Thursday, April 13, 2017

Late Sen. Daniel Inouye Was the Biggest Punk in Congress...NOT MY WORDS... PART 2!

 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address!  August 26, 1968




Watergate Hearing Opening Statements!  May 17, 1973


BACKGROUND:
Inouye won national esteem during 1973's Watergate hearings as a leading member of the Senate Select Committee that investigated the scandal which ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
The hearings which we begin today are the most important in my 14 years in Congress.
At stake is the very integrity of the election process. Unless we can safeguard that process from broad manipulation, deception and other illegal or unethical activities, one of the most precious rights -- the right to vote -- will be left without meaning.
Democracy will have been subverted.
As I see it, our mission is two-fold: First, to thoroughly investigate all allegations of the improper activities during the 1972 presidential election so that the full truth will be known; and secondly, to take steps to prevent future recurrences of such activities.
Our effort should not be directed toward punishing the guilty -- judicial processes with that aim are under way in at least four cities -- but to initiate a national public debate on our elections and how they work or fail to work.
Like most Americans, I have been truly shocked by the revelations and allegations of this scandal, which is unparalleled in our country’s history.
More than a dozen officials have been fired or have resigned from government positions and two former Cabinet officers have been indicted.
White House officials have tried to use the nation’s top intelligence gathering agencies, the FBI and the CIA, for partisan political purposes to cover-up improper activities.
Scurrilous campaign literature has been distributed in the form of phony letters and naked criticism.
Government decisions, it now appears, may have been ‘for sale’ to the largest campaign contributors.
The sins of the spies and saboteurs, the manipulators and money-men, burglars and buggers must be purged from the very heart and soul of our election process.
But I must add a word of caution.
We have heard many sensational charges in the last few months and we will hear many more in the weeks ahead.
The hearings which we begin today are the most important in my 14 years in Congress.
At stake is the very integrity of the election process. Unless we can safeguard that process from broad manipulation, deception and other illegal or unethical activities, one of the most precious rights -- the right to vote -- will be left without meaning.
Democracy will have been subverted.
As I see it, our mission is two-fold: First, to thoroughly investigate all allegations of the improper activities during the 1972 presidential election so that the full truth will be known; and secondly, to take steps to prevent future recurrences of such activities.
Our effort should not be directed toward punishing the guilty -- judicial processes with that aim are under way in at least four cities -- but to initiate a national public debate on our elections and how they work or fail to work.
Like most Americans, I have been truly shocked by the revelations and allegations of this scandal, which is unparalleled in our country’s history.
It is vital that hasty judgment not be made before we have all the facts. The country will be ill-served by another period of McCarthyism.
These hearings should enlighten and inform and provide the groundwork for a reaffirmation of faith in our American system.
MK ULTRA HEARINGS!  August 3, 1977

 PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION  - LINK!
Necros, Beastie Boys, Marginal Man!  July 9, 198?

 Marginal Man, Flipside Video Friend- Live in Steve's Basement!    198?

IRAN CONTRA!      July 9, 1987
Senator Inouye chairing the Senate Select Committee Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair in 1987.
BACKGROUND:
In this Chicago Tribune commentary, Inouye is commended for giving Oliver North a rather stern lecture for not trusting members of Congress with information about what was really going on at the White House and the Pentagon.
Ollie North got off to a fine start. For a while, it looked as if he was being hounded by a spiteful lawyer and a roomful of politicians for nothing more than being a great patriot.
With his boyish good looks, chest full of ribbons and obvious devotion to God and country, he almost had me saluting the TV set.
But it has started coming apart. By the end of the second day of testimony, all of his flag-waving couldn’t hide the fact that handsome Ollie does have a flair for telling whoppers.
Of course, he always had a noble motive for lying, as he modestly admitted. When he lied to Congress or inserted lies into official documents or lied, in effect, by shredding other documents, he was doing it for a good cause. He was fighting the Commies.
So he told lies -- time after time, lie after lie. If he were Pinocchio, his nose would have been halfway to the White House.
And what it boils down to is that he and his chums couldn’t risk telling members of the Congress of the United States what was really going on at the White House. Congress would just get in the way. It might even blab all of North’s secrets to the world -- including the Commies.
He seemed to be implying -- while saying that he wasn’t -- that Congress wasn’t as loyal, as patriotic, as security-conscious as he and his gumshoe associates were.
I’m sure that seemed reasonable to a lot of people -- especially those who are dazzled by a chestful of ribbons.
But after two days of hearing why Congress couldn’t be trusted with the truth, it obviously became a bit too much for Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii to handle.
And as Wednesday’s session ended, he told North so. Calmly and deliberately, he reminded North that for years Inouye had been trusted with many national secrets and none had ever leaked. And that when leaks came, they were usually from up the street where North and his people hung out.
I’m not sure whether most viewers were impressed by Inouye, but that might be because they don’t know much about him, except what they see. And that’s not a very impressive sight.
Inouye isn’t nearly as glamorous a TV figure as North. He’s kind of pudgy-faced and he talks in a monotone with a slight accent. He spends most of his time at these hearings sitting there like an inscrutable Buddha.
But when it comes to proven patriotism, he doesn’t have to take a back seat to North or John Poindexter or any in that crowd. And surely not to their commander in chief.
The cameras don’t show it nearly as vividly as they show North’s ribbons, but Inouye has only one arm. He left the other one back on a battlefield in Italy when a German hand grenade went off.
That’s when he was part of a legendary Army outfit -- the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up almost entirely of Japanese-Americans.
Some of them had spent time in barbed wire internment camps until the government decided they could be trusted to spill their blood for their own country. So they said goodbye to their families -- still behind barbed wire -- and went off to fight.
They became known as the “Go for Broke” outfit and were the most decorated unit in the war.
Inouye received his share of honors. He has the Distinguished Service Cross, which is the nation’s second highest military decoration. Ollie North, by the way, doesn’t have one.
Inouye also has the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart with cluster, five battle stars, and a few others. All that and the loss of his right arm before he was old enough to vote.
And he is one of the people whom North didn’t find trustworthy enough to know -- as our laws require -- what kind of cloak-and-dagger stunts North and the others were engaged in.
So I can understand why Inouye finally showed a touch of irritation and gave North a rather stern lecture on loyalty and trust.
I can also understand why North looked more subdued at that point than he has during the entire hearing.
He knew he was being chewed out by a genuine hero. And that’s no lie.
Reprinted with permission of Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. 
closing-statement Daniel Inouye     -link to closing statements...August 3, 1987
INOUYE speech regarding-aid-to-the-contras-from-the-congressional-record   -link March 27, 1986


Marginal Man Reunion Show! August 29, 1991





 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Innis   -link, who is this guy?   hmmmm

Marginal Man: The Dark Vision of Harold Innis

Author(s):Watson, Alexander John
Reviewer(s):Neill, Robin
Published by EH.NET (March 2006)
Alexander John Watson, Marginal Man: The Dark Vision of Harold Innis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. ix + 525 pp. $65 (Canadian) (cloth), ISBN: 0-8020-3916-2.
Reviewed for EH.NET by Robin Neill, Department of Economics, Carleton University and the University of Prince Edward Island.
Watson asserts a dominating and consistent intention in all of Harold Innis’s academic activities, from before his service in the First World War to his death in the early 1950s: an intention to raise concern about the condition of Western Civilization. In the past, according to Watson’s Innis, Western Civilization had been renewed by activity liberated from ossified intellectual and institutional expressions of its genius. This renewal took place on the margins of established forms of civilization. Indeed, Watson’s Innis, born on the frontier of Euro-American civilization, is a “marginal man” crying doom. As he saw it, the forces suppressing insurgency on the margin were getting the upper hand. By exhaustive reference to Innis’ writings, the sources of his ideas, and his political program in the academic world, Watson makes his point. It may be a mere imputation that Innis was from the beginning self-conscious of his role as prophet, but that Innis assumed this role, whether deliberate and self aware or not, is evident from Watson’s exhaustive and exhausting exposure of Innis’s analysis of the advance of Western civilization.
Watson is not writing as a practicing academic or private sector economist. Following degrees in English Literature, Political Science, and Political Economy (PhD, 1981) he has given most of his time to Care Canada, a non-sectarian international humanitarian aid organization. At the time of the publication of Marginal Man he was its Chief Executive Officer. Still, there is something that can be said apropos of the book that should be of interest to Canadian economic historians, and historians of economic thought of whatever nationality.
There are now at least four book-length treatments of Innis, each with a different purpose. (1) Donald Creighton’s Harold Innis; Portrait of a Scholar (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1957) is a eulogy out of which, by reference to Innis’s studies of the fur trade and the cod fisheries, Creighton drew the conclusion that Canada was a British country, and, by implication, not French and not American. (2) My own, A New Theory of Value: The Canadian Economics of Harold Innis (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1972) was part of an extended attempt to take a fresh look at Canadian economic development through the history of economic thought in Canada. In that exercise I had some success in extracting Innis’s economics from his broader considerations, but I was more successful later when I compared Innis to Herbert Simon and found similarities. I was not fully successful (in my own estimation) until I saw Innis as a partial contributor to a grand narrative of Canadian economic development. Innis wrote about primary product exports. Others, bringing the narrative closer to the substance of the Canadian case, wrote about agriculture, manufacturing, and banking. This grand narrative, to which they (Adam Shortt, Donald Creighton, W.A. Mackintosh, W.J.A. Donald, S.D. Clark, Vernon Fowke, and others) were all contributing, was still unfinished when grand narratives of national emergence passed from intellectual fashion in North American history. Watson’s account quite misses this. (3) Paul Heyer’s Harold Innis (Rowman and Littlefield, London, 2003), focusing on “the later Innis,” is a most readable account of the content of Innis’s essays on media of communication. Innis’s essays were considered, and perhaps still are considered, unreadable by all but a few devoted disciples. Watson apologizes for this by asserting that Innis developed a special method of presentation with hidden purposes, without explicitly explaining what those purposes were. I think Innis’s “special method” was a consequence of the time constraints on a very busy academic administrator, and of the less than felicitous literary style that marked all of his work. Heyer goes some distance in overcoming the difficulty. Finally there is John Watson’s Marginal Man.
Watson focuses on Innis’s personal life, his motivation and his inner struggles, but in a one-sided way. At the very end of his exhaustively researched account Watson refers to Innis as a pleasant, encouraging, even light hearted and sociable person. The depiction comes as a surprise after most of the book depicted him as an obsessive, psychopathic, Machiavellian academic entrepreneur, successfully bullying his way up the administrative ladder at the University of Toronto. Indeed, after reading Watson’s restrained account of Innis’s apparently pathetic relationship with a particular female student, it takes some effort to see him as in any way light hearted. The book presents Watson’s dark vision of Innis, as much as it presents Innis’s dark vision of the trend of Western Civilization.
In other ways Watson’s treatment of Innis is one-sided. He reveals, with painstaking, even excessive, proof, that in his communication essays Innis relied on the writings and insights of a number of contemporary Classicists — to a point just short of “plagiarism” (the word is Watson’s). But much that Innis wrote from 1935 on was heavily influenced also by a number of economists in the United States, and Watson only mentions this. Watson seems not to have been looking for the economist in Innis. Terms such as “Historical Economics,” “Institutional Economics,” “Neoclassical Economics,” and “Positive Economics” do not appear in the index. Three pages (111-14) out of 416 are devoted to Innis’s place in the history of economics. The term “cyclonics,” by which Innis pointed to the dynamics of an economy passing from one general equilibrium to another under the impetus of technological change, is given a passing nod in two pages (159-60). All of this, of course, is not a criticism of the book, but an indication of its content.
Watson’s biography of Innis, like all biographies, is a work of art. It puts a construction on Innis’s work, attributing to it a single, consistent, life-long intention to elaborate a paradigm of the advance of civilization. In this paradigm, advance is generated by the vision of frontiersmen who are free from the entrenched, unchanging, and suffocating mentality of those at the center of which the frontier is a frontier — hence, “marginal man.” With this construction Watson is able to assert that the communication studies that Innis produced towards the end of his life were not an outgrowth of his staples histories, but part of a larger pre-existing project. By the end of the book one is almost convinced.
Watson misses the fact that Innis was not the only one dealing with the generality of his concern in the middle years of the twentieth century, though Innis took a different approach. Frank Knight, with whom he was in constant contact, and J.J. Spengler, like Innis, were shocked at the passing of Modernity. In Modernity, rationality, objectivity, a generally accepted moral order, and truth, though not achieved, were thought to be achievable and approaching achievement. Much of what Innis wrote in his last seventeen years was an account of changing informational environments — an attempt to explain the passing of Modernity. The account was depressing for Innis, Knight, and others, because it led up to the advent of the Postmodern view in which objective truth and emotion-free rationality are thought to be not attainable. There were many others, however, who, writing very shortly after Innis, saw the same thing without dismay. Intellectual historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science (Jacques Derrida, John Higham, Maurice Mandelbaum, H.J. White), whose work was germinating contemporaneously with “the later Innis,” saw that the informational environment was changing, and accepted that all informational environments were largely constructed and constantly changing under pressure from internal and external forces.
It was Marshall McLuhan, who was aware of trends in literary criticism and pursued communication studies with Innis, who introduced me to Postmodernism at Toronto in the early 1950s – indeed, even when I was first hearing of Innis. That aspect of McLuhan’s thought and its implications for the place of Innis in the history of thought have not found a place in Marginal Man.
Robin Neill is Adjunct Professor of Economics at Carleton University and the University of Prince Edward Island. Neill is author of A New Theory of Value: The Canadian Economics of H.A. Innis, University of Toronto Press, 1972; “Rationality and the Informational Environment: A Reassessment of the Work of H.A. Innis,” Journal of Canadian Studies, 22, 1988: 78-92; and “Innis, Postmodernism, and Communications: Reflections on Paul Heyer’s Harold Innis,” History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 24, 2006 (forthcoming). He is currently researching the place of the history of economics in the practice of economics, and continentalizing forces in the economic development of Canada.
http://fourhorsesasses.blogspot.com/2017/04/late-sen-daniel-inouye-was-biggest-punk.html   PART 1

No comments:

Post a Comment

U.N. Origins of Anarchist Cookbook

William Powell Jr, The author of the Anarchist Cookbook is the son of a United Nations press officer and founder of the U.N.  The An...