ARE CONDITIONS IN THE USA RIPE FOR A FASCIST TAKEOVER?

Populism Arising—but Will It Be the Killer Kind?, by Chris Hedges, truthdig.com (October 27, 2008)

"The old assumptions and paradigms about capitalism and free markets are dead. A new, virulent populism, still inchoate, is slowly and painfully rising to take their place. This populism will determine the future of the country. It is as likely to be right-wing as left-wing.

I watched these competing populisms flicker Thursday night at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., when I moderated a debate between independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader [1]and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin [2]. The two candidates come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Nader, in essence, is a democratic socialist in the mold of Eugene Debs [3]or Norman Thomas [4]. Baldwin, a founder and minister at the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., is an evangelical, right-wing populist. 

Baldwin, like Nader, rails against corporatism and our involvement in foreign wars, wants to repeal NAFTA and denounces the curtailment of civil liberties. But Baldwin goes on to support the abolishment of whole departments of the federal government, such as the Department of Education. He calls for U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO, the elimination of the Food and Drug Administration, the outlawing of abortion and removing all restrictions on the purchasing of firearms. One of his catchier campaign slogans is: “To help keep your family safe and your country free, go buy a gun.” He wants to seal our borders, deny amnesty and social services to illegal immigrants and end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. He calls for dismantling the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver.

These candidates, while marginal figures in the current election, express the two forms of populism that will soon find a wide political currency. The anger toward our elites will morph into rage. These new populisms may not be articulated by Nader and Baldwin, but they will be articulated by people like Nader and Baldwin. 

The ideological foundations of free-market economics and a consumer society have collapsed. This collapse is hard for us to fathom. We are still in shock and denial. We cling to old structures of meaning and outdated words to describe them. We have yet to realize that all our political science and economic textbooks have become junk. We have yet to formulate a vocabulary to describe our altered reality. We grasp, on a subliminal level, that laissez-faire capitalism is gone, but we have not viewed the corpse, scheduled the funeral and read the last rites. 

“People get very clearly that Washington found hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out rich people in a way the government does not usually intervene,” said Anthony Pollina [5], The Progressive Party candidate for governor in Vermont. “They understand that the government came up with all this money to support the wrong group of people. People get that in their gut. There is anger. It is not rage yet. There is still a little bit of disbelief. I may be running for governor, but all people want to talk about is how did we come up with all this money to give to rich people on Wall Street and why didn’t they let them pay their mortgage off.”

Millions of people will lose their homes. Jobs and savings will vanish. The government will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. The greed of huge corporations, especially as they continue to cannibalize the country, will see them, and our elites, become the enemy. Exxon, to give one example, made $40.61 billion in profits last year while we struggled to fill the tanks of our automobiles and trucks. Oil and gas corporations, despite these profits, ruthlessly refuse to fill furnaces in winter when people cannot pay the bills. AIG, the insurance giant, after being saved with an infusion of $85 billion in taxpayer money, squandered $440,000 on an executive visit to a California spa. It spent $86,000 for its executives to hunt partridges in the English countryside and then blithely asked the U.S. government for an additional $38 billion. 

Elites, when they confuse the artificial court life of Versailles with the real world, die. These capitalist entities, grossly out of touch, incompetent, blinded by greed and power and morally and intellectually bankrupt, are committing collective suicide. 

“People are beginning to understand that when the economy is weak you have to put people to work,” Pollina, who is now outpolling the Democratic candidate, said. “We have a crumbling infrastructure in the state and a need for affordable housing. I have put forward three or four different ways to raise revenue to put people to work, including closing a loophole in our capital gains tax. I think people are attracted to me because they are realizing that this is now the most important thing we can do. We have to put people to work. We cannot continue to abandon them.”

The flagrant corruption of our political system—hostage to the hundreds of millions of dollars handed out by the corporations and elites to Democratic and Republican candidates—will become clearer as our initial shock wears off. The new American will be about the basics—jobs, food, health care and a place to live. We will discard the old vocabulary, the one still used by the Democratic and Republic parties, and learn to speak in the fiery language of populism. We will turn with a vengeance on the 1 percent that has amassed more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. The populist conflict will see a battle between a frightened and dispossessed majority and the corporations and elites who seek to ruthlessly cling to power and wealth. 

“Over the years people became disengaged,” Pollina said. “They stopped paying attention. This crisis has forced them to pay attention. It directly affects their economic future and ability to put food on the table. Outrage will lead to more involvement. This outrage could, however, fuel a right-wing populism around the country, although not in Vermont. Here I think people will move more to the left. In Vermont they have somewhere else to turn—I am here, Bernie Sanders [6] is here, the Progressive Party is here—but on the national level this could see people turn to the right wing.”

A victory by Barack Obama may embolden right-wing populists. They will be able to use Obama and “liberal Democrats” as a lightning rod for the failings, growing poverty and incompetence of the state. The elite, as happens in all such moments of confusion, revolt and social chaos, will probably be forced to make an uncomfortable alliance with right-wing populists if they want to survive. The center of the political spectrum will melt. 

...."

Spending Stalls and Businesses Slash US Jobs, by Louis Uchitelle, NY Times (October 25, 2008)

"As the financial crisis crimps demand for American goods and services, the workers who produce them are losing their jobs by the tens of thousands.

    Layoffs have arrived in force, like a wrenching second act in the unfolding crisis. In just the last two weeks, the list of companies announcing their intention to cut workers has read like a Who's Who of corporate America: Merck, Yahoo, General Electric, Xerox, Pratt & Whitney, Goldman Sachs, Whirlpool, Bank of America, Alcoa, Coca-Cola, the Detroit automakers and nearly all the airlines.

    When October's job losses are announced on Nov. 7, three days after the presidential election, many economists expect the number to exceed 200,000. The current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is likely to rise, perhaps significantly.

    "My view is that it will be near 8 or 8.5 percent by the end of next year," said Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at Global Insight, offering a forecast others share. That would be the highest unemployment rate since the deep recession of the early 1980s.

    Companies are laying off workers to cut production as consumers, struggling with their own finances, scale back spending. Employers had tried for months to cut expenses through hiring freezes and by cutting back hours. That has turned out not to be enough, and with earnings down sharply in the third quarter, corporate America has turned to layoffs.

    "People have grown very nervous," said Harry Holzer, a labor economist at Georgetown University and the Urban Institute, tracing cause and effect. "They have seen a lot of their wealth wiped out and as they cut back their spending, companies are responding with layoffs, which hurts consumption even more."

    The unemployment is widespread, with Rhode Island the hardest hit.

...."

Credit Cards: The Plastic Trap, by Dominique Nora, Le Nouvel Observateur (October 23, 2008)

   " "It was too easy."

    After houses, consumer credit? While bankers plug up the breaches created by the mortgage earthquake as best they can, another bubble threatens them: Americans have been living their dreams on credit. And, having overheated up their cards, millions of households will have problems making their payments ...

    Maria, a housekeeper in a San Francisco clinic, came to the Polk Street Money Mart to borrow $150 (110 Euros) on her October month-end salary. Yet the usurious rate practiced by this boutique is posted in big letters on the wall: $35.50 for $200! But Maria has no choice: "I don't have anything to buy diapers with for the baby; the fridge is empty ..." This young woman who is raising her son alone has already gone through the ceiling of two credit cards: "I've got close to a 6,400 Euro balance, while I earn barely 1,400 Euros a month." In the beginning, Maria used her Bank of America card for exceptional expenses only, such as the pediatrician's bill. Then she got into the habit of paying the grocery with it ... "It was too easy." Today, she is suffocating. Because in the United States, credit cards are commonly used to borrow. And everything pushes you to repay no more than a minimum amount every month.

    Thus do millions of Americans find themselves caught in the "plastic trap." And experts are predicting a new deflagration. "In fact, there's a double financial bubble. The real estate credit bubble has exploded ... The next will be about consumer credit," warns Robert Manning, finance professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and author of the best-seller, "Credit Card Nation." The two problems are linked: "Because of the tax advantage, Americans repaid 250 billion Euros of credit card balances with money drawn from real estate between 2001 and 2006," he explains. "During that period, in defiance of the laws of economic gravity, people's real income declined ... but the price of real estate doubled, which completely distorted their perception of their debt capacity." The global balance on American credit cards is up to 700 billion Euros. Now that their houses can no longer be used as "cash machines," and economic activity is slowing down and unemployment rising, what proportion of this debt will turn out to be toxic? In the second quarter of 2008, the national default rate jumped to 7.3 percent. But it seems that that's only the beginning: according to the firm Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, credit card issuers will have to write off 29 billion Euros of losses this year and 69 billion more in 2009.

    The big commercial banks are very exposed: the trio, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup together have 330 billion in outstandings. On October 6, Bank of America announced a 2.1 billion Euro loss on its credit card division. Meanwhile, Citibank treasurer Gary Crittenden explained that if the economy continued to slow down, "credit card losses could exceed their historic records." But specialized issuers, such as Capital One and Discover, are even more dependent on this activity (62 percent and 97.8 percent, respectively). And here once again, we're talking about a cluster bomb. The big issuers have securitized significant portions of their credit card balances and sold them to third parties: speculative funds and pension funds. Investors are holding 260 billion Euros of assets backed by this kind of debt.

...."

Wealth Gap Creating a Social Time Bomb, by John Vidal, Guardian/UK (October 23, 2008)

"  Race behind division in US cities, says UN report. Beijing is most egalitarian place in the world.

    Growing inequality in US cities could lead to widespread social unrest and increased mortality, says a new United Nations report on the urban environment.

    In a survey of 120 major cities, New York was found to be the ninth most unequal in the world and Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington, and Miami had similar inequality levels to those of Nairobi, Kenya Abidjan and Ivory Coast. Many were above an internationally recognised acceptable "alert" line used to warn governments.

    "High levels of inequality can lead to negative social, economic and political consequences that have a destabilising effect on societies," said the report. "[They] create social and political fractures that can develop into social unrest and insecurity."

    According to the annual State of the World's cities report from UN-Habitat, race is one of the most important factors determining levels of inequality in the US and Canada.

    "In western New York state nearly 40% of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white households. The life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is about the same as that of people living in China and some states of India, despite the fact that the US is far richer than the other two countries," it said.

    Disparities of wealth were measured on the "Gini co-efficient", an internationally recognised measure usually only applied to the wealth of countries. The higher the level, the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer people.

    "It is clear that social tension comes from inequality. The trickle down theory [that wealth starts with the rich] has not delivered. Inequality is not good for anybody," said Anna Tibaijuka, head of UN-Habitat, in London yesterday.

...."

Job Losses Accelerate, Signaling Deeper Distress, by Neil Irwin and Michael S. Rosenwald, Washington Post (October 23, 2008)

"  Employers are moving to aggressively cut jobs and reduce costs in the face of the nation's economic crisis, preparing for what many fear will be a long and painful recession.

    The labor market has been weak all year, with a slow drip of workers losing their jobs each month. But the deterioration of the job market is now emerging as a driver of economic distress, according to a wide range of data and anecdotal reports from corporate America.

    In September, there were more mass layoffs - instances in which employers slashed 50 or more jobs at one time - than in any month since September 2001, the Labor Department said yesterday. And nearly half a million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits in each of the past four weeks, the highest rate of such claims since just after the terrorist attacks seven years ago.

    Anecdotal reports suggest that the hemorrhaging in the job market has only begun. Companies that announced plans this week to cut jobs include Internet company Yahoo (1,500 positions), pharmaceutical company Merck (7,200), National City bank (4,000) and Comcast, the cable company (300).

    The weakening employment outlook is part of the reason that investors have become more fearful of a deep, prolonged recession - fears that led to yet another miserable day on Wall Street yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average down 514 points, or 5.7 percent.

...."

America’s Political Cannibalism, by Chris Hedges, truthdig.com (October 13, 2008)

"It is no longer our economy but our democracy that is in peril. It was the economic meltdown of Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the collapse of the Weimar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in czarist Russia that opened the door for Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Financial collapses lead to political extremism. The rage bubbling up from our impoverished and disenfranchised working class, glimpsed at John McCain rallies, presages a looming and dangerous right-wing backlash.

As the public begins to grasp the depth of the betrayal and abuse by our ruling class, as the Democratic and Republican parties are exposed as craven tools of our corporate state, as savings accounts, college funds and retirement plans become worthless, as unemployment skyrockets and as home values go up in smoke we must prepare for the political resurgence of a reinvigorated radical Christian right. The engine of this mass movement-as is true for all radical movements-is personal and economic despair. And despair, in an age of increasing shortages, poverty and hopelessness, will be one of our few surplus commodities. 

Karl Polanyi [1] in his book "The Great Transformation," written in 1944, laid out the devastating consequences-the depressions, wars and totalitarianism-that grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market. He grasped that "fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function." He warned that a financial system always devolved, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism-and a Mafia political system-which is a good description of the American government under George W. Bush. Polanyi wrote that a self-regulating market, the kind bequeathed to us since Ronald Reagan, turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market's belief that nature and human beings are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, ultimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves until they die. Speculative excesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity. 

We face an environmental meltdown as well as an economic meltdown. This would not have surprised Polanyi, who fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University. Russia's northern coastline has begun producing huge qualities of toxic methane [2] gas. Scientists with the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008 describe what they saw along the coastline recently as "methane chimneys" reaching from the sea floor to the ocean's surface. Methane, locked in the permafrost of Arctic landmasses, is being released at an alarming rate as average Arctic temperatures rise. Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The release of millions of tons of it will dramatically accelerate the rate of global warming. 

Those who run our corporate state have fought environmental regulation as tenaciously as they have fought financial regulation. They are responsible, as Polanyi predicted, for our personal impoverishment and the impoverishment of our ecosystem. We remain addicted, courtesy of the oil, gas and automobile industries and a corporate- controlled government, to fossil fuels. Species are vanishing. Fish stocks are depleted. The great human migration from coastlines and deserts has begun. And as temperatures continue to rise, huge parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. The continued release of large quantities of methane, some scientists have warned, could actually asphyxiate the human species. 

The corporate con artists and criminals who have hijacked our state and rigged our financial system still speak to us in the obscure and incomprehensible language coined by specialists at elite business schools. They use terms like securitization, deleveraging, structured investment vehicles and credit default swaps. The reality, once you throw out their obnoxious jargon, is not hard to grasp. Banks lent too much money to people and financial institutions that could not pay it back.  These banks are now going broke. The government is frantically giving taxpayer dollars to banks so they can be solvent and again lend money. It is not working. Bank lending remains frozen. There are ominous signs that the government may not be able to hand over enough of our money because the losses incurred by these speculators are too massive. If credit markets remain in a deep freeze, corporations such as AT&T, Ford and General Motors might go bankrupt. The downward spiral could spread like a tidal wave across the country, especially since our corporate elite, including Barack Obama, seem to have no real intention of bailing out families who can no longer pay their mortgages or credit card debts. 

Lenin said that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch its currency. If our financial disaster continues there will be a widespread loss of faith in the mechanisms that regulate society. If our money becomes worthless, so does our government. All traditional standards and beliefs are shattered in a severe economic crisis. The moral order is turned upside down. The honest and industrious are wiped out while the gangsters, profiteers and speculators amass millions. Look at Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld [3]. He walks away from his bankrupt investment house after pocketing $485 million. His investors are wiped out. An economic collapse does not only mean the degradation of trade and commerce, food shortages, bankruptcies and unemployment; it means the systematic dynamiting of the foundations of a society. I watched this happen in Yugoslavia. I fear I am watching it happen here in the United States.

The Patriot Act, the FISA Reform Act, the suspension of habeas corpus, the open use of torture in our offshore penal colonies, the stationing [4] of a combat brigade on American soil, the seas of surveillance cameras, the brutal assaults against activists in Denver and St. Paul are converging to determine our future. Those dark forces arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them in the name of national security and moral renewal to shred the Constitution. They have the tools. They will use fear, chaos, the hatred for the ruling elites and the specter of left-wing dissent and terrorism to impose draconian controls to extinguish our democracy. And while they do it they will be waving the American flag, singing patriotic slogans and clutching the Christian cross. Fuld, I expect, will be one of many corporatists happy to contribute to the cause.

This is a defining moment in American history. The next few weeks and months will see us stabilize and weather this crisis or descend into a terrifying dystopia. I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good. "

[dandelion will be voting, enthusiastically, for Obama]

Sarah Palin and the Confederacy of Dunces, by Tara Mahtafar, commondreams.org (October 9, 2008)

"For weeks now the liberal media has been waxing incredulous at John McCain's stunt of a running mate. Righteously they decry her unpreparedness for potentially holding the most powerful office on earth; aghast, they witness the irony that such a specter should act as a tonic on the Republican ticket.

More astonishing, though, is this incredulity itself.

The good senator's choice forthrightly assumes what the world already knew about the majority of American hearts and minds -- that they are apolitical, uninformed, and all too easily image-driven. A Sarah Palin would never go over in France, Israel, China -- or even Pakistan. She wouldn't be nominated to begin with. Just a few decades ago, she arguably wouldn't have stood a chance here at home either.

The US presidential race today resembles not so much the nation exercising its constitutional right to elect competent leadership as an arena for Odysseus-like campaign strategists battling to conquer, as an astute comedian recently put it, "The United Stupid of America." According to The Economist.com's Global Electoral College, which polls the hypothetical US president if world citizenry were to vote, "Barack Obama would stroll into the White House." Nearly everywhere on the planet -excepting Georgia, the sole pro-McCain country -- the Democratic contender is favored by a landslide. Yet those privileged to actually put their name to the American ballot may very well allow Ms. Palin to wink her way to the doorstep of that White House.

Let's take a moment to imagine the Palin Presidency scenario: would shortcomings in foreign policy experience truly undermine her capability as Commander-in-Chief? She will be surrounded by an army of advisors and can appoint a foreign-relations-savvy deputy at her side. Foreign policy wasn't the incumbent president's strongest suite, and he managed to install two whole new governments in the turbulent Middle East. And to give credit where it's due, Sarah Palin has shown extraordinary poise in face of the weighty rôle thrust upon her thus far. Who's to say President Palin can't just as unblinkingly stare down Putin if he "rears" too close? Zardari already loves her -- other pivotal allies will rally around. If anyone is worried about her gift for speech, again, by the benchmark of the last eight years, she will positively breeze through international summits and public addresses.

But the heart of the matter lies not in whether the Alaskan governor is or is not qualified to run for vice president: it's about the direction we're headed for independent of her. If anything, the Palin phenomenon has emerged at the precise historical moment -- amidst two wars and a grim recession -- as a slap in the face to blink America awake. That a people, contrary to their first-world counterparts, would accede the platform to leadership so thoughtlessly does not reflect on the nature of the object, but rather on their subjectivity in this process. This is beyond the partisan coin-flip of "America Decides 2008," more than the individual merits of McCain or Obama, or the question of Sarah Palin becoming the novice heroine of a tale so fantastic J.K. Rowling will have to pen a new saga in her name.

This is a chance for a deeper, longer look at how adequately education and media are equipping citizens of the United States of America for intellectual survival in the increasingly competitive, globalized, multi-polar world of the century that lies ahead. The next Mr. (or Ms.) President needs to put country first by bringing change we need in classrooms and on airwaves -- the first step where real nation-building starts. Otherwise, we will end up looking back wistfully on these elections as the good times."

We Are In Danger, by Steven Weber, Huffington Post (October 7, 2008)

"History and the wisdom it dispenses is a bulwark against tyranny. But presently, the knowing distraction from knowledge and history is preventing the wisdom they produce from being dispensed and thus we continue our march backward, almost like a ball having reached its apogee descending back through the same air in which it once it so splendidly rose.

We are on the verge of a civil war between the states of conscience, between the darker parts of our nature and the higher ones we claim to aspire to. And while it may be true that the most virulent hate is in the relative minority, like a cancer, all that is required to swamp the host is a small seed. And without history, without humility, without ponderation, we become nothing but (with apologies to John Steinbeck) hate covered with skin.

The McCain campaign is exploiting this dead-end pursuit in its vainglorious quest for power and even as quests for power go this one cannot succeed beyond its goal of winning because it has to devour itself to live. Like the fatally fixated Republican strategists have so clearly demonstrated, they are adept at winning but dismal at governing. And after years of unheeded and regularly derided prognostications about the colossal failures of the Bush administration's activities -- all of which have turned out to be true -- it would be a mistake to ignore what our primal senses are telling us now, indeed screaming out:

We are in real danger.

When the signs are unmistakable in the form of a now global economic crisis, the looming potential of further exploitation in the name of bald power acquisitions that imperil our energy, our food, our environment, our health, our souls, all brought on by the calculated missteps of the bullying Bush administration, why should we be surprised to see eruptions of similar but scaled down depravity in the form of reckless hate mongering courtesy of the mad Contessa Palin and the man who makes a mockery of heroism, John McCain? When crowds are stirred up with an eye toward political and social havoc, you have what the Nazis did only half as well as how Karl Rove does it now. He's learned well from history and knows that when evil is backed into a corner victory can only be achieved with blood and dishonor. And we know where that leads. Not only are we all in danger; it is the man who we hope to lead us who is in danger. Yes.

And so we must not be cavalier as we watch it all happening again. There are no more sidelines, no more buffers. We are seeing how capably evil can be discharged and feeling its toxic effects. And we know what could come next. We fear it but we know it. And we must therefore stir the consciences and the actions of all those who wish to preserve, protect and defend America from the cancer amassing, indeed being cultivated by ideological dead-enders and their lost legion of followers.

Or, as history has shown many times, it is over."

Now Is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein, Huffington Post (September 23, 2008)

"I wrote The Shock Doctrine in the hopes that it would make us all better prepared for the next big shock. Well, that shock has certainly arrived, along with gloves-off attempts to use it to push through radical pro-corporate policies (which of course will further enrich the very players who created the market crisis in the first place...).

The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.

It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right's ability to use this crisis -- created by deregulation and privatization -- to demand more of the same. Don't forget that Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, is still riding the wave of success from its offshore drilling campaign, "Drill Here, Drill Now!" Just four months ago, offshore drilling was not even on the political radar and now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed supportive legislation. Gingrich is holding an event this Saturday, September 27 that will be broadcast on satellite television to shore up public support for these controversial policies.

What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."

We have seen this many times before, in this country and around the world. But here's the thing: these opportunistic tactics can only work if we let them. They work when we respond to crisis by regressing, wanting to believe in "strong leaders" -- even if they are the same strong leaders who used the September 11 attacks to push through the Patriot Act and launch the illegal war in Iraq.

So let's be absolutely clear: there are no saviors who are going to look out for us in this crisis. Certainly not Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout (which is actually a stick up). The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant."

The $700 Billion Questions, by David Sirota, In These Times (September 22, 2008)

"Using the shock doctrine, Wall Street and Washington's wrecking crew aim to get the most expensive free lunch in American history.

    If a museum in the next superpower nation ever commemorates the decline of the last great superpower, it will make the two-and-a-half page bill introduced this week the center of the display.

    Just as they do today at the National Archives' Declaration of Independence exhibit, tourists in the future-perhaps in Beijing, perhaps somewhere else-will line up to see a framed draft of this week's White House legislation demanding Congress surrender its power of the purse, and give an unelected appointee-in this case, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson-the power to hand over $700 billion of taxpayer money to "any financial institution," "without limitation...on such terms and conditions as determined by [him]." In a nation priding itself on separating powers between the branches of government, the bill explicitly states that decisions by Paulson may not even "be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

    Whether the bill passes or not, the drafting of it-even the mere thinking of it-is the single most clear sign that all of the major tenets of American democracy are on the auction block these days: from constitutional checks and balances, to legislative and judicial oversight to electoral accountability itself.

    In the immediate aftermath of what could be the starting gun of a second Great Depression, the public this week will face a wave of propaganda from Washington. Using the same playbook that succeeded in passing the Patriot Act and the Iraq War authorization with almost no questions, politicians will inevitably invoke love of country, fear, loathing and red-alert emergency-all designed to ram this bill into law as fast as possible, with as little scrutiny as possible. Put in book terms, we will see Thomas Frank's wrecking crew using Naomi Klein's shock doctrine to justify a bigger free lunch than David Cay Johnston ever imagined.

....."

The Non-Debate, by Juan Cole, Informed Comment (October 3, 2008)

"It was not a debate. Just as television in prime time has been largely emptied of drama and innovative comedy, with a few exceptions, in favor of empty-headed "reality shows," so the political debates have mostly been gutted.

Judging "how the candidates did" is rather like weighing in on the wittiness of the libretto of "Big Brother" or the pace of character development in the latest episode of "Keeping up with the Kardashians." The genre of the political review assumes that both candidates are credible in their roles. It becomes self-parody when one candidate is a ditzy nonentity cynically foisted on the public in the same way a 'reality show' is, based on a targeted demographic and without regard to quality.

It reminded me of the excruciating first episodes every season of "American Idol," when a single candidate is found who has the voice of an angel and then everyone else auditioned sounds like fingernails on a blackboard.

The news organizations and civic groups that sponsor political debates have allowed the campaigns to push them around so vigorously that nothing like a debate is any longer possible. The Bushies even tried to force the networks to hide the fact that John Kerry was taller than his rival in 2004. It is not about debating but about how your candidate looks on television.

Not only was there no debate but Sarah Palin was not required actually to answer any of the questions put to her, and she announced before she began that she was just going to throw up on us all the talking points that she had binged on in Arizona for the past few days.

She mugged for the camera, winked like a bar fly, and just went on talking and talking and talking, oblivious to whatever anyone else said. Not only did she ignore most of Gwen Ifill's questions,she paid no attention to what Joe Biden said. When he choked up over the loss of his family, she did not have the decency to express any kind of condolences. It is almost as though she is autistic and unable to connect with human beings.

Not only was it not a debate and not only did Palin answer virtually none of the questions put to her, but the whole idea of such an event was ridiculous.

Joe Biden has been either the chairman or the ranking minority member on the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years, and is one of our foremost foreign affairs experts and legislators. His acumen and expertise are wide-ranging.

Palin has revealed her real self in the Gibson and Couric interviews, and clearly knows nothing and offers only rubbery expressions and glib repetition, for all the world like a rasping myna bird, of a stream of memorized slogans that sound as though they were disinterred from a time capsule originally buried in William F. Buckley Jr.'s back yard several decades ago.

It was not a debate, and pretending that it was and judging "performance" is to fall into the trap set by the campaign spinmeisters and talking point pimps."

The Anti-Obama Hate-Fest, by Robert Parry, Consortium News (September 4, 2008)

" The Republican Party, which has defined modern-day negative politics, was back at it again, bashing Barack Obama and the news media in an ugly display that rivaled the old days of Nixon-Agnew - or George W. Bush's last convention where GOP operatives passed out "Purple Heart Band-Aids" to mock John Kerry's war wounds.

    After a slow start because of Hurricane Gustav, the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, has turned into an anti-Obama hate-fest with a nearly all-white gathering laughing at and mocking the nation's first African-American presidential nominee of a major party.

    However, beyond the pulsating contempt visible on the faces of the GOP delegates, many of the nasty attacks on Obama - as well as the effusive praise for the Republican ticket - were blatantly false, as if testing the depths of American gullibility and bigotry.

    In speech after speech, Republicans didn't so much as tell the Big Lie as they deployed Wholesale Lies.

    The Associated Press, which mostly had been recycling the Republican spin about the supposedly "maverick" ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, was so struck by the litany of distortions that the AP produced a special fact-checking article describing how Republicans had "stretched the truth."

    For instance, Palin said about Obama, "it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

    However, as the AP noted, Obama "worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year."

    Plus, the AP reported, "In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation."

    The AP's fact-checking article noted, too, that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's slap at Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden - that Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States" - was a "whopper."

    The AP wrote that "Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries."

    Parallel Reality

    The Republican National Convention also acted as if the Republicans had not controlled the White House for the past eight years and the Congress for most of that time.

    "We need change, all right," declared former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, "change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

    Beyond this parallel universe of who runs Washington, there was fanciful puffery about the GOP "reformer" ticket - dubbed "maverick squared" - that doesn't square with reality at all.

    For instance, the AP cited Palin's claim that "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

    The reality, of course, was much different.

    As the AP noted. Palin, as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, hired a lobbyist and made annual treks to Washington seeking earmarked spending that totaled $27 million, and then as Alaska's governor for less than two years, she sought nearly $750 million in special federal spending, "by far the largest per-capita request in the nation."

    And as for that $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents, the truth is that Palin enthusiastically supported the project before she reluctantly opposed it, rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" only after it had become politically indefensible.

    The Los Angeles Times discovered that Sen. McCain had specifically cited several of Palin's earmarks on his annual list of wasteful pork-barrel spending.

    In 2001, for instance, McCain's list included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla, and in 2002, he criticized $1 million targeted for an emergency communications center that Palin sought but local law enforcement said was redundant and a source of confusion.

    Remaking Palin

    Now, however, Palin has been transformed into a maverick reformer. McCain's campaign even cites her experience as an abuser of the earmark process as part of the reason she supposedly understands why it must be scrapped.

    McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Palin's successes in getting earmarked funds "was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

    Nevertheless, Palin wrote in a newspaper column just this year that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship." [For more details, see Los Angeles Times, Sept. 3, 2008]

    Beyond the GOP's reality-challenged speeches, there was the startling image of a nearly all-white convention - where only 36 of the 2,380 delegates were black, the smallest number in at least 40 years - rollicking in ridicule and bristling with animosity toward Obama, an African-American.

    With their loud chants of "drill, baby, drill" regarding energy policy and boisterous shouts of "USA, USA" about "victory" in Iraq, there was a sense that St. Paul was hosting a convention of American Falangists, rather than that of a modern national party.

    The whiff of authoritarianism extended to outside where demonstrators and journalists were swept off the streets in indiscriminate arrests.

    What's less clear about the GOP convention is whether the Republicans are on to something, that perhaps the United States has crossed over into a post-rational society that cares little about facts and reality or serious policy ideas and respectful debate, but rather is a nation moved by anger and ridicule, fear and nationalism."

How Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying America, by Terrence McNally, alternet (August 15, 2008)

"    "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama finally said it.

    Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right's stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them - and us - unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.

    American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes "the jury is still out" on evolution.

    Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on "The Colbert Report." Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn't actually list the commandments.

    This stuff would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

    In the 2004 election, nearly 70 percent of Bush supporters believed the United States had "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda; a third believed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and more than a third that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion, according to the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The political right and allied culture warriors actively ignore evidence and encourage misinformation. To motivate their followers, they label intelligent and informed as "elite," implying that ignorance is somehow both valuable and under attack. Susan Jacoby confronts our "know-nothingism" - current and historical - in her new book, The Age of American Unreason.

    A former reporter for the Washington Post and program director of the Center for Inquiry-New York City, Jacoby is the author of five books, including Wild Justice, a Pulitzer Prize finalist, and Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Her political blog, The Secularist's Corner, is on the Web site of the Washington Post.

...."

America Out of Economic Ammunition, by Jean-Marc Vittori, Les Échos (August 5, 2008)

"Faced with an increasingly uncertain economy, America has ever-fewer means to take action. At the exact moment when the two White House candidates are honing their programs and their teams, this weakness is becoming obvious. The great economic policy levers have already been totally activated, or nearly so, and without really succeeding in stimulating the machine.

    That is the case for monetary policy first of all. The Federal Reserve should announce today that it will not move its interest rates. The United States' central bank is stuck between two symmetrical risks. On the one hand, economic activity is not strong; consumers are depressed; unemployment is rising. So, the Fed should decrease its interest rates. However - on the other hand - interest rates are already low, barely two percent for the Fed's reference rate. And prices are increasing ever-more rapidly. One of the measures of this inflation published yesterday, the Personal Consumption Index, increased 0.8 percent in June, the strongest rise since 1981. Another measure, the classic Consumer Price Index, grew five percent in a year. Such a gap between prices and interest rates has not been observed on the other side of the Atlantic since the first oil shock. It would be perilous to increase it.

    Budget policy is in the same situation. The reductions in taxes the Bush administration granted this spring will have barely offset the erosion in income skyrocketing oil prices have exerted. The deficit will exceed $400 billion in 2008 and could approach $500 billion next year, if one believes the forecasts published last week by the White House. Of course, that's barely more than three percent of the enormous American GNP. But it is difficult under these conditions to set a vast plan in motion to support the economy while preserving the trust of investors likely to buy the bonds necessary for its financing.

    The United States is also not succeeding any better in using the trade weapon that would have allowed it to open new markets for its exporters. The recent injunctions directed at Beijing that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has just formulated look like a confession of impotence. America is left with barely any means to pressure China, Russia or the Emirates. All the more so as those countries' capital is indispensable to America's financial equilibrium.

    The last time an American president took the reins of an economy as stalled as this one was in 1981. But Ronald Reagan changed the rules of the game and created what we in France would call a "break" with the past. For example, he increased military spending by 40 percent in five years. It's difficult to imagine John McCain - and even less so Barack Obama - following that route. All the more so as problems of colossal budgetary impact loom on the horizon, such as financing health care and retirement costs. In reality, the next president of the United States will have no major economic weapon available. If growth resumes, that's not very serious. In the opposite event, the whole world will suffer as a result of this American impotence. "

Little Progress Made in Bridge Repairs Across US, by Robert Tanner, Steve Karnowski and Frank Bass, AP (July 31, 2008)

" Minneapolis - A year after the worst U.S. bridge collapse in a generation brought calls for immediate repairs to other spans, two of every three of the busiest problem bridges in each state - carrying nearly 40 million vehicles a day - have had no work beyond regular maintenance.

    An Associated Press review of repairs on each state's 20 most-traveled bridges with structural deficiencies found just 12 percent have been fixed. In most states, the most common approach was to plan for repairs later rather than fix problems now.

    The bridges reviewed by the AP - 1,020 in all - are not in imminent danger of collapse, state engineers and highway officials say. But the officials acknowledge the structures need improvement, many sooner rather than later.

    The collapse of the eight-lane Interstate 35W bridge into the Mississippi River on Aug. 1, 2007, killed 13 people and brought immediate calls for repairs to bridges across the nation.

    The failure to follow through was not because of lack of effort, officials said. Soaring construction costs, budget shortages, election-year politics, a backlog of bridge projects, competing highway repairs and bureaucracy often held bridge work to only incremental progress.

    The AP gathered information on repair status from 48 states and Washington, D.C. In six states, data could not be obtained for some locally owned bridges. Louisiana and Nevada failed to respond.

...."

US Deficit to Reach Record $490 Billion in 2009, by Roger Runningen, Bloomberg (July 28, 2008)

"   The U.S. budget deficit will widen to a record of about $490 billion next year, an administration official said, leaving a deep budget hole that will constrain the next president's tax and spending plans.

    The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is higher than the $407 billion forecast by President George W. Bush in February. The bigger shortfall reflects dwindling tax receipts because of the U.S. economic slowdown, the cost of a $168 billion economic stimulus package and spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "We've already seen a pretty sharp cooling in tax receipts, and it's just going to continue into next fiscal year," Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Capital Markets, said in a telephone interview.

    The deficit projection will burden either Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, the presumptive presidential nominees of the major political parties, with a constricted budget that has little room for cutting taxes or increasing spending. The next president also will inherit the deepest housing recession in a generation, fears of a crisis in the banking industry, a falling dollar and high energy prices.

....."

We’re Losing the Ability to Think, by Leonard Pitts, Jr. (July 28, 2008)

"I love comic books.

For 41 years, I’ve studied them, collected them, written and read exhaustively about them. So I hope you’ll agree I’m qualified to judge the merits of a comic book created by one Brent Rinehart as a tool in his campaign for reelection as a commissioner of Oklahoma County, Okla.

It is really, really bad. You may see for yourself by clicking the link to be found at www.anorak.co.uk/anorak-in-new-york/185867.html.

Now, you may think my less than glowing appraisal stems from its rank anti-gay bigotry, including a depiction of a gay man with horns. Or from the artwork, which looks like something scrawled by a gifted 6-year-old.

Well, yes. But here’s the main reason Rinehart’s work offends: It is astonishingly stupid.

Voters should support him because an angel does? His opponents are in league with Satan? Old Scratch is working to ”get kids to believe homosexuality is normal” and Rinehart is their only defense? And I haven’t even mentioned the creative punctuations and multiple misspellings.

I am not an Oklahoma County voter, so maybe you wonder why I care about Rinehart’s campaign. I don’t. What I do care about is what I will call the ongoing stupidification of America, of which this is but one glaring example among many. Think of the congressman who advocated bombing Mecca to teach Muslims a lesson. Think of the ”zero tolerance” policy that required a 10-year-old to be suspended for bringing to school the tiny toy gun from his GI Joe. Think of the ”Jay Walking” segment on The Tonight Show where average Americans cannot answer basic questions of civics and history. Think of those cable shows where we are theoretically entertained by coarse women vying for the affection of washed-up rock stars. Heck, read your junk e-mail.

And then tell me you don’t feel the nation’s collective IQ dropping like stocks.

I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we’re all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.

No, I’m talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference. When a CNN anchor drew Rinehart’s attention to his spelling errors, his reply was, ”I don’t necessarily care.” This is, I feel constrained to remind you, the elected representative of 220,000 people.

For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ”keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.

There’s a movie, Idiocracy, which posits a post-intelligent future in which the stupid have inherited the Earth. It’s not a great film, but there is a truth to it. You watch the characters watching a reality show that consists entirely of some guy being kicked in the testicles and you realize you wouldn’t be surprised to see that show on VH-1 tomorrow.

Why not? In recent years, we have seen intelligence demonized as the sole province of the ”elite,” a term that once described accomplishment, but is now used to condemn anyone who looks like he might have accidentally cracked a book or had a thought.

Not long ago, I gave a commencement address in which I told young people I am less concerned with what they think than that they think. Because we are losing that skill. Me, I find that alarming.

Maybe you disagree. I bet you’ll feel differently when Brent Rinehart is president."

How Ignorant Are We?, by Rick Shenkman, tomdispatch.com (July 1, 2008)

"    Just how stupid are we? Pretty stupid, it would seem, when we come across headlines like this: "Homer Simpson, Yes -- 1st Amendment 'Doh,' Survey Finds" (Associated Press 3/1/06).

"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey.

 

"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."

    But what does it mean exactly to say that American voters are stupid? About this there is unfortunately no consensus. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who confessed not knowing how to define pornography, we are apt simply to throw up our hands in frustration and say: We know it when we see it. But unless we attempt a definition of some sort, we risk incoherence, dooming our investigation of stupidity from the outset. Stupidity cannot mean, as Humpty Dumpty would have it, whatever we say it means.

    Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.

    American Ignorance

    Taking up the first of our definitions of stupidity, how ignorant are we? Ask the political scientists and you will be told that there is damning, hard evidence pointing incontrovertibly to the conclusion that millions are embarrassingly ill-informed and that they do not care that they are. There is enough evidence that one could almost conclude -- though admittedly this is a stretch -- that we are living in an Age of Ignorance.

    Surprised? My guess is most people would be. The general impression seems to be that we are living in an age in which people are particularly knowledgeable. Many students tell me that they are the most well-informed generation in history.

    Why are we so deluded? The error can be traced to our mistaking unprecedented access to information with the actual consumption of it. Our access is indeed phenomenal. George Washington had to wait two weeks to discover that he had been elected president of the United States. That's how long it took for the news to travel from New York, where the Electoral College votes were counted, to reach him at home in Mount Vernon, Virginia. Americans living in the interior regions had to wait even longer, some up to two months. Now we can watch developments as they occur halfway around the world in real time. It is little wonder then that students boast of their knowledge. Unlike their parents, who were forced to rely mainly on newspapers and the network news shows to find out what was happening in the world, they can flip on CNN and Fox or consult the Internet.

    But in fact only a small percentage of people take advantage of the great new resources at hand. In 2005, the Pew Research Center surveyed the news habits of some 3,000 Americans age 18 and older. The researchers found that 59% on a regular basis get at least some news from local TV, 47% from national TV news shows, and just 23% from the Internet.

    Anecdotal evidence suggested for years that Americans were not particularly well-informed. As foreign visitors long ago observed, Americans are vastly inferior in their knowledge of world geography compared with Europeans. (The old joke is that "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.") But it was never clear until the postwar period how ignorant Americans are. For it was only then that social scientists began measuring in a systematic manner what Americans actually know. The results were devastating.

    The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.

    Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time. In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)

    Some of the numbers are hard to fathom in a country in which for at least a century all children have been required by law to attend grade school or be home-schooled. Even if people do not closely follow the news, one would expect them to be able to answer basic civics questions, but only a small minority can.

    In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%.

    Polls over the past three decades measuring Americans' knowledge of history show similarly dismal results. What happened in 1066? Just 10% know it is the date of the Norman Conquest. Who said the "world must be made safe for democracy"? Just 14% know it was Woodrow Wilson. Which country dropped the nuclear bomb? Only 49% know it was their own country. Who was America's greatest president? According to a Gallup poll in 2005, a majority answer that it was a president from the last half century: 20% said Reagan, 15% Bill Clinton, 12% John Kennedy, 5% George W. Bush. Only 14% picked Lincoln and only 5%, Washington.

    And the worst president? For years Americans would include in the list Herbert Hoover. But no more. Most today do not know who Herbert Hoover was, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey in 2004. Just 43% could correctly identify him.

    The only history questions a majority of Americans can answer correctly are the most basic ones. What happened at Pearl Harbor? A great majority know: 84%. What was the Holocaust? Nearly 70% know. (Thirty percent don't?) But it comes as something of a shock that, in 1983, just 81% knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was and that, in 1985, only 81% could identify Martin Luther King, Jr.

    What Voters Don't Know

    Who these poor souls were who didn't know who Martin Luther King was we cannot be sure. Research suggests that they were probably impoverished (the poor tend to know less on the whole about politics and history than others) or simply unschooled, categories which usually overlap. But even Americans in the middle class who attend college exhibit profound ignorance. A report in 2007 published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average 14,000 randomly selected college students at 50 schools around the country scored under 55 (out of 100) on a test that measured their knowledge of basic American civics. Less than half knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the American Revolution. Surprisingly, seniors often tested lower than freshmen. (The explanation was apparently that many students by their senior year had forgotten what they learned in high school.)

    The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?

    Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.

    If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.

    On the basis of their comprehensive approach, Delli Carpini and Keeter concluded that only 5% of Americans could correctly answer three-fourths of the questions asked about economics, only 11% of the questions about domestic issues, 14% of the questions about foreign affairs, and 10% of the questions about geography. The highest score? More Americans knew the correct answers to history questions than any other (which will come as a surprise to many history teachers). Still, only 25% knew the correct answers to three-quarters of the history questions, which were rudimentary.

    In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans' knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: "America's ignorance of the outside world" is so great as to constitute a threat to national security.

    Young and Ignorant -- and Voting

    At least, you may think to yourself, we are not getting any dumber. But by some measures we are. Young people by many measures know less today than young people forty years ago. And their news habits are worse. Newspaper reading went out in the sixties along with the Hula Hoop. Just 20% of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 read a daily paper. And that isn't saying much. There's no way of knowing what part of the paper they're reading. It is likelier to encompass the comics and a quick glance at the front page than dense stories about Somalia or the budget.

    They aren't watching the cable news shows either. The average age of CNN's audience is sixty. And they surely are not watching the network news shows, which attract mainly the Depends generation. Nor are they using the Internet in large numbers to surf for news. Only 11% say that they regularly click on news web pages. (Yes, many young people watch Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. A survey in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of the viewers of The Daily Show score in the "high knowledge" news category -- about the same as the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.)

    Compared with Americans generally -- and this isn't saying much, given their low level of interest in the news -- young people are the least informed of any age cohort save possibly for those confined to nursing homes. In fact, the young are so indifferent to newspapers that they single-handedly are responsible for the dismally low newspaper readership rates that are bandied about.

    In earlier generations -- in the 1950s, for example -- young people read newspapers and digested the news at rates similar to those of the general population. Nothing indicates that the current generation of young people will suddenly begin following the news when they turn 35 or 40. Indeed, half a century of studies suggest that most people who do not pick up the news habit in their twenties probably never will.

    Young people today find the news irrelevant. Bored by politics, students shun the rituals of civic life, voting in lower numbers than other Americans (though a small up-tick in civic participation showed up in recent surveys). U.S. Census data indicate that voters aged 18 to 24 turn out in low numbers. In 1972, when 18 year olds got the vote, 52% cast a ballot. In subsequent years, far fewer voted: in 1988, 40%; in 1992, 50%; in 1996, 35%; in 2000, 36%. In 2004, despite the most intense get-out-the-vote effort ever focused on young people, just 47% took the time to cast a ballot.

    Since young people on the whole scarcely follow politics, one may want to consider whether we even want them to vote. Asked in 2000 to identify the presidential candidate who was the chief sponsor of Campaign Finance Reform -- Sen. John McCain -- just 4% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 could do so. As the primary season began in February, fewer than half in the same age group knew that George W. Bush was even a candidate. Only 12% knew that McCain was also a candidate even though he was said to be especially appealing to young people.

    One news subject in recent history, 9/11, did attract the interest of the young. A poll by Pew at the end of 2001 found that 61% of adult Americans under age 30 said that they were following the story closely. But few found any other subjects in the news that year compelling. Anthrax attacks? Just 32% indicated it was important enough to follow. The economy? Again, just 32%. The capture of Kabul? Just 20%.

    It would appear that young people today are doing very little reading of any kind. In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts, consulting a vast array of surveys, including the United States Census, found that just 43% of young people ages 18 to 24 read literature. In 1982, the number was 60%. A majority do not read either newspapers, fiction, poetry, or drama. Save for the possibility that they are reading the Bible or works of non-fiction, for which solid statistics are unavailable, it would appear that this generation is less well read than any other since statistics began to be kept.

    The studies demonstrating that young people know less today than young people a generation ago do not get much publicity. What one hears about are the pioneer steps the young are taking politically. Headlines from the 2004 presidential election featured numerous stories about young people who were following the campaign on blogs, then a new phenomenon. Other stories focused on the help young Deaniacs gave Howard Dean by arranging to raise funds through innovative Internet appeals. Still other stories reported that the Deaniacs were networking all over the country through the Internet website meetup.com. One did not hear that we have raised another Silent Generation. But have we not? The statistics about young people today are fairly clear: As a group they do not vote in large numbers, most do not read newspapers, and most do not follow the news. (Barack Obama has recently inspired greater participation, but at this stage it is too early to tell if the effect will be lasting.)

    The Issues? Who knows?

    Millions every year are now spent on the effort to answer the question: What do the voters want? The honest answer would be that often they themselves do not really know because they do not know enough to say. Few, however, admit this.

    In the election of 2004, one of the hot issues was gay marriage. But gauging public opinion on the subject was difficult. Asked in one national poll whether they supported a constitutional amendment allowing only marriages between a man and a woman, a majority said yes. But three questions later a majority also agreed that "defining marriage was not an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution." The New York Times wryly summed up the results: Americans clearly favor amending the Constitution but not changing it.

    Does it matter if people are ignorant? There are many subjects about which the ordinary voter need know nothing. The conscientious citizen has no obligation to plow through the federal budget, for example. One suspects there are not many politicians themselves who have bothered to do so. Nor do voters have an obligation to read the laws passed in their name. We do expect members of Congress to read the bills they are asked to vote on, but we know from experience that often they do not, having failed either to take the time to do so or having been denied the opportunity to do so by their leaders, who for one reason or another often rush bills through.

    Reading the text of laws in any case is often unhelpful. The chairpersons in charge of drafting them often include provisions only a detective could untangle. The tax code is rife with clauses like this: The Congress hereby appropriates X dollars for the purchase of 500 widgets that measure 3 inches by 4 inches by 2 inches from any company incorporated on October 20, 1965 in Any City USA situated in block 10 of district 3.

    Of course, only one company fits the description. Upon investigation it turns out to be owned by the chairperson's biggest contributor. That is more than any citizens acting on their own could possibly divine. It is not essential that the voter know every which way in which the tax code is manipulated to benefit special interests. All that is required is that the voter know that rigging of the tax code in favor of certain interests is probably common. The media are perfectly capable of communicating this message. Voters are perfectly capable of absorbing it. Armed with this knowledge, the voter knows to be wary of claims that the tax code treats one and all alike with fairness.

    There are however innumerable subjects about which a general knowledge is insufficient. In these cases ignorance of the details is more than a minor problem. An appalling ignorance of Social Security, to take one example, has left Americans unable to see how their money has been spent, whether the system is viable, and what measures are needed to shore it up.

    How many know that the system is running a surplus? And that this surplus -- some $150 billion a year -- is actually quite substantial, even by Washington standards? And how many know that the system has been in surplus since 1983?

    Few, of course. Ignorance of the facts has led to a fundamentally dishonest debate about Social Security.

    During all the years the surpluses were building, the Democrats in Congress pretended the money was theirs to be spent, as if it were the same as all the other tax dollars collected by the government. And spend it they did, whenever they had the chance, with no hint that they were perhaps disbursing funds that actually should be held in reserve for later use. (Social Security taxes had been expressly raised in 1983 in order to build up the system's funds when bankruptcy had loomed.) Not until the rest of the budget was in surplus (in 1999) did it suddenly occur to them that the money should be saved. And it appears that the only reason they felt compelled at this point to acknowledge that the money was needed for Social Security was because they wanted to blunt the Republicans' call for tax cuts. The Social Security surplus could not both be used to pay for the large tax cuts Republicans wanted and for the future retirement benefits of aging Boomers.

    The Republicans have been equally unctuous. While they have claimed that they are terribly worried about Social Security, they have been busy irresponsibly spending the system's surplus on tax cuts, one cut after another. First Reagan used the surplus to hide the impact of his tax cuts and then George W. Bush used it to hide the impact of his cuts. Neither ever acknowledged that it was only the surplus in Social Security's accounts that made it even plausible for them to cut taxes.

    Take those Bush tax cuts. Bush claimed the cuts were made possible by several years of past surpluses and the prospect of even more years of surpluses. But subtracting from the federal budget the overflow funds generated by Social Security, the government ran a surplus in just two years during the period the national debt was declining, 1999 and 2000.

    In the other years when the government ran a surplus, 1998 and 2001, it was because of Social Security and only because of Social Security. That is, the putative surpluses of 1998 and 2001, which President Bush cited in defense of his tax cuts, were in reality pure fiction. Without Social Security the government would have been in debt those two years. And yet in 2001 President Bush told the country tax cuts were not only needed, they were affordable because of our splendid surplus.

    Today, conservatives argue that the Social Security Trust Fund is a fiction. They are correct. The money was spent. They helped spend it.

    To this debate about Social Security -- which, once one understands what has been happening, is actually quite absorbing -- the public has largely been an indifferent spectator. A surprising 2001 Pew study found that just 19% of Americans understand that the United States ever ran a surplus at all, however defined, in the 1990s or 2000`s. And only 50% of Americans, according to an Annenberg study in 2004, understand that President Bush favors privatizing Social Security. Polls indicate that people are scared that the system is going bust, no doubt thanks in part to Bush's gloom-and-doom prognostications. But they haven't the faintest idea what going bust means. And in fact, the system can be kept going without fundamental change simply by raising the cap on taxed income and pushing back the retirement age a few years.

    How much ignorance can a country stand? There have to be terrible consequences when it reaches a certain level. But what level? And with what consequences, exactly? The answers to these questions are unknowable. But can we doubt that if we persist on the path we are on that we shall, one day, perhaps not too far into the distant future, find out the answers?"

Midwest Floods Spotlight Decrepit Infrastructure, by Andrew Stern, Reuters (July 1, 2008)

 

Why The Economy Is Gloomier Than We Are, by Robert Freeman, commondreams.org (June 19, 2008)

 

Behind the Rise in Prices: A Plan to Torpedo the Dollar, by Danny Schechter, commondreams.org (May 19, 2008)

"Who do you think was one of the Bush Administration’s key players on the economy?

If you say Paulson or Bernanke, you might be half right. But there’s another no-name lurking around in the background who tends to be doing the wrong thing at every key moment in the covert history of he Bush (or should we day “Bush League”) Republic.

His name is Jim Wilkinson. He helped organize the GOP protest/obstruction of the Miami election recount in 2000.He was the White House’s key media spinner at the Doha Coalition Media Center. A reporter from Texas said he used techniques first perfected by Stalin. He was an architect of the Republican convention in New York in 2004. He was later dispatched to keep an eye on and act as ‘dissembler in chief’ for Condi Rice.

But at a crucial moment in the history of the western world, Mr. “I work in the shadows” Wilkinson became chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the Goldman Sachs Embed in the Cabinet.

Operative Wilkinson was then given the assignment of monitoring the world’s financial markets in a secret operation modeled no doubt on the great intelligence plan that produced the Iraq War.

His qualifications for this historic role?

See above.

As Mike Whitney reported at the end of October in 2006 — a day before Halloween — the US was then engineering the drop in the dollar to “improve competitiveness” — ie subsidize US exports in a flawed attempt to reduce the growing balance of trade gap. The result was summed up in the headline: “The U.S. Dollar is kaput. Confidence in the currency is eroding by the day.”

Whitney saw then what our media has still yet to report or understand. Was it a “trick or treat?” Read on:

“The financial crisis that we now face was created by design. It is intended to destroy the labor movement, crush the middle class, quash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, reduce our foreign debt by 50 or 60%, force a restructuring of America’s debt, privatize all public assets and resources, and create a new regime of austerity measures which will divert more wealth to the banking and corporate establishment.”

This was months before the subprime meltdown in August 2007, or the more recent hike in food prices and oil prices. Their plan, blessed by business and the banks, was implemented step by step. The consequence was intended.

News, as we know, passes by so fast, and unless a story is repeated ad-nauseum, no one remembers it or looks for the context and background of breaking developments.

Whitney quoted Richard Daughty from “his prescient article, The Phase of Impact” the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept have already manned the battle-stations.

Here’s an excerpt: “Mr. Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, is, by virtue of his ascension to the throne, now the head of the shadowy President’s Working Group of Financial Markets (which was created by Presidential Order 12631) and he is insisting that they meet more often, namely every 6 weeks!

This whole Working Group thing was originally set up as a fallback, ad-hoc, if-then defense to deal with possible economic emergencies, but now they are routinely meeting every 6 weeks. He has even ordered Jim Wilkinson, his chief of staff, to ‘oversee the creation of a Treasury Command Center to track markets world-wide and serve as an operations base in a crisis’! (Wall Street Journal) World-wide!!

The American government is moving to take control of the world-wide economy as the result of an anticipated crisis? Yikes!”

Now let’s fast-forward to the present, well after this widely foreseen crisis erupted. As oil prices climb, the public is angry. And who do they mostly blame? The oil companies and the oil producing states, of course. They have no clue that this crisis was the consequence of decisions made by the Bush Administration to devalue the dollar with its “crisis manager” Jim Wilkinson playing a central role.

Political writer Jerry Policoff questioned the “politicized polls” on who is responsible for the oil hikes. He noted that most people and pollsters don’t realize that the fall of the dollar precipitated all of this.

I asked him if he thought this squeeze had been orchestrated.

His response:

“I don’t think there is any doubt about that, and the Saudis said as much when Bush asked them to rev up production to bring down the price. Their reaction was pretty much that the U.S. should stop undermining the value of its own dollar before asking other countries to take a financial hit on oil.”

...."

The Handy Reference Guide to Bush Disasters, Incompetencies, and Lies, by Guy Reel, commondreams.org (May 13, 2008)

"The other day, as I was musing aloud about notion that George Bush is the worst president in U.S. history, an acquaintance interrupted, “What’s been so bad?” I stammered for a moment, unable to get my mind around such a large question. It was sort of like trying to summarize the mysteries of the universe: The topic is so big one doesn’t know where to start. So I decided to compile a handy reference guide to the failed policies, worst decisions, irrational practices and outrageous lies of the Bush administration.In compiling this list, I made the rule that it cannot be an inventory of policy differences between liberals and conservatives; it must differentiate between rational and irrational policies, between truth and lies, between successes and failures. In other words, this should not be a partisan list but an attempt to chronicle the failures, catastrophes and ruinous policies that are apparent to impartial observers. Contributions are welcomed.

1. Lies about an optional war. Some may argue that Bush wasn’t lying about the weapons of mass destruction — that he, and many others, believed they were there. The problem is, he, and most everyone in his administration, misrepresented (lied) about the nature of the intelligence that (they claimed) led us into war. Within the intelligence community — yes, Bush’s own intelligence community — there was much, much more disagreement about the nature and threat of these weapons (and even whether they existed) than what Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld claimed. Also in the category of outrageous lies, it is now clear that Bush, during the run-up to the war, was routinely lying when he said he had made no decision about going to war, that he was trying to exhaust all diplomatic options. Memos and staffers have since made it clear that Iraq was a target for war even before 9/11.

2. The optional war itself. It was clear that an invasion of Iraq was not tied to 9/11 and that it would not do anything to deter terrorism and that, in fact, it would make terrorism worse. Bush and his followers might believe otherwise, but I would argue that this is empirically true. The vote for the war authorization was pushed right before a midterm election, and Bush was demanding its passage, clearly making war a political issues. That alone is outrageous conduct for a president. But I would be happy to eliminate this one from the list, if enough readers think I should.

3. The fiasco in handling the optional war that was started from lies. Even John McCain, military strategists and such right-wingers as Pat Buchanan acknowledge this one. Because of arrogance, ignorance and just plain stupidity, the war was mismanaged from the start. It led to countless unnecessary deaths, a disastrous loss of prestige and diplomatic clout for America, and, predictably, it became an al-Qaeda training and recruitment tool.

4. Tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the rich in a time of war. It is possible, as far as policy goes, to argue for tax cuts, even in the face of crushing deficits. It may be possible to argue, in a supply-sider’s dream, that it is appropriate for the rich to garner most of the benefits for the tax cuts. But it is nearly impossible, unless one lacks sufficient powers of reasoning, to argue that we should enact tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy, when war demands sacrifices and sufficient revenue to be waged successfully.

5. Trillions in new debt, and annual deficits in the half-trillion-dollar range. This may be paired with the item above. Bush and the Republicans have not only failed to pay for the tax cuts they so eagerly handed out to rich supporters who then gave them campaign contributions, they also put forth billions in new spending, making Democrats look like chumps when it comes to pork-barreling. Oh, and by the way, they also enacted the biggest entitlement program in history since Social Security, the pharmaceutical drug bill, that provided billions to drug companies while restricting drug price competition. Also, the Bush administration lied to members of his own party about the cost of the 2003 Medicare bill, just so they could be tricked into voting for it.

6. The weakening of the dollar. Again, this may be paired with the items above. Many experts have speculated that the dollar’s reign as the world currency may end fairly soon, and its displacement can be directly tied to Reagan-Bush-Bush policies favoring vast debt, massive gaps in wealth between the rich and middle class, a weakening of the manufacturing economy, and changing the U.S. from the largest creditor nation in history to the largest debtor nation in history. I won’t give Bill Clinton a pass on this one, since the manufacturing sector decline continued under his watch and, some might argue, accelerated as a result of NAFTA. But it is clear that idea that taxes are heresy under Republicans — even at the expense of the nation and at the collapse of the dollar — has taken on its Biblical status under George W. Bush.

7. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Here was a president so disengaged that American citizens were left stranded, and people died, during his inaction. Yet, in his words, “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.”

8. The suspension of habeas corpus. This has taken several forms under George Bush — by executive decision, through legal opinion by the likes of hack John Yoo and by the establishment of prisons to hold prisoners without charge or trial. But one moment Americans should never forget is the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Congress must share the blame on this, but without Bush’s “leadership,” it never would have passed. The law cast aside the Constitution and the principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. The Congress also gave the president absolute power to designate enemy combatants, and to set his own definitions for torture.

9. “Enhanced interrogation”/torture/extraordinary rendition. Bush said he knew and approved of the harsh tactics that led to such outrages as Abu Ghraib. Bush says the U.S. doesn’t torture because it doesn’t torture. Whatever you call it, it amounts to an illegal usurping of executive authority. John McCain was against it before he was for it. Some Americans may believe terrorists deserve torture in some cases, and I won’t disagree; however, it is clear that, under George W. Bush, America tortured some innocent people, and in some cases it transported prisoners to other countries so they could be tortured there.

10. Halliburton/Blackwater. These companies are by symbols for the privatization of war. Military contractors, often having no accountability to anyone, have stolen billions, wasted more billions, and kidnapped, raped and murdered in the name of the United States.

11. Guantanamo. While military prisons are routine in wartime, the problem with Gitmo is that it has been set up to hold terrorists as well as the innocent. And because of the end of habeas corpus, there is no way for the innocent to be set loose. In addition, it has undoubtedly created terrorists out of innocent people; even setting loose the innocent has become a grave risk, thanks to George W. Bush. But Guantanamo is not the only place where the innocent are held. Just last month, the U.S. released AP photographer Bilal Hussein after holding him in Iraq for two years without trial.

12. Presidential signing statements. Bush has made unprecedented use of these extra-legal statements in which he declares all or part of a law unconstitutional because (he says) it encroaches on executive authority. Therefore, he’ll sign the bill but ignore the parts he disagrees with. These statements have been used on a limited basis by other presidents in particular situations. But George Bush has claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws. Among them, reported the Boston Globe, are “military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ‘whistle-blower’ protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.”

13. The Healthy Forests Initiative — would allow more logging and development in our national parks.

14. The Clear Skies Initiative — would weaken many parts of the Clean Air Act to allow more pollutants in many areas. Aside from what these laws do is the Orwellian Newspeak — giving names to policies or laws that are, at best, misleading. (Read: Patriot Act.)

15. Mining safety. Bush cut funding for mining safety and stacked the Mine Safety and Health Administration with industry executives, who fought against better regulations to protect lives and limbs. In 2006, forty-seven coal miners died on the job, the most in any full year since 1995, when forty-seven also were killed. Thirty-three were killed last year. Not all the deaths can be blamed on Bush and his industry-friendly appointees, but most assuredly, some can.

16. The U.S. attorney scandals. In this case, seven U.S. attorneys — Republicans — were fired in 2006. The reasons for the dismissals remain unclear, but allegations were that they were made for partisan political purposes. Anyone who doubts that partisanship (see Monica Goodling) was a factor — which, by the way, undermines the justice system of the United States — has not been paying attention to the way George Bush operates. Investigations into the matter have been impeded, but it is without question that the scandal has eroded morale in the Justice Department.

17. Stop loss. This U.S. military policy amounts to a back-door draft. While legal, it erodes morale, weakens the military and subjects soldiers to repeated danger and the possibility of physical and mental problems. Apparently, a weaker military is a policy of this administration, since it has overextended personnel and refused to provide adequate body armor to troops. In addition, Bush favored cutting funding for Veterans’ Administration, denying crucial medical care to the troops that he sent to war.

18. Alienation of U.S. allies.

19. Cutting of food stamps. This could be an ideological difference, so many might argue it’s not fair game in a list of Bush disasters. However, one aspect of the Bush prescription drug plan related to this issue can’t be viewed as ideological: as reported by Salon, “More bad news about that prescription drug plan: Seniors who use it may lose their food stamps.”

20. “So?” Dick Cheneys’ response to a question noting that the vast majority of Americans believe Iraq was a mistake and want the troops to come home.

21. FISA/illegal wiretapping. Bush still claims that violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is okay because he’s fighting the terrorists. But there’s nothing in the law that prevented wiretapping; it allowed temporary wiretapping until warrants could be issued. That didn’t matter to Bush; he’d rather violate the law when possible.

22. 9/11. Bush and his administration ignored repeated warnings that a major terrorist act was pending on U.S. soil. Richard Clarke said he tried for months to have Bush and Condaleeza Rice make terrorism a priority, but they ignored him. Whether you believe Clarke or not, the fact is that there was a memo about bin Laden being determined to strike in the U.S., and Bush went on vacation to Crawford, Texas, shortly before the Twin Towers fell.

23. Global warming. Bush now admits it’s a problem, although Bush officials trashed science by redacting independent governmentally commissioned studies on the issue. But even though he says it’s a problem he has no proposals to do anything about it in the near term.

24. Health care. More children (9 million) are without health insurance today than when Bush took office. The nation is facing catastrophic health care costs for the next century; Bush has ignored the problem.

25. Energy policy. The records of Dick Cheney’s task force on energy are secret, so we don’t know how much of the nation’s energy policy was dictated by energy companies. But it is certain that it was a great deal; Bush’s pattern in this area is the same as in others; i.e., put oil and gas officials in charge of energy policy; put pharmaceutical companies in charge of drug policy; let health industry lobbyists write health policy legislation. Gas prices have soared and record profits are now routine business for the oil companies; people think their taxes are lower under Bush, but they are paying more for gas, food and other basic necessities - and they are also paying more state and local taxes because of federal budget cuts.

26. Immigration. For Bush or against him on this issue, it can hardly be argued that he has put forth a successful policy.

27. The Pentagon information apparatus designed to praise George Bush’s war by touting military officers — paid by private contractors — as objective observers. This was a deliberate attempt to lie to the American people through a compliant and incompetent mass media.

28. Plants in press conferences. Jeff Gannon, a right-wing gay escort, was given press credentials and allowed to lob softball questions at Bush during White House news conferences.

29. A weaker America — we are weaker militarily, economically and on the world stage than the day George Bush took office. Some Republicans seem to fear Democrats because they say the Democrats want to destroy America. But it is hard to imagine a series of policies that have done more to hurt America than those forced upon us over the last seven years. Three-fourths of Americans know the country is on the wrong track, yet half of them support “more wrong track,” as Bill Maher put it. This is because the Republicans are very good at distracting large numbers of people from the disasters that this administration has fostered. One method they use is that they claim that criticisms of policy, particularly war policy, amount to criticisms of America. I want to make it clear that this tactic won’t work here. The above criticisms are not criticisms of America; they are criticisms of George W. Bush. It is because I love this country that this list was compiled. It was George Bush, not America, who brought us to this place.

30. A divided America. After 9/11 Bush had that rare opportunity to unite the nation, and the world, to defeat terrorism. Instead of using this goodwill - instead of bringing us all together to fight a common enemy — he squandered it. A generation has been lost to Bush’s petty petulance and his unilateral, misguided use of executive power. One would think that most conservatives, and most Republicans, would worry about expanded executive power. But many of them haven’t. One wonders how they will feel about it when a Democrat takes office."

A Television Show That May Make You Sick, by Jill Rachel Jacobs, commondreams.org (May 9, 2008)

"While some are warning of a hunger tsunami, others are wetting their appetites for a new reality television program combining competitive food eating with intense physical challenges (No, I am not making this stuff up) in this latest installment of what I like to call “Why They Hate Us.”

The premise goes a little like this: In each episode, five contestants attempt to inhale the largest quantity of food as quickly as possible. They are then immediately subjected to a series of “challenges designed to “shake them up,” such as carnival rides, belly flops off a high dive, mechanical bull-riding. The contestant to hold their food down the longest is the victor winning cash prizes and the coveted Iron Stomach Award.

Hey! It gets better! Guess what the name of the show is called. (No, it’s not called “Barf.” That’s like soooo juvenile.) It’s called “Hurl.” (No, I am not making this stuff up. Sheesh!) Set your Tivos as “Hurl” is scheduled to premiere this summer on the G4 Network.

I wonder how this all works. Like some wanna-be TV exec or bulimic has an idea and they’re like, “Hey! Let’s get some people to eat ginormous amounts of food until they puke and then we can film it and we’ll give them some money and we can be rich and famous! That’s the ticket.”

I’m still having a little trouble wrapping my fragile brain around this whole food for fodder concept during a time when half the world is seriously starving while the other halves’ (guess who?) waistlines are expanding almost as fast as George’s Bush’s plummeting approval ratings.

This whole eating until you heave reality show business sounds very much like something my nephew may have come up with, but he’s 13 so stuffing your face with the possibility of puking is like a right of passage.

Shedding some light on the thinking behind this nouveau idea, G4 President Neal Tiles said, “G4’s mission is to be a multimedia destination that’s relevant and authentic to the interests of today’s young male demo. Hurl! Is really an idea that is inspired by the world of viral video which has proven to be massively popular with young guys today.”

....."

Portrait of an Oil-Addicted Former Superpower: How Rising Oil Prices Are Obliterating America's Superpower Status, by Michael T. Klare, tomdispatch.com (May 8, 2008)

"    Nineteen years ago, the fall of the Berlin Wall effectively eliminated the Soviet Union as the world's other superpower. Yes, the USSR as a political entity stumbled on for another two years, but it was clearly an ex-superpower from the moment it lost control over its satellites in Eastern Europe.

    Less than a month ago, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status when a barrel crude oil roared past $110 on the international market, gasoline prices crossed the $3.50 threshold at American pumps, and diesel fuel topped $4.00. As was true of the USSR following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the USA will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making.

    That the fall of the Berlin Wall spelled the erasure of the Soviet Union's superpower status was obvious to international observers at the time. After all, the USSR visibly ceased to exercise dominion over an empire (and an associated military-industrial complex) encompassing nearly half of Europe and much of Central Asia. The relationship between rising oil prices and the obliteration of America's superpower status is, however, hardly as self-evident. So let's consider the connection.

The fact is, America's wealth and power has long rested on the abundance of cheap petroleum. The United States was, for a long time, the world's leading producer of oil, supplying its own needs while generating a healthy surplus for export.

    Oil was the basis for the rise of first giant multinational corporations in the U.S., notably John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (now reconstituted as Exxon Mobil, the world's wealthiest publicly-traded corporation). Abundant, exceedingly affordable petroleum was also responsible for the emergence of the American automotive and trucking industries, the flourishing of the domestic airline industry, the development of the petrochemical and plastics industries, the suburbanization of America, and the mechanization of its agriculture. Without cheap and abundant oil, the United States would never have experienced the historic economic expansion of the post-World War II era.

    No less important was the role of abundant petroleum in fueling the