, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) addressed attendees and pledged that Republican leaders in Congress would work to implement the Religious Right’s controversial political agenda...read on
Delay also blamed LBJ for making Churches stay out of politics. As if they actually do.
Audio- it's 20 min. Delay comes in about the midpoint
Ezra: So in three days, he went from concerned, to outraged, all the way to issuing press releases from a land entirely of his imagination. But Terry was still slipping from the headlines! How dare she!? So here's Tom on the 21st:
One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.
Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged that "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." read on
Tom sure sounds a lot like Bill O'Reilly all of a sudden. "They are after me!"
Think Progress has more: Tom Delay Uncensored
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Monday, March 14, 2005
Bloglines | My Feeds
Bloglines | My Feeds
March 14th, 2005 1:58 pm
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By David Barstow and Robin Stein / New York Times
It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.
"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.
Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.
Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.
Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.
An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.
It is also a world where all participants benefit.
Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts. "There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press," Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies.
In interviews, though, press officers for several federal agencies said the president's prohibition did not apply to government-made television news segments, also known as video news releases. They described the segments as factual, politically neutral and useful to viewers. They insisted that there was no similarity to the case of Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist who promoted the administration's chief education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, without disclosing $240,000 in payments from the Education Department.
What is more, these officials argued, it is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government. "Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution," said William A. Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. "This is not our problem. We can't be held responsible for their actions."
Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper "covert propaganda" even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."
It is not certain, though, whether the office's pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a few federal agencies have stopped making television news segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and "purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers.
Even if agencies do disclose their role, those efforts can easily be undone in a broadcaster's editing room. Some news organizations, for example, simply identify the government's "reporter" as one of their own and then edit out any phrase suggesting the segment was not of their making.
So in a recent segment produced by the Agriculture Department, the agency's narrator ended the report by saying "In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture." Yet AgDay, a syndicated farm news program that is shown on some 160 stations, simply introduced the segment as being by "AgDay's Pat O'Leary." The final sentence was then trimmed to "In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting."
Brian Conrady, executive producer of AgDay, defended the changes. "We can clip 'Department of Agriculture' at our choosing," he said. "The material we get from the U.S.D.A., if we choose to air it and how we choose to air it is our choice."
March 14th, 2005 1:58 pm
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By David Barstow and Robin Stein / New York Times
It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.
"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.
Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.
Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.
Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.
An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.
It is also a world where all participants benefit.
Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts. "There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press," Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies.
In interviews, though, press officers for several federal agencies said the president's prohibition did not apply to government-made television news segments, also known as video news releases. They described the segments as factual, politically neutral and useful to viewers. They insisted that there was no similarity to the case of Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist who promoted the administration's chief education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, without disclosing $240,000 in payments from the Education Department.
What is more, these officials argued, it is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government. "Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution," said William A. Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. "This is not our problem. We can't be held responsible for their actions."
Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper "covert propaganda" even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."
It is not certain, though, whether the office's pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a few federal agencies have stopped making television news segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and "purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers.
Even if agencies do disclose their role, those efforts can easily be undone in a broadcaster's editing room. Some news organizations, for example, simply identify the government's "reporter" as one of their own and then edit out any phrase suggesting the segment was not of their making.
So in a recent segment produced by the Agriculture Department, the agency's narrator ended the report by saying "In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture." Yet AgDay, a syndicated farm news program that is shown on some 160 stations, simply introduced the segment as being by "AgDay's Pat O'Leary." The final sentence was then trimmed to "In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting."
Brian Conrady, executive producer of AgDay, defended the changes. "We can clip 'Department of Agriculture' at our choosing," he said. "The material we get from the U.S.D.A., if we choose to air it and how we choose to air it is our choice."
Saturday, March 12, 2005
So Much for the New Bush Economy
Bloglines | My Feeds
Turning Chinese
So Much for the New Bush Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The February payroll jobs figures released last Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a continuation of America's descent into a third world service economy.
The Bush administration cheered the creation of 229,000 private sector jobs (which still leaves Bush with a net private sector job loss during his reign). However, once we look at the details, the joy vanishes: 174,000 of the jobs, or 76% of the total, are in nontradable services.
Administrative and waste services (largely temporary help and employment services) account for 61,000 or 35% of the new service jobs. The remainder are accounted for by construction (30,000), retail trade (30,000), healthcare and social assistance (27,000), and waitresses and bar tenders (27,000).
The US has apparently lost the ability to create high productivity, high value-added jobs in tradable goods and services. The ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshore production for home markets and outsourcing of knowledge jobs.
The BLS reports that the number of employed US technical workers has fallen by 221,000 in six major computer and engineering job classifications during 2000-2004. The largest drops were suffered by computer programmers, followed by electrical and electronics engineers, computer scientists and systems analysts.
So much for the new economy that economists promised would take the place of the lost manufacturing economy.
America's remaining job market is domestic nontradable services. While India and China develop first world job markets, the US labor market takes on the characteristics of a third world work force. Only jobs that cannot be outsourced are growing.
The Bush economy has seen a loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, a rise in the unemployment rate of 1.2 percentage points, and a stagnation in real weekly earnings.
How bad will things have to get before economists realize that outsourced jobs are not being replaced? Indeed, many American companies are ceasing to have any presence in the US except for a sales force.
Cisco's CEO, John Chambers, declared recently: "What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company."
Cisco is establishing a new R&D center in Shanghai. The US corporation manufactures $5 billion of products in China where it employes 10,000 people.
That is just one company, and there are many doing the same thing. The result is abandonment of the American work force by American corporations. Little wonder the Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years to have a net loss of private sector jobs.
If one US company or a few move offshore, their profits improve and consumer prices are lower. However, when work in general moves offshore, American lose the incomes associated with the production of the goods they consume. Domestic production is turned into imports, with the result that America draws down its accumulated wealth in order to pay for the imports on which it is dependent.
The dollar's value and status as reserve currency cannot forever stand the trade and budget deficits that are now part and parcel of America's economic policy.
Unless there are major changes soon, America's economic future is a third world work force with a banana democracy's worthless currency.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: pcroberts@postmark.net
Turning Chinese
So Much for the New Bush Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The February payroll jobs figures released last Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a continuation of America's descent into a third world service economy.
The Bush administration cheered the creation of 229,000 private sector jobs (which still leaves Bush with a net private sector job loss during his reign). However, once we look at the details, the joy vanishes: 174,000 of the jobs, or 76% of the total, are in nontradable services.
Administrative and waste services (largely temporary help and employment services) account for 61,000 or 35% of the new service jobs. The remainder are accounted for by construction (30,000), retail trade (30,000), healthcare and social assistance (27,000), and waitresses and bar tenders (27,000).
The US has apparently lost the ability to create high productivity, high value-added jobs in tradable goods and services. The ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshore production for home markets and outsourcing of knowledge jobs.
The BLS reports that the number of employed US technical workers has fallen by 221,000 in six major computer and engineering job classifications during 2000-2004. The largest drops were suffered by computer programmers, followed by electrical and electronics engineers, computer scientists and systems analysts.
So much for the new economy that economists promised would take the place of the lost manufacturing economy.
America's remaining job market is domestic nontradable services. While India and China develop first world job markets, the US labor market takes on the characteristics of a third world work force. Only jobs that cannot be outsourced are growing.
The Bush economy has seen a loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, a rise in the unemployment rate of 1.2 percentage points, and a stagnation in real weekly earnings.
How bad will things have to get before economists realize that outsourced jobs are not being replaced? Indeed, many American companies are ceasing to have any presence in the US except for a sales force.
Cisco's CEO, John Chambers, declared recently: "What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company."
Cisco is establishing a new R&D center in Shanghai. The US corporation manufactures $5 billion of products in China where it employes 10,000 people.
That is just one company, and there are many doing the same thing. The result is abandonment of the American work force by American corporations. Little wonder the Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years to have a net loss of private sector jobs.
If one US company or a few move offshore, their profits improve and consumer prices are lower. However, when work in general moves offshore, American lose the incomes associated with the production of the goods they consume. Domestic production is turned into imports, with the result that America draws down its accumulated wealth in order to pay for the imports on which it is dependent.
The dollar's value and status as reserve currency cannot forever stand the trade and budget deficits that are now part and parcel of America's economic policy.
Unless there are major changes soon, America's economic future is a third world work force with a banana democracy's worthless currency.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: pcroberts@postmark.net
Bankaruptcy Reform
Bloglines | My Feeds
Dear Senator,
I am very disappointed with the Democratic senators like you who vote for the “Bankruptcy Reform”. I know that you guys need money for your campaigns, therefore you took money from the credit card companies like MBNA, etc. It is a shame on what is happening in this country:
Bush and the “Neocons” with the help of Democrats are after all the poor people, minority, single mothers, elderly, etc. Bush is cutting all kinds of Social programs in his budget proposal, trying to dismantle Social-Security, doing nothing about Medicare, Health Insurance (About 45 million Americans do not have it). All the Bush wants is to please the big companies. Gas price is hitting record highs. The oil companies hah record profits last year.
I think we should have another party that stands for the people.
Regards,
John Kard
Dear Senator,
I am very disappointed with the Democratic senators like you who vote for the “Bankruptcy Reform”. I know that you guys need money for your campaigns, therefore you took money from the credit card companies like MBNA, etc. It is a shame on what is happening in this country:
Bush and the “Neocons” with the help of Democrats are after all the poor people, minority, single mothers, elderly, etc. Bush is cutting all kinds of Social programs in his budget proposal, trying to dismantle Social-Security, doing nothing about Medicare, Health Insurance (About 45 million Americans do not have it). All the Bush wants is to please the big companies. Gas price is hitting record highs. The oil companies hah record profits last year.
I think we should have another party that stands for the people.
Regards,
John Kard
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Deficits and Deceit
Bloglines | My Feeds
Deficits and Deceit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 4, 2005
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
ARTICLE TOOLS
Printer Friendly Format Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-mailed Articles Most E-Mailed Articles
MORE COLUMNS
.Paul Krugman
READERS' OPINIONS
. Forum: Join a Discussion on Paul Krugman's Columns
Most E-Mailed
1.
Op-Ed Columnist: Deficits and Deceit
2.
Strivers Sharpen No. 2's for Different College Test
3.
36 Hours: Old San Juan, P.R.
4.
Journeys: In Death Valley, a Technicolor Season
5.
Violent New Front in Drug War Opens on the Canadian Border
Go to Complete List
Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.
On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?
When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.
To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.
To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."
Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?
O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.
According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.
But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.
The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.
And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Bob Herbert is on vacation.
Deficits and Deceit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 4, 2005
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
ARTICLE TOOLS
Printer Friendly Format Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-mailed Articles Most E-Mailed Articles
MORE COLUMNS
.Paul Krugman
READERS' OPINIONS
. Forum: Join a Discussion on Paul Krugman's Columns
Most E-Mailed
1.
Op-Ed Columnist: Deficits and Deceit
2.
Strivers Sharpen No. 2's for Different College Test
3.
36 Hours: Old San Juan, P.R.
4.
Journeys: In Death Valley, a Technicolor Season
5.
Violent New Front in Drug War Opens on the Canadian Border
Go to Complete List
Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.
On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?
When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.
To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.
To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."
Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?
O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.
According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.
But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.
The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.
And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Bob Herbert is on vacation.
Jeff Gannon
Bloglines | My Feeds
Thursday, March 03, 2005
What Jeff Gannon Means to You, and What Gannongate Means to the Future of America
An ADVOCATE EDITORIAL
If a man is imbued with even a modicum of inquisitiveness, there will come a point in his workaday march of weeks and years in which he demands answers to all the minute yet terrifically important questions: How does a faucet work? Why does an engine start when it turns over? What is an annuity? When is it financially beneficial to me and my family to cancel the collision insurance on the car?
Nor is this inclination to question, and this expectation of answer, merely a phenomenon of the aged or middle-aged. Children, too, as writers across the generations have famously written, wonder about for answers to their most pressing questions at least as much if not more than their elders: Why the tides? Why the sunrise in the east? Why frogs? Why fireflies?
Liberalism calls out to our inquisitive nature, both the agile brand of curiosity we develop in childhood, and the heavy-set elephant of doubt we seem to garage in our later years: the will to know, the drive to discover, the imperative to get it right. It is no less central a tenet of our humanity than is our tendency to be fallible, to be incredulous, to be base, to be something less than sincere about who we are and what we want from those we love.
Conservatism, at one time, may have done much the same for our baser, yet no less deeply-held and deeply-felt instincts: the urge against unbridled advance; the sweetness of sentiment; the nostalgia for never-was or never-again.
There is, indeed, something to be said for the human race not getting ahead of itself, for ensuring our grasp keeps pace with our reach--every bit as much as there is something to be said for advancing the causes of justice and knowledge with no more trepidation or delay than the human spirit must, by its own intemperate nature, from time to time allow.
Modern conservatism--which would largely, to the ear of true conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt, sound a lot like that shrieking bastard-child, "neo-conservatism"--has in the last forty years come to root itself in two opposing yet oddly harmonious principles: the death of reason and the death of religion. Only where science fails, and the dynamic, almost cellular movement of God in the hearts of men flags, can the Golden Age of Men encroach.
Strip malls.
Social security privatization. Fast food. Denuding the wilderness.
Industrialization without accountability.
Dog eat dog eat dog eat its own tail.
Time was when we knew the earth's atmosphere was damaged. We knew global temperatures were rising at an alarming pace, several degrees warmer on average, this year, than seventy years ago. We knew not because someone simply told us it was so, but because someone had proven it was so, and the personal courage that demonstrative process revealed to us--someone believing in something so much that getting it right through proofs and science could actually matter--emboldened and deepened our sense of knowledge.
That is, we knew what we knew not merely because we knew it, but because we knew it demonstrably and palpably true.
True not simply because we had some small faith in the idea of it being true, or just a child's elusive desire for that, but because we had the fortitude and wherewithal to bring an idea to bear--to light, to truth, to understanding--through both the laws of physics and the laws of men.
The scientific method. Peer review. Publication. Dissemination.
Lecture halls. Question and answer sessions. Conventions.
Conferences. Credentialing of scientists and analysts.
The Academy. Graduate students. Dissertations.
Dilemma, query, thesis, diagnosis, resolution, prognosis, logic, rationality, conclusion.
The Bush Administration, in practiced and professional form, took this bright splay of human ingenuity, this interplay between the scientific community and the lay community--man's supposition, made in faith, coupled with man's integrity, in seeking proof--and snuffed it out right quick.
Suddenly we were told that science was at odds with itself, it did not know what it had purported to know, it could no longer tell what it had purportedly already told in lectures, in studies, in publications, in presentations, in charts, in data, in volumes and volumes of accumulated wisdom.
The horse was put back in the barn.
The waters reversed course and flowed back under the bridge.
The ship retreated to its dock.
Team Bush had found a scientist or two, the renegades and rogues and used car salesmen of their profession, to say those things neo-conservative Team Bush wanted or needed so desperately to hear: we (said the renegades and rogues) the gathered purveyors of formerly indisputable, as-you-say scientific fact, don't really don't know anything at all.
Science presents no threat to your beliefs (or policies) such that you must amend them or vacate them entirely.
And what a racecourse of anti-intellectualism that set this country upon.
Like dominoes on a prepared track, the things we thought we knew were suddenly once more just unevolved masses in the Great Unknown: abstinence education might still work; a strategic missile-defense system might still work; Social Darwinists might yet be deserving of our thanks (were any of them still alive to receive it) in postulating that the poor are poor because the poor are lazy; global warming might be no more than the myth we secretly had hoped it to be; the roulette-wheel of the stock market might yet be the most sound frame upon which to weave our nation's civic safety net; the saturation of legally-sold guns into suburbia might yet make these bedroom communities safer, rather than more treacherous through random acts of passion, confusion, accident, unchecked impulse; holy wars between the great religions might yet be more holy than all other wars combined, less fraught with evil deeds and evil consequences; juveniles might yet defy a generation of psychiatrists and prove themselves as morally developed as men and women thirty years their senior; corporations might yet be such superlative stewards of the public trust that they, and not the humans who populate them, will ever remain most deserving of generous tax treatment; journalism might be merely an art, not a profession, and nothing one could quantify, anyway, with standards, or credentials, or bona fides, or curricula vitae, or degrees, or experience, or concentric circles of objectivity mapped upon a foundational, bedrock belief in integrity.
All in all, life in America became Something It Had Not Been.
A Death to Excellence.
A Death to Experience.
But more than that, too:
The Death of Knowledge.
The Death of Wisdom.
The Death of Fact.
The Death of Proof.
The Death of Distinctions.
The Death of Science.
The Death of Reason.
On the radio and on cable news, non-lawyers instructed lawyers in the law; non-scientists questioned the credentials and conclusions of scientists; disc jockeys declaimed on elementary school education; privately-schooled, well-heeled politicians expressed their accumulated wisdom on the subjects of drug addiction, homelessness, alcoholism, urban education, child abuse, clinical depression, carpal-tunnel syndrome, sleep apnea, insomnia, and gang violence.
The Great Wheel turned, and Today was (and is) manifestly Not Yesterday.
What matters, Today, is not so much being right--is not, in fact, getting it right--but getting it into the public consciousness with the most volume, the earliest, the most-often, with the most vitriol, a biting wit, an acerbic tongue, a knowing glance, a honeyed voice, a terrorizing bit of "oppo," a smear, a grimace, a smirk, an act.
The prize for Drama and the prize for Accuracy are one and the same.
Say it well and you may as well have said it right.
Or, failing that, you could simply say it so often--have such a constant and unflappable stock of faith in your own rectitude--it could wear the advance of grim reality to a nub.
Oh, faith!
Faith: nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to fear, nothing to merely abide or tolerate, nothing to chastise or belittle. Faith, that is, which is coupled with a catholic (small "c") commitment to the eternal steadfastness of principle.
Did we hear, during the last presidential election, that one candidate, a Catholic, should not receive the communion because he favored the right of a woman to choose (or not choose) to have an abortion? Because he allowed that civil unions for homosexuals might not be so destructive, after all, to any reasonable measure of the nation's overall health?
Yet did we hear, simultaneously, an across-the-board damning of those who deny, or ignore, or flaunt, or chide, or denigrate the Pope's proscription on governments putting humans to death?
Were all those who called for the excommunication of U.S. Senator John F. Kerry categorical opponents (in both word and deed) of pre-martial sex, extra-martial sex, birth control, condoms, twice-a-year confessions, infrequent church attendance, sparse charitable giving, castigating of the poor and the suffering, and the use of the Lord's name in vain?
What kind of religion, a self-delineated, connect-the-dots religion? What real demand, on the rest of us, that we respect or cherish that religion in public or in private, when it has not the decency or the strength of will to respect and cherish its own immutable prescriptions?
If a man should claim he is right with God, but is at the same time more right with the Corporation than his Brother, what Man of God is he?
If a man should claim he believes in salvation, but seeks it neither through good works for others nor even good thoughts about the frailty of himself and of others, what sort of half-pipe into Heaven has he made for himself?
How does Team Bush, led by George W. Bush, the reification of fifteen years of a right honorable "Christian" politics, justify more time and money spent on keeping the Ten Commandments in our courthouses than keeping handguns out of the hands of our children? More time and money spent policing a television documentary on Ronald Reagan than policing corporate crime? More time and money spent bringing faith into drug treatment than bringing clinically-confirmed drug addicts to treatment rather than prison in the first instance? More time and money spent on keeping one adult male penis from one adult male anus, when the two are willingly and lovingly joined, than keeping children safe from cigarettes, or women safe from harassment at work, or minorities safe from discrimination in hiring, or workers safe from preventable workplace injury and death, or homeowners safe from asbestos, or American Muslims safe from violations of their civil liberties, or civilians under the thumb of tyrannies safe from being no more than the collateral damage of our militaristic attentions, or the generations of mankind which have not yet been born safe from the poisoned water, decimated atmosphere, chronic flooding, and Hell-formed weather patterns of a nearly-here hyper-industrial future?
The Death of Religion is the Death of Metaphor.
It is the beginning of an Era in which the Bible is read like a menu, not a morality play.
Where the psalms wash over the faithful like the instruction manual for a washer and dryer, not as a universal tale in which the privileging of one value over another--charity over greed, peace over hatred, empathy over seclusion--is more than merely academic, more than something the Israelites sanctimoniously rammed up the asses of the Moabites all those thousands and thousands of years ago.
Neo-conservatism does not intend, nor hope for, nor work toward God moving in the hearts of men.
It intends, rather, to appropriate, for its own ends, the profound electricity of millions of hearts moving toward God.
It favors not those who are religious, but those who are seeking a Religion. And why not neo-conservatism for an idol? Why not Republicanism? Why not the Grand Old Party? Why not the elephant over the donkey? Why not dance around the golden pachyderm and spurn the threadbare burro?
Isn't it enough to simply believe?
Isn't that what we all want, to believe in something so hopelessly our hopelessness almost smells and walks and moves within us like hope?
But what is that, anyway?
The Death of Hope.
The Death of Spirit Coupled With Reason.
The Death of the Spirit Which Seeks to Know More Than That Which It Fears.
The Death of Wisdom.
Does it matter what a single man, call him a reporter, call him an activist, call him a whore, call him a plant, call him a scoundrel, does in the privacy of his apartment or hotel or motel or crawlspace or outhouse or townhouse or cubby-hole or watering hole?
No.
What matters is that a man who was not who he said he was, who did not believe in the standards he claimed to meet, who did not earn what he had, who did not aspire to anything more than what he felt as-he-was, who did not deserve the trust of his government or the public or the institutions he fraudulently laid claim to respect, who did not face any reckoning with the truth so much as an insistent handshake with the darkness--who, that is, worked not to enlighten, but to deceive the world and the cities and the spaces and the rooms he moved in--was somehow someone we could not distinguish from his betters.
Perhaps, said the White House, this man was every bit as deserving as anyone else to come here. Or perhaps he wasn't. Look, there--Helen Thomas. And there--Les Kinsolving. What we do we mean by that? Oh, nothing. Or something.
Perhaps, said the White House Press Office, we did everything we could to screen Gannon before we let him in. Or perhaps we didn't. Or perhaps we won't say.
Perhaps, said the White House press corps, we ought not say whether he was a journalist or not. Or perhaps we just can't tell anymore. Or perhaps we can but won't. Or perhaps we won't, for no reason other than that we haven't. Or perhaps someday we will. Or perhaps we never will.
Perhaps, said the Old Media, this is a story. We don't know, we'll have to wait to find out. What are we waiting for? To find out. We'll find out, we think, if we wait. This just might be a story. This might be nothing.
Perhaps, said the New Media, this is a story about a prostitute. Or hypocrisy. Or Karl Rove. Or oil interests in Iran. Or Karl Rove. Or something big, we mean big. What precisely? We don't know. We haven't had time to catch our breath. We haven't had time to decide. But it must be big.
Perhaps, said America, moral relativism means something. Perhaps we hate it. Perhaps we don't. Perhaps we hate it here but despise it abroad. Or vice versa. Perhaps this is a slippery slope. Perhaps we'll ride it out and see what happens. Perhaps it's nothing. Maybe it's a sign of the times. Or maybe it's a sign of the future. It's not my meat and potatoes. It's not in my best interest. It could hurt my Party. It could hurt my country. It hurts. I know what I believe. I believe what I believe.
And I believe this is a sign.
This is a sign.
This is something big.
I'm not going to wait anymore.
I need to know.
This is something big.
posted by News Editor at 3/3/2005 08:13:00 AM
Thursday, March 03, 2005
What Jeff Gannon Means to You, and What Gannongate Means to the Future of America
An ADVOCATE EDITORIAL
If a man is imbued with even a modicum of inquisitiveness, there will come a point in his workaday march of weeks and years in which he demands answers to all the minute yet terrifically important questions: How does a faucet work? Why does an engine start when it turns over? What is an annuity? When is it financially beneficial to me and my family to cancel the collision insurance on the car?
Nor is this inclination to question, and this expectation of answer, merely a phenomenon of the aged or middle-aged. Children, too, as writers across the generations have famously written, wonder about for answers to their most pressing questions at least as much if not more than their elders: Why the tides? Why the sunrise in the east? Why frogs? Why fireflies?
Liberalism calls out to our inquisitive nature, both the agile brand of curiosity we develop in childhood, and the heavy-set elephant of doubt we seem to garage in our later years: the will to know, the drive to discover, the imperative to get it right. It is no less central a tenet of our humanity than is our tendency to be fallible, to be incredulous, to be base, to be something less than sincere about who we are and what we want from those we love.
Conservatism, at one time, may have done much the same for our baser, yet no less deeply-held and deeply-felt instincts: the urge against unbridled advance; the sweetness of sentiment; the nostalgia for never-was or never-again.
There is, indeed, something to be said for the human race not getting ahead of itself, for ensuring our grasp keeps pace with our reach--every bit as much as there is something to be said for advancing the causes of justice and knowledge with no more trepidation or delay than the human spirit must, by its own intemperate nature, from time to time allow.
Modern conservatism--which would largely, to the ear of true conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt, sound a lot like that shrieking bastard-child, "neo-conservatism"--has in the last forty years come to root itself in two opposing yet oddly harmonious principles: the death of reason and the death of religion. Only where science fails, and the dynamic, almost cellular movement of God in the hearts of men flags, can the Golden Age of Men encroach.
Strip malls.
Social security privatization. Fast food. Denuding the wilderness.
Industrialization without accountability.
Dog eat dog eat dog eat its own tail.
Time was when we knew the earth's atmosphere was damaged. We knew global temperatures were rising at an alarming pace, several degrees warmer on average, this year, than seventy years ago. We knew not because someone simply told us it was so, but because someone had proven it was so, and the personal courage that demonstrative process revealed to us--someone believing in something so much that getting it right through proofs and science could actually matter--emboldened and deepened our sense of knowledge.
That is, we knew what we knew not merely because we knew it, but because we knew it demonstrably and palpably true.
True not simply because we had some small faith in the idea of it being true, or just a child's elusive desire for that, but because we had the fortitude and wherewithal to bring an idea to bear--to light, to truth, to understanding--through both the laws of physics and the laws of men.
The scientific method. Peer review. Publication. Dissemination.
Lecture halls. Question and answer sessions. Conventions.
Conferences. Credentialing of scientists and analysts.
The Academy. Graduate students. Dissertations.
Dilemma, query, thesis, diagnosis, resolution, prognosis, logic, rationality, conclusion.
The Bush Administration, in practiced and professional form, took this bright splay of human ingenuity, this interplay between the scientific community and the lay community--man's supposition, made in faith, coupled with man's integrity, in seeking proof--and snuffed it out right quick.
Suddenly we were told that science was at odds with itself, it did not know what it had purported to know, it could no longer tell what it had purportedly already told in lectures, in studies, in publications, in presentations, in charts, in data, in volumes and volumes of accumulated wisdom.
The horse was put back in the barn.
The waters reversed course and flowed back under the bridge.
The ship retreated to its dock.
Team Bush had found a scientist or two, the renegades and rogues and used car salesmen of their profession, to say those things neo-conservative Team Bush wanted or needed so desperately to hear: we (said the renegades and rogues) the gathered purveyors of formerly indisputable, as-you-say scientific fact, don't really don't know anything at all.
Science presents no threat to your beliefs (or policies) such that you must amend them or vacate them entirely.
And what a racecourse of anti-intellectualism that set this country upon.
Like dominoes on a prepared track, the things we thought we knew were suddenly once more just unevolved masses in the Great Unknown: abstinence education might still work; a strategic missile-defense system might still work; Social Darwinists might yet be deserving of our thanks (were any of them still alive to receive it) in postulating that the poor are poor because the poor are lazy; global warming might be no more than the myth we secretly had hoped it to be; the roulette-wheel of the stock market might yet be the most sound frame upon which to weave our nation's civic safety net; the saturation of legally-sold guns into suburbia might yet make these bedroom communities safer, rather than more treacherous through random acts of passion, confusion, accident, unchecked impulse; holy wars between the great religions might yet be more holy than all other wars combined, less fraught with evil deeds and evil consequences; juveniles might yet defy a generation of psychiatrists and prove themselves as morally developed as men and women thirty years their senior; corporations might yet be such superlative stewards of the public trust that they, and not the humans who populate them, will ever remain most deserving of generous tax treatment; journalism might be merely an art, not a profession, and nothing one could quantify, anyway, with standards, or credentials, or bona fides, or curricula vitae, or degrees, or experience, or concentric circles of objectivity mapped upon a foundational, bedrock belief in integrity.
All in all, life in America became Something It Had Not Been.
A Death to Excellence.
A Death to Experience.
But more than that, too:
The Death of Knowledge.
The Death of Wisdom.
The Death of Fact.
The Death of Proof.
The Death of Distinctions.
The Death of Science.
The Death of Reason.
On the radio and on cable news, non-lawyers instructed lawyers in the law; non-scientists questioned the credentials and conclusions of scientists; disc jockeys declaimed on elementary school education; privately-schooled, well-heeled politicians expressed their accumulated wisdom on the subjects of drug addiction, homelessness, alcoholism, urban education, child abuse, clinical depression, carpal-tunnel syndrome, sleep apnea, insomnia, and gang violence.
The Great Wheel turned, and Today was (and is) manifestly Not Yesterday.
What matters, Today, is not so much being right--is not, in fact, getting it right--but getting it into the public consciousness with the most volume, the earliest, the most-often, with the most vitriol, a biting wit, an acerbic tongue, a knowing glance, a honeyed voice, a terrorizing bit of "oppo," a smear, a grimace, a smirk, an act.
The prize for Drama and the prize for Accuracy are one and the same.
Say it well and you may as well have said it right.
Or, failing that, you could simply say it so often--have such a constant and unflappable stock of faith in your own rectitude--it could wear the advance of grim reality to a nub.
Oh, faith!
Faith: nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to fear, nothing to merely abide or tolerate, nothing to chastise or belittle. Faith, that is, which is coupled with a catholic (small "c") commitment to the eternal steadfastness of principle.
Did we hear, during the last presidential election, that one candidate, a Catholic, should not receive the communion because he favored the right of a woman to choose (or not choose) to have an abortion? Because he allowed that civil unions for homosexuals might not be so destructive, after all, to any reasonable measure of the nation's overall health?
Yet did we hear, simultaneously, an across-the-board damning of those who deny, or ignore, or flaunt, or chide, or denigrate the Pope's proscription on governments putting humans to death?
Were all those who called for the excommunication of U.S. Senator John F. Kerry categorical opponents (in both word and deed) of pre-martial sex, extra-martial sex, birth control, condoms, twice-a-year confessions, infrequent church attendance, sparse charitable giving, castigating of the poor and the suffering, and the use of the Lord's name in vain?
What kind of religion, a self-delineated, connect-the-dots religion? What real demand, on the rest of us, that we respect or cherish that religion in public or in private, when it has not the decency or the strength of will to respect and cherish its own immutable prescriptions?
If a man should claim he is right with God, but is at the same time more right with the Corporation than his Brother, what Man of God is he?
If a man should claim he believes in salvation, but seeks it neither through good works for others nor even good thoughts about the frailty of himself and of others, what sort of half-pipe into Heaven has he made for himself?
How does Team Bush, led by George W. Bush, the reification of fifteen years of a right honorable "Christian" politics, justify more time and money spent on keeping the Ten Commandments in our courthouses than keeping handguns out of the hands of our children? More time and money spent policing a television documentary on Ronald Reagan than policing corporate crime? More time and money spent bringing faith into drug treatment than bringing clinically-confirmed drug addicts to treatment rather than prison in the first instance? More time and money spent on keeping one adult male penis from one adult male anus, when the two are willingly and lovingly joined, than keeping children safe from cigarettes, or women safe from harassment at work, or minorities safe from discrimination in hiring, or workers safe from preventable workplace injury and death, or homeowners safe from asbestos, or American Muslims safe from violations of their civil liberties, or civilians under the thumb of tyrannies safe from being no more than the collateral damage of our militaristic attentions, or the generations of mankind which have not yet been born safe from the poisoned water, decimated atmosphere, chronic flooding, and Hell-formed weather patterns of a nearly-here hyper-industrial future?
The Death of Religion is the Death of Metaphor.
It is the beginning of an Era in which the Bible is read like a menu, not a morality play.
Where the psalms wash over the faithful like the instruction manual for a washer and dryer, not as a universal tale in which the privileging of one value over another--charity over greed, peace over hatred, empathy over seclusion--is more than merely academic, more than something the Israelites sanctimoniously rammed up the asses of the Moabites all those thousands and thousands of years ago.
Neo-conservatism does not intend, nor hope for, nor work toward God moving in the hearts of men.
It intends, rather, to appropriate, for its own ends, the profound electricity of millions of hearts moving toward God.
It favors not those who are religious, but those who are seeking a Religion. And why not neo-conservatism for an idol? Why not Republicanism? Why not the Grand Old Party? Why not the elephant over the donkey? Why not dance around the golden pachyderm and spurn the threadbare burro?
Isn't it enough to simply believe?
Isn't that what we all want, to believe in something so hopelessly our hopelessness almost smells and walks and moves within us like hope?
But what is that, anyway?
The Death of Hope.
The Death of Spirit Coupled With Reason.
The Death of the Spirit Which Seeks to Know More Than That Which It Fears.
The Death of Wisdom.
Does it matter what a single man, call him a reporter, call him an activist, call him a whore, call him a plant, call him a scoundrel, does in the privacy of his apartment or hotel or motel or crawlspace or outhouse or townhouse or cubby-hole or watering hole?
No.
What matters is that a man who was not who he said he was, who did not believe in the standards he claimed to meet, who did not earn what he had, who did not aspire to anything more than what he felt as-he-was, who did not deserve the trust of his government or the public or the institutions he fraudulently laid claim to respect, who did not face any reckoning with the truth so much as an insistent handshake with the darkness--who, that is, worked not to enlighten, but to deceive the world and the cities and the spaces and the rooms he moved in--was somehow someone we could not distinguish from his betters.
Perhaps, said the White House, this man was every bit as deserving as anyone else to come here. Or perhaps he wasn't. Look, there--Helen Thomas. And there--Les Kinsolving. What we do we mean by that? Oh, nothing. Or something.
Perhaps, said the White House Press Office, we did everything we could to screen Gannon before we let him in. Or perhaps we didn't. Or perhaps we won't say.
Perhaps, said the White House press corps, we ought not say whether he was a journalist or not. Or perhaps we just can't tell anymore. Or perhaps we can but won't. Or perhaps we won't, for no reason other than that we haven't. Or perhaps someday we will. Or perhaps we never will.
Perhaps, said the Old Media, this is a story. We don't know, we'll have to wait to find out. What are we waiting for? To find out. We'll find out, we think, if we wait. This just might be a story. This might be nothing.
Perhaps, said the New Media, this is a story about a prostitute. Or hypocrisy. Or Karl Rove. Or oil interests in Iran. Or Karl Rove. Or something big, we mean big. What precisely? We don't know. We haven't had time to catch our breath. We haven't had time to decide. But it must be big.
Perhaps, said America, moral relativism means something. Perhaps we hate it. Perhaps we don't. Perhaps we hate it here but despise it abroad. Or vice versa. Perhaps this is a slippery slope. Perhaps we'll ride it out and see what happens. Perhaps it's nothing. Maybe it's a sign of the times. Or maybe it's a sign of the future. It's not my meat and potatoes. It's not in my best interest. It could hurt my Party. It could hurt my country. It hurts. I know what I believe. I believe what I believe.
And I believe this is a sign.
This is a sign.
This is something big.
I'm not going to wait anymore.
I need to know.
This is something big.
posted by News Editor at 3/3/2005 08:13:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
