Disinfortmation Agents

[Josiah Thompson]

"Now that we have sung the praise of Josiah Thompson, here's an overview of a

book published in 1998, some 30 years later, that presents new discoveries in

the case--findings of the first importance!...."

This is hilarious... now that someone, somewhere has said something positive about Thompson, you ask people to look at Fetzer. "Look at me," you shout. "Look at me, NOW!"

You just don't get it, Professor.

Your problem is not that you and I are competing. Your problem is that we are not competing and that, like Rodney Dangerfield, you just aren't getting the respect you think you deserve. That lack of respect does not spring from anything I do or say. It comes from people reading your progressively shrill and tabloidesque books and remarking on the similarities of your style and scruples to that of reporters for the Globe writing on three-headed twins! Your problem is that the latest books on the Zapruder film properly debunk your own persistent obsession with proving a non-fact. It's not me. It's the readers who write into Amazon. It's the scholars who write books in your field. It's the reviewers who pan your work when it comes out.

The solution.... edit better books. Don't publish garbage. Don't devote ten pages of a book to the ravings of an Australian crony who comes to the U.S. and claims that "listening devices" have been placed in Dealey Plaze when they were just "rain sensors" to control the sprinklers.

I have to ask myself why your continual posing and log-rolling for your books irritates me so much. I guess it's because I remember a time when Sylvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Ray Marcus, Paul Hoch and I, etc. etc, were all working on the case together. Just reading over Sylvia and M.S. Arnoni's correspondence today makes me feel all this more keenly. They were so bright and so honest! The kind of antics you continually carry out would have been laughed at uproariously from the beginning. No one was trying to log roll anything or sell any books. "Rain sensors" as "listening devices?"... Sylvia would have eaten you for breakfast on that one alone. I'm not talking about any particular theses. I'm talking about how points are argued, what rigor is brought to the claim and evidence presented, how one's interlocutor is treated in discussion. Research in this case started out in a very different way to the tabloid farce your latest books reduce it to. I guess, in truth, that is why you and your antics irritate me so.

Your latest antics with respect to Wellstone's plane, non-existent electronic death rays and the like, make me wish that almost fifteen years ago we all had dashed sufficient cold water on your brilliant idea that Bill Greer had shot the President with a shiny pistol, that you would have left the Kennedy assassination alone and gone out to cherry-pick a new conspiracy du jour.

Instead, we still have you around, whining about people not giving you enough respect.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Josiah Thompson

[Tim Gratz]

Josiah wrote:

Over the years, I never have criticized Vince Salandria. I think many of his ideas are indeed pretty loopy. But I've never attacked back because of his paranoid claims. Even though we're both in our seventies now, I still see him as one of the true heroes of the critical examination of the Warren Report. He may be wrong but he's not venal or self-aggrandizing like Fetzer. Most importantly, his early research was really good!

Most gracious of Mr. Thompson to be so generous to a man who, without any evidence, accused him of being a CIA disinformation agent! This even when Salandria knew Mr. Thompson was a leftist peacenik! (Perhaps he thought that just a cover like LHO.)

Whatever Salandria has must be catching since there are several in the assassination research community who will, like Mr. Salandria, accuse anyone with whom they disagree of being a CIA disinformation agent.

The correspondence refered to in Jack's thread is where I found Salandria's accusation that the Nation had committed a crime by publishing information supportive of the WC. That is just an incredible charge coming from an attorney. Attempting to criminalize dissent is reminiscent of "1984". (Some of us are old enough that when we read "1984" it seemed like it was a year far, far in the future!)

It is unfortunate when someone cannot engage in a debate on the issues without having to engage in ad hominen charges. If someone's argument is wrong, it ought to fail on its merits.

The truly sad thing is that when Mr. Salandria accused Mr. Thompson of being a CIA disinformation agent, I am sure he believed it!

[Pat Speer]

I have to ask myself why your continual posing and log-rolling for your books irritates me so much.  I guess it's because I remember a time when Sylvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Ray Marcus, Paul Hoch and I, etc. etc, were all working on the case together.  Just reading over Sylvia and M.S. Arnoni's correspondence to day makes feel all this keenly.  They were so bright and so honest.  The kind of antics you continually carry out would have been laughed at uproariously from the beginning.  No one was trying to log roll anything.  "Rain sensors" as "listening devices?"... Sylvia would have eaten you for breakfast on that one alone.  I'm not talking about any particular theses.  I'm talking about how points are argued, what rigor is brought to the claim and evidence presented, how one's interlocutor is treated in discussion. Research in this case started out in a very different way to the tabloid farce your latest books reduce it to. I guess, in truth, that is why you and your antics irritate me so.

[/b]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, Josiah, the 1 million dollar question... Since you were there darned near the beginning, asking questions that really unnerved the people in power (I've read where Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel admitted the Panel was formed to refute your book), at a time when questioning those in power about the assassination may actually have been dangerous, did YOU ever suspect someone in the research community of being an agent of some kind? Was there anyone digging through your trash? Trying to encourage you to tone down your theories? Spreading lies about you to discredit you in the community? Did the FBI have a COINTEL-PRO for the research community? Did anyone besides Salandria start thinking other researchers were spooks? How widespread was paranoia at a time when it may have actually been justified?

[Josiah Thompson]

I have to ask myself why your continual posing and log-rolling for your books irritates me so much.   I guess it's because I remember a time when Sylvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Ray Marcus, Paul Hoch and I, etc. etc, were all working on the case together.  Just reading over Sylvia and M.S. Arnoni's correspondence to day makes feel all this keenly.  They were so bright and so honest.  The kind of antics you continually carry out would have been laughed at uproariously from the beginning.  No one was trying to log roll anything.  "Rain sensors" as "listening devices?"... Sylvia would have eaten you for breakfast on that one alone.   I'm not talking about any particular theses.  I'm talking about how points are argued, what rigor is brought to the claim and evidence presented, how one's interlocutor is treated in discussion. Research in this case started out in a very different way to the tabloid farce your latest books reduce it to. I guess, in truth, that is why you and your antics irritate me so.

[/b]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, Josiah, the 1 million dollar question... Since you were there darned near the beginning, asking questions that really unnerved the people in power (I've read where Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel admitted the Panel was formed to refute your book), at a time when questioning those in power about the assassination may actually have been dangerous, did YOU ever suspect someone in the research community of being an agent of some kind? Was there anyone digging through your trash? Trying to encourage you to tone down your theories? Spreading lies about you to discredit you in the community? Did the FBI have a COINTEL-PRO for the research community? Did anyone besides Salandria start thinking other researchers were spooks? How widespread was paranoia at a time when it may have actually been justified?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if you remember but the Media FBI office was broken into on the evening of March 21, 1971 and all their files stolen by persons unknown. These files were then copied and released selectively to the press over the next six or eight months. The documents obtained and then released to the press contained the first clear, indisputable evidence of the existence of the COINTELPRO program. They also showed that many members of the Swarthmore College administration were reporting regularly to the FBI on the political activities of students and faculty. Ditto for the athletic trainer at Haverford College.

I believe some of these documents evidenced a continuing interest in me and "Six Seconds" by the FBI and Hoover. I have been sent various FBI documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests which evidence an intense interest on the part of Hoover and the FBI concerning me and "Six Seconds." These largely come from the late 1960s and show the FBI closely following the reception the book received and how it fared under the onslaught from Time Incorporated.

Back then did I believe that any other critics were agents? No. Some I judged to be thoughtful and careful. Others I judged to be harebrained. But I never thought any were agents. Maybe some were. I never thought much about it.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Josiah Thompson

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Pat, he answered your question. So send Dr. Thompson his million!

An interesting answer, though, huh?

[Tim Carroll]

So, Josiah, the 1 million dollar question...  Since you were there darned near the beginning, asking questions that really unnerved the people in power (I've read where Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel admitted the Panel was formed to refute your book), at a time when questioning those in power about the assassination may actually have been dangerous, did YOU ever suspect someone in the research community of being an agent of some kind?

Back then did I believe that any other critics were agents? No. Some I judged to be thoughtful and careful. Others I judged to be harebrained. But I never thought any were agents. Maybe some were. I never thought much about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, Pat, he answered your question.  So send Dr. Thompson his million!  An interesting answer, though, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A commonsense view; words to live by still.

Tim

[Pat Speer]

I don't know if you remember but the Media FBI office was broken into on the evening of March 21, 1971 and all their files stolen by persons unknown. These files were then copied and released selectively to the press over the next six or eight months. The documents obtained and then released to the press contained the first clear, indisputable evidence of the existence of the COINTELPRO program. They also showed that many members of the Swarthmore College administration were reporting regularly to the FBI on the political activities of students and faculty. Ditto for the athletic trainer at Haverford College.

I believe some of these documents evidenced a continuing interest in me and "Six Seconds" by the FBI and Hoover. I have been sent various FBI documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests which evidence an intense interest on the part of Hoover and the FBI concerning me and "Six Seconds." These largely come from the late 1960s and show the FBI closely following the reception the book received and how it fared under the onslaught from Time Incorporated.

Back then did I believe that any other critics were agents? No. Some I judged to be thoughtful and careful. Others I judged to be harebrained. But I never thought any were agents. Maybe some were. I never thought much about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good answer. Your 1 million is in the mail. Keep your fingers-crossed that that pesky ghost of Angleton doesn't get it.

Seriously. Do you have any inside knowledge of the Media break-in? Here the FBI was totally exposed, totally humiliated, and yet not one person was arrested. This is astounding. Since the White House was trying to get rid of Hoover at this very same moment in time, and since Colson was hiring Hunt at this very same time, I'd harbored a suspicion that this was an early adventure of the "plumbers". A few months back, however, I can't remember where, I was reading a book on sixties radicals, and one of the journalists interviewed, who'd been one of the recipients of the stolen files, claimed he knew the members of the "Committee to Investigate the FBI" or whatever they called themselves, and said they were local radicals?

Do you know whether they were, in fact, members of the left? Did you know them? I think the statute of limitations is up. Were you one of them? Maybe if you "out" yourself, Salandria can be swayed on your bona fides.

On the other hand, everyone knows the spooks hate the feebies...

Edited September 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

I don't know if you remember but the Media FBI office was broken into on the evening of March 21, 1971 and all their files stolen by persons unknown. These files were then copied and released selectively to the press over the next six or eight months. The documents obtained and then released to the press contained the first clear, indisputable evidence of the existence of the COINTELPRO program. They also showed that many members of the Swarthmore College administration were reporting regularly to the FBI on the political activities of students and faculty. Ditto for the athletic trainer at Haverford College.

I believe some of these documents evidenced a continuing interest in me and "Six Seconds" by the FBI and Hoover. I have been sent various FBI documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests which evidence an intense interest on the part of Hoover and the FBI concerning me and "Six Seconds." These largely come from the late 1960s and show the FBI closely following the reception the book received and how it fared under the onslaught from Time Incorporated.

Back then did I believe that any other critics were agents? No. Some I judged to be thoughtful and careful. Others I judged to be harebrained. But I never thought any were agents. Maybe some were. I never thought much about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good answer. Your 1 million is in the mail. Keep your fingers-crossed that that pesky ghost of Angleton doesn't get it.

Seriously. Do you have any inside knowledge of the Media break-in? Here the FBI was totally exposed, totally humiliated, and yet not one person was arrested. This is astounding. Since the White House was trying to get rid of Hoover at this very same moment in time, and since Colson was hiring Hunt at this very same time, I'd harbored a suspicion that this was an early adventure of the "plumbers". A few months back, however, I can't remember where, I was reading a book on sixties radicals, and one of the journalists interviewed, who'd been one of the recipients of the stolen files, claimed he knew the members of the "Committee to Investigate the FBI" or whatever they called themselves, and said they were local radicals?

Do you know whether they were, in fact, members of the left? Did you know them? I think the statute of limitations is up. Were you one of them? Maybe if you "out" yourself, Salandria can be swayed on your bona fides.

On the other hand, everyone knows the spooks hate the feebies...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Federal prosecutors are very adept at finding ways around any statute of limitations... for example, a continuing conspiracy to aid and abet the first conspiracy, various overt acts on behalf of keeping the first conspiracy secret. In terms of answering your questions, the best I can do is quote from a book I published in 1988 called Gumshoe. It is non-fiction, a kind of memoir describing the change from being a college professor to being a PI:

At the outset everything had gone on in an atmosphere of earnest respectability. Nancy and I had come early to the antiwar movement, organizing marches and vigils in 1965 and 1966. I'd been arrested in the usual well-mannered ways in Philadelphia and Washington. Consistently polite to the authorities, we'd even permitted members of the Philadelphia police civil-disobedience squad to attend our premarch meetings. There'd been little violence; it had all been a battle of words.

When had things changed?

It was probably in 1970. We'd spent that academic year in Denmark, where I'd read the Danish papers for news of Cambodia and Kent State. We'd returned to Haverford in the late summer and you didn't have to be an Eric Sevareid to recognize that the balance had shifted. Resistance had replaced dissent; criminal conspiracy had taken the place of political organizing. On the one hand, there were draft-board raids and sabotage missions: in March 1971 the files of the Media FBI office were elegantly stolen and selectively released to the press. On the other hand, there was the ever-present danger of government phone taps and penetration by informers. For a brief moment, respectably middle-class citizens could function as criminals, backed not only by moral purpose but by the vocal enthusiasm of the intellectual community.

The wheeling columns of uniform-clad young men performing their maneuvers "for God, for Country and for Yale" had receded into the past. The society was no longer integral or obviously worthwhile. Our attention turned to the "good Germans," the Circle of the Rose, or, alternatively, to Camus and Sartre and their compatriots in the French resistance. My Navy training in commando and demolition raids could be used to advantage. It was a time of secret meetings and secret plans, of coded phone messages and watching one's rear-view mirror. When Haverford's president announced he might honor the FBI's request to examine the college's Xerox machines, I helped shift the offending roll to the president's personal machine. When Hoover's short-haired undercover operatives appeared in Powelton Village, a neighborhood warning system of hand-held sirens alerted the troops. It was David against Goliath. We were the best of our generation, we told ourselves, ready to take risks and do things others only thought about.

Had I been happy? Yes. It was an engrossing "story."

Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1988) pages 72-73.

The line above about us thinking "we were the best of our generation" just caught my eye as I typed it. What incredible hubris! None of us had ever seen the inside of a federal prison. In some sense, we may have believed we were untouchable. After all, we were intellectuals of various stripes. The government wouldn't dare touch us.... Or would it? It was.... to use Sartre's own concept... a time of incredible "bad faith," a time of massive self-delusion, of wading deep into the stream of ideology. And now... unbelievably... one pops one's head up and recognizes it was all over thirty years ago.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Great post, Thompson. You make me homesick for a place I've only seen in postcards.

[Josiah Thompson]

Great post, Thompson.  You make me homesick for a place I've only seen in postcards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Pat. I've enjoyed our exchange. It takes me back to things I haven't thought about for years. Unfortunately, I've got to go out-of-town on a case later this morning.... back the middle of next week.

[David G. Healy]

Josiah Thompson wrote:

I don't know if you remember but the Media FBI office was broken into on the evening of March 21, 1971 and all their files stolen by persons unknown.  These files were then copied and released selectively to the press over the next six or eight months.  The documents obtained and then released to the press contained the first clear, indisputable evidence of the existence of the COINTELPRO program.  They also showed that many members of the Swarthmore College administration were reporting regularly to the FBI on the political activities of students and faculty.  Ditto for the athletic trainer at Haverford College.

I believe some of these documents evidenced a continuing interest in me and "Six Seconds" by the FBI and Hoover.  I have been sent various FBI documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests which evidence an intense interest on the part of Hoover and the FBI concerning me and "Six Seconds."  These largely come from the late 1960s and show the FBI closely following the reception the book received and how it fared under the onslaught from Time Incorporated.

Back then did I believe that any other critics were agents?  No.  Some I judged to be thoughtful and careful. Others I judged to be harebrained.  But I never thought any were agents.  Maybe some were.  I never thought much about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good answer. Your 1 million is in the mail. Keep your fingers-crossed that that pesky ghost of Angleton doesn't get it.

Seriously. Do you have any inside knowledge of the Media break-in? Here the FBI was totally exposed, totally humiliated, and yet not one person was arrested. This is astounding. Since the White House was trying to get rid of Hoover at this very same moment in time, and since Colson was hiring Hunt at this very same time, I'd harbored a suspicion that this was an early adventure of the "plumbers". A few months back, however, I can't remember where, I was reading a book on sixties radicals, and one of the journalists interviewed, who'd been one of the recipients of the stolen files, claimed he knew the members of the "Committee to Investigate the FBI" or whatever they called themselves, and said they were local radicals?

Do you know whether they were, in fact, members of the left? Did you know them? I think the statute of limitations is up. Were you one of them? Maybe if you "out" yourself, Salandria can be swayed on your bona fides.

On the other hand, everyone knows the spooks hate the feebies...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Federal prosecutors are very adept at finding ways around any statute of limitations... for example, a continuing conspiracy to aid and abet the first conspiracy, various overt acts on behalf of keeping the first conspiracy secret. In terms of answering your questions, the best I can do is quote from a book I published in 1988 called Gumshoe. It is non-fiction, a kind of memoir describing the change from being a college professor to being a PI:

At the outset everything had gone on in an atmosphere of earnest respectability. Nancy and I had come early to the antiwar movement, organizing marches and vigils in 1965 and 1966. I'd been arrested in the usual well-mannered ways in Philadelphia and Washington. Consistently polite to the authorities, we'd even permitted members of the Philadelphia police civil-disobedience squad to attend our premarch meetings. There'd been little violence; it had all been a battle of words.

When had things changed?

It was probably in 1970.

probably have debate on that '70 date, especially from the SF bay area standpoint. In particular Univ. of Cal-Berkeley and San Francisco State. It certainly wasn't a "battle of words" on those campuses! Having ended up in a few emergency rooms while shooting news footage.

SFState's, S.I. 'sleepy time' Hiyakawa did have a nice golfcart and his TAM was a great touch. Only academic I saw who could quell a near riotous crowd [thousands], of students.

Evidently the SDS missed your part of the country, the SDS & FBI sure as hell didn't miss the bayarea.

We'd spent that academic year in Denmark, where I'd read the Danish papers for news of Cambodia and Kent State. We'd returned to Haverford in the late summer and you didn't have to be an Eric Sevareid to recognize that the balance had shifted. Resistance had replaced dissent; criminal conspiracy had taken the place of political organizing. On the one hand, there were draft-board raids and sabotage missions: in March 1971 the files of the Media FBI office were elegantly stolen and selectively released to the press. On the other hand, there was the ever-present danger of government phone taps and penetration by informers. For a brief moment, respectably middle-class citizens could function as criminals, backed not only by moral purpose but by the vocal enthusiasm of the intellectual community.

The wheeling columns of uniform-clad young men performing their maneuvers "for God, for Country and for Yale" had receded into the past. The society was no longer integral or obviously worthwhile. Our attention turned to the "good Germans," the Circle of the Rose, or, alternatively, to Camus and Sartre and their compatriots in the French resistance. My Navy training in commando and demolition raids could be used to advantage. It was a time of secret meetings and secret plans, of coded phone messages and watching one's rear-view mirror. When Haverford's president announced he might honor the FBI's request to examine the college's Xerox machines, I helped shift the offending roll to the president's personal machine. When Hoover's short-haired undercover operatives appeared in Powelton Village, a neighborhood warning system of hand-held sirens alerted the troops. It was David against Goliath. We were the best of our generation, we told ourselves, ready to take risks and do things others only thought about.

Had I been happy? Yes. It was an engrossing "story."

Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1988) pages 72-73.

The line above about us thinking "we were the best of our generation" just caught my eye as I typed it. What incredible hubris! None of us had ever seen the inside of a federal prison. In some sense, we may have believed we were untouchable. After all, we were intellectuals of various stripes. The government wouldn't dare touch us.... Or would it? It was.... to use Sartre's own concept... a time of incredible "bad faith," a time of massive self-delusion, of wading deep into the stream of ideology. And now... unbelievably... one pops one's head up and recognizes it was all over thirty years ago.

Edited September 29, 2005 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Josiah wrote:

Over the years, I never have criticized Vince Salandria. I think many of his ideas are indeed pretty loopy. But I've never attacked back because of his paranoid claims. Even though we're both in our seventies now, I still see him as one of the true heroes of the critical examination of the Warren Report. He may be wrong but he's not venal or self-aggrandizing like Fetzer. Most importantly, his early research was really good!

Most gracious of Mr. Thompson to be so generous to a man who, without any evidence, accused him of being a CIA disinformation agent!  This even when Salandria knew Mr. Thompson was a leftist peacenik!  (Perhaps he thought that just a cover like LHO.)

Whatever Salandria has must be catching since there are several in the assassination research community who will, like Mr. Salandria, accuse anyone with whom they disagree of being a CIA disinformation agent.

The correspondence refered to in Jack's thread is where I found Salandria's accusation that the Nation had committed a crime by publishing information supportive of the WC.  That is just an incredible charge coming from an attorney.  Attempting to criminalize dissent is reminiscent of "1984".  (Some of us are old enough that when we read "1984" it seemed like it was a year far, far in the future!)

It is unfortunate when someone cannot engage in a debate on the issues without having to engage in ad hominen charges.  If someone's argument is wrong, it ought to fail on its merits. 

The truly sad thing is that when Mr. Salandria accused Mr. Thompson of being a CIA disinformation agent, I am sure he believed it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry, Tim

I'm sure Josiah will send you a autograph -- btw, just curious; what would you know about the 60-70's peace movement -- other than what you've read in a book someplace?

Wasn't Salandria Mr. Thompson's attorney of record for a time? I also suspect he, Salandria finished out his long and distinguished career with his license in tact!

Edited September 29, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

David, I had to drive through tear gas on the UW campus during the seventies on many occassions.

My roommate, the Chairman of the UW Republican Club, was swatted with a baton by a Madison police officer when all he was doing was trying to watch a demonstration from the roof of the apartment building. (I think his actual "crime" was lipping off to the police officer who ordered him off the roof.) It took two people to carry him to my Corvette (his head was bleeding profusely) and I drove him to the hospital.

I was also an ear-witness to the six peace-loving leftists who bombed of the UW Army-Math building and killed an innocent mathematician. (I do not believe the bombers intended any personal injury, however. The bombing was in the wee hours of the morning.)

When I was a UW student, the UW was one of the top two or three hotbeds of anti-war activism. I proably saw more peace marches and demonstrations (many involving violence) than you can imagine.

My reference to Salandria knowing Dr. Thompson was a left-wing peacenik was an attempt to make a point in a rhetorical manner, and was not intended as any slur on Dr. Thompson. Obviously I am a great admirer of his and time permitting I want to read his book on Soren Kierkegaard (who I was studying in my philosophy class as Dr. Thompson was completing his book on Kierkegard.) And I intend to read Gumshoe as well. I understand it is an excellent book.

I do greatly admire Dr. Thompson's graciousness in not speaking ill of Mr. Salandria's paranoia about his being a disinformation agent.

Edited October 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Obviously I am a great admirer of his and time permitting I want to read his book on Soren Kierkegaard (who I was studying in my philosophy class as Dr. Thompson was completing his book on Kierkegard.) And I intend to read Gumshoe as well. I understand it is an excellent book. I do greatly admire Dr. Thompson's graciousness in not speaking ill of Mr. Salandria's paranoia about his being a disinformation agent.

There's a very interesting book about the adaptive nature of fear which applies the philosophy of Kierkegaard to the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"The majority of men are subjective toward themselves and objective toward all others, terribly objective at times - but the real task is to be objective toward oneself and subjective toward all others"* - Kierkegaard.

*James G. Blight, The Shattered Crystal Ball: Fear and Learning in the Cuban Missile Crisis, (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), 67.

Tim

[Tim Gratz]

Most interesting, Tim.

Always good to hear from you.

Are you watching the show on "The Discovery Channel" that is on now?