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 differances 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 and often sex really complicates the point.
Social Interaction: The books 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 books 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.
Carousel
Sunday, December 2, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Catch 22
Catch 22
By Joseph Heller
This book was a very enjoyable experience. What took me so long to get around to read it? I must thank TJ for bringing it home from the bookstore. In my, er… TJ’s copy on my bookshelf, the literary essay at the front was worth the read alone. It provided a list of who’s who in authors and book titles of similar subject matter. I’ll need to clear off the next shelf and add to my Christmas reading list. The book itself was entertaining with its satirical comedy and at the same time insightful about the puzzle pieces that make up society.
The society for which Yosarian the main character and bombardier of a Flying Fortress finds himself in is an army filled with the “ego of leadership” handing down policy intending to primarily serve their own self-interest. Yosarrian himself is promoted to Captain, because in his fear of dying he failed to hit his target with the first set of bombs in his aircraft so he went around the target through all the ground artillery flack and bombed it on the second run. The officers promoted him because it was the only alternative to court marshal having shown fear in missing on the first run.
From the title Catch 22 to the final page you experience a "Catch 22”. I understand the phrase Catch 22 came from this book. Specifically for Yosarrian, Catch 22 represented his rationale to get out of being a bombardier. Yosarian had developed an extreme fear of combat missions that manifested itself in many satirically funny ways throughout the book. Army policy held that in order to be excused from combat duty you had to prove that you were crazy. Not being afraid to die would present a medical case for being crazy. Yet if you were brave in the clutches of certain death, you were exactly what the army needed for bomber crew.
The author's style in character building has each chapter telling there duplicate stories within the same small span of time which leaves you the reader in the middle of a de-jevu dream that evolves into life’s lessons and the moral of the story. The Chaplin figures it out when in the course of following orders we realizes he has sinned. “"“ The Chaplin has sinned and it was good. Common sense told him that telling lies and defecting from duty were sins. On the other hand, everyone knew that sin was evil, and that no good would come from evil. But he did feel good. He felt positively marvelous. Consequently, it followed logically that telling lies and defecting from duty could not be sins. The Chaplin had mastered, in a moment of Devine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization. It was miraculous. It was no trick at all, he saw how to turn vice into virtue, slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it. It took no brains at all""""
As the humor actually turns into seriousness Yosarian realizes that beyond self there are a lot of other reasons for living. Yosarian has a personal experience with a close encounter with death whereby he becomes the subject of a prostitute stalker who takes many attempts to end his life. To rid himself of this danger he flies her behind enemy lines, straps a parachute to her back and dumps her out of the aircraft. In doing so he comes to realize that her 12-year-old kid sister in Rome is now left helpless with no one to help her through life. In his search for the kid sister he discovers life beyond himself. At the same time he sets out to solve the situation he also discovers he has a range of choices for where he can contribute to the human race. The situation leaves the perfect opportunity for the author to take full advantage of multiple endings. And of course he develops them all to a crux of a conclusion. The one he chose would most likely not be the one you the reader would have hoped for. Yet in keeping with the self-serving character in Yosarian, the book defines the challenges between individual and society.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
By Joseph Heller
This book was a very enjoyable experience. What took me so long to get around to read it? I must thank TJ for bringing it home from the bookstore. In my, er… TJ’s copy on my bookshelf, the literary essay at the front was worth the read alone. It provided a list of who’s who in authors and book titles of similar subject matter. I’ll need to clear off the next shelf and add to my Christmas reading list. The book itself was entertaining with its satirical comedy and at the same time insightful about the puzzle pieces that make up society.
The society for which Yosarian the main character and bombardier of a Flying Fortress finds himself in is an army filled with the “ego of leadership” handing down policy intending to primarily serve their own self-interest. Yosarrian himself is promoted to Captain, because in his fear of dying he failed to hit his target with the first set of bombs in his aircraft so he went around the target through all the ground artillery flack and bombed it on the second run. The officers promoted him because it was the only alternative to court marshal having shown fear in missing on the first run.
From the title Catch 22 to the final page you experience a "Catch 22”. I understand the phrase Catch 22 came from this book. Specifically for Yosarrian, Catch 22 represented his rationale to get out of being a bombardier. Yosarian had developed an extreme fear of combat missions that manifested itself in many satirically funny ways throughout the book. Army policy held that in order to be excused from combat duty you had to prove that you were crazy. Not being afraid to die would present a medical case for being crazy. Yet if you were brave in the clutches of certain death, you were exactly what the army needed for bomber crew.
The author's style in character building has each chapter telling there duplicate stories within the same small span of time which leaves you the reader in the middle of a de-jevu dream that evolves into life’s lessons and the moral of the story. The Chaplin figures it out when in the course of following orders we realizes he has sinned. “"“ The Chaplin has sinned and it was good. Common sense told him that telling lies and defecting from duty were sins. On the other hand, everyone knew that sin was evil, and that no good would come from evil. But he did feel good. He felt positively marvelous. Consequently, it followed logically that telling lies and defecting from duty could not be sins. The Chaplin had mastered, in a moment of Devine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization. It was miraculous. It was no trick at all, he saw how to turn vice into virtue, slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it. It took no brains at all""""
As the humor actually turns into seriousness Yosarian realizes that beyond self there are a lot of other reasons for living. Yosarian has a personal experience with a close encounter with death whereby he becomes the subject of a prostitute stalker who takes many attempts to end his life. To rid himself of this danger he flies her behind enemy lines, straps a parachute to her back and dumps her out of the aircraft. In doing so he comes to realize that her 12-year-old kid sister in Rome is now left helpless with no one to help her through life. In his search for the kid sister he discovers life beyond himself. At the same time he sets out to solve the situation he also discovers he has a range of choices for where he can contribute to the human race. The situation leaves the perfect opportunity for the author to take full advantage of multiple endings. And of course he develops them all to a crux of a conclusion. The one he chose would most likely not be the one you the reader would have hoped for. Yet in keeping with the self-serving character in Yosarian, the book defines the challenges between individual and society.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
by Victor Hugo
I picked this book up to get my mind off of War. The last book I read to do so was Crime and Punishment, which involved murder and before that was War and Peace which included the social drama of war. So my intent was to delve in to the book with a hope to discover the meaning of the Left bank of Paris; from the other shore. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and yes my experience with French life is all very positive. I thoroughly enjoy French jazz, especially when I am waiting forty-five minutes for my waiter to bring me a glass of water. I enjoy the formal social protocol and the eventual humor of the person once you are allowed the opportunity. The art and culture and ‘‘live first '' attitude is something this world needs more of. The only thing I do not like about the French is their politics. Over the last 500 years, France's penchant to take this good life abroad against the will of others is a mystery and a paradox at the same time. Perhaps it is poetic justice for the French to respond so negatively to our "Molly Brown" American persona as we replace France as the new world leader. I offer this perspective, as indeed I believe there is consistency in theme with the message of the book, albeit protracted over time.
The book begins with bizarre Moulan Rouge type setting, where contrasting thought such as the following begin set the tone for intellectual exercise. “But it is not interest that predominates in the noble nature of poets. Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10. It is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and 9 parts vanity, swollen and inflated by the breath of popular administration of such prodigious enlargement as completely to smother that imperceptible particle article of interest..."
Hugo is a master in the knitting a tapestry of Paris, Notre Dame, and the coincidental fate of Quasimodo, Le Esmerelda, Phoebus, the archdeacon as a person, the Church as a sanctuary, Gypsies, people of narrow views guided by the strict hands of the Provost and the Church in a story that includes drama, poetic justice, romance, history. The book lets a French brand of intrigue compel the reader to turn the page as opposed to close the cover. You know what’s going to happen, the author has included you in the story; but you are not the author so you must read on to see if justice prevails. The contrast of the Church and the mischievous behavior of those entrusted to carry forward the reason for the church help shape the theme. However there are many stories within the theme.
While Hugo's command of metaphoric description of a scene is masterful I can only share this sample. At the rescue of le Esmeralda the following excerpt: “”His Cyclops eye, bent down upon her, shed over her a flood of tenderness, of pity, of grief, and was suddenly raised, flashing lightning. At this moment when the women laughed and cried, the crowd stomped with enthusiasm, for that moment Quasimodo was really beautiful. Yes he was beautiful he that orphan, that foundling outcast; he himself august and strong; he looked in the face of society from which he was banished, and for he had made so signal a conquest; that human justice from which he snatched its victim; those judges, those executioners, all that forces of the king's which he, the meanest of mean, had foiled with the force of God! And then, how touching was that protection afforded by being so deformed, to a being so unfortunate as the girl condemned to die and saved by Quasimodo! It was two extreme miseries of Nature and Society meeting and assisting each other. “”
While Hugo is brilliant with metaphors, I sense that the following is in my opinion the sum Hugo's message. “Like a fly, flying to the light of the window to be caught in a spider’s web.” So often just when a character believed to be claiming success, something snatched him up to change his view. “Meddle not with fatality; be mindful of the spider web between fate and thee.” But then again “nothing makes a man more adventuresome than an empty pocket.” So off we go.
A couple more for good measure
Hunchback of Notre Dame
by Victor Hugo
1. A purse in your pocket is like the moon in a bucket of water, you see it but it's not there.
3. It takes one drop of wine to colors a glass of water.
4. The owl never enters the next of the lark
5. I'd rather be the head of a fly than the tail of a lion,
7. What we are about is not absolutely innocent.
8. With the flesh of the wolf come the dogs teeth
9. Like a fly, flying to the light of the window to be caught in a spiders web.
by Victor Hugo
I picked this book up to get my mind off of War. The last book I read to do so was Crime and Punishment, which involved murder and before that was War and Peace which included the social drama of war. So my intent was to delve in to the book with a hope to discover the meaning of the Left bank of Paris; from the other shore. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and yes my experience with French life is all very positive. I thoroughly enjoy French jazz, especially when I am waiting forty-five minutes for my waiter to bring me a glass of water. I enjoy the formal social protocol and the eventual humor of the person once you are allowed the opportunity. The art and culture and ‘‘live first '' attitude is something this world needs more of. The only thing I do not like about the French is their politics. Over the last 500 years, France's penchant to take this good life abroad against the will of others is a mystery and a paradox at the same time. Perhaps it is poetic justice for the French to respond so negatively to our "Molly Brown" American persona as we replace France as the new world leader. I offer this perspective, as indeed I believe there is consistency in theme with the message of the book, albeit protracted over time.
The book begins with bizarre Moulan Rouge type setting, where contrasting thought such as the following begin set the tone for intellectual exercise. “But it is not interest that predominates in the noble nature of poets. Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10. It is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and 9 parts vanity, swollen and inflated by the breath of popular administration of such prodigious enlargement as completely to smother that imperceptible particle article of interest..."
Hugo is a master in the knitting a tapestry of Paris, Notre Dame, and the coincidental fate of Quasimodo, Le Esmerelda, Phoebus, the archdeacon as a person, the Church as a sanctuary, Gypsies, people of narrow views guided by the strict hands of the Provost and the Church in a story that includes drama, poetic justice, romance, history. The book lets a French brand of intrigue compel the reader to turn the page as opposed to close the cover. You know what’s going to happen, the author has included you in the story; but you are not the author so you must read on to see if justice prevails. The contrast of the Church and the mischievous behavior of those entrusted to carry forward the reason for the church help shape the theme. However there are many stories within the theme.
While Hugo's command of metaphoric description of a scene is masterful I can only share this sample. At the rescue of le Esmeralda the following excerpt: “”His Cyclops eye, bent down upon her, shed over her a flood of tenderness, of pity, of grief, and was suddenly raised, flashing lightning. At this moment when the women laughed and cried, the crowd stomped with enthusiasm, for that moment Quasimodo was really beautiful. Yes he was beautiful he that orphan, that foundling outcast; he himself august and strong; he looked in the face of society from which he was banished, and for he had made so signal a conquest; that human justice from which he snatched its victim; those judges, those executioners, all that forces of the king's which he, the meanest of mean, had foiled with the force of God! And then, how touching was that protection afforded by being so deformed, to a being so unfortunate as the girl condemned to die and saved by Quasimodo! It was two extreme miseries of Nature and Society meeting and assisting each other. “”
While Hugo is brilliant with metaphors, I sense that the following is in my opinion the sum Hugo's message. “Like a fly, flying to the light of the window to be caught in a spider’s web.” So often just when a character believed to be claiming success, something snatched him up to change his view. “Meddle not with fatality; be mindful of the spider web between fate and thee.” But then again “nothing makes a man more adventuresome than an empty pocket.” So off we go.
A couple more for good measure
Hunchback of Notre Dame
by Victor Hugo
1. A purse in your pocket is like the moon in a bucket of water, you see it but it's not there.
3. It takes one drop of wine to colors a glass of water.
4. The owl never enters the next of the lark
5. I'd rather be the head of a fly than the tail of a lion,
7. What we are about is not absolutely innocent.
8. With the flesh of the wolf come the dogs teeth
9. Like a fly, flying to the light of the window to be caught in a spiders web.
Iliad
Iliad
by Homer.
A classic book by a classic storyteller in Homer. The story of the battle between Greeks and Trojans for Helen takes place about 800 BC. If I have my facts correct, Homer told the story and later with advent of writing it was written down. Contrary to the expectations of Thoreau, I did not read the Greek version.
The story is about the Nobel values in man as they contrast with the values of their self-imposed Greek gods. Which I believe to be the conscience of man, whether one, many, or different gods. The book portrays the graphic details of killing in war and at the same time with the slaying of each character, there is a dialogue between each of the combatants. They go into verse as to their respective family lineage and noble deeds relative to the honor that death brings to both sides. That honor is derived from the combatants bringing their best fight for the most noble of reasons to a resolution, one way or another. Their reason for living was also their reason for dying.
The gods in my estimation represent the evil and unexplainable in the choices a man makes when at war. Yet after about 200 pages of graphic detail, I found myself renting movies like We Were Soldiers, with Mel Gibson. I was reminded in watching that movie that in almost 3,000 years little has changed. We go from many gods, to One God and we still resolve our differences in death. I was also reminded that in battle the hero's are always impervious to death. Which then you would presume that these heroes are guided by the grace of some god where dying is equal to living and the heroes survive because their reason for living, as decided by the gods has not yet been satisfied.
The Greek gods are not portrayed to be ones with honor or a conscience. One could correlate them to the kings and now presidents that lead their nations into battle. So then you would ask yourself if today’s leaders have improved over those of the Trojan's Paris or the Greek's Agemenmon. Well back then they were fighting over a woman, and in the end you discover from Helen it was all simply a family feud, sparked by the sexual tension of two men. Today our leaders, starting with Lincoln domestically and then Wilson on an international stage, provide freedom and liberty of all men as the reason for war. But then I have to also look at T. Roosevelt and Nixon/Kissinger who openly sight national security as reason for war. In this balance, I look at our national thought process over Iraq or any other nation that are seeds of terror and being of the mind of Homer, would follow the command of our leaders in avenging the death of our brothers and sisters and to ensure security. I would do this without question.
But then after 336 pages of killing you read the passages of Hector as he prepares for battle with Achilles it becomes real and personal what war means to yourself, your mother and father, and the society around you to face almost certain death. And then in the closing of the book as Achilles and Priam both mourn over their sons death and halt the battle for twelve days to honor their fallen sons. You first realize the importance of carrying the dead off a battlefield. You then take more seriously the words of General Schwartzkoph after the Gulf War, " It takes a soldiers courage, to send young sons into battle"
Oddly enough last week at our neighborhood block party, I found myself listening in on a conversation of veterans of three Wars. In each war we were liberating somebody and at the same time we were really protecting our interests. Each Vet described their activity in killing the enemy; an Iraqi, a NVN, and yes a Jap. None were proud of the methodology they used, from "smart bombs, to filling tunnels with neipahm, to flame throwers. Yet none really connected their participation in the event to freedom and liberty. I wonder if it would be proper to rationalize their actions with the avenging of the death of brothers and sisters or less hostile the protection of your own family and way of life. This is the mindset of the folks in the Balkans. I wonder if our Congressmen and President should read or most likely re-read the Iliad and Odyssey. Or not.
by Homer.
A classic book by a classic storyteller in Homer. The story of the battle between Greeks and Trojans for Helen takes place about 800 BC. If I have my facts correct, Homer told the story and later with advent of writing it was written down. Contrary to the expectations of Thoreau, I did not read the Greek version.
The story is about the Nobel values in man as they contrast with the values of their self-imposed Greek gods. Which I believe to be the conscience of man, whether one, many, or different gods. The book portrays the graphic details of killing in war and at the same time with the slaying of each character, there is a dialogue between each of the combatants. They go into verse as to their respective family lineage and noble deeds relative to the honor that death brings to both sides. That honor is derived from the combatants bringing their best fight for the most noble of reasons to a resolution, one way or another. Their reason for living was also their reason for dying.
The gods in my estimation represent the evil and unexplainable in the choices a man makes when at war. Yet after about 200 pages of graphic detail, I found myself renting movies like We Were Soldiers, with Mel Gibson. I was reminded in watching that movie that in almost 3,000 years little has changed. We go from many gods, to One God and we still resolve our differences in death. I was also reminded that in battle the hero's are always impervious to death. Which then you would presume that these heroes are guided by the grace of some god where dying is equal to living and the heroes survive because their reason for living, as decided by the gods has not yet been satisfied.
The Greek gods are not portrayed to be ones with honor or a conscience. One could correlate them to the kings and now presidents that lead their nations into battle. So then you would ask yourself if today’s leaders have improved over those of the Trojan's Paris or the Greek's Agemenmon. Well back then they were fighting over a woman, and in the end you discover from Helen it was all simply a family feud, sparked by the sexual tension of two men. Today our leaders, starting with Lincoln domestically and then Wilson on an international stage, provide freedom and liberty of all men as the reason for war. But then I have to also look at T. Roosevelt and Nixon/Kissinger who openly sight national security as reason for war. In this balance, I look at our national thought process over Iraq or any other nation that are seeds of terror and being of the mind of Homer, would follow the command of our leaders in avenging the death of our brothers and sisters and to ensure security. I would do this without question.
But then after 336 pages of killing you read the passages of Hector as he prepares for battle with Achilles it becomes real and personal what war means to yourself, your mother and father, and the society around you to face almost certain death. And then in the closing of the book as Achilles and Priam both mourn over their sons death and halt the battle for twelve days to honor their fallen sons. You first realize the importance of carrying the dead off a battlefield. You then take more seriously the words of General Schwartzkoph after the Gulf War, " It takes a soldiers courage, to send young sons into battle"
Oddly enough last week at our neighborhood block party, I found myself listening in on a conversation of veterans of three Wars. In each war we were liberating somebody and at the same time we were really protecting our interests. Each Vet described their activity in killing the enemy; an Iraqi, a NVN, and yes a Jap. None were proud of the methodology they used, from "smart bombs, to filling tunnels with neipahm, to flame throwers. Yet none really connected their participation in the event to freedom and liberty. I wonder if it would be proper to rationalize their actions with the avenging of the death of brothers and sisters or less hostile the protection of your own family and way of life. This is the mindset of the folks in the Balkans. I wonder if our Congressmen and President should read or most likely re-read the Iliad and Odyssey. Or not.
Leaves of Grass
Leaves of Grass
by Walt Whitman
Finally I get to a book that is all about everything, yet decided upon only one thing. ”It is what it is.” His writing is with good measurement but without judgment or opinion. Whitman wrote this book in 1855 with the distinct advantage of living through the “splendid isolation years” of America. He defines what a poet is. He brings respect to poets and artists alike, for they are free to express their observations of the world with absolutely no obligation but to say it like he or she sees it. With such a freedom however, Whitman does not abuse his liberty by imposing his opinion in anything he writes. He is even handed on religion, as he is spiritual, but not necessarily attached to any one sect. He is respectful of government and its role on society of 1855. In every poem he gives equal consideration to the sexes and the ages. Most of all he impressed me with his recognition that all people are all connected and have a measure of impact on each other. The measure of that interaction is an absolute decision of the individual, Liberty. Were the times just that good in 1855, or was it Whitman? The words he chooses to convey an observation of life allows agreement from diverse views and as such, places him as arbiter of peace. The following are samples of universal descriptions of life’s challenges.
And the hand of God is the elder hand of my own. And I know that the spirit of God is the eldest brother of my own.
I guess it must be the flag of my disposition
I pass death with dyeing; and am not contained between my hat-and boots.
Obedience does not master him, he masters it
The city sleeps and the country sleeps, The living sleeps for their time ....the dead sleep for their time, The old husband sleeps by his wife and the young husband sleeps by his wife, And these one and all tend inward to me, and I tend outward to them, And such it is to be of these more or less I am.
These are the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands; they are not original with me,
If they are yours as much as mine they are nothing or next to nothing,
If they do not enclose everything they are next to nothing,
If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are nothing,
If they are not just as close as they are at a distance they are nothing.
This is the grass that grows wherever the land is and the water is,
This is the common air that bathes the globe
This is the trill of a thousand clear cornets and scream of the octave flute and strike of triangles. Dazzling and tremendous how quick the sunrise would kill me, If I could not now and always send sunrise out of me. We also ascend dazzling and tremendous as the sun; we found our own my soul in the calm and cool of daybreak.
My voice goes after what my eyes cannot reach,
While the twirl of my tongue I encompass words and volumes of worlds.
Speech is the twin of my vision... it is unequal to measure itself.
It provokes me forever; it says sarcastically,
Walt you understand enough...why don't you let it out then?
Logic and sermons never convince,
The damp of the night drive deeper into my soul,
Only what proves itself to every man and women is so, only what nobody denies is so.
How quickly I ascend to the nest in the fissure in the cliff.
We consider the bibles and religions divine.... I do not say they are divine, I say they have all grown out of you and may grow out of you still, It is not they who give life.... it is you who give life: Leaves are not more shed from the tree or trees from the earth than they are shed out of you. The sum of all known value and respect I add up in you whoever you are.
I suppose though that poets and leaders should indeed be in their separate place. Yet a good leader should have a poet as his advisor. To place Whitman in our thoughts of today, one would draw a contrast to Islam. It is a tenant of the Koran that no religious leaders shall be in government positions, yet all government decisions shall give full consideration to their religion. Should we send Leaves of Grass to all religious leaders of Islamic countries enslaved by fanatisism?
by Walt Whitman
Finally I get to a book that is all about everything, yet decided upon only one thing. ”It is what it is.” His writing is with good measurement but without judgment or opinion. Whitman wrote this book in 1855 with the distinct advantage of living through the “splendid isolation years” of America. He defines what a poet is. He brings respect to poets and artists alike, for they are free to express their observations of the world with absolutely no obligation but to say it like he or she sees it. With such a freedom however, Whitman does not abuse his liberty by imposing his opinion in anything he writes. He is even handed on religion, as he is spiritual, but not necessarily attached to any one sect. He is respectful of government and its role on society of 1855. In every poem he gives equal consideration to the sexes and the ages. Most of all he impressed me with his recognition that all people are all connected and have a measure of impact on each other. The measure of that interaction is an absolute decision of the individual, Liberty. Were the times just that good in 1855, or was it Whitman? The words he chooses to convey an observation of life allows agreement from diverse views and as such, places him as arbiter of peace. The following are samples of universal descriptions of life’s challenges.
And the hand of God is the elder hand of my own. And I know that the spirit of God is the eldest brother of my own.
I guess it must be the flag of my disposition
I pass death with dyeing; and am not contained between my hat-and boots.
Obedience does not master him, he masters it
The city sleeps and the country sleeps, The living sleeps for their time ....the dead sleep for their time, The old husband sleeps by his wife and the young husband sleeps by his wife, And these one and all tend inward to me, and I tend outward to them, And such it is to be of these more or less I am.
These are the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands; they are not original with me,
If they are yours as much as mine they are nothing or next to nothing,
If they do not enclose everything they are next to nothing,
If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are nothing,
If they are not just as close as they are at a distance they are nothing.
This is the grass that grows wherever the land is and the water is,
This is the common air that bathes the globe
This is the trill of a thousand clear cornets and scream of the octave flute and strike of triangles. Dazzling and tremendous how quick the sunrise would kill me, If I could not now and always send sunrise out of me. We also ascend dazzling and tremendous as the sun; we found our own my soul in the calm and cool of daybreak.
My voice goes after what my eyes cannot reach,
While the twirl of my tongue I encompass words and volumes of worlds.
Speech is the twin of my vision... it is unequal to measure itself.
It provokes me forever; it says sarcastically,
Walt you understand enough...why don't you let it out then?
Logic and sermons never convince,
The damp of the night drive deeper into my soul,
Only what proves itself to every man and women is so, only what nobody denies is so.
How quickly I ascend to the nest in the fissure in the cliff.
We consider the bibles and religions divine.... I do not say they are divine, I say they have all grown out of you and may grow out of you still, It is not they who give life.... it is you who give life: Leaves are not more shed from the tree or trees from the earth than they are shed out of you. The sum of all known value and respect I add up in you whoever you are.
I suppose though that poets and leaders should indeed be in their separate place. Yet a good leader should have a poet as his advisor. To place Whitman in our thoughts of today, one would draw a contrast to Islam. It is a tenant of the Koran that no religious leaders shall be in government positions, yet all government decisions shall give full consideration to their religion. Should we send Leaves of Grass to all religious leaders of Islamic countries enslaved by fanatisism?
Does America Need a Foreign Policy
Does America Need a Foreign Policy
By Henry Kissinger
While he does not take history to his typical intimate detail, this book is a valuable history lesson with a specific connection to a recommendation of American foreign policy. While I was expecting his recommendation to be finite in nature, I was somewhat let down, yet history and our current world order as he describes precludes such a narrow mind.
Europe
It is a popular concept in the western world, that sovereignty is derived through a democratic process whereby the people elect leaders who proscribe common law to abide by. Kissinger points out that the Westphalia agreement in post 30 Years War, where regions of land actually were bound by a specific demarcation line, lay the beginning of this popular belief. We have evolved from Kingdoms and Fiefdoms to a world largely dominated by a democratic process. Whether this is merely a transitional phase or the ultimate end is examined in the book. He does fall short in this book in proper examination of China. That review is forth coming.
In taking a historical look at America’s relationship with the various regions of the world, one can conclude that many of today’s nations either a.) Do not fall into this definition, or b.) Fall into this definition as a result of a settlement of a war. Kissinger takes the time to examine the difference between a nation and state, and the application of Wilsonian imposition of human rights versus national interest. Where is the balance in the answers? Again, Kissinger resorts to history in drawing his conclusion. Yet he takes a stand early on is stating that “So long as post Cold Was generation of national leaders is embarrassed to elaborate an un-apologetic concept of enlightened national interest, it will achieve progressive paralysis, not moral elevation. Certainly, to be truly American, any concept of national interest must flow from the country’s democratic tradition…”
Asia
The geopolitical challenge of every Asian nation is not so much how to conquer neighbors as how to prevent those neighbors from combining against it. Kissinger includes China in this assessment; there is historical evidence to challenge him on this accord. Kissinger recommends America to play the role of an independent broker and or arbiter of issues, yet remain implacable when the balance of power causes a threat to American interest.
In China, Kissinger recognizes the vast cultural difference in foreign policy and relates his personal experience on this point. While he describes the American emissaries effort beginning in 1971 as transitory he only scratches the surface of the reason for China’s impression of the US. He does make a cultural observation that I am personally familiar with and that is that the Chinese think in terms of stages of process that has no precise culmination, while Americans think in terms of concrete solutions to specify problems. The Chinese are averse to appearing supplicant they prefer an appearance of patience and aloofness. They do not rely on personal relations as a lubricant to agreement. They view Americans who hold such reliance as erratic and somewhat frivolous.
Kissinger describes the future of Taiwan as a wild card. While he recognizes Taiwan’s Nationalist Party and its goal to seek “One China on it’s terms, he does not describe the recent democratization of Taiwan whereby the Nationalist Party has been over shadowed by a freely elected government who’s vision is ambivalent towards a One China with either mainland or island bias. He describes diplomatic correspondence an international intrigue, yet fails to examine the historical and current internal psyche of the Chinese leaders. China is imperialistic as witnessed in Tibetan, and Mongolia for starters. China has a loose interpretation of boarders. China views the world has that that is Chinese and that that is subservient to China, in measured terms. While Kissenger recommends restraint on the part of Taiwan not to enflame the relations between China and the United States, I have found evidence that kowtowing to China is a slippery slope toward Chinese Imperialism.
Middle East
The challenge de jour of course is Palestine. How and where to define it. Kissenger sites a conversation he had with a member of Arafat’s regime sited Jaffa as his home not the West Bank. Arabs see Israel as a threat, back by the United States. Unfortunately, the ultimate solution for the Arab world is the abolishment of Israel as it exists in “Palestine.” Ironically, many Israelis I have met with while in Israel, just as-soon be given land in Iowa. When you drive around Tel Aviv the common architecture are malls, strip malls and every franchise store found in America. You would think you were in east East LA.
Kissinger clearly indicts the Clinton diplomacy as a failure in peace negotiations. He sites the Oslo peace accord as technically Norwegian, yet underpinned by the United States policy and then under minded by Clinton’s in ability to keep Saddam in the box, which according to Madeline Albright was the declared aim of American policy. The PLO failed to live up to any of the terms of Oslo. Meanwhile the Arabs while unified in military order against Israel, were coming apart in political unity. Clinton/Christopher failure to recognize this had led to a crescendo in global affairs. Clinton’s ambition to be the broker of peace during his term was quickly leveraged by all sides. Thus rendering the United States exposed to diplomatic blackmail and a victim of the conflict. He called the Camp David meetings as meetings of the deaf. I am sure in judging Kissinger’s’ overall sentiment towards the Clinton behavior on a world stage that the vision of a two term presidency would represent a view that international diplomacy begins with internal policy and the voice of the people as a instrument of national security against the forces from within.
Kissinger writes a nine step plan towards the Middle East situation. Central to these steps is recognition that allegiances with any European country would draw special interests of such that may be in conflict with American policy. While Europe craves public sentiment, there lay underneath a hidden national agenda. Basing policy around individual Arab nations runs the same risk for various reasons; depending on the strategic, economic, political, and security position of each country. In each case we find the United States going alone as the world policeman.
With regard to diplomacy and war being the final element of such, Kissinger points out that reluctance to war, brings as demonstrated in Viet Nam, the other sides tendency to circumvent positions not deemed beneficial. Not fighting wars to unconditional surrender has lead to compromised ends in Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War resulting in continued loss of life or at minimum loss of liberty and quality of life on all sides. With Iraq and Afghanistan behind us militarily, Kissinger puts Iran in a light of caution. Rather than rush into the breach, Kissinger proposes to press for an improvement in relations with linkage to Iran’s willingness to depart from exporting terrorism to the world. Parallel steps must be taken as unilateral confessions has only proved to strengthen Iran’s tendency to fall back to terrorist ways. Step one would absolutely be the abolishment terrorism exports.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is a boarder of national interest??… of course. With regard to Nation States, such as Russia, an American policy must be comprised with a sense of respectful inclusiveness. Yet America must fully express that their concerns of balance of power does not end with the Cold War, and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations is a compromise of national interest to all nations. While this book was written pre 9-11, I find it most apropos, to steel a word from the French, that Kissinger was concerned. With regard to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD); Kissinger writes that “Whatever tenuous plausibility of MAD theory may have had in the two power world,” Richelieu’s balance “evaporates when eight nations have tested nuclear weapons and many regimes are working feverishly in the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction… IF one of these weapons destroys an American or European city by accident or design, how would democratic leaders explain to their public their refusal- not inability, but refusal – to protect them against even limited missile attacks? In this vein Kissinger strikes an emotional vote on the balance towards a defense of a nation’s interest, first being security.
While Kissinger recommends the deterrence of weapons of mass destruction, he suggests that with proliferation already in progress we should “not tilt against the windmills”. We should link other countries capabilities to their global agenda. Those agendas who pose a threat to the United States should be met with appropriate response. With regard to Iraq, my recent trip to Europe post Iraq War finds Europe in agreement with American and British led action. With regard to Nation States such as India a close relationship is warranted for common economic as well as other basic human rights issues.
Globalization
Kissinger describes the gap between the economics and the political world as the Achilles heal of the process of globalization. He sites that 20 percent of the world will be part of the international system; the rest will be left behind. This inverse parado exposes The United States as the leader to world resentment. There is the reality that economic growth requires reform and that reform requires political structure with transparent and an independent judicial system. Therefore in my opinion American statesmanship, and the concerns raised in George Soro’s book “The Crisis of Global Capitalism” must be given due attention. (review not written yet)
Closure
I did take notes when Kissinger began drawing contrasts to Jacksonians, Rooseveltonians and finally Wilsonian’s. He does a nice job demonstrating how the personalities of our leaders can be reflected in our public sentiment in the same way our children reflects the values of our parents. The interesting twist comes from the George Keenan’s “Domino” theories within the Cold War era and the roles each of the presidential personalities played in our public opinion. In applying the domino theory, Kissinger shapes an argument from nationalism vested in the era of Splendid Isolation, the National Security vested in TRex, and finally Wilson’s liberty of man. In the discourse it is interesting to note the hawk to dove and vice-versa of each of the left or right political parties. In summary the Viet Nam debate is portrayed as Jacksonian with no category for “limited war”. The Wilsonian’s had concluded there was a moral flaw in our rationale for war. Neither side were willing to support a gradual extrication designed to preserve American credibility in a Cold War environment where security still very much depended on American word. As we somehow managed to escape the trauma of Viet Nam, America today still finds the world hanging on it’s every word; both of the leaders and the people. It is the American people that elect these leaders. So I hold out the question, does the president reflect the voice of the people or are we simply followers. I would like to think there are enough to us paying attention.
The book closes with the concession that America, alone or with Europe is not in a position to right every wrong. A parallel argument is drawn using a corollary between Wilsonian policy and Jacksonian policy of our past.
By Henry Kissinger
While he does not take history to his typical intimate detail, this book is a valuable history lesson with a specific connection to a recommendation of American foreign policy. While I was expecting his recommendation to be finite in nature, I was somewhat let down, yet history and our current world order as he describes precludes such a narrow mind.
Europe
It is a popular concept in the western world, that sovereignty is derived through a democratic process whereby the people elect leaders who proscribe common law to abide by. Kissinger points out that the Westphalia agreement in post 30 Years War, where regions of land actually were bound by a specific demarcation line, lay the beginning of this popular belief. We have evolved from Kingdoms and Fiefdoms to a world largely dominated by a democratic process. Whether this is merely a transitional phase or the ultimate end is examined in the book. He does fall short in this book in proper examination of China. That review is forth coming.
In taking a historical look at America’s relationship with the various regions of the world, one can conclude that many of today’s nations either a.) Do not fall into this definition, or b.) Fall into this definition as a result of a settlement of a war. Kissinger takes the time to examine the difference between a nation and state, and the application of Wilsonian imposition of human rights versus national interest. Where is the balance in the answers? Again, Kissinger resorts to history in drawing his conclusion. Yet he takes a stand early on is stating that “So long as post Cold Was generation of national leaders is embarrassed to elaborate an un-apologetic concept of enlightened national interest, it will achieve progressive paralysis, not moral elevation. Certainly, to be truly American, any concept of national interest must flow from the country’s democratic tradition…”
Asia
The geopolitical challenge of every Asian nation is not so much how to conquer neighbors as how to prevent those neighbors from combining against it. Kissinger includes China in this assessment; there is historical evidence to challenge him on this accord. Kissinger recommends America to play the role of an independent broker and or arbiter of issues, yet remain implacable when the balance of power causes a threat to American interest.
In China, Kissinger recognizes the vast cultural difference in foreign policy and relates his personal experience on this point. While he describes the American emissaries effort beginning in 1971 as transitory he only scratches the surface of the reason for China’s impression of the US. He does make a cultural observation that I am personally familiar with and that is that the Chinese think in terms of stages of process that has no precise culmination, while Americans think in terms of concrete solutions to specify problems. The Chinese are averse to appearing supplicant they prefer an appearance of patience and aloofness. They do not rely on personal relations as a lubricant to agreement. They view Americans who hold such reliance as erratic and somewhat frivolous.
Kissinger describes the future of Taiwan as a wild card. While he recognizes Taiwan’s Nationalist Party and its goal to seek “One China on it’s terms, he does not describe the recent democratization of Taiwan whereby the Nationalist Party has been over shadowed by a freely elected government who’s vision is ambivalent towards a One China with either mainland or island bias. He describes diplomatic correspondence an international intrigue, yet fails to examine the historical and current internal psyche of the Chinese leaders. China is imperialistic as witnessed in Tibetan, and Mongolia for starters. China has a loose interpretation of boarders. China views the world has that that is Chinese and that that is subservient to China, in measured terms. While Kissenger recommends restraint on the part of Taiwan not to enflame the relations between China and the United States, I have found evidence that kowtowing to China is a slippery slope toward Chinese Imperialism.
Middle East
The challenge de jour of course is Palestine. How and where to define it. Kissenger sites a conversation he had with a member of Arafat’s regime sited Jaffa as his home not the West Bank. Arabs see Israel as a threat, back by the United States. Unfortunately, the ultimate solution for the Arab world is the abolishment of Israel as it exists in “Palestine.” Ironically, many Israelis I have met with while in Israel, just as-soon be given land in Iowa. When you drive around Tel Aviv the common architecture are malls, strip malls and every franchise store found in America. You would think you were in east East LA.
Kissinger clearly indicts the Clinton diplomacy as a failure in peace negotiations. He sites the Oslo peace accord as technically Norwegian, yet underpinned by the United States policy and then under minded by Clinton’s in ability to keep Saddam in the box, which according to Madeline Albright was the declared aim of American policy. The PLO failed to live up to any of the terms of Oslo. Meanwhile the Arabs while unified in military order against Israel, were coming apart in political unity. Clinton/Christopher failure to recognize this had led to a crescendo in global affairs. Clinton’s ambition to be the broker of peace during his term was quickly leveraged by all sides. Thus rendering the United States exposed to diplomatic blackmail and a victim of the conflict. He called the Camp David meetings as meetings of the deaf. I am sure in judging Kissinger’s’ overall sentiment towards the Clinton behavior on a world stage that the vision of a two term presidency would represent a view that international diplomacy begins with internal policy and the voice of the people as a instrument of national security against the forces from within.
Kissinger writes a nine step plan towards the Middle East situation. Central to these steps is recognition that allegiances with any European country would draw special interests of such that may be in conflict with American policy. While Europe craves public sentiment, there lay underneath a hidden national agenda. Basing policy around individual Arab nations runs the same risk for various reasons; depending on the strategic, economic, political, and security position of each country. In each case we find the United States going alone as the world policeman.
With regard to diplomacy and war being the final element of such, Kissinger points out that reluctance to war, brings as demonstrated in Viet Nam, the other sides tendency to circumvent positions not deemed beneficial. Not fighting wars to unconditional surrender has lead to compromised ends in Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War resulting in continued loss of life or at minimum loss of liberty and quality of life on all sides. With Iraq and Afghanistan behind us militarily, Kissinger puts Iran in a light of caution. Rather than rush into the breach, Kissinger proposes to press for an improvement in relations with linkage to Iran’s willingness to depart from exporting terrorism to the world. Parallel steps must be taken as unilateral confessions has only proved to strengthen Iran’s tendency to fall back to terrorist ways. Step one would absolutely be the abolishment terrorism exports.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is a boarder of national interest??… of course. With regard to Nation States, such as Russia, an American policy must be comprised with a sense of respectful inclusiveness. Yet America must fully express that their concerns of balance of power does not end with the Cold War, and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations is a compromise of national interest to all nations. While this book was written pre 9-11, I find it most apropos, to steel a word from the French, that Kissinger was concerned. With regard to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD); Kissinger writes that “Whatever tenuous plausibility of MAD theory may have had in the two power world,” Richelieu’s balance “evaporates when eight nations have tested nuclear weapons and many regimes are working feverishly in the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction… IF one of these weapons destroys an American or European city by accident or design, how would democratic leaders explain to their public their refusal- not inability, but refusal – to protect them against even limited missile attacks? In this vein Kissinger strikes an emotional vote on the balance towards a defense of a nation’s interest, first being security.
While Kissinger recommends the deterrence of weapons of mass destruction, he suggests that with proliferation already in progress we should “not tilt against the windmills”. We should link other countries capabilities to their global agenda. Those agendas who pose a threat to the United States should be met with appropriate response. With regard to Iraq, my recent trip to Europe post Iraq War finds Europe in agreement with American and British led action. With regard to Nation States such as India a close relationship is warranted for common economic as well as other basic human rights issues.
Globalization
Kissinger describes the gap between the economics and the political world as the Achilles heal of the process of globalization. He sites that 20 percent of the world will be part of the international system; the rest will be left behind. This inverse parado exposes The United States as the leader to world resentment. There is the reality that economic growth requires reform and that reform requires political structure with transparent and an independent judicial system. Therefore in my opinion American statesmanship, and the concerns raised in George Soro’s book “The Crisis of Global Capitalism” must be given due attention. (review not written yet)
Closure
I did take notes when Kissinger began drawing contrasts to Jacksonians, Rooseveltonians and finally Wilsonian’s. He does a nice job demonstrating how the personalities of our leaders can be reflected in our public sentiment in the same way our children reflects the values of our parents. The interesting twist comes from the George Keenan’s “Domino” theories within the Cold War era and the roles each of the presidential personalities played in our public opinion. In applying the domino theory, Kissinger shapes an argument from nationalism vested in the era of Splendid Isolation, the National Security vested in TRex, and finally Wilson’s liberty of man. In the discourse it is interesting to note the hawk to dove and vice-versa of each of the left or right political parties. In summary the Viet Nam debate is portrayed as Jacksonian with no category for “limited war”. The Wilsonian’s had concluded there was a moral flaw in our rationale for war. Neither side were willing to support a gradual extrication designed to preserve American credibility in a Cold War environment where security still very much depended on American word. As we somehow managed to escape the trauma of Viet Nam, America today still finds the world hanging on it’s every word; both of the leaders and the people. It is the American people that elect these leaders. So I hold out the question, does the president reflect the voice of the people or are we simply followers. I would like to think there are enough to us paying attention.
The book closes with the concession that America, alone or with Europe is not in a position to right every wrong. A parallel argument is drawn using a corollary between Wilsonian policy and Jacksonian policy of our past.
Gods And Generals
Gods And Generals
By Jeff Shaara
This book was a Christmas gift from the Bama. She knows I am somewhat of a history buff and knowing a movie was being made on the subject bought me Mr. Shaara’s series on the Civil War. So I have worked it into my reading schedule. Having myself climbed the observation tower at Gettysburg and listening to the narration of the battle I could almost feel the ghosts of the soldiers who gave their lives. Imagine 15,000 men falling to their death in one morning. Call me imaginative but yes the notion and feelings did grip me and vested a deep sense of respect for those who go to war. This book, written by an author one hundred and forty years removed who attempts to follow in is father’s foot steps by telling a story of the men engaged in the War as opposed to simply chronicling the events.
Shaara chose Robert E. Lee, Winfield Scott, Thomas Jackson, and Joshua Chamberlain to tell his story. Lee and Scott went to West Point together. They fought in the war with Mexico together. Jackson and Chamberlain were educators of well established institutions. All had interactive acquaintances prior to the War yet Shaara weaves the dynamic events of each characters personal life, with the over arching issues being debated in Washington and newspapers to illustrate the intimate decision making process of all involved in the time preceding the Civil War. The fist half of the book is dedicated to the personal decisions with an impression that their minds were made up by their heritage more than anything else.
Lee, while offered a Generals position in the Union army turned it down. He had a military career at great sacrifice to his family to the Union of States. The key word herein being States. In Lee’s reply to his offer he sited that while he is dedicated to defend his country, he would not play any part in his country attacking his home state State of Virginia. He closed with while I have demonstrated loyalty to my country, I love my Virginia first and must return home to defend it against this army of 75,000 soldiers that Lincoln was assembling. When you stop and think about it, prior to the 14th amendment the southern States were within their rights to succeed. Lincoln was waging war against a foreign country to impose his moral conscious upon that land. He was also violating a law by conceiving a draft of men to fight this war.
Chamberlain, on the other hand in, the course of teaching his young men about the issues of the war came to the conclusion that: “our young nation was founded on freedom for all men. It was formed with unique laws that allow for a due process that existed nowhere else in the world. This experiment of nationhood could find it’s demise long before it has a chance to prove itself” In my previous studies of American history I have learned that the slavery issues was indeed up for debate in the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was an issue that was allowed to go unsettled with the placement of due process of government presides. Unbeknownst to our forefathers they did not foresee the last element of international negotiations come to fruition.
Scott’s purpose in the book was primarily to illustrate the ineptness of our General leadership in the Union army during the first two years of the war. While there existed a high degree of politics in the appointment of Generals in Washington, the real impact of poor selection was only witnessed by Union losses on the battlefield. Scott’s questioning of strategy in choice of battlefield as well as the actual battle plan shed light on the Union losses in Mannassas and Fredericksburg. The culminating battle in this book being Fredericksburg leaves one to wonder from this point why the Union army would prevail. Lee sat on his horse overlooking the battlefield before it began and thanked God for granting such an easy battle plan. Yet after the successful defense of Fredericksburg, sending the Union army back across the river with many dead left on the battlefield, Lee thought to himself that the only way to preclude this unwanted advancement of the Union Army would be to take the war to Union soil. The only thing mounting in Lincolns favor at this time is the overwhelming measure of resources in terms of equipment and soldiers.
Jackson’s character, my favorite, illustrated the sense of reverence towards God in his contemplation of his fate as well as people on both sides of the war. While this theme is prevalent in the building of all the main characters, Shaara seemed to have more success with Stonewall Jackson. His religious foundation carried a strain of superstition in leaving some decisions up to God. While rational man would find folly in this sort of thing, Shaara gives credibility to Jackson’s ways as he seemed to behave most courageously in battle. Hence is nickname Stonewall. While he is the first of the four characters to die you could only ask yourself the questions: Is it matter of how long you live or how well you live your life?
In general commentary on the book, I came away from it with a higher degree of respect for the Confederate cause. Imagine today’s society going to war over moral issues such as abortion. Without the safeguard of the 14th Amendment such a travesty would be possible. Imagine finding yourself with an opinion one way or another yet forces beyond you placing yourself in a position to defend your home. Yet how would history look at you if your side prevailed? How would it look at you if you side lost? Then take a look at our leaders, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. All made decisions to wage war with a strong consideration of the moral right or wrong at hand. Indeed they were required to appeal to their constituencies and laws and with national security in mind; but what was it that enabled a good night sleep? In the case of the American Civil War, history found the wisdom in Lincoln’s moral leadership. On a separate discussion one would ponder our form of government as it now stands more biased towards federalism as opposed to Statehood which gave us strength to prevail in the following century of war. Yet honor and respect for the mind and the will of a people defending their land should be held in equal regard. I believe this was Shaarsa’s message.
Coincidently as I read this book, the post Iraq War Press lodges questions surrounding the argument of weapons of mass destruction. In defense of this barrage of second guessing, the leader that comes to the forefront is again vested in the culture of our preceding forefathers. Like his predecessor Churchill, Tony Blair provides the perspective that helps balance the difficulty in decisions made by our Generals and Commander and Chief. He said “if we don’t find weapons of mass destruction, history will forgive us. If we fail to remove blight on world humanity, history will not forgive us.” In between these decisions made by leaders and history is the Press. Do we have the fortitude to make up our own minds?
By Jeff Shaara
This book was a Christmas gift from the Bama. She knows I am somewhat of a history buff and knowing a movie was being made on the subject bought me Mr. Shaara’s series on the Civil War. So I have worked it into my reading schedule. Having myself climbed the observation tower at Gettysburg and listening to the narration of the battle I could almost feel the ghosts of the soldiers who gave their lives. Imagine 15,000 men falling to their death in one morning. Call me imaginative but yes the notion and feelings did grip me and vested a deep sense of respect for those who go to war. This book, written by an author one hundred and forty years removed who attempts to follow in is father’s foot steps by telling a story of the men engaged in the War as opposed to simply chronicling the events.
Shaara chose Robert E. Lee, Winfield Scott, Thomas Jackson, and Joshua Chamberlain to tell his story. Lee and Scott went to West Point together. They fought in the war with Mexico together. Jackson and Chamberlain were educators of well established institutions. All had interactive acquaintances prior to the War yet Shaara weaves the dynamic events of each characters personal life, with the over arching issues being debated in Washington and newspapers to illustrate the intimate decision making process of all involved in the time preceding the Civil War. The fist half of the book is dedicated to the personal decisions with an impression that their minds were made up by their heritage more than anything else.
Lee, while offered a Generals position in the Union army turned it down. He had a military career at great sacrifice to his family to the Union of States. The key word herein being States. In Lee’s reply to his offer he sited that while he is dedicated to defend his country, he would not play any part in his country attacking his home state State of Virginia. He closed with while I have demonstrated loyalty to my country, I love my Virginia first and must return home to defend it against this army of 75,000 soldiers that Lincoln was assembling. When you stop and think about it, prior to the 14th amendment the southern States were within their rights to succeed. Lincoln was waging war against a foreign country to impose his moral conscious upon that land. He was also violating a law by conceiving a draft of men to fight this war.
Chamberlain, on the other hand in, the course of teaching his young men about the issues of the war came to the conclusion that: “our young nation was founded on freedom for all men. It was formed with unique laws that allow for a due process that existed nowhere else in the world. This experiment of nationhood could find it’s demise long before it has a chance to prove itself” In my previous studies of American history I have learned that the slavery issues was indeed up for debate in the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was an issue that was allowed to go unsettled with the placement of due process of government presides. Unbeknownst to our forefathers they did not foresee the last element of international negotiations come to fruition.
Scott’s purpose in the book was primarily to illustrate the ineptness of our General leadership in the Union army during the first two years of the war. While there existed a high degree of politics in the appointment of Generals in Washington, the real impact of poor selection was only witnessed by Union losses on the battlefield. Scott’s questioning of strategy in choice of battlefield as well as the actual battle plan shed light on the Union losses in Mannassas and Fredericksburg. The culminating battle in this book being Fredericksburg leaves one to wonder from this point why the Union army would prevail. Lee sat on his horse overlooking the battlefield before it began and thanked God for granting such an easy battle plan. Yet after the successful defense of Fredericksburg, sending the Union army back across the river with many dead left on the battlefield, Lee thought to himself that the only way to preclude this unwanted advancement of the Union Army would be to take the war to Union soil. The only thing mounting in Lincolns favor at this time is the overwhelming measure of resources in terms of equipment and soldiers.
Jackson’s character, my favorite, illustrated the sense of reverence towards God in his contemplation of his fate as well as people on both sides of the war. While this theme is prevalent in the building of all the main characters, Shaara seemed to have more success with Stonewall Jackson. His religious foundation carried a strain of superstition in leaving some decisions up to God. While rational man would find folly in this sort of thing, Shaara gives credibility to Jackson’s ways as he seemed to behave most courageously in battle. Hence is nickname Stonewall. While he is the first of the four characters to die you could only ask yourself the questions: Is it matter of how long you live or how well you live your life?
In general commentary on the book, I came away from it with a higher degree of respect for the Confederate cause. Imagine today’s society going to war over moral issues such as abortion. Without the safeguard of the 14th Amendment such a travesty would be possible. Imagine finding yourself with an opinion one way or another yet forces beyond you placing yourself in a position to defend your home. Yet how would history look at you if your side prevailed? How would it look at you if you side lost? Then take a look at our leaders, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. All made decisions to wage war with a strong consideration of the moral right or wrong at hand. Indeed they were required to appeal to their constituencies and laws and with national security in mind; but what was it that enabled a good night sleep? In the case of the American Civil War, history found the wisdom in Lincoln’s moral leadership. On a separate discussion one would ponder our form of government as it now stands more biased towards federalism as opposed to Statehood which gave us strength to prevail in the following century of war. Yet honor and respect for the mind and the will of a people defending their land should be held in equal regard. I believe this was Shaarsa’s message.
Coincidently as I read this book, the post Iraq War Press lodges questions surrounding the argument of weapons of mass destruction. In defense of this barrage of second guessing, the leader that comes to the forefront is again vested in the culture of our preceding forefathers. Like his predecessor Churchill, Tony Blair provides the perspective that helps balance the difficulty in decisions made by our Generals and Commander and Chief. He said “if we don’t find weapons of mass destruction, history will forgive us. If we fail to remove blight on world humanity, history will not forgive us.” In between these decisions made by leaders and history is the Press. Do we have the fortitude to make up our own minds?
Ben Franklin
Ben Franklin
By Stacy Schiff
This is one of those books that like Leaves of Grass by Whitman should be read once a year as a prescription for ones’ peace and happiness. As well, every parent must make it a pre-requisite to adulthood for their child to read this book. Practically a driver’s license, or college/business assistance, or simply going out of the house could be suitable points of leverage. While it is common knowledge that Ben Franklin was a self made man, reading the details of simple rules of discipline in personal as well as professional life not only allowed Ben Franklin a comfortable life, but also gave reason for generations upon generations to historically view him as citizen of this world to model ones life after.
As to my propensity for debate: Ben in is teenage years prior to leaving home found a friend, John Collins where he developed the skill of debate. Where as he states “disputations turn, by the way, is apt to become a very bad habit, making people extremely disagreeable in company by the contradiction that is necessary to bring in to practice, and thence, besides spoiling their conversation, is productive of disgusts and, perhaps enmities where you may have occasion for friendship.” … “I have caught it by reading my fathers books of dispute about religion. Persons of good sense, I have observed seldom fall into it, except lawyers, university men.” Yet with the honing of his skills with his good friend, and self study he would first practice the Socratic Method, asking distant questions and yet by degrees led his opponent to answers that would contradict his argument. Eventually, his practice in debate and in conjunction with the forming of his life long debate club JUNTO, his style of debate would be one not to use absolute terms. In this way he would preface his position with phrases such as it appears to me. This practice allowed debate to occur with out creating an offensive demeanor amongst the contestants. “The club continued onward of forty years which had us reading with attention upon several subjects that we might speak more to the purpose, and here too, be acquired better habits of conversation.”
As to my propensity for self study: I do prefer history, biography and auto biography of great persons. In the book Ben is advised of his biography that it will not merely teach self education, but the education of a wise man; and the wisest man will receive lights and improve his progress by seeing detailed the conduct of another wise man. The nearest thing to having experience of one’s own, is to have other peoples experience brought before us in a shape that is interesting…
As to my propensity for order: Franklin developed a personal report card for which to assess the net worth of his virtues. After temperance and silence came order. Of which he learned to appreciate flexibility in his measurement. In his youth his quick mind made up for is lack of order. Yet because he continued to discipline himself on this account, when his age took the sharpness out of his intellect a regiment of order found an increasing value of which he was thankful to have developed. Personally, I have come to rely on order early to make up for the not so brilliant of mind. Yet the key lesson is found in flexibility in measurement and the dynamic of all ones virtues of which make a whole person.
On virtue Franklin says “ In this piece it was my design to explain this doctrine, that vicious actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful, the nature of man alone considered; that it was, therefore, everyone’s interest to be virtuous who wished to be happy even in this world (there being always in the world a number of rich merchants, nobility, states, and princes who have need of honest instruments for their management of their affair and such being so rare), have endeavored to convince young persons that no qualities to make a poor mans fortune as those of probity and integrity.”
On religion: Ben Franklin at first considered religion too dogmatic to provide much added value to his life. As an alternative to exposing himself to the regimented dogma of any one faith, he created for himself a score sheet with thirteen different categories of human and social behavior. These included Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity and Humility. I find a few personal observations in this approach. First, this critique of the church was actually not a 1960’s phenomena and that man of the western world of good conscience over time raise question to contradictions found in the Bible. Yet at the same time under Humility, Franklin prescribes “Imitate Jesus and Socrates.” And finally to this end, Franklin prescribes that in personal measure in each category one must give tolerance to imperfection. This allowed him to attend church services for reason that it provided a good forum for public speaking.
On good fortune: Franklin espouses a simple vantage point that many have heard advocated in my debate. “Human felicity is produced not so much by great pieces of good fortune that seldom happen, as by little advantages that occur every day. Thus, if you teach a poor young man to shave himself, and keep his razor in order, you may contribute more to the happiness of his life than in giving him a thousand guineas.” OK he may be a bit more poetic and eloquent. Elsewhere in the book you read about Franklins’ pursuit of inventions. My favorite being the Franklin stove where he did not seek a patent. His reason for not pursuing a sure fortune was based in the above quote. Yet with or without patent law he advocates that those who do find improved advantages in day to day life should also find their own individual happiness in the wealth bestowed upon the inventor. Thanks to Gates and Job, I can easily communicate the value of this reading experience.
This reading experience is a relaxing experience of 223 pages of which a few hours of your time will settle you mind on many of current day thoughts. Any of you are welcome to borrow, in the spirit of Franklin, my copy and are even more welcome to visit with me to discuss the merits of Franklin as contrasted against the world as we individually view it today. The rules for such debate are nested with in this book. A must read.
By Stacy Schiff
This is one of those books that like Leaves of Grass by Whitman should be read once a year as a prescription for ones’ peace and happiness. As well, every parent must make it a pre-requisite to adulthood for their child to read this book. Practically a driver’s license, or college/business assistance, or simply going out of the house could be suitable points of leverage. While it is common knowledge that Ben Franklin was a self made man, reading the details of simple rules of discipline in personal as well as professional life not only allowed Ben Franklin a comfortable life, but also gave reason for generations upon generations to historically view him as citizen of this world to model ones life after.
As to my propensity for debate: Ben in is teenage years prior to leaving home found a friend, John Collins where he developed the skill of debate. Where as he states “disputations turn, by the way, is apt to become a very bad habit, making people extremely disagreeable in company by the contradiction that is necessary to bring in to practice, and thence, besides spoiling their conversation, is productive of disgusts and, perhaps enmities where you may have occasion for friendship.” … “I have caught it by reading my fathers books of dispute about religion. Persons of good sense, I have observed seldom fall into it, except lawyers, university men.” Yet with the honing of his skills with his good friend, and self study he would first practice the Socratic Method, asking distant questions and yet by degrees led his opponent to answers that would contradict his argument. Eventually, his practice in debate and in conjunction with the forming of his life long debate club JUNTO, his style of debate would be one not to use absolute terms. In this way he would preface his position with phrases such as it appears to me. This practice allowed debate to occur with out creating an offensive demeanor amongst the contestants. “The club continued onward of forty years which had us reading with attention upon several subjects that we might speak more to the purpose, and here too, be acquired better habits of conversation.”
As to my propensity for self study: I do prefer history, biography and auto biography of great persons. In the book Ben is advised of his biography that it will not merely teach self education, but the education of a wise man; and the wisest man will receive lights and improve his progress by seeing detailed the conduct of another wise man. The nearest thing to having experience of one’s own, is to have other peoples experience brought before us in a shape that is interesting…
As to my propensity for order: Franklin developed a personal report card for which to assess the net worth of his virtues. After temperance and silence came order. Of which he learned to appreciate flexibility in his measurement. In his youth his quick mind made up for is lack of order. Yet because he continued to discipline himself on this account, when his age took the sharpness out of his intellect a regiment of order found an increasing value of which he was thankful to have developed. Personally, I have come to rely on order early to make up for the not so brilliant of mind. Yet the key lesson is found in flexibility in measurement and the dynamic of all ones virtues of which make a whole person.
On virtue Franklin says “ In this piece it was my design to explain this doctrine, that vicious actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful, the nature of man alone considered; that it was, therefore, everyone’s interest to be virtuous who wished to be happy even in this world (there being always in the world a number of rich merchants, nobility, states, and princes who have need of honest instruments for their management of their affair and such being so rare), have endeavored to convince young persons that no qualities to make a poor mans fortune as those of probity and integrity.”
On religion: Ben Franklin at first considered religion too dogmatic to provide much added value to his life. As an alternative to exposing himself to the regimented dogma of any one faith, he created for himself a score sheet with thirteen different categories of human and social behavior. These included Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity and Humility. I find a few personal observations in this approach. First, this critique of the church was actually not a 1960’s phenomena and that man of the western world of good conscience over time raise question to contradictions found in the Bible. Yet at the same time under Humility, Franklin prescribes “Imitate Jesus and Socrates.” And finally to this end, Franklin prescribes that in personal measure in each category one must give tolerance to imperfection. This allowed him to attend church services for reason that it provided a good forum for public speaking.
On good fortune: Franklin espouses a simple vantage point that many have heard advocated in my debate. “Human felicity is produced not so much by great pieces of good fortune that seldom happen, as by little advantages that occur every day. Thus, if you teach a poor young man to shave himself, and keep his razor in order, you may contribute more to the happiness of his life than in giving him a thousand guineas.” OK he may be a bit more poetic and eloquent. Elsewhere in the book you read about Franklins’ pursuit of inventions. My favorite being the Franklin stove where he did not seek a patent. His reason for not pursuing a sure fortune was based in the above quote. Yet with or without patent law he advocates that those who do find improved advantages in day to day life should also find their own individual happiness in the wealth bestowed upon the inventor. Thanks to Gates and Job, I can easily communicate the value of this reading experience.
This reading experience is a relaxing experience of 223 pages of which a few hours of your time will settle you mind on many of current day thoughts. Any of you are welcome to borrow, in the spirit of Franklin, my copy and are even more welcome to visit with me to discuss the merits of Franklin as contrasted against the world as we individually view it today. The rules for such debate are nested with in this book. A must read.
Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Seven Pillars of Wisdom
by T.E. Lawrence
I got this book as part of my birthday booty of books to read. Janet and TJ beamed over my list of books to buy from my Visor to their Visors and scored a few classics and went shopping. Thank-you two.
I can’t remember how this book made it on the list. Yet I am quite sure another author somewhere on my list of read books made referenced to it. I would suspect by the title this book gained its reference in some material on philosophy or social study. In the back of my mind, as I began reading I did have a look out for the seven pillars of wisdom. Being of an English author I anticipated them to jump out with pomp and circumstance.
Yet the book was largely a journal of two years of a mans life in Arabia, Sir Lawrence’s Arabia. A landmass including what we now know as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria, and Yemen. The time setting is The Great War 1917-1918 where Britain and allies work to weaken the Ottoman Empire, a German ally for the larger purpose of winning the western front. The ultimate goal for T.E. Lawrence was the Arab capture of Damascus. This goal is slightly conflicted with the governments of Great Britain, France, and Egypt; who held no confidence that the Arab tribes could form a nation. Nearly one hundred years later in a much more sophisticated and changed international world the moral high ground of nation building T.E. Lawrence envisioned has yet to pan out; not only in Arabia but in Afghanistan and for that matter Eastern Europe, Russia, China
As I examine my notes and draw contrast to my first reaction. I found absolute value in this exercise: not only gaining a sense of Arabian militaristic and historical adventure against a descriptive backdrop to pale a National Geographic photojournalist: but I was able to discover Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Most importantly I was able to discover that my Seven Pillars, gleaned from the book; which may be expressed differently from others; may give the illusion of disagreement within my peers, our social, and then world community. SO, let it go.
I am sure the beauty of any desert would not immediately overtake your psyche and dislocate spiritual anchor, T.E. Lawrencein this setting drills deep enough into the fabric of the land and the people to open your heart to all walks of life; and accept them as different; yet allow them their space on earth and in spirit to coexist separately and peacefully on this one planet Earth. I am reminded of my Manhattan experience where the world works together but largely lives, albeit in graduations, in neighborhoods of common social-religious background.
As the book drew to a close I was reminded of a French author’s phrase that is apropos here. While Hugo cautions those with dreams to be ware of those with other dreams; Lawrence writes early on “All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they act their dream with open eyes to make it possible. This I did. I meant to make a nation, to restore lost influence, to give twenty million Semites the foundation to build an inspired dream-place of their national thoughts.” Hugo writes “Like a fly, flying to the light of the window to be caught in a spider’s web.” So often just when a character believed to be claiming success, something snatched him up to change his view. “Meddle not with fatality; be mindful of the spider web between fate and thee. Lawrence may have had success, but did he find peace?
In summary, this review like others I have written includes a voluminous amount of quotation for a book review. Yet to summarize such poetic description of an experience would shame the efforts of TE Lawrence. I am sharing the quotes that helped me shape only a poetic interpretation of what may be deemed Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Listing them out would be contradictory.
Seven Pillars of Wisdom – Abstract Sketch
While the book suggests Oxford, TE Lawrence is well read yet he is humble in applying his book knowledge to his fieldwork. Lawrence finds himself as a free agent of the British government acting as military advisor of the Arabs revolt against the Turks and coordinator of the British and French Armies. Lawrence was conflicted in his feelings about his assignment and the Arab response as he struggled with the Arabs propensity to believe in persons not institutions. “They saw me as a free agent of the British Government, and demanded from me an endorsement of written promises. So I had to join the conspiracy, and, for what my word was worth, assured the men of their reward. Over the two years of partnership under fire they grew accustomed to believing me to think my government and me were sincere. In this hope the performed some fine things, but, of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was continually and bitterly ashamed.”
As time brought on success Lawrence continued to wrestle with his feelings on the out comes and the overarching goal. “ I began at last to think consecutively of the Arab Revolt….it should have been thought out long before action, and we had done what seemed be instinct, not probing in text for the why and what… formulating what we really wanted in the end. I looked for the equitation between my book reading and my movements…plucking at the tangle of our present.
“I was unfortunately in command as much as I pleased, and was untrained. In military theory I was tolerably read….In any case, my interest has been abstract, concerned with theory and philosophy of warfare especially from a metaphysical side.”
The international strategy of which Lawrence was aware of fueled Lawrence’s internal strife. In the course of military strategic debate Lawrence held a position that “the Arab Movement would not justify its creation if the enthusiasm of it did not carry the Arabs into Damascus.” This was unpopular to the French because “the Sykes- Picot Treaty of 1916 between France and England had been drawn by Sykes for the very eventuality; and to reward it; stipulated the establishment of independent Arab States in Damascus, Aleppo, and Mosul, districts which would otherwise fall into control of France. Neither Sykes or Picot believed the thing really possible: but Lawrence knew that it was, and believed that “after it the vigour of the Arab Movement would prevent the creation –by us or others-in Western Asia of unduly colonial schemes of exploitation”
The Arab strategy was less thought out yet equally pragmatic. The Arab participation…”Of religious fanaticism there was little trace. The Sherif refused in round terms to give religious twist to his rebellion. His fight creed was nationality. The tribes knew the Turks were Moslems, and thought the Germans were probably true friends of Islam. They knew the British were Christians and the British were their allies. In the circumstances, their religion would not have been of much help to them and they had to put it aside.
In the transition of international paradigms, the Arabs also began to believe in themselves with every successful demolition of train and track and every city taken from the Turks. In the advance in Wijh in dialogue with Abd el Kerim where Kerim claims “we are no longer Arabs but a people”. He was half proud too, for the advance on Wijh was their biggest effort….Kerim was glad that his tribe had shown this new spirit of service, but also sorry; for to him the joys of life were a fast camel, the best weapons, and a short raid against his neighbor’s herd: and the gradual achievement of Feisal’s ambition was making such joys less and less easy for the responsible.
In dialogue with Feisal, the Arab national leader, after the capture of Wijh: “The Arabs had passed from doubt to violent optimism, and were promising exemplary service. Feisal enrolled most of the Billi. And The Moahib to..My vision of course was till purblind. I had not seen that the preaching was victory and fighting a delusion. For the moment I roped them together, and, as Feisal fortunately liked changing men’s minds rather than breaking railways, the preaching went much better.
In the afternoon, ibn Zaal arrived, with then other of Auda’s chief followers. He kissed Feisal’s hand once and then once for himself, and sitting back declared that he came from Auda to present his salutations and to ask for orders. Feisal, with policy, controlled his outward joy, and introduced him gravely to his blood enemies, the Jazi Hewitt….
During two years Feisal labored daily, putting together and arranging in their natural order the innumerable tint pieces, which made up Arabian society, and combining them into one design of war against the Turks. There was no blood feud left in any of the districts of which he past…”
On religion Lawrence shares a reflective conversation, which may prove useful in gaining an understanding on religious conflicts today. In describing his companion Abdullah, Lawrence digress a bit on religion. “He heard me and leaned forward, peering with rheumy eyes at this white thing splashing in the hollow beyond the veil of sun mist. After a long stare he seemed content, and closed his eyes, groaning, “The love is from God; and of God; and towards God.”
His low-spoken words were caught by some trick distinctly in my water pool. They stopped me suddenly. I had believed Semites unable to use love as a link between themselves and God…Christianity seemed to me to be the first creed to proclaim love in this upper world, from which the desert and the Semite had shut it out: and Christianity was hybrid, except in its first root not essentially Semitic.
Its birth in Galilee had saved it from being just one more of the innumerable revelations of the Semite. Galilee was Syria’s non-Semitic province, contact with which was almost uncleanness for the perfect Jew. Like Whitechapel in London, it lay alien to Jerusalem. Christ by choice passed his ministry in its intellectual freedom; not among the mud-huts of a Syrian village, but in the polished streets among for a and pillared houses and rocco baths, products intense if very exotic provincial and corrupt Greek civilization.
Gadarene poets, stuttering their versus in prevailing excitement, held a mirror to the sensuality and disillusioned fatalism, passing into disordered lust, of their age and place, from whose earthiness the ascetic Semite religiously perhaps caught the tang of humanity and real love that made the distinction of Christ’s music and fitted it to sweep across the hearts of Europe in a fashion which Judaism and Islam could not achieve.
And then Christianity had had the fortune of later architects of genius; and in passage through time and clime had suffered sea-changes incomparably greater than the unchanging Jewry, from the abstraction of Alexandrian bookishness into Latin prose, for the mainland Europe: and last and most terrible passing of all, when it became Teuton, with a formal synthesis to suit our chilly disputations north. So remote was the Presbyterian creed from Orthodox faith of its first or second embodiment that, before the war, we were able to send missionaries to persuade these softer Oriental Christians to our presentation of a logical God.
Islam too, had inevitably changed from continent to continent. It avoided metaphysics, except in the introspective mysticism of Iranian devotees: but in Africa, it had take color of fetishism. An Arabia it had kept a Semitic character…expressing the monotheism of open spaces, the pass-through-infinity of pantheism and its everyday usefulness of an all pervading, household of God. Later Lawrence describes how Islam manifests itself in the Arab participation of the Arab revolt of 1917 Servitude, like other conduct, was profoundly modified to Eastern minds by their obsession with the antithesis between flesh and spirit. These lads took pleasure in subordination; in degrading the body so as to throw greater relief their freedom in equality of mind almost the preferred servitude as richer in experience than authority, and less binding in daily care.
Just prior to Lawrence leading his camel riding Arab force into Damascus he shares thoughts worth repetition here for this review. “Upon this text my mind went weaving across its dusty space amid the sunbeam thoughts and their dancing motes of idea. Then I saw that this preferring the Unknown to the God was a scapegoat idea, which lulled only to a false peace. To endure by order or because it was duty – that was easy… To invent a message, and then with open eye to perish for its self-made image – that was greater.
Yet in reality we had borne the vicarious for our own sakes, or at least because it was pointed for our benefit: and could escape from this knowledge only by a make-belief in sense as well as motive.
The self-immolated victim took for his own rare gift of sacrifice, and no pride and few pleasures in the world were so joyful, so rich as this choosing voluntarily another’s evil to the perfect of self. To each opportunity there could only be one vicar, and the snatching of it robbed the fellows of their due hurt. Their vicar rejoiced while their brethren were wounded in their manhood. To accept so humbly so rich a release was imperfection in them accessory, part guilty of inflecting it upon their mediator. His purer part, for the mediator, might have been to stand among the crowd, to watch another win the cleanness of a redeemer’s name. By the one road lay self-perfection, by the other immolation, and the making of a perfect neighbor. Hauptman told us to take as generously as we gave; but rather we seemed like cells of a bee-comb, of which one might change, or swell itself, only at the cost of all.
Yet I cannot put down my acquiescence in the Arab fraud to weakness of character or native hypocrisy; though of course I must have had some tendency, some aptitude, for deceit, or I would mot have deceived me so well…”
by T.E. Lawrence
I got this book as part of my birthday booty of books to read. Janet and TJ beamed over my list of books to buy from my Visor to their Visors and scored a few classics and went shopping. Thank-you two.
I can’t remember how this book made it on the list. Yet I am quite sure another author somewhere on my list of read books made referenced to it. I would suspect by the title this book gained its reference in some material on philosophy or social study. In the back of my mind, as I began reading I did have a look out for the seven pillars of wisdom. Being of an English author I anticipated them to jump out with pomp and circumstance.
Yet the book was largely a journal of two years of a mans life in Arabia, Sir Lawrence’s Arabia. A landmass including what we now know as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria, and Yemen. The time setting is The Great War 1917-1918 where Britain and allies work to weaken the Ottoman Empire, a German ally for the larger purpose of winning the western front. The ultimate goal for T.E. Lawrence was the Arab capture of Damascus. This goal is slightly conflicted with the governments of Great Britain, France, and Egypt; who held no confidence that the Arab tribes could form a nation. Nearly one hundred years later in a much more sophisticated and changed international world the moral high ground of nation building T.E. Lawrence envisioned has yet to pan out; not only in Arabia but in Afghanistan and for that matter Eastern Europe, Russia, China
As I examine my notes and draw contrast to my first reaction. I found absolute value in this exercise: not only gaining a sense of Arabian militaristic and historical adventure against a descriptive backdrop to pale a National Geographic photojournalist: but I was able to discover Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Most importantly I was able to discover that my Seven Pillars, gleaned from the book; which may be expressed differently from others; may give the illusion of disagreement within my peers, our social, and then world community. SO, let it go.
I am sure the beauty of any desert would not immediately overtake your psyche and dislocate spiritual anchor, T.E. Lawrencein this setting drills deep enough into the fabric of the land and the people to open your heart to all walks of life; and accept them as different; yet allow them their space on earth and in spirit to coexist separately and peacefully on this one planet Earth. I am reminded of my Manhattan experience where the world works together but largely lives, albeit in graduations, in neighborhoods of common social-religious background.
As the book drew to a close I was reminded of a French author’s phrase that is apropos here. While Hugo cautions those with dreams to be ware of those with other dreams; Lawrence writes early on “All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they act their dream with open eyes to make it possible. This I did. I meant to make a nation, to restore lost influence, to give twenty million Semites the foundation to build an inspired dream-place of their national thoughts.” Hugo writes “Like a fly, flying to the light of the window to be caught in a spider’s web.” So often just when a character believed to be claiming success, something snatched him up to change his view. “Meddle not with fatality; be mindful of the spider web between fate and thee. Lawrence may have had success, but did he find peace?
In summary, this review like others I have written includes a voluminous amount of quotation for a book review. Yet to summarize such poetic description of an experience would shame the efforts of TE Lawrence. I am sharing the quotes that helped me shape only a poetic interpretation of what may be deemed Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Listing them out would be contradictory.
Seven Pillars of Wisdom – Abstract Sketch
While the book suggests Oxford, TE Lawrence is well read yet he is humble in applying his book knowledge to his fieldwork. Lawrence finds himself as a free agent of the British government acting as military advisor of the Arabs revolt against the Turks and coordinator of the British and French Armies. Lawrence was conflicted in his feelings about his assignment and the Arab response as he struggled with the Arabs propensity to believe in persons not institutions. “They saw me as a free agent of the British Government, and demanded from me an endorsement of written promises. So I had to join the conspiracy, and, for what my word was worth, assured the men of their reward. Over the two years of partnership under fire they grew accustomed to believing me to think my government and me were sincere. In this hope the performed some fine things, but, of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was continually and bitterly ashamed.”
As time brought on success Lawrence continued to wrestle with his feelings on the out comes and the overarching goal. “ I began at last to think consecutively of the Arab Revolt….it should have been thought out long before action, and we had done what seemed be instinct, not probing in text for the why and what… formulating what we really wanted in the end. I looked for the equitation between my book reading and my movements…plucking at the tangle of our present.
“I was unfortunately in command as much as I pleased, and was untrained. In military theory I was tolerably read….In any case, my interest has been abstract, concerned with theory and philosophy of warfare especially from a metaphysical side.”
The international strategy of which Lawrence was aware of fueled Lawrence’s internal strife. In the course of military strategic debate Lawrence held a position that “the Arab Movement would not justify its creation if the enthusiasm of it did not carry the Arabs into Damascus.” This was unpopular to the French because “the Sykes- Picot Treaty of 1916 between France and England had been drawn by Sykes for the very eventuality; and to reward it; stipulated the establishment of independent Arab States in Damascus, Aleppo, and Mosul, districts which would otherwise fall into control of France. Neither Sykes or Picot believed the thing really possible: but Lawrence knew that it was, and believed that “after it the vigour of the Arab Movement would prevent the creation –by us or others-in Western Asia of unduly colonial schemes of exploitation”
The Arab strategy was less thought out yet equally pragmatic. The Arab participation…”Of religious fanaticism there was little trace. The Sherif refused in round terms to give religious twist to his rebellion. His fight creed was nationality. The tribes knew the Turks were Moslems, and thought the Germans were probably true friends of Islam. They knew the British were Christians and the British were their allies. In the circumstances, their religion would not have been of much help to them and they had to put it aside.
In the transition of international paradigms, the Arabs also began to believe in themselves with every successful demolition of train and track and every city taken from the Turks. In the advance in Wijh in dialogue with Abd el Kerim where Kerim claims “we are no longer Arabs but a people”. He was half proud too, for the advance on Wijh was their biggest effort….Kerim was glad that his tribe had shown this new spirit of service, but also sorry; for to him the joys of life were a fast camel, the best weapons, and a short raid against his neighbor’s herd: and the gradual achievement of Feisal’s ambition was making such joys less and less easy for the responsible.
In dialogue with Feisal, the Arab national leader, after the capture of Wijh: “The Arabs had passed from doubt to violent optimism, and were promising exemplary service. Feisal enrolled most of the Billi. And The Moahib to..My vision of course was till purblind. I had not seen that the preaching was victory and fighting a delusion. For the moment I roped them together, and, as Feisal fortunately liked changing men’s minds rather than breaking railways, the preaching went much better.
In the afternoon, ibn Zaal arrived, with then other of Auda’s chief followers. He kissed Feisal’s hand once and then once for himself, and sitting back declared that he came from Auda to present his salutations and to ask for orders. Feisal, with policy, controlled his outward joy, and introduced him gravely to his blood enemies, the Jazi Hewitt….
During two years Feisal labored daily, putting together and arranging in their natural order the innumerable tint pieces, which made up Arabian society, and combining them into one design of war against the Turks. There was no blood feud left in any of the districts of which he past…”
On religion Lawrence shares a reflective conversation, which may prove useful in gaining an understanding on religious conflicts today. In describing his companion Abdullah, Lawrence digress a bit on religion. “He heard me and leaned forward, peering with rheumy eyes at this white thing splashing in the hollow beyond the veil of sun mist. After a long stare he seemed content, and closed his eyes, groaning, “The love is from God; and of God; and towards God.”
His low-spoken words were caught by some trick distinctly in my water pool. They stopped me suddenly. I had believed Semites unable to use love as a link between themselves and God…Christianity seemed to me to be the first creed to proclaim love in this upper world, from which the desert and the Semite had shut it out: and Christianity was hybrid, except in its first root not essentially Semitic.
Its birth in Galilee had saved it from being just one more of the innumerable revelations of the Semite. Galilee was Syria’s non-Semitic province, contact with which was almost uncleanness for the perfect Jew. Like Whitechapel in London, it lay alien to Jerusalem. Christ by choice passed his ministry in its intellectual freedom; not among the mud-huts of a Syrian village, but in the polished streets among for a and pillared houses and rocco baths, products intense if very exotic provincial and corrupt Greek civilization.
Gadarene poets, stuttering their versus in prevailing excitement, held a mirror to the sensuality and disillusioned fatalism, passing into disordered lust, of their age and place, from whose earthiness the ascetic Semite religiously perhaps caught the tang of humanity and real love that made the distinction of Christ’s music and fitted it to sweep across the hearts of Europe in a fashion which Judaism and Islam could not achieve.
And then Christianity had had the fortune of later architects of genius; and in passage through time and clime had suffered sea-changes incomparably greater than the unchanging Jewry, from the abstraction of Alexandrian bookishness into Latin prose, for the mainland Europe: and last and most terrible passing of all, when it became Teuton, with a formal synthesis to suit our chilly disputations north. So remote was the Presbyterian creed from Orthodox faith of its first or second embodiment that, before the war, we were able to send missionaries to persuade these softer Oriental Christians to our presentation of a logical God.
Islam too, had inevitably changed from continent to continent. It avoided metaphysics, except in the introspective mysticism of Iranian devotees: but in Africa, it had take color of fetishism. An Arabia it had kept a Semitic character…expressing the monotheism of open spaces, the pass-through-infinity of pantheism and its everyday usefulness of an all pervading, household of God. Later Lawrence describes how Islam manifests itself in the Arab participation of the Arab revolt of 1917 Servitude, like other conduct, was profoundly modified to Eastern minds by their obsession with the antithesis between flesh and spirit. These lads took pleasure in subordination; in degrading the body so as to throw greater relief their freedom in equality of mind almost the preferred servitude as richer in experience than authority, and less binding in daily care.
Just prior to Lawrence leading his camel riding Arab force into Damascus he shares thoughts worth repetition here for this review. “Upon this text my mind went weaving across its dusty space amid the sunbeam thoughts and their dancing motes of idea. Then I saw that this preferring the Unknown to the God was a scapegoat idea, which lulled only to a false peace. To endure by order or because it was duty – that was easy… To invent a message, and then with open eye to perish for its self-made image – that was greater.
Yet in reality we had borne the vicarious for our own sakes, or at least because it was pointed for our benefit: and could escape from this knowledge only by a make-belief in sense as well as motive.
The self-immolated victim took for his own rare gift of sacrifice, and no pride and few pleasures in the world were so joyful, so rich as this choosing voluntarily another’s evil to the perfect of self. To each opportunity there could only be one vicar, and the snatching of it robbed the fellows of their due hurt. Their vicar rejoiced while their brethren were wounded in their manhood. To accept so humbly so rich a release was imperfection in them accessory, part guilty of inflecting it upon their mediator. His purer part, for the mediator, might have been to stand among the crowd, to watch another win the cleanness of a redeemer’s name. By the one road lay self-perfection, by the other immolation, and the making of a perfect neighbor. Hauptman told us to take as generously as we gave; but rather we seemed like cells of a bee-comb, of which one might change, or swell itself, only at the cost of all.
Yet I cannot put down my acquiescence in the Arab fraud to weakness of character or native hypocrisy; though of course I must have had some tendency, some aptitude, for deceit, or I would mot have deceived me so well…”
Economics For Real People
Economics For Real People
by Gene Callahan
I picked up this book on a recommendation from Barons book review as it proposed one side of an argument on government intervention in medicine and was pertinent to current discussion of the day. I thank Jamie Murphy and Jim Meloche for the spurs to bring me round to read the book. I thank TJ for his continuous challenge to the way this are. While the book is primarily an introduction to the Austrian School of Economics, it did indeed dedicate three specific pages to the above-mentioned argument. The book puts forth the simple theory that Economics is the study of patterns in human behavior, where the central variable is Value. As long as value remains variable, most economic theories and models are subject to flaws. Thus any intervention has a flaw. Simply put: Economics is the study of the consequences of choice. Not being an economist the following is my attempt to share the value found between the covers.
In the value equation, cost is a consideration. In that consideration one must include the measure of the foregone alternatives to the choice made. The review was a refreshing alternative traditional neo-classical economics and does two things. First he helps break the paradigm that economics is a study of calculated models for which to form our society. Second Callahan illustrates in very practical terms our economy with an elementary break down of the higher to lower order of goods and services enabling the reader with confidence to freely and plug into any level with a clear understanding of the choice he or she is making. He starts with Rich (the first survivor) who actually gets left behind on the island, adds a girlfriend and then somehow a society appears. Along the way he applies suitable Austrian Theory of Economics to glue it all together.
The Individual
At the core of human behavior is a study of the notion of value. An idea that can be thought of by looking at the relationship between means and ends and how each can become the other. Trading the preference of one for the other is to economize. The degree that we economize is a matter of personal choice and therefore there is no wrong answer. The law of diminishing marginal utility is a series of value decision based on what item is next to be acquired as compared to what will be given up for that acquisition. Valuation as a matter of choice is subjected to the uncertainties of the future and therefore errors in choice may become apparent only after the choice. You must have uncertainty in order to cause actions derived from choice.
Society
In the hierarchy of goods from low to high order, saving represents the accumulation of goods towards a future satisfaction. This gives definition to capital stock. The value of the capital stock is subjected to human desire. The value of capital stock may also be associated to the existence of complementary capital stock, which also results in a horizontal arrangement of capital goods. The material benefit to cooperate could be considered a cornerstone to a working social economy. Thus a mutual division of labor and voluntary exchange process would exist in its primary form. This continues until the law of diminishing utility where the exchange ratio of cost/benefits takes over. Because market exchange is voluntary, it allows every participant to express the urgency of his/her demand. It allows humans to cope with scarcity of means through cooperation. In Callahan’s theory, free markets allow for a natural determination of needs for a society with negotiated price being the facilitator. Once price fixing comes in to the economic equation your society is exposed to gluts and shortages due to the fact that a fixed price ignores human behavior.
In the Austrian School there are fundamental roles played out by actors. They are entrepreneur, landowner/capitalist, worker, and consumer. Each of us, depending on the business we are currently engaged in, would play one of those roles. While we all appreciate the roles of worker and consumer, I am once again happy to hear it described in a book an entrepreneur as someone who anticipates the needs of the futures and makes plans to fulfill them. Of course he should realize a profit. The Austrian School views society's capital as pieces of an interlocking structure of an individual(s) plan. Capital Structure is an interlocking structure of higher order goods complementing each other in support of eventual consumer goods. There is no individual sum to be placed on the capital goods. The sum is an only an aggregate of all the entrepreneur's business plans which represents a potential for the future. It is the current of consumer desire that determines the shape of society's capital structure. The capitalists’ profits are in effect a measure of their ability to align their capital with the demands of the consumer. This gives birth to the notion of consumer sovereignty.
Government Intervention:
After economic principals are covered from an individual on a deserted island to a free flowing free choosing economy, Callahan spends the next half of the book studying cases of government intervention and their consequences. His basic premise to contrast any kind of intervention is that: Market price is the locomotive that enables society to figure out the correct supply of goods and services. A good deal of the 1990 stock run was attributed by economist to the FED increasing liquidity in the economy in preparation for Y2K. That capital entered into the market through the .com fad stocks. In the chapter "Times are Hard” Callahan uses a metaphor of a bus trip across a desert with the passengers free to choose comfort over speed. In the journey he introduces a fictitious set of parameters. This causes the passengers to choose differently yet, are unaware of the erroneous outcome in their future. The metaphor makes it simple to understand the FED role in adjusting interest rates as a method to smooth out radical swings in our economy. This seems to be a required byproduct as a result of moving from a gold standard to fiat money. So to that degree we are committed to our government partner, yet there is paradoxical concern.
Knowledge is the mothers’ milk of science. All discoveries and break throughs have a basis in an order of knowledge. However in the study of Economics, there is a large body of unorganized knowledge in our society that is dependent on the individual's proximity to place and time to express his free will in a decision that is not known to others until the moment of the decision itself. Socialism is the absence of such phenomena. Entrepreneurial decisions under socialism are reduced to planning decisions of the State; decisions that are made without the benefit of knowing what the people would bid for a good or service. Making economic decisions without prices is akin to doing mathematics without the benefit of the equal sign.
There are those who would wish for any destiny they desire and find them looking to the political process as their means. The Austrian School advocates that indeed there are unlimited ends but scarce means for which only unfettered human action of choice can resolve properly. At this cross road there appears a self admitted paradox as Callahan concedes when he writes that the inter relationship of politics and economics has existed since the first hints of economic thinking arose in human history. I would entertain any ideas from the Austrian School to begin the disentanglement of the two.
A Couple Relevant Current Issues:
While the book provides a basic view of economics with anecdotal stories, the reader can’t help but to simultaneously while reading transpose those stories into any of today’s discussion on the economy and make sense of it. For instance: Inflation is when there is too much money chasing too few goods. Whenever we hear that the GDP is growing at a fast pace the "talking heads" cry a fear of inflation. But prices for goods rise in response to an increase in the value of money relative to other goods. Some people mistake this illusory prosperity for real growth and recommend constant inflation as a means to continue prosperity. However, this current policy of low interest rates comes in to question since the FED sets rates artificially low must it increase the supply of money to keep them low. It comes to the same thing sending too much money after too few goods. Is this policy prudent on a world stage? Is this a viable strategy to level the playing field with emerging economies like China? Will this enable Americans to maintain their nominal standard of living while the rest of the world catches up? If so I applaud President Bush, his administration and mostly Allan Greenspan for being a good bridge partner, as he was with Clinton. Or have we miss-led ourselves by not recognizing the propensity of human action/desire and to meddle with our ideal world of academia?
Medical Crisis:
I was awakened by the book to a few historic events in our American history that caused me to ponder a simple shift in the way I view our medical care situation and a dramatic shift in my view on insurance companies. Free choice in price for health care does not exist due to a series of interventionist events. Consider the following unintended consequences of government intervention:
· Licensing of the medical practice
· Wage controls during WWII cause employers to offer free health insurance to lure the low supply of workers
· The subsidy of demand of Medicare and Medicaid
These simple government programs appear responsible yet they unconsciously removed the essential ingredient to a market place freely to choose (human action). As a result specialist organization such as HMOs have popped up primarily to address the induced costs to manage through the welter of market distortions on the true costs of medical care. In my view (not the authors’) an issue with giving free choice to the people is the people do not know how much they value a medical service until they really need it. This prompts a call for medical insurance and an attitude shift for myself. Being that it is not possible to plan for medical needs are not known; it is plausible to plan and budget for health care insurance. What if we take the privilege of this away from our employers in exchange for the commensurate wages? What if we subject Insurance Companies to pricing wars of the masses as opposed to Corporations who offer packages best suited to the company bottom line. Would the real exchange of goods and services and associated price induce a domino effect of efficiencies in the system?
All the theories stories of the book compel the reader to take more personal responsibility for his or her own economic stature. We must recognize that State intervention is the beginning of your slippery slope journey to unconscious surrender to the whims of another man. While the book motivates you with basic fundamentals of human nature using simple life scenarios and metaphors to prove theory by theory; you become a student and practitioner. There are areas where the student may raise questions due to over simplistic examples. For me this begins with the chapters on government intervention in issues that are not isolated to the economics of money. For me a student in aviation safety, I could think of more complex arguments in support of regulation that outweighed any of his simple metaphors against regulation as a proponent to increased cost. The book is vulnerable to experts in other areas as well where reader could become justifiably suspicious. But keep in mind the central argument is against the State as a regulator, not against a regulator appointed by free choice of the marketplace. As his story gets more complex he actually employs the anecdotal words in my head, which are "We are not faced with the task of reconstructing human society from scratch.” “Society...must best decide how to use the current array of resources” (and liabilities) “going forward.”
Considering Callahan’s notion of The Fluttering Veil Of Money as a concept named to illustrate that underneath every transaction; of any sort, at any level you can drill down to the simplest lowest level of goods or services and discover the core foundation and central theme of Austrian economics. This theme describes the human behavior to trade one thing for another to improve what is to what ought to be on an individual level as well as Community/National level. This book did not solve any specific economic problem. It left you the reader inspired to get up and to more actively discuss with those around you the consequences of your free choice. It inspires you to play the role of Investor, Entrepreneur, Worker, and Consumer with conviction. Saving and Investing are synonymous. Saving is not just a function of money. Investing your time into future development of your career is a form of investing. Spending time on your financial plan is a form of investing. Today you can invest through a bank or on your own. You can express your demand today as a consumer; you demand for tomorrow as an investor in companies you feel critical to economic success. The .com bust story illustrates the FED role in its promulgation. The FED left the real remedy to economic growth to further capital expansion possible only if additional savings increases the amount of capital goods. This, in my opinion, unfortunately is not a common trait of today’s American individual. What goes around comes around. Get in the game arrest it from the FED.
by Gene Callahan
I picked up this book on a recommendation from Barons book review as it proposed one side of an argument on government intervention in medicine and was pertinent to current discussion of the day. I thank Jamie Murphy and Jim Meloche for the spurs to bring me round to read the book. I thank TJ for his continuous challenge to the way this are. While the book is primarily an introduction to the Austrian School of Economics, it did indeed dedicate three specific pages to the above-mentioned argument. The book puts forth the simple theory that Economics is the study of patterns in human behavior, where the central variable is Value. As long as value remains variable, most economic theories and models are subject to flaws. Thus any intervention has a flaw. Simply put: Economics is the study of the consequences of choice. Not being an economist the following is my attempt to share the value found between the covers.
In the value equation, cost is a consideration. In that consideration one must include the measure of the foregone alternatives to the choice made. The review was a refreshing alternative traditional neo-classical economics and does two things. First he helps break the paradigm that economics is a study of calculated models for which to form our society. Second Callahan illustrates in very practical terms our economy with an elementary break down of the higher to lower order of goods and services enabling the reader with confidence to freely and plug into any level with a clear understanding of the choice he or she is making. He starts with Rich (the first survivor) who actually gets left behind on the island, adds a girlfriend and then somehow a society appears. Along the way he applies suitable Austrian Theory of Economics to glue it all together.
The Individual
At the core of human behavior is a study of the notion of value. An idea that can be thought of by looking at the relationship between means and ends and how each can become the other. Trading the preference of one for the other is to economize. The degree that we economize is a matter of personal choice and therefore there is no wrong answer. The law of diminishing marginal utility is a series of value decision based on what item is next to be acquired as compared to what will be given up for that acquisition. Valuation as a matter of choice is subjected to the uncertainties of the future and therefore errors in choice may become apparent only after the choice. You must have uncertainty in order to cause actions derived from choice.
Society
In the hierarchy of goods from low to high order, saving represents the accumulation of goods towards a future satisfaction. This gives definition to capital stock. The value of the capital stock is subjected to human desire. The value of capital stock may also be associated to the existence of complementary capital stock, which also results in a horizontal arrangement of capital goods. The material benefit to cooperate could be considered a cornerstone to a working social economy. Thus a mutual division of labor and voluntary exchange process would exist in its primary form. This continues until the law of diminishing utility where the exchange ratio of cost/benefits takes over. Because market exchange is voluntary, it allows every participant to express the urgency of his/her demand. It allows humans to cope with scarcity of means through cooperation. In Callahan’s theory, free markets allow for a natural determination of needs for a society with negotiated price being the facilitator. Once price fixing comes in to the economic equation your society is exposed to gluts and shortages due to the fact that a fixed price ignores human behavior.
In the Austrian School there are fundamental roles played out by actors. They are entrepreneur, landowner/capitalist, worker, and consumer. Each of us, depending on the business we are currently engaged in, would play one of those roles. While we all appreciate the roles of worker and consumer, I am once again happy to hear it described in a book an entrepreneur as someone who anticipates the needs of the futures and makes plans to fulfill them. Of course he should realize a profit. The Austrian School views society's capital as pieces of an interlocking structure of an individual(s) plan. Capital Structure is an interlocking structure of higher order goods complementing each other in support of eventual consumer goods. There is no individual sum to be placed on the capital goods. The sum is an only an aggregate of all the entrepreneur's business plans which represents a potential for the future. It is the current of consumer desire that determines the shape of society's capital structure. The capitalists’ profits are in effect a measure of their ability to align their capital with the demands of the consumer. This gives birth to the notion of consumer sovereignty.
Government Intervention:
After economic principals are covered from an individual on a deserted island to a free flowing free choosing economy, Callahan spends the next half of the book studying cases of government intervention and their consequences. His basic premise to contrast any kind of intervention is that: Market price is the locomotive that enables society to figure out the correct supply of goods and services. A good deal of the 1990 stock run was attributed by economist to the FED increasing liquidity in the economy in preparation for Y2K. That capital entered into the market through the .com fad stocks. In the chapter "Times are Hard” Callahan uses a metaphor of a bus trip across a desert with the passengers free to choose comfort over speed. In the journey he introduces a fictitious set of parameters. This causes the passengers to choose differently yet, are unaware of the erroneous outcome in their future. The metaphor makes it simple to understand the FED role in adjusting interest rates as a method to smooth out radical swings in our economy. This seems to be a required byproduct as a result of moving from a gold standard to fiat money. So to that degree we are committed to our government partner, yet there is paradoxical concern.
Knowledge is the mothers’ milk of science. All discoveries and break throughs have a basis in an order of knowledge. However in the study of Economics, there is a large body of unorganized knowledge in our society that is dependent on the individual's proximity to place and time to express his free will in a decision that is not known to others until the moment of the decision itself. Socialism is the absence of such phenomena. Entrepreneurial decisions under socialism are reduced to planning decisions of the State; decisions that are made without the benefit of knowing what the people would bid for a good or service. Making economic decisions without prices is akin to doing mathematics without the benefit of the equal sign.
There are those who would wish for any destiny they desire and find them looking to the political process as their means. The Austrian School advocates that indeed there are unlimited ends but scarce means for which only unfettered human action of choice can resolve properly. At this cross road there appears a self admitted paradox as Callahan concedes when he writes that the inter relationship of politics and economics has existed since the first hints of economic thinking arose in human history. I would entertain any ideas from the Austrian School to begin the disentanglement of the two.
A Couple Relevant Current Issues:
While the book provides a basic view of economics with anecdotal stories, the reader can’t help but to simultaneously while reading transpose those stories into any of today’s discussion on the economy and make sense of it. For instance: Inflation is when there is too much money chasing too few goods. Whenever we hear that the GDP is growing at a fast pace the "talking heads" cry a fear of inflation. But prices for goods rise in response to an increase in the value of money relative to other goods. Some people mistake this illusory prosperity for real growth and recommend constant inflation as a means to continue prosperity. However, this current policy of low interest rates comes in to question since the FED sets rates artificially low must it increase the supply of money to keep them low. It comes to the same thing sending too much money after too few goods. Is this policy prudent on a world stage? Is this a viable strategy to level the playing field with emerging economies like China? Will this enable Americans to maintain their nominal standard of living while the rest of the world catches up? If so I applaud President Bush, his administration and mostly Allan Greenspan for being a good bridge partner, as he was with Clinton. Or have we miss-led ourselves by not recognizing the propensity of human action/desire and to meddle with our ideal world of academia?
Medical Crisis:
I was awakened by the book to a few historic events in our American history that caused me to ponder a simple shift in the way I view our medical care situation and a dramatic shift in my view on insurance companies. Free choice in price for health care does not exist due to a series of interventionist events. Consider the following unintended consequences of government intervention:
· Licensing of the medical practice
· Wage controls during WWII cause employers to offer free health insurance to lure the low supply of workers
· The subsidy of demand of Medicare and Medicaid
These simple government programs appear responsible yet they unconsciously removed the essential ingredient to a market place freely to choose (human action). As a result specialist organization such as HMOs have popped up primarily to address the induced costs to manage through the welter of market distortions on the true costs of medical care. In my view (not the authors’) an issue with giving free choice to the people is the people do not know how much they value a medical service until they really need it. This prompts a call for medical insurance and an attitude shift for myself. Being that it is not possible to plan for medical needs are not known; it is plausible to plan and budget for health care insurance. What if we take the privilege of this away from our employers in exchange for the commensurate wages? What if we subject Insurance Companies to pricing wars of the masses as opposed to Corporations who offer packages best suited to the company bottom line. Would the real exchange of goods and services and associated price induce a domino effect of efficiencies in the system?
All the theories stories of the book compel the reader to take more personal responsibility for his or her own economic stature. We must recognize that State intervention is the beginning of your slippery slope journey to unconscious surrender to the whims of another man. While the book motivates you with basic fundamentals of human nature using simple life scenarios and metaphors to prove theory by theory; you become a student and practitioner. There are areas where the student may raise questions due to over simplistic examples. For me this begins with the chapters on government intervention in issues that are not isolated to the economics of money. For me a student in aviation safety, I could think of more complex arguments in support of regulation that outweighed any of his simple metaphors against regulation as a proponent to increased cost. The book is vulnerable to experts in other areas as well where reader could become justifiably suspicious. But keep in mind the central argument is against the State as a regulator, not against a regulator appointed by free choice of the marketplace. As his story gets more complex he actually employs the anecdotal words in my head, which are "We are not faced with the task of reconstructing human society from scratch.” “Society...must best decide how to use the current array of resources” (and liabilities) “going forward.”
Considering Callahan’s notion of The Fluttering Veil Of Money as a concept named to illustrate that underneath every transaction; of any sort, at any level you can drill down to the simplest lowest level of goods or services and discover the core foundation and central theme of Austrian economics. This theme describes the human behavior to trade one thing for another to improve what is to what ought to be on an individual level as well as Community/National level. This book did not solve any specific economic problem. It left you the reader inspired to get up and to more actively discuss with those around you the consequences of your free choice. It inspires you to play the role of Investor, Entrepreneur, Worker, and Consumer with conviction. Saving and Investing are synonymous. Saving is not just a function of money. Investing your time into future development of your career is a form of investing. Spending time on your financial plan is a form of investing. Today you can invest through a bank or on your own. You can express your demand today as a consumer; you demand for tomorrow as an investor in companies you feel critical to economic success. The .com bust story illustrates the FED role in its promulgation. The FED left the real remedy to economic growth to further capital expansion possible only if additional savings increases the amount of capital goods. This, in my opinion, unfortunately is not a common trait of today’s American individual. What goes around comes around. Get in the game arrest it from the FED.
The Idiot
The Idiot
By Fyodor Dostoesky
Prince Myshkin arrives off the train in St. Petersburg after a long trip from Switzerland. He finds himself unquestioningly accepted into a family of apparent upper crust and entangled in family affairs. In his first attempt to atone for the acceptance, he sights his discussion on Capital Punishment, Love, and his preference to be with children. The unconscious idea was to somehow convince the family that he was capable of conversing on complex subject matter and maintain an appreciation for innocence. After character introduction Dostyosky refers to Myshkin simply as the Prince, which puts a Russian version of Machiavelli twist into the formal and respectful portrayal of upper crust dialogue in St. Petersburg of the mid 1800's.
On a train the Prince describes to his newfound acquaintance Rogozhin his first hand experience and interpretation of capital punishment. I picked up on this theme, principally because of the author's previous books and TJs commentary on the author in the past. The Prince describes that moment of certain death of he being executed. He describes that pleading face for redemption. He describes a man going from full control to absolutely no control and total surrender. He proposes an opportunity for the guilty, to then with a stay of execution, go back into society a completely changed person, incapable of committing a crime. He only describes a face, and purposefully does not propose a stay to be actually carried through.
In prelude to the closing section the author plants an early seed with the supposition that there are two types of people of which to examine. First is the normal person, who is easily satisfied with a new revelation as though a novel idea, gleaned from the wisdom of someone else, was his or her own. The other type of person is one who is the creator of plans aimed at his personal promotion up his ladder of success. The second person spends his time vexed over the unsuccessful results of his narrow design on success. Leaving him in continuous chase for that one accomplishment that will define him as extraordinary and therefore successful. The central theme of both types of persons is the notion of originality. The charlatan commends himself despite what others would say. The discoverer criticizes himself for not reaching that unique ideal. Dostoesky uses an unlikely character in the Prince to demonstrate the wisdom, largely found in innocence and forgiveness, of being able to navigate ones own introspective views across the playing field of the polarized players. This character becomes the intrigue aspect of the, long in coming plot.
Dostoesky’s second theme describes the colorful and intriguing interplay of society from upper crust down through "street walker" as these men vie for the hand of the beautiful Natasha Fillippovna. Of course there is the General who holds Natasha as a kept women and must release her. The whole scene is designed by Natasha herself to occur on her birthday where she makes her decision. Each has he putting their money forth with exception of the Prince who announces simply his love. It is there and then that the room discovers the Prince has come in to a large inheritance of an undetermined amount of money. Natasha lets it be known that he has won the prize, and then suddenly throws the proposal of Rogozhin dowries into a fire and leaves the room for Moscow alone. The parlor is now filled with people from rogue thugs led by his prime competitor for Natasha to a retired General of the Army and many in between to mull over in their mind if they would be the one to reach into the fire and pull out this large bag of money for their own. How to do this gracefully and with a sense of justifiable entitlement is the subject of many pages in the book. That chapter leaves you with a yearning for proper etiquette and at the same time exposes the social pressures of money.
As the social circle moves with the story from Petersburg to the Dacha in the country, IIpolitt, a character is introduced simply to examine the aspects of suicide. Interestingly in the reciting of Iipolitt’s suicide note, a challenge in the belief of Christ's resurrection provokes the reader to reexamine his or her own faith. The part that struck me most was the observation that all the paintings of Christ during his crucifixion do not properly portray a man who has been tortured but rather a peaceful forgiving man. The question posed is to believe or not in the resurrection put in such a way as to imply that if a man gave his life in the way Jesus did, why would one not. And to parallel this thought the room full of guests are privileged to ponder to the benefit of the reader why IIpolitt failed in his suicide attempt.
The story makes several turns in an out of family plots to abscond money from the Prince. In almost every attempt a competing party for the same favor of the Prince defends the Prince. A turn about is fair play. When the misdeed is exposed, the Prince responds with complete forgiveness leaving you with an implied message from the author to forgive for they no not what they are doing. These numerous plots against the Prince are occurring in the Dachas of the Petersburg countryside where the reader becomes familiar with the 1860s life style of taking the train into town for daily business and returning at the end of a day. I enjoyed this as it reminded me of my lifestyle in my last year in New York. The aspect that I grew most fond of was the sense of self responsibility in a Russian of the time; to manage money and securities in a expert and intuitive way that seems to have been lost on today’s modern man; a point that has tossed me further into Russian literature and possibly into literature of the era of Splendid Isolation.
As an undercurrent to these plots the Prince finds himself still in love with Natasha and ashamed of his weakness in violating personal integrity as well as the promise he gave to his good friend and competitor Rogozhin who has given the Prince nothing but betrayal and foiled plots to kill him. In Russian theater, Dostoesky colors a cloak and dagger game of intrigue with Rogozhin plotting first to kill the Prince and then to kill Natasha Fillippovna. The way in which he meets this goal is somewhat curious of which I will leave to you. However in the end, after 600 pages of social satiric drama of which amounts to no real accomplishment by any of the characters, you the reader are left to contemplate the mind of he who is about to meet his maker. And then you are left with a society who could really care less about your survival or the rest of your meaningless life as they see it. You do have a face to look at in the mirror for your answers. I closed the book a month ago. It took me this long to actually grind it’s grist and make a loaf of bread with it. I leave it for you to break.
By Fyodor Dostoesky
Prince Myshkin arrives off the train in St. Petersburg after a long trip from Switzerland. He finds himself unquestioningly accepted into a family of apparent upper crust and entangled in family affairs. In his first attempt to atone for the acceptance, he sights his discussion on Capital Punishment, Love, and his preference to be with children. The unconscious idea was to somehow convince the family that he was capable of conversing on complex subject matter and maintain an appreciation for innocence. After character introduction Dostyosky refers to Myshkin simply as the Prince, which puts a Russian version of Machiavelli twist into the formal and respectful portrayal of upper crust dialogue in St. Petersburg of the mid 1800's.
On a train the Prince describes to his newfound acquaintance Rogozhin his first hand experience and interpretation of capital punishment. I picked up on this theme, principally because of the author's previous books and TJs commentary on the author in the past. The Prince describes that moment of certain death of he being executed. He describes that pleading face for redemption. He describes a man going from full control to absolutely no control and total surrender. He proposes an opportunity for the guilty, to then with a stay of execution, go back into society a completely changed person, incapable of committing a crime. He only describes a face, and purposefully does not propose a stay to be actually carried through.
In prelude to the closing section the author plants an early seed with the supposition that there are two types of people of which to examine. First is the normal person, who is easily satisfied with a new revelation as though a novel idea, gleaned from the wisdom of someone else, was his or her own. The other type of person is one who is the creator of plans aimed at his personal promotion up his ladder of success. The second person spends his time vexed over the unsuccessful results of his narrow design on success. Leaving him in continuous chase for that one accomplishment that will define him as extraordinary and therefore successful. The central theme of both types of persons is the notion of originality. The charlatan commends himself despite what others would say. The discoverer criticizes himself for not reaching that unique ideal. Dostoesky uses an unlikely character in the Prince to demonstrate the wisdom, largely found in innocence and forgiveness, of being able to navigate ones own introspective views across the playing field of the polarized players. This character becomes the intrigue aspect of the, long in coming plot.
Dostoesky’s second theme describes the colorful and intriguing interplay of society from upper crust down through "street walker" as these men vie for the hand of the beautiful Natasha Fillippovna. Of course there is the General who holds Natasha as a kept women and must release her. The whole scene is designed by Natasha herself to occur on her birthday where she makes her decision. Each has he putting their money forth with exception of the Prince who announces simply his love. It is there and then that the room discovers the Prince has come in to a large inheritance of an undetermined amount of money. Natasha lets it be known that he has won the prize, and then suddenly throws the proposal of Rogozhin dowries into a fire and leaves the room for Moscow alone. The parlor is now filled with people from rogue thugs led by his prime competitor for Natasha to a retired General of the Army and many in between to mull over in their mind if they would be the one to reach into the fire and pull out this large bag of money for their own. How to do this gracefully and with a sense of justifiable entitlement is the subject of many pages in the book. That chapter leaves you with a yearning for proper etiquette and at the same time exposes the social pressures of money.
As the social circle moves with the story from Petersburg to the Dacha in the country, IIpolitt, a character is introduced simply to examine the aspects of suicide. Interestingly in the reciting of Iipolitt’s suicide note, a challenge in the belief of Christ's resurrection provokes the reader to reexamine his or her own faith. The part that struck me most was the observation that all the paintings of Christ during his crucifixion do not properly portray a man who has been tortured but rather a peaceful forgiving man. The question posed is to believe or not in the resurrection put in such a way as to imply that if a man gave his life in the way Jesus did, why would one not. And to parallel this thought the room full of guests are privileged to ponder to the benefit of the reader why IIpolitt failed in his suicide attempt.
The story makes several turns in an out of family plots to abscond money from the Prince. In almost every attempt a competing party for the same favor of the Prince defends the Prince. A turn about is fair play. When the misdeed is exposed, the Prince responds with complete forgiveness leaving you with an implied message from the author to forgive for they no not what they are doing. These numerous plots against the Prince are occurring in the Dachas of the Petersburg countryside where the reader becomes familiar with the 1860s life style of taking the train into town for daily business and returning at the end of a day. I enjoyed this as it reminded me of my lifestyle in my last year in New York. The aspect that I grew most fond of was the sense of self responsibility in a Russian of the time; to manage money and securities in a expert and intuitive way that seems to have been lost on today’s modern man; a point that has tossed me further into Russian literature and possibly into literature of the era of Splendid Isolation.
As an undercurrent to these plots the Prince finds himself still in love with Natasha and ashamed of his weakness in violating personal integrity as well as the promise he gave to his good friend and competitor Rogozhin who has given the Prince nothing but betrayal and foiled plots to kill him. In Russian theater, Dostoesky colors a cloak and dagger game of intrigue with Rogozhin plotting first to kill the Prince and then to kill Natasha Fillippovna. The way in which he meets this goal is somewhat curious of which I will leave to you. However in the end, after 600 pages of social satiric drama of which amounts to no real accomplishment by any of the characters, you the reader are left to contemplate the mind of he who is about to meet his maker. And then you are left with a society who could really care less about your survival or the rest of your meaningless life as they see it. You do have a face to look at in the mirror for your answers. I closed the book a month ago. It took me this long to actually grind it’s grist and make a loaf of bread with it. I leave it for you to break.
War and Peace
War and Peace
By Leo Tolstoy
This book is about family and its ability to cope with the winds of war as they see it off in the horizon moving its way to sweep through their beloved city of Moscow. Tolstoy paints a picture of Russian family life as the concerned women see their men off to war. I am reminded of the Iliad as Paris prepares to face Achilles in a battle outside their city and the lamenting of his mother. On the war front Tolstoy uses a few battles between Austrian and French armies to provide a sense of distant Napoleon thunder on the horizon. That little man who was know to lead the fallen by the ear to personally demonstrate his superiority; artfully described in the book. This thunder is curiously blended with a 1800s Russian intrigue for French culture; a left over from the days of Antoinette is my guess. In battle scenes you become familiar with the colorful randomness of your survival and at times the unforeseen victorious army. A first person view is used to describe the soldiers in their view of war and of their leader and his strategy to attack or defend. In the defense of Moscow, Napoleon somehow prevails yet mysteriously retreats back to France. It was portrayed as a costly over extension of his army and country.
Character introduction takes the opportunity to draw relationships, paint blossoming love affairs, lay in intriguing social dealings, which enables an understanding of general hierarchy of Russian society that is about to become tested by war. Tolstoy colors a refined sense of self-respect in most characters that is also vested upon one another. The honor you read about in a battle is delineated from the core values of the society and family of Russian culture. He makes the reader yearn for those times of formality.
While inside their homes each family is discussing the ramification of what this brooding storm will do to their lives; Moscow itself is in disbelief that Napoleon could reach this far away city. The king is assembling armies both from regimental and volunteer sectors of the country. Dukes’ and Barons’ ranks are partially assembled as they assign their subjects, derived either through direct employment or land contract, to duty. Because you are a Nobel, you automatically are an officer upon reporting to duty. Military training was assumed through your standing in life. Of course there is the formal career soldier in charge of the overall battle. Imagine you a Baron reporting to the Field General and stating your status while pointing to your men and him replying with the orders of final assembly, “fine sir you are now a Captain and will be supplied with extra men to complement those you brought with you to take a flanking position in those hills.”
As a prelude to the Moscow battle a few key characters go off to fight foreign battles in Russia’s aid to the Austrians against the French. Tolstoy does this I believe to make the defense of Moscow all the more perilous and sobering. You’re put on edge with preparation sharpened by an urgency derived your first hand experience of battle and the uncertainties of war. You the reader come to appreciate a new understanding of those who have come back home from war. The dialogue of these veterans as they move their families to safe places is sharp and sincere at the same time. Love for one another is mixed with plans of survival. All this commotion is without the children suspecting a thing. A core family value I find lost in our modern American society.
Personal Battle Plans
Tolstoy
“”If men are ever inclined to think about their actions, the moment when they are leaving home and embarking up a course of life that is certain to induce a serious frame of mind. Generally, at such moments, the past comes up with review, and plans for the future are made.””
Battle Line
Tolstoy
“”One step beyond that line, which is like the burn that divides the living from the dead, and there is the unknown suffering and of death. And what is there? Who is there? Beyond that field, and that tree, and that roof glittering in the sun? No one knows. No one wishes to know, and it is terrible to cross that line, and I know that sooner or later I'll have to cross it, and shall know what is on the other side of death. Yet I am strong, and full of life, just as other men.””
As the French mysteriously left their vanquished city, in retreat back to France a touching love story is told and I believe Tolstoy’s moral message was found in the slow death of Prince Andrei from a wound inflicted upon him in a battle outside Moscow. Being patched up in a field hospital you gain hope that this hero will return to his beloved Natasha and live a life Tolstoy set you up to wish for. As the two discover the depth of their love in tragedy, I’ll provide an excerpt, as I believe it bears out my point.
Tolstoy
“”During the tormenting hours of loneliness and delirium he had spent since being wounded, the more he pondered over his new found source of eternal love, the more he became alienated from earthly life, though the process was an unconscious one. To love everything, all men, always to sacrifice self for loves sake meant to love no one in particular, meant not to love this mundane life. And the more he imbued himself with this source of love, the more he let go of life, and the more absolutely he broke down that terrible impediment which, if love is absent, hold between life and death…It was the unexpected discovery that he still prized life which presented itself in the guise of his love for Natasha and the last victorious attack of horror before the unknown.””
Prince Andrei found in his love for Natasha and her return love a selfish love for things he cherished. To live life fully you must give your love freely and fully to the one you cherish and hold her love in return in kind. This thought made his passing sensible, as he had found that love. That sensibility put the reader back in the frame of mind to put the lives of Moscow society back together. Like a storm that blows across you own fields, the sun will follow. The warmth of family living leaves you with an inclination to live your life in the sun. To fully appreciate the meaning of these words one must endure the book itself.
By Leo Tolstoy
This book is about family and its ability to cope with the winds of war as they see it off in the horizon moving its way to sweep through their beloved city of Moscow. Tolstoy paints a picture of Russian family life as the concerned women see their men off to war. I am reminded of the Iliad as Paris prepares to face Achilles in a battle outside their city and the lamenting of his mother. On the war front Tolstoy uses a few battles between Austrian and French armies to provide a sense of distant Napoleon thunder on the horizon. That little man who was know to lead the fallen by the ear to personally demonstrate his superiority; artfully described in the book. This thunder is curiously blended with a 1800s Russian intrigue for French culture; a left over from the days of Antoinette is my guess. In battle scenes you become familiar with the colorful randomness of your survival and at times the unforeseen victorious army. A first person view is used to describe the soldiers in their view of war and of their leader and his strategy to attack or defend. In the defense of Moscow, Napoleon somehow prevails yet mysteriously retreats back to France. It was portrayed as a costly over extension of his army and country.
Character introduction takes the opportunity to draw relationships, paint blossoming love affairs, lay in intriguing social dealings, which enables an understanding of general hierarchy of Russian society that is about to become tested by war. Tolstoy colors a refined sense of self-respect in most characters that is also vested upon one another. The honor you read about in a battle is delineated from the core values of the society and family of Russian culture. He makes the reader yearn for those times of formality.
While inside their homes each family is discussing the ramification of what this brooding storm will do to their lives; Moscow itself is in disbelief that Napoleon could reach this far away city. The king is assembling armies both from regimental and volunteer sectors of the country. Dukes’ and Barons’ ranks are partially assembled as they assign their subjects, derived either through direct employment or land contract, to duty. Because you are a Nobel, you automatically are an officer upon reporting to duty. Military training was assumed through your standing in life. Of course there is the formal career soldier in charge of the overall battle. Imagine you a Baron reporting to the Field General and stating your status while pointing to your men and him replying with the orders of final assembly, “fine sir you are now a Captain and will be supplied with extra men to complement those you brought with you to take a flanking position in those hills.”
As a prelude to the Moscow battle a few key characters go off to fight foreign battles in Russia’s aid to the Austrians against the French. Tolstoy does this I believe to make the defense of Moscow all the more perilous and sobering. You’re put on edge with preparation sharpened by an urgency derived your first hand experience of battle and the uncertainties of war. You the reader come to appreciate a new understanding of those who have come back home from war. The dialogue of these veterans as they move their families to safe places is sharp and sincere at the same time. Love for one another is mixed with plans of survival. All this commotion is without the children suspecting a thing. A core family value I find lost in our modern American society.
Personal Battle Plans
Tolstoy
“”If men are ever inclined to think about their actions, the moment when they are leaving home and embarking up a course of life that is certain to induce a serious frame of mind. Generally, at such moments, the past comes up with review, and plans for the future are made.””
Battle Line
Tolstoy
“”One step beyond that line, which is like the burn that divides the living from the dead, and there is the unknown suffering and of death. And what is there? Who is there? Beyond that field, and that tree, and that roof glittering in the sun? No one knows. No one wishes to know, and it is terrible to cross that line, and I know that sooner or later I'll have to cross it, and shall know what is on the other side of death. Yet I am strong, and full of life, just as other men.””
As the French mysteriously left their vanquished city, in retreat back to France a touching love story is told and I believe Tolstoy’s moral message was found in the slow death of Prince Andrei from a wound inflicted upon him in a battle outside Moscow. Being patched up in a field hospital you gain hope that this hero will return to his beloved Natasha and live a life Tolstoy set you up to wish for. As the two discover the depth of their love in tragedy, I’ll provide an excerpt, as I believe it bears out my point.
Tolstoy
“”During the tormenting hours of loneliness and delirium he had spent since being wounded, the more he pondered over his new found source of eternal love, the more he became alienated from earthly life, though the process was an unconscious one. To love everything, all men, always to sacrifice self for loves sake meant to love no one in particular, meant not to love this mundane life. And the more he imbued himself with this source of love, the more he let go of life, and the more absolutely he broke down that terrible impediment which, if love is absent, hold between life and death…It was the unexpected discovery that he still prized life which presented itself in the guise of his love for Natasha and the last victorious attack of horror before the unknown.””
Prince Andrei found in his love for Natasha and her return love a selfish love for things he cherished. To live life fully you must give your love freely and fully to the one you cherish and hold her love in return in kind. This thought made his passing sensible, as he had found that love. That sensibility put the reader back in the frame of mind to put the lives of Moscow society back together. Like a storm that blows across you own fields, the sun will follow. The warmth of family living leaves you with an inclination to live your life in the sun. To fully appreciate the meaning of these words one must endure the book itself.
The Red Commissars
The Red Commissars
by Jaroslav Hasek
This book came into my book collection via 48th birthday booty. Thank-you once again Janet and TJ. The book made it on my books to read list by way of recommendation within a book preview of Catch 22. This book was also chosen as an attempt to illuminate through literature a rationale where man deviated from a sense of self-accountability in deflecting of such to his government. Jaroslav Hasek I believe is Russian. But many of his stories portray life in Eastern Europe of the USSR Communist or Habsburg dominance. The book is of satiric comedy for which brought Hasek to fame. Enclosed between the covers is a collection of short stories, each coloring an aspect of the working mans success in manipulating and out foxing his overseer. I am reminded of the Pole who came to work for me right after the Solidarity Movement in Poland. I clearly remember him painting the trim of my building during the rain. I said, “Mark why are you painting in the rain.” He said, “Because you asked me to paint, so I’ll paint. “ During my read I often reflected upon my time with Mark to connect this book with actual paradigms of a person under oppressive rule. I can picture his smile with his silver crowned front tooth. They are ever so happy to meet the call of duty without a thought to the wisdom of his master’s orders. The last story is presented as a recollection of Hasek’s claim to fame not only as a writer but also as a politician. A sense of politics that also connects me to my neighbor, an immigrant from Bulgaria, once said: “political party, yeah I was a member of the Beer Party.”
The Red Commissar, the first of the collection, is a short story about a high placed Russian who is sent to a far away town of Bulguma to conquer from the White Army and hold it. He is completely on his own to figure out where the town is, where the enemy position is, or any specifics about the town. With these limitations, Svejk continues his good disposition of solving problems with little concern over a negative outcome. As he arrives to the town he learns that the White Army had fled two days prior in fear of the large Red Army led by an inept leader. They fled for fear of the size of the Red army who would not attack for lack of leadership and fear of the size of the White Army. This allowed Svejk to ride in with his small band of Kassaks and establish himself as Mayor of the town. He was well received and thus had no plans to use force or brutal tactics on the villagers. Soon the inept leader discovers it is safe to ride his army into the town to assume command and control in an old fashion military manor. The story continues in this fashion with Svejk using his intellect to out wit the Red Army leader. To Svejk's advantage, the higher command has little intellect or leadership, to override Svejk’s command. The communication with the Central Command displays an equal amount of low intellect and high bravado. I would suspect the humor displayed in the day to day events were largely influential in the television series Hogan’s Heros, where the witty Mayor Svejk is best situated under the cloak as the manipulative submissive, to reach his objectives in the face of the Red Army dictatorship.
The final short stories are presented in somewhat of a bibliography fashion, as Hasek becomes the spokesman of a political party during the Austro-Hungarian elections of 1911. The party name being the Party of Moderate Progress Within The Bounds Of The Law was founded primarily for capitalistic reason and executed through entrepreneurial scheme. Hasek’s friend was forced to move his Inn from one section of Prague to another where competition was steep and vested upon the heat of political debate. In order to draw in customers, Hasek founded this party and began his orations of life aimed at debunking the Monarchy; it’s institutions and its social and political systems. As he was no professional speaker, his speeches evolved to orations that often lost its track and bore no relevancy to pertinent issues. Yet they were humorous and captivating to the extent that he filled the Inn every evening. His word began to catch favor in the countryside and so they sent out disciples of the word, chosen in a precarious way, to evangelize in an equally precarious manor. Eventually they were convinced that not only did they succeed in filling the Inn, there was a chance of Hasek winning the election carried forth with much question to improprieties. The reader finds himself not only laughing quietly at the prevailing logic and mood in these stories, but as well in reflection of recent elections here in the United States; laughing at how no matter how things change they remain the same. I look forward to raising a glass of beer with my neighbor Norbert and toasting to the good humor to be found in the political process.
by Jaroslav Hasek
This book came into my book collection via 48th birthday booty. Thank-you once again Janet and TJ. The book made it on my books to read list by way of recommendation within a book preview of Catch 22. This book was also chosen as an attempt to illuminate through literature a rationale where man deviated from a sense of self-accountability in deflecting of such to his government. Jaroslav Hasek I believe is Russian. But many of his stories portray life in Eastern Europe of the USSR Communist or Habsburg dominance. The book is of satiric comedy for which brought Hasek to fame. Enclosed between the covers is a collection of short stories, each coloring an aspect of the working mans success in manipulating and out foxing his overseer. I am reminded of the Pole who came to work for me right after the Solidarity Movement in Poland. I clearly remember him painting the trim of my building during the rain. I said, “Mark why are you painting in the rain.” He said, “Because you asked me to paint, so I’ll paint. “ During my read I often reflected upon my time with Mark to connect this book with actual paradigms of a person under oppressive rule. I can picture his smile with his silver crowned front tooth. They are ever so happy to meet the call of duty without a thought to the wisdom of his master’s orders. The last story is presented as a recollection of Hasek’s claim to fame not only as a writer but also as a politician. A sense of politics that also connects me to my neighbor, an immigrant from Bulgaria, once said: “political party, yeah I was a member of the Beer Party.”
The Red Commissar, the first of the collection, is a short story about a high placed Russian who is sent to a far away town of Bulguma to conquer from the White Army and hold it. He is completely on his own to figure out where the town is, where the enemy position is, or any specifics about the town. With these limitations, Svejk continues his good disposition of solving problems with little concern over a negative outcome. As he arrives to the town he learns that the White Army had fled two days prior in fear of the large Red Army led by an inept leader. They fled for fear of the size of the Red army who would not attack for lack of leadership and fear of the size of the White Army. This allowed Svejk to ride in with his small band of Kassaks and establish himself as Mayor of the town. He was well received and thus had no plans to use force or brutal tactics on the villagers. Soon the inept leader discovers it is safe to ride his army into the town to assume command and control in an old fashion military manor. The story continues in this fashion with Svejk using his intellect to out wit the Red Army leader. To Svejk's advantage, the higher command has little intellect or leadership, to override Svejk’s command. The communication with the Central Command displays an equal amount of low intellect and high bravado. I would suspect the humor displayed in the day to day events were largely influential in the television series Hogan’s Heros, where the witty Mayor Svejk is best situated under the cloak as the manipulative submissive, to reach his objectives in the face of the Red Army dictatorship.
The final short stories are presented in somewhat of a bibliography fashion, as Hasek becomes the spokesman of a political party during the Austro-Hungarian elections of 1911. The party name being the Party of Moderate Progress Within The Bounds Of The Law was founded primarily for capitalistic reason and executed through entrepreneurial scheme. Hasek’s friend was forced to move his Inn from one section of Prague to another where competition was steep and vested upon the heat of political debate. In order to draw in customers, Hasek founded this party and began his orations of life aimed at debunking the Monarchy; it’s institutions and its social and political systems. As he was no professional speaker, his speeches evolved to orations that often lost its track and bore no relevancy to pertinent issues. Yet they were humorous and captivating to the extent that he filled the Inn every evening. His word began to catch favor in the countryside and so they sent out disciples of the word, chosen in a precarious way, to evangelize in an equally precarious manor. Eventually they were convinced that not only did they succeed in filling the Inn, there was a chance of Hasek winning the election carried forth with much question to improprieties. The reader finds himself not only laughing quietly at the prevailing logic and mood in these stories, but as well in reflection of recent elections here in the United States; laughing at how no matter how things change they remain the same. I look forward to raising a glass of beer with my neighbor Norbert and toasting to the good humor to be found in the political process.
Madame Bovary
Madame Bovary
By Gustave Flaubert
I picked this book up at a used bookstore in Traverse City a couple of years ago. I picked it up largely because it is an old French classic of original copyright printing & binding, simply to add to my bookshelf. I pulled it off my bookshelf to possibly discover in a classic, a lifestyle that may provide clues as to where or at what time in history man began his deference of self-accountability to his government. The book in modern times in a mid American crowd would be an Oprah chic book. So I was struck to find myself reading it. I had no clue of what I was getting in to. As it is a drama about the life of Madame Bovary, which could happen to anyone. The real beauty in the book is the French description, and the thought-provoking message. Character and setting introduction goes as follows.
The setting of the story is in the farm country of Western France. You could imagine slightly rolling hills carved by the intersection of two rivers, cultivated and rich in crop. The small towns are situated about fifteen miles from each other and each with a population of a hundred to two. The Bovary’s lived in town and from their house you get the impression that they could tune in to all that is happening by putting ones head out the window. The Bovary house came with one servant and was your typical middle-income house with a piano that may have had them in slight advantage over others. All in all it was a setting for a pretty quiet and uneventful life. The key characters help define the authors message.
Charles Bovary - was molded by his mothers drive. She set his life’s charter to be a doctor. His first effort was a failure due to the decision not being his own. However his second effort on the boot of his father proves successful. As he grew into his practice and got fat as his focused was on both his patients and his wife. He was well respected; a loving and caring husband, yet not refined to the manners of Paris. He fell into life.
Madame Bovary’s - (Emma) moral fabric was weaved in a convent. There she learned the morals of life’s decisions She came to appreciate art, music, and culture was well read. When her mother died she returned to the farm to help her father out. It was in this setting that she met Monsieur Bouvary, succumbed to a courtship out of limited choice and marriage partially arranged, partially promoted by her father. She battled through life.
Leon – a bit younger than Emma is a dreamer and also longing for the city. His longing for academic study and for culture led to his departure to Paris to pursue a career in law.
Rodolphe - was bachelor, a lady’s man. He was rich and developed selfish designs on Emma that go too far for a confirmed bachelor. He realizes her longing for arts and culture and plays into them only to have a mistress shackled in a marriage where he may have his way with her and also live his life of solitude.
Lormeaux - is the local merchant. I am always intrigued of the venue for distribution of goods of that time as well the understanding and practice of commercial exchange. Lormeaux extends credit to Emma and therefore plays the role of merchant and capitalist. This represents store credit cards of today. The main business difference is simple interest -v- compounding interest. Secondarily is today’s stores are much better situated to absorb losses for those that default on their loans. The personal interaction is less noticeable where one is not aware of the obligation to repay and consequence upon society and our economy for not doing so. Through the character of Lormeaux: the signing of a promissory notes, the negotiation of debt among other businessmen, and the tendering of debt paper as payment is described as common place of the times. Today that process is made as transparent as possible and I find that the average person may only witness with the transfer of a mortgage. Thus a stranger collecting on a debt, changing the unwritten understandings of the primary lender, do not occur.
In summary the story line picks up where marriage for Emma was an awakening where she soon discovered that her passion for a finer life could not be met with Charles. She was a good wife and tended to the house with elegance, yet inside she was burning for something more. Monsieur Bouvary was invited to a country party where she danced with a Viscount. The dance illuminated her desires for city life. Depression from absence of arts set in so drastically that Charles moved his practice to a new town in Yoneville, hoping a change in setting would cure her ailment. Coincidently their first child came along and Emma’s preoccupation with motherhood temporarily masked her passions. She discovers in young Leon someone she can share in her passion for art and culture. The passion for each other is lit, however restraint, founded in a moral code, prevails. It was Emma’s attempt to put mind over passion. Leon would eventually leave Yoneville for a Paris leaving a tremendous vacuum in Emma’s life.
This sets the stage for Rodolphe. In the vacuum he sweeps in and cultivates four years of escapade and rendezvous. In classic French style of the time the scenes are romantic, not naughty. While Rodolphe plays the cock that couldn’t crow with a strut instead, Emma plans a life together. Rodolphe plays along only to continue this perfect bachelor arrangement. Emma incurs tremendous debt arranging an escape to a new life only to find Rodolphe leaves her in a lurch. The scene draws a contrast of morals.
A moral code: “but one must bow to the opinion of the world and accept it’s moral code”
But there are two types “The small conventional, that of men, that which constantly changes, that brays out so loudly, that makes such a commotion here below. Of earth and earthy. But the other, the eternal, that is about us and the blue heavens that give us light”
This contrast sets the stage for the return of Leon. While there is at first an attempt for restrain an affair is lit by a carriage ride of lovemaking. This time however this time Emma is in control. This time Leon plays the part of the mistress. Emma spins a web of lies, waiting to be unraveled. Love turns to everyday life of which Emma funds through revenue from Charles’s patients and an over extension of her ability to repay her debt. She implores Charles to extend a power of attorney to manage the money of the house. Imagine this power not being implied through a marriage license. After this book one would be compelled to revert back to the ways of old. As an indication to the evolution away from personal responsibility the book includes a dialogue between Lormeaux and Charles with Lormeaux saying, “A man of science should not be troubled with matters of money”. This gives Lormeaux, with full knowledge of Emma’s agenda by way of the things she purchases, free access to the pocket book of unsuspecting Charles.
As events of the economy changed, Emma’s debt fell upon the decision making of persons not privy to the nature of her debt. And as such strict adherence to repayment was rudely and with great surprise introduced to Madame Bovary. Without knowledge of the custom of repayment to a stranger collecting on a debt, Bovary never considered changing the unwritten understandings of the primary lender, which previously allowed her a never-ending continuance of debt. As her passion for culture eroded to a lust for things she could not fairly gain she was rendered incapable of good business judgment. In the face of a bankruptcy process whereby the town official comes in to your home and prices all belongings for auction to facilitate repayment her solution an act was to take her own life.
In closing Charles, only after an honorable funeral, discovers the years of love letters and the deception. This discovery leads to the mysterious passing of Charles, where you conclude he simply lost all meaning of life. This left their daughter Berthe who you are left wondering about. The two metaphors from this book that give meaning to me are: When words fall short in the expression of ones heart: “They like a cracked kettle, on which we hammer out tunes to make bears dance, when we long to move the stars” “A lifetime of passion can be fit in a minute”. These are only to think about, as I have not an answer. My preference for poetic expression is though renewed from words like these. For they ironically do paint a meaningful picture best left to poetic interpretation. I did find the answer to a much simpler question; which is how a person could loose sight of personal accountability.
By Gustave Flaubert
I picked this book up at a used bookstore in Traverse City a couple of years ago. I picked it up largely because it is an old French classic of original copyright printing & binding, simply to add to my bookshelf. I pulled it off my bookshelf to possibly discover in a classic, a lifestyle that may provide clues as to where or at what time in history man began his deference of self-accountability to his government. The book in modern times in a mid American crowd would be an Oprah chic book. So I was struck to find myself reading it. I had no clue of what I was getting in to. As it is a drama about the life of Madame Bovary, which could happen to anyone. The real beauty in the book is the French description, and the thought-provoking message. Character and setting introduction goes as follows.
The setting of the story is in the farm country of Western France. You could imagine slightly rolling hills carved by the intersection of two rivers, cultivated and rich in crop. The small towns are situated about fifteen miles from each other and each with a population of a hundred to two. The Bovary’s lived in town and from their house you get the impression that they could tune in to all that is happening by putting ones head out the window. The Bovary house came with one servant and was your typical middle-income house with a piano that may have had them in slight advantage over others. All in all it was a setting for a pretty quiet and uneventful life. The key characters help define the authors message.
Charles Bovary - was molded by his mothers drive. She set his life’s charter to be a doctor. His first effort was a failure due to the decision not being his own. However his second effort on the boot of his father proves successful. As he grew into his practice and got fat as his focused was on both his patients and his wife. He was well respected; a loving and caring husband, yet not refined to the manners of Paris. He fell into life.
Madame Bovary’s - (Emma) moral fabric was weaved in a convent. There she learned the morals of life’s decisions She came to appreciate art, music, and culture was well read. When her mother died she returned to the farm to help her father out. It was in this setting that she met Monsieur Bouvary, succumbed to a courtship out of limited choice and marriage partially arranged, partially promoted by her father. She battled through life.
Leon – a bit younger than Emma is a dreamer and also longing for the city. His longing for academic study and for culture led to his departure to Paris to pursue a career in law.
Rodolphe - was bachelor, a lady’s man. He was rich and developed selfish designs on Emma that go too far for a confirmed bachelor. He realizes her longing for arts and culture and plays into them only to have a mistress shackled in a marriage where he may have his way with her and also live his life of solitude.
Lormeaux - is the local merchant. I am always intrigued of the venue for distribution of goods of that time as well the understanding and practice of commercial exchange. Lormeaux extends credit to Emma and therefore plays the role of merchant and capitalist. This represents store credit cards of today. The main business difference is simple interest -v- compounding interest. Secondarily is today’s stores are much better situated to absorb losses for those that default on their loans. The personal interaction is less noticeable where one is not aware of the obligation to repay and consequence upon society and our economy for not doing so. Through the character of Lormeaux: the signing of a promissory notes, the negotiation of debt among other businessmen, and the tendering of debt paper as payment is described as common place of the times. Today that process is made as transparent as possible and I find that the average person may only witness with the transfer of a mortgage. Thus a stranger collecting on a debt, changing the unwritten understandings of the primary lender, do not occur.
In summary the story line picks up where marriage for Emma was an awakening where she soon discovered that her passion for a finer life could not be met with Charles. She was a good wife and tended to the house with elegance, yet inside she was burning for something more. Monsieur Bouvary was invited to a country party where she danced with a Viscount. The dance illuminated her desires for city life. Depression from absence of arts set in so drastically that Charles moved his practice to a new town in Yoneville, hoping a change in setting would cure her ailment. Coincidently their first child came along and Emma’s preoccupation with motherhood temporarily masked her passions. She discovers in young Leon someone she can share in her passion for art and culture. The passion for each other is lit, however restraint, founded in a moral code, prevails. It was Emma’s attempt to put mind over passion. Leon would eventually leave Yoneville for a Paris leaving a tremendous vacuum in Emma’s life.
This sets the stage for Rodolphe. In the vacuum he sweeps in and cultivates four years of escapade and rendezvous. In classic French style of the time the scenes are romantic, not naughty. While Rodolphe plays the cock that couldn’t crow with a strut instead, Emma plans a life together. Rodolphe plays along only to continue this perfect bachelor arrangement. Emma incurs tremendous debt arranging an escape to a new life only to find Rodolphe leaves her in a lurch. The scene draws a contrast of morals.
A moral code: “but one must bow to the opinion of the world and accept it’s moral code”
But there are two types “The small conventional, that of men, that which constantly changes, that brays out so loudly, that makes such a commotion here below. Of earth and earthy. But the other, the eternal, that is about us and the blue heavens that give us light”
This contrast sets the stage for the return of Leon. While there is at first an attempt for restrain an affair is lit by a carriage ride of lovemaking. This time however this time Emma is in control. This time Leon plays the part of the mistress. Emma spins a web of lies, waiting to be unraveled. Love turns to everyday life of which Emma funds through revenue from Charles’s patients and an over extension of her ability to repay her debt. She implores Charles to extend a power of attorney to manage the money of the house. Imagine this power not being implied through a marriage license. After this book one would be compelled to revert back to the ways of old. As an indication to the evolution away from personal responsibility the book includes a dialogue between Lormeaux and Charles with Lormeaux saying, “A man of science should not be troubled with matters of money”. This gives Lormeaux, with full knowledge of Emma’s agenda by way of the things she purchases, free access to the pocket book of unsuspecting Charles.
As events of the economy changed, Emma’s debt fell upon the decision making of persons not privy to the nature of her debt. And as such strict adherence to repayment was rudely and with great surprise introduced to Madame Bovary. Without knowledge of the custom of repayment to a stranger collecting on a debt, Bovary never considered changing the unwritten understandings of the primary lender, which previously allowed her a never-ending continuance of debt. As her passion for culture eroded to a lust for things she could not fairly gain she was rendered incapable of good business judgment. In the face of a bankruptcy process whereby the town official comes in to your home and prices all belongings for auction to facilitate repayment her solution an act was to take her own life.
In closing Charles, only after an honorable funeral, discovers the years of love letters and the deception. This discovery leads to the mysterious passing of Charles, where you conclude he simply lost all meaning of life. This left their daughter Berthe who you are left wondering about. The two metaphors from this book that give meaning to me are: When words fall short in the expression of ones heart: “They like a cracked kettle, on which we hammer out tunes to make bears dance, when we long to move the stars” “A lifetime of passion can be fit in a minute”. These are only to think about, as I have not an answer. My preference for poetic expression is though renewed from words like these. For they ironically do paint a meaningful picture best left to poetic interpretation. I did find the answer to a much simpler question; which is how a person could loose sight of personal accountability.
The Ominous Parallels
The Ominous Parallels
by Leonard Peikoff
The ideas of the Third Reich can be exemplified in a single statement: "We have to be strong enough to live in contradictions;” a quote by Arthur Moeller van den Bruk. The first group to back Hitler was the university professors, and it was through education that the people accepted Nazism as the surrender of I to thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.
Piekoff introduces the idea that Nazism took root in Germany as the result of generations of philosophers promoting the principles of Plato. He puts forward the notion that from Plato comes the driving thrust for collectivism and the subsequent evolution of thought that an individual must surrender himself to the State. He draws contrast between Plato and Aristotle and creates a Yin and Yang argument, yet in the introduction spends the majority of his argument on the Patio heritage. He summarizes the basic argument of prominent German philosophers Kant and Hegal. Each philosopher provides an interpretation of Plato, which unconsciously clouds his argument when attempting to put the Aristotle school of logic as the viable alternative. Of which leaves the reader on 2004 pondering a "third way" or possibly a balance between the two or finally the urge for a little cherry picking of both.
I believe it is worth pointing out that many readers will find their own foundations challenged in the beginning. But completing the book is a must. My personal reaction at the beginning of the book; vested largely on 48 years of surrender to the whole, due to the experience of learning through discovery, and that the premise for which I based my logic was errant; which then draws on the selfless character espoused in Plato and flies in the face of Aristotle. However the intriguing element of the book is not in the individual analysis but in the connection of philosophy to politics as he applies ethics and to social questions. So while the reader may have an induced undercurrent of his own individual views of I, he is compelled by the notion that one not only could surrender to society but also to a supreme ruler, right or wrong in his philosophy. To see where the larger picture is going as Piekoff leads you through the history of western philosophy to provide a lesson for today. The challenge is to look at history through the lens of philosophy and analyze of the minds of leading men put into practice. If ethics is adherence to laws we cannot enforce and politics is a construct of ethics on a scalable social playing field; then how does one discern an absolute aspect of truth through cognitive reasoning when the author requires the absence of the observer in the reality equation? Piekoff with the aid of history makes a very good argument in answering this question.
In a caption: The Fuhrer did this by the uniting of god’s representative(s) with the nihilism of a Machiavellian skeptic, and a new phenomena, new at least in its brazen openness, enters the world scene: the absolute of the moment, or the immutable which never stands still, issued at an omniscience that ceaselessly changes its mind.
Aristotle says: A is A regardless of the observer. Plato: internalizes A and processes it. He may add something to it or take something away from it. If the water is blue, what color water does the blind man see. To be a visionary and create something that currently does not exist Platonic logic must prevail. To contend with day-to-day reality, Aristotelian logic must prevail. The only other place on earth of today where I am aware of such a polarized position between Aristotle and Plato is in the extreme fundamental regions of the Middle East and specifically Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the yet to be formed Palestine. This parallel occurred in the mind of this reader as more looming than what was intended for this book. Also back to the western mind, Peikoff does not amply address man’s aspiration to leave this earth a better place in an Aristotle rationale. Yet I am reminded of Chief Seattle when he said, we should leave this earth just as we found it. He, a mystic did not read either yet finds himself unknowingly in Aristotle’s camp.
Historical events are a good test to the notion that an event can be observed in pure Aristotle methodology. The author spends great effort in the book to make a case for Objectivism -v- Subjectivism. He sites pre WWII Germany as a people: " The reason was millions of non-thugs in a land of poets and philosophers found hope in Hitler, duty bound men who condemned what they saw as selfishness of the Weimar Republic.” In a narrow view the theory may be valid. However with an expanded view of the same history, one would observe the economic hardship imposed upon the German people by the international community. Such hardships may have collectively and singularly led to the same behavior. Desperate people do desperate things. Piekoff does write one sentence to this regard.
The author draws an interesting observation on the concept of ethics. While ethics makes an appeal to ones decision in his own interest, the national ego calls for one to make decisions in the interest of the whole, which evolved to mean state. As there is a theme to connect 19th century philosophers, Peikoff notes that these Platonian thinkers had never envisioned the total dedication to the ideal state. Piekoff sites the ethics of Christianity as the intermediary. The lineage of Augustine to Luther with Kant playing the philosophic accompli as a set up in social mindset, it actually took extremists of the 20th century to take advantage of the willing people, to submit to his thrust for selfish power. A complete circle of philosophy took place; where now modern altruist took over from the medieval Priests the principle of self-sacrifice, then dislodged God from the position of supreme collector, replacing him with other men.
As the book begins to drill into the mindset of 1920s Germany, the philosopher Mills acknowledges capitalism as "not based in any desire for abnegation or renunciation; but it is based on selfish profit”. Never the less he does concede that capitalism ensures most of the time, the actual result of the individual seeking happiness is the happiness of society on the whole. But that point taken to extreme held that a man’s happiness is measured in his noble deeds and that translated means a conversion from the egotistical baseness of man to a pursuit of collectivism. So in effect while the polarized factions of German society opposed capitalism, they found a philosophical definition that brought it to a productive means to a collective agenda without ever addressing or opposing directly the essence of capitalism.
Through the pragmatic philosophy of Dewy, the German mind was molded to one that could only react to that which existed. This philosophy took root in the youth of Germans through the education system, thus producing minds capable and prone to rebel against the status quo. The young Germans were producer of art and music that defied reason, leaving a portrait of the 1920 youth and ominous parallels to youth of our USA 1960s youth. Here is where the book takes on the shape of the title. Peikoff expounds on the American educational systems adaptation of German philosophy and further describes the dissolution of philosophy in our study. But with a bit further reading one becomes suspicious that the parallels proposed might actually parallel other regions of the world or are simply separate parallels. A parallel I began to track while reading was the track where modern "western" man has degenerated to a philosophy based not on the practice of both Plato and Aristotle. We in America are an amalgamation of more than Europeans. We also have the benefit of learning from the German tragedy. This may invoke scientific method to apply theory to experiment whereby the results may debunk or alter Piekoff’s original theory. Yet the author’s conclusion addresses this.
The basic tenants of Objectivism are also embodied in the vision of our Founding Fathers. They had conceived “rights” as entitlements to act to keep the products of one’s actions not as claims to the products of others. “Equality” in original American view, meant the right to every man’s independence – to make and sustain his life by his own effort. Piekoff spent a lot of time chronicling what went wrong and uses this to base a brief remedy to refocus our country on these original ideas. He proposes a restatement of our ideals based on moral and practical standards. The critical ingredient is that man begins with ideas and actually uses his own mind and then put his thought into practice. A society that leads to irrational and nihilistic thinking produces actions that leads one to believe that the world cannot be understood. This has been the history of Europe, which bore out tragic results. There is a reason why all those Hitler-inviting concretes occurred in the same country at the same time; it the same reason why none was present in the United States during the Enlightenment period. The reason lies in the disciplined concern with the fundamentals, because these subsume all derivatives and all social concretes. Philosophy is the factor that moves a nation, shaping every realm and aspect of men’s existence, including their values, their psychology, and in the end, the headlines in the daily newspapers. The faculty of reason makes philosophy possible.
My final reaction to this book is largely in concurrence with the proposed theory. I found it interesting that in Piekoff’s chronology of every preceding philosopher to Rand, he exposed contradictions and an eventual breakdown as it would be but into practice. I practice thinking then acting and then observing the results of my actions. I would then say I am a combination of Aristotle, Dewy, and Plato. There are times where my actions may appear out of sequence or without reason. So you would at times have to change the order of the philosophers. This phenomenon must be left to Kant and company and cannot be ignored. So I endorse a disciplined reason and a social foundation that perpetuate it as a primary philosophy. Objectivism. Questions still remain in testing such an endorsement, but lacking one would be a contradiction. And being human I ask for forgiveness when that discipline breaks down. So that makes me Christian in asking for ones faith that I will correct my errant behavior. I believe the next step from this book is to write a workbook with exercises in this theory. Practice makes perfect.
As a postscript note: I did get an operational definition of the word epistemology. This is a new word for me and I found myself while understanding its meaning from Piekoff, resorting to Webster to actually quote it herein. Oddly enough Webster and Piekoff drew parallel lines for me.
Epistemology: the division of philosophy that investigates the nature of knowledge
by Leonard Peikoff
The ideas of the Third Reich can be exemplified in a single statement: "We have to be strong enough to live in contradictions;” a quote by Arthur Moeller van den Bruk. The first group to back Hitler was the university professors, and it was through education that the people accepted Nazism as the surrender of I to thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.
Piekoff introduces the idea that Nazism took root in Germany as the result of generations of philosophers promoting the principles of Plato. He puts forward the notion that from Plato comes the driving thrust for collectivism and the subsequent evolution of thought that an individual must surrender himself to the State. He draws contrast between Plato and Aristotle and creates a Yin and Yang argument, yet in the introduction spends the majority of his argument on the Patio heritage. He summarizes the basic argument of prominent German philosophers Kant and Hegal. Each philosopher provides an interpretation of Plato, which unconsciously clouds his argument when attempting to put the Aristotle school of logic as the viable alternative. Of which leaves the reader on 2004 pondering a "third way" or possibly a balance between the two or finally the urge for a little cherry picking of both.
I believe it is worth pointing out that many readers will find their own foundations challenged in the beginning. But completing the book is a must. My personal reaction at the beginning of the book; vested largely on 48 years of surrender to the whole, due to the experience of learning through discovery, and that the premise for which I based my logic was errant; which then draws on the selfless character espoused in Plato and flies in the face of Aristotle. However the intriguing element of the book is not in the individual analysis but in the connection of philosophy to politics as he applies ethics and to social questions. So while the reader may have an induced undercurrent of his own individual views of I, he is compelled by the notion that one not only could surrender to society but also to a supreme ruler, right or wrong in his philosophy. To see where the larger picture is going as Piekoff leads you through the history of western philosophy to provide a lesson for today. The challenge is to look at history through the lens of philosophy and analyze of the minds of leading men put into practice. If ethics is adherence to laws we cannot enforce and politics is a construct of ethics on a scalable social playing field; then how does one discern an absolute aspect of truth through cognitive reasoning when the author requires the absence of the observer in the reality equation? Piekoff with the aid of history makes a very good argument in answering this question.
In a caption: The Fuhrer did this by the uniting of god’s representative(s) with the nihilism of a Machiavellian skeptic, and a new phenomena, new at least in its brazen openness, enters the world scene: the absolute of the moment, or the immutable which never stands still, issued at an omniscience that ceaselessly changes its mind.
Aristotle says: A is A regardless of the observer. Plato: internalizes A and processes it. He may add something to it or take something away from it. If the water is blue, what color water does the blind man see. To be a visionary and create something that currently does not exist Platonic logic must prevail. To contend with day-to-day reality, Aristotelian logic must prevail. The only other place on earth of today where I am aware of such a polarized position between Aristotle and Plato is in the extreme fundamental regions of the Middle East and specifically Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the yet to be formed Palestine. This parallel occurred in the mind of this reader as more looming than what was intended for this book. Also back to the western mind, Peikoff does not amply address man’s aspiration to leave this earth a better place in an Aristotle rationale. Yet I am reminded of Chief Seattle when he said, we should leave this earth just as we found it. He, a mystic did not read either yet finds himself unknowingly in Aristotle’s camp.
Historical events are a good test to the notion that an event can be observed in pure Aristotle methodology. The author spends great effort in the book to make a case for Objectivism -v- Subjectivism. He sites pre WWII Germany as a people: " The reason was millions of non-thugs in a land of poets and philosophers found hope in Hitler, duty bound men who condemned what they saw as selfishness of the Weimar Republic.” In a narrow view the theory may be valid. However with an expanded view of the same history, one would observe the economic hardship imposed upon the German people by the international community. Such hardships may have collectively and singularly led to the same behavior. Desperate people do desperate things. Piekoff does write one sentence to this regard.
The author draws an interesting observation on the concept of ethics. While ethics makes an appeal to ones decision in his own interest, the national ego calls for one to make decisions in the interest of the whole, which evolved to mean state. As there is a theme to connect 19th century philosophers, Peikoff notes that these Platonian thinkers had never envisioned the total dedication to the ideal state. Piekoff sites the ethics of Christianity as the intermediary. The lineage of Augustine to Luther with Kant playing the philosophic accompli as a set up in social mindset, it actually took extremists of the 20th century to take advantage of the willing people, to submit to his thrust for selfish power. A complete circle of philosophy took place; where now modern altruist took over from the medieval Priests the principle of self-sacrifice, then dislodged God from the position of supreme collector, replacing him with other men.
As the book begins to drill into the mindset of 1920s Germany, the philosopher Mills acknowledges capitalism as "not based in any desire for abnegation or renunciation; but it is based on selfish profit”. Never the less he does concede that capitalism ensures most of the time, the actual result of the individual seeking happiness is the happiness of society on the whole. But that point taken to extreme held that a man’s happiness is measured in his noble deeds and that translated means a conversion from the egotistical baseness of man to a pursuit of collectivism. So in effect while the polarized factions of German society opposed capitalism, they found a philosophical definition that brought it to a productive means to a collective agenda without ever addressing or opposing directly the essence of capitalism.
Through the pragmatic philosophy of Dewy, the German mind was molded to one that could only react to that which existed. This philosophy took root in the youth of Germans through the education system, thus producing minds capable and prone to rebel against the status quo. The young Germans were producer of art and music that defied reason, leaving a portrait of the 1920 youth and ominous parallels to youth of our USA 1960s youth. Here is where the book takes on the shape of the title. Peikoff expounds on the American educational systems adaptation of German philosophy and further describes the dissolution of philosophy in our study. But with a bit further reading one becomes suspicious that the parallels proposed might actually parallel other regions of the world or are simply separate parallels. A parallel I began to track while reading was the track where modern "western" man has degenerated to a philosophy based not on the practice of both Plato and Aristotle. We in America are an amalgamation of more than Europeans. We also have the benefit of learning from the German tragedy. This may invoke scientific method to apply theory to experiment whereby the results may debunk or alter Piekoff’s original theory. Yet the author’s conclusion addresses this.
The basic tenants of Objectivism are also embodied in the vision of our Founding Fathers. They had conceived “rights” as entitlements to act to keep the products of one’s actions not as claims to the products of others. “Equality” in original American view, meant the right to every man’s independence – to make and sustain his life by his own effort. Piekoff spent a lot of time chronicling what went wrong and uses this to base a brief remedy to refocus our country on these original ideas. He proposes a restatement of our ideals based on moral and practical standards. The critical ingredient is that man begins with ideas and actually uses his own mind and then put his thought into practice. A society that leads to irrational and nihilistic thinking produces actions that leads one to believe that the world cannot be understood. This has been the history of Europe, which bore out tragic results. There is a reason why all those Hitler-inviting concretes occurred in the same country at the same time; it the same reason why none was present in the United States during the Enlightenment period. The reason lies in the disciplined concern with the fundamentals, because these subsume all derivatives and all social concretes. Philosophy is the factor that moves a nation, shaping every realm and aspect of men’s existence, including their values, their psychology, and in the end, the headlines in the daily newspapers. The faculty of reason makes philosophy possible.
My final reaction to this book is largely in concurrence with the proposed theory. I found it interesting that in Piekoff’s chronology of every preceding philosopher to Rand, he exposed contradictions and an eventual breakdown as it would be but into practice. I practice thinking then acting and then observing the results of my actions. I would then say I am a combination of Aristotle, Dewy, and Plato. There are times where my actions may appear out of sequence or without reason. So you would at times have to change the order of the philosophers. This phenomenon must be left to Kant and company and cannot be ignored. So I endorse a disciplined reason and a social foundation that perpetuate it as a primary philosophy. Objectivism. Questions still remain in testing such an endorsement, but lacking one would be a contradiction. And being human I ask for forgiveness when that discipline breaks down. So that makes me Christian in asking for ones faith that I will correct my errant behavior. I believe the next step from this book is to write a workbook with exercises in this theory. Practice makes perfect.
As a postscript note: I did get an operational definition of the word epistemology. This is a new word for me and I found myself while understanding its meaning from Piekoff, resorting to Webster to actually quote it herein. Oddly enough Webster and Piekoff drew parallel lines for me.
Epistemology: the division of philosophy that investigates the nature of knowledge
Evangeline
Evangeline
By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
This romantic poem begins of a young love sprouted in Acadian people of Western Europe. A scene painted in all the balance of nature; Longfellow commands the English language with metaphoric description. Evangeline is only introduced after the backdrop is colored like an unfolding rose on a fresh spring morning. The battle for prominence of one element as it surrenders to another presents a peaceful array of living. Separated from her newfound love Gabriel, by the will of King George, each finds them on the American frontier. One in pursuit of a meaningful life. The other in pursuit of her lost lover. The over arching parody is a poetic representation of the relationship of men and women of the time. In the ending of such an endless pursuit, down every river of the American landscape they find each other. You must read the poem for yourself to discover what they learned.
Longfellow wrote Evangeline in 1847 of a time that was likely 50 years gone by. A tale that could likely had been handed down through a rackenteers verse at many a fireside and finally put to paper by what was proclaimed as the most revered American poet of the time. The poem gives insight to the value of brotherhood and the respect each person holds towards his neighbor. A value of appreciation towards one another for their contribution to the quality of their lives together. Has the advancement of systematic distribution of goods and services rendered society of the 21st century aloof to such a notion? This poem represents the oneness of man/woman and nature. It reminds me to take a moment to look into to the eyes of another and give thanks for that fleeting moment we have with each other.
In reading the poem, 166 years later you are still awed by ones ability to re create living in balance of nature. The reader rises to a new appreciation for the affect that written word holds as it provokes an imagination. An art that has it has yet to surrender to the media of today’s entertainment world.
As an enticement to pick up his works I provide an excerpt to give example of my message. The passage is of a priest advising Evangeline of which direction to head in pursuit of her lover.
“”Look at this vigorous plant that lifts its head from the
meadow
See how its leaves are turned to the north, as true as
the magnet
This is the compass flower, that thy finger of God has
Planted””
By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
This romantic poem begins of a young love sprouted in Acadian people of Western Europe. A scene painted in all the balance of nature; Longfellow commands the English language with metaphoric description. Evangeline is only introduced after the backdrop is colored like an unfolding rose on a fresh spring morning. The battle for prominence of one element as it surrenders to another presents a peaceful array of living. Separated from her newfound love Gabriel, by the will of King George, each finds them on the American frontier. One in pursuit of a meaningful life. The other in pursuit of her lost lover. The over arching parody is a poetic representation of the relationship of men and women of the time. In the ending of such an endless pursuit, down every river of the American landscape they find each other. You must read the poem for yourself to discover what they learned.
Longfellow wrote Evangeline in 1847 of a time that was likely 50 years gone by. A tale that could likely had been handed down through a rackenteers verse at many a fireside and finally put to paper by what was proclaimed as the most revered American poet of the time. The poem gives insight to the value of brotherhood and the respect each person holds towards his neighbor. A value of appreciation towards one another for their contribution to the quality of their lives together. Has the advancement of systematic distribution of goods and services rendered society of the 21st century aloof to such a notion? This poem represents the oneness of man/woman and nature. It reminds me to take a moment to look into to the eyes of another and give thanks for that fleeting moment we have with each other.
In reading the poem, 166 years later you are still awed by ones ability to re create living in balance of nature. The reader rises to a new appreciation for the affect that written word holds as it provokes an imagination. An art that has it has yet to surrender to the media of today’s entertainment world.
As an enticement to pick up his works I provide an excerpt to give example of my message. The passage is of a priest advising Evangeline of which direction to head in pursuit of her lover.
“”Look at this vigorous plant that lifts its head from the
meadow
See how its leaves are turned to the north, as true as
the magnet
This is the compass flower, that thy finger of God has
Planted””
We Shall Not Fail
We Shall Not Fail
Celia Sandya
A bibliography of Winston Churchill of sorts.
Celia Sandya, Churchill’s granddaughter, teams up with Jonathan Littman to write a book on Churchill’s strengths with the aim of inspiring a society to cultivate the same from our business world players today. I read this book as a gift from once again my son as a prelude to reading Churchill’s famous collection that has been sitting on my bookshelf for five years, unread. It is light reading and a little stuffy with the tangents to corporate world. But a worthwhile read nonetheless.
Churchill was born of some wealth, the son of Lord Randolph the Duke of Marlborough. He was like many leaders of our modern world, not keen on academic study in a formal institution. He was however well read on subjects of his own choosing of which spanned a broad range of subjects. His appreciation for self taught education was manifest in a purposefully honed skill of communication as an orator and writer. The exact same skills found in Ben Franklin. Great people just don’t seem to school well, why is that and what made Churchill great?
Churchill assembled teams of people who may have at one time been his assailant on issues. He had no time for grudges and felt the strength in leadership is fortified in the power of forgiveness. As such an inscription in a French monument: " In War, Resolution. In Defeat, Defiance, In Victory, Magnanimity. In Peace, Goodwill." In problem solving he is quoted as saying “ Of this I am certain: if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future” He often referenced Lincoln's quote " A house divided cannot stand"
Throughout this book the authors draw parallels between Churchill’s leadership qualities and the qualities required and sited in today business leaders. Most immediately drawn from this effort is INSPIRATION. Each chapter lists a classified set of qualities to summarize the preceding Churchill experience. While personally I found most qualities pertinent in today’s business world; my corporate experience would suggest a few may be a little draconian, maverick(ish), and egotistical, but then again, who’s to say that surrender to the “TEAM” makes great leaders. If indeed your goals are to excel and those goals are somehow tributary to the success of the team, it must be ok to have stars, one would think wouldn’t they? Of course in the politically correct world of athletic competition, tongue and cheek, these people are glorified as “impact players”; players who make a difference. In the corporate world the CEO who achieved success through high impact business accomplishments is vilified as a devious crook, which ironically leads their corporation to its winds of fate one way or another. This popular split in views, largely driven in my opinion by tilted journalist with paradoxical morals depending on the subject makes apparent a challenge in our world today. There exists a conflict between the corporate strategy to create a team effort across a diverse field of play, both internally and externally, and the goal to develop Leaders. For the team peer to aspire a leadership position and then achieve such implies a Machiavellian twist that is either over looked or allowed in the glory days of the world industrial revolution. Can we resurrect a Churchill in the 21st century? I hope so. This book compels you to leave Maxwell, Covey and all the rest of those corporate/business success authors/witchdoctors behind and simply tune into some old fashioned wisdom of a truly great man. In that regard the book did its job. I am on to Gathering Storm by Sir Winston Churchill.
Related Reading from his Early Life
1. The Scaffolding of Rhetoric
2. The World Crisis
3. Never In the Field of Human Conflict (speech)
Catch phrases
1. Death stands at attention, waiting the command to pulverize civilization.
2. Long his victim - for once his master.
3. The world lifted its head, surveyed the ruin
Celia Sandya
A bibliography of Winston Churchill of sorts.
Celia Sandya, Churchill’s granddaughter, teams up with Jonathan Littman to write a book on Churchill’s strengths with the aim of inspiring a society to cultivate the same from our business world players today. I read this book as a gift from once again my son as a prelude to reading Churchill’s famous collection that has been sitting on my bookshelf for five years, unread. It is light reading and a little stuffy with the tangents to corporate world. But a worthwhile read nonetheless.
Churchill was born of some wealth, the son of Lord Randolph the Duke of Marlborough. He was like many leaders of our modern world, not keen on academic study in a formal institution. He was however well read on subjects of his own choosing of which spanned a broad range of subjects. His appreciation for self taught education was manifest in a purposefully honed skill of communication as an orator and writer. The exact same skills found in Ben Franklin. Great people just don’t seem to school well, why is that and what made Churchill great?
Churchill assembled teams of people who may have at one time been his assailant on issues. He had no time for grudges and felt the strength in leadership is fortified in the power of forgiveness. As such an inscription in a French monument: " In War, Resolution. In Defeat, Defiance, In Victory, Magnanimity. In Peace, Goodwill." In problem solving he is quoted as saying “ Of this I am certain: if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future” He often referenced Lincoln's quote " A house divided cannot stand"
Throughout this book the authors draw parallels between Churchill’s leadership qualities and the qualities required and sited in today business leaders. Most immediately drawn from this effort is INSPIRATION. Each chapter lists a classified set of qualities to summarize the preceding Churchill experience. While personally I found most qualities pertinent in today’s business world; my corporate experience would suggest a few may be a little draconian, maverick(ish), and egotistical, but then again, who’s to say that surrender to the “TEAM” makes great leaders. If indeed your goals are to excel and those goals are somehow tributary to the success of the team, it must be ok to have stars, one would think wouldn’t they? Of course in the politically correct world of athletic competition, tongue and cheek, these people are glorified as “impact players”; players who make a difference. In the corporate world the CEO who achieved success through high impact business accomplishments is vilified as a devious crook, which ironically leads their corporation to its winds of fate one way or another. This popular split in views, largely driven in my opinion by tilted journalist with paradoxical morals depending on the subject makes apparent a challenge in our world today. There exists a conflict between the corporate strategy to create a team effort across a diverse field of play, both internally and externally, and the goal to develop Leaders. For the team peer to aspire a leadership position and then achieve such implies a Machiavellian twist that is either over looked or allowed in the glory days of the world industrial revolution. Can we resurrect a Churchill in the 21st century? I hope so. This book compels you to leave Maxwell, Covey and all the rest of those corporate/business success authors/witchdoctors behind and simply tune into some old fashioned wisdom of a truly great man. In that regard the book did its job. I am on to Gathering Storm by Sir Winston Churchill.
Related Reading from his Early Life
1. The Scaffolding of Rhetoric
2. The World Crisis
3. Never In the Field of Human Conflict (speech)
Catch phrases
1. Death stands at attention, waiting the command to pulverize civilization.
2. Long his victim - for once his master.
3. The world lifted its head, surveyed the ruin
Transcendentalist
Transcendentalist
By R. W. Emerson
I purchased a book titled The selected Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson in a used book store in Petoskey this past Friday; original copyright 1940. A good find at four dollars while waiting for the sailing weather to arrive. I happened to read this essay while on Janet’s shift at the wheel on the way back down state yesterday. The following is what I got from a great thinker.
There are two views; the materialist and the idealist. With the materialist ones’ foundation is set in observable events, rationalized as fact. An idealist begins with thought. I am reminded of The Moody Blues, Threshold of a Dream;(run the music in your head while you complete this read.)"I am therefore I am." Is A actually A? Or does I come before A? In my view Emerson’s essay on the subject addresses this debate. "I is thought which is called I, is the mold into which the world is poured like melted wax. It is called the power of circumstance. Of which the transcendentalist has command." The philosophers test lay in the interpretation. This said might suggest a conundrum in thought where the social experiment has yet to bare out formidable fact.
Emerson comes down on the side of Idealism I’ve been told, but from a point of view that surprised me. After reading his essay for the first time, as opposed to hearing it second hand, I come away feeling an author was simply describing the people and their philosophy. Like Whitman, “it is what it is” seemed to be a prevalent theme. Early in his essay he throws out the challenge to the ''capitalist'' whom he accuses of an orderly mind, ''But ask him why he believes that an uniform experience will continue uniform, or on what grounds he founds his faith in his figures. Emerson claims the answer '' he will perceive that his mental fabric is built up on just as strange and quaking foundations as that of stone “{fact}.
,
Emerson contends that an Idealist observes things with a metaphysical measure, ranking things in order of importance. An Idealist is an independent man capable of his own mind, yet Emerson concedes the eventual constraint of social conformity. Further, in a word Emerson cynically associates intuitive thought of all types, rationale or irresponsible, as transcendental. Depending on the degree of irresponsible thought and what one actually does with the thought is a subject of lengthy discussion in his essay. They are lovers of nature also, and “find an indemnity in the inviolable order of the world for the violator; order and grace of man.” In my 2004 translation, they can blame all their indiscretions to nature.
In the end I came away from the essay with a more realistic view of the Transcendentalist, and not quite convinced of any endorsement from Emerson. He is less than complementary to the subject people, as he leaves you with the impression of a pragmatic analysis of a philosophy of a people of the time. He does describe an evolutionary “thought process”, an oxymoron to logic or reason in my opinion, where dots do not necessarily have to connect and people can digress to irresponsible actions; which leaves them in surrender to the State. The essay helped color further the answers to my question of the year; which is how a person could loose sight of personal accountability.
There may be those who may come away from the essay with a totally different intrepretation than myself. This may be proof on Emerson.
By R. W. Emerson
I purchased a book titled The selected Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson in a used book store in Petoskey this past Friday; original copyright 1940. A good find at four dollars while waiting for the sailing weather to arrive. I happened to read this essay while on Janet’s shift at the wheel on the way back down state yesterday. The following is what I got from a great thinker.
There are two views; the materialist and the idealist. With the materialist ones’ foundation is set in observable events, rationalized as fact. An idealist begins with thought. I am reminded of The Moody Blues, Threshold of a Dream;(run the music in your head while you complete this read.)"I am therefore I am." Is A actually A? Or does I come before A? In my view Emerson’s essay on the subject addresses this debate. "I is thought which is called I, is the mold into which the world is poured like melted wax. It is called the power of circumstance. Of which the transcendentalist has command." The philosophers test lay in the interpretation. This said might suggest a conundrum in thought where the social experiment has yet to bare out formidable fact.
Emerson comes down on the side of Idealism I’ve been told, but from a point of view that surprised me. After reading his essay for the first time, as opposed to hearing it second hand, I come away feeling an author was simply describing the people and their philosophy. Like Whitman, “it is what it is” seemed to be a prevalent theme. Early in his essay he throws out the challenge to the ''capitalist'' whom he accuses of an orderly mind, ''But ask him why he believes that an uniform experience will continue uniform, or on what grounds he founds his faith in his figures. Emerson claims the answer '' he will perceive that his mental fabric is built up on just as strange and quaking foundations as that of stone “{fact}.
,
Emerson contends that an Idealist observes things with a metaphysical measure, ranking things in order of importance. An Idealist is an independent man capable of his own mind, yet Emerson concedes the eventual constraint of social conformity. Further, in a word Emerson cynically associates intuitive thought of all types, rationale or irresponsible, as transcendental. Depending on the degree of irresponsible thought and what one actually does with the thought is a subject of lengthy discussion in his essay. They are lovers of nature also, and “find an indemnity in the inviolable order of the world for the violator; order and grace of man.” In my 2004 translation, they can blame all their indiscretions to nature.
In the end I came away from the essay with a more realistic view of the Transcendentalist, and not quite convinced of any endorsement from Emerson. He is less than complementary to the subject people, as he leaves you with the impression of a pragmatic analysis of a philosophy of a people of the time. He does describe an evolutionary “thought process”, an oxymoron to logic or reason in my opinion, where dots do not necessarily have to connect and people can digress to irresponsible actions; which leaves them in surrender to the State. The essay helped color further the answers to my question of the year; which is how a person could loose sight of personal accountability.
There may be those who may come away from the essay with a totally different intrepretation than myself. This may be proof on Emerson.
The Time is Now
Joe is a political prisoner of MAAD. He is now in his fourth year serving time because a kid, high drugs, blinded him with his FOG LAMPS just before a fatal head on collision. Accidents happen...the deceast's poor family some how believes their son will rest in peace while Joe does time.
Their peace will be denied until Joe's love is back with his family
Joe asked me to post this poem for him. It was in the Jackson Observer & the author's name was not given. Joe says: "For some reason this poem touched me....It reminded me of our family (except a few like Bama) and I have always wondered why our family never says we love one another more often." "It was sad to read about people who carry this poem in their wallet, wishing they had a chance to tell the person before they died."The Time is NowIf you are ever going to love me, Love me now, while I can know,The sweet and tender feelings, Which from true affection flow.Love me now, While I am living, Do not wait until I'm gone,And then have it chiseled in marble, Sweet words on ice-cold stone.If you have tender thoughts of me, Please, tell me now,If you wait until I am sleeping, Never to awaken, There will be death between us,And I won't hear you then.So, if you love me, even a little bit,Let me know it while I am living, So I can treasure it.And in closing from Joe: "It's extremely hard for me here, and if anything happens to anyone, I haven't had the chance to say it in person.....I love my family."
Their peace will be denied until Joe's love is back with his family
Joe asked me to post this poem for him. It was in the Jackson Observer & the author's name was not given. Joe says: "For some reason this poem touched me....It reminded me of our family (except a few like Bama) and I have always wondered why our family never says we love one another more often." "It was sad to read about people who carry this poem in their wallet, wishing they had a chance to tell the person before they died."The Time is NowIf you are ever going to love me, Love me now, while I can know,The sweet and tender feelings, Which from true affection flow.Love me now, While I am living, Do not wait until I'm gone,And then have it chiseled in marble, Sweet words on ice-cold stone.If you have tender thoughts of me, Please, tell me now,If you wait until I am sleeping, Never to awaken, There will be death between us,And I won't hear you then.So, if you love me, even a little bit,Let me know it while I am living, So I can treasure it.And in closing from Joe: "It's extremely hard for me here, and if anything happens to anyone, I haven't had the chance to say it in person.....I love my family."
The Gathering Storm
The Gathering Storm
by Winston Churchill
The following poetic quote sums up the words on the pages of the age of ink press:
He who will not when he may
When he will, he shall have Nay
Churchill’s prose interpretation of the same:
“In this Twilight War…It was after France had been flattened out that Britain, thanks to her island advantage, developed out of the pangs of defeat and the menace of annihilation a national resolve equal to that of Germany.
I personally noted that it were those same pangs of defeat that gave Germany the resolve to rise up to the world in the way they did. In reading this remarkable account of history by a leader who was part of it makes you the reader in want to take decisive lesson from the time spent between the covers of this book. The following summarizes what I learned.
It has been claimed at dinner parties that Britain and France had been the policemen of Europe in the prelude of World War II. Churchill makes in plainly clear in this book that they were champions of appeasement and diplomatic folly. In his careful and colorful description of events, using excerpts of speeches, and correspondences, blended with dialogue; the reader becomes painfully aware that appeasement was simply a term used in the press to lull the citizens towards a false hope for peace. Rather, the reader becomes clearly appraised as to the miss-steps in diplomacy in the nature of French Richelieu’s balance of power. A diplomacy where France instead breaks her commitment of balance of power through failed obligation in defense of smaller nations in domino succession, leaving Poland as the last domino to fall coinciding with the outbreak. Britain simply followed suit, as there were no formal commitments to counter act the overwhelming call in the press for peace. In the end such folly rendered both policemen as accomplices to a world tragedy. Churchill writes that the tale was not about diplomacy aimed at national security guised as justice; it ended up being a fight for our lives.
While the copyright is 1948 Churchill claims many words published were actually written eighteen years earlier as a message to prevent what he calls the second conclusion of mankind. I took grave note that Britain and France' roles aside, Churchill makes clear that most of all the immense power and impartiality in the United States allowed conditions to be gradually led to the very climax that peace dreaded most. In 1948 he is certain to caution any notion that the United States should make the same mistake for a third convulsion from which none may live to tell the tale. In almost every strategic decision to prepare England and her allies for defense, Churchill found himself perplexed with the prevailing sentiment of defensive –v- offensive stratagem. Where you actually call the start of the war didn’t matter. For instance just before Hitler attacked Norway and France it was learned that Hitler planned to attack Norway to defend herself and as well, maintain the industrious raw material from Sweden. Churchill faced absolute refusal to land troops in Norway or supply bombers to an offensive plan of defense of the world. Churchill writes of a French communiqué from his interlocutor: “The president of the Republic himself had intervened and that no aggressive measure must be taken which might only draw reprisal upon France. “ He again writes his personal frustration of well laid offensive plans in the defense of his home land
“The idea of not irritating the enemy did not commend itself to me.”“
To help the reader comprehend such a grim summary view the beginning is a good place to start. Churchill spends a chapter describing how the German leadership began their rearmament as early as 1923 and could have been stopped with out the risk of a single life up to 1934. Even when he sounded the alarm in 1930, there were eight years to arrest the build up of which not only did the allies reject but they also proceeded to reduce their own militaries.
In describing Hitler, in immediate Post Great War, Churchill describes a man capable of rationalizing a hatred for Jews and Bolsheviks, not for any other reason than it was they who exploited the defeated German people. But Hitler found himself not alone as he discovered a party of people of the same mind. They held a defeated passionate hate for those who exploited them in a time of defeat. With the collapse of the German mark Hitler, the new leader of the National-Socialist Party, found hungry AND THUS EASY RECRUITS. A PARTY FOUNDED IN HATRED. While in prison in 1924, Hitler outlined Mien Kampf. A Hitler doctrine adopted by the German people that appeared to have its sole basis in nothing but hatred of anything not German. It was a doctrine that mandated men to fight for freedom, a word guised in supremacy. Ironically, freedom arrived at a cost of individuals surrendering ones mind to the Fuehrer. In Churchill’s chapter on Locusts the reader of twenty-o-four cannot help but draw an Ominous Parallel to current world situation, but also to a theory analyzed on Piekoff’s book Ominous Parallel.
It took more than a desperate people for Hitler to spring to power. It took the coalescence of military organizations bent on power. As they viewed each other as foes that could bring each other down against the political enemy, being communist Bolsheviks, they united in a fashion that brought down the Bruening Cabinet, thus creating a political vacuum. There existed a vacuum; not of ideas, but of a leader to execute on his ideas. It should be noted that while the elite palace leaders were in no way impressed with Hitler, 13,000,000 Germans were behind him. While Churchill does not address the philosophical foundation of the German mind he makes a case for opportunity for a leader to take advantage of a willing mind, for whatever reason. In essence it takes willing people, but a cacophony of political stratagem must also coincide for such a catastrophe of an elected Hitler leadership to occur. In a note on humility, Hitler’s predecessor Hindenberg once said that Hitler is suited for no more than Postmaster, "where he can lick stamps with my head on them".
Meanwhile in the course of European debate over weapons of war (WMD) Churchill gave his first warning to England of the eminent danger being sown in 1936. While Europe was disarming, Germany was ripe to rearm. Meanwhile British public opinion concluded that all doubts of a peaceful Germany should be cast aside. After the takeover of the Rhineland of which without a challenge Hitler assumed un- questionable authority over his Generals. All of Germany was succeeded in the easy gain of ground against its former adversaries, so divided and tame. There is no doubt that had His Majesty's Government chosen to act with firmness and resolve through thru League of Nations, they could have led a united Britain on a final quest to avert war. In 1939 Churchill writes
“in keeping with a 400 year history to avert a dominance by a dictator from any country We ought to set the life and endurance of the British Empire and the greatness of the this island very high in our duty, and not be led astray by illusions about an ideal world, which only means that other and worse controls will step into our place, and that future direction will belong to them.''
In a speech to the House of Commons Churchill said the credit of the Government has been compromised by what has occurred. The House has been consistently misled about the air-position. The Prime Minister himself has been misled. He was misled right up to the last moment, apparently. Look at the statement, which he made in March when he spoke about our armaments:
“The sight of this enormous, this almost terrifying power which Britain is building up has a sobering effect, a steadying effect, on the opinion of the world.”
When I compare the political debate surrounding National Defense of 1936-1938 and compare it to 2001-2004, I am again struck by the similarities. History will again decide if G.W. Bush made the correct strategic decisions in Iraq. The notion to bring Bush up for war crimes comes from minds not incapable of examining the multi layered landscape of issues with a focus on National Security. And thus with absence of personally formed bias our ill informed public opinion leaves our current world vulnerable to Churchill’s greatest fear. Back to the book review specifically Churchill’s views were opposite those of Baldwin and Chamberlain. Attack through diplomatic channels and then with arms were his messages. The measured results of Churchill’s time where an immediate World War with grave loss of life ensued, yet it’s conclusion drew an apparent beginning of lasting peace in Europe. That conclusion did not have to weigh so heavy a price on the world. Credit is given to leaders such as Churchill, Roosevelt & Truman, of WWII and then Reagan who pushed for the close of the Cold War. Can history be used to chart our future in twenty-o-four?
Some lessons are never learned; this one being harmony in leadership. In 1937 and in the midst Italian buildup Secretary of British Foreign Affairs Eden was knitting together a plan to ally France and England against Italy on submarine attacks. Of course there are a few dynamics to be noted that draw a parallel with slight departure in terms of role reversals to current events in 2004. At first it should be noted that Eden, Secretary of State was placed at odds with his Prime Minister, Chamberlain of who replaced Baldwin. He did his duty at odds with his cabinet in a Machiavellian setting and eventually was neutralized in Chamberlains circle. His course of action was to play a strong hand and tendered an offer to Mussolini that the powers of the Mediterranean will join together to sink all submarines as pirates and requested Italy’s participation. With firm resolve of a united front Mussolini agreed to enjoin in the anti pirate campaign, and suddenly his Italian subs refrained from sinking any more merchant ships. The outlook Churchill held as he encouraged Eden to continue in the face political headwinds he wrote
“Poor England! Leading her free, and careless life from day-to-day, amid careless good-tempered parliamentary babble, she followed, wondering, along the downward path which led to all she wanted to avoid, She was continuously reassured by the leading articles of the most influential newspapers, with some honorable exceptions, and behaved as if all the world were as easy, uncalculating and well-meaning as herself.”
He further writes:
“Mr. Roosevelt was indeed running great risks in his own domestic politics by deliberately involving the United States in the darkening European scene. All the forces of isolationism would have been aroused if any part of these exchanges had transpired. On the other hand, no event could have been more likely to stave off or even prevent war than the arrival of the United States in the circle of European hates and fears.”
Churchill’s following words damning Chamberlain’s decision to not accept Roosevelt’s offer must be left for the reader, who would by page 255 of the book be in a Churchill frame of mind to appreciate the gravity of Chamberlains mistake.
” I must remark here though there is at least on consistent parallel and that is the influence of the press to tilt an uniformed population with incomplete information, and the necessity of a press secretary to spin leadership policy against these winds. And we the people must vote a leader and allow him to lead with a willingness to view and seek out the complete story as opposed to submit to the whirlpool of partisan politics found in the press at the fate of National Security. “
Churchill’s story makes this ever clearer in my mind and puts me on the look out for Colin Powell’s book. I must personally say that I have making a case for clarity and thoroughness in reporting. As well I have been condemning those with a voice of hatred towards our leadership when I find them banking all their emotion on the whims of our American press. If only in the heat of debate could I remember such eloquent words?
I also learned that the Domino Theory that prevailed in the 50s and formulated a tenant of our involvement in Viet Nam becomes none too original when reading the succession of events in the late 1930s where England and France, mishandled their “world policemen” obligations. France was bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia in the case of invasion by Germany. England had no such obligation. However without the commitment of one or the other, neither would defend Czechoslovakia over the Hitler proclaimed issues of the Sudentland area of German speaking Czechs. To this extend a French envoy to the Czechoslovakia government since 1925 resigned and became a Czech citizen when he heard of the folly of the French and Brits over Czechoslovakia. “Honor among men existed somewhere.” Were Churchill’s words. Underpinning the whole situation was a bent towards world peace through disarmament against a world axis menace of Germany, Japan, and to a lesser degree Italy. As a student I remember the film reels of Neville Chamberlain boarding tail-dragger planes of DC3 form, in his last ditch attempt of diplomacy with the Fuehrer. In the letters between all parties, held within the pages of this book, and Churchill’s description, the reader clearly becomes aware, how innocent and ill-informed leaders can play the wrong cards in the high stakes game of world dominance of that time. Chamberlains trip to Berchtesgaden proved to be a pinnacle mistake in diplomacy. Churchill in my opinion describing the events makes a clear case for a strong hand i.e.: T.Rex “speak softly and carry a big stick” or Ronald Reagan’s clear stand with Gorbechov in Reykjavik and then Berlin. Churchill in his book asks for history to be the judge of diplomacy’s hand. When I read of Carters handling of Iranian affairs in 1979 along with Chamberlain Berchtesgaden in contrast to Reagan and Bush(s), I must again stand behind a leader who plays a strong hand in matters of National Security, at high sacrifice to world opinion or ACLU protests of encroachment upon civil liberties. Both are a small price to pay for inalienable rights of freedom. I fully appreciate that there is a difference and a hierarchy between and within the two.
The most striking “news to me’ was to read of the high ranking German Generals plot to arrest Hitler and his leadership just prior to Chamberlains lack luster attempts at diplomacy. Churchill’s conclusive words are most appropriate at this point:
“If it should eventually be accepted as historical truth, it will be another example of the very small accidents upon which the fortunes of mankind turn.”
I am quickly reminded of Jimmy Carters week-handed diplomacy that was followed two days later of the capture of the American embassy in Iran. If only fate fell into the hands of stronger leaders?
In the aftermath of the Czechoslovakia invasions and the prelude of Poland and Albania by Germany and Italy respectively, Churchill continues to detail the errant decisions carried out in diplomatic relations; not only with his allies but also with his adversaries. The familiar phrase of appeasement becomes clearly understood, in terms of miscalculations, by the emotional words of Churchill standing in the wings waiting his turn to lead. His words towards Neville Chamberlain are typically British, as he allows history to redress Chamberlains leadership into disaster.
Coincidently mentioned but not delved into in this book was the quality of intelligence available to Chamberlain. Churchill claims a superior level of intelligence, and questions Chamberlains and the British Admiralty lack of preparedness against Mussolini’s invasion of Albanian. Ciano, a cabinet member of Mussolini, writes these British are not those of Drake, they are tired old rich men. As I listen to John Kerry not knowing hunger and the Democratic candidate of Presidency of 2004. He who claims he would have gotten up from a school room and done something on the morning of 911, without specifying what he would have done, gives me reason to draw a parallel to Chamberlain; rich men compelled to say I’m in charge and make decisions without trusting the service of his administration and his advisors. Churchill paints an emotional picture of failed diplomacy when placed in the hands of a leader with a self-centered leadership, bent on decision-making in a closet. Perhaps this could be a lesson in history.
As the book transitions from the sad tale of failed diplomacy to a declaration of war, Churchill describes his feelings upon inspecting the naval positions in Scotland as the reappointed Minister of the Admiralty, a position he once held in the onset of the Great War. He first writes a short poem reflecting his reaction to a new generation of crew placed upon the same ships of a previous war. It goes like this:
I feel like one
Who treads alone,
Some banquet hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all but he departed.
After reading of the failed preparations at cost of appeasement, Churchill while having a picnic lunch on a hill overlooking a Scottish harbor writes:
“Poland is in agony; France but a pale reflection of her warlike ardour; the Russians Colossus no longer and ally, not even neutral, possibly a foe, Italy no friend, Japan no ally. Would America ever come in again? The British Empire remained intact gloriously united but ill prepared.”
I was struck in reading these words written by a man who was placed in political exile for many a year, waved his flag of alarm to a deaf ear of England, and could place claim on a gloriously united spirit of his countrymen. I am struck by what it took to unite England, as it was not Churchill’s flag waiving. And then I am awe-struck at Churchill’s immediate gratification to be once again in a position to defend his fellow man. Churchill is immediately forgiving of his fellow mans penchant for peace at any cost. In a prefect world it is the higher road. In a real world of 1930 thru 1939, 1991 thru 2004 history proved that perfection was yet to be met.
As the story plunges deeper into the reality of war, the Cabinet officials were busy consuming themselves with the affairs of their own offices and vying for priority with the Prime Minister. Churchill spends a chapter describing his private letters to key officials, putting forward his concerns, recommendations and commitment for support. What Churchill had in his favor were actual experience in many posts of government, a continued study of the government while in 10 years exile, and as sense of raising above any grudge with an aim of National Defense in a headwind of war. The lessons in diplomacy on paper are well worth reading to glean the art of apprising your friend of unsolicited advice. This nature of diplomacy at an individual level is in my opinion a tenant of his countrymen’s call for his Prime leadership.
With Poland in ruins, the Baltic States parlayed to the Soviet Union, Churchill describes the strategy and diplomacy in building the defensive lines along it Belgian frontier. Herein, Churchill describes two tenants of diplomacy finding them tangled in military strategy. The first tenant is quite simple and basically prescribes that no military strategy involving the occupation of Belgian soil in the defense of France could be permitted without Belgian approval. As no approval came forth, plan B was quickly acquiesced to with no hard insistence by either party to Belgium for a plan of mutual benefit. One could easily draw a parallel to the Cambodian circumstance along the Ho Chi Min Trail question and find that world standards caused extreme compromise on a military battlefield. The questions placed upon our leaders are far more complicated than the average bear comprehends. And in too many cases our journalists as simply average bears. Second tenant was the military question of success of attack -v- defend, being argued largely by diplomats as opposed to military strategists. While history at that time proves that attacking leaves one in a more vulnerable position in terms of battlefield and supply lines, Hitler defied history as his Armies broke through the Allied lines on the Belgium frontier and proved that attack can be done while defending ones self. Churchill simply notes that Germany was first to put heavy plates of armor in vehicles. This lesson seems to have been over looked in 2004 by the greatest military planners in man kind.
The combination of the two issues draws into question preemptive attack, which is as a popular question today as it might well have been in 1961 with regard to the Cuban missile crisis. When war is eminent not in terms of days but years, building a case for preemptive action as a defense seems plausible, as Churchill makes clear. However on a world stage of hundreds of countries, this leaves the country of preeminence vulnerable to technical objection reverberated into a frenzy of biased views and exacerbated by journalist. The real questions may be when do the people entrust in our leaders, elected via due process and allow them unabated, but questioned execution of a plan. Churchill’s history makes it clear that the challenge for a unanimous world coalition in the winds of the minority objectors requires a strong leader to stay a course in National Defense, regardless of the popular view.
With regard to making strategic war decisions involving small countries soil, Churchill is mindful of international law but willing to abrogate to the laws of humanity, and allow history to be his judge. Here is a man willing to chart a new course if required; the mark a great leader on a world stage, in my opinion. This said, Churchill describes his efforts to not be confrontational with his “Commander in Chief” Neville Chamberlain; a requisite step in becoming a world class leader, teacher in history, professor in journalism, and spokesperson for personal integrity on a world stage. He was appointed Prime Minister of England by the King on the day Germany invaded Belgium and Holland; not because of the invasion but because of Chamberlains resignation over the poor performance in Norway. His words spoken and written are a hallmark of great leaders worth reading from. Had we only listened in 1936?
Post Script: To draw an ominous parallel to today’s popular venue in Michael Moore’s film, I read in this book of two days prior to the German invasion of Norway, German officials invited the civilians of Oslo, including Western Allies to view a film reel of the capture of Warsaw. With the falling of the bombs the caption at the bottom of the screen read: “This if not for the hand of France and England”. It seems Moore is a student of Hitler. It is too bad our general population is one of “30 second sound bites” students as opposed to one of conscientious study of grave matters. We can be so easily duped. Like the Communists of France who denounced the war as “an imperialistic and capitalist crime against humanity”, there are those factions here in the United States who continue in those ways of the French. As much as I can say I enjoy French culture and would endorse a world of it, I have yet to read of French politics where there was not a selfish French end in mind, blind to the realities of the world.
Catch phrases
1. Death stands at attention, waiting the command to pulverize civilization.
2. Long his victim - for once his master.
3. The world lifted its head, surveyed the ruin
4. The vessel of peace has sprung a leak at every beam.
5. Of all this let history be the judge. We now face events.
6. The veils of the future are lifted one by one, and mortals must act from day to day.
7. Facts are better than dreams.
by Winston Churchill
The following poetic quote sums up the words on the pages of the age of ink press:
He who will not when he may
When he will, he shall have Nay
Churchill’s prose interpretation of the same:
“In this Twilight War…It was after France had been flattened out that Britain, thanks to her island advantage, developed out of the pangs of defeat and the menace of annihilation a national resolve equal to that of Germany.
I personally noted that it were those same pangs of defeat that gave Germany the resolve to rise up to the world in the way they did. In reading this remarkable account of history by a leader who was part of it makes you the reader in want to take decisive lesson from the time spent between the covers of this book. The following summarizes what I learned.
It has been claimed at dinner parties that Britain and France had been the policemen of Europe in the prelude of World War II. Churchill makes in plainly clear in this book that they were champions of appeasement and diplomatic folly. In his careful and colorful description of events, using excerpts of speeches, and correspondences, blended with dialogue; the reader becomes painfully aware that appeasement was simply a term used in the press to lull the citizens towards a false hope for peace. Rather, the reader becomes clearly appraised as to the miss-steps in diplomacy in the nature of French Richelieu’s balance of power. A diplomacy where France instead breaks her commitment of balance of power through failed obligation in defense of smaller nations in domino succession, leaving Poland as the last domino to fall coinciding with the outbreak. Britain simply followed suit, as there were no formal commitments to counter act the overwhelming call in the press for peace. In the end such folly rendered both policemen as accomplices to a world tragedy. Churchill writes that the tale was not about diplomacy aimed at national security guised as justice; it ended up being a fight for our lives.
While the copyright is 1948 Churchill claims many words published were actually written eighteen years earlier as a message to prevent what he calls the second conclusion of mankind. I took grave note that Britain and France' roles aside, Churchill makes clear that most of all the immense power and impartiality in the United States allowed conditions to be gradually led to the very climax that peace dreaded most. In 1948 he is certain to caution any notion that the United States should make the same mistake for a third convulsion from which none may live to tell the tale. In almost every strategic decision to prepare England and her allies for defense, Churchill found himself perplexed with the prevailing sentiment of defensive –v- offensive stratagem. Where you actually call the start of the war didn’t matter. For instance just before Hitler attacked Norway and France it was learned that Hitler planned to attack Norway to defend herself and as well, maintain the industrious raw material from Sweden. Churchill faced absolute refusal to land troops in Norway or supply bombers to an offensive plan of defense of the world. Churchill writes of a French communiqué from his interlocutor: “The president of the Republic himself had intervened and that no aggressive measure must be taken which might only draw reprisal upon France. “ He again writes his personal frustration of well laid offensive plans in the defense of his home land
“The idea of not irritating the enemy did not commend itself to me.”“
To help the reader comprehend such a grim summary view the beginning is a good place to start. Churchill spends a chapter describing how the German leadership began their rearmament as early as 1923 and could have been stopped with out the risk of a single life up to 1934. Even when he sounded the alarm in 1930, there were eight years to arrest the build up of which not only did the allies reject but they also proceeded to reduce their own militaries.
In describing Hitler, in immediate Post Great War, Churchill describes a man capable of rationalizing a hatred for Jews and Bolsheviks, not for any other reason than it was they who exploited the defeated German people. But Hitler found himself not alone as he discovered a party of people of the same mind. They held a defeated passionate hate for those who exploited them in a time of defeat. With the collapse of the German mark Hitler, the new leader of the National-Socialist Party, found hungry AND THUS EASY RECRUITS. A PARTY FOUNDED IN HATRED. While in prison in 1924, Hitler outlined Mien Kampf. A Hitler doctrine adopted by the German people that appeared to have its sole basis in nothing but hatred of anything not German. It was a doctrine that mandated men to fight for freedom, a word guised in supremacy. Ironically, freedom arrived at a cost of individuals surrendering ones mind to the Fuehrer. In Churchill’s chapter on Locusts the reader of twenty-o-four cannot help but draw an Ominous Parallel to current world situation, but also to a theory analyzed on Piekoff’s book Ominous Parallel.
It took more than a desperate people for Hitler to spring to power. It took the coalescence of military organizations bent on power. As they viewed each other as foes that could bring each other down against the political enemy, being communist Bolsheviks, they united in a fashion that brought down the Bruening Cabinet, thus creating a political vacuum. There existed a vacuum; not of ideas, but of a leader to execute on his ideas. It should be noted that while the elite palace leaders were in no way impressed with Hitler, 13,000,000 Germans were behind him. While Churchill does not address the philosophical foundation of the German mind he makes a case for opportunity for a leader to take advantage of a willing mind, for whatever reason. In essence it takes willing people, but a cacophony of political stratagem must also coincide for such a catastrophe of an elected Hitler leadership to occur. In a note on humility, Hitler’s predecessor Hindenberg once said that Hitler is suited for no more than Postmaster, "where he can lick stamps with my head on them".
Meanwhile in the course of European debate over weapons of war (WMD) Churchill gave his first warning to England of the eminent danger being sown in 1936. While Europe was disarming, Germany was ripe to rearm. Meanwhile British public opinion concluded that all doubts of a peaceful Germany should be cast aside. After the takeover of the Rhineland of which without a challenge Hitler assumed un- questionable authority over his Generals. All of Germany was succeeded in the easy gain of ground against its former adversaries, so divided and tame. There is no doubt that had His Majesty's Government chosen to act with firmness and resolve through thru League of Nations, they could have led a united Britain on a final quest to avert war. In 1939 Churchill writes
“in keeping with a 400 year history to avert a dominance by a dictator from any country We ought to set the life and endurance of the British Empire and the greatness of the this island very high in our duty, and not be led astray by illusions about an ideal world, which only means that other and worse controls will step into our place, and that future direction will belong to them.''
In a speech to the House of Commons Churchill said the credit of the Government has been compromised by what has occurred. The House has been consistently misled about the air-position. The Prime Minister himself has been misled. He was misled right up to the last moment, apparently. Look at the statement, which he made in March when he spoke about our armaments:
“The sight of this enormous, this almost terrifying power which Britain is building up has a sobering effect, a steadying effect, on the opinion of the world.”
When I compare the political debate surrounding National Defense of 1936-1938 and compare it to 2001-2004, I am again struck by the similarities. History will again decide if G.W. Bush made the correct strategic decisions in Iraq. The notion to bring Bush up for war crimes comes from minds not incapable of examining the multi layered landscape of issues with a focus on National Security. And thus with absence of personally formed bias our ill informed public opinion leaves our current world vulnerable to Churchill’s greatest fear. Back to the book review specifically Churchill’s views were opposite those of Baldwin and Chamberlain. Attack through diplomatic channels and then with arms were his messages. The measured results of Churchill’s time where an immediate World War with grave loss of life ensued, yet it’s conclusion drew an apparent beginning of lasting peace in Europe. That conclusion did not have to weigh so heavy a price on the world. Credit is given to leaders such as Churchill, Roosevelt & Truman, of WWII and then Reagan who pushed for the close of the Cold War. Can history be used to chart our future in twenty-o-four?
Some lessons are never learned; this one being harmony in leadership. In 1937 and in the midst Italian buildup Secretary of British Foreign Affairs Eden was knitting together a plan to ally France and England against Italy on submarine attacks. Of course there are a few dynamics to be noted that draw a parallel with slight departure in terms of role reversals to current events in 2004. At first it should be noted that Eden, Secretary of State was placed at odds with his Prime Minister, Chamberlain of who replaced Baldwin. He did his duty at odds with his cabinet in a Machiavellian setting and eventually was neutralized in Chamberlains circle. His course of action was to play a strong hand and tendered an offer to Mussolini that the powers of the Mediterranean will join together to sink all submarines as pirates and requested Italy’s participation. With firm resolve of a united front Mussolini agreed to enjoin in the anti pirate campaign, and suddenly his Italian subs refrained from sinking any more merchant ships. The outlook Churchill held as he encouraged Eden to continue in the face political headwinds he wrote
“Poor England! Leading her free, and careless life from day-to-day, amid careless good-tempered parliamentary babble, she followed, wondering, along the downward path which led to all she wanted to avoid, She was continuously reassured by the leading articles of the most influential newspapers, with some honorable exceptions, and behaved as if all the world were as easy, uncalculating and well-meaning as herself.”
He further writes:
“Mr. Roosevelt was indeed running great risks in his own domestic politics by deliberately involving the United States in the darkening European scene. All the forces of isolationism would have been aroused if any part of these exchanges had transpired. On the other hand, no event could have been more likely to stave off or even prevent war than the arrival of the United States in the circle of European hates and fears.”
Churchill’s following words damning Chamberlain’s decision to not accept Roosevelt’s offer must be left for the reader, who would by page 255 of the book be in a Churchill frame of mind to appreciate the gravity of Chamberlains mistake.
” I must remark here though there is at least on consistent parallel and that is the influence of the press to tilt an uniformed population with incomplete information, and the necessity of a press secretary to spin leadership policy against these winds. And we the people must vote a leader and allow him to lead with a willingness to view and seek out the complete story as opposed to submit to the whirlpool of partisan politics found in the press at the fate of National Security. “
Churchill’s story makes this ever clearer in my mind and puts me on the look out for Colin Powell’s book. I must personally say that I have making a case for clarity and thoroughness in reporting. As well I have been condemning those with a voice of hatred towards our leadership when I find them banking all their emotion on the whims of our American press. If only in the heat of debate could I remember such eloquent words?
I also learned that the Domino Theory that prevailed in the 50s and formulated a tenant of our involvement in Viet Nam becomes none too original when reading the succession of events in the late 1930s where England and France, mishandled their “world policemen” obligations. France was bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia in the case of invasion by Germany. England had no such obligation. However without the commitment of one or the other, neither would defend Czechoslovakia over the Hitler proclaimed issues of the Sudentland area of German speaking Czechs. To this extend a French envoy to the Czechoslovakia government since 1925 resigned and became a Czech citizen when he heard of the folly of the French and Brits over Czechoslovakia. “Honor among men existed somewhere.” Were Churchill’s words. Underpinning the whole situation was a bent towards world peace through disarmament against a world axis menace of Germany, Japan, and to a lesser degree Italy. As a student I remember the film reels of Neville Chamberlain boarding tail-dragger planes of DC3 form, in his last ditch attempt of diplomacy with the Fuehrer. In the letters between all parties, held within the pages of this book, and Churchill’s description, the reader clearly becomes aware, how innocent and ill-informed leaders can play the wrong cards in the high stakes game of world dominance of that time. Chamberlains trip to Berchtesgaden proved to be a pinnacle mistake in diplomacy. Churchill in my opinion describing the events makes a clear case for a strong hand i.e.: T.Rex “speak softly and carry a big stick” or Ronald Reagan’s clear stand with Gorbechov in Reykjavik and then Berlin. Churchill in his book asks for history to be the judge of diplomacy’s hand. When I read of Carters handling of Iranian affairs in 1979 along with Chamberlain Berchtesgaden in contrast to Reagan and Bush(s), I must again stand behind a leader who plays a strong hand in matters of National Security, at high sacrifice to world opinion or ACLU protests of encroachment upon civil liberties. Both are a small price to pay for inalienable rights of freedom. I fully appreciate that there is a difference and a hierarchy between and within the two.
The most striking “news to me’ was to read of the high ranking German Generals plot to arrest Hitler and his leadership just prior to Chamberlains lack luster attempts at diplomacy. Churchill’s conclusive words are most appropriate at this point:
“If it should eventually be accepted as historical truth, it will be another example of the very small accidents upon which the fortunes of mankind turn.”
I am quickly reminded of Jimmy Carters week-handed diplomacy that was followed two days later of the capture of the American embassy in Iran. If only fate fell into the hands of stronger leaders?
In the aftermath of the Czechoslovakia invasions and the prelude of Poland and Albania by Germany and Italy respectively, Churchill continues to detail the errant decisions carried out in diplomatic relations; not only with his allies but also with his adversaries. The familiar phrase of appeasement becomes clearly understood, in terms of miscalculations, by the emotional words of Churchill standing in the wings waiting his turn to lead. His words towards Neville Chamberlain are typically British, as he allows history to redress Chamberlains leadership into disaster.
Coincidently mentioned but not delved into in this book was the quality of intelligence available to Chamberlain. Churchill claims a superior level of intelligence, and questions Chamberlains and the British Admiralty lack of preparedness against Mussolini’s invasion of Albanian. Ciano, a cabinet member of Mussolini, writes these British are not those of Drake, they are tired old rich men. As I listen to John Kerry not knowing hunger and the Democratic candidate of Presidency of 2004. He who claims he would have gotten up from a school room and done something on the morning of 911, without specifying what he would have done, gives me reason to draw a parallel to Chamberlain; rich men compelled to say I’m in charge and make decisions without trusting the service of his administration and his advisors. Churchill paints an emotional picture of failed diplomacy when placed in the hands of a leader with a self-centered leadership, bent on decision-making in a closet. Perhaps this could be a lesson in history.
As the book transitions from the sad tale of failed diplomacy to a declaration of war, Churchill describes his feelings upon inspecting the naval positions in Scotland as the reappointed Minister of the Admiralty, a position he once held in the onset of the Great War. He first writes a short poem reflecting his reaction to a new generation of crew placed upon the same ships of a previous war. It goes like this:
I feel like one
Who treads alone,
Some banquet hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all but he departed.
After reading of the failed preparations at cost of appeasement, Churchill while having a picnic lunch on a hill overlooking a Scottish harbor writes:
“Poland is in agony; France but a pale reflection of her warlike ardour; the Russians Colossus no longer and ally, not even neutral, possibly a foe, Italy no friend, Japan no ally. Would America ever come in again? The British Empire remained intact gloriously united but ill prepared.”
I was struck in reading these words written by a man who was placed in political exile for many a year, waved his flag of alarm to a deaf ear of England, and could place claim on a gloriously united spirit of his countrymen. I am struck by what it took to unite England, as it was not Churchill’s flag waiving. And then I am awe-struck at Churchill’s immediate gratification to be once again in a position to defend his fellow man. Churchill is immediately forgiving of his fellow mans penchant for peace at any cost. In a prefect world it is the higher road. In a real world of 1930 thru 1939, 1991 thru 2004 history proved that perfection was yet to be met.
As the story plunges deeper into the reality of war, the Cabinet officials were busy consuming themselves with the affairs of their own offices and vying for priority with the Prime Minister. Churchill spends a chapter describing his private letters to key officials, putting forward his concerns, recommendations and commitment for support. What Churchill had in his favor were actual experience in many posts of government, a continued study of the government while in 10 years exile, and as sense of raising above any grudge with an aim of National Defense in a headwind of war. The lessons in diplomacy on paper are well worth reading to glean the art of apprising your friend of unsolicited advice. This nature of diplomacy at an individual level is in my opinion a tenant of his countrymen’s call for his Prime leadership.
With Poland in ruins, the Baltic States parlayed to the Soviet Union, Churchill describes the strategy and diplomacy in building the defensive lines along it Belgian frontier. Herein, Churchill describes two tenants of diplomacy finding them tangled in military strategy. The first tenant is quite simple and basically prescribes that no military strategy involving the occupation of Belgian soil in the defense of France could be permitted without Belgian approval. As no approval came forth, plan B was quickly acquiesced to with no hard insistence by either party to Belgium for a plan of mutual benefit. One could easily draw a parallel to the Cambodian circumstance along the Ho Chi Min Trail question and find that world standards caused extreme compromise on a military battlefield. The questions placed upon our leaders are far more complicated than the average bear comprehends. And in too many cases our journalists as simply average bears. Second tenant was the military question of success of attack -v- defend, being argued largely by diplomats as opposed to military strategists. While history at that time proves that attacking leaves one in a more vulnerable position in terms of battlefield and supply lines, Hitler defied history as his Armies broke through the Allied lines on the Belgium frontier and proved that attack can be done while defending ones self. Churchill simply notes that Germany was first to put heavy plates of armor in vehicles. This lesson seems to have been over looked in 2004 by the greatest military planners in man kind.
The combination of the two issues draws into question preemptive attack, which is as a popular question today as it might well have been in 1961 with regard to the Cuban missile crisis. When war is eminent not in terms of days but years, building a case for preemptive action as a defense seems plausible, as Churchill makes clear. However on a world stage of hundreds of countries, this leaves the country of preeminence vulnerable to technical objection reverberated into a frenzy of biased views and exacerbated by journalist. The real questions may be when do the people entrust in our leaders, elected via due process and allow them unabated, but questioned execution of a plan. Churchill’s history makes it clear that the challenge for a unanimous world coalition in the winds of the minority objectors requires a strong leader to stay a course in National Defense, regardless of the popular view.
With regard to making strategic war decisions involving small countries soil, Churchill is mindful of international law but willing to abrogate to the laws of humanity, and allow history to be his judge. Here is a man willing to chart a new course if required; the mark a great leader on a world stage, in my opinion. This said, Churchill describes his efforts to not be confrontational with his “Commander in Chief” Neville Chamberlain; a requisite step in becoming a world class leader, teacher in history, professor in journalism, and spokesperson for personal integrity on a world stage. He was appointed Prime Minister of England by the King on the day Germany invaded Belgium and Holland; not because of the invasion but because of Chamberlains resignation over the poor performance in Norway. His words spoken and written are a hallmark of great leaders worth reading from. Had we only listened in 1936?
Post Script: To draw an ominous parallel to today’s popular venue in Michael Moore’s film, I read in this book of two days prior to the German invasion of Norway, German officials invited the civilians of Oslo, including Western Allies to view a film reel of the capture of Warsaw. With the falling of the bombs the caption at the bottom of the screen read: “This if not for the hand of France and England”. It seems Moore is a student of Hitler. It is too bad our general population is one of “30 second sound bites” students as opposed to one of conscientious study of grave matters. We can be so easily duped. Like the Communists of France who denounced the war as “an imperialistic and capitalist crime against humanity”, there are those factions here in the United States who continue in those ways of the French. As much as I can say I enjoy French culture and would endorse a world of it, I have yet to read of French politics where there was not a selfish French end in mind, blind to the realities of the world.
Catch phrases
1. Death stands at attention, waiting the command to pulverize civilization.
2. Long his victim - for once his master.
3. The world lifted its head, surveyed the ruin
4. The vessel of peace has sprung a leak at every beam.
5. Of all this let history be the judge. We now face events.
6. The veils of the future are lifted one by one, and mortals must act from day to day.
7. Facts are better than dreams.
The Traveler’s Gift
The Traveler’s Gift
By Andy Andrews
This book was a gift from the Bama. She had mentioned that it was one of Carrie’s favorite books of late, so I put it on my birthday book list. Thank-you Bama, and thank-you Carrie for the inspiration to read it. The book is an enjoyable quick read, mainly because it does an entertaining job of conveying seven virtues for success that man should subscribe to. The physical book I read actually has a coincidental story to it. It was actually a traveling book, as I read it on a flight from Dayton to Denver. I left it behind me first at the ticket counter, then on the plane in Detroit, then in the restaurant in Detroit. It now lay on the coffee table here in my bachelors’ apartment in Denver. The book was as adventuresome as the story.
As there are many “step” books to particular goals, this book took an interesting twist off of the old Scrooge story in a Christmas Carol. Instead of three ghosts there were seven famous people from the past as teachers of the seven lessons for success. Being that the famous people were world leaders, with one exception, the lessons takes a fable style tone and applies significance not only to man the individual, but man the society. Hence one could consider Andy Andrews a reincarnation of Aesop.
Like Christmas Carol’s final chapter, the time traveler David Ponder in this book, similar to Scrooges dreams, finds himself in the future; a future where the results of his goals and aspirations are realized; with a vision that motivates him towards success. The book contains three elements for its own success. First are seven lessons, worth being reminded of. Second the pages are strewn with catch phrases worth committing to ones oratory library. Third you catch a bit of historic trivia that helps bring life to the catalogue of facts forced upon ones academic life. All three hit a Home Run with me as I turned the last page and closed the covers, coincidently at the same time the wheels touched down in Denver.
I invite you to read the book, internalize the lessons as prescribed and for fun go back and find your favorite metaphor. If one has read my previous reviews and remembers, I set a goal this year to discover through reading where man lost his sense of self responsibility. History taught me that there has been an evolution perpetuated by the philosophers of the 1800’s and their influence crept into our schools before finally they faded into oblivion. History and literature has also taught me this year that through tragedy man does triumph over societies drawn into dependency. In tragedy as portrayed in this book, you discover the lessons of self reliance. I have a sister who has mastered this world on her own in silence; in more ways than one. She now teaches youngsters how to do the same. Once you appreciate this fact with the aid of this book, you can then help mankind. Share it with those you love. Thank you Carrie for your recommendation, thank-you mom for the Travelers Gift.
If I associate with chickens; I will learn to scratch at the ground and squabble over crumbs. If I associate with eagles, I will learn to soar to great heights.
By Andy Andrews
This book was a gift from the Bama. She had mentioned that it was one of Carrie’s favorite books of late, so I put it on my birthday book list. Thank-you Bama, and thank-you Carrie for the inspiration to read it. The book is an enjoyable quick read, mainly because it does an entertaining job of conveying seven virtues for success that man should subscribe to. The physical book I read actually has a coincidental story to it. It was actually a traveling book, as I read it on a flight from Dayton to Denver. I left it behind me first at the ticket counter, then on the plane in Detroit, then in the restaurant in Detroit. It now lay on the coffee table here in my bachelors’ apartment in Denver. The book was as adventuresome as the story.
As there are many “step” books to particular goals, this book took an interesting twist off of the old Scrooge story in a Christmas Carol. Instead of three ghosts there were seven famous people from the past as teachers of the seven lessons for success. Being that the famous people were world leaders, with one exception, the lessons takes a fable style tone and applies significance not only to man the individual, but man the society. Hence one could consider Andy Andrews a reincarnation of Aesop.
Like Christmas Carol’s final chapter, the time traveler David Ponder in this book, similar to Scrooges dreams, finds himself in the future; a future where the results of his goals and aspirations are realized; with a vision that motivates him towards success. The book contains three elements for its own success. First are seven lessons, worth being reminded of. Second the pages are strewn with catch phrases worth committing to ones oratory library. Third you catch a bit of historic trivia that helps bring life to the catalogue of facts forced upon ones academic life. All three hit a Home Run with me as I turned the last page and closed the covers, coincidently at the same time the wheels touched down in Denver.
I invite you to read the book, internalize the lessons as prescribed and for fun go back and find your favorite metaphor. If one has read my previous reviews and remembers, I set a goal this year to discover through reading where man lost his sense of self responsibility. History taught me that there has been an evolution perpetuated by the philosophers of the 1800’s and their influence crept into our schools before finally they faded into oblivion. History and literature has also taught me this year that through tragedy man does triumph over societies drawn into dependency. In tragedy as portrayed in this book, you discover the lessons of self reliance. I have a sister who has mastered this world on her own in silence; in more ways than one. She now teaches youngsters how to do the same. Once you appreciate this fact with the aid of this book, you can then help mankind. Share it with those you love. Thank you Carrie for your recommendation, thank-you mom for the Travelers Gift.
If I associate with chickens; I will learn to scratch at the ground and squabble over crumbs. If I associate with eagles, I will learn to soar to great heights.
Self Relianceance
Self Reliance
an essay by R. W. Emerson
When I am not working, which I do too much of; In my private time here in Colorado, of which I have a lot of, I hike, bike ride, play my banjo, read, and write a poem or two. Well after reading Sir Emersons essay on Self reliance, another foray into bridiging the gap from todays man to the years of Splended Isolation, I write this review in verse. If you do't get it, go read Emerson. He is a little better than I.
The Bounce
By Paul Murphy
To breathe upon man this cacophony of nature
All of this world, winds of thought succeed
Upon rolling seas pitch his emotional character
The mathematical painting of stars, his reason proceeds
Upon unpredictable footing of shifting sands
The murmur of society, forming critique in defense
A commotion; command of his King to take a stand
The whisper of his God, where truth needs no evidence
They descend upon his mind, a prime faculty of man
An order to be deciphered his Will to survive
His Reason places them in order, rationale in command
For this moment a reflection; is his world contrived?
From bottom to top Spartans energy applied
From left to right on sunrise horizons unfold
From inside to outside his dreams yearn for truth; belie
His to transmit this reason, he is a man of this world
Tis his Nature to allow Reason to bounce off his soul
Sprung lose from humanity, blows his imagination
Introducing faith into his being, is a prophet told?
Intuitionists wind conquers a challenge from institutions
A symphony, his originality to exhale upon his dominion
To hold out for the self reliance of the next man endure
And save us from the shackles of social oblivion
His breath be the wind in the sails of our destiny, a cure
an essay by R. W. Emerson
When I am not working, which I do too much of; In my private time here in Colorado, of which I have a lot of, I hike, bike ride, play my banjo, read, and write a poem or two. Well after reading Sir Emersons essay on Self reliance, another foray into bridiging the gap from todays man to the years of Splended Isolation, I write this review in verse. If you do't get it, go read Emerson. He is a little better than I.
The Bounce
By Paul Murphy
To breathe upon man this cacophony of nature
All of this world, winds of thought succeed
Upon rolling seas pitch his emotional character
The mathematical painting of stars, his reason proceeds
Upon unpredictable footing of shifting sands
The murmur of society, forming critique in defense
A commotion; command of his King to take a stand
The whisper of his God, where truth needs no evidence
They descend upon his mind, a prime faculty of man
An order to be deciphered his Will to survive
His Reason places them in order, rationale in command
For this moment a reflection; is his world contrived?
From bottom to top Spartans energy applied
From left to right on sunrise horizons unfold
From inside to outside his dreams yearn for truth; belie
His to transmit this reason, he is a man of this world
Tis his Nature to allow Reason to bounce off his soul
Sprung lose from humanity, blows his imagination
Introducing faith into his being, is a prophet told?
Intuitionists wind conquers a challenge from institutions
A symphony, his originality to exhale upon his dominion
To hold out for the self reliance of the next man endure
And save us from the shackles of social oblivion
His breath be the wind in the sails of our destiny, a cure
Prime Movers
Prime Movers
By Edwin Locke
I pulled this book from the TJ Murphy Library and suspect that it will be the last of my 2004 quest for enlightenment and distinguishing characteristics of a self reliant man. Edward Locke is a Deans Professor of Leadership and Motivation at the Robert H Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. To pull this book together Locke used his student’s research papers on heroes in business. Rather than focus on the hero, Locke focuses on common traits of a few known heroes. He delineates a set of traits and then correlates each to a few business heroes to give life into the trait. Coincidently, Locke narrows his field of traits down to seven; the same number of “Decisions for Success” that I just read in Andy Andrews’ book Travelers Gift. Albeit the authors come for different schools of thought, both books use heroes to prompt one to think and get focused on self reliance and equates to a term that holds out until the end of this review.
The Prime Movers
1 Independent vision
2. An active mind
3. Competence and confidence
4. The drive to action
5 Egoistic passion
6. Love of ability in others
7. Virtue
The Travelers Gift
1. I am responsible for my success
2. I will listen to counsel of wise men
3. I am a person of action
4. I have a decided heart
5. I choose to be happy
6. I will greet this day with a forgiving spirit
7. I will persist without exception
On the first ingredient from the above recipe both authors describe a solitary man where the critical decisions come with a sense of loneliness. The degree for which one can maintain his or her independent mind and ground it in fact, will determine how close you come to being a Prime Mover like Carnegie, Morgan, Ford, Rockefeller, Edison, and Truman. Locke puts forth the assertion that vision is essential to creating wealth. He also maintains that effective communication of ones vision is essential to being a Prime Mover.
The operative words relative to an active mind are volition, reality, and intuition. Thought is not automatic and disciplined thought requires a person to balance new ideas in reality to prove a practical application. An active mind and being a person of action both call for one to initiate the thought and give it sustenance. Locke spends time putting a character to this process.
Competence and confidence will enable a decided heart or vice-versa. Once you make the decision to succeed in business, your natural skills to create something from nothing and find practical application expand. With that expansion your knowledge base and skill set grows and thus expanding your confidence. The difference between Prime Movers and Non Prime Movers is the latter (1) cannot acquire a high skill level of knowledge, or (2) acquire a high level of skill and knowledge but fail to recognize what they do not know, or (3) possess knowledge and skill but fail to act on them. Knowledge and foresight must be combined with motive power. Not being a Prime Mover does not make one unsuccessful.
A drive to action may begin with an affirmation to be a person of action. It is important that the action be properly placed and ceased when it is time. My favorite character used in the book was my old boss Jack Welch. And yes we were branded with the four “E”. They are energy, the ability to energize others; the edge to make tough decisions and execution to do more than simply decide to do something.
Egoistic passion is probably the hardest concept for folks to get. I would suspect that egotistic is the overshadowing cousin to egoistic. The egotistic person would be found making an impression by living life large and following trends set by others. The egotistic person will soon meet is doom when the leaders he is secretly following desert him without a clue. Making an impression without attending to the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, independence, and justice, is the difference gone unnoticed; hence the demise of the egotistic person and his egotistic witnesses. The actual meaning of egoism is concern for one’s own interest with a responsibility towards moral virtues. True egoists are selfish in that they look at facts and use reason, not whim to make decisions. And yes the decisions are rationally in their interests. By definition, Egoists are champions of fare exchange of value.
I would surmise that egoism is the centerpiece of this book in a helpful and challenging way. Locke tells tale of great Prime Movers who passionately pursued ideas of their own original mind and drove multitudes of work force towards success. The net result was an economy better off than before the Prime Mover. The result was wealth in multiple venues by a multitude of people. The perception of that multitude upon the subject Prime Mover trends that he must be an egotistical bastard who hoards all his money. Never mind the value brought to society or individual man.
“Love of ability in others” and “I will listen to counsel of wise men” line up upon a common axiom. That being “no man is an island”. This chapter, coming right after egoistic passion gives evidence that Locke clearly recognizes the reality of society. What I find unique about a Prime Mover is that he does not cry about those who do not contribute. He simply moves on to the next person to put on his team. He surrounds himself with winners as opposed to loser. Hence as rational would go; if you’re not on a team could you be egotistic?
Locke quotes Ayn Rand often in his book. I believe the following from the character, John Gault in Atlas Shrugged, allows both Prime Movers and Travelers Choice to sit in the same library. “Virtue is not and end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue – and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.” It is worth taking a moment as Locke does in the book to examine life without these Prime Movers. Of course it is not a destiny meant for all. That message is vested in the title of the book. Could one simply say “Prime Movers” and then call role for those that match the description; so that we could all take a moment and say thank-you? The book is indeed about success where success is measured in making money or in a broader view creating wealth. To appreciate this one must let go, of his egotistic penchant towards blaming his or her failure on those who have succeeded in bringing wealth to our society, and begin looking for the Prime Mover traits within. Money is only expressions of success…get a hold of your ego, flip a coin and express yourself.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
By Edwin Locke
I pulled this book from the TJ Murphy Library and suspect that it will be the last of my 2004 quest for enlightenment and distinguishing characteristics of a self reliant man. Edward Locke is a Deans Professor of Leadership and Motivation at the Robert H Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. To pull this book together Locke used his student’s research papers on heroes in business. Rather than focus on the hero, Locke focuses on common traits of a few known heroes. He delineates a set of traits and then correlates each to a few business heroes to give life into the trait. Coincidently, Locke narrows his field of traits down to seven; the same number of “Decisions for Success” that I just read in Andy Andrews’ book Travelers Gift. Albeit the authors come for different schools of thought, both books use heroes to prompt one to think and get focused on self reliance and equates to a term that holds out until the end of this review.
The Prime Movers
1 Independent vision
2. An active mind
3. Competence and confidence
4. The drive to action
5 Egoistic passion
6. Love of ability in others
7. Virtue
The Travelers Gift
1. I am responsible for my success
2. I will listen to counsel of wise men
3. I am a person of action
4. I have a decided heart
5. I choose to be happy
6. I will greet this day with a forgiving spirit
7. I will persist without exception
On the first ingredient from the above recipe both authors describe a solitary man where the critical decisions come with a sense of loneliness. The degree for which one can maintain his or her independent mind and ground it in fact, will determine how close you come to being a Prime Mover like Carnegie, Morgan, Ford, Rockefeller, Edison, and Truman. Locke puts forth the assertion that vision is essential to creating wealth. He also maintains that effective communication of ones vision is essential to being a Prime Mover.
The operative words relative to an active mind are volition, reality, and intuition. Thought is not automatic and disciplined thought requires a person to balance new ideas in reality to prove a practical application. An active mind and being a person of action both call for one to initiate the thought and give it sustenance. Locke spends time putting a character to this process.
Competence and confidence will enable a decided heart or vice-versa. Once you make the decision to succeed in business, your natural skills to create something from nothing and find practical application expand. With that expansion your knowledge base and skill set grows and thus expanding your confidence. The difference between Prime Movers and Non Prime Movers is the latter (1) cannot acquire a high skill level of knowledge, or (2) acquire a high level of skill and knowledge but fail to recognize what they do not know, or (3) possess knowledge and skill but fail to act on them. Knowledge and foresight must be combined with motive power. Not being a Prime Mover does not make one unsuccessful.
A drive to action may begin with an affirmation to be a person of action. It is important that the action be properly placed and ceased when it is time. My favorite character used in the book was my old boss Jack Welch. And yes we were branded with the four “E”. They are energy, the ability to energize others; the edge to make tough decisions and execution to do more than simply decide to do something.
Egoistic passion is probably the hardest concept for folks to get. I would suspect that egotistic is the overshadowing cousin to egoistic. The egotistic person would be found making an impression by living life large and following trends set by others. The egotistic person will soon meet is doom when the leaders he is secretly following desert him without a clue. Making an impression without attending to the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, independence, and justice, is the difference gone unnoticed; hence the demise of the egotistic person and his egotistic witnesses. The actual meaning of egoism is concern for one’s own interest with a responsibility towards moral virtues. True egoists are selfish in that they look at facts and use reason, not whim to make decisions. And yes the decisions are rationally in their interests. By definition, Egoists are champions of fare exchange of value.
I would surmise that egoism is the centerpiece of this book in a helpful and challenging way. Locke tells tale of great Prime Movers who passionately pursued ideas of their own original mind and drove multitudes of work force towards success. The net result was an economy better off than before the Prime Mover. The result was wealth in multiple venues by a multitude of people. The perception of that multitude upon the subject Prime Mover trends that he must be an egotistical bastard who hoards all his money. Never mind the value brought to society or individual man.
“Love of ability in others” and “I will listen to counsel of wise men” line up upon a common axiom. That being “no man is an island”. This chapter, coming right after egoistic passion gives evidence that Locke clearly recognizes the reality of society. What I find unique about a Prime Mover is that he does not cry about those who do not contribute. He simply moves on to the next person to put on his team. He surrounds himself with winners as opposed to loser. Hence as rational would go; if you’re not on a team could you be egotistic?
Locke quotes Ayn Rand often in his book. I believe the following from the character, John Gault in Atlas Shrugged, allows both Prime Movers and Travelers Choice to sit in the same library. “Virtue is not and end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue – and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.” It is worth taking a moment as Locke does in the book to examine life without these Prime Movers. Of course it is not a destiny meant for all. That message is vested in the title of the book. Could one simply say “Prime Movers” and then call role for those that match the description; so that we could all take a moment and say thank-you? The book is indeed about success where success is measured in making money or in a broader view creating wealth. To appreciate this one must let go, of his egotistic penchant towards blaming his or her failure on those who have succeeded in bringing wealth to our society, and begin looking for the Prime Mover traits within. Money is only expressions of success…get a hold of your ego, flip a coin and express yourself.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ask not what your country can do for you
Kahlil Gibran
Approximately 1915
Ask not what your country can do for you,
But ask what you can do for your country
This phrase is imbedded in an article titled the “New Deal” or “The New Frontier”, depending on your translation from Arabic to English. The article was directed to the people of the Middle East. In summary Gibran in is poetic-prose style draws a distinction between the “old ideas” giving way through “an awakening that defies slumber” Gibran uses numerous roles in society to describe the character of the “old” in contrast with the character of the “new”. Dryly put, the old is a corrupt character capable of deceit for self serving ends. The new is a person who recognizes himself as while a complete individual he is an integral part of society.
I must say in having read Gibran’s collection, I am putting a lot of stock in his one word “integrity” to assume he means a complete individual capable of self reliance. It may be an over assumption on my part, as I always look for the good in man and that good to include a tendency to look out for himself first. Nested in this article and unlike much of his other work he actually uses the word profit (not prophet) in the context of wealth entitled to a hard working individual.
I can also raise this question, in reflecting on this article and then back upon the words written by Sir T. Lawrence in his book Lawrence of Arabia; 700 pages of description of a sun baked land and a people of primitive social awareness; I contrast this with the paradigm I have held for a long time about the great Ottoman Empire and all its great contributions to civilization. I ask my self did this civilization; recorded in history, leave out its people?
And finally is J.F. Kennedy simply well read?
Approximately 1915
Ask not what your country can do for you,
But ask what you can do for your country
This phrase is imbedded in an article titled the “New Deal” or “The New Frontier”, depending on your translation from Arabic to English. The article was directed to the people of the Middle East. In summary Gibran in is poetic-prose style draws a distinction between the “old ideas” giving way through “an awakening that defies slumber” Gibran uses numerous roles in society to describe the character of the “old” in contrast with the character of the “new”. Dryly put, the old is a corrupt character capable of deceit for self serving ends. The new is a person who recognizes himself as while a complete individual he is an integral part of society.
I must say in having read Gibran’s collection, I am putting a lot of stock in his one word “integrity” to assume he means a complete individual capable of self reliance. It may be an over assumption on my part, as I always look for the good in man and that good to include a tendency to look out for himself first. Nested in this article and unlike much of his other work he actually uses the word profit (not prophet) in the context of wealth entitled to a hard working individual.
I can also raise this question, in reflecting on this article and then back upon the words written by Sir T. Lawrence in his book Lawrence of Arabia; 700 pages of description of a sun baked land and a people of primitive social awareness; I contrast this with the paradigm I have held for a long time about the great Ottoman Empire and all its great contributions to civilization. I ask my self did this civilization; recorded in history, leave out its people?
And finally is J.F. Kennedy simply well read?
Four Quartets
Four Quartets
By TS Eliot
In this collection of poems T.S. Eliot does a splendid job of putting your mind in a position of nothingness and at the same time a space of everything ness. His balance in word selection allows the reader to define the edge between the two and therefore agreement can only be at hand. This is until one reader conveys to the next reader his or her interpretation of Eliot’s verse; which may give a compelling argument to read this book after you have read “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus”. Hence as in many arguments you likely find fundamental agreement in intent but dispute and discord over method. What for?
Of the four my favorite poem is The Dry Salvages. It may be that simple as my mind works on a rationale train, this is the least abstract of the collection. The message I received from this poem took on a theme of humanity, using the metaphor of water. Water being a river, an ocean, a fog or, the transition of each to the other. My penchant for sailing and a wager with the wind may have had me receptive of this poem, but the particular stanza that captured my attention was that of a shifting perspective found with experience, a code word for age.
I like to quote a book where it appropriately conveys my interpretation. In concert with the author of the book my authorship of a review depicts the intersection of two lines of thought. The following quote captured my mind to the extent that at times and now and again into the future it has me reflecting back. And rethinking deeper and deeper; poetry as a catalyst of thought. Thought where opposition gets to live with itself. Going in to Thanksgiving there is a divine coincidence that I just read it and now share this with you.
“The moments of happiness - not the sense of well-being,
Fruition, fulfillment, security or affection,
Or even a vary good dinner, but the sudden illumination-
We had the experience but missed the meaning,
And approach to the meaning restores the experience
In a different form, beyond any meaning
We can assign to happiness. I have said before
That the past experience revived in the meaning
Is not the experience of one life only…”
While one hand washes the other in the present, beginning with ones own ability to tend to his or her own needs, and then to each other; they also reach out towards the past and then to the future. The poem uses characteristics of water, a grounded point in nature as a natural law, as an agent to demonstrate the reality of our human experience. Water shapes our environment in present and over the ages as well. It is the majority of our inner and outer physical composition. Whether you are working against the water or working with or within it, we are all of it, shaping each other. If those hands for and those hands against would reach out to each other in the context of the majority of our physical composition, could we not find peace, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; for sake of each other’s water? Something we should be thankful for.
This book will win the war with your television. With it, you will once again find yourself staring across the room, into the starry night, across the water, or into the mountains; in thought.
By TS Eliot
In this collection of poems T.S. Eliot does a splendid job of putting your mind in a position of nothingness and at the same time a space of everything ness. His balance in word selection allows the reader to define the edge between the two and therefore agreement can only be at hand. This is until one reader conveys to the next reader his or her interpretation of Eliot’s verse; which may give a compelling argument to read this book after you have read “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus”. Hence as in many arguments you likely find fundamental agreement in intent but dispute and discord over method. What for?
Of the four my favorite poem is The Dry Salvages. It may be that simple as my mind works on a rationale train, this is the least abstract of the collection. The message I received from this poem took on a theme of humanity, using the metaphor of water. Water being a river, an ocean, a fog or, the transition of each to the other. My penchant for sailing and a wager with the wind may have had me receptive of this poem, but the particular stanza that captured my attention was that of a shifting perspective found with experience, a code word for age.
I like to quote a book where it appropriately conveys my interpretation. In concert with the author of the book my authorship of a review depicts the intersection of two lines of thought. The following quote captured my mind to the extent that at times and now and again into the future it has me reflecting back. And rethinking deeper and deeper; poetry as a catalyst of thought. Thought where opposition gets to live with itself. Going in to Thanksgiving there is a divine coincidence that I just read it and now share this with you.
“The moments of happiness - not the sense of well-being,
Fruition, fulfillment, security or affection,
Or even a vary good dinner, but the sudden illumination-
We had the experience but missed the meaning,
And approach to the meaning restores the experience
In a different form, beyond any meaning
We can assign to happiness. I have said before
That the past experience revived in the meaning
Is not the experience of one life only…”
While one hand washes the other in the present, beginning with ones own ability to tend to his or her own needs, and then to each other; they also reach out towards the past and then to the future. The poem uses characteristics of water, a grounded point in nature as a natural law, as an agent to demonstrate the reality of our human experience. Water shapes our environment in present and over the ages as well. It is the majority of our inner and outer physical composition. Whether you are working against the water or working with or within it, we are all of it, shaping each other. If those hands for and those hands against would reach out to each other in the context of the majority of our physical composition, could we not find peace, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; for sake of each other’s water? Something we should be thankful for.
This book will win the war with your television. With it, you will once again find yourself staring across the room, into the starry night, across the water, or into the mountains; in thought.
Incredible Carnegie
Incredible Carnegie
By John K. Winkler
How do you know Andrew Carnegie? By his famous music hall, his libraries, his famous steel fortune, his endowments, or the controversy over who he was? Did he fall into the infamous category of the Great Robber Barons? Did he indeed turn a new leaf? Or was he a simply true to his word and core beliefs? What is his legacy and what is his genius? I picked up this book, simply because it was on my bookshelf. As I delved into it I learned about Andrew Carnegie, as he was viewed in 1931, the original copyright date of this 50¢ used bookstore diamond in the rough; the earnest work of my son TJ. It was an entertaining story.
Andrew Carnegie was not born with a silver spoon, rather of an immigrant Scot and son of a weaver. He was a small 5’4” persistent, witty, opportunistic capitalist who begin his road to riches in Pittsburgh as a telegraph operator at the age of thirteen. He worked hard as a lad of which earned him early rank in his telegraph years and then again to higher rank in his railroad years. At an early age, he taught himself the art of investments and pledged to himself to not have to work for a wage by the time he reached the age of 35. This amongst other lofty goals he did achieve. So you could read the above descriptive words of Carnegie as either adjectives or verbs towards his ideals.
Carnegie’s character of fate seemed to place him constantly in the right place at the right time. As head of the telegraph office he was at the crossroads of important information being transmitted and took advantage of every word. One could possibly accuse him in this day of “insider trading”, as he did invest on this information. He leveraged the returns of his early investments to make larger investments. He eventually found himself as the arbitrator in many disputes of the then “pig iron” industry, which eventually found his name on company paper in the Iron Business.
As a matter of conservative policy Carnegie never speculated thus held off on investing into the Bessemer Furnace and the discovery of mass production steel until he was certain of its return on investment. Carnegie knew nothing of the steel making process. But he did know how to put the right people from capitalist, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs to laborers, on his team and put his money in the game exactly when the technology and the economy were prepared to make something of it. And when you were on his team, you produced or left. His shrewd business demeanor teaches one to demand in writing that of which is spoken. So I came to appreciate the labor of my Uncle Jimmy and my nephew Brian as I read the book. You come to realize how closely knitted are the worlds of economics and philosophy (politics) …law.
As a side note to Carnegies methodology, I also was intrigued to read about the government policy’s of the time and it’s role in intervening in business by passing laws in the United States allowing for Limited Liability Partnerships giving capitalists for the first time protection of their private interests against poor money management. The book describes the second collapse of the post Civil War economy as result of the collapse a Prime bank in 1870, Carnegie’s fortune became at risk due to the unbeknownst speculative investments of one of his associates. On the associates’ promise to temporarily surrender his share of their enterprise, Carnegie took action to secure the associates’ name in a reciprocal promise to assume to assume the bad debt. Once the associates name was cleared Carnegie did not restore his associate’s fortunes on the grounds that the promise he made was not in writing. This is one of the incidences that put the integrity and moral standards of Carnegie on social trial.
There are those that would say that Carnegie was out of order and treated his associate unfairly. And to this point you could debate in behalf of Carnegie on the grounds of the poor speculative investment of one person deserved first evasive action in business, second protective action, and then third control measures, independent of a government policy. Yet in the end Carnegie did ironically take advantage of the LLC Laws and conducted business accordingly. To think there was an opportunity to rewrite Wharton’s business textbooks as opposed to getting on a slippery slope of governmental protectionism…and we missed it!
The authors perspective of the Carnegie Steel Company was summed up in one word; feudalism. The company literally owned the ore mines in Minnesota, shipping lanes on the Great Lakes, the railroads across Pennsylvania, and the Coke and Steel companies; a conglomerate of everything steel and the whole process of making it; what a way to control cost. It was written in 1931; “This arrogant, mercurial little Kaiser was jealous of his rights, impatient of counsel.” Carnegie owned the Steel business, and had President Cleveland in his pocket, writing tariffs to protect him from international competition during the formidable years, the same way we are expected to tolerate liberal Europe protection and funding of the Airbus Industries to gain competitive advantage over the United States aerospace industry. When contrasting Carnegies’ plan to the survival plan of 2004, yes business is consolidating with a more intense focus on cost control. It is the method of continued dominance on the international business stage, so on that mark I give Carnegie an A+.
However Carnegie was NOT recognized as the hero or Prime Mover in this grand scheme to dominate the Steel Industry. He was a seen as a very fortunate man who was surrounded by a handful of Prime Movers, somewhat by fate, and partially by intentional plan, to create a dynasty and mountain of wealth for all those involved with Andra Carnegie on top. Did the people benefit? Well I must ask you to circle back to my original question. How do you remember Andrew Carnegie? Most I suspect would say Carnegie Hall. Some would say his libraries. Others would say the steel business. And the protagonists of liberal ideals where the common man can blame his lot in life on successful men, would site, Carnegie’s faults.
Carnegie did have faults, which left his legacy to debate. Some were perceived and some in my view were valid. He was a hard workingman in his youth and converted his labor into capital. He did that better than the better than average man. In his effort to leverage his industrial capital upon political venue exposed him to criticism. Some were warranted, for instance the steel tariffs were direct booty from his connections to presidents of both parties. He showed no loyalty to a party; only to he who could line his pockets. His forays in to literature, first reading, then writing exposed his moral integrity. Along these lines he once wrote a widely read article proclaiming the honor of the “working man’ and then turned on that same man in a Machiavelli manor during a bitter strike. This was the beginning of his images’ downward slope. Following this his circle of geniuses’ was caught defrauding the government in producing inferior armor for the US Navy. The New York Herald with reason pounced on Carnegie and Cleveland in the same way the New York Times now clobbers Dick Cheney George W. Bush and Haliburton today. How accountable do you hold the man at the top for the actions of the workingman? And how do allegations square with the notion of LLC’s? With these left un answered public perception (liberal press) tarnished Carnegie more than Cleveland. His public image drew fire from not so much the workingman, but the political liberals’ representation of the later.
When Carnegie, an entrepreneurial financier as opposed to a “steel man” finally sold out to JP Morgan the public was alarmed at the amount of wealth that was generated not only by Carnegie, but also by many other people connected to his enterprise. How dare people in America be successful!! It was proclaimed by Senators and Newspapers that America will soon belong to a new kind of king. When I read these words I was reminded of the mullahs of Iran who strike down the enterprising man once the appearance of authority could be challenged. Oh contraire to the vision of our founding fathers of this great Republic. Alone Carnegie amassed $450,000,000 at the closure of his deal with JP Morgan; a deal which formed US Steel. What he did with that money defines his legacy, no matter how one choose to perceive the man and his deeds.
His genius though is without doubt. To quote the author; “Carnegie knew the modulus of human elasticity by instinct. No one ever had to tell him how to ascertain the tensile strength of a man, the point to which he would stretch while preserving uniform diameter. To Andrew Carnegie the molecular construction of human character, its resistance to pressure and its final fracture point were known in the mysterious way in which fledgling find their nest. Behind the luck of his first seizure of capital was the power to seize upon the weakness and utilize the strength of the men with whom he was thrown. The moral specific gravity of every man was known to him instinctively; and he built a mighty organization with human atoms as instinct selected. This was the secret of his success.”
Of this wealth (capital, legacy), Carnegie gave back all but $25,000,000 (10%); of which he bequeathed to his family. In the winter of his years, he was quoted as saying “t is indeed more blessed to give than to receive.” He was certain that to take it with him would be a failure and a mark of an unsuccessful man. But in his vanity, the blessing he received was apparent influence he observed in providing intellectual wealth through thousands of libraries. And of course he and The People should feel blessed; his genius put America in a position to prevail through the trials of the 20th century. His foundations were endless with always an aim towards world peace. However, in the end he was brought before a Congressional hearing and challenged that his phenomenal philanthropy was a threat to the American foundation ??!! All in attendance shared his enjoyment of his turn about thrashing of a liberal Congress. But today, I suspect there are again those who would challenge his means as opposed to his ends. In that light I went back to my previous reviews from Travelers Choice and Prime Movers. Of the seven qualities in either book Andrew Carnegie gets a score of fourteen in my book
This author not only does a great job telling a story about Andrew Carnegie, he did a colorful job bringing in the supporting characters (other “Robber Barons”) of those great people that made America great in that era of Splendid Isolation.
By John K. Winkler
How do you know Andrew Carnegie? By his famous music hall, his libraries, his famous steel fortune, his endowments, or the controversy over who he was? Did he fall into the infamous category of the Great Robber Barons? Did he indeed turn a new leaf? Or was he a simply true to his word and core beliefs? What is his legacy and what is his genius? I picked up this book, simply because it was on my bookshelf. As I delved into it I learned about Andrew Carnegie, as he was viewed in 1931, the original copyright date of this 50¢ used bookstore diamond in the rough; the earnest work of my son TJ. It was an entertaining story.
Andrew Carnegie was not born with a silver spoon, rather of an immigrant Scot and son of a weaver. He was a small 5’4” persistent, witty, opportunistic capitalist who begin his road to riches in Pittsburgh as a telegraph operator at the age of thirteen. He worked hard as a lad of which earned him early rank in his telegraph years and then again to higher rank in his railroad years. At an early age, he taught himself the art of investments and pledged to himself to not have to work for a wage by the time he reached the age of 35. This amongst other lofty goals he did achieve. So you could read the above descriptive words of Carnegie as either adjectives or verbs towards his ideals.
Carnegie’s character of fate seemed to place him constantly in the right place at the right time. As head of the telegraph office he was at the crossroads of important information being transmitted and took advantage of every word. One could possibly accuse him in this day of “insider trading”, as he did invest on this information. He leveraged the returns of his early investments to make larger investments. He eventually found himself as the arbitrator in many disputes of the then “pig iron” industry, which eventually found his name on company paper in the Iron Business.
As a matter of conservative policy Carnegie never speculated thus held off on investing into the Bessemer Furnace and the discovery of mass production steel until he was certain of its return on investment. Carnegie knew nothing of the steel making process. But he did know how to put the right people from capitalist, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs to laborers, on his team and put his money in the game exactly when the technology and the economy were prepared to make something of it. And when you were on his team, you produced or left. His shrewd business demeanor teaches one to demand in writing that of which is spoken. So I came to appreciate the labor of my Uncle Jimmy and my nephew Brian as I read the book. You come to realize how closely knitted are the worlds of economics and philosophy (politics) …law.
As a side note to Carnegies methodology, I also was intrigued to read about the government policy’s of the time and it’s role in intervening in business by passing laws in the United States allowing for Limited Liability Partnerships giving capitalists for the first time protection of their private interests against poor money management. The book describes the second collapse of the post Civil War economy as result of the collapse a Prime bank in 1870, Carnegie’s fortune became at risk due to the unbeknownst speculative investments of one of his associates. On the associates’ promise to temporarily surrender his share of their enterprise, Carnegie took action to secure the associates’ name in a reciprocal promise to assume to assume the bad debt. Once the associates name was cleared Carnegie did not restore his associate’s fortunes on the grounds that the promise he made was not in writing. This is one of the incidences that put the integrity and moral standards of Carnegie on social trial.
There are those that would say that Carnegie was out of order and treated his associate unfairly. And to this point you could debate in behalf of Carnegie on the grounds of the poor speculative investment of one person deserved first evasive action in business, second protective action, and then third control measures, independent of a government policy. Yet in the end Carnegie did ironically take advantage of the LLC Laws and conducted business accordingly. To think there was an opportunity to rewrite Wharton’s business textbooks as opposed to getting on a slippery slope of governmental protectionism…and we missed it!
The authors perspective of the Carnegie Steel Company was summed up in one word; feudalism. The company literally owned the ore mines in Minnesota, shipping lanes on the Great Lakes, the railroads across Pennsylvania, and the Coke and Steel companies; a conglomerate of everything steel and the whole process of making it; what a way to control cost. It was written in 1931; “This arrogant, mercurial little Kaiser was jealous of his rights, impatient of counsel.” Carnegie owned the Steel business, and had President Cleveland in his pocket, writing tariffs to protect him from international competition during the formidable years, the same way we are expected to tolerate liberal Europe protection and funding of the Airbus Industries to gain competitive advantage over the United States aerospace industry. When contrasting Carnegies’ plan to the survival plan of 2004, yes business is consolidating with a more intense focus on cost control. It is the method of continued dominance on the international business stage, so on that mark I give Carnegie an A+.
However Carnegie was NOT recognized as the hero or Prime Mover in this grand scheme to dominate the Steel Industry. He was a seen as a very fortunate man who was surrounded by a handful of Prime Movers, somewhat by fate, and partially by intentional plan, to create a dynasty and mountain of wealth for all those involved with Andra Carnegie on top. Did the people benefit? Well I must ask you to circle back to my original question. How do you remember Andrew Carnegie? Most I suspect would say Carnegie Hall. Some would say his libraries. Others would say the steel business. And the protagonists of liberal ideals where the common man can blame his lot in life on successful men, would site, Carnegie’s faults.
Carnegie did have faults, which left his legacy to debate. Some were perceived and some in my view were valid. He was a hard workingman in his youth and converted his labor into capital. He did that better than the better than average man. In his effort to leverage his industrial capital upon political venue exposed him to criticism. Some were warranted, for instance the steel tariffs were direct booty from his connections to presidents of both parties. He showed no loyalty to a party; only to he who could line his pockets. His forays in to literature, first reading, then writing exposed his moral integrity. Along these lines he once wrote a widely read article proclaiming the honor of the “working man’ and then turned on that same man in a Machiavelli manor during a bitter strike. This was the beginning of his images’ downward slope. Following this his circle of geniuses’ was caught defrauding the government in producing inferior armor for the US Navy. The New York Herald with reason pounced on Carnegie and Cleveland in the same way the New York Times now clobbers Dick Cheney George W. Bush and Haliburton today. How accountable do you hold the man at the top for the actions of the workingman? And how do allegations square with the notion of LLC’s? With these left un answered public perception (liberal press) tarnished Carnegie more than Cleveland. His public image drew fire from not so much the workingman, but the political liberals’ representation of the later.
When Carnegie, an entrepreneurial financier as opposed to a “steel man” finally sold out to JP Morgan the public was alarmed at the amount of wealth that was generated not only by Carnegie, but also by many other people connected to his enterprise. How dare people in America be successful!! It was proclaimed by Senators and Newspapers that America will soon belong to a new kind of king. When I read these words I was reminded of the mullahs of Iran who strike down the enterprising man once the appearance of authority could be challenged. Oh contraire to the vision of our founding fathers of this great Republic. Alone Carnegie amassed $450,000,000 at the closure of his deal with JP Morgan; a deal which formed US Steel. What he did with that money defines his legacy, no matter how one choose to perceive the man and his deeds.
His genius though is without doubt. To quote the author; “Carnegie knew the modulus of human elasticity by instinct. No one ever had to tell him how to ascertain the tensile strength of a man, the point to which he would stretch while preserving uniform diameter. To Andrew Carnegie the molecular construction of human character, its resistance to pressure and its final fracture point were known in the mysterious way in which fledgling find their nest. Behind the luck of his first seizure of capital was the power to seize upon the weakness and utilize the strength of the men with whom he was thrown. The moral specific gravity of every man was known to him instinctively; and he built a mighty organization with human atoms as instinct selected. This was the secret of his success.”
Of this wealth (capital, legacy), Carnegie gave back all but $25,000,000 (10%); of which he bequeathed to his family. In the winter of his years, he was quoted as saying “t is indeed more blessed to give than to receive.” He was certain that to take it with him would be a failure and a mark of an unsuccessful man. But in his vanity, the blessing he received was apparent influence he observed in providing intellectual wealth through thousands of libraries. And of course he and The People should feel blessed; his genius put America in a position to prevail through the trials of the 20th century. His foundations were endless with always an aim towards world peace. However, in the end he was brought before a Congressional hearing and challenged that his phenomenal philanthropy was a threat to the American foundation ??!! All in attendance shared his enjoyment of his turn about thrashing of a liberal Congress. But today, I suspect there are again those who would challenge his means as opposed to his ends. In that light I went back to my previous reviews from Travelers Choice and Prime Movers. Of the seven qualities in either book Andrew Carnegie gets a score of fourteen in my book
This author not only does a great job telling a story about Andrew Carnegie, he did a colorful job bringing in the supporting characters (other “Robber Barons”) of those great people that made America great in that era of Splendid Isolation.
Good as Gold
Good as Gold
By Joseph Heller
Another comedic look at who we are. If you ever wonder where Jerry Seinfeld or Billy Crystal got their material, it must have began with Joseph Heller. This book begins in Coney Island, New York. Having lived in Manhattan and spending the day at Coney Island Beech, combining it with 10 years of Seinfeld episodes; all ring the same bell for me. In America we are a People…of every persuasion and lots of them. With a few conflicting themes through the book, Joseph Heller delves into the ethnicity factor of life in America. While the book is about the Jewish experience in America, you come to realize any readers could substitute their own ethnic origin and laugh loud and often. In my New York experience, I sent my kids to Jewish preschool as they were most prominent where I lived. I can clearly remember sitting in cafés or diners sorting out things. So I laughed even louder.
The main character Bruce Gold is a Jew in denial, a college professor at Columbia University, and an author; he is contracted to write two books. One on the Jewish experience in America. And the other book on Henry Kissenger, a man of whom he despises. To bring these noble deeds to fruition becomes a challenge, considering the demands of a strong father with an over bearing call for Jewish tradition in the family. His was a family who was anything but the personification of Jewish tradition. He lived a professor life where girls’ screwing for A’s caused him to have a separate apartment. His children saw their father only for his bank account. And to make things worse he is offered an unspecified job in Washington DC to work for a lame duck president by an old friend. It was originally put to him that he could be an “unnamed spokesman” or possibly an “unidentified official”
The offer from Washington was his escape from his family, Columbia University, and New York. His hopes were for Secretary of State, which oddly places him in the office as a successor to Henry Kissenger. His transitional strategy created situational comedy at every turn. When he gets to Washington, he learns that women screw for success there as well. Throughout the book Gold never comes to appreciate that his recognition in Washington was for writing the phrase “ that is mind boggeling”. He later wrote a piece about social values titled “We Are Not a Society or We Are Not Worth Our Salt.” The President loved it. As it turns out his value was only realized by the President’s desire to have a screen play written about his time in office.
In reading this book I would often recite lines to Janet. Often it was because she would ask what I am laughing so hard at. But rather than tell a joke off stage, I’ll set the stage through character introduction and let you laugh at the book yourself.
Bruce Gold was simply unhappy with life as he saw it in his late forties. The highest educated in his family found him the brunt of all jokes at family gatherings of which were weekly at least. You soon came to appreciate that while Bruce was academically superior, he lacked common sense to defend himself. His world off campus was not as kind to him. Ironically, his family members failed to recognize the ignorance in their own views for the sake of the genius of misunderstood words. Gold paid the price. He had grown isolated from his wife and children mostly out of lack of interest. His life with his publishers was constant rivalry amongst a band of largely unsuccessful men, when compared to their dreams. His new experience in Washington awakened him to life inside the beltway and the harsh realities of an elitist stratosphere of people.
· Bell Gold was the “good wife”. The hardest thing Bruce Gold had to deal with was getting her to notice that their marriage was over. Being aware of all his shenanigans, she simply turned a blind eye, because Jewish tradition called for such a response. In the end Jewish tradition did find its place with Bruce and Belle Gold.
· Julius Gold in my opinion was the original character base for George Castansa’s father in Seinfeld. He was loud, opinionated, condescending, spiteful, ungrateful, and most of all a proud Jew. His word was good as gold, despite his actions.
· Sid Gold was Bruce’s older brother who garnered all of their fathers favor. It does not come out till late in the book that it was Sid who financed Julius’ retirement. It was Sid who knew how to organize day-to-day life outside an institution in a traditional Jewish manor, according to Julius. However Sid was not anymore successful that anyone else, he did gain the spotlight as the brainchild of the family.
· Ralph was an old college friend that could not make a commitment to anything. He had numerous wives, fiancés, and girlfriends all at the same time. There is ample dialogue between a Gold and Ralph with only one line in the book where Ralph makes a commitment to Gold. Late in the book Ralph takes a spontaneous comment from Gold and says “that’s it, I wont steel it from you I am taking this straight to the President”. “This will get you your appointment I am sure of it”
· Andrea was born and raised in the lap of luxury and totally uninhibited sexually. She learned as a little girl to squirm a lot when sitting on a mans lap. She could always get what she wanted that way. She refined this practice as an adult. She advocated an open engagement and marriage that ironically Gold found repulsing. Her role in the books was to be engaged to Bruce Gold so that he would be associated with high society and get his Presidential appointment.
· Jews in New York were portrayed to have strong family ties. (code word for obligations) Knitted together by many, many reasons to be together. They once invented an anniversary date that was six months off just so that they could have a send off party for their intolerable father against his will who needed to warm his spirits in a retirement community in Florida. An obligation to alleviate another obligation. While the book colored a lot of family conflict mixed with rivalry, they continued to meet “religiously”. The women would argue over who’s house and who was to bring what to eat, and the men would argue over everything. The arguments were paramount to exposing the humor in our human experience with our competitive state of mind.
· Jews in Washington are portrayed to not ever have their place in politics. But then again ironically, Ralph insists there is no anti-Semitism in politics anymore. His rationale follows the lines that Kennedy is the only Catholic exception, and American born Italians could never succeed, and a line of others finds the same. Only politicians could succeed. It is Ralph’s role in the book to make sure that if you missed the situational satire, to spell it out for the reader.
· Washington is painted as an inner circle of elitist who knows they have one claim to fame and to leverage that capital for the rest of their existence. They are comfortable with the notion that they are the chosen capable ones to do all the strategic decision making for the less capable common folks. They are comfortable with taking $1,000 a day per-diem with no salary to conduct meetings about nothing with no goal in site, but to make News. They will impose every scandalous tactic to exploit another elitist, yet they all unite to maintain their supremacy over the common man.
Imagine these clashing characters and character groups in 400 plus pages of dialogue. Satiric comedy is the only way to look at it. Heller again makes you laugh at the dark side of our society and possibly yourself if you feel a part of it; likely more so if you don’t. And for the same reason few half hour sit-coms on today’s American television do not make successful hits on the big screen, his humor is usually at the expense of someone where 90 minutes of it wears you thin. This book does a good job making everyone pay. By the end of the book, the humor vested in the dialogue that gives way to reality. A reality that is not so funny. Just like big screen comedy. The saving grace in this is he does it only in the last twenty pages. Heller does pose a moral question in the same manor as Catch 22 did: “We Are Not a Society or We Are Not Worth Our Salt?” Bruce Gold answers this question when the President finally does call.
The one Yiddish word of the hundreds used in this book that sticks with me is shonda. I need to ask a Jew if I am to be complemented or insulted when I am called a shonda. Unlike New York, Cincinnati has a Jewish part of town, which I don’t get to for some reason or another.
By Joseph Heller
Another comedic look at who we are. If you ever wonder where Jerry Seinfeld or Billy Crystal got their material, it must have began with Joseph Heller. This book begins in Coney Island, New York. Having lived in Manhattan and spending the day at Coney Island Beech, combining it with 10 years of Seinfeld episodes; all ring the same bell for me. In America we are a People…of every persuasion and lots of them. With a few conflicting themes through the book, Joseph Heller delves into the ethnicity factor of life in America. While the book is about the Jewish experience in America, you come to realize any readers could substitute their own ethnic origin and laugh loud and often. In my New York experience, I sent my kids to Jewish preschool as they were most prominent where I lived. I can clearly remember sitting in cafés or diners sorting out things. So I laughed even louder.
The main character Bruce Gold is a Jew in denial, a college professor at Columbia University, and an author; he is contracted to write two books. One on the Jewish experience in America. And the other book on Henry Kissenger, a man of whom he despises. To bring these noble deeds to fruition becomes a challenge, considering the demands of a strong father with an over bearing call for Jewish tradition in the family. His was a family who was anything but the personification of Jewish tradition. He lived a professor life where girls’ screwing for A’s caused him to have a separate apartment. His children saw their father only for his bank account. And to make things worse he is offered an unspecified job in Washington DC to work for a lame duck president by an old friend. It was originally put to him that he could be an “unnamed spokesman” or possibly an “unidentified official”
The offer from Washington was his escape from his family, Columbia University, and New York. His hopes were for Secretary of State, which oddly places him in the office as a successor to Henry Kissenger. His transitional strategy created situational comedy at every turn. When he gets to Washington, he learns that women screw for success there as well. Throughout the book Gold never comes to appreciate that his recognition in Washington was for writing the phrase “ that is mind boggeling”. He later wrote a piece about social values titled “We Are Not a Society or We Are Not Worth Our Salt.” The President loved it. As it turns out his value was only realized by the President’s desire to have a screen play written about his time in office.
In reading this book I would often recite lines to Janet. Often it was because she would ask what I am laughing so hard at. But rather than tell a joke off stage, I’ll set the stage through character introduction and let you laugh at the book yourself.
Bruce Gold was simply unhappy with life as he saw it in his late forties. The highest educated in his family found him the brunt of all jokes at family gatherings of which were weekly at least. You soon came to appreciate that while Bruce was academically superior, he lacked common sense to defend himself. His world off campus was not as kind to him. Ironically, his family members failed to recognize the ignorance in their own views for the sake of the genius of misunderstood words. Gold paid the price. He had grown isolated from his wife and children mostly out of lack of interest. His life with his publishers was constant rivalry amongst a band of largely unsuccessful men, when compared to their dreams. His new experience in Washington awakened him to life inside the beltway and the harsh realities of an elitist stratosphere of people.
· Bell Gold was the “good wife”. The hardest thing Bruce Gold had to deal with was getting her to notice that their marriage was over. Being aware of all his shenanigans, she simply turned a blind eye, because Jewish tradition called for such a response. In the end Jewish tradition did find its place with Bruce and Belle Gold.
· Julius Gold in my opinion was the original character base for George Castansa’s father in Seinfeld. He was loud, opinionated, condescending, spiteful, ungrateful, and most of all a proud Jew. His word was good as gold, despite his actions.
· Sid Gold was Bruce’s older brother who garnered all of their fathers favor. It does not come out till late in the book that it was Sid who financed Julius’ retirement. It was Sid who knew how to organize day-to-day life outside an institution in a traditional Jewish manor, according to Julius. However Sid was not anymore successful that anyone else, he did gain the spotlight as the brainchild of the family.
· Ralph was an old college friend that could not make a commitment to anything. He had numerous wives, fiancés, and girlfriends all at the same time. There is ample dialogue between a Gold and Ralph with only one line in the book where Ralph makes a commitment to Gold. Late in the book Ralph takes a spontaneous comment from Gold and says “that’s it, I wont steel it from you I am taking this straight to the President”. “This will get you your appointment I am sure of it”
· Andrea was born and raised in the lap of luxury and totally uninhibited sexually. She learned as a little girl to squirm a lot when sitting on a mans lap. She could always get what she wanted that way. She refined this practice as an adult. She advocated an open engagement and marriage that ironically Gold found repulsing. Her role in the books was to be engaged to Bruce Gold so that he would be associated with high society and get his Presidential appointment.
· Jews in New York were portrayed to have strong family ties. (code word for obligations) Knitted together by many, many reasons to be together. They once invented an anniversary date that was six months off just so that they could have a send off party for their intolerable father against his will who needed to warm his spirits in a retirement community in Florida. An obligation to alleviate another obligation. While the book colored a lot of family conflict mixed with rivalry, they continued to meet “religiously”. The women would argue over who’s house and who was to bring what to eat, and the men would argue over everything. The arguments were paramount to exposing the humor in our human experience with our competitive state of mind.
· Jews in Washington are portrayed to not ever have their place in politics. But then again ironically, Ralph insists there is no anti-Semitism in politics anymore. His rationale follows the lines that Kennedy is the only Catholic exception, and American born Italians could never succeed, and a line of others finds the same. Only politicians could succeed. It is Ralph’s role in the book to make sure that if you missed the situational satire, to spell it out for the reader.
· Washington is painted as an inner circle of elitist who knows they have one claim to fame and to leverage that capital for the rest of their existence. They are comfortable with the notion that they are the chosen capable ones to do all the strategic decision making for the less capable common folks. They are comfortable with taking $1,000 a day per-diem with no salary to conduct meetings about nothing with no goal in site, but to make News. They will impose every scandalous tactic to exploit another elitist, yet they all unite to maintain their supremacy over the common man.
Imagine these clashing characters and character groups in 400 plus pages of dialogue. Satiric comedy is the only way to look at it. Heller again makes you laugh at the dark side of our society and possibly yourself if you feel a part of it; likely more so if you don’t. And for the same reason few half hour sit-coms on today’s American television do not make successful hits on the big screen, his humor is usually at the expense of someone where 90 minutes of it wears you thin. This book does a good job making everyone pay. By the end of the book, the humor vested in the dialogue that gives way to reality. A reality that is not so funny. Just like big screen comedy. The saving grace in this is he does it only in the last twenty pages. Heller does pose a moral question in the same manor as Catch 22 did: “We Are Not a Society or We Are Not Worth Our Salt?” Bruce Gold answers this question when the President finally does call.
The one Yiddish word of the hundreds used in this book that sticks with me is shonda. I need to ask a Jew if I am to be complemented or insulted when I am called a shonda. Unlike New York, Cincinnati has a Jewish part of town, which I don’t get to for some reason or another.
Persian Puzzle
Persian Puzzle
By Kenneth Pollack
I picked this book up chiefly because of recent news in Iran and secondarily because of an Iranian friend I had in New York. He often spoke of the rich Persian culture and spoke Farsi with his children. I have an Iranian tapestry in my hallway and eat Amir’s pistachios from Iran when I get them. True enough you read early on in the book about Darius, Xerxus, and Cyrus with an emphasis on Cyrus’ conquering of Babylon. In this conquest Cyrus frees the Jews and returns them to their homeland, Palestine. This point I find interesting as the primer landmark contradiction in the Persian/Iranian history; a history that only evolved to the name Iran at the insistence of Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 1920’s. This is a point in history that flies in the face of the current Iranian theocracy and supports one of the tenants of American sanctions on Iran for their sponsored terrorism, anti-peace in the Middle East and the “destruction” of Israel.
Pollack prepares a backdrop for which he lays room for the reader to contemplate many moral questions while reading the book. I found it interesting to read that Persia over history is a land fragmented by mountains and deserts with no significant navigatable rivers. Holding a band of people together to be the world’s first superpower was no small feat. A feat that today’s Iranians are still so proud of that it permeates in their civil consciousness. I saw this in my friends Amir and Mondona, and better appreciate this now.
Oddly enough the Arabian conquest brought Islam to Persia a religion that over shadowed Zoroastrianism and threw Persia into a state of civil unrest and contradiction ever since. The one hundred year period prior to our current political situation (1979 to present) is a story of repressive dictatorships over a new sovereign state. The first Shah who regained his family’s through a coup and internal unrest saw himself much in the liking to Mussolini, and Franco. Pollack associates this mentality to Kadafi, Arafat, and a few of Egypt’s recent leaders. Notice he separates these inept leaders from the terrorist of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein. The important similarity to all was while encumbered with internal instability in conjunction with a fear of foreign domination; these recent rulers absconded power and ruled their people poorly.
The irony of Iranian leadership of the 19th and 20th centuries is similar to that of Poland. There were regions of people with a desire to lead themselves but displayed no proven capability to do so. Reza Shah Pahlavi was only an example of a line of leaders who lived in fear of Russia and Great Britain. The imposition of either of two foreign powers was self-inflicted to a certain degree. Persia’s fear of Russia gave reason to draw Great Britain into their sphere of influence, yet it was Great Britain with the dominant tools to lead. With the imbalance in skills as they were, Great Britain took advantage of all business activity. The discovery of oil exacerbated the imbalance. The weak leaders whether the Shah or Prime Minister Mosaddeq, could not manage the divergent demands on internal policy.
After World War II Iran began to invite the Unites States in to counter balance their triad of problematic and conflicting issues. Like all poor leaders their focus on military led themselves to financial ruin on every other front. It is important to have read that the United States were reluctant participants brought in at the invitation of Iran, no matter what was perceived through the fog of the coups for a leader. Unfortunately with our preoccupation with the spread of Communism at the time, no matter who was in the White House, we did not live up to the expectations of Iran’s leaders or their people. Later our pre-occupation with Viet Nam caused the Johnson administration to lose sight of the call for internal reform that was heard and revered by the Kennedy administration.
The CIA participation in the stacked 1953 election (now called a coup by Iran and somehow tolerated by the United States) between Pahlavi and Mosaddeq gave all the justifiable appearances of our meddling in another countries affairs. And it was justified, a mistake by the Eisenhower administration. What is important to know says Pollack is our agenda was not about oil. The agenda was to bring someone into power that would stand up to the Soviets, which paradoxically was indeed an agenda of the Iranian people. To accuse the USA of propping up a puppet regime is somewhat misguided according to Pollack. The Shah was dependant on the United States initially for economic reasons and we supplied ample aid. Unfortunately, this money was redirected to the military while his people were oppressed. Over time the Shah thumbed his nose up to American calls for human rights. The Shahs new found oil wealth, thanks to American intervention over the British in behalf of Iran, allowed him this option and left American influence neutered. By the time Carter became aware and made a call for human rights, it was too late.
I found it very interesting that even Pollack describes the events of 1953 as a CIA directed stacked election and then goes on later in his book to name that event as a coup. In Pollack’s defense, after reading the events surrounding every election of the 20th century, one would conclude that the words election and coup in Iran are synonymous.
It is important to appreciate why Iran, the theocratic government hates the United States, and why Iran conducts its foreign affairs as though it can thumb its nose at the United States to the extent that it can wage terrorist war against us. With a xenophobic persona caused by fear of both the USSR and Britain, Iran’s request to the United o mediate and or counteract the situation was not executed with clarity. With a revolving door in leadership every four years in the White House, a consistent policy and or named responsible person could not be defined. During pre and near post WWII the revolving door in Iran was even less clear. Elections in Iran through this same period were closely parallel to coups. Upon this canvas, one can easily visualize a people’s propensity to take aim at the tallest participant as it stands above the smoke.
Once we got on that slippery slope the only course was and is down. While it was common practice to offer a choice of two evils and prompting voter disenfranchisement to the extent that the candidates would get assainated the CIA wrongly engaged in this in 1953. What the CIA did was bombard the Iranian people with election propaganda to get the Shah elected. THAT’S IT!!!. According to the author. After this election/coup, from Eisenhower through Ford, the United States largely turned a blind eye to the Shah’s shenanigans; largely due to our focus on anti communism threats elsewhere in the world. The Iranian people felt betrayed in two ways. First we did not give them the attention they asked for. Second, the Shah on his own accord and with no pressure from the United States oppressed his people. Not speaking out on human rights violations committed by the Shah was a slap in their face.
Iran has learned through the hostage taking in 1979 and through the 1980s that they could influence policy in America. Khomeni realized that his capital in the Embassy hostages was already spent. But he despised Carter for his double talk. Carter spoke strongly against human rights violations around the world and did nothing in Iran. When he allowed the Shah into the US for surgery it was an insult to Iran. Carter’s response incorporated a fundamental mistake in making it clear that the hostages were to come back alive, this is despite that every hostage taken swore an oath that the Unites States interests came first. (Implying first before their own lives). Khomeni leveraged this in negotiations and sucked everything he could out of the US and embarrassed us publicly with his booty. The only thing Reagan did to free the hostages was get sworn in to office. The very minute this took place the hostages were set free. Thus the author puts forth the theory that an Iran got even for what the CIA did in 1953. Khomeni learned another lesson, that the United States was weak and its people did not have the stomach for conflict. He took Reagan to task by taking hostages in Lebanon. While Reagan did not make the same mistake as Carter he made a different one. He negotiated with terrorist in the Iran Contra fiasco. It was not until 1991 that all the hostages were set free.
Reagan ’s continued reluctance to engage directly in the Iran Iraq war demonstrated to Iran American weakness or intolerance to war. It was clearly stated that Iran had intentions to march through Iraq and straight to Israel. Khomeni’s agenda was an Islamic World. Reagan’s agenda was a continued resistance through the support of other armies where American interests were involved. Our eventual involvement through our Naval escorts of Kuwaiti ships did nothing to show American strength and everything to show a continued American betrayal. Through the Clinton administration America’s continuance to tolerate terrorist activity emboldened Hezbollah and al Queida. Theocracy leadership with a whip to its people and a stick to its neighbors internationally became a theme.
With regard to Pollack’s assessments of all the administrations foreign policy, he found something to criticize in every administration with exception to Kennedy the G.H. Bush. I found it interesting that a consistent theme of criticism of both Carter and Reagan was not being firm enough with Iran over terrorism, Pollack only mentions the Bahran Towers, and gives plausible argument for the Clinton Administration not taking a firm hand against Iran. His argument being that after full disclosure from Saudi Arabia, that Iran organized the assault, a new Khatami government was in power. This contradicts the Madeline Albrights assessment that un-elected hands controlled Iran. Pollack later recommends that any act of terrorism would be responded to with force regardless of regime change, so he leaves the reader somewhat confused. Additionally the other incidents of terrorism against the United States during the Clinton administration were not addressed to the same degree as both Carter and Reagan. This in itself is a puzzle within a puzzle. Pollack paints a picture where Iran became use to American weakness in the face of terrorism, but asserts that Iran was not specifically involved, and then claims Iran spreads terrorism; a foggy area for this expert author.
The book title becomes relevant in describing Iran. It is a country conflicted by its leadership that does not appear to represent the voice of its people. In 1997, with 91% of the people voting, more that 70% of the vote was in favor of reform from the “hardline” mullahs, the Madeline Albright speech of 1999 to Iran in an effort for rapprochement contained two critical words, “un-elected hands”. Every other word in the speech was aimed at a rapprochement of the two countries. While the elected Khatami government did take notice of those two words, they were willing to overlook them. Kahamen’i, the new un-elected Supreme Leader assumed control in delivering a very negative reply to the Clinton administration. To quote Pollack “Indeed it is unfortunate that this was all that came from it, but by trying so hard to start a process of rapprochement with the Khatami government, the Clinton administration gave the George W Bush administration the perfect argument to demand a harder line on Iran from America’s allies.”
If Clinton’s stick were equal in size to his carrot, would he have handed George W. Bush a different set of cards? In fact Pollack was equally generous to G.W. Bush. He speaks of the strategies between Clinton and Bush as complementary being that Iran always took the carrot and left the United States with nothing but the stick, a stick that for many reasons detailed in the book can be used for nothing but waving in the air. Pollack suggest that Clinton handed Bush the stick. Pollack reiterates that over the course of our relationship with Iran, and particularly in the last 25 years, their negotiating style called for the United States to put all concessions on the table for which they take them and leave. However Pollack demonstrates many cases where Iran does respond to the stick.
In Pollack’s closing chapters he describes a three-part strategy to become good neighbors with Iran. He claims that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is the number one concern; because if successful Iran’s complete persona of xenophobia changes. (a root cause resolution dynamic not explored universally by the author) The first is through a “Grand Bargain” whereby each side lay down their concessions, detailed in the book. The second is through international diplomacy where all nations of the world lay out a new world protocol among nations, detailed in the book. And the third part being military might. Because this is three-part strategy is introduced only after Pollack makes a case for the failure of each strategy independently, you the reader must pay close attention to the intricate relations between all three and the “trip wires” that would transition from one policy to another. In the end you begin to see the edges of the Persian Puzzle. You may even have your colored pieces in their proper piles, but there is no way the puzzle get completed in this book. You also begin to appreciate a requirement for a tremendous staff in our State Department to piece this all together. In retrospect I found the details and criticism in the early going of the book to be much sharper. There is enough history provided to appreciate the general feeling of the common man that Iran holds anxieties towards America. There is also enough history provided to be sure that Iran has much to be responsible for in their anxiety about many things internally and externally, including The West. This gives true meaning to the saying only history will tell. I can only hope that Pollack will be around in 50 years so that at age 99 I will read his sequel.
Epilogue: I am always taken back by: those in America that unilaterally condemns “THIS ADMINISTRATION”; when I contrast it to the following quote in the book by Ayatollah Khomeni upon burying two prostitutes up to their chest and had them stoned to death by the public. Bear in mind there was not trial. He said, “ Criminals should not be tried. The trial of a criminal is against human rights. Human rights demand that we should have killed them in the first place.” It is similarly described in the book where the leftist student Revolutionaries physically, and physiologically abused many hostages and Ayatollah Khomeni gave his seal of approval to these acts. To the Ayatollah perceptions were more important than truth; a reality he can hold to without a free press and a fair judicial system.
This country does have a judicial process, free press and core values aimed at liberty. On the moral questions raised, it appears that making compromises to those opposing this freewill is counterproductive. It is time we all turn up the volume on the beacon on the hill and stand together for what we are for regardless of WHICH ADMINISTRATION. The situation in the Middle East is very complicated. Pollack is much more versed than myself and his views are highly regarded. But he does not have a clear answer a proven answer. So why would we blame him while serving under Clinton or any other American for not solving this puzzle? I believe this strategy is the key in Pollack’s book the he touches but fails to utilize this KEY to simplify is three-part strategy. Pollock glosses over it, but ever since the Czar of Russia recognized the will of the people were not behind Napoleon, he knew the French would retreat regardless of what happened on the battlefield. A beacon on the hill is for liberty and anti terrorism. Let it shine through our people and our press. But let us shine what unites us, rather than that which divides us.
By Kenneth Pollack
I picked this book up chiefly because of recent news in Iran and secondarily because of an Iranian friend I had in New York. He often spoke of the rich Persian culture and spoke Farsi with his children. I have an Iranian tapestry in my hallway and eat Amir’s pistachios from Iran when I get them. True enough you read early on in the book about Darius, Xerxus, and Cyrus with an emphasis on Cyrus’ conquering of Babylon. In this conquest Cyrus frees the Jews and returns them to their homeland, Palestine. This point I find interesting as the primer landmark contradiction in the Persian/Iranian history; a history that only evolved to the name Iran at the insistence of Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 1920’s. This is a point in history that flies in the face of the current Iranian theocracy and supports one of the tenants of American sanctions on Iran for their sponsored terrorism, anti-peace in the Middle East and the “destruction” of Israel.
Pollack prepares a backdrop for which he lays room for the reader to contemplate many moral questions while reading the book. I found it interesting to read that Persia over history is a land fragmented by mountains and deserts with no significant navigatable rivers. Holding a band of people together to be the world’s first superpower was no small feat. A feat that today’s Iranians are still so proud of that it permeates in their civil consciousness. I saw this in my friends Amir and Mondona, and better appreciate this now.
Oddly enough the Arabian conquest brought Islam to Persia a religion that over shadowed Zoroastrianism and threw Persia into a state of civil unrest and contradiction ever since. The one hundred year period prior to our current political situation (1979 to present) is a story of repressive dictatorships over a new sovereign state. The first Shah who regained his family’s through a coup and internal unrest saw himself much in the liking to Mussolini, and Franco. Pollack associates this mentality to Kadafi, Arafat, and a few of Egypt’s recent leaders. Notice he separates these inept leaders from the terrorist of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein. The important similarity to all was while encumbered with internal instability in conjunction with a fear of foreign domination; these recent rulers absconded power and ruled their people poorly.
The irony of Iranian leadership of the 19th and 20th centuries is similar to that of Poland. There were regions of people with a desire to lead themselves but displayed no proven capability to do so. Reza Shah Pahlavi was only an example of a line of leaders who lived in fear of Russia and Great Britain. The imposition of either of two foreign powers was self-inflicted to a certain degree. Persia’s fear of Russia gave reason to draw Great Britain into their sphere of influence, yet it was Great Britain with the dominant tools to lead. With the imbalance in skills as they were, Great Britain took advantage of all business activity. The discovery of oil exacerbated the imbalance. The weak leaders whether the Shah or Prime Minister Mosaddeq, could not manage the divergent demands on internal policy.
After World War II Iran began to invite the Unites States in to counter balance their triad of problematic and conflicting issues. Like all poor leaders their focus on military led themselves to financial ruin on every other front. It is important to have read that the United States were reluctant participants brought in at the invitation of Iran, no matter what was perceived through the fog of the coups for a leader. Unfortunately with our preoccupation with the spread of Communism at the time, no matter who was in the White House, we did not live up to the expectations of Iran’s leaders or their people. Later our pre-occupation with Viet Nam caused the Johnson administration to lose sight of the call for internal reform that was heard and revered by the Kennedy administration.
The CIA participation in the stacked 1953 election (now called a coup by Iran and somehow tolerated by the United States) between Pahlavi and Mosaddeq gave all the justifiable appearances of our meddling in another countries affairs. And it was justified, a mistake by the Eisenhower administration. What is important to know says Pollack is our agenda was not about oil. The agenda was to bring someone into power that would stand up to the Soviets, which paradoxically was indeed an agenda of the Iranian people. To accuse the USA of propping up a puppet regime is somewhat misguided according to Pollack. The Shah was dependant on the United States initially for economic reasons and we supplied ample aid. Unfortunately, this money was redirected to the military while his people were oppressed. Over time the Shah thumbed his nose up to American calls for human rights. The Shahs new found oil wealth, thanks to American intervention over the British in behalf of Iran, allowed him this option and left American influence neutered. By the time Carter became aware and made a call for human rights, it was too late.
I found it very interesting that even Pollack describes the events of 1953 as a CIA directed stacked election and then goes on later in his book to name that event as a coup. In Pollack’s defense, after reading the events surrounding every election of the 20th century, one would conclude that the words election and coup in Iran are synonymous.
It is important to appreciate why Iran, the theocratic government hates the United States, and why Iran conducts its foreign affairs as though it can thumb its nose at the United States to the extent that it can wage terrorist war against us. With a xenophobic persona caused by fear of both the USSR and Britain, Iran’s request to the United o mediate and or counteract the situation was not executed with clarity. With a revolving door in leadership every four years in the White House, a consistent policy and or named responsible person could not be defined. During pre and near post WWII the revolving door in Iran was even less clear. Elections in Iran through this same period were closely parallel to coups. Upon this canvas, one can easily visualize a people’s propensity to take aim at the tallest participant as it stands above the smoke.
Once we got on that slippery slope the only course was and is down. While it was common practice to offer a choice of two evils and prompting voter disenfranchisement to the extent that the candidates would get assainated the CIA wrongly engaged in this in 1953. What the CIA did was bombard the Iranian people with election propaganda to get the Shah elected. THAT’S IT!!!. According to the author. After this election/coup, from Eisenhower through Ford, the United States largely turned a blind eye to the Shah’s shenanigans; largely due to our focus on anti communism threats elsewhere in the world. The Iranian people felt betrayed in two ways. First we did not give them the attention they asked for. Second, the Shah on his own accord and with no pressure from the United States oppressed his people. Not speaking out on human rights violations committed by the Shah was a slap in their face.
Iran has learned through the hostage taking in 1979 and through the 1980s that they could influence policy in America. Khomeni realized that his capital in the Embassy hostages was already spent. But he despised Carter for his double talk. Carter spoke strongly against human rights violations around the world and did nothing in Iran. When he allowed the Shah into the US for surgery it was an insult to Iran. Carter’s response incorporated a fundamental mistake in making it clear that the hostages were to come back alive, this is despite that every hostage taken swore an oath that the Unites States interests came first. (Implying first before their own lives). Khomeni leveraged this in negotiations and sucked everything he could out of the US and embarrassed us publicly with his booty. The only thing Reagan did to free the hostages was get sworn in to office. The very minute this took place the hostages were set free. Thus the author puts forth the theory that an Iran got even for what the CIA did in 1953. Khomeni learned another lesson, that the United States was weak and its people did not have the stomach for conflict. He took Reagan to task by taking hostages in Lebanon. While Reagan did not make the same mistake as Carter he made a different one. He negotiated with terrorist in the Iran Contra fiasco. It was not until 1991 that all the hostages were set free.
Reagan ’s continued reluctance to engage directly in the Iran Iraq war demonstrated to Iran American weakness or intolerance to war. It was clearly stated that Iran had intentions to march through Iraq and straight to Israel. Khomeni’s agenda was an Islamic World. Reagan’s agenda was a continued resistance through the support of other armies where American interests were involved. Our eventual involvement through our Naval escorts of Kuwaiti ships did nothing to show American strength and everything to show a continued American betrayal. Through the Clinton administration America’s continuance to tolerate terrorist activity emboldened Hezbollah and al Queida. Theocracy leadership with a whip to its people and a stick to its neighbors internationally became a theme.
With regard to Pollack’s assessments of all the administrations foreign policy, he found something to criticize in every administration with exception to Kennedy the G.H. Bush. I found it interesting that a consistent theme of criticism of both Carter and Reagan was not being firm enough with Iran over terrorism, Pollack only mentions the Bahran Towers, and gives plausible argument for the Clinton Administration not taking a firm hand against Iran. His argument being that after full disclosure from Saudi Arabia, that Iran organized the assault, a new Khatami government was in power. This contradicts the Madeline Albrights assessment that un-elected hands controlled Iran. Pollack later recommends that any act of terrorism would be responded to with force regardless of regime change, so he leaves the reader somewhat confused. Additionally the other incidents of terrorism against the United States during the Clinton administration were not addressed to the same degree as both Carter and Reagan. This in itself is a puzzle within a puzzle. Pollack paints a picture where Iran became use to American weakness in the face of terrorism, but asserts that Iran was not specifically involved, and then claims Iran spreads terrorism; a foggy area for this expert author.
The book title becomes relevant in describing Iran. It is a country conflicted by its leadership that does not appear to represent the voice of its people. In 1997, with 91% of the people voting, more that 70% of the vote was in favor of reform from the “hardline” mullahs, the Madeline Albright speech of 1999 to Iran in an effort for rapprochement contained two critical words, “un-elected hands”. Every other word in the speech was aimed at a rapprochement of the two countries. While the elected Khatami government did take notice of those two words, they were willing to overlook them. Kahamen’i, the new un-elected Supreme Leader assumed control in delivering a very negative reply to the Clinton administration. To quote Pollack “Indeed it is unfortunate that this was all that came from it, but by trying so hard to start a process of rapprochement with the Khatami government, the Clinton administration gave the George W Bush administration the perfect argument to demand a harder line on Iran from America’s allies.”
If Clinton’s stick were equal in size to his carrot, would he have handed George W. Bush a different set of cards? In fact Pollack was equally generous to G.W. Bush. He speaks of the strategies between Clinton and Bush as complementary being that Iran always took the carrot and left the United States with nothing but the stick, a stick that for many reasons detailed in the book can be used for nothing but waving in the air. Pollack suggest that Clinton handed Bush the stick. Pollack reiterates that over the course of our relationship with Iran, and particularly in the last 25 years, their negotiating style called for the United States to put all concessions on the table for which they take them and leave. However Pollack demonstrates many cases where Iran does respond to the stick.
In Pollack’s closing chapters he describes a three-part strategy to become good neighbors with Iran. He claims that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is the number one concern; because if successful Iran’s complete persona of xenophobia changes. (a root cause resolution dynamic not explored universally by the author) The first is through a “Grand Bargain” whereby each side lay down their concessions, detailed in the book. The second is through international diplomacy where all nations of the world lay out a new world protocol among nations, detailed in the book. And the third part being military might. Because this is three-part strategy is introduced only after Pollack makes a case for the failure of each strategy independently, you the reader must pay close attention to the intricate relations between all three and the “trip wires” that would transition from one policy to another. In the end you begin to see the edges of the Persian Puzzle. You may even have your colored pieces in their proper piles, but there is no way the puzzle get completed in this book. You also begin to appreciate a requirement for a tremendous staff in our State Department to piece this all together. In retrospect I found the details and criticism in the early going of the book to be much sharper. There is enough history provided to appreciate the general feeling of the common man that Iran holds anxieties towards America. There is also enough history provided to be sure that Iran has much to be responsible for in their anxiety about many things internally and externally, including The West. This gives true meaning to the saying only history will tell. I can only hope that Pollack will be around in 50 years so that at age 99 I will read his sequel.
Epilogue: I am always taken back by: those in America that unilaterally condemns “THIS ADMINISTRATION”; when I contrast it to the following quote in the book by Ayatollah Khomeni upon burying two prostitutes up to their chest and had them stoned to death by the public. Bear in mind there was not trial. He said, “ Criminals should not be tried. The trial of a criminal is against human rights. Human rights demand that we should have killed them in the first place.” It is similarly described in the book where the leftist student Revolutionaries physically, and physiologically abused many hostages and Ayatollah Khomeni gave his seal of approval to these acts. To the Ayatollah perceptions were more important than truth; a reality he can hold to without a free press and a fair judicial system.
This country does have a judicial process, free press and core values aimed at liberty. On the moral questions raised, it appears that making compromises to those opposing this freewill is counterproductive. It is time we all turn up the volume on the beacon on the hill and stand together for what we are for regardless of WHICH ADMINISTRATION. The situation in the Middle East is very complicated. Pollack is much more versed than myself and his views are highly regarded. But he does not have a clear answer a proven answer. So why would we blame him while serving under Clinton or any other American for not solving this puzzle? I believe this strategy is the key in Pollack’s book the he touches but fails to utilize this KEY to simplify is three-part strategy. Pollock glosses over it, but ever since the Czar of Russia recognized the will of the people were not behind Napoleon, he knew the French would retreat regardless of what happened on the battlefield. A beacon on the hill is for liberty and anti terrorism. Let it shine through our people and our press. But let us shine what unites us, rather than that which divides us.
American Soldier
American Soldier
By General Tommy Franks
Janet gave me this book for Christmas to help round out my reading on the subject of Iraq. The book provides a great perspective from a Generals view. He provided a view of a person who participated in four wars in different roles. He provided a view from an average person who earned a privilege to wear four stars. I could go into my usual detail of the book to discuss controversial decisions. But this time I would rather share his poem at the conclusion of a heart felt story.
The Parable of Armageddon
There was once a land called Free, a plum surrounded by
Briars of Less. The people there, in olden times, proud
Of the Manna of Free – a curious essence known as Will.
Will, it seems, was cherished above all else in the land of
Free, as it was the armor that protected Free from the briars
Of Less. Will, as the story goes, was held in the State of
Mind in the land of Free. The true patriots of Free knew if
The State of Mind should ever falter, the Will would be Lost
And the briars of Less would engulf them all—
“I hope we never forget the value of Will”
He wrote the poem as a Major in “this mans army” at a time when Iran held Americans hostage. The poem stands on its own. Having read the book the poem holds a personal meaning. Another of his quotes worth mentioning was advise of his father: “son you don’t have to know anything to have an opinion” I would turn it on edge and say no matter what you know it’s only your opinion. I am sure many of you would cringe at book cover with an American flag and a Generals mug. So don’t read the whole book…get your self a cup of coffee and at least read the epilogue at your nearest book store. You will likely not change your opinion, but you may sleep on a little more perspective.
Thanx Janet I would have otherwise overlooked this keeper. I’ll place it next to Schwartzkoph’s and Powell’s books in my library. A General Officer…a unique breed.
By General Tommy Franks
Janet gave me this book for Christmas to help round out my reading on the subject of Iraq. The book provides a great perspective from a Generals view. He provided a view of a person who participated in four wars in different roles. He provided a view from an average person who earned a privilege to wear four stars. I could go into my usual detail of the book to discuss controversial decisions. But this time I would rather share his poem at the conclusion of a heart felt story.
The Parable of Armageddon
There was once a land called Free, a plum surrounded by
Briars of Less. The people there, in olden times, proud
Of the Manna of Free – a curious essence known as Will.
Will, it seems, was cherished above all else in the land of
Free, as it was the armor that protected Free from the briars
Of Less. Will, as the story goes, was held in the State of
Mind in the land of Free. The true patriots of Free knew if
The State of Mind should ever falter, the Will would be Lost
And the briars of Less would engulf them all—
“I hope we never forget the value of Will”
He wrote the poem as a Major in “this mans army” at a time when Iran held Americans hostage. The poem stands on its own. Having read the book the poem holds a personal meaning. Another of his quotes worth mentioning was advise of his father: “son you don’t have to know anything to have an opinion” I would turn it on edge and say no matter what you know it’s only your opinion. I am sure many of you would cringe at book cover with an American flag and a Generals mug. So don’t read the whole book…get your self a cup of coffee and at least read the epilogue at your nearest book store. You will likely not change your opinion, but you may sleep on a little more perspective.
Thanx Janet I would have otherwise overlooked this keeper. I’ll place it next to Schwartzkoph’s and Powell’s books in my library. A General Officer…a unique breed.
Men In Black
Men In Black
By Mark Levin
These days of 2005 are filled with charged discussion on Supreme Court nominations and Justice nominations at lower levels as well. I’ve read a few books on justice in my past; I picked this book up as a vacation reader while on the beach at Bama & Bampa’s place. It is a recent publication by an author with credentials in law and a protagonist for the Justice of constitutionalist bent, which leaves him with a rightward lean. However, please don’t let the cover or his reputation dissuade you form an easy read through judicial history. He makes a case for judicial reform and cites a trail of inept judges (for many reasons) and a history of cases, whether left or right outcome, as demonstrable evidence to put judicial activism in check.
The basic premise whereby a judicial ruling is based on the practical outcome of events as opposed to strict interpretation of our Constitution, as amended are put in an alarming context when the author makes apparent that justices are appointed for life. My current views of recent events found myself comparing ‘men in black” to the “unguided hands” vested in the mullahs of Iran. Each can overturn the powers of elected government and thwart the will of the people that government represents.
Levin describes a progressive process that began in the Marbury ruling of 1803 and has been downhill ever since. He describes an orchestrated process that includes activist groups propelling our represented government to appoint men with a presumed bias; albeit historically not so, pre or post appointment. I include the post fact because Levin demonstrates where constitutionalist judges evolve to activist decisions over time due to pressure from activists inside the beltway. In that evolutionary process Levin demonstrates the word tools judges use to stretch a new meaning or direction of the constitution. And finally Levin demonstrates where agendas of activist groups bring cases to court in a strategic way to push our democratic process further down that slippery slope.
The book is a challenge to read because it brings up current cases whereby the casual reader would find personal bias of an example case to interfere with the position being put forth by the author. In my opinion, we are by human nature easily swayed into a train of thought that would have an influence on the outcome of a person’s fate as opposed to being disciplined to our mandates of our Constitution. There are some events where a decision doesn’t even belong in our Courts. Yet the precedence set in Marbury 1803 decision allows for judicial review of democratic process to put elected decision makers in check, leaving democratic decisions vulnerable the human nature of a Supreme Arbitrator. This is common when activism looses at the ballot box. And these “Justices” often fall prey to that same instinct. Righting the wrongs of the world as “they see it.”
I recommend this book only to give today’s left or right a grounding point. While the book’s cover and introduction do not imply this I feel Levin provided enough balance to put the reader in the center. His call is not for any political agenda, but for reform in the judicial process with regard to appointments of judges. It is only a call with a couple shallow ideas as a way forward. The side affect from reading select cases leads the reader to pause and think…. could I ever be a good juror? The Murphy family is well aware of what liberties can diminish when activist agendas draw our politicians and our courts in on issues they do not belong in. Joe, I thought of you when I turned the last page. Indeed we are not fixing a social problem at your expense. How do we fix this?
By Mark Levin
These days of 2005 are filled with charged discussion on Supreme Court nominations and Justice nominations at lower levels as well. I’ve read a few books on justice in my past; I picked this book up as a vacation reader while on the beach at Bama & Bampa’s place. It is a recent publication by an author with credentials in law and a protagonist for the Justice of constitutionalist bent, which leaves him with a rightward lean. However, please don’t let the cover or his reputation dissuade you form an easy read through judicial history. He makes a case for judicial reform and cites a trail of inept judges (for many reasons) and a history of cases, whether left or right outcome, as demonstrable evidence to put judicial activism in check.
The basic premise whereby a judicial ruling is based on the practical outcome of events as opposed to strict interpretation of our Constitution, as amended are put in an alarming context when the author makes apparent that justices are appointed for life. My current views of recent events found myself comparing ‘men in black” to the “unguided hands” vested in the mullahs of Iran. Each can overturn the powers of elected government and thwart the will of the people that government represents.
Levin describes a progressive process that began in the Marbury ruling of 1803 and has been downhill ever since. He describes an orchestrated process that includes activist groups propelling our represented government to appoint men with a presumed bias; albeit historically not so, pre or post appointment. I include the post fact because Levin demonstrates where constitutionalist judges evolve to activist decisions over time due to pressure from activists inside the beltway. In that evolutionary process Levin demonstrates the word tools judges use to stretch a new meaning or direction of the constitution. And finally Levin demonstrates where agendas of activist groups bring cases to court in a strategic way to push our democratic process further down that slippery slope.
The book is a challenge to read because it brings up current cases whereby the casual reader would find personal bias of an example case to interfere with the position being put forth by the author. In my opinion, we are by human nature easily swayed into a train of thought that would have an influence on the outcome of a person’s fate as opposed to being disciplined to our mandates of our Constitution. There are some events where a decision doesn’t even belong in our Courts. Yet the precedence set in Marbury 1803 decision allows for judicial review of democratic process to put elected decision makers in check, leaving democratic decisions vulnerable the human nature of a Supreme Arbitrator. This is common when activism looses at the ballot box. And these “Justices” often fall prey to that same instinct. Righting the wrongs of the world as “they see it.”
I recommend this book only to give today’s left or right a grounding point. While the book’s cover and introduction do not imply this I feel Levin provided enough balance to put the reader in the center. His call is not for any political agenda, but for reform in the judicial process with regard to appointments of judges. It is only a call with a couple shallow ideas as a way forward. The side affect from reading select cases leads the reader to pause and think…. could I ever be a good juror? The Murphy family is well aware of what liberties can diminish when activist agendas draw our politicians and our courts in on issues they do not belong in. Joe, I thought of you when I turned the last page. Indeed we are not fixing a social problem at your expense. How do we fix this?
Seize The Moment
Seize The Moment
By Richard M. Nixon
I got this book some time ago largely to just put on my bookshelf. After years sitting there, I read it because I have read a lot about Richard Nixon, but never anything by him. So sum up the book, it provides a prescription with statistical and analytical supporting argument for the way forward in world politics as the one remaining superpower. I did not realize what I was going to read about until I started reading and now must place it right next to Kissinger’s book on the same subject. While both men are despised by many from the political left, I believe their worldviews are required reading to formulate balanced views. When I contrast both books I find Nixon focused on the world of finance and business and Kissenger focused on politics and power. Both have a common denominator, which is national security.
Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.
Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.
As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.
As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.
The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.
Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.
It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.
By Richard M. Nixon
I got this book some time ago largely to just put on my bookshelf. After years sitting there, I read it because I have read a lot about Richard Nixon, but never anything by him. So sum up the book, it provides a prescription with statistical and analytical supporting argument for the way forward in world politics as the one remaining superpower. I did not realize what I was going to read about until I started reading and now must place it right next to Kissinger’s book on the same subject. While both men are despised by many from the political left, I believe their worldviews are required reading to formulate balanced views. When I contrast both books I find Nixon focused on the world of finance and business and Kissenger focused on politics and power. Both have a common denominator, which is national security.
Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.
Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.
As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.
As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.
The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.
Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.
It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.
Where Ever You Go There Your Are
Where Ever You Go There Your Are
By Jon Kabat-Zinn
This book has been in my library for a few years. As I was reading it and telling TJ about it he said, “yeah Dad you gave me that to read about eight years ago.” That would have made him twelve at the time. This is a great introductory book for those contemplating meditation and those who are already practiced at it. The author makes it clear that meditation does not have to be a yoga/guru art form to reap its fruit. He even makes room for active meditation in your busy life. He prescribes one ingredient and that is to focus. Begin with focusing on your breath and only that.
As the book concludes the introductory part in the mental preparation for meditation the author draws up a nice metaphor that works for me being an advocate of Emerson’s school of thought. As you begin to meditate you may have many thoughts in your head. Let them be. As you become aware of your thoughts, you become aware of what they are doing for you and how they may be working against you. This awareness is like a kettle of soup. Its not any one thought that defines you its all the ingredients simmering at one time. As you become aware of this and let each thought go, the truth of your being relaxes you. The experience is a sort of grad school for Emersonians.
The rest of the book goes into the body alignment and experience of yoga. If when taking this section light heartedly as I did, the lure is seductive. It is akin to getting into a warm lake and discovering not only is the water warm, but once fully immersed and opening your eyes you become aware of its affect on your body. It’s a great way to remove yourself from the here and now but really tune in to what here and now is doing to your body……stress relief is the outcome.
In tying this all together the author is targeting the average western bear. ME! I enjoyed the book because I felt no pressure to run to my nearest guru for yoga instruction. And at the same time I am reminded of the fruits of taking a moment each day to consciously become aware. Active meditation becomes a reality in this book where you become more thoughtful in your conversation and interaction with others. I remember when traveling to Japan, I was taught to count to five before I responded to a question. I was taught that this was out of respect towards the Japanese when really it is with respect to myself.
By Jon Kabat-Zinn
This book has been in my library for a few years. As I was reading it and telling TJ about it he said, “yeah Dad you gave me that to read about eight years ago.” That would have made him twelve at the time. This is a great introductory book for those contemplating meditation and those who are already practiced at it. The author makes it clear that meditation does not have to be a yoga/guru art form to reap its fruit. He even makes room for active meditation in your busy life. He prescribes one ingredient and that is to focus. Begin with focusing on your breath and only that.
As the book concludes the introductory part in the mental preparation for meditation the author draws up a nice metaphor that works for me being an advocate of Emerson’s school of thought. As you begin to meditate you may have many thoughts in your head. Let them be. As you become aware of your thoughts, you become aware of what they are doing for you and how they may be working against you. This awareness is like a kettle of soup. Its not any one thought that defines you its all the ingredients simmering at one time. As you become aware of this and let each thought go, the truth of your being relaxes you. The experience is a sort of grad school for Emersonians.
The rest of the book goes into the body alignment and experience of yoga. If when taking this section light heartedly as I did, the lure is seductive. It is akin to getting into a warm lake and discovering not only is the water warm, but once fully immersed and opening your eyes you become aware of its affect on your body. It’s a great way to remove yourself from the here and now but really tune in to what here and now is doing to your body……stress relief is the outcome.
In tying this all together the author is targeting the average western bear. ME! I enjoyed the book because I felt no pressure to run to my nearest guru for yoga instruction. And at the same time I am reminded of the fruits of taking a moment each day to consciously become aware. Active meditation becomes a reality in this book where you become more thoughtful in your conversation and interaction with others. I remember when traveling to Japan, I was taught to count to five before I responded to a question. I was taught that this was out of respect towards the Japanese when really it is with respect to myself.
Ninety-Three
Ninety-Three
By Victor Hugo
I am told that Victor Hugo wrote this book from passed down experience of his grandfather had. Imagine if your grandpa to you a story about his World War II experience and you the novelist and wrote a book about it. How do you keep the facts in order as you impart your reaction to grandpa’s story? How does grandpa’s story square up with everyone else’s story? Does it matter? There is a lot of Hugo family heritage or folklore in this book as Hugo poses great questions through human drama. He again does a great job of casting the players in a story that is once again colorfully set in the west of France.
Characters: The Royalist held an ideal that the old ways of easily identified rules prevailed. Family & King. The values held with in those rules found one man conceding to another on the grounds of his family heritage. Or otherwise said the successes of one man could be passed down to another as his free choice. Nobility came with an obligation to uphold the family name and therefore the nobleman instilled this upon his heirs. Whether this is accomplished or not is another story. Honor is put forth as the trait in mankind that provides his compass to navigate his decisions, which lead to his relative bearing on society. The Royalist in the story are led by Marquis Lentenac who is ruthless and takes no prisoners and offers no quarter to the enemy.
The Revolutionist held an ideal that the new ways where difficult to negotiate rules prevailed. Family, city, country. The values held with in those rules found man conceding to another on the grounds of his country’s heritage. Nobility came with an obligation to uphold the rules of citizenship and therefore the nobleman left noble heritage to the community. Honor is put forth as the trait in mankind that provides his compass to navigate his decisions which lead relative his bearing on society. The Revolutionist in the story are led by Vicount Gauvain who is ruthless and takes no prisoners and offers no quarter to the enemy where the enemy is in uniform and engaged in battle.
Setting: The Parisian, French represented the revolutionist as a city of new ideals against countryside of Vendees, Breton. While Hugo does not necessarily elaborate on the cause and effect of a need for more rules in the city versus the country; he does characterize the city dweller as more educated and capable of seeing the need for social rule. Given is that they live in close quarters where it is easier to come across differences and see the need for civil law. Being less exposed to differences Hugo portrays the Vendee dweller of the countryside as simpler in thought but more loyal to his virtues.
Hugo does not in prose put is finger on cause and affect, but he does riddle the book with his notorious poetic metaphors of opposites as the two sides engage in conflict. As an example metaphor: “Hope would be the greatest power on earth if were not for desperation.” And every time Hugo does this, the reader finds his reading paused in thought. (at least for me) Eventually, the thoughts become entangled. In the end Hugo delves into the struggle within man as reason wrestles with feeling. I say this because the setting is with the mind of man and you the reader become a part in it.
Authors message: Within the authors message I heard him say that upon any social storm, this one being a civil war a moral compass is found in your honor. There was really little difference between the opposing forces and a lot more in common which requires a well thought out compass to choose right from wrong. On a grander stage Hugo writes “When the rights of man is lost in the bureaucracy of justice that includes the scribblers”(press) “that right is lost, just the same as in a monarchy”. There is civil justice and there is higher justice. Hugo poses a question: that man grapples with ideals –v- absolutes. ………feelings –v-reason. How does a person arbitrate one without the other?
Storyline: The story obviously takes place during the French Revolution, which for all practical purpose by 1793 takes the form of a civil war. The two characters that provide the catalyst for Hugo’s message are Cimourdain a priest who raised Gauvain and Michelle Flechard a mother who was order shot by Lentenac. To make the story filled with family suspense Gauvain and Lentenac are relatives. The story is filled with chivalry, deceit, cynicism, love, human drama, and intrigue as one force captures another force only to find their leaders heroically trade places. At the climax of the story when one opposing forces save the three surviving children of Michelle Flechard from a fire, ideals are reconciled and the heroes play their part.
But are they heroes? To be heroes I would have ended the book differently. Hugo leaves the reader with a lot to think about. But other than pointing out the conflicts within man and society his heroes answer no questions in my mind. Of course the questions he poses are difficult so do not be dismayed. Or maybe I an just a little thick headed. I would enjoy sharing my ending with those who have read the book. Hugo’s other possible ending lay within the final chapter, but he lets it slip away along with the answer to the question he poses.
But I’ll also leave you with this question: Is history a tale of the actual events or is history a tale of your reaction to the events?
By Victor Hugo
I am told that Victor Hugo wrote this book from passed down experience of his grandfather had. Imagine if your grandpa to you a story about his World War II experience and you the novelist and wrote a book about it. How do you keep the facts in order as you impart your reaction to grandpa’s story? How does grandpa’s story square up with everyone else’s story? Does it matter? There is a lot of Hugo family heritage or folklore in this book as Hugo poses great questions through human drama. He again does a great job of casting the players in a story that is once again colorfully set in the west of France.
Characters: The Royalist held an ideal that the old ways of easily identified rules prevailed. Family & King. The values held with in those rules found one man conceding to another on the grounds of his family heritage. Or otherwise said the successes of one man could be passed down to another as his free choice. Nobility came with an obligation to uphold the family name and therefore the nobleman instilled this upon his heirs. Whether this is accomplished or not is another story. Honor is put forth as the trait in mankind that provides his compass to navigate his decisions, which lead to his relative bearing on society. The Royalist in the story are led by Marquis Lentenac who is ruthless and takes no prisoners and offers no quarter to the enemy.
The Revolutionist held an ideal that the new ways where difficult to negotiate rules prevailed. Family, city, country. The values held with in those rules found man conceding to another on the grounds of his country’s heritage. Nobility came with an obligation to uphold the rules of citizenship and therefore the nobleman left noble heritage to the community. Honor is put forth as the trait in mankind that provides his compass to navigate his decisions which lead relative his bearing on society. The Revolutionist in the story are led by Vicount Gauvain who is ruthless and takes no prisoners and offers no quarter to the enemy where the enemy is in uniform and engaged in battle.
Setting: The Parisian, French represented the revolutionist as a city of new ideals against countryside of Vendees, Breton. While Hugo does not necessarily elaborate on the cause and effect of a need for more rules in the city versus the country; he does characterize the city dweller as more educated and capable of seeing the need for social rule. Given is that they live in close quarters where it is easier to come across differences and see the need for civil law. Being less exposed to differences Hugo portrays the Vendee dweller of the countryside as simpler in thought but more loyal to his virtues.
Hugo does not in prose put is finger on cause and affect, but he does riddle the book with his notorious poetic metaphors of opposites as the two sides engage in conflict. As an example metaphor: “Hope would be the greatest power on earth if were not for desperation.” And every time Hugo does this, the reader finds his reading paused in thought. (at least for me) Eventually, the thoughts become entangled. In the end Hugo delves into the struggle within man as reason wrestles with feeling. I say this because the setting is with the mind of man and you the reader become a part in it.
Authors message: Within the authors message I heard him say that upon any social storm, this one being a civil war a moral compass is found in your honor. There was really little difference between the opposing forces and a lot more in common which requires a well thought out compass to choose right from wrong. On a grander stage Hugo writes “When the rights of man is lost in the bureaucracy of justice that includes the scribblers”(press) “that right is lost, just the same as in a monarchy”. There is civil justice and there is higher justice. Hugo poses a question: that man grapples with ideals –v- absolutes. ………feelings –v-reason. How does a person arbitrate one without the other?
Storyline: The story obviously takes place during the French Revolution, which for all practical purpose by 1793 takes the form of a civil war. The two characters that provide the catalyst for Hugo’s message are Cimourdain a priest who raised Gauvain and Michelle Flechard a mother who was order shot by Lentenac. To make the story filled with family suspense Gauvain and Lentenac are relatives. The story is filled with chivalry, deceit, cynicism, love, human drama, and intrigue as one force captures another force only to find their leaders heroically trade places. At the climax of the story when one opposing forces save the three surviving children of Michelle Flechard from a fire, ideals are reconciled and the heroes play their part.
But are they heroes? To be heroes I would have ended the book differently. Hugo leaves the reader with a lot to think about. But other than pointing out the conflicts within man and society his heroes answer no questions in my mind. Of course the questions he poses are difficult so do not be dismayed. Or maybe I an just a little thick headed. I would enjoy sharing my ending with those who have read the book. Hugo’s other possible ending lay within the final chapter, but he lets it slip away along with the answer to the question he poses.
But I’ll also leave you with this question: Is history a tale of the actual events or is history a tale of your reaction to the events?
The Da Vinci Code
The Da Vinci Code
By Dan Brown
I picked this book up because everyone else has read it but me. So I figured I'd write about something you could comment on.
The book uses the setting of a crime scene to quickly set the tone for a fast collection of “facts”. Be on guard, as the immediate set of facts has nothing to do with the outcome of the book, in my opinion. Without saying the word Catholic, Catholicism is indicted for non-consequential acts of conspiracy. The author wins the attention of a large group of people who have a problem with Catholics early on. The author also seems to have caught the passions of our doubting public at a time when fanatical religious fahtwas and 911 slammed our Western conscious, making the book a craze. Meanwhile the sublime proposition of “controversial interpretation” is lost in the shadows of angst to finally lay ones hands on proof. While the book criticizes Opus Dia for self-mortification practices, it seems popular for the readers I’ve talked with to punish themselves with a guilt complex vested in the book. The star player in the book is introduced as a famous professor with a knack for taking any symbol and making controversial interpretations. So we have a good-looking professor from Harvard, with a chocolate baritone voice to deliver a liberating message to the receptive American female ear. I had begun my reading with the intent to list each symbol Brown uses and examine them for error.
The controversy begins with a symbol interpretation of the Pentacle: A star, a pagan symbol of Venus and the feminine balance in humanity. The symbolism is orated in the book along side the Catholic strain of an Opus Dei practice of keeping men and women separate. In keeping with the spirit of the conspiracy theory I mused myself with my coincidental fascination with observing Venus bright on the western sky as my first start to see at night while reading the book. Star bright star light wish I may…
The symbol trail continues in an academic tone at first with PHI: Divine proportion. If you take any set of numbers from Fabonacci’s sequence, their quotients approach 1.618. Brown gets the reader excited all the marvels of mans accomplishments and underscores them with PHI. While there may or may not be truth in the coincidence of proportion, Brown offers no rationalization or evidence that the ancient engineering man or Renascence musician, purposefully applied PHI to their work. Nor beyond coincidence does Brown connect PHI with the Pentacle.
Mona Lisa: Da Vinci’s expression of the balance between man and women. Brown interpretation uses a few ancient Egyptian symbols Amon and Isis to (Mona Lisa) connect the balance. Brown applies his previously stated androgynous cryptology technique (with a few modifications to make it work) Take the A and move it to the back of Amon and then drop one if the Is’s and invent a L in the front and an A in the back. He also does a nice job teasing the reader with Da Vinci’s painting techniques to show a left to right imbalance giving a yin-yang or masculine – feminine perspective. When I look at the painting, nothing comes up. The secret Da Vinci held was also known in the Far East.
Browns attempt to use androgynous cryptology technique in modified form to produce results, which is a sin in the scientific community led me to read the rest of the book for mere entertainment of a mystery novel. And at this Brown does a fabulous job of presenting simultaneous storylines with unfinished business, conflicting agendas, blended with double-entendre riddles to keep you turning. All along the intrigue of police drama you are also strung along the feminine mystery line with your own drama that angst’s you to wonderment as to what exactly is the Holy Grail, why is it so sought after, where is it, and who is hiding it. If you remember the last scene in Indiana Jones, it is in the national archives…lost forever in the bowels of our government. Of course I am consumed with finding my car keys leaving absolutely no time for a Holy Grail.
Madona On The Rocks: Da Vinci’s expression of “so dark the con of man” The mission of the Priory as secret society to resurrect the balance of man and women that was apparently in existence before the Church. Brown trips over his story line in the demonizing of the Catholic Church when he mentions Judaism and Islam as co conspirators in the Crusade wars. Brown also drifts into the Hopi Indians that would trip ones memory of American Indians where women were not considered equal. But non the less if you were a “Women’s Right” advocate of any measure; you would now be easy prey to be seduced to thinking that Browns clues go beyond conspiracy theory and into facts to challenge the Catholic Church.
Through out the book Brown leaves other clues that use to be boring, except for those people consumed with the “truth” as though that might bring them power. There are data banks and libraries where thousands of theologians have been perusing the argument. There are volumes of books written in a multitude of languages. All of this is claimed to be wrapped up in arts and music, where today’s man seems content with the beat or something to hang on the wall to bring the color of the room and the sofa together. Brown inspires you to be curious to the extent that it could be mysterious or even ridiculous. For instance I have always made “pet projects” out of my rose bushes. This year not only did a mysterious rose bush crop up three feet away from the other two creating a trinity, but no rose came to bloom this summer. That is until I read this book. I am thinking of calling in the main character of the book to help me interpret this. I have a fung-shua compass and a magnetic compass and I still get nothing. I guess the prime meridian will have to stay in London awhile longer.
After enduring three hundred pages of Catholic bashing Brown redeems himself by disclosing the real culprit behind the crime scene leaving the church exonerated. Brown also leaves his own message that finds harmony with the Catholic Church. In his book he writes in the closing chapters: “It is the mystery of wonderment that serves our souls, not the Grail itself. The beauty of the Grail lies in the ethereal nature.” “The blind see what they want to see” And finally my most cherished goal he writes: “If you have learned nothing from me, please learn this….” “Forgiveness is Gods greatest gift.”
I was once debunked for speculating on the application of numbers without having a clue of what I was talking about. She was right; I didn’t. I was only speculating for friendly conversation. Of course that conversation never went anywhere with the scientific mind of my counterpart nor did the relationship. What I find amazing is that same scientific mind can attempt to apply this “mystery novel” presentation of coincidental and controversial interpretations of symbolism to attack the Catholic Church. She is blind to the idea that the arguments in the book and spawning from the book are two thousand years old and there is nothing new to alter the debate and declare victory. The book is entertaining in its presentation of facts and at the same time hypnotically deceptive; especially for those yearning to blind themselves with the compulsion of being right, being better, being on top. I am left with the phrase I once heard in a speech “that fanaticism is at the root of all conflict”. Had tolerance, another word for forgiveness, existed in that early relationship; fanatic insistence of being right would have given way to harmony.
I know, once again I came away from a book with a different reaction than the main stream. There has been religious conflict and social conflict since the invention of man. This book can cause harmony or discord. In my example above I can visualize first how easy it is for differences to erupt in interpersonal relationships and how hard it is for forgiveness comes to rescue the relationship. Imagining society being any better when it’s integral parts struggle leaves me at a loss. But I am left with this question: How often have you experienced difficulty in finding the keys to tolerance or forgiveness as your breakthrough to a better life? When I go to the museum, I’ll be looking for that answer.
Great Book, I recommend it with a light heart.
By Dan Brown
I picked this book up because everyone else has read it but me. So I figured I'd write about something you could comment on.
The book uses the setting of a crime scene to quickly set the tone for a fast collection of “facts”. Be on guard, as the immediate set of facts has nothing to do with the outcome of the book, in my opinion. Without saying the word Catholic, Catholicism is indicted for non-consequential acts of conspiracy. The author wins the attention of a large group of people who have a problem with Catholics early on. The author also seems to have caught the passions of our doubting public at a time when fanatical religious fahtwas and 911 slammed our Western conscious, making the book a craze. Meanwhile the sublime proposition of “controversial interpretation” is lost in the shadows of angst to finally lay ones hands on proof. While the book criticizes Opus Dia for self-mortification practices, it seems popular for the readers I’ve talked with to punish themselves with a guilt complex vested in the book. The star player in the book is introduced as a famous professor with a knack for taking any symbol and making controversial interpretations. So we have a good-looking professor from Harvard, with a chocolate baritone voice to deliver a liberating message to the receptive American female ear. I had begun my reading with the intent to list each symbol Brown uses and examine them for error.
The controversy begins with a symbol interpretation of the Pentacle: A star, a pagan symbol of Venus and the feminine balance in humanity. The symbolism is orated in the book along side the Catholic strain of an Opus Dei practice of keeping men and women separate. In keeping with the spirit of the conspiracy theory I mused myself with my coincidental fascination with observing Venus bright on the western sky as my first start to see at night while reading the book. Star bright star light wish I may…
The symbol trail continues in an academic tone at first with PHI: Divine proportion. If you take any set of numbers from Fabonacci’s sequence, their quotients approach 1.618. Brown gets the reader excited all the marvels of mans accomplishments and underscores them with PHI. While there may or may not be truth in the coincidence of proportion, Brown offers no rationalization or evidence that the ancient engineering man or Renascence musician, purposefully applied PHI to their work. Nor beyond coincidence does Brown connect PHI with the Pentacle.
Mona Lisa: Da Vinci’s expression of the balance between man and women. Brown interpretation uses a few ancient Egyptian symbols Amon and Isis to (Mona Lisa) connect the balance. Brown applies his previously stated androgynous cryptology technique (with a few modifications to make it work) Take the A and move it to the back of Amon and then drop one if the Is’s and invent a L in the front and an A in the back. He also does a nice job teasing the reader with Da Vinci’s painting techniques to show a left to right imbalance giving a yin-yang or masculine – feminine perspective. When I look at the painting, nothing comes up. The secret Da Vinci held was also known in the Far East.
Browns attempt to use androgynous cryptology technique in modified form to produce results, which is a sin in the scientific community led me to read the rest of the book for mere entertainment of a mystery novel. And at this Brown does a fabulous job of presenting simultaneous storylines with unfinished business, conflicting agendas, blended with double-entendre riddles to keep you turning. All along the intrigue of police drama you are also strung along the feminine mystery line with your own drama that angst’s you to wonderment as to what exactly is the Holy Grail, why is it so sought after, where is it, and who is hiding it. If you remember the last scene in Indiana Jones, it is in the national archives…lost forever in the bowels of our government. Of course I am consumed with finding my car keys leaving absolutely no time for a Holy Grail.
Madona On The Rocks: Da Vinci’s expression of “so dark the con of man” The mission of the Priory as secret society to resurrect the balance of man and women that was apparently in existence before the Church. Brown trips over his story line in the demonizing of the Catholic Church when he mentions Judaism and Islam as co conspirators in the Crusade wars. Brown also drifts into the Hopi Indians that would trip ones memory of American Indians where women were not considered equal. But non the less if you were a “Women’s Right” advocate of any measure; you would now be easy prey to be seduced to thinking that Browns clues go beyond conspiracy theory and into facts to challenge the Catholic Church.
Through out the book Brown leaves other clues that use to be boring, except for those people consumed with the “truth” as though that might bring them power. There are data banks and libraries where thousands of theologians have been perusing the argument. There are volumes of books written in a multitude of languages. All of this is claimed to be wrapped up in arts and music, where today’s man seems content with the beat or something to hang on the wall to bring the color of the room and the sofa together. Brown inspires you to be curious to the extent that it could be mysterious or even ridiculous. For instance I have always made “pet projects” out of my rose bushes. This year not only did a mysterious rose bush crop up three feet away from the other two creating a trinity, but no rose came to bloom this summer. That is until I read this book. I am thinking of calling in the main character of the book to help me interpret this. I have a fung-shua compass and a magnetic compass and I still get nothing. I guess the prime meridian will have to stay in London awhile longer.
After enduring three hundred pages of Catholic bashing Brown redeems himself by disclosing the real culprit behind the crime scene leaving the church exonerated. Brown also leaves his own message that finds harmony with the Catholic Church. In his book he writes in the closing chapters: “It is the mystery of wonderment that serves our souls, not the Grail itself. The beauty of the Grail lies in the ethereal nature.” “The blind see what they want to see” And finally my most cherished goal he writes: “If you have learned nothing from me, please learn this….” “Forgiveness is Gods greatest gift.”
I was once debunked for speculating on the application of numbers without having a clue of what I was talking about. She was right; I didn’t. I was only speculating for friendly conversation. Of course that conversation never went anywhere with the scientific mind of my counterpart nor did the relationship. What I find amazing is that same scientific mind can attempt to apply this “mystery novel” presentation of coincidental and controversial interpretations of symbolism to attack the Catholic Church. She is blind to the idea that the arguments in the book and spawning from the book are two thousand years old and there is nothing new to alter the debate and declare victory. The book is entertaining in its presentation of facts and at the same time hypnotically deceptive; especially for those yearning to blind themselves with the compulsion of being right, being better, being on top. I am left with the phrase I once heard in a speech “that fanaticism is at the root of all conflict”. Had tolerance, another word for forgiveness, existed in that early relationship; fanatic insistence of being right would have given way to harmony.
I know, once again I came away from a book with a different reaction than the main stream. There has been religious conflict and social conflict since the invention of man. This book can cause harmony or discord. In my example above I can visualize first how easy it is for differences to erupt in interpersonal relationships and how hard it is for forgiveness comes to rescue the relationship. Imagining society being any better when it’s integral parts struggle leaves me at a loss. But I am left with this question: How often have you experienced difficulty in finding the keys to tolerance or forgiveness as your breakthrough to a better life? When I go to the museum, I’ll be looking for that answer.
Great Book, I recommend it with a light heart.
The Brothers Karamzov
The Brothers Karamzov
By Fyodor Dostoevsky
I read this book because the Bama is reading it and I thought I’d read it along with her. Also my past reading and life’s experience made it easy to pick up another Russian book. So first I provide my paradigm before the book and will conclude with my reaction.
As I got back in to that familiar Dostoevsky writing style I was quickly reminded of my comparative observation of people from that part of the world. The inner personal core of Russians and as much as the Finns would hate to admit exists an overwhelming propensity for self-examination that comes out in their conversation albeit in different ways. Finns are very cautious and careful in what they say and therefore do not say much at first. Russians automatically think you don’t trust them. This character comes out in an early scene in a monastery where the “elder” merely responds with an antidote “just don’t lie to your self”. In background summary, if having read other Dostoevsky books prior to my spending time in both Helsinki and St. Petersburg biased my observation; is a question mark only resolved by honest confessions with those people? In my conversations they honestly admit that they think, perhaps a little too much, before they speak. Quite the opposite is present here in America, in my opinion. What I found most rewarding was my direct conversation on the subject enabled all parties to recognize the differences in personalities and be at peace with it. A better understanding of each other was our reward. So with this as my paradigm I read the book and provide my following reaction.
Dostoevsky does not deviate from his established writing style in his character introduction, in this I understand from The Bama to be his last book. The main characters consist of three brothers, Ivan, Dimitri, and Alexi. All are sons of the buffoon Fyodor Pavlovich. Ivan is well studied, Dimitri is not, and Alexi is partially studied and well vested in his faith. Dostoevsky early on makes a point that education has no relative bearing on who is his perceived hero may be. Early on you can see the question marks and human drama lines being laid out in battle for God, or truth to keep the atheist on board. In describing Alexi, also called Alyosha, you find a realist. But to rationalize his faith, Dostoevsky writes “In a realist faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith.” Which brings up my age-old observation, “you see what you want to see”; no matter what side of any argument you are on.
The Karamzov family came with a reputation of living life to its fullest with a reckless abandoned to wholesomeness and integrity towards another’s well being. This manifested itself from the father and yet through three brothers in different ways. Alexi had a strong belief in God. Life in the monastery had taught him that man is guilty before all people on behalf of all and for all human sins. In recognizing this Alexi sees not that man has committed a crime but that his nature leaves him capable of sinning, which renders the ultimate hallmark of faith in God’s forgiveness. Ivan’s educated man left him with the ability to accept God from a perspective that the concept was likely an invention of man. He could not accept Gods world because his scientific mind could not fathom the parallel mind of Euclidian and those opposite minds of faith ever coming together. This exception leaves the reader with a third alternative, which is a notion that parallel arguments could exist harmoniously without conflict as was discovered in this book. He would sum up with a question: How could the notion of the necessity of God creep in the head of such a wild and wicked animal as man? Dimitri appears, like his father, to be a scoundrel full of enough deceit and selfishness to propel the Karamzov reputation to new lows (highs).¥
As a murder mystery unfolds through elaborate character introduction the reader begins to understand there is going to be a murder but does not know who will be murdered or whom the murderer would be. As the author blends his storyline into his message early on he brings up as he had in other books the question of the times in 1850’s to 80’s Russia. There existed the over arching argument of church and state; and later in the book science verses God. By the time his characters present their sides there are actually four positions. There is the argument of a separate church and state. There is the argument a cooperative Church and State. There is the argument where the Church evolves to a State. And finally there is the argument where a State evolves to a Church. In the end social values seam to be the common goal where the four arguments end up being the means. However there is one fundamental difference. Under the Church ideals, the individual must live with his conscience, whereas under the State ideals the individual can abdicate all his responsibilities (conscience) to the State. Dostoevsky does a nice job drawing parallels between the dichotomy in a family and that of a society.
Dostoevsky also uses many other characters to examine the conscious of man as he struggles with the concept of God. Is God an invention of man? Does the invention serve a good purpose? Can science properly dispense of the virtues derived from the concept of God? What would science do without a moral compass? Early in the book Dostoevsky puts forth a concept that we are all capable of “sin” then he develops a notion that when one places himself in another’s shoes or in his words “moves over and allows the other” it become easy to understand the concept of tolerance amongst the differences of opinion. He does this to build a notion of repentance as part of the tolerance/forgiveness equation.
After the murder has taken place and the day before the suspect is brought to trial; he who had never recognized the concept of God or the ability to allow vanity to give way to tolerance and forgiveness, he finds the ability to repent. But I’ll leave it to you to discover where is repentance lay. The crime suspect, as he discovers the higher virtue in man there is a conscience or self-determination to do what is right in his mind. But now then he must grapple with a proposition put forth that he escapes from prison and flee to America. It leaves the question; does one “carry the cross” for the sin of man or if he does how heavy should that cross be, or when does he drop it?
Dostoevsky correlates God and conscience, such that to search your conscience you are appealing to the God within you for answers; that enigma that vexes your heart against your mind. He also correlates religion as a conscience for a country, giving religion the role of the mind and country the role of the heart. This comes as both the prosecution and defense attorneys present their summations and appeal to the psychology of conscience while they each present two different views of the same man. They then appeal to the heart of society, that of ‘Mother Russia” to make a social statement to the world as to what kind of people they are. There is a significant difference in the arguments where the prosecution tactic suggests that the village raises the child and forms the man, whereas the defense holds a course where the family (father/parent) forms the man. It is ironic that the same strategy was used to produce two different tactical outcomes…or as Dostoevsky says two ends to the same stick.
This book will stir your conscience with every page you endure. If you pull your moral compass out of your pocket, you’d find the needle spinning. The book is a long in detailed content and thought; Dostoesky’s and the readers thought. With regard to God, in the context of this book; God is. What ever your position on God may be, the concept of God lay in your conscience. Dostoevsky provides numerous characters, main and supporting, where their conscience is examined and it is my guess that there is a piece of every character in every reader. My favorite character is Ivan’s devil. Therein is a conversation Ivan has with his devil (in a dream that is real to Ivan and can be correlated to the many dreams in the Bible) that is similar to Kahlil Gibrans famous passage on the devil. In essence the devil is passively going along with the God program to keep the polarity of consciousness going. And what drives this debate is fear…what happens to your soul when you die. When getting on a plane we always want to make sure of its destination. It seems that a lot of people “get religion” (their conscience talking to them) when facing death.
My noteworthy phrase in this book comes near the end, again, where Dostoevsky writes in a chapter labeled Adulterer of Thought that “with a conscience there must come repentance”. This is a Christian thought at least, says Dostoevsky through his defense attorney. So with repentance there must be forgiveness. And with forgiveness there must be love, the building blocks of a peaceful society starting with the individual. I provide this as an example of the seeds of thought planted within the mind of the reader. While he makes a social case that religion and social identity (neighborhood/Nationhood) collaborate in the assembly of these blocks; it takes 776 pages of Dostoevsky detail to paint a “Rembrandt in Words” to bring the message home. What becomes very apparent is that whether religion or a government social police (ie Islam and atheist countries like China), social man must institutionalize the conscience of good behavior and chart the course of right –v- wrong. Man is corruptible when given that power over society. But when an individual holds that same power over himself alone, he becomes and expression of God where loving thy neighbor is the moral code.
In my reaction to the book as it is intertwined with current events in my life while reading it: I found it interesting that in 1880, long before Hollywood, Russians perceived America to be the “home of vanity”. Is vanity a word thrown out by those “have-nots” who despise those who “have”? Is this contempt that is found on a world stage really about religion or is it about jealousy? And what is it that one “has” or “does not have” that prompts the jealous behavior in people? Or is it just that we speak to too freely about ourselves with out regard to others? (a manifestation of a vain person) Dostoevsky provides an under current of thought on this subject where as even when he the author puts forward the accusation that Americans are vain, while many of his Russian characters are also vain (base, equally capable of the same crime). To give credit to Dostoevsky he puts forward all sides of a difficult topic in such a way allowing readers a debate of the issues in third person using any character desired as a character of merit. His critique of America sets such an example.
Therefore you can debate the book and not divulge your own personal views, leaving room for tolerance towards one another simply out of ignorance, if you need to, or love if you choose to. I encourage all to read the book as it may help you discover within yourself the capability to speak on difficult topics of great meaning while respectfully tolerating the views of others. It is my hopes that from this review any follow on dialogue are allowed to stand respectfully as it represents the full complexion of our family. Full expression begets the building blocks of love.
In your conscience state (God state) remember this Unity prayer
The light of God surrounds us
The love of God enfolds us
The power of God protects us
The presence of God watches over us
Where ever we are God is
Thanx Fyodor for your sage words
Thank-you Bama for your encouragement to read the book, it belongs in a Unity bookstore.
Happy Birthday Bama
Merry Christmas to All
By Fyodor Dostoevsky
I read this book because the Bama is reading it and I thought I’d read it along with her. Also my past reading and life’s experience made it easy to pick up another Russian book. So first I provide my paradigm before the book and will conclude with my reaction.
As I got back in to that familiar Dostoevsky writing style I was quickly reminded of my comparative observation of people from that part of the world. The inner personal core of Russians and as much as the Finns would hate to admit exists an overwhelming propensity for self-examination that comes out in their conversation albeit in different ways. Finns are very cautious and careful in what they say and therefore do not say much at first. Russians automatically think you don’t trust them. This character comes out in an early scene in a monastery where the “elder” merely responds with an antidote “just don’t lie to your self”. In background summary, if having read other Dostoevsky books prior to my spending time in both Helsinki and St. Petersburg biased my observation; is a question mark only resolved by honest confessions with those people? In my conversations they honestly admit that they think, perhaps a little too much, before they speak. Quite the opposite is present here in America, in my opinion. What I found most rewarding was my direct conversation on the subject enabled all parties to recognize the differences in personalities and be at peace with it. A better understanding of each other was our reward. So with this as my paradigm I read the book and provide my following reaction.
Dostoevsky does not deviate from his established writing style in his character introduction, in this I understand from The Bama to be his last book. The main characters consist of three brothers, Ivan, Dimitri, and Alexi. All are sons of the buffoon Fyodor Pavlovich. Ivan is well studied, Dimitri is not, and Alexi is partially studied and well vested in his faith. Dostoevsky early on makes a point that education has no relative bearing on who is his perceived hero may be. Early on you can see the question marks and human drama lines being laid out in battle for God, or truth to keep the atheist on board. In describing Alexi, also called Alyosha, you find a realist. But to rationalize his faith, Dostoevsky writes “In a realist faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith.” Which brings up my age-old observation, “you see what you want to see”; no matter what side of any argument you are on.
The Karamzov family came with a reputation of living life to its fullest with a reckless abandoned to wholesomeness and integrity towards another’s well being. This manifested itself from the father and yet through three brothers in different ways. Alexi had a strong belief in God. Life in the monastery had taught him that man is guilty before all people on behalf of all and for all human sins. In recognizing this Alexi sees not that man has committed a crime but that his nature leaves him capable of sinning, which renders the ultimate hallmark of faith in God’s forgiveness. Ivan’s educated man left him with the ability to accept God from a perspective that the concept was likely an invention of man. He could not accept Gods world because his scientific mind could not fathom the parallel mind of Euclidian and those opposite minds of faith ever coming together. This exception leaves the reader with a third alternative, which is a notion that parallel arguments could exist harmoniously without conflict as was discovered in this book. He would sum up with a question: How could the notion of the necessity of God creep in the head of such a wild and wicked animal as man? Dimitri appears, like his father, to be a scoundrel full of enough deceit and selfishness to propel the Karamzov reputation to new lows (highs).¥
As a murder mystery unfolds through elaborate character introduction the reader begins to understand there is going to be a murder but does not know who will be murdered or whom the murderer would be. As the author blends his storyline into his message early on he brings up as he had in other books the question of the times in 1850’s to 80’s Russia. There existed the over arching argument of church and state; and later in the book science verses God. By the time his characters present their sides there are actually four positions. There is the argument of a separate church and state. There is the argument a cooperative Church and State. There is the argument where the Church evolves to a State. And finally there is the argument where a State evolves to a Church. In the end social values seam to be the common goal where the four arguments end up being the means. However there is one fundamental difference. Under the Church ideals, the individual must live with his conscience, whereas under the State ideals the individual can abdicate all his responsibilities (conscience) to the State. Dostoevsky does a nice job drawing parallels between the dichotomy in a family and that of a society.
Dostoevsky also uses many other characters to examine the conscious of man as he struggles with the concept of God. Is God an invention of man? Does the invention serve a good purpose? Can science properly dispense of the virtues derived from the concept of God? What would science do without a moral compass? Early in the book Dostoevsky puts forth a concept that we are all capable of “sin” then he develops a notion that when one places himself in another’s shoes or in his words “moves over and allows the other” it become easy to understand the concept of tolerance amongst the differences of opinion. He does this to build a notion of repentance as part of the tolerance/forgiveness equation.
After the murder has taken place and the day before the suspect is brought to trial; he who had never recognized the concept of God or the ability to allow vanity to give way to tolerance and forgiveness, he finds the ability to repent. But I’ll leave it to you to discover where is repentance lay. The crime suspect, as he discovers the higher virtue in man there is a conscience or self-determination to do what is right in his mind. But now then he must grapple with a proposition put forth that he escapes from prison and flee to America. It leaves the question; does one “carry the cross” for the sin of man or if he does how heavy should that cross be, or when does he drop it?
Dostoevsky correlates God and conscience, such that to search your conscience you are appealing to the God within you for answers; that enigma that vexes your heart against your mind. He also correlates religion as a conscience for a country, giving religion the role of the mind and country the role of the heart. This comes as both the prosecution and defense attorneys present their summations and appeal to the psychology of conscience while they each present two different views of the same man. They then appeal to the heart of society, that of ‘Mother Russia” to make a social statement to the world as to what kind of people they are. There is a significant difference in the arguments where the prosecution tactic suggests that the village raises the child and forms the man, whereas the defense holds a course where the family (father/parent) forms the man. It is ironic that the same strategy was used to produce two different tactical outcomes…or as Dostoevsky says two ends to the same stick.
This book will stir your conscience with every page you endure. If you pull your moral compass out of your pocket, you’d find the needle spinning. The book is a long in detailed content and thought; Dostoesky’s and the readers thought. With regard to God, in the context of this book; God is. What ever your position on God may be, the concept of God lay in your conscience. Dostoevsky provides numerous characters, main and supporting, where their conscience is examined and it is my guess that there is a piece of every character in every reader. My favorite character is Ivan’s devil. Therein is a conversation Ivan has with his devil (in a dream that is real to Ivan and can be correlated to the many dreams in the Bible) that is similar to Kahlil Gibrans famous passage on the devil. In essence the devil is passively going along with the God program to keep the polarity of consciousness going. And what drives this debate is fear…what happens to your soul when you die. When getting on a plane we always want to make sure of its destination. It seems that a lot of people “get religion” (their conscience talking to them) when facing death.
My noteworthy phrase in this book comes near the end, again, where Dostoevsky writes in a chapter labeled Adulterer of Thought that “with a conscience there must come repentance”. This is a Christian thought at least, says Dostoevsky through his defense attorney. So with repentance there must be forgiveness. And with forgiveness there must be love, the building blocks of a peaceful society starting with the individual. I provide this as an example of the seeds of thought planted within the mind of the reader. While he makes a social case that religion and social identity (neighborhood/Nationhood) collaborate in the assembly of these blocks; it takes 776 pages of Dostoevsky detail to paint a “Rembrandt in Words” to bring the message home. What becomes very apparent is that whether religion or a government social police (ie Islam and atheist countries like China), social man must institutionalize the conscience of good behavior and chart the course of right –v- wrong. Man is corruptible when given that power over society. But when an individual holds that same power over himself alone, he becomes and expression of God where loving thy neighbor is the moral code.
In my reaction to the book as it is intertwined with current events in my life while reading it: I found it interesting that in 1880, long before Hollywood, Russians perceived America to be the “home of vanity”. Is vanity a word thrown out by those “have-nots” who despise those who “have”? Is this contempt that is found on a world stage really about religion or is it about jealousy? And what is it that one “has” or “does not have” that prompts the jealous behavior in people? Or is it just that we speak to too freely about ourselves with out regard to others? (a manifestation of a vain person) Dostoevsky provides an under current of thought on this subject where as even when he the author puts forward the accusation that Americans are vain, while many of his Russian characters are also vain (base, equally capable of the same crime). To give credit to Dostoevsky he puts forward all sides of a difficult topic in such a way allowing readers a debate of the issues in third person using any character desired as a character of merit. His critique of America sets such an example.
Therefore you can debate the book and not divulge your own personal views, leaving room for tolerance towards one another simply out of ignorance, if you need to, or love if you choose to. I encourage all to read the book as it may help you discover within yourself the capability to speak on difficult topics of great meaning while respectfully tolerating the views of others. It is my hopes that from this review any follow on dialogue are allowed to stand respectfully as it represents the full complexion of our family. Full expression begets the building blocks of love.
In your conscience state (God state) remember this Unity prayer
The light of God surrounds us
The love of God enfolds us
The power of God protects us
The presence of God watches over us
Where ever we are God is
Thanx Fyodor for your sage words
Thank-you Bama for your encouragement to read the book, it belongs in a Unity bookstore.
Happy Birthday Bama
Merry Christmas to All
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
By Robert Spencer
While I was in an airport traveling from here to there, a destination forgotten, I encountered and Egyptian man who overheard my disgruntled comment on the less than truthful press being blasted over the TV monitor to those waiting for their plane. As we boarded he approached me and said, “my friend I see you are disturbed by the views of your press.” He went on saying “ I am Egyptian and converted from Muslim to Christian, you Americans do not know the whole story of Islam therefore cannot understand the truth.” He recommended this book to me. The following is my review and reaction. I will begin by saying that if you are one to be easily upset by opposing views, this review and the book are not for you. It may be politically incorrect.
I believe the author’s intent was to cause a paradigm shift in the Western readers mind. He strikes an alarm bell as to why one should wake up from a sleepy passive acceptance of a force aimed at ones freedom. Our Western Civilization thrives in a Democracy where elected government and constitutional law prevail. Why do democratic governments not feel threatened by the possibility of actually being subjugated to Sharia Law of Islam? A democracy has the mechanism to institutionalize a separate church and state to a degree the people find acceptable. They secure this with a military that can fend off an invasion of ideals that would oppress their people.
However the political culture Islam proscribes is quite different. In Islam, Sharia Law provides a continuance of Islamic rule and dominance over your free will. The “laws of thought” that serve as the core of this dominance are found written in many places in the Qur’an (Koran). The Hadith (more Islamic documents) interpretations put into law that which is written in the Qu’ran. Why do Muslims insist on Sharia Law? Sharia Law secures a physical disciplinary consequence to those who go against what is written in the Qur’an, thereby providing a legal mechanism of population control that cannot be contested without a fight to the finish.
So you could then respond with the aged old cliché that religion is the root cause of all wars. The paradigm shift nestled in this book is that it is not the religious practices that the West should be concerned but rather the Sharia Law (which really by default is a religious practice) that comes with it. The author sets course on a brief history lesson to put the word Crusades in perspective suitable to allow a paradigm shift to occur. The Crusades: where they religions wars or were they really a fight for individual rights? So lets follow the author’s thinking as he sets the basis for the propagation of Islam and then wraps it in a brief historical review.
Islam’s call to war is quoted over 100 different places in the Qur’an in this book. It is then trumpeted by the modern interpretations taught in four leading schools on Islam where readings from the Hadith and Islam Law books, derivatives of the Koran galvanize a religion founded in war. The Hadith translates the ancient language of the Koran into a context that can be understood today. The book points out that Osama bin Laden’s readings after September 11, were from the Law Books on Islam calling for three options for non-Muslims.
i. Accept Islam (convert)
ii. Pay the jizya, the poll tax on non-Muslims, which is the cornerstone of an entire system of “Dhimmitude” is to humiliate non-Muslims.
iii. War with Muslims
The historical timeline of Islam finds Mohammad warring first with his kin in Arabia and then his successors carried it forward across Northern Africa, Spain and Eastern Europe from 639 through 1100. The Christians began their Crusade Wars, first called for by Pope Urban in the 11th Century and these lasted about 250 years. Yes it is again cliché to indict the Catholic Church for a call to action actions carried out by noble men of realms of the Western World. Not to say that the Church was without it’s own faults, the call for defense of Christianity was championed by noble men, among them from England, Richard the Lionhearted and from France, Godfrey of Bouillon. Not all battles were directly attributed to the Church nor do historians agree upon their descriptions. The Crusade Wars did not result in the colonization of lands or the building of any Empire under the flag of the Catholic Church or any Kingdom’s flag. But rather Muslims were allowed to live freely in the land won back by Christians. This is of course not the case in Muslim territory where Christians were subjected to cruel treatment called Dhimmitude; which for better understanding amongst us modern Westerners could be correlated to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. The Crusades came to an end when Western Europe became preoccupied with their own battles. The Muslim Turks took advantage of the situation and snatched much of Eastern Europe; we knew that land as the Ottoman Empire until 1918,
The book demonstrates that the Crusades were not a Christian conquest of Islam, but rather they were a series of battles to gain back Europe’s civil rights. And yes it was a brutal fight for freedom. So were our American Revolution and the Civil War. To apologize for this would be like apologizing to Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Sadam Hussein, Milosovich or any other brutal person who led the abuse and oppression of a society. The book indirectly poses this question: if I were put in a position to apologize, would I rather make an apology to this list of men than find myself apologizing to my children and family around me for not standing up to or waking up to the realities of disparate ideologies that could by design deny you the freedoms of choice.
So: to apply the lessons of the past to the modern world, why should the Western World be on guard against Islam? Sharia Law as it is levied by the authority of Mohammed and administered by the practitioners of the Islamic faith.
a. Islam is a religion of war. The Qur’an is a book of war, if a warrior wrote the Qur’an it is likely that his words promote dominance by force. The books sites many verse from the Qur’an as evidence to the affirmative.
b. Mohammad is a Prophet of War, Islam was spread by the sword right from the very beginning.
c. Islam promotes one to lie, steal, and kill. The Qur’an preaches a peaceful society amongst Muslims, but promotes jihad using and tactic of deceit to not just vanquish “non-believers but to mutilate them.” I write this reaction to make a point also made in the book where the Koran is clear that according to their Allah when a Muslim engages in war they don’t just kill their foe, but to mutilate them and parade them around in order to humiliate them. We saw this in Mogadishu and we are now seeing it in Iraq. This is what we in the West should have been prepared for. (example: the female aid worker who’s naked torso (minus limbs and head) was thrown into the street in Iraq)
d. Islam oppresses women
e. Islam is anti-Science
f. Islamic Unity, today’s jihads are orchestrated to return the world to Islamic rule much like the 700+ years they experienced from 600 to 1400
In the face of these realities Islamophobia has become a real word with ominous consequence. As I read the pages of this book and reflected back to the news clips where the visual was always the shot of bin Laden shooting an automatic weapon and the audio was a brief sound byte of a declaration of war on America. It seems the news glossed over the importance of those words and have since buried them. I say this because this book makes it two things clear: first, Islam’s doctrine is to wage war against non-Muslims and that means this doctrine could come from any country that stands fanatically behind the Koran. Second, unlike most Westerners (who are not well-studied on Islam), Muslims are well studied on the West as they view us through their Koran-based paradigm.
The most critical path we are on regarding Islamophobia; the author sites cases now in Western Courts putting freedom of speech is at risk. There are cases abroad where people who have spoken against Islam were tried and convicted for “hate crimes”. This is contrary to Muslim activity where they are allowed to “spin” terrorist activity to find justification. It is also contrary to Muslim activity were they can publicly assemble and shout words in affirmation to the likes of Osama bin Laden as was the case in Dearborn Michigan. Yes, our reaction to the human bombs against innocent people or the hanging of soldiers could always begin with shock of the morbid brutality of their actions. But then the educated mind would react to this not with a call to decease; but rational call to vanquish such hostile behavior. And to be clear I am not promoting killing, I am promoting the abolition of the behavior. When I contrast Abu Garab to the burning and hanging of Americans from a bridge, I peel back to the next layer of the onion to the people’s reaction. Our Christian dominated West reacted with apology and corrective action. The Muslims paraded in the streets. We should expect more of the same from them. And to the next layer this book goes against everything that is politically correct and brings out a comparative analysis of the teachings of each faith to explain why.
The author provides a solution that is spread across our government, the press, and we the people. The government must draw a harder line with other governments who promote Sharia Law, and the oppression of human rights. The author writes “If any moderate Islam project were to succeed, it will do so only by identifying elements in Islam that give rise to violence…” I would start with countries that allow madrassas and terrorist training camps. The press must start telling the whole truth as opposed to reporting only facts that support their views. We the people need to bone up on exactly what this “war on terror” is all about. The author writes, “This is not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an opponent. To wage a war on terror is like waging a war on bombs. Refusal to identify the enemy is extremely dangerous: It leaves those who refuse vulnerable to being blind sided.” The enemy is the teaching of Islam. Yes, “fundamentalist” are said to have hijacked a faith. But Islam is a faith where its origin and continued practice is in war. Rather than wage a war on weapons of mass destruction would “we the people” have allowed our current president, actually say it is good enough to wage a war on those countries that hold and promote the ideals of fundamental Islam. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not take the country to war on ideals, so what makes Bush any different. The answer is magically “NO; because that would be intermixing church and state and using our military to do so. Only Lincoln was allowed to wage a war on disparate ideals. But could we rather wage a war on those that promote the ideals of Islam and the subsequent Sharia Law…”we the people” would have to first become as educated about our enemy as they are of us. We would have to learn how to separate Islam from Sharia Law and War.
This war we are currently engaged in that began when? …in 2003, 2001, 1991, 1967, 1943, 1400, it is a war that Mohammad began on the deserts between Mecca and Medina against his own people who at the time were non-Muslims. That conquest left much of Europe in the hands of Muslims, exposed to the brutal consequence of Sharia law. I have been to “Chop-Chop Square” as Westerners call it In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and yes they still have public stoning and the like. What is driven home in this book is that Islamic way of life well rooted in the bedrock of the Koran and is beyond belief and faith. It is a real call to war against anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim not practicing the words of the Koran
The author’s basic tenant is that the Qur’an and its complimentary Hadith are at the root of much of the dysfunctional social outcomes of Islam. One who is not familiar with these characteristics may find the book to be a militant call to arms. Given that the author dedicates only 270 pages to his two themes, combined with his casual vernacular, makes it a target for criticism. And as such you could say he has fueled the flames of a 1400-year conflict. However, first there is 1400 years of history leaving a trail that while Islamic society may give ground to individual freedom for periods of time, there comes a point that they violently snap back. Second, the doctrine of Islam is destructive to its own well-being. Third, it is Islamic doctrine that Muslims must dominate the world through any means.
Could it have been possible for President Bush or any American President to say in 2001 that this war is not a war on terror but a war on Islamic fundamentalist? Albeit the case, for political correctness he had to spin his call to war on the “Terrorists” “of any ilk” and then on Iraq (one of such ilk) with an eminent threat called weapons of mass destruction. He could have gone in a different direction when he said “you are either with us or your are against us”. That is where he (and we the people) went wrong. However, would history then put Bush along side Pope Urban as starting a religious war that has been in fact on-going, when all he was doing was proactively defending freedom. The author does leave you with a call to action. First, he is prodding you to wake up to reality. Second, whatever we do to defend ourselves, know what we are defending; our free(d) will.
Related web sites:
http://jihadwatch.org/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_shar
ia.htm
By Robert Spencer
While I was in an airport traveling from here to there, a destination forgotten, I encountered and Egyptian man who overheard my disgruntled comment on the less than truthful press being blasted over the TV monitor to those waiting for their plane. As we boarded he approached me and said, “my friend I see you are disturbed by the views of your press.” He went on saying “ I am Egyptian and converted from Muslim to Christian, you Americans do not know the whole story of Islam therefore cannot understand the truth.” He recommended this book to me. The following is my review and reaction. I will begin by saying that if you are one to be easily upset by opposing views, this review and the book are not for you. It may be politically incorrect.
I believe the author’s intent was to cause a paradigm shift in the Western readers mind. He strikes an alarm bell as to why one should wake up from a sleepy passive acceptance of a force aimed at ones freedom. Our Western Civilization thrives in a Democracy where elected government and constitutional law prevail. Why do democratic governments not feel threatened by the possibility of actually being subjugated to Sharia Law of Islam? A democracy has the mechanism to institutionalize a separate church and state to a degree the people find acceptable. They secure this with a military that can fend off an invasion of ideals that would oppress their people.
However the political culture Islam proscribes is quite different. In Islam, Sharia Law provides a continuance of Islamic rule and dominance over your free will. The “laws of thought” that serve as the core of this dominance are found written in many places in the Qur’an (Koran). The Hadith (more Islamic documents) interpretations put into law that which is written in the Qu’ran. Why do Muslims insist on Sharia Law? Sharia Law secures a physical disciplinary consequence to those who go against what is written in the Qur’an, thereby providing a legal mechanism of population control that cannot be contested without a fight to the finish.
So you could then respond with the aged old cliché that religion is the root cause of all wars. The paradigm shift nestled in this book is that it is not the religious practices that the West should be concerned but rather the Sharia Law (which really by default is a religious practice) that comes with it. The author sets course on a brief history lesson to put the word Crusades in perspective suitable to allow a paradigm shift to occur. The Crusades: where they religions wars or were they really a fight for individual rights? So lets follow the author’s thinking as he sets the basis for the propagation of Islam and then wraps it in a brief historical review.
Islam’s call to war is quoted over 100 different places in the Qur’an in this book. It is then trumpeted by the modern interpretations taught in four leading schools on Islam where readings from the Hadith and Islam Law books, derivatives of the Koran galvanize a religion founded in war. The Hadith translates the ancient language of the Koran into a context that can be understood today. The book points out that Osama bin Laden’s readings after September 11, were from the Law Books on Islam calling for three options for non-Muslims.
i. Accept Islam (convert)
ii. Pay the jizya, the poll tax on non-Muslims, which is the cornerstone of an entire system of “Dhimmitude” is to humiliate non-Muslims.
iii. War with Muslims
The historical timeline of Islam finds Mohammad warring first with his kin in Arabia and then his successors carried it forward across Northern Africa, Spain and Eastern Europe from 639 through 1100. The Christians began their Crusade Wars, first called for by Pope Urban in the 11th Century and these lasted about 250 years. Yes it is again cliché to indict the Catholic Church for a call to action actions carried out by noble men of realms of the Western World. Not to say that the Church was without it’s own faults, the call for defense of Christianity was championed by noble men, among them from England, Richard the Lionhearted and from France, Godfrey of Bouillon. Not all battles were directly attributed to the Church nor do historians agree upon their descriptions. The Crusade Wars did not result in the colonization of lands or the building of any Empire under the flag of the Catholic Church or any Kingdom’s flag. But rather Muslims were allowed to live freely in the land won back by Christians. This is of course not the case in Muslim territory where Christians were subjected to cruel treatment called Dhimmitude; which for better understanding amongst us modern Westerners could be correlated to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. The Crusades came to an end when Western Europe became preoccupied with their own battles. The Muslim Turks took advantage of the situation and snatched much of Eastern Europe; we knew that land as the Ottoman Empire until 1918,
The book demonstrates that the Crusades were not a Christian conquest of Islam, but rather they were a series of battles to gain back Europe’s civil rights. And yes it was a brutal fight for freedom. So were our American Revolution and the Civil War. To apologize for this would be like apologizing to Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Sadam Hussein, Milosovich or any other brutal person who led the abuse and oppression of a society. The book indirectly poses this question: if I were put in a position to apologize, would I rather make an apology to this list of men than find myself apologizing to my children and family around me for not standing up to or waking up to the realities of disparate ideologies that could by design deny you the freedoms of choice.
So: to apply the lessons of the past to the modern world, why should the Western World be on guard against Islam? Sharia Law as it is levied by the authority of Mohammed and administered by the practitioners of the Islamic faith.
a. Islam is a religion of war. The Qur’an is a book of war, if a warrior wrote the Qur’an it is likely that his words promote dominance by force. The books sites many verse from the Qur’an as evidence to the affirmative.
b. Mohammad is a Prophet of War, Islam was spread by the sword right from the very beginning.
c. Islam promotes one to lie, steal, and kill. The Qur’an preaches a peaceful society amongst Muslims, but promotes jihad using and tactic of deceit to not just vanquish “non-believers but to mutilate them.” I write this reaction to make a point also made in the book where the Koran is clear that according to their Allah when a Muslim engages in war they don’t just kill their foe, but to mutilate them and parade them around in order to humiliate them. We saw this in Mogadishu and we are now seeing it in Iraq. This is what we in the West should have been prepared for. (example: the female aid worker who’s naked torso (minus limbs and head) was thrown into the street in Iraq)
d. Islam oppresses women
e. Islam is anti-Science
f. Islamic Unity, today’s jihads are orchestrated to return the world to Islamic rule much like the 700+ years they experienced from 600 to 1400
In the face of these realities Islamophobia has become a real word with ominous consequence. As I read the pages of this book and reflected back to the news clips where the visual was always the shot of bin Laden shooting an automatic weapon and the audio was a brief sound byte of a declaration of war on America. It seems the news glossed over the importance of those words and have since buried them. I say this because this book makes it two things clear: first, Islam’s doctrine is to wage war against non-Muslims and that means this doctrine could come from any country that stands fanatically behind the Koran. Second, unlike most Westerners (who are not well-studied on Islam), Muslims are well studied on the West as they view us through their Koran-based paradigm.
The most critical path we are on regarding Islamophobia; the author sites cases now in Western Courts putting freedom of speech is at risk. There are cases abroad where people who have spoken against Islam were tried and convicted for “hate crimes”. This is contrary to Muslim activity where they are allowed to “spin” terrorist activity to find justification. It is also contrary to Muslim activity were they can publicly assemble and shout words in affirmation to the likes of Osama bin Laden as was the case in Dearborn Michigan. Yes, our reaction to the human bombs against innocent people or the hanging of soldiers could always begin with shock of the morbid brutality of their actions. But then the educated mind would react to this not with a call to decease; but rational call to vanquish such hostile behavior. And to be clear I am not promoting killing, I am promoting the abolition of the behavior. When I contrast Abu Garab to the burning and hanging of Americans from a bridge, I peel back to the next layer of the onion to the people’s reaction. Our Christian dominated West reacted with apology and corrective action. The Muslims paraded in the streets. We should expect more of the same from them. And to the next layer this book goes against everything that is politically correct and brings out a comparative analysis of the teachings of each faith to explain why.
The author provides a solution that is spread across our government, the press, and we the people. The government must draw a harder line with other governments who promote Sharia Law, and the oppression of human rights. The author writes “If any moderate Islam project were to succeed, it will do so only by identifying elements in Islam that give rise to violence…” I would start with countries that allow madrassas and terrorist training camps. The press must start telling the whole truth as opposed to reporting only facts that support their views. We the people need to bone up on exactly what this “war on terror” is all about. The author writes, “This is not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an opponent. To wage a war on terror is like waging a war on bombs. Refusal to identify the enemy is extremely dangerous: It leaves those who refuse vulnerable to being blind sided.” The enemy is the teaching of Islam. Yes, “fundamentalist” are said to have hijacked a faith. But Islam is a faith where its origin and continued practice is in war. Rather than wage a war on weapons of mass destruction would “we the people” have allowed our current president, actually say it is good enough to wage a war on those countries that hold and promote the ideals of fundamental Islam. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not take the country to war on ideals, so what makes Bush any different. The answer is magically “NO; because that would be intermixing church and state and using our military to do so. Only Lincoln was allowed to wage a war on disparate ideals. But could we rather wage a war on those that promote the ideals of Islam and the subsequent Sharia Law…”we the people” would have to first become as educated about our enemy as they are of us. We would have to learn how to separate Islam from Sharia Law and War.
This war we are currently engaged in that began when? …in 2003, 2001, 1991, 1967, 1943, 1400, it is a war that Mohammad began on the deserts between Mecca and Medina against his own people who at the time were non-Muslims. That conquest left much of Europe in the hands of Muslims, exposed to the brutal consequence of Sharia law. I have been to “Chop-Chop Square” as Westerners call it In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and yes they still have public stoning and the like. What is driven home in this book is that Islamic way of life well rooted in the bedrock of the Koran and is beyond belief and faith. It is a real call to war against anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim not practicing the words of the Koran
The author’s basic tenant is that the Qur’an and its complimentary Hadith are at the root of much of the dysfunctional social outcomes of Islam. One who is not familiar with these characteristics may find the book to be a militant call to arms. Given that the author dedicates only 270 pages to his two themes, combined with his casual vernacular, makes it a target for criticism. And as such you could say he has fueled the flames of a 1400-year conflict. However, first there is 1400 years of history leaving a trail that while Islamic society may give ground to individual freedom for periods of time, there comes a point that they violently snap back. Second, the doctrine of Islam is destructive to its own well-being. Third, it is Islamic doctrine that Muslims must dominate the world through any means.
Could it have been possible for President Bush or any American President to say in 2001 that this war is not a war on terror but a war on Islamic fundamentalist? Albeit the case, for political correctness he had to spin his call to war on the “Terrorists” “of any ilk” and then on Iraq (one of such ilk) with an eminent threat called weapons of mass destruction. He could have gone in a different direction when he said “you are either with us or your are against us”. That is where he (and we the people) went wrong. However, would history then put Bush along side Pope Urban as starting a religious war that has been in fact on-going, when all he was doing was proactively defending freedom. The author does leave you with a call to action. First, he is prodding you to wake up to reality. Second, whatever we do to defend ourselves, know what we are defending; our free(d) will.
Related web sites:
http://jihadwatch.org/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_shar
ia.htm
The Capitalist Manifesto
The Capitalist Manifesto
By Andrew Bernstein
I’ve had dinner with this author and listened to his lectures with my gratitude of these experiences owed to my son TJ. Andrew Bernstein is a Philosophy Professor at New York University. He is an author of The Heart of a Pagan, review(s) previously published. When I listened to his passionate “Average Joe” oratory on his book in coming, in thick Brooklyn accent, reading it was compulsory. Through TJ I was able to read a book, not purchased from a bookstore but sent by the author. So with a sense of privilege I was obligated to give it a read. The Capitalist Manifesto is a book to pay tribute to its cover and its title. Next time you are at the bookstore at least have a look at the cover. Its cover is a tribute to us Americans and a compelling reason to read what’s between the covers. It is a historical look with a philosophic perspective on capitalism. To coin a phrase that captures this book and found in the book I’d mint the following:
“Value as that which one acts to gain and/or keep.
The fundamental benchmark for value is life.”
In current times where it is cliché to associate a capitalist with one who is selfish, Bernstein dispels this with a brief walk through the birth and rise of capitalism. He then proceeds to underscore this history with a philosophy that sired capitalism and raised it through infancy and now guides it through its adult life. So if you are one apt to the somewhat popular yet controversial cliché you may find difficulty opening the book. But if you have the courage to get past the “30-second message mentality” our television society has succumbed us to, you will find very early on that Capitalism is the proud parent of freedom, applied science, and the powerful and productive minds of the middle class. We are the benefactors as we experience still today the warp speed advancement of our human living condition. This book may be the enlightenment to assure today’s man does not throw his baby (now an adult) out with the bath water.
Contrary to the also-popular notion that capitalism sprang from Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, Bernstein contends that capitalism’s birth resulted from the union of John Locke’s philosophy and Isaac Newton’s passion for science. In America we are blessed with the good fortune that our founding fathers based our Constitution in this spirit. Bernstein provides the supporting history. However Bernstein also makes clear that we must also be grateful to Europe as she too contributed to the exponential growth of knowledge with her contributions of the Encyclopedia and Dictionary. These breakthroughs allowed the common man to actually exercise his mind and come to learn of things previously entitled only to aristocracy. Knowledge of natural science and cognitive thinking in that area led to the compelling argument for a separation of church and state. (Which is clearly not the same argument wasting tons of our taxpayers money, (involuntary charity) in today’s courts.) Bernstein is careful to note that the separation allowed for the knowledge entitlement paradigm to dissolve. He does not come out against God so the absence of this suggests that Capitalism allowed science and faith to co-exist as evidenced here in America. Bernstein’s idea holds that the outcome of Locke and Newton’s works produced this principle statement: “America’s founding principle was one of individual rights…The rest – everything she became, everything ‘noble and just’, and heroic…was the outcome of the fidelity to that one principle.” The philosophy of Capitalism is the seed.
Bernstein’s historical review of pre capitalism Western World history is put to the reader in an appropriate dose to allow the average reader to digest the meaning and draw a contrast. This approach is consistent with the thesis that capitalism unlocked the average man from the shackles of aristocracy. The point is driven home with a list of men such as Isaac Newton, John Locke, Denis Diderots, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Watts, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie that were not born in aristocracy; or in today’s vernaculars were self made men. This list is an actual chronological list illustrating the powerful minds fortified by WILL to perpetuate this transition to liberty. If you are a capitalist, you are in good company.
Bernstein anticipates his critics and dismisses them in a prelude to a convincing historical argument for Capitalism. He counteracts the anticipated critique not with disparaging comments on the critics but only a convincing collection of historical facts that are well documented in the bibliography. Ironically I contrast this with today’s ubiquitous argument made by the average man. I recall an 11th grade student once asking me what’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I told him that Republicans with their flaws foster the entrepreneurial spirit of man in business, while Democrats, completely flawed with their theory, consider the average man incapable of such and prefer to do their thinking for them. (Aristocracy) This young lad responded with “aren’t the Democrats right we are all pretty stupid.” Who taught him this?!!! As the author points out in the book and my discussion with him, execution on the spirit of Capitalism has its flaws as today’s educational institutions make Science subjects compulsory, while Philosophies studies are disappearing at an alarming rate. The author’s main argument in book is that it is the philosophy of Capitalism that frees a person’s mind, despite all efforts to thwart that idea. Imagine a burgeoning philosophy that is formally taught in too few places.
The brilliant blending of a philosophy and history leaves the reader feeling good about the results of capitalism. From a philosophical position that human beings have rational faculties or minds of their own – and that destitution does not invalidate their capacities to think for themselves, Bernstein concludes that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution were integral components of the Enlightenments commitment to applied rationality as a means of improving practical living conditions of mans life on earth. Historically Bernstein writes that it is because of capitalism and then our founding fathers courage to fight for free will, that the world’s leadership in applied science shifted from the Mother of Enlightenment (England) to its child (America), then that child in a mature state (post Civil War) became the most progressive nation in history.
Bernstein coins a term of a practice I observe regularly; “Context dropping”. He addresses the critics of Capitalism in the right dose to dispel their arguments but not to distract the positive message found from the fruits of capitalism. He remains academic as opposed to the “op-ed” journalist who occasionally writes a book aimed at his critics rather than a subject. He address a few anti capitalist arguments one being child labor making it clear that child labor was far worse through the apprenticeship programs that preceded industrialization. He drew a point that child labor, in a larger context, was a function of destitution of the time. He argues that this destitution was overcome by the efficiencies of industrialization brought on by enlightened capitalistic thinking minds which eventually led to children entering the work force voluntarily in their late teens as opposed to being forced or sold into labor a the age or four. He brings contrasting statistics to reader to demonstrate measured argument as opposed to intellectual rhetoric. Although he brings historic statistics relative to child labor, I found worth mentioning a contextual statistic of current times relative to Nike, also mentioned in the book. The sweatshop workers in the Nike story were being paid $1.60/day or $416/yr. Appalling by our standards right. But $416 is significant mark above the non-capitalistic domestic and neighboring countries of that area making $250/year. And the real deal is those people came to work voluntarily.
It is my opinion but knowing Bernstein he’d likely agree: It was an elite Hollywood ( or Chicago…Oprah) society that launched a campaign to drive these folks back to destitute. It seems Hollywood is blind to larger contexts as they bathe in the sunshine of their anti-capitalistic millions. I personally witnessed an oppressed mindset when I was working in Panama where unmotivated and cynical people believe their money will be absconded from them by their government. As a result, I can appreciate the weight of capitalism as opposed to weight of the elite doctrine of non capitalist thinking rulers as they are weighed on the scale of freedom. In a larger context a Hollywood, if with insight, could be calling for more capitalism in those countries.
With regard to Bernstein’s view on economics of laissez-faire-v- Statism controls, historically at a macro level he is generally correct. I especially liked the part where he indicts Roosevelt as nothing more than a copycat of Hoover policy and the sole perpetuator of our Great Depression. In fact, after eight years of Roosevelt we were worse off than under Hoover! However some of his issues and assertions would likely not stand up to scrutiny. One for example is his claim that the FED is the sole proprietor to the cause of inflation. He bases this on a simple theory that the FED’s ability to produce more money is the only causal factor to the “too much money, chasing too few goods” equation. In fact Bernstein only addresses the too much money variable of the equation. Here is where the author’s own theory where a free economy is morally driven by mans desire to live could be put to the test when examining to the current medical cost coverage. Our current economy is not generally experiencing inflation, caused by the FED or any other state government. However locally in terms of market verticals, in the medical industry health care costs are through the roof. How to put a price on a mans will to simply live…longer. Hence, this economic condition is not caused by the FED per se. But the situation demonstrates the need for our rapid advancement in applied science, to find an anchor in a complementary moral philosophy.
Ironically the polar side of this moral argument has taken center stage recently. At the risk of context dropping but to drill down into a real life issue, I would challenge Bernstein, as many of his critics have to take a philosopher’s theory and apply it to this real world situation. It is generally Bernstein’s approach so I deem it fair to throw out the challenge. It is these litmus tests of practicality where I find most philosophers’ theories break down and me searching for something that works. Bernstein advocates a practical approach to history, economics (the philosophic science of money), and most of all an appreciation for the benefits of applied science as its heroes apply it to improving the human living condition. I would certainly look forward to his next book where he addresses such conundrums as our medical costs problem. We could start with a moral compass and then chart a course.
A call for a simple removal of the government would be an oversimplified copout to the problem. There are legitimate conditions that require care. But consider this: I was once eating breakfast in a restaurant with an older man who began his breakfast with about ten pills at some cost to the overall system. I said, “ a man with your condition (overweight, high blood pressure, triple bypass) shouldn’t be eating that” Eggs on corn beef hash with a side of bacon and potatoes. He said “ because I take these pills, I can eat this food.” A close examination into mans desire to live, at what consequence and under what condition is worth taking a good look at. Could Bernstein take his philosophy and write a book compelling us to take a different look at living healthy lives as opposed to demanding the medical profession make us better and live longer?
Andrew, this one’s for you.
By Andrew Bernstein
I’ve had dinner with this author and listened to his lectures with my gratitude of these experiences owed to my son TJ. Andrew Bernstein is a Philosophy Professor at New York University. He is an author of The Heart of a Pagan, review(s) previously published. When I listened to his passionate “Average Joe” oratory on his book in coming, in thick Brooklyn accent, reading it was compulsory. Through TJ I was able to read a book, not purchased from a bookstore but sent by the author. So with a sense of privilege I was obligated to give it a read. The Capitalist Manifesto is a book to pay tribute to its cover and its title. Next time you are at the bookstore at least have a look at the cover. Its cover is a tribute to us Americans and a compelling reason to read what’s between the covers. It is a historical look with a philosophic perspective on capitalism. To coin a phrase that captures this book and found in the book I’d mint the following:
“Value as that which one acts to gain and/or keep.
The fundamental benchmark for value is life.”
In current times where it is cliché to associate a capitalist with one who is selfish, Bernstein dispels this with a brief walk through the birth and rise of capitalism. He then proceeds to underscore this history with a philosophy that sired capitalism and raised it through infancy and now guides it through its adult life. So if you are one apt to the somewhat popular yet controversial cliché you may find difficulty opening the book. But if you have the courage to get past the “30-second message mentality” our television society has succumbed us to, you will find very early on that Capitalism is the proud parent of freedom, applied science, and the powerful and productive minds of the middle class. We are the benefactors as we experience still today the warp speed advancement of our human living condition. This book may be the enlightenment to assure today’s man does not throw his baby (now an adult) out with the bath water.
Contrary to the also-popular notion that capitalism sprang from Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, Bernstein contends that capitalism’s birth resulted from the union of John Locke’s philosophy and Isaac Newton’s passion for science. In America we are blessed with the good fortune that our founding fathers based our Constitution in this spirit. Bernstein provides the supporting history. However Bernstein also makes clear that we must also be grateful to Europe as she too contributed to the exponential growth of knowledge with her contributions of the Encyclopedia and Dictionary. These breakthroughs allowed the common man to actually exercise his mind and come to learn of things previously entitled only to aristocracy. Knowledge of natural science and cognitive thinking in that area led to the compelling argument for a separation of church and state. (Which is clearly not the same argument wasting tons of our taxpayers money, (involuntary charity) in today’s courts.) Bernstein is careful to note that the separation allowed for the knowledge entitlement paradigm to dissolve. He does not come out against God so the absence of this suggests that Capitalism allowed science and faith to co-exist as evidenced here in America. Bernstein’s idea holds that the outcome of Locke and Newton’s works produced this principle statement: “America’s founding principle was one of individual rights…The rest – everything she became, everything ‘noble and just’, and heroic…was the outcome of the fidelity to that one principle.” The philosophy of Capitalism is the seed.
Bernstein’s historical review of pre capitalism Western World history is put to the reader in an appropriate dose to allow the average reader to digest the meaning and draw a contrast. This approach is consistent with the thesis that capitalism unlocked the average man from the shackles of aristocracy. The point is driven home with a list of men such as Isaac Newton, John Locke, Denis Diderots, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Watts, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie that were not born in aristocracy; or in today’s vernaculars were self made men. This list is an actual chronological list illustrating the powerful minds fortified by WILL to perpetuate this transition to liberty. If you are a capitalist, you are in good company.
Bernstein anticipates his critics and dismisses them in a prelude to a convincing historical argument for Capitalism. He counteracts the anticipated critique not with disparaging comments on the critics but only a convincing collection of historical facts that are well documented in the bibliography. Ironically I contrast this with today’s ubiquitous argument made by the average man. I recall an 11th grade student once asking me what’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I told him that Republicans with their flaws foster the entrepreneurial spirit of man in business, while Democrats, completely flawed with their theory, consider the average man incapable of such and prefer to do their thinking for them. (Aristocracy) This young lad responded with “aren’t the Democrats right we are all pretty stupid.” Who taught him this?!!! As the author points out in the book and my discussion with him, execution on the spirit of Capitalism has its flaws as today’s educational institutions make Science subjects compulsory, while Philosophies studies are disappearing at an alarming rate. The author’s main argument in book is that it is the philosophy of Capitalism that frees a person’s mind, despite all efforts to thwart that idea. Imagine a burgeoning philosophy that is formally taught in too few places.
The brilliant blending of a philosophy and history leaves the reader feeling good about the results of capitalism. From a philosophical position that human beings have rational faculties or minds of their own – and that destitution does not invalidate their capacities to think for themselves, Bernstein concludes that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution were integral components of the Enlightenments commitment to applied rationality as a means of improving practical living conditions of mans life on earth. Historically Bernstein writes that it is because of capitalism and then our founding fathers courage to fight for free will, that the world’s leadership in applied science shifted from the Mother of Enlightenment (England) to its child (America), then that child in a mature state (post Civil War) became the most progressive nation in history.
Bernstein coins a term of a practice I observe regularly; “Context dropping”. He addresses the critics of Capitalism in the right dose to dispel their arguments but not to distract the positive message found from the fruits of capitalism. He remains academic as opposed to the “op-ed” journalist who occasionally writes a book aimed at his critics rather than a subject. He address a few anti capitalist arguments one being child labor making it clear that child labor was far worse through the apprenticeship programs that preceded industrialization. He drew a point that child labor, in a larger context, was a function of destitution of the time. He argues that this destitution was overcome by the efficiencies of industrialization brought on by enlightened capitalistic thinking minds which eventually led to children entering the work force voluntarily in their late teens as opposed to being forced or sold into labor a the age or four. He brings contrasting statistics to reader to demonstrate measured argument as opposed to intellectual rhetoric. Although he brings historic statistics relative to child labor, I found worth mentioning a contextual statistic of current times relative to Nike, also mentioned in the book. The sweatshop workers in the Nike story were being paid $1.60/day or $416/yr. Appalling by our standards right. But $416 is significant mark above the non-capitalistic domestic and neighboring countries of that area making $250/year. And the real deal is those people came to work voluntarily.
It is my opinion but knowing Bernstein he’d likely agree: It was an elite Hollywood ( or Chicago…Oprah) society that launched a campaign to drive these folks back to destitute. It seems Hollywood is blind to larger contexts as they bathe in the sunshine of their anti-capitalistic millions. I personally witnessed an oppressed mindset when I was working in Panama where unmotivated and cynical people believe their money will be absconded from them by their government. As a result, I can appreciate the weight of capitalism as opposed to weight of the elite doctrine of non capitalist thinking rulers as they are weighed on the scale of freedom. In a larger context a Hollywood, if with insight, could be calling for more capitalism in those countries.
With regard to Bernstein’s view on economics of laissez-faire-v- Statism controls, historically at a macro level he is generally correct. I especially liked the part where he indicts Roosevelt as nothing more than a copycat of Hoover policy and the sole perpetuator of our Great Depression. In fact, after eight years of Roosevelt we were worse off than under Hoover! However some of his issues and assertions would likely not stand up to scrutiny. One for example is his claim that the FED is the sole proprietor to the cause of inflation. He bases this on a simple theory that the FED’s ability to produce more money is the only causal factor to the “too much money, chasing too few goods” equation. In fact Bernstein only addresses the too much money variable of the equation. Here is where the author’s own theory where a free economy is morally driven by mans desire to live could be put to the test when examining to the current medical cost coverage. Our current economy is not generally experiencing inflation, caused by the FED or any other state government. However locally in terms of market verticals, in the medical industry health care costs are through the roof. How to put a price on a mans will to simply live…longer. Hence, this economic condition is not caused by the FED per se. But the situation demonstrates the need for our rapid advancement in applied science, to find an anchor in a complementary moral philosophy.
Ironically the polar side of this moral argument has taken center stage recently. At the risk of context dropping but to drill down into a real life issue, I would challenge Bernstein, as many of his critics have to take a philosopher’s theory and apply it to this real world situation. It is generally Bernstein’s approach so I deem it fair to throw out the challenge. It is these litmus tests of practicality where I find most philosophers’ theories break down and me searching for something that works. Bernstein advocates a practical approach to history, economics (the philosophic science of money), and most of all an appreciation for the benefits of applied science as its heroes apply it to improving the human living condition. I would certainly look forward to his next book where he addresses such conundrums as our medical costs problem. We could start with a moral compass and then chart a course.
A call for a simple removal of the government would be an oversimplified copout to the problem. There are legitimate conditions that require care. But consider this: I was once eating breakfast in a restaurant with an older man who began his breakfast with about ten pills at some cost to the overall system. I said, “ a man with your condition (overweight, high blood pressure, triple bypass) shouldn’t be eating that” Eggs on corn beef hash with a side of bacon and potatoes. He said “ because I take these pills, I can eat this food.” A close examination into mans desire to live, at what consequence and under what condition is worth taking a good look at. Could Bernstein take his philosophy and write a book compelling us to take a different look at living healthy lives as opposed to demanding the medical profession make us better and live longer?
Andrew, this one’s for you.
Common Sense
Common Sense
By Thomas Paine
I picked this book up at Barnes&Nobel while looking for a book Uncle Jimmy recommended. I thought I’d put it the bookshelf for a future read of a classic author, a mosaic piece of our heritage. It was a blessing that the book of my original intention was not available, causing me to read this alternative to fill in the time waiting for Jims recommendation, Tuxedo Park. Paine does a remarkable job in classic literature style in making a profound statement to surround his points or argument. Metaphorically he ties a thread around a foundation and flawlessly pulls it through points of argument while consistently and rationally staying connected to his original statement. At any point in his argument in behalf of American independence you can check it against his original statement and find a solid match in rationale. He does not wait or bait you. The very first sentence in his book is profoundly simple and compelling to see what could possibly follow.
To quote Paine’s opening: “PERHAPS THE SENTIMENTS CONTAINED in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general Favor; a long Habit of not thinking a Thing wrong, gives superficial appearance of being right, and raises a formidable outcry in defense of Custom. But the Tumult soon subsides. Time makes more Converts than Reason.”
In Paine’s first waypoint to common sense in the context of government it goes as follows: “ SOME WRITERS HAVE SO confounded society with government, as to leave little distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the second a punisher.”
Paine was a deist. Like Jefferson, he believed in God, but distained any organization including Churches that oppressed people and specifically he despised the King of England. Paine fostered a society that allowed a free practice of religious thought to be openly expressed in any social or official setting. Since then and to the chagrin of both Paine and Jefferson we have drifted from that premise. It was his and our other forefathers vision that seeded a separation of Church and State and clearly did so to allow liberty in the form of a government by the people not the Church or the State. This seed has spread across the world and in every geographic region that has followed suit, Germany being a temporary exception due to a lapse of rational civic thought, has equally found a prosperous place in world order. I say this because Common Sense should be placed on every coffee table in America. As we debate issues we should always check ourselves for good common sense as demonstrated by Paine.
I read this and Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer while waiting for my book to come in. It is truly refreshing to capture the thoughts of our early Americans…and a refreshing reminder of why every time I come back from a trip abroad I say there is no place like home.
By Thomas Paine
I picked this book up at Barnes&Nobel while looking for a book Uncle Jimmy recommended. I thought I’d put it the bookshelf for a future read of a classic author, a mosaic piece of our heritage. It was a blessing that the book of my original intention was not available, causing me to read this alternative to fill in the time waiting for Jims recommendation, Tuxedo Park. Paine does a remarkable job in classic literature style in making a profound statement to surround his points or argument. Metaphorically he ties a thread around a foundation and flawlessly pulls it through points of argument while consistently and rationally staying connected to his original statement. At any point in his argument in behalf of American independence you can check it against his original statement and find a solid match in rationale. He does not wait or bait you. The very first sentence in his book is profoundly simple and compelling to see what could possibly follow.
To quote Paine’s opening: “PERHAPS THE SENTIMENTS CONTAINED in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general Favor; a long Habit of not thinking a Thing wrong, gives superficial appearance of being right, and raises a formidable outcry in defense of Custom. But the Tumult soon subsides. Time makes more Converts than Reason.”
In Paine’s first waypoint to common sense in the context of government it goes as follows: “ SOME WRITERS HAVE SO confounded society with government, as to leave little distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the second a punisher.”
Paine was a deist. Like Jefferson, he believed in God, but distained any organization including Churches that oppressed people and specifically he despised the King of England. Paine fostered a society that allowed a free practice of religious thought to be openly expressed in any social or official setting. Since then and to the chagrin of both Paine and Jefferson we have drifted from that premise. It was his and our other forefathers vision that seeded a separation of Church and State and clearly did so to allow liberty in the form of a government by the people not the Church or the State. This seed has spread across the world and in every geographic region that has followed suit, Germany being a temporary exception due to a lapse of rational civic thought, has equally found a prosperous place in world order. I say this because Common Sense should be placed on every coffee table in America. As we debate issues we should always check ourselves for good common sense as demonstrated by Paine.
I read this and Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer while waiting for my book to come in. It is truly refreshing to capture the thoughts of our early Americans…and a refreshing reminder of why every time I come back from a trip abroad I say there is no place like home.
Tuxedo Park
Tuxedo Park
By Jennet Connant
I must give thanks to Jim Meloche who dropped a couple lines in an e-mail for my discovery of an American Hero. After reading the book, the first thing that comes to mind is to pay a tribute to Alfred Loomis, the prime mover in this book. This is a piece of history that is certainly not mainstream reading material…but should be. It is a story about an American hero who became a legend in the scientific community without holding the appropriate credentials. This book paints a picture of what it takes to succeed in terms of the “right stuff”. It is inspirational and in my mind a required reading assignment for those young folks looking for a reason to find the subject of science interesting. This story could be put forward in three study area’s to high school students: Science, History, and Social Studies. I would not be opposed to having a student reading this book three times.
Using a metaphor of scientific variety, of all the elements in chemistry the three elements not on the chart are theory, applied science, and applying money to science. You could call this the molecule of the scientific mind when combined with the entrepreneurial spirit. That is what this book is all about. Alfred Loomis described by the author as a very practical man who came into this world in a somewhat average middle class America of the early 1900’s. I must a admit a degree of suspect on author’s perspective (a Boston elite Blueblood), she must have never missed a meal. But be that as it may, that transitional time that marked American entrance onthe stage of world class leadership finds Alfred Loomis.
I am always marveled at this obscure time of evolution that in reality is a revolution in mans living condition. As Loomis and team discovers ultra sound, radar and numerous other scientific measuring instruments you have to imagine a mind that is curious as to how and why things work. Curiosity is made the conduit and found to be the window of a continuously new and redefined reality. Loomis’s curiosity, underscored by prudent tenacity produced scientific discovery by accident. For example when sending high frequency sound waves through water, why did the fish die? The curious answer leads to the discovery and the beginning development of today’s modern medicine of non-invasive examination and treatment of our bodies, let alone a mind meld of energy to provide tools to win a war with Germany.
In science Alfred Loomis brought his discipline in Law and Finance, to Science to create new ways to look at the existing natural world. New inventions, which were sponsored and or created by Loomis, forged new realities in terms of our improved living condition and the safety of our country. He fed the world of science with papers to leverage other scientific growth independent of his own laboratories. He respected the capital of scientific thought on a world level. This discipline coupled with Thomas Paine’s rule to challenge “traditional thought” was paralleled in his business as a capitalist helping him build a financial empire not just in America but worldwide. This same discipline enabled him to calculate his financial decisions on his own and saved him from the doom so many others experienced in 1929. And thus he was prepared in every way to be a contributing leader when our World needed one.
Alfred Loomis is truly a hero when hero is defined as one who selfishly pursues excellence in his passions. Loomis had a passion first for Law, second for Finance, and third his true passion of Science. He charted his own course. If you were to measure his generosity as an act of heroism, you may observe that he was very generous with his mass of self-earned wealth. There were those cynical masses of people that claimed he must have done something dishonest to become so wealthy as a reason to give back. While not so, Loomis ignored his critics and focused on his passion for science. Underneath every act of giving there was a bargain. That bargain always exacted some contribution to science in return. Whether that scientific contribution was a benefit to mankind was beyond his control as one human being. But as a hero of his own making by his own virtues, to follow your inner guidance, chart your own course, and carry your own load, Loomis set an example that seems to have been overlooked by the educators of our time. Perhaps modern history requires the mindset of Thomas Paine in the role of publicist to not necessarily glorify great people, but to use their stories to teach the elements of the fabric required to be a hero in America. And then again, as in Paine’s world perhaps it takes time for history to correct popular thought, as future events rationalize and crystallize what is not immediately apparent.
In Loomis’s world there existed a codependency of capitalism, science, and politics as his product is guided by entrepreneurial energy and propelled by the combination of them all to the aid of WWII technology. Loomis’ private role seems to be still a secret today in the average American’s mind. The book accentuates this point, as it describes the mad dash towards radar technology and nuclear physics that required a tremendous deal of money requiring two popular strategies. One: befriending and courting those organizations with money using such claims that the “science will cure cancer”. Or Two: winning illustrious prizes like Nobel where fame also draws research money. The third way was the Loomis way, which was to personally fund it. And that secret discloses how vital the American capitalist was and is still today to our safety, as well as comfort. Let us not become so comfortable that we forget the former. And please let our science teachers tell this story so to engrain this reality of cooperative necessity and driving individual thought into the minds of their students.
As Loomis becomes recognized in all aspects of our community he becomes an international prime mover in the organization and leadership of the scientists, industrialists, universities and government to develop the new tools to defend the worlds’ freedom in WWII and thus saving an untold amount of lives. I was moved by the allegiance Loomis had to his country where he a Republican and critic of Roosevelt policy organized a band of largely Republicans to come to Roosevelt’s aid in a cause where the country popular opinion was still opposed to war. The author writes
“ But as Van Bush later observed of the Tizard Mission where all the radar research was done: Much has been written about disagreements between allies during a great war. Little has been written about the deep friendships which appear between comrades in arms of different nations, even among comrades whose efforts, behind the lines, are devoted to placing advanced weapons in the hands of fighting men”. I was moved in reading the pages to wonder why on earth this story has not been not told but taught in our history classes.
Where Loomis becomes a “super hero” is when you read the following Loomis quote: “ I am thrilled by the United States’ ability to outdistance the Germans in wartime radar capability and it was convincing proof of the magical efficiency of American individualism and lasses-faire”. In post war euphoria when the science community was an icon in the government’s eye, Loomis stood by his words and closed up his government-backed lab and gave it back to private enterprise.
By Jennet Connant
I must give thanks to Jim Meloche who dropped a couple lines in an e-mail for my discovery of an American Hero. After reading the book, the first thing that comes to mind is to pay a tribute to Alfred Loomis, the prime mover in this book. This is a piece of history that is certainly not mainstream reading material…but should be. It is a story about an American hero who became a legend in the scientific community without holding the appropriate credentials. This book paints a picture of what it takes to succeed in terms of the “right stuff”. It is inspirational and in my mind a required reading assignment for those young folks looking for a reason to find the subject of science interesting. This story could be put forward in three study area’s to high school students: Science, History, and Social Studies. I would not be opposed to having a student reading this book three times.
Using a metaphor of scientific variety, of all the elements in chemistry the three elements not on the chart are theory, applied science, and applying money to science. You could call this the molecule of the scientific mind when combined with the entrepreneurial spirit. That is what this book is all about. Alfred Loomis described by the author as a very practical man who came into this world in a somewhat average middle class America of the early 1900’s. I must a admit a degree of suspect on author’s perspective (a Boston elite Blueblood), she must have never missed a meal. But be that as it may, that transitional time that marked American entrance onthe stage of world class leadership finds Alfred Loomis.
I am always marveled at this obscure time of evolution that in reality is a revolution in mans living condition. As Loomis and team discovers ultra sound, radar and numerous other scientific measuring instruments you have to imagine a mind that is curious as to how and why things work. Curiosity is made the conduit and found to be the window of a continuously new and redefined reality. Loomis’s curiosity, underscored by prudent tenacity produced scientific discovery by accident. For example when sending high frequency sound waves through water, why did the fish die? The curious answer leads to the discovery and the beginning development of today’s modern medicine of non-invasive examination and treatment of our bodies, let alone a mind meld of energy to provide tools to win a war with Germany.
In science Alfred Loomis brought his discipline in Law and Finance, to Science to create new ways to look at the existing natural world. New inventions, which were sponsored and or created by Loomis, forged new realities in terms of our improved living condition and the safety of our country. He fed the world of science with papers to leverage other scientific growth independent of his own laboratories. He respected the capital of scientific thought on a world level. This discipline coupled with Thomas Paine’s rule to challenge “traditional thought” was paralleled in his business as a capitalist helping him build a financial empire not just in America but worldwide. This same discipline enabled him to calculate his financial decisions on his own and saved him from the doom so many others experienced in 1929. And thus he was prepared in every way to be a contributing leader when our World needed one.
Alfred Loomis is truly a hero when hero is defined as one who selfishly pursues excellence in his passions. Loomis had a passion first for Law, second for Finance, and third his true passion of Science. He charted his own course. If you were to measure his generosity as an act of heroism, you may observe that he was very generous with his mass of self-earned wealth. There were those cynical masses of people that claimed he must have done something dishonest to become so wealthy as a reason to give back. While not so, Loomis ignored his critics and focused on his passion for science. Underneath every act of giving there was a bargain. That bargain always exacted some contribution to science in return. Whether that scientific contribution was a benefit to mankind was beyond his control as one human being. But as a hero of his own making by his own virtues, to follow your inner guidance, chart your own course, and carry your own load, Loomis set an example that seems to have been overlooked by the educators of our time. Perhaps modern history requires the mindset of Thomas Paine in the role of publicist to not necessarily glorify great people, but to use their stories to teach the elements of the fabric required to be a hero in America. And then again, as in Paine’s world perhaps it takes time for history to correct popular thought, as future events rationalize and crystallize what is not immediately apparent.
In Loomis’s world there existed a codependency of capitalism, science, and politics as his product is guided by entrepreneurial energy and propelled by the combination of them all to the aid of WWII technology. Loomis’ private role seems to be still a secret today in the average American’s mind. The book accentuates this point, as it describes the mad dash towards radar technology and nuclear physics that required a tremendous deal of money requiring two popular strategies. One: befriending and courting those organizations with money using such claims that the “science will cure cancer”. Or Two: winning illustrious prizes like Nobel where fame also draws research money. The third way was the Loomis way, which was to personally fund it. And that secret discloses how vital the American capitalist was and is still today to our safety, as well as comfort. Let us not become so comfortable that we forget the former. And please let our science teachers tell this story so to engrain this reality of cooperative necessity and driving individual thought into the minds of their students.
As Loomis becomes recognized in all aspects of our community he becomes an international prime mover in the organization and leadership of the scientists, industrialists, universities and government to develop the new tools to defend the worlds’ freedom in WWII and thus saving an untold amount of lives. I was moved by the allegiance Loomis had to his country where he a Republican and critic of Roosevelt policy organized a band of largely Republicans to come to Roosevelt’s aid in a cause where the country popular opinion was still opposed to war. The author writes
“ But as Van Bush later observed of the Tizard Mission where all the radar research was done: Much has been written about disagreements between allies during a great war. Little has been written about the deep friendships which appear between comrades in arms of different nations, even among comrades whose efforts, behind the lines, are devoted to placing advanced weapons in the hands of fighting men”. I was moved in reading the pages to wonder why on earth this story has not been not told but taught in our history classes.
Where Loomis becomes a “super hero” is when you read the following Loomis quote: “ I am thrilled by the United States’ ability to outdistance the Germans in wartime radar capability and it was convincing proof of the magical efficiency of American individualism and lasses-faire”. In post war euphoria when the science community was an icon in the government’s eye, Loomis stood by his words and closed up his government-backed lab and gave it back to private enterprise.
The Best Of Robert Service
The Best Of Robert Service
By Robert Service
Richard (The Bampa) gave me this book to read. Apparently the author was passed down from his mother to him and now him to me. While it is a collection of poetry by Robert Service, like many collections of poetry it is a reflection of one mans life stories and complementary philosophy. After about a quarter of the way through the book, I found myself contrasting Service to Hemmingway, mostly because they are so different. Why I was compelled to do so or even mention it here is still a mystery to me. Perhaps the Caribbean formed Hemmingway and the Yukon formed Service. Hemmingway’s head was thick with rum and he led a life of laziness and sin, while Service lived a rugged life in the Pacific Northwest that formed a more commendable man. You can get lost in Hemmingway drunken mind. With Service the message is clear. Perhaps Service was the last of men of iron, as I would place Service one generation ahead of Hemmingway. Perhaps we all know the famous Hemmingway but once again I discover later in life another nugget passed over by too many and I now need to place Robert Service on the same shelf or one higher than Hemmingway. Or maybe it is simply because the Bampa gave me the book and he lives in Florida and I read it while sailing on the Caribbean.
The collection begins with many ballads of men doing courageous deed on a rugged frontier. Yes the ballads involve whiskey, women, and barbarian escapades; but behind each scene and event Service springs a surprising dose of humble and usually witty reality of the minds of his character(s). Service is clear on many points with his poetry and one point for sure is that the most esteemed man is he who chops his own wood and carries his own water, and fesses up to his own deeds or misdeeds. Service then moves in to a collection of shorter poems that reflect his time as a soldier in WWI. While he makes war a tragedy he does not betray those who gave their ultimate for a cause that always becomes blurred to those the far removed and living in the face of certain death.
His later poems seem to recognize, in verse, that he is a poet and that other people appreciate his poetry, and then finally, he appreciates other people’s appreciation of his poetry. The following is a poet’s (Robert Services’) way of expressing what I just wrote:
My poem may be yours indeed
In melody and tone,
If in its rhythm you can read
A music of your own,
If in its pale woof you can weave
Your lovelier design,
‘Twill make my lyric, I believe
More yours than mine
I’m but a prompter at the best;
Crude cues are all I give,
In simple stanzas I suggest-
‘Tis you who make them live,
My bit of rhyme is but a frame,
And if my lines you quote,
I think, although they bear my name
‘Tis you who wrote
Yours is the beauty that you see
In any words I sing;
The magic and the melody
‘Tis you, dear friend who bring.
Yea, by glory and the gleam,
The loveliness that lures
Your thought to starry heights of dream,
The poem’s yours.
Now some of you who know me well, have grown accustom to me striking a metaphor of rhyme & reason just in plain conversation. Some have said, “How do you think of these at the spur of a moment?” Some have had to bear witness to some of the poetry that I write. None publishable and all are subject to future edit. But I find that reading and writing poems helps express an essence as opposed to a black and white fact. In many cases the essence is more exact and always less controversial. And most importantly my book reviews/essays and my poetry are merely reflections of how I view my world. It is my way of sharing. Not writing it down would be my mistake. Robert Service would say the same thing this way:
It’s slim and trim and bound in blue;
It’s leaves are crisp and edged with gold;
Its words are simple, stalwart too;
Its thoughts are tender, wise and bold.
It’s pages scintillate with wit;
Its pathos clutches at my throat:
Oh how I love each line of it
That Little Book I Never Wrote.
In dreams I see it praised and prized
By all, from plowman unto peer;
It’s pencil-marked and memorized,
It’s loaned (and not returned I fear);
It’s worn and torn and travel-tossed,
And even dusky natives quote
That classis that the world has lost,
The Little Book I Never Wrote.
Poor ghost! Fore homes you’ve failed to cheer,
Fore grieving hearts uncomforted,
Don’t haunt me now…Alas! I fear
The fire of Inspiration’s dead,
A humdrum way I go to-night
From all I hoped and dreamed remote:
Too late…a better man must write
That Little Book I Never Wrote.
I’ll leave you with this life’s experience. When I was a young lad I went on a tour of the famous Greenfield Village, a living museum of history. I was in an old house where the guide pointed out the “writing desk” with its quill pen and ink fountain. She said, “This was how people of times before television entertained themselves.” I thought how dreadful their lives were. Now at 50 I realize the reward from sharing more than just a howdy-do. I am grateful for the history found in the memoirs they left for us to learn from. I am also grateful for the historians who research for these gems of life’s stories and compose a “novel story”. Poets are doing more or less the same panning for gems in their mind. To be a part of this is what keeps me reading and writing.
I dog-eared the poems in this book that I go back a read, to make them my own. If you happen to pick up this book, I’d be curious to compare our lists. And as I complete the list I find it curious that there are twelve.
1. My Friends
2. The Land of Beyond
3. The Wonderlust
4. The Absinthe Drinkers
5. My MasterPiece
6. The Wonderer
7. The Quest
8. Yellow
9. Your Poem
10. Making Good
11. I Believe
12. My Highland Home
By Robert Service
Richard (The Bampa) gave me this book to read. Apparently the author was passed down from his mother to him and now him to me. While it is a collection of poetry by Robert Service, like many collections of poetry it is a reflection of one mans life stories and complementary philosophy. After about a quarter of the way through the book, I found myself contrasting Service to Hemmingway, mostly because they are so different. Why I was compelled to do so or even mention it here is still a mystery to me. Perhaps the Caribbean formed Hemmingway and the Yukon formed Service. Hemmingway’s head was thick with rum and he led a life of laziness and sin, while Service lived a rugged life in the Pacific Northwest that formed a more commendable man. You can get lost in Hemmingway drunken mind. With Service the message is clear. Perhaps Service was the last of men of iron, as I would place Service one generation ahead of Hemmingway. Perhaps we all know the famous Hemmingway but once again I discover later in life another nugget passed over by too many and I now need to place Robert Service on the same shelf or one higher than Hemmingway. Or maybe it is simply because the Bampa gave me the book and he lives in Florida and I read it while sailing on the Caribbean.
The collection begins with many ballads of men doing courageous deed on a rugged frontier. Yes the ballads involve whiskey, women, and barbarian escapades; but behind each scene and event Service springs a surprising dose of humble and usually witty reality of the minds of his character(s). Service is clear on many points with his poetry and one point for sure is that the most esteemed man is he who chops his own wood and carries his own water, and fesses up to his own deeds or misdeeds. Service then moves in to a collection of shorter poems that reflect his time as a soldier in WWI. While he makes war a tragedy he does not betray those who gave their ultimate for a cause that always becomes blurred to those the far removed and living in the face of certain death.
His later poems seem to recognize, in verse, that he is a poet and that other people appreciate his poetry, and then finally, he appreciates other people’s appreciation of his poetry. The following is a poet’s (Robert Services’) way of expressing what I just wrote:
My poem may be yours indeed
In melody and tone,
If in its rhythm you can read
A music of your own,
If in its pale woof you can weave
Your lovelier design,
‘Twill make my lyric, I believe
More yours than mine
I’m but a prompter at the best;
Crude cues are all I give,
In simple stanzas I suggest-
‘Tis you who make them live,
My bit of rhyme is but a frame,
And if my lines you quote,
I think, although they bear my name
‘Tis you who wrote
Yours is the beauty that you see
In any words I sing;
The magic and the melody
‘Tis you, dear friend who bring.
Yea, by glory and the gleam,
The loveliness that lures
Your thought to starry heights of dream,
The poem’s yours.
Now some of you who know me well, have grown accustom to me striking a metaphor of rhyme & reason just in plain conversation. Some have said, “How do you think of these at the spur of a moment?” Some have had to bear witness to some of the poetry that I write. None publishable and all are subject to future edit. But I find that reading and writing poems helps express an essence as opposed to a black and white fact. In many cases the essence is more exact and always less controversial. And most importantly my book reviews/essays and my poetry are merely reflections of how I view my world. It is my way of sharing. Not writing it down would be my mistake. Robert Service would say the same thing this way:
It’s slim and trim and bound in blue;
It’s leaves are crisp and edged with gold;
Its words are simple, stalwart too;
Its thoughts are tender, wise and bold.
It’s pages scintillate with wit;
Its pathos clutches at my throat:
Oh how I love each line of it
That Little Book I Never Wrote.
In dreams I see it praised and prized
By all, from plowman unto peer;
It’s pencil-marked and memorized,
It’s loaned (and not returned I fear);
It’s worn and torn and travel-tossed,
And even dusky natives quote
That classis that the world has lost,
The Little Book I Never Wrote.
Poor ghost! Fore homes you’ve failed to cheer,
Fore grieving hearts uncomforted,
Don’t haunt me now…Alas! I fear
The fire of Inspiration’s dead,
A humdrum way I go to-night
From all I hoped and dreamed remote:
Too late…a better man must write
That Little Book I Never Wrote.
I’ll leave you with this life’s experience. When I was a young lad I went on a tour of the famous Greenfield Village, a living museum of history. I was in an old house where the guide pointed out the “writing desk” with its quill pen and ink fountain. She said, “This was how people of times before television entertained themselves.” I thought how dreadful their lives were. Now at 50 I realize the reward from sharing more than just a howdy-do. I am grateful for the history found in the memoirs they left for us to learn from. I am also grateful for the historians who research for these gems of life’s stories and compose a “novel story”. Poets are doing more or less the same panning for gems in their mind. To be a part of this is what keeps me reading and writing.
I dog-eared the poems in this book that I go back a read, to make them my own. If you happen to pick up this book, I’d be curious to compare our lists. And as I complete the list I find it curious that there are twelve.
1. My Friends
2. The Land of Beyond
3. The Wonderlust
4. The Absinthe Drinkers
5. My MasterPiece
6. The Wonderer
7. The Quest
8. Yellow
9. Your Poem
10. Making Good
11. I Believe
12. My Highland Home
Our Finest Hour
Our Finest Hour
By Winston Churchill
This book is a second in a series of five and spans the historical moment of a man who wrote his own history. As a continuation of the first book The Gathering Storm, Churchill begins with the grave World situation at the very moment he took the office of England’s Prime Minister. After 12 years of arm waving and foot stomping about the German build up, England and the World gave Winston Churchill the opportunity once denied him at the close of The Great War. It was at this time in history that Churchill formed a government under his leadership. With Churchill’s accounting of the job he undertook, the reader of this series gets to learn the merit of diplomacy and war and the intrigue of how they work hand in hand.
In the opening Churchill continues to criticize the French. This continues throughout, with the exception of de Gaulle. In the first book it was the governments inability to recognize a threat and do anything about it. This book opens with two chapters of narrative on how poorly prepared and organized the French army was. They were poorly prepared in terms of capability at all levels. Churchill is most critical of the leadership of the French Army and the Vichy government. And today the French arrogance continues, even though there exists museums that document the betrayal of the Vichy government we allow it…I am guessing or hoping it is because of their wine, women, food, and appreciation for the good life.
While the French government and her Army were politely criticized at many important junctures leading up to and during their quick fall to Germany the reader would be inclined to have a feeling of empathy towards the French people. After all it is cliché to say “it’s the government not the people”. But in this book is where the reader gets to the story describing events in the face of German army being three days from Paris, and an Italian declaration of war on France, the French people were found moving country carts and lories on an airfield to prevent British bombers from launching an attack on Milan and Tourin; one begins to wonder about “things French”.
Contemplating this in the wake of the excessive war reparation France imposed on Germany after WWI compels one to think even twice about things French. It is nice to believe that the world could be peaceful, but if world history were studied in the Science Colleges or vice-versa there would be a higher level of rational thought dedicated to applying lessons learned? Perhaps a step in that direction would be for our Universities to do a better job providing our youth with an appreciation of all the other aspects beyond their specific majors of our interrelated world. I’d recommend a curriculum entitled “Putting It All Together, Personally, Professionally, & Socially”. I know the reader might hand me Poly Si curriculum but then only 2% of those who needs to learn this actually do…and the rest of the 98% call the Poly Si majors and/or Law grads (Lawyers) crooks. Beware of the broth cooked in a black kettle or which kettle is black.
To punctuate the French fall with French request for Britain to agree to a French surrender, which was agreed they would never do three months earlier, exposes the fortitude of the French culture once again. This in conjunction with the French request to Roosevelt for help and Roosevelt’s refusal pressed by American people in the face of very apparent eminent domination of the world by an evil axis of power, reminds me of how dangerously French-like we are here in America. To punctuate this with an exclamation point, reading this fresh off of Churchill’s Gathering Storm, America cannot continue making alliances involving military protection as the French did to all of Europe and then falling short at the first or any sign of difficulty. In war there are no predictable outcomes. Making an alliance means exactly what Churchill wrote to France’s leadership at the time when Reynuad asked for relief of the French commitment to fighting Germany… in short he said NO. Churchill’s book includes the three-paragraph letter, which makes it an honorable and respectful no. I hope this passage of diplomacy in itself compels this reader to read Churchill.
Without the benefit of reading this book, my generation of Americans does not appreciate Churchill’s deeds to the same degree as one experiencing the same in first person. While the book is fraught with communiqué to an from key participants in history the following passage strikes at the heart of Churchill’s profound leadership. As The Battle of France closed Churchill wrote the following to his people and published it to the world. As I know it is unlikely for my readers to read the book…I provide this excerpt.
"""However matters may go in France or with the French Government or another French Governments, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people…If final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gins-aye, and freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands; not one jot or tittle do we receed… Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, have joined their causes with our own. All these shall be restored.
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our British life, and long the continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, “ This was their finest hour”.""""
What I find most honorable is that these words were written by a man who had experienced years of French capitulation on commitment to common cause. He saw it immediately preceding this with French reneging on the Pols and Czecs. And most dramatically while the Battle of France was actually happening a large contingent of the French Government Ministers were taking action to surrender to the Germans as they would prefer to be subservient to a German regime as opposed to being a Anglo/French Union. What the reader also learns in this book it that while Churchill held a place in the future for the French, so did Herr Hitler, as was stated and documented in the dialogue minutes between Molitov and Rippentrop in the meeting preceding the Tripartite Act. What I find interesting and at the same time amusing is that while Molitov and Hitler were meeting relative to their interests in the “Pact”, Churchill sniffed out the meeting and bombed the city indiscriminately. He did this to show Stalin that England is indeed a lethal threat.
Mixed in with the above notes in history are the events, among many, of Dakar where it became imperative to defend the West African Coast so that England could sail around the Cape and the Atlantic Ocean would be safe for shipping to and from the Americas. In preparation to land in Dakar, under fire from French War Ships, Churchill made the importance of this painfully clear to Roosevelt, and the book describes the tribulation Churchill observed in Roosevelt in how to “sell” American involvement to a French (head in the sand) thinking American public. The reader is once again and not purposefully, I believe, drawn to question things French.
An intriguing strategy at the fall of France was Churchill’s immediate decision to swiftly capture or destroy the French Fleet. This was done the day after France signed an armistice with Germany. The reader becomes aware of the Naval consequence of world dominance by the Axis Powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy. As Britain drew her fleet home, the Pacific lay now free for Japan to roam. And Japan did just that. To those with wild conspiracy theories against Roosevelt, I say bunk. What occurred whether there existed details of Roosevelt folly prior to Pearl Harbor is immaterial to our national security derived from our “head in the sand” mentality as an American people with French traits. I fear those traits exist still today. I say this as I reflect on these words of Churchill that represent his mind set as he wrote those famous “Finest Hour” words to the world:
"""During our first four years of the last war the Allies experienced nothing but disaster and disappointment…We repeatedly asked ourselves the question “ How are we going to win? And no one was ever able to answer it with much precision, until at the end, quite suddenly, quite unexpectedly, our terrible vision collapsed before us, and we were so glutted with victory that in our folly we threw it away."""
Of Things French “ because I think a certain way, so must the world” my quote and critique of the French. This book and Churchill’s first book The Gathering Storm indirectly leads one to draw this conclusion. In my opinion the French lifestyle could be convincing. However history tells a darker story that would lead one to look at the other side of a coin to guarantee its authenticity.
Things American contrasted by things Roosevelt in the face of an American public opinion in 1940 that matched that of the French of the 1930’s you read in the letters from “Former Navel Person to President Roosevelt” (Churchill when he was Prime Minister) the influential hand in guiding Roosevelt to the eventual pearls becoming eminent upon the United States. While I can be critical of Roosevelt’s handling of the economy, I can be grateful for his attention to the words of Churchill. In this book those letters are made public and in my opinion should be mandatory history lessons to our American people, if for no other reason but to ward off the head in the sand mentality to looming international dangers. Also made apparent were the anxieties of Churchill, as he had to decipher the American newspapers to get a feel for American support towards the cause for freedom. Roosevelt’s deal on 50 destroyers and some of the details, from Churchill’s perspective of the precedent setting move of a Lend Lease Act are included in this book. While Churchill was a guiding light, Roosevelt did have to find a way to wake up his people and he did. Although December 7 is a day of infamy, much credit must be given to leaders who were prepared to respond accordingly.
Things magnanimously Churchill: among many was his un wavering allegiance to the French people, despite the Vichy government’s betrayal to not only her Continental allies but to England as they gazed upon the opportunities of subservience to Germany. In spite of this was his memorial statement to Chamberlain, a person of whom he was very critical of in the handling of the looming German threat in the 1930’s. When I read the passage I marked the pages for documentation in my closing. And now having finished the book I close with the statement as I strongly feel that we must continue to use history as written by the participants to mold our children as our future leaders and therefore guide our destiny.
“""At the lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgment under a marching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again a few years later, when the perspective of time as lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all of this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield. Because we are often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the Fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour”
“Whatever else history may or not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating acts in which we are now engage
By Winston Churchill
This book is a second in a series of five and spans the historical moment of a man who wrote his own history. As a continuation of the first book The Gathering Storm, Churchill begins with the grave World situation at the very moment he took the office of England’s Prime Minister. After 12 years of arm waving and foot stomping about the German build up, England and the World gave Winston Churchill the opportunity once denied him at the close of The Great War. It was at this time in history that Churchill formed a government under his leadership. With Churchill’s accounting of the job he undertook, the reader of this series gets to learn the merit of diplomacy and war and the intrigue of how they work hand in hand.
In the opening Churchill continues to criticize the French. This continues throughout, with the exception of de Gaulle. In the first book it was the governments inability to recognize a threat and do anything about it. This book opens with two chapters of narrative on how poorly prepared and organized the French army was. They were poorly prepared in terms of capability at all levels. Churchill is most critical of the leadership of the French Army and the Vichy government. And today the French arrogance continues, even though there exists museums that document the betrayal of the Vichy government we allow it…I am guessing or hoping it is because of their wine, women, food, and appreciation for the good life.
While the French government and her Army were politely criticized at many important junctures leading up to and during their quick fall to Germany the reader would be inclined to have a feeling of empathy towards the French people. After all it is cliché to say “it’s the government not the people”. But in this book is where the reader gets to the story describing events in the face of German army being three days from Paris, and an Italian declaration of war on France, the French people were found moving country carts and lories on an airfield to prevent British bombers from launching an attack on Milan and Tourin; one begins to wonder about “things French”.
Contemplating this in the wake of the excessive war reparation France imposed on Germany after WWI compels one to think even twice about things French. It is nice to believe that the world could be peaceful, but if world history were studied in the Science Colleges or vice-versa there would be a higher level of rational thought dedicated to applying lessons learned? Perhaps a step in that direction would be for our Universities to do a better job providing our youth with an appreciation of all the other aspects beyond their specific majors of our interrelated world. I’d recommend a curriculum entitled “Putting It All Together, Personally, Professionally, & Socially”. I know the reader might hand me Poly Si curriculum but then only 2% of those who needs to learn this actually do…and the rest of the 98% call the Poly Si majors and/or Law grads (Lawyers) crooks. Beware of the broth cooked in a black kettle or which kettle is black.
To punctuate the French fall with French request for Britain to agree to a French surrender, which was agreed they would never do three months earlier, exposes the fortitude of the French culture once again. This in conjunction with the French request to Roosevelt for help and Roosevelt’s refusal pressed by American people in the face of very apparent eminent domination of the world by an evil axis of power, reminds me of how dangerously French-like we are here in America. To punctuate this with an exclamation point, reading this fresh off of Churchill’s Gathering Storm, America cannot continue making alliances involving military protection as the French did to all of Europe and then falling short at the first or any sign of difficulty. In war there are no predictable outcomes. Making an alliance means exactly what Churchill wrote to France’s leadership at the time when Reynuad asked for relief of the French commitment to fighting Germany… in short he said NO. Churchill’s book includes the three-paragraph letter, which makes it an honorable and respectful no. I hope this passage of diplomacy in itself compels this reader to read Churchill.
Without the benefit of reading this book, my generation of Americans does not appreciate Churchill’s deeds to the same degree as one experiencing the same in first person. While the book is fraught with communiqué to an from key participants in history the following passage strikes at the heart of Churchill’s profound leadership. As The Battle of France closed Churchill wrote the following to his people and published it to the world. As I know it is unlikely for my readers to read the book…I provide this excerpt.
"""However matters may go in France or with the French Government or another French Governments, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people…If final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gins-aye, and freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands; not one jot or tittle do we receed… Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, have joined their causes with our own. All these shall be restored.
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our British life, and long the continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, “ This was their finest hour”.""""
What I find most honorable is that these words were written by a man who had experienced years of French capitulation on commitment to common cause. He saw it immediately preceding this with French reneging on the Pols and Czecs. And most dramatically while the Battle of France was actually happening a large contingent of the French Government Ministers were taking action to surrender to the Germans as they would prefer to be subservient to a German regime as opposed to being a Anglo/French Union. What the reader also learns in this book it that while Churchill held a place in the future for the French, so did Herr Hitler, as was stated and documented in the dialogue minutes between Molitov and Rippentrop in the meeting preceding the Tripartite Act. What I find interesting and at the same time amusing is that while Molitov and Hitler were meeting relative to their interests in the “Pact”, Churchill sniffed out the meeting and bombed the city indiscriminately. He did this to show Stalin that England is indeed a lethal threat.
Mixed in with the above notes in history are the events, among many, of Dakar where it became imperative to defend the West African Coast so that England could sail around the Cape and the Atlantic Ocean would be safe for shipping to and from the Americas. In preparation to land in Dakar, under fire from French War Ships, Churchill made the importance of this painfully clear to Roosevelt, and the book describes the tribulation Churchill observed in Roosevelt in how to “sell” American involvement to a French (head in the sand) thinking American public. The reader is once again and not purposefully, I believe, drawn to question things French.
An intriguing strategy at the fall of France was Churchill’s immediate decision to swiftly capture or destroy the French Fleet. This was done the day after France signed an armistice with Germany. The reader becomes aware of the Naval consequence of world dominance by the Axis Powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy. As Britain drew her fleet home, the Pacific lay now free for Japan to roam. And Japan did just that. To those with wild conspiracy theories against Roosevelt, I say bunk. What occurred whether there existed details of Roosevelt folly prior to Pearl Harbor is immaterial to our national security derived from our “head in the sand” mentality as an American people with French traits. I fear those traits exist still today. I say this as I reflect on these words of Churchill that represent his mind set as he wrote those famous “Finest Hour” words to the world:
"""During our first four years of the last war the Allies experienced nothing but disaster and disappointment…We repeatedly asked ourselves the question “ How are we going to win? And no one was ever able to answer it with much precision, until at the end, quite suddenly, quite unexpectedly, our terrible vision collapsed before us, and we were so glutted with victory that in our folly we threw it away."""
Of Things French “ because I think a certain way, so must the world” my quote and critique of the French. This book and Churchill’s first book The Gathering Storm indirectly leads one to draw this conclusion. In my opinion the French lifestyle could be convincing. However history tells a darker story that would lead one to look at the other side of a coin to guarantee its authenticity.
Things American contrasted by things Roosevelt in the face of an American public opinion in 1940 that matched that of the French of the 1930’s you read in the letters from “Former Navel Person to President Roosevelt” (Churchill when he was Prime Minister) the influential hand in guiding Roosevelt to the eventual pearls becoming eminent upon the United States. While I can be critical of Roosevelt’s handling of the economy, I can be grateful for his attention to the words of Churchill. In this book those letters are made public and in my opinion should be mandatory history lessons to our American people, if for no other reason but to ward off the head in the sand mentality to looming international dangers. Also made apparent were the anxieties of Churchill, as he had to decipher the American newspapers to get a feel for American support towards the cause for freedom. Roosevelt’s deal on 50 destroyers and some of the details, from Churchill’s perspective of the precedent setting move of a Lend Lease Act are included in this book. While Churchill was a guiding light, Roosevelt did have to find a way to wake up his people and he did. Although December 7 is a day of infamy, much credit must be given to leaders who were prepared to respond accordingly.
Things magnanimously Churchill: among many was his un wavering allegiance to the French people, despite the Vichy government’s betrayal to not only her Continental allies but to England as they gazed upon the opportunities of subservience to Germany. In spite of this was his memorial statement to Chamberlain, a person of whom he was very critical of in the handling of the looming German threat in the 1930’s. When I read the passage I marked the pages for documentation in my closing. And now having finished the book I close with the statement as I strongly feel that we must continue to use history as written by the participants to mold our children as our future leaders and therefore guide our destiny.
“""At the lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgment under a marching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again a few years later, when the perspective of time as lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all of this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield. Because we are often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the Fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour”
“Whatever else history may or not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating acts in which we are now engage