Now that the deadline has passed for hundreds of top corporate executives to certify the truthfulness of their financial books, we may expect more honest accounting in the future. But what if the heads of major firms were compelled to engage in other types of candor?

Let's imagine that the CEO of a leading media conglomerate felt the need to come clean about the firm's overall activities. The public statement might go something like this:

While revenues are down in our broadcasting division, we've done our best to wring every last dollar out of the airwaves that the parent company has been able to hijack from the public. Fortunately, these days, the FCC -- we call it the "Federal Complicity Cabal" around the office -- is giving us just about everything we demand.

In some urban areas, we now own at least half a dozen radio stations, plus a couple of TV outlets. And the restrictions against also owning local newspapers are on their way out, too.

On television, we've been able to flood the market with more junky old shows than ever. The newer sitcoms and dramas continue to

Now that Henry Kissinger and Christopher Hitchens are both, at matching levels of pomposity and self-satisfaction, agreed on the desirability of sending in the bombers and finishing off Saddam, I suppose the Bush regime will conclude that the necessary national consensus for war has been achieved, despite the bleats of the military. All that remains to be done is to deploy Christiane Amanpour.

Was it Hitchens or Kissinger who wrote the following? "An opponent might argue that the inspections offer a better chance on containing the deadly weaponry, and also of observing the rights of sovereign states. Invasion might cause much death and destruction, and exert a destabilizing effect on the region in general. It might also trigger the use of the very weapons whose removal was its ostensible justification ... "

Hard to decide, isn't it? But you're right, Kissinger is simply incapable of expressing any disquiet on the imminence of death and destruction, whereas Hitchens raises the matter, if only to discount it as a matter of any serious consequence.

The contemporary black reparations movement, the demand for compensation to African Americans due to centuries of unpaid labor exploitation under slavery, segregation, and ghettoization, has grown remarkably in recent years. On November 7-8, 2002, at Columbia University's Institute for Research in African-American Studies, Professor Farah Jasmine Griffin and I are coordinating a major research conference on black reparations scholarship, inviting academic papers to provide the social science data essential for constructing successful legal briefs. Scholars must play an active role to contribute the socioeconomic and historical evidence illustrating the central role of the U.S. government and the various state and local governments, in creating the legal frameworks for the systemic exploitation of African Americans to take place by white corporations and throughout society.

There is, however, a political challenge that the black reparations campaign must address and overcome, if it is to become a truly mass movement.

To fend off the threat of peace, determination is necessary. Elected officials and high-level appointees must work effectively with reporters and pundits.

This is no time for the U.S. government to risk taking "yes" for an answer from Iraq. Guarding against the danger of peace, the Bush administration has moved the goal posts, quickly pounding them into the ground.

In early August, a State Department undersecretary swung a heavy mallet. "Let there be no mistake," said John Bolton. "While we also insist on the reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the same time insists on regime change in Baghdad -- and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not."

A sinister cloud briefly fell over the sunny skies for war. The U.S. Congress got a public invitation. A letter from a top Iraqi official "said congressional visitors and weapons experts of their choice could visit any site in Iraq alleged to be used for development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons," USA Today reported.

AUSTIN, Texas -- You can already tell it's going to be a perfectly glorious political year in Texas. Four months out, and we've already got one gubernatorial candidate accusing the other of being a drug dealer, naturally causing the maligned party to in turn describe his opponent as a raving liar. This is going to be so much fun.

A grand old slugfest is developing in the race between Gov. Rick (Goodhair) Perry and his Democratic challenger, Tony Sanchez, and it shows all the signs of becoming a fall classic in Texas' toughest contact sport.

For starters, this is a backward, upside-down race. Normally we have Republican outsiders with no government experience running on their credentials as bidnessmen, a la in Bill Clements and George W. Bush, while claiming, "My opponent is nothing but a professional politician." This year we have a Republican incumbent we didn't vote for -- as Sanchez's ads keep reminding us -- who is a career politician being challenged by a Democratic businessman. But it could be a bad year to be a successful bidnessman, even in Texas.