Hmm.  Another article (Clarinet) gave me quite a different impression. I'd
agree with Eric's conceptualization of the baying in the background, but
their report stated that the number of probably American dead had only
recently been revised (by one specific *named* historian) and the gripe
was indeed this revision which was considerably below what had been
accepted all these years.  It was indeed this recent revision (as I read
the report) which is at the root of the dissent.
 
When the dogs are baying, it may be unwise to venture into the woods with
possum grease in one's hair, to expand on Eric's characterization. I hope
there's more that just the one historian's guess to form the basis for
all this revisionist stuff.
 
David
[log in to unmask]
 
 
On Fri, 27 Jan 1995, Eric Siegel wrote:
 
>           The New York Times reported, in a long special yesterday,
>           that the dogs are baying for the blood of the Director of
>           the Air and Space Museum (my editorial interpretation, or
>           "contextualization" if you will.) He seems, according to the
>           Newtonians quoted in the article, unwilling to revise the
>           exhibit based upon the veterans' concerns. The final straw,
>           the capital offense, that these congresspeople described was
>           his bullheaded insistence on using a very low number
>           estimate (as I recall 63,000) of the American lives saved by
>           the bombing, as opposed to the 2 or 3 hundred thousand
>           preferred by the veterans groups. And this *despite* the
>           well-informed congresspeople's insistence on the use of the
>           higher number.
>
>           To summarize, the congresspeople want him fired because he
>           is presenting a point of view that is disconcerting to some
>           Americans.
>
>           What a bunch of depressing crapola. If I may editorialize
>           again, I personally find this ideological simplemindedness
>           to be one of the low points of American ways of thinking in
>           my lifetime, and I've seen a few lows.
>
>           The article says that the Smithsonian Board will be meeting
>           this week to consider his dismissal.
>
>           Eric Siegel
>           [log in to unmask]
>