Most countries are proud to have a healthcare system. It's an organized way of helping the sick and infirm — a mark of genuine civilization. Not so here, alas, where the health system is rapidly becoming a health hazard. After decades of privatizing, profiteering and insurance company-driven bureaucratization, Florence Nightingale has morphed into Vampira.

Healthcare costs are sucking the blood out of the economy, for one thing. Consider poor General Motors, once the nation's flagship corporation and now sinking under the weight of its employee health benefits — which account for $1,500 of the sticker price of each new vehicle. As GM contemplates bankruptcy, other companies thrash around frantically trying to shed their insurance-needy American employees. They downsize and outsource — anything to escape the burden of health costs. The result? Our "jobless recovery": Companies don't want to assume responsibility for their workers' medical bills and — this being the global temple of free enterprise — neither does the government.

Then there are the U.S. health system's toxic effects on individuals, and I'm not referring to Vioxx or the approximately 200,000 people who die each year as a result of "medical mistakes," but to its financial effects. Harvard's Elizabeth Warren recently co-wrote a study showing that more than half of all personal bankruptcies are triggered by medical costs, and it's easy enough to see how. If you lose your job — through, say, downsizing or outsourcing — you lose your health insurance, and the uninsured are routinely charged up to three times more than those who have an insurance company to negotiate their hospital bills. As for emergency rooms, which the hardhearted or incurious imagine absorbing all the poor and uninsured — well, the average visit to an ER now costs a little over $1,000, which is a high price to pay for an asthma attack or an infant's fever.

Certainly the health system makes plenty of people rich — Big Pharma's overlords, for example, and CEOs like HealthSouth's Richard Scrushy (who received about $267 million in compensation from his company between 1996 and 2002) — but it makes a lot more people poor: indirectly, by inhibiting job growth, and directly, by grinding individuals down to bankruptcy (which, thanks to the new federal bankruptcy law, offers no fresh start to the debt-ridden). Add to this the well-known fact that poverty is a risk factor for dozens of diseases — from asthma to AIDS, from depression to diabetes — and, well, I rest my case.

When doctors notice a tissue growing nonstop — as U.S. medical costs are doing — and in the process draining nutrients from the body as a whole, they insist on prompt excision, i.e., cut the thing out before it kills. So too, one might think, economists should be calling for the immediate destruction of the American healthcare system: Stamp it out and drive a stake through its heart. Because Americans will still need healthcare, the solution is obvious: If we can't outsource our illnesses — and there is so far no technology for transferring one's cancer or atrial fibrillation to a starving African or Asian — we can at least outsource our healthcare.

It's already happening, in fact, though only in a helter-skelter way.

An estimated 2 million Americans cross the borders every year to purchase their prescription meds in Mexico or Canada. U.S. X-rays are increasingly interpreted by radiologists in India.

Patients are being globalized too, as hundreds of thousands of them from all parts of the world flock to Manila, Singapore, Bangalore and other centers of low-cost, high-quality care. Some hospitals in India lure the rich with airport-to-hospital bed-car service and post-surgical yoga holidays, and I can foresee cheap, Motel 6-style hospitals springing up in Tijuana for the American working class.

All right, it's painful to admit that the nation that produced Osler and Salk, pacemakers and MRIs can't do healthcare anymore. But there are other things we don't do here much anymore, like manufacturing. According to Business Week, companies are increasingly outsourcing their R&D too.

In the case of healthcare, it wasn't the science that foiled us (though, with more schools teaching only biblically approved versions of biology, that may soon be a problem too). No, we Americans just couldn't figure out the technology of distributing healthcare to the people who need it. We left the whole business to business — both of the profit-making and private "nonprofit" variety — and business screwed it up.

The abolition of the American healthcare system will lead to some difficult readjustments, of course. Our doctors, nurses and technicians, who are among the best-trained in the world, will have to seek work in the emerging Asian centers of medical tourism. As for the estimated 2 million to 3 million insurance company functionaries whose sole business it is to turn down your claims, these folks may be a bit harder to reemploy because they have no counterpart in any civilized, health-providing nation.

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author, most recently, of "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" (Owl Books, 2002).

© 2005 LA Times

At the "Justice Sunday" event hyped to national prominence by Bill Frist's appearance, Chuck Colson told America that we should read the Federalist Papers to understand the intent and the mind of the Founders.

Apparently Colson overlooked Federalist 47, published by James Madison on February 1, 1788. Titled, "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts," Madison wrote about how important it was that the different branches of government serve as checks and balances on each other.

"No political truth is of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty," wrote Madison of the concern about any one particular group dominating all branches of government. He added, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

A paragraph later, Madison quotes the Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu, inserting his own capital letters for emphasis:

"'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he [Montesquieu], 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.'

"Again: 'Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.'"

Or perhaps Colson could read Federalist 48, in which Madison quotes from Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia."

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body," wrote Jefferson in this commentary quoted in Federalist 48. "The concentrating of these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government.

"It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

Jefferson added, "An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one ... in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

"For this reason, that Convention which passed the ordinance of government [the Constitution], laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time.''

Unless, of course, you are a Republican sponsored by massive corporate interests and willing to invade people's bedrooms to score political points with religious extremists.

The real power of the Republican Party is held by the corporatists - who Vice President Henry Wallace called "the American fascists" - whose loyalty is to hereditary wealth and corporate rule. (As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.")

But this is such a small minority of Americans that Frist's wealthy fascists had to bring along somebody else. They chose the religious fundamentalists for their unholy alliance.

The fundamentalists want to replace the Constitution with their unique and particular interpretation of Christian scripture. Their main assertion is that this nation's first laws were based on the Ten Commandments.

The Founders disagree. As Jefferson famously wrote in his "Notes on Virginia":

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

In fact, Jefferson said, the idea that this nation was founded in Christianity, or that the Ten Commandments were a pattern for the Constitution, was a "fraud of the clergy."

"Christianity was not introduced [to England] till the seventh century," wrote Jefferson in a February 10, 1814 letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, "the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. ...

"In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are."

But the bottom line for the corporatists is that if the religious conservatives - whipped into a frenzy by the thought that a woman may deign to control her own body - can change the courts to be more "conservative," the corporatists can be sure that the "conservative" judges are both opposed to abortion, and also radically in favor of corporate interests and hereditary wealth.

By helping out religious extremists, Frist's corporate fascists will have much greater power to put into place judges who won't overturn laws that deny the working class access to bankruptcy courts, the right to sue as a class when harmed, and will give multinational corporations the freedom to import, pollute, and profit at the expense of small businesses and communities. They'll get judges who will outlaw birth control at the same time they outlaw unions and the minimum wage.

It's nothing new, really. Most recently, the Saudi royal family made a similar deal with their religious conservatives. The oil barons gave the fundamentalists the power to enforce their religious agenda, stacking the courts with fundamentalist judges, who in turn acted as enforcers to preserve the oil barons' political and economic power.

It worked for two generations, until the fundamentalists became so powerful that they decided the oil money should be theirs. The religious movement to take control of Saudi Arabia's wealth was led by none other than Osama Bin Laden, who suggested that oil should sell for $200 a barrel, with the proceeds subsidizing evangelism around the world.

The House of Saud was appalled and threw him out of the country, so he went back to Afghanistan and hooked up with the Taliban, men after his own heart, and decided to take on the power that he felt was propping up the royal family - America.

Thus the ultimate irony, that a radical Catholic speaker at Sunday's telecast would complain that his bunch was perceived by many as "America's Taliban." All while George W. Bush had moved over a billion taxpayer dollars to churches through his "faith based programs," and fundamentalists avoided paying billions in taxes by promising to stay out of politics.

As Jefferson said in a June 5, 1824 letter to Major John Cartwright, "What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

Frauds of the clergy in the Middle East brought us 9/11, an explosion of Muslim conservativism, and a fourfold spike in terrorist incidents worldwide, while enriching the Saudi oil and Afghan heroin industries, and helping George W. Bush lead the world to the brink of war.

The merger of corporatist Republicans and the new "frauds of the clergy" could bring this nation to an even more terrible crossroad, unless Americans of good conscience contact their members of the Senate to support Jefferson's and Madison's ideal of democracy.

The number to reach any member of the Senate is 202-224-3121.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show and a morning progressive talk show on KPOJ in Portland, Oregon. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?"

We have never had more stuff to hear, see, scan, play, select, view. We've never had more channels, and we're about to get so many more—check your cell phone for updates, and plug in that iPod.

The problem of having too much media is where to start when we think about media reform. Our own efforts to control our selections, combined with the efforts of large corporations to channel our choices, pose new challenges for people who know that democratic action depends on trustworthy communication.

Big media corporations—let's just call them Big Media—like to assure the American public that we have all the information we need, and all the voice we want. And so we don't need any regulations that put limits on Big Media.

And actually, I'm sure it's true that I could find the information I need—if I knew I needed it, and knew where to get it. I'm pretty sure that I can figure out how to make an audio file and upload it, too. But that is not the same thing as having useful communication. For that, I need reliable and consistent information, and I need other people who share that information. That shared information helps people see themselves as members of the public, meet other members of the public and act as the public. Public communication makes democratic process possible.

Outside the high gates of Big Media—where reality shows, sports, "Desperate Housewives" and Budweiser commercials add up to our shared culture—there is all of Little Media. And Little Media—our blogs, our podcasts, our Web sites, our DVDs, our e-mail lists—is an uncharted territory full of confusing and contradictory information.

Unless we have friends, we can't make our way through it, and some of our friends are busy e-mailing us bogus petitions to save NPR. (If your well-intentioned, alarmed, book group buddy emails you a petition urging you to save the NEA, PBS, NPR or "Sesame Street," just send her to http://www.snopes.com for an urban legend check.)

Big Media makes us cynical and Little Media makes us run for shelter.

This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services such as OneWorld, low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly-invisible feature of today's media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public—a group of people who can talk productively with people who don't share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power.

All of them are little miracles. All of them were created by people who believe that democracy cannot afford purely profit-driven media. All of them suffer financial crises, a hostile policy environment, founder burnout, and the disappointment of producers and audiences who wanted so very much more.

In a "Too Much Media" environment, public media could be our public parks. Big Media filter our choices through branding. They also filter them through manipulation of our access (like our cable provider) and of our content (like our cable TV menu or a browser that redirects us). Little Media funnel our choices through trust networks, some of which really aren't trustworthy, especially for learning about people we don't agree with. Between the two, we are buffeted by profit, partisanship and passions.

Public media can speak to us as members of the public, and introduce us to others. Sometimes they even do.

Look at what happened when thousands of people who watched Stanley Nelson's "The Murder of Emmett Till" on their public television channels joined a postcard campaign that re-opened the murder case after more than half a century. Look at NPR's courageous coverage of the Iraq war, an expensive endeavor that wins no points from this administration. Look at Chicago Access Network's Community Forum, where nonprofits throughout the region can showcase their issues and find volunteers.

The disappointment progressives often voice about public media is earned. "Antiques Roadshow" doesn't make this nation a better democracy. "Car Talk" is not for people who take the bus. Public radio did side with corporate radio against low-power radio advocates. The sector is full of small, embattled actors who often are busiest fighting with each other.

Yet the public media sector is still a very important resource for a noisy and polluted information environment. It's worth investing in our local public media projects, and demanding the best. For instance, many of our public TV stations are not airing programs they could. Ask them if they're carrying "Independent Lens," a highly-diverse social documentary series, at an hour most people could see it. It's worth starting new ones—like the public access cable channel in Philadelphia. It's worth finding out how public-minded projects in a community can work with local public media. We need media services and content dedicated to the challenge of forming—not just informing—a public.

© 2005 In These Times

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation.

Before proceeding further, let me state for the record that I do not claim oil is the sole driving force behind the Bush administration's apparent determination to destroy Iranian military capabilities. No doubt there are many national security professionals in Washington who are truly worried about Iran's nuclear program, just as there were many professionals who were genuinely worried about Iraqi weapons capabilities. I respect this. But no war is ever prompted by one factor alone, and it is evident from the public record that many considerations, including oil, played a role in the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that many factors -- again including oil -- are playing a role in the decision-making now underway over a possible assault on Iran.

Just exactly how much weight the oil factor carries in the administration's decision-making is not something that we can determine with absolute assurance at this time, but given the importance energy has played in the careers and thinking of various high officials of this administration, and given Iran's immense resources, it would be ludicrous not to take the oil factor into account -- and yet you can rest assured that, as relations with Iran worsen, American media reports and analysis of the situation will generally steer a course well clear of the subject (as they did in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq).

One further caveat: When talking about oil's importance in American strategic thinking about Iran, it is important to go beyond the obvious question of Iran's potential role in satisfying our country's future energy requirements. Because Iran occupies a strategic location on the north side of the Persian Gulf, it is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, which together possess more than half of the world's known oil reserves. Iran also sits athwart the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world's oil exports pass. In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran's potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States, that undoubtedly govern the administration's strategic calculations.

Having said this, let me proceed to an assessment of Iran's future energy potential. According to the most recent tally by Oil and Gas Journal, Iran houses the second-largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world, an estimated 125.8 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 260 billion barrels, possesses more; Iraq, the third in line, has an estimated 115 billion barrels. With this much oil -- about one-tenth of the world's estimated total supply -- Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy equation, no matter what else occurs.

It is not, however, just sheer quantity that matters in Iran's case; no less important is its future productive capacity. Although Saudi Arabia possesses larger reserves, it is now producing oil at close to its maximum sustainable rate (about 10 million barrels per day). It will probably be unable to raise its output significantly over the next 20 years while global demand, pushed by significantly higher consumption in the United States, China, and India, is expected to rise by 50%. Iran, on the other hand, has considerable growth potential: it is now producing about 4 million barrels per day, but is thought to be capable of boosting its output by another 3 million barrels or so. Few, if any, other countries possess this potential, so Iran's importance as a producer, already significant, is bound to grow in the years ahead.

And it is not just oil that Iran possesses in great abundance, but also natural gas. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has an estimated 940 trillion cubic feet of gas, or approximately 16% of total world reserves. (Only Russia, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet, has a larger supply.) As it takes approximately 6,000 cubic feet of gas to equal the energy content of 1 barrel of oil, Iran's gas reserves represent the equivalent of about 155 billion barrels of oil. This, in turn, means that its combined hydrocarbon reserves are the equivalent of some 280 billion barrels of oil, just slightly behind Saudi Arabia's combined supply. At present, Iran is producing only a small share of its gas reserves, about 2.7 trillion cubic feet per year. This means that Iran is one of the few countries capable of supplying much larger amounts of natural gas in the future.

What all this means is that Iran will play a critical role in the world's future energy equation. This is especially true because the global demand for natural gas is growing faster than that for any other source of energy, including oil. While the world currently consumes more oil than gas, the supply of petroleum is expected to contract in the not-too-distant future as global production approaches its peak sustainable level -- perhaps as soon as 2010 -- and then begins a gradual but irreversible decline. The production of natural gas, on the other hand, is not likely to peak until several decades from now, and so is expected to take up much of the slack when oil supplies become less abundant. Natural gas is also considered a more attractive fuel than oil in many applications, especially because when consumed it releases less carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect).

No doubt the major U.S. energy companies would love to be working with Iran today in developing these vast oil and gas supplies. At present, however, they are prohibited from doing so by Executive Order (EO) 12959, signed by President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush in March 2004. The United States has also threatened to punish foreign firms that do business in Iran (under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996), but this has not deterred many large companies from seeking access to Iran's reserves. China, which will need vast amounts of additional oil and gas to fuel its red-hot economy, is paying particular attention to Iran. According to the Department of Energy (DoE), Iran supplied 14% of China's oil imports in 2003, and is expected to provide an even larger share in the future. China is also expected to rely on Iran for a large share of its liquid natural gas (LNG) imports. In October 2004, Iran signed a $100 billion, 25-year contract with Sinopec, a major Chinese energy firm, for joint development of one of its major gas fields and the subsequent delivery of LNG to China. If this deal is fully consummated, it will constitute one of China's biggest overseas investments and represent a major strategic linkage between the two countries.

India is also keen to obtain oil and gas from Iran. In January, the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) signed a 30-year deal with the National Iranian Gas Export Corp. for the transfer of as much as 7.5 million tons of LNG to India per year. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, will also entail Indian involvement in the development of Iranian gas fields. Even more noteworthy, Indian and Pakistani officials are discussing the construction of a $3 billion natural gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan ¬ an extraordinary step for two long-term adversaries. If completed, the pipeline would provide both countries with a substantial supply of gas and allow Pakistan to reap $200-$500 million per year in transit fees. "The gas pipeline is a win-win proposition for Iran, India, and Pakistan," Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz declared in January.

Despite the pipeline's obvious attractiveness as an incentive for reconciliation between India and Pakistan -- nuclear powers that have fought three wars over Kashmir since 1947 and remain deadlocked over the future status of that troubled territory -- the project was condemned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a recent trip to India. "We have communicated to the Indian government our concerns about the gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and India," she said on March 16 after meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh in New Delhi. The administration has, in fact, proved unwilling to back any project that offers an economic benefit to Iran. This has not, however, deterred India from proceeding with the pipeline.

Japan has also broken ranks with Washington on the issue of energy ties with Iran. In early 2003, a consortium of three Japanese companies acquired a 20% stake in the development of the Soroush-Nowruz offshore field in the Persian Gulf, a reservoir thought to hold 1 billion barrels of oil. One year later, the Iranian Offshore Oil Company awarded a $1.26 billion contract to Japan's JGC Corporation for the recovery of natural gas and natural gas liquids from Soroush-Nowruz and other offshore fields.

When considering Iran's role in the global energy equation, therefore, Bush administration officials have two key strategic aims: a desire to open up Iranian oil and gas fields to exploitation by American firms, and concern over Iran's growing ties to America's competitors in the global energy market. Under U.S. law, the first of these aims can only be achieved after the President lifts EO 12959, and this is not likely to occur as long as Iran is controlled by anti-American mullahs and refuses to abandon its uranium enrichment activities with potential bomb-making applications. Likewise, the ban on U.S. involvement in Iranian energy production and export gives Tehran no choice but to pursue ties with other consuming nations. From the Bush administration's point of view, there is only one obvious and immediate way to alter this unappetizing landscape -- by inducing "regime change" in Iran and replacing the existing leadership with one far friendlier to U.S. strategic interests.

That the Bush administration seeks to foster regime change in Iran is not in any doubt. The very fact that Iran was included with Saddam's Iraq and Kim Jong Il's North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" in the President's 2002 State of the Union Address was an unmistakable indicator of this. Bush let his feelings be known again in June 2003, at a time when there were anti-government protests by students in Tehran. "This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran, which I think is positive," he declared. In a more significant indication of White House attitudes on the subject, the Department of Defense has failed to fully disarm the People's Mujaheddin of Iran (or Mujaheddin-e Khalq, MEK), an anti-government militia now based in Iraq that has conducted terrorist actions in Iran and is listed on the State Department's roster of terrorist organizations. In 2003, the Washington Post reported that some senior administration figures would like to use the MEK as a proxy force in Iran, in the same manner that the Northern Alliance was employed against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Iranian leadership is well aware that it faces a serious threat from the Bush administration and is no doubt taking whatever steps it can to prevent such an attack. Here, too, oil is a major factor in both Tehran's and Washington's calculations. To deter a possible American assault, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz and otherwise obstruct oil shipping in the Persian Gulf area. "An attack on Iran will be tantamount to endangering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and, in a word, the entire Middle East oil," Iranian Expediency Council secretary Mohsen Rezai said on March 1st.

Such threats are taken very seriously by the U.S. Department of Defense. "We judge Iran can briefly close the Strait of Hormuz, relying on a layered strategy using predominantly naval, air, and some ground forces," Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16th.

Planning for such attacks is, beyond doubt, a major priority for top Pentagon officials. In January, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine that the Department of Defense was conducting covert reconnaissance raids into Iran, supposedly to identify hidden Iranian nuclear and missile facilities that could be struck in future air and missile attacks. "I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran," Hersh said of his interviews with senior military personnel. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon was flying surveillance drones over Iran to verify the location of weapons sites and to test Iranian air defenses. As noted by the Post, "Aerial espionage [of this sort] is standard in military preparations for an eventual air attack." There have also been reports of talks between U.S. and Israeli officials about a possible Israeli strike on Iranian weapons facilities, presumably with behind-the-scenes assistance from the United States.

In reality, much of Washington's concern about Iran's pursuit of WMD and ballistic missiles is sparked by fears for the safety of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, other Persian Gulf oil producers, and Israel rather than by fears of a direct Iranian assault on the United States. "Tehran has the only military in the region that can threaten its neighbors and Gulf security," Jacoby declared in his February testimony. "Its expanding ballistic missile inventory presents a potential threat to states in the region." It is this regional threat that American leaders are most determined to eliminate.

In this sense, more than any other, the current planning for an attack on Iran is fundamentally driven by concern over the safety of U.S. energy supplies, as was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the most telling expression of White House motives for going to war against Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney (in an August 2002 address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars) described the threat from Iraq as follows: "Should all [of Hussein's WMD] ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East and the United States.... Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends throughout the region." This was, of course, unthinkable to Bush's inner circle. And all one need do is substitute the words "Iranian mullahs" for Saddam Hussein, and you have a perfect expression of the Bush administration case for making war on Iran.

So, even while publicly focusing on Iran's weapons of mass destruction, key administration figures are certainly thinking in geopolitical terms about Iran's role in the global energy equation and its capacity to obstruct the global flow of petroleum. As was the case with Iraq, the White House is determined to eliminate this threat once and for all. And so, while oil may not be the administration's sole reason for going to war with Iran, it is an essential factor in the overall strategic calculation that makes war likely.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Oil (Metropolitan Books).

© 2005 Michael Klare

Frances Kissling, the well-known and respected leader of Catholics for a Free Choice, recently sent me an interesting letter in which she shared her thoughts on the fight to save Roe v. Wade. Kissling, like other pro-choice advocates, is right to proactively frame the political debate — redefining the frayed strategies of our movement and devising a long-term vision of what reproductive freedom means for all Americans.

Kissling needs the support of pro-choice leaders to initiate this important national dialogue on the accessibility to a full range of reproductive-health services in a way that captivates the majority of Americans — especially those in support of reproductive rights.

Most Americans continue to believe that abortion is a matter of privacy. But with impending legislative and court battles, this message must be articulated in a way that will resonate with the greater masses.

The Bush administration has played politics with women’s lives, from reimposing the global gag rule to seeking medical records of women who have sought reproductive- health services. They have been successful in packing the federal courts with anti-choice judges and they will try to do the same in the Supreme Court when there is a vacancy.

With more vocal conservatives now in firm control of Congress, brave Democrats will begin to work with the anti-choice majority to seek some middle ground. Before this occurs, we must proactively stake our claim to the principle of freedom, and hold firm to our values. We must define the issues this time, instead of remaining on the defensive. We must control the dialogue and message.

The language used in defending our support of abortion rights makes some pro-choice supporters uncomfortable in discussing the issue. I know why many of these lawmakers have become weary.

As a black woman and abortion-rights activist (and former board member of Voters for Choice), I have found myself standing alone in church looking for ways to bridge the informational and cultural divide. Leaders of the reproductive- rights movement must work with civil rights leaders to help educate all Americans before it’s too late. Now that the right-wing extremists have entered our houses of worship, at the invitation of several black clergy, we must speak up.

Reproductive rights, as embraced by many black women leaders, means “the right to the full range of contraceptive services and appropriate information about reproduction.” It means the right to “choose not to have a child or the right to choose to have a child.” The bottom line is we believe in the right to reproductive health and to make our own reproductive choices. This is something our parents and grandparents understood because they did not control their own bodies.

The best way to stop the religious right from moving into our pulpits and pushing their agenda to restrict and overturn abortion rights (as well as civil rights) is for women leaders to work more aggressively in defining our values and speaking with conviction on matters involving our own bodies.

For starters, it’s time we retell our stories. One of my friends in Oregon recently wrote me a letter in which he recalled growing up in a small town in the days of back-alley doctors and coat hangers. Billy wrote about the women who died and those who were scarred for life. “I never want to see women treated like that again,” he said.

Billy is right. No one wants to go back, but unless we tell our stories now, the enemies of choice will continue to “own the story” that is being told to the American people. We can win the battle over words.

We can win the battle for the courts. We can win the heart and soul of the American people on the issue of reproductive freedom. All of this can be accomplished in a manner that will not allow our message to be misinterpreted and construed by anti-choice extremists as further evidence in support of their unwavering position. Let’s renew our commitment to fight and, this time, to win for the majority.

Donna Brazile is chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of Cooking with Grease: Stirring the Pots in American Politics (Simon & Schuster, 2004).

© 2005 Ms. Magazine

WASHINGTON -- Thousands of Americans will be prevented from erasing their debts under a bankruptcy bill approved by Congress on Thursday.

The House vote was 302-126; it passed the Senate last month. President Bush said he would sign the bill, the largest overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws since 1978.

"The only winner in the current bankruptcy system are those who game the system for personal gain," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Opponents said that the bill will do nothing to prevent lenders from charging exorbitant fees and that it will hurt people who file bankruptcy only because they've lost jobs or fallen ill.

"This bill is great for credit card companies and banking industries, but bad for everyone else," said Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn. "In fact, it hurts those who most need the second chance offered by bankruptcy."

The overhaul is intended to make it more difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, which allows debtors to erase their debts after they sell some of their assets. It will set up a new "means test" that will send more debtors into Chapter 13, forcing them into court-ordered payment plans. People with incomes above a state's median income who could pay at least $6,000 over five years would be expected to make payments.

Last year, nearly 1.6 million Americans filed for bankruptcy, including 17,076 in Minnesota. The new law could affect between 30,000 and 210,000 bankruptcy filers a year, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Republican leaders were jubilant after eight years of failed attempts to change the law. It's expected to take effect six months after its enactment.

Lobbying effective

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Congress sent "a firm and resounding message" that the federal bankruptcy system "will no longer be a shelter for abuse." And Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said the new law will change America's "when-in-doubt-bail-out" system of dealing with debts.

Opponents of the bill said it passed only after lobbyists for the financial services industry spent $40 million. "Let's not kid ourselves: This bill was written for and by the credit-card industry," said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass. "It's got nothing to do with the consumer."

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said the means test will take power away from judges, who already have the discretion to deny bankruptcy protection if they believe the law is being abused. He said too many families are "just one medical bill or pink slip away" from financial disaster.

"If Congress is going to strip away protections for families who have lost their health insurance, then Congress has the responsibility to get off its duff and make sure every American has access to health care," he said.

Critics cited a study done by Harvard University in February which found that half of all personal bankruptcies are the result of medical bills.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the bill "mean and harsh" and predicted that many of the court-ordered payment plans will fail because people will lack the money.

Oberstar and Democratic Reps. Martin Sabo and Betty McCollum voted against the bill. Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson joined Republican Reps. Gil Gutknecht, Mark Kennedy, John Kline and Jim Ramstad in voting for it.

Wellstone issue

Sabo said the bill gave too little consideration to military families, especially reservists, whose incomes can change dramatically when they report for active duty. "Our country does have a problem with bankruptcy, but this bill will do little to fix it," he said.

In previous years, bankruptcy bills had passed both the House and Senate, only to stall as members tried to negotiate differences in conference committee. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., often earned praise from consumer advocates for single-handedly holding up the legislation, using procedural tactics.

This time, Republican leaders changed their strategy, preventing opponents from offering amendments and forcing the House to pass the same bill that cleared the Senate on a 74-25 vote. As a result, there will be no conference committee and the legislation can go directly to the White House.

Bush said the bill will make the bankruptcy system "stronger and better," allowing more Americans to have greater access to credit.

Democrats accused Republican leaders of trying to stifle debate. At one point, they moved to adjourn, but their motion failed.

Opponents were left frustrated. "There is less and less democracy in this House," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.

Others in pipeline

The bankruptcy bill is the second of half a dozen proposed changes to the legal system. A bill imposing new restrictions on class action lawsuits became law in February. Others are a trust fund to pay victims of asbestos poisoning, caps on medical malpractice awards, and new limits on liability for gun manufacturers.

Washington Bureau correspondent Paul Sand contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2005 Star Tribune