Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Let's "habe us a corpus", boys!

Could it be that your blessed Constitution,perhaps one of the greatest documents ever penned by woman or man, is no longer capable of guaranteeing the truths that since the Declaration have been self-evident? Surely the present combination of unparalleled corporate power and greed, a messianic, divinely appointed president, and a citizenry lulled into complacency by decades of unconstrained consumption, presents among the greatest challenges ever to your Constitutional system.

Or perhaps the situation is, as many fear, even worse than this. Perhaps you, Americans, no longer hold the truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence - "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" - to be so self-evident? How else to explain the nearly complete acquiescence of your society to this new law, and to all the abuses, from the launching of a disastrous war on demonstrably false pretenses, to torture and indefinite detention, unending occupation, unconstitutional eavesdropping, and other betrayals of our founding ideals, that have led up to its passage last week?

What have you got to say, AmeriKKKa?

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Struggle

The National Intelligence Estimate, representing the consensus view of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, recognizes the obvious: that the invasion of Iraq has spawned a new generation of Islamic extremists who are determined to strike at the West, that Iraq has served as both a recruitment poster and a training ground for jihadists.

“The Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse” , summarized one U.S. intelligence official in referring to the NIE, which was completed in April 2006. [NYT, Sept. 24, 2006]


Bush calls the Iraq War the “central front” in the “war on terror,” which, in turn, he says is “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century.”

I am certain that the war against Bush is going to be the defining ideological struggle of the first decades of the 21st century.

But who will fire the first shot?

Friday, September 15, 2006

.



Mensaje de Fidel al pueblo de Cuba

Queridos compatriotas:

En días recientes se publicaron algunas imágenes fílmicas y varias fotos que sé agradaron mucho a nuestro pueblo.

Algunos opinaron, con razón, que se me veía un poco delgado, como único elemento desfavorable. Me alegro mucho de que lo hayan percibido. Esto me permite enviarles varias fotos más recientes y, a la vez, informarles que en unos pocos días perdí 41 libras. Añado que hace muy poco me retiraron el último punto quirúrgico, después de 34 días de convalecencia.

Ni un solo día, incluso los más difíciles desde el 26 de Julio, dejé de hacer un esfuerzo por subsanar las consecuencias políticas adversas de tan inesperado problema de salud. El resultado es que, para mi tranquilidad, avancé en varias cuestiones importantes. Puedo comunicarles que el libro Cien Horas con Fidel, de Ramonet, en el que revisaba en detalle cada respuesta mía los días en que me enfermé, está prácticamente concluido y pronto será publicado, como les prometí. No por ello he dejado de cumplir estrictamente mis deberes como paciente disciplinado.

Puede afirmarse que el momento más crítico quedó atrás. Hoy me recupero a ritmo satisfactorio. En los próximos días estaré recibiendo a visitantes distinguidos; eso no significa que cada actividad vaya a estar en lo inmediato acompañada de imágenes fílmicas o fotográficas, aunque siempre se ofrecerán noticias de cada una de ellas.

Todos debemos comprender que no es conveniente ofrecer sistemáticamente información, ni brindar imágenes sobre mi proceso de salud. Todos debemos comprender igualmente, con realismo, que el tiempo de una completa recuperación, quiérase o no, será prolongado.

En este momento no tengo apuro alguno, y nadie debe apurarse. El país marcha bien y avanza.

Hoy se inauguró el Curso Escolar con más estudiantes y perspectivas que en cualquier otro momento para nuestro país. ¡Qué maravilloso acontecimiento!

Me falta sólo un detalle: pedirle a cada compatriota honesto, que sumados constituyen la inmensa mayoría del pueblo, no culpar a nadie por la discreción que, en aras de la seguridad de nuestra Patria y de nuestra Revolución, les he solicitado a todos.

¡Infinitas gracias!

Klik hier met de rechtermuisknop om afbeeldingen te downloaden. Om uw privacy te beschermen, is het automatisch downloaden van deze afbeelding van internet verhinderd.
Fidel Castro Ruz

Septiembre 4 del 2006

Foto: ESTUDIOS REVOLUCIÓN

Foto: ESTUDIOS REVOLUCIÓN

Ampliar

Ampliar

Ampliar

Ampliar

Ampliar

Ampliar

Ampliar

Fotos: ESTUDIOS REVOLUCIÓN



SubirSubir

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

from another blogger with foresight

...Today, American families are sacrificing their own sons and daughters, basically so that they they can end up paying more for gasoline at the pump. They died to make it more expensive for average Americans to commute to work every day. They died so that a CEO at EXXON-MOBILE with a double chin bordering on a goiter could receive a retirement package worth half a billion dollars. Americans have been so deceived, and what is going on in Iraq is so monstrous and cruel that it seems that most Americans cannot even bring themselves to believe it. Seeing Bush gush sympathy for average Americans this week was like watching an oily snake opening its mouth wide enough to devour its prey.

Then there’s the issue of gasoline refining capacity. Forget all the BS about how there are too many different fuel mixtures or that oil companies got behind because they were switching over for summer. This has nothing to do with any so-called 'Boutique Fuel' problem. It has everything to do with a clear, long-term and concerted effort by the oil companies to cut production in order to control the supply and raise prices.

“In the mid-1990s too much refining capacity, not too little, concerned the nation’s major oil companies. At that time, the oil and gas industry faced what they termed “excess refining capacity,”a circumstance they viewed as a financial liability that drove down overall profit margins. The industry reduced the total amount of potential supply by closing down more than 50 refineries in the past decade. Since 1995 alone, 24 refinery closings have taken nearly 830,000 barrels of oil per day.”

Finally there’s the issue of hedge funds. Most people don’t realize that the New York Mercantile Exchange only started trading oil futures in 1983. Since then hedge funds have played an increasingly large role in setting the price of a barrel of oil. Hedge funds are basically funds that manage money for rich people, and analysts like Mike Rothman estimate that they can drive up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as $20 a barrel. So what we essentially have is rich people using the huge tax cut they received from Bush and the Republican Congress, in order to drive up the price of oil and take their cut of every energy dollar spent. Wealthy people are essentially using their leverage in the marketplace to further enrich themselves by taxing average Americans at the pump.

But forget all that – forget about the hedge funds and the oil companies clear and obvious efforts to cut supplies. Forget about Cheney’s secret energy task force and why we really went into Iraq. Forget that this country is run by two oil men who never wanted anything more than to increase the price of oil. Just believe all the lies keep repeating to yourself …”Boutique fuels, shrinking world supply, China and India, SUV's, and more drilling in Alaska”. Because that's the mantra and the alternate view of reality that the corporate media will keep drilling into the minds of Americans. The sad thing is most of will end up believing this alternate corporate reality in which there is actual competition in the marketplace between the few oil companies that are left, and they are so harmless and patriotic that they would never try to influence public policy. That alternate reality in which Americans are still dying because Saddam refused to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

The skyrocketing price of gasoline is just one more element in a general redistribution of income that is making rich people much richer while most Americans keep struggling more and more. This isn’t happening because of some fluke, or because of shrinking supplies or some temporary economic dislocation – $3 gasoline is the direct result of laws and policies that were intended to do exactly what they are now doing. In the case of oil company price gouging – the quickest and easiest solution would be a a windfall profits tax. That would help to remove the economic incentive of the oil companies have to gouge consumers in the short term – though in the longer term the solution is to break up the oil monopolies that have been allowed to stifle competition. Then to remove their power and influence over government policy by publicly funding elections, and making sure that a secret energy task force will never again drag this country into a war for profit. But those are things the current Republican government will never do, inasmuch as everything they do is calculated to lead our nation in the opposite direction, and the Democrats don’t even have a coherent strategy to stop it.

We are in the midst of a transfer of power from democratic government to corporate government - government of, by and for the rich basically. The principal power of any government is the power to tax. The surcharge you are paying every time you stop to fill up is actually a corporate tax. Bush has even admited it, though he certainly isn't going to do anything to stop what he helped to bring about. That tax or tribute is collected by the oil companies at the pump, and then paid out to wealthy stockholders and corporate executives (like Bush and Cheney). Nor is this corporate tax you're paying limited to the gas you use directly, since ships, planes, railroads and trucks all have to pay the same tax on fuel to ship the products you buy. They then pass on their costs on to you.

Nor is the corporate tax on gas the only corporate tax in existence today. The most significant development of the last decade has been the endless stream of acquisitions and mergers combined with the end of government regulation that have contributed to the unregulated monopolization of every sector of the economy, and not just the oil industry. Inflated bank fees, high credit card interest rates, rising insurance premiums and doctor bills and declining health care benefits are some less obvious forms of hidden corporate taxes.

Though Republicans like Bush like to style themselves as tax cutters, what they are in the process of doing is transferring the power to tax from democratic government to corporate boardrooms. The corporate tax can be defined as the difference between what consumers would be paying if there was real competition in the marketplace and corporations didn't control the government, and what they are actually paying for goods and services today – as well as what they are paying in government taxes that go to subsidize corporations and eliminate their taxes. The beneficiaries of corporate taxes are primarily wealthy shareholders and corporate executives, rather than 'all the people' through the government programs and services they receive.

The inevitable effect of this corporate tax is to squeeze the middle class and increase the gap between rich and poor. And though you can vote to cut taxes levied by a democratic government, most Americans will have absolutely no vote or voice in the amount of tribute our shadow government chooses to impose upon consumers. After Bush gets through, there will be no opportunity to sue them in the courts either.

Remember that next time you see the price of gas shooting up at the pump. Because it isn't just Saddam who's been screwed, and it isn't only Lee Raymond who's laughing all the way to the bank.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Predators and the Prey







WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE of American capitalism today? Is it a grand national adventure, as politicians and textbooks aver, in which markets provide the framework for benign competition, from which emerges the greatest good for the greatest number? Or is it the domain of class struggle, even a “global class war,” as the title of Jeff Faux’s new book would have it, in which the “party of Davos” outmaneuvers the remnants of the organized working class?

The doctrines of the “law and economics” movement, now ascendant in our courts, hold that if people are rational, if markets can be “contested,” if memory is good and information adequate, then firms will adhere on their own to norms of honorable conduct. Any public presence in the economy undermines this. Even insurance—whether deposit insurance or Social Security—is perverse, for it encourages irresponsible risktaking. Banks will lend to bad clients, workers will “live for today,” companies will speculate with their pension funds; the movement has even argued that seat belts foster reckless driving. Insurance, in other words, creates a “moral hazard” for which “market discipline” is the cure; all works for the best when thought and planning do not interfere. It’s a strange vision, and if we weren’t governed by people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, who pretend to believe it, it would scarcely be worth our attention.

The idea of class struggle goes back a long way; perhaps it really is “the history of all hitherto existing society,” as Marx and Engels famously declared. But if the world is ruled by a monied elite, then to what extent do middle-class working Americans compose part of the global proletariat? The honest answer can only be: not much. The political decline of the left surely flows in part from rhetoric that no longer matches experience; for the most part, American voters do not live on the Malthusian margin. Dollars command the world’s goods, rupees do not; membership in the dollar economy makes every working American, to some degree, complicit in the capitalist class.

In the mixed-economy America I grew up in, there existed a post-capitalist, post-Marxian vision of middle-class identity. It consisted of shared assets and entitlements, of which the bedrock was public education, access to college, good housing, full employment at living wages, Medicare, and Social Security. These programs, publicly provided, financed, or guaranteed, had softened the rough edges of Great Depression capitalism, rewarding the sacrifices that won the Second World War. They also showcased America, demonstrating to those behind the Iron Curtain that regulated capitalism could yield prosperity far beyond the capacities of state planning. (This, and not the arms race, ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.) These middle-class institutions survive in America today, but they are frayed and tattered from constant attack. And the division between those included and those excluded is large and obvious to all.

Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither benign competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia. Instead, predation has become the dominant feature—a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; it may be opposed by many others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we live.

Our rulers deliver favors to their clients. These range from Native American casino operators, to Appalachian coal companies, to Saipan sweatshop operators, to the would-be oil field operators of Iraq. They include the misanthropes who led the campaign to abolish the estate tax; Charles Schwab, who suggested the dividend tax cut of 2003; the “Benedict Arnold” companies who move their taxable income offshore; and the financial institutions behind last year’s bankruptcy bill. Everywhere you look, public decisions yield gains to specific private entities.

For in a predatory regime, nothing is done for public reasons. Indeed, the men in charge do not recognize that “public purposes” exist. They have friends, and enemies, and as for the rest—we’re the prey. Hurricane Katrina illustrated this perfectly, as Halliburton scooped up contracts and Bush hamstrung Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic governor of Louisiana. The population of New Orleans was, at best, an afterthought; once dispersed, it was quickly forgotten.

The predator-prey model explains some things that other models cannot: in particular, cycles of prosperity and depression. Growth among the prey stimulates predation. The two populations grow together at first, but when the balance of power shifts toward the predators (through rising interest rates, utility rates, oil prices, or embezzlement), both can crash abruptly. When they do, it takes a long time for either to recover.

The predatory model can also help us understand why many rich people have come to hate the Bush administration. For predation is the enemy of honest business. In a world where the winners are all connected, it’s not only the prey who lose out. It’s everyone who hasn’t licked the appropriate boots. Predatory regimes are like protection rackets: powerful and feared, but neither loved nor respected. They do not enjoy a broad political base.

In a predatory economy, the rules imagined by the law and economics crowd don’t apply. There’s no market discipline. Predators compete not by following the rules but by breaking them. They take the business-school view of law: Rules are not designed to guide behavior but laid down to define the limits of unpunished conduct. Once one gets close to the line, stepping over it is easy. A predatory economy is criminogenic: It fosters and rewards criminal behavior.

Why don’t markets provide the discipline? Why don’t “reputation effects” secure good behavior? Economists have been slow to answer these questions, but now we have a full-blown theory in a book by my colleague William K. Black, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Black was the lawyer/whistle-blower in the Savings and Loan and Keating Five scandals; he later took a degree in criminology. His theory of “control fraud” addresses the situation in which the leader of an organization uses his company as a “weapon” of fraud and a “shield” against prosecution—a situation with which law and economics cannot cope.

For instance, law and economics argues that top accounting firms will protect their own reputations by ferreting out fraud in their clients. But, as with Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, at every major S&L control fraud was protected by clean audits from top accountants: You hire the top firm to get the clean opinion. Moral hazard theory shifts the blame for financial collapse to the incentives implicit in insurance, but Black shows that the large frauds were nearly all committed in institutions taken over for that purpose by criminal networks, often by big players like Charles Keating, Michael Milken, and Don Dixon. And there’s another thing about predatory institutions. They invariably fail in the end. They fail because they are meant to fail. Predators suck the life from the businesses they command, concealing the fact for as long as possible behind fraudulent accounting and hugely complex transactions; that’s the looter’s point.

That a government run by people rooted in this culture should also be predatory isn’t surprising—and the link between George H.W. Bush, who led the deregulation of the S&Ls, his son Neil, who ran a corrupt S&L, and Neil’s brother George, for whom Ken Lay sent thugs to Florida in 2000 on the Enron plane, could hardly be any closer. But aside from occasional references to “kleptocracy” in other countries, economic opinion has been slow to recognize this. Thinking wistfully, we assume that government wants to do good, and its failure to do so is a matter of incompetence.

But if the government is a predator, then it will fail: not merely politically, but in every substantial way. Government will not cope with global warming, or Hurricane Katrina, or Iraq—not because it is incompetent but because it is willfully indifferent to the problem of competence. The questions are, in what ways will the failure hit the population? And what mechanisms survive for calling the predators to account? Unfortunately, at the highest levels, one cannot rely on the justice system, thanks to the power of the pardon. It’s politics or nothing, recognizing that in a world of predators, all established parties are corrupted in part.

So, how can the political system reform itself? How can we reestablish checks, balances, countervailing power, and a sense of public purpose? How can we get modern economic predation back under control, restoring the possibilities not only for progressive social action but also—just as important—for honest private economic activity? Until we can answer those questions, the predators will run wild.

James K. Galbraith teaches economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He previously served in several positions on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Pentagon to Attack Internet

IMAGINE a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population; and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will.

In 2006, we are just about to enter such a world. This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.

The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document’s recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of “a revolution in the concept of warfare”. The report orders three new developments in America’s approach to warfare:

lFirstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.

lSecondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.

lThirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.

Freedom of speech advocates are horrified at this new doctrine, but military planners and members of the intelligence community embrace the idea as a necessary development in modern combat.

Human rights lawyer John Scott, who chairs the Scottish Centre for Human Rights, said: “This is an unwelcome but natural development of what we have seen. I find what is said in this document to be frightening, and it needs serious parliamentary scrutiny.”

Crispin Black – who has worked for the Joint Intelligence Committee, and has been an Army lieutenant colonel, a military intelligence officer, a member of the Defence Intelligence Staff and a Cabinet Office intelligence analyst who briefed Number 10 – said he broadly supported the report as it tallied with the Pentagon’s over-arching vision for “full spectrum dominance” in all military matters.

“I’m all for taking down al-Qaeda websites. Shutting down enemy propaganda is a reasonable course of action. Al-Qaeda is very good at [information warfare on the internet], so we need to catch up. The US needs to lift its game,” he said.

This revolution in information warfare is merely an extension of the politics of the “neoconservative” Bush White House. Even before getting into power, key players in Team Bush were planning total military and political domination of the globe. In September 2000, the now notorious document Rebuilding America’s Defences – written by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think-tank staffed by some of the Bush presidency’s leading lights – said that America needed a “blueprint for maintaining US global pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power-rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”.

The PNAC was founded by Dick Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary; Bush’s younger brother, Jeb; Paul Wolfowitz, once Rumsfeld’s deputy and now head of the World Bank; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, now indicted for perjury in America.

Rebuilding America’s Defences also spoke of taking control of the internet. A heavily censored version of the document was released under Freedom of Information legislation to the National Security Archive at George Washington University in the US.

The report admits the US is vulnerable to electronic warfare. “Networks are growing faster than we can defend them,” the report notes. “The sophistication and capability of … nation states to degrade system and network operations are rapidly increasing.”

T he report says the US military’s first priority is that the “department [of defence] must be prepared to ‘fight the net’”. The internet is seen in much the same way as an enemy state by the Pentagon because of the way it can be used to propagandise, organise and mount electronic attacks on crucial US targets. Under the heading “offensive cyber operations”, two pages outlining possible operations are blacked out.

Next, the Pentagon focuses on electronic warfare, saying it must be elevated to the heart of US military war planning. It will “provide maximum control of the electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting or destroying the full spectrum of communications equipment … it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities”. Put simply, this means US forces having the power to knock out any or all forms of telecommunications on the planet.

After electronic warfare, the US war planners turn their attention to psychological operations: “Military forces must be better prepared to use psyops in support of military operations.” The State Department, which carries out US diplomatic functions, is known to be worried that the rise of such operations could undermine American diplomacy if uncovered by foreign states. Other examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom.

The Pentagon also wants to target a “broader set of select foreign media and audiences”, with $161m set aside to help place pro-US articles in overseas media.

02 April 2006/Sunday Herald

Sunday, January 22, 2006

No Comment Necessary...

Hustling Backwards - How the Economy Fails the Working Poor
By Bob Burnett
CommonDreams.org

Friday 20 January 2006

We all remember that, after Katrina, folks were abandoned in New Orleans because the system failed. That's what the documentary Waging a Living is about, Americans who work for a minimum wage and still are left behind by our economy. No matter how hard they struggle, they are "hustling backwards."

Whenever the growing gap between America's rich and poor is brought up, conservatives respond that the rich do more work than the poor. Therefore, they should be compensated more. In the abstract, no one disagrees that Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers, should be paid more than the janitors that clean up after other Apple employees go home. The question is how much more?

Twenty years ago the ratio between America's highest paid and lowest paid employees was around 40 to one. Now it's 431 to one. According to a recent report, the average CEO pay is $11.8 million, while the average work pay is $27,460. "If the minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay since 1990, the lowest paid workers in the US would be earning $23.03 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour."

Roger Weisberg's Waging a Living describes what it's like to be at the bottom of our economy. For three years, Weisberg followed four low-wage workers as they struggled to hold onto the American dream. Mary Venittelli is a waitress in New Jersey. Jerry Longoria is a security guard in San Francisco. Barbara Brooks is a recreational counselor at a home for troubled girls in New York. Jean Reynolds is a nursing assistant in a convalescent hospital in New Jersey.

They're not slackers. All four of Weisberg's subjects work fulltime, and take as much overtime as they can get. Three things make their lives particularly difficult: they are on their own - they have no adult partner or family to help them, they have children, and they are relatively uneducated. Mary Venittelli is a recently divorced, middle-age woman with no previous work experience. She works as a waitress for $2.13 an hour plus tips. In her struggle to maintain her three children in the same life style they had before the divorce, she is forced to feed her kids from a food pantry. She covers the huge monthly difference between her income and her expenses by maxing out her credit cards. In the one of the documentary's most poignant scenes, Mary applies for yet another credit card. When her friend asks her if she isn't worried about identity theft, Mary quips, "What do I have to worry about, someone stealing my identity? Please! Take it."

Between child support and rent for a tiny room in a San Francisco "single room occupancy" hotel, Jerry Longoria's expenses gobble up his monthly income. He's thrilled by a twenty-five cent an hour raise, because that will enable him to open a savings account and set money aside for a visit with his children whom he hasn't seen in nine years.

Barbara Brooks depends upon public assistance to supplement her income so that she can adequately care for her five children. She works full-time, does all the housekeeping chores, and still finds time to attend one class a semester at the local junior college - she explains she gets by with four hours sleep per night. The documentary chronicles her triumph when she finally secures her associate's degree. The next week she finds that her new degree rewards her with a raise of $450, but $600 less in public assistance. "I'm hustling backwards," she laments.

Jean Reynolds is a certified nursing assistant supporting three children and four grandchildren. She earns $1,200 a month working a forty-hour graveyard shift, with as much overtime as she can get. In common with most low-wage workers, Jean has no health insurance. Her daughter, Bridget, has terminal cancer. When Jean is forced to use her rent money for Bridget's medication she's evicted and the family narrowly escapes having to live on the streets. "There's no American dream anymore," she remarks.

A favorite conservative myth about the poor is that they are shiftless neer-do-wells. But this stereotype doesn't match the reality of Weisberg's quartet. They are working as hard as they can, but are falling farther and farther behind. They're not unusual. One in four American workers - 30 million - are mired in low-wage jobs that do not provide for a life with dignity.

When progressives call attention to this situation, Republicans attack them - accuse them of fomenting class warfare. A typical conservative reaction is that the rich are "those who are industrious and willing to work hard (the HAVES)," while the poor are "those who are lazy louts looking for a handout (the HAVENOTS)." The GOP argues that it's the fault of the individual; if you're working full time and not getting ahead, you did something wrong, you deserve it. But it's not the working poor who have failed. It's the system - the American economic system conceived by Republican conservatives and promoted by the Bush Administration.

There's no reason that we can't have an economy that works for everyone. A system that rewards low-wage workers, like the quartet in Waging a Living, with a decent standard of living. For that to happen, Americans will have to decide that its morality that matters - the golden rule. Instead, we are governed by the ethics in the Randy Newman song,

It's money that matters,
Hear what I say,
It's money that matters,
In the USA.