Greg Mitchell's Blog, page 247

Nixon on Archie Bunker, 'Homos' and Hippies

There's a new doc making the festival circuit and due to hit theaters in September titled Our Nixon.   It's based on recently released home movies shot during his White House years by top aides Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chapin--before all three resigned and went to (country club) prison, that is.  It will be shown on CNN starting August 1.  They've sent me a screener and I'll be doing a full review shortly at The Nation.  But the film also includes snippets of dialogue from the Nixon tapes, and a highlight is the president, Haldeman and Ehrlichman discussing an episode of the new show "All in the Family."  Nixon had just stumbled on it, searching for a baseball game, and was shocked by its glorification of "queers," and the "hippie-son-in-law," over the "hardhat" Archie.

And: Just imagine what damage Aristotle could have wrought if he had had access to TV.   Nixon:  "Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. The last six. Nero had a public wedding to a boy. Yeah."  And:  "You know what happened to the Popes? It's all right that, Popes were laying the nuns, that's been going on for years, centuries."

Here's the full conversation below.  Transcript here.  My well-known Nixon book here.

Today's Tale from Gun Nutty USA

Sadly, always a few candidates every day, many involving kids.   Here's today's, from ol' Kentucky.  Check out the last line.

A six-year-old Kentucky girl is dead after being shot accidentally Sunday by her four-year-old brother.

The shooting in Hopkinsville happened around 9 a.m. after the little boy found their grandfather’s .38 caliber handgun and pulled the trigger, shooting the girl in the face. She was flown to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., but died later Sunday evening.

There have been nearly 40 instances of children under 12-years-old being shot and killed by their peers since mid-December, according to statistics compiled by the Daily News

Ecuador's Leader Says 'Mistake' to Help Snowden So Far

Tuesday Update:  Ecuador's president says Snowden is Russia's problem and will not get asylum in his country at least for now.  He adds that Snowden is "a very complicated" person and not someone he wants to meet, despite praise and appeal from the "spy."  Adds that it was a "mistake" to help tet him out of Hong Kong.  Whoops. 

Earlier: That's an AP "news break" just now, some details here.  But already strange day, as NYT reports Putin claims he stay there--but only if he STOP leaking damaging material re: his "partners" the USA. 

“Russia never gives up anyone to anybody and is not planning to,” Mr. Putin said. He added, “If he wants to go somewhere and they accept him, please, be my guest. If he wants to say here, there is one condition: He must cease his work aimed at inflicting damage to our American partners, as strange as it may sound from my lips.”

Hotter Than Louis? No Way

For my son in L.A. and folks in the East, Louis Armstrong (most important musician and singer  of 20th century) with classic 1927 "Hotter Than That."  Including one of first guitar mini-solos ever on record, from Lonnie Johnson.

Something in the Air

Plane trailing "Stand with Wendy" banner buzzes rally in Austin as new phase of abortion battle begins today.  Below that, Natalie Maines, ex-Dixie Chicks, in crowd.

July 1, 1945: Trying to Halt Hiroshima and Nagasaki

On this date in 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard started work on a letter that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman's march to using the atomic bomb--which was two weeks from its first test at Trinity--against Japanese cities.  Each summer I count down to the days to the tragedy marking events from 1945.  I've written hundreds of articles and  three books on the subject, Hiroshima in America (with Robert Jay Lifton), and more recently Atomic Cover-Up (on decades-long suppression of film shot in the atomic cities by the U.S. military) and Hollywood Bomb   (how an MGM 1947 drama was censored by the military and Truman himself).
*
It’s well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great Leo Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”

The following day he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The bomb would be tested two weeks later and dropped over Hiroshima on August 6.

July 4, 1945

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,

Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan.

Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.
Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

It’s well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great Leo Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”
The following day he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The bomb would be tested two weeks later and dropped over Hiroshima on August 6. For more see my recent book Atomic Coverup and my book with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America.
July 4, 1945
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,
Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.
It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan. Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.
However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.
Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.
The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.
Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.
Leo Szilard
- See more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168725/... well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great Leo Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”
The following day he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The bomb would be tested two weeks later and dropped over Hiroshima on August 6. For more see my recent book Atomic Coverup and my book with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America.
July 4, 1945
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,
Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.
It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan. Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.
However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.
Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.
The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.
Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.
Leo Szilard
- See more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168725/... well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great Leo Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”
The following day he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The bomb would be tested two weeks later and dropped over Hiroshima on August 6. For more see my recent book Atomic Coverup and my book with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America.
July 4, 1945
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,
Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.
It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan. Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.
However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.
Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.
The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.
Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.
- See more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168725/... well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great Leo Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”
The following day he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The bomb would be tested two weeks later and dropped over Hiroshima on August 6. For more see my recent book Atomic Coverup and my book with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America.
July 4, 1945
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,
Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.
It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan. Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.
However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.
Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.
The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.
Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.
- See more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168725/...

Carr Talk

David Carr's Monday column at NYT takes up the now long-running (two weeks) debate over journalism vs. activism.  He got embroiled a bit when he (as I covered first, I believe) with another writer described Alexa O'Brien, who has been covering the Bradley Manning trial for months, as an activist, not an "independent journalist," and the article was soon corrected after I helped fan the uproar.  He makes some good points but his closing will do no doubt draw more criticism.  It's not Greenwald who is ignoring substance of his reports and leading "campaign" to put him at center of story.

Journalists are responsible for following the truth wherever it may guide them. Both Ms. Gibson and Mr. Greenwald said that they would quickly follow the Snowden story even if it led to something that questioned his motives or diminished his credibility. But I do think that activism — which is admittedly accompanied by the kind of determination that can prompt discovery — can also impair vision. If an agenda is in play and momentum is at work, cracks may go unexplored.

That is not to say that Mr. Greenwald’s work is suspect, only that the tendentiousness of ideology creates its own narrative. He has been everywhere on television taking on his critics, which seems more like a campaign than a discussion of the story he covered.

Activists can and often do reveal the truth, but the primary objective remains winning the argument. That includes the argument about whether a reporter has to be politically and ideologically neutral to practice journalism.

Also see Twitter back and forth today between Times'  @DamienCave and @GGreenwald. 

My Photo Blog

Haven't posted link for awhile, so here you go. 

19 Firefighters Dead in Arizona

Sadly confirmed.  One of worst such disasters in our history. And entire town of Yarnell seems to be burning down. now.  This report also has 19 dead, mainly members of Granite Mountain Hotshot team, average age 22, and more in hospital.  They had deployed their little tent-like fire "shelters" to no avail.  (Here's what it looked like when they deployed the shelters in a training exercise.)  Half of town gone.

Reminded of one of the great books of our time, Norman Mclean's "Young Men and Fire." And great song based on it below.

"Prescott Fire Department confirmed 19 firefighters have died while battling the Yarnell Hill fire on Sunday night. They're part of the Prescott Granite Mountain Hot Shots.  The wildfire was likely caused by a lightning strike Saturday night.  The Yarnell Hill fire, about 35 miles southwest of Prescott, has burned about 1,300 acres and forced the evacuation of 50 homes."

Stones at Glastonbury

They played the giant fest for the first time last time and drew giant crowd.  Not my thing but here's full hour that was broadcast.  It's so very lonely, they're 2000 light years from home.