Beating the Bushes:

Whose Values?

    Quick now, by a show of hands, who among us does not possess a set of values?
    We're waiting . . .
    OK, time's up.   Let's tabulate the vote.
    Amazing, we don't see a single hand raised.
    Could this mean that we all have values? 
    Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it?

    Well guess again.  It would seem that, according to many out there in the American heartland, there are values and then there are VALUES. At least that's what it seems like the folks attending the recent Family Research Council-sponsored "Values Voters Summit" would have us believe.   The "summit," which was attended by several thousand card-carrying "true believers," watched and listened as Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain labored to explain why they -- and they alone -- must be considered the true vassal of virtue. 

    Most regrettably -- and somewhat predictably -- not a single Democratic aspirant was invited to attend the values confab.  Guess this means that when it comes to Democrats and Republicans, there are those who believe, as we noted above, that there are values and then there are VALUES.

    Each of the Republican candidates addressed the conference, taking great pains to lay out their "values" credentials.  And what were those values?

    With the exception of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, most of the GOP hopefuls made it abundantly clear that under their administration:

• Abortion will be outlawed,
• The Constitution will be amended to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman,
• That Muslims are infidels,
• That Illegal immigrants will be given no quarter, and that
• Stem cell research is an affront to Divinity.

    To be sure, not all the candidates came to the summit carrying the same baggage.  Governor Romney came carrying both the baggage of his Mormon faith -- which unbelievably, is still a point of contention among many Christians -- and the mere fact that he had served as governor of the most liberal state in the Union.  For many, the aroma of the Latter Day Saint's polygamous past is still a stench in their nostrils.  To his credit, Governor Romney, who has been married to the same woman for 38 years and has five sons and ten grandchildren, displayed uncommon courage in merely showing up.   

     Giuliani was of course saddled with his personal history: three marriages, two alienated children and the taint of political moderation on such issues as abortion and gay marriage.  For many in attendance, the creed was "ABR" -- "Anybody but Rudy." Standing tall, the former New York Mayor proclaimed, "My belief in God and my reliance on his guidance is at the core of who I am."  He further explained to the flock that, "My eighty percent friend is not my twenty percent enemy."  Then, taking a swipe at Romney, he noted, "Isn't it better for me to tell you what I believe, rather than change my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" For this he received polite applause.

    Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee -- the "other" governor from Hope -- had values voters cheering when he declared, "We do not have the right to move the standards of God to meet cultural norms.  We need to move the cultural norms to meet God's standards." 

    Senator John McCain, came to the conference with the heaviest baggage of all. He continues to be suspect because of a reputation as a political "maverick" and the remembrance of his once having labeled the Reverends Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance."

    The values crowd rewarded Romney with a first-place finish in their straw poll: 27.6% of the vote.

       Former Governor Huckabee came in a razor-thin second with 27.1% of the vote.  What amazes is that Huckabee, a fire-and-brimstone Southern Baptist preacher, only came in second.  This would appear to point to a measure of political pragmatism on the part of the values crowd; they know that Huckabee hasn't a snowball's chance in Hades, and would rather give an edge -- no matter how slight -- to a candidate who may have a chance of winning . . . just so long as his name isn't Rudolph Giuliani.

       The rest of the tabulation saw Texas Representative Ron Paul -- an orthodox Libertarian -- coming in third with 15%, followed by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson [9.8%], and Mayor Giuliani [1.8%].

       Rounding out the field, Senator McCain came in dead last with less than 1% of the vote.

      Up till about a generation ago, those currently identifying themselves as "values voters" tended to stay the hell away from politics. For the most part, they saw their most basic more moral concerns were better addressed and better served by preachers, not politicians.  Then came the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision, which legalized abortion and freed the voter-rich genie from the bottle of Christian parochialism.  Prodded and organized by such champions as Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schlafly, the Rev. Donald Wilmon and Brent Bozell, the Christian Right -- as it was originally called -- started to become a homogeneous political powerhouse within the Republican Party.

     Presidents Reagan, Bush '41 and Bush '43 -- indeed most Republicans -- ran up an increasingly large debt with those who now call themselves "values voters."  The debt these voters accrued through their almost universal support, has been throwing off enormous dividends for more than a quarter of a century.  From political appointments to their overwhelming support for core "values issues," Republicans have bent over backwards to keep the flock within their fold.  The "values" of these "values voters" have become the "values" of the GOP.

       Implied in all this, of course, is the frightening thought that those whose VALUES may differ have, in essence, no values at all. 

        Again, by a show of hands, who amongst us does not have a set of values?  Still no hands?  What do you think about that?

        It is indeed difficult to over stress just how dangerous -- how patently malignant -- it is for one segment of society to believe that their standards, their values, are so firmly etched in stone as to be unquestionably, inerrantly, universal.  America was founded and built upon a pedestal that proclaims E Pluribis Unum  -- "Out of many comes one."  It does not proclaim "One set of values for the many."

       We do not find great fault with all those Republican hopefuls  who see the need to trot out their religious or values bona fides; this is, after all, an election year, and all's fair in love, war, and elections. What we do find extraordinary fault with are all those who would inspect, reject and objectify anyone whose values may differ. 

     We are not all Christians.

     We are not all Jews.

     We are not all Muslims.

       We are not all theists.

      What we all are, are Americans, people who do have VALUES.

      All those who agree, please raise your hand . . .

 

©2007, Kurt F. Stone

Much Ado About Nothing

   Shakespeare hit the nail on the head when he had Hamlet mutter "What a piece of work is man!"  Showing classic signs of what we now call "bipolarity," or "manic depression" ["I have lost all my mirth . . .the earth . . . seems . . . sterile"] the prince concludes by calling man "this quintessence of dust."
   Yes indeed, man is a piece of work.  Admittedly, when spoken by the prince of Denmark, it carries a different meaning than in modern parlance.  For today, when one calls another a "piece of work," what is being expressed is not awe, but rather contempt, derision or utter disbelief.      

   Among those most deserving of first prize in the "What a piece of work is man" category, are the hacks at Fox News Network.   For on October 4, 2007, they breathlessly reported that Senator Barack Obama, that "scourge of all who love the red white and blue," no longer wears an American flag pin on his lapel.   To the woolly-headed Mastodons of Fox and their blinkered minions, this can mean but one thing: that Senator Obama is an obvious traitor who cares not a fig about the United States of America.

   Oh really?

   Even the most partisan of Democrats can come up with reasons for supporting someone other than Illinois' junior senator.  One could say that he lacks solid international experience [as did both FDR and JFK].  One might opine that United States senators rarely win presidential elections [the last one to go directly from upper chamber to White House was JFK, and before that Warren G. Harding].  One might even argue that Obama has not shown himself to be all that different on matters of policy from the other front-runners. 

    Then too, one could argue against all these by simply pointing out that "he's is a breath of fresh air."

   But no partisan Democrat -- or thoughtful independent for that matter -- is going to shy away from Obama simply because he does not wear an American flag lapel pin.  To take this position -- as many of those who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place undoubtedly do -- is to grant supremacy to symbolism, to make a simple pin, the hallmark of sincere patriotism. 

   Stuff and nonsense!

   When questioned about why he no longer wears said pin, Obama explained:

   "The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin.  Shortly after 9/11, particularly because we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security . . . .  I decided that I'm not going to wear that pin on my chest.  Instead, I'm gonna' try to tell the American people what I believe, what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

   I don't know about you, but this seems both sincere and reasonable to me. 

  The entire subject of symbol-versus-commitment in modern American society is one that deserves a full hearing.  Far too often, we use pins, bracelets, bumper stickers and even tattoos as replacements for purposive action. 

• How easy it is for a politician to stage a photo-op surrounded by darling little children and then vote against S-CHIP.  The photo is a symbol of"co's" great concern for the kids of this nation; "co's" vote proves otherwise.  [NOTE: For those reading this column for the first time "co" is my gender-inclusive pronoun for "he/she;" likewise, "co's" means "his/her."] Even as this is being written, it has just come across the wire that the House failed by 14 votes to override President Bush's veto on S-CHIP.

• How maddening to be driving behind an enormous gas-guzzling Hummer adorned with a bumper sticker proclaiming "I support the troops" or "Remember 9/11."  To my way of thinking if the Hummer driver truly supported the troops or was affected by the tragedy of 9/11, "co" would have jettisoned "co's" automotive behemoth in favor of something that did not put quite so much cash in the pockets of our enemies.

• How utterly hypocritical to use symbolic buzz-terms like "compassion," "freedom" or "Democracy" and then act or vote in a manner that clearly highlights the opposite.

• How patently  Un-American to tar those who disagree with the brush of  "treachery,"  "deceit," or that most current of pejoratives, "liberal."  To do so is not only Un-American; it strips words of their true meanings and makes them into hateful symbols.      

Seen in this light, is it any wonder that Senator Obama has been pilloried for not wearing his American flag pin? 
   I for one applaud him for standing up and proclaiming that, as the old saw goes, "actions speak louder than words."  Or in this case, symbols.
   
   But let us return to Shakespeare.

   One of the Bard's best comedies carries a title that really sums up the entire Obama-flag lapel imbroglio: Much Ado About Nothing.  One will recall that this five-act play, which takes place in the idyllic Italian town of Messina, centers on the witty shenanigans of two star-struck lovers: Claudio and Hero, Benedick and Beatrice.  Shortly after meeting, young Claudio and Hero decide to marry.  To pass the time in the week before their wedding, the two lovers and their friends decide to play a game.  They want Benedick and Beatrice, an older couple who are clearly meant for one another, to stop their arguing and fall in love.  The group's tricks succeed, and the older pair do eventually fall in love.
   At the play's outset, the caustic Beatrice, speaking of Benedick, utters a phrase that easily sums up all those who use symbols as replacements for action:

   "He wears his faith but as the fashion of his hat; it ever changes with the next block."   

   Thank you William Shakespeare; once again, you said a mouthful.
   
   What a piece of work is man!

An Open Letter To The Democrats Of Capitol Hill

Dear Democrats of Capitol Hill:

  Permit me to begin with a quote from -- gasp! -- Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."  Having cited this aged nostrum from the hoary-headed Father of Communism, I hope you won't become fearful and feel the need to read what follows in the dead of night cowering behind locked doors. Please do not fall into the trap of fearing that the reading of a mere 9 words from Marx will cause the great unwashed public to accuse you of being fellow travelers. 

    Its just this sort of irrational cowering fear that I wish to address. Additionally, I believe we are all are in dire need of taking a backward glance, lest Marx's bromide become true. 
   
    Precisely 11 months ago, you took back the House and Senate from George W. Bush's GOP.  And although pundits and commentators have sited a host of reasons for this realignment, one issue was of primary importance: George Bush's so-called "war on terror."  In giving you back the House and Senate we, the American voting public presumed ourselves to have sent a clear and unmistakable message.  To wit, draw down the troops, end the war, and restore our civil liberties.  If you will recall, the weeks between victory and the beginning of this 110th Congress were both heady and optimistic; at last, we thought, there was a good chance of veering off the potholed road of paranoia, and moving onto to the comfortably paved highway of promise.  With the Democrats back controlling Congress we believed, finally, finally, there would be a good chance of deflecting -- if not stopping -- the Republican juggernaut.  Instead of a Congress that was goose stepping us into oblivion, we now had a federal legislature that would restore honor, sanity and liberty.

   I am sorry to say we were wrong.

• Instead of standing up to the president, you have caved and acquiesced. 
• Instead of legislating an end to the war in Iraq, you have voted overwhelmingly in favor of continued fiscal support. 
• Instead of halting -- or at least rolling back -- the most egregious assaults on our personal liberties, you have voted to extend and expand warrantless wiretaps.
• Instead of standing up and screaming "A war with Iran?  What are you, insane?" you have voted overwhelmingly to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization," thus laying the groundwork for what many see as an inevitable future invasion.
• Instead of standing tall with those who oppose this war, you have voted -- again overwhelmingly -- to denounce those who exercise free speech.

   The question is, why?  What motivates you?  Precisely what is it that you  fear the most?

    More than one commentator has opined that you do not want to open yourselves up to the charge of being "weak on defense" or "allied with the forces of evil."  Somewhere in the back of your collective mind, I am reasonably certain that you are still haunted by the "Swift-boating" of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and the trashing of former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, both of whom were certified war heroes.

     Let me tell you something, dear Democrats. As obnoxious, as brazen as the attacks on these two valorous gentleman may have been, there was something even worse: their lack of response.  Instead of taking the offensive and hurling verbal grenades back at the Swift-boaters, Senator Kerry just stood there like a statue in the town square.  And Cleland -- the triple amputee -- who saw his likeness portrayed next to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, was shocked into silence.  Had either of these men fought their political battles with even half the courage they showed in Vietnam, they would have emerged victorious.

   This is history, and it is repeating itself.  Today it is tragedy; tomorrow it may well become farce.

   Let me ask you, my Democratic friends: do you really believe that being called "weak on security" is going to swing an election in your district or state?  What does voting to extend warrantless wiretaps, the continued blank-check funding of the war or the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment on the Iranian Republican Guard say about your collective political courage or conviction?  How in the world can senators like Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Richard Durbin [the latter two being our senate leaders] vote in favor of something that has the chance of becoming this era's "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution? 

   I know that as members of the House and Senate, you read polling numbers with all the gusto and interest that "Joe and Jill Six-Pack" read the sports pages of their local newspapers.  As such, you must certainly know that a clear majority of the American public is against this war, against warrantless wiretaps, against invading Iran, and increasingly skeptical of anything the current administration says. 

   Would someone please explain to me where's the danger in standing up and being counted?  As dear old dad used to say, "Let 'em call you 'pisher.'  That's not going to make you one."  And you know something?  Despite what the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck and the gang may say, the American public still has a great deal of respect for those who stand for something besides winning the next election.  Need proof?

   Take Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold and Minnesota's late Senator Paul Wellstone.  Both these men have known what it feels like to be the lone dissenter -- of being the guy who is the "1" in a 99-1 vote.  And yet, even though their constituents may not have agreed with them much of the time, they gladly voted for their reelection.  Why?  Because they knew that their senator wasn't motivated by the politics of fear; by the politics of winning at all costs.

   Dear Democrats: instead of trying to come off as "Republican lite" or "more-bloodthirsty-than-thou," why not try acting and voting like the true party of the people?   It seems to me that the Republicans have given you a real chance to become the majority party for the next generation.  You can see it in public opinion polls.  You can see it in all those Republicans who have either announced their retirement or are facing serious, well-heeled challengers for the first time in years.  You can even see it in the lackluster Presidential wannabes who are all running as far away from the White House as is humanly possible.

   Yes, the signs and portents are all there.  However -- and this is crucial -- if you can't [or won't] draw a line in the political sand and refuse to capitulate to the inevitable, ridiculous charges that come your way, then the gift you're being handed will just as inevitably turn to dust.

    If history must repeat itself, let it be the election of 1932.  That won't be a farce; it will be a triumph.

   Yours for tomorrow,

   A devoted Democrat.

 

©Kurt F. Stone 2007

 

The Profit of War

   Although I tend to prefer the 1926 silent version with Ronald Colman, Neil Hamilton and Ralph Forbes, William Wellman's 1939 epic "Beau Geste" is still one heck of a film.  This version, starring Garry Cooper, Ray Milland and the 21-year old Robert Preston, has the three ingredients of all great action pictures: romance, intrigue and revenge.  And, to top it off all are set against the backdrop of Foreign Legionnaires plotting mutiny in the midst of attacking Arabs.  Cooper, Milland and Preston play -- respectively -- Beau, Michael and Digby Geste, three inseparable brothers who, fleeing from possible criminal charges in England, make their way to North Africa where they join the French Foreign Legion.  There, the brothers face  greater danger from Sgt. Markoff, their sadistic commander [played by that old reliable, Brian Donlevy] than from the rebellious Arabs. 

     Without question, foreign mercenaries have provided ample fodder for great, action-driven motion pictures ever since the days of D.W. Griffith and Wallace Reid.  To the mind of most moviegoers, these mercenaries are the essence of romance, courage and adventure.  They are also impossibly handsome, invariably witty, and oh so terribly dare-devilish.

   But such is not the case in real life.  In real life, mercenaries are far more often motivated by lucre than loyalty, their employers by profit than patriotism.  But make no mistake about it, what we have operating over in Iraq and Afghanistan is the equivalent of a new "American Foreign Legion."

   The current imbroglio over Blackwater USA, a self-described "private military company" is but one glaring example.  In testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Blackwater chief Erik Prince [not to be confused with Eric Prince, a character in "The Little Mermaid"], a former Navy SEAL, parried charges that his "private security contractors" are "acting as cowboys in Iraq, shooting first and not even bothering to ask questions later."  Besides underscoring the deep divide between how committee Democrats and Republicans view the war in general -- and the use of mercenaries in particular -- the hearings raised a host of as yet unanswered questions.  Among them:

• How many of these so-called "private security contractors" are currently operating in Iraq and Afghanistan?
• As a strictly-for-profit operation, what constraints -- if any -- can the United States military exercise over them?
• What is the precise relationship between private security firms and the United States military?
• How do companies like Blackwater USA [or Halliburton, AEGIS Specialist Risk Management, ERINYS, DynCorp, Triple Canopy or any of the reportedly 120,000+ private firms operating in Iraq] get their "no-bid" contracts?

     The case of Erik Prince's Blackwater USA is, to say the least, illustrative, if not downright frightening.  Who is Eric Prince, and how did Blackwater become such a front-line player in Iraq?  What are their ties to the Bush Administration?  Wipe away the romance and adventure of "Beau Geste," and here's what you have:

    Erik Prince, a former Navy Seal, who founded Blackwater USA a decade ago, is the child of great wealth. Originally from Holland, Michigan, the 38-year old Prince's family owned the auto-parts giant "Prince Corporation," which was sold to Johnson Controls, Inc., in the early 1990s for $1.3 billion. Armed with immense wealth, Prince personally financed the formation of Blackwater in 1997. 

   Prince's late father, Edgar, was a founder -- along with Gary Bauer -- of the Christian right "Family Research Council."  His sister, Betty DeVos, a former Chair of the Michigan Republican Party, is the wife of Dick DeVos, the billionaire former owner of Amway, who ran an unsuccessful 2006 campaign for Michigan governor.  Erik Prince is Vice President of the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which endows organizations associated with the Christian Right.  Over a three year period, he donated more than $670,000 to James Dobson's "Focus on Family," and is a board member of "Christian Freedom International," a non-profit group whose stated mission is  helping "Christians who are persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ." 

    Most tellingly, Prince and Blackwater USA are as firmly tied into the Bush White House as Halliburton is to Vice President Dick Cheney. Since 1998, Prince has donated more than $200,000 to Republican candidates including Bush and Tom DeLay.  Turning a $200,000 investment into a billion dollar no-bid contract is nice work if you can get it. 

     As the old late-night informercial goes: "But wait, there is more."

    Permit me to introduce you to a handful of Blackwater executives:

• Company president Gary Jackson: Jackson, 49, has made significant contributions to Republicans such as Tom DeLay, former House Armed Services Chair Duncan Hunter and former Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis.
• Vice Chair Cofer Black: Black, 56, spent 3 decades with the CIA.  He was the agency's Chief of Counterterrorism at the time of the 9/11 attack.
• CEO and General Counsel Joseph Schmitz: Schmitz, 49, was at one time the chief Pentagon official responsible for investigating waste, fraud and abuse.  He is currently under congressional investigation. It should be noted that Schmitz's father, former California Representative John Schmitz, was one of the founders of the John Birch Society. His sister, Mary Kay Le Tourneau, made headlines a few years back when she was imprisoned for having an affair with one of her 13-year old students.  [They eventually got married and now have at least two children.]

   

In testifying before Waxman's House Oversight Committee, Prince did a nifty two-step around most of the committee's most pressing questions:

•   He balked at the committee's characterization of his employees as mercenaries, sternly informing them that they are "loyal Americans."
• When asked for financial information on Blackwater, he declined to provide it, flatly stating, "We're a private company, and there's the key word private."
• When asked why employees involved in fatal incidents had been "whisked out of the country," he blithely responded, "We can't flog [them], we can't incarcerate [them]."

   Truth to tell, Blackwater USA has been involved in a score of questionable activities, leading to the deaths of scores of Iraqi civilians.  These mercenaries -- along with those of so many other such companies -- play by a different set of rules.  And despite whatever patriotic pronouncements the various company CEO's may make, they and their "independent contractors"  -- MERCENARIES -- are engaged in the business of turning a profit. 
   
    The Bush Administration's "outsourcing" of virtually everything from security to soda looks and smells like an immense political payback. It is estimated that currently, there are more than 180,000 "private contractors" [read: mercenaries] earning piles of money in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Their numbers easily outstrip the total number of uniformed troops we have over there.  As things currently stand, these "contractors" are immune to both the rules of engagement and any ensuing prosecution.  And how much their services have inflated the very cost of our so-called "War on Terror" is anyone's guess.

      When one strips away the romance and adventure of "Beau Geste," today's mercenaries -- and the companies that employ them -- make the sadistic Sgt. Markoff look like an Eagle Scout.      
   
    Should Senator Hillary Clinton become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, be prepared to witness a revival of the old "Whitewater" scandal.  How ironic that, should she wish, she will be able to respond with one word: "Blackwater."

    It's all there, in "black and white. . . "

 

©Kurt F. Stone 2007