The Nation

AT&T Censors Criticism of Bush

Telecommunications giant AT&T says no one should worry about their aggressive lobbying to eliminate net neutrality -- the first amendment of the internet that guarantees equality of access to all websites.

AT&T executives claim they would never interfere with web content.

When Americans hear this spin, they should hang up on AT&T.

The truth is that, within business circles, the company is already promoting its schemes for "shaping" the internet if net neutrality protections fall.

And a good sense of how the telecommunications corporation would like to "shape" the world wide web can be gleaned from reports of how AT&T managed the live webcast of last weekend's Lollapalooza concert when it came time for Pearl Jam to perform.

The Seattle-based band has a long history of highlighting smart political statements -- about war and peace, protecting the environment and promoting tolerance -- in its songs and in the on-stage comments of lead singer Eddie Vedder.

But on Sunday, when Pearl Jam was performing the song "Daughter" during the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, the band broke into a version of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall." Reworking the lyrics of the classic rock song, Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home."

The lyrics that criticized Bush were muted in the webcast.

Coincidence? Not at all.

AT&T admits that the censorship occurred. The company describes the muting of Vedder's references to a president who appoints Federal Communications Commissioners -- and, thus, has a major role in deciding whether AT&T gets what it wants -- as "a mistake by a webcast vendor."

Then, in a nice Orwellian twist, the company declares, "We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not censor performances."

In fact, "editing excessive profanity" is censorship.

And, of course, Vedder's lyrics about Bush, which were not profane, did in fact get censored.

Web-savvy Pearl Jam fans noted the silencing of the message and immediately contacted the band. Pearl Jam members released a statement on the censorship incident that declared, "This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media. AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media."

Pearl Jam's statement continued: "What happened to us this weekend was a wake-up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band."

The band's right. The censorship of Pearl Jam by AT&T serves as a reminder of what will be lost if net neutrality is eliminated and telecommunications corporations are free to decide which web sites are on "the information superhighway of the future" and which are on the gravel road of slow or impossible connections.

"This event shows that companies like AT&T will risk the appearance of censorship by turning off the sound on a webcast that's being viewed by thousands of people, just because it works counter to their financial interests," says Jenny Toomey, the executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, which has been working to defend net neutrality. "What do you think they will do to protect their financial interests on the web when no one is looking?"

Tim Karr, of the Save the Internet coalition, adds that, "AT&T's history of breaking trust with their customers includes: handing over private phone records to the government; promising to deliver services to underserved communities and then skipping town; and pledging never to interfere with the free flow of information online while hatching plans... to build and deploy technology that will spy on user traffic."

"The moral of this story is put Net Neutrality permanently into law and never trust AT&T at their word," says Karr. "The company acts in bad faith toward the public interest and will do whatever it can to pad it's bottom line -- including sacrificing its users freedom to choose where they go, what they watch and whom they listen to online."


John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press, the nation's media reform network, which has helped to organize the campaign to defend net neutrality. With Robert W. McChesney, he is the co-author of Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy [The New Press].

A New New Deal

When the levees broke in New Orleans, I wrote about the desperate need for a New Deal for the 21st Century – one which would rebuild a crumbling infrastructure, help address glaring income inequality, and repair the damage done by a Bush administration fiercely hostile to the notion that government can serve the public good.

The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis is yet another alarm, alerting us to our skewed priorities and need for a public investment agenda.

As The Nation argues in its forthcoming lead editorial, the neglect of our infrastructure is seen in collapsing bridges and exploding steam pipes, flooded subways, traffic-choked streets and clogged-up ports, electrical power brownouts, corroding drinking water systems, uneven broadband access, and an antiquated air traffic system.

The US Department of Transportation estimated that freight bottlenecks cost the economy $200 billion a year--nearly 1.6 percent of GDP. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that it would cost $151 billion and $390 billion every year over the next 20 years to repair obsolete drinking water and wastewater systems, respectively -- systems that average 50 to 100 years of age. According to the Federal Highway Administration, $131.7 billion and $9.4 billion is needed every year over the next 20 years to repair deficient roads and bridges, respectively. Moreover, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion over the next five years would be required to alleviate problems with the nation's infrastructure. As John Nichols wrote, "That $1.6 trillion figure sounds like a lot of money, unless it is compared with the anticipated cost of $1 trillion or more for completing George Bush's mission in Iraq."

This is eminently doable, it's a question of political will.

Following the bridge collapse, Senators Christopher Dodd and Chuck Hagel introduced legislation to establish a National Infrastructure Bank that would enable the federal government to help finance infrastructure projects – partly through federal guarantees to state and local governments. Projects would include publicly-owned mass transit systems, roads, bridges, drinking water and wastewater systems, and housing properties. In the House, Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Steven LaTourette introduced The Rebuilding America's Infrastructure Act which would create a low-cost federal financing mechanism to administer zero-interest loans to localities. States choose which projects to fund with the loans according to their specific needs.

The problem is that the Dodd bill, as well-intentioned as it is, would still invest only $60 billion a year – which pales in comparison to the scope of the problem. Similarly, Senator Bernie Sanders good bill to foster green collar jobs – which passed in the House too – also allots only $100 million. A much bolder undertaking is needed.

In a forthcoming paper for the New America Foundation economist (and sometime Nation contributor) James K. Galbraith writes, "Contrary to considerable myth, economic development in America has never been a purely private matter." Galbraith cites the Congress of 1862 and its authorization of land grant universities, homesteading, and the transcontinental railroads. And the New Deal which "laid down much of the public architectural legacy with which we live today."

Galbraith describes attempts in the 1980's to foster higher infrastructure investment on a systematic basis – such as Representatives Lee Hamilton and James Howard's effort to create a Federal Infrastructure Bank "which would have provided funds on a revolving basis to states and cities to support local and regional infrastructure." And late in the Clinton administration similar ideas were discussed "but of course died with the arrival of the Bush government."

In order to address the infrastructure needs – and the transition to a low-carbon emissions society that is required to meet the challenge of global warming – Galbraith calls for a Federal Infrastructure Bank to assist state and local governments with financial resources; and investments in universities and research centers to develop the needed specialists in urban design, environmental engineering, energy economics, transportation systems, carbon sequestration, the management of carbon trading markets and other fields. Galbraith estimates that a new large scale public investment initiative could be undertaken that amounts to new expenditures rising to two percent of GDP over a period of a few years – approximately 290 billion dollars per year in present dollars. (Roughly one-half of the current national security budget.)

In Hometown America, a report based on two years of research by a group of progressive thinkers, the authors write that "for the past 20 to 30 years, major parts of our economy and society have been short-changed – trillions of dollars of investment needed but not made in healthcare, education, energy independence, and a broad range of other essentials. We conclude that serious reforms are needed to make up for these shortfalls and to build a new generation of growth and middle class prosperity."

The report argues that the last great American middle class – created on rising wages, a strong industrial economy, and government programs that expanded public education, increased home ownership and eliminated poverty in old age – has eroded over the last three decades due to globalization, financial liberalization at the expense of middle class prosperity, an increased tax burden on the middle class, and military adventures abroad over public investments at home. The authors call for using "government much like an earlier generation did to create a high-wage and technologically advanced economy with a broad base of middle class jobs."

The report outlines "a new federal revenue sharing and regional decision-making process…."; a National Capital Budget and Development Bank "to finance and oversee the substantial resources that federal, state, and local governments will need to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, education, energy use, and other key areas"; and "reining in an over-reliance on military projection and strengthening economic and diplomatic engagement…."

Specifically, Hometown America calls for investment in the following areas: basic infrastructure – roads, bridges, levees, water systems, electrical grids; a new energy infrastructure for biofuels, hydrogen, solar, and other renewables; the build-out of America's broadband infrastructure; an expanded and advanced air and rail transportation system, including a new Skyways and Rail system to for the American heartland to complement the Interstate Highway system; a new system of federal research centers to push the frontiers of science of technology; and a network of public health clinics, new technology extension centers, and regional art and culture centers. And, as many have pointed out, "For national security, environmental, and economic reasons, the promotion of a renewable energy industry must be the first priority of any new public investment initiative." The Apollo Alliance has provided a blueprint to do just that – with $300 billion invested over the next 10 years, creating 3.3 million jobs, leading to economic growth, more tax revenues, and energy independence.

Citizens need to make it clear to the presidential candidates – and their representatives – that they seek a bold vision to renew our shredded social contract and rebuild our public infrastructure. Otherwise we can expect continued tragedies as we saw last week, and the same path of privilege for the few and treading water for the rest.

Carl Bernstein: Bush More "Disastrous" Than Nixon

Carl Bernstein will always be known as the journalist who brought down a president whose disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law disqualified the errant executive from completing a second term in the White House. And Bernstein still gets a round of applause when mention is made of the role he played, as part of a Washington Post investigative team that also included Bob Woodward, in exposing the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president named Nixon.

But 33 years after Nixon resigned in order to avoid an inevitable impeachment -- on August 9, 1974 -- Bernstein is more concerned about a president named Bush.

When we appeared together recently at The Aspen Institute's first symposium on the political reporting of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, Bernstein recalled the old stories of when he and Thompson were busy revealing the sordid details of Nixon's presidency.

But the Pulitzer Prize-winning author was under no illusions regarding the extent of Nixon's wrongdoing as compared with that of Bush and those around the current president.

Bernstein says that Bush's presidency has produced far more "disastrous consequences" for the country than did Nixon's.

Unlike the often crude and conniving but unquestionably intelligent and highly-engaged 37th president, Bernstein says of Bush: "He's lazy, arrogant and has little curiosity. He's a catastrophe..."

But that is not the worst part of the Bush era as compared to the Nixon era, explains Bernstein.

What has made this time dramatically more troubling, the 63-year-old journalist explains, is that "there is no oversight."

"The system worked in Watergate," Bernstein told the Denver Post.

Even after Nixon was reelected in a 49-state landslide in 1972, Bernstein said, the president was checked and balanced in the manner intended by the founders of the American experiment.

The news media investigated Nixon, and editorialized boldly when the president's lawless behaviors were exposed.

The Congress responded to those revelations with hearings and demands for White House tapes and documents. When the materials were not forthcoming, Congress went to court to force Nixon and his aides to meet those demands.

The courts responded by aggressively and consistently upholding the authority of Congress to call the president to account.

And when it became clear that Nixon was governing in contradiction to the Constitution, the U.S. House took appropriate action, with Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voting for three articles of impeachment. Congressional Republicans, led by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, then went to the White House to inform their party's president that he stood little chance of thwarting an impeachment vote by the full House or surviving a trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned and so ended a constitutional crisis created by a president's disregard for the rule of law -- a crisis that was cured by an impeachment move by House members who respected their oaths of office.

Today, says Bernstein, the system that worked in the 1970s is failing as the country witnesses presidential and vice presidential misdeeds that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly characterized as "worse than Watergate."

Referring to the media, congressional and judicial oversight that is essential to maintaining a republic, Bernstein says, "That hasn't happened here."

That failure of oversight, as opposed to any wrongdoing by George Bush or Dick Cheney, is the great tragedy of our time. But, as I reminded the crowd at the symposium during a discussion of Hunter Thompson's enthusiasm for Nixon's impeachment, it is never too late for the people to lead. Approval ratings for the current president and vice president are now below those for Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. And more and more members of Congress are taking up the call for accountability -- boldly sponsoring and cosponsoring the impeachment resolutions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had tried to keep "off the table.".

Bernstein is right. The system has not worked up to now. But with 18 months to go, it is certainly not too late for Americans to demand that the medicine that cured the Constitutional crisis of 33 years ago should again be applied.


John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon

Actor Stephen Baldwin, the youngest member of the famous Baldwin brothers, is no longer playing Pauly Shore's sidekick in comedy masterpieces like Biodome. He has a much more serious calling these days.

Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes amongactive-duty members of the US military. As an officialarm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

"We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the onlyreligious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."

The Defense Department's Chaplain's Office, which oversees OSU's activities, has not responded to calls seeking comment.

"The constitution has been assaulted and brutalized," Mikey Weinstein, former Reagan Administration White House counsel, ex-Air Force judge advocate (JAG), and founder of the MilitaryReligious Freedom Foundation, told me. "Thanks to the influence of extreme Christian fundamentalism, the wall separating church and state is nothing but smoke and debris. And OSU is the IED that exploded the wall separating church and state in the Pentagon and throughout our military." Weinstein continued: "The fact that they would even consider taking their crusade to a Muslim country shows the threat to our national security and to the constitution and everyone that loves it."

On the surface, OSU appears as a traditional entertainment troupe that brings cheer to American troops around the globe. Founded by champion kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU performs comedy, acrobatic stunts and strongman displays. Its roster of entertainers includes a former WNBA star, the Flying Wallendas, a ventriloquist, and former boxing champ Evander Holyfield. "We make no bones about the fact that we are speaking directly to the soldiers of the greatest fighting force of in the world," OSU proclaims. "No ‘mamsie pamsie' stuff here!"

But behind OSU's anodyne promises of wholesome fun for military families, the organization promotes an apocalyptic brand of evangelical Christianity to active duty US soldiers serving in Muslim-dominated regions of the Middle East. Displayed prominently onthe "What We Believe" section of OSU's website is a passage from the Book of Revelations (Revelation 19:20; 20:10-15) that has become the bedrock of the Christian right's End Times theology: "The devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, and whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, shall be consigned to everlasting punishment in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

With the endorsement of the Defense Department, OSU is mailing "Freedom Packages" to soldiers serving in Iraq. These are not your grandfather's care packages, however. Besides pairs of white socks and boxes of baby wipes (included at the apparent suggestion of Iran-Contra felon OliverNorth, according to OSU) OSU's care packages contain the controversial Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game. The game is inspired by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' bestselling pulpfiction series about a blood-soaked Battle of Armageddon pitting born-again Christians against anybody who does not adhere to their particular theology. In LaHaye's and Jenkins' books, the non-believers are ultimately condemned to "everlasting punishment" while the evangelicals are "raptured" up to heaven.

The LeftBehind videogame is a real-time strategy game that makes players commanders of a virtual evangelical army in a post-apocalyptic landscape that looks strikingly like New York City after 9/11. With tanks, helicopters and a fearsome arsenal of automatic weapons at their disposal, Left Behind players wage a violent war against United Nations-like peacekeepers who, according to LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation, represent the armies of the Antichrist. Each time aLeft Behind player kills a UN soldier, their virtual character exclaims, "Praise the Lord!" To win the game, players must kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture. They also have the option of reversing roles and commanding the forces of the Antichrist. (Videopreview here).

Producers of the Left Behind videogame were faced with a storm of controversy after Christian blogger Jonathan Hutson exposed its eliminationist overtones in a series of postson the website Talk2Action. Statements by the Anti-DefamationLeague, the Conferenceon American Islamic Relations, the ChristianAlliance for Progress, and others condemned the game and demanded that Walmart pull it from its shelves. Even Marvin Olasky, the evangelical publisher, intellectual author of "compassionate conservatism," and a force behind the George W. Bush Administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," denouncedthe Left Behind videogame. In a blog post on the website of his World Magazine, Olasky described the game's content as akin to "the way homicidal Muslims think." As a result of the fallout, Left Behind Games firedits senior VP and released three board members.

This controversy has not deterred OSU from encouraging US troops to play virtual rounds of kill or convert after a hard day of house-to-house searches and counterinsurgency warfare against Iraqi insurgents. What's more, OSU's "Freedom Packages" include a copy of evangelical pastor Jonathan McDowell's More Than A Carpenter -- a book advertised as "one of the most powerful evangelism tools worldwide" -- that is double-published in Arabic. Considering that only a handful of American troops speak Arabic, the book is ostensibly intended for proselytizing efforts among Iraqi civilians.

OSU has cultivated support from the Department of Defense for years. After a private October, 2005 meeting between OSU's Spinks and Defense Department officials, OSU was invited to perform inside the Pentagon. This week, Pentagon employees and active duty service members are expected to enjoy a breakfast with Spinks and Baldwin, followed by an OSU performance in which they will receive "spiritual encouragement via a Biblical message." The events will be held respectively in the Pentagon Executive Dining Room and the Pentagon Auditorium.

Spreading the Gospel to US troops is only one of many crusades Baldwin has waged in the name of the Lord. During 2006, Baldwin frequently stationed himself on the sidewalk outside a pornographic video store in NewYork. There, he photographed the license plates of people entering the store and threatened to publish an ad in a Nyack paper publicizing the names of those who patronized the store. "In my position, I just don't think I'm supposed to keep my faith to myself," Baldwin told a group of Texas Southern Baptists in 2004. "I'm just doing what the Lord's telling me to do."

Soon after his appearance at the Pentagon, Baldwin ships out to Iraq for OSU's "Military Crusade." With its cadre of celebrity entertainers pushing End Times theology, and the overt support of the Defense Department, OSU is hoping to transform Bush's surge into a battle of biblical proportions.

They just can't keep their faith to themselves.

Defend Dr. Tiller

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the US, pleaded not guilty last Friday to 19 misdemeanor charges brought against him by the state of Kansas.

The charges revolve around a state law which requires that two legally and financially uninvolved physicians sign off on any late-term abortion procedure--a law that seems to have no other purpose than to make life difficult for abortion providers.

The charges against Tiller brought by Attorney General Paul Morrison allege that in 19 procedures from July to November 2003, the Wichita doctor consulted with Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus. The attorney general has said they had a financial relationship, although he hasn't been more specific. As a result, he faces up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine for each of the nineteen charges.

As a comprehensive cross-post by Cara at Feministing.com and thecurvature.com details, Tiller has a long history of being harassed for his work and these allegations are just the latest chapter. He has faced regular protests at his clinic, other trumped-up criminal charges, physical threats, severe vandalism and constant intimidation. He has also been shot.

This new law under which he's been charged is harassment, pure and simple. That's why Tiller's attorneys are challenging the constitutionality of the statute. (A hearing was set for Aug. 10.) Moreover, as Cara rightly insists, "Requiring written approval of any late-term abortion procedure from two independent physicians is not only requiring the abortion provider to seek permission to practice medicine, it's also essentially requiring that the woman get permission to successfully request medical care. Her choice, along with the medical advice of her doctor, is not enough. Late-term abortions, contrary to what anti-abortion activists constantly profess, are not undertaken lightly. The women who receive medical care at Dr. Tiller's facility come from all over the country; Dr. Tiller is hardly going to be their first medical consultation. They seek their abortions either due to health risks to themselves or severe fetal deformity. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who likes late-term abortion, and that includes the women who need them."

Tiller has been operating bravely for years doing thankless work in the face of constant efforts to drive him away from his practice. The latest charges against him are meant to distract as much as punish and make it financially prohibitive for him to continue his services. So now he needs our help. Please send donations and words of support by mail to the address below.

Women's Health Care Services
5107 East Kellogg
Wichita, Kansas USA 67218

A Gay Debate?

On Thursday at 9PM (ET), Logo (the gay network owned by Viacom) and the Human Rights Campaign are sponsoring a Democratic Presidential forum on gay issues. Barack, Hillary, John, Dennis and Bill will all be there. So will some guy named Mike who was so poor loves gays so much that he originally wasn't invited. Margaret Carlson, Jonathan Capehart, Joe Solmonese and Melissa Etheridge will pose questions. The whole queer klatch will be televised on Logo and streamed live at this website.

[Here at The Nation, we've lined up queer critics Lisa Duggan, Alisa Solomon and Tavia Nyong'o to watch the event from a safe, Melissa Etheridge-free location and comment. Their remarks will be posted after the forum.]

HRC (that stands for Human Rights Campaign in gaycronym, not Hillary Rodham Clinton) has been promoting the debate as an "historic" event, the "first time...the major presidential candidates will address a live GLBT television audience." As Chris Crain points out on his blog, this is a lie. In fact, HRC hosted exactly such an event in 2003, but this is presidential electioneering, so there goes accuracy.

Despite my qualms about HRC (again, that's the gay HRC, not the Wellesley graduate) and my general low expectations for the forum (marriage and gays in the military will likely dominate), I agreed to write up a short piece for Logo's website on what I think the most important issue in this election is for gay people. (Just to preempt sniping, I wasn't paid, and I was free to say what I wanted.) For those who've followed my take on same-sex marriage before, this will be nothing new, but it's cross-posted below.



From Visible Vote '08:

For years now, I've followed the plight of same-sex couples denied the right to marry. Many of their stories are heartrending. A lesbian couple was forced to sell their home in order to pay huge health care bills because one of them was in an accident and wasn't covered by her partner's health insurance. After his lover died, a gay man was evicted from his apartment because he wasn't on the lease, and even if he was, he couldn't pay for the place on his own. Elderly gays and lesbians have kept working long past the age of retirement, or even taken second jobs, because social security benefits and pensions aren't transferable and often don't cover basic necessities--food, housing, utilities, medication--in the first place.

The more of these stories I hear, the more they sound like the stories coming out of the "other America"--married, heterosexual America.

Take Donna and Larry Smith, featured in Michael Moore's documentary Sicko. Married for over 30 years, the Smiths worked hard and raised six children in South Dakota. They had each other, and they had health insurance, but that wasn't enough when cancer and artery disease struck. Facing massive debt from expensive medical treatments, they filed for bankruptcy, sold their home and were forced to move into a cramped storage room in their daughter's house.

Or take my grandmother. When my grandfather, her husband, died, she was entitled to his social security benefits. But still, as a single widow, her total household income shrank dramatically. For the last few years of her life, social security was the only check she got, and it wasn't enough at that. Her experience is common; women live longer than men and so often age alone. Almost a third of all unmarried elderly women rely on social security as their sole source of income, and if it weren't for social security, 54 percent of all elderly women would be living in poverty.

Whether from gay or straight, married or unmarried Americans, stories like these are powerful reminders of the human costs of growing economic inequality in this country. For the last 30 years, the incomes of the wealthiest Americans have skyrocketed while incomes for the bottom 50 percent have remained essentially static. According to 2005 IRS data, the top tenth of 1 percent of Americans (300,000) made almost as much as the bottom half (150 million). The income gap hasn't been this bad in our country since 1928.

All of this news is kind of a downer, and nowhere near as cheery as thinking about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards or any of the other candidates presiding over festive gay weddings or civil unions. But the hard-boiled economic reality is that as long as the class gap continues to grow in America, the rights of marriage will be of little consolation to the millions of gays and lesbians who find themselves unemployed, sick, downsized, outsourced, homeless or just plain down on their luck. After all, marriage didn't protect happily betrothed folks like my grandparents or Donna and Larry Smith from feeling the economic squeeze.

This is why, for me, the increasingly stark gap between the super rich and everyone else is the most important issue in the next election. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has talked about the "two Americas" in his 2004 campaign and now again in this election. Other candidates have piled onto the populist bandwagon, and most propose meager economic reforms (a slight increase in minimum wage, closing tax loopholes, college loan reforms). But in my opinion, none have announced a real economic agenda that would halt the widening gap between the mega-wealthy and the rest of us, much less begin to reverse the trend. It will be important to see which of them come closest.

I've argued in The Nation that gays and lesbians should think beyond the issue of same-sex marriage as a legal right and get at many of the underlying economic issues (healthcare, housing, job security) that make married and unmarried people alike vulnerable in the first place. According to recent census data, the majority of Americans now live in unmarried households. Some live this way because they are legally banned from marriage, but most people, including many gays and lesbians, do so by choice. Beyond marriage then, what are the economic policies that will help all households (including single people) live better, less deprived, less financially anxious lives?

The Divider

When asked by George Stephanopoulos in the Sunday Republican debate to list his mistakes, Rudy Giuliani replied, "George, your father is a priest. I can explain it to your father, not to you."

To help the Mayor's memory for his meeting with Father Stephanopoulos, I thought we should offer up a few suggestions for his list.

1. Informing his former wife, Donna Hannover, that he was divorcing her during a press conference.

2. Alienating his children to the point where his son refuses to campaign for him and his daughter announced on Facebook that she supported Barack Obama for president.

3. Pitching scandal ridden Bernard Kerik as Homeland Security Chief, or for that matter giving Bernard Kerik a job in the first place.

4. Putting the Emergency Command Center in 7 World Trade Center building, despite the 1993 WTC bombing.

5. His handling of the Amadou Diallo shooting. In fact his handling of all race relations in the city.

I could go on and on. But I encourage you to add your thoughts on this message board and/or in the comments section below. Rudy has a way of claiming credit for everyone else's successes while shuffling off blame for his own. Let's call him out on it.

Bush to Karzai: Will You Just Shut Up About Iran?

Things got a little testy at the Camp David Summit between Afghan President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and American President George Bush.

Karzai, who when he is in the U.S. is expected to act as a puppet of the Bush administration, made the mistake of actually speaking his mind. In a CNN interview broadcast Sunday, the Afghan president said terrorism in Afghanistan is getting worse, that the hunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is at a standstill and, then, he described Iran as a positive player -- "a helper and a solution" -- in the region.

All of these statements are objectively true.

But George Bush does not deal in the realm of truth. And he certainly does not like his puppet presidents getting off their strings.

On the eve of the summit, Karzai told CNN that:

1. "The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated. The Afghan people have suffered. Terrorists have killed our schoolchildren. They have burned our schools. They have killed international helpers."

2. "We are not closer (to catching bin Laden), we are not further away from it. We are where we were a few years ago."

3. "So far, Iran has been a helper (in the fight against terrorism)."

All of those statements, made by Karzai in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the eve of his trip to Camp David, were corrected by Bush upon the Afghan president's arrival.

On the security situation, Bush told Karzai not to believe what he was seeing on the ground in Afghanistan. "There is still work to be done, don't get me wrong," Bush said. "But progress is being made."

On the bin Laden search, Bush spoke of how the hunt is progressing and declared that, "With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done."

On Iran's positive role in the region, Bush again told Karzai not to believe his own experience but instead to accept the neoconservative version of events. "I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force," the American president pointedly told the Afghan president.

So there you have it, a meeting of the minds Bush-style.

A foreign leader from a region of supreme interest to the United States comes to Camp David to brief the American president on what is going on. The foreign leader speaks his mind, offering his best assessment of the experience he is living. Then the president tells the visitor from abroad that he is wrong.

As Bush famously declared at a policy session in 2005, "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

And it is just so damned inconvenient when a puppet who is supposed to help spread the propaganda instead messes everything up by talking about what is really happening.


John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Mea Culpa Time

It's a bad Sunday when I don't agree with Frank Rich. His brilliant, elegant New York Times column has consistently and mercilessly exposed the cruelty, folly and hypocrisy of government and media war supporters.

Yesterday, in an otherwise superb column, Rich praised a New York Times Magazine piece by former war supporter Michael Ignatieff as an "eloquent mea culpa." Judge for yourself.

I read Ignatieff's August 5 piece of repentance--""Getting Iraq Wrong: What the War Has Taught Me about Political Judgment"--as an apology that features everything except remorse. As a friend wrote me this morning, the piece reads like "a positioning statement for the political aspirations of Mr. Michael Ignatieff; advice to the reader on the exceptional connections and insider's knowledge enjoyed by Mr. Michael Ignatieff; expressions of disdain for the academic discipline that Mr. Michael Ignatieff used to take money for teaching. And why was this serious, honest, morally profound Ignatieff so wrong about the Iraq war? Actually, he doesn't say. He just accuses the people who were right for having had the wrong reasons. We didn't really know anything, you see. We were just being ideologues."

A new report by Oxfam out last week reveals that the war has produced a huge rise in poverty, disease and malnutrition. Some 43 percent of Iraqis live in absolute poverty; a third of the population depends on emergency aid, but over 30 percent of the people who have been displaced by fighting or sectarian murder have lost access to the subsidized food rations on which they used to rely. Some two million have fled their homes to neighboring countries, the entire region is thrown into bloody chaos, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or maimed, close to 4,000 US men and women are dead and thousands more grievously wounded.

Yet it wasn't Ignatieff's fault but ours--those who opposed this unnecessary and disastrous war, those who, as he puts it, "correctly anticipated catastrophe but did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology."

It was a keen sense of history and clear judgment--not the ideology displayed by neoliberal hawks like Ignatieff--that led this magazine and other war opponents to understand how disastrously it would end. Mr. Ignatieff--time for a real "mea culpa"?