Cultural Extinction

I've just finished reading the book: Anti-Americanism, by Jean-Francois Revel. In the book, he lays out the case that the reflexive anti-Americanism of Europeans (with a particular emphasis on his native France) is often simplistic, self-contradictory, ill-informed, and counterproductive.
The most interesting section of the book to me was a chapter about cultural protectionism. The thrust of his argument is that it is impossible to protect a culture by building a wall against outside influences. He specifically argues against the French trying to protect their culture from American influence, but I think the lesson is to be heeded in this country as well (a similar cultural protectionism, or more accurately isolationism is sometimes evident in this country, particularly in certain movements on the right side of the political spectrum). Revel states: "The idea that a culture can preserve its originality by barricading itself against foreign influences is an old illusion that has always produced the opposite of the desired result. Isolation breeds sterility. It is the free circulation of cultural products and talents that allows each society to perpetuate and renew itself." Put another way, building a wall around a culture nearly always leads to cultural stagnation. An example of this cross-pollination of ideas is the rise of existentialism. Nietzsche was influenced by the ideas of the French moralists, and in turn his writings influenced French philosophers like Sartre, Camus, etc. during the following century. Other examples are endless. I think this is a concept often forgotten in times like this when nativism seems to be on the rise.

My Reading List.

Mainly for my own reference (so that I don't accidently check a book out from the library only to realize that I've already read it) I'm posting a list of all the books that I can remember reading since I started my reading binge about Easter of last year along with my short takes on some of the books.

Non-Fiction:

The Theocons, Damon Linker (a who's who of the religious right)
God's Politics, Jim Wallis (God's Politics are a lot like Wallis' politics)
The Jesus I Never Knew, Phillip Yancey
The Jesus Machine, Dan Gilgoff (a lot more balanced than the title suggests)
James Dobson's War On America, Gil Alexander Meagerle (very disappointing)
Tempting Faith, David Kuo (an inside look at the Bush White House)
Fiasco, Thomas Ricks
America Against the World, Kohut and Stokes (a lot of dry polling data as I recall)
The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Frank Rich (deception in the run up to Iraq)
State of Denial, Bob Woodward ( a very in-depth look at the failures made in Iraq)
My Fundamentalist Education, Christine Rosen (a familiar story to me)
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter ( he mentions "Camp David" 9,000 times)
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, Bruce
Bartlett
The Great Deluge, Douglas Brinkley ( an analysis of Hurricane Katrina)
Utter Incompetents: Ego and Ideology in the Age of Bush, Thomas Oliphant (exactly what the title suggests)
Flim-Flam, James Randi (a look at ESP, Bermuda Triangle and other hoaxes)
The Assault on Reason, AlGore ( a pretty good read)
Disaster, Christopher Cooper ( a look at how the federal government failed during Katrina)
The Iraq Study Group Report; Baker, Hamilton, et al. ( the one always mentioned by politicians, whether they have read it or not)
The Starfish and the Spider, Brafman & Beckstrom (another good one)
The J-Curve: A new way to understand why societies rise and fall, Ian Bremmer ( a good study of societies in transition)
The World is Flat, Thomas Friedmann
The Basic Writings of Nietzsche (He was one of the few philosophers who was not a boring writer)
The Writings of Keirkegaard
American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips ( a VERY good book, I highly recommend it. I read it twice)
The Silence of the Rational Center: Why U.S. foreign policy is failing, Halper & Clarke ( another one I recommend, reviewed in earlier post, I read it twice)
How Would a Patriot Act?, Glenn Greenwald
The One Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind
A Tragic Legacy, Glenn Greenwald (reviewed in an earlier post)
The Price of Loyalty: The education of Paul O'neill, Ron Suskind ( An insider's look at the way the Bush White House is run)
It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian peril in the age of Bush, Joe Conason
Will They Ever Trust Us Again?, Michael Moore (that's right, I read a Michael Moore book)
Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich (this was very entertaining, especially her stints working as a maid and at Wal-Mart)
Bait and Switch, Barbara Ehrenreich (this was even more depressing as she infiltrates the white-collar job-seeker world)
Adventures in Missing the Point, Tony Campolo & Brian McLaren
Speaking My Mind, Tony Campolo
Evil and God's Justice, N.T. Wright (there may have been another word in the title. Good book)
Why the Religious Right is Wrong, Robin Meyers (conversely, the religious left is a-ok!)
Conservatives Without Conscience, John W. Dean (He basically says conservatives are just nazis without any balls)
Religion Gone Bad, Mel White (he's here, he's queer, he's a preacher, get used to it!)
Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics Magazine (It won't convince the moonbats, but it destroys most of their fantasies about the gov. being behind 9/11)
American Fascists, Christopher Hedges ( at some point all these religious right books started running together in my mind)
Sex God, Rob Bell (not as racy as it sounds, it's about sexuality and Christianity)
They Like Jesus, But Not the Church, Dan Kimball ( a pretty good read)
The Apocalypse Code, Hank Haanegraaf (sp?) ( a good look at "exegetical eschatology")
Kingdom Coming, Michelle Goldberg (another religious right expose')
F*U*B*A*R: America's Right Wing Nightmare, Seder & Sherill ( this was a poorly written hatchet piece, I only like well-written hatchet pieces)
Confronting Iran, Ali Ansari (the title speaks for itself)
Blinded by the Right, David Brock (He was a right-wing hatchet man, now he's a left-wing whiner)
When the Press Fails, Bennett, et al (how the press failed in the run-up to Iraq and since)
The Republican Noise Machine, David Brock
The Gulag Archipelago, Solshenytsen (sp?)
The Federalist, Jay, Hamilton and Madison
Faith of My Fathers, John McCain (some of the prison-camp stuff is indescribable)
The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama (would have been a better read if I wasn't familiar with his voting record, still not bad. Very much aimed at post-moderns)
Writings, Thomas Jefferson
Writings, James Madison
The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture, Hipps (a look at post-modern culture)
While Europe Slept, Bruce Bawer
Londonistan, Melanie Phillips (not as good as Bawer)
How Democracies Perish, Jean-Francois Revel (another good book)
Anti-Americanism, Jean-Francois Revel (currently reading)
several books critical of pre-millenial dispensationalism whose titles I can't remember.
61 that I can remember.

Fiction:

1984, George Orwell (the best love story I've ever read, seriously)
It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis (the hell it can't)
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut (This was another damn good book)
Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
The Idiot, Fyodor Dostoevsky ( "Beauty will conquer the world." This was the book that turned me on to Russian literature)
2 books of short stories by Chekhov
Demons, Dostoevsky ( everybody dies)
War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy (this one should count as 2 books)
The Death of Ivan Illyich and other short stories, Leo Tolstoy (he was the master of the parable)
Notes From Underground and other stories, Dostoevsky
Dante's Inferno
The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky (Dostoevsky's magnum opus)
The Stranger, Albert Camus
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche
Candide, Voltaire (some monkey-lovin' going on in this one)
17 total

#1 NFL Draft Pick

The Miami Dolphins have announced that Jake Long, Offensive Tackle from the University of Michigan will be the top pick in the NFL draft this saturday. I think this is a great pick, not just because he's a Michigan guy, but because I like the idea using top picks on positions like O-line or the defensive front seven. The risk factor seems somewhat lower. With a quarterback, running back or reciever a lot of times you don't know how the player will adapt to the pro game or whether they'll pick up the system. In the case of Long, I don't know if some of the other top prospects can pick up the pro game quickly, overcome injury problems, or stay out of trouble with the law; but I do know that on week 1 Jake Long will still be a six-foot seven-inch, 320 pound road-grader who opens holes for the running backs and keeps the QB's jersey clean.

A Journey to the Land of Make-Believe!

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it......Clearly a society that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."-Jean-Francois Revel

em-pire (em'pir') n. Abbr. emp. 1. A political unit, usually larger than a kingdom and often comprising a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority. 2. The territory included in such a unit. 3. Imperial dominion.

I stumbled on to this anti-American propaganda a few weeks ago and thought I'd give a few of my thoughts on the video and the larger problem it illustrates. As we progress further into this post-modern age of dis-enlightenment, I expect this kind of historical revisionism (cherry-picked facts mixed with half-truths and outright falsehoods wherever necessary to support a preexisting ideology) to become the rule rather than the exception. I also find it necessary to view garbage like this occasionally to remind myself that the political right does not hold a monopoly on idiocy. For anyone who couldn't stomach the entire video, it was made to promote Howard Zinn's book: "A (delusional) People's History of American Empire", appropriately released on April Fool's Day. I'm going to point out some of the problems with this video and the ideological movement behind it. This will be a long post because it's amazing how much misleading can go on in an 8-minute video. I also want to say up front that I am not writing this because of patriotism or because I believe that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. There are many historic examples of this. I am writing it because I view the Manichean, black/white view of the world presented in this video is every bit as dangerous as that espoused by many neo-cons who believe the United States is perfect, that we need to have war all the time, etc. In this respect, Zinn is merely the other side of the same ideological coin that looks to turn history and the current state of the world into a morality play with simplistic, ideological explanations for everything.

Now, on to the video itself. First, let's give a big round of applause to Viggo Mortensen for reminding us that people who make their living by portraying emotions on screen are not to be relied on for rational analysis of anything. (There are exceptions of course, but as a rule celebrity should not be confused with authority.) Second, am I the only one who thought the cartoon version of Zinn was a dead-ringer for Ron Paul? The first substantive issue I have with the video is, what is the motive behind it? Anti-imperialism? Pacifism? Anti-Americanism? This is a little easier to answer if we have some background on Mr. Zinn. First, the motive is probably not anti-imperialism because of Mr. Zinn's long history of support for Castro, who according to Zinn had "no bloody record of suppression" and other tools of the Soviet Empire (which WAS an empire in every sense of the word) and his reference to communism as an "exaggerated threat". The motive also cannot be pacifism given Mr. Zinn's gushing praise for Chairman Mao, who butchered more people than Stalin or Hitler (I guess it's okay as long as you keep it within your own borders) Regarding Mao's regime, Zinn stated it was "the closest thing in the long history of that ancient country to a people's government"(the people that survived that is) Also, Zinn is a Marxist, and Marxism is violent by definition. Redistribution of wealth can only be accomplished through violence. For example anyone wanting to "redistribute" my "wealth" will most likely have to either: a)kill me and take it or b) be killed by me while trying to take it. The motive we are left with is anti-Americanism specifically, and anti-capitalism generally.

Does the word "empire" fit or is he simply using it as a pejorative term? Well going back to the dictionary definition at the top of the page, let's look at some examples: Cuba, the Philippines, France, Germany, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Italy, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. All have been invaded by the U.S. (or had large U.S. military presences operating within them) How many fall under U.S. dominion today? Zero,as in zero. Secondly, how many empires take over countries then re-build them into independent states (and economic rivals to the "empire") at great cost to themselves? The answer here is also zero. So with this in mind I'm going to address some specific misleading points from the video. (I didn't notice any glaring lies in the video, Zinn saved these for the book, where they are numerous.)

The intro about the genocide of American Indians, and the actions with regards to Cuba and the Philippines are accurate and I have no problem with them. I'm not trying to gloss anything over here. The part about the Mexican-American war was also generally accurate, albeit presented in an over-simplified manner. However, they are most likely included to make the viewer think that the wiping out of the Indians is in some way related to later U.S. actions like entering World War 2. This is not explicitly stated, but planted in such a way that the viewer gets the impression that if the U.S. commited genocide in one instance that must be the driving force behind everything it does. We get to the major twisting of history once we reach the period beginning with World War 2 and the Cold War. Note the complete lack of any reference to the brutality of the Japanese empire or any consideration of how many lives an invasion would have cost both sides. We then come to the claim that the U.S. was trying to maintain it's dominance of Europe and nuclear monopoly right after World War 2. So, the U.S. strategy of removing it's troops from all the conquered European nations except Germany and rapidly demobilizing it's military is a sign of imperialism? The complete unwillingness to challenge Soviet domination of East Germany (or any other European nation for that matter) wasn't exactly the way an empire with military superiority and a nuclear monopoly either. It was only after the Europeans called for assistance that the NATO alliance was formed in 1949. Again, this is a far cry from the cartoon in the video showing the U.S. as an octopus trying to stretch across the world, with no mention of the U.S.S.R. This reversal of history is shown again with regard to Korea. Apparently the war was "not about fighting communism" but about "establishing a foot-hold in Asia". So apparently the two are mutually exclusive in Zinn's mind. Secondly, it's hard for me to see where the U.S. expansionism is here. Is resisting another power's expansion the same as imperialism? Perhaps only when it's done by a capitalist society. The Cold War followed this pattern a lot, communist expansion leads to American resistance which is then "imperialist", this kind of communist propaganda persists in a lot of people's worldviews to this day. Just the other day I heard the old Warsaw Pact referred to as a "military alliance". It boggles the mind. It seems to me like an "American empire" would have backed more groups that were doing the invading rather than those who were being invaded. But this kind of fact-twisting is necessary to tie all previous wars neatly into the overarching theory and make them seem exactly like the occupation of Iraq.

We then come to the shocking revelation that the Vietnam war had economic causes! I'm shocked. That would mean that that war was just like every other war in human history. Again, note the simplistic portrayal of a complex historical event as having a single simple cause that nicely dovetails into a preexisting Marxist view. And it was brutal? You're kidding me. Apparently the fighting c Who knew wars were brutal? I'm not trying to sound "pro-war" here, I view war as the second worst thing imaginable. Fortunately, partly through the work of Zinn and others like him, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam and Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were spared the fate of post-war Japan. Think of all the new phrases like "killing fields" and "year zero" that we wouldn't have gained in our lexicons. I don't say any of this to excuse U.S. behavior with regard to certain aspects of the way the war was fought (I'm not the one with the Manichean world view here.) But when the overall narrative presents one side of history and presents it as anything other than an indoctrination, I have a problem with that.

Note the simplistic A to B logic with regards to the first Gulf War. Events are portrayed as flowing together in a simple, logical, unambiguous fashion. There can be no extenuating circumstances or considerations not involving class struggle. If something happened involving U.S. involvement in the middle-east in the 40's and 50's then that must be directly causing the events of the early-90's. The CIA helped overthrow Mossadeq so it must be behind every event in that part of the world. (As an aside, the idea of Mossadeq as the "democratic leader" is greatly exaggerated. He had just dissolved the parliament, violating the constitution, and did away with secret ballots on his way to winning 99.93% of the vote. Yeah, that's a democratic election.) This is the nice thing about being driven by ideology, you get to mold the facts rather than let the facts mold you. This is probably why revisionist history is so popular at both ends of the political spectrum.

Then we mercifully come to the end with Viggo asking us "have we not reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way where we expand not our military power, but our humanity?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a reference to ingesting narcotic substances to me. (I'd like to study the subject of socialism to learn when it first became infused with new age psycho-babble like this) I can only conclude that he means we must embrace socialism. I'm sure he means "real" socialism, the kind that exists only in utopian fantasies that inhabit some theoretical plane in the far-flung reaches of the imagination and produce equality and happiness; not the "phony" socialism which exists in the real world and has almost always produced misery and famine. So in conclusion, I can't help but feel sorry for the people duped by this world-view, particularly kids being forced to "learn" this in schools. I think anyone watching this should ask themselves, "What would the world look like if there had never been a U.S.A.?" What kind of places would Europe and Asia be? So, now I'm going to read the book this is based on (once I can get a copy from my library, because God knows I'm not spending any money on this stuff) and will probably post a few thoughts on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short next time. I've only thumbed through a previous edition of the book and saw a few statements about historical events that were the exact opposite of the truth. So I should find it interesting. (For anyone looking for a more eloquent response to stuff like this video, especially with regards to the Cold War and the concept of U.S. imperialism I would recommend reading the book How Democracies Perish, by Jean-Francois Revel or checking out one of his articles on Anti-Americanism at the link above.)

Quick Hits 8.

I thought I'd post some pictures of a Bible and my guns. ( well, not technically my guns but pictures of the same guns I found on the web. My Magnum is more tricked-out than the one in the picture) I did this for two reasons; to tie in to my first item and to pay homage to Charlton Heston.

-So I was cleaning my guns while reading my Bible the other day when I heard the Obama quote about fear, guns, religion, anti-trade sentiment (?), and xenophobia the other day. And I gotta tell you......he's got a point, at least on the xenophobia front. Lumping guns and religion in was a bit of a mistake, one that I think could hurt him a little bit in Pennsylvania. But, I think he was right in some cases. Also, I don't tend to judge people as harshly for off-the-cuff remarks (unless truly egregious) as I would if they say something more deliberately. So this wasn't a huge issue to me, but then I'm not what you'd call a fence-sitter and I am familiar enough with his voting record to know where he stands on most issues at this point.

-I'm going to move on to three things that pissed me off in the past week. We'll start with Senator Jay Rockefeller talking about how John McCain can't possibly know what common people go through. Because when I think of ordinary, hard-working people I think of the Rockefeller family. I'm sure Rockefeller had plenty of contacts with "ordinary people" growing up: chauffeurs, gardeners, nannies, window washers, etc. But that's not the part that pissed me off. Why is it that McCain can't identify in Rockefeller's view? Spending close to 30 years in government? Marrying into an incredibly wealthy family? No. It's because he served his country in Vietnam! "He was flying fighter planes dropping laser guided bombs on people from 35,000 feet. He was never around to see what those bombs did.(paraphrased)" This was absurd and offensive to me on two levels. First, I'm not the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anything, but "fighter plane", "laser guided bombs (in 1967, no less)", "35,000 feet"? Secondly, yeah actually McCain did see what those bombs did to people when he was nearly killed in the U.S.S. Forrestal fire, in which he was wounded by shrapnel and 134 of his fellow sailors lost their lives. According to his book it made him re-think what he was doing, but ultimately he decided that he had to do his duty and continue.

-Rockefeller then went on to talk about Obama having the good judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning. I for one find this far less impressive in light of the fact that he had spent about 16 years going to a church that denounced "American Imperialism" on a regular basis. Also, Rockefeller spoke in favor of the war and voted for it. He supported it until people started dying. What the Hell does he think war is? Did he think he was voting to authorize a tug of war? Because those can be dangerous too.

-The second thing that pissed me off is how some people (media and otherwise) used the death of Charlton Heston as an excuse to take shots at the guy for being the president of the NRA. The same people don't bring up the fact that Charlton Heston also marched with Dr. King at a time when it was not cool in Hollywood to be seen marching with Dr. King. That actually took some courage. It's not like today where you have idiots like George Clooney rushing to get in front of a camera for whatever the trendy cause is lately like raising "awareness" for Darfur. Those people don't need our awareness (which has done them a Hell of a lot of good so far), they need guns. Also, I for one don't find the fact that Charlton Heston was devoted to protecting my right to bare arms to be a bad thing. I believe a prohibition of guns (or "war on guns") wouldn't be every bit as successful as the prohibition of certain narcotics. I mean, marijuana is illegal and now no one can get a hold of that, right? I also recalled an interview with Heston talking about how some of his Hollywood liberal friends called him up during the LA riots back in the early-nineties wanting to hang out or borrow guns.

- Also, there is not a "pregnant man". There is a pregnant woman who wishes she was a man. I saw the headline "pregnant man" and thought it was some kind of deal like that Schwarzenegger movie. No it turns out this is a woman. But she likes to think of herself as a man and pump herself full of male hormones (which I'm sure is really good for the fetus). "But Steve, can't people choose to be what they want to be?" NO. There are certain things in life that you just can't change ( like your age, your race, your gender, your species, your parents, etc.) Mutilating your genitals doesn't make you a different gender, just like gluing hair to myself, eating bananas, and swinging from trees wouldn't make me a monkey. To make this worse, the politically correct thing to do is to enable these delusions. To anyone who disagrees, I'm sorry if biology offends you.

-I've noticed that radical leftists have been crawling out of the woodwork at a rate I haven't seen since I started following politics back in 1992. This is a good thing in my opinion. The best thing that could happen to the right is stronger opposition. This is my "free market of political ideas" theory that the more competition, the better. When the left imploded as a political force in the late-80's/early-90's, the right became unfocused because there wasn't enough of a struggle to force us to keep refining our ideas.

-I had to laugh at the Obama sound-byte where the questioner accidentally asked him about how he would go after "Obama Bin Laden". It had to be way more embarrassing for the questioner than for Obama, who handled it very well.

-Does anybody really think Hillary is a hunter and gun enthusiast from way back? I'd like to see all the candidates in each election gather to see who can shoot the best. (Who do you think would win in a "shoot-off" between Bush and Kerry? I think Kerry might have won that one) Maybe a shooting contest would not be as entertaining as it sounds but there seems to be a desire among voters for some kind of "macho factor". I think there should be a talent show, a macho test, and perhaps a dance off. (There should NOT be a swim-suit competition, which Obama wins by default.) I think certain candidates like McCain, however, would be exempt from the "macho" competition.

-I've begun studying 1st Corinthians. My plan is to go through all of the New Testament epistles, spending a week or two on each of them. I also cashed in my change jar and ordered a bunch of study-helps (concordances, commentaries, dictionaries, books on exegesis, etc.) on Amazon. It's been pretty interesting so far.

-James Dobson still won't support McCain. Thank you, doc. Keep up the good work reminding people that McCain is not like you.

-Rush Limbaugh had this whack-job guest host on Friday talking about the need for less regulation of airlines (and everything else). His argument was "let the market handle it". Let them have crashes, get sued, lose reputation, go out of business, etc. I prefer the option that doesn't involve letting a bunch of people die so the "free market" can sort it out, but looks to prevent the crash in the first place. I've grown used to hearing some wacky stuff on Limbaugh, like when he talks about his love for oil (seriously he is literally in love with oil) and how he works himself into a lather while talking about how great oil is, but this guy was even more out there.

-Speaking of "out there" I saw Ted Turner on Charlie Rose a week or two ago. Man, talk about a nut-job. He was talking about how global warming will cause all of us to either die or become cannibals. I agree it's a problem, but cannibals? He also talked about how we should rid the earth of all nuclear weapons. Right. There's only one way to get rid of all nuclear weapons, and the solution is much worse than having the nuclear weapons. I've also noticed how whenever Charlie Rose has a guest who is not a white male he interrupts them constantly (I mean even worse than Sean Hannity).

-I saw an interesting passage in the Bruce Bawer book I was reading about how the European media loves to point out anything bad that happens in the U.S. He mentions how the French media went on and on about how terrible the U.S. government was because of the roughly 1,200 people who died in Hurricane Katrina (which was an absolute disgrace, I don't disagree), when over 11,000 people died in France that same summer during a heat wave. A heat wave! You don't have to call out the 82nd airborne to keep people from dying in a heat wave. You just need to set up some fans and open some fire hydrants.

-I was listening to a clip from the "compassion forum" this weekend where one of the social-justice preachers asked the Democratic candidates if they would pledge to cut poverty by half in the next 10 years. What this question overlooks is that nothing could be farther from the interests of the Democratic Party than the elimination of poverty. To do this would be to destroy one of their core voting blocs. It's in their interest to make people's poverty a little less grinding, but if people are brought out of poverty and actually start paying taxes they might become Republicans. It's a lot like asking oil companies to try to get people to use less oil. This also explains why government aid programs are often designed to subsidise poverty rather than to create wealth.

-I read a New York Times article about Prince Harry in Afghanistan and how this relates to the dilemma if McCain gets elected in regards to his two sons, Jimmy and Jack, who are currently in the military (and thus can't relate to real people). It's an interesting situation, because on the one hand they would be prime targets for the insurgents. On the other hand, one of the things I respect most about Senator McCain is that he's not a politician calling for American involvement in the Iraq war to continue without his family making a contribution. Put another way, when he talks about the need to stay the course, he isn't just asking other people's kids to put their lives on the line, he's also including his own flesh and blood in this. The article also mentions that given McCain's history as an admiral's son and POW, he is uniquely familiar with the idea of being a very valuable target for the enemy, and as such is uniquely qualified to make this decision.

-Lastly, this week an anonymous person paid 1.5 million dollars at auction for a Marylin Monroe sex film. I think I may know who it is, and I have just one question. "Isn't that money that could have gone to a good cause, like using it to help your wife's presidential campaign?"

All joking aside, I bet it was Hugh Hefner. He paid a ton of money to be buried next to her when he dies, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was him.

Went to the Dentist.

Nope, this isn't another post making fun of Obama. (although I'm considering doing a "dentist" metaphor to make fun of McCain 'cause I've got some funny ones there.) In this case, I'm talking about a literal trip to the dentist. Shortly I mocked Obama, he saw fit to strike me down like he was the prophet Elisha or something. Only instead of angry bears he used horrible pain in one of my wisdom teeth. It drove me nuts for about a week before I finally decided to have it looked at. So today I finally went to the dentist even though the pain is gone. The first question they asked was "how long has it been since you've seen a dentist?" My answer: "not sure of the date, but I remember there was a Dole-Clinton debate that night". (which is not an exaggeration) I knew what was going to happen; it was going to be like when you take your car in to have one thing fixed and they find 8 more problems. The dentist looked at the teeth for about 45 seconds before saying "yeah, these need to be liberated". (need to remember that line if I wind up doing a McCain/dentist post). Then when the hygienist did the x-rays she found 2 cavities and noticed that one of my canine teeth is permanent and the other is a baby with the big one behind it protruding from the roof of my mouth (it's not as bad as it sounds). Then she stabbed my gums repeatedly with a poker and discovered that I have the gum disease known as (in deep-voice) GINGIVITIS. (Mouths are pretty disgusting). Then she probed around more and told me my plaque is too thick for a regular cleaning so I have to come back twice (once for each side of the mouth) and be numbed so she can go to work with the pliers and the blow-torch. Then she asked me "when you run your tongue along the backs of your lower front teeth, you can't feel separate teeth just one solid wall right?" I hadn't really thought about it but, yeah its pretty gross. Then she showed me an extreme close up picture of this area on a tv screen. I was like "I kiss people with that mouth?" That makes the black hole of Calcutta look like Disney Land! I half-expected to see little indigent villagers picking through the rubble. Then I wondered: "could you email me that pic so I can post it on my blog?" But I decided not to ask that. So, in conclusion, my mouth is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but other than that she said I have good teeth. (and that I should quit smoking)

Book Review: While Europe Slept, by Bruce Bawer.

(note: this is a long one, so get a beverage. This is a book I highly recommend and I only scratch the surface here, I don't really lay out much of the book's argument here, just parts I particularly liked.)

I recently read the book While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, and found it to be an interesting look at the European mindset. I saw Mr. Bawer interviewed on Bill Moyers' Journal a while back and had been meaning to read this book for a while. After reading some articles in European papers, I decided to finally check this book out. To give some background, Bruce Bawer is a gay Catholic who wrote the book Stealing Jesus, a critical look at the Religious Right in America back in the mid-nineties. In 1998, he moved to Europe to live with his Norwegian partner and to get away from the anti-gay attitudes he experienced from the far-right in this country. At first, he found living in Amsterdam to be a refreshing change. He could walk down the street holding hands with his partner without getting so much as a funny look from passers-by. However, he soon discovered that the outskirts of that city, like many large European cities contained large populations of Muslim immigrants that didn't share this "live and let live" attitude. In the book he talks about the ever-growing number of radical Muslims living in Europe, the ideologies of hatred being spread in the mosques, and the utter inability of the European elite to acknowledge, much less take steps to solve, this problem. I'm willing to bet that he is probably considered far-right in Europe, but on the American political spectrum he falls on the left side of the spectrum. (he seems like more of a Hillary or McCain Democrat than an Obama backer reading some of his articles) I think this is the part of the post where I'm supposed to give the politically correct disclaimer. ("religion of peace", "hi-jacking of Islam", "tiny minority","poverty causes terrorism", etc.) Well, sorry you won't get any such wishful thinking from me. We're always told about how the vast majority of Muslims hate the actions of the extremists, but for the last 7 years their silence has been deafening. I believe their are a couple of reasons for this. 1) This minority is not as small as people believe. Most estimates I've seen give a number around 10-15%, I'd be inclined to believe the number is a little larger. I have no evidence to back this up, so it's only speculation on my part (and should be taken as such), but I find it hard to believe that a "tiny" minority would be able to either frighten or influence those in the majority to remain virtually silent. 2) I think that many people around the world (the Muslim world in particular) may not care for the ideology of the Bin Laden's of the world, but hate the United States worse and view it as a bigger threat. With that in mind, a lot of people are probably willing to look the other way since it's for "a good cause". Just had to get that off my chest.

The book begins with Bawer's description of the problem of Islamic radicalism in terms of violence, sharia law, non-integration with native populations, etc. (This was worse than I'd imagined, but it wasn't really a shock. What came as a shock to me is how the European political elite is not only unwilling to acknowledge or deal with the problem, but in many ways are acting in ways complicit with the destruction of their own cultures.) At this point in most of 16 to 20% of children are Muslims. This number will only grow since the average birth-rate among native Europeans ranges from 1.2 to 1.8 (since it takes 2 people to make a baby, and since not all children will live to adulthood, the number must be at least 2.1 for a population to break even) while the birthrate among the Muslim immigrants is much higher. The open-borders policies in a lot of these nations has exacerbated this. These numbers wouldn't be bad if newly arrived Muslims were integrated into the cultures of the countries (as is the case in the U.S.), but there doesn't seem to be much desire for that on either side. In a lot of cases you have 2nd and 3rd generation native born people who don't speak the language of and have little or no loyalties or connection to the nation of their birth. America has an advantage in that being an American is not about your ethnicity or skin color as much as political philosophy and buying into our system of government. The elites don't seem to understand why this is a problem in part, Bawer claims, because of the secularization of Europe. In other words, in America we have enough religious extremists to recognize that it can be a dangerous thing. In Europe, they have no "Christian Right" to scare them. This has left them vulnerable to an even more dangerous form of extremism. As Bawer puts it "Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me." He also states: "I was beginning to see that when Christian faith had departed.....it left the Continent vulnerable to conquest by people with deeper faith and stronger convictions. What's more, no longer able to take religion seriously themselves, many Europeans were unable to believe that other people might take religion very seriously indeed". I've never thought of the religious right in this country as something that inoculates us from something worse. He also discusses this weird dichotomy where people don't want other races to integrate into their cultures, preferring to let them live in ghettos where extremism breeds like bacteria, but on the other hand don't want to be looked at as being racist so they won't speak out about any violent act carried out by Muslims. Here's one chilling example:

On September 6, 2001, it was reported that 65 percent of rapes in Norway were
committed by "non-Western immigrants" (a term that in Norway is essentially
synonymous with "Muslims"); asked to comment on this alarming statistic, Wikan
(a prominent professor) said that "Norwegian women must take their share of
responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress
provocative......."Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural
society and adapt to it."

This is a common thread that runs throughout the book. Radical Muslims do something bad, so the government issues a report about how the victims basically deserve it, due to the inequalities in those nations. That said, many of these same "impoverished victims" are paid taxpayer dollars not to work (and, I should add, they are paid more money per month by the governments than I make). The prevailing idea among the left in Europe, as in this country is that terrorism's greatest root is poverty. This may be true of Palestinians, but doesn't hold up when looking at 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the 7/7 attacks in London, etc. There is a connection in all of these instances, but it's the one we're not supposed to talk about. Examples of this mind-set in Europe make appearances all through the book. At one point to summarize this difference between Americans and Europeans he says (paraphrasing) "Americans were taught to believe that their opinions about the world should (ahem) have their foundations in the world's sociopolitical reality, many Europeans were taught to be "sophisticated"-which meant holding opinions that had little or no connection to observable reality. (later) For them, the Milosevics of the world, however monstrous, are also, quite simply, a fact of life. They think of themselves as realists-but this isn't realism; it's fatalism. And it can shade into a strange, disturbing respect for dictators." No where is this more evident than in the romanticisation that has occured with regard to communism. Bawer powerfully illustrates this by recounting his experiences in Berlin. He took a train ride to East Berlin shortly after the wall fell. When he crossed from West to East, he saw a transformation from a vibrant modern city to a dilapidated place where many buildings sported 50 year-old bullet holes and looked untouched since the fall of the Nazis in 1945. Even more stark was the contrast between the people. The East Germans all looked gaunt and gray with hopeless looks on their faces. Another passenger on the train flinched at the sight of a man in a uniform, who turned out to be the conductor checking tickets. Fast forward 15 or 16 years. This same spot is now one of the most beautiful areas in Europe. He is sitting at a Starbucks near the Brandenburg gate. Gone are the gaunt, gray faces. A group of teenage boys walk by who must have been infants when the wall fell. He thought: "This is what it was all for. It was for them- for the sake of these then unborn young people- that the West had stood up to Communism for so long and at such risk and expense. It was for them that JFK had come to Berlin and said, 'Ich bin ein Berliner'; it was for them that Reagan had come and said 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Yet what had these kids been taught about that history?" Right after thinking this Bawer got his answer as a bunch of them were wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. (For those of you who don't know, Ernesto "Che" Guevara was a murdering thug who was Castro's second in command and presided over firing squads along with founding Cuba's "labor camp" system, he is now a romantic hero to leftist morons the world over.) Bawer soon realized that a souvenir shop next to the Starbucks carried a huge assortment of Che T-shirts. Some of which also had red stars on them or read "Hasta la victoria siempre" (ever onward to victory), in Berlin of all places, home of one of those nightmarish victories. Bawer then relates a story about a friend of his in junior high school whose father had been a journalist under Batista. "When Castro and Guevara came to power they arrested Jose's father, tortured him, and put his eyes out." He talks of the first time he met Jose's father in his home and concludes: "Ever since then, every time I've seen a Che T-shirt on some clueless young person, I've thought of Jose's father sitting in his living room, surrounded by books he could no longer read." Damn.

Here are a few more (but by no means all) quotes from the book that stuck out to me.

-"...for Islamists there are no nuances. In a war between people who had rock solid beliefs and people who are capable of nuancing away pure evil, who has the advantage?"

-"After Israel did the world the favor of getting rid of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, the British House of Commons observed a moment of silence in his memory. He was repeatedly referred to as the 'spiritual leader of Hamas' which is rather like calling Hitler the 'spiritual leader of Nazism'."

- When talking about the motive for terrorism: "Such acts are not a normal reaction to desperation and poverty. There are people in China and India and South America who are far poorer than most Islamic terrorists but who would never do such things. Atrocities on the scale of Beslan are the result of intense indoctrination in a life-despising ideology."

- In the wake of the London bombing "Tony Blair named Tariq Ramadan (banned from the U.S. and France and Inayat Bunglawala (who'd called Osama Bin Laden a "freedom fighter") to a task force for tackling Muslim extremism."

- "That a silent majority of Europe's Muslims believed in democracy and despised terrorism was by now a truism. Observers found themselves thinking, however, that if that silent majority existed at all, it had to be one of the most silent majorities ever."

- "It's the absence of a patriotism as powerful as America's- the absence that is, of a life-or-death belief by individuals in their country's essential goodness and in their people's future- that's helping Western Europe to slip toward its doom"

- "In the end, Europe's enemy is not Islam, or even radical Islam. Europe's enemy is itself- its self destructive passivity, its softness toward tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease, and its uncomprehending distaste for America's pride, courage, and resolve in the face of a deadly foe."

He concludes by pointing out that Europe's problems require some common sense solutions about immigration and how to integrate Muslim populations into the various countries. Public opinion is starting to turn around and some (minuscule) reforms have taken place since the book was written. But given the fantasy-world the political elite live in, it's likely that the problem will continue to get worse and either a) nothing is done until it's too late. b) the people will revolt and put in far right nationalists, which could involve a lot of brutality on both sides, and probably won't work due to the shifting numbers. He ends by asking where the leaders are who will lead them out of this mess. And he quotes Churchill (which is what I'm about to do, 'cause you've made it this far and since when does a guy need an excuse to quote Churchill?)

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and liberation of the old.

Bawer concludes:"To read Churchill's wartime speeches is to experience an attitude and a
rhetoric that, in today's Europe, seem alien or antique...the stark
difference between the unwavering moral conviction that led to Allied victory in
World War II and the unprincipled spirit of compromise and capitulation that is
guiding today's Europe, step by step, to the gallows."

The future of NATO and Europe.

I've been sort of following this week's NATO summit and thinking about the future of America's involvement in the defense of Europe. This week I've also been reading the book While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, and have been perusing some articles and comments written on the subject by members of Europe's political/media elite. From all that I've read I'm left with one conclusion as to what our policy regarding the defense of Europe (Western Europe in particular) should be: abandon them to their fate. This may sound a little callous, but I think it's the kindest thing we could do for Western Europe and I'll explain why. There's an old principle in conservative orthodoxy that says "once you let the government do something for you, you'll never be able to do it for yourself again". This is exactly what has happened over there. For the last 60 years they have lived under the umbrella of U.S. military might, and this has now allowed them the luxury of drifting off into a leftist fantasy-land where no one is looking to harm them, freedom is a meaningless concept, and everything would be okay in the world if it weren't for "American Imperialism". The removal of the Soviet threat has only hastened this decline. If you don't believe me, read some articles in European newspapers or blog posts about the reasons the West won the Cold War. A popular (albeit non-sensical) view is that it had nothing to do with men like Kennedy and Reagan who were unwilling to roll over for punks, but were willing to draw a line in the sand to contain a ruthless aggressor. No, these guys were the problem; it was the "international peace movement" (also referred to as the "peace racket" in this article, which I recommend) and "enlightened" leaders like Gorbechev. Besides, the communists weren't all that bad and wouldn't have bothered anybody if not for the provocations by the U.S. (which I'm sure would come as a complete shock to this kid) There are endless examples of this mind-set among the European elite, a few more of which will be listed when I write up my next book review. I would hope that the small dose of reality leaving them to fend for themselves would provide will do them a world of good. Besides, given demographic trends, in another generation or two Europe will have a majority population that will not bow to Russia or any other potential aggressor. The downside is that they will be bowing towards Mecca.
The other major issue at the summit was the proposed "missile defense shield" in Eastern Europe. This program is designed to renew the arms race with Russia.( well maybe that's not the goal, but it will be the result) This is a system that is ridiculously expensive, has never succeeded any tests that weren't carefully rigged, and is supposed to counter against a threat that does not exist. The idea is that these missiles would shoot down an Iranian missile launched at Western Europe. Putin has many flaws, but I doubt stupidity is one of them. He knows damn well who's missiles this thing is supposed to be a deterrent to. The idea that Iran would be driven by religious extremism to launch a missile at Europe also fails to account for the fact that the forces of radical Islam are using a more powerful weapon to gain control of Europe, the womb. All in all, I don't think it was that great of a week for Bush other than the announcement that France is sending additional soldiers to Afghanistan.