If the cameras had stopped rolling and the sound track cut off, following the presentation by Bill Moyers on PBS of who Rev. Wright was and placing his peculiarly provocative remarks in context, there would have been a more informative debate on the substance of what his sermons had said..
Unfortunately that was not the case and the journals in print and electronics, as is common when news is made in a competing, medium, looked the other way, while Moyers, recognized even by illiberal media commentators as informative and trustworthy, offered his Journal's illustrated essay on Wright.
One cannot fully express in a letter how much of the Rev. Wright's sermons resembled the central message of what used to be called"Negro History," as told by many moderate African American scholars such as John Hope Franklin and many of their"white" colleagues in the academy, such as the late C. Vann Woodward.
Alas, in the center of electoral politics that will be ignored.
Howard N Meyer
The writer is the author of"The Amendment [the Fourteenth] that Refused to Die, and"The Magnificent Activist," anthology of Thomas Wentworth Higginson's writings
To the Editor of the New York Times:
The eloquent editorial, "Justice Denied" (JULY 5)
correctly says that the Supreme Court Court has been
"shutting the courthouse door on individuals and ideals that
truly need the [C]ourt's shelter,"
There is something more that must be said.
It may not be widely understood that the Warren Court's
interpretation of the Constitution was entirely justified by the
intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Amendment was "strangled in infancy"
(in the words of Justice Powell's separate and prevailing
opinion in the Bakke case) by "judicial reaction." and nearly died.
Reinvigorated by the growth of popular understanding, fed by
the activism of people like Homer Plessy and his lawyer,
Albion Tourgee, the Amendment was gradually being reborn
prior to the arrival of Chief Earl Warren.
As so few understood at the time, Waren's court built on that.
They did not invent anything. The Warren Court followed the trend of the decisions of the Hughes and Stone Courts, that aimed to help the Fourteeth accompish what the 1868 framers sought.
Former Attorney General Meese refused to accept the his-
torical facts. As the TIMES news columns told us, before the
Senate voted, the Bush designees were disciples of Meese.
Too many senators failed to act on this, and Roberts and Alito
slipped by.
To the Editor:
Re "Kent State is Said to Reveal Orders," [May 2]: What we do know that in spite of less than serious investigations by a Nixon administration defending an indefensible war, the FBI had secret agents on the Kent State campus, one of whom was filmed with a weapon the day of the shootings and several witnesses believed it had been fired. What is needed now is for a truly independent commission or writer to gain access to the files of the Ohio National Guard, Nixon Archives, FBI files and those of then Governor James Rhodes who fed the atmosphere of hatred by calling antiwar students "worse than brownshirts and the Communist elements and also the night riders and vigilantes. They are the worst type of people that we harbor in America."
While the tape about the role of the Ohio National Guard in the killing or four students and wounding of nine others may or may not be conclusive proof that a crime had been committed, the fact is that no-one has ever been held responsible. The many questions surrounding the Kent State calamity have never been answered nor has justice been served.
Sincerely,
Murray Polner
Two dictionaries consulted (and my edition of Roget's Thesaurus) treat"abashed" and"ashamed" as synonyms. I was troubled by the Times' reference. Most of my friends are"liberal" and I am sure that not one is ashamed of her or his beliefs, Of course, in view of the events of the last six years, there are, by now, few unabashed Bush supporters. That number, understandably, will be negligible in a few years.
Howard N Meyer
According to your report about Jimmy Carter’s Brandeis University speech, he said: “This is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” The implication, along with previous self-pitying remarks, is that he is blameless and critics are overreacting to his Israel-Apartheid slur to squelch debate. In fact, in Carter’s bruising 1970 campaign for Georgia governor, the incumbent Carl Sanders called him “Jimmy the fabricator.” Carter was accused of bigotry when pamphlets picturing Governor Sanders with two tall, African-American basketball players were mailed to white barber shops and churches.
In 1980, fighting Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, President Carter announced the morning of the Wisconsin primary that the Iranians had made a “positive step” in solving the hostage crisis. No progress occurred but Carter won the primary. The president “no longer seemed decent and honorable, but manipulative” an aide admitted. That campaign Reaganite Republicans repeatedly condemned Carter’s foreign policy as cowardly.
“Saint Jimmy,” like all politicians, has never been above reproach. His Brandeisian amnesia simply slurs his opponents and dismisses their substantive critiques. Forty percent of Carter’s statement may be true – judging by the distortions in his recent book that seems to be his accuracy rate these days.
Gil Troy
Professor of History
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
514 937 9635
gtroy@videotron.ca
Please note:
The Jimmy the fabricator line comes from p. 130 of Betty Glad, Jimmy Carter: In Search of the Great White House (Norton, 1980)
The 1970 Atlanta Hawks bigoted brochure is well-known, I have seen a copy in the Carter Library. Glad mentions it on p. 134, and Kenneth E. Morris, Jimmy Carter: American Moralist (University of Georgia Press, 1976) p. 187.
The senior adviser was quoted by Martin Schram in his essay in the Washington Post reporters’ compilation from the 1980 campaign The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1980 (Berkeley Books) p 114.
I have also done extensive primary source work on Carter, including visits to the Carter library for three of my books:
See How They Ran: The Changing Role of the Presidential Candidate, Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons and, most recently, Morning in America: How Ronald Regan Invented the 1980s which is being issued by Princeton University Press in paperback next month.
Debates in Congress and on the media, print
electronic, video and blog seem to agree on the nature
of the choice we and our nation are must make.
For one side, in varying forms, the solution proposed is,
more force. Whatever the word used, there is no
denying that one side argues greater use of force
by United States weapons and warriors, will lead
to a devoutly wished-for conclusion.
The other side objects, also in a variety of modes,
and says in effect, NO. (They do not say use less
force. It can be argued that troop withdrawal means
"less" but it cannot be doubted a withdrawal now
would neither be unharassed nor peaceable.]
All this gives the proponents of force the rhetorical tool
offered by the needling question, WHAT WOULD YOU do?
That there is a third way, is suggested by the editorial today
on "Iraq's Refugees." It has been seen that the U.N.'s
refugee commissioner is actively working to help the
country's refugees in their plight.
It is safe to assume that the United Nations' new and
lively Secretary General would likely welcome an invitation
to intervene, to use his office and persuade the
Security Council to cease looking the other way
in the presence of a palpable threat to world peace
presented by the ongoing hostilities.
Such an invitation could be made successfully by joint
action of, say, the U.K. Egypt, Brazil and/or other such
supportive members of the United Nations. The U.N.'s
experience in peacekeeping and mediation among conflicting
tribes and minorities surely have a better chance of
success than bombing and shooting at two sects
and telling them to stop fighting.
The until now rejected idea of the Baker-Hamilton panel
to approach Syria and Iran for assistance in searching
for a peaceful solution would be of assistance to United
Nations peacemaking, if attempted.
Howard N Meyer 212 723 3235.
The writer is a retired attorney and arbitrator and
member since 1985 of American Society for
International Law.
375 West End Avenue N Y 10024
Nadine Gordimer's letter today expresses just appreciation for services performed by Kofi Annan during his term at the United Nations.
Concurring heartily with the letter's general terms, this writer suggests that a single one of his many actions as SecretaryGeneral of the U.N. was his expression of the opinion -- before threatened Bush invasion of Iraq began -- that the use of force against Iraq would violate the Charter of the U.N. a multilateral treaty that our country agreed should bind it, and for which we played a major part in drafting and winning ratification.
His acceptance of the risk of doing his duty showed admirable courage; so too was his agreement with a U.K. reporter that the action, if taken, would violate International Law.
That his warning -- expressing a position with which almost all of the world and the majority of members of the American Society of International Law agreed -- was not heeded, does not at all detract from the gratitude, that in circumstances summarized in the Baker Hamilton report, thinking and loyal Americans owe to the recent Secretary General.
Howard N Meyer, retired attorney and member of the American Society of International Law.
Re: "Taiwan Opposition Party Shows Strength in 2 Largest Cities" (December 9):
It is not correct to say that Chen Shui-bian, now Taiwan‚s president, "built the Democratic Progressive Party into a force that spread across the island and brought democracy to Taiwan." It was the previous president, Lee Teng-hui of the Nationalist Party, who brought democracy to Taiwan, holding elections first for the legislature and then the presidency in the 1990s.
The Democratic Progressive Party was not, at that time, strong enough to have forced this. Indeed, one reason the Nationalists were willing to risk a free presidential election in 1996 was the confidence that the Democratic Progressive Party would not win it. Only after the Nationalists had introduced democracy was Chen Shui-bian able to build up a degree of strength that enabled him narrowly to win a later presidential election, in 2000.
Edwin E. Moise
Clemson, South Carolina
Simultaneously we find that 72 percent of US troops in Iraq favor a pullout in a year or less, while only 23 percent support the policy of President Bush, their commander in chief. [N. Kristof op-ed., Feb. 28; Lemoyne-Zogby poll] This highlights another paradox: while our goal is to protect and extend democracy in the world, the military instrument is quintessentially undemocratic. Those in service obey superior officers, who do not take polls. It should be no surprise that post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide, alcoholism, and antisocial behaviors will occur among veterans, all the more in a war clouded by doubt. In our everyday work, mental health professionals address human conflicts resulting from paradoxes like these, including the legendary “catch-22.” The folly of war, this one in particular, is coming home to roost on the couch.
E. James Lieberman, M.D
Clinical Professor of psychiatry, George Washington University School of Medicine.
Re "FBI Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show" (Dec. 20, 2005), I propose that those who ordered the surveillance of environmental, animal rights groups and the Catholic Worker, be immediately suspended and ordered to spend a year's community service feeding the poor and clothing the homeless as Catholic Worker houses do around the nation.
Sincerely,
Murray Polner
The fine letter of Eric Margolis, noting the absence of"oil" from the reviews in"Special Issue: Iraq" inspires another: Absence of the phrase"International Law" from the same set of reviews, and (very likely) from the books reviewed and from the letters published (Book Review Nov. 30) is likewise a"Symptom of Denial" regarding the probable violation of the United Nations Charter perpetrated by invading Iraq.
Howard N Meyer
Early in World War II, Edward R. Murrow was deeply and emotionally committed to American support of the embattled British. This influenced his dramatic CBS rooftop broadcasts from London during the Nazi bombing. As Neal Gabler writes ["Good Night, and the Good Fight," Op-Ed, October 9], Murrow "[held] out his microphone so that listeners could hear the explosions during the London Blitz."
There is more to this than Gabler reports. In his landmark study, Documentary Expression and Thirties America [Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1986 (1973), p 89], William Stott writes of Murrow:
"He told his wife in a later note that he had broken network rules and run the transcribed sound of a bomb falling nearly on mike, because he wanted 'pretty strong meat' to 'take the heart out of a few people' listening; he wanted to shake his audience, wake them up."
This hardly detracts from Murrow's heroism in standing up to McCarthy. But it does raise important questions about journalistic ethics and the limits of advocacy journalism.
Jesse Lemisch
Professor Emeritus of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY
It throws light on an extremely important issue that the participants -- including leading senators --have failed thus far adequately to explain or emphasize.
The Meese movement's use of the word "originalism" arose from its dissatisfaction with the judges who had brought about the revival and return to the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment's promises of Equal Protection, and Due Process of Law and its safeguard (textually provided for) against denial by the states of the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States.
Forgotten illustrations of the drift of the Meese movment were President Reagan's speech declaring the unamended Constitution of 1787 itself to be a "Bill of Rights." In accord with that, the 1987 centennial celebrations omitted to teach about the contribution of the first ten and the Civil War Amendments (13, 14, 15) to the transformation if the 1787 Constitution to a "Peoples' Constitution", once the twentieth amendment was added.
Howard N Meyer
The writer is author of The Amendment that Refused to Die, a history of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thomas Friedman's "big picture" analysis of the Spanish vote is awfully convenient: he expands the frame just far enough in the direction that he wants it to go. Ignoring the "little pictures" in favor of a convenient single cause is bad logic.
Sure, terrorists can claim that the Spanish vote was a victory. That doesn't make them, or Friedman, right. The terrorists were not going to give up if the Spanish people voted to retain their lying, unrepresentative government. No, they were going to bomb something else, in Spain or elsewhere. The terrorists are not political hacks: they are implacable murderers who work on their own timetable and for their own reasons, and only by dealing with them directly, instead of getting sidetracked with "with us or against us" squabbles, will the problem of terrorism abate.
Jonathan Dresner, Ph.D.
I am seriously considering changing my name to Abraham H. Foxman, since that is apparently the only way I can get a letter published in the New York Times. A quick check of your search engine reveals that since 1996 Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, has had twenty-three of his letters published. The gist of many of these missives has been to challenge as anti-Semitic virtually all criticisms of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. In the meantime, I myself have written at least a dozen letters to your paper - many of them highly critical of Israel - and you have not seen fit to print a single one! My suggestion is you make Mr. Foxman a regular columnist. That will both formalize his relationship with the Times and open up some room in the letters column for the rest of us.
Jonathan Karp (though maybe not for long)
Mr. Karp is Assistant Professor, Judaic Studies/ History, Binghamton University,
SUNY
If one of his employees disagrees, that is between employee and employer, and if necessary, a court, to determine if a contract was breached. If outsiders disagree, we can disseminate local lists of where not to shop, and are perfectly free to shop elsewhere ourselves. The answer is not legislation, forcing our morals on others, but patronage, noncoercively using our principles to induce change.
Jonathan Rick
Postscript (4/29/05): See this debate between David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, and Judy Waxman, Vice President and Director of Health and Reproductive Rights at the National Women's Law Center.
In his questioning of attorneys in the cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, Justice Antonin Scalia reveals a deeply disconcerting view of the very essence of America's system of government. In court, he called the Ten Commandments "a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God."
Justice Scalia may believe that, but it is not a matter of fact. Indeed, his view represents a profound misreading of our history. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson addressed the issue directly when he wrote that "Governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It is important to note that at the time, the founders were embarked on the radical course of rejecting monarchy with its rule by divine right and creating a government explicitly based on a different principle.
Besides, if governments derive their authority from God, how could we ever alter or abolish them?
Prof. Chris Daly
Boston University
Professor Posner's column ("All Justice, Too, is Local," December 30) lards with purported facts, his negative opinions about the International Court of Justice. (ICJ)
It is a simple fact, albeit not very well known here, that in the aftermath of the decision in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ emerged from decades of neglect and has had a full calendar since 1987.
That change in the attitude of the world (minus U.S. administrations) has been widely credited for its having shown that "even a superpower is not above the law."
And that the Court's judgment in Nicaragua had some merit can be seen in the ill-remembered fact that the conduct of the U.S. had (prior to judicial review) been condemned as unlawful by Senators Goldwater and Moynihan.
Howard N Meyer
Re "0n a Deadly Day in Iraq, Republicans Step up Debate 0ver Whether Rumsfeld Should Stay" (Dec.20): In addition to justifiably criticizing Donald Rumsfeld for his role in the Iraqi debacle, perhaps the Defense Secretary's critics (including Democrats) should also find the courage to censure neoconservatives who dreamed up the invasion of Iraq and remain unaccountable for the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths their imperial fantasies have caused.
Murray Polner
The election return was not a disappointment to those who believe in Law and Order globally. International law could not win. When asked about legality of limiting Iraq reconstruction contracts to "coalition" states, the President said: "International Law? I better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."
When asked about Secretary General Annan's view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, Senator Kerry said "I don't know what the law or legalities are."
No contest.
Howard N Meyer
Home | Free Newsletter | Submissions | Advertising | Donations | Archives | Internships | About Us | Privacy Policy | FAQs | Contact Us | All Articles
Paid Advertisements
Find jobs Millsberry Find jobs Web Design Forums Business Gifts 
DHgate.com
http://www.schoolexpress.com| http://www.sciencereviewgames.com| http://www.JoanneJacobs.com|