WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 (UPI) — It may have seemed like a minor ripple in the media teacup, but the relaunch this week of the International Herald Tribune as a wholly owned product of The New York Times signals something profoundly interesting — beyond the enduring appeal of print in the Internet age — about the way the world is unfolding. The Trib, as it is it known fondly to most of its 270,000 subscribers and regular buyers, has long been the world’s daily newspaper, owned jointly by The N.Y. Times and The Washington Post, and a godsend to Americans in Europe wanting to keep up with the baseball scores and op-ed pages back home. As a regular and devoted reader of the paper (and not just on my travels), the Trib has meant much more than that to me, even though the Internet reveals that a dismaying proportion of its stories were a day old, recycled from the previous day’s Times and Post. Being dated was the Trib’s biggest weakness. It was not the fault of the editor, David Ignatius. The parent papers back in Washington, six hours behind the Trib’s publishing base in Paris, were not prepared to change the deadlines for their own reporters and news stories to accommodate the Trib’s printing schedule. Given this constraint, the Trib did well, although not profitably, in a very tough market. More and more newspapers are trying to serve an extraordinary new market of Anglo-Americans abroad and English-speaking foreigners who want an Anglo-American take on the world. The Wall Street Journal sells 186,000 of its European and Asian editions every day. The Financial Times sells 430,000 a day, just a third of them in Britain, and the rest in the United States and Europe, where it has become the daily bible of the European Union, the dominant newspaper in Brussels, the EU capital. Then there is USA Today, now published in 60 countries, and the combined circulation of over 100,000 in Europe for the British dailies The Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian. Add this up, and the international market for daily newspapers in English is close to a million, and since most of them seem affluent and cosmopolitan, a highly desirable target market for advertisers. But financial viability has been elusive in this business, because of the competition. The Trib has been the only paper without a domestic profit base, like the FT’s sales in Britain or the deep, deep pockets of The Wall Street Journal. The new Trib came about because, according to well-informed sources in the business, The N.Y. Times made the Post an offer it could not refuse. Either the Post sold its share in the Trib for $75 million, or the Times would launch its own rival for the juicy expat and English-speaking market. In short, The New York Times (despite already making an annual $15 million profit on its Internet venture) saw an opportunity. The reborn Trib still boasts some Post articles in its business section, and still runs some N.Y. Times pieces a day late. It also continues to run some of the Trib’s own fine Europe-based reporters like Barry James. But N.Y. Times Editor Howell Raines pledges that, “Our journalistic clock will change. We will be a more 24-hour news-gathering organization. We are already moving in that direction with the Web site.” The new Trib editors will be connected by phone to the NYT’s editorial conferences, and beefed-up rewrite desks in New York and at the Times’ Washington bureau will intensify the Times’ influence. The Times clearly has its sights on that million-strong Anglophone market. Throw in the 750,000 readers of Newsweek’s international editions, a similar number for Time magazine (140,000 for the European edition alone), and The Economist’s 450,000 subscribers outside the United States, and the overall market looks potentially closer to 2 million. Then think about the global TV reach of CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp., and of Voice of America and the BBC World Service on radio. Fewer than 400 million people learn English as their mother tongue, but another 400 million are fluent in English as a second language, and another billion people around the world are currently studying it. This says a lot about the power of the English language, and Bismarck’s prescient remark that the most important fact of the 20th century would be that the British and Americans spoke the same language. The other international languages, Spanish and French, have as yet no equivalent global outlets. Indeed, the Francophone outlet with the widest international spread is the English language version of the Agence France Presse news agency. The news and comment — and thus the context for thinking – of the elites of the globalized world are in the hands of the Anglo-Americans. CNN and BBC, Reuters and AP or UPI, Time and the Economist, the Financial Times and the new Trib, comprise a potential that The New York Times was rightly eager to join. Because these days, it’s about a whole lot more than baseball scores. ”Walker’s World — an in-depth look at the people and events shaping global geopolitics — is published every Sunday and Wednesday.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
Political Tittle-tattle: News and Entertainment from Hawaii's Political Arena
”Case Not Surprised At the Attack, But At the Attacker”
U.S. Rep. Ed Case, who won the right to represent Hawaii’s second congressional district through a Nov. 30 election for the final five weeks of 2002, says he was not surprised about the attack on him in his final days of campaigning for a second special election, Jan. 4, 2003. But Case, who with 43 other candidates, is hoping to be elected tomorrow to the two-year U.S. House seat term left vacant by the Nov. 28 death of former U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, was surprised at who launched the attack
Political Tittle-tattle: News and Entertainment from Hawaii’s Political Arena
”Case Not Surprised At the Attack, But At the Attacker”
U.S. Rep. Ed Case, who won the right to represent Hawaii’s second congressional district through a Nov. 30 election for the final five weeks of 2002, says he was not surprised about the attack on him in his final days of campaigning for a second special election, Jan. 4, 2003. But Case, who with 43 other candidates, is hoping to be elected tomorrow to the two-year U.S. House seat term left vacant by the Nov. 28 death of former U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, was surprised at who launched the attack
Substitute Teachers Seek Back Pay and Union Representation
Last Nov. 29, 10 substitute teachers working for the Department of Education, and living in all four of Hawaii’s counties, filed suit (Chang vs. Hawaii) against the DOE demanding back pay from the state as required by law. The DOE has been ignoring a clear and unambiguous provision of the Hawaii Revised Statues that, since July 1, 1996, spells out the pay rates for substitute teachers. We are also seeking representation through Local 368 of the Laborer’s International Union of North America (LIUNA).
Hawaii’s 5,200 substitute teachers are on-call, casual employees of the DOE. We work only when a regular teacher is absent from his or her job. We are paid a per diem rate — a fixed amount for each day we work. For the first semester of the current, 2002-2003 school year we were underpaid by $25.72 per day. For the second semester, we are currently being underpaid by $26.54 per day. A sub who works 100 of 181 school days — slightly over half the year — will be underpaid by just over $2,600 for the current school year. This is money that these teachers have earned, and money that most need to maintain a modest standard of living in Hawaii.
HRS #302A-624(e) provides that ” . . . effective July 1, 1996, the per diem rate for substitute teachers shall be based on the annual entry step salary rate established for a Class II teacher on the most current teachers’ salary schedule. The per diem rate shall be derived from the annual rate in accordance with the following formula: Per Diem Rate = Annual Salary Rate [divided by] 12 months [divided by] Average Working Days Per Month.”
For six years the DOE simply ignored this provision of state law and paid subs under its old schedule, which resulted in an even greater underpayment than we are now enduring. On May 8, 2002, Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto announced “a change in per diem rates for substitute teachers” that resulted in retroactive back pay for the 2001-2002 school year. But instead of applying this formula to the entry salary rate for a Class II teacher, the DOE applied it to the entry level step salary rate for a Class II instructor. The “Instructor” category, which carries a lower rate of pay than the “Teacher” category, did not exist in 1996. Chang vs. Hawaii simply seeks to have the DOE obey the law.
In addition to being illegally underpaid for 6 years, substitute teachers receive no benefits of any kind, except for those few who are given a “contract” to cover a long-term absence of over 30 days. But the DOE often will hire a sub for 29 days and then make him or her miss a day before returning to work, just to avoid paying benefits.
Here’s what subs miss out on that regular teachers enjoy under their union contract:
*a.. Substitute teachers are not eligible for any insurance coverage through their employment. No health insurance, no life insurance, no dental or eye care insurance. Effective July 3, 2003, subs will have the same right to receive health insurance benefits as other state and county employees. However, the trustees who administer this law, led by employer-appointed trustees, have been attempting, through administrative rule-making, to deny subs this opportunity. Local 368 has been picketing meetings of the trustees. This picketing has been effective, and the rules remain unchanged as this is written.
*b.. Substitute teachers have no pension or other retirement benefits available to them.
*c.. Substitute teachers have no job protection of any kind. At any public school, we serve at the pleasure of the administration. If the principal or a vice principal decides a particular sub is not welcome there, then that is that. There is no right of appeal or of review.
*d.. Subs have no paid leave of any kind. We have no paid holidays.
*e.. Subs are not eligible to receive merit pay raises, or longevity raises.
*f.. Subs are not eligible to receive unemployment compensation when they are laid off during scheduled breaks — Summer break, Spring break and Christmas break. Regular teachers are paid an annual salary over the course of a fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), and their salary continues over these breaks.
*g.. Except for an optional day occasionally offered in July, substitute teachers have no opportunity to receive in-service training. Regular teachers have generous in-service training opportunities available to them.
In June 2002, the DOE in a newsletter sent to all subs said, “Our new superintendent, Patricia Hamamoto, is leading the charge to hold high expectations for our students and to address the challenges we must meet . . . Professional behavior and good judgment are expected of substitute teachers . . .
“As a substitute teacher, you are an integral part of the DOE team. Commit to your business of providing your very best efforts as you substitute teach each day . . . love your work . . . do the best you can and have students catch the learning passion from you. Some will say this is easier said than done, but it is possible if you are truly committed. The students and teachers will thank you for it!”
The DOE is, of course, right to expect a high degree of dedication and professionalism from its substitute teachers. It should respond by paying us the per diem called for by state law, and negotiating appropriate fringe benefits.
Hawaii’s substitute teachers are responding to a drive by Local 368 of LIUNA to organize them. This drive is led by Jimmy Kuroiwa, Union Representative/Organizer, whose wife, Patricia Kuroiwa, is a substitute teacher and a plaintiff in Chang vs. Hawaii. Any substitute teacher who is interested in seeking union representation should contact Local 368 in Honolulu at 841-5877, or by e-mailing Kuroiwa at mailto:jkuroiwa@local368.org.
”’David Hudson lives in Hilo. He has been a substitute teacher since 1990, and is a plaintiff in Chang vs. Hawaii. He can be reached at:”’ mailto:dhudson@interpac.net
Hate Crime
“Dick Rowland Image”
“Bush seeks another tax cut for the rich,” the Dec. 31, 2002, editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser was a sad example of failed socialist ideology.
Here is a partial list of what was wrong with it: It assumed that whatever any individual earns, owns or otherwise possesses, in wealth does not in fact, belong to him. Eventually, good-bye to the authors 401K plan. It will be taken by government because it “needs” it.
It subtly called for class warfare. A tax is a penalty on earnings. The editorial calls for higher penalties on those who work hard, earn more, save more, invest more. In other words those who are successful in pursuit of the “American Dream.”
Which leads directly to the point that jobs are created by entrepreneurial investment. Have you ever seen a “poor” person hire an employee or invest in a business? How many reader employees work for “poor” people? To discourage business and job formation via penalties is to assure feeble economic growth and to destroy the prosperity that could be created. Actually, poverty is created.
The entire editorial smacks of envy. The same kind, on a lesser scale, that is supposedly the basis for terrorist attacks on the USA. Envy, when encouraged, produces hate, which fosters violence.
Based on the above, the editorial is evil in its theme. The intent is undoubtedly benign but the result is horrible.
It was an endorsement of hate crime of the same genre as the discrimination against and murder of successful Chinese business people in Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The newspaper should retract that editorial — now.
”’Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or by phone at (808) 487-4959. More information about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be found at its Web site at”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org
Substitute Teachers Seek Back Pay and Union Representation
Last Nov. 29, 10 substitute teachers working for the Department of Education, and living in all four of Hawaii’s counties, filed suit (Chang vs. Hawaii) against the DOE demanding back pay from the state as required by law. The DOE has been ignoring a clear and unambiguous provision of the Hawaii Revised Statues that, since July 1, 1996, spells out the pay rates for substitute teachers. We are also seeking representation through Local 368 of the Laborer’s International Union of North America (LIUNA). Hawaii’s 5,200 substitute teachers are on-call, casual employees of the DOE. We work only when a regular teacher is absent from his or her job. We are paid a per diem rate — a fixed amount for each day we work. For the first semester of the current, 2002-2003 school year we were underpaid by $25.72 per day. For the second semester, we are currently being underpaid by $26.54 per day. A sub who works 100 of 181 school days — slightly over half the year — will be underpaid by just over $2,600 for the current school year. This is money that these teachers have earned, and money that most need to maintain a modest standard of living in Hawaii. HRS #302A-624(e) provides that ” . . . effective July 1, 1996, the per diem rate for substitute teachers shall be based on the annual entry step salary rate established for a Class II teacher on the most current teachers’ salary schedule. The per diem rate shall be derived from the annual rate in accordance with the following formula: Per Diem Rate = Annual Salary Rate [divided by] 12 months [divided by] Average Working Days Per Month.” For six years the DOE simply ignored this provision of state law and paid subs under its old schedule, which resulted in an even greater underpayment than we are now enduring. On May 8, 2002, Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto announced “a change in per diem rates for substitute teachers” that resulted in retroactive back pay for the 2001-2002 school year. But instead of applying this formula to the entry salary rate for a Class II teacher, the DOE applied it to the entry level step salary rate for a Class II instructor. The “Instructor” category, which carries a lower rate of pay than the “Teacher” category, did not exist in 1996. Chang vs. Hawaii simply seeks to have the DOE obey the law. In addition to being illegally underpaid for 6 years, substitute teachers receive no benefits of any kind, except for those few who are given a “contract” to cover a long-term absence of over 30 days. But the DOE often will hire a sub for 29 days and then make him or her miss a day before returning to work, just to avoid paying benefits. Here’s what subs miss out on that regular teachers enjoy under their union contract: *a.. Substitute teachers are not eligible for any insurance coverage through their employment. No health insurance, no life insurance, no dental or eye care insurance. Effective July 3, 2003, subs will have the same right to receive health insurance benefits as other state and county employees. However, the trustees who administer this law, led by employer-appointed trustees, have been attempting, through administrative rule-making, to deny subs this opportunity. Local 368 has been picketing meetings of the trustees. This picketing has been effective, and the rules remain unchanged as this is written. *b.. Substitute teachers have no pension or other retirement benefits available to them. *c.. Substitute teachers have no job protection of any kind. At any public school, we serve at the pleasure of the administration. If the principal or a vice principal decides a particular sub is not welcome there, then that is that. There is no right of appeal or of review. *d.. Subs have no paid leave of any kind. We have no paid holidays. *e.. Subs are not eligible to receive merit pay raises, or longevity raises. *f.. Subs are not eligible to receive unemployment compensation when they are laid off during scheduled breaks — Summer break, Spring break and Christmas break. Regular teachers are paid an annual salary over the course of a fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), and their salary continues over these breaks. *g.. Except for an optional day occasionally offered in July, substitute teachers have no opportunity to receive in-service training. Regular teachers have generous in-service training opportunities available to them. In June 2002, the DOE in a newsletter sent to all subs said, “Our new superintendent, Patricia Hamamoto, is leading the charge to hold high expectations for our students and to address the challenges we must meet . . . Professional behavior and good judgment are expected of substitute teachers . . . “As a substitute teacher, you are an integral part of the DOE team. Commit to your business of providing your very best efforts as you substitute teach each day . . . love your work . . . do the best you can and have students catch the learning passion from you. Some will say this is easier said than done, but it is possible if you are truly committed. The students and teachers will thank you for it!” The DOE is, of course, right to expect a high degree of dedication and professionalism from its substitute teachers. It should respond by paying us the per diem called for by state law, and negotiating appropriate fringe benefits. Hawaii’s substitute teachers are responding to a drive by Local 368 of LIUNA to organize them. This drive is led by Jimmy Kuroiwa, Union Representative/Organizer, whose wife, Patricia Kuroiwa, is a substitute teacher and a plaintiff in Chang vs. Hawaii. Any substitute teacher who is interested in seeking union representation should contact Local 368 in Honolulu at 841-5877, or by e-mailing Kuroiwa at mailto:jkuroiwa@local368.org. ”David Hudson lives in Hilo. He has been a substitute teacher since 1990, and is a plaintiff in Chang vs. Hawaii. He can be reached at:” mailto:dhudson@interpac.net
Hate Crime
Dick Rowland Image “Bush seeks another tax cut for the rich,” the Dec. 31, 2002, editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser was a sad example of failed socialist ideology. Here is a partial list of what was wrong with it: It assumed that whatever any individual earns, owns or otherwise possesses, in wealth does not in fact, belong to him. Eventually, good-bye to the authors 401K plan. It will be taken by government because it “needs” it. It subtly called for class warfare. A tax is a penalty on earnings. The editorial calls for higher penalties on those who work hard, earn more, save more, invest more. In other words those who are successful in pursuit of the “American Dream.” Which leads directly to the point that jobs are created by entrepreneurial investment. Have you ever seen a “poor” person hire an employee or invest in a business? How many reader employees work for “poor” people? To discourage business and job formation via penalties is to assure feeble economic growth and to destroy the prosperity that could be created. Actually, poverty is created. The entire editorial smacks of envy. The same kind, on a lesser scale, that is supposedly the basis for terrorist attacks on the USA. Envy, when encouraged, produces hate, which fosters violence. Based on the above, the editorial is evil in its theme. The intent is undoubtedly benign but the result is horrible. It was an endorsement of hate crime of the same genre as the discrimination against and murder of successful Chinese business people in Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The newspaper should retract that editorial — now. ”Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or by phone at (808) 487-4959. More information about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be found at its Web site at” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org
The Biggest Bunch of Cowards
The biggest bunch of cowards in the U.S. Congress are the multilateralists. These are the ones who say that the Bush administration should not escalate the 10-year-old war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations.
What makes them cowards is not their skittishness about having the United States go it alone against Saddam Hussein. It’s their seeking refuge in multilateralism so they don’t have to oppose the war forthrightly, as they should. They were afraid of going into the fall election with an “antiwar” brand on their hides. How pathetic.
This can be the only explanation for their behavior because their position is otherwise incoherent. If, as they say, they believe Saddam is a threat to the American people and if most nations oppose the U.S. escalation, then why not support unilateral action? It makes no sense to agree with President Bush that Iraq poses an imminent mortal danger to the United States, but then oppose any defensive action until other governments agree to go along.
If you grant the president’s premises, then his conclusion follows. (The problem is in the premises.)
But the multilateralist position begins to make sense if it is a stalling tactic by Democrats who don’t want to appear to be anti-war. If a Republican accuses a Democrat of being for peace, he can protest, “No! I am not. I just believe that we have an obligation to work through the United Nations.”
He thus can have it both ways, appearing to favor war while helping to delay and maybe avert it.
It might even work for a while. But it is still cowardly.
It would be refreshing to see a Democrat say what needs to be said: that the war is a phony from top to bottom. Saddam Hussein is weaker today than he was in 1990 and poses no threat to the American people. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Even if he is trying to get biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, the only practical reasons for doing so are to enhance his prestige as the leader of the Arab world and deter attacks from the nuclear-armed Israel and United States. It would be senseless for him to spend millions of dollars on weapons, only to see his entire country — weapons, oil, and himself included — destroyed the moment he used one of them against us or Israel. He may be a ruthless killer, but he shows no signs of being suicidal. And the idea that he’d give one of those weapons to religious fanatics who despise him is absurd; it goes against everything we know and have observed about the secular Hussein, beginning when he was our trusted, enlightened, and brutal ally in the 1980s.
The point is that the unilateralist-multilateralist debate is a fraud. Escalating the war would be criminal whether Mr. Bush goes it alone (with Prime Minister Blair) or with a coalition. If every country in the world favored the coming assault, the United States should refuse to participate.
The wrong cannot be made right by majority vote — especially when the votes are cast by safely ensconced politicians who will pay no price for their recklessness.
Democrats, this is hardly the time for ducking the big questions. The Bush administration has shown an unprecedented willingness to deceive the American people, using every base rhetorical device to keep them scared and ignorant. This president makes his predecessor look like a paragon of candor, for while Mr. Clinton butchered the English language to hide a tawdry fling with a young intern, Mr. Bush and his brain trust do it so he can escalate a war that will kill many innocent people. Decent people will prefer the former.
Knocking off Saddam Hussein — if that’s still the objective; Mr. Bush and his press secretary can’t seem to agree — is something a segment of the political elite has wanted since long before 9/11. The Bush administration has an agenda for the Middle East having to do with oil and Israel; and Saddam, although once useful in that mission, has now outlived his usefulness. So it
The Anti-Capitalist Witch Hunt
Another notable trend of 2002 was the demonization of America’s largest corporations, following the scandals at Enron, WorldCom and elsewhere.
“The American state’s reaction to the so-called business scandals was to bring business executives before congressional kangaroo courts where self-righteous politicians made them feel guilty of something, and, then, adopt the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which … ‘criminalizes accounting mistakes,'” writes Independent Institute research fellow Pierre Lemieux.
Corporations would be better governed, and less susceptible to malfeasance, if the government would stop giving shareholders false assurances and hampering the ability to monitor them.
“The main problem with Enron, WorldCom, and the ‘mixed economy’ in general,” writes Lemieux, “is that much free-market signaling has been short-circuited by state intervention. How did 19th-century capitalism work with virtually no legislated standards of accounting or financial disclosure? … How were investors able to evaluate corporations? The answer is simple: a firm signaled that its earnings were real by paying dividends. This signaling device now works very badly because of tax distortions: dividends being taxed at higher rates than capital gains, shareholders prefer the latter. While the average dividend yield on stocks was 5.8 percent in the 19th century, it is now less than 2 percent.”
Lemieux concludes: “The attacks against ‘unethical’ corporations point mainly not to flows in capitalism but to state failures and to the continuing anti-capitalist witch-hunt.”
See The Anti-Capitalist Witch-Hunt by Pierre Lemieux (THE LAISSEZ FAIRE ELECTRONIC TIMES, December 23, 2002) https://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink4-52-2.html
”’THE LIGHTHOUSE is edited by Carl P. Close and is made possible by the generous contributions of supporters of The Independent Institute. The Independent Institute can be contacted by phone at 510-632-1366, e-mail at”’ mailto:info@independent.org ”’or snail mail to The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428. For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html ”’For information on books and other publications from The Independent Institute, see”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/pubs.html
The Biggest Bunch of Cowards
The biggest bunch of cowards in the U.S. Congress are the multilateralists. These are the ones who say that the Bush administration should not escalate the 10-year-old war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations. What makes them cowards is not their skittishness about having the United States go it alone against Saddam Hussein. It’s their seeking refuge in multilateralism so they don’t have to oppose the war forthrightly, as they should. They were afraid of going into the fall election with an “antiwar” brand on their hides. How pathetic. This can be the only explanation for their behavior because their position is otherwise incoherent. If, as they say, they believe Saddam is a threat to the American people and if most nations oppose the U.S. escalation, then why not support unilateral action? It makes no sense to agree with President Bush that Iraq poses an imminent mortal danger to the United States, but then oppose any defensive action until other governments agree to go along. If you grant the president’s premises, then his conclusion follows. (The problem is in the premises.) But the multilateralist position begins to make sense if it is a stalling tactic by Democrats who don’t want to appear to be anti-war. If a Republican accuses a Democrat of being for peace, he can protest, “No! I am not. I just believe that we have an obligation to work through the United Nations.” He thus can have it both ways, appearing to favor war while helping to delay and maybe avert it. It might even work for a while. But it is still cowardly. It would be refreshing to see a Democrat say what needs to be said: that the war is a phony from top to bottom. Saddam Hussein is weaker today than he was in 1990 and poses no threat to the American people. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Even if he is trying to get biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, the only practical reasons for doing so are to enhance his prestige as the leader of the Arab world and deter attacks from the nuclear-armed Israel and United States. It would be senseless for him to spend millions of dollars on weapons, only to see his entire country — weapons, oil, and himself included — destroyed the moment he used one of them against us or Israel. He may be a ruthless killer, but he shows no signs of being suicidal. And the idea that he’d give one of those weapons to religious fanatics who despise him is absurd; it goes against everything we know and have observed about the secular Hussein, beginning when he was our trusted, enlightened, and brutal ally in the 1980s. The point is that the unilateralist-multilateralist debate is a fraud. Escalating the war would be criminal whether Mr. Bush goes it alone (with Prime Minister Blair) or with a coalition. If every country in the world favored the coming assault, the United States should refuse to participate. The wrong cannot be made right by majority vote — especially when the votes are cast by safely ensconced politicians who will pay no price for their recklessness. Democrats, this is hardly the time for ducking the big questions. The Bush administration has shown an unprecedented willingness to deceive the American people, using every base rhetorical device to keep them scared and ignorant. This president makes his predecessor look like a paragon of candor, for while Mr. Clinton butchered the English language to hide a tawdry fling with a young intern, Mr. Bush and his brain trust do it so he can escalate a war that will kill many innocent people. Decent people will prefer the former. Knocking off Saddam Hussein — if that’s still the objective; Mr. Bush and his press secretary can’t seem to agree — is something a segment of the political elite has wanted since long before 9/11. The Bush administration has an agenda for the Middle East having to do with oil and Israel; and Saddam, although once useful in that mission, has now outlived his usefulness. So it?s time for him to go. No, it’s not a noble reason, but that’s the kind of thing wars are launched over. ”Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine, and author of “Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State.” See the Foundation’s Web site at:” https://www.fff.org