Singaporean Buddhism (Part 1)

So, I went back to the (not very old, but already pretty famous) Buddha's Tooth Relic Temple in Singapore this last trip, and this time went upstairs to the museum and rooftop section (as well as the floor that contains the actual Buddha's tooth.   Allegedly.)

The 3rd floor is a museum full of old and new Buddhist artworks, including a row of somewhat unnervingly lit wax models of significant past Buddhist leaders from Singapore and nearby areas.  Like this guy:

 Oh, I just noticed the reflections in that shot. Sorry.  Anyway, I imagined it being a creepy place in which to be accidentally locked in at night.  Not that wax models of deceased monks should be scary, but the lighting is spooky...

A lot of the artwork is impressive (some pieces very old), although many are modern and some seems a little peculiar:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyhow, the main temple hall room downstairs, which is very pretty and looks like this:

OK, maybe I took a better pic last time:

I now know features this:

I had posted about Maitreya once before, but guess I didn't realise some temples were devoted to him?   That's the funny thing about Buddhism for the casual Western tourist - it's routinely not at all obvious what version of Buddha, or bodhisattva, which a statue represents, or to which a temple is devoted.  Got to do your research.

One other thing I only recently learnt about Buddhism (or parts of it) was the (shall we say, "fanciful") belief that cremated holy people left behind crystal like beads amongst their cremated remains that were taken as a type of relic that shows their sanctity.  There are many examples shown in the museum section of this temple, and I thought I took a photo, but maybe out of politeness in not wanting to look too sceptical, I didn't.  Anyway, in the very upmarket Buddhist magazine Tricycle, there's a good article about this belief, which comes out of both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism, apparently, and it ends on this note:

There was no doubt that those who had witnessed Geshe Lama Konchog’s cremation believed the relics to be genuine; to them they were precious objects, weighty with meaning. I have decided that the Buddhist world, like the Christian, is divided into two camps: the Protestants, who regard relic worship as superstitious, silly, unintelligent, and to be put firmly into the basket of “idolatrous practice” and avoided at all costs, and the Catholics, for whom the numinous and the mystical are an essential part of their practice. Many thousands of people from around the world, including the United States, have visited relic exhibitions and have testified to finding the experience spiritually uplifting. For them, these small shining sharira encapsulate the hope that transformation of the very physical body is possible–as well as the immaterial mind. Venerating a holy object, be it an image or a relic, is seen by many as an invaluable part of spiritual practice, bestowing countless blessings, opening the heart, and lessening one’s pride.

And I suppose I should mention the Buddha Tooth relic itself, which is up on the 4th floor, behind a glass wall and sitting in a display stupa of around 320kg(!) of gold, and no photos are allowed.   You are not super close, but can make it out (I think! - see further comment below), and like other Buddha's tooth relics I had seen on the internet, it didn't look at all human to me.  It seems too big (although it would seem that the believers' answer to this can be that they have been scientifically shown that these tooth relics continue to grow!).  I thought it looked more like a horse tooth.  And now I read, in the same Tricycle article extracted above, this:

Buddhist relics, like their Christian counterparts, have their own history of fraud.

Skeptics point to Dr. Alois Anton Fuhrer, the German archaeologist who found the Buddha’s birthplace at Lumbini. In 1895, Dr. Fuhrer was caught selling horse teeth as relics to Burmese monks. Another tooth purporting to come from the Buddha himself was recently examined by the Natural History Museum in London and found to belong to a pig. I heard tell of sharira that were no more than mites of dust collected on religious pictures, and small gems thrown into the ashes of funeral pyres by conniving clergy to fool the faithful. There is even a story of a temple parrot that left sharira—he’d apparently imbibed the Buddha’s teachings!

 Oh, and here's a sceptical article from Straits Times in 2007:

Mr Yap Kok Feng, a paralegal executive, wrote to Lianhe Zaobao recently claiming that the relic looks nothing like a human tooth.

When contacted, he said that he had shown a picture of it to dentists who believe it to be a herbivore's.

One of them, Dr Pamela Craig, a senior lecturer at the School of Dental Science at the University of Melbourne, told The Sunday Times she had examined photographs and compared the tooth with teeth from various animal skulls in her comparative dental anatomy department.

'There's absolutely no possibility that it is a human tooth,' said Dr Craig, who specialises in human and animal oral anatomy.

'I'm almost certain that it belongs to a member of the Bos species, probably a cow or a water buffalo.'

Dr Craig said human teeth should be rounded with a short crown and a comparatively longer root, but the picture clearly shows a long crown and a shorter root.

'In this case, looking at a photo is clear enough because it's so obvious that it's not a human tooth. It's like comparing a pear and an apple.'

The Sunday Times also showed a picture of the tooth to four other dentists, including two forensic dental experts. All said the tooth could not have come from a human.

'This is an animal 'cheek tooth', that is, a molar at the back of the mouth,' said Professor David K. Whittaker, a forensic dental specialist at Cardiff University in Britain.

And I'm not sure about this last bit about when it can be seen:  I'm pretty sure I could see it:

The tooth relic was supposed to have been discovered by a Myanmar monk, the late Venerable Cakkapala of Bandula Monastery, in 1980 while restoring a collapsed stupa at Bagan Hill in Mrauk-U, Myanmar.

He gave the relic to Venerable Shi Fazhao, the abbot of both the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple and Golden Pagoda Buddhist Temple in Tampines in 2002.

The public can see the tooth only twice a year - on Vesak Day and the first day of Chinese New Year.

So, there you go.  Lots of member of the public donated a lot of money and gold to build a suitable  resting place for a relic that doesn't even look like what it is meant to be?    Not sure that I would be impressed.

As with the Catholic approach to things like the Shroud of Turin, you can always fall back on the old "does it really matter if a venerated object is genuine or not, as long as it helps the spirituality of the believer" defence.  That Tricycle article ends on that note:

At the end of my search into the meaning of Buddhist relics, I was reminded of an old Tibetan tale. A devout old woman asked her trader son if he would bring her back a tooth from the Buddha when he traveled to India. The son forgot all about his mission until his return home, when in desperation to please his mother he picked up a tooth from a dead dog he found rotting by the wayside. The mother’s eyes filled with tears of gratitude and wonder when he presented it to her, and she promptly put it on her small altar and everyday made obeisance to it. In time the tooth began to emit a strange, beautiful light. Even a dog’s tooth, if revered enough, will glow. 

Anyway, up on the roof of the Temple, they continue the modern Singaporean tradition of having a well maintained entire garden up there, and a prayer wheel in a pagoda:

 

It's lush and peaceful, and although there were couple of young women taking what looked like "influencer" style photos of one of them, we were pretty much alone in the quiet, walking above the floor with a 320 kg gold stupa worth (grabs my calculator and checks today's price) about $26 million. Someone should do a heist movie about it.  

It's well worth visiting.

Of gods and men (and women too)

On rock worship and the Shinto gods | The Japan Times Online

I was interested to read this article by Japan Times columnist Amy Chavez, concerning how Shinto works.

It's basically an animistic religion, with particular places said to have their local god. But I wasn't really aware of this aspect of it:

Part yamabushi and part spiritual healer, Man-chan is 84 years old and considered the person most in touch with the Shinto spirits (kami), on our island. He alerted me to a couple of yorishiro or spiritual antennas to the gods. These days the kami probably have handheld GPSs made in China, but in ancient times you still had to send them a spiritual sign. So special rocks or trees were designated as antennas to invite the kami to descend there. No batteries necessary.

The most famous rocks of this sort in Japan are perhaps Meoto Iwa, the "husband and wife rocks" off the coast of Mie Prefecture. These rocks invite the kami to descend on them from above. You often see these two rocks in photos, a special shimenawa rope connecting them across the water. Let's hope they never divorce.

Man-chan told me that Shinmei Shrine was considered sacred because of the small cave there. But the two other places he told me about, Myoken and Hachiman, were given their status by a Shinto priest. In other words, the priest invited the kami to descend there. When a priest calls to the kami to descend, he must feel the kami enter his body. He must feel the spirit of the kami in his heart. He may even prostrate himself before the kami. If he does not feel the kami inside him, they have not descended and the spot is not made sacred.

Various shamanistic and animistic religions appear to have this idea: that the priest or holy man takes the nature god or spirit into his body in a useful form of spirit possession. I remember David Byrne talking about a South American religion that was like this. He made a documentary about it that I haven't seen, but as I recall, there is a lot of trance inducing rhythm and singing, all while waiting for a nature god, like the chicken spirit (I actually do think he mentioned such a poultry spirit - that is what made me remember it) possesses the shaman/priest for a while.

I don't know whether the Shinto priest would say he is "possessed" by the kami, but I didn't know that having it in his body was part of their religion at all.

Of course, the idea of incorporating the spirit of God is a feature of Christianity too. A Christian apologist can argue that the animistic systems which believed in the importance of this were pre-figuring the true religion that was revealed through Christ. But of course, it still leaves the question: what is it that a shaman or priest is sensing when they believe they are possessed by a god or nature spirit?

A fundamentalist Christian, I suppose, might argue that it could be a true supernatural entity being sensed: just not a holy one. (I certainly don't expect that fundamentalists think God sends angels to act as if they were the Great Chicken Spirit, in the hope of guiding shamans towards Christianity.)

But really, what these religions which incorporate possession as a holy ritual must show is the human susceptibility to misinterpreting a generic "high," or a passing emotional feeling, with communion with the gods. And this, in turn, doesn't say much for those who rely on emotional responses in Christian services as proof of their religion, or a source of sound guidance.

I find the whole question of the sense of feeling God's presence or guidance a vexed issue. On the one hand, if God is capable of raising from the dead, amongst other miracles, the possibility of simply bumping the right neurons in the brain so as to make a person understand what God thinks he should do seems a relative breeze. I mean, it just seems wrong to argue that the Christian God is incapable of such subtleties, and can only work on a big dramatic canvas.

On the other hand, it seems that people are continually thinking that God or the spirits are guiding them: from Mormons who like to argue that if a person prays sincerely, they will "know" that this is the true church; to shamans who think they are being possessed by a nature spirit for a night.

They can't all be right.

Anyway, this is generally why I am very cautious on the whole issue of the importance or what a believer feels in any religion.

Of course, an over-intellectualisation of moral or religious belief runs its own dangers too. Certainly, I don't dismiss the importance of the intuitions or emotions in their guidance for the moral life. I continually find myself amazed, for example, when thinking about the Holocaust, that the intellectual justification for treating Jews as so much cattle to be slaughtered managed to triumph over what must have surely been a instinctive reaction against cruelty to fellow humans; particularly children. (The "girl in the red dress" sequence was particularly good in Schindler's List, I thought, for showing a man whose empathy with an innocent child would not let him accept the intellectually justified horror going on around him.)

I similarly find it difficult to fathom that some people have no problem with late term abortion, when the fetus has but the slightest genetic problem. (Although attitudes to killing even new born children have been extremely different in the past to what they are now, and I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that modern people can be comfortable killing viable babies by late term abortion.)

And then, on the fourth hand (I'm starting to lose count), appeals to the primacy of emotionalism and an inner sensation for guidance (which is fundamentally what I think a lot of people mean when they say they are interested in spirituality in their religion) leads to some pretty soft headed ideas in the modern world. Gay marriage is one of these; it being tied up with the triumph of gay identity politics over what I think is a more common sense view as to what marriage is fundamentally about - the possibility of procreation.

I think most people would tend to see spirituality as a more feminine aspect of religion, and intellectual interest in defining rules and logic as a male pursuit. For that reason, people think greater female input into Catholicism would make it more humane in areas such as teaching on sexuality. And to an extent, women can be more practical than men, and are better at not following logic and reason to conclusions that are nonsensical, which is how I view something like the Catholic teaching that a condom used by a loving husband and wife converts the sex into something sinful, whereas timing sex to avoid pregnancy does not. Yet Anglicanism and other Protestant denominations which have become very "feminized," for want of a better word, lose following because a generic sense of feel good spirituality does not particularly need any Christianity to keep it going. (The "feel good" soft rock churches like Hill Song don't seem particularly feminised; I'm not quite sure how to explain how they fit into this outline I'm sketching.) It also seems to me that women can be the worst at reading (or imagining) too much into their fleeting emotional feelings - hence the predominance of women into spiritualism or New Age ideas. (What about shamans, then? I see that some sites claim that a lot of them are homosexual, as indeed in the West they seem to be over-represented amongst spiritualist mediums.*)

So, where does this leave us? A religion which incorporates nothing by way of ceremony or practice with which to uplift the heart is not appealing at all: it seems hard to argue Biblically that these things are not a legitimate concern of God. But the Protestant churches who treat every Sunday service as a soft rock concert that is only designed to hit the heart seems equally wrong. A rule bound over-intellectualised Church can indeed be inhumane; but go too far the other direction and it becomes redundant.

It is perhaps the straddling of the two aspects that is what I find appealing about the Catholic Church, but as I say, we still have the problem of how even a Catholic should understand the sense of God moving in them personally.

It could, of course, be taken all as reason to believe that all religious feeling is delusion, as is all internal sensation that God is influencing a person in any particular way or direction. But what is the fun in that? Thinking about the various mixed messages and ways of interpreting religion and religious sensation seems a rather more interesting past time than many other pursuits; at least to me.

* Isn't it funny how native cultures might elevate a homosexual man by making him the shaman; today Western society has similarly decided to treat them as special and able to do no harm, such as in the way the magazines will gush over Elton or Ricky Martin using the magical powers of egg donation and renting a womb to conceive a child without sex!

Now I'm a believer

I’m officially ceasing my sitting on the fence about greenhouse gases, but want to make a few things clear.

It is right to worry about greenhouse gases, and to worry quite a lot. For me, the most convincing reason for this is actually not directly the issue of global warming, which still carries uncertainty about its likely extent and its full consequences, but rather ocean acidification.

The recent Scientific American article I posted about here gives good reason to worry about the global situation if CO2 levels ever reach 1000 ppm. (Short explanation: if oceans or seas become sufficiently lacking in oxygen and warm enough, hydrogen sulphide producing bacteria might make enough gas to cause enormous deadly gas bubbles that could wipe out life on nearby land.) The problem is, as noted in my recent post here, the world could get up to 700 ppm by the end of this century, and despite what the Scientific American article says, it would seem it need not take another century beyond that to crack 1,000ppm.

Going back and looking at other articles on ocean acidification, it seems to me that the environmental effects of that are relatively easy to test and accurately predict. (It doesn’t take much to set up a large tank and change the Ph and see what it does to plankton or coral shells.)
As plankton plays a significant role as a CO2 sink in the deep oceans, surface acidification to an extent that would cause a decrease in plankton would also seem to be a major worry for accelerating the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.

The other issue that gives me concern is that letting CO2 levels get close to 1000 ppm may make it extremely easy for some uncontrollable event to lead to a sudden disastrous global increase. (For example, a supervolcano system suddenly springing to life, or an asteroid hit or two. If I understand it correctly, anything that kicks up a lot of dust would initially cool the earth, but the greater greenhouse gases would eventually kick in.)

That’s my reasoning for deciding that there is not much point in nitpicking over the arguments about how much hotter increased CO2 levels may make the world. Seriously bad effects on the oceans seem certain with sufficiently high CO2 levels anyway.

Of course, Phillip Adams and his ilk are in full gloating “told you so” mode about the fact that politicians on the the Right are starting to sound more serious about the issue. (It seems to me that Adams is wanting to take far more credit for early recognition of the issue than his published columns indicate he deserves.) My impression is that ocean acidification issue has really only started attracting a lot of attention in the last couple of years anyway.

Also, to be clear about my position, there are several things related to global warming of which I remain either dismissive or at least very sceptical:

1. the Kyoto Treaty;

2. wind power;

3. Carbon offset schemes which involve growing trees, especially if they are in areas where bushfires are a distinct possibility. (It is my suspicion that many companies promoting carbon offset schemes are selling snake oil when it comes to their long term effect.)

4. Environmentalists and politicians who claim Pacific Islands are already disappearing from increasing sea levels caused by global warming. (In another 30 years or so, maybe. But hey, just how viable is any 2 metre high island nation built in the middle of the ocean anyway.)

5. Politicians who resist nuclear power on principle.

6. Dismissal of the sun’s role as being possibly significant for temperatures over the next century.

7. Believing that the current Australian drought is necessarily related to global warming.

8. Arguing that current short bouts of surprising cooler weather are a sign that global warming is not true, and that greenhouse gases are not worth worrying about. (Sorry Tim Blair, they are funny, but I think no serious climate scientist is concerned about them disproving the theory.)

9. “The Day after Tomorrow” scenarios to do with the sudden “switching off” of the Atlantic ocean conveyor current. (Real Climate recently chided The Guardian for getting reporting of recent research on this completely wrong.)

10. The more excitable predictions about the number of birds, frogs, spiders, polar bears etc likely to be lost as a result of global warming.

The fact that Rupert Murdoch and me have suddenly reached the same conclusion is, of course, simply a sign that great minds think alike. He's a sharp old codger, isn't he?

Uh oh, Native Title is in the news...

I'm going to count myself as still being in my early 60's rather than my mid 60's, but I'm still feeling like an elder who is remembering things that those young'uns in politics seem to have forgotten about: the danger to Labor of looking too gullible on matters of indigenous policy. 

Have people forgotten about Bob Hawke and his attitude to the issue of sacred sites:

In 1991 BHP was pushing to mine a hill in Kakadu that was sacred to the local Indigenous Jawoyn people.

According to Mr Hawke he was angered at the way some members of cabinet cavalierly dismissed those beliefs while accepting the “mysteries” of their own Christian faith.

“I was annoyed beyond measure by the attitude of many of my colleagues and their cynical dismissal of the beliefs of the Jawoyn people and I think I made one of the strongest and bitterest attacks I ever made on my colleagues in the cabinet when I was addressing this issue.

“There is no doubt this was one element in my loss of leadership as there was a great deal of antagonism amongst my colleagues as to the intensity of the remarks I made. But this was something I felt very deeply about.”

And then how the Hindmarsh Island scandal a few years later made non-questioning of claims by all indigenous look like gullibility?

I mention this because the news of a successful native title claim over a large part of the Sunshine Coast is (almost irrespective of its practical effects - which might be minimal, but see my concerns below)  bound to hurt the Labor government in Queensland, which negotiated a settlement.  

Here's an article from The Guardian explaining what this claim has gained:

Unlike other types of land tenure, native title only grants a specific, discrete set of prescribed rights, typically called a “bundle of rights”. Those rights don’t include the right to sell, though the state must compensate the claimant if it extinguishes them. It might do that if it wants to turn part of the area into a coal mine or a housing estate, for instance.

The Kabi Kabi people were granted the following rights:

1. Access, be present on, move about on and travel over the area.

2. Camp on the area, and for that purpose, erect temporary shelters on the area.

3. Take resources of the area for any purpose.

4. Take and use the water of the area for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes (including cultural and spiritual purposes).

5. Participate in cultural activities on the area.

6. Be buried and bury native title holders within the area.

7. Maintain places of importance and areas of significance to the native title holders under their laws and customs and protect those places and areas from physical harm.

8. Teach on the area the physical and spiritual attributes of the area.

9. Hold meetings on the area.

10. Light fires on the area for domestic purposes including cooking, but not for the purpose of hunting or clearing vegetation.

    In order to win these rights, the Kabi Kabi had to prove that their ancestors occupied the area under a set of laws and customs, which had continued ever since.

I reckon if this claim was granted to a group of long term residents of an isolated area (like how the first native title claim was covering Thursday Island),  with modest intentions, no one would worry.

But the danger is that people perceive (correctly!) that indigenous activism has taken a very aggressive form now, and concessions keep being made to the "flexes" of indigenous activists and (let's be honest) their increasingly dilute aboriginal blood.  (God, I feel dangerously Hanson-ite for saying that, but the fact of the matter is that genetics should count for something in claims of indigenous heritage.   And it's still considered a valid thing by many actual American tribes - a point rarely mentioned in Australia.) 

People might recall some push by some indigenous to get people to stop climbing the Glasshouse Mountains - I wouldn't be surprised if that push is renewed after this claim.

And I suspect that there will be even more controversial things pushed under this claim - all pretty much more as a political "flex" than anything else.    

The thing is, people (like Bob Hawke) who argued that indigenous claims to exclusive access to certain natural sites for religious or cultural reasons is the equivalent of the major religions' idea of a scared site were pretty obviously making a false comparison.   You don't have to be a believer to have access to St Peter's in Rome, or most mosques, or Buddhist or Hindu temples.   You might be expected to observe certain modest restrictions in dress and behaviour, but that's about it.   And being able to name any bit of the natural landscape as sacred based on unwritten lore is obviously open to abuse and "flexes".  

In other words, people are right to be sceptical of the claims and the religious reasons given for them.  If any bit of ground can be declared scared, it dilutes the idea of sacred to something pretty meaningless, really.   Let's declare the whole planet sacred, but we all have access to it, OK?

But apart from the issue of climbing mountains, I can see lots of other rights in that list that certainly could be abused and cause conflict.  Is the right to light a campfire in Crown land going to cause issues in fire restriction times?   Will collecting shell fish be done in a way that is commercial and not really about daily sustenance?  (This already causes conflict in other parts of Australia.)

Labor is going to lose the Queensland election big time for a variety of reasons, with one significant issue already related to aboriginality - the rise in youth crime, especially in in regional areas.   Add to the electoral ill will that issue has generated a vaguely defined set of Native Title rights in a prime tourist area of the State and it's going to go over like a lead balloon. 

There they go, walking down the street...

The Monkees prove their staying power with latest tour | Las Vegas Review-Journal

It was hearing in the car today the recent-ish (well, it's years old now, I think, but in comparison to the original...) version of "I'm a Believer" that reminded me that, after the death of Davy Jones in 2012, Mike Nesmith had agreed to tour as The Monkees with the two surviving members.  Scary.  (He had declined to tour with the others while Jones was alive - perhaps it was him that he didn't care spending time with?)

So, I thought I would have a look at how this improbably sounding tour has gone down.  From the above link, dated August, it would seem that they haven't been embarrassing themselves after all.  Rolling Stone seems to agree. (And look at the set list.  It's not a short show.)

And now I read that Nesmith is doing a solo tour!  If I lived in the States, I'd be there.

Just too stupid and paranoid to engage with

I see the latest polemic sweetheart over at Catallaxy is Tucker Carlson - they swoon over his editorials which are encouraging the paranoid view of the Left (with barely concealed racism) at a close to McCarthy-ite level.

In fact, I had cause recently to look again at the famous 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and it quotes Joe McCarthy talking in 1951:

How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men. . . . What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence.

And let's compare that to a post by crackpot wannabe historian CL at Catallaxy today, wherein he compares efforts to remove Thomas Beckett's name from some manuscript:

I know. Comparing Donald Trump to St Thomas Becket might be a stretch comparable to that asked of one of the portly President’s Mar-a-Lago polos but the parallel that interests me is Henry II’s quartet of assassins and Barack Obama’s equally say-no-more-savvy knights. “Make sure you look over things and have the right people on it.” They knew what he meant. It was remarkable enough that a pandemic came along to cover up the biggest political scandal in US history. The Russia Hoax is now even more hazy following a nationwide race war incited by the media on behalf of the Democrats. Will the swordsmen get away with it? Ignore the distractions – riots and virus – because that is still the real test of whether the United States goes on as originally constituted.

Actually, defending Joe McCarthy is another favourite past time at Catallaxy.  Steve Kates had a whole post about that recently, but CL has done it too.  

 As with all of the Trump endorsing Right, they prefer to believe luminaries such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of self serving Republican politicians over the actual multiple intelligence services knowledge that Russia did interfere in the last election, and the public knowledge that Trump and his minions were rushing to them hoping to get their help.  

Interestingly, I don't think I have seen a single reference at Catallaxy to the intelligence services reporting that they believe Putin's minions are paying Afghanis to kill US troops.   If it's Russia, and if it hurts Trump, they have no interest at all.

They are too dumb, and too far into the culture war conspiracy rabbit hole, to bother engaging with.  

Update:  over at NPR, some interesting bits by the author of a new biography of McCarthy:

His crusade was launched one night in February 1950, in an out-of-the-way community, Wheeling, W.Va., and Joe McCarthy was there to deliver the famous Republican speech on the night of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. ... Joe McCarthy went there that night with the briefcase that contained two speeches and he wasn't sure which one to give until the last minute. One was a snoozer of a speech on national housing policy, and had he delivered that speech that night, you and I wouldn't be here 70 years talking about him.

Instead, he pulled the other speech out of his briefcase and it was a barn burner on anti-communism and it was the speech that launched his crusade. ... I think it was a matter of opportunism when he started out this crusade. He was looking for any issue that would give him the limelight. He wasn't sure until the last second which issue that might be, only when he got the response that he did that night, which was within two days, every newspaper in America put Joe McCarthy and his charges of 205 spies in the State Department, they put those stories on Page 1. Joe McCarthy was off and running and he never turned back....

At the beginning McCarthy ... clearly didn't believe what he was saying. And he had fun with it, waving around the sheets, saying he had this list in his hand when he knew he didn't have a list in his hand. Calling up everybody from J. Edgar Hoover to friends in the media after he created this firestorm, saying, "You've got to help me come up with some evidence to prove the things that I've said." He was the cynic. He was an opportunist, and he knew that he was embellishing, if not outright lying. But by the end, I am convinced that Joe McCarthy actually believed his own rhetoric. If you say often enough that there are spies in the State Department or that refugees coming across the border are ruining America, if you say it often enough, you might actually begin to believe it. And I'm convinced by the end Joe McCarthy was a true believer in his own opportunistically created cause.

Yeah, someone really deserving of being a Right wing hero...