This biography is a study in quiet, creepy state terror, terror as it took hold in a modern democratic state. No black shirts, no armbands, no drums, just quiet, behind-the-scenes abuse of power, blackmail, fraud, spying without warrants, illegal arrests and deportations.
Naive Americans are sometimes heard to ask how could people in other lands allow evil people to take power? Well, this book will show you how it is done and how it was done in their own country.
As someone else has said, it is a book every American should read. Little that the war criminal, George Bush, has inflicted on the American people wasn’t practiced much earlier under Mr. Hoover.
Gentry’s book reads like a good novel with a strong narrative, and it is loaded with interesting anecdotes.
There have been several interesting biographies of Hoover, but this one is the one I most strongly recommend. This focuses on his career and use of power, and it is there that the truly important story is to be found.
Gentry several times hints around Hoover's homosexuality but doesn't dwell on it. We know from Anthony Summers' book that Hoover had a rather bizarre private life as a flamboyant cross-dresser. This wouldn't be of any great significance except that Hoover had no tolerance for homosexuals in government, having been responsible for destroying the careers of a number of them.
Gentry also makes clear that the insane Joseph McCarthy was largely the creature of Hoover. Hooveer fed him tidbits or sometimes worked backward to supply some printed support after McCarthy had gone off half-cocked bragging about things in public he had not one shred of evidence to support. McCarthy was a drunk looking to spark a lackluster career. He was also thought to be a pedophile, but none of these things mattered to Hoover so long as he could use McCarthy to his purpose. Only when McCarthy stopped being useful did Hoover drop him.
Presidents like Johnson and Kennedy and even Roosevelt eagerly ate the political filth he fed them by hand, casting shame on their legacies. Hoover compromised many people who should have been his strongest critics, including, for example, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union.
For all his years of abuse and excess, it is not clear that he ever achieved anything in the way of making America a safer, more secure place from external and internal enemies.
An important chapter of Hoover’s time in power remains inadequately scrutinized: his full role in the investigation of Kennedy’s assassination. As Gentry documents and as others have documented, the FBI was well aware before the assassination of serious threats against Kennedy and yet seems to have taken inadequate action to thwart them.
Hoover’s role in “solving” the crime remains one of the great mysteries of 20th century American history. The Warren Commission had no independent investigative ability. All it did was take Hoover’s rushed, inadequate, and pre-judged investigation and re-package it. And we know now that the so-called Warren Report was riddled with errors and misjudgment and the selective use of facts. It was a piece of Soviet-era state rubbish posing as detailed investigation.
If, as many who have studied the assassination believe, it was the work of the American Mafia, we have an automatic explanation for Hoover’s shoddy work. Hoover claimed he never believed the Mafia existed until he was almost forced to accept it. He chased pathetic “reds” rather than the real criminals who were eating away at the substance of American society. Many have theorized that the Mafia held evidence, perhaps photographs, of Hoover’s homosexuality and cross-dressing, keeping him neutralized for decades in exactly the way Hoover neutralized so many politicians and potential critics.
I like very much the way Gentry briefly followers through the successors of Hoover at the FBI, summarizing their changes and contributions, and it is not an uplifting story.
The very fact that the FBI building in Washington still has Hoover’s name on it in big metal letters tells us a great deal about the nature of power in America.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: MY VERSION OF ALEPPO SOUP (LENTIL SOUP FROM SYRIA)
A simple and tasty soup.
1 Cup of Red Lentils
6 Cups of Chicken Stock (or Water may be used for vegetarian version)
1/4 Cup Chick-Pea Flour (aka, Gram Flour - available in any Indian or Mideast grocery store)
1/2 Cup Lemon Juice
3 or 4 Garlic Cloves, crushed
1 Teaspoon Cumin
1/4 Teaspoon Cayenne
1/2 Teaspoon Coriander
Salt to taste
Simmer Lentils in bulk of Stock for about 5 minutes, reserving a small portion of Stock.
Mix Chick Pea Flour in reserved Stock, making a thickening agent. Add to Lentils.
Add Lemon Juice, Cumin, Coriander, Cayenne, and Salt to Lentils.
Saute crushed Garlic briefly until golden. Add to Lentils.
Simmer for about 20 minutes.
This soup is delicious as made above, but it provides a base for many variations. Bits of roasted Lamb and/or fresh Cilantro are nice additions.
1 Cup of Red Lentils
6 Cups of Chicken Stock (or Water may be used for vegetarian version)
1/4 Cup Chick-Pea Flour (aka, Gram Flour - available in any Indian or Mideast grocery store)
1/2 Cup Lemon Juice
3 or 4 Garlic Cloves, crushed
1 Teaspoon Cumin
1/4 Teaspoon Cayenne
1/2 Teaspoon Coriander
Salt to taste
Simmer Lentils in bulk of Stock for about 5 minutes, reserving a small portion of Stock.
Mix Chick Pea Flour in reserved Stock, making a thickening agent. Add to Lentils.
Add Lemon Juice, Cumin, Coriander, Cayenne, and Salt to Lentils.
Saute crushed Garlic briefly until golden. Add to Lentils.
Simmer for about 20 minutes.
This soup is delicious as made above, but it provides a base for many variations. Bits of roasted Lamb and/or fresh Cilantro are nice additions.
Monday, August 11, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW OF SIMON WINCHESTER'S THE MAN WHO LOVED CHINA
REVIEW OF SIMON WINCHESTER'S THE MAN WHO LOVED CHINA BY JOHN CHUCKMAN
This is a good read. Simon Winchester provides a tight and fairly vigorous story of the remarkable man, Joseph Needham.
Needham was a brilliant man, gifted in science and languages. He was also a genuine non-conformist, both in his personal life and in political affairs, and he had the fabled abilities of a great scholar to sit for all hours of the day, day after day, analyzing ancient texts and writing world-recognized works about what he discovered.
Needham had the good fortune of being appointed by the British government, as a scientist of world reputation, on a mission to unoccupied China during World War II. His task was to contact as many Chinese academics as possible and help them obtain the resources, provided by the British government, they needed to carry on their work. This was both war-time assistance and an investment in future relations.
As in any effort he undertook, Needham quickly went to work with great vigor. He made a couple of epic journeys across large stretches of China and a number of smaller ones. He contacted many people of note, helping scientists and scholars obtain equipment and supplies to keep their efforts going under the great privations of war.
But, at the same time, he also did something else very important. He collected, wherever he found them and could purchase them, ancient Chinese texts which went back to England with him. Very early the idea struck him of writing a scholarly work on the ancient contributions of China to technology and science.
Needham was such an impressive intellect and so clearly in love with China - he typically wore gowns styled after the gowns worn by Chinese scholars and spoke fluent Mandarin and was bursting with enthusiasm about the things he saw and discovered - that a number of Chinese who only met him briefly were motivated to collect, long after he went home to England, and send him great quantities more of truly precious historical materials.
Needham's great project, a virtual encyclopedia of the history of Chinese science and technology, was never finished by him, but the volumes he did write were immediately embraced by the academic world as important new contributions to knowledge, and the work remains a classic.
Needham discovered - then unknown outside China - that the Chinese had invented a remarkable number of things before they were discovered in Europe. Moveable type - first in the ninth century as wood, later as bronze - was perhaps the most remarkable of these, but there were literally hundreds of others including an early compass and some very early sophisticated mathematics.
Needham's volumes became an important East Asian collection in the libraries of Cambridge University.
An interesting anecdote in the book, unrelated to the subject, concerns Needham's tours to lecture on his discoveries. One was to Chicago, and author Winchester discovered that Theodore Kaczynski, the gifted mathematician who later sank into deep schizophrenia and became the infamous Unabomber living in the wilderness, attended a lecture.
Winchester speculates whether that lecture, including a discussion of gunpowder as it did, might have influenced Kaczynski later. I did think this speculation a bit naïve and a bit of research would have eliminated it. Kaczynski grew up in Chicago, as I did, and as a teenager he made the newspapers with the sophisticated rockets he was building. His rockets were made of metal and used fuel more sophisticated than gunpowder, becoming a subject of interest because they climbed over a mile in altitude, possibly threatening civilian aviation. It seems pretty clear he did not need Needham's lecture on gunpowder.
My only regret about this book is that it was too brief. Needham and his adventures and work are a large subject.
This is a good read. Simon Winchester provides a tight and fairly vigorous story of the remarkable man, Joseph Needham.
Needham was a brilliant man, gifted in science and languages. He was also a genuine non-conformist, both in his personal life and in political affairs, and he had the fabled abilities of a great scholar to sit for all hours of the day, day after day, analyzing ancient texts and writing world-recognized works about what he discovered.
Needham had the good fortune of being appointed by the British government, as a scientist of world reputation, on a mission to unoccupied China during World War II. His task was to contact as many Chinese academics as possible and help them obtain the resources, provided by the British government, they needed to carry on their work. This was both war-time assistance and an investment in future relations.
As in any effort he undertook, Needham quickly went to work with great vigor. He made a couple of epic journeys across large stretches of China and a number of smaller ones. He contacted many people of note, helping scientists and scholars obtain equipment and supplies to keep their efforts going under the great privations of war.
But, at the same time, he also did something else very important. He collected, wherever he found them and could purchase them, ancient Chinese texts which went back to England with him. Very early the idea struck him of writing a scholarly work on the ancient contributions of China to technology and science.
Needham was such an impressive intellect and so clearly in love with China - he typically wore gowns styled after the gowns worn by Chinese scholars and spoke fluent Mandarin and was bursting with enthusiasm about the things he saw and discovered - that a number of Chinese who only met him briefly were motivated to collect, long after he went home to England, and send him great quantities more of truly precious historical materials.
Needham's great project, a virtual encyclopedia of the history of Chinese science and technology, was never finished by him, but the volumes he did write were immediately embraced by the academic world as important new contributions to knowledge, and the work remains a classic.
Needham discovered - then unknown outside China - that the Chinese had invented a remarkable number of things before they were discovered in Europe. Moveable type - first in the ninth century as wood, later as bronze - was perhaps the most remarkable of these, but there were literally hundreds of others including an early compass and some very early sophisticated mathematics.
Needham's volumes became an important East Asian collection in the libraries of Cambridge University.
An interesting anecdote in the book, unrelated to the subject, concerns Needham's tours to lecture on his discoveries. One was to Chicago, and author Winchester discovered that Theodore Kaczynski, the gifted mathematician who later sank into deep schizophrenia and became the infamous Unabomber living in the wilderness, attended a lecture.
Winchester speculates whether that lecture, including a discussion of gunpowder as it did, might have influenced Kaczynski later. I did think this speculation a bit naïve and a bit of research would have eliminated it. Kaczynski grew up in Chicago, as I did, and as a teenager he made the newspapers with the sophisticated rockets he was building. His rockets were made of metal and used fuel more sophisticated than gunpowder, becoming a subject of interest because they climbed over a mile in altitude, possibly threatening civilian aviation. It seems pretty clear he did not need Needham's lecture on gunpowder.
My only regret about this book is that it was too brief. Needham and his adventures and work are a large subject.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN MEMORIAL: FOR PRESTON UNEY AN OLD GOOD FRIEND - AS PRINTED IN A NEWSLETTER TO OLD SOUTH SHORE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS
WRITTEN FOR A NEWSLETTER ADDRESSING THE OLD CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS
My old good friend, Preston E. Uney (Bradwell 1959/ South Shore 1963), died on July 7, 2008. He was an aeronautical engineer living with his wife and children in Colorado.
Preston's dad ran a small toy store on Stony Island in the 1960s until the changing neighborhood destroyed his business. The family lived for many years in a small house on Kingston Ave. just south of 79th.
His older sister, Marie, taught us both to dance, however awkward the results. His father, an immigrant from Russia, used to tell electrifying stories of the Russian Front in WWII.
Preston was an interesting independent-minded kid who must have been the only student carrying a Socialist Labor Party sign around South Shore High in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign. He will be missed.
My old good friend, Preston E. Uney (Bradwell 1959/ South Shore 1963), died on July 7, 2008. He was an aeronautical engineer living with his wife and children in Colorado.
Preston's dad ran a small toy store on Stony Island in the 1960s until the changing neighborhood destroyed his business. The family lived for many years in a small house on Kingston Ave. just south of 79th.
His older sister, Marie, taught us both to dance, however awkward the results. His father, an immigrant from Russia, used to tell electrifying stories of the Russian Front in WWII.
Preston was an interesting independent-minded kid who must have been the only student carrying a Socialist Labor Party sign around South Shore High in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign. He will be missed.
Monday, March 31, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: RICHARD DAWKINS' THE GOD DELUSION
There has been a great deal of noise over this book. To my mind, it mostly amounts to the proverbial tempest in a teapot.
First, despite the right of religious liberty people in advanced countries supposedly enjoy, we are regularly immersed, willy-nilly, in religious muck. The last couple of decades in America, the nightly news has featured everything from endless demands for prayer in public institutions and the creation myth being taught in schools to attacks on doctors doing legal abortions and silly fights over displaying the ten commandments in public courts. What’s so terrible about the other side getting a little publicity for a change?
Richard Dawkins is a pleasant and clear writer. The first part of his book is genuinely funny, hilarious in places, as he pokes fun at the absurd stories and rules of the Bible. At his best, he reminds me of Mark Twain in Letters from the Earth.
I think he is much less successful in the middle part of the book in trying to establish a logical framework for thinking about religion. Religion simply is not logical, none of it, ever, and just as the scholastic fathers tried over and over to “prove” the existence of God – Dawkins entertainingly goes through some of this – this effort seems futile.
There is an aspect of religion that I believe Dawkins misses. It is the cultural dimension of much of religion. We know many Jews, as in Israel for example, are quite worldly and not believers, yet something binds them to the heritage of their religion. That something is what Dawkins misses.
Religion works very much like prejudice: there are simply attitudes and perspectives that groups of people share together as a cultural inheritance, and the attitudes are generally detrimental to, and disparaging of, others.
I share the belief that religion has been responsible for many of humanity’s miseries. The record of Christianity has likely been the bloodiest of any religion, despite all the blubbering today about Islam. Christianity has been at the root of crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, mass murders, civil wars, torture, destruction of aboriginal people, slavery, and countless other horrors and abuses.
But I do not believe for an instant that religion and its abuses will stop any time soon, and I certainly do not believe that any words I can say will change the views of the religiously-minded. But Dawkins does appear to believe this, which I think is a little naïve for a man of such exceptional talent.
I believe it quite likely that we inherit our tendency for religion, just as we likely do for our politics. If that is true, we will only see the superstition and prejudice of religion disappear as humans evolve.
Most people who do not take their religion too seriously will enjoy at least a good portion of this provocative book, but the seriously religious would best avoid it.
First, despite the right of religious liberty people in advanced countries supposedly enjoy, we are regularly immersed, willy-nilly, in religious muck. The last couple of decades in America, the nightly news has featured everything from endless demands for prayer in public institutions and the creation myth being taught in schools to attacks on doctors doing legal abortions and silly fights over displaying the ten commandments in public courts. What’s so terrible about the other side getting a little publicity for a change?
Richard Dawkins is a pleasant and clear writer. The first part of his book is genuinely funny, hilarious in places, as he pokes fun at the absurd stories and rules of the Bible. At his best, he reminds me of Mark Twain in Letters from the Earth.
I think he is much less successful in the middle part of the book in trying to establish a logical framework for thinking about religion. Religion simply is not logical, none of it, ever, and just as the scholastic fathers tried over and over to “prove” the existence of God – Dawkins entertainingly goes through some of this – this effort seems futile.
There is an aspect of religion that I believe Dawkins misses. It is the cultural dimension of much of religion. We know many Jews, as in Israel for example, are quite worldly and not believers, yet something binds them to the heritage of their religion. That something is what Dawkins misses.
Religion works very much like prejudice: there are simply attitudes and perspectives that groups of people share together as a cultural inheritance, and the attitudes are generally detrimental to, and disparaging of, others.
I share the belief that religion has been responsible for many of humanity’s miseries. The record of Christianity has likely been the bloodiest of any religion, despite all the blubbering today about Islam. Christianity has been at the root of crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, mass murders, civil wars, torture, destruction of aboriginal people, slavery, and countless other horrors and abuses.
But I do not believe for an instant that religion and its abuses will stop any time soon, and I certainly do not believe that any words I can say will change the views of the religiously-minded. But Dawkins does appear to believe this, which I think is a little naïve for a man of such exceptional talent.
I believe it quite likely that we inherit our tendency for religion, just as we likely do for our politics. If that is true, we will only see the superstition and prejudice of religion disappear as humans evolve.
Most people who do not take their religion too seriously will enjoy at least a good portion of this provocative book, but the seriously religious would best avoid it.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: THOMAS DILORENZO'S THE REAL LINCOLN
Let me say, right off, that this is not a biography of Lincoln. It is not even a character study because most of Lincoln’s character is never touched here. This is a study – I think it fair to call it an attack - of one aspect of Lincoln, his ideological purpose in fighting the Civil War. However, it is a determined, fact-filled attack, worth reading.
I have always believed, on the basis of my own studies, that the American Civil War was unnecessary, but this is a view that arouses hostile feelings in Americans as it runs against the public-school civics course beliefs around that conflict.
There is definitely an American Civic Religion with a set of tenets and sacred writings and a cast of mythically-endowed characters comparable to the chief figures of the Old and New Testaments. Many well-known American historians, some quite eminent, are conscious or unconscious proponents of the Civic Religion, not such a difficult thing as you might first imagine because history, just like good police detective work, involves interpretation, judgment, and instincts. The raw facts, when they are even known, are always susceptible of emphasis and interpretation.
So it was refreshing to find a serious writer who also believes that the war was unnecessary.
However, Dilorenzo’s reason for saying the war was unnecessary is different to my own. The author believes that Lincoln consciously used the war to impose the so-called American System of the Whig Party and Henry Clay, destroying the powers of the individual states and centralizing government in the United States. I believe rather that this was one of the unavoidable effects, wars always and everywhere being far more revolutionary events than people generally recognize.
There can be no doubt that Dilorrenzo marshals a strong case, but I believe that he largely fails to prove his main thesis. Lincoln, although not the sentimental figure of American text books and the Lincoln Memorial, was not America’s Joseph Stalin.
Most of his fact-marshalling is impressive, but when he goes off on a tangent to give a background on the basic political split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, he actually gets it rather wrong. Jefferson was anything but the kind of figure he is in the eyes of libertarian devotees like Dilorenzo. He was hungry for power, hungry for empire, and ruthless to those who opposed him. He bent or broke laws many times and never was bothered about rights of others where they stood in the way of his vision. Jefferson was, in short, everything the author claims Lincoln was.
The tone of this book becomes almost oppressive as the author hammers away with citations and anecdotes tending to support his view – in other words, the author is guilty of overkill.
The sense of oppressiveness is increased by the fact the author writes from an ideological viewpoint, not many pages convincing the reader of the author’s pronounced libertarian attitude. In general, I do not like histories or biographies written with an ideological perspective, but here the fault is compounded by the author’s narrow focus.
I don’t think anyone with a fairly open mind can study Lincoln and come away with a view like Dilorenzo’s. Lincoln himself was a victim of believing in the American Civic Religion of his day. He genuinely believed in The Union as a semi-mystical concept. Lincoln was a genuine skeptic with regard to conventional religion and the existence of God, and the feelings that might have had an outlet there attached themselves to “The Union.” He was tough and hard-headed in many respects, but he would have been, in this writer’s judgment, temperamentally incapable of launching and continuing a vast war for the purpose of installing Whig policy.
For those interested, the reviewer believes the Civil War was unnecessary because most great wars are unnecessary and rarely solve anything. For example, World War I only created the foundation for World War II. The American Civil War, which was not fought over slavery, solved little about the ugly institution of slavery. The South went on for about a century afterward with a new set of arrangements for its black citizens hardly better than the previous institution.
The Civil War did establish the anti-democratic principle that no state can separate from the United States, hardly an admirable or advanced attitude. The Civil War is also the tipping point in America becoming a world power with fervent imperialistic views (demonstrated earlier in a more provincial theater of operation in many policies such as the Mexican War), again hardly an admirable outcome.
I believe too that the angry, long-unforgiving South actually dragged the United States backward in social progress over the next century. The United States might have become a better, more decent place without the South and its superstitious religion and traditions of personal honor, much resembling the blood-feud attitudes of backward places like Armenia. And slavery itself would have naturally died out even in the South in a few decades as it did in so many places like Brazil.
I have always believed, on the basis of my own studies, that the American Civil War was unnecessary, but this is a view that arouses hostile feelings in Americans as it runs against the public-school civics course beliefs around that conflict.
There is definitely an American Civic Religion with a set of tenets and sacred writings and a cast of mythically-endowed characters comparable to the chief figures of the Old and New Testaments. Many well-known American historians, some quite eminent, are conscious or unconscious proponents of the Civic Religion, not such a difficult thing as you might first imagine because history, just like good police detective work, involves interpretation, judgment, and instincts. The raw facts, when they are even known, are always susceptible of emphasis and interpretation.
So it was refreshing to find a serious writer who also believes that the war was unnecessary.
However, Dilorenzo’s reason for saying the war was unnecessary is different to my own. The author believes that Lincoln consciously used the war to impose the so-called American System of the Whig Party and Henry Clay, destroying the powers of the individual states and centralizing government in the United States. I believe rather that this was one of the unavoidable effects, wars always and everywhere being far more revolutionary events than people generally recognize.
There can be no doubt that Dilorrenzo marshals a strong case, but I believe that he largely fails to prove his main thesis. Lincoln, although not the sentimental figure of American text books and the Lincoln Memorial, was not America’s Joseph Stalin.
Most of his fact-marshalling is impressive, but when he goes off on a tangent to give a background on the basic political split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, he actually gets it rather wrong. Jefferson was anything but the kind of figure he is in the eyes of libertarian devotees like Dilorenzo. He was hungry for power, hungry for empire, and ruthless to those who opposed him. He bent or broke laws many times and never was bothered about rights of others where they stood in the way of his vision. Jefferson was, in short, everything the author claims Lincoln was.
The tone of this book becomes almost oppressive as the author hammers away with citations and anecdotes tending to support his view – in other words, the author is guilty of overkill.
The sense of oppressiveness is increased by the fact the author writes from an ideological viewpoint, not many pages convincing the reader of the author’s pronounced libertarian attitude. In general, I do not like histories or biographies written with an ideological perspective, but here the fault is compounded by the author’s narrow focus.
I don’t think anyone with a fairly open mind can study Lincoln and come away with a view like Dilorenzo’s. Lincoln himself was a victim of believing in the American Civic Religion of his day. He genuinely believed in The Union as a semi-mystical concept. Lincoln was a genuine skeptic with regard to conventional religion and the existence of God, and the feelings that might have had an outlet there attached themselves to “The Union.” He was tough and hard-headed in many respects, but he would have been, in this writer’s judgment, temperamentally incapable of launching and continuing a vast war for the purpose of installing Whig policy.
For those interested, the reviewer believes the Civil War was unnecessary because most great wars are unnecessary and rarely solve anything. For example, World War I only created the foundation for World War II. The American Civil War, which was not fought over slavery, solved little about the ugly institution of slavery. The South went on for about a century afterward with a new set of arrangements for its black citizens hardly better than the previous institution.
The Civil War did establish the anti-democratic principle that no state can separate from the United States, hardly an admirable or advanced attitude. The Civil War is also the tipping point in America becoming a world power with fervent imperialistic views (demonstrated earlier in a more provincial theater of operation in many policies such as the Mexican War), again hardly an admirable outcome.
I believe too that the angry, long-unforgiving South actually dragged the United States backward in social progress over the next century. The United States might have become a better, more decent place without the South and its superstitious religion and traditions of personal honor, much resembling the blood-feud attitudes of backward places like Armenia. And slavery itself would have naturally died out even in the South in a few decades as it did in so many places like Brazil.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: MY VERSION OF GENERAL TSO'S CHICKEN
I love Chinese food. This recipe is my version of a classic.
CHUCKMAN’S VERSION OF GENERAL TSO’S CHICKEN
INGREDIENTS
Chicken – Use either traditional cut-up Chicken Breast (about a pound – cut into bite-size pieces) or Drumettes or Drumsticks – drumettes or legs are unconventional but delicious – you need a greater weight to compensate for bones.
Broccoli – One medium head
Canola or Peanut Oil for frying
Dried crushed Chilli Peppers
Garlic – 1 medium-to-large clove, finely chopped
Ginger – a good-sized chunk (about the size of an average thumb), finely chopped – fresh is valuable for this recipe for its aromatic quality, but in a pinch, use bottled
Chicken Broth – 3 Tablespoons
Rice Vinegar – 2 Tablespoons
Hoisin Sauce – 2 Tablespoons (available in any Asian market and many supermarkets)
Sesame Oil – 1 Teaspoon
Sugar or Sugar Substitute – 2 Teaspoons Sugar or equivalent Substitute - the Substitute works nicely in this recipe
Dark Soy Sauce – this is the thicker type that has molasses in it
Cornstarch – a few Tablespoons
Dry Sherry – a good splash
METHOD
Spread Chicken pieces on a plate or platter and sprinkle lightly with cornstarch, a generous splash of Sherry, and a smaller splash of Soy Sauce. Toss lightly together and let stand briefly.
Blanch broccoli in a Covered Saucepan with a small amount of water on bottom. Bring water to a rapid boil, continue a minute or two, remove from the heat, and cool with cold running water. Broccoli will be bright green and par-cooked. Chop into florets and thin stalk slices. Set aside.
The sauce consists of 2 Tablespoons of Rice Wine Vinegar, 2 teaspoons of sugar or equivalent of sugar-substitute, 2 Tablespoons of Hoisin Sauce, 1 Tablespoon Dark Soy Sauce, a large clove of Garlic finely chopped, a chunk of fresh Ginger finely chopped, 1 Teaspoon of Sesame Oil, 3 Tablespoons of Chicken Broth, and a generous sprinkle of crushed Chili Peppers. Set aside.
Mix about 1 Teaspoon more of Cornstarch and a splash of cold water. This will thicken sauce when cooking. Set aside.
GENERAL NOTE ON STIR-FRYING
This ingenious, fuel-saving method of cooking is done in a hierarchy of cooking times, the ingredient requiring the most time being first – when all ingredients are together, they are cooked with the sauce briefly.
In this case, start with the Chicken. Saute the Chicken pieces lightly (do not overcook or flesh looses its succulence).
If you are using drumettes or legs, you will need a more substantial cooking time, especially legs – they should become golden and no blood should run.
Add blanched Broccoli and stir briefly.
Add Sauce ingredients. Add thickener.
Let simmer together a few minutes.
OPTIONS
Make the flavour very hot with plenty of chili peppers or use a Teaspoon of genuine Chinese Hot Chili Oil (this is very hot stuff, available in any Asian market). Or add Whole Dried Chilis (a dozen or so) to stir-fry after Chicken – this is a traditional ingredient.
Sprinkle servings with finely-sliced green onions and/or crushed peanuts.
CHUCKMAN’S VERSION OF GENERAL TSO’S CHICKEN
INGREDIENTS
Chicken – Use either traditional cut-up Chicken Breast (about a pound – cut into bite-size pieces) or Drumettes or Drumsticks – drumettes or legs are unconventional but delicious – you need a greater weight to compensate for bones.
Broccoli – One medium head
Canola or Peanut Oil for frying
Dried crushed Chilli Peppers
Garlic – 1 medium-to-large clove, finely chopped
Ginger – a good-sized chunk (about the size of an average thumb), finely chopped – fresh is valuable for this recipe for its aromatic quality, but in a pinch, use bottled
Chicken Broth – 3 Tablespoons
Rice Vinegar – 2 Tablespoons
Hoisin Sauce – 2 Tablespoons (available in any Asian market and many supermarkets)
Sesame Oil – 1 Teaspoon
Sugar or Sugar Substitute – 2 Teaspoons Sugar or equivalent Substitute - the Substitute works nicely in this recipe
Dark Soy Sauce – this is the thicker type that has molasses in it
Cornstarch – a few Tablespoons
Dry Sherry – a good splash
METHOD
Spread Chicken pieces on a plate or platter and sprinkle lightly with cornstarch, a generous splash of Sherry, and a smaller splash of Soy Sauce. Toss lightly together and let stand briefly.
Blanch broccoli in a Covered Saucepan with a small amount of water on bottom. Bring water to a rapid boil, continue a minute or two, remove from the heat, and cool with cold running water. Broccoli will be bright green and par-cooked. Chop into florets and thin stalk slices. Set aside.
The sauce consists of 2 Tablespoons of Rice Wine Vinegar, 2 teaspoons of sugar or equivalent of sugar-substitute, 2 Tablespoons of Hoisin Sauce, 1 Tablespoon Dark Soy Sauce, a large clove of Garlic finely chopped, a chunk of fresh Ginger finely chopped, 1 Teaspoon of Sesame Oil, 3 Tablespoons of Chicken Broth, and a generous sprinkle of crushed Chili Peppers. Set aside.
Mix about 1 Teaspoon more of Cornstarch and a splash of cold water. This will thicken sauce when cooking. Set aside.
GENERAL NOTE ON STIR-FRYING
This ingenious, fuel-saving method of cooking is done in a hierarchy of cooking times, the ingredient requiring the most time being first – when all ingredients are together, they are cooked with the sauce briefly.
In this case, start with the Chicken. Saute the Chicken pieces lightly (do not overcook or flesh looses its succulence).
If you are using drumettes or legs, you will need a more substantial cooking time, especially legs – they should become golden and no blood should run.
Add blanched Broccoli and stir briefly.
Add Sauce ingredients. Add thickener.
Let simmer together a few minutes.
OPTIONS
Make the flavour very hot with plenty of chili peppers or use a Teaspoon of genuine Chinese Hot Chili Oil (this is very hot stuff, available in any Asian market). Or add Whole Dried Chilis (a dozen or so) to stir-fry after Chicken – this is a traditional ingredient.
Sprinkle servings with finely-sliced green onions and/or crushed peanuts.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: QUICK, THIN CHEESE/ BACON/ SPINACH PIZZAS
An absolutely delicious snack or light meal or appetiser
CHUCKMAN’S QUICK, THIN CHEESE/BACON/SPINACH PIZZAS
INGREDIENTS:
Commercial Tortillas or Flat Breads – the very thin kind – whole wheat or white – 7 small ones for the amounts in this recipe
Oil – to lightly coat tortillas
Red Sauce – leftover or a good bottled – you need just enough to coat each tortilla
Cheese – grated – I suggest a mixture of mozzarella, parmesan, and provolone, but use your favourite - have enough to cover each tortilla generously
Spinach – I small box of frozen – thawed and excess water lightly squeezed out
Bacon – thick-sliced kind – cut – through the width - five or six strips, each about half an inch wide – this will yield enough small chunky pieces for 5 or 6 to a tortilla
METHOD:
Preheat oven to 400.
Saute Bacon chunks ahead, drain and let cool – do not over-crisp because it will cook additional time in the oven.
Use a cookie sheet for Tortillas, either lightly oiled or, as I prefer, covered with parchment paper (no clean-up with this wonderful stuff).
Lightly oil both surfaces of each Tortilla. Spread a very thin layer of the sauce on one side.
Sprinkle each Tortilla with Spinach.
Sprinkle each Tortilla with 5 or 6 chunks of Bacon, spread fairly evenly.
Sprinkle generously with Grated Cheese so it is almost spilling over.
Bake until all the cheese has melted and turned lightly golden – this should be on the order of 10 minutes, but go by appearance
Serve either whole as light meals or sliced (scissors work best) into wedges as an appetiser.
FURTHER SUGGESTION: Top cheese with thinly sliced brown mushrooms before baking.
CHUCKMAN’S QUICK, THIN CHEESE/BACON/SPINACH PIZZAS
INGREDIENTS:
Commercial Tortillas or Flat Breads – the very thin kind – whole wheat or white – 7 small ones for the amounts in this recipe
Oil – to lightly coat tortillas
Red Sauce – leftover or a good bottled – you need just enough to coat each tortilla
Cheese – grated – I suggest a mixture of mozzarella, parmesan, and provolone, but use your favourite - have enough to cover each tortilla generously
Spinach – I small box of frozen – thawed and excess water lightly squeezed out
Bacon – thick-sliced kind – cut – through the width - five or six strips, each about half an inch wide – this will yield enough small chunky pieces for 5 or 6 to a tortilla
METHOD:
Preheat oven to 400.
Saute Bacon chunks ahead, drain and let cool – do not over-crisp because it will cook additional time in the oven.
Use a cookie sheet for Tortillas, either lightly oiled or, as I prefer, covered with parchment paper (no clean-up with this wonderful stuff).
Lightly oil both surfaces of each Tortilla. Spread a very thin layer of the sauce on one side.
Sprinkle each Tortilla with Spinach.
Sprinkle each Tortilla with 5 or 6 chunks of Bacon, spread fairly evenly.
Sprinkle generously with Grated Cheese so it is almost spilling over.
Bake until all the cheese has melted and turned lightly golden – this should be on the order of 10 minutes, but go by appearance
Serve either whole as light meals or sliced (scissors work best) into wedges as an appetiser.
FURTHER SUGGESTION: Top cheese with thinly sliced brown mushrooms before baking.
Monday, February 04, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: A PAKISTANI LANGUAGE
Segalanya Dengan Nama Jesus
Posted on Thursday, May 15 @ 01:03:09 EDT by admin
Assalamualaikum sdr.
Dalam keghairan kita mengharungi dunia hidup yang penuh dengan keindahan ciptaan Allah SWT kita perlu sentiasa berwaspada dengan persekitaraan kita yang penuh dengan ranjau dan onak. Dalam banyak hal orang Islam sentiasa Take for granted terhadap apa yang berlaku di sekeliling kita sehingga dah terantuk baru terngadah.
Oleh itu Paksu akan cuba mengupas beberapa isu yang sentiasa dekat dengan kita sebagai Muslim yang beramal (practicing Muslim) agar Paksu sendiri dan anak buah Paksu dapat sama-sama menghayati Islam sepenuhnya.
Kali ini Paksu tertarik untuk mengulas satu penomena yang serius yang menghentam Islam tetapi kita samada sedari atau tidak tak ambil pusing. Macam juga isu COCACOLA yang banyak dibincang di situs ini sebenarnya kita dilanyak dari kiri-kanan atas bawah luar dalam namun kita masih leka. Nama ancaman ini yang Paksu sebut sebagai Dengan Nama Jesus. Dengan Nama Jesuslah maka bumi kita dijajah, malah seluruh dunia. Orang Kristian akan membuat segala sesuatu untuk mematikan Islam. Kini mereka seolah-olah mempunyai justifikasi melalui peperangan melawan keganasan yang = Islam.
Sedarlah segala-galanya adalah Dengan Nama Jesus. Sebuah tabloid melaporkan melalui tulisan oleh John Chuckman bahawa Presiden AS mempunyai penasihat agamanya bernama Franklin Graham anak Billy Graham yang memainkan peranan yang sama kepada Nixon. Franklin Graham adalah di antara mubaligh Kristian gaya motivator yang menjadi kegilaan (craze) masyarakat AS. Orang seperti ini selalu berceramah di TV (yang sedihnya perkara seperti ini pun sudah menjadi perkara biasa di TV Indon….dan awas apa yang menghalang daripada ianya berlaku di negara Islam Malaysia…kan Injil terjemahan yang menggunakan Allah sebagai Tuhan Kristian pun sudah dihalalkan oleh negara Islam Malaysia) dan seminar besar-besaran (Macam forum Perdana). Billy Graham Organization adalah sebuah organisasi yang besar dan kaya yang berjaya “menyelamatkan” orang Kristian dan konvert. Apa yang menjadi isunya ialah Graham melalui organisasinya, Samaritan`s Purse mengajak pengikutnya kepada satu fahaman Kristian yang sempit yang orang Kristian arus perdana sendiri merasa jijik. Dinominasi(mazhab) Kristian yang dibawanya adalah The Southern Baptists yang terkenal dengan kepercayaan ekstrim yang pada awalnya menyingkir kaum Negro daripada gereja kemudian menetang usaha kemanusiaan yang dibawa oleh Dr King. Kini Franklin (yang gemar bermain dan mengumpul senjata otomatik) yang menjadi kawan rapat Rumah Putih dengan organisasi-organisasi licik mereka sedang memasuki Iraq dalam usaha untuk mempengaruhi orang Iraq melalui bantuan dan dakwah/dakyah mereka. Sebelum perang Iraq Franklin Graham telah memberi ceramah(surmons) hari good Friday di Pentagon (Kementerian Pertahanan AS). Di antara kata-katanya; “Kita bukan menyerang Islam tetapi Islam telah menyerang kita. Tuhan Islam bukanlah Tuhan yang sama. Dia bukan anak Tuhan kepercayaan Kristian dan Judeo-Kristian. Ia adalah Tuhan yang berbeza, dan saya yakin ia adalah ugama yang cukup jahat dan keji”
The Southern Baptists akan juga turut memberi bantuan kepada Iraq. Dan bayangkan apa yang mereka akan buat kerana bekas presiden Southern Baptists Mission Board, Jerry Vines pernah berkata bahawa Nabi Muhammad SAW adalah “seorang perogol kanak-kanak yang dirasuk syaitan”…astagfirullah ! ! (Teringat apa kata Farish Noor, seorang Melayu Islam terhadap Rasullallah… lebih teruk lagi daripada itu yang ditulis dalam surat kabar milik kerajaan tak lama dahulu dan dia masih bebas malah menjadi perantara forum di TV kerajaan). Jadi jangan hairan apabila Bush kata `kita akan perang salib(crusade)` apabila menara WTCnya runtuh. Ini selaras dengan pandangan sempit Kristian yang dianutinya iaitu Islam mesti diperangi dengan apa cara sekali pun.
Penulis John Chuckman merumuskan bahawa adalah jelas dan nyata tindakan Pentagon memerangi pengganas adalah pembunuhan professional diatas nama Jesus untuk negara.
Jadi Paksu berseru kepada semua termasuk pemegang kuasa memerintah dan diri Paksu sendiri supaya mengatur langkah dengan berhati-hati jangan tersangkut reba lalu rebah dan terpijak jerangkap samar lalu musnah.
WallAllahu`alam
PAKSU
Alorsetar 150503
Posted on Thursday, May 15 @ 01:03:09 EDT by admin
Assalamualaikum sdr.
Dalam keghairan kita mengharungi dunia hidup yang penuh dengan keindahan ciptaan Allah SWT kita perlu sentiasa berwaspada dengan persekitaraan kita yang penuh dengan ranjau dan onak. Dalam banyak hal orang Islam sentiasa Take for granted terhadap apa yang berlaku di sekeliling kita sehingga dah terantuk baru terngadah.
Oleh itu Paksu akan cuba mengupas beberapa isu yang sentiasa dekat dengan kita sebagai Muslim yang beramal (practicing Muslim) agar Paksu sendiri dan anak buah Paksu dapat sama-sama menghayati Islam sepenuhnya.
Kali ini Paksu tertarik untuk mengulas satu penomena yang serius yang menghentam Islam tetapi kita samada sedari atau tidak tak ambil pusing. Macam juga isu COCACOLA yang banyak dibincang di situs ini sebenarnya kita dilanyak dari kiri-kanan atas bawah luar dalam namun kita masih leka. Nama ancaman ini yang Paksu sebut sebagai Dengan Nama Jesus. Dengan Nama Jesuslah maka bumi kita dijajah, malah seluruh dunia. Orang Kristian akan membuat segala sesuatu untuk mematikan Islam. Kini mereka seolah-olah mempunyai justifikasi melalui peperangan melawan keganasan yang = Islam.
Sedarlah segala-galanya adalah Dengan Nama Jesus. Sebuah tabloid melaporkan melalui tulisan oleh John Chuckman bahawa Presiden AS mempunyai penasihat agamanya bernama Franklin Graham anak Billy Graham yang memainkan peranan yang sama kepada Nixon. Franklin Graham adalah di antara mubaligh Kristian gaya motivator yang menjadi kegilaan (craze) masyarakat AS. Orang seperti ini selalu berceramah di TV (yang sedihnya perkara seperti ini pun sudah menjadi perkara biasa di TV Indon….dan awas apa yang menghalang daripada ianya berlaku di negara Islam Malaysia…kan Injil terjemahan yang menggunakan Allah sebagai Tuhan Kristian pun sudah dihalalkan oleh negara Islam Malaysia) dan seminar besar-besaran (Macam forum Perdana). Billy Graham Organization adalah sebuah organisasi yang besar dan kaya yang berjaya “menyelamatkan” orang Kristian dan konvert. Apa yang menjadi isunya ialah Graham melalui organisasinya, Samaritan`s Purse mengajak pengikutnya kepada satu fahaman Kristian yang sempit yang orang Kristian arus perdana sendiri merasa jijik. Dinominasi(mazhab) Kristian yang dibawanya adalah The Southern Baptists yang terkenal dengan kepercayaan ekstrim yang pada awalnya menyingkir kaum Negro daripada gereja kemudian menetang usaha kemanusiaan yang dibawa oleh Dr King. Kini Franklin (yang gemar bermain dan mengumpul senjata otomatik) yang menjadi kawan rapat Rumah Putih dengan organisasi-organisasi licik mereka sedang memasuki Iraq dalam usaha untuk mempengaruhi orang Iraq melalui bantuan dan dakwah/dakyah mereka. Sebelum perang Iraq Franklin Graham telah memberi ceramah(surmons) hari good Friday di Pentagon (Kementerian Pertahanan AS). Di antara kata-katanya; “Kita bukan menyerang Islam tetapi Islam telah menyerang kita. Tuhan Islam bukanlah Tuhan yang sama. Dia bukan anak Tuhan kepercayaan Kristian dan Judeo-Kristian. Ia adalah Tuhan yang berbeza, dan saya yakin ia adalah ugama yang cukup jahat dan keji”
The Southern Baptists akan juga turut memberi bantuan kepada Iraq. Dan bayangkan apa yang mereka akan buat kerana bekas presiden Southern Baptists Mission Board, Jerry Vines pernah berkata bahawa Nabi Muhammad SAW adalah “seorang perogol kanak-kanak yang dirasuk syaitan”…astagfirullah ! ! (Teringat apa kata Farish Noor, seorang Melayu Islam terhadap Rasullallah… lebih teruk lagi daripada itu yang ditulis dalam surat kabar milik kerajaan tak lama dahulu dan dia masih bebas malah menjadi perantara forum di TV kerajaan). Jadi jangan hairan apabila Bush kata `kita akan perang salib(crusade)` apabila menara WTCnya runtuh. Ini selaras dengan pandangan sempit Kristian yang dianutinya iaitu Islam mesti diperangi dengan apa cara sekali pun.
Penulis John Chuckman merumuskan bahawa adalah jelas dan nyata tindakan Pentagon memerangi pengganas adalah pembunuhan professional diatas nama Jesus untuk negara.
Jadi Paksu berseru kepada semua termasuk pemegang kuasa memerintah dan diri Paksu sendiri supaya mengatur langkah dengan berhati-hati jangan tersangkut reba lalu rebah dan terpijak jerangkap samar lalu musnah.
WallAllahu`alam
PAKSU
Alorsetar 150503
JOHN CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN GREEK
Το πράγμα χωρίς τον εγκέφαλο
Από John Chuckman < chuckman@YellowTimes.org >
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/thingwithnobrain06may04.shtml
6 Μαϊ'ου, 2004
(YellowTimes.org) -- είχα μια δυσάρεστη στιγμή στο θάμνο ημέρας που αποφασίστηκε για να εξετάσει "τον αραβικό κόσμο." Είναι άτομο που μπορώ να σταθώ, έτσι όταν έρχεται η φωνή του στο ραδιόφωνο, το μεταστρέφω πάντα μακριά. Καλά, αυτή τη φορά επίσης μακριά μακριά και απαραιτήτως ακούστηκα μερικές προτάσεις, αυτές αρχίζοντας από "τους ανθρώπους στο Ιράκ πρέπει να καταλάβουν και πρέπει να καταλάβουν .."
Πρέπει; Η άλαλη υπεροψία των λέξεών του ζάλιζε. Πάνω από το κακώς-επιλεγμένο λεξιλόγιό του, το άτομο δεν ζήτησε συγγνώμη ποτέ όπως έμαθα αργότερα από το Διαδίκτυο. Εδώ ήταν ένας διοικητής που μιλά για την inexcusable βιαιότητα ενάντια στους ανίσχυρους φυλακισμένους που λένεων στα εκατομμύρια των ν ανθρώπων που πρέπει να καταλάβουν. Εδώ ήταν ένα παθητικά-ανεπαρκές άτομο που προσπεράστηκε έτσι από τα γεγονότα ότι αισθάνθηκε την ανάγκη να εξετάσει "τον αραβικό κόσμο," και τους έλεγε τι πρέπει να καταλάβουν.
Φυσικά, η απέραντη, ανεγκέφαλος υπεροψία του διαβιβάστηκε σε άλλους τρόπους. Εξέτασε το "αραβικό κόσμο" χωρίς τη χρησιμοποίηση των δικτύων ότι πολλοί ακούνε. Θέλησε μια ασφαλή έξοδο - χρηματοκιβώτιο, δηλαδή για τον και τη γνωστή ανικανότητά του να χειριστεί οποιαδήποτε ερώτηση πιό σύνθετη από "πώς Mom;" Απέφυγε σκόπιμα το Al Jazeerah, ένα δίκτυο που ρωτά τις σκληρές ερωτήσεις και στους του οποίου υπαλλήλους οι στρατιώτες του έχουν στοχεύσει σκόπιμα και έχουν σκοτώσει.
Αναρωτιέμαι πόσων ο νέος τρομοκρατών θάμνος έχει δημιουργήσει σε όλη τη Μέση Ανατολή; Φανταστείτε την οργή των νέων αραβικών ατόμων που βλέπουν τις εικόνες άλλων νέων αραβικών ατόμων με τα ύψη πίεσης τους στις τσάντες που χρησιμοποιούνται όπως το απόρριμμα μιας χυδαίας υπόγειας πορνογραφικής ταινίας; Μερικές από τις πιό φοβερές σκηνές δεν έχουν αναμφισβήτητα καμία φωτογραφία επειδή οι δράστες σχεδόν βεβαίως δολοφονήθηκαν. Ακόμα και οι χαμογελώντας κρετίνοι από τον bayous και backwoods της Αμερικής που φαίνεται στις δημοσιευμένες εικόνες ξέρουν καλύτερα από για να φωτογραφιστούν δεσμεύοντας τη δολοφονία.
Ως επί το πλείστον, οι ένοπλες δυνάμεις των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών δεν μισθώνουν το είδος καθαρός-αποκοπής, Sir-rj'hnontas τα πρόσωπα αμετάβλητα χρησιμοποιώ ως εκπρόσωποι δημόσιος-σχέσεών τους. Χρειάζονται τους ανθρώπους που θα εκπαιδευθούν για να σκοτώσουν και να υπακούσουν τις κατατάξεις, και οι περισσότερες από τη δολοφονία πρόκειται να γίνουν στις φτωχές, απόμακρες θέσεις όπου οι φωνές των θυμάτων δεν ακούγονται ποτέ στην Αμερική.
Στρατιωτικοί recruiters γεμίζουν ένα καλό μέρος των ποσοστώσεών τους από τα πολλές μελαγχολικές τέλματα και τις τρώγλες της δημοκρατίας. Τους γεμίζουν με το είδος ανθρώπων που ειδάλλως να μην απασχοληθούν σε όλοι. Παίρνουν αναμφισβήτητα ένα δυσανάλογο μερίδιο των ανθρώπων που απολαμβάνουν και τον πόνο, το είδος ανθρώπων που βρίσκεται σε κάθε κοινωνία στη γη.
Δεν παίρνει μια μεγάλη προσπάθεια της φαντασίας να προσδοκηθεί τι θα συμβεί πότε δίνετε σε τέτοιους ανθρώπους μερικές εβδομάδες εκπαιδευτικός στα φονικά και λάμποντας παπούτσια και τις στέλνετε μακριά σε ένα απομακρυσμένο έδαφος όπως το Ιράκ, μια θέση τους της οποίας ανθρώπους μπορούν να καταλάβουν, και για τις οποίες ξέρουν μόνο τον ανενημέρωτο, προκαλώντας τα συνθήματα του Προέδρου τους.
Όταν ένα αξιοκαταφρόνητο ήθος poy όπως το θάμνο κάθεται άνετα στην καρέκλα δέρματός του και υπογράφει μια κατάταξη να εισβληθεί ένα απόμακρο έδαφος, είναι ακριβώς οι φρίκες της φυλακής Abu Ghraib αυτός απαραιτήτως εκδόσεις.
Θυμηθείτε τον υπολοχαγό Calley και τα αγόρια του που δολοφονούν ένα ολόκληρο χωριό στο Βιετνάμ; Εκείνο το καλό παλαιό αγόρι δεν δοκίμασε ποτέ τη σημαντική δικαιοσύνη μιας στιγμής. Υπήρξε πραγματικά μια βιαστική επιχείρηση για μια στιγμή στα αναμνηστικά Calley υπολοχαγών, ειδικά στο νότο.
Υπήρξαν διάφορες τέτοιες σφαγές που ανακαλύφθηκαν στο Βιετνάμ, και ένα μπορεί να αμφιβάλει ότι άλλες πήγαν άγνωστες. Ακόμα ήταν η σχισμή περίπου είκοσι-χιλίων λαιμών, συνήθως του χωριού ανώτεροι υπάλληλοι, από τα γενναία άτομα των ειδικών δυνάμεων. Αλλά ακόμη και τους ναζιστικός-όπως τη σφαγή δεν θα μπορούσε να συγκρίνει με την εργασία των ατόμων που πετούν τα αεριωθούμενα αεροπλάνα, αποκαλούμενοι πολεμικοί ήρωες ατόμων ακόμα στην Αμερική, άτομα που βομβάρδισαν συστηματικά και τις αμέτρητες πόλεις, χωριά, και αγροκτήματα, παράγοντας αρκετά θύματα για να θάψουν την πόλη της Ουάσιγκτον κάτω από ένα βουνό της μμένων σάρκας και του αδραχτιού, σχεδόν όλα τους πολίτες.
Κατά τη διάρκεια εκείνου του πολέμου, το ι μίλησε μιά φορά σε έναν αμερικανικό παλαίμαχο του παγκόσμιου πολέμου ΙΙ για τη φρίκη αυτό που πήγαινε επάνω. Μου είπε μια ιστορία. Ήταν σε ένα τραίνο με δύο άλλους Αμερικανούς και έναν γερμανικό αιχμάλωτο πολέμου. Ένας από τους Αμερικανούς έβαλε ξαφνικά το αυτόματο πιστόλι του στο ύψος πίεσης του Γερμανού και φύσηξε τους εγκεφάλους του έξω. Δεν είχε κανέναν λόγο και γέλασε ακριβώς μετά από να κάνει το.
Όπως έχω γράψει πριν, δεν μπορώ ποτέ να ξεχάσω κάποιο που ήξερα στο γυμνάσιο λέγοντας με για το πώς αυτός και οι φίλοι του θα συσσώρευαν σε ένα αυτοκίνητο και θα οδηγούσαν κάτω στο γκέτο μερικές νύχτες, δοκιμάζοντας τα "μειωμένα niggers" για την εύθυμη ψυχαγωγία της θέας τους που έτρεξαν για τις ζωές τους. Έχω συνδέσει πάντα εκείνη την επίπονη μνήμη με τα άτομα που βίασαν αργότερα και δολοφόνησαν τον τρόπο τους σε ολόκληρο το Βιετνάμ.
Δεν είναι ότι Αμερικανοί είναι χειρότεροι από άλλους ανθρώπους, είναι ότι είναι οι ίδιοι. Ακόμα ενθαρρύνονται συνεχώς για να σκεφτούν ότι είναι καλύτεροι - πιό προηγμένος, εκπαιδευμένος, περισσότερο αφιερωμένος στις δημοκρατικές και ανθρώπινες τιμές. Στις λέξεις του Προέδρου, "η Αμερική ξέρω τις προσοχές για κάθε ndividual." Καλά, εκτός από το γεγονός ότι εκείνες οι περιγραφές εγκαθιστούν στην καλύτερη περίπτωση μια μειονότητα Αμερικανών, που σκέφτονται ότι είστε καλύτεροι από οι λιγότερο τυχεροί άνθρωποι είναι μια εγγυημένη μέθοδος για την αδικία και τη φρίκη.
Σημειώνω ότι σε αυτήν την ημέρα ακόμη και οι περισσότερες φοβερές εικόνες των ιρακινών παιδιών που παραμορφώνονται και που σκοτώνονται με τον αμερικανικό βομβαρδισμό δεν δημοσιεύονται από το βασικό Τύπο του νομού. Πολλοί Αμερικανοί είναι συναισθηματικοί, και οι εικόνες των καταπληκτικών και παραμορφωμένων παιδιών να παραγάγουν τα αποτελέσματα που δεν επιδιώχτηκαν από εκείνους που τρέχουν τη χώρα, αλλά οι εικόνες φυλακών μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν ως εξαίρεση, ως βλάβη μερικών κακών ανθρώπων που σπάζουν τους κανόνες.
Καλά, ποια κοινωνία δεν έχει τέτοιους κανόνες; Εκεί τίποτα ειδικό για την Αμερική επίσημα να αντιτάξει τα βασανιστήρια, την ταπείνωση, και τη δολοφονία. Ακόμα και οι δικτατορίες θέτουν δημόσια τέτοιους κανόνες, αλλά ποια κοινωνία όχι να παραβιάσουν τους κανόνες μόλις βυθίζει στη σαπρή επιχείρηση του πολέμου;
Ένας γαλλικός τηλεοπτικός σταθμός έχει λάβει μια τρεις-και-α-μισή μαγνητοταινία λεπτού από ένα αμερικανικό ελικόπτερο που λαμβάνεται τον περασμένο Δεκέμβριο. Υπάρχουν ένα πειραματικό και στρατιωτικό γκάγκστερ εν πλω, και συζητήσεις ανώτερων υπαλλήλων διαταγής τους σε τους σε ένα ραδιόφωνο. Ο αμερικανικός στρατιώτης πυροβολεί τρεις άοπλους Ιρακινούς, ένας-ένας, δεδομένου ότι ο διοικητής αποφλοιώνει τις κατευθύνσεις του σε τον. Το τρίτο άτομο προσπαθεί να κρύψει, και προσπαθεί έπειτα να σέρθεί μακριά, σαφώς πληγωμένος. Ο ανώτερος υπάλληλος τον διατάζει που σκοτώνεται, και είναι γρήγορα.
Θυμηθείτε τις συνομιλίες ραδιοφωνικής μετάδοσης των αμερικανικών πιλότων κατά τη διάρκεια της πρώτης σύγκρουσης κόλπων δεδομένου ότι και βομβάρδισαν τα μίλια των ιρακινών στρατιωτών που πιάστηκαν σε μια μαρμελάδα κυκλοφορίας ενώ υποχωρώντας από την πόλη του Κουβέιτ; Ακούσαμε τις λέξεις, σαφώς προφορικές με την ίδια αίσθηση της διασκέδασης που άκουσα δεδομένου ότι ένα νέο άτομο στο Σικάγο, "αυτό είναι όπως το shootin" ψάρια σε μια κάννη!" ραδιοφωνική μετάδοση στην τηλεόραση χωρίς οποιαδήποτε σχόλιο ή κριτική από τους εκφωνητές ή τους πολιτικούς.
Σε αυτήν την ημέρα, δεν υπάρχει καμία εξέταση στην εξαφάνιση περίπου τρεις χιλιάες φυλακισμένων στο Αφγανιστάν. Μια ευρωπαϊκή αποδεικτική ταινία προτείνει έντονα την αμερικανική συνενοχή στη μαζική δολοφονία τους έξω στο επιδόρπιο από μερικούς από τους πιό τραγελαφικούς πολεμάρχους με τους οποίους οι ΗΠΑ συνδέθηκαν. Οι φυλακισμένοι σύμφωνα με τις υπάρχουσες πληροφορίες οδηγήθηκαν, εργάζονται μετά από τη batch, που γεμίστηκε στα φορτηγά, μέσω μιας ήλιος-ψημένης αγριότητας, που ασφυκτιά στην θερμότητα ενώ αμερικανικά στρατεύματα που πρόσεξαν αδρανώς.
Μην ξεχάστε τις λέξεις του Donald Rumsfeld σχετικά με τους φυλακισμένους στο Αφγανιστάν. Είπε δημόσια ότι όλοι οι ξένοι μαχητές που συλλαμβάνονται πρέπει να σκοτωθούν ή να περιτοιχιστούν μόνιμα μακριά. Σκέφτεστε ότι το είδος ηγεσίας να επηρεάσει τις τοποθετήσεις σέρνεται οι διάδρομοι των στρατιωτικών φυλακών με τους ανθρώπους στο έλεός τους;
Οι πόλεμοι είναι μια εντελώς ακάθαρτη επιχείρηση, και, εκτός αν είστε διαφθαρμένοι, δεν τους αρχίζετε. Ο θάμνος είναι αρμόδιος για αυτό που έχει συμβεί στο Ιράκ και το Αφγανιστάν τόσο σίγουρα όσο και οι γερμανικοί ηγέτες ήταν αρμόδιοι για τις πράξεις των στρατιωτών τους κατά τη διάρκεια του παγκόσμιου πολέμου ΙΙ.
Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman
[ Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman είναι προηγούμενος κύριος οικονομολόγος για μια μεγάλη καναδική επιχείρηση πετρελαίου. Έχει πολλά ενδιαφέροντα και είναι ισόβιος σπουδαστής της ιστορίας. Γράφει με μια εμπαθή επιθυμία για την τιμιότητα, τον κανόνα του λόγου, και την ανησυχία για την ανθρώπινη ευπρέπεια. Είναι μέλος κανενός πολιτικού συμβαλλόμενου μέρους και παίρνει την εξαίρεση σε αυτό που έχει κληθεί πολιτισμό της Αμερικής το "της καταγγελίασ" με τη συνήθειά του μείωσης κάθε σημαντικού ζητήματος σε ένα μη παραγωγικό όρισμα μεταξύ δύο simplistically καθορισμένων ομάδων. Θ*Ιοχν άφησε τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ως φτωχό νέο άτομο από τη νότια πλευρά του Σικάγου όταν επιβιβάστηκε η κυβέρνηση στη δολοφονία των εκατομμυρίων Βιετναμέζος στο έδαφός τους επειδή συνέβησαν να αγκαλιάσουν τις λανθασμένες οικονομικές πίστεις. Ζει στον Καναδά, ο οποίος είναι τρυφερός της κλήσης "του peaceable βασίλειου." ]
Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman ενθαρρύνει τα σχόλιά σας: chuckman@YellowTimes.org
Το YellowTimes.org είναι διεθνείς ειδήσεις και δημοσίευση άποψης. Το YellowTimes.org ενθαρρύνει το υλικό του για να αναπαραχθεί, ανατυπωμένος, ή η ραδιοφωνική μετάδοση υπό τον όρο ότι οποιαδήποτε τέτοιαδήποτε αναπαραγωγή προσδιορίζει την αρχική πηγή, συνδέσεις Ιστού http://www.YellowTimes.org. Διαδίκτυο σε http://www.YellowTimes.org εκτιμάται.
Θα συμπαθούσατε να λάβετε τα επίλεκτα άρθρα YellowTimes.org μέσω του ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου;
Σε αυτή την περίπτωση, θα λάβετε μια Δευτέρα, την Τετάρτη και την Παρασκευή ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου από YellowTimes.org. Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό ταχυδρομείο περιέχει το ένα άρθρο χαρακτηριστικών γνωρισμάτων που περιλαμβάνεται στο σώμα του ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου. Θα σας παρασχεθούν έπειτα οι περιγραφές και οι συνδέσεις άλλων άρθρων που δημοσιεύονται σε YellowTimes.org από την τελευταία αναπροσαρμογή ειδήσεων.
Σημάδι επάνω κατωτέρω!
Από John Chuckman < chuckman@YellowTimes.org >
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/thingwithnobrain06may04.shtml
6 Μαϊ'ου, 2004
(YellowTimes.org) -- είχα μια δυσάρεστη στιγμή στο θάμνο ημέρας που αποφασίστηκε για να εξετάσει "τον αραβικό κόσμο." Είναι άτομο που μπορώ να σταθώ, έτσι όταν έρχεται η φωνή του στο ραδιόφωνο, το μεταστρέφω πάντα μακριά. Καλά, αυτή τη φορά επίσης μακριά μακριά και απαραιτήτως ακούστηκα μερικές προτάσεις, αυτές αρχίζοντας από "τους ανθρώπους στο Ιράκ πρέπει να καταλάβουν και πρέπει να καταλάβουν .."
Πρέπει; Η άλαλη υπεροψία των λέξεών του ζάλιζε. Πάνω από το κακώς-επιλεγμένο λεξιλόγιό του, το άτομο δεν ζήτησε συγγνώμη ποτέ όπως έμαθα αργότερα από το Διαδίκτυο. Εδώ ήταν ένας διοικητής που μιλά για την inexcusable βιαιότητα ενάντια στους ανίσχυρους φυλακισμένους που λένεων στα εκατομμύρια των ν ανθρώπων που πρέπει να καταλάβουν. Εδώ ήταν ένα παθητικά-ανεπαρκές άτομο που προσπεράστηκε έτσι από τα γεγονότα ότι αισθάνθηκε την ανάγκη να εξετάσει "τον αραβικό κόσμο," και τους έλεγε τι πρέπει να καταλάβουν.
Φυσικά, η απέραντη, ανεγκέφαλος υπεροψία του διαβιβάστηκε σε άλλους τρόπους. Εξέτασε το "αραβικό κόσμο" χωρίς τη χρησιμοποίηση των δικτύων ότι πολλοί ακούνε. Θέλησε μια ασφαλή έξοδο - χρηματοκιβώτιο, δηλαδή για τον και τη γνωστή ανικανότητά του να χειριστεί οποιαδήποτε ερώτηση πιό σύνθετη από "πώς Mom;" Απέφυγε σκόπιμα το Al Jazeerah, ένα δίκτυο που ρωτά τις σκληρές ερωτήσεις και στους του οποίου υπαλλήλους οι στρατιώτες του έχουν στοχεύσει σκόπιμα και έχουν σκοτώσει.
Αναρωτιέμαι πόσων ο νέος τρομοκρατών θάμνος έχει δημιουργήσει σε όλη τη Μέση Ανατολή; Φανταστείτε την οργή των νέων αραβικών ατόμων που βλέπουν τις εικόνες άλλων νέων αραβικών ατόμων με τα ύψη πίεσης τους στις τσάντες που χρησιμοποιούνται όπως το απόρριμμα μιας χυδαίας υπόγειας πορνογραφικής ταινίας; Μερικές από τις πιό φοβερές σκηνές δεν έχουν αναμφισβήτητα καμία φωτογραφία επειδή οι δράστες σχεδόν βεβαίως δολοφονήθηκαν. Ακόμα και οι χαμογελώντας κρετίνοι από τον bayous και backwoods της Αμερικής που φαίνεται στις δημοσιευμένες εικόνες ξέρουν καλύτερα από για να φωτογραφιστούν δεσμεύοντας τη δολοφονία.
Ως επί το πλείστον, οι ένοπλες δυνάμεις των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών δεν μισθώνουν το είδος καθαρός-αποκοπής, Sir-rj'hnontas τα πρόσωπα αμετάβλητα χρησιμοποιώ ως εκπρόσωποι δημόσιος-σχέσεών τους. Χρειάζονται τους ανθρώπους που θα εκπαιδευθούν για να σκοτώσουν και να υπακούσουν τις κατατάξεις, και οι περισσότερες από τη δολοφονία πρόκειται να γίνουν στις φτωχές, απόμακρες θέσεις όπου οι φωνές των θυμάτων δεν ακούγονται ποτέ στην Αμερική.
Στρατιωτικοί recruiters γεμίζουν ένα καλό μέρος των ποσοστώσεών τους από τα πολλές μελαγχολικές τέλματα και τις τρώγλες της δημοκρατίας. Τους γεμίζουν με το είδος ανθρώπων που ειδάλλως να μην απασχοληθούν σε όλοι. Παίρνουν αναμφισβήτητα ένα δυσανάλογο μερίδιο των ανθρώπων που απολαμβάνουν και τον πόνο, το είδος ανθρώπων που βρίσκεται σε κάθε κοινωνία στη γη.
Δεν παίρνει μια μεγάλη προσπάθεια της φαντασίας να προσδοκηθεί τι θα συμβεί πότε δίνετε σε τέτοιους ανθρώπους μερικές εβδομάδες εκπαιδευτικός στα φονικά και λάμποντας παπούτσια και τις στέλνετε μακριά σε ένα απομακρυσμένο έδαφος όπως το Ιράκ, μια θέση τους της οποίας ανθρώπους μπορούν να καταλάβουν, και για τις οποίες ξέρουν μόνο τον ανενημέρωτο, προκαλώντας τα συνθήματα του Προέδρου τους.
Όταν ένα αξιοκαταφρόνητο ήθος poy όπως το θάμνο κάθεται άνετα στην καρέκλα δέρματός του και υπογράφει μια κατάταξη να εισβληθεί ένα απόμακρο έδαφος, είναι ακριβώς οι φρίκες της φυλακής Abu Ghraib αυτός απαραιτήτως εκδόσεις.
Θυμηθείτε τον υπολοχαγό Calley και τα αγόρια του που δολοφονούν ένα ολόκληρο χωριό στο Βιετνάμ; Εκείνο το καλό παλαιό αγόρι δεν δοκίμασε ποτέ τη σημαντική δικαιοσύνη μιας στιγμής. Υπήρξε πραγματικά μια βιαστική επιχείρηση για μια στιγμή στα αναμνηστικά Calley υπολοχαγών, ειδικά στο νότο.
Υπήρξαν διάφορες τέτοιες σφαγές που ανακαλύφθηκαν στο Βιετνάμ, και ένα μπορεί να αμφιβάλει ότι άλλες πήγαν άγνωστες. Ακόμα ήταν η σχισμή περίπου είκοσι-χιλίων λαιμών, συνήθως του χωριού ανώτεροι υπάλληλοι, από τα γενναία άτομα των ειδικών δυνάμεων. Αλλά ακόμη και τους ναζιστικός-όπως τη σφαγή δεν θα μπορούσε να συγκρίνει με την εργασία των ατόμων που πετούν τα αεριωθούμενα αεροπλάνα, αποκαλούμενοι πολεμικοί ήρωες ατόμων ακόμα στην Αμερική, άτομα που βομβάρδισαν συστηματικά και τις αμέτρητες πόλεις, χωριά, και αγροκτήματα, παράγοντας αρκετά θύματα για να θάψουν την πόλη της Ουάσιγκτον κάτω από ένα βουνό της μμένων σάρκας και του αδραχτιού, σχεδόν όλα τους πολίτες.
Κατά τη διάρκεια εκείνου του πολέμου, το ι μίλησε μιά φορά σε έναν αμερικανικό παλαίμαχο του παγκόσμιου πολέμου ΙΙ για τη φρίκη αυτό που πήγαινε επάνω. Μου είπε μια ιστορία. Ήταν σε ένα τραίνο με δύο άλλους Αμερικανούς και έναν γερμανικό αιχμάλωτο πολέμου. Ένας από τους Αμερικανούς έβαλε ξαφνικά το αυτόματο πιστόλι του στο ύψος πίεσης του Γερμανού και φύσηξε τους εγκεφάλους του έξω. Δεν είχε κανέναν λόγο και γέλασε ακριβώς μετά από να κάνει το.
Όπως έχω γράψει πριν, δεν μπορώ ποτέ να ξεχάσω κάποιο που ήξερα στο γυμνάσιο λέγοντας με για το πώς αυτός και οι φίλοι του θα συσσώρευαν σε ένα αυτοκίνητο και θα οδηγούσαν κάτω στο γκέτο μερικές νύχτες, δοκιμάζοντας τα "μειωμένα niggers" για την εύθυμη ψυχαγωγία της θέας τους που έτρεξαν για τις ζωές τους. Έχω συνδέσει πάντα εκείνη την επίπονη μνήμη με τα άτομα που βίασαν αργότερα και δολοφόνησαν τον τρόπο τους σε ολόκληρο το Βιετνάμ.
Δεν είναι ότι Αμερικανοί είναι χειρότεροι από άλλους ανθρώπους, είναι ότι είναι οι ίδιοι. Ακόμα ενθαρρύνονται συνεχώς για να σκεφτούν ότι είναι καλύτεροι - πιό προηγμένος, εκπαιδευμένος, περισσότερο αφιερωμένος στις δημοκρατικές και ανθρώπινες τιμές. Στις λέξεις του Προέδρου, "η Αμερική ξέρω τις προσοχές για κάθε ndividual." Καλά, εκτός από το γεγονός ότι εκείνες οι περιγραφές εγκαθιστούν στην καλύτερη περίπτωση μια μειονότητα Αμερικανών, που σκέφτονται ότι είστε καλύτεροι από οι λιγότερο τυχεροί άνθρωποι είναι μια εγγυημένη μέθοδος για την αδικία και τη φρίκη.
Σημειώνω ότι σε αυτήν την ημέρα ακόμη και οι περισσότερες φοβερές εικόνες των ιρακινών παιδιών που παραμορφώνονται και που σκοτώνονται με τον αμερικανικό βομβαρδισμό δεν δημοσιεύονται από το βασικό Τύπο του νομού. Πολλοί Αμερικανοί είναι συναισθηματικοί, και οι εικόνες των καταπληκτικών και παραμορφωμένων παιδιών να παραγάγουν τα αποτελέσματα που δεν επιδιώχτηκαν από εκείνους που τρέχουν τη χώρα, αλλά οι εικόνες φυλακών μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν ως εξαίρεση, ως βλάβη μερικών κακών ανθρώπων που σπάζουν τους κανόνες.
Καλά, ποια κοινωνία δεν έχει τέτοιους κανόνες; Εκεί τίποτα ειδικό για την Αμερική επίσημα να αντιτάξει τα βασανιστήρια, την ταπείνωση, και τη δολοφονία. Ακόμα και οι δικτατορίες θέτουν δημόσια τέτοιους κανόνες, αλλά ποια κοινωνία όχι να παραβιάσουν τους κανόνες μόλις βυθίζει στη σαπρή επιχείρηση του πολέμου;
Ένας γαλλικός τηλεοπτικός σταθμός έχει λάβει μια τρεις-και-α-μισή μαγνητοταινία λεπτού από ένα αμερικανικό ελικόπτερο που λαμβάνεται τον περασμένο Δεκέμβριο. Υπάρχουν ένα πειραματικό και στρατιωτικό γκάγκστερ εν πλω, και συζητήσεις ανώτερων υπαλλήλων διαταγής τους σε τους σε ένα ραδιόφωνο. Ο αμερικανικός στρατιώτης πυροβολεί τρεις άοπλους Ιρακινούς, ένας-ένας, δεδομένου ότι ο διοικητής αποφλοιώνει τις κατευθύνσεις του σε τον. Το τρίτο άτομο προσπαθεί να κρύψει, και προσπαθεί έπειτα να σέρθεί μακριά, σαφώς πληγωμένος. Ο ανώτερος υπάλληλος τον διατάζει που σκοτώνεται, και είναι γρήγορα.
Θυμηθείτε τις συνομιλίες ραδιοφωνικής μετάδοσης των αμερικανικών πιλότων κατά τη διάρκεια της πρώτης σύγκρουσης κόλπων δεδομένου ότι και βομβάρδισαν τα μίλια των ιρακινών στρατιωτών που πιάστηκαν σε μια μαρμελάδα κυκλοφορίας ενώ υποχωρώντας από την πόλη του Κουβέιτ; Ακούσαμε τις λέξεις, σαφώς προφορικές με την ίδια αίσθηση της διασκέδασης που άκουσα δεδομένου ότι ένα νέο άτομο στο Σικάγο, "αυτό είναι όπως το shootin" ψάρια σε μια κάννη!" ραδιοφωνική μετάδοση στην τηλεόραση χωρίς οποιαδήποτε σχόλιο ή κριτική από τους εκφωνητές ή τους πολιτικούς.
Σε αυτήν την ημέρα, δεν υπάρχει καμία εξέταση στην εξαφάνιση περίπου τρεις χιλιάες φυλακισμένων στο Αφγανιστάν. Μια ευρωπαϊκή αποδεικτική ταινία προτείνει έντονα την αμερικανική συνενοχή στη μαζική δολοφονία τους έξω στο επιδόρπιο από μερικούς από τους πιό τραγελαφικούς πολεμάρχους με τους οποίους οι ΗΠΑ συνδέθηκαν. Οι φυλακισμένοι σύμφωνα με τις υπάρχουσες πληροφορίες οδηγήθηκαν, εργάζονται μετά από τη batch, που γεμίστηκε στα φορτηγά, μέσω μιας ήλιος-ψημένης αγριότητας, που ασφυκτιά στην θερμότητα ενώ αμερικανικά στρατεύματα που πρόσεξαν αδρανώς.
Μην ξεχάστε τις λέξεις του Donald Rumsfeld σχετικά με τους φυλακισμένους στο Αφγανιστάν. Είπε δημόσια ότι όλοι οι ξένοι μαχητές που συλλαμβάνονται πρέπει να σκοτωθούν ή να περιτοιχιστούν μόνιμα μακριά. Σκέφτεστε ότι το είδος ηγεσίας να επηρεάσει τις τοποθετήσεις σέρνεται οι διάδρομοι των στρατιωτικών φυλακών με τους ανθρώπους στο έλεός τους;
Οι πόλεμοι είναι μια εντελώς ακάθαρτη επιχείρηση, και, εκτός αν είστε διαφθαρμένοι, δεν τους αρχίζετε. Ο θάμνος είναι αρμόδιος για αυτό που έχει συμβεί στο Ιράκ και το Αφγανιστάν τόσο σίγουρα όσο και οι γερμανικοί ηγέτες ήταν αρμόδιοι για τις πράξεις των στρατιωτών τους κατά τη διάρκεια του παγκόσμιου πολέμου ΙΙ.
Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman
[ Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman είναι προηγούμενος κύριος οικονομολόγος για μια μεγάλη καναδική επιχείρηση πετρελαίου. Έχει πολλά ενδιαφέροντα και είναι ισόβιος σπουδαστής της ιστορίας. Γράφει με μια εμπαθή επιθυμία για την τιμιότητα, τον κανόνα του λόγου, και την ανησυχία για την ανθρώπινη ευπρέπεια. Είναι μέλος κανενός πολιτικού συμβαλλόμενου μέρους και παίρνει την εξαίρεση σε αυτό που έχει κληθεί πολιτισμό της Αμερικής το "της καταγγελίασ" με τη συνήθειά του μείωσης κάθε σημαντικού ζητήματος σε ένα μη παραγωγικό όρισμα μεταξύ δύο simplistically καθορισμένων ομάδων. Θ*Ιοχν άφησε τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ως φτωχό νέο άτομο από τη νότια πλευρά του Σικάγου όταν επιβιβάστηκε η κυβέρνηση στη δολοφονία των εκατομμυρίων Βιετναμέζος στο έδαφός τους επειδή συνέβησαν να αγκαλιάσουν τις λανθασμένες οικονομικές πίστεις. Ζει στον Καναδά, ο οποίος είναι τρυφερός της κλήσης "του peaceable βασίλειου." ]
Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman ενθαρρύνει τα σχόλιά σας: chuckman@YellowTimes.org
Το YellowTimes.org είναι διεθνείς ειδήσεις και δημοσίευση άποψης. Το YellowTimes.org ενθαρρύνει το υλικό του για να αναπαραχθεί, ανατυπωμένος, ή η ραδιοφωνική μετάδοση υπό τον όρο ότι οποιαδήποτε τέτοιαδήποτε αναπαραγωγή προσδιορίζει την αρχική πηγή, συνδέσεις Ιστού http://www.YellowTimes.org. Διαδίκτυο σε http://www.YellowTimes.org εκτιμάται.
Θα συμπαθούσατε να λάβετε τα επίλεκτα άρθρα YellowTimes.org μέσω του ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου;
Σε αυτή την περίπτωση, θα λάβετε μια Δευτέρα, την Τετάρτη και την Παρασκευή ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου από YellowTimes.org. Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό ταχυδρομείο περιέχει το ένα άρθρο χαρακτηριστικών γνωρισμάτων που περιλαμβάνεται στο σώμα του ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου. Θα σας παρασχεθούν έπειτα οι περιγραφές και οι συνδέσεις άλλων άρθρων που δημοσιεύονται σε YellowTimes.org από την τελευταία αναπροσαρμογή ειδήσεων.
Σημάδι επάνω κατωτέρω!
Monday, January 28, 2008
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: PIZZA - CRUST AND SEVERAL SPECIAL TOPPING COMBINATIONS
I have been a serious cook for decades, this being one of the reasons I was able to serve as restaurant reviewer for a metropolitan newspaper. When I say "a serious cook," I mean someone who goes beyond using the recipes of others and creates his or her own. From time to time I will post some of mine.
CHUCKMAN’S PIZZA MEDITERRANEAN
If you follow the directions, you will enjoy one of the best pizzas you've ever eaten.
Whole wheat or white crust – recipe below
Thin layer tomato sauce – recipe reference below
Oil-soaked sun-dried tomatoes, thinly sliced
Crumbled (pre-cooked) Italian sweet sausage
Thinly-sliced canned artichokes
Thinly-sliced onion, salted and soaked ahead
Thin-sliced red pepper, salted and soaked ahead
Fresh mushrooms, thinly-sliced
Kalamata olives
Mozzarella cheese - grated
Fontina cheese - grated
Olive oil
PIZZA CRUST – USE ALSO FOR A NICE FOCCACIO
Whole Wheat Flour and All Purpose Unbleached Flour mixed dry – up to 60% Whole Wheat - 3 Cups Total (Note: pour about 3 ½ cups – saving a bit for dusting later – also amount of Flour absorbed by water varies with climate and weather).
Note: If you do not want Whole Wheat crust, use only All Purpose White.
Lukewarm Water - 1 Cup
Regular dry yeast – 1 Teaspoon
Salt – about 1 Teaspoon
Oil – to use as required
Sugar – pinch or two (not required but helps yeast rise faster)
________________________________
NOTE: NEW APPROACH ON PIZZA CRUST
I've learned and tested an interesting new approach to this crust. It yields a crust that is nicely honeycombed with air pockets, resembling an artisan bread. Simply use more water, about 1 1/2 to 1 2/3 Cups, leaving everything else the same. You will get a very wet dough which you can almost pour onto baking sheet; it is easily spread with hands kept wet by rinsing in water.
_________________________________
Place yeast (and sugar if using) into container with warm water. In about 5 minutes, providing room is warm, this is ready to mix with flour. Pour about half of flour mix into large bowl with yeasty water; stir until incorporated; add a splash or two of oil; add more flour and stir more; continue until you have desired consistency which is not too sticky.
Leave dough to rise – Suggestion: cover bowl with plastic wrap and then a tea towel –place bowl over sauce pan full of hot tap water – this will assure good rising even when room is not hot. Depending on conditions, rising will take 1 or 2 hours.
Dust risen dough for rolling out – Oil large cookie sheet and roll dough with rolling pin, or you can use hands pounding and stretching. Once sheet is covered, lightly oil top of dough. Cover rolled dough with plastic wrap loosely and place cookie sheet over pan of hot tap water for
second rising.
When dough has risen, remove plastic and bake briefly in preheated at 450 . About 3 to 4 minutes should do to par-cook crust – this gives better crust results than putting toppings on raw dough. Remove par-cooked dough from oven and allow to briefly cool.
Dress the Crust with desired toppings – recommended order: sauce, cheese, chunky toppings. Bake again in 450 oven for between 5 and 10 minutes. You must watch because different thicknesses of topping will need more or less time. You can check edge of crust after first 5 minutes.
Corn Meal Option:
Sprinkle bottom of oiled cookie sheet with golden corn meal before rolling out dough. Adds a pleasant crispness and taste.
Note for variations in crust:
If you use about 1/2 to 2/3 more water, you will get a very sticky dough which cannot be rolled and must be spread out by hand. Doing this will yield a chewier crust filled with the air pockets characteristic of gourmet breads.
Another variation is to use Pastry Flour instead of All-purpose Flour and to incorpoate an egg white in the dough. Some gourmet pizzerias use a crust like this produces. It is good, but not my favorite.
Note for Foccacio: Dough is baked only once – 5 to 8 minutes at 450. Watch it for perfect light gold color. It is first brushed with oil and lightly sprinkled with coarse sea salt.
You may also very lightly sprinkle with parmesan grated. Try light lightly sprinkling with Rosemary. If you want garlic twist, crush a few cloves with salt in a mortar and pestle, then add to oil.
GENERAL TOPPING NOTES
Use my general red sauce from Eggplant parmesan (below). You may leave out pepper flakes or increase them as per your taste. In a pinch, use a good bottled sauce.
Toppings like Italian sausage or bacon should be lightly pan-cooked before putting on pizza. Cooking time for crust is not adequate for such raw ingredients to fully cook unless they are used in tiny slices.
Classic cheese topping is Mozzarella, but Mozzarella and Parmesan (or Asiago) or Fontina and Provolone (my favorite for a cheese pizza) are excellent. Grating the cheese works best for even melting.
A CLASSIC COMBINATION
Chunks of Sweet Italian Sausage and Onions (treated as above). Serve with simple green salad with red vinegar and oil dressing.
MY NICOISE PIZZA
Use chunks of canned tuna; Kalamata or Nicoise olives; thin slices of Fennel; Small par-boiled chunks of potato; small slices of par-boiled greenbeans; a few capers; anchovies; crumbled hard-boiled egg; ultra-thin tomato slices on bottom.
CHUCKMAN’S PIZZA MEDITERRANEAN
If you follow the directions, you will enjoy one of the best pizzas you've ever eaten.
Whole wheat or white crust – recipe below
Thin layer tomato sauce – recipe reference below
Oil-soaked sun-dried tomatoes, thinly sliced
Crumbled (pre-cooked) Italian sweet sausage
Thinly-sliced canned artichokes
Thinly-sliced onion, salted and soaked ahead
Thin-sliced red pepper, salted and soaked ahead
Fresh mushrooms, thinly-sliced
Kalamata olives
Mozzarella cheese - grated
Fontina cheese - grated
Olive oil
PIZZA CRUST – USE ALSO FOR A NICE FOCCACIO
Whole Wheat Flour and All Purpose Unbleached Flour mixed dry – up to 60% Whole Wheat - 3 Cups Total (Note: pour about 3 ½ cups – saving a bit for dusting later – also amount of Flour absorbed by water varies with climate and weather).
Note: If you do not want Whole Wheat crust, use only All Purpose White.
Lukewarm Water - 1 Cup
Regular dry yeast – 1 Teaspoon
Salt – about 1 Teaspoon
Oil – to use as required
Sugar – pinch or two (not required but helps yeast rise faster)
________________________________
NOTE: NEW APPROACH ON PIZZA CRUST
I've learned and tested an interesting new approach to this crust. It yields a crust that is nicely honeycombed with air pockets, resembling an artisan bread. Simply use more water, about 1 1/2 to 1 2/3 Cups, leaving everything else the same. You will get a very wet dough which you can almost pour onto baking sheet; it is easily spread with hands kept wet by rinsing in water.
_________________________________
Place yeast (and sugar if using) into container with warm water. In about 5 minutes, providing room is warm, this is ready to mix with flour. Pour about half of flour mix into large bowl with yeasty water; stir until incorporated; add a splash or two of oil; add more flour and stir more; continue until you have desired consistency which is not too sticky.
Leave dough to rise – Suggestion: cover bowl with plastic wrap and then a tea towel –place bowl over sauce pan full of hot tap water – this will assure good rising even when room is not hot. Depending on conditions, rising will take 1 or 2 hours.
Dust risen dough for rolling out – Oil large cookie sheet and roll dough with rolling pin, or you can use hands pounding and stretching. Once sheet is covered, lightly oil top of dough. Cover rolled dough with plastic wrap loosely and place cookie sheet over pan of hot tap water for
second rising.
When dough has risen, remove plastic and bake briefly in preheated at 450 . About 3 to 4 minutes should do to par-cook crust – this gives better crust results than putting toppings on raw dough. Remove par-cooked dough from oven and allow to briefly cool.
Dress the Crust with desired toppings – recommended order: sauce, cheese, chunky toppings. Bake again in 450 oven for between 5 and 10 minutes. You must watch because different thicknesses of topping will need more or less time. You can check edge of crust after first 5 minutes.
Corn Meal Option:
Sprinkle bottom of oiled cookie sheet with golden corn meal before rolling out dough. Adds a pleasant crispness and taste.
Note for variations in crust:
If you use about 1/2 to 2/3 more water, you will get a very sticky dough which cannot be rolled and must be spread out by hand. Doing this will yield a chewier crust filled with the air pockets characteristic of gourmet breads.
Another variation is to use Pastry Flour instead of All-purpose Flour and to incorpoate an egg white in the dough. Some gourmet pizzerias use a crust like this produces. It is good, but not my favorite.
Note for Foccacio: Dough is baked only once – 5 to 8 minutes at 450. Watch it for perfect light gold color. It is first brushed with oil and lightly sprinkled with coarse sea salt.
You may also very lightly sprinkle with parmesan grated. Try light lightly sprinkling with Rosemary. If you want garlic twist, crush a few cloves with salt in a mortar and pestle, then add to oil.
GENERAL TOPPING NOTES
Use my general red sauce from Eggplant parmesan (below). You may leave out pepper flakes or increase them as per your taste. In a pinch, use a good bottled sauce.
Toppings like Italian sausage or bacon should be lightly pan-cooked before putting on pizza. Cooking time for crust is not adequate for such raw ingredients to fully cook unless they are used in tiny slices.
Classic cheese topping is Mozzarella, but Mozzarella and Parmesan (or Asiago) or Fontina and Provolone (my favorite for a cheese pizza) are excellent. Grating the cheese works best for even melting.
A CLASSIC COMBINATION
Chunks of Sweet Italian Sausage and Onions (treated as above). Serve with simple green salad with red vinegar and oil dressing.
MY NICOISE PIZZA
Use chunks of canned tuna; Kalamata or Nicoise olives; thin slices of Fennel; Small par-boiled chunks of potato; small slices of par-boiled greenbeans; a few capers; anchovies; crumbled hard-boiled egg; ultra-thin tomato slices on bottom.
Monday, December 17, 2007
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: EGGPLANT PARMESAN
CHUCKMAN'S EGGPLANT PARMESAN
A memorable dish
(Remember, this is a recipe not written down till recently. I use the pinch-and-peek-and-taste method when I cook like this.)
CHUCKMAN'S EGGPLANT PARMESAN
(Remember, this is a recipe not written down till recently. I use the pinch-and-peek-and-taste method when I cook like this.)
3 or 4 medium eggplants (or their large-sized equivalent) - peeled and cut in half lengthwise, then sliced into moderately thick slices.
You don't have to peel if you like the skin.
Parmesan cheese - grated - crucial that this be pretty decent stuff (no Kraft!).
Mozzarella cheese - grated as for pizza - again quality cheese is important - Tre Stella whole milk is very good. Lots of this.
Flour - sprinkled on plate for coating.
Breadcrumbs - sprinkled on plate for coating.
Eggs - beaten in a bowl for dipping to coat. Add a little milk to thin.
Salt - mixed in with flour - to taste. Be generous.
________________________
MY BASIC RED SAUCE:
Use crushed canned tomatoes (two large cans), a generous addition of dry red wine, a couple of anchovies or equivalent anchovy paste, a small can of tomato paste, a finely chopped onion, a sprinkling of Basil, a small sprinkling of red chilies (only enough to hint - sauce is not to be hot), and a couple of tablespoons of sugar (I leave this out these days, but it is good for Eggplant Parmesan). A splash of olive oil in the pan. Bring to boil and simmer over low heat, covered, for maybe an hour.
Many variations are possible - certainly I often use a bit of chopped garlic - but this is a pretty satisfying general purpose sauce. You may substitute a can (or even both) of crushed tomatoes with diced, giving the sauce texture for some pastas. Of course, you can add a lot more chili flakes to make it hot which suits penne rigate. This is nice too with bits of sauteed spicy sausage.
Some always lightly saute onions and garlic first, but that isn't essential except in sauces which you simmer for only minutes, which is not the case here using wine. In simmering a longer time the ingredients literally will melt together.
One of my favorite versions is a Putanesca for spaghetti. Add some Kalamata olives and capers and substitute Oregano for Basil. You can throw various other ingredients into a Puttanesca sauce, as bits of sauteed sausage. A bit of diced green pepper is nice, but not for Eggplant Parmesan.
Best sauce to use for Eggplant Parmesan is the simple, somewhat sweet, basic.
________________________
Dip each slice of eggplant slice lightly in flour (salted), then in egg, then in breadcrumbs. The slices are then nicely fried till golden and put aside to cool (By the way, these themselves make a delicious snack or side dish).
Oil a large rectangular pyrex casserole-type oven pan.
Dribble a little sauce on bottom of pan. Place cool eggplant (fried) slices over bottom. Dribble sauce over. Sprinkle each type of cheese over (be generous), but suit your taste preferences on proportions. Do another layer, etc., until ingredients used up. Finish top with sauce and then cheese.
Bake in a not-very-high oven (250-300) with aluminum foil on top. Let this go awhile. Check in an hour. You want sauce to slowly thicken a bit and of course cheese to melt and bubble through. You have to judge. You'll need at least an hour of this slow cooking. Finish off in higher oven (say 350) with no cover (note if things got a little too dry, add a touch of sauce first.). Watch this carefully so it doesn't dry up too much.
The key to this cooking technique is to obtain a result of a thickened slush of sauce with savory cooked cheese baked in - this is my preference anyway.
Simpler: You could also just bake the whole thing, once assembled, in a regular fashion. Maybe about 350, uncovered, for not long, say 20 minutes. This will not be as nice. Again watch that it doesn't dry out.
A memorable dish
(Remember, this is a recipe not written down till recently. I use the pinch-and-peek-and-taste method when I cook like this.)
CHUCKMAN'S EGGPLANT PARMESAN
(Remember, this is a recipe not written down till recently. I use the pinch-and-peek-and-taste method when I cook like this.)
3 or 4 medium eggplants (or their large-sized equivalent) - peeled and cut in half lengthwise, then sliced into moderately thick slices.
You don't have to peel if you like the skin.
Parmesan cheese - grated - crucial that this be pretty decent stuff (no Kraft!).
Mozzarella cheese - grated as for pizza - again quality cheese is important - Tre Stella whole milk is very good. Lots of this.
Flour - sprinkled on plate for coating.
Breadcrumbs - sprinkled on plate for coating.
Eggs - beaten in a bowl for dipping to coat. Add a little milk to thin.
Salt - mixed in with flour - to taste. Be generous.
________________________
MY BASIC RED SAUCE:
Use crushed canned tomatoes (two large cans), a generous addition of dry red wine, a couple of anchovies or equivalent anchovy paste, a small can of tomato paste, a finely chopped onion, a sprinkling of Basil, a small sprinkling of red chilies (only enough to hint - sauce is not to be hot), and a couple of tablespoons of sugar (I leave this out these days, but it is good for Eggplant Parmesan). A splash of olive oil in the pan. Bring to boil and simmer over low heat, covered, for maybe an hour.
Many variations are possible - certainly I often use a bit of chopped garlic - but this is a pretty satisfying general purpose sauce. You may substitute a can (or even both) of crushed tomatoes with diced, giving the sauce texture for some pastas. Of course, you can add a lot more chili flakes to make it hot which suits penne rigate. This is nice too with bits of sauteed spicy sausage.
Some always lightly saute onions and garlic first, but that isn't essential except in sauces which you simmer for only minutes, which is not the case here using wine. In simmering a longer time the ingredients literally will melt together.
One of my favorite versions is a Putanesca for spaghetti. Add some Kalamata olives and capers and substitute Oregano for Basil. You can throw various other ingredients into a Puttanesca sauce, as bits of sauteed sausage. A bit of diced green pepper is nice, but not for Eggplant Parmesan.
Best sauce to use for Eggplant Parmesan is the simple, somewhat sweet, basic.
________________________
Dip each slice of eggplant slice lightly in flour (salted), then in egg, then in breadcrumbs. The slices are then nicely fried till golden and put aside to cool (By the way, these themselves make a delicious snack or side dish).
Oil a large rectangular pyrex casserole-type oven pan.
Dribble a little sauce on bottom of pan. Place cool eggplant (fried) slices over bottom. Dribble sauce over. Sprinkle each type of cheese over (be generous), but suit your taste preferences on proportions. Do another layer, etc., until ingredients used up. Finish top with sauce and then cheese.
Bake in a not-very-high oven (250-300) with aluminum foil on top. Let this go awhile. Check in an hour. You want sauce to slowly thicken a bit and of course cheese to melt and bubble through. You have to judge. You'll need at least an hour of this slow cooking. Finish off in higher oven (say 350) with no cover (note if things got a little too dry, add a touch of sauce first.). Watch this carefully so it doesn't dry up too much.
The key to this cooking technique is to obtain a result of a thickened slush of sauce with savory cooked cheese baked in - this is my preference anyway.
Simpler: You could also just bake the whole thing, once assembled, in a regular fashion. Maybe about 350, uncovered, for not long, say 20 minutes. This will not be as nice. Again watch that it doesn't dry out.
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: GOLDEN PUMPKIN RAISIN MUFFINS
CHUCKMAN'S GOLDEN PUMPKIN RAISIN MUFFINS
2 Cups All-purpose flour
2 Tsp Baking powder
1 Tsp Baking soda
1 Tsp Cinnamon
1 Tsp Nutmeg
1/2 Tsp Salt
3/4 Cup Brown sugar - packed
1 Egg - large
1/3 Cup Canola oil
2/3 Cup Buttermilk
11/2 Cup Pumpkin - canned
3/4 Cup Raisins
Zest from one large orange (Optional but recommended)
Juice from one large orange (Optional but recommended)
In one large bowl, combine and mix all dry ingredients. In separate bowl, whisk egg and other liquid ingredients plus raisins.
Combine and spoon into twelve baking cups.
Bake in preheated oven at 400° F for 22 to 28 minutes.
____________________________________________
Also good with currents, a small batch of cranberries, and walnuts.
2 Cups All-purpose flour
2 Tsp Baking powder
1 Tsp Baking soda
1 Tsp Cinnamon
1 Tsp Nutmeg
1/2 Tsp Salt
3/4 Cup Brown sugar - packed
1 Egg - large
1/3 Cup Canola oil
2/3 Cup Buttermilk
11/2 Cup Pumpkin - canned
3/4 Cup Raisins
Zest from one large orange (Optional but recommended)
Juice from one large orange (Optional but recommended)
In one large bowl, combine and mix all dry ingredients. In separate bowl, whisk egg and other liquid ingredients plus raisins.
Combine and spoon into twelve baking cups.
Bake in preheated oven at 400° F for 22 to 28 minutes.
____________________________________________
Also good with currents, a small batch of cranberries, and walnuts.
Monday, September 24, 2007
JOHN CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: MOROCCAN LENTIL SOUP
I have been a serious cook for decades, this being one of the reasons I was able to serve as restaurant reviewer for a metropolitan newspaper. When I say "a serious cook," I mean someone who goes beyond using the recipes of others and creates his or her own. From time to time I will post some of mine.
JOHN'S MOROCCAN LENTIL SOUP
A rich thick soup, almost a stew, that smells like the perfumes of Arabia. Much like Asian cooking, the work here is all in the preparation of ingredients, such as chopping. Cooking is simple.
SPICES:
Salt to taste - maybe 1 Teaspoon (if you do not used canned stock which is already salty)
1 Teaspoon freshly-ground Black Pepper
1 Teaspoon ground Tumeric
2 Teaspoons ground Cumin
1/4 Teasoon ground Ginger/ or better, a little grated fresh
1 Teaspoon ground Cinnamon
1 Bay leaf (may be omitted)
Ideally a Pinch of Saffron - so expensive, I often do not use
NOTE:
The above spice mix is characteristic of Morocco - it may be used for roasting vegetables, too. You may increase proportionately if you like even stronger spicing.
VEGETABLES & MEAT:
2 19oz. Cans of Red (or green) Lentils. You start with dried, but there is little advantage once you've prepared and soaked.
4 Cups fresh Chicken Stock/ or 2 condensed cans diluted. If you want a thinner soup, use more. For vegetarian version see NOTE under Meat.
1 Can crushed Roma Tomatoes (buy whole and crush with potato masher).
1 Tablespoon Tomato Paste
About 1 Pound of hunks of lamb/ pork/ or chicken lightly sauteed Use inexpensive cut of lamb. You may have meats in chunks or slices or whole pieces of sauteed chicken.
NOTE: Skip meat and substitute vegetable stock for vegetarian version of soup.
Fresh Cilantro (if available) - Don't cook, chop up & sprinkle on finished soup. Also
good without.
2 Onions - chopped
4 Cloves Garlic - chopped
4 or 5 Stalks of Celery - chopped into thickish slices
1 Red Sweet Pepper - chopped into chucks
Lemon zest from half a lemon
OPTIONS:
1 or 2 Potatoes - diced and put in with vegetables.
1 Lemon - sliced very thin & sauteed lightly for relish on top of soup when served.
Croutons - made of baguette style bread, buttered and baked at 350 until lightly gold.
A Cup or Two of Couscous, cooked separately, and stirred in at finish.
EASY DIRECTIONS:
Put stock and tomatoes and spices including zest in a soup pot to simmer. Sautee onions, garlic, pepper, celery and tip into simmering stock mix.
Sautee meat just until browned very lightly and tip into stock mix. If using whole pieces of chicken, brown each nicely. Simmer the whole thing at least half an hour - I prefer a longer time to blend flavors.
Take a couple of ladles before serving and buzz in blender, returning to soup. Leave most of soup ingredients whole. This step not necessary, but nice for a thicker broth.
Serve with cilantro, thin lemon slices, and/or croutons. Warm pita is an excellent accompaniment.
JOHN'S MOROCCAN LENTIL SOUP
A rich thick soup, almost a stew, that smells like the perfumes of Arabia. Much like Asian cooking, the work here is all in the preparation of ingredients, such as chopping. Cooking is simple.
SPICES:
Salt to taste - maybe 1 Teaspoon (if you do not used canned stock which is already salty)
1 Teaspoon freshly-ground Black Pepper
1 Teaspoon ground Tumeric
2 Teaspoons ground Cumin
1/4 Teasoon ground Ginger/ or better, a little grated fresh
1 Teaspoon ground Cinnamon
1 Bay leaf (may be omitted)
Ideally a Pinch of Saffron - so expensive, I often do not use
NOTE:
The above spice mix is characteristic of Morocco - it may be used for roasting vegetables, too. You may increase proportionately if you like even stronger spicing.
VEGETABLES & MEAT:
2 19oz. Cans of Red (or green) Lentils. You start with dried, but there is little advantage once you've prepared and soaked.
4 Cups fresh Chicken Stock/ or 2 condensed cans diluted. If you want a thinner soup, use more. For vegetarian version see NOTE under Meat.
1 Can crushed Roma Tomatoes (buy whole and crush with potato masher).
1 Tablespoon Tomato Paste
About 1 Pound of hunks of lamb/ pork/ or chicken lightly sauteed Use inexpensive cut of lamb. You may have meats in chunks or slices or whole pieces of sauteed chicken.
NOTE: Skip meat and substitute vegetable stock for vegetarian version of soup.
Fresh Cilantro (if available) - Don't cook, chop up & sprinkle on finished soup. Also
good without.
2 Onions - chopped
4 Cloves Garlic - chopped
4 or 5 Stalks of Celery - chopped into thickish slices
1 Red Sweet Pepper - chopped into chucks
Lemon zest from half a lemon
OPTIONS:
1 or 2 Potatoes - diced and put in with vegetables.
1 Lemon - sliced very thin & sauteed lightly for relish on top of soup when served.
Croutons - made of baguette style bread, buttered and baked at 350 until lightly gold.
A Cup or Two of Couscous, cooked separately, and stirred in at finish.
EASY DIRECTIONS:
Put stock and tomatoes and spices including zest in a soup pot to simmer. Sautee onions, garlic, pepper, celery and tip into simmering stock mix.
Sautee meat just until browned very lightly and tip into stock mix. If using whole pieces of chicken, brown each nicely. Simmer the whole thing at least half an hour - I prefer a longer time to blend flavors.
Take a couple of ladles before serving and buzz in blender, returning to soup. Leave most of soup ingredients whole. This step not necessary, but nice for a thicker broth.
Serve with cilantro, thin lemon slices, and/or croutons. Warm pita is an excellent accompaniment.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: RICHARD WATSON'S LIFE OF RENE DESCARTES
RICHARD WATSON'S LIFE OF RENE DESCARTES BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, January 28, 2005
This is truly a dreadful book.
The author attempts to do something loosely along the lines of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," a fascinating, though dated, book that combines Morison's knowledge of the sea and sailing with a biography of Columbus. The author of "Cogito Ergo Sum," however, fails entirely.
In Wilson's effort - a very thin volume for a book purporting to be a biography of a major intellectual figure - we read almost as much about Wilson and his wife touring locations in Europe as we do about Descartes. The result is something a little like a poorly written script for one of those old corny school film strips.
Wilson never comes to grips with what makes Descartes great, and the vocabulary he uses - when he isn't saying things like "Gee!" or "Awesome!" - is that tiresome, annoying one typical of American social science academics of the second or third order.
The book actually contains errors regarding the period that even an amateur can spot.
This book is recommended only to be avoided.
This is truly a dreadful book.
The author attempts to do something loosely along the lines of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," a fascinating, though dated, book that combines Morison's knowledge of the sea and sailing with a biography of Columbus. The author of "Cogito Ergo Sum," however, fails entirely.
In Wilson's effort - a very thin volume for a book purporting to be a biography of a major intellectual figure - we read almost as much about Wilson and his wife touring locations in Europe as we do about Descartes. The result is something a little like a poorly written script for one of those old corny school film strips.
Wilson never comes to grips with what makes Descartes great, and the vocabulary he uses - when he isn't saying things like "Gee!" or "Awesome!" - is that tiresome, annoying one typical of American social science academics of the second or third order.
The book actually contains errors regarding the period that even an amateur can spot.
This book is recommended only to be avoided.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: W. JACKSON BATE'S SAMUEL JOHNSON
REVIEW OF W. JACKSON BATE'S SAMUEL JOHNSON BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 23, 2005
Samuel Johnson was a brilliant critic, perhaps the greatest English writer after Shakespeare, a fascinating eccentric, and a genuinely heroic man. The great merit of Mr. Bate's biography is that he succeeds in the magical illusion of bringing Johnson alive again, giving us a vivid sense of what it might have been like to know him.
The highest praise for this book is the regret you will feel when the pages end and Johnson's great figure bows out. The biography is that rare item, a genuinely inspiring book.
Samuel Johnson was a brilliant critic, perhaps the greatest English writer after Shakespeare, a fascinating eccentric, and a genuinely heroic man. The great merit of Mr. Bate's biography is that he succeeds in the magical illusion of bringing Johnson alive again, giving us a vivid sense of what it might have been like to know him.
The highest praise for this book is the regret you will feel when the pages end and Johnson's great figure bows out. The biography is that rare item, a genuinely inspiring book.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: JANET WALLACH'S DESERT QUEEN
REVIEW OF JANET WALLACH'S DESERT QUEEN BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 23, 2005
This book should be required reading for all students of affairs in the Middle East, as well as for students of the great pageant of the British Empire. Here is the story of the remarkable woman who helped create modern Iraq.
Gertrude Bell was brilliant, gifted in languages, and ferociously brave. Ms. Bell travelled across deserts, climbed mountains, made contributions to archeology, served as an important intelligence source and an unusual diplomat, smoked in public, and sat as an equal with many fierce desert chieftains.
Her understanding of the Arabic people was sounder in many ways than the mystical nonsense of Lawrence of Arabia, a much better known figure.
I cannot call this a great book, for Janet Wallach is less than a great writer, but this is a good book on an important and neglected subject. Wallach brings us many interesting details of Gertrude Bell's extraordinary life.
This book should be required reading for all students of affairs in the Middle East, as well as for students of the great pageant of the British Empire. Here is the story of the remarkable woman who helped create modern Iraq.
Gertrude Bell was brilliant, gifted in languages, and ferociously brave. Ms. Bell travelled across deserts, climbed mountains, made contributions to archeology, served as an important intelligence source and an unusual diplomat, smoked in public, and sat as an equal with many fierce desert chieftains.
Her understanding of the Arabic people was sounder in many ways than the mystical nonsense of Lawrence of Arabia, a much better known figure.
I cannot call this a great book, for Janet Wallach is less than a great writer, but this is a good book on an important and neglected subject. Wallach brings us many interesting details of Gertrude Bell's extraordinary life.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: WILLIAM HERNDON'S LINCOLN
REVIEW OF WILLIAM H. HERNDON'S LINCOLN BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 24, 2005
With a certain group of American historians, largely those concerned with preserving images of America's founders and luminaries as saintly figures in white plaster togas, this book remains controversial.
In fact, it is perhaps the greatest biography of an American historical figure ever written. It is recommended highly to all lovers of good biography. It is indispensible to serious students of American history.
The official defenders of America's Civic Religion dislike this book because it captures some raw and awkward aspects of Lincoln, but Lincoln was rather raw and awkward and self-taught. It is the rise of such a man to such heights, plus his great natural eloquence, that make Lincoln remarkable.
Such historians love to cite this or that relatively insignificant error (in a 500-page book replete with details) to discredit Herndon, but Herndon's own detail and sense of honesty make him the best argument against such foolishness.
No one was better qualified than Herndon to record the life of Lincoln, having been his friend and business partner for many years. Herndon also conscientiously compiled a large archive of letters and memorials after Lincoln's death.
Herndon focuses on the personal Lincoln, and it is especially his observations about Lincoln's religious skepticism and family life that so disturb those who would have Lincoln embalmed like Lenin. Herndon gives us a vivid Lincoln, and if you like good biography, you will be impressed. The book was clearly a labor of love, and that fact still comes through more than a century after it was written.
With a certain group of American historians, largely those concerned with preserving images of America's founders and luminaries as saintly figures in white plaster togas, this book remains controversial.
In fact, it is perhaps the greatest biography of an American historical figure ever written. It is recommended highly to all lovers of good biography. It is indispensible to serious students of American history.
The official defenders of America's Civic Religion dislike this book because it captures some raw and awkward aspects of Lincoln, but Lincoln was rather raw and awkward and self-taught. It is the rise of such a man to such heights, plus his great natural eloquence, that make Lincoln remarkable.
Such historians love to cite this or that relatively insignificant error (in a 500-page book replete with details) to discredit Herndon, but Herndon's own detail and sense of honesty make him the best argument against such foolishness.
No one was better qualified than Herndon to record the life of Lincoln, having been his friend and business partner for many years. Herndon also conscientiously compiled a large archive of letters and memorials after Lincoln's death.
Herndon focuses on the personal Lincoln, and it is especially his observations about Lincoln's religious skepticism and family life that so disturb those who would have Lincoln embalmed like Lenin. Herndon gives us a vivid Lincoln, and if you like good biography, you will be impressed. The book was clearly a labor of love, and that fact still comes through more than a century after it was written.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: GERALD POSNER'S CASE CLOSED
REVIEW OF GERALD POSNER'S CASE CLOSED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 25, 2005
There has been an industry in Kennedy assassination books, with nearly half of them ridiculous and nearly another half having no integrity. In my judgment, Mr. Posner's book belongs to the latter category.
Posner's book not only contains errors, it brings nothing fresh to the controversy. Posner simply re-interpreted parts of the body of old evidence according to his inclination, and he is an awkward writer. But it is the body of evidence itself which is in question, or at least many important parts of it.
Anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination couldn't help noticing this lamentable book being widely reviewed and praised in the mainline press. You must ask yourself, why would that be, when other very able books went largely ignored?
The Warren Commission was only a prosecutor's brief, and a fairly poor one at that. Indeed, the Commission itself investigated almost nothing, relying entirely on Hoover's FBI for investigative work.
Shortly before the Warren Report was released, Bertrand Russell issued sixteen questions about the assassination. Having seen an advance copy, he knew the Report would answer none of them.
To this day, there is no answer to his questions, and most especially this one: "If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?"
In the case put forward by the Warren Commission, and echoed by writers like Posner, the assassination boils down to an ordinary murder which should be a matter of no secrecy.
Russell's question echoes again and again down the decades as adjustments are made to the official story. Employing techniques one expects to be used for covering up long-term intelligence interests, various points raised by early independent researchers like Joachim Joesten have been conceded here or there along the way without altering the central finding. This is an effective method: concede details and appear open to new facts while always forcefully returning to the main point.
A significant writer along these lines is Edward Jay Epstein, an author whose other writing suggests intelligence connections. His first book on the assassination, "Inquest," conceded numerous flaws in the Warren Report. Epstein went on in subsequent books, "Counterplot" and "Legend" to attack at length - and for the critical reader, quite unconvincingly - ideas of conspiracy, Oswald's intelligence connections, and his innocence.
Posner's book is nothing more than a continuation along the same line of effort.
If you only ever read one book on the Kennedy assassination, it should not be Posner's. That book should be "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers(5 STARS) with absolutely first-class investigative journalism and a clear and compelling narrative.
"Conspiracy," now aging in some aspects, was startling when published, not startling because of extreme claims, but startling for its skilled marshaling of a huge body of facts. It is done so well, you will not be able to put it down.
And if you still insist on reading Posner, you really owe it to yourself also to read Summers.
There has been an industry in Kennedy assassination books, with nearly half of them ridiculous and nearly another half having no integrity. In my judgment, Mr. Posner's book belongs to the latter category.
Posner's book not only contains errors, it brings nothing fresh to the controversy. Posner simply re-interpreted parts of the body of old evidence according to his inclination, and he is an awkward writer. But it is the body of evidence itself which is in question, or at least many important parts of it.
Anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination couldn't help noticing this lamentable book being widely reviewed and praised in the mainline press. You must ask yourself, why would that be, when other very able books went largely ignored?
The Warren Commission was only a prosecutor's brief, and a fairly poor one at that. Indeed, the Commission itself investigated almost nothing, relying entirely on Hoover's FBI for investigative work.
Shortly before the Warren Report was released, Bertrand Russell issued sixteen questions about the assassination. Having seen an advance copy, he knew the Report would answer none of them.
To this day, there is no answer to his questions, and most especially this one: "If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?"
In the case put forward by the Warren Commission, and echoed by writers like Posner, the assassination boils down to an ordinary murder which should be a matter of no secrecy.
Russell's question echoes again and again down the decades as adjustments are made to the official story. Employing techniques one expects to be used for covering up long-term intelligence interests, various points raised by early independent researchers like Joachim Joesten have been conceded here or there along the way without altering the central finding. This is an effective method: concede details and appear open to new facts while always forcefully returning to the main point.
A significant writer along these lines is Edward Jay Epstein, an author whose other writing suggests intelligence connections. His first book on the assassination, "Inquest," conceded numerous flaws in the Warren Report. Epstein went on in subsequent books, "Counterplot" and "Legend" to attack at length - and for the critical reader, quite unconvincingly - ideas of conspiracy, Oswald's intelligence connections, and his innocence.
Posner's book is nothing more than a continuation along the same line of effort.
If you only ever read one book on the Kennedy assassination, it should not be Posner's. That book should be "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers(5 STARS) with absolutely first-class investigative journalism and a clear and compelling narrative.
"Conspiracy," now aging in some aspects, was startling when published, not startling because of extreme claims, but startling for its skilled marshaling of a huge body of facts. It is done so well, you will not be able to put it down.
And if you still insist on reading Posner, you really owe it to yourself also to read Summers.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: CONOR O'BRIEN'S THE LONG AFFAIR
REVIEW OF CONOR O'BRIEN'S THE LONG AFFAIR BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 25, 2005
This is, quite simply, one of the most important books ever written about Jefferson. It redresses the terrible imbalance created by American historians who think of the Founding Fathers as the Twelve Apostles re-incarnated. Critics of the book should understand that O'Brien is a world-class scholar.
When O'Brien published "The Long Affair," about Thomas Jefferson and his peculiar admiration for the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, the Sage for Archer Daniels Midland (aka George Will) went into a word-strewn fit over the book. I think Will's excesses speak to the quality of most criticism of the book.
Perhaps, the single thing about the book that most upset George was O'Brien's comparison of a statement of Jefferson's to something Pol Pot might have said. Jefferson wrote in 1793, at the height of the Terror, "...but rather than it [the French Revolution] should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is." George wrote off Jefferson's brutal statement as "epistolary extravagance," and attacked O'Brien for using slim evidence for an extreme conclusion about an American "hero."
George went so far as favorably to compare the work of Ken Burns with that of O'Brien, calling Burns "an irrigator of our capacity for political admiration," as compared to one who "panders" to "leave our national memory parched."
I mean no disparagement of Ken Burns, but he produces the television equivalent of coffee-table books. O'Brien is a scholar, the author of many serious books. The very comparison, even without the odd language, tells us something about George.
But language, too, is important. The irony is that George's own words, "irrigator of our capacity for political admiration," sound frighteningly like what we'd expect to hear from the Ministry of Culture in some ghastly place (dare I write it?) such as Pol Pot's Cambodia.
But George should have known better. This letter of Jefferson's is utterly characteristic of views he expressed many different ways. Jefferson quite blithely wrote that America's Constitution would not be adequate to defend what he called liberty, that there would have to be a new revolution every 15 or 20 years, and that the tree of liberty needed to be nourished regularly with a fresh supply of patriot blood.
Jefferson's well-known sentimental view of the merits of sturdy yeomen farmers as citizens of a republic and his intense dislike for industry and urbanization bear an uncanny resemblance to Pol Pot's beliefs. Throwing people out of cities to become honorable peasants back on the land, even those who never saw a farm, was precisely how Pol Pot managed to kill at least a million people in Cambodia.
What is it about many of those on the right relishing the deaths of others in the name of ideology? You see, much like the "chickenhawks" now running Washington, sending others off to die, Jefferson never lifted a musket during the Revolution. While serving as governor of Virginia, he set a pathetic example of supporting the war's desperate material needs. He also gave us a comic-opera episode of dropping everything and running feverishly away from approaching British troops in Virginia (there was an official inquiry over the episode). Jefferson turned down his first diplomatic appointment to Europe by the new government out of fear of being captured by British warships, a fear that influenced neither Benjamin Franklin nor John Adams.
But real heroes aren't always, or even usually, soldiers. Jefferson, despite a long and successful career and a legacy of fine words (expressing thoughts largely cribbed from European writers), cannot be credited with any significant personal sacrifice over matters of principle during his life. He wouldn't give up luxury despite his words about slavery. He never risked a serious clash with the Virginia Establishment over slave laws during his rise in state politics. And in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, he lamely and at length blamed the king of England for the slave trade, yet, when he wrote the words, it was actually in his interest to slow the trade and protect the value of his existing human holdings.
Unlike Mr. Lincoln later, who had none of his advantages of education and good social contacts, Jefferson did not do well as a lawyer. He never earned enough to pay his own way, his thirst for luxury far outstripping even the capacity of his many high government positions and large number of slaves to generate wealth. Again, unlike Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson was not especially conscientious about owing people money, and he frequently continued buying luxuries like silver buckles and fine carriages while he still owed substantial sums.
Jefferson spent most of his productive years in government service, yet he never stopped railing against the evils of government. There's more than a passing resemblance here to the empty slogans of government-service lifers like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich who enjoy their government pensions and benefits even as they still complain about government. Jefferson's most famous quote praises the least possible government, yet, as President, he brought a virtual reign of terror to New England with his attempts to enforce an embargo against England (the "Anglomen" as this very prejudiced man typically called the English).
Jefferson, besides having some truly ridiculous beliefs, like those about the evils of central banks or the health efficacy of soaking your feet in ice water every morning, definitely had a very dark side. Any of his political opponents would readily have testified to this. Jefferson was the American Machiavelli.
It was this side of him that put Philip Freneau on the federal payroll in order to subsidize the man's libelous newspaper attacks on Washington's government - this while Jefferson served in that very government. At another point, Jefferson hired James Callender to dig up and write filth about political opponents, an effort which backfired when Callender turned on Jefferson for not fulfilling promises. Callender famously dug out and publicized the story about Sally Hemings, Jefferson's slave-mistress, his late wife's illegitimate half-sister (slavery made for some amazing family relationships), a story we now know almost certainly to be true (by the way, dates point to Sally's beginning to serve Jefferson in this capacity at 13 or 14 years old). It was this dark side of Jefferson that resulted in a ruthless, years-long vendetta against Aaron Burr for the sin of appearing to challenge Jefferson's election to the presidency.
Jefferson expressed himself in embarrassingly clear terms about his belief in black inferiority. And it is important to note that in doing so, he violated one of his basic principles of remaining skeptical and not accepting what was not proved, so this, clearly, was something he believed deeply. There is also reliable evidence that on one occasion he was observed by a visitor beating a slave, quite contradicting Jefferson's public-relations pretensions to saintly paternalism.
When Napoleon sent an army attempting to subdue the slaves who had revolted and formed a republic on what is now Haiti, President Jefferson gave his full consent and support to the bloody (and unsuccessful) effort.
Hero? I have no idea how George Will defines the word, but by any meaningful standard, Jefferson utterly fails.
Read the book, and decide for yourself.
This is, quite simply, one of the most important books ever written about Jefferson. It redresses the terrible imbalance created by American historians who think of the Founding Fathers as the Twelve Apostles re-incarnated. Critics of the book should understand that O'Brien is a world-class scholar.
When O'Brien published "The Long Affair," about Thomas Jefferson and his peculiar admiration for the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, the Sage for Archer Daniels Midland (aka George Will) went into a word-strewn fit over the book. I think Will's excesses speak to the quality of most criticism of the book.
Perhaps, the single thing about the book that most upset George was O'Brien's comparison of a statement of Jefferson's to something Pol Pot might have said. Jefferson wrote in 1793, at the height of the Terror, "...but rather than it [the French Revolution] should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is." George wrote off Jefferson's brutal statement as "epistolary extravagance," and attacked O'Brien for using slim evidence for an extreme conclusion about an American "hero."
George went so far as favorably to compare the work of Ken Burns with that of O'Brien, calling Burns "an irrigator of our capacity for political admiration," as compared to one who "panders" to "leave our national memory parched."
I mean no disparagement of Ken Burns, but he produces the television equivalent of coffee-table books. O'Brien is a scholar, the author of many serious books. The very comparison, even without the odd language, tells us something about George.
But language, too, is important. The irony is that George's own words, "irrigator of our capacity for political admiration," sound frighteningly like what we'd expect to hear from the Ministry of Culture in some ghastly place (dare I write it?) such as Pol Pot's Cambodia.
But George should have known better. This letter of Jefferson's is utterly characteristic of views he expressed many different ways. Jefferson quite blithely wrote that America's Constitution would not be adequate to defend what he called liberty, that there would have to be a new revolution every 15 or 20 years, and that the tree of liberty needed to be nourished regularly with a fresh supply of patriot blood.
Jefferson's well-known sentimental view of the merits of sturdy yeomen farmers as citizens of a republic and his intense dislike for industry and urbanization bear an uncanny resemblance to Pol Pot's beliefs. Throwing people out of cities to become honorable peasants back on the land, even those who never saw a farm, was precisely how Pol Pot managed to kill at least a million people in Cambodia.
What is it about many of those on the right relishing the deaths of others in the name of ideology? You see, much like the "chickenhawks" now running Washington, sending others off to die, Jefferson never lifted a musket during the Revolution. While serving as governor of Virginia, he set a pathetic example of supporting the war's desperate material needs. He also gave us a comic-opera episode of dropping everything and running feverishly away from approaching British troops in Virginia (there was an official inquiry over the episode). Jefferson turned down his first diplomatic appointment to Europe by the new government out of fear of being captured by British warships, a fear that influenced neither Benjamin Franklin nor John Adams.
But real heroes aren't always, or even usually, soldiers. Jefferson, despite a long and successful career and a legacy of fine words (expressing thoughts largely cribbed from European writers), cannot be credited with any significant personal sacrifice over matters of principle during his life. He wouldn't give up luxury despite his words about slavery. He never risked a serious clash with the Virginia Establishment over slave laws during his rise in state politics. And in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, he lamely and at length blamed the king of England for the slave trade, yet, when he wrote the words, it was actually in his interest to slow the trade and protect the value of his existing human holdings.
Unlike Mr. Lincoln later, who had none of his advantages of education and good social contacts, Jefferson did not do well as a lawyer. He never earned enough to pay his own way, his thirst for luxury far outstripping even the capacity of his many high government positions and large number of slaves to generate wealth. Again, unlike Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson was not especially conscientious about owing people money, and he frequently continued buying luxuries like silver buckles and fine carriages while he still owed substantial sums.
Jefferson spent most of his productive years in government service, yet he never stopped railing against the evils of government. There's more than a passing resemblance here to the empty slogans of government-service lifers like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich who enjoy their government pensions and benefits even as they still complain about government. Jefferson's most famous quote praises the least possible government, yet, as President, he brought a virtual reign of terror to New England with his attempts to enforce an embargo against England (the "Anglomen" as this very prejudiced man typically called the English).
Jefferson, besides having some truly ridiculous beliefs, like those about the evils of central banks or the health efficacy of soaking your feet in ice water every morning, definitely had a very dark side. Any of his political opponents would readily have testified to this. Jefferson was the American Machiavelli.
It was this side of him that put Philip Freneau on the federal payroll in order to subsidize the man's libelous newspaper attacks on Washington's government - this while Jefferson served in that very government. At another point, Jefferson hired James Callender to dig up and write filth about political opponents, an effort which backfired when Callender turned on Jefferson for not fulfilling promises. Callender famously dug out and publicized the story about Sally Hemings, Jefferson's slave-mistress, his late wife's illegitimate half-sister (slavery made for some amazing family relationships), a story we now know almost certainly to be true (by the way, dates point to Sally's beginning to serve Jefferson in this capacity at 13 or 14 years old). It was this dark side of Jefferson that resulted in a ruthless, years-long vendetta against Aaron Burr for the sin of appearing to challenge Jefferson's election to the presidency.
Jefferson expressed himself in embarrassingly clear terms about his belief in black inferiority. And it is important to note that in doing so, he violated one of his basic principles of remaining skeptical and not accepting what was not proved, so this, clearly, was something he believed deeply. There is also reliable evidence that on one occasion he was observed by a visitor beating a slave, quite contradicting Jefferson's public-relations pretensions to saintly paternalism.
When Napoleon sent an army attempting to subdue the slaves who had revolted and formed a republic on what is now Haiti, President Jefferson gave his full consent and support to the bloody (and unsuccessful) effort.
Hero? I have no idea how George Will defines the word, but by any meaningful standard, Jefferson utterly fails.
Read the book, and decide for yourself.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: PETER ACKROYD'S DICKENS
REVIEW OF PETER ACKROYD'S DICKENS BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 28, 2005
There are some oddities in the style of Mr. Ackroyd, and his book contains some, what might be called, experimental chapters, fantasies or dreams or prose poems on subjects the author associates with Dickens. Ordinarily, I would find these things a bit off-putting.
But Mr. Ackroyd succeeds in giving us an overwhelmingly animated and penetrating portrait of the great Victorian author. This huge book - and no smaller effort could capture Dickens' spirit - crackles with energy, the very kind of driving energy so characteristic of Dickens himself.
Dickens was a strange man with immense drives and desires going off in many directions and personal habits that might well at times be regarded as unbalanced. He was not the sentimental, storytelling Victorian father figure he is sometimes regarded, although he could be quite sentimental about family and friends and his storytelling ability had few equals.
He behaved at times as a petty tyrant and was highly opinionated, always a man of immense curiosity, a traveler, a political activist, a generous man, a workaholic, a man eager for every possible shred of success and acclaim, a talented actor and mimic, a man seemingly possessed at times, as when carrying on conversations with himself, imitating his own characters in a mirror or going for walks as long as twenty miles alone or living with the ghosts of his fractured childhood.
A whirlwind of experience and desires helped make this naturally talented man such a great novelist. There are similarities to the titanic storm that was Beethoven. In both cases, the young man in his first blush of success could be truly charming while the aging figure could be quite unsettling.
The book contains many interesting anecdotes and details of Dickens' England, as well as Dickens' America since he made two journeys to America, a place he both hated and was fascinated by.
Highly recommended to all lovers of good biography, all students of English literature, and all students of English history.
There are some oddities in the style of Mr. Ackroyd, and his book contains some, what might be called, experimental chapters, fantasies or dreams or prose poems on subjects the author associates with Dickens. Ordinarily, I would find these things a bit off-putting.
But Mr. Ackroyd succeeds in giving us an overwhelmingly animated and penetrating portrait of the great Victorian author. This huge book - and no smaller effort could capture Dickens' spirit - crackles with energy, the very kind of driving energy so characteristic of Dickens himself.
Dickens was a strange man with immense drives and desires going off in many directions and personal habits that might well at times be regarded as unbalanced. He was not the sentimental, storytelling Victorian father figure he is sometimes regarded, although he could be quite sentimental about family and friends and his storytelling ability had few equals.
He behaved at times as a petty tyrant and was highly opinionated, always a man of immense curiosity, a traveler, a political activist, a generous man, a workaholic, a man eager for every possible shred of success and acclaim, a talented actor and mimic, a man seemingly possessed at times, as when carrying on conversations with himself, imitating his own characters in a mirror or going for walks as long as twenty miles alone or living with the ghosts of his fractured childhood.
A whirlwind of experience and desires helped make this naturally talented man such a great novelist. There are similarities to the titanic storm that was Beethoven. In both cases, the young man in his first blush of success could be truly charming while the aging figure could be quite unsettling.
The book contains many interesting anecdotes and details of Dickens' England, as well as Dickens' America since he made two journeys to America, a place he both hated and was fascinated by.
Highly recommended to all lovers of good biography, all students of English literature, and all students of English history.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: AVI SHLAIM'S THE IRON WALL
REVIEW OF AVI SHLAIM'S THE IRON WALL BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 2, 2005
Let me start by advising that this is a dry book to read, so it is not for the average reader of narrative history. But its meticulous scholarship makes it an indispensable book about affairs in the Middle East.
People sometimes use the phrase "meticulous scholarship" to send up a warning flag that you had better not argue with what follows. But that is not so here. This book represents genuine scholarship, serving neither the purpose of public relations for Israel nor an attack upon it.
After offering some background on the origins of Zionism, Mr. Shlaim's theme is a review of the first half-century of Israeli policy. The title, an expression coined by an early Zionist, aptly sums up the thrust of that policy.
The author goes where scholarship leads, and he does not flinch from including less-than-heroic episodes that many contemporary books and news sources ignore.
Of course, in some matters of extreme sensitivity, there are still no adequate official documents available to scholars. In such cases, Mr. Schlaim tells us what he knows and goes no farther, leaving us with full confidence in his integrity.
I do not see how anyone can consider him- or herself well-informed on the Middle East without having read this book. It truly is that important.
Let me start by advising that this is a dry book to read, so it is not for the average reader of narrative history. But its meticulous scholarship makes it an indispensable book about affairs in the Middle East.
People sometimes use the phrase "meticulous scholarship" to send up a warning flag that you had better not argue with what follows. But that is not so here. This book represents genuine scholarship, serving neither the purpose of public relations for Israel nor an attack upon it.
After offering some background on the origins of Zionism, Mr. Shlaim's theme is a review of the first half-century of Israeli policy. The title, an expression coined by an early Zionist, aptly sums up the thrust of that policy.
The author goes where scholarship leads, and he does not flinch from including less-than-heroic episodes that many contemporary books and news sources ignore.
Of course, in some matters of extreme sensitivity, there are still no adequate official documents available to scholars. In such cases, Mr. Schlaim tells us what he knows and goes no farther, leaving us with full confidence in his integrity.
I do not see how anyone can consider him- or herself well-informed on the Middle East without having read this book. It truly is that important.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: RICHARD RUSSO'S STRAIGHT MAN
RICHARD RUSSO'S STRAIGHT MAN BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 4, 2005
This has to be one of the funniest books ever written.
Russo brilliantly sends up the pretensions and foibles of the staff and administration of the English Department at a small Pennsylvania university. It's one of those truly dismal, mediocre places, rarely mentioned in the same breath as America's world-class institutions, but which abound across the country.
About the first third of this book is almost non-stop laughter. The pace slows for a while, but picks up again. Near the end Russo gives us one of the funniest scenes ever written. I wouldn't want to reveal any of it to spoil your enjoyment.
The book is a departure for Russo, most of whose novels are reworkings of another theme, his childhood relationship with his very unusual father. Russo's effort along these lines reached its highest achievement in the modern masterpiece, "Nobody's Fool."
This has to be one of the funniest books ever written.
Russo brilliantly sends up the pretensions and foibles of the staff and administration of the English Department at a small Pennsylvania university. It's one of those truly dismal, mediocre places, rarely mentioned in the same breath as America's world-class institutions, but which abound across the country.
About the first third of this book is almost non-stop laughter. The pace slows for a while, but picks up again. Near the end Russo gives us one of the funniest scenes ever written. I wouldn't want to reveal any of it to spoil your enjoyment.
The book is a departure for Russo, most of whose novels are reworkings of another theme, his childhood relationship with his very unusual father. Russo's effort along these lines reached its highest achievement in the modern masterpiece, "Nobody's Fool."
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: THOMAS FRIEDMAN'S LEXUS AND OLIVE TREE
THOMAS FRIEDMAN'S LEXAS AND OLIVE TREE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 11, 2005
It is stunning how little Thomas Friedman understands about globalization, but that didn't stop him from writing a book about it.
Friedman's tone reminds me of the bluff guy who sweeps up to you in a bar, slaps you on the back and starts pouring out the fast-paced patter of a top-producing aluminum-siding salesman. Friedman's goal in every paragraph is to close a sale and unload as much product on you at as high a price as possible.
Most of what we call growth and science goes back only about 500 years to the Renaissance. Before that for centuries people stayed in the same little village, spoke the same words, went to the same church, and in general knew nothing their fathers and mothers didn't know. All great events like the "Enclosures" in England or the "Industrial Revolution" were steps in the same relentless march forward.
Globalization is just the latest manifestation of a now-constant flow of changing technology inducing permanent, long-term economic change. It promises to be a very troubling and unsettled period as local customs, habits, laws, and even languages come under great stress of huge and rapid changes. It is not unrealistic to anticipate revolutions, civil wars, and great human migrations coming out of these changes over the next century or so, just as industrialization or enclosures generated many social and political disturbances.
Ironically enough, America itself, despite its status as world economic power, faces huge problems adjusting to these sweeping, inevitable changes in the world. Ordinary Americans are going to have to make big adjustments in their expectations (the so-called American dream), and there is going to be huge pressure to participate in new and expanding international institutions required to regulate these massive changes.
The modern nation state evolved directly out of these forces, but as the process goes on, the nation state itself will feel heavy forces of erosion. All of this, of course, is in directions opposite to America's present course.
But don't look for a clear explanation of any of this from Friedman. Friedman's sales pitch includes a call to making the world safe for McDonald's, Pepsi, and America Online. The tone is genuinely depressing.
Friedman's gems include belittling Silicon-Valley executives who stress their international identity. Like a stereotype of the ugly American, Friedman bellows, "Oh, yeah? Then, the next time I.B.M. China gets in trouble in China, call Jiang Zemin for help."
Does Friedman truly think high-tech business can be global without concessions to local interests? Think of car plants today. No government allows you to just keep exporting cars. Sooner or later you build a local plant, and you adapt to local conditions. You certainly obey local laws. And you certainly hire mostly local people. America's F-16s, the kinds of things Friedman is so fond of referring to, don't change any of that.
This book represents a kind of catch-22 for Americans. If they embrace Friedman's parochial, beat-the-drum-for-America attitude, they will only be even less prepared for the unavoidable era of dramatic change coming.
It is stunning how little Thomas Friedman understands about globalization, but that didn't stop him from writing a book about it.
Friedman's tone reminds me of the bluff guy who sweeps up to you in a bar, slaps you on the back and starts pouring out the fast-paced patter of a top-producing aluminum-siding salesman. Friedman's goal in every paragraph is to close a sale and unload as much product on you at as high a price as possible.
Most of what we call growth and science goes back only about 500 years to the Renaissance. Before that for centuries people stayed in the same little village, spoke the same words, went to the same church, and in general knew nothing their fathers and mothers didn't know. All great events like the "Enclosures" in England or the "Industrial Revolution" were steps in the same relentless march forward.
Globalization is just the latest manifestation of a now-constant flow of changing technology inducing permanent, long-term economic change. It promises to be a very troubling and unsettled period as local customs, habits, laws, and even languages come under great stress of huge and rapid changes. It is not unrealistic to anticipate revolutions, civil wars, and great human migrations coming out of these changes over the next century or so, just as industrialization or enclosures generated many social and political disturbances.
Ironically enough, America itself, despite its status as world economic power, faces huge problems adjusting to these sweeping, inevitable changes in the world. Ordinary Americans are going to have to make big adjustments in their expectations (the so-called American dream), and there is going to be huge pressure to participate in new and expanding international institutions required to regulate these massive changes.
The modern nation state evolved directly out of these forces, but as the process goes on, the nation state itself will feel heavy forces of erosion. All of this, of course, is in directions opposite to America's present course.
But don't look for a clear explanation of any of this from Friedman. Friedman's sales pitch includes a call to making the world safe for McDonald's, Pepsi, and America Online. The tone is genuinely depressing.
Friedman's gems include belittling Silicon-Valley executives who stress their international identity. Like a stereotype of the ugly American, Friedman bellows, "Oh, yeah? Then, the next time I.B.M. China gets in trouble in China, call Jiang Zemin for help."
Does Friedman truly think high-tech business can be global without concessions to local interests? Think of car plants today. No government allows you to just keep exporting cars. Sooner or later you build a local plant, and you adapt to local conditions. You certainly obey local laws. And you certainly hire mostly local people. America's F-16s, the kinds of things Friedman is so fond of referring to, don't change any of that.
This book represents a kind of catch-22 for Americans. If they embrace Friedman's parochial, beat-the-drum-for-America attitude, they will only be even less prepared for the unavoidable era of dramatic change coming.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: GORDON WOOD'S RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
GORDON WOOD'S RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION , March 11, 2005
Mr. Wood's book tries to put some intellectual and moral sizzle back into an American Revolution that has long come to be regarded by world scholars as something less than an earth-shaking event.
Despite much-labored efforts, Mr. Wood fails, and he is pretty dull along the way in presenting his case. It really could not be otherwise, for his basic thesis is faulty. The Revolution has been summed up, quite accurately I believe, as a group of home-grown aristocrats taking power from a group of foreign-born aristocrats.
America's central myth about its founding goes something like this: An extraordinary bunch of men, dressed in frock coats and wearing powdered wigs, closeted together after a long and heroic war against tyranny, worked unselfishly to give the United States a perfect modern system of government.
These notions manage to get thoroughly muddled with Puritan religious ones that have been around since America's colonial days, producing a story with strong overtones of a biblical legend.
This set of myths and attitudes has been called America's Civic Religion, and it is an apt name. Gordon Woods does not seriously question this fuzzy, half-mythical view.
The first truly important cause for American independence was Britain's victory in the French and Indian War (more generally called the Seven Year's War). The French in the 1750s were setting about constructing a series of forts both along the Canadian border and in places like the Ohio river valley. Their intention was to prevent the westward expansion of the British colonies and to lock up much of the valuable fur trade.
British colonists did not look favorably on this development. Their intense desire was to become rich through land speculation and endless westward expansion, the kind of activity, apart from marrying a rich widow, that made George Washington one of the wealthiest men in the colonies, one with rather a reputation for sharp business practices.
The colonists were used to a rather privileged position that none of them wanted disturbed. They lived a healthy and relatively happy life, as all the statistics and observations of the time attest. Foreign observers frequently commented on how healthy Americans under the Crown were. As well, it was widely observed, and commented on in Europe, that these colonies - well before the Revolution - were amongst the freest places in the world to live.
Britain did win the war, but at considerable cost. The colonies' first reaction to British victory was joy and celebration. It was later that a series of what can only be regarded as reasonable tax measures to have the colonists help pay the costs of the war aroused such great antipathy in the colonies. The view was simply this: The war was over, the benefits to the colonists could not be re-claimed by Britain, so the colonists felt no obligation to help pay beyond what they had contributed during the war. Hatred of taxes - unavoidably associated with crippling good, sound government - has remained to this day a feature of the American cultural landscape.
So, after the French and Indian War, things at first looked favorable for the desires of settlers to build limitless land empires, but then several developments considerably darkened the view.
A key one was the Quebec Act which vastly extended the territory of Quebec to include what today is Illinois as part of a vast Quebec Territory. Most Americans will not know what a huge storm this caused in the colonies because it is not an attractive subject for elementary texts.
First, it appeared to make the possibility of endless western expansion impossible. England, quite fairly and reasonably, wanted to discourage expansion over the Appalachians into Indian territory like the Ohio valley as a way of maintaining peace. The Mother Country had a conscientious policy of avoiding further conflicts with native Americans. This policy American colonists had tended to ignore, but the creation of a new Western jurisdiction under a Catholic province like Quebec, was an entirely different matter.
There was a paranoid fear of "papism" in the colonies, peopled as they were by many Puritan extremists who had run away from the dislike they often aroused in the old country. Anti-Catholic feeling ran very high in the American colonies. Indeed, it was an old custom, and remained the custom for decades after the Revolution, to burn effigies of the pope each year on Britain's Guy Fawkes Day. America's nasty-tempered Puritan settlers wanted nothing to do with "papists." Yes, the very same nasty, hateful words we heard during the Northern Ireland conflict over the last thirty years were constantly on the tongues and in the newspapers of American colonists.
Britain's final reaction to the colonists' refusal to pay taxes, after a long period of adjustments in the taxes and talks with colonial representatives, and to their contempt for Imperial regulations over boundaries and trade - many of the colonies' richest men such as John Hancock were simply smugglers - triggered an authentic "grass-roots" revolt in Massachusetts.
When the unthinkable actually happened in Massachusetts - violent revolt being originally unthinkable for most well-known and established colonial figures like Franklin or Washington or John Adams - there was no going back. The central issue became one of how things were to be managed by the colonies' ambitious little Establishment.
Washington's appointment as commander-in-chief represented an important turning point. What had been an almost spontaneous revolt organized by militia groups who elected their leaders became an organized opposition with an organized army under an appointed commander who suddenly started lashing and hanging volunteers who didn't obey orders or show proper respect. Washington, the cold Virginia aristocrat, expressed contempt in his letters for the New England militiamen who had taken all the chances and started the whole business. He wanted to command a real army with smart uniforms and traditional discipline just like the British army he so admired. He had been frustrated for years about getting a permanent commission in the British army, something that was then rarely awarded to colonials.
The real lessons of the American Revolution include the fact that early Americans were not motivated by quite the high ideals that contemporary Americans generally attribute to them. Anti-Catholicism and greed for Western expansion were basic causes. So, too, antipathy to taxes. Still, given enough time, America outgrew some of these early narrow prejudices.
Many will recall that the Pulitzer Prize for journalism has been awarded to mediocrity and even downright fraud, but this book is the perfect example of how little the Pulitzer Prize for history means as a guide to quality and stimulating work. Perhaps this generalization is true of all prizes, but it has been egregiously so in the case of the Pulitzer.
Mr. Wood's book tries to put some intellectual and moral sizzle back into an American Revolution that has long come to be regarded by world scholars as something less than an earth-shaking event.
Despite much-labored efforts, Mr. Wood fails, and he is pretty dull along the way in presenting his case. It really could not be otherwise, for his basic thesis is faulty. The Revolution has been summed up, quite accurately I believe, as a group of home-grown aristocrats taking power from a group of foreign-born aristocrats.
America's central myth about its founding goes something like this: An extraordinary bunch of men, dressed in frock coats and wearing powdered wigs, closeted together after a long and heroic war against tyranny, worked unselfishly to give the United States a perfect modern system of government.
These notions manage to get thoroughly muddled with Puritan religious ones that have been around since America's colonial days, producing a story with strong overtones of a biblical legend.
This set of myths and attitudes has been called America's Civic Religion, and it is an apt name. Gordon Woods does not seriously question this fuzzy, half-mythical view.
The first truly important cause for American independence was Britain's victory in the French and Indian War (more generally called the Seven Year's War). The French in the 1750s were setting about constructing a series of forts both along the Canadian border and in places like the Ohio river valley. Their intention was to prevent the westward expansion of the British colonies and to lock up much of the valuable fur trade.
British colonists did not look favorably on this development. Their intense desire was to become rich through land speculation and endless westward expansion, the kind of activity, apart from marrying a rich widow, that made George Washington one of the wealthiest men in the colonies, one with rather a reputation for sharp business practices.
The colonists were used to a rather privileged position that none of them wanted disturbed. They lived a healthy and relatively happy life, as all the statistics and observations of the time attest. Foreign observers frequently commented on how healthy Americans under the Crown were. As well, it was widely observed, and commented on in Europe, that these colonies - well before the Revolution - were amongst the freest places in the world to live.
Britain did win the war, but at considerable cost. The colonies' first reaction to British victory was joy and celebration. It was later that a series of what can only be regarded as reasonable tax measures to have the colonists help pay the costs of the war aroused such great antipathy in the colonies. The view was simply this: The war was over, the benefits to the colonists could not be re-claimed by Britain, so the colonists felt no obligation to help pay beyond what they had contributed during the war. Hatred of taxes - unavoidably associated with crippling good, sound government - has remained to this day a feature of the American cultural landscape.
So, after the French and Indian War, things at first looked favorable for the desires of settlers to build limitless land empires, but then several developments considerably darkened the view.
A key one was the Quebec Act which vastly extended the territory of Quebec to include what today is Illinois as part of a vast Quebec Territory. Most Americans will not know what a huge storm this caused in the colonies because it is not an attractive subject for elementary texts.
First, it appeared to make the possibility of endless western expansion impossible. England, quite fairly and reasonably, wanted to discourage expansion over the Appalachians into Indian territory like the Ohio valley as a way of maintaining peace. The Mother Country had a conscientious policy of avoiding further conflicts with native Americans. This policy American colonists had tended to ignore, but the creation of a new Western jurisdiction under a Catholic province like Quebec, was an entirely different matter.
There was a paranoid fear of "papism" in the colonies, peopled as they were by many Puritan extremists who had run away from the dislike they often aroused in the old country. Anti-Catholic feeling ran very high in the American colonies. Indeed, it was an old custom, and remained the custom for decades after the Revolution, to burn effigies of the pope each year on Britain's Guy Fawkes Day. America's nasty-tempered Puritan settlers wanted nothing to do with "papists." Yes, the very same nasty, hateful words we heard during the Northern Ireland conflict over the last thirty years were constantly on the tongues and in the newspapers of American colonists.
Britain's final reaction to the colonists' refusal to pay taxes, after a long period of adjustments in the taxes and talks with colonial representatives, and to their contempt for Imperial regulations over boundaries and trade - many of the colonies' richest men such as John Hancock were simply smugglers - triggered an authentic "grass-roots" revolt in Massachusetts.
When the unthinkable actually happened in Massachusetts - violent revolt being originally unthinkable for most well-known and established colonial figures like Franklin or Washington or John Adams - there was no going back. The central issue became one of how things were to be managed by the colonies' ambitious little Establishment.
Washington's appointment as commander-in-chief represented an important turning point. What had been an almost spontaneous revolt organized by militia groups who elected their leaders became an organized opposition with an organized army under an appointed commander who suddenly started lashing and hanging volunteers who didn't obey orders or show proper respect. Washington, the cold Virginia aristocrat, expressed contempt in his letters for the New England militiamen who had taken all the chances and started the whole business. He wanted to command a real army with smart uniforms and traditional discipline just like the British army he so admired. He had been frustrated for years about getting a permanent commission in the British army, something that was then rarely awarded to colonials.
The real lessons of the American Revolution include the fact that early Americans were not motivated by quite the high ideals that contemporary Americans generally attribute to them. Anti-Catholicism and greed for Western expansion were basic causes. So, too, antipathy to taxes. Still, given enough time, America outgrew some of these early narrow prejudices.
Many will recall that the Pulitzer Prize for journalism has been awarded to mediocrity and even downright fraud, but this book is the perfect example of how little the Pulitzer Prize for history means as a guide to quality and stimulating work. Perhaps this generalization is true of all prizes, but it has been egregiously so in the case of the Pulitzer.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: EDWARD J. EPSTEIN'S ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES
EDWARD J. EPSTEIN ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 1, 2005
The Assassination Chronicles consists of three short books - Inquest, Counterplot, and Legend - written over a period of about a dozen years and combined into one volume.
Inquest established Epstein's bona fides on the Kennedy assassination and is the most readable volume. It is essentially an effort to concede criticisms of early and penetrating critics such as Joachim Joesten while preserving the Warren Commission's central findings intact. It contains pretty much nothing that others had not already said by the time of its publication.
Other writing of Epstein's suggests intelligence connections, and his handling of the issues around the assassination tend very much to serve official interests.
If you are informed on the hard facts of the assassination, Counterplot and Legend are almost unreadable. There is a palpable sense of reading a case against an accused without a word from the defense. These are not investigations in any meaningful sense of the word. Epstein assumes the role of Judge Warren without the judicial robes, dressed instead in the deceivingly casual dress of a supposedly authentic critic.
There is no explanation to this day for the secrecy that still surrounds important parts of the Kennedy assassination, and it is this secrecy that blurs and distorts so much of the key evidence. Were this not so, books like Epstein's would not be published. Except for the concessions made in his first volume, Inquest, Epstein simply does not deal with the case's central issues of missing evidence, weak evidence, and implausible evidence. He stands ready to accuse and judge a man who had no motive, almost no means, and against whom what genuine facts we have would never convince a conscientious jury.
Something terribly significant has been kept from the world for more than forty years since the assassination, and books like The Assassination Chronicles, or Gerald Posner's update, aka Case Closed, are significant efforts along the way to keeping it that way.
One can only speculate on the reasons for all the secrecy, including the possibility that the CIA and FBI never understood who was responsible. Now, there was a state secret worth keeping in a time of Cold War paranoia. And the secrecy concerns are still valid. After all, the CIA and the FBI blew it on the imminent fall of the Soviet Union and on the activities of the 9/11 gang who entered the U.S. with legally-issued visas to take flying lessons.
No one should read this book without also reading Anthony Summers' monumental work of genuine investigation, Conspiracy.
The Assassination Chronicles consists of three short books - Inquest, Counterplot, and Legend - written over a period of about a dozen years and combined into one volume.
Inquest established Epstein's bona fides on the Kennedy assassination and is the most readable volume. It is essentially an effort to concede criticisms of early and penetrating critics such as Joachim Joesten while preserving the Warren Commission's central findings intact. It contains pretty much nothing that others had not already said by the time of its publication.
Other writing of Epstein's suggests intelligence connections, and his handling of the issues around the assassination tend very much to serve official interests.
If you are informed on the hard facts of the assassination, Counterplot and Legend are almost unreadable. There is a palpable sense of reading a case against an accused without a word from the defense. These are not investigations in any meaningful sense of the word. Epstein assumes the role of Judge Warren without the judicial robes, dressed instead in the deceivingly casual dress of a supposedly authentic critic.
There is no explanation to this day for the secrecy that still surrounds important parts of the Kennedy assassination, and it is this secrecy that blurs and distorts so much of the key evidence. Were this not so, books like Epstein's would not be published. Except for the concessions made in his first volume, Inquest, Epstein simply does not deal with the case's central issues of missing evidence, weak evidence, and implausible evidence. He stands ready to accuse and judge a man who had no motive, almost no means, and against whom what genuine facts we have would never convince a conscientious jury.
Something terribly significant has been kept from the world for more than forty years since the assassination, and books like The Assassination Chronicles, or Gerald Posner's update, aka Case Closed, are significant efforts along the way to keeping it that way.
One can only speculate on the reasons for all the secrecy, including the possibility that the CIA and FBI never understood who was responsible. Now, there was a state secret worth keeping in a time of Cold War paranoia. And the secrecy concerns are still valid. After all, the CIA and the FBI blew it on the imminent fall of the Soviet Union and on the activities of the 9/11 gang who entered the U.S. with legally-issued visas to take flying lessons.
No one should read this book without also reading Anthony Summers' monumental work of genuine investigation, Conspiracy.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: IAN KERSHAW'S HITLER (VOLUMES 1 AND 2)
IAN KERSHAW'S HITLER (VOLUMES 1 & 2) BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 6, 2005
This biography (actually two volumes, Hubris and Nemesis) is well worth reading. Kershaw is a sound, if not elegant, writer and tells a story you will want to finish, but the book has significant faults.
Historians still do not know exactly how to reckon with the phenomenon of Hitler. The man was like a gigantic cyclonic storm that suddenly welled up and unleashed death and misery on a colossal scale.
And for that reason he stands as the most influential man of the 20th century, not the greatest or the most gifted, but the most influential.
His existence brought to life such memorable opponents as Churchill, his defeat established forty years of Soviet dominance over much of Europe, and his bestial acts unquestionably led to the founding of modern Israel, setting off great difficulties in the Middle East for decades.
The ironic thing about Kershaw's book is that the author says he does not understand Hitler. Hitler remains a mystery to him, and Kershaw even says that in some ways his book is not a biography of the man but of the era in Germany. This is not satisfying to the reader wishing to understand better.
Kershaw's thesis of Hitler as a an almost compulsive gambler who struck it lucky for a while is weak. Hitler's rise to lead a great nation of Europe and his years of early diplomatic and military victories call for a more insightful explanation than a heavy run of luck. Kershaw gives credit to Hitler as an instinctive propagandist (in advertising terms, a talented marketer), but that is about as far as he goes to explaining this eye of the greatest storm in human history.
Historians, naturally enough, are reluctant to write anything that could be interpreted as admiration, but other historians have managed a better job of dealing with Hitler's talents and personality, notably Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest, and William Shirer.
One new element that Kershaw brings is a focus on Hitler's being responsible for the Holocaust, not that any responsible historian ever has denied it, but naturally enough there is no paper trail. I think Shirer is better on the horrors Hitler inflicted. I also think a more insightful treatment of this kind of psychology is found in Gitta Sereny.
One of the great mysteries of Hitler's psychology is his anti-Semitism. There is just no accounting for its immensity, and Kershaw does little to enlighten us here.
Read this book and the other authors I have mentioned and decide whether you agree with me that the definitive biography of Hitler has yet to be written.
This biography (actually two volumes, Hubris and Nemesis) is well worth reading. Kershaw is a sound, if not elegant, writer and tells a story you will want to finish, but the book has significant faults.
Historians still do not know exactly how to reckon with the phenomenon of Hitler. The man was like a gigantic cyclonic storm that suddenly welled up and unleashed death and misery on a colossal scale.
And for that reason he stands as the most influential man of the 20th century, not the greatest or the most gifted, but the most influential.
His existence brought to life such memorable opponents as Churchill, his defeat established forty years of Soviet dominance over much of Europe, and his bestial acts unquestionably led to the founding of modern Israel, setting off great difficulties in the Middle East for decades.
The ironic thing about Kershaw's book is that the author says he does not understand Hitler. Hitler remains a mystery to him, and Kershaw even says that in some ways his book is not a biography of the man but of the era in Germany. This is not satisfying to the reader wishing to understand better.
Kershaw's thesis of Hitler as a an almost compulsive gambler who struck it lucky for a while is weak. Hitler's rise to lead a great nation of Europe and his years of early diplomatic and military victories call for a more insightful explanation than a heavy run of luck. Kershaw gives credit to Hitler as an instinctive propagandist (in advertising terms, a talented marketer), but that is about as far as he goes to explaining this eye of the greatest storm in human history.
Historians, naturally enough, are reluctant to write anything that could be interpreted as admiration, but other historians have managed a better job of dealing with Hitler's talents and personality, notably Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest, and William Shirer.
One new element that Kershaw brings is a focus on Hitler's being responsible for the Holocaust, not that any responsible historian ever has denied it, but naturally enough there is no paper trail. I think Shirer is better on the horrors Hitler inflicted. I also think a more insightful treatment of this kind of psychology is found in Gitta Sereny.
One of the great mysteries of Hitler's psychology is his anti-Semitism. There is just no accounting for its immensity, and Kershaw does little to enlighten us here.
Read this book and the other authors I have mentioned and decide whether you agree with me that the definitive biography of Hitler has yet to be written.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: PAT BARKER'S REGENERATION TRILOGY
PAT BARKER'S REGENERATION TRILOGY REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 6, 2005
The Regeneration Trilogy is both wonderful and disappointing, an odd combination of characteristics for a set of novels, but then the First World War itself was characterized by heroic exhilaration and utter dispair, by encrusted tradition and unanticipated revolution, by invention and backwardness.
Ms Barker takes us to an institution, a quiet and somewhat remote place, seemingly safe from the savagery of the Western Front, where damaged men are sent in hopes of recovery. She quickly has us involved in several fascinating characters, the full extent of whose experiences she only gradually reveals. Most interestingly, the characters of the men themselves are only gradually revealed, as often to our horror as satisfaction.
After reading the first volume, I could hardly wait for the second. It was the third volume I found disappointing. The disappointment comes through what she does with characters we have become intensely interested in, but I'll not reveal any details and leave it to new readers to see whether they agree.
The characterizations of the first two volumes are wonderful (although I am not a great fan of mixing real people in with fictional characters, the practice does not feature too heavily), and Ms. Barker gives us a remarkable sense of what that terrible war meant, particularly in ordinary lives on the home front.
Ms. Barker's trilogy is highly recommended for those interested in history, students of human psychology, and those who enjoy good writing and a gripping story.
The Regeneration Trilogy is both wonderful and disappointing, an odd combination of characteristics for a set of novels, but then the First World War itself was characterized by heroic exhilaration and utter dispair, by encrusted tradition and unanticipated revolution, by invention and backwardness.
Ms Barker takes us to an institution, a quiet and somewhat remote place, seemingly safe from the savagery of the Western Front, where damaged men are sent in hopes of recovery. She quickly has us involved in several fascinating characters, the full extent of whose experiences she only gradually reveals. Most interestingly, the characters of the men themselves are only gradually revealed, as often to our horror as satisfaction.
After reading the first volume, I could hardly wait for the second. It was the third volume I found disappointing. The disappointment comes through what she does with characters we have become intensely interested in, but I'll not reveal any details and leave it to new readers to see whether they agree.
The characterizations of the first two volumes are wonderful (although I am not a great fan of mixing real people in with fictional characters, the practice does not feature too heavily), and Ms. Barker gives us a remarkable sense of what that terrible war meant, particularly in ordinary lives on the home front.
Ms. Barker's trilogy is highly recommended for those interested in history, students of human psychology, and those who enjoy good writing and a gripping story.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: SHELBY FOOTE'S CIVIL WAR TRILOGY
SHELBY FOOTE'S CIVIL WAR TRILOGY REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 6, 2005
Shelby Foote's trilogy of the American Civil War has been called America's Iliad and Odyssey, and in some ways it is an apt comparison.
The Trojan War certainly held a comparable place for ancient Greeks as America's Civil War holds for contemporary Americans. I've always wondered why this should be so.
I think there are several major reasons. First, the anvil of the Civil War is where America's rise to world power is hammered out. Lincoln, in the long-term view, is less the Patriarch who frees slaves than he is the successful Corporate Lawyer who forges the nation into a feared industrial and military power. The Civil War is revolutionary for America's status, just as the Great War marked the beginning of the decline for Great Britain.
Second, in a country that has never really quite experienced the horrors of war in the modern era (American deaths for example in World War Two were a little more than half of one-percent of the fifty million lives total, and losses in the First War were almost insignificant out of total losses), the Civil War stands as America's time of great sacrifice and bloodshed.
There is also the myth and color around the nature of the Old South, stuff about gentlemen, honor, and manliness. Southerners certainly accepted this dreamy view, at least the small number with money, while the other dirt-poor farmers were bound to them through dread of Blacks and the feared effects of slavery's end. Northerners, too, came to accept the colorful myths, and many still do. Southern culture of course was based on slavery, and it was a brutal culture in many aspects, but America has never really come to grips with slavery in its history, and the myths are appealing.
Mr. Foote collected some wonderful, colorful anecdotes about the daring deeds or marvelous escapes of leading characters in his long narrative. The telling of these tales does remind one of Homer's various intense scenes with leading characters preparing for or engaging in combat. These come like delightful arias in a long opera.
Certainly, Mr. Foote has captured the great panorama of the Civil War, at least in its military aspects. Some might think the three-thousand pages of narrative a bit excessive, but fans of the Civil War and those who like a good yarn that lasts and lasts will greatly enjoy the books.
Comparisons with Homer may be taken too far. Homer was a poet. Shelby Foote's prose are sturdy and workman-like.
Mr. Foote does not deal with all political, social, and economic dimensions of the Civil War, but then that isn't his job, just as it wasn't Homer's.
This raises a possible philosophical criticism of the work. To a certain extent, with the work's color and sweep and bold deeds, Mr. Foote could be charged somewhat with helping to perpetuate the myths of the Old South, but this is not a point I would want to insist on because those who want to fully understand the Civil War must read other books. This one does just what it sets out to do.
Shelby Foote's trilogy of the American Civil War has been called America's Iliad and Odyssey, and in some ways it is an apt comparison.
The Trojan War certainly held a comparable place for ancient Greeks as America's Civil War holds for contemporary Americans. I've always wondered why this should be so.
I think there are several major reasons. First, the anvil of the Civil War is where America's rise to world power is hammered out. Lincoln, in the long-term view, is less the Patriarch who frees slaves than he is the successful Corporate Lawyer who forges the nation into a feared industrial and military power. The Civil War is revolutionary for America's status, just as the Great War marked the beginning of the decline for Great Britain.
Second, in a country that has never really quite experienced the horrors of war in the modern era (American deaths for example in World War Two were a little more than half of one-percent of the fifty million lives total, and losses in the First War were almost insignificant out of total losses), the Civil War stands as America's time of great sacrifice and bloodshed.
There is also the myth and color around the nature of the Old South, stuff about gentlemen, honor, and manliness. Southerners certainly accepted this dreamy view, at least the small number with money, while the other dirt-poor farmers were bound to them through dread of Blacks and the feared effects of slavery's end. Northerners, too, came to accept the colorful myths, and many still do. Southern culture of course was based on slavery, and it was a brutal culture in many aspects, but America has never really come to grips with slavery in its history, and the myths are appealing.
Mr. Foote collected some wonderful, colorful anecdotes about the daring deeds or marvelous escapes of leading characters in his long narrative. The telling of these tales does remind one of Homer's various intense scenes with leading characters preparing for or engaging in combat. These come like delightful arias in a long opera.
Certainly, Mr. Foote has captured the great panorama of the Civil War, at least in its military aspects. Some might think the three-thousand pages of narrative a bit excessive, but fans of the Civil War and those who like a good yarn that lasts and lasts will greatly enjoy the books.
Comparisons with Homer may be taken too far. Homer was a poet. Shelby Foote's prose are sturdy and workman-like.
Mr. Foote does not deal with all political, social, and economic dimensions of the Civil War, but then that isn't his job, just as it wasn't Homer's.
This raises a possible philosophical criticism of the work. To a certain extent, with the work's color and sweep and bold deeds, Mr. Foote could be charged somewhat with helping to perpetuate the myths of the Old South, but this is not a point I would want to insist on because those who want to fully understand the Civil War must read other books. This one does just what it sets out to do.
JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW: D.J.TAYLOR'S THE LIFE OF ORWELL
REVIEW OF D. J. TAYLOR'S ORWELL THE LIFE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 13, 2005
This is a difficult book to categorize. It is well written, contains many interesting anecdotes, but it misses the essential Orwell.
Taylor's gloomy, otherwordly, ex-Etonian, ex-imperial policeman simply does not add up to Orwell. The sum of the parts is much less than the man. Taylor's book is a bit like an autopsy, the pathologist clearly never being able to comprehend the stiff, dead flesh and bottled samples before him as the full human being they were. Nevertheless, autopsies do tell interesting tales.
Orwell's gloomy temperament puts him not outside the mainstream of writers but exactly in the company of so many important writers. The list of writers with some form of depression, whether alcoholism or gloominess, is so huge - Greene, Swift, Hemingway, Le Carré, Dickens, Gissing, O'Neill, Twain, Faulkner, etc, etc. - one comes to think of the quality almost as a job requirement. It provides one of the special lens through which critical writers see the world. One has to believe Taylor understands this, but his book conveys only clinical observations of gloominess snipped from letters, diaries, and conversations.
As far as Orwell's otherworldliness, Orwell was clearly in the great tradition of English eccentrics, and that is an important component of his appeal. There is a long and glorious line of them from Dr. Johnson and Jane Austen down to Alec Guinness, Margaret Rutherford, and Vanessa Redgrave. Yet Taylor only offers clinical observations and never puts them in their proper context.
Orwell was not an important novelist, so it seems a bit gratuitous to say so as Taylor does. In fact, he wasn't even a very good novelist. Yet books like Keep the Aspadistra Flying do provide a keen sense of his Englishness. Missing entirely from Taylor's autopsy is a sense of Orwell's quintessential Englishness. When Orwell writes of getting back to the feel of heavy English coins and having mahogany tea, readers get a sense of pure distilled Englishness. This comes through also in quasi-journalistic books like The Road to Wigan Pier or Down and Out in Paris and London - important early efforts at what today might be called investigative journalism - books which Taylor rather disparages both in terms of Orwell's re-arranging actual events and being an observer mentally wearing an Eton tie.
What Orwell was is a critic, and a rather magnificent one. I am reminded of Degas' description of Monet as "Only an eye, but what an eye!"
Orwell had an exquisite sense of justice and a very sensitive barometer for tyranny plus he had the words to convey vividly his sensibilities. Taylor virtually misses this in his examination of bile and stool samples. Taylor too often puts Orwell's political criticism down to miss-directed, soft-Left thinking of an ex-Etonian. Orwell himself recognized the simpering nature of much of the Left's views, yet he struggled bravely with finding a vocabulary to accommodate his sympathies. He possibly did not come to recognize himself for what he was, a scorching critic of both Left and Right. After all, his time was short. That is how it is when you die in your forties.
He was also an important literary critic, and while Taylor recognizes this, I don't believe he gives it a full enough examination.
Taylor sadly drags out the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps the most overly-used epithet of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. If Orwell was anti-Semitic - and I do not believe this for a second - it was in the same vague sense of virtually all Englishmen of his time. The English have always had a degree of xenophobia, a quality whose obverse side is the very set of qualities defining Englishness. I am tired of discussions of whether Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice makes the greatest playwright in human history anti-Semitic, discussions which always ignore the human qualities and sense of justice Shakespeare gives his character, and just so, Orwell, overall a truly decent man.
There has been a good deal of writing in recent years about Orwell, much of it wrong-headed, from claims being made that he would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq (!) to sentimentality. Little of it captures Orwell the independent and remarkably clear-thinking critic. Taylor gives us no sense of what it was that animated Orwell, other than some almost silly stuff about getting back at people like the headmistress of his school. There is almost a sense in this book of a high-class hatchet job done on Orwell, but I don't want to push that point. What makes Orwell truly important is minimized, and what wasn't important is given a good deal of weight. Perhaps that is the fate of great critics who support no one's ideologies and preconceptions.
This book should be read only with an awareness of its limited approach to the subject. This is not Orwell, but a somewhat interesting display of bits and memorabilia in museum cabinets.
Please see my review of Gordon Bowker's Orwell biography, a superior work (published in the same year) in most respects to Taylor's.
This is a difficult book to categorize. It is well written, contains many interesting anecdotes, but it misses the essential Orwell.
Taylor's gloomy, otherwordly, ex-Etonian, ex-imperial policeman simply does not add up to Orwell. The sum of the parts is much less than the man. Taylor's book is a bit like an autopsy, the pathologist clearly never being able to comprehend the stiff, dead flesh and bottled samples before him as the full human being they were. Nevertheless, autopsies do tell interesting tales.
Orwell's gloomy temperament puts him not outside the mainstream of writers but exactly in the company of so many important writers. The list of writers with some form of depression, whether alcoholism or gloominess, is so huge - Greene, Swift, Hemingway, Le Carré, Dickens, Gissing, O'Neill, Twain, Faulkner, etc, etc. - one comes to think of the quality almost as a job requirement. It provides one of the special lens through which critical writers see the world. One has to believe Taylor understands this, but his book conveys only clinical observations of gloominess snipped from letters, diaries, and conversations.
As far as Orwell's otherworldliness, Orwell was clearly in the great tradition of English eccentrics, and that is an important component of his appeal. There is a long and glorious line of them from Dr. Johnson and Jane Austen down to Alec Guinness, Margaret Rutherford, and Vanessa Redgrave. Yet Taylor only offers clinical observations and never puts them in their proper context.
Orwell was not an important novelist, so it seems a bit gratuitous to say so as Taylor does. In fact, he wasn't even a very good novelist. Yet books like Keep the Aspadistra Flying do provide a keen sense of his Englishness. Missing entirely from Taylor's autopsy is a sense of Orwell's quintessential Englishness. When Orwell writes of getting back to the feel of heavy English coins and having mahogany tea, readers get a sense of pure distilled Englishness. This comes through also in quasi-journalistic books like The Road to Wigan Pier or Down and Out in Paris and London - important early efforts at what today might be called investigative journalism - books which Taylor rather disparages both in terms of Orwell's re-arranging actual events and being an observer mentally wearing an Eton tie.
What Orwell was is a critic, and a rather magnificent one. I am reminded of Degas' description of Monet as "Only an eye, but what an eye!"
Orwell had an exquisite sense of justice and a very sensitive barometer for tyranny plus he had the words to convey vividly his sensibilities. Taylor virtually misses this in his examination of bile and stool samples. Taylor too often puts Orwell's political criticism down to miss-directed, soft-Left thinking of an ex-Etonian. Orwell himself recognized the simpering nature of much of the Left's views, yet he struggled bravely with finding a vocabulary to accommodate his sympathies. He possibly did not come to recognize himself for what he was, a scorching critic of both Left and Right. After all, his time was short. That is how it is when you die in your forties.
He was also an important literary critic, and while Taylor recognizes this, I don't believe he gives it a full enough examination.
Taylor sadly drags out the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps the most overly-used epithet of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. If Orwell was anti-Semitic - and I do not believe this for a second - it was in the same vague sense of virtually all Englishmen of his time. The English have always had a degree of xenophobia, a quality whose obverse side is the very set of qualities defining Englishness. I am tired of discussions of whether Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice makes the greatest playwright in human history anti-Semitic, discussions which always ignore the human qualities and sense of justice Shakespeare gives his character, and just so, Orwell, overall a truly decent man.
There has been a good deal of writing in recent years about Orwell, much of it wrong-headed, from claims being made that he would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq (!) to sentimentality. Little of it captures Orwell the independent and remarkably clear-thinking critic. Taylor gives us no sense of what it was that animated Orwell, other than some almost silly stuff about getting back at people like the headmistress of his school. There is almost a sense in this book of a high-class hatchet job done on Orwell, but I don't want to push that point. What makes Orwell truly important is minimized, and what wasn't important is given a good deal of weight. Perhaps that is the fate of great critics who support no one's ideologies and preconceptions.
This book should be read only with an awareness of its limited approach to the subject. This is not Orwell, but a somewhat interesting display of bits and memorabilia in museum cabinets.
Please see my review of Gordon Bowker's Orwell biography, a superior work (published in the same year) in most respects to Taylor's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)