[Dialogue] More on Petrodictators

[jim rippey]

Colleagues:

I'm puzzled by Steve Rhea's (Sept. 28) comment in "Petrodictators redux."  He said:  "I think it would be better to comment on the issue raised than to see how many ways Friedman (whom I seldom read) can be villified."

The first point Jim Baumbach (Also Sept. 28) raised was this:  "These Presidents who were elected by overwhelming majorities in their countries are called dictators by a journalist in a nation where its own leadership was not elected by the popular vote nor does the leadership, acting very dictatorially,  respect international and national laws  Friedman's hypocritical condemnations of the actions of the twice democratically elected Chavez trying to influence other national elections fly in the face of the US of A which itself has sponsored a military coup to oust Chavez not to mention brutal CIA coups in other Latin American Countries?"

So, Steve calls attention to his extensive knowledge of the South American situation and obviously, he has little faith in the future of these "democratically elected governments," And, quite apparently, he doesn't approve of them.  Obviously, he's taking issue with Jim's criticism.  He may turn out to be right.  I hope not.  And, personally, if the GOP maintains a lock on Congressional power while Bush has two more years, I am equally pessismistic about what kind of country we'll pass on to our children and grandchildren.  But the point is, both Jim and Steve were discussing the issues Friedman raised.  

So?  When we call this a Dialogue, do we mean it, or is that just a catch  word?  I seems to me that what Baumbauch said is very much a "comment on the issues raised." And, rather than "vilification," it seems to me valid questioning of the criticism Friedman was leveling at Bush and the American public.... (in my opinion, Friedman made his criticism in a snide way.  If my stating that is vilification of Friedman, so be it.)   

In his article, Steve Rhea makes the point that he he seldom reads Friedman.  I don't always, either.  But Friedman has a big audience and his article was posted on Dialogue (Sept. 27) with the comment, "Oh SOOO true).  In my opinion, some of it was very true,  but I also happen to agree with Jim's criticism of its flaws.

If you bothered to read the postings I made (also Sept. 28), you'll see that I consider Friedman a "maddening paradox" and on occasion, applaud the good sense he sometimes make.  And if you bothered to read my comments on his Aug. 16 article, you'll see I actually applauded many of them.  Hardly a fixation on "vilification."

In my Sept. 28 "Thanks to Jim Baumbach."  I said:  "You were right on target, particularly spotlighting the interest Big oil (all big business) has in getting a GOP Congressional majority reelected so Bush can continue to reward the rich with huge tax cuts (never mind the deficit or the poor) and sabatoge regulations needed to deter business outrages."  I consider it a major flaw that Friedman blames all our problems on our addiction to oil and therefore our subsidizing of people like Chaves and Ahmadinejad.  He ignores the major role U.S. Big Oil and Big Business play. 

Meanwhile, Friedman goes on to say:  "They (Chavez & Ahmadinejad) know that Mr. Bush is a phony - that he always presents himself as this guy ready to make the "tough" calls, but in reality he has not asked his party, the Congress, the people, or U.S. industry to do one single hard thing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." 

That is certainly a comment that raises an issue.  When Jim notes that Friedman ignores the role of U.S. Big Oil in all this, he is questioning that issue.   

That's not vilification, that's disagreement on the issues.  And in my opinion, a valid part of meaningful Dialogue.

Jim Rippey, Bellevue, NE
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060929/21a23d5d/attachment-0001.html