Get out the shovel-Why everything you know is wrong
John Stossel – ISBN – 9781401302542

Those familiar with Stossel know what to expect, and he delivers again. For the unfamiliar, it’s a great time to introduce yourself.

The man is a wonder. He began as a rather typical left-leaning commentator and consumer advocate, out to intimidate corporations and celebrate the role of government in regulating business. He discovered to his surprise and chagrin that he was 180 degrees wrong, and has become a stout, even rigid libertarian who touts the free markets at every turn. Bright man, that!

He destroys myriad myths with facts, comments on how wrong most are about most things. Even a “classic liberal” can learn something, such as the reason Helen Keller was a bad driver. It had nothing to do with the fact that she was a woman. Imagine! (He has a sense of humor, too.)

Amongst myriad things he observes that our “government has grown from the founders’ vision to a monster that sustains itself with constantly increasing taxes, endless meddling, and ever-greater intrusion into what was once private life.” He uses chapters of one to several page assaults to prove it, discussing Dems and Repubs . . . both bad; farm subsidies, PBS, “helping” the needy, “model” behavior of public officials, etc.

He destroys the concept of good public schools, noting that even at the obscene and ever-growing $10,000 per child—which is $250,000 per classroom—schools still fail to educate, and emphasizes the fact that “more money” was supposed to cure the problem . . . and that was before the spending level of $5,000 per child, which was long ago. He does observe that “underpaid” teachers earn an average of $60,000 per year, which is hardly a pittance, especially for a 9 month year, a 6-7 hour day with every week-end, holiday and teacher’s conference “off.” That said, good teachers are still underpaid, however few that might be.

The whole book is filled with such commentary. All of it is logical and corroborated by fact.

As I’ve noted before, many times, one can debate the implications and uses of the facts, but one is not entitled to his own facts. Stossel does a superb job of outlining the facts and offering his interpretations of them . . . and I do agree with him on most of his conclusions. So will you if you read this tome carefully.

Philip Carl Salzman – ISBN – 9781591025870

This two-hundred page tome is worth far more its thirty-five dollar price. A Mideast scholar said it was one of the most important books of the last four decades. It is an easily read disquisition because of the author’s crisp style and avoidance of trivia which commonly bury the casual reader. Most of us know that something is wrong with Islam; he circumspectly explains what . . . and why.

Salzman is an anthropologist, but the text embraces history and psychology along with culture, and he contextualizes all of this as he outlines his unique explanation of Islam’s problems. It is Islam he discusses . . . in ways consistent with the facts as he emphasizes that he is not being judgmental. Rather, he delivers information as he interprets it, as did Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong. The bibliography is long, and includes myriad expert tracts.

His section on the Rise of Islam (fewer than 50 pages) is stunning. Amongst the things he dispels forever is the much-touted maxim that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not, never has been . . . and he persuasively documents it using Muslim sources. During their conquests from the 7th to the 11th century, millions were slaughtered, more millions enslaved, and the survivors of their holocaust were reduced to dhimmitude: expropriated, suppressed and degraded. The hallmark of Arab Empires was the enslavement of conquered peoples—except for those murdered, of course. Even men who converted to Islam were stripped of their belongings, their wives and their children. In the era of Muslim dominance most of the world functioned the same way, but they were exceptional in that they were more cruel.

“We have repeatedly been told of the tolerance that existed in the Muslim world, and of the flourishing of minorities under the enlightened guidance of Islamic law and Muslim rulers. But the historical evidence for a darker picture is overwhelming and irrefutable.”

His critical observation is that Arabic—and therefore Islamic—culture is composed of balanced opposition between like groups, which served their early culture optimally. It established “a substantial degree of order and security” necessary for survival in their desert environment. Balanced opposition results in individual and group independence, encourages freedom and courage along with equality and responsibility, but it also lends itself to bellicosity and friction. It breeds specific loyalties and a rigid honor culture. We’ve all heard this described as my kin against yours, our tribe against others, Sunni against Shia, and all Muslims against the world (especially religions other than Islam.)

At each level of affiliation there is an enemy. For each act the relevant question is: who acted and who is closest to me? All parties agree about what they are against, but never upon what they are for. This negativity and rigid honor (see below) precludes the development of a state as the West understands it; one of law and order, objectified by things upon which we all agree and delegate to government. Thus we concede to the state those things which we cannot do, or do so well alone. They do not. They move thru a chain of affiliations seeking resolution. There is no law, per se, except that prescribed in the Koran . . . or by the sword (now the Kalashnikov or the homicide bomber.)

Huntington (in The Clash of Civilizations) observed that neither “rule of law” nor “constitutionalism” have ever existed in the Arab Mideast because of this commitment to the group. There is no recognizance of abstract, universally applicable rules, and law has never been a factor in political order. The ultimate goal is winning, not acceding to a rule.

In their world, state authorities have always used the peasantry to provide income. For 4,000 years of history the tax collectors, police and the army have been tools of population control. There is no beneficence. Urban areas produce little or nothing, as they depend on the hinterlands for those materials necessary for consumption and trade.

Remote tribes have always had the power to avoid many state sanctions, and have often warred against it. They war for independence and/or the purpose of becoming the state, so that their tribe controls the largess. There is the potential for a war of all against all, which is controlled in some measure by intra-family or tribal balance. This provides space to live with a level of security, predictability, and understanding.

One is honor bound to provide whatever is needed by the balanced group to which he belongs. In turn he lives with the assurance that if in need he will be assisted. Honor thus becomes all. It is earned by victory and lost in defeat. Victims are despised, not celebrated. Honor is more important than any measurable form of success; even life itself. Notwithstanding, success is sought and measured by how much chattel or territory is controlled. It is honorable to do whatever is necessary to prevail. “Winner-take-all” is the only rule: might makes right. Right and wrong are questions never considered. Morality demands that one strive, always, to advantage one’s own group and disadvantage the adversary. Nothing is more common in the history of tribes than battles between them over territory, livestock, watering holes and women. Even marriages arranged for the purpose of retaining asset control, and women, as chattel, are traded and assigned as such.

In the U.S. it has been sarcastically noted that “winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” We use that maxim in sports, but they honor it in all parameters at all times. They regularly lie, cheat and steal; they fight to the death rather than surrender, despite overwhelming odds. Islam teaches that surrender isn’t an option. Recall that before “Charlie Wilson’s War” Afghans fought Hind Helicopters with Enfield rifles while children threw rocks. A truce is allowable if it serves a purpose: recovery from battle, rearming, or reconnoitering, but resumption of conflict is required victory is assured. It is dishonorable and verboten to leave the field. Hence there is unending conflict, and this has prohibited progress in their societies for centuries. They are constantly at war with someone.

• In the world of the past half century or so, two-thirds of global conflicts involve Islamic countries, either against other Islamic countries or the rest of the world. Eighty 80 percent of those conflicts are violent, and half are full scale wars. Quietude exists only when it is imposed by a dominant regime (e.g. Hussein, Mubarak, or the Saudis)
• Illiteracy in the Muslim world is nearly 50%, and most of the educated are taught in the West. When they return home they seldom find employment outside government since there is no industry. Average output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is 2% of that in industrialized nations.
• The GNP of the entire Muslim Mideast is about equal to that of South Korea, and most of that is derived from oil, found by the West, processed by Western technology, and used in large measure by the West, with Western supervision. The incredible sums taken in by the sale of oil are used by the state to suppress the peasantry, reward the brethren, and make war on each other and the world.
• Rather than study and correct the problems, they seek someone to blame; usually the West.
• The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not over land! Muslims believe Allah has ordained Islamic rule, and it is the duty of Muslims to enforce that principle. A secular, pragmatic solution has no appeal; similarly so with the rest of the world.

There have, indeed, been periods of European imperial disruption, but these have come and gone without displacing tribal society and its balanced opposition. “It is to the [culture] that we must look to understand the current circumstances and difficulties of the Arab Middle East. The lesson is that in the Arab world, [as everywhere else], culture matters” . . . multiculturalist beliefs notwithstanding.

I could go on, but ‘twould be more rewarding and informative if you just read the book. Highly recommended!

Michelle Magorian – ISBN 9780064401746

This is not my usual fare. I stumbled on to it in random reading, and present it only because it is a wonderful book for adolescents, and interesting for adults. Published in 1982 by a “one book” author, it won a children’s book award in England. It is a classic of sorts, and still in print. Also a movie available from NetFlix.

The plot line is that of early WW II in England, and children were being evacuated to the countryside for their safety. Mr. Tom, a widower of many years, condescends to take in a young refugee—Willie—from the slums of London. Willie is a shy, abused, mousy little creature afraid of everything and convinced that he is worthless, friendless and irredeemable. Mr. Tom changes all of that, with a wonderful assist from the villagers of remote L’il Weirwold.

Willie becomes Will, has friends and a future, though he experiences a number of calamities along the way, including a brief return to his abusive mother.

The horrors of Will’s life are overwhelmed by the loving care of Mr. Tom and the Weirwoldians. Along the way Will learns many things about the world outside of the slums, and teaches many life lessons applicable to all young readers, as it reminds us old codgers of their continued importance.

This would be a wonderful gift for adolescent grandkids. Cheap, too.

A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World
Mark Kurlansky – ISBN – 9780140275018

As usual, this elegantly crafted little treatise--on a very important fish--is readable, entertaining, and chock-a-block full of information and interesting asides, all of which are Kurlansky hallmarks. It marries the politics and economics of the subject, and is one of his earliest offerings (1998); likely the book which “put him on the map.” He has become one of my favorite writers. I’m working my way thru all of his books--having already reviewed on this site Salt, The Big Oyster, 1968. You may soon hear about some of t’others.

As with the narratives on salt and oysters, he travels the world to explain the importance of life altering/sustaining products. Into this maritime history he weaves facts about feeding Caribbean slaves, and the Yankee trading of their salted fish for the Caribbean molasses, from which New Englanders brewed the preferred drink of the era: rum. He slips in an aside about how George Washington, in his earliest campaign for the House of Burgesses, supplied gallons of rum and rum punch to a mere handful of voters. Along with this factoid he emphasizes that the hectoring by the British Crown--by forbidding the trade in molasses--one might conclude that the Brits were intentionally “trying to rally Massachusetts around its radicals.” The revolution wasn’t over just the Tea Tax, of which we were taught in grammar school (at least those of us who were actually educated in our government schools.)

He discloses the little known fact that Basque fishermen were fishing their own secret sea (off-shore Canada) for over 400 years before Columbus “found” America, suggesting that Columbus may have known more about where he was going than is commonly supposed. He elaborates on the dangers of fishing, leaning heavily on the history of Gloucester, MA (not incidentally the subject of his recent book, The Last Fish Tale, as previously he wrote The Basque History of the World.

Discussions of the technology of fishing are comprehensive, as he explains that these “improvements” have resulted in the disaster which over-fishing has become in the 20th century. Despite “expert” determinations that nature’s bounty could not be overcome, we’ve succeeded. While we wish to see nature and evolution as separate from human activities, the natural world encompasses all.

Brits have determined that 70% of species in their waters are over-fished. American Cod are all but extinct (at least in commercial quantities) and “substitute” species are now being harvested with abandon. We are encouraging a host of not-so-great, but more adaptable, species as nature “doggedly searches for something which works; but as the cockroach demonstrates, what works best in nature does not always appeal to us.”

As well, we are approaching a time when there will be little “natural food” available for consumption. Much of the fish we now consume is farmed as, increasingly, are shellfish. Cow hunting became ranching, as ranching evolved into feed-lot production for cattle, as well as pork and fowl.

“There is a big difference” he observes, “between living in a society that hunts whales, and living in one that views them. Nature is being reduced to precious demonstrations for entertainment and education. . . . Are we headed for a world where nothing is left of nature but parks?” Having over hunted mammals, we preserve wild ones as best we can, as we farm our food. While it is harder to kill off fish than mammals, after a millennium of hunting the Atlantic cod, we’ve done it.

Beyond the environmental issues, the book is a wonderful read from the standpoint of history and adventure. As he always does, Kurlansky the gourmand provides us with numerous recipes, historic and modern, for this tasty fish . . . should you be able to find one to cook.

I’ve debated for some time now whether or not to write on this subject, but with his demise I find it compelling. I’ve never been anguished over the illness and death of a man I don’t even know. It is his familial history which bothers me, and for those who just might happen into this essay I’d like to clarify the situation. Having spent my life practicing gastroenterology, I did learn more than a few things about it.

This is a rant on the medical profession and the management of his illness, which represents hubris on stilts! While I never had the privilege of meeting—never mind examining—him, his disease clearly was familial colonic polyposis. This is not the common problem many face with a family history of polyps, requiring periodic colonoscopy for removal of same, ideally beginning at age 40. Instead, it is a hereditary situation wherein thousands of polyps literally smother the colon, from which some die of colon cancer before age 30, making serial colonoscopies a practical impossibility and making death from colon cancer a virtual certainty. These polyps are so numerous that some may be overlooked, and the cancers often begin in microscopic polyps which cannot be identified at all.

Clearly Tony was caused to believe that routine colonoscopies, with attendant polypectomies, would be sufficient. They are not! His case proves this. Removal of the entire colon is the only answer in such situations, preferably before age 30, and ideally when the diagnosis is confirmed. This requires the construction of a stoma, or abdominal exit for the bowel waste, which in turn requires the constant use of a bag to collect the effluent: an ileostomy. I have seen many situations wherein this was necessary, for familial polyposis, ulcerative colitis, and more rarely Crohn’s Disease.

The problem with all is that the ileostomy creates a nuisance which all attempt to avoid except where absolutely necessary, as ileostomies are much more trouble to manage than colostomies.

Recall that Tony’s mother died of colon cancer when she was young . . . as was he. Herein lays the problem. With all but absolute certainty I will state that Tony was reassured that “that was then, and this is now,” and that ritual colonoscopies are all that is necessary, today, to prevent death from colon cancer. Either that, or colectomy was recommended, but not insisted upon, which allowed him to believe that he had a choice. I believe the former to be the case, which is why I have described it as hubris on stilts.

The arrogance of modern physicians is frightening to me, but it reflects the generational attitudes of the 60’s; those who trivialized the wisdom of age and judgment, and chose to believe that there was little reason to trust anyone over 30 (until, that is, they reached 30 themselves). Confident that Tony needn’t live with an ileostomy, they assured that he would die of colon cancer. He could have lived a normal life to a normal age, even died of old age! He certainly would have lived to see his children grow up.

More than occasionally I had to counsel, sometimes even frighten patients into accepting, that there was no alternative to a given course of therapy, based upon my training, experience and reading of contemporary literature. They might find another physician who disagreed, but it would not alter my opinion, forcefully held by years of experience—not all of it good. As many sages have observed in the past, some things are simply true, whether or not you like it. This is/was such a situation.

For those who have, specifically, familial polyposis, removal of the colon is the only way to absolutely prevent colon cancer. Period! An ileostomy is nowhere as bad as an early death, especially when accompanied by the agony of repeated surgeries, chemotherapy and all the rest.