“What?”

“No, no, grandfather.”

"Can you keep a secret?" "Yes."

We are told that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise." Yet for over a decade the movements and attacks of the Japanese Navy were well known and widely reported. We are told that despite the breaking of the Naval codes, despite the telegram sent by Churchill to F.D.R., despite all of this, we were surprised. It was just our good fortune that the aircraft carrier squadrons were "on maneuvers" out "at sea" on the day of the attack. Possibly divine intervention?

Later these same aircraft carriers would engage the Japanese Navy near the island of Midway and crush its air arm. More good fortune for the Republic.

Among the books left me by my grandfather was a 1938 edition of Mein Kampf. Numerous paragraphs relating to Hitler's views on the use of military force have been underlined; as well as his views on his fellow human beings. This book was translated into many languages and distributed around the world. Hitler gave speech after speech, many of which were broadcast on the radio, stating clearly his views. The Japanese announced in proclamation after proclamation their claims to empire. And yet we are told that we were surprised.

Yet even if there are more revelations about the events leading up to December 7, will we, must we, conclude that F.D.R. acted in bad faith? Did the Senate act in bad faith in failing to join the ‑League of Nations? Did Congress in failing to prepare for war, and their dismissal of those who sought to prepare for war, act in bad faith? In one memorable case a senior Naval officer resigned after a "political" controversy over certain aircraft clocks. He was recalled after December 7. No doubt, after December 7, many young Naval aviators appreciated these highly accurate clocks when attempting to navigate around the world. Do you agree Mr. President?

The attribution of "I believe," of good faith, need not be total agreement on every detail. For example one may accept ones present circumstance as resulting from good faith efforts by others, without necessarily liking it. For instance many Ivy League graduates were assigned to the most difficult duty in the Pacific Theater. For example, Mr. President, torpedo squadrons,

11

because the torpedoes of that day required that they be delivered in close proximity to the enemy vessel and at a certain trajectory,  were regarded as high risk duty. Did you know this?

These squadrons, whether aircraft or boats designed specifically for this delivery procedure, designated P.T. Boats, suffered severe losses and many injuries. ~ No doubt some assigned to this duty reflected on the Navy's populist spirit in these assignments without necessarily regarding these assignments as having been made in bad faith.

Of course, both you and your fellow officer President Kennedy volunteered for this duty; on this the Naval record is clear. Yet the fact remains that both my grandfathers were right, about the world situation, and the majority of the American people were wrong, including some who would later volunteer. But were they acting in bad faith?

"Michael, Senators and Presidents don't have people killed."

"Oh ? Now who is being naive ?"  The Godfather II

At this point you may be getting annoyed and are thinking, "Don't give me this bilge water you glib little . . . clearly Hitler acted in bad faith in invading Poland, and the United States did not

II invite an attack at Pearl !" Yes, Sir, this I also "believe,"  yet

 let ups take the most difficult case first. ii

The Nazis and Japanese said they were only taking empire as many others had done before them. Many anti‑imperialists, unwittingly but implicitly concede the logic of this fascist argument, for they in fact think that their "anti‑imperialism" immunizes them against just this argument. Because they are against all imperialism they can not be accused of any

"contradictions" in their system of thought. Yet these Manhattan air heads do not have the slightest intention of giving back one inch of land to Mexico, Spain, or Britain, much less the native peoples.

Moses after one victory ordered that all males over age 12, and all women who had "known man," of the enemy, be put to death Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization, as every few years P.B.S. informs us from the steps of the Parthenon, yet do we wish to identify with slavery, human sacrifice, homosexuality, wars of aggression and empire? Are we not Christian? What are we to think of Paganism and orgies?

12

Roman law, and civil engineering are much admired yet have we forgotten the torture in the Colosseum where tickets were sold, or a certain public execution? Do we study and praise the civilization that killed our Savior?

The founders of the new State of Israel caused the death of hundreds and forced tens of thousands from land on which their ancestors had lived for generations. Yet before it is said I am attacking Jews, again, let us quickly add that the founders of these United States, owned slaves and fathered "illegitimate" children by them. These United States acquired lands by trick and force of arms and drove the former inhabitants on "death marches" exposed to the elements, and then gave the survivors blankets intentionally infected with small pox. Not satisfied with simply reneging on lawful treaties, shall I say, we, Mr. President (?), ordered United States Cavalry units to kill all, not just those over 12 or who had "known man."

"I don't think we need to be encouraged to rise above our principles, we have quite enough of that around here already."

‑‑‑ Senator Helms

Sir, Mr. President, what is happening in all these cases is that you are discretely attributing good faith. To the founders of the new State of Israel no less than to President Jefferson, that owner of slaves and father of, to put it discreetly, "illegitimate" children of "color." Though we find the actions of the United States Cavalry abhorrent, today, we still attribute good faith to the United States, today, and even to those men and women of that former time, not withstanding the fact that some of what they did may have been wrong. That Roman poets may have owned slaves and enjoyed gladiatorial events does not cause us to attribute to their noble sentiments bad faith.

This is the difference between us and the radicals. They do not attribute good faith to what has been handed down to us, they impute bad faith.

"But damn it sir, Hitler was a fascist ! There is an objective difference between him and these other cases. It is not a question of "attributing" any subjective notion. Are we to forgive him in time?" Though we are both Christian Mr. President, we are not divines. It is true that I only take on hard cases but even I must refuse this. But let us look now at Fascism.

13 

The question is not are you "Hitters" but whether your selection process and use of symbols in the mass media is fascistic?

Fascism can be traced back to Roman times where the word originated. But what distinguishes fascism in our century is the mass manipulation of symbols for state control. Military conquest is not an exclusive characteristic, nor is genocide unique to fascism. Stalin, the Turks, Pol Pot, all have killed millions. Buddhists were exterminated in India, and millions have been murdered by the Chinese in Tibet. Hitler's industrial system of genocide was as new, as it was monstrous, but Mussolini, Peron, Franco are no less fascists.

The manipulation of symbols is unavoidable. It is true that, for example, auto manufacturers may manipulate mass media symbols in order to take advantage of the public's gullibility and convince them to purchase the advertised products. The fact that they do not want to raise any doubts in their audience doesn't make their symbol manipulation fascistic. These advertisers are not seeking state control.

The ‑rise of fascism in our century is a technique, a means, for gaining state control, it is not a set of policies or crimes.

The repeated broadcast of "the beating" tape, (for that is what the mass media called it from the first), was never once interrupted with a frame by frame analysis. Repeated assertions were made that other "police officers" had viewed the tape and were unanimous that the "four White police officers" were unprofessional. But these alleged experts were never presented on the mass media. Not until the fires were burning did anyone interview the defense or defense experts for the other side.

No graphics of the hour long chase were ever presented. No interviews with the other motorists and pedestrians whose lives had been put at risk were reported. There was no discussion of the problem of drunk drivers or the rules relating to the ramming of a fleeing suspect's car. No officers were interviewed about how it feels to chase a drunk driver for an hour and the risk to the officers involved. What goes through your head? Does the adrenaline affect your judgment?

No officers or legal experts were interviewed to discuss if 26

there is a difference in law between an "unprofessional" and a "criminal" use of the night stick. There is. Indeed none of those who now decry the verdict or who before the trial had already found the "four White police officers" guilty of a crime has yet told us which of the "56" uses of the night stick, in "81" seconds, were lawful, unprofessional, subject to a civil suit, or criminal.

But all of these examples are either too small, too big, too complicated, for the simple symbol manipulation of the mass media: hence the association of the mass media with fascism. For it is in the simple symbol manipulation of the mass media that fascism finds its home.

Just making these points exposes one to the charge that one does not understand the "real" issues.

The Counselor:

Its like a child who has been starved for so long . . . like you see in the photos of a famine. The ribs sticking out. And then this child is placed at a buffet and there is all this food. A whole table of different foods. But he doesn't know what to eat. It has been so long, you see. So he thinks should I eat the red foods, then the green ones, you know, should he choose by color? Or by smell? Texture? He doesn't know.

( She makes me so irritated. )

OK, you tell me, what are the "real" issues?

"THE BLACK VICTIM" and the "four White police officers." This visual became the symbol. This symbol was placed, literally placed, next to the symbol of civil rights demonstrators being beaten thirty years ago. These are totally closed systems not subject to doubt, (symbols), and the mass media manipulators had no interest in creating any doubt about this symbol.

That Mr. King was not a civil rights demonstrator but a drunken motorist who was resisting arrest, had done so for over an hour, was still doing so even after repeated blows, did not in any way change this symbol. A symbol is a symbol precisely because it is not challenged. Does anyone claim that all of the "56" blows in "81" seconds were criminal? The mass media manipulators never tell us. Were 20 criminal, 20 unprofessional and giving rise to civil action, 10 unprofessional but lawful, and 6 lawful, or is it just the opposite ?

There is no exclusionary rule for the use of the night stick. A 27

reasonable juror need not be a "racist" to find that the first 20 blows were lawful. Reasonable jurors might well disagree whether the next 10 were unprofessional or even criminal. When the suspect gets up again the use of the night stick becomes lawful, once again, even if the prior ten were found to be criminal.

For example, the officers may well not have realized that one or more of their number had delivered criminal blows, but their right to have their repeated orders, "stay down," obeyed, can not be doubted. If one is hit illegally by an officer does one have a right to take law into ones own hands and as Senator Bradley has advised "elbow them right back?" [We will return to this.] This social policy might lead to a more disciplined police force, but more likely it will lead to anarchy. Which is what we got.

The suspect's new legal status as a victim of a crime did not relieve him of his duty and obligation to obey the prior given lawful order of the police, "stay down." The jurors were not asked to give an opinion if the blows were unprofessional, only if they were criminal. One officer had already been fired as the union contract permitted this. The other three "White police officers" had been suspended without pay. The jurors could well have thought that the officers had acted badly, but not with evil intent, which is what is required in criminal law.

The lawyers no doubt will object, and say that intent is implied by the reasonable and predictable consequences of ones acts. Officers flailing away with their night sticks will in law be presumed to have intended the criminal act. Yet this is why before the trial, indeed for hundreds of years, citizens have arranged their courts so as not to be judged by lawyers. The citizens do not trust the "legal mind" for justice. It's too cold.

The average layman, for example, if he shows up late at his place of employment may be reprimanded, his pay may be docked, he may even be fired. But a lawyer who shows up late may be held in contempt of court and sent to jail. The average layman does not hold to so tight a use of the criminal law. An officer who "looses his cool" may make the juror angry but the juror may well overlook one, five, even twenty extra strokes of the night sticks, if he finds the officers were "provoked."

In the end they did not continue to hit the suspect. They stopped, eventually. They did not use deadly force but rather the night stick their employer, the people, had given them presumably for just this purpose. They did not connect electrical wires to his 28

genitals as is done in some countries, run him over with their cars, take him in hand cuffs to be beaten further. The defense made a plausible connection between the use of the night sticks and the facts of the situation, resisting arrest.

Officers who were present but not charged, testified that the "four White police officers" had used too much force. Yet these officers did not come forward at the time. Is this because they also were fearful of the suspect who was resisting arrest?

The media reported after the verdict that the defense had been "allowed" to show the tape frame by frame. Were these reporters implying that the defense should not have been "allowed" access to all the physical evidence? If so they should have said so before the verdict, in fact before the "crime." The truth is that these media light weights do not have any theory about how trials should be conducted.

This is what is wrong with American journalism. They enjoy a good living, the comforts of their society, but decline to take responsibility for it. "The defense was allowed to show the tape

frame by frame." Those shysters! Not, "The defense showed the tape frame by frame." The media manipulators did not want to show the tape frame by frame and identify the criminal blows, because for them it was a symbol, not evidence. As soon as a verdict comes down with which they disagree they run for cover and attribute bad faith to the jury, the courts, society, not withstanding the fact that we, and the media, are presumed to have accepted the rules.

In a democracy we are the sovereign. If the police are poorly trained or regulated it is as much the fault of the journalists as anyone. If the court failed to follow the rules of evidence and criminal procedure the journalists should have told us so. The journalist do no one any favors by taking the position that they owe no loyalty to anything. They too are members of this society and have the same obligation to foster understanding of the complexities of our law as any judge.

The journalist reported the testimony of the officer who testified against the other three in the most disparaging terms. This officer stated he had not "kicked" the suspect, as charged, but had "stomped" on him. The young reporters thought this comical. Yet a review of the tape clearly show this officer putting the sole of his shoe on the suspect, who was then prone for the third time. The officer said he wanted to make sure the suspect stayed down this time, the third time, and did not try to

29

The mass media is communicating with a largely illiterate population that has been turned out by our schools. For the media to claim that it is not a "propaganda" tool of the state misses the point that the media is shaping the society. It has no choice. It has multiple obligations the first of which is to recognize that the symbols it uses are not of equal kind. A complex social situation with mountains of sociological research and volumes of political and philosophical arguments, all of which are unknown to their mass audience, are not proportional to the anguished face of the grief stricken mother.

Or consider how the social policy regarding Medicare was changed due to the symbol of a Congressman being rocked in his car by a group, a small group, of protesters. It is very easy for the manipulators to claim that the politicians should "stand up" to their symbol manipulation, it is more difficult for them to bring balance and perspective to their own use of symbols, especially when they all agree with each other in their "objective" happy "network family." The manipulation of these various symbols before the mass audience, taking into account these reactions to these very different symbols, is what communication is all about. Know your audience.

The repeated assertion of the media that its audience is "smarter than that," or "smarter than they are given credit for," etc. far from giving one confidence merely confirms what has been suspected. The media manipulators put less weight on the reaction of the audience to its symbols than they should: Oh, they will figure it out. A kind of absent minded approach the results of which we see in the smoke over Los Angeles. I am reminded of the flew Yorker cartoon of the owner saying to her dog, "Ralph, you are such a good boy. Do you want to go to the park? I'll get your leash, Ralph." And what the dog hears is "Ralph, bla bla bla, park, bla bla bla, Ralph."

The people of Los Angeles have been shown crying out for "justice" including the Mayor at the beginning of the riots. Justice is a symbol whose meaning can be fixed as in the phrase, "Blacks get no justice," or there is not "justice in California 31

courts, anyway not Semi Valley courts." But is it justice when a mother uses crack? That, to use Gilder's arresting phrase, "fatherless boys with knives" should hang out around liqueur stores? Or that they should be fatherless? That children arrive at school not knowing the shape circle or the color purple? Are the mothers and fathers of these children just? Justice does not exist in courts but in the ethos of the society. Laws are not "justice," but one, and only one, attempt by society to secure justice, in society. Justice has a broader, and far more profound meaning than the media manipulators allow. Why are they so narrow? Why do they apply their scrutiny so selectively? Party prejudice?

Which is the greater injustice, that once down and in substantial compliance the suspect continues to be hit with night sticks, or that over forty people are killed, and a billion dollars in property is destroyed? Will the symbol manipulators spend the same amount of time examining the rioters and their "injustice" as they spent examining the injustice of "the beating?"

"Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,

pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,"

                       United States Senator Bradley

                                              United States Senate

(While the fires were still burning. At a time of crisis we

look to our leaders. We hope for words of guidance.)

Who are the political, religious, social leaders of south central L.A.? Will they be held to the same scrutiny as the society that employed the "four White police officers?" Or, if not, will the manipulators depict these "community leaders" in a sympathetic light? One may choose any symbols and manipulate them as one likes, but the issue is why did the media show only one side to "the beating" and the verdict, and the police, and the courts? Why not show the police in a sympathetic light? Will the media ask if the "community" of south central L.A. is just? Perhaps the verdict was unjust but then perhaps the "community" of south central L.A. is unjust. If one wishes to take up a critical perspective why apply it only to the institutions of the society but never apply this critical gaze to the "communities" that make

32

up this society?

We have symbols within symbols. Let us take this letter as an example Mr. President. The first symbol was your affirmation, "1 believe," which was initially praised for its insightfulness. In subsequent pages the original symbol was fragmented with a bewildering array of examples. (Yes, this is too long, but then, you have to read it don't you. If you want to stay in the know.) It has been argued that a symbol is a closed system not subject to challenge. That as soon as it is it no longer is a symbol. Yet we must use symbols to create doubt, to cause the reader to look more deeply. Contradiction?

The words in this sentence each have definitions. To establish a meaning these definitions must be fixed, the words become symbols. But the context of the words is important. A sentence can be construed first one way then another. As these new meanings are applied the symbol is changed, it no longer is closed.

For the Mayor of Los Angeles to decry the lack of "justice" he must fix the meaning of the word and it becomes a symbol. As soon as he is challenged the symbol breaks down into the various possible meanings. To the extent we allow only one meaning to attach we have a symbol. The world is infinitely more complex than can be captured in any sentence, save possibly the sentence, 1 love you.

To the extent that we narrow our world down to just one meaning we miss out on the possibility of greater truth. For example the rule of symbol selection, "don't blame the victim," fails to capture the fact that the status of victim should not exempt one from all criticism. What would you do if you saw red police lights in your rear view mirror? What to think about a professor who puts pubic hairs in returned 92)

What is being said when we say the death penalty is wrong? We are saying to the friends and family of the murdered that their desire for vengeance is wrong. It is a criticism of them. We are not "blaming" them for being victims but we are saying that their rage goes too far. We can not say in any final sense that they are unjust, only that, just or unjust as it may be, we do not "believe" that the state should kill those whom we can imprison. There are multiple meanings and obligations. The Mayor of L.A. was not interested in discussing the varied meanings of justice on the night of the riot, only one.

                For example, your use of the Horton controversy in the campaign was said to have been 1, a symbol, "The Black

33

Criminal," 2, in the mass media, 3, for political gain, 4, exclusively, with no intention to convey the complexity of the symbol. In your case bad faith was applied to you. You were accused of "playing the race card." Which is itself a symbol which I do not fully understand but which I note is only applied to conservatives, for liberals can shamelessly refer to race, as in "the four White police officers," with no "race card" symbol attached. For example, that Senator Gore also thought the Horton controversy significant is an inconvenient fact for the liberals.

That Democrats and Republicans in the State Legislature of the State of Massachusetts alike denounced the Governor's decision to support the strange bureaucratic logic of the Bureau of Prisons, i.e. "in order to control the prisoners, we have to let them out," is another inconvenient fact.

That Mr. Horton was Black was for me a detail. That he was a convicted murderer on a life sentence, out on furlough, committing a new series of crimes, including kidnapping, torture, battery, assault, burglary, and rape, because of a policy designed to help the Massachusetts Prison bureaucrats make their job of controlling their inmate population easier, was for me symbolic of the failure of our liberal society to screw itself up to face that difficult issue of: Social Control.

Again we all manipulate symbols. And if we are running for president we must use the mass media, hopefully for our party's gain. However, as to the fourth element, the duty to take these symbols and manipulate them so as to show their varied meaning, to cause the audience to ponder, new meanings, it is clear your campaign failed to do this.

As was seen so many times before in the Reagan presidency your campaign advisers steered away from an elaboration of the issues raised. The "professional" campaign advisers will at this point complain that a campaign is not an educational institution. This is typical of the anti intellectual environment of America. Presumably the symbol was selected because it showed the candidate's competitive advantages in the best light. As it is no more difficult to place a multidimensional symbol before the public than a unidimensional symbol the rotation of the multidimensional shows the candidate's additional advantages.

              Far from being less competitive, the use and rotation of multidimensional symbols not only shows the public additional meanings, which is "educational," but the work that went into creating the symbol in the mass media yields higher returns. A compounding breakthrough is achieved as each new rotation in the

                            34

light of the mass media, shows additional strengths, the audience's opinions are changed. The complaint by some politicians that the other side has "stolen" an issue is ludicrous. Their idea has not been "stolen" but accepted. This is the point of democracy.

I do not attribute bad faith to your campaign dropping the other implications raised by the criticism of the faulty logic, "in order to control the prisoners, we have to let them out." Far from it. You were forced to give up the possibility of exploiting the other issues and their implications for other policies in schools, workfare, ect. The liberal media environment would not allow this discussion.

I would not want what has happened to one local scribbler to happen to you, Mr. President. This scribbler who wrote a few letters suggesting there ought to be a more thoughtful discussion of the social view of control, was labeled a fascist, his privacy was invaded, the champions of free speech at KQED set him upon. KQED subjected him to what amounts to psychological torture.

"Who was that conservative essayist . . .? You know the one who wrote that essay about that Republican woman? His name began with a ‘C or a K,' a `C' or a`K?' . . . . what was his name?" "Fake Jesus Christs!"

                       The Comedian

                       West Coast Weekend

In this poisonous environment your campaign did well to move on to other issues. It is a pity Mr. Horton wasn't White. For I suspect that the media manipulators used his "blackness" as a "cover" in order to prevent a public discussion of the symbolic policy, "in order to control the prisoners, we have to let them out." There was no possibility of discussing social control. If society will not tolerate this discussion about a convicted murderer is it likely you would have been permitted to discuss issues of control in schools, housing projects, streets, etc.?

This is the great disadvantage the Republicans face. The mass media manipulators in the movies, TV, the radio, and print

are for the most part, liberals. The conservatives in general have failed to cultivate relations with these manipulators: the artists, writers, actors, directors, singers, as well as journalists. The boorish Republicans fail to recognize their power and the importance of engaging them in conversation.

35

The riots did start because of the Mayor's condemnation of the verdict and his use of the symbol justice, our path to the riot had been started long before. The media's symbolic manipulation of "the beating" tape also was not the main cause. The verdict itself was not the primary cause.

There are waves of meaning which echo out from each, of these, but the social ethos does not result from any one of them. The riots started with the inability of this society to examine itself, because the symbol manipulators use the mass media to limit the public discussion. They do so thinking they are acting in good faith.

Benign Neglect

It will seem unfair that DPM, who was wrongly criticized for the last word in this phrase, for nearly two decades, will now be criticized for the first, but at least now the criticism will be accurate.

Senator Moynihan was wrongly accused of "neglect" because there has not been a more tireless supporter and advocate for government aid to our less well off citizens. The Senator did not mean we should be neglectful in any material way. What he was referring to was the condition of race relations. The government had by then corrected the legal defects in our society that had blocked the movement of Black Americans into the larger society. He had foreseen the creation of the Black middle class, the success of those talented Black Americans who had for so long been frustrated by our vexatious society.

However, he had also foreseen the difficulties faced by those who for non legal reasons were to be frustrated by the demands of an advanced industrial society. In the sixties, for example, there was a new wave of immigration from the South and those most recently arrived would, like all new immigrants have to learn a new life. This would take time. Then too there was the poverty of those whom American society had kept out for so long. Their work to develop a new life also would take time.

But as noted earlier, even a teacher's best efforts to bring into being new ideas can be turned into simple symbols for manipulation by the mass media. And this is what happened to Senator Moynihan's Benign Neglect. Like all good things it was taken too far.

Benign Neglect became "don't blame the victim."

Any criticism of anyone the media and society had officially approved

36

as a victim was forbidden. Mr. Hooks, of the N.A.A.C.P., states that a decision was made long ago in the civil rights movement not to balance criticism, but to focus on White Society. The symbol of injustice to Black Americans was not to be rotated in the mass media to show the varied meaning of injustice, and especially not to show Black American's injustices. It was an "instrumental" decision. (We will forgo our analysis.) But the result is clear for all to see:

"Blacks don't hate anyone."

U. S. Representative Waters

Clearly Representative Waters is lost in a day dream, she is out of touch, though she too thinks she is acting in good faith. The rioters were not listening to Senator Bradley or the Mayor of L. A. There are spheres of, knowledge. In their circle of friends for a generation attitudes and understandings have been formed. There are waves of meaning that come from many sources. The absence of critical perspective in the mass media is both a cause and a reflection of deeper social attitudes.

Benign Neglect, Mr. President, to put it into the vernacular is , "Let's leave these people alone for now, we screwed them around long enough."

It is the silence of regret, sorrow, and remorse.

But this silence, for all of its good faith, none the less can, and has lead to all sorts of mischief.

Again imagine yourself in Nazi Germany. The Jewish woman from across the hall comes to your door. She has a pot with some utensils. She says she and her family are ordered to move tomorrow to the "new Jewish quarter." You are Germans, you have lived separate lives. You have visited. You have taken your children to the playground together. She wants you to have these things she can not put in her suitcases. She looks at you. You are "friends." There is a look. Her eyes ask, will it be all right?

This is devastating. You think it is wrong. You may even have campaigned against Hitler. Voted for the other party. But what can you do? Also there is embarrassment, an uncomfortable situation. The mass media does not recognize this injustice. Society is silent. When do any of us know when to take up arms? When to fight? We are all citizens of Weimar. We each depend on our community, the bonds of affection, intellectual honesty, we trust in good faith. Will it be all right?

Our situation is different? What is happening in the inner

37

cities is a kind of Holocaust. Silence isn't going to help. Conservatives, having badly bungled the civil rights issue were not in a position to say anything. First they failed to explain their theory that the market economy would naturally correct the racial imbalance. But this policy was mistaken, for the imbalance was not caused by the market economy but by government decree. Then they failed to appreciate the uses of (real) Affirmative Action to accelerate the correction. A thoroughly botched job.

So we kept silent. Not my problem. It is an embarrassment. We wish the problem would go away. We trust that someone will intervene. All that is required is for good men to keep quiet.

The comparison to Nazi Germany is over drawn. Yet there are similarities. What does one do when, in substantial compliance, one continues to be beaten by the police? What can any of us do? We are citizens of Weimar. We trust? We hope that the community will come to our aid.

In Mr. King's case people came forward. One officer intervened and stopped the beating, the only one to do so, though he too was charged. Others testified. One officer was fired, the only one who could be fired. The others were suspended without pay. Charges were filed. A trial, according to the law, was held. But the mass media did not regard any of this in a favorable light. They chose to turn "the beating" into a symbol: "see the black man being beaten." Later it was a "travesty" of "justice" and this too became a symbol for manipulation in the mass media. To what effect we saw. The media manipulators are standing outside our society, looking in. Social understanding of complexity is someone else's responsibility. They are silent.

That local scribbler I told you about earlier, was taken to KQED's studio not so he could be introduced. Not even so the radicals at KQED could argue with him. They wanted to show that they could control his life. That they could physically manipulate him. They wanted to demonstrate their mastery over him. The fact that he did not know what was happening to him made it all the better. His privacy. was invaded. Psychologically tortured.

Many at P.B.S. and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and KQED are familiar with the facts. But they do not come forward. They know it was wrong, but they wish the problem would go away. It is an embarrassing situation for them. And there you are. They attribute to themselves and their "friends" in their "network family" good faith. They are silent.

They are convinced that they are in the right. They, as you said Sir, "believe." That's all there is to it. Weimar.

38