Will the Media Fully Examine the Rove Case? Don't Hold Your Breath

By MARC MCDONALD

From time to time, in the news media business, there will emerge a story that journalists will say "has legs."

A story with "legs" tends to completely dominate our nation's public discourse for months at a time. More often than not, by the time the story has run its course, virtually every American will be sick and tired of the topic. (Recall the O.J. Simpson case).

A good example of a story with legs was the Monica Lewinsky story. This is a story that got "above the fold," saturation, round-the-clock coverage for 18 seemingly never-ending months. The media obviously believed it was a major story with legs (although the American public obviously disagreed---Clinton enjoyed strong approval ratings in the high 60s, even at the height of the "crisis").

By the time this story wound down, virtually everyone in America was long since tired of the topic. (It's interesting, because the media has long claimed that it serves up news stories that "the public wants." And yet, who, outside of a few right-wing partisan hacks really wanted to read about the Monica Lewinsky story day after monotonous day for a year and a half?)

Progressives these days are no doubt wondering if the Karl Rove/Valerie Plame story will have legs. Will the mainstream media continue to pursue this story, day in and day out, and give it the coverage that it deserves?

I think this story, as important as it is, will fizzle out soon, as the mainstream media looks elsewhere for its "flavor of the month" news cycle fix. No doubt, the next time an attractive white woman winds up in peril somewhere, the media will latch onto that story and drop the Rove story.

The fact is, the media has given the Bush White House a free pass on everything for the past five years and I don't expect the Rove case to be any different.

The media's agenda these days is pretty much dictated by the right-wing's powerful noise machine, which pretty much obliterates any real dialogue on the issues that impact the lives of ordinary working Americans.

The corporate media would have us believe on most days that the most important issue in our society right now is the plight of yet another attractive young white woman in distress somewhere. (Never mind that a similar story involving say, a frumpy middle-aged black woman, would never be similarly regarded as national news).

And meanwhile, hugely critical stories impacting the lives of every American receive virtually zero coverage in our nation's media. To name but three examples:

1. The U.S. has gigantic and growing, unprecedented trade and fiscal deficits that a growing number of economic commentators say imperil our nation and threaten to implode the value of the dollar: a massively urgent story that critically impacts the lives of every single American.

2. The U.S. is currently experiencing a rapidly growing divide between rich and poor that is unprecedented in world history. This astonishing polarization of the classes (which began around 1980 and is rapidly picking up steam today) has been completely ignored by the media.

3. The U.S. public schools system is in what can only be described as a major crisis. The U.S. school system as a whole is in fact the worst in the industrialized world. It's hard to imagine a story that has a greater impact on America's future.

The above are merely three major stories that the media neglects; there are many others.

I'm willing to admit, in the overall scale of things, the Rove story might not be that important compared to say, America's titanic fiscal deficits, or America's worst-in-the-industrialized-world school system. But it'd be nice to see the media (for once) not give the Bush White House yet another free pass.

I mean, this is the same media that never gave Clinton a pass on anything (even if it was a non-story that was pitched to the media by Clinton's enemies).

Thus, we got massive, saturation coverage on "stories" like the time Clinton supposedly held up air traffic so that he could get a haircut. That story got weeks of heavy coverage (and it was only later that it emerged that the incident, in fact, never happened at all, as the FAA later confirmed).

Virtually every critical story that ever appeared on Clinton, in fact, turned out to have no basis in reality. And yet, to this day, many Republicans are convinced that the most bizarre, outlandish tales about Clinton are true: that he had people murdered in Arkansas; that he had a hand in the death of Vince Foster; that he had a chance to capture Bin Laden and instead let him "get away."

Therefore it's quite frustrating for progressives these days to watch as Bush escapes responsibility for anything he's ever done, simply because the media refuses to hold him accountable for anything. Bush can lie through his teeth all day and he confidently and arrogantly knows he'll get away with it, because the media will never have the balls to challenge him.

So if you waiting for the media to fully examine the Rove/Plame case, and to tell the American people the truth about this story, don't hold your breath.

George W. Bush is No Conservative

By MANIFESTO JOE

The day before Iran held the first round of its presidential election, George W. Bush issued a statement basically calling the Iranian process a sham: this from a man whom the Supreme Court appointed to the presidency on rather zany legal grounds, and whose "re-election" was suspect, given the shenanigans in Ohio and other states.

Ostensibly, Bush was motivated by a desire to one day see U.S.-style democracy in Iran. One would have to read his mind to be sure.

The result: Iran's hard-liners exhorted Islamic fundamentalists to get to the polls; evidently, they went, and the reformers lost. Regime officials snidely thanked Bush repeatedly the day after the vote. It would appear that he helped ensure the life span of their theocracy.

This was one small example of this administration's moronic hubris -- but it was quintessential Bush. In campaign politics, he leads a charmed life. But in policy-making, he and his team have, time after time, shown virtually no circumspection.

Bush's lack of genuine compassion has long been documented, going back to when he was governor of Texas. He mocked a woman whom he refused to pardon from Death Row ("Please don't kill me," he said to an interviewer in a falsetto voice).

Now it is easy to conclude that he is not only a phony as a "compassionate conservative," but as any kind of conservative.

This is not to say that I am a fan of conservatives. I confess that, long ago, I was once one of them. Experience taught me their true intentions -- to rationalize and defend privilege, most of it unearned; and to dupe as many of the underprivileged as possible into thinking it's in their best interests to side with the winners.

Also, they tend to cite the longevity of human institutions as proof of their purity and soundness; tell that to the victims of pedophile Roman Catholic priests. The typical "thinking" conservative's professed dark view of human nature seems to turn into naive optimism when they encounter power and privilege. Their pessimism seems to apply only to the weak and destitute.

Conservatism is largely an ideology of opportunism. Historically, they have not been unwilling to use illegal force, ranging from CIA-engineered coups to union busting by company goons, to get their way. Their platitudes about the rule of law have a hollow ring.

But even if one really tries to regard conservatives as they would like to be seen, as those who strive to preserve what was best about our past -- it is clear that Bush is a right-wing radical, not a conservative. He has more in common with the hard-line Iranian mullahs whom he reviles than he will ever realize.

Would Winston Churchill have gone on supporting tax bonanzas for the rich in the middle of an expensive war? Would Senator Robert Taft have wanted to drag us into invading a country that had not attacked us, based on intelligence that sounded flimsy even before it was proved bogus? Would Barry Goldwater have approved of the most sweeping rollback of legal rights and protections in decades? Would Ronald Reagan have mined the harbors of Nicaragua? (Oh, yeah, he did do that! -- but then, one could argue that Reagan wasn't a true conservative, either.)

Russell Kirk, regarded as an intellectual founding father of the modern conservative movement in America, wrote an essay, The Essence of Conservatism, in 1957, in which he identified 10 chief principles of American conservative thought.

Among the principles, presented as quotes:

"Power is full of danger; therefore, the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs."

Packing the courts with extremist ideologues, defying a Congress controlled by his own party, bullying the media, running the executive branch with Nixonian secrecy -- the Bush-Cheney-Rove gang has ignored that admonition so many times, it is pointless to go on. Suffice it to say that, very early, one pundit dubbed them "The Mayberry Machiavellians."

"The past is a great storehouse of wisdom."

Did Vietnam, or the disastrous British occupation of Iraq after World War I, enter Bush's mind during the run-up to the war? He is reported to have majored in history at Yale, yet he has again and again displayed profound ignorance of it. As the poet George Santayana, a bona fide conservative, warned, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

"In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image."

Do the words "regime change" sound familiar? Has Gitmo set a good example for democracy wannabes?

"Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical; moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial."

The Bushies should have been told this when they set out to debase Social Security, America's most successful and venerable anti-poverty program, so as to furnish more lucre for Wall Street.

On several counts, Bush and his cohorts fail at what Kirk called essential principles of conservatism. They lack the respect for diversity -- the hallmark of a high civilization, as Kirk described it -- and the foresight, the wise caution, the mature judgment, that has characterized the best classic Burkean conservatives. Bush's consistent failure to learn from mistakes, or even admit them when they are obvious, is not prudent conservative governance.

His idea of conserving the environment is to punch holes in a fragile wildlife refuge; to invade and disastrously occupy a Third World country for its oil, so America can keep driving those gas-guzzling SUVs; and to reject an important treaty that other major world powers have signed on to. A true conservative would want his or her children to inherit a planet worth living on. But when it comes to the environment, this administration ignores sound science and apparently lets oil companies determine policy. Exactly what is being conserved? It's obvious -- profits.

Fortunately, as the screw-ups mount and the body count grows, the court of public opinion seems to be slowly turning against Bush. Real conservatives, or what's left of them, should be worried; Bush's simple-minded, Messianic right-wing radicalism could very well bring down their entire movement.

I pray, literally, that it does, and before this smug fool's second term ends.

If he were to leave office tomorrow, it would take America's so-called liberals decades to pay off some debts, salvage our infrastructure, curtail the putrification of our air and water, and somewhat restore our standing in the world community.

Since our "liberals" and "progressives" have long been, by the standards of Europe and elsewhere, establishment centrists, it shouldn't be much of a stretch for them to, ironically, serve as our country's de facto post-Bush conservatives. I hope they can save the best elements of our recent past.


Manifesto Joe is an underground writer living in Texas.

"Nixon's Enemies List" Alumnus Conyers Not Afraid of a Fight

By MARC MCDONALD

A funny thing happened on the way to the GOP completely consolidating its stranglehold on power in Washington: the Democrats finally re-discovered their backbone.

And if you want a Democrat who's not afraid of being intimidated by the powers that be, John Conyers is your man.

After all, Conyers has been standing up for truth, justice and the American way since he entered the House in 1964.

Like all crusaders for the truth, Conyers has long rankled the powerful and corrupt in America. For example, in 1971, Conyers was one of the 20 original names included on the Nixon's Enemies List, an infamous compilation of Nixon foes, put together by presidential chief counsel Charles Colson.

Ironically, the Washington Post was also included in the full version of the "Nixon's Enemies List." How times have changed.

These days, the Post has been cowed into silence in its refusal to cover the Watergate of our era: the Downing Street memo bombshell.

And, worse, the Post has the gall to belittle Conyers as he wages a lonely fight against long odds to investigate the Downing Street memo and bring the truth to the American people. So we get the likes of political correspondent Dana Milbank serving up a insult-filled, sarcastic critique of the recent Conyers-chaired hearing by Democrats into whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

I don't think we can expect the likes of the Washington Post to ever take the Downing Street memo seriously. After all, to do so would mean that the Post has been on the wrong side of history dating back to the early part of 2003, when the likes of the Post and the New York Times simply acted as cheerleaders for the war, instead of examining Bush's case for invading Iraq.

No doubt, the Post would rather see Conyers just fade away and once again become a below-the-radar, obscure member of Congress.

But something tells me that isn't going to happen. Whether other not the U.S. mainstream media gets on board, the Downing Street memo train has clearly left the station and is snowballing into the major news event of our era. The American people want to know the truth and if they can't get it from the mainstream media, they won't hesitate to get it from independent sites and bloggers on the Web.

Conyers and other brave voices in Congress are going to continue to pursue the truth on the Downing Street memo. And this effort has widespread public support: 560,000 Americans have thus far signed Conyer's petition that requests an official inquiry into questions that the memo raises.

To Learn What's Going On in America, Read the British Press

By MARC MCDONALD

Would you like to know what's happening in American politics and government these days? Then look to the British media.

Once upon a time, we Americans could count on depending on our nation's press to keep us informed about what was happening in our country. But those days are over. In fact, since George W. Bush first took office, if you'd limited yourself to reading the U.S. press, then you would have missed many of the biggest stories of our time.

Take the story of the 2000 presidential election and how it was stolen by the GOP. This major story got virtually zero coverage in the U.S. media. Working in the British media, American journalist Greg Palast did some wonderful, hard-hitting, investigative reporting on the election theft. But there was only one problem.

As Palast pointed out in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, his 2003 book:

"In the USA, it ran on page zero--the story was simply not covered in American newspapers. The theft of the presidential race in Florida also grabbed big television coverage. But again, it was the wrong continent: on BBC Television, broadcasting from London worldwide---everywhere, that is, but the USA."

In retrospect, it shouldn't really be surprising that the U.S. media has ignored the Downing Street Memo story. Or that we Americans are having to look to the British press (the London Times in this instance) to find out what's going on in our own country.

The fact is, that the U.S. media has snoozed through all the important stories of the Bush administration. If important stories weren't picked up by the bloggers (like the Jeff Gannon bombshell) or the European press, then, they simply have not been covered at all.

And what "news" the U.S. media has reported has in many cases turned out to be flawed, or flat-out wrong. Take the Jessica Lynch fairy tale, for example. The U.S. media swallowed the Pentagon's version of this story whole and it wasn't until the BBC took a look that Americans learned the truth.

Far more seriously, the U.S. media, far from serving in a watchdog role, has actively worked to provide crucial support to the Bush Administration.

Recall how, in the buildup to the Iraqi war, the U.S. media did little more than stand on the sidelines, acting as a cheerleader, instead of investigating Bush's claims about the WMD issue.

On May 26, 2004, in a stunning and unprecedented half-page correction, The New York Times basically admitted that ALL of its pre-war coverage was seriously flawed.

Why is it that we Americans can't be reliably informed by our nation's own media?

Palast himself has an interesting observation to make about this problem. He notes that Britain's Guardian and Observer newspapers are the world's only major newspapers owned by a not-for-profit corporation. He notes:

"If the Rupert Murdochs of the globe are shepherds of the New World Order, they owe their success to breeding a flock of docile sheep---snoozy editors and reporters content to munch on, digest, then reprint a diet of press releases and canned stories provided by government and corporate public-relations operations."

U.S. Media Unable to Bury Downing Street Memo Story

By MARC MCDONALD

Despite determined efforts, the U.S. mainstream media has failed in its bid to bury the snowballing Downing Street Memo story.

The U.S. mainstream media has long been careful to treat the Bush Administration with kid gloves. Any stories that could be potentially harmful to Bush have been carefully quashed, from the Bush/cocaine story, all the way up to the Jeff Gannon bombshell.

This pro-GOP bias is, of course, nothing new in the corporate media. I mean, how many people recall that it was not the U.S. media that broke the story of 1985 Iran-Contra affair, but rather a Lebanese magazine, Ash-Shiraa?

Similarly, it was overseas media that broke the Downing Street Memo story. The story, which created a firestorm of controversy in Europe, has been pretty much ignored by the U.S. press.

But there's a silver lining to this story. A funny thing happened on the way to the U.S. media giving this story the kiss of death and carefully burying it deep inside the paper.

As it turns out, the Downing Street Memo story has legs. And, even with the mainstream media doing its utmost to kill the story, Downing Street continues to pick up steam. The mainstream press continues to try to convince us all that the "real news" is what happened today in the Michael Jackson trial---and is finding out that nobody cares.

The thousands of independent voices on the Web and an army of progressive bloggers is working to make sure Downing Street gets the light of day that it deserves.

As recently as 10 years ago, the U.S. press could have successfully buried a story like this. But today's news is no longer determined by what an editorial meeting at The New York Times deems worthy enough of including on Page One.

Increasingly, the mainstream U.S. press is facing the prospect of becoming irrelevant. After all, Big Media no longer gets to decide what today's most important stories are. Today, stories can become huge and get widespread exposure----and yet be completely ignored by the mainstream press.

The maintream media, in fact, is in perhaps the biggest crisis in its history. Its credibility is in tatters (as evidenced by a recent poll that shows that Americans, by a 3-to-1 majority) do not trust the press.

In the pre-Internet age, if Americans were fed up with what the media was serving them, alternatives were non-existent. Today, though, there are a gigantic number of alternative voices out there in cyberspace. If The New York Times or the Washington Post can no longer be relied upon to cover an important story, then the likes of the London Times or the Manchester Guardian are simply a click away on the Web.

The era of Big Media is clearly over in the U.S. For a start, the mainstream media's business is in a fiscal crisis these days. Circulation figures are plummeting for the nation's top newspapers. And ratings for the likes of CNN and Fox are in freefall.

It's clear that Big Media brought its current crisis upon itself. The corporate mainstream press has been cutting budgets for news gathering operations for years. Increasingly, Big Media has relied on cheap-and-easy-to-cover sleaze and sensationalism to fill its pages. But the American public is no longer buying it.

U.S. Retracts Portion Of War Based on Bad Intelligence

Satire by Manifesto Joe

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- In a startling development, the White House and the Defense Department announced Monday that they are retracting a portion of the war in Iraq, apologizing for an inaccurate intelligence report.

President Bush told reporters at a hastily called news conference that he and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided to retract the portion of the war that was based on sources who told them Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, the CIA now says, there was only one source.

"And he was drunk," said a CIA official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The president apologized for the error but stressed that despite the retraction, U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for an indefinite period until order is restored and a stable democratic government is in place.

"It's hard for America to admit being wrong about something," Bush said. "But Iraq is freer today because of our mistake."

Bush said the source of the intelligence report, after time in rehab, has "backed away" from his original account, and that the United States could "no longer stand by" that portion of the war.

Rumsfeld told reporters that he and the president "did not want to be in the position of splitting hairs, to look like we were being evasive or not fully forthcoming."

According to military sources in Baghdad, the unsubstantiated intelligence report touched off an invasion of Iraq over two years ago that has left over 1,800 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker, who knows something about retractions, called Bush's decision "a good first step" but said it could not repair the damage that had been done.

"The report had real consequences," Whitaker said. "People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged."

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, traveling home Monday after another surprise visit to Baghdad, said, "It's appalling that this portion of the war got started."

She stressed, however, that the United States still stands by the parts of the war that have liberated the Iraqi people and spread democracy in the region.

Some administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, remain suspicious that Saddam had a hidden cache of chemical weapons before the start of the war.

"After all, we sold him a buttload of them back in the '80s," Cheney told Fox News. "What the hell happened to them? Did the inspectors check the sewer system? Maybe he flushed them down the toilet."

(Manifesto Joe is an underground writer living in Texas.)

U.S. Has Become a Gulag Under Bush Regime

By MARC MCDONALD

George W. Bush has labeled as "absurd" an Amnesty International report which recently described the Guantanamo detention camp as a "gulag of our times."

However, many of us feel that the America itself has turned into one great big gulag under Bush.

This is hardly an exaggeration. Millions of us have watched in dismay over the past five years as the Bush Cartel has transformed America into an oppressive, miserable place to live. We've watched as the Bush team has steadily chipped away at our freedoms since 9/11, via the Patriot Act and other measures that have increasingly imposed a police state in this country.

All of this might be more tolerable if we felt that the Bush team had come to power, fair and square, via the ballot. But millions of Americans harbor serious doubts as to whether the elections of 2000 and 2004 were legitimate at all.

Gulags, of course, are notable for the fact that their residents are compelled to toil long hours. And although the erosion of worker's rights in this country pre-dates Bush, it's a fact that the past five years have seen an unprecedented assault of the rights of working people. Americans are working longer hours for less pay than at any time since the notorious Gilded Age in the 19th century. In fact, today, Americans work by far the longest hours in the industrialized world.

Unions are under assault and decent jobs are increasingly scarce. Workers are having to juggle two and three jobs, simply to put food on the table. And average wages have declined under Bush (although CEO pay has soared).

Gulags are typically characterized by an all-encompassing sense of fear. And Bush's America is a place where fear is widespread. Workers, for one, are fearful that they'll lose their jobs. And workers who're fearful can be counted on to not try to form unions or demand improved wages and benefits.

One recent eye-opening poll revealed that 70 percent of workers who're non-unionized would join a union if they were able to. When the poll asked participants their main reason for not joining a union, workers responded that they were fearful of losing their jobs.

The Bush Cartel, of course, has shamelessly instilled a sense of fear in the country since 9/11. And fear is a powerful tool of control. In fact, it could be argued that fear is a principal lever of Bush's power. When people are fearful, they are compliant and less likely to question authority. The Patriot Act, a bill that shreds the U.S. Constitution, would likely have faced more opposition during its passage had the American people not been so consumed with fear.

Gulags have been traditionally used as a mechanism for repressing political opposition. The Bush team has, of course, succeeded brilliantly in brutally stifling its political opponents. Part of this is due to today's spineless Democrats. But the main factor that has enabled Bush's reign of terror has been a compliant media.

During our darkest hours of the past five years, when we needed a strong, questioning, independent media, we're really been let down by a gutless press that has refused to stand up to this administration and tell the people the truth.

Of course, gulags are mainly characterized by the incarceration of people. Once again, this pretty much sums up today's America: a country that has the highest prison population in the history of the world. In fact, prisons are big business these days in the U.S. It's an industry that's being increasingly privatized and becoming a cash cow for corporate America. Prison labor, too, is on the rise in the U.S., a phenomenon that's gotten zero coverage in the mainstream media (although our press never tires of blasting China for using prison labor).

An astonishing two million people are now behind bars in this country. To put that into perspective, consider that Japan (a nation with half our population) has less than 70,000 people behind bars.

Through America's mismanaged trade policies and U.S. corporations' profits-before-people philosophy, this nation has lost tens of millions of good-paying jobs over the past two decades. The once-mighty American middle class is all but extinct and we're seeing the rise of a large, increasingly desperate and hopeless underclass in this nation. It's clear that America's exploding prison population is directly tied to the polarization of U.S. society and the growing gulf between rich and poor.

Is it accurate to say that America is becoming a gulag under Bush? Here's one final sobering statistic I'd like to mention. If the exploding U.S. prison population continues to increase at the same rate it has over the past quarter century, then every single American will be either in prison, or working in the prison system, by the year 2150. Then, the U.S. really will be one gigantic gulag.

CEO Pay Soared in 2004 as U.S. Economy Stumbled

By MARC MCDONALD

CEO pay continues to soar into the stratosphere, while wages for the average American worker stagnate.
Forbes magazine reports that the CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54 percent pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation totaled $5.1 billion (compared with $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003).

Conservatives, no doubt, would argue that under America's free market system, these chief executives "earned" their pay. But did they?

Forbes, a publication not exactly considered to be in the progressive camp, seems to think otherwise.
The magazine says some CEOs "did so bad they should have paid their shareholders."

Take Peter Cartwright of Calpine, a maker of gas-fired power plants. Forbes reports that Calpine's average annual return to shareholders over the past six years has been minus 7 percent. During the same period, Cartwright pocketed an average annual $13 million.

America's CEOs are by far the highest paid CEOs of any nation on earth. Which begs a question: why?

The U.S. economy isn't exactly stellar at the moment. In fact, an increasing number of commentators warn that America's economy is facing a major crisis.

Our exploding fiscal and trade deficits are the highest that any developed nation has ever seen. America's once-vaunted manufacturing base has been hollowed out. And the dollar continues to crumble in value.

Exploding CEO pay is a relatively recent phenomenon in U.S. history. For example, in the 1960s, the average CEO earned around 40 times what the rank-and-file workers earned. Today the average CEO makes over 500 times what the average worker earns. And the gap continues to widen, year by year.

Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, conservatives are constantly coming up with reasons to justify soaring CEO pay. Here are three of my favorites:

CEOs create jobs. They create shareholder value. They have supposedly made the U.S. economy the strongest and most competitive in the world.

First of all, let's take a look at jobs. The past few years haven't exactly been a boon to job seekers in the U.S. Fewer and fewer jobs are being created these days. And the jobs that do exist are paying less and offer increasingly meager benefits. And American employees work the longest hours in the industrialized world, as author Juliet Schor pointed out in her book, The Overworked American.

Now, consider the issue of "shareholder value." The past few years haven't exactly been stellar for the stock market. But even the CEOs who preside over companies with sinking share value continue to pocket huge compensation packages.

Last, but not least: let's take a look at America's "competitiveness" these days.

A recurring mantra with America's mainstream and business press is that the U.S. is the most "competitive" economy in the world. A casual look at America's current trade figures, though, explodes this myth.

The fact is, America has the largest trade deficits of any First World nation in history. It seems to me that the U.S. has a difficult time these days creating products that other nations want to buy. Meanwhile, Americans line up to buy products from countries like Germany (which exceeds even China as the world's largest exporter) and Japan---despite the fact that average wages in those two countries are now higher than U.S. wage levels.

If U.S. corporations are really that "competitive" these days, it seems strange to me that America's CEOs seem to have a tough time making ends meet without corporate welfare.

Take Wal-Mart for example. The world's largest corporation (with over $286 billion in annual sales) cost American taxpayers over $1.5 billion in 2004, according to Walmartwatch.com.

If you want to get an idea of how out-of-control soaring CEO pay has gotten, it's important to look at the CEO pay of America's automakers. To me, Detroit sums up many of the major problems that America's economy as a whole faces these days.

Detroit's CEOs have long pocketed by far the highest compensation levels of any auto executives in the world.

This shouldn't really be surprising: American CEOs in general have long raked in vastly higher pay packages than their overseas counterparts. U.S. CEOs make, on average, 22 times what their counterparts make in Japan and 17 times what their counterparts earn in Europe.

If pay is somehow tied to performance, then you'd think that America's automakers are the world's most competitive, correct?

If so, you'd be wrong. Detroit, in fact, has been steadily losing market share to foreign automakers for the past five decades. And the blame for this can be laid squarely on the shoulders of Detroit's CEOs, who've made one stupid decision after another for decades. One recent example: Detroit's decision to stake everything on gas-guzzling SUVs, while the Japanese were busy perfecting hybrid technology. (Hybrids are currently by far the auto industry's hottest segment).

Detroit CEOs have long complained that "it's not their fault" and have offered up one excuse after another as to why America's car companies are losing market share. My favorite excuse of theirs is that foreign automakers' workers earn less than their America counterparts (an excuse that the U.S. mainstream and business media has never bothered to challenge).

A quick look at the numbers explodes this lie. The fact is, automaker employees in both Japan and Germany earn higher salaries than U.S. automaker workers do these days. Japan's wages run 30 to 40 percent higher than Detroit's wages. And German automakers workers earn around $49/hour on average versus $39/hour for Detroit's workers.

Although U.S. automaker workers earn less than their foreign counterparts, Detroit CEOs make vastly higher pay packages than their counterparts do in Germany or Japan.

This vast gulf was vividly demonstrated in 1998 when German automaker Daimler-Benz took over U.S. automaker Chrysler. As it turned out, the CEO of Daimler-Benz, Jurgen Schrempp, was earning a pay package that was less than one-tenth of the pay package of Chrysler CEO Robert Eaton.

One might think, given the gigantic pay packages of America's CEOs these days, that being a chief executive is a demanding job. It seems to me that the opposite is true. CEOs seem to do little more these days than bitch and moan and offer up excuses for their companies' declining fortunes. There are always plenty of handy scapegoats around. Unions. Democrats. "Excessive" red tape and regulations. Lower wages overseas. Ad nauseam.

It seems to me that, far from having a difficult job, America's CEOs actually have one of the easiest jobs in the world these days. When things aren't going well, simply blame others for your mistakes (shades of the Bush White House here). And, if that doesn't work, simply ask for another round of corporate welfare from the government.

Time Magazine's GOP-Friendly Bias Nothing New

By MARC MCDONALD

Outraged progressive commentators across the Web are asking their visitors to cancel their subscriptions to Time magazine in the aftermath of that magazine's puff piece on fascist nutcase Ann Coulter.

The Time April 25 cover story offended progressives (and, for that matter, all sane Americans) with writer John Cloud's contention that he "didn't find many outright Coulter errors."
This, despite the fact that Coulter's vicious hatemongering is absolutely smothered with blatant lies that have been extensively documented in print media and across the Web.

While many progressives are angered by this whole episode, I think it's actually good news for American public discourse.

I think it's great that progressives are finally starting to see Time magazine for what it really is. A jingoistic, right-leaning, anti-union, business-friendly publication that masquerades as "unbiased" serious journalism. A magazine that gave acres of coverage to the partisan witchhunt against Clinton and then snoozed through critical stories like GOP's stealing of the 2000 election and the disenfranchisement of Ohio voters in 2004.

There are those of us who've been shouting from the rooftops for years that Time leans Republican. Now, it appears the Left will finally take notice. And hopefully, more than a few progressives will cancel their subscriptions.

To get an understanding of Time magazine's conservative leanings, it's important to take a look at the magazine's history, which has always been steadily pro-business and pro-GOP since launching in 1923.

Before that, founders Henry Luce and Briton Hadden were noted for having turned their college paper (the Yale Daily News) into a "propagandist sheet promoting intense patriotism" during World War I (according to "The People's Almanac" by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace).

"The People's Almanac" documents Time magazine's historically conservative bias, including the magazine's take on events when the U.S. was in the grip of hard times during the 1930s economic meltdown:

"The Depression would go away if one worked and prayed hard enough, and if some people starved, well, it was pretty much their own fault. Luce never had any sympathy for losers."

Time later propagandized for the U.S. to enter World War II, "The People's Almanac" notes. But not for the purpose of saving democracy, or the British, but to establish American dominance in the world:

This was to be, Luce said, the "American Century." America must take charge of the world because no one else was worthy. Military supremacy was essential.

Time magazine's pro-GOP leanings continued after the war, "The People's Almanac" notes. "By 1950 Time had become almost the house organ of the Republican party."

Despite Time magazine's historically pro-Republican leanings, I'm a bit baffled as to why it would dignify human filth like Coulter. I suppose it all comes down to profit. After all, the mainstream media's embrace of "unbiased" news has really always been about profit.

If you claim to be unbiased, then, in theory this will increase readership and boost your profits. It sounds like a plausible theory on paper. But the fact is, I think this approach has finally caught up with America's mainstream press.

Big Media's credibility is lower than ever these days. The Right has long condemned the media for a supposed "liberal" bias. And now the Left is also starting to catch on that Big Media is not to be trusted.

The bottom line is that the corporate media titans these days are dinosaurs and headed for extinction. With the rise of the Internet, the media is splintering into thousands of independent voices, that corporate America (much to its horror) cannot control. Across the Web, tens of thousands of online publications are emerging and few of them make any ridiculous pretense at "non-partisanship."

Time shot itself in the foot with the Coulter fiasco. And Big Media's loss is a big plus for all of us who believe in putting the truth (and people) before profits.

New Pope's Homeland Could Teach GOP a Thing or Two About Christian Values

By MARC MCDONALD

I'm not sure I have an opinion on the selection of Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope. But I do have an opinion about the pope's homeland, Germany.

Germany is not a perfect nation by any means. And it has a horrific past. But I think in the overall balance of things, Germany is a more Christian nation than the U.S. is today. This, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Germans (like most Europeans) are secular, and don't attend church.

How can this possibly be, you might be asking? Well, first of all, I should explain what I mean by "Christian."

A big part of the problem I've always had with the Christian religion is not the teachings of Christ (most of which I wholeheartedly agree with). It's "Christians" themselves.

At least here in the U.S., Christianity has been twisted, perverted and distorted by Bible-thumping fundamentalists (who ironically seem to be completely ignorant of the Bible's contents).

I've never understood why the Republicans, of all people, have long been identified as the party somehow closest to Christian values and morals. I'm not sure what Bible these people are referring to. A great deal of what animates them seems to consist of issues that aren't even mentioned in the Scriptures.

Abortion, for one thing. "Christians" will rant and rave all day about this topic---which is odd, because abortion is not mentioned once in the Bible.

What's equally strange is that when I read the Bible (particularly the words of Christ himself), I find myself in total agreement---and I'm a diehard progressive.

I agree with the Bible verse, Mark 10:21. This is a verse that describes what happens when a wealthy man approaches Christ and asks him what he must do to "inherit eternal life."

Christ responds, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."

Note that Christ does not say that one must sell one's possessions and give to the poor in order to simply be a "good Christian." Instead, he says we must do this if we want to go to heaven, period.

This is one of those Bible verses you'll never, ever hear Republicans mention. Instead, Republicans are always busy digging deep into the Old Testament (which, incidentally, Christ said his own words replaced) and finding obscure verses to support their views on issues like homosexuality. Never mind the fact that the Old Testament is FULL of bizarre stories and teachings that I'm not sure that anyone today really fathoms. I mean, how about the verse that says that a man who has damaged testicles may not enter a temple to worship?

Christ spent a lot of his ministry speaking harshly of the wealthy. In fact, he only has kind words for two groups of people: children and the poor.

Which brings me back to my original topic. Germany is a country that has policies that send shivers down the spine (or lack thereof) of Republicans. For one thing, Germany has an extensive social welfare system and a huge array of programs to help poor and lower-income people that would simply be inconceivable in the U.S. As a result, the sort of wretched, bottom-of-the-barrel poverty that is widespread in the U.S. is simply unheard of in Germany (and, indeed, most European nations).

One in every five children in America lives in poverty. The comparable figure for Germany is less than one-tenth the U.S. rate. Given Christ's views on the poor and children, I'd suspect that if Jesus returned today, he would look more favorably on Germany than the U.S.

Surprisingly, for a nation that has the third-largest economy in the world, Germany doesn't get a lot of detailed coverage in the U.S. media. Most Americans are pretty ignorant about what goes on there. What's more, the U.S. media's coverage of German affairs tends to be highly distorted and often flat-out wrong.

The vast majority of U.S. media coverage about Germany these days seems to consist of gloom-and-doom stories that talk endlessly about Germany's economic woes. (Inevitably, these same stories always go on to say that Germany is working to abolish its generous social welfare programs and is embracing the U.S. model of rough-and-tumble capitalism).

The U.S. media's coverage of Germany is in fact highly flawed. Take, for example, Germany's economic problems. It's simply not true to say that Germany is in some sort of economic crisis. Germany does have a jobless rate higher than that of the U.S. But the fact is, this has little to do with any fundamental problems with the nation's economic system.

The fact is, Germany historically had an extremely low jobless rate for over half a century after World War II. It was only when reunification arrived that the nation's unemployment rate soared. When Germany reunited, the wealthy West went into the much poorer East Germany and shuttered thousands of inefficient state-owned businesses, which caused millions to lose their jobs.

For over a decade, Germany has been spending hundreds of billions of dollars modernizing the East and working to bring it up to the level of the West. It's been a painful, drawn-out process. But the U.S. media is simply not telling the truth when it repeatedly insists that Germany's current woes stem from some sort of fundamental structural flaws in its economic system (and that the nation must embrace the U.S. model).

Incidentally, there is more than meets the eye with Germany's jobless rate. For a start, being jobless in Germany isn't quite a disaster that it can be in the U.S. Germany, for example, has generous social welfare programs that make it possible to live relatively comfortably, even if one is jobless.

American economists and Republicans are always touting the U.S. economic system's "superiority" by pointing out that we have a low jobless rate. I find it interesting, though, that these pundits never mention that the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with over 2 million people behind bars. That's a vastly higher incarceration rate than Germany, by the way.

Germany is a country that gets endless grief from U.S. conservative pundits and economic commentators. The latter constantly deride Germany's "bloated and excessive" welfare and social programs. They also condemn the German economic system as being "shackled" by all kinds of supposedly unnecessary red tape and regulation.

Publications like "The Wall Street Journal" constantly criticize Germany as a sinking economic power whose only salvation is, of course, a hefty dose of American-style brutal dog-eat-dog capitalism. One recent editorial in the "Journal" confidently (and arrogantly) predicted that the latter will indeed eventually occur and that Germany's guaranteed 6-week paid vacations for all workers will be the sort of thing that German school children "read about in history books one day."

Frankly, I don't see any of this happening myself. The fact is, Germans (and Europeans in general) long ago took a good, hard look at the American economic model and rejected it. The whole idea that Germany is ready to embrace American style capitalism is a fantasy. And it certainly doesn't take into account the German people themselves who have shown (like other Europeans) that they won't hesitate to take to the streets and rally in massive protests to defend their hard-won rights.

But I think a more fundamental question is this: does Germany really need to change its system at all? And for that matter, is Germany really the economic basket case that is portrayed in the U.S. media?

The answer is: absolutely not. It's time to take a look at just how powerful the German economy is today.

For a start, Germany is the world's largest exporter. That's right: Germany exports more than even China does. In fact, Germany has been the world's top exporter for most of the past five decades.

It's remarkable that Germany, with less than one-third America's population, is able to out-export the U.S. But even this doesn't tell the full story. The fact is, Germany's exports by and large consist of highly-sophisticated, capital-intensive products, ranging from machine tools to advanced chemicals to automobiles. By contrast, America's export numbers these days are heavily padded by the simple raw commodities that comprise much of our exports: items like timber, agriculture products and iron ore. Ominously for America, the latter are the sort of exports that Third World nations have long been known for.

Nor is Germany particularly under threat from the rise of China (unlike the U.S., which is currently in the midst of a panic attack over China's growing flood of exports). The fact is, Germany, along with Japan, has long specialized in the sort of sophisticated, capital-intensive products that have enormous entry barriers to would-be competitors. In short, despite its rapid rise, China is a long, long ways away from producing anything on the level of, say, a Porsche sports car.

For all the talk about China's rise to prominence, the fact remains that that nation is still heavily dependent on advanced manufacturing powerhouses like Germany to supply it with the building blocks of industrialization, (like factory production equipment and machine tools). Despite the fact that it floods the U.S. with exports, China actually runs an overall trade deficit these days.

Despite Germany's economic sophistication, many American commentors are always rambling on about how the U.S. is supposedly the world's "most competitive" nation. This makes me wonder what they could possibly mean by the word "competitive." The U.S. has the largest trade deficits of any nation in history. It seems to me that we're having a tough time making products that other nations wish to buy these days. So I really wonder how anyone could call us "competitive" at all.

Besides its export prowess, Germany shines in other ways as well these days. The nation has one of the world's strongest currencies in the Euro. And Germany is one of the largest capital exporters in the world (hardly the sign of a "weak" economy). Last but not least, the Germans are among the most highly paid workers in the world, (trailing only Switzerland).

Germany is also a vastly more egalitarian society than the U.S. The enormous (and growing) divide between rich and poor that plagues the U.S. simply doesn't exist in Germany. And Germany also gives a much higher percentage of its GNP to poor countries than the stingy U.S. does.

Let me see: an egalitarian nation that takes care of its poor people. A nation with generous social welfare programs. A nation that gives generously to poor countries. A nation that takes a leading role in world environmental issues and long ago abolished capital punishment.

Somehow, I get the feeling that if Christ returned today, he would look more favorably upon Germany than the U.S., a country that ignores its poor, lies to its people, embraces the death penalty, and celebrates gluttony and greed.

When Poor People Start Wishing They Were Rich

By MARC McDONALD

Tax season is here again. Would you like to know a sure-fire way of reducing your tax bill?

Simple. Become rich. The richer, the better.

Example: let's say your wealth puts you in the top 1/100th of 1 percent of all Americans. That's about 28,000 people in the U.S. These people, on average, make around $2 million every five days, which is what the average American earns over the course of a lifetime.

The tax burden for these super-rich people has been steadily falling for years. For example, in 1993, they paid 30 cents of every dollar into federal income tax. In 2000, that had fallen to 22 cents. Now, with the Bush tax cuts, it has fallen to 18 cents.

In his book Perfectly Legal, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston details an outrageously unfair tax system that screws the poor and working class. It's a tax system that has been increasing shifting the burden away from the rich and onto lower-income tax payers for years, a phenomenon that's gotten little coverage in the mainstream media.

Not only do the rich avoid paying taxes, but they also usually avoid tax audits. Johnston points out that working class people are eight times more likely to face an audit than the wealthy.

Johnston is only one of a number of high-profile investigative journalists who've detailed America's unfair tax system over the years.

In 1994, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele published an eye-opening account of America's unfair tax system in their book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?

Barlett and Steele painted a gloomy picture of a beleaguered middle- and working class that is soaking up more and more of the nation's tax burden. They also detail how the tax burden is quietly shifting in other ways.

For example, the tax burden in the U.S. over the years has been shifting from corporations to individual tax payers. In the 1950s, corporations paid around half of all taxes. Today, their burden has shrunk to less than 10 percent. In fact, today, 60 percent of all U.S. corporations pay zero income tax.

Johnston, Bartlett and Steele point out numerous cases in which wealthy individuals don't even bother to file a tax return.

Johnston cites the example of two billionaires, Alec and Jocelyn Wildenstein, who admitted under oath that for 30 years, they never even filed a tax return---and faced no consequences as a result.

In their book, Barlett and Steele point out that in 1989, there were 1,081 people earning over $200,000 who paid zero income tax. I would suspect that since Barlett and Steele's 1994 book was released that the number of wealthy tax avoiders has increased further still.

In the interviews they conducted to research their books, Barlett, Steele and Johnston describe ordinary tax payers' seething anger and frustration with the unfairness of the tax code.

Johnston, in particular, seems pessimistic that the U.S. tax system will ever be fixed. He considers open revolt and social disruption a possibility in the future.

For their part, Barlett and Steele, offer modest proposals for making the tax system more equitable, such as closing all loopholes. However, the odds of real change to make the tax system more fair in Bush's America seem remote indeed.

How the U.S. Media Exaggerates America's Economic Strengths

By MARC McDONALD

Right-wingers are constantly blasting the U.S. media these days, charging that it is driven by a "liberal" agenda. Of course, such charges cause progressives to laugh out loud.

Conservatives believe they are insulting the media when they accuse it of a liberal bias. In reality, such charges actually dignify what the media does these days.

The fact is, it's impossible for the mainstream media to have a political bias unless it actually covers real news stories with substance.

A glance at today's mainstream media indicates that the press falls short on this count. Instead, the media is dominated by cheap, sleazy, sensational "news," instead of covering issues of real substance.

On the increasingly rare occasions when the media does cover issues of substance, it often falls short of serious, objective journalism.

I believe that most people these days, including many educated progressives, are unaware of just how distorted the "serious" media is on many issues.

One issue that has gotten zero coverage in the press is how the media tends to exaggerate the strength of America's
economy these days.

And one of the major ways the media exaggerates America's economic prospects is via the widespread usage of
a bizarre economic statistic called "purchasing power parity" (PPP) in its coverage of the U.S. and the global economy.

PPP is a yardstick that has been used almost exclusively by the U.S. media since around 1985.

Up until that time, the media simply used the current values from the world's currency markets---a much more logical and
honest approach.

(Interestingly enough, the mid-1980s was also a period during which other nations, including Japan and Germany, began
overtaking the U.S. in per capita income levels for the first time).

Although at first glance, it might seem like PPP is an obscure topic, best left to specialized economic
journals, the truth is the exact opposite.

In a nutshell, the media's use of PPP misleads the American public about a number of important issues,
not least of which is that it gives the public an exaggerated sense of U.S. economic clout these days.

If you look at any story these days in the media that discusses issues like American GDP or U.S. income levels,
the PPP figure is always used.

As a result, most Americans are under the impression that per capital U.S. income levels are the highest
in the world. (In reality, the U.S. is surpassed by 12 other nations in per capita income these days).

PPP is basically an artificial creation of economists. It simply does not exist in the real world.

Many economists believe that the U.S. dollar is unfairly valued by world currency markets. Thus, under PPP, (as an
an example) they assign a value of 140 yen to one dollar, instead of the true market value of 104 yen/dollar. This would be not that big a deal were PPP relegated to obscure academic journals.

But virtually all U.S. mainstream media outlets these days rely solely on PPP values when they discuss issues like U.S. GDP
or income levels.

This is highly misleading to the American public. For a start, it gives the impression that U.S. economic strength is much
stronger than it really is. Another problem is the fact that few, if any readers, understand exactly what PPP is, or how
it is calculated.

A final major problem is that readers are completely unaware that the figures they see in the media are vastly inflating the value of the dollar.

One major irony in economists' embrace of PPP is that it is an artificial creation. I find it bizarre that economists (who're always rambling on about the supposed perfection of the "free market") reject the market's own value for the dollar these days.

Another irony is that, far from being overvalued, as PPP advocates argue, currencies like the yen are actually greatly
undervalued these days. (The Bank of Japan does its best to suppress the value of the yen by buying billions of dollars
in world currency markets).

The time has come for the U.S. mainstream media to stop misleading its readers about the strength of today's U.S. economy.
For starters, the media needs to examine the following issues:

1. What, exactly, is PPP and how is it calculated? Is this methodology flawed? (A growing number of dissident
economists believe this is indeed the case).

2. Why does the U.S. media rely solely on PPP when it discusses issues like U.S. GDP and income levels?

3. When including PPP figures, shouldn't the media inform its readers that PPP artificially inflates the value of the
dollar?

4. When including PPP figures in a story or a chart, shouldn't the media, for balance, also include world currency market values for the dollar?

5. Indeed, is it not highly misleading to readers for the media not to do the above?