The Bush Legacy -- a Reality Check

The "legacy" of the Bush presidency is one of failure -- failed policies, failed worldview, failure to uphold the Constitution, failure to respect the will of the people -- utter failure.

This legacy includes:

• Hostility to, rather than engagement with, most of Latin America
• A spiral of American deaths in Iraq
• Lies
• Disdain for the sanctity of life
• Heroes' reputations tarnished
• Political purges in the intelligence communities
• Torture
• Lies
• Contempt for the US Constitution
• Fascist tactics in the (so-called) "war on terror"
• Lies
• More torture
• Right-wing hypocrisy
• Utter contempt for Christian values and a perversion of Christianity
• Still more torture
• Government-sanctioned kidnapping
• Even more torture, and Government rationalizations for it
• Growth of military intelligence, at the expense of civilian intelligence agencies
• "Supporting our troops" by making them scapegoats for war criminals
• A war on journalists?
• Secrecy
• Increasing global isolation (and irrelevance) of the United States
• A dangerous "ally" -- Pakistan
• Lies
• Incompetent maladministration
• Political exploitation of Christianity while ignoring its core message
• Nuclear proliferation
• Getting cozier with Pakistan
• Contempt for science
• US support for for pro-American terrorism
• Did I mention torture?
• Lies
• Making the world safer for terrorists
• Growing poverty, declining healthcare
• Lies
• Corporate welfare
• Making the world safer for terrorists
• Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq: making the world safer for drug dealers
• Yes, more torture
• Stupid policy on arms sales

On the plus side, perhaps we'll see, as a result of Bush's disastrous presidency, an attenuation of

• Right-wing fundamentalist power
• Divisive religious ideologies
• GOP political power for most of a generation

This is just scratching the surface. We're only up to May of 2005. More to follow as the Bush presidency dwindles.

A Dirty Trick by the Ron Paul Campaign?

While looking at my blog traffic, I noticed that I got some hits from a website called "Know Before You Vote." It is a single page website with external links to news sites, blogs, and crap.

It purports to give an objective, side-by-side comparison of all the candidates, Republican and Democratic, running for President. It doesn't. And whether you are a Clinton supporter or a Romney supporter or an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter or an Edwards supporter or a (God forbid) Thompson supporter, you should really take a look at this and ask some questions, because there's a whole lotta mis-representin' goin' on...

For instance: In one category called, "Understands the effects of blowback," All the candidates are listed as "NO" except Paul and Obama, who are listed as "YES." As an explanation of what "blowback" is, there are two links, one to an article in an on-line magazine published by a Canadian college. The other is to an article on Military History Online, a privately-owned website. I have no problem in principle with either article. But in support of "Know Before You Vote's" accusation that John Edwards does not understand the effects of blowback is a posting from IN THE DARK from March 18 of 2007. In this posting I talked about how Edwards said that we need to fight global poverty as a means of fighting terrorism; in other words, that poverty is a (not the) root cause of terrorism. This position has been championed by Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, myself, and even Pakistan dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf who have been saying that you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

The website has no identification whatsoever that ties it to either a campaign or a political action committee or a voter education organization like Project Vote Smart (a non-profit, non-partisan website that allows you to find voting records, issue positions, campaign finances, etc.). I have found that the website is registered to 1&1 Internet, Inc., at 701 Lee Road, Suite 300, in Chesterbrook, PA. I have called them and e-mailed them (click the link and you can too) to find out who the owner of this website is. So far I have not received a response.

I find it very curious and a bit disturbing. I would be interested in hearing from both Democrats and Republicans who think their candidates positions have been misrepresented on this website.

By the way: I'm sure it is pure coincidence, but Ron Paul gets all the positions listed on this website CORRECT...

Thanksgiving Eve, 2005: An E-mail Exchange With a Right-Wing Friend in NY

May you and your family have an enjoyable Thanksgiving, and remember to keep the troops in your prayers. -- Howie

Howie--I am sincerely thankful that we have a strong military, and that there are thousands and thousands of Americans, young and not-so-young, who are willing to give their lives for what they believe in. I am sincerely thankful that we are a nation founded on Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, sovereignty vested in the PEOPLE, and religious freedom. I am sincerely thankful that we have a tradition--a very Christian tradition, by the way--of sacrifice for the sake of the "tired, poor, and huddled masses" who yearn to be free. I am thankful for so many things, not just at this time of year, but always, and these things are constantly in my prayers of thanks to God.

I hold in utter contempt, however, "leaders" who abuse the sacred trust given them by the PEOPLE to use military force only when it is necessary to protect American values. I hold in utter contempt "leaders" who distort and in some cases ignore those very values in the name of "security." I hold in utter contempt leaders who put the needs--in reality, in most cases, the wants--of corporations and the wealthy over the overwhelming needs of the PEOPLE. I hold in utter contempt leaders who lie, manipulate, and break laws--yes, even international laws--to further the goals of global capitalism.

I am thankful, though, that I see evidence that my faith in America and my hope for its future is not "mere" naive idealism. I am thankful that my belief that the PEOPLE, fully informed about what is going on in the world, will choose the right course, that they may be persuaded, in contempt of their sacred trust, by lies, but that once in possession of truth, they will not maintain a rigid orthodoxy. I am thankful not so much for being an American (although I am indeed thankful for that), but for being a member of the human race, blessed by God, for no good reason, with human intelligence and critical reasoning abilities, and thankful that more and more human beings are ackowledging and using these gifts.

I am thankful, too, to God for the awesome gift of your friendship, and you and Maria and your family will be in my prayers of thanksgiving this year, as always.

But my prayers of thanksgiving this year, as always, will be tempered not by false patriotism, but by a clear view of reality. There is no free lunch--EVER. If we have inordinate gifts in America--and we do--it cannot be without the sacrificies of others, voluntary or involuntary. If Americans hold and control a disproportionate share of the world's wealth--and we do--this is an injustice that we should not be thankful for, and for which, if we leave the situation untouched, we will have to answer for to that same God we will thank tomorrow. It is sacrilegious, I think, to thank God for gifts won unjustly. Read John Paul II's 1987 encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis. Please read it. I also urge you to buy and read Jacques Ellul's The Presence of the Kingdom. I have used this text in classes many times. The students, after four weeks of reading, discussing, and arguing over this book, are always exhausted and down-hearted. They enter a state of utter denial. They are threatened, and feel the effects of disrupted and subverted cultural assumptions. This is the first step to real learning.

And I will say once again this Thanksgiving a prayer I say every day--many times every day--which comes from the Gospel of Luke (chapter 18, verses 9-14). Here is the passage. See if you can find the prayer:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men -- robbers, evildoers, adulterers -- or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I pray that you will be as good as your word (for you believe that America is a "Christian" nation) and take Jesus's words to heart. Read it. Think about it. Really think about it. We have a long way to go before we can ever legitimately call ourselves a "Christian nation."

I love you, Howie. Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace,
Peter

The Difference Between Musharraf and Chavez

An Update on the "New Axis of Evil"^TM
An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM
An Update on the "Worst President in US History"^TM

I don't know if this is funny or sad. I know I'm disturbed by it.

In case you haven't heard, the "liberal" mainstream US media are having a field day with the Venezuelan government's refusal to renew the license of a broadcast network -- RCTV -- whose owner, Marcel Granier, was implicated in the economic sabotage of 2003 as well as the 2003 coup against President Hugo Chavez. When the coup failed due to overwhelming democratic opposition and Chavez was returned to power, Granier's RCTV and the other commercial stations ran old Hollywood movies and cartoons.

RCTV was not "shut down" by Chavez -- the twice-democratically elected and legitimate President of Venezuela. The Venezuelan government refused to renew their license because, well, they simply weren't serving the public interest. If Bob Wright and NBC's parent company, General Electric, conspired to overthrow a US President, would it be wrong to refuse to renew licenses?

So Condoleezza Rice wagged her finger at Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro today over Venezuela's refusal to renew RCTV's license. She told a meeting of the Organization of American States in Panama that

Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government. Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy.

The irony is delicious. Freedom of speech is GREAT if it is pro-global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalist speech. If it is anti-global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalist speech, then, well, whatever. Maybe it's okay. Whatever. Maybe it's un-American. I don't know. Whatever. And disagreeing with your government is GREAT if your government is trying to regulate the effects of capitalism within society. If you happen to think that an invasion of a sovereign state who had not threatened you and posed no threat -- immediate or otherwise -- to you, and which invasion was based on lies and probably illegal according to international law is a bad thing, well, whatever. You're probably a communist or something.

So I find it interesting that the "liberal" mainstream US media are not jumping all over the fact that our "ally" in Pakistan, the anti-democratic dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has updated an ordinance that gives him the power to have any building shut down if HE believes an illegal transmission is being aired, and gives him the power to cancel the license of any TV channel he chooses. Oh, and did I mention that the government was already blocking the transmission of the three leading TV stations in Pakistan, because they have been covering the civil unrest surrounding Musharraf's firing of the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court?
Why are we supporting this guy? And this is not a Republican/Democrat thing, either. Even the Democrats in the US support Musharraf. No, this is another conflict between global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalism, and anything else. It might be directed against Socialism, sure. But it is just as much directed against the kind of capitalism that was practiced in the United States from the time of the New Deal until the trickle-down, supply-side, de-regulated Reagan years.

This is why the late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II called Soviet Communism and unregulated Capitalism morally equivalent evils.

Meanwhile, the man that George W. Bush said was America's most wanted, the man Bush said we'd get "dead or alive" before he flip-flopped and decided he wasn't really very much interested in him, the man who was behind the most brutal attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, Osama bin Laden, is alive and well and living in Pakistan, according to the Taliban. Under the protection, no doubt, of Pervez Musharraf.

What has happened to this country I love so much? Why are we not clamoring in the streets to

IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH???

Fight Against Terrorism by Fighting Poverty

The real war on terror isn't going very well yet, but there is some progress being made.

Recently, Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, wrote an article in the Romanian newspaper Jurnalul National cautioning that the current anti-terror tack of the Western developed nations (led by the US and UK) is, at best, imcomplete if it ignores the root causes of terrorism. Now, US Ambassador to Turkey Ross L. Wilson has said the same thing, joining a growing chorus of world leaders and opinion makers, including Philippine Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, myself, and even Pakistan dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf . For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too. That sounds like a pretty good bunch of people to stack up against the likes of Feith, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, and the rest of the PNAC cabal that persists in Washington. I'll take John Paul II over George W. Bush any day.

Wilson told a conference conducted by the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and the Center of Excellence-Defense Against Terrorism in cooperation with the NATO-Russia Council that

Most people would find it hard to argue against the idea that terrorist violence arises, sociologically speaking, out of poverty, despair, hopelessness and resentment.

It's amazing how many people don't find it all hard to argue this point. To some, terrorism has nothing to do with poverty, it has to do with an evil ideology that seeks nothing but political hegemony. This thinking links up comfortably with the Bush administration's "good vs evil" approach to foreign policy. Besides, they often point out, so many of these terrorists went to school and had jobs...

It is true that terrorist leaders seem more often than not to come from middle-class backgrounds. But terrorists do not just spring forth from Medusa's head, and effective government policy will seldom just involve cutting off terrorism's tentacles. The causes must be considered, and constructive policies must be devised to draw people away from the dead ends of violence and despair.

Yes. Are you listening?

The Decider

An update on the "WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY"^TM
Now that both houses of Congress have passed a bill authorizing continued spending for the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush has to come through on his promise to veto that bill when it reaches his desk, probably next week on the fourth anniversary of his "mission accomplished" skit. Americans United for Change suggests you write to the President urging him to sign the legislation.

I think they're dreaming. But it certainly doesn't hurt to write, call, or e-mail. Even though 66% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the war, 64% of Americans believe Congress is right in setting a timetable for withdrawing, 57% think Congress should "have the final say about troop levels" in Iraq (as opposed to 35% who think Bush should), and 61% disapprove of the overall job he is doing as President, George W. Bush has decided to ignore us, ignore the will of the people, and listen to the elites who benefit most from civil war in Iraq.

He has decided, again, against democracy.

I long for the day when this long, national (and international) nightmare will finally be over. I long for the day when all Americans can say,
GOODBYE, BUSH!!!

IN THE DARK Post #1,001-- Philippine Chief Justice Says War on Terror in Danger of Becoming "Mindless"; Poor Suffer More From Poverty Than From Terror

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno joins a long list of global public figures who stepped out of the dark and acknowledged the reality of terrorism, including Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, myself, and even Pakistan dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf who have been saying that you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

Puno criticized the "mindless" war on terrorism at the expense of civil liberties, and -- referring to the Philippines, but relevant to the US under the Bush administration -- said a state with credibility problems could not adequately protect the rights of its citizens. He said the fight against terrorism had been "more discomforting" than the terror itself.

Terrorism is terrible enough, but the mindless, knee-jerk reaction to extirpate the evil is more discomforting. One visible result of the scramble to end terrorism is to take legal shortcuts and legal shortcuts always shrink the scope of human rights. These shortcuts have scarred the landscape of rights in the Philippines.

Puno said that the institutional forces of anti-terrorism engage in much flag-waving, singing of the national anthem and issuing "high-pitched" directives to military forces, the police, and citizens to use their weapons for victory at all costs. But, he said, enough is enough. Security is meaningless at the expense of individual liberty.

To put constitutional cosmetics to the military-police muscular efforts, lawmakers usually enact laws using security of the state to justify the dimunition of human rights by allowing arrests without warrants; surveillance of suspects; interception and recording of communications; seizure or freezing of bank deposits, assets and records of suspects. They also redefine terrorism as a crime against humanity and the redefinition is broadly drawn to constrict and shrink further the zone of individual rights.

Puno urged political leaders -- but the appeal might be read by all of us, if we choose -- to have a broader view of terrorism, saying poverty is also a form of terrorism and the poor suffer more by their poverty than by violence.

In poor countries, it is poverty that truly terrorizes people for they are terrorized by the thought that they will die because of empty stomachs and not that they will lose their lives due to some invisible suicide bombers...The apathy of those who can make a difference is the reason why violations of human rights continue to prosper. The worst enemy of human rights is not its non-believers but the fence sitters who will not lift a finger despite their violations...Sooner or later, they will find that they who default in protecting the rights of the many will end up without rights like the many...With the incursions and threats of incursion to our human rights at this crucial moment in our history, the clarion call to each one of us is to consecrate our lives to the great cause of upholding our human rights.

Musharraf, Back Against the Wall, Calls on Developed World to Fight Poverty

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the dictator "President" of Pakistan (who created the position of President -- not in the Pakistan Constitution -- after taking power in a military coup in 1999), is beginning to make some democratic and egalitarian noises -- for reasons, I am sure, of base self-interest. Simply stated, he is in trouble. He is losing control of his increasingly independent-minded judiciary, he is losing whatever support he has ever had of the citizens of Pakistan, and he is losing the confidence of the West. At least he's got the military. But it may not be enough. He is being forced into a set of elections at the end of the year, and looking to two political rivals to shore up his power: Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.

Whatever his motivation (and I don't really care why someone finally does the right thing), Musharraf is making guardedly centrist statements lately, and yesterday in Islamabad finally stated the obvious and made the connection between terrorism and poverty. Speaking to an international land forces symposium on Common Security and the "Global War on Terrorism,"

President Musharraf urged the developed and industrialized States to help the Islamic countries in their socio-economic development as the extremism stems from poverty.

The President re-emphasized Pakistan's firm resolve to combat terrorism frontally and militarily but said that joint efforts were needed by the global community in achieving the objective of defeating the menace. He pointed out that extremism is a state of mind and could not be countered with force and needs a long-term strategy and total understanding of underlined causes which spawn the scourge.

Let me repeat and emphasize that last part: Terrorism is a state of mind that cannot be countered with force and needs a long-term strategy and total understanding of its underlying causes.

So, we're stepping back from global, unregulated, laissez faire, "free-market" capitalism, and --FINALLY -- acknowledging that government has a larger role than merely smoothing the road for the creation of wealth. It also has the responsibility to see that the wealth is distributed equitably and justly. Well, at least Musharraf -- back against the wall -- is giving the idea lip service, even if he'd rather not. Why would he prefer not to say -- and do -- the right thing?

The President said that the poverty, illiteracy and misinterpretation of Islamic knowledge are the other inherent causes contributing to the rise of extremism.

Yes. Pakistan has only a 48% literacy rate -- 35% female literacy. Perhaps Musharraf will funnel some money into educating Pakistan's citizens? A quarter of Pakistan lives below the poverty level -- the Pakistani poverty level. Child labor is common there. Pakistan has a per capita gross domestic product of $2,600. To put that into perspective, Iraq -- in the midst of a bloody civil war, mounting insurgency, and daily chaos, has a per capita GDP of $2,900.

For the life of me, I don't know why -- if we had to invade someone and do some "regime change -- we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan.

(Musharraf) said two-pronged strategy on the one hand calls upon the Muslim States to shun extremism and go on the path of socio-economic development and on the other called upon the West, especially the United States , to help resolve outstanding disputes and assist in economic development of Islamic countries. (my emphasis)

Like it or not, folks, we are our brothers' keeper. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

Musharraf joins a long list of global public figures who stepped out of the dark and acknowledged the reality of terrorism, including Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, and myself qho have been saying that you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

Kiwi Green Party : War on Poverty as Urgent as War on Terror

An Update on the so-called "War on Terror"^TM

As Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, and I have been saying for years now, you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

Now the New Zealand Green Party Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Keith Locke has said the same thing. And he's right. And he's taking his government to task.

Whenever the Government supports laws to combat global terrorism, it routinely invokes UN guidelines on the subject as a rationale, even when that sometimes means restricting the civil liberties of New Zealanders. Yet when it comes to UN initiatives aimed at combating global poverty, the Government has been willing to drag its feet.

In years past, the Prime Minister Helen Clark has acknowledged the links that exist between terrorism and its breeding grounds in poverty, inequality, disease and lack of opportunity. The Government should be treating global poverty with the same urgency it currently affords to global terrorism.

This era of global apathy and global greed has to end. This era of global, un-regulated, laissez faire, "free-market" capitalism has to end. Rational regulation was just as much a part of Adam Smith's vision as irrational speculation.

Democracy, NOT plutocracy.

John Paul II and the Evils of Liberal Capitalism

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

As the world mourns the loss of Pope John Paul II, and the political and religious right in the US make of him a spokesman for "American values," it is instructive to look at some of his writings and teachings that the mainstream media largely ignored over the last 26 years.

In 1987, JP II issued an encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Matters), in which he clearly cast Marxist Communism and unregulated, free-market, liberal capitalism as equivalent evils, each containing their distinct "structures of sin." It is a revolutionary statement and has guided the Catholic Church's teachings on social justice and global development for nearly two decades. And it has been entirely ignored in the mainstream media, then and now.

While Church pronouncements about moral theology frequently make the news (in the Church's opposition to abortion, birth control, etc.), Catholic social justice teaching is curiously absent. It is easy for the mainstream media to ridicule, for instance, abstinence or celibacy in the face of an overwhelming cultural emphasis on sensual gratification. It is another story to expect it to look critically at the source of its own power and wealth: a global economy of mass exploitation and mass consumption.

But in the light of this 1987 statement, the audacity of the religious and political right to promote the Pope--along with Ronald Reagan and MArgaret Thatcher, for pete's sake--as a symbol of "American" values is particularly galling.

I have chosen representative (and lengthy) quotes. All emphases are mine. I urge you to read this largely ignored encyclical yourself:

(20) In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.

(21) This is one of the reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. For from the point of view of development the question naturally arises: in what way and to what extent are these two systems capable of changes and updatings such as to favor or promote a true and integral development of individuals and peoples in modern society? In fact, these changes and updatings are urgent and essential for the cause of a development common to all.

22. In the light of these considerations, we easily arrive at a clearer picture of the last twenty years and a better understanding of the conflicts in the northern hemisphere, namely between East and West, as an important cause of the retardation or stagnation of the South. The developing countries, instead of becoming autonomous nations concerned with their own progress towards a just sharing in the goods and services meant for all, become parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true also in the field of social communications, which, being run by centers mostly in the northern hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such countries or respect their cultural make-up. They frequently impose a distorted vision of life and of man and thus fail to respond to the demands of true development.

Each of the two blocs harbors in its own way a tendency towards imperialism, as it is usually called, or towards forms of new- colonialism: an easy temptation to which they frequently succumb, as history, including recent history, teaches.

(28) A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should serve to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelopment, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up against a form of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible. because like the former it is contrary to what is good and to true happiness. This super-development, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of "possession" and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of consumption" or "consumerism ," which involves so much "throwing-away" and "waste." An object already owned but now superseded by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.

Of course, the difference between "being" and "having," the danger inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things possessed compared to the value of "being," need not turn into a contradiction. One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all.

This then is the picture: there are some people - the few who possess much - who do not really succeed in "being" because, through a reversal of the hierarchy of values, they are hindered by the cult of "having"; and there are others - the many who have little or nothing - who do not succeed in realizing their basic human vocation because they are deprived of essential goods.

(41) Following the example of my predecessors, I must repeat that whatever affects the dignity of individuals and peoples, such as authentic development, cannot be reduced to a "technical" problem. If reduced in this way, development would be emptied of its true content, and this would be an act of betrayal of the individuals and peoples whom development is meant to serve.

The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own…It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all…

And let's not forget one other point, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Howie, et al.: Pope John Paul II condemned the US invasion of Iraq as an unjust war.