Q & J

Contrary to What You Told the American People

2005-07-11T19:52:00.000-07:00

This isn't the Daily Show. This is real. July 11, 2005.

TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE GRILLED ON ROVE...

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...
(LAUGHTER) ... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved. According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned. Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned. Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism. You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.
And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism. Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do. And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front. The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil. And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing. But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.
As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Sassy Magazine: The Debut Issue

2005-06-28T20:13:00.000-07:00

Last week, I got high watching the 1966 movie Masculine Feminine with my work colleague, and dare I say, comrade, Sean Nelson . M/F catches Jean Luc Godard right before he tips over into his Marxist wall-of-sound dementia. In M/F, though, Godard is still in command of his 60s angst and pop-art Marxism—perfectly reflecting back the zeitgeist with smarty-pants smarts, a circus sense of humor, and a poignant touch. In one scene, “Interview with a Consumer Product,” when our adorably pretentious teenage poet laureate narrator Jean-Pierre Léaud interviews Nineteen magazine’s Miss Nineteen, Godard invents Sassy magazine (remember the “Why You Should be Against the War” issue in 1991?) by staging a head on collision between bubble gum Marxism and bubble gum commercialism.

First, here’s a succinct review of M/F from the time:
Casual and fragmentary as it may seem, Masculine Feminine is in fact probably Godard's most complex film to date. If Paul's odyssey in search of tenderness takes us through what is virtually a collage of la vie moderne at all levels - Bob Dylan as Vietnik and Negro as Black Muslim, the Pill and the Brassiere, Vietnam and the teenage question - it is also a foray into the age-old Sex War
—Tom Milne, Sight and Sound, Winter 1966-67.

Also: Here’s Sean’s blurb on M/F from the Stranger: ‘Masculin, Féminin’ (FILM) Films that deal with a specific moment in time either have a minuscule shelf life or live forever. Guess which one applies to Jean-Luc Godard's eternal masterpiece? This is a new print (with a new translation and subtitles) of Masculin, Féminin, his film about miniskirts, Marxism, Coca-Cola, and all the confusing splendors of 1965-66 Paris, in deathless black and white. ( Varsity, 4329 University Way NE, 781-5755. Fri-Thurs June 17-23, See Movie Times, page 91 for more info. ) SEAN NELSON

I’m still looking for the script to M/F, but in the meantime, here’s a nice summary of Miss Nineteen Q&A from idyllopus press.

DIALOGUE AVEC UN PROFUIT DE CONSOMMATION

Paul now talks with a friend of Madeleine's who she met on the magazine Miss Nineteen. Paul says he's interested in sociology, doing surveys. The girl was elected Miss Nineteen. She got a car, trips. Before that she studied to get her BA. Winning changed everything. He asks her if socialism has a chance and she says she knows nothing about it. It confuses her. She is asked what the American way is. Fast and free. You're important and have lots to do. Women have a say in America. He asks her about birth control. He tells her she must answer. He asks her if she falls in love often. He's persistent. And she smiles a lot. Like Madeleine smiles a lot.

Sassy Magazine: The Debut Issue

2005-06-25T10:32:00.000-07:00

Teenage Witchcraft

2005-06-18T21:02:00.000-07:00

I like interviews with weirdo composers. It’s mesmerizing to hear smart people think out loud about something as unintelligible as music composition. For example, I think an interview with zombie-birdsong-genius Olivier Messiaen from the ‘30s or ‘40s would be a gem. Does anyone know where to find an interview with him? I’d also like to read a contemporaneous Q&A with1960s romantic circuitry clairvoyants like La Monte Young, Alvin Lucier, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, or Pauline Oliveros.

In the meantime, there is a book of interviews by Geoff Smith & Nicola Walker Smith called New Voices: American Composers Talk about Their Music. The interviews in the Smiths' book— with people like John Cage, John Adams, Steve Reich, Philip Glass La Monte Young, and Alvin Lucier—were done in the early ‘90s.
The following excerpt is from the Smiths' Q&A with Glenn Branca, the early ‘80s NYC-guitar-noise composer, whose radio-halo orchestrations famously influenced Sonic Youth and, better yet, earned comparisons to witchcraft.

Q: How did you first become interested in using different types of tuning systems?

A: I was trying a lot of different ideas early on with a variety of instruments, tape techniques, metal, plastic, whatever I could find. I hit upon something that really worked for me—a field of sound. You didn’t really hear changes happening in an overt way, but the change was happening within the whole field. I was also beginning to hear what I thought of as acoustic phenomena inside the field. I was hearing things that I clearly hadn’t written, and I wanted to bring these phenomena more into the foreground…
I saw that when I was using very close harmonies, I was getting more phenomena—so I was trying tunings that would give me this type of sound, and compositional ideas that would bring me closer to it. I found that I could derive compositional ideas from the system, that the system itself had a kind of logical structure, that it seemed to have almost a kind of intelligence behind it. I became completely involved with the harmonic series, and it got to the point where I almost forgot about the music. I got involved with mathematics…I never realized that mathematics was really an area of philosophy.

Q: You’ve said that you see your pieces as pit-stops on the way to something…

A: It seems like I never get it right, which means that I just have to try again. There is a point at which you can’t bring your dreams down into the real world—it just isn’t going to happen, and you have to start being realistic, or at least extremely patient.

Q: Can you pinpoint what it is you’re searching for?

A: It’s a way of determining a piece of music that will have a specific compositional content, but at the same time will have the potential to give you something you haven’t written. I’m going for a field of sound, which I think of as a kind of non-linear music…because something has to happen musically, even if it doesn’t seem like it’s happening.

I Don't Wear Flares

2005-06-15T22:59:00.000-07:00

My long-lost roommate Tim McGuire (Tim lived on my couch for 3 months during our John Walker Lindh years) recently found Q&J on-line and had this to say about it on his blog:
"Josh has a bunch of funny, scary, heavy transcripts of historic conversations over at qandjosh . Fascinating reading.
07 Jun 2005 10:06 am : Comments (5)."

Thanks to Tim, I realized that all I’ve been posting lately are heavy history class Q&As. So, I was set on finding something less stuffy this time out. Good luck strikes! Today at work, I found a copy of this month’s Seventeen magazine in the bathroom. Here’s a Q&A with the members of a band called Simple Plan from Seventeen’s “stars/special gossip section” on page 145 of the July 2005 “Get Great Legs (In Only 10 Days)” issue.

behind the rumors
There’s tons of outrageous gossip on the Web about Simple Plan so we asked the wacky bandmates to tackle your craziest questions. Here’s what they had to say.

Is it true that some band members are bisexual?
Natalie, 13, sydney, australia
chuck: We’re not gay. We love boobies! I don’t know where that rumor comes from. There was a fan site that took our pictures and did stuff to make it look like we were about to make out. And maybe it’s because David kind of looks like a girl. He wears makeup and has long hair and a lot of style, so maybe that’s it. But personally, I think his style is rad. I mean, I’m not afraid to wear pink—real men wear pink! Like Jude Law—he does it and he’s hot.

If you had to marry one of your bandmates, who would it be?
ren, 14, Jakarta, inodnesia
sebastein: Um, that’s just gross. Sorry, but I can’t answer that question.

Have you ever dated a celeb? Which one would you want to date?
alicia, 16, east haven, ct
david: I love Gwen Stefani, and everyone knows it—including Gwen! We played a couple shows together, and she was so cool. But I’ve never hooked up with a celeb.
chuck: When we were touring with Avril Lavigne, she and David became friends, and people asked if they were involved, but they weren’t. He’s not dating Hilary Duff, either. She’s with Joel Madden, even though she won’t say she is. Isn’t it kind of weird she’s only 17? That’s kind of dangerous. I’d be careful there, Joel. But Hilary does look like a young Jenna Jameson.
jeff: My crushes are girls like Milla Jovovich, Kirsten Dunst, and Natalie Portman—girls who have brains and take care of themselves.

Chuck, was your first kiss really with Pierre’s mom?
helena, 16, Stockholm, Sweden
chuck: No—I’ve never kissed Mrs. Bouvier. My first kiss was with a girl at the sixth-grade talent show.

Have you ever given your number to a fan and hooked up with her?
katie, 13, port crane, ny
jeff: I trusted the wrong person once, and my phone number ended up on the Web.
pierre: I’ve given my number to fans before, though it’s rare. Fans are just like us, so if I go out and have a good time with a girl who loves the band, there’s no reason why we can’t keep in touch.
chuck: I met my girlfriend at a show. But it wasn’t like a one-night thing—she was hard to get!

Pure Speech in a Closed-Circuit, December '65

2005-06-07T23:32:00.000-07:00

No matter how much older and more stupider and conservativer I get, I can always mainline my teen brain by remembering my 11th-grade journalism class when I learned about Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines is the only case I remember from the week we spent studying First Amendment Supreme Court decisions.
Tinker v. Des Moines is the one where five public school students (including high schooler John Tinker and his sister, jr. high schooler—Mary Beth Tinker) got suspended for wearing black armbands to school in December 1965 to protest the Vietnam War.
The teens won the case, which was argued in 1968 and decided in ‘69. In the majority 7-2 opinion, Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote: “It can hardly be argued that…students…shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech..at the schoolhouse gate.” And that wasn’t all Fortas had for my Paul Weller electric guitar heart. He added: “In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.”
Today, of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mullah Dobson used the Tinker decision to argue that Evangelical kids can’t be expected to shed their freedom of religion at the schoolhouse gate and are entitled to lesson plans on “intelligent design.”
But woe is me. Tinker v. Des Moines is still pure teen heroin that keeps me high and in line.

Here are two Q&A excerpts. In the first one, Justice Byron White questions Mary Beth Tinker’s lawyer Dan Johnston. Second, Justice Thurgood Marshall questions the Des Moines school board lawyer, Allan Herrick.

From Tinker v. Des Moines/393 U.S. 503 (1969).

NOVEMBER 12, 1968:

Justice White: Why did they wear the armband to class? To express that message?

Johnston: To express that message, yes.

White: To everybody in the class?

Johnston: To everyone in the class, yes, Your Honor.

White: Everybody while they were listening to some other subject matter was supposed to be looking at the armband and taking in that message?

Johnston: Well, to the extent that they would see it. But I don’t believe there was any—I don’t believe that the…

White: Well, they were intended to see it, weren’t they?

Johnston: They were intended to see it in a way that would not be distracting…

White: And to understand it.

Johnston: And to understand it.

White: And to absorb that message…

Johnston: And to absorb that message…

White: While they’re studying arithmetic or mathematics, they’re supposed to be taking in this message about Vietnam?

••••

Herrick: We had a situation here where it was explosive… All right. This is page 70, at the top of the Appendix. “A former student at one of our high schools was killed in Vietnam. Some of his friends are still in school. It was felt that if any kind of a demonstration existed, it might evolve into something which would be difficult to control.”

Justice Marshall: Do we have a city in this country that hasn’t had someone killed in Vietnam?

Herrick: No, I think not, Your Honor, but I don’t think it would be an explosive situation in most cases. But if someone is going to appear in court with an armband here, protesting the thing, that it could be explosive. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

Marshall: It COULD be.

Herrick: What?

Marshall: It COULD be. Is that your position? And there is no evidence that it WOULD be? Is that the rule you want us to adopt?

Herrick: No, not at all, Your Honor.

Trying to keep the aisle clear

2005-06-05T21:23:00.000-07:00

In August 1964, an alternate Democratic delegation from Mississippi, an integrated, but largely black delegation called the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), went to the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, NJ hoping to be seated at the convention. The MFDP charged, correctly, that the "regular" all-white delegation was illegitimate because the state party illegally kept blacks off the voting rolls. LBJ was worried that seating the MFDP instead of the "regulars" would alienate Southern states and drive them into the hands of his Republican challenger, Barry Goldwater.

On August 22, 1964, the first day of the convention, the MFDP and its leader Fannie Lou Hamer earned national attention and sympathy when network TV broadcast Hamer's testimony in front of the Credentials Committee. It was such compelling testimony that as Hamer was still speaking, LBJ contacted the TV networks and had them interrupt the broadcast so he could give a statement that would upstage her.

LBJ then dispatched VP-hopeful, Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, to work out a compromise between the MFDP and the "regular" delegates. (Humphrey was not yet VP. The VP-spot had been vacant since LBJ took office in November '63.) Humphrey assigned the task of working out a compromise to his protégé, Minnesota Attorney General Walter Mondale. Mondale hammered out a shameful deal: Just two MFDP delegates would be seated—not representing Mississippi—but as "at-large" delegates; all the "regulars" would be seated at the convention if they simply pledged loyalty to the LBJ ticket; and the mediators proposed a resolution calling for Southern Democrats to integrate future delegations.

The MFDP rejected the deal. Hamer told reporters that the compromise was "token rights, on the back row, the same as we got in Mississippi. We didn't come all the way for that mess again." The "regular" Mississippi delegation rejected the deal too. (Only three "regulars" stayed at the convention. They were seated.)

Showing up at the convention on Tuesday night, Hamer and the MFDP tried to occupy the seats left vacant by the missing "regulars." Her group was hauled away by guards.
However, Hamer and the MFDP returned the next night, August 26, 1964. Here's an interview from the convention floor on that night:

TV Reporter: And Will you identify yourself for us please?

Fannie Lou Hamer: My name is Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer. I’m the vice chairman of the Freedom Democrat Party.

Reporter: Where did you get the credentials to get into the building tonight Mrs. Hamer?

FLH: Some long friends of ours gave us an invitation to come in. We sit with them a while, and we wanted to sit in our own state.

Reporter: Do you have any kind of (unintelligible) uh, credentials that will get you into these seats?

FLH: No we don’t. Only as American citizens.

Reporter (turning to a bow-tied Democratic Party Official): Mr. Sgt. at arms, have you had any contingency plans for this?

Official: None at all. I just stand here peacefully trying to keep this aisle clear.

Unidentified Black woman interrupts: (unintelligible) say to us down in Mississippi. When they’re before the eyes of the world they’re peaceful and loving, and when they get back to Mississippi it’s nigger you can’t come in here, nigger you can’t come in there, nigger you get out. Here we are in the eyes of the world, seeing the same thing that happens down, way down, in the Deep South. Mississippi.
The country refuses to demand that Mississippi give Negroes their rights, their privileges. We didn’t ask to be elected to anything. We didn’t ask for any patronage. All we asked for is to let us sit.

You know what I'd do w/ him, the bastard.

2005-06-04T18:42:00.000-07:00

A creepy Q&A in honor of last week's W. Mark Felt news. This is Nixon grilling Haldeman about the leak in October 1972.

Haldeman: We know what's left, and we know who leaked it.

Nixon: Somebody in the FBI?

Haldeman: Yes, sir. Mark Felt. You can't say anything about this because it will screw up our source and there's a real concern. Mitchell is the only one who knows about this and he feels strongly that we better not do anything because--

Nixon: Do anything? Never.

Haldeman: If we move on him, he'll go out and unload everything. He knows everything that's to be known in the FBI. He has access to absolutely everything ...

Nixon: What would you do with Felt?

Haldeman: Well, I asked Dean ...

Nixon: You know what I'd do with him, the bastard. Well that's all I want to hear about it.

Haldeman: I think he wants to be in the top spot.

Nixon: That's a hell of a way for him to get to the top.

Haldeman: You can figure a lot of--maybe he thought--first of all, he has to figure that if you stay in as president there's a possibility or probability Gray will stay on. If McGovern comes in, then you know Gray's going to be out ...

Nixon: Is he Catholic?

Haldeman: (unintelligible) Jewish.

Nixon: Christ, put a Jew in there?

Haldeman: Well, that could explain it too.

I'm Pro-Cloning & I Vote.

2005-05-27T21:53:00.000-07:00

On May 19, 2005, researchers from Seoul National University in South Korea announced that they had created 11 stem-cell lines using DNA from human patients through the process known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or therapeutic cloning. Here is a Q&A with the lead scientist of the S. Korean team, Woo Suk Hwang and his colleague Shin Yong Moon. This NYT interview was published over a year earlier on February 18, 2004. Hwang's line about therapeutic cloning as Buddhist reincarnation is the greatest attack on Evangelical Theocracy 2005 ever!

Q. Leon R. Kass, the bioethics adviser to President Bush, said that he would like to see your type of research banned in the United States. What is your reaction?

WOO SUK HWANG Our goal has never been to create cloned human babies, but to find the causes of incurable diseases and to offer a new window for cures.

SHIN YONG MOON Professor Hwang and I have called for a ban on reproductive cloning. We don't want people using our techniques to make human beings. We urge every nation to prepare a law as soon as possible to prevent human cloning. As a scientist, I think reproductive cloning should be banned.

Q. What do you think would happen to American science if all cloning were banned?

MOON If all human cloning will be prohibited here, that would be a problem for American science. Stem cell research [which cloning facilitates] is very important for understanding the basic science of human development. And it is also very important for new drug evaluations. So biotechnology development — not all of it, but some — would be delayed and hindered in the United States.

Q. Do you have problems with your own government over your work?

HWANG I can answer your question like this: If Korea were to prohibit therapeutic cloning research, we would have to go to other countries where it is permitted — Singapore, mainland China, maybe Great Britain. But my hope is that the Korean government will give us the license to do this kind of research. If they don't, we will move.

Right now we are stopping our work for a short while and thinking about what we shall do next. We'd like to discuss this with our government. We'd like to have their confidence on this kind of research. Then we'll start again.

You know, almost half of our research team is Christian, including Dr. Moon, who is Methodist. At the lab, we have discussed why we have to do this work. We have asked ourselves, Is there any way to achieve the treatment of some incurable diseases without therapeutic cloning? The answer is, It is a scientist's responsibility to do this research because it is for a good purpose.

Q. What is the religious tradition you come from, Professor Hwang?

HWANG I am Buddhist, and I have no philosophical problem with cloning. And as you know, the basis of Buddhism is that life is recycled through reincarnation. In some ways, I think, therapeutic cloning restarts the circle of life.

Q. Professor Hwang, did you grow up in a well-to-do family?

HWANG No. We were very poor. My hometown is in a very isolated rural area. When I was an infant, there was the Korean War, and when I was 5, my father died. My mother had to take care of six of us, alone. And in the years after the Korean War, the general status of rural people was very, very difficult. My academic background started in a rural elementary school, but my university was Seoul National University, one of the most famous in Korea.

MOON Let me explain more because Professor Hwang and I are of a similar age, though I come from a middle-class background.

Immediately after the Korean War, we had nothing to eat or drink. The first words I ever spoke in English were, "Hello, give me a chocolate!" This is what we said to the G.I.'s. Everybody suffered from hunger. We had nothing. The only way to succeed in life was to study very hard. So Professor Hwang got a good education by being a really hard-working young man. He'd get up at 4:30 every morning and work till midnight. He still does that.

Q. Professor Hwang, was there anything in your rural background that made for your interest in cloning?

HWANG Yes. I took care of cows from early childhood on. To this day, I can communicate with cows without any conversation, just by looking, eye to eye. This is partly why I have been interested in animal cloning because I can see how it can solve a lot of problems for farmers. With cows for instance, some produce only milk, others only meat. In 1999, through cloning, our lab was able to produce a cow that is good for both — a kind of supercow.

Then, in 2002, we succeeded in cloning miniature sterile pigs whose organs can be used for transplantation to humans. We collected the somatic cells from pigs and inserted some of the human immune gene into the pig's somatic cell. So with these successes behind us, the time seemed right to try therapeutic cloning to cure incurable human diseases like Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries.

Q. To create this cloned embryo that was used for a new stem cell line, 16 Korean women donated 242 human eggs to your project. How did you find these remarkable volunteers?

HWANG In Korea like everywhere else there are young ladies who are curious about therapeutic cloning. Some heard about us and they contacted us with e-mail. Also, we sometimes gave lectures about our work. After we spoke, we received inquiries and we arranged meetings and discussed fully what egg donation meant. If they said yes, we enlisted them. We did physical and mental examinations. We asked if they understood what we were trying to do. We gave them a chance to change their minds.

Q. You aren't the first biologists to try these human cloning experiments. What did you do differently from the others?

HWANG We used a squeezing method when we extracted the nuclear material from the ovum. We did it with minimum damage to the egg, which isn't easy because human eggs are very, very sticky. Next, we used a different activation time to mimic the fertilization of the egg. We also used a special culture medium for growing the reconstructed egg.

MOON Also, there is something special about Dr. Hwang's lab. It's something in our Korean culture. The micromanipulation that we did for the cloning, it's a very tedious job. But people from our part of the world are very patient, and that helped. Our researchers had an almost Zen-like sense of concentration; they could sit for 10 hours in one spot and carefully manipulate the eggs. It was almost like a meditation.

HWANG I also think, quite seriously, that our Korean finger techniques helped. Koreans eat with metal chopsticks, which are very slippery. We are trained from an early age how to manage them.

Q. What are the economics of this? Will you become rich?

HWANG We have applied for a worldwide P.C.T. [Patent Cooperation Treaty] patent for the technique we developed and also the cloned human embryo stem cells. Sixty percent of the patent will be owned by the university. The remaining 40 percent will go to the other collaborators. Dr. Moon and I will not be participating because we are professors.

Q. Are you refusing money so that your motives can never be questioned?

MOON That's right. Korea is a country where respect for the professorship is a little bit different than in the West. Professor Hwang takes the honor, not the money.

Q. Do you think you'll get a Nobel Prize?

HWANG Not now. The way I understand it, if the younger generation accomplishes its task and takes what we have done further, then maybe. What we've done is a beginning step.

Keep Your Laws Off My Body. I'm Pro-Cloning.

2005-05-27T20:50:00.000-07:00

Every time the stem cell research debate flares up, I have to refer to a frenzied, unintelligible AP Bio cheat sheet I made, drunk after reading Gina Kolata or some incomprehensible article in Scientific American. Here's a clear Q&A from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute that explains therapeutic cloning clearly and slowly. If anyone has a better primer please let me know.

What are stem cells and why do we hear so much about them?

Scientists have known of the existence of stem cells - the foundation of every organ, tissue, and cell within the human body - for over a century. Yet it has been only since the late 1990s - when human embryonic stem cells were first cultured in the laboratory - that the field of stem cell research has become the focus of intense scientific interest, sociopolitical controversy, and therapeutic potential. Like a blank microchip that can be programmed to perform many different tasks, stem cells are undifferentiated, ‘blank' cells that do not yet have a specific physiological function. When the proper conditions occur in the body or in the laboratory, stem cells begin to develop into specialized tissues and organs. Stem cells are also distinguished from other cells by their ability to self-renew-in other words, to divide and give rise to more stem cells.

Why is stem cell research so important?

Stem cells are the source of all tissues of the body, and understanding their properties is fundamental to our understanding of human biology in health and disease. In particular, stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells to treat a wide variety of diseases and disabilities, including diabetes, neurological disease, cardiovascular disease, blood disease and many other conditions. Defective stem cells also appear to underlie many forms of cancer, and by understanding their properties it should be possible to develop new types of anti-cancer therapy.

What is the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Some organs contain stem cells that persist throughout adult life and contribute to the maintenance and repair of those organs. Not every organ has been shown to contain stem cells, however, and generally adult stem cells have restricted developmental potential, in that their capacity for proliferation is limited and they can give rise only to a few cell types. Embryonic stem cells, by contrast, can divide almost indefinitely and can give rise to every cell type in the body, suggesting that they may be the most versatile source of cells for transplantation therapy.

Why is there so much controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research?

At present, the only known way to derive embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of a blastocyst-stage embryo. Some people are opposed to this research because they consider the blastocyst to be morally equivalent to a human individual.

What is the source of embryos used for making embryonic stem cells?

The human embryonic stem cell lines that have been created at Harvard are derived from frozen embryos left over after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. These early stage embryos were donated, with informed consent, by patients who had completed their treatment. In the future, Harvard researchers also hope to derive embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer.

What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as ‘therapeutic cloning', involves transferring a nucleus from a donor cell, such as a skin cell, into an unfertilized egg. The injected egg is then induced to divide, and when it reaches a few hundred cells, the so-called blastocyst stage, it can be used to derive embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to the original donor. No sperm is involved, and therefore no fertilization occurs, in this procedure. Moreover, because the blastocyst is not implanted in a uterus, no pregnancy is established. SCNT has great therapeutic promise because the resulting stem cells could be transplanted into the original donor. No sperm is involved, and therefore no fertilization occurs, in this procedure. Moreover, because the blastocyst is not implanted in a uterus, no pregnancy is established. SCNT has great therapeutic promise because the resulting stem cells could be transplanted into the original donor and would be recognized as ‘self', thereby avoiding the problems of rejection and immunosuppression that occur with transplants from unrelated donors. In addition to providing a source of material for transplantation therapy, SCNT can also be used to make stem cells that carry disease genes. These cells could provide a powerful new tool for studying the basis of human disease and for discovering new drugs.

What is the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning?

Reproductive cloning involves creating an embryo by nuclear transfer and then implanting it into a uterus and allowing it to establish a pregnancy. This has been achieved for sheep and several other mammalian species. It is not known whether it could be made to work in humans, but the vast majority of researchers in the field are strongly opposed to attempting such an experiment. Many countries and some US states have already enacted legislation that permits therapeutic cloning while prohibiting reproductive cloning. Harvard supports a proposal to enact similar legislation in Massachusetts.

ENRON UNBALANCED, April 2001

2005-05-07T15:49:00.000-07:00

People who are contrarian for effect are useless bores. But THREE CHEERS!!! to legitimate contrarians like Richard Grubman, a short seller for a hedge fund called Highfields Capital. Short sellers are the most admirable contrarians because they actually have to make a living on the success of their unconventional hunches. They can't just survive by being be pithy at parties.

In this fantastic Q&A (which has since become an important footnote in American history), Grubman got the microphone during a public conference call with Enron CEO Jeff Skilling when the company was still widely revered.

ENRON CONFERENCE CALL, APRIL 2001

Skilling: We do not have a balance sheet completed. We will have that done shortly when we file the Q. But until we put all of that together, we just cannot give you that.

Grubman: I'm trying to understand why that would appear to be an unreasonable request, in light of your comments about daily control of all your credits.

Skilling: I'm not saying we can't tell you what the balances are. We clearly have all of those positions on a daily basis, but at this point, we will wait to disclose those until all...the right accounting is put toghether.

Grubman: You're the only financial institution that can't produce a balance sheet or cash-flow statement with their earnings.

Skilling: Well, you're...you...well, uh, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Grubman: Appreciate it?

Skilling: Asshole.

Satan Goes On Record, 1973

2005-05-05T23:53:00.000-07:00

I like this interview because it bucks conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom has it that reporters go into interviews already knowing what they want to hear, and that a reporter's true skill lies in trapping or tripping up the interviewee. But this interview shows that reporters often go into interviews utterly bewildered by the story, and then skillfully feel their way through the Q and A, and turn the tables by improvising. Here, Damien Karras improvises with Satan and actually backs the all-mighty Lucifer into a corner.

Regan (Linda Blair): What an excellent day for an exorcism.
Damien Karras (Jason Miller): You'd like that?
Regan: Intensely
Damien: But wouldn't that drive you out of Regan?
Regan: It would bring us together.
Damien: You and Regan?
Regan: You and us.

(The drawer on Regan's nightstand slides open as if Regan had telekinetic powers)

Damien: (playfully) Did you do that?
Regan: aaaahhhhhh uhhhhnnnnnn

(Damien gently pushes the drawer shut)

Damien: (playfully) Do it again.
Regan: In time.
Damien: (still teasing) No, now.
Regan: In time! Mirabile dictu, don't you agree?

Damien: You speak Latin? (Karras turns on the tape recorder)
Regan: Ego te absolvo
Damien: Quod nomen mihi est?
Regan: Bonjour

1979's Man of the Year

2005-05-05T19:05:00.000-07:00

Khomeini was a Reactionary Utopian Creep. But by rejecting the USA and the USSR in 1979, he just seemed so New Wave to my teenage poet laureate radar.

Time Magazine's Middle East Bureau Chief Bruce van Voorst went to Qum, Iran for an exclusive interview with Ayatyullah Khomeini during the early months of the Hostage Crisis in 1979.

Published in Time Magazine, January 7, 1980

Q. Anti-American feelings in Iran are intense. Americans, in turn, are angry with Iran. How do you assess prospects for bilateral relations after the resolution—whatever form it might take—of the current crisis?

A. Iranian feelings are not against the American people, but against the American Government. When they refer to America in their slogans and denunciations, they mean the U.S. Government, not the U.S. people. I have received reports about large-scale, Administration-orchestrated anti-Iranian propaganda in the U.S. The Zionists especially are doing all they can to poison U.S. public opinion against Iran. As a result, there may be ill feelings toward Iran in the U.S. as reported. But if the facts penetrate the Zionist-imperialist propaganda screen, if we succeed in explaining the truth to the American citizenry through the mass media, then the Americans will most probably have a change of heart about us and reciprocate our amicable attitude. But we are under no illusion that the U.S. Government might change its hostile attitude. The U.S. Government has lost great interests in Iran. Still worse, the Administration has lost its political prestige in other countries as well.

We have been screaming for justice, for having our grievances redressed. The U.S. Government placed the Shah on the throne—that is, the Allies appointed him [in 1941] after ousting his father Reza Khan [who was] a British stooge. The U.S. Government consistently helped him stay in power in the face of our people's opposition to him. The Shah squandered all our resources—our national dignity, our natural assets, the talents of our youths and everything else we had. Obviously, Iranians cannot have a good view of the U.S. Government. And recently our people discovered that the Administration had turned its so-called embassy into a base for espionage and conspiracy against Iran. Spies were operating there under the pretext of being embassy personnel. Now that our people know this fact, they consider the Administration their No. 1 enemy.

In our view, the American people are not to blame for their Government's behavior in Iran. Americans should recognize the fact that the Administration has wronged not only us, but them as well. It has deprived us of everything through its lackey, the Shah. And it has placed the U.S. citizenry's honor in jeopardy. Because of U.S. Government behavior, Eastern peoples may now develop a pessimistic view of the American nation. The Americans should take this fact into consideration. Carter's continued presidency is a danger for America. It poses a threat to American national honor. If the U.S. Government —through military intervention, economic blockade, bully tactics and similar actions—succeeds in depriving us of justice, then the crisis will never be resolved, it will always rankle in the mind of our people. The American people should not allow Carter to follow this course because, gradually, Iranians will suspect that the U.S. people share Carter's ill will toward Iran. Then, enmity might set in between the two peoples.

Another option is for the U.S. Government to admit its misdeeds in Iran. These are numerous. Allowing a murderer to enter the U.S. is one of them. Still worse is the U.S. Government's imposition of a murderer as ruler of Iran. When Carter became President, he continued the policies of his predecessors —that is, he tried to perpetuate the rule of the criminal Shah and plunder Iran. When our nation rose against Pahlavi tyranny, Carter did all he could to keep him in power. He failed.

Our people's hatred for the Shah was too obvious for Carter not to notice. But still, in blatant disregard of the Iranian nation's feelings, Carter offered the deposed Shah refuge in the U.S. Not even the American people, I think, believe Carter's claim that he allowed the Shah to enter America on humanitarian grounds. Humanitarian considerations do not enter the American Government's thinking at all. Washington is prepared to do anything, kill 200,000 people in an atomic raid, in order to gain some profit. No one can believe these officials were humanistically motivated in giving the Shah an entry visa. In a sense, they have abducted the deposed tyrant to make sure he will not divulge their secrets. If we try him, all the facts the U.S. Government wants to cover up will surface. The whole world will know who has aided the Shah in his crimes.

Of course, once the American people discover what their President has done, they will not vote for him any more. In our view, all Carter is interested in is a second term in the White House, and he is prepared to do anything, even to sacrifice American national honor, in order to achieve his goal. We cannot believe the U.S. Government's claims to humanitarian motives. Is the Shah alone a human being? Aren't 35 million Iranians human beings? Weren't the Vietnamese human beings? We clearly see what crimes are committed now in southern Lebanon ly see what crimes are committed now in southern Lebanon with Carter's approval.

For us, [the resolution of the crisis] means the extradition of the deposed Shah to Iran and measures to compensate Iran for damages caused by his tyranny. There are, of course, damages that cannot be repaired. For instance, we have sustained about 100,000 fatalities tin the struggle against the Shah]. The labor and human talents wasted in pursuit of his harmful objectives cannot be retrieved. But we expect the repatriation of the wealth plundered from Iran.

The main point to bear in mind is that there is a new era. Iran today is not what it was under the Shah. A miracle has occurred. Under the previous regime, a single policeman could force all merchants in a huge bazaar to hoist flags to mark the Shah's birthday. These very people stood up against tanks and artillery with their bare hands. Even now, they wear burial shrouds, come here [to Qum] and declare their readiness for martyrdom. A nation thus transformed cannot be pushed around. Mr. Carter has not understood this transformation yet. He thinks a dictator can be imposed on the country again. But he must understand that Iranians will never put up with such actions. Carter must wake up.

And the Americans should vote Carter out of office. They should elect a suitable President. Then Iranians, if convinced that the U.S. Government does not intend to wrong them, will have normal relations with the U.S.—the kind of relations we have with other countries.

Q. You have called the Shah a criminal, but you have not been specific. Could you give a rundown of what you feel his crimes were?

A. The crimes of the Shah are innumerable. Even a synopsis would be too long for me to present in a single session. In the last two years of the Shah's reign alone —when people rose to crush the imperial regime and establish an Islamic republic —this criminal killed more than 60,000 and maimed more than 100,000 of our people. During his reign, the Shah made us economically dependent on the U.S. and turned Iran into a bankrupt state. Our industry is dependent on the West. He has destroyed our agriculture. Politically, he toed the U.S. line and placed Iran in league with the oppressors and tyrants. The Iranian position in international forums during the reign of the Shah clearly demonstrates this fact. Even when the Shah, for fear of incurring the people's wrath, adopted apparently anti-U.S. positions, he would, behind the scenes, remain hand in hand with America. For instance, although he publicly supported the Palestinians, he gave oil to Israel, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. He fed Israel militarily—that is, he assisted Israel, this archaggressor, wholeheartedly. Militarily, the Shah made us thoroughly dependent on the U.S. [To perpetuate his monarchy] he gave our oil to the U.S. and used the proceeds to build military bases for America in Iran. Worst of all, he was determined to annihilate Islam and Muslims. By pushing our youth toward the West, he created a painful cultural dislocation. He brainwashed the people with Western propaganda. It takes gigantic efforts to liberate our society from the evil effects of his cultural treason.

Q. How do you feel qualified to judge him? How can you be sure that your measures are truly in keeping with the law of Islam and the will of God? Does God ever speak to you or send you guidance?

A. What I said in response to the first question sums up the judgment of all Iranians. I have repeatedly stressed that I simply reflect the views of the Iranian people.

Q. Doesn't the fact that virtually every government in the world condemns the seizure of the hostages raise doubts in your mind about your own position?

A. Most governments that have condemned Iran [for the embassy seizure] have done so under superpower pressure. We want to prove to the whole world that the superpowers can be defeated with the power of faith. We shall stand up against the U.S. Government with all our might. We fear no power.

Q. You have objected to the West's efforts to impose its values on Iran. Why are you trying to impose Islamic values and Islamic justice on representatives of the West?

A. We definitely do not want to impose Islamic values on the West. Islam will never be imposed—neither on the West, nor on the East, nor on any particular individual or region. Islam is opposed to coercion. Islam stands for freedom in all its dimensions. It is up to the people them selves to accept or reject it.

Q. Even if he wished to, the President could not legally hand the Shah over to Iran or to a third country with the intention of extraditing him to Iran. Do you expect Carter to violate the basic principles of his nation? Isn't that inconsistent with your moral and ethical goals?

A. Did the U.S. Government legally place Iranians under the Shah's machine-gun fire? And now, is it the same law that prevents the U.S. from extraditing the Shah? What kind of law is this? It permits the U.S. Government to exploit and colonize peoples all over the world for decades. But it does not allow the extradition of an individual who has staged great massacres in Iran. Can you call it law?

Q. You talk so readily of the embassy as a "nest of spies." But there has been precious little evidence for this. Aren't you aware that it is the function of all diplomats to gather information about the country they are in, and this is considered legitimate? When there is evidence of espionage against diplomats, they are simply deported, not tried by the host country. If you objected to the activities, why didn't you just shut the embassy down?

A. There is a difference between gathering information and conducting espionage. Evidence so far collected proves that they ["the American spies"] had charted different conspiracies for different parts of Iran. They had plots for creating armed clashes in different regions. Is this how diplomats gather information? God willing, the Muslim students [holding the U.S. hostages] will reveal the details in the future. It is the government's job to close the embassy or allow it to function. I do not interfere in these affairs.

Q. Are you aware how isolated you have made Iran? Even Islamic nations have condemned the hostage taking. You have pushed the U.S. out of Iran, but who will free you from pressures by the Soviet Union?

A. We have pushed the U.S. out of Iran in order to establish an Islamic government. We have not ousted the U.S. in order to replace it with the Soviet Union. Our people's slogans clearly demonstrate this fact. Throughout their struggle, our people would chant, "An Islamic republic—neither Eastern nor Western." If the Soviet Union should one day try to pressure us, we will deal with it with the same force that enabled us to oust the will deal with it with the same force that enabled us to oust the U.S.—the force of our faith. We trust in God and the boundless might of the people.

Q. You must accept the fact that America will never surrender the Shah to you. If you doubt this, you do not understand America. Would you release the hostages if the United Nations agreed to investigate your grievances? At the same time, should all dictators in the world be investigated by the U.N.?

A. In fact, we understand America well. We know that we can resist it and defend our honor. We have proved that we can resist its great injustice—harboring the Shah. We shall overpower America. We shall defeat it in the whole region. The [departure of the] Shah from the U.S. will not solve the problem. An international organization should make serious efforts to convince the U.S. to extradite the Shah to Iran. This organization should return all the wealth the Shah has plundered to its rightful owners—the people of Iran. Such an organization should also try all dictators. We will not surrender to injustice. We will not compromise with the oppressors.

Q. Why can you not mediate this dispute in a reasonable manner? You have turned down Ramsey Clark, U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, the P.L.O., and barely listened to the papal representative. Don't you think these are honorable and serious individuals?

A. I have never said that these gentlemen are not honorable and serious. I have defended the Palestinians against Israel for more than 20 years. I used to point out the danger of Israel at a time when Israel and Palestine were unknown in Iran. We support the Palestinians' cause of justice against Israel, but a more significant issue is at stake now. I want to drive home to all peoples throughout the world the point that they should not try to mediate between the oppressor and the oppressed. Such mediation itself is a great injustice. We do not want any [would-be mediators] to commit this injustice. The right approach, under these circumstances, is to rush to the side of the oppressed and implacably attack the oppressor. It is for this reason that we rejected offers of mediation and will continue to do so. You may consider the mediation of your representatives between Israel and Palestine logical. We don't. The only logical course is defending Palestine. We approve those who strive for the international recognition of our just demands, but we shall never endorse oppressors, even if they act in our interest. It is among the eternally valid principles which we must always uphold.

Q. If the hostage crisis is peacefully resolved, can you foresee a normalization of relations with the U.S., such as by the renewed sale of military spare parts and commercial ties on terms acceptable to Iran?

A. We will certainly reject any deal that harms the interest of Muslims. Otherwise, commercial ties and other exchanges, as long as they are in the interest of our nation, are agreeable to me. However, the government is responsible for signing such agreements, not I.

Q. The economy has not revived. The poor in south Tehran are as poor as ever. The armed forces probably could not defend Iran against attack. There is no normal political activity. In light of this, is it not fair to say that the revolution has failed?

A. All these observations might be true. But the revolution has not failed. Indeed, the pillars of the revolution have been strengthened. It is a fact that our people have become accustomed to the revolution. They are all revolutionaries. They all welcome martyrdom. I declare, in all seriousness, that we can easily stand up against U.S. aggression. The U.S. may destroy us, but not our revolution. It is for this reason that I am confident of our victory. Listen to the people's slogans. For instance, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IMPRESS NO ONE. CARTER DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LOGIC OF MARTYRDOM. The U.S. Government has no idea what martyrdom is. In this spirit, we will solve all the problems of Iran. Although, I must point out, the damages we have sustained stem from more than 50 years of Pahlavi treason and will take at least 20 years to repair. Freedom and the Islamic republic have been established. But complete independence requires the dispossession of the East and the West, an objective we shall undoubtedly achieve.

Q. Haven't you really lost a measure of control? The embassy takeover was allegedly undertaken without your knowledge or the support of the Revolutionary Council. Didn't the students take policymaking out of your hands? Do you really control the crowds?

A. Failure to understand Iranians leads to such mistakes in reading the situation. Iranians harbor profound enmity toward the U.S. Government because of the wrongs it has done them. We lead our people along the path to independence and liberation from U.S. domination. It is for this reason that our people have occupied the American nest of spies. The so-called embassy is certainly a nest of spies, and, in principle, what do we need the U.S. Government for? All Iranians are asking this question.

Q. Sometimes you issue elamiehs ordering the people what to do, and then when you want to avoid responsibility, you reply you can do nothing, it is in the hands of the people or the students. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

A. It is a fact that I, as Khomeini, express my views like all other people, comment on what should be done. But you should have no doubt that the hostages are in the hands of the students.

Q. You have not studied seriously economics, international political relations. Your education is primarily theological. Doesn't this raise doubts in your mind that there may be factors in this equation you don't grasp?

A. We have discarded equations and social and political terms of reference so far used for assessing all the world's problems. We have built a new framework of values standing up for justice and fighting injustice. We will defend any upholder of justice and attack any perpetrator of injustice. You may name this value system whatever you like. We are laying the foundation of this value system, which, we hope, will one day replace—in the U.N., the Security Council, and other world bodies—the influence of the capitalists and the great powers that can now condemn out of hand anybody they want to. Yes, with your criteria, I understand nothing—and I am better off for it.

Q. Have you ever been wrong about anything?

A. Only the Prophet Muhammad and other saints have been infallible. Everybody else makes mistakes.

House Un-American Activities Committee, Oct. 24, 1947

2005-05-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

Republican New Jersey Congressman J. Parnell Thomas chairs the House Un-American Activities Committee. HUAC co-counsel H.A. Smith questions Walt Dinsey.

I was going to excise Disney's answers and write up a fantastic parallel universe interview where super-power Woody Guthrie lyrics like "They say America First, They mean America Next" carried the day. But I didn't want to jinx the space-time continuum.

Here are two excerpts where Disney names names.

HUAC: Aside from those pictures you made during the war, have you made any other pictures, or do you permit pictures to be made at your studio containing propaganda?

Walter E. Disney: No; we never have. During the war we thought it was a different thing. It was the first time we ever allowed anything like that to go in the films. We watch so that nothing gets into the films that would be harmful in any way to any group or any country. We have large audiences of children and different groups, and we try to keep them as free from anything that would offend anybody as possible. We work hard to see that nothing of that sort creeps in.

HUAC: Do you have any people in your studio at the present time that you believe are Communist or Fascist, employed there?

WD: No; at the present time I feel that everybody in my studio is one-hundred-percent American.

HUAC: Have you had at any time, in your opinion, in the past, have you at any time in the past had any Communists employed at your studio?

WD: Yes; in the past I had some people that I definitely feel were Communists.

HUAC: As a matter of fact, Mr. Disney, you experienced a strike at your studio, did you not?

WD: Yes.

HUAC: And is it your opinion that that strike was instituted by members of the Communist Party to serve their purposes?

WD: Well, it proved itself so with time, and I definitely feel it was a Communist group trying to take over my artists and they did take them over.

HUAC: Do you say they did take them over?

WD: They did take them over.

HUAC: Will you explain that to the committee, please?

WD: It came to my attention when a delegation of my boys, my artists, came to me and told me that Mr. Herbert Sorrell

HUAC: Is that Herbert K. Sorrell?

WD: Herbert K. Sorrell, was trying to take them over. I explained to them that it was none of my concern, that I had been cautioned to not even talk with any of my boys on labor. They said it was not a matter of labor, it was just a matter of them not wanting to go with Sorrell, and they had heard that I was going to sign with Sorrell, and they said that they wanted an election to prove that Sorrell didn't have the majority, and I said that I had a right to demand an election. So when Sorrell came, I demanded an election. Sorrell wanted me to sign on a bunch of cards that he had there that he claimed were the majority, but the other side had claimed the same thing. I told Mr. Sorrell that there is only one way for me to go and that was an election and that is what the law had set up, the National Labor Relations Board was for that purpose. He laughed at me and he said that he would use the Labor Board as it suited his purposes and that he had been sucker enough to go for that Labor Board ballot and he had lost some election-I can't remember the name of the place-by one vote. He said it took him two years to get it back. He said he would strike, that that was his weapon. He said, "I have all of the tools of the trade sharpened," that I couldn't stand the ridicule or the smear of a strike. I told him that it was a matter of principle with me, that I couldn't go on working with my boys feeling that I had sold them down the river to him on his say-so, and he laughed at me and told me I was naive and foolish. He said, you can't stand this strike, I will smear you, and I will make a dust bowl out of your plant.

CHAIRMAN: What was that?

WD: He said he would make a dust bowl out of my plant if he chose to. I told him I would have to go that way, sorry, that he might be able to do all that, but I would have to stand on that. The result was that he struck. I believed at that time that Mr. Sorrell was a Communist because of all the things that I had heard and having seen his name appearing on a number of Commie front things. When he pulled the strike, the first people to smear me and put me on the unfair list were all of the Commie front organizations. I can't remember them all, they change so often, but one that is clear in my mind is the League of Women Shoppers, The People's World, The Daily Worker, and the PM magazine in New York. They smeared me. Nobody came near to find out what the true facts of the thing were. And I even went through the same smear in South America, through some Commie periodicals in South America, and generally throughout the world all of the Commie groups began smear campaigns against me and my pictures.

••••

HUAC: Can you name any other individuals that were active at the time of the strike that you believe in your opinion are Communists?

WD: Well, I feel that there is one artist in my plant, that came in there, he came in about 1938, and he sort of stayed in the background, he wasn't too active, but he was the real brains of this, and I believe he is a Communist. His name is David Hilberman.

HUAC: How is it spelled?

WD: H-i-l-b-e-r-m-a-n, I believe. I looked into his record and I found that, number 1, that he had no religion and, number 2, that he had spent considerable time at the Moscow Art Theatre studying art direction, or something.

HUAC: Any others, Mr. Disney?

WD: Well, I think Sorrell is sure tied up with them. If he isn't a Communist, he sure should be one.

HUAC: Do you remember the name of William Pomerance, did he have anything to do with it?

WD: Yes, sir. He came in later. Sorrell put him in charge as business manager of cartoonists and later he went to the Screen Actors as their business agent, and in turn he put in another man by the name of Maurice Howard, the present business agent. And they are all tied up with the same outfit.

HUAC: What is your opinion of Mr. Pomerance and Mr. Howard as to whether or not they are or are not Communists?

WD: In my opinion they are Communists. No one has any way of proving those things.