But then, what is a lie, really?

From the current press conference with Tony Snow:
"Q: Tony, can you address the comments of the House Minority Leader and Representative Harmon, saying that there is a second Iraq estimate out there that is in draft form that is being held until after the November elections?
MR. SNOW: They're just flat wrong. What happened is, about a month ago Director Negroponte informed the committees that he was, in fact, going to do an exhaustive review on Iraq. That's a month ago. These reviews take about a year to do, so the idea that it is in "draft" form -- they're just beginning to do their work on it. And Intelligence Committee members if they don't know it, should. But there is not a waiting Iraq document that reflects a national intelligence estimate that's sitting around gathering dust, waiting until after the election." The full briefing is available here.

Josh Marshall zeroes in on this statement: "These reviews take about a year to do..."Mr. Marshall states the following: "According to the Council on Foreign Relations, 'NIE drafting guidelines included in the July 9 Senate report describe three rough timeframes: a "fast track" of two to three weeks, a "normal track" of four to eight weeks, and a "long track" of two months or more.' " The full post and links to his source are here; the post is from today (9/28/06). He goes on to ask, "Am I wrong to say he lied...?"

Perhaps. Most people would conclude that Mr. Snow was not candid or accurate in his response--which is the polite way of saying he was dishonest or wrong. He knew, or should have known, the typical timeframe for producing an NIE. Some, however, can take "two months or longer." Well, now--perhaps this is a case of "or longer." This issue is reminiscent of the many definitions of the word "is." As the great George Costanza once said, "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it yourself."

Just trust us

An interesting conflict is brewing over the release of two National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) pertaining to the terrorist threat. An NIE is the combined assessment of all branches of the federal government that have an intelligence gathering function. The purpose of the NIE is to provide the nation with the best available information by which to assess the efforts of policy in a given arena.

The first pertained to the global war on terror, and its declassified contents are available here. The second pertains specifically to our efforts in Iraq. This second NIE was requested by the Dems in July; the administration agreed in August to produce one. The scheduled release is ... January 2007 [ sic ]!

During a press conference in which a full release of the first NIE was requested, Tony Snow said the full report would not be released, as its contents could be used by terrorists and risk the lives of field agents and potentially compromise ongoing activities. In essence, the public has the summary, and that will just have to be good enough. Why a compromise (i.e. release of a redacted version) is not possible is unclear. More on the ebb and flow of this issue is available from Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post here. One is left with the sense that we are expected to just trust the administration to handle its business ("Of course we're competent--we're Republicans!")

Josh Marshall puts the problem with the administration's response best in this post from September 27th. The key graf is here: "The president says the election is supposed to be about national security. So where's the report? What's the delay? What are they afraid of?"

It was a smackdown! or He's gone nuts!

Recently, former President Bill Clinton, aka "The Big Dog" or "Slick Willie" (depending on one's partisan tendencies) was on Fox News Sunday in an interview with Chris Wallace. The interview was supposed to include a significant amount of time on the efforts of Clinton's foundation, but ended up with Mr. Clinton rebutting the charge that his administration failed to act vigorously enough in confronting Bin Laden and al Qaeda. You can view it here.

The reactions to this interview have naturally been colored by one's political alignments. The right has framed the moment as Clinton "losing it" and essentially going nuts. A more considered variation of this is that Clinton overeacted, probably because he is insecure about this issue and how it affects his legacy (i.e. he knows he failed in this matter and is so vain he is more concerned about controlling how his administration is perceived than helping the cause.) The left, on the other hand, has gloried in the moment, calling it a Clinton "smackdown" and a justified response to an "attempted mugging."

Please watch the clip, even if you had seen the original interview. I can in no way see how either viewpoint, in its extreme, captures reality. In each case, it is more a reflection of what the partisan wishes to see. Mr. Clinton is strong, knowledgeable and assertive, but spoiling for the fight. After having clearly made his point, he is somewhat ungracious in not allowing Wallace to change the topic to other issues. To me, the former President looked more the opportunist: the lightweight dared to jab and throw his cross, and the heavyweight had something for him. After knocking the little man to the ropes, the heavyweight decided to throw a few more bodyblows, just to let everyone know who's boss.

To my mind, this is an example of Clinton's true sin in the eyes of the partisan right: one can confront him, debate him or accuse him, but he does not roll over and has mastery of those stubborn bugaboos of the ideologue--facts. Even when the attack dogs of the right come hard and fight dirty, the former President--unlike "good democrats" in the mode of McGovern, Dukakis, or Mondale--comes back and holds his own. The result of the assault is the right-wing echo chamber needing to divert attention by calling the man crazy, wondering why democrats are so angry while the left-wing blogosphere lives vicariously through a former President most thought was too much of a centrist for their oh-so-pure politics.

This is where we are: a former President cannot respond with force to a difficult question about an important matter without the screech monkeys on the left and right using the event as a looking glass. Little lefties get to feel big because a politician nearly a decade removed from power is as he ever was, while the big government conservatives cry crocodile tears over the demise polite discourse (as usual, the irony of position is lost on them.)

Our own Romulus Augustulus

Gore Vidal nails our current state of the State here.

Following the thread on port inspections

Today on Kevin Drum's blog, Political Animal, there is a nice example of how the internet allows assertions to be looked at and discussed--at least, if we have the will to hear. In the post 100% INSPECTION, Mr. Drum criticizes the administration's inability--or unwillingness--to implement a 100% inspection rate for cargo containers entering the US. He than throws a jab in the final graf, where we read:

"I don't get it. Why is it reasonable to mandate a timetable for 100% pass rates on standardized tests for schoolchildren, but not reasonable to mandate a timetable for 100% inspection of cargo containers headed for U.S. ports? Are Republicans really that far in thrall to the shipping industry?"

In the comment section, we hear from a gentleman who "calls out" Mr. Drum in the following manner:

"Ah, the unsubstantiated allegation of corruption.
Please, tell us
a) the identities of the shipping companies which have contributed to the Republican party
b) the amounts which they contributed, and dates
c) the magnitude and dates of shipping company donations to Democrats
d) evidence that the contributions to Republicans have materially affected policymaking."

Even though the commenter ends in a vulgar note ("Until you have done that, shut up with your pathetic, predictable, rabble-rousing formulaic bullshit, OK?"), the questions are essentially reasonable. Another commenter responds with the goods:

" 'Please, tell us the identities of the shipping companies which have contributed to the Republican party, etc.'
Got it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=M
The shipping industry gives seventy some percent of its contributions to Republicans.
Next."

The thread continues, often with very thoughtful posts, some pointing to why 100% inspection is not truly feasible, others as to why it is not the best choice for finite resources, and still others raising the question how valuable is it to find an explosive device when it is already in the port. One is left wishing that the best of this post and its comments could actually make their way into the mainstream media.

The morning paper

Today's headlines on the Detroit News frontpage: "Ford: $6B auto loss looms." On the front page of the Business section I read "Jobless rate 7.1% in Mich." All this cheery news on top of the Tigers' loss (which was made semi-palatable by watching Gary Mathews hit for the cycle in his first four at bats [sic])!

Not surprisingly, the job situation has had ripple effects, especially on homeownership. Yesterday's Detroit News frontpage ran this headline: "Foreclosures soar. 35,000 Metro Detroiters lose homes so far this year." In my county (Macomb), the foreclosure rate was up 234% from January through July compared to the same period last year. The article, written by the News' Dorothy Bourdet, quotes a real estate agent who will show up weekly for Sheriff's sales in Macomb and Oakland counties looking for clients who could potentially sell their homes rather than foreclose. The agent says " 'There's 75 houses that go to sale. Every week I'm trying to fiind anybody with equity. It's like you got to be kidding, every one of these people has mortgaged their houses to the hilt. The bidding has virtually stopped.' "

Any good news? Well, perhaps. The lead story in the Business section is on Quicken Loans and its management team. The story points out that their corporate culture is "anti-corporate" and the company hopes to build on its "best year ever" and continue to see growth of "25 to 35 percent a year for the next five years." The firm may move operations from the western suburbs to the downtown, and Quicken Loans' Chairman Dan Gilbert is launching two new ventures, one of which is called Bizdom. Bizdom is "a two-year program for urban entrepreneurs between 18 and 21 who would learn how to start and run a business with capital provided by Gilbert's investment group."

The author of the article, Daniel Howes, states that the success of Quicken Loans "suggests that Detroit's sickness, so prevalent in these days of bankruptcy, restructuring and downsizing, isn't in the air or the water. It's in the management and the cultures that generations of those managers created." A change in culture is needed, and Bizdom at least sounds like a great initiative to aid this change. But it would seem that culture change occurs (as Howes intimates) over generations, not overnight. In addition, I notice that the business of Quicken Loan is debt. This, I think, voices an irony given our state's climate.

The un(der) asked question

Five years after, the question "Why did 9/11 occur?" is still less asked than it should be. This is significant for many reasons, one being the need for an engaged historical understanding. We are at the point now where the struggle for history can be seen in earnest, especially in textbooks. The Here & Now radio program spent time with professor Diane Hess of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is coauthor of a two-year study not yet published called "Examining the Treatment of 9/11 and Terrorism in High School Textbooks." The show goes to describe some of the hows and whys of what goes into a high school textbook and, as can be expected, bemoans the shallowness of the material. Again, an analysis of "Why did this happen" is not exactly front and center in the textbooks.

Clearly, the reason that the "why" question is avoided is that it can bring one to an uncomfortable place. Asking the "why" of 9/11 may well lead one to the conclusion that, as John Peters writes, "[t]he federal government, using tax dollars coerced from its citizens, has pursued foreign policies which are contrary to Americans’ best interests and have infuriated those who are the object of the polices to the point that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to strike back at America. The cruel irony is that the very same government whose twisted foreign adventures brought about 9/11 was also impotent to protect Americans from the disaster it had sown. Why? The answer lies in the very essence of centralized government. Removed geographically and philosophically from the people it is supposed to serve, it remains absorbed in a perpetual quest to gain and hold power."

On the one hand, Mr. Peters analysis is less succinct than "They hate us because we are free," but on the other hand does have a little more meat on its bones.

State of the Mideast, post 9/11

Terrific post from Dr. Cole on 9/11; check it out here. Given the trauma of the region, it is surprisingly hopeful. He shows it is not all disaster, and that the damage is not irreversible. The second from last graf is key:

"It wouldn't take much now to settle the Israel-Palestine thing, and the time is ripe to have Israel give back the Golan to Syria and the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon in return for a genuine peace process. The Israelis are not made more secure by crowding into the West Bank or bombing Gaza daily. South Lebanon has demonstrated the dangers of ever more sophisticated microwars over rugged territory. It is time for Israel, and for the United States, to do the right thing and rescue the Palestinians from the curse of statelessness, the slavery of the 21st century. Ending this debilitating struggle would also be the very best thing for the Israelis themselves. In one fell swoop, the US would have solved 80 percent of its problems with the Muslim world and vastly reduced the threat of terrorism."

It always gets back to "settle the Israel-Palestine thing," doesn't it? Even the American war on Iraq was in part sold as a way to solve this issue.

On a side note, we can expect to see Fidel Castro go to his judgment sometime in the near future. At this time, I suspect we will hear a great deal about respecting property rights discussed as members of the emigre community attempt to reclaim what was lost. Many will hold copies of their deeds and titles in hand, and we will hear about x-number of generations in a particular house, the sacred connection to one's homeland, etc. I do not know, but I would guess a great deal of attention will be given to them. Now--what about those Palestinians who also still have copies of their deeds and titles, who can trace x-number of generations to a particular house, and the sacred connection to one's homeland? I do not know, but I would guess no attention will be given to them.

The fifth year after

Much of the trend in the coverage on the fifth year anniversary of 9/11 seems to emphasize what has not changed. Foreign Policy has excellent coverage, some of which is available online. Five years out and we have gone full circle, from "We'll be forever, fundamentally changed" to "Just a day in the life of the empire."

Detroit's WDET is currently carrying Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! She hosts a terrific program in which writers from Popular Science discuss/debunk aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories with filmmakers of Loose Change. The feed is available here. Most of what is discussed in Popular Science is technical and completely beyond my understanding. During the radio exchange, however, the Popular Science guys sounded very convincing, and pointed to how a gap in knowledge does not have to lead necessarily to the conclusions drawn by the conspiracy theorists (e.g. Tower 7 had to have been rigged with explosives due to x, y, and z.) One thing that is certain is that there are still many things about 9/11/01 that are not clear. One of my "favorites" has to due with the response of our air defenses. Vanity Fair has a fascinating piece available here.

Personally, 9/11 has affected my perception of the world, my nation, and most certainly my nation's government. To some measure, this blog is a result of 9/11, and what it has done to us--or, perhaps better, revealed about us-- as a people. As that day in history recedes further back in time it is vital that we continue to wrestle with what it meant, and what it continues to mean.

Tackling wages

Please check out the post Wage Wars by Stirling Newberry at TPM's Coffee House. He analyzes our predicament and prescribes action in a succinct and accessible manner. Absolutely excellent. Newberry asks "do Americans own America? Or do we just rent the right to be here from someone with more money?" He clearly demonstrates why it is our choice.

Senate releases postwar findings--gasp!

The Senate has finally released its Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and how they Compare with Prewar Assessments. The link is here; be warned, the PDF file is quite hefty. Now, any guess on how the postwar findings compared with the prewar assessments? Yep, you got it: there was no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates.

When good news is bad news

Kevin Drum notes that the Detroit Free Press map graphic showing a decline in median income that I referenced in an earlier post is flawed. He states "the Freep screwed up: they used a different measure for the 1999 figures than for the 2005 numbers, and that made the decline look worse than it was." The full article is available here; be sure to follow his link on asymmetrical information. Unfortunately for those of us in Michigan, the decline in median income for our state is actually worse when using the correct figures! Sheesh. The old chart showed a 12% decline, but Mr. Drum's revised figures put Michigan's loss at 14.9%.

The necessity of a moral vision

The transformation of the economy appears to be transforming the middle class, redefining downward what "middle class" is. While true throughout the country, the change is especially apparent in Michigan. This "new era" middle class with "new era" jobs is in certain terms poorer than the middle class of the previous thirty or forty years. It is true that members of today's middle class enjoy more comforts, more technological goodies, and more choices of entertainment than their brethren did in 1970. But they are also working more hours, they are also more likely to have both partners in the workforce, and they undoubtedly have more debt. In addition, along with more choices and comforts, they struggle with more perceived needs (e.g. the "need" for at home internet service, cable or satellite tv, cell phones, etc.) that generate expenses their predecessors would never have dreamed of.

Today's American middle class also functions in a more complex financial world, in that they have more opportunity for leverage (i.e. to get into debt). This occurs through (often predatory) lending, whether it be via credit cards, installment purchases, or creative mortgages. This additional complexity bleeds over into retirement planning as well, as the middle class worker of today will more often than not be depending on a 401k or TSA for his retirement rather than the defined benefits plan of his predecessor. While beneficiary control sounds enticing, and choice is in and of itself good, the actual results have not been what we might have hoped. More often than not, the middle class worker has made a mess of his finances. Between declining wages, evolving (or disappearing) benefits, and a financial sector firmly committed to the reinstitution of indentured servitude on the continent, the question becomes whether the heirs of middle class will survive in any form recognizable to its forefathers. If the mark of the old middle class was ownership (of a home and new car), the new middle class is recognizable by debt. They still have the goodies, but the goodies own the people.

The result is a lingering anxiety. The unspoken understanding is that without a vibrant and confident middle, the economy and culture as a whole will become a less friendly place in which to live. In Michigan, this anxiety is exacerbated by the upheaval in the manufacturing sector, especially the auto industry. On the policy level, this can lead to an obsession with keeping and/or attracting jobs to the state. One extremely shortsighted approach communities can feel obliged to take is to offer exaggerated tax benefits to corporations to move operations on site. This has always seemed to me like an excruciatingly slow form of suicide. By literally giving away its tax base, but still providing essential services, the community invariably has slit open its veins. While it is undeniably true that businesses seek to reduce their tax burden, it is also true that they require a sound infrastructure, safe environment, and effective (i.e. skilled and healthy) workforce to thrive fully. (Yes, yes, Third World sweatshops can "thrive" but at what cost, and for how long? Moreover, would they not be still more efficient with the abovementioned conditions in place?)

How then to attract corporations, and get them to pay their fair share of the tax burden? In addition, what types of corporations should be pursued? There is forever the search for "the next big thing" as politicians and talking heads rail about the need to embrace the jobs of the new economy. Michigan has sought desperately to be a center for biotech, for example.

One clear pitfall for the state and the nation is depending on military spending to lead the economy into prosperity. In fact, all evidence points to the exact opposite result. The libertarian website LewRockwell.com has excellent articles on the destructive effect of military spending (no pun intended), with the most recent by Bill Sardi which is available here. Instead of being a jobs and prosperity engine, the war economy is shown as mediocre at best in creating internal wealth. Consider the following: "[t]he Defense Monitor states, 'As far as providing jobs, military spending is a much worse investment than other federally funded programs. For example, $1 billion spent by the Pentagon on weapons, supplies and services generates 25,000 jobs. However, the same $1 billion would create 30,000 mass transit jobs, 36,000 housing jobs, 41,000 education jobs, and 47,000 health care jobs.' [Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, 1998, quoted by Sardi ]" I suppose we should not be surprised that the gist of these figures aligns nicely with what Eisenhower said back in 1961.

Instead of searching for "the next big thing," or taking the path of least resistance (i.e. sell tax breaks), we need to have a moral vision of what we want the state to be. It is useless to holler at the wind, to demand GM "give back" all the jobs it cut in Flint as Michael Moore did in Roger and Me. It is also suicidal to simply accept the effects of globalization. If the crisis/opportunity of our changing economy is not addressed on a moral level, if we merely grasp at that which we hope will bring prosperity--or at least a semblance of our former lifestyles--our actions will be addressed by our baser selves. Would we not expect a base result? As election season comes upon us full throttle, I hear no programs, no proposals, no words that are in any way visionary. The change will have to come from the bottom up, in the voters demand for effective mass transportation, effective environmental protections, and effective healthcare. The two major parties have neither the interest nor the stomach for effective anything.

A view from Iraq

Go here to view a brief film of an American soldier's experiences in Iraq. This is a download site for the organization Truthout. While very ideological from a leftwing viewpoint, the podcasts present a view of the war not readily seen in the MSM.

Transformation

The Labor Day print edition of the Detroit News contained a front page article by Louis Aguilar entitled New-Era Jobs Still Hot. In this article, Mr. Aguilar sketches the downward arc of wages in the Michigan manufacturing sector, and let's workers describe their feelings about taking jobs with auto suppliers that now pay a fraction of what they once did. For a person residing in Southeastern Michigan, the story is a very accurate reflection of a lived reality. Some of the factoids present in the article:

- Delphi and GM won permission from the UAW to hire temporary workers at lower wages to keep their factories running after nearly 55,000 workers accepted buyouts and early retirement.

- This summer, Delphi stated that it hired more than 2,000 replacement workers at $14.00 per hour, but MichiganWorks! (the state's ironically-named training agency) shows that the numbers are significantly higher, as it filled 2,000+ jobs in Saginaw alone. Workers taking these jobs were unfazed by Delphi's plans to sell its Saginaw operation as part of its overhaul strategy.

- Thousands of applicants showed up for 600 Delphi jobs in Flint.

- Over a two-day period, an estimated 4,000 persons applied for a chance to work at $10.00 per hour at Faurecia SA; the jobs had previously been done by workers who made $19.50 an hour at Johnson Controls Inc. Johnson Controls has recently cut 5,000 workers and closed 16 plants.

- For 2006, there were 230,000 auto jobs in Michigan -- about 20,000 fewer than 2005. Comerica Inc. chief economist Dana Johnson predicts another 20,000 jobs to be lost by the end of 2007. (This seems very believable, as Ford Motor Co. recently stated it will soon announce its third restructuring over the past five years, with this one resulting in 14 plant closures and the reduction of 30,000 jobs nationwide by 2012.)

Despite the decline in wages, the attitude of the workers interviewed was upbeat. William Carlson, aged 32, applied for a Delphi position in Saginaw at the suggestion of his father, who also has worked at Delphi. His father earned more than $70,000 a year with the firm. Even though his son will earn nothing close to that, it is a big jump from his $7.00 per hour Wal-Mart job. Carlson states that "When you make what I used to make, you can't really live. You basically pay for your car insurance. You hope your car doesn't break down, and you can't live on your own." For Carlson, "[t]his is the best opportunity I've ever had."

Another recent Delphi hire, Christine Olivares is appreciative of the job, which she maintains she enjoys. Olivares goes on to say that "[f]or me, it's the best shot I have to stop falling behind on my bills and actually be able to save and, you know, provide a future for me and my family."

One cannot help but admire the determination of these individuals. In addition, it is understandable that in a time of change, flexibility is required as a survival strategy. One hopes that those taking these "new era" jobs will maintain their positive attitudes, and grab hold of the opportunity presented them. In more cases than not, a "dead end job" is only "dead end" because it is treated as such. In addition, we wish for the success of those who have taken buyouts or early retirement, and hope that some number of them venture out with an entrepreneurial spirit and help revive our state's economy and its economic culture.

Still, along with these hopes, a resident of my state cannot but hope to feel a sense of foreboding. Those hopeful individuals interviewed in Aguilar's story are clearly counting on their union membership to do great things for them. Moreover, while not stated, one has the sense that they hold the hope (or expectation?) that benefits--some form of meaningful benefits--will be available to them. But on this, we can only wonder.

Why We Fight

Why We Fight is a film by Eugene Jarecki, released by Sony Pictures Classics. It won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundace Film festival. While focused on the current American involvement in Iraq, the film paints a broader picture, placing this engagement in context of the growth of the military-industrial complex that the nation was warned of by President Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address. The film attempts to expand on the intertwining of political, military and corporate interests by including think tanks as an extension of the military-industrial complex, and point to the influence that these unelected individuals exert on such issues as the nation's budget priorities and foreign policy.

This films features a wide range of individuals, some familar from television and major news and opinion publications like William Kristol, others not, like Karen Kwiatkowski. One of the most compelling of those shown in the film was Chalmers Johnson, who wrote The Sorrows of Empire. Among other things, Mr. Johnson discussed the phenomenon of blowback. He described blowback as clandestine operations carried out by the United States directly--or indirectly, through proxies--to advance policy objectives. What is most interesting, however, is the "clandestine" aspect of this definition. The secrecy in these operations is primarily and always directed toward the American people. (Those at the receiving end of the bombings, raids, assassinations, etc. are all too aware that a conflict is raging and that they are under attack.) The reason for hiding these operations from the American people is twofold. First, they may not be political supportable. Second, if/when retaliation occurs, the American people will not be able to make the logical connections of why another nation or political group is hostile to the United States. This result will forever be imbedded in my mind during the aftermath of 9/11, with Diane Sawyer speaking to some talking head, her face so painfully confused as she asked "Why do the hate us?"

Would that it be that "they" hate us due to our freedoms, due to our form of government, due to our culture. "They" may well hate these things, but what drives them to action is not what we are, but what we do. What we do as nation is dominated by the perceived needs and interests of the military-industrial complex.

Dr. Juan Cole of the University of Michigan has a long post on this matter. His blog -- and the post in its entirety -- is available through the links to the left. His tone is ascerbic, but I am afraid his view is accurate. Dr. Cole writes:

"If you want to know what is really going on, it is a struggle for control of the Strategic Ellipse, which just happens demographically to be mostly Muslim. Bush has to demonize the Muslim world in order to justify his swooping down on the Strategic Ellipse. If demons occupy it, obviously they have to be cleared out in favor of Christian fundamentalists or at least Texas oilmen. And what is the Strategic Ellipse? Voila. [ The image is posted above. ]

"Bush didn't do anything about al-Qaeda his first 8 months in office. He left the job half done in Afghanistan and ran off to Iraq, which was always irrelevant to al-Qaeda. There were no good targets in Afghanistan, just Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Iraq, now that is prime Ellipse territory. Bush is undermining our Republic, gutting our rights, spending us into penury, and smearing a great civilization, in order to get his grubby fingers on the Ellipse. You get to pay for it twice, once at the pump and once on your annual tax return. "

Again, Dr. Cole's tone is unpleasant, with elbows thrown (i.e. "cleared out in favor of..." and "grubby fingers."). Unfortunately, the strategic logic he describes is probable. What is worse, the results are in. Although, on this matter, I would add that along with paying for these policies at the pump and on our tax return, we also pay for them with some part of our souls.

The Labor Day hangover

Yesterday we celebrated the contributions workers have made to the country, as we have done since 1884. As Labor Day, the first Monday in September is supposed to be a time when we revel in the strength of our economy, and enjoy the fruits of prosperity. In my home state of Michigan, this is the traditional time to begin closing up the cottage "Up North" as summer wanes.

This year, however, the long weekend of picnics and boating cannot blot out our concern over the economy. Michigan is in freefall. Consider the attached graphic. This chart is provided by the Detroit Free Press. The accompanying article can be found here. The numbers are the numbers, and the picture they tell is not good--by the measure used in the Free Press article, median incomes in Michigan have dropped by 12% over the past six years. And, despite the constant chirping that Michigan's predicament is unique due to its ties with manufacturing, it is hard to see how the rest of the nation's plight is in any way optimistic.

I never fail to find economic data mystifying, as it seems as though two sides routinely "prove" diametrically opposite points with "hard numbers." The trick, of course, is the use of the numbers, and the exact phrasing of the question or statement. For example, the gloomy assement above seems at first to be contradicted by the latest Census data, in which we read that after falling each year since the economic recovery began in 2001, the income of the median household grew 1.1% (or $509) in inflation-adjusted terms in 2005. This seems like good news, and to a degree, it is. But wait -- don't pop that champagne! We also read that the median income of working-age households—those headed by someone less than 65—actually fell 0.5% last year.

More data pertinent to the decline of median income in real-dollar terms can be found in The State of Working America 2006-2007. Prepared biennially since 1988, this is the Economic Policy Institute's "flagship publication" that seeks to sum up the problems and challenges facing American working families. It offers data on such issues as family incomes, taxes, wages, unemployment, wealth, and poverty. The mission of the Economic Policy Institute, or EPI, is "to provide high-quality research and education in order to promote a prosperous, fair, and sustainable economy. The Institute stresses real world analysis and a concern for the living standards of working people, and it makes its findings accessible to the general public, the media, and policy makers." The flavor of the EPI is mildly left-wing, but my sense is this is due to its focus on how the economy--and policy decisions relating to the economy-- affects working people.

One section of the current State of Working America points to the income-productivity gap. We are now in election season, and are being served endless reminders of how Michigan workers can outproduce anyone (at least when the "playing field" is "level.") The assumption, of course, is that greater productivity will result in greater profits for the firm and, subsequently, higher wages for the worker. American workers have increased productivity--between 2000 and 2004, productivity has gone up 14%. It is true that higher productivity has led to larger economic pie, but real median income fell 2.9% for the same time period.

A growing inequality has seen those at the top of the income scale claiming bigger slices of the economic pie for themselves. For example, in 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, and would earn more in one workday than the average worker would earn in 52 weeks. As recently as 1978, CEOs were paid only 78 times as much as minimum wage earners.

Kevin Drum, from another perspective (and another juggling of the numbers) describes the family income situation in the following manner:
1. In 1970, the median income for workers age 35-44 was $29,000 (in today's dollars).
2. Today, the median income for the same worker is $32,000.
3. During that time, total income (adjusted for population) has increased by about 80%. If that growth had been spread evenly instead of going predominantly to the already rich, the median income of a middle-aged worker today would be $52,000. That's a difference of 20 grand. Mr. Drum insists counting healthcare benefits doesn't change this calculation very much.

In and of itself, inequality is not a problem; indeed, it is the state of nature. For a society, however, inequality can become a problem when an elite garners such an imbalance in wealth and power that it disconnects from the whole. It also becomes a problem when the economic pie is so unevenly divided that those in the middle and lower classes lack access to resources -- I am thinking primarily of education and healthcare -- to better live their lives and contribute in a meaningful way to the nation.

Equal Opportunity Destruction

Gabriel Kolko, the author of Age of War, Century of War: Politics, Conflicts and Society Since 1914, and Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States and the Modern Historical Experience, has a new article concerning the implications of technological developments and conflict. Entitled The Great Equalizer, it is available here. The crux of the article is that, as Kolko states, "[d]estructive power is now 'democratized.'" This article reminded me of Daniel Schorr reacting with surprise on NPR to the presence of laser guided weapons within the Hezbollah arsenal--clearly the notion of the rag-tag guerilla fighting barefoot with a carbine is in need of revision.

While the technological advance of non-Western nations and, more importantly, movements, has accelerated, the change did not occur overnight. The success of Hezbollah is only the latest--and most successful example--of how the balance of power is shifting due to access to high tech weaponry. When an Exocet missile can be fired effectively against a British expeditionary force (as it was in the Falklands) or against an American naval vessel in the Persian Gulf, it became clear that the days of Western impunity were over. But it was always held out that our advantage was still so great that we would be forever on the cutting edge. The stated goal, as well as tone, of the Project for a New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses is complete military dominance, and ability to fight multiple wars and win. Due to the relative size of the nation and its military, it is clear that this could only be achieved by superior technology, a silver bullet of IT and advanced mechanics. The thrust of the PNAC's document is little different from that put out by the current (and previous) administrations. It is a summation of elite opinion. The debacles in Lebanon, Iraq and (increasingly) Afghanistan call the reality of this goal to question; indeed, as Kolko states, "[t]he 'shock and awe' military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers—indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy."

Kolko concludes stating that it is imperative that a realistic "concept of the world" that takes into consideration the arc of change in balance of power be adopted by our political leadership. He insists that military dominance based on technology should not only be seen as a chimera, but that its pursuit will ultimately lead to a world devasted by war, or at the minimum, to a national economy ruined by the cost of perpetual war. Unfortunately, little is forthcoming on how we should, as a nation proceed. The author can certainly be forgiven, as this is beyond the scope of his article. Less amenable to our forgiveness, however, are our elected leaders, who seem to offer little more than "more of the same" or "more of the same, but the with United Nations."