Tuesday, March 11, 2003

A Lonely Voice… …pointing out the level of complicity the media shares the Bush regime over the coming massacre and the resulting fallout stemming from a criminal war and illegal occupation.   One last question: if “pre-emptive” war is OK, and in light of what is going on with regards to our land grab in Iraq, then why shouldn’t the Islamic world view 9/11 as merely a “pre-emptive” strike? Won’t this war vindicate all the hate and cynicism bin Laden has been preaching about the US?   News media abdicate role in Iraq war James O. Goldsborough THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE March 10, 2003   Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, devotes its latest issue to the subject of the press and the Iraq war. "Now that the Super Bowl and Golden Globes are over," it begins, "Americans are finally ready to debate an attack on Iraq."   The press' role in the Bush administration's march to war has not been glorious. No Golden Globes for us, whatever they are. Yet even E&P's analysis misses the central point we presumably learned in Vietnam: that in war as in everything else the press' role is to question, question, question.   That role is especially important for Bush's war, which is war against a nation that has not attacked us. Bush repeats ad nauseum that "Iraq is a threat," but offers no evidence. With his policy of "pre-emptive" war, he doesn't need evidence, but imagine that every nation adopted such a policy. Or imagine that Bush had come to power during the Cold War.   E&P blames the public's confusion in part on "officials planning the war, who have not fully explained the reasons for it," but adds that U.S. newspapers deserve "no small measure" of blame for the confusion.   I think the media deserve most of the blame. Bush officials have explained in detail their reasons for war, and the media have not sufficiently challenged those reasons. They are endorsing Bush's war by default. The public is confused because its gut feeling is that the government/media reasoning doesn't add up.   E&P focused on newspapers, but television is worse. For Bush's war, cable TV – with its absurd "countdowns to war" – leads the charge. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News goading Bush is worse than Hearst's and Pulitzer's New York American and World goading McKinley into war with Spain a century ago because Murdoch reaches tens of millions. Commercial talk radio, with ranting paranoids shouting at angry people stuck in traffic, is a nightmare.   Newspapers have always had trouble with war. They are good at challenging government on domestic issues, but on war flail about like hooked flounders, unclear what to say. Truth is still the first casualty of war.   War is a nasty business the press must stick its nose into like anything else. The press' meat is death, and there is more death in war than in anything. It took us years in Vietnam to report a war gone wrong, but this time we have a chance before war starts. When America starts shooting 3,000 guided missiles into Baghdad – to "shock" a city the size of Los Angeles into surrender – it will be too late to realize this isn't a Super Bowl.   Television is Bush's ally in war because it is a visual medium. It shows pretty pictures of ships sailing, flags waving, troops landing. Television loves Bush photo-ops and shrugs off anti-war protests. C-SPAN and PBS alone present fair pictures because they don't depend on advertising.   The wasteland of commercial television is an easy target, but why does E&P let newspapers off so easily, quoting a gaggle of talking heads about how "complicated" war is to cover and how "uneasy" newsrooms are about their coverage. Why isn't this magazine – watchdog of the watchdogs – willing to confront the central question: Why has the press become a willing accomplice in Bush's war?   Unlike television, newspapers are not a picture show. Unlike television, newspapers have editorial and opinion pages whose job is analyze, endorse or refute official policy. These pages have ties to their communities, not to some multinational news machine in New Jersey. Reporters report what Bush and Donald Rumsfeld say or do, but the job of opinion pages is critical analysis. Short of that, we are useless.   The catastrophe of Vietnam could have been prevented with more editorial courage. A few voices – Walter Lippmann most notably – did question the war from the beginning, but just as most editorial pages in 1965-67 were willing accomplices, so are most of them today.   Lippmann, easily America's most respected commentator, wrote in February 1965, when Johnson was just starting to gear up for all-out war, that it would be "supreme folly" to wage a land war in Asia. "While the warhawks would rejoice when it began," he wrote, "the people would weep before it ended." Remember those words.   "Despite rising doubts," writes E&P, "there doesn't seem to be one U.S. newspaper among the top 50 dailies by circulation that is strongly anti-war." A group of big city newspapers (read big advertising) advocates "fast-track invasion," writes E&P. "Not surprisingly, The Wall Street Journal leads the formation of hawks."   The press has accepted Bush's war assumptions from the beginning, confusing a skeptical public. It reports Pentagon leaks as truth, reports Bush allegations as fact and endorses the fiction that Bush's goal is disarming Iraq when his clear purpose all along has been "regime change."   In a nation bitterly divided, this editorial enthusiasm for Bush's war amounts to professional crime. The media, led by cable television (which wasn't there) has forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. Soon we will be remembering the words of Tacitus, referring to the Romans: "They make a desert and call it peace."   Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.   Thanks to the horse for the link 3:31:36 PM

Yet another broken Bush promise Of course, this is no surprise. The bushies typically say whatever feels good at the moment only to rewrite history when it suits their purpose.   Apparently the looming 4-11 loss was too much for them… plus it could further destabilize Tony Blair’s government, Bush’s only true partner in this fiasco.     New resolution delayed Bush promised us last week he'd push a quick vote at the UN security council to force everyone to "show their cards". Chalk it up as another Bush broken promise, as the prospect of a 4-11 loss was just too dehabilitating to bear. The US agreed to delay the vote on a second resolution.   The United States had hoped to line up nine votes in the 15-member Security Council so it could at least claim some moral legitimacy for its ultimatum even if the resolution was killed by a veto. But U.S. diplomats made no public headway on Monday and Washington was left with only four sure votes -- those of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria as well as its own.   France, Russia, China, Germany and Syria were definitely opposed. Pakistan, Chile, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea remained uncommitted and were floating compromises that gave Iraq more time to comply and set benchmarks or tests.   The US agreed to delay a vote as Britain seeks a compromise resolution, making clear the UN is still relevant enough to warrant the effort (despite repeated assertions to the contrary). Granted, it may not seem relevant to Bush and his unilateralist cabal, but it's clear they fear the loss of British support -- probably the only thing at this point that can prevent Bush's invasion.   2:47:18 PM

Bad news getting you down?   Do yourself a favor and check out this site! 2:22:36 PM

Iraq not only war on GOP agenda Guess Bush and his friends in the GOP have more than one divine “mission”: not just Iraq but also the US Constitution.   He’ll correct what those godless heathens Franklin, Madison, Hamilton etc neglected to install – theocracy.   Riley makes call for prayer soldiers 03/09/03 By BILL BARROW Capital Bureau   HOOVER, Ala. -- Republican Gov. Bob Riley asked 700 Alabamians on Saturday to enlist as prayer soldiers on two war fronts: one in Iraq, the other right here at home.   "There is another war that is going on in this country," Riley said in his keynote address at the Christian Coalition of Alabama's 2003 Friends of the Family Celebration. "This one is far more insidious. It's one that you just can't go and attack. It's a war for the absolute soul of this country.   "God looked down on this country because this country was founded on the rock -- and that rock was our lord and savior Jesus Christ," Riley said. "And when the storms came and the rains came, the rock, it did not move. But over the last 15 or 20 years, something began to erode.   "If we are going to save this country, if we are going to re-establish that belief in God, it's up to us," Riley concluded to enthusiastic applause. "If we don't do it, who will?"   The speech highlighted an evening of religious and patriotic pageantry at the Wynfrey Hotel, complete with a pre-dinner reception, music and individual introductions of head table guests.   The gala is an annual event, during which the Christian Coalition presents its "Friend of the Family" awards to federal lawmakers whose voting records are 100 percent in line with the group's agenda, including opposition to abortion and gambling.   In his address, the governor also implored those gathered to pray daily for President Bush, especially as the country heads toward war with Iraq. Riley said he visited Bush two weeks ago in Washington.   "The president told me, 'I know I am doing what is right for this country,'" Riley said. "And, ladies and gentlemen, I believe he is right in the mission he is trying to achieve. ... The first thing you should say every morning is, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.'"   If war in Iraq becomes a reality, Riley said, American troops would not be fighting for oil or out of imperial conquest, but "for our right to worship as we see fit."   The speech concluded a week during which the Riley administration's weekly Bible studies -- one for Cabinet officers, one for gubernatorial staff -- drew national attention. The sessions are held outside business hours.   Toby Roth, Riley's chief of staff, appeared Wednesday on an MSNBC cable news show to debate Larry Darby, an activist atheist, about the appropriateness of the study groups.   "I'm going to continue to worship as I see fit whether Mr. Darby likes it or not," Riley roared Saturday.   First lady Patsy Riley, who introduced her husband, asked attendees to pray that Darby "sees our Lord Jesus."   The Rileys and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore headed the guest list for what amounted to a Who's Who of Alabama politics. Both drew standing ovations upon their introductions.   Moore is known as the "Ten Commandments Judge" for his public displays of the Judeo-Christian laws, first in his Etowah County Circuit Court chambers and now in the Alabama Judicial Building rotunda.   In addition to the Rileys and Moore, the head table included 22 other Alabama officeholders -- 19 Republicans, three Democrats.   Among them: U.S. Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile; and U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville, Spencer Bachus, R-Vestavia Hills, Jo Bonner, R-Mobile, and Mike Rogers, R-Anniston; and nine other members of the state judiciary.   Rep. Terry Everett, R-Enterprise, was the only GOP member of the congressional delegation not present. Organizers said Everett and the state's top Democrats, Lt. Gov Lucy Baxley and House Speaker Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, had scheduling conflicts.   Riley, Shelby, Sessions, Aderholt, Bachus, Everett and former U.S. Rep. Sonny Callahan, R-Mobile, who did not attend, received "Friend of the Family" awards.   Thanks to Atrios for link 2:15:40 PM

Hit where it hurts In their ego – that’s what smarts about the way the Bushies handled the media last Thursday. Not that failed to answer questions or honestly answer them (I haven’t decided on war) or showed an utter disdain for public opinion or democracy in general (after all god chose him for this office).   No – it was that he showed up the press corps on national TV!   Don’t count on the courtiers to stage a rebellion however. That would require them to potentially sacrifice career advancement for some collective good. Ain’t gonna happen.   Probably the best part of the article below is the comparison between the Bushies “press conference” and those held in Iraq. Not much difference – except that perhaps they are held more frequently in Iraq… Bush-league script enraging press ANTONIA ZERBISIAS The West Wing is in a flap.   Or at least the White House press corps is.   Judging by its rumblings and grumblings since that Valium-drip presidential news conference last Thursday, feathers are ruffled and may start flying.   Yes, the gang that has spent the past few years pecking at the meal that dribbles from the mouth of chief spokesperson Ari Fleischer is mad as hell over how that mind-numbing newser, only the second primetime Q&A President George W. Bush has ever held, was conducted.   Like a well-choreographed ballet of sleepwalkers.   Bush, who seemed, in the words of The Washington Post's Tom Shales, "ever so slightly medicated," came across so rehearsed he was almost robotic.   As presidential hagiographer Bob Woodward (Bush At War) would tell CNN's Larry King after the performance, Bush "was slow talking" and the news conference was "almost like a wake."   "And this process of calling on people and then having long speeches somewhat from the reporters and multiple questions," continued Woodward, "I think didn't kind of get to some of the key points."   "This," added Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, "is not a spontaneous press conference, the kind we're normally used to from presidents over the years."   No kidding.   Not only is flying solo at news conferences a rare event for Bush — at this point in his presidency, his dad had held 58 to Junior's eight — but he would have none of the usual Mr. President! yelling or hand-waving pick me! pick me! action from reporters.   That was exactly what the White House wanted: The whole thing was "scripted," as Bush allowed in one of the few slips he made that night.   Looking down yet again at what was a list of reporters whose questions he planned to take, he said, "This is a scripted..." catching himself as the press gang burst into laughter.   In the end, neither Bush nor the journalists whose questions he deigned to answer — or non-answer — ever got anywhere.   And never mind the tough questions that never got asked.   Indeed, the whole show, aside from being staged to capture Survivor addicts and capitalize on one of the biggest TV audiences of the week, was truly stage-managed in advance.   As White House communications chief Dan Bartlett told The Washington Post, this administration holds news conferences more sparingly than other types of presidential communication opportunities, because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction."   Especially given Bush's Bushisms.   "In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer," Bartlett admitted. "We think the public will see the thought and care and attention he's given to a lot of the different questions that are being asked about the diplomatic side and the military side and the potential post-Iraq issue. These are all legitimate questions that he has answers for and wants to talk about."   Now let me hasten to add one thing: This is much the same attitude displayed by the very regime Bush wants to topple. For example, last month Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz refused to take a question from an Israeli journalist, even though he answered the same question when it was posed by another reporter.   "It was not in my agenda to answer questions by the Israeli media," he told a news conference in Rome. "Sorry."   Bush pulled a similar stunt when he ignored a long-running White House tradition of taking questions from syndicated columnist Helen Thomas who has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.   But then, she's the journalist who had the temerity to say that Bush was "the worst president ever." Yet snubbing her was so shocking that even the conservative Washington Times, said to be Bush's paper of choice, noted it.   "What's the message? If you cross the president or Ari, you too will get banned?" White House journalist Russell Mokhiber, who edits Corporate Crime Reporter, asked me Friday.   That day, at yet another Fleischer skating party, the journalistic pack got all snarly and snappish. When asked by right-wing radio talk show host Lester Kinsolving how and why Bush cherry-picked his questioners, Fleischer 'fessed that he was the one who made up the list, and that columnists such as Thomas were not included.   Pressed again by another reporter, Fleischer replied: "The President just thinks it is actually a more orderly news conference, rather than to have the usual cacophony of everybody screaming, where the person who gets called on is the person who has the loudest voice."   Well, if what Mokhiber told me turns out to be true, the yelling has barely begun. "I sense that they're starting to fight back," he told me, calling the news conference "unprecedented and "revolting."   Let's hope revulsion turns into rebellion.   The world depends on it.   Thanks to Romenesko at Poynter Online for the link: QuickLink: A24338 2:05:30 PM

Right on the Nose That’s what the following article hits the Beltway press corps – the saddest, but sadly not the only – perpetrator of media jingoism for whtever the Bushies happen to want at any given time.   Prepare yourself now to be deluged with propaganda worthy of Herr Goebels  concerning “the plight of the proud warriors family awaiting word from the front” or the “steely resolve of America’s heroes as they prepare to go to war for a better world.”   If, on the other hand, you believe one of the roles of the media should be to inform as well as entertain then you will enjoy this brief glimpse of true journalism   Matt Taibbi Cleaning the Pool The White House Press Corps politely grabs its ankles.   After watching George W. Bush’s press conference last Thursday night, I’m more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic.   Any remaining staff at the Washington bureaus should be rounded up for summary justice. The Russians used to use bakery trucks, big gray panel trucks marked "Bread" on the sides; victims would be rounded up in the middle of the night and taken for one last ride through the darkened streets.   The war would almost be worth it just to see Wolf Blitzer pounding away at the inside of a Pepperidge Farm truck, tearfully confessing and vowing to "take it all back."   The Bush press conference to me was like a mini-Alamo for American journalism, a final announcement that the press no longer performs anything akin to a real function. Particularly revolting was the spectacle of the cream of the national press corps submitting politely to the indignity of obviously pre-approved questions, with Bush not even bothering to conceal that the affair was scripted.   Abandoning the time-honored pretense of spontaneity, Bush chose the order of questioners not by scanning the room and picking out raised hands, but by looking down and reading from a predetermined list. Reporters, nonetheless, raised their hands in between questions–as though hoping to suddenly catch the president’s attention.   In other words, not only were reporters going out of their way to make sure their softballs were pre-approved, but they even went so far as to act on Bush’s behalf, raising their hands and jockeying in their seats in order to better give the appearance of a spontaneous news conference.   Even Bush couldn’t ignore the absurdity of it all. In a remarkable exchange that somehow managed to avoid being commented upon in news accounts the next day, Bush chided CNN political correspondent John King when the latter overacted his part, too enthusiastically waving his hand when it apparently was, according to the script, his turn anyway.   KING: "Mr. President."   BUSH: "We’ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."   A ripple of nervous laughter shot through the East Room. Moments later, the camera angle of the conference shifted to a side shot, revealing a ring of potted plants around the presidential podium. It would be hard to imagine an image that more perfectly describes American political journalism today: George Bush, surrounded by a row of potted plants, in turn surrounded by the White House press corps.   Newspapers the next day ignored the scripted-question issue completely. (King himself, incidentally, left it out of his CNN.com report.) Of the major news services and dailies, only one–the Washington Post–even parenthetically addressed the issue. Far down in Dana Millbank and Mike Allen’s conference summary, the paper euphemistically commented:   "The president followed a script of names in choosing which reporters could ask him a question, and he received generally friendly questioning." [Emphasis mine] "Generally friendly questioning" is an understatement if there ever was one. Take this offering by April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks:   "Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the UN, how is your faith guiding you?"   Great. In Bush’s first press conference since his decision to support a rollback of affirmative action, the first black reporter to get a crack at him–and this is what she comes up with? The journalistic equivalent of "Mr. President, you look great today. What’s your secret?"   Newspapers across North America scrambled to roll the highlight tape of Bush knocking Ryan’s question out of the park. The Boston Globe: "As Bush stood calmly at the presidential lectern, tears welled in his eyes when he was asked how his faith was guiding him…" The Globe and Mail: "With tears welling in his eyes, Mr. Bush said he prayed daily that war can be averted…"   Even worse were the qualitative assessments in the major dailies of Bush’s performance. As I watched the conference, I was sure I was witnessing, live, an historic political catastrophe. In his best moments Bush was deranged and uncommunicative, and in his worst moments, which were most of the press conference, he was swaying side to side like a punch-drunk fighter, at times slurring his words and seemingly clinging for dear life to the verbal oases of phrases like "total disarmament," "regime change," and "mass destruction."   He repeatedly declined to answer direct questions. At one point, when a reporter twice asked if Bush could consider the war a success if Saddam Hussein were not captured or killed, Bush answered: "Uh, we will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."   Yet the closest thing to a negative characterization of Bush’s performance in the major outlets was in David Sanger and Felicity Barringer’s New York Times report, which called Bush "sedate": "Mr. Bush, sounding sedate at a rare prime-time news conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country..."   Apparently even this absurdly oblique description, which ran on the Times website hours after the press conference, was too much for the paper’s editors. Here is how that passage read by the time the papers hit the streets the next morning:   "Mr. Bush, at a rare prime-time press conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country…"   Meanwhile, those aspects of Bush’s performance that the White House was clearly anxious to call attention to were reported enthusiastically. It was obvious that Bush had been coached to dispense with two of his favorite public speaking tricks–his perma-smirk and his finger-waving cowboy one-liners. Bush’s somber new "war is hell" act was much commented upon, without irony, in the post-mortems.   Appearing on Hardball after the press conference, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (one of the worst monsters of the business) gushed when asked if the Bush we’d just seen was really a "cowboy":   "If he’s a cowboy he’s the reluctant warrior, he’s Shane… because he has to, to protect his family."   Newsweek thinks Bush is Shane?   This was just Bush’s eighth press conference since taking office, and each one of them has been a travesty. In his first presser, on Feb. 22, 2001, a month after his controversial inauguration, he was not asked a single question about the election, Al Gore or the Supreme Court. On the other hand, he was asked five questions about Bill Clinton’s pardons.   Reporters argue that they have no choice. They’ll say they can’t protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool. For the same reason, they say they can’t write anything too negative. They can’t write, for instance, "President Bush, looking like a demented retard on the eve of war…" That leaves them with the sole option of "working within the system" and, as they like to say, "trying to take our shots when we can."   But the White House press corps’ idea of "taking a shot" is David Sanger asking Bush what he thinks of British foreign minister Jack Straw saying that regime change was not necessarily a war goal. And then meekly sitting his ass back down when Bush ignores the question.   They can’t write what they think, and can’t ask real questions. What the hell are they doing there? If the answer is "their jobs," it’s about time we started wondering what that means.   Thanks to Atrios for the link 1:53:17 PM

We’re Number One! Although in this case it is nothing to be proud of.   WOW – even the folks in our “staunchest ally” in this misguided war think that Bush is more of a problem than Saddam.   But they’ll come crawling back when the bombs start falling – I’m sure that’s what the Bushies are telling Bush, or something like it.   But actually no, you just don’t start unprovoked wars and then say “it’s over now, let’s be friends.”   Forget the UN, this war is going to destroy NATO – the bedrock for peace for the last six decades.   Poll: Britons See Bush as Bigger Threat Than Saddam   LONDON (Reuters) - The British public sees President Bush (news - web sites) as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), a poll published on Tuesday showed.   It also believes that as long as United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors can do a useful job in Iraq, it would be wrong for the United States and Britain to attack. However, Britons say something has to be done about Saddam and suspect he is determined to hide his weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors.   The poll, commissioned by Channel 4 Television, asked 1,000 people whether they believed Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam. Forty-five percent agreed while 38 percent disagreed.   Two-thirds of those polled said it would be wrong to attack Iraq while inspectors felt they still had a useful job to do.   However, 64 percent of respondents said they agreed with Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s claim that "if the international community fails to act firmly now against Iraq, then the world will become a more dangerous place in years to come." Only 24 percent disagreed.   Those polled were also asked for their views on the following statement: "Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, and to hide as many as possible from the United Nations arms inspectors." Two thirds agreed with the statement while one in five disagreed.   Blair has wholeheartedly supported Washington's campaign to rid Iraq of banned chemical and biological weapons. Iraq denies it has such weapons.   The British Prime Minister has struggled to convince the public of his case, and has faced serious dissent from members of his ruling Labour Party.   A poll conducted by Channel 4 in November produced similar results, with Bush seen as a bigger threat to world peace than the Iraqi President.   1:36:46 PM

Idiocy Alert Believe it or not, your government has nothing better to do…   French fries get new name in congress March 11, 2003  |  By Jim Abrams --   WASHINGTON (AP) -- Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put "freedom fries" on the menu.   And for breakfast they'll now have "freedom toast."   The name changes follow similar actions by restaurants around the country protesting French opposition to the administration's Iraq war plans.   "Update. Now Serving in All House Office Buildings, 'Freedom Fries,'" read a sign that Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Walter Jones of North Carolina placed at the register in the Longworth Office Building food court.   Jones said he was inspired by Cubbie's restaurant in Beaufort, N.C., in his district, one of the first to put "freedom fries" on the menu instead of french fries.   "This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee.   Ney, whose panel oversees House operations, ordered the menu changes.   The French Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment, except to say that french fries actually come from Belgium.   Ney said he was of French descent and "once the French government comes around we can get back to talking about french fries."   On a more serious note, Republican Jim Saxton of New Jersey has proposed a ban on Pentagon participation in this year's Paris Air Show and restrictions on French participation in any postwar construction projects in Iraq.   But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a news conference that applying legislative sanctions to France was not necessary. "I don't think we have to retaliate against France. They've isolated themselves pretty well," he said.   Yup… France is “isolated” with 90% of the world. 1:27:43 PM

Banana-Republic here we come No, not the store and no, not a “reality” TV program – rather it will be the real “reality” for those of us who plan to be around during the coming decades. Inflation, erosion of the middle class, destruction or looting of the public infrastructure (read: “privatization” or simply the defunding of institutions like public schooling) – in short a descent to madness (unless you happen to be obscenely rich or a fundamentalist).   Gee, weren’t those results in Florida just a big gag?   “Ha ha ha” said the media.   Who’s laughing now?   A Fiscal Train Wreck By PAUL KRUGMAN With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.   From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.   Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.   And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account — as the C.B.O. cannot — the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.   So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.   A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: "When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises." Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.   But what's really scary — what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea — is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.   That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 — make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 — percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. "Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen." So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.   Of course, Mr. Fisher isn't allowed to draw the obvious implication: that his boss's push for big permanent tax cuts is completely crazy. But the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident — the fiscal train wreck — is already under way.   How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.   And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.   I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared — the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that "a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living" — investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions — and I've locked in my rate.      10:33:24 AM