Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Truth Is The Enemy In The U.S.

The Internet is our last, best hope.



Can Truth Retain Its Independence?


By Paul Craig Roberts

30/05/08 "ICH' -- - J
ustin Raimondo has a good column this morning on Antiwar.com. It is written as a fundraiser. But what it shows is that journalists (and whistle-blowers) who tell the truth in America are more likely to be pummeled than rewarded, whereas those who lie for powerful interest groups live high on the hog.


It wasn’t just Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservatives who deceived us into an illegal war in behalf of a hidden agenda. It was the American media. Raimondo names some of the culprits who are complicit in the deaths of some one million Iraqis, an unknown number of Afghans, and thousands of American soldiers.


It was all for a lie. A lie told by the President of the United States and his handmaidens in the media.


Two of the worst handmaidens, Billy Kristol and Thomas Friedman, have been rewarded for their treachery to America by the New York Times, which pays these men, who have never been right about anything, to pontificate from columns on its pages. Others, such as Peter Beinart, are installed at the Washington Post and other publications.


The benefit of being a name columnist at a name newspaper is that it puts you on the lucrative speaking circuit. Raimondo reports, for example, that Friedman is paid $65,000 for a speech.


Such extravagant fees are not paid for words of wisdom. They are paid by interest groups for service. Even if Friedman had anything intelligent to say, it is unnecessary to pay him $65,000 to repeat what he writes in the New York Times.


The same interest groups that control the government offer the most extravagant fees on the speaking circuit. Global corporations that are driving up their stock prices and management bonuses by moving American jobs offshore reward journalists who write propaganda about the benefits of globalism. The military-security complex rewards journalists that feed hysteria about terrorism and foreign threats.


There are far better columnists available than Friedman and Kristol. There’s Raimondo himself. There’s Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, to name just a few. If the print media had columnists of intelligence and integrity explaining events, instead of propagandists for government and interest groups, the United States would not have wasted eight years (so far) in pointless, illegal, and immoral wars of aggression that have been financed by foreign loans, thus sapping the strength of the dollar and American power.


In America, money, not truth, has the power. If the New York Times had Cockburn instead of Friedman and the Washington Post had Raimondo instead of Beinart, the newspapers would lose advertising revenues and connections with the power brokers.


The same problem exists outside the media. Studies produced by think tanks and university professors serve the causes of those who finance them. Does anyone think we will ever see a study from the American Enterprise Institute, for example, that is critical of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians, the military-industrial complex, or the offshoring of American jobs? With rare exceptions, think tanks serve the interests of donors.


Even in universities there is not much of the academic freedom that we hear so much about. The Israel Lobby was able to reach into an American Catholic university and deny tenure to a fine scholar, Norman Finkelstein, who refused to obey the rule against truthfully examining Israeli policy and behavior.


Try to find an academic economist who will describe the devastation that offshoring has brought to the American economy and the economic prospects of US labor.


Try to find an academic physicist who will express in public his doubts about the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade buildings. An academic career in physics is almost totally dependent on government research grants. By bringing federal funding to education, liberals handed government the power to control. One physicist who expressed his doubts about the collapse of the twin towers, Steven Jones, was terminated by BYU at the insistence of the federal government, which held the power of the purse over the university’s head.


The same constraint on truth exists everywhere. I once asked the proprietor of a distinguished engineering firm why he didn’t publicly express his doubts about the World Trade Center buildings. He said it would be the end of his business, that he would be denounced as an anti-American and demonized as a terrorist sympathizer. The fact that he would be an expert giving an expert opinion would carry no weight.


The same resistance to truth is found in scholarship where enormous vested interests are entrenched. Taking on these vested interests is most often a career-ending event.


Even when the US had an independent press with independent points of view, hysteria could sweep the country in wrong-headed directions. Today it is easier than ever.


Even when research and scholarship were dependent on philanthropic foundations that supported independent views, academic fraud was not uncommon. Today many academics are bought and paid for.


When government and special interests finance education and research, and the media is concentrated in a few large corporations dependent on government broadcast licenses, there is not much room left for truth.


Consequently, today we have the Internet and a new generation of documentary film makers who, together, provide the information, opinions and research that the media, the universities, and the think tanks cannot provide. These sources are our last best hope.


Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi said that truth required people to believe in it as a force independent of material interests and intellectual dogmas and to relentlessly seek it. Truth is a belief system, he said, and if we cease to believe in it, it will disappear.


Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What Happened To The Anthrax Investigation?


Wondering about those anthrax attacks, which go unmentioned, even during the days when 9/11 fell from George Bush's tongue every 15 minutes? The anthrax attacks, as we have mentioned before, in other posts about the bio-attacks, which killed five people and made others sick, probably frightened more ordinary Americans, not to mention the Democrats in Congress and certain news anchors, than the events of 9/11. Bioweapons, flying through the mail system, could, and did, get just about anyone.


So, where is the outrage that nothing is being done about the attempted assassination of the Democratic leadership in Congress and the deaths of 5 Americans?

When we find the people behind the anthrax attacks, we will also find the people who are complicit in 9/11

Why don't we all call the FBI and ask them?

Even Fort Detrick Scientists Themselves Think the Killer Anthrax Came from their Facility



http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-development-in-anthrax...


Even experts at the U.S. bioweapons facility at Fort Detrick think that the anthrax which was used in the 2001 attacks came from their facility:


"In an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.


"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"


Indeed, 3 of the 4 suspects the FBI is investigating are employees of Fort Detrick, which is run by the Army. (Read; Pentagon)


This new information verifies that the anthrax came from the Fort Detrick military base (confirmed here).


Some people are pretending that someone unconnected with the army bioweapons facility at Fort Detrick stole the anthrax. However, as the above-quoted article states:


"Fort Detrick is run by the United States Army. It's the most secure biological warfare research center in the United States," a bioterrorism expert told FOX News."


It is not very likely that someone could steal anthrax from the most secure facility in the U.S., run by the Army.


Indeed, the FBI apparently knew in 2002 who mailed the anthrax letters. See this, this, and this.


And yet government investigators and prosecutors have covered up and refused to disclose who did it for 6 years. Initially, the FBI tried to frame an innocent man for the attacks.


More importantly, "The FBI has completely shut Congress out of its now five-year investigation into anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill and around the nation". In other words, Congress -- which legally has every right to know what really happened, and which was the main victim of the attack -- is being kept in the dark. If the FBI really didn't know who did it, and was really conducting an honest investigation, why would it stonewall Congress?

There is strong evidence that the anthrax attacks were a false flag attack. Indeed, the bioweapons expert who actually drafted the current bioweapons law (the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989) while working for President George H.W. Bush has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the later Military Commissions Act. See also this.


At the very least, the FBI and the White House are actively covering up for the person who really did it.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Corporations Are Not Poeple and Should Have No Inalienable Rights

We could not agree more. As long as we allow corporations to claim person-hood, with all of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution, if we have one left, we will fall further and further into a fascist, authoritarian state.

Hitler and Mussolini, the father of fascism who said that corporatism and fascism were, basically, the same thing, did not happen over night. Authoritarianism never does. It sneaks upon a people, in the night, in the shadows, the smoke of chaos covering it's tracks and making it seem righteous. Nothing could be less true than righteous authoritarian fascism. Because in such a nightmare, the politicians we are allowed to vote on are not ours. (of course, we are not including every politician in that declaration. Some spend their careers looking out for the ordinary American. They are rare these days.) Most politicians belong to the lobbyist on K Street in D.C. or lesser lobbying streets.

The corporate officers of quite a few American corporations have been allowed to literally right policy....in the shadows, of course. These people are not elected nor are they accountable to anyone but their boards and, to some extent, their shareholders.

In the late 90s, there was a horrifying study done which found that, for the most part, the people who were very successful in the corporate world were either had narcissistic personality disorder or were sociopathic or functional psychotics. These are the people of which the Republican party says," let them regulate themselves' or "just leave it alone, the market will correct everything and is our savior, most unholy"

How many times are we going to have to see what happens when financial institutions are left to their own devices. It's always a freakin' disaster. Remember Neil Bush and Silverado? Neil just walked away and the tax payer picked up the bill.


Now we have this housing foreclosure, credit crisis mess, all caused by lending institutions; greedy, sociopathic institutions, the shot-callers of which do not give a damn about anything but their bottom line, their bonuses for firing people and doing away with pensions after people have retired, believing that they would have enough to live on in their golden years and would not have to struggle or rely on their children, who have children of their own and are barely making ends meet, themselves. Why did we not allow Ted Bundy to self-regulate? Frankly I don't see the difference, given that it is a cardinal sin to be poor in America, no matter the reason. It is cause for great shame. Ones quality of life changes, when pensions dry up.

I over-heard an elderly man ask another man, in Ojai, California, last year, "I've got to sit down now and figure out how many years I can live, even the simple life I live, before I find myself on the streets of LA or San Francisco." He had told his friend that his pension from Delta Airlines was no more. He had been a pilot, but couldn't fly anymore, as he had developed vision problems after retiring. It was one of the saddest conversations I have ever over-heard.

His only son, a Navy pilot in Vietnam, had been killed. His wife of 30 years, committed suicide shortly thereafter. (Soldiers are not the only casualties of war.) This he told me after his friend left and I asked if I could join him, and confessed to overhearing his conversation. I told him, "I know how hard it is to talk to even family and friends about money, but Americans are going to have to start doing that more often." Americans do need to talk to each other more about hard topics and not just assume that the corporate news media is telling us the truth about the economy, because they are not.

Now we have the handy, dandy 401K. I ask those of you who have a 401k, how much control do you really have over how your money is invested? Is it your money, or is it slave money, which the brokers and fund managers can play with or move about as their buddies need a better cash flow? Is your money invested in your best interest in the long run or the needs of big business in the short run.

Enslaving people is illegal in the U.S. So are things like child labor and paying people less than the minimum wage, because they are illegally in the U.S. Cruel business practices are made easier for corporations who move their manufacturing off shore, as well as their business address, so they can avoid taxes. The results are a little like share-cropping, which should be illegal, if it isn't, especially in the form in which it was practiced after the Civil War (what an oxymoron that is, eh?). Communal farming is one thing. Share cropping is something quite different. It is barely a step up from slavery, but was predictable in the defeated South, which was still mostly agrarian, with large plantations (like big agribusiness of today) which had to be worked. Sharecropping was the answer for a long time after the war....an oppressive answer to the problems of the plantation owners' need for help farming large pieces of land.


But it is not illegal to enslave ones money.


It has, for some time, been amazing to me how little people realize that the people who are calling the shots in America are unelected, greedy, gluttonous, deceptive people (and I'm not talking about the illegitimate Bush regime). I'm talking about the corporate officers and boards of corporations and their flunkies on K Street.


If a revolution becomes inevitable, they are the ones the people should go after. Forget the politicians.

Remember:

The corporate sociopaths, functional psychotics and economic hit men.

The Neoconservatives: The Nazis of modern day America

The Theocons: Those who would make every attempt to codify their twisted belief systems in America.

As my beloved cousin said just this evening, "I don't care if you want to worship that tree out there," as he pointed to a huge Live Oak near where he is staying while he visits, "just don't tell me I have to worship it as well." Well said.

C.S. Lewis said it well when he said, "when fascism comes to America, it will come wearing the flag and carrying a cross.

Monday, June 02, 2008

The 'Conspiracy of Rich Men' That Threatens the Peace, the World and the Environment

America is ruled and held hostage by what Sir Thomas More would have called 'conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth'.

This fascist domination of American life and debate is made possible only because people have bought a pernicious notion: 'corporate personhood', which makes possible and winks at More's 'conspiracy of rich men'. Because mere legal abstractions are accorded rights that should belong only to real, living, flesh and blood people, corporations are given license to lie about misdeeds, incompetence and corporate criminality. More would have described this ruling cabal a 'conspiracy of rich men!

Let's take these ruinous, disastrous effects in turn but, first, this point: the theft of America's wealth was accomplished by corporate influence upon a civilian structure that left alone is relatively benign. The problem is not so much government itself but 'K Street', a major thoroughfare in Washington where the numerous think tanks, lobbyists and advocacy groups maintain offices! 'People' themselves cannot be heard through the din they throw up. Until 'K-street' and the 'legal personhood' of corporations is smashed, the actual offices of government are beyond the reach of the people they were intended to serve. K-street will be served ---but not you! If Mr. Smith could see Washington today!! The world that might be changed drastically if 'green energy' were made a high priority. But because 'green energy' threatens the corporate establishment, it will take nothing less than revolution to create a world supplied and powered by it. 'Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion' (OTEC) has been around for years, at least since the middle 70s. It is a source of virtually unlimited, green energy. Over a period of at least 30 years nothing has been done to develop and implement it. I can only conclude that that is the case because big corporations --More's 'conspiracy of rich men' --have not yet figured out a way to enrich themselves with it. Until they do, it is a threat to them.
Ocean waves are already being used as a source of renewable energy, but could differences in water temperatures in the sea be our next source of green power? A decade old idea to generate renewable electricity for the globe with offshore, floating ‘Energy Islands’ could soon become a reality. The concept - creating artificial islands to collect wind, wave and solar power in the tropics - is based on the work of Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval, a 19th-century French physicist, who envisioned the idea of using the sea as a giant solar-energy collector.Inspired by Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval, architect and engineer Dominic Michaelis, his son Alex Michaelin (also an architect), and Trevor Cooper-Chadwick are developing a new technique called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) that takes advantage of differences in temperature between the ocean surface sea (up to 29°C in the tropics) and water a kilometer down (which is typically 5°C). Here’s how it works: warmer surface water is used to heat liquid ammonia, converting it into vapor, which expands to drive a turbine — which in turn produces electricity. The ammonia is then cooled using cold water from the ocean depths, returning it into a liquid state so the process can start all over again.Their goal is to build a network of “energy islands”: floating hexagonal-shaped platforms of reinforced concrete and corrosion-resistant metals that would generate electricity via wind, wave, and solar in addition to having an OTEC plant. It’s estimated that each island complex could produce about 250MW, and that 50,000 “energy islands” could meet the world’s energy requirements (as well as provide two tons of fresh water per person per day for the entire world population — desalinated water is one byproduct of the OTEC process). OTEC plants work best when there’s a temperature difference of 20°C between water at the surface and the water below, making tropical and sub-tropical seas the best candidates for energy islands.--Artificial Energy Islands Could Power The World
As a fledgling network correspondent, I reported on a model of OTEC scaled down, floating and generating electricity in the swimming pool of the legendary Shamrock Hotel in Houston, TX. It is not hard to imagine entire communities built around combinations of OTEC, Solar, and even land versions of OTEC in which sub-surface water is used in place of ocean water. The best part of it is this: OTEC is green OTEC apparently never got off the ground because corporations could never figure out how to make it profitable for them. Over the course of some thirty years, the technical 'kinks' have been worked out. There is no reason other than fear and greed that prevents OTEC from saving the world.
The very concept is a threat to corporations. Typically, corporations have it the wrong way 'round. If corporations can't find a way to make a profit from OTEC, then the problem is not with OTEC but with the concept of 'corporation'. If 'corporate person-hood' is the last hang up to green energy, then the time has come to throw off the corporate yoke and free humankind. 'Corporate person-hood' gives corporations all the rights of individuals but none of the responsibilities. When an 'individual' commits a heinous crime, he or she is simply charged, tried, and punished for the crime. Corporations, by contrast, go to court and pay a measly fine which is written off. The corporation walks!

The word 'corporation' puts them above laws that apply to people. Check out the history of Union Carbide with regard to the Bhopal disaster. Recall the slap on the wrist given Exxon for the Valdez disaster. Those are just the most memorable and most highly publicized disasters for which corporations are rarely held to account. If OTEC and other green methods by which mankind can live in peace on this planet require the absolute abolition of corporations, then let's get on with it! Corporations have gotten us to the point of extinction. Perhaps the time has come to consider the forced extinction of corporations. It's an idea whose time has come. The era of the 'corporation' should be brought to an end.


OTEC was not covered widely by the corporate media, when, in fact, it should have been a big lead story. Again --it's time to turn the conventional wisdom on its head. If corporate media will not cover or report the truth, then it's time for the people to take back the media! It's time to break up and re-distribute the corporate 'ownership' of media.


The public ownership of the airwaves had been a well-established legal principle, upheld by law and court decisions until it was all overturned during the administration of Ronald Reagan. It was in the Reagan years that the laws were re-written to make possible the big media monopolies, the concentration of ownership by Clear Channel et al. It was under Ronald Reagan that the Fairness Doctrine made possible the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. It was under Ronald Reagan than a pernicious 'right wing revolution' --what St. Thomas More would have called a 'conspiracy of rich men' --stole the people's airwaves and made possible Bush's dictatorship. It's time to wage the revolution. A line in Shakespeare's Henry VI reads: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!" In this case, we spare the lawyers if they will but help us take back the media! The first thing we do is take back the media. A good second step involves smashing the 'media' lobby on K street. We need to get over the idea that corporations have a right to lobby the government!


Corporations are not people and, as far as I am concerned, have no rights whatsoever
.

Someone, show me a principle of science or law which credibly equates living tissue with legal abstractions and cubicles!Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the GOP, one is hard pressed to find in any US market, a locally owned radio station or TV outlet. Before Reagan, it was not unusual to find locally owned radio and TV stations in small to major markets across the nation. Now ---it seems --all are owned by some five to seven major conglomerates. If we, the people, should declare it so, corporations themselves might just be written out of existence. And good riddance! Real people have 'rights'. Legal abstractions do not. The idea that an artificial, legal construct --a 'conspiracy of rich men' --has inherent or inalienable rights is pure bullshit. It's absurd on its face. How did this idiotic idea become so ingrained?


CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!


We --a revolution of the people --shall make the laws under the common law and ancient principles that declare people not only have rights but are, in fact, sovereign! Should we the people so decree, Fox and the handful of huge corporations that presume to tell us what to do and what to believe, have neither right nor privileges, then Fox and the handful of huge corporations will be either shut down or taken over!


Begin by organizing and insisting upon an FCC with teeth! Insist upon restoring the Fairness Doctrine! Insist upon limitations to corporate ownership of media or prohibiting corporation ownership outright! Remember --'legal abstractions' have NO rights and certainly not those of 'real people'. Insist upon ownership rules that break up the media monopolies. Measures like this existed before Ronald Reagan began an assault upon the rights for the benefit of abstractions, before the GOP conspired with More's 'conspiracy of rich men'. More generally, the people have paid for Reagan/GOP fascism with the truth itself. Therefore, wage revolution against corporate 'person-hood'. In the absence of corporate influence, government will simply have no choice but to respond to real people or just disband. Certainly, as the fall of Rome proves, ineffective, top-heavy bureaucracies whose only purpose is the waging of wars of self-perpetuation and aggression, are simply not needed.



As useless wastes of human resources, the US government of treasonous militarists and fascist bureaucrats whose only jobs are self-justification, should be dismantled, re-invented, and re-assembled! Precise language --to be added to the Constitution --will make fascist government of and by corporations impossible; corporations themselves will be made impossible and constitutionally illegal. A good beginning would be to focus the attention of some national organizations on the bogus idea of 'corporate personhood'. If large organizations like Moveon.org et al would zero in on the source of our national malaise, much good would come of it. Instead of playing 'whack-a-mole' with every cockamamie right wing idea that comes up, more could be accomplished by going for the jugular --the corporations themselves. Corporations --as legal abstractions --should, by right, have no influence on government. Corporations will resist green energy because there are no profits in it. But the corporate argument is circular and assumes the correctness of the 'profit motive'. Who says corporations deserve or need a profit? Only corporations!


In America, the concept of 'profit' itself is simply 'assumed' to be correct as are the numerous economic shibboleths that make up right-wing orthodoxy. It is time to re-examine the gestalt of assumptions, myths, and articles of propaganda that make up 'right wing' economics. It's time to reassess 'profit' or perhaps abandon the concept entirely. No corporation will produce 'green energy' just as no big corporation can be trusted to tell you the truth on the evening news. The problem is not 'green energy' itself but rather the pro-corporate prejudice that prevents its development, indeed, any rational critique of 'right wing economics'. Not surprisingly, the corporations have it the wrong way around again. Green energy is NOT the problem; it is rather the solution. It's corporations that resist or block the development of 'green energy' that are the problem. As I learned in broadcasting --if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. In America, the corporations ARE the problem. The very concept of 'corporation' is institutionalized mental constipation, a block against reason and inquiry.

...when I consider and weigh in my mind all these commonwealths, which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.

But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!

--Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Monday, June 2, 2008

When Your Son or Daughter Comes Home in A Metal Box.......

.....And the military says, don't open the box, the remains are unviewable.

Just think about that for a moment, because that's what the families and friends of our young people are going through, weekly.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Vincent Bugliosi

(Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi)

My anger over the war in Iraq, some will say, is palpable. If I sound too angry for some, what should I be greatly angry about -- that a referee gave what I thought was a bad call to my hometown football, basketball, or baseball team, and it may have cost them the game? I don't think so.

Virtually all of us cling desperately to life, either because of our love of life and/ or our fear of death. I'm told there is a passage in a novel by Dostoyevsky in which a character in the story exclaims, "If I were condemned to live on a rock, chained to a rock in the lashing sea, and all around me were ice and gales and storm, I would still want to live. Oh God, just to live, live, live!"

So nothing is as important in life as life and death. We fear and loathe the thought of our own death, even if it's a peaceful one after we've outlived the normal longevity. We fear not only the loss of our own lives, but the lives of our parents and sisters and brothers, as well as our relatives and close friends. We don't think of our children too much in this regard because our children, in the normal scheme of things, are supposed to outlive us. When they die before us, the already hideous nature of death becomes unbearable. And that's when they die a normal and peaceful death from illness. If the death is from an accident, like a car collision, the death of the child, if possible, is even more unbearable.

So one can hardly imagine the gut-tearing pain and horror when the only child of a couple, a nineteen-year-old son, call him Tim, the center of his parents' lives, whom they showered with their love and lived through vicariously in his triumphs on the athletic field and in the classroom, and who was excited as he looked forward to life, planning to wed his high school sweetheart and go on to become a police officer (or lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) dies the most horrible of deaths from a roadside bomb in a far-off country, and comes home in a metal box, * his body so shattered that his parents are cautioned by the military not to open it because what is inside ("our Timmy") is "unviewable." (To make the point hit home more with you, can you imagine if it was your son who was killed in Iraq and came home "unviewable" in a box? Yes, your son Scott, or Paul, or Michael, or Ronnie, Todd, Peter, Marty, Sean, or Bobby.)

No words can capture the feelings, the enormous suffering, of Tim's parents. But I think we can say that among a host of other deep agonies, they will have nightmares for the rest of their lives over the horrifying image of their boy the moment he lost his life on a desolate road in Iraq. As a mother of a soldier who died in Iraq wrote in a May 17, 2004, letter to the New York Times: "The explosion that killed my son in Baghdad will go on in our lives forever." She went on to say that "seared on" her soul are the "screams and despair" of her family over the loss of her son and the "sound of taps above the weeping crowd at the grave site of my son."

Just as Tim's young life ended before he really had a chance to live, so did the lives of thousands of other young men in the Iraq war. Not one of them wanted to die. As one wrote in his diary before he was killed in the battle of Fallouja: "I am not so much scared as I am very afraid of the unknown. If I don't get to write again, I would say I died too early. I haven't done enough in my life. I haven't gotten to experience enough. Though I hope I haven't gone in vain." In letter after letter home by young men who were later killed in combat in Iraq were words to the effect, "I can't wait to get back home and to start my life again."

All of the young men who died horrible and violent deaths in Bush's war had dreams. Bush saw to it that none of them would ever come true. It is impossible to adequately describe all the emotions and the magnitude of the human suffering that this dreadful war has wrought.

* It is not a casket or coffin, which the survivors of course later put the remains in. The military refers to the aluminum receptacle as a "transfer case," and the case is draped with an American flag.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney's office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. His forthcoming book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, is available on BuzzFlash.com. For more info, visit www.prosecutionofbush.com.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Kennedy Having Brain Surgery This Morning


God be With You, Senator Kennedy!


Senator Edward M. Kennedy is undergoing surgery for his malignant brain tumor at Duke University this morning, his office announced today.

The surgery was to begin about 9 a.m. and was expected to last approximately six hours.

In a statement released shortly before 6:30 a.m., Kennedy said he would be operated on by Dr. Allan Friedman at the Duke University Medical Center and expects to recuperate there for about a week.

In the weeks and months after the surgery, Kennedy will begin a regimen of radiation and chemotherapy at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, according to the statement.

Kennedy sailed in Hyannis Port Sunday morning, then flew to North Carolina with his wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, Sunday afternoon. He was admitted to the hospital after his arrival.

The surgery follows a meeting at Massachusetts General Hospital on Friday, during which cancer experts from around the country discussed his course of treatment. At that meeting, Kennedy's own doctors were joined by doctors from the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, as well as Friedman himself, according to a Kennedy intimate. At the end of the meeting, there was near unanimous agreement that he would have surgery at Duke, the confidant said.

The surgery comes as something of a surprise because, after the initial diagnosis was made nearly two weeks ago, Kennedy's doctors did not mention surgery as a treatment option. Rather, they limited their focus to radiation and chemotherapy, and later, Kennedy associates hinted that he would seek experimental drug treatments.


friedman.jpg

Dr. Allan Friedman


The surgery is considered the most aggressive approach he could take in addressing his malignant brain tumor.

Medical center officials would not confirm by mid-morning whether the surgery was under way or release any other information, said Lynn Garner, assistant to center spokesman Doug Stokke.

Dr. Friedman, neurosurgeon-in-Chief at Duke University Hospital, is a renowned tumor and vascular neurosurgeon, according to the university website. He is responsible for more than 90 percent of all tumor resections and biopsies conducted at Duke.

"Malignant brain tumors have ruined the lives of many healthy, vibrant members of our society. We are translating research into successful new treatments —the odds are in our favor for major achievement and long-term answers," Friedman says in a statement posted with his profile.

Kennedy, in a brief but upbeat statement, signaled that he would wait until all treatments were concluded before returning to Washington and the floor of the Senate. That return won't likely take place until September, after the Senate returns from its summer recess.

"After completing treatment, I look forward to returning to the United States Senate and to doing everything I can to help elect Barack Obama as our next president," he said in the statement.

Before leaving for North Carolina, Kennedy telephoned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, both to tell him of his plans and to highlight two significant pieces of legislation that Kennedy has in the works: higher education reauthorization and mental health parity, Kennedy aides said. The senator also called Senators Christopher Dodd and Barbara Mikulski to ask their help in shepherding the bills through their respective conference committees.

Kennedy is joined in North Carolina by his wife, his son Patrick, and his sister Jean.

US Representative William D. Delahunt, a colleague of Patrick's in the Congress and a long-time family friend, was buoyed by Kennedy's decision to try surgery.

"Obviously, my prayers are with him,'' the Quincy Democrat said in a telephone interview this morning. "The fact that it is operable is a sign of real hope.''

Delahunt said he was confident that Kennedy and especially his wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, completely researched the options before making the choice that they did.

"I think it is a positive sign in the sense that they feel the cancer can be removed and that the senator can go and continue to be the force that he is in terms of the political life of the country,'' he said.

"I know Vicki Kennedy. I know she has done her research in great depth. ... Clearly, it's a decision that I think was made after careful consideration and after consulting with the very best in the medical profession with a particular focus on tumors, malignant tumors," Delahunt said.

Kennedy's doctors revealed May 20 that he had been diagnosed with the tumor, saying tests had identified a cancerous mass on the top left portion of his brain as the cause of a seizure he had suffered three days before. His prognosis was seen as uncertain at best.

But a day after his diagnosis, Kennedy walked out of the hospital, days earlier than scheduled, greeting well-wishers outside his family compound on Cape Cod with a smile, a wave, and a thumbs-up -- and immediately went sailing on Nantucket Sound.

Kennedy, 76, first elected to the Senate in 1962 to the seat vacated by his brother, President John F. Kennedy, has sponsored more than 2,500 bills. A liberal icon, he has made a career of advocating for the less fortunate.

The Globe reported this morning that Kennedy had turned to one of his most trusted former aides, Dr. Lawrence C. Horowitz as he crafted his strategy to battle cancer and that Horowitz and the Kennedys were looking at Duke University Medical Center.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

W.H.: Devil made him do it!


Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Does anyone listen to the White House anymore, I mean other than for entertainment purposes?

May 29, 2008 - 10:04am


Defenders of George W. Bush have settled upon the most outlandish "best defense is a good offense" approach in response to former press secretary Scott McClellan's damning insider look at the propaganda machine he was a part of. Their responses , as a defense of the administration, are an exercise in distraction. However, it may not change the fact that exploiting the gullibility of a large portion of the American public always worked for them before.


They always do.


In "Rove Hits Back At McClellan: 'Sounds Like A Left-Wing Blogger'; Perino, Bartlett, Fleischer Pile On" Jason Linkins (Huffington Post HERE) is updating his column with quotes from the Bush minions dismissing the damning descriptions in McClellan's book and attacking the author. These attacks boil down to a suggestion that, a bit like the quiet serial killer who lived next door, he had a dark side nobody knew about because he seemed so ordinary and nice. Only in Scott's case it wasn't a compulsion to maim and dismember, it was disloyalty.

Loyalty is not a virtue. I wish people would stop thinking that it is. The Nazis were loyal, too.


We, the gullible public, are expected to ignore Scott's book because he broke the loyalty code?


There's also the unspoken implication that the Scott they know no longer exists because his mind has been either taken over by an alien being, he's been brainwashed by left wing bloggers, or perhaps he has had a late adult life onset delusional psychosis. One, Ron Christie (on MSNBC), a former Cheney deputy, even used the words "it's very crazy" and suggests he stayed in the administration so he could later peddle a book.


So McClellan is either mentally ill or greedy, or both.


Perhaps he has been taken over by the body snatchers


That all of this is the public relations equivalent of a military aircraft throwing out chaff to confuse enemy missiles. Air Force One presumably has this capacity.


Now with the American people as the jury judging the Bush administration, let's just see if they'll buy this "the Devil made him do it" defense.



Hal Brown has been a licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist since 1971. He often brings a psychological perspective to his columns.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Can It Get Any Worse For McCain?

Better believe it!

We are just getting started!


Top McCain Fundraiser, War Profiteer Sued Over Iraq Fuel Deal

MSNBC:

A little-noticed civil lawsuit in Florida is shining a light on an unusual but hugely profitable Pentagon contract to ship millions of gallons of aviation fuel to U.S. bases in Iraq through the kingdom of Jordan.

The deal involves a cast of influential characters, including the king of Jordan’s brother-in-law, who is suing Harry Sargeant III, a top Florida-based fundraiser for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid.

Al-Saleh alleges in the lawsuit that after he arranged the deal, he was cut out in a scheme meant to defraud him. He claims that he and Sargeant and the third partner, Mustafa Abu-Naba’a, a Jordanian businessman, had invested in IOTC Jordan in 2004. But, he says, Sargeant and Abu-Naba’a committed fraud by forming another company called IOTC USA in Florida without informing him and by channeling the Pentagon contracts through that firm. Al-Saleh is suing Sargeant, Abu Naba’a and the company for $13 million as his share of the profit from the 2005 contract, plus an unspecified amount of profit from the 2007 contract. Read on…


No wonder Senator McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, one of his top fundraisers is making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from it — and you can rest assured, Sargent isn’t the only war profiteer who keeps McCain neatly tucked in his back pocket.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

White House May Try To Block McClellan Testimony


This is all about "unitary executive," the "Imperial Presidency" or whatever one wishes to call it.

Scottie has already spilled the beans, he just hasn't done it under oath on the Hill, which is what they really don't want.


Who knows what the rules or the laws are anymore, since Caligula and Nero occupied the White House. It will, indeed, be interesting to see just how much intestinal fortitude McClellan has if confronted with "executive privilege."

Just how much does he really care about his country, now that he is out of the White House bubble?

Executive Privilege to Silence McClellan?

Congress may ask Scott McClellan to testify, but what will the effect of that testimony have on the Presidential race in the Fall? Of course, the White House, through Dana Perino, is making noises about preventing such testimony on the basis of “executive privilege.” Isn’t Scotty a private citizen now?

So is Harriet Myers, but they pulled that with her and she never even left Texas to honor a congressional subpoena


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds


It’s beginning to look like the attacks from commentators on FauxNews, from people still in the White House, from Rush and his dittoheads, from Karl Rove and Bob Dole. . . it’s beginning to look like these attacks are not going to be enough for the Republicans. The Democrats who run the House, including Reps. Conyers and Wexler, are talking of having Scott McClellan testify before the House about revelations in his book. The White House appears to have something to say about that. But first. . .


What good is Scott McClellan’s testimony going to be? If you really want to get to the bottom of the deception and criminality that has been the routine at the Bush White House, all the testimony in the world from Scott McClellan isn’t going to get you there. But does such testimony have value in relation to the election in November? Surely the Democrats would like the election to be a referendum on the Bush Administration, and hearings would write this story large, though if Scotty doesn’t testify to anything that isn’t in his book, it’s just a ramping up of what’s already out there. On the other side, the GOP attack machine is energized by this story like they haven’t been in the last several months. Is it wise to wake them up? I don’t have the answer to that. But I suppose I’d approach this based on how such hearings starring Scott McClellan would relate to the candidacies of Barack Obama and John McCain.


If the McClellan testimony focuses like a laser on the lead-up to the War in Iraq, and the ways in which the White House made the case through PR and what Scott McClellan calls the “permanent campaign,” then the hearings might just have a bearing on the Presidential race in the Fall. There’s nothing that separates Barack Obama and John McCain more than Obama being against the War in Iraq from its inception and John McCain carrying water for the Bushies on that same subject. Sure, there would be little in the way of testimony directly about John FlipFlopTalker McCain, but America is tired of this war. Still, I’m betting the wingers and independents who were fooled by Bush’s permanent campaigning about the War in Iraq are not likely to take kindly to being reminded that they were so duped. Yeah, I’m unsure whether this testimony would help or not.


Be that as it may, the testimony may not happen, as Dana Perino has left open the door that the White House may bar such testimony on the grounds of Executive Privelege, even though they vetted McClellan’s book on such grounds already. From ThinkProgress (they’ve got video goodness, as usual):


QUESTION: Could the White House block him from testifying, if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?

PERINO: Conceivably?

QUESTION: Yes.

PERINO: Hypothetically, which I’m not supposed to answer a hypothetical, yes, I think so. The law would allow for that. But by saying that, I’m not suggesting that that’s what would happen or not happen.


I think this is a riot. The White House has already vetted the book on the topic of executive privilege, according to quotes from Perino in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:


Perino also said White House lawyers routinely had reviewed the book before publication “for any possible classified information or any needs for executive privilege to be asserted.”

“None of them were in this case,” she said, adding, “So we’ve known for a little bit of time that this was coming.”


So it looks like they’ll assert executive privilege just to get this thing off the news. After all, they’ve already vetted everything in McClellan’s book, so what else is there to assert that is “executive privilege.” This seems a whiny excuse to get the whole thing out of the news to me.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Latest: DNC Rules Committee


The Democrats can either come out of this and the convention united or risk 4 more years of McBush. As an independent, I would consider that highly irresponsible of the democratic party and one more reason to tear the big two down, if the Clinton's don't do it for us.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Florida and Michigan Democrats tried to make their case to a national party rules committee Saturday to seat their delegates at the party convention in August.

art.dnc.pool.jpg

Members of the Democrats' rules committee discuss the delegate issue Saturday.

Although Florida's representatives appeared to be close to a compromise, Michigan's seemed to be far apart.

After meeting for about five hours, the hearing broke for lunch. The audience of 500 people and those out in hallways appeared to grow more boisterous as the hearing went on, cheering and booing speakers.

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee is hearing the two states' appeals on its decision to strip all of their delegates because they moved their primary contests earlier on the calendar.

Lawyers for the committee advised in a memo CNN obtained this week that the committee's rules call for 50 percent of the delegations to be seated.

Seating all of the states' delegates is not on the table, the committee Co-chairwoman Alexis Herman said in her opening remarks.

"We had many states that wanted to violate the timing. We needed to send a very strong signal in order to prevent additional states from moving forward," Herman said.

Supporters of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama disagree over how best to handle the situation.

Both Democratic presidential hopefuls have both said they want the Florida and Michigan delegates to attend the convention. CNN.com/Live is carrying the meeting in its entirety.

Clinton's campaign is calling for the results of the states' primaries to be honored and the delegates awarded based on the results. That approach would help her chip away at Obama's lead in pledged delegates because she handily won both states and would be awarded a greater share of the delegates.

Obama's campaign disagrees, saying he followed the rules, took his name off of the Michigan ballot and did not campaign in either state. Video See what the fuss is all about »

The chairman of Michigan's Democratic Party called on the committee to seat Michigan's delegation in full, with full voting rights, and divide the pledged delegates between Clinton and Obama, 69-59.

In Michigan, Clinton got 55 percent of the vote, and 40 percent of Democrats voted for an uncommitted slate.

Mark Brewer admitted under questioning from the panel that the party had not followed any set guidelines in determining the split but had reached this compromise because "we have to do something in this situation; we can't do nothing. I wish there were more, I wish it were better, but it's all we have."

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, meanwhile, used his time before the committee to attack New Hampshire's "privileged position" as the traditional first-in-the-nation presidential primary -- and the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself for ultimately granting that state a waiver that allowed it to maintain that status, despite a party plan designed to address complaints from other areas of the country.

Levin argued that Michigan had accepted the ruling that it would not be one of the four states allowed to hold its primary in January -- objecting only when New Hampshire, which was not included in that group, was granted a waiver.

The dispute over the seating of Michigan's delegates is a thornier dispute than the dilemma over Florida's delegation. Clinton was the only major candidate who did not remove her name from Michigan's primary ballot after the committee's decision last summer.

Earlier, Florida Democrats conceded in their opening remarks that a party penalty for holding their primary was unavoidable but pleaded with Democratic leaders to seat half their state's delegates at the summer convention.

"We recognize, in fact, that Florida has violated that timing rule," said Florida Democratic National Committee member Jon Ausman, who had challenged the original penalty, and he said a punishment of some kind was "appropriate."

But he said Florida's superdelegates did not need to face a similar reduction under party rules.

Dozens of sign-toting, chanting protesters gathered outside the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, the site of Saturday's events, to have their say on what the decision should be.

Some of the signs read "Count our Florida votes" and "Rules, what rules?"

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws panel met behind closed doors for five hours Friday night, emerging at 1:30 a.m. Saturday without an agreement.

"It was a full discussion," said Harold Ickes, a committee member from the District of Columbia who supports Clinton. "I think there was some agreement on some issues and still some disagreements on others."

With no Michigan or Florida delegates included, Obama leads Clinton by 202 delegates. He needs 42 more to clinch the nomination.

"Right now, what we have to do is to figure our way through all of this, and I believe we will," said Allan Katz, a rules member from Florida who supports Obama. "And I believe we will come up with something [Saturday]. There will probably be a little sort of tussling, but we are Democrats." Follow a timeline of the dispute »

The rules committee will address two main issues at the hearing: how many delegates each state is allowed and how those delegates will be allocated between the two candidates. Video Watch who will really decide the nomination »

"How do you recognize the people who didn't vote, and how do you recognize the people that did vote, and how do we at the same time maintain the integrity of the process?" asked Martha Fuller Clark, a Rules Committee member from New Hampshire and an Obama supporter. "And there are no easy answers."

James Roosevelt Jr., the Rules committee co-chairman from Massachusetts, described the overnight meeting as "spirited, because people on this committee have a strong feeling about the rules and about the importance of them." But he added, "It was not unpleasant or heated."

Roosevelt also predicted a resolution will be reached but said there would be dissenting votes.

"I can't predict that it will be unanimous," he said. "I do think that it will be unifying for the party."

In a letter to the co-chairs of the rules committee, Clinton lawyer Lyn Utrecht said Friday that the panel is compelled to seat both delegations from Florida and Michigan fully and not award Obama any delegates from Michigan.

"It is a bedrock principle of our party that every vote must be counted, and thereby every elected delegate should be seated," Utrecht wrote.

advertisement

The letter said party rules do not allow "arbitrary reallocation of uncommitted delegates to a candidate or arbitrary reallocation of delegates from one candidate to another." Read the full letter (pdf)

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told The Associated Press that receiving no pledged delegates from Michigan is not acceptable and said, "I don't think is a position that people find terribly reasonable."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Protesting Illegal War Is Legal.

Maine Jury Says It's Legal To Protest An Illegal War


A rare bit of good news for the anti-war movement goes largely ignored by the media.

(Surprised it was noticed by the MSM at all. They certainly go out of their way not to o cover all those legal protests)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Can We Keep The Preachers Out Of This?

I doubt it seriously. Thanks to You-tube, they are all getting their 15 or more minutes of fame or infamy as it were.

Funny about the end-timers who cannot shut-the-hell-up, because they are making big bucks promising rapture for the good and tribulation for all of the rest of us, whom they hate and want to see suffer as much as possible. What I can't figure out is how they expect to be taken seriously about the end coming soon, when they are stock piling cash faster than Bonnie and Clyde on a good day. Didn't Jesus say that it was easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than for a wealthy man to get into the Kingdom of God?


I'll start taking preachers like Hagee seriously when they give all they own to the poor, take up their cross and really follow the one they claim as their leader. As it stands, they don't seem even know him at all.

by Stephen Day


I lost my father a year-and-a-half ago at the ripe old age of 84. Although, as an aside, there’s no age that’s “ripe” enough when it’s your own father, is there?


For a good portion of his life, Dad was an active minister in the United Church of Christ. Eventually he grew weary of church politics, went back to school for his doctorate and became a sociology professor (where he then, of course, had to put up with academic politics, but that’s a different story). During the last 40 plus years of his life, while he remained an ordained minister and would on occasion fill in on a Sunday, he was never again a church pastor.


So I was a bit surprised when, during his final illness, it became obvious to me that while he was certainly proud of his years spent teaching, at the end of the day he considered himself first and foremost a minister of the United Church of Christ.


It was part of his essence.


And I’m pretty sure I know what Dad’s response would have been, were he still here, to the words of Jeremiah Wright and, per the latest dustup, Father Michael Pfleger: he would have dismissed the whole issue as stupid and insisted that what they say at the pulpit is between them and their congregations and denominations.


Simply put: it’s nobody else’s damn business.


And, no, Dad, though liberal, never said anything nearly as controversial as the now famous words of Rev. Wright or the increasingly famous words of Father Pfleger: his was a subtler approach.


He did, however, occasionally say things capable of causing a stir. One time, in the middle 1960s, for example, he offered a very mild comment on the Vietnam War during a sermon, causing our next door neighbor to storm out of the church in protest (they remained on friendly terms afterwards).


But most of the arguably controversial things — and there weren’t that many of them — Dad said from the pulpit were Scriptural in origin. The Christian faith, after all, has some fairly revolutionary beliefs — things right wing Bible-thumpers often try to ignore (although some are now doing better). Things, for example, having to do with the duty the materially comfortable owe to the poor.


There is very little in our current “greed is good” culture, after all, that can easily be squared with the teachings of Jesus Christ, whatever Rolex wearing televangelists may from time to time claim.


So speaking as a PK (preacher’s kid), let me let you in on a little secret. Getting under people’s skin — sometimes even saying “outrageous” things — is part of a minister’s job. Sermons are supposed to get people thinking, shake them up a little. They can be freewheeling, filled with spontaneous expression. On occasion they can even be over the top and offensive. The idea, of course, is to shake us out of our complacency.


Political correctness and preaching have very little in common.


Father Pfleger’s words about Hillary Clinton, to my ear at least, were, in fact, unfortunate and even offensive. But they were made during a religious service as part of a pastor’s attempt to make a point, whether we agree with it or not, about white attitudes of entitlement. It was not a stump speech made as part of a political campaign.


Pfleger himself is politically active, at least in the sense of being a community activist (where he has done many good things), but at the time he made the statements at issue he was preaching as a clergyman. If he went over the line in the small portion of his sermon that’s currently swimming across the Internet, that’s an issue between him and the congregation.


It’s a somewhat different story, of course, when a preacher, such as Rev. John Hagee, intentionally injects his faith into the political process by arguing that his religious visions or traditions should become the template for American political life. Where that’s true, those visions and traditions become fair game. But even then I wonder if we haven’t gone too far in the direction of flyspecking old sermons looking for something to use against a candidate associated with the pastor in question.


This is a road that will lead nowhere but to grief for both religion and public discourse in this nation. It needs to stop now.


Agreed, but it won't!

THE LAST CHANCE DEMOCRACY CAFE


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.