April 2004 Greetings from The Publisher . . . Who Won The Cold War? & Getting a Chance to Redefine Ourselves

What a month for revelations/questions! If it's worthwhile looking at how we want to define ourselves, there were several things worth thinking about. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been getting attention and raised eyebrows for not excusing himself from a case that will decide if VP Dick Cheney has to reveal which energy lords he met with before setting the nation's energy policy and electrocuting the California budget.

The problem is that Cheney and Scalia have admittedly formed a mutual admiration society and the best interests of their society may not be the same as the best interests of our society. Given the court honors precedent why not revisit the standard that says, “If there is a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest I will recuse myself from the case.”

Actually that's more than a standard; it's the law that applies to Federal judges. The Supreme Court has previously decided, however, that they are “justices” not “judges,” and so it doesn't apply to them. It's kind of like Congress passing laws that don't apply to them—to citizens yes, but not to our version of the House of Lords.

There is, though, some precedent for us to wonder about impartiality. Scalia voted to give Florida 's electoral vote to the President. It was the first time ever that the Supreme Court did not return that decision to the State and say it was the State's decision to make. Breaking precedents doesn't seem to be a problem.

Justice Scalia said, “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I imagined.”

That prompted commentator John Stewart of “The Daily Show” to say that there were two top news stories that day. One, Scalia's comment; and two, the fact that the nation is in deeper trouble than Justice Scalia imagines.

How could we think that? Scalia asks. Maybe it was the bread crumbs. Or perhaps, his 21-page memo of denial. What was that about beware of he who protests too much?

In the same category is the Administration's response to former Counterterrorist Chief Richard Clarke. It's also called attack the messenger.

Even conservative commentator Ron Reagan, the ex-President's son, pointed out that you don't need to get into character assassination when you have the truth to vindicate you. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and now Clarke have had their motives, character—every thing about them—attacked.

It does help distract from the issues.

Clarke's statement that the government had failed us/US and even his apology to the families of the victims of 9/11 was attacked. Actually it sounded a little Presidential, didn't it? I mean, something you might think—or hope—would come from a President. Representatives of the Family Steering Committee (victims of 9/11) at the Clarke hearing said they appreciated someone saying it, even if it is a few years late.

The good news has to be that some of the conflicting news that has gone unchallenged in the US —that is, what the world media says and the US media ignores vs. what the Administration says—is finally getting some scrutiny. Well, by some. After Clarke's testimony, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich also agreed that 9/11 could have been prevented —if Clinton had done his job.

I was waiting to hear that earlier tax cuts for the rich and drilling for oil in Alaska would have prevented it too. If we want to go back in time, though, are there really any among us who don't know when this all began? Whether it was the Republicans, Democrats or both, one piece might have been when we decided to support dictators—and continued to support them no matter how much they abused their citizens. Saddam was one of those dictators.

Al Queda was the group we trained to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan . Do our methods cause or solve problems?

We once considered the USSR the Evil Empire. Why? What was it we didn't like?

Wasn't a big part of it that their government acted in secret and manipulated and controlled their citizens—and other nations?

Unfortunately, it's beginning to look like we have embraced those methods. I'd like their actions to prove me wrong, but it appears that the present Administration inherited that Cold War mentality and has expanded on it. So what way of governing won the Cold War?

Polls indicate that most Americans now believe the President either lied about Iraq 's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war.

One of the most bothersome positions for me is to hear people justify that because Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be removed. Does that mean they like the way the USSR was governed? It's all right to emulate that secrecy and manipulation?

Bush said that lives would have to be sacrificed because Saddam possessed WMDs that terrorists could use against US. It wasn't true. Is it okay with us/US that the President leads (at best) by exaggeration?

It's an old question: Does the end justify using any means? Do the means have to be consistent with where we want to end up? It's not a bad question to ask the Administration.

If they believe what's most important is getting where they want to go, no matter what methods are used to get there, then isn't it inconsistent for them to ask us to believe that they are telling us the truth? I'd like to ask Fox News commentators that.

On the other hand, don't we have to walk the talk? Isn't happiness-freedom a state of being or a road we travel, not a destination?

Isn't what has always endeared the world to us/US been our love of freedom, our ability to live life joyously and relatively unrestricted, our sense of fair play? That's an inheritance we shouldn't squander.

How do we want it? Do we say, what's the use, all leaders are manipulative? Is it okay that the VP's company, Halliburton, now “earns” $1 billion a month for their services in Iraq ? Do we want politicians paying back their campaign contributors with our money? Or do we ask our decision makers to excuse/recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of one? Do we expect a higher standard and take a step toward the type of government we want, or ignore it and let it spread?

I think it's up for a vote. While attending the Prophet's Conference in Palm Springs in March, I got to hear many of the people who have contributed to The Light Connection, including Marianne Williamson, Larry Dossey, Thom Hartmann, Ram Dass (via phone), Alberto Villoldo and Jan Phillips. I was expecting it to be a spiritually oriented gathering. It was, and more. Sometimes it was voiced and other times simply understood that our government is misleading, not leading us. It was not so much an attack as an underlying given that the leaders we have are not headed toward the kind of world we want to live in. The speakers weren't moaning about it. They were focused on moving toward something new and the tools and principles that will sustain us, so we don't become what we object to.

It was not a rally for Kerry or Nader. Nor were the speakers saying “follow us.” It was about each of us expressing our own power more and moving toward the future with a vision and purpose that comes from each of us.

The good news is that we are looking more intently at what we are being told these days. Let hope that what's unfolding will allow us/US to make good choices and look at how we want to define ourselves.

Have a great month,

Steve Hays

BACK TO TOP


HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH