Contact: red_ankle@mac.com

WWW Mac-a-ro-nies

Contribute:

Back to the past
Part II: Blogger denies slavery cause of Civil War

Central to neo-Confederate dogma is the claim that the Civil War was fought over just about anything but slavery. Our current specimen of the movement, blogger Al Barger has, unsurprisingly, expressed that view.

Re-subjugating the Confederacy to northern domination was turning out to be much bloodier and more costly than Lincoln had expected. He needed more and better reasons for northern families to give up the lives of their sons, preferably something of a moral nature. Therefore, halfway into the war he declared that it was about ending slavery. Yeah, that's the ticket!

But, though there were ancillary issues, there is no real question in regard to slavery being the proximate and predominate cause of the Civil War. The best evidence of this fact comes from the horses' mouths. The Confederates themselves stated slavery was the main reason they were seceding from the Union. South Carolina, with its huge slave population, was the first to proclaim its intention to secede and why it was doing so. It had first attempted to leave the Union in 1852.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . .The non-slaveholding States have denounced as sinful the Institution of Slavery, they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes, and those who remain have been incited by emissaries books and pictures to servile insurrection... The public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate Extinction.

Slaves in the Family, Edward Ball, p. 324.

That extinction of slavery was not going to be allowed to occur, either then or in the future. If the Confederate States of America had won the war, it might well have maintained overt slavery or a form of apartheid into this century, as South Africa barely fell short of doing. The enabling text of each of the 13 states articles of secession can be read here. No person reading the articles of secession of South Carolina and its cohorts can doubt the Confederates considered slavery the primary reason they were leaving the Union -- unless he is being willfully obtuse.

Barger's denial runs deep.

Again, it's tough to say entirely what the "main issue" was to "the southern states" in that there is no Southern State you can ask about her opinion. It's a whole bunch of different people with differing values and priorities.

Probably you could go through letters and find a couple of southern soldiers writing about how important it is to keep black folks in their place. I doubt you'd find very many such things though.

The vast majority of white southerners were NOT slave owners. Barring strong evidence to the contrary that I haven't seen, I find it difficult to believe that southern boys were going off to fight and die motivated by the desire to protect the rich folks' right to own slaves. Doesn't make any sense to me. Especially since there wasn't yet even any attempt by the north to emancipate the slaves. [Emphasis mine.]

Let's consider a pretextual reason for secession offered by Barger and his allies.

A typical evasive tactic of neo-Confederates is to claim the Civil War was about tariffs. They assert the South was so burdened by tariffs it chose to rebel. The historical record proves otherwise. The organized opposition to taxes weighted against wealthy Southerners began in 1828.

In March 1833, Congress passed the Compromise Tariff, which shrank the tax rates, when [John C.] Calhoun [the former Vice President, who had resigned to show his loyalty to the South] supported the Compromise, the states' rights movement was able to claim victory." Ball, supra, at pp. 309-310.

The federal government caved in to Southern pressure in regard to tariffs long before the Civil War began.

Other revealing evidence against the neo-Confederate viewpoint is the Confederate Constitution. It unequivocally embraces slavery, with no hint whatsoever that abolition of the abominable practice is even to be considered.

Article IV

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

However, the Confederate Constitution does outlaw foreign importation of slaves, eliminating competition and guaranteeing maximum profit from the natural increase of slaves owned by Southerners.

Article I

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the rationalization for slavery and the basis for declaring "the South was right" for most neo-Confederates -- Biblical justification. Their denial of the role of slavery in the Civil War is usually two-pronged:

•The War Between the States was not fought over slavery;

•Besides, there was nothing wrong with slavery. If the Yankees opposed it, they were in error.

Most neo-Confederates are deeply relgious. Among the constant demands for the head of Jesse Jackson and enshrining the Confederate flag in their forums, a visitor will notice numerous requests for prayers. There is no cognitive dissonance occuring from a neo-Confederate perspective. An esteemed Southern clergyman penned an article called "The Bible View of Slavery," which is avidly promoted at many neo-Confederate sites. John Henry Hopkins, writing in 1864, offers several reasons slavery is Biblically justified, including the story of Ham, and concludes.

The Scriptures show me that the negro, like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to be a MAN AND A BROTHER. But though he be my brother, it does not follow that he is my equal. Equality can not be found on earth between the brothers even in one little family. In the same house, one brother usually obtains a mastery over the rest, and sometimes rules them with a perfect despotism. In England, the elder brother inherits the estate, and the younger brothers take a lower rank by the slavery of circumstances. The eldest son of the royal family is in due time the king, and his brothers forthwith become his subjects. Why should not the same principle obtain in the races of mankind, if the Almighty has so willed it? The Anglo-Saxon race is king; why should not the African race be subject, and subject in that way for which it is best adapted, and in which it may be more safe, more useful, and more happy than in any other which has yet been opened to it, in the annals of the world?

I know that there may be exceptions, now and again, to this intellectual inferiority of the negro race, though I believe it would be very difficult to find one, unless the intermixture of superior blood has operated to change the mental constitution of the individual. For all such cases the master may provide by voluntary emancipation, and it is notorious that this emancipation has been cheerfully given in thousands upon thousands of instances, in the majority of which the gift of liberty has failed to benefit the negro, and has, on the contrary sunk him far lower in his social position. But no reflecting man can believe that the great mass of the slaves, amounting to nearly four millions, are qualified for freedom. And therefore it is incomparably better for them to remain under the government of their masters, who are likely to provide for them so much more beneficially than they could provide for themselves.

The head of the League of the South, and other neo-Confederate leaders, hold the same beliefs as Hopkins despite the passage of time. They would prefer a return to slavery, but will settle for disenfranchisement and resegregation of nonwhites if they can get it.

Michael Hill, president of the League of the South and probably the key ideologue of the movement, calls slavery "God-ordained," while other leaders in his group defend segregation as a policy that merely preserved the "integrity" of white Southerners as a group. In North Carolina, the League recently added a new "advisor" to its list of local officials -- Steven Barry, a hard-line racist and official of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the other key group in the neo-Confederate movement, recently editorialized on its main web page about "greasy white yankee girls [who] make sure everyone notices their lust for black men." White supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons a man who was married at the Idaho compound of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations -- has become a key player for the League and most of the other neo-Confederate groups. And these are only a few telling signs of a movement that almost admits its own racism.

"Let us not flinch when our enemies call us 'racists,'" Hill wrote on a private Internet posting recently. "Rather, just reply with, "So, what's your point?'"

. . .Supporting the neo-Confederate enterprise are historical revisionists, men such as Michael Hill who, like deniers of the Holocaust, are rewriting the history of the Civil War and the South. In their view -- a view shared by virtually no serious historian -- the Civil War had almost nothing to do with slavery.

Though I suspect he will deny it, this is the tradition, one of white supremacy, Barger is speaking from.

History after the Civil War seems equally compelling as history before the Civil War in regard to this issue to me. If the South were truly a region with no race problems except those caused by meddling Yankees, why was the aftermath of the war a failed Reconstruction, the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan, lynching as an entertaining pastime, Jim Crow and violent opposition when integration became law? It seems to me those are the behaviors of a people with deep racial problems, not of folks who never had anything against blacks and fought a war over something other than maintaining slavery, as the neo-Confederates claim. I believe the history of the South is that of a region conceived in white supremacy and still enmeshed in it.

In summary, the claim the Civil War was not fought over slavery is false. But for the Southern oligarchy's perceived need to protect the peculiar institution, the war would not have occurred. The denials of modern neo-Confederates are lies meant to mislead the uninformed. They are mired in nostalgia for the past and hope of returning the country to it.

Back to the past
Part I: Blogosphere hosts new attack on Lincoln

Those of you who began reading my commentary before I had my own blog or who have been reading Mac-a-ro-nies from its inception already know I honed my blog teeth on the neo-Confederate movement. Readers who came along later have probably noticed I mention that pathetic band of Neandertals from time to time. It appears I need to return to writing about it often. A blogger sympathetic to the neo-Confederate movement has been promoting claims that President Abraham Lincoln was a despot and that the Emancipation Proclamation was meaningless.

Thanks for nothin' Abe

On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued his so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" supposedly freeing the slaves.

Lincoln personally disliked blacks and had publicly stated that he would willingly accept the institution of slavery if it would stop the southern states from seceding. Slavery was not a main issue to the southern states, however, and they left anyway.

Re-subjugating the Confederacy to northern domination was turning out to be much bloodier and more costly than Lincoln had expected. He needed more and better reasons for northern families to give up the lives of their sons, preferably something of a moral nature. Therefore, halfway into the war he declared that it was about ending slavery. Yeah, that's the ticket!

His real view of the moral imperative of ending slavery, however, was better reflected in the clever lawyerly construction of this worthless Emancipation Proclamation, which did NOT apply to slaves held in Union states. In short, by design this Emancipation Proclamation freed ZERO slaves.

Unfortunately, due to lack of information, I gather, quite a few bloggers and readers believe the false assertions Al Barger is making. I will take on the responsibility of providing that information.

I last wrote about the neo-Confederate movement at length in regard to its effort to prevent a statue of Lincoln being erected in Richmond, Va. It was my pleasure to act as a conduit between Robert Kline, the man whose idea the statue was and the media, since I totally sympathized with him. (Besides, he needed the protection the attention brought. Neo-Confederate goons had come to his office and threatened him, an elderly man who would not be able to defend himself.) Atrios, Roger Ailes and Zizka helped me in in that worthwhile effort.

Among the mechanisms the neo-Confederates used in that failed battle was a made-up claim the U.S. Historical Society was guilty of fraud, which it had the Virginia attorney general investigate, web pages defaming the society and fellow traveler legislators in the state legislature and Congress who tried to prevent the monument being built. The neo-Confederates fight dirty and should be given no quarter.

The current assault on Lincoln relies on the same people behind the attempt to prevent the statue of our best president ever from being sited in the southern United States. As you may recall, their chief academic is Thomas DiLorenzo, a non-historian who has written a volume depicting Lincoln as a tyrant who caused the Civil War. DiLorenzo was the guest of honor at a neo-Confederate conference held to protest the opening of the Lincoln statue. The current smear of Lincoln relies on DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, and other neo-Confederate sources. Mainstream historians have thoroughly dismissed DiLorenzo when they bother to acknowledge him at all. Even the reviewer for the far Right Washington Times declined joining DiLorenzo in defaming Lincoln. He has found a home in the neo-Confederate movement, but is not taken seriously anywhere else. His ludicrous platform is easily summarized. This reviewer, from a conservative site, incidentally, sees right through his lies.

In this hopelessly pro-Southern book, DiLorenzo offers tired explanations for why the South was righteous, and the Lincoln-led North was tyrannical. It is typical fare for the Southern apologist crowd, which oddly still inhabits the Civil War era. The Loyola College (Maryland) economics professor continuously hammers the theme of states' rights throughout the work. Predictably, he infuses his writing with deliberately selective quotes from Lincoln and others so that he can make bold accusations (i.e. He implies that Lincoln was a racist, for example).

Interestingly, he pays little attention to the 'peculiar institution,' which is otherwise known as slavery. Instead, he focuses the reader's attention on what he calls "Lincoln's real agenda: the American System." Basing one's arguments primarily on the states' rights component is a lot like having a polite dinner conversation with a 2000 pound pachyderm in the room.

The professor argues that slavery would have died out on its own at some point (he does not offer how long this might have lasted), since many nations were eliminating slavery peacefully throughout the 1800s. Perhaps the armchair historian is comfortable with that conclusion, but I have a feeling that the slaves of 1865 might have had slightly different feelings about the gradual phasing out of slavery.

He thinks he has our sixteenth president captured when he boldly announces that "Lincoln stated over and over that he was opposed to racial equality." Unfortunately, DiLorenzo fails to understand that history always involves a context. It is quite obvious that an abolitionist (or even someone who believed in equality for all people regardless of race) would never have garnered the support of the American public. We are talking about the mid nineteenth century, where people's concepts of race and prejudice were drastically different from today's standards. Using twenty first century standards to judge a president from the 1800s is foolish from a historical standpoint, and blatantly incorrect. It also exposes the weakness of one's argument.

. . .Professor DiLorenzo is looking for controversy when he labels the Civil War as an "unnecessary war" in the subtitle of his book. Asking whether or not Lincoln was a dictator, DiLorenzo draws a ludicrous comparison between King George III and the Civil War era president. (George the Third was King of England when the American colonists rebelled, and eventually formed the United States.)

Reducing the Civil War's root causes to those involving free trade and government philosophy, DiLorenzo all but dismisses the slavery debate. He writes that, "Lincoln waged war in order to create a consolidated, centralized state or empire." He adds that ultimately the conflict centered around "the battle between the free-trade South and the protectionist North." While it is true that several factors were involved in the war, slavery's prominence is undeniable. The reality is that Southern gentry could not command thousands of men to go to their deaths for the aristocracy's slaves. Rather, framing the debate around "states' rights" provided a platform that would attract both rich and poor. It also covered up the heart of the issue -- whether or not men had the right to own other men.

DiLorenzo has compiled standard pro-Southern dogma, and placed it in new packaging. His "new look at Abraham Lincoln" is recycled material from a long-lived legacy of defeat from a few Southern, Confederate sympathizers, who refuse to live in the present. By the book's end, we are no closer to finding the real Lincoln than when we first began.

Once they stop snickering at the mention of DiLorenzo's name, historians take his book apart. About what? Everything. The Real Lincoln has been cited as faulty in every way. A commentator has organized the types of errors in the book as factual errors, distortions of interpretation and shoddy scholarship. Among the monolith of mistakes are purposeful misrepresentations of the Emancipation Proclamation and its effects. For example:

DiLorenzo states that the emancipation proclamation "caused a desertion crisis in the U.S. Army. At least 200,000 Federal soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and at least 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada while thousands more hid out in the mountains of central Pennsylvania to place themselves beyond the reach of enrollment officers." This statement is referenced to p. 67 of The Confederate War by Gary Gallagher. However, this is wrong in two ways. First, no such statements are to be found in Gallagher's book, either on the page noted or anywhere else. (Gallagher's book tends to focus only on the Confederate side of the war.) Second, DiLorenzo is blaming all desertions on the U.S. side of the Civil War on the Emancipation Proclamation --- 200,000 is the consensus estimate for the total number of deserters throughout the war, according to Mark Weitz's article on desertion in the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000). Needless to say, some Federals deserted before the proclamation was passed, so not all the desertions can be ascribed to it, and it seems unlikely that every U.S. soldier who deserted after September 1862 did so because of the proclamation.

Barger's claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves, which relies on DiLorenzo and other neo-Confederates, is of course, false. As the Northern army progressed through the South, thousands of slaves were freed. However, of equal significance is that the Emancipation Proclamation changed the nature of the war, making it clear it was a war of liberation, and reinspiring Union troops.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom.

So, why would people denigrate Lincoln while lionizing Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee? Even a cursory examination of neo-Confederate sites answers that question. Lincoln's critics hate him because they believe he ended the possibility of the kind of society they prefer -- theocratic, racist, sexist and isolationist -- prevailing in the United States. Though they are still working to create such a society, they know there is little hope of achieving their goal. The best they can do is mislead other Americans about the historical events that shaped this country.

Am I saying Abraham Lincoln was a perfect person? No, but compared to most leaders of his time and since, the man was a giant. Virtually no one who had the same conflict brought before him or her could have dealt with it better. Most importantly, Lincoln grew as a person. After observing the valiant performance of black troops who fought for the Union during the war, he rejected the notion that African-Americans should be relocated elsewhere or permanently become second-class citizens. I believe that if Lincoln had survived, Reconstruction would have been successful and we would not have the shameful societal divisions we have today. To demean this man is to demean someone we all, as Americans, should be proud of.

Note: Most of the material describing and analyzing the Lincoln statue controversy can be accessed at Zizka's site and is well worth reading. (I prepared it before I had a blog.) It is a good introduction to the neo-Confederate movement.

The Mac-a-ro-nies mailbag

I was listening to an oldie but a goodie, Smokey Robinson's "Sweet Harmony," on my iPod, Titania, when I wrote this entry last night. Let's harmonize with some of this week's letters to the Diva.

Blogger Rebecca Blood wrote to say she disagrees with blogger Mark Bernstein's analysis of her goals as the proprietor of a weblog. She says issues of social change are important to why she blogs and that she doesn't consider herself a personal blogger exclusively. I wrote about Bernstein's review of Blood's book in "Whither the weblog?"

Composer and blogger Richard Einhorn of Tristero agrees with me about the iRock, an FM radio modulator, and offers some advice.

I too was unimpressed with irock, but the batteries lasted longer. I now have an itrip from griffin technologies. It is trickier to use but has no batteries. Once you get it set up however, it works very well. The main tip is not to over or under modulate the output from iPod. About 70% total volume works well.

And btw, it is quite a lot of fun to use the itrip cum ipod on any fm radio, not merely a car's.

My most determined recent correspondent has been a fellow who calls himself Jeremiah Black. Jeremiah says I am a dupe of Communists. He is perturbed by an analytical essay/book review I wrote about the Congo.

I. Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:53:36 -0400

Hi,

I just read your review on The Poisonwood Bible, and just wanted to add (before everyone gets too sentimental over Lumumba) that Lumumba was a Communist warlord who led the two year invasion and slaughter of the democratic Congo province of Katanga. He advocated and supported the massacre of the civilians of Katanga, and, with the help of a UN "peace keeping" force, was able to conquer and force the assimilation of Katanga (UN's Operation Morthor) back under Congolese rule. In a directive to the heads of the Congolese provinces, Lumumba wrote that they should use "terrorism, essential to subdue the population." Over ninety percent of the buildings bombed and shelled were strictly civilian structures with no military value. After protesting the attacks on ambulances, Mr. Georges Olivet of the Swiss Red Cross was murdered by pro-Lumumba UN troops as he traveled in a Red Cross ambulance. Upon his death, the murderous Lumumba was lionized by Soviet dictator Khrushchev; Khrushchev renamed the Moscow "Peoples Friendship University" the "Patrice Lumumba Friendship University." The history of the Belgian Congo stands as a testament to the moral bankruptcy of European colonialism. But rewriting history with Lumumba as a hero simply because he rightfully despised a despicable Belgium and was eventually murdered is a huge mistake. It's also worth noting that blood-thirsty Lumumba (like the blood thirsty Stalin) is still only spoken of highly in pro-Communist and anti-Christian (Katanga was a non-white Christian province) propaganda. And it's even further interesting to note that Kingsolver had Mumia Abu-Jamal, a malevolent copkilling terrorist, proof read her book before publication. (Since Mumia Abu-Jamal is neither Congolese or a literary figure, I can only assume that Kingsolver wanted to get the book's anti-white/anti-western tone right. But this is a personal conclusion.) Anyway, if you have the time and are still interested you might want to surf online for?a?list of historical inaccuracies in the book.

Hope I didn't come off as rude; just interested in African history like you.

Take care,
-- Jeremiah Black

II. Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:10:13-0400

J.G.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but your response clearly won't do.

You complain that all anti-colonial leaders were simply dismissed as communists (true, no doubt), but then you casually dismiss the historical facts of Lumumba's murderous actions by saying there's nothing novel about my "perspective." This is not "perspective." These are concrete facts of history. I'm really not concerned whether he was a communist at all, nor am I offering "my perspective" on struggles between competing political systems. The fact is that Lumumba was a brutal murderer and oppressor of innocent civilians (incidentally, he destroyed an all black, native province). This fact of history has been unacknowledged, and needs to be recognized. Also, he was a communist, heavily backed by Moscow, but that's not particularly the issue. These are the facts. And for this reason Lumumba does not deserved to be lionized, even if he did oppose the evils of colonialism. He was not a hero, but an evil ruler who hated the evil European rulers who came before him. Also, it's ridiculous to believe that the only people who considered Lumumba a communist did so because they were sympathetic to white supremacy rule when the Communist Party, Khrushchev, and Lumumba himself declared him to be a communist. Ignore the communism, then, if it clouds the issue. Just please don't forget the important part: that Lumumba was a barbaric, murderous ruler who does not deserve to be thought well of by history.

I was just firing off a friendly email as a fellow student of African history. I didn't mean for this to get heated, and I'm sorry if I conveyed to attitude that your review of the book was ignorant or poorly written. It certainly was not. My critique was more with the book itself which either failed to mention or distorted these important points. I think, in westerners' zeal to repudiate colonialism (itself a good thing), we tend to make a hero out of anyone who fought the colonialists. But this is a scholarly mistake. Lumumba was just as evil as Belgium, and as soon as he had power, was just as brutal to his fellow Africans as Belgium was to the Congo.

Sincerely,
- Jeremiah Black

III. Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:38:51 -0400

JG,

Sorry to bother you, but I'd also like to point out that Lumumba was not a "leader of an anti-colonial movement", but that Belgium had already agreed to willingly give up and withdraw from the Congo. Lumumba was simply the next warlord to rule. He hated Belgium, of course, (who could blame him), but he was not leading an anti-colonial movement -- Belgium was already gone by the time he gained power on June 30, 1960. Belgium only came back to restore order after Lumumba began murdering his own populace and the populace of his neighbors. This is one of the historical inaccuracies in Kingsolver's book, and I can only assume that she chose to tell the history as if Lumumba threw the Belgians out because it makes for a better story. The novel is, after all, fiction, not biography. But it's still dangerous to portray Lumumba as some sort of peace lover, and I guess that was the original point I was trying to make. :)

--JB

IV. Mon, 25 Aug 11:41:46 -0400

Well, it's clear to me now that you've never read any Congolese history except The Poisonwood Bible, which was fiction, or maybe you got a very altered version from Marxist.com or some other website commited to making Lumumba a hero of the cause. The fact that Lumumba was brutally murdered seems to dominate your mind, and you seem somehow unable to consider him anything but a holy martyr. The fact is, that from june 30th 1960, to january 1961 (roughly 6 months as you stated), Lumumba was able to request 10,000 UN troops to back his invasion of Katanga as well as vast amounts of military equipment and weapons from the USSR. His written military orders still exist for posterity, and I believe I quoted from one in my inital email. His butchering of Katanga led to President Kasavubu (Lumumba was only prime minister) to dismiss him and install Mobutu (who actually ended up being more evil). Lumumba then set up a rival goverment in Stanleyville, until the new prime minister Mobutu had him captured, beaten, and shipped to Katanga to be murdered by mercenaries (most likley Belgian as you stated). Lumumba's supporters continued to fight the war against Katanga that Lumumba had sarted even after his death for another year and a half.

I guess this is the danger of reading no history and only fiction. You mind is completely ruled by it, and you will never acknowledge any facts that interfere with the story you cling to, that perhaps moved you (rightfully), but that nevertheless contained many historical errors. That Lumumba was an innocent, Christ-like victim is simply not true. Please do not respond to this email, as it is obvoius to me that you couldn't be less interested in actual history. I was also disappointed about with the nasty tone your last email took, since I went out of my way to be friendly. But I guess that's what fundamentalist ignorance does to a person.

Sadly,
-- JB

Could someone send me a Soviet-era Russian flag? In the interest of harmony, ya know?

News and analysis:
Moore's legal loss may be political gain

It is out of sight, but not out of mind. The huge monument Judge Roy Moore had installed in the rotunda of the building where the Supreme Court of Alabama meets has been moved.

"Roy's Rock," the chunky Ten Commandments monument that became an icon of the battle over separation of church and state, rolled out of sight at the state Supreme Court building rotunda in Montgomery, Ala., this morning.

Demonstrators, who have camped on the courthouse steps for more than a week in hopes of stopping the removal, dropped to their knees in prayer after spotting a work crew gathering around the two-ton monument. Some pastors, who have led a demonstration that often resembled a round-the-clock religious revival, lay prostrate on the ground. Others held signs aloft praising Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, who moved the monument into the courthouse two years ago and last week defied a federal court order to remove it.

"I am angry and sad," said the Rev. Phil Fulton of the Pentecostal Union Hill Church in Peebles, Ohio. Fulton, who was on his knees praying outside the courthouse when the monument was removed, called today "one of the most of tragic days for America. I feel like our constitutional rights, our religious freedoms, are eroding away."

The monument was relocated in time to prevent the fines a federal district judge said would begin to accrue for violating his order on Friday. It is not clear where the heavy granite statuary was moved to.

As a great admirer of the civil rights movement, I have found the displays of support for Moore, which mimic the actions of civil rights demonstrators, rather surreal. It seems to me that these protesters are missing an important point: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, sought to expand the promises of our government in regard to individual rights. Their movement seeks to restrict those rights to Christians, and, if one follows the trail to the neo-Confederate movement, males, whites and the well-off. Any similarity between the two movements is superficial.

Meanwhile, another Alabama politician, seeing the incredible political mileage Moore has derived from his antics, is seeking his own Ten Commandments spotlight by introducing a bill in Congress to let states decide whether to display the commandments.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) today expressed disappointment with the removal of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of Alabama's State Judicial complex in Montgomery, and repeated his call for legislation allowing states to decide whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed in public buildings.

. . ."This issue is about our national heritage, and the role that faith has historically played in the foundation of this nation," said Congressman Aderholt. "The legislation I've introduced addresses this very issue. Each state should have the right to display the Ten Commandments in a city hall, state house or state court building without the federal government interfering. If the State of Alabama wants to display the Ten Commandments, it should have that right - pure and simple.

. . .Congressman Aderholt believes that legislation such as his recently introduced Ten Commandments Defense Act is needed to clarify the issue.

The strategy Aderholt is attempting to use is called interposition. It is a claim that the states retain the right to make decisions impacting federally protected individual rights. The states rights are said to be derived from the U.S. Constitution, despite the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified the role of federal government as dominant to most modern legal thinkers. Interposition was roundly rejected when used to try to prevent desegregation during the civil rights movement and will be in this context, as well.

However, failures for Moore and his cohort in the legal arena may lead to success in the political arena. Moore swiftly climbed from a minor judgeship to his present position at the top of the state's legacy hierarchy by pandering to Christian fundamentalists. It is possible he can ride that support to the governor's office or to Washington as a representative or senator. Some people believe that was his plan all along. A letter writer to a television station in Huntsville, Ala., explains his perception of Moore's career:

I support the removal of the monument and Justice Moore. As a resident of Alabama , and a practicing Christian, I believe and attempt to follow the teachings of the Ten Commandments. However, as an American citizen I hold the concept of "separation of church and state" as paramount in maintaining the freedoms and principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. While I support the teachings of the monument in question, the idea of a State supported religious ideal frightens me. It is MY job, not that of elected officials, to instill religious values and beliefs in my children.

Justice Moore's blatant misuse of his office is even more disturbing when viewed as a calculated political move. Does anyone believe this ploy wasn't planned from day-1 as a step to the Governors office? And sadly, he will probably win by a landslide. He consciously trampled on the very ideals this country was founded upon to gain support from those individuals who put their personal views above the strength and future of the Country as a whole. As an American Citizen, I find this offensive. And as a Christian, I see the use the Lord's name for political gain as blasphemy and a direct violation of those Commandments he supposedly supports.

Patrick

Huntsville

Another Alabaman, a Moore supporter, vehemently disagrees.

I think that judge morre is the best judge in our whole country, He stands on the truth that God gave us to live bye, when you don`t live by the ten commandments that is why there is so much killing and stealing, and other bad thing happens in our country. Having the ten commandments there does not mean you have to look at them are read them. But living them makes him abetter judge and better person so that he will be a fair judge to all people, and treat each person the same. I wish we had more honest judge and who lives by Gods laws keep up the good work Judge we will are behind you one hundred per cent. Our prays are with you and God is with you too.

Imogene

My friend Russell says I am naive, though I consider myself cynical, because I have yet to accept that many, if not most, people are foolish. This is the kind of situation that makes me wonder if he is right. Though the focus of our attention is Judge Moore, he could not have climbed into his position without the votes of a lot of foolish people. That may be the core of this issue. The Moores of America, and the messes they create, would not exist but for a populace willing and eager to enable them.

Entertainment: Ten reasons not to hate Tom Cruise

1. He is not running for governor of California. Considering that 135 people filed for the recall election and at least a quarter of them are public figures or public officials, we should appreciate Cruise's being humble enough to stay out of the race.

2. Neither of his ex-wives is running for governor of California. A bonus.

3. 'Cruise' is his real name. Yes, it is his middle name. However, at least he acted reasonably in choosing a stage name. Arnold Schwarzenegger lacks such good judgment.

4. He is not a philanderer. He has been involved in serial monogamy from his early adult years -- engaged in a series of relationships with one woman at a time.

5. He is an excellent actor who stars in good movies more often than not. Born on the Fourth of July, Interview with the Vampire, Jerry Maguire, and Rain Man, alone, prove his acting ability. Each required creating a different kind of character and he excelled each time.

6. He works well with other fine actors. Few players in his age group have co-starred with older actors or peers and benefitted from the pairing. Cruise has. He shares the spotlight instead of trying to steal it.

7. He doesn't try to sing. Most actors who do, can't.

8. He is the adoptive father of two mixed-race children born in America. Most white Americans are unwillinging to adopt children who have African or Indian ancestry, despite their claims of not having an iota of racial prejudice. Cruise should be commended for doing the right thing.

9. He makes charitable contributions to honorable organizations. Not U.S. English, the World Church of the Creator or the Republican Party. And, he does it without seeking attention.

10. He does not proselytize for Scientology. If a person is going to belong to a silly religion like Scientology, it is wise of him to not try to shove it down other people's throats.

Note: There is an immortal entry called "Ten Things I Hate About Tom Cruise" that has appeared on various weblogs for nearly a year, always eliciting numerous responses if the blog has a comments section. This is a response to it.

Incorrigible Alabama judge is neo-Confederate hero

The chief judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama has been suspended after he refused to remove the monument to the Ten Commandments he had installed in the foyer of the building where the Court is housed.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama's chief justice was suspended for disobeying a federal court's order that he remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Yet, Saturday, the massive granite marker remained in place and there were no signs it would soon be moved.

Chief Justice Roy Moore, who installed the 5,300-pound monument two years ago, was suspended with pay Friday when the nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission referred an ethics complaint against him to the Court of the Judiciary, which can discipline and remove judges.

Moore had no immediate comment after the decision. His spokesman, Tom Parker, said his attorneys would respond to the complaint Monday.

Most followers of the news are aware of the chronology of this situation. Moore pandered to fundamentalist Christians to forward his career. His most notorious acts were installing the Ten Commandments in both the courtroom of the low level judgeship he held previously and in the Alabama high court after he was elected to it and became chief justice. The legal conflict occurred because installing the monument to religious mandates obviously violates the Constitution's ban on governmental promotion of a religion.

However, there is a subtext many readers may not be aware of that I've learned about from neo-Confederate sites. The federal judge who Moore has tried to provoke, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson , is African-American. That fact appears to have played a role in Moore's successful positioning of himself as a victim of political correctness and provides a look into the minds of his followers. Neo-Confederates assert that only white, Christian, property-owning males should be allowed to vote and hold authoritative positions in society. From their perspective, Thompson is ineligible to be a judge. Therefore, any ruling he makes is illegitimate.

The largest of the neo-Confederate groups, the League of the South, and its allies, would like to impose a theocratic government in the region. It would consist of Southern states which have seceded and be run by leaders of the neo-Confederate movement. The new government would support racism, gender discrimination and opposition to other religions.

Moore met with the [judicial] commission on Friday as about 100 of his supporters at the federal courthouse ripped and burned a copy of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order for the monument's removal.

He said he told the commission he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. He has said Thompson had no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.

. . .Thompson ruled last year that the monument's placement in the public rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine.

He ordered the monument removed by Wednesday - the same day the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore's appeal for an emergency stay.

I don't know whether Moore is a member of the LOS, the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the Council of Conservative Citizens. However, Moore has spoken at a C of CC event on at least one occassion. He has become quite a hero in the eyes of the neo-Confederate movement. He is perceived as one of a vanguard of 'correct' leaders who must be supported if the movement's goals are to achieved. If, as is likely, he loses his battle to impose the Ten Commandments on the people of Alabama, he will become a martyr to the Cause to neo-Confederates.

A newsletter from the North Carolina LOS expresses the prevailing view.

It is important for every true patriot in this country to show their support for Judge Moore. We should all be writing letters to the editors of papers here and in Alabama.

We also need to contact groups that are raising money for the Judge's defense fund and donate, not just once, but every month until this case comes to an end.

But most importantly, we need to pray that God would protect this man and send America more like him.

We need true patriots, men who know what this country was founded on and are not afraid to defend what their ancestors gave them.

Not only is Confederate culture under attack, but increasingly America's Christian and Colonial heritage is being targeted by those in power as being too devisive [sic] to be tolerated anymore.

In the pleadings for the case, Moore has requested Thompson's removal without being explicit about why he wants him removed.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore accused a federal judge of bias in early October and asked him to step away from a lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building.?

In an affidavit, Moore said that U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson "has a pervasive and personal bias and prejudice against me in favor of plaintiffs, that Judge Thompson's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and that there exists an appearance of impropriety in these cases, warranting Judge Thompson's recusal."

Perhaps in private, Moore makes himself clear to the conservative Southern white people who are his main supporters.

Another thorn in the side of the neo-Confederates is that their archenemy, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a plaintiff in the case against Moore. The SPLC is the most prominent civil rights monitoring group in the country and known for winning judgments against racist activists, including the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan, groups that some neo-Confederate leaders have been affiliated with. They passionately hate the Center.

"The law is clear, and the evidence in this case was overwhelming," said Center chief trial counsel Morris Dees, who headed the Center's legal team in the case. "Chief Justice Moore clearly crossed the constitutional line that separates church and state. By hauling the monument into the judicial building, he intended to impose his own brand of Christianity on the state. This he cannot do."

The case was an important one for the Center. "We believe that Chief Justice Moore's conduct threatens the very values of tolerance and justice that form the core of the Center's mission," Dees said.

The main focus of sympathy for Moore is his support for establishing Christianity as the official religion of America. But, we must ask ourselves why would people want to do that. The answer, in a nutshell, is to turn by the clock. The neo-Confederates believe religion can be a weapon in their war to reestablish a more inequitable society.

Technology: Lend me your ears

It started off normally. I would drop into the place and hang out for a while, doing more browsing than buying. In fact, at first, I rarely bought anything. Then, I began to make one, two or three purchases during each visit. The visits became longer, sometimes lasting 30 minutes or more. The amount of the purchases increased from 99 cents to triple and quadruple digits. The funds in my PayPal account showed a noticeable decline. Now, I find I would rather be there than read short stories by most unknown authors or eat ice cream on sultry summer days. The email invoices I receive daily intimidate me. I fear I am addicted.

The place is Apple's iTunes Music Store. I've gradually succumbed to it, like a junkie who starts out smoking drug-laced cigarettes and ends up sticking needles in his arms without a second thought. Though the store is relatively new, its marketing, with MP3 singles that can be quite long selling for as little as .99 cents, is extremely seductive. Persons even more balanced than I have probably become victims. It is for that reason I seek your help. If you are also an AMS addict or know someone who is, commisserate with me. Perhaps together, we can overcome this plot to reduce our liquidity. Maybe it is time to begin a twelve-step program for folks in our situation.

I knew I was sinking into quicksand when I realized I was buying music I could have just as easily downloaded free, via LimeWire, the peer-to-peer filesharing utility for the Macintosh community. What woke you up?

Windows users, stop looking smug. Apple's music store is scheduled to become available to your platform by the end of the year.

While we're talking about music, we might as well discuss the very pregnant issue of peer-to-peer music services. As you know, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has threatened to prosecute those of us who use them. The latest twist in the controversy is one about language that gets my legal taste bloods tingling.

Stephanie Craig was flabbergasted two weeks ago when she came home from school to discover that her father had emptied her hard drive of downloaded tunes.

. . .Eventually, she shared her father's concern and stopped downloading music. To this day, she remains ambivalent about doing so, even after the Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday it would go after "substantial" file sharers rather than "de minimis users" of music-file-sharing programs.

The RIAA's statement to Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appeared to depart from previous statements in subpoenas against more than 900 file sharers, who appeared to be randomly named. The defendants included college students, unsuspecting parents, Internet service providers and even grandparents.

. . .In a nine-page letter addressed to Coleman, RIAA president Cary Sherman said, "RIAA is in no way targeting 'de minimis' users. RIAA is gathering evidence and preparing lawsuits only against individual computer users who are illegally distributing a substantial amount of copyrighted music." He offered to follow up with paperwork to assure Coleman that the lawsuits were distributed in a "fair and equitable matter."

The claim that the RIAA will target only substantial filesharers while ignoring "de minimis" users does not match the evidence so far. Initially, I thought the industry would focus on mega uploaders who have chosen to make themselves well-known in return for the attention and applause that result from their generosity. That makes sense considering most of us wee downloaders rely on the giant uploaders for our material. However, the subpoenas to kids and grandparents scotched that notion. Now, what we have is an RIAA talking out of both sides of its mouth, apparently in hope of creating such a chilled atmosphere that all users of peer-to-peer services will become frightened and quit.

Someone bought me an iRock and I've been trying it out for the last couple weeks. For those not familiar with this class of gadgets, they are called wireless music adapters. They allow the user to connect his MP3 player to a home or a car stereo, producing robust sound without earphones or cables snaking to and fro. The iRock can also be used to transfer output from one's tinny computer speakers to the home stereo, negating the need for dedicated computer speakers.

Simply plug the 300W into any audio output source (MP3, CD, cassette player, etc), choose one of four FM frequencies, and tune your radio to that frequency. All you do is relax and listen without wires or clumsy cassette adapters.

The product usually garners good reviews, so I believe it must work well enough for most people who own it. However, my own experience has been mixed. A clear signal among the four frequencies offered is hard to find. Therefore, spotty reception occurs as much as 10 percent of the time with the best signal selected. (The others are hopeless.) This may be because I live in an area with a high degree of radio frequency traffic. The signal also fails to carry the five or six feet between my computer desk and the stereo in my home office without substantial static.

The iRock devours batteries (a pair of triple As) like a newborn at the breast. I consider myself lucky to get two two-hour sessions from a set.

Finally, the product is warrantied for only 90 days and has a purposely discouraging exchange policy in case of defects.

My advice is to buy the iRock only if you are sure it will suit your needs. You may want to read reviews of other wireless music adapters before making a decision.

Writing: The memoir and me

Fellow writer and blogger Rick Heller would like to know what I think about the memoir as literature. I believe he means the contemporary memoir, not the traditional autobiographies of famous people. The impetus for Rick's interest is a current altercation about memoirs and accuracy in the writing world.

Memoirs have become a popular genre, and I'm working on one myself. I'm currently taking a class on memoirs at the Blue Hills Writing Institute.

Salon has covered a controversy over the accuracy of memoir writing, and the writer at issue, Vivian Gornick, makes her response.

To state the case briefly: memoirs belong to the category of literature, not of journalism. It is a misunderstanding to read a memoir as though the writer owes the reader the same record of literal accuracy that is owed in newspaper reporting or in literary journalism. What the memoirist owes the reader is the ability to persuade that the narrator is trying, as honestly as possible, to get to the bottom of the experience at hand.

Part of what bothers me about them is they are so self-referential. Often, memoirists write as if they are the only persons with their experiences who exist. Furthermore, they are often writing to validate their experiences, not to make them comprehendible to other people. Confessional and memoir have come to mean the same thing.

My discomfiture with some memoirists began about the time the recovered memory movement was unmasked as the fraud I believe it was. Some writers of memoirs fairly well-known in the literary world had written books that relied on the movement or the reasoning behind it. That reasoning: Children experience traumatic events, often sexual abuse, and forget them until a helpful therapist revives the memories. Recovered memory is now believed to be an unproven, if not false, theory.

The typical recovered memory memoir is similar to the one described sympathetically here.

My Father's House: A Memoir of Incest and of Healing by Sylvia Fraser . . . published by Harper & Row, copyright 1987. She was a beautiful blonde child, a star student, a quintessential 1950's teenager, a model wife, an award-winning journalist. As a girl, she loved Saturday matinees, giggled at pajama parties, ran for student council president, led the cheerleading squad, went steady with the right boy and married him, her proud father at her side. But from the age of seven, Sylvia Fraser shared her body with a "twin," another self created to do the things she was too frightened, ashamed, repelled to do -- the things her father made her do. As an adult, Sylvia Fraser had no recollection of a sexual relationship with her father; for forty years the existence of her other self and the secret life she led had been unknown to her. With tremendous candor and eloquence, Fraser breaks through her amnesia to discover and embrace the tortured self she left behind. A horror story, a mystery and a coming-of-age story told with lyric beauty and intensity.

But, I don't believe all or most memoirists mainly make their experiences up. I suspect most of the books are blends of things that happened and things that didn't, as Gornick admits her book, Fierce Attachments, is. She asks us to take the memoir on faith. I do -- to an extent. However, I believe it may be too easy for memoirs to become more fiction than fact.

There are other things about the memoir that give me pause. Beginning with Kathryn Harrison's memoir, The Kiss in 1988, the genre became the choice of people who want to exploit their experiences for maximum mileage. Harrison claims to have had an affair with her father as an adult. The breaking of a taboo present in all known cultures is a sizzling subject. The book became an 'event' long before it was published.

The 1990s seems to be the decade of revelation. What used to be private is becoming increasingly public. All is aired on talk shows whose guests are no longer celebrities hawking their latest film, book, or album, but ordinary citizens selling their personal traumas. Mothers Who Sleep with Their Daughters' Boyfriends; Men Who Wear Their Girlfriends' Clothes; People Whose Families Have Been Murdered Before Their Eyes--no subject is too salacious or too shameful for public consumption.

It seems to be that Harrison and her publisher sought to make the book a success by positioning it as spectacle, intended to appeal to both readers of literary fiction and those looking for cheap thrills. In doing so, they placed the goal of selling lots of books above that of selling good books. The consensus among writers is that The Kiss is far from Harrison's best work. Furthermore, she had already mined the material to better literary effect in an earlier novel.

Jennifer Howard gets to the heart of the matter, writing in Salon.

For anybody lucky enough to have missed all the prepublication hoopla about The Kiss -- an excerpt snapped up by The New Yorker, a hand-holding profile in Mirabella, front-page coverage in the New York Observer, a raised-eyebrow report in Vanity Fair and the list goes on -- The Kiss is novelist Kathryn Harrison's memoir of the four-year affair she had, beginning at the tender but consenting age of 20, with her father. But for all the ink spilled, all the heat this book has generated before ever seeing the inside of a bookstore, there's not much here to raise anyone's temperature. Those who pick up The Kiss looking for sweaty-palmed titillation be warned: You'll find more sizzle at a backyard barbecue.

Which would be all right -- it would be shameful, after all, to be caught enjoying a memoir about incest -- if the book had something to make it stand out from the mob of survivors' stories, both fictional and autobiographical, that publishers have inflicted on us lately. But as The Kiss demonstrates, incest alone, terrible as it is, does not a compelling book make.

Harrison and her promoters fell short of their goal. To maximize profits, the movie rights to a novel need to sell and produce a reasonably successful film. That did not occur.

No, I am not jejune enough to completely put down the money motive inherent in writing -- or at least in publishing, which is what professional writers seek for their work. But, such brazen positioning for profit making rubs me the wrong way.

So, in summary, I am ambivalent about memoirs. Much of that ambivalence dates from two watershed events in the contemporary memoir writing -- the recovered memory movement and the publication of Kathryn Robinson's mercenary memoir The Kiss, which resulted in numerous progeny. This position does not mean I would never read or write a memoir. Some writers, including Alice Walker and Henry Louis Gates. Jr.., have traversed the rapids of memoir very successfully.

But, at this time in my personal history as a reader and a writer, I don't consider the memoir a preferred medium.

News: All about the blackout

The massive Northeast power outage set a record for scope in the United States. However, as a veteran of a four-day blackout and several earthquakes, I believe those effected were lucky to an extent. The episode is surely an apt reminder of what it is like to lose things we take for granted, albeit briefly.

As dusk fell on the nation's 10th-largest city, bus service was suspended until 3:30 a.m. Saturday, tonight's Aerosmith concert at Comerica Park was canceled, the opening of the Michigan State Fair was postponed until Saturday, and Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick urged Detroit's one million residents to stay home.

"The party has to happen in your homes tonight," the mayor said at an afternoon news conference outside police headquarters in the eerily quiet and empty downtown. "Continue your family time. Love thy neighbor - in your own home, your own neighborhood."

. . .Here in Detroit, residents were still stuck deep in emergency mode, scratching for a patch of shade as they gobbled the melting ice cream being given away at convenience stores.

. . .Ford and General Motors closed 40 parts and assembly plants on Friday, giving some 100,000 workers the day off, though company officials said some factories might be running again as soon as this evening. The city's African cultural festival was canceled, but the Dream Cruise, an annual classic-car convention expected to draw two million people to a 16-mile stretch in the suburbs, was scheduled to go on Saturday, if slower than usual, because many traffic lights remained out along the route.

If memory serves me well, it is likely the simple things -- drinking water, coffee, taking a shower -- that people missed most during the blackout.

Could the event that began a chain reaction blackout have occurred in Ohio?

US electric industry officials said last night they had strong indications that the massive power outage that shut down New York City and much of the Northeast began with the failure of a high-voltage line near Cleveland.

That failure was the first in a 60-minute series of breakdowns that spread blackouts across eight states and Ontario, affecting about 50 million people. The North American Electric Reliability Council, a group originally formed to prevent a recurrence of the massive 1965 Northeastern blackout, said the crisis began at 3:06 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday on a line in the "Lake Erie loop."

Michehl R. Gent, president of the electric council, said it could take days or even months to come up with a detailed explanation of what went wrong. But Gent said the Erie loop and a gaggle of power plants that feed into it -- 22 nuclear reactors and 80 conventional plants -- are "the center of the focus" of council investigations.

Over the space of 9 to 10 seconds at about 4:10 p.m. Thursday, Gent said, at least 12 high-voltage power lines in the loop failed, and 100 power plants almost simultaneously shut down under standard emergency precautions intended to prevent generators from swamping the crippled grid.

Considering the liability if negligence by any of the parties can be established in this case, I don't expect a quick resolution of who or what is responsible for the blackout. Indeed, every utility or agency is going to try to avoid any hint of being blameworthy.

Wondering how the interconnected series of hydro and nuclear power plants that failed feeds the voracious appetite for electricity of the industrial Northeast? Read all of this article (linked above) to find out.

Looting and blackout related deaths marred the beginning of the weekend in Ottawa.

In Motown, they were out of gas. By the shores of Lake Erie, they were trucking in water. New Yorkers were taking pride in their good behavior, while storekeepers in Ottawa, Canada's placid capital, counted losses from a night of looting.

In Ottawa, police reported 23 cases of looting, along with two deaths possibly linked to the blackout - a pedestrian hit by a car and a fire victim.

A couple fatalities may also have been linked to the power outage in New York City, though reports of emergencies were low as more people stayed home than usual.

While airports in Newark, Cleveland and Detroit were operating, New York City's Kennedy and La Guardia airports had limited power and large crowds but few flights. Across the country, 1,200 flights were canceled. The hard-hit aviation industry stands to lose many millions of dollars from blackout-related flight disruptions, which could linger into next week.

U.S. carriers are losing about $100 million in revenue every day that service is disrupted, said David Swierenga, former chief economist for the Air Travel Association and now a consultant with AeroEcon of Vienna, Va.

Passengers will face delays until Tuesday or Wednesday as airlines reposition aircraft and shift stranded travelers to already-crowded summer flights, said Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition of frequent travelers.

It will be interesting to see how this loss of revenue impacts the depressed finances airlines have had since before September 11, 2001.

People are saying

Forensic scientists have reconstructed the face of Queen Nefertiti of Egypt and she looks like. . . me!

Damian Schofield of Nottingham University and Martin Evison of Sheffield University, both in the United Kingdom, reconstructed the face of this bronze-skinned beauty from a 3,400-year-old unidentified skull discovered in 1898 and forgotten for nearly 100 years. They applied their forensic expertise in examining digital X-rays of skulls, the same science used to identify unknown murder victims.

Neither scientist was given any indication of whose face they were reconstructing before they started.

Schofield and Evison generated this image by first making a 3-D computer grid of the woman's skull. They then placed a series of markers on that grid to indicate where tissue should be added. The next stage involved adding facial muscles. In the final step, a graphic designer added skin texture, eyes, lips, head, a crown and jewelry like that Nefertiti has been shown wearing.

This development will not please bigots and/or those who want to whiten the mixed-race culture of ancient Egypt. But, I don't find it surprising that Nefertiti was not an early version of Cameron Diaz at all.

Of course it can't be said with certainty the skull the bust is based on is Nefertiti's. However, the evidence is reasonably convincing.

Just call me 'Nef.'

I wouldn't want folks to think I discriminate against Windows users, despite the 'Mac' appellation. So, courtesy of Blah 3, I am passing this information on as a public service to 90 percent of computer users. Here is how to avoid the msblast.exe worm.

1. *Start Task Manager. Click the process tab. Look for a program
called msblast.exe. If you see it - kill the process. *

2. *Go to *Microsoft's Windows Update*
and install all the critacal
updates. It is extremely important that you do this. If you do not
install these updates - you will get invected!!!! *

3. *If you can't connect to Microsoft - here's part of a self fix.
Select RUN and type in regedit. Walk through the tree looking for
this key: *

*HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run*

*Which will contain - "windows auto update"="msblast.exe" - DELETE
THIS KEY!*

4. *Don't wait till you're already infected to fix this. You need to
deal with this before it happens if you are not infected already.
Until you apply these patches - your computer is vulnerable to all
kinds of attacks. *

5. *Tell all your friends who are running Windows to do the same -
spread the word!*

Alternatively, you could unload that Dell on eBay and buy a shiny new Macintosh. You would then be safe from viruses more than 90 percent of the time.

Blogospherics: Whither the weblog?

Hypertext advocate and software designer Mark Bernstein has some interesting thoughts on weblogs and the blogosphere. He expressed them in a review of Rebecca Blood's book, The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice for Creating and Maintaining Your Blog. According to him, Blood's perspective on blogging is a romantic one. He believes his own views on the topic to be more practical, but foresees a convergence down the road.

First, Bernstein considers the different ways one could think about blogging.

Tragedy tells us that our weblogs are the playthings of the Gods, subject to the whims of fate and fortune. Comedy promises that our weblogs can succeed through hard work, struggle, and good fortune. Melodrama warns us that there are bad people and evil forces in the world, and that only through courage and determination can our weblogs overcome their malignity. And Romance assures us that, though weblogs fail everywhere, our weblog will prosper because we, ourselves, are wonderful.

Then, he analyzes the approach of Blood, whose blog is Rebecca's Pocket.

For Blood, as for many diarists, the exercise of writing is its own reward. "If you allow yourself to begin posting entries based on what you think someone else wants you to write," she warns, "you are missing the point of having a weblog."

. . .Blood's core belief that a weblog's virtues stem from the writer's wonderful uniqueness place her in an awkward position, for to what else can we attribute the success of her own widely-read weblog, Rebecca's Pocket? More seriously, Blood's romantic conviction deters any extensive discussion of craft. If simple authenticity is the goal of weblog writing, and if you -- the Audience Of One -- are the only reader that really matters, then what craft is needed? Just as the romantics eschewed High Fashion for the shepherdess's natural beauties, Blood can offer little guidance beyond clarity, brevity, and sincerity.

As a former (and possibly future) reporter, and writer, I guess I bring a kind of blended sensibility to blogging. My blog is a 'diary' only because I have never been one to keep a journal. So, some of the material I post to Mac-a-ro-nies is what I might say to myself in a personal journal. However, my blogging encompasses the kind of material Bernstein notes Blood does not bless more often than not.

Central to Bernstein's cynicism about Blood's perspective is the fact she focuses on individualistic reasons for maintaining a blog.

Only reputation-building is truly outward-directed, and most of Blood's reasons for writing a weblog can be fulfilled even if the weblog goes unread. Social change, justice, and reform are all absent from Blood's motivations; you might start a political weblog because you enjoy politics, but there's nothing here to suggest you'd start one to launch a crusade or expose an injustice.

Though I am too skeptical of pure advocacy to pursue it breathlessly, I do have interests I try to focus attention on. Those of you who have read this blog since its infancy know I care a lot about civil rights and some legal issues. My legal education and experience may explain my interest in some aspects of the law. However, I can become just as fascinated by a medical or technological topic. Comes from the training as a generalist I received in journalism, I guess.

Bernstein believes the future of the blogosphere is in more interactivity among bloggers, what he calls weblog clusters. He says that interactivity will carry bloggers beyond some of their navel gazing. He cites Blood's take on the supposed coming trend with approval.

"If you asked me what the weblog community needs," she concludes, "I would answer, Stronger ties among webloggers from various clusters, more independent thinkers, and more irreverence...Let us use our weblogs to define ourselves individually as we move forward together."

However, he is not blind to the trouble with interactivity, saying "Petty politics infect all communities, not least the world of weblogs which can, at some times and in some cyberspace neighborhoods, seem painfully cliquish and self-conscious." Tell me about it.

I don't know idea whether the prediction of increased interactivity in the Bloggerdom will prove accurate. My preference is for a balance between individuality and interactivity. Too much of the latter results in a blogosphere that too often resembles high school cliques, with their tendency toward both shallowness and lording it over the masses, who, unfortunately, are often stupid enough to follow them. On the other hand, too much individuality results in the worst tendencies of personal blogging, such as boring material and melodrama. Here's hoping neither extreme prevails.

The scales of justice

A man who clearly suffers from significant mental impairment has been allowed to sell himself down the river.

EVERETT — Confessed killer Eric Rupp was sentenced to just over 28 years in prison this afternoon for the slaying of his grandmother earlier this year.

Rupp, 26, was convicted of first-degree murder Thursday for the slaying of his 81-year-old grandmother, Myrtle Rupp. During his trial, Eric Rupp claimed he killed the Lynnwood woman because she was a CIA agent and part of a cult run by the religious Trinity Broadcasting.

Despite questions over his mental state, Rupp was allowed to serve as his own attorney during the trial.

The rationalization for allowing this person to not only to go to trial while delusional, but to represent himself, is that he is legally competent, i.e., capable of "understanding the charges against him and possessing the capacity to assist in his defense." The standard used in Washington and most other states to determine competency to stand trial is much too low. I believe the system mocks itself when it allows this kind of travesty to occur.

Jonna M. Spilbor, commenting at Findlaw, brings up an ancillary issue in regard to the Kobe Bryant rape case.

Bryant's case has raised a firestorm of issues, but one in particular is at center court: Has this good guy been falsely accused? Even at this early stage, the majority of those asked say yes. To many fans, this case just feels false.

If Bryant has been falsely accused, it won't be the first time that a false report has been filed in an "acquaintance rape" case. In part, that's because the law fails to meaningfully penalize false reports, or to give those who have been falsely accused any justice.

It seems to me that a falsely accused person in any case, criminal or civil, could say the same. No one likes to be lied about. However, in regard to legal matters or the numerous other situations when we are lied about, most of us move on. Knowing the truth ourselves often suffices. I can't think of a reason why persons falsely accused of rape should be an exception.

Spilbor offers a rationale for treating false reports of rape differently.

Falsely reporting any crime is shameful. Falsely reporting a rape is especially heinous. The liar who files the false claim dishonors - and makes life all the more difficult for - the many true victims who file genuine rape claims because they have been terribly violated, and seek justice for it. At the same time, and perhaps even more seriously, the false report begins to destroy the reputation, and sometimes the life, of the accused from the very moment it is made - a fact of which many accusers are keenly aware.

The point of lying is to harm the person on the receiving end. So, I still don't see how the liar in a false rape accusation is different from any other malicious person. And, without a meaningful difference, I can't agree such accusers should be specially penalized if they don't prevail in court. Read Spilbor's full column to see if you are convinced.

And, let's remember not enough is known about the circumstances to assume Kobe Bryant has been falsely accused.

Meanwhile, Unabomber Ted Kaczynski has a post-convicion bone to pick with the powers that be. No, he is not demanding to be freed again. He wants his stuff back. But, his stuff is not like your and my stuff. It includes a bomb.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Convicted Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski wants the U.S. government to return a pipe bomb and other items seized from his Montana cabin so that they can be used for "research," according to court papers made public on Monday.

Kaczynski, serving a life sentence for killing three people and injuring 23 others in a 17-year bombing campaign, also asked for his books, personal papers and chemicals used in making bombs.

He wanted most of the material sent to the University of Michigan where it could be studied by "serious researchers," the court documents, filed a week ago with the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, showed.

Since Kaczynski is unlikely to ever be retried, I find the suggestion of moving the evidence of his crime to a safe repository reasonable. Usually, such material is is left to molder in evidence rooms or warehouses. It is often lost.

The bomb and other incendiary items would need to be rendered harmless, of course.

The Unabomber is holding out hope there is something exculpatory in the evidence.

"This Court should take into consideration Kaczynski's interest, the public's interest, and the interest of scholars and researchers in the knowledge to be obtained from the study of Kaczynski's documents," Kaczynski wrote. "Such study will help to reveal the true facts of Kaczynski's case."

I don't believe there is anything there that would support a new trial for him. However, the evidence does have historical value.

The trouble with 'heroes'

It now appears the story sponsored by survivors of some persons killed in the crash of flight 93 on September 11, 2001, and promoted by much of the media, is not true. They have claimed the passengers on the plane intentionally caused it to crash to prevent the greater carnage that would occur if the plane was guided into a major public building.

The popular perception is that passengers stormed the cockpit and fought with the hijackers, causing the plane to crash into a Pennsylvania field.

But the government now believes the terrorists intentionally brought the plane down, after a passenger revolt.

Thirty-three passengers, seven crew members and the four hijackers died. The theory is based on an analysis of cockpit recordings and is buried deep in a report on nine-eleven given to Congress last month. The F-B-I has tried to stay away from putting out a theory contradicting the story about the passengers storming the cockpit, out of sensitivity for the families.

At Mac-a-ro-nies, we've visited this territory before. I was one of the first bloggers to question the heroic saga of the rescue of Pfc. Jesssica Lynch. The general consensus now is much of the article in the Washington Post that made over a series of military blunders was malarkey. I also questioned whether a made-to-order Iraqi Gunga Din, Mohammed, had really been the key to Lynch's eventual release. It turned out his part in the rescue of Lynch had been much less than previously claimed and that Lynch had been treated well by medical personnel.

The FBI is in a sticky situation. If it stands by the evidence, it risks alienating the millions of Americans who would like to believe the passengers on Flight 93 were heroes instead of victims.

Meanwhile, an East Coast man has been charged with falsely claiming to have lost relatives on 9/11 for the second time.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - A man accused of falsely claiming benefits for a fictional wife who supposedly died in the World Trade Center attack was charged Friday with making the same claim for a second invented spouse.

Prosecutors say Mark Christopher, 38, was not married to anyone, but applied for more than $83,000 in survivors' aid from the Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He received about $72,000.

Based on the new indictment Friday, Christopher faces a maximum 10 years in prison on charges of theft, identity theft and falsifying records. He was being held at the Camden County Jail on $50,000 bail.

Christopher claimed to have young children who had lost their mother to terrorism in the second case.

Obviously, the suspect's motivation is partly greed. However, in the absence of people's credulity in regard to the tragedy on September 11, I don't believe he, and the other impostors who are doubtlessly out there, would have targeted the agencies involved. He likely relied on the unwillingness of personnel to grill survivors of the 'heroes' of that day, i.e., those who died, to prevent close scrutiny of his claims.

I think so many of our countrymen embrace stories like these because they want to believe Americans are bigger than life and special in the eyes of the fates or God. They also derive a vicarious thrill from identifying with the 'heroes' thus created. That is partly because the made-up heroes fit their notions of what they want their heroes to be like. For example, a female soldier from the same company as Lynch did die in Iraq, but she was a Hopi single mother, not a blue-eyed blonde from the South.

Recently, Jessica Lynch's family announced they will not participate in the movie NBC is making about her, but rely on a book to tell her story instead. Perhaps the she realizes embracing the mythical version of herself may not be the best course to follow.

I do believe it is time we revisit the definition of the word 'hero' when used in the context of war or civil disorder.

he-ro n. pl. he-roes

A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.

Fortunately, not all Americans are easily misled or seeking vicarious gratification from false information that deems them and theirs 'heroic.' A youth in North Carolina sees the problem clearly.

Haley Price, 16, Jay M. Robinson High, Concord: The idea that Jessica Lynch should be celebrated as a hero is not only wrong, in my eyes, but is also condescending to all of the people who have been and will be prisoners of war and have not come home to medals or a day in their name. Now, had Jessica done something great like saved her entire platoon and was then captured and saved, that would have been different. However, nothing happened to her that does not happen to dozens of other people in every war that America has ever fought.

Pfc. Lynch is a soldier who experienced the gritty and painful reality of war firsthand. However, her injuries were substained in an automobile accident that could have occurred just as easily in civilian life. There is no proof she has done anything that fits the definition of 'hero.' I don't begrudge her her moment in the sun, but let's be realistic about what a hero is.

The survivors of those who died in the crash of flight 93 should accept the evidence of the terrorists intentionally crashing the plane in my opinion. There is no shame in their relatives having been victimized by terrorists. There is no reason to try to transform the passengers into Rambos. Being 'just folks' is fine.

The news desk

An Iraqi child who was dismembered by American bombs and appeared likely to disappear into obscurity is scheduled to get artificial arms. Another injured boy will also be treated.

LONDON, England -- Iraqi bomb victim Ali Abbas, who lost his arms and his parents in a U.S. raid early in the Iraq war, has arrived in Britain for artificial limb surgery.

The 13-year-old flew to Royal Air Force base Northolt in west London Thursday with his uncle and Ahmed Mohammed Hamza, a 14-year-old boy who lost his left leg below the knee and his right hand during a bombardment.

The boys are to be fitted with prosthetic limbs at Queen Mary's Rehabilitation Center in Roehampton, southwest London.

This is an outcome that media, including bloggers who wrote about Ali's plight, can rightfully pat themselves on the back in regard to. Without the publicity we generated, I don't believe Ali would have been given a second thought.

However, I am concerned about the providers saying the children will be treated only until they reach adulthood. Artificial limbs are difficult to fit and wear out. It is not unusual for several protheses to be tried before a design that works is found. Since young people's bodies change more, it is particularly important to offer continued medical and prosthetic assistance.

The Kuwaiti and British providers are also assuming the boys will be able to support themselves when they turn 18 or 21. That probably will not occur unless they receive special vocational assistance. Again, as I said weeks ago, the government of the United States should be compensating innocent victims of its war economically. That is the best possible solution to Ali's plight.

The last of the Portland Seven to be indicted, Maher Hawash, will be taking singing lessons. He has agreed to testify against his codefendants in return for a short sentence after pleading guilty to one of the charges.

A former Intel software engineer admitted Wednesday that he and five other men were prepared to take up arms and die as martyrs if necessary to defend the former Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Maher "Mike" Hawash's surprise plea deal with federal prosecutors requires him to testify against his alleged co-conspirators in exchange for a seven to 10-year prison sentence. Experts say Hawash's cooperation strengthens the government's case against the remaining six defendants.

Noticeably absent from Wednesday's hearing were the throngs of friends and supporters who publicly protested on Hawash's behalf at previous hearings.

Hawash pleaded guilty to one count: conspiring to contribute services to the Taliban. The charge relates to his participation in an October 2001 trip in which he and five other men flew from Portland to China in an unsuccessful attempt to reach the Afghan battlefield. A seventh defendant never left the country.

Hawash admits to having traveled abroad for the purpose of attempting to join the Taliban, which fought American forces in Afghanistan. He says he funneled money to other members of the seven, some of which he provided himself. Absent a plea bargain, he might have gotten a life sentence.

I am still absorbing this news and will likely have more to say about it later. If you have not read my eight-part series on the Portland Seven, I hope you will take a look at it the archives.

I wasn't able to get close enough to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to shake her hand or ask her any questions, but still enjoyed the festive mood at yesterday's book signing here.

Hillary Rodham Clinton -- former first lady, current U.S. senator and likely future presidential candidate -- received a rock-star reception Tuesday when she swept into Portland to promote her memoir, "Living History."

Dozens of fans camped out overnight in front of the downtown Borders Books & Music store to get a free ticket for the book signing. A popular groupie accessory: buttons that blared, "I'd vote for Hillary!"

So when she strode in shortly after 4 p.m. wearing a pantsuit and pearls, hands trembled, necks craned, smiles twitched with anticipation. The crowd broke into applause.

Clinton's tour is very much a book tour. Her brief time in each city is devoted to signing away. However, the Oregonian was able to speak with her.

"I've had the best time at these events, I must confess," Clinton said in a brief telephone interview. "My only complaint is my right hand."

The senator reiterated her belief that writing a measured memoir is the best course for a still active politician. I agree. Letting it all hang out can wait until she has retired.

Readers have been supportive. Living History is No. 2 on The New York Times bestseller list.