If I were a Republican (I’d sooner flagellate myself), and if I had to think (if I could actually think at all) about which Republican candidate I might support, and if I had to actually reveal my decision (I would prefer not to do so), I would pick Willard Mitt Romney.
It is true that Romney is a terrible speaker, he has not been good in the debates (he seems to be getting a bit better), he makes gaffe after gaffe, is stiff and awkward at times, has all the social skills of an Irish Setter, comes across as the consummate Nerd, and obviously pretends not to be what he is. And when Governor of Massachusetts he passed that absolutely dreadful socialistic health care bill on which Obamacare was modeled. But he does have some advantages. For one, he has more available funds, and two, he has a better organization. He is also filthy rich, that is good. He has a nice family and has only been married once, that, too, is good. He wants to go to war with Iran, another good. And he doesn’t hesitate to make up lies about President Obama, like claiming Obama will make war on religion, his bailout of the Auto Industry was corrupt, that he is weak on national defense, and so on, all good. But he also has one further advantage, by far the most important one --he’s the only one of the four remaining candidates, that is relatively SANE.
Rick Santorum, Romney’s number one opponent at the moment, is an absolute religious nut-case, so extreme in his views about sex, contraception, birth control, Planned Parenthood, foreign policy, global warming, the environment, education, and most anything else you can name, as to be completely nonsensical, to say nothing of coming right out of the 19th century and betraying an ignorance so awesome and profound as to make you wonder if he might be just way too “unbalanced” (to put it politely) to ever be President. In fact, if he were serious about becoming anything but the nominee he would not be saying such ridiculous things. I think there is some reason to believe he was never serious about becoming President in the first place.
Newt Gingrich, a has-been Speaker of the House, is an egomaniacal pontificator who blurts out whatever comes into his head at the moment that he thinks will draw attention to himself. He, too, I believe, never thought he could ever become President and entered the contest mainly to sell more of his fantasy line of books. When every time he has any positive news about his campaign he immediately announces he will be the candidate, and even more grandiose he announced that by the end of his second term as President (he did not even have the nomination) he would have established a colony on the moon, you begin to suspect (if you had not already known about him) that he has “a screw loose” somewhere in that oversized head. There is little doubt that Newton is basically in it for himself. He has managed to survive so far because of his billionaire Jewish backer who believes Newt is good for Israel. Happily, I don’t think we’ll have to put up with his false claims of godlike intelligence or stupid ideas much longer.
That leaves us with Ron Paul, the kindly old septuagenarian doctor who having birthed 4000 babies is thus fully capable of advising us on birth control, abortion, high finance, foreign policy, war and peace, sense and sensibility, right and wrong, and everything in between. His suggestions that we return to the gold standard, do away with government and foreign policy, seem to resonate well with the under 20 crowd and the assorted loonies who I think must be at least partly taken in by his imitation of Pa Kettle.
But, you may object, Romney is the greatest flip-flopper of all time, and that may be true, but in the context of what is going on now in the battle for the nomination that is probably an advantage rather than a handicap. I mean, if Romney has no “core values,” and changes his positions more often than his socks, and if you can’t believe anything he says, then you can rest assured that his far right, Tea Party sops are also false, thus giving independents an excuse to vote for him. But…damn! That works both ways! Oh well, I’m not a Republican. Let them worry about it. They can always bring on New Jersey Fats, or Jeb, to continue the winning ways of the Bush dynasty. On to Iran! How dare they have any national interests in the Middle East!
A life lived in chaos is an impossibility...
Madeleine L'Engle
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Reality and the Inevitable
Because I believe in reality I also believe in the inevitability of certain things. Reality, I believe, ultimately wins out over everything else. This is why I believe certain things will inevitably come to pass in American society. I could be wrong, of course, I often am, but I think the following things will happen, perhaps not in my remaining lifetime, but not too far in the distant future.
It is inevitable that Gay marriage will eventually be the law in most probably every state in the union. It is now the law in eight, public sentiment is in favor of it, and it can only be a matter of time it will become national. No doubt some states will hold out for a time but ultimately it will not make sense for the country to be divided into those that do and those that don’t.
It is equally inevitable that the Bush tax cuts will disappear and the tax code will be revised so that the wealthy will pay a greater share than they currently do. Again, this makes perfect sense, and while Republican dimwits will try to keep it from happening they will eventually fail.
Drugs, at least certainly Marijuana, will become legal. The criminalization of pot never made sense in the first place, has created a social disaster filling up our jails and making criminals of perfectly decent citizens, and is increasingly being challenged in different states. It is only a matter of time, I think a short time, that it will happen. If nothing else it will be legalized because it will become too expensive not to legalize it. Personally, I believe all drugs will eventually be legalized as the drug problem is a health problem, not a political problem. Reason will prevail and drugs will be seen once again as a medical problem. As in the case of marijuana, all drugs will be legalized because people will no longer be able to deny that the so-called “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure and will be found to be too expensive to continue.
More importantly, I predict we will eventually have a single-payer health care system, most probably based on something like Medicare for all. Our current health care system is simply absurd, is far too expensive for what it produces, and realistically will have to be converted to a far more sensible system. Insurance companies are simply an unnecessary burden we bear because of the current fear of socialism (that will also eventually disappear as we convert to a more social democratic society).
The Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money (speech) to political campaigns will be overturned. It is now obvious this was an absolutely ridiculous decision, probably the worst and most hare brained ever by a Supreme Court, and has clearly converted our (sort of) democracy overnight into a full-blown plutocracy. As this is already obvious there is no way it will be allowed to stand (unless, of course, we fall prey to a true fascist government complete with secret police and brownshirts, which I think will not happen).
On much shakier ground I think it is inevitable that Israel will fail as an apartheid nation. They will eventually be forced, as was South Africa, to concede the civil rights of all people including the Palestinians. Most probably a two state solution will be imposed at last by the world community, Israeli racism and colonialism will be curbed and someday, inevitably, justice will be served.
All of these things are inevitable, they almost certainly will eventually transpire, but the wheels of democracy turn so slowly I sometimes wonder how we manage to survive at all. If we truly operated as a Republic, with elected officials charged with making decisions and managing our country, things would be better. At the moment, as our elected officials have no interest in anything but getting re-elected and looking out for themselves and their corporate sponsors, we suffer little more than chaos.
Although I do not have much faith or confidence in the American electorate, or even the Unite Nations, I suspect that eventually everyone will come to their senses and realize that none of the above things we are currently doing make sense, either rationally, morally, or financially. Even after all these years I still cling to my primitive beliefs in justice, right and wrong, and the eventual power of reason. Probably pretty stupid and naïve, I know, but I can’t help it.
Some of the best lessons we ever learn are learned from past mistakes. The error of the past is the wisdom and success of the future.
Dale E. Turner
It is inevitable that Gay marriage will eventually be the law in most probably every state in the union. It is now the law in eight, public sentiment is in favor of it, and it can only be a matter of time it will become national. No doubt some states will hold out for a time but ultimately it will not make sense for the country to be divided into those that do and those that don’t.
It is equally inevitable that the Bush tax cuts will disappear and the tax code will be revised so that the wealthy will pay a greater share than they currently do. Again, this makes perfect sense, and while Republican dimwits will try to keep it from happening they will eventually fail.
Drugs, at least certainly Marijuana, will become legal. The criminalization of pot never made sense in the first place, has created a social disaster filling up our jails and making criminals of perfectly decent citizens, and is increasingly being challenged in different states. It is only a matter of time, I think a short time, that it will happen. If nothing else it will be legalized because it will become too expensive not to legalize it. Personally, I believe all drugs will eventually be legalized as the drug problem is a health problem, not a political problem. Reason will prevail and drugs will be seen once again as a medical problem. As in the case of marijuana, all drugs will be legalized because people will no longer be able to deny that the so-called “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure and will be found to be too expensive to continue.
More importantly, I predict we will eventually have a single-payer health care system, most probably based on something like Medicare for all. Our current health care system is simply absurd, is far too expensive for what it produces, and realistically will have to be converted to a far more sensible system. Insurance companies are simply an unnecessary burden we bear because of the current fear of socialism (that will also eventually disappear as we convert to a more social democratic society).
The Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money (speech) to political campaigns will be overturned. It is now obvious this was an absolutely ridiculous decision, probably the worst and most hare brained ever by a Supreme Court, and has clearly converted our (sort of) democracy overnight into a full-blown plutocracy. As this is already obvious there is no way it will be allowed to stand (unless, of course, we fall prey to a true fascist government complete with secret police and brownshirts, which I think will not happen).
On much shakier ground I think it is inevitable that Israel will fail as an apartheid nation. They will eventually be forced, as was South Africa, to concede the civil rights of all people including the Palestinians. Most probably a two state solution will be imposed at last by the world community, Israeli racism and colonialism will be curbed and someday, inevitably, justice will be served.
All of these things are inevitable, they almost certainly will eventually transpire, but the wheels of democracy turn so slowly I sometimes wonder how we manage to survive at all. If we truly operated as a Republic, with elected officials charged with making decisions and managing our country, things would be better. At the moment, as our elected officials have no interest in anything but getting re-elected and looking out for themselves and their corporate sponsors, we suffer little more than chaos.
Although I do not have much faith or confidence in the American electorate, or even the Unite Nations, I suspect that eventually everyone will come to their senses and realize that none of the above things we are currently doing make sense, either rationally, morally, or financially. Even after all these years I still cling to my primitive beliefs in justice, right and wrong, and the eventual power of reason. Probably pretty stupid and naïve, I know, but I can’t help it.
Some of the best lessons we ever learn are learned from past mistakes. The error of the past is the wisdom and success of the future.
Dale E. Turner
Friday, February 24, 2012
Privatization and Purpose
Those who would privatize vital public services apparently have lost sight of the purpose of such services, and the respective purposes of privatization and public services seem to be ignored entirely or simply abandoned, even though they are diametrically opposed to each other. I am speaking here of at least three different public services, health care, schools, and prisons. You might think it would be obvious that the purposes of these services is quite definitely not to make a profit.
The worst example I can imagine is privatizing health care which is, of course what we have allowed to happen. There is simply no reason Insurance companies should be involved in health care, none. They provide no medical treatment of any kind and basically make their money on the misfortunes and deaths of their customers. They do this of course by deciding what medical procedures they can allow and still make a profit. You would think the purpose of health care is to provide the best health care possible, not just the health care they decide you can afford. In return for shuffling papers around they manage to make enormous profits while actually hindering the provision of such services. It is perfectly obvious that something like Medicare for all, a single payers system, would be by far the most efficient and least expensive way to go. Indeed, all major industrialized countries provide such health care, except for the United States.
Privatizing our public schools is an equally absurd idea. The purpose of the schools is to educate our children, prepare them for adulthood and meaningful lives. It is definitely not to make a profit. Privatized schools make a profit by basically paying the lowest wages for teachers they can, keeping as many students in each classroom as possible, cutting the costs of supplies and equipment, heat, minimum maintenance, and so on. This is hardly a way of providing the best educational opportunities for children. It could only happen in a society that places little value on their children and even less value on education in general. For a wealthy society to fail to provide the best education possible for their children is shameful, to say nothing of eventually suicidal.
In the case of prisons I think the possibilities for abuse are even worse, unless one believes that prisons should do little more than merely incarcerate individuals for different periods of time. Obviously the easiest way to make a profit running a prison is to provide the least of everything, small cells, little heat, lousy food, little or no recreation, poor medical attention, no counseling, education, and so on. In extreme cases this could even extend to poorly laundered prison garb, minimal hot water, charges for visitations, and the like. There is also the problem of recruitment. How, that is, to make sure you have adequate prison populations that can lead to unnecessary arrests, longer sentences, and the possibility of collusion between the police, judges and prison officials.
There are other areas that should not be privatized if, that is, they are to serve the public interest, energy, for example, or the Post Office, the VA and other hospitals. In short, those things that are vital for a smoothly and efficient society. I cannot understand why this is not obvious to all, but, of course, when you live in a society that freaks out at the very mention of socialism, and believes free market capitalism is the only possible economic system, privatization is what you get. Privatization is also predicated on the extremely questionable belief that private enterprise can do everything much better than government. I have personally found over time that I have far more trouble with banks, phone companies, insurance companies, and others than I have ever encountered with governmental agencies. Try, for example, dealing with a phone company when they have suddenly, for no apparent reason, decided to unlist your phone number, or with a bank that has been systematically overcharging you, or an insurance company resisting a claim.
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
C. S. Lewis
The worst example I can imagine is privatizing health care which is, of course what we have allowed to happen. There is simply no reason Insurance companies should be involved in health care, none. They provide no medical treatment of any kind and basically make their money on the misfortunes and deaths of their customers. They do this of course by deciding what medical procedures they can allow and still make a profit. You would think the purpose of health care is to provide the best health care possible, not just the health care they decide you can afford. In return for shuffling papers around they manage to make enormous profits while actually hindering the provision of such services. It is perfectly obvious that something like Medicare for all, a single payers system, would be by far the most efficient and least expensive way to go. Indeed, all major industrialized countries provide such health care, except for the United States.
Privatizing our public schools is an equally absurd idea. The purpose of the schools is to educate our children, prepare them for adulthood and meaningful lives. It is definitely not to make a profit. Privatized schools make a profit by basically paying the lowest wages for teachers they can, keeping as many students in each classroom as possible, cutting the costs of supplies and equipment, heat, minimum maintenance, and so on. This is hardly a way of providing the best educational opportunities for children. It could only happen in a society that places little value on their children and even less value on education in general. For a wealthy society to fail to provide the best education possible for their children is shameful, to say nothing of eventually suicidal.
In the case of prisons I think the possibilities for abuse are even worse, unless one believes that prisons should do little more than merely incarcerate individuals for different periods of time. Obviously the easiest way to make a profit running a prison is to provide the least of everything, small cells, little heat, lousy food, little or no recreation, poor medical attention, no counseling, education, and so on. In extreme cases this could even extend to poorly laundered prison garb, minimal hot water, charges for visitations, and the like. There is also the problem of recruitment. How, that is, to make sure you have adequate prison populations that can lead to unnecessary arrests, longer sentences, and the possibility of collusion between the police, judges and prison officials.
There are other areas that should not be privatized if, that is, they are to serve the public interest, energy, for example, or the Post Office, the VA and other hospitals. In short, those things that are vital for a smoothly and efficient society. I cannot understand why this is not obvious to all, but, of course, when you live in a society that freaks out at the very mention of socialism, and believes free market capitalism is the only possible economic system, privatization is what you get. Privatization is also predicated on the extremely questionable belief that private enterprise can do everything much better than government. I have personally found over time that I have far more trouble with banks, phone companies, insurance companies, and others than I have ever encountered with governmental agencies. Try, for example, dealing with a phone company when they have suddenly, for no apparent reason, decided to unlist your phone number, or with a bank that has been systematically overcharging you, or an insurance company resisting a claim.
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
C. S. Lewis
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Free Speech and Responsibility
I believe fervently in free speech, but with it must come some sense of responsibility, and I find it difficult to precisely delineate what that means. There have been cases where the Supreme Court has ruled free speech might not be permitted, but the only general restriction on free speech has to do with “Inciting actions that would harm others” (like falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater). This helps a bit, but it also rather begs the question, how does one know what might actually harm others, and how much harm must be involved or avoided?
Let us consider the case of what I think should be considered irresponsible speech, and let us use the case of Newt Gingrich. I have to insert a disclaimer here as I am terribly biased against Gingrich and find him “odious” in the extreme. Much of the reason I find him odious is because of his (I believe) abuse of his free speech privilege. I find his use of free speech often pathetically irresponsible for someone in such a public position. Of course Gingrich is not the only offender along these lines, but he is, I think, the poster child.
Gingrich is a demagogue without peer. He says things that appear to have no basis in fact and are deliberately designed to harm others, specifically at the moment, President Obama. Where, for example, does he find the facts to claim that Obama “wants to unilaterally weaken America?” On what basis or authority does he claim “Obama is the most dangerous President in American history?” He has also said Obama is an “extremist” who has voted to support infanticide! I gather this is because Obama once voted to protect abortion doctors (who were practicing medicine entirely in accordance with the law and vulnerable to being killed by right wing extremists for doing so).
How about : “The left-wing Democrats will represent the party of total hedonism, total exhibitionism, total bizarreness, total weirdness, and the total right to cripple innocent people in the name of letting hooligans loose?” Or “These people are sick. They are so consumed by their own power, by a Mussolini-like ego, that their willingness to run over normal human beings and to destroy honest institutions is unending.” Gingrich has also said, “The problem isn’t too little money in political campaigns, but not enough.” I’m sure one could find further examples of this kind of rhetoric. Notice what they all have in common, in addition to being mostly false, they are all gross exaggerations that put everything in the worst possible light. Gingrich could easily and reasonably disagree with Obama without the incredible, usually insulting distortions. I have heard repeatedly that Gingrich is brilliant, an idea man, indeed, THE idea man of the Republican Party. Personally, I doubt it. He is more like an Ann Coulter who says things mostly for their shock value because in fact he lacks anything positive to say, or at least anything that makes much sense. To partly understand why he says such basically negative, even hateful things, you have to understand what he apparently thinks of himself. Here is a sample:
“Gingrich primary mission: Advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of
civilization, leader of the civilizing forces.”
“I’m not a natural leader. I’m too intellectual; I’m too abstract; I think too much.”
“I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.” It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
Gingrich is infected with the germ of grandiosity and conceives of himself as a kind of oracle, speaking from his position as a famous, brilliant, insightful, superior figure comparable to Churchill, Einstein, Buddha, Jefferson, and all the other Founding Fathers all wrapped up into one. A more precise description would be “Delusions of Grandeur.” He is basically an evil little man with more pretensions than intellect, that deliberately says harmful things to draw attention to himself. I believe what he says is in fact harmful, certainly harmful to the President of the United States, and because of that also harmful to our nation. His demagoguery is out of control, irresponsible, completely negative, factually incorrect, and hatefully presented. It is even harmful to himself, as while he may see himself as a great Statesman of note, he is, in fact, a Pompous Ass. Happily, as even most members of his own party can’t stand him, we need not worry about him ever becoming President. He truly needs to shut up, sit down, slink off into the sunset, and leave the rest of us alone.
“Em I bighet tru,” as they say in Melanesia.
Let us consider the case of what I think should be considered irresponsible speech, and let us use the case of Newt Gingrich. I have to insert a disclaimer here as I am terribly biased against Gingrich and find him “odious” in the extreme. Much of the reason I find him odious is because of his (I believe) abuse of his free speech privilege. I find his use of free speech often pathetically irresponsible for someone in such a public position. Of course Gingrich is not the only offender along these lines, but he is, I think, the poster child.
Gingrich is a demagogue without peer. He says things that appear to have no basis in fact and are deliberately designed to harm others, specifically at the moment, President Obama. Where, for example, does he find the facts to claim that Obama “wants to unilaterally weaken America?” On what basis or authority does he claim “Obama is the most dangerous President in American history?” He has also said Obama is an “extremist” who has voted to support infanticide! I gather this is because Obama once voted to protect abortion doctors (who were practicing medicine entirely in accordance with the law and vulnerable to being killed by right wing extremists for doing so).
How about : “The left-wing Democrats will represent the party of total hedonism, total exhibitionism, total bizarreness, total weirdness, and the total right to cripple innocent people in the name of letting hooligans loose?” Or “These people are sick. They are so consumed by their own power, by a Mussolini-like ego, that their willingness to run over normal human beings and to destroy honest institutions is unending.” Gingrich has also said, “The problem isn’t too little money in political campaigns, but not enough.” I’m sure one could find further examples of this kind of rhetoric. Notice what they all have in common, in addition to being mostly false, they are all gross exaggerations that put everything in the worst possible light. Gingrich could easily and reasonably disagree with Obama without the incredible, usually insulting distortions. I have heard repeatedly that Gingrich is brilliant, an idea man, indeed, THE idea man of the Republican Party. Personally, I doubt it. He is more like an Ann Coulter who says things mostly for their shock value because in fact he lacks anything positive to say, or at least anything that makes much sense. To partly understand why he says such basically negative, even hateful things, you have to understand what he apparently thinks of himself. Here is a sample:
“Gingrich primary mission: Advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of
civilization, leader of the civilizing forces.”
“I’m not a natural leader. I’m too intellectual; I’m too abstract; I think too much.”
“I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.” It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
Gingrich is infected with the germ of grandiosity and conceives of himself as a kind of oracle, speaking from his position as a famous, brilliant, insightful, superior figure comparable to Churchill, Einstein, Buddha, Jefferson, and all the other Founding Fathers all wrapped up into one. A more precise description would be “Delusions of Grandeur.” He is basically an evil little man with more pretensions than intellect, that deliberately says harmful things to draw attention to himself. I believe what he says is in fact harmful, certainly harmful to the President of the United States, and because of that also harmful to our nation. His demagoguery is out of control, irresponsible, completely negative, factually incorrect, and hatefully presented. It is even harmful to himself, as while he may see himself as a great Statesman of note, he is, in fact, a Pompous Ass. Happily, as even most members of his own party can’t stand him, we need not worry about him ever becoming President. He truly needs to shut up, sit down, slink off into the sunset, and leave the rest of us alone.
“Em I bighet tru,” as they say in Melanesia.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Lies, Damn Lies, and Damned Lies
It is true that lying has been part of politics for as long as we have had organized, or at least semi-organized politics, here in the United States, but for most of that period there were at least occasional moments or outbursts of truth. But the truth in politics gradually began to disappear and under the Bush/Cheney administration vanished entirely. It is highly doubtful that either George W. Bush or Dick Cheney ever told the truth about anything, and thus was ushered in a period where the concept of truth disappeared from political discourse. This has now become so ingrained in our discourse that if anyone utters a true statement no one can recognize it as true. Lying has become so ubiquitous and so commonplace I believe we need to study it carefully. Perhaps we need something like “The New Science of Prevarication,” or perhaps “Lieology,” or for those who eschew science, perhaps “Lieosophy.”Allow me to make some rudimentary suggestions as to how to begin this analysis.
I think there are at least three distinct categories of lying that might be distinguished: Lies, Damned Lies, and Damnable Lies. I admit the lines between these three categories are not always clear and distinct, but one has to begin somewhere. Lies are easy enough, more or less everyone recognizes ordinary lies. I will concentrate here on Republican lies, not because Democrats don’t lie, but because Democratic lies are sort of puny when compared to the lies of Republicans, and there are more readily available examples from Republicans. When Willard Mitt Romney, for example, says that his first name is Mitt, we are aware this is a lie. Similarly, when he says he has been a hunter all his life, we know he is lying. When he claims to have been a job creator as Governor we might pause and wonder but suspect he is lying. These are merely small-time, ordinary, relatively innocuous lies that we can understand, lies that do not have a very important bearing on anything, somewhat more than “little white lies,” but not lies that are very important.
Damn lies are more important, more complex, more difficult to deal with, and may have more important consequences. For example, when Boehner says the House has passed 30 jobs bills that the Senate has not acted on, he is lying, and his lie may improperly influence people. When Franklin Graham implies that President Obama may be a Muslim he is probably lying (as I doubt he believes this) and may also influence people improperly. Damn lies are the most difficult kinds of lies to understand as sometimes the person saying them may actually believe them thus complicating matters. Rick Santorum says, for example, that global warming is a “hoax.” He may or may not believe that but it is a damn lie and can have very unfortunate consequences if others believe it. Most everything Santorum says can probably be subsumed under the category of Damn Lies. For further examples: Obama is trying to attack religion, he is weak on foreign policy, he is responsible for the price of gasoline, Obama promotes a different theology, or perhaps ideology, Santorum is not very clear on this point, but it apparently has something to do with Obama trying to protect the environment from humans further plundering the earth’s resources (Santorum believes humans are more important than the earth and should be able to plunder it at will). It is difficult to tell with Santorum’s lies whether or not he is lying or might actually believe what he claims. He has said something to the effect that “when you have a top down health care system run by the government, patients are just commodities…” This is an obvious lie but it is possible he might believe it. It is a lie because it is precisely the opposite of the truth, it is only in a capitalistic system (in this case a system involving insurance companies) that patients become commodities. In government run health care systems, where there is health care for all, the patients and their health are protected by the government because it is in the best interest of the government to maintain a healthy population. Insurance based systems are run for profit. All industrialized societies take responsibility for the health of their citizens, EXCEPT the United States. All claims that Obama is not a citizen, is a socialist, communist, fascist, or “other,” all fall pretty clearly under the category of Damn Lies, and potentially cause damage to our political system.
When you come to the category of Damnable Lies, things are somewhat more easy to understand. Damnable Lies are those made up, often on the spur of the moment, with no basis whatsoever in fact, for the purpose of calling attention to the speaker, shocking the listeners, and deliberately sowing dissention, and for no other purpose than that.
There is a further dimension of discourse currently involved in our politics that does not readily come under any category of lying, although it does involve lies (or sometimes hallucinations or magical thinking). LaPierre, for example, the head of the NRA, insists that Obama has a plan to take away everyone’s guns. Obama has done nothing in the way of suggesting this and has, in fact, signed into law at least one bill making it easier for people to own guns. But LaPierre continues to promote his conspiracy theory that Obama is just pretending and will do away with guns in his second term. It is a lie, but a lie based upon some kind of paranoid fantasy in the mind of LaPierre. Similarly, a Republican, Bob Morris, of the Indiana State Congress, insists that the Girl Scouts are part of a deal with Planned Parenthood to subvert our children, promote abortion, and so on. He also insists that both Michele and Barack Obama are “radical pro-abortionists.” I cannot conceive of anyone being a radical pro-abortionist but, as they say in Pidgin, “B’long all.” More importantly, along these lines, and perhaps more important, when Santorum claims the “Devil is attacking America” you know you have left the realm of reality and entered another world.
Santorum slops over into the category of Damnable Lies when he says things like global warming is a conspiracy on the part of environmentalists to consolidate power, or Obama is attacking religion. But the indisputable king of Damnable Lies is Newt (the Odious) Gingrich. Gingrich blurts out Damnable Lies at any moment one seems to enter his head. “Obama is the most dangerous President in the history of the United States,” for example. Or, “Defeating Barack Obama becomes, in fact, a duty of national security. Because the fact is, he is incapable of defending the United States.” Curiously, Damned Lies are probably not as bad or as dangerous as Damn Lies, because the former are so transparently just manufactured, obvious, and outrageous.
I do not suggest this is anything more than a primitive attempt to deal with the complex web of lies we now confront on a daily basis. We doubtless need a new Foundation, generously endowed and well furnished with the best brains available, to deal with an issue of such monumental importance. On the other hand, we can just go on disbelieving everything we hear from our politicians and news media, accepting that as “just the way it is.”
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.
George W. Bush
I think there are at least three distinct categories of lying that might be distinguished: Lies, Damned Lies, and Damnable Lies. I admit the lines between these three categories are not always clear and distinct, but one has to begin somewhere. Lies are easy enough, more or less everyone recognizes ordinary lies. I will concentrate here on Republican lies, not because Democrats don’t lie, but because Democratic lies are sort of puny when compared to the lies of Republicans, and there are more readily available examples from Republicans. When Willard Mitt Romney, for example, says that his first name is Mitt, we are aware this is a lie. Similarly, when he says he has been a hunter all his life, we know he is lying. When he claims to have been a job creator as Governor we might pause and wonder but suspect he is lying. These are merely small-time, ordinary, relatively innocuous lies that we can understand, lies that do not have a very important bearing on anything, somewhat more than “little white lies,” but not lies that are very important.
Damn lies are more important, more complex, more difficult to deal with, and may have more important consequences. For example, when Boehner says the House has passed 30 jobs bills that the Senate has not acted on, he is lying, and his lie may improperly influence people. When Franklin Graham implies that President Obama may be a Muslim he is probably lying (as I doubt he believes this) and may also influence people improperly. Damn lies are the most difficult kinds of lies to understand as sometimes the person saying them may actually believe them thus complicating matters. Rick Santorum says, for example, that global warming is a “hoax.” He may or may not believe that but it is a damn lie and can have very unfortunate consequences if others believe it. Most everything Santorum says can probably be subsumed under the category of Damn Lies. For further examples: Obama is trying to attack religion, he is weak on foreign policy, he is responsible for the price of gasoline, Obama promotes a different theology, or perhaps ideology, Santorum is not very clear on this point, but it apparently has something to do with Obama trying to protect the environment from humans further plundering the earth’s resources (Santorum believes humans are more important than the earth and should be able to plunder it at will). It is difficult to tell with Santorum’s lies whether or not he is lying or might actually believe what he claims. He has said something to the effect that “when you have a top down health care system run by the government, patients are just commodities…” This is an obvious lie but it is possible he might believe it. It is a lie because it is precisely the opposite of the truth, it is only in a capitalistic system (in this case a system involving insurance companies) that patients become commodities. In government run health care systems, where there is health care for all, the patients and their health are protected by the government because it is in the best interest of the government to maintain a healthy population. Insurance based systems are run for profit. All industrialized societies take responsibility for the health of their citizens, EXCEPT the United States. All claims that Obama is not a citizen, is a socialist, communist, fascist, or “other,” all fall pretty clearly under the category of Damn Lies, and potentially cause damage to our political system.
When you come to the category of Damnable Lies, things are somewhat more easy to understand. Damnable Lies are those made up, often on the spur of the moment, with no basis whatsoever in fact, for the purpose of calling attention to the speaker, shocking the listeners, and deliberately sowing dissention, and for no other purpose than that.
There is a further dimension of discourse currently involved in our politics that does not readily come under any category of lying, although it does involve lies (or sometimes hallucinations or magical thinking). LaPierre, for example, the head of the NRA, insists that Obama has a plan to take away everyone’s guns. Obama has done nothing in the way of suggesting this and has, in fact, signed into law at least one bill making it easier for people to own guns. But LaPierre continues to promote his conspiracy theory that Obama is just pretending and will do away with guns in his second term. It is a lie, but a lie based upon some kind of paranoid fantasy in the mind of LaPierre. Similarly, a Republican, Bob Morris, of the Indiana State Congress, insists that the Girl Scouts are part of a deal with Planned Parenthood to subvert our children, promote abortion, and so on. He also insists that both Michele and Barack Obama are “radical pro-abortionists.” I cannot conceive of anyone being a radical pro-abortionist but, as they say in Pidgin, “B’long all.” More importantly, along these lines, and perhaps more important, when Santorum claims the “Devil is attacking America” you know you have left the realm of reality and entered another world.
Santorum slops over into the category of Damnable Lies when he says things like global warming is a conspiracy on the part of environmentalists to consolidate power, or Obama is attacking religion. But the indisputable king of Damnable Lies is Newt (the Odious) Gingrich. Gingrich blurts out Damnable Lies at any moment one seems to enter his head. “Obama is the most dangerous President in the history of the United States,” for example. Or, “Defeating Barack Obama becomes, in fact, a duty of national security. Because the fact is, he is incapable of defending the United States.” Curiously, Damned Lies are probably not as bad or as dangerous as Damn Lies, because the former are so transparently just manufactured, obvious, and outrageous.
I do not suggest this is anything more than a primitive attempt to deal with the complex web of lies we now confront on a daily basis. We doubtless need a new Foundation, generously endowed and well furnished with the best brains available, to deal with an issue of such monumental importance. On the other hand, we can just go on disbelieving everything we hear from our politicians and news media, accepting that as “just the way it is.”
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.
George W. Bush
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Forget Santorum
Who would have thought it possible that the Republican Party, having gone through Pawlenty, Palin, Trump, Bachmann, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, and others more or less nameless, would have finally arrived at a leading candidate who is actually WORSE than any of the above? Rick Santorum, who complained until relatively recently that he had not received enough attention, has now received a lot of attention and finally attained that illustrious status called of “Flavor of the month.” And, having succeeded in reaching it, has failed Sanity 101. He will soon join the other flavors of the month that are being forgotten, probably not even footnotes to history.
Where to begin? Although some 98 or 99% of American women, including Catholic women, have used contraception at one time or another, Mr. Santorum wants to make it illegal. This would not seem very astute. He is also opposed to prenatal care, claiming it leads to abortions, which it sometimes does to spare the mother’s health and well-being, and society at large from a far worse outcome. Mr. Santorum would also like to see abortions criminalized and doctors who perform them incarcerated. Women, according to him, should not work but stay home and care for the children (I gather he is unaware of single mothers or the economics of life in the U.S.). He is also completely opposed to Gay marriage, wants those already performed to be annulled, and wants to restore DADT. When he is not raving about his imaginary images of sex that is “not what it is supposed to be” (he must have an incredible imagination), he turns his attention to matters of domestic and foreign policy.
He is, for example, concerned that millions of non-Catholics have somehow strayed from religion, that President Obama’s vision for our nation is not “bible-based,” that Obama, in fact, believes in a different “theology,” apparently having something to do with the environment (maybe he meant to say “ideology,” but it is not clear). He seems to believe the earth is less important than the humans that vitally depend upon it. He thinks there are no Palestinians, that we should attack and destroy Iran as soon as possible, that the Crusaders were not aggressors against Muslims, and of course Israel and the United States are absolutely “good” while all others are “bad.”
Back on the domestic scene, he believes that inequality of income is good and hopes it will last (how much inequality he does not mention), does not believe in taking money from the haves (White people) and giving to others (Black, or other poor people), and wants to do away with public education entirely. He also would also, of course, do away completely with Planned Parenthood. It is probably fair to say that Santorum shares in the Republican belief that our responsibility for life begins at conception but ends at birth. Hence their obsessive concern with when, precisely, life begins, and their complete unconcern about what happens to infants and children after they are born. There would seem to me to be some contradiction here about life beginning at conception but no prenatal care, but far be it for me to understand Santorum’s twisted mind).
I don’t know what all else Santorum would do if (heaven forbid) he were to become President, but it is obvious that if he really wants to become President he is promoting ideas that will surely insure he will never manage to attain that goal. He is so extreme even the current Republican Party is not stupid enough to allow him to become their candidate. As Romney is not doing very well either there is already talk of a brokered convention and a new candidate (Jeb Bush seems to be their solution). As this is considered only a remote possibility, Romney will probably, as predicted, outlast everyone else and become the candidate. In any case it seems to me Santorum has had his moment in the sun, his turn in the barrel, his designation as flavor of the month, and will soon wilt like all the others.
There is one thing that bothers me even more than the specifics of Santorum’s extreme views on contraception, abortion, Gays, foreign policy, or whatever. After trying to make sense of his various statements and apparent beliefs, claims and accusations, I fear he doesn’t know what he is talking about. It is like ignorance run amok.
“Fine fellows—cannibals—in their place. They were men we could work with, and I am grateful to them. And, after all, they did not eat each other before my face…”
Joseph Conrad
Where to begin? Although some 98 or 99% of American women, including Catholic women, have used contraception at one time or another, Mr. Santorum wants to make it illegal. This would not seem very astute. He is also opposed to prenatal care, claiming it leads to abortions, which it sometimes does to spare the mother’s health and well-being, and society at large from a far worse outcome. Mr. Santorum would also like to see abortions criminalized and doctors who perform them incarcerated. Women, according to him, should not work but stay home and care for the children (I gather he is unaware of single mothers or the economics of life in the U.S.). He is also completely opposed to Gay marriage, wants those already performed to be annulled, and wants to restore DADT. When he is not raving about his imaginary images of sex that is “not what it is supposed to be” (he must have an incredible imagination), he turns his attention to matters of domestic and foreign policy.
He is, for example, concerned that millions of non-Catholics have somehow strayed from religion, that President Obama’s vision for our nation is not “bible-based,” that Obama, in fact, believes in a different “theology,” apparently having something to do with the environment (maybe he meant to say “ideology,” but it is not clear). He seems to believe the earth is less important than the humans that vitally depend upon it. He thinks there are no Palestinians, that we should attack and destroy Iran as soon as possible, that the Crusaders were not aggressors against Muslims, and of course Israel and the United States are absolutely “good” while all others are “bad.”
Back on the domestic scene, he believes that inequality of income is good and hopes it will last (how much inequality he does not mention), does not believe in taking money from the haves (White people) and giving to others (Black, or other poor people), and wants to do away with public education entirely. He also would also, of course, do away completely with Planned Parenthood. It is probably fair to say that Santorum shares in the Republican belief that our responsibility for life begins at conception but ends at birth. Hence their obsessive concern with when, precisely, life begins, and their complete unconcern about what happens to infants and children after they are born. There would seem to me to be some contradiction here about life beginning at conception but no prenatal care, but far be it for me to understand Santorum’s twisted mind).
I don’t know what all else Santorum would do if (heaven forbid) he were to become President, but it is obvious that if he really wants to become President he is promoting ideas that will surely insure he will never manage to attain that goal. He is so extreme even the current Republican Party is not stupid enough to allow him to become their candidate. As Romney is not doing very well either there is already talk of a brokered convention and a new candidate (Jeb Bush seems to be their solution). As this is considered only a remote possibility, Romney will probably, as predicted, outlast everyone else and become the candidate. In any case it seems to me Santorum has had his moment in the sun, his turn in the barrel, his designation as flavor of the month, and will soon wilt like all the others.
There is one thing that bothers me even more than the specifics of Santorum’s extreme views on contraception, abortion, Gays, foreign policy, or whatever. After trying to make sense of his various statements and apparent beliefs, claims and accusations, I fear he doesn’t know what he is talking about. It is like ignorance run amok.
“Fine fellows—cannibals—in their place. They were men we could work with, and I am grateful to them. And, after all, they did not eat each other before my face…”
Joseph Conrad
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Invisible Harry Gold - book
The Invisible Harry Gold The Man Who Gave the Soviets the Atomic Bomb, Allen M. Hornblum (Yale University Press, 2010)
This is an incredible true story of Soviet espionage in the United States in which Heinrich Golodnitsky, born in the Ukraine in 1910, came with his parents to the United States at age three, became Harry Gold, grew up in poverty, a victim of extreme anti-Semitism in South Philadelphia, went on to become a talented chemist, secretly spied for the Soviet Union for eleven years before being exposed, went to prison in disgrace for fifteen years, was finally released to the cheers and encouragement of his fellow inmates, was happily reunited with his father and brother, and continued to make important contributions to medical science until his death in 1972. I loved this book and had trouble putting it down until I had finished it. It is fascinating for several reasons, and on different levels.
First, it is about spies, Soviet spies in the United States. But there are no car chases, shootings, high tech gadgets, trysts on the beach with nubile young ladies in bikinis, no disappearing ink, or other romantic accounts of how exciting it is to be a spy. In fact it reveals the truth about espionage, the basic nitty gritty of the occupation, the endless hours spent waiting for someone, the sacrifice of time and money, the almost unbelievable security, the small rewards for time spent, and the constant fear of exposure. There is little or nothing romantic about it, a sordid business at best, but also enormously successful for the Russians who managed to steal the secrets of the atomic bomb and much, much more for many years.
Second, it demonstrates that the most common motive for spying had little or nothing to do with money (in fact the Soviets looked down on spies who did it for money). The most dedicated spies, like Harry Gold, Klaus Fuchs, the Rosenbergs, and others, were true believers in the promise of the great Soviet experiment. Although Gold was offered money on many occasions he always declined. In fact his spying career cost him dearly both financially and in time away from his family and his work. When he was first recruited as a spy he believed he was helping Russia, not damaging the United States (remember at this time Russia and the U.S. were more allies than enemies). Gold was led to believe, as were many others, that Russia was passing laws to outlaw anti-Semitism and was, in fact, the greatest bulwark against Hitler and Fascism. They were embarked on what was thought was a grand experiment to better the lives of all people. Although he was repeatedly urged to join the Communist Party, Gold consistently refused and was never a member. In fact, he thought the people he saw at the few meeting he attended were disgusting. He truly believed he was helping his homeland to bring about a better world. It is true that later, when Communism was known to have failed and Stalinism was at its worst, Gold had serious doubts, but by that time he was so involved and so fearful of being exposed he had little choice but to continue. He knew he was doing wrong but was in the clutches of the KGB.
Third, this is a remarkable account of how persistence, patience and hard work eventually brought about success. Harry Gold was fascinated by chemistry at an early age and wanted desperately to go to college to study. But it was during the worst of the depression, his father, a cabinet maker who barely spoke English, could not find work, his mother who taught Hebrew part time saw her students disappear, his brother Yus (Joe) was too young. Harry withdrew from the University and found whatever jobs he could to keep the family going. Later, when he had fallen into disgrace, his father and brother stood by him, visiting him in jail regularly, defending him as best they could, and always believing he had done what he believed in to the best of his ability. It is a remarkable tale of family loyalty.
Fourth, there are the two extraordinary lawyers who agreed to defend a Soviet spy during the worst of the great Communist scare. No lawyer wanted to touch the case, so when a famous lawyer who had once been head of the Republican Party was asked, he agreed, risking his reputation, and taking on the defense for no fee whatsoever. He chose a young assistant who also risked his career, but the two of them did everything possible for years to help Gold and finally helped him get an early release from prison. They became friends after their years of collaboration and believed that Harry had received an unfair sentence due to the political climate of the time. Although they had to endure all kinds of hate mail and criticism, even from their own firm, they believed in justice for all and set a standard that has never been surpassed.
Fifth, and perhaps the most important, there was the remarkable character of Harry Gold himself. Small and sickly as a child, subjected to vicious anti-Semitism, and watching his father be even more persecuted, he never gave up, never complained, never faltered. He loved sports of all kinds and followed them even though he could not participate. He had an almost superhuman capacity for work, putting in extremely long days at whatever he was doing, willing to help others at all times, pleasant and soft-spoken, shy, and in many ways rather nondescript, he was nevertheless intelligent and driven to succeed. His greatest failure was apparently his inability to say “no” to people, a trait that many thought had to do with his recruitment to spying. Even in prison he was an exemplary inmate, working long hours in the prison laboratory, volunteering for experimental drugs, and so on. When he entered prison he was a truly despised figure, not only a spy, but worse, a “snitcher,” a “stool pigeon” who had “ratted” on his friends and colleagues, including the Rosenbergs who were executed partly as a result of his testimony. But in fact Gold had only told the truth as he set out to do once he was exposed. He admitted his great mistake and tried to compensate for it by cooperating completely with the authorities and virtually destroying the Soviet spying apparatus for a time. He was viciously attacked by those who supported the Rosenbergs and tried to show he had collaborated with the FBI to falsely accuse them. Of course we know now that Julius Rosenberg was guilty (his wife less so, but I do not believe they should have been executed), and the terrible accusations against Gold were false. Gold was such a remarkable person that when he died some claimed that “Everybody loved Harry,” not bad for a Soviet spy that helped turn over our atomic secrets, and was probably the least selfish person who ever lived.
I cannot do justice to this really fine, meticulously researched, and informative book. I think it is one of the best and most interesting books I have ever read, and I have read a good many by now.
This is an incredible true story of Soviet espionage in the United States in which Heinrich Golodnitsky, born in the Ukraine in 1910, came with his parents to the United States at age three, became Harry Gold, grew up in poverty, a victim of extreme anti-Semitism in South Philadelphia, went on to become a talented chemist, secretly spied for the Soviet Union for eleven years before being exposed, went to prison in disgrace for fifteen years, was finally released to the cheers and encouragement of his fellow inmates, was happily reunited with his father and brother, and continued to make important contributions to medical science until his death in 1972. I loved this book and had trouble putting it down until I had finished it. It is fascinating for several reasons, and on different levels.
First, it is about spies, Soviet spies in the United States. But there are no car chases, shootings, high tech gadgets, trysts on the beach with nubile young ladies in bikinis, no disappearing ink, or other romantic accounts of how exciting it is to be a spy. In fact it reveals the truth about espionage, the basic nitty gritty of the occupation, the endless hours spent waiting for someone, the sacrifice of time and money, the almost unbelievable security, the small rewards for time spent, and the constant fear of exposure. There is little or nothing romantic about it, a sordid business at best, but also enormously successful for the Russians who managed to steal the secrets of the atomic bomb and much, much more for many years.
Second, it demonstrates that the most common motive for spying had little or nothing to do with money (in fact the Soviets looked down on spies who did it for money). The most dedicated spies, like Harry Gold, Klaus Fuchs, the Rosenbergs, and others, were true believers in the promise of the great Soviet experiment. Although Gold was offered money on many occasions he always declined. In fact his spying career cost him dearly both financially and in time away from his family and his work. When he was first recruited as a spy he believed he was helping Russia, not damaging the United States (remember at this time Russia and the U.S. were more allies than enemies). Gold was led to believe, as were many others, that Russia was passing laws to outlaw anti-Semitism and was, in fact, the greatest bulwark against Hitler and Fascism. They were embarked on what was thought was a grand experiment to better the lives of all people. Although he was repeatedly urged to join the Communist Party, Gold consistently refused and was never a member. In fact, he thought the people he saw at the few meeting he attended were disgusting. He truly believed he was helping his homeland to bring about a better world. It is true that later, when Communism was known to have failed and Stalinism was at its worst, Gold had serious doubts, but by that time he was so involved and so fearful of being exposed he had little choice but to continue. He knew he was doing wrong but was in the clutches of the KGB.
Third, this is a remarkable account of how persistence, patience and hard work eventually brought about success. Harry Gold was fascinated by chemistry at an early age and wanted desperately to go to college to study. But it was during the worst of the depression, his father, a cabinet maker who barely spoke English, could not find work, his mother who taught Hebrew part time saw her students disappear, his brother Yus (Joe) was too young. Harry withdrew from the University and found whatever jobs he could to keep the family going. Later, when he had fallen into disgrace, his father and brother stood by him, visiting him in jail regularly, defending him as best they could, and always believing he had done what he believed in to the best of his ability. It is a remarkable tale of family loyalty.
Fourth, there are the two extraordinary lawyers who agreed to defend a Soviet spy during the worst of the great Communist scare. No lawyer wanted to touch the case, so when a famous lawyer who had once been head of the Republican Party was asked, he agreed, risking his reputation, and taking on the defense for no fee whatsoever. He chose a young assistant who also risked his career, but the two of them did everything possible for years to help Gold and finally helped him get an early release from prison. They became friends after their years of collaboration and believed that Harry had received an unfair sentence due to the political climate of the time. Although they had to endure all kinds of hate mail and criticism, even from their own firm, they believed in justice for all and set a standard that has never been surpassed.
Fifth, and perhaps the most important, there was the remarkable character of Harry Gold himself. Small and sickly as a child, subjected to vicious anti-Semitism, and watching his father be even more persecuted, he never gave up, never complained, never faltered. He loved sports of all kinds and followed them even though he could not participate. He had an almost superhuman capacity for work, putting in extremely long days at whatever he was doing, willing to help others at all times, pleasant and soft-spoken, shy, and in many ways rather nondescript, he was nevertheless intelligent and driven to succeed. His greatest failure was apparently his inability to say “no” to people, a trait that many thought had to do with his recruitment to spying. Even in prison he was an exemplary inmate, working long hours in the prison laboratory, volunteering for experimental drugs, and so on. When he entered prison he was a truly despised figure, not only a spy, but worse, a “snitcher,” a “stool pigeon” who had “ratted” on his friends and colleagues, including the Rosenbergs who were executed partly as a result of his testimony. But in fact Gold had only told the truth as he set out to do once he was exposed. He admitted his great mistake and tried to compensate for it by cooperating completely with the authorities and virtually destroying the Soviet spying apparatus for a time. He was viciously attacked by those who supported the Rosenbergs and tried to show he had collaborated with the FBI to falsely accuse them. Of course we know now that Julius Rosenberg was guilty (his wife less so, but I do not believe they should have been executed), and the terrible accusations against Gold were false. Gold was such a remarkable person that when he died some claimed that “Everybody loved Harry,” not bad for a Soviet spy that helped turn over our atomic secrets, and was probably the least selfish person who ever lived.
I cannot do justice to this really fine, meticulously researched, and informative book. I think it is one of the best and most interesting books I have ever read, and I have read a good many by now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
