Enron's sudden fall from grace has made it a dirty word in American business, associated with cooking its books and spreading money around to friendly politicians.

But in India, the Houston-based energy-trading company has long been viewed in much that way, as a heavy-handed U.S. corporation, expert at manipulating local politicians and callous in overriding the interests of everyday citizens.

For many on the Asian subcontinent, Enron epitomized the downside of the modern global economic system where powerful corporations from the West often bully their way into development projects that fail to live up to shiny promises.

A case in point was Enron’s investment in a $3 billion, 10-year liquefied natural gas power plant development project, the largest development project and the single largest direct foreign investment in India’s history.

Begun in 1992, the Dabhol power plant near India’s financial capital of Bombay in Maharashtra state was to have gone online by 1997. It was supposed to supply energy-hungry India with more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, about one-fifth the new energy needed by India each year.

But endless disputes over prices and terms of the deal turned the venture into a symbol of what can go wrong in large-scale development projects when cultures collide. As Enron files for bankruptcy and looks for ways to divest itself of its Dabhol interests, the project is still unfinished and has produced no electricity.

The Beginning

Enron’s Dabhol project took shape after the fall of the Soviet Union. India, a longtime Soviet ally and a socialist country in its own right, faced tough questions about how it would adapt to the post-Cold War world. With the Soviet Union gone, India began looking to the West to develop new international partners. An exploding population also was putting pressure on the nation's natural resources. One of the top needs was energy.

In 1991, a government led by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao of India’s longtime majority Congress Party introduced two major structural policy changes to spur economic growth. Narasimha decentralized government control over industrial licensing and opened the country more to foreign investment. In Comes Enron

On the surface, India’s deal with Enron to build a power plant seemed to offer big advantages to both sides. The 2,184-megawatt Dabhol plant would help India meet its national energy needs while expanding India's trade relations with the U.S. [BusinessWeek, Dec. 3, 2001]

For Enron, the upside was equally clear. Entering the Indian market, which offered vast growth potential, would position Enron well in the global marketplace.

The U.S. government also saw benefits from U.S. companies gaining access to business in India, the world’s largest democracy. The Enron deal was the jewel of America’s economic engagement with India.

International observers and many in the energy trade press considered the deal a match made in heaven. "The power plant will provide desperately needed electricity for the growing Indian economy," wrote the Energy Daily.

"As an integrated gas and power project, the facilities will contribute significantly to the development and expansion of both the natural gas and power sector in India," declared Enron’s Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay. [Energy Daily, Dec. 9, 1993]

In a joint venture with U.S. companies General Electric and Bechtel, Enron created an Indian subsidiary, Dabhol Power Co. DPC, which was 65 percent owned by Enron, was to build the power plant. Enron was to develop and operate the plant. Bechtel was to design and construct it, with GE supplying the equipment.

To secure supplies of liquefied natural gas for the project, Enron lobbied New Delhi to change its tariff system, which had been designed to discourage energy imports. Enron got India to slash its duty on imports of liquefied natural gas from 105 percent to 15 percent.

With those changes approved, Enron brokered a deal with Qatar to provide the Dabhol plant 2.5 million tons of liquefied natural gas per year for 25 years, starting in 1997.

Early Skepticism

While many observers hailed the project and its promised benefits, some economists doubted its feasibility and some Indian citizens bridled at Enron's highhanded behavior.

In April 1993, a World Bank analysis questioned the project's economic viability, citing the high cost of importing and using liquefied natural gas relative to other domestic sources of fuels. Because of those findings, the World Bank refused to provide funds for the project. [http://www.altindia.net/enron/Home_files/WBreport.htm]

Other critics charged that the project had not been open to competitive bids and that the deal was too costly. Some expressed concern over the terms of India’s agreement to underwrite the project. With the World Bank declining to provide loans, India was forced to take on even greater risk.

In 1993, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao overruled objections from his own Finance Minister to give state guarantees for both foreign and domestic investors in energy projects. The guarantees could be counted by lending institutions as additional state debt. [Independent Power Report, 3/12/93]

Local Objections

While demonstrating its political pull in New Delhi, Enron brushed aside local questions and concerns.

The law required Enron to solicit public comments in the two months after agreement was reached on the land and water acquisitions. Instead of seriously addressing concerns raised by local residents, Enron sent out "a form letter stating that the villagers’ inquiries would be looked into and that there would be no negative impacts on the area," Human Rights Watch reported.

At the end of the two months, Enron told the local government that the company had complied with the public-comment law and had received no objections. In reality, Enron had "received 34 complaints and queries," Human Rights Watch said. [http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron3-0.htm]

With the Indian government onboard and the local population relegated to the caboose, the Dabhol project had moved onto a fast track. Construction was set to begin in early 1994.

Stumbling Blocks

By March 1994, however, momentum was slowing as financial questions reemerged.

"Price is becoming a sticky issue," the Financial Times reported. "Indian officials see the price as very high compared to domestic gas and imported and indigenous alternative fuels." [FT – International Gas Report, March 18, 1994]

In July 1994, the U.S. government extended a helping hand. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), an independent agency established by the U.S. government to promote American business interests overseas, provided loan insurance and granted a $100 million loan guarantee to support the Dabhol project.

The national government of India, the state government of Maharashtra and Enron also went to work on rescuing the project. For the first time ever, the Indian government agreed to underwrite the liabilities of a private company. [Independent Power Report, Sept. 23, 1994]

The guarantees firmed up the financing, but other problems emerged. Critics charged that the power plant threatened the local environment and didn't adhere to government environmental standards.

One concern was the safety of importing and storing liquefied natural gas, which is cleaner burning than coal or oil, but can emit volatile vapors that can ignite and explode. Other critics said Dabhol could harm local farms and fisheries.

Protesters took to the streets to support demands for changes in the plant's design and -- more broadly -- to oppose the Indian government’s economic liberalization policies. Social activists, lawyers, villagers and farmers banded together in groups opposed to the Enron project.

One of the protesters was Medha Patkar, a 1992 recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize, which is often referred to as the Nobel Prize for the environment. Well known in the world community for her non-violent work in the Ghandi tradition, Patkar joined the protests, charging that the project was approved without adequate study of economic, environmental or social consequences.

"We -- national organizations, especially the National Alliance of People's Movements -- felt that we must not allow the local organizations to lose this battle. It is symbolic and important," Patkar said. [Multinational Monitor, Nov. 1997]

Another opponent was Professor Sadanand Pawar, an economics professor from Bombay who analyzed the impact that the devaluation of India’s rupee would have on the electricity from the Dabhol plant. The devaluation meant that Dabhol's energy prices would soar to between two and five times the average price in the area, Pawar said.

The Rise of Nationalism

Equally significant to the battle over Dabhol was the interest of two conservative Hindu nationalist parties.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Shiv Sena accused the ruling Congress Party of selling out the people of Maharashtra. Local BJP leader Gopinath Munde threatened to "throw Enron into the sea."

Opposition to the project spread throughout India in early 1995. On April 27, 1995, The Times of India ran an editorial by columnist Praful Bidwai calling the project "irredeemably flawed."

Bidwai accused Enron of reaping "unearned, windfall super-profits" and concluded that "India's stature will be enhanced, not lowered, if it tells the world that it is no pushover, no banana republic ready to accept an outrageous deal." The name Enron soon was synonymous with waste and abuse across India.

By mid-1995, after local elections, the state government of Maharashtra was in the hands of a BJP and Shiv Sena coalition. Under new political direction, the state electricity board was bringing the dispute to a head. A three-line letter to Dabhol Power Co. called for a cessation of construction because the cost for building the plant and generating the electricity was too high. [Bloomberg Business News, Aug. 7, 1995]

Friends in Washington

As opposition to Dabhol mounted, Enron turned to the Clinton administration for help in pressing the Indian government. U.S. officials -- from Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- threw their weight behind the project.

"Failure to honor the agreements between the project partners and the various Indian governments will jeopardize not only the Dabhol Project but also the other private power projects being proposed for international financing," the U.S. Energy Department said on June 5, 1995.

The Clinton administration was driven by a belief that India was the best U.S. opportunity to beat Japan in an emerging market in Asia. "India has become one of the few emerging Asian markets where American companies have bounded in ahead of Japanese competitors, with Clinton administration officials regularly leading groups of executives there," reported the New York Times. [Nov. 22, 1995]

The project's defenders inside India also counterattacked. They dismissed anti-Dabhol protests as political posturing, seeking to exploit public worries about the economic liberalization policies of Prime Minster Narasimha Rao and the Congress Party.

"Ever since the BJP replaced the Congress Party early this year in Maharashtra, the BJP has done what it can to discredit the Congress Party before next year's (national) election," wrote Indian political observer Marilyn Raschka. "These are mere opening samples of the BJP-sponsored attacks. As elections get closer, the attacks will get worse." [Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Nov./Dec. 1995]

Also trying to undercut the opposition, Enron renegotiated parts of the deal. On Jan. 8, 1996, Enron and the state government of Maharashtra reached a new agreement that would shift some of the construction costs and lower the electricity tariffs. Enron said work would resume within three months.

Mounting Protests

While the new terms suited the state government, other critics felt betrayed. They said the new deal was worse than the original because it allowed for the construction of a larger power plant and still failed to address the underlying cost concerns.

Growing opposition to the Congress Party's policies touched off seismic changes in the world of Indian politics. In May 1996, the BJP picked up seats in national elections and toppled the Congress Party’s ruling coalition. The Congress Party had ruled India for almost the entire 50 years since the nation gained independence from Great Britain in 1947.

By early 1997, Enron officials thought the project was back on track, however. Rebecca Mark, chairman and CEO of Enron International, told BusinessWeek that Enron succeeded in winning over the new government of Maharashtra.

"I think what worked was that we never stopped talking," Mark said. "Our contract allowed us to arbitrate through legal international means, so we did, through Indian and international courts. Everyone realized a solution was necessary. Once the project got started, there was a layer of people [in government] who supported it. Our faith was in these decision-makers." [BusinessWeek, Feb. 24, 1997]

Enron's optimism, however, failed to take into account a budding social movement in Maharashtra. With political and legal recourses exhausted, protesters took to the streets -- and were met with force.

Several non-governmental organizations were formed to oppose the Dabhol project, including the Guhagar Taluka Enron Vaa Salagna Prakalp Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti (Guhagar District Peoples' Forum for Opposing Enron and Other Related Protects) and the Enron Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti (Organisation to Oppose Enron). These groups were made up of thousands of affected villagers, farmers, social and environmental activists and lawyers.

Non-violent protesters were arrested on the pretense that they might commit acts of violence. In May 1997, in the town of Mahad near the Dabhol Power Co.'s project, police served Medha Patkar and other protest leaders from the National Alliance for Peoples’ Movements a prohibitory notice.

According to Human Rights Watch, the police "then surveilled, arrested, beat, and detained the activists -- on the eve of her departing for Raigad and Ratnagiri districts with plans to lead a series of protests against the DPC project and other industrial projects."

Amnesty International joined Human Rights Watch in condemning the use of force against the protesters. In a 1997 report, Amnesty took the unusual step of accusing the companies involved in the project of colluding with local police to stop the protests. Amnesty International also reported that the police used excessive force to beat and arrest peaceful protesters. [http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ASA200311997]

Two months after the May 1997 incident, the National Human Rights Commission of India found the tactics of local police forces to be "unjustified" and criticized Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi for giving orders to target the activists. At the time of the arrests, Joshi was embarking on a five-nation tour of Asia to attract foreign investment and promote the business interests of Maharashtra. The law-and-order tactics may have been meant as a statement to potential investors. [http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron/enron5-2.htm]

Future Uncertain

In June 2001, with the project about 90 percent complete, development was again put on hold amid new disagreements over the price of energy. Work has not resumed.

In the week’s before Enron’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in November, negotiations were underway to sell Enron’s stake in the project. The stake's estimated value was between $500 million and $1 billion. [Reuters, Dec. 10, 2001]

Enron and its U.S. partners, Bechtel and GE, have filed claims with OPIC to collect $200 million in compensation for losses suffered in the Dabhol project. [Bloomberg News, Dec. 21, 2001] That money ultimately might come out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, though the outcome of Enron's end game is not clear.

Yet, by any measure, the near-decade-old project to build India’s largest power plant has been a disaster. Dabhol, which was expected to deliver much-needed electricity to an energy-thirsty country by 1997, has produced no energy and is facing an uncertain future.

The company that started it all -- a company that as recently as April ranked as America’s seventh biggest corporations and counted George W. Bush among its closest political allies -- is bankrupt after admitting that it overstated earnings by $586 million since 1997.

The lessons of Dabhol may be like the larger lessons of the Enron debacle. A company known for its hubris tried to accomplish too much, too quickly, playing fast and loose with the financial realities and counting on political allies to clear the way.

WASHINGTON -- Well, now that phase one of the war on terrorism is down to the mopping-up stage, what's next? Phase two?

To hear some of President Bush's hawkish advisers talk, it's on to Iraq. Or is it Somalia? Or Sudan? Or the Philippines?

Whatever. These advisers apparently don't want the world's only superpower to quit while it's ahead.

Bush has warned the so-called "rogue states" that they are being watched "and will be held to account." He did not name them.

Some of his conservative retreads from the Cold War have regretted, ever since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the fact that the U.S.-led coalition failed to finish off Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 1991.

A key exception to this kind of thinking is Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired general who knows the horrors of war. He ran the gulf war in the Bush I administration and is essentially a man of peace in the tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Powell stands in stark contrast to some Pentagon officials who have spoken blithely of killing. For instance, the swaggering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this month, "We are there to capture or kill the al-Qaida and foreign invaders in Afghanistan who are terrorists."

He added that "we are there to change the Taliban leadership and change the government of Afghanistan." And he said he wants to "deal with" the Taliban, the former ruling regime ousted in the U.S.-led campaign, but wants to deal with al-Qaida "completely."

Whatever that meant, it sounded sinister. Then there were reports this week that U.S. military advisers in eastern Afghanistan had refused to let members of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's terror network, surrender to opposing Afghan forces. An Afghan leader who took part in the surrender negotiations said the U.S. team wanted to take no prisoners. "They just wanted to kill them," he said.

Such remarks made it look as if the Pentagon was bent on extermination.

Rumsfeld quickly backed off. In a briefing Thursday with Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he agreed with Myers' comment that "this is not a war of extermination" and denied that U.S. forces had scuttled a surrender offer.

Rumsfeld also said, "I personally would like to see people surrender. I personally would like to see us get our hands on them and be able to interrogate them and find out about the al-Qaida networks all across the globe."

But the earlier threats were heard around the world. Pope John Paul II said that while it is right to defend oneself against terrorism, that "right must be exercised with respect for moral and legal limits." American leaders should listen to him.

Still, some administration officials are gearing up for another anti-terror war, urging the president to move swiftly from Kabul to Baghdad. The big push is coming from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who served in the department in the George H. W. Bush administration. He is joined by Richard Perle, an important outside adviser to Rumsfeld and himself a Pentagon official in the Ronald Reagan administration.

They note that Saddam Hussein has long sought to build weapons of mass destruction and stubbornly refuses to allow international inspection of his arsenal.

But evidence that Saddam actually could use such weapons is skimpy, and the United States still has no concrete case of terrorism against Iraq.

Without tangible provocation, Bush would be making a big mistake to start the new year by targeting Iraq or any other another nation. America should be returning to its traditional post-World War II role as a peacemaker and a healer.

So let's hope the president will resist the siren calls for new wars.

If he heeds those calls, moderate leaders in the Middle East -- that is, the few who are left -- will be the losers and the region will be even more radicalized against the United States.

Yet in a speech at The Citadel military academy in Charleston, S.C., last week the president again warned leaders of states that harbor terrorists. "The authors of mass murder must be defeated and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction." Bush said.

"Above all, we're acting to end the state sponsorship of terror," he declared. "Rogue states are clearly the most likely sources of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons for terrorists. Every nation now knows that we cannot accept ... states that harbor, finance, train or equip the agents of terror."

In fighting another hot war against Iraq, Bush might have to have to go it alone. Key allies such as Britain and France would probably desert him, and he would not have the support of the United Nations.

What then? A Pax Americana that we dictate? Whatever happened to collective security? Would the American people tolerate war without end?

Sure, a continuing conflict can kill a lot of potential terrorists, but can it wipe out hatred?

On Sept. 14, three days after the terrorist catastrophe, Congress adopted a resolution giving the president power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons (that) he determines" planned, authorized or committed acts of international terrorism.

In doing so, the lawmakers gave up most of their constitutional authority to play an important role in war and peace. And that was another sad day for the country.

WASHINGTON -- In the months since my decision to leave the Republican Party and become an independent, I have been both hailed and admonished. This is not surprising, given the impact of my decision. Yet, I find that many of the journalists, legislators and ordinary citizens who offer their thoughts still don't understand the reasons behind my decision.

During my 26 years in Congress, I have been labeled many things--a moderate, a liberal, a maverick, an independent--but always, at least until last May 24, with the party affiliation Republican.

As we began 2001, I was hopeful. With a 50-50 U.S. Senate, I expected that moderates would be a strong force and that bipartisanship would prevail. At first, this seemed true. Moderate senators from both parties worked together to make significant changes to the president's budget when it was considered in early April. We were able to reduce the size of the tax cut from $1.6 trillion to $1.25 trillion and to add $450 billion for education. But when we sent that bill to the House-Senate conference committee, all our work, including the $450 billion for education, was stripped out of the final compromise. There were no moderates on the conference committee; it was totally controlled by the Republican leadership and the White House.

More than simply disappointing, the events were a clear signal to me that the Republican leadership had no intention of working with the moderate wing of the party. Something radical needed to happen.

Because the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House of Representatives and, in effect, the Senate, its partisans were able to run the conference committees, which gave them final say about legislation sent to the president.

It became clear to me that the role of moderates would be limited in the Senate--and that any influence we managed to garner would be overridden by conference committees stacked with partisans. Consequently, many of the issues I care most about--education funding, child care, rights for the disabled, environmental protection, choice, campaign-finance reform--were being pushed aside. I was alarmed that these priorities would continue to fall by the wayside and partisanship would rule the day.

With the Senate evenly split between Democrats and Republicans for the first time since the 1880s, a single senator could shift control of the Senate and change the agenda of the entire legislative body. One person could make a dramatic difference.

In the face of this, my conscience pushed forward a question: What would be the consequence if I did not take action? What would happen with the direction of the judiciary? Tax and spending issues? Missile defense? Energy and the environment? The consequences of doing nothing weighed heavily. I had the power to dramatically change the course of history: If I did not do so, I would have to accept responsibility for the results.

Not everyone saw it that way. Most members of my staff, all but one member of my family and all my Vermont advisors told me not to leave the Republican Party. My son threatened that if I did leave, he would name his first child Reagan Nixon Jeffords.

Still, I knew what I had to do. On May 24, I traveled from Washington to Vermont to make my declaration of independence. That decision changed the nation's balance of power, changed our national agenda and changed my life forever.

Some Senate colleagues may never forgive me; some will always exalt me. In the end, my true friends in the Senate remain my friends.

My switch became official June 6, ending six years of Republican control of the Senate. The media swirled for days with stories about who lost Jim Jeffords. Did I switch because I had been snubbed by political operatives and not invited to the annual White House reception for the National Teacher of the Year, Michele Forman from Middlebury, Vt.? Did I switch because I had been threatened with retribution against my Vermont dairy farmers after I forced the White House to compromise and reduce the size of the tax cut? No. None of this mattered.

What did matter was that the issues I most cared about would be back on the agenda, would be given due consideration, would be advanced.

The media furor following my action was intense. I'll never forget getting off a plane in Italy right after my switch to see my photograph and name in headlines of newspapers from across Europe. I even had a beer named after me. Magic Hat, a brewery based in South Burlington, Vt., created a beer called Jeezum Jim. They dubbed it "a celebration of conviction, courage and the difference one man can make."

Not all the attention was positive. Numerous threats led to my needing round-the-clock police protection for weeks following the decision. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page said of me: "Not everyone gets to wake up one morning and decide an inner voice had told him to overturn the results of a national election, an unprecedented legal struggle and a decisive Supreme Court decision to form a government."

Given all that has happened, would I do it over again? Absolutely. I have never felt more confident or secure about any decision in my life.

Because of my switch, Democrats now have a seat at the table and will be part of the final decision-making process. There is balance in the debate.

I do not believe that Democrats should get their way on every issue any more than Republicans should. My decision to become an independent has required all branches of government to compromise and to seek moderation and consensus.

The Mayor’s delusional personality was - to use a favorite Giulianiism - "very, very" much on display during his farewell address in historic St. Paul’s Chapel this past Thursday 12/27/2001. He appeared intent on associating himself in our minds with America’s greatest hero, George Washington, who prayed in the church after being inaugurated. Let’s hope Rudy Giuliani’s self-serving speech before his usual closed circle of cronies and contributors only temporarily desecrated the hallowed ground he stood on.

"America’s Mayor" is if anything George Washington‘s polar opposite. Despite his rumored ambition to be Vice President in 2004 and President in 2008 he is poor leadership material for this or any freedom-loving country. Unlike our modest first President, Giuliani is a vindictive tyrant and megalomaniac - a small man in search of a balcony - whose philosophy is best summed up in his classic motto, "Freedom is about authority."

George Washington was posthumously credited with having never told a lie. Rudy Giuliani may be best remembered for having never told the truth.

George Washington and the Revolutionary War patriots who founded this nation risked their lives and liberty for the right to be free in one’s property and possessions; to be free from illegal searches and seizures; and for the right to be free to speak out, to assemble and to peacefully protest against governmental oppression. These are the ideals Giuliani has spent his entire public career mocking and enthusiastically violating at every opportunity.

Washington’s reputation was based on personal accomplishments so great they could hardly be exaggerated. Giuliani’s reputation for greatness is nothing but an exaggeration. The Mayor’s smallness of character seeped through every sentence of his final maudlin speech. Interspersed between his usual invocations to God, freedom and country "Our Rudy" took great pains to insult a Federal judge who ruled in favor of a Fifth Avenue church’s right to allow homeless families to sleep on their steps and attacked the editorial boards of newspapers for daring to criticize his policies. What country do they think this is the Mayor asked his retinue of loyal yes-men and fawning groupies, America?

George Washington was a slave-owner yet his efforts on behalf of freedom have economically and socially benefited Americans of every race and economic class for more than two centuries. Recently knighted by the Queen of England, "Sir Rudy’s" lavish corporate welfare checks handed out to billionaires like David Rockefeller, Donald Trump and George Steinbrenner will financially enslave NYC taxpayers for generations to come. Contrast the Mayor’s final orgy of budget cuts and last minute attacks aimed at the poor, the sick, children, libraries, hospitals, schools, community centers, the homeless and the City’s immigrants of color with how generously Mr. Welfare Reform doles out the tax dollars to his plutocrat-pals, even post 9/11.

George Washington refused the pleas of his supporters and top aides that he become our nation’s king. In resisting the seductions of unlimited power and public adulation, he established the tradition of a limited Presidency which has protected electoral democracy ever since.

In contrast, Giuliani the "hero" spent much of the 9/11 crisis pre-occupied with trying to subvert the orderly succession of elections George Washington had helped establish so that he could indefinitely remain in power beyond his legally-mandated two terms in office. Like the dictators who have rocked 20th century history with their mad ambitions, this small man despises the very premise of democracy, aspiring to be nothing less than our god-king.

Unlike Washington, who left his successors a legacy of sober respect for the rule of law and a nation of unlimited promise, Giuliani leaves the new Mayor a four billion dollar budget deficit, thousands of lawsuits for false arrest, a publicly-owned City Hall less open to the public than England’s Royal Palace and a contract with two billionaire baseball team owners requiring our newly impoverished City to build them each a giant baseball stadium at taxpayer expense.

Washington is revered as the Father of our Country and is the role model of a dignified and decent public official. Giuliani is a serial adulterer who went out of his way to humiliate his second wife and her children by dumping their mother on live T.V. and appearing at countless parades and public events with his mistress.

Perhaps inspired by the Roman Emperors who fancied themselves to be divinely above the morality their subjects were required to follow, Giuliani is an immoral moralist. Who but a sociopath would try to legally install his mistress as the City’s official First Lady while sternly lecturing us all on "decency"? He has been neither a good example to his children nor to the City he absurdly claims to have "civilized."

Derived from the heightened theatricality of the Italian operas he loves, Giuliani’s costumed antics - his "acting" roles range from a singing, slinky Marilyn Monroe to a jack-booted Adolf Hitler - leave an indelible impression, even on those unable to follow the plot due to it being in a foreign language - Giulianese. One can only hope that future generations will see him exposed to a more truthful light than the corporate media has so dutifully shone on him since performing his Oscar-caliber 9/11 three-in-one performance as Super-Rudy, Father to us all, Disaster-Site Tour Guide to the Stars and Scourge of Terrorists Everywhere.

Like a gigantic Macy’s Day Parade balloon caught in a strong wind, the Mayor’s uncontrolled ego could someday present a serious threat to Democracy’s safety if he‘s not properly reigned in. Inflated far beyond its capacity, the laws of physics must inevitably cause this reputation for greatness to spring a leak and explode.

Our new Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, will be inaugurated Monday night in the center of Giuliani’s most-lauded accomplishment - the Disneyfied and thoroughly sterilized Times Square. Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly praised Giuliani for his many "accomplishments" and has promised to maintain if not outdo his controversial "Quality of Life" arrest policies.

When the truth starts to come out about the real nature of Giuliani’s reign, let’s hope the blast of hot air escaping from the Rudy balloon does not completely wilt the new Mayor’s chances for success. If success is his goal, Mayor Bloomberg would do well to start by emulating the real George Washington and not the two-bit Washington impersonation Rudy Giuliani has been performing in his magic mirror for the past eight years.

In his final official speech Giuliani also sought to emulate another famous President, Abraham Lincoln. Let Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Bloomberg both recall Lincoln’s most famous quote: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time."

"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority." -Mayor Giuliani, New York Times, March 17, 1994

"Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence." -George Washington

NY TIMES December 28, 2001

In Final Address, Giuliani Envisions Soaring Memorial

It was perfectly predictable that in the aftermath of terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the search for political scapegoats would be as intense as the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It was just as obvious that Bill Clinton would quickly become the favorite quarry of this quest–particularly among the former President’s old adversaries in the national media and the Republican Party (two entities which often seem to be locked in a mind-meld these days).

There’s another convenient place where these worthies might look for culprits but never do: the mirror. Whatever the various failures and flaws of Mr. Clinton’s tenure may have been, his efforts against terrorism compare favorably with the frivolous preoccupations of his critics.

As articulated by America’s foremost analysts, the general complaint is that the Clinton administration "didn’t do enough" to forestall the atrocities of Sept. 11. This deep insight is a truism: Al Qaeda’s suicide operatives achieved their mission despite any and all measures taken by the government to frustrate and destroy the bin Laden network. Those measures, which were hardly insignificant, were by definition not "enough."

That simple notion was at the heart of The New York Times’ Dec. 30 investigative report, a long disquisition whose front-page headline conveyed its slant: "Planning for Terror But Failing to Act." The facts and quotes accumulated by reporters Judith Miller, Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth didn’t quite justify that damning summary.

The Times reporters appeared to be laboring under the assumption that Mr. Clinton could have mustered a full-scale unilateral invasion of Afghanistan to capture the Al Qaeda leadership–at a time when the Congressional majority was seeking to impeach him. But if that naïve fantasy is discounted, it is clear even in The Times’ account that the Clinton administration made many attempts to strike lethally at Mr. bin Laden. And the fact that Mr. Clinton took terrorism very seriously would have been clearer still if The Times had mentioned the enormous increases he approved in counterterrorism spending by the F.B.I. and other federal agencies.

Speaking of the F.B.I., the Times story neglected another prominent name that scarcely passes the lips of those seeking to apportion blame. That would the bureau’s former director Louis Freeh, a bungler who has become virtually invisible since September. In an article that highlighted several paragraphs of preening recollection from Dick Morris, that’s an odd omission.

The indefatigable consultant evidently convinced the Times reporters that, based on polling done in 1996, he strenuously urged his Presidential client to federalize airport security and prosecute a "broader war on terrorism." Mr. Morris didn’t reveal this prescient proposal anywhere in the 340-plus pages of Behind the Oval Office, his memoir of his years advising Mr. Clinton, which scarcely mentions terrorism at all.

If Mr. Morris did foresee the horrors to come five years ago, he was quite alone in his clairvoyance. More likely he is rewriting history to denigrate his old boss and inflate himself, an important duty of his current career. In truth, he has been heavily preoccupied during the past several years by smut and petty scandal, not by the looming "terrorist threat." And in those obsessions, he wasn’t alone at all.

The pundits and personalities who now assign responsibility to Mr. Clinton might as well interrogate themselves about the failure of news organizations to focus on the problem of terror (and, for that matter, on broader international issues); that is a subject, after all, about which they know a lot.

Not all are equally culpable. Several reporters on the Times staff, for example, did outstanding work long before Sept. 11. But as independent broadcaster Simon Marks recalls in Quill, the journal of the Society of Professional Journalists, the failure was general. Most American reporters and commentators were far more interested in Chandra Levy than Osama bin Laden.

In a remarkable passage, Mr. Marks notes that both Reuters and United Press International ran dispatches last June about Al Qaeda plans to attack the United States. Hard to believe, but true–and wholly ignored by every significant news outlet in the country. Most of them were too busy frying Gary Condit to notice.

Harold Evans makes a similar argument in the November/December issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, in which he examines the decision by the major media to ignore repeated warnings from the U.S. Commission on National Security of a terrorist assault on American shores. The former Senators who chaired the commission, Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, were stunned when only a handful of newspapers bothered to feature their findings.

Now that everyone has finished exchanging gifts and enjoying (enduring?) their big holiday meals, you might as well admit you’ve run out of things to talk about. There’s another five days left in the holiday, which might mean as many as 10 or 15 meals when many people will be straining for topics of interest to sustain them between the soup and dessert.

AS A PUBLIC SERVICE therefore, I once again present my annual List of Lists column, that should contain enough material to start literally dozens of , ahem, interesting conversations — if not near-arguments — among your now better informed families. Don’t bother thanking me. It was the least I could do. Happy Arguing!

Best Books published in 2001 that I happened to read:

Fiction: Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections
Current Events: Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation
History: Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club
Biography: David Hadju, Positively Fourth Street
Best 2001 TV Series I Happened to Watch:
Curb Your Enthusiasm — HBO
The Sopranos—HBO
The Chris Isaac Show — Showtime
The West Wing — NBC
Six Feet Under—HBO
Project Greenlight—HBO
The Mind of the Married Man—HBO

No Comparison to Anything Else in the History of the Television Medium:

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Live-HBO

Best 2001 Movies I Happened to See:

Together
Dinner Rush
Ghost World
America’s Sweethearts
The Heist
Moulin Rouge
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
Va Savoir
Waking Life

2001 Movie to Make Sex Look Least Attractive:

Intimacy

Best Albums of 2001:

America — A Tribute to Heroes
Lucinda Williams: Essence
The Strokes: Is this It?
Maggie and Suzzy Roche: Zero Church
Bob Dylan: Love and Theft
Leonard Cohen: Ten New Songs
Diana Krall: The Look of Love
Timeless: A Tribute to Hank Williams

Reissues:

The Complete Billie Holiday on Columbia, 1933-1944.
Can You Dig It? The ’70s Soul Experience
Miles Davis, The Complete "In a Silent Way" Sessions
The Ramones reissues
The Creedence reissues

Best live musical performances in honor of the heroes of 9/11:

Bruce Springsteen, "My City in Ruins";
Neil Young, "Imagine";
David Bowie, "America";
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, "Salt of the Earth."

Wouldda Been Included if It Hadn’t Gone on Quite So Long:

Willie Nelson et al, "America the Beautiful."

Punditocracy Moments to Live Forever:

Geraldo stands on "Hallowed Ground" where US troops were killed by friendly fire… 200 miles away; blames "Fog of War" when called on it by genuine journalist;
Chris Matthews pronounces George Bush’s presidency "legitimate" after president bonds with firemen at Ground Zero;
Ted Turner asks CNN employees with ash on foreheads for Ash Wednesday, "What are you, a bunch of Jesus freaks? You ought to be working for Fox.";

Runners-Up:

Chris Matthews credits George Bush with "courage" and "grace under pressure" for throwing out a baseball during World Series;
National Review Online’s Ann Coulter announcing, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Best New Look:

Al Gore with facial hair (implying he’ll stay away in 2004)

Best Sports Moment:

Tie:

Games 4, 5 and 7 of the World Series.

Runners Up:

Cal Ripken retires and Barry Bonds keeps on slugging.
Best Geography Lesson for US Students:

Bombing of Afghanistan.

Best Disappearing Act:

Dick Cheney Since Sept. 11.

Runner-Up:

George W. on 9/11.

Cutest Kids Story:

The Arrest of the Bush Twins.

Biggest Beneficiaries of 9/11

Flag Manufacturers
Bible Salesmen
Gary Condit
Anti-Arab Racists
Israel
People in New York City About to Buy or Rent Downtown.
Michael Bloomberg

Most Poignant Line Spoken on Television:

"Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!"

Most Athletic Newborn:

Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf’s son, Jaden.

Biggest About-Face:

Ann Heche, Now an ex-lesbian, married, pregnant, and no longer possessed by demons.

Best Performance by a Politician in a War Against Terrorism:

Tony Blair

Best Performance by a City:

You Have to Ask? Get Ouddahere. I mean it. Ouddahere Before I Let You Have It!

Classiest Exit:

The Passengers of Flight 93

Runners Up:

George Harrison,
Kay Graham

Best Cartoon:

New Yorker Stan cover

Most peculiar NAFTA-ridden pop song:

God Bless America sung by Canadian Celine Dion.

Stupidest Statements in the Aftermath of 9/11:

Tie, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Cleanest Getaway (So Far):

Enron Execs give themselves millions while workers’ pensions are fleeced.

Best Friend of Enron.

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (tie).

Oddest Poll Question:

CNN asking Afghans what they think of J. Lo.

Best Garage Sale:

Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei

Most Shameless Political Exploitation of 9/11:

The Push for Missile Defense.

Runners-Up:

Alaskan Oil Development and Fast-Track Trade Authority.

Most Promising Political Development in Europe:

IRA Disarmament.

Least Promising Political Development Anywhere:

Israelis and Palestinians collapse into a brutal, senseless war.

Most Amazing Uses of New Technology:

Unmanned Spy drones in Afghanistan,
Cloning,
IT.

Whatever Happened to…

Ralph Nader
Al Gore
Chandra Levy
Mariah Carey
The "New Economy"
My 401K
Enron

Best evidence that a 90 percent presidential approval rating does not really change a man:

"You know, if you find a person that you’ve never seen before getting in a crop-duster that doesn’t belong to you, report it." President Bush, warning of the danger of a chemical/biological attack.

Worst Moment for American Democracy:

John Ashcroft equates dissent with treason.

Runner-up:

Ari Fleischer tells Americans to watch what they say.

Worst Fiction:

Allege Plot Against Air Force One on 9/11

Worst 2001 Movie to Get Inexplicably Good Reviews:

Mulholland Drive.

Worst New Look:

The Crawl.

Worst Driver:

Lizzie Grubman.

Runner-Up, Worst Journalistic Judgment:

Coverage of Lizzie Grubman driving incident.

Winner, Worst Journalistic Judgment:

Media ignores the fact that Al Gore won a majority of legally cast votes in Florida and declares the recount, "Utterly Irrelevant."

Worst Performance in a Video:

Osama bin Laden.

Runner Up:

Osama bin Laden.

Other Runners Up:

All those Sheiks.

Worst Literary Moment:

The demise of Lingua Franca.

Worst new name:

P. Diddy.

Worst Old Name:

Puff Daddy.

Worst NY Moment, that is oddly thought of as Best NY Moment:

Firefighter Mike Moran: "Osama bin Laden can kiss my royal Irish ass."

Worst commercial exploitation of 9/11 heroism:

Phony PDNY & FDNY caps.

Worst Wimp-Out:

Bill Maher says he didn’t mean it.

Runner-up.

The response of this administration to the events of September 11th has been to curtail some of the most essential American rights in the name of security. In short, they have destroyed freedom in order to save it. With the passage of the PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Bill and Bush's signature on an Executive Order mandating secret military tribunals for anyone suspected of being a terrorist, there are precious few Constitutional protections left. These acts violate the right to a speedy trial, the right to speak privately with an attorney, the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to be secure against government invasion of a private home.

The creeping oppression of our right to free speech began when we censored ourselves in the aftermath of September 11th. It was furthered when Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer warned Americans to "watch what we say." It took a great leap forward when Attorney General John Ashcroft proclaimed in the well of the Senate that anyone who questions his methods is aiding terrorism, or is a terrorist themselves. Where shall it go tomorrow?

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglass once said, "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

The terrorists have already scored a mighty victory because of the actions of this administration. Bush told us the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms, and then turned around to shred those freedoms in an audacious manner. Osama bin Laden and his cohorts could not have asked for a more felicitous outcome. Oppression comes like Douglass' darkness, creeping unnoticed through the American body politic. It must be stopped.

As with his tax giveaway, as with the attempts to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Preserve, as with so much else, Bush is using this crisis to further an agenda that had already been formulated before September 11th. It is cynical opportunism of the worst kind, one that has been aided and abetted by the cowardice of Congress, who tremble in fear at Bush's overinflated approval ratings. These last acts, the suppression of dissident voices and the curtailing of essential freedoms in the name of patriotism, must not be allowed to stand.

In 2002, Congress must act decisively to undo this damage. Waiting for the 'sunset provisions' in these bills is not sufficient. If we are to believe that this Congress stands for freedom and liberty, they must act soon, and snatch this victory from the hands of those who attacked us.

Find the Answers to Unresolved Questions

With the defection of James Jeffords from the ranks of the Republican party, Senate Democrats suddenly found a potent tool in their hands, one that had been abused for years by the GOP: subpoena power. The time has come to use it.

Recent reports indicate that the Senate will undertake an investigation into the colossal intelligence failures leading up to the September 11th attacks. No avenue of questioning must be spared in the search for answers. The preparedness and capability of the CIA and NSA must be investigated, as must the multiple claims that a variety of hints and reports were out there for months indicating an attack was imminent.

This investigation must also undertake to parse the relationship between the Bush family connections to the business giant Carlyle Group and the oil barons of Saudi Arabia. Most of the terrorists involved in the attacks came from that nation, and it is no small leap to consider that a blind spot developed in our anti-terror preparations out of deference to these business connections. If this is true, the results were catastrophic and must be addressed, for that loophole still exists.

For months, Americans were terrorized by reports of letters filled with anthrax entering the mail system. These letters, it turns out, were nothing less than assassination attempts aimed at leading Senate Democrats like Daschle and Leahy. Several civilians, including mail carriers, died as a result. Recent reports indicate that the anthrax was a strain developed by the United States military and the CIA, leaving open the possibility that the attacks came from a rogue element within our government. It is more than likely, however, that the assassination attempts emanated from someone steeped in the ideology of the extreme right, which has dabbled with anthrax in the past.

Attorney General Ashcroft and his Justice Department have failed in spectacular fashion to make even the slightest dent in this case, despite the fact that whomever is sending the anthrax represents a clear and present danger to government officials and civilians. The arrest of anti-abortion extremist Clayton Lee Waagner, who sent hoax anthrax threats to hundreds of family planning clinics, does nothing to address the true threat. Is Ashcroft afraid of what will be uncovered if he breaks the case? Do his own ideological underpinnings make him hesitate to pursue a suspect whose views might be in agreement with his? Whatever the case may be, the handling of this investigation has been deplorable in its utter lack of progress. It is time for the Senate to invite him in for another visit.

Another investigation that has collapsed into silent ignominy is the one surrounding the crash of Flight 587 into the New York neighborhood of Rockaway. The last words we heard on the subject stretch the outer edges of credibility: a jumbo jet which had taken off a full two minutes ahead of flight 587 left behind enough wake turbulence to tear both engines and the tail off the doomed airbus.

If turbulence left in the wake of an airplane that took off two full minutes previous is strong enough to rip an airbus to pieces in midair, the land around dozens of airports would be piled high with the shattered remains of crashed airplanes. There is something else happening here, and we are not being told of it. Yet we are exhorted by patriotic commercials starring Bush to fly, fly, fly. It is likely that this airbus was in shoddy repair, or was tampered with, but the story is being suppressed by the government out of deference to airline lobbyists who have not yet finished counting the money they got in their Federal bailout payment. Break out those subpoenas, Senators. It is time to know the truth.

Finally, the collapse of the giant energy corporation Enron has left enough questions to fill the agendas of a dozen Senate hearings. Enron's ties to Bush run deep, both within his staff and in his long personal relationship to disgraced Enron chief Kenneth Lay. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt was selected by Enron because of his regulation-friendly policies, Presidential advisor Karl Rove was once an Enron employee, and those secret energy policy meetings Cheney held and subsequently refused to describe were dominated by the needs and desires of Enron. The list goes on and on.

Some 4,000 Enron employees have been left with nothing in the aftermath of this collapse. In their name, the Senate must act. They must determine why Enron fell apart, who knew it was coming, and what government officials had a hand in it. Bush would have us believe that capitalism free of governmental oversight is the proper way to do business in America and around the world. The debacle surrounding Enron gives great lie to these beliefs, and the Senate must step in with their oversight powers to make sure it never happens again.

Media Reform and the Fairness Doctrine

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act in an effort to shore up his flank against ceaseless attacks by the GOP. This Act, among other things, did away with the backbone of journalistic integrity: the Fairness Doctrine. This Doctrine ensured that no one person or entity could control too much of the media. For example, if a corporation owned a newspaper within a city, they were not allowed to own a television station as well. This republic survives on the free and open exchange of ideas and thoughts. With the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, journalism has become a shoddy thing indeed.

The magazine The Nation recently reported that ten corporations now control virtually all media, including the news. Once upon a time, journalism worked to curtail and control the worst excesses of these powerful entities. Now that the news is owned by these interests, the people are no longer informed about their activities, and the impact these activities have upon their lives. Because of the deep connections between business and government, the media can no longer be trusted to report fairly and accurately on what is being done by our leaders in our name. This must stop.

The response from most Americans in the aftermath of September 11th was a numb shock - How did this happen? Why do they hate us? Once upon a time, journalism worked to inform Americans about what was happening around the world, and what our government was doing abroad. This practice began to dissolve after the end of the Cold War, and was almost completely ignored after 1996. Because the American people went uninformed, they were not able to act in their own best interests and keep our government from becoming involved in the conflicts that have now come to our doorstep. At the minimum, Americans should know what is happening, so when events like September 11th do come, we are not left in confused disarray.

Congress must step forward in 2002 and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine as a matter of national security. We the people must know what is happening at home and abroad if we are to govern effectively. This responsibility cannot become the sole purview of multinational corporations, because they have proven themselves to be actively disinterested in the needs of the populace. If this nation is to remain healthy and free, the open exchange of information must be impeded by nothing and no one. Congress must act.

End Our Addiction to Oil

At the end of the day, the American economic addiction to petroleum has led us inexorably to this nightmare. As our dependence upon foreign oil has grown, so have the entanglements. Our involvement in Saudi Arabia, our waging the Gulf War to protect the Saudi oil fields, our political involvement in that most complex of regions, all have been contributing factors in the arrival of this war to our shores.

There are two courses of action we can take. We can continue to be involved both politically and militarily in these regions to ensure the constant flow of oil into our economic veins. This will simply guarantee more terrorism, more war, and an increased weakening of our economic stability as oil becomes more and more scarce. Drilling in ANWR and elsewhere will not suffice, as there is not nearly enough oil in America to sustain us. Involvement with the burgeoning oil industry in Russia presents similar complications.

Our other option is far more logical. The time has come to begin an energetic and well-funded exploration of alternative sources of energy that can be harvested and exploited at home, free from international entanglements. This will free us from the crucible of the Middle East, and will herald the beginning of a new industrialization that is far kinder to our environment. The time is upon us. Either we shall have oil, war and pollution, or we shall have alternative energy sources, peace and clean air.

The decision appears to be simplicity itself, until the lobbying power of the petroleum industry comes into play. Congress must at all costs resist their appeals, deny their funds and ignore their threats. Nothing less than the future of the planet depends upon our ability to wean ourselves from the oil addiction that has for so long poisoned our bodies and threatened our safety. The time is now.

We The People

None of the necessary reforms outlined above, not one, will see the light of day without the active and dynamic participation of the American people. Perhaps the most common emotion we felt in the aftermath of September 11th was a sensation of utter helplessness. We were caught unaware, and before we had our feet back under us, those in control of the government had changed the nation from top to bottom. Today, matters appear even farther out of our reach than before.

This is far from the truth. The American people have not been minding the store for decades - jaded by corruption, preoccupied with the complexity of normal life, content to let others do the work, we have allowed the machinery of government and media to slip farther and farther from our grasp. In reality, however, it would not require much of an effort to reclaim it all. If every American made an effort, we could take back the country from the hands of those who have been running it so very poorly for so very long.

Become informed about the issues. Contact your Congressional representatives and let them know you are minding the store, or show up at their offices if you must. Become present in the daily civic life of your nation. Demand better information from the media. March in protest when you are denied what you want. Organize voter registration drives. Boycott industries that would have you take a back seat in the maintenance of your country. Run for office, or work for someone whose views are in agreement with yours.

Nothing will be changed by complacency, and it was complacency that gave us the dismal year 2001. If 2002 is to be any better, it will be up to us to make it so. We must fight for the future. The alternative is to have no future at all.
Happy New Year.