Letters From Our Readers
Letters from our Readers, February 1 - February 28, 2004
By Axis of Logic Readers
Feb 2, 2004, 11:45
|
|
LETTERS FROM OUR READERS
We receive hundreds of emails daily from our readers. We publish some of the many letters received that we believe add value to the commentary and news already published on Axis of Logic. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, we cannot publish many of the worthy letters we receive. - LMB
Letter regarding the removal of Jay Shaft's fabricated articles from our website and our response.
Response to "HRC"
Dear "HRC",
I am responding to your letter which is included below. Your letter and my response will be published on Axis of Logic. I would have preferred knowing who you really are. If you would have identified yourself and provided a telephone number, I would have called you to respond.
Thank you for your courteous, reasonable response. I think I understand your approach to "truth" - which I will take liberty to call a "two-tiered" approach.
First tier: Yes, there is an underlying truth to Jay Shaft's article - that truth is plain to see: that U.S. soldiers are being cynically recruited, used and discarded by the U.S. military. There is no question about that. On that point, we agree.
Second Tier:
On your second tier of "truth", we categorically disagree. You stated: "Jay Shaft's 'fabricated' article---an article which is recognizable as *essentially true* by anybody who knows human beings and war".
When you put the word "fabricated" in quotes, you signal that you do not believe it was fabricated. We obviously disagree. We have concluded that it is a complete fabrication.
You describe the article as "essentially true". We disagree. It is either true or it is not true. If we followed accepted your premise, then by the same logic, we would have to accept that fabrications as a strategy would also be an acceptable practice for warmongers as a valid means of attacking us in the anti-war movement or a political candidate.
You stated: There are different kinds of 'truth.' essential heart truth are: unity, life, cooperation, sanity, goodwill, peace and loving kindness. Shaft's article is only essentially true to all wars Yes, if it takes a few little white surface lies to precipitate the exposure of a dark, deep-rooted and ongoing evil and rot, I see that as honoring a deeper, more meaningful, more loving, and more enduring Truth. Jay Shaft's article is not "essentially true". It is essentially a fabrication.
We disagree. In my opinion, there is only one kind of truth. What I say is either true or it's not true. Telling the truth is "essentially heart truth". Telling lies does not come from the heart. Lies come from another place. The only truth is "Unity, life, cooperation, sanity, goodwill, peace and loving kindness". Fabrications and lies do not have anything to do with these qualities. To attempt to clothe fabrications and lies in these garments is a deception in and of itself. "If it takes a few little white surface lies to precipitate the exposure of ... evil", then I will not expose evil. But I do not believe lies serve any such purpose. In fact, lies are evil in and of themselves and exist singularly in the service of evil.
You stated: "I disagree with your superficial, authoritarian, fear-based, technical, academic egghead conclusion to pull his work from your pages." Your description here is not an attack on us. It is an attack on the truth itself. By characterizing our decision to stand for the truth in this way, you participate in the extension and promulgation of deception, fabrication and lies. Moreover, you do no favors to Jay Shaft or anyone else in the anti-war movement in your attempt to defend him. Rather, you encourage him and others to adopt your confused strategy of using fabrications to promulgate what you call "the truth of the heart".
You stated: "I would like to see if you eggheads ... not miss the deeper forest of heart-truth for your nit-picking over a few insubstantial trees on the forest's outer edges".
If you view our debunking of Jay Shaft's article as "nit-picking" over "insubstantial trees" - you are indeed lost in a forest. We obviously do not view our refusal to publish pure fabrications which deceive the reader as "nit-picking". In fact, we believe it is utterly essential that we expose lies regardless of who promulgates those lies and whatever their intentions for doing so.
If Buddha, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, the first-century Jesus, Mohammed, Rumi, Mandela or anyone of their famed integrity were here today and told a lie, no matter their purpose in doing so, we would call it a lie and we would refuse to publish it on our website. It is wrong-headed to think that lies can "save the lives of millions of people' lives, as you have here stated. It's as true today as it was when it was first uttered: "The end does not justify the means.".
Very truly yours,
Les Blough, Editor
Axis of Logic
Boston, MA (USA)
617-787-3498
Letter from "HRC"
-----Original Message-----
From: blisstruth@aol.com [mailto:blisstruth@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:14 AM
To: rmcmail@speakeasy.net
Subject: Who is murdering truth? Who is sharing a deeper, nurturing truth?
Subj: Who is murdering truth? Who is nurturing a deeper truth?
To: rmcmail@speakeasy.net
21:00 HST, Monday Feb 16, 04
Dear Editor,
This is a rare and wonderful little battle being played out right here on the printed page. Of course, in order for there to exist any battle, or conflict, there must be differing characters and roles being played out against each other, each having their own unique values, perspectives and motivations.
Many of us will, I trust, loosely agree with the premise that Truth is tantamount to freedom, or that Truth sets us free, while falsehood begets only slavery. Ok, from that shaky maybe-consensus, we then move to the question: what is truth? Or, more significantly...what is the truth that really matters?
There are different kinds of 'truth.' Of these, I am most interested in that truth which produces life, liberation, unity. Which type of truth deserves the highest honor for its liberating, unifying effect? Isn't the most important truth that of a deeper perennial essential nature? Or is it the truth of surface intellectual nuts, bolts, measures, statistics, and 'proveable' facts that is most important?
Some people live according to 'truths' of the head, some recognize deeper truths of the heart or spirit. Some work well with both. If we were now living in a society of sane, unified love of truth, it is likely that these two types of truth could be safely shared in public and that these would support and agree with each other without conflict.
But in the current insanity of society, rife with greed, fear and violence , there are many individuals and institutions who have staked their identities on positions of hiding and controlling truth, and living instead by propagating half-truths and falsehoods through surface media. In this atmosphere, the plain and simple truths of the deeper heart are not given fair "airtime", nor given as wide a dissemination nor as great an honor as they deserve in proportion to their perennial importance.
In the case of attempting to determine the veracity of Jay Shaft's "fabricated" article---an article which is recognizable as *essentially true* by anybody who knows human beings and war, in regard to what it reveals about the insanity, falsehood, fear and enslavement that is war...no matter when or where that war is/was being staged, no matter which names are/were filling the assigned roles and positions in the combat.
The person who understands this underlying type of truthfulness might also likely understand the compassion-based decision, need even, to create a vehicle which may finally begin to succeed in blowing the millennia-thick layer of protective bullshit off the madness we call war, to expose it's false, gory "glory and moonshine" to a potentially more enlightened populace.
If this is what is being referred to as 'fabrication'---the fact that Shaft's article is only essentially true to all wars, rather than specifically, superficially, technically and exactly correct for this particular war---well, then I disagree with your superficial, authoritarian, fear-based, technical, academic egghead conclusion to pull his work from your pages.
For it is by their/our fruits that we shall be known...and the fruits of war are but destruction, death, corruption, disease, fear and vengeance into many future generations. And the fruits of essential heart truth are: unity, life, cooperation, sanity, goodwill, peace and loving kindness. Yes, if it takes a few little white surface lies to precipitate the exposure of a dark, deep-rooted and ongoing evil and rot, I see that as honoring a deeper, more meaningful, more loving, and more enduring Truth.
I would like to see if you eggheads have the hearts to match...and to not miss the deeper forest of heart-truth for your nit-picking over a few insubstantial trees on the forest's outer edges, for the sake of potentially saving the lives of millions of humans from the senseless, premature violent deaths and injuries in current and future wars.
Sincerely,
HRC of loving truth
Dear Editor:
People like yourself and Craig Hulet have turned the varied experiences in your life,fueled by a common passion for America into a beacon of the real truth for all of us to see. Thank You for all you and your staff do. Why do reporters not pose the questions asked on your site ? I would have like Clark to be questioned on his sordid past. E mail those reporters this latest condensed article of Hulets on Clark..if your research staff can get their address. I would love to see him squirm..Endorsing Kerry and stabbing him in the back at the same time..What about Edwards? Little press on Axis of Logic about him. Lets get America back....BUT HOW ?
Marie
The following article was written by an Axis Reader as a response to "Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh" by Jonathon Gatehouse, Macleans Magazine. (Axis of Logic received a very large reader response to this article)
Dear Axis of Logic:
Your article on Dubya, what a masterpiece.
It is no wonder that the readership of Macleans has surpassed 1200 total subscriptions.
You hit the nail on the head, let's do a little historical contrast/compare between these two nations.
1940's
US-- The Unified war effort (including industrial might) succeeds in defeating both Hitler and Hirohito. The rebuilding of a devastated Europe and Asia begins with US money and know-how.
Canada-- Orson Pedersen of Gypsumville, Manitoba thinks he hears something in the backyard. He looks out the window and sees a raccoon trying to get in the garbage can.
1950's
US-- Years of work finally pay off as Jonas Salk (of Jewish immigrant parentage) discovers a vaccine that saves the world from Polio.
Canada-- Orson Pedersen of Gypsumville feeling a rumbling in his tummy heads to the cupboard and pulls out a box of Macaroni and Cheese. "Do I have enough Ketchup?" he ponders.
1960's
US-- The escalation of the war in Viet Nam begins in earnest. Brave boys, full of honor and fear from across the United States give their lives in a fight against totalitarianism for a people and culture they do not even know.
Canada-- Thousand of responsibility shirkers from the U.S. run to Canada and are embraced with open arms. One of them buys a lot next to Orson Pedersen and plants a strange garden.
1970's
US-- The crowning achievement of the Apollo Space Program culminates with the sixth landing of American men on the moon.
Canada-- Orson Pedersen prepares the meal of kings and sets it on TV trays by the Chesterfield. The family is set for and exciting evening of "The Beachcombers" with Mac and Cheese. He sends his second oldest boy back into the kitchen to get more Ketchup.
1980's/90's
US-- The cold war is over!! American courage, stamina, and military have paid off with the crumbling of the repressive regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc.
Canada-- Orson Pedersen is sadly disappointed that his grown kids are still unemployed and living at home. "Hmmm," he thinks as he looks out the back window, "they sure do spend a lot of time in the neighbors garden and drying shed."
Jack Elam
Dear Sheila:
I was intrigued by your cogent statements in Marlene Maloney's article on "Imperialism and Religion" that was printed in the June 2003 "Culture Wars" magazine. This evening, just to see if you had more, I typed "Sheila Samples" on Yahoo, and was delighted to find a number of articles. The tone and style of writing is most appealing, with a Latin-like quality, wrapped in lively Americana. I also share your views and opinions. I had to copy the articles for later reading.
Patrick F. Flynn
Yorba Linda, Calif.
Dear Patrick,
I have not seen Ms. Maloney's article, but am honored to be mentioned in "Culture Wars" magazine in any form. Thanks for giving me a heads-up.
I also thank you for your kind words and for your interest in my writing. Does this mean that you are raising the bar, and I will have to clean up my act in the future..? LOL
We are delighted to have you visit Axis of Logic. We work very hard to present our readers the very latest news and commentary across the political and cultural spectrum. I hope you will come back again and again. Take off your hat and -- as they say out here in Oklahoma -- "set down and stay awhile..."
Thanks again,
Sheila
From a Reader with whom I exchanged a few ideas a number of months ago. He wrote the following regarding those discussions, inserting comments among those I wrote in my last reply. Obviously, Don is replying to phrases he lifted from text I wrote. However, his questions are fair, in my opinion. Would that everyone had the courage and honesty to struggle with these important questions! In my opinion, the most important thing going on in this exchange is not so much the rightness or wrongness of the various arguments. Rather, the importance of this exchange is that two people on different sides of the spectrum are able to carry on a civil conversation - something sadly lacking in today's divided America - LMB
Les:
Blue is yours / my comments in red.
assumptions that violence is wrong; [is self-defense violence wrong? Further, how about pre-emptive, violent, self-defense ? On another track does the Partial Birth Abortion procedure meet your standard of violence?] that war is wrong [is self-defense war wrong? Pre-emptive self-defense war?]; that it is honorable to promote peace [no one should argue with promotion of peace just with the methods of doing so. In fact some say they are promoting peace and instead are using it in furtherance of their own self-serving, unrelated political agendas. In doing so they are being untruthful.] and justice [again, no one is against justice but there are a number of definitions of justice are there not?]; that theft of the possessions of another person or another nation is wrong [do you believe in an individual’s right to private property and the right to free trade and commerce? For example if I want to buy a shirt from HopSing in China should I be able to?... or would you rather my freedoms and HopSing’s are restricted by our respective government? What about if HopSing and his countrymen want to sell me an oil exploration concession? ]; that imperialism and colonialism is wrong [if a country’s citizens believes in individual liberty, freedom, and democracy is it wrong for that country to promote such values to other countries? If there is a cruel dictator killing his subjects should not a freedom-loving free country do what it can to help the oppressed, dying citizens of the other country?]; that economic violence on the poor and disadvantaged is wrong [not sure what you mean by “economic violence” but would this “violence” be right if it were done unto the middle class or the upper economic class? Is a 100% tax rate “economic violence” in your opinion? 90%? 80%? 70%? 50%?]; that we have a responsibility to publish facts [all the “facts” or just selective “facts” ? Is your definition of Fact that which is indisputably true? If one were to “publish” just selective facts to further their own self-serving political agenda rather than all the “facts” about a particular “world event” would not that be deceptive and wrong?] about world events to the extent possible and to publish what we believe to be the truth about a matter. [alas, few distinguish between facts and opinion anymore. Facts are indisputably true where opinions, or beliefs are subject to debate.]
February 1, 2004
If Words Could Talk...
Sheila,
Thanks for saying that so needing be said and for saying them so well.
Ken Melvin
Oakland CA
Dear Ken,
No, thank YOU. As long as there is just one person out there like you who cares, I'll be yelling in his ear. Maybe, together, we can get our country back.
Thanks again,
Sheila
Top of Page
|
