© Merle Harton, Jr. | About | XML/RSS

Google's fatal error.  The BBC reported on Friday that Google® is confidently planning to float its shares in an IPO in early 2004. Going public would turn the super search engine into a $25 billion corporation able to raise capital, to motivate staff with stock options, and, well, to get bigger. [BBC News, October 24, 2003]  It will also mean loss of control for the innovative founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who started the company in 1998. They met as PhD students at Stanford University, which still owns a piece of the dot.com's pie. Five years later, the private company runs 75 percent of all web searches on the Internet.

As a private operation now, the company's 1,000 employees work in a four-building campus—the "Googleplex"—with free food, games, complimentary massages, and the freedom to work up to 20 percent of their time on outside activities. [See USA Today, August 26, 2003]  I predict that this will all change as the company becomes a public corporation and the lure of profits outstrip the need to give free ice cream (or any perks, for that matter) to its employees. But then, in the words of Walter Duranty, Joseph Stalin's apologist at the New York Times, "You've go to break eggs to make an omelet."

I like Sherwood Boehlert, my district representative in the US House of Representatives. He's been good for business and technology development in the 24th District; he is accessible and visible, and he's a smart dresser. He is also influential: He chairs the important House Committee on Science, serves on both the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Intelligence committees, and serves on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. I think he is person of integrity, who is careful to represent the majority of his constituency.  My complaint is that, as a Republican, he votes the Party line, and he recently did so in the Bush administration's request for $87 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan reconstruction [H.R. 3289: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes].  I asked him to vote against the House bill—and, well, he didn't. I guess this means I fall outside of the majority opinion of his constituency. What was I thinking?

In his October 20 letter to me explaining why he voted for the bone-crushing defense expenditure, Boehlert said three interesting things -

1. "America now has a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq." What I read is: Having invaded Iraq on the President's say-so, we are now just plain stuck in this money pit. It's like pork in a bag of Shake'n Bake—and I helped! So while we should feel totally ashamed for having completely undone the Iraqi people's political structure, we should also want to go in and fix things with a budget that matches our remorse. Alas, we have no remorse, so the bulk of the money will go to something much more important.


2. "The vast majority of the President's request goes to American troops fighting the War on Terror so that they have the equipment, pay, and other resources they need to perform their mission." What I read is: We still foolishly, mistakenly believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom has something to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers, but that's probably irrelevant—our military presence in Iraq is now a magnet for every freaking terrorist whose agenda is to get us out of the Middle East.


3. "A smaller amount—less than one-fourth—goes to providing the basic services and humanitarian relief that will make a significant difference in stabilizing the country and the region." What I read is: Hey, this isn't going to be a handout to the Iraqi people. Let them swim in petroleum. We aren't even going to use the money to help the poor, hungry, ailing, or disadvantaged in America. Our money is going toward getting rid of evil-doers, establishing our hegemony in the region, and making sure that the Bush administration's special interests are protected there.

In all fairness to Boehlert (R-NY), my US senator, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), despite some noisy, angry, indignant bluster, fell right in with the rest of the gang and voted for the Senate version in S. 1689. This is precisely why I continue to have such a high regard (and nostalgia) for the Lame Duck Congress.

Who moved my Agent Orange? The Bush administration has been accusing the news media of promulgating negative reports about the reconstruction in Iraq, but quite often the news is just where you find it. The little village of Dhulwayiaa is a case in point.

You would think that the US military would know the value of a tree in Iraq—or any vegetation, for that matter—since this is a country with less than 12% arable land [see the CIA's World Fact Book]. What about the value of a 5-acre grove of fruit trees? Not valuable enough? What if these trees are the livelihood for a village people? Apparently this matters about as much as it did in Vietnam.

Yesterday on NPR's Morning Edition Jacki Lyden reported that US troops cut down the 5-acre grove of fruit trees in Dhulwayiaa, north of Baghdad, effectively taking away the village's food and income sources. According to US military commanders, the grove was a hiding place for Iraqi snipers and cover for attacks upon American troops. Apparently we could not think of any other way of ending the attacks and so, tragically, followed the strategy Saddam Hussein himself used in dealing with vegetative cover in the inhabited marsh areas east of an-Nasiriyah. There Saddam diverted feeder streams and rivers and effectively dried up the world of the Marsh Arabs, displacing a people who had inhabited the area for thousands of years.  It may take decades for both the reeds and the trees to be restored.

Honey, I shrunk the kids' checkbook! I think I'm still in denial over Congress' cheerful approval of the Bush administration's request for $87 billion for our government's incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House and Senate still have to negotiate the exact amount they're giving the President—H.R. 3289 shovels out $86.89 billion and the Senate bill, S. 1689, hands over only $85.1 billion—but the largesse is in fact more of a big handout for defense spending in the Middle East. Buried in the particulars is a $9.3 billion fund for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to spend like pocket money ["Rumsfeld's $9 Billion Slush Fund," Slate, October 10, 2003]. There is also no immediate need for the request, suggesting that this may well be an effort to secure funds before it becomes an issue in the forthcoming election season [Daily Mislead, October 16, 2003].

And the American Church is still trying to keep the scales on our eyes. I watched the Coral Ridge Hour and listened as D. James Kennedy cleverly moved from the destruction of the Twin Towers to the finer points of a "just war" and then on to the present battle against terror—all without having to mention Iraq or Afghanistan, since (wink, wink) we obviously knew where he was going with this. But let's not forget Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, who keeps talking about American counterterrorism using Bush's religious "good vs. evil" language. The real enemy is a "guy named Satan" and "we in the army of God . . . have been raised for such a time as this." Although the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush, said Boykin, how he ascended to the presidency is easily explained: Bush is in the White House because "God put him there." [Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2003; see also Washington Post, October 17, 2003]

The American Church is like an ocean liner.  Its voyage is a mission. You can journey with many famous evangelists, and its lavish furnishings can be as extravagant as any found in the Crystal Cathedral. You can get tickets to board from any mainline denomination in the continental US. You are promised a changed heart and a new relationship with God. Once on board the vessel, you find that you also get God's blessings of material wealth, of military superiority, and of the right to control the destiny of many sovereign nations. When the ship veers off course, sailing from sea to shining sea, its crew easily takes you into uncharted theological waters, but how would you know this—and what does it matter? You enjoy the material blessings, take pride at being on the winning side of the battle of good vs. evil, and lounge on the deck awaiting the Rapture. This ship will never crash on the rocks of apostasy. Life is good.