Exchange: Spinoza and Vultures and Gnats, Oh My! Exchange: Spinoza and Vultures and Gnats, Oh My!
Princeton, N.J. Samuel Moyn, in "Mind the Enlightenment" [May 31], finds my "monomaniacal Spinoza worship" both "amusing and exasperating." Well, he is not half so exasperated as I am by his unbelievably inaccurate account of my argument. He begins by saying that I have no "story of the Enlightenment's intellectual or cultural origins" other than Spinoza's genius. This is utter nonsense. Both main volumes published so far give a lengthy account of the Enlightenment's origins, setting out various social and cultural factors but pivoting on the philosophical revolution of the late seventeenth century with no fewer than six great philosophers extensively contributing to laying the intellectual foundations—Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Bayle and Leibniz. All helped shape the moderate and radical wings of the Enlightenment. Bayle's contribution takes thirty pages (in "Enlightenment Contested") to explain. Spinoza is held to have surpassed the others in contributing to the Radical Enlightenment essentially because he goes further in undermining belief in Revelation, divine providence and miracles, and hence ecclesiastical authority, and because he was the first great democratic philosopher. But all contributed, as did dozens of other writers and controversies. Moyn next pontificates that it is a "faulty premise" to "think that a philosophy of naturalism and liberal-democratic politics are inextricably linked." He cites the example of Hobbes, which he thinks proves his point. Here, his objection is wrong both philosophically and historically. The official Enlightenment presided over by Frederick the Great and other leading rulers vigorously upheld aristocracy, ecclesiastical authority and strict censorship, maintaining that subjects had no right to question the commands of their sovereigns or the divinely given status of the social order they upheld. The only way to break the ancien régime system conceptually—and deliver comprehensive freedom of thought and a democratic politics—was to destroy the notion that the existing order was divinely authorized, directed by divine providence and legitimately presided over by the clergy and monarchy. Hobbes got around this but only by introducing the unwieldy construction of a once and for all, indissoluble political contract canceling out men's natural rights, the force of which in terms of naturalism is hard to discern. Here, Hobbes was an inconsistent naturalist and Spinoza merely ironing out his inconsistency. Still more inaccurate, Moyn complains that "Israel ends up with no explanation for why his package of emancipatory values succeeded except that they are true," that my only explanation is that Spinoza was such a surpassing genius that his ideas caused a revolution. I say nothing of the kind. First, the emancipatory values propagated by the Radical Enlightenment did not succeed. They partially succeeded briefly with the advent of the French Revolution, but from 1793 their achievement was derailed by the Terror and later by Napoleon. The nineteenth century then involved further setbacks for democratic, enlightened values. As for radical ideas succeeding better than the moderate Enlightenment of Montesquieu, Voltaire and Hume in the 1780s, this is explained by a highly complex historical argument: in a nutshell, the moderate Enlightenment suffered from failure to deliver the toleration, law reforms, emancipation of oppressed groups, or reductions in aristocratic and ecclesiastical privilege that many wanted and also from intellectual difficulties in balancing reason with tradition and faith. It was weakened further by the rise of the Counter-Enlightenment, which claimed that faith and authority, not reason, are the true guides of men. Particularly important in explaining the process, in my account, is the fact that the mechanics of late eighteenth-century revolutions (there were revolutions in several other countries as well as America and France) between 1780 and 1800 demonstrate that mostly (albeit not in America) they were led by tiny groups of unrepresentative intellectuals who became spokesmen by using radical ideology as an effective catch-all for expressing the burgeoning discontent of the era. Finally, and again absurdly wrong, Moyn thinks the phase of the French Revolution dominated by the Jacobins was ideologically closer to the "philosophique" revolution of reason I am describing than the Revolution of 1788–92 and was less Rousseauist. Well, first, the evidence shows that the Robespierre phase was far more Rousseauist. Second, it was incontestably less philosophique. Looking back later, Tom Paine, one of the giants of radical ideology, expressed it well: with the Jacobins the "principles of the Revolution, which philosophy had first diffused, had been departed from [and] philosophy rejected. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the guillotine of the stake.'' The freedoms of 1789 were explicitly rejected by Robespierre in several speeches. There are bad reviews and bad reviews; but the worst are surely those that fail to give even the faintest clue what the book under review is arguing. Moyn speaks derisively of my being attacked by "so many gnats" that might seem more like vultures. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Moyn counts as a vulture or a gnat. JONATHAN ISRAEL Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton Moyn Replies New York City Jonathan Israel answers my demand for an account of non-Spinozist origins simply with a list of other philosophers, which surely misses the point. And then, as his letter reveals, he is tempted to measure their thought against the singular yardstick that Spinoza provided (Israel's books go much further in the same direction). Israel complains that I don't address his new volume. Unfortunately, his invidious classification of the Enlightenment's different factions is his core preoccupation. As for his approach to the causes of the French Revolution, his letter—like his new book—mostly leaves room for improvement. Most troubling of all, Israel still does not seem able to fathom that the goal is not simply to congratulate past thinkers as "consistent" or dispense with them as useless—which would, in any case, be a philosophical judgment that Israel is not terribly qualified to make. Instead, these philosophers always provide funds of jostling contentions that did and could serve a wide variety of purposes, including ones that they did not imagine. And while he rages against some criticisms I collected from others in my review, Israel completely omits the main worry I added for myself. Even were the evil of the Counter-Enlightenment extirpated, and a "moderate" Enlightenment successfully called out as treason in disguise, it would leave the most exciting reason to study the whole era still there: the Enlightenment's multiple possible versions, and therefore its continually problematic character, now and in the future. It is this central feature of Enlightenment—however radical—that means that there are many issues on which the Enlightenment gives no clear answers. As my review stated, I admire Tom Paine too. But—like Spinoza—he is no messiah inspiring blind faith. As for a rhetorical inquisition, it won't help either. SAMUEL MOYN Clarification: It's a Book World In "The Death and Life of the Book Review" (June 21), John Palattella writes that "The Los Angeles Times Book Review was launched as a twelve-page Sunday tabloid section in 1975. The Washington Post Book World debuted as a Sunday tabloid section in the 1960s; it was folded into the paper in the mid-1970s, only to be resurrected as a stand-alone publication in the early 1980s. (Neither exists today.)" Although Book World no longer exists as a Sunday tabloid section, the Post prints daily book reviews under the Book World rubric, and produces themed tabloid books issues four times a year.
Jun 16, 2010 / Jonathan Israel and Samuel Moyn
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Seize the Radical Moment Brandon, Fla. Re Timothy Patrick McCarthy and John McMillian's "America's Radical Roots" [May 31]: I understand that progressive social programs had their roots in radicalism. However, it is difficult to be overly enthusiastic about what this means in today's America. In the 1930s we had the New Deal and a strong feeling of radicalism and class identity among the working class. The influence of unions and their effect on government was much different. "Socialism" was not a bad word. In the '60s Jim Crow was viewed (at least by the sane) as a system so outdated that radical change had to come. Fast-forward to today. Any radicalism is pre-empted by right-wing media, particularly Fox, corporate-backed network news and AM talk-radio. There is virtually no advocacy or reporting of anything radical or progressive. Combine this with the disproportionate coverage of Tea Party rantings at "town hall" meetings, and public opinion has been swayed rightward. The authors say they wish to "bring about a more charitable perception of radicalism." They provide past examples: the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, public education. But it is difficult for this longtime Nation reader to feel their optimism or to hope that we, as a nation, will be radicalized again anytime soon. Only a monumental event could spark radical action. The "radicalism" of today is this new wave of right-wing Tea Partyers financed by Astroturfers—the wealthy and corporations. They had their monumental event—the election of an African-American president. That rallied their masses. Unfortunately we on the left have not rallied our masses to push this president to take up progressive causes, as radicals did in FDR's time, when they made him promote their agenda. Will we progressives have our monumental event? And will it be enough to rally our masses? I hope our country survives until then. BILL FALCONE Coming Soon to a Shelter Near You Cincinnati Katha Pollitt asks "What Ever Happened to Welfare Mothers?" [May 31]. Nearly uncountable numbers of poor families double or triple up with friends or relatives or are stranded in shelters for homeless families. If the "welfare mothers" have not lost their children to foster care (so are no longer "families"), and if they have "maxed out" the lifetime PRWORA [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996] benefits that accompanied the low-paid jobs that enabled them to meet the work requirement, homeless shelters are lifesaving. These families are now joined in the shelters by those whose landlords' mortgages have been foreclosed. Tenants typically don't know of the foreclosure until a utility company arrives to cut off service or a bank rep comes to "secure" the property. The low-paid jobs "welfare mothers" may have found in the early days of PRWORA have vanished, many to unemployed workers who move back to parents' basements when their unemployment benefits are exhausted. If things proceed as they did in the 1980s, when the masses of Ronald Reagan's "new poor" exploded, we can next expect the "basement dwellers," followed by people from suburbia with foreclosures of their own. They will compete for precious shelter beds with the post-PRWORA families stranded for lack of affordable housing. The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing programs funded by the Recovery Act bring promise if—a big if—rents can match the very low wages of post-PRWORA families. ALICE SKIRTZ, casework supervisor Family Shelter Partnership 'Race' to the Top? Chicago I was amused by the letters in the May 31 issue praising Obama for labeling himself "black" on the Census form. I don't care what color he chooses to call himself. What I do care about is that we now have so-called healthcare reform without a public option and, thus, no way to control insurance premiums; financial reform that lacks any means to rein in the "too big to fail" banks and other institutions, like Goldman Sachs; and increasing numbers of troops in Afghanistan. And until the BP oil spill, Obama favored offshore drilling. I don't care what race a president "chooses," but he or she must bring about sorely needed progressive change. CAROL HILLMAN 'Get Over It: Write White' New York City In "Not-Black by Default" [May 10] Patricia J. Williams describes the baroque maneuvers of white colleagues in naming their race on questionnaires. When sophisticated white people use the fact that "racial categories are socially constructed" to avoid listing themselves as "white" on Census and other forms, when they play games with Crayola "buff-beige" self-designations, they are sabotaging the remedies designed to counter our very real privileges as white people. The social construction of race is not an illusion: it is how racism works. Denial does not make it go away. When Williams's colleague explains his refusal to write "white," saying, "We're never going to get past all this, unless we resist the usual categories," he is substituting his wishful good intentions for actions that facilitate change. Liberals and leftists may reject being in the same racial category as the purveyors of slavery and worldwide white supremacy, but we need not identify with white oppressors to recognize that we are daily privileged by the structure of racism. Try flipping Williams's description of the ways that "to be visibly black in this culture is to feel race every day," because "social constructions have walls." We too are labeled every day as white, but we can be blissfully unaware of the process because for us it is benign. As a white Jew I emphatically do not identify with the white Europeans who perpetuate worldwide anti-Semitism and racism, but I recognize that in the world of government forms, racial categories are not a matter of psychological self-identification or individual creativity; they are categories with social consequences. We need to get over it: write "white," and then make sure that the data are used to undermine the privileges that we yearn so deeply to deny. SHERRY GORELICK Sales Alert! Not Chic, St. Francis de Portland, Ore. I don't begrudge puzzlers their fun with the Chic Sale potty humor ["Letters," June 21], but I submit the following as a more probable explanation of the first part of clue 9, Puzzle 1588, "Sales decoration of old." Frank Lewis used "Sales," not "Sale," and "decoration of old" is accounted for more clearly. The heraldic emblem ("decoration of old") of St. Francis de Sales contains a prominent crescent moon, like those used on the classic outhouse door. MARY PRIEM Correction In "Central Europe's Right-Wing Populism," by Paul Hockenos (May 24), a typo gave the Fidesz party's years in power as 1982–2002 rather than 1998–2002. Our apologies to the author.
Jun 9, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Goodbye Oil, Hello Molten Salt Palo Alto, Calif. Your May 24 editorial, "There Will Be Blood," is right: we need a moratorium on new offshore drilling and an end to subsidies for oil, coal and conventional nuclear power. Alternative energy is available: the thorium-based molten salt reactor, which generates the same power as a uranium or coal plant but creates less than 5 percent of the waste, and that waste becomes benign in 500 years. Other advantages: a thorium plant can burn our stockpile of nuclear waste/weapons; it cannot melt down/explode; thorium is four times as abundant as uranium; and the process was tested and proven practical in the 1950s and '60s at Oak Ridge (see thoriumenergyalliance.com and tinyurl.com/25mgqkd).We operated this safe nuclear system more than forty years ago but defunded it because it could not make bomb materials. Now we need it. HERSHEY JULIEN Defuse the Population Bomb Swannanoa, N.C. Can humanity save its climate before climate chaos destroys humanity? Juliet Schor's "Beyond Business as Usual" [May 24] observes, "But New Deal 2.0—expanded federal spending—still relies on climate destabilizing growth...addressing unemployment by unleashing even more climate chaos." Sadly, that's a convincing prophesy. And how can we find the solution until we reverse the rate of world population growth? Catastrophe may be only a matter of how soon climate chaos directly reverses that growth. Forget persuading humans to accept self-restraint to save our climate. We are all deniers. ALLAN DEAN Story Time for Progressives Deering, N.H. Amitai Etzioni, in "Needed: A Progressive Story" [May 24], rightly calls on progressives to formulate a convincing narrative as a counterforce to the Republican story that America was on the right path until Roosevelt, Johnson and the '60s counterculture undermined our traditional values. To me the most convincing narrative would be "recovering community." Such a narrative can plumb the wellsprings of our yearning for community in an increasingly alienating world. But recovering community must move beyond our loyalties to ethnic, class and local groups to the larger American community. We must focus on what is best for all rather than what's in it for me. Community loyalty is quintessentially American and has a long and honorable history. Recovering community would offer an umbrella narrative that can draw on our finest moments of history, our deeply felt concerns and our heartfelt need to invest ourselves in causes that transcend our smaller selves. DONALD JOHNSON South Portland, Me. Amitai Etzioni's essay echoes Bill Moyers's prescription that progressives need "a new story." Stories' roots are in myth (hence Moyers's fascination with mythologist Joseph Campbell), whose purpose is to tell us how to live. Progressives would do well to tap the American creation myth: the tale of those whose opportunity was foreclosed elsewhere—for ill fortune or lack of title or privileged birth—and who found opportunity through shared contribution and/or sacrifice in a community of equals. The story's power lies in the truth that community makes us strong. Stories must explain—but to be compelling, they must inspire. Inspiration is the antithesis of and antidote to fear. And since fear is elemental to most neoconservative platforms, rising above fear must be an inspirational foundation of any progressive story. FRANK O. SMITH Taking The Nation to the Chic Sale We were stumped by "Sales decoration" as "lunette," the answer to clue 9, Puzzle 1588 [June 7]. We turned to our readers—and were not disappointed. —The Puzzle Editors Wellesley, Mass. A down-home, chaw-bacon early (and earthy) twentieth-century humorist known as Chic Sale had quite a following of rustic thigh-slappers for his outhouse humor, syndicated in small-town papers. His book about Lem Putt, a "specialist" in the design and construction of outhouses, claimed he invented the crescent-shaped cutout (a rural "lunette") that was a fixture on their doors. GEORGE BOND Somewhere in Cyberspace Chic Sale was a humorist who wrote a book featuring an outhouse builder. "Chic Sale" or "Chick Sales" was an old euphemism for "outhouse." A lunette is a moon-shaped decorative inset, such as was used on outhouse doors. The moon on the outhouse door has an interesting history. When stagecoach routes were established in England, inns began to provide facilities for travelers. The ladies' privy was marked with a moon; the men's with a sun. But the men preferred the woods, so the inns ended up offering only ladies' facilities. JANET MARTELL Clarification—for the Irony-Impaired In Timothy Patrick McCarthy and John McMillian's "America's Radical Roots" (May 31), the authors refer to Barack Obama's opponents calling attention to his "tenuous associations with an angry black minister, un-American education professor and foreign-born Muslims." The sentence should have read "anti-American" and had quotes around that word as well as around "angry" and "foreign-born" to make clear that these labels are not the authors' but are part of the right-wing smear campaign.
Jun 2, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Love the Smell of Apartheid in the Morning! Germantown, Md. Oh, how I miss those sweet, lovable days of apartheid rule during the terrifying reign of the Afrikaners! Oh, how I miss the days when I was forced to carry an ID book that I had to produce on demand by a white, less-educated policeman! Oh, how I miss Verwoerd, Vorster, Koornhof, Botha and the jackbooted Broederbond! Oh, I miss them so! But never fear, we now have our own version of apartheid, in Arizona, in the land of the free ["Arizona Burning," May 17]. The volk of apartheid South Africa are proud of you, Arizona. You keep the torch burning for all God-fearing whites. You know, the Afrikaners also believed in the superiority of white, a God-given right. VARSI PADAYACHEE Phoenix We Arizonans are frustrated that so many political figures and pundits are reacting to incomplete or misinformation. Read the bill (racial profiling is expressly forbidden). Approved or new citizens should be carrying documentation, just as any driver should carry a license. And attend to the burdens on our medical, educational, welfare and criminal justice systems from dealing with illegal immigrants here. I agree that our law has motivated the federal government to address immigration and border issues. And yes, we need a policy that simplifies and hastens the process for obtaining work visas, then citizenship. MITCH BOYKAN Temple, Tex. This new law is appalling. I am seeing a terrible trend in this country. Groups are being selected—first it was Muslims and now (again) Hispanics—as being "other," not American, not fully human. I know there has always been racism in America. On that I have no illusions. I had hoped that with Obama's election, America could be turning an important corner. But alas, the opposite seems to be happening. Racism has been given credence by the law passed in Arizona. Already other states, including my own, are voicing interest in enacting similar legislation. What's next—people forced to wear a symbol on their clothing to indicate their ethnicity? I strongly urge all Americans to take a stand against this law. Boycott Arizona and its businesses until this law is repealed. BARBARA LOCKWOOD Bethpage, N.Y. If you want to get this awful SB 1070 repealed, boycott Arizona businesses until the legislature and the governor repeal the law. Send the Arizona Chamber of Commerce a letter at democratz.org. Don't get mad, get active! DEN BAER IBGYBG—FYI Douglasville, Ga. Re Christopher Hayes's "Goners" [May 17]: IBGYBG has been around for some time. Business leaders make promises too good to be true, seal the deal and waltz out of the company with their cash, stock options and bonuses before the roughage hits the fan. It's business as usual. KYLE FRENCH Shenandoah, Tex. Regarding IBGYBG: this is similar to a remark made by George W. Bush in the late 1990s as governor of Texas. Told by wiser souls that his tax cuts would be devastating to Texans, he responded, "I'll be gone by then." Not soon enough or far enough. Sign me One Sad Texas Democrat. BARBARA PHILLIPS OMG—NDOP! Flushing, N.Y. Just as Judge Barbara Crabb deserves three cheers for her ruling against a National Day of Prayer, so does Katha Pollitt for her May 17 "Let Us (Not) Pray." She shows how this is purely a Christian ceremony (clue: NDOP may be held "any day but Sunday"). Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and other non-Christians need not pray—this would only confuse God! G.M. CHANDU Brentwood, Tenn. Opposition to a National Day of Prayer is worth considering. Statements concerning the being, or nonbeing, of a deity are at best philosophical speculation and at worst culturally conditioned arrogance. However, it is beneficial for individuals and corporate entities to articulate their most important concerns and objectives. How about a National Day of Attention to That Which Is of Utmost Concern? KEITH DAVIS Our Cosmic Healthcare Bill Somewhere in Cyberspace Some people are way ahead on "Learning to Love the Healthcare Bill" [Katherine S. Newman and Steven Attewell, May 17]. I wrote the following letter to President Obama after the Sunday vote in the Senate: "Dear Mr. President: As it is written, Jesus Christ cured a paralytic on a Sabbath and was denounced by the Pharisees. As we heard in the media recently, Barack Obama enabled the curing of 30 million Americans by a vote on a Sunday and was roundly criticized by the Republicans. I am suggesting that Plutarch, if he were alive today, would welcome the opportunity to write another chapter of Parallel Lives to compare the two.... God has been waiting patiently for 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang for you to accomplish this vote for the American people, and there is joy in Heaven over the victory. What you have done has cosmic import that goes beyond just finishing the work of T.R., F.D.R., H.S.T. and L.B.J." I am 75. I knew the WPA, with its steam shovels and Mack chain-drive trucks, and I worked for FDR on the 1944 election. We need more of the same. Healthcare for all is the crown jewel. If enough people could be convinced of this, Obama could increase his dominance in Congress in November. EMMANUEL P. PAPADAKIS Daddy, Where Do Morals Come From? Appleton, Wis. Interviewer Christine Smallwood, in "Talking With Tony Judt" [May 17], suggests that "people on the left are so embarrassed about the language of morality." As a person on the left, I speak eagerly and confidently about morality, in the language of human rights, civil rights, environmentalism and other ways that the actions of individuals affect other individuals. What embarrasses me are arguments from authority, those uncompromising, pope-like dictums about what God wants, that yield neither to evidence nor reason. I have read too many comments from absolutists who state that without God, my morality must be relative and arbitrary. Morality comes from people learning to live together. An omnipotent God could easily have said, "Thou shalt steal." How arbitrary is that? JAMES OLSKI Indeed... Albany, N.Y. Kai Bird and Victor Navasky's December 1981 special issue of The Nation, which Bird deemed important enough to summarize for readers thirty years later in "The Hebrew Republic" [May 10], is thankfully mistaken on one vital point. He writes, "It made no sense to offer automatic citizenship to any Jew anywhere." He is wrong. The Law of Return provided needed sanctuary to Jews living in the Soviet Union, oppressed under the anti-Semitic yoke of a murderous dictatorship. In the twenty years since Russia opened its doors to mass emigration in 1989, more than 1 million Russians have immigrated to Israel. For those who escaped, it made sense indeed. EDWARD HOROWITZ
May 26, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Shill, Baby, Shill Clinton, Ohio I suspect the irony was not lost on your readers: the cover of the May 10 issue is dripping with oil and headlined with words such as "Oil" and "Corruption." A full-page ad on the back cover shows BP ("beyond petroleum"), posturing as "green," as its oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico at a record rate. ERICA GREER Mt. Tabor, N.J. Can we not consider that running a full back-cover ad from BP is a conflict of your interests and ours? Isn't killing eleven workers and the unprecedented environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reason enough to yank BP's claim of "opening new offshore areas to oil and gas production"? And shame on you for permitting this unscrupulous corporate giant to hide under a green sunflower. MICHAEL SPECTOR,chair Green Party of New Jersey The Editors Reply We appreciate those who have taken the time to write us about the BP ad. As Nation readers, you are no doubt aware that small journals of opinion like ours are struggling financially. But even when times were better, censoring ads was never in keeping with our advertising policy (see TheNation.com/node/33589), which states: "We accept [advertising] not to further the views of The Nation but to help pay the costs of publishing." Indeed, we often run ads whose values do not match those of our editors or our readers. Our advertisers have included Fox News, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Homeland Security and others. Our publication of the BP ad in no way reflects an endorsement of its content. Running these ads does not inhibit us from publishing articles highly critical of corporate-owned mainstream media, unjust and ineffective drug policies, the Patriot Act—or oil companies. In fact, as readers have pointed out, Johann Hari's hard-hitting critique of the corrupting influence of oil-industry cash on mainstream environmental groups in "The Wrong Kind of Green" [March 22] appeared in the same issue as another BP ad. As longtime readers are aware, a wall between advertising and editorial content has always been a key part of The Nation's tradition of independence—which advertising, regardless of its subject, helps to keep alive. —The Editors Nil, Baby, Nil Blacksburg, Va. Re Jerry A. Coyne's "The Improbability Pump" [May 10]: the germ theory of disease is widely accepted, not only because it is true but because it is rather simple and good for people. The situation is different with the theory of evolution. It is complex, and most people don't have a clear understanding of it. But they are smart enough to know that it robs their lives of meaning—I am no more important than a flea or a tapeworm. Dostoyevsky understood this when he preferred Christianity (although not necessarily true) to nihilism—if there is no God, everything is permitted. If evolution had been accepted centuries ago, would we now have something better than what remains of Christendom and Western civilization? GORDON CARTER Alexandria, Va. There have been advances in physics since Darwin's time, including the concept of block time and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Time is an illusion, and everything that can possibly exist does and always has. We never even built anything. We found the absurdly improbable universe in which the desired objects always existed. Infinite parallel universes explain the absurd improbability of life better than natural selection. MARK SCOTT OLLER
May 19, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Letters published in the May 31, 2010, issue of The Nation.
May 13, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Wounded in Combat, Denied Benefits Killeen, Tex. My thanks to Joshua Kors for his truthful reporting on these fraudulent "personality disorder" discharges ["Disposable Soldiers," April 26]. I am happy my story has been told. After the mortar blast, when I reached out and asked for help from my chain of command, I had no idea that my comrades would turn on me. I joined the military to serve like both my grandfathers, to do my part for America. I never thought that this could happen to me. This article triggered a huge outpouring of support, including e-mails and phone calls from other soldiers who said, "That happened to me." With the support of my family and friends, I have been able to pull myself up, and I will continue to fight for my brothers and sisters in arms. I will never forget the things that happened to me. To make sure it never happens to anyone else, I have founded Disposable Warriors. We provide support for other soldiers wounded then denied benefits. Since the article was published, we have had more than 200 e-mails and fifty phone calls. I encourage anyone who has had this problem to contact us and keep fighting, because there is hope. I have seen how widespread these personality disorder discharges are. They need to stop. Too many warriors have been wronged. SGT. CHUCK LUTHER California In 2001 they used the personality disorder discharge on me. I was 19, and my commander said the discharge was my sole way out. I was threatened that if I didn't take that discharge, he would have me thrown out with a dishonorable discharge. I was having physical medical problems. I should have been honorably discharged. I was verbally assaulted and humiliated. I received threats from fellow enlisted marines and began to fear for my safety. My commander attempted to put me in confinement "for my medical safety." Out of desperation, I tried to kill myself. After the attempt, I was offered the personality disorder discharge. I took the discharge and didn't look back, for a little while at least. I was just so happy to get out of there. Sometime later I began dealing with the experience. Doctors have since confirmed that I do not have a personality disorder. Even though I have been successful in the days since the discharge, the experience still haunts me. I have told very few people what really happened to me. I feel guilt and shame for the type of discharge I was given. Despite what I know, at some levels I feel that it's my fault. I am too afraid to apply for my dream career in law enforcement because I know they will see my discharge status. Now I wish I had just endured the suffering while I was in the Marines. It has made my life a living hell. VINCENT T. Simpsonville, S.C. I was shocked and saddened when I read Joshua Kors's article. I consider myself pretty well informed, but I had never heard of the disgraceful practice of discharging physically wounded soldiers without benefits by claiming they had a pre-existing personality disorder. I was amazed at how Chuck Luther was not only called a liar but treated as a prisoner of war by our own military. I felt that if people knew about this tragic practice they would demand that it be stopped. That night I started a group on Facebook called Stop Personality Disorder Discharges for Our Wounded Soldiers. The response has been overwhelming. I have been flooded with e-mails from soldiers and families who thought nobody knew or cared about them. Two weeks later, we had more than 2,300 members. We are organizing an e-mail and telephone campaign for Memorial Day, May 31, to let our government know how ashamed we are of this national disgrace. I encourage readers to join the group. I believe we can, and will, stop the use of personality disorder discharges for our wounded soldiers. CHARLES NICHOLSON Overland Park, Kan. "Disposable Soldiers" was absolutely heartbreaking. How could this man, wounded in combat, not only be misdiagnosed but treated in a manner unbefitting a human being? To hear that his superiors' careers "flourished" after this incident is unacceptable. I hope someone with more clout than me can help these soldiers. At least The Nation is listening. KATHLEEN MORALES Allen, Tex. These pre-existing personality disorder discharges: they did the exact same thing to me! I have all the documents to prove it but have not found any attorneys with the courage to help. PHILLIP POPE New York City There is no such diagnosis as an "adult onset personality disorder," as Army doctors have alleged in the case of Sgt. Chuck Luther. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders makes this clear. Sergeant Luther's symptoms are classic signs of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It's troubling to think that he, a decorated soldier who has proven himself in combat, would be deemed ineligible for benefits. ROBERT LICHTMAN, PhD Professor of psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice Brooklyn, N.Y. As a clinical psychologist who trained in the Veterans Administration, I am particularly chagrined to read of the abuse of diagnostic practices that Joshua Kors describes. Personality disorder is not one diagnosis but rather a category of diagnoses, with extremely broad manifestations. The assertions of certitude by the doctors who labeled Sergeant Luther with "personality disorder" would be laughable were their consequences not so tragic. MARGARET HORNICK, PHD Danielson, Conn. If doctors found them fit for duty at enlistment time, then they were either lying at discharge or incompetent. The doctors should be dealt with accordingly—i.e., discharged with no benefits. WARREN E. SMITH Columbia, Mo. I was a sergeant in the 82nd Airborne, one of the first deployed to Iraq. When we were clearing out of the country, there was a lot of paperwork to fill out. Most of it was crap, and most of us were more than happy to sign anything just to get out of there. But there was one document that was very important. It asked, "Have you ever fired your weapon at a combatant? Have you ever taken fire? Did you at any time fear for your life?" Ninety-nine percent of us checked yes. Then, as they gathered up the forms, they gave us this gem of wisdom: "In case any of you want to change your answers, remember this: there is a two-month backlog to see the mental health providers. If you checked yes, you will be held here for two months before you are allowed to leave. But if you fill out a new form, I am sure we will be able to clear you out of here with no issues." Every single one of us filled out a new form and left the country. This comes back to bite you in the ass if you later seek help from the VA for PTSD. I'm thankful for reporters like Joshua Kors who get the word out. I hope we can get the government to own up to these shady, underhanded tactics. DANIEL A. CLARK
May 5, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Nuclear Arms and the Man Cincinnati Jonathan Schell, in "Reaching Zero" [April 19], describes very well the theoretical illogic of the arms race, but there are more practical, immediate reasons to oppose proliferation. During the past sixty years the United States has spent more than $7 trillion on nuclear weapons production, much of it without taxpayer or Congressional oversight. We have accumulated dangerous nuclear waste, which we don't know what to do with and which will be a threat for thousands of years. Those who worked at production plants and those who lived nearby have experienced high cancer rates. Any government that continues to build nuclear weapons, knowing their danger, is in effect using them against its own people and the planet itself. CAROL RAINEY Mary Jane Got a New Set of Laws Federal Prison Camp, Jesup, Ga. How legalization will affect small pot growers depends on the types of regulation states choose [Alexander Cockburn, "Marijuana, Boom and Bust," April 19]. For instance, under the medical marijuana law in Michigan a grower is limited to growing for himself and five patients—seventy-two plants (twelve per person). Clearly, legalization will take the big money out of small operations. Unlike the booze industry, however, I don't see the centralization. Even with much of the alcohol industry centralized, there remains a market for small wineries and beer microbrewers. Small growers who are good will always have a niche. Besides the ballot measure in California, legalization will be on the ballot in Oregon and Washington, if all works out. It's interesting to note that when Montanans legalized medical marijuana in 2004, George W. Bush received around 60 percent of their vote; but marijuana outpolled him. Flash-forward four years. Obama took Michigan with around 60 percent of the vote. Medical marijuana outpolled him as well! When are the politicians going to crunch the numbers on this one? HAROLD BARANOFF Desert Hot Springs, Calif. I disagree that legalization in California will drive down prices. I think demand will skyrocket. People who already buy for medical reasons will probably retain their current level of consumption. But many who ingest pharmaceuticals will test-drive cannabis and switch. People who sampled pot recreationally but turned to alcohol because of legality issues will get high instead of drunk. Pent-up demand plus first-in-the-market status will make California a destination for college educations, vacations and retirement. Who's worried? Probably the Mexican drug cartels. Who should worry? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Homeland Security; and the Postal Service. The tax revenue will relieve much of the state's $25 billion budget deficit. And guess what Californians will be sending out for Christmas! EARL NISSEN Alexandria, Va. Marijuana is worse for the lungs, heart and brain than cigarettes. It is teeming with bacteria, viruses and fungi. Pure heroin—which the marijuana apostles demonize while portraying pot as a safe "soft" drug—just causes constipation and dizziness. MARK SCOTT OLLER Hilberg & Arendt: It's Complicated Clinton, N.Y. Nathaniel Popper's thorough, nuanced, intellectually brilliant and morally serious journalistic investigation of the complicated personal and historiographical relationship between Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews and Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem reminds me why I've been a loyal Nation reader for the past four decades and will (I hope) remain so for decades to come ["A Conscious Pariah," April 19]. MAURICE ISSERMAN Jerusalem Nathaniel Popper's essay on Raul Hilberg and Hannah Arendt is one of the most balanced accounts of these two complex personalities I have read. Given their common perceptions—or the genealogy of these perceptions from Hilberg to Arendt—and the fact that both were vilified in Jewish circles for their emphasis on the bureaucratic machinery of Nazism (for years you could hardly mention the name of Hilberg or Arendt at Yad Vashem), it is truly a shame that they were not allies. One minor correction: it is not true that Hilberg's 1974 course on Holocaust history was the first taught in the United States; I studied the subject with Erich Goldhagen (Daniel Goldhagen's father) at Brandeis in the late 1960s. Hilberg's book was, as I recall, the major resource for that course. SIDRA DeKOVEN EZRAHI Concord, Mass. Nathaniel Popper did a remarkable job restoring to Raul Hilberg scholarly credit attributed by history to Hannah Arendt. However, in the course of doing so, Popper gave credit to Hilberg for being the first to teach a college-level course on the Holocaust. He was not. In 1972, two years before Hilberg first did so, Hampshire College offered a course titled "Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Encounter With the Holocaust," designed in that first year by a group of students and facilitated by anthropologist Leonard Glick. In 1973, Glick created his own syllabus and taught the course for many years thereafter. Hampshire was honored, beginning in 1972, to welcome Hilberg as a guest lecturer for the course. SIGMUND J. ROOS, chair Board of trustees, Hampshire College Tulsa, Okla. As an undergraduate at the University of Vermont in the late 1970s I encountered Hilberg, by then a revered—and feared—faculty member. He was a stern man, distant, but a profoundly gifted lecturer and teacher. Years later, I was his host during a visit to the university where I was then a faculty member. I'd not seen him for decades; he didn't remember me (nor should he have). I found him courtly, friendly, funny, even in his distant way. The lecture was a powerful performance, but during the question-and-answer segment, he erupted when asked to discuss Holocaust survivors. "I don't want to talk about survivors," he shouted. "I want to talk about those who were murdered!" I think that statement reveals much about who he was. BRIAN HOSMER I Remember Mario San Diego I was in Mario Savio's Free Speech Movement/Children's Crusade and bachelor's degree program at UC Berkeley [Scott Saul, "A Body on the Gears," March 29]. It took me eighteen years to graduate because I told Mario I wouldn't take my degree until he got his (he called me when he graduated from San Francisco State). I spoke at his Manhattan memorial service. Did you know he starred in Brigadoon as a senior in high school? He was known as Bob then, as your reviewer notes. Once, a classmate wanted to shoot out a street light outside his window in Queens. Bob wouldn't advise him one way or the other. After the friend did shoot it out, Bob asked, "Did you clean up the glass?" RICHARD THOMPSON A Late, Great Muckraker Blairstown, N.J. As the son and daughter-in-law of Fred Cook, we found Richard Lingeman's "Redbaited by the FBI" [Jan. 11/18] most interesting. The FBI must have been very frustrated trying to find anything on Dad, as he was incorruptible. Dad wrote books on many controversial subjects—The Plot Against the Patient (healthcare), The Warfare State (military-industrial complex), The Great Energy Scam (oil industry) and The Secret Rulers (organized crime) among them. We have great memories of a wonderful man. Thank you for the article. FRED and CAROL COOK Throw Another Nation on the Barbie! Sofia, Bulgaria I am an Australian and an English teacher in Bulgaria. I just want to thank you for your articles. I use them to teach my students, and they greatly enjoy them. LEWIS ALBANIS
Apr 28, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Through the Looking Glass Darkly Pittsburgh After reading Richard Kim's "The Mad Tea Party" [April 12], I saw the light and converted to Teabaggerism. Has anyone noticed that the monogram for "Cloward-Piven" is "CP," the same as for "Communist Party"? And that the reverse, "PC," is the same as for "political correctness"? And that their article was published in 1966, which, of course, contains the number of the Antichrist, with the first 6 diabolically disguised as a 9? I eagerly await a Fox "News" offer of my very own show. MICHAEL PASTORKOVICH London If you combine the first three letters of "Cloward" and the last three of "Piven," you get "cloven"! NORBERT HIRSCHHORN Brooklyn, N.Y. Frances Fox Piven is a target precisely because her work has always supported democratic politics from below. She has devoted a lifetime of scholarship to studying how ordinary people, particularly poor people, fight for social change to improve their lot in life. Case studies she has researched over several decades on the Revolutionary era and the abolitionist, labor, 1930s unemployed workers', welfare rights and civil rights movements all underscore a basic truth: people can redress the imbalance of power and wealth in our society when they organize and disrupt business as usual. That's the last thing Glenn Beck et al. want Americans to realize, and it helps explain why they are working overtime to offer a counternarrative. DOROTHEE BENZ Germantown, N.Y. I worked for Richard Cloward at Mobilization for Youth in 1966 and was there at the creation of the "Strategy to End Poverty." Were Cloward and Piven radicals? You bet, but so was everybody--from the poverty lawyers to school activists (remember Ocean Hill-Brownsville?) to housing advocates and right on down. For God's sake, it was the '60s! At no time did Cloward and Piven consider welfare rights a brief against capitalism, and you'd have to be a lunatic to consider what they were doing to be out of the mainstream. Compare the peaceful and orderly welfare rights movement with the Harlem, Watts, Newark and Detroit riots. I am astounded at the sudden infamy of Cloward and Piven (which Dick would have loved; Frances was always the more practical of the two). To suggest that what the community organizers were doing to help the poor was sinister, unpatriotic or intended to bring down the pillars of our country through disruption is a barbaric misreading of a nation in what was arguably its most creative, if not the messiest, period of the last half of the twentieth century. Cloward and Piven were partners at every relationship level. The energy that produced the "Strategy" came from a combustible combination of love and commitment to a better life for the poor. I ran into Fran on the subway shortly after Dick died. She said she was going to a meeting at Columbia to organize the poor--did I want to come along? I said no, but I loved that she was still fighting for the oppressed. ARTHUR SCHIFF There You Go Again, Israel Westport Island, Me. Congratulations on "Obama's Israel Problem" [April 12]. As one who served on three UN missions to Palestine, beginning with the Bernadotte Mission in 1948, I suggest that the president tell Israel that America will continue to defend it against aggression and support it financially provided Israel returns to its 1967 borders, phases out West Bank settlements and leaves Gaza. Until Israel initiates actions to those ends, we should suspend diplomatic relations and notify the Security Council accordingly. BRUCE STEDMAN UN assistant secretary general (ret.) Mineola, N.Y. Why is America's foreign policy establishment so astonished by Bibi Netanyahu's serial intransigence? Taking Washington's support for granted has long been an article of faith in Tel Aviv. Though Democrats and Republicans continue to vilify one another over everything else, both parties march in lockstep with AIPAC and any and all Israeli policies, no matter how brutal or illegal. Little wonder, then, that despite Vice President Biden's effusive praise for a US-Israel special kinship, Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly embarrassed his state's staunchest ally and chief benefactor. Israel's military pre-eminence, European standard of living and technologically sophisticated economy are due in great measure to Uncle Sam's per annum stipend of $3 billion. Yet Israeli leaders never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to the two-state solution. Gen. David Petraeus's admonishments notwithstanding, no American president--including Obama--will ever emulate Ike and summon the courage to overturn such naked irredentism. ROSARIO A. IACONIS Louisville Your nostalgic reference to the days when "President Eisenhower was not afraid to threaten economic sanctions" against Israel needs to be placed in historical context. Eisenhower was elected at a time of heightened cold war tensions, when Israel was perceived by many in DC as a closet, albeit nonaligned, friend of the Soviet Union. Key to his willingness to take on Israel and push for Middle East peace was that top CIA officials like Kermit Roosevelt, and the State Department's Henry Byroade, covertly supported the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, led by rabbis Elmer Berger and Morris Lazaron and San Francisco businessman George Levison. In the early '50s the ACJ was a major voice in Reform Judaism, speaking for about 25 percent of US Jews. In 1953 Levison and ACJ president Lessing Rosenwald met with Eisenhower to discuss ways the ACJ could assist the Middle East peace initiative, and to distinguish Judaism from "expansionist Zionism." The CIA's Roosevelt also recruited Jacob Blaustein of the American Jewish Committee to pressure Israel into accepting back about 200,000 Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war. Critical to the ACJ acting as a CIA front organization was the American Friends of the Middle East, created by Roosevelt and Berger, with help from Aramco's Col. William Eddy. AFME funded trips to the region by Berger and Lazaron in 1954 and '55. Freedom House's Leo Cherne also worked with the ACJ to create a philanthropic fund, which, had the Eisenhower peace initiative borne fruit, would have assisted Palestinian refugees (with a TVA for the Jordan Valley) and Arab Jewish communities in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Iraq. Eisenhower called for Israel to end its Zionist mission, and Berger's 1955 trip focused on how CIA and Aramco money funneled through the AFME to the ACJ philanthropic fund could maintain Jewish communities in the Arab states. The Eisenhower administration worked diligently to create a supportive American Jewish constituency group in the ACJ. The ACJ was even encouraged by the Luce family of Time-Life fame to develop a network of anti-Zionist Reform temples, starting with Chicago's Lakeside Congregation, and Jewish schools with a message that opposed Jewish "peoplehood" in favor of Jewish spirituality. (Readers who would like to know more can read Thomas Kolsky's Jews Against Zionism.) DAVID EUGENE BLANK
Apr 22, 2010 / Our Readers
Big Green: Outed and Outraged Big Green: Outed and Outraged
Below are letters from various environmental groups responding to our March 22 cover story, "The Wrong Kind of Green," by Johann Hari. Because space in our Letters column is limited, they have been abridged. For longer versions, go to "Conservation Groups & Corporate Cash: An Exchange." --The Editors Montpelier, Vt. Johann Hari's "The Wrong Kind of Green" is an irresponsible and toxic mixture of inaccurate information and uninformed analysis. Hari, who did not contact the National Wildlife Federation, has written a work of fiction that hardly merits a response, except that it stoops to a new low by attacking the reputation of the late Jay Hair, a former CEO of the National Wildlife Federation whose powerful legacy of conservation achievement speaks for itself. The National Wildlife Federation is funded primarily by the generous donations of 4 million members and supporters. Corporate partnerships for our educational work account for less than 0.5 percent of our funding. Our dedicated staff, volunteers and state affiliates fight tirelessly to take on polluters, protect wildlife habitat, promote clean energy and educate families about wildlife and the importance of spending time outdoors in nature. What will The Nation do next, blame polar bears for global warming? CHRISTINE DORSEY, communications director National Wildlife Federation Seattle Johann Hari has made outrageous and false statements about my late husband, Dr. Jay Hair, who died in 2002 after a five-year battle with cancer. Jay devoted his life--and his considerable passion, courage and intelligence--to protecting this planet. He never betrayed that mission to "suck millions" from oil and gas companies. While Jay was president of the National Wildlife Federation, corporate contributions never exceeded 1 percent of NWF's budget. In 1982 Jay established NWF's Corporate Conservation Council to create a forum for dialogue with Fortune 500 leaders. Prior to this controversial initiative, almost the only place business and environmental leaders met was in court. Jay took considerable heat, but he understood that the enormity of our challenges required that all sectors--private, government, NGO, religious--be involved and talking to one another. The council was funded solely by its members; NWF's budget was not drawn upon to create the council, nor did corporate money from the council seep into NWF's regular budget. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, Jay was the first national environmental leader to go to Prince William Sound to draw attention to the social and environmental devastation. Under Jay's leadership, NWF initiated the class-action lawsuit against Exxon for punitive damages. He protested on the floor of an Exxon stockholders meeting. If Exxon or anyone thought that Corporate Conservation Council membership bought "reputation insurance," they clearly were mistaken. Hari's sloppy reporting smeared the reputation of a fine man. You owe an apology. LEAH HAIR San Francisco Thin on solutions, Johann Hari's story was so plump with distortions of reality that it might have been written by Lewis Carroll. Hari's silliest innuendo is that the Sierra Club is somehow less than aggressive in the fight against coal power. Sierra Club members have blocked no fewer than 119 coal-fired power plants in recent years, and the organization is regarded by friend and foe as the most successful force in the critical effort to scrap coal power. On February 10 even climate scientist James Hansen pulled on a Sierra Club T-shirt and participated in a Sierra Student Coalition anti-coal rally at the University of North Carolina--one of dozens of such rallies our young activists have held in support of Hansen's number-one anti-climate disruption goal: to move America beyond coal. Hari also offered the false and offensive analogy that Sierra Club's marketing partnership with Clorox's environmentally friendly cleaning products was like Amnesty International being funded by genocidal war criminals. The Sierra Club had ensured that these products met the Environmental Protection Agency's most stringent standard, spending four months reviewing Green Works. In the two years since the partnership began, no one has cited evidence that Green Works products do not meet the claims made for them. Rather, they are helping to increase consumer demand for green products. Finally, we have always supported the deepest emissions cuts in line with the science and the need to convert to a new clean energy economy. This includes cuts endorsed by the Center for Biological Diversity, with whom we often join in litigation. Indeed, it was the Sierra Club that helped bring the original suit that led to the Supreme Court decision that spurred the EPA to begin regulating global warming pollution. CARL POPE, executive director Sierra Club Washington, D.C. "The Wrong Kind of Green" offers an inaccurate and incomplete picture of the role deforestation plays in climate change and the way environmental and conservation organizations are fighting for policies to address global warming. For the true story, see nature.org/climatechange. KAREN FOERSTEL, director Climate media relations The Nature Conservancy Washington, D.C. Johann Hari points to three principles that could make environmental advocacy groups stronger and the world a safer place for our children: (1) avoid the perceived or real conflicts of interest created by taking corporate money; (2) start with what must be done to save the environment, not with what we think we can eke out of an unfriendly Congress; (3) work bottom-up, shutting and stopping coal plants. I couldn't agree more. For forty years, Greenpeace has maintained our financial independence, refusing money from corporations. A few years ago, Greenpeace and our allies decided to stop deforestation in the Amazon by "persuading" the major industries driving the problem to cease and desist. When we discovered that cattle ranching was a primary driver of deforestation, Greenpeace activists in the United States and Europe nudged Nike and Timberland to cancel their contracts with leather companies causing deforestation. A few canceled contracts later, the major ranching companies agreed with Greenpeace Brazil to a moratorium on any ranching that causes deforestation. It doesn't matter if you work with companies or governments, as long as you are independent, start with the ecological goal, work globally with governments or companies to change the game and ultimately bring your opponents to a place where they'll lobby for your law or can't withstand it. It is difficult to imagine a way forward on global warming that gets at the root of the problem--coal, the number-one cause of global warming pollution--without a plant-by-plant fight to shut down coal. Some environmental organizations have approached coal with an attitude of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The Sierra Club and Greenpeace have a different approach: "beat coal until they join us." PHIL RADFORD, executive director Greenpeace Middlebury, Vt. Many thanks to Johann Hari for his kind words about our work. At 350.org we aren't so much an organization as a campaign, and we look for allies everywhere. We've found them not only across the environmental spectrum but in churches, mosques, temples, sports teams and theater troupes. Our global day of action last October--which CNN called the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history--involved 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries. We worked easily worldwide with big green groups as well as thousands of organizers from tiny local campaigns and people who'd never done anything before. We were a little surprised at how hard it was to get buy-in to our campaign from some of the big US environmental groups. But as Hari points out, history may have played a role--these groups were set up and scaled to fight much smaller battles, doing the noble work of saving particular canyons or passing conservation laws. It's a whole 'nother level to take on fossil fuel, the center of the economy. But even if the front office of the Sierra Club didn't like what we were doing, its chapters across America and around the world engaged with the 350 campaign, helping pull off rallies and demonstrations. Which is good, because we're a tiny outfit--a couple-dozen young people and one aging writer spread out across a big planet. Immodestly speaking, we're good at what we do, but not good enough to replace other organizations. Our real strength is the amazing volunteers who make it happen everywhere--including in places you're not supposed to be able to do this work. Check out the pictures at 350.org, and you'll see that environmentalism is no longer only for rich white people. We are black, brown, Asian, poor, young--because that's who most of the world is. One key battle that lies ahead for American groups is passing legislation to finally do something about our enormous contribution to global warming: when we talk to our organizers in Addis Ababa or Beijing or Quito, they say that US legislation is vital before anyone else will take real steps. We've learned that it's easier to rally people around bold, ambitious goals. The lobbying in Washington will go better if there's a real movement pushing senators--and that movement can only be built behind legislation that would truly change the system. The good news is everyone gets another chance to help out, all over the world. In collaboration with our UK friends in the 10:10 movement, we've set October 10 for a global Work Party with a 350 theme, with people around the planet putting up solar panels and insulating houses. The point is to send a message to our leaders: we're doing our work, why aren't you? If we can get up on the roof of the school with hammers, surely you can do your work in the Senate, the General Assembly or Parliament. If leaders won't lead, we'll have to lead for them. We hope everyone will join in, big groups and small. Working together is fun and empowering. BILL McKIBBEN, 350.org Tucson Johann Hari asks, Why do so many of the large environmental groups appear to take their lead on climate policy from Congress and the White House? Why do they appear to lack a bottom line on climate policy? He is puzzled by their quick endorsement of weak climate bills, their lauding of Obama's regressive position at Copenhagen and their claims that Copenhagen was a success. He is right to be puzzled: such positioning has been a failure. Congress and the White House have taken progressively weaker positions on climate change legislation and are giving ground in the face of corporate opposition. They see little reason to move toward environmental groups that have endorsed weak positions and signaled that they will endorse even weaker ones. The Center for Biological Diversity has joined groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and 350.org to establish 350 parts per million as a bright-line criterion for endorsement of any climate legislation, policy or international agreement. It is not negotiable, because the conditions that support life on earth are not negotiable. While pushing for new, comprehensive legislation, the Center believes it is imperative that we also use existing laws--like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act--to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions now. And we must update land and wildlife management plans to ensure that imperiled species are able to survive the level of global warming that is already locked in. We've petitioned the EPA to determine scientifically the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases), just as it does for other air pollutants. Hari describes the aggressive public opposition to the EPA's determining this safe level by a faction within the Sierra Club, which has also tried to persuade other environmental groups to ask Congress to amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the EPA from doing this. The good news is that the Sierra Club is diverse and dynamic, and many of its leaders and chapters are strongly in favor of the Center and 350.org's petition. Recent changes in the Club's management are promising, and I look forward to working with it to reduce carbon dioxide to 350 ppm. That is unquestionably the task of our generation. The tough questions Hari asks will continue to be posed by astute reporters as environmental groups' endorsements are being lined up for a very weak Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill--a bill that seeks to increase oil drilling, continue coal burning and allow greenhouse gas emissions to pass irrevocable tipping points. Hari's questions are critical for our time. As environmental leaders, we would do well to use those questions for self-reflection rather than defensively dismiss them. For the Center's efforts to combat global warming, see biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/index.html . KIERAN SUCKLING, executive director Center for Biological Diversity Quito, Ecuador Congratulations to Johann Hari for the courage to "out" what many have been whispering about for a long time. While we all want to see a stop to deforestation, and real progress in addressing climate change, the approach of the BiNGOs [big nongovernmental organizations] has been to double down on market-based solutions, a questionable approach given that the market, its drivers and its defenders are some of the same culprits responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place. Many of the industry-friendly stopgap measures the BiNGOs are advocating for don't meet the threshold for emissions reductions that scientists tell us are needed. And many treat forests as mere carbon concessions, at the expense of biodiversity and indigenous rights. Given that the tipping point for forest collapse is two to ten years away, this is no time for compromise or false solutions. We invite these organizations to address the drivers of climate change and deforestation, and make indigenous rights central to their climate change agenda. In the run-up to Cop 15, several BiNGOs committed to a "No rights, no REDD" [reducing emissions from deforestation and deregulation] position. These groups should be speaking out and withdrawing their support for REDD unless basic inalienable principles like FPIC (free prior informed consent) are included. KEVIN KOENIG, Ecuador program coordinator Amazon Watch Hari Replies London It is a fact that Dr. Jay Hair kick-started the process of environmental groups taking money from the world's worst polluters. It is also a fact that this process has been taken much further by groups like Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy, ending with their missions becoming deeply corrupted, as I reported. My view is also the view of America's most distinguished climate scientist, Professor James Hansen; of whistleblowers from inside these organizations; and of the environmental groups that don't take money from polluters. I accept that Hair was a fine person in his personal life and had some positive motives, and of course his early death is tragic. But people with otherwise positive motives can make horrific misjudgments. In public debate we have to be able to criticize the harm people have done, and show how it continues, or we cannot prevent more harm. The apology Leah Hair demands is in fact due from the "green" groups that are taking ever more polluter cash and betraying their own missions. If she wishes to preserve the best of her husband's legacy, she should direct her anger at them, not at journalists honestly describing how this process began. Carl Pope, rather than engage with the issues I raised, sadly plays the old politician's trick of denying charges I did not make. Where did I say that the Sierra Club doesn't oppose coal? Nowhere. I described the facts--that under his leadership, the Sierra Club vehemently opposed a lawsuit to force government policies into line with basic climate science by returning us to 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Pope doesn't try to justify or explain this, although it was my single largest charge against the Sierra Club. The Center for Biological Diversity describes this behavior as "throwing climate science out of the window," and Jim Hansen--the man Pope waves as a papal authority--describes it as "shocking" and "abominable." So, yes, the Sierra Club opposes coal in many places and at many times, as I said in my article. But it is a matter of record that when there was a lawsuit to ensure the dramatic scale-back in coal we need to preserve a safe climate, its spokesmen and legal counsel lined up with former Bush administration members to deride it. I would like to hear Pope offer an explanation for this, instead of name-calling. Pope also gives an account of the Clorox scandal that is, alas, inconsistent with the facts. A corporation approached Pope and said it would give the Sierra Club a cut of its profits if it could use the Club's logo on its new bleach. As Christine MacDonald exposes in her book Green Inc., Pope gave the go-ahead without making any effort to check that the bleach was genuinely greener than its competitors. The Club's own toxics committee co-chair, Jessica Frohman, was very clear about this, saying, "We never approved the product line." It is a disturbing example of how corporate cash has perverted the behavior of even as admirable a green group as the Sierra Club. There is something lacking from many of these responses. Do these people feel no concern that America's leading environmental groups are hoovering up cash from the worst polluters and advocating policies that fall far short of what scientists say we need to survive the climate crisis safely? Is this the best response they can muster? JOHANN HARI
Apr 16, 2010 / Our Readers and Johann Hari