[Dialogue] More on Petrodictators
David Walters
walters at alaweb.com
Sat Sep 30 00:28:09 EST 2006
Somebody needs to figure out how to do the Nation/World course from
the Academy online. Some of us could use a refresher. Others could
aufit.
David Walters
---- Original Message ----
From: jimripsr at qwest.net
To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
Subject: RE: [Dialogue] More on Petrodictators
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:33:31 -0500
>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
>
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list