Unfortunately for those heroes, they are no longer so fashionable in right-wing circles and neither is their hometown. Even as they suffer from the cancers and pulmonary illnesses that have beset them as a result of their service, they are seem to be scorned among conservatives in Congress as just another "special interest" seeking a new "entitlement."

If only the first responders had asked for help back when they were still useful as political props! (And not merely as partisan hostages to help preserve the Bush tax cuts for the GOP's wealthiest patrons.)

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, named for a police officer who died from a respiratory disease in 2006, has been in the works for several years - which means that Republican leaders have had many, many opportunities to improve what ought to have been a bipartisan measure from the beginning. Instead, they dishonestly complained about the bill suddenly appearing in the last hours of the lame-duck session. Actually there have been hours of hearings on how best to provide care and funding, and the Democratic sponsors have made every effort to ensure that this legislation is carefully crafted, both fiscally and programmatically. It is capped at less than $7 billion, will sunset in a decade, and sets forth strict guidelines for providing benefits.

So what is the real Republican objection to the Zadroga bill? That isn't clear, because almost none of the GOP Senators who unanimously blocked a vote on the bill has had the courage to explain his or her position on the Senate floor or on television. Their propensity for posturing on the deficit is one possibility; another is their poisonous attitude toward unionized public servants, a category that includes police and firefighters as well as teachers and postal workers. Or perhaps they dislike the bill's financing via closure of a corporate tax loophole, which has provoked howls of protest from the Chamber of Commerce.

Conservative politicians still remain quick to exploit raw emotion over 9/11 when the opportunity presents itself, as in the debate over the Islamic community center proposed for a site in lower Manhattan. The hallowed Ground Zero is sacred to every American, according to the blowhards who indulged in those cheap anti-Muslim rants - but the suffering and dying who hurried there in the hours of danger must now fend for themselves.

Certain Republicans bear considerable responsibility for ensuring the passage of this legislation, and very few of them have stepped up. Rudolph Giuliani spoke out briefly in favor of the bill, but "Mayor 9/11" ought to have lobbied his party's Senators far more vigorously - in person if necessary. What about George W. Bush, whose best-selling presidential memoir dwells at length on his own jut-jawed version of his role in 9/11 history?

To abandon those whom we so rightly venerated is to bring permanent dishonor on the entire nation. Why would the Republicans want to stain themselves with this indelible disgrace?

The nascent protests that came to be known as the Tea Party began as angry populist rants against the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP), that notorious "bailout" of drowning banks and insurance companies, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the "stimulus program." Red-faced traders and furious housewives joined forces against what they wrongly called "socialism," warning that our freedom was endangered, and that the nation might soon perish under burgeoning inflation and draconian regulation. They grew even more frantic when the Obama administration directed hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP funds toward the auto industry in loans and shares--more socialism!

The real reason behind the irritation of the traders and their spokesmen on cable television was simple enough. The government had restricted their usual obscene bonuses in recognition of the fact that they had been saved by taxpayer funds from their own gross misconduct--and should be not be rewarded for surviving on the teat. As for the Tea Party housewives and their cohorts, the motives ranged from xenophobia to paranoia. But as the recovery lagged--and the Obama White House failed to communicate its aims and achievements--those typical symptoms of right-wing delusion showed up in a broader segment of the voting public.

In the meantime, the Republicans and their allies in the media managed to mischaracterize the president's health care reform bill as both a "government takeover" and a gift to the health insurance industry, although in reality it was neither. Most Americans who say that they dislike the bill have very little knowledge of its actual provisions--which are quite popular when polled individually.

The average voter is equally unlikely to know the essential facts about the preservation of auto companies, the stimulus package or TARP--which was approved with the votes of the same Republican leaders they may soon promote into the majority.

Nonpartisan experts both within and outside government have said for months that TARP not only saved the country from untold economic disaster, but that its repayments and warrants will end up as highly profitable investments. The auto industry isn't quite as sure to prosper as the banks, of course, but there is a reasonable likelihood that the government will make money on those investments, too--while preserving a vital industry and millions of jobs.

As for the stimulus, economists across the ideological spectrum have contradicted the popular perception--promoted by Tea Party publicists--that the program didn't work and may even have done harm. The Republicans insist that government cannot create jobs and that public expenditure only "crowds out" private-sector investment.

But contrary to that Chamber of Commerce mythology, the private sector is currently sitting on more than $3 trillion, in banks and corporate accounts, that is not being invested because of insufficient demand. Rather than the rampant inflation predicted by the Tea Party ideologues, we have seen no real inflation--because demand is still insufficient to reinflate the economy. The Obama stimulus program was enough to prevent the complete deflation that might have led to a depression, but not enough to begin a full recovery in employment.

The same conservatives who now claim that President Obama's program didn't work are those who once warned that President Clinton's program would lead to ruin--just before the greatest peacetime expansion in history. Believe them at your peril.

jconason@observer.com

Most Americans feel no nostalgia for that era or its politicians. A midsummer Newsweek poll showed that the Republican right's program is still far from popular. Asked whether they care more about reducing the federal budget deficit or increasing federal spending to create jobs, 57 percent said they wanted more spending, not less, and only 37 percent were more concerned about red ink. More than half want to let the Bush tax cuts benefiting the top 2 percent expire, and only 38 percent prefer to extend them. Nearly every poll indicates that even now, as President Obama's approval ratings sink, those of his predecessor remain considerably lower.

Yet we appear to be heading toward an election that will empower an ideological minority, whose candidates endorse extremist nostrums such as privatizing Social Security and shutting down the Environmental Protection Agency. Why should this be happening now?

There are several plausible explanations, but the most persuasive overall is what political scientists and pollsters describe as the "enthusiasm gap." The zeal that Democrats felt in 2006 when they ousted the corrupt Tom DeLay machine, and in 2008 when they bade farewell to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, has dissipated under Barack Obama--who has inspired the same kind of fiery determination among Republicans. In a midterm election, when voter turnout is predictably much lower than in a presidential contest, the fervor of the partisan base can make the difference between a draw and a rout.

Public Policy Polling, a firm whose accuracy was recognized by The Wall Street Journal despite its Democratic affinities, recently tried to measure the enthusiasm gap in several statewide contests. Across the country, its researchers found that that gap has shifted an average of 7 points in each of 10 Senate and gubernatorial races--and in some places, such as the president's home state of Illinois, that number is even higher. Without the gap, critical Senate races, and presumably many Houses races as well, would be closer--or the Democrats would be leading.

Although President Obama has passed important reform legislation, saved the auto industry and confirmed two Supreme Court nominees, both women, the Democratic base is obviously dispirited. They hoped he would bring more fundamental change. Instead his White House staff seizes every opportunity to exacerbate the inevitable letdown by insulting, bullying and mocking the progressive voters who are the most vital and loyal constituents of his coalition.

At this late hour, Mr. Obama shows few signs of understanding why he is about to lose the majorities that made his achievements possible. He needs to speak up, fight back and win back the respect of the public. They know that if he won't fight for his party and his program, he won't fight for them, either.

jconason@observer.com

Despite the kaleidoscopic proliferation of political media over the past decade, most of what Americans hear and read about the workings of our democracy can be politely termed superficial. Only very rarely does journalism fully penetrate the glittering illusions created by partisans on every side to reveal the grittier realities. When a reporter does blast through the usual scrim of deception, that is worth noting—as in the case of Jane Mayer's investigation in the current issue of The New Yorker of the Koch family and its malign influence.

For decades, the Koch brothers, billionaire heirs of one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, have covertly sought to promote their hard-right ideology through third parties, think tanks, foundations and front groups. Their late father, Fred, having earned a fortune assisting the nascent Soviet oil industry, eventually became a right-wing extremist and member of the John Birch Society. His sons, especially David Koch, have not only expanded the family business but infiltrated their father's political views into the mainstream.

Happily for them, the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on nonprofit and "educational" ventures has served their corporate priorities perfectly. While Ms. Mayer cites many examples of self-serving Koch philanthropy that match their more direct program of buying politicians and policies, the enterprise that is currently most pertinent is the Tea Party movement.

Although the Kochs cannot be said to directly control the Tea Party outfits, they have succeeded in infusing their priorities, strategies and ideas into the movement through an organization called Americans for Prosperity. Typically, a Koch Industries spokeswoman sought to deny that David Koch, his brother Charles, their company or their foundations have funded the Tea Parties—and technically that may be true. David Koch says he has never attended a Tea Party event and that nobody representing the Tea Party "has ever even approached me."

It certainly seems unlikely that David Koch has ever encountered any of the folks who turn up at a typical Tea Party event or that he has ever showed up at a Congressional town hall meeting to scream about health care reform. He lives on Park Avenue in a 9,000-square-foot duplex apartment and spends his time cultivating elitist Manhattan society with donations to New York cultural institutions, notably the ballet. He used to divide his time between a yacht in the south of France and a palatial home in the Hamptons, where he hosted "an East Coast version of Hugh Hefner's soirees" in the clothes-optional Playboy mansion.

In short, Mr. Koch is not exactly a pitchfork populist and has no interest in mingling with such unfashionable types. He also doesn't care much what they think. A former Koch adviser told The New Yorker that the Kochs back the Tea Party movement for the most cynical reasons. "This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves."

The kind of things that the Kochs want to "get done"-aside from advancing their social profile in places like the Upper East Side-mostly involve reducing taxes and regulations on themselves and their companies. If they had their way, Social Security and Medicare would disappear tomorrow, and so would any other program that benefits families without a billion dollars at their disposal. So would the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act and every other obstacle to their massive effusions of deadly filth. Lately, they have been trying to prevent stricter regulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, because their company produces enormous amounts of the stuff for commercial use.

Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and historian who worked at one of the many right-wing think tanks funded by Koch money, believes that the Koch brothers are "trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies." Perhaps the Tea Party activists should take a harder look at those policies--and try to figure out whether the national interest truly coincides with the avaricious, destructive attitude of these "libertarians."

jconason@observer.com

The outpouring of tens of thousands of classified military documents by WikiLeaks is not precisely comparable to the publication of the Pentagon Papers-but in at least one crucial respect, it may be more valuable. While the Pentagon Papers revealed the duplicity of American policy makers in the senseless Vietnam War, their release came too late to save many lives or change the course of that conflict. The WikiLeaks disclosures may have arrived in time to influence policy and prevent disaster.

It is true that the lightly classified memoranda and cables in the WikiLeaks trove contain very few facts unknown to anybody who has followed the course of the war. We know that the Afghan conflict is complex and difficult, with a corrupt government in Kabul; a war-fighting policy that seems to alienate civilians while endangering our troops; and a Pakistani ally whose behavior and motives often seem questionable. And we should know that the Obama administration inherited this troubled and perhaps impossible situation from President George W. Bush, whose decision to invade Iraq within a year after striking back at the Taliban may have been catastrophic.

But however responsible Mr. Bush is for the creation of this quandary, it is now Mr. Obama's problem to solve. The usefulness of the WikiLeaks papers will lie in the debate they should inspire among political leaders and a public that neither supports the war nor demands withdrawal-with essential facts that ought to be understood by everyone.

First, the documents display the inglorious chaos of counterinsurgency warfare, especially the assassination program targeting militant Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. While that program has achieved some valuable "kills," the specific accounts of civilian deaths, including small children, are deeply disturbing. Although military leaders candidly remind us that civilian casualties are inevitable, the question raised here is whether the entire program is counterproductive. Or is it true, as advocates would claim, that using the drones and rockets actually reduces the collateral damage caused by more traditional methods of making war?

Second, it is critical to understand the price of this war in spent resources as well as lost lives. While the Bush administration squandered trillions of dollars in Iraq, without any perceptible benefit to American security, the price of our involvement in Afghanistan was slowly accruing as well. Neglect of the war effort there over the past nine years has undoubtedly raised that price. How will the Obama administration-and the war's supporters in the Republican Party as well-define the war's objectives so that its enormous human and fiscal cost will be justified?

Finally, the most important diplomatic aspect of the WikiLeaks documents is their confirmation of a story that has been published many times-namely, the American suspicion that Pakistani military intelligence is connected with central elements of the Taliban. The Pakistanis routinely deny this accusation, as they have long done, and the White House says this is old news that has been superseded by improved relations.

But nobody believes that Pakistan's secret services have cut off the relationships with Afghan Islamist leaders that began during the war with the Soviet Union. Nor does anyone expect that they will, given the geopolitical realities of Pakistan's ongoing conflict with India.

The ultimate issue raised by the relationship between Islamabad and the insurgency, as well as the parallel relationship between the insurgency and the Kabul government, is a simple question. If the Pakistanis can advance their interests by maintaining communications with the Taliban, and if the Afghans believe that they can do likewise, then why is the United States alone unable to open such talks? A central principle of counterinsurgency warfare is that most conflicts are settled by negotiation and reconciliation rather than victory-and the WikiLeaks papers suggest that this complex and vexing war must be ended that way, too. 

jconason@observer.com

In theory, this ought to be a simple enough task to accomplish, with sufficient motivation and money. But in practice, the incentives created by Western policy are so perverse, according to Tanzania president Jakaya Kikwete, that they reward clear-cutting not once but twice over. So he told Bill Clinton, who is visiting Africa this week to oversee the Clinton Foundation's work on health care and renewable energy.

As Mr. Kikwete explained the problem, it has become possible to open forests to loggers for profit and then receive carbon-credit subsidies as a reward for replanting the raped forest. Stupid is too kind a word for this.

The Tanzanian leader expressed frustration, too, with the imperial style that persists in Western efforts to preserve forest land. The agencies that certify projects for carbon credit are overwhelmingly foreign, with personnel parachuted in to perform inspections. While it is essential to verify every carbon credit, the parachute inspection is not, as they say, a sustainable model.

More than a third of Tanzania's land is still protected forest in national parks and reserves, unlike neighboring Kenya, for example, where deforestation is proceeding rapidly. Its president is plainly proud of his nation's greenness and trying to preserve that legacy.

But the economic pressures on the leaders and people of poor countries are enormous-almost unimaginable. The need for food and fuel, let alone cash, is immediate; the threat of climate change is not.

A glimmering hint of a solution can be found in a rural village called Kitere, hundreds of miles south of the capital. There a local health clinic assisted by the foundation-a clinic that is really a rudimentary hospital, serving thousands of people-is improving its services with solar electrification. Using photovoltaic panels, batteries and AC conversion equipment made in the United States, the clinic now produces enough of its own clean energy to operate lights (instead of dirty kerosene lamps), refrigeration for medicines and a laptop computer. Much of the clinic's operation is still outdated by American standards, but its electrification has greatly increased its capacity to treat illness and save lives.

Across Tanzania, with Mr. Clinton's help and advice, more than 50 clinics have installed solar arrays at very low cost. These small beacons of progress point toward a much larger and more comprehensive renewable development program-a wise bargain, not an act of charity. Our capital and technology, deeply discounted, in exchange for their forest land. The world's poor countries proposed roughly the same idea at the Copenhagen climate summit last December, only to be rebuffed by the wealthy because of the cost.

Yet that is the deal that must be done someday soon to avoid climate disaster. For a fraction of the world's military spending, it could be a Green New Deal that creates new industries, advances new technologies and revives our economy-much like the spending on World War II boosted America into prosperity. It is a proposition that we can no longer afford to refuse.

jconason@observer.com

If the right-wing chorus insists that the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is "Obama's Katrina," then let us hope the president will make the most of that slogan. The comparison between the utter failure of the Bush administration and the missteps and errors of the Obama White House is fundamentally false. Yet there is nevertheless a crucial parallel to be drawn as the fifth anniversary of the hurricane approaches.

As Eric Pooley observes in The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers and the Fight to Save the Earth, his fascinating new book about America's struggle over global warming, Katrina brought attention to the problem after a decade or so of oblivion. Although the ruinous storm wasn't "caused" by rising average temperatures, it was precisely the kind of devastating weather event that will become much more likely on a hotter planet.

In Katrina's wake, most Americans seemed to comprehend that ominous fact, which in turn helped them hear the warning voiced by former vice president Al Gore when his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, was released in May 2006. "The climate issue attention-cycle peaked in early 2007," Pooley writes, just after Mr. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, "when a New York Times poll found that an overwhelming majority of those surveyed-90 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents, 60 percent of Republicans-favored 'immediate action' to confront the crisis. ..."

Still, climate action has never become a top priority for Americans as it has for Europeans and others around the world. Political lassitude encouraged by corporate propaganda and persistent unemployment has kept climate legislation stalled on Capitol Hill, even though a somewhat compromised bill authored by two Democratic Representatives, Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, passed the House last year.

As for Mr. Obama, he commenced his administration with strong rhetorical support for "green jobs" and a clean-energy economy, and took significant steps in that direction through the stimulus program. But during the year since the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill, the president focused his political strength on passing health care reform-while his advisers persuaded him to remain aloof from the climate issue.

Perhaps that was wise political counsel, since global warming has lost momentum as a public concern over the past three years. But it is bad public policy, because the challenge of coping with climate change only grows worse with each lost year-and because American global leadership is enfeebled by our inability to reach national consensus on limiting carbon emissions.

Clearly, the president understands what is at stake-and he apparently senses renewed opportunity in the wake of the Gulf catastrophe, which illustrates the problems of oil dependency with harrowing urgency. New polling data released last week by the Woods Institute should encourage him.

Although the survey of 1,000 American adults taken during the first week of June showed a slight decline in the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is real and man-made, 75 percent still firmly hold that view. Moreover, 76 percent said they favor government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions generated by businesses, and only 14 percent said the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless countries like China and India do so as well. And only 18 percent believe that policies to combat climate change would worsen unemployment.

What these numbers suggest is that, like Katrina's terrible aftermath, the months of anguish over the soiled Gulf have reawakened Americans to the fate of our country and our planet. The moment has come again for leadership toward a green New Deal, in cooperation with all of the major economic powers, that can revive the economy, restore the earth and preserve a decent life for all of our children.

jconason@observer.com

Whether Israel's commandos committed any criminal acts will be determined by investigation, but in the meantime it is safe to say that what happened was not only wrong but exceptionally stupid. Yet while shortsighted brutality has long been a hallmark of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, that tendency is now clearly undermining the strategic interests of both Israel and its traditional friends, including the United States.

Consider the events over the past two years that have led up to this moment. The war on Gaza, initially justified by Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, was grossly disproportional and resulted in war crimes against Palestinians that completely overshadowed the casus belli. Since then, the blockade of Gaza has stopped humanitarian assistance and prevented reconstruction-which has only provoked worldwide support for Hamas' human rights complaints against Israel.

Meanwhile, that war proceeded covertly as well, leading to the clumsiest intelligence operation in Israel's history-the murder of a Hamas official in Dubai by agents who left behind copious evidence of connections with Mossad. That evidence included passports issued by friendly nations, which of course strained diplomatic relationships with them. Worse, the choice of Dubai as an assassination location put severe pressure on Israel's unofficial but strong relationship with the United Arab Emirates-a powerful force for moderation and tolerance in the region and beyond.

Whatever Hamas lost when Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was throttled in a Dubai hotel room, the damage to Israel was considerably greater.

Certainly the same can be said of the latest fiasco, which has severely damaged if not ruined Israel's long-standing ties with Turkey, whose citizens were among those killed and apprehended in the flotilla attack. Until the evening of May 30, the Islamic government of Turkey was prepared to permit its army to participate in joint exercises with the Israel Defense Forces-a stunning development that shows just what Israel's government so casually risked.

Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government seem blithely unaware or uncaring in the wake of its ruinous actions. The question that Israel's friends must ask is the same question that sane Israelis are now openly asking themselves: What is their government's strategy? Indeed, what strategy could these tactics possibly serve to advance? How is their survival, let alone their future peace and prosperity, enhanced by behavior that alienates every friend and potential friend, while encouraging every foe and creating more of them?

If Israel and the United States believe that the most important security problem is Iran and that regime's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons, then the sane response is to build regional and global alliances in response. Iran's neighbors in the Gulf are almost as unhappy about that looming threat as Israel is. A wise policy would draw those states into regional security arrangements and enhance connections with them.

Of course, that kind of policy would mean refraining from such destructive acts as the Gaza blockade, the Dubai assassination and the flotilla attack. It would require the serious pursuit of renewed peace negotiations with the Palestinians and the Syrians, so that Iran, not Israel, would face isolation. And that in turn would demand the end of settlement construction and the acknowledgment that Jerusalem is an international holy place that cannot be controlled by a single state.

As Bill Clinton bluntly reminded Israelis in Jerusalem last winter, none of the fundamental factors that imperil the Jewish state's democratic and peaceful future have changed since his own peacemaking efforts ended in frustration. How unfortunate-and dangerous-that the Netanyahu government is so determined to ignore his warning as its strategic position deteriorates.

jconason@observer.com

But anyone infuriated by the grossly inflated compensation of the masters of finance should check out the incredible earnings of the top executives in the health insurance business. They’re among the most highly paid suits in the country—not owing to any skill in providing health care, which they don’t do, but because they have succeeded in denying care, quashing competition, driving up costs and winning federal subsidies for their companies.

Last year WellPoint, the country’s largest health insurer, paid chief executive Angela Braly just under $10 million in salary, options and bonuses, along with the use of a private jet for herself and her family. That included a raise of about $750,000 over her 2007 salary. United Health Care, the second largest, paid CEO Stephen J. Hemsley only $3.2 million last year, but in 2007 he took home $13.2 million. His biggest bonanza got away when he was forced by the Securities and Exchange Commission to surrender $190 million in falsely backdated stock options, but that was nothing compared with the nearly $1 billion in options that his predecessor was required to disgorge. The S.E.C. declined to prosecute anyone for those frauds. Meanwhile, the CEO of Aetna, Ronald Williams, earned $23 million in 2008, and the CEO of CIGNA, Edward Hanway, brought home a total of $120 million over the past five years, plus nearly $29 million in stock options.

Why are these insurance executives paid such obscene amounts? They might explain that they have improved the processing of claims and managing of risk—happy euphemisms for the notorious corporate practices of denying care wherever possible--or they might insist that their huge salaries reflect their challenging roles in a highly competitive marketplace.

But these companies actually exercise near monopolistic control of local insurance markets, which allows them to drive up costs and reduce access. That is the assessment of the American Medical Association, which has sponsored a series of large-scale studies of insurance markets across the country to determine whether excessive market power affects doctors and hospitals. The very notion of a competitive market and consumer choice is a sick joke in most American cities and towns, where a single health insurer predominates. 

Those AMA findings amplified earlier studies dating back to 1995, which even then showed a clear trend toward concentration that has only grown worse. Over the past five years, the largest insurers have followed an imperial strategy of growth through merger and acquisition.

The buying binge has led to bloat, with those two companies now covering more than 67 million individuals, or 36 percent of the total American insurance market. That is more than double the market share controlled by the two largest insurers, Aetna and United, in 2000.

If the insurance executives get their way, this damaging consolidation will continue unchecked. When Ms. Braly isn’t complaining about potential competition from a public option provided by government, she tells shareholders that acquisition of smaller firms will continue to serve as “one of the key drivers of WellPoint’s future growth.”

The other significant “driver” of profitable growth for the insurance monopolies is the federally subsidized Medicare Advantage program, which overpays them by billions of dollars annually to compete with the traditional, government-run Medicare system. Originally billed as a way to reduce the cost of Medicare, that program has accomplished little except to improve the bottom line for the private insurers—and underwrite the excessive compensation of the Bralys and Hemsleys of the industry.

They blatantly curtail competition, lobby for federal subsidies, boost premiums, ration care and cut access, while insisting that a public option would cause all those terrible consequences. Obviously, they believe that the rest of us are chumps. And they may well be right.

jconason@observer.com