Snickersnee

The Fascist Left

2011-08-05T05:45:00.000-07:00

The term "Fascist Left" is actually a redundancy. The only "left" that exists, and has existed for a hundred years, is the one vilified by the right, which is to say anyone who tells the truth or doesn't support the right. What we have today, as exemplified by the pro-Palestinian, pro-Islamist anti-American grouping that takes its inspiration from Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Cockburn, Medea Benjamin and George Galloway, is not a new phenomenon by any means but a continuation of the totalitarian movement and body of thought that has infected liberal democracies from time immemorial, in particular the Stalinist era and the post World War II period. In this country we see the superficial signs of the disease in Political Correctness, multiculturalism and cultural relativism, ubiquitous in our university social studies departments and the blogs Counterpunch, countercurrents and truthdig, as well as the mass media like Huffington Post, Slate and Salon and of course the New York Times.

The choice of the term "left" is devious and deceptive. It has nothing to do with movements for human rights, women's rights, gay rights, social and economic equality, civil liberties or, most telling, democracy itself. On the contrary, those who take the trouble to examine the inspirations and roots of those who call themselves "leftists" will find an ideology in stark contrast to the notions of freedom and democracy. It is a long and unchanging history, one of totalitarianism, hate, violence, and intolerance, one that demands a complete submission to its tenets and vehement opposition to and slander of those who do not sign their loyalty oath. In this sense it is a secular version of Islam's shariah law, which mandates unquestioning observance in all aspects of daily life, not just religious worship.

Contemporary liberals and progressives are unfamiliar with the true nature of the left. For them, any person or group or movement that opposes war, capitalism or racism and which preaches peace and cultural diversity is considered to be on the left, regardless of its affiliations or true motives and objectives. The hallmark of leftism today is virulent anti-Americanism, the belief that American "imperialism" is the greatest oppressor of our times, responsible for all the world's ills and violence. It is curious, to say the least, that the basis for this conclusion was never arrived at during the reign of Joseph Stalin or during the freedom struggles of eastern Europe against communism.

It has always been a truism that indigenous resistance movements not taking orders from the Soviets and not controlled by communists are never supported by the Fascist Left. In Nicaragua, for example, the Sandinista revolution was one of strongly nationalist democratic socialism and thus was never supported by the communists there. None of the nine-member Sandinista directorate was a communist. Since then, only two of the original revolutionaries, Miguel D'Escoto Brockman and Daniel Ortega, have proven to be hard-line extreme leftists.

If one needs proof that the Fascist Left exists, that is easily provided. Here is a list of their heroes of the 20th century: Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and above all Hamas and Hezbollah. For this we can thank Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky primarily, with cheerleaders like Chris Hedges, Medea Benjamin and George Galloway and the blog Counterpunch bringing up the rear and Ian Buruma sitting on the fence trying to see who will win so he can join them in a hurry. Anyone who does not know this history - and few liberals have taken the trouble to find out - can consult Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, Fred Halliday, Nick Cohen, Pascal Bruckner, Jonah Goldberg, and going back a bit further, Raymond Aron and George Orwell, who reminded us of how the communists betrayed the partisans and anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

Of special note in the Spanish Civil War is Claude Cockburn in Great Britain, who did his part too, under a pseudonym (Frank Pitcairn). He joined the Communist Party and wrote about the war for the Daily Worker, becoming essentially a Soviet agent himself and working closely with the foreign editor of Pravda against the anarchists and the anti-Stalin left and approving of the Stalin's infamous Moscow Trials that condemned numerous intellectuals to death. His venom was directed most egregiously against the anti-Stalinist leftist POUM, the Partito Obrero de Unificacion Marxista, and his efforts contributed to the arrest, torture and murder of many POUM members. His son Alexander Cockburn has followed faithfully in his father's footsteps.

In France, the story is equally sordid. Everyone knows about the long list of French leftist intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Jean Cocteau who made their peace with the Nazis and in exchange for good behavior were allowed to live quietly in Paris during the war. Jean-Paul Sartre was the outstanding example. One who did not stay in Paris and who spoke out was sociologist Raymond Aron. In his superb essay collection that exposes the perennial Fascist Left, Cultural Amnesia, Clive James writes of Aron's calling Sartre and many other writers to account for what was no less than a "widespread but tacit collaboration" with the Nazis. Said James about Sartre: "The sad truth was that he...owed his wartime fame as a writer and thinker to Nazi tolerance, for which a price had to be paid". Aron's book, The Opium of the Intellectuals, from 1955, enraged the French left endlessly, because it suggested, says James, that "the Communist version of socialism was a secular religion". Today the voices of liberal democracy in France are faint. What is the Socialist Party doing? Well, maybe the same thing that Clive James said about Sartre's purported underground activities during the Nazi occupation: "a secret meeting onWednesday to decide whether there should be another meeting the following Tuesday".

The Fascist Left has found its most reliable ally in the radical Islamists, a reliable ally against western liberal democracy but also one they think (mistakenly) can be recruited to THEIR anti-imperialist, anti-liberal philosophy. Which one of these - Islamists or Fascist Leftists - will prevail may not be known by the latter but the rests of us know with certainty that it will be the former. The Islamists are far more clever. They understand that the Fascist Left is a precious resource in recruiting all manner of paleoliberals over to the side of Islamism: abject liberal Jews, peaceniks, anti-Semites, the counterculture, black Americans, civil libertarians, centrist academics and intellectuals -- in other words just about anyone with a gripe against the USA. That a good swatch of this constituency has gone over to the dark side of Islamism already, as witness the liberal mass media, should give us all a good fright. The Fascist Leftists, being secularists and atheists, will of course be at the top of the lists for assassination when the Islamists get power.

That the battle to defend liberal secular democracy, the rule of law, our Constitution, civil liberties and gender equality has been

abandoned to the right wing is disturbing but there is no other way to distance one's self from the paleoliberals and resist the self-censorship of the liberal media. It may bother many of us to stand next to Tea Partiers, Zionists, neo-conservatives and Republicans but that is because there is nowhere else to stand and no other place to bear witness or defend democracy. Those critical of the totalitarian left will continue to be jeered as secret right-wingers, as the fate of people like Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman proves. In truth they are the real defenders of liberal democracy.

The Religious Conspiracy to Destroy Secularism

2011-08-01T05:30:00.001-07:00

Much outrage has been directed at the "New Atheists", or the "Four Horsemen", who I call D2H2: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Some call atheism a religion though it clearly is not since it has no doctrine and does not either prescribe or proscribe human beliefs and behavior. Others, whether devout believers or doubtful ones, take umbrage at what they consider insults against their spiritual beliefs. Still others, including my Anglican cleric friend John Papworth, insist that the atrocities of religion pale against those of secular tyrants like Stalin and Mao, as if I were somehow letting them off the hook when I criticize religion.

Every now and then what has been an intuition suddenly becomes crystal clear. So it is with the growing suspicion that religious leaders of all faiths have now banded together instinctively to fight secularism, their common enemy, and defend their diminishing territory. Their voices get louder as they define morality and the moral landscape for humanity based on what they consider the overriding lessons and strictures of millennia-old doctrines. These are mostly lost in the fog of history for the rest of us but for religious leaders, these dogmas and dictates were handed down by a god to human prophets directly (Moses, Jesus and Mohammed). Forget Islamist terrorism; they say. These leaders have pronounced Secularism as the greatest threat to humanity extant.

Underscoring this paranoia were two recent events: a French panel on secularism and Islam in which the Council of Bishops did not participate and spokesmen of all major religions expressed their concern that this discussion "could feed demagogy" and lead to a rejection of religion ( as if it were not being rapidly rejected anyway); and a debate in the UK sponsored by The Spectator debating the proposition that secularism is a greater threat than Islam. Predictably in the affirmative were Muslim Tariq Ramadan, a radical Salafist and mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood, and Rev. Tim Radcliff, a priest and Dominican friar. The final vote of the attendees on this proposition was a resounding No, testimony that rationality has not been entirely smothered.

The new atheists have some cause for rejoicing because it appears that their entreaties on behalf of reason and secular systems of morality are causing serious alarm among all three major religions. Scarcely a day goes by that a cleric of one faith or another does not take the opportunity to promote his ancient snake oil remedy for human fallibility and misbehavior. It does seem that Jewish rabbis constitute the preponderance of these modern-day prophets, however. Perhaps this is due to the ever-present fears of resurgent persecution or the diminished number of congregants or intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews. Perhaps a multi-faith alliance constitutes some kind of protection against growing anti-Semitism. Make friends where you can find them.

But this does not explain the reluctance of Jewish leaders to acknowledge and fight back against the rampant anti-Semitism of Muslims and the declared war on the Jews by Arabs in the middle east. For some inexplicable reason, the post-9/11 period seems to have sparked in the liberal Jewish community some sense of fellowship with Muslims who, by order of the qu-ran, are compelled to seek the extermination of all Jews. It is as if the Jews felt an urge to cozy up to Nazis. Perhaps it is not surprising, given the fact that both religions closely resemble each other. Historically internal feuds within religions have always been the most violent and relentless, as witness Shia and Sunni Islam.

This phenomenon of faith-based solidarity has led Jews - but not Muslims - to initiate "outreach" and "multi-faith dialogue", though it is not clear just why the Jews should be the initiators rather than the Muslims, who have much more to answer for in their arrogant and superior attitude towards other religions, their qu-ranic mandate to kill nonMuslims and apostates, their enslavement of women, and their disdain for democracy, religious equality and the laws of nonMuslim societies.

But this is becoming clearer day by day: that leaders of the three major faiths are uniting behind a single barricade which is being built to fend off the growing secularism of society. This secularism, most prevalent in western Europe, is causing them serious alarm because it means, as indeed it has since the Enlightenment, the decreasing credibility and influence of religious doctrine. In a word, secularism in a democracy is giving all religions nightmares. What better allies can they count on if not the leaders of other religions who face the same threat?

The response is predictable: creating a new religious solidarity to fend off the common enemy of secularism. Mind you, this solidarity is not based on contemporary ethics but, as always, on religious doctrines and the declarations of prophets that go back thousands of years (in the case of Islam, only about fourteen hundred years but cribbed from the other religions which in turn cribbed from earlier ones). It is amusing (though disturbing) to see how little progress they have made and how hide-bound they remain in their desperate struggle to assert the waning authority of their respective churches. This desperation is evident in their public statements, including the one cited below.

And well might they worry. In the USA, 16% of the population is either non-believing or non-observant, over 10% more than ten or twenty years ago. In western Europe, this is reversed, with the vast majority of people nonobservant if not outright atheist. Religion has nothing to tell us today, no moral examples to set, and no legitimacy. Science, reason and education have set people free. More than that, the freedom to inquire and dissent means that people are free to imagine and construct a secular ethics and sense of morality without the stranglehold of religious hierarchy and dogma. They have discovered that morality is an inherent capability of humans and not dependent on adherence to a religious doctrine, much less a higher being.

At this point a specific example of the arbitrary and dictatorial nature of religion is apt. Here are some quotes from a recent post by Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, contesting neuroscientist Patricia Churchland's purported reliance on biology as our only important moral guide. Let's keep in mind that here we have the two extremes: one defending religion as the sole guide and the other defending biology, yet another example of the tiresome unresolvable "Nature vs. Nurture" debate.

Says Joffie:

Churchland's thinking is a moral mess. It reminds us why religion is the best and indispensable guide to moral behavior.

For Churchland, the biological key to morality is to be found in the role of peptide oxytocin, which solidifies the bond between mother and infant and also generates empathy to include more distant kin. Churchland speaks the language of the moral relativist. For example, she defends the practice of primitive tribes that carry out infanticide in the context of scarcity, and she is slow to condemn the 19th century Hindu tradition of burning wives on their husbands' funeral pyres. "I don't know about their values," she says, "and why they have that tradition."

(SALZMAN: if religion is the best guide, then how is it that there are so many atheists and agnostics who are good law-abiding people? And what about pagans, who preceded Jews, Christians and Muslims, who believed in many gods? Are they equal to today's believers or nonbelievers? Further, one could just as well ask why modern religious leaders are slow to condemn the ongoing Muslim tradition of oppression of women, forced child marriage, murder of apostates and genital mutilation, not to mention their opposition to freedom of speech.)

Says Joffie:

As a rabbi, I welcome research into neuroscience but believe that as much as we are the products of biology, we also transcend it. I make choices about right and wrong by studying sacred texts that record a 2,500-year history of men and women struggling with God's message and with each other as they attempt to define what is moral and what is not. I also draw strength and inspiration from a religious community that cares about values and deepens its search for the good through the practice of ancient rituals and traditions. I don't believe in easy answers to moral questions. As a liberal person of faith, I reject simplistic moral codes, and I am aware that different religious traditions arrive at different conclusions about good and evil. Nonetheless, the process of moral decision-making that my tradition offers has left me convinced that, as Jonathan Haidt has argued, there is a moral structure to the universe, and despite our differences, the great religious traditions largely agree on what our moral foundations are. And in the moral world in which I live, infanticide and wife burning are always, always wrong.

(SALZMAN: this is arguably the most devious and Satanic argument imaginable. No easy answers to moral questions? If one of Yoffie's congregants confesses to murder or rape, he cannot answer that these are wrong? And after attacking Churchland for her supposed relativism, he concurs that different religions reach different conclusions? One might excuse his confused and contradictory thinking here except that he then re-contradicts himself by saying that all religions "largely agree". In his world he does reach an "easy answer": infanticide and wife burning are wrong. But in MY world, so are women's enslavement, child marriage and genital mutilation. The contempt for nonbelievers is palpable: one can only reach moral clarity through religion. Worse yet, we have a REFORM rabbi clinging to cloudy ancient human-created doctrines which later generations, Joffie's included, still think represent moral codes handed down from some supreme being and which they insist on regarding as definitive, overriding any subsequent moral or scientific discoveries. This blow to Enlightenment rationality, free will, human dignity, freedom of thought and moral progress is stunning, yet it represents one of the gravest dangers to humanity and civilization ever devised. Small wonder that churches and synagogues are emptier today than in earlier times. )

Religious leaders, however, resist the notion of human-created moral codes even as their power wanes, this waning leading to ever more shrill exhortations about the "spiritual" life and how its purported lack has created a moral void and emptiness in everyone's lives that only religion can fill. But the audience continues to leave before the sermon is finished. The churches get emptier even as preachers grasp at straws and struggle vainly to recruit new believers.

PALEOLIBERALS & MEDIA SALIVATING OVER NORWAY KILLINGS

2011-07-29T05:08:00.000-07:00

What a great opportunity for paleoliberals, the media and Muslims: a lilywhite Scandinavian killer inspired by critics of Islam and a fear of European Islamization. What a great opportunity to speculate on and formulate new but entirely incredible theories about today's threats to civilization. What a great opportunity to wipe their brows in gratitude that their own blindness about the growing scourge of Islamism and Islamic terrorism has now been justified and rewarded.

But it doesn't hold water. Right wing attacks by white Christians can be counted on the fingers of one hand, both in this country and in Europe. You would need a hundred hands to count the number of Muslim bombings and attempted bombing plots that have taken place in the past ten years alone. People have short or selective memories or both. Remember 9/11? How about London, Madrid, Mumbai, Nairobi, Bali? How about the fact that 80% of all the bombing plots (in this country alone) uncovered by the FBI in the past ten years were concocted by Muslims?

If you made a list of the al Qaeda affiliates and imitators around the world, which are operating in Asia, Africa and the middle east, they would number in the dozens, maybe more. If you made a list of the neo-Nazi white supremacist groups, you might with studious care accumulate about five. Posse Comitatus; Aryan Nation; are there any more out there folks? How long ago did Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb? Fifteen years? How many have happened since then? Come on, let's hear the numbers.

The Norway bombing provides another excuse for liberals to overlook Islamic terrorism; they can blame Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for incitement. Of course this conveniently overlooks the reason anti-jihad web sites exist in the first place: to oppose and expose Islamic violence. But paleoliberals equate strong language with physical violence. Not only that, but they decry and would suppress strong language out of fear of that SAME Islamist violence. They would, if they could, shred our Constitution, ban "offensive" speech --just as the Muslim world does and just as Muslims in this country would do and just as they try to do every day in their efforts to silence all criticism of Islam and shariah law.

Nice try, folks; blame free speech for the violent acts of the criminally insane. Feminists tried with pornography. And surprise!: their foes tried to ban abortion. There's no light between the paleoliberals and the extreme right wing when it comes to personal freedom: BAN IT.

It would be wrong and distasteful to try and find any justification for the Norway killings. But there is little doubt that the rise of right wing parties in western Europe is an expression of frustration and anger at the refusal of Europe to acknowledge the adverse effects of Muslim immigrants. While governments and media are focusing on the rare incidents of terrorist acts by madmen or jihadists, they are studiously ignoring the far more dangerous threat of '"stealth jihad": the quiet, nonviolent plans of "moderate" Muslims to overturn the laws of civil society and inject their religious beliefs based on shariah law into our system. This effort is insidious, ongoing and unnoticed by the public, and deliberately censored by the media, which focuses solely on violent terrorist acts. Terrorist bombs are relatively few and are vastly outnumbered by the program of stealth jihad that threatens our Constitution and basic freedoms.

The Muslims categorically reject assimilation. They demand special treatment and to get it they physically occupy the streets of Paris for prayer, closing them off to traffic. They get state aid for their religious schools, where students are brainwashed not only with memorizing the qu-ran but in engendering hatred for Jews. They demand special treatment and favors, and exemptions from civil law. They are quickly outbreeding Europeans, often in polygamous situations (the same is true in the USA) and thereby sucking in larger and larger welfare payments. They harass, beat and murder nonMuslims, and carry out honor killings with impunity. In certain countries such as Norway, rape of white women by young Muslims is almost a daily occurrence, with little punishment. They demand censorship of anything that is critical of Islam and make threats against the media who dare to defy them; they have physically attacked the home of journalists and routinely hold public demonstrations cursing nonMuslims and Jews.

The failure of Europe to force Muslims to comply with civil law and customs, to criminalize those who defy these laws, to insist on uniform observance of secular democratic society, to legally ban offenses against secular society, to end special treatment of Muslims, to limit welfare payments to large families,and above all to defend vigorously the right of freedom of expression, has indeed inspired right wing movements....but with good reason.

European leaders are now acknowledging the failure of multiculturalism but now they must repudiate it through the use of enforceable laws and mandatory punishment for their violation. They must categorically reject the resistance of Muslims to appropriate assimilation. They must reject the temptation of special treatment. They must develop broad guidelines and minimal conditions for immigration, residence and working. They must end state aid to all religious schools. They must prohibit the use of shariah law and insist on full compliance with secular civil laws. And religious leaders of other denominations must support them instead of making excuses for Muslims, excuses which suggest that Muslims may be inherently incapable of educating themselves and becoming good citizens. If Muslims want equal treatment and rights, they must support them for everyone else and stop asserting the superiority of their religion. If they believe themselves capable of moral choice, then they must prove it to the rest of us.

(Check out: thereligionofpeace.com. Nearly 18,000 Muslim terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11; 184 in 18 countries this past June alone; 184 attacks on this country since 1973)

The Liberal/Islamic Anschluss

2011-07-25T05:10:00.001-07:00

(Please note: this Wednesday, July 27th, Cong. Pete King's committee will hold the third hearing on Al Shabaab's recruitment in the US, starting at 9:30 am.)

As I review my e-mails each morning, I watch the accumulation of news releases, reports and commentary on the efforts of the American Muslim community to manipulate and re-configure public opinion and attitudes about Islam. Of course they deliberately confound "Islam" with "Muslims" , even the word "Islamophobia" clearly applies only to the religion, not individual Muslims.

In addition to the scurrilous lies that now appear regularly in media, such as the attacks against Brigitte Gabriel and ACT for America, and the Obama administration up-sucking to Islam, and the ongoing "lawfare" battlefronts to undermine domestic and international law, more subtle, behind-the-scenes efforts are taking place across the country, directed at the traditional liberal universities such as U.of C-Berkeley and other Californian state campuses, and now at liberal think tanks, the easy marks for evoking Political Correctness. The latest of these is the Center for American Progress, a Democratic Party hackery with close ties to Pres. Obama. The blog of the Southern Poverty Law Center also routinely contains news about purported "Islamophobia". These organizations are already taking their marching orders; the only thing lacking so far is the goosestep.

Beyond harassing and slandering people like Gabriel and Cong. Peter King, and beyond their fatuous "interfaith dialogues" with liberal rabbis and self-hating Jews (who knew there were so many?), and beyond the media suppression of any and all criticism of Islam, shariah law and the qu-ran, we know have a new venue for promoting favorable news and images of Islam.

When you add to these the liberal cable shows that have picked up the Islamist party line, the paleoliberal blogs like Huffington, Slate and Salon, the foul pap that emerges from the rumen of the New York Times regularly, and this new front in the war to silence critics of Islam, the picture is much larger, clearer and more frightening than anything this country has faced since the triumph of the Nazis in Germany in 1933, which, lest we forget, was followed by the annexation of Austria and the anschluss against Czechoslovakia, which was followed by.........well, we all know what came next: Poland, the lowland countries, France, and then World War II. As a wise person once commented, when someone threatens to kill you, believe him.

It is time-consuming to stay on top of this issue because the standard media, both print, radio/TV and on-line, have taped their mouths shut against any news that is critical of Islam or casts a bad light on it. This is reminiscent of the days when it was forbidden to name the race or ethnic group of anyone who was not a white American, much less depict minorities as even petty criminals. Even today, where black Americans are common in films and TV, they are usually cast as cops, detectives or super-spies, or as your long-suffering but generous mama dishing out scrumptious ribs, or your elderly wise grandpa delivering homilies on good manners. This is how far we have regressed in our attempts to create an equal, race-blind society. Apparently racial stereotypes are just fine as long as they are "good" ones.

The next chapter in this travesty of multiculturalism will be with Muslims. In fact, if you check out Muslim blogs, you will see glowing, softly lit photos of beautiful Muslim girls in burqas nestling a young infant and looking like the Muslim equivalent of the Holy Virgin Mary with the infant Jesus. Of course, other blogs will jolt you out of this myth: eight year old girls in Afghanistan just wed to men three or four times their age, looking not happy or glowing but traumatized and in shock at realizing that this is the rest of their lives, unless of course they have the luck to die in their first childbirth at the age of 12.

We can hardly be surprised. Americans have been inundated with enticing images of junk foods, expensive gadgets, cheap clothing and shoe fads, degraded pop music, blockbuster films with little more than exploding buildings, burning cars and AK-47s. Why not add to this with beautiful but false images of the religion of Islam, which is ready for prime time and whose potential liberal audience is waiting with bated breath for the latest pronouncements from their favorite authoritative sources?

Is there an antidote? Yes, several, but the American Jewish community is shunning them like the plague. Only the extreme right wing blogs and media have seen fit to confront the lies about Islam but liberals categorically reject anything the right says even when it is true. Worse, the right's response is fatally weakened by tying the advance of Islam to that purported Muslim, Pres. Obama, to further enhancement of the rich, to the fortunes of predatory free marketeers and anti-regulation voices, to attacks on welfare, Medicare, unions and education, in short to the entire spectrum of socially just programs and policies that have been an accepted part of our system for over half a century. To boot, the right cares not a whit for the thievery of banks and Wall St. that has impoverished most of the country and loudly beats the discordant drum of the most uneducated uninformed set of Republican dummies seeking the presidential nomination the nation has ever had the displeasure of confronting.

Nearly all the right wing anti-Islam news is simply an excuse to smash non-existent socialism, extol capitalism and bash anything that smells of the government or the welfare state or would take any more money away from the rich.Small wonder it lacks credibility on foreign policy issues.

Thus, American Jews have rejected what could have been a tightly focused, fact-based campaign to fight for freedom of speech and against the self-censorship and misinformation of the media on Muslim matters. Instead, they have lined up behind the camels to defend capitalism and continue the knee-jerk defense of Israel and its rightwing leadership and septic influence of the ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

This relatively trivial battle has, to the extreme delight of the Arab world and Muslim terrorists, been blown up to huge proportions that in turn monopolizes more and more attention and energy than all the other real crises today, such as the starving, failed state of Somalia, radical Islam in Sudan, slavery in Mauritania, the triumph of the military in Egypt, the imminent take-over of Yemen by Al Qaeda, the regression of Afghanistan into corruption and eventual Taliban take-over, ongoing Shia-Sunni violence in Iraq, potentially huge influx of young Muslim men into western Europe, and the Muslim crime wave in Sweden, UK and Netherlands where nonMuslim girls are routinely raped by young Muslim men who rarely go to jail.

For the purposes of Hamas and Hezbollah, nothing suits them more than the reaction of American Jews, and their heated unquestioning defense of Israel, (and hesitance to attack the ultra-orthodox Jews) which conveniently distracts public attention away from the atrocities and execrations of radical Islam and shariah law.

The right wing Jews in this country have cynically chosen to ignore our growing economic catastrophe, one which is impoverishing working families and the middle class, throwing people onto the streets, cutting off unemployment and health benefits, undermining education and generally, with malice aforethought, conspiring to create welfare for the rich and poverty for everyone else.

One would think that American Jews, having luckily escaped from Nazism, continually fighting against anti-Semitism, and being proven supporters of civil rights to the point of sacrificing their lives in the battle against segregation, would commit themselves to the higher cause of women's and human rights that are now threatened across the board everywhere by Islam. Reprehensibly, American Jews have abandoned their historical commitment to universal human rights and now man the capitalist battlements that care for little but self-enrichment and privilege, manifesting misguided fealty to that foreign country called Israel, as if they were Israeli rather than American citizens.

England Today: As Insular & Myopic as Ever

2011-07-22T05:42:00.000-07:00

There is the famous if apocryphal British weather report: "Fog descends over Channel; continent cut off". Since then, England has pretty much refused to acknowledge the continent's existence.

England's passive citizenry and its proverbial "stiff upper lip" may have gotten them through World War II but also allowed the country's formerly admirable institutions such as education and transportation to fall into disarray and deterioration due to privatization. It has allowed the enrichment of the yuppie generation in greater London and southeast to help itself to everything on the dinner table and turn much of formerly charming London into a huge faceless collection of high-rise office buildings, with squalid industrial estates and council (public) housing on a par with the old Soviet Union spreading east and south. A recent British film, "Fish Tank", showed this slice of life in all its ugliness.

Thanks to the union-assisted neglect of manufacturing and production of decent consumer goods, domestic production of just about anything except Stilton cheese has almost entirely disappeared, replaced by financial services, and has allowed the working and lower middle classes to continue to live in a squalor unknown on the continent. The country blithely blunders on, in its tunnel vision (pardon the pun) pretending that it is as advanced and cultivated a country as any in western Europe despite the fact that western Europe's quality of life AND standard of living for all classes is the best in the world and about 100 times better than the UK (or the US for that matter).The major advance in living standards since the war seems to be the disappearance of green coloring from the peas on the plate.

Hardly a squeak was ever heard when Thatcher and Major were giving away the transportation systems or when the price of travel became so prohibitive (not to mention unreliable and downright dangerous) that everyone was forced into their private cars despite the high cost of fuel. Hardly a squeak is uttered when new major highways and airport expansions are planned that will further destroy what little is left of the countryside, or when upscale"improvement" with massive parking lots and new structures is proposed for Stonehenge (horrendous). A Neolithic tea house cannot be far behind.

And of course there is the deplorable deterioration, due to lack of government funding, of the magnificent cathedrals, arguably the most beautiful in the world, which is ignored by the government because they are technically church property even though hardly anyone attends church and the churches are England's major tourist and cultural attractions. I need not underscore the highway/truck/car nightmare that characterizes greater London and the incredible blight of second rate residential development in the south east and of course the disfigurement of almost the entire east and much of southern coast of England. Much of England since the 1950s now excels in its special brand of ugliness. You know things are bad when the local cathedral towns hold raffles and hold out the hat for contributions in order to make urgent repairs of these superb monuments.

Having lived for long periods in Italy and France, having visited eastern Europe and every western European country except Portugal, Sweden and the Baltics, and having spent weeks at a time on numerous visits to England since the 1950s (one of our daughters lives in London), and comparing England of the 1950s to England today, I find little has changed there. England is still living as it did in the post war period, both materially and culturally. It must be a shock for the English when they visit the continent and realize that they have been deprived of beauty, amenities, and general respect for the requirements of a civilized society.

Perhaps, like the US, not having suffered from the mass destruction of World War II, it was never able to muster any compassion or dedication to social justice and to the needs of citizens. Nor has there been much resistance against anything except fox hunting, which I agree should be banned but which hardly compares to the cultural collapse of the whole country. (London has one thing in common with Paris: a "retro metro" which stops running every night at a little past midnight, thus forcing people to drive into the city centers on weekends when they plan a big night on the town. However, it is reported that Paris has extended the weekend hours.)

In the immediate post-war period the English were arguably the most civilized, decent people on earth, not materialistic, very tolerant, compassionate. But once capitalism and the free market took control, the country descended into cultural and environmental barbarism. Aside from its accomplishments in theater and literature, it remains the west's equivalent of the third world. I marvel at the stoicism that is needed to put up with it today. Stiff upper lip is what you call it, right? I call it submission.

ECONOMISTS & THE DUMBING DOWN OF ECOLOGICAL DIALOGUE

2011-07-18T06:21:00.000-07:00

Economist Joseph Stiglitz recently deplored the dependence of economic growth on debt and how this must be replaced by stimulating the economy, i.e. increasing consumption through tax reform and job creation. His whole article is intended to explain how and why we must have growth that does not create debt. He says nothing about the planet's resources, species, ecosystems and ecosystem functions, much less energy use and global warming, or biodiversity. How can someone penetrate the thick skull of economists who have forgotten we evolved and live on earth thanks to nature, not abstract systems like economics?

I never cease to be amazed at the utter ignorance of economists, even the most progressive, and their absolute EXCLUSION of ecology and nature. They seek solutions that are purely abstract and human based. They don't mention population. They don't mention finite resources. They don't mention pollution. They don't mention destruction of ecosystems or wildlife. They don't mention overharvesting and overfishing. They don't mention the loss of good agricultural land to monoculture, desertification, overdevelopment, industry. They don't mention climate change and how it is creating new problems such as drought, flood, wildfire, loss of freshwater, threats to ocean life and systems, insect-borne disease.

They bemoan inequality but spend all their time figuring out how to increase growth so they can "help the poor", as the poor over-reproduce and compound the problem. They think that the only wealth that counts is paper money, stocks and bonds, and ledgers in banks and federal regulation bureaucracies, or hoards of gold and silver (which they hope to convert into the former eventually). The natural wealth (what Hawken and Lovins call "natural capital") is considered infinite even though we are tearing it to pieces bit by bit every minute of the day, everywhere.

As long as we have economists running things there's no hope. I"m not sure there is anyway.

No, there is no solution until population collapses through war, epidemics, natural catastrophes, with economic and social collapse following in their wake. This is now guaranteed.And after that, there will be few people and no growth. Unless you are religious, there is no reason to think that humans must continue to exist.

99% of all species that ever lived went extinct. That's the fate of all species. With luck, new ones evolve in their place. The Neanderthals lived for over a hundred thousand years, until Homo sapiens came along and poof! they were gone. Homo sapiens sapiens has only been here now for about 35,000 years and it is already on the verge of self-extinction. Civilization (a bit of an exaggeration) with language, writing, culture, technology, agriculture and animal domestication, has only been around for, at best, 10,000 years. The industrial era, when most of the damage was done and population exploded exponentially, has been around for only three centuries. The sharp increase in CO2 has taken place in less than one century. I think "god" already knows the jig is up. But no one else does, least of all the economists who think writing economic treatises suffices.

We are just treading water and holding our breath or putting faith in technology and the economists. Each day it becomes clearer that no one is doing anything and no one wants to. There is a handful of people such as Richard Heinberg, James Kunstler and the Post-Carbon Institute who understand and speak the truth, but they are marginalized. Last summer celebrity economist Nouriel Roubini talked in East Hampton on the economy and never mentioned energy. When I asked him about this at the end, he mumbled something about solar energy and technology. That was it as far as he was concerned. Nothing more to bother his head about.

The ball is now in the scientists' court. They write, rant and argue on their science blogs but are still reluctant to translate their recommendations into political and mass media activism. A Million Scientist March on Washington DC might do the trick, or at least a high-level delegation of scientists and economists demanding a meeting with Pres. Obama to demand an energy policy commensurate with the threat and in keeping with Jim Hansen's recommendations. Without a more visible scientific lobby, activists will fight brush fires, try to fend off the hostile climate change deniers or rebut corporate greenwashing and the calls for "green growth" and "green technology".

Equal Opportunity Employment for the Uneducated

2011-07-15T07:19:00.000-07:00

From Salon article by Laura Miller entitled: Memo to grammar cops: back off!

The ability to speak and write standard English gives students "access to power," Rutger English professor Jack Lynch writes. It's a membership card required for participation in the culture's important conversations. But that doesn't mean that standard English is necessarily superior to, say, African-American Vernacular English (AAVE or, to use a more notorious moniker, Ebonics), or that deviations from it constitute the downfall of civilization as we know it, as popular curmudgeons of Safire's ilk like to proclaim.

Thinking of the grammar wars in this light helps explain why they provoke such rage. Much as some people might detest seeing the noun "impact" used as a verb, if a lot of people say it and almost everybody understands it when it's said, then a coup has been effected. The "verbing" of nouns (or the creation of "nerbs") has been a flashpoint for the past four or five decades with the growth of business management lingo. Complaints about this point to a particularly American social fissure: between the cultured sensibility of the liberally educated and the can-do utilitarianism of striving MBAs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article has grains of truth embellished by squishy Political Correctness. The suggestion that Ebonics is not inferior to standard English is absurd and meaningless. There are always subgroups with their own slang and meanings, intended for the "in" group and to keep out (in the case of Ebonics) "the man". Fine, let people use their vernacular with their inside group and conversations. But when it comes to accurate clear communication that EVERYONE needs to understand, we need standards and uniformity. These days it is not clear whether the abominable grammar and misspelling we see everywhere is due to illiteracy, carelessness or disdain for what Miller claims is the "power" elite of grammarians.

There are different kinds of usages for standard English. There is the usage in families and between friends. There is the usage in the business world. There is the formal usage for civil (in both senses) exchanges such as thank you notes, notes of praise, writing to people you've never met. There is academic language for PhD. theses. There is language for oral presentation in lectures.There is journalistic English for newspapers. Worst of all, arguably, is the new internet sloppiness, where writers misspell and feel no compulsion to proofread or correct errors. (My worst internet habit is leaving out apostrophes in the middle of words, to save time and effort; abject apologies). And so forth. Knowing when to use them or not use them is the crucial decision. An educated person is no less educated for knowing how and when to use standard English. But if sub-groups insist on NOT using standard English, they are just plain stupid and short-sighted.

Knowing standard English in no way prohibits people from knowing and using these other forms, provided they are used at the appropriate time. What we are seeing, however, is the unforgiveable deterioration of appropriate uses and the intrusion of the more vernacular and colloquial expressions where they don't belong, not to mention vile capricious obscenities that should be treasured and preserved for the absolutely imperative occasion. I don't mind if a close friend sees me as he drives by and yells "Yo!". I doubt that he would do that with his boss. I occasionally use a four-letter word....but judiciously. It is truly tragic to see the deterioration of the vigor and meaning of the word f--k for frivolous reasons.

Then there is the confusion between Use and Mention of a word which Daniel Dennett has pointed out in one of his lectures. Readers and listeners seem incapable of distinguishing between these. Usually it is an obscene or forbidden word, and sloppy readers are quite ready to vilify someone who mentions a word as opposed to using it. The word "ni--er" is the classic example.

As this article points out, standard English is necessary for advancement. Why the slurred mumbled speech and improperly placed accent is considered appropriate for phone company employees or employees of businesses who deal with the public on the phone I still do not understand. This may be the regrettable result of "affirmative action": hiring people regardless of their verbal ability. This is what I call Equal Opportunity Employment, where the unqualified and unschooled get equal consideration with the highly qualified and educated because they are minorities.

None of this in any way prohibits the evolution of language. Nothing is more fluid than language, as the existence of thousands of languages worldwide, evolved from a handful of parent groups, testifies. Miller is completely correct in accepting the modern use of nouns as verbs, such as "impact", not least because this usage is understood by everyone and fully accepted. It makes sense to abridge your sentence and say "impact" instead of "make an impact on" or "access" instead of "get access to". It took me a while to make this shift but not a great deal of grammatical soul-searching; it was just practical.

Any look at Shakespeare shows that he recognized the need for appropriate language, one for the monarch, one for the servant, one for one's peers. We would be wise to heed him today.

TAQQUIYA: THE ART OF ISLAMIC LYING & AMERICAN MEDIA

2011-07-11T05:32:00.000-07:00

Who will rid us of the social scientists? And those self-styled social scientists who have gone over to the dark side to defend Islam such as Daniel Tutt, a PhD student in philosophy and Michael Wolfe (a poet), both of of Unity Productions Foundation, makers of the film "Inside Islam" and purveyor of what they call the "truth" about the religion of Islam? Tutt, the Outreach Director for the Foundation, wrote recently in the Huffington Press deploring the "negative media image of Muslims".

"Negative media image of Muslims"? What media is this guy referring to? Photos of the Ft. Hood killer? Of Osama bin Laden? Of Anwar Awlaki? Of the Times Square and Xmas Eve bombers? If there are few positive media images of Muslims, could it be that there aren't any Muslims doing positive things? Well, the liberal apologists for adherents of the theocratic totalitarian faith called Islam are welcome to find some positive images but they will have to look long and hard.

When was the last (or first) time anyone heard a Muslim imam entreat his congregation to abandon anti-Semitism? When have we heard a Muslim speak out for women's rights and equality? When have we heard a Muslim say that women don't have to be veiled? When have we heard a Muslim deplore honor killings, forced child marriages and genital mutilation? When have we heard a Muslim attack Muslim suicide bombings? When have we heard a Muslim criticize Hamas atrocities such as initiating missile attacks from civilian communities, homes and schools? When have we heard a Muslim defend complete freedom of speech?

You have never heard these and probably never will. The only charitable behavior of Muslims is that towards other Muslims as mandated in the qu-ran. And even that has restrictions: those who leave the faith are murdered as apostates. Any questioning or criticism of traditional Muslim practices as specified in the qu-ran or in sharia law immediately indicts the questioner as an apostate. Those Muslims who have done so have been slaughtered mercilessly or forced into exile where they live anonymously with bodyguards, subject to repeated death threats. Even nonMuslims who criticize Islam or purportedly "offend" Islam, such as the Danish cartoonist and the South Park producers, are given death threats.

Political Correctness still rules, even with nonMuslims. When have we seen blacks portrayed in film, theater or books as criminals? (Asians are the film stand-ins today). Samuel Jackson's depiction of a crack addict in Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" was memorable but a rarity. More recently the portrayal of Caliban in Julie Taymor's film, "The Tempest" as a primitive black monster with evil intentions was probably what caused the whole liberal critical world to pan her film. She deserves credit for her gutsy dedication to authenticity. And portrayals of the Jew Shylock in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" are never presented without apology, whitewashing, softening of the hard edges or profound scholarly analysis of what Shakespeare intended.

No, we are far from a world of equality, which must be measured not only in material and economic terms but in whether we are ready to let the chips fall where they may and recognize that force called Evil that dwells in all human beings. "Positive and multidimensional content to effectively reduce prejudice", as the writer below urges, is another absurdity forced on us by the social sciences which continue to be derelict in their duty to be impartial observers of human behavior.

In that same spirit of defiance that characterizes the social sciences' ignorance of evolution, they naively believe that superficial preaching in popular entertainment media will suffice to cleanse the human heart of hatred. It is the absurdity of this juvenile liberal credo that has actually prevented society from attaining a more just tolerant society, by pretending that the erasing of evil images from public consciousness and substituting Pollyanna-ish cliches will cure human imperfection. Of all the failures in our educational system, that of the social sciences is arguably the largest.

I am not suggesting that Tutt, a propgandist who calls himself a Phd. candidate in philosophy, is typical of all social scientists, especially since his connection to the Unity Productions Foundation clearly disqualifies him. But it is not uncommon for social scientists, many of whom are leftists, to make apologies for aberrant behavior of minorities (cultural relativism) and "oppressed" peoples "victimized" by colonialism. It is only a short step from there to insisting that portrayals of minorities must be deferential, up-beat, positive and morally glowing, even as acts committed by and in the name of that minority may be repugnant and unacceptable. Islam comes to mind; while globally it has a large membership, Muslims in this country are a minority and have therefore been adopted by the mass media and liberals as their latest hobby and protectorate, and granted the privilege not extended to other religions of being exempt from criticism.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Unity Productions Foundation is a Muslim public relations organization founded by poet and Muslim convert Michael Wolfe and dedicated to presenting the "real" Islam and what it "really believes". "Inside Islam" is a film it made towards this end. But let's look at what the qu-ran really says and what it tells Muslims to do, keeping in mind that the qu-ran authorizes and encourages any and all lying and deception in order to further the aims of Islam. This is called "taqquiya", and the Unity Productions Foundation is exemplary in this respect.

Koran 8:12
I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.

Koran verse 008.060
YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Koran 008.039
So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.

Koran 008.055
YUSUFALI: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

Koran 9:5
Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Koran 9:29
Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.you would like to see the film in its entirety click here.

CAN HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS BE NAZIS? A SERIOUS INQUIRY

2011-07-08T05:55:00.001-07:00

As the new Hamas-inspired flotilla collapses, it is interesting to see who is on one of the ships: Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and Hamas' favorite groupie, and Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! --two abject appeasing moral slime molds from the American Jewish community, accompanied by one holocaust survivor and other elderly Jews.

It is stupefying to realize that there are Jews who witnessed the appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis and consequently saw their friends and families slaughtered who are now themselves willing self-executioners in bed with those who vow to exterminate Jews today. Is it possible for holocaust survivors to be Nazis? This is not a rhetorical question.

We have the misfortune today to be threatened under similar circumstances: a rabid racist totalitarian movement motivated by an ideology that exalts the faithful, the only true people, and exults in the superiority and ultimate triumph worldwide of its belief system, in the process overseeing the downfall and destruction of former neighbors, trading partners and nations as well as ethnic and religious minorities in order to bend the minds of the persecuted into total submission by bludgeoning all potential resistance with the threat of annihilation. This was Nazism then; this is Islam now. And the Jews are both suicidal and complicit.

Let's make no mistake about it: this is treason of the worst sort not to mention self-hate of the most degraded kind. Can someone provide an analysis of what makes Jews love jihadists, terrorists and anti-Semites? Is this flagellation for some imaginary crimes? Is this expiation of some unexplained sins? Or is it the totalitarian personality formerly held in check by a secular democracy and its civil society laws but now, having found allies in hatred, unleashed and exposed for what it really is?

There are vigorous legal efforts being made by Israeli lawyers with regard to cutting off ship insurance and satellite communications based on American laws. It is not impossible that Benjamin and Goodman could end up being indicted for violating the law that forbids American citizens from aiding and abetting terrorist groups in any way. Let's cheer the Israel legal team and maybe this will come to pass.

Sustainability is Religion's Catch of the Day

2011-07-04T05:49:00.000-07:00

Our fearless leader Bill McKibben, who speaks and behaves more like a vicar than an activist, is a featured speaker at a UK conference, Sustainability in Crisis, sponsored by two religious organizations. While there are some secularists on the agenda too, the questions posed to the speakers and panelists are, as usual, irrelevant and superficial.

As the name suggests, it has not occurred to these distinguished beard-stroking clerics that sustainability is not the issue but rather Contraction and Reduction: contraction of the economic growth economy and reduction in consumption by the overconsuming countries of the global north. In the same spiriti of inconsequential inquiry that characterizes nearly all public discourse about climate change these days, this conference will seek but not find. Its questions relate to how one persuades (as opposed to regulating, legislating, incentivizing, bludgeoning or coercing) producers, governments and consumers to change their habits so as to save the world. This is no different from the religious conversion sought every Sunday in churches around the world.

The punishment for not changing one's greedy ways is not forgiveable by confession; in fact greed continues to be rewarded by the consumer society. The punishment, not yet acknowledged by humans, is the one that is already being imposed by Nature and her laws on the transgressors, which is to say most of the world's population. Those not overconsuming are doing their part to transgress by having lots of children. Curbing births is about the furthest thing from the mind of the religious community (including nonCatholics) behind this conference; chances are excellent that overpopulation will not be mentioned at all.

What is our fearless vicar McKibben going to say? Nothing different from the pap that he spouts continually in this country. Nor is it likely that most of the speakers and panelists will veer off the moral high road of pulpit homilies and issue any condemnation of global corporate capitalism and growth. Sustainability is the Catch of the Day. Few have recognized that Sustainability will be impossible unless and until growth in consumption and population is ended. Even fewer recognize (or admit) that Sustainability will require equity which cannot be achieved without massive redistribution of wealth.

Our religious leaders cling to the notion that moral exhortation will do the trick, that overconsuming humans will scale back their material demands and willingly accept a frugal way of life because this is the "right" thing to do. Religious leaders are amazingly skilled at avoiding moral judgments, however, when it comes to fingering the major eco-criminals, which is to say the corporations, the financiers, the transnational treaty entities, and the governments of the industrial nations. If one believes religious leaders, there is no such thing as evil except for those who do not follow scripture and dogma.

McKibben has boldly (for him, anyway) asserted that the fossil fuel industry is the greatest criminal of our day. In a sense - the sense that fossil fuels are destroying the earth's climate balance - he is right. But he stops short of calling for the measures that would shut down the industry, such as a stiff carbon tax, sharp annual reductions in CO2 emissions leading to full shutdown of fossil-fueled power plants, rigorous mandatory energy efficiency standards and an end to all fossil fuel subsidies. In this sense he has let everyone else off the hook; by not including consumers in the energy mix, he is actually avoiding the political crunch by letting them believe that the coal, oil and gas biggies are the main culprits.

Homo economus is the main culprit and all the fist shaking in the world will not accomplish what was must be accomplished in the very near future: an end to the industrial growth society. About this neither McKibben nor religion has anything whatsoever to say.

IS MUSLIM SCIENCE BEING TAUGHT IN OUR UNIVERSITIES?

2011-07-01T05:52:00.000-07:00

Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University was chosen to lead a recent Muslim delegation to the Pope. This was a bit of unusual irony: the Catholic Church has accepted the fact of evolution but Nasr and the Muslims do not.

Sometime back I had received an email regarding Islam and science, and was prompted to do further research. I was appalled at the abysmally incorrect views on science and evolution of Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who teaches at GWU. I wonder if this is what his students are being taught, and those of other Muslims elsewhere, and what GWU science teachers would think of this.

Nasr is University Professor of Islamic Studies.I went to the web and printed out an article published in the journal Islam & Science, Winter 2006, transcribed from an interview recorded in Canada in 2006. The Turkish scientist Edis (see Salon URL at end) does not fully convey the laughable distortions, lies and ignorance revealed by Nasr in his article, most of which is devoted to (purportedly) refuting Darwin and evolution. Some of Nasr's statements follow here:

"I reject the ordinary understanding of the Darwinian theory of evolution even on scientific grounds...The theory of evolution is the peg of the tent of modernism. And if it were to fall down, the whole tent would fall on the top of the head of modernism.And therefore it is kept as an ideology and not as a scientific theory that has been proven".

The scientists' use of the word theory is not the same as the layman's. The layman thinks the word is synonymous with idea or conjecture or hypothesis; for scientists, a theory is a demonstrably workable formula which is used as the basis for research. Darwinian theory is considered a fact in science, as valid as Einstein's theory of relativity, while the means by which evolution proceeds, natural selection, is an hypothesis, even though it has been actually demonstrated.

"God is both Life and the Giver of Life, and that for me is...true without being unscientific. God is also the source of all existence, whether alive or not alive...no other power in the universe can bestow life except the Source of Life"

"If we migrate to Zimbabwe, our skin grows darker; if we go to Sweden, it would grow a bit lighter".

Nasr here reveals himself as an adherent to the wholly discredited Lamarckian theory, which tainted Soviet science for so many years under Stalin, namely that acquired traits are passed on to our descendants.

"How could something greater come out of something lesser?...how could the greatest works of literature, like Dante or Shakespeare, come out of a "bowl of soup of molecules? "

The same way, one might conclude, that Nasr's statements come out of the soup of his brain's molecules. The same way that single digit numbers, if multiplied, result in "something greater". The same way that a single seed, if planted, can produce a whole crop of apples. The same way that a single fertilized human egg can grow into a many-celled human being.

"..the scientific worldview separates what it studies of the world of nature from all that is Divine and then considers this truncated reality to be the only reality...for the theologian or the man of religion or the philosopher of religion, there is no way that biology can destroy his view of Divine causality...No theologian can deny that God said, let there be light and there was light, that He created birds, the whole phyla (sic) of birds....creative power belongs to God alone and not to matter as the Qur'an also makes clear".

First, a small quibble that reveals his scientific ignorance in another way: birds are not a phylum; they are a class called Aves, which is under the phylum Chordates.) Second, just what IS "divine", how can a mere mortal perceive it, and if he claims he has, why should we believe him? And if I recall correctly, no one is alive today who actually heard god say "let there be light....".

"People in the Islamic world who are evolutionists are not important and influential religious thinkers...their influence is limited, confined especially to the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent where the British taught evolution in all the schools. Four fifths of Muslim evolutionists come from Indian and Pakistan. The Arabs and the Persians were protected to a large extent from this prevalent error by the language barrier.."

Do I detect some racism and chauvinism here....towards the two countries that have, structurally if not perfectly, secular governments...one of which is arguably the most educationally and scientifically advanced in Asia, namely India, thanks to the British....and which possesses a secular democracy where all religions are equal? Of course evolutionists have no interest whatsoever in being "influential religious thinkers", and one would fervently hope that religious thinkers would refrain from showing any interest in science and evolution.

"95% of our neurocells (sic) are similar to those of monkeys....Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel have almost identical DNA, but they are two very different people..."

The echo of racism and eugenics raises its head, which is scarcely surprising given the close relationship Arabs had with Hitler and Nazism and which persists today. Nasr is again revealing his ignorance by conflating brain cells with DNA. Humans share 98.5% of their DNA with apes. DNA is contained within brain cells. He doesn't seem to understand this. I suspect he thinks DNA resides outside cells. He also appears to be disciple of B.F. Skinner in dismissing anything but genes and heredity as influences on human behavior.

"..human beings have a more complicated life form than the monkey, but possess also some of those characteristics we see in the monkey but this does not mean that we have evolved from the monkey".

Of course no scientist claims we evolved from monkeys. Humans share a common ancestor with apes. This guy probably never read a 20th century biology text in his life but feels qualified to shoot off his mouth. I hope he refrained from this in the presence of the Pope.

"...The Qu-ran says specifically, that God is the creator of all things...if God has knowledge of the ant, the ant must have a kind of archetypal reality in the 'mind' of God, in the Divine Intellect." (Shades of Plato).

"We train a lot of Muslims to become scientists, and many become very good Western scientists, some being among top scientists but they are not Islamic thinkers. They have had no education in Islamic thought. We have few people in the Islamic world who can understand such deep theological and philosophical ideas and are, at the same time, good biologists and physicists, and that is a tragedy".

"These days we have the theory of S. Jay Gould, of volcanic eruptions of species.....We should remain faithful to authentic Islamic thought..which does not surrender to the prevalent materialistic and reductionist worldview that is a truncated worldview....we should not follow the path of providing logically absurd answers which also keep the Hand of God out of His creation".

Gould proposed no such theory. He and Niles Eldredge proposed a theory called "punctuated equilibrium", which has been seriously misunderstood and sometimes considered anti-Darwinian, which it is not.

"Paleontology does not support the theory of evolution as usually taught, and that is why some famous biologists such as R. Sheldrake and S. Jay Gould have proposed other ways for the explaining the phenomena of the multiplicity of life forms on earth, departing from classical Darwinism but still calling it evolution although what they propose is based on a different understanding of this term".

This is about the most ridiculous pack of lies. Sheldrake, a former botanist, is a scientific ignoramus regarding evolution, who tried (and failed) to promote a supernatural fantasy about how evolution occurred; no one has ever paid him any attention, since he used such terms as "fields of resonance", which Nasr quotes.

At no time did Gould ever dispute Darwinian evolution; his writings are world-famous as a result of his numerous articles and books explaining Darwinian evolution, and as it happens he was also a geologist. His hypotheses on evolutionary processes and rate of evolutionary change were disputed by other biologists such as Richard Dawkins - such disputes are the way science functions and progresses - but they never questioned evolution itself.

"How can we have a critique of modern science in general, specifically modern biology, and..how can we..bring together scientists and religious thinkers and produce a generation of Muslim thinkers who understand science and Islam..? That will not happen unless what is called science today is mastered and then integrated into the Islamic worldview".

As anyone can see, this is indistinguishable from creationism. Just substitute Christianity for Islam.

"We are conscious before we leave this world and shall be conscious after we leave this world. ..Muslim thinkers must..provide an authentic Islamic interpretation of the data of these sciences without accepting the ideological basis of the interpretation of these data, this ideology being itself founded upon a specific philosophy that is not acceptable to genuine Islamic thought".

Like creationists, he expresses certainty about things that cannot be tested much less proven (consciousness after death). Is this the kind of propaganda that Nasr's students at George Washington University are being force-fed?

If anyone wonders why most of the Muslim world is so backward intellectually and scientifically, Nasr's opinions will provide the reason.The resemblance to Christian creationism and fundamentalist thought is striking. What is also striking is something I discuss in my book Politics as if Evolution Mattered (on my web site, www.lornasalzman.com), namely that creationism and fundamentalism find evolution indefensible not only because it banishes the need for a god or creator, but because it provides the basis for materialism, the enemy of religion. Note Nasr's reference to this throughout the interview.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference: The religious state of Islamic science

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/08/13/taner_edis/print.html

--

--

PLANET EARTH'S DEMISE UPSTAGED BY GAY MARRIAGE

2011-06-27T08:13:00.001-07:00

The New York Times headline, in huge caps, of June 25th, celebrated the NYS legislature's passage of a bill legalizing gay marriage. The news stories there and elsewhere say that this is a watershed event that will strengthen the movement in other states. It seems as if the printer soaked the newsprint in Champagne. The last time this size headline may have been used was after the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Elsewhere, that is to say on internet blogs, the dismal reports from NOAA, climatologists and geophysicists mount daily, with headlines announcing the prospect of runaway temperature increase, increased GHG emissions in a steady upward curve since 1970, methane releases, predictions of super-extreme weather events like hurricanes, and increased ice sheet loss leading to a projected sea level rise of three meters before the end of the century. Runaway climate change, known as the Venus syndrome, is a distinct possibility according to James Hansen. Global famine from water shortages, droughts and desertification is being seriously considered. Not one of these scientific reports from credible organizations and government agencies has warranted even a first page story, let alone a large-type headline, in the New York Times or I daresay in any other major newspaper in the country. Small wonder that the public has tuned out the issue of climate change. If it isn't in the newspaper, it doesn't exist.

Here's what the headlines should read: "RUNAWAY CLIMATE CHANGE.....EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS... MELTING .ICE SHEETS RAISING SEA LEVEL FASTER THAN PREDICTED....GLOBAL FAMINE FORESEEN....METHANE RELEASES COULD TIP US INTO CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE REGIME....GREENHOUSE GASES CONTINUE UPWARD CLIMB......INDUSTRIAL NATIONS REFUSE TO TAKE ANY STEPS TO PREVENT CLIMATE CHAOS........

Pardon me, gay friends and colleagues, but notwithstanding your successful campaign, I am still worried about this country. I am still worried about the planet. I am still worried about climate change, loss of biodiversity, the vanishing oceans. Maybe some of you can now relax long enough to join us tree huggers in fighting these other trivial battles, which may seem boring by comparison, or perhaps too technical to comprehend, or just plain irremediable. I know that your self respect and desire for full civil rights are important. I know that this will provide you a greater sense of security. All those things are true. Nevertheless.......

Nevertheless, this victory, while important to gays, pales in comparison to the terror that many of the rest of us feel as we contemplate daily and unremittingly the disintegration of the earth's ecosystems, the loss of species, the destruction of ecosystem functions on which we depend for food, water, energy, health and well-being. As things stand, there is a chance of a snowball in hell of a victory for us equal to the one you are now celebrating. We have no prospect of any celebration, certainly not in my remaining lifetime, and probably not in that of my granddaughter's either. We are talking about the future, if any, and the fate of seven billion people. We are talking about civilization. We are talking about Life on Earth.

Many of us, that is to say those paying attention, are already in mourning, fearful and anticipating worse to come. We haven't seen any sign of things getting better, much less even remaining where they are. In the lifetime of someone born in the next ten years, the earth will end up in that proverbial handbasket. It will not be fun. There will be no place to hide. There will be no place to put fifty million refugees. There will be no way to feed the two billion more people. There will be no way to head off epidemics, whether flu or insect-borne disease such as Dengue fever which has now reached as far north as Mexico. There will be no way to prevent the ocean flooding of the cities along our Atlantic seaboard or the Gulf Coast. Urban infrastructure - subways, sewage systems, drinking water supply, electricity, gas - will crumble.

I have given a lot of thought to the disinterest and indifference of Americans, including the most educated and progressive, regarding the environmental crisis. It is not as if what we read about is new or recent. A review of environmental articles, books and research of the 1970s, and in some cases earlier, shows that all the problems we face now existed then. We just didn't do anything about them. Why? Because too many Americans were mired in single issue special interest campaigns, like a parade that went off in many directions, losing its way and its integrity. Nothing has changed since then, except that things have gotten worse and some environmental organizations have given up the ghost and thrown their lot in with Big Business, fooling themselves into thinking that this is the only route to salvation, and in turn being fooled by BB into thinking that green technology and capitalism are the answers....even though Big Business was responsible for the whole problem in the first place and has had half a century to do things right.

No, I've lost hope and patience. I'm afraid that I can't celebrate the small stuff, not because it isn't my personal fight but because

time is too short to get deflected from the main battle. That battle isn't for one group; it is for the whole collection of "special interests": what we call Life.

Taqquiya of the Times

2011-06-24T06:32:00.000-07:00

The Muslim p.r. firm, whoever it is, is busy churning out niceties about Islam and how none of us should bother our pretty little heads about this "religion of peace" that believes in freedom, democracy, religious pluralism and women's place in the home.....errr.sorry, women's rights. This is all in the spirit of taqquiya,

the qu-ranic authorization that is translated as "lying".

The latest one in the NY Times of June 20th is an attempt (and not a very good one) to defend the use of sharia law in the American legal system. One hopes that the author, Aziz Huq, an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago, is never the judge in any lawsuit, that is, unless the plaintiff is a Muslim and intent on overturning American civil law,in which case this Huq-ster would perform admirably.

Huq says that a ban on considering or using sharia law in American courts would deprive Muslims of equal access to law. He uses the example of a butcher's contract for halal meat or violations of a financial instrument. This is utter nonsense of course because there are all kinds of contracts used daily by citizens, businesses and institutions not to mention the government: employment contracts, real estate contracts, purchase contracts, service contracts, marriage contracts. And you can be damn sure that Americans support them because these are ENFORCEABLE contracts before the law, and violations can be prosecuted in American civil courts. No one in his right mind would forego these legal contracts in favor of a religious one, especially if there were large sums of money, property or other rights at stake. Huq is not only a liar; he is a lousy lawyer.

Does a ban on a religious law make religious adherents second-class citizens as Huq claims? Not at all. The present civil law system protects them all equally, making them first-class citizens. If nonMuslims hold negative views of Muslims, it is because the Muslims themselves never tire of trying to impose their religious views and mores on everyone else, including sharia law as well as getting exemptions from secular law and special treatment not awarded other religions.

Huq says that Muslims suffer indignities because the public does not treat them as equals. More nonsense. Muslims are in their minds what Orwell said: "more equal than others". Muslims do not believe in equality by any stretch of the imagination. They claim superiority above all other religions, something which perhaps all religions do in private but which they keep to themselves, like the telling of ethnic jokes among family and close friends.

The author also claims that these things will "chill" cooperation with counter-terrorism efforts, as if such cooperation were enthusiastic to begin with, and as if Muslim imams were not themselves advising non-cooperation, and as if Muslims actually believed that there were such things as Muslim terrorists. Most Muslims still think that those who commit terrorist acts are not "real" Muslims. Of course, for them, real Muslims are those who decapitate their wives and murder their daughters, if you follow sharia law.

Muslims who screech about "islamophobia", discrimination and victimization are encouraged by the liberal media who dutifully comply with demands to censor all criticism of Islam. Huq's taqquiya - deception employed in the interest of promoting Islam - is as big a lie as the ones that portray Islam as being pro-democracy and pro-peace. Muslims will continue to have full and equal access to the law and the American juridical system as long as they accept it and abide by it.

Muslim women, of course, are subject to sharia law every hour of their entire lives and as long as they accept it, they have no recourse to the benefits of a democratic legal system and the protections of civil society extended to nonMuslim women. Perhaps a new "Muslim Spring" will rise soon in which Muslim women throw off the very real shackles of Islamic slavery and embrace democracy and its promise of equality.

HUMANS: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

2011-06-20T04:24:00.001-07:00

Humans: An Endangered Species, by Jason G. Brent: The logic is compelling. The conclusion is indisputable. We are already in a state of global collapse though the symptoms of it vary by country and/or continent.

His observation about the middle east conflicts is accurate: no government can support an expanding population and diminution of resources. Anyone who thinks that the revolutions in those countries about unemployment - or those anywhere else in the world - have nothing to do with the overshoot of population over resources doesn't know anything about science, physics or ecology (which is most people in the world, and most governments). Anyone who thinks that voluntary birth control measures, even if made available to every woman on earth, will suffice is spitting in the wind. This is the only respect in which Lester Brown comes up short, by not directly addressing patriarchy, religion and class conflict.

Some of the things that need to be done are possible in the USA and the west in general, especially with regard to consumption, energy policy and habitat protection. Other things are out of our control unless we are willing to rein in Wall St., the banks, and multinational corporations with the cooperation of the governments where these corporations operate. This isn't bloody likely.

It is important to note that while certain "free market" principles are appropriate and necessary,such as full cost pricing (which is possible only by ending government subsidies and tax breaks), human behavior is influenced by many other factors such as social standing, cultural practices, religion, and the human propensity to want what everyone else has, a propensity that is exemplified best by India, which, despite democracy and a good education system, has decided to let 90% of its population live in filthy slums and spend its money on building new cities for its bourgeoisie and technocrats and on manufacturing cars. China isn't far behind in this and Brazil is moving up fast.

The USA isn't that far behind either, as Republicans, Wall St., banks, corporations, congress, free marketeers and neo-cons try to starve our health care, social security, educational institutions, small businesses and transportations systems while spending trillions on pointless wars and interventions and deregulating our financial sector to facilitate "the survival of the richest".

In this respect the USA is becoming more like India and third world countries rather than the compassionate advanced social democracies of western Europe such as Scandinavia. But fear not. Global ecological and economic collapse will take its toll long before the USA resembles modern day India. Climate change will force us into a defensive mode to stem off global warming catastrophes. It is not far fetched to imagine a military-like mobilization of professional and technological cadres charged with the responsibility of stemming wildfires, building monumental levees against sea level rise, protecting homes and infrastructure from hurricanes, heat waves and floods, desalinizing sea water to compensate for the loss of aquifers, mountain glaciers and freshwater sources, not to mention the deployment nationwide of a huge National Guard to suppress local protests when food shortages and lack of housing become widespread....as is happening in the middle east and north Africa right now.

Anyone who thinks the recession will eventually end and economic growth will resume is inhaling from the Big Bong. The scenario is actually one of overlap. As the recession wanes and waxes, the impact of oil shortages and the effect of climate change on food and water supplies, coupled with growing demand from growing populations and growing demands from the newly rich in India, China and Brazil, will intersect with the economic and financial crises, causing them to deepen. Eventually there will be One Big Crisis of ecology and economics.

We have entered a new era in which little is available now to insulate us from these inevitable forces that are driven by Nature and the ecological imperative. Along with the slashing of social safety nets and the appeasement of the financial sector's demands, there can be no other outcome but conflict and ultimate collapse.......LS

HUMANS: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

By Jason G. Brent

Copyright April 5, 2011

INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY

This book was written to give you and all of humanity three choices;

1. Prove the author wrong. Show that the author's facts, math and logic are wrong and that the conclusions reached by the author were not supported by the math, facts and logic. Show that the facts, math and logic set forth by the author can support another course of action which will prevent the destruction of humanity. Show that the course of action proposed by the author will not prevent the destruction of humanity.

2. If you cannot show that the author is wrong, then implement the proposals made by the author in order to prevent the horrific deaths of billions of living, breathing human beings and the destruction of civilization as we know it.

3. If you are unwilling to implement the solutions proposed by the author for any reason and you are unable propose another solution which will prevent the horrible deaths of billions, then all of humanity will suffer those horrible deaths and the total destruction of civilization as we know it.

Every major problem facing humanity without a single exception will not and cannot be solved or even ameliorated without reducing the population growth of humans to zero or more likely until the number of humans presently inhabiting the Earth is substantially reduced from the current (2011) 7.0 billion. Every major problem currently facing humanity without a single exception will be solved or greatly ameliorated when the human growth rate is reduced to zero or more likely made negative. Those who believe that the collapse of civilization and/or the collapse of the social order will not commence for years into the future are just plain wrong. The collapse of civilization and the collapse of the social order has already commenced. The current turmoil (early 2011) in the Middle East is only minimally about democracy versus dictatorship. It is about the fact that no government can satisfy the needs of its citizens when the population is continually growing and the per capita usage of resources is continually increasing. And those statements apply as well to the United States of America. The only reason the collapse of the social order may not have commenced in the United States is because the United States is raping the rest of the planet by stealing the resources it requires to satisfy the needs and demands of its citizens. Of course, a strong argument can be made that the collapse of the social order has already started in the United States, but that is the subject of another book.

HUMANS: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

2011-06-20T04:24:00.000-07:00

HUMANS: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

By Jason G. Brent

Copyright April 5, 2011

INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY

This book was written to give you and all of humanity three choices;

THE MENACE OF MUSLIM MEN

2011-06-17T07:43:00.001-07:00

Is Europe going to accept hundreds, even thousands, of young unmarried uneducated Muslim males from north Africa? If so, it is asking for more violence in addition to that of the Muslim men already resident in western Europe who resort to violence without provocation and often with impunity, as with Muslim rapists in Scandinavia who rarely are convicted.

The cockeyed reason for welcoming Muslims originally was to use them for cheap labor. Some assimilated but most married and enslaved Muslim women and blatantly violate local laws and customs as well as committing acts of violence against nonMuslims that are based on fictional violations of Islamic law and "offenses".

Now Italy is beset with Libyan refugees who the rest of the continent refuses to accept. The outcome of allowing them in, at a time of economic recession and huge unemployment, can only be disastrous. Even if these refugees were not Muslims it would be a huge burden on these countries whose social welfare programs have allowed them to reap all the benefits of citizenship without bearing any responsibility in return. Spain has an unemployment rate of 21%. It isn't likely that they would welcome thousands of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise.

The US faces the same problem with Latin America but fortunately the religious dimension is lacking and Latino immigrants readily assimilate. However, unrestricted admission of refugees or those seeking work equals POPULATION GROWTH no matter how you measure it, and this in turn intensifies overconsumption of resources and energy and places greater burdens on local and state economies. The US is the largest per capita consumer in the world and the second largest CO2 emitter. The last thing it needs is millions of immigrants who will raise families, (who will then go on to raise their own), buy cars, consume energy and goods and expand the unsustainable consumer society of the second largest contributor to global warming in the world.

There is no reason for the US to continue to act as a refuge and safety valve for countries that are unable or refuse to provide a decent living to workers. If we stopped all immigration, these countries would have to face up to the political and social consequences of their actions. There is no disgrace in being anti-immigration today, because there is no positive aspect to immigration whatsoever. Neither this country nor western Europe has the money, space and resources to feed and house and employ millions of immigrants from poor or repressive countries. Nor should they be required to. This is a simple fact. Neither overpopulation in Africa or elsewhere, nor poverty, nor political oppression justify dumping problems on other countries. The only exception that might be considered is women escaping from Muslim and other patriarchal societies and families who have threatened their lives. These women will only get menial jobs but unlike Muslim men, they will not commit violent acts.

Perhaps if overpopulated countries without jobs for their youth started taking measures to control population growth, such as focusing on the education and empowerment of women as well as providing easy access to birth control and abortion services - and, not least, ending the patriarchy in Africa and the Muslim world which is entirely responsible for the subjugation of women - these countries could become responsible and self sufficient members of global society.

YADA, YADA, YADA: THE COLD CASE FOR COLD FUSION

2011-06-13T05:40:00.001-07:00

No matter how hard I try to escape, my footsteps are dogged by "cold fusion" advocates. And despite repeated experiments, including some at the US Naval Research Laboratory, no one seems to be able to explain what is going on. This hasn't stopped the promoters who promise cheap electricity (where have we heard that before: "energy too cheap to meter"?) at a penny a kilowatt hour.

Despite p.r. noting the involvement of a "Princeton graduate" and physicists, a google search on the US Naval Research lab work on "cold fusion" comes up devoid of ANY peer reviewed publication on this topic. Whatever is happening in this lab is being held close o the vest, private, secret....though this does not prevent cheerleaders from declaring definitively that a "cold" nuclear reaction has occurred, just like Roman Jews declared that Jesus' empty tomb proved that he had risen.

One commenter refers to the experiment and resulting heat as a possible catalytic reaction of the metals involved. Nor is there any indication that the resulting heat in the experiment is either sufficient to ultimately boil water and produce electric power or that it involves a reaction at the atomic level, or, most important, that this laboratory-size heat can be scaled up to run a power plant to generate electricity for thousands of people.

The fact that just about everyone is puzzled about what this experiment actually IS indicates that it is premature, to say the least, to declare that it is a nuclear reaction. There's nothing wrong with this as long as it remains a garage experiment that doesn't involve taxpayer money.

Of course, back in the real world, electricity is not part of our energy crisis. In a major technological misjudgement, (not to mention huge public subsidies down a rat hole with little to show for them except dangerous wastes and catastrophic accidents), many countries (most of whom have nationalized energy sectors that need not heed public opinion) have over the past half century become over-reliant on electricity as a result of their misguided decision to invest in nuclear power reactors. Consequently we have France which is 80% dependent on nuclear reactors for electricity and which, in order to sell its excess capacity and justify its inefficient over-electrification of end uses, exports much of its electricity elsewhere, Japan is (or was) about 30% dependent and Germany about 23%.......with only Germany having the good sense to shut down nukes before its dependency increases.

The USA gets about 20% of its electricity from nuclear power, with electricity representing approximately 18% of ALL end uses of energy. Thus, if we were to stop throwing money down the nuclear sink, we might have a chance of becoming a global leader in renewable energy technologies. But it is now clear that Germany will pull far ahead of us because we have a bunch of dickheads running our government and energy policy who talk a good talk about the need to remain competitive in technology but do nothing to actually promote or implement renewable energy technologies.

Given how tiny the nuclear electricity sector is, and how our electricity needs (along with efficiency and conservation) can easily be provided by wind turbines, photovoltaics and solar electric farms, one begins to realize the stubbornness and ego of the nuclear scientists and engineers who denigrate the proven, demonstrably effective and already off-the-shelf technologies of renewables in favor of mysterious black boxes in remote laboratories peopled by faithful claques.

Imagine where we might be on renewables if these true believers were, instead, thronging congress and the media with demands for terminating government support for nuclear reactors that will never get built much less operate and instead starting pushing hard for efficiency and renewables. Their failure to do this is in a real sense a kind of treason because it is allowing countries like Germany to move ahead and become dominant in technology and thus in the new economy that inevitably will be based on renewable energy.

These scientists are a drag, a brake, on progress in the renewable energy field. They are on the same level as the climate change deniers who are also committing a form of treason, sacrificing people and the natural environment out of a secular religious fervor based on no facts or evidence whatsoever. Nuclear scientists, the Tea Party, the right wing radicals: ignoramuses all who care nothing for either humans or science. Tragically, the absence of brain power in Washington is matched by the disinvolvement of the environmental community and the lack of tough principled leadership, the kind that invigorated the country in the 1970s after Earth Day.

ARAB PARANOIA & THE ANTI-SEMITIC RACIST LEFT

2011-06-10T06:25:00.000-07:00

What does the Arab and Muslim world have in common with the American left? A simple answer: they both blame the United States for all of the world's problems, with the former having bought into its oligarchic leadership propaganda that their domestic problems such as joblessness, corruption and poverty are a result of American "imperialism" and Israeli aggression.

American internet conspiracy theories are surpassed only by those in the Arab and Muslim world, where every minor adversity is automatically blamed on Israel and/or Mossad. The persistence of corruption, unemployment, inequality, illegitimate and capricious police practices, religious persecution, underdevelopment, and cultural and technological isolation from the civilized world ...all stem, in the Arab street mind, from the evil doings of Israel and the Jews.

A recent article in the British blog Standpoint provides a detailed look at the conspiracy theories that comprise much of Arab daily life on the "Arab street". It gives a stark look at the fevered fictions in this part of the world which of course have been co-opted beautifully by their own government leaders as a way of drawing attention away from their own crimes and misdemeanors. But it is not only the benighted Arabs and Muslims who have fallen into this hypnotic trance. In western Europe and this country, many liberal Jews and leftists have swallowed these same myths and dutifully lined up behind the most violent, repressive causes (Palestine, Hamas, Hezbollah). Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised; after all Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark were admirers of and apologists for Milosevic, spurring a movement still extant today of those who deny Milosevic was anything but a leftist hero.

Ignoring the atrocities that have murdered tens of millions of black Africans in Rwanda and Congo in a silent racism overseen by the UN and three American presidents , the American left has managed to overlook these execrations while inflating the issue of Israel and Palestine to grotesque and unwarranted proportions and ignoring the fact that the deaths of Gazans result from Israel's justified self-defense responses to unprovoked missile attacks by the Palestinians on innocent Israeli civilians.

Leftist reactions to human rights violations and genocide are muted or nonexistent. A million slaughtered in Rwanda? Oh really, when did that happen? Rapes, dislocations and murder of hundreds of thousands of Darfuri by northern Sudan Arabs? Oh, that's just a rumor; the Zionists were behind it anyway (so said US Green Party member and Muslim convert Aimee Smith). Millions killed in the last few years in the Congo? Hey, show me proof. The racist implication is that most Africans are savages killing each other and there's nothing we can do to change that....let the blacks kill each other off....their violence is trivial compared to what Israel is doing......a million or two black lives are nothing compared to a few hundred Palestinians: thus runs the leftist narrative. None of this has anything to do with American imperialism of course.

But that's not all. In Latin America, transnational corporations are being seduced into schemes by these governments that trample the rights of indigenous peoples such as the battle in eastern Ecuador's Oriente province where Big Oil has poisoned the waters and lands of indigenous tribes and pristine rainforest preserves. The most blatant of these was the attempted privatization of drinking water in Bolivia where the government (pre-Morales) made a deal with a subsidiary of Bechtel, which took over the water company and immediately raised water rates sky-high. The result was a huge rebellion in the city of Cochabamba and ultimately Bechtel was forced out of the country and the water supply company turned into a non-profit entity, guaranteeing Morales' election. The superb film "Even the Rain" showed this struggle but similar ones are taking place elsewhere in Latin America and South Africa.

So where is the American left where real, not imaginary, imperialism is raising its ugly head in Latin America? It was prominent in the 1970s against the Nicaraguan contras and for the struggles of peasants against the military in El Salvador. Today it is invisible, having decided that the rights of Latin American peasants and Africans, child slaves in Haiti, child brides and slaves in India and Afghanistan, and child prostitutes in southeast Asia and of course the enslaved Muslim women everywhere deserve no attention whatsoever while the violent patriarchal Islamist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah deserve full support.

There is nothing like the combination of concealed racism and anti-Semitism, hatred of America, Marxist ideology and love for all "struggles of resistance" against "imperialism". Thus does the American left ignore the denigration of black Africans and Latino peasants and refuse to defend their human rights (not to mention right to survive) as fervently as they defend the right of Hamas and Palestinians to bomb innocent Israelis to smithereens. This is the face of the left today, and as it has always been, the face of totalitarianism acting in the name of "freedom".

EVOLUTION: UNIVERSAL SOLVENT & ANTIDOTE TO RELIGION

2011-06-06T05:32:00.000-07:00

A recent essay by a rabbi, pressing for a new global Marshall plan, said we need a president "filled with the spirit of God". After I stopped sputtering with incredulous rage, I began wondering if this was a fundamentalist Muslim in disguise, or if he had joined the ranks of the evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians. In his essay he wrings his hands at the despair of ordinary people, and it is worth quoting how he describes American society and what it is suffering:

"wide depression and repression of what we can variously call the life-force, eros, God-energy or Spirit...(where) the primary source of pain is not about economic deprivation or non-inclusion but about how...the ethos of selfishness and materialism plays out in their personal lives ....in ways that are destructive and feel terrible...wounded and personally despairing about the manipulative and narrowly utilitarian way people treat each other and themselves and the earth...(they) want a higher meaning to life..a meaning-oriented movement to counter the spiritual depression".

I truly wish that people WERE despondent about their avarice, materialism and propensity for consuming and accumulating. I truly wish they had higher aspirations and values and "meaning". But it is unlikely they will find the solution in religion or spirituality because first they have to understand the roots of their discomfort. And, with few exceptions, these roots lie in the society they have created and participate in. Unless they uproot the old roots and create new ones, all the religious exhortation in the world will not succor them.

This certainly sounds like an End of Times sermon from a fundamentalist deploring the depravity of modern culture and frankly I don't see how this is much different from the concept of Original Sin. True, it doesn't quite accuse humans of being innately sinful or evil. But it DOES, by exclusion, pretty much absolve culture, politics and the social sphere from any responsibility for RESCUING society.

Materialism is not an inherited trait. It is absorbed through the pores of society. Materialism doesn't exist prior to material goods. Once you have these, and once a system is dependent on producing them, consumption needs to keep increasing to keep the system alive. This is what industrialism (both capitalist and socialist)is about: economic growth and consumerism. Once the system is in place and operating, anything that cuts into growth is dangerous and condemnable, even subversive.

This is why the capitalist system is now trembling before high oil prices. The high consumption patterns that sustained this country are likely a thing of the past. Smart leaders would be well advised to seek a new model on how to save democracy without consumerism and economic growth. The environmentalists can give them some sage advice; they have been proposing alternative models for nearly forty years but no one listened.

Religious leaders are simply out of the loop. From their pulpits, because of their education and belief system, pretty much everything wrong in the world is wrong because people, individually, are suffering less from the mistreatment inflicted on them by others than by the refusal of others to sufficiently relieve their plight, or in this case, because they are spiritually empty. This message would not be out of place in the southern Baptist church or even in any of the New Age churches that have sprung up.

Material disaster and deprivation have produced things like the Peace Corps, Amnesty International, Oxfam, the Red Cross, food aid and other temporary programs. Now this rabbi proposes yet another "Marshall Plan" to redress social injustice abroad. Who could fault this? Yet the real criminals are rarely fingered, often out of misguided Political Correctness, or opportunistic foreign policies (such as our cozy ties to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), In the case of the left, all of the world's evils are blamed on USA "imperialism" while the crimes of tyrants and despots abroad are studiously ignored.

These humanitarian groups are sent in to pick up the pieces and help the survivors of evils NOT of their own making. Sometimes it is natural disasters, of course. But more often it is the policies of their own governments, and of foreign institutions and forces: World Bank and WTO (glorified by neoliberals like Nordhaus & Shellenberger), the global financial markets, and of course ethnic and religious conflicts. It is a bit depressing to see that action to protect human lives and safety when natural disasters threaten comes quickly without reservation, but doesn't come at all where there is internal conflict and oppression, such as in Darfur, Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, and Zimbabwe.

In the case of Darfur, some extreme leftists have actually denied that genocide is taking place and blame Israel and the Zionists for drumming up a campaign over a non-existent issue. And those who propose vigorous action in these areas are actually condemned for abetting American "imperialism" and interference. (For the left, the exception is Palestine, which they defend, while condemning Israel. Apparently leftist imperialism in the cause of Palestine is just fine.)

Today, alongside these atrocities, we face the greatest threat of all to not just humans but the whole natural world: ecological collapse of all the earth's ecosystems caused by global warming. While religious leaders have awakened to the threats to what they call "God's creation" (otherwise known as Nature), they are reluctant to put their finger on those who are to blame, or on the system that is to blame. By proposing, as this rabbi does, yet another global humanitarian plan to help the impoverished people of the world, he is proposing a compensatory posture, when what we need is PREVENTION.

Humanitarian actions after the fact are ethically necessary, but they are not sufficient to prevent new socially induced disasters. Compassionate feelings towards the needy and sick are natural to all humans, but the notion that appealing to human compassion and a sense of justice - to the human sense of morality - will heal the wounds of physical harm and social injustice as well as psychological and spiritual ones is a prescription that perpetuates the belief - completely unfounded - that spirituality and religion are the solutions to humanity's suffering. If they were, why is there still suffering? If this Marshall Plan does its job, what difference does it make whether people's spiritual needs are met? Or is this plan geared to meet the spiritual needs of the givers rather than the receivers?

The secular and atheist communities believe otherwise. With a few exceptions, most of these people are reluctant to indict the religious community. Many do not understand how a religious focus can actually detract from fundamental and systemic political and social change. Moral appeals elicit donations and little more. Very few humans act solely out of compassion.Most act out of self-interest.

However, there is a higher "force" or entity that continues to be widely ignored and denied: Nature. It is not an accident that biologists and environmentalists are in the forefront of the effort to stop global warming. These are people for whom nature represents not just the foundation of human survival but a concept that inspires a sense of wonder, serenity, respect and stability, and, most of all, offers precisely that "life-force" or "God-energy" or spirit that this rabbi says we lack.

The more vernacular term for those who lack the nature sensibility is called Nature Deficit Disorder. And there is powerful evidence that the absence of Nature from our lives does indeed inflict serious psychological harm and suffering. This disorder has appeared and spread since the Industrial Revolution, but to no greater extent than in the 20th century, when Nature became not just a font of material resources but an actual barrier (in some minds) to human endeavors. Today, thanks to technocracy and anti-evolutionists as well as sorely inadequate science education, most Americans are scientifically illiterate, especially about the life sciences and evolution most particularly.

Daniel Dennett has called evolution the "universal solvent". Anyone who has read widely in both science and social sciences will readily understand what he means. The processes and products of evolution are present in just about every aspect of our lives. Biodiversity, for example, is both a prerequisite and product of evolution. Evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Yet both secular and religious leaders fail to see that evolutionary concepts are fundamental to every environmental, health and medical issue of concern, including mental health as well as things like genetic engineering, antibiotic resistance, agriculture and breeding, medicine, epidemics, biodiversity, pollination...all of which have important implications for human economies and social systems.

We have the social sciences to thank for this, dominated for decades by secular leftists who separated out the study of human behavior from that of all other animal species, to whom they willingly granted a genetic influence, but not so with humans. One could almost say that the controversial field of study, sociobiology (sometimes called "evolutionary psychology" to escape the tainted word Sociobiology), was the result of the social sciences ignoring evolution.

Evolution, in fact, provides the soundest and most stable basis for just about every progressive environmental position, and in the end for the most ethical. The common origin of all forms of life and the evolutionary relationships that have evolved into a stunning ecological complexity should compel us to place the integrity and preservation of the evolutionary process at the center of all our efforts. The preservation of these relationships and of biodiversity is arguably the highest moral consciousness and responsibility of which humans are capable. That religious leaders fail to recognize may explain why they continue to flail and flounder in addressing humanity's dilemma.

Religious belief not only is useless in rescuing humanity and the world, but detrimental. Islam sees no contradiction in prescribing alms for its poor but assassination for non-Muslims. It is not for nothing that secularists so vigorously defend the separation of religion and state. It is not only because this is the best protection for all religions, but that the state - having a material existence via our government structures and laws as well as its citizens - is the only entity capable of changing the human condition by changing the policies that oppress and deprive people. Let's not get distracted by religion or personal spirituality to the point that we abjure institutional change. And let's defer to nature and evolution, without whom the human species would not have persisted this long.

MORGENLAND UNTERGANG: DECLINE OF THE MIDDLE EAST

2011-06-03T07:05:00.001-07:00

If one were cynical, one might see a positive aspect in the recent Muslim persecution and murder of Egyptian Copts in that it shines light on the inbred intolerance and violence of Muslims in the middle east towards all nonMuslims, not just Jews. Continuing in a cynical vein, this might spark some action from western Christians who are quite indifferent to the persecution of Jews abroad.

What is happening in Egypt may foretell the end of the "Arab spring", if one really believes there was one to begin with. The secular forces within its revolution are still divided, and if one can believe the NY Times story of May 31st, there are even Copts in Egypt who are not ready to press for complete separation of religion and state. Protesters from the original Tahfir Square demonstration are being arrested and tortured; Egyptian women arrested for being found in tents with male protesters were forced to undergo virginity tests. Human rights lawyers are now confronting the revolutionary movement and asking why they have not confronted these military atrocities, including a new proposal from the army to enact a law making such protests illegal.

To date there appears to be no constituency for this separation anywhere in the middle east or the mahgreb (north Africa) nor even support for equality before the law to be extended to women. These two factors are strong indicators that democracy as we in the west know it is as remote and unlikely as it ever was. The result is that while our country has been vilified for supporting oligarchs, repressive dictators and theocrats, we may end up supporting new governments that are no less theocratic and authoritarian as their hated predecessors. Nonetheless, Pres.Obama is pressing for substantial aid to Egypt and Tunisia even before the outcome of their revolutions has become clear.

Tunisia, the most educated of these countries, still has hopeful signs of a constituency resistant to Islamism and to the prospect of an Islamic state. Egypt, however, is another story. The worst kind of Islamist rabble rousing - embellished with the support of an army fearful of losing its influence and economic control, backed up by the Muslim Brotherhood - is now at full gallop there; there appears to be impunity and a complete lack of the rule of law. If the Copts cannot rely on the protection of the state, there is no hope for any other country.

At this point things are unclear about the future of Jordan, Syria and Libya, but quite clear about Bahrain and Yemen. Bahrain will remain a fiefdom and a close ally of the US like Saudi Arabia. Yemen will continue to be torn apart by the presence of Al Qaeda, which continues to have a free hand there and houses one of the most radical Islamic terrorists alive, Awlaki. As for Egypt, if it does not establish the rule of law quickly, it will descend into political and social chaos in which the most regressive fundamentalists, the Muslim Brotherhood, will quickly take control of societal institutions. With luck, Jordan will remain relatively quiet and uninvolved. Lebanon will remain frozen by the gaze of Hezbollah. The roles of Turkey and Iran will become clearer but increasingly threatening.

Egypt's floundering is symptomatic of the whole region, a region comprised originally of barbaric patriarchal tribes which allowed religious authoritarians and fanatics, starting with Mohammed,to gain a foothold. What is it about Islamic and Arabic cultures that has allowed the flourishing of primitive tribal feuds and religious dictators who in turn prevented the cultural, social and technological advances achieved in the west? There are four fundamental reasons.

--the unity of religion and state. This prevents the establishment of what we call civil society institutions that in the west perform numerous functions that promote citizenship and oversee the authority of government and the private sector. These institutions, sometimes called NGOs, create a desirable division of loyalties that tends to suppress totalitarianism: churches, schools, sports teams, professional organizations, unions, business councils, etc.

--the oppression of women. Denying half the population an education and other rights is not only wrong but stupid. There can be no democracy much less development when millions of women are banned from doing anything but producing children and receiving beatings from their husbands.

--lack of freedom of expression. Neither the arts nor academia nor civil society can exist much less flourish unless there are means to express dissent or cultural diversity. There can be no civil society or democracy without this basic freedom. So far a call for this single prerequisite for democracy has not been audible anywhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

--the absence of the Enlightenment and its commitment to human dignity, rights and personal freedom, and in particular the freedom of inquiry that allows science and technology to flourish and contribute to human well-being. Indeed, the Enlightenment was probably the single most important factor in the separation of religion and state.

Like the old Soviet Union, none of these primitive patriarchies experienced or even tinkered with the attributes of a secular civil society. Instead of the rule of impartial law, warlords and tribes fought each other or at best divided up the geographic spoils among themselves, as is still true in Afghanistan and other "stans". The result of capitalism in the Soviet Union was a bloody struggle in tooth and claw by criminals and crooks to get political and economic control; the result today is a country governed by

the corrupt, where drive-by assassinations replace the courts and the judges.

This is quite possibly the future of the middle east Arab and Muslim countries. Not even the moderate or secular elements in these revolutions have ever experienced, much less analyzed, the things that are needed for a real democracy to exist. For them, the right to vote and the abolition of corrupt thieving oligarchs are to date their major concerns. The notion of personal freedom,

right to dissent and inquiry, equality of women, and establishment of secular institutions and society is nowhere present, despite the loud but unfounded paeans of praise bestowed by Obama and other fatuous political pundits on the "Arab spring", which promises to become the fall, literally and figuratively.

HOW TO BECOME A PERFECT WAGNERITE

2011-05-30T05:53:00.000-07:00

An epic adventure in blazing color in a deep dark forest, with a helpless enslaved bride, steamy illicit desire, a rebellious defiant daughter, a ball-breaking wife, a libertine husband and his rebellious daughter, a noble warrior with magical power, a duel to the death, loving father and daughter parted forever. Pirates of the Caribbean? Harry Potter? Not. Richard Wagner's Die Walkure, second in his epic Ring of the Nibelung.

My mother loved Wagner. She played short excerpts on our parlor organ. I never had any problem listening to him and my enjoyment gets greater the more I hear him. A lifetime is not enough to discover the the complexities of Wagner. A Perfect Wagnerite can never get enough.. Most people don't know how to listen to Wagner. They don't like the German language, which is admittedly harsh as opposed to Italian and French, and they don't like the badly directed bombastic over-productions that were the norm until later in the 20th century. For them, Wagner is represented by helmeted yelping Valkyries on horses or knights in fanciful castles. Yet they will readily accept the most degraded imitations of Wagner in the worst movie music, dripping with sentiment and devoid of musical ideas.

If you focus alternately on Wagner's melodic lines and statements, and then on the orchestration, you will see the origin of the former in German lied (Schubert and especially Schumann in his Scenes from Goethe's Faust and Paradise and the Peri, arguably his masterpieces) and the lightness and delicacy of the orchestration. In most of the operas, the vocal line is usually accompanied by only a few instruments, rarely the full orchestra. Properly conducted, as James Levine does with the Met Opera orchestra, possibly the best one of its kind in the world today, the orchestral score is supporting, not dominating, resulting in amazing clarity. The Walkure I saw in April was a model of clarity and balance, a fitting accompaniment to the incomparable cast (Voigt, Blythe, Terfel et al) and the dramatically and musically respectful, even gentle, staging of Robert LePage.

The lush romantic overpowering string music we associate with romantic composers such as Strauss, Mahler and Brahms exists but is never overbearing in Wagner, but for some reason (perhaps poor orchestral performance and direction) people think of Wagner's music as heavy and overwhelming. It isn't, not at all. I think the quite radical use of recitative, with its long conversation-like lines, with few actual "songs" or arias, , is what people find difficult because of their expectations inherited from the rest of 19th century opera. Think of his recitative as spoken conversation being sung, because that's what it is.

But once you accept this concept, you can start to enjoy it, as is true with other unfamiliar styles...such as Shakespearean English for example, or Debussy impressionism or Schoenberg atonality. No new language should be rejected out of hand. Listeners shouldn't think they can lie back and just have music offered to them on a platter. We dont have this attitude towards other composers, or writers (Joyce for example) or modern painters (abstract impressionism, cubism, etc.). We make an effort to understand Shakespearean English. Why won't we make the effort for music?

In all likelihood it has to do with the pervasiveness of tonality, the familiar syntaxes and conventions that grew out of tonality, structure and harmonies that distinguish all western music from the Baroque era down to today. We are acculturated to these from our earliest childhood, starting with nursery rhymes and folk songs, and they are readily absorbed by our brain, committing us to a very narrow and fixed way of listening to music. When these factors are offered to us in all the music we hear or play, we unconsciously absorb the protocols, the idiom or "style", and our expectations of how the musical line or harmony will proceed are also fixed. (That's why we can enjoy PDQ Bach, because we have absorbed the baroque and classical conventions). Modern music shattered these expectations for most people. For this reason, many people cannot tell bad classical music from good, much less bad contemporary or experimental music from good. Because classical music follows familiar conventions, listeners accept it readily with uncritical ears and the usual expectations. Thus, second rate music is rarely perceived as such.

In fact similar acoustic and structural principles are at work in both classical and contemporary music. The composer makes or should make a musical statement or idea and put it in a coherent form in which the parts connect to each other convincingly, so that they make sense in the context of the whole work. Melodic or rhythmic themes , harmony, timbre, articulation, development, repetition, modulation...all these become relevant to whether the composer succeeds in doing what she intended to do. All music of all periods, whether tonal or atonal, can be and should be judged by these same criteria, provided the listener is willing to actually listen for these things and not expect "classical" or "romantic" outcomes.

Wagner's music has to be listened to for what it is: remarkable and original voice writing, a muscular sense of drama, as well as magnificant musical ideas. To see a Wagner opera in person is to be part of an audience of Perfect Wagnerites, of which George Bernard Shaw was one, an audience in complete transfixed silence before genius and unmatched musical beauty. If you are lucky enough to get a ticket to Bayreuth (which is usually fully booked ten years in advance), you will see that the hall, designed by Wagner with the orchestra underneath the stage, has only two aisles: one on the left and one on the right. None in between. Once you are in your seat, there's no getting up. But no one wants to. I truly detest intermissions in Wagner operas, but they do have them at Bayreuth.

While Wagner, like Beethoven, had no imitators, except possibly Humperdinck, he had followers, primarily Richard Strauss. Wagner was the culmination of romanticism, not avant garde as we define it (actually Brahms has some claims to this; his String Sextet in G major inspired Schoenberg's Verklaerte Nacht), but Wagner was as influential as Beethoven in opening up new doors of musical expression. No one escaped his influence, not even today.....recitative, chromaticism, motivic structure, long extended musical phrases and paragraphs and above all his use of leitmotivs or short themes for each character or situation which appear throughout the operas, forming a musical connective tissue for the whole work and engraving themselves in the memory of the listener ....sheer genius...as important to music as Darwin was to science.

Someone named Bill Nye reportedly said that Wagner's music is better than it sounds. I am not sure how to interpret this comment; you could say it reflects more on the unschooled listener than on Wagner's music. The same comment could be applied to the music of Schoenberg and his school. In the end it comes down to a matter of musical syntax and the fact that most musical education fails to teach people how to listen to music or expose them to new syntaxes. If teachers of English literature had taken this attitude towards Chaucer or Shakespeare their writings might also been stuffed away where only the most dedicated scholars could find and analyze them.

Wagner's Greatest Hits and Where to Hear Them:

You can google almost any Wagner excerpt and singer and you will get via YouTube the most amazing old recordings and videos of the greatest Wagnerian singers of the 20th century, singing the most famous and most beautiful scenes from all of the operas. If you are still timorous about listening to a whole opera, I heartily recommend that you listen to these excerpts. They have the advantage of being not only short but up close and personal.

Some of them are very old studio recordings, with old photos in the background, but many are of actual performances (some quite funny or awkwardly staged or with pathetic stage sets; one scene of a Meistersinger chorus showed a huge beer barrel behind the singers), or of more recent recordings done soon after the live performances, including many from Bayreuth itself. For an introduction to what I personally consider the most beautiful parts of Die Meistersinger and Die Walkure, my two favorites, here is what I suggest you google:

Lauritz Melchior and Lotte Lehman as Siegmund and Sieglinde, the incestuous twins, fathered by Wotn, in Act I of Die Walkure, one of the most intensely passionate scenes ever written. Melchior is AMAZING!

Hans Hotte and Birgit Nilsson in Act 3 of Walkure. This is the heart-rending anguished farewell of Wotan (Wotans Abschied) to Brunnhilde. Get out your handkerchief. She doesn't sing here but you can probably google her in a scene earlier in the act when she is arguing with Wotan but finally capitulates. This situation is actually a lose-lose situation for them both. His farewell is a soothing lullaby where Wagner puts together three or four melodic lines in an amazing counterpoint as he puts her to sleep on the mountain, and then the Magic Fire Music takes over. Get a dry handkerchief.

Lauritz Melchior again as Walther von Stolzing in Die Meistersinger, singing THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SONG EVER WRITTEN: the Prize Song (Morgenlich). You can google either the scene where Walther sings his song to Hans Sachs who transcribes it, or the final scene of the last act when Walther sings the completed longer version in the contest. Or both. I listened to this one after listening to three or four other tenors doing this song on other videos. No contest. Melchior is The Voice. A heldentenor comparable in voice and interpretation to baritone Bryn Terfel who is Wotan in the Met's present Ring cycle. If you can get to a high definition screening of the Met's Walkure, you will be privileged. You may never recover.

SOLVING THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS WITH EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT

2011-05-27T06:22:00.000-07:00

We would all likely risk committing plagiarism if we started putting down our proposed solutions to the earth's ecological crises. They would include, minimally, recommendations for renewable energy, organic local agriculture, weaning ourselves off the automobile, building compact settlements, recycling all materials, preserving ecosystems and biodiversity, phasing out toxic chemicals and genetically modified food, and expanding public transportation.

Volumes have been and are being written on these subjects. There is no dearth of good ideas. What we lack (besides the money and road map to get us there) is a constituency, a collection of fervent parishioners if you will, who will make ecology the center of their moral and philosophical being and the focus of their political action. Without this moral core, political activism will remain as it is now: random, spotty, unfocused, and thus unable to solve anything but our immediate environmental problems, which are after all only the discrete symptoms of a whole system gone awry.

Our system and society offer, generally speaking, only three avenues for activism: one secular, another spiritual, and a third economic. The first consists of our legal and legislative institutions, that is, the courts and the lawmakers. The second is dependent on individual, personal change usually invoked by spiritual or religious leaders. The third way, via economics, requires changing individual consumption and investment patterns, as well as boycotts and related nonviolent actions and can be exerted to bring about change but this method does not easily lend itself to persistent long-term organized activism.

The secular path is the one that Americans have followed since Earth Day 1970, the inception of environmentalism. Without going into a detailed critique of its faults, it is fair to say that the movement that arose following the original Earth Day was spectacularly successful in helping to pass broad national statutes that were then duplicated at the state level, with the establishment of regulatory agencies to oversee various aspects of the environment: energy, water and air quality, wetlands, natural resources, nature preserves, wildlife management, environmental health issues, worker safety, fisheries, and toxic chemicals. No doubt exists that without these concrete accomplishments, we would be living in an environmental nightmare today.

Regrettably, the proponents of other movements such as labor, peace and social justice, and traditional liberals and liberal journals in general, never tried to understand the relevance of environmental issues to their own lives, work and communities, much less the underlying science. They kept their distance, at times even vilifying environmentalists as white elitists intent on protecting their own back yards and landscapes and disinterested in poverty and racism. This hostility has been moderated somewhat, though it has not disappeared completely.

More recently, as a result of the increasing prominence of global warming and climate change in the media, the religious community has become aware that the severest impact of climate change will be felt by the poor, especially abroad in Asia and the island nations of the world. Accordingly, many religious leaders now are knowledgeable about the causes of global warming and are starting to incorporate their moral concerns into their sermons and social activism. But secular public intellectual discourse in liberal and radical journals has yet to take seriously the discipline and principles of ecology that underlie environmental issues, which still remain poor cousins to international and cultural concerns.

But the solutions envisioned by religious leaders are those accessible only to the faithful: which is to say personal change in life styles and consumption choices that result from moral exhortation of personal spiritual guides. Meanwhile, for complex historical reasons, the post-1970 Earth Day movement has all but disappeared, as issues like war, terrorism and the economy have taken precedence.

The powerful leadership exerted in the 1970s by the Washington-based groups, which addressed a wide variety of issues while educating their members and influencing national legislation, does not exist today except in occasional ad hoc alliances of convenience such as their excellent environmental report to Obama entitled "Transition to Green". The major groups have made their peace with the corporate world, congress, and capitalism and have drawn back almost completely (as has the American Left) from what were (and still are) the quite radical implications of environmentalism, mainly its inherent incompatibility with traditional economic growth, the engine of capitalism, and, significantly, one of the few issues not raised in the report.

Local environmental activism, of course, never disappeared and new manifestations of it appeared in urban minority communities to confront "environmental racism", with strong regional efforts in Appalachia fighting coal mining's devastation of land and water bodies. But the intellectual and political reinforcement formerly provided by the Washington-based national groups, with their easier access to legislators, policy makers and the media, is lacking. Despite the advent of the internet, these small groups continue to fall under the public and media radar, and, unlike the national groups who have successfully courted and been rewarded by the large funders (most of whom have major corporate ties of course), they struggle to survive and make themselves heard.

The earth cannot much longer survive this impoverishment of activism. Today we are facing global warming, that crisis of crises, which will reach into every sector of all societies on earth. As it insinuates itself into our economic endeavors, it is already being met not merely by the deniers and doubters, but by the defenders of "business as usual". And not all of these are those we think of as enemies.

There is a kind of desperation to defend a crumbling system dependent on resources that are diminishing as well as simultaneously polluting and destroying it, and it spurs a defense of positions of power and privilege. The big, established and well-funded environmental groups have resorted to proposing a kind of "compassionate capitalism", a belief system scarcely indistinguishable from the non-compassionate kind in that it abjures any notion of sacrifice or hardship; this avatar has donned a "Smiley Face" layer of Greenwash in order to promote a Promised Land of plentiful "green" jobs in renewable energy and fuel-efficient vehicles. In this society, the same production and consumption patterns that have brought us to where we are today will are presumed to continue without change. The fact that continued economic growth cannot be supported by the renewable energy future they depict is ignored either intentionally or out of blindness to ecological reality. Yet many progressives and social justice leaders have bought into this myth of "green jobs" and "green growth".

How can so many people believe in so many myths? Or to put it another way, why are there so many myths to choose from? Is this just the propensity of humans to rationalize their actions in order to avoid discomfort? I'm afraid that it is something worse. We are dealing here with the huge chasm that exists between most humans and the natural world, a chasm widened by technology and affluence and that has disastrously influenced the thinking of an influential portion of environmental leaders worldwide. This chasm could be bridged if most of us were not suffering from something that Richard Louv, in his book "Last Child in the Woods", calls Nature Deficit Disorder, a serious psychological condition brought on by poor schooling, addiction to mediated internet sources of information, insufficient exposure to the natural world and a growing distrust of science.

Bridging this chasm requires integrating the human psyche and its ethics into an ecological framework so that human compassion, concern and nurturing make no distinction between humans and other species, or between human society and biological systems. Humans have a built-in compassion for other sentient individuals - whether human or animal - but this sensibility does not include a built-in understanding of nature and natural systems, especially in our dominant technological culture, a technosphere that cuts us off from the biosphere which once nurtured (as well as challenged and educated) us.

Gaining or regaining this sensibility may be arguably the only means of creating a constituency for the profound political changes that must occur to re-embed our social and economic systems in Nature. In the short term, we know what we must do or not do to avoid exacerbating the situation. In the long term we are all dead. It is the intermediate term, the generation ahead, that we must address. Indeed, this may well be the last generation to have the opportunity to act on this.

Ironically, science, which has helped construct the technosphere, also offers us the best understanding of the biosphere. But the failures or overkill that science has imposed have created a huge wave of mistrust of even its positive achievements The current pervasiveness of anti-science attitudes, on both the left, (see both New Age spiritualism and academic Post-Modernism) and on the right (fundamentalism, creationism) are components of a broader anti-intellectualism that has grown exponentially with the birth of the internet, where all manner of rumor, gossip, hearsay and conspiracy theory can be instantly transmitted to thousands, even millions, of people, who are eager to believe anything that confirms their own fears or prejudices. Susan Jacoby's book, "The Age of American Unreason", gives an interesting history of irrationalism. Other notable books on the subject include "The Flight from Science & Reason" by Paul Gross, Norman Leavitt, and Martin W. Lewis, "Betrayal of Science & Reason" by Anne and Paul Ehrlich, and "Fashionable Nonsense: Post-Modern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.

Is there something unique about contemporary life and institutions that has spurred this anti-intellectualism? I do not believe so. I believe that irrationality is a natural part of the human psyche, a default position we inherited from our early ancestors and under which humans have always lived. Only the Enlightenment, modern education and scientific scholasticism have kept it at bay, squashed down in a dark place where it could do little harm.

Not so long ago, scientists had nothing more threatening than astrology and palm reading, harmless hobbies with little social impact. But today the internet allows all manner of nonsense to be transmitted with the seductive voice of (undeserved) authority, whether it is rants against vaccines, oregano to cure cancer, or conspiracy theories about almost anything. The accomplishments of hundreds of years of scientific research, no matter how well substantiated, are now competing with vast amounts of electronic mendacity and fevered paranoia. Irrationality has crept out into the light, casting a shadow on science and even challenging it.

And the human connection to nature has consequently suffered too. In traditional science, scepticism is necessary. The notion of falsification is essential to the discipline of scientific research.. But the pervasive notion that science is an establishment ploy to deceive us is not paranoia; indeed, some members of that very "establishment" allow or even practice scientific deception that favors special interests (such as nuclear energy and genetically modified food).

A recent guest of mine from Italy, an intelligent progressive woman, confessed her fear of nature. I pressed her for details but could not elicit them. She is not alone. There are, I venture to say, millions of people who think snakes, insects and white sharks are out there lurking everywhere, waiting to devour or poison them. And there are those who simply lack what I call a Soul, an innate emotional and intuitive but long suppressed connection to nature and nature's creatures. I think of Samuel Johnson's wonderful declaration that he disliked going into the country because the air was full of so many uncooked birds. Today I suspect many people think that hawks hover in the air planning attacks on humans.

Who is to blame for this alienation from nature? The proximate causes seem evident: the mass media, the failure of our educational systems and institutions to require mandatory universal courses in environment and ecology starting in the early grades, but especially the absence or marginality of evolutionary studies. While scientists are preoccupied with the creationists and "intelligent design" fanatics, our books for early readers feature all manner of animals but never in a context that tells the young reader: these are our ancestors and our relatives.

Even in progressive circles, and especially in pop science articles, evolution is still tainted thanks to the persistence of belief in "nature red in tooth and claw", and a continued misunderstanding of natural selection in which the "survival of the fittest" is depicted as some kind of eugenics law. Another culprit is the post-modern left's war on sociobiology and the still prevalent leftist accusal that sociobiologists support the "tyranny" of the genes in human behavior. The old "nature vs. nuture" argument which pitted Darwinists against Marxists for generations has long been exploded in biology but remains lodged in the psyche of old-line conservatives and not-so-old leftists.

The social sciences must share some of the blame for this, dominated as they have been for decades by secular leftists who separated out the study of human behavior from that of all other animal species. In this view, it was possible to grant genetic influences to animals (who were viewed mechanistically) but not to humans (who, of course, have free will). One could almost say that the controversial field of study, Sociobiology, (which had to change its name to evolutionary psychology to escape the tainted word), was what we got when social scientists ignored evolution.

The fact that Darwin's work (and the "modern synthesis" linking evolution and genetics) actually demolishes any notion of innate hierarchy or genetic determinism in human social systems seems to have escaped these liberal critics of Darwin, most of whom have recused themselves from the battle against creationism and Intelligent Design, which poses a far greater threat to our educational system and freedom of inquiry than the discipline of sociobiology.

Those who are suspicious of Darwin and evolution also overlook the fact that the grand plan of the Industrial Revolution and early natural theology were threatened, not strengthened, by evolutionary theory. The notion still held by some that so-called "Darwinism" is the basis for modern capitalism is an ideology that comes from Herbert Spencer and his followers, not from Darwin or the true line of evolutionary thought and research which continues to produce fruitful results down to our own day.

While it is true that certain developments in biology (genetically modified foods, for example) may have practical results that we may not care for, almost every major accomplishment in biology, medicine, agriculture and ecology is based on Darwin and the modern synthesis which merged Darwin's idea of natural selection with the post-Darwinian discoveries in genetics.

What many liberals overlook is that the material basis for evolutionary processes is inherently subversive of and contradictory to abstract ideologies. While today's industrialism rationalizes control o fpeople and the natural world in its own brand of social and technological determinism (always described as "progress"), the lessons that evolution and natural selection teach us contradict the technocratic, hierarchical view of the earth as much as they did in the 19th century.

The lessons of evolution and natural selection are not those of hierarchy, dominance, violence and inequity but of unity, continuity, diversity, interdependence, mutuality, equilibrium, adaptation and sustainability. In a sense we must re-do what Darwin did for his day: crumble the foundations of anthropocentrism and rebuild an ethics of biocentrism in its place that can replace arbitrary ideologies. Just as Galileo refuted the notion that the universe revolves around man and his planet, so did Darwin refute the notion that the society of man and the health of the earth revolve around man's technosphere, thus restoring humans to their rightful place in the biosphere - i.e. one species among many in the natural systems of the earth.

Thus, evolutionary studies can and should be the doorway to restoring the place of rationality, science and nature in human existence. If and when this occurs, the leakage of this inspirational force into our political life is inevitable. The unanswered question is whether this can be done in time to avoid an authoritarian response to the onset of irreversible climate change. In the end, the non-arbitrary discipline of ecology is the only philosophy of survival extant.

LET RIVERS RECLAIM THEIR FLOOD PLAINS

2011-05-23T06:35:00.001-07:00

The recent Mississippi floods, preceded by the New Orleans tragedy, have sparked diverse opinions on why it happened and who is to blame. In truth, while the proximate causes were Hurricane Katrina and the failure of the engineered flood control systems, the ultimate causes lie both in American history and in the American dream,which saw building in coastal and inland flood plains as an opportunity to convert swamps and bottomlands into valuable industrial and residential real estate.

Serendipitous geography created the mighty Mississippi and its tributaries, more accommodating and cheaper for international trade than the Atlantic Ocean, and facilitated the opening up of a two-way trade system that allowed American agricultural commodities to find global markets and in turn allowed foreign mineral resources in for the increased industrialization of the US heartland.

When originally settled, New Orleans lacked the “benefits” of flood control technology and industrialization. Consequently it had to work around and accommodate the natural features of the Mississippi delta. The free run of the river brought down silt from thousands of miles away, which built up the delta and raised the land. The flood plain north of the delta and within it was undisturbed so that high tides and storms were allowed to run off into uninhabited swamps, streams and ponds, where the swampy soils absorbed many times their volume in water. The natural swamp that was New Orleans served to siphon off water rather than channelize and hold it back.

But the economic value of the New Orleans port grew rapidly, and with the onset of the Industrial Revolution greater infrastructure such as levee construction and channelization of tributaries, as well as modern amenities like sewage, water and electric systems became not only possible but necessary. The late 20th century, with its financial power, saw New Orleans become a commercial and tourist center because of its history, culture, music, cuisine and social freedoms, though little of this filtered down to the service workers, mostly poor and black, whose work was vitally important to the tourist sector.

New Orleans is not the only American city living off the energy and muscle of others. Las Vegas and the retirement communities in Arizona and California became established in hostile and droughty areas with no local resources, and sucked in what they needed from outside their state, regardless of cost or environmental impact. The Central Arizona project, the destruction of Glen Canyon and the damming of major rivers to create Lake Powell and others drowned majestic canyons to develop hydropower and provide recreational facilities in place of the glories of Nature; we almost lost the Grand Canyon in fact but few people remember this.

All of these places have their service workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. In New Orleans, the average income of blacks is $11,000. Of the 485,000 city residents, over 100,000 (probably all black) lack private transportation and would thus have been unable to evacuate the city. In contrast to New Orleans, Cuba was able to evacuate 1.5 million people prior to a hurricane.

Many areas of the country such as the middle and southern Atlantic and Pacific coasts similarly saw population influxes to hazardous areas such as the flood plain of the eastern barrier island ecosystem. Californians built houses perched on cliffs subject to landslides, or in chaparral and savannah habitats where wildfires were the natural climatic regime. Throughout the Mississippi River basin and watershed, whole cities established themselves with the help of government-funded channelization and diking of the river, with adjacent natural flood plains obliterated, reducing the ability of these areas to absorb heavy rains and leading to regular massive flooding.

This is the history of American settlements, but one that was exacerbated by an ignorant federal government desperate to promote development without regard to the exigencies of nature. The Bureau of Reclamation (note the inference that untamed flood plains and wetlands needed to be reclaimed) and the Army Corps of Engineers were set loose with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to accommodate all manner of unsound development and commerce. Where problems were detected, more money was thrown at them, as it was at New Orleans for its levees, canals and pumps.

No one doubted that engineering would protect them from the wild forces of nature. The declarations of these agencies about the remote risk of natural disaster were intentionally deceptive. When they refer to a 200-year flood, what they mean is that for any given year the chance of a flood is 1 in 200, which any mechanical engineer (especially one at a nuclear power plant, or a jet pilot) would consider very bad odds.

As for New Orleans, there was a political decision made, based on economics, that the Army Corps would plan for a Category 3 hurricane, even though the Corps itself and other scientists had said this was insufficient. We can now expect planners to plead for higher protection levels. This will once again give a false sense of security.

It would be naive to expect that any agency of government or either of the major political parties would consider, much less propose, anything different. For both parties, economics, business, development, prosperity and investment are the objectives and environmental concerns secondary since in their view these can be mitigated. New Orleans is now a test case, but if past experience can be trusted, we will see a massive influx of taxpayer dollars to rebuild the city in the same place, where it will be permanently at risk.

Is there any alternative? Well, yes, and it might even be less costly. This would be to remove all structures and infrastructure from the Mississippi River flood plain for its entire 1500-mile length, but especially in its lower reaches. This would not only allow the natural river flow - those areas now being inundated are the river's real flood plain - but would accommodate without death or destruction most severe climatic events.

The flood plain could be farmed by people living outside of it. The silt from the upper reaches of the river would flow unimpeded down to the Gulf and, as occurred up to the 19th century, would be deposited in the delta and gradually raise the land above sea level. New marshes and swamps would be created, enticing wildlife and waterfowl and creating shrimp and fish hatcheries. The area would become a natural wildlife refuge supporting small-scale sustainable agriculture, fishing, shrimping and tourism.

Support towns could be built outside the flood plain and sufficiently far north of the Gulf coast. Population density could be limited, local agriculture and fishing could be encouraged to eliminate importation of food, innovative sewage systems such as marsh sewage treatment plants could be built, and renewable energy emphasizing self-sufficiency (photovoltaics and wind farms for small towns) would eliminate the dependency upon central generating facilities that are easily disrupted. People would be prepared with boats for transport in the event of flooded roads, including ferries to go to work or recreation.

As for the oil industry? If ever there was a lesson demonstrating the need to unhook ourselves from oil and dependency upon private cars, this was it. The loss of the Gulf oil production capacity is not huge but would be even less if the US had the good sense and perspicacity to shift its efforts into massive construction of wind generators, wind farms, photovoltaic cells, co-generation and other serious energy efficiency strategies.

The government that talks about national security apparently never considered natural climatic events to be a threat. Now we know that global warming, by increasing ocean temperature, is a definite contributor to hurricane intensity. We can take steps to mitigate this temperature increase though it cannot be reversed. But above all we need to reformulate our land use principles radically, simultaneously reforming or eliminating those policies that allow and encourage construction in those areas at most risk from hurricanes, flooding, fire, and earthquake. This is a public health issue equal to the threat of bird influenza or acts of terrorism, and it is a self-imposed threat.

The overconsumption of oil by the US is indeed a self-inflicted act of terrorism.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS: PROFILES IN COWARDICE

2011-05-20T06:22:00.000-07:00

Was this letter (see below) encrypted so no one could read it? Last January they sent this to Pres. Obama. Did anyone else know it? On the list is 350.org leader Bill McKibben, famous for demanding "action" on climate change but not saying what should be done. On the list is Lester Brown who has in fact written books about what needs to be done..books which no one on this list seems to have read.

NOT on this list is any policy or legislative proposal for actually achieving an 80% emissions reduction. Apparently they want to make Obama guess: "OK, Barry, we'll give you an hour to guess what needs to be done. We'd give you some clues but you probably have smart-ass advisers who can come up with some answers, and if they can't, they can consult Wikipedia".

Here we are four months later. Maybe some clues are needed.....not for Obama but for these groups to actually, really, loudly, clearly, come out and say what they have been thinking all along: carbon taxes, mandatory energy efficiency codes and laws, end of fossil fuel subsidies, for starters. Is anyone puzzled by the failure of environmental leaders to actually put their name to a document that contains substantive positions and proposals? Is anyone puzzled by the fact that McKibben claims to have put together an international movement for "action" but still refuses to tell his acolytes what they should be pushing for and telling their governments? Is anyone sufficiently angry to confront these groups and individuals and demand that they offer a clear, tough agenda for changing energy policy?

Most of these groups are almost entirely supported by member dues and public donations. One would logically think that they should have some accountability to the public and to show that they are taking this issue seriously. But who would take this letter seriously? It is like telling your child to get an A on an exam but not tell her to study for it... Or telling the jockey on your horse to win the race but neglecting to tell him that the horse has to run... Or telling yourself to lose 20 pounds without considering dieting. The comparisons are endless.

Unfortunately the climate change issue does have a conclusion, an unhappy one, which most credible scientists believe will arrive many years before the year 2020. Worse, most of the letter signers already know this. They know that despite the recession, energy consumption is growing each year, not diminishing. They know that coal burning power plants are still operating and that no one in government is proposing to shut them down. They know that plans to drill for natural gas and oil are being made right now in this country and the rest of the world. They know that the industrialized nations are moving full speed ahead to exploit and develop as much of their coal, oil and gas as they can. They know that energy prices are being kept low because higher prices curb demand and cut into economic growth, which is still the goal of the whole world.

In brief, these signers know full well that absolutely nothing, not even a token gesture, is being done to curb energy use, and that their own government's stubborn refusal to move off the dime is being used by other countries as an excuse to do nothing. Great Britain just announced a plan for major emissions reductions...offset by a continued commitment to nuclear power. Denmark and Germany are making efforts to develop wind power and there are similar small scale efforts in Spain and France, but no comprehensive national policy to phase out fossil fuels, much less achieve an 80% reduction in emissions in the coming decade or Zero carbon by 2050 exists anywhere. The groups below call for a "warlike mobilization", but somehow they forgot to mention that you need weapons to fight a war. On that score they are silent.

Let's be blunt. We need to reach ZERO CARBON by 2050. An 80% reduction by 2020 is a good start provided the ultimate goal of Zero carbon is made clear and national energy policies are implemented that make success likely. These policies are being rejected categorically by Republicans and Democrats in the USA because they would raise energy prices and curb economic growth. But the bullet must be bitten IF we are serious about curbing climate change.

The American public must be told the truth by the environmental leaders whose groups in turn must be recruited around the tough policies and whose efforts must be singlemindedly focused on our legislators and policy makers. So far they have failed, especially 350.org, which has faithfully followed the edicts of the Rockefeller Foundation and chosen the path of promoting "green capitalism" in the corporate suites rather than promoting substantive economic and political change on Main St. Cowardice and Capitulation, writ large. 350.org has happily chosen to become the lackey of corporate capitalism, having decided that there is no alternative. It is now the Happy Face, the greenwashed smile of the Exxons and the BPs of the world. It can no longer be taken seriously.

Without a substantial increase in fossil fuel prices, mandatory efficiency measures and an end to subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels coming from the top level of government (our president and congress), we will continue on our death march to catastrophic climate change. One would think that the climatic emergencies we have already witnessed as a result of climate change might have focused our minds better, as a wise man once said about the prospect of imminent execution. One would also think that our environmental leaders might try to deserve their salaries and our support by exerting the leadership we expect of them.

One would be wrong. Here's the letter.

‘US and China must reduce emissions 80 percent by 2020’

Open letter by 23 high-ranking officials of American energy, climate and environmental NGOs, including Bill McKibben of 350.org, to President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao, calling for wartime-like mobilization by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent, based on 2006 levels, by 2020, in order to reach the 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 stabilisation level.

January 19, 2011

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20003

Dear President Barack Obama & President Hu Jintao:

It is time to publicly acknowledge that the continued burning of fossil fuels threatens the survival of civilization. The science is incontrovertible on this fact, yet the response from government is business as usual. Our two nations dominate world carbon emissions.

No civilization has survived the ongoing destruction of its natural support systems, nor will ours. It is with a deepening sense of dread over the fate of future generations that we call on you to acknowledge the severity of the global climate emergency by placing climate stabilization at the top of your policy agendas.

According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year in recorded history. Last year was also the wettest on record in terms of global average precipitation, according to the Global Historical Climatology Network, with devastating impacts felt across the globe. Estimates by the World Health Organization are that the Earth’s warming climate contributes to more than 150,000 deaths each year. Here’s what else we’re facing:

• Crop-withering heat waves

• A melting Greenland ice sheet that threatens to raise sea level 23 feet

• Fires transforming carbon-storing tropical rainforests into carbon emitters

• Ocean acidification imperiling the base of the seafood chain

• Melting glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau threatening the dry season irrigation water supplies – and food security – of hundreds of millions of people

• Ever-deadlier storms creating growing numbers of climate refugees

• Scientists predicting 1/5 of living species being driven toward extinction by mid-century

This is just the beginning. Nature tells us time is running out, but we can’t see the clock. As we blindly reach critical climate “tipping points,” things promise to get worse, much worse. Central to the solution is a wartime-like mobilization by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent (based on 2006 levels) by 2020. This is required if we are to reduce carbon emissions to 350 parts per million in the atmosphere, the level top climate scientists say is safe for humanity.

There is no more important measure of presidential leadership than living up to the expectations of our children to protect their future. Every day our respective governments fail to act, their future grows more perilous. We await your response.

Sincerely,

Lester Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute
Rev. Sally G. Bingham, President, The Regeneration Project & Interfaith Power & Light
Brent Blackwelder, President Emeritus, Friends of the Earth
David Blittersdorf, President/CEO, AllEarth Renewables, Inc.
Jan Blittersdorf, President/CEO, NRG Systems, Inc.
Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club
Lisa Daniels, Executive Director, Windustry
Brock Evans, President, Endangered Species Coalition
Ross Gelbspan, Author
Paul Hawken, Author
Randy Hayes, Executive Director, Foundation Earth & Founder, Rainforest Action Network
Courtney Hight, Co-Director, Energy Action Coalition
Julia Butterfly Hill, Co-Founder, The Engage Network*
Chuck Kutscher, Former Chair, American Solar Energy Society & Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory*
Eric Lombardi, Executive Director, Eco-Cycle
Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org
Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth
Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity
Rebecca Tarbotton, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network
Mike Tidwell, Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network
James A. Walker, Former President, American Wind Energy Association
Tom Weis, President, Climate Crisis Solutions

GULLIBLE AMERICANS AND THE COLLAPSE OF DEMOCRACY

2011-05-16T05:45:00.000-07:00

Of all the democracies in the world, the American one has the honor of hosting the most gullible citizenry. One gropes for an explanation of this phenomenon that expands daily despite a free press, a huge higher education and academic infrastructure, a primary school system mandating education for twelve years, a system of secular democracy, and an estimable Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Nonetheless, Americans droop their tails and ears and willingly follow their chosen pack over the cliff. From cults like Scientology to Christian fundamentalist preachers to angry men dictating their doctrine to pregnant women to boilerplate Roman Catholic priests and pope encouraging overbreeding to Muslim imams preaching the sharia enslavement of women to New Age gurus collecting high tuition in exchange for platitudes about spirituality to fraudulent snake oil salesmen promoting herbal "cures" instead of vaccines to Democratic Party leaders promising fire and brimstone to those who don't vote for their anointed leader to hard-line leftists dedicated to annihilating Israel, this country has descended into a Bosch-like hell of false messiahs competing for human minds.

Like the Chinese menu, this one has columns with brain food choices from A to Z. The available food groups of irrationality are almost endless.This is the prototype of the American mall, where the consumer can find an endless assortment of mental madness.

Whatever happened to critical and analytical thinking? Whatever happened to that habit of doubt, of those demands for evidence that our courses in science and philosophy taught us? And what is the future for our country when so many minds of so many generations can be deflected away from intellectual rigor and into intellectual rigor mortis?

Well, all you have to do is look at the state of this country and realize that the future is already here. Raging armies whipped into frenzies of hate by demagogues; fuzzy college courses devised by post-modernists to brainwash the blank-slate minds of students; panicked parents refusing immunization and putting their children at risk of dying from epidemics; creeping Islamic doctrines used to subvert the law and civil society in the name of a global caliphate.....all of which have enriched irrational secular and religious doctrines and doctrinaires that are contributing to a rapid deterioration of citizenship and reason. Any historian would be hard put to conclude anything but that the collapse of the empire is nigh.

The assortment of excuses and rationalizations for these choices is, unlike the choices themselves, astute. These include self-improvement; compassion; dedication to human rights; ethnic and cultural self-determination; assertion of personal liberty and freedom of choice; resistance to "illegitimate" authority (rife on both the left and the right, though for different reasons); empathy with oppressed peoples; resistance to cruel tyrants, corporations or crooked politicians.

Each movement and campaign chooses what suits its political objectives best, depending on its potential audience. Muslim leaders home in on the civil liberties, legal system and tolerance of liberals and the left, claiming discrimination and victimization in their campaign to undermine secular democracy. The extreme authoritarian left plays on the heart strings of liberals by portraying "oppressed" Palestinians and distorting the history of territorial claims and treaties. The snake oil salesmen appeal to parents of sick children by casting doubt on science and medicine and accusing the government of foisting poisons on the public and causing their child's autism; leftist post-modernists, using selective cases of racism and sexism, portray the whole educational system as one corrupt in all its teachings and reliant on outdated methodologies and ancient prejudices (a system they would replace by one that is equally corrupt and far more intellectually prejudiced).

The voices of and for reason struggle to be heard in this Babel-esque clamor and power struggle. It is testimony to the strength of the human need for order, clarity and stability that so many people fall prey to these forces..which of course are causing the social instability we see around us. This conundrum is hard to understand for most of us. But an understanding of human evolution can help us explain it.

Before the scientific discoveries of the late 17th and 18th centuries, and before the Enlightenment that followed, which clarified the relationship of rational thought to social justice and civil liberties, humans in all societies sought non-scientific explanations for why things were the way they were. Religion, whether primitive, pagan , Christian, Judaic, oriental, provided answers that humans had no choice but to accept. (One wonders whether there were atheists in the old days; if there were, they kept their mouths shut). People had no means of either investigating natural phenomenon much less questioning official religious doctrine. The default position of humanity was Irrationality. The only mechanism - invisible and unknown of course - that distinguished between what was "good" or "bad" (i.e. what worked vs. what didn't work) was natural selection.

The appearance of universal moral codes of behavior was a result of observation of the RESULT of natural selection, though no one had any inkling of the mechanism of course. With regard to incest, before science understood the genetics of reproduction, no one knew that incest was biologically a bad idea. What they did know, by observation, was that those who had sexual relations with close relatives either had miscarriages, gave birth to deformed children who died early and didn't leave offspring, or didn't reproduce at all. Because all of these occurred, the result was that those to whom incest was repugnant were more successful breeders: they produced more and healthier children, all of whom retained the same repugnance toward breeding with relatives. Gradually this group outbred those less repulsed by incest, so today the incest taboo is essentially universal.

In other words, there was no INTELLECTUAL understanding of why incest was bad. An epigenetic rule had emerged that sufficed to suppress counteradaptive behavior. Similarly, the rest of human understanding about life was derived from experience and observation, and derived other epigenetic rules.

The default position was Irrationality. But this does not mean that the arrival of the Enlightenment and the later advances and discoveries of science erased Irrationality, not at all. It replaced them in most places because of the spread of the printed word, education, urbanization, travel, wider human interaction across continents, commerce and trade, onto which science and technology were grafted. When we open a textbook today we learn about evolution, the laws of physics, the elements, mathematics, biology. Because of their pertinence and validity, these became the basis for modern science and civilization (except in the Muslim world and some tribal societies which still practice shamanism and rely on trial and error).

But irrationality and the innate human need for explanations never disappeared. It was the genius of tyrants, both religious and secular, to understand and address these needs: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez, Castro, Bin Laden, Nasrullah, Ahmadinejad, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Franco, and the pope. Today, thanks to modern communications and freedom of travel and association, new cults and tyrants are able to find new followers for every myth and fable they concoct.

Meanwhile, in the face of multiple social, economic and political crises, any person can find like-minded people with similar worries and concerns, thanks to the internet, telephone and printed communications. Every tiny personal crusade can become enlarged to the point where it becomes a singular all-consuming occupation, to the exclusion of the larger problems that face ALL of society, such as climate change, economic inequality, overpopulation, resource depletion, and collapse of global ecosystems.

This is America today, and it is not a pretty picture. We lack the vision and leadership that created our republic. We have shunted aside the very institutions and intellectual achievements that have supported secular democracy. We have abandoned citizenship in favor of consumerism. And instead we follow and worship false gods; in fact, if I recall correctly, wasn't there something in the Old Testament about that? Hmm, maybe the Bible does have something important to say.

MIDDLE EAST DEMOCRACY: DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH

2011-05-13T10:35:00.001-07:00

Anyone following events in Egypt should recognize that while radical Muslim Salafist slogans and shouting have been muted, the people and ideology behind them are still with us and carefully plotting their strategy. And while there are different factions within the Muslim Brotherhood, neither one has abjured sharia law or embraced women's rights and freedom of speech. This is especially relevant in Egypt because it is the country most tied economically and culturally to the rest of the world because of its dependence on tourism and its still-intact peace treaty with Israel.

Early on in the formulation by the various protest groups of a common list of demands for political change, one suggested proposal was to terminate this treaty as well as all contact and trade with Israel. In the end this proposal - undoubtedly offered by the MB and other radical Islamist groups - was eliminated from the list. But this does not mean that it will not return after the election of a new parliament. How much strength the non-radical groups (it's a bit far fetched to call them secular) will have in the parliament to fend off an anti-Israel resolution is not known.

Generally speaking, the more secular elements are those in large cities, with their business class, technocrats and infrastructure dependent on foreign tourism, probably Egypt's largest single source of income. The MB has been active in the countryside with social programs and that is where most of its strength is. None of Egypt's citizens has in any way indicated the retreat or diminution of a commitment to sharia law nor will any constitutional changes to this be proposed.

So it is unlikely that Egypt will become more overtly secular in any significant way. This leaves only Morocco and Tunisia in the region as the only countries where women have any rights and where other religions exist. The burning of a Christian Coptic church in Cairo - one of several similar events in the past year or two - is proof that religious intolerance is ubiquitous and that reformist groups are helpless, at this stage anyway, to prevent such violence and bigotry. Also keep in mind that in the Arab nations, it is illegal to build nonMuslim churches at all.

Which brings us back to this country and the naive notion that there is such a thing as a "moderate Muslim". As ex-Muslim scholar Ibn Warraq and other defectors from Islam have pointed out, any truly observant Muslim is required to accept ALL the tenets of the qu-ran and the hadith in all of his daily life and conduct. This does not mean that there are no Muslims that have rejected these; those that have are the secularized ones who no longer attend mosque or participate in Muslim organizations. These are the ones who have become assimilated into our culture and society and are therefore indistinguishable from secular nonobservant Jews and Christians.

But while they may actually be a majority in this country (not so in Europe), they are outweighed by the radical Muslim leadership in local mosques and those under the influence of the national organizations like CAIR, ISNA, and ICNA, which have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and, in the case of CAIR, to Hamas. These are the imams who preach in black and urban communities in order to radicalize black youth and new immigrants from Africa. These are the ones responsible for the recent bombing plots, fortunately uncovered before they took place. And despite the protests of some members of congress at the recent hearings held by Cong. Pete King on radicalization, this radicalization continues apace and represents a real and continual threat to this country and to our lives.

It is regrettable that this cause has been taken up by the right wing, while liberals sit on their hands and preach tolerance (something unknown in the Muslim world itself), multiculturalism (something banned in the Muslim world) and freedom to criticize Islam (even as Muslims curse and vilify Jews and other nonMuslims). The rest of us need to separate out the fanatic right wing preachings of people like Pamela Geller and listen to the calm, serious and knowledgeable voices of people like Zudhi Jasser (America Islamic Forum for America), Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, and Wafa Sultan, all considered apostates by Islam and therefore under permanent fatwa of death. We need to read and support Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism, the most complete source of information on Islamism and terrorism and the reach of its tentacles into our institutions and government itself. We need to ask why U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly decided to abandon investigation into individuals and groups demonstrated to have connections to radical Islamist organizations and movements.

Above all, we need to stop pretending that freedom, democracy and equality are inevitable outcomes of the revolutions in north Africa and the middle east. They are not inevitable. In fact, as we understand these terms, they will NEVER exist. More likely is that there will be economic reforms and some reconfiguring of constitutions and parliaments that will in no way contradict sharia law, especially with regard to women's equality, Israel and the Jews, and freedom of speech. There will be enough to pacify the seething masses whose main concern is jobs and security, but little more. There is no path to secular democracy or to the kind of freedom we possess and prize. The path will be the same, with a few large rocks removed to appease the masses.

Meanwhile we can be sure that Iran will scramble to reinforce Hezbollah and Hamas will redouble its recruitment of radical American leftists and Jewish "useful idiots" in the so-called peace movement. And we can be sure that Pakistan will continue its duplicity by funneling American aid to its ISI and thence to the Afghanistan Taliban, while turning a blind eye to its homegrown Lashkar e Taibba, which it protects as insurance against the purported threat from India. Both of these are being kept in waiting for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and will once again resume control of that country's medieval tribal patriarchal system of government where girls will be kept at home, not in school, and religious trespassers murdered randomly.

Al Qaeda Succession Woes

2011-05-13T10:17:00.000-07:00

Good story in the NYT of Friday, May 13, on succession problems in Al Qaeda, Inc. Take a look. (Trabor Navillus)

FREE SPEECH PRINCIPLE ELUDES CUNY TRUSTEES

2011-05-09T05:11:00.000-07:00

After a majority of CUNY trustees voted to withhold an award to playwright Tony Kushner for his anti-Israel statements, it appears that they are clueless about our Constitution and civil liberties.

This foolish decision, perhaps about to be revoked, echoes the decision by a small NYC theater group to not present a play based on the diaries of the late Rachel Corrie, member of the Palestine Solidarity Movement enticed by PSM into going to Gaza where her martyrdom was almost guaranteed to happen.

The play, based on Corrie's diaries and produced a few years later elsewhere, was by all accounts a wretched piece of drama. Theater critics had a hard time reviewing it and a harder time concealing their negative opinions. One wonders just why serious drama critics would attend, much less review, a piece of amateurish agitprop, unless they were suffering from a severe case of Political Correctness.

But the cowardly decision by the original theater production group, probably influenced by wealthy Jewish board members and donors, is neither the first nor the last of its kind. The CUNY trustees, in their infinite lack of wisdom, decided that free speech has no place in their academic world and scotched the Kushner award.

Total absurdity at best, and total lack of principle at worst, the principle being that unpleasant and defamatory speech should NOT be squelched. This brings to mind nothing less than the riots of fanatic Muslims around the world over the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in a Danish newspaper, or the equally cowardly decision by American publishers and the Yale University Press as well as most American newspapers to withhold publication of the cartoons.

The CUNY trustees now find themselves aligned with authoritarian ideologues, even as Muslims in this country succeed in shouting down and shutting down critics of Islam speaking on campuses and self-censorship prevails in just about all the mass media, which trembles in fear that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is proof of "Islamophobia".

At the higher levels we witnessed the hearings sponsored by Cong. Peter King on the radicalization of black and African immigrant youth by terrorist organizations and recruiters from groups such as Al Shabaab. Those recruited are softened up by imams in their local mosques as well as by propaganda by Islamic groups such as CAIR, MAS and ISNA, most of whom have ties of one kind or another to foreign organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly to Hamas and Hezbollah, though the paper trail of such funding is not easy to locate.

The CUNY trustees, like the American Jewish community, would be better off and far more productive if they stopped their kneejerk defense of Israel and the silencing of its critics and refocused their energies on the real threat to democracy: radical Islam and "stealth jihad", right here in our communities and a real present danger to civil liberties and our Constitution.

PALEOLIBERAL CROCODILE TEARS

2011-05-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

PALEOLIBERAL CROCODILE TEARS

Oh, the shame of it: immediate assassination of the world's leading assassin followed by breast beating about howAmerican moral, ethical and legal standards are higher than those of our enemies and why we should not celebrate bin Laden's death. The problem is that if you have enemies who play by their own rules, not yours, they will inevitably prevail or at least make your rules untenable and obsolete.

Thus, in the minds of these paleoliberals, bin Laden should have been captured, held in captivity for five to ten years to allow the gathering of evidence of his guilt and then put on public trial in a court with an impartial jury, after which (assuming he was found guilty) he would THEN be put to death. Nothing could guarantee more perfectly a worldwide convening of Al Qaeda to not only protest but demonstrate his innocence and make him into a living martyr to inspire new generations of terrorists into the indefinite future.

Due process, the rule of law, the right to counsel and a fair trial: all wonderful things in a truly democratic society. But just wait a doggarned minute. Where have these same paleoliberals been as the nonviolent arm of Islamic jihad carries out its daily dirty work right here in our communities?

What dirty work, you ask? Dirty work to SUBVERT democracy and that sacred rule of law, that's all. Honor killings for starters, apartheid and slavery for Muslim women, inspired by treasonous exhortations to Muslims in American mosques to put their faith and its doctrines above our Constitution, followed by baseless lawsuits (aided by groups like the ACLU) to give special treatment and exemptions to the Muslim faith, all accompanied by a concerted radicalization of young Muslim men enticed into jihad and terrorism as a direct result of the preachings of their local imams (not to mention Awlaki and Al Shabaab) and Muslim organizations themselves (CAIR, ISNA, etc, etc) in the service of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is the same dilemma faced by numerous countries in north Africa and the middle east: does one adhere to strict democratic legal processes when this adherence raises the likelihood of victory by anti-democratic forces explicitly dedicated to abolishing democracy and civil liberties? This is of course what the whole turmoil is about in Egypt and elsewhere. There was more to celebrate in bin Laden's death than there is in north Africa and the Arab world. While paleoliberal pundits praise the courage and principles of these revolutions, this celebration is premature in the extreme.

Religious extremism has not gone away nor has the goal of establishing a global Muslim caliphate nor has terrorism, whether organized or or not. There is no indication whatsoever that any of these countries will ever resemble what we know as secular democracy. There is no indication that the old inter-religious or inter-tribal conflicts will disappear. There is no indication that women have any future at all except one identical to their past; just look at all the photos and you will not see one woman in these demonstrations. There is no indication that the qu-ran-inspired hatred of Jews will diminish, much less disappear. There is no indication whatsoever of any rational realization that these patriarchal, repressive religious tendencies and practices will be abandoned so as to allow nations adherent to Islamic law any entry into the modern civilized technological world, the only world that is able to fulfill their demands for jobs and economic progress.

Like the former Soviet Union, these countries have never known a civil society or legal system that puts the rights and freedoms of citizens ahead of ideology. They could end up with capitalist economies in partnership with global corporations and financial institutions, devoid of both an impartial legal system and civil liberties, with their women remaining in the same purdah as always. And when this happens, the world will look the other way and celebrate the triumph of capitalism, as if that were the necessary AND sufficient solution. This possibility should not be dismissed; it has ample precedent.

Some of the worst autocrats will persist, most likely those in Bahrain, the Emirates and likely Syria. Elsewhere, their replacements will under no conditions abandon existing systems of patriarchy; indeed, in some places tribal hatreds and competition may be strengthened in the absence of a strong central secular democracy. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan show signs of having advanced beyond the old tribal and ethnic hatreds. In Egypt it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood and the army have cemented a special relationship already. In Yemen, the likely beneficiaries of any revolution will be Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is harbored there along with Awlaki. The only sign of hope is in Tunisia and Morocco, where secularizing tendencies and some rights for women were already installed and will not be given up lightly.

Meanwhile, that violent failed state called Pakistan will continue to breed, fund, train and harbor the worst of the worst terrorist organizations, regarding them as their best defense against India and their best chance to eventually take over Kashmir. Why are we funding and working with Pakistan? Because it has nuclear weapons that we fear could fall into the hands of terrorists. That's all.

Pakistan has not only done nothing whatsoever to curb world terrorism but hasn't even been willing to protect its own people against them. It released those suspected of carrying out the Mumbai bombings, over the loud protests of India. The USA sends billions of dollars to Pakistan, for both military and social programs, most of which if not all has been stolen by the ISI and used to provide weapons and training for the Afghanistan Taliban, which uses it to kill Americans and assure Pakistan of protection against any Indian invasion. Even prior to the discovery of bin Laden in Pakistan, our government knew full well that Pakistan was playing a double game and supporting terrorists within its borders as well as arming the Taliban and telling Americans that Pakistan was a important "partner" in curbing global terrorism. One can imagine how the Pakistanis gloated at their successful swindle of American dollars.