This page presents Vern's personal opinions about the spirit 

in theenvironment, inpersonhood, and in the public realm.

This page does not necessarily reflect the views of CRES.

CRES web site    .

KC Star columns

CAMP columns

2006 BLOGS

EMAIL: .vern@cres.org

 About Vern Barnet 

 LINKS: 
     CRES web site
     KC Star columns
     CAMP columns

 EMAIL: 
     vern@cres.org

  I am really worried about those 
  who put more energy into 
  propagating or 
  destroying a faith 
  than in building relationships. 

  © Vern Barnet, Kansas City, MO, 2006

  Updated as occasion permits.
 
 
 
 

BRIEF BIO:  Honored by many faith groups, the Reverend Vern Barnet, DMn, is minister emeritus of CRES, a Kansas City community resource for exploring spirituality in all faiths, and now focuses on writing, teaching, and consulting. He is known to many Kansas Citians since 1994 through the "Faiths and Beliefs" column published Wednesdays in The Kansas City Star.  His articles, poems, and reviews appear in many journals. He has taught religion courses at area universities and seminaries. He founded The Kansas City Interfaith Council in 1989 and was its convener through 2003. He has been active in many professional and civic organizations. Full Bio

What does the United States have in common with Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, and China? 
All retain the barbaric practice of capital punishment adandoned by the civilized world.

As far as I can tell, this below is the only section of the City Charter relating to hiring a new City Manager. But note that the Council and the Mayor were not engaged in hiring a new City Manager but rather extending the employment of the present one. Even if the Charter clearly gave the Mayor the sole power over the Manager's continuing employment (which it certainly does not), the deceptive process Mr Funkhouser has employed to rid himself of Mr Cauthen rightly deserves the opprobrium and disgust it has occasioned. 

Sec. 218. City Manager.

(a)   Qualifications and duties.  The City Manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the City. The City Manager shall be chosen solely on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications. Neither the Mayor, nor any member of the Council, shall be chosen as City Manager during the term for which the official was elected. 

(b)   Appointment.  The Mayor and Council shall jointly conduct a search or recruitment for a City Manager upon terms agreed upon by the Mayor and Council. Upon completion of this process the Mayor shall be responsible for submitting a resolution to the Council for the appointment of a City Manager. If an appointment is not approved, the Mayor may submit another person for consideration, or may ask that a search or recruitment process begin anew. 

(c)   Term.  The City Manager shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council. 

(d)   Compensation.  The Mayor may fix the compensation of the City Manager, subject to ratification by a vote of at least six additional members of the Council. 

(e)   Suspension or permanent removal from office.   

(1)   Mayor.  The City Manager may be suspended with or without pay or removed from office by the Mayor subject to ratification by a vote of at least six additional members of the Council at the next scheduled meeting of the Council. During the period between Council consideration of the suspension or removal by the Mayor, the City Manager shall be suspended with or without pay as designated by the Mayor. 
(2)   Council.  By a vote of nine members of the Council, not including the Mayor, the City Manager may be removed from office. 
(3)   Procedure for removal.   

(A)   Notification in writing.  The City Manager shall be notified in writing of suspension or removal from office by no later than the next business day following the Council's action. 
(B)   Request for statement and hearing.  The City Manager may, in writing filed with the City Clerk within ten days after receipt of the notification, demand a written statement of the reasons for such suspension or removal and a hearing before the Council. This statement shall be provided within ten days of the request. The Council shall hold a hearing no earlier than five and no later than fifteen days after the City Manager is provided a written statement of reasons for suspension or removal from office. The hearing before the Council shall bea public hearing unless otherwise ordered by a court. 
(C)   Suspension and/or removal final.  The suspension or removal of the City Manager shall be final and not subject to review. 

(f)   Temporary appointment.  In case of resignation, disability, suspension or removal from office of the City Manager, the Mayor shall designate some qualified person to temporarily perform the duties of the office and the appropriate compensation to be paid that person, subject to ratification by a vote of at least six additional members of the Council. In all other instances of the temporary absence of the City Manager, the City Manager shall designate an acting City Manager. 

07.12.15 Retaining the City Manager

As a citizen, I have watched the entire testimony and the entire Council session dealing with the Mayor's desire to remove Wayne Cauthen from his service to the City and City Manager. I wish I had been present to add my testimony to those who spoke. I did write the Mayor, many members of the Council, and the Manager before the Dec 13 sessions, an example of which follows in blue.

The Mayor's request for the resignation of City Manager Wayne Cauthen appears to have been furtive, dishonest, and premeditated. It seems to have ignored the high praise Cauthen receives from the business, union, neighborhood, minority, religious, and other segments of the community. It also seems to have deliberately been disrespectful of the contract renewal process underway for months and bypassed the normal consultative style of the Council. The unprecedented dressing-down of the Mayor to his face by representatives of the community should lead instead to the Mayor's resignation if he is unwilling to be instructed by the overwhelming consensus of the citizens.

It is disingenuous of the Mayor to defend himself by saying on one hand that his request for Cauthen's resignation is "just" his "personal opinion" while on the other hand, interpreting the City Charter as giving him sole power to introduce a City Manager's employment contract. Council members, with 9 voting successfully to extend employment to Cauthen, and in effect affirming that the Council will not be bullied by an official who seems often to act in stubborn, prideful ways. I do admire the Mayor for at least appearing to listen politely to very straight talk from citizens at the Business session before the Legislative session. (They were respectful while being candid in their assessments of the Mayor and his wife.) However, at the Council session immediately following,  his vote did not change, so did he really hear?

Instead of achieving his goal of ridding himself of a competent, well-liked manager, Mayor Funkhouser has unwittingly engineered a contract with the Manager that lasts longer than the rest of the Mayor's term of office. If he cannot work with Mr Cauthen, the Mayor should resign. We need the kind of excellent professional management we have experienced since Mr Cauthen became manager much more than the faux-innocence of a Mayor who has lost the confidence of two-thirds of the Council.

While some may lament that race has become a part of this issue, how can one expect minority people to respond when someone so extraordinarily popular, talented, and competent who happens to be black is treated so disrespectfully by a white mayor?

07.12.12
Dear Mayor Funkhouser:

My impression as a citizen is that the City has improved greatly since Wayne Cauthen became City Manager, and so I am confused by your desire to replace him. Whether it was a response to the replacement of a missing street sign almost before I got off the 311 phone or the tremendous improvements in Downtown and work elsewhere in the City, his leadership seems to have been effective. He has received raises for his good work. I read the paper faithfully and do not know his failings. Is he actually inept? Is he having a scandalous affair? Is he stealing from the City? Is there a revolt among the City employees? Do he fail to take direction from the Council? Is there a personality conflict with you? If so, can you get over it?

I do not know Mr Cauthen personally, although I have met him several times. I do not think he would know me. I have met you several times, and you probably would not recognize me. I am writing simply as a citizen and I have no connection with Mr Cauthen. I have been to a "town meeting" with you and found you impressive in what you know, what your aims for the City are, and in your support for open government and the principles of free speech, etc. You won me over and I've been defending you.

But now . . . .

I do not understand your abrupt announcement and it does not indicate the consultative style of government we have been used to and deserve. This is not open government. According to the paper, you do not want to criticize Cauthen. Then why does he deserve dismissal? This would  throw the management of the City into the turmoil of two transitions, one with an interim manager and then with a new manager.

Frankly, your reason given in the paper that there was not time to notify Council members before this hit the news is pretty adolescent. What a pathetic excuse! You make a decision in your own head about a major matter and then have to respond to reporters before consulting with the Council? Can you not say, "No comment"?

Without knowledge of the ins and outs of City politics, it strikes me strange that the move to oust Mr Cauthen has been incremental in the way you have treated the contract renewal process. This sudden announcement now looks like the conclusion of of a long-term plan to hint, marginalize, ease him out, and then discharge him. If this is so, this would be dishonest.

Unless there is a very good reason, not just your whim, to discharge Mr Cauthen, the City should not be deprived of his outstanding service. You have a duty to explain to us what caused you to change your mind. This is a City matter and you can have support for your decision with appropriate explanation.

Please give the citizens the facts that made you change your mind.

Vern Barnet

07.12.08 On Romney

On Romney:

This week, Mitt made his much-anticipated religion speech, and stood up for his rights not to be discriminated against for his beliefs, and not to have to explain the part about Jackson County. Good for him on both counts.

... Except that you have to wonder why he felt compelled to dip into dogma just long enough to assure voters that he believes “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”

Romney’s message, which boiled down to let’s-all-be-religious-together, was certainly different from the John Kennedy version, which argued that a candidate’s religion is irrelevant. But then Kennedy was speaking to the country, while Romney had his attention fixed on the approximately 35,000 Iowa religious conservatives who will tip the balance in the first-in-the-nation Republican caucus.

Can I pause here briefly to point out that in New York there are approximately 35,000 people living on some blocks? If my block got to decide the first presidential caucus, I guarantee you we would be as serious about our special role as the folks in Iowa are. And right now Mitt Romney would be evoking the large number of founding fathers who were agnostics.

--Gail Collins in the NYTimes 071208

He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one.

--Maureen Dowd in the NYTimes 071209

---

A reader of my column Wednesday in The Star writes: 

"I am all for interfaith communication, sharing ideas, etc.; however, in the above-referenced article I note that in the next to last paragraph of the article, "December brings................, the Muslim's Eid al-Adha commemorating Abraham's offering of Ishmael to God".  I have read our Old Testament several times thoroughly and have never found that Abraham offered Ishmael.  Abraham was asked by God to offer his son Isaac.  Where is this offering of Ishmael coming from?"

Just as there are different versions of the same story in the Jewish scriptures (two stories of creation, two versions of the Flood, two versions of the Ten Commandments (indebted to the earlier Code of Hammurabi), varied versions of the same events in the Chronicles and in Kings (for example, Manassah is the worst of kings in 2 Kings 21 but an examplar in 2 Chronicles 33) ,  four different and sometimes overlapping, sometimes apparently contradictory gospels (in the Christian scriptures), so it is not surprising to find that the third great monotheistic religion, Islam, has different versions of similar stories. Even the parable of the Prodigal Son appears in Buddhist literature as well as Christian, although the emphasis is different. Flood stories are found in many cultures (the Biblical stories come from earlier Babylonian tales, as in the Epic of Gilgamesh).

Even something as simple as the name of a mountain may appear  differently in different portions of a holy text; Mt Sinai and Mt Horeb are different names for the same place. God is called by different names in the Hebrew: Elohim, El Shaddai, Yahweh, reflecting the different ealier traditions that were fused as the Bible developed.

Since I write seeking to respect all faiths, it is important for me when writing about Christian material to use the Christian stories, and so forth. Since the Muslim version of the story of Abraham involves Ishmael, it makes sense in describing the holiday Muslims celebrate to use their version of the story. It would be inaccurate for me to describe how Muslims understand their holiday by using the Christian version of the story. That would be lying. Although Islam speaks of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other figures familiar to Christians (in fact Mary appears in the Qur'an more times than in the New Testament), you cannot understand Islam in Christian terms, any more than you can understand Shakespeare's Hamlet by reading Dante's Divine Comedy.

It is very important for people to realize that religions are different, and the value to us comes just as much from their differences as their similarities, just as Christians are fortunate to have several gospels which have differences as well as similarities.

Thank you for reading my column and for the courtesy you have extended by giving me a chance to reply to your thoughtful question.

Vern Barnet

07.11.26 Football War

"If we supported our troops and their mission in Iraq with the same intensity we support this rivalry [between football teams], we would have won the war already." --former KU interim atheltic director.

The statement and the many comments it has evoked perhaps at least indicates a connection between football addiction and war addiction.

07.11.21 New stem cell research

Scientists report that by injecting four genes into skin cells, they were able to reprogram the cells to become "stem cells" very much like embryonic stem cells, with the possibility of developing into any of the 220 types of cells in the human body, suggesting new cures for many diseases and injuries.

Ethical questions avoided?

Hardly. There are at least three  nagging questions for Roman Catholics to consider seriously.

1. The first is, perhaps, merely technical. Can these cells be produced without the danger of inducing cancer or other diseases or malformations?

2. Is it ethical to benefit from the new technique which could not have been developed without the prior research, which the Church has declared immoral?

3. As I currently understand the science, cells produced by SCNT, a process the Church condemns, may be totipotent, that is capable of producing all the cells of a human being and the placenta tissue. The new stem cells are pluripotent, meaning the cells could become cells of a human being, but they are not totipotent, at least so far in the research produced by the injection of viruses into a skin cell to reprogram the cell into a stem cell. Both contain genetic material from one source, the donor, and not two, as in sexual reproduction. What, then, is the theological difference between two cells produced by different techniques, both containing genetic material from one source, the donor, and not two, as in sexual reproduction? Does it come down to the placenta? Is that what makes human life? If so, then why could not the SCNT cells be use ethically so long as they are not grown beyond the blastocyct stage, never implanted? Is it the few genes that make a cell totipotent rather than pluripotent that define what is human? If it is potentiality, then with the further development of science, could not the new technique produce totipotent cells? Should not science be prohibited from further studies because of the potential for such outcomes?

Instead of resolving ethical and theological issues, in my opinion, this new research unveils the difficulties of Church theology. I prefer common law and commen sense, aligned with most of the world's cultures that say that a human being is born at birth, or as the Jewish tradition has it, with the appearance of the "crowning of the head." I do not believe human beings exist in petri dishes. Given the need to rescue either one 3-year old child from a burning lab or a box of petri dishes with thousands of such cells, or even blastocysts, I'll save the child.

(Earlier full discussion of stem cell issues at www.cres.org/2)

Comments and corrections welcome:   vern@cres.org

07.11.17 KCMO's Iniquity

Here is an opinion by one of our most devoted citizens:

James Everett in The Examiner
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Those who push hatred must be called out

I strongly support freedom of speech and religion. But free speech does not allow a person to falsely yell out "fire" in a crowded theater.

In a similar sense, our nation's democratic tradition strongly supports freedom of expression over publicly licensed airwaves used by radio and TV. Airwaves are licensed to make sure stations abide by reasonable rules as to how they are used. For example, public airwaves should not be used to promote hatred or violence. On Oct. 29, radio station KCMO 710 AM, in my opinion, violated that rule.

On "The Michael Savage Show," Mr. Savage said:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting on my all fours and praying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you. What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need re-education. They need deportation. I don't need re-education. ... throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it. ... Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

Back in 2004 Michael Savage said, "I think (Muslims) need to be forcibly converted to Christianity. ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings."

In 2006 he called for a ban on Muslim immigration and recommended making "the construction of mosques illegal in America." He also attacks other ethnic groups with similar hateful messages.

When Mr. Savage's stupid, outrageous, bigoted and inflammatory remarks were brought to the attention of the KCMO 710 AM program director, there was no apology, just a feeble response saying the station runs a disclaimer prior to airing "The Michael Savage Show." In other words, KCMO takes a typical sociopathic view, namely, if any violence (physically or psychologically) occurs because someone was screaming hatred and violence over their licensed airwaves, the station is not at fault.

A specialist at the Federal Communications Commission told me everything Savage said is covered by the right of free speech. If you feel KCMO and the FCC are out of line, please send a word of support to me - jeverett3@mindspring.com - or Mahnaz Shabbir, a Muslim leader in Kansas City - mahnaz@shabbiradvisors.com - in our attempt to re-educate both of them what true free speech is all about. 

07.11.15 The Pearl-Ahmed Dialogue

The following is a response to the conversation between Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father, and his friend Akbar Ahmed at Village Presbtyerian Church Nov 13 as the Festival of Faiths Keynote Speaker Event, written by Hussain Haideri, MD, President, Crescent Peace Society. It is his personal impressions; he is not necessarily writing in the capacity as the president of CPS. Edited excerpts are planned to appear in my Kansas City Star column for Nov 21.

Newton’ s law.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

During one of my many web surfing experiences, I came across, purely by chance, Newton’s law, stated above. I always argue against taking things out of context, but for once, I broke my own rule, albeit for the right reasons.

I thought, how amazing it would be to apply this scientific principle, into social, cultural and perhaps most importantly, in religious conflicts. Let me elaborate: When confronted with the challenge to defend a potential threat, insult or injustice directed at your religion, try and resist the temptation of a knee jerk response, and not retaliate, measure for measure.
Rather, adopt the above principle. Reach out to the aggressor, or more saner elements in their congregation, and simply present an equally opposite response. The idea should be to relay your perspective, but not with aggression or cynicism, but rather with an attitude that displays disappointment, eagerness to learn more about the opposing point of view and then ,counter it by something that usually makes great drawing room talk, but fares poorly when you search for real life examples, that is dialogue. Unless, of course you are Judea Pearl and Akbar Ahmed.

What I and around a 1000 fortunate Greater Kansas City residents experienced on Tuesday night at the Jewish-Muslim dialogue, at the Village Presbyterian Church, as part of the Festival of Faiths, was nothing less than scintillating. A practical display of what is simply preached all around.
There was an honest attempt to do some soul searching, and scratching beneath the surface of complicated, aggravating and sensitive issues that transcend religious, political and social borders. The two “grand fathers” representing their individual faiths explored the root causes pf hatred that fans extremist actions on both sides of the equation, and simply perpetuates the mistrust that pre-exists between the two major Ibrahimic faiths, that have more in common than they realize. What makes this situation so important, is that repercussions of this debate directly affects that largest religion in the world, Christianity. Therefore, what could be more appropriate than sitting face to face in God’s house, as Professor Ahmed pointed out and sifting through the causes that plague this dilemma.

Professor Pearl, father of slain Wall Street  journalist Daniel Pearl, and a professor of computer science at UCLA, laid out utopist views of Jewish and Palestinian states, adjacent, living in harmony. Akbar , Professor of Islamic studies at the American University in Washington D.C., agreed, but pointed out that mistrust in the hearts of people from both sides is high, and work needs to be done to bring down temperatures. Identify people with a passion for tolerance, mutual respect and acceptability, and then work with them. The role of the media, to project harmony and promote peace was alluded to, something that cannot be over-emphasized. They reflected on the positives within their own faiths, and that of each others. Judea called Islam “a universal religion” and Akbar appreciated the “value of learning” in the Jewish faith. Interestingly, just these two factors may be a great start to initiate bridge building. Islam is well spread out, and understanding the faith, and the people who represent it, would be half the battle. What better initiators, than a faith, whose followers have been described as “ avid learners”, by a scholar on the other side of the aisle.

The audience had stimulating questions that simply underlined the fact that there is some serious desire on the part of the conscientious elements of the society to play their role in achieving peace. A local church, with such huge following, taking the initiative to host the event can only sweeten the deal. I am simply waiting, with baited breath, for the excitement to spill over to the masses locally, and then snowballing into an effort that spreads across the nation and hopefully, someday, across the globe, restoring the true image of America as the leader of all states.

07.11.14 Oil and Windows Taxation

This is a great column for lots of reasons, certainly for exactly what it says. But it also supports my anger against Bill Gates and my puzzlement about those who think the unbridled free market is a fair, level playing field. Using illegal tatics and marketing genius, Gates has sold America inferior products and hampered competition -- and "taxed" us endlessly since Windows etc is involved in so many economic transactions. 

November 14, 2007
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.

In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.

But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does.

You’d think that one person, just one, running for Congress or the Senate would take a flier and say: “Oh, what the heck. I’m going to lose anyway. Why not tell the truth? I’ll support a gasoline tax.”

Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate:

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: “My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket.”

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: “Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.” If you can’t win that debate, you don’t belong in politics.

“Think about it,” says Phil Verleger, an energy economist. “We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump. A stronger foundation for future economic growth would have been laid by keeping more oil revenue home, and we might not now be facing a recession.”

As a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the Harvard University economist and former Bush adviser N. Gregory Mankiw has argued: “the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to [U.S.] consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.”

But U.S. consumers would have known that, with a higher gasoline tax locked in for good, pump prices would never be going back to the old days, adds Mr. Verleger, so they would have a much stronger incentive to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles and Detroit would have had to make more hybrids to survive. This would have put Detroit five years ahead of where it is now. “It’s called the America wins program,” said Mr. Verleger, “instead of the petro-states win program.”

We simply cannot go on being as dumb as we wanna be. If you hate the war in Iraq, then you want a gasoline tax so you can argue that we can pull out of there without remaining dependent on an even more unstable region. If you want to see us negotiate with Iran, not bomb it, you want a gasoline tax that will give us some real leverage by helping to reduce the income of the ayatollahs.

If you’re a conservative and you believed that the Iraq war was necessary to drive reform in the Middle East, but the war has failed to do that and we need “Plan B” for the same objective, you want a gasoline tax that will reduce the flow of wealth to petrolist leaders who will never change if all they have to do is drill well holes rather than educate and empower their people.

If you want to see America thrive by becoming the most energy productive economy in the world — a title that now belongs to Japan, which doesn’t have a drop of oil in its soil — you want a gasoline tax, which will only spur U.S. innovation in energy efficiency.

President Bush squandered a historic opportunity to put America on a radically different energy course after 9/11. But considering how few Democrats or Republicans are ready to tell the people the truth on this issue, maybe we have the president we deserve. I refuse to believe that, but I’m starting to doubt myself. 

07.11.12 America weakened

It is very difficult to summarize the complex disaster created by George Bush. at home and abroad. When I find a short summary, I applaud the effort, even with its defects. Here is one such summary of the international wreakage by RogerCohen (NYTimes today):

The first change that must be grasped is America’s diminished ability to influence people. Global access to information now amounts to an immense à la carte menu. Networks escape control. To hundreds of millions of people accessing information for the first time, from central China to Kenya’s Rift Valley, the United States can easily look exclusive and less relevant to their future.

The second essential change is the erosion of American power. Samantha Power, the author and Harvard professor, calls this “the core fact of recent years.”

America’s hard power — its military — is compromised by intractable counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its economy is strained; witness the ever feebler dollar. Its soft power — the resonance of the American idea — has been hurt by a loss of legitimacy . . . and by incompetence . . . .

The third essential change is the solidification of anti-Americanism as a political idea. Jihadist Islamism is the most violent expression of this, but its agents benefit from swimming in a sea of less murderous resentments.
 

In case you missed this much discussed column:

The New York Times
November 4, 2007
Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat?
By FRANK RICH

WHEN President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran.

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

The reason so many Democrats believe war with Iran is inevitable, of course, is that the administration is so flagrantly rerunning the sales campaign that gave us Iraq. The same old scare tactic — a Middle East Hitler plotting a nuclear holocaust — has been recycled with a fresh arsenal of hyped, loosey-goosey intelligence and outright falsehoods that are sometimes regurgitated without corroboration by the press.

Mr. Bush has gone so far as to accuse Iran of shipping arms to its Sunni antagonists in the Taliban, a stretch Newsweek finally slapped down last week. Back in the reality-based community, it is Mr. Bush who has most conspicuously enabled the Taliban’s resurgence by dropping the ball as it regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Administration policy also opened the door to Iran’s lethal involvement in Iraq. The Iraqi “unity government” that our troops are dying to prop up has more allies in its Shiite counterpart in Tehran than it does in Washington.

Yet 2002 history may not literally repeat itself. Mr. Cheney doesn’t necessarily rule in the post-Rumsfeld second Bush term. There are saner military minds afoot now: the defense secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen, the Central Command chief William Fallon. They know that a clean, surgical military strike at Iran could precipitate even more blowback than our “cakewalk” in Iraq. The Economist tallied up the risks of a potential Shock and Awe II this summer: “Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organize terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s oil windpipe.”

Then there’s the really bad news. Much as Iraq distracted America from the war against Al Qaeda, so a strike on Iran could ignite Pakistan, Al Qaeda’s thriving base and the actual central front of the war on terror. As Joe Biden said Tuesday night, if we attack Iran to stop it from obtaining a few kilograms of highly enriched uranium, we risk facilitating the fall of the teetering Musharraf government and the unleashing of Pakistan’s already good-to-go nuclear arsenal on Israel and India.

A full-scale regional war, chaos in the oil market, an overstretched American military pushed past the brink — all to take down a little thug like Ahmadinejad (who isn’t even Iran’s primary leader) and a state, however truculent, whose defense budget is less than 1 percent of America’s? Call me a Pollyanna, but I don’t think even the Bush administration can be this crazy.

Yet there is nonetheless a method to all the mad threats of war coming out of the White House. While the saber- rattling is reckless as foreign policy, it’s a proven winner as election-year Republican campaign strategy. The real point may be less to intimidate Iranians than to frighten Americans. Fear, the only remaining card this administration still knows how to play, may once more give a seemingly spent G.O.P. a crack at the White House in 2008.

Whatever happens in or to Iran, the American public will be carpet-bombed by apocalyptic propaganda for the 12 months to come. Mr. Bush has nothing to lose by once again using the specter of war to pillory the Democrats as soft on national security. The question for the Democrats is whether they’ll walk once more into this trap.

You’d think the same tired tactics wouldn’t work again after Iraq, a debacle now soundly rejected by a lopsided majority of voters. But even a lame-duck president can effectively wield the power of the bully pulpit. From Mr. Bush’s surge speech in January to Gen. David Petraeus’s Congressional testimony in September, the pivot toward Iran has been relentless.

Reinforcements are arriving daily. Dan Senor, the former flack for L. Paul Bremer in Baghdad, fronted a recent Fox News special, “Iran: The Ticking Bomb,” a perfect accompaniment to the Rudy Giuliani campaign that is ubiquitous on that Murdoch channel. The former Bush flack Ari Fleischer is a founder of Freedom’s Watch, a neocon fat-cat fund that has been spending $15 million for ads supporting the surge and is poised to up the ante for Iran war fever.

There are signs that the steady invocation of new mushroom clouds is already having an impact as it did in 2002 and 2003. A Zogby poll last month found that a majority of Americans (52 percent) now supports a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In 2002 Senators Clinton, Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards and Chris Dodd all looked over their shoulders at such polls. They and the party’s Congressional leaders, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, voted for the Iraq war resolution out of the cynical calculation that it would inoculate them against charges of wussiness. Sure, they had their caveats at the time. They talked about wanting “to give diplomacy the best possible opportunity” (as Mr. Gephardt put it then). In her Oct. 10, 2002, speech of support for the Iraq resolution on the Senate floor, Mrs. Clinton hedged by saying, “A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war.”

We know how smart this strategic positioning turned out to be. Weeks later the Democrats lost the Senate.

This time around, with the exception of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidates seem to be saying what they really believe rather than trying to play both sides against the middle. Only Mrs. Clinton voted for this fall’s nonbinding Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution, designed by its hawk authors to validate Mr. Bush’s Iran policy. The House isn’t even going to bring up this malevolent bill because, as Nancy Pelosi has said, there has “never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history” that “declared a piece of a country’s army to be a terrorist organization.”

In 2002, the Iraq war resolution passed by 77 to 23. In 2007, Kyl-Lieberman passed by 76 to 22. No sooner did Mrs. Clinton cast her vote than she started taking heat in Iowa. Her response was to blur her stand. She abruptly signed on as the sole co- sponsor of a six-month-old (and languishing) bill introduced by the Virginia Democrat Jim Webb forbidding money for military operations in Iran without Congressional approval.

In Tuesday’s debate Mrs. Clinton tried to play down her vote for Kyl-Lieberman again by incessantly repeating her belief in “vigorous diplomacy” as well as the same sound bite she used after her Iraq vote five years ago. “I am not in favor of this rush for war,” she said, “but I’m also not in favor of doing nothing.”

Much like her now notorious effort to fudge her stand on Eliot Spitzer’s driver’s license program for illegal immigrants, this is a profile in vacillation. And this time Mrs. Clinton’s straddling stood out as it didn’t in 2002. That’s not because she was the only woman on stage but because she is the only Democratic candidate who has not said a firm no to Bush policy.

That leaves her in a no man’s — or woman’s — land. If Mr. Bush actually does make a strike against Iran, Mrs. Clinton will be the only leading Democrat to have played a cameo role in enabling it. If he doesn’t, she can no longer be arguing in the campaign crunch of fall 2008 that she is against rushing to war, because it would no longer be a rush. Her hand would be forced.

Mr. Biden got a well-deserved laugh Tuesday night when he said there are only three things in a Giuliani sentence: “a noun and a verb and 9/11.” But a year from now, after the public has been worn down by so many months more of effective White House propaganda, “America’s mayor” (or any of his similarly bellicose Republican rivals) will be offering voters the clearest possible choice, however perilous, about America’s future in the world.

Potentially facing that Republican may be a Democrat who is not in favor of rushing to war in Iran but, now as in 2002, may well be in favor of walking to war. In any event, she will not have been a leader in making the strenuous case for an alternative policy that defuses rather than escalates tensions with Tehran.

Noun + verb + 9/11 — also Mr. Bush’s strategy in 2004, lest we forget — would once again square off against a Democratic opponent who was for a pre-emptive war before being against it.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

My column in The Star about La Raza's decision to pull its 2009 convention from Kansas City generated considerable comment. Here is an except from a reply to one correspondent:

For the record I was a strong supporter of Al Brooks and could not understand why the Hispanic community, among others, lent its support to Funkhouser when Al has been so supportive of minorities of all kinds for his entire long public life. I think Funkhouser made a major mistake in failing to vet Frances Semler appropriately, though I understand his amateurish thinking at that stage in the process. I do not think Brooks would have made such a disastrous error. I also think Funkhouser erred in not accepting her resignation at the outset.

But I will give Funkhouser credit for making sincere and repeated efforts to accommodate the Hispanic leadership up to the point of forcing her out. As far as I can tell, her work on the Park Board (and I was disgusted with Funkhouser for his comments about the previous Park Board) has not been affected by her membership of the Minutemen. The statements Funkhouser offered to have her make seemed to me to be a great compromise, and the refusal of the Hispanic leaders to accept them makes it clear to me that they are not interested in forging a constructive relationship, but rather in winning because they feel powerless.

I think Funkhouser has two good arguments. First, as an ACLU member, as I am, he supports the right of citizens to hold a variety of opinions. Since Semler's opinions seem to have no bearing on her work on the Park Board, there is no reason for her to be removed other than political considerations. Those considerations were sufficient for me to support her removal until the power-play emerged with the withdrawal of the convention. He has repeatedly and publicly stated his own abhorrence of the Minutemen.

This leads to the second argument I think Funkhouser has in his favor. If he allowed one group to affect the Park Board appointments of those who apparently serve faithfully, and caved in to demands in the face of a threat to withdraw a convention, then, for example, the prejudiced evangelicals who oppose same-sex relationships would have precedent to demand that the City abandon its recognition of domestic partnerships or they will withdraw their convention. Once you start down this road, the American ideal of a wide public space is abandoned.

In any case, you argue that Funkhouser was refusing to establish a respectful relationship with the Hispanic community. I look at the facts of his extensive efforts and his efforts to expand recognition of Hispanic sensibility in City Hall and do not understand how you can hold this opinion.
I am unable to see from what you have written how you have dealt with the main subject of the column, namely all of Kansas City is being "punished" for an UNELECTED person's once-private views, when La  Raza rewards a city with an ELECTED supporter of the Minutemen.

I am also sorry that my intention of recognized Hispanic concerns did not come through the final question of the column: "And are we sharing one another’s burdens?"  I think the answer is No, and I think Funkhouser is responsible for the initial error, as I pointed out above. In my opinion, this does not excuse the withdrawal of the convention. Local La Raza could have used the controversy in a creative way. It could have said, "We accept the statements from Frances Semler and the Mayor as their best efforts. We find them inadequate, and therefore we are doubling our efforts to support the convention in Kansas City so the whole City can see the dignity and richness of Hispanic culture, and we want Ms Semler and the Mayor to be our guests at the convention." That, it seems to me, would be a much better way of acting within the relational culture you cite.

I suspect at root is some personal pique that has very little to do with Frances Semler and the Minuteman. Otherwise it surely would have been possible to find a way forward.

After all, the PRESIDENT of the Park Board, appointed by Mayor Funkhouser, is John Fierro, a member of the Hispanic Community. This does not indicate to me the neglect or lack of contact or respect for the Hispanic community.

07.11.08 Next Neo-Con Folly

The gap in blogging (whew, what a busy time!) is broken by these wise words from one of my heroes, Rabbi Morris B. Margolies, who writes in the curent KC Jewish Chronicle:
 

George Bush and his gang are laying the groundwork for bombing and invading Iran. If the same stupidity, cowardice and irresponsibility that both houses of Congress exhibited in the run-up to the bombing and invasion of Iraq still prevail, we will see the Middle East enveloped by devastation and disaster. We would be exposed to a very possible use of atomic bombs. We would incur the risk that the state of Israel might be irreparably damaged.

Those people in Israel and the United States who advocate war on Iran as essential to the security of Israel are misguided as well as dead wrong. Their arguments have become increasingly hysterical. Said the unsavory sage of the Jewish magazine Commentary on PBS last week: We have not learned the lesson of Nazi Germany. We gave the Nazis too much time to prepare their murderous mischief and, as a result, World War II and the Holocaust happened.

The analogy to Iran is ridiculous. Nazism was indeed a threat. The tactics of talking or negotiating with Hitler were indeed foolhardy. Nothing short of all-out war could defeat a mighty and evil enemy that had already annexed much of Europe.

Iran is inimical to Israel. It is headed now by a man who stated publicly that Israel must perish. But grotesque as is this threat, he is not stupid. He well knows that Israel is in a position with the atomic bombs that it definitely possesses to wipe Iran off the map. Iran, even if it is working with fissionable material, is years away from creating a nuclear weapon. But a recent report by an inspection group of the United Nations affirms that Iran is not engaged in producing anything of the kind. Still, Mr. Podhoretz of Commentary says that the U.N. group is wrong. Other (unspecified) sources, he says, report just the opposite.

We are at a “d?j? vu all over again.” When the Bushies in their obsessive determination to rule the universe and take full command of its oil continued the selling of a war on Iraq, they, too, ridiculed a United Nations report that there were no “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” “We know the truth,” said Colin Powell in a long speech at the U.N. “We have incontrovertible evidence that the Iraqis possess weapons of mass destruction,” said Donald Rumsfeld. “We would rather fight them there than have to fight them in our own country,” said Condoleezza Rice. And our great and all-knowing leader used the White House pulpit to define “patriotism” and “the war on terror” for the American people.

Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, Pearl and other American Jewish citizens were all pushing for the war on Iraq. The very same gaggle and their friends are now doing their worst to fan the flames leading to yet another conflagration.

If these raucous voices are not stilled by the voice of reason on the part of the American people, I see nothing but desolation ahead.

07.10.28

Fran Rich (NYTimes) writes today of the "pileup of personal hypocrisies that have always undone Elmer Gantrys in America, from Jimmy Swaggart to Jim Bakker. The Ted Haggard revelations were in that tawdry tradition, and so was the news that the Christian Coalition’s front man, Ralph Reed, looked forward, as he put it, to “humping in corporate accounts” in collaboration with the now-jailed K Street lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Their fall from grace was synergistically augmented by their scandal-prone family-values allies on Capitol Hill. Even now, the virulent marriage defender David Vitter retains his Senate seat despite having confessed to unspecified sins after his name surfaced in bordello scandals in both Washington and New Orleans.

"Also staying put in the Senate is Larry Craig, who, consciously or not, is calling the whole moral brigade’s bluff. After he was busted in the Minneapolis airport, Republicans insisted he undergo an ethics committee investigation on the assumption that he’d disappear before they could conduct it. Now they will have to make good on their word."
 
 

07.09.30 Neo-Cons again

I did not have to get to paragraph eight to know who was behind this.  Will America continue to let its foreign policy be shaped by a group with allegience to a stupid strategy of protecting another nation's interest than in a strategy that would work both for that nation and our own? 

September 30, 2007
Big Coffers and a Rising Voice Lift Group on the Right
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Freedom’s Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq.

Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy.

Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group.

Although the group declined to identify the experts, several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House. Some institute scholars have advocated a more confrontational policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including keeping military action as an option.

Last week, a Freedom’s Watch newspaper advertisement called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran “a terrorist.” The group is considering a national advertising campaign focused on Iran, a senior benefactor said, though Matt S. David, a spokesman for the group, declined to comment on those plans.

“If Hitler’s warnings were heeded when he wrote ‘Mein Kampf,’ he could have been stopped,” said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom’s Watch and a former deputy assistant to Mr. Bush. “Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region — he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel.”

With a forceful message and a roster of wealthy benefactors, Freedom’s Watch has quickly emerged from the crowded field of nonprofit advocacy groups as a conservative answer to the nine-year-old liberal MoveOn.org, which vehemently opposes the Iraq war.

The idea for Freedom’s Watch was hatched in March at the winter meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalapan, Fla., where Vice President Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker, according to participants. Next week, the group is moving into a 10,000-square-foot office in the Chinatown section of Washington, with plans to employ as many as 50 people by early next year.

One benefactor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by November 2008. Raising big money “will be easy,” the benefactor said, adding that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million. Mr. Blakeman would not confirm or deny whether any donor gave $1 million, or more, to the organization.

Since the group is organized as a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to reveal its donors and it can not engage in certain types of partisan activities that directly support political candidates. It denies coordinating its activities with the White House, although many of its donors and organizers are well connected to the administration, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary.

“Ideologically, we are inspired by much of Ronald Reagan’s thinking — peace through strength, protect and defend America, and prosperity through free enterprise,” Mr. Fleischer said.

Among the group’s founders are Sheldon G. Adelson, the chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, who ranks sixth on the Forbes Magazine list of the world’s billionaires; Mel Sembler, a shopping center magnate based in St. Petersburg, Fla., who served as the ambassador to Italy and Australia; John M. Templeton Jr., the conservative philanthropist from Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and Anthony H. Gioia, a former ambassador to Malta who heads an investment group based in Buffalo, N.Y. All four men are long-time prolific donors who have raised money on behalf of Republican and conservative causes.

For years, the group’s founders lamented MoveOn’s growing influence, derived in large part from its grass-roots efforts, especially on the debate about the Iraq war. “A bunch of us activists kept watching MoveOn and its attacks on the war, and it just got to be obnoxious,” said Mr. Sembler, a friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. “We decided we needed to do something about this, because the conservative side was not responding.”

Mr. Sembler, who is on the board of directors of the American Enterprise Institute, said the impetus for Freedom’s Watch “came out of A.E.I.” last winter. He said that at an institute event in December 2006 he listened to retired Gen. Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan, an A.E.I. scholar, talk about the need for a troop increase in Iraq, a plan adopted by Mr. Bush in January. “I realized it was not only what we needed to do,” Mr. Sembler said, “but we needed to articulate this message across the country.”

Mr. Sembler also said he was frustrated that he heard reports at institute events earlier this year that the increase was working, but that the news media was not reflecting the progress.

Mr. Fleischer said: “After the president announced the surge, and even Republicans started getting nervous, there was a palpable fear among several of us that this fall Congress was going to cut off the funding and the Middle East would explode and America would likely get hit. It really wasn’t much more complicated than that.”

Over the summer, Mr. Fleischer and the other founders recruited a president, choosing Mr. Blakeman, who served as a deputy assistant to the president in charge of scheduling and appointments. In 2000, Mr. Blakeman led the Bush-Cheney campaign’s public relations effort during the 36 days of the deadlocked election. He left the White House in January 2004.

Mr. Blakeman and Mr. Fleischer said they intended to turn Freedom’s Watch into a permanent fixture among Washington advocacy groups, waging a “never-ending campaign” on an array of foreign policy and domestic issues. They also hope to build an active, grass-roots support network.

But Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, which was founded in 1998 by two Silicon Valley venture capitalists, said he doubted the group’s ability to meet that goal.

“This is the fourth or the fifth group that intends to be the right-wing MoveOn,” Mr. Pariser said, naming other fledgling groups like TheVanguard.org and Grassfire.org. “So far, it’s not clear that this group is anything other than a big neoconservative slush fund. They are a White House front group with a few consultants who are trying to make a very unpopular position on the war appear more palpable.”

Like Freedom’s Watch, MoveOn had its origins in an attempt by wealthy political donors, including George Soros, to shape the debate in Washington. MoveOn began shortly after the Starr report was delivered to Congress in September 1998, detailing accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice against President Bill Clinton.

Already, Freedom’s Watch and MoveOn have clashed through competing advertisements over Gen. David H. Petraeus’s war progress report to Congress earlier this month.

In one Freedom’s Watch ad, Sgt. John Kriesel, a National Guardsman from Stillwater, Minn., who lost his legs in a bomb attack near Falluja, pleads with Congress and the American people not to “surrender” in Iraq. As the screen shows a still photograph of the second hijacked plane bearing down on the burning World Trade Center, Sergeant Kriesel adds, “They attacked us, and they will again. They won’t stop in Iraq.”

Several of the group’s spots suggested that Iraq, rather than Al Qaeda, was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, even though the independent Sept. 11 commission investigation and other inquiries found no evidence of Iraq’s involvement. But in August, when the organization rolled out the advertisement with Sergeant Kriesel to two focus groups in Pennsylvania, its upbeat, patriotic message was well received, even causing a few viewers to weep, Mr. Blakeman said.

“The focus groups couldn’t tell whether it was a Republican ad or a Democratic ad,” he said. “It was the voice of a soldier, and that’s the message we want to deliver to Americans: listen to the opinions of real people.”

The campaign was seen as a way to head off any momentum in Congress toward halting the financing for the Iraq war. The group’s advertisements, placed in nearly 60 Congressional districts in 23 states, targeted wavering moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Freedom’s Watch also pounced on MoveOn.org’s full-page “General Betray Us” advertisement published Sept. 10 in The New York Times. Mr. Bush called the advertisement “disgusting.” Both chambers of Congress passed resolutions condemning the advertisement. The New York Times was also embroiled in the debate after giving MoveOn a discounted price for the advertisement, which the newspaper later acknowledged was a mistake. MoveOn has since agreed to pay the difference.

That advertisement, Mr. Blakeman said, “was an unexpected gift,” allowing Freedom’s Watch to “take the high road” and demonstrate that it is a “conservative voice that is not divisive.”

Mr. Pariser, of MoveOn, said his group’s grass-roots membership — it claims 3.3 million members — was the envy of Freedom’s Watch. “I think people see that Freedom’s Watch is a few billionaires, and not a large, mainstream constituency,” he said.

Mr. Blakeman denied the accusation that Freedom’s Watch is a White House front group. “I don’t need their help,” he said of his former colleagues at the White House. “I don’t seek their help. And they don’t offer it.” Mr. Blakeman is a long-time friend of Ed Gillespie, the new counselor to Mr. Bush who succeeded Dan Bartlett. Mr. Blakeman said that he speaks with Mr. Gillespie, but that they are careful not to discuss the activities of Freedom’s Watch.

Mr. Fleischer said Freedom’s Watch was not coordinating with the White House and had an agenda beyond the Bush administration. “On Jan. 21, 2009, what will these critics say when we are still here, doing the same thing?” he said. “We will still be here after George Bush is gone.”

07.09.24 Ahmadinejad unsavory, Bush even worse

Protests were directed against Columbia University for allowing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak there, even though the tradition of free speech is sacred, and even though the university’s president, Lee C Bollinger, attacked Ahmadinejad and his positions in what appears to be an unprecendented introduction. Some say such a wicked man should not be allowed to speak. But who has perpetrated more wickedness, who has subverted democracy more than George Bush, who commands the airwaves and can speak almost anywhere in this nation.

In case any reader still thinks our invasion of Iraq had anything to do with WMD or (later) establishiung democracy, Alan Greenspan has now spilled the beans, as if they were not already clearly in evidence:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Gee, that inconvenient truth will be a great comfort to those soldiering, getting maimed, and families of the dead, to know they really are fighting so the US can control the oil in Iraq. And the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas TEXAS DON'T YOU KNOW, has made a killing with its contract with the Kurds, defeating the national Oil Law Bush says he wants passed but conveniently excuses the Iraqi government's failure because it is so hard to do.

"My view of the second Gulf War was that getting Saddam out of there was very important, but had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it had to do with oil. My view of Saddam over the 20 years … was that he was very critically moving towards control of the Strait of Hormuz and as a consequence of that, control of the oil market. His purpose would be very much similar to [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez’s actions and I think it would be very dangerous for us. So getting him out, to me, seemed a very important priority."

Americans deceive themselves by patriotic rhetoric that reframes our exploitation of others' wealth by violence, by war. Thanks, Alan, for revealing the wickedness of American imperialism. Reminds me of what James Baker said to explain the First Gulf War: "It's about jobs."

The neo-colonialism is masked by the rhetoric of the neo-cons who abdicate American interests in favor of their distorted view of another nation's security to which their allegience makes America a servant.

07.09.17 Microsoft's Conviction

A European Court confirmed Microsoft's 2004 conviction. Those MS lawyers are good -- they cheated Kansas school children out of millions of dollars and put the money in the lawyers' pockets. But just as they were found guilty of anti-competitive practices in the US, Europe has similarly understood the situation. 

It is amazing that Bill Gates gets such good press when he has produced such a shoddy product and bullied competitors. Not only were his actions illegal; they were immoral. His Foundation is doing what the PR guys advised Carnegie to do -- give money away to salvage his image.

Those opposed to high government taxes at least have representation in the corrupt Congress. But even with court decisions against him, he has been able to extract tens of billions of dollars from consumers who don't understand they are being taxed without representation.

07.08.22 Fred Thompson, Demogogue

According to the paper, former Senator Fred Thompson speaking here in KC at the VFW National Convention as he prepares to launch his official bid for the Presidency, said:

  "Some people in this country apparently think if we can pull out of Iraq our problems are going to be over. You and I know better than that."

Fred, can you name one person, just one, who thinks that by pulling out of Iraq our problems will be over? Name one, just one.

And are you saying that if we stay in Iraq, our problems will be over?

As Lewis Diuguid says, also in today's paper, "The challenge for whoever emerges as  the winner [in the Presidential election] will be to repair the damage that President Bush has done; end the wars; restore America's image of  greatness; reunite the country that Bush divided; create jobs, opportunity and real equality; and renew a sense of hope."

07.08.19 Tom Friedman on Iraqi Soccer

 . . . trying to unify Iraq feels like doing carpentry on a burning house.

I’ve been thinking about Iraq’s multi-religious soccer team, which just won the Asian Cup. The team was assembled from Iraqis who play for other pro teams outside Iraq. In fact, it was reported that the Iraqi soccer team hadn’t played a home game in 17 years because of violence or U.N. sanctions. In short, it’s a real team with a virtual country. That’s what I fear the surge is trying to protect: a unified Iraq that exists only in the imagination and on foreign soccer fields.