Stranger In a Strange Land

by Robert A. Heinlein

I read this book on recommendation of the "sons of Murphy" Murphys. This was after an exchange of left right blah blah. The book is typical sci-fi taking place some time in the future. It has it's sci-fi macho overtones of which would turn the average woman off. The storyline is about this "Man From Mars" back here on Earth working through the differences of the two cultures. The primary categories of social topics are religion, sexuality, brotherly love, and money. Aside from Mike {the Man From Mars} other leading characters are Jubal and Gill. Jubal is your classic old time lawyer who’s is well connected, well off and, knows everything. 

 He plays a very macho role towards his mostly women servants. Gill is the nurse who rescues the Man From Mars from government captivity and brings him to Jubal, where they begin his earth training. After some time Gil and Mike leave the security of Jubals house to learn first hand about he real world. They encounter secular religious groups and Mike learns about God. They encounter Patty the tattoo lady in a carnival and learn about people. They go to Vegas where Gill learns about sexuality. She realizes that there is a difference between men and women and she learned to appreciate men gawking at her nudity while stripping on stage. They end up in a LA hotel whereby MIKE has learned all differences he can between the two societies and becomes in essence a second coming. 

 He uses his Martian mind power to perform miracles and draws a following of thousands to learn his values. Sex is part of the fabric of this new movement whereby sharing water meant growing close and having sex, with whomever and whenever, wherever and with as many at one time as seamed appropriate. All the converts learned Martian, so that they could think in Martian. They learn patience and waiting for fullness before they act on circumstance. Money was not important to them because they had plenty. Since they placed no value on money nobody stole it. 

 The outside world at large were enraged by this radical secular movement. Eventually Mike meets his end in the same way Christ did. In the end Jubal and Mike discuss the mistake Mike made. On Mars, people who were not capable of sustaining lifes important values were weeded out in the very beginning of life. Nine of ten died shortly after birth. This left a supreme society that did not compete against each other. On earth everybody survives life's early lesson and thus we spend the rest of life competing against each other in a VALUES system. Thus Mike met is end by choice. 

 Values: the reason I read the books. Religion: The author advocates an acceptance of all faiths. This is a value promoted by Unity a church I belong to. The idea that God resides within each of us and we are all expressing God makes sense. Expressing love to one another by sharing water and sex is a reach beyond the norm. Sex: The author advocates that women and their bodies are beautiful and that women indeed like to be looked at. Free love where  often sex really complicates the point. Social Interaction: The book looks at day to day manipulation of people the same way a carnie works a crowd for money and then compares it to placing no value on money. The difference equates to people loving each other first. Overall the book skims the very top of social issues. It proposes bizarre solutions and then in the end realizes those solutions are far more complicated and conflict with their hypothesis. On Mars people are not born equal. On Earth they are.

Anthem

Anthem
by Ayn Rand

is a novel of epic proportions. Much is said in a very little space, the book being only 112 pages long. The comparisons and alliterations used are clear and concise; no space is wasted on frivolous or redundant interaction, and the focus is on the main character's experience and interaction with the world and, perhaps more importantly, with himself. The ideas portrayed are influential, controversial, and very important ones, and she gives them in a dramatized setting that make them completely understandable and just. She speaks from a position of personal experience, and her conclusions are on a very moral and realistic level. Rand presents convincingly that man's ego; his personal self, is the fountainhead of his achievement.

The book is very striking in its approach. One might conceivably be confused in the opening paragraph, as the main character has no conception of individualism. He speaks using "we" instead of "I", and every other personal pronoun is replaced with collective thinking. This is a good example of Rand's dramatic extremism; the character was born into a society that had forsaken individualism to the extent of possibility, and had replaced it with complete collectivism, even down to the speech they used. The main character was taught that he was evil, because he did not look or think like his "brothers", and he believed himself evil until his great revelation.

In that example Rand expresses the folly of communally minded-thinking. The absence of individualism precludes any sort of progress or development, and individualism is the driving force of her philosophy. She appeals to man's inherent sense of pride in his own accomplishments, and to our sense of injustice at the crimes of the communal community the character is born into. She promotes pride as the sole source of man's accomplishments, as reason and independence are the only truly lasting achievements man can aspire to, holding firmly to the idea that there is no such thing as a "Collective Mind". Humanity is not the Borg. Our essential essence and spirit fundamentally rejects dogma and assumption, and that man who does not question the world is dead to it.

Her technique is brilliantly blunt and direct, reaching to the core of the issue. The main character is named Equality 7-2521, which is fittingly ironic. All the other characters have similar names, like Fraternity, Union, Liberty, all followed by a number. It is ironic because the names express high ideals, high aspirations, then the numbers level them all down to the same uni-sexed and equally unimportant level. Equality 7-2521 knew that he was different, and from his teachings he thus believed himself to be evil. Despite this self-degrading stigma ha continued in "evil" actions, learning things about the world for himself, and discovering things that were unknown to man. He grows continually in independence and learning, even though he has been arbitrarily assigned to the life-duty of Street Sweeper, alongside a mentally handicapped boy, ironically. This is another good example: the best and most able mind in the community was assigned to mindless labor on the same level as one who was not aware of his own existence. A severe blow to the idea of "those who are able should do the jobs they are fit for" which has been so successful in America, and in every admirable developed place in the world.

In the course of the story Equality 7-2521 finds a place to hide, a tunnel from the lost age of technology. In it are various pieces of equipment with which he experiments, and eventually discovers how to rudimentarily generate electricity, and thus light. He first thinks of his brethren, being trained to think collectively, and plans to present it to the World Council, so that all men might have light. This is also a fitting allusion; he wishes to shed light on the dark masses of humanity with his discovery, his innovation, his personal triumph. He is afraid to present it to the council, because it is "evil" to be alone, and anything which one man alone creates is "evil" since the only good in the world is living for ones brothers, and only that which many people collaborate on is good. A striking example of the utter stupidity of this idea is shown when it comes about that approval of the upgrade from the torches of their past to the candles they currently burned took fifty years, and was worked on by twenty men. Again, this is a vast extremity, but Rand thusly tells the point clearly: individuals, not councils, accomplish things.

Equality 7-2125 presents his gift to the council and, as expected, they call him evil and denounce his work. They sentence him to a humiliating death, to make an example of him. He escapes, and runs away into the forest where no one will follow, as they are told from childhood that separation from their fellows means death, and the "uncharted forest" kills all those who enter. He enters believing this, knowing no different, accepting his fate on his own rather than being used for machinations in the community. Waking the next day up very much alive, he very quickly discovers the joy of freedom: he is not bound to any schedule, to any other will but his own. He discovers the satisfaction in eating food prepared by one's own hands. With this exodus Rand sets up the character for his profound revelation. He realized that he does not need to live for his brothers, and needs no one to live for him.

He is joined by a woman who had fallen in love with him and he her, while she was working in the fields and he sweeping. Their meeting is so wonderfully brilliant and amazing, it sticks in one's head as an epitome of emotion and real human feeling. They travel together in the woods, and discover that sex, in such conditions as theirs, is a wonderful action. This is a revelation to them, whom had been conceived in mass orgies in "palaces of mating". They realize their affection to each other, but are at a loss as to name it. This is chillingly and heart-breakingly show when "The Golden One" (Equality 7-2521's name for her; she calls him "The unconquered") tries to express her feeling for him, in the passage shown below:

Today the Golden one stopped suddenly and said
"We love you." But then they frowned and shook their head and looked at us helplessly.
"No," they whispered "that is not what we wished to say" They were silent, then they spoke slowly, and haltingly, like the words of a child learning to speak for the first time:

"We are one… alone… and only… and we love you who are one… alone… and only." We looked into eachother's eyes and we knew that the breath of a miracle had touched us, and fled, and left us groping vainly. And we felt torn, torn for some word we could not find. (86)

This maddening example of their speech pervades throughout most of the book, and the message is clear. They, who never knew the use of personal pronouns, were unable to effectively express their thoughts. They had the idea, but lacked the sounds to make a word, or the very concept of such a words existence. Later in the finale of the book, the "Anthem" to man's spirit, as it were, they stumble across an old house, built with the highest technology, a remnant of the "unmentionable times". It is intact, and inside there is a library of books from the past. From these books Equality 7-2521 discovers the idea of individualism. The discovery is so moving, so fitting, so masterfully done one might be moved to tears, even in thinking about it later. To this person who had never know the idea of having a "self", the discovery of words like I, Me, My, and Mine are a sacred revelation, the most fundamental of human rights. The Right to have a "self". This "self" is what Rand glorifies, the self which is independent of the will of others, which forms its own opinions of the world based on reason and observation, the self which questions the truths it is told and makes personal judgement. She uses a word to define this idea, a word much tarnished by collectivist stigma and egalitarian ideas. That word is Ego. Mans Ego is the only thing which he really possesses, it is his soul, his very being, and to sacrifice it to another, especially a group of similarly sacrificing collectivists, is the most unholy thing an individual can do. The most holy thing a man can do is to dredge himself up from the collective quagmire and set his own mind apart from all the rest.

These ideas are very contrary to what we learn in our society, but by reasoning and logical thought, one can discern that they are indeed just. In the prelude to the book, it says, "one correspondent warned Mrs. Rand that there were some people for whom the word ego is "too strong-even, immoral" She replied "Why, of course there are. Against whom do you suppose the book was written?""(vi). Very clearly then she identifies herself as a radical, a heretic in the eyes of the common public, the "Great We".

The experience she has to qualify her reasoning is her upbringing in Russia. Her family fled during one of the revolutions in the early 20th century, and came to New York. She was a young adult at the time, and was mystified by the new freedoms she was granted in the US. Finding expression in writing, she soon mastered the English language and began to formulate her unique philosophy: objectivism. Looking at the evils of collectivism from personal experience, she gives valid testimony though novels.

Her use of novel form for philosophy is important. It is an well-accepted fact that there are some things that cannot be taught. Her ideas are one of them, as they involve personal pain, indignity, and reasoning that is rare to find in the masses of humanity. She then makes an attempt at teaching these unteachable ideals, not though lecture and example, but by providing several unique life experiences. Each of her books tell the story of an individual who struggles and fights against the common grain of mindless humanity; the "second handers" who bog down the brilliant, in an attempt to have an identity as an individual. She gives us their life experiences, and the formative conflicts they have, allowing us to feel emotion and experience situations we never would in life. Though this method, she is able to present a believable philosophy based solely on reason and experience, which she calls objectivism.

Though it may be hard to swallow for a non-Objectivist minded person, Objectivism would be very good for our society. If everyone supported themselves, lived for their own good, and made smart decisions, then there would be no one to take care of. There would be no need for charity. Everyone would be free.

The Battle For God

The Battle For God
by Karen Armstrong

The book takes a historical look at the struggle of three religions to maintain a religious way of life in the modern world beginning in 1492. The author only focuses on Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as they are challenged by modernization, government, and internal conflicts within their own doctrine. The struggle takes the form in a constant conflict between logos and mythos. While science enabled society to come up with life’s explanation beginning with exploration of not only our geography, but all other sciences, religion has always looked to be the anchor in progress by justification with ultimate mythos explanation for that which science has not yet deciphered. Hence there is still today a strong hold on fundamentalism thought within all three groups.

Islam’s roots in the Koran took on many different interpretations within various regions of the Islamic world, basically because of it’s relationships with corresponding government regimes. The primary conflict is to what degree Islamic clergy, the mullah, involved themselves in government. By the Koran government should have it’s roots in the Islamic faith; yet there is constant struggle for just how to influence government. Government, would typically use the sentiment of the mullah and it’s followers to gain rule. Amidst this struggle modernization occurred for which the WEST were first at. Through domination of West over Islam, largely because of the evolution from agriculture to technology, disdain grew out of implementing western practice of science within the thought process of a Muslim mind set. Fundamentalism took the offensive in various countries and different times. They were consistently met with the same challenge: of retaining religious integrity once it entered into the world of the plural, rational and pragmatic thought.

With the exile of Muslims in Spain and the Inquisition, primarily to rid Spain of Muslims, Jews got the boot as well. Again they found themselves as a faith with no home. This time in a world exploding with scientific discovery. As they migrated to different parts of Europe, they story was the same. Typically they found themselves as second class citizens isolated in over crowded sectors of cities with limited rights and relegated to limited professions such as tailors. Again, leaders would rise to somehow rationalize their faith with their rulers in an attempt to integrate and become a part of the dominant culture. This could be achieved through spinning interpretations of the Torah to suite the need of the time. By the time Israel was founded there was also a divide between Fundamentalist and Zionist (spin doctors of the Torah).

Christianity also saw a real move to fundamentalism after the American revolution. The debates between Adams and Jefferson were stirred as well by common folks who saw the elite doctrines to look too much like what they fought against. As such there was an explosion in variation of Christian doctrine from Mormons, to Baptist and many points in between. In the end there were 10 times as many common folks practicing some form of Christianity by 1850. Yet all of these folks as well were met with the challenge of rationalizing their believes to that of scientific fact. The argument about separation of church and state carries on to this day in the likes of Falwell and Robertson. Their basic argument in their contest for power entails bargaining, and giving some ground to opponents which is difficult to square with religious visions which sees certain principals as in violable.

It is interesting that all three religions rejected moderninity, yet they were influenced by modern ideas. Which put them in a position to rationalize their faith to justify their existence. This appears to be an exercise in futility and a self destructing exercise that exposes the proper place for religion. In the end their interpretations of each of their prospective Holy Books not only put them at internal odds with each other, they find themselves in a difficult spot justifying their existence as an influence in government all together. However, fundamentalism is certainly in robust form today. Why is that? Where will it go? In the Fundamentalist quest to re-sacralize society their efforts have become aggressive, distorted, and advocates of hatred and anger. The basic message of this book is that for Fundamentalist to succeed, a more compassionate approach with a bias towards benevolence and tolerance towards their opposition and at the same time to properly address their fears and anxieties of extinction in a way that does not cause adverse movements. There seems to be a place for religion. It does provide the moral compass cardinal headings in life. Yet the means for getting there, where ever there is, appears to now be the purview of science.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Guns, Germs, and Steel
by Jared Diamond

This book is a very enjoyable accounting of the history of man with an
attempt to use 'scientific method' to answer the question that arises late
into a party. The question as put in the book goes like this.: Why is it
you some people developed so much baggage and brought it here to New Guinea
while we black people had little cargo of our own? From here the author
provides well organized, easy to read argument that is based on the
following points which give meaning to the title of the book. Or in other
words, what conditions existed for one society to evolve faster. The racial undertones at the begining are the only flaw in the book.

First, there is the element of starting materials that could be domesticated. That is large grain cereals and large mammalian animals.
These two elements were most prevalent in the Fertile Crescent region allowing for an agrarian age

2. Then after considering the domestication of plants and animals, the
author offers numerous scenarios in many regions of our planet earth, across
the history of man, to illustrate how mans selected use determined the fate
of their region. For instance, what if the folks in the Fertile Crescent
managed their land better. Or what if later in history those same people
adopted a religion that embraced technology. Or what was it in the first
large united people's leaders in China, to suddenly ban everything
mechanical including clocks. In the end, or to date, it proved to be the
disparate Europe that advanced in the scientific age. It was through
competition between the regions that propelled advancement.

3. Unfortunately this story of man includes the need to conquer other
lands. The book sites examples, with counter fact, describing why one
region conquered another and not vice versa. For instance, why did Cortez
conquer the Aztecs, instead of the Aztecs sailing to Spain? As in most events first
Germs, inherent from farming and animal husbandry. Then advanced technology
and organized government afforded the conquerors an advantage with Steel and
Guns.

The book is a great refresher course in history using scientific method in
constructing the rationale for the occurrences of events. As the author
concludes, the book clearly provides a shift in our paradigm moving history
from the Humanities building on campus to the Science building. From there
what new lessons could we learn? I am not sure Diamond ever answered that
late night party question. In fact the book did not require such an introduction.

The Virtue of Prosperity

The Virtue of Prosperity
by Dinesh D'Souza

The theme of this book is about finding values in Techno Affluence. This
book excites you about our future. The first chapter is dedicated to the
excitement surrounding the potential for wealth borne in technology. From
there we jump into the dichotomy of the Party of Neah and the Party of Yeah.
Neah's are fundamentalists who do not believe the Internet exist and the
.com Stock Market will crash. The Party of Yeah is optimistic. They feel
that new ideas and information are a new form of capital. Imagine these
parties superseding 'Left & Right'. The idea that creativity is an act of
faith puts a techno spin on religion. The Party of Yeah asserts that they
seek to accomplish what Priests, Intellectuals, and Bureaucrats failed at:
solve the problem of scarcity. After putting Techno in the same realm as
religion and politics, D'Souza makes some claims on techno economics that
will surely raise the hair on George Sorro's neck. While D'Souza refers to
many expert authors across the span of the argument on where the virtue lay,
you gain some compassion as to why you may have mixed feelings yourself.
The book closes with a sense of balance that allows a person to be excited
about our future and at the same time maintain a sense of cardinal headings
from lessons learned over the course of mankind.

In the midst of this social conflict we are to observe the over-class
displaying their internal conflict along the same lines. Witnessing rich
folks flaunting their wealth in torn blue jeans and Porsche and NOT leaving
their fortunes to their heirs but giving the majority of their money to
charity. This sets us up for D'Souza's message. To help heal the social
division caused by the new techno-capitalism and to help reconcile what
place technology and wealth should occupy in our pursuit of the good life.

With regard to opportunity, D'Souza describes this new economy as one with a
naturally higher degree of equal opportunity. You read about the wisdom in
our Founding Fathers, proclaiming a voice for equal rights, not equal
outcomes. Furthermore, D'Souza was a middle class immigrant from India who
went to Dartmouth. His Dartmouth education was funded largely by the
private sector, an Ivy League tradition. His book is yet another way of
paying back on that loan. He does however give tribute to the social
connection of Ivy League schools and its merit towards the exposure to
venture capital. In summary I liked this quote by Sabeer Bhatia when
commenting about being a person of color; "I quickly realized that being
foreign born was no barrier, it was only a barrier in my mind."

After being primed, D'Souza delves into the crux of the matter by exploring
all angles of the question. Can you make people better by means of
technological progress? Are the Amish correct in benchmarking technology
against the focus on moral footing in land, family, community? OR can we
have it both ways? It is suggested that free market capitalism is only
one of a three-legged stool. The other two are a democratic polity, and a
Judeo-Christian social ethic.

D'Souza does a very good job drawing on quotations of famous economists,
entrepreneurs, the Bible, and philosophers to rationalize the idea that
capitalism and wealth is good. He draws from people like Adam Smith, Ayn
Rand, and George Guilder, Lockee, Bacon, Adams; summarizes each respective
argument and distills a basic theme that "If the rich are getting richer and
the poor are better off, then this win win scenario has achieved success. I
found it interesting the differences in economic tone between the Old and
New Testaments and the point that Jews only embrace the Old Testament. Then
on drawing a Techno-spin consider that two commandments; thou shall not
steal and thou shall not covent thy neighbors goods contemplate property
and capital.


In contemplation of our gnome future, championed by the Part of Yeah, one
must question our moral foundation by drawing contrast on Aldous Huxley's
vision of a master race back in 1932. Or in the tradition of science, what
if I patent the perfect human clone? What if I purchase a perfect set of
genes for my new child only to find them out dated in five years and no
upgrade available. Will your DNA be part of your resume? Will insurance
companies now have the information to decline you based DNA profile? But
one must also balance this with the virtues of medical break through on
disease. We have a lot of work to do to throttle the scientific minds yet
implement the fruits of their labor. Reality check: biotechnology and
science has brought us to a new horizon. The likes of Richard Dawkins;
rationalizes gnome and carbon software production of humans and thought.
They are pursuing a cure to aging in mind and body. In essence they are
defining an existence that is endless and purposeless: a working definition
of Hell?

The book clearly provoked existing thought within me. It also helped
crystallize some of my own ideas by clearing up some mis-conceptions. I
draw a corollary to reading Supreme Court arguments and opinions. The
arguments from every side are spirited, well thought out, well referenced,
and in many cases convincing on all sides. You discover that you are not
alone in your contemplation or concern on where our scientific minds are
taking us. The enthusiasm behind all argument will vex you, as well as
entertain you. The tid-bits provided here can only tease you into
reading the book. In the end you will most likely find yourself
referencing, the book in your casual conversation on where the future lay
and how to define virtue of prosperity.

Included with this review is also other books appropriately referred to by
D'Souza

1. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
2. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism by Daniel Bell
3. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak
4. Natural Capitalism by Hawken, Lovins, Lovins
5. The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins

Darkness In el Dorado

Darkness In el Dorado
By Patrick Tienery

This book is considered to be good reading material after Guns, Germs, and
Steel. The promos entice your interest with a story of the corruption
connected with the exploitation of the Rain Forest of Venezuela and Brazil.
Napoleon Chagnon, Charles Brewer, James Neel, amongst a list of others, are
introduced as scientifically intended anthropologist driven by rationale
thought and absolutely no moral compass. Imagine them contracting with the
Atomic Energy Commission to extract blood from the Yanomami Indians to study
affects of radiation, as compared to Hiroshima survivors. Yes, the AEC,
the ones who fed radioactive oatmeal to retarded children. Read on.

The author Patrick Tierney, is an anthropologist not an author. His first
person delivery of facts is dry and typically "Phd'ish". His personal views
are those of ordinary skills. His indictment of fellow scientists usually
begins with a long statement of dry facts; he normally concludes with
personal views that only diminish his standing. This pattern is repeated
more than once in the book.

I found it interesting for the author to be so generally sympathetic of the
Yanomami as a civilized people; when in fact he writes about their practice
of infanticide of typically girls at birth. The Yanomami rationalizes this
violence by their desire for continued sex without the complication of
lactating breasts. Scientists claim the practice is rationalized by
conscious population control. In either case there is no debate in
Yanomamiland over abortion. In the end you get the feeling that Tierney is
conflicted in personal views of science's role in the Amazon and
particularly the Yanomami Indians. The objections he finds in science he
endorses traces of the same also found in the fabric of the Yanomami.

You come away from this book with a real jaundice eye on science. Where the
suspicion comes from is not the atrocities committed by the corrupt people
and organizations involved; but rather the ineffectiveness of the scientific
community to correct the problem. While organizationally science,
government, the Church, and business are involved it appears that by name
you often find a scientist at the root of the specific event. They use the
Press, in numerous venues, and the trust we place in the scientific
community to make a case to further their personal goals at the fate of
indigenous people. Napoleon Chagnon in1993, after 25 years of exploiting
the Yanomami Indians, was elected president of Human Behavior and Evolution
Society. In his acceptance speech he states that his evolution theory is
hateful, racist, is widely denounced by anthropologist, the ones who elected
him. Go figure.

Why was the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) so involved with study of
genetics with the Yanomami? AEC, otherwise known as the brotherhood of the
mushroom; science's version of the mob. Whereby their cold war driven
insanity is institutionalized via rubber stamp endorsements by officials and
organizations without having the details as to what lay underneath the
approvals. Tierney alleges that the AEC had an agenda to study the
radiation of the "bomb" and the Yanomami were a perfect control base. They
subjected the Yanomami to toxic iodine 131 and iron Fe-59. This was after
it was determined unethical and illegal to do such in the United States.
Want more go to http:hex.dis.anl.org. I will stop here with the mention of
the alleged AEC's practice of body snatching.

I was keen on the alleged misrepresentation that TVs Nova ran in their film
Warriors of the Amazon, 'steeling the spirit'. Rather than give a young
mother aspirin to cure a fever, they filmed her death. The Yanomami are
already superstitious about taking photos of them. They believe that a
photo steals their spirit and allows disease. So filming a death would have
been problematic without an advance payment of grand proportion. Did Nova
and their medical team exercise integrity standards we are accustom to in
the States? NOT. Did the Yanomami accept the perceived bribe. YAEUP. And
I like Nova.

Helen Votero, is the first known white person with in-depth first hand
knowledge of Yanomami life. captured by Yanomami in 1932 a the age of 11.
She lived her life in the jungle and eventually married a Yanomami Indian.
While the likes of Chagnon and Mizot lay all sorts of claims about being the
"first white man" to study these people exploiting untold amounts of money
from all sectors of interested parties; it was in fact Helen Votero who at
the age of eleven began her life long study of the same people. Not that
science should conclude their research with her, for obvious reasons, but
why after the discovery of her existence, did they not consult with her and
leverage her insight into their study. It is alleged that they did not and
in fact discounted anything she had to say. After all if in deed she was
first, then the magnitude of their claims is severely diminished and
therefore so is their propensity for funding of their personal agendas.

A few nested nuggets of information: (1) The study of nutrition on the
average daily consumption of animal protein of the Yanomami people. The
study, from1975 to 1983 illustrates the limitations of the pure
hunter-gatherer. A large shabono {village house} would over hunt an area
and force the village to move on. The distinction here over other studies
is that protein measurements were actually taken. (2) I was impressed by the
methodology for which the Yanomami pass on knowledge in their shabono
houses. An environment where there is absolutely no privacy, they would sing
and chant through the night. The content of their verse told of history, and
questioned the present. Visionary chants were not mentioned. (3)The book
delves into all the facets of natural selection and of course genetics. An
interesting thought, imagine women in genetic frame of mind. How would she
select her mate? But for a long time man has killed or lest dominated other
men as to force the hand of the decision-maker.

There is that old saying 'You'll see it when you believe it'. While this
book is an indictment vested upon Scientists, Journalists, and Governments
of their corruption; the author is successful in promulgating worth while
pause before we embark on the new horizons in genetic genome science and
further exploitation of innocent people. This pause may be tribute to a set
of biased and maybe conflicted beliefs. Yet he offers no solution.

Diplomacy

Diplomacy
by Henry Kissinger

This is a wonderful book discussing the world of diplomacy from an American and historical perspective. Kissinger’s role in making history drawing from a high degree of expertise that, in conjunction with his eloquent command of the English written word, gives the reader reason to pause and reflect on the turn of every page. His book suggests that there are two basic positions for which Diplomats have historically placed themselves. That of Richelieu, of 14Th century France and that of Bismarck in united Germany, of the 19th century. He then examines the political fabric of the United States from the perspective of Theodore Roosevelt’s sense of National Security and Wilson’s sense of liberty for all of mankind.

The book is as much a history lesson as it is a lesson on diplomacy. It looks behind the scenes to explore the thought processes of those leaders in their deliberation to commit their people to war. Especially in reading the diplomatic prelude prior to both World Wars. There was reckless madness of both the military leaders and their politicians, who are not always on the same page of music, as they order young men to their death. This review presents a theme followed by my notes and quotes, reflecting Kissinger’s conclusion. Liberty is a conscious that enabled every president of the 20th century to commit its people to war. But the underlying reason in every case was national security. The rest of the world does not necessarily think as we do. And so we must be prepared.

Liberty is something we demand within our boarders and promote internationally. But NATIONAL SECURITY is an issue where we need to change the way we think. I am reassured to hear Colin Powell, a man I hold in very high regard, say that we will form an international coalition, yet we will not be constrained by this coalition. Our new world order calls for a combination of Richlieu and Bismark as presented by Kissinger. Build SDS, secure our airports, avenge our perpetrators with a furry and at the same time promote international trade, assist our international community, and participate in world harmony. Do this from a foundation of security and strength. Can Americans submit to self-interest as opposed to principle? If not, then how to balance international power among regions of disparate moral values? Hence lay the conflicts of Richelieu (1700) and Wilson (1900).

Today, after reading this book, I am perplexed to be in agreement with Richelieu; yet hold a measure of disdain towards the French role in diplomacy. While Kissinger has a bias toward national security, he concedes to America’s penchant for human rights and civil liberty. But he did let the cat out of the bag by illustrating the contrasts, of all 20th century presidents involved in war except Nixon, between the strategy to defend our nation and gain public support for such defense. I believe after reading this book, and in the wake of terrorist activity in New York City and Washington D.C. I encourage all Americans to realize that we are a disparate human race and we must always maintain a high regard to National Security. Theodore Roosevelt began the 20th century on that note, I urge president Bush to do the same now.

NOTES & QUOTES:
I found it interesting to read that our Monroe Doctrine was primarily drafted to establish the Americans position between The Holy Alliance and Spain. Secondarily, it was what allowed for the American expansion across the West with European protection. We lived in “splendid isolation for 100 years.

It is popular thinking that American entrance into WWI was because of the sinking of the Lisutnia. When in fact Roosevelt’s and then Wilson’s doctrine on America's global responsibilities that primarily backed the proclamation of war. Wilson 's primary objective was a new and just international order based on Human Rights as opposed to the European arrangement of 'balance of power' between governments.

Balance of power was basically the brainchild of France; Raison detate. While Raison detate was perceive as a tool to allow nation states to balance power in the best interest of each nation; in fact this was a measure commensurate to the Monroe Doctrine. Raison detate benefited France the alliance security of smaller nations as she expanded her boarder eastward into the Habsburg Dynasty, The Holy Roman Empire of that time. I am intrigued to appreciate that the Catholic-Protestant schism was actually a political issue after all. France, Germany, Sweden clearly allied against the Habsburg Dynasty for national survival, more so than for religious reason. Britain was only an agent to light the fuse

You learn in the Austrian position of the 19th century that building alliances to balance the agendas of its neighbors were an exercise in balancing substance and form. Keeping the Tsar in check through consensus of conservative interests. And simultaneously maintaining an alliance with
Britain on the basis of last resort for resisting challenges to the balance of powers. As time allowed the aggression of France t fade, Austria found it much more difficult to broker peace. During this period Austria, at the Vienna Congress of 1815 came very close to forming an EU. Being in a position of relative weaker member yet still with the legacy vestiges of the Habsberg Dynasty, Lets hope Brussels gets the job done this time around.

Napoleon III's foreign policy clearly represents the consequence of not demonstrating the capability of standing behind it. He over the course of 20 years surrendered France’s European leadership to a newly united
Germany. One element that Prussia's Bismark used to seal the fate of France and a new European order by leaking Napoleons foreign correspondence to the press. Thus pressing Napoleon into a senseless war with Prussia.

“What is a revolutionary? If the answer to that question were without ambiguity, few revolutionaries would ever succeed. For revolutionaries almost always start from a position of inferior strength. They prevail because the established order is unable to grasp its own vulnerability.
This is especially true when the revolutionary challenge emerges not from a march on the Bastille but in conservative garb. Few institutions have defenses against those who evoke the expectation that they will preserve
Them." Bismark was a revolutionary for sure. So much so that his only flaw was to find someone with the right skills to succeed him. The wrong leadership to a good German role as a world leader and made it a bad one.”

Moral Convictions or National Security appear to have been a pivotal card to play in the game of foreign policy. In 1880 Gladstone won the office of British Prime Minister on Moral Convictions. Wilson mobilized Roosevelt’s public supported policy using a higher moral ground argument. Bismark was
constrained in his dispatch of Real Plotik in the Balance of Power by his acquiescence to public moral convictions. Since Gladstone, human rights have been the guiding light to international peace movements, weather through successful diplomacy or war. However as in Gladstones defense of Afghanistan against Russia’s quest for a southern port in 1880, it became easy to question weather Britain's leader was compelled by geopolitics or was he genuine in his higher international moral ground to the extent he would commit British lives.

Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Austria all contributed in foiling the Balance of Power in Europe in the 25 years preceding The Great War. Primarily the catalyst was the shortsighted vision of German leaders post Bismark. Her balancing act through alliance treaties could not be sustained for two reasons. First the newly united Prussian German people were conflicted by the insecurity of having 200 years of war fought on their
Soil by foreign powers. Second, their new found strength found short sighted leaders with the tendency in negotiating alliances by forcing the German position. While Germany did not have aspiration to expand in any direction, her short sighted foreign policy found herself surround by adverse countries, each having their own network of dependant alliances.

I am absolutely amazed that if diplomacy worked we would have allied with Great Britain and Germany prior to the World Wars. Funny how it turned out. Why didn’t we? In the end diplomacy was not the perpetuating factor. Individual military planners, drawing up plans using new technology dependant on general war versus local war, in conjunction with no communication with their diplomatic counterparts created the fuse.

It was not the assassination of the Austrian Prince. It was not the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. It was the military response of Russia and Germany. Russia had no military plan to war with Austria of which was their sole aim, that did not include an attack on Germany. Germany had no military plan to war with Russia without defeating France. Austria only lit the fuse in an effort to solidify its annexation of Bosnia; a very local issue causing Russia to take action and Germany to defend herself. If only the diplomats knew the constraints and General War –v- Local War designs of their perspective military.

The United States people were lured into the Great War based on the Wilsonian spin on Roosevelts national security. That spin was the promotion of democracy, a nations self-determination, and collective security. Evidence that the world then was not ready for such lofty ideals is the post War Paris peace conference did not include Russia and Germany. Russia having been defeated by Germany and Germany defeated by the Allies led to the over throw of their leaders. Hence giving 20 years to harvest the seed of a poorly constructed peace settlement.

The peace conference included 27 states, 1,646 meetings and kept Wilson over seas for 4 months. He was drawn into international diplomatic detail that his country's domestic agenda would not tolerate. Therefore the ideals for which he gained public support fell off the table in Paris.

The fundamental difference between European and Wilsonian interpretations of the causes of WWI is Europeans presumed that national interest tend to clash, and view diplomacy as a means to reconcile. Wilson considers international discord the result of clouded thinking. Europeans negotiate with incentives and penalties. Wilson negotiations require the agreement of general principles. With this said, it becomes difficult to separate Wilson's and Lenin's end goal of international relations. Wilson pursued a common mindset of state. Lenin pursued the abolishment of the state in lieu of collective thinking. Uhm.

Hitler was a demagogue. “Demagoguery resides in the ability to distill emotion and frustration into a single moment. " This in conjunction with a very suspicious treaty of Versailles, the continued failure of the League of Nations and the continued uncertainty of Western heads of State over Hitler's intention gave Germany all the room to rebuild its military machine. The guilt clause
of the treaty of Versailles left the German people in a mood to pressure any German leader for retribution.

“Hitler was your worst nightmare in this situation. Foreign policy builds on quicksand when it disregards actual
power relationships and relied on prophecies of anothers intention.” This is a lesson George Bush is trying to leverage in his argument towards a new nuclear defense.

Cold War players; Truman, Stalin, Churchill, Leahy, Davies, Hopkins. Primary interlocutors were Stalin and Hopkins. Primary issue was Eastern European countries. It is interesting how Truman convinced Congress and the American people how NATO, Americas first peace time alliance, was unlike the others used to maintain the 'balance of power'. As Dr. Kissinger notes 'any history student would not receive a passing grade for such an analysis. So like Wilson and Roosevelt before him
a great selling job on 'we the people' had to occur. The common theme was principle. Not national security

Trivia; who gets credit for the inauguration of the Cold War? That is right, he did so in his Fulton, Missouri speech known as the Iron Curtain speech. At the beginning of the Cold War, Henry Wallace was quoted often stating that hatred, prejudice, and fear were the root causes of
international conflict and the United States had no moral right to intervene abroad until it banished these scourges from its own society. I find it interesting that Kinssinger would put the quote in his book on diplomacy. It is also paradoxical that Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman all got the American public in wars with high moral ground rhetoric. I sense that Kissinger, like the Bush family, and Theodore Roosevelt who view diplomacy as a means to national security.

In reading the diplomatic events that paralleled the U.S. entrance in Korea, specifically the misconceptions communist China held, you appreciate the need to keep military and diplomacy in concert. In post WW II and Korea
this eluded American leaders in the same way it eluded the European leaders in pre WWI. As a side note I found it interesting that Kissinger proclaims McArther the most talented General Officer in the 20th century after having
read the memoirs of Japanese Generals who out foxed McArther often.

McArther’s decision to advance up the Yalu River proved to be enough to draw China into the war. McArther ignored Chia's experience with Japan over the same real-estate. Truman exacerbated the Chinese view by changing the war goal often and by separately sending the 7th fleet to defend Tiawan. With regard to the Truman-McAther rift, Kissinger sides with McArher yet holds out for a different military strategy. Truman's handling of Korea set the tone for Viet-Nam and continued downward spiral until the US leaders recognized the importance of harmonizing diplomatic and military strategy.

Adenauer; Germany’s first Chancellor after World War II was primarily responsible for taking Germany west rather than east. Given the historical trend we in the west owe some gratitude to this man. In the mean time: How did Dulles get an airport named after him? According to Kissinger, Dulles single handedly alienated the leaders of both Great Britain and France in his diplomacy on the Suez Canal and Hungary incidents. Andenaur of Germany found similar distaste over Dulles's role in the Berlin crisis. All in all though Kissigers insight on the Cold War goes like this, “it was predictable but no one had predicted it.” In the meantime Khrushchev stirred on international crisis to, in the opinion of deGulle, mask over the Russian domestic shortfall.


You can surely point blame at Dulles' actions during the peak of the Cold War for deGulle’s move towards an EU. The end game, being EU, is perfectly fine. However the seed of bitter sentiment was planted then in France of which now comes back to haunt the enterprise of the US. The recent snubbing of a GE/Honeywell merger has more than business concern. The EU actually reversed the decision of the US courts. As globalization continues this decision will represent the French led sentiment of Europe in a movement to settle the score and return to the old fashion balance of power policy, to the determent of all. This is my opinion.

During the Cold War it is interesting to take note of the styles of diplomacy of the Western allies. While Great Britain acquiesced to the new US style; approaching alliances like corporate mergers exacting returns on
investment that are proportional to investment. Meanwhile, France continued it’s 300 year tradition of Richelieu's calculation of risks and rewards.

With regard to nuclear threat, Kissinger illustrates the effort to detour its allies let alone the threat of non-allies or actual adversaries. The US could become a target in cross fire in an attempt to neutralize us.

I, like most American witnesses of Viet-Nam and communist fears once found it easy to criticize our 'conservative anti communist leaders' for committing the US to a war that was not related to our interest. Well; after Kissinger's memoirs and this book Diplomacy, I have a broader perspective. I now understand the events of Communist aggression; the Czech coup, the Berlin blockade, testing of the Soviet A-bomb, and the Communist victory in China all gave US leaders cause to take fearful notice. Compound this with the Wilsononian rhetoric of 'global liberty with no foreign interest. These two converging sets of collective conscience allowed America to ignore the
standing principles of Richelieu and Bismark and commence a naive defense of a not yet established State of Viet-Nam. While we at home had to come to grips with our values as a country, all other observing nations were struggling to distinguish our acts as being non aggressive or imperialistic. I would suspect that we have yet to sort this out.

As much as I have been receptive of Reagan's SDI proposal; Kissinger's theory, shared by many intellectuals, that SDI gave the politician an out on mutual nuclear suicide makes sense. His insight brings home the fears of other countries. Viet-Nam gives evidence that the United States can portray a sense of imperialism. Albeit our country learned a valuable lesson, as did Germany, the world is not ready for a defense that allows for a unilateral nuclear capability; even with the United States. Yet
when Reagan and Gorbachev proposed in Reykjavik to destroy their complete nuclear arsenals, Great Britain, France, and China were not even remotely prepared to follow suit. UHM!!! Just when diplomacy seemed to be getting easy in a
bipolar superpower world, the landscape changes. And thus a deterrent is again viable issue to contemplate.

It is interesting to hear Kissinger describe the collapse of the USSR as the only time a country was overthrown without a war. Gorbachev, as a reformist of revolutionary proportion, miss calculated on principles of revolution.
First is revolutions consume their children because revolutionaries rarely understand that after a certain point of social disintegrating, there are no longer any fixed Archimedean points of which to leverage success. As such, Gorbachev's programs of perestroika and glastnost found themselves diametrically opposed and the center of the Soviet fall.

Can Americans submit to self-interest as opposed to principle? If not, then how to balance international power among regions of disparate moral values? Hence lay the conflicts of Richelieu (1700) and Wilson (1900). Today,
after reading this book, I am perplexed to be in agreement with Richelieu; yet hold a measure of disdain towards the French role in diplomacy. While Kissinger has a bias toward national security, he concedes to America’s penchant for human rights and civil liberty. But he did let the cat out of the bag by illustrating the contrasts, of all 20th century presidents involved in war except Nixon, between the strategy to defend our nation and gain public support for such defense. I believe after reading this book, and in the wake of terrorist activity in New York City and Washington D.C. I encourage all Americans to realize that we are a disparate human race and we must always maintain a high regard to National Security. Theodore Roosevelt began the 20th century on that note, I urge president Bush to do the same now.

The Last Great Revolution

The Last Great Revolution
By Robin Wright


This book begins its message with in effect a status report of the Revolution that took place in Iran in 1979. It bases its report in the fundamental phases of a traditional revolution. This book suggests that the Iranian Revolution is now in its fourth and final phase. The author places this revolution is on the same plateau as the French and Russian revolutions as it represents the last major sect of life to reach out for liberty. That’s right; Khomeni was brought in to fill the void left by the deposed shah who was alleged to have violated the liberty of the Iranian man. It was not the intention of the Ayatollah or the revolutionist for the revolution to have the religions overtones that it had. The country has since experienced four political leaders, each who have experienced the forceful hand of the Islamic fundamentalist mullahs and dealt with them in different ways. Twenty years later the author tells of an experience where by when cornered by Iranian activists, they inquired more about whether Pink Floyd had a new album out, as opposed to the American political position. The revolution is in its fourth stage of revolution and it becomes time to evaluate if the whole journey was worthwhile. This book does a fabulous job making sense of what’s in the mind of the Iranian people. It allows you to share in the irony of their quest for liberty. The following is a summary of Iran’s past twenty years and a co-conclusion.

After a brief summary of the biography of a revolution and then a specific foray into this particular revolution, the book moves in to detailed examples of the Cleric imposition. This imposition is found not only in politics but also upon the famous modern philosophers of Persia. Abdul Karim Soroush who had emerged as one such person who was being acclaimed to carry the comparable philosophical weight to Germanys Martin Luther. Soroush promulgated debate within Iran both about its political future and the evolution of the Islam faith. After Iran survived the initial challenges of ten years of war and fundamental Islamic imposition, Soroush attempted to get Iran back to the initial intent of the revolution by addressing the questions that the Clerics could not answer. While the Clerics appointed Soroush to a position to realign all university studies to the Islamic faith, they would not tolerate his call to include the perspective of Western and Jewish ideals. The mullah position was generally stated that inclusion by freedom of speech only empowered the position of the West and Israel and was a slap in the face of Islam.

Aside from the political government body, Iran also has an assembly of 86 Experts (Fiqih) to influence that body. The people are supposedly learned and virtuous. These Clerics actually over-ride via "influence” all political decisions. In the election of 1998, a time when the Revolution was quite a bit tempered since 1979, the Clerics went to extreme measure to ensure that candidates for political office were from a narrow field. This resulted in a low turn out at the polls and a question mark about the concept of the Fiqih. The people embraced the concept of the Fiqih, but did not agree in the roll of the Fiqih or the Assembly of Experts. The Faqih has evolved to be just another dynasty as opposed to the Supreme "thinker" that was intended.

In Iran as different as things may be, there are similarities for instance from one family comes three cleric leaders; one from the left, one from the middle and one from the right. While they agree on family and religion, they dispute politics with rigor. Sounds like an American/Irish Catholic family to me. A fundamental argument is centered on whether any one person is above the law. For Iran this is the Faqih. For Americans this pertains to our President. And indeed in both countries this leader does have in, varied degrees and through different venue, immunity to the law.

With regard to the press in Iran and in particular the credibility it has with the people; it is of no surprise that the Iranian young people were devastated to hear that one of their airliner was shot down. They were convinced that the action was really of the Iranian government. They would not believe that the Americans actually shot down the airliner until they heard it on international radio BBC. In the midst of a cleric driven culture revolution in Iran during the 1990's western influence crept back in via the satellite dish. By the late 90's the political leaders were indeed of the mind to relax the cleric rule. Yet, still within this climate, on all social issues the government consulted the Fiqih. And the clerics, just when the people had a glimpse of free press, had the last word. They placed a ban in Western press again Hence as a matter of law, the clerics decide what music, books, movies, and theater you can partake in. “The rest of the story” is underground.

In the period of relaxation of the cleric rule though live sports from the States were allowed with a few second delay so that the broadcasting technicians could cut all shots of American women that would be improperly dressed. This means to say all American women. However, by the close of the 90's the clerics could stand not more and issued a fatwa condemning satellite dishes and VCR's which resulted in Basij militants barging into homes and destroying the condemned devices. Majid Qaderi, the director of Iran's Intellectual Development of Children says, " Barbie is a Trojan horse. Barbie’s an American woman who never wants to get pregnant an have babies. She never wants to look old and this contradicts our culture. Thus we replace Barbie with our version of Sara"

The current head of the Ministry of Culture and Islam, Ayatollah Mohajerani describes freedom slightly different than in the West. "Obviously we don't share the same definition of freedom. The main difference is that in the West, it's freedom from something, which means that obstacles must be removed in the way of individuals. But in religious terms, it is freedom for which means that freedom must be in service of the perfection and prosperity of human beings"

The Iranian movie industry gives reason to have hope amidst a sea of irony for Iran's people. It portrays a State whereby the pendulum of judgement in censorship swings with the mullah’s opinion more so than with the rules of Islam. What this really means is that there is a "due process" in place. It is those in power that dictate what is shown by interpreting what they see in a film. The moviemakers of Iran, like those here in the States, are somewhat radical in the eyes of their Cleric rulers.

Yet at the same time, films since the revolution examine the values of Iranian life. Each film director is allowed to see events through his/her own eyes and capture that vision. IF his/her eyes are Islamic then the move is about religion. Most movies are not religious yet Iranian films abide by the hejb (no kissing), largely because an Iranian director would prefer to portray love in an artful form rather than a graphic bedroom scene. Iranian films get awards at Cannes and other film festivals. They do indeed express the emotion of Iranian culture. The crossroad that Iran's movie industry finds itself has foreboding consequence in either direction. In the course of less censorship, Iranian filmmakers are free to express more. However, with that freedom comes the competitive giant from Hollywood. The expression of Iranian culture through film must face the forces of extinction from either the left or the right.

Leave it to the artist to again speak for the people. Directors, in my mind an artist, in Iran make a critical point in their message. To the outside world, the revolution and the theocracy born out of it were one and the same. The political upheaval aimed at ending autocratic rule and redistributing power was one thing, but the subsequent Islamic government that eventually replaced the monarchy - and then imposed its own restrictions - was quite another.

The women’s role in Iran has seen the same pendulum swing in the post revolution as all other cultural shifts in Iran. The initial onslaught of cleric rule and male dominance has given way to the need and therefore inclusion of women. The war with Iraq placed a real demand on women as a resource, which led to women in government and led to their louder voice. However prominent women’s leader say "We want our right but in an environment that is compatible with our beliefs. That means we don't believe we have to live in a Western system in order to share power. But we are not going to trust men in our own system to grant us our due." It is women of this caliber that are redefining Iran’s interpretation of the Koran. The Ayatollah Khomeni in fact evolved from a conservative view on women to more modern guidelines. This transformation manifested itself personally in the rules imposed upon his wife versus his the rules impose upon his daughter. The personal evolution was lost in translation by the mullahs of the early revolution. The new President Katahmi has recently moved the women’s issues back towards the center, in relative terms. Here is a point of contrast; an Iranian woman feels “the hejb doesn't limit me, it frees me to be a person judged not by beauty but by actions and thoughts.” Is this not the goal of our Western women’s movement?

On sex and marriage, the rules that were originally put in placed in 1979 have since been modernized. Men and women are still forbidden to intermingle and touching is absolutely taboo in public. Most Iranian people can live with the morals that are implied and therefore many appreciate the dress that is required, however tempered and with some color. As far as birth control Iran has received international acclaim for the methods of education and distribution of all the various methods of birth control. This acclaim is recognized in the United States as well. This transition was largely due to the Ayatollah Komeini and several of his Cleric officers in the Assembly of Experts. The movement has enabled Iranian women to become professionals. Komeini's daughters all three are professionals by career and modern working wives. Marriages are still arranged whereby the mothers of the son go to the mothers of the daughters and select a bride. It is also astonishing to read that the legal age for marriage for a girl is nine. This is primarily because first it is the official age for puberty and second she can make the transition from her father to another man. In divorce, the laws have been made largely comparable to that of the United States. In my opinion because the shift from all awards of rights to the man to a 50/50 split and equal bias on children; that Iran has a more realistic view on the division of property than that of the United States.

Twenty years after the revolution Iran is getting back to the original intent of the revolution, but like the undertow of the oceans surf, the Cleric mullahs continues to impede the achievement of the original goal. The struggle between power and empowerment rages on. The undertow is indeed not Komeini or his successors of rank. It is the momentum of the mullah movement immediate underneath the surface. The Hizbolleah continues to spread the revolution abroad while maintaining internal activism towards militant Islam. Each year on November 4th Iran sponsors a protest whereby the youth of Iran shout "death to the great Satan" while also calling for a dialogue with the United States. The protesters are wearing all the USA sports gear and at the same time burning the American flag. It is almost a paradoxical whereby Islam’s peaceful intention of faithful religious practice is contrasted against the temptations of a degenerate product of the West, but the interpretation is warped by over zealous mullah’s quest for power.

There is an active movement now in the forth wave of the revolution to correct the inside of the regime. The goals now stated are freedom, justice, and religion; with democracy on the top of the list. Iran does indeed have a constitution and an elected government that acts with due process. This movement lay with the students of Iran's universities. Their enemy is indeed the Cleric mullahs. Unfortunately the Fiqah can and do, at any moment change law and arrest alleged dissidents when they feel the young have exceeded their power. Example: Parliament speaker was quoted on July 7 1999 as he revoked freedoms of the press saying “ The press is a gateway for cultural invasion, so we must take measures to stop it." However within the same Parliament session, Statesmen Mohajerani was quoted as saying "freedom can't be repressed by any law. We have to create laws in accordance with freedom, not freedom according to our laws. If crime is committed, we'll take action. But let the people have their say first".

I point this out because I read about a country, while not vested with the same culture, are indeed working through to freedom and liberty with debate. There is progress, and I question any interference from any outsider, especially the United States. This is a difficult assessment because of the tollateriate practice of the Clerics with their Hisbollah muscle. The book closes with a description of government that is tolerant to protest until the Cleric regime feels they have lost control. The author describes situation whereby all the democratic instruments are in place. She describes a culture that appears to have a say in its destiny. Then right when you think you are going to break through, the Mullah Clerics step onto the scene with a government sanction Hisbollah terror action vested upon their own people. There is no freedom of press if you consider writing or speaking against the regime.

The final conclusion however describes a successful revolution in terms of objectives accomplished. Iran clearly has a Theocratic Government guided by the laws of Islam. But at what cost? Since the revolution, baby boomer phenomena occurred. This was a result of Islamic regulated non-birth control during the first ten years of post revolution policy. Today one in twenty students have a hope for a college education. The schools are bursting at the seams at primary level. Inflation is at 25%. The Iranian currency has seen a 800% increase in it’s peg to the dollar. Today the price for a set of tires cost the same as what a whole car cost in 1979. While merchandise has found it's way back into the worlds largest Brasserie, the people cannot afford it. There is a high degree of discontent that is fueled by hunger for the conveniences of Western life. The Iranian people reach for the West and at the same time shout death to Satan. Keep in mind Muslims do not view Satan as we do. With all this said you could easily argue a case of confusion for the Westerner. You could argue the same case for the Iranian people.

There is hope in the hearts of the youth in Iran. They do not hold the same disdain towards the West. In fact hunger breeds disdain towards their own government instead. As the USSR's economy fell under the weight of its communist ideology, Iran may well follow suit. And thus Western foreign policy should be one of patience. It should be a policy that monitors with vigilance and safe guards towards security. The safe guard could indeed include military action only towards a regime that has proven to export terrorism and not the people. The proof must clearly be presented to the international community. I read nothing in this book that suggests Iran as a country or a people that pose a threat to the United States. For that you would have to read up on Hizbollah, terrorist groups, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. For that matter we should be keeping an equally watch on the militia camps of with fanatical views here in the United States.

The Mayan Prophecies

The Mayan Prophecies
By Adrian G. Gilbert and Maurice M. Cotterell

This was an easy reading book attempting to interpret Mayan understanding of the world they and now we live in. While, the book covers the astronomical and archeological aspects, the interpretation is clearly put to the common reader. However, the other half of the book is filled with notes to substantiate the narrative front end. As such I found it an entertaining read of the speculative of events to come on December 22, 2012.

Mayan concept of time maintains that a great cycle of time is 1,872,000 days. The current great cycle began on Gregorian date 13AUG 3114 BC. This means that this cycle will end on 22DEC2012 AD. I once made an argument to Scientific minded along the lines that if numbering systems were different, our scientific discoveries and therefore our life styles would be different. Well I read in this book how Mayans predict things such as eclipses using tables that were rationalized by astronomic observations as opposed to algebraic method. My point, I learn 10 years later; just think of how many scientific equations include a factor of time. What was more important than the accrual of time day to day was the movement of Venus. And coincidentally, sun spot intervals match the Mayan calendar. At least enough to say uhm?

Imagine the sun, because it is gaseous, having four poles. Also imagine that the sun has strips of magnetic fields affecting human behavior. OK at least appreciate the fact that the sun emits magnetic fields carried on solar winds. Also accept the fact that the relative angles of the sun's and earth's magnetic fields are the basis of the Mayan calendar. Now accept that the artifacts found in the pyramid tombs of the lost city of Phalenque depict the four time-cycles. How could Mayans have a working knowledge of sun spots? After all they based their premise on myth or religon, not scientific method, or mathematical equation. Not there yet?

Side note: The art on Pacals, a perceived great Mayan leader, tomb may represent the passage of time in Mayan myth. It may also begin to represent the Mayan story of creation. Yes still another holy book. The Mayan book of Quiche. But is there some science behind this book?

Side note: Did you know that most State run museums are required to avail their resources, including staff time, for research by the public? Great return on asset. Wonder why it took me 45 years to learn this?

Of course to be complete the book explains the Mayan obsession with diamond back rattlesnakes. The primary reason is the pattern on their skin. This pattern is found in architecture, art, clothing design. The canamayte design principals are centered on the four cardinal headings. The theory behind the expanded use of the pattern is portrayed as a corollary to St. Patrick. This presumed smart person, analogous to St. Patrick, promulgated cult around snakes. Oh by the way, these snakes shed their skin mid equinox. Which also gives the snake orientation to the sun.

The book goes on to describe a few classic Mayan artifacts with a central theme on the sun. The artifacts are associated with their discovery location; typically on the Yucatan Peninsula. This builds towards a theory that Mayan culture had influence from Europe. Mayan Quiche describes that influence to be by a man named Votan from a land called Chivim. Presumed by the original discoverers to be the Lebanese City of Tripoli.

Clearly though, the establishment of archeologist are stubborn to come off their standing mark that Amerindians developed their culture completely independent from outside sources. There is a strong story supporting the Carthaginians had every opportunity to sail to Mexico around 202 BC. The defeat and distruction of the Carthaginians fleet by the Romans may have incented surviving sea captains to sail west.

Evidence exists to also support theory that Egyptians sailed their riverboats, built of papyrus. Peruvian boats of the same design and material suggest a technology transfer occurred. Then of course you can then explore the idea of transferring pyramid technology.

The astrological connection is made through the shared interpretation of the Milky Way by ancient people in both ancient European and American worlds. Both worlds believe the Milky Way has two equates for which the suns path follows; between Gemini and Taurus and between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Both worlds also associated the Milky Way and the stars with a person after life. The key to link these two worlds; Atlantis. What caused the extinction of the Maya? Try this one! The changing polarity of the magnetic field in Van Allens belt, a sort of radiation filter for earth, effluence of hypothalamus. Bottom line; the fertility of people is at the affect of the sun. Evidence is held in recent scientific discoveries.

But guess what! The Mayan calendar reflects the same understanding of the suns affect on earth. The detail is enough to gain a share in the appreciation of the sun and sun spots in particular. Being that Mayans are extinct, they share at our will. Willing?

The book concludes with speculation of scenarios of life ending catalysis. All involve astro events including earth. It also recaps Mayan history from speculation that their beliefs originated from Atlantis survivors. You’re left to wonder what would have happened with their knowledge if not for the Spanish Inquisition/conquest.

As I closed the book I remarked at such a blend of science, myth, religion, and history. The science is largely discounted by our scientific community. While I am not the expert on these matters, I can say that I've read enough
books with argumentative scientific theory that I would not toss aside what I just read because it flew in the face of conventional wisdom. Yet because of conventional wisdom. I'll place my views in a continued open mind.


Associated books to read:

1. Orion Mystery, by Adrian Gilbert
2. Astro Genetics, by Maurice Cotterell
3. American BC, by Barry Fell
4. Atlantis the Ante-diluvian World, by Ignstius Donnelly
5. Atlantis, by Edgar Cayce
6. Earth in Upheaval, by Immanuel Velikovsky

Farewell to Arms

Farewell to Arms
by Ernest Hemingway

A "classic" book, by a classic author? For me, after this read the question remains at large. This book is mostly a life/love story about a foreign national couple who found each other while managing their lives on the Italian side of the Austro/Italian front of the Great War. I call it the Great War because in Hemmingway style, the book is written so much in absolute first person that construction of the main character, Henry, does not make the date setting clear until the last part of the book. Hemmingway does indeed live up to his reputation for making you feel "right there" inside the body” of the main characters.

He builds an appreciation for the moral conscience of those engaged in war. He describes the people within his medical unit as ambivalent to the power mongers of the commanders on either side of the armies at war. This observation does indeed resonate with other material I've read, whereby even the magistrates of the countries involved, were disconnected and somewhat not in control of their armies.

The other moral message that Hemingway raises is one whereby life keeps beating a person into submission of the throws of society. He raises this in the conclusion of the book where Henry looses both his wife and newborn first son in childbirth. Both moral lessons are merely broached with little story line follow through.

The book is only 300 pages in length, which leads me to conclude that his moral lessons were mere coincidences in the course of telling a love story. I can say that his reputation had me looking for a deeper pool of thought. To his credit, he did a nice job describing the northern Italian and Swiss countryside. I can say I did find myself envious of the lifestyle of the average American man with a wealthy father of 1916 in Europe. Send me more money!!!

God Father Of The Kremlin

God Father Of The Kremlin
by Paul Klebnikov

This is a very intriguing book about the Gangster style economy that emerged in Russia, beginning with the Gorbechov government. Yet the roots of this style go back to czarist ministers of early 1900's Witte and Stlypin. The style is consistent with old Russian mentality to say one thing and do another. Over time, Russia became not a nation of citizens but of a mass of fractured families and isolated individuals. Russians were subjects not citizens.

Immediately after Gorbechov the new leaders of the Yeltson government Gadier, Chubbios and Aven, dismantled the key element to Communist government’s capital growth machine. To explain, Communist growth essentially comprised of a flow of money from the products produced by their people, was exported at a low fixed price and then sold a 3X on the international market by the Capitalist robbers of the Russian 1990’s. The profit was held in non-Russian banks and only returned to buy more low-cost products. The results were a process in tact but now in control of gangsters such as Boris Boresovsky.


One learns as the book progresses that the facts are presented as a carefully fitted collection of journalistic essays describing Berezovsky as the best of many "crony capitalist" in a poor re re- inactment of our 19th century American "robber barons", Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie. However the good that our heroes brought to civilization is amiss in Russia today. While Boresovsky is the prime suspect in this ring of corruption, the list of bad guys is extensive. The book includes whose's who list for those interested in a get rich scheme. Be careful though because contracts are enforced with Kalishnekovs not magistrates.

The book is really much more than a story of Boris Beresovsky as it details the mistakes made by the new Russian financial ministry whereby they removed controls on trading. Yet they left the controls on all of Russia's natural resources and key industry like the auto manufacturing business, oil, and aluminum, in place. This resulted in the abduction of Russia's capital by a very few men known ass "young democrats" and their gangster friends.

The situation described leaves one in a quandary on economic left -v- right philosophy. To regulate, control, and tax... or not. Author Paul Klebnikov who holds a Ph.D. in Russian history draws the following conclusion. In summary: Private property or free markets alone do not guarantee a high level of civilization. To reach this goal a healthy state and healthy society are two essential preconditions. A healthy state is un-corrupted by wealthy individuals, and powerful businessmen. A healthy state is an honest broker for all conflicting interest of society.

My conclusion:
As an American, one would have to read this book to fully appreciate the American business law that we take for granted. Imagine all the companies in the USA conducting business like Enron (Just one with a few more to be exposed, we are shaken investors) and the resulting 300% inflation. Imagine there being no law on the books to reign these people in. How does a Russian individual hold out hope? The Clinton administration turned a blind eye to the crony regime of Yeltson. Clinton endorsed Yeltson in the 1996 election and endorsed the IMF loan to Russia of which disappeared in a matter of months. With Reich in the middle of the Russian capital robbers, one can wonder how much silver now lines our ex-president's pocket. The key is balance. In absolutely no way does Klebnikov advocate excessive government involvement with conflicting regulation. It is in the best interest of our global economy for our current leadership team, the Bush administration, to get behind the Russian people. There is a marketplace there that awaits many opportunities. Yet we must wait for the new Russian leadership to restore business law and order. If Chile can turn around, so can Russia. Not withstanding the absolute defiance to reason if Islamic Fundamentalist, a fair global economy is a secure economy.

The Arabs

The Arabs
By David Lamb

This review is a rambling review in the same sense that David Lamb rambles through Arab Nations drawing salient points to cast a spotlight on the diversity factor of Arabs from the perspective of a western paradigm. This book is by a Western author who largely paints a contemptual picture of Arabs. For instance he suggest that jihad would be considered the "sixth pillar of Islam" and would define jihad as holy war. These statements would be an insult to a Muslim. And these printed words, read by the millions of Westerners would most certainly breed contempt. He then weaves nuggets of fact, about Islam that grates across the fabric of our core values. Separations of church and state rules are diametrically opposed when comparing Christianity and Islam. The facts laid out are consistent with most everything I have read. It connects the past with the present, which may give insight into the future.

The book actually takes you on a tour of all the Arab nations in an effort to give you a feel for how life would be in that country. For instance: The author describes Cairo as a city in decline of major proportion. The reasons why are: 1.) Centralization of all Egyptian commerce in Cairo, 2) a constant state of hot or cold war with Israel, 3.) Nassar's burst of socialistic policy from 1973 to 1990, 4.) over population from a baby boom growing at the rate of a 1,000 people per day. The population density in Cairo is 240,000 people per square mile. People actually rent living space in cemeteries underneath tombs. It should be interesting to note that the United States has spent $62M in aid to help Egypt institute birth control. The downward spiral in Cairo's economy has led the desperate young to seek out Islam as a refuge.

In drawing the similarities and differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the author threads his Arab tour with a history lesson on the origin if Islam. While the faiths were largely similar, they shared a common enemy; their differences began early as a result of mistrust in sharing power in the city of Medina. Because Mohammed fled Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, for his own safety his new home of Medina was already populated and controlled by Jews. While they at first shared the same God and rituals, the Jews rejected Mohammed as an Arabian prophet and untrained. The rejection caused Mohammed to change the orientation of his newly formed religion towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem. The differences between Jews and Muslims were sewn and the Muslims. Soon after the Muslims prevail in a 25 day battle with the culmination of the beheading of 600 of the defeated Jews. It was interesting to read that Mohammed sprouted Islam by force. He literally funded Islam’s beginning by raiding pagan tribes. Eventually the pagan sold out to Mohammed so that they could share in the booty of the raids. As a result Islam began to flourish. It seems that these beginnings draw similarity to that of Judaism yet sharp contrast to those of Christianity. Christians had their turn later as I understand things.

The author suggest that the brush fire beginning of Islam was not aimed at conquest or conversion but merely a continuation of the Bedouin skirmishing tradition that was primarily carried out for economic reasons. Kind of like Yugoslavia 1,400 years later. And I would suggest most other wars alleged to be of religious nature on the surface.

The schism between the Shiites and the Sunni helps clarify jihad within Islam. As history has it, Shiites believe the correct descendant to Mohammed is Ali and not Abu Bakr. The warring sides had the Shiite leader Husayn sacrificing his life to the Sunnis and hence giving mayrtarism a comparable sense of sacrament. This fanatisism is vested in only the Shiites or if indeed the Sunnis hold marterism in the same light. In the course of the reading about the conquests of the Muslims I reflect upon the Crusade Wars in the 12th and 13th centuries and realize the meaning of Diaspora and it's impact on the Jews. Of course, the Jews did spend a few centuries oppressing the Christians and significant amount of energy opposing the Muslims in their early days. So today could one simply say turn about is fair play. What has changed!!!!?

As Lamb describes the making of a terrorist, he begins with Kadafi in Libya. Kadafi is described as a man capable of deep thought and no reason yet apparently a popular characteristic of some Arab leaders. Kadafi has taken an oil rich country to third world status. I am especially intrigued by Kadafi’s raise to fame on the heels of Egypt’s Nassar and then immediate decline after the bombing of his compound in Tripoli. The Arab world power centers of Cairo, Libya and Lebanon have found themselves in a self-induced world of hapless poverty. The west, through colonialism and then support of Israel are the natural scapegoats for their demise. We clarify this in the Arab mind when we engage in warfare on their soil. Lebanon became a breeding ground for terrorist as we shelled their soil from the US New Jersey. Iran, a country that suffered years of US backed aristocracy and British extortion of oil money found an easy recruit to even their score. The Arab issue is not “land for peace”, an initiative that began with Nixon. It is about an inferiority complex towards their Jewish neighbors with a strong Western guardian.

George Washington warned in his farewell address against doing precisely what the United States is doing in the Middle East today. He admonished the young people to be neutral and to observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivating peace and harmony with each. He said the United States should avoid permanent, inveterate antipathies toward some nations and passionate attachments to others. Such attachments engender a variety of evils and lead to the illusion of an imaginary common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into participation in quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. As long as the Arabs continue to ban democratic outlet and the US remains insensitive to Arabs while supporting Israel then terrorist activity will flourish.

The author offers three paths towards eradicating terrorism. First, is to assassinate terrorist leaders. Second is to impose sanctions against terrorist states, and third is to engage in diplomacy with Arabs states. Alternatively, as our recent world history shows us we have indeed gone to war in behalf of Muslim people three times, in Kosvo, Somalia, and Kuwait. To the point on diplomacy, given the assumption that war is the last step in bringing a diplomatic solution, we failed. Sanctions against Iraq come under an ever-increasing scrutiny by world leaders. This leaves the assassination route, one not legal, as the one to try. I suspect the reason why the virtues of global economics are not explored, is because of the internal Muslim leadership's non-participation on Western terms.

The author makes his position no secret on the fight against terrorism. "Is to conduct not massive air strikes but covert, selective assassination campaign against terrorist leaders. I find this ironic coming from a person who makes a living as a journalist. The classic mantra of academic left finds no home when our own are being killed in our home. This is medicine both left and right needed to unite under one flag for the security of one people. Yet, it is painfully brought out that the drastic swing to the left in post Nixon years leaves us with laws that render the recommended option illegal here in our home of the free.

Interesting trivia and digression in thought constructed by the author: Dawn is when there is enough light so that a person can distinguish a black thread from a white thread at arms length. Yet in Islam, science is indeed at loggerheads as to precisely when Ramadan begins and ends. When and in what time zone is the official beginning? The decision is vested in the authority of the guy in Saudi Arabia holding the threads who has control over the astrominy in the observatory. There is no word for fundamentalism in Arabic. Usouliyya (basic principles) comes close. The author states that " in any religion the believer is asked to put intelligence on the shelf, which is harmless enough. But when it has militant overtones it is self-righteous, irrational, anti-intellectual and dangerous. " He further suggest that the current movement back to the mosque does not represent an artistic or religious rebirth. He suggests that movement is a religious revival that gets louder and angrier with louder and angrier demands of the western world. The Six-Day War set off this revival, where Arab's vision of a Pan Arab nation dissolved. The 1973, Egyptian counter offensive gave the Arabs new found momentum in their fundamental roots to the extent that imposing an oil embargo was just a taste of things to come. It is not about land for peace; it is about the Arabs being second rate to the region's superpower.


Those poor miss understood Arabs. Why you ask? They do not invest in a level of public relations that is commensurate to the issues at hand. In contrast while a journalist in Israel has red phones on their desks for interviews with public officials, the same journalist would wait weeks for a visa in an Arab country and then wait days to get an interview with a officer of the person actually sought after. Granting high profile interviews with western news network is the exception and only due to extreme circumstance. During the interview the Arabs will not say what they mean; because pride and dignity are more important than what we in the West recognize as the truth.

This book led me to conclude that from a global perspective, we are very different people in our core values and thought. We have parted company long ago. The way back is not right around the corner. Yet I can set on the stoop of my New York apartment with a Muslim a Jew and me an Irish Catholic, and we see life the same way. Go figure.

What Is So Great About America

What Is So Great About America
By Dinesh D'Souza

The book clearly begins with an effort to draw a polarized view of the Islamic and Western divide. Beginning with assimilating Precleses and Greece to today's West and then drawing contrast with an Islamic faith that advocates a conquest of anything not Islamic. For the West to ignore the views of Islamic doctrine D'Souza claims to be a mistake. In as much as we lament the idea of a church run State, Islam is diametrically opposite with sound church influenced state in their beliefs.

D'Souza suggests that agreeing to disagree with Muslims is a form of liberalism that we must put in check. It is liberalism itself that is at dispute. It becomes an obstacle when demonstrating that our society is a moral improvement upon theirs.

In D'Souza's attempt to patronize America and at the same time qualify him to write the book, an interesting note can be taken. As an immigrant from India, D'Souza recognizes while that it is possible for he an Indian to become an American in America; it is not at all possible to do the same in India, or any other country. He suggest that this is one of the many reasons explored in the book that enables A Christian, Jew, Muslim to work side by side in life and give no thought to the ethnic "bad blood" in their history. Becoming an American is less about your place of birth but about embracing ideas. The evil that lurks within is the academic left who preach multiculturalism as the anecdote to patriotism. They preach that forcing Western ways on other countries is bad. Yet for example when the British left India in 1947, India chose to keep many of the British practices. I learned in reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, that this adoption on technology has been a primary part of the evolution of man since Adam and Eve. How's that for a drawing from the best of theology and evolution? While multiculturalism is teaching the traditional religions and customs of far away countries in our educational institutions as current practice, those practices are actually fading away in those countries. When I contrast this with books I recently read, with pictures of Yannomami Indians of the Brazilian Rain Forest wearing T-shirts and Levi cutoff shorts, I believe D'Souza. Sure there may be a place for the past, but evolution and improvement in a standard of living is what humans do.

In meeting the challenge of multiculturalism, D'Souza brings up the question of ethnocentricity. He demonstrates that indeed this is not the sole domain of the West. Ethnocentricity is an aspect of all civilizations and in fact the more primitive the technology and life style the more prominent the observed degree of ethnocentricity. In contrast the West has carried forward in the center of it's thinking the practice of the Greeks. Whereby we continuously question our identification of what is good. We are willing to look at other cultures for the answer. I can't help but recall in every book I have read on Islam that proclaims everything there is to know is already written in the bible. In fact in Iran science is shackled by it's limitation in terms, words not founded in the Koran.

Science, Democracy, and Capitalism are the three staples that set the West aside from the rest of the world. Now add progress. This is a Christian idea, meaning the fulfillment of a plan. In the West Human Beings build on the accomplishments and discoveries of others. With this idea, people in America have realized a society where the common man sees himself as equal to a CEO in terms of freedom to choose his destiny. In America money is not an end but a means to a longer, healthier and fuller life. Money enables immigrants to pursue a life with dignity, security and comfort that they would not have realized in their homeland. The American allows a person to choose his destiny and work towards achieving his dreams. D'Souza illustrates this by describing the conversation between the parent and child where the questions is asked; "What do you want to be when you grow up?" The phrase that captures the answer is the pursuit of happiness.

By mid book it is clear that D'Souza is staunchly opposed to the activist views of multiculturalism. While there is a sentiment within the academic left who impose their ideals on naive students; the majority of this movement comes form African-Americans. What I find so amusing in the arguments he uses you realize the rhetoric in one side or the other. Ones beliefs or desire places him to see one interpretation of history as rhetoric and the other side of the same story as fact. Take the example from the chapter on The Reparations Fallacy where Fredrick Douglas sites the Congressional view of blacks to hold that three black men were equal to five white men. The black side see this as an example of oppression They can be "well dress but still oppressed” On the other side, the intent of the ruling was to limit the South's natural population (including blacks) to diminish any voting strength on slavery bills. While D'Souza dispatches the 3/5 ruling he is a little cloudy on the framers position of our framers of the Constitution owning slaves. But I do accept his argument. And you could say within the context of this review that I do so because I am white. OKaaaay!

Let just simply say that the predicament the framers found themselves in was a technical one. I uphold the choice to preserve a union on democracy over that of a Platonian view of objectivist wise men. Had we let slavery be a qualifier for our Union our country, if at all, would be a hundred years younger today. In which case slavery would have continued anyhow. The Union was created that laid the groundwork for popular consensus to mature. Our Civil War is an testament that war is the final solution to political argument.


Who are our enemy's? They are abroad and from within: grouped as Multiculuralists looking for reparations, Third World intellectuals, Western leftists, and Islamic fundamentalists. A more colored description and rationale for each group are stated to a moderate level of detail in the book. Detail sufficient enough to get through a cocktail party debate. These three groups have one thing in common: blame America first syndrome. Situational example; D'Souza sites examples where foreign leaders are universally allowed to use "it is our best interest" for any questionable action, and Americans would be scrutinized for our defending Kuwait. We would be accused that we were doing it for the oil. Well of course, it is in our interest and by the way we liberated Kuwait.

In drawing conclusion to his argument; D'Souza ensures we understand that fundamentalist Muslims are well researched on America and they know what they do not like about us. He then summarizes what we must do to be up to the task in its War On Terrorism. Muslim appreciates their inferior position technology wise and the impact it has on their condition of life. Yet in the balance of their mind they are well rooted in their virtue and condemn the decadent life style that we maintain. The question he leaves you with is can we consolidate our strengths in terms of who we believe we as a society technically and morally are and then use this to sustain our war and homeland defense against terrorism. We know our living conditions are superior. In the past we won wars based because our public believed that we were fighting for "good" against "evil” His book at least provides enough of an argument to win a pro American cocktail party debate. So therefore it met my personal needs.