Category: National

And speaking of irony. A Spanish oil and gas company, Repsol, has announced that in a joint venture with Cubapetroleo, it will look for oil off the (northwestern) coast of Cuba. Should a major oil find result, the implications — on both the energy and diplomatic fronts — will be significant.

The energy angle is obvious. Cuba is oil-challenged and struggles to pay for its imports. Plus the Gulf of Mexico has heretofore been the private production province of Mexico and the United States.

But look who wants to be a player if the drilling off of Cuba is successful: Halliburton.

Indeed, the giant oil-services company now seems to be picking and choosing its foreign policy preferences and allegiances. Recall that an upside, if you will, of the Iraqi war and occupation, has been the opportunity afforded Halliburton to help re-build the Iraqi oil infrastructure. No such contract work exists with Cuba, however, because of the long-standing economic embargo.

As a result, Halliburton has recently made it clear that it doesn’t think the Kennedy-era embargo is such a good idea any more.

Moreover, the sanctions against Iran and Libya should be given the heave-ho as well. John Gibson, the president of Halliburton’s energy services division, couldn’t have been more blunt: “There are foreign companies making money in those countries,” he recently pointed out, “and I think American companies should have a shot at those markets as well.”

That may not be the most principled reason to end the counterproductive and cruel Cuban embargo, but it’s a valid one. Farmers, ranchers and others had made the case previously.

But this is Halliburton. They play rough. And they still make money the old-fashioned way: They know the right people.

How now, Michael Newdow? You don’t have standing on behalf of your daughter to challenge “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

But that’s just a technicality, of course, and some other affronted atheist, aggrieved agnostic, peeved pantheist or steamed secular humanist surely will take up the clause cause again. It had to be encouraging to the incredulity crowd when only three Supreme Court justices flat out said that the use of “under God” was constitutional. The others deferred to the custody angle.

Arguably what is now called for is a Pledge of Allegiance to Common Sense. Belief in an “Uncaused Cause” or a “Prime Mover” may be incompatible with the “Big Bang” theory, but not the principle of church-and-state separation.

In effect, that is what the Bush administration is arguing. Its brief says “under God” in the Pledge is about as religious an act as pocketing coins with “In God We Trust” imprinted on them. It amounts to a patriotic acknowledgement of “the nation’s religious history.” We were, after all, founded by Pilgrims who had issues with the Church of England — not God.

The administration, mercifully, got this one right. “Under God” is an empirical statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and state. But if it did, then, indeed, “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

“Fahrenheit 9/11” wasn’t the worst image hit taken by President Bush this last fortnight. And it wasn’t the revised State Department report that showed that terrorism incidents had actually INCREASED in 2003. Nor was it his vice president’s security paranoia on the Senate floor where Dick Cheney implored Sen. Patrick Leahy to “Frisk yourself.”

A case can be made that it was the less than friendly greeting Bush received on his brief visit last week to Ireland to meet with European Union leaders. That just doesn’t happen to an American president. Not there.

Not good.

The most-wanted man in Iraq is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida operative who’s behind a bunch of car bombings and at least two decapitations — the South Korean, Kim Sun Il, and the American, Nicholas Berg. The U.S. has now put a $10-million price on Zarqawi’s head.

Presumably on a pike.

How now, Michael Newdow? You don’t have standing on behalf of your daughter to challenge “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

But that’s a technicality, of course, and some other affronted atheist, peeved pantheist or steamed secular humanist surely will take up the clause cause again. Moreover, only three Supreme Court justices flat out said that the use of “under God” was constitutional. The others only referenced the custody issue.

Arguably what is now called for is a Pledge of Allegiance to common sense. And, in effect, that is what the Bush Administration is arguing. Its brief says “under God” in the pledge is about as religious an act as pocketing coins with “In God We Trust” imprinted on them. It amounts to a patriotic acknowledgement of “the nation’s religious history.” We were, after all, founded by Pilgrims, who had issues with the Church of England — not God.

The Administration, mercifully, got this one right. “Under God” is an empirical statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and state. If it does, then “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

Ray Charles was born poor and black in the Depression-era South. By age 7 he was blind. By his early teen years he was an orphan. He was a dropout and later a drug addict.

But he never played the victim card. That may be the ultimate legacy of Brother Ray’s iconic, eclectic American life. “What’d I Say” — but never “Why you ain’t?”

Ray Charles: R.I.P. Recording In Perpetuity. From “Sea to shining sea.”

Ray Charles, born poor, black — and by age 7 blind — never played the victim card. That may be the ultimate legacy of his iconic, American life.

“What’d I Say” — but never “Why you ain’t?”

Ray Charles: R.I.P. Recording In Perpetuity.

When the president of the United States in time of war gives a commencement speech, you can pretty much count on the “carpe diem” line showing up. In his graduation talk to Air Force Academy cadets, President George W. Bush didn’t disappoint. He used the forum to underscore America’s commitment to defeating terrorists and seizing the opportunity to liberate Iraq — and in so doing capture the high ground in the broader war on terrorism.

The president later segued into a parallel with World War II. Given the Memorial Day weekend, the dedication of the Veterans’ Memorial and the 60th Anniversary of D-Day, it was understandable. It was also inaccurate.

Vietnam, alas, continues to be the more appropriate analogy.

Would that the war on terrorism were truly comparable to the epic struggle that was WWII. Referencing Hitler and Hussein or Tojo and bin Laden doesn’t make it so. Comparing Pearl Harbor with the World Trade Towers isn’t enough.

*Would that perverted Fundamentalism were merely a dangerous, geopolitical ideology — not unlike Nazism and Facism.

*Would that religion were not a factor, let alone a driving force.

*Would that we were merely an enemy — not an infidel.

*Would that mosques weren’t also for preying.

*Would that geopolitics only involved countries — not tribes.

*Would that Americans — civilian and uniformed — felt the war was as good as the cause. Najaf isn’t Normandy.

*Would that we had joined key allies for an easily agreed upon common mission.

*Would that those we liberated two generations ago didn’t now see us as arrogant pillars of pre-emption and unilateralism.

*Would that those we recently liberated would see something other than a culturally insensitive occupation by contemporary Crusaders.

*Would that the rules of engagement were similar. Suicide bombers, male and female, are an especially obscene mutation.

*Would that the enemy were sovereign hegemons with uniformed armies — not jihad-crazed Muslims in mufti. Muqtada al-Sadr is not Erwin Rommel.

*Would that the enemy loved their own lives more than they hated us.

*Would that the Israeli lobby and Ariel Sharon’s blank check weren’t undermining our Mid East credibility — such that even Muslim “allies” can’t act like it.

*Would that the word sacrifice had meaning to Americans at home — not just the unlucky ones in uniform in Iraq.

*Would that victory would be recognizable when it happens.

*Would that FDR, Ike or Harry were waiting in the wings.

Remember when Bill Cosby was criticized by a lot of black folks for “The Cosby Show”? Holy Huxtable, it was an unreal depiction of black life. As if any sitcom was a depiction of anything real. Cosby’s original sin was that he wasn’t Jimmy Walker.

Now a generation later, he is hearing it in some quarters about comments he made recently in Washington in the context of a performance commemorating Brown vs. Board of Education. Cosby had the temerity to note that subsequent black generations hadn’t done nearly enough with the Brown vs. Board kick start. Too many blacks were still mired in lower-economic cul-de-sacs, and they had to assume a lot of the blame, he intimated.

He referenced “knuckleheads” who couldn’t be bothered to speak Standard English — and gave slangy, ebonic examples. He referred to warped priorities that valued “$500 sneakers” over modestly priced “Hooked On Phonics” kits. And so on.

Among those not amused: Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert.

Cosby’s current sin apparently wasn’t so much the lampooning, black self-criticism — but going public with it. Some things are better off being kept in-house. Unfortunately in America that only leads to a house further divided over race.

We do ourselves no favor as a nation if, in effect, the only serious racial conversation we can have is one reiterating the insidious legacy of racism and lamenting its resultant, ongoing victimization.

The Supreme Court, as America found out in 1954, had the power to void Plessy vs. Ferguson and end de jure segregation in America’s schools. If only the Court, however, had the wherewithal to mandate learning.

Brown vs. Board of Education was a watershed event, but translating it into meaningful success remains a Sisyphean task.

Undermining Jim Crow by declaring that (racially) “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” should have been seen solely as a critical means to the ultimate end. But that end — fostering black student achievement as a pivot to equal opportunities — is no where in sight. It’s been a lot easier to bus, to designate magnet schools, to present choice plans, to ask for more money and to offer lame excuses.

Study after study and standardized test after standardized test remind us that a significant, black-white racial gap in learning remains intact. Frustratingly, embarrassingly intact. It is a veritable chasm that represents the prime source of racial inequality in this country.

Where and with whom children go to school are not, as we have seen, the critical determinants in educational success. Neither is poverty, per se, overriding. Or vestiges of “racism,” however defined.

It is more a matter of culture, hardly the purview of the Supreme Court.

An excellent source on this subject is “No Excuses” by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. The authors identify key risk factors that can limit intellectual development: “