I, Steve Harris, agree with these viewpoints found in Today's Abilene Reporter News and The Brownwood Bulletin

Iraq proves once again we love war
By Paul Campos
November 30, 2006

At the outbreak of World War I, the streets of the great cities of Europe were filled with cheering crowds who welcomed that indescribable catastrophe as if it were a particularly exciting sporting event. A dark truth about human beings is that, at some perverse level of our psyches, we like war.

Nothing illustrates this better than the willingness of intelligent people in the grip of war fever to make arguments that, in any other mood, they would recognize as absurd.

Consider that the conservative's case for the Iraq war violated the core principles of conservative political thought in the most outrageous possible way. That case was put forth on the basis of the following assumptions.

First, people the world over are basically the same, in that they have an unquenchable longing for freedom. Differences in culture, religion, history, institutions, and so forth are merely superficial. Deep in their hearts, all men are part of a universal brotherhood, although this truth is obscured by corrupt leaders who manipulate the passions and fears of the public to keep themselves in power.

Second, it's only necessary to have the will to engage in revolutionary action, including the willingness to employ the transformative and cleansing power of righteous military force, to sweep the corrupt social order aside, and allow the universal longing for freedom, brotherhood and democracy to flourish.

Thus, this transformation merely requires sufficiently courageous and steadfast political leaders who understand that evil will be defeated and a new age of human flourishing will emerge, as long as they maintain the will to lead the world into the golden future they have glimpsed.

Anyone who thinks this is an exaggerated description of the Bush administration's view of foreign policy should go back and read the president's second inaugural address. It should be unnecessary to point out that every aspect of this view is, from the standpoint of classic conservative political theory, completely insane.

Indeed, the neoconservative project to liberate the Middle East was always based on the most brazen contradictions. On the one hand, it was claimed that Middle Eastern societies were so hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional that they could never be reformed from within, and would therefore remain hotbeds for terrorism.

On the other, the Iraq war was sold by these same people on the grounds that it would be a ''cakewalk.'' Overthrow Saddam Hussein, and freedom and democracy would spring forth out of what a few weeks earlier had been a hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional political culture. The theory, you see, was that people the world over are basically the same, and have an unquenchable longing for freedom, etc.

In short, the passion for war among conservatives was so intense that they never noticed their two main arguments for invading Iraq flatly contradicted each other.

If anything, the ''liberal hawk'' case for the war was even crazier. Various liberal supporters of the war took the view that, although the Bush administration was arguably the most corrupt and incompetent in modern American history, it was nevertheless a good idea to entrust it with the task of fighting a pre-emptive war which would, among other things, require reconstructing an entire nation more or less from scratch.

Neither the neoconservative architects of the Iraq war nor its liberal hawk supporters were stupid or ignorant. They were, and are, generally intelligent, very well educated, and quite thoughtful people. So how did they come to advocate positions that, under normal circumstances, they would consider delusional?

Part of the answer has to do with the disturbing fact that, despite their pious protests to the contrary, the cheerleaders for this war affirmatively wanted it to happen. This is merely the latest example of how our lust for the violent excitement of war is every bit as powerful as our desire for sex - and far more dangerous.


Paul Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado and can be reached at Paul.Campos@Colorado.edu.
source: http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/op_columns/article/0,1874,ABIL_7981_5178877,00.html
---------------------

What's real story ?
Letter to the Editor

November 30, 2006

I've read where Brownwood officials have accepted Kevin Carruth's sudden resignation as Brownwood city manager. After serving the City of Brownwood for the last 18 months, one has to question what would force ''a young progressive city manager with a great temperament and loads of experience,'' according to Brownwood City Councilman Dave Fair, to tender his resignation after such a short amount of time in the trenches at Brownwood City Hall.

I recall Mr. Carruth was hired by a four to one city council vote and I also recall reading the following statement by Fair regarding Mr. Carruth's hiring in April of 2005: ''He's going to be inheriting a family that is not dysfunctional... a city that does not have major spots, blemishes or wrinkles. He'll do the touchup paint and the trim and things like that, but he's not inheriting an albatross.''

What did Mr. Carruth inherit when he reported for duty in Brownwood ?

Did he inherit a dysfunctional family with major spots, blemishes and wrinkles ?

Was Mr. Carruth incapable of brushing on the touchup paint and taking care of the trim and things like that ?

It would not surprise me in the least if Mr. Carruth, ''a young progressive city manager with a great temperament and loads of experience,'' had indeed inherited a Brownwood albatross (defined as something that hinders or handicaps) !

What's going on behind closed doors at Brownwood City Hall ?

Steve Harris
Brownwood

source: http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/op_letters_editor/article/0,1874,ABIL_7984_5178908,00.html
--------------------
The Brownwood Bulletin Thursday November 30, 2006

Op Ed: Letters To The Editor

Council leaves city residents in the dark

To the editor:

When I started hearing the rumors floating around about Kevin Carruth being asked to resign as city manager, I assumed it was just more of the talk you hear, that had no basis. As it turns out, Carruth was indeed asked to resign.

This seems so bizarre, I don’t even know what question to ask... so I’ll pick this one...Why is it a secret? Why was it done in a closed meeting of the city council? Why couldn’t the city furnish a summary of what went on in that meeting to the Bulletin? What in the world happened to open government? Since when does government happen behind closed doors, with no information given to the citizens?

I like Kevin Carruth and his family personally. Everything I know about his actions since he came to Brownwood tells me he has done a good job. Unlike the city council members, he has been actively involved in, and helpful to, community organizations such as Keep Brownwood Beautiful and the Humane Society.

The city spent a huge amount of money on “headhunters” to be able to find someone as capable as Carruth. And now, with absolutely no explanation to him or us, the city council dismisses him (three weeks before Christmas, no less).

The only reason I can come up with, is that Carruth came in with fresh, different ideas. He didn’t necessarily want to change everything...he wanted to put everything on the table, out in the open, and look at them.

A fresh look, a fresh perspective, is never a bad idea. I’m guessing that this is city council’s way of telling him, “This is the way we’ve always done things. Change is bad, even when what we are doing isn’t working. And above all, don’t let the citizens of Brownwood know what is going on in the city government...they are way too stupid to understand.”

All I can say to the city council members is...shame on you! And remember that you are all elected by those same citizens that you are keeping in the dark.

Freda Day

Early

source: http://www.brownwoodbulletin.com/articles/2006/11/30/op_ed/letters%20to%20the%20editor/letter01.txt