Tagged: Important Books

This is long overdue. Some time ago Lisa at R Cubed tagged me with several questions regarding important books. Real Life has interferred somewhat with Blog Life so I am just now getting around to it. So, with no ado whatsoever, let's get on with it.

What is the total number of books you have ever owned?

This is hard to answer as most of my books are still in boxes. After my move last year I wound up with more books than shelves and I haven't gotten around to buying new bookcases yet (can you see that I am comfortable with procrastination?). If I had to guess, I would say somewhere in the range of 2,000.

What is the last book you have purchased?

I'm in the process of trying to get all twenty of the Patrick O'Brien books (I've got eight so far), but I also just recently bought the three Bourne books by Robert Ludlum (used, as they are out of print).

What is the last book you have read?

Master and Commander, the first of the Patrick O'Brien books. My reading is way behind as I am spending more time writing. So in actuallity, the last book I've read is the Unfinished Great American Novel by Me.

What are 5 books that mean a lot to you?

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein - It was hard to pick one book by Heinlein as I grew up reading his books after being introduced to him by my father. Two others that were in the running were Glory Road and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott - I've read this book at least five times and will likely do so again at least five more times before I die. Today's critics sometimes complain that Wilfred of Ivanhoe should have hooked up with the Jewess Rebecca but that would have been very unrealistic for the middle ages. The book deals honestly with many timeless issues including love, honor, and race.

The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy - As Robert Heinlein can be considered one of the founding fathers of the science fiction genre, so Clancy is to the reletively new genre of techno-thriller. This book, his first, was so engrossing that I literally read the entire book in a day and a half. It was the first book that for me was a page turner.

The Democracy Reader: Classic and Modern Speeches, Essays, Poems, Declarations and Documents on Freedom and Human Rights Worldwide edited by Diane Ravitch and Abigail Thernstrom - If you ever need a refresher on how important the United States of America is in the scope of World History, of how we came to be and why we're here, read this book. It covers everything from Thucydides to Nyein Chan, as well as our own founding fathers, the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Stride Toward Freedom.

The House at Pooh Corner by A. A. Milne - The Pooh stories are so full of philosophy to live by that they've spawned other books like The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet by Benjamin Hoff. One of my favorite passages is from the chapter In Which Piglet Does a Very Grand Thing, the story which eventually became The Blustery Day. I think of this passage whenever chance introduces me to an interesting and meaningful person. As Pooh and Piglet are leaving Eeyore's house on their way to see Owl. Eeyore says these words:

"Good-bye," said Eeyore. "Mind you don't get blown away, little Piglet. You'd be missed. People would say 'Where's little Piglet been blown to?' - really wanting to know. Well, good-bye. And thank you for happening to pass me."

I'll have to think a bit before I tag the next group of victims. I will update this post hopefully no later than the weekend and send out e-mails to the lucky candidates. Lisa, I'm sorry for the delay. I hope the wait was worth it.

Winning Formula?

First of all, let me say that I do not "follow" any racing league (or any sport for that matter) to the degree that I know day by day who is where in the standings. Within my heirarchy of leagues, I will watch IRL/CART (I still wish the leagues had never split), NASCAR, then Formula One.

I turned off Sunday's F1 race after 5 laps.

If you don't know what happened, here is the brief story. There are two competing tire manufacturers in F1 racing; Michelin and Bridgestone. Yesterday, Michelin screwed up and the teams that use Michelin tires may have just killed any prospects of the league having any success in the United States for the next twenty years.

Essentially, the sidewall on the Michelin tires were unable to withstand the forces created when taking the final turn at high speed. The tire could suddenly deflate with the car and driver being put into the wall. This happened twice in the final practice session on Friday.

Michelin was unable to solve the problem over the weekend. You can't redesign a tire, manufacture it, and ship it from France in 48 hours, and Michelin North America (my former employer) does not manufacture racing tires. Michelin issued a letter to their teams that the tire was unsafe in turn 13 (turn 1 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway but going the opposite direction after finishing the road course).

On race day, all twenty drivers took the parade lap and just before the green flag, 14 drivers pulled off the track and into the garage leaving only six cars in the race, four of which are among the worst in the league. The third place finisher was a lap down at the end.

The seven teams that withdrew blamed just about everybody but themselves.

The venue: Indianapolis is the only track on the circuit with a high banked corner. Of course this is not the first year that the US Grand Prix has been held in Indianapolis and it has had the same layout every time.

Ferrari: They objected to placing a chicane in the course to slow speeds through turn 13. Of course this ignores two points. First, none of the drivers has ever even turned a lap with the extra chicane and putting it in at the last minute could in itself be dangerous. And second, Ferrari didn't have any trouble in the corner so why would they want it changed?

FIA: The league's governing body offered three solutions. First, run slower through the corner so you don't blow out your tires. Second, pit more often to change tires. Third, run different tires than you have cleared for your team and accept the appropriate penalty.

And this is the key. Essentially, these seven teams were at a disadvantage because of choices they made. They chose Michelin over Bridgestone. Michelin chose not to test at Indy early this year. Why, when you make poor choices, is it everyone else's responsibility to level the playing field.

And the best attendance at a Formula One race in the United States paid the price for the poor choices of seven teams and one tire manufacturer. Formula One was considering expanding to 2 US events in the near future. They'll be lucky if they have one next year.

So, why am I writing about a sport in which I have very little interest?

Does this sound familiar?

"I can't take turn 13 at 200 mph. Can we make it so everyone has to slow down?"

"I can't win a race. Can we give fewer points to the first place finisher?"

"I can't earn a million dollars a year. Can we tax rich people more?"

Terrorism, The Cold War, and Everything

Rambling Post Warning!

This post was born of a conversation here. The board is decidedly liberal and there were a couple posts I couldn’t resist commenting on. I was fortunate enough to run across someone who could at least carry on a conversation. But the thoughts developed in such a way that I figured it might make a good post. I may start cannibalizing my comments more often just so I have something interesting to post on my own blog. That said, let’s get on with it.

Myth #1: Terrorism is born of poverty.

This argument neglects the fact that most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries on the planet. Should we send more aid to Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Syria? Egypt? What responsibility do we have as a nation to care for the poor in other nations? Why does it fall to the United States to care for everybody else? Especially when the poor we are talking about live in wealthy countries.

Secondly, in the case of most of the leadership, they are not even poor but rather the sons of privilege. Of course you don't see many of the leaders blowing themselves up for 76 virgins in paradise either.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that at least some of the problem stems from the fact that Islam is a religion based in violent conquest of anyone not willing to convert?

Their prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, got the ball rolling in the year 630. With the notable exception of a peace agreement between Pepin the Short and the Caliph of Baghdad which survived from 762 until the Caliph of Egypt ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009, there have been very few periods of peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. But even during that "peace" the Muslims continued to attack in other directions including Persia, Afghanistan, and much of India.

And the crazy thing about it is... they were rich nations at the time. The Arab portion of the world was one of the most civilized and advanced anywhere on the planet at the time. How is it that today we view poverty in some of the richest countries of the world as an excuse to blow up civilians at a hotel or a market, or to fly a plane into a skyscraper.

Myth #2: President Bush purposely allowed the 9/11 attack to occur in order to give The United States an excuse to interfere and take over.

Believing that ANY President, Democrat or Republican, would knowingly and willingly allow thousands of Americans to die in an attack in order to "justify" a war is patently ridiculous. Should we believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor too? Should we believe aliens crashed in Roswell? And the CIA, Cuba, and the Mafia all conspired to kill JFK, right? But to address the argument seriously since I'm sure you would prefer that I take it seriously, if that is the case, why did we allow free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq? And why were we encouraging Syria to get out of Lebanon? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep Afghanistan and Iraq (especially the oil in Iraq), and use Syria's presence in Lebanon as an excuse to "liberate" them too? I don't think Bush "allowed" the attack any more than Clinton "allowed" the USS Cole attack or the first WTC bombing or Oklahoma City or the embassy bombings by AQ.

Myth #3: Western society is just as violent as Islam, and those who beat the war drums the loudest here are most like the mullahs.

The purpose of Islam is to spread the faith of the prophet Muhammad ibn Abdallah, peacefully if possible or by force if met with resistance. The United States of America actually prefers to be left alone. For over 100 years, the only wars we have ever fought have been the result being attacked or called for help. And in that time we have returned any captured territory. Name any other nation on the planet that can say the same thing.

The only war in our history (setting aside the American Civil War) which was initiated by us was the one we waged against the native Americans. Although I find that action regrettable, I also realize that it was probably inevitable. If it had not been the United States that removed them from their lands, it would have been the Spanish, Mexicans, British, French, or Russians. The native American tribes had the misfortune of being surrounded by more technically advanced societies at a time when everybody was in an imperialistic mode. Other than that, I have no regrets about any of the violent periods of American history.

The United States military’s sole purpose is to ensure that I can say whatever I like on this blog. The duty of the American military is to protect America. I do sometimes question whether we should even bother protecting anybody else in the world but I look at it this way: I was pretty big for my age when I was growing up. The bullies tended to leave me alone because they weren't sure they could take me. But they tormented my buddy mercilessly. Until one day I had had enough of it and stepped in to help him out. It's a difficult call... do you step in to a fight that has nothing to do with you or do you help out someone who is being kicked when they're down. I decided it was time to quit being afraid and stepped in.

Myth #4: The United States has a long history of unprovoked interference in the internal affairs of other nations, often at the expense of democracy, to wit: Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Brazil, Chile, Zaire, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Venezuala, & Panama.

First Iran: Since 1501, Iran has had five dynasties. The Qajar dynasty lasted from 1796 to 1925. Between 1918 and 1920, Britain was using Persia as a route to interfere in the Russian Revolution, but really had little to do with the deposing of Ahmad Shah, the last of the Qajar dynasty. In 1924, a movement in favor of forming a republic began. It was inspired primarily by Reza Khan Sardar Sepah, the Prime Minister and former Minister of War. But the mullahs were still leaders of public opinion and associated a republic with the anti-Musli policies of the republic installed in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal. Reza Khan decided instead to replace the monarch instead of the monarchy. In 1925 Ahmad Shah was on a trip to Europe, but in November, the Shah's announcement that he intended to return hastened the deposition of his dynasty. Only four members of the Majils spoke in favor of Ahmad Shah. On 12 December 1925 Reza Khan became Reza Shah, and on 25 April 1926 he crowned himself in the Golestan Palace.

By 1941, Iran's position as a route into Russia played another significant role in international affairs. Reza Shah had entered into negotiations with Germany to supply it with oil. Iran was a lifeline for Russia, and Britain and Russia were not about to let Reza do a deal with with the Nazis. Reza was forced to step down by the British and Russians. His son, Mohammed became Shah.

In 1953, Mohammed's Prime Minister initiated a Nationalist coup and successfully ousted him. With support from the British SIS and the United States CIA, he managed to regain power, but almost immediately he faced another problem. The Soviet Union was supporting the Communist Party in Iran and causing serious problems internally. Mohammed abolished the multi-party system.

Now here's my point in all this. The contention was that the US helped the Shah overthrow a democracy. In a simplistic sense I suppose one could make that argument. But the story is much more complicated than that. We didn't just move a rook on the chessboard and then democracy was dead. Take a look at the timeline.

If anything, this shows that there are always unintended consequences... but the US didn't go out to get rid of a democracy. Mohammed was actually one of the best leaders Iran has had in recent history. He did a lot of positive things for his people. He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

With regard to Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea, these actions were taken in direct response to attacks by Chinese Communist backed agression.

Panama was a situation were a strategic asset that we built needed to be secured.

Most of the other incidents can be attributed to the Cold War.

There is a line from Hunt For Red October that described the Cold War as a "war with no battles, no monuments, only casualties." For the most part, that is dead on correct. However, in a sense, the entire "third world" was the battlefield. Just about every place we were involved in the Cold War, so was the Soviet Union. The Cold War was a struggle not only for supremacy, but in the view of the participants, for survival itself. Right or wrong, that's what it was about and both sides believed it to be the case. There are several legitimate arguments to be made for not involving ourselves in that struggle, to wit:

1. It is immoral to use third world countries as pawns in a game between superpowers.

2. It is wrong to meddle in the internal affairs of another country.

3. It is wrong to assassinate, finance rebels, supply weapons, etc. to one side of an internal conflict in another country.

But all of these arguments ignore the fact that if we hadn't done these things, our opponent wasn't going to stop doing them. The result would have been that the Soviets were the only one interfering in internal politics in the third world.

Marxism/Leninism/Socialism/Communism has never been kind to the losing side. If 30% of a population aligns itself with the Soviets, kills the 15% that opposes them, and terrorizes the remaining population into going along... is that democracy since it was "chosen by the people"?

It's a dirty situation and no matter what you do there are aspects of it to despise. Would it have been better to leave Vietnam to the Chinese Communists? Should we have interfered with the Khmer Rouge? I don't know. But after the Vietnam debacle, there was no way we could have done anything in Cambodia. It would have destroyed what civility we had left here domestically.

In the grand scale of all the things we did, did we do some things clumsily? Absolutely. Did we choose the wrong side to support in some cases? You bet. Would we have been better off not getting involved in a few of them? Probably. Did anyone, anywhere have a crystal ball to tell us how it was all going to turn out? No.

What Now?

So, here we are in 2005.

There is no Soviet Union. China's sphere of influence is smaller than it used to be. Really, the only meddling in internal politics anywhere that is any threat to the United States at all is by Islamic extremists. I don't know what your thoughts are, but I see the extreme versions of Islam as a threat not only to the United States but to every nation on the planet. Should that "extremism" be permitted to interfere unchallenged, especially if it has been exported to a country that is not "extremist"?

This is where we stand today. What do we do? Do we interfere or let things progress however they will... even if it is not by the "choice" of the native population? Islamic extremism learned well from Lenin. It is dangerous to oppose them.

What is the right thing to do?

Is Bush doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

We probably won't know the answer for another thirty years. But he's doing something, which is better than we've done with regard to terrorism over the last 40 years.

UPDATE

Question: What gives us the right to interfere in other nations affairs as if it is all just one big game?

Most Americans could care less what kind of government somebody else has. Despotism can be good if the despot actually cares about his people. A legitimate argument can be made that some of the worst despots in the world were created by this game between the United States, Russia, and China. But given the circumstances of the Cold War, what choices did we have? Should we have allowed the Soviets free rein to steer third world governments toward Marxist/Leninism or should we have tried to balance their influence in an attempt to promote a democracy.

Maybe there should have been more strings attached.

"You want our help you gotsta play by our rules."

But how is dictating democracy any better than dictating socialism?

I freely admit that we interfered with the internal politics of foreign nations. The Soviets were intent on spreading Marxist/Leninism in the Western Hemispere because that is where "we" were. Is it right to allow a minority force to dictate to an entire population what form their government should take? To not interfere is to say "you are on your own".

Was that the right choice in Cambodia? Should that have been our choice in Yugoslavia? I mean there was no reason for us to be there other than the fact that people were getting killed. As it was, the whole "intervention" was mismanaged by the UN anyway. What's the point in helping anybody but ourselves?

I DO believe that a democratic republic is the best form of government.

I DO believe that capitalism is the most humane economy.

Marx taught that socialism was the logical endpoint and that capitalism was a stepping stone to that "perfect" society. Yet the people who have lived under socialism, as a whole, are worse off than those who live under capitalism. But with Republicanism/Democracy & Capitalism comes freedom. And it is difficult to DICTATE to people when YOU are free.

I don't pretend that geopolitics is easy. If I was king of the world I would give everybody the same freedoms we have here and then retire. But that will never happen. We won our freedom through war. It cost us dearly and not everybody in the colonies wanted it. But I believe it was worth the cost. You can't "give" somebody freedom that is not yours to give. But you can help them take it. Iraq has begun to close their hand around the torch of freedom. What they do with it can't be dictated, else they won't truly be free.

I'm NOT saying we have the RIGHT to play chess with all the other peoples in the world. I AM ASKING if the game is being played anyway, do we not have the obligation to at least make a few moves here and there? It's that, or tip over the King because all the white pieces are captured anyway. (Did you like how I made "us" the "white" pieces and hence the "good" pieces? I thought you might)

The Palestinian Question

This post was originally going to be part of a much larger post on "Middle East Peace", however, due to some comments on Dr. Sanity's blog here and some encouraging comments that followed, I decided to pull my thoughts out and address more directly the Palestinian Question.

The first, and possibly the most important thing to know is that Palestine has NEVER existed as a nation.

The Palestinian ethnic group has ALWAYS been an occupied people. They have never "governed" their own land at any time in their entire history. Someone else has ALWAYS been in charge. The brief history of the control of Palestine with the years of conquest is as follows:

Canaanites - ca. 3000 BC
Israelites - ca. 1250 BC
Assyrians - 721 BC
Babylonians - 586 BC
Persians - 539 BC
Greeks - 333 BC
Ptolemies (Egypt) & Seleucids (Syria) - 323 BC
Ptolemies (Egypt) & Maccabees - 165 BC
Rome - 63 BC
Byzantines - 330 AD
Omar ibn al-Khattaab - 638 AD
Umayyad chaliphs (Damascus) - 661 AD
'Abbasid caliphs (Baghdad) - 750 AD
Fatimids (Egypt) - 969 AD
Saljuqs (Isfahan) - 1071 AD
Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Crusaders) - 1099 AD
Salah al-Diin al-Ayyoubi (Kurdistan/Cairo) - 1187 AD
Mamluks (Cairo) - 1260 AD
Ottomans (Istanbul) - 1516 AD
Moh'd Ali Pasha (Egypt) - 1832 AD
Ottomans (Istanbul) - 1840 AD
British - 1918 AD

Recent history contains these important events:

In 1919 the League of Nations transferred control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire to the United Kingdom as a mandate. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, became the Arab state of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as "Palestine" under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

In 1937, following the Great Arab Revolt, the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission was rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership, but accepted tentatively by Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion. This was notable, as Ben-Gurion showed a willingness to essentially accept about 1/3 of the land that would ultimately be won by Israel in the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War.

In 1947, following increasing levels of violence by militant groups, alongside unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. Fulfillment of the 1947 UN Partition Plan would have divided the mandated territory into two states, Jewish and Arab, giving about half the land area to each state. Under this plan, Jerusalem was intended to be an international region under UN administration to avoid conflict over its status. Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the United Nations General Assembly, the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected the plan to create the as-yet-unnamed Jewish state and launched a guerilla war.

On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed.

Promising to annihilate the new Jewish state (though their actual motivation was more complex as we will discuss later), the armies of six Arab nations attacked the fledgling state. Over the next 15 months Israel captured an additional 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river and annexed it to the new state. Jordan captured about 21% of the Mandate territory (which became known as the West Bank). The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt and came under its control.

Additionally, the war created about 750,000 refugees. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (these were eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands, and to repatriate 100,000 refugees (about 15% of those who had fled). This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway. The Arabs rejected this compromise, at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected.

In the face of this impasse, Israel didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return and, with the exception of Transjordan, the host countries where they ended up did not grant them or their descendants citizenship. About 900,000 Jews either were expelled from or voluntarily left their Arab homelands in the Middle East and North Africa. Roughly two thirds of these went to Israel.

During the Six Day War (1967 AD) Israel conquered the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Sinai has since been returned to Egypt in a phased withdrawal but the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are still occupied. The war created a new wave of 200,000 to 300,000 refugees. These refugees have also not been allowed to return nor granted citizenship in their host countries.

And this brings us to one of the interesting things about the Palestinian question. None of the Arab countries wants Palestinians in their country. Why? Because they cause trouble no matter where they live. To wit:

Jordanian policy since 1949 had been to avoid border incidents and terrorism that would generate Israeli reprisals. Al Fatah and the PLO, however, carried out raids and sabotage against Israel without clearance from either the United Arab Command or Jordan. These attacks, although planned in Syria, most often were launched into Israel by infiltration through Lebanon or Jordan. Israeli reprisals against selected West Bank targets became harsher and more frequent from May 1965 onward. Meanwhile, Syrian propaganda against Hussein became increasingly strident. In July 1966, when Hussein severed official endorsement and support for the PLO, both that organization and the Syrian government turned against him. In reprisal for the terrorist attacks by the fedayeen (Palestinian guerrillas), in November Israel assaulted the West Bank village of As Samu. Israel was censured by the UN, but public rioting against the Jordanian government broke out among the inhabitants of the West Bank. The levels of rioting exceeded any previous experience. King Hussein had little choice but the use of the army to restore public order.

What I want to know is this:

1. Who should "own" Israel?
2. If you say the Palestinians, why?
3. Who bears more of the responsiblity for the current plight of the Palestinians, Israel or the Arabs?

Less than half of the Palestinian population even lives in Palestine. 46% of the Palestinian population is registered as "refugees" going all the way back to 1948 and their decendants. Most of the refugees are refugees following acts of agression by Arab countries.

But what does it mean to be Palestinian?

Until the 19th century, most modern Arab national groups, including Palestine, had no distinct national identities per se. There were well-known regions including Palestine, but there was no sense that a person should owe a particular loyalty to his region rather than to his religion or ethnic group, or in the case of a Bedouin his tribe. However, starting in the 19th century, the European concept of nationalism crept in.

The idea of a specifically Palestinian state, however, was at first rejected by most Palestinians; the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (Jerusalem, 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."

Of course, with the French conquest of Syria in 1920, the Palestinians no longer viewed things in the same light. By 1937, only one of the many Arab political parties in Palestine (the Istiqlal party) promoted political absorption into a greater Arab nation as its main agenda.

Zuhair Mohsen, head of the Military Department of the PLO, said in an interview with the Dutch daily Trouw in March 1977: "There is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. It is for political reasons only that we carefully emphasize our Palestinian identity, because it is in the national interest of the Arabs to encourage the existence of Palestinians against Zionism, the establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity... For tactical reasons, Jordan, which has defined borders, cannot claim Haifa or Jaffa; but a Palestinian can claim Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem."

Sounds pretty clear to me.

As to the contention that Palestine is "occupied"... it's been "occupied" for over 3000 years. You'd think they were used to it by now.