This is one of the most challenging and seminal works of recent issue; the equal--or better--of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations (reviewed on this site over five years ago.) He gives new meaning to critical events, ancient and recent. While primarily about the modern world, specifically Europe and Islam, he does delve into the history of most all "dead" civilizations of the past as exemplary of some aspect of his subject.

Explaining Europe's "Thirty Years War" (1618-1648)*, he renders the emigration of the pilgrims to the new world a more profound event.*** He also explains why this war began the descent of Christian European civilization, and its responsibility for the repeated wars which culminated in WW I and II (1914-1945), described by Churchill as the Second Thirty Years War. Bookends, they issued the death warrant to European civilization, which demise we are now witnessing. Europe as we have known it for the past 400 years will be gone within a century. It's not quite over, but the fat lady is in the wings.

He adds a different dimension to Mark Steyn's America Alone (reviewed several years ago.) Whereas Steyn's construal is that Muslim fecundity will overwhelm Europe in the next several generations, resulting in an Islamic "Eurabia," Goldman observes that Muslim fertility is dropping so dramatically that many of the most important Muslim countries are disappearing. While it may temporarily occupy, even rule Europe, Islam "cannot survive outside the cocoon of traditional society, which has led to despair resulting in Muslim society being on the brink of the fastest population decline in recorded history. . . . Muslim civilization is choosing decline and death," he ventures, as he cautions against being reassured, since it may take the world down with it. European culture has decided that no purpose is served by war, and so curls up to die; Islam has determined that there is nothing to lose by war, and will fight to the death.

In Iran, fewer than two percent of adults attend mosque services on Fridays; fertility, in one generation, has dropped to 1.3 per woman, the lowest in the world; prostitution and drug addiction are rampant, and far greater than in the West. He opines that a nation is never really beaten until it sells its women, and is truly damned when women sell themselves. 90% of Iranian prostitutes have passed college entrance exams, and 30% are active students; 80% of "sex workers" do so voluntarily, and girls as young as 12 are selling themselves. Things are not all that different in Turkey (now making common cause with Iran) and other Muslim states.

Illiteracy is rampant--well over 50% in Pakistan and Egypt; college degrees are awarded to people neither educated nor skilled at anything, and who are largely unemployable. Only Turkey has passable higher education, yet insufficient jobs are created to employ graduates. Egypt and other poor Muslim countries are on the brink of starvation, and will soon be driven over the edge as China and prosperous Asians drive the price of food beyond their reach. "Arab Spring" will prove to be a disaster. "There is no such thing as rational self-interest for people who believe that they have nothing to lose."

The recent great transformation has left the Muslim world almost untouched. Excepting fossil fuels, the total export of the Arab world is less than that of Finland, a nation of but five million people. Not a single scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. During that period, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands (a billion people), while Israel (7 million people) produced ten-fold more, which total also exceeds those of India, Russia and Singapore combined (another billion+ people.)

For the first time in recorded history, most of the world's peoples are forgoing their desire to live. America's most important allies--the European nations--will lose their importance as they wither away; not much later the Muslim nations will suffer the consequences of their demographic implosion, and the drastically shrunken generation that follows will prove too feeble to support the burden of elderly dependents.

The absence of the very concept of individual rights renders Islam incompatible with the legal principles of modern democracy, and Sharia cannot be adapted to western civilization. Wife beating--a pagan holdover--is a prominent issue in Muslim society; discussed in detail in the Koran. "Honor killings," while not mentioned therein, are honored within Sharia law. Neither is acceptable to the modern world, just as female genital mutilation and cousin marriages are rejected. The Koran is "frozen in time," and is open to neither debate nor interpretation. Islam is thereby forced to adopt an openly irrational stance as scholars are forbidden to search for truth.

The unique religious history and culture of America, he posits, exempts it from the life and death cycle of nations, as Islam's very different theology explains the Muslim world's extreme vulnerability to the demographic effects of modernization. (The Islamic Allah and the Judeo-Christian Yahweh/God are not at all the same. Again, he explains in detail, often using as his source the observations of modern Muslims.) The Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed that he/they would stand against the world: "either we all become free (i.e. Islamic), or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom."

Contrary to present operational strategy, the most likely way to avoid war in the Middle East is not to reach out to Iran but to humiliate it.**** We cannot engage it. "We shall have to ruin it."

In but two generations, our foreign policy has passed from adolescence--the Wilsonian misapprehension that America could remake the world in its own image--to senescent repudiation of world leadership, having omitted maturity. The Obama doctrine is the self-liquidation of American influence, an unprecedented and astonishing gesture from an American leader. America has neither the means nor the moral obligation to transform failing Muslim states into entities compatible with our civil preferences.

In 1948, Truman gambled American policy on his religious belief that the Jewish people had a sacred purpose in returning to their homeland, and allied us with what now is the most stable state in the Middle East. Obama now gambles American policy on support for inherently unstable and potentially hostile regimes: the most detrimental foreign policy decision taken by an American president in living memory.

America has the potential to be the last man standing for the Western world, though an alliance with India and other emerging democracies may rescue the driving forces of Christian, Western civilizations. At least we may pray so. Even Israel, he suggests, will likely survive.

Footnotes
* Rival versions of Christianity fought to the death in that war. But it was not, as we have been taught, a Catholic-Protestant war.** "It was a war between Christianity and neo-pagan national idolatry, and Christianity lost." WW II defeated national idolatry--the ongoing argument of which nation was the chosen replacement for Israel--thus destroying Europe's civilization (while it explains European anti-Semitism.)

** It was a Catholic war between France, Spain and the Hapsburgs battling, using Protestant allies as proxies. The Catholic Church--as Empire--lost.

*** A year after the Mayflower sailed, Spain invaded Holland. While ultimately defeated by the Dutch, Goldman emphasizes, had the Pilgrims stayed, and Spain prevailed, they almost certainly would have been burned at the stake as heretics. (Bet you didn't learn that in school!)

**** He takes to task American foreign policy, especially that of George W. Bush, noting that the naïve idea that America imposed democracy on the defeated countries after WW II, and should liberate free Muslim dictatorships in the same way for the same reason. The world and all its citizens hanker for democracy. It might appear "to be a positive outcome if not for one snag--the fact that all of the vanquished countries are dying."

Originally published in 1982, this '94 reprint is still available. It has been recently released as an electronic book. Now deceased, he was a university professor, and one of America's leading social commentators. Looking for something to read t'other day, anticipating a long wait in the doctor's office, I picked up my old copy and took it along. It is a phenomenal book--one of Postman's best, which is saying a lot.

He posits that childhood is a creation of the post-Gutenberg era, wherein the oral culture was gradually replaced by the printed word. From time immemorial there was little to separate adults from children, since all information was available to all people. Only with the advent of mass print capability did the opportunity for first-hand information become available to the common man; scholarship advanced, and lines were drawn separating the informed from the uninformed. "Almost all of the characteristics we associate with adulthood are those that are (and were) either generated or amplified by the requirements of a fully literate culture: the capacity for self-restraint, a tolerance for delayed gratification, a sophisticated ability to think conceptually and sequentially, a pre-occupation with both historical continuity and the future, a high valuation of reason and hierarchical order." Childhood was born, and adulthood was advanced and redefined.

The word "child," had referred to offspring; only in modern times did it begin to adopt its present meaning. Up until medieval times, children as we define them, became adults with the mastery of language, usually about age 7. Few went to school; fewer still continued through advanced education. Virtually none were spared the secrets of the adult world and its harsh realities.

With the advent of printing, "secrets" could be limited to adults, and literacy was acquired thru years of training and education. School was designed for preparation for adulthood, and included not only literacy, but the disciplines needed for successful adulthood: personal restraint in matters of behavior, foul language, sexual appetites, etc. As well, a grasp of history, society, morality, logic, reason were associated. Children were protected from the challenges and vagaries of adulthood, which were introduced to them gradually, as they matured, and under specific, guided circumstances. Information was sequestered in places seldom explored by youth.

The electrical media, beginning with the telegraph and culminating in television, changed all of that as it resurrected the oral culture and is burying the literate culture. Television exposed the formerly private concerns, secrets and realities of adulthood. They were again dispensed, wholesale, as it became the dominant source if information. It requires no special talents or training to absorb; it confers no skills, and it "adultifies" content. Worse, it eroticizes children and infantilizes adults. Adulthood, as understood for centuries, is disappearing along with childhood.

Children, as in medieval times, know what everyone else knows. Nothing is mysterious or awesome, and nothing is held back from public view. When challenged, executives brag that today's children are better informed than any previous generation. TV is the "window to the world." While a correct statement, no one enquires why that should be taken as a sign of progress. Television erodes definitions because it requires no instruction to grasp its form, it makes no complex demands on mind or behavior, and it does not segregate its audience. "Having access to the previously hidden fruit of adult information, they are expelled from the garden of childhood."

For years, researchers have endeavored to determine TV's impact upon children. Vivid depictions of violence, sex and drugs are front and center, but no one asks to what extent the depiction of the world as it is undermines a child's belief in adult rationality, in the possibility of an ordered world, or in a hopeful future. To what extent does it undermine the child's confidence in his future capacity to control the impulse to violence?

Childhood crime is exponentially more common than before (11,000% increase between 1950 and 1979!) Sexuality and STDs, drug and alcohol abuse are rampant. Musical tastes, language, literature, movies, clothing styles and behavior are all shared with adults. Nothing is uniquely "childish." Even organized sports have replaced childhood play. Favorite programs are the same for little kids, adolescents and adults, and leveling is, as always, down.

"There is no turning back"--and he drew this conclusion before the Internet. "Resistance" he insists, "entails conceiving of parenting as an act of rebellion against American culture."

"Most political disputes boil down to a contest between the party of hope and the party of memory."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (c.1850-not much change, huh?)

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."
Margaret Thatcher

"From an early age, smart people are reminded of their intelligence, separated from their peers in gifted classes, and presented with opportunities unavailable to others. For these and other reasons, intellectuals tend to have an inflated sense of their own wisdom."
Daniel J. Flynn

"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."
Voltaire

"Amid all the concerns about the skyrocketing government debt, a front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal said: "Families Slice Debt to Lowest in 6 Years." It is remarkable how differently people behave when they are spending their own money compared to the way politicians behave when spending the government's money. "
Thomas Sowell

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."
Ben Franklin

"All charming people have something to conceal, usually their dependence on the appreciation of others."
Cyril Connolly

and, finally:

Progressivism is the belief that we have too much freedom with which to make too many stupid choices.
David Harsanyi

"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap."
Napoleon

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work very hard to remain stupid."
Benjamin Franklin

This historically praised comic novel comes highly recommended by, amongst many others, Christopher Buckley, whose comment was "Until I read The Old Limey, I had no idea that sex, drugs, booze and elderly British generals could be such fun."

It is a daft work in which British humor meets wacky American flair. Set in California, a retired British general arrives to rescue his goddaughter from uncertain harm, thought to have been kidnapped by a Mexican drug gang in order to secure a quarter-of-a-million British pounds previously stolen from a Caribbean drug gang operating in England. Just after he totals his rental car, he meets and teams up with her friends: a pair of typical valley girls, half-gainfully self-employed in an image consulting business, who speak in a vernacular he can hardly understand (ya know . . . like . . . and he goes . . . then she goes . . . etc.) one of whom is promptly kidnapped. Nigel (the general) promptly sets out with the other half of the pair to rescue the captive, which task he engineers by disarming his well armed foes with nothing but a taser gun, and leaves with both girls and a handful of captured weapons.

And that's only the beginning. Along the way, after being struck on the head, he fantasizes about converting Islam in order to justify the acquisition four wives (he's a lifelong bachelor), only to decide against it because Fergie (the former Duchess of York) is destined to be one of them. He has other equally wacky fantasies to embellish the story line, many dealing with various postings around the globe during his military career. And there's much adversity along with many challenging adventures.

After several more run-ins with the Los Angeles, San Diego and Mexican police, the FBI, the border patrol, several drug gangs and the wacked out (former Green Beret) father of one of the girls, he succeeds in accomplishing his original mission, as all ends happily, and wholly, unpredictably nutty.

It is, indeed, a fun read. I have to admit, however, that several of Buckley's books are better: Florence of Arabia, and Thank You for Smoking, as is Christopher Moore's Lamb.

Still, it's worth the price of admission if you're in the mood for diversion and a spate of laughs.

A perfect introduction to this missive would be Chris Mooney's observation that "Expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts."

It is an exceptionally well researched and plainly written book. He deals with vaccinology, law and precedent, psychology and fraud, as well as the politics and marketing of ideas and products, as he delves into the hysteria created by under-informed people who depend upon anecdotal information certified to be true by other under-informed people as they swarm about the internet; as well, the disastrous consequences of failing to educate the public regards risks and realities of infectious disease control. This fosters a too frequent, willing blindness to conflicts of interest of the profiteers in our midst, most of whom have specific agendas, and many are grotesque frauds.

Politicians and glitterati are easily convinced that there exists an institutional arrogance and power within the drug and vaccine industry. (Ted Kennedy was a poster boy for these kinds of conclusions, with Oprah, Morning Joe, Imus and others in the cheering section.) Winfrey, he opines, claims to be a neutral disseminator of information, "which dodge is offered so frequently as to easily overlook how absurd it really is."

Both reason and science are under siege today by groups of (not always) well intentioned folks, many of whose backgrounds have not prepared them to interpret relevant data. Mnookin, an accomplished investigative journalist, undertakes herein to look objectively at both sides of myriad concerns, including vaccine and/or mercury poisoning as linked to autism, and the recrudescence of dangerous, often lethal infectious diseases, controlled for years by vaccines, which modern parents lamentably prevent their children from receiving. Diseases formerly all but obliterated are now experiencing new life because parents do not have their children vaccinated--against the universal recommendations by experts. Rather, they depend on their ignorance, and the reassuring fact that "most other children will be vaccinated" so why expose their children to the remote risks of said vaccinations?

One can relate to the parental agony, and be put off by the wanton solicitations of "hope" (and litigation) of those who experience real complications of meaningful therapies and prevention; and by extension the agony of illnesses not otherwise explained, but one must not be caught up in the "straight lines" implied by those willfully offering hope and just restitution thru litigation, which fiascos are simultaneously humorous, farcical and sobering. Driven parents, assisted by self-interested lawyers and complicit "experts," such litigation is expensive and expansive. One can see--if not condone, or even understand--that many of those litigants actually believe in all of this, yet the ridiculousness of pseudo-sciences and public confusion of similar sounding situations is appalling. Hundreds of millions of kids have been vaccinated, and few have complications. Still, complications do occur, which is why there is reason for committees of experts to award legitimate claimants appropriate remuneration for their individual difficulties. In this context he reviews in detail the many, if rare, complications documented and carefully studied, and the incidences thereof.

A ponderous discussion surrounds the diagnosis of Autism. He explains the facts and the dangers of the diagnosis as follows: "clinicians are more likely to give a child a diagnosis which [is thought] to help the child receive the best services or school placement [rather than some other problem which] will not facilitate the best form of intervention." This contributes mightily to the fact that autism, once considered uncommon if not rare, is suddenly said to afflict 1/109 children. The situation is similar for ADHD, which is not to say that neither exists, but to state that neither is anywhere near as common as is implied by current statistics.

What he refers to as the hyper-democratization of data has unmoored information from the context required to understand it. Many people making comments are too ignorant of the subjects to hold reasoned opinions, as they insist their representations are factual. Feelings, personal experiences and intuition are far more important to these folks, and seriously impact the interpretation of information they find littering the information highway. A considerable number of these people are well educated, successful, and some occupy positions of power. When they opine, more than a few people listen. Their "pervasive manner of thinking [runs] counter to the principles of deductive reasoning that have been the foundation of rational society since the Enlightenment."

Why, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, do these people remain adamant in their beliefs? Only irrationality can explain it, and it is dangerous. Their trenchant if mistaken analyses tend to gain more comment from the press--bolstered by politicians and celebrities--than the reasoned approach of scientists. Contrary to some representations, not all perspectives are equal; nor are they all legitimate. Only by offering the correct information--which he herein tries to do--can these situations be improved; a situation in which academia, medical science and government ought to be more intelligently and rationally involved.

The book is a major contribution to righting the wrongs of the present conundrum, and well worth a read.

Having read a number of books about the present calamity, I can assure everyone that this is "the God's truth." With the recent banking bailout, the remaining banks are both larger and more dangerous; less regulated and more powerful. They are playing with our money and it must be stopped, though I have no idea how it is to be accomplished.

It is available thru NefFlix, and can be purchased on line thru Amazon, amongst others.

Rent it or buy it, but see it ASAP. Contact your Senators and Congressmen, and insist that they figure out what to do. They are ruining the economy of the world as we knew it only 30 years ago. This documentary carefully and fully explains how and why.

(for those who have read this before, I have reworked it a little and, I believe, improved the review)

My daughter* sent me a copy of this book. It is a stunning book which, despite a caveat or two, I recommend highly to anyone interested in what it is like to work with wounded warriors in a combat zone; to endure with them the hardships, fears and labors of front line defense against those who wish us harm. Dr. Kraft is a PhD psychologist specially trained for supportive work in combat situations. Rule Number Two is a powerful firsthand account of providing consolation in the turmoil of war, and of what is required to endure it. It is impossible not to empathize with the participants, both combatant and counselor, and equally impossible to avoid choking up over some of the situations she describes.

Having been amongst the "first responders" who dealt with the wounded soldiers in the "Vietnam Conflict," I was reminded of some things which I had removed from active memory, though the reminder was not altogether unwelcome. I was faced with the opportunity to revisit some of the formative experiences of my life. Travails unfold as an endless parade of disasters close on the heels of each other, punctuated by activities associated with military life "behind the wire," where she relates the intense camaraderie between all in these situations.

The scenario is aptly articulated by the TV show M*A*S*H: "There are two rules of war. Rule number one is that young men die. Rule number two is that doctors can't change rule number one." Some Marines, and even some of their doctors, are damaged by war in ways which cannot be fixed, and sometimes people are repaired in ways never considered.

Yet she makes clear, and wants us to share in the feminine perspective, that everyone should share in the agony--feel the pain--while the masculine version would be to avoid it as much as possible. War is not supposed to be painless. It's about breaking things, killing people, and moving on with the necessary task at hand. There is time for neither philosophy or reflection.

Caveat number one, then, is that much of the problem described is authored by 20th century, progressive arguments against the historic honor code of the west, instead favoring resistance to norms of behavior imbedded over millennia by experience. Exchange for a culture of nuance and relativity has greatly impacted, as has the modern attempt to feminize men in order that all may "feel" as good people should: become compassionate and understanding; be missionaries of peace and camaraderie in addition to being warriors. It has come to roost in a value free celebrity culture in which honor is trivialized, the military is feminized, and PSTD is rampant. (I refer to you a review of Honor, a History, posted in late November of 2009 on this site.)

Caveat number two--an extension of number one--is the role model invoked, though not identified: Hawkeye Pierce, also of M*A*S*H celebrity. Beyond him there is no back-up; either he can do it, or it cannot be done in time to make a difference. (I've been there and done that, too.) He is the characteristic feminized male: sensitive, caring, given to situational histrionics and loss of emotional control; he copes inadequately with his position as he ministers to the wounded.

More appropriate role models might be the role of Wilbur "Bull" Meechum (aka The Great Santini) or Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Top Gun); confident and secure, albeit with some flaws, and courageous, though some may be bluster. Don't like fiction? O.K.

Real life examples come to mind, including George Washington, Robert E. Lee, John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, and George S. "Blood and Guts" Patton. Earlier examples might include the Greeks, "Iron Gut" Epaminondas, and Alexander the Great; later examples, H. Norman Schwarzkopf and Raymond Odierno. Oppositional examples: George B. McClellan and Bernard Law Montgomery, who, while not patsies were given to hesitation and insecurity, along with Omar Bradley and Colin Powell.

These don't make the tome less worth a read, but if we're to resolve the riddle of doing what is necessary we must properly define the problem. There will be inadequate resolution without recognizance of the significance of the removal of honor and the modern requirement that combatants be more sensitive.

There has been "Battle Fatigue" or "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" on occasions throughout history, but its presence is orders of magnitude more prevalent now than before. Some of this is due to the constancy of threat in modern war, but as discussed in Honor, there is much more to it than that. Reconsideration and its reconstruction is required. Repeated here is a quote from my review of "Honor":

"The long view of human history suggests that our choice is eventually going to be not between the liberal, unisex, pacifistic society of the feminist ideal and some throwback to caveman honor, but between some throwback to caveman honor and some more civilized variant of the long-dormant Western variety. . . . The honor-crazed Muslim fanatics who are blowing up women and children along with themselves are . . . equally stark in the alternative they pose to Western ways. Unless those ways include and are understood by all to include, honorable ways of making war on that alternative, the alternative must triumph." (Please re-read this quotation again, carefully.)

* full disclosure: my daughter is founder and CEO of Homeward Deployed--web address: http://www.homewarddeployed.org/ an organization which deals with many of the situations which arise when snipers are reintegrated into society as salesmen, and the severely handicapped seek worthwhile employment and sustenance Families are assisted in coping with, and helping returning warriors. Log on. You might want to make a contribution to this necessary and worthwhile organization.

Given the world situation, from the Mid-East thru Greece and on to England, it seemed not inappropriate to reread this 20 year old book (long out of print but easily and cheaply available as a used book.) It was written by an Israeli journalist who spent his youth in Detroit, and revisited it in 1988-89, where he interviewed hundreds of residents. He renders reflections of their life and opinions in a failing city which is now an utter ruin. (Copy and paste this link and witness the disaster of present day Detroit. See where more of America is headed)

(http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=ruins+of+detroit+photos&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=ruins+of+Detroi)

The book explores the downfall of Detroit, beginning with the riots of 1967-68, and progressing thru the time of its publication, when Halloween was ritually celebrated by torching buildings by the hundreds, leaving but a shell of the formerly famous and wealthy city. It's a wake-up call for those who will listen.

He begins by describing the macabre game called "King of the Corner:" stand on any downtown corner and look in every direction. Seeing no one qualified you as King of the only metropolis where one can walk a downtown block during business hours without passing anyone. Many of its suburbs are prosperous, but the cultural and emotional divide between them is "as wide as any which divides hostile nations." And that was 20 years ago. It's far worse now. Detroit has become a decrepit slum, 83% black, badly governed and dangerous.

Formerly dubbed the Arsenal of Democracy, its population has now shrunk from 1.8 million to just over 700 thousand, one third of whom live below the poverty line. For over 5 decades it has been governed by liberal Democrat administrations, using their "progressive" agenda. Coleman Young, the (first black) mayor at the time (1974-93) originally reined in the largely white police department, appropriately integrated it, then promptly lost control. With his ideologically "liberal principles" he intentionally authored "a gentle police force." Too placid. Robbery, a crime in most of the country, is an occupation in Detroit.

Ironically, race became more of a subject that it had ever been. One of Chafets' confidants explained to him that there were four types of blacks: Afro-Americans, blacks, colored folks and niggers. At vacation time an Afro goes to the Bahamas, a black to Harlem; the colored go south to visit kin folk, and the niggers don't go anywhere. They wait for the others to leave so their homes can be burglarized. "The longer I stayed in Detroit, the more accustomed I became to the local habit of immediately classifying everyone by color."

Schools, horrendous; drop out rates, catastrophic; illiteracy, near universal, even amongst those who graduate. Unwed motherhood is the rule and drugs are ubiquitous. One mother observed that while the children had more opportunity than before, "they've been raised without any values." Seems a rather hollow trade, but she was then certain that, while Detroit was the first to experience all of this, it would be the city to find the solutions for such problems. It has failed, and now there's no opportunity either. For most non-whites (and many blacks) the problem isn't racism, it's fear. "People don't see every black as bad. But the image of Detroit is of a decaying, crime-ridden city headed by a mayor who [made] racist remarks. . . . The values of people in Detroit are completely foreign. . . . The language is different and the way people think there is different . . . [the feeling is] that anybody coming from Detroit is going to cause problems."

Until the mid 60s "Detroit prided itself on being in the vanguard of American liberalism; today, the term has become an epithet." Now it's a poster child for how not to do things, while for the philosopher it demonstrates why that is so. "Young genuinely [saw] the world in racial terms. . . . [he didn't see] black folks as oppressive . . . so [he didn't] consider that blacks [were] capable of racism." Chafets' extended dissertation on Young masterfully explains how his level of corruption was worse than any before. Young was confident that blacks would solve their own problems--as well they might have with different leadership.

One of Young's entourage later observed that "we asked for control of this city. Well, now we're in control and everything is out of control. We don't build anything, not even a grocery store. The mayor has been in office fifteen years an only two blacks own anything downtown. Why? Because we don't hold [Young] accountable. What we have is a group of blacks running a black plantation."

He concludes that, by almost any measure, Young, Dinkins and Wilder (other historic black mayors) were "yesterday, not tomorrow." His wrap up is prophetic and alone worth the read. Though 20 years old, it is a picture of where we are headed if things do not change. Racism is sharply attenuated, but corruption is rampant. Blacks who listened to people like Young and Wilder are, more recently, conditioned to looking to the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and currently to academics like Cornell West. Even the media--even Fox--interviews these people as they enhance their celebrity. It isn't pretty. And it isn't wise.

But the book is a good read, and a reminder of the beginnings of American decline, and its likely end should we not heed the implicit warning.

This is Howard's third book, and it is dynamite; a rather liberal lawyer, he is articulate, smart, rational and wise--something not commonly found in liberal or legal circles. This treatise reflects, above all, his common sense. (He has previously written two marvelous books: The Death of Common Sense - 9780446672283 and The Collapse of the Common Good - 9780345438713.)

"Civil libertarians are vigilant to keep government from abusing its authority. But freedom should also include the joy of spontaneity, the power of personal conviction, and the authority to use common sense--for example, to maintain order in the classroom, and to interact honestly with a patient or a co-worker." And with numerous other examples and coherent discussion he expands upon the disaster wrought, however unintentionally, by the contempt for authority and the worship of individualism introduced in the 60s in combination with the advent of the much needed civil rights movement.

Whereas such things as affirmative action were intended as group considerations, they morphed into individual rights to jobs and other considerations. Lost was the "coherent legal framework" of right and wrong. Judgment was essentially banned, and without it nothing works. It is a human characteristic for which law is not a substitute. Freedom requires its exercise, and that is precisely what has been sacrificed upon the altar of modern day hyper-legalism. The 60s activities resulted in this new idea of individual rights: "Let any individual who feels aggrieved bring a legal claim for almost anything." It was assumed that fairness would result; clearly it has not.

Modern law is the principal cause of the decline in our social order; "we" are falling apart because common sense and judgment are verboten. Nothing works. Politics are so polarized that everything in Washington is done for party advantage. Candidates rant about the need for change, as the congressional houses routinely fail to deliver; it is simply not possible when everything inside the beltway favors the status quo. Nothing can change within the system. Only organizing against it will work.

American exceptionalism is unique, and it is fading because of these newfound individual rights as they impact upon the scope of law. "The evil of present day American law" is not that it addresses the wrong goals, or that it us unforgivably dense (though it is), but that it "infects daily choices with a debilitating legal self-consciousness." We no longer feel free to do what we feel is right.

With this background development he begins to explore the end-product of this process, noting specifically:
• chaotic classrooms wherein teachers are threatened for imposing discipline results in police being called to handcuff and remove five year old children from the classroom
• murdering nurses are shunted from one facility to another because all are afraid of judging the suspect culprit and reporting suspicious events to police
• shootings like those at Columbine and Virginia Tech are perpetrated by people known to be "unbalanced," yet no one is comfortable stepping forward to have them removed from campus.
And so it goes. The "evil" of overly individual rights prevails; the common good be damned. Fairness requires balancing, which requires human judgment, which is forbidden.

Americans like the idea of jury trials, but no one is permitted to keep the claims and arguments within reasonable bounds. Judges are neutered, or frightened into maintaining "fairness," even if the proceedings are fallacious or overwrought. Prosecutors occasionally overstep (the Duke lacrosse player incident comes to mind), but they are slapped down. No one swings at the prosecutors in tort law. Lawyers like John Edwards are permitted to lie in court and to present testimony from fraudulent "experts," and the defense is often similarly culpable, even in murder trials (O.J. Simpson, anyone?)

Until 40-50 years ago culture accepted that people should judge others. Now it's practically criminal to do so. People whose gauge is "feelings" are unwilling to accept judgment.

At root is accountability. People are more comfortable without it; government functions wholly without it. One is accountable to following the law. If done precisely, regardless of impact, one is no further accountable, and with such accountability no one is really liberated (or accountable in historic context of that concept.).

The mechanism by which government has slipped away from democratic grasp is too much law. "The law" has replaced responsibility. Yet Washington loves the status quo. Nothing accomplished, nothing gained, but neither is anything lost. No risk. No offense. No mistakes. Trust the law.

The predicament is in the premise: that law should tell people how to do things. It cannot. Washington takes no responsibility for the future or the past. No longer is governing the point; only winning. Success is defined by how many political traps have been set and how many battles have been won.

Many Democratic politicians privately acknowledge that lawsuits are completely out of hand, but trial lawyers are the second-largest source of their campaign funds. Alternatively, the Republicans shamelessly support corn-alcohol subsidies and they trade votes with each other, and those of other dispositions, in order that they all survive and "win." Madison, he reminds, noted that government was a magnet for self-seekers, but presumed that the several "factions" would neutralize each other. Unfortunately Madison was wrong. There is no competition for the greater good; each group demands its pound of flesh from the common weal. Yet the harm caused by special interest is not mainly the pork; rather, it is the inability to govern.

It is necessary is to abandon the existing structure; create a new government focused on goals and personal responsibility. Many of these folks are good people; especially so most bureaucrats. They are simply overwhelmed by the system. Goals, not compliance must be the focus, though congress must be accountable for oversight and determination of how laws function in practice.

Nothing is more unpalatable to the modern mind than giving someone authority to make choices which affect other people. But it must be done. America lacks leaders because we have made leadership unlawful. The confusion of good judgment with legal proof is the most insidious fallacy of modern law. Decisions pressed thru a legal wringer are not better decisions. Right and wrong cannot be programmed, nor can they be legislated.

Individual judgment is unsatisfactory as an organizing legal principle because judgment varies widely, and reasonable people can approach the same problem differently. Florence King once observed, some things are right and others wrong "just because." We all know it. One can't think oneself into it. It is just so. Children sense right and wrong without instruction. Whitehead stated that "it is a profoundly erroneous truism that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing."

"Most adults of a certain age remember a time when teachers were role models, not just people on the clock. Unimaginable as it may seem today, lawyers were the aristocrats, respected for their integrity. Doctors cared for the indigent as well as those who could pay. Political leaders were at the top if the social order. Society was hardly perfect, but there was a sense that people were important to each other. Standing in the community meant something. We were all in it together."

Americans don't share values any longer. Indeed, the 60s was a time when values were overturned and replaced by . . . nothing, really. The cure to bad values--or no values--is good values, and these are not imposable by law. Squeezing them thru "a legal gauntlet" discourages people in authority from asserting any values.

America's greatest natural resource is--or has been, at least--a culture which unleashes the power of individuals, but that spirit erodes to nothing when people are forbidden to exercise it. Distrust has overpowered good sense. We all know it, but we must do something about it. And very soon.

Feder does a good job of discrediting myriad myths and mythmakers, from ancients to Erich von Daniken. The book is well researched and written to deliver a breezy read for the average layman, offering explanations which are logical and readily understood. He joyfully buries von Daniken's hypotheses in Chariots of the Gods, which is particularly offensive drivel, and his other writings which intend to make credible his theories about ancient visits from foreign astronauts who were seminal (literally) in fostering improved human evolution and culture. Nah!

He begins with the millennial Atlantis legends, and explores them sequentially thru the ages. As well he pursues biblical and other flood mythology, though I felt him inadequately laudatory of the works of Ryan and Pittman ( Noah's Flood ), and he didn't even mention Oppenheimer ( Eden in the East ) He discusses English stone circles (e.g. Stonehenge), the several Pharaoh's tomb curses, the Piltdown and Cardiff men, along with more recent hypotheses such as Barry Fell's tracts on the population of the Americas by Celts and others in antiquity; and he destroys "psychic archaeology." I admit to having been a fan of Fell since his book America B.C., published coincident with America's bicentennial. Feder finally convinced me that Fell was a fraud, despite what I feel was Fell's honest intent.

He does allow that some of the people pursuing these would be--and actual--myths are well intentioned, though many are intentionally deceptive, most commonly with a profit motive.

He explains the Viking episodes in "Vinland," and mentions that their sagas describe the availability of wine grapes, while allowing that the habitation sites which have been found are altogether too far north to accommodate the "Vin" part, so he accepts that it is likely that Vikings made it much further south, but won't draw any conclusion, since no artifacts have been found. Archaeology, he opines, is a fascinating field which has suffered because of its popularity, but is responsible to the same rules as other sciences.

He reviews the mound cultures, and explores Cahokia in some very interesting detail. I found it disappointing, however, that there was nary a mention of Koster--in southern Illinois, 70 miles away--which is arguably the most important treasure in North American archaeology, having been fully excavated, exposing 26 levels of habitation over a time period of nearly 10,000 years, with the discovery of myriad fascinating facts about life at the site, not to mention that the lead archaeologist, Stuart Struever, single handedly invented modern archaeology at that site. This is an unforgivable oversight ! Perhaps it is because there are no myths associated with the site, but, really, it deserved mention at least.

While I can hardly compare my working knowledge of many of these subjects to his, and while he is careful to acknowledge that accepted facts are constantly being updated and added, he too often pooh-poohs suggestions contrary to received wisdom within the community of dedicated archaeologists. For instance, he allows that the Vikings did, indeed, make it at least as far as Newfoundland, and probably Massachusetts, but he omits consideration of the fact that prior to the 1950s the community was adamant that there had been no one here--other than Indians--before Columbus. That is patently false, and archaeologists have reluctantly accepted that. But they are human, too, and have pegged their lives and reputations on their opinions. They are regularly obdurate when their theories are challenged, which leads to overlooking observations which challenge their own pet hypotheses.

There are evidences that man has been here since well before the trek across the Bering Strait from Asia during the recent ice age (if, in fact, they did get here that way, which in my opinion is still conjectural.) They have been in central and south America for as long as 40,000 years; and there are genetic and linguistic studies that suggest that man has arrived in the New World at various times, and by various means; that all of the Indians are not so neatly related as current "understandings" would suggest. The fact that the archaeological community is unwilling to accept that aboriginals may have arrived by boat as much as 20,000 years before they are presumed to have walked across the Bering Strait does not rule out that possibility, and especially since that community is confident that aboriginals hadn't the skills to so do, ignoring that the Australian aboriginals arrived there over 40,000 years ago, and were isolated until Cook "discovered" the place in 1770. They are similar to African blacks, but no one really knows from whence they came.

"But we've always known that . . . . fill in the blank." Archaeology as a science is not yet 200 years old; there is much we do not know, and while it is prudent not to get carried away with fanciful theories built upon bizarre dreams and opinions, it is likewise imprudent to determine that "such and such" is agreed upon fact, and settled science. There is no such thing. Not in any scientific field, so why should we worship at the shrine of some dead (or living) archaeologist? Having practiced medicine for years, I learned long ago that almost nothing is settled science, and new information always requires new, if tentative, conclusions and an altered modus operandi. A little humility is in order, me thinks. Damned little is certain.

It's well to keep in mind that famous old Keynesian quote: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Many, in any scientific community, doggedly resist a change of mind even when faced with irrefutable facts, because they have a lifetime investment in what they believe and don't want to have their pet theories overturned, or see their work devalued.

This book has been reissued from time to time over 25 years, and takes a look at the "Robber Baron" school of historians who, by and large, got some of the story right, and much of it wrong, but were never able to discriminate between the good guys and the bad. To be sure there were "robbers," but they did not include most of the people identified, as such: Carnegie, Rockefeller, Frick, Ford, Mellon, etal. Rather, Cunard and Collins (bad guys in boat-mail transport to California) used their government authorized monopolies to hamstring mail deliveries while Vanderbilt moved around them and beat them in their game despite their subsidies; he became the primary passenger line as well, beginning in New York. Vanderbilt (definitely one of the good guys) became the richest man in America, proving that federal aid was a curse which killed the competitive spirit. The book offers detailed information.

So it was with the transcontinental railroads. Some insisted that if such was to be, the government would have to subsidize it, or build it. The UP and the CP battled over subsidies and built a railroad full of errors and marked by substandard construction, which rail/bridges/etc. had to be rebuilt while lines were in service at a later date, costing still more money. There was, however, a man named James J. Hill who was building his transcontinental line from St. Paul to Seattle with no federal aid. His proved to be the best built and the least corrupt, not to mention the best run. After initial construction was completed, the UP and CP, even with 44 million acres of free land and over $61 million in loans were nearly bankrupt. Meanwhile Hill was chugging along quite profitably--with lower fares. The primary difference was that the UP and CP undertook to get over/thru hostile territory and environments rapidly (and at government expense); Hill expanded slowly and profitably, since he developed the areas along the way so that there was, at each new termination, a market for his service. He gave settlers free cattle so that he could later move the beef back East. He facilitated wheat farming in order to handle the product for export. As well, he was on site when routes were determined and construction being done. No poor choices of distance, curvatures or grade; no inferior materials or shoddy construction. (It was, after all, his and his investor's money.) In later years this added up to fewer repairs and delays; better service and more loyal customers. And he escaped the regulations which congress imposed upon the others using "government money,"

Political promotion of economic development is futile, for it invariably rewards incompetence. Adam Smith authored this concept over 200 years ago, and all one needs to do today to confirm it is to honestly view what government has subsidized in recent years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack brought the world economy low; wind power is enormously expensive and largely unproductive; Carter wasted billions on synfuels; solar power is a joke--it has almost single-handedly bankrupted Spain, etc. One does need to be honest, however !!

Read the book and be enlightened. Therein are multiple examples of why government is seldom the answer to questions beyond its ken, which doesn't include business.

Well, for those who haven't discovered yet, Lewis has done it again. He debuted on the scene ten years ago with Liars Poker, a sharp-edged tale of Wall Street greed and manipulation which he felt would pull back drapes and open windows for some fresh air and sunlight. It didn't work (though I strongly recommend the book, now re-issued in paperback.) Instead, according to the Wall Street tycoons, he became a pariah and a pusillanimous back-stabber. Not only did it not hurt them, it didn't even faze them. No one paid any attention save some of us flunkies.

In his new contribution, he delivers an astounding take on the 2007-08 credit crisis, and how a few fund managers masterfully discovered the mortgage bond bubble, and exploited it to the fullest, making themselves and their investors very rich. But he first exposes their incredulity that anyone in charge of this debacle could be that stupid; as well, he analyzes the mechanisms behind it. These are the same charges about which he wrote a decade ago: reckless greed, dishonesty, mindless ineptitude, and unquenchable hubris.

In simple terms he explores how the industry massaged and masked the credit risks by wrapping up low-quality subprime mortgages into complicated securities that could be manipulated to receive high credit ratings while burying the real risks involved.

As well, homeowners were encouraged with teaser rates to enter into mortgages far beyond their ability to repay. They were able, initially, to pay the 1-2% interest, and were later able to refinance before the larger interest rates kicked in. The brokers were able to sneak in another transaction or two and collect their commissions and/or refinance "costs and considerations." When someone defaulted, the built in property inflation permitted the home to be resold for what was owed. No one was hurt--well, at least not until it all came down like the house of cards that it always was. Some of the examples he gives are beyond comprehension: a Mexican lawn care guy with a push mower and a mortgage on a home bought for over a million dollars; then there was the nurse with four condo mortgages on properties "valued" in the millions.

"Short" is an mammoth don't say I didn't warn you, dealing with "the street" and exposing the fact that sleazy insiders knew damned well (or should have) what was going on with the mortgage markets and the inflation of real estate, and they knew (or should have) they would crash. Experience had taught them that Washington would bail them out. They were right. Now we see them profiting mightily as institutions and rewarding themselves with mammoth bonuses for their genius; back on top of the too big to fail game, when in fact anything too big to fail should be too big to exist! (And that, in my opinion, includes the government.) Frighteningly, the recent government bailouts simply made fewer of them bigger still (along with the government.)

He describes this alchemy as equivalent to turning lead into gold in the Middle Ages. (It didn't work then, either.) Incautious investors looked at little more than the ratings, which the authors of these scams controlled by "influencing" the bond raters. The whole scheme was "floated" on the backs of the rating agencies. S&P didn't complain to the bankers for fear that they would just take their business to Moody's. Lots of "Indians" didn't really understand the situation(s), but the chiefs really did; if they didn't, they shouldn't have been in charge. One presumes some only suspected, but didn't want to enquire, since they were profiting handsomely. Who wants to question the rewards when the dough is rolling in? (And of course one can rationalize that it is a consequence of one's brilliant money-managing talent on parade.)

When the scheme began to collapse, they all thought they'd get out before the structure burned down; only Goldman-Sachs made it, and "closed the door behind it." They, along with others, disdain regulation in good times, but demand to be rescued in bad ones. Thus, success is an individual achievement while failure is a social problem. Unfortunately, government agrees and acts accordingly. Goldman lies and cheats, along with others, and government bails them out. Worse, they were given money to buy up the cadaverized firms, and after resurrection was achieved they paid back the loans and came away bigger and more profitable than ever. Now, it seems, the few survivors are too-too big to fail. Bear-Sterns, Salomon Bros., Wachovia and Lehman Bros. are "all gone," but not really. They're just a part of Goldman and Wells-Fargo, courtesy of gummint loans. "Pretty much all the important people on both sides of the gamble left the table rich."

This is the stuff of viciously corrupt crony capitalism, and it has to stop. But it won't unless we demand that it stop. Somebody really oughta hang!

The people who could have prevented or cushioned these events were exactly the people who failed to see the train coming at them in the tunnel, conditioned as they were by hubris and prior successes; protected by Washington, which one could argue they own. (Virtually all of the big men in government funds advice and management are, and for years have been, Goldman graduates, or men swayed by Goldman.) They've proven themselves incapable of--or unwilling to--act upon the basic truths at the heart of the U.S. financial system. Lewis remarks that it is easy to understand why Goldman-Sachs would want to be included in the conversation about what to do about Wall Street, but it is impossible to get your mind around any reason anyone would want to listen to them.

In 2008 reality overwhelmed the perceptions (dreams? / hubris?) on Wall Street that everything was o.k. Every major firm was either bankrupted or fatally intertwined with the bankrupt system. Without government intervention every single one of the banks would have gone under; every single executive would have been discredited and lost his chair at the table, and probably a lot of their own money. Gordon Gekko famously announced that "greed is good." No one on Wall Street ought to have been trusted, nor should they be now--especially now. Had the problem been approached after the publication of Liar's Poker it likely would have been different. If it isn't approached now--and it probably will not be--we'll have the same thing again, and next time it'll be much worse. Even the 30s depression might look like a pauper's Christmas party!

Ayaan was the young Somali Muslim on her way to an arranged marriage in Canada when she defected to Holland. There she learned Dutch--her 4th language--acquired a Western education, became a translator between cultures, a Dutch citizen and member of the government. When she became a political risk Holland evicted her. Dutch Muslims were threatening to kill her as they had her counterpart, Theo Van Gogh, who produced her play: Submission. She immigrated to the U.S. where she is now productively ensconced in The American Enterprise Institute, albeit under heavy personal protection. As well, she has created her own AHA foundation. She is a brilliant, outspoken critic of Islam, and a convert to western philosophy. Nomad chronicles her travels and travails as it expounds upon her "journey through the clash of civilizations." It is every bit as good as The Caged Virgin, and Infidel which preceded it.

It is an opus to freedom in which, amongst other things, she discusses the "three obstacles to the integration of people like [her] own family [and by extension, most Muslims] in three words: sex, money and violence." These three traits embody the clash between the tribal culture of Islam and Western modernity. She is skeptical regarding Muslim integration into western societies, and spends little time searching for the near mythical moderate Muslim. It's not in the genes; it's in the religion, which she unsparingly dissects. "The West urgently needs to compete with the jihadis . . . for the hearts and minds of its own Muslim immigrant populations." These immigrants have left their own countries, but they did not, have not, and likely will not leave behind their cultures unless they are deliberately caused to. (Australian style eviction may be a viable option if they will not.) In America the radicalization of Muslim youth is still in the early stages, but the threats are real and need be addressed vigorously.

These immigrants have not been educated in the ways of the West; even those from large cities. They are not prepared for life as a modern, let alone a modern in the west. American liberals, she opines, are reluctant to acknowledge differences between cultures, and rarely register a preference for one over the other. She exposes differences in expectations of immigrants to European countries as opposed to America. American Muslims are more inclined to assimilate, while the European Muslims tend to remain foreigners for generations. American immigrants usually come for freedom; European immigrants usually come for welfare benefits. Her observations about the differences are both acute and fascinating. America is more different than most of us are aware.

She expounds on her family relationships, using them as examples of the world's problems with Muslim culture: the ruinous male vanity, the self delusion and escapist defense mechanisms as well as the oppression--even violent abuse--of women, all of which she insists to be cultural norms, not aberrations. Well-meaning Westerners promoting tolerance and respect ignore the practices of Islam, and in so harm the vulnerable--especially the females--whom they should be protecting.

It is difficult for Westerners, inheritors of the legacy of rational thought, to understand the phenomenon of group thinking; it is both primitive and controlling. Social workers incorrectly insist that immigrants need to maintain group cohesion for their mental health, but this maintenance creates victim groups which require accommodation, reinforcing demands for their own system of law and garb, separate from the adopted country. We must not support their insistence on maintaining diversity. It serves no one well.

All human beings may well be equal, but most certainly all cultures and religions are not.

Islam exhibits some noble traits, but it is a culture that mutilates girls' genitals* and confines them behind walls and veils or flogs them for falling in love; it justifies the oppression of women and supports all manner of violence; it encourages child marriage and condones marital rape. A culture which celebrates femininity and considers women to be masters of their own lives is superior. The West should legislate against these abominable practices from its own societies and move against them everywhere else, as it did with slavery. It cannot be done without first acknowledging that there is something within the religion which justifies such practices. Christianity in the West is more humane, more restrained, and more accepting of criticism and debate. The Christian concept of God today is more benign and more tolerant of dissent.

Still, the most important difference between the two cultures is the exit option. A person who chooses to opt out of Christianity may be excommunicated, but not harmed; a Muslim who leaves the faith is supposed to be killed. The Christian presumption that interfaith dialogue will magically bring Islam into the fold of Western civilization is mistaken. It will not happen.

In the real world, equal respect for all cultures doesn't translate into a rich mosaic of colorful and proud peoples interacting peacefully while maintaining a delightful diversity of food and craftwork. It translates into closed pockets of oppression, ignorance and abuse. She's lived it; she said it; she's right. Read the book. Listen up !

*The Quran does not mention such mutilation, but most of the 130 million women alive worldwide who have undergone this brutal ritual are Muslim women.

"Intellect is not wisdom." Thus the master begins his latest tract on the deleterious effects of "intellectuals" on society. As in A Conflict of Visions, and The Vision of the Anointed, his lacerating observations are plainly explained in his characteristically acerbic style, and with such clarity that there can really be no argument with his conclusions--at least none that is rational.

He characterizes intellectuals (for the purposes of this book) as people whose work "begins and ends with ideas." Thus scientists, engineers, physicians, etc. are eliminated from the discussion: people who are subject to definitive proof of the effectiveness of their discipline and its facts. The principal difference is the intellectual's approach to virtually all problems. There are discussions of opinions, observations and feelings: conclusions are drawn from the groups of individuals who are privy to the determination. Scientific verification is never a consideration.

He discriminates between "notions" and facts; explains the necessity of studying the results of attitudes and policies in order to determine their impact, worth and relevance. Facts are determined by a scientific approach to problems, and are not subject to "feelings," "attitudes," or "hopes;" thus do they become notions. As well, these notions are oriented toward making the originator(s) seem more noble, moral, intelligent or creative. "The great problem . . . with purely internal criteria is that they can easily become sealed off from feedback from the external world of reality, and remain circular in their methods of validation. . . . If they are simply people who are like-minded . . . then the consensus of the group about a particular new idea depends on what that group already believes--and says nothing about the empirical validity of that idea in the external world."

People are considered knowledgeable when they have some special grasp of specific knowledge. More mundane crafts--auto repair, golf, plumbing--are not associated with knowledge by the intellectuals since what they don't know is not considered knowledge. Or even worthwhile. Yet there are many hidden truths in those things intellectuals cannot be bothered to know. And they impact in the real world. "The ignorance, prejudices and groupthink of an educated elite are still ignorance, prejudice and groupthink."

Intellectuals, having no other place to go and nothing else to do beyond creating ideas, are inclined toward careers in the media, academia and government, and not rarely in that order. Since they have few other skills, they are predisposed to rationalize that lack by delegitimizing, at least in their own minds, those without the facility to masterfully challenge such ideas with bonafide, real world experience. Worse, and unlike intelligent beings more fully engaged in their own particular professions (again, engineering, medicine, chemistry, etc.) they have no real world experience to prevent them from generalizing their knowledge of the arcane into a respect for those who do other things well. When a professional masters his real world craft he comes to understand how difficult it is to perform within his own sphere, and imputes to other specialists the knowledge they have accumulated to master their own field. This tends not to be so with intellectuals. They presume that their knowledge endows them with superior powers in all fields. Since their areas of expertise are rarely challenged by real world experience, they have nothing whatsoever to dissuade them from their presumed exactitude, even if they were so inclined.

With this background Sowell explores the reality of impact of the intellectuals upon government, war, philosophy, science (e.g. Gore on global warming), and a host of other spheres where their influence can be, and often is cataclysmic. Their "vision of society" is that there are many "problems" to be considered and "solved." This they do without the slightest nod to human nature, human experience, history or common sense. Those with the anointed visions simply declare how things are or ought to be, and prescribe the solution. They never inquire whether or not their ideas work. Consequently erroneous paths are repeated regularly, with the same results.

Take peace. It is presumed that war is the unspeakable atrocity. No one wants war! Hence we must just accept that we are to sit down and discuss our differences and work out a solution. Alternative opinions, even if supported by the facts, are not admitted into conversations. Worse, people who hold these positions are considered inferior, immoral, unfit, and even stupid.
• Bill Buckley opined decades ago that such people feel everyone has a right to his opinion, only to be shocked that there are opinions which differ from their own. Who knew ? !
• Several decades ago the New York Times headlined that even as crime in the city was declining, criminals continued to be incarcerated. Duh !
• One might now include the assassination of OBL in the discussion. It's altogether right and fitting that he was trapped and shot in the head: this is war! Yet water-boarding in the same endeavor is criminal and non-reflective of "our values." Go figure.

The book is a recitation of exactly where, when and why intellectuals have been wrong for decades--nay, centuries. They never consult history or common sense, and since the rest of the world is occupied with reality and survival, intellectuals have been left, unchallenged, to ponder what they will. They have taken over education at all levels and impact heavily on the media, government and politics, including intelligence agencies, police and prisons. Their nostrums survive by virtue of ineffective counter-forces, and the inherent willingness of many of the unwashed to accept and believe what they hope for, as wonderfully expressed by the anointed, rather than seeing things as they are. Worse, they've been "teaching" our young for several generations. As the world has become more prosperous there are more such intellectuals, and they are creating even more problems than they did in prior times.

It's not necessarily that the intelligentsia are mistaken or ill-informed on particular issues, though that is not unusually the case, but: "The more fundamental point is that, by thinking in terms of abstract people in an abstract world, intellectuals evade the responsibility and the arduous work of learning the real facts about real people in the real world--facts which often explain the discrepancies between what intellectuals see and what they would prefer to see." That is, their filtering and slanting can create fictitious facts and people, and when their story fits the vision, they do not always find it necessary to check whether it also fits the facts.

Read the book. It is fascinating as well as all-encompassing. Sowell is the greatest living philosopher-essayist; he writes with unsurpassed concision.

Any tract which leads by wholly discrediting Nostradamus has my attention; he was, after all, the "master of avoiding specifics," and a still quoted fraud who has endured for the ages. His end of the world predictions first went awry in the 1800s, but they're renewable thru 7000 A.D.

This volume is one of four such written by Farquhar on related things; all are absorbing. In it he exposes and explains varietal "humbugs" and their equally varietal chicanery, some serious and some just April Fool's jokes.

Operation Mincemeat, one of the greatest deceptions of WW II is reviewed, balanced by the lies and fraud of the Third Reich. On a lighter note there is a description of the housewife who gave birth to bunnies. (Well, of course, not really.)

Snake-oil salesmen in the age of medical quackery? Included. Medieval hucksters selling pieces of "the true cross"?, yep. So's the shroud of Turin. Of course the Piltdown man receives an honorable mention.

There is an excellent discussion of the witch craze in Europe in which he observes that over half of all executions took place in Germany alone. One village was left with only one woman; another eliminated an entire family; still another burned forty-one children. Perhaps this was a dress rehearsal for the Nazis?

Then there's the lie's of Lenin (not Lennon folks) and his distrust of Stalin. Shame old Vlad didn't have "Uncle Joe" shot before he became the chief. There are mentions of creative escapes from military prisons in the age of the Greeks, from the Tower of London, and from the Nazi fortress of Colditz. All if them intriguing.

He wraps it up with a series of 10s.
• 10 "tricksters" from scripture
• 10 deceptions from Greek mythology
• 10 liars in literature
and lastly:
• 10 egregious examples of modern American doublespeak; this without even mentioning Nixon's "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Read it. It's a hoot. And informative, though more within the framework of Trivial Pursuit.