John Karls' Reaction To Messages From The Gurneys

[johnkarls]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Messages From The Gurneys In Lieu Of A Second Short Quiz
From: John Karls
Date: Sat, January 30, 2016
To: Tucker and Ted Gurney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tucker and Ted,

Thank you very much for your Messages In Lieu Of A Second Short Quiz.

*****
I'm a bit surprised by your reactions to the book because I found it an easy and enjoyable read, though Klein needs a good editor because she drags in so much irrelevant information (I guess she just can't help herself when it comes to ranting about other topics about which she has ranted in the past).

The most surprising thing for me was the material on geoengineering (I think that was her term in her Chapter entitled “Dimming The Sun”).

Because I had often seen other commentators claim that global warming is easily solved by periodic small nuclear wars which, like volcanos, will spew huge amounts of sun-blocking particles into the atmosphere and which small nuclear wars are bound to occur periodically because of the current state of the world.

[Please refer to our many foci over the years on the likely starvation of half the world’s population in the wake of Iran’s becoming a nuclear power because half of the world’s oil production comes from the Persian Gulf or downwind from the PG, and virtually all of the world’s agricultural fertilizers come from petrochemicals -- though I have never seen anyone else espouse the same analysis vis-à-vis nuclear wars.]

However, the authors of such comments about periodic small nuclear wars had overlooked Klein's point (and she does NOT mention periodic small nuclear wars in her chapter entitled "Dimming The Sun") that merely blocking out some of the sun's rays in order to halt global warming does NOT halt the build-up of carbon in the earth's atmosphere.

Which, per last month's focus book "The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History" by Elizabeth Kolbert, is causing the extinction of as many as 50% of the earth's species.

And which (the build-up of carbon in the earth's atmosphere which combines spontaneously with the oceans' water to form carbonic acid which is highly toxic to virtually all sea life except jelly fish) we already knew from our 9/11/2013 meeting on "Enforcement of Ocean Conversation" (as noted in Q&A-15 through Q&A-20 of last month's Short Quiz).

*****
I'm also a bit surprised by your Messages In Lieu Of A Second Short Quiz in another respect.

Because, as I tried to explain when I was handing the reins over to you for our Feb 17 meeting, the Short Quizzes and their Suggested Answers have always provided an opportunity to generate excitement and, hopefully, to produce a change of heart in our members who had not decided initially to read the focus book and attend the meeting.

It strikes me that your Messages In Lieu will have the opposite effect.

But so be it.

*****
The only change I made to your Messages In Lieu before including them with the weekly e-mail that was sent earlier today to our list of approx. 150 recipients, was to delete Ted's penultimate paragraph commenting briefly on two current political candidates.

Although I have said many times in the past that we are a politically-oriented book/study group, we are really a public-policy book/study group.

Which is also why I made the only edit in your Short Quiz last week, changing your reference to "Republicans" to conform to Naomi Klein's term "global warming deniers." [I believe that she did not slip up and refer to "Republicans" until p. 283.]

The problems I see with trying to politicize the issue in terms of political parties are --

(1) President Obama's cap-and-trade legislation which had passed the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was blocked by Senate DEMOCRATS in 2009 when they had a 60-vote majority which was used to pass Obamacare despite ignorant comments that still persist in the media that Obamacare was passed using the simple-majority-vote procedure for “budget reconciliation” matters -- Obamacare was passed in accordance with the normal 60-vote rule because it contained many items that were NOT “budget reconciliation” matters (and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was forced to accept the Senate bill without any changes because Senate Democrats had lost their 60th seat immediately after passage of their bill), shortly after which Obamacare WAS AMENDED using the budget-reconciliation rules to eliminate the embarrassing special treatment that came to light in the media for residents of half-a-dozen states to get their Democratic Senators to support the original enactment when the Senate Democrats still had 60 seats,

(2) not all Republicans are opposed to doing anything about global warming, and

(3) many of the major Arab oil-exporting nations have made contributions to the Clinton Family Foundation, presumably to guarantee there will be no climate-control action during any Hillary Clinton presidency.

*****
Enough already.

Your friend,

John K.

[solutions]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Your Apparent Inconsistency Re Messages From The Gurneys
From: Solutions
Date: Tue, February 2, 2016 1:03 pm - MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

You posted on the http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org your 1/30/2016 e-mail to the Gurneys in which you say that you made a change to their Messages which, earlier that morning, had also been posted and included in the weekly e-mail to our e-mail list of approximately 150 recipients.

The change was “to delete Ted's penultimate paragraph commenting briefly on two current political candidates.”

However, the last paragraph of your e-mail stated: “many of the major Arab oil-exporting nations have made contributions to the Clinton Family Foundation, presumably to guarantee there will be no climate-control action during any Hillary Clinton presidency.”

Weren’t you inconsistent?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Your Apparent Inconsistency Re Messages From The Gurneys
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, February 2, 2016 9:14 pm - MST
To: Solutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

The short answer is no.

The longer answer --

During the first year or so of our 10 years of existence, we did focus occasionally on the public positions of particular politicians.

However, for the last 7-8 years, we have focused on public-policy issues.

One of those public-policy issues is corruption and fraud, though not in the legal sense since our courts have failed to enforce the law of corruption and fraud, but rather in the theoretical sense that any law student would recognize.

The sad state of affairs for decades is that campaign contributors are able to purchase U.S. governmental policies for only a few cents on the dollar of what those policies are worth. [If even that, since the purchase price of many governmental policies rounds down to zero rather than up to even one cent on the dollar.]

The purchase of governmental policies is enforceable as a practical matter because every pol knows that double-crossing a campaign contributor is the end of her/his political career. Because the notoriety of double-crossing a campaign contributor insures that s/he will never receive another campaign contribution from anyone.

Meanwhile, each pol makes whatever promises to the voters that s/he thinks will get her/him elected.

Knowing full well that s/he has no intention of honoring those promises in office, at least insofar as they conflict with the commitments already made to campaign contributors.

Unfortunately, just like the courts will not enforce the law of corruption unless a pol and contributor have been stupid enough to spell out their agreement in writing, the courts will not enforce the law of fraud when it comes to the false promises that pols have made to voters in order to be elected.

**********
Our 2/14/2008 Meeting entitled “The Best Government Money Can Buy: Bribery & Extortion”

For our 2/14/2008 meeting, we focused on two books:

(1) “Homo Politicus: The Strange And Scary Tribes That Run Our Government” (Random House - Jan 2008) by Dana Milbank, Washington Post Columnist 2000-present (syndicated in more than 200 newspapers).

(2) “The Squandering Of America: How The Failure Of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity” (Alfred A. Knopf 2007) by Robert Kuttner, Business Week Columnist 1984-2005.

The thesis of both Messrs. Milbank and Kuttner was that NOTHING is done (or NOT done) in the cesspool known as Washington DC except as a result of campaign contributions which comprise EITHER bribery of the pols OR extortion by the pols.

**********
Our Policy Since 2/14/2008

As a result of the indictment of American politics by Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner, we have tried to ignore the campaign promises of American pols because they are meaningless.

The commitments by American pols to their campaign contributors are what count.

But even if it were possible to ascertain what commitments have been made by a particular pol to her/his campaign contributors, we have tried to concentrate instead on public policy.

**********
Our Recent Foci On Corruption

(1) Thomas and Denise Chancellor proposed the focus for our 4/8/2015 meeting on “Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United” (Harvard U. Press 2014) by Prof. Zephyr Teachout.

(2) Tucker Gurney proposed the focus of our 5/13/2015 meeting on “Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security” (Norton & Co 2015) by Sarah Chayes.

*****
In addition to documenting corruption and its disastrous consequences, “Corruption In America” focused at great length on the PROHIBITION IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION against pols receiving contributions from foreign governments --

Q-12 of our Short Quiz for the 4/8/2015 meeting --

“Upon its founding, was America the laughing stock of Europe because its Articles of Confederation under which it operated until 1789, and its Constitution under which it has operated ever since, both provided (quoting Sec. 9 of Article One of the Constitution which parrots almost ver batim the Articles of Confederation) -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and NO PERSON HOLDING ANY OFFICE OF PROFIT OR TRUST UNDER THEM, SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, ACCEPT ANY PRESENT, EMOLUMENT, OFFICE, OR TITLE, OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”? [Emphasis added.]”

A-12 = “Yes.”

And, we discussed at great length about how all of the contributions to the Clinton Family Foundation by many of the Arab Oil-Exporting Countries WHILE HILLARY CLINTON WAS SECRETARY OF STATE would have violated the U.S. Constitution if those contributions had been made directly to her.

Indeed, the Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz for the 4/8/2015 meeting continued, in part, with --

Question 14

Did the Clinton Foundation (aka The Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) accept, without the consent of Congress, contributions from foreigners?

Answer 14

Yes.

[Technically, The Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation was known as the William J. Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. The fact that they are the same legal entity which merely underwent a name change can be seen from their IRS Tax Returns (Form 990), all of which over the years have the same Taxpayer ID Number = 31-1580204.]

Question 15

If Hillary Clinton was prohibited by the U.S. Constitution from accepting any gifts, etc., from foreigners without the consent of Congress while she was Secretary of State, is it acceptable for such gifts to be accepted WHILE SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE by the foundation of her husband and daughter -- a foundation on whose Board she herself has served both before and after her term as Secretary of State and whose Board is currently listed on the Foundation’s official website as including “Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton” as if to emphasize, however erroneously, that she still is the Secretary of State (and, perhaps, imply that she is the future President of the U.S.)?

Answer 15

What is the definition of “bag man”???

Must a “bag man” be a male human being -- or could it be a female human being and could it even be a legal entity such as a foundation???

Question 16

In other words, instead of donating to the worthy causes supported by The Clinton Foundation either directly or through other organizations, why are the foreigners donating to The Clinton Foundation? Do they expect a quid-pro-quo for routing their donations through The Clinton Foundation?

Answer 16

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

**********
Conclusion

The long answer to your question about whether I was inconsistent???

It may seem on a superficial level that I was being inconsistent.

However, my deletion of Ted Gurney’s two brief comments about the campaign promises TO VOTERS comports with our policy since 2/14/2008 of ignoring such promises as presumptively fraudulent.

And my own comment in my e-mail to the Gurneys last Saturday about the contributions by Arab Oil-Exporting Countries to the Clinton Family Foundation does comport with our long-standing policy of focusing on the public-policy issue of corruption.

As, indeed, we studied in excruciating detail only last Spring, once at the request of the Gurneys and once at the request of the Chancellors.

Thank you again for your inquiry.

Your friend,

John K.