Class war #2

Paul Krugman's New York Times column today backs up Elizabeth Warren's rebuttal to the Republican charges of Obama's plan to increase taxes on the wealthy as "class warfare."

From 1979 to 2005, the last stats available from the Congressional Budget Office, inflation-adjusted family incomes in the middle income group rose 21%. For 26 years, that's not quite 1% a year. For the same period, income of the top group rose 480%, from $4.2 million to $24.3 million. Do the math: that's 18.4% per year.

Do they look like victims of class warfare? Krugman asks.

So what are the real class warfare tactics that have gone on during this period that have tilted the income shift toward the wealthy? Attacks on organized labor and collective bargaining for wages, plus deregulation of financial institutions and corporations. And most important, taxes on capital gains and estates have been slashed, while payroll taxes have gone up.

This is what creates what Warren Buffet has made such an issue over: he pays a lower rate of taxes than his secretary. One-fourth of those with incomes over $1 million a year pay a total tax rate (income plus payroll) of 12.6 % -- which is lower than many in the middle class.

So what planet do Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor live on? They rightly claim that the wealthy are paying more taxes now than they did and a larger portion of the total tax revenue. That's true.

But here's why: these wealthy people are making a lot more money than they did before -- and a larger share of the income pie, with 480% increase. Of course, they owe more taxes.

We are in an era of the cherry-picked sound bites without any explanation of the larger picture. And Republicans have perfected the art of selling misleading information and inducing their constituents to vote against their own best interests. Now they've got all these middle-class Tea Party zealots drooling to install a Republican president and Congress -- who will deregulate corporations and banks and cut taxes to benefit the rich and further hurt the middle class.

Is that what they want? Do they have an inkling of the results? More of the same that got us into this financial crisis.

Bah, humbug. A plague upon them.

Ralph

Fox News/Google GOP Debate

Last week's CNN/Tea Party sponsored GOP debate was barf-inducing because of the audience's blood-thirsty reactions ("Yeah" shouted out to "Should we just let someone without health insurance die?" And cheering for Gov. Perry's record of having presided over 234 executions.).

Last night's Fox News/Google GOP sponsored debate had its moment too, when some in the audience lustily booed a questioner: a gay soldier speaking from Iraq and asking about DADT, which ended two days before. Prior to that, they could not have shown his face or used his name; but last night they did both. AND this Fox News audience booed.

Rick Santorum, who was asked the question, has a problem with homosexuality. It makes him crazy. His infamous remark from years back when DADT was being debated in Congress still follows him -- he said that accepting homosexuality would lead to having to accept "man on dog sex." Last night he added fuel to the fire.

1. He said allowing gay soldiers to be open about who they are "is a special privilege." Yeah, a special privilege that everyone else has had all along -- the freedom to talk about their partners or to display pictures of the celebrity girl they desire. It was ok to have "cheesecake" pinup photos in your locker; but not "beefcake" photos. That could get you beat up, or discharged. So, yeah, special privilege, indeed.

News Flash to Rick Santorum: Being allowed to behave just like everybody else is not a special privilege.

2. He said removing DADT is trying to inject social policy into the military. And just what, please, was DADT itself, if not a policy controlling the social life of gay military people? Isn't that a "social policy?" A repressive, discriminatory social policy? So now we have an inclusive, non-discriminatory policy. You have a problem with non-discrimination, Rick?

3. He said what we're doing now is "social experimentation." For many years now, dozens of other nations have allowed gay men and women to serve openly in the military with zero problems of any significance. The "experiment" has been done, and the answer is clear.

4. He said that as President he would re-institute DADT. Rick's staff needs to sit him down and explain to him that (1) the courts have said it is unconstitutional; and (2) Congress actually voted to repeal it, and President Obama signed it into law. "President" Santorum cannot simply reinstitute it.

5. He wants to go back to when "sex was not an issue" in the military. Please tell us, Mr. Homophobe: When was that? You have it exactly backward. Repealing DADT is supposed to make sex not be an issue. No longer blackmail. No longer a conflict between being yourself and risking you whole career. Rick wants it to be out of sight, so it can be out of his mind.

Santorum's problem is that he is so uncomfortable with the idea of two men having sex that he just wants it to go away, don't make him think about it. He wants the whole military to deny that it exists. To deny that gay people exist, period; not just the sex part. Because to him, it's only about sex. Not about who these individuals are as people, not about authentic identity and freedom to be who you are. It's all just (snicker, snicker) about two men 'doing it,' and he can't get it out of his mind. It's so tantalizing . . . . er, I mean, disgusting. It even makes him think about "man on dog sex."

Please, folks. Let's re-institute a social policy affecting millions so Rick Santorum isn't tormented by sexual thoughts that make him anxious.

Such is the immaturity and twisted mind of a candidate for President of the United States. And then there were those in the audience who booed a gay, active-duty soldier speaking from Iraq.

This is a sick sick party.

Ralph

Elizabeth Warren for President 2016

Now, finally we have a Democrat in the tradition of Bobby and Ted Kennedy -- running to reclaim the "Kennedy seat" in the Senate. I don't mean their background of wealth and privilege but their ability to articulate a passion for egalitarian policies. In fact, I am so impressed with Elizabeth Warren -- and have been ever since I saw her on a Sunday morning talk show a couple of years ago -- that I am ready to support her for President in 2016.

Here's what she said, in response to the lame accusation from John Boehner that President Obama is "engaging in class warfare" by wanting the wealthy to pay more taxes:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said.

“No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

BRAVA !~!~!~ BRAVA !~!~!~! She has my vote.

Ralph

Blood thirst #2

The State of Georgia's process of executing Troy Davis was scheduled to begin tonight at 7:00 pm. Apparently the State made a last minute, temporary stay while the U. S. Supreme Court deliberates an appeal to stay the execution.

As of this writing (10:00pm) there is no word from SCOTUS, and some say this is an unusually long time for them to deliberate. They have already ordered a delay in two executions in Texas this week. A Georgia prison official clarified what is happening: "We are in a delay, waiting for a decision from the US Supreme Court. There has not been a reprieve." The execution could still be carried out tonight, or any time through September 28 without a new execution order.

Davis' case has drawn world-wide condemnation and protest rallies. Pope Benedict, Jimmy Carter, Amnesty International all have made pleas. Tonight, in Paris and Rome, as well as all over the U.S., and particularly at the prison in Jackson, and at the state capitol in Atlanta, crowds have gathered, holding signs: "NOT IN MY NAME."

This case is especially poignant right now. Although the crime happened 20 years ago, the execution is scheduled a couple of weeks after a case in New Jersey has brought forth scientific evidence on the unreliability of eye-witness reports. And this case hinges primarily on eye witnesses identifying him as the man who shot the police officer. Seven of the nine eye witnesses have since recanted, amid accusations of police coercion and conflicting reports of a confession from the real killer, in fact the man who first said Davis did it.

The only "hard" evidence in the case that I have read about is that the shell casings from the bullets in this case match ones from a shooting in a case in which Troy Davis had previously been convicted of armed robbery. But the gun was never found. And there is no hard proof that he fired it in this case.

New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristoff put it most succinctly on his blog, after it was known that the Supreme Court was deliberating the case and had been for some time:

"When smart people debate whether or not a man should be executed, that's a good reason not to execute him."

As I have written before, any execution to me is state-sanctioned murder. It should be abolished. This is not meant to be unsympathetic toward victims, or their families; it is not meant to be condoning crime. It is unrelated to the severity of the crime. It is a principled opposition to the State, ACTING IN MY NAME AS A CITIZEN, deciding in the cold light of reason and responsibility that another human being should be put to death, when s/he is no immediate threat to others.

I do not know whether Davis is guilty. But the evidence seems too flimsy, the doubts too large. An innocent man may be put to death.

Ralph

Cautious optimism returns

I feel a slow gathering of positive signs in the political situation. Obama has drawn a line in the sand about raising taxes on the wealthy. He is taking a different tack now, at least it seems that he's through letting the Republicans control the message. He's not only standing firm, he's going aggressive -- beginning to turn the tables on them.

Eric Cantor is making noises about another showdown and possible government shutdown over passing legislation to cover disaster aid for the recent hurricane damage -- saying it has to be offset by cuts, and he's targeting the energy budget -- as if tweaking the Dems and daring them to fight back.

They will. Obama will. This is a win for the Dems. The Repubs want to deny disaster aid to hurricane victims as a political gambit?

Another sign: Last week Elizabeth Warren announced her campaign for Senator to oppose Scott Brown in MA. And already she has surged in polls, pulling even with him in a very short time.

Perhaps I am also a bit swayed toward optimism by the final end today of DADT, as well as the CA appeals court judge deciding yesterday that video tapes of the Prop8 trial can be made public. So now Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow can play clips of testimony and show the world what idiots and what a pathetic lack of any evidence the anti-gay forces brought to such a momentous case.

And then Bill Clinton pulled no punches at the opening meeting of his Climate Initiative annual meeting today. Saying that the GOP presidential candidates' denial of climate warming science ". . . makes us look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right?" Then he named names: Only Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney have not flatly denied the validity of the science.

But here's the latest today: Republican Lamar Alexander (R-TN) who has been #3 in the GOP Senate leadership is stepping down from that position in order, he says very plainly, to be more independent and able to work with Democrats on some issues to get legislation passed.

He was careful not to disparage his colleagues, but the message between the lines is clear. He's fed up and ready to try to make the Senate work again.

It's still rough going, and ignorance reigns in the GOP; but the Dems seem to be waking up.

Ralph

The blood-thirsty right

I commented in my rant about the Tea Party Republican debate about the audience's thirst for blood revenge in their applauding Rick Perry for presiding over 234 executions as governor and boasting about not losing sleep over the possibility that an innocent man might be killed by the state.

Now, here in Georgia, we are about to do just that, quite possibly. And our own Board of Pardons and Paroles has rejected the latest plea for clemency for Troy Davis.

This case has attracted world wide attention: Pope Benedict, Jimmy Carter, the NAACP leadership, and Amnesty International, as well as countless citizens and celebrities (600,000 signed a petition) pleaded for not carrying out the death penalty in a case that has so many questions about the man's guilt.

Today, William Sessions, former FBI Director under Reagen, Bush I, and Clinton, wrote an editorial calling for stopping the execution, scheduled for tomorrow, referring to the "pervasive, persistent doubts" because of multiple witness recantations, lack of physical evidence, and allegations of police coercion.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court last year ordered the judge to hold a hearing on the appeal -- but that judge decided that it was not sufficient for serious doubt to be cast on Davis' original guilty verdict; no, instead, Davis had to prove his innocence. And the judge decided that he had not presented proof of innocence. So a new trial was denied.

When did the American justice system change from having to prove guilt to the accused having to prove his innocence? This is a travesty. Even if you support the death penalty -- and I vehemently oppose it in every case, regardless of the guilt and the crime -- this is unconscionable.

The last chance appeal was to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. They have spoken, and their answer is no. Can the governor intervene at this point? I think so, but does Nathan Deal have it in him to go against the thirst for blood and vengeance in his political base?

Ralph

DSK - my opinion

This is not one of the major crises facing the world, although it did command a chunk of the media attention: ie, the alleged rape of the housekeeper by former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Now the criminal case against him has been dismissed, because of the prosecutor's assessment that winning the case would depend on whether the jury will believe her or him, and she has already proved herself unreliable by lying to the police and to immigration officials about other matters. Note: this does not mean that DSK was acquitted; he may very well have committed rape. That has not been decided. But the criminal case has been dismissed. There is still a civil suit pending.

DSK has now given an interview, in which he claims that it was both "an error" and "a moral failing" on his part, and he regrets it "infinitely." Small wonder he regrets it, given the result that he had to resign from one of the world's prestigious jobs and lost his probably realistic ambition to be elected President of France.

He admits to having sex with the house-keeper, but claims that it didn't involve violence, constraint, or aggression. He also dismissed the separate claim of a French writer that he had tried to rape her during a 2003 interview, again saying that "no act of aggression, no violence" took place between them.

Which all leads me to wonder and suggest this: Perhaps Monsieur Strauss-Kahn does not understand what constitutes aggression and violence in a sexual encounter between a man and a woman: Does it have to involve ropes to tie her up, and knives or guns to threaten her, or fists and whips to beat her into submission? Or is simple over-powering strength and persistence, in the face of physical and verbal resistance, enough to constitute rape?

Perhaps DSK actually thinks he's not aggressive -- just God's gift to women (or that women are God's gift to him, his for the taking). Several other women have now come forward to talk about being hit on by him, both at parties and in work situations, in ways that seem inappropriate even in the particular setting. He sounds like the kind of narcissistic, powerful man who feels entitled to command sex from any woman he wants, whether she wants it or not.

Has anyone asked him for his definition of aggression?

Ralph

DADT is dead #21 -- officially and at last !!

Today, Tuesday, September 20, 2011 marks the official end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Astonishingly, some Republicans in Congress are still demagogue-ing the issue, claiming that it will undermine military effectiveness, blah blah blah.

Not so. Pentagon Press Secretary Georgie Little issued this statement concerning military preparedness for the end of DADT:

"No one should be left with the impression that we are unprepared. We are prepared for repeal." He added that 97% of military personnel have completed the training program for accepting and integrating gay men and women into their military units.

Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is to hold a new conference about it on Tuesday.

At the stroke of midnight, U. S. Navy Lieutenant Gary Ross married his partner in a wedding ceremony in Vermont.

The end of DADT has been a long time coming . . . but BLTN.*

Ralph

*Better late than never.

Tea Party debate

Last Monday night was one of the most disgusting spectacles in recent political history -- and that's a hard contest to win, when you consider any time Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich is on camera. They have now been displaced by Rick Perry's swagger and smirk. He is Dubya on steroids.

But the CNN-Tea Party sponsored debate comes out ahead in evoking disgust. Concerning the candidates: The level of ignorance displayed as virtue, the knee-jerk anti-Obama stance on anything, the degree of pandering to base greed and the indifference to hardship, and the championing of the privileged over the disadvantaged -- all were so rank and so pervasive that it almost made me puke.

And it wasn't just the candidates. You could almost excuse them, because some of them must be cringing inside that they have to play this game in order to have any hope of winning this nomination. No, the audience was even worse, and they had no excuse. Two examples:

#1. Rick Perry was being questioned about the 234 executions carried out during his terms as governor. He had famously boasted earlier that he never lost sleep worrying that an innocent person might be executed. Here again, he reiterated his confidence in the Texas appeals system and assured the audience that he does not worry that an innocent person might die. This, despite strong evidence that a man executed in 2004 -- during Perry's term -- might very well be innocent. An outside investigative report points to flawed expert witness testimony and prosecutorial comments that would likely have inflamed the prejudices of the jury in the sentencing phase.

But it was the audience reaction: Even before Perry said a word, in the middle of Wolf Blitzer posing his question and referring to the 234 executions during Perry's term, the audience broke in with applause and cheers -- as though this was some badge of honor. Perry didn't bother to calm the crowd by saying something like: this brings me no pleasure, but it is a duty of the governor to faithfully carry out the laws.

Even John McCain did something like that when a woman asking a question at a rally called Obama a Muslim. McCain interrupted her to say, "No, ma'am; you're misinformed. Mr. Obama is a Christian." But, no, Perry just basked in the applause and smirked his smirk. And swaggered, if you can swagger standing still. Somehow, he seems to be able to do that.

#2. Ron Paul was being questioned about his views on health care reform, specifically mandatory insurance coverage. Wolf Blitzer posed the hypothetical: a young man without health insurance becomes quite ill requiring a long hospital stay and then dies, leaving behind unpaid charges of $400,000. Who should pay?

Paul's response, reflecting his libertarian stance of minimal government, was all about people's freedom to make choices and having to live with the consequences.

Wolf kept pushing back, asking a second time: "But are you saying we should just let him die?" At least two loud voices shouted from the audience: "YEAH !!!!" YEAH!!!! And there was general, loud and sustained applause.

This is what the Tea Party is bringing -- and forcing, it seems, the other Republicans to climb on board in order to win this nomination.

In fairness to Paul, he did not imply that the man should be allowed to die; he offered the mealy-mouthed defense that in the past people's friends and their churches have always stepped in to take care of people in need. Wolf pointed out that today's medical costs are beyond the means of most churches. Paul just shrugged at this point. How realistic is that answer? What church has a Pastor's Fund that could be tapped for $400,000 for one individual?

But nobody -- none of the other debaters nor the moderator -- took up what to me was the other big point here. This man did receive the care he needed, and the hospital was left with the unpaid bill. This happens all the time. So what do they do? They just raise the charges for everyone else across the board to absorb such unpaid bills.

And THAT is one of the unrecognized causes of the skyrocketing costs of medical care -- one that would be reversed by having universal health insurance. Either we need mandatory universal coverage, so that premiums are paid for everyone (whether by government or the individual is immaterial for this argument), which makes the cost less per person covered. Or else we have to adopt the callous attitude of those who say: Let him die. We can't keep going like this, passing along the unpaid charges by raising the charges on everyone else, driving up the supposed costs of health care.

Would these same people argue that department stores should not expect the police (a government agency) to arrest shop-lifters, and instead simply pass on the loss to their other customers by raising prices? I don't think so. But what's the difference in having government sponsored police forces, or public schools, or health insurance?

Now you can argue, as some do, that the Tea Party represents a minority position in the Republican Party and that their influence is being exaggerated. In numbers, yes. But look what they've accomplished in the House of Representatives. Deadlock on issues that would have had bipartisan support in the past, or at least reasonable negotiations and compromises. Now they just say NO. And Boehner caves, because he doesn't have the votes in his caucus. And Obama either caves or gets no bill at all. Because he doesn't have the required super-majority of 60 votes to get controversial bills through the Senate. So now Obama is losing the support of his base, because he's caving in to Republicans.

Beyond all that, though. What have we come to as a nation of people? Among the most heated audience affirmations of any issue of the night seemed, well, downright blood-thirsty or at the least vindictive: (1) lauding the governor for executing 234 people without a single worry and (2) "let the man die" if he can't afford medical care.

This is a sorry state of humanity we have sunk to, folks. We're better than this. Even most Republicans are better than this. Heck, even most Texans are better than this (Both Perry and Paul are Texans.)

Ralph

At last, Obama draws a line in the sand

Now we're seeing Obama do what he should have done much earlier -- drive a harder bargain.

In the past few days, he has augmented his jobs bill by proposing a minimum tax for millionaires, one that is over and above his plan to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of this year (because many of them get most of their earnings from capital gains, which are taxed at a low rate, with no payroll taxes on those earnings either; and so some pay almost no taxes).

Now, tonight, his aides have announced that he will veto any Super Committee proposal that cuts Medicare without including tax increases for the wealthy and big corporations.

In the liberals' lamenting about the Super Committee, I don't think anyone talked about the possibility that Congress could pass their plan, and then Obama could veto it -- which presumably would kick in the same trigger cuts that both sides want to avoid.

So maybe the administration had this ace up their sleeve -- actually had a bit more power than anyone was talking about.

Now . . . if he will just stick to it.

Ralph

And yet . . . there was politics

It's true: I did not take a computer with me on vacation, so I had no email or internet access. I thought I would leave politics behind too.

First, I found the daily New York Times for sale at the Starbucks down the road. I've discovered in visits to other smaller cities (Santa Fe, for example) that you can always find the NYT at Starbucks.

Then . . the condo had cable TV, and I discovered MSNBC and almost became addicted to a line-up that is the liberal's answer to Fox News.

Starting in the late afternoon, you can watch straight through hour-long programs each hosted by: Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Laurence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Daryl Rattigan, and Ed Schultz on The Ed Show. Meanwhile, I could flip back and forth and watch Anderson Cooper on CNN and, later, Charlie Rose on PBS. Not just liberal, in contrast to Fox and most of the rest of TV as well, but intelligent discussion. Six hours in a row !!!

Rachel Maddow was already my favorite, from watching clips of her programs on the internet. But Al Sharpton? I was unprepared for the quality of his show. I remember the skeptical comments, when MSNBC announced it was giving a talk show to Sharpton. But the Reverend Al turns out to be quite a lucid and focused interviewer and news analyst. He does not in any way come across as a radical screamer, as he has often seemed in the media when defending some victimized individual. I came to look forward to his pithy characterizations, as well as his clear thinking and hard-hitting challenges to the Republicans.

The big problem was -- which show would I choose to miss in order to go out for dinner?

All this intelligent, reasonable discussion was intoxicating after the vast morass of the Monday night CNN-Tea Party sponsored GOP debate (more later about that) and just about anything else on the tube, including those pestering commercials.

I briefly flirted with the idea of coming home and getting cable TV. But in the end I opted out. It was ok to spend four or five hours watching TV on vacation; but not as a regular diet back home.

I broke myself of the TV habit long ago, and I don't want to get addicted again. After all, I can barely support (time-wise) my addiction to the internet.

Ralph

My opinion

This is not one of the major crises facing the world, although it did command a chunk of the media attention: ie, the alleged rape of the housekeeper by former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Now the criminal case against him has been dismissed, because of the prosecutor's assessment that winning the case would depend on whether the jury will believe her or him, and she has already proved herself unreliable by lying to the police and to immigration officials about other matters. Note: this does not mean that DSK was acquitted; he may very well have committed rape. That has not been decided. But the criminal case has been dismissed. There is still a civil suit pending.

DSK has now given an interview, in which he claims that it was both "an error" and "a moral failing" on his part, and he regrets it "infinitely." Small wonder he regrets it, given the result that he had to resign from one of the world's prestigious jobs and lost his probably realistic ambition to be elected President of France.

He admits to having sex with the house-keeper, but claims that it didn't involve violence, constraint, or aggression. He also dismissed the separate claim of a French writer that he had tried to rape her during a 2003 interview, again saying that "no act of aggression, no violence" took place between them.

Which all leads me to wonder and suggest this: Perhaps Monsieur Strauss-Kahn does not understand what constitutes aggression and violence in a sexual encounter between a man and a woman: Does it have to involve ropes to tie her up, and knives or guns to threaten her, or fists and whips to beat her into submission? Or is simple over-powering strength and persistence, in the face of physical and verbal resistance, enough to constitute rape?

Perhaps DSK actually thinks he's not aggressive -- just God's gift to women (or that women are God's gift to him, his for the taking). Several other women have now come forward to talk about being hit on by him, both at parties and in work situations, in ways that seem inappropriate even in the particular setting. He sounds like the kind of narcissistic, powerful man who feels entitled to command sex from any woman he wants, whether she wants it or not.

Has anyone asked him for his definition of aggression?

Ralph

Back home

I just spent a relaxing week doing nothing much, at least nothing that I had to do. Lots of reading, lots of sitting on the balcony watching and listening to the waves lapping the white sands of Santa Rosa Beach, and lots of time not doing emails, not reading political blogs, and not writing one myself.

What did I read? Besides catching up on back copies of the New York Review of Books and the London Review of Books, I read one of Virginia Woolf's second-tier novels, Between the Acts; a highly praised, just published, first novel by Justin Torres, We the Animals; and most impressive of all, the 2009 highly readable Destiny Distrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes by Tamim Ansary.

If I were not already a devoted Virginia Woolf fan from her two great novels, Mrs. Dalloway and To the Lighthouse, along with her less-popular, experimental novel, The Waves, as well as the insights in her reviews and essays, and the window into the people of Bloomsbury in her diaries and journals, I would not be inclined to return to her work. But I will, because of the greatness that is there in the better parts.

We the Animals has some beautiful writing and tells a compelling story of a boy's coming-of-age in a family life described in the dust jacket as "fierce and absorbing, full of chaos and heartbreak and the euphoria of belonging completely to one another. . . . It leaves us reminded that our madness is both caused by, and alleviated by, our families . . ." Michael Cunningham called it "a dark jewel of a book. It's heartbreaking. It's beautiful. . . Justin Torres [is] a brilliant, ferocious new voice." Marilynn Robinson called it's language "brilliant, poised, and pure."

It's really a novella at 125 pages, or actually it feels more like the first half of a two stage novel. We definitely want the rest of this young man's story. However, his editor says, "were it a few pages longer it might not be as perfect." The author is only 31, a Wallace Stegner Fellow at Stanford. This is his debut novel, following a highly discussed short story in The New Yorker last month. So we will definitely hear more from him.

Destiny Disrupted is that rare book of history that encompasses a vast amount of information and is yet so readily accessible and interestingly written that I looked forward to reading the next chapter. The author often ends a chapter with a cliff-hanger: "And then the catastrophes began." Or a quirky hook: "In 1600 . . . a visitor from Mars might well have supposed that the human world was on the verge of becoming Muslin. The Martian would have been mistaken, of course: the course of history had already tipped, because of developments in Europe since the Crusades."

But these are matters of style that make for interesting reading. The substance of this book is what is so compelling. I am certainly one Westerner who has been abominably ignorant about the history of the Islamic world and its culture. There is so much misunderstanding, so much ignorance, and so much prejudice, hatred, and fear in our world about that world. Constantly, as I read, I thought "What must they think of us?" when our rabid right-wingers foment about "the Muslims."

One small example: During what we think of as the Dark Ages in Europe, when civilization (ie, the civilization known to Westerners) had been largely halted, if not completely reversed, few people could read; books existed only in monasteries. And yet at the same time, the Muslim world was flourishing in culture, knowledge, philosophy, poetry and enlightenment. They thought of Europe as "a more or less primeval forest inhabited by men so primitive they still ate pig flesh. . . . They knew that an advanced civilization had once flourished further west . . . [but] was now little more than a memory."

The other strong impression is that, yes, extremists of Islam resort to violence, as they do in our world (were the atrocities of the Crusades, done in the name of Christianity, any less barbarous than slaughter done in the name of Islam?). Let us not judge a world religion on the basis of the worst that its extremists do, but in its effect of the lives of its typical adherents. For Islam, that is a deeply-rooted, gentle acceptance and kindness toward their fellow humans, giving to the poor, taking care of the sick, and educating their children.

One main difference: Christianity emphasizes the personal salvation of the isolated soul; Islam emphasizes the construction of the perfect community.

For anyone who wants to understand Islam and the history of the world, including a major portion of history that has been left out of, or distorted, in our own history books, I recommend this highly readable book.

Ralph