And in the view of such soldiers whose urine and semen and blood and bones still glimmer and ache with the spikes of Uranium's alpha bombardment, this 'greater good' has also included a 'disposable army' now caught in the throes of sickness and decline. To cavil about small overstatements regarding a memo that, in spirit and intent, clearly underlies this abattoir seems at best petty and misleading.
In the normal course of doing intellectual business, though, this tendency on the part of those attacking DU critics, to grab hold of minor flaws or harmless errors and cry fraud or forgery or duplicity of some sort, is both prototypical of, and execrable on the part of, those who guard the Nuclear Fool Cycle and its plutocrats. As one possible approach to responding to such oppression, the work of Australian physicist and social scientist Brian Martin puts into an explanatory form this common tactical approach to any threat of democratic input into sacrosanct technical arenas.
This "backfire model" not only analyzes the political economy and methodological machinations of the denizens of business as usual, but it also proffers a citizens' defense course that explicates how to take apart, overturn, and reject the automatic hegemony that the promulgators of empire have come to expect. Some of this 'model's' pieces appear, plausibly, quite useful.
Like any social-anarchist worth the name, Martin is 'theoretical' only insofar as such an orientation emphasizes practical outcomes. He focuses on the necessity of seizing agency as a grassroots matter, rather than merely acceding, as usual, to the study of the nefarious plans of the plutocrats.
In seeking to accomplish this 'agency-shift,' from the powers-that-be to a nascent grassroots upsurge, he extols the metaphorical thinking and conceptual modeling propounded by Berkeley's George Lakoff. "The idea of framing is of more immediate use. Framing refers to sets of ideas. ... The ideas that people use to think about an issue often influence their attitudes towards it. ... Frame analysis offers a powerful tool for activists to think through the way they construct an issue." In relation to DU and a popular-education and action plan, then, this essay contributes to framing the nuclear debate by suggesting that this 'highway of doom,' this 'Fool Cycle,' this 'Death Dance,' serves only the masters.
Of course, this is just what the DU-denizens do, albeit in such a way as to shame themselves in relation to the light of reason. As if the paltry putridity of Holloway's style of argumentation did not stink enough already, more pertinent still to cutting such libel and calumny to pieces is Leuren Moret's own defense of her position, left to deliver the coup de grace to 'denialist' cretins. She presents both data and assessment that eviscerates her opponents' pitiful paltriness (here).
Moret's response, until disproven, dispositively makes the case that she originally advanced in regard to this very-interesting document. If mistaken, then the facts and data in this section defenestrate the 'denialists.' In sum, DU's intentional devilish employment in defense of empire, its mortifying tendency to cause pain and death, and the disregard of any human consideration over and against these brutal, 'strategic' considerations and tactical niceties appear to be, to say the least, persuasively established.
In any event, as a method for examining and learning about the present, through investigating and debating the past, few policy brawls show superior potential to this one. Thus, returning to the ultimate rationale for this essay, let us begin to be serious about a democratic dialog about these matters.
BY WAY OF CONCLUSION
At some juncture, a Peoples Congress might come together to ponder organizing documents for the citizen-empowered, community-friendly future. Until that time, this humble correspondent implores that a crystalline comprehension of the aspects of the collective past are critical when those long-gone eventualities so obviously glowed with the same patina of radioactive threat and predominance that governs the road forward from here, so far as the powers-that-be define the case.
Put most simply, no people's plan for a different travel itinerary will stand a chance against even so flimsy an opponent as a Robert Holloway or a Roger Helbig unless the planning process manifests an accurate consciousness of how things like the Nuclear Highway began. In such a situation, a Citizens Congress to Consider Depleted Uranium's Role in the Nuclear Fool Cycle Dance of Death could be just the ticket.
The Traprock Peace Center and Grassroots Peace activism that has sheltered and given a vector to the voices of Doug Rokke and others has withstood many insults and threats from Holloway and his ilk. To wrap up this session, and to emphasize the material interests that establish the basis for the next unit of this little narrative, readers may turn to a nice piece of deconstruction in regard to dear Dr. Holloway from The Deprogrammer. This investigator first makes clear that Nevada Technical Associates, a company in which Holloway has played a leading role, has assisted Dr. Bob in becoming a millionaire many times over.
In response to negative DU publicity, these 'scientists'-of-government-contract-administration set up a virtual defense portal. They acknowledged both their bias and their presumption in the following fashion (click here).
He then recommended that Dr. Bob check out the film version of "Metal of Dishonor." Holloway claims the imprimatur of overarching expertise in response. "I don't have to see a movie, I am an expert in this subject, having worked with environmental radioactivity for 30 years. I know more about it than any of the activists."
In the normal course of doing intellectual business, though, this tendency on the part of those attacking DU critics, to grab hold of minor flaws or harmless errors and cry fraud or forgery or duplicity of some sort, is both prototypical of, and execrable on the part of, those who guard the Nuclear Fool Cycle and its plutocrats. As one possible approach to responding to such oppression, the work of Australian physicist and social scientist Brian Martin puts into an explanatory form this common tactical approach to any threat of democratic input into sacrosanct technical arenas.
This "backfire model" not only analyzes the political economy and methodological machinations of the denizens of business as usual, but it also proffers a citizens' defense course that explicates how to take apart, overturn, and reject the automatic hegemony that the promulgators of empire have come to expect. Some of this 'model's' pieces appear, plausibly, quite useful.
Like any social-anarchist worth the name, Martin is 'theoretical' only insofar as such an orientation emphasizes practical outcomes. He focuses on the necessity of seizing agency as a grassroots matter, rather than merely acceding, as usual, to the study of the nefarious plans of the plutocrats.
Of course, this is just what the DU-denizens do, albeit in such a way as to shame themselves in relation to the light of reason. As if the paltry putridity of Holloway's style of argumentation did not stink enough already, more pertinent still to cutting such libel and calumny to pieces is Leuren Moret's own defense of her position, left to deliver the coup de grace to 'denialist' cretins. She presents both data and assessment that eviscerates her opponents' pitiful paltriness (here).
"I have confirmed with three Manhattan Project scientists that DU was intended to be used in the Groves memo recommending developing radioactive materials as POISON GAS MILITARY WEAPONS in 1943.She continues, more majestically. "This terrible truth(of DU's demonstrable, undeniable, and deadly toxicity) and global tragedy is what Holloway and the other prostitutes for the nuclear establishment are hiding by lying about the intended purpose of the Groves memo." While this humble correspondent does not know for a fact that Wood, Fulk, and so on will sign sworn affidavits to the effect that Ms. Moret's contentions are true, to an extent, such incapacity is 'machts nichts.'
Dr. James Conant, was President of Harvard when John Kerry's father (a high level CIA agent) brought him into the Manhattan Project to develop poison gas warfare weapons. Conant had developed poison gas warfare weapons in WW I so he was already an expert on them.
The three Manhattan Project scientists who confirmed to me that DU was intended to be used in the Groves memo are:
Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear physical chemist who worked on the research of rainout of nuclear materials for the nuclear weapons program at Livermore (where I also formerly worked), Dr. Fred Wood, and a third one I met in Willits, Calif. while giving a talk a few months ago with Dennis Kyne on DU.
In addition to those three, Dr. Ernest Sternglass--who is a world expert on ionizing radiation and convinced the Senate to sign the partial test ban treaty in 1963 at the request of Pres. Kennedy--also confirmed that DU was intended to be used in the Groves memo."
Moret's response, until disproven, dispositively makes the case that she originally advanced in regard to this very-interesting document. If mistaken, then the facts and data in this section defenestrate the 'denialists.' In sum, DU's intentional devilish employment in defense of empire, its mortifying tendency to cause pain and death, and the disregard of any human consideration over and against these brutal, 'strategic' considerations and tactical niceties appear to be, to say the least, persuasively established.
In any event, as a method for examining and learning about the present, through investigating and debating the past, few policy brawls show superior potential to this one. Thus, returning to the ultimate rationale for this essay, let us begin to be serious about a democratic dialog about these matters.
BY WAY OF CONCLUSION
At some juncture, a Peoples Congress might come together to ponder organizing documents for the citizen-empowered, community-friendly future. Until that time, this humble correspondent implores that a crystalline comprehension of the aspects of the collective past are critical when those long-gone eventualities so obviously glowed with the same patina of radioactive threat and predominance that governs the road forward from here, so far as the powers-that-be define the case.
Put most simply, no people's plan for a different travel itinerary will stand a chance against even so flimsy an opponent as a Robert Holloway or a Roger Helbig unless the planning process manifests an accurate consciousness of how things like the Nuclear Highway began. In such a situation, a Citizens Congress to Consider Depleted Uranium's Role in the Nuclear Fool Cycle Dance of Death could be just the ticket.
The Traprock Peace Center and Grassroots Peace activism that has sheltered and given a vector to the voices of Doug Rokke and others has withstood many insults and threats from Holloway and his ilk. To wrap up this session, and to emphasize the material interests that establish the basis for the next unit of this little narrative, readers may turn to a nice piece of deconstruction in regard to dear Dr. Holloway from The Deprogrammer. This investigator first makes clear that Nevada Technical Associates, a company in which Holloway has played a leading role, has assisted Dr. Bob in becoming a millionaire many times over.
In response to negative DU publicity, these 'scientists'-of-government-contract-administration set up a virtual defense portal. They acknowledged both their bias and their presumption in the following fashion (click here).
"'Many of us who work in the nuclear industry and the profession of radiation safety believe that the public is needlessly fearful of nuclear power and radioactive materials.... This web page was begun as site to allow several experts to respond.'"The response to this of an 'Executive-of-Peace' from Traprock is instructive. "I'm convinced that Holloway is part of a DoD smear campaign against Doug. ...They focus on an interpretation of the famous Groves memo. Doug says they were talking about uranium as it could be weaponized. It's not a 'mistake' - it's a difference in interpretation. He has focused on this - let's face it, a fine point of argument over the meaning of a 1943 memo - to divert attention from the dangers of DU. Throwing dirt on Doug and Helen Caldicott reflects a classic technique of US administrations... .I've avoided continuing dialogues with Holloway as he has made it is career it seems to divert us from the real work."
He then recommended that Dr. Bob check out the film version of "Metal of Dishonor." Holloway claims the imprimatur of overarching expertise in response. "I don't have to see a movie, I am an expert in this subject, having worked with environmental radioactivity for 30 years. I know more about it than any of the activists."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
