Dick Earley has written a book purporting to prove that Jews shirked their patriotic duty in wartime America. Maybe they did, but the very most that can be said for Earley's 'proof' is that it is highly dubious.
The present document begins by citing two URLs where Earley denounces me for dishonesty, lack of courage, etc, etc. Following these are posted the correspondence between myself and Earley which, if HE had been honest, he would have posted rather than (or at least along with) his denunciations. He didn't want to, of course, because the correspondence demolishes his accusations, and in fact shows that it is Earley who is dishonest. But that's not all -- I actually gave Earley some publicity by posting a note about his book on my site, and while I didn't exactly praise the book, I at least let people know about it so they could make up their minds for themselves. But what does Earley do? Not only does he show no gratitude, but he attacks me. So if you want to write the guy and tell him what you think of his behavior, feel free. His email address is email@example.com. Or post your reactions on the forums below.
Dick Earley posts as 'edward gibbon', an insult to a great historian.
Here, Earley continues his gargantuan whine by challenging Birdman to a debate. But he can't even get his argument right, as he states "How you could conclude that Jews have not, repeat not, fought in American wars in appropriate numbers to their population leaves me incredulous." when what he apparently meant to say was 'in INappropriate numbers' (ie, too small numbers, because they were supposedly shirking their duty). Such carelessness and error is a metaphor for Earley's behavior.
Here is something I posted on my Daily Reads page about Earley's book:
Here is a review of a book by Dick Early showing that the historical record of Jewish deaths in American wars was far lower than their 'fair share', thus suggesting that Jews are 'unpatriotic'. While the numbers are probably right, the conclusion seems to be unwarranted, because the numbers can be explained in other ways. For example, if Jews are smarter, they are more likely to be officers, hence less likely to be subjected to hostile fire, or are more likely to know what to do to keep out of the way of it. But more generally, Birdman regards most American wars as fradulent, and has no trouble believing that someone with smarts is going to perceive this and find a way to keep from becoming cannon fodder. It's not just that, in the words of Louis l'Amour, whatever is worth dying for is worth living for; it is rather that governments are, for the most part, shakedown operations, and wars are fought by governments with other people's lives in order to keep their shakedown operation from falling into someone else's hands. Dr Johnson was pretty close to the truth when he said that there is not a dime's worth of difference between governments. Ours may have been different at one time, but it is rapidly approaching 'equality'. And btw, there are plenty of things to accuse the Foreskinners of without resorting to doubtful indictments.
Earley responds to the above:
The numbers I cited are accurate. They are not made up or contrived in any way. Your explanation has holes. Officers in combat units actually die in a higher percentage than their men. I ask nothing more from you than honesty and fairness. If you believe I made the numbers up, please say so.
Your review leaves the impression that what I wrote was concocted. It was not. The explanation must be something other than what you stated. In no way is my conclusion "doubtful". I ask for your integrity and a sense of honor from you.
I did not say or imply that your numbers were concocted. All I said was that there is another explanation for them besides Jewish lack of patriotism. If you want to make a brief note, I will attach it to my own. In fact, I will attach your letter below if you want. But I do think you ought to read more carefully what I said, as you give the impression of complete misunderstanding.
[Birdman replies to another letter of Earley's:]
Dick: I have made some comments interspersed with your text, and marked by ******. I will post it tomorrow.
Please print the note as below. I believe my writing to be accurate and fair.
Dick Earley ***************************
The numbers I cited are accurate. They are not made up or contrived in any way.
****** I never said they were, and I find the implication that I did insulting.
Your explanation has holes. Officers in combat units actually die in a higher percentage than their men.
****** I seriously doubt it, but it's possible. I mean, let's face it, the brain is better shielded from harm than the rest of the body because it's in charge. An army that puts its brains in greater danger than its body must not have many.
I ask nothing more from you than honesty and fairness. If you believe I made the numbers up, please say so.
****** I already said so a couple of times, and again, I resent your implying that I said they were made up.
Your review leaves the impression that what I wrote was concocted.
****** Total BS
It was not. The explanation must be something other than what you stated.
******* All I did was to state some alternative hypotheses to your theory that Jews were shown to be unpatriotic by their death numbers. I didn't even say that you were wrong -- just that your theory is not the only one which explains the numbers.
In no way is my conclusion "doubtful".
****** Wow! You've got more hoots-pah than an organic Jew!
I ask for your integrity and a sense of honor from you.
****** And again, I resent the subtle implication that I am not honorable or have no integrity. You wouldn't find one in a million in my situation who would publish your letter. You didn't get it to me on time, and it is much do-do about nothing, except to show that you misread my comments.
I cited 5 American wars, Germany in World War I and England in World War II for my data. If you choose to believe otherwise despite my sources, I can do nothing.
Question for the reader: Is it now clear why Earley won't post our correspondence?
Conclusion: Earley is a whiner, is dishonest, petulant, ungrateful, and is probably just looking for publicity for his book. I regret that I have given him any. I should have ignored him to begin with. But I am pretty sure I shall ignore him in the future.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *