" /> I write: June 2005
I see I taste I write Links What?
June 29, 2005

Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

Thomas Sowell – 0-688062695

This book is no less relevant today than when first published, and in some ways a little more prophetic than it was at the time.

Sowell emphasizes the history and explores the intentions of the original civil rights efforts, and what has transpired in the interval, with leaders of the movement now going off tangentially in the attempt to stay relevant, and in power. Written 20 years after the original Civil Rights Act (enacted-1964) he discusses in detail what was accomplished, and that civil rights, per se, have been achieved, i.e.: equality under the law is an established fact, and in large measure “equal opportunity” is a reality. He reminds that “while the Constitution prohibits segregation, it does not require integration.”

“[H]onest convictions of the initial civil rights advocates meant less in the long run than the implicit logic of the civil rights vision as it unfolded over time.” The altogether predictable offshoots of affirmative action: set asides, quotas, school bussing, and later the inclusion of other minorities into the ideation of civil rights—not excluding women, who aren’t even a minority—have entirely distorted the picture.

“[unasked is] whether assumptions are to be accepted for their plausibility and their conformity to a larger social vision, or whether even the most plausible and satisfying assumptions must nevertheless be forced to confront actual facts.” He discusses at some length Brown and Green in which the Supremes, for laudable reasons, so distorted logic and fact, that they were, in truth, quite erratic and inadvertently laid the groundwork for a number of subsequent decisions with which we now must all live.

Being a highly respected and productive economist, philosopher and author, he underpins all of his arguments with solid facts, often offering a global dimension. He points out the intentional imprecision of the agendized cognoscenti, and their ignorance and/or distortion of widely studied areas of human endeavor and interaction, while abominable, are generally accepted as fact. There is absolutely no corroboration of any of these theories, and some outcomes are inversely related to intentions. Those who benefit from being in charge of the civil rights activities, with the help of the press, prevail despite the reality that little of what they say is true . . . it is presumed “common knowledge.” Incorrect, and undebatably not knowledge, but accepted nonetheless. The powers that be simply have too much at stake to alter their approach, and they have nothing to do if civil rights, as it should, becomes a non-issue, hence searching for decisive factors in advancement is buried by “common belief.”

His wide-ranging experience and knowledge of planetary migrations and cultural history and attitudes assists in his explanations because he is able to decant into the discussion, for example, facts about the Chinese predominance in certain fields in all countries and Japanese dominance in others. He notes Jewish successes and those of Blacks as well . . . and he draws from information which separates the performance and successes of West Indian Blacks (of whom he is one) from American Blacks. “Cultural differences are real, and cannot be talked away by using pejorative terms such as ‘stereotypes’ or ‘racism.’”

Emphasizing the fact that none of his arguments necessarily disprove the existence of discrimination--not his purpose—he asks whether or not the statistical differences offered by the ideologues add up to discrimination, or “whether there are innumerable demographic, cultural and geographic differences that make [these] crucial automatic inference[s] highly questionable.” He also expounds upon the fact that within the minority communities it is the advantaged who have benefited from affirmative action, and the disadvantaged who are further disadvantaged, thus serving as a negative rather than a positive effect.

Of great interest is the discussion--and factual corroboration--that trends of normalization and inclusion of blacks long predate any of the civil rights activities of the 60’s, in nearly all parameters from education to employment. Significantly he observes that in South Africa apartheid had to be enforced by law to prevent whites from employing blacks.

Overall this is a quick, very informative and thought-provoking read and I recommend it highly. This review is based upon my third re-reading of this tract over 20 years.

Posted by respeto at 1:27 PM

June 25, 2005

Two brilliant books by Theodore Dalrymple

Our Culture, What’s Left of It - 1566636434
Life at the Bottom – 1566635055

For those unfamiliar with this gentleman he is a physician who has worked all over the world, and whose most recent “post” is as a psychiatrist within the British prison system. In his late 50’s, he has had myriad thought provoking experiences, and shares these with the reader. Each book is a collection of essays which he writes for The Spectator, a weekly publication in Britain. He also writes for several American publications.

A combination of George Orwell and Edmund Burke, his commentary is penetrating, sometimes almost savage, though presented in scholarly fashion, vivid and illuminating. His prose is well composed, succinct and riveting. He deals with everything from literature and racial conflict to sex, drugs and societal responsibility—or lack thereof, keeping things always in historical perspective. No one does it better. What he says is often alarming, but the way he says it is masterful.

He explains, better than anything I have ever read, the cultural reasons why Africa is a basket case, which is particularly cogent now that Blair and Bush have decided to fix it. Having been in Rhodesia before Mugabe and Rwanda before the massacres he gives insight into why: insight I have never heard discussed, let alone so knowledgably--even compassionately.

It is impossible to adequately relate the compelling interest generated and the wealth of information shared in the writings of this lucid man, whose intellect must be phenomenal . . . even as he destroys the “intellectuals.”

A solitary quote will suffice. Commenting on the Cultural Revolution in China, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, along with the massacres in Rwanda he scathingly notes:

“One might have supposed, in the circumstances, that a principal preoccupation of intellectuals, who after all are supposed to see farther and think more deeply than ordinary men and women, would be the maintenance of the boundaries that separate civilization from barbarism, since those boundaries have so often proved so flimsy in the past hundred years. One would be wrong to suppose any such thing, however. Some have knowingly embraced barbarism; others have remained unaware that boundaries do not maintain themselves and are in need of maintenance and sometimes vigorous defense.”

Wow!! No one can accuse this man of beating around the bush, which is exactly why he is so easy to read. As in a well constructed novel his prose is “page-turning,” but nothing he says is fiction, which is the usually the startling part. His assessment of the devolution of civilization in Britain, and by implication the rest of the West, is damning as well as frightening.

Shakespeare takes on a whole new life when you read his ruminations on the subject of literature, and his essay on the devastating cultural impact of the writings of Virginia Wolff and D.H. Lawrence is alone worth the “price of admission.” Likewise he dis-assembles so-called “modern art” to my satisfaction, but far better than I ever could. I simply loved Trash, Violence and Versace: But is it Art.

His discussion on legalizing drugs completely changed my opinion on this issue. He’s against it, and for reasons with which it is impossible to disagree.

He dissects and displays dystopian Cuba, and Castro, like no one else, and explains it carefully and informatively in his chapter on Why Havana Had to Die.

To his undying credit, in his essay titled The Frivolity of Evil, he hammers the welfare state as the “necessary, though not sufficient, condition . . . which makes [all] this possible.” He observes that not so long ago most of the devilish and destructive conduct we see in the underclass was far less widespread than it is now, and at a time when there was much less prosperity. He thus separates for all to see, squalor from poverty.

And I could go on, but won’t. Please read these books. They are seminal, and necessary to an understanding of where the West is going, led by the Europeans.

Posted by respeto at 4:26 PM

June 20, 2005

Oh, for a little civility!

As I watched 1st Monday in October (1981) the other night (courtesy of NetFlix) I was reminded of several things from a different time . . . before the war of the worlds now taking place in Washington:

First, that despite having very strongly held positions on opposite sides of almost every issue, the principals had an awesome respect for each other, and, while not originally cordial they became fast friends . . . a moderately “conservative” individual, and a radical “left-winger.” They had heated discussions, held mock cross examinations, and had visceral reactions to them without the intolerant and vitriolic interchanges so familiar today. One wonders how Hollywood managed that. It certainly wouldn’t be done that way today. The conservative would be portrayed as a bombastic, opinionated though uninformed purveyor of falsehoods, and be played in a fashion sufficient to engender hatred by all, including not a few conservatives (think The American President.) The liberal would be a brilliant saint: cordial, informed, attractive, will informed and, of course, right (think the same.) I was reminded that nowadays it isn’t enough, or even possible, for a liberal to feel that a conservative is thoughtless, uninformed or wrong—never mind a thoughtful and informed person with a different opinion and a different “take” on the issue--he must also have wicked intent and be evil.

Second, I was reminded that a real conservative is not an ideologue, while liberalism is an ideology. “Progressive,” it’s presently called, while being careful not to define progress. Or mentioning towards what. Unfortunately, most modern conservatives are ideologues as well, which is why the battles get so fierce. At heart much of the country is basically conservative in thought and morality, and liberals don’t seem to comprehend that. Their agenda embraces what are, for most of us, really “far out” issues including the exclusion of Christmas as a festival because of its Christian heritage, morality as a political issue--not just separation of church and state, but elimination of “churchy” thoughts from activities of the state--pornography as free speech, homosexual “marriage” as a right and sodomy as a federal issue, abortion and fetal stem-cell research as issues completely without emotional or moral implications, education as training and indoctrination, the feminization of men and society, and Western civilization as just one of myriad options, neither better nor worse than any other on the planet.

Finally, capitalism is, of course, evil. Liberals fail to integrate the fact that the problem with socialism is socialism—though they don’t consider themselves socialists--whilst the problem with capitalism is capitalists. This, too, was brought to mind by the movie, when the conservative protagonist discovered that her deceased husband had been one of those amoral capitalists which any good conservative would deplore.

View the movie. It comes from a kinder, gentler time, when opponents could be civil to one another. Heated sometimes, and argumentative, but inherently civil.

Posted by respeto at 4:05 PM

June 18, 2005

A follow-up on naivete

As a follow-up to my last commentary, I'd like to reinforce it with the probably redundant reminder of the idiotic, politically venomous diatribe just launched by Senator Durbin of Illinois on the subject of Guantanamo.

Little more needs be said.

Such people are, unfortunately, believers--to an extent--in what they say, and willing to do great harm to our military and our country. Despite knowing that what they say will be broadcast around the globe, and most specifically by Al Jazzera, to inflame their Muslim audience, they say it anyway in the hopes of making their point.

Sadly, "the point" they wish to make is not clear to most of us.

'Nuff said. Durbin simply and tragically reinforces my previous point(s).


Posted by respeto at 9:56 AM

June 16, 2005

Liberals, Bolton, terrorism and a response

Relevant quotes:

“The same (American, of course) inability to feel the pain of others is the pathology that shapes the minds of terrorists.” (as if suffering everywhere is somehow America’s fault, and terrorism an appropriate expression of it. Italics are my additions.)
Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun

“To say that poverty explains terror is to slander those caught in poverty who choose to lead worthy lives. . . . Based on the biographies of the September 11 attackers, the logical inference would be that ‘money, education, and privilege’ cause terrorism.”
Sean Wilentz (a Princeton professor and Clinton defender.)

Notice any similarity?.

Mona Charen, in her tome Useful Idiots (2003: Paperback edition ISBN 0060579412) observed, as have others in the past, that (in the post-WWII era) “liberals failed one of the two great moral tests . . . [and] still do not know [that] they failed [nor have they] grappled with the implications of that failure.” They had no difficulty facing down “despicable, barbaric” fascism, but did and do fail to identify the same difficulties in Communism, and now in the war on terror, which is arguably as important as WWII—maybe more so.

If liberals in the legislature are using all of the current techniques for purely political reasons they are beneath contempt. If they truly believe what they say they are hopelessly naïve--even childlike. One of the beauties of childhood is this simple naiveté. It fits less well on an adult, and especially one supposedly educated, and in the know, not to mention in positions of power.

Their post Vietnam views, further conditioned by the dilemmas of Central America, were wrong, as history has proved. All of the countries over which the Pooh-Bahs of the left wrenched themselves out of shape are now democracies. Worse, they were and are similarly wrong about America. To suggest that America is corrupt, dangerous, culpable, etc. is simply incorrect. Pure and virginal we are not, but, as Reagan observed: “America is not what’s wrong with the world.”

An unwillingness to carefully evaluate the dangers, and the need to sacrifice some of our vaunted liberty in order to get inside the terror network (i.e. the Homeland Security debacle), and the stalling of the Bolton nomination to the U.N. for nothing but political reasons is abominable. With the U.N. in its current condition, we need another strong personage to represent us, as were Moynihan and Kirkpatrick. To deny this requires considerable, voluntary blindness to the facts, or intentional distortion of them.

No war is perfect . . . many are necessary . . . most have no “exit strategy” except victory. To interfere at all levels at all times for political advantage (think terrorist detainees in Cuba), just to make Bush look like a demon is simply not acceptable. Problems do exist, and certainly some need address by these legislative bodies, but to pretend that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo equals the Russian Gulag system, Saddam, and terrorist beheadings is repulsive on its face.

We are in a war to the death. Psychological Operations manuals all note that you can’t kill them all, you have to convert some of them . . . still, killing some of them is necessary in its own right, and is known to assist in the conversion of others.

Posted by respeto at 10:29 AM

June 10, 2005

The Clash of Civilizations (and the remaking of world order)

Samuel P. Huntington – ISBN - 0684844419

Not everyone agrees with Huntington’s “take” on this issue. By far and large I don’t, but it is a position well worth exploring. A complex read with a textbook flavor, it is nonetheless worth the time. What follows is but a sketch of this “lengthy and dense” book.

He begins: “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

I take serious issue with the first part of that statement, considering that: a) much of the known world was Christian before the Muslims “converted” many of them, and, b) the Western way of war is founded upon the superiority of its scientific and philosophic approach to knowledge and ideas, (including weapons manufacture), and it represents our conviction (values and religion?) that every life is precious. The Western approach to war is ultimately about saving as many lives as possible by superior organization of the violence we visit on those who attack us. It is true that we fight wars of annihilation, but we do so to protect ourselves. Still, we are not guilty of gratuitous violence. Of course it is true that our adversaries don’t like it. Perhaps they should leave us alone? From the days of the Greek polis the West has generally fought in units, protecting one another, whereas the rest of the world fights as individuals. Not all warriors, however brave and fierce, are soldiers!

He importantly—and correctly--observes that we are mistaken to presume that because others wear jeans, drink coke and listen to rap, they are westernized. No more than as we drive Japanese-made cars, use Korean-made TV’s, wear Chinese-made clothing we become them. And he is correct in his notation that we see Western civilization as universal, as it offers an answer to the question: who am I? To the extent that Westerners see the world as one, the rest see us as a threat. At its root Western culture—and most, its American version--is optimistic. Others are not.

Not all cultures are modernizable to Western standards. He exposits on why Japanese and Hindu cultures more easily adapt than do Islamic or Confucian cultures. (While true, in the broadest sense, one wonders what he thinks now in observing the Afghanis and the Iraqis drink from the spring of liberty and self government.)

As Western power declines we can no longer impose our concepts of liberalism, democracy, human rights, etc. on other cultures. “People do not live by reason alone. They cannot calculate rationally in pursuit of their self-interest until they define their self. Interest politics presupposes identity.” (This, of course, is the nature of most other cultures, and why the West is superior . . . and why we must try to encourage, not impose, democracy.)

“In its political manifestations, the Islamic resurgence bears some resemblance to Marxism (some?), with scriptural texts, a vision of the perfect society, commitment to fundamental change, rejection of the powers that be and the nation state, and doctrinal diversity ranging from moderate reformist (?!) to violent revolutionary.” The general failure in Muslim society of liberal democracy reflects the inhospitable nature of Islamic culture and society to Western liberal concepts.

Global politics is being reconfigured along cultural (i.e. religious) lines. Peoples with similar cultures are uniting, and those with dissimilar cultures are fragmenting, and political boundaries are being redrawn coincident with culture. “Civilizations are the ultimate human tribes, and the clash of civilizations is tribal conflict on a global scale.” As Cold War alliances evaporate, and inter-civilizational “partnerships” dictated by Russia or the U.S. fail to be realized, trust and friendship between civilizations will be rare, and if present, brief. Cold peace, cold war, trade war, arms races are but a few of the likely phases and stations in the “new world order. “The size of China’s displacement of the world is such that the world must find a new balance in 30-40 years. It’s not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of men.” (Lee Kuan Yew) China’s emergence will dwarf any comparable phenomena during the last half of the second millennium.

He notes, damagingly and correctly, that multi-culturalists challenge a central element of the American creed by substituting for individual rights, rights of groups defined in terms of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, etc. Since Crevecoeur, Tocqueville and others long ago noted that the American Creed is the cement in the structure of this great nation, rejection of this Creed will not only end the U.S., but will effectively end Western civilization. The USSR is vanishing. We too can collapse and disappear if this concept of America and a common culture is disavowed by a substantial number of our citizens. Contrary to the ideation that with the collapse of communism the West will prevail, it is more likely that Western liberalism will simply be the next domino to fall. (With this it is impossible to disagree!)

“In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false, it is immoral, and it is dangerous.” Culture follows power, and if non-Western societies are once again to be shaped by Western culture it will be, essentially, at the point of a gun. (I disagree vigorously!) Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism (seen as he does and describes it.)

The West differs from other civilizations not alone in the way it has developed but in the distinctive character of its values and its institutions. Christianity, along with pluralism, individualism, and the rule of law made it possible for the West to invent modernity, expand thruout the world, and become the envy of most other societies. The West ought preserve, protect and renew these unique standards, not, impose them on others (by suasion, perhaps, but not by force, which is virtually impossible.)

Law and order are the primary concerns, and these are dissipating in the modern world, with anarchy widespread, failing states common, global crime, general weakening of families, and a decline in trust and social solidarity. Ethnic, religious and civilizational violence ruled by the gun are prevalent in much of the world.

Abstention from foreign conflicts will be one of the most important of rules in the forthcoming multi-civilizational, multi-polar world (assuming they permit us to do that.) The second important rule will be mediation with other core states, and we will have to seek a “commonalities rule,” with an attempt at expansion of the values, institutions and practices common with peoples of other civilizations.

Civilization depends on understanding and cooperation amongst the political, spiritual and intellectual leaders of the world’s major civilizations. An international order based on civilizations is the surest safeguard against world war.

In wars between cultures, culture loses.

Posted by respeto at 2:00 PM

Soul of Battle

Victor Davis Hanson – ISBN – 0385720599

(Apologies for the length of this piece, but there is simply no way to fairly edit it further.)

“Democracies, I think . . . for a season can produce the most murderous armies from the most unlikely of men, and do so in the pursuit of something spiritual rather than the mere material. This book, devoted to infantry, not airpower, tries to learn why all that is so.” So begins a discussion of three of the most significant battles of all time:

First: the battle surrounding the defeat of the hubristic and hated Spartans. An army of 70,000 Hoplites marched 180 miles from Thebes to Laconia in the winter of 370-369 B.C. These Greek Yeoman—simple dirt farmers, voting citizens and volunteers all—over-ran and destroyed it freeing forever the Spartan slaves, and established free, fortified Greek city-states governed by these freedmen. The legendary Spartans avoided meetings with the Thebans on the field of battle, but left their women to pathetically plead for mercy. Epaminondas (“Iron Gut”) and his democratic army accomplished in just 60 days what imperial Athens had been unable to do in the 27 years of the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans had been demonstrated to be a hollow and heartless shell. The slave state was destroyed and the Theban army marched home to plant their crops, their army gone within 6 months.

Second: the March to the Sea, in which William Tecumseh (“Uncle Billy”) Sherman led an army of Midwestern troops 62,000 strong—also simple dirt farmers, voting citizens and volunteers—into and through the heart of the Confederacy, a slave based society similar to Sparta. There the Army of the West razed the property and freed the slaves of the arrogant plantation owners who had fueled the Civil War. When Sherman’s army turned north five weeks later the Confederacy had been thoroughly devastated. While there were 30,000 Confederate troops always nearby, they never came to their own defense. They hid, leaving their women to plead for leniency and safety. Leniency was denied. The Rebels, like the Spartans, were a hollow force. Little known is the fact that Sherman’s army killed virtually no one and did no direct harm to the poor. After the surrender at Appomattox only four months later, the army disbanded and was never heard from again--and the Confederate slave state was no more.

the lightening attacks of George Patton’s Third Army contributed mightily to the defeat of Germany in WWII, sweeping rapidly across Europe and into the German. Had he not (most unfortunately) been halted for two months to permit Montgomery to pursue his failed operations, Patton would have been in Germany months before, the war shortened by six months, and the outcome entirely different: no Russian occupation, no Berlin wall, and just maybe no cold war. Further, there would have been as many as two million fewer deaths. In seven months--plus the two when Patton was sidelined--the Third Army, also composed of raw recruits, so completely overwhelmed the Germans that they lived in constant dread of the army of “Old Blood and Guts.” Seldom recognized is that Patton experienced fewer casualties than any other general, while inflicting more. Alone amongst Allied generals he struck terror in the hearts and minds of the Nazis—the supposed master race--who never knew what he would do, where, when or how. Only, that he was lethal. Patton’s half a million man was disbanded within months, vanishing into the U.S. landscape never to be heard from again. And the Nazis entered history in the 9th year of their much touted 1,000 year Reich. A third evil slave state destroyed by a murderous democratic army of “spiritual warriors.”

Such is The Soul of Battle. All three generals were intellectuals, better educated than their armies and contemporary commanders, especially in the literature and philosophy of war. All honored the warrior culture they labored mightily to destroy. All followed an arcane honor code poorly suited for times of peace. All were ruthless and gifted men of little subsequent use. All led armies which fought with a terrible vengeance, and the Spartans, Confederates and Nazis perished at their hand. All were despised by their opponents and worshipped by those they commanded and whose salvation they wrought.

These commanders instilled in their men a zealous ethic, making them understand and believe they were morally superior to their undemocratic, slave-holding adversaries. The book is an essay on the ethical nature of democracies at war. Hanson demonstrates that “on rare occasions throughout the ages there is a soul, not merely a spirit, in the way men battle,” and that war is neither always evil nor always unnecessary.

We now live in an era of “conflict resolution” and “peace studies” in which moral guilt is equally assessed to those who kill to advance evil and those who kill to end it, and to the aggressive as well those who resist aggression. In the end we all become “victims”. “Evil” itself has become relative.

Historians often fail to see that “humane war” (the ultimate oxymoron) gives us someone like McClellan, whose battle incompetence prolonged the killing, and whose tolerance for slavery might--had Sherman not taken Atlanta--have allowed bondage to continue in North America—under a McClellan presidency. (In WWII, Omar Bradley favored “humane war.”)

It would be well for modern Liberals to keep in mind (as they chant their constant--and truly anti-liberal: “hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Culture’s got to go”) that what they perceive and hate about the West is not what they represent it to be. While Spartan, Confederate and Nazi states all originated in the West, so too does the culture and tradition of civil rights, democracy and consensual government.

These are the things which we in America must fight to reclaim from our Hellenic legacy. All cultures are not equal! Indeed, most are not even in the running. This is not cultural arrogance, it is fact!! Despite our problems the West is the foremost culture ever visited upon this planet, and it must survive if the world is not to revivify the Dark Ages. If the U.S. fails, the West will disappear. About that there can be no question.

The depth and breadth of these convictions of freedom are succinctly expressed in the epitaph of Epaminondas:

By my plans was Sparta shorn of her glory,
And holy Messenia at last received back her children.
By the arms of Thebes was Megalopolis fortified
And all of Greece became independent and free

In a chapter ending narrative Hanson observes that “in my impotence, I [to] would hate the arrogant Eastern Americans (the North) who ruined a century of my family’s work, destroyed my community, and ended my viability as a farmer—and I would despise more the architect of that desolation, [the] heartless and crazy Bill Sherman. But I would also never again think that either my neighbors or I had the right—or power—to hold slaves, much less either the prerogative or ability to declare California (Hanson’s home) and the property of the federal government within it as our region’s own. We would have no doubts that we were defeated.” And mostly I would hope that the commander of such an army was not a man like Sherman, who would say: “those people made war on us, defied and dared us to come south to their country, where . . . they would kill us and do all manner of horrible things. We accepted their challenge, and now for them to whine and complain of the natural and necessary results is beneath contempt.”

A spellbinding book, full of history, some of it unknown to me before I read it (and I consider myself pretty well read.) More, it is a tome which ought to be relished by every American interested in the West, our origins, our historic beliefs and our “deportment” in times of conflict. And it will yield an understanding of why the West always wins--at least when it tries (and why it will win the war on terror—if it tries!!)

For Left Liberals (even centrist liberals), “peaceniks,” and others ignorant of the grandeur of the West, it should be required reading!

Also recommended are practically all of Hanson’s other books, in no particular order. Hang around since many of them will be reviewed, in time. But in keeping with my comments about our modern Liberal elite I would especially recommend: Who Killed Homer a lengthy and scholarly discussion of the disappearance of the proper historic study of the West in our current educational curricula, K thru 16 (or 20+.) It is appalling that so little is taught about our past and its implications, and that so much of what is, is garbage shoveled about under the pretense of being authentic information.

Posted by respeto at 1:41 PM