(1) The objection that there is such a mass of information and disinformaton available on internet is no excuse for giving up. Mexico and the Zapatistas are of  sufficient importance to the US for us to puzzle over the messy mass. The whole vital issue of intelligence is a matter of general concern. It was the subject of a  conference in Washington, attended largely by members of the intelligence communities. They seemed to put too much stress on secret agents. The best address  was given by an academic, Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University and author of "For the Presidents Eyes Only". He described the incredible  lack of coordination among intelligence agencies, giving details about Pearl Harbor I had not seen. He stressed the need for the careful examination of open  sources, including now e-mail. He singled out the case of Iran; it was obvious that American intelligence was inadequate and that inviting the Shah to the U.S. for  medical treatment was a grave blunder. Obviously a study of the Islamic mentality requires an attention which Americans are not prepared to give it. Since Spain  was the country of the three religions, the issue has loomed large in my own work. 
      When U.S. official spokesmen speak on the Middle East, they seem to be living in a dream world. Perhaps that is just public relations. Former New York  Congressman Stephen Solarz, an active member of the American Jewish Congress, spoke on the Iraqi problem. One would expect a balanced judgment from a  former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Instead, he simply called for an invasion of Kuwait. That is an option to be considered with  care. A woman questioned his judgment and asked why the same standards are not applied to Israel as to Arab countries. His retort was simply to accuse her of  anti-semitism. At another meeting a Jewish historian adopted the same tactic, which simply annoyed the audience. It is like calling any conservative a McCarthyite  or a Nazi. 

 (2) Criticism of modern art, as exemplified by Picassso, is likewise viewed as proof that the critic is an unenlightened Philistine, which incidentally is an insult to the  Philistines who were quite a civilized people. My criticism of modern art derives from my conviction that the West faces a deep intellectual and moral crisis and  could collapse from within. Stanford/Palo Alto is reputedly a very enlightened area. Drive around the pleasant community; the only jarring notes are chunks of  metal filling the requirement that so much must be spent on "art." Now an apartment complex has been opened. To fill the art requirement, the local art commission  chose a nude statue of a woman carrying a refrigerator on her head. The theater of the arsurd! It cost $30,000, spent at a time when the community is wondering  what to do with the homeless who are living on soon-to-be flooded riverbanks. Has our art commission ever heard of "the greatest of these is charity" (love)? Art  yes, but not "art." Say it with flowers! Not with overpriced junk. Excuse me. I am really annoyed, and you should be too. 

 Ronald Hilton, 11-27-97