Wresting and Wrangling

Review: Jack Monnett, Awakening to our Situation: Warnings from the Nephite Prophets (Nauvoo House Publishing, 2006).

To begin with, this is not a real review because to really do that I would have had to read this entire book, and I'm just not willing to waste that much of life. Two chapters was enough for me, and I am only devoting more of my time to write a review of this book as a public service, seeing as how almost all of the discussion on the Internet about this book is by fellow conspiracy theorists who are enthralled by this tripe.

Up front, I can also say that I am not really qualified to weigh in on the specifics of this book - modern American history is not my specialty. However, unlike the author of this book, my PhD is in historical research, and my profession involves teaching students how to conduct good research. From that perspective, I can tell you that if Dr. Monnett, PhD, submitted this book as work in one of my classes, he would be earning a D at best. He does practically everything I tell students NOT to do when doing research and writing it up. A few examples should suffice.

One of the last chapters of the book is about 9/11. After reminding us that "most ideas that challenge the status quo are not found in traditional radio and television news reports, newspapers, and news magazines", which must explain why he never really cites anything published by a reputable or academic publisher, he proceeds to explain what "really happened" on 9/11 through a series of questions and answers. I will quote a little:

What about the nineteen hijackers? Have they finally paid for their crimes?
We would have expected that the hijackers would have been quickly brought to justice and been sentenced. A year after the tragedy, Director of the FBI Robert Mueller told the nation that "We at this point definitely know the nineteen hijackers who were responsible" and implied that they would speedily be brought to justice.* Instead, today, we find them referred to in most writings as "alleged" hijackers because several have been found to be living (not burned up in plane crashes) and, of those interviewed, all have denied that they had anything to do with the hijackings and have shown plausible alibis. To date, even with various bits of circumstantial evidence found, no convictions have been made against any of them who are living.

But the planes were hijacked and flew into the World Trade Center, didn't they?
There are some inconsistencies in the reporting, but most researchers feel that the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers were the hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. One concern that has been raised is that hitting either tower with a difficult to maneuver plane such as a Boeing 767 would be particularly difficult for novice pilots. Another interesting aside is that each of the planes "had at least one passenger who was a senior official in Raytheon's division of Electronics Warfare" aboard which, for some, opens other possibilities.*

The chapter then continues on to question the reaction of the Air Force to the hijacking: it was too slow, and the reports afterward show some confusion and conflicting views. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is:

This all may sound quite confusing, but most researchers have come to the conclusion that any scrambling that may have been done by jet interceptors was not done with the intent of preventing the airliners from hitting their targets. Given the prescribed protocol and the nation's state of emergency, the only answer for the silent fighter jets appears to be willful complicity by those who were responsible for scrambling and intercepting the airplanes.

And now we have the crux of it all - a great big conspiracy to get us into war so that the secret combination trying to rule the world could make some more money.

Now, the two asterixes above are in place of the author's footnote markers. Notice the massive lack of documentation for anything that Monnett asserts. The first * is a citation for an article entitled "Playing the 9/11 Unity Card" which he says in his endnote was authored by the Associated Press on November 3, 2002. He follows this with a link to the nomoregames.net website, which turns out to be the creation of a fellow conspiracy theorist, who appears to be the actual author of the article. This guy, Morgan Reynolds, is another "PhD", this one in economics, who would thus appear to be unqualified to say anything definitive on the subject, particularly on the structural integrity of the twin towers, which is exactly what he does do in another article on his website. Whether he is qualified or not (I'm not saying you have to have a PhD in history to do good research, although one in engineering would be a useful accreditation for someone commenting on the structural integrity of the buildings), this is hardly the place to find your quote from the head of the FBI. There are more reliable sources for this kind of information, and as I teach my young research students, you want your evidence to be from as reliable a source as you can find.

Now we skip down through some pretty amazing, and undocumented, assertions until we finally come to his second source citation. This * refers us to David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. Olive Branch Press: Northampton, MA, 2004, p. 209. Now, I don't know anything about this book, but I can tell you a couple of things just from this citation information: The reference to the "new" Pearl Harbor must mean that he is another conspiracy theorist who belives that Pearl Harbor was all a conspiracy by FDR to get us into WWII (I have heard of this conspiracy theory before). I'll leave it to the WWII historians to debunk that myth (as I'm sure they already have). And what about this Olive Branch Press - I teach my budding researchers to look at the press to help determine the reliablity of a source. The best presses use a peer review process that ensures that other experts in the field agree that the work is based on sound research, even if they don't agree with its conclusions. The nice thing about the Internet is that you can usually learn something about these questionable presses right from their own websites, and sure enough, right on the front page of their website:

Our Mission

We endeavor to glorify and serve God, by educating, edifying and entertaining His people. We will do this by providing quality materials that help to develop a Biblical worldview. We desire to be used by God to draw non-believers into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and believers to a closer walk with Him.

Statement of Faith

We believe in one God, eternally manifested in three persons. We believe that the Bible alone is the standard for every area of life, and that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, is infallible, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. We believe that man is saved by grace alone, and that the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and His resurrection, allow us to enter into a personal relationship with God, the Creator.

I'm not quibbiling over their professions of faith. They have the right to assert whatever beliefs they want, and they have the right to publish whatever they want. My point is that this statement should hardly instill in us a sense of confidence in the impartiality of this particular work, the acceptance of its research standards by other researchers, or the reliablity of its conclusions, since clearly the point of any book from this publisher must be to convert people to their own "Biblical worldview". That's great for a Sunday School manual, but not if you want your research to be considered legitimate and reliable. This book by Griffin becomes Monnett's main source for his views of the 9/11 conspiracy (if all the ibid.'s at the end of the chapter are anything to go by).

The same could be said about Monnett's publisher, except that his publisher doesn't even have a website. We might well ask whether this book is being published out of some nut-job's basement - maybe even by Monnett himself. I note that you can't even buy it on Amazon, except through their used book sellers. On the author himself, I found this little blurb: "Jack D. Monnett holds degrees in education from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in the Historical Foundation of Education from the University of Utah." Whatever "Historical Foundation of Education" means, I'm guessing his PhD is from an Education department, not a history department. Hardly instills confidence in his ability to do historical research - again, not that he couldn't, just that all his credentials, which he flashes on the cover of his book, don't mean that he is qualified to do the research required for his book. Displaying one's credentials on the cover of a serious academic book is rarely reassuring, rather it suggests insecurity.

So much for Monnett's sources. I teach my research students that whenever you want to argue against some one, you need to present their side as fairly and completely as you can, so that you can say that you have accurately depicted their view and shown it to be lacking. Not only does Monnett fail to do this, but he doesn't even back up his own arguments with any hard evidence. This is D work at best.

Now let's look, just briefly, at his grammar. Hey, no one is perfect. (I'm sure I have a few booboos in this blog - but then I'm not asking a publisher to print this blog.). In my experience of grading papers, however, the ones with the most grammatical problems are usually the ones which demonstrate the shoddiest research as well. So, when Monnett writes, "But the planes were hijacked and flew into the World Trade Center, didn't they?", we must ask: Were the planes hijacked (presumably by the terrorists) or did they fly themselves (the planes 'were hijacked and flew' - subject of flew = planes, presumably by themselves since no other subject is offered)? He either needs to turn 'were hijacked' into an active verb with a clear subject who can both hijack and fly, or he can leave the passive voice, in which case he needs: the planes "were flown", again presumably by the hijackers. The 'they' at the end must refer to the planes, since no other subject was offered. By itself, this problem is minimal, but coupled with the lack of any hard evidence or reliable sources, it must force us to raise an eyebrow.

Now, on to my favorite aspect, which is the illogicality and hyperbole of conspiracy theorists. Follow along in the text with me. Now, I have not done much research into this 9/11 thing, but I did see it live on TV when it was happening (and note: it was the same on the every channel - that's one big media cabal!). So, my understanding was that the 19 hijackers were ON THE PLANES which crashed and burned. Thus, it comes as little surprise to me that these "alleged" (how about a source for that one, eh, Dr. Monnett?) hijackers that were interviewed had plausible alibis. The guys who did it killed thmselves in the act!! No wonder they're not getting the justice due to them - THEY'RE DEAD ALREADY! Now, I understand that Monnett is implying that they did not actually die in the crash - in fact it appears that he is suggesting that the planes did not actually crash into the WTC (one of the conspiracy theories from Steven Jones, see below, is that the towers collapsed from being blown up rather than crashed into). But didn't they convict the one guy who didn't get on the plane but was part of the conspiracy? And hey, let's be honest, this terrorist plot was clearly a conspiracy, and even a secret combination if you want. But he doesn't make that point, does he?

In the next paragraph, Monnett is almost willing to grant that AA Flt 11 was the one that crashed into the WTC. Um... there were only 4 hijacked planes that day, right? We ought to know their numbers... and we know what happened to all 4 - 2 crashed into the WTC, one crashed in PA, and one hit the Pentagon. Or am I misremembering? So "most researchers" (again, whoever they are - no citations) "feel" that this was the case. Good researchers don't "feel", they assert, argue, and provide some evidence. Even if it is hard to control a 767, these terrorists were at pilot training school, right? It might be tough, but how difficult is difficult? It would be nice to have a citation of a 767 pilot saying as much. Then I might accept it. Finally, there is a reference to "Raytheon's division of Electronics Warfare". I checked the index. This is apparently the only reference in the book - how about some explanation as to how this supports whatever contention he is alluding to (Monnett never comes right out and says what he wants to say or actually answers the question he poses). Raytheon is a defense contractor, so presumably they are part of Monnett's big secret combination out to rule the world (I feel like I'm watching Saturday morning cartoons here, sheesh).

Finally, Monnett's conclusions about the Air Force reaction to the 9/11 hijackings defy common sense. OK, the people involved were confused. No surprise there - this was a rather unprecedented attack on American soil. If people forgot to follow some of the regulations or weren't sure what to do, can we blame them? Likewise, we shouldn't be surprised if their after action reports display some confusion and inconsistencies either. No one knew what was going on. And the idea that jets needed to be scrambled to possibly shoot them down may be according to the book, but defies logic: yeah, they're going to shoot down 4 planes full of passengers to get these 19 terrorists - this is not how Americans operate. The biggest guffaw, though, is Monnett's assertion that "most researchers" don't think the jets that were scrambled were done to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. But, no one knew they were aiming at targets! The basic assumption with hijackers is that they want to make a political point, or something, and hold the passengers hostage until they get what they want. Again, these actions were unprecedented on American soil. No one was thinking,"We better keep these guys from hitting their targets." This is not grounds for discovering a conspiracy - this is normal human confusion at a bizarre situation. This all leads to my favorite line of all: "the only answer" is a conspiracy. The only answer?! I think I have already suggested a few other possible answers. I'm sure people who actually know something about all this could provide a few more. So, it is only "the only answer" in this conspiracy theorist's mind.

Now, I think that is enough on his research methods. Clearly the author has failed to grasp the basics of academic research, and so we must treat this book with the contempt we generally reserve for any amateur who thinks he is smarter than the professionals, simply because he wills it to be so, or has received special revelation that all the experts are not privy to. Again, I am not saying you have to be an expert or a PhD to do good research - but you do have to pay an initiation fee into the field by actually reading the primary sources and the best secondary sources (even if you are going to disgaree with them). Is that too much to ask, Dr. Monnett?

The book also includes a CD from the (in)famous Dr. Steven E. Jones. Jones is a Physicist, so maybe he is qualified to comment on the structural engineering of the buildings (actually, his specialty is nuclear fusion). I will simply refer you to the Internet at large if you want to learn more about this guy, but I will note that the Wikipedia (I know, not the greatest source, but I'm growing weary of talking about this book and writing this review) entry suggests that Jones has come in for the same kind of criticism that I am leveling at Dr. Monnett:

Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.^[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;^[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."^[21]

Now, let me just say before concluding that, yes, the Book of Mormon has much to teach us about the devastating effects of secret combinations. They are undoubtedly all around us in one form or another. But let me also just suggest that the probability of there being one great secret combination out to rule the world, and which has been steadily working towards this end for several generations, seems highly unlikely on the basis of the Book of Mormon evidence itself. Notice that once the Gadianton Robbers got into power, they started killing each other for that power. Yes, they want money; yes, they want power; but that applies to everyone in the group. And the idea that we don't know about this great conspiracy because it is, well, "a secret"? The Gadiantons and those in Jaredite times were unable to keep it a secret - evidenced by the fact that we can read about them in the book! Why assume that modern secret combinations are more adept at keeping the secret?

In conclusion, I warn everyone, and their neighbor, and their neighbor's dog, to steer clear of this kind of drivel masquerading as "academic research". Dr. Monnett, PhD, simply preys on his faithful but unwary readers by wresting the scriptures in service to his personal agenda, and wrangling the facts to fit his bizarre conspiracy theory. If you buy this nonsense, then I know a guy from Nigeria who wants to make you a very rich person - I'll hook you up for a 10% cut of the profits.

Velociraptor Quiz

I just couldn't resist... 9 second longer than my wife :)

I could survive for 60 seconds chained to a bunk bed with a velociraptor

Created by Bunk Beds Pedia

NYT Crossword, 1012

This will probably be my last crossword post. If you've been reading my posts for a while this will probably come as no surprise. My regular complaints about the puzzle have crystallized into some conclusions: These puzzle makers live in a different world than I do, which is fine, except that I'm not so interested in joining their world. It is a world that ranges too widely - from high and classic culture to modern fringe and pop culture - whatever it takes to fill in the blanks. Then their cluing becomes annoying because their real audience needs a challenge. That's fine, too - I'm just not interested in their project it seems. It takes me too long to do these puzzles, time that could be better spent on my own project. I've done these puzzles because of the learning experience, but I'm finding that what I am learning is not what I most want to learn, and the inefficiency entailed in learning some of this drivel is clearly not in my best interest. So, after today... adieu NYT Crossword Puzzle. I won't say it hasn't had its moments...

Georges who wrote "Life: A User's Manual" = PEREC (Apparently, he once wrote a novel without using a single 'e' - that's cool!)

Conductor ____ -Pekka Salonen = ESA (See: this in the same puzzle with Dr. Dre and Lil' Kim)

Worked (up) = HET (Just what I thought: hokey slang words - het means heat as in heated up)

Study of natural animal behavior patterns = ETHOLOGY (I never would guess that there was a word for this)

Lepidopterous movie monster = MOTHRA (I kept racking my brain for a "butterfly beast")

Reagan adviser Nofziger = LYN (His name was Franklyn, and he chose to go by 'Lyn"? And he's a guy?? What a kook - the short form of Franklyn (notice the lack of orthographic awareness in his parents) is Frank!! Duh! (or Fran if you're feeling a little femmy.))

The award for lamest clue in the puzzle:
Numbers, at times = DENTISTS (get it - one who 'numbs' - *GROAN*)

Runner-up:
Ceylon's capital? = SOFT C (No - it's Colombo. I hate these little playful clues)

NYT Crossword, 1005

This one was a killer puzzle. There's too much I didn't know to list it all, so I'll just hit the highlights:

• Seafood dishes = PAELLAS (Doesn't look that appetizing to me.)
• Lid attachment = LASH (?? - it must be referring to the eyelid)
• What "matar" means on an Indian menu = PEAS (Not a big Indian food fan - I don't curry the favor of curry.)
• Great Trek trekker = BOER (This one rang a bell once I got it.)
• Bygone P.M. with a palindromic name = UNU (U Nu, Who knew?)
• "Ville d'Avray" painter = COROT (Nothing stellar, but his stuff looks nice.)
• Home of the Cadillac Ranch = AMARILLO (You never know what Route 66 will throw at you.)
• Thomas Gray and others = ELEGISTS (He even has his own website!)
• Sport for rikishi = SUMO (Fat guys, uncomfortable underwear... what else can you say?)
• "Killer" program = APP (Nerd lingo that even I don't know!)
• Small birds, in British lingo = TOMTITS (short for Tom titmouse)
• Forerunner of the KGB = OGPU (The USSR was so good with acronyms, almost rivaled the USA)

Like I said... tons of stuff could be here, but this is the best of the lot.

Enuma Elish - The Epic of Creation

The Epic of Creation

Synopsis:

The beginning of the gods is Apsu, who mated with Tiamat to create the race of gods. From them eventually descended Anu and Ea, who learned how Apsu plotted the destruction of the gods because their noise kept him from rest. Ea caught Apsu, killed him, and built his house on top of him (so that the home of the gods was called Apsu). There, Marduk was born.

Marduk was a storm god, and he stirred up such confusion that Tiamat now plotted to destroy the race of the gods. She created an army of monsters and made Qingu the leader of her forces, by giving him the Tablet of Destinies. Both Anu and Ea tried to fight against Tiamat but were unable to win. Then Marduk offered to be the Hero of the gods and defeat Tiamat, in exchange for the kingship of the gods.

Marduk met Tiamat's army and challenged her to single combat. Marduk defeated her and gained the kingship of the gods. He then used the body of Tiamat to create the world, and the body of Qingu to cerate mankind to free the gods from their labors. The end of the tale proclaims the 50 name-titles that Marduk won.

Analysis:

The purpose of this poem is not actually to recount the creation of the world, but rather to explain how Marduk came to be ruler of heaven and earth. It centers the world on Babylon, the heart of Marduk's worship. Incidental to this is the account of Marduk creating the world and mankind. The role of men as slaves to the gods is explained most briefly. The overriding theme of the poem, as in so many Mesopotamian poems, is conflict and strife, or the quest for peace. That is what Marduk's victory over Tiamat brings: peace and order.

The principle of names as the power to bring chaos into order is present throughout. In the beginning, the poem notes, there were no names for things. By the end of the poem, Marduk has been given 50 name-titles which explain and grant his powers over heaven and earth.

Conflict arises early and often in this poem. Apsu cannot quell the noise of the gods he has created, so he plots to destroy them. Tiamat dissuades him, only to later turn on her own offspring and create monsters to attack them. Marduk himself is a storm god, controller of the winds, which are forces of chaos when unleashed. His foes are often described as raging out of control. It is only with Marduk's victory that peace and obedience are fully brought to pass.

The quest for power and kingship is the main source of conflict in the poem. Apsu is overthrown by Ea. Tiamat grants the Anu-power and Tablet of Destinies to Qingu in an attempt at matriarchal power, which fails against Marduk, who uses the war with Tiamat to become king of heaven himself. We should of course be reminded here of the stories of Ouranos, Cronos, and Zeus in Greek accounts of the origins of the gods.

NYT Crossword, 0928

I was going along so well, that I was really upset with myself for not being able to finish. It was like when you're cruising down the highway making great time and then whammo! road construction not only eats up all your gained time but adds on another hour. Ugh! I did put lots of question marks next to the clues - so let's see what kind of stretch they really were.

The Question marks:

• X out = OMIT (Now, I understand omit to be a passive form of forgetting, whereas to X something out suggests actively excluding. I suppose the definition is broad enough to encompass general non-inclusion, but I still think of this as synonymous with forgetting not excluding).
• Altercation = SETTO (OK, there was actually an entry for 'set to' and it does fit altercation, so I guess I have to give this one to the puzzler.)
• Battery part = TEST (I guess this is referring to a 'battery of tests', whereas I kept looking for some word shorter than anode or cathode. A little hokey in my opinion.)
• A large number = RAFTS (OK, so I was right - no one uses this anymore. I found the appropriate definitinon at Online Etymology.)
• Score just before victory, maybe = ADIN (Presumably 'ad in' - but I've never heard of this. Ah . . . it's a tennis term, short for 'advantage in'. Not a big tennis guy.)

Regular stuff:

• City near tel Aviv = LOD
• Vinegar: prefix = ACETO (I'm not convinced this is actually a 'prefix', but it is used with vinegar)
• Orbital point = APSIS (I so wanted 'focus', but this is more correct for the clue, so the puzzler wins.)
• W.W. II gun = STEN (I guess right but now I know it is a submachine gun of British make.)
• A leveret is a young one = HARE (This is the kind of educational stuff I'm looking for in a crossword.)
• Like some eggs or cloth = SHIRRED (Rex Parker didn't like this one, but it seems good, if obscure, to me.)
• City near Milan = LODI
• St. Louis' ______ Bridge = EADS (I hate these localized clues, and I think I've even driven on this bridge.)
• Rusty on the diamond = STAUB (Sounded vaguely familiar once I figured it out, a hold over from my baseball crazy youth, I suppose.)
• Utah's lily = SEGO (I've lived in Utah, but this one got me - it's not sage, huh?)
• Wahine's dance = HULA (I found you a video for this one.)
• Hops kiln = OAST
• Whine = PULE (I hate whiners!)

P.S.
The best clue was: Kind of difference, oxymoronically = SAME

P.P.S.
Second week in row: Mormons, initially = LDS

Anzu

Anzu
(Late Babylonian, First Millennium BC)

Rather than a commentary, I am going to re-write this story. In the re-write I hope that some of the most interesting features of this story come out. This is a rich text, epic in nature. It is unfortunate that so much has been lost, because the language of the Akkadian (even in translation) is powerful and evocative.

My re-telling:

This is the story of Ninurta and Anzu, which took place in the early days, before even the creation of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Ninurta (whose name was sometimes pronounced ‘Nimrod’) was the son of Ellil, the king of all populated lands and the head of the younger generation of gods known as the Igigi. Ninurta himself was sometimes called the champion of Ellil and was famous for his victories over Anzu and the bull-man inside the Sea. Mami, the great mother goddess, also cherished her son Ninurta.

Anzu, a lion-headed eagle, was the offspring of earth and water, created to serve Ellil. Ellil made him the guardian of his chamber door. While in his service, Anzu saw with envy the emblems of Ellil’s power, including the great Tablet of Destinies, which contained spells and instructions for religious rites. Anzu’s desire to usurp Ellil’s throne and his power to command the other gods grew until Anzu seized his chance one day while Ellil bathed. Anzu grabbed the Tablet of Destinies and fled into hiding.

When Ellil learned of Anzu’s treachery, he was dumb-founded. No longer could he lead the gods in the religious rituals contained on the tablet. It was the Tablet that had made him Ellil. As the gods debated amongst themselves and sought a solution, Ellil’s father, Anu, issued a decree promising a great reward for whoever should find Anzu and bring back the Tablet of Destinies. But everyone was afraid of Anzu now that he possessed this great knowledge. By the power of his words, he could turn his enemies into clay. First Adad, controller of the canals, declined the task. Then Gerra, the fire god, refused the offer. Next it was Shara, the son of Ishtar and known as the hero of Anu, who refused.

The great god of wisdom, Ea, offered to choose the god who would go up against Anzu. He called upon Mami, who had created the assembly of the gods, had made Anu king of heaven, and assigned to Ellil his power, for help. Ea offered to Mami the title “Mistress of All the Gods” if she would commission Ninurta for this task. She agreed and all the gods reverenced her, for their fears were now abated. Ninurta accepted the task from his mother, as well her instructions. He was commanded to use tricks and disguises to combat Anzu, relying upon fog and light to help him get at his foe.

Ninurta gathered his forces, known as the Seven of Battle, along with the power of the winds to face Anzu. Anzu roared like a lion, raged, and attempted to wield his new authority, challenging Ninurta, “Who are you to come up against me, who controls the Tablet of Destinies?” Ninurta declared himself the avenger of Ellil. The fog of war descended upon the mountain where they faced each other. As their forces engaged, Ninurta drew his bow and fired a shaft at Anzu, but he simply turned the arrow around with a spell from the Tablet of Destinies.

Ninurta entrusted a messenger to relay what he had seen to Ea. Ea sent back instructions: “Don’t let up; press your attack! Strip him of his feathers, and when he attempts his spell, seize him by the throat and slit it! Let the wind carry those stripped feathers to heaven as a sign of your victory.” And so Ninurta wore Anzu down, stripped him of his pinion feathers, and finally pierced his heart. Ninurta recovered the Tablet of Destinies, and the gods rejoiced.

Ninurta was slow to return to the assembly of the gods, tempted by the ruling power contained in the Tablet. Eventually, he did return and Ellil pronounced his praise of Ninurta: “You have made all foes kneel at the feet of your father. For that you shall have dominion over all.” Ellil granted unto Ninurta a host of name-titles by which he would exercise his power over all.

Commentary:

OK, a few notes: This is a story about power, particularly the power of words, especially as encapsulated in writing. It seems that it is the Tablet of Destinies which makes Ellil powerful; he governs by its authority. And the name Ellil seems to be a name-title - the Tablet grants him the Ellil-power. Ellil is rendered, essentially, speechless by the theft of the Tablet. After Anzu steals the Tablet, Ellil does not speak again until the Tablet is recovered by Ninurta. The power of the Tablet is recognized by all the gods, who are too afraid to challenge Anzu. Only an epic battle of strength between Ninurta and Anzu can restore the Tablet to Ellil. It would seem that following the recovery, Ninurta becomes the real ruler of the world, although Ellil remains nominally in charge. Let he who understands, understand.