The Backwards Revolution

Sometimes, revolutions fail to make things better; in 1959, the Cuban Communist revolution rejected American-style democracy, and promised to make things better for the "common working" man. What happened after that?

Many economic and social indicators have declined since the 1959 revolution. Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption; today, it ranks last. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels. The number of automobiles in Cuba has fallen since the 1950's - the only country in Latin America for which this is the case. The number of telephone lines in Cuba also has been virtually frozen at 1950's levels. Cuba once ranked first in Latin America and fifth in the world in television sets per capita. Today, it barely ranks fourth in Latin America and is well back in the ranks globally.

Cuba's rate of development of electrical power since the 1950’s ranks behind every other country in Latin America except Haiti. Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere for which rice production today is lower than it was four decades ago.

Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba's world ranking has fallen from 13th to 24th during the Castro era, according to UN Data.

Japan, with four cars per 1,000 inhabitants in 1958, was far behind Cuba (24) that year, but by 1988, Japan's number had grown to 251, whereas the figure for Cuba remained frozen at its 1958 level. Similar comments could be made for Portugal (increased from fifteen in 1958 to 216 in 1988), Spain (increased from six to 278), and Greece (increased from four to 150). Indeed, Italy's 29 cars per thousand was not far ahead of Cuba's 24 in 1958, but by 1988, Italy boasted 440 cars per thousand, whereas the figure for Cuba was unchanged from the 1950's.

Today, Cuba has only three telephone lines per 100 people, placing it 14th out of twenty Latin American countries surveyed in 1994 and far behind countries that were less advanced than Cuba in this measure in 1958, such as Argentina (today 14 lines per 100 inhabitants), Costa Rica (13), Panama (11), Chile (11), Venezuela (11), and several others.

During the late 1950's, Cuba ranked second only to Uruguay in Latin America, with 169 radios per 1,000 people. (Worldwide, this put Cuba just ahead of Japan.) At that time, Argentina and Cuba were very similar in terms of this measure. Since then, the number of radios per capita in Argentina has grown three times as fast as in Cuba. Cuba also has been surpassed by Bolivia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras, and Brazil in this indicator.

Cuba had 45 television sets per 1,000 inhabitants in 1957, by far the most in Latin America and fifth in the world, behind only Monaco, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In fact, its closest competitor in Latin America was Venezuela, which had only sixteen television sets per 1,000 people. Today, Cuba has 170 televisions per thousand, behind Uruguay (232 per thousand), Argentina (220), and Brazil (209). Of these three countries, Uruguay in 1957 had less than one television per 1,000 people, and Argentina and Brazil each had five per 1,000 people.

Although Cuba has never been a regional leader in public electricity production per capita, its relative ranking among twenty Latin American countries has fallen from eighth to 11th during the Castro era. In fact, in terms of the rate of growth for this measure, Cuba ranks 19th of twenty countries in the region, with only Haiti showing less accelerated development.

Cuba is the only country in Latin America whose production of rice has fallen since 1958, when it ranked fourth in the region in production of this staple.

Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only seventeen.

A Short Snooze for a Short Emperor: Napoleon's Naps

From the time of his self-appointment to the first consulship in 1799, Napoleon had constructed for himself folding field-bed out of iron. On all campaigns and field manouvers, he took one along: either a small one on the back of a mule, or a larger one on a supply wagon. But even when he slept on something more comfortable, Napoleon slept only a short time. Allegedly, he never remained in bed for any longer than four hours at a time. He didn't like those who slept for long periods of time. Sleep experts celebrate him today as a pioneer of the "power-nap", an energizing short snooze. Accordingly, Napoleon is supposed to have slept briefly several times a day - for example, when commanding. Sometimes even during a battle!

Peace in the Middle East?

The recent "heating up" of military action in the area of Israel and Lebanon has brought the ancient conflicts of the Middle East to the forefront again.

Many American politicians are debating about the best way to make peace - but their debates are founded on the presupposition that peace is possible in this situation, and that is an assumption which we must examine more carefully.

First, let's define peace. If, by that word, we mean merely the absense of violence, the lack of shooting, then, yes, peace in the Middle East is possible. Either by diplomacy or by force, it is possible to create a cease-fire, an uneasy and tenuous truce; this can be done by the involved parties themselves, or by external forces. It has been done before.

But if we mean, by the word peace, something more than an imposed restraint on military action, if we mean, perhaps, the creation of a political stable equalibrium, and the conviction on the parts of all involved parties that an even-handed solution to the underlying conflicts has been reached, then one begins to wonder if "peace" is at all possible in the Middle East.

Remember that this recent round of fighting is simply a continuation of fighting that has been going on since 1948. Remember that the fighting that began in 1948 is merely a continuation of the fighting that has been going on since around 1500 B.C.; indeed, the ancient accounts are shockingly similar to today's headlines: the same towns and countries are mentioned, armies move along the same roads.

For those who want to reduce all Middle Eastern conflict to the Israeli situation, remember that this part of the world has hosted nearly ceaseless conflict over the last fifteen centuries between Arab nations, between Islamic nations, even when there was no Jewish state present, even when the number of ethnic Jews living in the region was insignificant, and even when Europe and America didn't intervene in any way.

This part of the world is used to constant warfare as a way of life. They have fought for centuries. One wonders if any rational articulation of the reasons is at all still possible.

Thus it may be foolish to think that the United Nations, or the United States, can intervene with a "peace plan", and resolve the tensions and create a non-agressive co-existence.

Why has a reasonable and fair peace been possible in Europe following WWII? Europe has enjoyed sixty years of peace, interrupted only by the civil war as Yugoslavia disintegrated into six or seven separate nations. The periodic attacks by Soviet soldiers on unarmed civilians were not military wars, but massacres, and fall into a different category. Why the stability and peace in Europe, but not in the Middle East? For the answer, we must examine the underlying cultures and worldviews.

Tristan and Isolde

The ancient story, and recent film, about Tristan and Isolde is one well worth studying. This narrative has inspired poets, composers, and painters over the centuries, leaving us with many different versions of the same basic plot.

But don't be confused: this is not merely a love story. This is an account of the political upheavals caused by the fall of the Roman Empire, and of the beginnings of English national identity. The effort to unite a handful of independent tribes into what would become England, and the struggle between these collected tribes and the Irish, formed the geo-politics of Europe for several centuries. Understanding this story is understanding what England is, how it arose, and what the authentic English identity was prior to 1066. But 1066 is another story.

Going Native

When the British oversaw an empire "on which the sun never sets" - meaning that, because it had large territories around the world, it was always daylight somewhere in the empire - they used the phrase "going native" to describe a certain phenomenon: when an Englishman, sent to work in one of the colonies, would be begin to adapt himself to the ways of the local cultures. An British man who began to dress according to local fashions, converse with the natives, eat their type food, perhaps marry a local woman, learn their languages, and - the ultimate step - begin to identify with them instead of with his fellow Englishmen and to see things from their point of view, they said that he had "gone native."

Now, to be sure, this was sometimes a negative evaluation, and sometimes merely a neutral observation.

The British Empire has faded away, but this concept can help us to understand a current situation.

The politics of the Middle East are very complicated, and it would be foolish to think that they could be completely explained in one small blog posting. How can one ever completely analyze the intricacies of Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt, with their various languages, cultures, religions, and histories? No, I will not present a comprehensive examination of the entire political situation in the Near East.

But I will examine one small part of this big puzzle.

In 1948, when the modern state of Israel was organized, it was done for several different reasons: one of them a hope to transplant a handful of European Jews, and with them, the western concept of democracy, and of a democratic republic; the hope was that these concepts would take root in the Middle East, and spread the notion of this type of government and society. The dream was that the Near East would begin to look like Europe, and that the nations there would begin to operate on a basis which would allow them to make peace with each other, and with the rest of the world, and to enter into a more normalized relation with the states in the rest of the world. The modern state of Israel was supposed to be a "seed" of a modern democracy republic in the region.

That was one thought behind the founding of the nation. There were others, perhaps more important, or at least more dominate, which we will not discuss here.

How did matters fare? Well, there will be different interpretations of the last fifty years of world history, but one interpretation is to say that some of those European Jews, who were to plant democracy in the region, "went native" - that is to say, instead of changing the region, the region changed them. They may have adopted the ancient attitudes of the Near East, attitudes alien to democratic republics, even alien to the peculiar way in which western civilizations value human life, and value peace over war.

The Middle East, at war for centuries, is, or has become, comfortable with war as a way of life; this is a a worldview which is at odds with Eurocentric ideologies, a worldview in which human life is not necessarily extremely valuable.

Have some of the citizens of modern Israel adopted this viewpoint - have they "gone native"?

Definitions are Everything!

What do Jesus and Karl Marx have in common? Well, to start with, they were both Jewish, and they both were Communists. That may startle you, but this shocking statement also depends on how you define "Jewish" and "Communist" - and reminds us that definitions are the key to understanding confusing episodes of both history and philosophy.

Jesus was spiritually, culturally, and genetically Jewish; Karl Marx merely happened to have Jewish grandparents; so they were both "Jewish", but in very different senses of the word. Jesus inspired his followers to put their money and material possessions into a common treasury, and share equally from it; this would qualify him as a "Communist" - but in a very different sense than Marx. Marx's version of Communism relied on the government as the ultimate power, on material objects as the ultimate reality, and on atheism as the ultimate belief. Jesus, to say the least, was not an atheist.

Many politicians are debating about "immigrants" now - but we must first define whether we are talking about legal or illegal immigrants.

Biologists are discussing "stem cells" these days - but are they examing those taken from adults, or from unborn babies?

It is precisely in these topics - the most emotional, passionate, and political themes - that we must focus most carefully on the definitions of words. Only then can we speak more rationally.

An atheist once attacked a philosopher with the often-repeated question, "can you really prove that God exists?" The philosopher, tired of the game, returned with a question, "can you even define the word 'God'?"

Patterns in History

Over the years, different historians have found - or have claimed to find - recurring patterns in world history. Alexander Fraser Tytler, also known as Lord Woodhouselee, a Scottish history professor, writing in the 1780's, examined the rise and fall of Athens, and concluded: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Tytler continued, noting that civilizations tend to develop until they hit their high points, and remain at that high point for an average of two centuries: “The average age of the world's greatest civilizations, from the beginning of history, has been about two hundred years. During those two hundred years, these nations always progressed through the following” sequence:

The attribution of this eight-step cycle to Tytler has been questioned. There are reasonable suggestions that someone else wrote these words, and that they were later attributed to Tytler. In any case, the ideas remain interesting, no matter who wrote them:

1. From the bondage of supersition, myth, and pagan magic into the freedom of spiritual faith.

2. From spiritual faith into great courage, motivated by that faith.

3. From courage to liberty, bought and protected by that courage.

4. From liberty to abundance, attained by diligent application of that liberty.

5. From abundance to complacency.

6. From complacancy to apathy.

7. From apathy to dependence.

8. From dependence back into bondage."

Do you agree with Tytler's analysis? Can you think of specific, concrete examples in ancient or modern history to support his general conclusions?

Evaluating a Pope

For more than a thousand years, popes have been playing an influential role in world history. From the Reformation to the Fall of the Iron Curtain, the top officer of the Roman Catholic church is a player in culture and civilization. Some popes are very famous, others almost unknown. But how do you evaluate a pope?

Well, if you happen to be an actual, practicing Roman Catholic, as opposed to those millions who merely called themselves Roman Catholics, you'll have to figure this out on your own. Because as an "insider", you will evaluate a pope as an internal matter, from within the framework of the Roman Catholic church. I can't help you on this one.

I, the author of this blog, happen to be an outsider, i.e., I am not a Roman Catholic, and so have an external perspective on a pope. So, if you happen to be an outsider as well, how do we evaluate a pope?

The first step is to gather information. This is not easy, because almost everyone who writes about a pope has a "spin" which they are trying to inflict on the reading public. Anything written from within the Roman Catholic church will give us glowing reports about the pope, making him seem like Superman, talented and skilled in every manner, and seemingly without flaw. Most articles written from outside the Roman Catholic church are from organizations, like Time, Newsweek, or The New York Times, which have the clear purpose of opposing the pope, and so will make each of his actions seem like a blunder or mistake, and interpret every speech as proof of either ignorance or ill will.

How, then, can we accurate information about a pope, if the sources are explicitly skewed, either for him or against him?

The clearest picture of a pope can perhaps be gained by letting him speak for himself. Every recent pope has written a number of books, both before and after becoming pope. These texts will show us what was on his mind, and will show us if he changed his mind in any way after becoming pope. Admittedly, such documents may difficult to read, but getting to an actual, objective truth is usually hard work. Reading propaganda is easy.

So, ignore the books written by monks and nuns, designed to make a pope look good; and ignore The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the TV reports on ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS, which are composed to make the pope look bad. Both are equally biased. Instead, see what he himself has written.

Jus Primae Noctis

From opera (Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro) to Hollywood (Braveheart), the notion of jus primae noctis has been a great dramatic device, because it inspire's the deepest sense of outrage at injustice in the viewer, and the dramatic energy is enough to propel the plot forward. It is part of the larger pattern of many great dramas to posit a horrific injustice, which energizes the forward action of the storyline as the protagonists attempt to restore justice.

For those who don't know, jus primae noctis is a legal term for the right of the local nobility (usually a count, or a duke, or a baron; originally a feudal lord in earlier times) to be the first man to sleep with any girl on the night of her wedding before she is allowed to sleep with her husband.

Despite the depth of the outrage which this phrase invokes, and despite the high profile which it has attained in literature and other art forms, one question remains: did this ever actually happen in real life?

According to most historians, the answer is no. Although history knows many examples of aristocrats who used their influence to seduce, or rape, girls in their territories, there seem to be no recorded examples of a royal who attempted to codify this as law, or who attempted to systematically carry out this idea. It seems to be a powerful, but ficticious, literary invention. Sociologists have noted that, if anybody had ever actually tried to institute this as a legal practice, he probably would have been quickly assassinated.

The Home of Modern Science

What we call science, or, more properly, natural science, has been around at least since Aristotle started organizing categories of animals and thereby founded biology.

But science was re-started, and what we call modern science arose and found its home in Europe during the late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and the mathematical infrastructure needed to form them constituted a new era in scientific thinking, an era which continues to this day. But why did this happen in Europe, and not somewhere else in the world?

European culture in the late Middle Ages had reached a point, after several centuries, at which it could clearly formulate six ideas which contributed to a scientific mindset:

[1] The physical world is real, not an illusion. Many non-European cultures had embraced a philosophy which taught that the physical world is an illusion. Eurpean philosophers taught that the world is real and can be known. This assumption primed Western thinkers to value the physical world and to consider it worthy of study.

[2] Nature is good but not divine. Many primitive cultures held animistic beliefs, which taught that the world is the home of the divine or an emanation of God's own essence. Consequently, they believe that nature is alive with sun gods, river goddesses, and astral deities. Eurpean philosophers taught that the sun and the moon are not gods; historians call this the "de-deification" of nature; nature is not to be worshipped, it is to be studied.

[3] Nature is orderly and predictable. Another unique contribution of European thought was the ideas of the laws of nature. Nobody had ever before used the word "law" in relation to nature. Many other cultures had regarded nature as mysterious, dangerous, and chaotic. Early scientists acted on the belief that nature is orderly, before they had amassed enough evidence to prove it. Modern physics is based on the ideas that the universe is rational because it is understandable, uniform because laws like gravity operate in the same way on different planets, and organized according to the laws of mathematics.

[4] Humans can discover nature's order. Early scientists acted on the hypothesis that the order in nature can be discovered by the human mind. The ancient Chinese, by comparison, believed that the order of nature was inscrutable to the human mind; so they never developed science as a self-correcting, experimental enterprise.

[5] We need to experiment. The ancient Greeks had organized natural sciences, like Aristotle's biology, as a largely reflective effort. They thought about biology, but they did not investigate biology.

[6] The order in nature is mathematically precise. Modern science depends on the idea that the order in nature is precise and can be expressed in mathematical formulas; European thought did not see nature as random or haphazard, but rather structured and organized by equations.

These six ideas formed a culture which was the ideal place for a new set of scientific breakthroughs. This is how culture relates to science.

The Most Superlative

It is not unusual to hear or read statements like, "Alexander the Great was an excellent tactian and strategist" or "the Magna Carta was formative" or "the Thirty Years War was devastating." These types of propositions are routine in history, and are no problem, if you can support them by citing specific facts: "Alexander the Great was an excellent tactician and strategist because he managed to invade and conquer Greece, Persia, and Egypt" or "the Magna Carta was formative because it has shaped not only the government of England, but also the governments of several other nations (USA, Canada, Australia), and has exerted this influence continually over the last 800 years" or "the Thirty Years War was devastating because more people died in it than in any other war prior to 1914." General statements are fine, if they are supported by specific facts.

What are, however, much more problematic, are superlative generalizations. To say that "Alexander the Great was the most excellent tactician and strategist" is very hard to prove: what about Napoleon or Ulyses Grant? To write that "the Magna Carta was the most formative political document every written" is difficult to support: what about the Ten Commandments, or the Declaration of Independence?

So be very careful when using superlatives: "the most" or "the greatest" can get you into trouble. Much safer are "one of the greatest" or "one of the most"; but they still need to be supported by citing details.

The Queen and the Philosopher

One of the most famous rulers of Sweden was Queen Kristina (often spelled in the English way, “Christina”). She not only governed Sweden during an era that was historically important, but she also interacted with some of the most important people of her time.

In 1646, she began to write letters to Rene Descartes, the French thinker who almost single-handedly began modern rationalist philosophy. They discuss love, ethics, God, and creation; she is interested in his Roman Catholic views: she is, like 99% of Swedes, Lutheran.

In 1648, she will play a leading role in the negotiations which bring an end to the Thirty Years War, and bring peace to Europe. The negotiations are held in a church in Germany. Some people praise her for bringing peace; others will condemn her, because the war ended badly for Sweden. Until this time, Sweden had been very powerful in European politics and economics; after this time, Sweden will be less significant.

In 1650, Queen Christina invites Descartes to Stockholm, so that they can discuss philosophy together. She wants to meet with him every morning at 5:00 am in a poorly-heated room in her palace; in order to do this, he must arise at 3:30 am, because the house where is he staying is more than an hour's journey away. He contracts pneumonia and dies.

After a series of secret letters to Jesuits, discussing the Roman Catholic faith, she abdicates in 1654, and travels to Rome, where she officially converts to Roman Catholocism and meets with the pope in 1655. She will remain active in European politics, travelling through France, Sweden, Italy, and elsewhere. She will continue her interest in philosophy, and the impact of philosophy on astronomy, carrying with her the influence of Descartes.

Jewish Women - Makers of History

To consciously scan history for women who made a difference is a project worth doing; whether or not there is some patriarchal bias in history, the point stands as valid that history has been shaped by men as well as women. This is true in all areas of history; today we'll draw our examples from Jewish events. Some reminders:

It was a woman who ...

Risked her life to protect Moses at a time when Egyptians were engaging in "ethnic cleansing" by killing Hebrew baby boys.

Protected the Israelite spies in the city of Jericho, gave them information, and helped them to escape, making possible the Israelite invasion.

Led the Israelites to victory in battle, advising and eventually replacing the military leader Barak.

Kept the prophet Elijah alive by giving him provisions when there was no other food to found.

Crystalized the concept of devotion in the words, "wither you go, I will go, and your God will be my God."

Risked her life, confronting the Persian king to whom she was married, to save her nation from destruction.

Was cited by Jesus as demonstrating altruism when she donated an absolutely small, but relatively large, sum.

Shattered an alabaster container to pour perfume on Jesus, a radical act at the time.

Wetted the feet of Jesus with her tears, in a symbolic gesture.

Embraced the concept of mystery and elucidated the concept of the divine incarnation.

The women listed above changed history, and had they not played the roles they did, our culture and civilization today would different beyond recognition - all manner of art, music, philosophy, and politics would have taken radically divergent paths without the influence of these historic Jewish women.

Categorizing Worldviews

Different scholars develop various systems for keeping track of beliefs; here's one:

You can picture this as a 6 x 10 grid, with six worldviews on one axis, and ten topics on the other. Each cell in the spreadsheet would then contain a statement about what one of those worldviews has to say about the topic.

The six worldviews are: Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Cosmic Humanism, Marxism-Leninism, and Post-Modernism.

The ten topics would be: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history.

Try to sketch this chart for yourself, and fill in the cells. Then ask yourself: Could there be more worldviews? Who are the authors and texts that define each worldview? Are there better ways to keep track of worldviews?

Judging the Quality of a Speech

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln gave his famous Gettysburg Address, a speech which is not only significant because of its historical context at the turning point in one of the most important wars in the history of the world - and the single most noteworthy war in the history of the United States - but which is also a masterpiece of language.

Lincoln was sandwiched between several other speeches which were given that day by other politicians. These other speakers each spoke for approximately an hour, making a long day of it. Lincoln, by contrast, probably took about two minutes for his oration!

Editorializing about the event, The Chicago Sun wrote: "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame, as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."

Today, textbooks around the world cite Lincoln's work as a paradigmatic example of the English language!

Playing Victim

One distinctive aspect of our civilization is its concern for those who are vulnerable in society. Our culture has been marked by this trend ever since Moses, who gave special legal advantages to the weaker classes: widows, orphans, the poor, and the foreigners. This is the basis for many aspects of modern social structures, including welfare systems, and extends even to sports: Americans love to “root for the underdog” when a lesser-known team takes on a powerful opponent.

As Nietzsche pointed out, other cultures do not share this inclination: other cultures consider it appropriate to exploit the poor and weak, and to take advantage of those who are vulnerable. Outside of our civilization, it is considered an unusual thing to want to help those in need. Some varieties of Hinduism and Buddhism even reject the idea of relieving the suffering of others, because they have been fated to endure such suffering to pay off the sins of their previous lives. By helping them, you would be helping them to unjustly escape their punishments, and condemning them to suffer more in the next life because they didn't suffer enough in this one.

Although it is generally a good thing that our society wants to help those who are defenseless, there is one drawback: our society can be fooled into helping those who merely claim to be victims, but who in reality suffer no disadvantage.

To be sure, it is not really a big problem if a man takes a meal from a homeless shelter when he's actually not so poor. It may be immoral, but society isn't harmed by his deception. He has exploited our society's desire to help the weak, but the damage to society at large is not great.

Another example of this principle is the trend of faking “hate crimes”. Desiring to help those who are oppressed by racism or cultural prejudice, our society wants to prevent crimes based on a person's skin color or nationality. But some individuals have seen a chance to exploit this system by filing reports of crimes which never took place, in order to gain sympathy for themselves and their political causes.

In U.S. News and World Report, the University of Georgia revealed that a resident assistant in a dormitory had filed nine police reports, claiming to have been the victim of nine separate attacks because he was a homosexual. When the police began to investigate the incidents, he confessed that he had faked them, because he wanted to create the impression that homosexuals were victims.

The French newspaper Le Groupe National carried the story of Edward Drago, a student at the College of New Jersey, sent death threats to himself, and to a homosexual student group to which he belonged. He confessed to faking the death threats, trying to get publicity for his student club.

At St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, a lesbian student used a razor blade to cut her own face; she reported to the police that she had been attacked. When the police discovered that she had faked the attack, she told the U.S. News and World Report that she had done it in order to help raise funds for a pro-homosexual student group.

The same article revealed that a lesbian at Eastern New Mexico State University told the police that her name had been posted by an “anti-gay hate group”, and that she had then later been physically attacked because her name was publicized. The police discovered that she had posted the list herself, that there was no “anti-gay hate group”, and that she had faked the physical assalt as well.

In joint reporting between World magazine and AZcentral web news, it was revealed that a lebsian had hired a homosexual man to beat her, so then she could tell the police that she was the victim of a “hate crime”.

In a California high school, a student faked a series of “gay-bashing” incidents, including grafiti on lockers and cars, and eggs being thrown at students and their houses. The Los Angeles Times discovered that these actions had actually been done by the school's Gay-Straight Alliance.

Because this tactic of gaining sympathy is based on our culture, it is found outside the U.S. in other countries which share our cultural roots. In England and Europe, the police have reported faked hate crimes.

One of our civilization's strengths is its conern for the down-trodden, and we should not give up this precious aspect of our society. But we must be aware that it can be exploited by political groups, who present themselves as vicitms in order to gain sympathy - and power.

The Other Van Gogh

Most of us are familiar with Vincent van Gogh, the Dutch painter. Less famous is his relative, Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, who was brutally murdered on November 2, 2004.

Theo van Gogh was murdered because of his art. He had made a documentary film about the treatment of women in Islamic societies. He questioned whether it was appropriate for Muslim leaders to continue to repeat advice, found in the Qur'an, that husbands should beat their wives if they wives fail to obey. Theo van Gogh also documented how Islam prevented women from attending school and gaining an education.

On the morning of his death, Theo was riding his bicycle to work. Muslim gunmen, who were waiting for him, opened fire; he was hit several times, and fatally wounded. Not content with killing him, the assassins stabbed him with a knife, and then used the knife to attach a five-page note to Theo's body. The note stated that the governments of Europe were the object of "jihad", and listed specific government leaders in Holland who would be targeted for assassination.

It seems that more than one member of the van Gogh family produced turbulent art, and faced a tragic death.

Arguing about Darwinism

Most of us are by now familiar with the usual discussions about evolution: the hard-core Creationists dogmatically assert that the universe as we know was created in six twenty-four hour days, six thousand years ago; the hard-core Darwinists dogmatically assert that life was spontaneously generated out of lifeless random chemicals billions of years ago. This type of debate has been going on for approximately two hundred years now.

Is there a third option? Increasing numbers of professors are embracing a view which, through observation and induction, frames the hypothesis that life is not the result of random coincidences.

At universities and colleges like Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Vanderbilt, Duke, Tulane, and all eleven of the Big Ten schools, professors in departments such as Astro-Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Genetics, Embrology, Dendrology, Bio-Chemistry, and Quantum Mechanics are being attacked by university presidents and administrators because they are skeptical about Darwinism.

Five hundred of them signed a petition, stating that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Althought they are being punished for questioning the claims of Darwinism, this group of researchers may be opening up a "third option" in a debate that has been locked up between two sides.

Who Are You?

When asked, "who are you?", many people will reply with "I work at IBM," or "I live in Detroit," or "I write software," or "I come from Wisconsin." But these answers don't really address the question. (You may recognize the comedy bit from the movie "Anger Management".) If you tell me what you do, or where you live, that doesn't really tell me who you are.

In Denmark, in the 1840's, the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard struggled with this question. He decided that the real answers to these questions lay in the meaningful and significant choices you make. Who you are is shown by how you make decisions, and the most consequential decisions are made in the context of relationships. Kierkegaard would happily grant that, if you are standing by yourself in front of a machine, faced with the question of "Coke or Pepsi?", you can indeed make a free choice; but it is not a significant choice. The meaningful decisions are those which impact other humans, and which impact your relationship to those other humans. Those decisions reveal who you are.

So Kierkegaard would answer the question "who are you?" by saying, "I am a friend, a brother or sister, a son or daughter, a neighbor, etc." The answer to "who are you?" is not found in your education, your job, or your athletic record. It is found in the way you interact with other humans. Granted, you may interact with them in the course of your job, your education, or your athletic involvement.

Kierkegaard also points out that the ultimate relationship is one's relationship to God. The manner in which you deal with God shows something about who you are. Kierkegaard is known as the founder of existentialism.

Avoiding Fascism

In the course of analyzing fascism, we noted that fascism avoids free market capitalism. This kind of laissez-faire economics is not compatible with the fascist's desire for control.

We also learned that fascist politics are dominated by militarism; instead of the political process directing the military, the military controls the political structure. In the words of the famous French leader during World War One, "war is too important to be left to the generals."

These two general principles can be applied to the United States. If we continue to allow our economy to function freely, without interference or regulation by the government, and if we make sure that our politicians direct the military, instead of the military directing the politicians, then we can avoid fascism.