OUTLINE
1) PREFACE
2) GUNS OR BUTTER VS. MISSILES AND MARGARINE…………………………
A. Professional Hitman……………………………………..…………..…
B. Everyone’s gotta be somewhere!………………………………………
C. UNCRDD………………………………………………………………
D. Tomb of the Unknown Civilian ………………………………………..
E. Language and Identity…………………………………………………..
Pope couplet
F. A Few Good Men………………………………………………………
G. …but only god can trim a tree………………………………………….
3) THE SCIENTIFIC EUNUCH…………………………………………………...
A. Mensch or Macho?……………………………………………………..
B. See you in church!………………………………………………………
C. How many human rights can you afford?……………………………….
D. Pax Americana or Pox Americana? …………………………………….
E. Heroes and Heretics1. …………………………………………………..
F. Disinformation and disunderstanding. ………………………………….
G. Nuclear Insecurity. …………………………………………………….
H. God can’t change history. Historians can. …………………………….
I. “Nature may be complicated, but she’s not malicious.”……………….
J. Turning Habermas on His Head ………………………………………
K. Reverse military spin-off ………………………………………………
L. Socialistic Militarism…………………………………………………
M. Transmigration of Souls……………………………………………….
N. Basic Principles of Governance ……………………………………
O. Reform vs. Reformism……………………………………………….
P. Make Love, not War!”…………………………………………………
Q. Piece on Earth!”………………………………………………………
Round Young Virgin.
1
1
2
2
4
4
9
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
25
26
26
28
31
31
31
……………………………….149
A P ROFESSIONAL H ITMAN BEFORE THE UN
UNVEILS HIS MODEST PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD;
A NATIONAL INQUIRER APPROACH TO UN REFORM & MISCELLANEA
PREFACE
Because of the high density of experiences, some bizarre, many intense, including
penitentiary time, military experience with a never ending list of anecdotes, hobnobbing
with test pilots, generals, and corporate heads, that I had already accumulated by my early
twenties, I started hearing suggestions that I should write an autobiography. I thought,
1
This is the title of a fascinating and informative book by Barrows Dunham.
1
then and since, that I am not adequately significant to warrant the effort. I also thought
that I had not accumulated enough life experience. As a septuagenarian who has grown
old but not up, who that has changed. Personal insignificance and individual
exceptionalism can be compensated for by interesting, hopefully profound, ideas and
worthy goals, like the desire to raise civilization to a higher lever through the
establishment of world rule of law, which could be intertwined with narrative for that
personal touch. Unlike my other dry academic writing, the Chair of the Orange County
World Federalists requested that I write a book about UN reform “that people would
actually read”. That lead-in human-interest journalistic style has always aggravated me. I
have to scan down to the middle of the article to reach the meat. Introducing a subject by
a personal case-in-point in order to generate interest in the content has been widely
adopted as a tactic to entice readers, but I find it an obstacle to the content.
Then how does one begin? “Start at the beginning and continue until you reach
the end. Then quit”, said the Queen in Alice in Wonderland. To hell with it. Let’s start in
the middle and wander around conversation style, like they do in those bumbling “stream
of consciousness” novels.
I. GUNS OR BUTTER VS. MISSILES AND MARGARINE.
A. Professional Hitman.
I only whacked that stubborn mule across the nose with a 2x4 to get its attention.
Now I can explain the book title2. A retired widower Navy officer married a widow,
moved in across the street from my house, and promptly held a yard sale in the process of
combining two households. I already had too much yard3, but he had a picnic table for
sale that later adorned my front yard. Now a garage sale would have been more useful. I
don’t have a garage. I was grandfathered in without one—even before I became one--to
the chagrin of code enforcement. [(too many ones?) If I replace the first “one” by
“garage”, the implication would be that I became a garage instead of a grandfather.]
The retired officer wore a navy blue baseball cap with the name of the aircraft
carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson CVN-70 on it4. My house is hidden by a wall of vegetation [to
separate myself from noisy cars, not from people], and appears sufficiently foreboding to
have deterred all trick-or-treaters for more than three decades. He gave me what appeared
to be an exceptionally wide berth and seemed especially inquisitive about my work.
“Sir, What’s your line of work, sir?”
“I work at the university.”
“Sir, What do you do there, sir?”
2
Preliminary reviews indicate that I should also explain the reference to the mule. The story goes that the
owner of a stubborn mule was engaged in increasing abuse of a mule that refused to budge despite the
escalation of kicks in the posterior. A passerby intervened that it was not necessary, actually futile, to abuse
the poor animal, all one needed to do was to calmly talk to him and reason with him. The owner challenged
him to try it. He picked up a 2x4 and clouted the beast across the nose. The owner protested, “But you said
you were only going to talk to him!” “I am”, he replied, “but first I muat gain his attention!”
3 In the absence of my daughter to warn you, be advised of worse to come.
4 That part I am making up. I don’t remember exactly what was written on his cap, but how would you
know? Actually, that is what it says on my cap. During George I’s war against Iraq, while riding up an
elevator, a student noticed my cap and commented, “Good Show!” He seemed disappointed when I
indicated the unusual items that were available in thrift stores.
2
“I’m a professor-- It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it!”
“Sir, You’re a professor, sir?--Well sir, what’s your name, sir?”
“Dittmann, Roger Dittmann.”
He appeared to sigh with relief. The “sirs” reduced frequency.
“Oh! Professor Dittmann!”, he exclaimed. “I misunderstood. When we moved in
here I thought that the previous tenants had said that a ‘professional hitman’ lived across
the street.”
B. Everyone’s gotta be somewhere!
As the “Professional Hitman”, I was waiting my turn to address the UN assembly-the Committee of the Whole of the UN General Assembly Conference on the
Relationship between Disarmament and Development (UNCRDD). “Everyone's gotta be
somewhere”, I thought, “but how did I get here?” How many times in life have variations
of that theme occurred to me? --reminding me that life is what happens while one is
planning something else. I first heard that phrase from Jon5, my playboy college
roommate. Jon’s parents had dropped the silent “h” from his name. Dittmann has both a
silent t and a silent n, as far as pronunciation in English is concerned. When one of our
staff physicists, Jeff Cady, asked me the proper spelling of my name for the Physics
Department bulletin board [because the silent letters tend to be omitted] I added a silent
“3”. For years now I have been listed as “Professor Ditt3mann”. [Remember, the “3” is
silent.] This maneuver has since transmographied into computer and internet passwords.
Jon was in a sorority house in the wee hours of the morning, in violation of strict
house rules. When the housemother was heard approaching, he ducked into a closet. With
uncanny perception, the housemother ripped open the closet door and confronted him
standing there stiff and frozen. “What are you doing in there?” According to the report
from his girlfriend, he struggled for an explanation, then finally stammered
apologetically, “We..we..well, everyone’s got to be somewhere!” True, but standing in
front of the UN wasn’t the only time that reply occurred to me--life is like that-exceptionally true in my case—but all the more interesting and adventurous as a result.
Despite my romantic fantasies, I didn’t marry my high school sweetheart, live in that
bungalow with roses on the white picket fence, have two kids—a boy, then a year later, a
girl, lead a settled life as a stable pillar of the community. While I wanted to have my
cake, I also wanted to eat it. I also wanted to explore the world--its geography, its
languages, its cultures, its ideas, its people. I also entertained fantasies about having a
girlfriend from every culture in the world who would open the window to her culture and
language to me.
C. “Uncrud”.
I looked over the delegates representing all of the governments of the world-Well, not quite all. Some smaller countries suffered financial difficulty in maintaining
representation at the UN, and the government of my own country, the U.S. government,
i.e. the “President”6, ordered a boycott of the conference. Reagan argued that there existed
5
He appealed to me not to mention him in the book. I told him that he is a central figure, but promised only
to use his first name.
6 If I can approximately reconstruct the way I heard it: FDR proved that one could make a career out of
being President; Truman proved that anyone could become President; Ike proved that a military man could
best warn us about the military/industrial complex; Kennedy proved that the Presidency could be
3
no relationship between disarmament and development; therefore the conference was
pointless. The spin his PR people put on it argued that development should not be "held
hostage" to disarmament. However, five U.S. Presidential candidates attended as
observers. Reagan's position reminded me of when he blamed trees for smog (some do
produce chemicals associated with air pollution) and declared, “When you’ve seen one
(tree, that is, not bush), you’ve seen them all!”7, and confirmed my original assessment of
him.8 Rarely since LBJ has anyone I voted for been elected, and, in retrospect I deeply
regret that vote for LBJ. Goldwater, the “warmonger”, according to his Democratic
opposition, could never have prosecuted the war against Viet Nam to prevent the ugly
face of democracy from emerging9 as tragically as LBJ, the “peace” candidate. Similarly,
no Democrat could have played the “China card” against the USSR as effectively as
Nixon did, taking advantage of his anti-communist credentials. That doesn’t stop the
media from describing politicians I voted against as being my representative, whether I
like it or not. In a democracy, people would be allowed to choose their own
representatives. Instead of being assigned a geographical political identity, people would
be allowed to choose their own political identity--vocational, ideological, religious,
environmental, feminist, parental, trade unionist, whatever. Politicians on the make have
fallen in public esteem. In a numismatocracy politicians perforce must cater to
concentrations of wealth or be a concentration of wealth. Some politicians are so “stupid”
glamorous; LBJ proved that it was dangerous to have a President; and Reagan proved that we didn’t need a
President.
7 After all of the complaints about sex and violence on TV, the debates were restricted to “Bush and Gore”.
8
I vaguely recalled a casual unimpressive conversation in front of a Sunset Strip
nightclub about unions, long before he became a political candidate. A more telling
encounter occurred a few years later when his wealthy backers were grooming him for
public office. While I was teaching at Immaculate Heart College his handlers arranged for
him to develop his political skills by speaking to a group of about fifteen of us about his
theory of government, which, in a nutshell, was that the only legitimate function of
government was to protect people's rights. I asked him how we then could provide for
many of the services we expect and receive from government--roads, welfare, education,
defense, etc. He only answered the part about roads: Roads must be provided to protect
the rights of farmers lest motorists drive across farmers' fields to reach their destinations.
I felt that my time could be better spent elsewhere, and left. I was taken by his
personality, spirit, and stage presence belying his reputation as a B actor, but I could
never take him seriously again, although obviously many others did as he earned his
reputation satirized by his critics as “The Great Prevaricator” during his “Reign of Error”.
9
Of all of the military victims [despite whatever enthusiasm they may have felt for the duty, they suffered
and died, and were manipulated and exploited] who killed and fought in Viet Nam, I have only encountered
one who was aware of the 1954 Geneva Accords and the promise of internationally supervised free
elections. [Ike estimated that Ho Chi Minh would gain some 85% of the vote. In order to prevent the
election, he sent in the troops and a puppet Catholic government in a Buddhist country, headed by Ngo
Dinh Diem, who was recruited from a Maryknoll monastery.] That was the retiring Commandant of the El
Toro Marine Air Base. I was invited to attend a reception in his honor in conjunction with the closing of the
base. When I asked him how he felt about that, he quite correctly replied that the military takes orders from
the politicians, but I am confident that he didn’t inform his troops of the motive of their mission.
4
that they’re laughing all the way to the bank. What can be said for the people who vote
for them? The “evil of two lessers” prevails.
Not much concrete progress could be expected from the conference without the
participation, much less the cooperation of the world's superpower, and it indeed became
a tediously repetitious and boring conference because of the felt necessity of each
delegate to repeatedly refute Reagan's position. Beginning with the opening address by
UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar, essentially every delegate felt compelled to argue
that there indeed was a relationship between disarmament and development, seeking ever
more dramatic and colorful ways to contrast military expenditures with social/economic
developmental needs. There was some hypocrisy in the presentations--the same nations
that met in New Delhi requesting $30 thousand million for development were themselves
spending $90 thousand million on the military!
How many different ways can the contrast between guns and butter be posed? -One B2 bomber is equivalent to how many schools? One trident submarine is equivalent
to how many tractors? One aircraft carrier is equivalent to how many health clinics and
lives saved?
D. The Tomb of the Unknown Civilian.
The mention of aircraft carriers reminded me of the loss of my mother. She was
ill and died of kidney disease during the time there was a shortage of dialysis machines,
when “God committees” were established to ration out life to those patients who were
given access to the machines, and to doom the rest. My mother was doomed. I recalled
the house, I recalled the room, I recalled the TV set, I recalled the documentary which
compared the cost of one aircraft carrier to the cost of providing dialysis machines to all
of the US kidney patients, which would make the “death committees” unnecessary.
Water under the bridge now for my mother, but the issue remains--quality (and even
quantity) of life, vs. militarism. That is a compelling personal reason for being here.
Perhaps I was subconsciously avenging her death by trying to avoid sacrificing other
victims to military ambition. I remember visiting her in her hospital room on her
deathbed. I tried to communicate with her. I thought it might be meaningful to her to hear
that I was successfully completing my doctorate in nuclear physics. She was very toxified.
She didn't respond. I don't think she understood. Perhaps she didn't even hear me. The
direct victims sacrificed on the altar of militarism due to the violence of war are obvious;
the indirect victims of preparation for war--from pollution, fear and insecurity, loss of
freedom and civil liberties, and reduction in the quality of life, even the loss of life, due to
diversion of the economy from health care, education, social services and development to
militarism are little commemorated. Even massive victims of “collateral damage”, as the
military so euphemistically describe it, receive little attention. It is not as dramatic as the
direct violence of war.
I attended an environmental fair and inspected a huge display depicting an
environmental disaster--the water supply aquifer had been contaminated. The exhibit was
very detailed, providing chemical assays, suggested treatment options, cost estimates,
time dependent displays of stratified geographic penetration. One piece of information I
could not find displayed was, “Who dumped this poison into our water supply?” I asked
the attendant. This was one of the stereotypical images of terrorism usually designed to
gain our acceptance of loss of freedoms for the sake of security. Somehow I was not
5
surprised to hear that the perpetrators were noble self-proclaimed military patriots who
pretend to defend the country but who have done more damage to our country than all of
the saboteurs in history in the process. Defenders like that obviate the necessity of
enemies (although some corporations are providing stiff competition for the military for
the title of maximum despoilers of our country). I witnessed that cavalier behavior as a
fifteen year old recruit in the California Air National Guard. I noted similar behavior in
industry, especially when secrecy was available as a cover. It soured me on both the
military and corporations. It is not my only complaint. Of course the environmental
destruction wreaked by that pretender to socialism, the USSR, was tragic.
I am a strong critical supporter of the UN, not a cheerleader. It is a necessary
institution in the kind of world I would like to build. To misappropriate a phrase from
Paul Feyerabend10, “It is the best lousy system we have.” How had I come to this
position? To these values in general? To my Weltanschauung and philosophy? Was it my
peculiar background, which led me to focus on the UN far more than most scientists, not
to mention political scientists?
E. Language and Identity.
Protagonists of militarism call it “defense11”--a good PR ploy, now that
euphemisms dominate, but I prefer more accurate language. I remember when the
Pentagon was built for the War Department. When I hear arguments to reduce the
“defense” budget, I retort that defense could hardly be reduced any further. General
Nutting was charged with continental defense. He was assigned a small administrative
budget and no (unnecessary) combat troops. The military recognize strategic reality. They
may be profligate with money, but given oceans East and West, and weak and friendly
neighbors North and South, they don’t waste it on unnecessary national defense, which, in
any case, has been entrusted to the Coast Guard and the INS.
The Department of “Defense” could be renamed The Department of Agriculture
without changing its imperial “force projection” [another euphemism for “aggression”]
strategy. Even progressive, anti-war colleagues on the SCFS [Southern California
Federation of Scientists] Weapons Research Committee would persistently refer to the
number of nukes “we” had. I felt compelled to respond, “I don’t know how many ‘you’
have, but ‘we’ don’t have any. Which side are you on?” On the other hand, when I hear
Ramsay Clark refer to "what 'we' are doing to the children of Iraq", my impulse to correct
him is tempered by the consideration that using "we" may be more effective and
motivating than "they". I opposed the invasion of Viet Nam before it was launched,
before Ramsay Clark became U.S. Attorney General. I opposed it at rallies, attended
meetings opposing the sanctions, went through bankruptcy after guaranteeing bail bonds
for political prisoners that defaulted, etc., and feel that I have done my share in opposing
what "they" are doing, but, of course, I could have done and could do much more. I didn’t
do jail time. My taxes are being used to abuse children. I could resist more. If I thought
that "we" were doing this instead of "they", would I feel more moral responsibility. The
complaint I encounter is that I feel too much responsibility. “Get a life!” This is my life.
10
Professor of Philosophy (of science) at UC Berkeley, commenting on the scientific establishment in
Against Method.
11 There were many in the War Department who opposed the change thinking that a change in name might
cause a change in orientation and mission. Their fears were not realized.
6
With the time we have available to us, what more fulfilling, rewarding way to use it. How
could life ever be more meaningful or purposeful? One has a greater responsibility for
one's own actions than for other peoples' actions. People end up in jail, or dead, that way.
Am I taking the easy way out? --Yes. Am I doing enough? --As long as the bulk of my
life's energies are devoted to combating maltreatment of people, as long as I "live simply
that others may simply live" and reject self indulgence, I can resist becoming a martyr--or
a public spectacle, and continue to enjoy the blessings of life in reasonably good
conscience.
Identity is of fundamental importance. I may support the concept of a family of
humanity, but I distinguish perpetrators from victims, exploiters from exploitees, bosses
from workers, and, in each case, support the latter. Tribalism, nationalism, have
characteristics of religious identities--sacred symbols and icons (flags, emblems,
insignia,...); conversions (naturalization); sacred songs and rituals (anthems); blind
loyalty and commitment (allegiance); prophets, labels, clichés, and slogans--“freedom”
(To do what to whom?), confused with “democracy” (which is used by the corporate
media as synonymous with the right to make a profit from workers’ labor, not its root
meaning, “power to the people”). It results from emotional indoctrination, not
ratiocination. This tribalism is the most effective, subtle, and unchallenged form of social
conditioning (“brainwashing”, if you will). Without it war would not be possible. [“What
if they gave a war and nobody came?”] People, starting at the youngest most
impressionable age, commonly pledge allegiance to flags, religions, and governments,
later to parties, instead of to principles or to fellow workers, or to morality, or to ethics, or
to peace and justice, or to protecting the habitat. Identity and loyalty to some, usually
one, institution(s) is emphasized to the neglect of others. Allegiance to the Metropolitan
Sanitation District, or Unified School District, or state, or city, or neighborhood, or planet
is never pledged. Not being a “trekkie”, I don’t know if a pledge of loyalty to the galaxy
was ever introduced. The politics of exclusion are followed. It is not enough to make
foreign enemies. Domestic ones need to be created by making invidious distinctions, not
between exploiter and exploited, but, for example, between religions. Let’s declare this a
Christian nation. That will take care of those Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and
Buddhists, and secular humanists [like me] who object to human sacrifice to theological
ends. The affront to pro forma American ideals is direct. “Jesus is Lord”. So much for
democracy12.
The “us” vs. “them” ideological battle, if not the war, has been lost. The war is
never lost. Workers have lost major battles recently, but the war is never lost as long as
capitalism requires workers. Class conflict will persist as long as class differences exist. I
write this as the President/CEO of a high tech wireless corporation. As such I am aware
of my fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, under capitalist law, to maximize profits.
Milton Friedman’s “University of Chicago boys” even argue that my responsibility is to
break the law [Don’t get caught, or, if you do make sure that the fine or punishment is
In college, Anatole France’s Revolt of the Angels strongly influenced me. It read like Dante, and I took it
to be similar in style, gendre and intent, until the message became clear toward the end: The Devil, having
accumulated enough weaponry to overthrow God, desists for fear of losing his soul. Instead of being a
democratically elected Devil, he would become a dictatorial tyrant just like God were he to assume the
mantel of the same omnipotence.
12
7
less than the profits realized. The business section of the paper nowadays reads like a
police blotter. Like many other corporations, however, I prefer stock and stock options to
compensate employees, not only as a motivator, but to move toward the concept of a
workers’ collective. I am just another worker in the enterprise. We just have separate
tasks. Any reference to me as “boss” meets the rebuttal that I am just the coordinator.
Corporations may be useful management tools to satisfy the needs of society, but they
should not be allowed to takeover. “People over profits” should be more than a motto.
Corporations should be required to justify regular renewal of their charters as serving the
public interest. Of course, if one state, or even one country attempted to do this
unilaterally, they can now more easily take advantage of the free flow of capital beyond
national sovereignty that they have been establishing through organizations like the
WTO. I support globalization as a necessary step in developing the concept of the family
of humanity, but not corporate globalization at the expense of democracy. Now that these
global institutions have been established, let’s not dismantle them, let’s democratize
them.
Daniel Singer describes the ideology with which we are incessantly bombarded as
“TINA”—There Is No Alternative. In Candide,Voltaire satirized Leibniz and others who
argued, as Alexander Pope put it,
“All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
“All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
“All discord, harmony, not understood;
“All partial evil, universal good:
“And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
“One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right.”
------[An Essay on Man: Epistle I]
Like the pessimist who agreed with the optimist in concluding that this is the best
of all possible worlds, is this the best to be expected, or is there great potential for
improvement?
During the period when we seized and opened the university after Reagan
declared it closed [to prevent protests against the invasion of Cambodia], I rebuffed
solicitations by irresponsible so-called “liberals13” to condemn the tactics used by victims
to fight back. They would complain that we had trespassed or breached public order.
Their eyes would glaze over with incomprehension when I would retort, "But they're
dropping napalm on us!" I still remember paging through *Felix Greene's book Viet
Nam! Viet Nam! immediately before speaking at a campus rally. I encountered a picture
of a man holding his child, who was about the same age as my four-year-old son. His son
had been napalmed. The rage I would feel were I to hold my son in the same condition
rose through me, filling me with boundless indignation. Sometimes the explanation that
13
I find the common liberal/conservative dichotomy quite inadequate. I aspire to be both liberal [open to
ideas, generous, humanitarian, democratic, supporting freedom and liberty] and conservative [favoring
investment over spending, conserving our habitat, looking before we leap, living within our means, making
change carefully and deliberately], not going out on a limb hoping that there will always be a technological
fix, but also radical [solving problems by attacking their roots], and progressive [improving society and the
world]. I seek both the rule of law and justice. Even the left-right dichotomy negates the complexity and
variety of opinion and interests. It distresses me when irresponsible right wingers are referred to as
“conservative”, contrary to their position and actions.
8
they broke “our” windows during Kristalnacht ["Crystal Night"] in Nazi Germany would
help make the point. They broke the windows of “us people” (Yes, they happened to be
Jewish people, but nonetheless people!, like us, fellow members of the family of
humanity). It goes to one's sense of identity and solidarity. The important distinction is
not Jews vs. Gentiles, but Victims vs. Oppressors. We should care for and defend all
members of the family of humanity [without being species chauvinists].
Sometimes even critics refer to “The Department of Defense”, implicitly
advancing the ideology which tries to portray the military as defensive, instead of
dedicated to the dispatch of death, dismemberment, and destruction in foreign “force
projection”. Changing the name from the candid and accurate WWII term, The War
Department, was a deliberate and distressingly successful and pervasive PR ploy. It is
said that the best defense is a good offense, but that confuses the very real distinction
between them, for which distinguishing terminology was originally developed. It is true
that one needs defense. There are communities which need to be protected from police
forces which may indeed “serve and protect” (the motto of the Los Angeles Police
Department) some interests, but which often act as occupying forces in poor
communities. We need to be defended from the military “protection racket” just as
merchants require defense from hoodlums. We even need defense from the Army Corps
of Engineers with its “beaver complex” which converts streams and riverbeds into
concrete culverts with chain link and barbed wire in working class communities. In
wealthy communities they are converted into recreation areas, golf courses, parks, and
lakes. The military and the police “protect and serve”, but not uniformly. They play a
class role. The military protects the profits of the rich from the aspirations of the poor
globally. The police perform that function domestically. As Gore Vidal has noticed, the
government is marshalling its military and police forces, its surveillance and repressive
legislation in preparation for a confrontation with the people when their tolerance level is
exceeded. People are prepared to tolerate more when confronted with overwhelming
force, and have to tolerate more if their capacity to resist is eroded by infiltration,
surveillance, agent provocateurs, and repressive legislation. This can be resisted
domestically, but there is potential for the global conscience to be mobilized through the
UN to aid people facing repressive governments.
Human rights abuses today remain severe. There even seems to have been
retrogression--an increase in hate crimes and atrocities, especially in areas subject to
recent political turmoil, despite the best efforts and intentions of many dedicated human
rights activists and organizations. It is submitted that current strategies are faulty.
The family of humanity is too abstract to motivate many people to be concerned
about victimization of members of their "family of humanity", so concern is developed
within smaller affinity groups whose identity usually is "ethnic", but may be religious, or
occupational, or other. Victims without membership in an affinity group without good
connections, influence, or power generally suffer in silence, without notice, without
remedy. Attention to particular violations tends to be haphazard, on an ad hoc case-bycase basis, with little attention devoted to the process by which cases are selected (or
ignored). Human rights campaigns have been subject to hypocritical political abuse in
order to advance the cause of special interests. Minor victims may achieve celebrity
status, while unnamed, unknown, ignored; common people suffer torture and mutilation
9
before ending in a mass grave. H.G. Wells opined that the masses of common peasants
killed during massive campaigns to which history has paid scant attention probably
suffered at much in their deaths as the few aristocrats who died in the French Revolution
during the highly publicized "reign of terror".
F. A Few Good Men.
The "military mind" is only one of many possible and current Weltanshauungen. I feel
that as a result of my experiences I understand it to a degree, at least from the bottom up.
“Esprit de corps” is a form of identity. I joined the Air National Guard for a three year
hitch when I was fifteen. It was extended to four years when Truman launched his “police
action” against Korea. I admit that I bought his spin at the time. I didn’t realize until years
later that the America that I grew up in was being dramatically changed to a permanently
militaristic “National security state”. Feeling nostalgic for the pre-militarism days seems
to qualify me as a “reactionary” in addition to the radical, liberal, revolutionary,
progressive, conservative adjectives that also apply.
Upon completion of my sophomore year as a sergeant my fifteen year old military
enthusiasm had become nineteen year old disillusion and disaffection. The irresponsible
dumping of toxic waste, the profligate use of taxpayer money stripped away any illusions
about military patriotism. It seemed as oxymoronic as “military intelligence”.
I was taking 20 1/2 units in college. I survived the semester and tried to continue
with summer school classes. I became so fatigued that I would place my head between
two alarm clocks. Eventually, I still could not wake up for class. My grandmother had
saved enough money to survive one semester without me working much. Finances ran
low and I found my first regular job as an engineering draftsman at Lockheed at, what to
me seemed an unbelievable salary. How could anyone be worth that much money? Even
if I worked around the clock how could I deserve that much money? It has always been
difficult for me to accept the benefits of the industrial revolution. Intellectually, I can
understand how consumer goods can be inexpensively mass-produced with the aid of
machines. So pencils, bottles, etc. become throwaways, but I would consider how
difficult it would be for me to make one, so perfect, by myself.
What a sense of relief I felt. The system had let me in. I could earn a living and
survive. I was naive, I thought the alternative was starvation. I hadn’t even considered
welfare. What if I hadn’t been able to find an employer who expected to profit from my
labor? By experience I was learning how the system worked. It wasn’t the first lesson.
In the second half of my freshman year the responsibility of supporting my
grandparents was thrust upon me. My grandfather had suffered a heart attack, and for
some reason, benefits were denied or delayed. There was no help from my mother who
was getting a divorce from her test pilot husband. I worked over 70 hours/week as a
“temporary substitute” in the Post Office [not just a “substitute”, but a “temporary
substitute”. Could anyone feel less secure?]. Dan and I worked 7 days/week from 2pm to
sometimes as late as 3am [however long it required to sort the mail]. The day we quit, we
were driving west on Sherman Way and exulted over seeing a sunset for the first time in
months, “Wow, look at that sunset!” Before hiring in at the Post Office, I had already
enrolled in 20 ½ units in college. I survived the semester and tried to continue with
summer school classes. I became so fatigued that I would place my head between two
alarm clocks. Eventually, I still could not wake up for class, not even with two alarm
10
clocks in my ears. My grandmother had saved enough money to survive one semester
without me working much. Finances ran low and I found my first regular job as an
engineering draftsman at Lockheed at, what to me seemed an unbelievable salary. How
could anyone be worth that much money? Even if I worked around the clock how could I
deserve that much money? It has always been difficult for me to accept the benefits of the
industrial revolution. Intellectually, I can understand how consumer goods can be
inexpensively mass-produced with the aid of machines. So pencils, bottles, etc. become
throwaways, but I would think about how difficult it would be for me to make one, so
perfect, by myself.
Lockheed transferred me to the research lab. It was only 45hr/week, but it was a day shift. I had to
attend night school. By attending every night I competed 12 units in three hour classes that, after a nine hour
work day and commuting, seemed to pass excruciatingly slow during which I tried various agonizing but
successful techniques to stay awake . This was enough to qualify for a college deferment. I took three more
units in summer night school. The next semester I transferred to UC Santa Barbara , which accepted 64
transfer units [the maximum allowable—my lifeguard course wasn’t transferred].
I quit my military job at Lockheed and rode my motorcycle into Santa Barbara.
Look out, town, here I (this egomaniac) come! I worked first in a gas station, then as a
tree topper, one summer on heat seeking missiles (Sparrow) at Pt. Mugu, then for the
Bureau of Reclamation calculating the amount of water that Lake Cachuma was going to
hold as a function of water level when the dam was completed. I tutored children of
doctors at the hospital for my dinner. There were some frugal times. When I couldn’t
afford textbooks professors loaned them to me. I never thought of myself as homeless,
but I slept under bushes at East Beach, in fields, in the dark room. My friend Sid sneaked
me into his fraternity until I was discovered and ejected. I couldn’t afford 10 cents for a
beer at Tyrol’s, a quaint dance hall where I did my homework, interrupted from time to
time for recreation. Walt, the owner, bought them for me. I thought it was to encourage
me to hang around, dance, and enliven the place, like a shill, until one night he switched
to whiskey and made a pass at me. No more free beer!
The Selective Service System retroactively changed the requirement for a college deferment to
15units/semester, and made it retroactive! Furthermore, summer school didn’t count, nor did making more
than normal progress toward a degree [64 accepted transfer units instead of 60], nor did four years in the
Air National Guard. I was sent a notice of eligibility (for conscription). I appealed and requested a personal
appearance, my geology major was officially listed as "physical science". The board asked what position I
played on the team. ("Left out", I thought, but explained the difference.) The appeal board voted against
me 3-0. I received a notice to report for a physical. I pleaded illness. They threatened to send the FBI after
me.
In the meantime I applied for an Air Force pilot training program which offered
deferments. I went to Castle Air Force Base for a few days of tests. While I was there, I
walked out of the dry cleaners to discover a parking ticket for parking in the wrong
direction of a one-way street. I checked the signs from the side street from which I had
entered. There were no signs posted. I didn't feel culpable, not yet. The ticket read,
"Report to the Provost Marshall's Office". What the hell was that? I was leaving
tomorrow. I would never do it again. I didn’t intend to park illegally in the first place. The
question was moot. I discarded the ticket. Little did I know I was being watched from the
Provost Marshall's office. They chased after me, sirens wailing, and hauled me before the
Provost Marshall. I was stoically prepared to take my lumps. I admitted that I shouldn't
have discarded the ticket, but explained that I hadn't intended to commit a parking
infraction. That was not sufficiently contrite. He threatened to take me behind the office
11
to beat me up, but relented, promising instead to have me disqualified (“washed out”, as
he put it) from the program. The Colonel in charge called my name before the assembled
applicants. "This is it", I thought. He led me over to a thick logbook where on each line
an aspiring applicant had signed in. "A lot of names there?" he asked. I responded that it
was an impressively long list--that I didn't realize how numerous applicants had been. I
wondered, “Where was this going?” "Well," he said, "you are the first to ever get a
perfect score!" He summoned the Provost Marshall and ordered him to apologize to me.
I accepted it graciously, actually with great embarrassment, contending that an apology
wasn't necessary, that I was culpable, that I shouldn't have discarded the ticket. The
Provost Marshal was out of line, but so was I. Just because I became a hot property due to
my perfect score he shouldn’t have been forced to grovel anymore than I should have.
While awaiting induction, a temporary deferment was provided. When the time
for induction arrived, I declined. I was reclassified. I appealed, requesting a personal
appearance, which caused another month of delay. I was again voted down 3-0, but now
an entire academic year had passed and I was eligible for a student deferment again. The
draft board was furious and frustrated.
After a long fight, I succeeded in graduating from college before I became perhaps
the only married father drafted in the Army for my second military experience. My
military career had almost taken a different turn. In high school I fell in love for the first
time--with Jean Maunu, a coquettish “forever in levis” sweetheart who was about a year
and a half younger [sweet sixteen] when I met her. She proudly proclaimed that her role
in life was to be a heartbreaker, like her aunt—and she was properly equipped to do it—
and well succeeded. We would sit all night in my car with steamed up windows gently
caressing each other’s lips. I can’t remember the first time we made love. I know that this
is supposed to be a dramatic and significant transition, and a memorable experience, but it
seamed a seamless transition as we grew together, like two souls in one person. We made
love at every opportunity. She often would be distraught afterwards, “I’m just a whore”,
she would proclaim in a self-flagellating, pathetic tone. I would reassure her that our love
was a divinely beautiful benediction. It certainly was to me. I would be transported to
another heavenly world feeling that I had touched eternity, if only for a moment. A
irresistible urge to express my feelings ushered flows of poetry. Mortality distressed me. I
wanted eternal love and expressed the anguish privately in writing14. Now I wonder
whether the difference was that I was in love and she was “in lust”.
14
Only a Memory
My love, though we’re together now,
And tenderly caress each vow,
The time shall come when we must part,
Searing pain to engulf one heart.
We may dream of an immortal trait,
Of eternity spent with our mate
But we shall never meet again,
Once we succumb to the fate of men.
I later was intrigued by poetry that I found incomprehensible. Was it profound or merely
obfuscatory and deliberately obscure? I experimented with the poem. Line by line, I composed cryptic,
succinct versions of the original text, then asked people their preference, starting with the cryptic version,
which most people preferred. It was more “poetic”.
12
I didn’t know if I would survive that first disappointment when she left me for a
previous boyfriend. I thought I would expire. Somehow I survived. and ever since have
felt confident in the power of time to heal, that I could weather any such storm. There was
a perverse pleasure in that feeling of abject misery, in the complete loss of ego. When I
was abandoning myself to that abysmal passion, the absolute bliss of the perfection of the
misery suffered interference. I would moan, “No body in the whole wide world loves
me.” Then a voice would remind me that my grandmother did. It is so crazy, but I felt that
my grandmother was interfering with my total abject misery. Somehow or other
satisfaction can be found even in misery. Even when one feels miserable, one can still be
grateful for the ability to feel. Like Sartre wrote about being restricted to that one small
isolated platform, deprived of all rewards, it still is preferable to “neant”-the nothingness.
When love hurts painfully, one can nevertheless be profoundly grateful for the ability to
feel, especially the privilege of being able to feel love, the most divine of all emotions.
If I showed how much in love I was, she ignored me. I discovered that she
couldn’t tolerate my indifference. She requested that I drive her home from a party [my
fondest wish]. Feigning indifference, en route I remained aloof and taciturn. She started
whimpering. The closer we approached her house the more pathetically she cried. I
stopped in front of her house with her wailing inconsolably. After a bit, not knowing what
to do next, I said to myself, “What the hell”, slammed into gear and took off. She was
better, but still whimpering. I kept on driving in silence, going straight down the road.
After a while we were in the mountains and the road came to an end. In those days before
bucket seats, in the era of one-armed driving, no one could cuddle and snuggle like she
could. I melted. I succumbed to the intensity of the love I felt for her
She turned over and we started making love again. We were interrupted by
flashlights—the police. It turned out that car strippers had been using this location and it
was under surveillance. They looked under her skirt I presume to confirm that she had no
pants on. They told me to sit in the police car while they both interrogated her. She was
hysterical. They kept it up. I finally approached them asking them to leave her alone, that
I would tell them everything. Knights slayed dragons to rescue their maidens. I was
confronted with the police. They came after me. I can’t remember throwing a punch, but I
wrestled them. I fell down and came up full of powdery dust. One got me in a headlock
and instructed me to p of it was ut my hands behind my back to be handcuffed. They
pushed into the back seat. While sitting there handcuffed with my legs sticking out of the
open door, one of them punched me on the ear. If I lost consciousness, it was fleeting. I
had a somewhat painful living reminder of that experience for years. I felt a strong
temptation to rampage against society and against all of the things wrong with it, but my
intellect prevailed over my primitive impulses. However, I felt that I could better
understand the rebel, having shared similar, but controlled impulses.
I spent five days in jail, and in the boredom, started smoking for the first time. We
would separate the paper from the foil, chew the paper, make a double sided bell from the
Elan too succinct.
Vow tenderly drink’t
Transient fickle joy,
Our love to destroy.
13
foil, insert the wad into the smaller bell and loft them against the high ceiling, where the
collection of silver bells gradually grew. I would have stayed there until trial, I guess. I
didn’t call anyone. I was going to face this on my own, but my mother tracked me down
and placed bail.
My stepfather’s attorney took my case. I had a pending appointment to West Point. The
judge [or the prosecutor, I didn’t understand the process] dismissed the charges in the
interest of my impending military career
My mother promoted West Point as the best education available. I did well in
Senator Knowland’s competitive exam, and examined their curriculum. The many
courses in Military Courtesy, etc., and the compulsory courses in engineering left little
room for electives. I found the curriculum distinctly unappealing. What finally
determined that I would not subject myself to the experience was when I heard about the
“square meals” in which the fork was required to move with right angle turns from plate
to mouth. I was only 18, but I thought that I was much too mature for West Point. I
withdrew my nomination. I have not revised my opinion.
The saga continues.
In basic training I observed the effective manipulative use of psychology. The
recruits were in transition to manhood. They were repeatedly told, in innumerable ways,
that same message as is summed up in the recruiting slogan “a few good men”. They
would become real men if they were obedient to authority, and exercised authority. The
drill instructors talked tough, denigrated women, and made threats that cowed the
recruits. They didn’t want to be called “pussies”. It worked with appalling success. My
brother-in-law, after completing basic training, responded that he would obey an order to
assassinate the President, despite my arguments that the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and the Nuremberg Principles required resistance to illegal orders. Years later, after
watching a documentary on how the Greek Generals recruited, selected and trained
torturers, I recalled the similarity with basic training.
Everyone, except me, complained about the food. After surviving on my own
cooking as a student, I was pleased by the variety of vegetables and entrees offered. The
army mess trays were something else. Inadvertent mixing between adjacent
compartments, coupled with inattentive and careless KP’s on the serving line resulted in
new combinations, like gravy Sundaes.
Basic training was somewhat demanding, but I quite enjoyed it. I would sneak
into the First Sargeant’s office to peek at the next day’s schedule. I skipped the boring
stuff on military courtesy, etc., but showed for the exciting things like the infiltration
course. Since I had won the company markmanship medal, I was selected for the
demonstration team. The troops were issued M1’s. We were issued BAR’s15 to make an
impression. I spent a great deal of time in the library studying, and even off base,
although we were restricted to the barracks. Every one else was afraid to leave, so it
didn’t seem necessary to check. Sometimes after the library closed, the troops were still
cleaning the commodes with toothbrushes and doing the nightly dusting of the rafters.
15
Browning Automatic Rifles
14
The intimidation was very successful. It is the classic “kicking order’. Dad can’t
speak up to the boss for fear of being fired. He takes it out on Mom. Junior is next in line,
followed by Fido. I have refused to be obsequious before authority, and try to express my
gratitude to waitresses, janitors, and others who provide services to me16.
We were required to identify our clothes with indelible ink. Troop command
wasn’t satisfied, at our own expense, on $78/month, we were expected to purchase a
special laundry kit, and blousing rubbers, and a special square fatigue cap, and contribute
to their chosen charity. I was the only one to demurr on all counts. At an assembly of the
entire company, the CO asked if anyone had not purchased a marking kit. I raised my
lonely hand. He admonished me that I would have to keep my clothes marked, which, I
responded, I had already done. Immediately, after collecting our pay, we were marched
over to the charity table to make our contribution. Before payroll, a group of us gathered
in the barracks and pledged not to contribute under coercion. I was the only one who
actually refused. The Executive Officer who was monitoring the contributions sent me to
the C.O. He asked me if making a contribution would not be a good way to redress the
fact that I was the only one to fail the recent inspection. [In my foot locker, under the
drawer on top (where we had to maintain toilets articles, all painted black, that could not
be used, on top of a white towel), there was visible a pair of red and white checkered
swim trunks among my white underwear.] I responded, “Not this way, sir!” He chased me
out of his office, past an astonished First Sargeant.
It was not my non-existent medical training, rather the lack of competition that
resulted in my being appointed company medic. One day I marched the sick role troops to
the infirmary. I had to wait for them to march them back. I didn’t go on sick role, but I
was shaking with severe chills. The troops had to make their own way back. A doctor
noticed me shivering in the waiting room and admitted me to the hospital for a two week
stay with virus pneumonia. I had almost completed basic training, but was recycled into
the following group.
After basic training I was assigned as an SPP [Scientific and Professional
Personnel] to the Army Chemical Center, Maryland. I saved my transport subsidy and
hitchhiked out from California. I had plenty of time, so I took rides wherever they went. I
travelled through picturesque communities in the Midwest and even in upstate New York.
The driver who picked me up in Maryland stopped for something to eat at a diner. Blacks
were waiting at the back door to buy something to eat. I was appalled. It was my first
experience with legal segregation.
G. ..but only god can trim a tree.
I am not afraid of work, not even hard physical work. Actually, I thrive on it. I
don’t think Manual Labor is a Mexican. I still use an Armstrong lawnmower. I’m a low
tech nuclear physicist. In the Army we were offered relief from KP if we would volunteer
to be nerve gas guinea pigs at Fort Detrick [with the assurance that the nerve gas caused
no permanent damage or residual effects]. Maybe so, but I had little trust in them, and
16
Once I noticed Dorothy Woolum, sometime Department Chair, compliment the
painters for markedly improving the appearance of the halls. I reproached myself for not
having remembered to do so.
15
was not all that anxious to avoid KP. Yes, it was hard work, from 4 am to about 8 pm, but
it was so much more work to try to avoid work. I tried it once. Time passed agonizingly
slowly. When I got back to work, I concentrated on the task at hand, and the time passed
smoothly.
I worked my way through college as a tree topper and enjoyed it thoroughly,
accumulating many memorable experiences, some tragic, when we would lose a member
of the crew. No fatalities, but a crew of seven lost more than seven in a year due to
accidents. The boss’ son fell on my first day of climbing. He apparently brushed against a
branch and opened the clip to his safety belt. He thought he was still tied in when he
leaned back to saw and fell, landing on his back across a brick wall. We thought he was
dead, but when we approached, he moaned, then complained that he was paralyzed. We
thought his back was broken. After about seven months in the hospital he essentially fully
recovered and was climbing again. He was an impressive guy, handsome as Errol Flynn,
built like the lumberjack he was, extremely bright and gentile, with a highly developed
conscience, a Quaker [like his father and older brother] who had served a year in jail for
being a conscientious objector, and became student body president at the college.
In the interest of safety, we only used hand saws while climbing. Vance
transferred to another crew and had the chain saw he was using saw through his face
when his spur kicked out.
Rather than reflecting further on the tragic, I prefer to remember the good times.
When I was in the top of a lemon-scented eucalyptus tree on Ortega hill overlooking the
Pacific coast and the Miramar hotel I thought to myself, can life become any better than
this? However, opportunities for advancement as a tree topper were limited, lacked
adequate intellectual challenge, and didn’t offer long career prospects. College was my
future, tree topping was the means.
We were trimming oaks in Montecito. Our ropes were tied into a large oak on a
hill overlooking the roof of a house below. During lunch we speculated whether by
running along the bank one could swing between two closely spaced chimneys. I took the
challenge. I ran along the bank to the right speed and direction, and launched into the air.
I passed cleanly between the chimneys and smack into the tree trunk, to everyone’s
amusement, including my own.
I was often shaky climbing up in the fog early in the morning. If I was climbing
with spurs, it was difficult to overcome the natural tendency to hug the trunk, to remind
myself to lean back on the rope, away from the trunk so that the spurs could dig in. After I
had selected a high fork, tied myself, and concentrated on my work. I forgot about how
high I was and felt more secure. I found myself holding my “monkey knot” and leaping
into space from one branch to another. As long as one held the monkey knot, the tie in
rope passed smoothly through it. One put on the brakes and came to an abrupt halt by
releasing the monkey knot.
And the end of an exhausting day, I was on an outer limb of a huge tree. I had
trimmed a piece of deadwood below me as the last cut. Instead of climbing back up and
over to the trunk, I tried to lower myself directly to the ground. When I reached the end of
my 60 foot tie-in rope, I still had about twenty feet to go to the ground—too far to jump. I
dropped my equipment, but had to climb thirty feet up, hand over hand, to reach the
branch, then the trunk in order to descend the conventional way.
16
2. THE SCIENTIFIC EUNUCH.
"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme."--Rabelais
Since its inception as an organization of anti-fascist scientists in 1938, the
American Association of Scientific Workers [AASW] has been affiliated with the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), although it is now
known as the US Federation of Scholars and Scientists [USFSS]. USFSS was a
participant in the founding of the global organization after World War II, the World
Federation of Scientific Workers [WFSW]. As such it serves as the nexus, such as it is,
between the US scientific community represented by the AAAS and the world scientific
community represented by the WFSW. Actually, the AASW was founded at a AAAS
convention in 1938 as an anti-fascist organization of US scientists. Peter Kuznick, in his
book, The Rise of Scientific Activism in the US, chronicles these events. It is a proud
history and tradition whose continuation is sorely needed in these times, if not all times.
In England there was an international philosophy conference in Manchester. Boris Hessen
refused to yield the floor until he had completed his presentation on “The Social and
Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia”. John Desmond Bernal, P. M. S. Blackett, and
other brilliant young British scientists were deeply impressed. They formed an anti-fascist
group and joined with a similar group from France organized by Frederick Joliot-Curie.
After the war other national scientific groups, including the US, joined to form the World
Federation of Scientific Workers, with Joliot-Curie as the first President, to continue the
efforts of the pre-war anti-fascist organizations. (Add History of the WFSW here).
The importance of intellectual lobbies, to my mind, is not adequately emphasized,
pursued, or appreciated. Humanity is confronted by exacerbating problems. The best that
can be done is to muster the best brains, the best ideas humanity can provide, and
promote them. I am...
A. Mensch or Macho?
Before the General Assembly and before the Committee of the Whole diplomatic
and rhetorical ingenuity shined in some of the original and compelling ways the military
vs. social/economic contradiction was presented, but how many ways can the same point
be make without becoming boringly redundant, despite some excitement generated by
oratorical competition? I began to reflect on the path, which led me here. There were
proximate causes: I was commissioned to present the position paper of the World
Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW), "The Social and Economic Implications of the
Arms Race", written primarily by Professor Englehardt of the German Democratic
Republic and reviewed by the WFSW Disarmament Committee on which I served as the
U.S. representative. But where did it begin? I remembered the film Norma Rae in which a
Jewish union organizer from New York was asked by Sally Field why he had come to
help the women in the textile industry organize. What was in it for him? He replied, “In
order to be a real mensch”. Exactly! But not everyone aspires to be a “real mensch”, and
even among those that do, there is disagreement about what that means. There are many
people who are more "mensch" than I am. I want to be a mensch without becoming a
martyr. [My secretary typed “macho” everywhere I had written “mensch”, so I added
17
“macho” in the rewrite--a Freudian slip?] This fictional film character was a composite of
many real life organizers.
Where did my similar, if more modest aspirations originate? --My modest plan to
save the world? There is a lifetime of influences affecting a genetically inherited base.
The minister at the Unitarian Church I attend presented a series of lectures on the
involuntary, genetic, biological origin of values.
It was interesting, but not especially exhortative--typical of "rationalist
humanism". Examining origins did not affect values, at least not consciously--it seemed
to validate them, despite exposing the influences, genetic and social, that condition our
choice of values. In addition, just because our values have a strong genetic component
does not make discussion and contemplation of one's choice of values irrelevant.
Understanding the strong processes of socialization makes values more susceptible to
conscious choice instead of unquestioned hand-me-downs. The distinction between
empirical science, logical mathematics, and exhortative values is a major source of
confusion and unnecessary dispute. It deserves epistemological clarification.
"Creationists" who claim a legal victory in the identification of evolution as (only?) a
theory which hasn't been proved (as if any empirically testable theory could be reduced to
a logically deduced theorem) manifest this confusion. Popular, even specialized
terminology adds to the confusion. Attorneys talk about "proof" when they mean
empirical evidence. Terminology should reflect important distinctions--the distinction
between math, which has only a logical, and no empirical criterion for validity, and
science, for which empirical testability is the sine qua non, is a crucial distinction. In
order to avoid blurring this critical distinction, I reserve the use of “proof” for deduction
alone. As such, mathematics has been called, “a huge tautology”—the form of the
theorems derived from assumptions [axioms and postulates] is new, but they contain no
logical content that was not already expressed in the assumptions.
B. See you in church!
I cannot mention that I am active in, and became President of a church without
being struck by the historical irony. In college, the most ridiculously humorous way we
could conjure to say good-bye was, “See you in church”. I think Harry “Good Morning”
Bongiorno, the incredibly handsome and athletic director of the Santa Barbara Boys’ Club
started it. His Italian Catholic experience with authoritarian knuckle-rapping “penguins”,
as he called them, left him soured not only with the church but with religion in general,
and he wasted no opportunity for sarcasm and ridicule-an attitude which closely matched
mine, but I had had no bad personal experiences to induce it. I was distressed and
antagonistic primarily because of other martyrs to religion. On a Sunday Jon and I went to
pick up some girls from Westmont, a Baptist college in Montecito, to go to the beach. I
parked my passionate purple (burgundy?) convertible, a vestigial remnant of my
employment in the military industry, highly visibly outside the door instead of in the
parking spaces intended for guests. We waited in the living room in our bathing suits.
Noticing our audacious attire the housemother inquired with a disapproving tone, “Do
you usually go to the beach after church? I replied, somewhat misleadingly, “Not usually
after church”. I considered the response to be diplomatic rather than mendacious,
although “Never”, would have been more accurate--and still misleading, since the false
implication of church attendance would remain. Jon laughed knowingly, understanding
18
that one can only do something after church if one attends church. Jon and I were
roommates and have remained friends to this day, although in many respects we are exact
opposites. He has pleaded in vain not to be mentioned herein. His father, who owned a
Buick agency, annually pampered him with a new Buick. I was the poverty-stricken hard
working struggling student. He paid the landlady to cook for him. I bought potatoes and
cabbage (2 cents and 2 1/2 cents a pound, respectively) and mixed it with horsemeat from
the pet store. The clerk inquired, “Do you have a big dog?” I responded with a
noncommittal “Hmm.” I would top trees for thirteen hours and return exhausted to meet
him going out for the night--not for the evening. He would frequently return when I was
on my way to school or work.
It is somewhat ironic the way Jon evolved as well. The fact that his parents
dropped the silent h from his name prompted me to add a silent three to join the silent t
and n in mine. On the Physics Department directory, my name is spelled Ditt3mann.
Jon was a playboy, but not overtly anticlerical, or devoutly atheistic, like Danny,
Harry, Bob Jared, Tom Buck, and I were. Jon went along with the program. After years of
drunkenness and a few DUI’s he turned to Jesus and quit. He still vividly recalls the
contemptuous way I said, “Here, asshole!”, when I gave him money for bail on his latest
DUI. He has been dry and celibate for some two decades and counting. I once
commented that we old buddies are now both celibate-he for sixteen years, I since last
night. When he was going with Marilyn I claimed that I was more faithful than he was. I
was in one of my rare unattached periods. He was faithful only to her, while I was faithful
to all of my girlfriends--which means a few times more faithful than he was. Every now
and then he tries to preach to me, but backs off when I mention what a bore that is. When
he heard that I had contracted cancer of the prostate he vowed to pray for me. I had to
importune him to desist since I was a guinea pig in a clinical trial testing a new drug, and
if someone was praying for me simultaneously how could one determine whether it was
the drug or the prayer that produced the effect? [Of course, maybe the voodoo pins
neutralize the prayer.] He reminded me of the cliched “There are no atheists in foxholes”
argument. OK, so cancer isn’t exactly a foxhole. I know death frightens many, but I
expect the experience to be similar, probably identical to that before I was conceived.
Jon contracted that infamous disease “GonetoKorea”. I thought I would never see
him again. He was from Iowa. I was from Van Nuys. Years later, after I completed my
Master’s degree at the University of Delaware I had one job offer—back in California, in
Glendale, on the Advanced Research Staff of Aeroneutronics/Ford/Philco. I met Jon
dancing and we moved in together again, first in Hollywood, then on the Sunset Strip.
C. How many human rights can you afford?
I visualize the question in the mind of attorneys when interviewing their clients,
“Just how much justice can you afford?” In order for conscientious human rights activists
to avoid being cynically politically manipulated by special interest with hidden agendae, a
more evenhanded, systematic approach must be developed. Human rights can be used as
a weapon of the rich against the poor. It is a weapon in class conflict. At the expense of
our USSR affiliate, I was invited to attend the General Assembly of the WFSW in
Moscow. I read about the arrests of USSR scientific dissidents who were trying to form
an Amnesty International (AI) Chapter in Moscow. [I also invited twelve other U.S.
19
scientists who had their expenses paid as well.] I circulated a petition among the members
of the Southern California affiliate of the USFSS, the Southern California Federation of
Scientists (SCFS), requesting that the WFSW, through its USSR affiliate, inquire about
whether due process was accorded the accused—Tverdohlebov [“stale bread”, in Russian,
if it is not a false cognate from Serbocroatian], Rudenko, Kirilov, and others.
Tverdohlebov was the leading defendant.
On the way to Moscow, as an emissary of USFSS, I visited the AI headquarters in
London. The conditions under which this most prominent of all human rights
organizations is compelled to operate in their international London office are appalling. I
never encountered so much security--bulletproof windows and doors, a chamber to enter
where the door behind is secured before the door ahead is unlocked. Their political
agenda notwithstanding, it is difficult to understand the hatred engendered against this
human rights champion.
Since I was on a mission in part to defend AI activists, I seized the opportunity to
criticize Amnesty International (AI) for being vulnerable and succumbing to political
manipulation. A Jewish prisoner convicted of some unspecified crime complained that
his religious practices were circumscribed in jail. A front-page article appeared in
Matchbox, an AI publication, complete with photos and biography. Mention of mass
graves for countless, anonymous Salvadoran peasants occurred on inner pages. AI
officials responded that they didn't have the resources to investigate each of the cases of
the Salvadoran peasants; that they had been provided with the story on the (probably
legitimate) complaint of the religious member by outside sources. Other newspapers are
also vulnerable to such manipulation. If special interests have the financial resources to
hire researchers, investigators, and PR specialists to do the research, collect the data and
information, provided references and documentation, and prepare press releases,
essentially doing the work of reporters, so that the newspapers need do no more than
insert the article, written in the format and style the newspaper prefers, into a selected
space, it likely will be printed (unless it would offend the owners or their advertisers).
AI officials countered by requesting that USFSS suggest a policy. Spontaneously,
I suggested that abuses be given priority according to the severity of the abuse, including
the number of victims, regardless of ethnicity, religion, infinity group, class status, or
connections. Upon reflection and deliberation, the USFSS promotes a more effective,
long-term, preventive, before the fact, systematic, and uniform approach that requires
international institutional development [of which more below].
When human rights are abandoned to the vagaries of bilateral relations they
become a political football. As an example, the former military dictator of South Korea,
Chun Doo-hwan, was protected by the U.S. government’s military while he massacred
demonstrators for democracy, and was later sentenced to death. Protest about the human
rights of the massacred demonstrators never issued from the State Department, nor from
AI. U.S. government relations with Indonesia remained good after it invaded East Timor
and decimated the population. Such examples are multitudinous. The best hope for
preventing the sacrifice of human rights to political expediency in promotion of special
(vested) interests is through expression of consensus global conscience in the UN. The
UN is denigrated as a toothless “debating society”, which befits the General Assembly, as
a representative body of the governments of the world, but that is how consensus global
20
conscience currently is developed--through the General Assembly and through General
Assembly-sponsored conferences leading to multilateral, international treaties,
conventions, and declarations. Treaties, covenants, and conventions proclaim consensus
human rights. The institutions, which would allow the peoples of the world to monitor,
implement, and enforce consensus human rights standards are gradually being
developed17, leave much yet to be developed. Of course, much more--global solidarity,
peace, justice, environmental protection, and security are needed from the UN, but it is
incapable of providing them in its present form.
D. Pax Americana or Pox Americana?
Members of the audience when I lectured have responded on occasion that the
world is made up of “tribes” (nation-states) and that in such a competitive, antagonistic
world our “tribe” had better be the strongest. They want to be victors in the inevitable
conflict--quite an understandable position if that were the only choice available. Indeed,
nation-states are the major actors on the world stage, but transnational corporations are
gradually surpassing them. The conflict, repression, and military expenditures in such a
world doom most people to poverty and human rights abuses. “Tribalism”, nationalism,
militarism, even patriotism (chauvinism, if you prefer) are contrary to the aspiration for a
family of humanity. Peace becomes a popular imperative after recent experience with its
alternative. In other times, the tribal mentality prevails. There is contention to be the
“biggest bully on the block” [“We’re number one!”, usually exclaimed not to celebrate
humanistic accomplishment, but predominant physical force often violently expressed.]
Others genuinely want peace, but support pax Americana, using the UN as a tool
in the process. The UN Secretary-General may help implement U.S. government foreign
policy, even while the U.S. government remains the largest deadbeat in paying its UN
dues, but if he makes any critical comments, as Boutros-Ghali did, he’s history. If the
U.S. government possesses overwhelming force, enhanced by a compliant UN providing
a cover of legitimacy, no one will challenge it, and peace will prevail. On the other hand,
it doesn’t seem to be a prescription for justice, freedom, or democracy. Perceptions of
injustice and imperialism in the face of overwhelming force (considered to be oppression
by those intimidated by it) leads to attempts to fight back that avoid direct confrontation.
Killing or maiming without the use of B52s or other capital intensive, high tech
equipment is called “terrorism”. Pax Americana is neither sustainable or desirable in the
long term. It makes indiscriminate targets of Americans to those who fail to distinguish
the government from those who were manipulated into voting for it (or even against it) as
attested by the Oklahoma bombing. I’m here at the UN to help create a more rational,
more peaceful, more humane world with social and economic justice, with democracy
without domination.
E. Heroes and Heretics18.
It has been said, “If there were only one religion, it would be tyranny. If there were
two, it would be genocide. Fortunately, the U.S. has many religions, so we can live with
17
E.g., the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights that was approved by the General Assembly, the
International Criminal Court, the UN Human Rights Commissioner established after the 1993 Vienna
Declaration and Program for Action, and many covenants.
18 This is the title of a fascinating and informative book by Barrows Dunham.
21
in peace”--in reasonable domestic tranquillity, despite the constant threats of fanaticism,
and ecumenicalism, which could potentially create a tyrannical, irrational majority. I am a
case-in-point of U.S. multiculturalism, although I never considered myself a hyphenated
American, like German-American. I was simply American. A descendant from a
Catholic father, Rosicrucian mother, and protestant grandparents, I fathered a Chinese
doctor [my eldest son is an O.M.D. (Oriental M.D.), specializing in acupuncture and
Chinese (and other) herbs, with whom I have intense epistemological disputes, but who
brought my PSA (an index of my prostate cancer) down from 20.47 to 9.12 with his herbs
before I started an experimental allopathic treatment] and I have Jewish grandchildren,
and presumably will have Jewish great grandchildren when my grand daughter gives
birth, because that is a condition that one catches form one’s mother, according to
Hebrew and Israeli law. My three wives were Chicana, English, and Yugoslav (from
England and Yugoslavia where I met them). Girlfriends cover a much wider ethnic,
cultural, and religious range. I rarely suffer “reverse discrimination” , but my “sabra”
[native born Israeli] girlfriend, Shulamith, tried to pass me off as a Jew. “Not a hair of a
Jew!” was her mother’s response, but approved of me nonetheless. A date from Beverly
Hills, Harriet, told me that she would have an affair with me, but would never marry me
because I wasn’t Jewish.
Locally in the world there do exist theocratic tyrannies, but the world as a whole
also has the advantage of many religions, more splintered and divided even than in the
U.S. Accordingly, the UN is a vehicle which holds even greater potential for the
achievement of human rights, religious freedom and tolerance.
F. Disinformation and disunderstanding.
As I mentioned, there is an occupational hazard to being channeled and trained as
a nuclear physicist. One is expected to be knowledgeable about nuclear bombs and
power plants. Students in the ‘60s demanded relevance in their courses. I was assigned to
teach a course entitled, “Nuclear Physics and Its Impact upon Society”. I divided nuclear
power into two classifications: slow (power plants) and fast (bombs). In order to evaluate
the background knowledge which students brought to the classroom to guide me in
designing lectures at a level commensurate with their level of understanding, I gave them
their “final” on the first day of class. I was shocked by the results. I transformed it into a
research tool by eliminating all but the most objective questions. The prevalent argument
for nuclear bombs was national security. I drew upon a wider context. The first page of
the exam required the students to retrodict how the U.S. government and the USSR voted
in the UN on resolutions designed to enhance national security by improving international
security. I say “retrodict” because the votes had already occurred, but little attention is
paid to the UN in the corporate press unless it is involved in conflict. “The UN Comes of
Age” was the Boston Globe headline when the UN was used to provide legitimacy for the
war in the Middle East oilfields. I was testing understanding, not information. They were
informed that there had been only affirmative and negative votes--no abstentions. I used a
scale, which ranged from +100% (all correct) to -100% (all wrong). Since there was a
50/50 chance of guessing between Y and N, 0 represented no information or
understanding. Data was collected over a number of semesters. In their understanding of
their own government, the U.S. government, in their ability to predict (retrodict) its
behavior in this venue, they averaged MINUS 34%! I chided them about that. They were
22
born completely ignorant, at zero, and now were at minus 34%. The CIA has its
“disinformation” programs. This is far more serious--it is disunderstanding.
Understanding helps defend against disinformation--disinformation then doesn’t fit--it is
aberrant and appears suspicious. If disinformation is consonant with disunderstanding,
there is little defense because there is little reason to question disinformation, which
matches a dysfunctional model.
I try to engender a sense of indignation. I resent attempts to bamboozle me. This
had been done to them. Who did it? How? And why? Did they mind? A common
sentiment was, “I don’t need to know or understand. The government will take care of it.”
What a remarkable change from the ‘60s! I also asked them how they personally would
vote on the resolutions. These conservative students from Orange County voted the
Commie line (the way the USSR voted) 88% of the time and against their own
government’s position 88% of the time. The exam was easy to evaluate. The USSR had
voted “yes”, the U.S. government “no” on all of them. The resolution for naval
disarmament received the least support (67%).
There were many other distressing results from the exam. Generally, only a few
foreign students knew what was commemorated in marches in Red Square and elsewhere
globally on May Day. I inquired how many had taken a course in U.S. History. They all
had. That was part of the problem. I inquired whether they knew anyone who ever held a
full time job. “How many hours per week did they work?” “40 “Why 40? Is that one of
the 15 Commandments (Oops! 10 If you remember Monty Python’s The Story of Brian
descending from the mount with three tablets and only two hands)? “Thou shalt work 40
hours per week?” I usually let the foreign students enlighten the U.S. students about U.S.
history, about the Haymarket massacre in Chicago, about the martyrs of labor, about the
struggle for the 40-hour week and the 8-hour day. Then why is May Day called “Law
Day” (at least its not “Law and Order Day”) instead of “Labor Day”?
The “national security” apology for militarism has always seemed patently
ridiculous, as have the rationales for domestic repression and surveillance. Perusing my
redundant, erroneous, and incompetently compiled FBI files make’s one grateful that our
security didn’t depend upon these clowns. Given our propitious geographic
circumstances, historically, with weak and friendly nations north and south, and oceans
east and west, the U.S. has been militarily invulnerable, and didn't maintain a large
standing military until after WWII. {Of course, the U. S. government built a huge navy at
the turn of the century so that other nations would not share the security which oceans
provided by separating them from at least some of their potential antagonists.] The
"national (in)security state" is a far different country than the one I grew up in, and never
achieved the ideal I was taught to believe in. But America, some day, will be America!19-wonderfully hopeful and brave words which show no immediate promise of coming to
fruition, but which provide a lifetime of challenge and mission. I grew up in an America
that always demobilized after wars. I grew up in an America that did not have Truman’s
National Security State apparatus. The Truman administration was the watershed.
G. Nuclear Insecurity.
19
Langston Hughes compelling lines:
America never was America to me.
But America, some day, will be!
23
Science and technology have long since provided the means to overcome the
historical geographic military invulnerability of the U. S.--the bomb. Yet the U.S.
government clings to its "nuclear insecurity blanket" refusing to bend to the domestic
will, which is concurrent with the will of the peoples of the world, by deploying nuclear
weapons and refusing to accept nuclear disarmament. It clings to the very and only
weapons which really threaten us and which could obliterate us as a civilization within
any given hour. That requires some explanation. I approached the phenomena of nuclear
escalation using the scientific methodology in which I was trained. I searched the research
literature, just like any other natural phenomena, and surveyed theoretical attempts at
explanation. There have been so many theories advanced that I set up a taxonomy of
theories in different classifications: "superpower syndrome"; national (in)security; vested
interests; psychological, anthropological and sociological, and class conflict. The theories
themselves suggested many critical questions, which could be used to evaluate the
relative explanatory power of the competing theories. I added others that occurred to me.
I then compared their explanatory power.
The introductory remarks are sufficient to dispense with the “national
(in)security” theories. There would not be the great reluctance to a nuclear free world
were national security the motivation. I added others, which occurred to me. I then
compared their explanatory power, and evaluated the class conflict theory as the most
powerful in, "Theories of Nuclear Escalation: Critical Comparative Analysis". Of course
there remain subjective elements, even more than in hard science. For example, other
researchers using the same methodology might choose different critical questions. I
encouraged students to suggest their own critical questions by which to evaluate the
explanatory power of competing theories. The analysis is long and complex, but my
conclusion is relatively simple: Nuclear bombs are essentially class weapons directed at
workers and their political/economic aspirations both foreign and domestic. Nazism and
nukes are strong, if not exact analogues. Hitler also was the creation of international
capitalism, led by Krupp [William Manchester, a member of the Kennedy family,
authored a highly readable book on this point, The Arms of Krupp, in which he said that
Krupp was so stingy he wouldn’t give a pfennig to anyone, but workers for Krupp’s steel
and armaments factories were coerced to contribute to Hitler political coffers to keep
their jobs] and Thyssen [He wrote his own book, I Paid Hitler] in Germany, and by Shell
Oil (Henry Deterding), the British government (violating the Treaty of Versailles to rearm
the German navy), AT&T, Ford, and others outside of Germany. He was designed to be a
class weapon against workers both domestic and foreign. Nuclear bombs are his
technological analogue.
The theory of nuclear escalation encompasses many phenomena, starting even
before the Manhattan project, even before nuclear fission was discovered. One of the
critical questions used in my attempt to compare the relative explanatory power of
theories competing to explain the phenomenon of nuclear escalation was, “Given the
situation that the USSR was not a challenger for international markets, labor supplies,
and resources to match capitalist U.S., why was the USSR the intended adversary,
instead of real challengers like Japan and German?”
Russia was a defeated ally in WWI before workers overthrew the monarchy, the
“Tsar”, and reformulated itself as the Soviet Union. [“Soviets” are governing councils of
24
workers.] Without waiting to see if a workers’ democracy could replace a monarchical
dictatorship, the U.S. government and every other major capitalist nation invaded its
former imperialist ally which had now become a class enemy. The class conflict theory
explained this quite well. Competing theories had difficulty.
K. God can’t change history. Historians can.
Incidentally, a much better understanding was obtained of the holocaust, which is
misportrayed as exclusively a “Jewish” holocaust. The racist tool has historically been
used to divide workers. Prisoners of war in the USSR received political training before
being repatriated. Upon return, the Bela Kun workers’ state was set up in Hungary. The
Spartacists took power in Germany. I used to live by the first concentration ever built, in
Dachau, and escorted my Jewish daughter-in-law through the Holocaust museum there.
Newspaper articles at the time clearly state that the camp was built for political
opponents--communists and social democrats. At USC the opportunity arose to talk with
Hans von Herwart, a German diplomat who was in the Moscow embassy when Plan
Barbarossa was launched. For confirmation I asked him for whom the camps were built.
“Were they built for Jews?”
“No, they were built for ‘Germans’ (i.e., for political opponents)”.
That was the way he couched it. I didn’t take him to mean that Jews were not
Germans in a national sense--only in an ethnic sense. Of course many Jews were
communists. The phrase “Jewish communist” was a cliche, which maintains some
currency in racist groups to this day. Many Jews were communists for good reason. They
were mostly poor, working class, and suffered discrimination. The communist motto,
“Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!” had great appeal.
All workers should unite, including Jews. To German workers it said that they were
above all workers and only incidentally German. Von Herwart further described the
situation in Germany after the war. Worker-soldier soviets had taken control of major
German cities. “They were racing around in trucks in uniforms stripped of insignia
waving red banners with hammers and sickles.” The capitalists prepared their ideological
counteroffensive. They reversed the order--German workers were German first and only
workers incidentally--the patriotic class collaboration line. There was appeal to workers
as German primarily (National), and to their status as workers secondarily (Socialism)-National Socialism, or Nazi. The transition to racism from nationalism was easy, almost a
natural consequence. Who was really German? Was it a citizenship identity or a genetic,
cultural “ethnic” identity? After the war was lost (won) at Stalingrad, after the Zionists
offer to fight for Hitler against their common enemy, Britain, was declined, after Jewish
refugees were denied entry into the U.S. and other havens (the Voyage of the Damned)
due in part to Zionist lobbying, not just anti-Semitism, the extermination process turned
against them. [Lenni Brenner’s book, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, is fascinating and
illuminating documentation. It makes sense for Zionists to want Jews to be forced out of
Europe (and elsewhere) and denied access anywhere else than Palestine. Jews emigrating
from the former USSR are forced to go to Israel first.] Spielberg wants to understand the
Holocaust better so we can avoid recurrences. Understanding of the class conflict origins
of the phenomena as an AntiCommunist Crusade is required. Hitler deliberately portrayed
25
himself as more anticommunist and less “patriot” than he was in order to gain
international capitalist support.
THE PALESTINE PROBLEM AS A FOCUS:
1) Israel’s reinvasion of Palestine has regrettably and inexcusably, but predictably
induced a wave of anti-Semitism. Some Zionistsi have advocated the founding of a
“Palestinian state” for the good of Israel in order to ameliorate the conflict between
Zionists on one hand, and Christians and other Gentiles and even anti-Zionist Jews,
on the other.
2) Jews and Gentiles alike suffer from a deepening cycle of insecurity and violence.
Israel in particular has a “tiger by the tail”---It fears the establishment of a Gentile
state, but deepens its insecurity and increases its international isolation by its
mistreatment of Gentiles.
[A concise historical summary is provided in the Appendix.ii]
“Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state 20.”
[Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Report to the League of Nations, London, (24july1922)].
“Those Muslims and those Jews should settle
their differences in a Christian manner.21”
—words from the Texas Governor in
The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
20
This is one of the many ways people can be, and have been classified and collated. This particular
version neglects and negates the existence of Arab Jews, “Mizrahim”. According to Hebrew and Israeli law,
the distinction is between Jews and Gentiles. I refer to “Christians and other Gentiles” to emphasize the
neglected presence of a [declining] Christian presence [~30%], and to play to the unfortunate tendency of
people to sympathize only with those victims with whom they can identify—to include victims in the “us”
instead of the “them”.
[Ashkenazi are European Jews, Sephardim are Oriental Jews, Mizrahim are Arab Jews, in pecking order.]
21 Irresistably cute, but misleading in the negation of the role of Christian [and other non-Muslim]
Palestinians.
26
THE PEACE PLAN:
1) The Palestinian Authority ratifies the Rome Treaty for the International Criminal
Court [ICC].
2) The General Assembly affirms the ratification.
3) The General Assembly declares the remnants of partitioned Palestine [the 1948 borders]
to be a UN Trusteeship Territory with responsibility assigned to the Trusteeship
Council for developing a secular “human rights” state based upon UN human rights
treaties, conventions, declarations, and covenants.
4) The General Assembly elects a number of members to the Trusteeship Council equal
to the number of unelected members.
5) The General Assembly requests the UNDP and other UN agencies to offer economic
development funds and other support and assistance.
6) The General Assembly requests the Security Council to guarantee military security.
7) The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights acknowledges the ratification of the
ICC by the Palestinian Authority and the assignment of responsibility for human
rights state-building to the Trusteeship Council, and offers its good offices to monitor
the process and to make recommendations to all parties involved.
8) The General Assembly requests the Human Rights Court of the EU to accept
jurisdiction [Or resolves to establish a UN Human Rights Court].
9) The Trusteeship Council supervises elections for residents in the remainder of
Palestine [including Palestinian Jews!] to elect a non-racist Constituent Assembly
charged with drafting a Constitution that incorporates UN human rights principles and
that honors basic principles of government and jurisprudence under the auspices of
the UN with the consultation of NGO’s [similar to the manner in which the ICC was
established].
10) The Trusteeship Council invites the Constituent Assembly to ratify the ICC Treaty
and to incorporate it into the Constitution.
11) A plebiscite under the auspices of the Trusteeship council is held to approve the
Constitution and to establish the state of Palestine.
“Let the injustice rain on someone else’s head for a change.”
—Leon Uris in Exodus
“Let the injustice rain on no one’s head—now that would really be a change!”
CONTINGENCY PLANS:
A. The General Assembly passes a resolution similar to that for the ICC calling for a
conference of plenipotentiaries [perhaps regional] to address the problems of
Palestine in solicitation of a host country.
B. A resolution is introduced in the Security Council to establish a secular,
contiguous, human rights state [in the manner of East Timor].
Some linguistic clarification: Jews living in Palestine used to be called Palestinians—no
longer—that term is now exclusively reserved to Christians and other Gentiles. The current
implication of a “Palestinian state” then is that it would exclude Jews—more anti-Semitism. Even
Zionist proposals for a Palestinian state usually include the evacuation of Jews and their illegal
settlements. Jews are people. Regardless of their political views, they should be accorded full human
rights in Palestine--hence the title.
THE PURPOSES OF THE PLAN:
27
To further develop the capability and involvement of the UN in state-building for new or
failing states based upon UN human rights declarations, covenants, treaties, and
conventions and upon basic principles of governance22 and jurisprudence.
 To find a route around the immobilization of the Security Council and to functionally
enhance the role of the General Assembly, the Trusteeship Council, and UN agencies.
 To promote human rights, peace, security, and justice by implementing the
expressions of human conscience that have already been agreed by consensus by the
governments of the world.
 To provide liberation--freedom, security, opportunity, democracy, and justice for
oppressed peoples.
 To promote basic consensus principles not only their own right, but in order to diffuse
the vehemency of conflicting opponents.
 To convert adversity into opportunity, recapturing missed opportunities.
 To put all potential war criminals on notice that if they commit Nuremberg crimes
[war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide], or, eventually, aggression, on
Palestinian territory that they will be subject to arrest, prosecution, and punishment.
2222
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE
 Recognizing that just (non-repressive) law depends primarily upon voluntary compliance rather
than enforcement, and that
 Voluntary compliance largely depends upon a perception of justice in law, and that
 The most direct way to achieve the perception of justice is democratic participation in the
formulation of legislation and in the establishment and operation of institutions to implement and to
enforce the law. In addition,
 Law must be universally applicable.
 Law must be uniformly enforced.
 Government itself must be subject to and operate under the same rule of law. [Experience
indicates that this is best achieved with constitutional human rights protections, especially for critics and
opposition, and strict explicit constitutional limits on the powers of government, with separation of powers
and checks and balances between branches of government.]
 Other guiding principles in designing governmental and institutional structure include:
 The Federalist Maxim, “Decisions should be made on as local a level as is reasonable, practical,
and feasible”.
 The Ecological Maxim, “There is stability in diversity” [so that if one route to redress is obstructed,
or if one branch malfunctions, others are available]22.
 The Representation Maxim, “Everyone should be allowed to define their own political identities
(not necessarily geographic) and to have representatives of their (multiple) views and interests.”
 The Democratic Maxim, “Social institutions should be governed by identifiable constituencies in
proportion to their stake in the operation of the institution, tempered, if necessary, by competence to
express that interest.”
28
“GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS” SCENARIO FOR ISRAEL
First the Bad News:
The UN is helping to establish a human rights state next to Israel in Palestine.
[The existence of a neighboring state in which Jews had full human
rights would be an intense embarrassment in contrast to the way
Christians and other Gentiles are treated by the Zionists in Israel.]
Now the Good News:
The UN is helping to establish a human rights state next to Israel in Palestine.
[The elusive security that has eroded through resort to state terrorism
and violence could be finally provided to Israel, although
international pressure, such as that exerted on the Apartheid regime
should be maintained.]
Understanding is enhanced by context. My pure nuclear physics research led
people to expect me to be knowledgeable about nuclear power plants and nuclear
weapons. I was nominated for committees and assigned to teach these more “relevant”
topics. I try to conduct my classes as joint intellectual explorations. Understanding is
enhanced by context. Nuclear physics provided the scientific foundation for nuclear
bombs (and later for nuclear power plants). Bombs are part of the arsenal of weapons.
Weapons are used to achieve military objectives, which themselves are extensions of
political and diplomatic goals and interests, as von Clausewitz put it. The critical
questions are, “Whose goals and whose interests?” and “Is there a better way, a peaceful
way to accommodate and compromise interests?” The intellectual effort to understand
nuclear physics in context: the bomb, nuclear weapons delivery systems, nuclear war
strategy, etc., takes one down many paths, all of which led me to the UN. Even nuclear
power led to a paper proposing the establishment of a UN Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (since radioactive pollution doesn’t respect national boundaries all nations
and peoples have an interest in the safe operation of all plants, regardless of location,
national sovereignty notwithstanding) followed by a visit to the UN-affiliated IAEA in
Vienna to promote the concept.
L. “Nature may be complicated, but she’s not malicious”—
.Social theory is much more difficult than physics. As Einstein commented, Nature
doesn’t deliberately try to mislead, or dissemble. The same cannot be said of humans,
especially politicians. I call it “social theory”, not “social science”, for a good reason. I
applied scientific methodology to my research, but not scientistic ideology. I advocate an
alternate, normative, critical, humanistic approach to science which contrasts with the
dominant logical positivist [or logical empiricist (L-E)] view of science which can be
stereotypically summarized in the following tenets:
29
(a) scientific understanding constitutes “knowledge”23 ;
(b) scientific knowledge is neutral, objective, and value-free; and
(c) there is a unitary approach to knowledge (the “scientific method”, with physics
as the exemplar).
It was just my luck to be born into this universe. Similar to Alfonso X, I am
inclined to comment, “If god had consulted me before she embarked upon Creation, I
could have suggested something cozier than infinity, less lethal and more friendly than
freezing space and nuclear fires, less violent and more empathetic than evolution, survival
of the fittest and the food chain. I would dispense with carnivores. Kittens would be
taught planned parenthood. I complain that the world wasn’t in better shape before I was
brought into it, and, despite a lifetime of effort, it may be in worse shape when I leave it,
but I feel a great debt owed to many intellectual predecessors, including David Hume for
his formulation of positivism. Science has been able to achieve the high degree of global
consensus (consensus which eludes politicians as well as theologians) with which it is
identified by asserting only those claims which are supported by positive evidence.
Joining empiricism and logical consistency in epistemology provided the basis for the
impressive progress science continues to achieve.
In a value system, logical consistency (in contrast to hypocrisy) may be deemed
highly desirable, as it is in scientific theory. It is possible to desire contradictory things-to want one’s cake and to eat it too. Sometimes one can’t win for losing. I can’t get a
handle on food. If I don’t eat, I starve. If I do, I ruin my appetite. I have the same problem
with the lawn. If I don’t water it, it turns brown and ugly. If I do, it grows and I have to
mow it. However, values remain choices, preferences, and judgements, and are not
reducible to empirical testing (Consequences are, but that merely begs the question, since
the desirability of the ultimate consequences remains a value judgement, a preference).
My objection is not the emphasis on empiricism and logical consistency in science, that is
all to the good, but in the exclusion of values, human aspirations, and moral judgement!
“Scientism” is the unwarranted application or extrapolation of scientific results to
areas where they are not appropriate or valid. My favorite example of this is the French
Catholic Existentialist philosopher Jacques Maritain, who railed against the “deadly
disease” of science because of his scientistic expectation that it would be claimed that
morality and ethics are relative because of the Theory of Relativity. Relativist
“situational” ethics gain no support from the Theory of Relativity even if the absolutist
“perennialist” view lacks foundation.
23 Perhaps I’m being a bit picky here. Scientific understanding is succinctly described in one of
my favorite quotes:
"Science is more than a 'rhetoric of conclusions,'...it is...a mode of investigation which rests on
conceptual innovation, proceeds through uncertainty and failure, and eventuates in
knowledge which is contingent, dubitable, and hard to come by."
--Joseph J. Schwab [(1962) 5]
“Knowledge” seems to suggest absoluteness which is inappropriate to science, and more properly
applicable to logical truth tables. How can one “know” something which is not “true”. Science is
empirically founded on measurements made by fallible human observers. Through careful technique and
methodology, science has achieved a higher degree of consensus than in all other areas of human endeavor,
a higher degree of objectivity--but still short of absolute objectivity.
30
The unwarranted extrapolation of the “value-free, neutral, and objective”
stereotypical scientistic methodology to other areas, even to values themselves (producing
an oxymoron--“value-free values”, also known as “perennialism” or Kantian “categorical
imperatives”), to the exclusion of other approaches is commonly attempted and also
constitutes an ideology, "prescriptive scientism”. For example, “behaviorism” has come
to dominate what are now commonly called the “social sciences”. The object of studying
politics, or society, or economics, should be to improve them (an unavoidable value
judgement), not merely to provide the scientific foundation for technologically
sophisticated political manipulation. The purportedly “value free” approach has
unadmitted, hidden values, usually validating the status quo and the establishment. My
primary objection to the status quo is the abuse and maltreatment of people. Capitalism is
not a victimless crime. The challenge is to design a more humane system. Since most
humans live outside our national borders, a transnational institution like the UN is needed
to address their afflictions.
Misappropriation of science is common. During the Age of Reason, the
impressive accomplishments of Newton were inappropriately extrapolated and
(mis)applied in the attempt to extract the same order from the chaos of human affairs that
Newton had succeeded in doing with mechanics and astronomy. Newton himself
advocated the application of the same methodology, called by critics the “corpuscular
philosophy”, or the “watchmaker universe”, to other areas of human concern. An attempt
was made to develop a new “rational” religion: “deism”. Desogulier wrote a book entitled
Newtonianism: The Best Form of Government. The French physiocrats applied
Newtonianism to economics. The “encyclopaedists”, Diderot, Montesquieu, d’Holbach,
etc., followed Newtonian methodology in the attempt to discover universal values,
perhaps in the practices of the “noble savage” unperverted by civilization. Nature, reason,
and truth formed a new trinity. Hobbes wrote Leviathan. Paine wrote The Rights of Man,
declaring “natural rights” subsequently proclaimed in the preamble to the U.S.
Declaration of Independence24. The attempt to subsume values in science lost cogency,
as did reductionism in general. Failing to reduce values to scientific determination by the
logical application of empiricism, an attempt was made to exclude them from science.
One methodological guide in critical social theory is to consider admissions to be
more credible than claims. McNamara, the manager of the “electronic battlefield” in Viet
Nam, candidly proclaimed that the USSR “couldn’t match us” strategically in the arms
race and deliberately inflicted upon them because of their smaller economy and lag in
technology, i.e., the USSR would either have to accept US military hegemony in the
world or bankrupt their economy in the attempt to maintain deterrence. I admit to being
mislead by CIA estimates. I expected them to exagerrate. I didn’t expect
overexagerration. If McNamara thought the USSR couldn’t manage to maintain both
“guns and butter”, I thought they might be able to maintain “missiles and margarine”. The
strategic plan to make the USSR subject to capitalist domination and “to make the world
safe for hypocrisy” has succeeded in its first phase. When the Berlin wall fell and the
24
The version of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution most applicable to Southern California bodly
proclaims, “We declare these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal, endowed by their creator
with certain inalienable rights, among these, life, liberty, and an automobile (with a catalytic converter) to
pursue happiness.
31
USSR collapsed, given the highly educated and well organized populace, I anticipated a
reasonably paced, approximately decade-long period of disillusion with the “antitheses”,
capitalism, in a crude and barbaric form, before the process of rebuilding a new more
progressive and humanistic socialism “synthesis” began, in accordance with the prognosis
of the dialectical model.
J. Turning Habermas on His Head.
By the time I was eligible for my second Sabbatical, the accelerators I used to
conduct research had been closed. Anti-matter had been theorized and then discovered.
Teaching assignments involving the examination of science in context, especially the
major appliations of nuclear physics--bombs and power plants, had converted me into an
anti-nuclear physicist. I had embarked upon an effort to estimate the external costs of
nuclear power. However, it was a more abstract, more theoretical motive which led me to
Starnberg. It was the effort to turn Juergen Habermas on his head, similarly to how Marx
turned Hegel on his head, converting the idealist dialectic into dialectical materialism,
which lead me to join “The Frankfurt School” of philosophy, then relocated to Starnberg,
in Brooklyn (Trolley) Dodger fashion, where Habermas was codirector with Carl
Friedrich von Weiszäker, for my second Sabbatical. Marcuse died there. It was disbanded
when von Weiszäker retired.
Habermas argued that social theory should not succumb to the scientistic
ideology of logical-positivism. The point of sociology (and of economics and politics) is
not merely to study the way nature is, but to improve upon it. The romantic idealization of
the “noble savage” and of nature itself, lead some to conclude that what is natural is
better. Actually, I resist the tendency to remove ourselves from nature. Everything is
going hi tech, even cleavage (silicone valley). I am a low tech nuclear physicist. I use an
Armstrong lawn mower. For transportation I prefer feet, then bicycle, if it’s much farther.
I feel that if I can’t get there this way, unless there is a compelling reason, I probably
shouldn’t go. A sense of community is built by spending time in it, not on the road. On
occasion I resort to my stripped down GoldWing motorcycle. My $375 1975 Vega
(purchased 10 years ago with 16,023 miles) passed the 50K mark without requiring
repair. Boats and planes are also sometimes very convenient. I would rather jump in the
pool than resort to airconditioning in an isolated environment. Sunshine is great for heat
and light. The pool is solar heated (The sun shines on it). The most efficient solar energy
device is a window. I use solar heating to dry clothes. It’s called a clothesline. I prefer
hand tools. The garden is completely organic: No biocides (even those designed to have a
greater effect on more vulnerable pests) or fertilizer. Everything organic becomes mulch.
Fruits and vegetables don’t have to be unblemished. I share with bugs, as long as they
don’t eat too much. I keep household pests under control by not feeding them. Those that
wander in get chased or carried back out. However, it’s death to mosquitos! [I almost
spelled it like “potatoes” (sic) in preparation for my political career.] Boric acid got the
cockroaches (What do they call girl roaches?). Dry ice did in the gophers forever in one
easy application.
A frontispiece illustrating the spirit of the Enlightenment showed a scholar
working at a table under a tree in a pasture. On the table were two books, Locke’s Essay
on Human Understanding and Newton’s Principia. It symbolized the natural, empirical
32
origins of understanding. I support appropriate technology. I am reminded of the
frontispiece when I take my laptop to work in a beautiful natural environment. I do not
romanticise nature. I think it can be improved. I am reminded of the comment of Alfonse
X when told of the Copernican system, “If the Lord Almight had consulted me before she
embarked upon Creation, I could have suggested something simpler”--less lethal, and
more humane. I am reminded of the Maine farmer did: The local minister drove his horse
and buggy out to view his progress. He was impressed. “My, with the help of God, you
have done wonders with this land!” The farmer looked up, wiped the sweat from his brow
and replied, “Ja, you should have seen it when God had it all to himself!” Social theory
should be more like technology. Science studies the things one can’t change--for
example, the charge, rest mass, spin, magnetic moment of the electron. Technology
concerns itself with the things that can be changed--the position and motion of electron-electronics. Habermas argued against the dehumanizaton of social theory by the slavish
adaptation of prescriptive scientistic ideology, logical positivism, (or logical empiricism)
and instrumental rationality. I argued for the humanization of science and for social
responsibility in science by developing a humanistic, critical theory of science “adequate
to the fullness of the phenomena”. The UN was necessary as a vehicle to implement the
provisions of the New International Scientific and Technological Order.
When I arrived in Starnberg at the Max Planck Institute I was assigned an office
which had belonged to a recently deceased sociologist. His personal effects were still in
the office. The Institute was housed in several different buildings. In my building, an
converted mansion, I had coffee with von Weiszäker and a sociologist in the building at
10am most weekday mornings. My building was the site of an Institute party at which
there was some heavy drinking. I was asked if I knew the story of the sociologist whose
office I was occupying. It was volunteered. Habermas was always dissatisfied with his
research. He tried harder, working longer, to no avail. He turned to drink. He was married
to the sociologist with whom von Weiszäker and I had coffee every morning. I hadn’t
noticed that was her picture in his office. They had small children. She came home to find
him dead of alcohol poisoning. I had noticed the antagonistic, destructive and competitive
character of criticism during seminars. Researchers seemed on the attack. It wasn’t
constructive criticism. I had unsuccessfully tried to recapture some of my lost German
heritage. I attributed the atmosphere to the German character, but perhaps it had more to
do with the lack of tenure. Researchers felt very insecure. I was alienated by the respect
for authority. Not only would pedestrians wait at a red light to cross an empty street, they
would become angry with anyone who dared to cross. They seemed very conformist and
intolerant. My most alienating memory is that of a poster advertising a bank. It showed a
beautiful woman standing next to a Mercedes in front of a luxurious house. The message
was (paraphrased), “If you want to keep a beautiful wife, keep your money in our bank”.
In the urban culture, it seemed that the emphasis was on sex instead of live, on money,
status, and prestige instead of on human values. Not much different than in the U.S., but
emphasized. In the countryside and villages, emphasis on children and traditional family
values still prevailed, or so was my impression.
K. Reverse military spinoff.
33
Instead of Habermas, I spent my time with von Weizsäker. He was very interested
in my research on the external costs of nuclear power. He later became head of the
German equivalent of the Rasmussen Committee on nuclear power. They were following
the U.S. lead, especially in PR. I was invited by the nuclear industry to attend a
conference entitled, “Kernenergie und risiko” (Nuclear power and risk). Its title was
changed to “Kernenergie und sicherheit” (Nuclear power and security). It was lavish, with
gourmet food, in a luxurious venue. I hadn’t intended to still be working on the external
costs of nuclear power. Calculation of the external costs of nuclear power was supposed
to have been a class project in which each student estimated one particular cost. My job
was to integrate the pieces at the end of the semester. I had committed myself to reporting
the results to a conference on nuclear power in Namûr, Belgium. The student papers were
disappointing. It turned out to be a very intractable problem. I was constantly reminded of
the comment, “I have never seen a problem, no matter how complicated, which, when
viewed from the proper perspective,....didn’t appear …… even more complicated”. I
couldn’t draw it to resolution--to the point where a critic couldn’t say, “But you haven’t
included these other possibly quite significant factors”. There were always more possibly
significant factors yet to be included in the analysis. I did gain some insights, which were
valuable in the classroom and in TV debates. The nuclear power industry wanted to take
credit for all of the energy, which issued from a power plant. Gary Chapman, and other
researchers in England, who published in the journal Energy Policy, initiated “net energy
analysis” which made nuclear power look similar to a big Rube Goldberg contraption. If
one considered the whole nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power consumed more than half of
the gross power output. A major consumption of energy occurred in the enrichment
gaseous diffusion enrichment process that was inherited from the military. Energy
efficiency was not a military priority. Since the political economy of nuclear power
dictated the development only of the “front end” of the nuclear fuel cycle up to the point
where power could be sold to consumers, to the neglect of the appropriately named “back
end”--reprocessing, waste management and disposal, and decommissioning, and since
one couldn’t estimate the energy demands of technologies that hadn’t been developed yet,
I suggested the possibility, hopefully remote, that nuclear power might actually be an
energy sink. The estimate is yet to be made.
It has been suggested that I am somewhat of a traitor to nuclear physics because I
am so critical to its two main applications: bombs and power plants. Nuclear physics and
medical, and other socially constructive applications are fine. It is embarrassingly
unfortunate that its earliest two most important applications were so negative. Actually, a
more common reaction was to hold me culpable for bombs and power plants. Indeed, I
felt somewhat culpable. I was just pursuing the most promising career path to achieve
economic viability. I expended many times the effort expiating for my nuclear research
than I did in research itself. Of course, the research provided the position from which I
could more effectively criticize nuclear applications. I helped provide credibility to
community activists whom I found in many cases to be very well informed and
knowledgeable. On a panel with a high school student named Tim Carpenter, who
became the head of the Orange County Alliance for Survival, I felt I had something to
learn from him. One doesn’t need academic credentials to become competent and
knowledgeable.
34
The mess created at West Valley, NY, by Peter Grace, the head of Reagan’s
efficiency committee, when he didn’t use stainless steel for radioactive waste tanks in
order to save money, was instructive. The courts ruled that taxpayers were liable for most
of the cleanup costs according to what I call the “Don’t Stick Beans Up Your Nose”
philosophy of law. If taxpayers didn’t vote for representatives who would pass legislation
and set up regulatory committees to proscribe sticking beans up one’s nose, then they
were financially responsible when people caused injury by doing something so stupid.
Similarly, if Peter Grace “stupidly” (It’s not so stupid to make profit at public expense)
used carbon steel tanks which corroded and in which acid could not be used to liquefy the
solid waste to pump it, necessitating elaborate and expensive techniques with
cherrypicker cranes and heavy shielding, then the taxpayers were liable because
regulations didn’t forbid it. And next time be more careful! Ah, the intrigues of bourgeois
law!
M. Socialistic Militarism.
I divided nuclear power costs into three categories: utility bill (internal) costs, tax
bill (subsidy) costs, and victim costs. In a free enterprise “laissez faire” economy
nuclear power never would have happened. It happened as a consequence of
“socialistic” government subsidies, and military (reverse) “spin off” from the
Manhattan Project, which saddled nuclear power with inefficient gaseous diffusion
plants and risky power plan designs. In calculating victim costs I discovered that the
standard value placed on a life was calculated from the amount of money a worker, on
average, wouldn’t make in wages because he was dead--$150,000. Estimates of how
much people valued life on the basis of how much they were willing to pay to prolong
it indicated a value ten times as large. There is no definite way to value life in
monetary terms. It remains a human judgement.
I decided to break up the study and publish it in pieces. I wrote the article, “Who
Will Pay for the Nuclear Catastrophe” in Zagreb, January 1979 without a clue that Three
Mile Island was imminent.
M. Transmigration of Souls.
Von Weizsäker was still involved in very esoteric physics, but he had turned
philosopher as well. He told me a metaphorical story about philosophers: A worker
remained in the plant day and night, weekends included. He was asked why he never went
home to his wife.
“Ach, die Frau! Sie redet und redet und redet!” (My wife talks and talks and
talks.)
“Na und. Woüber redet sie?” (What does she talk about?)
“Ach, sie sagt das nicht!” (Ach, she doesn’t say!)
It was interesting to hear his account of nuclear physics in Germany during the
war. Von Weizsäker’s semiempirical mass formula had done for nuclear physics what
Mendeleyev had done for chemistry with the periodic chart of the elements. It predicted
which nuclei would be stable, or, at least the line of maximum stability on a chart of the
number of protons vs. the number on neutrons. In Einstein’s famous letter to Roosevelt to
begin the nuclear bomb (Manhattan) project started (actually written by Leo Szilard), the
final admonition was that von Weizsäker had returned to Berlin! Why hadn’t von
35
Weizsäker and Heisenberg developed the nuclear bomb? After all, nuclear fission was
discovered in Germany. Aristocrats like von Weizsäker considered Hitler little better than
a bug. In their dangerous situation it seemed best to continue to work, but with little
enthusiasm and a great deal of dissimulation. What about emigration? The question was
turned back on me. Would I emigrate if the U.S. government became fascist? Actually,
one of the motivations for working overseas was to explore the territory and prospects in
such an eventuality. No, it would be a very difficult transition to make. I sympathize with
immigrants who have felt compelled to make such a difficult transition. Unless one is
forced out it is difficult to leave one’s home and country. When Canada deported me
when I tried to emigrate, I wasn’t really disappointed. The thought of never being able to
go further south than the Canadian border wasn’t appealing. Of course, if one is only an
economic refugee, not a political one, the restrictions aren’t so severe. People in
command of substantial financial resources have little difficulty in emigrating. With a
million dollars I understand that a visa is essentially automatic. Other established people
may suffer loss of status. Unfortunately, many didn’t realize how urgent and compelling
were matters until it was too late. When I was on a speaking tour in the German
Democratic Republic (DDR or “East Germany”) I encountered ethnically German
communists who also had to flee the Gestapo, commonly by foot over the Pyranees to
Spain, then overseas, then to England, sometimes to the U.S. No, von Weizsäker and
others remained as passive and taciturn dissenters in their comfortable academic
positions. They reported that prospects for a nuclear fission bomb were unpromising.
Germany did not pursue it.
Decades ago I wrote a paper entitled, The Transmigration of Souls”. I envision a
world in which borders would be no more than matters of administrative convenience,
that it would not be necessary to combat discrimination or maltreatment if one lived on
the"wrong” side of the border, that people would be well treated regardless of borders.
Yesterday La Resistencia presented a program in church on the problems of the border
with Mexico. I was reminded of the paper. What changes would be required in the world
to achieve that goal? Certainly global institutions adequate to the task would be required.
Bilateral treaties are woefully inadequate. Multilateral treaties are better. International
organizations like the UN require principled reform, and, I would submit, a considerable
degree of supranationalism.
In my methodological approach to understanding the phenomena of nuclear
escalation, one of the most compelling critical questions which sprung from the
phenomena and theoretical attempts at understanding related to the development of world
rule of law. That lead to another study of the role the U.S. government plays in the UN,
especially concerning efforts to achieve national security by enhancing international
security. Reagan's reaction to the UNCRDD conference is not identical to the pattern, but
it still is quite typical. There is a little recognized, but fundamental distinction between
international security (world rule of law) and disarmament. I have argued that
disarmament will remain a chimera as long as weapons have perceived economic and
political utility, as long as nuclear weapons are required to obtain a permanent seat in the
Security Council. In order to achieve peace and disarmament, weapons must be made
irrelevant--useless for aggression, unnecessary for defense, and even counterproductive.
This requires better management of the planet. This requires bringing governments,
36
which perpetrate most of the killing in the world, and commit most of the human rights
violations, under the rule of law--and it should be just, democratic law, not repressive
law. The UN is currently woefully inadequate to the task. It urgently requires
restructuring. Inspired by a ringing phrase by Langston Hughes, I submit, “The UN never
was the UN to me, yet some day it will be!” The UN needs reform because the world
needs reform. We face exacerbating problems, which transcend the borders of nationstates and therefore are beyond their jurisdiction, competence, and authority. UN reform
is required to remedy a world in deplorable condition:
Planetary mismanagement. Division of the planet into a hodgepodge of national
boundaries has in massive mismanagement of our common home, while problems,
such as human rights abuses (as well as those of the environment and of international
security) sometimes with refugees and other effects transcending national boundaries,
lack adequate global institutions to effectively address them.
No global parliament. The UN is an organization of governments, not of peoples.
Resolutions of the UN General Assembly (which follows the principle of universality,
but does not seat directly elected representatives) are legally non-binding expressions
of sentiment.
Abrogatable, voluntary, nonuniversal treaties. Except for the UN Charter and the
Nuremberg Principles, treaties, covenants, and conventions are voluntary and not
universal. The principle of national sovereignty permits their unilateral abrogation
even after ratification.
Courts lacking authority. Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is limited and
voluntary. Individuals have no standing. There exists no UN Human Rights court
before which individual victims have standing to sue governments for redress of
grievances.
No legitimate, uniform enforcement capability. Stronger countries impose their will
upon weaker ones, attacking, invading, and occupying territory, committing gross
human rights violations, blithely ignoring legally non-binding condemnatory
resolutions of the General Assembly, often even defying Security Council resolutions,
sometimes using the UN to provide legitimacy for their actions.
The question then is,
“Accepting commonly agreed aspirations and goals, how can the United Nations be
restructured to best achieve them?
N. Basic Principles of Governance .
Inadequate solutions fail to engender enthusiasm in me. If we are to overcome
hypocrisy and bypass empty rhetoric, a principled approach is required. Principles gain
easier acceptance than issues. Once agreed, they can help decide issues, guide the design
of the structure of institutions necessary to achieve common goals, successfully avoiding
“band aid” reformism, which makes principled reform difficult, if not impossible. I
submit the following outline, which contains some innovative proposals as well as basic
principles enjoying widespread support:
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE
37
 Recognizing that just (non-repressive) law depends primarily upon voluntary
compliance rather than enforcement, and that
 Voluntary compliance largely depends upon a perception of justice in law, and
that
 The most direct way to achieve the perception of justice is democratic
participation in the formulation of legislation and in the establishment and
operation of institutions to implement and to enforce the law. In addition,
 Law must be universally applicable.
 Law must be uniformly enforced.
 Government itself must be subject to and operate under the same rule of law.
[Experience indicates that this is best achieved with constitutional human rights
protections, especially for critics and opposition, and strict explicit constitutional limits
on the powers of government, with separation of powers and checks and balances
between branches of government.]
 Other guiding principles in designing governmental and institutional structure
include:
 The Federalist Maxim, “Decisions should be made on as local a level as is
reasonable, practical, and feasible”.
 The Ecological Maxim, “There is stability in diversity” [so that if one route to
redress is obstructed, or if one branch malfunctions, others are available]25.
 The Representation Maxim, “Everyone should be allowed to define their own
political identities (not necessarily geographic) and to have a representative of their
(multiple) views.”
 The Democratic Maxim, “Social institutions should be governed by those
identifiable constituencies in proportion to their stake in the operation of the
institution, tempered by competence to express that interest.”
My formulation of the Representation Maxim is somewhat innovative and
requires elaboration. It is an extension of “proportional representation”. In a “winnertake-all” system in which one’s political identity is geographically imposed, locally
minority views may be denied representation in perpetuity. If you live in a designated
district, you have an assigned “elected representative” who may actually represent the
antithesis of your views. The pretense is that this is nonetheless “your representative”. It
is not only the highly intelligent, well-educated, profound thinkers who generally find
themselves in the minority. Almost everyone is minority in some respect or other and is
denied representation for that identity, regardless of how important that identity may be to
the individual. It seems a sham that systems where most everyone is denied representation
for their minority views are called “democracies”.26
25
E.g., International Governmental Organizations (IGOs). An analysis of relations between municipalities
[and other non-state governmental organizations] and foreign countries is provided in Chadwick (1977)
277-318.
26 Of course, it is a magnitude less ridiculous than referring to systems with “the best politicians money can
buy” if not through (illegal) outright bribery or campaign contributions, then through (legal) campaign
financing, media advertising, and lobbying, as “democratic”.
38
The remedy I propose is to allow voters to freely choose their political identities,
be they conventionally geographic, or, alternatively, religious, vocational, avocational,
ideological, environmental, parental, gender, sexuality, consumer, potential crime
accident or health victim, etc., and to allow them to cast their [perhaps multiple (say 10)]
votes in accordance with their political priorities. If a representative could gain a seat with
an established minimum number of supporters, essentially everyone would be guaranteed
(multiple) representation, by representatives who support the (prioritized) views of the
voters, not by officials who oppose them27.
The effects of such a leap to democracy would be complex and should be subject
to thoughtful analysis, but some salutary consequences can be anticipated: If voters had
confidence in the leadership of at least some of the organizations they voluntarily joined-churches, trade unions, etc., they would be much less vulnerable to manipulation by the
corporate-controlled mass media. Representatives would have a much more reliable and
solid constituency, which would make them much less susceptible to the blandishments
and payola of lobbyists, and more receptive to the reasoned arguments of lobbyists [and
others] in behalf of their constituencies. Their positions would be primarily vulnerable to
a loss of confidence in them by the voluntary organizations, which supported them. [A
way in which such democracy could be incorporated in a “functional” approach to United
Nations reform by establishing a People’s Assembly, first by forming a Council of
sympathetic and qualified NGO’s like Vanguards, a coalition of some 200 NGO’s that
support the formation of what they call a “Second Assembly”. (My proposal to form a
“Peoples’ Assembly” is elaborated below.)
O. Reform vs. Reformism.
Q. There is a distinction between genuine principled reform and “band aid” reformism. I
testified before the “Leach Commission” for a more “effective” UN. Efficiency and
efficacy are deemed desirable characteristics for organizations, including the United
Nations. However, the critical question is, “Which mission and which goals should be
accomplished with efficiency and dispatch?”
Because most people’s political identities are imposed on a geographic basis, many people never are
allowed to have a representative. No one for whom they vote is ever elected, not because there are not many
people in the world who would vote for the same candidate with them, but because not many people in their
assigned geographic district vote with them. As long as a candidate obtains the endorsement of a minimum
number of voters, a voting seat in the Parliament would be guaranteed. Each voter might be allowed
multiple endorsements for multiple candidates, which they could cast for different purposes--environmental
protection, liberation of women, trade unionism, professionalism, or concern for a special cause or issue.
This way essentially everyone could be represented, compared to the “winner-take-all” system currently
used.
I wasted some time attending a meeting to interview a Republican candidate, Jim Morrissey, who had the
credentials of “having met a payroll”, who later became my unwanted and rejected, but imposed
“representative”. I asked him what ideas he had to protect our lives and health from a polluted environment.
He replied, “Abolish car pools.” I felt the answer was unresponsive, so I repreated the question, with the
identical response. A third party repeated the question. The response was unwavering--protect people’s
lives and health by eliminating car pools. Molly Ivins’ comment about politicians came to mind, “If he were
any dumber one would have to water him”, yet they try to tell me that he is my representative instead of
admitting that I don’t have, and have never been allowed to have a representative. So much for
“democracy”.
27
39
There was a clear dichotomy between those who wanted the UN to become a
more effective tool for the U.S. State Department (Pax Americana) and those who wanted
a UN modeled on universal principles: between those who wanted to use the UN to
legitimize U.S. government intervention--military, economic, and political, and to spread
the cost of the efforts on behalf of the special (vested) interests the U.S. government
represents, in accordance with the “trickle down” theory (Capitalists become richer and
trickle on the rest of us), and those who want a more secure, more just, more democratic,
less polluted world. Coalitions form between those who wish to use the UN for imperial
purposes and reformers who wish to create world rule of law that honors basic principles
of governance and justice.
This dichotomy is illustrated by the contrast between those who wish to establish
an International Criminal Court (ICC), like Amnesty International, and those who created
and support the International Criminal Tribunals (ICT) (on Ruanda and former
Yugoslavia). The ICC was carefully drafted, with full consultation with NGO’s. It
resulted in a statute treaty that honors basic principles of jurisprudence, like no ex post
facto laws, and due process, including, universal applicability and uniform enforcement.
It was adamantly opposed by the U.S. government and the Pentagon. The “might makes
right” tribunals, like the ICT, answer to the Security Council in flagrant violation of these
basic principles.
P. Make Love, not War!”.
Danny, my friend from the sixth grade, my roommate in high school and junior
college, had moved in with me again in Santa Barbara while I was attending UC Santa
Barbara. We were sharing a meal of cold corn and beans one afternoon eaten directly and
cold out of the can--actually quite a tasty combination--when two girls arrived from
Westmont College, a religious liberal arts college nearby. We probably appeared a
pathetic lot, because they invited us out to dinner - out of pity, I presume. The landlady,
on the other hand, evicted us for allowing girls in the room. Westmont girls couldn’t
drink. That was a sin. They couldn’t dance. That was a sin. They couldn’t even attend the
cinema. That was a sin. We would park for hours. God is Love! {When my ex-fiancee
would so exclaim, I would proclaim the obverse, “Love is God”. I have always
worshiped love in all of its forms. I have fond memories everytime I see that bumper
sticker-or “Make Love, not War!”. However, I have never seen the predicted sequel
“Piece on Earth”. On the other hand I invariably feel sorry for people sporting the slogan,
“My best friend is Jesus”. I am reminded of the many lonely children who invent
imaginary friends.
Danny suggested that we buy land in Isla Vista adjacent to where the new University of
California, Santa Barbara campus was to be built on the former WW II Army Air Force
base next to the airport. I borrowed $300 for the down payment. After that, payments
were $30/month, but there was $15/month income from an oil lease. A few years later I
had the land, which was by then free and clear, appraised to use to guarantee bail for
political prisoners. It appraised at $220,000 in 1969 dollars. I was rich. I never had to
work again, at least not for money. I could live on the interest. Somehow, as a land
speculator, that profit never seemed to belong to me. I was only the steward of the assets.
40
I don’t believe in ownership. I support stewardship. Title conveys the responsibility of
managing and caring for property in serving the larger social interest in conjunction with
obtaining some advantage from its use, not the right to wreak havoc in the name of
“property rights”, i.e., owners’ rights in the name of private greed. The university
expanded, ultimately surrounding us on three sides, with the Pacific Ocean on the fourth.
Like Danny, who wanted to have people say about him, “If you’re so rich, how
come you ain’t smart?”, Jon had no academic ambition. He just wanted to be rich. He
squandered his inheritance in a five year long party. As he puts it, he became a poor
capitalist and I became a rich communist. Danny became a rich capitalist, but not an
imperialist. Of course, that is terminology, which is so misinterpreted as to require
explanation.
Ironically, I have become very active in the Unitarian Church and attend every
Sunday that my schedule permits. In college I often was advised that I appeared to be a
Unitarian without being aware of it. Schedule overloads and anti-clericalism delayed my
exposure. When I returned to California in 1958 I tried the Santa Monica fellowship with
Rev. Pipes, who I heard today as I write this, did good work in the civil rights movement.
Perhaps I attended the wrong day. It seemed ritualistic and platitudinous. I was advised to
try again--this time at the 1st Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, with the heroic Reverend
Steve Fritchman in the pulpit. It was a revelation. I had some doubts about myself. I had
been accused many times (continuing in the present) of dissenting for the sake of dissent,
as an end in itself. I wondered whether I was subconsciously doing that. Now I found
myself in a congregation approaching a thousand with whom, by and large, I agreed--a
wonderful experience. I applied to become a member. The Associate Minister, an AfroAmerican named Lewis Mc Gee, who later became the Minister of the church of which I
was destined to become the President, turned me down, commenting and regretting that I
was not a Unitarian type. I presume that my intense anticlerical past contributed to that
assessment. I remained undeterred, I didn’t need to be a member to be active. I became
the Director of the College Center and served on the Forum Committee with Ava Helen
Pauling. During the McCarthy period and its aftermath, the Forum Committee and the
church provided a venue for many prominent and controversial speakers who were
essentially banned from other venues.
It was at a dinner meeting at the Pauling’s that I first met her husband Linus, who
became my idol and inspiration. He commented frequently, even publically, that Ava
Helen was his inspiration. Not only did he consider her a more intelligent person than he,
he considered her a nicer person, a person whom he wished to emulate, therefore the
inspiration. Once, at a dinner at the Pauling's’ I asked what a socially conscious nuclear
physicist on the verge of his doctorate should do with himself. Linus said bluntly,
Teach!”. After a convincing discussion I followed his advice without regret. Linus had
been Vice-president of the World Federation of Scientific Workers [WFSW], which was
formed after World War II. Joliot-Curie was its first President. I have served on their
Executive Committee for decades now. Linus also wrote the recruiting letter for the U.S.
affiliate of the WFSW, the US Federation of Scholars and Scientists [also affiliated with
the American Association for the Advancement of Science since its inception in 1938 as
the American Association of Scientific Workers (which inspired the name of the WFSW
41
that was founded some eight years later)], and served as its Honorary Chair until his
death.
Acting as Director of the College Center was perhaps the most intellectually
stimulating period of my life. We essentially ran our own church with lectures every
week. I vividly remember scheduling eminences like Robert Kenney, California Attorney
General under the Warren administration. I scheduled many professors from USC and
other local universities. When the topic was “the theatre of the absurd”, I remember
reflecting upon what we might do with ourselves if we ever solved all major social
problems of justice, environmental sustainability, and violence. Would we have nothing
left to do? Would we be bored? Not at all, we could tickle our intellects without limit
with such indulgences as the theater of the absurd. Some of the students attacked the topic
as being bourgeois and decadent given the problems, even crises by which our society
was confronted, like the struggle for civil rights, for example. Invited guest speakers
ranged across a wide spectrum. When I invited Ralph Forbes, of the American Nazi
Party, to speak I was required to provide an explanation to the church Board of Trustees.
They accepted my explanation that students needed to be aware [as do we all] of
arguments, events, and movements that are part of our world, that this would in no way
promote racism, that the students were very sophisticated, and that it would expose the
Nazi movement to some useful criticism. The program occurred as anticipated, with
civilized but highly critical discourse. I was proud of the ability of my students to handle
such a controversial topic so contrary to their own values and impulses.
As I write this I just returned from a retreat at de Benneville Pines, the U-U
[Unitarian-Universalist] camp for religious liberals. The churches merged in 1961. De
Benneville was an M.D. and Universalist who lived during the 18th Century. As I
understand it, Universalists preached that god so loved humanity that even the worst
sinners could gain entry to heaven. Unitarians trace their origins to King Sigismund from
Transylvania who reportedly was the first to proclaim freedom of religion as a personal
matter that did not require the sanction of the state. The Council of Nicea, at which there
was a vote as to whether Jesus was divine [the ayes prevailed], divided the trinitarians
(Athanasius) (the Holy Ghost, or Mary, [I have always been unsure] was added later to
make the trinity) from those who voted in the negative who were clumped together as
Unitarians (Arius), leading to the jocular description of Unitarians as those who believe
that there exists, at most, one god. Those who voted negative because they believed that it
should be a matter of private conscience and intellect, instead of proclaimed doctrine and
dogma, became the inspiration for modern day Unitarians, despite the name that resulted
from them being lumped in with all of the others who voted in the negative for other
reasons. The man credited for the discovery of oxygen, Joseph Priestly, is also credited
with bringing Unitarianism to America. When I worked in Birmingham, England, I
inadvertently passed the location of his former house. The English proudly have placed a
plaque to commemorate him, without mentioning that the house of this heretic was
burned down, leading him to flee to America, to our benefit.
I don’t pretend to a profound understanding of the history. I am more concerned
with the values and consequences of religion. I was attracted to Unitarianism because it
stimulated my intellect instead of insulting it, because it encouraged discussion but
allowed conclusions to be individual matters of conscience and intellect [prompting the
42
story that when Unitarians travelling a path through the clouds encountered a fork with
the signs “To Heaven”, and “To a Discussion about Heaven”, the latter path was chosen
without hesitation], and because Unitarians in general were humanists and activists. They
tended to be the kind of people that I sought to emulate. They were the kind of people I
thought we should all aspire to emulate.
I hadn’t returned to de Benneville Pines for a number of years. When we were
asked how many of us had ever been there before, I recalled the days in the early 60’s
when we first acquired the camp. I lead many “work weekends” of students from the
College Center. There wasn’t a single structure then, only the chimney and cement pad,
upon which we folk danced, from the Boy Scout lodge that had burned down. We slept in
sleeping bags. My kids always enjoyed the experience. I remember at least once sleeping
in the snow. It was warm and cozy. The first task was to dig drainage ditches to divert
rainwater from running through the camp. We spent a lot of time digging, first drainage
ditches, then sewer and water ditches. We finally started dong some cement work and
carpentry as the first structures were raised. We started sleeping inside the newly
constructed cabins. The camp is beautiful now, with multiple structures, and with
structural problems resulting from our amateurish efforts. I didn’t know what I was doing.
I only supplied physical labor and followed instructions. But this is almost four decades
later. Maybe we didn’t so too badly. We certainly developed the camp inexpensively. The
lodge has been rebuilt. It was with great satisfaction that I revisited the camp. I was asked
whether I had written the history of camp. This is my feeble attempt. However, my
memory fails me. I am left with fond memories bereft of details.
It is painful to dissent from orthodoxy. One does so only at the compulsion of
one’s conscience and intellect. I have since dismissed all such accusations as attempts to
avoid an issue in which their arguments lack cogency by raising ad hominem arguments
to the effect that it is not their position which needs reexamination, rather, it is my
psychological reason for dissent, especially when Hegel’s observation that self interest is
often confused with virtue. Altruism is a lofty goal. However, if we could merely reach a
level of public political self-interest, it would be a major improvement. Voters are
massively manipulated into voting for contrary special interests. Deliberately ignoring the
lessons of the previous experience with prohibition, drugs were converted into a major
problem, criminalizing them, and making them profitable, in order to war against antiwar activists and their minority allies who were the major victims and exploitees of the
war, as Ehrlichman candidly admitted to Bob Sheer in an interview. The opposition of
middle class youth was defused by ending conscription and replacing it with the “poverty
draft”. To a conscript who received $78/month in the Army, I was initially surprised by
the study showing that, including fringe benefits, young males fared better on average in
the military than in civilian life, but upon reflection, it is understandable why they would
resort to such a policy given the opposition and circumstances. I understand that the
previous experience with prohibition exacerbated the problem of alcoholism, which, with
tobacco, remains by far the most severe of our substance abuse problems. Bulk inhibits
smuggling, so beer and wine were replaced by hard liquor in speakeasies. Similarly,
bulky, and essentially benign marijuana was replaced by concentrated, addicting hard
stuff.
43
The transparency of the purposes of the current drug policy is indicated not only
by the unequal enforcement, but by the 100-1 ratio in the amounts of the substance which
trigger severe mandatory penalties, for drugs with indistinguishable effects, the only
difference being that the severe penalties are reserved for the variation marketed in
minority communities. More than one generation has now been incarcerated and
economically stigmatized to justify racial discrimination not overtly and honestly, but
covertly by disguising it as the oxymoronic “criminal justice” system and its economic
consequences. We are developing into a prison society with a growing convict work
force. The “war on drugs” apparently was invented also to ease the ushering of thinly
disguised fascism. The growing police state is justified to the public as necessary to
conduct the war on drugs. We should submit to wiretapping, breaking down our front
doors, being stalked and shot by Marines in camouflage if we shoot at predators
threatening our flock, having our property coveted by the authorities seized without any
showing of culpability on the part of the title holder. They create a problem, then argue
that we should sacrifice our freedom in order to solve it. A more clever ploy is imaginable
only with difficulty. I won’t argue that the problem they created is insignificant--it is
severe. However, the remedy is to take the profit out of the business by
One of the most compelling critical questions related to the development of world
rule of law. That lead to another study of the role the U.S. government plays in the UN,
especially concerning efforts to achieve national security by enhancing international
security. Reagan's behavior in this conference is not identical to the pattern, but it still is
quite typical. There is a little recognized, but fundamental distinction between
international security (world rule of law) and disarmament. I have argued that
disarmament will remain a chimera as long as weapons have perceived economic and
political utility, as long as nuclear weapons are required to obtain a permanent seat in the
Security Council. In order to achieve peace and disarmament, weapons must be made
irrelevant--useless for aggression, unnecessary for defense, and even counterproductive.
This requires better management of the planet. This requires bringing governments,
which perpetrate most of the killing in the world, which cause most of the human rights
violations, under the rule of law--and it should be just, democratic law, not repressive
law. The UN is currently woefully inadequate to the task. It urgently requires
restructuring.
Danny had a profound influence on me. His arguments flattened the ministers
whom I had hoped would bolster my shaken faith. Of course, the Song of Roland, the
crusades, and others influences had their effect. However, I didn’t buy into his capitalist
ethic. He was a personable con man. I participated in a couple of scams--one on a used
car lot, before I dropped out. My rewards were a leather motorcycle jacket one time, and a
startling pair of gorilla-looking motorcycle gloves the next. It was Dan’s idea to go into
the religion business. Wasn’t P. T. Barnum right? Isn’t there a sucker born every minute?
Weren’t sheep born to be fleeced? The practice of fleecing the gullible has a long
continuing tradition for which we had no responsibility initiating. Since this was
common, accepted practice, why shouldn’t we get our share of the takings. The idea was
to advertise that we would use our superior powers of prayer to help people make money
on the stock market, or in gambling. There was no charge. They would merely sign an
44
agreement to give us a share of their winnings. [If they lost, we didn’t know them.] For a
while I went along for the ride, carried by Dan’s charisma and charm. He was amazing.
People he conned knew it and still liked him. They would laugh about it. He looked
somewhat like Julio Iglesias then, except he was much more muscular and well built. I
accepted the practice as conventional, then I considered further and decided to reject it.
That may be the way a capitalist society operates, but I aspired to a better society. I don’t
think ignorant, gullible, naive, or vulnerable people should be taken advantage of. They
should be assisted in defending themselves against exploitation as much as they will
accept help.
The university expanded, ultimately surrounding us on three sides, with the
Pacific Ocean on the fourth.
Like Danny, who wanted to have people say about him, “If you’re so rich, how
come you ain’t smart?”, Jon had no academic ambition. He just wanted to be rich. He
squandered his inheritance in a five year long party. As he puts it, he became a poor
capitalist and I became a rich communist. Danny became a rich capitalist, but not an
imperialist. Of course, that is terminology, which is so misinterpreted as to require
explanation.
C. There is a multidimensional continuum of possible political economic systems.
[What a pain it is to have to use the combination “political economic”. The ideological
domination that wishes to keep us thinking of these as separate categories (like “public
vs. private”) is so pervasive that a suitable alternative word in English simply doesn’t
exist. At my university, besides entitling the Department of Politics the Department of
Political “Science” (and Criminal Justice, another oxymoron), as a subtle promotion of
the behaviorist non-normative ideology so conducive to subservience of pliant
practitioners of manipulation, Economics is a separate department, and not just a separate
department, but in an entirely separate school, the School of Business.] One way to
explicate distinctions and to identify landmarks in this multidimensional continuum of
complexity, and to try to capture the essence of a system despite noncompliant details, is
to identify ideal methods of distributing wealth. This is like model building. A successful
model is simple, but not simplistic or simple-minded. It is a judicial compromise between
the often overwhelming complexity of reality (or of potential reality), and the simplicity
and analytical utility of the model. The more approximately the model describes the
behavior of the system, the better the model, until the complexity of the model begins to
reduce its utility. Models can be made more sophisticated (and more complicated) until,
overall, they begin to lose the analytical advantage of their simplicity.
The defining element of capitalism is the distribution of money to those who
already have it. It’s called "profit" from investment. The socialist motto is, “To each
according to their work.” I didn’t recognize it until years later, but I first encountered the
communist motto at a friend's house in high school. The Kidder family had a Christmas
family with three children, Eve, Carol, and Noel. In their house I first saw the plaque,
“From each according to their ability; to each according to their need.”, mounted on the
wall [Actually it said "his", but I transformed it to eliminate the gender chauvinism.] It
just hung there. No one, including myself, ever mentioned it or commented on it. We
never had a political discussion. But the image of that plaque was unforgettably etched in
my mind. I thought about it. The idea of a family of humanity, where we cooperated and
45
took care of each other, appealed to me. It distresses the right wing polemicists combating
“political correctness” [e.g., it is not politically correct to be a racist], like the
Intercollegiate Studies Institute, for which, in an ironical twist, I serve as campus
representative, that many others agree, often mistakenly identifying the Communist Motto
with the U.S. Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights.
I had a similar experience in the home of the Kennedy’s. Ralph, the unsuccessful
repeated candidate for the Fullerton City Council, was not only overqualified, with a
Ph.D. in Urban Planning--he supported low-income housing. His son heads the Orange
County Human Relations Commission. Ralph made the greatest single-handed
contribution to developing a sense of community (with a lot of help from his friends) by
publishing the Fullerton Observer. Irwin Knoll, editor of the Progressive, and frequent
guest on The McNeil/Lehrer Report, was our houseguest. I escorted him to the Kennedy’s
for an interview. On the wall hung a plaque, “Live simply that others may simply live.” It
summarized my life style more succinctly than I had ever been able to. At his funeral, on
the cover of the memorial pamphlet commemorating his admirable life, someone had
chosen to use that same theme as the title. I guess his influence extended in many other
directions as well.
Social systems are not merely economic and political. As Marx would put it, upon
the materialist base there lies a superstructure. Values, laws, religions, ideologies, etc. are
part of that superstructure. Of course, in a dialectic process the superstructure is not only
strongly influenced by the base, it influences the base. Certainly, the values one would
expect to dominate in a capitalist society-- consumerism, sycophantism before wealth,
conspicuous consumption, greed, power mongering, theft, fraud, egotism, narcissism--by
and large do prevail. I went along with them in high school, although I never seemed to
want any material possessions. What I wanted was acceptance in the family. Affection
was not a consideration. The very word “love” remains too embarrassing to mention.
After consideration, I concluded that the worth of a “man” [to succumb to traditional
jargon, which seems more natural, despite my objection to gender chauvinism] was the
difference between his contribution to society and his rate of consumption. One could
increase one’s value by reducing one’s consumption. Waste in the face of poverty seemed
immoral. I know some cultures consider a clean plate to be a request for more, despite
one’s protests to the contrary. The same with liquor. I have a compulsion not to waste. To
me it is bad manners to order more than what one can eat. I don’t object to wealth--the
more wealth the better. I object to poverty. It is dehumanizing and degrading. The main
thing wrong with poor people is that they don’t have any money. Of course, one must be
critical about wealth. Consuming more and enjoying it less is a modern syndrome--hours
essentially wasted in traffic jams in luxury cars on expensive highways makes no sense.
Not money, but quality of life represents wealth. I first calculated how many $100/year
workers would have to be impoverished to create one thousand millionaire (“billionaire”
in the US), or for a billionaire to get his next billion, in college. The, I judge, nonexistent, improvement in the quality of life of the now double billionaire, couldn’t
compare to the misery of ten million pauperized workers and their families. It didn’t
compute. It’s no way to run a world. Since I hold that one should personally care for
46
one’s possessions, more possessions imply more work, and less productivity, ergo less
value. The greater my possessions, the lesser my value.
[Chomsky on PC]
We all are dependent at times, as children, in old age, when we're ill or disabled.
Usually we are also blessed with long periods of high productivity and strength. One
should make the contribution of which one is capable when one has the strength. One
should accept the help and support one needs and deserves as a human being without
apology or loss of dignity when circumstances dictate. Backstabbing competitiveness, to
me, creates an unpleasant society. Comparison is useful to gauge performance and to
guide management. It is often confused with competition. Some people support
egalitarianism, but people’s needs differ. Some Dutch economists support a reward
system, which compensates according to the degree to which one makes the social
contribution of which one is capable. Regardless of how much one contributes, one
receives the maximum compensation and recognition if it is one’s maximum potential
contribution. They have even devised ways of evaluating potential with IQ tests and the
like. It is claimed to be the most efficient economic system since one can do no better
than when everyone does their best. However, it still depends upon material incentives. I
prefer the Christian ethic; “Virtue is its own reward.” The “new Soviet man” would be
motivated by a desire to make the maximum contribution to society, and the contribution
itself would provide satisfaction. Some claim that this is contrary to human nature, in the
face of evidence of volunteer workers and soldiers who don’t give their lives because the
pay is so high. I surveying the evidence I am struck by the high degree of cultural
adaptability of humans. Even within the same culture there is enormous variation. The
challenge is to unlock human potential, to create a higher level of civilization.
Anarchy is also involved in the concept of communism, even though the
Communists killed Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. Hugh Thomas’ book, The
Spanish Civil War, makes fascinating reading. “The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” is
supposed to be replaced by “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Aha! Communism is
dictatorship! it is claimed by supporters of capitalism. I interpret it quite differently. Wise
and just democratic government is the goal in which expertise can be injected into the
process, ranging from technocracy to experts who speak only when solicited, and then
only privately. Don K. Price, with his penchant for insightful analysis evident in his book,
The Scientific Estate, analyses the spectrum.
Workers are, on average, quite caring and generous, despite attempts to alienate
the employed from the unemployed, or to divide them into antagonistic factions defined
by nationality, or race, or religion, or gender, or sexual preference, or vocation, etc. They
want to help those who need help in the "family of humanity" spirit, but they cannot be
expected to support able people who refuse to work, regardless of how rich they happen
to be, by whatever means was used to acquire their wealth. If workers no longer support
capitalists, if democratic control over the means of production is established, capitalists
47
will become self-supporting members of the work force. Capitalists will become workers.
When workers run things and everyone becomes a worker, "dictatorship of the
proletariat" becomes synonymous with democracy. Furthermore, without exploitation and
maldistribution of wealth and opportunity, repression becomes unnecessary. Military and
police budgets can be slashed to the benefit of enhanced quality of life. Just as Thoreau
theorized: That government is best that governs least; Carried to its logical conclusion,
that government is best which governs not at all, and, when people are prepared for it,
that is the kind of government they will have--none at all! --i.e., there will be no coercive
authority. However, there will be management, administration, organization, and rules,
especially in a highly complex technological society. The democracy inherent in
communism has strong appeal, although democracy per se is not an absolute icon. I
advocate the "Democratic Maxim", “Decision making power in social institutions should
be distributed according to the degree of interest different groups have in the operation
of the institution, tempered by the competence necessary to express that interest."
The distinction between freedom and totalitarian repression, between democracy
and capitalism is not dichotomous. It is continuous and multifaceted. Although ground
has been lost to the capitalists as corporations gain global power, democratic constraints
can be strengthened. Campaign reforms to reduce the power of the numismatocracy over
politics can be introduced,
A better term is required to replace "welfare". Capitalism is automatically a
"welfare" state--it gives money, tax money, and public property, like the airways, to the
wealthy. Should that be called “wealthfare” or just “corporate welfare”? "Poorfare" has
been suggested to distinguish it from "welfare", and is highly indicated in a society with
poverty. At minimum, “welfare” should be replaced with “entitlement”--access to the
rights and responsibilities, to the care and benefits and political power, to which we are
entitled as members of the family of humanity. The main thing wrong with poor people is
that they don't have any money. That sounds like Buz Schwartz on "Money Radio"
analyzing the stock market and commenting, "The difficulty in predicting the future is not
knowing what's going to happen!" 28He never met my grandmother or heard of Murphy's
Laws, one of which is, "What ever happens, there will always be someone who knew it
would." In case you didn't know who that someone was, it was my grandmother. She
always had a “premonition”. I would always skeptically rejoin, "The next time you have a
premonition, tell me about it ahead of time! She never did. Premonitions are more
reliable in retrospect.
Capitalist apologists sometimes argue that “greed is good”, that powermongering,
selfishness and competitiveness are inherent, desirable, and invariable constants of human
nature. Such a theory has great difficulty facing the empirical exceptions. Altruism and
virtue are considered to be aberrant and abnormal. Capitalism is currently geographically
quite extensive, but temporally short-lived compared to the duration of civilization. The
theory also falters in trying to explain the many different impressions, which contend
concerning human nature. I could never accept Christian "original sin” (Inherited guilt?
It's difficult enough being responsible for one's own actions.). Sometimes it is argued that
28
In context, the statement apears less vacuous. He wanted to predict the stock market. Prices are affected
by miriad other factors, like wars and psychology.
48
there is a fundamental, essentially unchangeable human nature, with a spin to argue that it
is compatible with the self-interest and greed of capitalism. However, it is the flexibility
and adaptability of humans which is so impressive. The values, which dominate in
families, which are not dysfunctional, seemed to be a better guide as to which values were
natural and desirable. Instead of making families more capitalistic, capitalism should be
replaced by family-oriented values, and I don't mean paternalistic dictatorship, which is
capitalistic.
[Add a UN connection: decolonialization? mediating conflict between economic
systems? implementing neo-imperialism? protecting emergent (workers’) democracies
(redundant)? policing transnationals?....]
III. When all else fails, lower your standards!
A. My mind delved deeper back into origins. Did my values originate in a
previous life [a jocular interrogation]? People are generally surprised to encounter a
hardheaded nuclear physicist who believes in reincarnation. Actually, I used to believe in
reincarnation, but not in this life. I am reminded of the recent conference on UN
Peacekeeping in which I ironically, of all people, inadvertently presided over a session of
presentations by religious leaders. Despite my Christian origins, I have come to consider
the Abrahamic religions to be the bad, aggressive, intolerant, narrow-minded religions. I
cannot be reminded of the Crusades without my blood boiling with indignation. I had
come to regard the eastern religions, above all Buddhism as more benign, if not exactly
benevolent. The presentation by the Buddhist woman appalled me. The Buddhists had
not yet joined the Interfaith Peace Ministry led by a fellow Unitarian that made a series of
presentations. A current and continuing believer in reincarnation in this life, she
attributed the malnutrition of infants to retribution for misdeeds committed in previous
lives. I could not resist abusing the power of the chair to comment that this propensity to
blame victims far exceeded that of Republicans, who I thought had raised this art form to
its apotheosis, but restricted blame to actions taken in this life, or by ancient or immediate
ancestors (parents). It served to remind me of the profound consequences, which strongly
held belief devoid of, or even contrary to empirical evidence, and sometimes even
contrary to logic, can have. Of course, interpretations of empiricism and logic continue to
be used to bolster faith. The “argument from design" is amusing. It has origins preceding
the “Great Watchmaker in the sky” theology emanating from the “corpuscular
philosophy” of Newton. I counter that considering the condition of the world, the
argument from design is compellingly polytheistic. Considering the state of the world, a
committee must have created it. There is always a manifestation of distress when I
inquire of my students, “How many of you believe in gods?” Or when I say “Trust in god,
she will provide.” Or when I announce that I discount points for miracles during
experiments in the laboratory, that miracles in general are violations of laboratory rules,
and that the only miracle that occurs in this class, is when some students pass. When I
was teaching at Immaculate Heart College, a Catholic women's college in Hollywood, I
noticed that one of the nuns had posted a notice in the Chemistry lab which read, "When
all else fails........Read the instructions." St. Thomas Aquinas argued that each cause has
an effect, and vice -versa. Therefore, there must have been a first cause. Try to pass a
freshman course in logic with an argument like that! It shows the utility of faith. Faith is
49
not required to accept empirical evidence, or logic. It is required to believe that the
paleontological, genetic, geologic, and other evidence is misleading and was placed there
to test your faith. Faith is indispensable to believe in the logically contradictory--e.g., to
believe in free will and individual culpability (or credit) in a world, which is determined
by theistic omniscience (a future known is a future determined). The Greeks managed it
somehow. The Oracle of Delphi notwithstanding, Oedipus was guilty, and punished
himself accordingly.
(Tertullian here)
B. I presented a paper at an International Conference on the Role of the UN in
Peace (ICUNP) in Canada. The theme that year was UN Peacekeeping operations. The
UN is often misconstrued as some kind of world government. The UN faces far greater
difficulty than the U.S. government would have confronted if Al Capone had had a
payroll for hoods a hundred times larger than the U.S. government’s military budget.
Even with the actual resources at his disposal, Capone bought a lot of judges and
politicians. The UN faces much worse odds. It doesn’t even have the structure the U.S.
government possesses, much less the direct sources of income and budget. The UN is
currently woefully incapable of bringing governments under the rule of law. It is true that
“United Nations Forces” defeated the axis powers in WWII, but that was not a
government--it was only a coalition of governments. The UN was formed, and has the
structure of a “WWII Victors’ Club”. In practice, it has been little more than a tool of
U.S. neo-imperialism, excepting, to some degree, the agencies, which report to the
General Assembly. The goal expressed by Bush after launching the attack on Iraq was
laudable:
“...to forge...a New World Order --a world where the rule of law rather than the law of
the jungle governs conduct of nations...” [emphasis added]iii
The result was not: “the rule of the law of the jungle”.
Some support the war system and militarism. It is dramatic and exciting for some,
or at least appears so to some who are impressed by colorful uniforms, marching bands,
and glorification of victory in combat [We are number 1!]. On a nation-state scale, the
“biggest bully on the block” is domestically popular. Competition is seductive. One may
intellectually conclude that it is silly to root for one capitalist’s team over another. What
dies it matter which capitalist can hire the best players? Yet, upon encountering a game
on TV one is drawn into the temptation to support one side or the other, searching for
some reason to do so--Is it the underdog? Is it from a progressive region? [I prefer the
North over the slave, union-busting, low wage South.] Alma Mater über alles. The family
farm was 640 acres “longside the bay”, Green Bay, that is, as my German immigrant
grandfather expressed it. Now try to ignore the meaningless SuperBowl. It is more
significant than that. Wisconsin is not only my native state for which nostalgia remains
even though I moved to California when I was eight, returning to Milwaukee for one last
year to do the fifth grade. I will never forget the address of the house which was
demolished for a freeway which was never built, and which was the only home I knew
until I was eight--2355 North 32nd Street. I will never forget the details of that house--
50
the umbrella tree on the front lawn from which I would jump and disappear into the
drifted snow, the hill for a front lawn up which I dragged the Armstrong lawnmower, the
swing in the back yard from which I would bail out at the height of the swing, the cat that
slept with me under the covers, my grandmother waking me up singing “Eight bells, eight
bells, wake up from the watch down below” (whatever that means), the rhubarb and
hollyhocks growing next to the alley, the ashbin where I took my first anatomy lessons,
the plaque on the front bedroom wall which I bought for my grandmother, “By faith are
ye saved through grace”, the slats of her bed where no one ever could find me, the garage
where my grandfather kept the new Pontiac which he bought after a drunken binge, much
to the distress of my grandmother who thought a down payment on a house would be a
better expenditure (I acted as the intermediary). On my first ride in the car I inquired
whether the plastic ornaments lit up. I told my grandmother that it quite a nice car. She
softened and domestic tranquility was restored.). I vividly remember the whatnot shelf
where the glass sailboat I had bought for my grandmother rested until my grandfather
smashed it to smithereens in a drunken rage while I shivered with fear hiding behind the
furnace in the cellar. I learned to read the Green Sheet of the Milwaukee Journal at the
foot of the floor lamp purchased with S&N Green Stamps while my grandmother read in
the chair and answered my questions about words I couldn’t identify. I especially enjoyed
the column of fake German, which was, really disguised English with “huffenpuffening”
trains described in mystery style sentences with the verb at the end. I encountered the
same style in German classes I was auditing after I became a professor. The railroad
tracks, viaduct, and abandoned factories were favorite playgrounds, but paled beside the
wonders of Washington Park. My favorite after school snack was a sommer sausage with
butter on white bread sandwich with milk followed by a piece of cheese “cake”, as it was
called, but, in retrospect, seems more like a pie, not very sweet, with a dough crust.
Custard chocolate eclairs and apple slices with streusel tops were also favorites. I
generally can’t stomach contemporary pastry. Most everything is too sweet. Eclairs have
whipped cream instead of custard. Fake Kaiser rolls have mushy "Wonder Bread" crusts.
One rarely encounters Limburger cheese anymore, nor Leberknodlsuppe. Why didn’t I
learn how to make the farina dumplings for that delicious “golden” vegetable soup?
Green Bay is the only municipally owned team competing against all of those
capitalist-owned teams. Football symbolizes class conflict. “Beat the bosses!” Victory,
even vicarious, is sweet, especially, it seems, over small and quite defenseless nations like
Granada. However, lacking popular support, they dissemble with “peace through war”
theories. Signs outside SAC bases, where former “warriors” and their weapons for the
dispatch of death and destruction are at the ready, proclaimed in Orwellian style, “Peace
is Our Profession”. Hypocrisy is not portrayed as cowardice or mendacity, rather as
“political expediency”. Being of German origin, I felt especially intense about not
succumbing to “the good German syndrome” of Nazi Germany, also known as “my
country, right or wrong”.
In high school we found it intriguing to go to after hours nightclubs in south
central LA, to the Nightcap, to Jack’s Basket, and to the 5-4 Ballroom on 54th and
Broadway. No liquor was served--only “setups” into which one was to pour one’s own
alcohol. Danny nudged me no notice the guitarist pulling off a hubcap from his Caddy
51
Coupe de Ville to access his drug stash (or so we presumed, but had no idea what drugs
they might be. (Except for that, the only encounter with drugs I had was to consider it to
be wise to leave a party when a rumor was heard that marijuana was on the premises). It
was called “rhythm and blues” then. The sax was king, but the electric guitar was a
comer. The lyrics were suggestive. There were an endless number of disguises for making
love. With the proper seductive intonation the coded message of the female vocalists was
clear, “Let me put my hot dog in your bun”, “Let me walk your dog”, “Put your letter in
my box” (I’m inventing them instead of remembering them. They were too numerous and
varied to remember). When the music was coopted by white entrepreneurs it was
transformed into “rock and roll”, which never seemed as authentic to me.
C.
Except for what some perceive as ominous undertones in the phrase "new
world order", this is a sentiment shared by many of us. It is not mere parochialism which
envisions "a new world order governed by the rule of law" as "the U.S. writ large". The
general institutions required in order to implement the rule of law are covered in all
elementary civics classes--a constitution; a legislature, a judiciary, and an administration
with various agencies--with checks and balances between them. Since the Civil War, the
federal government so constituted has worked well in resolving disputes between states
without warfare. It is an effective interstate security system.
The United Nations is the obvious institution through which the rule of law
between nations could be implemented. It has a constitution--the UN Charter; a judiciary-the International Court of Justice; an administration--the secretariat; a variety of
agencies, and a legislature of sorts--the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
It is the UN's job to keep the peace and to handle situations such as those in the
Middle East. But the UN is "broke". It is "broke" largely because the U.S. administration
won't pay its assessed dues. As of 16 September 1990 it owed $525 million (29% of the
1989 UN budget). {The next greatest dead beat nation was South Africa which owed $41
million (and, of course, is not allowed to participate in the UN because of its racist
policies), followed by Brazil owing $18 million, and Iran owing $12 million.}
The UN is also "broke" because of obstruction to attempts to "fix" it. The U.S.
administration cast the only vote against a resolution to strengthen the UN into an
effective international security system (45/80), which it has opposed every year it has
been offered. It also cast the only votes in opposition to naval disarmament (43/75L.
44/116M, and 44 Decision II); against regional disarmament (44/116s); against regional
disarmament centers (44/117F); against implementation of approved disarmament
resolutions (44/116G); against international cooperation for disarmament (43/78A);
against disarmament and international security (43/76A); against prohibition of attacks
against nuclear facilities (45/58J) (a partial list). It even cast the sole vote against
dialogue to improve the international situation (43/87). This despite economic and
military coercion directed against states which do not support the positions of the U.S.
administration in the UN.
The U.S. administration holds the world record year after year for obstructionism
in the UN. For example, in the 1989 session of the UN General Assembly, on resolutions
which passed by split vote with overwhelming average majorities of 89%, the U.S.
administration concurred only 12% of the time. (From 1988 through 1990, the U.S.
52
administration concurred only 17 out of 121 times.) By comparison, the United Kingdom
and France concurred 26% of the time; NATO Pact countries plus Israel, Australia and
Austria (which seem to constitute a consistent voting block) concurred 43% of the time;
Iraq concurred 93% of the time; the Soviet Union concurred 98% of the time (It abstained
on one resolution). As would be expected, there is a strong correlation between
opposition to "the rule of law" and resort to "the law of the jungle"--bellicosity, as
recently confirmed by participation in Bush's war in the Middle East.
Corroborating evidence is provided by noting that the U.S. administration refuses
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It was the only government to
boycott the UN Conference on the Relation between Disarmament and Development. At
that conference the UK assumed the role of primary obstacle. It and the United Kingdom
do not participate in UNESCO.
Human rights covenants which have already entered into force as the law of the
planet provide another index. Important covenants include those on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights; Civil and Political Rights; Against Racism; Against Apartheid;
Against Genocide; and Against Discrimination Against Women. Of these, the U.S. has
ratified only one (genocide); the NATO Pact has a spotty record (14 ratifications are
lacking); Kuwait has ratified only the covenants against racism and Apartheid; Saudi
Arabia has approved only the covenant against genocide; Iraq, the USSR, and the Warsaw
Treaty Organization nations have ratified all of these key covenants.
It might be noted in passing that the key resolution upon which Bush depended in
order to legitimate the "law of the jungle" under cover of the "rule of law", Resolution
660, which would have authorized "any means necessary" to achieve the withdrawal from
Kuwait, did not pass since, according to "the rule of law". according to the UN Charter,
substantive resolutions of the Security Council require the concurrence of the (five)
permanent members. China, a permanent member, did not concur--it abstained, thereby
defeating the resolution legally, if not politically.
The "rule of law" is developed in the legislature, administered by the executive
branch, and tested in court. The USSR offered troops to the UN, but Bush blocked the
effort. There are no troops under UN command to enforce UN resolutions. Were the UN
to have handled the problem, the U.S. share of the burden would have been 25%--and
could have nothing if Bush had permitted negotiation to use some of the disputed oil
wealth to support a UN Security System (among many other worthy alternative uses for
the oil wealth). Instead of costing the world a trillion or so dollars in destruction,
wonderful things, including democracy and human rights, could have been constructed
with that immense wealth.
We witnessed the "law of the jungle" when Iraq's army overwhelmed Kuwaiti
defense. The "law of the jungle" was applied again in the military contest between Bush's
and Hussein's armies. The UN's job is to keep the peace. Exploiting the UN, the world's
great hope for peace, security, and justice, as legitimate for war, is another of the
tragedies of this war.
World War I was "the war to end war". World War II was "the war to make the
world safe for democracy". The war against Iraq is "the war to make the world safe for
hypocrisy"--a war in which "the rule of the law of the jungle" prevails.
53
Hypocrisy seems a precondition for political success. It is in high demand--until it is
exposed. After my nuclear physics research period had been terminated, I decided to pick
research projects on the basis on social utility. I could be part of the solution instead of
part of the problem. What was the most socially useful research I could conduct given my
background, circumstances, and opportunity? In order to evaluate Bush’s “world rule of
law” rationale for the war against Iraq on a sincerity/hypocrisy scale, I entered his entire
voting record in the General Assembly for one year (1989) in a spread sheet, analyzed,
and compared it to the records for other countries. I devoted special attention to
resolutions designed to enhance national security by enhancing international security--the
rule of law. The end of the Cold War provided an opportunity to evaluate changes in
United Nations voting patterns using the same methodology for a post Cold War year,
which was chosen to be 1992 and comparing the results with 1989.
Not unexpectedly, the end of the Cold War had a dramatic effect on United
Nations voting patterns. In comparing the voting pattern for the 44th General Assembly
(1989), immediately before the collapse of the USSR, to the 47th General Assembly
(1992), immediately after the end of the Cold War, the United States government remains
the sole (but less severe) major dissenter with overall concurrence rates of (minus!) -62%
and -44%, during and after the Cold War, respectively [on a scale ranging from -100%
corresponding to all negative votes, to +100% corresponding to all affirmative votes]29.
See Table 1 and Figure 1.
Concurrence30
Overall
Overall
\Session
Country31\
United States
Israel
UK
Rich Capitalist
Middle Capitalist
47th GA
(1992)
-44
-25
23
68
85
44th GA
(1989)
Human
Rights
47th GA
(1992)
Human
Rights
44th GA
(1989)
-62
-7
-1
51
72
-38
-26
-9
35
59
-86
-7
-1
56
80
29
Since the average concurrence was so high (+78% in 1992, +82% in 1989), an abstention was treated as
mild dissent, as one-third of a negative vote, in order to distinguish abstention from mere absence. Poor
countries sometimes cannot afford to maintain a United Nations ambassador and are absent. However, had
they been present, the average concurrence indicates that they likely would have voted affirmatively.
30 Concurrence C is defined as the mean of the product of the Relative Popularity RP and the Vote V
divided by .03 [C = <RP*V/.03> (in %)], where the Vote V = 3 for “Yes”, V = -1 for “Abstention”, and V=
-3 for “No”, where Relative Popularity RP is defined as the Popularity P divided by the average Popularity
<P> [RP = P/<P>], where Popularity P is defined as the sum of the votes V divided by .03 (in %) [P =
∑V/.03]. Concurrence can essentially range from +100% for all Yes votes to -100% for all No votes.
Because the overall concurrence was quite high [82% in 1989 and 78% in 1992] abstention was considered
a mild form of dissent, and distinct from mere absence. Many small countries have financial difficulty in
maintaining a United Nations mission and are frequently absent, although their voting pattern, and the
voting pattern of similar countries indicates that they would most likely vote affirmatively if they were
present.
31 A listing of the countries by economic/political categories based upon the Cereseto/Waitzkin
classification scheme is provided in Appendix B.
54
Poor Capitalist
93
92
61
10032
Current Socialist
93
48
1989 Socialist
71
94
34
100
Former Socialist
45
12
Average
78
82
54
91
Table 1. Comparison of Concurrence, Overall and on Human Rights Resolutions (split
vote), in the General Assembly during [44th General Assembly (1989)] and after the Cold
War [47th General Assembly (1992)].
The most dramatic change occurred with the former socialist countries whose
overall concurrence rate fell from 94% to 45%, even lower in 1992 than the rich capitalist
countries (excluding the United States, the UK, and Israel, the three most dissenting
countries in 1989) which had a concurrence rate of 68%, not far below the average overall
concurrence rate of 78%, and a bit higher than the 1989 overall concurrence rate of 51%
for the rich capitalist countries. The United States government reduced its overall dissent
from -62% to -44%, mostly by dissenting less on human rights resolutions33, however,
human rights resolutions in general suffered a more extreme decline in concurrence (from
91% down to 54%) than overall concurrence (only slightly reduced from 82% to 78%).
The decline among the former socialist countries was dramatically steep (from 100% to
12%!).
32
Rounded down from the actual score of 104. Because Human Rights resolutions were so popular (91%
average concurrence level in 1989, and since it was the relative popularity which was used [RP = P/<P>],
concurrences a bit greater than 100 are possible. Dissent from less popular resolutions was considered less
dissenting than dissent from more popular resolutions.
33 Since the Mandela government has taken power in South Africa, there have been no more anti Apartheid
resolutions.
55
Overall Concurrence
United States
100
80
Israel
60
UK
40
Rich Capitalist
20
Middle Capitalist
0
Poor Capitalist
-20
-40
Current Socialist
-60
1989 Socialist
-80
47th General Assembly (1992)
44th General Assembly (1989)
Former Socialist
Figure 1. Comparison of Overall Concurrence on (split vote) General Assembly
Resolutions in the General Assembly during [44th General Assembly (1989)] and after
the Cold War [47th General Assembly (1992)].
The United States government reduced its dissenting record on Human Rights
resolutions from minus 86% during the Cold War to minus 38% after the Cold War34.
The United States administration cast the only vote against a resolution to strengthen the
United Nations into an effective international security system (45/80). The United States
government has opposed similar resolutions every year they have been offered.
The United States administration refuses to submit to the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice, to the “rule of law”. It was the only government to boycott
the United Nations Conference on the Relation between Disarmament and Development.
It and the United Kingdom do not participate in UNESCO.
34
The United States administration still holds the world's record for negative votes in the United Nations.
Of the 83 resolutions passed overwhelmingly by split vote in the 43rd and 44th sessions of the General
Assembly the United States administration concurred only 13 times. Only on human rights resolutions,
[where the index of United States government concurrence for the 44th General Assembly was (minus) 82%] was the United States administration more adamant than in its opposition to the dozens of resolutions
to enhance state security by enhancing interstate security, which it systematically and repeatedly opposed
(44th General Assembly overall concurrence: (minus) -60%) [Dittmann (1991)], often casting the sole
negative vote . It cast the sole vote even against dialogue to improve the international situation (43/87).
Former United States representative to the United Nations, Richard Williamson, did not describe the United
States voting pattern as obstructionist, rather as simply being outvoted [(July 1986) 5].
56
Human rights covenants, which have already entered into force as the law of the
planet, provide another index. Of the human rights covenants which I selected as
particularly substantive and significant35, based upon universality, the number of people
affected, and the severity of the problem, the United States has ratified only one
(genocide); the NATO pact has a spotty record (14 ratifications are lacking). [Considering
Bush’s allies and “legitimate” governments in the Middle East, they have ratified only
one each. Kuwait has ratified only the covenant against racism; Saudi Arabia has
approved only the covenant against genocide. Bush’s nemesis, Iraq, the USSR, and the
former Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) nations have ratified all of them.] In addition
the United States administration has pressured the United Nations Human Rights
Commission to condemn Cuba, which is protecting itself from powerful CIA-backed
subversive forces, while relieving pressure on Guatemala, described as the worst violator
of human rights in this century, where the CIA overthrew the democratic government in
1954, imposing a repressive "death squad" regime which continues to rule to this day.
Due to the courageous efforts of United States attorney Jennifer Harbury, whose
revolutionary husband was tortured and murdered by the Guatemalan military, and
covered up by the U.S. government, which may have participated in torture, like in the
case of U.S. nun Diane Ortiz, some cleansing of the CIA has occurred recently.
While exploiting the United Nations to legitimize military operations of the
United States administration, insult is added to injury--the United States is by far the
largest debtor to the United Nations: it does not pay its dues. To me it is a matter of honor
to pay my debts and to keep my word. When I went into bankruptcy fighting the war I
reassumed my debts and paid them off. I even repaid the loan with full interest when a
former student borrowed money and failed to repay it from a colleague to whom I had
introduced him It shames and pains me to see my government lack a sense of honor. To
have an honorable country, it must have an honorable government. As of 31 July 1992,
the United States was $757.4 million in arrears [Los Angeles Times (1992) A8]. It has
fallen further behind in debt payment since then: $1.3 thousand million as of September
1995. Tolerating such exploitation does little to enhance the image of the United Nations.
The closest allies of the United States government, the Tory British government, has
chided the United States government, and mocked the United States Revolution by
suggesting that what the United States Republican Congress wants is, “Representation
without taxation”. There has been discussion of denying voting privileges to the United
States government in accordance with the UN Charter, but the “300 pound gorilla
syndrome” is a severe obstacle. Little consideration is given to how the United Nations
might operate without the United States government’s participation. The experience of
the League of Nations does not make one sanguine about the prospect.
The collapse of the USSR, the apathy [abstention on votes, which is now
interpreted as concurrence, as required for substantive resolutions in the Security
Council] of China, and the support of the UK and France have allowed the United States
government to use the United Nations as a tool of its foreign policy in furtherance of the
35
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Civil and Political Rights; Against Racism; Against Genocide;
and Against Discrimination Against Women.
57
(vested) interests it represents. The alternative is the gridlock, which immobilized the
United Nations for decades, making it appear indecisive, but not discredited.
The reason there is so little criticism by peace and justice movements, including
United Nations support groups, and by the Third World, of the exploitation and
delegitimization of the United Nations by the United States administration may be in part
attributed to the fact that there is no viable alternative to the United Nations.
IV. We are wheat, but He is straw.
A. Waiting my turn, I continued my retrospection. [If you don’t believe that all of
these thoughts really ran through my mind while I was waiting, don’t! It’s just a literary
device. It took some time for these ruminations to develop.] What was I trying to
accomplish here at the UN? I thought back as far as I could. It seems that I have always
wanted to be “good”, to be a real mensch, but my first recollection was when I was three
or four years old. It has always been difficult for me to go to sleep. I never wanted to
miss the adventure of life. One night my grandparents had company and I was straining
to overhear their conversation. They were commenting on what a good boy I was. It put
me on the spot to hear such undeserved accolades. I thought of when I had peed behind
the garage, and I knew that God had been watching, even if my grandparents hadn’t. I
wanted to deserve that praise. No one in the family attended church, but, if pressed, they
would admit to being “Protestant”. My impression at the time was that to be good was to
be religious. I hadn't yet encountered the Platonic equation, "The True equals the Good
equals the Beautiful". The closest neighborhood church was Grace Baptist Church on
33rd Street. It was a modest, quaint brick building. It didn’t reflect the Catholic “edifice
complex”, and it was years before I would succumb to my “orifice complex”. The
beautiful plaster of Paris plaque I brought for my grandmother with roses and an
inscription “By Faith are ye saved through Grace” hung in the walls until we moved to
California, when it disappeared. It had a ring to it. It is aphoristic, but I didn’t understand
it until after I no longer believed in it.
On my own I started attending Sunday School. I sang “Yes, Jesus loves me” and
wondered at metaphorical significance of the lyrics, “We are wheat but he is straw”. I
struggled to understand why straw was better than wheat. I didn't fare any better with
subsequent encounters with theology. It was decades later when I hear the version “Jesus
loves me, but he can’t stand you.” Sunday school meant stories illustrated with colorful
felt figures placed on a felt background. One day the ceremony for the adults in the
church sanctuary extended after we were released from Sunday school. I peeked in to
observe the Eucharist and the mysteries of transubstantiation. From the explanation I
received in answer to my curiosity it appeared to me that if one believed in
transubstantiation one believed that one was a actual, instead of merely a symbolic
cannibal in participating in the Eucharist. Revulsion against murder I share. Revulsion
against cannibalism is more difficult to fathom. Is it preferable to be eaten by worms
rather than by people, especially by friends and loved ones? Logic aside, the emotional
revulsion to cannibalism remains. As a young adult I donated my body to science. That
was even before people started telling me that I was Unitarian without knowing it. The
ravages of time and neglect probably mean that it is no longer wanted, but I continue to
carry the donor card on my driver’s license. Unitarians want to be “good to the last drop”,
to be socially useful even after death.
58
B. In the third grade we performed a Christmas opera. It is difficult to believe
today, but I sang the lead. I don’t think my voice won me the lead--ability to memorize
the lyrics did. Beating Alec Guinness to the punch in multiple roles, I also played Santa
Claus. The kid doing the lights couldn't get it right, so I was assigned to do the lights.
Then the kid doing the curtain had difficulty, so I was assigned to do the curtain as well.
Then there were all of the brownies and angels. There is a limit! At the end of the play I
stood on a chair in the fireplace jingling bells and wishing everyone a merry Christmas.
During rehearsal I was waiting on the chair. I can't remember why a chair was required in
a fireplace, but I certainly remember the chair. I felt the need to go to the toilet, but this
was the final scene, then we broke for lunch. The brownies (or whatever) missed cues.
The scene had to be repeated. OK, it’s a very short scene. I can wait. Again they made a
mistake. Again the scene had to be repeated. OK, its quick, I can wait. Every time the
scene was repeated I assessed that I could last through just one more. I wouldn't have to
interrupt everything and make everyone wait for me. I could wait, until I realized that I
couldn't move without relieving some of the pressure. I noticed the puddle growing on the
seat of the chair, the beginning of an extended sequence of "life's most embarrassing
moments". Walking home for lunch with friends I tried my best to hide my discomfort
and embarrassment. Either no one noticed [which I prefer to believe], or they didn’t want
to add to my obvious embarrassment [more likely].
C. I switched from a Milwaukee Baptist in the third grade to a Van Nuys
Presbyterian in the fourth grade without noticing a difference. I did notice a difference
when I attended the Pentecost church with my best friend, Gene Green, who was an
“Okie”. A brass band instead of an organ? Exuberantly running up and down the aisles,
rolling in them, speaking in tongues? Later I was “born again” and “saved”, motivated
primarily by curiosity as to what transpired when people disappeared behind the curtain in
a storefront church on Woodley near Saticoy. It was disappointing. Nothing magic
happened. My friends inquired what mysterious things happened to me behind the
curtain, manifesting the same curiosity I had felt. I told them, "Nothing!" It was the only
time in my life that I felt a prolonged malaise. It was nothing specific or sharp. It was like
the fog that rolled in off the ocean. School was always a joy, but at "home" I felt
unwanted and like an intrusion, but I couldn't connect that to the sadness, although now it
seems obvious. I never ran away. It never seemed an option. How could I earn a living at
age nine? Every night I would hum “Brahm’s Lullaby” to myself and cry myself to sleep.
One night my mother heard me and asked what was wrong? How could I explain how I
felt? At the moment, I felt embarrassed that she had heard me. I replied, “Nothing",
apparently an acceptable response. I felt relieved. Even had she inquired further I would
not have wanted to discuss it, or admit how I felt. This was my private problem. I was
careful to cry more softly after that. Those years probably had a profound effect. I never
wanted anyone to feel as rejected, as outcast, as unaccepted as I felt. These feelings had a
drastic effect upon my college fraternity.
D. I returned home alone by train from Los Angeles to Milwaukee for the fifth
grade. I never was so much the center of attention before or since, although teachers
fussed over me as well. In the third grade we performed a Christmas opera. It is difficult
to believe it today, but I sang the lead. During my singing career I have received many
requests, but I sing anyway. I also played Santa Claus. The kid doing the lights couldn't
59
get it right, so I was assigned the task. Then the kid doing the curtain had difficulty, so I
was assigned to do that as well. Then there were all of the brownies and angels who kept
missing their cues. There is a limit! At the end of the play I stood on a chair in the
fireplace jingling bells and wishing everyone a merry Christmas. During rehearsal I was
waiting on the chair. I can't remember why a chair was required in a fireplace, but I
certainly remember the chair. It was wooden, with a round veneer seat and a back of
warped rod bent to shape. I felt the need to go to the toilet, but this was the final scene,
then we broke for lunch. The brownies (or whatever) continued to miss cues. The scene
had to be repeated. OK, it’s a very short scene. I can wait. Again they made a mistake.
Again the scene had to be repeated. OK, its quick, I can wait. Every time the scene was
repeated I assessed that I could last through just one more. I wouldn't have to interrupt
everything and make everyone wait for me. I could wait, until I realized that I couldn't
move any more without relieving some of the pressure. I noticed the puddle growing on
the seat of the chair, the beginning of an extended sequence of "life's most embarrassing
moments". Walking home for lunch with friends I tried my best to hide my discomfort
and embarrassment. No one said anything. I explained what had happened to my
grandmother, who seemed to understand perfectly.
On the train the stewardesses doted on me. They seemed to be impressed by my
unaccompanied travel. I hadn't thought anything of it before. When my mother asked me
if I could do it, if I could get off in Chicago and get the right train to Milwaukee, I
unequivocally responded, "Sure!" I didn't think of it as anything exceptional until the
stewardesses received me. Some would come from other cars to see me. One was so nice
and so beautiful I was smitten. Glynnis Johns, playing the stewardess on the Reindeer
airliner, who was so sympathetic to the misunderstood engineer played by James Stewart,
reminded me of her years later.
During the fifth grade my grandfather left for job as a truck driver in Wilmington,
California. He had been a truck driver for Shell in Milwaukee. He took a picture of me
holding a can of Shell motor oil. It was printed in Shell magazine with the caption, "Shell
Oil is the best, else my grandfather wouldn't sell it!" This was a complete fiction, and my
first exposure to the ethics of advertising. At the time I didn’t have a clue that Henry
Deterding, who ran Shell, was a major contributor to the efforts to establish Hitler and
National Socialism as a political anti-Bolshevik force in Germany. I had indirectly and
unwittingly contributed to the rise of Nazism. I stayed behind with my grandmother until
my grandfather could arrange housing in California. My grandfather was very popular
with kids in the neighborhood. I never understood why. He had a good sense of humor. I
remember when my aunt and uncle came to California for a visit. On the orange tree in
the front yard he wired bananas, apples and assorted other fruit to impress them with the
fertility of California. When asked how that was possible, he replied, "Haven't you ever
heard of grafting?" When he hooked up the electrical wires to the shed we build for me to
live in through the ladder rungs, he laughed at himself. On his deathbed he asked me to
promise to look after my grandmother, a promise I took seriously.
My grandmother would invite friends over for tea. They would read fortunes from
tealeaves out of a book, which interpreted the different pictures, one might see. There
seems to be a family propensity for such activity that somehow I avoided. My mother had
an Ouija board that stubbornly refused to accurately predict for me. She also had an
60
impressive crystal ball, the likes of which I haven't encountered since. After being
exposed to light it would glow in the dark, which is all I could ever see in it. She became
a Rosicrucian, as did my sister, who later became a fundamentalist Christian. Living on
the edge, I remember her telling me how she didn't know how next month's rent would
materialize, but she was sure God would provide, so sure that she removed her IUD and
had three more children. I remember providing the rent when God didn't come through.
However, it was a "Lilies of the Fields" experience. I was God's chosen vehicle.
Remember when Sidney Poitier took pity on the hapless, hungry German nuns and drove
a bulldozer to earn money to buy groceries, for which the nuns were eternally grateful? -to God!, not to Sidney. One of my sons became a Sikh for a while, complete with a name
change--Nishan Singh Kalsa. When I complained about his lack of contribution to work
around the house he was offended at my lack of appreciation for the contribution to the
welfare of the world he was making by meditating on the roof. My brother became a
Marine and broke sailors' arms and legs in the brig. He and my stepfather flew for the
CIA in Viet Nam and for Mobutu in Zaire. Family occupational traditions are curious. All
of the several maternal, maternal granduncles were Sheboygan fireman. My grandmother
married a sailor from the Great White Fleet. All of the several paternal, paternal
granduncles were military bandleaders in the Austrian Army. My grandfather fled
conscription and became a Milwaukee grocer, then a gentleman farmer. My paternal
grandmother's maiden name was Unglaub (disbeliever). Now maybe something came
from that.
My maternal grandmother was a model of delicacy and sensitivity. Once when a
guest described her symptoms she replied, "There was a woman who lived two blocks
over who had the identical symptoms. Two weeks later she was gone!" Reading tea
leaves lead to more venturesome explorations into the realm of the occult and unknown.
We conducted seances seated around a card table with our exterior fingers joined to form
a circle. I heard about "pyramid power" much later. This, I guess, was circle power. We
contacted ghosts and departed souls beyond the grave. We would ask yes or no questions
of the ghosts and they would respond by tipping the table. I had developed the facility of
bracing the legs of the card table with my feet, then pulling the table toward myself. Mrs.
Joeling became suspicious. "How come the table always tips toward Roger?" I tried to
modify my technique. I placed my foot to the side of the leg, pushed sideways and
succeeded in tipping the table both to the left and to the right. I couldn’t manage to tilt it
away from me, but that wasn't noticed. I never again came under suspicion. I evaluated
adults as gullible and not very bright, an impression reinforced with experience.
Reading tea leaves lead to more venturesome explorations into the realm of the
occult and unknown. We conducted seances seated around a card table with our exterior
fingers joined to form a circle. I heard about "pyramid power" much later. This, I guess,
was “circle power”. We contacted ghosts and departed souls. We would ask yes or no
questions of the ghosts and they would respond by tipping the table. I had developed the
facility of bracing the legs of the card table with my feet, then pulling the table toward
myself. Mrs. Joeling (which was pronounced “Jailing” instead of Jöling in its
Americanization) became suspicious. "How come the table always tips toward Roger?" I
tried to modify my technique. I placed my foot to the side of the leg, pushed sideways and
61
succeeded in tipping the table both to the left and to the right. I couldn’t manage to tilt it
away from me, but that wasn't noticed. I never again came under suspicion. I evaluated
adults as quite gullible.
I tried to convince my grandmother not to go to California. I had already been
there--talk about being overrated! I wonder what ever happened to my best friend, Robert
Thrall and Amy Lindquist and Sharon and poor Byron, who was always in trouble. One
day Mrs. Slomukowski's tolerance level was breached. She seized the wooden-handled
trough brush, wheeled and hurled it at Byron, who, luckily, ducked. It broke the back of
the seat behind him in half!
V. Jesus Loves Me, but He Can’t Stand You
A. When we were juniors, Danny, my friend from the sixth grade, moved in with
me in a shed my grandfather and I had built behind my grandparents' house, We
graduated from Van Nuys High and started college. We were considered "cool" "hang
loose" guys. We considered ourselves above social climbing and the macho stuff. To
illustrate, at lunch from the Post Office job, Danny conceived the idea of buying a plug of
chewing tobacco. We returned to work and put a box next where we were throwing mail
and started spitting disgusting looking stuff from the wads of raisins stuffed in our
cheeks. Fellow workers asked us what we were doing. We offered a chew from the
tobacco plug from which we had torn off two corners. No takers. We responded, "Ya
gotta be a real man to chew this stuff. It ain't for sissies." We kept throwing mail and
spitting and teasing. Bob Turbenbach, a married ex-marine wanted to show he had the
"right stuff". So did Ira, a Jewish kid from the Bronx, both a few years our senior. When
they returned from regurgitating in the rest room, we suggested that raisins might be
easier on the digestive tract. They were good sports and we laughed together while we
admonished them on the perils of machismo.
B. Danny and I were "rushed" by fraternities. We liked the guys in one. It had a
more mature membership including many WW II vets attending under the provisions of
the GI Bill. We didn't pay our initiation fees or dues; we didn't attend meetings, but we
had a perfect attendance record for parties, except "presents", the formal, expensive,
social climbing event at which debutantes "came out" to look for rich husbands. The next
semester I was elected President. No institution ever suffered such a drastic reversal in
policy. I support inclusively, not exclusivity; cooperation, not competition. I proclaimed
the end of the “Black Ball”. I had seen coeds crying on campus and dropping out of
college because a sorority had blackballed them. Social acceptance was intensely
important in the 50s, especially in the uncertainties of the transition to adulthood. It
probably still is. I argued that if too many members joined we could simply split into two
or more fraternities. Even girls couldn't be blackballed. We recruited them. We had
discussions whether we should now be called a "franority" or, better, a "sauternity",
although vermouth was more popular. Almost half the membership immediately quit to
form the largest fraternity on campus. Their "exclusive" pledges, dressed in bathing suits
under overcoats, wearing galoshes, pushed wheelbarrows of manure between classes.
Such treatment was in high demand. The year after I graduated my fraternity was defunct,
although the members still had parties together until geography started separating us.
62
C. In 1950 the UN was in its infancy and was about to be severely tested in the
Korean War. Population control did not seem urgent then, but the population has
increased many fold since then. It has been persuasively argued that population is the
most urgent global problem; “Whatever your cause, it’s a lost cause without population
control.””36, but many other problems transcend the competence, authority, and
jurisdiction of national governments, problems which were little recognized or less severe
fifty years ago when the United Nations was founded. Richard von Weizsäker [(23 June
1995) 3], member of the Commission on United Nations reform, cites population growth
first, but also lists resource exhaustion, climate modification, diminishing biodiversity,
poverty, etc. There is gross public dissatisfaction with the state of global affairs in two
major areas-peace and international security, and protection of the habitat. My
heterosexual habits have contributed to the globe’s most urgent problem. Given our
culpability, it is surprising that gay bashing is so much more prevalent than heterosexual
or motherhood bashing. We still have apple pie and baseball.
D. Support for institutions transcending the anarchic state system is greatest in
these two areas, presumably because the limitations of the state system are there the most
apparent, and potential problems [war and the destruction of the habitat] severe. Seventy
four percent (74%) of United States registered voters favor assigning responsibility for
global environmental problems to the United Nations (12% opposed). Eighty percent
(80%) favor assigning responsibility for international security to the United Nations (8%
opposed) [Kay (1993) i, 3]. Of course, environmental protection cannot be divorced from
population growth, nor from war. The greater the population, the greater must be the
restrictions on freedom to behave in manners which negatively impact the environment;
the greater the competition for diminishing natural resources, the greater the potential for
violent conflict. A Worldwatch study on refugees [Worldwatch Institute, cited in Kane
(1995)] argues persuasively that the Rwanda tragedy was largely attributable to exceeding
the carrying capacity of the land37. The portent for future conflict and tragedy is
ominous, unless global management is significantly improved.
Mihaly Simai lists “collective future risks” requiring “metastate” remedies as war,
political destabilization, economic malfunction, consequences of technology, population
growth, mass migration and refugees, and ecological deterioration [Simai (1995)].
Instead of pax Americana, the world has experienced more conflict with only one
superpower than it did with the superpower cold war, arms race, and the thrust for
unilateral first strike nuclear capability. The number of inter-state conflicts, the kind the
United Nations was designed to address, has diminished to the point where there are
periods when not even one such conflict is raging. But intrastate conflict, wars of
secession and “self-determination”, wars between ethnic gangs within a country fighting
over “turf” has greatly increased, as has the number of refugees, rising from 2-3 million in
1975 to about 23 million today [Kane (1995) 19].
36--Elaine
Stansfield [Leach (Sep 93) 82]
A great deal of attention is devoted to quantitatively estimating the planet’s maximum carrying capacity
before ecocollapse [See Cohen (1995) 341-346 for a summary and review of such efforts], however, it is
submitted that attention should shift to qualitatively estimating [and achieving] optimum population which
maximizes quality of life [instead of quantity].
37
63
If one considers the trends in deaths and injuries, which result from combat, a
steady increase in the ratio of civilian to military casualties is noted. Until World War II,
which ushered in strategic bombing, casualties were mostly limited to combatants.
Guernica was an outrage, but the massive strategic bombing of civilians in World War II
soon overshadowed it. That practice continued after World War II, despite studies
indicating its relative military ineffectiveness. It is estimated that the number of war
deaths in the second half of the 20th Century is seven times those of the 18th Century38.
In the aftermath of World War II, civilian casualties climbed to about 50%. Now they
reach about 90%! The number of child casualties now exceeds that of soldiers, a statistic,
which appears even more appalling if one includes child-soldiers. Wars between
governments, the kinds of wars the United Nations was intended to treat, have largely
been replaced by internal conflicts39, which the global community can address only by
interfering with state sovereignty, which has maintained almost a sacrosanct status [Kane
(June 95) 19-21]. The question remains, should military intervention against a
government and against armed forces be a last resort, or should preventative measures be
taken to establish rules, monitor compliance, adjudicate disputes, mediate, arbitrate, and,
if necessary, use police action against individual offenders who violate human rights
treaties and covenants, long before extreme actions constituting “crimes against
humanity” are committed. There is a common tendency to seek revenge and the
imposition of “victors’ justice” rather than to take crime prevention measures.
Generally, advocates of world federalism promote the critical emulation of the
United States as a model for the United Nations. However, even the most vociferous
opponents do not generally advocate the United Nations model for the United
States--a federal government dependent upon voluntary contributions from the 50 states,
with no direct elections, no checks and balances and no separation of powers, with
voluntary jurisdiction, with a budget about the size of a county, with no standing army....-unthinkable!
Global problems beyond the capabilities, jurisdiction, and authority of
governments provide a foundation for the assignment of missions for supra- or
international institutions. Glossop [(1993) 72] cites six missions for a world federation:
(1) management of the globally interdependent economy, (2) avoidance of ecological
disaster40, (3) management of regions (like space and the oceans) beyond national
jurisdiction, (4) defense of human rights, (5) international criminal law enforcement41,
and (6) promotion of global community. None of these missions would likely require
the services of a military! A parliament, judiciary, and administration with enforcement
capability would suffice.
F. Reform vs. reformism
G. Structuralism vs. functionalism
H. 2nd Assembly
38
Worldwatch Institute, cited in Kane (1995) 19.
By United Nations count only 3 of 82 armed conflicts in the world between 1989 and 1992 were between
nation-states [Kane (1995) 21].
40 Certainly a minimal program, why not improve the habitat?
41 Supranational law enforcement is preferable.
39
64
VI. Will God Please Raise Her Hand?
A. If we can still milk this format of reminiscing while waiting my turn to speak
to the UN, let me return to those formative years that formed the path leading here. If I
had played too hard and had fallen asleep without praying, I was guilt ridden. In school I
was called "the brain", in the neighborhood I was called “church boy”, but not in the
derogatory sense it sounds like out of context. I was the kids' ecclesiastical authority in
the neighborhood, and it led to one of those decisive moments in life. I was in the
seventh grade in a six-year high school. Eddie and I were walking home from a baseball
game at Birmingham Hospital where we would push paraplegics returning from the war.
Some of the vets were depressed, defeated. It was a sad scene, which doesn't get much
press. Others coped very well. They took it in stride. They organized wheelchair
basketball games. "When I meet my challenge, that is how I will respond!", I promised
myself. We’ll see when the time comes.
Eddie and I had a conversation of which I have absolutely no memory, up to the
time when he posed that fateful question. Then not only the words, but also the tall pine
trees along Sherman Way and the rest of the venue became indelibly imprinted. I can hear
the inflection in his voice. “Roger, I don’t want you to think I’m stupid, but do you really
believe there’s a God?” Wham! And this from a kid two years my junior. I stammered a
bit, waiting for those cogent arguments, which I had blithely assumed, existed to form in
my mind. I had never questioned the conventional wisdom in which I had been immersed.
My first attempt to formulate an argument was based on unanimous concurrence (such as
that required among Permanent Members of the UN Security Council on substantive
resolutions). "Everyone agrees!" [The “conventional wisdom” argument]. Eddie's
rejoinder wasn't necessary for me to recognize that such wasn't the case. I was aware of
Buddhism, and Hinduism, and other religious -isms in the world. And there were Jews,
whom I had heard were responsible for the troubles of the world. Even among Christians
there was disagreement about the concept, despite use of the same word. In considering
the matter it seemed curious that the geographic distribution of religions was so uneven.
The evidence strongly suggested that people adopted the religions of the cultures into
which they were born. On the other hand, there were exceptions. I had heard that there
were Jews in New York. Right here there were Catholics, mostly Mexicans, with whom
we had almost no contact. Waitaminute! Janet and Jackie were Catholic! My Polish
friend, Donny, in Milwaukee was Catholic. Years later I heard that my father was also
Catholic, so it's not genetically transmitted. It’s not like being Jewish, which one catches
from one’s mother, not like insanity which one catches from one’s children, not like
arthritis, which one catches form one’s girlfriend--whenever she gets near, my joint gets
stiff. Not only Mexicans are Catholic. My mother and sister became Rosicrucians. My
grandparents were generically Protestant. My attempt to think this through continued.
Janet attended parochial school, but her mother seemed dedicated to checking out the
Dun and Bradstreet ratings of rich old men who would die in the bathtub. Her mother
remained above reproach, but a string of five raises suspicions. [Perhaps I exaggerate. She
only told me about being discovered checking out a suitor's rating once. She may have
been caught the first and only time.] Jackie’s parents were also Catholic. And Gene's
parents were Pentacost. There seemed to be a pattern here. Kids generally adopted the
65
religion of their parents. Often there was hell to pay if they didn't. If I were to commit to a
religion, I wanted it to represent TRUTH. TRUTH wasn't TRUTH if it depended upon
accidents of geography or choice of parents and family. TRUTH had to be eternal and
universal. (Martin Gardner here?)
F. My search for TRUTH was abandoned in college when I studied freshman
philosophy with Professor Prismon, balding, pale, energetic, controversial, and
challenging, with a space between his front teeth which I heard later represented passion.
Only yesterday a student inquired, “Which of your professors influenced you the most?” I
cited a few, Professor Simpson at UC Santa Barbara, who helped me understand the
nature of science; Professor Locke at Los Angeles Valley Junior College who almost
succeeded in converting me into a psychology student; Professor Pollard who did succeed
in converting me from a math to a geology major, in which I received my first degree;
Professor Leonard H. Hall who coached me through one of my undergraduate research
projects, “Second Order Time Dependent Perturbation Theory Calculations of
Simultaneous Photon-Phonon Transitions in the [1,1,1] Direction in Germanium” [I was
too naive at the time to be impressed]; Professor Picarello (?) at the University of
Delaware who really treated us as mature, self-motivated students in a year-long course
on partial differential equations using Duff where the entire focus was on approaching
partial differential equations which had not yet been solved. I filled more notebooks with
lecture and study notes and outlines, including elaborate diagrams to aid comprehension;
I worked harder than in any other class I ever took, in large part because the material was
so difficult, for a guaranteed A with no exams. All of the students worked hard and
studied hard in that class. Should professors be like that, or should students be like that,
or both? It was the closest approach to the ideal “community of scholars”, studying and
learning together, without artificial motivators, like grades, that I ever experienced.
However, Prismon was the most stimulating character. "Philosophy" to him was
all encompassing. It was thinking, preferably profound, about anything. He read us
Benjamin Franklin's philosophy about selecting a "mistress" (that's something in between
a mister and a mattress). The advice is detailed and lengthy. The parts I remember:
Choose an older woman. She'll feel grateful, not despoiled. There is no danger of
unwanted pregnancy. All cats are gray at night. Aging begins at the top, with gray hair
and progresses downward, the best and most critical parts remaining good until the last.
Besides, one can always cover the upper portions with a bag. It was a jocular, irreverant
introduction to a serious topic: the philosophy of values, of social morays, including
aesthetic values. It gained students' attention. It was very effective pedagogical technique.
New research in pedagogy suggests that we shouldn't teach as we were taught, but such
examples seem to maintain their validity.
I have an affinity to controversy like a priest for collection plates, but I lack both
the temerity and the impulse to introduce such material in class, or perhaps a relevant
occasion never arose. I am receptive to criticisms of genderism, lack of sensitivity,
crudity, etc. Nonetheless, Prismon had an impact--at least upon me--not particularly
because of this item. He had style. He was provocative, irreverent, and controversial. He
served as a model to emulate in teaching, although not uniquely so. I luckily encountered
many inspiring professors. Philosophy was not narrow, nor esoteric, nor irrelevant, nor
pedantic--not in his class. He advised us to record our philosophy now, and periodically,
66
and to save it so that we could refer to it again it later to make comparisons. I tried,
beginning with the Cartesian cogito ergo sum, of which I had some doubt, having
encountered the concept of perceptual solipsism. [How does one know that all of these
sensory perceptions were not recorded during some previous persons' life, and were not
being fed back into one's brain (or computer) while it sits on a laboratory bench with
electrodes attached?] Even if I were to ignore that first doubt, what can be logically
concluded next? I exist, therefore what? Treating the process like geometry I couldn't
derive the next theorem from that axiom. Philosophy to me remained a broad endeavor-deep thinking about anything, but it was not reducible to mathematical logic. It was useful
to distinguish the empirical world of science from the logical world of mathematics, from
the exhortative world of values and the personal world of feelings and emotions.
Philosopher was my preferred profession but seemed not a viable option for a nascent
proletarian trying to survive by gaining acceptance by a capitalist who could turn a profit
on his labor. My worries about how to survive in a capitalist society were deeply felt and
real, especially with the burden of supporting my grandparents. In the Want Ads I never
saw notices "Philosophers Wanted". The military industry had full-page ads for scientists
and engineers. [I discovered later that real jobs often didn't exist, but, since this was done
at taxpayer expense, it was a no-cost way to advertise for the corporation.] It was only
after becoming a nuclear physicist that I became a sometime teacher of philosophy
(Philosophy of Science, and Science and Human Values), as well as of anthropology (The
Scientific Culture), political science (Science and Public Policy, The Nuclear Initiative),
and history (Science in History).
D. Prismon's
fearlessness in attacking controversy was also inspiring. I had no aspiration for college
teaching at the time, but later, his, and other, examples convinced me that the best of all
possible professions was professor. Many times it has been suggested that I run for public
office. I would have agreed to run to help the causes of peace, responsibility, and justice,
to use the candidacy as a platform for advancing discussion and raising consciousness,
but not to make the compromises necessary to gain the financial support of big
corporations and capitalists to actually win. I would be too embarrassed to say with a
straight face the manipulative nonsense required by the capitalists both to gain their
financial support and to cater to the climate of opinion created by capitalist control of the
media, which is perhaps the most severe problem we face [more below]. The argument
that politics is the art of compromise, that progress can only be made through practical
accommodation with special interests, has merit. That is the job of the exceptional
conscientious politician with an exceptional constituency. Most blatantly promote their
own interest by serving special interests. Of course, according to the terminology used in
the corporate press, the interests of workers, of unions, of consumers, of the defenders of
our habitat, of the public in general, are "special" interests. The interests of the bosses, of
the corporate "persons", of the capitalists, of the rich, constitute "vital U.S. interests".
Corporations are supposed to be chartered to serve the public interest, much like the
airwaves, and just as hypocritically. The scam was exacerbated when corporations were
given the legal status of "persons" by the Supreme Court, with First Amendment rights
purchased with megabucks that make a mockery of the free speech rights of the rest of us.
People, especially consumers, are incessantly being told to identify with their
67
possessions--a Cadillac brings one prestige. Capitalists don't need to be convinced, but
they realize that ownership of Cadillacs is a negligible expense once one owns factories.
It is not the ownership of personal goods which is critically important, it is ownership,
hence control, over the means of survival, the means of production, and over the means of
communication. That's why they're capitalists.
During WWI someone
had the temerity to ask an Oxford don, part of the ruling class, what his contribution to
the war was. He drew himself up indignantly and declared, "My dear sir, I am what
England is fighting for!" If capitalists by and large own the country, that is, the critically
important part, the key to survival, the factories, the "means of production", quite
naturally they consider loyalty to them to be synonymous with loyalty to the country.
E. Instead of producing
an answer that could convince Eddie that at least one God existed, my doubts
proliferated. Despite my naive initial expectation, I couldn't provide a definitive and
convincing answer at the moment. It would require further consideration and
investigation. I remember my cautious response, “It’s better to play it safe, just in case.”
My previous blissful state was in tatters. I needed to appeal to higher expertise to restore
my faith. I attended several churches accompanied by my buddies, Bob, Ron, and Danny,
who was already a devout atheist and inveterate iconoclast. We lingered afterwards to talk
to the ministers, to receive the revealed truth, the arguments, the evidence, and the logic
to allay my doubt. Long, frustrating discussions always ended with the position, “In order
to believe, one must have faith". "Believing in" and "having faith" seemed synonymous.
In other words, they were saying, "In order to believe, one must believe."--an indisputable
redundancy, but not illuminating, and singularly unconvincing. I did not yet know the
word “tautology,” but I recognized it when I heard it. Later, I encountered a fancier
version, “psychological certitude.” Circular arguments also accrued: There is one god (at
least?) because the Bible says so. Why is the Bible an authority? Because God wrote it.
How does one know God wrote it? It says so in the Bible! [You remind me of a power.
What power? The power of Hoo Doo. Hoo Doo? You do. Do what? Remind me of a
power....]--a singular disappointment to my aspirations for rational explanation. OK, so
religion is intellectually ungratifying. OK, so it is demeaned to common superstition. It
still seems relatively benign, even positive--don't weak people who have difficulty coping
gain some comfort from it? It doesn’t appear evil - yet.
F. Cultural influences
conducted a relentless onslaught upon me. The Song of Roland was required reading. It
read like an orgy of hatred and violent intolerance. Without checking for accuracy, what I
remember from the epic was the noble Christian soldier riding up behind the Moor. His
shining sacred Christian sword split the helmet, the skull, the mail armor, the body of the
infidel, into the back of the horse until the body slid down both sides of the horse. It was
like cowboys and Indians, Christian settlers and heathen indigenous natives. To break the
monotony of slain Moors, a Christian would occasionally bite the dust. Guess whose lives
were cheap. There are enough real divisive issues for humans to resolve without
inventing imaginary heresies and infidelities. Barrows Dunham, in Heroes and Heretics,
compiled a long list of Christian heresies. Burning witches' bodies (I never heard of a
warlock being committed to the flames) in order to save their souls lacked all sense
68
except to rationalize evil. The Song of Roland in English and the Crusades in history
were a double whammy - a body blow to my Christian sentiments. Rationality was also
an issue. I could never swallow Tertullian. Give him a try.
[Tertullian quote]
St. Augustine’s
preoccupation with threatening erections, which were not subject to a calm and obedient
will, seemed perverse. [The only thing I ever wanted for Xmas--an erection set.]
The Crusades as an
issue arose again years later when I was teaching at a wonderful place, a woman’s
Catholic college, Immaculate Heart, in Hollywood, with Sister Corita, whose work I had
seen at the New York World's Fair, waiting in vane for a chance to see my seven year old
daughter, Deborah, and other notable, inspiring people. Instead of tea and sympathy, I had
coffee and philosophy everyday with a Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Sister Helen,
until one day she informed me that she could no longer have coffee with me for fear that I
would get in the habit. Actually, the way she couched it, her developing affection for me
impaired her ability to love all of humanity (I love humanity, too-- it's people I can’t
stand.), and threatened her continuing career as a nun. Except for the religion and
celibacy bit I always thought a nun would make a suitable mate. I wanted to devote
myself to service. I had no aspiration to engage in "conspicuous consumption". I also
wanted security without the necessity of acquiring wealth in a capitalist society to achieve
it. The wealth has come, but the main contributor to my sense of security has been not
becoming hooked on consumption, in acquiring marketable skills, finding rewarding
work, causes, and projects, and depending upon satisfying human relationships, so that
my happiness depended minimally upon money.
My eldest son, with my
blessing, was attending parochial school. They provide a challenging educational
experience don't they? Two of my sons attended parochial school. I didn't worry about
brainwashing because, in order to be effective, exposure to alternative views must be
proscribed. I guaranteed and provided alternate exposure. Neither succumbed.
In Catechism my eldest
son, Roy, was studying the Crusades. We read his text together, then I suggested that we
read an alternate account of the very same events in H. G. Wells Outline of History. He
mentioned this alternate account in catechism and became an immediate discipline
problem. His teacher, a Jewish convert, would not speak to me because I was an atheist.
Contamination by me was to be avoided as assiduously as seduction by any other devil.
The principal, Father Daugherty, had heard through the ecclesiastical grapevine that after
accepting a couple of paychecks to remedy our dire financial circumstances, I had agreed
to teach without a salary for Immaculate Heart College. This was, to him, inexplicable
behavior for an atheist. It seemed quite natural to me. I had almost completed my
doctorate. I accepted a half-time job teaching at Immaculate Heart and a part time job in
industry. Fellow grad students advised that one should accept a post doc at some research
facility in order to advance one's scientific career. Del Devins went to Rutherford High
Energy Laboratory in England for a few years before seeking an academic position. I
didn't have custody of my children and wanted to remain near them. I restricted my job
search to Southern California. True, I did fly back east on a job interview with a military
69
industry employer, but, I must confess that the primary motivation was to visit my
daughter. I had given a seminar at CalState, Fullerton, whose primary mission was
pedagogical, not research, but I anticipated declining the expected offer of an Assistant
Professorship. To my surprise, I was offered a position as an Associate Professor, before I
finished the doctorate. Why start at the bottom if one has a better opportunity? I declined
the industry job (and a one-year appointment at Occidental College), but I didn't want to
leave Immaculate Heart in a bind. I taught full time at CalState, Fullerton, half time at
Immaculate Heart, and struggled to finish my doctorate. I discovered in December that
some of my data was suspect. I repeated it over Christmas break. After surviving on
$200/month, I was suddenly making what was to me an exorbitant amount of money. I
felt grossly overpaid. Of course, that is a relative judgment. It depends upon whether one
compares oneself with hard working people living in poverty in the underdeveloped
world or with trust fund babies who acquire their money the old-fashioned way--they
inherit it. The nuns at Immaculate Heart were wonderful. They were deeply involved in
the anti-war and civil rights movements. The friendly atmosphere at Immaculate Heart
was warm and benevolent. Everyone greeted everyone they encountered. If only that
feeling could be extended to the whole world. It was the way I felt about Christmas. I
wanted it to last all year. Why couldn't people be as nice and unselfish as they temporarily
managed to be during Christmas? The Christmas tree (Oh Tannenbaum!) was the symbol
of Christmas. In a desperate attempt to preserve the attitude by preserving the symbol I
persuaded my grandmother to leave the tree up until July. It had no detectable effect. If
we wanted the world to be a better place, better techniques would need to be developed
and applied than perennial Tannenbäume.
I was particularly
impressed by the anti-war sentiments at Immaculate Heart. After all, when the US
government sent Diem over there to establish a puppet government, and to prevent the
internationally guaranteed elections from occurring, they chose a Catholic from the
Maryknoll monastery. His government was Catholic-dominated to the distress and
opposition by the Buddhist majority, leading to the self-immolation of monks in protest.
Instead of paying more taxes to the US government to prosecute the war, I preferred not
to accept a salary. It made perfect sense to me. I have worked closely with socially
conscience elements of the "faith community" ever since. Religion seems to exacerbate
whatever tendencies people tend to have. Good people can become saints. The evil can
justify the most nefarious activities on religious grounds.
The child psychologist
diagnosed the stress in parochial school as the source of my son's stomach cramps, but his
mother, a nominal Catholic, a bit out of practice, refused to accept the diagnosis until
years after the fact.
Physicists learn about
Murphy’s Laws early. There is a long list of them, including, “Whatever can go wrong,
will”. Even Santa was afflicted. One year everything went wrong. Toy production was
way behind schedule. The elves were on strike. A few of them got drunk, went joy-riding
in the sleigh and didn’t make a curve, breaking one of the runners and a reindeer’s leg.
Mrs. Santa’s Christmas cookies burned in the oven. The angel Santa had sent out for a
tree returned with a scraggly specimen, and asked Santa, “Where should I stick this
70
tree?” The tradition of touching off the trimming of Christmas trees by sitting an angel
on top was established.
There must have been something introspective about the tall pines that lined
Sherman Way where the “big red cars”, the Pacific Electric trains ran as part of the
world’s most extensive public transportation system. It only cost a nickel, but nickels
were hard to come by. We would either walk and run the four miles to Van Nuys, or,
better, hitchhike. I was always glad to take my 5-year-old little brother along. With me he
didn’t act spoiled. He was so cute that cars would compete to pick us up when he stuck
out his thumb. 1948 was during a pause in the frequent wars in which the U.S. was
engaged during that period. I reflected on the period of military vulnerability upon which
I was entering. Society seemed like a ball of ants where one had to serve time on the
outside, vulnerable, before being allowed to return to the security of the interior.
Guernica, Hamburg, Dresden, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki had already
occurred as examples of the vulnerability of the civilian interior. In contemporary
conflict, soldiers are often less vulnerable and suffer fewer casualties than civilians. Child
casualties often exceed those of combatants. Still, that was the model I perceived. The
task, as I perceived it, was to survive that approaching period of military vulnerability.
The Korean “police action” had not yet begun, but I was approaching that vulnerable
military age, which I had accelerated by enlisting in the Air National Guard at the
chronological age of 15 [OK, so I lied, but it was a white lie. I was mature, hard working,
conscientious, bright, and responsible. I was ready to do the job. And I did, getting my
promotions on time and being honorably discharged as a Staff Sergeant.] I didn’t join
because I wanted to kill and pillage. I did believe in defending the country (but not the
profits of greedy capitalists after the experience later with Jack Conroy) (It took a while
for my subconscious concern for people in general to consciously extend beyond our
borders).
VII. God Can’t Change History—Historians Can!
A. The automobile may the death of both socialism and capitalism, or so Ivan
Illich speculates in Die Sogenannte Energiekrise [There may be an English translation,
“The So-called Energy Crisis”, but I never checked.] It is the most inefficient mass
transportation system ever implemented. On an even playing field it puts economies
dependent upon inefficient transportation systems at a disadvantage--but the whole point
of neoimperialism is to provide an advantage for capitalism through military (and other)
intervention. It would be the death of socialism, or at least of egalitarianism, because if
the whole world emulated the U.S. example, the environment couldn’t sustain it. If
automobile access is restricted to the privileged in order not to exceed environmentally
tolerable levels, it means a class society and the end of socialist egalitarian aspirations. I
hate cars primarily because of what they have done to the sense of community, but also
because of the ugliness of asphalt, the chemical and noise pollution and the damn
freeways which generally are obstacles to one’s destination. One often must travel a mile
or more to reach a destination, which previously was in the next block. However, I can
remember my penurious transient days when in my car I felt like a turtle in his shell. It
was a mobile home. When the rain poured down on the windscreen just inches away, one
felt dry and secure and mobile. The feeling of security was enhanced by a full tank of gas.
71
Others complain, but I enjoy driving (carefully and slowly) in the rain. I turn off the radio
so I can hear the rain. I do the same at home. I will open a window to hear the rain better.
I am better suited for climes with greater precipitation than Southern California, although
I enjoy it immensely here. I like weather. I like dynamic skies. Where I lived in Cholula,
Mexico, and around Tepic, with the volcanoes and the thunderstorms, one has this sense
of dynamism and high drama. No wonder ancient civilizations considered these areas
sacred.
When I filed an application for a security clearance and was required to provide
addresses for the previous ten years, I averaged more than one address every two weeks. I
rather liked that way of life. I stayed with many different friends. Friendships require
time. I could keep more friendships alive and active by working hard during the day, then
visiting and staying with friends at night. Now that I am settled, my circle of friends is
reduced and less intimate. I quite like army life as well. I was the only one who didn’t
complain about the food [I guess that’s not saying much. I like airplane food as well.],
although I could have done without the gravy sundaes. There was always a choice, or
combination, of a few vegetables. It seemed well planned and nutritious. KP was
gratitude for the cooking. The coffeepot in the mess hall had a warm, comforting appeal,
especially when it abetted conversation. Every meal, every day, we sat at tables of four,
usually with different people each time. I remember being frequently interrupted while
trying to conduct a conversation while walking across campus at Van Nuys High School
with my girl friend, Jean Hannick, saying, “Hello Paul. Hello Marcia. Hello Chip....”
Until she impatiently complained, “Do you know everyone on campus?” I hadn’t thought
about it until then, but then I reflected on how wide my circle of friends extended. I like
having friends. I like keeping friends. I am kidded how difficult it is for a onetime friend
to get out of my life. However, I am a terrible letter writer. I must write to some long
separated friends before they become long lost friends.
The UNCRDD has two elements--disarmament and development. Disarmament
would extend the duration of resources like petroleum, which the automobile voraciously
consumes. Development is more critical. The key word is “sustainable development”,
although David Brower has a point when he claims that development as commonly
understood is ipso facto unsustainable. The post W.W. II years were glamour years for
automobiles. If you offered to fix a girl up with a blind date, the first question was, "What
kind of a car does he drive?" Even though I have come to despise automobiles as ugly
destroyers of our communities, our health, and our habitat, I grew up in the glory days of
the automobile. Now, whenever I want to go somewhere, there is a goddam freeway in
the way. Sometimes one must travel many kilometers just to travel a few tens of meters
from one side of the freeway to the other, from one part of the community to the other.
However, I had irreverent tendencies even in high school. When I suggested that cars
were just means of transportation, one of my stepfather's friends commented, "In my day
we had more respect for automobiles". They were status symbols and sex symbols and
ego launch pads. Cruising Van Nuys Boulevard and sitting in drive-ins one was identified
with one's car, which we called a “kemp” in the lingo of the time designed to prevent
communication with adults. Other guys spent fortunes on hot rods. I borrowed my
mother's Nash, disparagingly called, “the pregnant whale”, with the back seat that made
up into a bed. And you think hot rods are sexy?
72
B. In a broad sense UN conferences are also politics. Politics in the narrow sense,
electoral politics, is a contest between PR firms that make it appear to be a personality
contest. I prefer to discuss issues rather than candidates. It is just like supporting
principles instead of taking sides. If one is true to principles, the question of sides and
candidates is easy. Issues can be complicated, but my principles are relatively simple.
People should be well treated, although issues generally arise from the maltreatment of
people. Opposition to the maltreatment of people explains my politics. I don’t think
people should be mistreated, and they shouldn’t tolerate it if they are. Mistreatment
consists of denial of fundamental human rights--the right to develop one’s potential, the
right to make the contribution of which one is capable to one’s society, at a decent wage,
under dignified working conditions. The right to be treated as a member of the family of
humanity, to care for others, and to be cared for when in need without apology or loss of
dignity. The psychological effect of being treated as a useless social parasite, as a discard,
as incapable of making any meaningful contribution to society, of having one’s potential
contribution rejected, must be devastating to one’s self esteem and self respect, and
probably accounts for a great deal of consequent self destructive behavior which
sometimes becomes antisocial. However, the precipitating antisocial behavior is the
denial of quality educational opportunity and dignified employment. It is true that as
devastating as denial of the human right to work can be, there are even worse abuses -torture, assassination, genocide, etc., but these worse abuses are largely perpetrated
against those who have been denied meaningful, dignified, socially-useful employment
under decent working conditions with a livable wage, and who respond by organizing to
resist such treatment. [Of course, stewardship of the habitat, civil liberties, support and
appreciation of cultural diversity, and other issues are also of concern.] If people are
willing, even anxious to work and are denied the right to work, and then to compound the
injustice, are denied the compensation to which they would have been entitled if they had
been allowed to work, if they refuse to tolerate such treatment and organize to resist, I
will be on their side. That is the core of my politics. Of course, stewardship of the habitat,
civil liberties, support and appreciation of cultural diversity, and other issues are also of
concern.
C. Human rights abuses today remain severe. There even seems to have been
retrogression with an increase in hate crimes and atrocities, especially in areas subject to
recent political turmoil, despite the best efforts and intentions of many dedicated human
rights activists and organizations. Like the pessimist who agreed with the optimist in
concluding that this is the best of all possible worlds, is this the best to be expected, or is
there potential for improvement? The task is to realize human potential for the
accomplishment of a higher level of civilization and humanity. We can do much better,
but current strategies are faulty.
The family of humanity is too abstract to motivate many people to be concerned
about victimization of members of their "family of humanity", so concern is developed
within smaller affinity groups whose identity usually is "ethnic", but may be religious, or
occupational, or other. Victims without membership in an affinity group without good
connections, influence, or power generally suffer in silence, without notice, without
remedies. Attention to particular violations tends to be haphazard, on an ad hoc case-bycase basis, with little attention devoted to the process by which cases are selected (or
73
ignored). Human rights campaigns have been subject to hypocritical political abuse in
order to advance the cause of special interests. Minor victims may achieve celebrity
status, while unnamed, unknown common people suffer torture, mutilation before ending
in a mass grave. H.G. Wells opined that the masses of common peasants killed during
massive campaigns to which history has paid scant attention probably suffered at much in
their deaths as the few aristocrats who died in the French Revolution during the "reign of
terror".
D. In order for conscientious human rights activists to avoid being cynically
politically manipulated by special interest with hidden agendae, a more evenhanded,
systematic approach must be developed. Human rights can be used as a weapon of the
rich against the poor. It is a weapon in class conflict. After circulating a petition on behalf
of USSR scientific dissidents for Amnesty International (AI) both in the U.S. and in
Moscow, I visited the AI headquarters in London. It was depressing to encounter more
security measures than ever in my experience to gain entry. Who would hate a human
rights organization that intensely? I criticized them for being vulnerable and succumbing
to manipulation. A prisoner convicted of some unspecified crime who belonged to a very
active religious group complained that his religious practices were circumscribed in jail.
A front-page article appeared in Matchbox, an AI publication, complete with photos and
biography. Mention of mass graves for countless, anonymous Salvadoran peasants
occurred on inner pages. AI officials responded that they didn't have the resources to
investigate each of the cases of the Salvadoran peasants; that they had been provided with
the story on the (probably legitimate) complaint of the religious member by outside
sources. Other newspapers are also vulnerable to such manipulation. AI officials
countered by requesting that I suggest a policy. At the time I merely suggested that abuses
be given priority according to the severity of the abuse, including the number of victims,
regardless of ethnicity, religion, infinity group, class status, or connections. Some years
later I consider that this policy advice is valid only for interim emergency activity, but
that a more effective, long-term, preventive, before-the-fact, systematic, and uniform
approach requires institutional development--back to the UN again.
E. The sense of drama and urgency makes it easier to recruit participants in a
"bucket brigade" to fight a conflagration which has already erupted than it is to enlist
people to work on the mundane tasks of writing, promoting, and approving a fire code to
prevent fires, and in collecting taxes to establish and operate a fire department. For those
who enjoy the excitement of fires, and who enjoy the good opinion of themselves when
they volunteer for the bucket brigade, prevention may be especially unappealing. The
appeal herein is intended for those who sincerely wish to be as effective as possible in
promoting human rights--to resist the excitement (and perhaps fulfillment) of
involvement in past and current tragic cases with great appeal in order to forever prevent
future occurrences of more of the same.
Is it possible to raise human rights above cynical political manipulation, not to
always be "behind the curve" trying to treat emergency situations which have already
occurred, to take the initiative in preventive measures, and to develop a more
evenhanded, systematic, legal, and effective approach which would not neglect victims
without connections? Much has already been accomplished in this direction. The first
step in a preventive strategy is to agree upon the rules. The 1948 Universal Declaration of
74
Human Rights was recently extended and revised in the 25 June 1993 Vienna Declaration
and Programme of Action, to which all participating governments agreed by consensus.
This is an important step in developing a common conscience of humanity, but is only a
first step. It is almost utopian in the sweep and idealism in its declarations. It is also quite
vague, abstract, and even contradictory. Governments argued and debated about the
content of the document, but didn't give it high priority because compliance is voluntary.
It is only a statement of intentions. There is no parliament to legislate particulars for the
achievement of these generalities. There is no UN Human Rights Court before which
individual victims have standing to sue offending governments for redress of grievances.
There is little monitoring. A UN commissioner for human rights was established as a
consequence of the Vienna meeting, but the commissioner reports to the Security
Council, which is dominated by the five major allied World War II victors, without
whose unanimous concurrence no substantive resolution can be approved.
F. It is instructive, and, I trust, not too parochial, to take the US experience as a
case-in-point, despite the many criticisms about human rights violations by the US
government and by others, externally and internally. What deserves the credit for the
degree to which human rights are protected in and by the US? To hazard a response, the
Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, heads the list. Other important elements, the
establishment of legislative bodies with democratic constraints, the establishment of
judicial review and of an administration, all with carefully crafted and considered
limitations and separation of powers, with "checks and balances" in conformity with the
"Ecological Principle of Government", all of which is lacking on a global level. It is
submitted that in order to effectively achieve the above-mentioned human rights goals,
global institutions similar to US institutions must be established. A strategy for so doing
is outlined below.
G. My impression, after conducting a review and spread sheet analysis of the
ratification status of Human Rights Instruments; Treaties, Covenants, and Conventions
and of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, was that non-binding declarations,
like the 1948 Universal Declarations for Human Rights, and the 1993 Vienna Declaration
and Program of Action, and abrogatable treaties, while they have some effect, and are part
of the important process of achieving global consensus in formally defining human rights
and rules of conduct, remain woefully inadequate initial steps in remedying and
preventing human rights violations. Governments are the major perpetrators of massive
atrocities, genocide, massacres and torture, through warfare, death squads, repression of
dissidents, and oppression of peoples living under occupation. They need to be brought
under legitimate world rule of law, democratically established. As Einstein recognized in
1946, this can only be accomplished through the establishment of supranational
institutions with adequate competence, authority, and jurisdiction42
42“...the
creation of a supranational government, with powers adequate to the responsibility of
maintaining the peace, is necessary....
...Is this realistic? We believe that nothing less is realistic.”“...supranational government must be dependent upon representatives of the populations, not the
governments...”
“...member states of the supranational organization must have no veto right....”
——Albert Einstein in a memorandum 14 June 1947 to Professor Harold C. Urey for discussion at the
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin conference organized by the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, to which the
75
H. Currently, mostly bilateral international means are used to provide external
pressure on governments to respect human rights. This is largely self-serving and
generally pursued only when the interests represented by the government taking the
initiative are involved. Hypocrisy abounds in the process. There are basic disagreements
as to which are human rights and which are privileges, or which are the more important
human rights. In the June 1993 UN Vienna Conference on Human Rights the 1st World
nations generally supported a position which may be satirized by describing freedom of
speech as "freedom to own the TV network of one’s choice". The 3rd World emphasized
basic necessities and opportunities for development--food, shelter, employment, health
care, education, cultural expression, etc., as fundamental human rights. Even the "right to
work" evokes starkly different images. In the U.S. it is taken to mean the right not to pay
union dues if you have a job, rather than implementation of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act
guaranteeing the right to a job, with the U.S. government as the employer of last resort.
After considering the issues for some time, it occurs that, in a sense, the right to work is
the most fundamental of all human rights. This issue is guaranteed to be one of
continuing controversy.
I. Even after some degree of consensus is achieved in defining human rights, such
as in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 25 June 1993, in order to be
evenhanded, to give priority to the most egregious abuses, and to prevent human rights
from being exploited for crass political purposes, especially by governments in bilateral
relations in support of special interests the governments represent, it is necessary to
institutionalize their implementation. Historical experience provides considerable
guidance in this respect. Abusive governments must be subject to the rule of law. As with
national governments there is need of constitutionally protected, legally-binding human
rights guarantees and restrictions on the powers of governments, which are the major
perpetrators of human rights violations. A democratic legislature to act on human rights
matters (as well as other matters) is necessary, separate from a judicial system (especially
a UN Human Rights court) wherein individuals have standing to petition for redress of
grievances against governments at all levels, including global, if necessary. The more a
world can be achieved where one's human rights are respected regardless of which side of
a border one lives, the less reason there remains to dispute the location of the border.
Borders can become matters of administrative convenience. The more resources are
considered part of the heritage of humanity (sea lanes, air space, electromagnetic
spectrum, non-renewable resources like petroleum, etc.), and can be devoted to providing
basic human rights of survival and economic well-being, the less reason there is to
dispute borders. The more matters subject to dispute between contending groups of
humans (ethnic, religious, national, etc.) can be administered globally, the less reason to
dispute borders, with the attendant human rights violations that commonly occur.
J. How can these necessary institutions be established? As mentioned above, the
UN Charter essentially forecloses internal change in the UN, since it requires the
(unlikely) concurrence of all five of the Permanent Members of the Security Council for
Federation of American Scientists, the Association of Scientists for Atomic Education at Oak Ridge, the
Northern California Association of Scientists, and the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists were
invited. [Nathan and Norder, eds., Einstein on Peace, Avenel Books, New York (1981) p. 409-413].
76
all substantive, legally binding resolutions, and for changes in the UN Charter. However,
former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel [Alaska 1969-1981] has devised a route around this
impasse. He has launched a campaign using existing, legally established, directly
democratic initiative (and referendum) processes43 to allow the will of the people44 to be
expressed and to mandate governments to fund and to cooperate in calling and conducting
a World Constitutional Convention for the UN, with directly-elected delegates.45
43Although
directly democratic initiative and referendum processes are widely available in the world, they
are available only in twenty three of the fifty United States, and in readily accessible form only in six—
Missouri, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, and Hawaii, and in a limited number of other
jurisdictions in the world. It was considered to be such a good idea that the victorious United Nations forces
imposed it upon the defeated Axis powers of World War II, Japan and Germany.
44Recent polls by American Talk Issues [Kay and Henderson, (10 May 1993)] have posed the question in a
variety of ways. Support for participation in a World Constitutional Convention to formulate a Constitution
which would be legally-binding only upon ratification by referendum is 53%, vs. 20% opposed. More than a
2:1 advantage. If the powers conferred by the Constitution are limited to the global environment and
international security the support increases to 66% (vs. 17% opposed) for environmental powers, and to
70% (vs. 15% opposed) for international security. The entire left of the political spectrum is essentially
supportive, joined by “law and order” elements in the right.
45Philadephia II uses legally established directly democratic initative processes, first
to solicit, then to implement the will of the public to establish World Rule of Law by calling
for a World Constitutional Convention.
The principle of individual sovereignty is declared in ringing tones in the US Constitution
and is recognized in some three quarters of the world’s constitutions. Government achieves
legitimacy only by the assignment by individuals of their sovereignty.
The strategy of Philadephia II may be described as “legitimacy over legality”, much
the way the U.S. Constitution was successfully legitimated, but illegally established, in
violation of the Articles of Confederation and of the Constitutions of each of the thirteen
original states, not to mention English law. The Philadephia II Initiative, World
Constitutional Convention, and ratification process empowers the people to do no more than
the thirteen original United States did in 1787 in ratifying the Federal Constitution. That
very precedent, and its success, legitimate the current effort.
Philadephia II develops legitimacy by utilizing the initiative process to direct
existing (reluctant) governments to support extension of the intitiative process to other
jurisdictions and to call for a World Constitutional Convention as a step toward the
establishment of World Rule of Law, beginning with selected individual states in the U.S.
Funding for this process is mandated in the form of loans from states to finance the
activities of an American Electoral Administration which is charged with extending Philadephia
II, the initiative process, and direct election of delegates to other voters. Upon passage of
Philadephia II in jurisdictions representing a majority of the electorate, the Federal
Government is mandated by Philadephia II to repay the loans from the states, and to provide
its share of funding necessary to establish and to conduct the World Constitutional
Convention.
Philadephia II would encourage the extension of the initiative process and direct
democracy to the entire globe by requiring that the governments of nations wishing to
participate in the World Constitutional Convention allow their people to express their will in
this regard through initiative or referendum and to directly elect their representatives. The
Electoral Administration composed of representatives of National Electoral Administrations,
would be charged with the legal defense of the initiative process, with implementation of
decisions made through the initiative against any challenge by governments, and with
77
In order to make the activities motivated by concern about human rights violations
more effective, a more systematic approach is required than the ad hoc selected case-bycase approach between members of affinity groups currently in vogue. A major effort
should be devoted to building supranational institutions with adequate competence,
jurisdiction, and authority to address human rights violations systematically, universally,
and uniformly, regardless of the occupation, gender, religion, ethnicity, or other identity
of the victims. Much can be learned from existing institutions and historical experience.
USFSS submits that it is not mere parochialism to suggest that the U.S. experience, with
its Constitution, Bill of Rights, limitation and separation of powers with checks and
balances has much guidance to offer.
Human rights scholars and activists have a critically important role to play. A new
global discussion and debate in the spirit of the Federalist Papers needs to be launched in
conjunction with political initiative efforts. Of course, much intellectual talent is required
to bring the effort to call for a World Constitutional Convention to fruition. The human
rights community can focus specialized attention on incorporating declarations of human
rights into the Constitution to make them legally-binding, parliamentarily legislated,
judicially reviewed, and uniformly administered and enforced, in the UN and in other
institutions established and operated within the UN system, and by governments in the
world at all levels. USFSS has been recruited into the effort. The World Federation of
Scientific Workers is disseminating information about these USFSS activities to its other
affiliates around the world. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations
can perform a similar service.
The Legal Status of Human Rights Instruments
In a previous issue of The Concerned Scholar [October 1993] a review and
spread sheet analysis of the ratification status of Human Rights Instruments; Treaties,
Covenants, and Conventions and of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action was
presented in the article, “The UN, Human Rights, and Bosnia”, using Bosnia as a
dramatic case-in-point to illustrate the critical importance of human rights in fulfilling
aspirations for peace. The major conclusions were that non-binding declarations, like the
1948 Universal Declarations for Human Rights, and the 1993 Vienna Declaration and
Program of Action, and abrogatable treaties, while they have some effect, and are part of
the important process of achieving global consensus in formally defining human rights
and rules of conduct, remain woefully inadequate initial steps in remedying and
preventing human rights violations. Governments are the major perpetrators of massive
atrocities, genocide, massacres and torture, through warfare, death squads, repression of
dissidents, and oppression of peoples living under occupation. They need to be brought
certifying the validity of the directly democratic elections. It would also activate the
Secretariat of the World Constitutional Convention.
The Convention Secretariat formally calls the World Constitutional Convention when
the national majorities of voters representing one thousand million people and twenty five
percent of the world’s gross economic product, a “critical mass” of legitimacy, have voted to
participate.
78
under legitimate world rule of law, democratically established. As Einstein recognized in
1946, this can only be accomplished through the establishment of supranational
institutions with adequate competence, authority, and jurisdiction46, as elaborated in the
April 1994 issue of The Concerned Scholar 56(4) in the article, “The New International
Scientific Order and World Rule of Law”, as well as in the June 1994 issue of The
Concerned Scholar 56(6) in the article, “Philadelphia II”.
The United Nations and Human Rights
The law of the jungle, might makes right, still prevails among nations. National
governments, the main culprits in human rights violations, have not been brought under
the rule of law. As mentioned before, there is planetary mismanagement, there is no
parliament, treaty law is voluntary, not universal, courts lack authority, there is no
legitimate, uniform enforcement capability.
Currently, mostly bilateral international means are used to provide external
pressure on governments to respect human rights. This is largely self-serving and
generally pursued only when the interests represented by the government taking the
initiative are involved. Hypocrisy abounds in the process. There are basic disagreements
as to which are human rights and which are privileges, or which are the more important
human rights. In the June 1993 UN Vienna Conference on Human Rights the 1st World
nations generally supported a position which may be satirized by describing freedom of
speech as "freedom to own the TV network of one’s choice". The 3rd World emphasized
basic necessities and opportunities for development--food, shelter, employment, health
care, education, cultural expression, etc., as fundamental human rights Even the "right to
work" evokes starkly different images. In the U.S. it is taken to mean the right not to pay
union dues if you have a job, rather than implementation of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act
guaranteeing the right to a job, with the U.S. government as the employer of last resort.
After considering the issues for some time, it occurs that, in a sense, the right to work is
the most fundamental of all human rights. It is psychologically devastating to be rejected
by society and to be treated as if there were no worthwhile contribution one could make
to society through one's labor. It also occurs that the more severe human rights violations-torture, assassination, genocide, etc., are largely perpetrated against those who have been
denied meaningful, dignified, socially-useful employment under decent working
conditions with a livable wage, and who respond by organizing to resist such treatment.
This issue is guaranteed to be one of continuing controversy.
Even after some degree of consensus is achieved in defining human rights, such as
in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 25 June 1993, in order to be
46“...the
creation of a supranational government, with powers adequate to the responsibility of
maintaining the peace, is necessary....
...Is this realistic? We believe that nothing less is realistic.”“...supranational government must be dependent upon representatives of the populations, not the
governments...”
“...member states of the supranational organization must have no veto right....”
——Albert Einstein in a memorandum 14 June 1947 to Professor Harold C. Urey for discussion at the
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin conference organized by the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, to which the
Federation of American Scientists, the Association of Scientists for Atomic Education at Oak Ridge, the
Northern California Association of Scientists, and the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists were
invited. [Nathan and Norder, eds., Einstein on Peace, Avenel Books, New York (1981) p. 409-413].
79
evenhanded, to give priority to the most egregious abuses, and to prevent human rights
from being exploited for crass political purposes, especially by governments in bilateral
relations in support of special interests the governments represent, it is necessary to
institutionalize their implementation. Historical experience provides considerable
guidance in this respect. Abusive governments must be subject to the rule of law. As with
national governments there is need of constitutionally protected, legally-binding human
rights guarantees and restrictions on the powers of governments, which are the major
perpetrators of human rights violations. A democratic legislature to act on human rights
matters (as well as other matters) is necessary, separate from a judicial system (especially
a UN Human Rights court) wherein individuals have standing to petition for redress of
grievances against governments at all levels, including global, if necessary. The more a
world can be achieved where one's human rights are respected regardless of which side of
a border one lives, the less reason there remains to dispute the location of the border.
Borders can become matters of administrative convenience. The more resources are
considered part of the heritage of humanity (sea lanes, air space, electromagnetic
spectrum, non-renewable resources like petroleum, etc.), and can be devoted to providing
basic human rights of survival and economic well-being, the less reason there is to
dispute borders. The more matters that are subject to dispute between contending groups
of humans (ethnic, religious, national, etc.) can be administered globally, the less reason
there is to dispute borders, with the attendant human rights violations, that commonly
occur in such disputes.
VIII. Drop Kick Me, Jesus, Through the Goalposts of Life.
A. For me, at least, the path to the UNCRDD necessarily passed through the
occupation of professor of physics, especially since my training was in nuclear physics.
The connection between nuclear physics and warfare was something I had to address.
After doing my master’s thesis on techniques for measuring the neutron energy spectrum
of bombs, I found myself working for the military industry again, at Northrop (in a
division, which was then called “Nortonics”). We were assigned the task of developing a
draft of proposal involving nuclear tipped missiles. The idea was to have part of the
warhead break off and be aerodynamically delayed upon reentry. It was to have sensors to
telemeter information to help decide whether follow-up bomb would merely “make the
rubble bounce”. Our task was to decide what sensors to choose and how to interpret the
signals from the sensors. How much destruction had already been wreaked? How many
people had already been killed? Science and technology deal routinely with technical
terms, like kilowatt and nanosecond. The draft proposal was replete with a new one,
“megadeath”. I turned to my officemate.
“What the hell are we working on here, Mike? Look at this proposal: Megadeath,
megadeath, megadeath! You realize that means a million people incinerated.”
Everyone’s gotta be somewhere, but do I have to work on this? I decided to leave the
military industry for graduate school and academia. Years later someone must have had a
similar exposure--a rock group was named “Megadeth”, serving to remind me of the
experience. Of course, I could never pretend that I had ceased working for the military.
Where were most of my students placed? --in the military industry, in the CIA. A few
80
made it at JPL, in medical instrumentation at Beckman, and other civilian industries. I
still felt the need to expiate for teaching physics.
B. I prepared the proposal for the graduate program. The proposal process
required that I solicit local industry to determine the service to industry the program
would provide. I arranged a meeting at the faculty club between the President and the
Vice-President in charge of research of Rockwell, who suggested a litany of benefits
which could accrue to the Department: consulting fees, summer employment, equipment
and library contributions, wages for students on research projects, computer time,...if we
developed a joint area of research. I didn't harbor the slightest suspicion that Rockwell
would be willing to join in Department research areas. I was impressed. I inquired what
kind of research they performed.
"Well, most of our work is for application in Viet Nam (war)."
"Does your conscience bother you in doing that kind of work?"
"Our perspectives on that probably differ."
The conversation switched to other topics. My close friend, college roommate,
and colleague overheard our conversation. When we played handball later he threatened,
"It was all I could do to keep myself from punching you in the nose!" He opposed the
war, but losing an opportunity to profit from it was another matter. I thought of the
concern of the "liberal" supporter of civil rights for property values when the black moves
next door [“Here comes the neighborhood”]. At the meeting to choose a Department
Chair he strongly attacked me for "not having the interest of the Department at heart". In
a sense, he was quite correct. I would willingly sacrifice any institution in order to
improve the human condition and to be true to principles of conscience. Not wanting to
preside over an acrimonious and divided Department, I voted against myself, and lost by
one vote. Actually, I would always vote against myself. I would serve, but I would have
to be drafted. I enjoy research and teaching. Administrative tasks and power have no
appeal. A colleague once tried to make a deal with me to mutually vote for each other’s
research funding in the Department meeting. I replied that I would vote solely on the
basis of merit, that if we couldn't conduct our affairs honestly in a small unit like our
department, what hope was there for larger society? He later referred to me as "the
conscience of the department"--yes, a conscience without research funding!
C. Yes, professor is the best profession. When asked how I'm doing, I sometimes
respond, "I'm overworked and overpaid!"--not overpaid compared to CEOs that make
more in an hour ($78,000/hour for Michael Eisner) than professors do in a year, but far
more than most workers in the world who have much more unpleasant and dangerous
jobs. There are compromises to be struck, like between academic standards and
enrollments--even universities have bottom lines, and it is a constant battle between
faculty and administration whether the bottom line is quality education and critical
thinking or university income, but, by and large, it is one’s job to be true to principles.
Formally, our assignment is to learn, research, and teach, not to make money. Of course,
catering to grantors is inevitable to a degree. It is a difficult but wonderful job, which
includes the "psychic income" (as ex-California Governor Jerry Brown called it) of
helping students develop intellectually and personally, to help them achieve their goals,
and also includes leading the life of the intellect. The intellectual world is the most
exciting of all worlds to explore. It is a wonderful job, and we get paid to do it!
81
I mentioned the immediate, direct, and personal
satisfaction of helping students achieve their goals. That is especially satisfying if they
follow the advice that, after achieving economic viability, they concentrate on social
utility rather than marketability.
Hitman 2
IX. Is There a Deity in the House?
A. The transition was made to the next speaker. The intonation of the same
military vs. social/economic expenditure comparisons droned on. I resumed my
reflection. When did I first become interested in the UN? I believe my interest preceded
the UN. I still have the tattered shreds of the pictorial history of the Great War by which I
was terrorized as a child. It was later named World War I when the necessity of numerical
chronological sequencing became apparent. When World War II started, there was some
discussion about what it should be called. A letter to the Milwaukee Journal suggested
that it be given an anagram name: the
NEW
ERA
WAR.
It has the disadvantage of requiring the concoction of new names for new wars,
instead of continuing the numerical sequence, which is prepared for any eventuality, even
2 ½, I suppose. When I heard my stepfather predict US entry into what became WW II, I
retired to my room in tears, conjuring up all of the images of death and destruction from
those terrible scenes in the pictorial history. That was the future I expected. That was the
future for many, but we were spared. I was nine. I baby-sat with my brother during
blackouts. I served in civil defense at school. We lived with rumors of invasion threats
and bombings, with air raid warnings, with searchlights and rationing and 35 mph speed
limits, but we were spared. I love a parade. I'm an inveterate Rose Bowl Parade watcher.
I am especially fond of military marching bands, but I never thought war was glorious.
The death and animosity were bad enough, but I was also appalled by the ease with which
the longtime labors of many in producing architectural and art treasures could be
destroyed so quickly by so few. I am most respectful of the dignity and value of labor-labor that built this country, that built the world we inherited. War has no respect for the
dignity of labor, or life. I began worrying then how war could be avoided.
B. The war provided huge impact to my stepfathers' career. Ultimately he, Herman
“Fish” Salmon, became Chief Experimental Test Pilot for Lockheed. Lockheed was
founded by two Scottish brothers named Loughead, pronounced “Lockheed”, but subject
to mispronunciation until the spelling was changed. He was a phenomenon. He was as
handsome as Clark Gable, as dashing as Earl Flynn, gregarious and personable, a
practical joker known to everyone in Lockheed. In The Right Stuff Chuck Jaeger opined
that most civilian test pilots were worthless-when they drilled a hole in the desert, it was a
deserved fate. He cites two exceptional cases, Herman Salmon and his close friend Tony
Le Vier. Herman was as courageous as he was dashing. He joined the Caterpillar club
during an air show in Milwaukee. He wasn’t a participant in the show, but he was testing
a plane, which he later alternatively described as either a bunch of nuts and bolts flying in
formation, or a bunch of termites holding hands. He started a loop and the termites tired
82
of holding hands--the wings collapsed. He bailed out but found himself falling directly
under the plane. He had to free fall almost to the ground before he could drift out from
under the falling plane and open his parachute barely in time to slow down before hitting
the --right in front of the grandstand. In the living room that evening I remember my
uncle commenting how difficult it was to belief that this same calm and collected person
was now there in our modest, nondescript and unexceptional living room with ordinary
people whose feet had never left the ground.
To Herman I was always stupid. When he converted his racing plane to alcohol
he asked me to calculate the area of the nozzles. "Sure!" "Simple", I thought. Then I
made a decimal point error leading to a story to be endlessly retold before company to
demonstrate how stupid I was. I knew better. I was still self-confident. My performance in
school convinced me of my capability, but it was embarrassing for him to behave like
that. It was an attempt at public humiliation. It publicly emphasized my position in the
family. I smiled a lot. Learning to drive I would occasionally pop the clutch, leading to
the comment to passengers that besides being stupid I lacked coordination. My brother
would sit on his lap and steer leading to paeans of praise.
I would hang around because they intended to take a ride in a twin engine
Beechcraft. Herman kept saying that they would go later. I'm still there. Well, we'll go
later. I got the message, but still hoped to be included. Finally I go outside. At the first
chance they leave without me. Later my brother taunts me, "I got to go for an airplane
ride and you didn’t." I smile some more. I felt more sorry for my sister, whom I defended
from my brother, who was an only child.
C. Actually, as fabulous as Herman was, he did not gain my admiration as much
as my unambitious, absent father, a lifelong auto mechanic. Did I admire my father,
whom I barely knew, because of my admiration for workers who perform their daily
duties, unsung, or vice-versa? A nominal Catholic, he married a Mormon in Blackfoot,
Idaho, and produced a beautiful sister--gorgeous, gracious Susan. He was the salt of the
earth. He was conscientious, hard working, loyal, and dedicated. The type that built this
country and keeps it going. It’s uncanny, during a visit to Idaho for Thanksgiving Reagan
appeared on TV next to me was his twin, who looks like him, talks like him, thinks like
him. We don’t agree about anything, but temperaments are similar. At 89 he was still
happy and positive, and he always was, even when they were “as poor as church mice”, in
his words, although he says, “Old age ain’t for sissies!” I am content with modest
comforts--friends, family, gardening, small town community entertainment. I have no
ambition to be rich, famous, honored, or powerful. I am admonished because of my lack
of ego. “Why did you offer co-authorship when you had done all of the original work and
could have finished it alone and received all of the credit?” “Because more can be
accomplished that way, especially if I team with someone who has a penchant for
promotion which I lack.” The bottom line is accomplishment, not personal promotion.
D. Perhaps an illustration is in order. In graduate school in 1960-63 I actively
opposed the escalating involvement in Viet Nam. I debated the professors from the USC
Center for the Study of Communist Propaganda and Strategy, especially Roger
Swearingen. I remember their arguments well-- “One has to draw a line somewhere.” My
response: “Why does democracy and communism have to be stopped and opposed instead
of supported?” I cited the 1954 Geneva Accords that guaranteed internationally
83
supervised free elections for Viet Nam. Eisenhower estimated that Ho Chi Minh would
garner some 85% of any free democratic expression. The troops (advisors at the
inception) were sent in to prop up a puppet Catholic government for the southern part of
Viet Nam, in a Buddhist country. Eisenhower’s choice for the head of the puppet
government was a recruit from a Maryknoll monastery in New Jersey, Nho Dinh Diem.
[When he proved ineffective, he was considered expendable. Open season on him was
declared by announcing that he no longer was supported by the U.S. administration. He
was killed forthwith.]
When I mentioned that the press had described the US puppet Laotian and
Vietnamese politicians as “the best money can buy”, they responded with an insipid
cliché: “It takes a crook to know a crook!”, implying that the press itself was criminal.
This was a portent of the attack on the press for allowing the U. S. public to be informed
about the war. They blame the press for the massive opposition that they blame for the
defeat of the vested interests represented by the U.S. government, and for the people’s
victory. The frequency with which one encounters “losers” who claim that they lost the
war has increased as the “Vietnam syndrome” is gradually being overcome by the fog of
history. Bellicosity thrives on victory, even over victims as small as Granada, with about
100,000 population. Their pride is my embarrassment, and vice-versa, I presume. A bully
government dispatching death and destruction in violation of international law is no
source of pride to me.
My efforts continued when I was hired in a “room at the top” maneuver at
California State University, Fullerton. I had presented a seminar there while interviewing.
I expected the usual offer as an Assistant Professor that I had already decided to decline. I
had intended to pursue a traditional post doctoral research career in nuclear physics
before seeking an academic post. At the USC Nuclear Physics Laboratory, where I lived,
sleeping on a lab bench behind my desk, I collected my mail and repaired to the “library”
to open the mail. I almost fell off the pot. Like the Mafia, they made me “an offer I
couldn’t refuse”—I hadn’t been awarded my doctorate yet, and wouldn’t be for at least a
year, and still they offered me a position as a senior professor, as an Associate Professor. I
could immediately follow Linus Pauling’s advice to teach.
I planned to decline the anticipated offer from CalState, Fullerton, where I had
given a seminar, I had accepted offers to teach half time at Immaculate Heart College, a
Catholic women’s college, and to work half time in industry. I reneged on the offer from
industry, but I didn’t want to leave Immaculate Heart in staffing difficulty. I had a full
time teaching load of new preparations at Fullerton. There was no lab manual for
laboratories. I had to invent experiments and write descriptions for them each week. I had
to teach half time at Immaculate Heart. I had to complete my dissertation by March, or
face probationary dismissal. The administration had taken a risk in making the offer of
the senior professorship to me, so I had to complete the doctorate in a timely fashion. To
compound the problem, USC had attracted Maurice H. L. Pryce as Department Chair. It
set off a debate in Parliament about the “brain drain”. My young dissertation director,
Bob Cole, who had just transferred from UCLA, was anxious to establish his reputation.
In an expression of overkill, I essentially was required to complete two dissertations
combined into one: “Elastic and Inelastic Scattering of 30 MeV protons on Au, Ag, Cu,
84
and Pb with Nuclear Optical Model Theoretical Analysis” and “Pickup Reactions on F-19
with Distorted Wave Born Approximation Theoretical Analysis”. In December, I
discovered that equipment failure invalidated much of my data. I spent Christmas break
reproducing the data.
That first year was to test my survival skills. I cut my activities down to “lean and
mean”. I resigned from the Board of Directors of the Southern California American Civil
Liberties Union. I resigned as the Director of the College Center of the First Unitarian
Church of Los Angeles. I resigned from the Forum Committee of the First Unitarian
Church, and ceased almost every other optional activity.
My orals were also exceptional. I was the first candidate after Dr. Pryce’s arrival,
and he wanted to evaluate the caliber of USC’s graduates. My orals lasted over four
hours. I was mortified when I did not know the answer to one question, “Why is the
atomic spin-orbit effect in the opposite direction from the nuclear spin-orbit effect?” In
1999 I taught Modern Physics from Bob Eisberg’s book. [I knew him from doing research
on the 45 MeV UCLA cyclotron, although we weren’t on the same team. Sailing became
a higher priority for him than nuclear physics.] I looked up the same spin-orbit question.
It still was not well understood, but in 1964 I thought that I was expected to know, and
suffered embarrassment that I didn’t. At the conclusion of the academic year, upon
getting my first night’s good sleep, I realized that I had been suffering from fatigue the
whole year. But I survived, and my contract was renewed.
One other crisis occurred that year. I had been assigned to teach a science general
education (GE) course for non-science majors. Traditionally these courses were taught in
a very “technotwitty” way. Instructors and departments took little interest in these
courses. They were exploited to build FTES (Full Time Equivalent Students) for
departments. The FTES was used to support research and courses for majors. Each
Department had a hidden agenda. They argued the pedagogical merits of their courses,
but FTES was the motivator. Course offerings were “cafeteria style”, incoherent, not
comprehensive, not integrated, not very relevant to the needs and interests of non-science
majors.
For career advancement, research was essential, teaching had to be satisfactory,
notwithstanding the Master Plan for California Higher Education, that defined the
primary role of the California State University system as pedagogic, with research to be
conducted only insofar as it aided and abetted teaching. Teaching service courses counted
insofar as they generated FTES. Doctorates are highly specialized and narrow. I spent my
free audits as a graduate student in courses like Constitutional Law, Philosophy, and
History. Even so, I felt inadequately prepared to teach the general education course to
which I was assigned. I considered the course from the point of view of the students who
did not intend to be scientific practitioners. The easiest course for a narrowly trained
Ph.D. is to emphasize their specialized field. Little preparation is required, and chances of
embarrassment are small. A plethora of technical terminology is of little utility to nonscience majors. What they do need, and should have, is science in context, a broad
context. Context enhances understanding. Science should be understood as part of
intellectual and cultural history, in the fullness of the phenomena. Its role in history, and
its interaction with other fields should be treated. Its philosophical foundations,
epistemology, and methodology should be considered, as should distinctions from other
85
fields (demarcation) and from pseudoscience. I resumed my education, reading widely to
remedy the inadequate preparation to teach this course that my Ph.D. provided. Actually,
I formally enrolled back in the university in which I was teaching for three and one half
years, until a bout with hepatitis reduced my energy level to the point where I could no
longer sustain my activities as both a full time professor and a full time student.
Preparing myself better to teach this GE course changed my course in life. In
1967, on the airplane on the way to the Rutherford High Energy Laboratory in England I
was reading John Desmond Bernal’s Science in History. While he was alive it was only
published by two off beat, but progressive publishers at the time, Cameron & Assoc. and
Marzani and Munsell. After he died, McGraw-Hill published the work in four volumes.
As the author he was identified as the Vice-President of the World Federation of
Scientific Workers [WFSW]. I did not discover until a few years later that Linus Pauling
had also served as Vice-President of the WFSW. He had never mentioned it to me. Many
years later Eric Burhop, President of the WFSW requested that I approach Linus Pauling
to inquire whether he would resume his position as Vice-President. His son was already
encouraging him to reduce his workload due to his advanced age. With regrets, he
judiciously declined.] As mentioned above, he wrote the main recruitment letter for the
U.S. affiliate of the WFSW, the U. S. Federation of Scholars and Scientists, and remained
the Honorary Chair until his death.]
When I arrived in London, I immediately went to the University of London to
meet J. D. Bernal and to inquire about the WFSW. The History Department informed me
that he was in Birkbeck College and was, by training, a crystallographer, and remained an
active researcher in crystallography his entire life. J. D. Bernal was a legend during World
War II—one of the brain trust that provided the UK and the allies with advanced
technological tools—like radar. This was my first contact with the WFSW. Years later I
was to lecture at Trinity College, Dublin at a conference dedicated to his memory. When I
organized a scientific NGO conference for the UN Third Special Session on
Disarmament, I entitled it, “The John Desmond Bernal International Scientific
Conference on Security and Disarmament”. It was held for four days in the New York
World Trade Center. It featured a stellar cast of speakers including, Ann Fagan Ginger
(whom I saw on CNN minutes before I wrote this commenting on the violations of
international law committed by NATO in its aggression against Yugoslavia), Barry
Commoner, Dirk Struik, George Wald, and Vasilii Goldanski (the USSR father of the
nuclear laser).
I decided to organize the conference in quite a different fashion than most
professional convocations, and differently from how NGO conferences had been
previously organized. I hoped to provide a model for NGO conferences. I have been
impressed by the high degree of understanding achieved by academics in their respective
fields. However, they consider their assignment to be completed when they present a
paper at a professional conference, and publish in a reputable refereed journal. The world
of truth seekers is then expected to beat a path to their door. Unfortunately, this is not
adequate to provide political momentum to these well-considered studies.
When I represented the WFSW at the UN Conference on the Relationship
between Disarmament and Development, the NGO leadership had decided not to do any
business. We delegates were provided badges to allow access to the UN inner sanctum,
86
where we were encouraged to individually lobby UN representatives. Daily briefings
from UN PR officials were provided. I felt like a passive receptor. I argued,
unsuccessfully, that this was a great missed opportunity for networking among delegates,
and that we could be more effective if we could develop consensus on a few positions and
then all lobbied in support of the same positions. I prepared agendae for the NGO
meetings. The NGO leadership refused to conduct any business.
I wished to provide political momentum to the best consensus ideas that could be
generated by the most inceptive thinkers we could marshal. The Bernal Conference had
twelve parallel sessions devoted to different themes. Each submitted paper was required
to be prescriptive as well as descriptive. It was not adequate to describe a problem;
Proposed remedies were required. I returned submitted papers that did not include
suggested solutions. Papers that were submitted in time were circulated for criticism and
review in advance. I had hoped to circulate the reviews in advance as well, but papers
were generally submitted too late, criticisms even later, if at all. Each session included a
lengthy discussion period during which participants drew consensus recommendations
and conclusions that were submitted to the plenary session, which was charged with
developing final consensus on recommendations and conclusions.
These final recommendations and conclusions were submitted directly to the
President of the Third UN Special Session on Disarmament, and were provided to all
governmental delegates. The essence of many of the recommendations and conclusions
were included in the final consensus document of the UN Disarmament conference. It is
difficult to assess the degree of our influence since similar recommendations were
submitted by Gorbachev and by many delegates.
I was a member of the Board of the National Committee for Debate on Foreign
Policy (organizers of the "teach-ins"). I approached the Human Relations Committee on
campus to sponsor a teach-in. The faculty advisor, a very "liberal" Professor of History,
argued that it was not a human relations matter. I countered that war was a very intense
form of human relations. The same professor, when I tried to recruit him for the union,
responded, "Unions are for workers, not professors!" "I don't know about you, but my job
as a professor is a lot of work!", I rejoined. He later joined and now the proletarian status
of professors is largely recognized, although it required a great deal of punishment by the
capitalist-dominated Board of Trustees, cutting budgets and staff support and increasing
work loads in retaliation for peace movements on campus, to teach the workers who was
boss, in retaliation for peace movements on campus. It was a Pyrrhic victory to gain their
unenthusiastic agreement to sponsor and organize the teach-in. They agreed to organize a
teach-in. I was to recruit most of the agreed upon speakers. Others were to arrange for the
room, publicity, etc. I had to cancel the speakers when arrangements weren't made. I tried
again next year. I put a notice in the Daily Titan(ic), the school paper. We were well on
our way when professors from Political Science complained that this should be their
responsibility. I was aware of their pro-war views, but I felt that was little cause for
concern, that no matter how the teach-in was conducted, that dirty war couldn't stand the
light of scrutiny. Any attention, even biased, would help. I turned the teach-in over to
87
them. I was operating a Faculty Forum lecture for the union. They started scheduling
meetings at the same time as the Faculty Forum, so I could no longer attended the
meetings. One day the campus minister, Al Cohen, came to me to report that they had
canceled the teach-in. Political Science Departments tend to be supporters of the
establishment because “work experience” as a politician or in government is often
accepted on lieu of academic credentials, research, and experience. I started over again
the next year, and the Political Science Department had to stay out of the way. I started
several campus organizations. A notice in the school paper, The Daily Titan, sufficed. I
had started a SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) chapter on campus. We changed
hats to found the Understanding Asia Committee and the Jack London Society.
E. At the first teach-in planning meeting the communist psychology professor and
the socialist history professor were already exchanging insults when I entered the room.
"I remember when you communists hanged socialists from the lampposts!"
"It was a well-deserved fate!"
As chair, I restored order by declaring such disputes out of order and irrelevant.
We worked well together after that. The history professor, Dave Pivar, was a specialist in
labor history. He was brilliant--and arrogant. Frequently, he would comment that if I was
not yet aware of something, or if I didn't understand something, there was no point in
explaining it to me. I would press him. He still wouldn't explain it, but he would refer me
to scholarly articles and books, which I invariably found profoundly enlightening. I
particularly remember Merle Curti's, The Role of Philanthropy in Shaping Higher
Education in the US, and Trent Schroyer's article, .”A Critical Theory of Late
Capitalism” in The Resurgence of American Socialism, and the role of The National
Civic Federation in imposing the collective bargaining model of trade unionism. He
would repeatedly quit the union in protest of something or other. I was the local president
and state wide secretary of the joint University of California -California State University
union of professors, the United Professors of California (UPC). We were holding a strike
vote in solidarity with the San Francisco State local, which already was out on strike.
Dave wanted to vote against the strike. I replied that he had resigned. He argued that the
Executive Board hadn't approved his resignation. I countered, "Dave, this isn't the Mafia!
You don't need permission to resign."
No one in my family had ever belonged to a union before. My mother and
stepfather openly proclaimed that unions were ruining the country. My truck driver
grandfather worked at a non-union shop (Shell), but my grandparents attributed his good
salary to the effect of unions. Now I was a charter member and officer of a union, but
what kind of a union? What kind of a union results from organizing the privileged?
Driving back from a union meeting in my microbus with Bruce Wright, a political science
professor, I wondered aloud whether the progressive character of the union could be
preserved if we organized a large fraction of the faculty. Our local was small, but
dedicated and effective. We doubled our dues. I thought we should be contributing at
least as much as we paid to the U.S. government. This was war. At a national conference,
we went out to eat after the day’s meetings were over. My colleagues proceeded to get
drunk and stupid. I became disgusted. I wondered what I was doing in the same
organization with them (Everyone’s gotta be somewhere). I looked outside at an elderly
scrofulous man selling newspapers in the cold rain. He became the symbol of my mission,
88
so that people like him could enjoy not only twilight years in comfort, peace, and security.
Obtaining more privileges for the privileged was no incentive. Helping universities serve
their social responsibility, particularly in acting as social critic so that our best thinkers
and best ideas can help guide our course, that was an important and worthy goal. I noticed
that the tide was turning when a married couple, both professors of economics with no
children responded to my curiosity about their motive in joining the union that it was to
improve their material standard of living. When I was president I was an obstacle to these
goals. Sure, we would engage in collective bargaining with the representatives of the
corporate capitalists, but only temporarily, until democracy could be achieved in
accordance with my Representation Maxim, “Institutions should be governed by those
identifiable constituencies in proportion to their degree of interest tempered by
competence”. Sure, we would bargain for higher salaries, lower workload, and fringe
benefits, but a higher priority was assigned to public service, duties of the profession
(defense of academic freedom), university access to working class students. Organized
selfishness had been a failing of the labor movement.
The WFSW is mostly an affiliation of trade unions. The Secretary-General, John
Dutton, had been a long time British trade union activist. When I met him in Varna,
Bulgaria I asked him why the trade union movement had failed in England. He was
surprised at the question, couched in my usual provocative form.
“What do you mean it failed?
“Once the Labor Party achieved power, once democracy was established, that
should have been it. The capitalists (Torys) should never have been able to return to
power.”
I had studied the history of the British labor movement, especially the role played
by Keir Hardy. Being overawed by the trappings of privilege and power of the aristocracy
was a temptation difficult to resist, but the main failing was the failure to shift from
“More”, as Samuel Gompers put it, when bargaining with capitalists, when “more” only
reduces the profits of the wealthy, to social responsibility once one attains power, I
theorized. Bargaining against capitalists is one thing. Trying to obtain a larger share at the
expense of the greater society was quite another.
While I was president of the AFT local (#1588), we signed up more than five
times our original membership for the new union, the joint University of
California/California State University organization, United Professors of California,
UPC, which was not affiliated with AFL-CIO. We strategized that affiliation could be
reestablished after chartering. I no longer could win election as president--the advocates
of “economism”, restriction of collective bargaining to “bread and butter” issues, had
taken over. Then my former attorney, Howard Berman, later to become a prominent,
progressive member of Congress, who had represented me when I was subpoenaed to
testify before a government committee investigating the performance of Michael
McClure’s “The Beard” on campus (talk about everyone’s gotta be somewhere!), drafted
a bill to give us collective bargaining. We never had adequate strength to demand it. In a
sense, we were better off before. The anti-union forces put together a coalition, called
CFA, California Faculty “Association” (The “union label” was too proletarian for them),
which barely defeated us in the election. I finally became active in the “anti-union union”,
with a bevy of reservations. I now serve again on the Central Labor Council. Hope
89
springs eternal. It took a lot of compromising to get me to join. I had been the faculty
advocate for a Jewish Yugoslav émigré engineering professor whom they were trying to
dismiss.
We fought and won his grievance. He became Department Chair and Outstanding
Professor (in more than one category). He became president of the CFA and supported
higher tuition for students so that professors wouldn’t face layoff or pay reductions.
[Add CFA essay here]
When the Senate Committee investigating the campus performance of “The
Beard” subpoenaed me the sense of “everyone’s gotta be somewhere” was particularly
intense. Why was I so frequently on the scene? I didn’t plan it. Why was a Professor of
Physics the next to testify after the Chancellor and the President? I frequently attended
theatrical performances on campus. I was walking down the hall when I noticed that a
play was being performed. I walked in on “The Beard”. It was supposed to be an
experimental performance. A member of the Yorba Linda Star had gained admittance and
wrote a scandalous review which outraged some members of the community. It quickly
became a political football playing to the grandstand. A Senate Committee consisting of
three John Birch Society members was convened to exploit what they perceived was a
great political opportunity to denigrate the university and to ingratiate themselves to their
constituency. The director of the play, Ed Duerr, was a union member near retirement. I
was President of the union. We convened a special meeting to which the President of the
University was invited. He made his “damage control” apologetic position clear. In the
campus newspaper Ed Duerr was cited as reflecting the apologetic position of the
administration. After President left I expressed surprise at Ed’s position because when I
talked to him after the performance he had waxed very enthusiastic about the
performance. He stated that he had never made these apologetic statements, that the
administration was putting words in his mouth. I was prematurely satisfied. In the
following weeks he did nothing to refute the apologies the administration was attributing
to him. Apparently his private position was not in accord with his public one.
The university subpoenaed me as a defense witness without consulting me,
perhaps because the administration expected me to take a more forceful positive position
which could relieve them of the onerous task of defending academic freedom in a
politically unpopular case. The Chancellor of the California State University System was
the first witness, followed by the President of the University. They both reiterated the mea
culpa defense, attributing the performance to an isolated failure of judgement of an
ordinarily reliable faculty member. I was next. We were all provided copies of the script
in advance. Senator Schmidt, who ran for President on the American Independent Party
ticket, whom I saw years later mingling at the back of the crowd while I was addressing a
rally at Rancho Santiago College where he was a Professor of Political Science, began the
questioning. He asked me if I thought that it was appropriate for such a play to be
performed on a university campus.
I replied, “Certainly!” or something similar, according to my current recollection.
He pressed me. “How can the performance of such an obscene play possibly be
justified?”
“Well, for one thing, because of its social significance.”
“What ‘social significance’ (with a smirk)?”
90
“Consider the protagonists, Billie the Kid and Jean Harlow, not Albert Einstein
and Susan B. Anthony. That is a comment on the character of American heroes.”47
“Well, is that all?”
“Not at all. In classical literature a similar theme has been pursued. Usually people
can recall only one of the parts of Dante’s trilogy, The Divine Comedy, “The Inferno”.
“Purgatorio” and “Paradiso” are not considered to be great literature. Why not? Perhaps
because the pain of the fire and tortures to which victims were subjected were close to
human experience. Who has not been burned? One could feel the fire and smell the
brimstone. When it came to paradise Dante’s task was more difficult. In the morays of the
times what divine pleasures in heaven could be described which were not then considered
to be sins?”
“In Letters from the Earth”, one of America’s greatest writers, Mark Twain,
treated the same issue. Two angels, Michael and Gabriel, heard that God, perhaps in a fit
of boredom, had created the earth and had populated it with creatures in his own image.
Not ever having seen God, and curious about how at least God thought he appeared, one
of the angels decided to visit Earth. He wrote letters back to the other angel marveling at
these strange creatures and their habits. Mark Twain had great fun ridiculing the human
condition and propensity. Having just come from heaven, he was particularly bemused by
the droll human perception of heaven. One would expect creatures to fill their heaven full
of the things they cherish. Fields of catnip populated by mice would fill cat heaven. What
do people think they will do in heaven?--They expect to strum harps! Still I have noticed
no great predilection among humanity for harp strumming. What does excite these
creatures? Sex!--the merest opportunity sets them wild with anticipation. This may be
difficult to comprehend or believe, but, it is as I have said, they have omitted sex from
their heaven!
“On a roll, he couldn’t resist commenting on their sexual behavior, ‘We angels,
who engage in the act for centuries at a time without withdrawal cannot adequately pity
these mortals who are so limited in frequency and duration.’”
Literature and other avenues of expression have provided vehicles for discussion
of the morality and social constraints of sexual behavior as well as assessments of the
activity itself. Is it sinful? Is it a celebration of life? Is it an obligation to procreation? Is it
to be indulged or resisted? to be proscribed or expanded? to be sanctified or demonized?
It is a topic which has fascinated writers, theologians, and just about everyone else since
the dawn of consciousness. St. Augustine was intrigued by erections because “they were
not subject to a calm and obedient will”. Beyond volition, they become fascinating and
threatening. This is a topic guaranteed to provide fodder for interminable exhortation,
debate, and discussion. It is a topic to which the intellectual and cultural resources of a
university can contribute, if not resolve.
In my classes in science for non-science majors, in order to develop critical
thinking and to introduce and apply rudimentary epistemology [criteria for validity--on
what basis is “knowing” founded?] in the process of helping explain what science is, I
47 [I’m sure I didn’t use Susan B. Anthony as the example, but I can’t remember whom I cited. I could
research it for accuracy, but what I am trying to communicate here is my current recollection of the events,
guessing at some of the gaps in the memory record. It would be interesting to then compare it with the
transcript. Perhaps I will, later.]
91
also proceeded backhandedly, contrasting science with non-scientific fields, especially
those which portrayed themselves as sciences, the pseudosciences, where the
epistemological issues are more subtle. On of the examples I chose was Wilhelm Reich’s
“science of orgonomy”. Reich was a disciple of Sigmund Freud, who argued that sex was
the fundamental human driving force, but a force which could be “sublimated” into other
areas, accounting for human creativity and productivity. Reich extrapolated Freud’s
theory beyond humans. The same energy which drove humans, “orgone energy” [from
“orgasm”?], he theorized, also drove the universe. It made weather. It was blue.
Concentrations of orgone energy caused the color of the sky and sea. [Scientists prefer the
explanation involving Rayleigh scattering.] It could cancel nuclear radiation. Art Kunkin,
the publisher of The Free Press in Los Angeles, told me that he had know people in
Brooklyn who had crouched in “orgone energy accumulators”, orgone energy
“greenhouses”, boxes constructed of alternating layers of metallic and organic material. In
an experiment to test the power of the accumulated orgone energy to cancel nuclear
radiation from radium, several test subjects became ill. Scientists would be inclined to
attribute the illness to an overdose of radiation. Reich promoted an alternate explanation-a storm had passed nearby and the subjects had been exposed to an overdose of orgone
energy. In Budapest Reich had been a member of the same Communist Party cell as
Alfred Koestler, famous for writing The God that Failed [as well as The Sleepwalkers
and The Ghost in the Machine]. He developed a theory that the proletariat was
politically impotent because they were sexually impotent, and that when they achieved
sexual potency they would take political power. He founded SexPol (Sexual/Political)
institutes that embarrassed the Party so much that it expelled him. He died in Lewiston
prison for violation of the food and drug laws. I remember keenly the union garden party
where I was waxing sarcastic about Reichian therapy, in which one removes one’s clothes
and assumes a position on the therapy couch. [“That takes care of my problem, now how
about yours.” Actually, it makes some sense. Reactions, like muscle contractions and
breathing, can be better perceived on a nude person, especially reactions to erotic stimuli.]
My colleague from the History Department, a very bright and arrogant labor historian,
was not amused. He was taking Reichian therapy and averred its efficacy.
The evaluation of pseudosciences like orgonomy provides fertile ground for
introductions to epistemology and the scientific method. I had a special interest in
Michael McClure’s play, The Beard, because he was an overdone Reichian as Reich was
an overdone Freudian. After the performance on campus, Robert Gish, a prominent
Hollywood director [whom I met through my girlfriend, the fiery, redheaded, premature
reincarnation of Maureen O’Hara, Maureen McIlroy, who at one time was being groomed
as the next Marilyn Monroe (who attended my high school, Van Nuys)], directed the play
in the Coronet Theater on La Cienega in Hollywood, only to be arrested night after night
until finally a court injunction against the police was obtained.
I was unable to complete my prepared arguments before Schmitz interrupted me.
He had heard quite enough. He didn’t want there to be any social significance, or cultural
relevance. The longer I talked the more substantive appeared the play. He acted like he
wanted a simple case of pornography [I had little interest in pornography. I didn’t even
have a pornograph!--now eroticism, that is another matter.]
92
Years later, I addressed a rally on the Rancho Santiago College campus where he
had returned after an unsuccessful run at the Presidency heading the AIP ticket I spotted
him viewing the proceedings from behind the amphitheater. He didn’t say anything. Most
recently he was featured in the local paper because his daughter, a school teacher, had
given birth to a baby fathered by one of her second grade students who was 13 at the time
of conception. Despite the great age difference, and the attendant social (legal)
prohibition, it appeared that she simply fell in love. After returning to her love in
violation of probation, she did jail time. Schmitz was the darling of the right wing. His
platform supported “family values”, perhaps had set a poor example. He was also
antihomosexual, genderist, anticommunist, pro-gun, and anti-Semitic, He was the first
member of the John Birch Society to be elected to the California State Senate. Later he
was ejected from the board of the John Birch Society. To him Nixon was a “liberal” [“I
don’t object to Nixon going to China--only to him coming back”]. He opposed sex
education and himself had twice impregnated one of his own students. His wife
persevered and coped.
F. Security is a consideration in opting for Pax Americana. In one’s personal life
one can make friends or enemies in a process largely dependent upon one’s behavior.
Similarly, governments can make friends or create enemies in a process largely dependent
upon the behavior of the government. Imposing one’s will in a manner that has not
achieved legitimacy, perhaps not even legality, in a dictatorial, arbitrary, selective, and
self-serving fashion, is guaranteed to make enemies. It has been said that “Injustice is the
price of civilization”. That is, disputes over law and its application inevitably arise. One
may be outvoted and consider the law to be unfair or unreasonable. In court, generally
each case creates a victim of injustice. If litigants didn’t consider their cause to be just,
they probably wouldn’t appeal to the courts, or file responses to complaints. The side
which doesn’t prevail either in legislation or in court may consider itself to be a victim of
injustice--but in a mild and tolerable form which is as minimal as human institutions can
achieve if one had a fair chance to influence legislation, and a fair chance to argue one’s
case before impartial judges. Often anger and reprisal against government misconduct is
indiscriminately misdirected against innocent parties. The first line of defense is to
prevent governmental misconduct by establishing legitimate government that is
constitutionally and judicially constrained from misconduct. The Basic Principles of
Governance are designed to optimize the performance and legitimacy of government.
All U.S. citizens suffer from the misdirected anger resulting from government
misconduct, even those who oppose the misconduct. Recently, many U.S. residents have
been innocent victims of indignant people whose sense of justice has been outraged when
the government chose a favorite side rather than support principles. Policemen are often
resented even when they enforce rules that have been established and enforced in a
legitimate manner, but policemen are ideally trained to support the law and principles.
Armies take sides regardless of principle [My country right or wrong.]. Were a
democratic, legitimated United Nations the legislator, administrator, and adjudicator of
disputes, the number of incensed enemies would be minimized, and there would be no
93
target population to be held responsible for the misconduct of their government--the
whole world would be responsible--a diffuse target of resentment.
G. When I served as the token radical on the Student Faculty Public Events
Committee I could never convince them to accept any of my nominees. The noted civil
rights historian Herbert Aptheker wasn't welcome because he was a communist. There
was a ban on communists on campus. They did come to me when Linus Pauling had
declined an invitation, importuning me to ask him to reconsider since he was a personal
friend. I did and he did. That resulted in a personal attack. A large dossier on me was sent
to the President of the University by a mathematics professor who had been fired, making
the case for my dismissal. The Linus Pauling lecture was one of my most egregious faults.
In short, the dossier argued: 1) Linus advocated peace, 2) Except for my personal
friendship with him he would not have accepted the speaking engagement, 3)
Communists also support peace, 4) Therefore, I was promoting communism and should
be fired and replaced by a patriot (like him) who supports the war. During the 14-hour
teach-in we had scheduled five different types of communists to speak. Despite intense
administrative pressure, we refused to withdraw their invitations. The only recourse of the
administration was to ban the entire teach-in. They were "up against the wall,.......", as
Mark Rudd put it at Columbia. [That reminds me of the proud father showing off his son
who was learning to speak but had only learned half of a word--"mother". Is an ethnic
clarifier necessary?] We had so much support and were so well organized that the
administration was fearful of the consequences if they banned the teach-in. Instead, they
adopted a policy requiring campus speakers to be subjected to questions and rebuttal, so
that communists couldn't brainwash students, but communists were not mentioned by
name. In an ironic twist, I believe that I was the only one to ever invoke the policy. When
I was teaching a course on Nuclear Power, I invited an advocate of nuclear power from
Southern California Edison to speak to the class. I asked him questions, which he found
so embarrassing that Southern California Edison complained to the President of the
University, demanding a return engagement, but without being subjected to questions
from me. The Department Chair, my closest colleague, later assassinated in his office,
implored me to compromise to avoid reprisals against the department. I thought this was
the ideal issue to contest--academic freedom, freedom of speech. I invited them to return,
but said that "unfortunately" university policy prevented me from allowing them to make
a unilateral presentation without being subject to questions from anyone in attendance,
and, since I was the instructor, I would be in attendance and inclined to ask questions.
They declined the invitation.
H. The wife of an "illiberal" (perhaps “proestablishment” is the most accurate and
descriptive term) professor from the Political Science Department had taken a course
from me. He is still subject to domestic criticism for his support of the war. He had been
attending a program at Princeton in preparation for a college presidency. He attacked me
in print for not being scholarly or objective in organizing the teach-in. In less than an hour
I had organized a whole list of anti-war speakers. Finding pro-war speakers was very
difficult. The US government claimed that it had no spokespersons on the West Coast.
We would have to pay round trip airfare from Washington, plus hotel and per diem
expenses. I finally found an academic from Fresno State who agreed to speak in support
of the war, but only if we paid him, and only if he was given twice the time allotted other
94
speakers. His was the only honorarium. He used his time to give the audience some
exercise, reciting, "When you're up you're up. When you're down you're down. When
you're only half way up you're neither up nor down." He ran out of steam in his "liberal"
argument (It was good intentions gone awry) and didn't use his allotted time. I offered to
open my files in my office documenting the extraordinary efforts I had made to recruit
prowar speakers. His response was, "No one will believe you, and they won't bother to
come to your office to check." He must have been a very competent professor of political
science. He had an uncanny understanding of the potential for political mendacious
manipulation, a skill I had no interest in acquiring. He ended tragically, being
successfully and expensively sued by a black athlete on scholarship who collected money
without attending his course. He then pleaded for a passing grade so that his scholarship
payments would continue. This lead to an embarrassing gaff that resulted in being
temporarily stripped of his Emeritus status (unjustly so I believe) and costing the
university a large judgment. After serving many terms as chair of the Academic Senate he
is so embittered that he avoids the campus.
I. In making final preparations for the all day teach-in it was intended that the
organizers would take turns as MC. Philosophy professor Stu Silvers offered to MC the
entire event. I readily agreed. It didn't matter that it had taken me three years of effort to
organize the event. Stu was making himself a target. There have been two times when I
really felt proud of my country. Once was when LBJ ended a presidential address with the
civil rights slogan, "We shall overcome!" Considering our difficult racial history, the
prospect of overcoming racism and creating a racially just society was enough to fire the
patriotic juices. The other time was during an anti-war protest march in San Francisco. I
was a monitor. I carried a walkie-talkie and walked outside of the line of march along
side a flat bed truck carrying a band. We danced all the way. I looked ahead. Over two
hills, as far as I could see, stretched the river of protesters. Behind, an almost identical
sight. I couldn't see the end in either direction. Patriotic pride welled up inside me. When
had a people risen to such an occasion, so effectively opposing a war perpetrated by their
own government? English protests against the Boer war came to mind. But could even
that compete with this? What an extraordinary expression of morality and principle!
However, Stu was critical. We shouldn't be enjoying ourselves while people were
suffering under a rain of napalm and "cookie cutters". We should be binding ourselves to
telephone poles on hills in Hanoi to protect the people there. We should be force-marched
across the desert. We should suffer like they were suffering. I never agreed with that
philosophy. I never had a martyr complex. I wanted to alleviate their suffering, but never
thought that additional suffering would help. I remember my chubby aunt's rationale for
not going on a diet, "There's enough suffering in the world already!"
We had driven my beatup VW microbus, in which I had slung hammocks, to the
peace march in San Francisco. It could sleep about 12. I was stopped for a broken
taillight. The policeman looked at my drivers’ license. “Is this your current home
address?” “No. It’s the university address.” “What do you do there?” “I’m a
professor.” He looked at me, then back at the VW, then back to me. “Can’t you afford a
better car than this?” Even policemen are promoting materialism. On the way back we
stopped along the road to sleep. We were jolted awake when the shock wave from the
95
passing train blew open the side doors. I proposed that we drive a few miles down the
road to camp on my Isla Vista property. In the morning a policeman rousted us saying that
it was prohibited to camp on private property. “Not even with the permission of the owner
(free and clear)?” He surveyed our scrofulous condition, then said, “You had better be
gone when I return.” Well, we were now wide-awake and intended to drive on anyway.
Stu was brilliant, intense, indignant, and active--handsome and athletic, very
popular with students, especially if there was a gender difference. Many speakers
unconsciously develop habits. Stu’s was to look up from his paper to stare at the ceiling
instead of the audience. I should have mentioned it to him. He loved “Hair” so much, he
attended the performance several times. He had the disconcerting habit of repeatedly
looking at the ceiling while lecturing. After looking myself the first few times, I felt
assured there was no fly or menacing creature there. I recalled the gentleman who saved a
girl whose panty elastic had broken some embarrassment by staring up intently until the
crowd joined him, providing an opportunity for her to step out of them and discreetly put
them in her purse. He wrote a lively article for the underground newspaper, The Daily
Titanic. CalState, Fullerton was the site of the first intercollegiate pachyderm race,
leading to the choice of the team name, “The Titans”, although Titans were giant humans,
not elephants. Collegiate athletics in those days was taken jocularly in Orange County.
Another local university, University of California, Irvine, chose “The Anteaters”. In
“B.C.”, when animals were being named, they wondered what to call this curious
creature. “What does it do?” “It eats ants.” “Well then, call it an ‘eatanter’!” So it goes
with many things, “swatflyers”, “wipewindshielders”, “spadegardeners”,
“lightcigaretters”,... Make up your own, like the well-endowed woman I saw in a
supermarket wearing a dry tee shirt emblazoned, “Don’t stare! Grow your own!”
X. Rumpleforeskin.
The union newspaper and underground paper were both being printed in my den.
A few of us knew that the editorial writer under the nom de plume “Rumpleforeskin” was
Stu Silvers, a philosophy professor who was later “fired”. During the time the University
was closed by Reagan and classes were not being held, except in the Free University
where I, Stu, and other professors held forth, he had declared himself on strike, all by
himself. The University used the automatic “five day rule”, according to which he was
considered to have “resigned” because he [like everyone else] had not met universityrecognized classes, to dismiss him. He also had been conducting classes at home. I hired
him as an organizer for the union and filed a grievance on his behalf--a grievance I
assessed as winnable. However, he was facing trespassing charges--a professor
trespassing on his college campus--imagine! He expected jail time, which he stated he
couldn’t face. He jumped bail and fled the country. I never saw him again, although I
have heard that he has returned occasionally. I encountered some of his students from
University of Leiden, Netherlands, in the forest along the bank of a river in Durham, in
northern England. When I was passing through Leiden on my way to Yugoslavia I tried to
locate him, without success. [Apropos nom de plumes, Dan Greenberg’s, Editor of the
Science and Government Report is striking, “Dr. Grant Swinger, from the Center for
the Absorption of Federal Funds” with the slogan, “While you’re up, get me a grant!” and
proposals for conferences on “Lagrangian mechanics, horticulture, and the emerging
96
tribe”. The only esoteric seminar that attracted a standing room audience was the
mathematical one on “Convex sets and integration.” The secretary misunderstood the title
on the phone and posted notices of a seminar on “Convicts, Sex, and Integration.”] Two
students, one a very conservative physics major and fraternity member with an equally
conservative sorority sister fiancée, organized a "Yippie48 invasion of Disneyland" to
"show the face of fascism in America". Their logo was Mickey Mouse with a submachine
gun. They succeeded in achieving their goal, a symbolic picture cum poster of the "tac
squad" phalanx deployed across "Main Street, USA".
A. As President of the union of professors, I was involved in almost everything
controversial. My phone was constantly ringing with one emergency or another. Antiwar
protests centered on college campuses. Reagan apparently was trepidatious about visiting
campuses after James Register was killed in the battle over Peoples’ Park. Orange County
had a reputation as a ruling class stronghold. He would try to demonstrate that he could
appear on a campus by appearing at CalState, Fullerton. The administration tried to
provide him cover by declaring that the event was not political--they called it an
“academic convocation” and declared rules of decorum appropriate to scholarly
discussion, not the rough and tumble behavior of politics. The thin veil of respectability
was unconvincing. We were prepared for him. Pickets from our union, from the United
Farm Workers and other unions, and from peace groups met him outside. After he ran the
gauntlet under police protection we reassembled inside. When he emerged from the
anteroom into the gym the political animosity degenerated into downright rudeness. A
loud chant filled the rafters, “Pig! Pig! Pig!...”. This was definitely not going to be an
academic convocation. He looked grim. The administration admonished faculty and
students not to interrupt the “academic convocation”. Everyone was to remain silent
passive receivers of Reagan’s political line until the end, when, it was implied, some
questions would be accepted. Whenever Reagan said something particularly outrageous,
like the outlandish claim that the U.S. government had invaded to defend democracy,
responses from the audience, like “Liar!”, “Bullshit”, filled the air. One student, Dave
McKowiack, had the misfortune of cupping his hands megaphone style in front of his
mouth when a photographer took a picture that appeared on the front page of the LA
Times. Another student, Bruce Church, had his little boy with him. The little boy joined
the crowd, standing on the bleacher seat and giving Reagan the finger. The Dean of
Students, Ernest Becker, was an ordained minister. His son was murdered along with
several others in the university library in a heroic attempt to disarm a disgruntled
employee who had already murdered a few. His assignment was to keep the students
under control. He marched up to Bruce and told him to cease his vociferous opposition.
Bruce rudely told him what he could do in front of the assembled students. The Dean was
kind of like Kurdistan--caught between Iraq and a hard place (Turkey). I empathized with
him as he retreated down the bleachers, but war is war! It ain’t pretty.
“Accomodationists”, ruling class apologists, (incorrectly called “liberals”) would
condemn such rudeness, and would solicit my condemnation. Sure it was rude, but let us
keep a sense of perspective and priority. It was rude political opposition confronting
genocide and fascism. And it worked, to a degree, at least. It was dramatic and press
48
Youth International Party (YIP).
97
worthy. It provoked people to think about the war. In the civil rights movement people
committed civil disobedience, like trespassing, but it focussed attention on injustice.
Unfortunately, academic convocations generate little attention in the corporate press.
B. A cartoon in Peter Max's style showed straight, conservative students turning
into rainbows when the professor's back was turned. Paris of 1968 conjures the same
image. I was there before. I was there after. It was difficult to believe what happened. If I
hadn’t lived through that would have been CSUF of 1969. It was an incredible
experience--even at the time it was happening.
In 1970 the increasingly unpopular invasion of Viet Nam continued. Reagan had
taken a position of violent repression of protest, and subsequently James Register was
killed at People's Park in Berkeley. Campuses were centers of protest. The Free Speech
Movement at Berkeley was massive. The San Francisco State AFT had gone on strike
after the police rioted on campus. SF State President (later Senator) Hayakawa led the
hawks in repressing dissent on campus. The Fullerton AFT local voted to strike in
support of the San Francisco State local, but included stringent conditions necessary for a
successful strike. It was an expression of solidarity, and a hope for the future.
Hostility to Reagan (and to Meese, and his other cohorts) was heightened. His
propensity for violence, later evidenced by his trial in a people’s court on charges of
terrorism and drug running, was clear to many at the time. Apparently in order to prove
that he could step foot on some campus in California without causing a riot, CSF was
chosen for the demonstration, presumably because it was so hawkish (Orange Co. had
voted more heavily for Goldwater than any other county in the country). President
Langsdorf, in collusion with the Fullerton police, tried to provide cover for this political
show of force by declaring Reagan's appearance not a political event, but an "academic
convocation", a move which seemed only to inflame indignation. This was in violation of
the Trustees (unconstitutional) order "that speakers be allowed on campus only for
educational, and not for propaganda purposes alone". It was an ambush. They colluded
with the police to set up electronic surveillance of the proceedings to provide evidence in
anticipated prosecutions. The farm workers, the students, the AFT, and others had their
picket lines ready. After making their gesture outside the gym they filed inside to await
Reagan's arrival. He walked in grim-faced to a chant, "Pig! Pig! Pig!" Participants in the
event were told that they would have to listen in their usual role of passive receptors, just
as if he were on TV, and would be able to line up to address questions only after the
speech--not a bad format for normal circumstances, but the participants would not pass up
a rare chance to speak back for a change. Outlandish statements by Reagan were
immediately greeted by shouts of "liar" and obscenities! Rude digital gestures were
widely expressed.
Of the hundreds who thus vehemently expressed their contempt, two were singled
out for prosecution. The responsibility for trying to prevent the students from offending
Reagan fell, naturally, on the Dean of Students who was caught between an irascible
administration trying to make a reactionary political point and incensed, indignant
students whose lives were threatened by conscription and whose country was
experiencing international disgrace and condemnation. Bruce Church and his young son
were both saluting Reagan with middle digits accompanied by verbal abuse. The Dean
tried to quiet them only to be met with similar treatment, whereupon he beat an
98
embarrassing retreat. This rude, insulting affront to constituted authority could not be
countenanced. Bruce was charged. Another participant, Dave McKowiak, had the
misfortune of being photographed in the act of shouting something and appearing on the
front page of the LA Times. He was charged.
Much discussion revolved about law and order. Why did civil rights and war
protestors trespass? Shouldn't illegal behavior and rudeness be categorically condemned?
Aren't manners more important than genocide? In response, "morality over legality"
arguments were often heard, but the "defense of necessity" argument emerged, to be
superceded by the gradual recognition that protestors were fulfilling their clear legal duty
imposed by International Law, the Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter, and the US
Constitution, which are locally and individually binding.
The support movement which quickly grew for "Bruce and Dave" not only argued
that they should not be subject to "double jeopardy" by both criminal and academic
prosecution for the same act, it also argued for standard due process protections of the
Constitution (no self-incrimination, right to counsel, right of cross-examination) and
against the closed "Star Chamber" procedures of the administration, a right that
supposedly was won in 17th Century England. The administration felt that the U.S.
Constitutional guarantee of a public trial did not apply to it, and bourgeois courts likely
would agree, especially in the current repressive political climate typified in the
conspiracy trial of the Chicago 8. To expose the selective prosecution, many supporters
testified that they had also engaged in the same behavior, but the administration would
not prosecute them, only the two "examples".
C. University President Langsdorf complained that these dastardly protestors were
appealing to the "sense of fair play of others". I found that to be a remarkable analogy to
the ideology which corrupt academics were promoting for the conduct of the war.
"Behavioral conditioning" was the model. Peasants were to be treated like laboratory rats,
with appropriate reinforcement and punishment. Values, justice, loyalties, and attitudes
("hearts and minds") were irrelevant. Recalcitrant peasants were to be "penalized" by
"confiscation of chickens, razing of houses, or destruction of villages", accompanied in
practice with 100 pounds of explosive per person, 12 tons per square mile, "perfectly
happy to bombed to be free" (according to Rev. de Jaegher, Regent at Seton Hall) as part
of what Schlesinger called "our general program of international goodwill". A Marine
Corps officer summed the RAND corporation academese more succinctly, "Grab 'em by
the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow!" Those dastardly communists did not
follow the same ideology and practice. Instead, the academics complained, "as in China,
the insurgents in Viet Nam have exploited the Confucian tenets of ethical rule both by
their attacks on government corruption and by exemplary Communist behavior", paying
for their food, not raping the women or bayoneting the children, or razing villages--and
they gained many of those irrelevant "hearts and minds", not only in Viet Nam, but
world-wide. Just as dirty a trick as the students appealing to "the sense of fair play of
others" of which Langsdorf complained!
When the union defended a member who was the subject of personal attack,
Langsdorf accused it of “perverting academic procedure”. In a compromise, English
99
Professor Blaze Bonnazza was transferred to Long Beach State where he later became
Dean.
The administration took an uncompromising hard line against the law and order
protestors who wanted the U.S. Constitution and International Law and Agreements
(especially the 1954 Geneva Accords providing for free, internationally supervised
elections in Viet Nam) to be respected. The violations of due process, not to mention the
invasions, napalm, the Phoenix assassination program, and massacre of civilians in free
fire zones and in hospitals, were to continue. The administration chose confrontation in
support of its war.
D. So obsessed was the administration with its demonstration that the US
Constitution did not apply to it, that it had the right to deny a public trial, that when
students and faculty members gained access to the hearing room and opened it to the
excluded public, the police tactical squad, supplemented by Sheriff's deputies, was
summoned to expel the public. The government's secret war in South East Asia was
bolstered by the administration's closed military-style trial backed by violence. This was
shortly after the police riot in San Francisco where students were unmercifully beaten. On
the theoretical hope that police would be more reluctant to attack professors (who, after
all, were supposed to be authority figures) than students, I called union members to form
a line to protect students from the police. I didn't wear a helmet, which I thought might be
considered to be provocative, and which they could have tried to use as an excuse to
engage in more violence, nor did anyone else, but I did put on ten shirts, a tanker jacket,
and fifteen pairs of shorts! We formed our line. The "tac squad" marched in a phalanx
with shields and batons to confront us. We were declared an unlawful assembly and were
ordered to disperse or face assault and arrest. The crunch had come. We bucked up our
courage to withstand the attack. We looked behind us. The students had dispersed! (I
learned later that the Star Chamber hearing officers had felt very insecure with no exit to
their back in this large room full of students and with the tac squad about to attack
through the opposite doors. They scattered out of concern for their personal safety. The
students thought they might be trying to convene somewhere else and followed them.) Ed
Cooperman, who had linked arms to my left asked me, "What should we do now?" I
replied, with a sigh of relief, and without much conviction, "Let's try to reform the line
again between the police and the students." We never had a chance to do so. The police
charged not the Star Chamber room, which by now was empty of everyone (including the
public the police had been called to eject), but the campus quad, beating and arresting
people at random as the chant, "Pigs off campus" resounded. In the photographic record
sold by the defense committee, called “The People vs. Ronald Reagan”, Ed can be seen
with his arms outstretched, trying to stop the police attack and protect the students all by
himself--a one man line. It was a magnificent act of courage by this quiet, reserved
person. I, myself, having mustered the courage to form the line, and risk a beating,
induced by the responsibility of being the union president, was happy to be off the hook
and out of the line of fire.
Finally the police were ordered to stop fighting and calm was restored. Philosophy
Professor Stuart Silvers told Acting President Shields (recently resigned as president of
SMU after a corruption scandal) that since the condition for which the tac squad was
called no longer existed, the city police should be asked to withdraw from campus.
100
Shields refused. Silvers became adamant, shouting, "The hearing room is empty. Get the
goddam pigs off campus!" A chant went up, "Pigs off campus!" Shields said, "Take 'im!",
indicating Silvers. The police attacked him from behind with a baton chokehold, dragged
him behind the Humanities Building, beat him, and arrested him. English Professor Cyril
Epstein, who tried to penetrate the police line to assist him, was assaulted and arrested as
well. Immediately in front of the police line Anthropology Professor Hans Leder,
impromptu, convened an informal outdoor class dubbed Anthropology 69 and began an
academic discussion of the phallic significance of the policemen's clubs. Further police
attacks would have been on a "class" in progress, as informal and impromptu as it was.
The police seemed perplexed. They finally retreated and withdrew.
Everything was a learning experience. While soldiers and police can be very
helpful and protective during daily duty. When it comes to class conflict, they operate
under military discipline in support of the bosses, at least in the early stages. Some were
learning that lesson very young, as witness the police beatings of students who were
provoked by a hostile, incompetent, and reactionary administration at George Washington
Carver Junior High School.
E. An expanded defense committee for the now twenty-nine arrested students and
faculty was formed. I was swimming in my pool with two of my sons when a larger than
usual number of visitors congregated. The arrested students had convened. Without
announcement or formality they proceeded to disrobe and pose in front of a huge U.S.
flag they had mounted on the cabaña. One of them was hoisting the traditional digital
salute about which the words "Fuck You, Ronald Reagan!" were printed on the final
photo. The photo appeared on the inside of the fly leaf cover of a photographic
chronology of the police riot and related events entitled, The People vs. Ronald Reagan,
which was sold on campus to raise defense funds. The DA declared it obscene. The
administration banned its sale using Education Code 23604.1 as legal grounds. More
arrests and further escalation of the confrontation threatened. As a member of the Board
of Directors, I immediately took the issue to the ACLU. Threatened by the US
Constitution, the university authorities relented.
F. Early ripples of protest had become waves of indignation, but they were mild
compared to the tsunami Reagan was about to unleash. The war in Cambodia
(Kampuchea) was kept secret from the enemy, just as the bombing of the northern half of
Viet Nam had been--not secret from the Cambodians and Vietnamese of course--they
knew they were being bombed--but secret from the U.S. public. It was a secret, which
could no longer be kept. In order to suppress the anticipated public outrage, Reagan
ordered the campuses closed.
At an All-Faculty Meeting the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council
moved the resolution:
"Although the faculty of CSCF does not feel that the situation on our campus was
critical and warranted its closing, we, nonetheless, in order to avoid violence, urge all
members of the college community to leave the campus until Monday".
Before a second could be obtained I moved a substitute resolution prepared in
anticipation,
"In forcibly closing the colleges and universities of the California system for the next
four days, Governor Reagan has disrupted the free pursuit of education and free
101
expression of dissent. Students who seek to learn are being deprived of their right to
learn, a situation that the Governor himself has deplored. He has disrupted the
educational process on a scale that no radical group has approached. Widespread,
not merely eccentric, dissent and criticism has been aroused by government decisions
and actions in South East Asia. Given these conditions, preventing a college
community from freely studying these issues and making its views known is a violation
of the most elementary rights and traditions of the American nation."
The motion passed.
Professor Miller moved to immediately reopen the University to continue the
educational process and to examine the national crisis. It was to be operated by studentfaculty committees to schedule academic classes and other activities.
It also passed.
I had been serving on the National Board of the Committee for Debate on U.S. Foreign
Policy (the organizers of the "teach-in's). After two aborted attempts, in 1967 we had
finally organized a twelve-hour "teach-in" on the war in the gym with over twenty
speakers. The opportunity to continue the debate was irresistible. With the blessing and
formal support of the faculty as a whole, the students declared CSUF open and began
operating the Free University in the Music, Speech, and Drama Building. Instead of
canceling classes on Reagan's orders, many faculty, in accordance with the faculty
resolution, conducted their classes in the Free University. In addition to the traditional
classes, a bewildering variety of experimental courses from Candlemaking and Weaving
to Utopian Communal Living and The Future of Man were added to the curriculum. If
you had something to share you taught. If you wanted to learn you attended any class you
wished.
It was an exhausting experience. We remained on the premises 24 hours a day, in
class, in meetings, and protecting the expensive equipment from sabotage by police agent
provocateurs who might try to generate an excuse to close the University. I slept many
nights on the stage of the theater. Langsdorf referred to the opening of the University by
the students after Reagan had ordered it closed as a "student strike", which he felt was not
"a useful method of influencing national policy." (In retrospect we know that not only
was policy affected, but also a nuclear war was averted.) Langsdorf promised not to call
the police to close the Free University, a promise upon which he later reneged.
Ordinarily students have many services performed for them. Janitors clean the
toilets and the classrooms. Others provide class schedules, develop curricula, make room
assignments, etc. Now they had to perform all of these tasks themselves. We took turns
brushing toilets and mopping floors. A community kitchen with free donated or surplus
food was set up. We cooked and washed dishes. An information desk was manned.
Curriculum and other committees began functioning.
Short wave networks were set up covering the country. Liaison teams were sent
out to make contact with other unions. I spoke at rallies at other campuses. The students
at Fullerton College seized the Student Union to open their own Free University
immediately after, but were ejected by the police at the end of the day. I was banned from
speaking at Fullerton High School.
After a grueling night with little sleep I tried to relax with a cup of coffee as relief
from the hectic pace. I was immediately surrounded and besieged with students with ideas
102
and plans. What a fertile intellectual environment! I thought of the contrast with
discussion groups I had organized for Physical Science. There, in order to incite some
student interest, I had to prepare assignments, reproduce reading materials, assign
discussion panels, and use all kinds of devices to stimulate activity. Not only were the
students alive with ideas, they were taking responsibility, maturing rapidly. If only that
environment could be sustained, what an exciting community of activist scholars would
develop! I was moved by the ideas of William Arrowsmith, Professor of Classics at the
University of Texas:
“It should be obvious even to the skeptical that education is being strangled in its
citadel, and strangled furthermore on behalf of the crassest technology. I find it very
difficult to imagine the rationalization of these salaried wardens of a great, ecumenical
tradition, who apparently view themselves and the institutions they administer as mere
servants of national and professional interests. A hundred years ago Nietzsche
denounced the subservience of German universities to an inhuman scholarly technology
and the interest of the Reich. Ironically it has now become an American story: ‘The entire
system of higher education has lost what matters most: the end as well as the means to
that end. That education, that Bildung, is itself an end--and not the state--this has been
forgotten. Educators are needed who have themselves been educated, not the learned
louts whom the universities today offer our youth. Educators are lacking...hence the
decline of German culture.’49iv”
“We too lack educators--by which I mean teachers in the Socratic sense, visible
embodiments of the realized humanity of our aspirations, intelligence, concern, skill,
scholarship...”
“Here we have a generation blessedly capable of moral outrage, and it is the
bitterest of anomalies that the humanities should be dying among students capable of
moral outrage in a morally outrageous world. Almost without exception the response of
the universities to this profound hunger for education, for examples of human courage
and compassionate intelligence has been mean, parochial, uncomprehending, or cold.
Above all cold. The waste in sheer human incentive, in disappointment in matters where
disappointment is destructive and fatal, is appalling. But what fills one with rage is the
callousness of scholars, the incredible lack of human concern among humanists, the
monumental indifference of the learned to human misery and need. Why, we ask, is
teaching held in contempt? because it has become contemptible by indifference. Teaching
has been fatally trivialized by scholarship which has become mostly technical triviality
itself.”
“[The scholar’s] comparative security, his cozy enclave of learning with its
narrow departmental limits, and his murderous preference for a single mode of the mind-the discursive or methodological; do not call it ‘rational’--with its neat problems and
solutions, his stunted humanity--all this strikes the student as irrelevant and even
repugnant. What he wants is models of committed integrity, as whole as they can be in a
time of fragmented men, and pertinent to the anguish of existence in a hard time.”
“...the true stature of reason is no longer visible in technical scholarship.”
103
“We must have significant men before we can devise a significant curriculum (Or
at least the obstruction of the narrow and highly specialized must be overcome). General
education has failed, I believe, less because of its curricular inadequacy than because
men of general, civilized intelligence were simply not available to teach it (Or, at least
were not hired or assigned to teach it.) It ended up therefore in the hands of specialists
who, lacking any sense of the whole endeavor, betrayed it in practice. To be sure,
significant men are rare, but we shall never have them
There was a sharp distinction between us and "liberals", a commonly used, but
highly inaccurate term for those who might consider the war to have been a mistake, or
good intentions gone awry, or that the government knew best, or, at least, that the
government's rules should be respected. I consider myself to be a genuine liberal: I strive
to be tolerant, open minded, empathetic. I didn't try to excuse the war as the best of
intentions gone wrong. I didn't try to rationalize the war as a defense of democracy when I
knew that it was being conducted to prevent the elections internationally guaranteed by
the Geneva Accords of 1954 from occurring because Eisenhower expected "Uncle Ho" to
be elected with some 85% of the vote. I consider myself to be a conservative as well: I
want to preserve the environment and to conserve people's health and longevity instead of
sacrificing them to profits; I don't believe in living on the edge or taking unnecessary
risks because it's good for business; I don't want to have to depend upon "technological
rabbits" to save us from the consequences of current trends; I want to maintain valuable
traditions, including the protections of the Bill of Rights, the constitutional restrictions on
the powers of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances; I want to
conserve natural resources, monuments, historical sites, cultures and languages. I consider
myself to be a radical: I want to get at the root core of problems instead of merely treating
the symptoms with “band-aids”. I consider myself to be a progressive: I want to make
progress toward a better, more just society. I consider myself to be a libertarian: I served
on the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in
the early sixties; Government shouldn't impose unnecessary restrictions. I also consider
myself to be a globalist, internationalist, trade unionist, and federalist, without exhausting
ideological identities.
I felt that I understood the position of opponents of the war who opposed tactics
that violated establishment rules. It was not devoid of merit. Universities are a public
good. If politicians retaliate against universities because of their anti-war activities it
harms the public welfare. Indeed it does, therefore, they argued, one shouldn’t make
universities into targets. There is too much blaming the victim for the crime. Sometimes
victims buy that line. A friend who was recently raped argued that perhaps she was at
fault for being on the street late at night in that part of town. Nonsense! Women (and
everyone else) should be safe on the streets everywhere at all times of day. The rapist is
guilty, not her. And his guilt is not mitigated because she was vulnerable. It was the
politicians' fault for attacking the universities, not the universities for doing their job and
being vulnerable. I supported the slogan, “Bring the War Home”. Why should the
Vietnamese suffer the consequences of our government’s war crimes while we attempt to
avoid every possible inconvenience at home? They can’t even vote to have the U.S.
government cease dropping napalm dropped on them. They argued that one shouldn’t
engage in illegal activity like trespassing (two professors were arrested for trespassing on
104
campus). I would respond, “But they’re dropping napalm on us!” They always seemed
perplexed. “They’re not dropping napalm on you, only on people in Viet Nam.” It’s the
old “they” vs. “we” identity problem. To them the U.S. government was “we”. To me it
is “they”. To them the Vietnamese were “they”. To me they are “we”. Our choice of
identity is with the criminals or with the victims. I identify with the victims, but I
understand the appeal of “the Good German Syndrome”--my country right or wrong,
whether socialist and democratic or capitalist and fascist--a distinction which also puzzles
them, immersed in a capitalist controlled mass media which self-servingly equates their
control of the media with a “free press” and capitalism with democracy.
I don’t believe in playing games with words, it interferes with communication and
with clear thinking. I object to the attention to formalism and appearances at the expense
of content. I ask that words be taken seriously, that we optimize their unambiguity in the
pursuit of meaning, that they not be manipulated for political opportunism at the expense
of meaning. Of course, there is a battle over words as over other symbols. I was criticized
for carrying a large U.S. flag down Wilshire Boulevard in an anti-war protest.
“Nationalism (or chauvinism) is part of the problem”, they argued. Certainly it is. Their
complaint has merit, but it is also a struggle over symbols. If the flag represents our
country, whose country is it anyway? To me the country is the people who live in it and
built it, not just those who own the government and control its economy. I don’t admire
those who use their inheritances and their intellects to accumulate vast amounts of wealth
and power. I admire the workaday heroes who keep our society functioning. Like Charles
Bronson, the gunfighter, says to an admiring peasant child in The Magnificent Seven,
“Your parents are the real heroes--the ones who take the daily responsibility of making a
living and supporting a family.”
The root meaning of “democracy”, “demos” (people) and “-cracy” (power) is
identical to that “radical” slogan “Power to the People!”. Capitalism implies the
accumulation of wealth. [Maybe someone could envision some fantastic form of
capitalism that would not result in the accumulation of wealth, but the world is not likely
to ever see it realized.] Modest attempts to ameliorate the political power that inevitably
accrues from massive accumulations of wealth have had little effect. We still have the
best political system money can buy. A system that treats elections like commodities is
contrary to democracy. I describe our system as “capitalism with democratic constraints”.
Remember in “The Little Prince”, the absolute monarch called everyone “subject”
because he was the king of the universe--a king who ordered everyone to do whatever
they wanted (and that’s an order!), because he remembered the fate of monarchs who
abused their authority--they often lost their crowns, sometimes with their heads still in
them! Both monarchies and neo-feudal systems like capitalism require flexibility lest they
break. The Vietnamese fighters deserve most of the credit for ending the war, but
domestic (and foreign) democratic constraints helped. We often wondered how effective
our opposition was. Now it is known from Ehrlichman’s (?) memoirs that our opposition
prevented another nuclear war. And of course a democracy can never be implemented by
commodity-type elections every few years. People must be continuously involved in the
decision-making process--”participatory democracy”, as the Students for a Democratic
Society coined it, is the only real democracy.
105
Deviations from the orthodoxy propagated by the corporate press often results in
perplexity. I have encountered the same perplexity when challenging the idea that “the
dictatorship of the proletariat” means that communism is equal to totalitarianism. Marx
called for the dictatorship of the proletariat to replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Were workers to come to power, I wouldn’t expect them to continue to support the
bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie would have to work. [The socialist motto is, “If you refuse
to work, you don’t eat.”] They would then become workers--workers who control
government. If workers run the government, and if everyone is a worker, then it is a
democracy. Of course, the definition of a worker would be changed. Everyone making a
contribution to their society would be considered to be a worker, not just those who earn a
wage helping capitalists make a profit. Its fruits can also evaluate the degree to which a
system is democratic--if its policies are by and large in the public interest, instead of
special interests, it can be judged to be democratic.
Actually, democracy is not an absolute end. One must guard against the “tyranny
of the majority”. Freedom should not be sacrificed to democracy. That is why
constitutional limits on the powers of government and human rights guarantees need be
incorporated into constitutions. It is a functional, humane society which is to be sought. It
must be largely democratic since protection of one’s interests cannot be entrusted to
others, but it must be wise. A judicial combination of democratic power and wisdom
must be achieved. I have been critical of many organizations, like URPA [Union of
Radical Political Economists} for focussing almost exclusively on analyses of the abuses
of capitalism. A viable, improved alternative must be envisioned before embarking upon
strategies to achieve it. Things could be much worse. Societies can implode. To
paraphrase Feyerabend, people are inclined to accept “the best lousy system there is” until
a better alternative is presented. Who will buy a “pig in a poke”. Churchill’s famous
statement that “Democracy is the worst of all possible systems--except for all the others”
makes a valid point. However, I would expect capitalism to be far superior to capitalism.
The noble advocate altruism. Altruism is fine, but merely achieving social self-interest
would be a huge improvement.
Churchill’s point hints at anarchy. Government is currently a necessary evil.
Injustice is the price of civilization. Both I and the defendant left the courtroom feeling
we were the victims of injustice--I was awarded less than I deserved, he had to pay more
than he thought he ought, but our dispute was settled peacefully, in a civilized manner. As
society improves, becomes more just, as communities are reestablished, as democracy is
built, as students learn more social responsibility, the coercive power of government can
be reduced. It can transform from government to coordination, administration, and
management of “voluntary associations of producers”, as Marx put it. As Thoreau put it,
“That government is best which governs least, and, when people are prepared for it, that
is the kind of government they will have--none at all!”--a Utopian goal which may never
be achieved, but which provides a sense of direction and purpose.
`
G. The administration's plan was to allow the students to collapse under the
weight of the enormous responsibility they had undertaken--a clever plan. With time the
burden was indeed taking its toll. I was approached to help the students reorganize. I met
with a steering committee and composed a committee structure with democratic
centralism. They requested that I propose this structure to the nightly and lengthy plenary
106
session held in the overflowing 500-seat auditorium. The next night a large sign
"Dittmann Rex" appeared across the theater screen. The anarchist students who had
posted the banner later apologized after understanding that all of the officers and
committees of the proposed organizational structure were to be held by students, and
none by me. More deeply though, as anarchists, they were opposed to any structure.
Corporations had structure, and they were the enemy. Meetings were conducted without
Robert’s Rules of Order (that was how the enemy operated), by consensus. They wanted
egalitarianism. You can imagine the frustration in trying to make decisions in these
interminable unstructured mass meetings. A banner headline in the Anaheim Bulletin
fingered me as the mastermind who was manipulating these mindless students. The
reporter drolly reported that a raft of revolutionaries, of whom I had never heard, had
assumed the nom de guerre "Rex".
At the overflowing plenary sessions of the next couple of days the spontaneous
anarchic structure which had sustained the Free University out of sheer energy and
enthusiasm was coalescing into a organizational structure with democratic centralism and
committees headed by responsible chairs. It appeared that the students were not going to
crumble from within after all. Faced with the prospect of an eternal Free University,
Langsdorf reneged on his promise and called the tac squad to close it down. In an
overflowing auditorium the debate over defending the University was intense. Students
began making rudimentary arms. Ultimately the vote was to yield to the threat of police
violence with no resistance, and the University was abandoned, but an Experimental
College was founded and continued. Such a level of intellectual ferment and activity was
never again to be seen on campus.
H. While I was doing research on the cyclotron at UCLA, I met with Blase
Bonpane, a former Dominican priest who had been ejected by the CIA-imposed
government in Guatemala, and who was teaching political science at UCLA. After he was
pronounced persona non grata in Guatemala, I scheduled him to speak at a peace rally on
campus. Like Patrick Henry, I remember his ringing phrase, “Stop the war or we’ll stop
the country!” Miguel d’Escoto, Sandinista Foreign Minister of Nicaragua, had been his
roommate in seminary. He later became a prominent commentator on KPFK and head of
the Office of the Americas. I wanted to use my resources for some useful social purpose.
However, I only had assets, no cash, and no liquidity. We needed a combination. He said
that he knew other people with resources who might participate in a tax exempt, nonprofit foundation with me. However, before we could organize such a group, Hoover’s
COINTELPRO, the secret FBI operation to “neutralize” political opposition, and other
military and police repression operations, began. William Kunstler strongly suggested
that the FBI assassinated the head of COINTELPRO, Frank Sullivan, when he was
tempted by a career as a whistleblower. Hoover, a reported cross dresser, consorted with
Mafiosos, then denied that organized crime existed in the U.S. Instead, the FBI focussed
on quashing political dissent50 and became increasingly erratic during Hoover’s declining
years.
50
The example of a close friend, Frank Wilkinson, who defeated HUAC, is a case in point. The FBI spent
millions of taxpayer money surveilling this Beverly Hills High and UCLA student body president, who
studied for the ministry, compiling a dossier several stories high, resulting in not a single prosecution, but
107
In the meantime, the "Alice-in-Wonderland" character of contemporary society
increased. Police had killed a Chicano LA Times reporter during the Chicano
Moratorium. I don’t know why she came to me, but I soon had Rose Chernin51 appealing
to me for help in saving the lives of political prisoners. She told me that their lives were
in imminent danger in jail. Prison conditions were inhuman --a claim not to difficult to
believe in the climate of the times. Having tear gas lobbed into his tiny solitary
confinement cell had killed at least one political prisoner. The leader of the Chicano
Brown Berets, Carlos Montez, had been arrested on conspiracy charges after police agent
provocateurs committed arson in a restroom of the Biltmore Hotel-or so I was informed.
Apparently that was the case, because after hiding out for years as a fugitive with Corky
Gonzalez’ Crusade for Justice in Denver [and perhaps with Reies Lopez Tijerina’s
(“Letter from Santa Fe Jail”) Treaty of Guadalupe campaign in New Mexico], he turned
himself in, stood trial, and was acquitted. Rose wanted me to guarantee his bail. I knew it
was risky. I had no liquidity. In case of default “my” assets were vulnerable. I place “my”
in parentheses because I never felt that assets I acquire really belong to me. I merely
possess title. Title confers stewardship and responsibility, not indulgence. I paid
$15/month for the Isla Vista property under penurious times, but I never felt that it
belonged to me. I didn’t set one brick in the university that was built around it. I was, and
remain a real estate speculator cum builder and developer.
Money to me is a tool, not a license for self-indulgence. I have had a wonderful,
fulfilling life, at minimal expense. I like that motto, “Live simply that others may simply
live.” Money was a weapon in the war against inhumanity. I felt that I was betraying my
values by handing it over to the enemy through consumption, materialism, and
consumerism. I have been under constant pressure to increase my level of personal
expenditures in order to conform, or in order to be more effective in accomplishing my
goals, by “dressing for success”.] Actually, thrift store slacks, ties, and sport coats are
much less expensive than Levis.] To cite an example, while driving my beat up VW bus
on the Sunset Strip I was pulled over for a burnt out stoplight. The officer inquired
whether the address on my driver’s license was my home address. I said, “No, it’s the
address of the university”. What do I do there? “I’m a professor.” He paused for a minute,
looked at the VW, back at me, back at the license, and asked,”Can’t you afford a better
car than this?”
I used my property in Isla Vista and my home in Anaheim to guarantee bail for
many Black Panthers, for that one Brown Beret, Carlos Montez, whom I never met, and
whose bail default was the last to be exonerated, and for protesters who were arrested on
campus. It was not always a thankful experience. The wife of one of our deans, for whom
I had guaranteed bail, after a few too many drinks, attacked me for not going to jail like
she and others did. I admit that I tended to avoid the spotlight or prominence. I wanted to
make my contribution, but I had had the jail experience and didn’t want to repeat the
experience if I could avoid it. I had no aspiration to martyrdom. I believed that in order to
avoid repetition of experiences like the holocaust, one ought to defend anyone or any
including the report of an assassination attempt of which they were aware, but never warned him.
[Fortunately the venue was changed and the assassination didn’t occur.]
51 A few years later Rose Chernin’s daughter wrote a book, In My Mother’s House, providing insight into
her lifelong sense of commitment to social justice in the CPUSA.
108
group that came under attack at the inception instead of waiting for it to get out of hand.
“Never again!” is a nice slogan, but unfortunately holocausts continue. On the other
hand, were I the target of attack, I didn’t expect much support. I didn’t even expect
gratitude. I abandoned Christianity long ago, but still harbor many of its professed
values52. One of my favorites is, “Virtue is its own reward”. It was my contribution, a
contribution which paled in insignificance compared to others who put their freedom,
careers, and lives on the line. What was happening to our country? It was Alice in
Wonderland. Unlike World War II, the Viet Nam War came home to roost. The
government was conducting itself violently both abroad and domestically, and was
ripping the country apart in the process.
I realized my vulnerability. I had no liquidity in case of a default on a bail bond. I
tried to cover my vulnerability by forming a non-profit organization, The Fund for a New
Democratic Society. My women’s health club cum massage parlor on the Sunset Strip,
Athena’s, was doing well. I had a manager, three shift managers for our 24 hour
operation, three chiropractors, two attorneys and 15 masseuses on the staff. I contributed
it to the Fund along with my Santa Barbara property, which had been appraised at
$220,000, but which I sold to the Fund for $59,00053. I appointed the Physics
Department Chair, Ed Cooperman, the Chair of the Philosophy Department who was also
a minister [Paul Hayner], a Professor of Sociology, Carol Copp, the Co-Chair of the
Student Strike Committee, Barbara Stone, Louis Mulvey, and representatives of the black
and Chicano communities to serve on the Board. I served as President for a while, then
resigned to spend a Sabbatical year in Yugoslavia. My plan was to spread the
responsibility. If I couldn’t cover a default alone, perhaps the combined resources of the
board could manage. It would have been preferable to find directors who would commit
some of their own resources, like Bonpane suggested. I hoped that these directors would
make a contribution, but it was a hope, not a requirement. When I returned, the Fund was
in disarray and bankrupt. These conservative, straight-laced directors had never set foot
on the premises of the massage parlor, and in a cash business like this, the money
disappears from the front desk unless it is monitored. In addition, there were some thirty
defaulted bail bonds amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The directors were
overwhelmed and abandoned the cause. I started trying to pull things together again. All
of the bail bond defaults were exonerated except one, Carlos Montez, and his was
exonerated some years later after he was acquitted. The agent for the Resolute Insurance
company that had purchased the property offered to sell it back to me at cost. A friend,
52
Despite my freethinker status, a colleague and political ally, Dave Pivar, a progressive Jewish Professor
of History who specialized in labor history, described me as having a “missionary complex” in coming to
Orange County. He was condescending when I would inquire further about topics and theories he had
mentioned. He wouldn’t explain them or discuss them. That was a waste of his time, but he gave me
valuable references from which I learned much. I did offend him at a union party when I disparaged
Reichian therapy, not knowing that he was undergoing such therapy at the time.
53 This price was chosen because while I was still a low income student I sold the property to my mother
and paid capital gains tax, then when I obtained my professorship and was making money, I bought it back
from her at the same price. The property was also encumbered by a $15,000 loan that I had taken out to
back my ex-wife’s husband, Ken Beatty, in opening that women’s health club, Athena’s, on the Sunset
Strip.
109
Patricia Frostholm, in whose garage I had lived with my wife,54 had come into an
inheritance. I offered to sell her half interest in the property in order to recover it. She
agreed. I paid $5000 non-refundable down payment. She reneged and I lost $5000 more.
Other interesting and strange characters started hanging around. Luis Valentino, a
Cuban émigré approached me to guarantee bail for Black Panther Chief-of-Staff David
Hilliard who had been arrested for threatening the life of President Nixon when, at a
massive anti-war march and rally in San Francisco, he vowed to stop the war, and
declared that no one was going to prevent a cessation of the war, including Nixon. It was
just petty, but expensive harassment of dissenters. He was not prosecuted.
During his trial, eight months pregnant, Geronimo’s wife was shot through the
belly and left dead in a Compton gutter. He tried to attack other Panthers in court whom
he felt were responsible for her murder.
Donald Freed, highly successful author (Death in Washington, The Spymaster),
playwright (The Last Tapes and Testament of Richard M. Nixon, Circe and Bravo, etc.)
and film script writer (Secret Honor, Executive Action) was arrested with Shirley
Sutherland (wife of the actor Don Sutherland,55 who also attended Friends of the Panthers
meetings), and others for “running guns” to the Panthers. It was purely political
harrassment. Not only Panthers were targetted, now supporters were targetted. No trial
ever ensued.
In order to cause mistrust and dissension, a very effective FBI tactic was to spread
rumors. That was a COINTELPRO tactic: spread rumors to sow distrust. On the other
hand, as it is said, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they are not out to get
you!” From two separate sources, including my ex-wife, I was informed that FBI agents
were claiming that I was making bombs for the Panthers in the basement of my health
club cum massage parlor, which didn’t even have a basement. Another target of FBI
"neutralization", actress Jean Seberg, committed suicide after the FBI spread rumors that
she, as a Friend of the Panthers, was having affairs with some of the Panthers. During her
pregnancy her husband was told that a Panther had impregnated her. It ruined her
marriage. When she miscarried she kept the fetus to disprove the rumors, to no avail.
Luis and Masai, another Panther, inspected my house. He was impressed by the
thick adobe walls and suggested that steel plates be installed to be lowered over the
When my son’s mother declared that my son was incorrigible and that I had to pick him up immediately,
I thought, “I can’t have my son living in a garage”, so I purchased the house in which I live to this day. It
didn’t last long. She would call frequently to inquire whether I was disciplining him. I responded that I
would have to wait until he did something wrong. Living with me was supposed to be punishment. It wasn’t
working out that way. I had enrolled him in Troy High School with a very good academic reputation across
the street from the university. One day she went to the high school accompanied by police and removed
him.
54
55
When I met Donald Sutherland at a Friends of the Panthers meeting, I was the owner of
a women’s health club, Athena’s, on the Sunset Strip, that had been converted into a
massage parlor by a manager whom I tried to dismiss. The police ordered me to leave
instead of him. I finally evicted him with a court order of unlawful detainer. Don had
recently completed the film entitled, “The Split”, in which the character he portrayed died
in a massage parlor. The jokes that we exchanged about massage parlors have long since
faded from memory.
110
windows in case of an armed assault. He suggested that I start carrying a weapon and take
target practice. I won the marksman medal for my company in the Army, and haven’t
touched a weapon since. Intentions notwithstanding, one appears more threatening when
armed. I asked what kind of country they thought we were living in. They said I was
naive. I considered weapons to be an invitation to violence. Was this revolutionary
romanticism or the blandishments of an agent provocateur? I hadn’t done anything illegal.
As a white male university professor of German origin with financial resources and lots
of contacts I didn’t feel especially vulnerable. After all, wasn’t I a member of the
“establishment”? Professor Edward Cooperman, our former Department Chair, close
friend, and colleague, tried to take similar defensive measures only to be assassinated in
his office. I remember meeting him in the hall when he informed me of the measures he
was taking to try to avoid assassination, including taking target practice. He judged my
argument that weapons are an invitation to violence to be lacking in cogency. He didn’t
seem worried. He seemed to be more excited by the danger, the challenge, and the
adventure. It was as if these risks liberated him from the prosaic, mundane world of
“quiet desperation” that many people cope with.
During this period Luis brought several Panthers to my house. I met several more
in the course of the next few months. I remember Luis saying to me, “Remember ___ and
___ you met last week? Well, they were shot and their bodies were dumped in the
desert.” The one I came to know best was Elmer “Geronimo” Gerard Pratt. The
authorities were desperately searching for some way to “neutralize”56 him. He was
repeatedly harassed and arrested, only to be released without charge. On one occasion
Geronimo, Luis, and I were having a beer in a bar in LA and debating political theory.
Like many others, I was deeply impressed by the tactics of Ghandi and Martin Luther
King—and it achieved a considerable degree of success. However, I didn't think that
people should have to subject themselves to such brutal treatment in order to achieve
dignity and justice. People are entitled to defend themselves. It is possible that, under
given conditions, no strategy can work. It is a very complicated assessment, full of “if
only’s”, “if only people would vote this way”, “if only workers would organize and
strike”, or my girlfriend’s favorite, “If only people would all become Bahai’s and be
nice”57. Iterations and feed back complicate the assessment. Norman Vincent Peale was
right about the power of positive thinking. No matter how dismal the prospects,
politicians publicly express confidence. It improves their chances. In order to commit so
deeply to a cause, one must believe not only in the possibility of ushering in a
quasiutopia, but in its prospects as well. I have had hope, but never confidence. Geronimo
was confident -- overlyconfident, by my judgement. He had been convinced that
“historical materialism”, Marxism-Leninism-”Kim Il Sung”ism was infallible because it
had been reduced to an exact science and therefore proven. As a professor of nuclear
physics, I responded that even science and scientific theory aren’t exact, unlike
When it was discovered that Geronimo was targetted by the FBI’s COINTELPRO, “neutralize” was the
term used to describe its mission.
57 Actually, she believes that it is foreordained that they will. Do opposites attract? She is the opposite
gender.
56
111
tautological mathematics58, that scientific “understanding59” (and a fortiori political
theory, including Marxism) is empirical, dubitable, contingent, and acquired only after
arduous effort and after being reproduced and confirmed by independent, but fallible
observers to within the accuracy of measuring devices, that all theory merely consisted of
limited human attempts to understand and cope with the world, that one should avoid
what Whitehead called, “The fallacy of misplaced concreteness”, treating our theories as
reality, instead of merely modest attempts to model and understand reality. I had the
impression that he was not convinced, much less impressed by my argument, and that he
continued his mission that he judged to be guaranteed of success, but instead led to
personal tragedy for him.
I was not a supporter of the Panthers because I believed in their strategy, in fact, I
was arguing against it, but I considered their arguments, hoping against hope to be
convinced that the beautiful world to which we jointly aspired was achievable somehow.
I supported them because they were under attack. I joined in the desire to create a just,
nonracist, non-violent society. I recognized the publicity value when they dramatically
entered the California legislature carrying rifles, emphasizing the right to self-defense.
They had proclaimed themselves to be the defenders of the black community that
essentially was under, and remained under police occupation and assault. It was an
effective organizing tool in the black community, but not elsewhere. It was legal, but
highly provocative, and, in my judgement, it set them up as targets for the repression that
followed by making it politically palatable.
Geronimo had told me he had been a small time hustler, and a decorated war
veteran who joined the military not out of enthusiasm for the military, but because he
revered and followed the advice of church elders who successfully defended their
community against the KKK and the police using the military training they had received
in WWII. They were aging now. A new generation had to assume the role of defender of
the community.
Geronimo introduced me to his wife, who, he explained, had been a hooker out of
economic necessity. She seemed very nice. Then he “got religion60”. He concluded that it
should be possible to create a society that would provide a better life and opportunity than
what had been available, especially to the black community. He committed himself to that
end with evangelical zeal. He knew the authorities were trying to “neutralize” him, as per
their instructions. He told me that as a petty hustler he had had little difficulty with the
law, but now that he had become politically active he was being harassed incessantly. He
thought it should be possible for everyone to make a contribution to society with a
dignified, socially useful job with a decent wage, that people could be made secure, and
that Marxism provided a blueprint for achieving a just, humane, and rational society. In
It is argued that mathematics consists of a “huge tautology” because theorems are deduced from
assumptions (axioms and postulates) and contain the same logical content, nothing more, in modified form.
It lacks an empirical reference, contrary to science, for which empiricism (not only inductionism) is the sine
qua non.
59 On philosophical grounds, I avoid the term scientific “knowledge” because it implies an inappropriate
absoluteness.
60 He had little respect for theology, which he considered little more than ignorance and superstition. We
had no disagreement on that issue.
58
112
order to help create that kind of society he became an organizer, and from that time he
was subjected to unceasing police harassment. He commented on the irony.
His most intense concern was for the black community, but I could detect no
ethnic chauvinism in him. He seemed a genuine humanitarian. He was dignified,
intelligent, invariably polite, and exuded a sense of gentleness, although he seemed quite
capable of defending himself were he attacked. He had a presence about him of calm
justice, intense commitment, pride, and confidence. I felt fortunate to meet him. The
world seems a better place, and prospects for improvement seem enhanced, when one
encounters someone like him. He expressed concern for the entire family of humanity and
felt some guilt about the treatment of the Vietnamese against whom he fought for the
U.S. “Imperialist” Army, as he called it. Except for strategy, I could discover no
difference between us in goals and values.
He was targeted to be "neutralized" by the FBI in a tragically successful campaign
to "neutralize" Panthers, those who came to their defense, Martin Luther King, civil rights
activists, peace activists, and critics of capitalism and imperialism. In contempt of court,
the FBI has withheld exculpatory evidence and destroyed documents to cover up their
criminal activities. Reports of Panthers being assassinated occurred regularly, although
they were usually not so identified in the media. Activists I would meet one week were
dead the next. I noticed a similarity here. Experimental test pilots who were guests in my
stepfather’s house one week were often dead the next. John Huggins and Alprentice
"Bunchy" Carter were gunned down in the UCLA cafeteria in the Social Welfare building
where I went on breaks from research on the cyclotron. Later, I heard that Geronimo was
also on campus that day.
The Fund had absorbed Louis Mulvey’s Legal Aid Warranty (LAW) Fund. It
provided bail insurance, argued quite successfully for OR bail (since most people in jail at
the time had not been convicted of anything—they were there because they were too poor
to make bail), and ultimately provided free bail insurance to all Panthers. Louis’ idea was
to organize hippies and peaceniks for mutual support in case of arrest. Insurance paid now
would save jail time later. The Panthers had united with the Peace and Freedom Party.
The idea was to form a broad coalition of progressive forces.
I was told that I was needed at the Panthers’ headquarters in Oakland and for a
meeting with Charles Garry, the Panthers’ attorney. He was interested in exploring the
potential of such a coalition, especially with respect to the possibility of raising bail for
political prisoners, Panthers included.
Two bodyguards packing weapons were provided for Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt,
who had become the head of the LA Panthers, and me. (I was under the impression that
he had replaced Huey Newton as Minister of Defense after Huey was imprisoned, but I
was never that aware of the internal politics of the Panthers. I shared their political goals
of civil rights, democracy, peace, and justice. I appreciated their willingness to work with
everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion,. They opposed ethnic
chauvinism. However, I didn’t share their political strategy. Despite the fact that their
armed entry into the California legislature was perfectly legal, I judged it to be negatively
and unnecessarily provocative, and counterproductive, a PR disaster. I did have some
sympathy for their riposte that the move provided a moral boost and hope for an
oppressed people suffering under the yoke of the heritance of slavery, discrimination, and
113
police brutality, that it would encourage people to demand respect and to defend
themselves. I allowed for the possibility that I didn’t adequately empathize with their
plight and didn’t adequately understand how hopeful this was for them.) Geronimo was
carrying Kim Il Sung’s book, Juche (Self reliance), that he studied relentlessly in the
hope that a remedy for the plight of the black community could be suggested.
We changed planes just before the doors were closed. The bodyguards explained
that this was in order to lose or expose surveillance. Was all this cloak and dagger stuff
necessary? It seemed like romanticism to me. They said I was naive. I couldn’t believe
that the country I was taught to believe in as a child had come to this. At Panther
headquarters in Oakland I played with a little boy while his Panther father, arrested after
proclaiming in a speech at a protest rally that I had attended that they intended to stop the
war and that no one was going to be able to stop them, including Nixon. Consistent with
the COINTELPRO mission of “neutralizing” opposition his speech was interpreted as a
threat on the life of the president.
Driving over to Garry’s house in San Francisco, the Panthers in the car proceeded
to light up marijuana cigarettes. I was appalled, not by the marijuana per se, but by their
cavalier attitude. They were under the gun, presumably under surveillance. Why would
they make themselves vulnerable to arrest? After chairing long, anarchistic meetings
trying to run the university we had seized after Reagan declared it closed to prevent
protest against the invasion of Cambodia, the students proceeded to light up their “joints”.
My reaction was the same. Such behavior made us vulnerable. My objections were
summarily dismissed. In neither case did any arrests or problems occur, so maybe I was
just a worrywart? However, my judgement today would be unchanged.
We interrupted Garry at dinner (didn’t they have an appointment?) and were
served coffee in an anteroom until he could break away. There are many personages
whom I have greatly admired and sought to emulate. I have had the great fortune to work
with and to meet many of them. Charles Garry was one of them. Like most of my heroes,
he was possessed with great intellect surpassed only by his conscience and passion for
justice. The left, with considerable consensus over goals, has always been fractured over
strategies that were contradictory. Some strategies undermine others. People under attack
need others to come to their defense, regardless of strategic or tactical differences. I
mentioned the negatives in the Panthers’ strategy. It had much to recommend it. It served
the community by establishing school breakfast programs and preventive medicine
clinics. Understandably, these received little attention in the corporate press. The Panthers
joined with the Peace and Freedom Party, with the Hispanic Young Lords, and other
progressive groups. They opposed attempts to defeat workers by dividing them by race
(or by any other criterion). They were accused of being male chauvinists. Perhaps there
was an element of that, possibly attributable to the traditional male role of defender and
warrior of the community, but nothing like Stokely Carmichaels’ response, “The position
of women in the movement is prone.” Luke McKissick, an attorney for the Panthers, who
was a prominent media consultant during the O.J. Simpson trial, and Elaine Brown,
“songbird of the Panthers”, came to my house to have dinner with me. She later became
Chair of the party, or so I thought. After release from jail, Geronimo corrected many of
my false impressions.
114
After the police raid on Panther headquarters in December 1969, police arrested
Elmer “Geronimo” Gerard Pratt on apparently phony charges of conspiracy to assault and
murder a policeman, another chapter in the harrasment. I guaranteed his bail, not knowing
that Huey Newton had ordered him to go underground and to organize self defense
around the country. The LA Times reported that he had jumped bail. He was arrested in
Texas when he showed up to rendezvous with Huey, who, at around that time had
expelled him from the party. Upon his return to LA he was charged with murder by the
DA. This time he wouldn’t be released after the maximum holding time.
Geronimo was charged with the $18 robbery/murder of Caroline Olsen on a Santa
Monica tennis court some two years after the event. I envisioned a scenario by which they
might have been able to implicate him. As a witness to a crime I remembered being
shown pictures of suspects in order to identify the perpetrators. Given the notorious
unreliability of eyewitness testimony, coupled with the lack of awareness of this fallibility
by citizens who would comprise a jury, authorities could simply include the picture of the
person one wants to convict in multiple exposures to witnesses. Eventually, the intended
victim of the effort to implicate and incriminate would be expected to be mistakenly
identified by a conscientious witness, who would be able to provide highly convincing
testimony. If the intended victim had no confirmable, documentable, credible alibi,
prosecution could be pursued. I remembered the time when I was a soldier that I was
called to appear in a line up in a rape case. I had known the victim casually. I remembered
asking myself what I in the world would do if she identified me. Where had I been that
night? I didn’t keep a record. Was I in the company of someone else? Did I have an alibi
and witnesses? Geronimo did. He was under FBI surveillance that recorded that he was in
Oakland at the time, as he claimed. Those reports disappeared from FBI files, although an
ex-FBI agent, Wesley Swearingen, whom I met at his hearing for a new trial, saw the
records before they were destroyed61. He and I both rode Honda Gold Wings. He had
come from his home in Arizona at his own expense in the hope that he would be allowed
to testify. Thank god for the whistleblowers and honest cops!
Geronimo spent 27 years in prison. The first eight years were spent in the “hole”.
He chose a “non slave” name, Ji Jaga. He now likes to be called “Ji”. Every time I was
reminded of Geronimo during that time I felt excruciating remorse. For a while there was
a committee to free Geronimo that met at the ACLU headquarters. It died with the illness
and death of the longtime activist chair of the committee, Jim Buford. I attended a couple
of rallies at Liemert Park and left my card in case I could be of some help. I was never
called. I didn’t know what I could do. I knew that other more qualified people were
working on the case, but I could never forget it. Despite my bankruptcy and loss of what
would be today about a million dollars in helping political prisoners like Geronimo, my
life style was never impaired. I maintained a simple lifestyle regardless of my income. I
had made that pledge shortly after high school. I remember being fined $25 in about 1951
and thinking that I was personally immune from such punishment, not because I had
millions, but because the only effect was to impair my contributions to improve the
world. Of course, that, in its own way was a form of punishment. I was leading a rich,
That is what I remember that he told me, but now I read, in Jack Olsen’s book, Last Man Standing, that
he only noticed that the files for him at that time were not so mysteriously missing.
61
115
fulfilling life while he was in a hell hole and subjected to treatment that I could only
imagine.
Since Geronimo’s trial was in Kathleen Parker’s62 court in LA, I could only attend
occasionally between my university classes in Orange County. I missed much of the trial,
but I did witness Kathleen Cleaver, who had returned from Algeria where Eldridge was in
exile in order to testify that Geronimo was in Oakland when the murder was committed.
He was convicted nonetheless. As the law professor she later became, she might have
been accorded greater credibility. It wasn’t until the hearing some 30 years later, that I
talked to her at length.
In interviews I hopefully referred to Ji as “an American Mandela” and hoped for
great things from him upon his release. On at least two other occasions I later saw other
interviewees use the same term. Then I was corrected. He surpassed Mandela, who had
compromised with the system. However, in his remarks reported from Philadelphia in
support of MOVE, despite his disclaimers that his assignment was the Ministry of
Defense, and that qualified speakers were from the Ministry of Information, he expressed
sympathy for black nationalism. It was opposition to black nationalism which
distinguished the Panthers who united with the Peace and Freedom Party in California,
and which made them such a threat that the FBI unleashed COINTELPRO against them
to “neutralize” them, a task they accomplished, at least in the short (decades long) term,
with appalling success and violence. I don’t know if life will lead to more political
discussions with Ji in the future, but if so, it will be at the top of my agenda.
It was interesting to finally meet and talk to Eldridge at the hearing for a new trial,
even though he had dropped considerably in my esteem. I thought he essentially had
capitulated, and had even adopted the Christian religion of the slaveholders. The mother
of my two youngest boys had been reading his book, “Soul on Ice”, shortly before she
left me (not without cause), for the impressively astute black attorney and (later)
publisher of the LA Sentinel, Ken Thomas63, shortly after being admitted to the bar. I
only mentioned how awed she had been when she read his book.
He seemed to have lost the fire in the belly he once had. Kathleen assessed him as
being broken by the stress, of which there was undoubtedly a great deal. I wonder how I
would have fared if subjected to the same conditions. Ji, by contrast, is phenomenal. They
couldn’t break him even with eight years of solitary confinement and over twenty seven
years of imprisonment during which he saw real murderers, averaging about fifteen years
confinement, come and go. Of course, if you are innocent, and refuse to cop a plea or
admit guilt, you are considered to be “unrepentant”. I actually felt more compassion for
the broken Eldridge than I did for Ji who had been treated much more badly. Eldridge
seemed sad. I am tempted to say “pathetic”, especially when he grandstanded, trying to
gain some limelight when Ji was released, and at the party to celebrate his release.
Eldridge confided to me that he wanted Kathleen back. He seemed to be requesting that I
62
Judge Parker was the sister of the notorious LAPD Chief of Police under whose command the LAPD
committed abuses leading to the first Watts rebellion, but I have not heard her accused of misconduct,
unlike the Prosecutor, Kalustian, who was awarded for his alleged (by Johnnie Cochran) misconduct with a
Superior Court appointment, and who is provided immunity from civil suit for damages.
63 He was interviewed frequently during and after the Watts rebellion. I always found his remarks to be
astute and articulate.
116
act as in intermediary. I tried. When I mentioned it to her, she responded with amusement
and disinterest bordering on disdain. She seemed to have maintained some concern and
affection for him, but seemed to have lost respect. She had moved on. Eldridge looked
frail, and drowsed in court. The day Ji was released, Eldridge was prominent. It appeared
to me that he was grandstanding. Everyone wanted to be part of the victory [which, unlike
the orphan, defeat, has many fathers, it is said]. I left. I didn’t know that he was ill with
cancer and diabetes and would die a short time later.
I persuaded the Newport Beach socialite64 with whom I was keeping company to
accompany me to attend the hearing for a new trial in Judge Everett Dickey’s Orange
County courtroom. Judge Dickey may have been a Reagan appointee, but he ran his
courtroom with competence and with great respect for the law and justice. He cut a
handsome grandfatherly figure with his full shock of wavy white hair. The day Ji was
released a party was held for him. I hadn’t talked to him for almost 30 years. The closest I
had been to him was to give Johnnie Cochran my card to give to Ji to say hello. She was
afraid of the neighborhood and of the attention her Jaguar might receive. I agreed to stay
with her, and have had difficulty forgiving her ever since. However, I finally was able to
talk to him again at the book signing of his story, “Last Man Standing: the Tragedy and
Triumph of Geronimo Pratt” written by Jack Olson, which was held at the Holman
Methodist Church near USC. [The publisher insists on using “Geronimo Pratt” rather
than Geronimo Ji Jaga, as more recognizable and marketable, despite Ji Jaga’s
preference.]
My Newport Beach consort was otherwise engaged but expressed concern about
my safety driving the Jaguar I had purchased under duress from her cleaning lady {who
was buying a newer one}.
Accusations that the government supported black nationalists’ groups, like Ron
Karenga’s US [Karenga, now a professor at California State University, Long Beach, is
the creator of Kwanzaa, no small achievement], to be used against the Panthers seemed
credible. After all, they held strikingly contrary ideological positions. Panthers united
across the board with allies. They were not nationalists or ethnic chauvainists. It was not
until I heard testimony of “Red Squad” officers at Ji’s hearing for a new trial that it
appeared that they too were under surveillance and suspicion. US members shot down
and killed Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins in the cafeteria at UCLA where
I went for coffee breaks while running experiments at the cyclotron. Ed was always
suspicious of Luis, suspecting he was an agent. Who knows? Years later a former
Executive Board member of the university union when I was President informed me that
Luis was indeed an FBI agent. He had come out from undercover and was reportedly seen
with other FBI agents while monitoring demonstrations.
During his interview one afternoon on KPFK, and during his presentation at the
book signing that evening, he had mentioned a long list of personalities from that period
and sought to correct misimpressions that had been perpetrated, but there were several
people from that era that he hadn’t mentioned. For decades I had been under the
impression that Ron Karenga’s cultural nationalist organization “US” had been used as
weapon against the Panthers. I was told that their headquarters were near (across the
This is the first time I have used that term, I usually use the term “social climber”. Am I becoming
euphemistic in my doting years?
64
117
street?) from the University Police Station, and under the protection of the LAPD (and
FBI), that they were sent to assassinate Panthers, including Bunchy Carter and John
Huggins. Ji blamed Elaine Brown who was involved in multiple affairs, including a
current one with John Huggins, and started the fracas by slapping her US (ex-?)boyfriend.
Ji says that Huggins started the shooting.
During Ji’s successful hearing to receive a new trial, I inquired of Eldridge
Cleaver and Kathleen Cleaver, of Johnny Cochran, of Stuart Hanlon, and of many of the
others I knew or knew of at the hearing whether they had heard of Luis Valentino. No one
had. Then I met with a former colleague, still an intensely political activist, who reported
that she had seen Luis accompanied by another agent show up to monitor a demonstration
in South Central LA. They behaved like obvious FBI agents. He pretended not to know
her. The agents only talked to each other. When I asked Ji at the book hearing whether he
remembered Luis. His eyes widened in recognition. “How’s he doing?” was his friendly
and positive response. I guess he hadn’t heard anything negative. I wondered if Luis had
been genuinely trying to develop support for Panthers, or whether he was trying to
financially exhaust the resources of political dissidents and peaceniks. I don’t feel that my
resources were well used. We could have accomplished much more. However, I
experience no regret. I feel proud and vow to continue the struggle. Masai, he told me,
had died some years ago after accusing Ji of something or other. Will the plot forever
thicken?
It pained me all those years that he rotted in prison because they couldn't break his
spirit and prevent him from exercising his citizenship rights. He would not accept the role
of a convict except by force. He, like Mandela, remained a constant and continuing
embarrassment to a government that pretends to support human rights and claims to have
no political prisoners. He thought it should be possible for everyone to have a job and
make an honest living, and that Marxism provided a blueprint for achieving a just,
humane, and rational society. In order to help create that kind of society he became an
organizer, and from that time he was subjected to unceasing police harassment. He
commented on the irony. He admitted to me that he had been a small time hustler, but had
never had much trouble with the police or authorities until he decided that life and society
could and should be better and became politically active in pursuit of that end. On course,
many, including myself, would be inclined to assess their tactics as faulty. I was never a
supporter of the party. I was a critic and defender. Their appearance in the California
legislature carrying rifles was dramatic and perfectly legal, but provocative. The corporate
media created a PR nightmare for them, which made it more politically feasible to launch
operations like COINTELPRO against them. On the other hand, even pacifist Martin
Luther King was not immune. The Panthers were portrayed as violent, which they were
not, but they weren’t pacifists. They advocated self-defense, especially against police that
operated, and often still operate, like occupying troops. I greatly admire the courage and
moral commitment manifested by pacifist protestors in accepting violent mistreatment
without defending themselves. To a degree, such strategy succeeds in gaining public
sympathy for their plight to the degree to which society is civilized. There seemingly is a
large middle section of society which is alienated and hostile (or which can be
manipulated into being antipathetic) to militant demand for respect for human rights but
which will be sympathetic to pacifist (but not passive) protestors. However, I don’t accept
118
that people should be required to accept such treatment in order to be treated fairly. It is a
contradiction: One must accept unfair (even brutal) treatment in order to overcome unfair
(often violent) treatment? People should be treated well even if they militantly resist
maltreatment, even if they are unwilling to be martyrs, even if they don’t organize and
protest. We shouldn’t wait for victims to complain. If we aspire to a high level of
civilization, a great society, and a proud country, we should ferret out and remedy every
injustice we can discover in the process of sophistication and developing consensus in our
concepts of justice.
Some aspects of one’s society make one proud. Others are shameful. Studs Terkel
described World War II as “The Good War”, and so I considered it in my formative years.
I even bought Truman’s argument that the Korean War was a “police action” of behalf of
the UN and world rule of law when I was in the Air National Guard. The Great War was
described as “the war to end war”. That was before my time, but many people accepted
that PR ploy. Analysis of the Viet Nam war, which was more obviously dirty, inspired
more critical thinking about previous wars, and about war in general. They were all
avoidable, as are future wars, but institutions must be built to make war “obsolete”, as the
well intentioned PR professionals in “Beyond War” contend.
I felt proud when President Johnson proclaimed, “We shall overcome!”, at the
conclusion of an address. Has any nation faced a greater racist challenge, overcoming the
heritage of slavery, of an immigration “melting pot”? Wouldn’t it be an accomplishment
of which we could justly be proud if we could create a society devoid of racism and
ethnic hostility? I felt proud as a monitor with a walkie-talkie marching along a flatbed
truck carrying a rock band in a march protesting the Viet Nam war in San Francisco. At
the top of a hill I could seen two hills ahead and two hills behind. There was an endless
stream of people in both directions filling the street. A lump came to my throat. I felt so
proud of Americans and America, readily compensating for the shame the government, as
the “biggest bully on the block”, was bringing on the country. Every time I see a
handicapped rest room, or parking place, or wheelchair accessible curbs and stairs I feel
proud.
K. I set up a non-profit corporation called the Fund for a New Democratic Society,
in belated fulfillment of the plan hatched with Blase Bonpane at UCLA, trying to cover
my exposure in guaranteeing bail for political prisoners, given my lack of liquidity. I
transferred all of my assets to the Fund, including the Isla Vista land and ownership of
three massage parlors, including the first one, Athena’s, named by my son, on the Sunset
Strip, which started as a women’s health club.
I kept my house, but used it as well to guarantee bail. I set up a Board of Directors to
distribute responsibility. It included Ed Cooperman, Chair of the Physics Department,
Paul Hayner, an ordained minister and Chair of the Philosophy Department, Carol
Copp, spinster Professor of Sociology, Louis Mulvey, representing the Legal Aid
Warranty (LAW) Fund, Barbara Stone, Co-Chair of the Student Strike Committee (She
and her husband were housemates), and representatives of the Orange County Hispanic
and black communities.
L. The authorities were after me every which way. I felt a little bit of the pressure
Ji was under. The university had called in a team of five attorneys to break my tenure.
FBI agents were telling people that I was one of the most dangerous people in America,
119
that Panthers were constructing bombs in the basement of my women’s health club on the
Sunset Strip. One day I heard police calls on a car which had parked just outside the
window. They apparently had inadvertently parked there to keep the state car I had been
driving to do research on the cyclotron at UCLA under surveillance. Health officials
searched the house looking for violations. “Where is your stainless steel sink? Luckily, I
had two kitchens and one had a stainless steel sink. I had to buy fire extinguishers--a good
idea in any case. Code enforcement officers searched the house in seeking code
violations. I had to get rid of the rooster. Campus police had searched my office, taking
pictures, including that of a napalmed child on the inside of my door, which, the police
report stated, “Would have to be seen by people leaving my office...” [Actually, I usually
left my door open so that passersby in the hall could see it.] ”...and didn’t complement
(sic) the United States”. They searched my desk and investigated my bank accounts.
Suspicious cars were parked across the street, which seemed designed to intimidate rather
than surveille. They denied a permit to the women’s health club, which was converted
into a massage parlor when the police ejected me when I was trying to dismiss him. He
was a Humphrey Bogart type character whom the Mafia had squeezed out of Seattle, or
so he told me. He donated the equipment to a hospital, which refused to return it,
claiming that he was acting as my agent. I gave the club to the non-profit corporation I
founded. I resigned as President to encourage it to take on an independent existence.
The feeling, “I know everyone needs to be somewhere, but why in the world am I
here?” was never so strong as when this Professor of Nuclear Physics found himself the
“Massage Parlor King of the Sunset Strip”. My ex-wife’s husband, Ken, had managed a
failing women’s health club on the Sunset Strip. As manager, he felt confident that he
knew what was necessary to make a success of the club. I borrowed $10,000 to back him,
using my half of the Isla Vista property Dan and I had purchased while I was still an
undergraduate at UC Santa Barbara as security. My son, Roy, chose the name Athena’s. It
was a spring day in 1968 when I drove to San Francisco to deliver a lecture, then drove
back to celebrate the open house. During the summer I took my two sons, Roy 12 and
Curt 5, with me to Europe. I worked again in England, at Rutherford High Energy
Laboratory near Oxford, with a team of nuclear physicists from the University of
Birmingham. A woman, Chrissie, whom I had met the previous year rented an ancient
stone former schoolhouse in a village called Water Orton, a suburb of Birmingham,
where the four of us stayed. I placed both boys in local schools. At supper, I asked them
how they fared in their first day in English school. Curt offered to sing the song he had
learned. “Polly put the kettl_lon. Polly take i_toff again”, he melodiously intoned in a
pronouncedly clipped accent. One day in England, and he had already acquired an English
accent! It was a beautiful house with a large, but typical English garden with both flowers
and vegetables. The four of us romped in bed together on rainy days, reading together,
playing games, and just playing. It was an idyllic existence, except I wasn’t in love. I
loved the tranquillity, the stability, and the beauty of the English countryside. “Rhodesie”
operated the shop down the road. Years later, he was still there. What a contrast to the
shifting sands of California.
When I returned, the gym was still functioning, but with difficulty. Ken worked
hard, and tried to sustain the business, but just before Christmas, the pressure was too
120
much. He left and never returned. I was stuck with a lease and a business I didn’t
understand. Hell, I don’t understand any kind of business. That was never what I wanted
to do with my time, energy, and intellect.
It was sink or swim. In the meantime, a woman with whom
It was a memorable day in court when the three officers, Paul Hayner, Carol
Copp, and Ed Cooperman appeared on charges of operating a massage parlor without a
permit. They had never set foot on the premises and never would. The judge couldn’t
believe his eyes. The police wanted me, but missed me. I never felt the “I know
everyone’s gotta be somewhere” syndrome more acutely than as a proprietor of a Sunset
Strip massage parlor.
M. The plot thickened. A Mormon corporate espionage agent, who portrayed
herself as Nixon’s “platonic mistress” (defined as something between a “mister” and a
“mattress”) started wanting to see me, to be friends. She wanted to know everything in
which I (and others) were involved. Perhaps I was (and remain) naive, but we were doing
nothing illegal or without constitutional protection, so I simply told her. She hid out at my
house to "avoid" Nixon. She called me from a local coffee shop on the corner saying it
was urgent that she see me. Suspecting that she was trying to promote an affair, I showed
up with my wife in tow. She was distressed. We were under surveillance. The police
searched our house on 6 May. The obvious nature of the surveillance parked across the
street seemed amusingly incompetent, but was probably merely intended to intimidate,
just like the agents who would snap your picture in civil rights picket lines. Her excuse
for meeting me was that we were having an affair. “I meet you for a tête-a-tête and you
show up with your wife? What am I going to say now?” “You’ll think of something.” She
was cozy with the Secret Service, and wore a jagged “S shaped” pin which had to be
worn at the proper angle for identification and had inside information, I was told. Isn’t
intrigue and espionage fun? I don’t think so. She told me she had talked to Nixon about
me and that he considered me to be no threat [I concurred with that assessment. I still
wouldn’t buy a used car from him.] She warned me that the FBI was planning to charge
me with conspiracy, like the Chicago Eight. “On what basis?” The case was to be built on
1) support for the Panthers, 2) masterminding the seizure of the university, [After the
“Dittmann Rex” sign had appeared on the screen of the Little Theatre where massive
business meetings of the Free University were held, a banner headline had appeared in the
Orange County newspaper portraying me as the mastermind revolutionary, without whom
these incompetent students supposedly couldn’t function], 3) organizing the Yippie
(Youth International Party) invasion of Disneyland, resulting in a picture cum poster of
the tac squad, face shields, batons, and all, deployed across the Main Street USA section
of the park, which had been their declared objective--to show the face of fascism in
America. Like many other momentos, my complimentary copy disappeared. Another
banner headline had appeared in the paper claiming that the invasion had been organized
from my house.
City officials who invaded our house, meticulously checking for violations of
some code or other, constantly harassed us. (Where is your fire extinguisher?--I bought
some. Where is your stainless steel sink?--fortuitously, we had one in the second kitchen.)
121
Another banner headline appeared in the Anaheim Bulletin indicating that the
Yippieland national coordination for the invasion had been directed from my house. The
article claimed that their “reporters” had seen 100,000 or so Yippie leaflets with the logo
showing Mickey Mouse holding aloft a submachine gun in my house. I did recall seeing a
few such leaflets setting on top of stacks of reams of paper supply. I surmise that the
“reporters” were city officials who jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the leaflets on
top were samples of the contents of the reams of stock. When I met the editor at a social
gathering a couple of years later and explained that I had had nothing to do with the
planning of the Yippie action, he seemed convinced, but unconcerned. It made good copy,
and he had no interest in publishing a retraction. His "reporters" were indeed city
officials. The article concluded by summarizing a call to the Physics Department, which
informed them that I had left for Yugoslavia, which was described in the article as a
"communist country". My 15-year-old son wanted to accompany me to Yugoslavia. I
thought it would be a good experience for him. His mother successfully opposed it in
court on the grounds that it was a communist country. A few months later Nixon also
went there and she reconsidered. However, I had not yet gone. I was here reading the
story in the local paper. News of my departure was premature, even if it wasn’t in the
obituaries. She said that my phone had been tapped [no surprise there], and that calls had
been made to Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. This I could check out. I inquired. Yes,
Mike Jacobs, one of the two organizers, admitted that he had called them a few times.
The other organizer of the Yippie invasion was one of my brightest physics students,
Dave Mc Connell. He and his fiancée appeared the most unlikely of Yippie protesters.
They were fraternity and sorority members, always conservatively dressed and well
mannered. There were other ways Marie might have obtained information about calls
made from my phone besides from a Secret Service agent, but now I took the threat
seriously. The wife (a former policewoman) of my former college roommate, Jon the
playboy, had left him for another man, Ed. They became good friends. He hid me out
until I could catch a plane for Yugoslavia. He later moved in with me. The newspaper
account called it “communist Yugoslavia”. Reporters had called the Physics Department
trying to locate me. I was apprehensive about being arrested before I boarded the plane. I
finally breathed a sigh of relief when the wheels lifted off of the ground.
The Mormon agent, through a "liaison" with a secret service agent, claimed to
have obtained information that I was about to be framed on a conspiracy charge for the
Disneyland invasion. The evidence was not only the supposedly national distribution of
leaflets from our house, but wiretapped telephone calls from our house to Abby Hoffman
and Jerry Rubin in Chicago. I inquired whether anyone had made such calls. One of the
student organizers admitted to doing so. Although there may have been other ways for her
to discover this information, it added credibility to her report of a government conspiracy
to frame me. I hid out at the house of the estranged wife of a college roommate for
several days, sending others to retrieve my things at our house, before leaving directly for
the airport. Would I be able to clear check-in? Did they know that I had not yet left? I had
purchased the ticket in my own name. Anticipating arrest at any moment, especially upon
boarding, I remember the sigh of relief when the wheels of the plane left the tarmac and I
was airborne to security in Yugoslavia.
122
In 1969 I noticed that the real estate investments I had made as a college student
(including Isla Vista at UCSB) had accumulated into an estate such that interest alone
would provide much more income than my salary as a professor. After a complicated
process of establishing a non-profit corporation, the Fund for a New Democratic Society,
with a board consisting of a minister, trade unionists, professors, and representatives of
the black, Chicano, and student communities. It established a bail system based on own
recognizance [Legal Aid Warranty (LAW) Fund], and guaranteed bail for political
prisoners. Defaulted bail bonds amounted to over $50,000. My entire Sabbatical salary
went to debt repayment. Even then I went through bankruptcy upon my return. Ultimately
all of the defaulted bail bonds were exonerated. Years later I saw Carlos Montez on TV.
After years of hiding out with
Corky Gonzalez' Crusade for Justice in Colorado he had turned himself in and was
acquitted. But it was too late to recover all the lost property. (Duplicate to p. earlier
~52?)
To make the world just a bit more weird, I had backed my ex-wife's husband in
opening a women's health salon (Athena's Figure Palace, a name my son chose--Athena,
goddess of wisdom would have known better than to get into this business) on the Sunset
Strip. He walked off leaving me with a lease and debts. The manager I hired to replace
him called the police who ejected me after a contract dispute [He wanted to pay me 15%
of net, not gross. With high salaries to family members the net can be reduced to zero].
He converted the health salon into a massage parlor. I became the owner of the first
massage parlors in LA. The thought occurred to me, "I know everyone has to be
somewhere, but how did I get to be here?" I entered a strange Damon Runyon sort of
world with which as a professor I would ordinarily have had no contact. Bizarre
experiences seemed appropriate for the times. In the meantime the police were telling
people that Black Panthers were making bombs in the basement and that I was one of the
most dangerous people in the country.
Years later, reading my FBI dossier obtained under the provisions of the Freedom
of Information Act (since emasculated by Reagan), I was struck by the misinformation
and incompetence. It occurred to me how lucky we are that our national security doesn't
depend upon them.
I deeded the business to the Fund for a New Democratic Society before I left for
Yugoslavia. In the meantime the police were telling people that Black Panthers were
making bombs in the basement and that I was one of the most dangerous people in the
country.
Through the LAW Fund, it was argued that most prisoners had not committed a
crime, except for being poor. They were in jail because they couldn’t make bail. We
argued for more OR releases. The LAW fund provided bail insurance. Hippies and
political activists who were likely to be arrested would pay a premium to be guaranteed
bail for a list of specified charges. We immediately gave Panthers bail insurance without
charge since they were the ones under the most immediate and viscous attack. Things
were booming for a while. We had 23 employees, including two staff attorneys and three
chiropractors who trained the masseuses. We had good cash flow, about $15,000/month.
123
We were negotiating to buy two high rise dormitories at UCSB. The situation there was
intense after the symbol of U.S. imperialism, the Bank of America, was burned down in
Isla Vista two blocks from my former property. The poster I had of a pictorial check with
the Isla Vista Branch of BofA imprimatur and a picture of the bank in flames behind it
had disappeared from my mantle when I returned from Yugoslavia. Property values
plummeted. The appraised value of the land dropped from $220,000 to $79,000. The idea
was that with our credentials we could successfully rent the dorms to students who knew
that the money was going to further social justice, not to make capitalists richer.
vReview of documentation has improved my fallible memory. These are my corrected
recollections
Where was the UN in all of this? Why didn't the UN come to the assistance of the
peace movement? After all, isn't that what the UN is for, above all, to make and keep the
peace? Such naive questions were not often heard. The UN was recognized for what it
was. However, don't we aspire to an organization capable of keeping the peace as well as
coping with global problems?--an organization which would prevent war and would
make our sacrifices in the peace movement unnecessary? Then, instead of being
expended opposing death and destruction, our efforts could be devoted to enhancing life
and for construction.
It was clear why the UN hadn't come to the aid of the victims. It had done as much
as it could given its structure and resources. United Nations forces, which were formed
and formally declared 1 Feb 1942(?), four years before the UN Charter was approved, had
aided the Vietnamese liberation forces, the Viet Minh, in their fight against the occupying
Japanese. Roosevelt had promised the Vietnamese their freedom and independence after
liberation. I began my efforts to understand the war and its origins quite early, by 1960.
KPFK (90.7 FM) provided invaluable programming, the only readily available public
outlet for such information outside of libraries. Pieces of the historical picture began to
come together. Perhaps it was my scientific training, but I could never accept the
"accidental" theories of history. I expect there to be reasons. I expect events to have
causes about which one can gain understanding through research, study, and
investigation. The process never ends. I recently encountered a walking archive, Valentin
Berezhkov, who provided additional perspective. The story of his life is fascinating in
itself, and is chronicled in his book, At Stalin's Side. The wonderful career opportunity
of being selected as Stalin's interpreter was tempered by the realization that seven
predecessors had not survived the job experience. When Churchill (and de Gaulle) were
absent, Roosevelt would approach Stalin with the comment that, unlike the UK and
France, neither the US nor the USSR were imperialist countries with colonies. He argued
that the world would have to be decolonized after the war, over the objection of the
colonialist countries, in fact, that colonialism was unsustainable, and that much tragedy
would result from attempts to sustain it. Furthermore, he planned to provide "Marshal
Plan"-type of assistance to rebuild the USSR after the war. Unfortunately, Roosevelt's
plans and promises died with him. He had provided little provision for continuation of his
policies. Irwin Gellman's book, Secret Affairs, provided fascinating insights into the
inner working and conflicts of the Roosevelt administration. Viet Nam would have had
its independence, which it confidently expected before it was betrayed. The US was its
124
model. The Vietnamese declaration of independence copied the US Declaration of
Independence ["We declare these truths to be self-evident--All men are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these, life, liberty, and a car to pursue
happiness (the Orange County/LA version)]. The Viet Nam war never would have
happened, nor the Korean "police action". The entire Cold War experience and the
extensive, pervasive poverty in the world, induced in part by massive military
expenditures, might have been avoided. For a quantitative analysis of the heights to which
the human condition could have been raised had an arms race been avoided after W.W.II
there is no better source than J. D. Bernal's book, World Without War.
J. D. Bernal was a phenomenon unto himself. I first heard of him when I bought
his book, Science in History in order to better prepare myself for my first full time
teaching job. I had given a recruitment interview seminar at CalState, Fullerton. I
expected to be offered a position as an Assistant Professor since I had not yet finished my
doctorate. I intended to decline the offer in order to take the research route, probably
including a Post-Doc at Rutherford High Energy Lab in England, where I ultimately
worked in 1967 and 1968. Maybe they sensed my intentions. Maybe it was my stage
presence, which I thought was good, or the presentation. I didn’t ask. I don’t know. In any
case, back in the Nuclear Physics Lab at USC I took my mail to the “library”, as my
stepfather called the toilet. I almost soiled myself falling off the stool. I was offered a
position as an Associate Professor! Why start at the bottom if one has a better offer? The
Mafia came to mind--they too made offers one couldn’t refuse. Actually, I had already
accepted a half-time teaching position at Immaculate Heart College, a Catholic Women’s
Liberal Arts College that unfortunately didn’t quite succeed in making the transition out
of Hollywood to join the Claremont Colleges, as well as a position in industry.
I declined the industry position, but I didn’t want to leave Immaculate Heart in
the lurch so I agreed to teach there part time as well. In 1964 I headed to arch right wing
Orange County which voted more heavily for Goldwater than any county in the country.
A Jewish colleague in history described me as having a Christian missionary complex. I
had never thought of it that way, but there is probably something to it, despite my formal
rejection of Christianity the culture lingers. I did think of myself as a bearer of
enlightenment to the Neanderthal denizens of Orange County. At CalState, Fullerton I
was assigned to teach Solid State Theory, Quantum Theory, Nuclear Physics Laboratory,
Mechanics Laboratory, and Physical Science 201, all new preparations except for
Quantum Theory. Physical Science 201 was a codisciplinary General Education course
for non-science majors jointly taught with Chemistry. My workload was imposing. Now
we have laboratory manuals prepared experiments. Every week I had to invent an
experiment using existing equipment and write an experimental description. In November
it became apparent that some of my data was faulty--it didn’t reproduce. I was back in the
lab taking data before Christmas. They had gone out on a limb offering me a position as
an Associate Professor without a Ph.D. I was given an ultimatum: Either finish the
dissertation and final oral examination by March or be terminated (with prejudice)! I had
been accustomed to double duty--full time job and full time student, but this was intense.
I dropped every other activity and concern. I resigned as Director of the College Center at
the First Unitarian Church. I didn’t even read the paper. When I finally was able to get a
full night’s sleep the next summer and felt amazingly refreshed, I realized how
125
chronically exhausted I had been all academic year, but I survived--with my Associate
Professorship in tact. I was ahead of myself. Like the time, as a child, when I overheard
my grandparents praising me, I didn’t feel deserving, but vowed that I would be!--which
reminds of one of the most ringing of phrases of one of my favorite poets, Langston
Hughes, who wrote,
“America never was America to me.
“But America, some day, will be!”
[redundant]
That prophesy sums up my life’s dedication, although now I have increased the
ambition to include the world, but with much diminished confidence. The task in much
more imposing. America need only live up to its formalized promises in the Declaration
of Independence and codified in the [“Engine Charlie Wilson (“What’s good for GM is
good for America”) version] Constitution. “We declare these truths to be self-evident. All
men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life,
liberty, and a car to pursue happiness.” The structure is in place. Not so for the world. The
structure has not yet been established.
My (ABD) Ph.D. in nuclear physics had prepared me to teach all of the courses,
except Physical Science for non-science majors. The narrow training of the Ph.D. seemed
singularly unsuitable preparation for such a course. It would be easy to "snow" the
students with technical jargon, mathematics, and scientific detail, and that is commonly
done. It requires little preparation to lecture about one's research specialty and related
areas. Junior professors and grad students are commonly assigned to teach these courses.
It is understood that career advancement depends little upon teaching performance in
courses for non-majors. Departments fight over the FTE generated by these courses in
order to support the curriculum in which they are really interested, the courses for their
majors leading to research involvement. The argument is that science is, and should be a
critically important element in our society. Valid. Jacques Barzun in The House of
Intellect and Science: The Glorious Entertainment refers to science as the dominant
cultural element, and as such "an enemy of intellect" [along with philanthropy and art]
because of specialization. Jose Ortega y Gassett makes a similar point in “The Barbarism
of Specialization” in The Revolt of the Masses. Therefore, it should be a critically
important element in education--students should become "scientifically literate". Valid.
Therefore, it should be a required part of the general education curriculum. Valid.
Therefore, the science departments should have the responsibility for these courses.
Trouble--an open invitation to "technotwit" courses in irrelevant technological and
scientific trivia. I tried to place myself in the position of my students. As a non-science
major, what is important, relevant, and interesting to me? What should I study for
personal intellectual growth, to cater to intellectual curiosity, to prepare myself to be a
responsible citizen and inhabitant of earth? Understanding science as a human, cultural
phenomenon with a history and a philosophy, studying the epistemology of science,
considering demarcation criteria distinguishing science from mathematics (a common
confusion), and from other areas of human endeavor and concern, understanding that
126
current scientific epistemology did not always prevail, that criteria for validity had
undergone profound paradigm shifts, surveying the current state of understanding and
controversies, considering the effect of science and technology upon society, studying the
involvement of science in The Making of the Modern Mind, the title of Randall's book,
in intellectual history, its effect upon the course of history, these were examples of
appropriate elements for the course syllabus. It also seemed an opportunity to help
rationalize society by the extension of scientific methodology. Despite the large number
of courses I had taken outside my major (I graduated with 169 units), despite the courses I
took as tuition-free audits (like Constitutional Law) in graduate school, despite my
informal studies outside the academy, I felt underprepared to effectively teach such a
course. I started reading and studying widely in these areas in order to become a more
effective pedagogue. In fact, I reenrolled in college full time for three and one-half years
to qualify myself for my job.
There was general dissatisfaction with “cafeteria-style” general education. I had
merely unquestioningly accepted what I was provided in college. Now I became more
critical. Dave Pivar, professor of history, was arrogantly appalled at my ignorance--”If
you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.” I would press him. I have him to thank for
directing me to Merle Curti’s The Role of Philanthropy in Shaping Higher Education
in America [as well as to Trent Shroyer, and the National Civic Federation, and much
other seminal material]. The 1966 Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions
Convocation on The University in America was profoundly enlightening. I couldn’t
contain myself when W. H. Ferry, one of my heroes, a seminar thinker par excellence, sat
next to me. I thought of the (comedy) radio show, “Can You Top This?” Yes, indeed.
Justice Douglas sat on the other side of me. In the material provided for the convocation
the remarkable, hyperbolic Robert M. Hutchins lead off:
“...the idea of producing marketable skills is ignoble and degrading for an
educational system...What education can and should do is help people become human.
The object of education is not manpower, but manhood....We can now make the transition
from a working to a learning society...One can seriously ask, whether in a country like
this, in a world like this, democracy is any longer possible....I believe it is only if we can
achieve the learning society.”vi -- Robert M. Hutchins,
“Man’s basic aims have remained the same, and so, therefore, has liberal
education, which is concerned with man’s nature and needs, with the uses of technology
for the advancement of human welfare, and with the eternal effort to bring reason and
justice and humanity into the relations of men and nations... Education for these purposes
is liberal education; it is literature and philosophy and history and the arts. Far from
being less important in this age of advanced technology, these disciplines are more
critically important than ever....because they have to do with the most critically important
question of our time which is whether technology is going to be an instrument of human
happiness or the vehicle of our destruction.”
-- Senator J. William Fulbright
As mentioned above, one of the books I was reading to improve my qualifications
as a teacher was Bernal's, Science in History, which was published by Marzani and
Munsell, and by Cameron Associates. No established publisher would publish the book
127
until after his death, when, I presume, he was considered to be less threatening. McGrawHill then published a four-volume version. I was on my way to conduct research at
Rutherford High Energy Laboratory in England. I had taken Bernal's book to read on the
way. I noticed that he was identified as a Vice-President of the World Federation of
Scientific Workers. What is that?, I wondered. I looked for him at the University of
London in the History Department where they informed me that he was a crystallographer
in the Physics Department. He was already in frail health, so my opportunity to make the
acquaintance of this extraordinary scientist was limited. I did find out more about the
WFSW and tried to join the US affiliate, the American Association of Scientific Workers.
I could never get a response to my inquiries. The WFSW finally admitted me as a
Corresponding Member. I thought perhaps Professor Rutman, of the University of
Pennsylvania, the President of the US affiliate might have been deceased. When Jeremy
Stone sent me as a FAS observer to the WFSW General Assembly in Varna, Bulgaria I
was surprised to meet Rutman.
On the train on the way to Varna there was an attractive redheaded woman in the
compartment who didn't speak Bulgarian, but spoke a bit of French. There were also a
couple of Bulgarian men who were interested in her. I was the intermediary. They would
speak Bulgarian to me. I would translate her French into Serbo-Croatian to them, except I
omitted to translate when she commented on what an attractive man I was. My translation
must have been superior to my articulation in English, because I ended up waiting in the
corridor watching for the conductor while they pulled the curtains on the compartment
windows.
Changing trains in Sofia, I met a professor from San Diego. He needed some help
finding accommodation. I accosted a passing Bulgarian. He would respond by shaking his
head and repeating , "Da, da, da", or nodding his head while repeating, "Ne, ne, ne". "This
guy is a little funny. Let's ask someone else", I said. The experience was repeated.
Everyone shook their head for the affirmative and nodded their head for the negative.
When I asked about it, they acknowledged that the rest of the world had the contrary
connection, but this is the local custom. Oh well, when in Rome,..., but that is a difficult
adjustment to make.
I had read Maoist criticism of the USSR and Eastern Europe. They criticized the
existence of the "red bourgeoisie"--privileged bureaucrats, the "nomenklatura". I started
my hunt for evidence of the red bourgeoisie. Varna is beautiful town. In most cities, one
searches for parks in the urban sprawl. In Varna, the circumstance seemed reversed, urban
development between the parks. The town was divided. The center of town south was
industrial port. The center of town north was public beach and park. I put on my backpack
and trudged north along the beach and through the park to Drouzhba, where the JoliotCurie International House of Scientists, operated by the WFSW and the Bulgarian
affiliate was located, and where the Conference and General Assembly were held. Along
the beach there was a park, which averaged about 200 meters in width. I walked along the
beach. Every now and then I would spy a mansion in the park. "Aha! The red
bourgeoisie!", I thought, but when I approached to investigate, it turned out to be a
nursery school, or a meteorological station, or some other public facility. Finally, I
reached a fence on the beach. Trespassing was forbidden. [Like at the Playboy Club
"Trespassers will be violated!"]. I walked out into the water to get a better view. I saw
128
water-skiers, and cabañas. "The red bourgeoisie, at last!", I triumphantly said to myself.
Then I noticed a guard in the shade under the trees at the fence. I went over to inquire
about the facilities ahead. "Oh that's the beach recreation area for the hospital over the
hill. You can see it if you continue along the road." Indeed, I passed the huge hospital
when I traveled the road around the hospital. In Drouzhba, there were elaborate hotels in
a beautifully landscaped setting. I inquired about the hotels. They turned out to belong to
trade unions. Workers in different trade unions had their own beach resort. "What were
the prospects of my union getting an exclusive beach resort?", I asked myself. I still was
on the alert for evidence of the red bourgeoisie, but I abandoned my search for it.
I received the kind of overwhelming hospitality I have only encountered in
socialist countries. Trade unionists, peace and social justice advocates are comrades to
socialists. To capitalists they're a pain in the butt, understandably and realistically treated
as antagonists and enemies. They offered to pay full expenses, including travel for my
family and me. I have accepted some financial support to defray my expenses, but I have
always felt that resources should be reserved for those most in need of the support,
especially delegates from developing countries.
With some difficulty, I conversed with people everywhere. "What are your
problems here?" "Look, every country has problems. The US has problems. For
example,...." Not much response. "Well, how much homelessness is there?" "None."
"How much unemployment is there?" "None." "How much crime is there?" (pursuing)
"Don't you have prisons?" "Well, who is in them? What did they do?" I couldn't discover
much in the way of social problems and discontent this way.
There was a controversy between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria at the time. Yugoslav
experts theorized that there was a distinct Macedonian [As is commonly the case when
translated to a foreign language like English, it is preferred not to use their actual name,
Macedonian] language and culture, and that the Macedonians in Bulgaria suffered
discrimination. Bulgarian experts theorized that Macedonian and Bulgarian were different
dialects, that the peoples were the same [like Churchill who commented that the English
and the Americans were the same people divided by a common language].
Amnesty International had reported discrimination against Turks. Bulgaria denied
it. On a cultural trip to Plovdiv, I noticed a group speaking a different language. I
approached them with my Serbo-Croatian. They were domestic Turks. They complained
that their language was forbidden (although I had just heard them speaking it). It probably
was forbidden in schools and in public discourse. They complained about cultural
discrimination. I personally inquired about the matter with colleagues from the Bulgarian
host affiliate. I followed up with a formal letter describing my experience and asking our
Bulgarian affiliate to pursue the matter further. I thought that this was the most valuable
aspect of an international organization.
A main thoroughfare ran from Varna to Drouzhba. There were high rise
apartments on the beach/park side, and single family homes on the hilly opposite side.
The whole city seemed a model of urban planning. Buses ran almost on the minute down
the highway. I took the bus to Varna. I boarded and looked for a conductor to pay the fare.
There was none. I observed the system. People boarded and voluntarily punched a ticket.
I hadn't done so, but no one said anything. When I descended from the bus I went to a
kiosk to purchase a bus booklet, which cost only a few pennies--the cheapest conscience
129
cleanser I ever purchased. I saw the system later in Yugoslavia and in Germany, and
found out about the control that checks periodically and fines passengers without valid
tickets. At the time I thought they had made great progress in creating the "new soviet
man". When, earlier, I was riding my motorcycle through Czechoslovakia similar naive
impressions occurred to me. In the countryside not only were there fruit trees along the
road, but there were flocks of ducks and geese openly ranging in every stream. I was
impressed. "People just take eggs and take a duck whenever they need one?" "Oh no! The
ducks all know where they live and go home every night." Utopia must wait a bit longer.
There are striking differences in cultures. In England, cats sitting on a wall will
raise up in anticipation of being petted. An advertisement for Cosset Carpets showed a cat
sitting on a rug with the caption, "England is a land of Cosset lovers." In Yugoslavia, cats
flee at the sight of a person. Italians have the reputation of great cat lovers in Yugoslavia.
It is said that when the Italians invaded the Dalmatian coast all of the cats disappeared.
The film Mondo Cane (It's a dog's world) started with a real version of The Happy
Hunting Ground, a pet cemetery which was a satire of The Blessed Father's human eternal
resting place, satirizing, in turn, Forest Lawn in Evelyn Waugh's The Loved One. It
immediately switches to Southeast Asia where people are preparing, literally, to "chow"
down, following the local recipe book, "How to Wok Your Dog". The film is a long,
rambling conversation about cultural differences. However, nothing is as bizarre as
reality. Jessica Mitford's book, The American Way of Death, exposed the funeral
industry as no fictional satire could.
Continuing the theme of cultural contrasts, Bulgarians struck me as
extraordinarily polite, law abiding, without being authoritarian, like the Germans, and
friendly. I noticed the contrast when the border was crossed and Yugoslavs began
boarding the train, smoking incessantly, shirt unbuttoned to the navel, with loud,
provocative voices, hands on one hip with one foot stuck out as if to trip someone. No
wonder the Nazis had so much trouble conquering them. They appeared to be looking for
a fight. Stories are told of the animosity in the Balkans. The Balkans really are the
Balkans. Their reputation is well deserved. It has been said that Yugoslavia is a beautiful
country, but, unfortunately it is filled with Yugoslavs. God came to a Serbian peasant and
offered him anything he wished for with the proviso that his Bulgarian neighbor would
get twice as much. He reflected a while, then responded, "Take out one of my eyes!"
The instructor in Serbo-Croatian tried to explain Yugoslav attitudes to us: In
Germany, if one commits a driving infraction, one receives a citation from an officer who
never exceeds his authority. In Yugoslavia, if a man receives a citation for speeding, with
a fine, immediately payable, of 100 dinars, he will say, "Here. Take 200!" However, if the
officer comments that he is not a very good driver, he is liable to receive a knuckle
sandwich. Yugoslavs are fiercely independent and combative, do not respect authority,
and will resist force. I was told that Yugoslavia was a country with eight parliaments (six
republics plus the autonomous provinces of Kosovo-Metohija and Voivodina within
Serbia), seven borders, six republics, five nationalities, four religions, three official
languages (Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Slovenian), two alphabets (Cyrillic and
Latin), one party, and no money. The orthography of Serbo-Croatian requires some
adjustment. A good friend, and attorney, is named Jerko. English speakers would not
likely pronounce it “yerko”, with a trill on the “r”.
130
At the WFSW General Assembly I collected information about the WFSW, its
budget, its sources of funding, its constitution and by-laws, its history, its mission, its
activities, its positions, its affiliates and their memberships, to take back to the FAS. I
tried to probe beneath the surface. I knew there were accusations and suspicions of being
USSR-dominated, even a commie front, which were likely to be raised by the FAS
National Council.....
XI. God’s Coming and Boy, Is She Pissed!
While I was still in the Army I attended a meeting of the American Physical
Society in New York. Walking down a street in Manhattan I encountered a friend from
UC Santa Barbara, Bob Jared--small world! He was continuing his plans to sail around
the world. In Santa Barbara he had tried to interest me in accompanying him. Yes, it
seemed an adventurous feat, but rather pointless. Days on the open sea didn’t seem an
exciting prospect. I countered, “Well, if only there were something else to be
accomplished, if we were to collect flora or fauna, or do comparative anthropology, or
write a book, then perhaps.” I was too anxious to accomplish something to take time out
for an adventure. I got my sailing time in later. He had an apartment in Greenwich
Village. I found all of New York fascinating. When I had lived in Queens, before GE
hired me in their executive training program, I used to start at Central Park and walk over
either the Manhattan or Brooklyn Bridge, through Brooklyn to Queens. It was interesting
to notice the language on the streets and in the newspapers, the foods, the cultures change
from neighborhood to neighborhood. It was like a miniature United Nations. I visited Bob
in Greenwich frequently during my stint at the University of Delaware. This was a
different world. I parked my motorcycle and walked around the block. Four guys tried to
pick me up. I struck up a conversation with a guy in bar. In the course of the conversation
I asked whether he was married. “Oh yes”, he replied, “That’s my wife sitting over there
with my husband.” This was a different world. I still have the picture Bob took of me
before I left on my motorcycle in a driving rain to return to Delaware. He had wrapped
me in cellophane with rubber bands to seal it. I looked like an alien--astronauts hadn’t
been invented yet. [Picture here?] I stayed dry for about 100 meters, then I was soaked. I
came down a long hill where there had been construction. There was mud on the road.
Every time I tried to apply the brakes I would start to skid. I tried to slow down all of the
way down that hill, but still had considerable speed when I hit the curve at the bottom.
There was no way I could turn. I went straight, right through a field and back up on the
road on the other side of the curve. I didn’t stop. I kept on going, racking up another of
life's memorable experiences.
At the APS meeting there was a recruiting table for the Federation of American
Scientists. I joined, but since there was no local activity, that was the extent of my
involvement until I came to California. I was working in the military industry and
working on my Ph.D. at UCLA. I had always thought of UCLA, as a state school, as more
working class, and USC more bourgeois. In my case it was the reverse. I took
thermodynamics from Professor Finklestein. Class was held in an amphitheater. He
lectured over a microphone. I had been lucky at UC Santa Barbara, Johns Hopkins and
Delaware to never have had a class in my major with more than about seven students in
it. This was a different world. How would I ever make contact with a professor to begin a
131
research program? Furthermore, I had to be excused from work and commute for an hour
and a half for an hour class held in the afternoon. UCLA didn’t cater to students who had
to work. USC had night classes. Also, instead of paying tuition, like at UCLA, they paid
me! Also, Gerhardt Weissler was there. His article in Handbuch der Physik had impressed
me. He was the pro forma Principal Investigator for the Linear Accelerator. He rarely
ever entered, but he approved my checks. He was somewhat of a tyrant. He intimidated
people. In a confrontation with him I stood my ground. He didn't strip me of my research
fellowship, but I never received a raise above the $200/month minimum stipend. That
was a tight budget for three kids and tuition in law school for my partner, but we
managed. I rented a huge beautiful mansion that we shared with single mothers and my
grandmother, who lived with me until she died. I had promised my grandfather on his
deathbed that I would look after her. She used the breakfast room and the dining room as
her separate apartment, watching wrestling incessantly, wildly swing at imaginary
opponents, very successfully overcoming her first reaction to it when she hid her eyes and
protested, "How dare they allow such a terrible thing on TV!" Not to spoil her fun, but I
tried to convince her that they were merely acting. "Oh no! They really get hurt!" I
understand that this "gramma wresting syndrome" is quite common. I haven't yet
encountered a theory to explain that!
After paying the rent, we actually managed a modest surplus. Of course, we were
welfare bums as well--we received food stamps that we expended exclusively at the
Consumers' Cooperative Society of Santa Monica. When I returned to California there
were three food coops in Los Angeles. Only the credit union from one remains. I joined
the coop in Birmingham, England as well. The coop movement is much stronger in
Europe. I regret that they seem not to be competitive in a capitalist society. Of course
there're not competitive, dummy, they're supposed to be cooperative! Probably their
greatest disadvantage is treating their workers well.
I thought of Weissler as a typical Nazi, but I misjudged him. During the Cuban
missile crisis, to my astonishment, he turned up at the Unitarian Church. Watching the
TV docudrama, “The Missiles of October”, produced years later, I fathomed how scared I
should have been at the time. I became scared in retrospect. [Much of life is retrospective.
Party animals have asked whether they had a good time at the party they can't remember.
Did you ever rub fannies with someone on a subway and have to turn around to decide
whether you enjoyed it?] The title was inspired by Barbara Tuchman’s history of the
events leading to World War I, The Guns of August. In the script, Kennedy [played by
William Devane in the docudrama] recommended The Guns of August as required
reading for all ship commanders.
I returned to USC as a visiting professor from time to time during the summers to
teach quantum theory. I was having lunch at the faculty club with my handball partner,
Paul Saltman, who later became Provost of Ravelle College at UC San Diego. [Now that
conjures up the memory of Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia when Derek de Solla Price and I
explained Goedel's theorem to Roger Ravelle.] Anyhow, considering my concerns that
science be conducted in a socially responsible fashion, Paul suggested that I join the very
active local chapter of FAS, which I promptly did. I remain active on the Executive Board
to this day, having served a couple of times as Chair. I also served in the National Council
132
of FAS. FAS underwent a metamorphosis when Jeremy Stone became director. He went
about trying to create an intellectual Washington lobby. He convinced a large number of
the elite in science, including many Nobel laureates, to lend their names and their prestige
to the organization. He increased the nominal membership and raised funds beyond what
the narrowly based original organization of scientists could muster by converting FAS
into a direct mass mailing organization with public support. He revitalized an
organization whose original cause celebre, a civilian Atomic Energy Commission, had
been accomplished, and whose concern about the danger of nuclear war and the threat of
nuclear weapons had been depressingly unable to retard the escalating nuclear arms race.
The FAS operated like a one-man show. It was quite a contrast to what I had been
accustomed. At ACLU Executive Board meetings, Eason Monroe, the Executive
Director, a very principled, highly moral man, a former eminent Professor of English at
San Francisco State, who lost his tenured position during the McCarthy anti-Communist
purges when he refused to take the expurgatory oath, remained silent while Lloyd Smith,
a Harvard-trained attorney, or George Slaff, MGM counsel and mayor of Beverly Hills, as
Chair, would conduct the meeting. He did not participate in debate. He was there as a
reference source, speaking only when requested. Of course, his stature and competence
still made him very influential, but he exerted no power, not even the prerogatives of the
Chair. One of the greatest pleasures of serving on the Board was hearing the reports of the
Chief Counsel, Abraham Lincoln (“Al”) Wirin, an impressive Jewish attorney who had
argued the most cases before the Supreme Court. He was known as “Mr. Civil Liberties”.
He argued for the right of Nazis to speak, then joined picket lines outside their
presentations protesting and opposing their message, according to the philosophy, “The
remedy to bad speech is good speech, not censorship!” Ideas must be able to compete in
the public forum for acceptance on the basis of their merit, not their acceptability to
government, not their commercial value. I hung on every word he spoke. He spoke with
unparalleled precision, no hyperbole, no vague or sloppy terminology, choosing the most
accurate language. It was a high standard to be emulated.
The FAS operated quit differently from the ACLU. After a session in which I tried
to formalize the proceedings by having the temerity to actually propose resolutions, Philip
Morrison, the chair, pulled me aside to explain that FAS operated very informally. It is a
little kept secret that Phil was the scientific observer on the Enola Gay, which nuked
Hiroshima. Essentially, Jeremy ran the show and reported to the Council on what he was
doing. The board only challenged him on sending me to the WFSW as an FAS observer.
The Council was packed with cold warriors--Garrett Hardin, Francis Low, and others.
Except for the controversy with me, the entire agenda was devoted to opposing particular
weapons systems. FAS was proud to have a lobbyist who had achieved a higher rank than
the General he was lobbying. Toward the end of the meeting I commented that the
council was afflicted by "instrumental rationality". It opposed one weapons system after
another on the same grounds--that the weapons weren't effective. I finally cried out in
exasperation, "My God, do you want them to have weapons that do work?"
Much like Mark Twain after reading his obituary commenting, "Reports of my
demise are greatly exaggerated” [and premature], the chapter continued its activities
independently after Jeremy and the Council declared it non-existent. FAS wouldn't accept
our dues. Some years later we sent our cochair, JPL astronomer Bobby Nelson, to make
133
contact again with FAS. He returned with good news and bad news. The good news was
that we were the most active group of activist scientists in the country. That was also the
bad news.
UCS operated like the Boston chapter, but developed an independent course,
eclipsing FAS. U.S. scientific organizations solicit foreign members, and have broader
than narrow national interests, but generally do not affiliate with international
organizations.
FAS, originally the Federation of Atomic (sic) Scientists [The usage of "atomic"
when "nuclear" is intended, is becoming less frequent], was formed and originally
composed of members of the Manhattan Project, which developed the nuclear bomb, of
the Franck Committee, and of other scientists who were concerned that the human
institutions were inadequate to cope with the threat of nuclear war. This seemed a quite
reasonable worry. After all, the world had just emerged from World War II, which
existing institutions had not been able to prevent. World War II was a nuclear war, but,
fortunately for many, irrelevant for victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, only two bombs
were available. True, after World War II, the United Nations forces, which were
proclaimed in February 1942, had been transformed into an international organization.
The world has not experienced a nuclear war since, but not many feel that the UN is an
adequate guarantee against nuclear catastrophe. It is given some credit for defusing
conflict, but it was also used as a vehicle in the Korean "police action", which almost lead
to a nuclear war when U.S. troops were surrounded at Chosin reservoir and threatened
with obliteration. Historically, the closest the world has come to suffering another nuclear
war has been when the U.S. government was threatened with a military defeat, which
would be very unpopular domestically. Then the President is most tempted to avoid
military defeat and domestic political repercussions by initiating nuclear conflict and
enduring the international political consequences. Another such example occurred when
the U.S. military tried a "Dien Bien Phu" strategy of establishing a military base in the
heart of the territory of the National Liberation Forces at Khe Sahn. They were facing a
disastrous defeat similar to that suffered by the French. It is a difficult judgement to
assess the overall effect of the UN on the threat of nuclear war, but my assessment is
quite positive. Even though the General Assembly is not allowed to consider an issue
which the Security Council has preempted; even though General Assembly resolutions
are not legally binding; even though the Security Council Permanent Members constitute
a "World War II Victors' Club"; even though the Security Council is subject to "gridlock"
due to the requirement of unanimous concurrence of all Permanent Members, my
assessment is that the effect of the UN has been quite positive in this area. However,
rather than crisis management to avoid (nuclear) war, I am much more impressed by the
quiet progress accomplished through UN agencies. The more the world is managed and
administered, by agency, by treaty, by conventions and covenants, and even by habit and
precedent, the less there is to dispute by force of arms. The more effective the conscience
of the world can be developed through debate and expressed though fora like the UN, the
less likely is resort to force of arms.
The focus of FAS on nuclear weapons gradually was broadened to include
biological and chemical weapons. In fact, even though less dramatic, I argued that
biological weapons might pose a greater threat. Nuclear weapons were deemed to be
134
neutralized by deterrence. This despite persistent U.S. government efforts to undermine
deterrence by attempting to achieve first strike capability with multiple warheads with
increasingly greater accuracy, and ultimately Star Wars. Napoleon had said about
bayonets, "They are wonderful. One can do anything with them, except sit on them."
Something similar could be said about nuclear bombs. "They are wonderful. One can do
anything with them, except use them." They became a nuclear insecurity blanket.
Actually, it was not nuclear deterrence that prevented the U.S. government from using
them in Korea, or in Viet Nam. It was certain that the USSR would not retaliate in kind.
Peace movement activists wonder whether their efforts have any effect. Nixon's memoirs
indicate that we deterred nuclear war.
Biological weapons are a different matter. They can be made species-specific.
Economic, biological warfare against animals may be difficult to trace. The CIA has been
accused of introducing swine fever against Cuba. Political deterrence when the immediate
targets are animals is mooted, even more so when plants are the direct targets. The
Chapter broadened its horizon of potential concern and involvement to include all
science/technology and society issues. In 1965 we issued a report calling for an
immediate moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants until safety problems
were resolved, until the “back end ot the fuel cycle”--waste management, storage, and
disposal was developed, and until the feasibility of alternatives--energy efficiency,
conservation, reduction of irrational consumption, urban planning (little energy is
required to transport one somewhere is one is already at or near where one needs to be),
and alternate sources (wind, solar, etc.) was adequately explored. In addition, we
recommended that the contradictory mission of the AEC, viz., promotion and regulation,
be separated into two agencies, which became the NRC and ERDA (which became DoE).
Regrettably, the government ignored much of this sage advice.
Circumstances dictated that it was time to move on to the next challenge, and
circumstances pushed me onto a path leading to the UN. I had been doing “pure” nuclear
physics. I had no applications in mind, although the AEC obviously wanted a solid
scientific foundation for its promotion of nuclear power and production of nuclear bombs.
I was interested in momentum and spatial distributions and in clustering of nucleons in
the nucleus, in nuclear reaction and scattering processes, and in their theoretical
interpretation. I had little interest in bombs or power plants, per se, but nuclear physicists
were expected to have some expertise in these areas as well. I was asked to participate in
a committee to evaluate criticisms of nuclear power.
One of our members, a psychiatrist named Isadore Ziferstein, who was also a
member of the Unitarian Church, came to us for help in opposing a proposal from the
UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute (NPI) of Jolyon “Jolly” West. It was proposed to
establish a Center for the Study and Reduction of Violence, Judging solely from the
proposed title of the Center, it appears to be a good idea. The motivation sprang from the
Watts rebellion. I had attended a performance of Frank Greenwood’s play in Watts.
Bottle projectiles bounced off of our car as we returned home. [That conjures up the
image of Frank playing pool in our house while my two-year old son, Curt, half asleep, or
probably more, was peeing on the pool table from the second floor landing above. (We
don’t swim in your toilet. Please don’t pee in our pool table.)] We watched the flames
from the roof. USC was closed off by the military. The NPI proposal argued that a small
135
fraction of the population had engaged in the insurrection, of them, an even smaller
fraction engaged in violence. of them, an even smaller fraction engaged in violence
against people. If people like these with a propensity toward violence could be identified
in advance, preventive measures, like prefrontal lobotomies!, could be taken. Of course, it
was understood that police who engaged in violence against people were not under
consideration. Some psychosurgeons, like Mark Sweet, were contributors to the proposal.
I vividly remember the contribution of a psychiatrist from Camarillo State Hospital. He
proposed the development of a penis attachment which would provide an audio signal to
the wearer in the advent of an erection [As a kid I had always wanted an erection set], as
if he would be unaware of it otherwise. Furthermore, it would telemeter a signal to the
police station. The police could monitor the erections in town. No name was suggested
for the instrument. “Peter meter” seemed an obvious choice.
Since I was a member of the FAS National Council, I was chosen to go to
Washington, D.C. to lobby against the Center in conjunction with a meeting of the FAS
Council. I didn’t realize it at the time, but this was a way station to the UN. I hooked up
with the Children’s Defense Fund and formed a coalition to defeat the proposal. At the
FAS National Council, Jeremy was on the defensive, and on the attack. He was on the
defensive because he had commissioned me to attend the Symposium and General
Assembly of the WFSW in Varna, Bulgaria, to make contact with them as an FAS
observer. He was on the attack primarily because we existed, I suspect. He abolished the
chapter structure. He encouraged local groups, but he wanted direction and control to
emanate from him. Confrontation reached its apotheosis when we insisted, as an FAS
chapter, to the right to publish a rebuttal to his position in support of wiretapping for
government security purposes in the national newsletter, the right to internal debate
traditionally having been honored. He was also distressed that the chapter had taken an
independent position on a proposal for the NPI Center for the Study and Reduction of
Violence. He accused the Chapter of being irresponsible by taking a position describing
the proposal for the Center as "racist, repressive, and reactionary", which I denied the
Chapter had ever done, but I was prepared to defend the accuracy of each of those
adjectives. He didn't want to hear those arguments and had difficulty in remembering
where he had seen those adjectives. I knew, but I didn’t provide any hints. If he reads this,
and if he is still concerned, those adjectives were used by Terry Kupers, a psychiatrist
who wrote the lead article in Radical Therapy, whom we had solicited as an expert
witness to testify in Burlingame, California before the California Council on Criminal
Justice.
I had read philosophical criticisms of “technological rationality” or “instrumental
rationality” , meaning the efficient accomplishment of irrational, unintended,
counterproductive, or unexamined consequences.
Insert from the Dark Side of Science
The FAS National Council was a textbook example of instrumental rationality.
FAS also operated in a fashion quite contrary to that to which I was accustomed. On the
Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Executive Director, Eason
Monroe, never spoke at meetings unless requested to do so. At the FAS, Jeremy Stone, I.
F. Stone’s son, essentially reported to the Council what he had been doing.
136
Most of the day was spent criticizing on weapons system after another on the
grounds that they didn’t perform very well. Finally, in exasperation, I asked, “Well, do
you want them to have weapons that do work?” To credit Jeremy, he did express
concerns about the dangerous, destabilizing consequences of 1st nuclear strike weaponry.
I had long since been disabused of my (literally) sophomoric notion that law was
merely arbitrary. True, law is constantly changing. True, it is culture bound, part of the
“superstructure” conditioned by and serving a fundamental economic, material base
involving the economic relations of production. However, there is a philosophy to law.
There are fascinating opportunities for comparative studies. After I had put the mother of
my two youngest sons through law school [a claim that she denies today. In fact, she
denied it when she left me to open her law practice in the office of her new boyfriend,
Ken Thomas, esq., the very impressive, progressive (recently deceased) publisher of the
Los Angeles Sentinel, a publication catering to the Afro-American community], I
suggested to no avail that she continue with academic training in sociology or
anthropology to engage in comparative studies in legal systems, like Ralph Nader’s sister,
whose name, with apologies, I can’t remember.
In college I dismissed law as ephemeral and arbitrary. I wanted eternal, immutable
knowledge. I presume that similar motivations result in religious dogmatism in some.
Human law could be changed tomorrow--”Nature’s Laws” are constant. Only with greater
maturity did I realize that law has a fundamental, if culture-laden and changeable,
philosophy and an intriguing, if distressingly colonial and parochial history. International
(interstate) law, such as it is, has never been normatively designed from a basic
foundation. It is the product of evolutionary changes in a historical context--a context that
is Eurocentric and Christian in its origins.
The structure of the United Nations is a consequence of historical events,
including the history of the development of the philosophy of law. In order to understand
the UN better I explored the history of “international law” (between sovereign groups of
people, contrasted with “municipal” law to which individuals are subject). I found that
the history of “international law” can be traced to about 3100 BCE (between Lagash and
Umma in Mesopotamia) [Cheng (1991) 31]. My thoughts were, “If my ancestors had that
much time to develop international law, why wasn’t it in better shape when I entered it?”
It appears that it won’t be in much better shape when I leave it, so I somewhat understand
the slow pace of progress. In struggling to overcome the parochialism of my
circumstances I found the writing of [Bedjaoui (1979) 50] impressive and illuminating,
free from the western and Christian cultural bias of most available treatises. Competition
between the 'Christian kingdoms of Europe' that were contending to replace the fallen
(Christian) Roman Empire with their own dominant universal Christian monarchy in
order to establish dominion and empire through unbridled sovereignty was regulated in
the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648, which established the 'European system of States',
balancing sovereignty and the plurality of Europe. This was followed by the Peace of
Utrecht in 1713 as an accommodation between the European states.
As Bedjaoui [(1991), 6] describes the resulting agreement among the contending
European states to divide up and govern the world:
a) It was oligarchic, with power distributed among the "civilized" European states [as
contrasted with the "barbaric" states like China, Persia, Siam, and Morocco, and with
137
the other "savage" peoples, as classified by Lorimer in 1883-84 and similarly by von
Liszt in 1898];
b) It was plutocratic, sanctioning exploitation of weaker peoples;
c) It was non-interventionist, with no interference in "internal" affairs, both domestic
and between the imperial country and its colonies [i.e., with no protection for
“uncivilized” colonies or for “semi-civilized” states (like China, Persia, Siam and
Morocco) which were not completely subservient, but which were not part of the
European, Christian community], with three periods of challenge to this system:
1) the geographic challenge of Latin American independence and the Monroe Doctrine
of 1823;
2) the ideological class challenge of the workers revolution of 1917 transmuting from
the East-West, anti-worker, anti-democratic, anti-Communist crusade into the current
North-South, rich-poor divide;
3) the economic and political challenge of decolonization after World War II.
Essentially, international law is imperial, colonial law formalized at the Congress
of Berlin in 1885.
Traditional international law, which appears neutral or indifferent, is ipso facto
permissive, and is derived from the liberal laisser-faire (anything goes) capitalist system,
and sanctioned the seizure of the wealth and possessions of weaker peoples. It recognized
and enforced a colonial and imperial right--a non-interventionist 'right of dominion' for
the benefit of the 'civilized nations' which was institutionalized at the 1885 Berlin
Conference on the Congo.
The Eurocentric international law was extended to the New World, but "As part of
Asia had grosso modo eluded direct European domination, unlike Latin America and
Africa, the relations between Asia and Europe were systematized in a sort of minor and
marginal form of international law." [Bedjaoui (1979) 51]. As Mohammed Bedjaoui
[(1979) 49-51] put it,
"In addition to ratifying the European countries' right to conquer and occupy the
territories concerned, international law recognized the validity of 'unequal treaties',
essentially leonine, whereby the weaker peoples for a long time delivered up their
natural wealth on terms imposed on them by the stronger States. Neutral or
indifferent, international law was thus also a formalities law, attached to the
semblance of equality which barely hid the flagrant inequalities of the relationships
expressed in these leonine treaties.
"It was also a law eminently suited to the protection of the 'civilized countries’
privileges, through the interests of their nationals. By virtue of diplomatic protection
and intervention, the law enabled the nationals of the countries concerned to obtain,
in certain States, advantages which were not even awarded to the citizens of those
States.
"International law made use of a series of justifications and excuses to create
legitimacy for the subjugation and pillaging of the Third World, which was
pronounced uncivilized.
"However, the consistency of the system required that the freedom of action
allotted by international law to a 'civilized' State should be matched by the same
138
freedom for any other civilized State. This accepted international law was thus obliged
to assume the essential function of reconciling the freedom of every State belonging to
the family of 'civilized nations' with the freedom of all the other States in the same
family."
The United States Declaration of Independence in 1776 marked a transition from
European to Christian international law extending it from Europe to include the US.
Other states emerged and were recognized only if willed by the Concert of Europe and
under conditions imposed by it.
Not until the United Nations Charter was adopted could an open community
replace the closed one, and the expression 'peace-loving States' be substituted for
'civilized nations' in the wording of Article 4, paragraph I of the Charter.
The military dominance of the European powers allowed the imposition of the
system upon much of the rest of the world (China remaining largely immune). Lack of
involvement in formulating the rules, lack of universal applicability, and lack of uniform
enforcement did not engender legitimacy in the “uncivilized” world (as described in the
treaty documents). But it was not the perceived lack of legitimacy in the subordinate
world that led to the collapse of the accord. Rather, the Great War (now provided a
numerical sequence number as World War I65) manifested the failure of the Westphalian
system to adequately moderate contention among the European-based empires. World
War I was a catastrophe that led to the League of Nations--predecessor of the United
Nations. It also changed the character of class conflict. It was an imperial war that
culminated in class warfare. When the Tsarist Russian government was overthrown and
replaced by an attempt to create a workers' state, a defeated imperial ally was converted
into a class enemy which was immediately invaded by its former capitalist allies. Class
warfare became more than domestic struggle with feeble attempts at international
workers' solidarity. The capitalist military counterattack failed to destroy the USSR. The
focus of class struggle shifted to Germany. The communist motto, "Workers of the World
Unite"--"Proletarian Internationalism"--arguing that German workers were workers first
and foremost, and Germans only incidentally--had special appeal to Jewish workers after
centuries of discrimination (the phrase "Communist Jew" became a cliché even among
elements in the United States anti-Communist right). Regrouping, German and
international capitalists built Nazism into a domestic and international military and
ideological anti-Bolshevik force by reversing "Proletarian Internationalism". Patriotism
(nationalism) was emphasized. The German identity of workers was emphasized. They
were encouraged as good German patriots to unite in "class collaboration" with German
capitalists--"National Socialism", which led quite naturally to aggravated racism when
German nationality was emphasized instead of class The next step, deciding which
citizens and residents of Germany were not really German was a natural consequence.
65
(an irrelevant curiosity) Before the adoption of a numerical sequence, it was suggested in a letter to the
Milwaukee Journal that the new war be called the
N E W
E R A
W A R , an anagram.
139
That mentality is still persistent. The establishment of concentration camps "for
Germans"66 to eliminate communist and social democratic opposition capped the
successful culmination of the domestic campaign, but the international campaign
continued until Stalin appealed to Hitler's German chauvinism, which proved stronger
than his anti-communism. The riches of the industrialized West with its colonies were
much more tempting than the undeveloped East. Hitler’s anti-communism ultimately
prevailed and he invaded the USSR. International class warfare was interrupted and
temporarily replaced by an alliance of convenience with the USSR with more imperial
than class character. The five victorious powers became permanent members of the
Security Council [The same nations also still constitute the only officially admitted
nuclear weapon powers]. The resumption of class warfare with the anti-Communist Cold
War collided with the established United Nations structure--even though China was
denied its place for many years, the USSR was a permanent member of the Security
Council, where most of the United Nations' limited, but arbitrary power, unrestrained by a
parliament or judiciary, resides. It was necessary to invent the idea that absence (and later
abstaining, an easier case to make) is equivalent to concurrence in the Security Council in
an attempt to provide United Nations legitimization for Truman's "police action"--the
Korean War .
This history illustrates well the Marxist view of law as part of the “superstructure”
essentially determined by the materialist base despite proclamations that law is “natural”,
a “categorical imperative”, or “granted by the gods”.
Even though confluence between justice and the special interests represented by
the U.S. government may occasionally occur 67[some analysts cite Haiti as a somewhat
surprising exception to the general support of repressive regimes], more likely they will
be contradictory. Were there an effective, law-abiding, reformed, and democratic UN
already established, a UN police function would be welcome and salutary. Even a military
capability might be useful in exceptional circumstances. However, a precondition to
expanding the power of the UN is to achieve legitimacy by restructuring the UN to
conform to the Basic Principles of Governance. Currently, however, the Security Council
(and hence the UN) is being manipulated and exploited to promote the interests
represented by the U.S. government, to the discredit of the UN. Greater military force at
the disposal of the UN in its current condition would likely lead to greater discrediting of
the UN, and greater injustice. The only currently available alternative to exploitation as
an imperialist tool is gridlock and inaction.
Those who have it do not easily relinquish power. Bullies do not like laws or rules
which interfere with the use of force--or if there are rules, they apply them or enforce
66
This is the term German diplomat Hans von Herwart used when asked for whom the concentration camps
were built. von Herwart was posted to the German embassy in Moscow at the launching of Plan Barbarossa.
In the museum in Dachau, the first camp built, period newspaper articles explaining that the camps were
built for communist and social democrats--for German dissidents, Jewish or not--are displayed. After the
defeat at Stalingrad the concentration camps for communists became extermination camps for Jews (and
others).
67 Noam Chomsky cites the correlation between aid from the U.S. government and torture.
140
them selectively only against the weak. Political prospects for changing U.S. government
policy with respect to the UN in any substantive way seem very dim68.
NGOs could become more businesslike, they could immediately set up a peoples’
parliament as a “shadow” UN to try to represent the aspirations of the peoples of the
world, to try to achieve consensus among the peoples of the world that may embarrass
governments into making greater efforts to achieve greater consensus among themselves
as well69--they can increase legitimacy by establishing credentialling procedures for
SVDO’s; or, alternatively, or simultaneously, advantage can be taken of the initiative
process where it is already legally established and available, of the Lockian theory of the
social contract, to achieve legitimacy which overcomes and overwhelms legal objections
by the entrenched powers in government who have written laws to protect their power
and privilege.
The unrealistically optimistic hopes for a peaceful and just world that
accompanied the foundation of the United Nations after the destruction of World War II
are evaporating. It is hoped that it will not require World War III before world rule of law
is taken seriously.
An NGO Parliament (or “Second Assembly”) is a similar proposal70. The first
step is to organize a Council of sympathetic and qualified NGO’s. An NGO parliament
could be established immediately by the NGO’s themselves. Actually, a preferable
version has been offered and analyzed. First, it is preferable to define oneself positively,
not in terms of what one is not--NGO--Non-Governmental Organization. Second, it is
preferable, if one wishes to advance the concept of a family of humanity, to emphasize
68
In fact, the current political climate is so adverse that long time supporters of the UN are maintaining a
low profile. Evan as large, rich, and prestigious organization as the American Association for the
Advancement of Science cannot prevail in encouraging the U.S. government to participate in UNESCO. If
the UN does not cease producing politically embarrassing impediments to U.S. government foreign policy
[as UNESCO did in studying the control of the global media, the resulting biases in reporting and
availability of stories on the wire services, in its support of a New International Information and
Communication Order, or in supporting peace and disarmament education], the U.S. government will
continue its attacks on the UN [As Clinton committed recently in calling for the abolition of “obsolete” UN
agencies]. There has been an orchestration of attacks on the “inefficiency” and “mismanagement” in the
UN, charges which can be made with some validity against all human institutions, and which could be made
with far greater validity against the Pentagon. Time magazine, for example, continued the attack for several
weeks, in a classic case of “penny wise, pound foolish”. The total regular UN budget is about one-third of
one percent of the money the U.S. government spends upon the military (Dept. of “Defense”, DoE, NASA,
Veteran’s Administration, interest on debt acquired to purchase the weapons).
After much frustration in encouraging NGOs at the UN Conference on the Relationship
between Disarmament and Development to conduct business instead of listening to
“public relations” reports from the UN and being entertained by interesting speakers, it is
gratifying to see NGOs conduct parallel conferences, and to formulate policy documents
like Agenda 21 at the Rio de Janeiro UN Conference on the Environment and
Development. It is time to take the next step--to meet on a regular basis, perhaps in the
chambers of the Trusteeship Council
69
.70 There are more than 4800 International NGOs registered with the International Association of NGOs in
Geneva [Lopez (1995) 37].
141
supranationalism rather than nationalism, or even internationalism. Third, it should not be
called “The Second Assembly”, implying second class status. It should be called
something like “The Peoples’ Assembly”, or “Popular Assembly”.
The UN, of course, is not democratic. It is not even demographic. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali assesses the UN as being incapable of being sympathetic to democracy on
a national level because it is not democratic itself. I have long advocated democratic
election of UN representatives. The current system is as unsatisfactory as having our
federal representatives appointed by the Governor and answerable to her would be.
Actually, I have been promoting a much more profound democracy, one in which people
are allowed to choose their own (multiple) identities: religious, ethnic, ideological, issue
or cause, age, gender, occupational and professional, trade unionist, parental,
environmentalist, or even the standard geographic, whatever they choose, instead of
having a geographic political identity thrust upon them. The “representative” who was
assigned to me as “my representative” because of the geographic location of my
residence, was a Republican so stupid that, as Molly Ivins says, "If he were any dumber
one would have to water him." When initially running for office, three times he was asked
(twice by me) what ideas he had to protect our lives and health by pollution controls and
general environmental protection measures. Three times he repeated the same answer,
"Eliminate carpools!" It is an insult to portray him as representing me. With my proposed
system one would have multiple votes that could be apportioned among candidates
according to one's priorities. With multiple votes, one could make that old adage, "Vote
early and often", a reality. I have advocated that the NGO’s adopt such a system as a test
bed for democracy.
There has been a problem of “phony” NGO’s, that are really fronts for
governments. Iran sent some phony NGO’s to the Vienna United Nations Conference on
Human Rights. This could be avoided; democratic qualifications for NGO’s could be
established; and the unfortunate current emphasis on nationalism could be reduced by
allowing only those NGO’s which qualify as SVDO's [Supranational Voluntary
Democratic Organizations] to participate. The supranational character of “S”VDOs
would contrast with the national character of governments. It could be satisfied by , say, a
minimum presence on three continents, The parochial, nationalistic character of many
NGO’s could be overcome by requiring their involvement in a supranational
organization, much the way geographically limited religious groups formed the World
Council of Churches. The voluntary nature of S”V”DO's contrasts with the coercive
nature of governments. The democratic nature of SV”D”O’s could be guaranteed by
criteria of democratic internal procedures.
Such a parliament would lack any authority, much like the General Assembly,
which can only pass non binding resolutions [and not even that if the Security Council is
considering the mattervii], but it could and should attempt to develop and express the
consensus aspirations of the peoples of the world. It could and should act as a global
people’s lobby and conscience, encouraging and pressuring the United Nations to emulate
its example. It could strengthen networking between popular organizations. If the
recommendations that the electorate be allowed to choose their own [perhaps multiple]
identities in accordance with the Democratic Maxim were adopted, it would open new
142
frontiers in democracy71. If the peoples of the world can agree, why not governments?
[This is further analyzed in Dittmann [(1989)].
A Peoples' Assembly, or an assembly of NGO’s could be expected to represent the
aspirations of the peoples of the world's better than the world's governments.
Governments are often repressive, undemocratic, and, at minimum, representative of
special interests. A People’s Assembly, however, faces legitimacy problems of achieving
adequate representation for all peoples. Poor people, especially those living in poor
countries, are not well organized or represented. Providing adequate representation for
them requires special effort. However, a consensus world conscience is rapidly
developing among the world's governments as attested by the impressively high rate of
concurrence even among split votes in the General Assembly (neglecting the unanimous
votes and the resolutions passed without a vote, or with a voice vote), as mentioned
above. Even governments with the most repressive, brutal, and dictatorial records vote
with the consensus world conscience in the abstract when their interests are not directly
involved. A partial explanation for the abysmally low record of consensus of the United
States government may be that it defines its "vital interests" as practically global in scope.
Experience with NGO’s indicates that even higher concurrence can be expected among
peoples of the world than among governments.
Summary of the advantages of a SVDO (People’s) Assembly:
1. NGO’s can convene immediately as a shadow United Nations. They could
adopt credentialling criteria for representatives.
2. SVDO’s can help develop the concept of “global citizenship” and “global
supranational community”.
3. The assembly can immediately act as a shadow conscience and display of
efficiency for the United Nations.
4. The Assembly could be a test bed for substantial democracy, in which
essentially everyone would have (multiple) representatives of their views and interests. It
might demonstrate to the few rich that they have not so much to fear from the many poor.
Summary of the problems confronting a SVDO (People’s) Assembly:
1. Lack of adequate organization and representation by poor peoples (although
NGO experience indicates that good will of activists, even prosperous activists, can
extend far in concern for others).
2. Funding difficulties, despite the minuscule funding required compared to other
human activities (e.g., weapons, or tobacco, or pet food, or cosmetics).
Because most people’s political identities are imposed on a geographic basis, many people never are
allowed to have a representative. No one for whom they vote is ever elected, not because there are not many
people in the world who vote for the same candidate with them, but because not many people in their
assigned geographic district vote with them. As long as a candidate obtains the endorsement of a minimum
number of voters, a voting seat in the Parliament would be guaranteed. Each voter might be allowed
multiple endorsements for multiple candidates, which they could cast for different purposes--environmental
protection, liberation of women, trade unionism, professionalism, or concern for a special cause or issue.
This way essentially everyone could be represented, compared to the “winner-take-all” system currently
used.
71
143
3. Resolutions would not be legally binding, therefore it is inadequate and
reformist, albeit still very valuable as a forum for debate, much like the General
Assembly provides for governments. Adequate solutions require law, but discussion and
debate helps.
As expected by radicals and others alike, universities, those wonderful
institutions, became targets of reprisals. Our Department was also a victim. We were
scheduled in the Master Plan for Higher Education in California to begin our graduate
program in 1968. The Department Chair was tardy in drafting the proposal. I assumed the
task, but it was too late, the universities were being punished for being centers of anti-war
activity. The loss of our graduate program was part of the punishment. Our graduate
program didn’t commence until 1996--28 years later! Talk about carrying a grudge!
What is needed is supranational institutional adequacy, the establishment of
global institutions, of a “United Nations” System, potentially capable of achieving
common consensus goals (vs. special or vested interests). At minimum, institutions
adequate to protect and promote human rights globally are needed in order to avoid such
disasters as the destruction of Yugoslavia by NATO. No one ever gave a war without
atrocities. Like Phil Ochs sang, “When they give a war without blood and gore, I’ll be the
first to go.” There is no such thing as a “just” war. All wars are atrocities that produce
copious innocent victims. Bombing and war erodes the fabric of society. It reduces the
level of civilization to barbarism. It is especially distressing to see human beings and their
rights degraded by using them as excuses for killing, destruction, and violations of human
rights. That is, to make the world safe for hypocrisy.
Weapons, once accumulated, carry a compulsion to be used. If they harbored no
imperialist ambition, the mad bombers would be considered to reflect a paucity of
imagination. Human beings and their rights are delicate. Much needs to be done to reduce
national boundaries to matters of administrative convenience, so that one need not worry
much about which side of a boundary one lives, that one’s rights will be respected on
either side.
NATO’s bombing can be contrasted with UNESCO’s plan to promote human
rights. UNESCO had requested that I organize an international academic/scientific human
rights delegation to the former Yugoslavia. The delegation was to operate in an impartial,
objective manner in order to raise human rights above the level of being exploited as a
political football. The delegation was to collect the same data, ask the same questions,
and use the same procedures in all of its visitations. Evidence of discrimination in
employment, matriculation, promotion would be sought in scientific institutes and
universities. A report would be issued indicating that the world was monitoring human
rights. Recommendations for affirmative action programs, human rights courts, or
whatever else seemed appropriate to enhance human rights could be made. Bombs
destroyed those plans. The U.S. spends billions of dollars on the destructive forces of
NATO. It refuses to pay its few million dollars of dues in UNESCO.
144
Many global problems exceed the authority, jurisdiction, and/or
competence of governments, especially protection of human rights, the global habitat and
international security through world rule of law. Its minimal ambition is to resolve the
problems of insecurity due to massively organized violence and environmental
degradation [although much more needs to be accomplished].
The mission and goals of the United Nations are the primary and critical
considerations in proposals to make the United Nations more “effective”. The United
Nations will continue to suffer reduced legitimacy, stature, and effectiveness to the degree
that it is perceived as a tool to promote special interests at the expense of common
interests, and, even more significantly, the degree to which it is ignored, as NATO did in
its aggression against Yugoslavia. Of course, the UN is powerless to address the
aggression because not only the U.S., but also Great Britain, the two primary aggressors,
sit on the Security Council.
In its attempts to represent common interests, the UN has met with little formal
success through the efforts of the General Assembly. Witness the fate of the New
International Economic Order and the New International Information and Communication
Order. Other efforts, like UN Conferences called by the General Assembly, on the
Environment and Development (UNCED), on Science, Technology, and Development,
the special sessions on disarmament, and on the Relationship between Disarmament and
Development, on Population and Development, express global consensus sentiments of
governments, have lead to the establishment of committees to continue deliberations, but
have not had profound effect.
To lend credence to the cavalier dismissal of the General Assembly as a “debate
society”, witness the ineffectiveness of multitudinous (non-binding) resolutions passed by
overwhelming majorities that are blithely ignored.
While the General Assembly, the United Nations agencies, and other elements of
the United Nations system are generally improving their performance, increasing their
competence, monitoring and assessing problems, and formulating remedies, the Security
Council is moving in a contrary direction. Instead of strengthening the United Nations
into an agent through which world rule of law in accordance with basic principles of
democracy and justice could be achieved, it is being discredited and delegitimized by
being exploited on behalf of vested interests.
The degree to which the United Nations is used to promote special interests, like
control over the petroleum in the Persian Gulf, is the degree to which the common
interest is sacrificed. A United Nations in the service of special interests means a world of
continuing war, conflict, injustice, poverty, and insecurity. Only a United Nations
consonant with the Basic Principles of Governance can adequately address global
problems and usher in an age of peace, justice, and security. The rate at which global
problems are exacerbating makes urgent the establishment of supranational institutions,
of a United Nations system adequate to its mission.
To return to a more optimistic scenario--a reformed and strengthened United
Nations--the standard of operation which it should strive to achieve can be illustrated by
two cases: Iraq, generally considered a success, and Bosnia, generally considered a
failure. I select Bosnia with some apology, for the alert reader might ask, “If Bosnia,
145
which was fighting a civil war of secession, is considered a failure, then what about East
Timor which was simply invaded? Or the invasion of Panama? or defending the
internationally guaranteed elections in Viet Nam72, which were scheduled to be held in
June 1956, when they were prevented by subversion and ultimately by military invasion?
Or the massive killing in Angola by the side (originally supported by apartheid forces)
that lost the election? Or Palestine? Or the occupation of parts of Syria and Egypt, and
Lebanon?”--far from a complete list! However, in the corporate-controlled press these
are not considered failures of the United Nations, and therefore are not generally
considered to be failures by the general public.
A. The War against Iraq
Unfortunately, interest in the United Nations seems to focus on the use of military
power. The United Nations commands little attention in the press except when it is
engaged in military action. When Bush launched the war against Iraq, the Boston Globe
proclaimed, "The United Nations’ coming of age".73
The legitimacy of the United Nations' role in the war can be no greater than the
legitimacy of the war itself. The United States Congress later exposed the illegal support
to Iraq, involving misappropriation of funds and financial guarantees for nuclear weapon
and military purposes, provided by the administration in the period preceding the war.
The encouragement by the United States ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie74, to seize at
least part of Kuwait has been confirmed in documentation refuting her long-delayed
denials before Congress. The documentation was reluctantly provided after prolonged
procrastination. In addition, there is suspicion that the CIA promoted the provocative
actions by Kuwait (prohibiting civilian overflights, slant drilling into the Iraqi part of the
Ramalla oil field, violating OPEC production quotas). Whether Iraq merely
misinterpreted Bush's instructions, whether Bush deliberately encouraged Iraq to reannex
Kuwait, which had been severed under British control, as a trap to allow Bush, his family,
and oilmen cohorts to profit from the opportunity, and/or for the United States to obtain a
petroleum stranglehold over trade competitors, Japan and Europe, or whether Thatcher
72
Guaranteed by the Geneva Accords of 1954.
In the United States press, the war against Iraq was portrayed as a sign of revitalization and legitimization
of the United Nations, which hadn't fought a war since Korea, and hadn't mounted a significant military
campaign since the Congo operation. It is distressing that projection of military force is considered to be the
index of maturation [ to the neglect of the establishment and substantial work of United Nations agencies, of
the signing of global treaties, conventions, and covenants, of the resolutions and the development of
international regimens like the New International Economic Order and the New International Information
Order, of the case law in the International Court of Justice, of United Nations activities ranging over the
spectrum of global and international affairs. It is little recognized how much is being accomplished. Were a
democratic global parliament to be established, much legislation could be effectively self-enforcing. For
example, GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO notwithstanding, the parliament could legislate that countries are
not required to import [or can impose tariffs on] goods which are produced in violation of UNEP
environmental protection standards, in violation of United Nations ILO minimum wage and fringe benefit
standards, or in violation of [yet to be established] United Nations OSHA standards for workplace safety.
Since countries wish to improve their balance of trade, which is enhanced by reduced imports, legal
justification for doing so provides essentially self-enforcing legislation.]
74 Saad Al-Bazaz, editor-in-chief of the official Iraqi daily Al-Jumhuriyah, argues that between 1985 and
1990 the Iraqi leadership received signals that it interpreted as Washington’s acceptance of Iraq as the
major power in the region.
73
146
convinced Bush to reverse course after their meeting is as difficult to determine as
motivations are in general. Certainly, Kuwait, as a British imperial creation, had pro
forma legitimization. The right of a British civil servant to "draw lines in the sand" to
separate the masses of people from the oil wealth and to establish a compliant, procapitalist, repressive, religiously-intolerant, obscenely wealthy monarchy which engages
in massive human rights violations and denies citizenship (and share of the oil wealth)
even to peoples (The "Bedoun") who have lived a nomadic style of life there for
generations [Moorehead (1992) 12] is not generally questioned by current governments,
especially not by the Security Council, which fear opening a "can of worms", in which the
legitimacy of many governments would be open to challenge. Despite the complexity of
the issues of economic justice, world peace, environmental, and other transnational
problems that challenge status quo borders and sacrosanct state sovereignty, their urgency
demands that they be addressed.
Even were the view accepted that the reannexation of Kuwait was a simple case of
aggression and invasion of a legitimate sovereign state, other problems of legitimacy of
the war remain. Even the concept of bellum justum involves a weighing of means versus
ends, costs and benefits. Furthermore, it is a question of "Whose costs?" and "Who
benefits?" Let us try to distinguish the aspirations of the peoples of the world, "common
interests", largely represented by the General Assembly, from those “special” interests
represented by Bush, by the United States government and by many other governments by
and through the Security Council. In order to restore the “legitimate” [per Bush]
government of the Al-Sabah family in Kuwait, the human rights of the Bedoun, who have
lived there for centuries, but are denied citizenship because they are not part of the royal
extended family, had to be denied. The human rights of the Philippine housekeepers, who
are raped so frequently that the Philippine government forbade them from taking jobs in
Kuwait, had to be denied. The right of the peoples of the world to participate in the oil
wealth had to be denied.
Iraq expected to inherit the role of the fallen Shah of Iran in acting as the surrogate
"gendarme of the gulf" [Al-Bazaz, (1992)]. Whether it misinterpreted Bush's intentions,
whether Bush deliberately misled it, or whether he changed his mind after meeting with
Thatcher is not certain. The fact that Iraq was using much of its wealth for domestic
development instead of depositing much of it in western banks, as the Al Sabah and
Saudi families do, may also have caused considerable resentment. It has resulted in the
unprecedented abuse of state sovereignty [Iraq’s] by the United Nations. This may
encourage those who consider state sovereignty to be a major impediment to effective
United Nations action. However, it is likely that it will establish a precedent for the
violation of the (second class) sovereignty only of Third World states, which are not
client states of Security Council Permanent Members. The sovereignty of Security
Council Permanent Members is not threatened. The client states already suffer
impositions on their sovereignty by virtue of being client states, even though their patron
state with a permanent seat on the Security Council can prevent the UN itself from
infringing upon their sovereignty. Infringements by UN related institutions, like the
World Bank or the IMF, are manifestations of their client state status.
B. A Normative Middle East Policy for a Reformed United Nations System
147
What if Bush or the Security Council had been willing to yield to the compulsion
of geography, and to accept limited dismantling of imperial prerogatives from the
colonial era by conceding that Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq? --Or what if the
opportunity had been used to obtain concessions for the common interest? Since Iraq was
entrapped in an embarrassing pro forma violation of sovereignty, what if Bush or the
Security Council had been willing to take advantage of the opportunity in which he had
(perhaps unwittingly) entrapped Iraq in order to negotiate sharing part of the (yet to be
declared) Common Heritage of Humanity, petroleum, at minimum to the disputed oil in
the Rumalla field and in Kuwait, to be used for financial support for United Nations
agencies, for regional development, and for domestic use? [The concept of "Common
Heritages of Humanity", including non-renewable resources like petroleum, has long been
promoted75. The General Assembly has even passed resolutions declaring space and the
sea to be common heritages of humanity. One hundred forty two states (including the
United States) have signed the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (as of 18 May 1995).viii ] The potential revenues76
from a severance tax on international shipments of petroleum represent astronomical
numbers compared to the United Nations budget77. What if Bush or the Security Council
had supported the expansion of multi-ethnic, secular, religiously-tolerant, more
democratic government (perhaps a constitutional monarchy as a compromise), and
enhancement of human, trade union, and citizenship rights, especially for the Bedoun,
and had been willing to exploit Iraq's embarrassment to those ends?78; What if Bush or
the Security Council had not been unalterably opposed to the dismantling of all weapons
After reading Harrison Brown’s book The Challenge of Man’s Future, [Brown (1954)] in which the
use of fossil fuels was plotted on a millenium time scale, it occurred to me that wars to control petroleum
could be anticipated. In order to avoid this I advocated development of the concept of Common Heritages
of Humanity for non-renewable resources by establishing a modest severance tax on petroleum shipped
across national borders as a direct form of revenue for the United Nations in a letter to Adlai Stevenson in
1965 when he was United Nations ambassador. I never received a reply. Thirty years later I still consider it
a good idea.
76 Iraq’s prewar OPEC quota was 3.14 million b/d [~ $23 thousand million/year]; Kuwait’s quota was 1.5
million b/d [~ $11 thousand million/year].
77 The regular budget of the United Nations Organization for 1985 was $806 million--two-thirds of the
annual budget of the New York City police force, and just under one third of the cost of a Trident
submarine. The per capita cost of the regular United Nations budget for Americans was about 86 cents per
person annually. The General Assembly decides on both the United Nations budget and the percentage to
be contributed by each Member State. The latter was determined by a complex formula in which national
income was the major element. By that formula, the United States would be liable for more than 28 per cent
of the Organization's budget. However, in 1972, the General Assembly had agreed to the American request
that its assessment not exceed 25 per cent. "Unilateral reduction by the United States of its proportional
assessment, as determined by the General Assembly, would be widely seen as non-compliance with a
Charter commitment', according to Mr. Perez de Cuellar [United Nations Chronicles (1988)].
78 Iraq had ratified twelve human rights covenants; Kuwait only five. As long as Kuwait was the 19th
province of Iraq, the twelve human rights covenants were legally applicable and binding. Seven of them
were legally quashed when Kuwait was again independent. However, reversing human rights covenants was
never a declared motive for the war.
75
148
of mass destruction in the Middle East (proposed by Iraq79)? What if Bush or the
Security Council had not opposed the removal of all troops from occupied territories (also
proposed by Iraq on 12 August 1990 and again, in modified form, on 23 August 199080)?
Bush and the Security Council preferred to initiate a war in the oil fields with its
disastrous consequences in order to avoid all of these potential outcomes. In the process
Bush also established military control by the United States government over much of one
of the world's most critical resources--oil. Given increasing competition in the global
marketplace, a replay of the imperial trade, resource, and market conflict called “World
War II”, is not unthinkable. The cast of characters would be similar. The United Statesled Western Hemisphere arrayed against a continental Europe led by Germany, and AsiaPacific led by Japan. Note that neither Germany nor Japan holds veto power. Currently,
the United States holds a powerful bargaining card in trade negotiations. It can
significantly impact competitive economies by interrupting the flow of petroleum.
Bush's "macho-style" in support of special interests depended upon brute force
and war--to make others "cave-in" [quoted from Bush in Australian Financial Review
(31 July 1992)]. Given his goals, diplomacy was inadequate, force was necessary.
However, common interests are best (perhaps only) achievable through the rule of law,
negotiation, and diplomacy--allowing credit for face-saving concessions. Were Iraq to
have been allowed to take some of the credit for sharing oil wealth with the world
community, allowed to take credit for advances in human rights, in democracy, in
secularism, in religious tolerance, even in avoiding the ecological catastrophe of a war in
the oil fields, likely much could have been accomplished through negotiation. Iraq
repeatedly proposed negotiations, especially given the embarrassing position into which
Iraq was perhaps entrapped, but Bush and the Security Council would not countenance
proposals for negotiations--even when they did not emanate from Iraq [Chomsky (1990)].
Bush [with the acquiescence of the Security Council] was intent upon having his war81.
What if there had been an effective, democratic, reformed United Nations which
honored the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the UN Declaration on Human
Rights, General Assembly resolutions, and internationally recognized principles of
governance and jurisprudence, and which recognized, monitored, and enforced the human
rights of the Bedoun? What if the principle of “Common Heritage of Humanity” had
already been applied to non-renewable resources like petroleum, so that the United
79
Iraq proposed that one of the first resolutions ever passed by the General Assembly (A/45/435) --to
eliminate all weapons of mass destruction--be implemented in the Middle East. The United Nations study
on the Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East noted, “All states in the area have
declared themselves in favor of a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone...” Bush adamantly refused to
consider the removal of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, then he used the potential for the development
of such weapons as the most persuasive rationale for the war.
80 On 12 August 1990 Iraq proposed its withdrawal from Kuwait in conjunction with the withdrawal of all
military occupying forces in the Middle East (in accordance with several United Nations resolutions).
On 23 August 1990 Iraq again proposed to withdraw from Kuwait coupled with a request for
concessional control of the Rumalla oil field (which Kuwait was accused of slant drilling with the help of a
United States firm accused of being a CIA operative), a freeing of hostages, and termination of sanctions
without any precondition that the United States withdraw troops from the region [Chomsky (1990)].
81 It has been noted that in his most bellicose statements, Bush used the first person singular almost
exclusively.
149
Nations had a direct source of revenue? Suppose a United Nations parliament had already
legislated a severance tax on international shipments of oil in order to fund regional
development and to support the work of United Nations agencies. A war in the oil fields
to control two thirds of the worlds’ proven petroleum reserves, with the use of explosives
equivalent to seven and one half Hiroshimas, would have lost much of its rationale.
There are several factors which mitigate United Nations culpability for the war
and the consequent ecological disaster: It is only the Security Council [from which most
United Nations members are excluded] which had the authority and responsibility to
provide legitimacy for the warfare conducted by members. Resolution 678 authorized "all
necessary means" by member states "to implement...Resolution 660...and to restore
international peace...". Only advocates of "peace through war" philosophy could find
authorization for war in Resolution 678, especially since Iraq had repeatedly offered to
peacefully withdraw from Kuwait. What Bush [and the Security Council] found
unacceptable in Iraq's proposals was the observance and uniform enforcement of longviolated United Nations Resolutions calling for the removal of military occupying forces
in the Middle East (by Israel in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan), as well as the
elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East (in accordance with one of
the earliest Resolution ever passed by the General Assembly). Furthermore, Resolution
678 could be considered to have passed only with (historically precedented) interpretation
of convenience of the United Nations Charter [in which abstention is interpreted as
concurrence]. Also, since Bush refused to commit any troops to the United Nations, since
he refused to allow United States operations to be conducted under United Nations flag,
since he refused to allow a United States General to serve as the United Nations
commander, the war was launched as a coalition using the United Nations as a flimsy
cover, rather than as a bone fide United Nations operation82.
Although a cogent argument can be made that the police are an extension of the
military, a military seems more consonant with the aggressive promotion of vested
interests. A police force seems better designed to defend the common interests of society.
Great damage to the image and legitimacy of the United Nations was incurred,
even in the West, with greater effect in the Third World, more still in Arab and Muslim
countries, especially in Iraq and its allies.
In the alternate scenarios involving a reformed United Nations, there is no
necessity for military intervention!--no necessity for “peacekeeping”, much less
“peacemaking” forces. That is not to say that such a scenario was guaranteed of coming
to fruition, that ultimately military intervention might not have been necessary, but it
seems very, very unlikely, and, of course, it was not given a chance. It was never tried.
There are reasons why it wasn’t.
C. The Tragedy of Bosnia
Even if the Security Council had had a United Nations “Foreign Legion” at its command, even if no
armed forces of states had been involved, the structural delegitimacy of the United Nations, its lack of
institutionalization of the Basic Principles of Governance herein offered, would still have made the war
illegitimate, especially if all attempts at peaceful solution through negotiation were rejected by the United
Nations.
82
150
The tragedy of Bosnia is not unusual. It is similar to the business-as-usual process
of nation building which has traditionally established borders through a contest of
strength between peoples who have developed identities (“nationalities”, similar to
“gangs”) through which they then control “turf" (“national territory”)83. The cries of
anguish accompanying the process are similar to those that have historically occurred, as
are the aspirations for a better, less tragic, less agonizing method of conducting human
affairs, especially those of “nationhood".
After Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia, the central square of
Zagreb [Trg Ban Jelacic, formerly Trg Republike (Plaza of the Republic)]. was draped
with banners pathetically and naively appealing to the United Nations to come to its
rescue. There were repeated appeals for the United States, for the United Nations, for the
world, for anyone, to come to their aid. The analogy, which comes to mind, is that of
another kind of conflagration—a fire. With some trepidation about overextending the
analogy, let us pursue it. Current attempts at assistance seem like a “bucket brigade"—
wholly inadequate to the problem. Confronted by an out-of-control conflagration,
inflammable materials are kept distant or removed (the weapons embargo). Neighboring
buildings are defended (troops in Macedonia). It was too late to develop and enforce a fire
(human rights) code, to establish an adequate tax base with which a police department
and a fire department with fire fighting equipment (“peace-makers”) could be organized.
Precautionary measures—fire codes, police and fire departments, as well as all of
the other necessary institutional elements required [legislative, administrative, judicial]
are more easily supported after tragedies, much like the League of Nations and the United
Nations were organized after World Wars I and II, respectively. Even the short war
against Iraq, which emphasized the growing contradiction between economic and military
power, resulted in a spate of informal proposals to reform the Security Council to reflect
the changing distribution of economic power. In order to avoid future Bosnias and to
prevent the spread of conflict, the world needs to further develop its Fire Code and Fire
Department.
Fire inspectors and the Fire Code conflict with the absolute interpretation of the
values expressed in the phrase, “My home is my castle”. Similarly, and currently,
internal, domestic matters are considered to be the province of state sovereignty, a
“castle” with an absolutely sovereign ruler (the government), in which the United Nations
should not interfere. The problems in the former Yugoslavia originated primarily
internally [This is not to be unaware of the effect of external forces, the anti-Communist
crusade, military threats, economic warfare, and the campaign to foment ethnic
conflict]84. Certainly, were human rights respected rather than “self-determination” [or
83
An insightful analysis of the linguistic elements involved in the process of forming national identities,
especially as involved in the dissolution of Yugoslavla and its replacement with new entities--“nationalities” ("narodnosti”), “peoples” (“narodi”), “minorities” (“manjine”) is provided by Paul Garde
in the UNESCO Courier (June 1993) 39-43. The root “rod” indicates “birth". A stork is called “roda".
84 Although conflict there is usually described as “ethnic”, the current primary combatants are all Slavs,
essentially genetically identical, speaking the same language (albeit with two alphabets). They were divided
by different conquerors and historical developments (splitting of the Roman Empire and of the Catholic
Church, and the rise of Islam through the Ottoman Empire) into three main religious groups, Roman
Catholic Christian, Eastern Orthodox Christian, and Muslim. The greatest hatred is between the Christians,
151
“tyrannies of the majority”], so that one would not suffer discrimination regardless of the
borders within which one lived, were borders to become merely matters of administrative
convenience rather than “gang turf”, such tragedies as Bosnia would not likely occur. The
work of the United Nations Trusteeship Council is considered to be essentially
concluded, perhaps prematurely. Could not the Council be used for continuing trusteeship
purposes when a state falls into disarray, much as bankrupt corporations enter
receivership? Such a procedure needs to be formulated and formalized.
with attendant cultural differences and hostility even for those who have rejected formal religion [such as
the members of the former Communist Party later “League” (“Savez”) of Communists]. The dispute was
largely economic in origin--between the prosperous, Europeanized north and the subsidized south. The
major source of hard currency in former Yugoslavia was from tourism along the Dalmatian coast (followed
closely by money transferred home by overseas workers). After the Yugoslav Communist Party essentially
was divided into separate parties for each of the six republics, a Croatian nationalist, Dr. Savka DabcevicKucar, an academic economist, became head of the Croatian League of Communists. Huge protests calling
for hard currency to go directly to the workers (i.e., to Croatians) instead of being shared through Belgrade,
occurred as early as 1971. Tito, a Croatian, ordered in Serbian police who quelled the protest. However, the
process of decentralization of budgets and government continued.
Nationalism in Croatia emerged again in the late 1980s, 1argely in response to the fanning of
Serbian nationalism by Milosevic. The fascist “Ustasi” emigres, who fled when Hitler was defeated, long
suffering in exile far from their homeland (“domovina”), returned to Croatia en mass (with their progeny,
their politics, their money and its political influence) in an emotionally-moving repatriation celebrated
during the International Folklore Festival [“Smotra Medjunarodna Folklorika”] (which now had become
almost exclusively a Croatian event). Croatian protest against Serbian political hegemony, limitations on
Croatian economic privilege (as the second most prosperous republic, after Slovenia), resurgence of
Croatian “cultural” (i.e., Roman Catholic) expression manifested itself in the election of a former Partisan
general, Franjo Tudjman, who had been ejected from the party for national chauvinism. Just as Hitler had
“purified” the German language, e.g., replacing “telephone” with “fernsprecher”, emphasis was placed on
purely “Croatian” terminology—”kruh”, not “hleb” for “bread”, “vlak”, not “voz” for “train”, etc. Only
hamburgers, no “cevapcici” was now available on Trg (Plaza) Ban Jelacic (a Croatian feudal hero),
Revolutionary place and street names were replaced by those of nationalist heroes. The Cyrillic alphabet
was eliminated from names on train depots. In the spirit of “self-determination” it was declared that
henceforth “Croatian” policies would rule in Croatia, without much indication what “Croatian” policies
would be like, beyond the “cultural imperialism” already evident and imposed. To the 600,000 Serbs living
in Croatia, the meaning of the imposition of “Croatian" policies upon Serbs and other non-Croatians seemed
clear—instead of comprising a plurality in Yugoslavia they would become a minority in Croatia, with the
expectation, at minimum, of discrimination, perhaps of extermination. Some of them declared their own
brand of self-determination in the proclaimed, short-lived Republic of Krajina, within the preexisting
borders of the newly independent Republic of Croatia. The Croatian government, which had used the claim
of “self determination” to justifiy its independence form Yugoslavia, objected to this alien expression of
self-determination and restored the territorial integrity of Croatia through military intervention and control.
Yugoslavia didn’t invade Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosna-Herzegovina. They have been part of Yugoslavia
(originally the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes) since World War I. However, if Yugoslav troops
had tried to remain in these breakaway republics, it would have been considered to constitute military
occupation by many ethnically orientied residents. The discrimination against Serbs within Croatia seems to
be less egregious than the discrimination against Croatians (and Muslims) in Serbia, but the similarities in
treatment seem greater than the differences. Abuses are the most severe in disputed territory. It is difficult to
occupy territory with a hostile population (such as Indonesia is doing in its occupation of East Timor, with
massive killing and repression, but with little publicity). Borders can be much more easily changed when
the population is friendly to the military force~~when they are considered protectors and defenders-liberators, rather than occupiers and repressors—hence “ethnic cleansing”, with all of its abuses and
tragedy.
152
Instead, the United Nations, depending largely upon the United States and United
Kingdom governments, tried to impose “ethnic”85 solutions in the form of the VanceOwen plan. Instead of supporting those elements within all ethnic groups which can rise
above their ethnicity in support of human rights and full-fledged citizenship for all, they
proposed that the former Yugoslavia be divided among different ethnic groups in the
name of “self-determination”.
D. Normative Bosnian Policy for a Reformed United Nations
How might a reformed United Nations have handled the situation? What could
still be done? Before Germany rushed to recognize the proclaimed independent states
carved out of the former Yugoslavia [and influenced the EC as a whole to follow suit], it
would have been wise to have insisted that they agree to continue to recognize the human
rights (and other) treaties to which they were committed as part of Yugoslavia.
[Yugoslavia had ratified more human rights covenants than any other country (21 out of
25) before unified Germany exceeded that record with 23 ratifications]. It should have
been required that legal recognition of the human rights conventions be confirmed by
parliamentary ratification86. [Eight had been ratified by Slovenia, none by Croatia or
Bosna-Herzegovina as of 1 August 1992.] It would have been wise to further negotiate
additional safeguards--international monitoring, jurisdiction by human rights courts
(perhaps the Human Rights Court of the European Community in Strasbourg) both
domestic and international; affirmative action programs; elimination of cultural
imperialism; etc.—in return for recognition and support, both military and economic.
The movement for secession provided an opportunity to achieve a higher standard of
governmental conduct--a standard that could be later disseminated and emulated globally
to avoid the tragic problems which religious fanaticism, intolerance, and chauvinism
create. Ratification of human rights covenants, which even Yugoslavia had not yet
ratified, could also have been negotiated87.
“Racist” is placed in quotes because it is not really racism per se. [As mentioned above, the Croats,
Serbs, and Bosnians are all closely related. Genetically, they are essentially identical. They adopted the
religions of different conquerors and dominators, and developed cultural, ethnic differences as a
consequence.] However, its essential characteristics are identical: hatred, discrimination, and intolerance.
“Ethnicism” might be a more accurate term, but it is awkward and not in general use.
86 It is time for human rights covenants to become the law of the planet if they achieve a high (minimum)
degree of consensus. Govertments should no longer be allowed to consider human rights covenants to be
matters of voluntary (and reversible) compliance codified in (abrogatable) treaties.
87 One does not hear much anymore of the “better dead than red” slogan, which has largely had its way
[many people are now dead instead of red], especially in places like Yugoslavia, and which continues to be
an impediment to human rights, both political and economic. Milan Panic, former President of Yugoslavia,
supports political (not economic) human rights--especially religious (and cultural) tolerance. He is perhaps
somewhat motivated by the anti-communist role played by religion. He is a militant anti-Communist, as
would be expected of a wealthy, successful capitalist. While some sectors (e.g., arms merchants) may profit
by the conflict, overall it is not good for business. If one stands in opposition to the “workers of the world
unite” concept, against workers' democratic control of the economy, especially in the home of workers'
“selfmanagement”, if economic human rights for workers are ignored, one stands in opposition to much of
the post World War II socialist power structure in Yugoslavia, and one encounters difficulty finding
political allies. This is the main contradiction faced by the bourgeois human rights movement [which
dominates the scene]: how to reconcile anticommunism with human rights. The technique of breaking
85
153
Given the historical circumstances, external influences, and context, once the
chauvinist anti-Communist forces gained ascendancy, the prognosis was continued civil
war to exhaustion, culminating in the essential dissolution of Bosnia, with Serbian and
Croatian chauvinists retaining most of the territory they militarily occupied and have
“ethnically cleansed” [Dittmann (1993)]. Armed conflict to control territory will likely be
protracted because refugees will continue to aspire to recover their former homes and
lands, and, as Johann Galtung put it, “because nations like to be rectangular”--Serbs and
Croats also will aspire to unite their peoples in expanded, geographically defensible
territories. The Vance-Owen plan with ethnic enclaves is simply untenable, as the fall of
Srebrenica (and other isolated enclaves) clearly attests.
A reformed United Nations could have negotiated support, both military and
economic, for the current government in Bosna-Herzegovinaix in return for enhancement
of its largely multicultural character, with further guarantees for human rights. Selective
support, perhaps under United Nations trusteeship or receivership, excluding ethnic- or
religious- based parties from the political arena, coupled with sanctions against
neighboring and competing states which do not respect human rights, and with
recognition and support of economic human rights, could have made Bosna-Herzegovina
into a model of tolerance and respect for human rights, especially given the sophisticated
and mixed population of its capital city, Sarajevo. Such a model could have reaffirmed
the potential of achieving high human rights standards in a culturally mixed, secular state.
The peace, security, and prosperity it could have achieved would have stood as a sharp
and embarrassing contrast to the warfare, conflict, and impoverization in those states,
which suffered the disastrous experience of cultural and religious chauvinism. However,
support for rekindling the Partisan spirit which reconstructed Yugoslavia after World War
II was not forthcoming from the world-dominant capitalist states, which are primarily
concerned with enhancing and expanding their share of investment opportunities and
control of markets and resources, and with dominating international institutions. [For
example, as Chomsky has indicated, there is a correlation between aid from the United
States government and torture. This is surprising to people using faulty models to attempt
to understand the world, but it is quite predictable and expected in more valid class
conflict models.]
The global community has had little experience with “nation-building”, and even
then, the dominant governments are only interested in establishing and supporting states
which provide opportunities for profit taking. Overweening capability in military
destruction overshadows constructive capability. Bombing is easier than building. It is
through NATO, founded to threaten workers’ states militarily and to bankrupt them
economically, a military alliance of the most militarily powerful capitalist countries, that
the United States government intervenes. The Security Council also is dominated by
militarily powerful capitalist states, now operating, by and large, with the approval of
feared workers' solidarity by favoring one group over another (e.g., Protestants over Catholics in Northern
Ireland, whites over blacks in the southern United States, etc.) is a classical strategy opposing and
combating the communist strategy of uniting workers across religious, ethnic, gender, national, or other
divisions. To what degree the policy of deliberately sowing ethnic discord in Eastern Europe in order to
“divide and conquer” the working class succeeded is a matter of conjecture. It succeeded distressingly well
in Nazi Germany.
154
Russia and the acquiescence of China. Despite brave proclamations to the contrary,
barring unlikely revolutionary change, one can expect drastic deterioration in the already
abysmal economic human rights of most of the world’s population. This will be
necessarily accompanied with repression at the expense of political, civil, and other
human rights in the process of imposing acceptance of economic deprivation upon a
suffering and increasingly resistant (and growing) population as the world-dominant
capitalist system sinks into deeper economic dislocation, even in the “metropolitan”
centers, with aggravated effects in the “South”--in the so-called “developing” periphery.
Nationalism effectively divides (and conquers) workers. Similar nationalist
ideology is currently dominating the world stage. International solidarity among workers
is in retreat. Confronted with imperialism and neo-colonialism, the long-standing
question remains whether to uncompromisingly support human rights principles (and
class solidarity) so that no one is relegated to a national minority, regardless of ethnicity
or religion, and to overcome nationalism, theocracy and religious fanaticism, ethnicism
and racism; or to compromise, by accommodating the understandable nationalism and
quest for self-determination of oppressed peoples, for practical political purposes. The
latter course debilitates class solidarity and tends to perpetuate nationalist conflict,
limiting the most optimistic hopes to accommodation between conflicting nationalisms,
including respect for “minority” rights, settlement of disputes over “turf” dominated by
nationalistic “gangs”, arms control [and perhaps even some disarmament], investment
and trade agreements and concessions, and other measures to regulate and to ameliorate
the conflict between nationalities and their governmental manifestations (“nation-states”).
A reformed United Nations would be the appropriate institution through which
intervention in sovereign affairs should proceed, but, as mentioned, a reformed United
Nations should require less military force [ideally, and perhaps ultimately, none] because
it would have greater legitimacy. In situations like Bosnia the United Nations has shown
itself to be much more conscious and supportive of secularism and human rights,
endorsing and recognizing the multiethnic government of Bosnia as an integral entity, as
contrasted with the dead letter Vance-Owen plan, and its even less desirable and less
tenable successors, which would reward “ethnic cleansing”, military conquest, and carve
out unsustainable ethnic conclaves. Human rights and state-building should not be
compromised to ethnicity, religious fanaticism, racism, “nation-building”, “turf” for
ethnic or religious gangs, and disrespect for human rights.
The international community has little experience in state building [often
ominously, and sometimes incorrectly referred to as “nation-building”, an ominous term
because of its racist, nationalist implications]. The distinction between a ”nation”
(manifest through a “nationality” by the exercise of coercive authority over part of the
earth’s territory, and over “minorities” within that “turf”, thereby becoming a government
constituting a “nation-state”) on one hand, and a “state” (within which no one is relegated
to “minority” status regardless of ethnicity or religious affiliation) on the other hand, is
crucial and constitutes the main point of this section. Respect for human rights can be
expected to be enhanced in secular, non-ethnic, non-nationality states, where one has
citizenship instead of nationality. The contrast between France and Germany is
illustrative. France is oriented more toward citizenship, Germany more toward
nationality, perhaps because it was earlier stripped of colonies and the trappings of
155
empire. Reference to a “Diaspora” is a common, but not the only symptom of nationalism
and nationality.
Diligence and enthusiasm for inadequate, unprincipled reform [“reformism”] is
difficult to fathom, except as a veiled defense of special, vested interests [It also requires
audacity and courage to challenge powerful, entrenched, intimidating opposition]. di
Lampedusa, in The Leopard, recognized that “in order to keep things the same, it was
necessary to change them”. The aristocratic class in di Lampedusa’s time either must
permit reform, or risk being deposed--the classic “reform or revolution” [or reformism vs.
reform] conundrum.
Opposition to the abuse of the United Nations for superpower purposes is
important, even crucial, but it is defensive--trying to prevent further delegitimation and
deterioration. An audacious positive initiative to bring governments under the rule of law
is required. If the most powerful of all nations, the United States, can be brought under
the rule of law, the task will be essentially accomplished for all nations in the process.
It is sobering to recognize that governments commit most human rights violations.
As President Bush indicated, governments must be brought under the rule of law. If the
most powerful government, the U.S. government, can be brought under the rule of law,
the most imposing hurdle will have been overcome.
This is not to reject or to fail to appreciate any improvements achievable, no
matter how modest or inadequate. But reformist gains should not divert efforts from
necessary, adequate reform, or to defend an inadequately functioning status quo [in
defense of power and privilege at the expense of justice and the remedy of global
problems] from being substantially reformed, a la di Lampedusa.
The world community faces another challenge: What global democratic restraints
can be imposed on the increasing power of the transnational corporations, considering
that the gross sales of the largest transnationals exceeds the Gross Domestic Product of all
but the largest countries [Ray (1994) 348-349]?
The university asked me to compose an opinion piece for its magazine. I started with “The Lakers
flags were replaced by US flags, then by Angels flags in an expression of American “unalienable rights to
life, liberty, and a SUV to pursue happiness” in a Manichean “us vs. them” dichotomy that appeals to many.
These are my fellow Americans. Do lives of “quiet desperation” grasp at flimsy associations to celebrate
and overcome low self esteem? Rather than games, real opportunities to share glory by creating a country of
which we could be proud and leading the family of humanity to a higher level of civilization are being
sacrificed to militarism, unilateral interventionism, imperial power, and greed.
I decided that it was unnecessarily negative [and requiring too much precious time in the midst of a
pressing schedule], so I submitted something from the can—a previous article composed after 11sep00,
“The speech We Wanted to Hear” [from George II (We won’t really be in trouble until we arrive at V)]
My fellow Americans,
I call for patriotic Americans to support a plan to ensure that Wall Street will never again
be subject to military attack.
We lament innocent victims, and pledge not to victimize innocents as war inevitably
does. We seek not war and victimization, but justice!--criminal justice under Nuremberg
principles of individual culpability. I will re-sign the Rome Treaty that established the
International Criminal Court. The U.S. will then participate in outlawing aggression, and
defining the elements of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
156
Law depends primarily upon voluntary compliance, which requires the perception of
legitimacy and justice, rather than “might makes right”. This requires democratic
formulation, universal applicability, uniform enforcement, due process and civil liberties
guarantees.
Human rights are essential to justice and peace.
Everyone is entitled to contribute to
society that of which they are capable, at a decent wage and under dignified working
conditions. We oppose maltreatment of Christians and other Gentiles, or of any other
religious, gender, or ethnic group— in Palestine or anywhere else. I will sign all five
pending UN human rights treaties88 and the consensus statement of the UN Conference
against Racism.
I will pay US back dues to the UN and UNESCO
With this plan, Americans will not have to sacrifice their prosperity, lives, freedoms,
privacy, and liberties. We cannot defend freedom by attacking freedom. I will veto any
legislation attacking Americans’ freedoms. A Bill of Rights should be incorporated into
the UN Charter.
We are going to deprive those who attacked the World Trade Center of an enemy.
America will lead the world to a higher level of civilization as a life giver, not a death
deliverer. Unlike Wall Street, the bottom line of America is people. Instead of sacrificing
American sovereignty to the secret corporate-dominated WTO, as the Clinton
administration did, we will democratize it under UN auspices.
America will be a model law-abiding global citizen in support of world rule of law. The
UN should be brought into compliance with basic principles of democratic governance,
viz., separation of powers with checks and balances, universal applicability of law, direct
democratic elections of representatives. The Trusteeship Council should be converted
into a Peoples’ Assembly. The Security Council, which violates basic principles of
jurisprudence and governance with its non-elected members, should be abolished.
The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families;
The Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women;
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
The Convention on the Rights of the Child;
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
The Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution, and Child Pornography.
88
157
With world rule of law and justice, Americans will be able to prosper and be secure, with
their freedom enhanced. Any who persist in perceiving America as “The Evil Empire”, or
“The Great Satan” because of past behavior and unilateral interventionism will find
themselves increasingly isolated, ostracized, and impotent.
Yours for peace, freedom, justice, and a pollution-free, sustainable environment,
God Bless the Family of Humanity,
George “Dubya” Bush
I was tempted to substitute “Allah” or “Jehoveh”, but was dissuaded. It is tempting to accompany the
ubiquitous “God Bless America” [i.e., part of North America] bumper stickers, with “Vishnu Bless the
Orange County Sanitation District”89.
It was not the happy accident of being born on the same date as the country [17
Sep, Constitution Day, not 4 July, the conception date] that made me such a patriotic
(unhyphenated) generic American, despite the T-shirt I am currently wearing that
declares, “Made in America--with German Parts”. I fell in love with America, not with a
flag, but with lofty principles of freedom, democracy, and justice as enunciated by the
imposing intellects of the “founding fathers”. We were revolutionaries, resisting tyranny
and imperialism, founding a new nation on the Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau/Jefferson
principle of the social contract, the “consent of the governed”. Government, coercive
force, was to be limited ab initio and then further reduced.as social responsibility
developed. A patriotic American was a socially responsible American. We produced a
Thoreau and Civil Disobedience, oreau90 , . That government is best that governs
least, and when men are prepared for it, that is the kind of government they will have—
none at all.” But that requires developing socially responsible people [“The New Soviet
Man”] who would join in Marxian “voluntary associations of producers”.
In UN debates, in the world, there is an essential dichotomy in human rights
ideology, which I am reluctant to label, but which has been called "bourgeois" and
"socialist”, among other labels. The bourgeois view of freedom of speech has been
satirized as the freedom to own the TV networks and newspaper chains of one's choice. I
was accused by my seventh grade social studies teacher, Mrs. Barton, of thinking like a
communist when I found it difficult to understand how freedom of speech could be as
important as freedom from starvation. Over the years of following and analyzing the
human rights debate I have drawn a conclusion that Mrs. Barton would find even more
distressing: that the fundamental human right is the right to work, the right to make a
socially useful contribution to society at a decent wage under dignified working
89
But then I probably would have to get out of the car to explain it, just as I must with verbal expression:
For monotheists, isn’t this merely an alias? And isn’t the OC Sanitation District just another human
governmental institution with coercive authority? What happened to patriotism for the State of California?
Given that California is being bled by the Federal “Protection racket”, a recent opinion piece cited all of the
advantages that would mutually accrue were California, with the fifth largest GDP, to join the EU, which
lacks a Pacific port,….The secession movement has barely begun.
90 “I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least";… [therefore]…-"That
government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of
government which they will have” [Boldface added].
158
conditions-and that work, no matter how difficult, unpleasant, or dangerous, lacks dignity
if is not socially useful. Admittedly there are more egregious abuses--torture, mutilation,
rape, assassination but the "death squads" committing these crimes generally victimize
those whose right to work has been violated and who organize to resist. I have little
sympathy for able people who refuse to work, regardless of how rich they may be.
However, to be denied the right to work, to be treated as useless, as having no useful
contribution to make to society, as a discard, must be psychologically devastating. Then,
to compound the crime, these victims of unemployment and underemployment are
impoverished, denied the wages for which they are willing and anxious to work. In a
democracy people would not be so mistreated. Most people would not vote for such
mistreatment. Who, except for capitalists and bosses, wants an unemployed and
underemployed reserve labor army to threaten workers, keep them scared and disciplined,
tolerating speedups and dangerous and unpleasant working conditions in order to keep
profits high and wages and fringe benefits low and to avoid "wage inflation"? I am
gratified to see the conscience of the global community gradually expand and declare
human rights, like the right to work, in the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights and
The Vienna Conference and Program of Action, but here remains much to be done.
Current human rights documents occur only in non-binding resolutions and conventions
and in abrogatable treaties, which sovereign nations are not, compelled to sign and from
which they have the sovereign right to withdraw. Once a human rights convention
achieves a minimum level of concurrence it should become the law of the planet. Human
rights should be imbedded in the UN Charter like the Bill of Rights and legislatively
detailed by a democratically elected UN Parliament.....
Round Young Virgin.
Upon receiving my Master's degree in 1958 I accepted a position on the Advanced
Research Staff of Aeronutronics (Ford Philco). As a military contractor they offered to
pay my travel expenses, so instead of riding my Matchless 600 across country as I
intended, I shipped it and hitchhiked. I was reading The Great Religions of the World
when a Professor from the University of Illinois picked me up. He had a business on
notorious e. Baltimore Street. We had some common acquaintances. Aeronutronics
would have paid for insurance, but I didn’t think of that. All of my belongings were stolen
except the motorcycle and my paintings. So much for my artistic talent. Thieves didn’t
even want my paintings. That year I printed and sent my custom Christmas cards:
Aphoristic sequence from a prenativity scene....
“But Joe, It’s supposed to be an honor!”
The Spirits of Christmas
Christmas eve was ‘pon the town
As Santa came the chimney down,
And boy, was he loaded!
With toys
For good little girls and boys.
159
More towns to fill with Christmas cheer,
Abandoned has he old reindeer.
In hazardous trips on flying saucer
Or disc,
He’s forced his little *91.
For chauvinistic separatist movements based upon the principle of “self
determination” I have little sympathy. “Self-determination” for a minority cum majority
inevitably means second class status for the remaining minorities. The minority Serbs,
Croats, and Muslims living in each other’s dominant territories before Yugoslavia
disintegrated fared much better. They could hardly fare worse now with “self
determination”. Of course, “self determination” can mean decolonialization and an end to
imperialism or domination by transnational corporations as well. It is the substance, not
the terminology that is important.
On the other hand, I can’t think of a revolution, which wasn’t worthy of support.
Revolutions are distinguished from “palace revolts” where only the rulers change, not the
oppression. I am never by surprised by revolutions. What I find it difficult to understand
is when revolutions don’t occur. Why do people tolerate being so shabbily treated? The
CIA was surprised when the Shah fell in Iran. I couldn’t understand how he could remain
in power with such overwhelming popular antipathy. To understand the intimidating
power of torture, mutilation, and assassination I suppose one must be exposed to that
environment. Seeing the mutilated body by the side of the road in El Salvador gave me a
taste of it, but even then its effect was muted because I was an American who as far as
they knew, might have been under the protection of the U.S. government. Had my politics
been suspect that protection would disappear. I kept a low profile, which, I now realize,
was an effect of the climate of government terror, which even had an effect upon me
It is not only governments which are to be feared, sometimes mass fanaticism,
religious fervor, intense patriotism or racism erupt. While working in Germany I
encountered some Croatian Ustase “contras” and gathered their literature to take back to
Zagreb for the amusement of my wife. My wife was appalled. “What if the literature had
been discovered at the border? Destroy it immediately. Are you naive?” Perhaps. I am
interested in ideas and aspirations. I want to examine them enough to be aware of them
and of the movements from which they spring. I budget my time, however, so advocates
sometimes are frustrated if I won’t dwell upon and study their ideas. I know it is not
always the case. Crazy extremists exist, but most people are reasonable. If I had been
caught with the material I expected to be able to explain it. I didn’t have to test that
theory. When I was deported from Czechoslovakia, it may have been the nuclear research
material in my briefcase, which prompted them to dishonor my visa rather than
knowledge of my invitation to speak to an underground dissident university group.
Walking home in Zagreb I inadvertently walked through a gate which had been left open
91
Many people didn’t “get it”. They read “*” as “asterik”, instead of “asterisk”.
160
by workers doing some repair work. I couldn’t find an exit. I had walked into the
compound of the militia. I was taken in for interrogation. I explained. I was released.
Everyone was quite reasonable. My approach is not only to be reasonable, but also to be
personal. I was ejected from a kibbutz in Israel (with appreciation for my work, but
apologies for the lack of insurance coverage, after a Jewish volunteer at a kibbutz sued
them for an injury sustained on farm equipment). Everyone’s gotta somewhere. What was
I doing there? I was browsing in a bookstore in Jerusalem when I met a beautiful,
lusciously buxom, unforgettable, intelligent, and provocative girl named Batya
Whiteman. Only in Israel will a girl you pick up take you home to her kibbutz. The
kibbutz was not an egalitarian utopia. Some members were much more privileged than
others were. There was trouble from extramarital affairs. Batya’s divorced mother was
socially ostracized because of an affair she was having with a younger man and was
leaving the kibbutz. The members were all émigrés from South Africa. On the way to
pick peaches some Jewish kids from Chicago were commenting on how fast the
Palestinians worked. “They worked so fast their hands were a blur” as they rapidly filled
up their pouches. It was clear that they were not members of the kibbutz and didn’t share
in the profits of “kibbutz capitalism”. Well then, how were they compensated? They were
given a daily wage. The kids suggested that more work could be gotten out of these
Palestinian workers, “whose hands were a blur” they worked so fast, if they were paid by
the piece. The kibbutzim were all Ashkenazy. I was warned about the Sephardim, the
sephardic Jews who lived in the village, who threw rocks at cars and stole and engaged in
other anti-social behavior. Children are raised collectively, not by parents. So much for
family values. They turned out to be some of the nicest people one could imagine. I
enjoyed the common dining hall, the luxurious recreational facilities, and the social
atmosphere.
After I left the kibbutz I hitched a ride back to Jerusalem where I was bumped
from an overbooked Sterling Airlines flight. While trying to arrange other transportation I
slept on the roof of an apartment house in Kiriat Arba and watched the pairs of security
guards marching below. I was surprised at the lax security. I simply walked in and took
the elevator to the top floor and walked up to the roof where the solar panels and the
water tank were located. I could have poisoned the whole apartment house. Travel agents
told me there was no way out of Israel for weeks, not even by ship. I didn’t believe them.
There is always room aboard ship. A ship was embarking from Haifa in ten days. No
sense in hurrying, I may as well walk and see the sights. I backpacked across Israel,
walking at night and sleeping in the heat of the day. I walked to the coast, then north into
Tel Aviv. The working class slums in the south of Tel Aviv were extensive, treeless, and
depressing--definitely not a tourist attraction. I perhaps contracted hepatitis from drinking
irrigation water out of desperation, or perhaps in Istanbul. How does one know if one is
transient? I had such terrible diarrhea that I could barely stand to be near myself. That
didn’t deter the most aggressive homosexual I ever encountered. In previous experience a
simple “no” was adequate. Not this time. He opened the stall door and I had to make
menacing gestures with my fist while screaming, “Get the fuck away from me!” to deter
him.
One day I was asleep on a picnic table when someone shook me. I became aware
of something being held in a hand. I assumed it was another security check by a guard
161
showing me his badge. As I gained consciousness I realized it was a knife in the hand of
the leader of a gang of sephardic youth. It was a robbery. I had often wondered how I
would respond to a situation like this and had formulated a plan: I would try to humanize
the situation. I would want to know what brought them to this state. Under normal
circumstances I am interested in understanding people, their experiences, their cultures,
their concerns, fears, and aspirations. Instead of having my attention and interest diverted
by the current crisis, I should have an even more intense interest in them as a
consequence of the crisis. I had no guarantee that my strategy would succeed in defusing
the situation, or even in saving my life. I recognize that there are pathological individuals
that cannot be reached. I would also want them to know about me. We should make
contact as human beings.
When I became recovered from my somnambulent state, I started inquiring about
their lives, problems, family, the society, discrimination against sephardim. They in turn
asked questions about me. Soon the robbery had deescalated to “Well, if you’re our friend
what are you going to give us?” I hadn’t intended to backpack and was carrying some
items I would prefer not to have to lug around. There were other more essential items. I
drew a line in my head between these items. I would accommodate them, but only so far.
If that didn’t work I was going to hit the leader right smack between the eyes. If I could
take him out I expected the rest to crumble. I could deter reluctance on the part of some to
participate. Even the leader seemed to be exercising bravado to show off in front of his
mates. We kept talking and became so friendly that most of them allowed me to take a
group picture of them after promising not to go to the police. Most of them trusted me not
to, which, of course, I didn’t. A few, who were the most reluctant to participate in the
robbery, also declined to appear in the photo. I may yet encounter a situation in which
such an approach won’t work, but so far it has, in part, I think, because I generally am on
their side. I am sympathetic to their complaints, even if I am not in accord with their
remedies. People are usually receptive to sympathetic, but reasonable analysis. That is in
the workaday world. In the academic world I am much more acerbic. I remember Murray
Fromson flinching when I commented on his research study estimating the “optimum”
military expenditure to threaten the USSR to cause the USSR economy the maximum
harm compared to the harm caused to the U.S. economy. I found his methodology faulty,
but “couldn’t muster enough malevolence to investigate the details”. His was an
extension of Michael Intriligator’s work, which was limited to nuclear weapons. They
both obtained academic posts.
Like the governmental representatives in the Committee of the Whole consisting
of representatives of all of the member governments in the UN, essentially a repeat of the
General Assembly, the NGO presenters felt compelled to refute Reagan’s position that
there was no connection between disarmament and development, but then they continued
with proposals which achieved a high degree of consensus. Perhaps it was fortunate that
Reagan boycotted the conference. How embarrassing it would have been to try to defend
his position! However, that is part of the assignment of a diplomat, or an attorney. I
remembered how sorry I felt for the U.S. consul in Yugoslavia with whom I frequently
had lunch during the Viet Nam war. He defended it the best he could. However,
professors’ duty is to speak the dictates of their conscience and intellect! What more
wonderful job could there be?
162
The main focus of the presentations was peace, although there is much more to
the UN than that. I thought back to previous wars. Now World War II, that was a .. of a
war to which we might be able to return if we could only overcome the "Vietnam
syndrome". If there ever was a "just war" it was World War II, or so we thought at the
time. Most of the terrible events I anticipated and feared didn't occur in my
neighborhood, although I sadly recall that gold star hanging in the window across 32nd
Street in Millwork.
The nation pulled together and sacrificed. Well, the capitalists didn't sacrifice
their profits, but other than that there was ... sacrifice and struggle, without dissent, at
least none I ever encountered. It did not occur to me until much later that events must
have causes and explanation. Hither had to come from somewhere. Nuclear weapons
and power plants didn't just happen either. Researching the reason for ... led me ,,, and
logically to Hither. My scientific training directed my historical methodology. There
already ... essentially an infinity of data. There were ... interpretations of the phenomena.
First step, survey and construct a .. of theoretical interpretations. I classified theories as
either national (in)security compulsion of technology, vested interests, superpower
syndrome, and class conflict. Nest compose critical questions to test the explanatory
prove of competing explanations. A sampling: With oceans east and west, and weak and
friendly neighbor north and south, the U. S. is militarily invulnerable, except for nuclear
weapons, which could alliterate it within an hour. If national security were the nuclear
mission, why does the U.S. government resist the elimination of the nuclear weapons that
threaten it, and cling to the nuclear insecurity blanket instead? Third, apply the theories
to the critical questions to judge their comparative explanatory power. The analysis is
published elsewhere (Dittmann 1996), an remains in an unpublished, unfinished book
whose urgency is diminished by the end of the Cold War. The validity of the national
security theories is easily dismissed. Others, compulsion of technology, vested interests,
superpower syndrome, had limited validity. Research is a dialectic process between
theory and empiricism. Theory guides relevance in searching through the mountain of
information. Data tests the explanatory power of theory. Why was the USSR the
presumed adversary? Was it always? Essentially yes, except for a hiatus during World
War II. Czarist Russia was an ally against Germany in World War I by whom it was
defeated, leading to a revolution, Leaders preaching "proletarian internationalism",
"workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chairs", came to power.
They preached their politics to prisoners of war and sent them home to foment revolution.
Worker/soldier soviets (“councils”) took power in major German cities. The Spartacists
took power in Munich, Bavaria. Bela Kun came to power in Hungary. The U. S.
government invaded its former ally. Its imperial ally had become a class enemy. Every
important capitalist country invaded, including Japan. Germany had by now itself been
defeated, but German troops, now under allied command, reinitialized hostilities against
its defeated adversary.
In Germany, where Marx had expected a proletarian revolution (or in England),
revolution appeared promising. How were capitalists to cope? The strategy seems
obvious, at least in retrospect: The communists were preaching "international
proletarianism", i.e., German workers are above all workers, and only incidentally
German (or Jewish, or female, or..). The capitalists inverted the order: above all
163
German, secondarily workers. "International proletarianism" was opposed by "National
Socialism" (NAZI for short). It was not only German munitions and steel magnates like
Krupp and Thyssen who financed Hitler in this campaign. International capital, Shell Oil
Company, AT & T, Ford, the British government build up Hitler and Nazism as both an
international and domestic anti-Communist force
There was more conflict of interest, competition for markets, control of natural
resources, and cheap labor pools between the U.S. and its capitalist allies than with the
USSR. Yet the nuclear missiles were aimed at the USSR. Only the class conflict theory
could explain that.
Theories are more valid if they are more comprehensive. Could the class conflict
theory explain the structure of the UN? Or the behavior of the U. S. government in the
UN?
Remember when Bush did his Bob Newhart routine to rationalize the attack on
Iraq? If you won't believe it was to create jobs, would you believe it was to defend the
American way of life? If you won't believe that, would you believe it was to restore the
... family to power? If you won't believe that, would you believe it was to prevent Iraq
from developing nuclear capability? (This one sold best.) or finally (my favorite routine)
after the attack, would you believe it was "to forge a new world order in which the rule of
law rather than the law of the jungle governs the conduct of nations"? - a wonderful
statement of which I never tire. What resulted was a contraction, "the rule of the law of
the jungle". How could I evaluate the statement on a sincerity/hypocrisy scale?
I placed Bush's UN voting record in a spreadsheet and analyzed it. The results
surprised me.
Membership in the United Nations has become universally available, but voting
power and privilege remain oligopolistic. The voting system in the Security Council
(where all decision-making power is concentrated) was adapted from the Yalta
Conference Unanimous concurrence among the Permanent Members is required for all
substantive resolutions, according to the United Nations Charter. The second class
sovereignty of other states is emphasized in the Non-Proliferation Treaty wherein the
Permanent Members are allowed to possess [and to threaten to use] nuclear bombs, while
other signatories are not.
The United Nations Charter identifies "enemy states"x as enemies of the original
signatories of the Charter92. The second and third largest dues-paying members of the
UN are thus anachronistically defined as “enemy states”. This is only a minor nuisance. It
is essentially ignored today. However, this anachronism should be corrected as a matter of
principle. The law should be written as it is intended to be interpreted. Reasonableness
should not be dependent upon misinterpretation.
The elected states that are not Permanent Members of the Security Council have
reduced status and standing in the United Nations, but individuals have no standing.
There are regional developments that provide standing to individuals and groups, but the
92
The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of
the Organization recommended to the General Assembly that the “enemy state” clauses [Articles 53, 77,
107] of the United Nations Charter have become obsolete. This is the first time that the Committee, first
established in 1974, has ever recommended an amendment of the Charter [United Nations Chronicles
XXXII (2), June 1995, 74]
164
United Nations system does not93. As assessed by Cassese, “individuals, like
international organizations, only exist as (‘ancillary’) international legal persons if they
are created by groups of States. Moreover, they remain dependent on the will of their
‘creators’,...they are but instruments in the hands of States (and) ...cease to exist
internationally the very day the groups of States by which they were begot decide to get
rid of them.” [Cassese (1991) 119]. This is the contrary of the Lockian theory of the
“social contract” in which individuals are the original sovereigns and governments should
cease to exist when individuals no longer assign them sovereignty. This theory, in
particular, normative in nature, contrasts starkly with the reality of power politics, the
power assumed by force of military strength94, summa potestas (supreme power),
consisting of imperium (jurisdiction over persons, things, and events) and dominium
(power inherent in the institution of property in private law) [Abi-Saab (1991) 602],
despite the fact that the Lockian principle is recognized in some form in about threequarters of the constitutions of the governments of the world.
The main obstacle to the achievement of world rule of law is state sovereignty.
Hitherto, except for the United Nations Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles, which
were imposed on the vanquished by the victorious World War II allies, international
“law” is voluntary. Law that is voluntary is hardly deserving of the label “law”. Treaty
“law” is abrogatable and often coercive, between unequal parties. Juan Jose Arévalo,
former President of Guatemala, succinctly described the situation when the CIA
overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz government in the title of his book,
The Shark and the Sardines. Treaty law between the United States government and
weak countries is like those with the native Americans, like a contract between a shark
and sardines. It is more accurate to describe treaty law as a contract that is unenforceable,
except for unilateral measures, a la “might makes right”. Law, to be legitimate, must be
democratically formulated, but then it is binding, or else it is not really law. As such, the
body of interstate “law” currently is essentially a null set.
Moscow
I may have been as naive as my critics suggested, but I didn't expect the dire
consequences of which I had been warned. I thought of my actions as quite reasonable,
conscientious, and principled. I expected to be able to explain that to reasonable people,
and, except for some religious or chauvinistic fanatics, generally people seem reasonable.
I know that there are some psychotics out there but direct human communication goes a
93
Article 25 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights states that the European Commission on
Human Rights “may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe from
any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals...” Similarly, Article 44 of the 1969
Interamerican Convention on Human Rights declares, “any person, or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states (of the OAS)...may lodge
petitions..” [Cassese (1991) 117].
Before the International Court of Justice, inherited from the League of Nations, only governments have
standing. Before a proposed United Nations Human Rights Court, individuals would have standing.
94 Mao colorfully described the situation as, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.
165
long way. That approach was to receive its most severe test after I left Moscow to meet a
courier in Israel.
True, I didn’t have much experience in this particular arena. The response I
received was an invitation to dinner with prominent members of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences, including Markov, and the heads of research in meteorology and other areas. I
was to select other members of the US delegation to participate. I tried to invite Hilary
Rose of the UK, but they refused to accept delegates from other countries. I invited the
representatives from Science for the People and SESPA (Scientists and Engineers for
Social and Political Action). We were whisked through the streets of Moscow with all
traffic stopped to allow the unimpeded passage of our limousine. We were treated to a
feast of champagne and caviar and an endless array of gourmet items, with waiters
hovering over our shoulders refilling after every sip. We were given the full red carpet
treatment. Such treatment was common and repeated. It was always a contrast after
staying in luxurious trade union hotels to return to the US to be again unheralded
members of the scientific proletariat.
After being lubricated in the attitude adjustment preliminaries, the conversation
turned serious. Markov argued that there was a campaign to discredit the USSR and to
promote the nuclear arms race in the process, that there was much hypocrisy in the
charges, that standards for behavior were skewed against the USSR, that we were on a
noble mission of peace and disarmament endeavoring to protect the lives of millions of
innocents who might be incinerated in a nuclear war, and that the fortune of one man (or
even a few) should not be allowed to threaten the lives of millions. I agreed
wholeheartedly, but turned the argument around. I agreed that indeed the capitalists had
launched a propaganda campaign to vilify the USSR, that the campaign was initiated
against our former imperial ally, Czarist Russia, as soon as it became the class enemy
workers’ state (such as it was), the USSR, after its defeat by Germany and the workers’
revolution, that certainly the USSR was being held, and ought to be held to a higher
standard, that capitalists had huge resources and would take advantage of every
opportunity to discredit and vilify the USSR. Since the USSR was leading the campaign
for the crucially important campaign for peace and disarmament, it was essential that no
excuses for vilification be provided, that the USSR, like Caesar’s wife, not only needed to
be innocent, but above suspicion, that every effort should be made to prevent the USSR
from becoming a target of vilification. I assured them that I had no intention of
contributing to that campaign, but I wanted the USSR to become the kind of state of
which workers everywhere in the world could be proud. Furthermore, if charges were
dropped and they were allowed to continue their activities unimpeded, what possible
harm could that cause compared to the damage to the cause of reversing the nuclear arms
race which threatened millions of innocent lives. There was no rebuttal.
The next Academician took his turn. He took the “law and order” position so
reminiscent of the US right wing. Civilization depends upon the rule of law. They broke
the law and cannot be allowed to scoff at the law with impunity. It threatens the very
fabric of society. I replied that I took a more Marxist view of law as part of the
superstructure expressing, implementing and justifying the fundamental social relations
of production, that the law was a means, not an end, and certainly not an absolute, that it
is highly discretionary. Police make judgments about whom, to arrest. Prosecutors make
166
judgments about whom to prosecute. Culpability requires criminal intent. There may have
been naiveté involved. There may have been an infraction involved, but was there really
antisocial intent? Further, since law is a means, not an end in itself, it should serve
socially responsible purposes. Since we are all agreed on the nobility and importance of
our common cause, shouldn’t the law be used to aid and abet that end? The response was,
perhaps sarcastic, although it sounded sincere at the time, “Well, perhaps you are a better
Marxist than I am!”
The third argument I found the most offensive. We were treated to a long
harangue about the privileged position of scientists in the USSR, pointedly emphasizing
the perks available to them that were denied to us as mere scientific proletarians in a
capitalist society. They all had dachas. None of us did. The list droned on, valid but
irrelevant on every point. The implication was that one’s principles were up for sale, that
one could and should be bought out, that Tverdokhlebov et. al. is usually translated as
"science", but it has a broader meaning were very privileged members of society and had
no justification for complaint. I only pretended to listen to be polite. The idea that
principles should be abandoned in return for privilege was a non-starter. All that followed
was obiter dicta.
There was a cost to this effort. I had called an organizational meeting of the US
delegation in order to present a plan to build the strength and effectiveness of the US
affiliate, the American Association of Scientific Workers (AASW), the predecessor of the
US Federation of Scholars and Scientists by transforming it into a federation instead of an
association, changing the name to reflect the structure. Jeremy Stone was in the process of
converting the FAS from a federation into an association without changing the name, just
as we did after being declared technically and erroneously non-existent by the FAS. I
suppose it was easier for Jeremy to have us declared non-existent by the Council (falsely
claiming that our membership at some time or another had dropped below fifty members)
than to find grounds for ejection. The Los Angeles Chapter of FAS changed its name to
the Southern California Federation of Scientists.
In German the term Wissenschaft is usually translated as "science", but it has a
broader meaning of "knowledge" and "understanding" and "scholarly activity". Jeremy
Stone didn't change the name of the FAS, but he wanted to build a preeminent intellectual
lobby, recognizing that social problems do not present themselves in neat disciplinary
packages. By nature they are generally quite transdisciplinary. On this point I quite agree,
and have been unsuccessfully promoting transdisciplinary activity in the university in
order for it to more effectively its social responsibility as social critic helping society find
its sense of direction and remedy social ills. The Board felt that the term "worker” was a
handicap to organizing in the US To my regret it was dropped to be replaced by "scholars
and scientists". Actually, it was "scientists and scholars", but we reversed the order in a
concession to Jeremy who threatened to sue us to require that our name be changed. He
still threatened suit but we still haven't been served.
World Rule of Law
There are essentially three routes to world rule of law:
 Structural reform of the UN Charter;
 Functional reform by strengthening and enhancing UN agencies;
167

Statute multilateral treaties, as was used to establish the ICC.
Holding a United Nations Charter Review Conference can strengthen appeals for
United Nations Reform. In fact, the General Assembly can call such a conference [with
the support of nine members of the Security Council]xi. In fact, according to the UN
Charter, such a Review Conference had to be placed on the General Assembly in 1955.
However, the United Nations Charter still cannot be changed without the consensus
concurrence of the Permanent Members of the Security Council, the very governments
which would likely have their power curtailed, regardless of the degree of support
generated at the UN Charter Review Conference. The voting record of the United States
government has indicated general opposition to implementation and enforcement even of
the interstate [“international”] law which has already been agreed and formulated in the
United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. There seems to be little chance
that the United States government could be induced through the electoral process, or by
lobbying, or even through a public education campaign [the public, after all, as
mentioned, already strongly supports such measures], to relinquish or to compromise the
power it wields. The Kirkpatricks and the Lichensteins95 may express an unpopular
view, but it is the controlling view, given the ownership of the mass media and the
political influence of the wealth they represent. So the United Nations is at an impasse--it
essentially cannot be internally reformed.
Philadelphia II
Holding a United Nations Charter Review Conference can strengthen appeals for United
Nations Reform through the structural route. In fact, the General Assembly can call such
a conference [with the support of nine members of the Security Council]ix. However, the
United Nations Charter still cannot be changed without the consensus concurrence of the
Permanent Members of the Security Council, the very governments which would likely
have their power curtailed, regardless of the degree of support generated at the UN
Charter Review Conference. The voting record of the United States government has
indicated general opposition to implementation and enforcement even of the interstate
[“international”] law which has already been agreed and formulated in the United Nations
Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. There seems to be little chance that the United
States government could be induced through the electoral process, or by lobbying, or even
through a public education campaign [the public, after all, as mentioned, already strongly
supports such measures], to relinquish or to compromise the power it wields. The
Kirkpatricks and the Lichensteins96 may express an unpopular view, but it is the
Reagan’s Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations. When the United States government violated its
treaty with the United Nations by refusing to allow delegates to the United Nations to enter the country,
Lichenstein replied that if they didn’t like the illegal treatment [in violation not only of treaties, which
constitutionally constitute the highest law of the land, but also in violation of international law] to which
they were subjected in the United States, he would be happy to wave goodbye to the United Nations at the
dock as it left.
96 Reagan’s Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations. When the United States government violated its
treaty with the United Nations by refusing to allow delegates to the United Nations to enter the country,
Lichenstein replied that if they didn’t like the illegal treatment [in violation not only of treaties, which
95
168
controlling view, given the ownership of the mass media and the political influence of the
wealth they represent. So the United Nations is at an impasse--it essentially cannot be
internally reformed.
However, a strategy, which is called “Philadelphia II” in the United States, has
been devised by former United States Senator Mike Gravel [Alaska 1969-1981]97 to
surmount this impasse. As originally formulated, Philadelphia II would use legally
established directly democratic initiative processes98, first to solicit, then to implement
the will of the public99, first to extend direct democracy and the initiative process to
jurisdictions where it is not currently available, then to use the initiative process to
establish world rule of law by calling for a World Constitutional Convention. Gravel’s
rationale for his strategy is summarized below in his own words. It draws heavily upon
the U.S. experience.
The principle of individual sovereignty is recognized in some three-quarters of the
world’s constitutions100. Government achieves legitimacy only by the assignment of
individual sovereignty.
The right to self-governance has emerged slowly. Many of the U.S. “Founding
Fathers” held the view that “the masses” were either a mob or children who could not be
trusted with the power to make laws for their own self-governance. This view of
governance was deeply rooted in the male father figure dominator model of society
[Eisler (1987)]. That model, with its acolyte priests, kings, lords, and economic and
political aristocrats has been dominant, underlying governance throughout our recorded
history.
The U.S. Founding Fathers sustained the dominator model within the context of
their republicanism. Their lofty rhetoric, “we, the people”, was not thought to be
inconsistent with the notion that many of their troubles stemmed from excesses of
democracy. Most did not trust the people even though the direct democracy of New
England town governance was a resounding success [Nelson (1891) 111]. John Adams,
the architect-theoretician of our constitution, assuredly knew this. James Madison
summarizes the views of his colleagues in an argument against the participation of people
constitutionally constitute the highest law of the land, but also in violation of international law] to which
they were subjected in the United States, he would be happy to wave goodbye to the United Nations at the
dock as it left.
97 Much of the following analysis was obtained from Mike and included with his encoureagement.
98 The directly democratic initiative process is rarely available in the world. It is available only in twenty
three of the fifty United States, and in readily accessible form only in six—Missouri, California, Oregon,
Washington, Illinois, and Hawaii, and in a limited number of other jurisdictions in the world. It was
considered to be such a good idea that the victorious “United Nations” forces (as they were proclaimed)
imposed it upon the defeated Axis powers of World War II, Japan and Germany.
99 Recent polls by Americans Talk Issues [Kay and Henderson, (10 May 1993)] have posed the question in
a variety of ways. Support for participation in a World Constitutional Convention to formulate a
Constitution which would be legally-binding only upon ratification by referendum is 53%, vs. 20%
opposed, more than a 2:1 advantage. If the powers conferred by the Constitution are limited to the global
environment and international security the support increases to 66% (vs. 17% opposed) for environmental
powers, and to 70% (vs. 15% opposed) for international security. The entire left of the political spectrum is
essentially supportive, joined by “law and order” elements on the right.
100 Including the State of Washington where the Philadelphia II initiative has been filed.
169
in government. The context of his analysis is a discussion of protection of private
property and monetary policy:
...the delegation of the government...to a small number of citizens elected by the rest...to
refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen
body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and
whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary and
partial considerations...the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people,
will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves,
convened for the purpose
[Federalist Papers (1787) 59].
By “chosen”, Madison certainly meant “elected”, but he also meant the economic
elite. His representative government of the “chosen” rested on a narrow franchise of
white, male, substantial, property holders, a narrower franchise than those who had bled
without pay for the revolution. The “chosen” designed a government that guaranteed their
own continued leadership and “in the true interest of their country”, perpetuated the
economic underpinnings of Southern slavery, oppressing in the cruelest fashion at least
one-fifth of the population of the Southern states.
"Democracy, in the sense of simple direct majority rule, was undoubtedly more odious to
most of the delegates to the Convention than was slavery."xii
Plato's dictum that "those who govern do so first and foremost for their selfish
interest" should be expanded to include, "and also for the perpetuation of their power to
govern." Within the club of the "chosen," the code takes on a moral imperative to govern.
Alexander Hamilton, with characteristic acuity, saw the core of the problem:
“Give all power to the many, and they will oppress the few.
Give all power to the few they will oppress the many.
Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself agst. the
other.xiii”
Adams, Hamilton, and Madison saw the wisdom of Montesquieu's theory to
balance and check the power within the branches of government, but failed to perceive
the need for a balance of power between the people and a government controlled by the
"chosen" that "each may defend itself agst. the other." The government was structured to
be controlled by the "chosen." The "many" were outside, with power only to choose from
among the "few" those who they might hope would defend against their oppression.
The good fortune and success of the government established in 1789 does not
belie the fact that history has shown that the ability to select one's rulers, who "would
govern in the interest of the whole people,"xiv is a power far inferior to the power of
government. Except on election day, people are but spectators to their own manipulation
in a Spectator Democracy where money, the currency of a market-based society, rules the
polity. The "many" become mendicants; protesting, threatening and imploring their
170
elected officials to "be more consonant with the public good." Such a "democracy" serves
first and foremost the special interests of those who pay the cost of securing the power of
government for the "few." The struggle between the "many" and the "few" for the power
to govern is generic to governance; all the more reason to reexamine why powers are not
balanced, as called for in Hamilton's lucid observation.
From the beginning, attempts to establish the Hamiltonian balance centered on the
battle to expand the franchise. The right to vote was expanded from white, propertied
freeholders to all white males by the Civil War, and to black as well as white males
during Reconstruction. In this century, it was extended to the direct election of senators,
to females, to Asians, and to eighteen-year-olds. In each case, the advancement was made
by the "many" after bitter, often violent resistance from the "few" who used the power of
government to oppose the natural quest of the people. By such means our nation evolved
from a republic to a representative democracy. Nevertheless, giving more citizens the
right to vote for the "chosen" merely sustains representative government alone; it fails to
strike Hamilton's balance. However, it represents hesitant progress toward a more
encompassing democracy.
The most significant development in the tools of governance in modern times was
the introduction of the Initiative at the turn of the century. The Initiative melds the theory
of the people's sovereignty with practical procedures to implement that sovereignty in a
fair and reasonable manner. A process now exists that allows the people to make laws and
policy, but in no way displaces the need or function of representative government. The
Initiative does not disenfranchise the "few" who control representative government, but it
does, by directly influencing the agenda of government, create a balance between the
"many" and the "few," making the control of government "more consonant to the public
good."
The introduction of the Initiative was made possible by the near total corruption of
representative government by the "few" in a society awakening to boundless economic
opportunity in a continental nation experimenting with new practical methods of
governance. The checks and balances of representative government alone were
insufficient to curb the wanton pilfering of the public treasure by some of the "few." But
representative government did permit an enraged electorate to elect populist and
progressive reformers who exploited the opportunity created by these excesses to enact
reform laws.
The referendum, with antecedents reaching back to the Middle Ages, matured on
this continent to become the constitutional ratification method of choice as territories
earned statehood. It replaced the constituent convention approach that had been used to
initiate and ratify earlier constitutions. The referendum brought the people directly into
decision making, but with a limited agenda determined by the elected representatives.
Nevertheless, these first steps in the mid and latter parts of the last century advanced the
process of partnership in government.
The recall, with its potential for eliminating the most brazenly corrupt officials,
was the main weapon of the reformists that forced the acceptance of the Initiative as an
evolutionary adjunct of the referendum.
This package of tools, the initiative, referendum, and recall, offered for the first
time the opportunity of the electorate to participate directly in the policy-making function
171
of government. This reform package was enacted into constitutional and statute law in
almost half the states during the forty-year period straddling the turn of the century. But
constitutional provisions and laws were inconsistent from state to state. Many were
watered down. Initiatives were made dependent on the Legislature. In some states the
people could make law but not amend the constitution; in others the opposite was true,
and in still others the people could do both. The reform fever slackened with the advent
of World War I. The rest of the century saw little expansion beyond the Western States,
and the full force of the Initiative's potential was blunted further by the lack of necessary
procedural improvements.
Nevertheless, these tools of the electorate permitted the most momentous political
victory of this century: enfranchisement of half the nation's population. The suffragettes,
though repeatedly thwarted at the ballot box, persisted in a fifty-year political campaign
of repeated referenda attempts to obtain their franchise rights state by state until the
federal establishment capitulated in 1920.
The "few", have always found it difficult to share their power. The perception that
the people are not able to govern, a perception historically imposed on our political
culture by the "few," conveniently serves their interests. They have the resources to
perpetuate it. The lynch mobs of the Old West and the racial South, the religious burnings
in the Northeast, our anti-Semitic, homophobic, gender intolerance, all play to this false
perception of majoritarian irresponsibility.
The irony is that majoritarianism operates on a model of collaboration nurtured by
information rather than the dominator model which is maintained by fear. It would be an
accurate assessment of the human psyche to acknowledge that the shortcomings which
exist in all individuals who comprise the "many" are identical to those which exist in
those who make up the "few." If the "many" cannot be trusted, then much less so the
"few," since the interests of a lesser number are served.
Criticisms leveled at the full participation of people in government have one
common thread: they hold the prospective conduct of the people in governance to a
higher standard than the actual conduct of those in control of government. Two
paramount charges are made: first that the people on the slightest whim will alter
governments capriciously to disrupt the stability of society; and second; given power, a
people's majority will oppress any minority.
The first misperception is not sustained by the facts of our history. The opposite is
the case. People are basically conservative and are more prone to suffer known ills than
gamble on change that will bring unknowable results, unless those ills are unbearable.
Our Declaration of Independence supports this view:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The Initiative permits the full legislative exercise of the people's inherent political
power. The root problem of collective governance is to constitute a government. The
American approach has been to solve this by means of a voluntary constituent assembly
172
and later by a constitutional convention. The purpose was not to govern but to set up an
institution to govern and invest it with legality. Constituent power was voluntary. Those
who chose to participate did so. That was similar to the voting practice of today wherein
voters are those citizens who choose to vote thereby making electoral decisions regardless
of turnout.
Radical disruptions, when they have occurred, have resulted from injustice and
unfair governance that did not provide automatic, corrective, peaceful processes to
remedy the injustice. In our system, it was the Court that took on the responsibility, in
Marbury v. Madison, 2 United States (1 Cranch) 60 (1803), to channel the forces of
change by discerning and interpreting their movement while evils are still sufferable.
Marbury corrected the omission of leaving the judiciary out of the Montesquieu troika
conceived in Philadelphia. The judiciary's success or failure is experienced long after its
adjudications have been rendered. Its successes are often lost in esoteric legal discussion,
but its failures may survive to see radical disruptive forces prevail, and also require
remedy through popular expression when excesses and injustices become intolerable.
The second charge, that the Initiative will license majorities to oppress minorities,
overlooks the fact that the Initiative is not the first experimental exercise of political
constituent power. We are not at the beginnings trying to "constitute" a government; we
are a mature society with a fully developed government. Thomas Jefferson on the first
page of the United States Senate Rule Manual pointed out that "majorities are protected
by their numbers, minorities are protected by the laws." We are a nation of laws; and
with common sense can improve upon that good fortune.
The Initiative is new in terms of law-making institutions, but there is nothing in
the experience of the Initiative in this century to suggest that it is not a valid continued
maturation of human governance. That humans have a darker side is not disputable; but
experience has shown that a well-structured, collaborative government can bring out the
best in people and their leaders.
A close examination of the kind of laws enacted by the people in this century [See
Gravel (1995) Appendix D for a listing for the State of Washington.] shows that the
initiatives, even without proper internal controls and in the face of purposeful obstruction,
have addressed socioeconomic and cultural agendas covering the same issues considered
by Legislatures. In key areas of reform, such as the expansion of franchise, old age
assistance, workmen's compensation, civil service, campaign fund disclosure, and term
limits, the initiative and referendum process outshines the Legislature's record. The
people have done no worse than the "best and brightest"xv, and usually have done
considerably better.
The citizens of constituent assemblages of their own volition wrote their
constitutions "and retired to the more modest status of an electorate and let their
sovereignty become inactive.” [Palmer (1959) 215] The law of their constitutions was
considered higher law, constitutional law. It permitted the governments they created to
then make lower statute law.
“As our Constitutions are superior to our Legislatures, so the People are superior
to our Constitution. Indeed, the superiority in this last instance, is much greater, for the
people possess, over our Constitutions, control in act, as well as right.”xvi.
173
The people were and are supreme in the use of their constituent and ratification
power. However, from the edifice of government, laws were enacted with procedures to
convene conventions with more equitable representation. This evolution put into the
hands of those who controlled the government the agenda-setting power of conventions
and brought to the Legislatures the power to draft constitutional amendments for the
people to ratify on a take it or leave it basis.
The first major conflict between the use of voluntary constituent power and the
government's procedural power occurred in Rhode Island in the 1840s. The incident
became known as the Dorr Insurrectionxvii. The Dorr faction convened a constitutional
convention when the government, under a Charter from Charles II, refused to call a
convention to draft a constitution that would expand the franchise in the state. The Dorr
convention produced a constitution that was then ratified in 1842 by a majority of white
males, both freeholders and those without property. Officials were elected with Dorr as
governor. The existing Charter government refused to give up power, and violence
ensued. The President of the United States sided with the Charter government, and the
insurrection dissolved, but not until the Charter government itself called a convention
which produced a constitution expanding the franchise that was ratified by the people in
1843 and remains in force.
The United States Supreme Court wrote the closing chapter of the incident
[Luther v. Borden, 7 Howard, I, (1848) 303].
“No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions
of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that
they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether
they have changed it or not, by abolishing an old government, and establishing a new one
in its place, is a question to be settled by the political power.”
That "political power", to which reference is made, is essentially force. In the Dorr
case, the actions of the President, though wrong in theory, were politically effective in
bringing about a cessation of violence and the establishment of a new constitutional
proposal that the people ratified with finality.
The Luther Court left undisturbed the contest of legality between the "many" with
their use of a constituent convention and the "few" with their use of a government called
convention. That contest is now resolved with the advent of direct law making by the
people. A final decision by the people is supreme whether arrived at by laws with
procedural safeguards or by voluntary fair and reasonable electoral processes. Absent
reasonable procedures under law, or the absence of any law, it is necessary for concerned
persons in and out of government to ensure that proper and universal procedures are
enacted to guarantee that the exercise of supreme power is consonant with the public
good.
The initiative is the final evolution of constituent power with formal electoral
procedures developed by the experience of government. People can both initiate and vote
on measures as final authority.
174
The precedent for and the present use of the initiative does not rest on delegation
from the government. As Chief Justice Warren Burger in speaking for the Court [East
Lake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. 426 US 668, 49 L Ed 2d 132, 96 S Ct 2358], points
out:
“A referendum cannot, however, be characterized as a delegation of power.
Under our constitutional assumptions, all power derives from the people, who can
delegate it to representative instruments that they create. [See, e. g., Federalist Papers,
No. 39 (Madison)]. In establishing legislative bodies, the people can reserve to
themselves power to deal directly with matters which might otherwise be assigned to the
legislature.”
The initiative rests on the absolute sovereignty of the people. The right of
initiative is central to the people's inherent political power. One individual or group of
individuals has every right to propose measures to the people without unreasonable
obstructions of the state. That right was written into the preamble of the Massachusetts
Constitution of 1780, drafted by John Adams.
“The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a
social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen
with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good”
[Palmer (1959) 223].
The Initiative is the process that permits individuals and the people to mutually
covenant without the filter of the "chosen" making decisions as to what is or is not most
consonant to their good. The "chosen" have their own governmental process to present
matters to the people, or if the measure is within their derivative powers, they can enact
measures directly into law. The people alone have the power to enact constitutional and
statute law. The government created by the people can only enact statute law. The
enactment of statute laws to limit the supreme power of the people cannot be
constitutional. The created entities cannot limit the creative ability of their creator.
The "few" in this century have, to some degree, delayed the full implementation of
the initiative at both the state and federal levels. The Initiative now offers the possibility
to improve and extend what was partially established with Philadelphia I in 1789.
The initiative process could not only be used to save the institutions we all cherish
from a deepening “legitimation crisis”xviii, but could assure future generations of a more
mature and responsible citizenship. The great benefit of the initiative process is the
maturity and wisdom it engenders in the people.
The strategy of the initiative where it is not already legally established may be
described as “legitimacy over legality”, much the way the United States Constitution was
successfully legitimated, but illegally established, in violation of the Articles of
Confederation and of the Constitutions of each of the thirteen original states, not to
mention English law. The Initiative would empower the people to do no more than the
thirteen original United States did in 1787 in ratifying the Federal Constitution. That very
precedent, and its success, legitimate the current effort.
175
The doctrine of the social contract can be used to develop legitimacy by utilizing
the initiative process to provide a vehicle for the expression of the sovereign power of
people to direct existing (reluctant) governments [most importantly, the most difficult,
reluctant, and powerful--the United States government] to support extension of the
initiative process to other jurisdictions. It suggests a strategy that could circumvent to
opposition of the governments to UN Carter reform. The initiative could be used to call
for a United Nations Charter Review Conference as a step toward the establishment of
World Rule of Law, beginning with selected individual states in the United States where
the initiative is already legally established and available.
The initiative process could be much improved. If the legislatures are unwilling to
improve and strengthen the initiative procedure, then the initiative itself could be used to
improve the initiative process. For example, petitions were required to qualify initiatives
for the ballot in order to avoid the expense and clutter of frivolous, unpopular initiatives.
Wealth and power have corrupted this protection. With enough money to pay signature
gatherers in mall parking lots, essentially anything can be placed on the ballot. The R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. recently succeeded in placing a cleverly misleading initiative on
the ballot that purported to restrict smoking, but which would have preempted strict local
prohibitions with lax state regulations. The exposure of the tobacco company as the
financial backer of its front “citizens’ support group” led to the defeat of this frivolous,
and scurrilous initiative at great taxpayer expense. The petition requirement fails to
protect from frivolous initiatives. A scientific public opinion poll conducted by a
reputable firm, or by the government, could protect against frivolous initiatives, and could
make the process less dependent upon financing.
The avowed goal of the present political agenda is to bring government as close as
possible to the people. The Initiative enhances this goal by bringing the people into
balance with government. Those who enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of
government should equally determine the policies of government.
As previously discussed, the initiative process is an exercise of the supreme power
of the people under our democratic law-making system. This process is protected under
the Separation of Powers Doctrine as well as the Ripeness Doctrine. Once accomplished
in the United States, it possesses great potential to be extended to provide the peoples of
the world an opportunity for directly democratic governance.
Under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the legislative power is reserved to the
people through their elected representatives or, more directly, through the initiative
process. The executive and judicial branches may not invade that power until the people
have had an opportunity to exercise it. Once exercised, the executive branch must carry
out the will of the people; the judicial branch may only determine the constitutionality of
laws enacted.
The initiative could also be used to extend the initiative itself to other
jurisdictions. The power of government stems from its coercive authority to collect taxes,
and thereby finance armies and police forces that are necessary to collect the taxes in the
first place. Popular organizations suffer from the limitation of voluntary financing. The
initiative could be used to assert directly democratic control over at least a small part of
the expenditure of tax moneys for purposes supported by the public. At minimum, a
minimal, but adequate sum, about $.25/person, could be mandated to support initiative
176
elections in other jurisdictions. Funding for this process could be mandated by an
initiative in the form of loans from states to finance the activities of a United States
Electoral Administration, and ultimately a Global Electoral Administration, charged with
extending the initiative process, and direct election of representatives to other voters in
other jurisdictions.
Initiative efforts should be provided with a research and drafting service to
support the citizenry. This is vital to draft legislation that is clear, interrelated, consistent,
and decipherable so that they can be understood and followed and intelligently
adjudicated by the courts. Members of the legislature already enjoy this kind of
professional service. Citizen law-drafters currently suffer the stigma of lack of
professional quality. The initiative process itself could be used to remedy this.
The initiative process could be used to achieve proportional representation, or,
even going further, to implement the Democratic Maxim [as described above] so that
essentially everyone could choose their own political identity, could have representation
of their views which are in a minority in their locality, representation which is currently
denied, at least in some aspects, in the current “winner take all” system with imposed
geographic political identities.
Public hearings on legislation are vital to mitigate the influence of special interests
and to permit public and expert input into legislative deliberations. Measures introduced
into legislatures are heard publicly as a matter of course. Initiative measures currently
receive no such treatment. The initiative process itself could be used to correct this.
Initiative measures could also be used to provide a legislative advisory vote, to
provide sponsor and opponent disclosure requirements, to expand communications at
public expense by including published newspapers, radio and television, outlawing of forprofit funding, and amount limitations on contributions by private individuals.
According to Article V of the United States Constitution,
“The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of
two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which,
in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states...”
Since the legislative power imbedded in the inherent political power of the people
is supreme, their capacity to legislate beyond the state’s domain is without question. The
people are simultaneously citizens of their () state, (national) state, and of the United
Nations. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy enunciated this in a briefxix
“Federalism was our Nation’s own discovery. The framers split the atom of sovereignty.
It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one
state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other. The resulting
Constitution created a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two
orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of
mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain and are governed by it....
The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition,
which I take to be beyond dispute, that, although limited as to its objects, the National
177
Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the
States.”
Federal legislation by state representatives occurs through a less formal process
when state funds are used to send Governors to Governors Conferences to deliberate and
vote on legislative proposals. The same is true when members of the legislature are sent
to convocations of the Council of State Governments, and Justices of the Supreme Court
are sent to judicial conferences to deliberate and vote on uniform codes and judicial
practices which are then legislated as federal and state laws.
The common thread that runs through all of this legislative activity, whether
directly as in Article V of the United States Constitution, or indirectly through the
appropriation of state funds and/or the talent and experience of its officials, is the
aggregation of representative officials of state governmental units to bring about
legislation.
Feet
We were meeting in my office to decide which student teaching assistants to
engage. I suggested Bob Sabsowitz. “Oh no! He runs around barefoot!” “I run around
barefoot!” “Well, that’s OK. You’re a professor!” That was one of the appeals of physics.
Einstein could wear neckties for belts. It didn’t matter. Performance mattered. At USC
some of our classes were held in the Pharmacy Building. The Pharmacy students had
imposed a dress code on themselves. They were required to wear white shirts and ties.
Pharmacy was attempting to develop a professional image, like doctors. Professions that
deal directly with the public emphasize images. The public depends upon images in large
part to assess competency--if they look rich, they probably are rich, if they are rich, they
probably are successful, if they are successful, they probably are competent. The physics
students in Levi’s and tee shirts were conspicuous. The university wanted to take some
publicity photos in the Nuclear Physics Laboratory. They looked for a nuclear physicist
who looked like a nuclear physicist. I came down from the loft dressed only in Levi’s--no
shirt, no shoes--no soap. I didn’t qualify. None of nuclear physicists suited the image of
the scientist the PR people were trying to portray. Actors were brought in to dress in
white lab coats and to stand nest to the equipment, pretending to make adjustments on the
controls. Living close to Hollywood perhaps had an effect. Even in high school I
remember complaining about the superficiality of Tinsel Town. It was the content, not the
packaging that should matter. We interviewed a female candidate who dressed in
informal masculine garb. There was no sympathy for the comment that this indicated
disrespect. She has turned out to be very competent and very productive--and still dresses
the same way.
When I was living in Queens I drove to Bell Laboratories for a job interview.
When I arrived I looked in the back seat for my shoes. I had forgotten to put them in the
car. It was too late to drive somewhere to buy some without being late for the interview. I
think I was the first barefoot interviewee, but not a hiree, at the Labs.
178
I drove to UC Berkeley to present a paper on nuclear physics before the American
Physical Society. When I arrived I took my suit off its hook in the VW Microbus. The
pants weren’t on the hangar!--only the coat. I presented the paper wearing my girlfriends
black pantyhose. That must have set some kind of record too.
I had just completed the paper cum book, The Scientific Eunuch, a paper
advocating scientific responsibility for the Paris 1996 UNESCO/ WFSW conference on
science and ethics, and its title was much on my mind. As a takeoff on this title, "The
Scientific Eunuch at the UN" occurred to me, but has the opposite thrust intended. In any
case, I have been accused of suffering from satyriasis. Wilhelm Reich's theory that the
proletariat is politically impotent because it is sexually impotent fits in the story later
anyhow, in another of those "how did I arrive here?"
The political process, coupled with sanctions against neighboring and competing states
which do not respect human rights, and wit recognition and support of economic human
rights, could make Bosnia-Herzegovina into a model state of tolerance, especially given
the sophisticated and mixed population of its capital city, Sarajevo, which could
embarrass neighboring states and provide encouragement to progressive political
elements in those states who might ultimately regain power, especially after the disastrous
experience of cultural and religious chauvinism. However, support for the rekindling of
the Partisan spirit which reconstructed Yugoslavia after WWII will certainly not be
forthcoming from the world -dominant capitalist states, which are primarily concerned
with enhancing and expanding their share of investment opportunities and control of
markets and resources, and with dominating international institutions.
Human rights established at a global level are the obvious remedies to the
problem of national chauvinism if they can be so firmly established that borders become
matters of administrative convenience, and no more, so that one need not fear on which
side of a border one resides regardless of one’s ethnicity, religion, culture, or values
because human rights will be protected on all sides of all borders. There is a movement to
divide California into two or three parts. Quebec narrowly voted against secession from
Canada. By contrast, if such divisions ever were to occur, they would hopefully transpire
without the violent conflict of Bosnia because of the restraint imposed by the larger
federal systems101. The world needs such restraint, especially when the jurisdiction of
the sovereign state is challenged. Within the “states” in the United States, adjustments of
However, Emmanuel Wallerstein [1994] expects “Bosnia to come to California” in a scenario
reminiscent of Naisbitt’s: Confidence in the United States Federal Government (and in government in
general) has plummeted since the Kennedy administration. If one cannot depend upon government for
security, among other things), one may seek to provide security through other means. The rich are moving
into gated communities with private guards. The number of private police for residential, commercial, and
industrial protection is increasing at a rapid rate. But what of those who lack the financial resources to hire
security guards? Realization that individuals cannot provide adequate security by themselves induces the
formation of security groups (gangs and warlords) for mutual protection from other similar groups, often
eroding the security of competing groups, leading to a classic “arms race”, and, ultimately, to reduced
security for most. These form around common identities, religion, ethnicity, etc. As they gain in strength
and the government weakens, they impose their own taxation--what used to be called “the protection
racket”, except that they may actually provide some security in what becomes overall an extraordinarily
insecure environment.
101
179
the borders of cities and counties is accomplished without violent conflict. The world is
lacking a peaceful method of adjusting borders, sovereignties, and jurisdictions.
The distinction between an ”nation” (manifest through a “nationality” by the exercise of
coercive authority over part of the earth’s territory, and over” “minorities” within that
“turf”, into a “nation-state”) and a “state” (within which no one is relegated to “minority”
status regardless of ethnicity or religious affiliation) is crucial. The international
community has little experience in state-building [often ominously, and sometimes
incorrectly referred to as “nation-building”]2, and even then, only interest in establishing
and supporting states which provide opportunities for profit taking. Overweening
capability in military destruction overshadows constructive capability. Bombing is easier
than building. It is NATO, founded to militarily threaten and economically bankrupt
workers’ states, a military alliance of the most militarily powerful capitalist countries,
through which the U.S. intervenes. Even the Security Council is dominated by militarily
powerful capitalist states, now operating, by and large, with the approval of Russia, and
the acquiescence of China. Despite brave declarations to the contra, in the near future,
barring revolutionary change, one can expect drastic deterioration in the already abysmal
economic human rights of most of the world’s population, coupled with deterioration of
the highly-touted political and civil rights in the process of imposing acceptance of
economic deprivation upon a suffering and increasingly resistant (as well as increasing)
population as the world-dominant capitalist system sinks into deeper economic
dislocation, even in the “metropolitan” center, with aggravated effects in the “South”, in
the so-called “developing” periphery.
In Nazi Germany capitalists successfully overcame class conflict and “proletarian
internationalism” (“Workers of the world unite”), which preached that German (and all
other) workers were workers foremost and only incidentally German) by promoting the
reverse emphasis (that German workers were Germans above all, and only incidentally
workers, leading to the “class collaborationist” line that German workers should unite
with German capitalists against all non-German adversaries) called “National Socialism”,
or “Nazism”. Nationalism effectively divides (and conquers) workers. Similar
nationalist ideology is currently dominating the world stage. International solidarity
among workers is in retreat. Confronted with imperialism and neo-colonialism, the longstanding question remains whether to uncompromisingly support human rights principles
(and class solidarity) so that no one is relegated to a national minority, regardless of
ethnicity or religion, and to overcome nationalism, theocracy and religious fanaticism,
ethnicism and racism; or to compromise, by accommodating the understandable
nationalism and quest for self-determination of oppressed peoples, for practical political
purposes. The latter course, of course, debilitates class solidarity and tends to perpetuate
nationalist conflict, limiting the most optimistic hopes to accommodation between
conflicting nationalism’s, including respect for “minority” rights, settlement of disputes
over “turf” dominated by nationalistic “gangs”, arms control and even some disarmament,
investment and trade agreements and concessions, and other measures to regulate and to
ameliorate the conflict between nationalities and their governmental manifestations
(“nations-states”)
The UN, badly in need of structural legitimation and reform, is the appropriate
institution through which intervention in sovereign affairs should proceed. In situations
180
like Bosna-Herzegovina the UN has shown itself to be much more conscious and
supportive of secularism and human rights, endorsing and recognizing the multiethnic
government of Bosna-Herzegovina as an integral entity, as contrasted to the dead letter
Vance-Owen plan, and its even more aggravated successors, which would reward “ethnic
cleansing”, military conquest, and carve up unsustainable ethnic conclaves. Human rights
and state-building should not be compromised to ethnicity, religious fanaticism, racism,
“nation-building”, “turf” for ethnic or religious gangs, and disrespect for human rights.
Peacekeeping
Proposals to establish a modest standing United Nations rapid reaction force
[Ferguson (1995) herein] at the service of the Security Council raise legitimacy questions.
The United Nations currently has fifteen active peacekeeping operations [Yakan
(1995) 16], and has mounted a total of thirty-five in its fifty year history. The SecretaryGeneral has tried to increase United Nations involvement in the resolution of other crises,
but has been constrained by the budget [exacerbated by the refusal of states like the
United States (the most indebted, $1.3 thousand million as of September 1995) to pay
their debts], and by limitations on activities authorized by the Security Council. Proposals
for the United Nations to have its own military and/or police forces date from 1947 when
the Military Staff Committee recommended a United Nations force composed of national
assets [Dittmann (1989)]. There is a major difference between a military force and a
police force. A military force would be used against governments and armies. A police
force would be used against individuals.
The United Nations Charter authorizes the Security Council to decide whether
there exists “... any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression...” and
to “decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace
and security.” [Article 39, which includes calling “upon the Members of the United
Nations to apply such measures.”]
The very suggestion that the United Nations should mount peacekeeping
operations is an admission of failure to keep the peace! Compare the situation in the
United States. A legislature passes laws (with the participation of the executive branch).
The courts ultimately adjudicate disputes. The executive branch administers laws. Police
powers are usually adequate to the task, and individuals are held accountable for their
actions. Challenges to established authority are rare. [The United States government did
federalize the “National” Guards of recalcitrant (provinces) “states” in order to enforce
civil rights legislation.] The differences between the United Nations and the United States
are striking: A United States congress legislates. A federal court system adjudicates
federal legislation disputes as well as disputes between states. An independent executive
branch administrates.
Were there a democratically elected United Nations parliament to legislate, an
impartial judiciary before which individuals and groups had standing [for redress of
grievance of human rights abuses, and for criminal offenses, etc.], and an independent
executive102 with adequate enforcement powers, one would expect the rule of law to
102
See Yakan [(1995) herein 7] for an analysis of the subservience of the United Nations Secretery-General
to the Security Council--not a prescription for legitimacy.
181
prevail. Problems, disagreements, and disputes would not be expected to escalate to the
level of military conflict between armed forces, especially not between armed forces of
governments.
Were such conditions met, the United Nations would not only be legitimated, but
effective in keeping the peace. [It could also be empowered to ameliorate other problems
that transcend the authority, jurisdiction, and competence of the governments of the
current (nation) states.] Were the United Nations legitimated, not only would the
possession of military [peacekeeping] force by the United Nations be legitimated, but,
ironically and fortunately, the very necessity of such force would be largely eliminated!
What a salutary dividend! Most proposals for standing United Nations peacekeeping
forces do not include United Nations reform measures to increase legitimacy. As a
general principle, organizations lacking legitimacy should not be empowered. Legitimate
organizations depend largely upon voluntary compliance and do not require much
(repressive) power. This leads to a conundrum--a United Nations lacking legitimacy
should not be militarily empowered, and a legitimate, effective United Nations
would not need much (if any) (military) power.
Although the governments of the world have achieved an impressively high
degree of consensus in the General Assembly [See the General Assembly voting record
analysis below.], which can be considered to represent the aspirations of the peoples of
the world [“common interests”] to a degree which surprises many, the Security Council is
another matter. In its record, analyzed below in two cases-in-point, Iraq and Bosnia, it has
shown itself to promote special, vested interests. Since power in the United Nations is
concentrated in the Security Council, the United Nations itself becomes associated with
the policies of the Security Council.
The Security Council has been criticized, especially, but not exclusively by the
underdeveloped world, as a vehicle for national interests of the governments of the
developed countries103, and of the powerful constituencies and special, vested interests
of the transnational corporations they represent. In particular, the United States
government is accused of exploiting the United Nations as an imperialist tool, [Rosenau
(1995)].
My earliest recollections began at about the age of two, as well as I can
judge by asking adults about the time frame of events I remembered. I am told I was born
on Locust Street, of which I have absolutely no recollection, but whenever I passed
Locust I wondered which house and what life was like that first year of my existence
when my parents lived together. My grandmother filled me in on some of it. My father
was a hard working homebody who wanted to relax at home after work. My mother
wanted to go dancing. I only knew the household in the lower duplex at 2355 N. 32nd
Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which consisted of my truck driver grandfather Roy
Sometimes critically and jocularly referred to as “overdeveloped”, implying “maldeveloped”--not
“sustainably developed”.
103
182
Melville Todd (gas trucks for Shell Oil), my grandmother, Herminna “Minnie” Todd nee
Krueger, nicknamed “Mema”, from my first attempts to pronounce “grandma”, my
working mother Evelyn (a retail clerk at the Boston Store in Downtown Milwaukee), and
my maiden aunt Gladys who moved to Sheboygan after she married Lester Naumann,
who worked in a shoe factory his entire life. Their names all seemed to fit. Evelyn was
glamorous and tomboy tough, beating up boys who teased her nervous, delicate sister,
who became a compulsive house cleaner. I became used to the name Roger and tried to
live up to it (famous with the sword”), but it didn’t seem to fit. Would Dieter have fit?
2355 N. 32nd Street seemed like my eternal home, the only place I knew. It still seems
like home, even though it long since disappeared making room for a freeway that was
never built. I can still picture coming through the cold, windy, snowdrifts to that warm
haven where there usually was something on the stove, although I recall some hungry
times eating sliced onions on lard bread during the depression, a condition which may
have been more attributable to my grandfather’s drinking rather than to the depression
itself. It was home like no other place has felt since.
My earliest recollections of consciousness were in the house at 2355 N. 32nd
Street in living with my grandparents, my aunt, and my divorced mother. When I was five
my mother woke me from a sound sleep to ask me if I wanted to go to California. In the
middle of the night? And what was “California” anyhow? I just wanted to go back to
sleep. What prompted someone to write such a strange song as “Woke up this morning
and my mother was gone” I don’t know, but it has held special significance for me every
time I have heard it. My sister, who arrived ten years later, told me last night, 58 years
later, that my mother was pregnant with our brother at the time, definitely not a socially
acceptable condition in that culture.
My world gradually widened as I met friends on the block. My best friend, Donny,
who was Polish, with an unpronounceable and easily forgettable surname, lived across
Meinecke Street. Harry and his big sister Lois Goeltz lived a few doors north on 32nd
Street. When dairies switched from horse drawn wagons to motor vehicles, their father, a
milkman, acquired a milk wagon in which we played house and doctor, which became
increasingly educational as his sister and her friends matured with much giggling
excitement and coquetry, although I didn’t adequately understand the process. They were
girls becoming women. They were in thrall of their biology and were flaunting it to us,
perhaps because, being much younger, we posed no risk. We were curious. Earlier, we
had explored each other’s anatomy, in the ash box, behind the furnace, in the milk wagon.
We pounded on fannies to get the sweet perfume out. (Was it our diet?) The socialization
process somehow convinced me that the fragrance lacked marketability. Before the
instruction by Lois and her friends, girls were distinguished by having long hair and
wearing dresses. Before I started kindergarten Donny and I took a little girl behind the
Friday Night Fish Fry Restaurant and Tavern on Meinecke and 32nd and dropped her
diapers. Her penis was missing, but otherwise she seemed in good health. We couldn’t
get her diapers back up and finally abandoned the attempt. I was sitting on the front steps
with my grandmother when she remarked, “Oh look! that little girls diapers have fallen
down!” “Ja, I see”, I innocently replied.
I started doing things which now make me wonder at surviving to grow up. We
found some bullets and threw them down on the sidewalk at the side of the tavern on
183
North Avenue and 33rd Street where my grandfather used to get drunk and terrorize us.
When we succeeded in detonating them sometimes they would ricochet off the tavern
wall, sometimes just disappear. We never were hit. I was given a dart game, but moving
targets were more exciting. I remember running along with a dart flopping around stuck
in my forearm. Jumping off the swing at its maximum height was tame by comparison,
but it hurt more upon landing.
I crossed busy North Avenue with my mother and her boyfriend Alex to get
“wiscream”, as I am told I pronounced it at the time. Don Ameche figured in her life for a
while. In 20 degree below zero with a huge wind chill factor (before the term was coined)
my grandmother and I ran from store to store buying unnecessary things just to get warm
on the way home. The bakery store with its apple streusel and käseküchen was a favorite,
as was the butcher’s with its summer sausage and (soon to be breaded) pork chops. The
diagram of the cow with dotted lines returned to haunt me in Maicao, Colombia. My
staple upon returning from school was a summer sausage sandwich with milk and a piece
of cheesecake. Would that I could reproduce the “golden” vegetable soup with farina
dumplings. However, the bane of my existence was rutabagas. My grandmother would try
to trick me by removing them before serving me, but I could tell that a rutabaga had
swum in that mix. Now I quite like them--and I love gravy, which I hated then. My
grandfather ate disgusting things like pickled pig’s knuckles (I learned to like them),
scrambled brains (one taste was more than enough for a lifetime), and Limburger cheese
(which I learned to appreciate).
I was almost five years old on the first day of kindergarten. My grandmother
insisted on accompanying me across North Avenue, then a block further. I insisted that
this practice was tolerable only for this one first day, and that she couldn’t accompany me
any further. What if some other kids saw me? I never would invite anyone to come to
school for PTA or anything else. I considered myself to be an adult. My friends and I
went to the cinema on Saturday matinees for 5 cents at the Comet where we watched
three cowboy films twice over seated in the first row. Rarely did the cowboys engage in
disgusting behavior, like kissing girls, which we considered worse than kissing horses.
Kissing was out of bounds in any case. I remember laying the law down to my mother
when she was leaving for work. “NO MORE KISSING!”
Once I went to the Tivoli with my grandparents. The Tivoli was a more upscale
cinema (or “show”, as we called it). Some theaters added film to the performance. I
remember seeing the Ink Spots, of whom I met one years later in a bar in Anaheim. Some
theatres converted completely to film, but continued to be called “theaters”. [Why didn’t
that happen in other languages? In Serbo-Croatian “kazalište” (or “pozorište”) (theater) is
distinct from “kino” or “bioskop” (cinema).] Admission was 11 cents for adults, 6 cents
for children. I insisted on sitting by myself in the balcony. The film was “1,000,000 years
B. C.” When the dinosaurs started chasing people, then rolling over the trenches in which
people had taken refuge while they were engaged in combat with competitors, my brave
adulthood charade withered and I found myself seeking the security of my grandparents
for protection from my fears (and from miscreant dinosaurs lacking respect for the
confines of the screen).
I heard remarks that a New Year was to be ushered in at midnight. My mother
went to a party, but my grandparents indulged me. I remember sitting in my high
184
chair in the passage between the dining and living rooms where I could watch the clock. I
successfully fought to stay awake until Midnight to suffer disappointment--nothing
happened. New Year’s Eve has seemed insignificant since.
My horizons extended farther, to Washington Park where I would go ice skating
with the most beautiful creature I had ever beheld, a girl who would wait for me to skate
hand in hand. We skated together in a delirium of happiness. What an accretive
experience is life when one can conjure the delights of experiences and feelings of ages
long past!
My father George would stop by every now and then on his motorcycle after
delivering cars for Edwards Motor Co. Cars were hi tech then. My father was very
handsome with his pipe, his wavy black hair, broad shoulders and lumberjack shirts. I
was awed how waitresses would flirt with him. He looked like a cross between John
Gavin and Ronald Reagan. He thought and acted like Reagan as well. Salt of the earth
describes him--solid, reliable, domestic, unambitious, always doing his job well. The kind
that keep the world turning. He remarried another beautiful buxom (yes, I noticed even
then) blond. They both worked and lived in a bachelor apartment in a house where the
landlord also operated a dance and music studio. This resulted in me marching in parades
playing a bugle dressed in a generic American Indian costume. For a while I had to stay
with them during the polio epidemic quarantine. Children were not allowed out and I
spent weeks without leaving that room with the one bed in which we all slept, alone all
day.
My stepsister, Bonnie, lived a block from me, and I developed a crush on her.
When she came over to visit I would concentrate on holding my chin forward so that my
buckteeth would mesh. I had never heard of braces. When World War II started both my
father and my stepmother rushed down the same day to enlist. My father was sent home
with a heart that was still murmuring at 90 when he died of respiratory failure. She was
inducted and became pregnant on duty. He left town to visit his older half brother Otto in
Blackfoot, Idaho, married another vivacious and glamorous Mormon woman who bore
my stunningly beautiful sister, Susan, and settled down for good.
My mother found a new boyfriend. His name was Herman “Fish” Salmon, a
barnstorming, parachuting aviator. I started spending time at Brown Deer airport.
Sometimes at the airport I would be asked to select a song on the jukebox. My
favorite song was “Me and my shadow” (I climb the stair. I never knock ‘cause nobody’s
there. Just me and my shadow, all alone and feeling blue.) I repeatedly sang it to myself. I
would say now that I was suffering from a deep malaise. At the time I didn’t think about
it. I just felt it. I can feel it again now. Life is accretive! I can think of things that perhaps
made me sad, but these are only speculation. I didn’t connect the sadness with anything.
Why would anyone write such a strange song as “Woke up this morning and my
mother was gone”? I don’t know, but that’s what happened. I was sound asleep when my
mother woke me asking if I wanted to go to California. I didn’t even know what
California was. The only thing I wanted to do was to go back to sleep. The next morning
she was gone--to California, wherever that was. I heard that I had a new brother.
Cars were more valuable in California than in Milwaukee. My mother, Herman,
and my new brother drove back to Milwaukee. They bought some Lincoln Zephyrs,
which they coupled together to save gas, one towing the other. The back car was made
185
into a large bed. Driving back across the desert on route 66 at night with the windows
open I remember watching helplessly as the glare of headlights came toward us as we
rounded a curve. Someone crossed over the centerline and a big truck hit the side view
mirror, scattering splinters of glass over us. It was scary. My mother started screaming at
the woman who was driving, “I got my kids in this car!” It was difficult to sleep after that.
I entered the fourth grade in Northridge Elementary School. We lived on Louise
ranch, in a walnut orchard, on Louise Street where it used to cross the railroad tracks.
From Metropolitan airport to Northridge only Sherman Way and Balboa were paved.
There was one stop sign with a flashing red light and one caution sign with a flashing
yellow light. I used to trudge through the dust looking for my footsteps from the previous
repetitive and monotonous day wondering if I had already lived this day once before. Was
it a rerun? As Casey Stengel said, I was having deja vu all over again. My mother was
knitting a large afghan, which now needs some repair. We sometimes would climb up
into the trees all day eating walnuts.
Revolt of the Angels
Yesterday (as I write this) I was asked by a student who was the professor who
had the greatest impact on me. I cited several
God can make an ass with three tails, but not a triangle with four sides.
(Paracelsus?)
The Creation Committee
I sometimes ask my students (and others) how many of them believe in gods
(regardless of the number). Many are immediately distressed at the use of the plural.
Analogous to St. Thomas Aquinas I advance polytheism using the classical argument
from design: Considering the condition of the world, it must have be created by a
committee.
I have a longstanding reputation to sustain. At the last meeting of the discussion
group considering how to make best use of technology in the university I was prompted to
respond to yet another mantra in support of critical thinking. We teach manipulation
techniques in public relations, advertising, marketing, mass media, political science, and
proclaim that the university supports critical thinking. The last time I talked to the Dean
of the School of Communications I challenged him to make an argument why the school
should be part of the university. I complained about the lack of critical thinking in the
school, the lack of comparative and normative studies, about how unaware the
Communications faculty was of conferences and activities critical of the media. They did
have one black faculty member who was aware of this area, but the Dean told me that he
was lost to a more prestigious university. I asked him his opinion of the programs
sponsored by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). He had never heard of it. Case
rests. When I mentioned that media criticism has almost become an industry, and
mentioned a list of prominent names in the field, he caught at the mention of Ben
186
Bagdikian. He had once been an invited speaker during CommWeek. [Michael Parenti,
author of Inventing Reality, also spoke on campus, but at the invitation of the
Associated Students, not the School of Communications.] I am invited to sit in his course
on the media and ethics the next time he teaches it. He assured me that the image of the
school as being restricted to vocational training was undeserved. That raises another
question, “If that were the case, why should a school that teaches PR perform so poorly in
projecting its own image?”
I remember when I was invited to lecture about the mass media in the class
conducted by the Chair of the Political Science Department who professed the notion that
if the government didn’t interfere in the operation of the press, then it was “free”. I had
been running an experiment on the cyclotron at UCLA. The control board had a TV
monitor that could be switched to commercial channels when it was not used for the
cyclotron. I walked in on a Sunday afternoon and immediately recognized “The Red
Detachment of Women”. When I viewed a film of this operatic ballet at church I thought
to myself, “Nowhere else in this society am I able to access such a performance!” I was
thunderstruck when I saw it on nationwide TV, on NBC, on Sunday afternoon, sponsored
by a major corporation, ZEROX. I called it to the attention of the machine operator and to
my colleagues. “Look at this! Something is happening! ‘They’, for some reason, have
decided to change the image of China!” Shortly thereafter it was revealed that Nixon had
played “the China card” against the USSR and Viet Nam. What was amazing, and
appalling, was the ease and speed with which “they” were able to change the public
image of China. Reality had not changed significantly--China did not quickly undergo a
metamorphosis [although drastic change was commencing]. The perception of reality was
reversed. I was accustomed to years of organizing and participating in “teach-ins” at
CalTech, Whittier College, UC Irvine, Chapman University, and other venues in
conjunction with the American Friends Service Committee [“Quakers”, (like Nixon)] to
counter capitalists’ propaganda against China. I remember when some pictures of Chinese
children at play were printed. They were attacked as communist propaganda because
“everyone knows that children would not smile or laugh under the yoke of communism”.
That is how extreme the political climate had become. Our efforts were so pathetic that I
was one of the “experts” leading discussion groups and workshops. We could never
counter the propaganda juggernaught of the capitalist mass media.
This was a time too when workers seized editorial control of one of the afternoon
newspapers in Lisbon, Portugal. The capitalists’ press unceasingly attacked the workers
as a threat to freedom of the press. If the capitalist control the press, then it’s “free”. If
there is any democratic influence on the press, through workers, through elected
representatives (“big brother government”), it constitutes a threat to “freedom of the
press”, i.e., a challenge to capitalists’ control of the press through ownership and
advertising. Every now and then one encounters right wingers who argue that the
capitalists who own the media are promoting communist propaganda. A retired physicist
from the military industry who volunteers in our department is an example, arguing,
correctly, I judge, that editors are more “liberal” (meaning left wing, more inclined to
support workers’ causes and the public interest against capitalists’ interests), and that
reporters are more “liberal” than editors. Class sympathy is expected to correlate to class
identity. In trying to understand his argument, I guess that is the gist of it: It is the curse of
187
capitalists, including owners of mass media, that they are required to hire workers with
contradictory class interests in order to function and to make a profit. Capitalists can’t do
all the reporting and editing by themselves. They can hire and promote from the pool of
workers those who most identify with the capitalists’ class interest instead of their own.
They may even be able to pay well enough to change class interest. They can establish a
system which, in its most successful manifestation, would result in self-censorship or the
adoption of class perspectives most inclined to promote one’s career. This operates
systemically, and is not restricted to the mass media. Even faculty in universities are not
immune and are pressured to do the research that the funders want. At APS meetings the
military would hold special sessions, almost writing your grant application for you if only
you would agree to do the research they wanted. I decided to choose my research projects
on the basis of maximum social utility. If corporate foundations wished to fund it, all the
better, but they never did. When I did nuclear physics I lived on grants. I could even earn
two salaries on Sabbatical. After I switched to "anti-nuclear" physics--critical of nuclear
war policies and of nuclear power--grant support dwindled to zero.
Many capitalists only loyal to their “bottom line” are not even loyal to capitalism,
prompting Marx to comment, “When one is hanging capitalists one can always find a
capitalist from whom to buy the rope.” However, capitalists have established laws to
prohibit class disloyalty, or “trading with the (class) enemy”. Trading with imperial
adversaries is largely condoned until the actual outbreak of hostilities. How much U.S.produced steel has returned in the bodies of U.S. soldiers?
I understand the capitalists’ fear of workers. Capitalists can be on the losing side
in imperial conflict without being dispossessed. Adolph Krupp was on the losing side in
two world wars, yet was the richest European capitalist when the Common Market was
formed. Capitalists deposed by workers may have to return to work if workers refuse to
continue to subsidize them. Workers who can fare better without capitalists anywhere in
the world are a threat to capitalists everywhere in the world. As Chomsky would put it,
“Viet Nam was only a conflict. The capitalists won the war by destroying the possibility
of the threat of a good example. That is the real threat.” The “domino theory” is valid.
Suffering people in Honduras would be encouraged if counterparts in Nicaragua were
allowed to succeed, as would counterparts in Southeast Asia had Viet Nam been allowed
to prosper without tribute to capitalists. I walked out to the airport under construction by a
British firm in Grenada on a Sunday during the time of Maurice Bishop. There were no
guards, no activity, at this “threat to U.S. national security”. The crew on the cargo
schooner from Carriacou (the northernmost island of Granada) were spreading the word
from island to island about events in Grenada--the first time free public education, the
free medical care, the emancipation and involvement of women, the fishing fleet and
canneries provided by Cuba, allowing Granada to export fish to other islands. Bishop
recognized the threat he posed to U.S. capitalists. He was black. He spoke English as his
mother tongue. The threat of a good example could not be tolerated.
The most recent example I have encountered was a front page article in the LA
Times about a luxurious villa which was used to torture political opponents, often to the
death, in Chile under the military dictatorship of General Pinochet, who remains in power
as the head of the military. The common obnoxious tactic is to preserve some semblance
of objectivity by hiding more accurate, often even contradictory information in the bowels
188
of an article, in the continuation on the back pages. In response to criticism the obscure
copy can be trotted out. I searched the article for some mention of the U.S. government’s
role, through the CIA, in overthrowing the democratically elected government in a
country with a long tradition of democracy, and imposing, for the first time in the
country’s history, a military dictatorship that tortured people to death. The closest
approach, near the end of the article, was the opinion of a surviving and perpetually
traumatized victim that the CIA may have been aware of the torture.
At times like that I regret having previously cancelled my subscription, preventing
me from repeating the process.
Currently the Republicans’ bill is portrayed as a bill to “balance the budget” in the
headlines. After Reagan more than doubled the accumulated national debt in a twohundred year history in his first five years in office, all the while promising to balance the
budget, Because Clinton increased
What is the sense of continuing?. Whole books could be written on the subject, and have
been Were I asked to suggest a curriculum and research program for the School of
Communications I would assume basic skills, like the classical trivium; logic, grammar,
and rhetoric [how to think logically, how to express it in written and verbal form],
followed by a survey of the state of understanding, similar in mission to the classical
quadrivium; arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music theory, but with mathematics
and information technology included with basic skills, and the survey of the state of
understanding covering the wide spectrum of contemporary areas of inquiry.
The debate concerning how much attention universities should give to vocational
training is eternal. At the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Convocation on
“The University in America” the question was repeatedly couched as “What shall be done
about morticians?” Should there be a major in “Mortuary Science” included in the
curriculum. Professions, in order to have more prestige and respect, desired greater
academic credentialling and recognition. On campus, defenders of the “liberal arts”
college tradition wore satirical T-shirts emblazoned with “Orange State Tech”. Cardinal
Newman....... Robert M. Hutchins, at 28 the youngest college President in U.S. history
promptly terminated the football program at the University of Chicago. He commented
that even he occasionally felt the compulsion to exercise--but he always laid down until
he recovered. Later he sardonically proclaimed football as important to a sense of
university community--with “cafeteria-style” GE courses featuring “rocks for jocks” and
“kitchen chemistry”, there is little overlap between the courses in which students are
enrolled and the only common topic of conversation available is last Saturday’s football
score. He declared vocational training in the universities as ....... Universities achieve
stability that eludes most other human institutions. Of 85 surviving institutions from 1520
AD, 70 are universities. [Others include the parliaments of the Isle of Man, Iceland, and
Britain, and the Catholic Church {University 100 CSULB}] . They are commonly
founded to promote a religion and to train ministers
I read recently that the average longshoreman makes $80,000 compared to the top
salary of a full Professor in the California State University system of about $65,000. I
189
enjoy hard physical work, and probably would enjoy the work of a longshoreman, but I
wouldn’t trade the “psychic income” of a professor for the increased monetary income of
a longshoreman. The ILWU is an effective union. In Southern California, the long time
President, Luisa Gratz, is a former girlfriend, to whom I was introduced by my late exwife as a potential soul mate when I was a graduate student. I last saw her when we both
spoke at Holman Methodist Church at a teach-in on “Jobs with Peace”. She hadn’t
changed much--still beautiful under the camouflage makeup. When I first met Luisa she
was taking a CPUSA course in historical materialism. I remember reading the
introduction to her textbook and choking on the claim that history, through historical
materialism, had been reduced to an exact science. “Even science is not exact!”, I
protested in a heated dispute with her. If she remembers, I would have to ask her if that
contributed to our transition from lovers to friends who eventually took separate paths.
I eventually met her entire wonderful family. Her father, Fred, was a secular Jew
who was born and raised in Palestine. He and his wife Bella were the kindest, most gentle
people imaginable. They were campaigners for social and economic justice, and
communists. As a marine engineer, Fred’s dream during the Cold War was to build a
large ship to inexpensively exchange large numbers of workers between the U.S. and the
USSR, an aspiration with which I had sympathy but in which I had little confidence in its
viability. They attended church infrequently. He spoke there on the contrast between
Palestine and the homeland for Jews which was established in the USSR, where he had
only visited. He spoke of the amicable relations he had with gentile friends in Palestine
before the Zionists took control. A large proportion of the church members consists of
secular anti-Zionist, anti-racist Jews. I cannot but be amused when Zionists refer to them
as “self-hating” Jews. That is an extreme case of “chutzpah” [or “chutzpah”, depending
upon which (inaccurate) orthographic symbol from the limited selection available in the
Latin alphabet one prefers to represent the guttural h (Can one make Freudian typos? I
originally typed “porthographic” even though I have never owned a porthograph]. I have
never encountered a Jew who supported discrimination against Jews. On the other hand,
there are many “self-hating Christians”, usually fundamentalists who support the
government of Israel that discriminates against gentiles, including Christians. Still, the
term “self-hating Christian” is never heard.
Criminal Justice and Garret Capune
On the way to Bulgaria, my 10-year-old son, Curt, and I started from my English
ex-wife’s house north of Birmingham in the English Midlands and rode down to
Yugoslavia by bicycle. I didn’t remember her later, but my secretary-to-be, Valerie, was
at her house at the time. When he returned to school in the fall and was asked, “What did
you do during vacation?”, no one would believe him. One Sunday morning in Germany
we stopped at a fair. I stayed by the bicycles while he looked around. He didn’t return
until sunset. This was going to put us way behind schedule. I was stern. I said, “We’re
going to make it to the next town if we have to ride all night.” He started crying. He
doesn’t remember it, but I still feel badly about the time I made my son cry. We stopped
for the night a short distance down the road. There are so many days that pass without
190
making a dent. Others become indelibly etched in one’s memory. The trip was a
succession of memorable days. His legs were becoming sunburned, so I said that I would
ride ahead to look for some pants for him. As planned, I placed the bike next to the road
at a narrowing under a stone archway so he would know where I stopped. I waited for him
to arrive. I rode all the way back to where I had left him. No trace. This was the second
time I had lost him. I went to the police. They caught him at the Yugoslav border. He had
gone straight up the Alps over the Wurzenpass. We had already gone over the Alps once.
I had planned to go around the edge of the next range by going through Italy. It was a
23% grade. I remember my elation and haste climbing that grade to meet him at the top.
We celebrated by eating Wienerschnitzel. Camped at the top, we could see the trains
wending their way up the winding mountain canyon to the summit, an unforgettable
experience. There was no road at the top. Along with the cars, we had to board the train to
pass through the Tauerntunnel, so we didn’t bike the whole way, but then, we took the
ferry across the English Channel too. Like the previous passage over the Alps from
Munich to Spittal and Villach, we burned up our brakes screaming down the incline. We
repeated the experience four times. Later I suggested that we not take the shortest route
on the map. Instead, let us look for a route along rivers and lakes. Rivers go through
mountains, not over them. It worked fabulously. I reminded him of it while we were
travelling on the flat next to a lake while the Alps towered over us. Then we hit a 18%
grade next to a river. The road went up the mountain next to the river. The railroad tracks
went along the river. There was a side road leading along the river to a cave that was a
tourist attraction. I suggested that we try that route even though it didn’t appear on the
map. Curt was always reluctant. He wanted to take the quickest route. I remember him
complaining when, in a previous exploration, the road narrowed to a path which petered
out in a forest. We were riding through the leaves, next to a river. It was beautiful. I said,
“Let’s go for it!”. At worst we’ll have to turn back (or so I thought). We can explore the
cave. In the days before automobiles, the people from this village wouldn’t want to climb
over the mountain to reach the next, it should be easier to follow the river. There probably
is a path, if not a road. The road ended at the huge cave from which water gushed during
rainstorms. The road was far above us. Before giving up I said, “Let me check to see if I
can find a way around (the cliff which lay ahead of us).” “Yes, it looks like we can carry
our bikes up this way to the road.” We place our bikes on our backs at started up, each
taking a somewhat different route. He was wiser in his selection. He made it to the top. I
reached a dead end. The ground looked unstable ahead. I either had to retrace my steps to
take the route he had taken, or go for it. What was my philosophy?--Go for it! I leaped as
far as I could to try to reach firm ground. It gave way under my feet. I tumbled ass over
teakettle down the slope buried in leaves and mulch while my son was recording the
experience with his camera. He commented, “There’s never a dull moment travelling
with you!” He had borrowed a multihundred dollar 90 pound tire bicycle for the trip. I
had bought one for $25 at a police auction. We spent a lot of time waiting for bike shops
to open so we could repair his bike. Mine never broke down. I liked to go cross-country.
Taking a short cut by Worms near where we passed Lise Meitner Strasse, he cursed me as
his bike sunk into the mud while I cruised ahead.
On the first trip, once we reached Rijeka, we boarded the Liburnia for Dubrovnik.
On the island of Korcula, where another son, Roy, was to work later as a disk jockey, I
191
noticed a Cevapcici stand on the dock. I wanted to treat my son to his first Yugoslav
hamburger. We were scheduled to remain in port 20 minutes. We debarked to go to the
stand. The Liburnia was behind schedule. It rolled up the ramp and left immediately. I
was dressed only in Levis, no shoes, no shirt, no service. We explored the island and
contemplated swimming to the mainland. Then we discovered the ferry. We were offered
a ride to Dubrovnik. When we arrived late at night my son said that he was hungry. All
stores were closed. I tried to get some food for him at a restaurant. The waiters insisted I
leave, you know, no shoes, no shirt, no service. I said that I would leave immediately if
only they would feed my son. They refused. They became belligerent. I was adamant. I
insisted that they feed my son. I started fighting with the group of waiters. My son started
crying, saying that he wasn’t hungry anymore. That reminded me of the difficulty with
control double blind experiments. An investigation was conducted to determine the effect
of electric shock upon the appetite of guinea pigs. The control group and the experimental
group were treated almost identically. They were both removed from their cages and
place in the shocking cage. For the control guinea pigs the current wasn’t turned on. Both
groups lost their appetite. To have a big hand reach in and lift them out of their cage was
traumatic enough for all of them to lose their appetites. The trauma of the fight made my
son lose his appetite. Upon arrival at the conference site they seemed not too surprised
and took care of us until we could retrieve our things. I was that brash American.
After the conference we had intended to go to Sicily to accompany Vickie, a
former student who was living with us. Her family had originated in Sicily and we
intended to visit them. I had promised her that it would be the most memorable
experience of her life. (Un)fortunately, my wife had arranged with a crew from Radio
Television Zagreb to film the selfmanagement process at Institut Rudjer Boskovic, where
I had spent my first Sabbatical. I had written a paper on selfmanagement and my class on
Science and Public Policy was making a film about it as a class project. The class had
also researched values in the academic scientific community, which was the foundation
for a paper on the topic I presented at the conference in Dubrovnik in Serbo-Croatian.
People who speak another language are generally very appreciative when one makes an
effort to learn their language, even in the U.S. Languages are windows to a culture, a key
to the literature, philosophy, the whole way of life. Something is always lost in the
translation. I am thinking of some untranslatable Serbo-Croatian humor honed by rapier
Yugoslav political wit. The Fiat "101" (“sto jedan”) was called the “sto jadan” (how
pathetic!). Did it translate? “Self management” is “samoupravljanje”. “Mi smo
samoupravlanji” (We are self-managed) became “Mi smo samo upravljanji” (We are
only ordered around). “Samo” means both “self” and “only” in Serbo-Croatian.
Others translate easily. Yugoslavs poked fun at everyone, including themselves.
Tito’s car has no engine “because everything runs downhill in Yugoslavia.” When Willy
Brandt was touring Yugoslavia he was shown several factories. Of course, the workers
were warned in advance so they could provide an image of industriousness. Brandt
insisted on making an unplanned visit. Tito couldn’t dissuade him. As usual, the workers
were drinking coffee and slivovica and gossiping. Brandt noted Tito's distress, and
commented, “No need for embarrassment, in Germany the owners don’t work either!”
The veteran communist had behaved badly. When he died he was given his choice
of a socialist hell or a capitalist hell. He thought he would try a capitalist experience for a
192
change. A devil standing nearby nudged him with his pitchfork and whispered, “No, take
the socialist hell. In the capitalist hell the fire is incendiary hot. In the socialist hell, the
coal delivery is late, the fire goes out,....”
Albanians were favorite targets. “Don’t cross the border in the center of Lake
Ohrid. The Albanians will shoot at you! ---with their bows and arrows!”. A guard at the
Albanian border noticed a rabbit fleeing Albania. It made a gigantic leap across the border
at stopped to catch its breath. The guard saw nothing pursuing the rabbit and inquired
why the rabbit was fleeing. “Have you heard what they’re doing to horses in Albania?
They’re castrating all of the horses in Albania!” “But you’re not a horse, you’re a
rabbit.” “Oh, by the time I prove that I’m a rabbit...!”
In retrospect, given the tragedy of Yugoslavia, the Communist policy of strongly
discouraging "racism" [not quite an accurate term since the South Slavs ("Yugoslavs") are
distinguishable essentially only by religion adopted from different conquerors] seems to
have been wise and necessary. Slovenians were the most prosperous, and seldom the butt
of jokes. However, if one told an ethnic joke about a Bosnian, it might be followed by an
uncomfortable interview at the police station, so I heard tell that a story would begin,
"There were these two Slovenians, Mujo and Alia,......", Muslim names which no
Slovenian would ever carry.
The next stop was Varna, Bulgaria for the WFSW meeting. My son had had his
fill of biking. I was to meet my wife and son in Istanbul. I had brought my State of
California paycheck along. I couldn’t cash it in Zagreb. I never suspected that the
financial status of the State of California would be questioned. I was told that the central
bank in Beograd would have to cash it. Early one morning I departed from the village of
Trenkovo en route to Beograd, some two hundred kilometers distant. Trenkovo
(“Trenk’s”) was named for the consort of the empress Maria Theresa, Baron Trenk,
currently a brand name for cognac (“vinjak”). His villa, now a school in socialist
Yugoslavia, lay a 100 meters north of my in-laws' farmhouse. He had increased the local
population with the participation of local peasant girls. At my sister-in-law’s three day
long wedding the traditional practice of pinning money on the bride’s dress was
continued, except now one only is rewarded with a dance. In feudal days, the nobility,
being the richest, was able to outbid and sample the favors of every attractive bride before
the husband. Traditions die hard.
The easiest, boring, but dangerous route was along the autoput “Brotherhood and
Unity” running from Zagreb to Beograd. I took the back route, around the JNA (Jugoslav
People’s Army) barracks in Slovenska Pozega, across the mountains on dirt roads that
were so bumpy that the brief case I had wrapped around the bar broke loose scattering my
food across the road. My water bottle was filled with slivovica (homemade plum brandy,
the national drink). I passed through the Voivodina and Osijek to reach the outskirts of
Beograd in one long tiring day. I camped in a mosquito-laden cemetery. I had stopped
from time to time in small villages. I had an American flag emblazoned across my back. I
still would be asked where I was from. “Americanac sam.” They wouldn’t believe me--an
American who knew their obscure language. It is considered obscure and exotic.
[Cartoon]
I had a cartoon in my office that explained that IRS had published a pamphlet in
Spanish explaining how to fill out the income tax form, which, as in previous years was
193
printed in Serbo-Croatian. I had to produce my passport. “Well, then, your parents spoke
Serbo-Croatian at home?” “Nein, mein Grosseltern stammen aus Deutschland!”,
followed by Serbo-Croatian translation. I would suddenly become the center of attention
in these off beat towns, isolated from the world, which never saw a tourist. I always
worked as a peasant with my in-laws in Yugoslavia. This was a different life. We worked
from dawn to dusk in one of the most beautiful places on earth. Each time I arrived I
would describe it as “Raj na zemlji”--Paradise on earth. In the summer one felt
surrounded by food. The fields were full of it. Fruit was piling up underneath the trees
along side the road. One did something different each day. In fact, one did several
different things each day. In writing about technology transfer, I had referred to
“North/South” technical transfer, about the necessity of providing technical training to
“unskilled” peasants. I stand corrected. I had a Ph.D. in nuclear physics and every day we
would do something I didn’t know how to do. I had to learn. Later, at an UNCTAD
Conference, impressed by the knowledge required to be a successful peasant, I suggested
efforts to develop “South/South” transfer of appropriate technology that matched the
conditions of developing nations, not capital intensive technologies like nuclear power.
Notice that it is not high technology per se which is inappropriate--computers and
microchips may be very appropriate. Even satellite communications may be the way to go
in places like India where the population pressure is so great that wooden telephone poles
wouldn’t survive the shortage of cooking fuel.
(plum brandy--the national drink). I passed through the Voivodina and Osijek, now a
bombed out ruin, to reach the outskirts of Beograd in one long tiring day. I camped in a
mosquito-laden cemetery. I had stopped from time to time in small villages. I had an
American flag emblazoned across my back. I still would be asked where I was from.
“Americanac sam”, I would reply. They wouldn’t believe me--an American who knew
their obscure language. It is considered obscure and exotic.
Living surrounded by so much food gives one a false sense of security. I feel
increasingly vulnerable as our technological society distances itself from nature. What if
the ever more complicated fabric of our society unravelled? How would we get our food?
Here it was immediately accessible. It didn’t depend upon a fallible transportation system.
On the other hand, the risk of being ejected from the land or killed through “ethnic
cleansing” because one didn’t belong to the right religion was high.
Peasants in Yugoslavia are so tied to the soil, that appreciating the depth of the
Slavic soul only makes the tragedy there seems more painful as people are uprooted in
“ethnic cleansing”. Even before the war, in the train stations there were sobbing people.
One couldn’t tell which direction they were going. They cried at the thought of leaving
home and they cried with joy upon return. One day, working in a vineyard with an elderly
woman from across the road on the slopes of the low hills that surrounded “Zlatna
Dolina”--the Golden Valley, as the Romans dubbed it, she asked about my travels. I had
just returned from The USSR, Israel, and Turkey. She pointed to the top of the hill behind
us. “I’ve never been over that hill!” I kissed many stubbly bearded peasants. They would
want to know about Hollywood stars, as well as many other things about life in America.
My favorite picture of my Croatian (formerly Yugoslav--“Tito’s daughter”) wife would
not be considered a glamorous one by most. She is seated at the oilcloth-covered table in
the kitchen with a wood-fired stove and no plumbing. The water from the well outside the
194
kitchen tasted better than any I remember. One passed the manure pile behind the
attached barn to reach the outhouse. One felt very close to the soil. I envisioned myself
one day being enterred in the village cemetery with names of people on tombstones that
weren’t complete anonymities. It seemed so much more personal than the large welltrimmed cemetery two blocks from my Anaheim home, where I have lived since 1969, in
which I don’t recognize a single name on a tombstone.
It has always been my practice to try to avoid the tourist areas. I have always
wanted to understand how life is for ordinary people, for workers. Five star hotels display
a monotony rivaled only by shopping malls. One can’t be rigid about it though. Many
sites become popular with tourists because they are unique and extraordinary. There is
only one Venice, or Salzburg, or Paris, or Prague, or Wasserberg, or Heidelberg, or Kuala
Lumpur (to finally add a non-European example), all packed with tourists, but I was
impressed with the northern coast of Scotland where we saw no one else, similarly with
Saltwhistle Bay, Mount Abbott, Popocatepetl. More accessible natural beauty, the
Plitvice Hanging Lakes (Croatia), Niagara Falls, Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, even the
bottom of the Grand Canyon meets with tourism. I recall Havasupai with sadness. The
last trip there to share its unique beauty confronted the destruction of the previous
month’s flash floods that ripped out the delicate pond structures below the waterfalls.
There also may only be one Maicao (Colombia), but I wouldn’t suggest cloning it.
One can read statistics and social, political, and economic analyses, but it helps to
have direct supplementary information from people’s personal experiences. My motherin-law was a devout Catholic who opposed Communism. As in Spain, the Catholic
hierarchy had supported the fascists. My father-in-law had been in the home guard, but he
had helped the partisans. He was taken as a prisoner of war by the partisans in Zagreb.
His father was on a delivery and obtained his release to bring him home. A partisan unit
stopped them at a checkpoint on the way home. The Serbian woman officer wanted to
execute him on the spot. Life was cheap then and later. Yugoslavs killed more Yugoslavs
than Germans did. World War II was a triple whammy--defense against invasion; ethnic
war, primarily between Četnik Serbian monarchists and Ustaše Croatian fascists; and
class conflict between the partisans and everyone else. The partisans fought the Germans
and the Četniks and the Ustaše. Interpleading saved his life. Before the outbreak of
chauvinism again, they had come to appreciate the Communists, to a degree. They
recognized that their children, a surgeon, a dentist, two teachers, and an automobile
mechanic would never had much opportunity under the monarchy. When hail destroyed
the crops, they were compensated. My father-in-law exclaimed, “That is the first time the
government has ever given anything to the peasants!” The monarchy had only taxed them
and conscripted them. Under Tito, Yugoslavia was fiercely proud and internationally
respected. They had shot down two U.S. warplanes that had penetrated their territory. The
partisan slogan was somewhat simplistic, but direct: “Tuđe ne želimo, naše ne damo!”-”We don’t want what belongs to others; we won’t surrender what is ours!” When I was
working at Institut “Ruđer Boškovič” in Zagreb, I never encountered anyone else who
was even somewhat critical of Tito. He was an imposing giant of a figure. I was critical of
his fancy uniforms, his villas, and hobnobbing with royalty. At first I was under great
suspicion. Why would an American nuclear physicist come here to do research? After
confidence was established they told me that they suspected that I was a CIA agent. That
195
could have explained reluctance to criticize Tito at first, but not later. The return of the
Ustaše changed all that.
I observed signs of the troubles to come in 1970. I was appalled at the way my
landlady, a schoolteacher, talked about Serbs. “That’s the way they talk about “niggers”
in the South”, I thought. The Communist party of Yugoslavia had changed its name to the
“League” (Savez) of Communists in accordance with the Marxist dictum of the
“withering away of the state”. As a democratic and socialist society is built, as people
learn to cooperate, as the level of social consciousness and responsibility raises, the
coercive power of the state, which in bourgeois societies was necessary to maintain
repression and class differences, theoretically should become unnecessary and
undesirable. Decentralization was occurring. Major funding for the Institute was shifted
from Beograd to Zagreb, reflecting the flow of tax revenues. A trade delegation from
France complained that it had the authority to bargain for France as a whole, but, because
of selfmanagement, it was required to bargain separately with each factory. Competition
between factories was intense. Energoinvest in Sarajevo competed with Rade Končar in
Zagreb more intensely than Macys and Gimbels. The Institute was quite disconnected
from industry. I was disappointed at the low level of consciousness. Scientists were
pursuing their international reputations. It was a naive thought, and I knew better, but I
had hoped that class distinctions would be muted, that the elitist concepts of scientific
work would be ameliorated, that I might also be assigned to do dishes, and cook, and
clean up, like I had done in the Army. Once at some friends’ house on the Dalmatian
beach in Rogoznica, I was passing the sink and started doing the dishes. The son caught
me a called his father who admonished me that “I was setting a bad example!” Officially,
according to Communist doctrine the genders were equal [some people would say
"sexes", instead of "gender", but there is a difference--feigning a headache to avoid
gender is unknown]. Practice was quite different. Male chauvinism was rampant.
I had visions of returning to the intensely active days of research as a graduate
student. I showed up bright and early to ask how to get started. My section chief, Petar
Tomaš, told me, “That is not how things are done here”. One hangs out, makes contact,
and eventually a research project emerges. I did that for a while, learning Serbo-Croatian
painstakingly from a newspaper and a dictionary. I finally hooked up with a beautiful
graduate student, Joǯica Hudomalj. One night while running an experiment electronic
difficulties were encountered. I was accustomed to 14hr/day research. When she arrived
the next morning to find me still troubleshooting the electronics she was amazed. An
inordinate amount of time is spent having coffee and conversing. Petar attended a
conference at institute expense in Herceg-Novi at which I presented a paper. We would
encounter him returning from the beach after the conference day. He would ask, “Did
anything interesting happen today? One year he actually gave a paper. It was a rather tired
plea for nuclear power: population is increasing; energy consumption per person is
increasing; therefore energy requirements are increasing even faster--as the product of the
two factors. Fossil fuels (and hydroelectric power, and most other alternatives, tidal,
geothermal) are limited. If one extrapolates far enough into the future demands will
exceed even the most optimistic estimates of fossil fuel. There will inevitably be a
shortfall. The only possible source to make up the shortfall is nuclear. There was no
examination of the limitation and problems of nuclear power.
196
Research was slow, so I began researching the system of selfmanagement. In
Yugoslavia the workers formally run everything with more than five employees
(excepting family members), factories, institutes, restaurants, hospitals. Once accepted,
every worker has the right to vote and to serve on the workers’ council (Savjet, the SerboCroatian version of the Russian ”soviet”), which is the preeminent management authority.
It can be superceded by direct democracy--the assembly of all workers (Zbor), or by
referendum. The Savjet hires and fires “bosses”--directors, or “CEO’s”. It establishes
consultative bodies. The institute had a business advisory board (poslovni odbor) and a
scientific research advisory board (naučni večer). In practice, a scientific establishment
has strong influence over policy. Some expected that workers, given power, would act
irresponsibly. They would spend the money on wages instead of investing. Actually, on
average, enterprises have a 30% reinvestment rate of profits, which is quite respectable.
Problems arose, however, in the form of the investments, which were made in capital
intensive, labor extensive, profit enhancing machinery. That made good sense for the
workers inside the enterprise who had larger profits to divide as wages. It made little
sense to unemployed workers who hadn’t been accepted. They appealed to Tito and to the
League of Communists, who still had a great deal of power. The enterprises were
compelled to accept unemployed workers. These supernumerary workers were getting in
each other’s way in the automated (not highly) factories. Economists with whom I talked
indicated that similar mistakes had been made in agriculture, especially in the Voivodina.
Large, more efficient state farms and collectives replaced peasant plots. Productivity was
high per worker remaining in agriculture, but if the entire work force were included in the
calculus, including those forced off the land and migrating to Novi Sad, where they were
either unemployed or underemployed in retail and service sectors, overall productivity
dropped. Gunnar Myrdal later made the same point about underdeveloped countries in
general.
Just before I left I informed my “boss”, Petar, of my selfmanagement studies. He
was visibly shaken. He never would have allowed it had he known. I never understood
the reason for his concern. I later returned with a film crew from Radio Television Zagreb
to record selfmanagement meetings with genial cooperation from everyone.
I certainly was treated well at the institute. I was given a month’s pay the day I
arrived and the day I left (and every month in between). The working climate in a
socialist economy is quite different. One member of the institute only came once a
month--to collect his pay. He would drink slivovica and coffee with other workers on the
best of terms. He was establishing his own business. He repaired my Triumph Spitfire.
After his business was well established he resigned. Job security is almost absolute, and it
has consequences. Clerks don’t want to interrupt their conversations to wait on
customers. It is difficult to obtain services. Still, overall, the economy was doing well, in
part because Tito could obtain foreign aid and loans, in part because of remittances of
Yugoslav workers in other countries, notably Germany, in part because of tourism.
However, they were obviously living beyond their means. Imports persistently exceeded
exports.
Morale was low at the Institute. They went on a symbolic strike in protest of poor
pay. They argued that if they were doing socially useful work, they should be paid a
decent wage. They would compare my wages to theirs and complain. Davor, my best
197
friend, had an apartment in the center of Zagreb, two cars, a country house on the coast, a
yacht. My brother and sister-in-law had a free and clear three story house with a large
garden on a hill with a beautiful view overlooking the Golden Valley, a new car, free
health care, sent both children to college, and bought a large vineyard. According to the
monetary exchange market they were not well paid. In terms of quality of life they faired
much better than others. One Macedonian worker returning from Germany sat next to me
on the bus from München to Zagreb. The Germans, living in crowded apartments had
laughed at him. Now he was laughing at them as he was returning to his five-bedroom
home on a large ranch with several hundred sheep.
I was still full of the vigor of antiwar activities. I suggested that pictures of
napalmed children be posted to help motivate the researchers and to help guide the
direction of research--to no avail I remembered the time I was to speak to an antiwar
rally. Before I took the stage I looked through the pages of Felix Greene’s pictorial book
Viet Nam! Viet Nam! I saw a picture of a man holding his napalmed child. The child
was about the same age one of my sons, about two years old. I imagined how I would feel
if that were my son I was holding. Tears of rage and indignation came to my eyes. I was
passionate in my antiwar plea. When we engaged in civil disobedience, sometimes critics
would argue, “Why do you engage in that kind of behavior? What did they ever do to
you?” I would reply, “They are dropping napalm on us!” They usually seemed not to
understand. Most people can intellectually understand the concept of a “family of
humanity”, but they don’t feel it. In order to make the family of humanity a reality,
institutions representing all of humanity are required--back to the UN again! We have to
resist the “divide and conquer” strategy. Workers should not allow themselves to be
divided by nationality, race, religion, sexual preference, gender, or by any other criteria.
Like Mrs. Leland Stanford, who complained that Professor Ross was “setting man against
man” by not including exploiters with exploited, criminals with victims, oppressors with
oppressed, there are those who claim that "we are all god's children", implying that these
distinctions are irrelevant. Maoists make the distinction between antagonistic and
nonantagonistic contradictions. Dispute between those who prefer an opera house and
those who prefer an athletic stadium can be resolved through compromise. The
contradiction between criminal and victim can only be ameliorated by reducing crime
(and exploitation and repression)--the contradiction between slave and master can only be
addressed by eliminating slavery--the contradiction between exploiter and exploited can
only be addressed by eliminating exploitation.
At a campus rally I once used the recurring theme, "We are all victims", trying to
show that in myriad ways besides caring about the fate of another human, it is not the
Vietnamese or the combatants who are victimized. It apparently had some effect since
students seized the Student Union building immediately afterwards. The police ejected
them later that afternoon. I remembered Blase Bonpane's rallying cry when I invited him
to speak on our campus, "Stop the war or we'll stop the country!" There was a sharp
distinction between so-called “liberals” and us. So-called “conservatives” are also
generally undeserving of the term. If one insists on arraying the myriad variety of
political views on a linear projection, right wing, left wing is more descriptive. I consider
myself to be a genuine liberal: I strive to be tolerant, open minded, empathetic. I didn't try
to excuse the war as the best of intentions gone wrong. I didn't try to promote the war as a
198
defense of democracy when I knew that it was being conducted to prevent the elections
internationally guaranteed by the Geneva accords of 1954 from occurring because
Eisenhower expected "Uncle Ho" to be elected with some 85% of the vote. I also consider
myself to be a conservative. I want to preserve the environment and to conserve people's
health and longevity instead of sacrificing them to profits. I don't believe in living beyond
our means, or on the edge, or in taking unnecessary risks because it's good for business. I
don't want to have to depend upon "technological rabbits" to save us from the
consequences of current trends. I want to maintain valuable traditions, including the
protections of the Bill of Rights, the constitutional restrictions on the powers of
government, separation of powers, and checks and balances. I want to conserve natural
resources, monuments, historical sites, cultures and languages. I consider myself to be a
radical: I want to get at the root of problems instead of merely treating the symptoms. I
consider myself to be a progressive: I want to make progress toward a better, more just
society. I consider myself to be a libertarian: I served on the American Civil Liberties
Union of Southern California in the early sixties; Government shouldn't impose
unnecessary restrictions. I also consider myself to be a globalist, supranationalist and
internationalist, trade unionist, federalist, and democrat, without exhausting applicable
ideological identities.
We carried a casket around the campus in commemoration of the victims of the
war. The “illiberals” clucked their tongues as we passed. "Why don't we express our
discontent at the ballot box?" Arguments aside concerning the precondition for
democracy--an open forum in which ideas would compete on the basis of merit-- the most
egregious victims of US government policy were not even allowed to vote whether they
wanted B52's to carpet bomb them. Since Senator Mike Gravel's (Philadelphia II) effort
to found a national initiative process (and to reform the UN) have not yet come to
fruition, voters in the US are not allowed to either. We are only allowed to choose among
the "evil of two lessers", between the best candidates money can buy. Their worst
establishment fears were realized. As expected by radicals and others alike, universities,
those wonderful institutions, became targets of reprisals.
XII. Unitarians-Good to the Last Drop.I donated my body to science even before I discovered Unitarianism, but quite
consonant with the prevailing philosophy of Unitarians. During a holiday dinner my son
commented, “Samoans never had cancer until recently”. “Neither did I”, I replied. No big
deal. I have the best kind—prostate cancer. Well, the recovery and survival rate from
thyroid cancer is ever higher. Hopefully I will die with it, not from it. I have long
recognized that life was a terminal condition.
Herman also thought of me as well-intentioned, but naive, an assessment I
reciprocated with emphasis. His bumper sticker read, “The only ism for me is
Americanism,” which I considered vacuous and puerile. The family was riddled with a
strange form of racism. Herman would poke fun at “jungle bunnies” and “jigaboos”, but
with every black friend I had he was gracious, polite, friendly, and personable. My
grandmother was getting old, but I couldn’t resist challenging her comments about “dirty
dance” and Jews. When she met my army buddy, Al Levinson, she commented, “What a
nice Jew!” They reminded me of Reagan who vilified communists. Then when he met
199
one he put his arm around him in Red Square. I have always had a special sensitivity for
the feelings of rejected people who have suffered discrimination. I got out of my way to
welcome the new black (now "Afro-Americans", but what are Arabs? Do we really need
hyphens?) on the block (“Here comes the neighborhood”). I go out of my way to
recognize the contributions of the “invisible people,” custodians, waiters,... I noticed
when our former Chair, Dorothy Woolum, complimented the painter in the hall on his
work, commenting on the improved appearance. I had just passed him, and thought to
myself, “How did I manage to miss that opportunity?” --kudos to Dorothy. “I’ll do better
in the future”, I promised myself. Pride in socially useful work should be encouraged.
Herman flew the original testing of the F104, which became the standard NATO
fighter for many years despite the huge numbers that crashed over the years. An F104
blew up on him while he was testing it at Edward’s Air Force Base. He had to bail out
again. The engineers couldn’t believe his account of the events. It seemed incompatible
with their interpretation of how the mechanism of the plane would behave. They
speculated that perhaps the crisis had fogged his memory. Fat chance. He was placed
under Sodium Pentathlon and his vivid reliving of the accident was recorded by camera.
This film produced the most dramatic, gripping program on Walter Cronkite's Prudential
"Twentieth Century" that I recall. One feels as if one is there along side Herman during
the accident. "I hear an explosion in the afterburner. The cockpit is filling with smoke.
Something is closing in on my legs." Cool as the proverbial cucumber. He relates the
events, describes the symptoms, until the heat requires him to release the canopy and eject
over the desert.
Herman provided an imposing model for a youngster to emulate, and I did. I tried
everything to gain acceptance into the family. I excelled at school and received all of the
recognition, support, and encouragement at school that I was denied at home. Thank God
for our blessings. Comparing report cards on the school bus, fellow students commented
on how their parents would react if they had my straight As. I knew my report card
would meet apathy. It was to be expected. Talk about wanting to be good, not only did I
excel in school, but I also mowed the lawn, painted, raked leaves, washed dishes,
vacuumed, and sat on babies. Houses in Milwaukee were built on a hill over the sidewalk.
We had been on vacation for two weeks. I discovered that my grandfather had mowed the
lawn because he thought it had grown too tall for me to mow. I was distressed at not
doing my job, even if it was difficult, I still wanted to do my job. I had to get my brother
into bed by a certain time, but I couldn’t touch him. I resorted to blocking his way in the
hall until in frustration he vomited on the carpet. Cleaning it up did not save me from the
reprimand. I couldn't win for losing. Christmases were agonizing. and embarrassing.
Actually, I loved Christmas. I only wished that people would be as nice, generous, and
unselfish all year long. (redundant) I never really wanted anything except acceptance, but
the difference in the presents was another slap in the face to be smilingly endured.
Thinking ahead I can visualize the outline of this account. I feel where I am
headed. I wonder whether I can really succeed in containing my upwelling feelings to
write this. I can feel the tears. I choke them back. I am in a public library. That helps. I
don’t want to be a spectacle. Dare I allow anyone to read this? Courage. The idea is to
take a humanistic approach to UN reform. Can I get there?
200
(Will I ever have the nerves to allow anyone to read this? Isn't it silly for a man in
his sixties to still feel the pain of childhood wounds inflicted over a half century ago?
Physical wounds quickly heal, emotional wounds apparently never. This whole effort
resulted from a misunderstood promise to the World Federalist to write a book on UN
Reform. The humanist style suggested to attract a broad audience is out of control)
I never wanted anyone ever to feel as badly, as rejected as I felt. Perhaps that
sensitized me to civil rights and human rights. The origin of my motivation for support of
human rights I trust has not clouded my judgment when I ... that human rights are the key
to the avoidance of tragedies like Bosnia. We should create a world when borders
become matters of administrative convenience, where it matters little which side of a
border one resides because one's rights are respected on both sides, and one is not
required to engage in .. conflict to avoid discrimination and maltreatment.
For chauvinistic separatist movements based upon the principle of “self
determination” I have little sympathy. “Self-determination” for a minority cum majority
inevitably means second class status for the remaining minorities. The minority Serbs,
Croats, and Muslims living in each other’s dominant territories before Yugoslavia
disintegrated fared much better. They could hardly fare worse now with “self
determination”. Of course, “self determination” can mean decolonialization and an end to
imperialism or domination by transnational corporations as well. It is the substance, not
the terminology that is important.
On the other hand, I can’t think of a revolution, which wasn’t worthy of support.
Revolutions are distinguished from “palace revolts” where only the rulers change, not the
oppression. I am never by surprised by revolutions. What I find it difficult to understand
is when revolutions don’t occur. Why do people tolerate being so shabbily treated? The
CIA was surprised when the Shah fell in Iran. I couldn’t understand how he could remain
in power with such overwhelming popular antipathy. To understand the intimidating
power of torture, mutilation, and assassination I suppose one must be exposed to that
environment. Seeing the mutilated body by the side of the road in El Salvador gave me a
taste of it, but even then its effect was muted because I was an American who as far as
they knew, might have been under the protection of the U.S. government. Had my politics
been suspect that protection would disappear. I kept a low profile, which, I now realize,
was an effect of the climate of government terror, which even had an effect upon me.
Herman was a real life Errol Flynn, dashing and adventure-seeking, full-blown
macho. He had been an amateur boxer. Countless times he asked my brother whether he
remembered the time he bloodied some guy’s nose. If one judged by frequency of
reference, it seemed to be his proudest accomplishment. Being Chief Experimental Pilot
at Lockheed was not enough adventure. He shot polar bears in the Arctic and built his
own racing plane, the Cosmic Wind. The race that remains indelibly etched in my
memory was held at Otay Mesa near San Diego. Racers from across the country
convened. Steve Whitman and his striking wife from Oshkosh, Wisconsin were our
houseguests. The sport was in its infancy. The promoters could not yet attract large gates.
They raised enough money to cover expenses, including cheap trophies. There was no
money for a winner’s pot. Herman was leading the race. I was standing in front of the
hangar next to Art Chester’s son, who limped from a bout with polio. Art was flying the
201
Swee’Pea which had an innovative design. In an effort to reduce frontal drag, the air
intake was located in the middle of the propeller. The safest place to be in a race is not in
the neighborhood, followed by somewhere on the ground. If you have to be in the race, it
is safest to be in the lead. There one doesn’t encounter “prop wash” from other planes.
Art wasn’t in front. Rounding a pylon he apparently hit some prop wash which stalled out
one wing. He started into a snap roll to the right. He recovered! No! He over reacted,
snapping then to the left and crumpling into the ground. The anguished cries of his son,
“My father! My father!” still ring in my ears. What can one say? I didn’t have to rise to
the occasion. He left me behind, running onto the field still uttering the repeated
anguished cry. About a lap later another plane crashed, again killing the pilot. It’s not like
automobile racing. Pilots don’t walk away waving to the crowd. Accidents are terminal
experiences. At the finish line a pilot dove at the finish line trying to best Herman. His
wheels hit the ground and the plane luckily bounced up into a steep climb.
This was macho stuff in a male domain. The standing joke about female pilots
was, “Confucius say, ‘woman who fly upside down have big hairy crackup’”. [My
contribution to the Confucius repertoire was, “Confucius say, ‘Waitress with big tips get
rich quick’”.] I have had some experiences where I came close to extinction. Either I
would say, “Well, I’ve had the experience, but let’s not push our luck”, or “Let’s not be
so foolish again.” Parachute jumps were not really dangerous. Well, the week before my
second jump two aviators bailed out of a T80. Only one chute opened. Seven bailed out
of a crippled B 17 and five failed to open. I thought, “Five out of seven is not good odds”,
but attributed it to the emergency circumstances. I remembered looking through
Herman’s scrapbook. He had made over 200 jumps at barnstorming at air shows. It had
many pictures of people, including a few women, who lie on the ground wrapped in their
chute, in which they had become entangled like a shroud. I wanted to make a long free
fall of at least a mile from as high as the plane could go, with a trail of flour like I had
seen in air shows so I could be seen from the ground. I calculated the time I would be in
free fall, conservatively neglecting air resistance. I could fall for over a minute. The rigger
from whom I borrowed the chute didn’t want it soiled with flour. I argued that the flour
would be dissipated before I deployed the chute--to no avail. On the first jump I didn’t
even say goodbye to the pilot when we reached the drop zone over Sepulveda flood
control basin. After the first jump I would dip a wing while flying and find it difficult to
believe that I had really been able to jump. I had to test myself again. Actually, even now
I find it difficult to believe that I actually jumped, but only need be brave for a second.
It’s funny. I was more scared, if relieved, after the chute opened than in free fall. What if
the shroud lines or the harness broke? Ridiculous, but our intellect doesn’t govern our
emotions and fears. In planning the Teach In on the Viet Nam war I offered to parachute
onto campus in order to generated publicity for the event, but arrangements were never
made. My best friend, Danny, made his first jump, with family and friends, to celebrate
his 50th birthday. I arrived late for the morninglong briefing at Perris Lake. I heard
warning after warning about things they shouldn’t do. Don’t curl up into a ball. The air
will spin you like a pinwheel and you’ll wrap up into the chute. They practiced over and
over again jumping (not diving) out, arching their backs, keeping their feet together and
throwing their arms up and out. This was practice all morning for a static line jump.
Come Danny’s turn he dived, but that’s what I always did. Parachutes are much improved
202
in design now, more reliable and almost like gliders. Had I been cavalier? I just went up
and jumped with a ripcord.
On the second jump we removed the door from the side of the plane. I sat with my
legs dangling out. We climbed and climbed for about an hour until the plane reached its
ceiling. It was a hazy morning. The ground seemed like a looong way down. I kept
considering the degree of embarrassment I would suffer if I rode back down with the
plane--not an option. There is only one dignified way out of my predicament. In contrast
to the first jump, I said goodbye three times, delaying so long that, I found myself outside
of the flood control basin when I finally jumped. In free fall it wasn’t scary anymore, just
windy. The feeling of falling only lasts as long as one is accelerating. When one reaches
"terminal" (ominous term!) velocity, one rides on a cushion of wind. I tried to “swim” the
Australian crawl in air. I started tumbling. The horizon was tumbling in an erratic fashion.
I put my arms back to my sides and held my body straight and stiff. My fall stabilized in a
face down position again. “That didn’t go very well”, I thought. “How did those guys in
the airshow do it? Maybe they moved their arms faster”. I tried again with similar
consequences. I stopped tumbling in almost a vertical position, slightly on my back. I
peered over my shoulder to try to see how far away the ground was. I stuck my right hand
out a little bit to rotate my body. That was better. I was face down now, but almost
vertical. I was picking up speed. “That’s not good”, I thought. I should try to get
horizontal and spread-eagled. I didn’t have time. I could see individual cabbage heads in
the fields below. I pulled the ripcord. Nothing! I had an emergency spare chute that was
only 12’ in diameter. One might break a leg, but hopefully not a neck. However, I was
informed that it didn’t have a pilot chute to pull the main spare chute out. I would have to
throw it out into the wind by hand, hoping that the wind would catch it and open it.
“Well, it’s the only chance I have. I shouldn’t have waited so long.” I reached to pull the
second ripcord when the opening of the main chute jolted me. It probably didn’t take that
long to open. It just seemed an eternity.
The pilot dived following me down. He told me later that he thought I was going
straight in, but it’s difficult to judge the height of objects below. I noticed that looking
down on aircraft passing below. The rigger followed my descent from the airport. He lost
me behind the trees. He told me that he thought that he was in trouble because he didn’t
have a rigger’s permit. I was bemused at his statement, reflecting, “And he thought that
he was in trouble”.
I was quite low, but I had time to reflect on the view. I had visions of being
goosed by the TV antennas below, but a friendly wind blew me just over the perimeter of
the flood control basin. I tried to do giant swings hanging from the chute, but my swing
was always damped. I couldn’t get my feet over my head. What else could I do? I guess I
had squeezed all of the career preparation and adventure possible out of the experience. I
had visions of landing and staying on my feet. Wind contributes significantly to one’s
impact velocity. I hit hard and tumbled over, simultaneously grabbing the bottom shroud
lines and collapsing the chute before it dragged me. Some people came rushing over the
dam embankment asking where the plane had crashed. I assured them that it was just a
practice jump. Would I do it again? Not without a strong incentive. I wouldn’t do it, and
never would have done it merely for the adrenaline rush and the adventure.
203
I never found it exciting to flirt with death, not even with apparent danger. I used
to do aerobatics when it was career preparation. I used to take planes to their ceiling and
spin down thirty or so turns, becoming so dizzy that at first I would catch myself flying
sideways--The horizon isn’t supposed to be vertical! It has lost its appeal since. I
interested Danny in aviation. He remained interested. he built his own custom racing
plane, and raced it, coming in third [He wants to keep the plane practical, not hopped up,
for transportation purposes, so that limits his performance]. I watched him test it on the
first few flights. In his jump suit with the kneepad for notes he looked a reincarnation of
Herman. He also had a Pitts in which he also took third place in the National Aerobatics
competition. I taught him spins. He showed me outside loops, inverted spins, snap rolls
and many other maneuvers that most planes couldn’t withstand. It was an interesting
experience, but like amusement park rides, the appeal is empty.
There appears to be a strong appeal to danger, especially to young males. Perhaps
this served the survival chances of the tribe. It seems to have developed some
disadvantages. Is it an impediment to the construction of a New World Order and a
reformed UN where law and order would prevail and the excitement of war would no
longer be available?
I hoped for, but never really expected acceptance from my stepfather. I suppose it
was because I couldn’t help but be a reminder of my mother’s previous marriage.
Acceptance by my mother was more important, but maybe I was a reminder of a past she
would prefer to forget too. The culmination of my efforts to gain her acceptance came
when I was thirteen. We headed back to the National Air Races in Cleveland towing
Herman’s custom racing plane, the Cosmic Wind. We stopped in Milwaukee at Billy
Mitchell Field. Herman was received like a returning hero. The press wanted a picture of
him with his family in front of the racing plane. He called over my mother, my brother,
my sister, his mother, his sister, his brothers,... I stood (this is difficult) at the edge of the
wing. (It is some time later now. I am somewhat recomposed. Maybe now I can write it
without feeling it so much.) As the list of those called to participate extended further into
the geneological distance, I felt increasingly embarrassed, not only for myself. I think I
felt more embarrassed on behalf of my mother and Herman. After all, it was not I who
was behaving this way. Nonetheless, I felt like sinking into the concrete. The nearest
building was 100 yards away, I had nowhere to hide. The crew and others knew who I
was. I was left out, in front of everybody. That was Herman and Milwaukee. My mother
and Cleveland lay ahead.
Herman was winning the Goodyear Trophy Air Race. I purposely sat next to my
mother in the stands. After he won she gathered my brother and sister to rush down to
greet him. She left me behind as if I didn’t exist. (Sorry, I had to quit again. Maybe if I
can write this down once I won’t ever have to relive the pain again.) Everything broke
down inside me. I barely managed to restrain my tears as I rushed out of the stands,
found a spot alone underneath and quietly gave them vent. Relief and acceptance came at
last, not acceptance into the family, but acceptance of my position, or lack thereof. My
habits of hard work and high performance persisted, but were motivated now by survival
204
(I was on my own), not by the frantic effort to gain acceptance. I moved out of the house
into a shed my grandfather and I built behind his house. Somehow I always felt like an
intruder, like an interloper, an alien, without an origin or roots. When I met my father I
felt uncomfortable because of the resemblance, I did have an origin, but it was an
awkward feeling.
I don’t want to give the wrong impression. Although I can’t dwell on these past
events long enough to record them without deep hurts resurfacing, I consider myself to
have been very fortunate. Maybe others had “wonderful” childhoods, but mine was very
good despite some traumatic moments, and life overall has been a wonderful adventure. I
sometimes encounter responses like “Oh, you poor thing!”. I feel extraordinarily lucky. I
have had some periods when I have felt abjectly depressed and rejected, but they don’t
last--and they don’t feel that bad. They are like expurgatives. I remember a passionate
love affair with a woman with whom I thought marriage was quite inappropriate. [For
me, a common occurrence, maybe a cause for reflection--later.] Control over actions is
easier than control over feelings. I can discipline myself to a course of action. I have been
able to rein in some emotions--but only to a degree. When the mother of my two youngest
boys finished law school, passed the bar, and left me for a volatile relationship with a
black attorney, an impressive figure, Ken Thomas, late publisher of the Los Angeles
Sentinel, I was inclined to be judgmental. [Ken was frequently interviewed during the last
LA insurrection. I always found his remarks profound and insightful.] We had been living
together for seven and a half years. Previously she had pressured me to marry. I feel
culpable to this day because it took me so long to recover from previous hurts. She left
me in 1968, but we have remained friends to this day, and I feel a greater sense of rapport,
of being on the same wavelength, with her than with anyone else. Our history is one of
missed opportunities. It should have been but never was. My college roommate in Santa
Barbara, Jon, contracted “gone to Korea”. He was from Missouri Valley, Iowa. I was
from Van Nuys. I never expected to see him again. As I write this, I just visited him this
afternoon, in Tustin. I visited Carol in LA two days ago. After I received my master’s
degree from the University of Delaware, I moved back to California and met him again.
We moved back in together in an apartment in Hollywood. He went dancing at the
Tailspin and picked up a girl, Carol, whom he brought home. We talked for a while and I
immediately gained the impression that he and she were an inappropriate match. She and
I should be together. Would she feel the same way? I couldn’t violate the code by
approaching her--one can’t hound dog one’s friends’ girls. He had met her first (by a
couple of hours). He dated her for a few months, during which time we moved to the
Sunset Strip. I kept hope alive until he finally bedded her. I could hear them making love
in the bedroom. She was now unequivocably his.
The three of us went dancing together (and still do upon occasion). Carol and I
developed a hugging Platonic affection. Carol was the first of two loves in Jon’s life. I
met him as a nineteen-year-old virgin. I speculate that his attitude prevented more
frequent occurrences. He wanted to seduce girls, but didn’t respect them if they would go
to bed with him. He said that if he bedded a girl it was pride for him and degradation for
her [“a step up for me, a step down for her”]. To no avail I argued that that was a
backward, self-defeating attitude. Carol was the first girl he still liked afterwards {“But
will you love me tomorrow?” must have been written for him]. He fell in love with Carol
205
when he was driving drunk (again), lost control, and almost killed them. He was
impressed and moved that she didn’t become angry. Jon was constantly stepping out on
her. He was bluntly honest. He would solicit girls “to be his ‘on the side’ girlfriend”. We
moved again--to an apartment in West LA with Hans Feibleman, a pleasant guy, but a
neatness fanatic. I though my ex-wife Betty carried cleanliness to an extreme, but not
compare to Hans. Once she came over to cook dinner. Hans followed her around the
kitchen with a sponge until she almost had a shizzy fit.
Happy hours on Fridays were spent at the Monica Hotel. I took Carol to meet Jon.
He was with his friend, Bob Ellfeldt. They wanted to hustle girls. Jon saw Carol and
ducked down the stairs, but she saw him and decided that was the end. Carol and I
decided to start a relationship, but it was awkward. I was living with Jon, and she was
rooming with my ex-wife who still had designs on me. Until we could make
arrangements to get an apartment together we saw each other surreptitiously. We had no
place to go. I would meet her in Venice. We were driving through West LA when I
noticed a sign for an “open house” on an apartment. We tried it. The door was still open.
Carol was apprehensive. I assured her, “No one will come until morning.” That was true.
Unfortunately, we fell asleep to be awakened by the caretaker in the morning. Carol had
jumped behind the door, but he peered behind it muttering, “Well I’ll be damned!”. I
assured him we would be gone in five minutes. I think we made it in less.
One evening the four of us were sitting together at Carol and Betty’s place. Carol
said, “Good night” and went to bed with Jon. Again I could hear them making love. I was
perplexed. Since neither Jon nor Betty were to know of our relationship yet, I didn’t say
anything. We went back to being friends, going out dancing together. A few months later
while I was dancing with Carol I asked her what had happened. She explained that Betty
had told her that I had confided in her that I was not really interested in the woman I had
been dating. She took it to mean her and resolved to show me that she wasn’t interested in
me either--with actions that speak louder than words. “Wow! I wasn’t talking about you! I
was talking about Emily in Brentwood [a middle-aged virgin raised Catholic, who now
despised the church, and was trying to make up for lost time]!” It was all a
misunderstanding. Let’s start over right this time.
Shortly before we moved into an apartment on Robertson with her daughter Evita
and my grandmother, who shortly moved back to Van Nuys, we were our dancing. Jon
had a hint that Carol was seeing someone else. He asked if I knew who it was. I
responded, “Yes, it’s me!”. He kids me about that to this day. I was working on the
Advanced Research Staff at Northrop [then called “Nortonics”]. She worked at the
Allison Company as an escrow officer and came home for lunch. I had the practice of
calling home during lunch. One day I called and she sounded agitated and excited. She
said that everything was all right, but I pondered all afternoon about what could have
been wrong. “Jon must have been there and upset her!”, I concluded. When I arrived
home I said, “I bet Jon was here today.” She immediately blurted, yes, that she had been
in bed with Jon when I called, something I didn’t suspect at all. “Why in the world did
you answer the phone then.” No explanation. She claimed that Jon had raped her. I
couldn’t believe that at all. Jon wasn’t inclined toward violence at all. Besides, we lived
in a court and the woman across the court was home all day. I couldn’t believe her, but I
didn’t know what to believe until many years later when Jon explained it to me. When we
206
started living together they still had a love/hate relationship going. She was still going to
bed with him, but sometimes she would just get him hard and then dump him, running off
and giving him the finger. That day he threatened to tell me about their affair unless she
went to bed with him. That coercion became rape in her mind. It would have helped to
understand what had happened instead of living with incredible explanations.
I told Carol that I still loved her, still wanted to live with her, but that was not the
kind of relationship I wanted. I intended to start dating. Petulantly, I went further. I had a
beautiful, buxom (married) secretary at work who was constantly complaining about her
husband and telling me her troubles. I thought she might be interested in me. Actually, I
was damn sure of it. I told Carol that I would pursue her. It was my only prospect. She
was interested. We had a memorable affair, but she wished to maintain the family if she
could, putting the welfare of her children first. I understood. I suspect that the residual
feeling I had for Carol also severely hampered our prospects.
Decades after Carol left me we had a heart-to-heart that lasted until about four in
the morning. I wondered why she hadn’t gone with me in the first place. She replied that
she had wanted to laugh and have fun. I was involved in political activism, in civil rights,
in antiwar activities. I was serious. She wanted frivolity. Jon made her laugh.
My stepfather, Herman wouldn’t teach me to fly, so I pushed broom, pumped gas,
packed bearings and performed A & E mechanic's work to earn flying time. However,
once I had my pilot’s license he was very generous in allowing me to fly his airplanes.
My brother, Randall Richard, “Scooter”, was scheduled to appear on the popular
nationwide radio program, “We, the people, speak!”. He was billed as a seven year old
who could pilot an airplane. My brother dutifully responded to the questions in the
canned script for the “spontaneous” interview. The finale was when he was asked how he
was doing in school. “OK, I guess, except in gym--My coach thinks I’m afraid of
heights”--pure invention, but mild compared to current practice.
On this trip from LA to New York for the radio program, Herman invited me
along in his staggerwing Beechcraft D17S, and allowed me to fly the plane essentially all
the way while he flew copilot. He decided to risk the weather in New Mexico that was
closing in. We were under VFR [visible flight rules]. I don’t know if the plane had
adequate instrumentation for IFR. I had no instrument rating. The cloud cover toward the
East kept lowering until it blocked visibility. He took over the controls then and turned us
around. The adrenaline was pumping as we flew a snake-like path a few feet above the
ground through the valleys between the cloud-covered hills. Several times I worried about
clipping a wing during a turn, we were forced to fly so low. As we wandered through this
labyrinth of hills I wondered whether someone had the foresight to allow one of the
valleys to remain open--and had we chosen that one? What if we finally were forced to
climb above the clouds to avoid the hills? What then? Do we fly above the overcast until
we run out of gas? These alternate scenarios were running through my mind. Whatever
our circumstances, our best chance lay with Herman. He was always cooler than the
proverbial cucumber. He was in charge and acted decisively. I completely relied upon his
judgement, expertise, and experience. [It was a sobering thought that it was the same
judgement that got us into this situation.] While I was trying to assess our chance, we
finally exited the last valley. The land was flat ahead, and the airport could be seen
207
through the haze. We stayed in a rundown airport motel. My bedmate was Vince Barnett,
an odd looking character actor [with a beautiful (“She’s got freckles on her, but(t) she’s
nice”) wife] renowned for his performances in Damon Runyon films, who had
accompanied us. It was hot, with a full moon. Vince kept mooning me in the moonlight
while he slept. [How strange--the selection our memories choose to retain!] I remember
encountering a character who reminded me of Vince in a men’s room in Las Vegas--a
slang-swinging, horse-playing tout. Damon Runyon films are shown rarely these days, but
I still enjoy them, and the remembrance of Vince, preserved for posterity on film.
On another trip accompanied by André de Toth, he and Herman found themselves
without either cash or checks. André acted as if he was going to starve to death. Herman
arranged for some money to be sent them. André was from Hungary, broad-shouldered
and powerful. At a party at our house a guy jokingly grabbed André from behind around
the neck only to find himself precipitously airborne. I followed his trajectory, which
luckily landed him on his feet after doing a flip. André apologized profusely, attributing
his reaction to reflexes developed in response to the stresses of World War II in Hungary.
André was married to Veronica Lake at the time. Every Christmas I could expect a shirt
from her. I particularly remember and appreciated the silk red shirt with big white polka
dots. She and I would go camping in the high Sierras accompanied by her two children,
usually around Convict Lake. She would invariably make a delicious stew that we
devoured with Sheepherders’ Bread baked in Bishop. Her hair was now short. Her face
was full of the freckles that never showed in her films. Once she decided to linger in
camp. I drove her kids back to LA in Herman’s hot Roadmaster Buick that provided my
first experience with a blow out while we were barreling across the desert at about 110
mph, I am ashamed to admit. I was surprised how easy the car was to handle until our
speed was reduced. André and Veronica had two horses and little time to give them the
exercise they needed. A common high school date consisted in going to their palatial
estate [Sabu was their closest neighbor] to ride their horses through the hill part of
Granada Hills.
André directed the first 3D film, a quality production called “House of Wax” with
Vincent Price. When he was shooting “Springfield Rifle” I was invited on location in the
high Sierras. It too became somewhat of a classic with strong nostalgia for me whenever
it is rerun on TV. At the time I was more intrigued by the natural beauty of the location
than the movie-making process, which seemed rather slow moving and even boring, not
to mention phony. I guess it is somewhat like watching sausage made—one can enjoy it
more if one is less aware of the production process.
Since my stepfather wouldn’t teach me to fly, in order to pursue my anticipated
career as an experimental test pilot, I pushed broom, pumped gas, and did odd A&E
[“aircraft and engine”] mechanics at the airport that was almost next door. I joined the Air
National Guard and made my first parachute jump at fifteen. After school, instead of
homework, which I usually completed while the teacher was writing the assignment on
the board, I studied navigation, meteorology, aerodynamics, telecommunications, A & E
mechanics, flight regulations, and every thing else which I considered relevant to my
expected career as an experimental test pilot. I considered airline pilots to be glorified
bus drivers. I remember the exuberance of my first solo, singing at the top of my lungs,
all alone up there in the sky with the birds. I received my pilot’s license before I had a
208
driver’s license. After I had learned to fly, Herman would loan me his Beechcraft. I flew
with Al Lester to Merced to visit one girlfriend, then to Redwood City to visit another.
On the way back I flew to Santa Barbara. I had decided to attend university there. My
reasons were not exactly academic. In high school I had heard that girls outnumbered
boys six to one. It had been a Normal Teachers College. By the time I arrived the ration
had dropped to about three to one, but it spoils one for life. As we approached where was
supposed to be I saw nothing but mountains. Had I made an error in navigation? I had
considered myself to be quite a good navigator. Where was Santa Barbara? We crested La
Cumbre peak and saw Santa Barbara 5000 feet below us. Which buildings were the
university? I flew over the city trying to identify it.
Darkness was approaching. I was always prudent as a pilot. I took the message I
saw posted in the hangar seriously. “There are bold pilots, and there are old pilots, but
there are few old, bold pilots.” I didn’t take unnecessary risks, although I did take some.
The air strip near my girlfriends house in Merced was extremely short and covered in
high grass. I landed right at the edge of the runway and easily came to a stop before
running out of runway. The weeds helped brake the plane. Could I take off again? The
PT-19 I used to fly succumbed to a similar circumstance. Tom, joint owner with Vince,
tried the same trick and torn off the fabric on the wings by hitting a fence at the end. He
stayed airborne, but essentially totalled the plane. Could I avoid the same fate, or worse? I
taxied to the extreme end of the runway, gradually revved the engine up to full rpm at full
power, and let the brakes off. We made it. Still, one doesn’t press one’s luck. I didn’t
want to fly over the mountains at night in a single engine plane. We landed at the Santa
Barbara airport [next to the former Air Force Base that was to become the new campus of
UC Santa Barbara], hitch-hiked into town for a visit, and slept under the wing when we
returned, until break of dawn.
High school had been so boring that I intended never to attend school again. I
don’t think I attended graduation, at least I don’t remember it. I do remember the senior
picture. When Danny and I noticed that the strange camera, the likes of which we hadn't
seen before, or since, was designed to rotate, scanning the huge class of more than 400.
We positioned ourselves in the end of the back row at the beginning of the scan. When it
passed, we ran to the other end to appear twice in the photo. I ask people if they can
identify me from my high school photo. I give them a hint, “I’m in the back row toward
the end.” “Which end?” “Both,” is my mirthful reply. Portraits are supposed to capture
the spirit and character of a person. This one captures mine. I may grow old, but never up.
Life is still a big joke on us. We were created in a fit of humor, much like the platypus.
After more than 30 years at the university, under pressure from the Dean, I
attended my first commencement. “I detest ritual,” and “Why should I attend other
people’s graduations when I didn’t attend my own?”, I would reply, trying to forget the
traumatic experience of being required to attend my magistrate ceremony at the
University of Delaware. I managed to get through it, but cried before and after, I was
forced to face the fact that none in my biological family cared or would attend, and
geography was not the problem. Admittedly, ritual and artificial milestones hold little
appeal for me. One keeps learning the day after graduation just like one did the day
before. There is no quantum leap on graduation day. However, perhaps a subconscious
209
motive for avoiding commencement is to avoid a recurrence of the pain of the past. (Boy,
I’m uncovering new revelations, new to myself, at least.)
After graduation I experienced all of the insecurity of an emerging proletarian in a
capitalist economy. How could I earn a living? I had no factory, no tools, no land, no
stacks or bonds. By the end of summer I had only had a few pick up jobs - shoe salesman
(I still remember the color code), amusement ride operator, bus boy at Spencer's Drive
Inn, where food was included in wages, where we ate once a day, where the carhops wore
cowboy boots. The carhops told the story of the popular new girl at the house of ill
repute. As soon as the doors opened the first customer took her upstairs. No sooner did
she come back down, but another customer would take her back upstairs. She was up and
down the stairs with customers all night. The madam noticed how hard she had been
working and commented, "My dear, you must really be tired!" The girl replied, "Ya, my
feet are killing me!"
As a last resort I enrolled in LA Valley Junior College and paid my $2.50 tuition.
This was not high school! I wanted to be every class I took - psychologist, mathematician,
geologist, everything except doctor (too bloody messy), lawyer (I wanted eternal
knowledge, not memorization of human-made rules which changed every day. I was to
discover the philosophy of law later), or historian. History was taught in a "names, places,
dates" format from well-worn notes wherein each lecture ended precisely on time at a
preordained spot, by a professor who emphasized superlatives. On an exam, one student
had written, "Joe Green" in response to the question, "Who composed Rigaletto?" He
received zero credit when by my judgement he should have received extra credit for not
only knowing the answer, but for knowing the English equivalent. I suspect that the
teacher didn’t realize that this was the English equivalent, but lacked the self-confidence
to admit it. When I became a teacher this experience always served as counter to the
teaching mode to which I aspired
I wanted to learn everything. I never crammed for a test. In History there were
pop quizzes. Once I hadn't had time to read the assignment. I scanned the text for
superlatives and received a perfect 100% on the quiz. I could be the system. It was just an
experiment, but that wasn't the point. The purpose was learning and understanding. It
didn’t matter if what I was studying was being covered in class, as long as I was learning.
I thought it would all work out in the long run, which it has pretty much. I was into the
general semantics of Korszybski instead of the required reading in Writer's Guide and
Index to English. On the exam there was a question, “What is the 'something' function
of a paragraph?” Not having read the text, I had never encountered that 'something'
function. I didn't even know what that "something" word meant. I wrote, “The ultimate
expression of the 'something' function is to convey with maximum efficiency the
authorial subliminal intent in ascribing, describing, proscribing, or prescribing, the
vagaries and nebulosities of metaphor, simile, and analogy in a communicable venue and
style...” , or something similar. It was such a difficult question that only two students
received full credit in the class. I was one of them. I didn’t hear the term “snow job”
until later. Its meaning was immediately apparent to me.
I had some fantastic professors. I was enamored of academia and intellectual
pursuits. Being a pilot didn’t seem to provide an adequate intellectual challenge. My
stepfather bragged that he had never read a book. I still wanted an active outdoor
210
physical life as well. I decided to become a geologist, my first bachelor’s degree, even
though I continued and completed my AA in math.
Then my grandfather suffered a heart attack. Herman had left my mother for a
very nice and long-term sufferer of "stewardess syndrome". She never seemed to allow
herself any feelings. She was nice to everyone as if they were pampered airline
passengers. ["Would you like some TWA coffee, or TWA milk?" "No thanks. I prefer
TWA tea!"] I couldn't believe anyone could be so consistently pleasant. I thought she
must be under considerable stress, and tried not to add to it.
I assumed the support of my grandparents. My best friend Danny and I took a 70+
hour a week job throwing mail in the post office at $1.315/hr, more than twice as much as
I had earned at the airport. We were classified not just as temporary, not just as
substitutes, but as temporary substitutes!--redundant emphasis of our tenuous status.
Danny and I remained close friends despite one big conflict. Mr. Holloway asked
me to look after his business, Holloway Aviation, while he was on a trip. This was a big
responsibility for a high school kid and I was determined to meet the challenge. Danny
and some other friends drove out with my girlfriend to visit me on the job. They agreed to
watch the business while I took her for an airplane ride. It was dark at the end of the day. I
hangared the plane and closed up. The next day I opened up in broad daylight. I noticed
that all of the planes were dusty, and dirt covered the floor, accumulating in the corners. I
wondered what had caused it. Had there been a strong wind? I spent all day sweeping the
hangar and dusting the planes. Then a mechanic came over to tell me that he had seen
some kids spinning circles with an airplane in front of the hangar, which was not paved. I
came home in a rage ready to punch out someone's lights, not because of the mess they
made and the work to clean it up, but because it reflected on my reliability and sense of
responsibility, on my reputation. Danny created some doubt by admitting it in a very
sarcastic manner as if to say, "How ridiculous!" Bob was more candid. I vented my
indignation, then we continued being friends.
In Herman’s house there was a steady stream of test pilots, business executives
and military officers. So many test pilots were there one week and dead in a crash the
following week. It was a high-risk profession, which, in the curious values of our society,
made it all the more glamorous. "We live in fame, We go down in flame." I vividly
remember the start of the Korean War, no it was a UN “police action”. At the time I
bought Truman's line. Jack Conroy was hanging out at the house. Years later, already a
professor, I remember reading an article about him while flying across the Atlantic. He
was the All-American Boy, Jack Armstrong personified, it seemed tome--handsome,
clean cut, respectable. His comment made an indelible impression on me. "They’re going
to be making millions off of that war and I’m going to get me a few !”, which he did. So
that’s how the system works. I was serving in the Air National Guard awaiting activation
that never came. Workers make the ultimate sacrifice, fight and die. Capitalists make
their profit. They were even compensated by US taxpayers for the damage done by Allied
bombers to the Nazi warplants they owned. They considered patriotism to be loyalty to
them. That was quite understandable given the propensity to identify with one’s property.
Since they own the country, at least the most important part of it, the economy, the major
means of production, loyalty to capitalism is considered to be equivalent to patriotism.
211
I have heard appeal to become “matriots” instead of “patriots”. Patriots become
proud of their country, right or wrong, when it can beat up on other countries. Matriots
become proud when it nurtures others as well as its own. Patriots pledge blind allegiance
to pieces of cloth. Matriots pledge to support principles. Patriots pledge allegiance to
symbols, like flags, and take sides.
Herman may never have accepted me, but he always offered to pull strings for me
with his influential friends, like Gen. Shoup (“Shoupie” to Herman), the head of the
California Air National Guard. I appreciated the gesture, but was offended by the offer. I
didn’t want special treatment. I didn't want my country to treat people unfairly. Who can
be proud of that? I wanted to do my duty, my share. I respectfully declined.
As a fifteen-year-old crew chief of a P51 Mustang I felt the weight of
responsibility. Living next to Metropolitan Airport during World War II I had seen many
planes crash, mostly P38s in which Herman established his reputation, one in back of the
house. Pilots were being soloed before they were ready. Watching my plane go down
was much more traumatic. As we drove to dig Capt. Brown and my P51 out of a front
yard in Northridge I agonized over whether I hadn’t done something properly. Was it my
fault? I anguished over the possibility that I had not tightened a bolt properly, or nicked a
cotter pin, or something. I guess my anguish was quite evident and Staff Sergeant
“Skinhead” Quinlan took me aside to assure me and inform me that investigation had
revealed that it was pilot error. That relieved my sense of guilt but not the sense of loss. I
was assigned another plane and another pilot, but Capt. Brown was gone.
The P51 was a magnificent craft with its Rolls Royce V1650 in-line engine
producing more than one horsepower per pound, a world record. Its designation was
charged to F51, from pursuit to fighter. This was still less confusing than the designation
for Navy planes, like the O4Q2, "O" for observation. Modern planes are high
performance and high tech, but can't compare with the glamour and excitement of World
War II planes. P51s in formations of four would fly directly over the field, and peel off to
land directly below. The first plane made a tight "widowmaker's turn" pushing to the
limits of stalling. Sitting in the cockpit warming up the plane for its preflight check gave
one a feeling of the surging power of the Mustang straining at the reins. We would all be
running side by side at the same nominal rpm. I can't teach about constructive and
destructive interference of waves and beats between sources with almost the same
frequency in physics without hearing that wow, wow, wow of our propellers.
During W.W.II many pilots lost their lives in P38s after stalling out and falling
into a spin. Herman spun P38s under every condition possible, wheels up or down, flaps
up or down, power on or off, on the left engine or the right engine. He could always
recover. I heard recordings made on the ground as he reported by radio what he was
observing, just in case he was in no position to do so after the test. "We're starting at 25
thousand feet. I'm reducing power, slowing down, increasing the angle of attack. 125
miles per hour. Slower. It's starting to shudder. Well, here we go! The left wing has
dropped down, There's one turn, two turns, three turns,... I am applying reverse rudder.
One more turn, another, another, That's four turns. The rate of rotation has decreased.
Now I'm pushing the stick forward. The left wing has started flying again." His voice was
as calm as if he were reporting from a desk job. His logo became a flying fish on top of a
spinning top. When I learned to fly spins became my favorite maneuver. I would take the
212
plane as high as it would go and spin it on down--thirty turns or more. I remember one
time I pulled out and the horizon was vertical. I thought, "Hey, that's not right !" I quickly
recovered and righted the plane. I tried to imagine what Herman's experience in a P38
was like.
Even though I had changed my career plans, I kept flying at UC Santa Barbara.
We liked to test our skill by lifting the edge of the runway not judging by altitude, but by
speed. We would cut the engine, dive below the cliff, and fly between two radio towers.
An FAA official cited us twice in the same day, but didn’t seem to notice that we had
changed pilot/passenger positions. We took turns taking the blame.
I wanted to stretch my intellect, but I wanted a physically active outdoor life as
well. Geology seemed the best choice, but the rote learning of mineralogy was boring. I
was required to take physics. I was impressed by the mathematical sophistication, the
elegance and beauty of theory. UCSB converted its qualitative atomic and nuclear
courses to straight quantum theory. I was hooked. One of my undergraduate research
theses was on "Second Order Time Dependent Perturbation Theory to Analyze
Simultaneous Photon-Phonon IR Transitions in Germanium in the [111] Direction." I
was too naive to be impressed.
Scotty Crossfield made the last attempt to restore my former career path as an
experimental test pilot. I still remember many fragments of the lyrics of bawdy songs and
limericks he taught me as a teenager ("The old maid, she sat by the fire. The Thomas cat
drew himself nigher. The night it grew cold. The old maid grew bold. She lifted her
petticoat higher. (censored)") I met him again at a meeting of the Experimental Test
Pilots Association in the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel which I attended with Herman. He
described how scientific design and flying had become, how scientist/pilots were in
demand. I wanted a full career. I felt that missiles would soon replace airplanes and
computers would replace pilots. He responded, "Don't worry. It will be a long time
before analogue computers could replace versatile human beings, which can be mass
produced by an unskilled work force which enjoys its work." I would still have to retire
sometime. One can do physics forever. And flying still seemed to lack adequate
intellectual challenge. I remained unpersuaded. I remain unrepentant.
With my flying record and Professorship in [Nuclear] Physics I thought I would
be a shoo-in for the Scientist as Astronaut program, for which I applied during the
Vietnam war. I wasn’t selected. My polities by now were highly visible. Perhaps they
could envision my intended behavior as I stepped out of the capsule upon returning to
earth, "Stop that goddamned war!" No big surprise, the State Dept. Board of Foreign
Scholarships had vetoed my Fulbright fellowship after being accepted by the university
and the Sri Lanka government. I was serving on the Southern California ACLU Board of
Directors at the time. The national ACLU board had just cleared the State Dept. of
political discrimination in Fulbright awards. The state Dept. refused to give any
explanation for the veto.
A close friend, Jim Warf, Professor of Chemistry at USC, later also applied for a
Fulbright--to Indonesia. He had written chemistry textbooks in Indonesian. I predicted
that he wouldn’t get it. “Why not? I’ve already had a Fulbright there!” “Yes, but that was
before your daughter founded the SDS chapter at USC, before your son opened The Long
213
March book store.” I recounted my experience. The State Department Board of Foreign
Scholarships also vetoed his Fulbright.
My FBI and CIA files were growing. They began when I joined the church.
There were spies in the church. The files I obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act ended when the war ended. Perusing the redundant, erroneous file may one grateful
that our national security didn't depend upon these criminal incompetents. The CIA
always contended that they had no file on me, until I found a reference to it in the FBI
file. Then they contended that there was no point in sending it to me since it was
redundant to my FBI file. The cost of copying the file damped my interest. We had
contests comparing the lengths of our FBI files. Mine was much larger than that of the
chair of the Physics Dept. who was later assassinated in his office, but no one could
compare with Frank Wilkinson. Frank had been student body president at Beverly Hills
High and at UCLA. He was preparing for the Methodist ministry. As a graduation gift he
received a trip to the Holy Land. He was appalled by the poverty he saw. He was told
there was poverty in the U. S.--in Chicago, for example. He went to Chicago to
investigate, unsuspecting that there was poverty in Los Angeles outside of the Beverly
Hills /Brentwood/Bel Air area where he grew up. Upon returning to LA he walked a
picket line for better, integrated housing organized by a prominent Catholic priest. The
city was clearing slums and planned to replace them with segregated housing divided
between blacks, Hispanics, and others. The corrupt Shaw political machine and the Police
Department had been rocked by scandal and had been swept out by the reform candidate,
Mayor Bowron, whom I remember passing by while I was pumping gas at the airport.
Mayor Bowron came out to speak to the leader of the picket line. He asked him whom he
would like to serve as housing administrator for LA. He indicated Frank. Under eminent
domain, Frank was planning low cost integrated workers’ housing in Chavez Ravine.
Developers, segregationists and other right wingers began redbaiting. Frank became a
target of the FBI and the Un-American Committee of the House of Representatives. In a
5-4 Supreme Court decision he was sent to jail for a year for trying to stand on First
Amendment rights to freedom of speech. After release from jail, he was blackballed from
jobs and he and his wife lived in poverty, but remained proud and defiant to this day.
LA became a very different city. Walter O’ Malley got Chavez Ravine for his
Brooklyn Dodgers. The FBI expended millions of dollars of taxpayer money spying on
Frank, compiling a dossier of 143,000 pages-a Guinness World Record for sure. Under
the Freedom of Information Act Frank obtained a copy of his file. In the file he
discovered an assassination plot that went awry, of which the FBI was aware in advance,
but didn't warn Frank or take measures to prevent it. They were staked out to make an
impressive arrest after-the-fact. Frank's story is fascinating, not the most extreme, not
atypical, but unique in many respects. Over eighty years old now he is valiantly
continuing the struggle for a country of which we don't have to be ashamed.
While I was on the ACLU Board, the bard in me emerged. I wrote a poem to aid
ACLU recruitment efforts. They never used it. It debuts below in print.
Wanted
Have you ever wondered that
A gentleman so disarmingly fat
214
As Santa Claus, a friendly cuss,
Has had to use an alias?
Kris Kringle was first to make the scene,
Spreading good cheer with Christmas green.
More presents to buy and heart too large,
He's now wanted on a bad check charge.
Hot on his trail was a credit bureau dick,
So he changed his name to "Old St. Nick".
But now he's wanted on an additional score
For trying to defraud a creditor.
The color of his suit was clear to see.
A foreign agent he was declared to be.
To avoid the McCarran Registration Laws
He changed his name to "Santa Claus".
But once a year is all we see
Of Santa before he's forced to flee
To the North Pole where be cannot be
Extradited for larceny.
Still full of spirit and working hard
We hope this lovable tub of lard
Will be our genial Christmas bard
'Til they revoke his credit card.
(Santa speaking in a cartoon balloon from a wanted poster with a list of aliases below)
"I'll be spreading Christmas cheer
'Til they attach my eight reindeer.
That's my job, but there's a job for you.
Be sure to join the ACLU.
The catastrophic consequences of World War I provided the political opening for
the modest attempt to move from the Westphalian oligopolistic system to a universal
system. The League of Nations foundered without United States support, but it
established a continuing voluntary intergovernmental “judicial” system, the International
Court of Justice [which has more the character of an arbitration system than a judicial
one].
In the absence of a viable system to replace the defunct Westphalian system,
World War II ensued a mere two decades later. This far greater catastrophe led to a
profound change in the international condition: the Atlantic Charter expanded The
exclusivity of the Westphalian club. The United Nations system grew out of the allied
cause in World War II. In fact, the title "United Nations" was first used to describe the
215
allied forces during the war104. The Quebec, Cairo, Teheran, Dumbarton Oaks, and Yalta
conferences further developed the alliance, culminating in the United Nations Charter.
The Charter contained conditions for membership which were not only universal, but
sufficient, as well as necessary (Article 4) [at least according to the advisory opinion of
the International Court of Justice of 28 April 1948]105. The Staff Charter had earlier
proposed “universal, but not automatic membership” [rather oxymoronic, since if
membership is not automatic it may well not be universal]. The Covenant that followed
implied the right to withdraw as an expression of state sovereignty.
A number of factors lead me to the UN. By the time I was eligible for my second
Sabbatical, opportunities in nuclear physics research were sharply curtailed. When the
linear accelerator at USC closed down I shifted research to the cyclotron at UCLA and to
Rutherford High Energy Laboratory in England. I was also supposed to do research at
Oxford, but the administration ruled that I couldn’t receive a dual salary as had been the
custom in other appointments. I was the university representative on an inter-university
consortium that proposed the construction of a large accelerator in the Santa Monica
mountains. Given limited funding, money was being absorbed by a few large national
laboratories, a priority I couldn’t fault, but it ended my nuclear physics research career.
The cyclotron was also shut down, as was the Linac at Rutherford. I was invited to do
research at Los Alamos. I accepted at first, then reconsidered. Since I was an outsider
from a state university, I had to be invited to participate. Invitations were readily available
because of my reputation for hard work and willingness to perform the least popular
tasks. It was like a continuation of the exploitation of graduate school, only worse,
because I no longer received a research stipend. Except during Sabbatical, it was
voluntary work, with no reduction in the 12unit/semester teaching load considered to be
included in the job description of a professor. I took the graveyard shift. I could run an
experiment all night at UCLA and drive to Orange County to teach an 8 o’clock class.
However, at Los Alamos I would have to stay in a motel for a few weeks while someone
covered my 12 units of teaching assignment.
Even on my first Sabbatical I anticipated the trend. CalState, Fullerton had a
neutron generator. I went to Institut “Rudjer Boskovic” in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, to begin
work in neutron physics, in which they had an international reputation. However, I
couldn’t persuade the university to install the neutron generator as a physics research
instrument so that albedo (reflection) would be minimal. It was installed in the basement
with heavy shielding and high albedo, making it useful only for applied area in geology
and chemistry, etc. I discovered in Zagreb that the easy things had all already been done.
In order to compete, computer assisted data processing, among other things we didn’t
have were necessary. Neutron physics was also a dead end.
The “Declaration of the United Nations” was issued on 1 January 1942 by the United States and
other states in the Americas all of which could be considered to have been client states of the United States
(Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and
Panama), the UK and members of the British Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and
South Africa); some European states (Greece, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia), plus China and the USSR.
105 ICJ Reports 1947-48, p. 57 in Bedjaoui (1991) 18.
104
216
I always enjoyed the excitement of “big science”, as Derek de Solla Price put it-big enough, that is, so that the capital investment made round the clock utilization cost
effective. It also matched my gregarious nature as a team player. There were people with
whom one could talk about research, or anything else, and activity around the clock. I
loved the dynamic, energetic, vivacious environment. The lab never closed. I lived there,
literally. I slept on the lower part of a lab bench that I reached by crawling through the leg
space in my desk. I went to sleep and awoke to the incessant ding, ding, ding of the bell
warning not to enter the experimental bay. Experiments ran 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 2
to 6 weeks straight. When I was in charge of the experiment I almost never left the lab. In
the early morning hours I would take 10-minute catnaps lying flat on the floor. I would
become dizzy from fatigue and hallucinate that I was like the “Woman of the Dunes”-confined for life in the lab with food thrust in through openings as long as I conducted the
research. I would almost invariably contract a cold or flu after a run due to a debilitated
immune system. During livelier moments I would play music and dance across the floor
while I took data. I thought that if anyone could have seen me they would have thought
me eccentric at minimum, and certainly not the stereotypical scientist. The experiments
became progressively more complicated as the easy ones were exhausted. It would take
days to set up an experiment, despite the preparation in advance of everything possible.
Finally, the whole room would become a panoply of complex, rhythmic flashing lights
like a high tech, rectangular, hollow Christmas tree surrounding us. It was time for a cup
of coffee, to relax and to enjoy the spectacle that meant that everything was working
simultaneously.
During the hectic days of anti-war activities while I was President of the AFT
Local 1588, the administration brought in a team of five attorneys to try to break my
tenure. They denied my request for a Sabbatical anticipating firing me instead. They
unsuccessfully tried to induce students to file complaints against me. I was never notified
of any of this. My Department Chair, a close friend and colleague, kept me informed.
When they couldn’t put a case together, they suggested that I leave for a year to allow
things to cool off. The research appointment I had intended to take in Colombia was no
longer available. I went to the library at UCLA while working on the cyclotron. I had met
several Yugoslav nuclear physicists who had come to UCLA to conduct research. I met
one in the library. I said, “Hey, you guys are always coming over here to do research, does
anyone ever go in the opposite direction?” Upon hearing of my Sabbatical opportunity he
said, “I’ll arrange it.” and he did. Like it is said, life is what happens to you when you’re
planning something else. I had visited Institut “Rudjer Boskovic” before, when I was
working in Rutherford High Energy Lab. When I first arrived at the University of
Birmingham I met Graham Rushton, who mentioned that he had a friend, Ron, who, with
his fiancée, rented rooms. They had a room, but it was reserved for a school teacher from
Sunderland who was coming to Birmingham to teach, but wasn’t due to arrive for a
month. That was perfect. In a month I had to leave for Rutherford Lab to conduct an
experiment. In order to overcome parochialism I sought and accepted overseas research. I
wanted to explore the cultures of the world in depth, not merely superficially as a tourist.
I try to avoid tourist traps, although areas often become tourist traps because of
extraordinary and impressive circumstances. I want to understand how people think and
217
feel, what life is like for most people. I always appreciate the experience after the fact, but
it is lonely and challenging. When one goes somewhere where one has no friends, every
friend is a new friend. Most societies are much more stable, traditional, and much less
open than U.S., especially highly mobile, automobile isolated Californian society. We’re
considered superficial because of the ease with which we make friends, and forget them
to make room for new ones. Instead of intimate conversation with a few friends,
California style is stand up conversations that float from person to person in large
gatherings consisting mostly of strangers. I remember walking around the Bull Ring in
downtown Birmingham feeling more emotionally vulnerable than usual. I saw a grizzled
old man hawking pencils and said to myself. “You don’t know it, but I love you”, which
sounds ridiculous as I write it, but I actually thought it. I had this strong sense of
benevolence for all of humanity. I felt the absence of a romantic involvement so keenly
that I thought to myself, “If the opportunity comes along, you’re going to just go ‘wop’”,
and I did.
When I went to Rutherford High Energy Lab to do research I purchased a
Triumph Bonneville motorcycle for transportation. I picked it up in cockney country, near
Elephant and Castle in south London. I had promised to go immediately to Geneva to
meet a former girlfriend, Dorothy, who had moved there "forever", dispossessing herself
of all material, if not financial, inherited wealth, some of which she dissipated in my
direction, including a magnificent, huge, intricate Maori monowood carving with inlaid
shell depicting intertwined fantasy creatures—a cultural anthropologist's treasure. It
received admiration and attention over my mantle until she returned. My conscience
dictated that I return this unreciprocated gift that her son, to my eternal regret, sold for
$20 in a garage sale.
Dorothy had a flair for the dramatic. She offered life on an emotional roller
coaster. Like real roller coasters, the experience is exciting, but one doesn't want to ride
forever. She left the country in what in retrospect appears to have been an effort to induce
me into riding the roller coaster. She contrived to meet me after hearing of my anti©war
activities. She expected a nerd. I found this beautiful, built, buxom, exciting, neurotic,
and challenging creature nigh irresistible. I detect a pattern in my life. Usually women in
my life are not extraordinarily high achievers. Often they are neurotic, rich, beautiful,
athletically-built, and spoiled. However, they make high demands upon me to achieve and
I thrive under the pressure. An unsuccessful playwright, she threatened to blow her body
fluids against a stretched sheet with a hand grenade to dramatize her opposition to the
war, or to attack me in front of my class wearing only a lampshade. She said that I needed
a "hausfrau" to release me for ambitious and creative accomplishment.
She didn't seem the type.
I had planned to buy a motorcycle jacket at the shop. They had none. I had time to
either obtain my international insurance green card to cross national borders in Europe, or
a jacket, but not both. Naturally, I opted for the green card. I set off for Geneva. I rode all
night, warming up a bit on the ferry. No gas stations were open. I ran out of gas outside of
Paris. A motorist stopped to assist. I said that I required only a bit of fuel to reach Paris.
He insisted on filling my tank, at $2.40/gallon, and refused to accept any money©©not
my last taste of European hospitality. In Printemps I bought a dress leather coat which
was on a terrific summer sale. I tried to catch a little rest on a park bench, sitting up with
218
my helmet on, only to be awakened by a loud rapping on my head. The gendarme told me
to move on. I took the road south, fighting fatigue and drifting off the road a few times.
The scare woke me up. I arrived in Geneva not having slept for three days. I had sent a
telegram with instructions to meet me in front of the main post office. Every city has a
main post office. She didn't receive the telegram in time, but exactly at the appointed time
Eason Monroe, director of the Southern California ACLU, and his wife Vivian sauntered
by. We spent the evening together. I met Dorothy the following night.
Ron told me to check back when I returned from Rutherford in case another room
opened up. I had an appointment with the Unitarian minister, but popped in to check on
the room. Ron wasn’t there, but the teacher occupying my former room was there. I
mentioned that I had a meeting, but asked if she would like to do something after I
returned. She replied, “Mm--mm”, in the affirmative in the sweetest unforgettable voice.
Her image in my mind is always accompanied by “Mm--mm”, which is common in the
local dialect, but which I uniquely associate with her. We went dancing, then returned for
coffee. I felt the need of consultation. After years of penury I was now making, by my
standards, an enormous amount of money. The question of how much I could in
conscience spend upon myself was easily decided--the minimum necessary to maintain
productivity. I never intended to consume more than the minimum socially acceptable
amount (criticisms indicate that I haven’t even been able to achieve that high a level of
consumption). I could live mostly on discards. I considered my value to be the difference
between my production and my consumption. The big question was how much should be
contributed now and how much should be invested so that larger contributions could be
made in the future? Most people in a consumer-oriented society wouldn’t even entertain
the question, but Chrissie had been adopted and raised in a coal miner family. She had
learned a new upper class accent in Ripon College. Her uncle was a Communist Party
organizer in the pits. She was the result of a liaison between a U.S. soldier and a married
Irish woman during World War II. She knew how to contact her biological father, but
despite my encouragement, could never develop the courage to contact him for fear of the
pain of rejection. She was very attentive and sympathetic. We developed instant rapport.
A room had become available for me, but I never moved in. I moved in with Chrissie that
night. There was a complication. She had plans to holiday in Guernsey with her boyfriend
and parents. We arranged to meet in St. Malo to tour Europe on my Triumph Bonneville
motorcycle. It was euphoric. I couldn’t imagine live more ecstatic than it was in Paris at
the top of the Eiffel Tower on a beautiful day. Every day was a new shared experience, a
new culture, and a new country. I bought some Austrian walking shoes to climb a glacier
in the Alps. It takes a while to break in the shoes, and I soon developed blisters. That
wasn’t going to stop me. I removed them and by running fast enough kept my feet from
freezing on the way to the pinnacle and return. At this unusual sight I heard kids shout,
“Hier kommt die Baarfusser!”
Eastern Europe was especially intriguing. We traveled the long isolated routes to
Berlin and passed through notorious “Checkpoint Charlie” to East Berlin. The contrast
was striking. We struck up conversations with people. English was not as prevalent as in
West Germany, but we talked to pensioners from West Germany who had gone to East
Berlin attracted by the low crime rates and higher security, and by the tranquillity. We
talked to students who couldn’t afford the tuition in the West and were attracted by the
219
stipends paid to students in the East. They would return to the West after graduating in
order to get the higher salaries. There were no commercial advertisements. There were no
neon lights. If one depends upon neon advertisements for color it would appear drab
indeed. I prefer chlorophyll for color and was more impressed by the parks, especially
around Potsdam. We traveled to the Polish border, but couldn’t obtain a visa without
waiting a couple of days. We turned south to Czechoslovakia instead. Visas were not
immediately available at the Hungarian border either, so we turned back, following the
Danube. On the map there was no road indicated straight ahead, but I’m adventurous, and
motorcycles are highly mobile. We kept on going. The road narrowed to a path, then to a
cowpath, ending at a river. Motorcycles have their limits, but there was a ferry. The
ferryman knew many languages. I tried English, and my limited French, German,
Spanish. There was no overlap, but we managed to communicate and traverse the river.
We stopped at a rock and roll street dance and concert. We continued down to Zagreb
over mountainous back roads with large rocks that made it feel like we were walking on
marbles. We stopped at the train station in Zagreb. It was dark. The lighting was very
dingy. Railroad workers wore caps with hammers and sickles. Big billows of steam
emerged from the locomotives. Shades of Agatha Christie, the Orient Express was at the
platform! Red flags and hammers and sickles ornamented factories, locomotives, and
everything else. In Czechoslovakia we had only traveled in the country and in small
towns, except for Bratislava. More than anywhere else, I now felt that I was in a
mysterious and foreboding communist country. I had no inkling that Yugoslavia was to
become like a second home to me. I would revisit the Glavni Kolodvor (train station),
which became so comfortable and familiar, and recall the way it had appeared to me on
that first visit. In Rijeka on that first trip I unsuccessfully tried to find out what language
they were speaking. Now Serbo-Croatian was my best language after English. I dreamed
in Serbo-Croatian; I calculated in Serbo-Croatian (a real test of fluency), I wrote poetry in
Serbo-Croatian. My first (unappreciated) modest effort:
Bog (The title, “God”)
Kada Piša
Pada Kiša106
Language is not only a window to culture. Language is fun. Since my wife was
doing her dissertation in linguistics, I did study of verb roots in Serbo-Croatian in search
of a joint research project. It didn’t catch her interest. If the word I wanted escaped me in
Serbo-Croatian, I would invent it from roots. She would respond, “I understand what
you’re saying, but such a word doesn’t exist”. It was Lewis Carrollish. The ambiguity in
English makes it a playground. What are female roaches called? What is sold in garage or
yard sales? The worse the pun the punnier the joke.
I spent my first Sabbatical in Zagreb. While I was gone students persisted in their
requests for “relevance” in the classroom. My department didn’t want to provide
“relevance” in all courses. It offered a compromise. It proposed to put all of the
“relevance” into a special course entitled, “Science and Human Values”, which I was
assigned in absentia to teach when I returned, if I returned. The administration was
106 Translation: “When he pisses, it rains.”
220
distinctly hopeful that I wouldn’t. The war still wasn’t over. I had to sign a contract to
repay my Sabbatical pay if I didn’t return. They offered to waive that provision if I
wouldn’t return. I returned anyway. They asked if I would be interested in taking another
Sabbatical. I responded affirmatively, but it couldn’t be arranged. They suggested that I
exchange with another professor from another university. I arranged to exchange with a
professor from Chile. Then the CIA overthrew the Chilean government. President
Allende was assassinated. I didn’t go.
There is very little concern about legitimacy in realpolitik. Power politics and
“instrumental rationality”, the efficient accomplishment of perhaps quite irrational, shortterm, and counterproductive ends, rules. Prevailing in the current crisis takes priority over
long term goals--goals that in any case are generally aimed at serving special, vested
interests rather than common interests. Even “enlightened long term self-interest” seems
to be abandoned in favor of short-term profit taking.
In an interview for the 20th anniversary of the United Nations in 1965, then
United States government ambassador Adlai Stevenson admonished that in order to
survive, the United Nations must not become too far removed from the reality of the
distribution of powerxx.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsay Clark and the International Commission of
Inquiry on UN Sanctions argue that the UN should respect law rather than project U.S.
government power. The UN should abide by established international law, especially the
UN Charter [but also the Nuremberg Principles, General Assembly resolutions, UN
Declarations on Human Rights, and generally recognized principles of jurisprudence]. It
should not allow itself to be used as an “instrument of oppression” “against the weak
and poor”, against “infants, children, the elderly, the chronically ill, and against those in
need of emergency care, the very people to whom society owes its highest duty”, in order
“to save the UN” and “to rescue the organization from disrepute and disintegration”
[Clark (1995)].
26 July 1997
This evening I had an opportunity to have an extended, if interrupted conversation
with Ramsay Clark, U.S. Attorney General during the Viet Nam War. I wish
circumstances had permitted a more exhaustive discussion, but since I am still exhilarated
by the experience, I decided to record my recollections of it. I tried to recall any other
official as highly placed as he was who had developed such a highly refined sense of
decency, morality, conscience, and humanitarian concern. Detractors argue that he is
defending the case of his clients. That is likely true, but as former U.S. Attorney general
one would expect that he would have his pick of clients and has chosen those whom he
considers to be highly victimized. His father, Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark, deserves
some credit in child rearing. We discussed Tom Clark’s conservative image that Ramsay
said was tempered by deep concern for children. I asked him how he had felt about the
Viet Nam war during his tenure as Attorney General. He described it as a great mistake (I
consider it to have been quite deliberate). I agreed with him that “we” had no business
there. [He frequently used the term “we” where I would have used “they”, but there were
more important issues to explore.] He knew Senator Gravel well during that period. He
vociferously declared that “we” had no business there. [I could cavil with that--concern
221
for people should not cease at the border--we should be concerned about people
everywhere, but I understood what he meant, genocide (a term he used frequently without
hesitation, accompanied with legal citations proclaiming its criminality) should not be
unleashed because they wish to prevent internationally supervised elections they would
lose]. When asked about whether any strategy could be devised to achieve world rule of
law under contemporary circumstances, he was very pessimistic, “The tide is running the
wrong way”. He was especially critical of the UN Criminal Tribunals and of international
civil trials conducted in the U.S. relating to events in places like Rwanda. He contends
that they have reached the point where “there are no identifiable defendants, nor plaintiffs
with standing, nor feasible sanctions or damages”. He considers this to constitute legal
grandstanding without substance, although the consequences may well be significant. I
was tempted to raise the question whether there might at least be the possibility of
symbolic significance, but felt the constraint of time compelling me to more important
issues.
Ramsay Clark is an imposing presence. He has the legal knowledge, the political
experience, the energy and commitment, the compassion and conscience to be one of the
most impressive figures the human race has produced; yet I felt that he shrank from the
larger challenge. He was a member of the bucket brigade trying to clean up after another
human-induced conflagration, the UN sanctions against Iraq. Instead of exhausting one’s
capacity for compassion and resources in repairing the destruction after the fact, then
waiting for the next disaster, we should become more proactive to work to create
supranational institutions that are capable of bringing governments under the rule of law
and of preventing the serial repetition of disaster.
Realpolitik may argue that the next best option to Pax Americana is Pax “Security
Council”. The United States government could save its resources for circumstances where
the narrow interests represented by the United States government are threatened. It could
use United Nations resources to defend the collective interests of the dominant Permanent
Members of the Security Council. The United States government only pays about 31%
(depending upon the circumstances) of UN "peacekeeping" costs. Due to innovative
distortions in the interpretation of the Charter, precedent no longer requires unanimous
concurrence required among the Permanent Members. In order to legitimate the Korean
War, the Congo operation, and the Iraq War, the Charter was interpreted as actually
requiring a veto to defeat substantive resolutions in the Security Council instead of
requiring unanimous concurrence of the Permanent Members as the Charter specifies.107
In contrast to Ramsay Clark, Adlai Stevenson probably was as great a
disappointment to us Unitarians as Nixon was to Friends (“Quakers”, who were so
fearless that they “quaked” only before God. I generally admire Quakers most--after
Unitarians.). In 1965 I read The Challenge of Man’s Future, by Harrison Brown, a
Professor of Geology at CalTech, in which a graph of the expected human use of fossil
fuels was presented on a millennial scale--long compared to human lifetime--short
compared to civilization. The chart resembled a gaussian, also known as the “bellshaped” curve, and sometimes, unfortunately, and often inaccurately, referred to as the
107The
USSR was absent to protest the refusal to accept the credentials of China to take its seat as a
Permanent Member.
222
“Normal Distribution”. [What if the random variable were chosen to be the age of a
population. People are born at a very early age, but according to the “Normal
Distribution” most people would be born middle-aged, which would be most abnormal
Daniel Yergin, in The Prize, later documented the pivotal role petroleum played in
World War II. The petroleum would be expected to be exhausted even sooner, before
coal. I thought to myself, “When supplies of that critically important resource begin to
be depleted, ‘they’ will be fighting wars to control it!” [Actually, wars had already been
fought to control it.] “How could the prospect of wars in the oilfields, with its attendant
ecological destruction, not to mention the human cost, be avoided?” Why not promote
the concept that non-renewable resources constitute a “Common Heritage of Humanity”?
Then the resources could be administrated and managed instead of controlled after being
fought over and conquered, much like the Colorado River water [which Arizona is
stealing from us in California for the Central Arizona (Irrigation) Project. Since
California has a monopoly on nuclear weapons (both nuclear weapons laboratories, at
Livermore and at Los Alamos, are operated by the University of California), and since I
had served in the California Air National Guard (which could easily defeat Arizona),
California could easily seize the water militarily, except for the Federal government,
whose courts divided the water peacefully, if unequitably]. [Inequity is a price of
civilization. I recently sued in Small Claims Court. I was awarded less than I deserved.
The defendant was order to pay more that he thought he deserved. Justice makes
conscientious disputants feel like victims, hopefully even-handedly, in accordance with
commonly held, democratically established principles, but it avoids violence. Instead of
destroying a disputed commodity in violent confrontation, it is shared out. It’s a good
bargain. Unfortunately, the lesson on a global scale has not yet been learned.]
“How could such a concept be implemented into something more substantial than
an attitude?” I have difficulty generating enthusiasm for inadequate solutions or “magic
wands”. The syndrome is familiar, “If only people would communicate better!” or “If
only everyone would be nice, and/or considerate, and/or sympathetic perhaps even
empathetic, and/or less self-centered and greedy, and/or less combative and more
cooperative, and/or ...” The variations on the theme are unlimited. The dialogue and
debate over values will never terminate. I support and engage the dialogue, exhorting
values I prefer. “Which society would you prefer to live in--one in which people rush to
your assistance if you fall down, or one in they kick you and steal your wallet?” “If you
lose your health, should the misfortune be compounded by losing your assets?” For me,
the dialogue continues, but my value preferences are essentially decided. The question
remains, “How can these values and this kind of a society be implemented and
achieved?” It is not surprising, if short-sighted, that the “establishment” [the people with
the political power capable of inducing change] prefer the current order in which their
power, privilege, and perquisites are protected by military and police force backed by a
political system responsive to their accumulation of wealth. Two capitalist camps have
been identified. One is the “long term enlightened self interest Eastern establishment”
camp of aristocratic wealth [i.e., “we made our money the old-fashioned way--we
inherited it!”]. It is symbolized, and somewhat led by David Rockefeller and the visible
Trilateral Commission, the more private Bohemian Grove, and the secretive Bilderberg
conferences, who manifest some loyalty to capitalism as a system, rather than short term
223
individual profit. It supports temperance of profit in the interest of long term stability,
which is currently losing ground to the nouveau riche short term profiteers whose
predominant concern is their quarterly “bottom line”.
This dichotomy has been given different labels: “Yankees versus Cowboys”,
“Rust Belt versus Sun Belt”. The “cowboys” have succeeded in recently running
capitalism like a Monopoly game. The process of concentration of wealth, accelerated
during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has exacerbated under Clinton until now the
upper 1/2 of 1%of families have more wealth then the lower 90%. [Excluding personal
residence, they have 50% more than the lower 90%]xxi. Like a Monopoly game, when
they accumulate the rest of the wealth, except for their servants, economic activity ceases.
Of course, they could decide to change course at any time, but right now they are on a
roll. Actually, there is a considerable amount of coercion in the system. Competition in
the globalizing economy is fierce. As Marx wrote, “Either one accumulates, or one is
accumulated.” Social Darwinists can compare it to nature: The struggle is to find food
without becoming food.
It occurred to me that, as a “foot in the door”, a severance tax on petroleum (and
other non-renewable resources) which was exported across national boundaries could
provide a direct source of revenue for the UN. An insignificant .01% (1/10,000) tax on a
trillion dollars of exported oil would provide $100,000,000 in revenue for the UN, a huge
amount compared to its annual budget. I sent my suggestion to Adlai Stevenson. I didn’t
receive a reply.
Years later, when Adlai Stevenson III, cancelled a speaking engagement, I was
invited to replace him. I presented a lecture innocuously entitled, “The Funding of
Research”. I analyzed Michael Polanyi’s The Republic of Science. I assessed it as both
naive and false. It portrayed the scientific community as a “republic”, implying the ability
to control the source of its funding. After World War II, there was a spate of works which
described scientists as analogous to “priests” [Ralph Lapp’s The New Priesthood], or
“Brahmins” [Spencer Klaw], or “friars”. I find Don K. Price’s book, The Scientific
Estate, as well as J. D. Bernal’s The Social Function of Science to be insightful to this
day. It is my style to inject the frivolous into the profound. We should never take
ourselves too seriously. I was citing excerpts from Noam Chomsky’s American Power
and the New Mandarins, in which he scathingly criticized “political correctness” in
academia [although he didn’t start using this term in his lectures until years later after the
right wing had coopted the term from the self-critical left. He “re-coopted” it.]. Professors
normatively are ideally to follow the dictates of conscience and intellect, not succumb to
the temptation of grants and the blandishments of power and privilege. I admire Chomsky
beyond measure. I refer to our church as the only one which is a “non-prophet
organization”, but if we ever were to adopt a prophet [a move I would oppose], Chomsky
would be high on the list of candidates]. I identified him as a brilliant Professor of
Linguistics at MIT, i.e., as a “cunning linguist”. In the huge audience, only Tom Stark, a
professor of physics, who confessed to being moved in his position by my address,
laughed. Apropos, there are those who disbelieve that unrepentant perpetrators of
cunnilingus were cast to the lions in Roman times. I suppose they never heard of
gladiators.
224
Disintegration and violent conflict has occurred in the former Soviet Union and
the former Yugoslavia. Separatist movements organized around increasingly intense and
increasingly narrow concepts of nationality abound. Minorities seek control of territory
where, inevitably, other peoples will be minorities. It is impossible to draw boundaries on
the globe such that all the people within a boundary would identify themselves with the
same nationality. In the past, mixed peoples have gradually developed a common sense of
nationality, but this is a very long-term process, and depends upon limited mobility. The
modern world can be expected to become increasingly cosmopolitan in the long run, even
though problems of resurgent nationalism are occurring in the wake of the collapse of
socialism.
Human rights established at a global level are the obvious remedies to the
problem of national chauvinism if they can be so firmly established that borders become
matters of administrative convenience, and no more. Then one would need not fear on
which side of a border one resides because human rights will be protected on all sides of
all borders regardless of one’s ethnicity, religion, culture, or values. There is a movement
to divide California into two or three parts. Quebec narrowly voted against secession
from Canada. By contrast, if such divisions ever were to occur, they would hopefully
transpire without the violent conflict of Bosnia because of the restraint imposed by the
larger federal systems108. The world needs such restraint, especially when the
jurisdiction of the sovereign state is challenged. Within the “states” in the United States,
adjustments of the borders of cities and counties is accomplished without violent conflict.
The world is lacking a peaceful method of adjusting borders, sovereignties, and
jurisdictions.
The world desperately needs enforcement of the law where management and
administration alone are inadequate. However, allowing policemen to have legislative
and judicial powers, as they are combined in the Security Council, is a violation of the
basic principles of checks and balances and separation of powers which are considered
such valuable elements in the United States and other constitutions--a principle with
widely ranging consensus. Before considering enforcement, there first needs to be
legitimate law to enforce. There is no United Nations parliament to legislate. The United
Nations Charter, Nuremberg Principles, and abrogatable treaties do not provide much of a
legal framework. In any case the United Nations is woefully inadequate as a policeman.
The only remaining superpower, with no comparable contender, is incapable of being
However, Emmanuel Wallerstein [1994] expects “Bosnia to come to California” in a scenario
reminiscent of Naisbitt’s: Confidence in the United States Federal Government (and in government in
general) has plummeted since the Kennedy administration. If one cannot depend upon government for
security, among other things), one may seek to provide security through other means. The rich are moving
into gated communities with private guards. The number of private police for residential, commercial, and
industrial protection is increasing at a rapid rate. But what of those who lack the financial resources to hire
security guards? Realization that individuals cannot provide adequate security by themselves induces the
formation of security groups (gangs and warlords) for mutual protection from other similar groups, often
eroding the security of competing groups, leading to a classic “arms race”, and, ultimately, to reduced
security for most. These form around common identities, religion, ethnicity, etc. As they gain in strength
and the government weakens, they impose their own taxation--what used to be called “the protection
racket”, except that they may actually provide some security in what becomes overall an extraordinarily
insecure environment.
108
225
such a policemen, even if it aspired to do so. Even though the United States government
conducted most of the military operations against Iraq, it has no intention of becoming
"the world's policeman"[Healy (1992)].109 It intends to intervene only when interests
represented by the United States government are in jeopardy110. If enforcement serves
the interests that the United States government represents, then the United States
government will intervene, which it generally would do in any case, even without
legitimization by the United Nations. Essentially then, when the United Nations is
enabled, it is merely used to provide legitimacy for actions on behalf of interests
represented by the United States government [and its allies]. Increasing recognition of
this state of affairs has led to increasing criticism of the United Nations--in Somalia, in
Bosnia and Croatia, and elsewhere, and subsequent loss of legitimacy.
Consider the way vigilante groups operate. They enforce the law (as they interpret
it) “on behalf” of an authority which establishes the law and to whom responsibility for
enforcement properly belongs. Experience with vigilante groups has been regrettable. A
democratic, legitimate, reformed United Nations itself should be responsible for the
uniform enforcement of universally applicable law. World rule of law should not be
enforced “on behalf” of the United Nations, in vigilante style. Vigilante groups invariably
fail in uniform enforcement and in universal application of the law--two critical criteria of
justice and legitimacy.
The minority report of the Congressional [“Leach”] Commission on Improving
the Effectiveness of the United Nations opposed enabling the Security Council [usually
referred to as the “United Nations” itself in this context] to enforce its dictates by having
its own “United Nations Legion” on quite different grounds. The minority report claimed
that the “UN” (read “Security Council”) mission “...can be accomplished more effectively
by the ready forces of United Nations member countries, and at far less cost” [Meisler
(1994)]. However, the selective enforcement which results from a United States
government dominated Security Council makes a mockery of the concept of the "rule of
law".
109
The minority report of the Leach Commission rejected the idea of a standing United Nations police
force, arguing that action by “the ready forces of United Nations member countries” could more effectively
and less expensively accomplish the task. [There was no suggestion how armed forces might arrest their
commander-in-chief in case of aggression. There seems to be general confusion between “police actions”
(to which individuals, even heads of state would be subject), and military actions in warfare taken against
states. There also was no recognition of the principle that government is supposed to enforce its own law.
The federal government doesn’t allow (province) state government to enforce federal law, and vice-versa.
Vigilante groups “enforce” the law “on behalf” of government, but usually without authorization.]
110 The secret Defense Guidance Plan for 1994-1999, the first major revision of the United States military
mission since the collapse of the USSR, states unequivocally that the United States rejects the role of
global policeman, but does assume “force projection” about the globe in pursuit of interests represented by
the United States government, and as “arbiter” of all world developments. It proposes coalitions and
alliances of convenience, Machiavellian style, in the promotion of these interests, and supports massive
military expenditures in the event that some “global competitor” emerges from somewhere. [Healy (1992)
A3].
Another draft scenario under discussion in the Pentagon proposes a military so huge, so expensive, so
daunting that the United States government could dispense with coalitions and alliances, even with the
United Nations, the “300 pound gorilla syndrome” [“New World Order”, Los Angeles Times (12 March
1992) B10].
226
Human rights established at a global level are the obvious remedies to the
problem of national chauvinism if they can be so firmly established that borders become
matters of administrative convenience, and no more, so that one need not fear on which
side of a border one resides regardless of one’s ethnicity, religion, culture, or values
because human rights will be protected on all sides of all borders. There is a movement to
divide California into two or three parts. Quebec narrowly voted against secession from
Canada. By contrast, if such divisions ever were to occur, they would hopefully transpire
without the violent conflict of Bosnia because of the restraint imposed by the larger
federal systems111. The world needs such restraint, especially when the jurisdiction of
the sovereign state is challenged. Within the “states” in the United States, adjustments of
the borders of cities and counties is accomplished without violent conflict. The world is
lacking a peaceful method of adjusting borders, sovereignties, and jurisdictions.
The world desperately needs enforcement of the law where management and
administration alone are inadequate. However, but allowing policemen to have
legislative and judicial powers, as they are combined in the Security Council, is a
violation of the basic principles of checks and balances and separation of powers which
are considered such valuable elements in the United States and other constitutions--a
principle with widely ranging consensus. Before considering enforcement, there first
needs to be legitimate law to enforce. There is no United Nations parliament to legislate.
The United Nations Charter, Nuremberg Principles, and abrogatable treaties do not
provide much of a legal framework. In any case the United Nations is woefully
inadequate as a policeman. The only remaining superpower, with no comparable
contender, is incapable of being such a policemen, even if it aspired to do so. Even
though the United States government conducted most of the military operations against
Iraq, it has no intention of becoming "the world's policeman"[Healy (1992)].112 It
intends to intervene only when interests represented by the United States government are
However, Emmanuel Wallerstein [1994] expects “Bosnia to come to California” in a scenario
reminiscent of Naisbitt’s: Confidence in the United States Federal Government (and in government in
general) has plummeted since the Kennedy administration. If one cannot depend upon government for
security, among other things), one may seek to provide security through other means. The rich are moving
into gated communities with private guards. The number of private police for residential, commercial, and
industrial protection is increasing at a rapid rate. But what of those who lack the financial resources to hire
security guards? Realization that individuals cannot provide adequate security by themselves induces the
formation of security groups (gangs and warlords) for mutual protection from other similar groups, often
eroding the security of competing groups, leading to a classic “arms race”, and, ultimately, to reduced
security for most. These form around common identities, religion, ethnicity, etc. As they gain in strength
and the government weakens, they impose their own taxation--what used to be called “the protection
racket”, except that they may actually provide some security in what becomes overall an extraordinarily
insecure environment.
112 The minority report of the Leach Commission rejected the idea of a standing United Nations police
force, arguing that action by “the ready forces of United Nations member countries” could more effectively
and less expensively accomplish the task. [There was no suggestion how armed forces might arrest their
commander-in-chief in case of aggression. There seems to be general confusion between “police actions”
(to which individuals, even heads of state would be subject), and military actions in warfare taken against
states. There also was no recognition of the principle that government is supposed to enforce its own law.
The federal government doesn’t allow (province) state government to enforce federal law, and vice-versa.
Vigilante groups “enforce” the law “on behalf” of government, but usually without authorization.]
111
227
in jeopardy113. If enforcement serves the interests that the United States government
represents, then the United States government will intervene, which it generally would do
in any case, even without legitimization by the United Nations. Essentially then, when the
United Nations is enabled, it is merely used to provide legitimacy for actions on behalf of
interests represented by the United States government [and its allies]. Increasing
recognition of this state of affairs has led to increasing criticism of the United Nations-in Somalia, in Bosnia and Croatia, and elsewhere, and subsequent loss of legitimacy.
Consider the way vigilante groups operate. They enforce the law (as they interpret
it) “on behalf” of an authority which establishes the law and to whom responsibility for
enforcement properly belongs. Experience with vigilante groups has been regrettable. A
democratic, legitimate, reformed United Nations itself should be responsible for the
uniform enforcement of universally applicable law. World rule of law should not be
enforced “on behalf” of the United Nations, in vigilante style. Vigilante groups invariably
fail in uniform enforcement and in universal application of the law--two critical criteria of
justice and legitimacy.
The minority report of the Congressional [“Leach”] Commission on Improving
the Effectiveness of the United Nations opposed enabling the Security Council [usually
referred to as the “United Nations” itself in this context] to enforce its dictates by having
its own “United Nations Legion” on quite different grounds. The minority report claimed
that the “UN” (read “Security Council”) mission “...can be accomplished more effectively
by the ready forces of United Nations member countries, and at far less cost” [Meisler
(1994)]. However, the selective enforcement which results from a United States
government dominated Security Council makes a mockery of the concept of the "rule of
law".
Velikovsky
I noticed that an academic conference on the works of Immanuel Velikovsky was
to be held at Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. I had never been to the Northwest. This
seemed a perfect opportunity. In trying to explain the nature of science to non-science
majors, one of the tactics I used was to contrast it with areas that portrayed themselves as
scientific—“pseudoscience”. Every semester I used and analyzed a different example.
Velikovsky, author of “Worlds in Collision”, was the example one semester. This seemed
a particularly egregious case of interpreting data to support one’s prejudices.
Velikovsky’s effort was devoted to providing scientific explanations for the literal
interpretation of the Bible. Velikovsky, attended in person and presented a tall imposing
113
The secret Defense Guidance Plan for 1994-1999, the first major revision of the United States military
mission since the collapse of the USSR, states unequivocally that the United States rejects the role of
global policeman, but does assume “force projection” about the globe in pursuit of interests represented by
the United States government, and as “arbiter” of all world developments. It proposes coalitions and
alliances of convenience, Machiavellian style, in the promotion of these interests, and supports massive
military expenditures in the event that some “global competitor” emerges from somewhere. [Healy (1992)
A3].
Another draft scenario under discussion in the Pentagon proposes a military so huge, so expensive, so
daunting that the United States government could dispense with coalitions and alliances, even with the
United Nations, the “300 pound gorilla syndrome” [“New World Order”, Los Angeles Times (12 March
1992) B10].
228
figure, with his craggy face and shock of unruly white hair. He was very modest, wellspoken, with great stage presence exuding credibility as the archtypical unappreciated
“genius before his time”. Only his theories lacked credibility.
The conference, however, attracted some substantive papers, perhaps from others
seeking a rationale for a trip to the Northwest. One paper in particular impressed me,
presented by Professor Grinnell from Canada. I had been collecting theories interpreting
Newton for my liberal arts science class. Boris Hessen’s seminal paper, “The Economic
Foundations of Newton’s Principia”, presented in Manchester, illustrated Newton’s
practical motivation with instructions to Lord Aston about what to inquire about during
his trip to the continent. All of the items had commercial or military application. Lewis
Feuer argued against Max Weber’s theory that Protestant Puritanism motivated
Newtonian science by citing the role that disreputable coffeehouses played, in a LibertineBacchanalian sense.
Grinnell had a dramatically different theory that I found quite cogent. He analyzed
Newton’s notes and calculations performed before publication. Newton was an
iconoclastic anti-Aristotelian. Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, had arranged a compromise
between the traditional theologians that had populated the heavens with deities, and the
materialistic Ionian philosophers who had replaced the deities with fires and crystal
spheres. OK, so the deities do not populate the heavens any longer, but there remains
something divine about them—heavenly bodies have perfectly divine orbits, circles, and
perfectly divine shapes, spheres, not 34-24-34, just like those fawned over at Atlantic
City. Aristotle elaborated by classifying motion into categories of perfect celestial motion
obeying celestial laws in the “superlunary sphere”, and falling motion and violent motion
in the “sublunary sphere”. This Platonic/Aristotelian view dominated intellectual thought
for almost two millennia, until the Copernican Revolution. Even Canon Copernigh
restricted himself to perfectly circular orbits in his revolutionary heliocentric solar
system. As Arthur Koestler described Copernicus’ domination by Aristotle, “If Aristotle
had declared that God had created only birds, and no human beings, Copernicus would
have described human beings as birds without feathers or wings that hatch their eggs
before laying them.”
In violation of the Aristotelian hierarchy that divide the superlunary and sublunary
worlds, Newton combined Kepler’s Three (superlunary) Laws with Galileo’s (sublunary)
discoveries. The result was Newton’s Three Laws. Gravity also violated the separation
between the sublunary and superlunary spheres. Heavenly objects like the moon and
planets, including the earth, were subject to gravitation. Of course, Newton hid his tracks.
How did he do this? Grinnell abruptly erased the blackboard containing Newton’s
calculations. The Principia simply stated the Three Laws as postulates (well, as
hypotheses cum postulates with empirical confirmation). Grinnell provided an interesting
addition to my lecture notes.
At the conference I encountered a professor from our English Department,
Dorothea de France, who had a known interest in the occult and metaphysical. I asked her
what she was doing there. She had an even more imposing question for me, what was I
doing there?
I drove to the conference with my 10 year old son, Curt, and my Yugoslav wife,
Slavica. On the way we stopped at the extensive dunes near Point Moro. I put my son on
229
my shoulders and ran the half mile or so across the sands to the ocean. The wind was
blowing so hard that our footsteps were quickly erased behind us. Upon returning to the
car I discovered that the car keys had fallen out of my jacket pocket. It seemed hopeless to
try to find them buried in this trackless Sahara. We walked out a hundred meters or so,
trying to remember the path I had taken. Slavica stopped, stuck her toe into the sand, and
retrieved the keys. I still don’t believe in miracles, but that day I was severely tested.
Synanon
A very progressive Jewish photographer friend, Joe Schwartz, had difficulty with
alcoholism. He stored his equipment in our garage and joined Synanon, which was known
primarily as a selfhelp program for drug addicts. The name was derived from an addict’s
mangled attempt to pronounce “seminar”, or so the story goes. They occupied the former
National Guard edifice on the beach in Santa Monica. With Joe as our connection, we
took the kids to the beach in front of the armory, taking advantage of their volleyball
court. Synanon upscaled and moved to the elaborate formerly exclusive Jonathan Club
building. It was a perfect place to take the family. I would sit at a table and prepare my
lectures and do research. The kids would play. There were extensive entertainment
opportunities. There was a free cafeteria-style dinner made from donations of food.
Afterwards a band composed of Synanon members, which was replete with top notch
musicians, especially jazz musicians, would play and we would dance. Stan Kenton
would visit his musicians periodically.
However, besides dues, there were other obligations. One was required to
participate in the Synanon “game”. They asked me what my problems were, why I was a
member of Synanon. I replied that it was great place to take the family. That reason was
rejected. I had to have problems. The argument as it was presented to me was that one
could not contribute to the amelioration of societal problems until one solved one’s own
problems -- and everyone has problems! I countered, that, according to that logic, the
number of people remaining to address societal problems would constitute a null set.
After a bit of nagging, I finally participated in the Synanon “game”, once. It is logically
similar to that adage, “Don’t sweat the small stuff—And it’s all small stuff.”
The “game” had an interesting format especially designed for drug addicts who
habitually lied, even to themselves. The “game” would be “thrown” on one person in a
group of about 35 participants. They would be asked questions about their lives. The exaddicts, who were expert at mendacity themselves, would hone in on perceived
sensitivity. An illustration best explains the process. The game was thrown on Hans, a tall
handsome man in his forties. It was a continuation of the previous game. “Hans, tell us
about the prostitute in Tijuana.” He did, including the confession of the indiscretion to his
wife, who, it turned out, was sitting across the room. “Why did you tell your wife?” “Oh,
my conscience bothered me so much that I was compelled to confess.” “Bullshit! You
told her because you wanted to hurt her!” After a few denials that were challenged by an
increasingly vocal audience, he finally admitted it. “Why did you want to hurt her?”
“Well, in our twenty years of marriage she always insisted that I use a condom and I
couldn’t enjoy it.” She blurted in tears, “Hans, why didn’t you ever say something?” Here
was a couple involved in what traditionally is the most intimate of human relationships,
230
marriage, and a long term marriage at that, and this intimate problem is only finally
addressed before a bunch of strangers like me, in the Synanon “game” format.
The game was thrown on me. I was everyone’s target. They started the
interrogation. Was I married? Why did I get a divorce? What did I do to cause the
divorce? What was my biggest current problem? They tried to focus on my problems, and
I countered that I was in good shape, but that many other people needed help. I cited the
scene from Jean Genet’s Marat/Sade in which the courtesans, who had been complaining
about unhappy love affairs, were leaning out the window watching a man being burned at
the stake. “He’s the one who really has the problem!” I cited the experience as an Army
company medic in which I had to march soldiers to sick call. I was charged with the task
of trying to help a soldier suffering from severe depression. I was subject to the same
depressing circumstances as he was. I wondered at how my own depression evaporated
when I focussed upon helping him. One can make mountains out of molehills, and viceversa. One’s personal problems seem to diminish to at least manageable proportions
when one focuses on helping others. I recommended that they focus on societal problems
instead of dwelling on their own. They complained that I didn’t play fair. I had thrown the
game on them, putting them on the defensive instead of me.
Internal discord finally destroyed Synanon, to my regret. A rattlesnake was found
in an attorney’s mail box. Things became very weird. I never understood the problem.
Life goes on. There is life after Synanon, but it was an interesting experience.
Camping
References: 201 notes on Newton
Kistiakowsky
The next WFSW General Assembly was scheduled to occur among the
spectacularly impressive columns, mirrors, and art works of the Palace of the Trade
Unions in Moscow, a former Tsarist palace, the same venue as the previous Assembly.
The contrast with trade unions in the U.S. could not be more striking. The trade union
hotel where I stayed during a couple of conferences in Prague was located on the river
Charles, and was as elegant as the Intercontinental Hotel next store. The WFSW
International House of Scientists in Drouzhba, Bulgaria was impressive to me, but for the
second conference I attended there, EcoForum for Peace, a more luxurious hotel was
chosen as the venue. I learned that the beautiful hotels which filled the park stretching
along the shore of the Black Sea belonged to trade unions. Their guests were workers
from the trade unions. That whole world has collapsed now.
The Assembly was incorporated into the USSR’s effort to achieve détente, an end
to the Anti-Communist Crusade, and end to the arms race, especially of the U.S.
government’s effort to undermine nuclear deterrence by achieving unilateral first strike
(“counterforce”) nuclear capability, i. e., reducing the USSR’s retaliatory
231
(“countervalue”) second strike response to “tolerable proportions”. My values are
certainly extreme compared to those of the government and its military. To my mind, the
loss of even one major U.S. city to nuclear destruction is intolerable, and not worth
$1/gallon gasoline nor any other conceivable foreign policy goal. I would rather pay
market price. I was being quite willingly and consciously used in this effort. This major
diplomatic effort required the presence of eminent U.S. scientists. I was given carte
blanche to invite such scientists, all expenses paid, which I did.
I had always heard that one could not travel in the USSR without being under
surveillance, accompanied by an Intourist agent. My life pattern has been to take such
information under advisement, but not to accept it unquestioningly. My Yugoslav wife
and I bought train tickets from Zagreb to Moscow. What we weren’t told was that I, as a
U.S. citizen, required a transit visa for Hungary. I was removed from the train at the
border. My wife stayed with me. I had to go to the automobile entry point to obtain a visa.
Upon arrival back at the rural, almost deserted train station to catch the next train we
were accosted by an youthful, handsome plain clothed police agent whom we satisfied
with information about our identity, our destination, and our business. There were only
sleeping cars on the train, the most elegant sleeping cars I had ever seen in my limited
experience, each equipped with a steward who periodically served refreshments. The
dining car was a real experience. On the wood burning stove was a large pot of chicken
paprikas. A serving consisted of half of a chicken with fresh dark bread on the side. A
drunken Russian officer insisted upon buying us vodka and beer and paying for the meals
in a homily, heartfelt expression of hospitality to “his American friends”. When I hear
contemporary news about the unpopularity of Americans in Russia since the attempt to
establish capitalism there, I always reflect upon the warm hospitality we received on our
trips. Times have changed.
Upon arrival in Moscow I understood the need for an Intourist guide. There was
no information booth, nor maps, no guidance for tourists. All of the signs were in
Russian, in cyrillic. I put on my backpack, and with the aid of our Serbo-Croatian (a
related Slavic language, the Serbian part of which, uses a similar form of cyrillic, we
managed to find our way to the Sputnik hotel by tram, to the amazement of our hosts.
We were immediately ushered to breakfast and seated with President
Eisenhower’s scientific advisor, George Kistiakowsky, who was seated with his brother, a
chemistry professor from Kiev, with whom he had been reunited but a few minutes earlier
for the first time since the Russian revolution, which George related he had watched from
his apartment overlooking “Red” Square [“krasnaya” means both “pretty” and “red”, so
maybe it should be called “Beautiful Square”]. He and his brother recounted their
experiences during the half century they were separated. George fought for the counterrevolutionaries, the “whites”. When they lost, he emigrated to the U.S., ultimately
becoming a Harvard professor (and Eisenhower’s advisor). His brother stayed behind and
the USSR phase of the Anti Communist Crusade (“Cold War”) kept them separated. We
became very close during the conference. When I applauded too enthusiastically at the
dramatic, but patriotic conclusion to the impressive Moscow circus, he tapped me on the
shoulder and admonished me about succumbing to chauvinism, which we had earlier
discussed. I was properly sobered in tempering my enthusiasm.
232
“Kisty” was a wealth of inside information about the nuclear arms chase. He was
privy to intelligence information giving the lie to the fictitious “missile gap” when the
SAC commander mendaciously told the U.S. public that the USSR had a thousand
ICBM’s. In Kisty’s words, the USSR had no more than six, liquid fueled, “virtually
unserviceable” ICBMs, all in one location, unhardended, vulnerable to conventional
attack, requiring cranes to lift and launch them. They were primitive liquid fuel rockets
requiring hours to fuel.
FAS intellectual lobby in US, not UN/instrumental rationality/ Terry Kupers/NPI/ Stone/ nat’l
Boutros Boutros Ghali, Books C-Span2 Sat 26 June 1999
Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga
An undemocratic UN can not be expected to promote democracy on a national level.
Arrested in Syracuse
“orphan conflicts”
taxation without representation and vice-versa
Protect HR by dropping bombs on them.
References: 201 notes on Newton
Derek
though you said noone would come!”
Single party without antagonistic contradictions?
Honorary yugolav in Varna, China
FAS intellectual lobby in US, not UN/instrumental rationality/ Terry Kupers/NPI/ Stone/ nat’l
council/Varna (red bourgeoisie)
Fund New Demo Soc/Athena’s/What am I doing here?/Ed Cooperman, Carol Copp, Paul Hayner in
court/Panthers bombs in basement/May green beanie
Teller Excalibur
Drop kick me Jesus/invasion of body snatchers
I want my body to feel as badly as I do.
Fuentes, Dubrovnik
ACC/Forsyth/Belatran
Nuclear power/ never seen a problem so complicated...”on the other hand--never ending addional
significant factors
Hiroshima/George Wald
Human rights vienna/rio Prague spring ‘68/ Jeep on border Olda Karban and Vladimir
Rio environmental sustainable development/Maine farmer
Jugo ‘67
Principles of UN Reform/UNESCO regional center/Cooperman
Bo Peep/historical geology
Mike O’ Neill/das Kapital (wrong)
Habermas
Nuclear Power external costs/Spokane/Who will pay/East Germany/WFSW
Ed Cooperman/UNESCO Regional Center
Markham’s mother
233
Maunu heartbreaker
Moscow airport /WWIII/ architecture/Juan Jose Cape Verde/US Engineers beaver complex
rue Madamesmoiselles
George Wald in Japan
wrong!--Mike O’ Neill/Das Kapital
Journalistic style/lead in/People mag
Synanon
Philosophy of raising kids/discipline
Harbor/pledge paddles/stop signs
Ollie akhbar
Panthers
Athena’s
Fuck you Ronald Reagan
Caplin Martys Carol
Intercollegiate studies institute/greed is good/politically correct/Horowitz billion $ brains Sinews of Empire
UCLA grand ballroom/Mao three worlds
Utility vs. marketability
UN is not economically viable.
Mark Twain/letters from the earth
I have in mind Professor Edy Kaufman who proposed a “Palestinian state” at UC Irvine.
A CONCISE HISTORY 1947-1948:
7 February 1947: The British government announces its intention to terminate its League of Nations
mandate for Palestine.
i
ii
14 February 1947: The British government announces that it will defer to the United Nations to determine
the future of Palestine.
2 April 1947: The British Government submits an account of its administration of Palestine under the
League of Nations mandate to the General Assembly of the United Nations, and requests the General
Assembly recommend a future course for Palestine.
13 May 1947: The United Nations General Assembly appoints an eleven-nation Special Committee on
Palestine.
31 August 1947: The 11 member United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommends unanimously
that Great Britain terminate its mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date.
It also recommends by majority vote (7 ) that Palestine be partitioned into “Jewish and Arab” states
[impliciting negating the existence of the Mizrahim (Jewish Arabs) and implying that all Gentiles are Arabs, or at least that the Arabs
would somehow dominate].
17 September 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall, in an address to the United Nations, expresses
United States reluctance to endorse partition.
22 September 1947: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Near East Agency, addresses a
memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall in which he argues against United States' advocacy of
the United Nations’ Special Committee’s proposal to partition Palestine.
10 October 1947: In a memorandum entitled, "The Problem of Palestine", the Joint Chiefs of Staff argue
that partition would enable the Soviet Union to replace the United States and Great Britain in the region and
would endanger United States access to Middle East oil.
234
11 October 1947: The next day, Herschel Johnson, United States deputy representative on the United
Nations Security Council, announces United States support for the partition plan of the United Nations
Special Committee on Palestine.
17 October 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: "I received about 35,000 pieces of
mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter … was pending. I put it all in a pile and
struck a match to it -- I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations
Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should
not be interfered with."
Ca. November 1947: A subcommittee of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine establishes a
timetable for British withdrawal.
19 November 1947: Chaim Weizmann meets with President Truman and argues that the Negev region has
great importance to the future Jewish state.
24 November 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall writes to Under Secretary of State Robert
Lovett to inform him that British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin had told him that British intelligence
indicated that Jewish groups moving illegally from the Balkan states to Palestine included many
Communists.
29 November 1947: The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended to the Security
Council that the partition plan of the Special Committee on Palestine that divided the area into three
entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem with 33 votes in favor,
13against, 10 abstentions and one absent
2 December 1947: Truman writes to former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., encouraging
him to tell his Jewish friends that it is time for restraint and caution. "The vote in the U.N.," Truman wrote,
"is only the beginning and the Jews must now display tolerance and consideration for the other people in
Palestine with whom they will necessarily have to be neighbors."
5 December 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the State Department is imposing an
embargo on all shipments of arms to the Middle East.
12 December 1947: Truman writes to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and
the World Zionist Organization, that it is essential that restraint and tolerance be exercised by all parties if a
peaceful settlement is to be reached in the Middle East.
4 February 1948: Chaim Wiezmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist
Organization, arrives in New York.
12 February 1948: At a meeting of the National Security Council Secretary of Defense James Forrestal
states that any serious attempt to implement partition would set in motion events that would result in at
least a partial mobilization of United States armed forces.
19 February 1948: When asked if the United States would continue to support partition, Secretary of State
George Marshall states that the "whole Palestine thing," was under "constant consideration."
21 February 1948: Eddie Jacobson, a longtime and close personal friend of President Truman, sends a
telegram to Truman, asking him to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for
Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.
22 February 1948: Truman instructs Secretary of State George Marshall that while he
235
approves in principle a draft prepared by the State Department of a position paper which mentions as a
possible contingency a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine, he does not want anything presented to
the United Nations Security Council that could be interpreted as a change from the position in favor of
partition that the United States announced in the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. He further
instructs Marshall to submit to him for review the final draft of the remarks that Warren Austin, the United
States representative to the United Nations, intends to present before the Security Council on 19 March
1948.
27 February 1948: Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the
president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.
8 March 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to President Truman, in a memorandum
entitled, "United States Policy with Regard to Palestine," that Truman's actions in support of partition are
"in complete conformity with the settled policy of the United States."
9 March 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall instructs Warren Austin, United States representative to
the United Nations, that if a United Nations special assembly on Palestine were convened, the United States
would support a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine.
12 March 1948: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reports, "present indications point to
the inescapable conclusion that when the [British] mandate is terminated, Palestine is likely to suffer
severely from administrative chaos and widespread strife and bloodshed."
13 March 1948: Eddie Jacobson walks into the White House without an appointment and pleads with
Truman to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World
Zionist Organization. Truman responds: "You win, you baldheaded son-of-a-bitch. I will see him."
18 March 1948: Truman meets with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and
the World Zionist Organization. Truman says he wishes to see justice done in Palestine without bloodshed,
and that if the Jewish state were declared and the United Nations remained stalled in its attempt to establish
a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, the United States would recognize the new state immediately.
18 March 1948: The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine reports to the United Nations
Security Council that it has failed to arrange any compromise between Jews and Arabs, and recommends
that the United Nations undertake a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.
19 March 1948: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin announces to the United
Nations Security Council that the United States position is that partition is no longer a viable option.
20 March 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the United States will seek to work
within the United Nations to bring a peaceful settlement to Palestine, and that the proposal for a temporary
United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the
United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.
21 March 1948: Truman writes in his diary regarding the confusion caused by the State
Department's handling of the trusteeship issue: "I spend the day trying to right what has happened. No
luck. Marshall makes a statement. Doesn't help a bit."
21 March 1948: Truman writes to his sister Mary Jane Truman that the "striped pants
conspirators" in the State Department had "completely balled up the Palestine situation." But, he writes, "it
may work out anyway in spite of them."
236
22 March 1948: Truman writes to his brother Vivian Truman regarding Palestine: "I think the proper thing
to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."
25 March 1948: Truman says at a press conference that a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine would
be only a temporary measure, intended to establish the peaceful conditions that would be the essential
foundation for a final political settlement. He states that trusteeship is not a substitute for partition.
11 April 1948: Eddie Jacobson enters the White House unnoticed by the East Gate and meets with Truman.
Jacobson recorded of this meeting: "He reaffirmed, very strongly, the promises he had made to Dr.
Weizmann and to me; and he gave me permission to tell Dr. Weizmann so, which I did. It was at this
meeting that I also discussed with the President the vital matter of recognizing the new state, and to this he
agreed with a whole heart."
12 May 1948: Truman meets in the Oval Office with Secretary of State George Marshall,
Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett, Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and several others to
discuss the Palestine situation. Clifford argues in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state in accordance
with the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947. Marshall opposes Clifford's arguments, and
contends they are based on domestic political considerations. He says that if Truman follows Clifford's
advice and recognizes the Jewish state, then he (Marshall) would vote against Truman in the election.
Truman does not clearly state his views in the meeting.
12, 13, and 14 May 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and Under Secretary of State Robert
Lovett discuss the different views held in the White House and the State Department regarding whether the
United States should recognize the Jewish state. Lovett reports to Clifford on May 14 that Marshall will
neither support nor oppose Truman's plan to recognize the Jewish state, that he will stay out of the entire
matter.
13 May 1948: Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist
Organization, writes to President Truman: "I deeply hope that the United States, which under your
leadership has done so much to find a just solution [to the Palestine situation], will promptly recognize the
Provisional Government of the new Jewish state. The world, I think, would regard it as especially
appropriate that the greatest living democracy should be the first to welcome the newest into the family of
nations."
14 May 1948: David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, reads a "Declaration of Independence,"
which proclaims the existence of a Jewish state called Israel
14 May 1948: The British mandate expires, and the state of Israel comes into being.
14 May 1948: The United States recognizes Israel de facto. The White House issues the following
statement: "This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and
recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the
provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel."
14 May 1948: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the
United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United
Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.
15 May1948: Arab states issue their response statement and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attack
Israel.
Further,
[25 January 1949: A permanent government takes office in Israel following popular elections.
237
31 January 1949: The United States recognizes Israel on a de jure basis.]
[Compiled by Raymond H. Geselbracht from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport,
Connecticut, 1997) by Michael T. Benson] [Bold face emphases added.]
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a
new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the
conduct of nations.".
iii
Address to the Nation [9pm (EST) 16 January 1991]. US Department of State Dispatch (21 January 1991) Volume 2
Number 3 p. 37. ISSN 1051-7693.
Twilight of the Idols, “What the Germans Lack” p. 5.
iviv
vReview of documentation has improved my fallible memory. These are my corrected recollections
.
vi
“The Learning Society”, Saturday Review of Literature (11 September 1965).
vii Article 12 of the United Nations Charter states:
1. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the
present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation
unless the Security Council so requests.
viii I. DEFINITION OF THE CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Article 1
For the purpose of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "cultural heritage":
monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an
archeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal
value from the point of view of history, art or science;
groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity
or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; sites:
works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of
outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view. *
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "natural heritage":
natural features
consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value
from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas
which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of
view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from
the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.*
ix The formal name of the former Yugoslav republic. The name of the new proclaimed republic, with the almost
compulsory tendency to change the original names to provide a version parochial to another language, is “Bosnia”,
with an arbrtary and unnecessary “i” inserted.
x Article 53 (emphasis added)
1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement
action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional
agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state,
as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed
against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on
request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such
a state.
2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War
has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.
xi CHAPTER XVIII
AMENDMENTS
Article 108
Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been
adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their
respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent
members of the Security Council.
238
Article 109
1. A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may
be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of
any nine members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.
2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when
ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations
including the permanent members of the Security Council.
3. If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming
into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of
the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General
Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council. [emphasis added]
xii Charles A. Beard and Birl E. Shultz, Initiative. Referendum and Recal, The MacMillan Company 1912 p. 29.
xiii (Monday, 18 June 1787) p. 133, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as reported by James Madison,
ELLIOT'S DEBATES, Volume III, James River Press 1989.
xiv The Federalist No. 10
xv to quote the sardonic title of the book in which David Halberstam analyzed the crime of the Viet Nam War
committed by “the best and the brightest”.
xvi The Works of James Wilson. 3d vol. p. 292.
xvii Marvin E. Gettleman. The Dorr Rebellion: A Studv in American Radicalism 18331849. Random House 1973.
xviii To use the title of the book by Jürgen Habermas.
xix United States Term Limits, Inc., vs. Thornton, United States Supreme Court (23 May 1995) United States Law
Week, 63 (44) 4430, 4431.
xx Meet the Press interview by Lawrence E. Spivak.
xxi
Doug Henwood, The Left Business Review (July 1997)
239