Log Cabin Republicans Are Like Chickens for Colonel Sanders

By MANIFESTO JOE

In the 1960s, the Democratic Party lost the South because of its leaders' support for civil rights. Barry Goldwater won several Deep South states even while losing badly almost everywhere else. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, announcing that he was switching parties, said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me."

It's too bad that gay and lesbian Republicans can't see, in an inverted way, the same thing a bigoted philistine like Thurmond could.

The Mark Foley scandal has put this GOP minority into the spotlight, albeit in an unfortunate way. Foley's misbehavior certainly isn't representative of the gay community.

But many Americans are now aware of something I don't think they'd given much thought to before: There are surprisingly many gay and lesbian Republicans.

My question is: why? Why would people of those sexual orientations continue to vote for and donate money to candidates of a party mostly composed of people who regard them as, at best, sick freaks, and at worst, hellbound sinners?

The most high-profile organization that gives these GOP outsiders something of a voice is the Log Cabin Republicans. Their home page describes them as "loyal Republicans" who believe in things like:

• Low taxes. (So they'd rather live in Central America than in one of those socialist nightmare regimes in Scandinavia. Have they read anything about the state of gay rights in Guatemala lately?)
  
  
• Limited government. (Do they mean the kind that can't respond to natural disasters like hurricanes? Or the kind that gives the president semidictatorial powers to, for example, define what constitutes torture?)
  
  
• Strong defense. (Like the kind that, after the U.S. is attacked by Al Qaeda, decides to attack an adversary of theirs in Iraq? And then doesn't send enough troops to secure the borders, the precious oil fields, or bring any semblance of order to the country? But still stretches our military so thin that it likely wouldn't be able to respond to a real threat from, say, North Korea or Iran? And somehow manages to create a virtual terrorist training ground in Iraq? Can you say Larry? Moe? Curly Joe?)
  
  
• Free markets. (Do they mean the kind in which contractors like Halliburton, with incestuously close ties to the "vice president," get no-bid contracts worth well over $10 billion?)
  
  
• Personal responsibility. (Do they mean the kind that George W. Bush and Deadeye Dick Cheney have demonstrated during their adult lives?)
  
  
• Individual liberty. (Do they mean the kind the Texas Republican Party endorsed in its 2004 platform, in which it opposed legalization of "sodomy," and also advised candidates that a risk of not supporting the entire platform would be withholding of state party funding?)
  

I understand that what Log Cabin Republicans have in common with politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mary Bono and Lincoln Chafee is that all contemporary Republicans, "moderate" or otherwise, are economic royalists.

It's not hard to understand how someone would want their human rights and the trust fund, too. They basically want the little people to pay the bulk of the taxes, and then much more; and they may even sincerely believe, for whatever misguided reasons, that they should. I'll save that argument for another time.

But as the radical right extends its already decades-long dominance of the GOP, these "moderate" politicians are looking almost as irrelevant now as James Eastland and Lester Maddox appeared among Democrats in the Sixties.

Log Cabin Republicans, you didn't leave the party, but it left you -- 25 or 30 years ago. Maybe it's time you gave some thought to something you regard as unthinkable -- to follow the lead of Media Matters for America founder David Brock, and back Democrats, at least for a while. The only way "moderates" (I'm old enough to remember when they were called conservatives.) are ever going to retake the GOP is for the radical right to start losing elections. A lot of them.

MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS

Condi's Con: One More Contemptible World-Class Liar in the Bush Junta

By MANIFESTO JOE

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida." -- Condoleeza Rice, in a New York Post interview

The pantheon of liars in the Bush administration can now add Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to their highest ranks. Joining her boss, and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others in weaving the web of anti-history, Condi seems to have conveniently forgotten a series of briefings that the departing Clinton administration set up in January 2001 for their (illegitimate) successors.

One of the meetings was described in the Aug. 4, 2002, edition of Time magazine by reporter Michael Elliot in a story titled, "They Had a Plan":

"One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger attended only one of the briefings -- the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. 'I'm coming to this briefing,' he says he told Rice, 'to underscore how important I think this subject is.' Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, 'I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.' "

The story goes on into detail about the terrorism briefing by expert Richard Clarke, at which Rice was present. Then, Elliott goes on to outline how the Bushies, in the months that followed, basically did little or nothing in response. And Condi was one of the main ones who ignored this wealth of information and let our nation fall prey to terrorists that she had been amply warned about. And yet she shamelessly lies about having had this information.

What seems clear in hindsight is that the Bush junta was told in no uncertain terms what a threat al-Qaeda was, and specific things it should do to counter the threat. The warnings were ignored, right up until the week before Sept. 11, 2001. Clarke, who was later demoted by the Bushies, recalled before the 9/11 Commission, as reported by The Washington Post:

"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue. There was a process under way to address al Qaeda. But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way."

Clarke is on record as having written to Rice on Sept. 4, 2001, urging "policymakers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done earlier."

The Post reported further that Clarke told the commission that while "the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks."

Most recently, a New York Times story reported: "A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleeza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday (Oct 2, 2006).

"The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats."

Doesn't Condi know that in the age of the Internet, anybody from Toledo to Tora Bora can look this stuff up?

The secretary of state seems to have learned well from others in our rogue administration how to lie through her teeth.

MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.

Fiscal Cost of Iraq War Will Soon Exceed Cost of Korean War

By MARC McDONALD

The Iraq War is already the fourth costliest war in American history (as measured in constant dollars). Soon, it will be the third costliest war in U.S. history.

The National Priorities Project has reported that the Iraq War has cost U.S. taxpayers $334 billion so far. The cost of the Iraq War is rapidly approaching the cost of the 1950-53 Korean War, which cost the U.S. $361 billion.

The most expensive wars in U.S. history, according to The Christian Science Monitor are: World War II ($3.114 trillion), the Vietnam War ($531.5 billion) and the Korean War ($361.2 billion). Note: all figures are in 2005 dollars.

Actually, even these figures don't tell the whole story, though. The cost of fighting World War II was offset by the fact that after the war, America acquired an enormously valuable treasure trove of highly lucrative German technology and patents. This ranged from aerospace and jet engine technology to military technology to sophisticated chemicals.

By contrast, the U.S. won't be reaping any benefit whatsoever from the Iraq War. In fact, we're having a difficult time just accessing that nation's oil reserves. So much for the Bush team's pre-war prediction that Iraq's oil would pay for the cost of the invasion.

On that topic, I'd like to debunk one of the stupidest Republican arguments to have come down the pike the past couple of years. That is: that Bush's rationale for the Iraq War could not have been oil, since the U.S. hasn't had much luck in accessing Iraq's oil since the invasion.

I've heard this argument repeated by right-wingers endlessly. The lack of logic is breathtaking. First of all, just because America hasn't gotten its grubby hands on Iraq's oil doesn't mean that our leaders don't want the oil. All it means is that the Iraqi insurgents have been highly successful in targeting Iraq's oil infrastructure and pipelines. It's difficult for Iraq's oil industry to operate when the nation is in the midst of chaos and civil war.

Who Will Direct November Election: Frank Capra--Or David Lynch?

By MARC McDONALD

If you're a Democrat these days, life is good. At least it seems to be good.

The embattled GOP appears to be on the ropes. Even before the Foley story, the party had been reeling from an endless series of scandals and revelations. Things have gotten so bad that Republican congressmen are running away from their own president, as George W. Bush's own approval ratings sink further into the toilet.

How could the Democrats possibly not re-capture the Congress in November?

Well, before you pop that champagne cork, keep a few things in mind. The Republicans are still massively well-funded and they and their allies still control the nation's corporate media. Last, but not least, America's election system is still broken and subject to tampering (and the GOP has shown time and again that they will not hesitate to steal votes).

Nevertheless, Democrats remain jubilant these days. The past six hellish years of Bush and NeoCon control of this country appear to be nearing an end. And if the Democrats can re-capture the Congress, then we have a chance to make Bush finally answer for his crimes. The NeoCon corruption, crime and evil that soiled our nation's capital might finally come to an end.

It's a heartwarming scenario with a happy ending that might have come straight out of a Frank Capra movie.

There's only one problem.

The America that we all grew up with and admired as a nation no longer exists in the George W. Bush era. The nation that was once admired and emulated around the world no longer exists. Our present government has sullied America's good name in scores of ways, from embracing torture as official policy to illegal wiretaps, to brazenly stealing elections, to illegally invading sovereign nations.

Democrats are hoping that the November elections will have a happy ending, like something Capra would have directed. But I fear that it instead will resemble the work of another director: David Lynch, the cinematic master of the creepy, the surreal, and the horrible.

As good as things appear to be for the Democrats at the moment, it seems like a lot of us have forgotten that America's election system still has severe problems that have yet to be corrected. Although a number of investigators and writers have extensively documented the election system problems, I don't think we'll see them resolved until the mainstream media brings them to the attention of the American people.

Democrats already face huge obstacles to re-taking the Congress---and that's before we even start talking about stolen votes.

Incumbents in Congress already enjoy an enormous financial advantage over their challengers. Take the House for example. As Opensecrets.org has pointed out, House incumbents have raised a total of $376,250,753 (which works out to $887,384 per candidate). That dwarfs the $95,260,904 raised by challengers, who have only raised $170,413 per candidate.

No wonder incumbent re-election rates are so high these days. As Opensecrets.org notes, in 2004, an eye-popping 98 percent of House incumbents were re-elected (excluding incumbents facing incumbents), as were 96 percent of incumbent Senators.

It is indeed a bleak prospect to think that the Democrats won't prevail in the November elections. But I'd like to emphasize that I'm not suggesting that anyone not bother to vote in November. Not by any means. I still urge everyone to get out and vote. Are you registered to vote? Go to this site to find out.

As investigative journalist Greg Palast has written:

"How many times am I asked, "Why vote if they're going to steal the election?" That's the point: Make them STEAL it. Make them know they can't win UNLESS they steal it."

A Guide To Deciphering Today's GOP Vocabulary

By MARC McDONALD

Many commentators have lamented the widening gulf between Democrats and Republicans in recent years. Personally, I think part of the problem may be misunderstandings in communication between the two parties. Even though Right Wingers technically speak English, a lot of us on the Left often have trouble understanding what they're talking about these days. So in the interests of harmony, I'd like to present a handy guide to understanding the modern-day GOP vocabulary:

1. "The War On Terror." A widely-used term among Republicans that in reality refers to the disastrous U.S. invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. To Democrats, the term has a totally different meaning: namely to work to prevent terror attacks on America and pursuing members of Al-Qaeda.

2. "Capitalism." As modern-day Republicans understand it, an economic system that steals from working-class and middle-class Americans and gives billions of our tax dollars in closed, no-bid contracts to wealthy, politically connected corporations like Halliburton. The way the Democrats understand the term, capitalism refers to private corporations earning an honest profit in the private sector and competing in the marketplace like the rest of us.

3. "Christianity." You know the values that Christ talked about? Helping the poor? Compassion and love? Turning the other cheek? Blessing the peacemakers? Well, none of that has anything to do with "Christianity" as the present-day Republicans understand the term. To them, somehow Christianity has something to do with repression, hatred of gays, bigotry, ignorance, and a general distrust of anyone who isn't a white Republican Protestant.

4. "Patriotism." A great deal of confusion exists over this term these days. Democrats take the term to mean support of one's nation. Republicans interpret "patriotism" to mean blind, fanatical, unswerving loyalty to George W. Bush. Indeed, they call anyone who criticizes Bush for any reason "unpatriotic." (They also throw a temper tantrum---much the same as Bush himself does when he doesn't get his way).

5. "John Kerry." To non-Republicans, this term refers to a U.S. senator and a decorated war hero, who was wounded in action while serving in combat in the Vietnam War. To NeoCons, this term seems to refer to something entirely different: they interpret it to mean a (fictional) person who was weak, traitorous, and who faked his war wounds and then somehow conspired with none other than the United States Navy to be awarded military decorations he didn't deserve, such as the Bronze Star, the Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts.

6. "Fiscal responsibility." To Democrats, this term refers to setting taxes at a level in which the nation can afford to pay its bills. (During wartime, this also involves raising taxes in order to pay for the war effort). To Republicans, this term refers to giving away billions in tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of Americans and simply ignoring the resulting titanic wartime deficits.

7. "Family values." To Democrats, this means things like policies that actually help America's families, like decent wages, maternity leave, affordable health care, and good schools. To Republicans, the term refers to ramming their narrow, twisted interpretation of "Christianity" (See #3, above) down the throats of the rest of us.

8. "Exploitation." This term, as Democrats understand it, generally is in agreement with the Webster's dictionary interpretation: "To make unethical use of for one's profit." (Note this term is completely absent from the Republican vocabulary and they have no idea what it means).

9. "Bipartisanship." To Democrats, this means reaching across the aisle and working with the opposite party, in an effort to serve the American people (who, after all, pay the bills). To Republicans, this means that you need to agree with and rubberstamp EVERYTHING Bush wants, from legalizing torture to illegal wiretaps, or you will be branded as an anti-American traitor.

10. "Health care system." To Democrats, this refers to a system that helps keep the nation's population healthy and provides medical care to the sick. To Republicans, this refers to yet another way to make lots of money (and the fact that sick people are often desperate and have no other options just sweetens the deal).

Sooner Or Later, The Dissent-Hating NeoCons Will Crack Down On Progressive Web Media

By MARC McDONALD

Do you ever have one of those days when you suddenly get hit by an ominous premonition and a feeling of deep dread about the future? I'd imagine that a lot of us on the Left regularly experience these sorts of days in the era of Bush's America.

But recently, I haven't been able to shake the feeling that something sinister is around the corner. And it involves the end of the relatively new but fast-growing progressive Web media.

The Web's progressive media is still nothing more than a mosquito compared to the established giants of the corporate media. But the Liberal Web is growing and it's starting to become a force that even the MSM cannot ignore, whether it is CNN offering a daily roundup of day's hottest blogs to Bill O'Reilly ranting and raving on Faux News about the evils of the "far left" Web sites.

For progressives, the past six years have been a nightmare. Well, really, things have been going downhill for the Left since Reagan was first elected--but that's another article. But the past six years of Bush's America have been particularly gruesome.

One of the few bright spots in the past decade has been the rise of a whole new progressive media online. A new media that tells the truth and is answerable to no shareholders or multinational corporations. A new media that corporate America has discovered (much to its horror) that it has zero control over.

This, of course, is a major and growing irritant for the Right Wing. After all, over the past quarter century, Republicans have methodically consolidated their power in America via a variety of methods, from blatant gerrymandering to stealing votes. Today, the GOP controls all three branches of government.

Perhaps even more crucially, the Right Wing controls Big Media in this country. The latter is a vital lever of the GOP's power. The MSM can be relied on to spread the Right Wing's agenda and pacify the American people and keep them ignorant and apathetic with pabulum disguised as "news."

Control the information and you control the people.

There's only one obstacle to the Right Wing's master plan for controlling the flow of information: progressive and independent Web media.

This is something that has to drive the Wingnuts crazy (or at least crazier than they already are). Remember, these are people who despise dissent and who go absolutely bonkers when anyone says anything negative about their hero Bush.

Bush and Cheney themselves are notorious for not tolerating the slightest hint of dissent. Both men are surrounded by sycophants and "yes" men. Both men will refuse to set foot in a public venue to give a speech, unless the building has been thoroughly emptied of all dissenters and protesters.

It's clear that the Wingnuts' depth of hatred for the Web's progressive media is at least as deep as their slavish, fanatical devotion to Bush. I have zero doubts that if Bush tomorrow pushed for a law to curb dissenting Web sites in the name of "national security," the Wingnuts would line up to voice their support.

Is it really that implausible that the Bush regime would do such a thing? To ask the question is to answer it. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply naive.

We've all seen what happens to those who voice any opposition or dissent these days. From treasonously outing CIA agents to libelously sliming war heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland, there is nothing the NeoCon Wingnuts will not do to crush their opposition.

Can we expect a NeoCon crackdown on the progressive Web in the future? I think it's entirely possible. Really, the only thing the NeoCons need to make it happen is to come up with a snappy, focus-group-tested, benign-sounding name for the crackdown. Which shouldn't be a problem: I mean, these are the people who shredded our nation's Constitution and called it "The Patriot Act."

2003 Cancellation of "The Reagans" TV Series Showed GOP's Power Over Media

By MARC McDONALD

The ruckus over Disney/ABC's upcoming 9/11 "docudrama," brings to mind an earlier controversy over a TV series that raised a firestorm of controversy. In 2003, right-wing protests led Viacom to cancel its showing of "The Reagans" on CBS. Instead, the series ran on Showtime on pay-cable (which greatly reduced its audience potential).

The controversies over the two TV series demonstrates how that GOP wields vastly more influence than Democrats over how history is presented in TV dramas these days. After a threatened boycott, the Republicans were able to successfully prevent "The Reagans" from being broadcast on CBS, because they took issue with the program's portrayal of the Reagan family.

However, the Democrats have no such power. Disney/ABC has no intention of canceling "The Path to 9/11," (which is set to air on Sunday and Monday). This, despite the fact that the series is riddled with errors and is clearly a blatantly partisan hatchet job on Bill Clinton and the Democrats that is being aired only eight weeks before the midterm elections.

As Media Matters has pointed out that the miniseries "twists and invents facts and storylines to create a false picture of the Clinton administration's role in failing to prevent the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while largely ignoring Bush administration failures."

Interestingly enough, Disney/ABC has refused to provide Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger advance copies of the "docudrama," while GOP bloggers have been sent copies.

Clinton's office has strongly denounced the program, calling ABC/Disney "despicable" for airing a program that is "fiction" and "in direct contradiction of the 9-11 commission report and the facts."

If you'd like to add your voice to those requesting that ABC cancel this slanted, inaccurate, partisan hatchet job on Clinton, go here.

Labor Day: A Time To Reflect On How Unions Help The Economy

By MARC McDONALD

If you listen to George W. Bush, you might be under the impression that labor unions are bad for business and that they hurt America's competitiveness. As usual, though, Bush doesn't have a clue.

Indeed, when it comes to business and economic issues, I'm amazed that anyone takes Bush seriously these days. After all, this is someone who was a miserable failure in the private sector (despite his powerful Bush family name and connections). Bush ran every private sector company he was in charge of into the ground. And now he's well on the way to doing this to America itself.

Republicans, of course, have always been hostile to unions. But it's time to dispel a few myths about unions.

The most outrageous lie I consistently hear about unions is that they're "bad for business" and that they hurt America's competitiveness. America's pampered, grossly overpaid CEOs have long gotten their corporations' propaganda divisions (read: the corporate media) to peddle this lie to the American people.

But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Germany, for example, has powerful labor unions and strong labor laws---and yet that nation ranks as one of the most competitive economies in the world. For one thing, Germany (with less than one-third America's population) is the biggest exporter in the world.

Take a look at the benefits German workers enjoy: a minimum of six weeks paid vacation (two months is the average). Numerous paid holidays. Free health care. Free university tuition. Powerful unions that make it virtually impossible for workers to get fired. Etc.

Despite such strong pro-worker benefits, Germany is the world's biggest exporter. The nation leads in a wide range of ultra-high-tech industries that have enormous entry barriers for low-wage nations. (Translation: Germany doesn't need to worry about low-wage labor from China any time soon). In fact, China has represented an opportunity, not a threat to the Germany economy as China hungers for the sort of high-tech capital and factory equipment that Germany specializes in these days.

Traditional, free-market Anglo-American economists tend to downplay Germany's competitiveness, though. Indeed, the American business press regularly runs stories that purport to show that America's economy is the "most competitive" in the world. No matter how they try to spin it, though, the fact remains that America's so-called "competitive" economy doesn't produce much that the rest of the world wants to buy these days (hence America's soaring, out-of-control trade deficits).

I find it interesting that the countries that have the biggest exports these days (Germany, Japan, etc.) also have strong labor laws and unions---not to mention average wages that exceed those of American workers.

How is this possible?

Is it possible that America's economic "experts" are clueless about what makes a nation competitive and prosperous? Is it possible that, despite what economists say, unions are not bad for business, after all?

A look at the real world indicates that, far from being bad for business, unions are actually a crucial force in building a nation's prosperity and making it competitive.

How can this be? Well, it's widely accepted that unions were responsible for the rise of the Great American Middle Class. What's not as well understood or known, though, is that unions (along with strong labor laws) essentially force companies to become more competitive.

A big flaw of present-day American capitalism is that U.S. corporations don't take a long-term view. Indeed, they don't look any further than the next fiscal quarter.

Meanwhile, in nations like Germany and Japan, corporations do take the long-term view. And as a result, they increasingly demolish their short-sighted American competition.

Take, for example, the increasingly popular hybrid vehicles that Japan is producing these days. Japan began researching these high-tech vehicles as far back as the 1980s. Meanwhile, Detroit automakers (which have never looked further into the future than the next fiscal quarter) are still highly dependent on gas-guzzling SUVs, which are increasingly losing favor with the American consumer.

In taking a look at this scenario, it's important to not overlook the role of unions and strong labor laws. The latter in effect force companies to take a long-term view. When it's virtually impossible to fire your workers (as is the case in Japan and much of Europe), companies have little choice than to plan well ahead into the future.

As a general rule, companies that have a long-term game plan for survival tend to outperform companies that take a short-term view.

All of this, of course, demolishes the economists' "conventional" wisdom that unions and strong labor laws are "bad" for business. It's clear that the opposite is true. Really, the only beneficiaries of the current U.S. economy are the ultra-rich. The Great American Middle Class is on the verge of extinction. And the U.S. economy (which is heavily dependent on gigantic amounts of foreign capital just to stay afloat) is increasingly resembling a Ponzi scheme that is in danger of collapsing like a house of cards.

'Dead Peasant Insurance' And Other Weird Tales Of Wally World: Don't Buy Cheesy Wal-Mart PR

By MANIFESTO JOE

As Wal-Mart continues a campaign to burnish its skinflint image, recent events belie this effort. Here are some developments that show that this petty, miserly corporation hasn't changed:

• Chain Store Age reported on July 20 that a U.S. federal judge struck down a Maryland law that required Wal-Mart to provide health insurance for employees in the state. (Wal-Mart shares rose 2 percent after the news.)
  
• Wal-Mart bitterly fought a proposed ordinance in Chicago that requires "big box" stores to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour plus at least $3 an hour worth of benefits. The New York Times reported on July 27 that the measure passed, 35-14, and that a gallery crowded with supporters "broke into cheers." The city's first Wal-Mart is set to open soon -- and it may be the last, some sources say. The City Council majority was veto-proof; but of course, court challenges are likely.
  
  
• Deutsche Welle reported on July 28 that Wal-Mart is closing up shop in Germany, where it had been struggling since 1998. Analysts said the company's attempt to apply the U.S. model (cheap goods made possible by low wages) was a "fiasco" in Germany. There were conflicts with unions, and also with the culture. For example, employees "were forbidden ... from dating colleagues in positions of influence. Workers were also told not to flirt with one another."
  
  
• Remember "dead peasant insurance"? That was a pundit's description of a practice by hundreds of employers, Wal-Mart among them, of having insurers write policies on the lives of low-wage workers. These "corporate-owned life insurance policies" turned mighty sour on the retail giant.
  

Andrews Publications writer Frank Reynolds reported on July 24: "Discount retailing giant Wal-Mart cannot sue its insurers just because it gambled and lost $1.3 billion on getting a tax break from thousands of insurance policies it took out on employees, according to a brief filed by the insurers in the Delaware Supreme Court. "Press reports have dubbed the 'corporate-owned life insurance' policies at issue in this litigation 'dead peasant insurance' because most of the policies were purchased by companies that employ large numbers of workers at the lower end of the wage scale and most of the policy benefits went to the companies rather than to families of deceased employees. "Wal-Mart is contending in an appeal that it was entitled to rely on its expert insurance brokers to warn the company of the inherent dangers of buying COLI policies. Wal-Mart has asked the high court to revive its bad-faith and breach-of-duty claims against its insurers, which the Delaware Chancery Court had dismissed." As of July 2005, six states had outlawed that practice in cases in which the employee is not told, Wikipedia reports. The online encyclopedia also states: "Wal-Mart is one of those companies under fire from the US Internal Revenue Service and labor organizations for the practice. The IRS considers COLI a tax dodge, and has pursued Dow Chemical, Camelot Music, Winn-Dixie and American Electric Power, among others, to recover tax underpayments. "The practice of using COLI is still widespread ... According to one source, Hartford Life Insurance estimated that one-quarter of all Fortune 500 companies have COLI policies, which cover the lives of about 5 million employees. Wal-Mart alone has policies on 350,000 employees." MSN Money writer Liz Pulliam Weston has reported: "-- Companies pay a whopping $8 billion in premiums each year for such coverage, according to the American Council of Life Insurers, a trade group. "-- The policies make up more than 20% of all the life insurance policies sold each year. "-- Companies expect to reap more than $9 billion in tax breaks from these policies over the next five years. The policies are treated as whole life policies. So, companies can borrow against the policies (though the IRS won't let them write off the interest). And the death benefits are tax-free." That this practice by corporate ghouls became so widespread is the stuff outrageous scandals are made of. Yet this story, developing over years, was largely ignored by the mainstream media when it should have been on every front page and a lead story on every newscast. But, back to Wal-Mart: Just name any enormity, any exploitative practice, any labor abuse -- and the folks at Wally World have done it. The company has resolutely fought any and every effort to genuinely improve the lot of its "associates." And if recent developments are any indication, the cheesy PR campaign and measly "lower-cost" health care plan are like putting a pretty little Band-Aid on a hatchet wound. Folks at Wally World -- get real. Lots of shoppers aren't going to buy it. MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS

GOP Has A Major Challenge Ahead In Salvaging Bush's Legacy

By MARC McDONALD

"The only thing one learns from history is that nobody learns anything from history."
---Hegel

The GOP establishment has long done a masterful job of polishing the legacies of previous Republican presidents.

Nixon, for example, was a real challenge. After all, he was a crook who resigned the presidency in disgrace. Somehow, though, after years of painstaking rehabilitation by the GOP, Nixon was magically transformed into a "respected" elder statesman and author.

In my view, restoring Reagan's legacy was an even bigger challenge for the GOP. Many of us recall The Gipper as a clown and a shallow figure who had no business in the White House. And yet, the Republican powers-that-be went to work on Reagan's legacy and by the time they were finished, Reagan was hailed as a Great World Leader, who single-handedly won the Cold War. Inconvenient details from the Reagan White House (such as the illegal sale of arms to Iran and the bloody Central American death squads) were carefully airbrushed out of the picture.

Today, tens of millions of Americans believe Reagan "won" the Cold War. Unfortunately, it's a crock. Serious historians are still delving into the causes of the Cold War's end, a process that I suspect will go on for decades. Reagan, no doubt, played a role. But we shouldn't forget the cast of millions who really were responsible for ending the superpower rivalry.

How about the millions of people of the Eastern Bloc, who peacefully took the streets, demanding change? Or the efforts of reformer Mikhail Gorbachev, who did more than anyone to bring down the Soviet Union? Or human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa? Or the efforts of previous U.S. presidents, dating back to Harry S. Truman (whose Truman Doctrine policy started the U.S. policy of working to contain the Soviet Union in the first place?)

Today, the GOP legacy builders must surely realize that, in George W. Bush, they face their greatest challenge yet.

To be sure, Bush's legacy is already safe with the die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers who worship everything Bush does. To these "30-percenters," Bush is already an American hero who ranks as perhaps the greatest president since Washington. (These die-hards also get all their news and views from Rush and Fox "News." They believe that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse/torture scandal was nothing more than fraternity pranks).

The Republicans were able to salvage the legacies of Nixon and Reagan and I suspect they'll do the same with Bush. Their method for doing this will be simple: the same brute force tactics that they used to smear John Kerry. Any commentator who says anything negative about their hero will immediately be a target for sliming by the Great GOP Noise Machine. The Republicans will do whatever they can to damage the reputation of those who dare speak the truth about the Bush White House.

Serious historians who wish to do credible research on the Bush years will have to constantly look over their shoulders to make sure that the Republican propaganda juggernaut doesn't have them in its crosshairs. Researchers and historians will no doubt be reminded of what happens to those who dare challenge Bush and how their careers can be easily destroyed. Just ask Valerie Plame.

One might ask: why is all this important? After all, once Bush leaves office, the worst will be over, right? Perhaps so, but I'd like to point out the words of philosopher George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George W. Bush has already done America, and the world, incalculable damage that will take decades to repair. I believe that it is vital that we as a nation never forget or try to diminish Bush's crimes. If we allow the rabid GOP Kool-Aid drinkers to dictate how Bush's legacy is remembered, then we as a people are setting ourselves up for a future repeat of the tragedies of the Bush White House in the decades to come.

Five Things You're Not Allowed To Say About the War In Iraq

By MARC McDONALD

Supposedly, we Americans live in a free society and we enjoy freedom of speech. But in reality, in Bush's America, there's a great deal of information that is glaringly absent from America's public discourse. And on no topic are there more prohibitions about what can be said than the Iraq War. Which is ironic when you consider that one of Bush's stated reasons for the war was to bring democracy and "freedom" to the Middle East.

Here are five things that you're not allowed to say about the war in Iraq these days:

1. America Is Going To Be In Iraq Permanently. Despite all the debate about "when the troops should leave," the fact is, we will be in Iraq for decades to come. Otherwise, the U.S. wouldn't be constructing numerous giant permanent military bases in Iraq. This whole topic seems to be taboo for America's mainstream media. Nobody in the gutless White House press corps has yet bothered to demand answers from Bush about this during a news conference.

2. The Iraqi People Don't Want Our Troops In Their Country. I have to admit, I'm baffled by the current debate in America's mainstream media over what the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would be. I've heard plenty of politicians claim that chaos and civil war would result. There's only one problem: Iraq is already in a state of civil war and chaos---which in fact has been prompted by the presence of our troops. The Iraqi people know this---and they want our troops out of their nation. In fact, about half of the Iraqi people approve of insurgents' attacks on U.S. troops.

3. The Iraq People Don't Want U.S.-Style Democracy. For a country with such enormous problems as the U.S. has today, it's always amazed me how so many of our politicians are convinced that the rest of the world has a craving to live exactly the way we do. I strongly suspect that the Iraqi people simply don't want to live in a U.S.-style democracy. This is witnessed by the recent Iraqi election (in which most of the Iraqi people gave their approval to essentially converting their country to a theocracy by basing their nation's constitution on Islamic law).

4. The Iraq War Was All About The Oil. This is one taboo topic that virtually everyone in our mainstream media has been afraid to bring up. Even the left-leaning (and usually reliable) journalist Seymour Hersh has written that he believes the Iraq War wasn't about oil. I'm afraid I have to disagree. And I'd bet that the vast majority of people worldwide would agree with me (as would the people of Iraq). The fact is, if Iraq had been a resource-poor nation, we wouldn't have cared if it was ruled by a tyrant. Most Americans are simply naive about our leaders' real motivations in invading Iraq. We want to believe that the war was for more noble and lofty reasons than plain, old grubby money. But it's time that we as a people pull our heads out of the sand and realize that we've been conned all along.

5. The U.S. Never Had A Moral Leg To Stand On In Condemning Saddam. The fact is, Saddam had no WMDs and posed no threat to the U.S. Saddam also had no connection to 9/11. However, those who defend the decision to invade Iraq still have one small fig leaf to hide behind. That is: that Saddam was a bad guy. But did U.S. really have the moral authority to condemn Saddam? I don't think the rest of the world would agree that we did. After all, we're the ones who armed and funded Saddam and sold him chemical and biological weapons in the first place. In fact, the U.S. had a long and sordid history of secret dealings with Saddam, dating back to 1959 (when the CIA contracted Saddam to attempt an assassination of Iraq's prime minister). Yes, Saddam was despicable. But so was invading a sovereign nation to steal its oil.

Which Is A Better Source Of News: The Mainstream Media Or The Blogosphere?

By MARC McDONALD

Which is a better source of news these days: the mainstream media or the blogosphere? Many people might say the MSM is a better, more accurate source of information. After all, they would argue, anyone can set up a blog.

By contrast, the people who work in the MSM have journalism degrees and highly specialized skills. At first glance, this appears to be a big plus for the MSM. However, it's important to note that the content that goes into the MSM has to be first approved by the giant, profit-hungry multinational corporations that own the MSM.

Although technically censorship is supposed to not exist in the U.S., in reality, the MSM has long been guilty of self-censorship. If you don't believe me, then click over to Project Censored to see a roundup of major, important stories that aren't reported by the MSM.

If you want the unvarnished truth these days, the blogosphere is the place to go. You may have to wade through a great deal of junk to find the nuggets of truth. But at least the truth exists in the blogosphere---that's more than can be said about the MSM on a lot of important issues facing America.

Don't believe me? Let's take a look at a number of major stories and see how they were presented by the MSM and the blogosphere:

1. Story: What really happened during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001?

Mainstream media: The story of 9/11 as told to the American people by the U.S. government is the whole story and there's nothing else to report. Anyone who believes otherwise is a tin-foil hat fringe conspiracist.

The blogosphere: The U.S. government's account of 9/11 as told to the American people is a pack of lies and there has been a cover-up to conceal the truth.

2. Story: The Downing Street Memo

Mainstream media: The Downing Street What?

The blogosphere: The Downing Street Memo exposes the long-suppressed truth about how the Iraq War began. It's a blockbuster story that proves that U.S. intelligence on Iraq before the war was deliberately falsified, rather than merely mistaken.

3. Story: The 2004 election, in which George W. Bush was "re-elected" by defeating John Kerry

Mainstream media: It was a ordinary, honest election with no major irregularities or problems. Anyone who believes otherwise is a tin-foil hat fringe conspiracist.

The blogosphere: The 2004 election was riddled with problems, including voter suppression, purges of voter lists, serious problems with the accuracy of voting machines, etc. The evidence of massive election fraud cannot be ignored and is evidenced by the exit polls that projected that Kerry won by 3 million votes.