New Page 1

www.crisispapers.org

Ernest Partridge's Blog

For Non-Political Bloggery, Visit "The Gadfly's Blog"

November 9, 2005

“The Americans will always do the right thing” Winston Churchill once remarked, “after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.”

For five years, the Karl Rove's output of smoke and mirrors has worked spectacularly well. A majority of the public was falsely persuaded that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks and was an active agent of al Qaeda. At the same time, the skeletons of Bush’s past were all kept hidden in the closet. A package of lies about Al Gore was concocted to “prove,” ironically, that Gore was a “serial liar.” John Kerry, an authentic war hero, was successfully portrayed as a coward and a fake.

Thus did the Bush message machine vanquish the Democratic opposition and reduce it to pathetic impotence. However, there was one adversary that Bush, Inc. could not defeat: reality. And at long last, reality is retaliating and the public is taking notice.

Ever so gradually, public opinion has shifted and now the critics and skeptics are in the majority, as Bush's approval ratings sink to the mid-thirties. No longer can dissenters be successfully branded as traitors who “hate America.” More and more of us are remembering that America was born out of resistance to tyranny and has flourished through dissent and open debate. Protest is once again becoming fashionable, and there is a whiff of possible success in the air. The message to the media? “Lead, follow, or step out of the way. You have made yourselves irrelevant.”

Can we, the American people, restore our Constitution, and win back our country? There are no guarantees, and the Bush regime, though injured, still has formidable weapons at its disposal.

However, for the first time since the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, in 2000 this malignant regime is vulnerable. At this moment of opportunity, resignation and apathy are inexcusable.

Always remember: only we the people of the United States can restore the honor of our country.

"The Sleeping Giant Stirs"

More Commentaries Here

October 28, 2005

The Mountain Has Labored and Brought Forth a Mouse

"Fitzmas" has arrived, and the American people have been given a lump of coal for their stockings.

At least, that's how it appears to this observer, a scant few hours after Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- and no one else.

To be sure, there are hints that Fitzgerald's investigations will continue with a new grand jury, and that Karl Rove remains legally vulnerable. We can always hope, but prepare yourselves for a disappointment. In the meantime, as Rove, Cheney and Dubya apparently dodge these legal bullets, the right-wing screech merchants on AM radio and the camp-following pundits will make the most of this: "move on folks, nothing to see here" and "just another failed attempt by the villainous librul media to smear our Commander in Chief." Its gonna be hard to bear, so brace yourselves.

And Scooter Libby, the designated fall-guy, will never see a day in the slammer, nor will he even have his day in court -- you can count on it. (Bush/Cheney can't allow any of their guys, and least of all themselves, to testify under oath in open court). The Bush team will find a compliant appeals judge to throw out the indictment (cf. Oliver North) or Bush, like his daddy, will issue a pre-emptive pardon (cf. Cap Weinberger).

The premature and ultimately unwarranted elevation of Patrick Fitzgerald to super-hero status by the ever-hopeful progressive blogosphere was a sight to behold. And sadly understandable, since the left today is in desperate need of heroes who can make a difference in this desolate political landscape.

And so, it has been legally determined that a Bushevik lied under oath. Gee, what a surprise! Meanwhile, the myriad crimes of this administration continue to be legally unrecognized and unpunished: lying to Congress, forged documents, torture, denial of civil rights, contempt of (the Supreme) Court, election fraud, waging an aggressive war, and much more. All of these more grave than consensual oral sex.

The failure of the Congress and the criminal justice system to recognize, investigate and charge these crimes, gives the whore media and our more gullible compatriots the encouragement to believe that they are not crimes at all.

Perhaps my lamentations will eventually be seen to be unfounded. Perhaps, as many die-hard progressive blogsters are telling us, this is not over. Perhaps Fitzgerald has hoarded his strong cards and is yet to play his winning hand. Perhaps. Hope springs eternal, and I am ever-willing to be pleasantly surprised.

And bear in mind that the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate, while it has survived the Fitzpatrick assault with less damage than expected, has nonetheless been injured and diminished. The public disapproval of Bush, his regime, and his war will continue to rise as, ever so slowly, the truth comes out. The crediblity of the Busheviks and their captive media continues to plummet. For the vast majority of us, the economy continues to sour, as the inevitable bushenomic collapse looms.

In the meantime, the crimes are real, and brutal reality, the Busheviks' greatest enemy, persists and will prevail, despite the best efforts of the propagandists and spinners of the regressive right.

Who among us will, in the face of this setback, quit the struggle?

"The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country. But he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of men and women." (Thomas Paine, The Crisis).

October 26, 2005

After a hiatus of four months, it is long past time to revive this blog.

This neglect is due to a book in progress, and the plain fact that the management and maintenance of The Crisis Papers is simply too much for three people, however dedicated. The blog is something I do when all else is done and some spare time is available. Well, I rarely get that far down the priority list.

But now, clearly, the pace of history is accelerating, and momentous events are afoot. So the blog returns.

THOUGHTS ON FITZMAS EVE.

In the Chinese language, "crisis" is written by combining the characters designating "danger" and "opportunity."

It is likely that in a few hours -- quite possibly before you read this -- Patrick Fitzgerald's indictments (if any) will be announced. Last chance for anticipatory comments.

As usual, the mainstream media continues to treat the Bush regime as if it were a legitimate government -- fairly elected and constrained by the rule of law -- instead of the crime syndicate that it is. Thus we are expected to assume that Fitzgerald is an independent prosecutor, free to follow the evidence where it leads.

Few appreciate that if he and his grand jury hand down indictments that reach into the White House, this will be an act of extraordinary courage, perhaps too much courage to expect of ordinary mortals. For this prosecutor is no fool, and he is well aware of the fate of Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan, and of the still unsolved anthrax attacks on Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Perhaps coincidences -- but can he, and we, be certain of this? Is the Bushevik regime really capable of pre-meditated murder? Ask the parents, wives and children of 2000 lost soldiers, and the tens of thousands of bereaved Iraqi families.

We too easily forget just how much is at stake in this investigation. Billions of dollars have been looted from the public treasury and put in the hands of the super-wealthy individuals and the corporations that "sponsor" the Bush regime, as the nation's wealth flows ever-faster from those workers who create the wealth into the hands of those who own and control the wealth. And these very few privileged individuals fully intend to keep their ill-gotten gains, no matter what the cost. Federal and international laws have been openly violated by the Busheviks, far beyond those investigated by Fitzgerald and his grand jury: an aggressive war, torture, deliberate lies to Congress and the American people, graft, obstruction of justice, voting fraud, open violation of civil liberties clearly specified in the Bill of Rights. The felons responsible for all this are well aware that if they are undone by the enforcement of the law and lose control of the federal government, they face, not comfortable retirement, but imprisonment.

Do you really suppose that they are now dumb-frozen, like shackled defendants at trial, passively awaiting the judgment of the law and incapable of resistance and retaliation? The media would have you believe so.

In fact, if the prosecutor and the grand jury indict, they will do so at great personal peril.

And yet, they might nonetheless follow the law and their sworn duty, in what might be the last chance to restore our republic to the people -- to "the consent of the governed."

I desperately hope that in the next day or so, they will do just that -- and that, at last, the media and the American people, of all political persuasions, will stand behind them and in defiance of the oligarchs who have all but stolen our country from us.

If those indictments are handed down tomorrow or the following day, it will not be an ending, it will be the beginning of a deadly and prolonged struggle.

This gathering storm in the life of our republic reminds me of Costas-Gravas' 1969 movie, "Z," which depicts the revolution in Greece. As the reformers are at the brink of victory and a restoration of democratic government, a leader of the reform is assassinated, the military takes brutal control, and a dark night of tyranny descends.

Consider too the brief moment and the fate of the reformist Kerensky government following the Russian revolution of 1917.

Can it happen here?

The beast is wounded and cornered, and thus very dangerous.

Yet we cannot abandon the field -- not if Patrick Fitzpatrick and the grand jury hand down indictments, and with them an opportunity for the American people to take back their government and their country.

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.

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.

How the Democrats Might “Select” Our Next President.

It’s complicated and very unlikely, but still conceivable and completely legal.

As we well know, those of us who are eager to see Dubya impeached and removed from office, hesitate at the thought that he would be succeeded by Dick Cheney.

Not to worry. The Veep can be impeached along with the President, and God knows there are more than adequate grounds to toss out Cheney along with The Smirk.

The next in line would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947).

Clearly, Bush/Cheney could only be impeached if the Democrats took the House in January, 2007, following the November 2006 election. In that case, there would be a new Democratic Speaker.

If both Bush and Cheney were impeached by the House, and subsequently removed by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate, the Speaker would become President.

Now it gets interesting. As the vote on conviction and removal approaches, the Democratic Party might leaders deliberate as to who would be the ideal President – perhaps Al Gore, perhaps John Kerry, perhaps someone else. The Democratic Speaker volunteers to be a "conduit" to this succession.

Bush and Cheney are then removed, and the Speaker becomes President. In accordance with the 25th Amendment (1967), the new President then nominates the Democrat’s choice as Vice President, who is then confirmed by the Congress, whereupon the “interim President” resigns. The selected Vice President then becomes the President.

Hail to the Chief!

IRAQ TO US: THANK YOU, NOW GO HOME!

Almost by accident, I learned that a sizeable portion of the Iraqi Parliament has requested that the occupying American forces leave their country, post haste.

To wit:

Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum called for the withdrawal of foreign forces from their country in a letter released to the media June 19....

Eighty-two Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist deputies made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest group in parliament, to speaker Hajem al-Hassani....

In the letter, Shanshal said the 275-member parliament was the Iraqi people’s legitimate representative and guardian of their interests.

”We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw,” the letter said. “Our request was ignored.” ...

”Therefore we must reject the occupation’s legitimacy and renew our demand for these forces to withdraw,” the letter added.

And where did I find this bit of conceivably significant news? In Agence France Presse (Paris), June 24.

In the American mainstream media? Nada. Nichivo.

So I guess it never really happened.

Just like the Downing Street Memos.

May 31, 2005

“BIBLICAL INERRANCY” AND THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

Last January I posted in my blog the following clip from Rev. Jerry Falwell’s column:

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.”

I replied:

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?

Last week, I received a letter with a putative “correction:” “You take Jerry Falwell to task for saying the 6th Commandment says "thou shalt not murder," and you point out correctly that in the King James ... it says "thou shalt not kill." However, in the original Hebrew it does say, "murder".

No, as a matter of fact, the Hebrew version does not say “murder” (not a Hebrew word), it says: “ratsach” which some versions translate as “kill” and others as “murder.” As for “the original Hebrew,” that source is lost forever – there are no original documents available. We only have copies of copies of copies.... etc.

However, either translation – as “kill” and as “murder” – pose huge difficulties.

First: “Thou Shalt Not Murder” is not a commandment, it is a tautology – an empty “truth-by-definition.”

Let me explain: (Scholarship alert! Rough Ride Ahead) .

Presumably we take the “Thou Shalt Nots” to be statements of (allegedly) God’s commandments as to what conduct is, or is not, morally justifiable in The Lord’s eyes. Thus “Thou Shalt Not...” means “it is forbidden” or “it is not justifiable.”

Now “murder” is surely defined as “unjustified killing” – i.e., not in self-defense, or in a just war, or by God’s command.

Hence “Thou Shalt Not Murder” parses out as: “Unjustified Killing is Unjustified.” Gee, thanks!

Begin to spell out the meaning of “justification,” and you are returning to the realm of moral guidance.

Now to “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

Surely this commandment is universally violated, and moreover, well it should be. As noted, self-defense and just warfare are legitimate exceptions. Still worse, those who believe the words of the Old Testament must come to terms with the fact that therein God commands the Israelites to kill, for example the inhabitants of Jericho and the Midianites – every last man, woman and child of them. (See my Warriors of the Lord). Also, the same book of Exodus that commands “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” specifies capital punishment for a variety of offenses. (Among them, adultery, a child’s disobedience, working on the Sabbath, etc.).

So the Bible itself teaches that the Sixth Commandment must read, “Thou Shalt Not Kill, except when...” What exceptions? Volumes upon volumes of Talmud have been written in an attempt to spell out the answer. "Interpretations," ergo disputes, ergo not "inerrant."

Returning to the question of “the correct translation.”

When the fundamentalists claim that the Bible is “inerrant” – literally true from back to front – which Bible are they talking about? If they mean the English translations, then there is no point going back to original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts to dig out the “correct meaning.” It’s there in plain English. The Lord God apparently guided the hands of King James’ scholars, through every word. Or if not those scholars, then those who translated a different Bible into English.

But which? If God won’t tell us, then to the degree that those many Bibles differ, to that degree they are “errant” – subject to error.

So instead, like my correspondent, we look to the sources, for the “original” words and meanings. But again, which sources?

It gets worse. No one fully understands ancient languages. The best experts on the meaning of ancient Hebrew or classical Greek and Latin were those who spoke it and wrote it as their first languages – and they are all dead, of course. (For that matter, “living” natural languages are inherently vague and ambiguous to some degree – but let’s not get into that. To get some idea of what I mean, one should read the late works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone).

So modern scholars do the best they can by reading ancient texts as they try to “get into the heads” of those who wrote them. And, of course, those scholars disagree with each other – even if one or another of them entertains the colossal conceit that they are reading, and understanding, the “inerrant word of God.”

So who will tell which of these worthies really has a grip on “God’s Words.” Is it just possible that none of them has that grip?

The Mormons’ eighth “Article of Faith” reads, in part: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...” This is presumably the position taken by most Christians who believe the Bible to be truly “Holy.”

The kicker is that “translated correctly” bit. Who is to decide whether a translation is “correct” or not. On this, God is silent. So when the preacher pounds his Bible and says "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD (assuming, of course, it is translated correctly, which we can't know for sure)" he can not claim to be speaking God's “inerrant” truth.

It comes to this: If there is no “inerrant” way to determine which translation or interpretation of text is the one, singular, “inerrant” Holy Truth of the Bible, then there is no “inerrant”Biblical truth. Once you add the qualifier, “as far as it is translated correctly,” you have given away the game.

Some logicians call this “the bottleneck problem,” but it might better be called “the weakest link in the chain problem.”

Here’s another example. According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope speaks “the infallible truth” when he speaks “ex cathedra” – from his “office” -- on matters of faith and morals.

Let’s assume he does so. (Of course I don’t, but let’s be hypothetical here). But do we know, infallibly, when the Pope is speaking infallibly (ex cathedra)? If not, then nothing the Pope says is infallible. The “fallible” ex cathedra criterion is the weak link in the chain.

To sum up: Let’s suppose that when the Pentateuch (the first five books) was written (presumably in Mesopotamia during the Babylonian Captivity in the sixth century BC) The Lord God Himself was in the room dictating inerrant Holy Truth to the scribes. He did so in a language half forgotten today, and on a manuscript that is long lost. The “chain of custody” – copies of copies, translations of translations – is long and replete with uncounted “weak links.” This is equally the case with New Testament texts.

Because the “weak links” in this “chain of custody” are fallible (“errant”), so too is the received text that we have today – no matter how perfectly and “inerrantly” true the original message might be.

So when some preacher tells you that he is speaking the inerrant word of God, hold fast to your critical intellect, and to your wallet.

“Henry Drummond” (patterned after Clarence Darrow) said it well in the play and movie, “Inherit the Wind:” “The Bible is a Book. A good Book. But it’s not the only book.”

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)

May 3, 2005

Chicago Tribune Debunks Election Skeptics -- Partridge Replies

Don Wycliff, the "Public Editor" of the Chicago Tribune, writes:

When winning isn't everything

Published April 28, 2005

If someone had told me 30 years ago that I would one day invoke Richard M. Nixon as a moral example, I'd have said the person was nuts. But that's what I'm about to do.

Legend has it that after the 1960 presidential election, an aide informed Nixon that there was enough evidence of irregularities in the results of the balloting in Illinois that a strong challenge to John F. Kennedy's victory here could be mounted.

To his credit, Nixon is said to have rejected a challenge as not worth putting the country through. In other words, winning wasn't the sole end of politics.

That Nixon legend came to mind this week as I opened what seemed the 1,000th e-mail in which the writer declared that the results of the 2004 presidential election are suspect and suggested that, instead of pursuing evidence of election theft and corruption, the Tribune and the rest of the "corporate media" are intent on ignoring the facts.

The most recent of this correspondence commends to the attention of the newspaper's editors a column, "The Silent Scream of Numbers," written by a fellow Tribune Co. employee, Bob Koehler.

Koehler is an editor at Tribune Media Services, the company's syndication arm, and also writes a syndicated column. He wrote The Silent Scream of Numbers, after attending what was dubbed the National Election Reform Conference earlier this month in Nashville. It was, he wrote, "an extraordinary pulling together of disparate voting-rights activists--30 states were represented, 15 red and 15 blue--sponsored by a Nashville group called Gathering to Save Our Democracy. It had the feel of 1775; citizen patriots taking matters into their own hands to reclaim the republic."

That's one way of looking at it. Another is as a convocation of conspiracy theorists, unable to come to terms with the fact that their guy lost and that, as in sports, it's not the pre-game prognostication and expert opinions that count, but the numbers on the scoreboard after the contest has actually been played.

Koehler is sensitive to the "conspiracy nut" charge and attempted in his "silent scream" column to blunt it by avoiding the question whether the 2004 election was "stolen."

Instead, he posed questions like "why the lines were so long and the voting machines were so few in Columbus and Cleveland and inner-city and college precincts across the country"; "why so many PhD-level mathematicians and computer programmers and other numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don't make sense"; and what about "those exit polls, which in years past were extraordinarily accurate but last November went haywire, predicting [John] Kerry by roughly the margin by which he ultimately lost to [President] Bush."

I'm not sure that all of Koehler's questions could ever be answered. But because so many of them seem to involve the conduct of the election in Ohio, I decided to ask the most reliable authority I know: Tribune national correspondent Tim Jones.

An Ohio native, Jones spent a great deal of time in the state last year, including the last two weeks before the election. On Election Day he was in the Columbus area, visiting polling places that ranged from silk-stocking suburban to poverty-ridden inner city. At the latter, he said, "I talked to people who waited in line four hours and were determined to vote."

Jones pointed out that in Columbus and Cleveland--where Koehler says"lines were so long and the voting machines were so few"--final decisions on where to place the available voting machines belonged to local election officials, who in each case were Democrats.

It's always possible that these Democrats were secretly working for Bush's re-election, but not likely. What's more likely is that they based their decisions on placement of people and equipment on earlier elections, when turnout in inner-city and college precincts lagged that in other areas.

Jones said he has talked at length with people in Ohio whose credentials as non-partisan and unbiased are beyond question, and they, he said, "found no irregularities."

Koehler and those who have been boosting his "silent scream" column make one very powerful point: It is the duty of the news media, as watchdogs of our democracy, to study, identify and shine a spotlight on weaknesses and abuses in our most fundamental democratic activity--elections.

But if the real agenda of the election reformers is to call into question the legitimacy of the 2004 election, they would be better advised to follow the example of Richard Nixon. Winning isn't the sole end of politics.
_______________________________________________________

Don Wycliff is the Tribune's public editor. He listens to readers' concerns and questions about the paper's coverage and writes weekly about current issues in journalism. His e-mail address is dwycliff@tribune.com. The views expressed are his own.

My Reply:

Don Wycliff, Public Editor
The Chicago Tribune

RE: Your column of April 28.

Dear Mr. Wycliff,

It's "defenses" such as yours that further convince me that the 2004 election was fraudulent. If this is the best that you, or anyone, can come up with in defense of the legitimacy of the election, then the integrity of our democracy is seriously in question.

Of course, there is no positive proof of that integrity -- the Republican partisans who build and operate the touch-screen machines and the central compiling computers have seen to that. The source codes are secret and there is no independent audit trail. Moreover, as a myriad of computer professionals have proven, and as Howard Dean and Bev Harris demonstrated to the public on CNBC, vote totals can be readily altered without leaving a trace of the hacking.

Your citation of Nixon's alleged acceptance of the 1960 results (probably an urban myth), is totally irrelevant. Nixon's behavior in 1960 has not the slightest bearing on the issue of the validity of the 2004 election. Meanwhile, you offer not a shred of rebuttal to the strongest evidence of fraud -- the patterns of exit poll discrepancies and the statistical analyses of these patterns.

As for the Ohio election, there is a record of sworn testimony before the Conyers Committee, along with voluminous reports and documents collected by the Ohio Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections and the Columbus Free Press. In rebuttal you offer us hearsay remarks by unidentifiable individuals.

The integrity of our ballot is at the heart of our democracy. Without it, there is no democracy. Accordingly this issue surely deserves thorough investigation by our media. If, as you claim, the election was honest, then answer the critics with something more than irrelevancies and ad hominem insults (e.g., "conspiracy theorists"). If your position has merit and the support of solid evidence (which I doubt), then at last the issue might be put to rest.

Instead, The Chicago Tribune, and regretfully all of the mainstream media, has elected to ignore the question of whether or not we now have a legitimate government in Washington.

The silence is deafening.

But I assure you, the issue will not go away -- not while the compelling evidence of fraud accumulates and goes unanswered.

Sincerely,

Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor
The Crisis Papers.