Working and Reading

It's hard. Boo and hoo, of course, but it is. I actually have a chance to read something today and am going to start with the Sam Harris book.


I told my friend about this book, and she said, "Letters to a Christian Nation? There's a problem right there." It is interesting to note that he has titled what is meant to be a book in argument (or continuation of argument) for secularization so. I am hoping it will prove to be a tongue in cheek excersize on his part, though, after The End Of Faith, which purported to be a plea for rational thought, my hopes are slim. We'll see.

This brings up some thoughts, though- how open a mind should a person keep, in the face of the obvious? Carl Sagan said that keeping an open mind is good, but not so open that your brains fall out.

---more later.

Later:

New Books

My new list of books I'll be reading soon-
The End- Lemony Snicket
Letter to a Christian Nation- Sam Harris


I will also be re-reading The Walter Mosley book, too.

Holy Crap- New posts coming soon.

So, as is my way, I got very busy, forgot my password and did not post for a long time, BUT- I have been....reading. "What?" you may ask- and you may. A lot, I will answer. Tune in possibly tomorrow for more.....

Well, maybe not tomorrow, as the new Lemony Snicket is coming out and I have all 12 previous books in first editions and...yes, I am like that. Soooory- here's a cute cop to mollify you:

Colbert in brief

Interesting article at WSWS today on the Stephen Colbert speech at the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner.


Also interesting is that Youtube, suddenly concerned about "copyright infringement" has taken the Colbert portion of the CSPAN coverage of the diner down. They have left Colbert Report clips and CSPAN clips (including the unfunny "comedy" routine of Bush himself and a Faux-Bush) up. The dinner took place on April 29. Today is May 5. That's some fast deletion. It's also "refusing to load" from other sources.

The Comedian Dissapears?

Old Fish, New Fish

There is an article at WSWS about the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossils. I am saddened, though not surprised, given the current anti-scientific bent in the States, that this has not recieved more coverage.

What often baffles me is the Creationists' self-denial of the Wonder involved in scientific discovery. For me, and many like me, I am hoping, the Wonder that is based on the real is so much better than the Wonder which comes with the denial of further possible discovery. Knowing a little, and that there is so much more to be known, and which is knowable, is very exciting.

Obviously there are many differences in Scientific Knowledge and Religious Knowledge. It is often the case that religious study goes from pre-drawn conclusions and gathers in only the evidence which would support the views held, while rejecting anything which runs contrary as being the Devil's Work, or Heresy (it was not until the 1990's that the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo).

(This is from quite some time ago. While I am working on Why Darwin Matters, I thought it might be slightly relevent.)

Identity Politics. Pre-reading qualms

The Book is Life Out of Context by Walter Mosley- which I have finally found (it was under another book).

The qualm-provoker is this, from the back cover:

..."proposing that African-Americans have to break their historic ties with the Democratic Party and form a party of their own."

Allow me to set all my preconcieved notions and ideas about Mosley down in print here, or many of them, anyway. I've read a number of his books, fiction and non-, and have found that there is an overwhelming amount of thought displayed within. He's not only thinking, but able to beautifully (yes, beautifully) communicate. From his mysteries (most famously the Easy Rawlins series) and science-fiction (I highly highly recommend Futureland) to the wonderful non-fiction essay of Workin' on the Chain Gang, he knows what to do with a word. He is one of my favourite living writers, let's just put that out there right this minute.

I remember first reading an Easy Rawlins mystery- the mystery itself is almost inconsequential, really, when one considers the chartacter of Easy. A World War II vet, Rawlins is black in America in the suceeding decades. Living in LA, but born and raised in New Orleans, Rawlins is unable to escape the conflict between the ideals of America- the promises of equality- and the reality of racism and poverty. What struck me most was the integrity of the man, and of the writing behind him. It's like a calm before the storm conversation. Zer gut.

My concern is that Mosley might let the colour issues blind him to the more unifying issue of economic disparity. There can be no denying that race has been used (be it colour-based designations or simply "they are from there, we are from here" ones) throughout the ages as a dividing factor by the powers that be. I do not think he is blind to the suffering of people just because they fall out of his hue zone, as it were- that this is not the case is reflected in much of his fiction writing- but that the race issue might be blinding him to a broader solution.

I am hoping that my fears will be allayed. I'll be reading this one this week.

Unchained melodies which sometimes incorporate chains melodically

Einsturzende Neubauten in one form or another has been producing music of one sort or another for over 25 years now. Industrial is as close a description as I can provide- though with the caveat that it is only called this because jackhamers, air compressors and metal bits (some big, some small) are included in the arsenal of instruments.

Headed by Blixa Bargeld, this mostly-German group has produced hundreds of songs ranging from the earsplitting to the lullabic. Over the past few years, they have abandoned the usual record-contract route (having been screwed multiple times by various labels) and taken to the net. Their last three albums have been produced with money raised by selling subscriptions to their listeners. They have also financed a small, and perhaps final, US tour.

It seems, in talking to Mr Bargeld backstage after their Washington, DC show in 2004, that they are encountering increasing financial barriers to touring in the States. Large cuts are taken by the venues, and often the band will lose money even on a sold-out house, if they do not sell enough merchandise during the show. On that tour, they also had to pay a fee to clear channel in order to use the technology which enabled them to sell cds of the shows to the audience members at the show.

Though they maintain a steadfastly close-mouthed on exactly where their political allegiances lie, Blixa was heard to remark, in reference to the possibility of this being their final tour, "This is the problem with capitalism." Most of their supporters seem to have leftish leanings of various sorts, and it is argued that one song, Sabrina, alludes to a wish for anarchy (the colours of the German flag are dismissed one by one until only black remains as the colour Blixa's voice wishes "would be your colour").

I made a number of attempts to get an interview with Herr Bargeld on his recent solo rede/speke tour. I was unsuccesful, and wonder if the prospect of being interviewed for a socialist publication was the reason. Oddly, I am not inclined to hold it against him if this is the case, given the band's dedication to their music and maintaining their artistic freedom.

The method they have chosen is an unusual one, in that they both retain the right to mix and produce as they see fit (and in their own time, at that; it can take years for the records to reach the supporters) and allow the supporters to see and hear works in progress and give opinions and suggestions. The band checks in on the forum from time to time, yet is not a slave to it- there are very few times when advance warning is given as to when they will be online.



Their latest production- released to supporters only- is Grundstuek, which uses everything from television noise, feedback and the ubiquitous springs to dropped objects and voices either solo or en masse. From the openings of Good Morning, in which a teacher's voice (in English) and that of her class are heard and then give way to the bass and bass spring and Blixa (in German), to the close of Tagelange Weisse, with its eerily comforting digitalness, the whole work is one of unity not often heard. Their earlier works were heavy on the clang, and this still shows through on a number of tracks, but they have, over these twenty-odd years, mellowed a bit as well. Unlike many acts of equal or longer duration, they have not lost the excitement at creation- rather, they have learned to use many voices, loud and soft, to greater effect than the sustained and desperately juvenile screeches and subject matters of a Rolling Stones or an Arrowsmith.

To say they have re-invented themselves would be inaccurate, as they are still, despite the changes in lineup, Einsturzende Neubauten. They differ only in that they have grown and learned, they have not gotten stuck- they have retained the freedom to use sound. They are unconstrained.

Family life, women and children and men

From the Old Family to the New is another essay in the Problems Of Everyday Life. This one was originaly published July 13, 1923 in Pravda. Eighty-three years on, we still wrestle with these issues.

Isolated excerpts- in order of appearance:
-Domestic life is more conservative than economic, and one of the reasons is that it is still less conscious than the latter. In politics and economics the working class acts as a whole and pushes on to the front rank its vanguard, the Communist Party, accomplishing through its medium the historic aims of the proletariat. In domestic life the working class is split into cells constituted by families. The change of political regime, the change even of the economic order of the state--the passing of the factories and mills into the hands of the workers--all this has certainly had some influence on family conditions, but only indirectly and externally, and without touching on the forms of domestic traditions inherited from the past.

A radical reform of the family and, more generally, of the whole order of domestic life requires a great conscious effort on the part of the whole mass of the working class, and presumes the existence in the class itself of a powerful molecular force of inner desire for culture and progress. A deep-going plough is needed to turn up heavy clods of soil. To institute the political equality of men and women in the Soviet state was one problem and the simplest. A much more difficult one was the next--that of instituting the industrial equality of men and women workers in the factories, the mills, and the trade unions, and of doing it in such a way that the men should not put the women to disadvantage. But to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an infinitely more arduous problem. All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics. As long as woman is chained to her housework, the care of the family, the cooking and sewing, all her chances of participation in social and political life are cut down in the extreme.--

-In regard to family relations and forms of individual life in general, there must also be an inevitable period of disintegration of things as they were, of the traditions, inherited from the past, which had not passed under the control of thought. But in this domain of domestic life the period of criticism and destruction begins later, lasts very long, and assumes morbid and painful forms, which, however, are complex and not always perceptible to superficial observation. These progressive landmarks of critical change in state conditions, in economics and life in general, ought to be very clearly defined to prevent our getting alarmed by the phenomena we observed. We must learn to judge them in their right light, to understand their proper place in the development of the working class, and consciously to direct the new conditions towards socialist forms of life.

The warning is a necessary one, as we already hear voices expressing alarm. At the conference of the Moscow party propagandists some comrades spoke with great and natural anxiety of the ease with which old family ties are broken for the sake of new ones as fleeting as the old. The victims in all cases are the mother and children. On the other hand, who in our midst has not heard in private conversations complaints, not to say lamentations, about the "collapse" of morality among Soviet youth, in particular among Young Communists? Not everything in these complaints is exaggeration--there is also truth in them. We certainly must and will fight the dark sides of this truth--this being a fight for higher culture and the ascent of human personality. But in order to begin our work, to tackle the ABC of the problem without reactionary moralizing or sentimental downheartedness, we must first make sure of the facts and begin to see clearly what is actually happening.--

It is unfortunate that we are not living in a state of communism- ie, shared working in the domestic sphere. Too often, the majority- still- of the housework and child-rearing does fall to the woman. I am not saying that this is unimportant work- but it is work which must be shouldered by all parties involved. If a household breaks up, it is the "mother and children" which are most at risk of sinking into poverty.

Too often, due to cruel economic realities, Beth Shulman's statement in "The Betrayal of Work" that the worst thing which can happen to a woman is to get pregnant is proven. She notes that this is the quickest way into poverty. I know from personal experience that this is so.

Much is at stake when we speak of the relations between men and women. (Husband and Wife aside, down to brass tacks here.) Women still find themselves subject to the whims of biology- but this need not be so; beyond the obvious bearing of children, the abilities of men and women are equal in potential. It is in the social structure of home and worklife where we encounter the makings of inequality.

To reconstruct family life- in whatever configuration you choose- it is imperative that responsibility for houseworkk and the care of children be fully shared. The division of labour is one thing- yes, shared chores make for a lighter load on the women, they also make for a better view of what is involved in domestic life. So much work goes un-noticed, let alone misunderstood. It is a matter of personal responsibility and respect- how banal to have to say "Those shirts don't fold themselves". But it is just such mundane things which make up every day life. It is the preocupation with such things which leaves little time for revolutionary activity or education. It also leads to the consideration of the housewife as just that and nothing more. The mind of the woman is discounted, as "what would someone who only keeps house or cares for kids know"?

Quite a bit about inequality, as it turns out. Especially if both parties also work outside the home.

As for children and the care thereof, we see today vast numbers of single-parent homes. These homes are much more likely to experience poverty and hunger. The children are often left in situations where inadaquite care is taken of them or they are completely unattended. They are left, at too young an age, to fend for themselves. Add to this issues of abuse and the picture becomes grim indeed. The lack of willingness on the part of the (most often) fathers to properly care for their children is appalling.

It does not lead to revolutionary thought- it does lead to anger in many cases, and often enough to individual acts of reactionary violence or association with questionable groups (Republicans, Nation of Islam), which pretend to offer what is missing.

"The easiest problem was that of assuming power." Writes Trotsky in this same essay. These are surprising words, I think, to many people. It seems to be the view of many to whom I speak that there is a sort of magical formula- get power away from the bad guys and we live happily ever after. I have heard this in many forms- from Democrats, from Anarchists, even from some Socialists.

This is only the begining, though! Changing the manner of governance will only solve some of the problems- one must change the very basic structures of everyday life on the way to true equality.

So, what to do? It is not exciting to think about- but it must be accepted that after the initial revolution, there is the daily life. How should it be lived? Obviously, equality must be integrated into the most mundane of things even down to the level of the very basic- One person washes, another person dries the dishes. The dishes get done.

Rudeness part 3- new aristocracy part one

----We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--

In the States we have a new sort of aristocracy, based, much as the old aristicracy, on the assets, but less so on the ancestry.

There is almost the celebration of the rudeness of the rich- an expectation on both their part and the part of the "rude-ee" that it is a right. After all, this millionaire (more often billionaire now) must have worked hard to gain this amount of money. In respect to that hard work, we grant a pass to the cruelty- perhaps we will gain by it somehow.

When we do not gain by it, the blame is placed on us- we didn't try hard enough to please. What is left unconsidered in this deference is that there is much more likely a sweatshop, a factory or an office full of people who worked very hard to get this person rich.

The addage that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation is interesting to consider in that 99% of the profits seem to rise to the top 1%. What is not so often considered is that a big idea is only so big if the manpower is not given to put it into effect. The skills of architects amount to pretty pictures if the skills of construction workers are not engaged. In the end, though, the architect is celebrated, while the construction worker is off working.

In light of this, it's also interesting to note that the rudeness of the aristocrat is expected and relished ("he *talked* to me!"), while any slip by the worker will bring warnings to "know your place", though not always in those terms. This is part of why it is so very difficult to uproot. Until we stop accepting rudeness from any quarter, we can expect it from every quarter.

Though, in the States, we are given the illusion that "all men are created equal", we have not yet internalised it, if I may use a psychological term, and demanded what that would imply- that an equal opportunity should follow to become the best that we can, and that we all possess equal dignity and to be accorded equal respect.

We are given the idea, through films and books and news stories, that anyone can rise to the ranks of the billionaire- if we do not, it is our own fault. Therefore, those who do must be deferred to. They are heroes. They are worthy of respect, when we, so poor, so lowly, what are we?

The story we are not given daily is that behind those billionaires stand those sweatshops, those factories and offices wherein people work for a pittance, are subjected to inhumane treatment and threatened with the loss of what little they have if they dare to complain. They go home to find, spread accross the pages of the newspapers, or blaring from the television, more stories about the rich and famous behaving very badly and reaping rewards for it.

Too tired to protest, they fall into bed and dream about one day winning the respect they deserve.

New Orleans- because I also read newspapers

The best and the worst.

The best are the people - ones I know and many whom I do not- who go there to help dig people's houses (and sometimes people) out. They are the ones who keep me from just giving up entirely on the idea that humanity is absolutely doomed. And they are normal, and they are like you and me, except that they do these things which are amazing.

The worst are the ones who have the means but not the will- or who have the means and use their will to keep things from getting done. They make me wish there was a hell. That's not very charitable, I know, but neither are they. I am talking about people who have private helicopters and used them during Katrina not to pluck people off the roofs, but to import their own private armies to patroll their neighbourhoods. They are the people who were vacationing and claimed to have no warning and no news of the situation until three days into the hell that these people lived through- or died in.
No names, I think we all know of whom I speak.


from the article:
***"We never reached out to anyone to tell our story, because there's no ending to our story," said Wanda Jackson, 40, whose family is still waiting for word of her 6-year-old nephew, swept away by floodwaters as his mother clung to his 3-year-old brother. "Because we haven't found our deceased. Being honest with you, in my opinion, they forgot about us."

She continued, "They did not build nothing on 9/11 until they were sure that the damn dust was not human dust; so how you go on and build things in our city?"

In October and November, the special operations team of the New Orleans Fire Department searched the Lower Ninth Ward for remains until they ran out of overtime money.

Half a dozen officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency rebuffed requests to pay the bill, said Chief Steve Glynn, the team commander. When reporters inquired, FEMA officials said the required paperwork had not been filed.****
(NYT april 11)

my hands just sit on the keyboard at this point- what can be said that has not already been said? yet it is so very important not to let the conversation die out. How can these people be forgotten? How is it that they are so callously brushed aside? I well remember 9/11- and who could forget, with the constant intonation of "everything changed on 9/11" and the flags flags flags? Two big buildings go down and we are Standing United or the Terrorists Win.

A region is deluged, a city destroyed and it is unknown how many are dead, and we are asked to turn away as the deadlines for hotel accomodations pass, as the leaders drag along and offer excuses about paperwork not being filed and funds being limited and all the while we are asked to look away.

Do not think about this- do not talk about this- do not note that those who suffered most and continue to suffer most are those who were suffering in dire poverty to begin with. They must have somehow brought it upon themselves- they should have just left- never mind that they had no means to go- no money for fares, no cars. Never mind that they've been in poverty for generations while others sit on the high ground, with their guards in place- imported at great cost.

More than conversation- it is imperative that we not let actions die out.

Probs Pt 2- More rudeness, I tell you!

The second sort of rudeness is that of the Revolutionary.

In my expereince in DC I came accross many politicians and political types (no, really!). One thing which I noticed accross the spectrum was that, after a certain level of hierarchy had been reached, a certain amount of politeness fell away. The result was that the person would become unapproachable. It also worked in the ostensibly less-heirerchical groups- once someone had published or organized a certain number of artcles or actions, they became likewise unapproachable and, dare I say, a bit vain and dismissive in their attitude.

The matter of unapproachability is important in that, to create a revolution, we cannot act as exhalted individuals- there is not a monoply, as they say, on good ideas. There is also a great deal which can be learned from unexpected- and previously untapped- sources. If you shut yourself off from people- to say nothing of The People- how can you fight for and with them?

As for actual rudeness or dismissiveness toward people- to act in such a manner is to disrespect the work and value of the people. This is not way for a participant- never mind a leader!- to behave.

We are workers. No matter what we have published, what we have done, how many signs we might have carried, above all, we are workers. To discount the experiences of fellow workers, their insights into the ills of society and their willingness to participate in the revolution, is counter-revolutionary at its core. To treat any fellow worker- no matter how seemingly unenlightened- with anything other than respect begs the question of our fitness as revolutionaries.

Yes, we'd prefer that all workers were advanced. That would make our jobs easier- but this is not the case. Those who can be reached will not be persuaded by condescension- this is what they can expect at the hands of the elites- this is never what should be received from a revolutionary.

I am not saying to pretend to be nice- no. If someone attacks, you are right to defend yourself. But if someone approaches with what seems, perhaps, to be a "stupid question", to treat them as if they should already know what they now wish to have explained will never win them to the side of revolution. It will, though, reinforce the elite's claim of leftists as being elitists. Again with the irony. Again, too, with the self-defeating behaviour. If, on the other hand, you treat the question with the same weight with which it is asked, you will open the way to learning- both for you and for the person with the question.

If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.

Halfway through Problems of Everyday Life pt 1- ignorance

This is a series of editorials and speeches given by Trotsky in the years following the Revolution of October 1917. This volume (Monad press, 1973, third edition, 1979) incorporates the book *Problems of Life*. Covered within are areas ranging from habit (including spitting, family and gender roles) to hard science and the teaching thereof.

Many people ask what a post-revolutionary world or society would be like- the assumptions today are fairly dystopic, with anything from re-education camps to flat out enslavement and annialation prophesied as excuses to avert revolution. To be sure, there would be a period of comparative chaos, but this is where the true test of a revolution lies. Post revolution (as act of overthrow) there is the building of society anew. There are shards of the old society which must be thrown off still- habits die harder than governments.

In the essay which originally appeared in Pravda on April 4, 1923, Civility and Politeness as a Necessary Lubricant in Daily Relations, we find nothing to which even Miss Manners could raise an objection. Trotsky takes on the manner in which the state addresses the people, how the population is treated. He also tackles forms of rudeness-

--But our rudeness itself is not homogeneous. There is the simple rudeness of peasant origin, which is unattractive, certainly, but not degrading. It becomes unbearable and objectively reactionary only when our young novelists boast of it as of some extremely 'artistic' acquisition. The foremost elements of the workers regard such false simplicity with instinctive hostility, for they justly see in the coarseness of speech and conduct a mark of the old slavery, and aspire to acquire a cultured speech with its inner discipline. But this is beside the point...

Side by side with this simple kind, the habitual passive rudeness of the peasant, we have another, a special kind- the revolutionary- a rudeness of the leaders, due to impatience, to an over-ardent desire to better things, to the irritation caused by our indifference, to a creditable nervous tension. This rudeness, too, if taken by itself, is, of course, not attractive, and we dissociate ourselves from it; but at bottom, it is often nourished at the same revolutionary moral fount, which, on more than one occasion in these years, hs been able to move mountains. In this case what must be changed is not the substance, which is on the whole healthy, creative and progressive, but the distorted form...

We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--

I will stop there, though Trotsky did not, as he goes on to discuss red tape and the composition of and fight against it.

Let's talk about rudeness and its uses for a moment, though. As he points out, there are several kinds of rudeness, that of ignorance and the habit of being oppressed, which serves to keep the illiterate and uncultured in 'their place'; that of the revolutionist, who in their drive to accomplish things, lets civility slip- which is, as noted by T, someting which needs changing; and that of the aristocrat, which is born of a sense of entitlement and which is used as a weapon to keep others at a distance.

On the first kind- we do see this even today, of course. "Street cred" is something which is fought for (often literally), and to attempt to improve one's mind is often derided as "being all bougzhie", or "acting uppity". The getting of good grades in certain circles is seen as somehow selling out (it has been brought up most recently as a problem in African-American circles, but it is certainly not limited to this area. If I may lodge in your head a very bad song from the 1980's- Billy Joel asks "Should I try to be a straight-A student?", and answers by way of choral arrangement that, "If you are, then you think too much").

The stereotype of the "egghead" serves a role in society, whether the nerds get their revenge or not. Those who think are seen as hopelessly sexless, ill-socialized, and often badly dressed. Why? Whom does it serve to keep people from thinking- and thinking critically at that? The answer is pretty obvious- a stupid and illiterate population is easier to fool, and easier to oppress. Let us not forget that there were laws against teaching blacks to read in the United States. Their oppression was an economic imperative.

Today educationall funding is being cut accross great swaths of the country- the poor, who attend public schools, are often sent on ahead whether they have achieved literacy or not. The children of the elite are given tutoring in areas which are deemed important for future success. This, combined with a misguided and self-defeating denigrating of "thinking too much" serves only to perpetuate the cycle of oppression.

While it can certainly be argued that the public schools will teach what the government approves, it must also be noted that without the very basic tools of literacy (both verbal and numerical), there is no hope whatever of advancement either as a knowledgable participant in revolution or within the capitalist system. So it is as simple as this: The capitalist system benefits from the ignorance and subsequent "marking by uncouth manners" (if you will) that is entailed.

Other entities benefit, too, from such things. There are movements which will gladly prey on the ill-informed (religious ones spring to mind immediately, though they are by far not alone).

The pressure from within to not "act all boughzie" is particularly insidious. Wearing ignorance as a badge of valour plays directly into the hands of "the man" who is so oppressive. The defining of oneself as "not playing that game", no matter how it is put, precludes oneself from freedom. KNOWLEDGE is power, not ignorance.

The idea, closely connected with this, that having a modicum of civility and respect for your fellow human beings is also "acting boughzie" or otherwise playing into the hands of "the man" and therefore that to treat people with rudeness is necessary to maintain credibility within one's social circle is not only alienating, but also actually does play into the hands of the powers that be. If you cannot have a calm, straightforward and informed discussion with someone, you cannot foment revolution.

Do not mistake wanton violence and rioting with revolution- a conflation which is often made both by the (rightfully) extreemly angry and the quasi-leftish trust funded youth at university- revolution is a creative action. Though some windows might get broken along the way, this is not the goal- the goal is to build a better society which is designed for the good of the workers, not to leave everything in rubble. Knocking down is only half the way there. To stop amidst the shattered remains of the buildings of commerce and say "we have defeated them" is to allow the contracters to come in, rebuild with stronger materials and crack down on the freedoms of expression.

To knock down properly, one needs the plans for what is to be built either from the remains of the materials or from the new. In order to know what needs knocking down and what can be made- what should be made- in its stead, you need to have a solid revolutionary theory in place. In order to get that solidity, you need to be able to examine the options as they are- not just as you are told they are. You need not only literacy to examine the words, you need the critical thinking skills to place those words in the context of the actions taken by the speakers (do they match, the words and the actions?), and you need a knowledge of history and its driving forces.

Capitalism relies on a certain amount of ignorance- the less people know of their history, of the rights fought for and won, the less capitalism has to cover up. The less perspective people have, the more often we will hear phrases justifying current conditions with a skewed comparrisson to past ones- "You think you have it bad because your pension is being cut, well, at least you aren't a twelve year old factory worker, so you really have no complaint". That we had to fight so hard to get twelve-year olds out of the factories in the States and Europe is left out of the equation- had they their way, twelve year olds would be back in the factories in more places. Certainly they'd rather they had them there than possibly learning to read in the schools.

It would be a whole lot easier, say the elites, if people "Knew their place". Ironically, we hear much the same thing in the hurling of accusations of "acting boughzie" of the oppressed. In keeping hold of the traditions of crudeness and illiteracy, we keep tight hold of our chains and make it unnecessary for the elites to strangle us since we do such a good job of it ourselves.

Here's the thing...

Again with Harris. Recently (Feb 19) the NYT Book Review issued a ridiculous review of Daniel Dennett's new book. I refer you to This review of the review.

One of the things which came up in a conversation with a friend about this was the stark contrast between the reception of Harriss' book (which won the 2005 PEN award for nonfiction) and the attempted burial of Dennett's book. Now, as a once and possibly future bookseller I can tell you that the NYT Book Review holds a great amount of sway not just with the reading public, but with book orderers as well. A bad review by them can serve to have the print run of a book cut in half, can affect the possibilities of paperback versions coming out, and can decrease dramatically the amount of copies ordered by bookstores. A controversial book with such a review will almost certainly preclude its showing up on the shelves of some major chains (both book store chains and Target/WalMart sorts).

That the NYT chose to forgo having its religion or science editor review the book and bring in instead a political writer from a neo-con publication speaks volumes about the true intentions. Rather than being weighed on its real merits, Dennett's sugestion to find out why people continue to believe things which have been repeatedly proven untrue (which could have all kinds of practical applications, from helping abuse victims to break the cycle to having religions come under stiffer scrutiny) is being dismissed by the neo con reviewer. To whose benefit? The answer is obvious: to the benefit of the ruling classes.

Do not look, they say, at the Facts. It has ever been thus. Rely instead on a better place after death. This is very handy in diffusing any attempts at improvement for this life- the one which we have proof exists.

Anyhoo. I am dangerously close to a page-by-page review of Harriss' book. So close that I have given my copy away for now (I cannot afford another one- the benefit of poverty).

In lieu of this, I am continuing for the moment with the Laura Ingalls Wilder and Trotsky's Problems of Everyday Life.

On Problems:
This is an interesting series of articles, editorials really, written by Trotsky in the early 1920's, during the initial years of building a socialist society. His eye for the details of everyday life was quite sharp. Over the next couple of days I will tackle a few of the major areas- including education, domestic living (including the role of women), and general behaviour.

West From Home- L Ingalls Wilder

In 1915, Laura Ingalls Wilder took a series of trains west from Missouri to San Francisco, where her daughter, Rose, was living with her husband. This was the year of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, about which many of Laura's letters home to her husband revolve.

It seems things were still difficult, financially speaking, and Laura's visit was also a sort of exploratory thing to see if she and Almonzo should move to the Bay Area (not then known as such). She visited San Francisco, San Jose and even Mill Valley in search of information on the cost of farming. Even then, the higher prices commanded for chickens and eggs (their main business in MO) is noted, as is also the difficulty in finding out the price of grain to feed the birds.

Before she sets out, her daughter writes to Laura: "...It will be foggy and dusty and windy and gray and you will not like San Francisco while you are here, and then when you go away you will always want to come back. Tis ever thus." Tis, indeed. I grew up in this city, and can vouch for the above statement.

It was interesting to read about places I recognized, even almost 100 years later. It was also interesting to read about the high rents- even then- in the foggy place. Also of note is the fact that, in order to persuade her to come, Rose offered to pay her mom for the time she'd be missing at the farm so there wouldn't be a burden imposed.

It was also during WW1 when Laura visited- she writes of this, of the armaments at the head of the Golden Gate, and of ships in the Bay and the possibilities of which ones will be sunk by German boats once they leave the area. She sees a number of films, including footage of the German capture of Przemys.

Truly it is an interesting time- a turning point in history. This book offers a glimpse into what the 'person on the street' saw. Laura's voice is fresh and her observations are sharp. She is one of the least judgemental writers I have seen- plain-spoken but not without point.



On her way out, she meets many people on the trains. One couple, a man who used to be a Bryan Democrat, but who is turning Socialist, and his wife who votes. (Women in Ogden had the vote by 1915. Utah may not be totaly lost, eh?) Bryan, most 'famous' for his part in the Scopes Monkey Trial, was before this, a populist candidate for President (there is, in North Miami Beach, an elementary school named for him which I attended for two years in first and fifth grades). Apparently, the man Laura met had woken up to the truth of Capitalism's failures and was switching over. It's impossible to say for certain, though, as he is afforded only the one sentence.

Utah, surprisingly enough, given its present political makeup, has a long and somewhat bloody labour history. More on this in part two....

Redirecting you to this:

I am taken up with reading and editing at present. I am also taken up with being extremely angry. Here is an example of why- I give you a very usefull bit of reading:

Annotated Life

Life- past and present. Very brief

The quandry arising from the common universal ignorance of what to do with this soul, once its existence had been accepted, after the death of the body, and not religious desire for consolation, led in a general way to the tedious notion of personal immortality.- Engles- Ludwig Fueuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosphy (pt 2-Materialism)

It is tedious. It's also dangerous and distracting. Not only does it take the focus off of what is happening *now*, it opens the door to promises which never need to be delivered. Why work for a betterment of here and now if the next world will be perfect without any effort- except that which is demanded by priests? Good excuse to maintain the status quo.

What I wish I'd known before- meandering thoughts about mom

Growing up as I did in a lackadaisicaly Left household, I was exposed to a number of ideas which I wish had been presented in a form other than the glancing conversational. By the time I was three, I was familiar with boycotting, overthrowing and Nixon-as-liar. I knew a few names (Debbs, Teamster, Mao (oy!), Lenin and Marx.) My mother was a reformist, member of the SDS, and seller of the Little Red Book (did she ever read it? I don't know for sure) to raise funds (irony o'irony).

By the time I was 6, I knew first hand that I did not like the FBI. My uncle, you see, had been involved with a group which had done a bombing (late 60's) of a power supply plant or something. No one was injured, but the Wisconsin police were cracking down and my uncle, being still underage, was - though not actually present at the bombing, nor actually involved in the action- fingered by the group who figured that he'd get off easy and that their sentences would be reduced for naming the name. Nice.

Well, what actually happened was that they decided to prosecute him as an adult, so he went on the run. For years we didn't know where he was. The FBI followed us from state to state, followed my mother to work, and likely have a couple of good photos of me at montessori school. I vaguely remember biting an officer who came to the house.

All of this, combined with our cutting our Mexican Vacation short when Allende fell, scared my mom out of being very vocal about politics other than the boycotting (Nestle in particular, and Libby's). She will talk about who she hates in politics, but it has devolved into a weird belief that the Democrats offer any alternative, and that there is an "evil" in the White House. I don't think living in New Age Marin helped any of us, but she has taken a lot of the claptrap to heart. I still love her.

What this all adds up to is this for me: Years of intellectual wandering. I knew what "seemed right", and I knew how to spot a blatant lie. It's a start, to be sure. But what I wish I'd had was a grounding in Marx and Trotsky. I wish that boxes and boxes of books had not been left behind when we left Wisconsin. Even though I know a lot of the SDS (and their tactics in particular) is a load of hooey, historically speaking, I want those boxes back.

There are days when I think about writing a Trotsky For Tots book- even if it were never published, at least my own child would have a head start. Lenin for the Little ones. The problem I see is that these concepts deserve to not be juvenalised- indeed, they need to not be. It's a quandry. How do you communicate these things to a kid? I know there are Bible Stories for Kids, but I tend to classify them with the fairy tale genre.

There's a series of books which Boy likes- about seasons, robots, and science (I read them to him, and he likes the pictures), so I know that even a two-year-old want to know about the world around him. It's not hopeless, it's just tricky.

Prerequired reading done as a post script

I'm in the middle of about five essays and reviews in relation to the End Of Faith. To start off, I am reading Engles' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy. I am too sickly right now to delve deeply, but my favourite phrases so far:
"...the tedious notion of personal immortality." (Isn't it, though?)
"Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter."
"In the second place, we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains..."

It looks like Mosley will have to wait. Ah well.

It's also one of those times when I wish I'd read all this before now, as I think a lot of things would make a lot more sense.

Coxey's Armies and memories of DC

I did a little research (very surface) on Coxey-in doing so, I of course stumbled accross an interesting report about Internal Interventions by the US military, which included a mention of "battling" Coxey's Armies.
http://www.culture-of-peace.info/intervention/chapter3-6.html - sorry I don't have the clean linking thing down yet.

Coxey himself was Jacob S Coxey, a sandstone quarry operator from Ohio. Here is his speach (which he intended to read on May 1, 1894, but which he was unable to deliver until May 1, 1944, due to being imprissioned for "trespassing" on the White House [People's House, right?]) lawn in 1894. It was entered into the Congressional Record by sympathetic members.

--------------------
The Constitution of the United States guarantees to all citizens the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, and furthermore declares that the right of free speech shall not be abridged.

We stand here to-day to test these guaranties of our Constitution. We choose this place of assemblage because it is the property of the people, and if it be true that the right of the people to peacefully assemble upon their own premises and utter their petitions has been abridged by the passage of laws in direct violation of the Constitution, we are here to draw the eyes of the entire nation to this shameful fact. Here rather than at any other spot upon the continent it is fitting that we should come to mourn over our dead liberties and by our protest arouse the imperiled nation to such action as shall rescue the Constitution and resurrect our liberties.

Upon these steps where we stand has been spread a carpet for the royal feet of a foreign princess, the cost of whose lavish entertainment was taken from the public Treasury without the consent or the approval of the people. Up these steps the lobbyists of trusts and corporations have passed unchallenged on their way to committee rooms, access to which we, the representatives of the toiling wealth-producers, have been denied. We stand here to-day in behalf of millions of toilers whose petitions have been buried in committee rooms, whose prayers have been unresponded to, and whose opportunities for honest, remunerative, productive labor have been taken from them by unjust legislation, which protects idlers, speculators, and gamblers: we come to remind the Congress here assembled of the declaration of a United States Senator, “that for a quarter of a century the rich have been growing richer, the poor poorer, and that by the close of the present century the middle class will have disappeared as the struggle for existence becomes fierce and relentless.”

We stand here to remind Congress of its promise of returning prosperity should the Sherman act be repealed. We stand here to declare by our march of over 400 miles through difficulties and distress, a march unstained by even the slightest act which would bring the blush of shame to any, that we are law-abiding citizens, and as men our actions speak louder than words We are here to petition for legislation which will furnish employment for every man able and willing to work; for legislation which will bring universal prosperity and emancipate our beloved country from financial bondage to the descendants of King George. We have come to the only source which is competent to aid the people in their day of dire distress. We are here to tell our Representatives, who hold their seats by grace of our ballots, that the struggle for existence has become too fierce and relentless. We come and throw up our defenseless hands, and say, help, or we and our loved ones must perish. We are engaged in a bitter and cruel war with the enemies of all mankind—a war with hunger, wretchedness, and despair, and we ask Congress to heed our petitions and issue for the nation’s good a sufficient volume of the same kind of money which carried the country through one awful war and saved the life of the nation.

In the name of justice, through whose impartial administration only the present civilization can be maintained and perpetuated, by the powers of the Constitution of our country upon which the liberties of the people must depend, and in the name of the commonweal of Christ, whose representatives we are, we enter a most solemn and earnest protest against this unnecessary and cruel usurpation and tyranny, and this enforced subjugation of the rights and privileges of American citizenship. We have assembled here in violation of no just laws to enjoy the privileges of every American citizen. We are now under the shadow of the Capitol of this great nation, and in the presence of our national legislators are refused that dearly bought privilege, and by force of arbitrary power prevented from carrying out the desire of our hearts which is plainly granted under the great magna-charta of our national liberties.

We have come here through toil and weary marches, through storms and tempests, over mountains, and amid the trials of poverty and distress, to lay our grievances at the doors of our National Legislature and ask them in the name of Him whose banners we bear, in the name of Him who plead for the poor and the oppressed, that they should heed the voice of despair and distress that is now coming up from every section of our country, that they should consider the conditions of the starving unemployed of our land, and enact such laws as will give them employment, bring happier conditions to the people, and the smile of contentment to our citizens.

Coming as we do with peace and good will to men, we shall submit to these laws, unjust as they are, and obey this mandate of authority of might which overrides and outrages the law of right. In doing so, we appeal to every peace-loving citizen, every liberty-loving man or woman, every one in whose breast the fires of patriotism and love of country have not died out, to assist us in our efforts toward better laws and general benefits.

J. S. COXEY

Commander of the Commonweal of Christ

Source: Congressional Record, 53rd Cong., 2d sess., (9 May 1894): 4512.

-----------------
I will freely admit that the fires of patriotism and love of country have long since died out in this internationalist's breast. Even still, I stand in admiration of Coxey and his Army. They asked for what any government worth its position owes its people.

Memory Lane:

I moved to DC in late July of 2001.The summer of the shark attacks, so no surfing that year. I was feeling kind of tense.

My friend and I walked everywhere- we lived on 16th ave. between Euclid and Fuller, not such a hot area, but close to a lot of things. One of the places we'd frequent was the White House and its environs. You can't do it any more, but we used to cut through the side street next to the White House to get back from the museums and Lincoln Monument. You could look right in and see the goings on, the many squirrels on the lawn, and all that. I think we were about 50 yards from the House itself. Obviously things have changed.

The Sunday before 9/11/01, we went to Arlington National Cemetary to see if we could find Dashiell Hammett's grave. We did. From Lee's old porch at the top of the hill you can look down onto the Pentagon. I said at the time that they'd do well to plant more trees, since it was so open and presented a target to anyone flying by or even in the upstairs of Lee's house. My friend laughed. "No one's going to get this far inland!" He said we'd learned our lesson after 1812. Odd fact; Soon after I arrived, my co-worker, a long-time resident of the area, said jokingly that the Pentagon was called "Ground Zero" because "that's exactly where anyone would try to hit first in a nuclear war".

Tuesday proved him wrong and my co-worker sort of right.

Previously we'd seen Army One (I think- the Presidential Helicopter) land on the elipse many a time. Pomp, circumstance, the chance to throw a tomatoe on the way back from the farmer's market. No gawkers are allowed any more.

The days right after were a bizzarre time. We lived in the top floor,and so were on the flight path of the president's helicopter, so suddenly also on the flight path of a lot of heavily armed helicopters, too. They flew low enough for us to see the visors over the pilots' eyes, as well as the rocket launcher-type things underneath, of course. There were armed troops everywhere. The riders on the Metro sat for days in silence, even the gangsta guys were quiet.

When I visited NYC my one and only (so far) time, the weekend of the 30th, I saw scrawled on a wall: Now that we have been attacked as one, can we please live as one?

People like to say that everything changed after 9/11 for various reasons. I think that, yes, everything did change in that the mask finally dropped. Things done in secret before and denied are now done in secret or in the open with a brazen "So What?" In the false name of safety, all bets are off, all is fair in the war on terrorism. Even terror to stop terror is viewed as rational.

Someone said that trauma brings out the real- cuts through Ego straight to the Id. It has brought out some real ugly this time.

Life Out of Context- W.Mosley paperback

I was very excited to find this on my post-dentist trip to Powell's Books yesterday. Mosley is one of the best writers we've got right now and I look forward to reading this. It's pretty short, but the few pages I've read offer the depth of thought which I've come to expect from Mr Mosley.

He always leaves me wanting to talk to him, which I don't think many authors (past or present) do. I missed my chance and have been kicking myself ever since and am on the lookout for him to appear somewhere where I am so I can see him.

My chance was this mystery writers' workshop at one of my old bookstores. We had him as a speaker/teacher and I just remember him walking around, looking both alert and thoughtfull. I don't thnk his eyes miss much. I was too shy to approach him.

He's mostly known for his mystery books, which are pieces of work indeed. His other writings, though, are equally absorbing and observant.

So. As I said, I look forward to this.

On The Way Home- Laura Ingalls Wilder- Musings of a random nature

A little while back my Dear Friend visited the Little House Bookstore in Mansfield, MO, which is where the Little House books were written. She brought back a couple of the later and less-well-known books for me. I'd loved the series as a child and have re-read bits of them more recently (when I was at Dear Friend's house, as I don't have them anymore).

A couple of things before we start on this one.

While re-reading Little House in the Big Woods (I think, could have been On The Prairie, read them both anyway), I was struck by the portrayal of the "indians". Wilder's account was fairly even handed, which is great, as we see the reaction of Ma and Pa to the people- Ma's reaction is one of unmitigated fear, while Pa wishes he spoke French so he could communicate with them. Laura herself is just fascinated. It's an interesting study and I highly recommend it.

This book, On the Way Home, is Laura's diary of moving from South Dakota to Missouri in the middle of 1894. Her daughter, Rose, provides a simple introduction to what was going on in the country at the time- which was pretty harsh. There had been years of drought and crop failures, and so many people were losing their land when they had to mortgage it to pay taxes, and then failed on the mortgages in the viscious cycle of borrowing and drought. In the seventh year of drought, the banks failed worldwide. Factories were shut down, and business ceased. "This was a Panic." Writes Rose.

Of course, on Page 2 I found something worth further study (which I've not had time to do)- Rose tells:

"All the way from California Coxey's Armies of the Unemployed were siezing the railroad trains, jam-packing the cars and running them full speed, open throttle, hell-for-leather toward Washington [DC]. They came roaring into the towns, yelling "Justice for the Working Man!" and stopped and swarmed out, demanding plenty to eat and three-day's rations to take with them, or they'd burn the town. People gave them everything to get rid of them. In all the cities, Federal troops were guarding the Government's buildings."

In time there were no trains on the tracks, having been dispatched to the farthest East yards to keep them safe from Coxey's Armies. The Armies took to their feet, "robbing and raiding and stealing and begging for food as they went."

Golden Age my ass.

What gave me hope in these passages was that these people did something. As I read more and more about the UAW and the situation at Ford and Delphi, with the Workers' wages being halved (as agreed to BY the UAW) and factories closing, I wonder how long it will be before Coxey's Armies are back among us. Once again, they'll face a railcar shortage, as Amtrack's funds are gutted. This time they might car pool, like the Viet Nam Vetrans for Peace did. I know it is, as someone remarked, only a matter of time before people stop saying "But I have a family to support" as they realise that there's no way they can support their families on what they're offered, and take to the roads, to the streets, to DC.

It's only a matter of time before they realise that voting in more Democrats is not the answer, as budget by budget by Bush is approved by them (even as they claim to not like the budgets, to dissapprove of the Supreme Court Appointees or Cabinet member appointees- "I don't like you, but I guess I'll vote for you, if I must.").

I think it could go two ways, really. Either there will be a call for a Workers' Party, or there will be rioting. There could be both. I'd rather call for the Worker's Party, since I don't run very fast.

I know in some places (including Oregon), laws have been passed making it neigh impossible for an independent candidate to gain ballot access (it's also difficult for a small party to gain access) so much for Petitioning for Redress of Grievences.

The big two (no, they do not deserve capital letters) do all they can to silence dissent. Let's not forget that it was the *democrats* who challenged Nader hardest (not that I want him in the Oval Office, mind you).

Blah blah about "stealing" votes- OUR votes do not "belong" to anyone but ourselves- we give it to whom we see fittest, not to those who feel entitled by dint of *saying* they're the people's party. The People's Party would vote down the tax breaks for the wealthy, the cutting of VA funding (in the middle of a freaken WAR yet!), the slashing of medical coverage for children (and their parents), and on and on and on.

JUSTICE FOR THE WORKING MAN!!

Between books

So now I'm just reeling. Having read this when I did- with all the manufactured hubbub about Danish cartoons, I am seeing a growing demonisation of Islam. Now, I am not in favour of Faith-Based thinking, what with liking facts and all, but I am also against Faith-Based killing. Be it killing because your faith says to kill, or being killed for being of a faith. What I see happening has overt similarities to the cartoons published by the Nazi regeime in preparation for the holocaust.

I know people like to say "he who first makes a comparrisson to Nazis lets themselves out of the argument"- which is handy in silencing speaking out about....similarities to nazi tactics (or fascist tactics in general). But look now, if you see the beginnings of a trend, you have a duty to say something. Why wait until the concentration camps are built, and the railroads are laying tracks to the oven doors?

Some would argue that some concentration camps are already here- or in Cuba, anyway, what with Guantanamo. They would so far be right. Some would argue that these cartoons are just freedom of the press- they would be almost right- except that the paper in question was not the last stop on this printing spree- no, the cartoons were printed and reprinted for months until the desired anger was whipped up. This, after an apology was requested by the Muslim leaders (leaders of the majority, not the fringes). They were told - I paraphrase- "You have no control over our free presses. Deal."

There is a good article at [url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/cart-f15.shtml]wsws[/url] as usual. Harris says that in relation to Islam politics can be considered only to be dismissed- well, obviously, politics are what we live with every day. It is a typical bit of obscurantism to insist on not looking at what is there. What Muslims live with in Denmark is a constant sense of disenfranchisement- getting the worst of both sides: You are not allowed to assimilate VS You have not assimilated, it's your own fault. This bears remarkable similarities to what European Jews went through for centuries.

No, it's not helped by religious isolationism, but they are given precious little choice in the matter.

Oy, It's done. The End of The End of Faith

Finally. I feel very dragged out by this whole thing. What is most dissappointing is that I was really hoping for a resonable book. What is really frightening is that it is in places very reasonable- which more on later.

The upshot: It would serve well as a companion volume to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion- this time construed as The Protocols of the Bombers of Islam. It's a complex screed filled with half-truths (or, half-presented facts) interspersed with really otherwise useful things.

The conflation of Islam with Qutbism (for lack of a better term) does no one any good- it paints Islam with a broad ugly brush, it engenders fear and it calls for retaliatory- or even pre-emptive violence. Hmm. There could not possibly be an agenda here.

Let me state for the record here: I am a socialist. As such I do not believe that religin is a force for good- though I cannot deny that it has been used as a force. I think it demands a disregard for science, fact, and critical thinking and that it has been used, as Marx pointed out, as an opiate of the people. Except that I would update it to be more along the lines of crack cocaine. Few opium addicts have the gumption to blow things up. This goes for suicide bombers as well as invading forces.

That said- I entered into this book in search of something usefull- not expecting a gentle denunciation of faiths here, but something rational and an offer- maybe, just maybe- of a replacement in the form of reason. This is not to be found here.

Harris' methods are dangerous- meant to appeal to the more liberal element, it offers an excuse- founded on a twisted and selective history- to be afraid of and angry with Islam in particular. Though he goes through an almost perfunctory history of the uses of religion to oppress, he mis-identifies the oppressor as Religion Itself. He breezez through the Holocaust, the witch hunts and etc. At one, brief, point he says that a lot of the land seized by the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church. And, yes, that is bad. It's also a bit familiar these days, with people being denounced as terrorists and their property or rewards being given to the denouncers whether the person is proved a terrorist or not.

It would not be so alarming if he did not, after the chapter "The Problem with Islam", continue to point out Islamic examples of violence and etc at every turn to the exclusion of the horrors of other faiths.

The Afterward should really be an Introduction, as it is only here that we see he started the book on Sept 12, 2001. Obviously, this colours things. It is unfortunate that Harris never quite pulled out of the trauma this inflicted on him - though he claims to have returned to reasonableness and that some of the more extreme parts were edited out. I hope never to stumble across those writings, if this is his moderate side.

End of Faith Pt 3- Islam in particular.

First I have to say that my bookseller/collector friends would kill me if they saw all these pen marks in this volume. Sorry.

I am still trying to figure out the whole Islam thing, but what I have so far is this:

The chapter on Islam is one which has me troubled for a number of reasons- one of which is that I kind of agree with his assessment, though *not* his solution (his asessment is that it is an inherently violent religion- which seems very surface, but which can also be said about any number of other religions wherein the "punishment is death"). The martyrdom aspect is more prevalent in Islam- as it is applied currently- than in many other faiths, but still. His solution is to kill them all, it seems.

This is a cry which has come up a couple of times in the book so far- "they cannot be resoned with", which may well be the case, but he does present it as a kill or be killed situation, which strikes me as a justification for current policy and really, nothing more.

So- yes, I do think Islam as it is being played out now, is a dangerous thing. (I also think Christianity, Judaism, or any other faith which blinds the believer to the human-ness of the non-believer and drives the believer to violence is a dangerous sort of faith). But I take issue with his singling it out so.

While he puts forth in the book that *faith* is dangerous, he is concentrating on Islam unduly. I am inclined to wonder if, had he been born in the 14h century, he would have called for the killing of all christians, in view of the Inquisition going on then.

A number of his observations (and observations borrowed from Bernard Lewis) are that Islam is a religiously imperialist entity (I am thinking particularly of " for Muslims, no piece of land once added to the realm of Islam can ever be finally renounced." The Gaza strip comes to mind (as does any area of concession in Israel), but with 'Judaism' replacing 'Muslim'. (**for the record, I am Jewish, Reform and somewhat lapsed, but still**). NO group wants to give up their land.

I am trying to take this all with the knowledge that he started the book on September 12, 2001, but I do wonder - whither the editor? Also- where is the historical perspective? If someone shoots you on a Monday, you are not going to be looking for their finer points on a Tuesday. This is not to say there aren't problems- obviously there are. I take issue with his solution, which sounds a bit...final, if you will.

still reading, and re-reading End O' Faith

I have finished with a chapter on Islam and feel I must re-read it to make sure what he's saying- not that he's being unclear (summary: Islam is very bad and means to kill us all and probably themselves, too, iin the name of Paradise and Allah), but that I want to understand the context of his Quran quotes as much as possible and need to seriously evaluate some of the conclusions he drawn from his argument before i commit them to print here.

In other reading news- Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World is spectacular. It's an oldie, but very worthwhile. His arguments for the importance of a true and solid knowledge of history are cogent and well-written. More in depth later.

End of Faith pt 2

Now, at approximately page 102, we have delved into the history of the Inquisition, complete with scriptural and liturgical references for why it is all right in the eyes of the church (Catholic and Lutheran, actually)- we have touched on anti-semitism and are just going into world war two.

One of the things which Harris points out is that there were a few people in charge at the time who took a step back and tried to moderate what was happening. It didn'’t work so well generally.

Another, and more important thing he points out is that, once the idea of witchcraft was floated, rational- within the bounds of of the assumption of witches existing - evidence against the accused was sought. (What constituted rational evidence was pretty flimsy, let's face facts, and often elicited by torture- something which we would do well to remember is not the most reliable source for information.)

While his arguments and examples are well-put-together, there are a few things which stick out.

On page 75, he points out that "“Karl Popper has told us that we never prove a theory right; we merely fail to prove it wrong." This is just not so, as we can easily see in the use of germ theory, to name just one area. Karl Popper- at the severe risk of diversion- I would like to direct you to this good explanation of post-modernist thought and its incompatability with historical accuracy http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/le12-a30.shtml. The very idea that we can never know the truth (or, Truth) is one which has stymied scientific research, and opens the door for exactly the kind of muddied thinking which Harris is lobbying against in his decrying of religion. There is such a thing as Objective Truth on Earth, and *this* is what we need to concentrate on when dealing with religious issues in the public sphere.

Harris points out that "“all spheres of discourse are not on the same footing, for the simple reason that not all spheres of discourse seek the same footing (or any footing whatsoever). Science is science because it represents our most committed effort to verify that our statements about the world are true (or at least not false)." I agree here not just with the form, but the content.

On page 79, he says: "“Consider the millions of people who were killed by Stalin and Mao: although these tyrants paid lip service to rationality, communism was little more than a political religion."”

I am not about to defend Stalin nor Mao. What I am about to do is to point out that, like rationality, communism was another idea to which lip service was paid by these two. Both were responsible for the deaths stated, but what is unstated is that neither were actual communists- they were nationalists and tyrants. They were not the natural outcome of the revolutions in which they took part.

After Lenin'’s death, Stalin had his agents hunt down and arrest (for show trials) or kill the Russian Bolshevik leadership (including Trotsky, who was the political heir-apparent to Lenin), and he ordered Mao to submit to the KuoMinTang, thereby assuring the murder of thousands of (actual)communists. What you had under Stalin was a travesty, to be sure, comprised not only of the cult of personality but also the betrayal of the workers'’ revolution of October 1917. His insistance on utter loyalty without question (and his paranoia-inspiring secret police) surely does recall a religious-type hysteria. The religion here was not communism, though, but Stalinism. Pretty much the same thing could be said of Maoism. They also took the liberty to re-write the gospels- in the form of the history books- and to leave out or demonise those who met with disaproval.

Review of a review

Well I was reading the Weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (know thy class enemy and all that) and there was this review of Green Eggs and Ham (no, really) in which the author puts forth that it is a lesson in salesmanship, and so very American. I was alarmed and almost spilled my coffee in sitting up fast and saying "What the--?!?" Everyone knows it's a lesson in trying new things. It peeved me.

He also (the review author) mentioned open-mindedness as being an American Value. Now, I know many open-minded Americans, but have to say that, comming from the WSJ, it did elicit a snortle, given their frequent appeal to closed-mindedness in their news coverage.

Anyhoo- it was a short review and I finished it. Back to the books...

End of Faith- Harris. Just out in paperback

I'm in the first third of the book- about page 60 or so. Please take that into consideration.

There are a couple of....possibly worrisome ideas he comes up with- Ok, *actually worrisome*- at one point he says (rightly) that there is no talking to some people. No kidding, eh? But where he goes with it is the worrisome part-it might be necessary to continue the war against al quaida and keep killing them because they are untalk-to-ables!! Overall he presents a good case that there is a direct link between belief and action- but he seems (again, I'm only at 60 or so, so this could change) to put forth a fair number of assumptions about there only being one possible course of action connected to any given belief. I disagree.

Obviously, Al Qaida presents a special problem, but just commiting ourself to killing them all- if that's even possible, which I rather doubt, given its ever-growing nature- is as mad as he claims the religion backing Al Qaida operatives when they blow themselves (and others) up to be. One would rather hope that in his (Harris') quest to bring about a state of 'reason', reasonableness would be a a hallmark of his arguments. Instead, so far, he presents a number of pugnacious and dogmatic arguments. Granted these come primarily in the form of Al Qaida condemnations, (and I mean, their methods are madness indeed, so they do rather bring this upon themselves), but my hope is that he will present more reasoned arguments against faith as a means to action.

One thing which I do agree with is his position that faith will lead directly to action- ie, if you think that you will find 70 virgins after martyring yourself, you're more likely to do so than if you believed that life on this earth at this time is all there is. He deals mostly wth "religious extremeists" when presenting examples, but he also takes religious moderates to task for preaching tolerance for all kinds of beliefs, when - as he does show- and not just with Islamic examples (though 9/11 is foremost on his mind at this point, and so it follows that Islam is as well, though I am about to start a chapter on the Holocaust, wherein, he says, he will prove that the Nazis were, whether they realised it or not at the time, engaged in a religious war. I'll get to that when I get to it, though, right?) that tolerance for untenable things like killing women who show their hair, or waging war on your neighbor *just because* they are Jewish, Christian or whathave should not be tolerated. He also deplores the moderates of any religion in that they are diluting their own texts to bring their beliefs more into line with modern times- which he says only serves to rile the more fundamentalist elements. His claim that this "updating" serves neither reason nor faith well. I am inclined to agree with that view.

Along the way he makes pleas for more proof-based thought. Again, I am inclined to go with this.

That's what I have so far, I'm sort of in the middle of it....more later.