Here are some LTTE Dr. Ivins wrote to his local paper.

[EFerrari]

Does this man sound like a sociopath to you? He seems very engaged in the life of his town to me.

Study suggests genetic component for homosexuality
Originally published December 29, 2004

"Readers of The Frederick News-Post were recently informed via letter to the editor ("Gay marriage not supportable," Dec. 26), that "the newest studies indicate that you are not born gay."

I'm a scientist, as well as a married heterosexual, and I'd be very interested in learning what those "newest studies" are. Hopefully they are based upon scientific study, rather than political, social, cultural or religious ideology. I wonder if the letter writer is familiar with an article in the December 2004, issue of the Journal of Genetics, entitled, "Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men." The article (in pdf format) can be found at http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/jgdec2004-jg639.pdf.

The author, Amar Klar, (a geneticist who works in Frederick) states in the final sentence of the study summary, "These results suggest that sexual preference may be influenced in a significant proportion of homosexual men by a biological/genetic factor that also controls direction of hair-whorl rotation."

It's a very interesting paper, regardless what side you take on the debate of how individuals gain their sexual preference."

More at link:
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=78274

[Richard Steele]

1. K&R

[PDJane]

2. I think the man has been framed..........

and it's a sloppy job.

[Schema Thing]

3. ps. The democrat party is destroying 'murka.

[suffragette]

4. Did you see the one on suicide

Moral views not a new trend
Originally published March 05, 1998

Among the front-page articles in The News-Post of Feb. 27 was a rather ominous one entitled "Panel OKs funding for assisted suicide."

The news report dealt with a decision by the Oregon Health Services Commission that assisted suicide should be funded by state taxpayers. Commission chairman Alan Bates excoriated those whose beliefs led them to oppose the commission's decision, and asserted that "religious opponents have no right to impose their moral views on others."

From that statement it is clear that Dr. Bates' knowledge of medicine is substantially greater than his familiarity with American history.

Even before America was a nation, there was strong opposition to slavery from the religious group known as the Quakers, or the "Society of Friends." They were steadfast in their belief that slavery was a sin, and this belief led them to be actively involved in the Abolitionist Movement and the "Underground Railroad" in this country.

We should all be thankful that these religious opponents were quite willing to "impose their moral views on others."

In more recent times we need look no further than those ministers, rabbis and priests whose beliefs brought them to the forefront in the battle against forced, racial segregation in America. Despite real threats to life and limb, they persisted in their efforts to "impose their moral views on others."

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.


It appears from this that he opposed even assisted suicide.

[EFerrari]

5. Maybe. It could also be read to say that you never know when

religious people might be right. He seems to have had a quiet sense of humor. :)

[suffragette]

6. That's true

That came out more in his letter here: "I am certainly pleased that the writer is dedicated to service in the love of God, even though I find her theological focus on agony and suffering rather than the hope, joy and salvation of the resurrection to be puzzling."

I was thinking along the lines that it would be unusual for someone who didn't approve of assisted suicide to commit suicide.

I'm really glad you posted the link to these letters. What an opposite picture they present than the one now being created of him.

[EFerrari]

7. I notice that, like many academics, he uses quotations

and doesn't explain them, uses them to telegraph a position when most people wouldn't have any reason to know them. Like the very first letter, which can be read to be anti-Muslim, until you dig through his references in context.

After reading these letters, I think this was a very nerdy man with a gentle but persistent sense of humor that he often turned on himself. He was active in his community and cared enough to send these letters in the first place. :shrug:

[Liberal Gramma]

8. Don't his letters seem to lean left rather than right?

So why would he send anthrax to Democratic offices? I think it's a frame-up.

[EFerrari]

9. They do seem left leaning, not right.

He didn't do it, imho.

[suffragette]

10. He has a civil tone and many of his letters espouse inclusion

Meachum right, well almost right
Originally published March 18, 2002

I don't usually agree with Roy Meachum's opinions, but his "Catholic tragedy" (March 13) was quite on the money — almost.

The Roman Catholic Church should learn from other equally worthy Christian denominations and eagerly welcome female clergy as well as married clergy.

Switched
Originally published February 05, 1999

Well, I've switched from WFMD to WTOP (1500 AM), thank you very much. Capstar booted Mike Gibbons off the "Morning News Express" and disposed of the "Mitchell and Miller" program. The company dealt with other persons and programs at the station in a similar manner..

In their place they have given us profanity, racial insults and listener abuse. I tuned into WFMD's "John and Ken" program a few weeks ago. One of the hosts unashamedly used "G--d---" on the air, then a few moments later told a caller, "You talk like a black person!".

Click..

A few days later I tried WFMD's "Mike Gallagher" program. He referred to some of his listeners as "pinheads."

Click. Again..

Capstar owes a special apology to African-American residents of the area, and local businesses should seriously rethink their commitment to sponsoring racial insensitivity, profanity and abuse on WFMD..

As for me, I find the news, weather and sports format of WTOP to be quite acceptable -- and far more civil.



Again, quite unlike the portrait the FBI is drawing of him.

Can you tell me more about the context of his references in the 1st letter/

[EFerrari]

11. Here's the letter:

End of 'dialogue'
Originally published August 24, 2006 Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

This isn't idiomatic but seems to be a reference: By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen

And next, we'd have to hunt down what he was responding to, right? I think it was this article:

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/display_detail.htm?StoryID=60219

[suffragette]

12. Good point about his quoting and using referents

I read the article and re-read his letter and still don't fully get it. But, not fully getting it is different from jumping to conclusions of what he meant out of context of what he was responding to.

[EFerrari]

13. It looks like there was a reaction in the community

to what this Imam said -- or maybe, how he said it. But the thing is, these people were talking to each other about not talking to each other, lol. They weren't insulting each other. Ivins' letter is one of the mildest ones in response that I read.

None of this adds up to a homocidal sociopath. :shrug:

[suffragette]

14. Yep, or how it was presented

with the whole Imam "has issued a challenge" to dialogue. Challenge? Interesting word choice that sets a certain tone.

As you note, none of this adds up to a homicidal sociopath. In fact, in one of the letters he gently chides someone for using insults rather than calm reasoning in a disagreement. About as far as you can get from Duley and the FBI's characterization of him.


Argumentum ad hominem
Originally published March 27, 2001

At a recent meeting reported on in The News-Post ("Mayor's unity meeting ends in insults," March 21), Tim Schramm was reported to have faulted certain public forums as "... unproductive, because people use them to promote private agendas." Noted local lawyer and activist, Daniel Mahone, responded by loudly and repeatedly calling Mr. Schramm a "jerk." It is unfortunate that Mr. Mahone had to resort to an argumentum ad hominem, rather than present his opposing views in a reasoned and cogent manner. Mr. Schramm must feel pleased that his argument was of sufficient merit to compel Mr. Mahone to attack him rather than what he said.

[bdf]

15. Let's see

Polite. Civil. Doesn't call the previous LTTE writer a liar but states he'd be interested to see those studies (meaning he thinks the writer is a liar and that the write will not be able to provide such studies). Makes his points with brevity. Shows that his view is not biased by his sexuality. Cites an esoteric paper, but relevant paper to show how knowledgeable he is in this field of study. And, of course, he's on the opposite site of the issue from the talebangelicals and the repuglicans, both of whom have more than their share of raving, violent loons.

Comes across as a calm, rational, left-of-centre individual. Of course, he could be seething inside but realizes he'll have more chance of getting his letter published if he hides his ire. And he could be a gibbering anti-abortionist but does not let his personal feelings get in the way of scientific honesty—he might wish the studies showed what the previous LTTE writer claimed but they don't and his scientific honesty compels him to put the record straight. But even if we stretch credulity and believe that he is an anti-abortionist seething with anger, he is still rational. A rational person can pretend to be irrational but an irrational person cannot pretend to be rational. The rational person can pretend to be irrational by thinking what the rational action would be (it comes naturally) and then doing something else. The irrational person's first impulse might be to put out a fire by throwing wood on it, but there are an almost infinite number of other irrational actions, so the irrational person choosing something different than what he or she first thought of is still almost certain to be irrational.

So he's rational, fer sure. Probably left-leaning, but for the moment we'll assume otherwise. Probably calm, but for the moment we'll assume otherwise. Would a pervert (as he is now claimed to be) with a fixation on some sorority, rationally send anthrax to liberal males? Would somebody who believes (whether or not he likes that conclusion) that homosexuals are that way from birth rationally send anthrax to liberals who wish that gays get the equal treatment they deserve or to rethugnicans and talebangelicals who claim that homosexuality is a lifestyle?

Having shown he isn't a nut based on that LTTE, I have to reconsider that in light of another LTTE posted by a respondent in this thread. It is true that the Quakers opposed slavery. But it's also true that all the major creeds of Christianity at the time favoured slavery. The churches often owned slaves. These creeds justified it by the various Old Testament verses that endorsed slavery. Note that English translations use the words "servant" and "bondsman" in place of slave, but the original Jewish scriptures use the word "slave." And the preachers of the time, many of whom read the Hebrew originals, the Greek translation of the Hebrew originals known as the Septuagint, and the Latin translation of the Septuagint which comprises the Old Testament portion of the Vulgate, knew this very well. Slaveholding is holy because the Old Testament gives explicit instructions about how to do it right (which those same churches ignored and treated their slaves far worse than the OT Jews treated their slaves).

So was he a religious nutjob being "economical with the truth" (a phrase used by a British civil servant in an Australian court when accused of lying)? He implied that the Quakers imposed their religious views on others to show that forcing religious views down people's throats is a good thing when the truth is that the Quakers were one tiny voice in a multitude (of mainly non-religious people) demanding an end to slavery and when most Christians of the time thought that slavery was ordained by God. Or was he merely a libertarian who wanted to point out that some creeds have made positive contributions and that therefore we should not legislate that religions not be allowed to tout their beliefs? Could it merely be an inartful way of pointing out that freedom of speech is a good thing by giving a positive example (one of the very few, relatively speaking, where a religious creed has said something moral and right).

But even if you assume religious nutjob, he would have had to be a rational religious nutjob to write that LTTE. This wasn't the cloudy thinking typical of a freeper. It wasn't the invented facts and truthiness of the talebangelical wing of the repukes. He was very definitely being economical with the truth because the vast majority of Christians of that time believed that slavery was morally correct and Quakers were just one small dissenting voice. Most of the influential voices against slavery were agnostics or atheists, although most of them labelled themselves deists (there is a God who created everything then buggered off and completely ignores us; no established religion is correct) because at that time (and even now, in the US) to be an agnostic or an atheist was political suicide. The question is was he trying to justify religious beliefs or was he trying to justify freedom of speech. Either way, his choice of the Quakers is telling. Would he rationally try to kill liberals who believe that all religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) have equal standing or would he try kill Republican Talebangelicals who scream that their belief is the only one true belief and that all other beliefs (including that of the Quakers) are heresies that must be punished by death?

To put it simply, is he pro Fred Phelps or anti Fred Phelps. I would say that citing Quakers as a moral example and saying that homosexuality is already determined at birth puts him very solidly in the anti Phelps camp. And being rational puts him in the anti-freeper camp. So why the fuck would he target liberals?

BTW, not all intellectuals are as polite as he is. Prof. D J Bernstein has written some very good software and fought in court for the right to use encryption software, but if you get on the wrong side of him he makes Cheney look like a pussycat. Just google for "bernstein venema" and see how far DJB can go (some of his posts are relatively polite, but some are pure acid). I think that technically DJB is in the right about 99.99% of the time in his arguments with Venema, but it's a far cry from what you'd expect a professor to write, and a far cry from what Ivins wrote. But DJB is undoubtedly rational (but perhaps doesn't realize just how much better he'd appear to others if he took a slightly higher road). I could imagine DJB going apeshit and mailing anthrax to Venema, going on some of the extreme attacks he's made on Venema. I can't imagine it of Ivins.

[Canuckistanian]

17. That's quite a detailed analysis, thanks

And your basic point is correct.

Anyone who is so driven by politics that he could murder an opposition politician or journalist would presumably show his hand by displaying at least a modicum of vitriol towards his perceived "enemies". Especially in a LTTE.

*obvious statement alert*

Somehow, I don't think we're getting an accurate picture of Mr. Ivins' character here.

[bdf]

19. Occam's Razor applies here

It's possible to account for his verifiable actions (like LTTE) and the motivations ascribed to him by the media. But in order to do so you end up with a contorted fucking mess that is totally implausible.

My gut feel (which is what Dubya bases all his decisions upon, even though he confuses his gut with his colon) is that what we're being told is a pile of shit. Which is one of my most scatological sentences yet, A new world record!

[Canuckistanian]

20. You make a lot of sense

Can't find anything to argue about.

I think you'll be a valuable addition around here.

Cheers!
:toast:

[Canuckistanian]

16. Funny, he doesn't sound like a homicidal sex pervert here

He rather sounds like.... a reasonable, well-educated man.

[EFerrari]

18. I feel shocked, honestly, at how easy it was for this man

to be hounded and then smeared.