Republican Politics, American Style
Published in Metro Eireann on July 26th 2007 By Charles Laffiteau
Since arriving here in Ireland last September, one of the questions I have been asked most frequently is “Why President Bush continues to insist that the US must remain fighting in Iraq, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the situation there is not improving and that the US public wants its soldiers out of Iraq?”
Having pondered this question for several years, I will now attempt to tackle this issue. While I am not a mind reader or psychoanalyst, I will try to answer this question; by addressing it from the perspectives of what I believe President Bush’s political and personal motivations are for “staying the course” in Iraq. This breakdown will not be pretty although I have tried to divorce my personal feelings about the President’s actions from my analysis of them. I will leave it to others to decide if I have actually been able to do so.
Let me begin by telling you that I was a supporter of President Bush in 2000, both in the Republican primaries and during the Presidential campaign. While I personally admired Senator John McCain for his ethics and willingness to take a stand on principles, I thought Bush would be a more pragmatic Chief Executive and thus more likely to get things done as our nation’s leader. I think President Bush was at his Presidential finest during the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks when he cautioned US citizens not to react against Muslims and Arabs living in the US.
I also supported the President’s decision to send US Special Forces into Afghanistan to destabilize and overthrow the Taliban regime and to hunt down the members of Al Qaeda using that country as both a sanctuary and base for training and conducting terrorist attacks against the US and its allies. On the domestic side I was also a supporter of the tax cuts that the President pushed through early in his term as well as his “No child left behind” legislation for public education reform. More recently I have also been supportive of both his trade policies and his attempts to address the illegal immigration issue.
I was a member of the “minority“of voters who voted for Bush when he was elected President in 2000 and in the “minority” again when I voted against President Bush (as opposed to voting for Democrat John Kerry) when he was re-elected in 2004. I take full responsibility for the part I have played in the current political mess the US finds itself in, both at home and abroad. I could have and should have been a more vocal public critic of both Bush’s domestic and foreign policies as soon as I realised they were heading in the wrong direction. Instead, I ignored my concerns and remained largely silent because my Republican Party was finally in control of both the Congress and the Presidency for the first time in decades. I didn’t want to be perceived as being a disloyal Republican now that my party was finally in control of the federal government.
I was wrong and I apologize for my inaction. I cannot change the past, but hopefully I have learned something from this experience and will not repeat these same mistakes again in the future. It is my responsibility as a US citizen to stand up and be counted whenever I believe my country and its leaders have taken the wrong course of action, regardless of what it may cost me in terms of my personal prestige.
Having said that, let’s examine what I believe were and are the President’s political motivations for both initiating and continuing to prosecute the ‘war on terror’ in Iraq. Historians, psychologists and political leaders (be they authoritarian or democratically elected) have long been aware that a fearful public is much easier to manipulate and thus inclined to support and or vote for political leaders who appear to be ‘tough’ on terrorism and offer hard-nosed solutions that also quench the public’s thirst for revenge. A ‘war on terror’ is also a fairly simple concept which is both easier for political leaders to explain and for frightened citizens to understand.
The reasons why Bush characterizes the US as being in a war on terror should be considered within the context of US domestic policy making. Only in his capacity as the Commander in Chief of US military forces does the president have the ability to act freely to defend the US without the consent of Congress. While Congress must agree to authorize military appropriations to fund a war, it plays only a consultative role when it comes to actual decisions on how the war is prosecuted.
Thus by making counter-terrorism part of a war, President Bush was able to free himself from the Congressional constraints of US domestic policy making. By doing so he also won the support of fearful and or revenge seeking US voters for both re-election and the measures he saw fit to use in his ‘war on terror’. Today Bush knows that Democrats (even with a majority in Congress and strong public support) are powerless to stop him unless they can also persuade almost half of the Republicans in Congress to turn against the President and vote with them to override his vetoes of their legislation to stop funding this war and force a withdrawal.
The Bush administration’s three pretexts for invading Iraq as part of its war on terror were; that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), that there was a connection between al Qaeda terrorists and the Iraq government and that toppling Saddam’s regime would make the world safer from terrorism. While it is abundantly clear that President Bush was wrong on all three counts, the reasons why he continues to pursue the war in Iraq has much to do with what I believe were and still are his personal motivations. I will discuss these in next week’s column
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Women, celibacy, divorce and the Catholic church
Republican Politics, American Style
Published July 19th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous column I enumerated a number of questions and concerns I had with the Catholic Church’s absolute opposition to the use of abortion and its condemnation of Amnesty International’s acceptance of the United Nations Human Rights Court’s rulings on permissible human rights exceptions. I also noted that the Catholic Church appeared to leave some room for exceptions as regards the use of the death penalty in John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical “Evangelium Vitae.”
I still find it difficult to reconcile the Catholic Church’s position that there can be exceptions which allow for the taking of a human life, but that there can be no exceptions with respect to terminating the life of a tiny fetus which cannot survive outside of a woman’s body. But I have recently realized that virtually all of the Catholic Church’s other positions which I have difficulty reconciling also seem to involve women to one extent or another.
I am generally in favour of the Catholic Church’s attitude and position’s with respect to divorce and the sanctity of marriage. I believe that too many people enter a marriage without proper preparation or a realistic understanding of what is involved in a lifetime relationship. It is far too easy for couples to rush off and get married and it is also far too easy to end those relationships without really trying to make them work. The end result is often children being raised with only a single parent, which is a less than ideal situation for both the parents and their offspring.
But the Church has also made allowances for the fact that there are many such marriages which are not healthy for either the parents or their children. It has recognized that sometimes it is best for all concerned that such marriages be dissolved and yet still allow the former spouses the opportunity to enter into another marital relationship, provided they have learned something from their previous mistake. The Church calls this dissolution of a marriage an annulment rather than a divorce, based on the reasoning that either or both partners were not fully aware of what they were getting into when they originally entered into the bonds of marriage.
While it is often much quicker and easier to obtain a civil divorce, the fact that it is more difficult and time consuming to obtain an annulment, should give Catholics cause to pause before entering into a marriage in the first place. It can also lead them to put forth more effort to reconcile their differences through marriage counselling instead of immediately opting for an annulment or civil divorce.
My only concern is that not all Catholics can afford the cost of obtaining a Catholic annulment, particularly Catholic women with limited incomes and children to care for. In some cases the parish to which a Catholic belongs will pay for the cost of an annulment, but as I understand it this is not always true. I would hope that the Catholic Church will find a way to ensure that Catholics with limited financial means have the same opportunity to obtain an annulment as Catholics without such financial constraints.
I also have some difficulty with the Catholic Church’s prohibition of the marriage of priests and the ordination of women as priests. In the early years of the Church’s existence, the New Testament implies that women did in fact preside at Eucharistic meals. Furthermore, the fact that it wasn’t until the Council of Laodicea in 352 AD that the Church first took the position that women could no longer be ordained as priests is further evidence that women apparently were ordained and could administer all of the sacraments of the Church prior to that Council.
I can’t help but wonder why it was ok to ordain women during the early days of the Church while Jesus Christ’s first disciples (which included Mary Magdalene) were alive, and yet this practice first became prohibited some 300 years later after the Church had become the dominant political and religious institution in the old Roman Empire. Yet as recently as the fourteenth century, Italian Bishop Pelagio wrote to the Pope complaining that women were still being ordained and hearing confessions
Could the Council of Laodicea’s decision to prohibit the ordination of women been due to the fact that civil societies at that time in history viewed women as less than equal to men? Hasn’t this been the dominant view of women in western society until as recently as 40 years ago? Isn’t this still the view of women in some other areas of the world today? I ask myself; “Is it really God’s will that women can no longer be ordained as priests or is it man’s will?”
As regards the issue of married priests and vows of celibacy, I also look at the history of the Church and question why the Catholic Church still insists that this is somehow God’s will. I guess God changed his mind for some reason, because Peter, our first Pope was married as were most of Jesus’ apostles.
In fact most priests were married until around the fifteenth century. Other married Popes include Pope Felix III (from 483-492) who also had 2 children and Pope John XI (931-935) who was also the son of Pope Sergius III. The last married Pope was Felix V from 1439 to 1449 who, by the way, also had a son.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but wonder why priests and Popes were permitted to be married for the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church’s existence, but not for the past 500 years. Could this change have been due to legal concerns about the inheritance rights of a priest or Pope’s children? Why does the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church still allow priests to marry?
Still the Roman Catholic Church does make exceptions for Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopal ministers who are married and later convert to Catholicism. Could this be due to the fact that the Catholic Church is the only Christian religion suffering from a shortage of priests, while all of the others which permit marriage have a surplus of ministers? I have to ask myself; “Did God change his mind about married clergy and decide to tell only our Roman Catholic Pope to prohibit marriage by priests and demand that they be celibate?” I don’t know. Do you?
Published July 19th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous column I enumerated a number of questions and concerns I had with the Catholic Church’s absolute opposition to the use of abortion and its condemnation of Amnesty International’s acceptance of the United Nations Human Rights Court’s rulings on permissible human rights exceptions. I also noted that the Catholic Church appeared to leave some room for exceptions as regards the use of the death penalty in John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical “Evangelium Vitae.”
I still find it difficult to reconcile the Catholic Church’s position that there can be exceptions which allow for the taking of a human life, but that there can be no exceptions with respect to terminating the life of a tiny fetus which cannot survive outside of a woman’s body. But I have recently realized that virtually all of the Catholic Church’s other positions which I have difficulty reconciling also seem to involve women to one extent or another.
I am generally in favour of the Catholic Church’s attitude and position’s with respect to divorce and the sanctity of marriage. I believe that too many people enter a marriage without proper preparation or a realistic understanding of what is involved in a lifetime relationship. It is far too easy for couples to rush off and get married and it is also far too easy to end those relationships without really trying to make them work. The end result is often children being raised with only a single parent, which is a less than ideal situation for both the parents and their offspring.
But the Church has also made allowances for the fact that there are many such marriages which are not healthy for either the parents or their children. It has recognized that sometimes it is best for all concerned that such marriages be dissolved and yet still allow the former spouses the opportunity to enter into another marital relationship, provided they have learned something from their previous mistake. The Church calls this dissolution of a marriage an annulment rather than a divorce, based on the reasoning that either or both partners were not fully aware of what they were getting into when they originally entered into the bonds of marriage.
While it is often much quicker and easier to obtain a civil divorce, the fact that it is more difficult and time consuming to obtain an annulment, should give Catholics cause to pause before entering into a marriage in the first place. It can also lead them to put forth more effort to reconcile their differences through marriage counselling instead of immediately opting for an annulment or civil divorce.
My only concern is that not all Catholics can afford the cost of obtaining a Catholic annulment, particularly Catholic women with limited incomes and children to care for. In some cases the parish to which a Catholic belongs will pay for the cost of an annulment, but as I understand it this is not always true. I would hope that the Catholic Church will find a way to ensure that Catholics with limited financial means have the same opportunity to obtain an annulment as Catholics without such financial constraints.
I also have some difficulty with the Catholic Church’s prohibition of the marriage of priests and the ordination of women as priests. In the early years of the Church’s existence, the New Testament implies that women did in fact preside at Eucharistic meals. Furthermore, the fact that it wasn’t until the Council of Laodicea in 352 AD that the Church first took the position that women could no longer be ordained as priests is further evidence that women apparently were ordained and could administer all of the sacraments of the Church prior to that Council.
I can’t help but wonder why it was ok to ordain women during the early days of the Church while Jesus Christ’s first disciples (which included Mary Magdalene) were alive, and yet this practice first became prohibited some 300 years later after the Church had become the dominant political and religious institution in the old Roman Empire. Yet as recently as the fourteenth century, Italian Bishop Pelagio wrote to the Pope complaining that women were still being ordained and hearing confessions
Could the Council of Laodicea’s decision to prohibit the ordination of women been due to the fact that civil societies at that time in history viewed women as less than equal to men? Hasn’t this been the dominant view of women in western society until as recently as 40 years ago? Isn’t this still the view of women in some other areas of the world today? I ask myself; “Is it really God’s will that women can no longer be ordained as priests or is it man’s will?”
As regards the issue of married priests and vows of celibacy, I also look at the history of the Church and question why the Catholic Church still insists that this is somehow God’s will. I guess God changed his mind for some reason, because Peter, our first Pope was married as were most of Jesus’ apostles.
In fact most priests were married until around the fifteenth century. Other married Popes include Pope Felix III (from 483-492) who also had 2 children and Pope John XI (931-935) who was also the son of Pope Sergius III. The last married Pope was Felix V from 1439 to 1449 who, by the way, also had a son.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but wonder why priests and Popes were permitted to be married for the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church’s existence, but not for the past 500 years. Could this change have been due to legal concerns about the inheritance rights of a priest or Pope’s children? Why does the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church still allow priests to marry?
Still the Roman Catholic Church does make exceptions for Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopal ministers who are married and later convert to Catholicism. Could this be due to the fact that the Catholic Church is the only Christian religion suffering from a shortage of priests, while all of the others which permit marriage have a surplus of ministers? I have to ask myself; “Did God change his mind about married clergy and decide to tell only our Roman Catholic Pope to prohibit marriage by priests and demand that they be celibate?” I don’t know. Do you?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Amnesty International, Abortion and the Catholic Church
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on July 12th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I would like to discuss what for many people is a very sensitive subject and that is a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Recently I noticed that a Vatican Cardinal, Renato Martino, was calling for Catholics to stop making donations to Amnesty International because of a change in that organization’s policy dealing with abortion. I was perplexed by this apparent change in the Church’s position towards a long time ally on issues involving respect for human rights around the world, including their mutual opposition to the use of the death penalty.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II wrote his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) in which he clarified the Catholic Church’s position on the death penalty, stating that execution is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” While this statement does not represent an absolute position against the use of the death penalty, notwithstanding the fact that the Church has taken an absolute position against the use of abortion, it clearly expresses the Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of the death penalty.
Many Catholics, particularly in the United States (US), support the use of the death penalty, so I was very heartened by the Pope’s clear opposition to it. I have long admired both Amnesty International and the Catholic Church for their mutual positions with respect to defending human rights and opposing the legalized use of the death penalty. While the Catholic Church has also been a long time opponent of legalized abortions, Amnesty International has never taken a position for or against the use of abortion or a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have one.
As I understand Amnesty International’s position on abortion, I can’t help but see its recent policy addition as anything more than simply a clarification of its position on this issue, just as Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical was an attempt to clarify the Catholic Church’s position on the legalized use of the death penalty. Amnesty International has clarified its position on abortion to bring it into accord with rulings by the United Nations Human Rights Court.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about and I definitely don’t understand why the Catholic Church is encouraging its members to stop supporting the work of Amnesty International. Just as Pope John Paul II recognized that the death penalty may be appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society,” so too does Amnesty International recognize that a woman should be allowed to have a medically safe abortion “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when the pregnancy is the result of the crimes of rape and incest or the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s health and life.”
I fail to see the difference between the Catholic Church’s exceptions regarding the use of the death penalty and Amnesty International’s exceptions regarding the use of abortion. Recognizing that there may be situations where circumstances warrant the use of the death penalty doesn’t make the Catholic Church anymore pro-death penalty than Amnesty International’s policy on abortion makes it pro-abortion. Why is the Church contending that it does?
Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to a child when doing so may mean she will die? What if she has other children that she has to care for? Who will be responsible for them and or the newborn child? Many countries in the developing world lack the healthcare or social services to care for motherless children and infants. In such countries the death of the mother leads to a slow death through disease or starvation of her children. I have to ask myself; “Is this what God would really want for them or their mother?”
Should a woman who has been the victim of criminal incest be forced to give birth to a child who has a fifty percent chance of being deformed or retarded? Will she be able to properly care for a child with special needs? What are those child’s chances if it is born in a country like Somalia or Zimbabwe? If that child is lucky enough to be born in a country with good social services for children who are given up for adoption what do you think the chances are that a family will adopt a child with special needs? Isn’t such a child more likely to grow up without a family as a ward of the state? Again I have to ask; “Is this what God would really want for a child or for a woman who has already been victimized once by the crime of incest?”
Should a woman be forced to bear a child that has been the result of the crime of rape? In many parts of the developing world women who have been raped have little or no chance of ever seeing their rapist punished for his crime. She is often considered unclean or not suitable as a future spouse within her village or community as well. Isn’t this adding further injury to her, by depriving her of any prospects of future happiness or companionship? Must she be forced to live her life caring for a child that is a constant reminder of the crime and injuries inflicted upon her? If that child is born in a poor village in Africa, what do you think the chances are that it will survive, much less thrive as it is growing up? I ask myself; “Is this really what God wants, for her to be persecuted for the rest of her life for being the victim of a crime?”
If any of you readers can answer these questions, I hope you will email or write and send them to me care of Metro Eireann. I will look forward to reading them.
Published on July 12th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I would like to discuss what for many people is a very sensitive subject and that is a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Recently I noticed that a Vatican Cardinal, Renato Martino, was calling for Catholics to stop making donations to Amnesty International because of a change in that organization’s policy dealing with abortion. I was perplexed by this apparent change in the Church’s position towards a long time ally on issues involving respect for human rights around the world, including their mutual opposition to the use of the death penalty.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II wrote his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) in which he clarified the Catholic Church’s position on the death penalty, stating that execution is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” While this statement does not represent an absolute position against the use of the death penalty, notwithstanding the fact that the Church has taken an absolute position against the use of abortion, it clearly expresses the Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of the death penalty.
Many Catholics, particularly in the United States (US), support the use of the death penalty, so I was very heartened by the Pope’s clear opposition to it. I have long admired both Amnesty International and the Catholic Church for their mutual positions with respect to defending human rights and opposing the legalized use of the death penalty. While the Catholic Church has also been a long time opponent of legalized abortions, Amnesty International has never taken a position for or against the use of abortion or a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have one.
As I understand Amnesty International’s position on abortion, I can’t help but see its recent policy addition as anything more than simply a clarification of its position on this issue, just as Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical was an attempt to clarify the Catholic Church’s position on the legalized use of the death penalty. Amnesty International has clarified its position on abortion to bring it into accord with rulings by the United Nations Human Rights Court.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about and I definitely don’t understand why the Catholic Church is encouraging its members to stop supporting the work of Amnesty International. Just as Pope John Paul II recognized that the death penalty may be appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society,” so too does Amnesty International recognize that a woman should be allowed to have a medically safe abortion “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when the pregnancy is the result of the crimes of rape and incest or the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s health and life.”
I fail to see the difference between the Catholic Church’s exceptions regarding the use of the death penalty and Amnesty International’s exceptions regarding the use of abortion. Recognizing that there may be situations where circumstances warrant the use of the death penalty doesn’t make the Catholic Church anymore pro-death penalty than Amnesty International’s policy on abortion makes it pro-abortion. Why is the Church contending that it does?
Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to a child when doing so may mean she will die? What if she has other children that she has to care for? Who will be responsible for them and or the newborn child? Many countries in the developing world lack the healthcare or social services to care for motherless children and infants. In such countries the death of the mother leads to a slow death through disease or starvation of her children. I have to ask myself; “Is this what God would really want for them or their mother?”
Should a woman who has been the victim of criminal incest be forced to give birth to a child who has a fifty percent chance of being deformed or retarded? Will she be able to properly care for a child with special needs? What are those child’s chances if it is born in a country like Somalia or Zimbabwe? If that child is lucky enough to be born in a country with good social services for children who are given up for adoption what do you think the chances are that a family will adopt a child with special needs? Isn’t such a child more likely to grow up without a family as a ward of the state? Again I have to ask; “Is this what God would really want for a child or for a woman who has already been victimized once by the crime of incest?”
Should a woman be forced to bear a child that has been the result of the crime of rape? In many parts of the developing world women who have been raped have little or no chance of ever seeing their rapist punished for his crime. She is often considered unclean or not suitable as a future spouse within her village or community as well. Isn’t this adding further injury to her, by depriving her of any prospects of future happiness or companionship? Must she be forced to live her life caring for a child that is a constant reminder of the crime and injuries inflicted upon her? If that child is born in a poor village in Africa, what do you think the chances are that it will survive, much less thrive as it is growing up? I ask myself; “Is this really what God wants, for her to be persecuted for the rest of her life for being the victim of a crime?”
If any of you readers can answer these questions, I hope you will email or write and send them to me care of Metro Eireann. I will look forward to reading them.
More 2008 US Presidential Contenders?
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on July 5th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Back in the states, the 2008 Presidential race could get even more interesting than it already has been. What was already looming as the most wide open Presidential contest in over 80 years, could become even more so if former Senator and Law and Order TV star Fred Thompson jumps into the Republican race next month as I fully expect him to..
Fred will probably be joined in the Republican race later this year by that old gunslinger, Shoot (from the hip) Gingrich who hails from the same southern state I was born and raised in, Georgia. But unlike our former President from Georgia, Jimmy Carter, (who recently visited the Emerald Isle), what ‘ole Newt lacks in integrity and morals, he makes up for with his mouth.
I call him Shoot instead of Newt because of his response to questions about the Virginia Tech campus shootings this past April. Newt, I meant to say Shoot Gingrich said he thought there would have been fewer people killed if everyone on campus was allowed to carry guns with them to class. Then some law abiding citizen could have shot and killed the perpetrator before he had a chance to murder so many other defenceless (aka gun less).students and teachers.
I thought this was one of Shoot’s more brilliant ideas actually. Heck why shouldn’t every American citizen carry a gun with them to school, work, the gym or their favourite bar and restaurant. We wouldn’t need near as many policemen, lawyers, judges and jail cells then because law abiding citizens could take care of the criminals long before the police arrive to try and arrest or stop them. We call that “frontier justice”, which is what we used to have 150 years ago in the western US.
Of course when the police did arrive on the scene, they wouldn’t have any problems figuring out which people firing their weapons were law abiding citizens and which ones were the criminals they should be trying to arrest. If they weren’t sure, then the law abiding citizens could simply flash their National Rifle Association (NRA) cards since we all know that only law abiding citizens would belong to this organization.
Shoot could even borrow Herbert Hoover’s old campaign slogan and add his own personal touch to the beginning and end of it. It could read; “Shoot (first ask questions later) Gingrich for President in 2008 if you want a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage and a gun in every pocket.” Sounds kind of catchy doesn’t it?
As for the ethical lapses which led to his censure and forced him to step down as Speaker of the House, that was a long time ago. Most Republicans believe he wouldn’t have been censured if it hadn’t been for Democrats unfairly targeting him because of his leadership of the Republican “revolution” which wrested control of the Congress from the Democratic Party in 1994. Darn those Democrats and their dirty partisan politics.
Most Republican social conservative Christians would back “Shoot” in a heartbeat because of his strong credentials as an advocate of their social values and close ties to Pat Robertson and other Christian conservative leaders. They have been quick to forgive him for sending his first wife divorce papers while she lay sick in the hospital and for carrying on an adulterous affair with his current 3rd wife, while he was trying to impeach President Clinton for his role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
But enough about my man “Shoot” Gingrich. The really big Presidential political news is coming out of New York City (NYC), where billionaire NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced his resignation from the Republican Party. Bloomberg can’t run for re-election as Mayor in 2009 because of term limits, so his decision to register as an independent is seen by many as a prelude to a run for President in 2008 as an Independent candidate.
With a net worth estimated at 5.5 billion dollars, Bloomberg would have no trouble financing a run for president against the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominees who will each have to raise and spend 500 to 750 million dollars apiece by the time Election Day rolls around in November of 2008. But is money the only issue Bloomberg has to deal with?
A majority of American voters are disgusted with the performance of both Republicans and Democrats in Washington and have grown weary of partisan politics. Bloomberg does have a reputation as both a successful businessman and as an effective non-partisan politician who gets things done, with approval ratings from New York City voters in the 70 percent range. His centrist views on issues like climate change, gun control, abortion and gay rights resonate with many independent and Democratic voters as well as a few Republicans (myself included). He also gets much higher marks from New York City residents for his job performance as Mayor than his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, who is the current front runner for the republican Presidential nomination.
Having said that, Mayor Bloomberg also has significant obstacles to overcome even though the biggest, money to finance a national Presidential campaign, isn’t one of them. Despite their disgust with both major political parties, American voters still have a tendency to pull the lever for their respective Presidential and congressional candidates on Election Day. Historically, third party or independent Presidential candidates have never come close to capturing the US Presidency. The best performance by a third party candidate was 90 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt, who only garnered 27% of the popular vote running as a former President. Ross Perot got only 19% in his first run for President in 1992 for the best performance by a third party candidate in more recent times.
Bloomberg also has to work harder to get on the ballot in all 50 states, which is not an obstacle for Republican and Democratic nominees. He also lacks foreign policy experience at a time when the US badly needs a President who can rebuild its reputation overseas. It is hard to say if he would draw more votes away from the Republican or Democratic Presidential nominee at this point, but suffice to say, none of the current candidates would welcome his entry into the Presidential race. Stay tuned.
Published on July 5th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Back in the states, the 2008 Presidential race could get even more interesting than it already has been. What was already looming as the most wide open Presidential contest in over 80 years, could become even more so if former Senator and Law and Order TV star Fred Thompson jumps into the Republican race next month as I fully expect him to..
Fred will probably be joined in the Republican race later this year by that old gunslinger, Shoot (from the hip) Gingrich who hails from the same southern state I was born and raised in, Georgia. But unlike our former President from Georgia, Jimmy Carter, (who recently visited the Emerald Isle), what ‘ole Newt lacks in integrity and morals, he makes up for with his mouth.
I call him Shoot instead of Newt because of his response to questions about the Virginia Tech campus shootings this past April. Newt, I meant to say Shoot Gingrich said he thought there would have been fewer people killed if everyone on campus was allowed to carry guns with them to class. Then some law abiding citizen could have shot and killed the perpetrator before he had a chance to murder so many other defenceless (aka gun less).students and teachers.
I thought this was one of Shoot’s more brilliant ideas actually. Heck why shouldn’t every American citizen carry a gun with them to school, work, the gym or their favourite bar and restaurant. We wouldn’t need near as many policemen, lawyers, judges and jail cells then because law abiding citizens could take care of the criminals long before the police arrive to try and arrest or stop them. We call that “frontier justice”, which is what we used to have 150 years ago in the western US.
Of course when the police did arrive on the scene, they wouldn’t have any problems figuring out which people firing their weapons were law abiding citizens and which ones were the criminals they should be trying to arrest. If they weren’t sure, then the law abiding citizens could simply flash their National Rifle Association (NRA) cards since we all know that only law abiding citizens would belong to this organization.
Shoot could even borrow Herbert Hoover’s old campaign slogan and add his own personal touch to the beginning and end of it. It could read; “Shoot (first ask questions later) Gingrich for President in 2008 if you want a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage and a gun in every pocket.” Sounds kind of catchy doesn’t it?
As for the ethical lapses which led to his censure and forced him to step down as Speaker of the House, that was a long time ago. Most Republicans believe he wouldn’t have been censured if it hadn’t been for Democrats unfairly targeting him because of his leadership of the Republican “revolution” which wrested control of the Congress from the Democratic Party in 1994. Darn those Democrats and their dirty partisan politics.
Most Republican social conservative Christians would back “Shoot” in a heartbeat because of his strong credentials as an advocate of their social values and close ties to Pat Robertson and other Christian conservative leaders. They have been quick to forgive him for sending his first wife divorce papers while she lay sick in the hospital and for carrying on an adulterous affair with his current 3rd wife, while he was trying to impeach President Clinton for his role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
But enough about my man “Shoot” Gingrich. The really big Presidential political news is coming out of New York City (NYC), where billionaire NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced his resignation from the Republican Party. Bloomberg can’t run for re-election as Mayor in 2009 because of term limits, so his decision to register as an independent is seen by many as a prelude to a run for President in 2008 as an Independent candidate.
With a net worth estimated at 5.5 billion dollars, Bloomberg would have no trouble financing a run for president against the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominees who will each have to raise and spend 500 to 750 million dollars apiece by the time Election Day rolls around in November of 2008. But is money the only issue Bloomberg has to deal with?
A majority of American voters are disgusted with the performance of both Republicans and Democrats in Washington and have grown weary of partisan politics. Bloomberg does have a reputation as both a successful businessman and as an effective non-partisan politician who gets things done, with approval ratings from New York City voters in the 70 percent range. His centrist views on issues like climate change, gun control, abortion and gay rights resonate with many independent and Democratic voters as well as a few Republicans (myself included). He also gets much higher marks from New York City residents for his job performance as Mayor than his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, who is the current front runner for the republican Presidential nomination.
Having said that, Mayor Bloomberg also has significant obstacles to overcome even though the biggest, money to finance a national Presidential campaign, isn’t one of them. Despite their disgust with both major political parties, American voters still have a tendency to pull the lever for their respective Presidential and congressional candidates on Election Day. Historically, third party or independent Presidential candidates have never come close to capturing the US Presidency. The best performance by a third party candidate was 90 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt, who only garnered 27% of the popular vote running as a former President. Ross Perot got only 19% in his first run for President in 1992 for the best performance by a third party candidate in more recent times.
Bloomberg also has to work harder to get on the ballot in all 50 states, which is not an obstacle for Republican and Democratic nominees. He also lacks foreign policy experience at a time when the US badly needs a President who can rebuild its reputation overseas. It is hard to say if he would draw more votes away from the Republican or Democratic Presidential nominee at this point, but suffice to say, none of the current candidates would welcome his entry into the Presidential race. Stay tuned.
Monday, June 25, 2007
My June 9th 2007 Speech to the 3rd Annual Ireland Inter-Faith Roundtable Conference
"IMMIGRATION AND RELIGIOUS (IN)TOLERANCE"
Please allow me to welcome all of you who are attending this year’s Inter-Faith Roundtable Conference and to thank you for allowing me to participate in it. I would also like to thank Sheikh Shaheed Satardien in particular for asking me to address this Conference and express my views on the subject of Faith, Education and Integration. It is indeed an honour for me to do so.
I would like to begin by providing you with some background information, which may prove helpful in terms of understanding how I have come by a few of the beliefs which I will be discussing with you today. I was raised as a Roman Catholic but I disagree with many aspects of the Catholic religion. While I am still a Catholic, currently I would have to characterize myself as being more spiritual than religious.
Some of you are no doubt familiar with the weekly opinion column which I write for Ireland’s multi-cultural newspaper, Metro Eireann. As such you are probably already acquainted with my political views regarding US politics as well as the US’s domestic and foreign policies. But it was a combination of personal experiences, family background, upbringing and education, which helped form most of my perspectives on politics and on the importance of religious issues and spiritual values.
My mother’s great grandfather, Michael Lynch, immigrated to the United States from County Cork here in Ireland. My father’s great grandfather, Peter Laffiteau moved to the US from the Bordeaux region in southern France. As a result, I am a fourth generation American descendant of European immigrants from different cultures with different native languages. Indeed the United States of America is a nation made up primarily of immigrants and a mixture of their descendants.
The story of most Americans is the story of immigrants. More than 75 percent of all people who ever moved from their homeland have settled in the United States, the country that has welcomed more immigrants than any other in the world. Among the first American immigrants were Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England.. They were later joined by French Protestants fleeing religious persecution in France and by Jews trying to escape the clutches of 16th century Europe’s Holy Inquisition. Other immigrants came to the US because of political repression or a lack of economic opportunities in their homelands.
The United States’ ability to absorb wave after wave of immigration over the last 350 years is the central theme of its very existence not to mention its subsequent rise to become the most economically powerful nation in the world. Immigrants from around the world were and still are drawn to the US because of the wealth of economic opportunities there in contrast to the lack of such opportunities in their home countries. But not all of these immigrants were absorbed and integrated into US society as successfully as those immigrants who originally came from Europe.
You see, I was born and raised in Atlanta Georgia, deep in the heart of the southern United States. For over 200 years the states in the southern US were home to millions of African slaves and their descendants, who were bought and sold by the Caucasian settlers who lived there. These natives of Africa didn’t have the same skin pigmentation as the European immigrants and they didn’t leave their native lands and come to the US voluntarily. After they were finally freed from slavery over 150 years ago, there still remained a considerable residue of prejudice against them on the part of many Caucasians, a certain level of which still persists today.
However, I was extremely fortunate to have been raised by parents who did not share the same prejudices as many other Caucasians in the southern United States. The “n” word was never said in my home or in the Catholic schools where I was educated, (although I heard it a lot outside of these two spheres of influence). While there were no African American families in my neighbourhood, I did go to school with African Americans and regarded them as no better or worse as people or students than myself and my fellow Caucasian classmates.
Even though I attended a Catholic military high school, many of my classmates were neither Caucasians nor Catholics. All of us were educated about the history and basic tenets of many different religions in the classroom. My home life and religious education also heavily emphasized the fact that the differences between us were only minor physical or cultural distinctions. That we were very much the same in all other respects. This same philosophy was later applied to all other ethnic minorities that we might one day come in contact with.
Before returning to college to obtain my undergraduate and post graduate degrees, I spent over 10 years as a sales executive in the telecommunications industry. Many of my clients were engineers who had emigrated from countries like Iran, Pakistan, India and China for economic and or political reasons. Thanks to these relationships I was fortunate enough to be able to learn a great deal about their respective cultures as well as their different religious beliefs and social values. I received a wonderful education about their native countries without ever having travelled there to visit them in person.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, immigrants from Asia and their descendants were another group that experienced difficulty integrating with US society because of some minor physical differences. Only in the last 50 years has this prejudice begun to evaporate, thus allowing Asian Americans to become accepted as members of American society despite their difference in facial features.
More recently an increase in illegal immigration by Hispanics from Mexico and Latin America has been the cause of heated political debate in the US. This has been largely due to popular misconceptions that these immigrants are taking jobs away from native citizens and taking advantage of government services without paying their fair share of taxes for them.
Hispanic immigrants and their descendants have had less difficulty integrating into US society because they share the same physical characteristics and religious backgrounds of most Caucasian Americans. Like many European immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries (including my own great, great grandfather), the main distinction between them and Caucasian Americans is in terms of their native language. Thanks largely to their ability to more easily immigrate and assimilate into US society; Latinos have now replaced African Americans as the single largest ethnic minority group in the country.
Over the past 40 years the US has also witnessed an increase in immigration from countries in Africa and from nations in the Middle East where Islam is the dominant form of religious worship. However, unlike most of their Hispanic counterparts, language is not as much of a barrier for these immigrants because most of them already speak English as their second language. What distinguishes many of these immigrants from other African or Caucasian Americans is their use of the traditional dress of their native lands. Hijabs, robes, saris and turbans which were once rarely seen in the US outside of New York City and the United Nations, have now become commonplace in many cities and towns throughout the country.
I believe the recent bans on the wearing of hijabs by Muslim women in the cities of Antwerp and Berlin are very discriminatory and not conducive to the integration of Muslims into European civil society. I wonder how Christians would react if those same city councils were to ban the wearing of crosses as well? I believe actions such as these, to coerce people from other countries to “fit in” to the dominant culture of the country where they are living, only serve to arouse resentment and act as a barrier to integration with that nation’s civil society.
Based on my personal experiences dealing with people from other countries and cultures, I believe we should not only respect cultural and ethnic differences but that we should actually celebrate them. I have learned something which has benefited me personally, from every culture and ethnic group I have ever had the pleasure of coming into contact with. I also believe that ethnic homogeneity weakens the fabric of a country’s society in much the same way that a lack of genetic diversity weakens biological species. Societies and biological species which lack diversity evolve in ways which emphasize their flaws and weaknesses, leaving them more vulnerable to unexpected changes in their external environment.
Cultural diversity allows a society to draw on the strengths of various different cultures leaving it in a better position to cope with political and social changes in its external and internal environment. The United States was originally a group of British colonies so it isn’t surprising that English is the un-official language and that the US legal system is based on English Law. Yet according to the latest US census figures, more than 60 million Americans trace their ancestry to Germany and over 40 million to Ireland while only 35 million claim to be of English descent. 25 million Americans are of African descent and over 15 million have their roots in Italy. More than 12 million legal US citizens are from Mexico while over 10 million trace their heritage to France with another 9 million claiming Poland as their ancestral homeland.
For the first time in its history, non-Irish immigrants now comprise more than 10 percent of Ireland’s population, thanks largely to the recent economic boom often referred to as the “Celtic Tiger”. Like most US immigrants these non-Irish citizens are hard workers performing tasks which are essential to the economic health and well being of Ireland. The key to helping them become a part of Irish society is education on a number of levels. Religion has a vital role to play in this educational process.
I wish that the national governments of all nations would mandate that school children be taught not only about the history of their own country, but also about the history of the many different religions and cultures which exist throughout the rest of the world. I think that a better appreciation and understanding of why differences exist would go a long way towards preventing violence stemming from cultural, ethnic and religious misunderstandings and conflicts.
Ireland has already experienced first hand the violence which resulted from political conflict rooted in the religious differences between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Similar conflicts are being played out around the world between Jews and Moslems in Israel and Palestine, between Shiite and Sunni Moslems in Iraq as well as Christians and Moslems in other parts of the world.
I find it ironic that so many adherents of Islam, Christianity and Judaism either can not or will not acknowledge the many religious, geographic, historic and cultural similarities ( i.e. monotheistic, Middle East roots and birthplaces, descendants of Abraham etc.) shared by these religions. I like to refer to these religions as the “Abrahamic faiths” in an effort to emphasize our common heritage and shared values.
However, the “Abrahamic faiths” (as well as other religions) also share a history of using violence to advance their political goals in the name of religious beliefs. The Muslim conquests of parts of the Roman and Persian Empires in North Africa, Spain and the Middle East in the 7th and 8th centuries were followed by the Christian crusades in the Middle East during the 10th and 11th centuries.
Nor are militant Muslims the first religious extremists to use terrorism to advance their political goals. The first known use of terrorism was over 2000 years ago by Jewish Zealots, who terrorized Romans and citizens suspected of aiding them by murdering them in crowded marketplaces. Just 60 years ago Jewish Zionists used terrorist bombings against the British and other civilians in Palestine. Christian extremists were responsible for terrorist bombings in India and the murders of abortion providers in the US during the past 15 years as well.
All of the world’s major faiths have members who consider themselves to be “fundamentalists” but not all “fundamentalists” are “militants” who advocate the use of violence. Jehovah’s Witnesses are resolutely pacifist Christian fundamentalists who completely reject violence or militancy and refuse to serve in the armed forces of any country.
On the other hand there are currently religious militants perpetrating violence against non-believers in Sri Lanka and Myanmar (by Buddhists), Kashmir and India (by Hindus), Uganda and India (by Christians), Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia and the Philippines (by Muslims), Iraq (by Shiite and Sunni Muslims) and Palestine (by Jews).
So much media attention is focused on the negative views of militant religious extremists and violent clashes between the Judeo-Christian and Muslim worlds, that informed discussion of the many similarities and positive influences they have (in the past) and could have (in the future) on each other is lost in the debate over the positions of a few militant religious extremists. This has given members of religious faiths who wish to return to the practice of the fundamentals of their faith a bad name.
The basic principles of Islam involve, praying, fasting, and giving to the poor. Islam provides clear guidance for all of a person’s life, and its teachings reference care for the family, concern for the welfare of parents and the aged, and concern for learning and work. Proscriptions against racial discrimination are also included in Islam’s teachings.
Christianity and Judaism embrace these same principles as do most other religious faiths. It is therefore difficult for me to understand why we have allowed religious extremists of many different religious persuasions to hijack their respective religions and use their religious fundamentalism as an excuse for violence. Such violence is contrary to the basic teachings of all religions.
The ongoing conflict between Israeli’s and Palestinians is a prime example of the futility of using violence to achieve ones pseudo-religious political goals. In an existential conflict driven by memory, identity, religion and national trauma, the Israeli and Palestinian capacities to absorb and inflict pain are limitless. Osama bin Laden has hijacked Muslim sympathies for the plight of Palestinians and used these sentiments to wage a violent war against western governments and what he believes to be western cultural pollution, which has heightened tensions between non-Muslim natives and Muslim minorities in many western countries.
If meaningful alliances are to be made among societies that have recently clashed or harbor historic resentments, religion - like it or not - must play a central role. Since Muslims and Roman Catholics comprise the two largest religious communities in the world, each with more than a billion followers, it thus follows that they are both essential elements in resolving the current conflicts between Western and Middle Eastern societies within an increasingly globalized and secular world.
Both religions are currently struggling to reconcile the ways in which they interact with one another as well as the so-called secular world due to the effects of globalisation. Thus, building long-term professional, personal, and institutional relationships between Muslim and Roman Catholic scholars, public intellectuals and religious leaders constitutes a difficult but necessary task. I fervently believe that such a dialog is possible and will support efforts by those who promote such dialog and seek to emphasize our many religious and cultural similarities while also celebrating our differences.
I hope that all religious leaders will begin to solicit the support of their congregations to promote more cultural exchanges involving the citizens of other countries, particularly those from whom their immigrant populations are drawn.
A World History or Ethics & Humanism course which also explores the formation of most of the world’s current ethnic identities and religious denominations could highlight their similar moral and or ethical values and allow students to better relate to their counterparts from other countries. Over time, these students could then help educate their parents and the general populace about those members of society who appear to be different from them. I believe these measures are essential to achieving the goal of successfully integrating “new” Irish immigrants into an “old” Irish society, while also allowing these immigrants to retain the culture and customs of their native homelands. I hope you will find my suggestions helpful and I want to thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to discuss them with you here today.
Please allow me to welcome all of you who are attending this year’s Inter-Faith Roundtable Conference and to thank you for allowing me to participate in it. I would also like to thank Sheikh Shaheed Satardien in particular for asking me to address this Conference and express my views on the subject of Faith, Education and Integration. It is indeed an honour for me to do so.
I would like to begin by providing you with some background information, which may prove helpful in terms of understanding how I have come by a few of the beliefs which I will be discussing with you today. I was raised as a Roman Catholic but I disagree with many aspects of the Catholic religion. While I am still a Catholic, currently I would have to characterize myself as being more spiritual than religious.
Some of you are no doubt familiar with the weekly opinion column which I write for Ireland’s multi-cultural newspaper, Metro Eireann. As such you are probably already acquainted with my political views regarding US politics as well as the US’s domestic and foreign policies. But it was a combination of personal experiences, family background, upbringing and education, which helped form most of my perspectives on politics and on the importance of religious issues and spiritual values.
My mother’s great grandfather, Michael Lynch, immigrated to the United States from County Cork here in Ireland. My father’s great grandfather, Peter Laffiteau moved to the US from the Bordeaux region in southern France. As a result, I am a fourth generation American descendant of European immigrants from different cultures with different native languages. Indeed the United States of America is a nation made up primarily of immigrants and a mixture of their descendants.
The story of most Americans is the story of immigrants. More than 75 percent of all people who ever moved from their homeland have settled in the United States, the country that has welcomed more immigrants than any other in the world. Among the first American immigrants were Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England.. They were later joined by French Protestants fleeing religious persecution in France and by Jews trying to escape the clutches of 16th century Europe’s Holy Inquisition. Other immigrants came to the US because of political repression or a lack of economic opportunities in their homelands.
The United States’ ability to absorb wave after wave of immigration over the last 350 years is the central theme of its very existence not to mention its subsequent rise to become the most economically powerful nation in the world. Immigrants from around the world were and still are drawn to the US because of the wealth of economic opportunities there in contrast to the lack of such opportunities in their home countries. But not all of these immigrants were absorbed and integrated into US society as successfully as those immigrants who originally came from Europe.
You see, I was born and raised in Atlanta Georgia, deep in the heart of the southern United States. For over 200 years the states in the southern US were home to millions of African slaves and their descendants, who were bought and sold by the Caucasian settlers who lived there. These natives of Africa didn’t have the same skin pigmentation as the European immigrants and they didn’t leave their native lands and come to the US voluntarily. After they were finally freed from slavery over 150 years ago, there still remained a considerable residue of prejudice against them on the part of many Caucasians, a certain level of which still persists today.
However, I was extremely fortunate to have been raised by parents who did not share the same prejudices as many other Caucasians in the southern United States. The “n” word was never said in my home or in the Catholic schools where I was educated, (although I heard it a lot outside of these two spheres of influence). While there were no African American families in my neighbourhood, I did go to school with African Americans and regarded them as no better or worse as people or students than myself and my fellow Caucasian classmates.
Even though I attended a Catholic military high school, many of my classmates were neither Caucasians nor Catholics. All of us were educated about the history and basic tenets of many different religions in the classroom. My home life and religious education also heavily emphasized the fact that the differences between us were only minor physical or cultural distinctions. That we were very much the same in all other respects. This same philosophy was later applied to all other ethnic minorities that we might one day come in contact with.
Before returning to college to obtain my undergraduate and post graduate degrees, I spent over 10 years as a sales executive in the telecommunications industry. Many of my clients were engineers who had emigrated from countries like Iran, Pakistan, India and China for economic and or political reasons. Thanks to these relationships I was fortunate enough to be able to learn a great deal about their respective cultures as well as their different religious beliefs and social values. I received a wonderful education about their native countries without ever having travelled there to visit them in person.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, immigrants from Asia and their descendants were another group that experienced difficulty integrating with US society because of some minor physical differences. Only in the last 50 years has this prejudice begun to evaporate, thus allowing Asian Americans to become accepted as members of American society despite their difference in facial features.
More recently an increase in illegal immigration by Hispanics from Mexico and Latin America has been the cause of heated political debate in the US. This has been largely due to popular misconceptions that these immigrants are taking jobs away from native citizens and taking advantage of government services without paying their fair share of taxes for them.
Hispanic immigrants and their descendants have had less difficulty integrating into US society because they share the same physical characteristics and religious backgrounds of most Caucasian Americans. Like many European immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries (including my own great, great grandfather), the main distinction between them and Caucasian Americans is in terms of their native language. Thanks largely to their ability to more easily immigrate and assimilate into US society; Latinos have now replaced African Americans as the single largest ethnic minority group in the country.
Over the past 40 years the US has also witnessed an increase in immigration from countries in Africa and from nations in the Middle East where Islam is the dominant form of religious worship. However, unlike most of their Hispanic counterparts, language is not as much of a barrier for these immigrants because most of them already speak English as their second language. What distinguishes many of these immigrants from other African or Caucasian Americans is their use of the traditional dress of their native lands. Hijabs, robes, saris and turbans which were once rarely seen in the US outside of New York City and the United Nations, have now become commonplace in many cities and towns throughout the country.
I believe the recent bans on the wearing of hijabs by Muslim women in the cities of Antwerp and Berlin are very discriminatory and not conducive to the integration of Muslims into European civil society. I wonder how Christians would react if those same city councils were to ban the wearing of crosses as well? I believe actions such as these, to coerce people from other countries to “fit in” to the dominant culture of the country where they are living, only serve to arouse resentment and act as a barrier to integration with that nation’s civil society.
Based on my personal experiences dealing with people from other countries and cultures, I believe we should not only respect cultural and ethnic differences but that we should actually celebrate them. I have learned something which has benefited me personally, from every culture and ethnic group I have ever had the pleasure of coming into contact with. I also believe that ethnic homogeneity weakens the fabric of a country’s society in much the same way that a lack of genetic diversity weakens biological species. Societies and biological species which lack diversity evolve in ways which emphasize their flaws and weaknesses, leaving them more vulnerable to unexpected changes in their external environment.
Cultural diversity allows a society to draw on the strengths of various different cultures leaving it in a better position to cope with political and social changes in its external and internal environment. The United States was originally a group of British colonies so it isn’t surprising that English is the un-official language and that the US legal system is based on English Law. Yet according to the latest US census figures, more than 60 million Americans trace their ancestry to Germany and over 40 million to Ireland while only 35 million claim to be of English descent. 25 million Americans are of African descent and over 15 million have their roots in Italy. More than 12 million legal US citizens are from Mexico while over 10 million trace their heritage to France with another 9 million claiming Poland as their ancestral homeland.
For the first time in its history, non-Irish immigrants now comprise more than 10 percent of Ireland’s population, thanks largely to the recent economic boom often referred to as the “Celtic Tiger”. Like most US immigrants these non-Irish citizens are hard workers performing tasks which are essential to the economic health and well being of Ireland. The key to helping them become a part of Irish society is education on a number of levels. Religion has a vital role to play in this educational process.
I wish that the national governments of all nations would mandate that school children be taught not only about the history of their own country, but also about the history of the many different religions and cultures which exist throughout the rest of the world. I think that a better appreciation and understanding of why differences exist would go a long way towards preventing violence stemming from cultural, ethnic and religious misunderstandings and conflicts.
Ireland has already experienced first hand the violence which resulted from political conflict rooted in the religious differences between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Similar conflicts are being played out around the world between Jews and Moslems in Israel and Palestine, between Shiite and Sunni Moslems in Iraq as well as Christians and Moslems in other parts of the world.
I find it ironic that so many adherents of Islam, Christianity and Judaism either can not or will not acknowledge the many religious, geographic, historic and cultural similarities ( i.e. monotheistic, Middle East roots and birthplaces, descendants of Abraham etc.) shared by these religions. I like to refer to these religions as the “Abrahamic faiths” in an effort to emphasize our common heritage and shared values.
However, the “Abrahamic faiths” (as well as other religions) also share a history of using violence to advance their political goals in the name of religious beliefs. The Muslim conquests of parts of the Roman and Persian Empires in North Africa, Spain and the Middle East in the 7th and 8th centuries were followed by the Christian crusades in the Middle East during the 10th and 11th centuries.
Nor are militant Muslims the first religious extremists to use terrorism to advance their political goals. The first known use of terrorism was over 2000 years ago by Jewish Zealots, who terrorized Romans and citizens suspected of aiding them by murdering them in crowded marketplaces. Just 60 years ago Jewish Zionists used terrorist bombings against the British and other civilians in Palestine. Christian extremists were responsible for terrorist bombings in India and the murders of abortion providers in the US during the past 15 years as well.
All of the world’s major faiths have members who consider themselves to be “fundamentalists” but not all “fundamentalists” are “militants” who advocate the use of violence. Jehovah’s Witnesses are resolutely pacifist Christian fundamentalists who completely reject violence or militancy and refuse to serve in the armed forces of any country.
On the other hand there are currently religious militants perpetrating violence against non-believers in Sri Lanka and Myanmar (by Buddhists), Kashmir and India (by Hindus), Uganda and India (by Christians), Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia and the Philippines (by Muslims), Iraq (by Shiite and Sunni Muslims) and Palestine (by Jews).
So much media attention is focused on the negative views of militant religious extremists and violent clashes between the Judeo-Christian and Muslim worlds, that informed discussion of the many similarities and positive influences they have (in the past) and could have (in the future) on each other is lost in the debate over the positions of a few militant religious extremists. This has given members of religious faiths who wish to return to the practice of the fundamentals of their faith a bad name.
The basic principles of Islam involve, praying, fasting, and giving to the poor. Islam provides clear guidance for all of a person’s life, and its teachings reference care for the family, concern for the welfare of parents and the aged, and concern for learning and work. Proscriptions against racial discrimination are also included in Islam’s teachings.
Christianity and Judaism embrace these same principles as do most other religious faiths. It is therefore difficult for me to understand why we have allowed religious extremists of many different religious persuasions to hijack their respective religions and use their religious fundamentalism as an excuse for violence. Such violence is contrary to the basic teachings of all religions.
The ongoing conflict between Israeli’s and Palestinians is a prime example of the futility of using violence to achieve ones pseudo-religious political goals. In an existential conflict driven by memory, identity, religion and national trauma, the Israeli and Palestinian capacities to absorb and inflict pain are limitless. Osama bin Laden has hijacked Muslim sympathies for the plight of Palestinians and used these sentiments to wage a violent war against western governments and what he believes to be western cultural pollution, which has heightened tensions between non-Muslim natives and Muslim minorities in many western countries.
If meaningful alliances are to be made among societies that have recently clashed or harbor historic resentments, religion - like it or not - must play a central role. Since Muslims and Roman Catholics comprise the two largest religious communities in the world, each with more than a billion followers, it thus follows that they are both essential elements in resolving the current conflicts between Western and Middle Eastern societies within an increasingly globalized and secular world.
Both religions are currently struggling to reconcile the ways in which they interact with one another as well as the so-called secular world due to the effects of globalisation. Thus, building long-term professional, personal, and institutional relationships between Muslim and Roman Catholic scholars, public intellectuals and religious leaders constitutes a difficult but necessary task. I fervently believe that such a dialog is possible and will support efforts by those who promote such dialog and seek to emphasize our many religious and cultural similarities while also celebrating our differences.
I hope that all religious leaders will begin to solicit the support of their congregations to promote more cultural exchanges involving the citizens of other countries, particularly those from whom their immigrant populations are drawn.
A World History or Ethics & Humanism course which also explores the formation of most of the world’s current ethnic identities and religious denominations could highlight their similar moral and or ethical values and allow students to better relate to their counterparts from other countries. Over time, these students could then help educate their parents and the general populace about those members of society who appear to be different from them. I believe these measures are essential to achieving the goal of successfully integrating “new” Irish immigrants into an “old” Irish society, while also allowing these immigrants to retain the culture and customs of their native homelands. I hope you will find my suggestions helpful and I want to thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to discuss them with you here today.
Bush administration Conflicts of Interest continued
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on June 28th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In addition to the convictions I cited in last week’s column, there exist numerous other examples of Bush administration political appointees abusing their positions of government power.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will probably lose his job eventually, but will never be charged regarding the politically motivated firings of 8-9 US Attorneys last December. Likewise, Bush’s former Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has admitted to conflicts of interest in arranging for a huge raise for his girlfriend (and may yet be forced out as head of the World Bank) but will never face any charges.
Monica Goodling, the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) White House liaison officer, ‘took the fifth’ and invoked her right to avoid giving ‘self incriminating’ testimony, in response to subpoenas to testify before Congressional panels investigating the aforementioned US Attorney firings. This must be construed as an admission of guilt on her part or else why does one need to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights?
A US federal judge recently granted Goodling ‘limited immunity from prosecution’ so she can tell the House Judiciary Committee what she knows about White House involvement in the firings of the aforementioned 8-9 US Attorneys. The grant of immunity wasn’t meant to apply to Goodling’s hiring, promotions and firing practices at the DOJ, but was to compel her to talk about what she knows about the firings of those 8-9 specific US Attorneys last December. Unless she commits perjury, whatever Goodling says to Congress cannot be used in the future to prosecute her.
That grant of immunity was necessitated by the fact that Monica is also under investigation by her former employers at the DOJ in a separate case involving her violating Federal laws governing US Civil Service hiring practices. It is against Federal law and DOJ regulations to consider a person’s political affiliation when hiring them for Civil Service positions. However, Monica did subsequently testify about her hiring practices, admitting she had crossed the line in questioning job candidates’ political affiliations but didn’t know that doing this was illegal.
Numerous DOJ employees have stepped forward as witnesses to Goodling’s blatant disregard of these laws and regulations in both refusing to hire anyone she considered to be a Democrat (or that she thought was disloyal to conservative Republican Party social ‘values’) and by denying promotions and or firing any existing DOJ attorneys she felt were guilty of the same ‘offences’.
Monica Goodling’s practice was to review all hiring of assistant United States attorneys and to hire less qualified or experienced lawyers who graduated from conservative Christian law schools like her own alma mater Regent University School of Law, which was founded by conservative Christian TV evangelist Pat Robertson.
She would also hire less qualified members of the conservative Federalist Society and reject more qualified and competent applicants who had interned for Democratic legislators or worked on behalf of ‘liberal’ causes. Goodling’s reviews resulted in delaying hiring decisions for weeks or months, creating problems for busy US Attorney offices around the country.
I must agree with what former Republican US Attorney for Eastern Arkansas Bud Cummins said about Goodling's hiring practices at the Justice Department; “A more experienced person would understand you don’t help the party by trying to put political people in there. You put the best people you can find in there.”
Monica Goodling is representative of the scores of other ideologically correct Bush appointees who were placed in positions of power despite their dreadful lack of experience and in many cases, their total ignorance or lack of knowledge much less any prior demonstration of managerial competence.
Monica Goodling's Justice Department hiring methods were either consciously illegal (despite her assertions to the contrary), but she figured she wouldn't be caught, or reflect her complete ignorance of US laws and regulations (as she claimed in her testimony before Congress). Either way she was a totally inappropriate choice for her respective positions of power in the US federal government.
Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist before he became White House Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, has admitted changing government reports to eliminate or downplay links between greenhouse gases and global warming before he resigned to go to work for Exxon Mobil in 2005. Likewise, the Interior Department Inspector General accused Julie MacDonald of changing recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists regarding endangered species and improperly leaking internal information to industry lawyers and lobbyists. She finally resigned on May1st. Conflicts of interest yes, but legal charges? I doubt it.
Bush appointees currently under investigation include Robert W. Cobb, NASA's Inspector General, who is under investigation for ignoring safety violations and tipping off space agency officials about internal investigations. Matteo Fontana is a Department of Education official who is now under investigation for conflicts of interest involving the student loan industry. Dr.Eric Keroack abruptly resigned as the head of the US family planning program, after the Massachusetts Medicaid office launched a fraud investigation of his private practice last month. Lurita Doan, head of the General Services Administration, is now under investigation for violating a federal law that restricts Bush appointees from using their positions for political purposes.
Last but not least we have the convicted J. Steven Griles’ girlfriend, Sue Ellen Wooldridge. First, she, Griles and ConocoPhillips oil lobbyist Donald R. Duncan bought a million dollar beach house on Kiawah Island. Then 9 months later in her capacity as the top Justice Department prosecutor in the environmental division, she approved a deal giving ConocoPhillips 3 additional years to install a half a billion dollars worth of pollution control equipment at one of its refineries just days before she resigned from the Justice Department. Hopefully she will soon get to join her boyfriend in prison, only not for conjugal visitations.
Speaking as a lifelong Republican, let me now apologize for Monica Goodling and the scores of others like her, such as Philip Cooney, Julie MacDonald, Lurita Doan, Steven Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who the current Republican administration appointed to important government positions. Their actions as government officials have disgraced a great political party and I hope that they will all get what they deserve, jail time and a permanent bar against them ever working for or holding a position in US, state or even local government. These people are a disgrace to the government, themselves and the Republican Party they claim to serve.
Published on June 28th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In addition to the convictions I cited in last week’s column, there exist numerous other examples of Bush administration political appointees abusing their positions of government power.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will probably lose his job eventually, but will never be charged regarding the politically motivated firings of 8-9 US Attorneys last December. Likewise, Bush’s former Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has admitted to conflicts of interest in arranging for a huge raise for his girlfriend (and may yet be forced out as head of the World Bank) but will never face any charges.
Monica Goodling, the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) White House liaison officer, ‘took the fifth’ and invoked her right to avoid giving ‘self incriminating’ testimony, in response to subpoenas to testify before Congressional panels investigating the aforementioned US Attorney firings. This must be construed as an admission of guilt on her part or else why does one need to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights?
A US federal judge recently granted Goodling ‘limited immunity from prosecution’ so she can tell the House Judiciary Committee what she knows about White House involvement in the firings of the aforementioned 8-9 US Attorneys. The grant of immunity wasn’t meant to apply to Goodling’s hiring, promotions and firing practices at the DOJ, but was to compel her to talk about what she knows about the firings of those 8-9 specific US Attorneys last December. Unless she commits perjury, whatever Goodling says to Congress cannot be used in the future to prosecute her.
That grant of immunity was necessitated by the fact that Monica is also under investigation by her former employers at the DOJ in a separate case involving her violating Federal laws governing US Civil Service hiring practices. It is against Federal law and DOJ regulations to consider a person’s political affiliation when hiring them for Civil Service positions. However, Monica did subsequently testify about her hiring practices, admitting she had crossed the line in questioning job candidates’ political affiliations but didn’t know that doing this was illegal.
Numerous DOJ employees have stepped forward as witnesses to Goodling’s blatant disregard of these laws and regulations in both refusing to hire anyone she considered to be a Democrat (or that she thought was disloyal to conservative Republican Party social ‘values’) and by denying promotions and or firing any existing DOJ attorneys she felt were guilty of the same ‘offences’.
Monica Goodling’s practice was to review all hiring of assistant United States attorneys and to hire less qualified or experienced lawyers who graduated from conservative Christian law schools like her own alma mater Regent University School of Law, which was founded by conservative Christian TV evangelist Pat Robertson.
She would also hire less qualified members of the conservative Federalist Society and reject more qualified and competent applicants who had interned for Democratic legislators or worked on behalf of ‘liberal’ causes. Goodling’s reviews resulted in delaying hiring decisions for weeks or months, creating problems for busy US Attorney offices around the country.
I must agree with what former Republican US Attorney for Eastern Arkansas Bud Cummins said about Goodling's hiring practices at the Justice Department; “A more experienced person would understand you don’t help the party by trying to put political people in there. You put the best people you can find in there.”
Monica Goodling is representative of the scores of other ideologically correct Bush appointees who were placed in positions of power despite their dreadful lack of experience and in many cases, their total ignorance or lack of knowledge much less any prior demonstration of managerial competence.
Monica Goodling's Justice Department hiring methods were either consciously illegal (despite her assertions to the contrary), but she figured she wouldn't be caught, or reflect her complete ignorance of US laws and regulations (as she claimed in her testimony before Congress). Either way she was a totally inappropriate choice for her respective positions of power in the US federal government.
Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist before he became White House Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, has admitted changing government reports to eliminate or downplay links between greenhouse gases and global warming before he resigned to go to work for Exxon Mobil in 2005. Likewise, the Interior Department Inspector General accused Julie MacDonald of changing recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists regarding endangered species and improperly leaking internal information to industry lawyers and lobbyists. She finally resigned on May1st. Conflicts of interest yes, but legal charges? I doubt it.
Bush appointees currently under investigation include Robert W. Cobb, NASA's Inspector General, who is under investigation for ignoring safety violations and tipping off space agency officials about internal investigations. Matteo Fontana is a Department of Education official who is now under investigation for conflicts of interest involving the student loan industry. Dr.Eric Keroack abruptly resigned as the head of the US family planning program, after the Massachusetts Medicaid office launched a fraud investigation of his private practice last month. Lurita Doan, head of the General Services Administration, is now under investigation for violating a federal law that restricts Bush appointees from using their positions for political purposes.
Last but not least we have the convicted J. Steven Griles’ girlfriend, Sue Ellen Wooldridge. First, she, Griles and ConocoPhillips oil lobbyist Donald R. Duncan bought a million dollar beach house on Kiawah Island. Then 9 months later in her capacity as the top Justice Department prosecutor in the environmental division, she approved a deal giving ConocoPhillips 3 additional years to install a half a billion dollars worth of pollution control equipment at one of its refineries just days before she resigned from the Justice Department. Hopefully she will soon get to join her boyfriend in prison, only not for conjugal visitations.
Speaking as a lifelong Republican, let me now apologize for Monica Goodling and the scores of others like her, such as Philip Cooney, Julie MacDonald, Lurita Doan, Steven Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who the current Republican administration appointed to important government positions. Their actions as government officials have disgraced a great political party and I hope that they will all get what they deserve, jail time and a permanent bar against them ever working for or holding a position in US, state or even local government. These people are a disgrace to the government, themselves and the Republican Party they claim to serve.
Bush administration Criminal Convictions and Conflicts of Interest
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on June 21st 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In a previous column I discussed “Scooter” Libby’s convictions for obstruction of justice and perjury as being the first felony convictions of a high ranking White House official since the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980’s.
Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove, and his Vice President, Dick Cheney, were also implicated at Libby’s trial for their roles in a “whispering” campaign to discredit former US Ambassador Joe Wilson. Ambassador Wilson had angered them by exposing the Bush administration’s use of discredited intelligence about Iraq’s WMD capabilities to help justify their decision to invade Iraq. Libby incidentally, was sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison for those felony convictions.
It says something about the White House and particularly Vice President Cheney that, according to Cheney, he has not had a single conversation with “Scooter” Libby since his conviction almost three months ago. Cheney was, after all, referring to a man who was once his best friend, had served as his right hand and chief political advisor for many years, as well as his (Cheney’s) White House chief of staff since he first took office in 2001.
The crimes Libby committed were part of an unsuccessful attempt by Libby to do Cheney and Rove’s bidding, and then lying about it to avoid having them implicated for their roles in disclosing Ambassador Wilson’s wife’s identity as a covert CIA operative. Hmmm. One has to wonder; with friends like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who needs enemies?
Or is there some reason why Cheney isn’t talking to a man he has spent more time with over the years than anyone else, including his own wife? Could it be that there is a Presidential pardon in the wind before Bush leaves office in January 2009? Soon to announce (potential) Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has already flatly stated that he would pardon Libby if he was President. Stay tuned.
A reader recently asked me if any other Bush administration officials had been similarly accused of crimes or conflicts of interest. The short answer is yes, so I will now attempt to provide a summary of the charges and accusations against various Bush appointees. But first I want to note that the Bush administration has probably been no better, but possibly a bit worse in this regard, relatively speaking, than previous Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations.
Worse in that the current Bush administration has shown a knack for appointing other Republicans to positions of Federal government power who are either ill equipped or ill suited for their positions. Some of them came into government directly from their previous jobs as lobbyists on behalf of the industries they were then supposed to regulate. This is kind of like ‘putting the fox in charge of the hen house’ if you ask me.
Others lacked experience, any prior track record of managerial competence or even worse, they were ignorant of what their respective government job responsibilities entailed. The former head of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Michael Brown, who led the US Government’s disastrous emergency response to Hurricane Katrina, is one of the more egregious examples of this lack of experience and managerial incompetence.
Worse yet were those with prior records of ignoring government ‘conflict of interest’ rules who then consciously acted in an illegal manner, thinking that they could avoid being caught doing so.
Unfortunately for me as a member of the Republican Party, it will take this and another follow-up column just to give you a brief overview of some of those Bush appointees who have either been convicted of illegal actions while in government or accused and investigated for ‘conflicts of interest.’
Those who have already plead or been found guilty include Darleen Druyun. She was a Defence Department procurement officer who recently served nine months in prison for violating federal conflict of interest rules. She approved a 23 billion dollar deal with Boeing to lease tankers for the Air Force to use for refuelling planes in the air and then quit her job and took a position with Boeing.
J. Steven Griles was the Deputy Interior Secretary who is now the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s influence peddling scandal. Griles was a coal, oil and gas industry lobbyist before Bush appointed him as Deputy Interior Secretary. He was forced to resign that position in 2005 after an 18 month investigation by the Department of Interior’s Inspector General of his violations of rules pertaining to conflicts of interest.
While he was never charged in that case, Griles recently pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by lying to a Senate committee about his relationship with Jack Abramoff and his actions as the chief operating officer of the Interior Department on behalf of Abramoff’s Indian tribe clients. He is currently awaiting sentencing.
David H. Safavian was the powerful Chief of Staff of the General Services Administration convicted of lying to investigators about his relationship with Abramoff and is also awaiting sentencing. Safavian was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice regarding his efforts to support Abramoff’s purchase of two properties controlled by the GSA. He also lied about the expensive golf trip he took with Abramoff to Scotland and London.
Roger Stillwell was an Interior Department official who worked in the Insular Affairs Office, which handled issues involving the Northern Mariana Islands. Abramoff was the lobbyist for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who plied Stillwell with hundreds of dollars in face value (but thousands of dollars in market value) tickets to football games and concerts. He pleaded guilty and was fined and sentenced to two years probation for refusing to report these “gifts.”
Also, Bush's domestic policy adviser, Claude Allen pleaded guilty to theft charges involving fraudulent merchandise returns while he was working at the White house. He was fined and sentenced to two years probation for these thefts.
Next week I will summarize other cases in which high ranking Bush administration political appointees have been accused or are still under investigation, involving their ‘conflicts of interest.’
Published on June 21st 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In a previous column I discussed “Scooter” Libby’s convictions for obstruction of justice and perjury as being the first felony convictions of a high ranking White House official since the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980’s.
Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove, and his Vice President, Dick Cheney, were also implicated at Libby’s trial for their roles in a “whispering” campaign to discredit former US Ambassador Joe Wilson. Ambassador Wilson had angered them by exposing the Bush administration’s use of discredited intelligence about Iraq’s WMD capabilities to help justify their decision to invade Iraq. Libby incidentally, was sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison for those felony convictions.
It says something about the White House and particularly Vice President Cheney that, according to Cheney, he has not had a single conversation with “Scooter” Libby since his conviction almost three months ago. Cheney was, after all, referring to a man who was once his best friend, had served as his right hand and chief political advisor for many years, as well as his (Cheney’s) White House chief of staff since he first took office in 2001.
The crimes Libby committed were part of an unsuccessful attempt by Libby to do Cheney and Rove’s bidding, and then lying about it to avoid having them implicated for their roles in disclosing Ambassador Wilson’s wife’s identity as a covert CIA operative. Hmmm. One has to wonder; with friends like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who needs enemies?
Or is there some reason why Cheney isn’t talking to a man he has spent more time with over the years than anyone else, including his own wife? Could it be that there is a Presidential pardon in the wind before Bush leaves office in January 2009? Soon to announce (potential) Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has already flatly stated that he would pardon Libby if he was President. Stay tuned.
A reader recently asked me if any other Bush administration officials had been similarly accused of crimes or conflicts of interest. The short answer is yes, so I will now attempt to provide a summary of the charges and accusations against various Bush appointees. But first I want to note that the Bush administration has probably been no better, but possibly a bit worse in this regard, relatively speaking, than previous Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations.
Worse in that the current Bush administration has shown a knack for appointing other Republicans to positions of Federal government power who are either ill equipped or ill suited for their positions. Some of them came into government directly from their previous jobs as lobbyists on behalf of the industries they were then supposed to regulate. This is kind of like ‘putting the fox in charge of the hen house’ if you ask me.
Others lacked experience, any prior track record of managerial competence or even worse, they were ignorant of what their respective government job responsibilities entailed. The former head of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Michael Brown, who led the US Government’s disastrous emergency response to Hurricane Katrina, is one of the more egregious examples of this lack of experience and managerial incompetence.
Worse yet were those with prior records of ignoring government ‘conflict of interest’ rules who then consciously acted in an illegal manner, thinking that they could avoid being caught doing so.
Unfortunately for me as a member of the Republican Party, it will take this and another follow-up column just to give you a brief overview of some of those Bush appointees who have either been convicted of illegal actions while in government or accused and investigated for ‘conflicts of interest.’
Those who have already plead or been found guilty include Darleen Druyun. She was a Defence Department procurement officer who recently served nine months in prison for violating federal conflict of interest rules. She approved a 23 billion dollar deal with Boeing to lease tankers for the Air Force to use for refuelling planes in the air and then quit her job and took a position with Boeing.
J. Steven Griles was the Deputy Interior Secretary who is now the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s influence peddling scandal. Griles was a coal, oil and gas industry lobbyist before Bush appointed him as Deputy Interior Secretary. He was forced to resign that position in 2005 after an 18 month investigation by the Department of Interior’s Inspector General of his violations of rules pertaining to conflicts of interest.
While he was never charged in that case, Griles recently pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by lying to a Senate committee about his relationship with Jack Abramoff and his actions as the chief operating officer of the Interior Department on behalf of Abramoff’s Indian tribe clients. He is currently awaiting sentencing.
David H. Safavian was the powerful Chief of Staff of the General Services Administration convicted of lying to investigators about his relationship with Abramoff and is also awaiting sentencing. Safavian was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice regarding his efforts to support Abramoff’s purchase of two properties controlled by the GSA. He also lied about the expensive golf trip he took with Abramoff to Scotland and London.
Roger Stillwell was an Interior Department official who worked in the Insular Affairs Office, which handled issues involving the Northern Mariana Islands. Abramoff was the lobbyist for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who plied Stillwell with hundreds of dollars in face value (but thousands of dollars in market value) tickets to football games and concerts. He pleaded guilty and was fined and sentenced to two years probation for refusing to report these “gifts.”
Also, Bush's domestic policy adviser, Claude Allen pleaded guilty to theft charges involving fraudulent merchandise returns while he was working at the White house. He was fined and sentenced to two years probation for these thefts.
Next week I will summarize other cases in which high ranking Bush administration political appointees have been accused or are still under investigation, involving their ‘conflicts of interest.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
