An Infidel Stands Up for Chick-fil-A’s President (But Not to the Point of Eating Chicken) - Here’s Why

I assume you know the story about the current chicken war. If not, here is a very brief overview - there’s more to it than this but basically what happened was that a fervently religious business leader (Dan Cathy), the owner of a fast-food chicken empire, made a statement on Christian radio to the effect that America’s troubles are due to the fact that God is smiting us because of a drift toward gay marriage. He really said that. I’ll give the exact quote later in the essay.

Most gays, Democrats and others not given to the Republican mindset considered this remark a form of hate speech. Calls went out for action against Chick-fil-A. Naturally, Republicans were quick to seize the day. Led by evangelist politicians, particularly such media stars of that ilk like Mike Huckabee, a call went out for all good Christians to come to the aid of the company. This meant patronizing Chick-fil-A, showing support for God, traditional marriage and the Republican Party by eating chicken at Chick-fil-A on an appointed day. This was a big success for the Right and the company made a small fortune in one day. 

My first tendency was to support action against Chick-fil-A. Given the company president’s extreme religiosity, I would probably not eat there anyway, even if the urge to eat fast food chicken struck me. However, I’m a newly anointed vegan, a convert into a veggie-based diet pattern. Therefore, I would not eat fowl food at Chick-fil-A or at any other establishment, even if the company president came out in support of gay marriage, and not even if he wedded a male lover in one of his restaurants open for business on Sundays. 

But, the charges by the two sides against each other were of of interest to me. The Far Right point of view painted the anti-Chick-fil-A campaign in Rapture-like terms. Varied spokesperson on the Right described the horror of what critics has done in taking offense of the chicken king’s remarks. Here are a few of the interpretations:

• It is an attack on religious freedom more worrisome than the Affordable Care Act mandates for contraception. 
• It is an attack on religious speech itself.
• It’s an attempt to intimidate other businesspeople into thinking twice before exercising their freedom of speech by seeming to be critical of gays or being anti-gay in any way.
• It’s an attack on all who would attempt to run a business on "biblical principles."
• It’s anti-family. 

In addition, Democratic politicians who spoke critically about the chicken company president (such as Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn) were said to be part of a crusade against Christians. (See Jay Richards and James Robison, “The Chicken Inquisition,” Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2012, p. A11)

I don’t think any of the above statements has any merit, but I still want to offer a modicum of support or at least sympathy for Dan Cathy, the besieged or heroic (depending on your view) Chick-fil-A president. Why? Well, have a close look at exactly what Mr. Cathy said that caused so much controversy: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is about."

Sorry, but in my opinion that remark suggests the man is not of sound mind. What kind of god would render such weird judgment - and on an entire nation or generation, given this alleged offense? What kind of rules does he/she/it play by? Who has done any “shaking of fists” and why would anyone do that? Where did Cathy get that quote? When did any god say say such a thing? Is there evidence for any of this? How do we know this god is such a marriage freak or what he/she/it really thinks of the institution, if at all? What does it mean to “pray God's mercy” on a generation? Does that work? Who decided anyone was or is “prideful or arrogant?” Why does it take audacity to “redefine” something that some, using critical faculties, believe is culture-bound and fair game to fine-tune as civilization moves along? 

I dunno - do most mental health experts think the commentary by Cathy is sensible? Think of all the innocents that would be caught up in collective punishments if there were a deity so easily sent into a murderous rage. Besides, why punish an entire generation - I suspect there's diversity in the views within any generation on all topics, including gay marriage. What generation could ever escape being "wrathed upon" by one or more indignant gods? 

In other words, how could a sane person believe such lunacy? We should be urging counseling for Mr. Cathy, not calling for retribution against him or his business. The latter also seems to have the unfortunate effect of setting off tens of thousands of other Christian extremists similarly bereft of their senses.

It is untreated madness such exhibited by Mr. Cathy that leads Americans to reject the science of evolution, to believe in something as laughable as scriptural inerrancy, to think there really are angels and demons out there that meddle in human affairs, to fear eternal hell-fires and so on. We need new health care legislation - an Affordable Mental Health Care Act for Christians who believe the kind of things the chicken guy said about gay marriage. Such talk seems proof positive of a serious mental condition. 

It’s vital that the Cathys of America get help, and not just for their sake. The toxic delusions they reinforce among themselves and promote to others have already sent one of our two main political parties off the rails. If they gain even greater control of the government, then watch out. Such concerns we have now about faith-based funding, school prayer, the god-talk Pledge of Allegiance and other violations of church-state separation will be the least of the worries for secular Americans. We will have to give all our attention to devising ways to obtain visas or otherwise escape the pogroms, inquisitions, witch trials, blasphemy courts and the rest that will surely follow the madness of fundamentalist thinking as they go merrily about placating their sky god.

When Big Brown (Fossil Fuel-Burning Companies) Trumps Green Energy with Big Long Green-Part I

Why do you suppose Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House first thing when he moved in? If you answered he was a nuclear engineer and understood free energy from the photoelectric principles when photons from the sun collided with orbiting electrons in silicon atoms you would be right. Carter knew that these photons knocked millions of electrons out of orbit as sure as the sun rises each day, and rendered them collectible and storable in batteries as electric current. To wit, electric energy. Carter also knew that an inverter would be necessary to change the direct current in the batteries to alternating current if he was going to use this stored electricity to power his television set so he could watch the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. Or maybe he could make himself a peanut-flavored salad dressing in his blender with his free electricity born of his ingenious curiosity. Or his computer or washing machine.

Why do you suppose that 4 years later when Reagan moved into the White House that he had Carter’s solar panels taken down? Why, with no moving parts they would have just sat there on the roof collecting electricity, helping the taxpayer out a little bit by reducing the light bill at the White House. So, what kind of statement was the Great Communicator, the Gipper, trying to make to us the American people? Are we to believe he did not want free electricity?

Meanwhile, it warms my heart to know that sometimes we do get a president like Carter, an intellectual, a science-minded leader. Takes me back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. Ever notice all the scientific instruments in Jefferson’s study at Monticello? Brass optical instruments like sextants, telescopes, and all the busts of the great scientists of his time, Bacon, Newton, Copernicus, perched up on his walls? It is obvious that Jefferson held them in the highest esteem. As you stroll through Jefferson’s home, you can see all the scientific evidence of his experimental zest for discovering new methods of growing plants in his step-gardens that followed the natural contour of the land. Sun dials everywhere. It does something for us Americans who care to pause to look at the man and into the character of who he was, a true citizen of the world, an engineer, and astronomer, a statesman, a human being who sets out to better understand the mysteries of the universe. And yes, a person dedicated to the betterment of mankind through curiosity and caring.

Ever read the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury? It is about burning of books by oppressive governments in a future world. The title suggests that paper books burn at a temperature of 451 degrees F. In the splendid movie version by the same name, Oscar Werner plays a fireman whose job is not to put out fires, but to collect and burn books for the futuristic state in which he lives. It is a tender movie in parts as denoted by quotes such as: 

“Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die, and when people look at that tree or that flower you planted, you’re there. It doesn't matter what you do, he said, so long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away. The difference between the man who just cuts lawns and a real gardener is in the touching, he said. The lawn-cutter might just as well not have been there at all; the gardener will be there a lifetime.”

Carter made life better by placing the solar panels on top of the White House. He was a leader. Reagan took them down to make life less. He was a book-burner. A suppressor of the common good for Americans searching for equilibrium after Reagan borrowed and spent over $3 trillion that still is a part of our $15 trillion National Debt. Some legacy, Ronnie. All you did was to shift trillions of dollars of wealth over to the deep pockets of the filthy-rich Military Industrial Complex cronies who helped elect you. Pretty good work for them, especially in peacetime, eh, Gipper? I mean, it ain’t easy to sell hammers for $500 a pop in the first place, right? And selling a million of them in peacetime is like selling freezers to Eskimos, don’t you agree? Good salesman, Reagan. A wink and a nod and a smile will do it every time. Especially when you got God, Falwell, and the Moral Majority on your side.

So here we are today, and it’s 2012 already, about August 1 at this writing. Yesterday, ABC News told the world that the largest blackout in the history of the world just occurred and there were 100s of millions of people with no power from parts of Europe, India, the Middle East, Africa, and etcetera. Jesus, did the world really need to see the lesson in such graphic, stark reality? Such a loss of power worldwide points to an antiquated electrical grid system that is inefficient, broken down, and just plain old. When I heard the news, I first thought of when Reagan with all the stealth of a night burglar, had the solar panels taken down from the White House as one of his first acts as president. Could the world really be flat?

So why is the world electrical power grid so out of date? Why is it so susceptible to failure and million-human brownouts of no power for days? And is the day coming when the grid will fail to where the next brown out will become a permanent black out?! Back to coal oil lanterns and candles anyone? Horse drawn carriages, maybe?

Upon hearing the latest blackout news how many Americans were reminded of Ronald Reagan removing Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the White House when the Gipper became president of the United States? How many citizens of the world are aware that Germany, a nation with very few sun-days is the nation leading the rest of the world in solar power? How many humans know that Germany has the most up to date, modern electrical grid in the entire world? It would be a good thing to hire Germany out as a consultant in green energy so that our own grid doesn’t fail tumble down on our heads someday. How would we Americans fare without electricity for days, weeks, or even months? Can anyone say Katrina? Like in Hurricane Katrina?

But let’s talk briefly about how Germany solved its electrical grid problem and turned it into the most modern, efficient grid in the entire world. First, Germany owns its own electrical company. A few years back, the government electric company was charging the equivalent of 15 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. The German government came up with a brilliant idea. Let the people build Germany a brand new grid and let them share the wealth by government incentives. It was simple. Germany told the people, the villages, and the communities that if they would erect their own solar panels in accordance with good established engineering specs that the German Electric Company would pay the German people who hooked new solar panels up to the national electric grid for all the electricity generated above and beyond what they used themselves. The excess electricity created by the new solar panels would go onto the grid and become the property of the German Electric Company. This principle is called Net Metering. All excess electricity generated would be paid back to the people at the rate of 55 cents per kWh. That’s right, 55 cents per kWh!! Such a deal. No wonder the German grid was built in record time. In a market where the Electric Company was selling electricity for 15 cents per kWh, 55 cents per kWh was unheard of as a price going back into the pockets of the industrious Germans who helped build the most modern electrical grid in the world at a break neck speed.

Imagine that. So with your newly-constructed village solar panel system, you and your village get all the power you need for yourselves and your neighbors for free. FREE. Nothing is free, you say. Okay. But the carrot of paying the people an unheard of price of 55 cents per kWh for electricity generated from the new grid helped defray the costs of solar panels with a good profit going into the pockets of the German people to boot. Everybody won. Such a lucrative incentive! No wonder the Germans built this brand-new electric grid and build it post haste. In addition the German Electric Company (again owned by the German Government) provided enough incentive for the people to more than pay for the construction costs of such a mammoth project, including hooking these new panels up to the German National Grid all over Germany.

Of course as time passed, the Electric Company reduced the 55 cents per kWh to 45, then 35, 20, until back to parity with the going rate of 15. As the price fell the German people who were building solar panels knew they were in a race against the clock. Brilliant motivation. Brilliant government concept. No need for the Germans to worry about black or brown outs in the future. The German Electric Company could weed out old parts of the inefficient grid at will. They are set. And the people are enriched by the experience of people working together to make something good. And for the common good.

Later in Part II we will take a little trip in our imaginations to Mani, Yucatan, MX, where in 1561 a Spanish priest called in all the Mayan codices (books) to be burned as instruments of the devil. It not only destroyed almost all the recorded history of the Mayan culture, but it rendered the human race stupider for all we could have learned about Mayan astronomy, mathematics, the things dear to Carter and Jefferson. Certainly not Reagan. He bended to the stupid superstitions of Jerry Falwell, his Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s greedy fruitcake beliefs on his way to becoming a Billionaire (Praise the Lord). Reagan seemed to have suffered a lack of scientific curiosity. Wonder why? Maybe he thought solar panels to be the things of the devil, you think?

Note: Mani, Yucatan, Mexico, Site of massive book (foldout Mayan  codices) burning in 1561

America’s Twin Delusions and a Proposed Constitutional Amendment

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. Richard Dawkins 

INTRODUCTION: AMERICAN DELUSIONS

In the non-stop media coverage of the Aurora theater gun massacre, two commentaries made a special impression on me: one by John Cassidy, the other by Michael Moore. 

Cassidy listed ten illusions most Americans embrace, suggesting that Americans are insane - at least about certain topics or convictions. The ten delusions:

1. Gun laws and gun deaths are unconnected.

2. Private enterprise is good; public enterprise is bad.

3. God created America and gave it a special purpose.

4. Our health-care system is the best there is.

5. The Founding Fathers were saintly figures who established liberty and democracy for everyone.

6. America is the greatest country in the world.

7. Tax rates are too high.

8. America is a peace-loving nation: the reason it gets involved in so many wars is that foreigners keep attacking us.

9. Cheap energy, gasoline especially, is our birthright.

10. Everybody else wishes they were American.

(Source: John Cassidy, Rational Irrationality: Is America Crazy? Ten Reasons It Might Be, The New Yorker, July 24, 2012.) 

I agree with Cassidy - I think most Americans believe, embrace and defend every one of these illusions. However, I don’t think Cassidy’s list identifies the top-of-the-line, absolutely most egregious examples of American looniness. 

THE TWO GREATEST NATIONAL DELUSIONS

My vote for this distinction goes to twin beliefs widely held that are certifiably delusional and dangerous. One concerns an omnipotent all-knowing all involved and all-American-oriented god in general and the Christian religion in particular; the other is devotion to the Second Amendment of our Constitution. 

Cassidy dances lightly around these two berserk national attachments. Yet, the pernicious nature of both warrants attention. Let me offer a few recommendations about our maniacal devotion to a professed semi-divine right to posses, carry and use all manner of weapons for hunting and defense up to and just shy of thermonuclear devices. The NRA, the Republican Party and gun-enthusiast Americans never hesitate to remind gun critics that gun rights, militias and such are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

God and Christianity, the other lunacy mentioned, must wait for explication until another day. (Besides, what chance does reason have against unquestioned, uncritical faith? This is a delusion inculcated by our culture into the norm of society. Only brainwash creep over time can account for such widespread attachment to the literal truth of talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections, a trinity, transubstantiation, an overcrowded and unsanitary ark and an afterlife lottery of heaven or hell and so many other equally delusional notions.) 

THE GUN PROBLEM 

We’re number one, at least among wealthy nations, in experiencing gun deaths. A Washington Post columnist noted that 80 percent of all firearms deaths in 23 industrialized countries occurred in the United States. For women, the figure rose to 86 percent; for children age 14 and under, to 87 percent and asked, Can anyone seriously claim that our comparatively lax gun laws had nothing to do with these blood-drenched data?” (Source: E.J. Dionne Jr., Rationalizing gutlessness on guns, Washington Post, July 25, 2012.) 

After each slaughter, there are always calls from sensible quarters for a ban on automatic weapons (once in effect, but allowed to expire), oversize magazines and other tools of mass as well as personal destruction. But the NRA is politically powerful and the politicians, even good ones, back off, despite considerable support for curbs (a 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found 63 percent of Americans favor controls). As a result, as Michael Moore pointed out, we experience the equivalent of two Auroras daily (i.e., 24 average gun death a day) and if you add suicides by gun), the annual total amounts to 25,000. Might there be some connection here between gun deaths and the fact that we have 300 million guns in our homes? I dunno. It’s just a thought. (Source: Michael Moore, It’s the Guns – But Not Really the Guns, OB Rag - The Source, July 25, 2012.) 

MY DELUSIONAL SOLUTION TO THE GUN DELUSION

I favor a Constitution Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. By the year 2016 or sooner, there should be no private possession of guns, save for police, the military and extremely special cases of legitimate need, as set out in the new law. If someone must hunt, he/she can follow procedures for checking out an approved weapon under highly controlled conditions for a brief period of time - from a federally operated Regional Gun Lending Library (RGLL). RGLLs will be created and maintained throughout the nation using the weaponry obtained from citizens during a collection period to be established by the gun control amendment that repeals the 2nd amendment. (Maybe a provision can be added allowing for a well-regulated militia in certain states concerned that a force might have to be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc. Good idea, Michael Moore.)

There. That’s my delusion. I hope you like it. However, don’t write your Congressperson about it just yet. Let’s wait for four years or so for a hundred thousand or so additional gun deaths before going public with the gun control amendment. Timing is everything - at present, neither of the candidates for president nor any other federal, state or local public office would support repeal of the 2nd Amendment. 

In time, however, this idea may seem less delusional to the majority of voters than the other delusions mentioned seem to me today. 

BLAIR’S BLIGHTED LEGACY

Those who had hoped for serious and sustained opposition from Labour to the coalition government’s disastrous austerity policy, are understandably disappointed and frustrated by the limp and ineffective response that has been forthcoming. In the autumn of 2010, the surprise election of Ed Miliband, rather than his brother David, as leader of the party, gave grounds for thinking that there might be a decisive break with the legacy of New Labour. This has not happened. While the leading players from the Blairite years such as Mandelson, Straw, Reid, Blunkett and Clarke no longer occupy centre stage, there has been a marked reluctance on the part of Ed Miliband and the party leadership to confront and reject the ideology and practice of New Labour. Unless and until they do so they will be unable to mount an effective opposition to a government whose now plainly bankrupt austerity measures have resulted in a double-dip recession. It may be that the Labour leaders have deluded themselves into believing that the party’s stable opinion-poll lead means that they need do nothing but mount token opposition until the 2015 election which they assume  the government will lose.

The more likely explanation of their ineffectiveness in opposition is failure to break free from the debilitating grip of New Labour. Ed Miliband had the opportunity to do so but has so far failed to take it. Why? One explanation is that provided by the adherents of New Labour themselves. It goes like this: “Old Labour” had run its course by 1992. Neil Kinnock’s electoral defeat that year after thirteen years of Tory government, showed that “old left” social democracy was finished. All talk of socialism, nationalization, partnership with trades unions, over-indulgence of a “bloated” public sector, had to go. New Labour would beat the Tories at their own game. A “modernized” party, completely at ease with the financial sector and the corporate power-elite, would prove that it was better suited than the Tories to manage the economy. Fully committed to the neo-liberal “trickle-down” theory, they abandoned old Labour’s commitment to progressive taxation to achieve greater social equality. Instead they facilitated further deregulation of the financial sector and the promotion of London as the financial centre of the western world. Increased tax revenues would be used to fund programmes to reduce child poverty, such as Sure Start, and to improve performance in the National Health Service. However, in all areas of social policy, New Labour would encourage the involvement of the private sector through PFI’s (Private Finance Initiatives), which all too often would result in the privatization of public services. In fact, New Labour would embrace privatization more zealously than the Tories under Thatcher and Major.

Their theft of the emperor’s clothes left the Tories tired and disorientated. Blair’s election victory in 1997 was impressive. But it’s worth taking a closer look at New Labour’s electoral performance between 1997 and 2005, if only to challenge the myths about the supposed brilliance of Blair’s leadership in winning three successive victories at the polls. In 1997 New Labour swept into office after winning 418 seats against the Tories’ 165. New Labour took 43% of the popular vote; the Tories 30.7%. But it’s worth comparing this with the party’s performance in earlier elections. In 1945 Labour won with 49.7% of the vote (a performance never to be surpassed by any political party since) as against the Tories 36.2%. In the 1951 election which Labour lost to the Tories, they actually took a higher percentage of the popular vote (48.8%) than the Tories (48%) but only won 295 seats against the Tories 321. Labour was not to win again at the polls until 1964, but even in the 1959 election which was regarded as a humiliating defeat for Hugh Gaitskell, the party took 43.8% of the popular vote, more than Blair managed in his 1997 landslide. Harold Wilson, who scraped to victory in 1964 with an overall majority of only 4 seats, nevertheless managed 44.1% of the vote and his landslide victory of 1966 was won with 48%. The 1970 election (which Wilson lost to Heath) was the last for nine years in which any party took more than 40% of the popular vote. Thatcher’s victory of 1979 was won with 43% against Labour’s 36.9%. The party did not manage to poll over 40% of the vote again until 1997.

New Labour’s electoral record since then has been distinctly unimpressive. It has been made to look impressive only because of the abysmal performance of the Tories. In 2001 New Labour won 413 seats with 40.7% of the vote against the Tories 166 seats with 31.7%. 2005 was the nadir of New Labour’s fortunes before the party finally lost office in 2010. Blair won the election (355 seats against the Tories 198) with 35.2% of the vote. The Tories failed to gain an overall majority in 2010 on 36.1%. But the more important story is about the turnout in elections since 1945.

Until 1997 turnout for national elections in the UK was over 70%. In 1950 and 1951 it peaked at 83.9% and 82.6%. 1997 saw the lowest turnout since 1935 at 71.4%. The 2001 election recorded the lowest turnout (59%) since 1918. But the worst result for New Labour was 2005; 35% of the vote on the basis of a turnout of 61.4%. is abysmal. This was Blair’s last election before leaving office. It is worth remembering just how little support he had.

Perhaps none of this would matter very much if the parliamentary Labour party had learned anything from the extent of the disillusionment with New Labour, and more generally with parliamentary politics. The coalition government is becoming more unpopular by the day. In a situation crying out for clear and decisive opposition, there is timidity and dithering. Opposition to austerity is not confined to leftists and trade union activists. Liberal Keynesian economists such as Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have presented cogent arguments calling for an end to austerity now. No-one in government wants to listen to them. The same goes for the Labour opposition. Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls repeat the mantra that the government “is cutting too far and too fast” – hardly a clarion-call to action against the cuts.

Today, (27 July), the 2012 Olympic Games will formally open in London. The next Letter from the UK will, no doubt, find something of interest to say about them. London, we are told – and have every reason to believe – will be gripped for two weeks by “Olympiamania.” In the build-up to this it has not passed without notice that Tony Blair has accepted the role of adviser to the Labour party on the Olympic legacy. He is apparently qualified to dispense such advice as he was leader of the party and prime minister when Britain was awarded the Games in 2005. In what should be a cautionary note for Labour, a recent poll found that if Blair were leader of the party it would score three points lower than it does under Miliband. Yet he says he is “ready for a comeback.” He wants to re-engage with British politics. He thinks enough time has passed since 2007 for people to have forgotten about the Iraq war. As he always said about anything that caused him trouble “it is time to move on.”

It is astonishing and dismaying that this megalomaniac mediocrity is still regarded with respect by Miliband and those around him. Even if we ignore the serious accusation against him that he should, along with G.W. Bush, face charges for war crimes over Iraq, there are numerous other reasons for judging him utterly unsuitable for any role whatsoever in the Labour party. Since leaving office in 2007 he has single-mindedly pursued the objective of making himself very rich very fast. He has been very successful and is rumoured to have made as much as £80 million. In 2011 he made £20 million advising business chiefs and foreign governments. His business consultancy, Tony Blair Associates, advises among others, the governments of Kuwait and Kazakhstan on human rights issues. The Kazakh regime has paid him $13 million. The advice he gives to J.P. Morgan is supposedly worth the £2.5 Million a year he is paid.  He is highly regarded by the corporate elite as an after-dinner speaker, charging as much as £200.000 a go for his services. But for all the millions he made last year, thanks to the complicated web of companies he has set up for the purpose, he has only paid a fraction in tax.

It seems he is touched by what he regards as the unfair criticism he has faced from those who have failed to understand him. He has never ceased telling the world how passionately he believes in what he has done, and what he does. He is, after all, a deeply sincere Catholic. He has set up a faith foundation to bring people of different beliefs together. As envoy for the Middle East Quartet (the UN.EU.US and Russia) he has responsibility for implementing the peace process between Palestine and Israel. According to Nabil Shaath, aide to Mahmoud Abbas, Blair “talks like an Israeli diplomat selling their policies.” He has been accused of using the position for his own personal enrichment.

All these extraordinary achievements since leaving office have left Blair unsatisfied. He has hinted that he would like to be prime minister again. He has even hired a new spin doctor (no doubt Alastair Campbell has other fish to fry) to help polish his tarnished image. One is tempted to laugh out loud (LOL). It is difficult to imagine how anyone with any sense at all could begin to take the prospect of a Blair comeback seriously. Let’s hope that Ed Miliband comes to his senses. But one is reminded of Tom Lehrer’s reaction in 1973 when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s time to retire, he is supposed to have said. There is no room for satire in the world any more.

LIES CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT – A RIGHTWING TRADEMARK

“Obama is a Muslim.” Except the right later uncovered some embarrassing flaws in his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which they exploited on-air ad nauseam. Naturally, they made him a “Christian” to fit the revised lie. The inconsistency was irrelevant. Rightwingers’ hate runs so deep, they buy all falsehoods about their object of revulsion, including conflicting lies .

“Obama is a socialist.” Except a later lie paints him as an inexperienced community organizer with no political understanding, a total imbecile. The multitude of contradicting lies gives them a choice.

“Obama was born in Kenya.” Except the State of Hawaii has been verifying his birth records for years and Honolulu newspapers hold microfilm archives of birth announcements including his from 1961.

Rightwingers’ hate for Obama trumps truth. It doesn’t matter how many facts dispute their lies; they’re going to spread them anyway.

The latest lies are more proof the right has gone totally crazy.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney visited London where he attended a fundraiser for his campaign. Foreign political contributions are no problem if you’re a Republican.

If Obama had done the same, imagine the outcry from the right? What if Obama had flown to Indonesia or Kenya to attend a fundraiser? Impeachment would certainly be on the table. Republicans are unabashed hypocrites.

Not only is “Citizens United” undermining our democracy, but foreign political contributions. The floodgates are open. And who’s behind this corruption? Republicans.

Starting his British visit, Romney’s adviser addressed the English on behalf of the candidate: "We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he (Romney) feels that the special relationship is special," the Telegraph quoted the adviser as saying, "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

The religious right will again ignore these many ethical inconsistencies. By doing so, its motive is exposed. There’s nothing “Christ-like” about compromising principle. I guess situational ethics is okay if the desired final result is achieved. The end justifies the means.

The Christian right will continue to accept and tolerate lies because it’s in their best interest to do so politically. But spiritually?

This is the element that could push America off the cliff. Because there are over 100 million of them.

Iran Sanctions: War By Another Name

Now that the talks with Iran on its nuclear program appear to be on the ropes, are we on the road to war? The Israelis threaten it almost weekly, and the Obama administration has reportedly drawn up an attack plan. But in a sense, we are already at war with Iran.

Carl von Clausewitz, the great theoretician of modern warfare, defined war as the continuation of politics by other means. In the case of Iran, international politics has become a de-facto state of war.

According to reports, the annual inflation rate in Iran is 22.2 percent, although many economists estimate it at double that. In the last week of June, the price of chicken rose 30 percent, grains were up 55.8 percent, fruits up 66.6 percent, and vegetables up 99.5 percent.   Iran’s Central Bank estimates unemployment among the young is 22.5 percent, although the Financial Times says “the official figures are vastly underestimated.” The production sector is working at half its capacity.

The value of the Iranian rial has fallen 40 percent since last year, and there is a wave of business closings and bankruptcies due to rising energy costs and imports made expensive by the sanctions.

Oil exports, Iran’s major source of income, have fallen 40 percent in 2012, according to the international Energy Agency, costing the country just under $32 billion over the past year. The 27-member European Union (EU) ban on buying Iranian oil will further depress sales, and a EU withdrawal of shipping insurance will make it difficult for Teheran to ship oil and gas to its diminishing number of customers. Loss of insurance coverage could reduce Iran’s oil exports by 1/5 million barrels a day, or $4.5 billion a month. Energy accounts for about 80 percent of Iran’s public revenues.

Whipsawed by energy sanctions, the worst may be yet to come. The U.S. has already made it difficult for countries to dealing with Iran’s Central Bank, and the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would declare the Iranian energy sector a “zone of proliferation concern” that would strangle Teheran’s ability collect payments for its oil exports. Other proposals would essentially make it impossible to do business with Iran’s banks. Any country that dared to do so would find itself unable to conduct virtually any kind of international banking.

If the blizzard of legislation does pass, “This would be a significant ratcheting-up of the economic war against Iran,” Mark Dubowitz told the Financial Times. Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who has lobbied for a series of economic assaults against the Palestinians, China, and Hezbollah.

But the “war” has already gone far beyond the economic sphere.

In the past two years, five Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated. The hits have been widely attributed to the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, and the People’s Mujahidin of Iran (MEK), an organization the U.S. designates as “terrorist.”

Last year a massive explosion rocked the Bid Ganeh military base near Teheran, killing 17 people, including the founder of Iran’s missile program, Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam. According to Israeli media, the camp was sabotaged by the MEK working with Mossad. Deadly attacks directed at Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have been tied to Jundallah, a Sunni group with ties to U.S. and Israel intelligence.

It is no secret—indeed, President Obama openly admitted it—that under the codename “Olympic Games,” the U.S. has been waging cyber war against Iran. The Stuxnet virus shut down a considerable portion of Iran’s nuclear program, although it also infected infrastructure activities, including power plants, oil rigs, and water supplies. The virus was designed to attack systems made by the German company Siemens and has apparently spread to China, Pakistan and Indonesia.

The U.S. is also suspected of being behind the Flame virus, spyware able to record keystrokes, eavesdrop on conversations near an infected computer, and tap into screen images. Besides Iran, Flame has been found in computers in the Palestinian West Bank, Lebanon, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates.  Because “malware” seeks out undefended computers no matter where they are, it has a habit of spreading beyond its initial target.

Most of the media is focused on whether the failure of the talks will lead to an Israeli or American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and there is certainly considerable smoke out there.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been threatening to attack Iran for the past two years. According to Gideon Rachman, a leading columnist for the Financial Times, some Israeli officials have told him Tel Aviv will attack sometime this summer or early fall. One source told him “Israel will wait until September or October because the weather is better and it’s closer to the US elections.”

But the Independent’s (UK) Patrick Cockburn, one of the more reliable analysts on the Middle East, thinks the Israeli threats are “the bluff of the century.” Cockburn argues that there is simply no reason for Tel Aviv to go to war, since the Iranian economy is being effectively strangled by the sanctions. But the saber rattling is useful because it scares the EU into toughing up the siege of Teheran, while also shifting the Palestinian issue to a back burner.

There are serious divisions within Israel on whether to go to war, with the Israeli intelligence and military generally opposed. The latter’s reasons are simple: militarily Tel Aviv couldn’t pull it off, and politically an attack would garner worldwide sympathy for Iran. Recent statements downgrading the threat of Iran by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz suggest the Netanyahu government is finally feeling the pressure from divisions within its own ranks and may be backing off from a military confrontation.

And the US?

According to Paul Rogers, a Department of Peace Studies professor at Bradford University and OpenDemocracy’s international security editor, the Pentagon has drawn up plans for a concentrated attack on Iran’s nuclear industry, using a combination of bombers and cruise missiles. The U.S. recently beefed up its military footprint in the region.

But while the possibility of such an attack is real—especially if congressional hawks get their way—the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence establishment are hardly enthusiastic about it. And in any case, the US is carpet-bombing Iran’s economy without firing a shot or sending air crews into harm’s way.

While Iran is generally depicted as the recalcitrant party in the current nuclear talks, it has already compromised, even agreeing to ship some of its enriched uranium out of the country and to guarantee the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to all nuclear facilities. Teheran has also converted one-third of its 20 percent enriched uranium into plates, making it almost impossible to use the fuel for nuclear weapons. Weapon’s grade uranium is enriched to 90 percent.

In return, Teheran is demanding the right to enrich to 3.5 percent—the level one needs to power a civilian reactor—and an end to sanctions.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not ban enriching uranium—indeed, it is guaranteed by Articles III and IV—as long as the fuel is not weaponized. “Iran is raising eyebrows,” says Yousaf M. Butt of the American Federation of Scientists, “but what it is doing is a concern—not illegal.”

However, the P5+1—the permanent UN Security Council members, Britain, France, the US, Russia, China, plus Germany, is demanding an end to all enrichment, shipping the enriched fuel out of the country, and closing the enrichment plant at Fordo: “stop, shut, and ship.” In return Iran would get enriched fuel for medical use and some spare parts for its civilian airlines. The sanctions would remain in place, however, although it would open the subject up for discussion. The problem is that many of the more onerous sanctions are those independently applied by the U.S. and the EU. Russia and China have expressed opposition to the independent sanctions, but so far have not shown a willingness to openly flaunt them.

It will be hard for Teheran to make further concessions, particularly if there is no light at the end of the sanction tunnel. Indeed, some of the demands seem almost crafted to derail a diplomatic solution, raising the suspicion that the dispute is less about Iran’s nuclear program than a concerted drive to marginalize a country that has resisted European and U.S. interests in the Middle East. Isolate Iran enough, the thinking goes, and it might bring about regime change. Moscow or Beijing don’t support such an outcome, but they have little influence over what Washington and Brussels do independently.

There is no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Indeed, the body of evidence suggests the opposite, including the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that Teheran mothballed its program in 2003. But evidence is irrelevant when the enormous economic power of the US and the EU can cow the rest of the world, and force a country to its knees without resorting to open hostilities.

In short, war by other means.

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com