Replies

Replies

To: Harper’s Magazine

From: Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law, Chapman University School of Law

Subject: “John Yoo Hearts Orange County,” by Scott Horton

Scott Horton claims in a post on your website that Professor John Yoo

was originally announced as the “Bette and Wylie Aitken Distinguished Visiting Professor”—the holder of a specially endowed professorship set up by Chapman trustee and well-known attorney Wylie Aitken for a “prominent legal scholar whose expertise will compliment the strengths of the law school’s existing class offerings.” But it subsequently became clear that Yoo did not receive this appointment.

That claim is false. I offered visiting professorships to both John Yoo and Richard Falk at about the same time in the summer of 2007, shortly after becoming Dean. I offered the Aitken Professorship to Falk, and the Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professorship to Yoo. At no time was there any discussion about the Aitken professorship with John Yoo. Nor was it ever “announced,” “originally” or otherwise, that John Yoo was going to be the Aitken professor. I have no idea where Mr. Horton obtained his false information.

This may be a small factual error, but the implication Horton tries to draw from it–that somehow John was deemed not worthy of a distinguished visiting professorship–is patently untrue. John is the fourth holder of the Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professorship, a position that has previously been held by distinguished scholars Frank Read, Betsy Levin, and Rennard Strickland. I am honored that Professor Yoo accepted my invitation to join those ranks.

Harper’s Magazine regrets the error.

Replies

Updated December 31, 1:03PM:

From: Joshua Lore

Subject: Ephraim Rosenbaum’s statement regarding Mr. Fish’s cartoon of December 30, 2008

I’m sure it is no mystery to Harper’s that polarizing sensitivities have made “antisemitism” an almost almost useless term in the modern world, where Ilan Pappe has even said that the most antisemitic regime in place today is, in fact, Israel itself. The more important point that I wish to reaffirm to Harper’s, in your support, is that the critiquing of the undue coupling of military power with religious and ethnic identities is not antisemitic, and in fact loans more to the affirmation of a true Judaism than it does against it.

The nature of this cartoon is also clear in its irony, as Mr. Fish was no doubt making a statement about the dubbing of this recent, disproportionate military engagement, as “Operation Cast Lead”–a very brutal, and sickeningly blatant title in its appearance–which is actually derived from a Hanukkah poem. We see again a frightening coupling of religious convictions with modern imperial brutality, and this goes against the true nature of Judaism no less than the most direct forms of antisemitism seen during the age of fascism, which never really ended to begin with.

Anyhow, to accuse Harpers as being uninterested in Israel’s suffering seems an unfair reduction. A rabbi who worked hard throughout the last decade to condemn the military obsessions of Israel said “the only sufferings that can be felt by an empire are the groaning sufferings of empire; the only sufferings that can be felt by those beneath it are the deepest and most undeniable sufferings of humanity stolen.”

I hope that I am not wrong in saying with confidence that Harper’s, and Mr. Fish, have no doubt a deep sympathy for Israel’s victims of violence, but that they have a sight clear enough to define the difference between an Israeli, and a rogue military regime bought out from the beginning by the world’s largest empire. Mr. Fish’s critical eye for sad irony is a valuable asset to your publication. Please do not let the misuse of words like antisemitism keep you from challenging injustice and the debasement of true religion in this world.

Replies

From: Greg R. Rampton

Subject: “It Started in Texas: Karl Rove’s Political Prosecutions,” by Scott Horton

I am the “curious” and “unstable” FBI Agent mentioned prominently in your July 2007 interview with James Moore, author of Bush’s Brain. I was unaware of the article until now, hence my belated reply. Moore’s innuendo, supposition, and half-baked conspiracy theory are thin gruel, indeed. There are only two people who know the extent of the Karl Rove/FBI Agent Greg Rampton relationship. Rove isn’t talking, but I’m glad to.

I was an agent in Austin in the 1980s and handled most public corruption cases. I met Rove during a gubernatorial campaign involving his Republican candidate. The night before a debate, Rove and the Republicans had their offices swept for bugs by a private detective. He found a transmitting device behind a picture in Rove’s office. I got the case and determined that the device was bogus–it could pick up a conversation but was too low-powered to broadcast beyond the office. It had no recording capability and so was useless. I developed a suspect, unrelated to Rove, the Republicans, or the Democrats. However, the suspect refused a polygraph, wouldn’t confess, and there was otherwise insufficient evidence to prosecute. Rove and I had no further interaction–no lunches, no calls, no nothing. (Rove once equivocated when asked in a Congressional hearing about me–probably to add luster to his master manipulator reputation and, in adding to the myth, Moore and Scott Horton have been manipulated.)

Space precludes me from addressing each inaccuracy in the characterization of the Mike Moeller/Texas Department of Agriculture investigation. But the record speaks for itself–Moeller and two others were convicted and served time. Suffice it to say that Rove had no part in the origin, or investigation of the case. I never discussed any aspect of the case with Rove and he never asked me about it. Moeller’s case took two years to investigate; I never spoke to the press on or off the record. Nor did I leak anything to Rove or anyone else about this, or any other corruption investigation.

As Rove gained notoriety reporters looking into his past decided that–since I knew Rove and had some corruption investigations involving Democrats–Rove must have been my informant. They added two and two and got five. Rove never gave me any information on any Democrat, or anyone else.

After 30 years, I retired from the FBI as an assistant special agent in charge; hardly the curious, unstable “mad dog” of Moore’s dreams. Moore’s other allegations, including tampering with evidence at Ruby Ridge, are equally specious. As one steeped in politics, Moore knows the value of an unfounded accusation. The truth is available in the trial transcript for anyone interested, even Moore. Truth is in short supply; unfortunately, supply exceeds demand.

From: MW

Subject: “On the Peace Born of Faith,” by Scott Horton

Mr. Horton’s contribution regarding the meeting of Obama with evangelical leaders was topical and relevant. However, I feel that it might be wise to inquire as to why Obama did not choose to stick his ground during the described meeting, but turned around and did a massive flip-flop on the FISA measure. There can be no question that Obama had expressed a determination to filibuster the FISA bill, and no question that he voted first for cloture, then for the measure itself.

I question whether the ethical standard-bearer described in Mr. Horton’s article would in fact have done what Mr. Obama actually did by giving in to G.O.P, demands for telecom immunity after the fact, and for approving continued warrantless eavesdropping at the Government’s own pleasure. Mr. Obama’s relationship with God is his own affair. His selling out on the FISA measure is a matter of public record.

From: Darius Greene

Subject: “That New Yorker Cover,” by Ken Silverstein

I think the New Yorker cover featuring a caricature of Obama is not only obvious satire but a rather great example of it. Although I could be wrong, I would think something like this would actually deter the G.O.P. from possibly taking such laughable positions–terrorist fist-jabs and the like.

And I’d like to disagree with Mr. Sanders that liberals are solidly sold on Obama. I was never a Clinton supporter, and I surely hope Obama wins over McCain, but perhaps a good liberal, or just a good thinker in general, should never be “solidly sold” on any politician. I would say the same for Bush supporters who might have actually believed his “less-government,” “compassionate” approach before 2000.

It seems from even the past months your readership, by the letters I’ve read, are afraid of you finding out anything bad about Obama, which is understandable perhaps given the importance of the forthcoming election–but then that’s exactly the point. These times are too important to give anyone a free ride into that office. And not wanting to hear anything negative, or allowing oneself to become upset over satire, is to live in a bubble of dreams that is forever in danger of being popped.

Replies

From: Steven Matz, Chicago

Subject: The Case for Political Rudeness, by Ken Silverstein, May 23, 2008

You make a great case for the effectiveness of rudeness, or ahem, direct language. I wholehearted agree in its effectiveness and necessity.

I work in construction. A few years ago I was chatting with another supervisor, from a concrete company, and he summed up the reality that “sometimes, I don’t know why, but you have to just get in someone’s face from time to time in order to get the project moving.” I supervise a variety of trades and while I don’t necessarily enjoy it, I too find that you have to breathe fire to get things moving occasionally.

My father ran a delicatessen in Northeast Philadelphia and I grew up working with him and watched him often unleash tirades upon hapless customers, employees and suppliers. He made a lot of money and stayed in business for 35 years. The episodes were classic theater: “Are you trying to bust my balls?” he once growled to a particularly whiny customer, who confronted him directly, in his kitchen, during the lunch rush, while holding a plate with a half eaten sandwich. The crowded dining room fell silent; waiting for the coming tirade. I think the guy might have wet his pants at one point.

Watching political discourse over the last 18 years being dominated by right wing loud mouths I cheered when I read about Jim Webb’s retort to Bush’s bullshit comment. W. is a special type of cocksucker and no one save Colbert and Webb have called him on it. He’s lucky Webb didn’t crush his larynx right there on the spot. If I were in his shoes and my boy was in Iraq, shit, I don’t think I could contain myself.

From: Fernando Colina

Subject: Why Does the Wall Street Journal Hate America?, by Scott Horton, May 20, 2008.

Scott Horton asks:

And this raises the question: Why does the Wall Street Journal so disrespect the men and women in uniform who run our military justice system?

The very simple answer is that Cheney and his cabal hold uniformed lawyers in contempt. He and his cronies have maintained the view that if JAG lawyers were any good at lawyering, they would be in private practice. The Wall Street Journal echoes this despicable view.

From: Betty

Subject: Weekly Review, by Chantal Clarke, May 20, 2008.

I thought you might be interested to learn that when one person forces another to have sex, the word to describe it is “rape.” For example, when Wolfgang Priklopi kidnaps a ten-year-old Natasha Kampusch hostage in a cellar dungeon and rapes her, it’s a “cellar rape dungeon,” not a sex dungeon. Framing like that minimizes her trauma and makes rape less horrifying in the public imagination–just for a little bit of misogynist titillation. I would have thought better of Harper’s.

Replies

From: Gary McCardell

Subject: Exclusive Video: Hillary in the Führerbunker, by Ken Silverstein, May 12, 2008

On your website, Ken Silverstein posted a link to a video political parody showing a movie portrayal of Hitler in his bunker raging insanely at his defeat with subtitles as though it were Hillary Clinton reacting to the primary results in Indiana and North Carolina.

Silverstein says it is very funny. It is a parody, it is certainly protected speech, and it seems likely that some people with whom I share political affiliation will find it funny. But the parody is profoundly ugly and repugnant. I hope that you will think again about your decision to recommend it to your readers and apologize for it.

From: Alex Kline

Subject: Obama, Hamas, and “Nuance,” by Ken Silverstein, May 13, 2008

It’s sadly true, as Luca Menato wrote in his letter to you, that America’s “leading presidential candidate can be politically blackmailed over an alleged link with a Palestinian faction whose number of armed militants is likely to be smaller than the number of known victims of the latest Chinese earthquake.”

In fact, American Presidential candidates have been toppled for much less–just ask John Kerry about the Swift Boaters. As for the Israeli-Palestinian question, the nuances of which are so far beyond the understanding of the average American voter, it is indeed far too much to hope that a viable presidential candidate could speak with candor and intelligence about this issue without touching a variety of electoral-viability-frying third rails. Sadly, the reality of American politics is that a “smart” politician is playing it safe on this issue by making statements such as Hillary’s recent pronouncement that she would ‘obliterate’ Iran if that country attacks Israel. Does the fact that I disapprove of Hillary making that statement mean I want to see Israel nuked? Of course not, but if I were Barack Obama and expressed disapproval of Hillary’s comment, I could expect a barrage of nonsense painting me as a sympathizer with Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda/what-have-you. Even the allegedly “decent” John McCain has already played this card against Obama. How any intelligent candidate with an ounce of integrity can pick his way through the landmines of such a political landscape is beyond me, but so far Obama is doing a better job than any viable Presidential candidate I have seen in my lifetime.

American presidential politics, particularly the past two elections, constantly brings to mind Mencken: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

From: Jerry Loftus

Subject: Inherently Subversive, by Wyatt Mason, May 13, 2008

I was pleased that you have done Dr. Morse justice. I used to work for the Morses at their home in suburban Philadelphia in the late ’60s and early ’70s, as a gardener, handyman, janitor–a perfect part-time job for a student. I eventually went to Temple University, where Dr. Morse taught. As a political science major, I never took any of his English classes. My loss.

I came from an Irish-immigrant, working-class background. Dr. and Mrs. Morse were my introduction to intellectual conversation. They knew I loved to read, and passed me the New York Times, which I devoured. Though my family bookshelves will never match their extensive collection, we are avid readers.

Years later, after I married and joined the Foreign Service, I took my very international family on a couple of occasions to see Mitchell and Frances Morse. I treasure my autographed copy of The Irrelevant English Teacher, as well as several prints of his articles. I have spent most of my adult life abroad (we’ve settled in Brussels), so the last time I went to see the Morses was on Labor Day 2005. Of course I had just missed Dr. Morse, but his wife was still as lucid as ever despite a stroke.

From: Philip Higgs

Subject: Weekly Review, by Sam Stark, May 13, 2008

I’m not sure if you guys do this sort of thing, but it might be nice–compassionate, even–to post a note that the reward for the tortured pony can be contributed to via the Mercer County Humane Society. Donations via check should have “Reward Fund” written on the check’s “memo” line.

The address:

Mercer County Humane Society

PO Box 1046

Hermitage, PA 16148

From: Alice Forbes Spear

Subject: Harpers.org

I really dislike the new website format. It’s not very user-friendly and it’s hard to read Mr. Fish cartoons.

From: Delfin Beltran, M.D.

Subject: Mr. Fish, May 9, 2008

It would appear to the casual observer that the cartoon of May 9, 2008 by Mr. Fish bears a singular political comment regarding the potential for veracity in that concern. As a physician concerned about the education of the citizenry regarding their own health I see other potential.

First, it is a physiologic fact that as soon as the sperm enters the capsule of the ovum the tail breaks off and all of the genetic material necessary to initiate the new life exists. This health information may or may not be part of the existing curriculum titled “sex education.”

I have an 1860 text used to educate students regarding their own body functions and structure. If this level of education were presented to students today, I suspect that many of the moral concerns of parents might well be altered and the nation could benefit from the understanding acquired by the future parents.

Send replies to harpers@harpers.org. Emails will be edited for length and clarity.