a symbol of black separatedness, makenout of it an autonomous black issue.nAsked whether Rev. Jackson would havengone on his “mission” were Lt Goodmannwhite, a spokesman for Rev.nJackson delivered something whichnseemed to be his boss’s official stand onnthis dilemma: no, he said, for if he hadnbeen white, the pressure to free the hostagencoming from both the U.S. governmentnand the public would be so strongnthat it would not require his intervention.nAnd plenty of blacks in this coimtrynwill buy this bald-feced lie, which isnboth politically lame and primitive, andnoverlook the feet that the Reagan Administrationnmade strenuous efforts on behalfnof Lt. Goodman precisely to show,nin the electoral year, that it cares aboutnblacks and can cull some dividends fornits warm and tender concerns.nTherefore, we must respectfully butnfirmly disagree with our President whonclosed the Jackson interlude in thenotherwise dull season of political intriguenwith an adage: “You do not quarrelnwith success.” We think that onendoes quarrel with even a glittering accomplishmentnif one feels that its longrangenconsequences can be dismal,nperhaps nefarious. And with a clean consciencenwe can assert that the only actornin this “drama” who behaved with admirablencomposure and dignity was Lt.nGoodman who, when meeting Rev.nJackson for the first time, said to thencountless journalists who had assembled:n”I was informed by the Syrians thatnsomeone very important by the namenof Jackson was coming to see me, andnI wondered who it might be—^ReggienJackson, Michael Jackson?…” We wondernwhy this line was never quoted innour liberal press? DnAmbition… Ambition…nCan be sung to the Fiddler on the Roofntune, wistfully—or with an Irish accent.nSen. Moynihan, once upon a time one ofnthe most clear-thinking personalities innpolitics and academia, our favorite Democraticnintellecmal (no oxymoron in­ntended), talks of late like an enfeeblednMcGovem clone. And his debilitation isnmost acute and obvious when he discussesnforei^ policy, a topic upon whichnhe formerly became fascination incarnate.nWhat could be the cause of this suddenninfirmity? Does he really wish to be thennext Vice-President of the United States?nDoes he think he can make it there? DnRespectability & FairnessnProfessor Carl Sagan is a respectablenscientist. At least, that is what the widenrange of media outlets, both print andnelectronic, maintain as they build up hisnimage of an impressive scholar and trustworthynman of thought. He is also anstaunch foe of nuclear weapons, a firm,neven a^ressive, supporter of the nuclearfreezenmovement, and a severe critic ofnthe American foreign policy that is basednon the concept of a military defensenagainst America’s enemies.nIn a recent issue of Parade, the chiefnorgan of pop liberalism that invades millionsnof American homes every Sunday,nProf Sagan published a large feamre entitledn”The Nuclear Winter” and ennoblednby a quotation from Dante’s Inferno:n”Into the eternal darkness, into fire, intonice.” This is, according to Dr. Sagan’snthesis, where we are heading if we continuenpreparing to meet the nuclearnchallenge. His argument is highlightednin Parade’s pages by sentences like:n”Scientists initially underestimated theneffects of nuclear explosions. What elsenhave we overlooked?” “Even small nuclearnwars can have devastating climaticneffects … enough to generate an epochnof cold and dark.” “It is not yet too late.nWe can safeguard the planetary civilisationnand the human femily if we so choose.”nDr. Sagan presents his data and reasoningnin a way that inspires esteem, and wenare not in a position to refute his inferencesnand assertions. But we know thatnthere are many scientists, scholars, nuclearnphysicists, and high-technologynsages who have more to say on the subjectnthan he does, who are competentnenough to contradict him, reject hisnnnspeculations, demolish his conclusions,ncome up with knowledge, data, and empiricalnevidence that make his suppositionsnfrail, tenuous, unconvincing, orndownright felse. But we know somethingnelse; although those scientists often presentntheir argument in public, they willnnever be published by Parade, a paperncommitted to one sort of journalistic integritynonly—^the liberal one. Paradenserves the liberal political agenda andntherefore feels free not to present bothnsides of an issue to its readers.nYet, in a boxed sequel to his article,nthe “distinguished scientist”—zs Paradencalls Dr Sagan—^reveals himself as either anpolitical illiterate or a political operativenof those who do not wish us well. Tonmobilize Parade’s readers, he urges themnto support proposals which would thwartnthe efforts designed to defend Americanas we know it and still cherish it. Henwrites:nThe Soviet Union has several times,nincluding in addresses by its late PresidentnBrezhnev, indicated its supportnfor massive cutbacks in the globalnstrategic arsenals. I believe that a majornbilateral reduction in nuclear armamentsnmight be carried out safely—nparticularly if the ingenuity and dedicationnthat went into developing strategicnweapons systems in the firstnplace were devoted to finding a waynout of the deadly trap we have set fornourselves.nThose are distortions of truth at best,nhostile and devious propaganda statementsnat worst. Since the very beginningnof nuclear negotiations between the U.S.nand the Soviet Union, the leaders of thenlatter have loudly supported for publicnconsumption “massive cutbacks” andnrabidly opposed any concept of objectivenverification of such actions. On-siteninspection of the disarmament processnhas been many times, and in diverse documents,nnonnegotiably rejected by thenRussians on dialectical grounds: as imperialists,nwe are untrustworthy, even ifnwe open to the Soviets all our laboratories.ni37nMarch 1984n