We offer below,
random musings, reflections, correspondence, scraps of
work-in-progress, and other such miscellany, perchance worth sharing
but not ready for the prime time of formal publication.
February 1, 2005
ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for
they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew, 5:9)
So, shouldn’t faithful Christians be reluctant to endorse and be involved in
a warfare?
Not at all, says Rev. Jerry Falwell. In fact,
“God is Pro-War.”
The good Reverend instructs us:
Christians have struggled with the issue of war for centuries. Before
Jesus arrived on he scene, all good people wrestled with war and the
existence of evil. Thankfully, the Bible is not silent on the subject...
Many present-day pacifists hold Jesus as their example for unvarying
peace. But they ignore the full revelation concerning Jesus pictured in
the book of Revelation 19, where He is depicted bearing a “sharp sword”
and smiting nations, ruling them with “a rod of iron.”
Moreover, the Song of Victory in Exodus15 hails God as a God of war: “...
The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” And, as the verses [in
Ecclesiastes] that open this column indicate, there is indeed a time for
war.
God actually strengthened individuals for war, including Moses, Joshua and
many of the Old Testament judges who demonstrated great faith in battle.
And God destroyed many armies challenging the Israelites. I Chronicles
14:15 describes God striking down the Philistines.
Read the column and you will find that in support of the “warrior
God,” Falwell cites the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation. There is
no citation from the Gospels, or from the Epistles that follow. Small
wonder. I doubt that there is a recorded word from the mouth of Jesus
that sanctions war. (In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says “I came not to send peace,
but a sword.” But this is a prophecy of hard times ahead – not a call for
his followers to lift up their swords). Quite the contrary, Jesus instructs
us to “love our enemies,” (Matthew 5:44), to “turn the other cheek” and to
“resist not evil.” (Matthew 5:39).
The Old Testament is quite another story, for it is soaked with the blood of
the unfortunate tribes -- the citizens of Jericho, the Philistines and the
Midianites -- that stood in the way of the conquering “armies of The Lord.”
As for the book of Revelations – the ravings of the madman of Patmos –
Falwell and his Rapturite brethren interpret that book as a prophecy that
The Lord, in his infinite love and mercy, will soon cast into eternal
damnation and torment, every human soul who ever lived, except those very
few who happen to share Jerry Falwell’s religious convictions.
To Falwell and his literalist ilk, there is One God, of one mind, who wrote
(through various prophets) every inerrant word of the Bible. So if we have
trouble reconciling a God who sanctions the parental execution of
disobedient children (Deut. 21:18), the stoning non-virginal brides (Deut.
22:13), or those who work on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2) – a God who also
commands the genocidal slaughter of whole cities and tribes – with the
loving and forgiving God described in the Gospels, well that merely proves,
as St. Paul counsels, that “the wisdom of God” appears as foolishness to us
mere mortals. (I Cor. 1:21).
There is another view of The Bible, shared by most historians and biblical
scholars (all of whom are, of course, condemned to be thrown into the fiery
pit of Hell). According to this perspective, The Bible is not, strictly
speaking “a book” – it is an anthology of books written over the span of
about 800 years, by unknown or little-known authors, and distorted by
numerous translations and editings. Instead of giving us a unified code of
morality, these books portray a maturation of morality, through historical
ages, from a savage tribalism and constraining legalism of the Old
Testament, evolving, among the minor prophets late in the Old Testament and
into the New Testament, into an ethic of pacifism, humility, compassion and
universal inclusiveness. Jesus of Nazareth spoke of this moral maturation
when, as in The Sermon on the Mount, he repeatedly said: “It hath been
said...., but I say unto you....” (See for yourself: its in Matthew, Ch. 5).
That moral evolution as depicted through the books of The Bible is itself an
inspiring moral lesson, though not of the sort that the fundamentalists
recognize and endorse. But because these books contain a wide spectrum of
moral messages, those who regard each verse as equally infallible, while
unperturbed by flat-out inconsistency, can find therein “scriptural
justification” for all sorts of abominable beliefs – for example, the belief
that “God is pro-war.”
Though I am confident that Rev. Falwell would have no inclination to follow
the advice of this sinner and agnostic, I would still urge him, and those
persuaded by his worship of a "warrior God," to contemplate two passages of
scripture, one from the Old Testament, and the other from the New Testament.
He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong
nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and
their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and
none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath
spoken it.
For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will
walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.”
Micah, 4:3-5
Note above: “... every one in the name of his god,” and the
implied message of religious toleration.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world.
For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink: I was a stranger, and yet took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungred, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed
thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily, I say unto you,
inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me.
Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungered, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave
me no drink.
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not:
sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying Lord, when saw we thee an
hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and
did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous
into life eternal.
Matthew, 25:34-46
If, as the fundamentalists believe (and I do not), each soul in the
hereafter must appeal for its salvation before the throne of the Almighty,
I’d venture that the Reverends Falwell, Robertson, Sheldon, and their kind
will be quite amazed and horrified when they are directed to “the left hand”
and reminded: “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye
did it not to me.”
PostScript: Quoth the Reverend Falwell:
Some reading this column will surely ask, “Doesn’t the sixth
commandment say, ‘Thou shalt not kill?’”
Actually, no; it says: “Thou shalt not commit murder.”
Sorry, Rev., but my Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13).
(Same with the King James and the Revised Standard translations). Falwell
reputedly preaches that every word in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Is he “improving upon” God’s “inerrant word” here?
Still more about "I came not
to bring peace, but the sword."
Are Cut-Throat Competitors, Cutting Their Own Throats?
Those of you who have seen
the “Buy Blue” lists, (e.g., at
“Donkey Rising”) may have noticed that a disproportionate number of
gasoline companies, consumer electronics chains, hotels and restaurants
contribute heavily to the Republicans.
What are they thinking? Don’t they realize that by supporting Bush
and his policies, they’ve booked passage on the Titanic?
Here’s why. As we well know, Bushenomics is “reverse Robin-Hoodism:”
it takes from the poor (and the middle class) and gives to the rich.
For example, over the past four years, the median family income has dropped
by some $1500, as the costs of medical care, insurance, gasoline, and other
basic necessities have risen. At the same time, consumer debt has also
risen.
This can’t go on. Sooner or later, and most likely sooner, consumer debt
will “max out,” and as disposable cash moves out of the pockets of the
masses and into the portfolios and offshore accounts of the super-rich, the
economy must slow down – and quite possible cascade down into a depression.
As payments for necessities – food, shelter, clothing, heating, health care
– must be met, luxuries will be foregone. Families will “wait one more year”
before buying another car, and that car may have to be purchased from a
used-car lot. Vacations will be cancelled or downgraded. There will be fewer
“nights out” and fewer purchases of electronic gadgets. (See my
“Flunking Economics
101").
The problem is compounded by the falling value of the dollar, brought on by
Bush’s massive federal deficits. As the dollar drops, the cost of imported
goods (which means most electronic and computer components) rises.
And so, the first industries to be effected by an economic slowdown, will be
those aforementioned gasoline, consumer electronic, hotel, entertainment and
restaurant industries.
Somehow, in their short-sighted greed for still more tax breaks for the
wealthy or their craving for de-regulation (or whatever else may have
motivated their contributions to the Republicans), these GOP fat-cats seem
to have forgotten a simple but inescapable economic law: there can be no
sales without buyers. And a public with increasing debt and decreasing
disposable income is less able to purchase "dispensable" good and services.
Is all that too complicated for these business geniuses to understand?
If all this theory will not persuade, history repeatedly teaches us that
short sighted class warfare of the rich against the masses works to the
disadvantage of all. Under Clinton, stock prices tripled, as the federal
budget eventually produced surpluses and the dollar held its value. Under
Bush stock prices have been stagnant, federal deficits have soared, and the
dollar is falling.
More generally,
Arthur Blaustein asks, "are Republicans better economic managers than
Democrats?" The answer:
Guess which president since World War II did best on these eight most
generally accepted measures of good management of the nation's economy.
You can choose among six Republicans — Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M.
Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bushes 41 and 43 — and five Democrats —
Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter and
Clinton. Which president produced:
1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?
2. The highest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?
4. The highest growth in industrial production?
5. The highest growth in hourly wages?
6. The lowest misery index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?
The answers are:
1-Truman; 2-Clinton; 3-Johnson; 4-Kennedy; 5-Johnson; 6-Truman;
7-Truman; 8-Clinton. In other words, Democratic presidents trounced
Republicans eight out of eight. If this isn't enough to destroy the
perception that the economy has performed better under Republicans, then
let's include stock market performance under Democrats. The Dow Jones
Industrial Average during the 20th century rose an average of 7.3% a year
under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it jumped 10.3%, a whopping
41% gain for investors. During George W. Bush's first three years as
president, the stock market declined 4%."
Michael Kinsley concurs:
"It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better [economic]
record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost
every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years,
2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average
under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal
government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of
gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains
true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the
Republicans). What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents
(3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits
took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats
(2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent)." (See also Mark Hulbert:
Pop quiz on
the markets: Which is better, GOP or Democrats?, CBS.MarketWatch.com, November 13, 2002).
Why is this? Put simply, it appears that the Democrats’ policy is to feed
the golden goose. The Republicans, on the other hand, prefer to cook it. In
other words, the Democrats, by looking after the needs and interest of the
producers of wealth – workers, educators, researchers -- nourish the
economy. Republicans starve the economy by exploiting it.
Even if, as the progressives complain, the Republicans and The Right are
deaf to appeals to compassion and economic justice, one would suppose that
they might be moved by appeals to their self interest, and that they would
support the party which, as history confirms, best serves that
self-interest.
Apparently not.
But then, the Bush team no longer claims to be “reality based.”
A postscript to my reprised essay,
“Creationism and the Devolution of the Intellect.”
The persistent fundamentalist opposition to the Theory of Evolution, despite
overwhelming evidence and the universal acceptance by all life scientists,
reminds me of similar dogmatic resistance to Galileo’s scientific advances.
In his monumental History of Western Philosophy, W. T. Jones
describes Galileo’s encounter with his colleagues at the University of
Padua.
Jones writes:
When invited by Galileo to look through the newly invented telescope
and see for themselves the satellites of Jupiter, they refused. They knew
that Jupiter could not have satellites; hence what Galileo reported that
we saw could only be witchcraft or sleight of hand. After all, the whole
universe demonstrated again and again the importance that God has assigned
the number seven. It was therefore sacrilegious and against all reason to
suppose that there could be more than seven heavenly bodies.
The Paduan Philosophers’ thus argued:
There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the
head.... From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the
seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the
number of planets is necessarily seven. Moreover, these [alleged]
satellites of Jupiter are invisible to the naked eye, and therefore can
exercise no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and
therefore do not exist. Besides, [from the earliest times, men] have
adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them
after the seven planets. Now, if we increase the number of the planets,
this whole and beautiful system falls to the ground.
Plus ça change, plus la même chose!
(W. T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Second Edition, Vol. 3,
Harcourt Brace and World, 1969, p. 101).
Some Enduring Wisdom from Will Pitt. (No, not that
Will Pitt).
In November 18, 1777, William Pitt wrote the following letter to the
House of Lords. It was titled, “An English Plea For Peace With The American
Colonies.”
My Lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we cannot act
with success, nor suffer with honour, calls upon us to remonstrate in the
strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of Majesty from
the delusions which surround it. You cannot, I venture to say, you CANNOT
conquer America. What is your present situation there? We do not know the
worst; but we know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and
suffered much. You may swell every expense, and strain every effort, still
more extravagantly; accumulate every assistance you can beg or borrow;
traffic and barter with every pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends
his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country: your efforts are
forever vain and impotent-doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you
rely; for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your
enemies, to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder,
devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty!
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was
landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms! Never! Never! Never!
Are the Iraqi “insurgents” all that different from our patriot forebears?
(Thanks to Allen L. Roland for bringing this quotation to our attention).
February 17, 2005
A Warning from Easter Island
UCLA Geographer, Jared Diamond, is the author of the best selling book
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In a lecture
last month at the San Diego Natural History Museum, Dr. Diamond explained
how the Polynesian society on Easter Island collapsed when all the trees on
that once-heavily forested island were cut down.
Diamond then asked: "what do you think the Easter Islander ... said as
he was chopping down that last tree? ... I wonder if he said, 'never fear,
technology will solve our problems, we'll find a substitute for wood.' Or
perhaps he said, 'your environmental models are untested, we need more
research. Action would be premature. You are fear mongers.' Or perhaps he
said, 'this is my tree and this is my land, and I'll do with it as I please
I'm here to maximize a profit. Get the big government of the chiefs off my
back'
"Maybe it was one of those three things [that caused] the collapse of Easter
Island society."
Petroleum is the primary energy source upon which industrialized society
depends. It now appears nearly certain that sometime in the next decade,
world oil production will "peak," after which the price of oil, and hence
almost all other commodities, will rise sharply. When the energy required to
extract the oil approaches the amount of energy contained in the oil,
industrial civilization will collapse, resulting in the death of billions of
human beings. (See my
"The Oil Trap").
Unless the industrialized nations embark immediately upon a massive and
sustained effort to reduce oil consumption and to develop the "next" source
of energy.
This is not the policy of those Texas "oil-men," Bush and Cheney. Instead,
their "solution" is to invade foreign countries and to seize their oil.
If successful, it can only postpone the inevitable catastrophe. And
there is every indication that the Bush-Cheney "solution" will not succeed.
And why won't they face the hard facts and respond appropriately to the
catastrophic threat immediately before us?
Listen closely, and you may find that they are sounding very much like
Prof. Diamond's Easter Islander, hacking away at that last tree.
February 26, 2005
The Darkening “Gray Lady”
The editors of The New York Times complain that bloggers, lacking
the experience, traditions and professional integrity of legitimate
journalists, should refrain from “muddying the waters” and leave the
reporting and interpreting to the pros.
My reply to the New York Times can be stated in a very few words:
Whitewater
Wen Ho Lee
Headline: “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices
Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote” (November 12, 2001)
Jason Blair
Judith Miller, Ahmed Chalabi,
Aluminum Tubes, and the WMDs
Phoney-baloney, in each and every case.
Even more significant, perhaps, is the “Legitimate Press” as the watchdog
that didn’t bark.
For example, what has The New York Times told us about:
Bush’s AWOL from the Texan Air National Guard
Bush’s insider- trading of Harken stocks,
Bush’s business dealings with the Bin Laden family?
Bush’s drug use, and the Texas court’s judgment of “community service”?
The falsehood of the smears against Al Gore (“Inventing the internet,”
etc.).
The lies of Colin Powell before the UN Security Council, February, 2002
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
The listening device worn by Bush during the 2004 debates.
Gannon/Geckert
All this from “the flagship of American Journalism.”
Even so, “Truth crushed to earth, will rise again.”
As it did in the “Committees of Correspondence” during the American
Revolution, and in the Soviet Union in “Samizdat.”
And so today, finding no other outlet, Truth must apparently “rise” out of
the internet – amidst, admittedly and regretfully, tons of trash.
Defend Liberalism, not “Liberalism.”
As anticipated, some visitors to The Smirking Chimp took exception to my
proposal that progressives “shed the soiled garment” of the word
“liberalism,” while steadfastly defending the political program heretofore
referred to by that label.
Two typical complaints:
I don't think that liberals should apologize for being liberals. I also
don't think that it would be very difficult to redeem the term if liberals
made any effort to do so.
Hey, I totally do my part to reclaim the word ''liberal''. When
someone calls me one, I say, ''Yes, that's right. I'm an admirer of FDR
and Harry Truman and JFK and George McGovern, and I don't have to hang my
head when I say it.''
With due respect to my critics, it appears that they have fallen victim
to “word-magic” – as have we all, more or less. One of the primary
objectives of critical thinking is to minimize that victimization as much as
possible. In the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein, to “battle against the
bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
We begin by understanding that the association of words with their
referents is arbitrary. Quoting Juliet once again, “a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet.” Accordingly, on the one hand there is the word
“liberal,” and on the other there is a body of political convictions, liberalism, that has heretofore been referred to by that word “liberal.”
But now, due to a relentless campaign by The Right, the word “liberalism”
has been unjustly stained with connotations of “bleeding heart,” “elitism,”
and even “treason.” And every time someone proudly announces to the world,
“I am a liberal and proud of it!” those connotations accompany the label.
Perhaps this is why Bernie Sanders, the admirable Independent Congressman,
recently told his Vermont constituent Thom Hartmann, “I am not a liberal, I
am a progressive.” If so, it was a wise decision.
Face it: to the average citizen today, “Liberalism” no longer means what it
once meant. Yet the body of beliefs and policies once referred to when FDR,
Adlai Stevenson, JFK, and others called themselves “liberals” – these
beliefs and policies are as valid and urgently relevant as ever. So lets
protect them by awarding them a new name: “progressivism.” Be assured that
if we do so, “liberalism” (in the original sense) will “smell as sweet.”
And so, to reply to my critic, I too don't think that liberals should
apologize for being liberals. But they should discard a label that causes
them much more harm than benefit.
“Words,” as Thomas Hobbes noted, “are wise mens’ counters; they are the
money of fools.”
March 8, 2005
The Indispensable "Big Gummint"
Right-wing regressives who demand endlessly that we “get government off
our backs,” too easily forget how much they cling to the back of government
– how much, that is to say, they benefit from the assistance of government
services.
In a recent article,
“Dearth of a
Nation,” Benjamin Wallace-Wells makes the point supremely well:
The pharmaceutical, financial, and airline industries blossomed thanks
to the creation of the FDA, SEC, and FAA, which gave customers some
assurance of safety when they popped pills, traded stocks, or boarded
flights. The G.I. Bill provided a generation of veterans with the college
educations they needed to build the post-war middle class. The creation of
the federally-guaranteed 30-year mortgage proved the decisive tool in the
growth of the post-war American suburb.
These investments and regulatory changes aren't merely tools of the past;
it is impossible to imagine the '90s boom emerging without them. Early
investment from the Pentagon helped nurture the internet. The algorithm
that powered Google was developed when co-founder Larry Page, then a
Stanford graduate student, won a federal grant to write a more efficient
sorting and search engine for libraries. The innovative new medicines that
have driven the expansion of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries
arose from university research largely financed by the National Institutes
of Health.
Of course, private initiative and enterprise are essential to a thriving
industrial economy.
As the fall of Soviet communism proves, government can’t do it all.
Neither the computer with which I am writing this blog nor the internet
through which you are reading it would ever have been developed entirely
through government bureaucracies. Government is simply too risk-averse and
too intolerant of maverick geniuses.
But that’s just half of the story. The regressive-right chooses to ignore
the other half – the contribution of government agencies and investment to
industrial innovation.
While it is true that the transistor was invented by Bardeen, Brittain and
Shockley in1947 at the corporate Bell Laboratories, the development of
microcircuitry was funded by NASA when the reduction of payload weight
became a critical concern in the space program. And the internet had its
origin in the government network, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency).
Our competitors in Europe, Japan, and Korea are well aware of the necessity
of cooperation between government and private industry in the advancement of
technology. The scientific and technological leadership of the United States
in the second half of the twentieth century proves the necessity of this
symbiosis.
However, that lesson apparently has not been learned by the Bush
administration, which has cut funding for the National Institutes of Health
and the National Science Foundation. If the Bush budget cut is approved, NSF
will be awarding 1,000 fewer research grants.
Private enterprise, they are convinced, can do it all. No need for help from
the government – apart from tax relief, of course.
Once again, dogma triumphs over experience.
March 24, 2005
"Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961) Demands a Judgment Today.
A couple of weeks ago, while laboring past midnight into the early
morning hours, I quite accidentally noticed a listing on the satellite TV of
the 1961 movie, "Judgment at Nuremberg," a film that I had not seen in over
forty years. Intrigued, I popped a cassette into the VCR for later viewing,
and went back to my work.
When I sat down to watch the movie the next day, I was stunned. The
screenplay spoke to us today with an impact that producer/director Stanley
Kramer, and writer Abby Mann, could not have imagined. The fictional trial
takes place in 1948, as the cold war is emerging. The movie was released
during the first year of John Kennedy's presidency and a year before the
Cuban missile crisis. The disarming and deflation of Senator Joe McCarthy at
the hands of Joseph Welch and Edward R. Murrow had occurred a mere six years
earlier. (See the PostScript below). So "Judgment at Nuremberg" was timely
when released. But unfortunately for all of us, it is much more relevant
today.
The first of two dramatic "peaks" of the movie takes place when one of the
defendants, the indicted judge Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) asks to be
heard by the court. The second is the verdict, delivered by the tribunal
judge, Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy).
Here is a transcription that I made from the DVD of the movie. Read it and
ask yourself: are the two judges -- the guilt-stricken German defendant, and
the presiding American -- warning us today? If so, who is listening?
Ernst Janning addresses the tribunal:
There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of
hunger.
We had a democracy, yes. But it was torn by elements within. Above all,
there was fear; fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors,
and fear of ourselves.
Only when you understand that, can you understand what Hitler meant to us.
Because he said to us: "Lift your heads. Be proud to be Germans. There are
devils among us: Communists, liberals, Jews, Gypsies. Once these devils
will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed."
It was the old old story of the sacrificial lamb.
What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies,
and worse than lies?
Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country.
What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their
rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their
rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going
through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be
discarded sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of
the shadows. We will go forward. "Forward" is the great password.
And
history tells how well we succeeded, your Honor. We succeeded beyond our
wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that
mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world.
We found ourselves with sudden, powerful allies. Things that had been
denied to us as a democracy were open to us now.
The world said, "Go ahead, take it."
Take it! Take the Sudetenland, take the Rhineland, remilitarize it.
Take all of Austria. Take it.!
And then one day, we looked around and found that we were in an even more
terrible danger. The ritual that began in this courtroom swept over the
land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase,
had become the way of life.
Your Honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content
to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name.
Until I realized, that in order to save it, he would have to raise the
specter again. You have seen him do it. He has done it here in this
courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of
the people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the
country...
Once more, it is being done, for love of country.
It is not easy to tell the truth. But if there is to be any salvation for
Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it. Whatever the pain and
humiliation...
My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the concentration
camps.
Not aware! Where were we?
Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his hate in the Reichstag?
Where were we when our neighbors were being dragged out in the middle of
the night to Dachau?
Where were we when every village in Germany has a railroad terminal where
cattle cars were filled with children being carried of to their
extermination? Where were we when they cried out in the night to us? Were
we deaf? Dumb? Blind? ...
My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. He
would give you the excuse, we were only aware of the extermination of the
hundreds. Does that make us any the less guilty?
Maybe we didn't know the details. But if we didn't know, it was because we
didn't want to know.
Judge Haywood delivers the verdict.
The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is
civilization...*
The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in
common: any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who
furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime any, person who
is an accessory to the crime, is guilty...
[The Defense Counsel asserts that] the defendant Janning was an
extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of
his country.... Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he
loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his
soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions
by the government of which he was a part.
Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that
has emerged from this trial. If he and all of the other defendants had
been degraded perverts, if all the leaders of the Third Reich had been
sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral
significance than an earthquake or any other natural catastrophe.
But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary, even able
and extraordinary men, can delude themselves into the commission of crimes
so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat
through the trial can ever forget them. Men sterilized because of
political belief. A mockery made of friendship and faith. The murder of
children. How easily it can happen.
There are those in our own country, too who today speak of the protection
of country, of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every
nation, at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat.
Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the
enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way.
The answer to that is: survival as what?
A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it
stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the
most difficult.
Before the people of the world, let it now be noted, that here in our
decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a
single human being.
Where are our political leaders willing to take a stand today against our
country's descent into despotism? Very few come to mind: Russ Feingold, the
only Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act, Barbara Boxer, the only
Senator to protest the Ohio election fiasco, Congressional Black Caucus
members, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.
As for the rest, the intimidated and silent Democrats, the moderate
Republicans whose party has been stolen from them, the "journalists" who are
reduced to service as stenographers to Karl Rove's "Ministry of Truth" --
are they all willing to be passive accomplices to the theft of our
democracy?
Don't they know what is happening to our Republic? Or is it simply the case,
as Ernst Janning warned, that they don't know because they don't want to
know?
They know!
They simply have to know. For the compelling facts are inescapably before
them and before us all:
-
American citizens are incarcerated indefinitely, without charge,
without access to counsel, with no prospect of trial, all this in direct
violation of five of the ten articles of the Bill of Rights.
-
Most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo are probably
innocent, yet they are still held, some at Guantánamo for over three
years, with no prospect of appeal or release.
-
The Geneva conventions against torture are violated, and the Bush
regime unilaterally withdraws the US from the International Court of
Justice provisions on consular relations, so that US death sentences
against foreign nationals can not be appealed.
-
The original justifications for the Iraq War have all proven to be
false.
-
Over 1500 US soldiers have died in the Iraq war, and reportedly over
100,000 Iraqis, including women and children.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing ." (Attr. to Edmund Burke).
This is a movie that you must see. The DVD of Judgment at Nuremberg is
available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or other online vendors for a mere
ten dollars. Buy it. Show it. Lend it and urge others to buy it.
*This is a direct quote from Justice Robert Jackson's opening
statement at the Nuremberg Tribunals, November, 1945.
PostScript: Edward R. Murrow's closing remarks from his CBS "See it Now"
program on Senator Joseph McCarthy, March, 1954:
We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear
into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine;
and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who
feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were
for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator
McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny
our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the
result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his
responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a
tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of
freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend
freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator
from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and
given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not
really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited
it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus,
is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
May 19, 2005
Another letter to a Christian/Republican Friend. This one is
for real.
Last August I wrote and circulated
A Letter to a Republican Friend.
It was a faux letter to an imaginary friend (albeit a composite of many
actual acquaintances). As it happens, a real-live Christian/Republican friend, who I
have known since we were both in high school, sent me a thoughtful letter
which, after an inexcusable delay, I answered at length. As my reply will
reveal, my old friend had some strange, but alas typical, ideas about "what
liberals think."
But rather than get into all that, let's go directly to the letter, most of
which appears below.
You will be surprised to learn that we disagree much less, politically, than
you might imagine. Philosophically there is much distance between us, but
much more in the area of theology than ethics.
A lot of opportunistic politicians have attempted to divide individuals of
our respective views and, sadly, they have been successful -- as I hope to
explain shortly....
Let's begin with religion. I have much love and respect for authentic
Christians, and much distain for what I call "professional Christians."
Among the former, I include Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, and Martin Luther
King. Among the latter I include Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George
Bush. My complaint against the latter group is that these "Christians" are
insufficiently Christian. It surpasses my understanding how anyone who has
read and claims to adhere to the Beatitudes can launch or support a war
against an unthreatening nation resulting in the slaughter of tens of
thousands of innocent men, women and children, or can enact policies of
"reverse Robin-Hoodism" that take from the poor and give to the rich,
dismantle the public schools, and raid the Social Security fund . (Today,
the average Fortune 500 CEO earns in half a day, what his median worker
earns in a year. Twenty years ago, it took the CEO a week to earn his
worker's annual salary). "Blessed are the poor?" Not to these folks!
Jesus' greatest rebuke was to the hypocrites. I find very little inclination
among the "professional Christians" to "go and sell that thou hast, and give
to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow
me." (Matt. 19:21) I suspect that they would have great difficulty passing
through that eye of the needle. (Matt. 19:23) These, I contend, are the
Pharisees and Sadducees of our day, who would be the first in line to nail
Jesus to the cross. (Dosteyevsky had it right in "The Grand Inquisitor") .
Yes, I read the Bible. Most recently, the gospels two years ago. You can
read the result at my essay, "What Would Jesus Do?"
While I admit that I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God
(except in the sense that we are all children of God), I believe that the surviving record
of his life conveys a supreme ethic. It is an ethic that is shared by the
noblest of men and women of all ages and all creeds: Moslem, Hindu,
Confucian, Taoist, Shinto and even atheists. Thus I am repelled by the dogma
of salvation through faith, not works. Am I to believe that the scoundrel's
deathbed confession of faith will give him a ticket to paradise, while the
entire life of an honest, compassionate, just and courageous unbeliever will
not spare him damnation? If heaven is to be populated by the likes of Falwell and Robertson, and hell by non-believers such as Socrates,
Jefferson, Gandhi, Rousseau, Mandella and Sakharov, then quite frankly I am
content to go to Hell. I would much prefer the company. But of course, I
can't conceive how one who truly believes in a just God, can believe that He
would condemn billions to eternal damnation, and "save" ("rapture") a few
hundred thousand believers. I think that the prophet Micah had it right:
"what more doth the lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8).
On to politics. I too endorse free enterprise. Which is why I also endorse
government regulation. History shows that unregulated free enterprise is
self-defeating, and leads to monopolies -- the death of free enterprise.
Hence the anti-trust laws (enforced, gasp!, by government). Just because
some criminals go free, and some destructive fires destroy property, it
doesn't follow that we must abolish the police and the fire departments.
Instead, we should improve them. So too with government. The remedy for bad
government is better government, not no government. The founders of our
republic tried that with the Articles of Confederation, and soon repented
and drew the Constitution with a strong central government (Read the
Preamble).
We share an abiding concern for the condition of the environment.
Libertarians believe that the environment can best be preserved by
privatization of all environmental resources, unconstrained by government.
In a published essay, I have crafted a careful refutation of that claim. You
want to protect the environment? Then if you think it through, you must also
endorse government protection.
Government is good, or government is despotic and evil. It depends on the
government, and the people who sustain it or, in worst cases, tolerate it.
But government, in the civilized condition, is indispensable. If you
disagree, then you disagree, not just with me, but with Jefferson and the
Founders: "... to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
We both deplore pornography and smut, and I would add to that the depiction
of violence in the media. But please note that this is the result of
unregulated "free-enterprise" in action. The Government doesn't promote
these evils. Quite the contrary. Thus I note, with some amusement, the
current Congressional response to Janet Jackson and "boob-gate." "Bring on
the regulation!" And the so-called "conservatives" are leading the charge.
I must tell you that this 2nd Amendment business really ruffles my
(Partridge) feathers! Again, not because we disagree, but because we agree
-- and some scoundrels have taken great political and financial advantage
over a concocted but essentially bogus issue.
You say, "private ownership of fire arms is viewed as politically
incorrect."
By whom, pray tell? I have known hundreds of "liberals," and not one of them
believes in the confiscation of private firearms. Sure, there are fringe
nut-cases who advocate total abolition of guns. But they are universally so
regarded -- as kooks. But the opposite fringe, I maintain, holds that there
should be absolutely no restriction or regulation of weapons -- be they
bazookas, TOW missiles, cop-killer bullets, assault weapons. Even the NRA
endorses regulation and restriction of gun ownership by felons. Somewhere in
the middle between these extremes, honorable citizens of good will can
disagree, and should debate their differences calmly and rationally. For
myself, I see little harm and much benefit in the registration of deadly
weapons -- all guns should be identified by serial number and ballistic
"fingerprints." This, for the advantage of law enforcement. We register
vehicles, so why not firearms? Beats me. But if anyone wishes to offer a
calm, well reasoned rebuttal, I will respectfully listen and deliberate.
So we agree: private citizens have a constitutional right to own firearms.
And I suspect that some 98% of the population (liberals included) also
agree. Those who contend that "the liberals are out to take away your guns"
are up to political mischief.
Liberal press? Consider: Paul Begala did a Nexus-Lexus search of news
stories during the 2000 campaign, and came up with this:
There were exactly 704 stories in the campaign about this flap of Gore
inventing the Internet. There were only 13 stories about Bush failing to
show up for his National Guard duty for a year. There were well over 1,000
stories -- Nexus stopped at 1,000 -- about Gore and the Buddhist temple.
Only 12 about Bush being accused of insider trading at Harken Energy. There
were 347 about Al Gore wearing earth tones, but only 10 about the fact that
Dick Cheney did business with Iran and Iraq and Libya."
And of course, Gore, in fact never claimed to have "invented the internet,"
and the Buddhist temple event was entirely innocent.
I rest my case. And if you are still unconvinced, read Eric Alterman's "What
Liberal Media?"
To sum up, I confess that I am thoroughly confounded by political rhetoric
today. Most self-described "conservatives" aren't conservative at all --
they are radical anarchists, out to tear up our Constitution and undo the
social progress of the past century. Witness the "Patriot Act," "First
Amendment zones," and the Bush budget. Progressives ("liberals" if you
prefer) such as myself, are struggling to preserve our liberties, our
received rule of law, and the Founders' checks and balances -- in short, we
are the authentic "conservatives."
No need to go on, since I've written and published about all this at length.
But if you can stand a further dose of my political rantings, see my
"Conscience of a Conservative" (that's me!) ...
I close as I began: we agree much more than may have suspected. And our
agreements, as friends and as citizens, are far more important than our
differences. I think you may agree that our differences are best dealt with
in the context of a well-ordered and civil political arena, based upon
"conservative" principles of justice and tolerance, envisioned by the
Founders of our republic, and of late banished in the corrosive political
diatribe of the present day. I trust that we are united in our desire to
restore the civility in the body politic that we knew and respected in our
youth.
Your enduring friend,
Ernie
"Habemus Papem" -- and perhaps a rough road ahead for us heathens.
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI, William Cole
of the Associated Press
reported the following:
On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals,
used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the
faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects,
ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism -
the ideology that there are no absolute truths.
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled
today as a fundamentalism," he said, speaking in Italian. "Whereas
relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every
wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's
standards."
If "liberalism" is now anathema to faithful Catholics, may we now expect a
mass excommunication of Catholic liberals? A tiny Baptist Church in South
Carolina appears to be leading the way. I had heard that Popes John XXIII
and John-Paul II were "liberals." Will they now be declared "Anti-Popes"?
(Better put a hold on that fast-track beatification of JP-2).
To be fair, the new Pope delivered that homily in Italian, and perhaps there
is some nuance to the word that was translated as "liberalism." So we'll
await some clarification.
The Pope's condemnation of "relativism" has struck a responsive note amongst
the (largely protestant) religious right in the US. However, "relativism"
has numerous interpretations, not explicated by the Pope in that homily. I'm
working on an essay that will spell these out, which I will share with you
when it is done. The working title, "In Praise of Relativism" may suggest
where I stand.
Finally, Max Blumenthal has excavated
this remarkable quotation by (then)
Cardinal Ratzinger in 1990:
At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than
Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.
No doubt, this gives great comfort to the embattled "Intelligent Design"
crowd in Kansas and elsewhere.
Modus Operandi of Right Wing Talk Radio.
For a glance at how right-wing operates, go to
this transcript of Bill
O'Reilly's broadcast of 12/1/03. The guests are Katrina Vanden Heuval,
Editor of the progressive The Nation, and Tammy Bruce, FOX "contributor" and
"fake democrat." (Note: Be warned of false labeling -- Bob Novak also claims
to be a Democrat).
Here's a "snippet:"
KVH: The tax cut that George Bush rammed...
OR: No, no, no...
KVH: ...down this country's throat.
OR: ...look, they do a poll, Ms. Van Heuvel...
KVH: Not what Americans wanted. If they wanted health care, they wanted
education for their kids.
OR: Look, okay, speeches are fine.
KVH: Let us hope President Bush...
OR: You're a journalist. You deal in facts.
KVH: ...is unseated in 2004 because America will be a better place for it.
OR: Okay, good. Yes.
KVH: But more important...
OR: I'm going to stop you...
KVH: ...as someone who believes in democracy...
OR: ...Ms. Vanden Heuvel, I'm going to stop you now because your speech is
lost on this audience. They know you're an ideologue. We don't care that you
have a speech prepared.
KVH: You don't like to hear from anyone who disagrees with you.
OR: No, I don't disagree with you at all.
KVH: Mr. O'Reilly, don't you believe in the marketplace of ideas?
OR: You won't answer the question.
KVH: This country is better and more democratic.
OR: Ms. Vanden Heuvel...
Don't even bother to read the whole transcript. Just notice this: Vanden
Heuvel is rarely able to complete a sentence without interruption. Bruce
completes whole paragraphs without interruption. If this appears to be
"cherry picking" of an extreme example, just tape and examine other
"cross-fire" between a liberal and a regressive on (e.g.) Rush Limbaugh's,
Sean Hannity's or other such programs.
Advice to progressives invited to appear on FOX. Don't accept without a firm
agreement that you will be allowed to complete your sentences. Cite that
agreement at the beginning of the interview. If no agreement, don't accept.
If FOX agrees, then breaks the pledge on the air, get up and leave.
Some Mind-Benders, quoted without comment:
"There is no greater power than the power to define. If you can determine
how people use language, you really are able to determine how they think. If
you can fill the word "liberal" with the meaning that you want it to have,
which nowadays is weak, feminine, cowardly, so much so that even liberal
want to run away from it, the you've won an enormous battle for control."
Steven J. Ducat, Buzzflash Interview.
"There is actually more long term profit for business in a society based on
justice, fairness, equality, mercy, learning, tolerance, openness and the
active, meaningful participation of engaged citizens in ordering the life of
the nation. There's more stability in such a society, more security, more
freedom for innovation and invigoration in every aspect of life. But our
ruling cliques -- epitomized by the Bushists -- are afflicted with
third-rate minds, stunted imaginations, lizard-brain yearnings for immediate
gratification, the short-term money. They will ultimately destroy the
community that sustains them. They will end up devouring their own entrails
-- after they've despoiled the nation, and the world, with their blind,
brute greed." Chris Floyd
"God had been drafted into national politics before, but Hitler's success
infusing racial dogma with Germanic Christianity was an immensely powerful
element in his electoral campaigns. Some people recognized he moral perils
of mixing religion and politics, but many more were seduced by it. It was
the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his
success, notably in Protestant areas."
Fritz Stern, "Lessons from German History"
Foreign Affairs (May-June, 2005)
June 28, 2005
Who Are You Going to Believe, Prof. Griffin or Your Own
Lyin' Eyes?
Prof. David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor, would
have us believe that the World Trade Center was brought down
by planted
demolition charges. (See also these reviews of The New Pearl Harbor
in “Interlink” and
Amazon.com).
The accusation has recently been seconded by
Morgan Reynolds, a former economist in the administration of Bush the
Elder.
As with Prof. Griffin’s accusation that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on
9/11 (see my blog of May, 2004),
this hypothesis is too much for me to swallow.
If, in fact, the professor is right, then the WTC caper was an amazing feat
of timing and coordination. I dare say an unbelievable feat.
Consider:
1. No one doubts that the towers were hit by commercial airliners. There
were hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the impacts were recorded on tape, which
we all have seen many times.
2. It is also certain that the planes were taken over by “Arab-looking” and
Arabic-speaking hijackers. This was observed and reported by the flight crew
and passengers on the doomed airliners.
3. As we have all seen many times, the collapse of both towers began at the
points of impact. The south tower, you may recall, tilted at that
point as it began to fall --
as you can see here.
Given all this, this must be the scenario that Prof. Griffin would have us
believe.
1. The caper involved ultra-right conspirators (The CIA? Neo-Cons?
Busheviks? Who knows?) allied with a bunch of Arabs who were somehow
persuaded to sacrifice their lives for some unidentified (and scarcely
imaginable) purpose in concert with the domestic conspirators.
2. The demolition charges were set to go off at the moment of impact, which
means that the conspiracy involved the convergence of two separate chains of
events.
3. Those who set the charges had the uncanny knowledge beforehand of exactly
where the planes would hit the towers, and placed the explosives at those
locations. (Otherwise, the towers would not have begun to collapse at the
points of impact). Furthermore, the charges would have to survive the
impacts and the conflagration of jet fuel before they were set off.
Furthermore, Prof. must explain these troubling anomalies:
4. If, as claimed by "eyewitnesses," demolition charges were set at
the basement and/or ground floor, they were duds. As we have all seen
on TV, planned demolitions with charges set at the ground floor, collapse
from the ground up. Not so with the WTC. All photographic
evidence shows the towers collapsing from the points of impact, down.
(Show me authentic footage of the towers collapsing at the ground, and I
will reconsider).
5. There is no photographic evidence whatever of explosions other than the
fuel fireballs seen at the moments of impact.
Sorry, but it’s just too much. This time "the official version" makes
complete sense. The supporting structure of the WTC towers was along
the outside walls, not, as usual with skyscrapers, at the center.
Thus, when the side was taken out by the impact, and the remaining sides
were weakened by the intense heat, the collapse of the buildings due to the
overhead weight was inevitable.
Equally implausible is Griffin's theory that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, notwithstanding
photographic and eyewitness evidence that an airliner was involved,
possessions of the victims and airliner parts found among the rubble, and a
failure to explain where Flight 77 Might have gone if the missile theory
were correct. (But that’s another story. About which,
see my April, 2004 blog).
Maybe I’m missing something, and to be honest, I haven’t read Griffin’s book
– deterred by the prima facie implausibility of his claims. And quite
frankly, I would hate to be proven wrong should this case ever be “broken.”
So I’ll hear him out and read further, but I will do so mindful that he has
a huge burden of common sense objections to overcome.
To repeat my concluding comments about Griffin’s Pentagon/Missile
hypothesis:
The case against the Bush administration is overwhelming: election
fraud in Florida [and in Ohio], demonstrably false grounds for initiating a war, the
"purchase" of federal offices and public legislation by campaign
contributors, and on and on. All this cries for removal of the Busheviks
from office at least, and more appropriately for criminal prosecution.
This case must be proclaimed persistently and vehemently. But the case is
not served by wild and demonstrably false fantasies. The Bushistas, and
their media camp-followers, are desperately looking for means to divert
public attention from the crimes of this administration. Wild accusations
such as those put forward by Griffin, by inviting a smear of the
opposition with the tar of "kookery," can only give aid and comfort to
"the enemy."
Seems to me that this is, if anything, more true today than it was when I
wrote it more than a year ago.
A Postscript -- July 26, 2005.
The Crisis Papers received numerous letters critical of this analysis,
which is unusual for a blog. The following is my reply to many of
those letters posted in the July 5 CP update (no longer available, due to
our "Three Week Rule"):
Those who have read my work will know that I have
no particular motivation to defend Bush and his cohorts and no
inclination to accept uncritically an "official version" of
anything issuing from Bush's Administration.
My reflections on the Pentagon and WTC attacks are based on nothing
more than what appears to be abundant evidence and common sense.
Because I can't respond to these replies point by point, instead I
will recapitulate what strikes me as the most compelling reasons to
disbelieve (a) the missile attack on the Pentagon, and (b) the
controlled demolition of the WTC.
1. The eyewitness problem. Google "pentagon september-11
eyewitnesses" and you will get 17,200 hits.
Here and
here you will find eyewitness accounts by dozens of named
individuals, testifying that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Many
more accounts if you surf the Google list. Still more physical
evidence, including photos of airplane parts at the scene, can be
found
here.
Finally, read the debunking from the indispensable
"Snopes" site.
Now am I asked to believe that hundreds of eyewitnesses, many of them
commuters on the freeways, were either hallucinating or all part of a
gigantic cover-up plot? Were the conspirators so thorough that they
arrived on the scene and scattered thousands of airplane parts, along
with personal effects and body parts of the passengers of Flight 77 just to
cover-up the missile attack? Gimme a break!
2. The missing airliner and passengers. Prof. Griffin shrugs
off this little anomaly with the remark, "I have no idea what happened
to Flight 77." It's a bit like a defense attorney saying at trial, "I
have no explanation as to why my client was found at the scene of the
crime with a smoking gun in his hand, but never mind all that." So we
are asked to believe that, simultaneously with the Pentagon attack, a
commercial airliner disappeared "somewhere," along with the crew and
passengers, and no trace has yet been found of the aircraft or any of its
passengers. No missile theory can be credible without some explanation
offered as to the (allegedly alternative) fate of Flight 77. I
have read no such explanation.
3. The collapsing at point of impact at the WTC. Once again, the collapse of both
towers began at the points of impact. Its on video tape and film, and
we've all seen it time and again. And if that's not good enough,
see it again
here. The "controlled demolition theory" requires
that the collapses begin where the charges were set. How remarkable
that those who set the charges and those who aimed the planes all knew
beforehand at just what floor in each tower, the planes would hit. As
for the other alleged demolition charges, show me the photographic evidence. And falling
debris does not cut it.
As for the demands that I read Griffin's book, I reply with a emphatic
"maybe." I will also continue to read still more essay-sized accounts
of the conspiracy theories. Life is short, and I have a website to run
and a book to write. Because some hard choices must be made, not all
"leads" can be followed, and not all suspicions have an equal claim on
my time and attention.
Several years ago, I happened to notice at the grocery check-out
stand, a tabloid headline that shouted: "Twelve US Senators are Space
Aliens." Somehow, in that case I felt no obligation to "read further."
But, as Dennis Miller says, "that's just my
opinion, and I may be wrong." But if so, kindly show me the
evidence and explain the anomalies.
October 26, 2005
AN OMINOUS ALERT FROM THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
ASSOCIATION
Philosophers on a number of public and private university campuses have
become targets of a nationally funded and well-organized campaign to achieve
what is seen as political balance and the reduction of liberal bias.
Supporters propose the establishment of government oversight of curricula,
teaching, hiring, and promotion, through Academic Bill of Rights legislation
introduced in several states and the U.S. Congress. The APA Committee for
the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers is also concerned about
recent incidents that have employed harassment and defamation of character
to express opposition to the alleged political views of professors of
philosophy and other professors. Such incidents include students' disrupting
instruction (e.g., by posting unauthorized "class cancelled" signs) and
publicly labeling faculty members "communists" or "terrorist sympathizers."
Because such actions have a chilling effect on academic freedom, they have
been reported to the committee, which urges all APA members to inform
themselves about such egregious actions. It also urges them to study the
implications of the "Academic Bill of Rights" campaign for the exercise of
academic freedom.
APA Committee for the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers.
