by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
The rising price of gasoline is more than just a political talking point. For most Americans, the pain at the pump is a tragic reality that interferes with daily life. In a move that appeared to address the gas crisis, a candidate from each major political party recently supported a proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax during the summer months, as a Gas Tax Holiday. The lackluster support in Congress for such an idea made this a perfect storm for election year hype: a cheap campaign promise that the candidate has no obligation to fulfill.
Unfortunately, the suspension of this gas tax doesn’t even represent a Band-Aid solution to the existing crisis. The average American wouldn’t be able to fill a single tank with the savings generated during the “holiday”. In fact, the perception of a gas price relief might drive consumption rates higher as drivers see the opportunity to travel or make otherwise unnecessary trips, thereby increasing expense.
The gas tax also represents a source of important revenue to public services and infrastructure. Americans would be forced to choose between safe roads and bridges and other tax alternatives to make up the difference if the gas tax were suspended. Last year’s bridge collapse was a wake-up call to the consequence of ignoring the maintenance of our roads and highways.
There is also the possibility, as was widely reported, that the tax savings would not be passed on to the consumer, further lining the pockets of the oil industry profit-takers. With Exxon-Mobil recently posting another record quarter of profits, this is a legitimate concern. Oil industry corporations are certainly obligated by their charters to benefit their shareholders at the expense of the consumer.
Some fiscal conservatives would point to government regulation as the core problem contributing to the high price of gas. According to these small-government proponents, refinery regulations, intended to address the ecological damage caused by our dependence on petroleum, contribute more to the ballooning price of fuel than does corporate greed. In fact, relaxing government regulation of the oil industry would probably do little to relieve rising prices, as it’s doubtful that corporations would feel committed to passing these savings on to the consumer. An oil industry unfettered by government control would worsen global environmental crises, control already strained fuel supplies and drive up prices. Big Oil’s internal memos circulated in the mid- to late-1990s admit to a strategy of shutting down their own refineries (not government limiting of refining) in order to slow supply of gasoline and to grow profit margins.
But Big Oil is only a part of the problem. One must factor into the equation the high per-barrel price of oil. The United States’ relationship with OPEC nations has done little to offer hope of using influence to increase supply and drive down crude prices. Bush’s recent meeting with the Saudis, who have a history of ties to the Bush dynasty, was fruitless at bringing about any meaningful change. Add to the reluctance of OPEC to comply with U.S. wishes, the unrest in the region that our aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan has wrought, and it is clear that our foreign policy has done far more to contribute to the current crisis than to address it.
The plain fact is that our addiction to petroleum coupled with the dwindling supply of oil worldwide is nearing a point of collapse. It is impossible to sustain the current balance of supply and demand of oil. So much of our supply of food, goods and service is contingent on a ready supply of oil. Even when you get past the pumps, you can see the impact in rising prices at the grocery or department store.
Peak oil is the point at which oil production is not sustainable because the maximum rate of production has been reached and the point at which this rate begins its terminal decline. There is debate over whether we have, globally, already reached peak oil or if we are just near peak production. The dramatic rise in oil prices may be the result of market speculation or an indicator that peak oil has been reached. Regardless, our hunger for oil, especially in the nation responsible for the greatest consumption of oil resources, has brought us to an undeniable crisis. It is as plain as the faces and shaking heads of those we see at our local Citgo or Sunoco stations.
In my economic state, I can ill afford these rising prices – certainly, I can afford it less than many. However, the rising gas prices do have some potential positive effects. Even among the wealthy, the cost of a fill-up has taken some of the fun out of driving obnoxiously inefficient SUVs or Hummers. Higher prices have already spurred some shift to public transportation where it is available, and indicators are that a curbing of unnecessary travel has already begun. A noticeable drop in demand for oil will send a message to oil companies and OPEC that the market will not continue to bear the price. The painful shock to the pocketbook will also eventually stir the citizenry out of apathy. I have long thought that the price of gas was a catalyst and call to action of revolutionary proportions.
Frustration may be enough to engage Americans to consider their consumption of resources and carbon footprints. It may prompt calls for fuel-efficient vehicles from an auto industry that has the technology but not the will to provide cars and trucks with dramatically higher mileage ratings. Increased support of viable alternatives to petroleum may spring from economic hardship. U.S. citizens might grasp the futility of our intervention in the Middle East and its failure to “protect our interests” or control oil supplies. Whatever the impact, real change won’t come from rolling back the per-gallon tax, but from a transformation of our tolerance of the situation.
Though the federal gas tax holiday gathered little steam, the New York State Senate seized the opportunity to jump on the political bandwagon by passing a gas tax relief at the state level. While the Governor and State Assembly leaders oppose the bill, there is increasing pressure from State Senators in favor of the measure. We need to send a message to our legislators that we want a real solution to rising gasoline prices, not political gimmickry.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
High Gasoline Prices Highlight the Need for New Energy Policy
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
There is a scene in the Frankenstein movie where the village residents, bearing torches and pitchforks, head out in pursuit of the fearsome monster. It seems that the promise of this “New and Improved!” form of life turned out to be a threat. The moral of that particular story is the classic warning that when we tinker with nature, we may not always like what we create.
Today we have a presidential candidate trying to inspire the electorate to grab the pitchforks and light the torches once again. This time we are going to storm the strongholds of that hairy monster called BIG OIL. According to the proposed tax holiday, this campaigner will bring the hairy monster to its knees by repealing the 18-cent per gallon federal excise tax. We also have a vote-hungry New York State Legislature proposing a similar repeal of the state excise. These temporary measures are supposed to miraculously rid our landscape of high gasoline prices and teach that monster exactly how much profit it should make for bringing this vital commodity to our fueling stations each day.
This proposal scares me more than the hairy monster does for several reasons. First of all, let us discuss how this monster was created in the first place.
To trace the origin of BIG OIL, we need to go back to the year of 1999, when our present campaigner slept in the White House while her husband’s administration gleefully approved the merger of Exxon and Mobil. This seemingly innocuous combination of two companies started a rash of mergers that, over the next decade, resulted in the number of major oil companies falling from 43 separate and competitive entities into less than 14 companies with no more than five major companies controlling the lion’s share of oil revenues.
At the time of that merger, gasoline was priced at $2.05 a gallon and oil was $12.37 a barrel. It is easy to see with hindsight that this merger was not in our best interest and the Federal Trade Commission was obviously sleeping on the job as well.
But today the monster is here and we must learn how to live with him. We cannot rout him from the tower with a minor manipulation of the gas tax. We can not placate him with less demand for his product. According to the latest figures from the first quarter of this year, fuel demand is down over 1.4% from the same quarter of last year. Yet the prices continue to rise and the monster seems to be hungrier.
Another reason why I oppose this Band-Aid approach to economic crises is because it is clearly political pandering and, as such, it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of my fellow citizens.
It would also serve to cloud the real issues by forestalling true energy policy reform.
In order to tame this monster, we need to reaffirm our commitment to the American people and the American economy. We need to realize that sound energy policy is necessary not only to calm the effects of Gasoline Pump Anxiety Syndrome (GAS PAS), but it is also necessary for national security reasons. As long as we continue to harass this monster by imposing a host of unnecessary restrictions and limiting domestic production and exploration, we will always be at the mercy of this monster and the foreign producers.
We should also examine ways to partner with friendly producers such as Canada, who, by the way, happens to be our number one supplier, and Mexico, who ranks as our third highest supplier. These two nations are already partnered with us in NAFTA and with further encouragement and cooperation with our research and development capability could easily compete with OPEC producers.
We have to take a sane and logical look at exploiting the tremendous reserves in the deposits of oil sands in Alberta as well as pressuring the Mexican government to revert the control of PEMEX (the government-controlled oil producer) back to private ownership.
The GAS PAS will not be relieved by temporary patches, nor will it be resolved by chasing big, bad monsters with pitchforks and torches. It demands honest appraisals of what created this monster, and logical solutions.
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
There is a scene in the Frankenstein movie where the village residents, bearing torches and pitchforks, head out in pursuit of the fearsome monster. It seems that the promise of this “New and Improved!” form of life turned out to be a threat. The moral of that particular story is the classic warning that when we tinker with nature, we may not always like what we create.
Today we have a presidential candidate trying to inspire the electorate to grab the pitchforks and light the torches once again. This time we are going to storm the strongholds of that hairy monster called BIG OIL. According to the proposed tax holiday, this campaigner will bring the hairy monster to its knees by repealing the 18-cent per gallon federal excise tax. We also have a vote-hungry New York State Legislature proposing a similar repeal of the state excise. These temporary measures are supposed to miraculously rid our landscape of high gasoline prices and teach that monster exactly how much profit it should make for bringing this vital commodity to our fueling stations each day.
This proposal scares me more than the hairy monster does for several reasons. First of all, let us discuss how this monster was created in the first place.
To trace the origin of BIG OIL, we need to go back to the year of 1999, when our present campaigner slept in the White House while her husband’s administration gleefully approved the merger of Exxon and Mobil. This seemingly innocuous combination of two companies started a rash of mergers that, over the next decade, resulted in the number of major oil companies falling from 43 separate and competitive entities into less than 14 companies with no more than five major companies controlling the lion’s share of oil revenues.
At the time of that merger, gasoline was priced at $2.05 a gallon and oil was $12.37 a barrel. It is easy to see with hindsight that this merger was not in our best interest and the Federal Trade Commission was obviously sleeping on the job as well.
But today the monster is here and we must learn how to live with him. We cannot rout him from the tower with a minor manipulation of the gas tax. We can not placate him with less demand for his product. According to the latest figures from the first quarter of this year, fuel demand is down over 1.4% from the same quarter of last year. Yet the prices continue to rise and the monster seems to be hungrier.
Another reason why I oppose this Band-Aid approach to economic crises is because it is clearly political pandering and, as such, it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of my fellow citizens.
It would also serve to cloud the real issues by forestalling true energy policy reform.
In order to tame this monster, we need to reaffirm our commitment to the American people and the American economy. We need to realize that sound energy policy is necessary not only to calm the effects of Gasoline Pump Anxiety Syndrome (GAS PAS), but it is also necessary for national security reasons. As long as we continue to harass this monster by imposing a host of unnecessary restrictions and limiting domestic production and exploration, we will always be at the mercy of this monster and the foreign producers.
We should also examine ways to partner with friendly producers such as Canada, who, by the way, happens to be our number one supplier, and Mexico, who ranks as our third highest supplier. These two nations are already partnered with us in NAFTA and with further encouragement and cooperation with our research and development capability could easily compete with OPEC producers.
We have to take a sane and logical look at exploiting the tremendous reserves in the deposits of oil sands in Alberta as well as pressuring the Mexican government to revert the control of PEMEX (the government-controlled oil producer) back to private ownership.
The GAS PAS will not be relieved by temporary patches, nor will it be resolved by chasing big, bad monsters with pitchforks and torches. It demands honest appraisals of what created this monster, and logical solutions.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Is Intelligence being Expelled from our classrooms?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 9, 2008
Because my hectic schedule has not allowed me the time to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I can not and will not comment directly upon the film itself. However, I can and will respond to some questions raised by my fellow columnist in his review of the film and its thesis.
According to my brother’s column, he expected “a dialogue about the alternate theory of creation that ID (Intelligent Design) presents.”
It is my intent here to open such dialogue and I invite all interested parties to respond, as long as we all agree to follow the rules of decency and to refrain from making broad, unsubstantiated statements.
To begin with, I must admit that I have more than a passing interest in this topic. Some of you may not know that one of my many obligations is that of substitute teacher for the Earth Science classes at Twin Tiers Christian Academy in Breesport. As a consequence of that obligation, I have just recently spent several weeks of my life preparing and teaching lessons about the Geologic Ages and the Evolution of Life according to the curriculum mandated by the New York State Board of Regents. I taught the students how to follow the guidelines of determining a rock’s age by the index fossils contained therein and also how to correlate the age of the fossils by the rock strata that contained them. I taught the students that, according to their book and for the purpose of answering the questions on the exam, their lives, thoughts, dreams and very souls were the result of a long progression of chance mutations and natural selection. I taught them that the first living things resulted from a chance lightning strike upon a primordial, chemical soup; and that these primitive living things somehow mutated into photosynthetic organisms. I then taught them, that according to their textbook (Brief Review for New York Earth Science – The Physical Setting, pg. 260) these organisms used Carbon Dioxide and released free Oxygen in enough amounts to alter the atmosphere of the earth.
I proceeded to teach them all the information in the remainder of that chapter, but then I challenged them to think a little deeper. Because this particular school allows the teachers and students the privilege of academic freedom, I was able to open another door and to allow these students to peek into another room of thought. I was able to expose my students to the idea that neither Evolutionary Theory nor Intelligent Design Theory should be considered as settled scientific fact, because both are dealing with the subject of ORIGINS – of the universe and of life itself – and neither could be open for refutation by experimentation and observation (which is the criteria for true scientific methodology).
I was able to teach them that both theories should be treated as Scientific Models, which could then be designated as credible or legitimate through the agency of prediction and analysis of those predictions.
If the Evolutionary Model is correct, then certain predictions could be matched with known (irrefutable) laws and facts. If, however, the Intelligent Design Model is correct, then it too could be matched with known facts.
I believe that this method of teaching served my students best, as I believe it is more important to produce critical thinkers than it is to produce robotic test takers.
Now, concerning the two models, let me briefly outline the two conflicting theories, realizing that the word count and space limitations preclude me from explaining them in great detail.
Intelligent Design Theory postulates that an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material or unguided chemical cause can best explain the qualities we see as we make advances in scientific discoveries (cell structure, DNA, microscopic features of single–cell organisms, etc). According to this ID model, one would predict that we would find complexity and purposeful design in every life form, from the ‘simplest’ to the most complex. In other words, we would predict that the feathered falcon that flies above our forests would be as complex and purposely designed as the Falcon fighter jet produced for our U.S. Military. Until we can intelligently design a plane to reproduce itself, I would posit that the feathered design is far superior.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will restrict my definition of Darwinian Evolution to the following: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. Change is the result of material causes, driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.
Regarding the introduction of Intelligence into the classroom as a possible cause for all life, I think it is more than ironic that we seek out intelligence or design in many other scientific endeavors without fear. For example, the Search for Extra–Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program has spent over 40 years and millions of dollars scanning the radio waves from space to determine if there is any sign of intelligent life out there. The criteria for that intelligence would be the detection of a repeating pattern that is not random. We also seek design and intelligence when we conduct forensic examinations of dead bodies to determine a murderous agency (something other than natural causes); archeologists seek out design and purpose when exploring digs to determine intelligent life forms. Why then can we not teach our students to examine the fossil evidence and cell biology for signs of intelligence? What are we afraid of?
From Broader View Weekly, May 9, 2008
Because my hectic schedule has not allowed me the time to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I can not and will not comment directly upon the film itself. However, I can and will respond to some questions raised by my fellow columnist in his review of the film and its thesis.
According to my brother’s column, he expected “a dialogue about the alternate theory of creation that ID (Intelligent Design) presents.”
It is my intent here to open such dialogue and I invite all interested parties to respond, as long as we all agree to follow the rules of decency and to refrain from making broad, unsubstantiated statements.
To begin with, I must admit that I have more than a passing interest in this topic. Some of you may not know that one of my many obligations is that of substitute teacher for the Earth Science classes at Twin Tiers Christian Academy in Breesport. As a consequence of that obligation, I have just recently spent several weeks of my life preparing and teaching lessons about the Geologic Ages and the Evolution of Life according to the curriculum mandated by the New York State Board of Regents. I taught the students how to follow the guidelines of determining a rock’s age by the index fossils contained therein and also how to correlate the age of the fossils by the rock strata that contained them. I taught the students that, according to their book and for the purpose of answering the questions on the exam, their lives, thoughts, dreams and very souls were the result of a long progression of chance mutations and natural selection. I taught them that the first living things resulted from a chance lightning strike upon a primordial, chemical soup; and that these primitive living things somehow mutated into photosynthetic organisms. I then taught them, that according to their textbook (Brief Review for New York Earth Science – The Physical Setting, pg. 260) these organisms used Carbon Dioxide and released free Oxygen in enough amounts to alter the atmosphere of the earth.
I proceeded to teach them all the information in the remainder of that chapter, but then I challenged them to think a little deeper. Because this particular school allows the teachers and students the privilege of academic freedom, I was able to open another door and to allow these students to peek into another room of thought. I was able to expose my students to the idea that neither Evolutionary Theory nor Intelligent Design Theory should be considered as settled scientific fact, because both are dealing with the subject of ORIGINS – of the universe and of life itself – and neither could be open for refutation by experimentation and observation (which is the criteria for true scientific methodology).
I was able to teach them that both theories should be treated as Scientific Models, which could then be designated as credible or legitimate through the agency of prediction and analysis of those predictions.
If the Evolutionary Model is correct, then certain predictions could be matched with known (irrefutable) laws and facts. If, however, the Intelligent Design Model is correct, then it too could be matched with known facts.
I believe that this method of teaching served my students best, as I believe it is more important to produce critical thinkers than it is to produce robotic test takers.
Now, concerning the two models, let me briefly outline the two conflicting theories, realizing that the word count and space limitations preclude me from explaining them in great detail.
Intelligent Design Theory postulates that an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material or unguided chemical cause can best explain the qualities we see as we make advances in scientific discoveries (cell structure, DNA, microscopic features of single–cell organisms, etc). According to this ID model, one would predict that we would find complexity and purposeful design in every life form, from the ‘simplest’ to the most complex. In other words, we would predict that the feathered falcon that flies above our forests would be as complex and purposely designed as the Falcon fighter jet produced for our U.S. Military. Until we can intelligently design a plane to reproduce itself, I would posit that the feathered design is far superior.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will restrict my definition of Darwinian Evolution to the following: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. Change is the result of material causes, driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.
Regarding the introduction of Intelligence into the classroom as a possible cause for all life, I think it is more than ironic that we seek out intelligence or design in many other scientific endeavors without fear. For example, the Search for Extra–Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program has spent over 40 years and millions of dollars scanning the radio waves from space to determine if there is any sign of intelligent life out there. The criteria for that intelligence would be the detection of a repeating pattern that is not random. We also seek design and intelligence when we conduct forensic examinations of dead bodies to determine a murderous agency (something other than natural causes); archeologists seek out design and purpose when exploring digs to determine intelligent life forms. Why then can we not teach our students to examine the fossil evidence and cell biology for signs of intelligence? What are we afraid of?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ben Stein's New Documentary on Intelligent Design
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 2, 2008
This past week I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein’s new documentary, which argues that discussion of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is being systemically forbidden by the scientific community. Judging from the praise the movie had received from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, and religious organizations like Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), I had presumed the film would be another tool used to scare folks, predominately conservative Christians, that religious freedom was once again under attack by science and academia. In that sense, I wasn’t disappointed.
Much is said by those interviewed in the movie about the desire to simply have a dialog about the alternate theory of creation that ID presents. I would welcome this kind of discussion, and one might actually believe this to be the motivation of the filmmakers if it weren’t for the repeated imagery of the Berlin wall; the ominous warnings about the loss of freedom; the assertion that Darwinism is the precursor to Nazism; or the vilification of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. It is clear that it is the scientific community that is under attack here.
The cinematic mastery of the documentary is powerful and emotionally moving, especially the tour of a Nazi asylum and the Dachau concentration camp. It is indisputable that atrocities were committed in Nazi Germany, and the viewer is right to be disgusted by the eugenic destruction of the handicapped or the persecution of millions in the concentration camps. The argument that the scientific theory of evolution is the root of Hitler’s rise and is indicative of the decline of modern “indoctrinated” society is nonsense.
The problem is that with the film’s emotional pull and entertaining black and white clips, there is little substance to be found to back up the far-fetched claims of conspiracy. A few disgruntled individuals assert that promotions or funding were denied, or that they lost their jobs, or that pressure was brought to bear simply because they had dared to mention the words “Intelligent Design.” As proof of the conspiracy, the filmmakers extract, from the powers that be, statements that any actions taken had nothing to do with the issue of intelligent design. It is hard to imagine how that helps to make the case.
The movie also makes a laughable attempt at claiming that Intelligent Design has little to do with religion. In fact, the Discovery Institute and other advocates of ID seek to use a seemingly scientific theory to promote biblical creationism and inject it into education and academia. Anyone who doubts this need only look to Answers in Genesis, which skews its scientific theories to support a young earth and a six-day creation period of the universe that flies in the face of the theory of ID. Yet this organization touts the movie on its website, and it and other conservative Christian groups urge Christians to go see it. The motivation appears to be to use ID as a wedge to force biblical theories into the classroom and springboard creationism and Judeo-Christian dogma into the schools.
Where Expelled fails most miserably, in my opinion, is not offering any real discussion of the theory of ID itself. The film criticizes the media for giving short shrift to Intelligent Design, then never really expands the explanation of the theory in any meaningful way. The audience leaves the theater as confused as ever about what ID really is. A great deal of the movie is spent pointing out the admitted gaps in the Darwinian theory of evolution but does little to explain how its own theory solves those questions. Darwin doesn’t satisfy my curiosity in these areas but this film doesn’t even try. Instead, it rakes over the coals the most controversial and least influential author on the subject, the inflammatory Richard Dawkins, and attempts to poke new holes in evolution. I was not impressed.
If you are looking for a reason to believe your spirituality or religion are under attack by the secular demons of academia, by all means plunk down your seven dollars and catch this movie. If you are looking for intelligent discourse on intelligent design, talk to a biology professor.
From Broader View Weekly, May 2, 2008
This past week I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein’s new documentary, which argues that discussion of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is being systemically forbidden by the scientific community. Judging from the praise the movie had received from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, and religious organizations like Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), I had presumed the film would be another tool used to scare folks, predominately conservative Christians, that religious freedom was once again under attack by science and academia. In that sense, I wasn’t disappointed.
Much is said by those interviewed in the movie about the desire to simply have a dialog about the alternate theory of creation that ID presents. I would welcome this kind of discussion, and one might actually believe this to be the motivation of the filmmakers if it weren’t for the repeated imagery of the Berlin wall; the ominous warnings about the loss of freedom; the assertion that Darwinism is the precursor to Nazism; or the vilification of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. It is clear that it is the scientific community that is under attack here.
The cinematic mastery of the documentary is powerful and emotionally moving, especially the tour of a Nazi asylum and the Dachau concentration camp. It is indisputable that atrocities were committed in Nazi Germany, and the viewer is right to be disgusted by the eugenic destruction of the handicapped or the persecution of millions in the concentration camps. The argument that the scientific theory of evolution is the root of Hitler’s rise and is indicative of the decline of modern “indoctrinated” society is nonsense.
The problem is that with the film’s emotional pull and entertaining black and white clips, there is little substance to be found to back up the far-fetched claims of conspiracy. A few disgruntled individuals assert that promotions or funding were denied, or that they lost their jobs, or that pressure was brought to bear simply because they had dared to mention the words “Intelligent Design.” As proof of the conspiracy, the filmmakers extract, from the powers that be, statements that any actions taken had nothing to do with the issue of intelligent design. It is hard to imagine how that helps to make the case.
The movie also makes a laughable attempt at claiming that Intelligent Design has little to do with religion. In fact, the Discovery Institute and other advocates of ID seek to use a seemingly scientific theory to promote biblical creationism and inject it into education and academia. Anyone who doubts this need only look to Answers in Genesis, which skews its scientific theories to support a young earth and a six-day creation period of the universe that flies in the face of the theory of ID. Yet this organization touts the movie on its website, and it and other conservative Christian groups urge Christians to go see it. The motivation appears to be to use ID as a wedge to force biblical theories into the classroom and springboard creationism and Judeo-Christian dogma into the schools.
Where Expelled fails most miserably, in my opinion, is not offering any real discussion of the theory of ID itself. The film criticizes the media for giving short shrift to Intelligent Design, then never really expands the explanation of the theory in any meaningful way. The audience leaves the theater as confused as ever about what ID really is. A great deal of the movie is spent pointing out the admitted gaps in the Darwinian theory of evolution but does little to explain how its own theory solves those questions. Darwin doesn’t satisfy my curiosity in these areas but this film doesn’t even try. Instead, it rakes over the coals the most controversial and least influential author on the subject, the inflammatory Richard Dawkins, and attempts to poke new holes in evolution. I was not impressed.
If you are looking for a reason to believe your spirituality or religion are under attack by the secular demons of academia, by all means plunk down your seven dollars and catch this movie. If you are looking for intelligent discourse on intelligent design, talk to a biology professor.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Prejudice at the Forefront
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
Thankfully, the current election year has brought the issue of racism to the public forefront. It is easy for complacency to set in as we look at our progressive social construct with all its diversity. As this year’s presidential contest becomes more and more about race we are reminded that racial hatred, and more importantly, widespread prejudice is alive and thriving even in the 21st Century.
One need only observe the frequency with which Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein is bandied about as an effective scare tactic by those who would make the entire Arab world our enemy or equate Islam with evil.
Recent polls among primary and caucus goers found many who claim they would never vote for a black man for president. Others said the same about voting for a woman. Despite years of struggle for civil rights and suffrage, such gender and racial prejudice still grips many and remains an issue that should grab our attention if we seek to overcome our sins of the past.
That struggle for freedom from the oppression of racial hatred compelled Obama’s minister to make the comments that continue to haunt the senator’s campaign. His words came from a frustration that Pat Robertson never knew. His perspective is much different than is Geraldine Ferraro’s. Reverend Wright comes from a place closer to Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who voiced similar criticisms of the government of the United States in the tumults of the sixties. Still, the criticism of Wright contrasts the reverence of King.
In fact, the most inflammatory comment of Wright’s rantings was a condemnation of America not unlike the one Reverend Jerry Falwell attributed to God when he asserted that 9/11 was the punishment for the horrible sin of tolerance.
The good news during this election cycle is that a woman and a black man have gotten so far amid the lingering tangles of racism and sexism. 2008 could be a turning point in our history when we embrace our commonalities and begin to ignore our differences.
2008 should be the year we stop persecuting individuals for their sexual preferences and treat them like fellow humans with the same rights to the pursuit of happiness the Constitution affords the rest of Americans.
2008 should be the year we begin the journey to healthcare and education for all regardless of race, ethnicity or station.
2008 should be the year we address the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, instead of perpetuating the current policy of class warfare.
2008 should be the year we stop using religion as a weapon and honor the spirit of religious freedom the Constitution’s framers sought.
We must stop crying “reverse racism” and mourning the plight of people like Don Imus whose consequences suit their actions. White America is not being perpetually punished for the sins of slave owners or the racial oppression of the Deep South. But, we cannot try to ignore that those dark stains are indelible on our history. We must move on toward the progressive nation we hope to be, but we should be mindful of the prejudice that would block our path.
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
Thankfully, the current election year has brought the issue of racism to the public forefront. It is easy for complacency to set in as we look at our progressive social construct with all its diversity. As this year’s presidential contest becomes more and more about race we are reminded that racial hatred, and more importantly, widespread prejudice is alive and thriving even in the 21st Century.
One need only observe the frequency with which Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein is bandied about as an effective scare tactic by those who would make the entire Arab world our enemy or equate Islam with evil.
Recent polls among primary and caucus goers found many who claim they would never vote for a black man for president. Others said the same about voting for a woman. Despite years of struggle for civil rights and suffrage, such gender and racial prejudice still grips many and remains an issue that should grab our attention if we seek to overcome our sins of the past.
That struggle for freedom from the oppression of racial hatred compelled Obama’s minister to make the comments that continue to haunt the senator’s campaign. His words came from a frustration that Pat Robertson never knew. His perspective is much different than is Geraldine Ferraro’s. Reverend Wright comes from a place closer to Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who voiced similar criticisms of the government of the United States in the tumults of the sixties. Still, the criticism of Wright contrasts the reverence of King.
In fact, the most inflammatory comment of Wright’s rantings was a condemnation of America not unlike the one Reverend Jerry Falwell attributed to God when he asserted that 9/11 was the punishment for the horrible sin of tolerance.
The good news during this election cycle is that a woman and a black man have gotten so far amid the lingering tangles of racism and sexism. 2008 could be a turning point in our history when we embrace our commonalities and begin to ignore our differences.
2008 should be the year we stop persecuting individuals for their sexual preferences and treat them like fellow humans with the same rights to the pursuit of happiness the Constitution affords the rest of Americans.
2008 should be the year we begin the journey to healthcare and education for all regardless of race, ethnicity or station.
2008 should be the year we address the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, instead of perpetuating the current policy of class warfare.
2008 should be the year we stop using religion as a weapon and honor the spirit of religious freedom the Constitution’s framers sought.
We must stop crying “reverse racism” and mourning the plight of people like Don Imus whose consequences suit their actions. White America is not being perpetually punished for the sins of slave owners or the racial oppression of the Deep South. But, we cannot try to ignore that those dark stains are indelible on our history. We must move on toward the progressive nation we hope to be, but we should be mindful of the prejudice that would block our path.
Racism by any other name is still racism
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
The most recent barrage of hostile rhetoric between the warring Democrat party candidates has brought the issue of racism back to the front pages of our papers. In that sense, I believe, this historic presidential cycle has already served our nation well. I believe the issue of racism should be examined from time to time and regardless of the machine that drags it to the exam room of our minds, we should take the time to give it our full attention.
First of all, let us define what racism is and what it is not. According to the cold, dry dictionary (Random House College Dictionary Revised 1975, to be exact) racism is defined as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Now let’s define what racism is not. Racism is not just a poor choice of words. We should not call someone racist just because she/he had a ‘slip of the tongue’ when she/he has not demonstrated a previous lifestyle of hatred or denigration of another race. Racism is not limited to one particular race, i.e. anyone can hate, and hatred of another race is racism. Regardless of the color of the skin that is stretched over the skull, if the mind within that skull is filled with hate for another person solely because that other person’s skull is covered by another color of skin, it is a racist mind. Racism is not merely seeing and recognizing differences. That is just being observant. If, however, by seeing and recognizing differences, one person suggests that those differences make one race superior or inferior to another, that is racism.
If we are to stretch the definition of racism to the point beyond that simple definition given above, we will all suffer for it and the issue will continue to fill the front pages of our papers.
We have only to glance back a few months to find examples of how dangerous and damaging it is when we re-define this term. Men and women have lost their jobs because they made a verbal gaffe. People have been expelled from schools based upon unsubstantiated charges. Companies and corporations have spent valuable time and resources to shield themselves from or restore themselves from being labeled. Politicians have twisted their words like pretzels to avoid offending potential voters.
Now, I am not claiming that words are not powerful, nor am I suggesting that we should not be careful how we use this great gift of language. We should all join David, the Psalmist, when he prayed “Set a guard, Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips.” (Psalm 141:3 NASB) Words must be chosen carefully and there should be similar consequences for using this weapon with malice as there are for using any other weapon with intent to injure or maim.
However, I also believe that the current climate of judging someone solely upon a few words, with no regard for the whole context of his speech, or for the whole content of his character is a dangerous and damaging precedent.
The most recent controversy regarding the former Pastor of Barack Hussein Obama’s church in Chicago and his incendiary sermons illustrates one such example of spewing hatred that would be clearly defined as racism should the target and the shooter be of different colors. In other words, if Pat Robertson had blamed Black America for inflicting whites with AIDS or if a Rabbi had suggested that Black Protestants ruled the air waves; the hue and cry would have been deafening. We should denounce silly accusations and broad generalizations wherever and whenever we see them.
Another example of what happens when the race card is dealt from the bottom of the deck, rather than being played in its proper order, occurred when Geraldine Ferraro was labeled as a racist – even to the point of being referred to as ‘David Duke in drag’ by a ‘not-so-funny’ comedian – for merely making an observation. I did not support her when she ran as a candidate for the vice presidency, nor do I support her political stances now, but I do know that she has demonstrated nothing more than an astute mind when she made the statement that she believed Obama’s popularity had something to do with his race. It was not uttered in hatred. It was not intended to instill hatred in others. It was not the fruit of a lifetime of hatred. There is a wide ocean of difference between her words and those of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Yet she has suffered the consequence of a stretched out definition.
In conclusion, let us all examine ourselves daily “and see if there be any wicked way in me.” (Psalm 139:23a NASB) and determine if our thoughts of others are guided by hatred for their race. And we should also examine the actions of those accused of racism to determine if their words were just poorly chosen or if they are the fruit of a poisoned mind.
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
The most recent barrage of hostile rhetoric between the warring Democrat party candidates has brought the issue of racism back to the front pages of our papers. In that sense, I believe, this historic presidential cycle has already served our nation well. I believe the issue of racism should be examined from time to time and regardless of the machine that drags it to the exam room of our minds, we should take the time to give it our full attention.
First of all, let us define what racism is and what it is not. According to the cold, dry dictionary (Random House College Dictionary Revised 1975, to be exact) racism is defined as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Now let’s define what racism is not. Racism is not just a poor choice of words. We should not call someone racist just because she/he had a ‘slip of the tongue’ when she/he has not demonstrated a previous lifestyle of hatred or denigration of another race. Racism is not limited to one particular race, i.e. anyone can hate, and hatred of another race is racism. Regardless of the color of the skin that is stretched over the skull, if the mind within that skull is filled with hate for another person solely because that other person’s skull is covered by another color of skin, it is a racist mind. Racism is not merely seeing and recognizing differences. That is just being observant. If, however, by seeing and recognizing differences, one person suggests that those differences make one race superior or inferior to another, that is racism.
If we are to stretch the definition of racism to the point beyond that simple definition given above, we will all suffer for it and the issue will continue to fill the front pages of our papers.
We have only to glance back a few months to find examples of how dangerous and damaging it is when we re-define this term. Men and women have lost their jobs because they made a verbal gaffe. People have been expelled from schools based upon unsubstantiated charges. Companies and corporations have spent valuable time and resources to shield themselves from or restore themselves from being labeled. Politicians have twisted their words like pretzels to avoid offending potential voters.
Now, I am not claiming that words are not powerful, nor am I suggesting that we should not be careful how we use this great gift of language. We should all join David, the Psalmist, when he prayed “Set a guard, Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips.” (Psalm 141:3 NASB) Words must be chosen carefully and there should be similar consequences for using this weapon with malice as there are for using any other weapon with intent to injure or maim.
However, I also believe that the current climate of judging someone solely upon a few words, with no regard for the whole context of his speech, or for the whole content of his character is a dangerous and damaging precedent.
The most recent controversy regarding the former Pastor of Barack Hussein Obama’s church in Chicago and his incendiary sermons illustrates one such example of spewing hatred that would be clearly defined as racism should the target and the shooter be of different colors. In other words, if Pat Robertson had blamed Black America for inflicting whites with AIDS or if a Rabbi had suggested that Black Protestants ruled the air waves; the hue and cry would have been deafening. We should denounce silly accusations and broad generalizations wherever and whenever we see them.
Another example of what happens when the race card is dealt from the bottom of the deck, rather than being played in its proper order, occurred when Geraldine Ferraro was labeled as a racist – even to the point of being referred to as ‘David Duke in drag’ by a ‘not-so-funny’ comedian – for merely making an observation. I did not support her when she ran as a candidate for the vice presidency, nor do I support her political stances now, but I do know that she has demonstrated nothing more than an astute mind when she made the statement that she believed Obama’s popularity had something to do with his race. It was not uttered in hatred. It was not intended to instill hatred in others. It was not the fruit of a lifetime of hatred. There is a wide ocean of difference between her words and those of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Yet she has suffered the consequence of a stretched out definition.
In conclusion, let us all examine ourselves daily “and see if there be any wicked way in me.” (Psalm 139:23a NASB) and determine if our thoughts of others are guided by hatred for their race. And we should also examine the actions of those accused of racism to determine if their words were just poorly chosen or if they are the fruit of a poisoned mind.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Operation Iraqi Freedom Plus Five
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 4, 2008
Anniversaries of notable events in our lives are always opportunities to glance backward and to gaze forward. This fifth anniversary of military action by the Coalition Forces against the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq offers such an opportunity to us today.
First of all, it is important to glance backward and refresh our memories of the situation that led the international community of Australia, Poland, Great Britain and many other allies of the US to deliver a forceful message to Saddam Hussein. His defiance of UN conditions he had previously agreed to, following his surrender in 1990, had to be dealt with. His refusal to allow inspectors in to verify his compliance with UN demands had to be dealt with. His continued support of international terrorist organizations and his willingness to offer safe harbor and aid to suicide bombers had to be dealt with. His known use of biological and chemical weapons upon his own people and the Kurds who lived within his borders had to be dealt with.
These factors and many other “Whereas”–s are listed in the copy of “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” which was read (I assume) and approved of by the majority of our Representatives and Senators, including Senator Clinton.
I admit that the climate that existed within our nation during the months of 2002 was quite different from the climate of today. Our short-term memory is now limited to last season’s American Idol and this week’s political scandal. We seem to have forgotten that there is a cadre of terrorists who have sworn their allegiance to the ideal of a world without a free and sovereign United States of America. The fact that our world changed on that sunny morning in September of 2001must be as real to us as the fact that the world of our forefathers changed on that July morning in 1776. A declaration of war against our way of life, and that of the rest of the free world, demanded a response. To allow any safe harbor or zone of protection for terrorists anywhere was to only forestall the next catastrophic attack upon our citizens and those of our ideological allies.
It is easy for the mainstream media, and commentators such as my fellow columnist, to obfuscate the landscape by repeating half-truths and broad generalizations about the cost/reward ratio of this operation. The money spent and the lives sacrificed for this endeavor are thrown before us daily, as if freedom is only worth a certain dollar amount or a certain amount of blood. The price of freedom has always been inestimable and the price of its loss is equally inestimable. I am grateful to those who picked up their muskets and struggled against unbelievable odds to purchase our freedom over 230 years ago. And today there are children and women walking the streets of Baghdad in freedom, because men and women of the Coalition forces picked up their weapons and struggled against unbelievable odds five years ago.
It is equally easy to see a devil behind our presidential administration and corporations who work for the reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and ignore or belittle the devil who reigned in Iraq. It is a sad commentary of our times when we fail to recognize evil on the side of Hussein and his terrorist allies, while holding our own soldiers to such ridiculous ‘rules of engagement’ that we endanger their own lives.
As we turn our attention away from the past and gaze into the future toward the next five-year anniversary, what landscape may we see after ten years of Iraqi Freedom? Let’s imagine a child was born in Baghdad during the first month of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today she enters her sixth year without the same fears her older sisters and brothers experienced under the regime of Saddam. She grows up with no knowledge of the rape rooms that imperiled her sister and mother. She has the opportunity to attend a modern school and to one day vote and proudly hold up a purple thumb.
War is always painful, costly and deadly and we should be very careful how we celebrate its milestones. I do not look at this anniversary with complete joy and satisfaction. I wish that it had not been necessary. I wish it had been settled quicker and the new Iraqi administration would have been allowed to grow from infancy to adolescence without the bloody bombings from the terrorists who still thrive in its borders. However, the war was necessary (according to the aforementioned resolution) and it has not been as quick as we expected, however we have had many victories. And victories, even small ones, should be celebrated. There is a girl somewhere in Baghdad who walks freely in the streets without fear. There are purple fingers held high. There is a broken cycle of hatred and a new cycle of hope begun.
From Broader View Weekly, April 4, 2008
Anniversaries of notable events in our lives are always opportunities to glance backward and to gaze forward. This fifth anniversary of military action by the Coalition Forces against the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq offers such an opportunity to us today.
First of all, it is important to glance backward and refresh our memories of the situation that led the international community of Australia, Poland, Great Britain and many other allies of the US to deliver a forceful message to Saddam Hussein. His defiance of UN conditions he had previously agreed to, following his surrender in 1990, had to be dealt with. His refusal to allow inspectors in to verify his compliance with UN demands had to be dealt with. His continued support of international terrorist organizations and his willingness to offer safe harbor and aid to suicide bombers had to be dealt with. His known use of biological and chemical weapons upon his own people and the Kurds who lived within his borders had to be dealt with.
These factors and many other “Whereas”–s are listed in the copy of “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” which was read (I assume) and approved of by the majority of our Representatives and Senators, including Senator Clinton.
I admit that the climate that existed within our nation during the months of 2002 was quite different from the climate of today. Our short-term memory is now limited to last season’s American Idol and this week’s political scandal. We seem to have forgotten that there is a cadre of terrorists who have sworn their allegiance to the ideal of a world without a free and sovereign United States of America. The fact that our world changed on that sunny morning in September of 2001must be as real to us as the fact that the world of our forefathers changed on that July morning in 1776. A declaration of war against our way of life, and that of the rest of the free world, demanded a response. To allow any safe harbor or zone of protection for terrorists anywhere was to only forestall the next catastrophic attack upon our citizens and those of our ideological allies.
It is easy for the mainstream media, and commentators such as my fellow columnist, to obfuscate the landscape by repeating half-truths and broad generalizations about the cost/reward ratio of this operation. The money spent and the lives sacrificed for this endeavor are thrown before us daily, as if freedom is only worth a certain dollar amount or a certain amount of blood. The price of freedom has always been inestimable and the price of its loss is equally inestimable. I am grateful to those who picked up their muskets and struggled against unbelievable odds to purchase our freedom over 230 years ago. And today there are children and women walking the streets of Baghdad in freedom, because men and women of the Coalition forces picked up their weapons and struggled against unbelievable odds five years ago.
It is equally easy to see a devil behind our presidential administration and corporations who work for the reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and ignore or belittle the devil who reigned in Iraq. It is a sad commentary of our times when we fail to recognize evil on the side of Hussein and his terrorist allies, while holding our own soldiers to such ridiculous ‘rules of engagement’ that we endanger their own lives.
As we turn our attention away from the past and gaze into the future toward the next five-year anniversary, what landscape may we see after ten years of Iraqi Freedom? Let’s imagine a child was born in Baghdad during the first month of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today she enters her sixth year without the same fears her older sisters and brothers experienced under the regime of Saddam. She grows up with no knowledge of the rape rooms that imperiled her sister and mother. She has the opportunity to attend a modern school and to one day vote and proudly hold up a purple thumb.
War is always painful, costly and deadly and we should be very careful how we celebrate its milestones. I do not look at this anniversary with complete joy and satisfaction. I wish that it had not been necessary. I wish it had been settled quicker and the new Iraqi administration would have been allowed to grow from infancy to adolescence without the bloody bombings from the terrorists who still thrive in its borders. However, the war was necessary (according to the aforementioned resolution) and it has not been as quick as we expected, however we have had many victories. And victories, even small ones, should be celebrated. There is a girl somewhere in Baghdad who walks freely in the streets without fear. There are purple fingers held high. There is a broken cycle of hatred and a new cycle of hope begun.
The Iraq War -- Five Years Later
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 28, 2008
Five years after the invasion began, George Bush defends his decision to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. Although the pitch to sell the war in late 2002 and early 2003 was all about the dangers to our national security that Iraq and its supposed weapons of mass destruction posed, one listening to Bush’s recent speech on the anniversary of the launch of this misguided operation, would be inclined to believe U.S. policy was motivated by the spread of democracy in the Middle East. The way in which the reasoning behind the war shifted with the political winds as weapons searches came up empty and public support waned, casts gloomy shadows over the administrations claims to the success of this mission. Certainly it’s true that public support for war based on the spread of democracy to the Arab world would have been a hard sell in early post-9/11 America. Still, the focus on a democratic Iraq in times when the majority of our citizens don’t approve of the war seems disingenuous.
Perhaps sensing that the tone of public support was so negative, Bush also appealed to the humanitarian in each of us by highlighting the atrocities committed by the Sadam regime. Speaking in disgust of the mass graves and prisons found during the invasion, Bush sought to justify the invasion in the interest of human rights. Of course this motivation rings empty when compared to human rights violations by other nations who have escaped the wrath of U.S. intervention and occupation. In that light, the only motivation for the war left is economic interest, the hardest sell of all for imperiling our young men and women.
Economic interest does provide some insight into Dick Cheney’s recent proclamations of success in Iraq. Of course, as a benefactor of Haliburton, his perspective is different than most Americans. War profiteering has been very, very good for Haliburton, which enjoyed no-bid contracts and little oversight of services provided during the war. While Iraq may not have been a pleasant place for many of those employed by the big U.S. contractors who have been reaping the benefits of the toils of coalition forces, it is undeniable that the boards of corporations like Haliburton and security contractor Blackwater have had a few great fiscal years. As have the corporations who were part of Cheney’s secret energy task force. With U.S. aggression in the Middle East sparking unrest that has driven up prices of crude oil, the major players in the oil industry like Exxon Mobil have posted record profits as most Americans have felt the squeeze of skyrocketing gas prices. So economic interest is a more viable reasoning for the invasion than the claim of security.
The claim has long been that now that we are in Iraq, we must remain there to provide stability in the troubled nation. To many on both sides of the political spectrum, it no longer matters why we are there. We should focus on the future and not the past. But how we got here does matter. The fact that Iraq was stable (if imperfect) during Sadam’s reign and is now a festering sore of violence on the visage of the Middle East does matter. It matters that we were misled into this war under false pretenses that changed at the whim of the administration. Now, the definition of success in Iraq can be as easily manipulated to satisfy the administration’s agenda.
So, the means that brought us to this point in history are still important. The ends are sobering.
Five years after the invasion began, nearly 4,000 U.S. service members have died in this immoral war. Nearly 30,000 U.S. service members have been wounded. Untold numbers of U.S. service members suffer from the invisible emotional scars of war. The recent Winter Soldier gathering in Silver Springs, MD (inspired by the Winter Soldier conference of Vietnam veterans in 1971) exposed the heart-wrenching anguish of Iraq war vets through their stories of horrors committed with the approval of the highest ranks. Some have sought suicide as an escape from the dark hell of this war.
Five years after the invasion began, nearly 1.8 billion taxpayer dollars are being spent on this war every week.
Five years after the invasion began, the U.S. image in the international community is a source of embarrassment to Americans and a source of animosity to many nations.
Five years after the invasion began, the documented death toll among Iraqis is nearly 90,000, though the unofficial count may be in the hundreds of thousands. Millions of Iraqis have been displaced or have fled the country as refugees. Numbers of refugees would be even higher but neighbors like Jordan and Syria have sealed their borders.
Five years after the invasion began, Vice President Dick Cheney shows stunning disregard for the citizenry he swore to serve. In an interview with ABC news, when confronted about the two-thirds of Americans who don’t feel the war is worth it, he replied “so,” in a matter-of-fact tone.
Five years after the invasion began, the current administration is determined to execute their own agendas, regardless of the will of the people.
From Broader View Weekly, March 28, 2008
Five years after the invasion began, George Bush defends his decision to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. Although the pitch to sell the war in late 2002 and early 2003 was all about the dangers to our national security that Iraq and its supposed weapons of mass destruction posed, one listening to Bush’s recent speech on the anniversary of the launch of this misguided operation, would be inclined to believe U.S. policy was motivated by the spread of democracy in the Middle East. The way in which the reasoning behind the war shifted with the political winds as weapons searches came up empty and public support waned, casts gloomy shadows over the administrations claims to the success of this mission. Certainly it’s true that public support for war based on the spread of democracy to the Arab world would have been a hard sell in early post-9/11 America. Still, the focus on a democratic Iraq in times when the majority of our citizens don’t approve of the war seems disingenuous.
Perhaps sensing that the tone of public support was so negative, Bush also appealed to the humanitarian in each of us by highlighting the atrocities committed by the Sadam regime. Speaking in disgust of the mass graves and prisons found during the invasion, Bush sought to justify the invasion in the interest of human rights. Of course this motivation rings empty when compared to human rights violations by other nations who have escaped the wrath of U.S. intervention and occupation. In that light, the only motivation for the war left is economic interest, the hardest sell of all for imperiling our young men and women.
Economic interest does provide some insight into Dick Cheney’s recent proclamations of success in Iraq. Of course, as a benefactor of Haliburton, his perspective is different than most Americans. War profiteering has been very, very good for Haliburton, which enjoyed no-bid contracts and little oversight of services provided during the war. While Iraq may not have been a pleasant place for many of those employed by the big U.S. contractors who have been reaping the benefits of the toils of coalition forces, it is undeniable that the boards of corporations like Haliburton and security contractor Blackwater have had a few great fiscal years. As have the corporations who were part of Cheney’s secret energy task force. With U.S. aggression in the Middle East sparking unrest that has driven up prices of crude oil, the major players in the oil industry like Exxon Mobil have posted record profits as most Americans have felt the squeeze of skyrocketing gas prices. So economic interest is a more viable reasoning for the invasion than the claim of security.
The claim has long been that now that we are in Iraq, we must remain there to provide stability in the troubled nation. To many on both sides of the political spectrum, it no longer matters why we are there. We should focus on the future and not the past. But how we got here does matter. The fact that Iraq was stable (if imperfect) during Sadam’s reign and is now a festering sore of violence on the visage of the Middle East does matter. It matters that we were misled into this war under false pretenses that changed at the whim of the administration. Now, the definition of success in Iraq can be as easily manipulated to satisfy the administration’s agenda.
So, the means that brought us to this point in history are still important. The ends are sobering.
Five years after the invasion began, nearly 4,000 U.S. service members have died in this immoral war. Nearly 30,000 U.S. service members have been wounded. Untold numbers of U.S. service members suffer from the invisible emotional scars of war. The recent Winter Soldier gathering in Silver Springs, MD (inspired by the Winter Soldier conference of Vietnam veterans in 1971) exposed the heart-wrenching anguish of Iraq war vets through their stories of horrors committed with the approval of the highest ranks. Some have sought suicide as an escape from the dark hell of this war.
Five years after the invasion began, nearly 1.8 billion taxpayer dollars are being spent on this war every week.
Five years after the invasion began, the U.S. image in the international community is a source of embarrassment to Americans and a source of animosity to many nations.
Five years after the invasion began, the documented death toll among Iraqis is nearly 90,000, though the unofficial count may be in the hundreds of thousands. Millions of Iraqis have been displaced or have fled the country as refugees. Numbers of refugees would be even higher but neighbors like Jordan and Syria have sealed their borders.
Five years after the invasion began, Vice President Dick Cheney shows stunning disregard for the citizenry he swore to serve. In an interview with ABC news, when confronted about the two-thirds of Americans who don’t feel the war is worth it, he replied “so,” in a matter-of-fact tone.
Five years after the invasion began, the current administration is determined to execute their own agendas, regardless of the will of the people.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Perilous U.S.-Israel Relationship
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 14, 2008
Recently, a 25-year-old Palestinian man entered a Jerusalem seminary and shot and killed eight students. This tragic event echoes the recent shootings in schools in the U.S. and abroad, but in the context of the Middle East, it underscores the unrest in the region and demonstrates the obstacles to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The reaction to the incident was also a reminder of the dysfunctional relationship the United States enjoys with Israel. Largely a result of powerful lobbying in Washington, the U.S. has had a long record of unconditional support of Israeli policy. During the Reagan years pro-Israel lobbies like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful Washington lobby, exerted enormous influence over the administration’s foreign policy. AIPAC had significant sway over the selection of administration staff, Middle East agendas, and arms deals with other countries. The lobby applied sufficient pressure to block major arms deals with Arab nations such as the Saudis. This tension has persisted through the present day with the U.S. yielding to Israeli will. Last year’s hefty arms sale to Saudi Arabia only had Israel’s blessing because of the perceived threat that Iran posed.
It is true that Israel’s alliance was valued in the Cold War years. But since the fall of the Soviet Union there is little evidence that our pandering support of Israel is the product of anything other than powerful pro-Israel lobbying and the special interests of certain segments of U.S. population.
Still, the pro-Israel bias is clear in the mainstream media’s coverage of events like the seminary shooting or Israel’s deadly attacks on the Gaza strip the previous week. Israel is ever the victim with the Arab world the aggressor. Over 110 died during the assaults on Gaza before Israel withdrew. Twenty-two of those were children, yet the deaths of eight seminary students (aged 15 to 26) were presented as a graver tragedy by nearly all media outlets. The perspective of the Palestinian plight is all but missing in the mainstream.
Fox News used the coverage to refocus attention on the “problem” of Iran, running footage of apparent celebration in the streets over the shooting. I was unable to find news elsewhere to corroborate such cheering inside Iran, but was unsurprised that Fox might have been less than accurate about reporting that plays into the administration’s hard line on the nation.
News organizations were quick to tag Iran-backed Hamas with the shooting, though friends and family members of the gunman laid it to his grief and frustration over the Gaza deaths and denied his affiliation with any organization. Hamas itself has flip-flopped between claiming responsibility and denying it, even though steadfastly embracing the shooting in blatant defiance would do more to reinforce threats the militant group has made of retaliation for the Gaza attacks.
Some factions of the Religious Right have also lobbied for a close relationship with Israel. Concerns center around biblical prophecy that requires the sovereignty of Israel as a component for fulfillment. Reverend John Hagee, who recently announced his endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, has been at the forefront of a movement dedicated to the preservation of Israel. While evangelical Christians and the Jewish community have often had a tenuous rapport, Hagee’s annual “Night to Honor Israel” has been able to garner support and participation from Jewish leadership. Hagee hopes his pro-Israel lobby will become the most powerful in Washington. The growing influence of these evangelicals and AIPAC on foreign policy is evident.
U.S. political leaders on both ends of the political spectrum have declared allegiance to the Israel agenda. During the Gaza attacks Democratic and Republican candidates fell over themselves to make statements affirming Israel’s right to defend herself, with little regard for Israel’s brutality or human rights offenses. The following week, they raced as hard to condemn the shooting in the “strongest terms.”
This close relationship with Israel has far reaching implications. The animosity of some Arab nations directed at the U.S. for its imperialist agendas is only heightened by our unconditional support of Israel. This animosity has been identified as the core of the 9/11 plot. The perception among terrorist groups – of Congress as the source of support for Israel – was used to explain the targeting of Washington sites during the attacks.
Israeli pressure was also part of the equation that led us to the current situation in Iraq. Israel’s government pushed the Bush administration to ensure that it would not lose its resolve as it ramped up to invade the sovereign nation.
The nation of Israel is entitled to self-preservation. She has a right to defend herself. Her people have a right to a peace process that might bring hope to the region. But the intertwined policies of the U.S. and Israel are not contributing positively to that process. The security of both nations is being compromised when our policy is to inappropriately cater to the interests of Israel.
From Broader View Weekly, March 14, 2008
Recently, a 25-year-old Palestinian man entered a Jerusalem seminary and shot and killed eight students. This tragic event echoes the recent shootings in schools in the U.S. and abroad, but in the context of the Middle East, it underscores the unrest in the region and demonstrates the obstacles to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The reaction to the incident was also a reminder of the dysfunctional relationship the United States enjoys with Israel. Largely a result of powerful lobbying in Washington, the U.S. has had a long record of unconditional support of Israeli policy. During the Reagan years pro-Israel lobbies like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful Washington lobby, exerted enormous influence over the administration’s foreign policy. AIPAC had significant sway over the selection of administration staff, Middle East agendas, and arms deals with other countries. The lobby applied sufficient pressure to block major arms deals with Arab nations such as the Saudis. This tension has persisted through the present day with the U.S. yielding to Israeli will. Last year’s hefty arms sale to Saudi Arabia only had Israel’s blessing because of the perceived threat that Iran posed.
It is true that Israel’s alliance was valued in the Cold War years. But since the fall of the Soviet Union there is little evidence that our pandering support of Israel is the product of anything other than powerful pro-Israel lobbying and the special interests of certain segments of U.S. population.
Still, the pro-Israel bias is clear in the mainstream media’s coverage of events like the seminary shooting or Israel’s deadly attacks on the Gaza strip the previous week. Israel is ever the victim with the Arab world the aggressor. Over 110 died during the assaults on Gaza before Israel withdrew. Twenty-two of those were children, yet the deaths of eight seminary students (aged 15 to 26) were presented as a graver tragedy by nearly all media outlets. The perspective of the Palestinian plight is all but missing in the mainstream.
Fox News used the coverage to refocus attention on the “problem” of Iran, running footage of apparent celebration in the streets over the shooting. I was unable to find news elsewhere to corroborate such cheering inside Iran, but was unsurprised that Fox might have been less than accurate about reporting that plays into the administration’s hard line on the nation.
News organizations were quick to tag Iran-backed Hamas with the shooting, though friends and family members of the gunman laid it to his grief and frustration over the Gaza deaths and denied his affiliation with any organization. Hamas itself has flip-flopped between claiming responsibility and denying it, even though steadfastly embracing the shooting in blatant defiance would do more to reinforce threats the militant group has made of retaliation for the Gaza attacks.
Some factions of the Religious Right have also lobbied for a close relationship with Israel. Concerns center around biblical prophecy that requires the sovereignty of Israel as a component for fulfillment. Reverend John Hagee, who recently announced his endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, has been at the forefront of a movement dedicated to the preservation of Israel. While evangelical Christians and the Jewish community have often had a tenuous rapport, Hagee’s annual “Night to Honor Israel” has been able to garner support and participation from Jewish leadership. Hagee hopes his pro-Israel lobby will become the most powerful in Washington. The growing influence of these evangelicals and AIPAC on foreign policy is evident.
U.S. political leaders on both ends of the political spectrum have declared allegiance to the Israel agenda. During the Gaza attacks Democratic and Republican candidates fell over themselves to make statements affirming Israel’s right to defend herself, with little regard for Israel’s brutality or human rights offenses. The following week, they raced as hard to condemn the shooting in the “strongest terms.”
This close relationship with Israel has far reaching implications. The animosity of some Arab nations directed at the U.S. for its imperialist agendas is only heightened by our unconditional support of Israel. This animosity has been identified as the core of the 9/11 plot. The perception among terrorist groups – of Congress as the source of support for Israel – was used to explain the targeting of Washington sites during the attacks.
Israeli pressure was also part of the equation that led us to the current situation in Iraq. Israel’s government pushed the Bush administration to ensure that it would not lose its resolve as it ramped up to invade the sovereign nation.
The nation of Israel is entitled to self-preservation. She has a right to defend herself. Her people have a right to a peace process that might bring hope to the region. But the intertwined policies of the U.S. and Israel are not contributing positively to that process. The security of both nations is being compromised when our policy is to inappropriately cater to the interests of Israel.
Terror in the Seminary
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 14, 2008
The recent assault upon Israeli Jewish citizens within the classrooms of a Zionist Seminary during preparations for an upcoming religious observance is especially disturbing and revealing.
It is disturbing for many reasons, not the least of which is the disturbing manner chosen by the evil assailant. While we in the United States of America have seen so many similar shooting tragedies in our own classrooms and dormitories, perhaps even to the point where we have come to expect them, it is a rather rare method in the current conflict between the radical Islamists and the sovereign State of Israel. The target and the method used is unique in that the evil terrorist chose to attack a symbol of Jewish Zionism and the method of personally chasing down his victims and confirming his kills, rather than the “accepted” method of suicide bombing.
The target of the attack, the seminary, Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, represents the heart of the religious Zionist movement and as such, this assault upon the security of Israel strikes at the heart of the founding of the Jewish national home upon the land promised to them by Jehovah. Obviously, the motive behind this deed, as was the motive behind the assault upon our soil on September 11, 2001, was to shed blood and to instill fear and rage.
The nature of this attack then warrants a more careful examination, not of the relationship between the United States and Israel, as my fellow columnist contends, but of this particular terrorist and, by extension, the radical Islamic movement as a whole.
If we were to perform a spiritual autopsy upon this terrorist, what do you suppose we would find? If we were to peel back the epidermis and probe deep into the tissues of his soul, what pathogens would we discover? Would we see an infection caused by an oppressive Israeli government bent upon the destruction of the Palestinian people? Or would we find a virus borne on the wind from the United States’ apparent support of the Jewish nation? Or would we instead find a genetic cause?
I contend that a thorough examination of this and other Islamic terrorists would reveal an innate predisposition for hatred toward the Jewish nation. This stems from a Biblical proclamation and prophecy. We may try to explain it away with contemporary analyses that would affix blame upon Anglo-Zionist principles and prosperity, but reality would soon sneak up behind us and tap us on the shoulder. As much as we would like reality to be different, the tapping upon our shoulders will grow more intense until we can ignore it no longer.
The root of this conflict lies in the Biblical book of Genesis, just as the root of all conflicts between good and evil ultimately rests, however, in this particular battle, one can trace its origin to a conflict between two mothers. A careful reading of the story of Sarah and Hagar and their respective sons, Isaac and Ishmael will reveal the only acceptable explanation for the deep divide between this small nation of Israel and her Arab neighbors.
A further study of the prophetic books will also show us that this conflict will not be solved by Israel surrendering more land or independence to the Palestinians. And it would not have been prevented by American neutrality in the region.
According to an article in The Jerusalem Post , the talk on religious Zionist radio stations has echoed with talk of this latest attack being a signal to the Israeli government. Many see this as the epic battle between good and evil and proof that one cannot negotiate a settlement that will allow these two forces to co-exist.
The fact that this shooter was an Israeli Arab - meaning he was an Arab living freely among the Israeli citizenry, enjoying the freedom of travel, the freedom of speech and the right to prosperity that is denied many of his brethren in Palestine - shows us that appeasement and satisfaction of basic needs does not quench hatred.
More land will not stop the terrorism. Less involvement by the U.S. will not stop the hatred. There is only one person and only one event that will finally bring this conflict to an end. Sadly that person is not Condoleeza Rice or any future Secretary of State, nor is it any Security Council from the UN. The only person who can bring peace to this region – or any region of human conflict – is the Prince of Peace and the only event that will bring unity between these two warring half-brothers is His return to this earth.
The fact that Israel has agreed to continue peace talks even in the face of daily rocket attacks shows their willingness to seek alternatives to gunpowder and bloodshed. However, the continued assault upon innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists who then hide behind the markets and playgrounds of the Palestinians makes it difficult to carry on civilized dialogue. In spite of my fellow columnist’s belief that the Palestinians just need to “be understood”, the reaction from the citizenry to the attack upon the seminary was dancing and celebration. This is hardly the response one would expect from those who seek peace.
From Broader View Weekly, March 14, 2008
The recent assault upon Israeli Jewish citizens within the classrooms of a Zionist Seminary during preparations for an upcoming religious observance is especially disturbing and revealing.
It is disturbing for many reasons, not the least of which is the disturbing manner chosen by the evil assailant. While we in the United States of America have seen so many similar shooting tragedies in our own classrooms and dormitories, perhaps even to the point where we have come to expect them, it is a rather rare method in the current conflict between the radical Islamists and the sovereign State of Israel. The target and the method used is unique in that the evil terrorist chose to attack a symbol of Jewish Zionism and the method of personally chasing down his victims and confirming his kills, rather than the “accepted” method of suicide bombing.
The target of the attack, the seminary, Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, represents the heart of the religious Zionist movement and as such, this assault upon the security of Israel strikes at the heart of the founding of the Jewish national home upon the land promised to them by Jehovah. Obviously, the motive behind this deed, as was the motive behind the assault upon our soil on September 11, 2001, was to shed blood and to instill fear and rage.
The nature of this attack then warrants a more careful examination, not of the relationship between the United States and Israel, as my fellow columnist contends, but of this particular terrorist and, by extension, the radical Islamic movement as a whole.
If we were to perform a spiritual autopsy upon this terrorist, what do you suppose we would find? If we were to peel back the epidermis and probe deep into the tissues of his soul, what pathogens would we discover? Would we see an infection caused by an oppressive Israeli government bent upon the destruction of the Palestinian people? Or would we find a virus borne on the wind from the United States’ apparent support of the Jewish nation? Or would we instead find a genetic cause?
I contend that a thorough examination of this and other Islamic terrorists would reveal an innate predisposition for hatred toward the Jewish nation. This stems from a Biblical proclamation and prophecy. We may try to explain it away with contemporary analyses that would affix blame upon Anglo-Zionist principles and prosperity, but reality would soon sneak up behind us and tap us on the shoulder. As much as we would like reality to be different, the tapping upon our shoulders will grow more intense until we can ignore it no longer.
The root of this conflict lies in the Biblical book of Genesis, just as the root of all conflicts between good and evil ultimately rests, however, in this particular battle, one can trace its origin to a conflict between two mothers. A careful reading of the story of Sarah and Hagar and their respective sons, Isaac and Ishmael will reveal the only acceptable explanation for the deep divide between this small nation of Israel and her Arab neighbors.
A further study of the prophetic books will also show us that this conflict will not be solved by Israel surrendering more land or independence to the Palestinians. And it would not have been prevented by American neutrality in the region.
According to an article in The Jerusalem Post , the talk on religious Zionist radio stations has echoed with talk of this latest attack being a signal to the Israeli government. Many see this as the epic battle between good and evil and proof that one cannot negotiate a settlement that will allow these two forces to co-exist.
The fact that this shooter was an Israeli Arab - meaning he was an Arab living freely among the Israeli citizenry, enjoying the freedom of travel, the freedom of speech and the right to prosperity that is denied many of his brethren in Palestine - shows us that appeasement and satisfaction of basic needs does not quench hatred.
More land will not stop the terrorism. Less involvement by the U.S. will not stop the hatred. There is only one person and only one event that will finally bring this conflict to an end. Sadly that person is not Condoleeza Rice or any future Secretary of State, nor is it any Security Council from the UN. The only person who can bring peace to this region – or any region of human conflict – is the Prince of Peace and the only event that will bring unity between these two warring half-brothers is His return to this earth.
The fact that Israel has agreed to continue peace talks even in the face of daily rocket attacks shows their willingness to seek alternatives to gunpowder and bloodshed. However, the continued assault upon innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists who then hide behind the markets and playgrounds of the Palestinians makes it difficult to carry on civilized dialogue. In spite of my fellow columnist’s belief that the Palestinians just need to “be understood”, the reaction from the citizenry to the attack upon the seminary was dancing and celebration. This is hardly the response one would expect from those who seek peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
