This essay is in keeping with, and a specific expansion upon his book White Guilt (published in 2006, a review of which is available on this site.)

Here Steele elaborates upon those same observations, but applies them specifically to Barack Obama in his quest for “blackness” and the presidency. The pair might have been published together with the title “Black vs. White in America, Fostering Greater Understanding.”

He notes that in order to advantageously position themselves in America blacks have had two options: challenging (currently Jackson or Sharpton, and previously the Panthers: Newton, Carmichael & Brown), or bargaining (Winfrey or Obama, and previously Poitier or Cosby). With the former there are implicit threats to--and demands upon—whites; the latter accept and trust that fair treatment will be accorded in exchange for mutual pleasantries pursuant the negotiation. Challengers get no gratitude, but do achieve power and money; bargainers gain affection and love, and commonly money as well as power, albeit of a different sort. Moreover, they are likely to be acknowledged as equals. A person can be one or the other persona but not both.

As an example he observes that for years Cosby was a bargainer, but his recent change is viewed by other blacks as hostile. He has become a challenger, and worse, since he challenges blacks. He now voices the rational societal rules which require discipline and responsibility for success, insisting that blacks have to improve themselves instead of depending upon whites to alleviate their problems. Now he is seen as being in the enemy camp, no longer a hero to his race.

Obama risks black wrath when bargaining, which is necessary to gain white acceptance, as he risks white rejection if he challenges. He cannot do both. Like Prometheus he is bound (hence the title.)

Barack has largely rejected his manifest ability to join mainstream society in questing to be black, and seems to be attempting to be in both camps, as he attempts to be all to everyone.

Steele sights numerous quotations from Obama’s prior writing to support that observation. Amongst myriad others, an early love of his life, also of mixed race, challenged Barack to explain why she had to choose to be black, noting:

• “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person. No—it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones who are telling me I can’t be who I am.”

• “The chance to be yourself, racial self-acceptance—is not with blackness; it is in the same American mainstream [from whence you came.]”

She emphasized her trust in mainstream America more than black America to respect her for who she is and wishes to be.

Barack, intent on establishing his black “credentials” has chosen to disassociate himself from this mainstream position, diligently working to fit within black society and radical bastions, making it virtually impossible for him to be a bridge candidate and a healer of divisions. He has become just another liberal politician. Indeed, the most liberal in the Senate. While potentially an Icon, he is squandering his real potential as a candidate, and denying himself the opportunity to be who he really is—or is capable of being.

The rest you’ll have to read . . . and you definitely should, since it is as much about the black dilemma in America as it is about Obama himself.

It is enlightening, expository, insightful, and extremely well written.

Immediately after Pearl Harbor the Japanese launched all out war in the Pacific, beginning in the Philippines and in Shanghai where Ballard’s family were English merchants. This novel encapsulates the experiences of its English author, an adolescent prisoner in a Japanese prison camp in China during WWII. It is a first person narrative embroidered with reliable hearsay into a metered exposition of the horrors of China itself, the war, the loss of fear in some situations, and the longing for death in other circumstances, when incarcerated and alone, as he was at the time.

He begins by describing the life of the expatriate communities (representing virtually all western countries), and does so largely in flash-backs. As well, he provides graphic descriptions of the ghastly life of the Chinese peasants of the era. This is an enlightening discussion of the “facts on the ground,” woven into a personal narrative of survival in an era and in a culture which most of us have never known much about, and never explored. It is informative, colorful, eloquent, fulsome, and engrossing. Much of the account describes the savage nature of Japanese occupation and the inherently punishing culture of the Chinese.

While not always an easy read, he explores the consequences of twentieth century technology in relating the flashes from the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as he lays the groundwork for an understanding of the fact that, co-extant with WW II was the internecine war amongst the Chinese. He explains that as WW II war ended, the Chinese immediately began their separate war between Mao Tse Tung’s Communists and Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists.

It is a worthwhile read, and reminds of Give Us This Day (ISBN - 9780393319217), Sidney Stewart’s non-fiction account of experiences in Japanese camps and ships after his survival of the Bataan Death March.

Incidentally, I heartily endorse the latter book, the better to understand the horrifying experiences of American prisoners of Japan during that conflict. Reading both expands one’s historic appreciation of the grisly nature of the mid 20th century which is now being repeated in the Middle East. It is obligatory and productive to understand the nature of the enemy now as then.

This is the capstone to their prior book suggesting and explaining the Fair Tax. Ever since the release of that book there has been excessive controversy based upon ignorance of their carefully studied program. In this volume, as is suggested by the title, they take on the critics and explain the malaprops, misunderstandings, misrepresentations and outright lies of the opponents of this proposal . . . to the satisfaction of all but the committed opponents, most of whom willingly suspend logic in order to attack the Fair Tax.

Their proposal is so logical, so simple, so uncomplicated and so right that one has to wonder how there can be any logical opposition. A cadre of tax attorneys and accountants might oppose it because they might become unemployed. Politicians might oppose it because they see that such a tax will emasculate them in some considerable measure. With no tax code, per se, they will be unable to dole out favors to contributing constituents searching favors. Not a few businesses benefit from said favors, and might also be expected to oppose the tax for obvious reasons. But make no mistake, the opponents—almost without exception—are in dire opposition for specific, parochial self-interest.

Imagine eliminating the impact of the IRS and FICA from your life: no income or payroll taxes, no records to keep, no audits, no bank searches, no invasion of your life and privacy! No 1040’s, or short-forms either. No deductions because there are no taxes (of the historic kind.) Imagine receiving your full pay check at week's end. No deductions.

Instead you pay a one-time tax . . . a sales tax, more or less, which is applied only to new goods and services. Buy an old car, a “used” house, whatever: no tax. And for all citizens that tax which would be assessed to essentials up to the poverty limit will be pre-reimbursed so that the poor—and the rest of us—will pay no tax upon purchased goods up to, say, $30-40,000. And imagine no underground economy. All will pay the tax. Only citizens (and legal residents) will receive the reimbursement, know as a prebate. The primary investigations will involve those who try to avoid charging or paying the tax, but they will be few because the penalties are severe.

Since every product purchased already has imbedded taxes, the 20+% end-tax will be largely, and in most cases completely, offset by the elimination of the imbedded taxes. Thus the cost of goods and services will change little, or not at all.

Most rational, however, in addition to those facts mentioned above, the Fair Tax will eliminate over 300 billion dollars in compliance costs to industry and citizens. Imagine what that would do for the economy. That's a hell of a lot of "found money," even in an 11 trillion dollar economy. And even that doesn't include the endless hours of aggravation and pain, or the paper, ink, chemicals and trees spared.

It all sounds complicated, but it isn’t if you carefully read, or re-read the first book and follow-up with the second. I recommend both.

IMAGINE! NO APRIL 15TH !
The time has come!!

This fascinating saga is well told by Winchester. The protagonists are Dr. James Murray, editor of the dictionary, and Dr. Wm. Minor, a crucial contributor: Yale graduate, American physician in the Civil War, and schizophrenic “madman” convicted of, and incarcerated for, a bizarre murder in the slums of London.

Murray’s mission was to replace the only dictionary of record: that of Dr. Samuel Johnson, whose rendering had been in existence for over 100 years, and was in its fourth edition.

The author reviews principal biographic details of Murray and Minor, while briefly mentioning others and their contributions to this monumental work. He describes in well selected detail the development of this mind-numbing project which involved 10 times the word count of Johnson’s, and required 10 times as long to complete. It required sorting thru 6 million word-slathered slips of paper compiled by hundreds of unpaid volunteers (over 10,000 from Minor, alone.) In so doing he delivers an absorbing story which otherwise would have been a boring dissertation on an arcane subject.

He deftly chronicles the adventure from initial miscalculations, thru ill suited editors, to reluctant publishers, and ends describing Minor’s exacting standards and methods which endeared him to Murray. Amongst myriad other contributors Murray valued Minor’s “astonishing accuracy and eye for detail.”

Over a period of 30 years Minor became the equivalent of “just in time” production, a century before it was adopted by manufacturers. Every time Murray was struggling over a difficult word-- be it the definition or examples--he contacted Minor, who invariably had it already prepared.

Only after years into the endeavor did Murray discover that Minor was confined to a prison for the criminally insane; and only after that meeting did they establish a friendship which lasted for decades. Murray was instrumental in having Minor released and returned to America in his dotage. Sadly, Minor died in obscurity and was buried in New Haven, CT, in an old cemetery near what now is a slum.

There is much to be discovered about the Victorian era, language, a peculiar friendship and an elaborate unfolding of the line between sanity and madness. It is eloquent testimony to Simon’s own exacting standards of research and his incredible writing skills.

This is my idea of something “light” to read in leisure time, as opposed to murder mysteries and most modern fiction.

"People in the atmosphere of a mass movement are fashioned into incomplete and dependent human beings . . . The blindness of the fanatic is a source of strength. He sees no obstacles(!) yet is the author of intellectual sterility and emotional monotony. At root it is his conviction that life and the universe must conform to a simple formula--HIS !"

Do I hear change, anyone? Change to what? From what? Where are the "sheepul" being led?

"Mass movements substitute for individual hope. Folks who see their lives as spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement, and look at self-interest as something tainted. Unless someone sufficient talent to make something of himself, freedom is a burden."

So he's selling hope, but hope for what? Prescribed by whom? To what purpose? Seems I rremember a time not long ago when the man from Hope was selling some of the same stuff. Now it's his wife competing with Barak to see who can offer most.

It is frustrating to witness what is most easily compared to the "Beatle-mania"of the 60's, Elvis in the 50's, or the fainting for Sinatra in the 40's, becoming the political activity of the new century. Politicians always promise more than they can deliver, but one senses that Barak doesn't even recognize that what he promises cannot be delivered. It is politically, economically, socially, and philosophically (not to mention rationally) impossible.

He really believes that what he says is the truth, the whole truth, etc. True believers, as was noted long ago by Hoffer, believe that everyone does--or ought to--believe as they do. Anyone who doesn't is wrong . . . at least!

Our government is not responsible for the people--at least that was not the intention of the founders of our republic. Our problem today is that people too willingly give over to government the responsibility for making life worthwhile. It cannot be done by government, and the sacrifice of the freedom to be in control of one's own destiny is frightful, at least to me. Barak is promising a government solution to everything: safety from the terrorists to security in your mortgage payments. He presumes to take responsibility for all of life's activities in our name. Do we want that? Should we? And if so, can it really be done?

The answer is NO! So, let's try a little analysis and reality, shall we? It's especially important before November's election.

“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lay low until the wrath has passed. There is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse. . . . .”

Bryson writes well in so many genres that “his best” would be misstatement, sort of. Nonetheless, I must note that this one hits the mark. A memoir of growing up in the best country in the world . . . when it was at its peak! For me it was an exhilarating trip down memory lane.

People of later generations will read his comic genius-laced anecdotal hyperbole with glee and admiration. Those of us who grew up during the period of the 40’s and 50’s will be regaled as well, but sadly recall the lost times and our long gone country, while being reminded of the sheer joy of being young during that time. The book is boundless in its production of rollicking laughter. Between guffaws, causes one is caused to fondly “remember when.” You’ll laugh till your belly hurts! Do not read this while drinking! It’ll jettison from your nose at the least expected moment.

He captures youth in general, and that period in particular, as he revisits everything from childhood fantasies (he was the “thunderbolt kid”), to Saturday morning cowboy flicks, elegant tea rooms in downtown department stores (back when there was a downtown), Bishop’s cafeterias with their “atomic” toilet seats, boys fixation on girls bodies, sneaking into “strip shows” at carnivals, blowing things up, sneaking beer and cigarettes, and being able to disappear—safely—for the entire day. As well; nutty toys from hula hoops and Mr. Potato Heads to silly putty and slinkys, Lincoln Logs to Erector Sets. His discussion of making models, and getting stuck to everything by the glues of the day, is hilarious.

He delves into the appearance of convenience foods in Supermarkets by noting that they usually contained some of the 2,000 available additives, including “nine emulsifiers, thirty-one stabilizers and thickeners, eighty-five surfactants, seven anti-caking agents, twenty-eight anti-oxidants and forty-four sequestrants.” Sometimes they even contained food.

It is impossible for subsequent generations to understand how enormous the world was then. Even nearby places seemed distant. Few privately owned vehicles meant that you traveled by trolley, bus or train to wherever they went, and no further; no freeways, even for those with cars, made drives infinitely longer. Most anything more than a couple of hundred miles away seemed alien. T.V. was new and seldom showed anything foreign. The occasional commercial aircraft had propellers. Air Mail was a big deal. The size of the universe, while incomprehensible, was likewise just another unknown to which we gave little thought until Sputnik, and “going to the moon.” Forty percent of people believed thought the world would end in global war, yet they were busy buying homes, digging swimming pools, starting pension plans, and investing in the future. Bryson observes: “I grew up in possibly the scariest period in American history and had no idea of it.”

By 1960 most people had “pretty much everything;” far more than expected. There wasn’t much to do with their wealth but buy more and larger versions of things they didn’t require: second homes, lawn tractors, double-wide refrigerators, intercoms, gas grills, extra phones or cars, bigger TV’s, etc. “Soon millions of people were caught in a spiral in which they worked harder and harder [graduating to two income families] in order to buy labor-saving devices they wouldn’t have needed if they hadn’t been working so hard in the first place.” Productivity was enormous, and in theory people could make more in two days than they had in five, but instead of opting for more leisure time they decided to work instead—to buy more stuff!

“The best I can say is that I saw the last of something really special; something I seem to say a lot these days.” That’s how it goes. Stuff gets thrown out. Life goes on. But: “Imagine those palatial downtown movie theaters with their vast screens and Egyptian décor, but thrillingly enlivened with Dolby sound and slick computer graphics. Now that would be magic. Imagine having all of public life—offices, stores, restaurants, entertainments—conveniently clustered in the heart of the city and experiencing fresh air and daylight each time you moved from one to another.”

“What a wonderful world it was. We won’t see its like again.”

He misses it. I miss it. As I write this I find myself a little melancholic. An ever diminishing few in the world miss it, but you can’t if you weren’t there. No one born after 1960 will ever experience it. That is unfortunate . . . 2,500 sq. ft. starter homes, 700 series Beemers, home-brewed lattes, gimongous flat-screen HDTV’s with surround sound, I-Pods and online gambling notwithstanding.

Read and enjoy this splendid memoir and tribute to America when it was the envy of the world. I consider myself exceedingly blessed to have been there, and wish I could share it with the kids—and theirs. But then, sadly, they hardly want to hear about it.

A decade ago Lomborg authored his first “attack” on environmentalism gone amok. Inasmuch as he was one of the founders of Green Peace it carried considerable weight. Predictably, the environmental wackos savaged him mercilessly.

Amongst other things, as I recall, he observed that he had himself been preaching for several decades that the rainforests were being diminished by 5-10% annually. In flying over them at the time he was struck by the fact that despite the alleged 100-200% destruction, 95% remained. How, he posited, could this possibly be correct? How could “they” have been so wrong? This began his quest, and I recommend reading the end result: his treatise on the subject, published as The Skeptical Environmentalist.

He returns now with a similarly bold and brilliant dissection of the recommendations of the wackos. Again, he is being attacked by establishment figures including, but by no means limited to Al Gore; no great surprise there.

While he is an acolyte of the man made global warming hypothesis—with which I vigorously disagree, as is advised by the vast majority of experts who are real climatologists, not just PhD’s, JD’s, MD’s, BA’s and even musicians and academic dropouts—he makes numerous incisive observations and recommendations which deserve serious consideration. Amongst them, addressing the economics of such insane notions as Kyoto and Carbon Credits, he observes that if we are indeed concerned with the earth’s population, instead of just making political points, there are myriad undertakings which would be immediately, as well as ultimately more beneficial at vastly lower costs.

He demonstrates that:

• more people die from cold than heat - so is warming really so bad?

• past centuries have already accommodated temperature increases which exceed those (realistically) predicted for the next.

• planting vegetation, increasing reflectivity, and creating “water features” in urban environments would dramatically decrease temperatures in cities; e.g., Los Angeles would experience a reduction of mean temperature of five degrees F. by planting 11 million trees, re-roofing and repaving in lighter colors, for a one time cost of $1 billion. L.A. would then reap annual savings of $170 million in air-conditioning expenditures and $360 million in smog-reduction costs, not to mention the aesthetic benefits. Oh, yea . . . the temperature in the city of angels is predicted to increase just five degrees over the next century without Kyoto and Carbon Credits, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Another oh, yea . . . it’ll happen anyway in spite of those programs!

• speaking of Kyoto, even the signatories haven’t even tried to accomplish what they promised. Rather, they pile up on the U.S. for not signing. It has “become the symbol of opposition to the United States!” The U.S. isn’t trying (nya-na-nya-na-nya-na.) I submit that the whole program is “trying,” a term my mother used to use when I was behaving like a snot.

• the poor die from floods in hugely disproportionate numbers because they are too poor to protect themselves - so why not encourage global economic growth so there is money enough to manage the problems? Kyoto and Carbon Credits will destroy the world’s economies.

• we have dealt with the addition of 12 inches of ocean water in the past century. Even the worst (and demonstrably overstated) rise now predicted is less than that.

• the Arctic is melting a little, but has done so in the recent past and rebounded. Meanwhile the Antarctic is adding considerably more ice, more than balancing the Arctic losses.

• polar bears are not becoming extinct. In one small, easily accessible Canadian colony the numbers have been reduced by 300 in the past 20 years, but 40 years ago the colony was half the size it is now. If the suggested programs work, there will be an increase in population by 0.06 bears per annum . . . extraordinary when one considers that 49 bears are killed annually by legal hunters. Everywhere else the colonies have doubled, or more!

• storms and flooding are not becoming worse; just more destructive because of what we have built in the way. In Florida’s Dade and Broward counties alone, the population now exceeds the coastal population from Brownsville, TX to Washington, D.C. 75 years ago. More and more expensive stuff, more people, more damage. Imagine that!

• after Katrina an insurance company found that where loss prevention methods had been properly implemented the losses were remarkably few. No surprise there either, but the numbers are flabbergasting: In one area, at a cost of $2.5 million, $500 million in damages was prevented! The costs of Kyoto, to reduce damage by 0.5 %, would run into the trillions “whereas the protective measures would be multiple orders of magnitude lower.” The real lesson of Katrina is that New Orleans wasn’t ready. Whodathunkit? Ya mean it wasn’t Bush’s fault? Nah!

• by reducing the farm subsidies in rich countries we could massively increase farming in poor ones, not to mention saving “rich countries” billions annually . . . the better to afford to help the poor, maybe?

• while true that in sub-Saharan Africa the predicted warming will desertify additional land, increased rain in other areas will considerably increase crop yields by producing more productive land in other places. The problem is getting people to go move to where it rains.

• if Kyoto were implemented—estimated cost, $180 billion annually--it would reduce malnutrition by 2 million persons by 2080. By investing in improved soil health, water management and technological research, coupled with school meals and nutrient fortification that number could be increased to 229 million by 2015. The cost? $10 billion a year. Lunch Money !!

• Kyoto is anticipated to reduce death from malaria by 140,000 by 2110. At 1/60th the cost we can tackle malaria directly and avoid 85,000,000 million deaths . . . a lot sooner.

I could go on . . . but I’ll stop. Suffice it to say that he totally annihilates the wacko/Gore scenarios, one and all, showing that they are exaggerations on stilts . . . and steroids too.

As I have for years, he emphasizes that the wackos are bent on feeling good, not doing good. They may be well intentioned, but they put the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. For many it “lifts them out of the tedious bickering of distributional politics and instead allows them to position themselves as humanitarians and statesmen concerned with the grandest issue of the planet’s survival.” (that’s Lomborg’s quote, not mine.)

Fortunately, climate change is not an imminent planetary emergency that will bring down civilization. It is but one of many problems, and not even the most important. There are no short term solutions to this problem. We need support “across parties, continents and generations.” We must cease with “debilitating scares and create a sensible and unbiased dialogue” over goals, means, costs and benefits to this and other of the world’s challenges.

“A world without fossil fuels [even in the midterm] is a world gone medieval.”

SO . . . COOL IT !

This new book revisits The Pirate Coast (see my review of Nov. 2006). Of a sudden the Barbary Wars are being re-explored. I have always wondered about them, but “pirates” didn’t get me there. Unfortunately this one isn’t a lot better. There’s less minutiae, but still too much. Whatever happened to great editing?

He does observe that Jefferson felt it better to “dictate peace thru the expedient of war,” unlike the sniveling continentals who bribed their way into safety for their shipping. Strangely, the Brits, with the most powerful navy in the world, wouldn’t take on the smarmy, corrupt Muslim pirates, but the Americans whupped them rather decisively in a couple of years with half a dozen ships. Like most American wars, the reason it took 4 years is the ineptitude and incompetence of the first pair of naval commodores. Jefferson finally found a leader who would do what was necessary, after which it was done quickly.

Amongst the things I find most frustrating in both books is that the essence of the conflict is lost within the smothering trivia. Lord Horatio Nelson—formidable English commander and victor at Trafalgar—stated that Stephen Decatur, in his (casualty free) attack upon Tripoli, had accomplished the most daring raid of the era. Still the author provides but a page and a half on the battle before plunging into a lengthy dissertation on Decatur’s welcome home as a hero.

He drones endlessly about Eaton’s capture of Derna, including the number the shots fired, the cannon used, the deployment of troops, the response of the Mustafa, and . . . and letters to and from commanders, presidents, representatives, pashas, envoys, dilettantes . . . and most everyone. As well he discloses minute details about individual ransom costs, numbers of captives, detail about the captivity and slavery imposed, etc. “Tedious” fails to cover it. Eventually he describes the results and implications in a couple of pages.

To Wheelan’s credit he eventually discusses the ultimate benefit to the American fleet. Government finally determined that we could not survive without competent blue-water power, and the Barbary Wars honed the navy to an effective fighting force.

The U.S. navy demonstrated that you buy trouble at considerable cost when menacing America. We were different from continentals. Still are, most of the time. America hadn’t paid obeisance to English kings, and it certainly wouldn’t bow to penny-ante Islamic pashas who extorted tribute and filled their dungeons with “Christian dogs” for slaves and ransom. Further, facing down terror worked.

While things were never fully and truly settled, the Barbary pirates left us alone and Europe respected us. We should remind ourselves of that. While the continentals aren’t impressed this time around, the terrorists will be if we prevail, as we did 200 years ago.

“Americans are presently longing for high moral standards and the security they bestow, but our love affair with freedom and individualism gets in the way. We are unwilling or unable to see that such standards require a mentality that accepts and derives comfort from iron-clad rules that make no sense, and explanations like ‘just because.’”
Florence King

Right on . . . but explicative of many things which seem to “make no sense” is Dalrymple’s new treatise in which he delivers a brilliant, provocative tome-- a must read for everyone. Re-read and reflect, as well!

This manuscript is the epitome of reason and debate, though he leaves almost no room for the latter. He simply states his positions, demonstrates that they are true, and quietly defies anyone to logically refute them. He observes that discrimination was once a word associated with aestheticism, morality and pedagogy. The most important task of educators in times past was the quest to instill the ability to rationally discriminate. Now both discrimination and prejudice are pejorative terms: despicable, wicked and intolerable. Reason doesn’t enter the equation.

He uses the unstated logic of the hippies (something oxymoronic about that—maybe it’s just moronic) that since nothing from the past matters, and morality is individually decided, if it feels good, do it! He makes the case that this position was conceived in the 17th century by Descartes, nurtured for 200 years by the intelligentsia of Europe, enhanced (if unintentionally) by such luminaries as J.S. Mill, and later A.N. Whitehead, mid-wifed and delivered by the 60’s generation into our present, full blown Cartesian culture of radical individualism. More recently, these attitudes have been passed along, intentionally and illogically, by authors such as James Baldwin, and atheistic, scientific authoritarians like Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins, who often lace their prose with moral indignation and challenge the God--that would be the one they refuse to acknowledge--as capricious, arbitrary, unjust, bad-tempered and unreasonable.

“The popularity of the Cartesian method is not the consequence of a desire to remove metaphysical doubt and find certainty, but precisely the opposite: to cast doubt on everything, and thereby increase the scope of personal license by destroying in advance any philosophical basis for the limitation of our own appetites. . . . The radical skeptic, nowadays at least, is in search not so much of truth, as of liberty—that is to say, of liberty conceived of the largest field imaginable for the satisfaction of his whims.”

One of the great mistakes of contemporary social thought has been that the environment into which children are born, material & economic, is considered most important, while deprivation, moral squalor and emotional instability are attributed to material poverty alone. Indeed, if one is morally required to jettison nonsense from the past, he is then required to support the concept that nothing ought to be conveyed to one’s progeny. We thereby vest in children authority over their lives, and a child constantly catered to learns that life is to be ruled by his preferences and his prejudices which are in turn harmful to him and society.

He relates, anecdotally, having recently attended a comedy from the 50’s in which a middleclass male impregnated a working class female, whose father demanded justice. Justice/responsibility was accepted. He married the woman. The audience was consumed by laughter at the archaic suggestion that conception of a child created an obligation for the father, thus demonstrating that while we may rid society of a particular prejudice regarding a given question, it is impossible to have no prejudice.

It can be altered but never eliminated, so the relevant question is whether we are better off with the new than the old prejudice. No one seems to inquire any more, as motion/change is equated with progress. Indeed, the fact that prejudice is involved is usually denied.

Burke observed that the only thing necessary for evil triumph is for good men to do nothing. The idea was not that all men would become evil; rather, that the evil ones dominate the rest. Dalrymple interjects that Burke “might have added that evil would triumph if men ceased to believe in the distinction between good and evil,” then posits two parallel, opposing, syllogisms:
• All prejudice is wrong.
• The distinction between good and evil can be based only upon prejudice.
Therefore, distinguishing between good and evil is wrong.
• The distinction between good and evil is both inevitable and necessary for the exercise of virtue.
• The distinction between good and evil can be based only upon prejudice.
Therefore prejudice is necessary for the exercise of virtue.

Indeed . . . prejudice is necessary for the maintenance of elementary decency. It takes judgment to know which prejudice should be maintained and which abandoned. Prejudices, like friendships, should be kept in good repair; they are what give men character and hold them together. We cannot be without them.

At last he demonstrates how unguided, a-historic, radical individualism is paradoxical in that it begins as a search for total individualism yet ultimately defers to increased governmental power over individuals as it becomes the sole arbiter of what is acceptable and legal. Having eliminated history, family, church, social organizations, and culturally prescribed customs. there is no other authority to consult.

It isn’t reasonable, or even possible, to make everything up, daily, along the path of life. Radical individualism results in an omnipotent totalitarian government by eliminating logical and reasoned individual choice, which in turn determines the nature of culture.

Neil Postman once observed that Las Vegas is a metaphor of our national aspiration: a city devoted to entertainment: i.e. faux reality. It is, in essence, a prototypic American mall—on steroids! Like our modern shopping malls it is without significant statuary or public squares; public art is replaced by plastic plants arranged around contrived storefronts; artificial lighting is associated with “neat” electronic tricks. Everything is simulated. The occasional skylight admits a little sunshine from time to time.

Malls have been declared to be private places, with notable displacement of the public square where full freedom used to be exercised, right down to the nut on the soap box. It has turned us away from the authentic drama played out on city streets which are no longer the focus of a community. Instead, we have a 50-100 acre regional expanse “at the far end of the road.” There are even different types of malls catering to lifestyle, income, values, and décor – just as we have with neighborhoods of uniform homes in the same price range.

Commerce prevails over all other human values, thus diminishing the sense of citizenship, and one further senses a diminished sense of self-worth. No one really questions whether the loss of community is really a fair trade for the maximum in shopping values and options. Is citizenship more important then consumerism? One doubts it!

Carole Rifkind has observed cogently that consumption has replaced community as a means of identification, while William Kowinski commented that the mall is “the TV you walk around in.”

Cities smaller and less historic than New York and Chicago are disappearing. We end up with LA in varietal permutations. I grew up in a neighborhood where there were falling down houses rented to the poor, admixed with lower middle-class, middle class, and even relatively expensive homes.

Now there are subdivisions of near identical homes with prices varying little more than a few thousand dollars, separated from one another and from down town areas by miles of four-lane roads and freeways; and even the expensive ones are tacky, “kit homes”which remind of the Pete Seger song from half a century ago in which he was champed about Levittowns as “houses made of ticky-tacky all standing in a row.”

My move to Florida has been disappointing because there is a seriously diminished variety of all manner of things, associated with an over-arching vacuity. My prior promise to myself was that I’d “never live more than a few miles removed from oak leaf lettuce.” Here they’ve never heard of it, along with uncountable other kinds of produce . . . not to mention gourmet pasta, unusual types of meat and fish! . . . and class is spelled with a “K”.

This masterful book is by McCullough. What more needs be said? It chronicles the year 1776, detailing the initiation of the American Revolution with his expected, colorfully accurate and riveting descriptions of the times, the people and the events.

He deals adroitly with the principals: Washington, Greene, Knox, etal, as well as the British commanders. The drama unfolds with descriptions of the combatants: farmers, schoolteachers, shoemakers, ne’er-do-wells, and the “Red Coats,” of course. The events are graphically depicted, from the (sort of) battle for Fort Ticonderoga and subsequent movement of the cannon over impossible terrain, thru the evacuation of New York, to the brilliant battle for Trenton--the paramount victory of that year.

Trevelyan, a British Statesman, later wrote of the small band of men and their leader (at Trenton): “It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater and more lasting effects upon the history of the world.” In the end, while support from the French and the Dutch played a part in the outcome, it was Washington and the army that won the war for American independence.

His descriptions of George Washington are inspiring, and make the case that the battle could not have been enjoined, forget won, without this most important man of the era: first, best, and justifiably worshipped patriot; General, first President, . . . and honorable gentleman! What he and his followers endured is all but unimaginable. Yet they did, and they prevailed. Because of that we have a country!

Writes McCullough: “The Continental Army was the key to victory, and it was Washington who held the army together and gave it ‘spirit’ through the most desperate times. . . . Washington never forgot what was at stake, and he never gave up.”

I was especially struck by report of the handling of Lord Howe, commander of British forces. He had been dispatched by King George III to--and only to--grant pardons. Washington’s retorted that he had come to the wrong place. He had no faith in any peace overtures made by the British. And there is this memorable quote of July 2nd, 1776: “The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.” Ahoy there unattached secularists and members of the ACLU, note and ponder that “under God” part!

The conundrum for the British is marvelously elaborated, with the factions detailed and explained: those who supported a separate peace and those who favored humiliating the Americans by defeating them. Recall that Ben Franklin wanted to be a part of the empire; he did not, initially, favor independence.

Even then, as with the world in modern times, the English were struck by the affluence of the colonies, which achievement they attributed to America’s parasitic existence at the expense of Great Britain. The old zero sum game has quite a lineage!

Fellow citizens, I encourage you to reflect upon that revolutionary time, inasmuch as it is unapparent for just how long we will have this wonderful country if we do not--and soon--seriously consider our present situation, its gravity, and our approach to it. As was WWII, this is another war for survival . . . and the independence we claim to value.

As one would suspect, this compendium of essays is luminous, insightful and damaging to those who do not consider the effects (often predictable) of societal policies regarding legal, social, racial, educational and economic issues reflected in the culture war now in progress in the U.S. It is a Philippic, of sorts, but Sowell does have the soul of Demosthenes.

For those unfamiliar with this scholar I encourage you to introduce yourself; for those already initiated you will have read some of these observations before. Both groups, however, will find this a brisk and challenging read. Thinking is required! I thought I’d found my new “bathroom read,” but I was mistaken. I read it thru from beginning to end with regret: at 460 I ran out of pages.

As before, I believe the best way to represent this kind of anthology is listing the better quotes within:

• The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It’s about the egos of the elites.
• California has long had more than its share of busybodies with a vision of the world in which it is necessary for them to force other people to do Good Things . . . a very flattering vision which they are unlikely to give up for anything so mundane as facts or logic.
• Good Things have costs, often costs all out of proportion to whatever good they might do. But notions like trade-offs and diminishing returns seldom deter zealots, whose own egos are served by their zealotry in imposing their vision, however costly or counterproductive it may be for others.
• The vision of zealots is not just a vision of the world. It is a vision of themselves as special people in that world. (You’ll see the term zealot used frequently . . . and justifiably!)
• Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. . . . the real world is wrong and needs to change.
• The U.S. has always been diverse [but] . . . it has always been understood by all that they came here to become Americans—not to remain foreign. . . . Today our “citizen of the world types” [so] all they can to keep foreigners foreign and domestic minorities riled up over grievances, past and present, real and imaginary.
• The free market is a daily assault on the vision of the anointed. Just think of all those millions of people out there buying whatever they want, whether or not the anointed think it is good for them. . . . People who decry the fact that businesses are in business “just to make money” [ignore the fact that] you make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.
• [Just imagine] people earning whatever incomes they get from producing goods or services for other people, with the anointed cut out of the loop, standing on the sidelines in helpless frustration, unable to impose their particular vision of “social justice.”
• Instead of trying to propagandize children to hug trees and recycle garbage, our schools would be put to better use teaching them how to analyze and test what is said by people who advocate tree hugging and recycling.
• Guns are completely inappropriate for the kind of sheep like people the anointed envision, or the orderly, prepackaged world in which they are to live. When you are in mortal danger you are supposed to dial 911, so that the police can arrive on the scene sometime later, identify your body and file reports in triplicate.
• In much of the liberal media, large-scale confrontations between police and people who are breaking the law are usually reported in one of two ways. Either the police “used excessive force” or they “let the situation get out of hand.” Any enforcement sufficient to prevent the situation from getting out of hand will be called “excessive,” and if the police arrive in large enough numbers to squelch disorder without having to use any force at all, then sending in so many cops will be called “over reacting.”
• Whether the one sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in defeat, there used to be a controversy, but in recent years high officials in the Communist government have themselves admitted they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.
• The realities of life force most of us to grow up, whether we want to or not. But for people unprotected from realities by being born rich, or by having lifetime tenure as academics or federal judges, maturity is optional. (One wishes he had added movie and pop stars who rake in zillions for little effort and simultaneously harbor both guilt and a sense of superiority; and do so within the free-market environment which permits this while they fail to understand, and visit it with limitless vitriol.)
• They say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. But maybe the old dog already knows about tricks that only seem new to the young—and doesn’t think much of those tricks.

Give or take a couple of quotes you are up to about page 50 !!

Peters is a retired Army officer with experience in some 70 countries, the author of over 20 books and a recognized opinion columnist who regularly contributes to USA Today, the Weekly Standard, the Armed Forces Journal and the Armchair General (a magazine publication of which he is also an advisory board member.) If anything he is overqualified to represent his opinions in matters military matters, strategic governmental decisions and hard-nosed logic. In this powerful book he presents stunning facts and interpretations worthy of his expertise. And it is a riveting read, pleasuresome while scholarly.

It is a compendium of his columns covering a multitude of topics which include his predictions on the shape of coming wars, suicide bombers, “cartoon riots” commentary, rebels and religion, “Blood Borders” (how the Middle-East should have been, and ought to be divided), Afghan reality, Pakistani instability, ugly choices in the Mideast, Sunni vs. Shia (which ain’t all about Islam), Hezbollah, Israeli struggles (grit, corruption, border battles, wars, errors, etc.), and the “crucial” Indian Ocean.

One of his most stunning observations is what he calls “The Return of the Tribes,” which first appeared in The Weekly Standard (Sept. 2006), and would alone be worth the price of the book, though it is available—and well worth the read--free, on line (copy and paste the following:)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12616&R=ED

The entire book is facts and observations of similar depth and quality. He tries desperately to convince by noting what it will take to protect our country against this “new breed of enemies.” (What follows is synopsized from the book jacket since I cannot express it better.)

• We have forgotten what is necessary to win wars, which leads to avoidable failures.
• Too many Americans still refuse to take these enemies seriously.
• These enemies will use nuclear weapons if allowed to obtain them.
• Religious wars are impossible to prevent. The enemy desires them.
• The Middle East is headed for greater chaos and Israel may not survive.
• “Civilized” approaches to combat no longer work.
• Pop bestsellers have read globalization exactly wrong. We are not headed to greater unity, but to divisive crises of identity.

Beyond that it is impossible to review this monumentally informative and wonderfully readable collection of essays on civilization and warfare in the 21st century. I plead with all of you to obtain and read this book . . . then reread it and harken to the messages! They are both frightening and mandatory. As I have been saying periodically for the last four years, we must come to grips with radical Islamic terror and fascism, and we must begin now. The west must fight or die. That is the choice!

After State of Fear, all I can say is WOW! He’s done it again.

As another well done tale about the currently troublesome biotech revolution, it is as entertaining as was the former, and cogent to a contemporaneous conundrum. As in the former he signs off with suggestions on a rational approach to the problems.

He uses numerous vignettes recurring throughout the book, each expanding the narratives in which he expounds on the nature and risks of gene splicing, gene therapy, the development of humanoids, smart African grey parrots, “curative” inhalation therapies, etc. These are situationally humorous but serious nonetheless.

He takes his deserved swipes at those who know it all (as was the Hollywood star eaten by cannibals in “Fear”), and exposes modern science for the fraud it has become. Science, in the past, was a noble calling (think Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Jonas Salk, the Curies, etc.), but it has be converted into nothing more than a career choice in recent decades and has become as corrupt as most every other human endeavor. “Practitioners lie, cheat, steal, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly.”

Universities do research for the money and drug companies fund research which leads to predetermined, or at least biased results which are not rarely known to be false. This in turn leads to dangerous and/or near useless drugs which cost a fortune . . . and it is getting much worse year by year. Many Universities own myriad patents. Some have holdings which dwarf the ownership of the biggest of industrial giants. And to what end? It prohibits meaningful research by others who have to pay huge sums to explore areas in any way related to these patents; a consequence avoidable only by avoiding such research, thus depriving humanity of who knows what in the way of serious progress.

One of the most critical issues is the patenting of genes, which he observes is not unlike patenting the nose. One cannot thereafter develop nasal spray, nasal trimmers, eyeglasses (which rest on the nose) or do reconstructive surgery without paying the patent holder a fortune. Insane you say? So is the patenting of genes.

Another issue is that of tissue ownership. Taken for one purpose it is being purloined for others without the knowledge or consent of the donors. Whole cell lines are thus established which enrich universities and research labs in millions—or billions—of dollars, all without consent of the donors, many of whom then have to pay whopping fees for therapies which would not exist without them. And, of course, they get nothing by way of compensation for their “donations.”

Only half in jest he notes that “ADULTS DON’T GROW UP ANYMORE.” Formal education requires child-like receptivity which compromises the psychological maturity which would normally occur in the late teens or early twenties. (I remember observing as a medical student that people in graduate school mature more slowly because of their sheltered environment—away from the “real world.”) This is increasingly true now, and frighteningly so! We have perpetual adolescents who take years or decades to complete education, and we have Bill Clinton--only too representative of the “boomer” generation--who is still adolescent in his sixties, as are many of them.

Good read, and entertaining, too. Thought provoking, it clearly defines some of the legislatives updating needed in the new modern era.

It’d be delightful to go the rest of my life without hearing another word about Paris, Britney, Madonna, K-whatever his name is and their ilk. Even the aging Madonna!

When I was a kid there were problems in Hollywood—one hears about Doris Day’s sexual excesses, alcoholism, profanity, etc—but we never heard about it at the time. The tabloid press tried to make them exemplary citizens. Serious effort was made by the adults in charge to keep it under wraps and, one suspects, even acquire therapy when necessary.

Now we’re treated to hourly doses—even hour long doses—of this tripe, pretending to be news, and I wanna meet the adult who gives a S**T!