http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:58:32 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/25/235832.php Tom DonelsonNever put a subject to rest before the story actually ends. I simply wrote off Notre Dame and put those thoughts in my previous blog before the game actually ended. Down quickly 17 points, Notre Dame never truly got close to Michigan State and going into the fourth quarter, and it looked all but over. In the space of 5 minutes, though, Notre Dame came back to upset Michigan State in front of the Spartan home fans.Call it the luck of the Irish as the Spartan helped the Irish cause with turnover after crucial turnover. Of course, it could easily be argued that turnovers are part of the game and Notre Dame took advantage of what was given to them. The real lesson is that in sports as in life, the game is not over until it is over. Comebacks are part of sports and last night Notre Dame game was another great comeback story for sport fans to discuss years from now.For Notre Dame, their season was on the line. The previous week debacle against Michigan dealt Notre Dame national championship chances a devastating blow and a loss against Michigan State would essentially ended Notre Dame season or at least their shot at National title. Coming into the season, Notre Dame defense was marked with question marks and it would be up to the offense to outscore the opposition. In their first two games, the defense held but against Michigan and Michigan State, the defense melted away. With 15 minutes left in their season, the Irish dug in as they scored 19 straight points to steal victory from the proverbial jaws of defeat. In many ways, this comeback compared to other great Notre Dame comeback. Irish fans still talk of Joe Montana leading the Irish to victory over Houston in the 1979 Cotton bowl in a furious fourth quarter comeback in unusually nasty Dallas weather. This comeback may even mean more for there was more at stake. When Notre Dame defeated Houston, it was for the Cotton Bowl championship, but Notre Dame was not in any national championship hunt. This present Irish team was. What makes a great comeback a great comeback is not just the comeback itself but what is at stake. When the Boston Red Sox came back from the three games to zero deficit two years ago, the American League pennant was at stake. The Red Sox would go on to sweep the Cardinals to win their first World Series in 86 years. Prior to that championship, they had to win four straight, including the last two in the hallowed ground of Yankee Stadium. Just as the Irish completed their comeback in front of a hostile Michigan State crowd, the Red Sox finished their comeback in front of rabid Yankees fans. The Yankees and their faithful followers were already booking tickets to St. Louis, but the Yankees forgot that they needed four victories -- not just three -- to continue their march toward another World Series championship. As a sports pundit recently told me, the game ends at double zero. Michigan State forgot that lesson but the Irish did not. That is why the Fighting Irish now 3-1 and still have a slight pulse beating in their pursuit of a BCS championship. Sports53403@blogcritics.org Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:58:32 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/19/170301.php Tom DonelsonNote: I spent nine days in Great Britain visiting my daughter. These are some observations about the events that unfolded while I was there.Paralysis in France and ItalyIn Western Europe, you see paralysis. The recent Italian elections went in the direction of the leftist Romano Prodi and away from the ruling center-right coalition of Silvio Berlusconi by the narrowest of margins. The election showed Italy evenly divided as a people and not yet committed to the needed reforms to move their economy forward.In France, mob rule dominated the day as angry young workers, including many unemployed, protested the moderate reforms geared to increase their job prospects. Call it the protest of the unemployed to stay unemployed. The problem for both France and Italy is that their economies, along with that of Germany, are limping along with high unemployment nearly double of that found in either Great Britain or the United States. Italy's economic growth has been half of the rest of Europe for nearly a decade, regardless of whether a right-of-center government or a left-of-center government ruled. With taxes high and government over regulation stifling businesses, Italy is an economic basket case. The dilemma for the French is that the labor market is too rigid and the government too highly involved in the economy. It is virtually impossible to fire someone. When the present French government decided to make it easier for businesses to fire workers under age 26, the goal was to make it more economically viable for French businesses to hire inexperienced workers. With overall unemployment hovering around 10 percent, the unemployment for younger French workers under 25 is nearly 2 1/2 times higher than the general population. With a fast growing Muslim population becoming more alienated from the greater society and with even fewer job prospects than native born French workers, France is sitting on a powder keg that could explode at any instant. With an inflexible labor force, France is moving backwards in its economic race with the Anglosphere and, in the process, hurting the entire European Union's ability to compete with the rest of the world. Europe is slowly being remade in the image of France, a France that is no longer capable of leading and that is sinking slowly into the abyss.End of the Blair EraIn Great Britain, the era of Tony Blair is winding down, and Labor now faces its own test to see if they will follow the more centrist path of Blair or return to the old Labor party that was routed by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. As for Blair, he followed the Bill Clinton model of pushing a leftist party to the center. Clinton demonstrated that a leftist American president need not be a disaster in a modern day economy and cemented the Reagan revolution. Genuine welfare reform occurred and a Republican Congress actually passed a capital gains tax cut, which he signed. Blair followed suit and cemented the Thatcher reforms, but he did little to push Britain sharply to the left economically, even while showing courage in the war on terror by joining the United States in the liberation of two Arab countries from totalitarian regimes. In foreign affairs, Blair proved superior in many ways to the American he most emulated on domestic policy matters: Bill Clinton. Gordon Brown, Blair's apparent heir, may be a man of the harder left. His most recent attempt to tax the inheritance of the middle class failed, and he was forced to retreat. Brown exposed a major weakness of labor by attempting to change tax laws to raise revenue from previously tax-deductible pension plans that benefited the middle class. His most recent moves make it clear that, under a new Labor administration, taxes will continue to climb. The present British economy is already starting to slow down, partly in response to the tax increases passed in 2004.With much of Britain's social services coming under attack for inefficiency, horrendous crimes featured on the front page of British newspapers, and tax increases hitting much of the British middle class, Labor has given the Tories an opening. The good news for Labor is that the Tories decided to forgo principle and simply settle for a "wet Tory" (Moderate in American terms).David Cameron is the new Tory leader. Cameron is a Tory who dares to dream small. His major platform is to imitate the Labor on many issues and look good saying it. Cameron's strength is his youth and good looks but, beyond that, there is nothing but an empty suit. Cameron's most recent pronouncement that the Tories will lose their next election pretty much negates the rationale for choosing him to lead the party in the first place. He was the magic man with a face and voice made for television, and he was to lead the Tories to victory in the next election. Instead, his party's lead in the polls has slipped, and he is floundering for a solution. With many Brits, including much of his own party, nervous over the continuing involvement in the EU, and crime a major issue, Cameron has gone soft on crime while ignoring many basic Tory issues and concerns. He is setting up the Tories to lose the next election by splitting his own base. Cameron has none of the iron will that pulsated through Maggie Thatcher's vein and the Tories may yet regret the day that they chose expediency over principle.British TelevisionBritish television contains as many American television shows British shows. Throughout London you see nothing but advertisements for American-produced movies. What is being seen is the Anglosphere expanding as both nations influence each other through the medium of television and movies. British actors, such as Hugh Laurie in the TV show House have become major American stars, and many Americans actors are routinely seen on British television.Another trend is the invasion of Indian writers and movie producers. Movies such as Bend it like Beckham, a British film produced by Indians, show that soon, India's "Bollywood" will make its entrance into our market and Britain's. The final impact of this interaction is on language. American sayings are repeated in England and vice versa. Soon, we will be exposed to the Indian version of English, and the English language will become even richer as the Anglosphere continues to impart its influence. Politics46569@blogcritics.org Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:03:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/29/173727.php Tom DonelsonSometimes in sports, numbers do not tell the whole story. Sometimes in sports, they do. For the past several years, Art Monk has been denied entrance in the National Football League Hall of Fame. In the case of Mr. Monk, numbers tell a compelling story. When Art Monk retired, he caught more passes than any other receiver in NFL history. His record has since been eclipsed but how does a man who's grabbed 940 catches for nearly 13,000 yards and still be slighted for football highest honor? Football writers have yet to find a place in Canton hallow grounds for Art Monk. Say whatever you want, there is no logic or excuses for such an oversight. Art Monk was part of two Super Bowl champions and even caught seven passes for 113 yards against the Buffalo Bills in the 1992 Super Bowl. What makes Monk stats more amazing is that he played for a predominately running team and he never had a Hall of Fame quarterback throwing passes in his direction. In 183 straight games, he managed to get open to catch at least one pass - signifying that he was an integral part of any Redskin offense. Many excuses have been made for not allowing him in the Hall of Fame, but the stats speak for themselves. Art Monk deserves his place among football's immortal.Another player who has been slighted by voters is Bert Blyleven. If Art Monk is deserving of being in NFL Hall of Fame, Bert Blyleven equally deserves to be in baseball's Hall of Fame. Blyleven won 287 games and if he had managed to squeeze out 13 more victories over his career, we would not be having this debate. He would be automatically in. Finishing just 13 victories shy of 300 doomed this great curve baller. Blyleven did not have a blazing fastball like Roger Clemens or Nolan Ryan. What he had was guile, smarts, and a curveball that kept batters on their heels. Only four pitchers have managed to strike out more batters. Blyleven helped two different teams in both leagues to World Series championships. As an important cog of the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates and 1987 Minnesota Twins pitching staff, Blyleven showed that he was more than just a good pitcher over the years but a winner. Like Art Monk, who played a key role in two Super Bowls, Blyleven played a key role in two World Series championships. Here is another statistic gem. Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins. There are seven other pitchers who rank in the top 20 in wins, shut outs and strikeouts. All of these other pitchers are safely enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Again, this is a case of statistic being overwhelming.Hall of Fame voters have often ignored numbers when selecting Hall of Fame players. Sandy Koufax never reached 170 career wins but between 1962 and 1966, there was no better pitcher in baseball. An arthritic left arm ended his career prematurely but no one will argue that he didn't belong. Gale Sayers is another player where numbers don't tell the full story since in a six-year period in the last '60s and early '70s, no one was better when handling a football. Knee injuries ended a promising career. Then there are those players who just happen to be on the right team. Lynn Swann's performance in the Super Bowl propelled him in the Hall of Fame. Joe Namath threw more inceptions than touchdowns throughout his career but for one game, he was the perfect field general. In winning Super Bowl III, Namath got his ticket punched in Canton. Even though his stats in Super Bowl III were not overwhelming, his command of the football field was. For 60 minutes against the heavily favored Colts, he was brilliant in directing the New York Jets offense. Those 60 minutes defined his career just as Swann spectacular catches in the Super Bowl defined his career as a clutch receiver in the big games. Sometimes being showcased in the right game is beneficial. I won't argue that statistics do not always determine if a player is deserving of Hall of Fame consideration. However, there are times that numbers are too overwhelming to ignore. In the case of Bert Blyleven and Art Monk, numbers are too overwhelming to ignore. Sports45691@blogcritics.org Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:37:27 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/26/163111.php Tom DonelsonIn 1998, Mark McGwire was chasing the ghost of Roger Maris and Sammy Sosa was chasing Mark McGwire. The 1998 home run chase made everyone feel better about baseball. Now the truth can be told; the era of feel-good baseball was based on a lie. We now know that Mark McGwire's strength and endurance down the stretch came, in par,t as a result of steroid use. Game of Shadows ripped the cover off baseball's little secret -- that the best hitter in baseball had been aided by modern pharmacology and he was not alone. A few years back, Jose Canseco's own book detailing substantial steroid use was dismissed as an angry ball-player settling scores. No longer in baseball and fuming that he could not have a shot at 500 homers and possible Hall of fame entry, Canseco wrote a scorching book detailing his own steroid use and that of other stars in the fame.As a sport, baseball has some unofficial standards that in the past ensured Hall of Fame entry. Hit 500 homers in a career and your ticket to the Hall of Fame has been clicked. Garner 3000 hits and you are on your way to Cooperstown, with no questions asked. If you win 300 victories from the pitcher's mound, you will be in the Hall of Fame. Canseco was one of the most complete players when he was with the A's. He could run, hit with power and one year stole 40 bases along with slugging 40 homers. But in the last years of his career, Canseco became the butt of many jokes as the player who allowed a home run bounced off his head. His glory day as an A disappeared from memory. Originally his book was dismissed as a combination of exaggeration or outright fabrication but Canseco's words proved to be truth. His book led to Congressional hearings in which Americans saw Rafael Palmeiro wag his finger to deny any steroid use; Mark McGwire essentially admitted his guilt by not answering the question. Palmeiro later tested positive for steroids and the hearings verified much of what Canseco stated was the truth. Authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams detail Barry Bonds' morph from one of baseball's all-around players to the most dangerous hitter in history. Since Bonds turned 35, he put up numbers that would be unreal for younger players and definitely surreal for a player his age. If a ball was close to the strike zone, Bonds stroked over into the McCovey Cove. Both Fainaru-Wada and Williams portray Bonds as a miniature bully, whose character flaws were made worse by steroid use. Never truly loved by baseball in general, the book merely reinforced that image he managed to portray over two decades of professional baseball. The authors of Game of Shadows claim that Bonds' jealousy of McGwire led him to begin steroid treatments. Bond told his closest associates, including his white girlfriend, that McGwire got the home run record because the establishment allowed him because of his skin pigmentation. In spite of his occasional use of the race card in private, Bonds had many close white friends, and was openly dating a white woman. Even his first wife was white; but this did not stop the bitterness that he felt toward McGwire. As far as Bonds was concerned, he was a better player than McGwire and far more deserving of the press that McGwire received. It was 1998 that convinced Bonds that he needed to juice up himself if he was going to be a dominant home run star and overshadow all the others. Fainaru-Wada and Williams show the successful transformation as Bonds turned into the Frankenstein of baseball. No one could get him out and his numbers spoke for themselves. A .290 hitter with one homer for every 16 at bats before 1999, Bonds started to hit homers a twice the clip before he became involved in the performance-enhancing drug.The drugs used also resulted in personality changes. One of the major points that the authors relay was that baseball suspected or knew what was occurring. The Giants knew that Bonds' personal trainer was involved in steroid dealing but they did nothing. When the Giants' own trainers warned the management that Bonds' personal trainers were possibly involved in illegal steroid dealing and demanded that they be banned from locker room, they were overruled.Baseball's present drug policy came about due to the possibility of potential Congressional intervention in the sport. In 2002, Ken Caminiti confessed to Sports Illustrated that his 1996 MVP season was steroid-powered and laid the groundwork for the present situation. And there was more than enough suspicion that something was amiss. Home runs were flying out of the park at record pace and what was considered hallowed ground became the routine. Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire twice bested Roger Maris' record in individual seasons. And three years after McGwire bested Maris' record, Bonds obliterated McGwire's record. For years, bad pitching and smaller stadiums were blamed, but one major reason for the home runs soaring out of the ballparks was that many ball players pumped themselves up through pharmacology. Which brings us to the question of how to view this era from historical perspective. In the past, baseball had certain standards but now it is hard to view those standards as sacred for many present players. How many of Mark McGwire's homers came as a result of steroids? Would McGwire have reached 500 homers if not for steroids? We know that Bonds nearly double his homer run output after beginning intensive therapy. Can we assume that Bonds would not have approached 700 homers or even 600 homers without aid of drugs? Unlike McGwire, however, Bonds was on his way to a Hall of Fame career and there is little doubt that he did not need any pharmacological aid to make it to the Hall of Fame. Baseball Hall of Fame voters can't be as certain of others. Palmeiro began his career as a solid spray hitter but ended his career as a 500-homers and 3000-hits man. These accomplishments are now suspected, as many voters will have to ask, how much of a role did steroids play in his final numbers? There was no doubt that Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro were excellent ball players, but were they Hall of Fame players? We will never know. Certainly any Hall of Fame voter would have to take that in account.How do Hall of Fame voters view other players? Sammy Sosa has the right statistics to be voted in but there will be many voters asking themselves, did he use or not? Many of those records set in the '90s are now suspect. The advantage of steroids and the other performance-enhancing drugs is that you never seem to run out of gas. The dog days of August have ended many records pursuits, but McGwire at his peak or Bonds never seem to slow down during the season. The drugs allowed both hitters to recover quicker from the normal aches and pains of a 162-game season. The other negative side-effect is that players who came before this present group saw their accomplishment pale by comparisons. Deserving players such as Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, or Ron Santo statistically pale in comparison to players such as McGwire, Sosa, or even Palmero, but there was no evidence that they participated in steroid use. It could easily be argued that without steroids, McGwire or Palmeiro would not have matched Andre Dawson! As Bonds gets closer to Babe Ruth's record, as well as Hank Aaron's, baseball has a dilemma of its own creation. Other sports have been farther ahead when it came to drug testing but baseball and its players union refuse to add tougher drug testing until forced. And with homers raining in records number and fans filling up stadiums, owners had no reason to look underneath the rug to see the dirt. In the case of Bonds, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that his weight gain and performance were due to more than just hard work. The Giant management, with a stadium vote in the voter hands and the need to please Bonds, merely closed their eyes to the evidence in front of them. Now Bud Selig is considering action against Bonds as a result of Game of Shadows. Selig and baseball in general are in a dilemma of their own making. Suspend Bond before he has a shot of Ruth's record will prompt some to wonder how fair is it to single out Bond when he was merely following what others done before him. There is no question that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs. He admitted as much in his grand jury testimony, even though he denied that he was aware of what he was taking. Game of Shadows is a damning book with some solid evidence to suggest the extent of Bonds' drug usage and the book is more damning of baseball for ignoring the problem until it reached the stage in which one of baseball's best player is now seeing his quest for immortality being turned upside down. Bonds may have been part of baseball lore, but in not the way he wanted. He will be remembered less for his skills and more on how he maintained those skills later in his career. Books45519@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:31:11 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/05/234128.php Tom DonelsonWhat can be learned from the Danish cartoon controversy? The first is that we are surrendering the interpretation of the Koran to the more radical Islamic fundamentalists. After a few days of the controversy, we heard from many Muslims such as Iranian journalist Amir Tahri and blogger Iraq the Model that Muslim drew more controversial pictures throughout their history than what the Danes published. On top of that, the more controversial pictures distributed though out the Middle East were fabricated by some of the Islamic clerics themselves. (If it is heresy for infidels to publish unflattering pictures of Mohammad, what about Islamic clerics themselves? If they fabricate pictures and then distribute them, is that not worthy of at least a stoning or a beheading of a few clerics?) So maybe, we should not automatically allow the more extremists of Islamic clerics to consider what is or is not heresy. To do so only strengthens their hands against the more moderate Muslims. The second aspect is to quit apologizing to these radical forces. When these pictures were originally reprinted last fall in Egypt, no noticeable wrath came from Muslim clerics. They became political weapons to be used against the democratization process that is proceeding in the Middle East. Sari Hanafi of the American University in Beirut told the New York Times, "These autocracies made use of the cartoons (the most offensive of which were fabrications) as a way of showing that the expansion of freedom and democracy in their countries would lead inevitably to the denigration of Islam."What we are seeing is an orchestrated efforts by autocratic regimes colluding with extreme fundamentalist clerics to conjure up Muslim rage for their own political gains. Denmark is scheduled to assume the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council and the Iranian mullahs goal is to intimidate the Danes and other European nations as Iranian nuclear program become an issue for the UN. Self-styled radical Islamic leaders throughout Europe, with close ties to some of the fundamentalists regimes in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, are using these cartoons to assert their dominance over Muslim minorities struggling to gain a foothold in the mainstream of European life. This was not about religion but about politics. When the National Endowment for the Arts used government money to promote a picture of a crucifix in a bottle of urine, there were no massive calls for murder by Christians. The picture of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban was much about the abuse of Mohammad words being used to promote needless violence as anything else. How can anyone truly judge if a picture is truly offensive if it is not allowed to be printed? The one lesson learned that it is okay to use government money to insult Christians but it is not okay to draw cartoons to make political points about the apparent terrorist activities of some Muslims. Much of the media refuse to publish the pictures and most Americans and Europeans have yet to see the original pictures. One Iraqi blogger estimated that 90% of the Arab world hasn't see these pictures. So before we declare something offensive, it might be nice if we could preview them. Christian symbols are insulted quite frequently by our own culture. This doesn't excuse the insults but in an open society, those things that we hold most dear will be satirize.One aspect of this controversy is that once again we see our enemies for who they are. Many radical Muslims are exporting their Middle East repressive regimes to Europe. Wall Street European editor Daniel Schwammenthal writes, "The Islamists can't send the journalists to a gulag but they can silence them by threatening to kill them. Bomb threats twice forced the journalists to flee their offices last week. "And it appears that this intimidation is working. Schwammenthal observed, "Just as was the case with communism, Islamic totalitarian impulses find their apologists in the West. In Qatar, former President Bill Clinton decried the "totally outrageous cartoons against Islam." EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson said the journalists "have to understand the offense caused by cartoons of this nature." By failing to defend our own ideals, we have conceded the high ground to the most murderous aspects of the terror network. The strength of a culture, a faith or an ideal is how it stands up to scrutiny by its critics. If a faith refuses to allow itself to be challenged or faith to be tempted, then is not faith or ideal that has truly taken root. Christians have seen their own faith mocked in our secular society but many still hold their faith to be the truth. For many, their faith is their bedrock and their identity and no amount of sacrilege will dissuade them. The strength of our culture is that we allow open debate and it is in those debates that our ideals are strengthen. Blogger Iraq the Model gives the following advice to the European, "One last thing, even if the entire EU apologizes it won't change a thing; fanatics in our countries here had always considered the west their infidel arrogant crusader enemy and no apology no matter how big or sincere can change that." Appeasement on this issue will not strengthen our position in the Islamic world but only encourage the more murderous to continue further upon the path of destruction. Fanaticism will not be deterred by appeasement of our own principles. Politics44527@blogcritics.org Sun, 5 Mar 2006 23:41:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/08/000033.php Tom Donelson Sucker Punch by Jack Cashill is not your normal Muhammad Ali story. It is less of a boxing story than a cultural analysis of Ali's impact upon America. There is Ali the legend and there is the real Ali. Writer Joyce Carol Oates began her boxing essay, The Cruelest Sport, "Muhammad Ali, born Cassius Marcellus Clay in Louisville, Kentucky on January 17, 1942 grandson of slave, began boxing at the age of twelve, and by eighteen had fought 108 amateur bouts." Nice beginning but not true. Ali's grandparents were not slaves but born after the Civil War. Here is another irony: Clay was named after a white abolitionist firebrand named Cassius Marcellus. This is just one of many gems Cashill produces.Cashill's book follows up on Mark Kram's book, Ghost of Manila which began the process of deconstructing Ali's image. Kram's book challenged some of the myths of Ali while portraying a more accurate picture of Ali the man and the fighter. Cashill major objection to Ali is that at a time when America needed a unifier, Ali introduced the politics of black separatism unto the political scene. The Nation of Islam was a black separatist movement and openly racist. While some reporters like Cosell considered themselves courageous for accepting Ali's conversion to Islam, Cashill counters by noting that Ali joined the Nation of Islam, a sect not part of the mainstream Islamic movement. Unlike many, Cashill understands the difference. In reviewing the history of the Nation of Islam, Cashill finds that Elijah Muhammad spent World War II in prison for draft resistance and during the 1930s, he openly supported the Japanese cause. The Nation of Islam appeared comfortable with supporting the Axis powers and their goals. This was the religion that Ali joined.Cashill observes Ali's similarity to another American icon - Elvis Presley. Cashill write, "Both Elvis and Ali were inherently sweet, Southern momma's boys, each with something of a chip on his shoulder - Ali because of race, Elvis because of class. Both achieved too much fame too soon and sought protection in their respective entourages." Cashill continues by noting that both men were in the need of powerful mentors. For Ali, his mentor turned out to be Elijah Muhammad. To understand Ali's impact, one has to understand the heavyweight champion's hold on the American public. The heavyweight champion was one of the most noted figures in all of sports. Joe Louis became the first black man who transcended the color barrier in popularity and had a large following even among the white population. Many whites rooted for Louis even against other white opponents and Louis' popularity allowed the great champion to essentially pick his own successor when he retired. Ezzard Charles inherited Louis' title after he defeated Jersey Joe Walcott. (Louis declared the winner of this bout as his heir). For the first time, a black fighter followed another black fighter as heavyweight champion and African-American domination of the heavyweight division took hold. With few exceptions, an African-American held the heavyweight champion over the next fifty years.In the early '60s, Sonny Liston defeated Floyd Patterson for the title. The symbolism of this for the black community was significant. Patterson raised himself from poverty and street crime to become champion. Patterson believed in integration and in the American dream. Liston was a thug and mob-controlled fighter. When he wasn't breaking legs outside the ring as an enforcer, he was pounding folks in the ring. He was the ultimate killing machine, one of boxing's most fearsome fighters--but many blacks did not want this illiterate boxer as the proper role model. In a joint interview before the fight, Liston told Howard Cosell that he just wanted to run Patterson over like a truck. When Liston won, the thug triumphed over good. Nor was Ali given much of a chance against Liston when they fought the first time. Coming off a tough bout with Doug Jones, the young Cassius Clay was a seven to one underdog. Clay out boxed and out fought Liston. This despite a foreign substance that Liston managed to get in Clay's eyes, which nearly forced Clay to retire from the fight. Fighting the entire fifth round nearly blind, Clay survived and then spent the sixth round pounding Liston. Liston retired in his corner following the sixth round. After the fight, the boxing world was turned upside down, as Clay officially became a Black Muslim and the world heavyweight champion was in the hand of the black separatists. For much of America, this proved shocking. Just imagine if a white heavyweight came out and declared himself a member of the KKK or a neo-Nazi and you understand the gravity of what Ali did.While some like Joyce Carol Oates declared that much of the opposition to Ali was due to a "conservative white press," the reality was not that simple. Cashill writes, "The major sportswriters of the era - Jimmy Cannon, Dick Young, Jimmy Powers, Red Smith, Arthur Daley and Milton Gross - attacked the flagrantly illiberal character of the Nation." Cannon, an early supporter of Joe Louis, declared, "Boxing has been turned into an instrument of hate ... Clay is using it as a weapon of wickedness in an attack on the spirit." What Cashill details is the decline of liberalism and its replacement by a more extreme leftist philosophy. Cashill noted, "In the mid '60s, liberals openly defended values like God, country, and racial brotherhood and challenged those who did not." America expanded her presence in South Vietnam under the liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson, who followed John Kennedy's policy of bearing any price for freedom. Many of the older generation reporters reflected a more moderate liberalism and found Ali less than heroic. While many younger reporters supported Ali, their older cohorts reacted negatively. A generation schism developed between the older generation reporters and their younger colleagues that mirrored what was going on politically outside sports. Many older liberals tended to be Cold War hawks whereas a new generation of liberals were turning more sharply to the left. The party of Truman morphed into the party of McGovern. As the '60s moved forward, the liberal sect became more radical and many black activists abandoned Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of a color-blind society. Ali's embrace of the Nation of Islam gave credence to a black separatist movement. As for Ali, he often proved a contradiction. Despite his joining a black separatist movement, he got along with many whites on a personal basis. His trainer was Angelo Dundee and he never taunted or disrespected a white opponent. Much of his worse taunting was reserved for fellow African-Americans. Floyd Patterson, who decided to challenge Ali's ideas, wrote pieces for Sports Illustrated on why he needed to beat Ali. The first Patterson-Ali bout resembled a jihad with Ali torturing Patterson throughout the fight. Ernie Terrell was another fighter that Ali treated with disdain. During the buildup for their fight, Terrell called Ali "Clay" and Ali decided that he would dish out the same treatment for Terrell as he did for Patterson. Throughout the fight, he would lash combinations against Terrell and then ask Terrell what his name was. Terrell was never the same fighter and there was no doubt that Ali enjoyed beating the hapless Terrell to a pulp over fifteen rounds.The one fighter who received the worst of Ali's treatment was Joe Frazier. Frazier supported Ali's right to fight and even gave Ali money during Ali's exile. Frazier felt betrayed when Ali went after him. Years later, Ali would claim it was all to build up the gate but Frazier didn't buy it and many of his family members were harassed as well. Frazier became the representative of all that was wrong with America, and often derided as the "white man" champion. After Ali came back from his boxing exile, his stance on Vietnam made him a hero among the antiwar movement and Ali understood that he became more than just a fighter--he was now a symbol for many people. During his period of exile, he gave lectures on college campuses, and many whites, in particular those on the left, adopted Ali cause as their own. Unlike Patterson or Terrell, Frazier had the skills to go toe to toe with Ali, and in their first match he pulled off the upset as he took a tough fifteen round decision. These two warriors would fight 41 of the most brutal rounds in Heavyweight history and their trilogy shortened both men's careers. Ali's greatness as a fighter came from beating George Foreman in 1974 and his trilogy with Frazier. Before these fights, many boxing pundits ranked Ali far below other historical figures such as Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano or Jack Dempsey. But after the "Rumble in the Jungle" and the "Thrilla in Manila," Ali was viewed as something special in the ring. His fights with Foremen and Frazier became his ticket to immortality.As the '70s dragged on, Ali also changed his own political stripes. After the death of Elijah Muhammad, the Nation of Islam began to move toward the more mainstream Islamic faith. The Nation would split with Ali joining the moderate forces that moved away from the racist aspect of their faith. Those who followed the original separatist theories maintained the Nation name and identity. The rest, which included Elijah's sons, forged a new faith.In the 70's, the anger that propelled Ali in the ring began to disappear. After the Thrilla in Manila, Ali told Frazier's son that he was ready to bury the hatchet. Frazier's retort was that any apologies had to be done face to face and not through a family intermediary. Ali and Frazier eventually buried the hatchet in 2002 in a face-to-face meeting. Ali's own political philosophy evolved into a more conservative leaning one as he even voted for Republicans in the '80s and '90s. Ali became the man that we know and love today. Of course, much of this went unreported and Cashill notes that many of his biographers and sport writers seemed disturbed by this tamer side of Ali. My first and only meeting with Ali occurred when he was promoting a men's cologne in Kansas City. Ali became part of the establishment and reconciled with America. When Ali took part in the 1996 summer Olympic, there was hardly a dry eye in the house, but the symbolism was there. America accepted Ali the rebel and Ali the rebel accepted America. Many of Ali's opponents started to gain their due as well. Mark Kram book, Ghost of Manila, resurrected Joe Frazier's career in the eyes of many pundits and George Foreman's comeback in the '90s only reinforced the solid nature of Ali's own accomplishments in the ring. Ali fought and dominated in the deepest era of the boxing heavyweight division and no heavyweight could claim the number of victories over such high quality of opponents as Ali. Foreman, Liston, and Frazier would have been champions in any eras and fighters like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton or Jimmy Ellis would have been worthy contenders.Ali's place in boxing history is secured as one of the top two heavyweights along with Joe Louis. It is Ali the man that perplexed many Americans. Always comfortable around whites, he joined a black separatist sect. While many of his white supporters were adamant supporters of equal rights for women, Ali was a profligate womanizer and often treated women as second-class citizen early in his adult life. His support of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam mirrored Elijah Muhammad's support of the totalitarian Axis before and during World War II. The reason for Ali's popularity today has less to do with his religion and more to do with his opposition to the Vietnam War. Cashill's own research contradicts much of what was written about Ali's struggle with the draft. There was no strong desire on the government part to put Ali in jail or turn him into a martyr. Ali was offered deals that would allow him to keep fighting and keep his championship. Cashill notes that Elijah Muhammad preferred Ali to be a martyr and many of the Nation leaders did little to aid Ali during his exile. While one can commend Ali for willing to go to jail, was it the right cause to go to jail for? Many reporters today were young opponents of the Vietnam War and Ali's cause became theirs. As long as history viewed Ali's opposition as both heroic and correct, their own views were vindicated as well. Which is why much of Ali's own changes go unreported since he has in some way repudiated his own past. Jack Cashill's own thesis is that Ali could have been a force for good at a critical time in American history. With racism being confronted and the Cold War at its height, Cashill contrasts Ali's own action with that of Joe Louis. Louis joined the Army with no guarantee that he would not be sent to fight. The Army preferred to have Louis fighting exhibitions but it is here that Louis became a civil rights hero in his own right. He insisted on fighting before integrated audiences at a time when the United States military was segregated. This action made it easier for Truman to fully integrate the United States in 1947. Louis defended his country and loved it, even with all of its imperfection. Ali chose not to fight and instead of fighting for integration, he joined a radical black separatist movement. It would be near the end of his championship reign that he rebuked the separatist side of his movement. While some have viewed Louis as an Uncle Tom, there was no doubt that he was one of the most effective agents for civil rights. As he grew older, Ali became a part of America folklore. There were many heroic aspects of Ali's career but there were the blemishes as well. Ali's complexity is clouded by the political agenda of those writing the history books but even without the mythology, Ali accomplished much. He rose to the top of the sporting world and transcended his sport. Ali showed that the American dream works. Edited: [GH] Books43333@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Feb 2006 00:00:33 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/12/212554.php Tom Donelson"Faced with crisis, the man of character falls back on himself. He imposes his own stamp on action, takes responsibility for it, makes it his own...Difficulty attracts the man of character because it is in embracing it that he realizes himself." -- Charles De GaulleCharles De Gaulle represented all the glory of France and also everything that Americans associate negatively with France. Born with pride in his native France and endowed with a sense of destiny, De Gaulle considered himself a savior of France. During World War II, his allies considered De Gaulle arrogant and intransigent. In particular, Churchill viewed the French man with disdain, figuring that De Gaulle owed his existence to Britain. Churchill was right. While we view France as a nation that resisted the Nazis during World War II, the truth was more complicated and quite frankly bleaker. Much of the French political apparatus cooperated with the Germans and the French Vichy government was a de facto ally of Nazi Germany. De Gaulle was one of the few leaders who refused to surrender.De Gaulle was born in a France that was a world and cultural power. This was a nation that survived for four years the German onslaught in World War I at a high price. De Gaulle witnessed the carnage first hand in the trenches on the western front. Before World War II, France was still considered a great military power with colonial reach beyond Europe. It was during the 1930s that the French, along with their British allies, followed a policy of appeasement with Adolf Hitler. The French, still scarred by the devastation of World War I, wanted to prevent another bloodbath on their soil. This appeasement would lead to World War II and the French Army collapse. The France that defended its territory for four years in World War I at the cost of millions, was swept away in a six-week campaign and its political leadership merely surrendered to the Germans. The leadership accepted its fate and then essentially joined the other side. De Gaulle did not surrender and that is why today, he is a symbol of French stubbornness in the face of Nazis conquest. For the French, World War II was more than a disaster - it was a period in which the old France lost her soul. De Gaulle restored French dignity and pride in the post-World War II era and allowed France to recapture much of its impact within the Western alliance. For De Gaulle, his goal was to return France back to its former greatness of his youth and of history.The irony was that De Gaulle predicted the tactics of the German Army in his book, The Army of the Future when he pleaded for a professional mechanized army. His book was a hit - in Germany, where Hitler made it required reading for his staff. The French military leaders, led by Marshal Pétain, preferred defensive strategy and massed infantry. The lynchpin in French planning was the Maginot Line, designed to deter the Germans. Only De Gaulle understood the war that was about to be fought. The French wedded themselves to the past and when war came, the past was swept away. After the fall, De Gaulle lead the Free French and his stubbornness preserved what was left of French honor.When De Gaulle arrived in London in 1940, he was condemned to death as a traitor by the men who not only lost the war but who collaborated with the enemy afterward. De Gaulle's famous rallying cry was "France has lost a battle, but France has not lost the war." At this crucial moment in French history, De Gaulle was France.In 1944, he led an army of 500,000 Free French into Paris after it fell to the Allies and from this moment, he became France's de facto leader. De Gaulle took power as France's first leader after World War II but for just a short while. Wanting to be above the fray, he no longer cared for the bickering of the Fourth Republic, so he simply left the Presidency. He supported a Constitution with a strong executive but this was rejected. His goal was to unify France, but France was incapable of unification after the war. France was politically fractured and not even De Gaulle's prestige could unify France. He went into self-imposed exile. Even in his exile, he studied the political situation, for he knew that one day France would ask him back.In the mid 1950s, trouble arose as France lost their Southeast Asian colonies and French were fighting resistance forces in their Algerian colony. The violence in Algeria resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Many in France wanted to keep their North African colony at any cost. But the conflict and the political chaos had a negative effect on the French economy, as France was mired in debt. The political order threatened to collapse, with chaos swirling around and a civil war over the horizon. Like the hero of old, De Gaulle came out of retirement. De Gaulle ended the Fourth Republic and redesigned the Constitution to allow for a stronger executive. His prestige helped end the economic crisis and De Gaulle put France's financial house in order. He also gave Algeria her independence and this ended what was left of the French Empire overseas. The present Fifth Republic was born.In foreign affairs, De Gaulle put in place the policy that essentially is the French policy today - an alliance with Germany and the rejection of Great Britain in Europe. He supported France's inclusion in the European common market, used his stature to keep the pro-American British out of Europe, and pulled France out of NATO in 1966. He wanted a French-controlled Europe. He established a French nuclear deterrent to maintain French independence and sever direct ties to United States. He attempted to play the European power broker between the Soviet Empire and the United States. France would still be part of the Western alliance if war came between the Soviet Empire and the United States, but he had no real faith in America. As he noted once, "You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of plus some that are beyond imagination." De Gaulle was never short of French arrogance and today's French diplomats operate on the same premise - only without De Gaulle's prestige or intellect. France is a nation still searching for its past grandeur. Present French leaders grasp that unless they control the European Union, they will slide further into the orbit of second- and third-tier nations. Allied with a pacifist Germany, France feels she will have the power to steer Europe away from United States, while using the European Union as mean to subsidize its own technocratic socialist state. With a less bureaucratic Europe, France will be just one of 18 nations in Europe. They will be forced to compete in a world they can't control. The present French strategy, whether led by the Gaullist Chirac or his socialist opponent, is Gaullist in principle. The prime strategy is to reshape Europe in the image of France. It is the ultimate Bonaparte ideal of a French Europe only without the bloodshed. A United Europe that is a real rival to America. De Gaulle was a giant who understood his nation and represented his nation. His arrogance was needed by a nation that needed a little arrogance to overcome its defeat in World War II. The reality for modern France is that without the United Nations or the European Union, France is but one small fish in a big pond. The world will be dominated by the United States, China, India, and Russia, while nations like Great Britain and France will be forced to ally themselves with stronger nations if they hope to have influence. For the French, the idea of playing second fiddle to America, or any other nation, is grating. De Gaulle was born in a France that was a world power in military affairs, diplomacy, and culture. Today, Disney and McDonald's have invaded France and what is now the primary Western culture originates out of Washington, New York, and Los Angeles.De Gaulle's successors are free of the Soviet threat. They have more freedom to conduct an anti-American policy. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the threat of a general war in Europe has subsided. In a piece written in 2003 for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Andrew Apostolou wrote, "For France, the diplomatic struggle at the United Nations is about reining in the United States, not disarming Iraq. Americans must understand that France views the massed ranks of U.S. troops, not Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, as the main threat. Indeed, President Jacques Chirac is simply putting into practice his plan, laid out in November 1999, to create a "better world balance" by holding the United States in check."Chirac's vision resembles De Gaulle's: a French-controlled Europe free of Anglo-Saxon control. Chirac envisions a multipolar world in which France is a resurrected world power as the main representative agent of a United Europe and through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. There has always been the legend that France and the United States have been allies since the Revolutionary War, but historically, there has always been competition between France and the Anglo-Saxon worldview. Representing how many Americans presently see things, scholar Walter Mead stated, "Prickly, pouting, convinced of its superiority, France remains the country in which anti-Americanism finds its most sophisticated intellectual expression in the West. This phenomenon persists despite the fact that few countries benefited more from the American security umbrella in the twentieth century." Americans are taught about Lafayette and his love for America as a symbol of the relations between the French and the Americans. Much of the 18th century saw the French and her Indian allies often warring against the American colonies. The Revolutionary war was the exception to the rule. France and Britain were conflicting powers in Europe and in North America. For the French, supporting the American Revolution was an act of revenge against the British for the various humiliations committed during the Seven Years' War and before. France's goal was to deny British their North American Empire since France had lost theirs. France even viewed America as a potential ally against the British in future conflicts.As the 19th century began, the Americans did not prove to be the allies that the French were seeking, and the Monroe Doctrine closed the door to future European expansion. The biggest booster of the Monroe Doctrine proved to be Great Britain and the British Navy provided the decisive military support to make the Document operational in its early years. As French statesman Talleyrand moaned, "I have not found a single Englishman who did not feel at home among Americans and not a single Frenchman who did not feel a stranger." For the French, anti-Americanism has run the entire political gamut. As Mead wrote, "Anti-Americanism in this sense is very different from opposition to some specific American policy; it is a systematic view of the United States as a danger to all one holds dear."For some French, the real shock came in 1898 when the United States spanked the Spanish military in the Spanish-American war. Mead wrote, "The French interpreted the American attack on Spain as the beginning of an American war with Europe -- a war that the Old World might lose. The new Anglo-Saxons were more powerful, more ruthless, and more determined than the old. The loathsome Monroe Doctrine would be extended to ban European colonies in Asia and Africa. An Anglo-Saxon condominium, with power ultimately passing to the more frightening and less civilized Americans, would dominate the world. Even the hated Germans might serve as an ally against this horrifying power."Charles Maurras, the founder of the right wing L'Action Francaise, viewed the United States "as the land of a harsh and brutal absolute capitalism." A more disturbing aspect of Maurras was his theory about the link between American leadership and Jews. As Mead observed, "Maurras believed early in his career that the Germanophile American Jews in finance influenced Woodrow Wilson's tardiness at entering World War I and his refusal to back France's claims at the Versailles peace conference." Toward the end of Maurras' career, he and his Vichy friends feared "the Jews" who surrounded Roosevelt. United States took a hard line on French debts between the two World Wars and many French viewed the United States as Uncle Shylock and accepted the thesis that Jews ran the American financial system. (The Dreyfus affair in the 1890s exposed the anti-Semitism that was rampant in the underground of French life. Dreyfus was a French officer accused of spying and convicted before later being proved innocent. His Jewish background worked against him.)In a speech before 9/11, French politician Paul M. Couteaux declared: "In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state (Israel) whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel.""There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force."Some have questioned whether French policy in the Middle East is due to belief that Israel is a colony of the Anglosphere or just plain anti-Semitism against Israel. Others have stated that it was a part of a strategy to curry favors with Arab nations. Certainly, the migration of Arabs has only added to this Anti-Israel sentiment. And there are some in France who have no trouble with a nuclear-armed Arab power. World War II was a watershed moment for the French, for unlike the British, France fell under Nazi control. While some fought the Nazis, others cooperated. France's place on the security council of the UN was as much a gift to France as something earned. For France, World War II was a period of humiliations and her loss of empire post-World War II only added to the humiliations. As Mead observed: "The humiliations and setbacks that France suffered at American hands in the twentieth century chafe so badly in part because they rub the old wounds that the British inflicted in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The British destroyed the empires of the Bourbons and Bonaparte; the rise of the United States established a new superpower league in world politics in which France can never compete. The dog-eat-dog competition of Anglo-Saxon capitalism forces French firms to adjust, and it steadily undermines France's efforts to maintain its social status quo. The English language has replaced French in science, diplomacy, and letters; the list goes on."Much of the intellectual class and political leaders blame France lost of past glory on America. Mead concludes, "The challenge for Americans and non-Americans alike is not to end anti-Americanism; only the collapse of American power could accomplish that task. Today, the task is to manage pragmatically the resentments, irritations, and real grievances that inevitably accompany the rise to power of one nation, one culture, and one social model in a complex, divided, and passionate world." One thing that America doesn't need to apologize for is its place in the world. Appeasing anti-Americanism feelings will never truly satisfy true America-haters. Hatred directed toward us is because of our success, and jealousy plays a significant role in this hatred. For the French, their peak of European power remains Napoleon Bonaparte. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's hero remains Napoleon, and like many Frenchmen, he still dreams of the days when France was the master of Europe. Napoleon stretched the French Empire from Atlantic to the Urals before the Russian winter forced its final retreat. Napoleon's biggest obstacles to control beyond Europe remained England and it was Duke Wellington that ended Napoleon for good at Waterloo. France maneuvering within the European Union is an attempt to dominate Europe through its bureaucracy and once again make France the master of Europe. France's involvement with the United Nations and other multilateral organizations allows it to exhibit influence beyond its power. Its ultimate goal is to control and use a bureaucratic European Union as its means to compete with the Anglosphere and develop a multipolar world. In Europe, the debate on the European Union is still proceeding. For many in central Europe, a European Union dominated by a Germany-French axis is a reminder of past history in which they were the victim of a power play by bigger nations - often Russia and Germany. France needs the cooperation of Germany to ensure a more socialistic European Union. Great Britain has accepted its role as a subordinate to America and it is in that role that it has a significant impact on the world scene. France is now more interested in tying its interest to a mirage instead of what is real and there is nothing more dangerous than to base a foreign policy on illusions. France could easily impact America if it chose a direct alliance. Instead, France is taking the Gaullist thoughts to its logical conclusion. France is slowly breaking its bond to America and opposing the United States. The French delusion of greatness is seen when they attempt to isolate Europe from its protector at a time when its need for its protector will soon be greatly needed. A Europe that is tied to America can recover its economic vitality and its place in the world. A Europe dominated by France will be a bureaucratic nightmare that will stunt growth and see Europe fall further behind United States. There is a younger generation that may yet break its bond with its past and embrace the future without fear. France will find that its destiny can be enhanced with a new alliance with its American allies across the ocean. There may have been a time that Gaullist imagination and ideals were needed to restore pride to France. Today, Gaullist ideals have run their course. De Gaulle has long been buried and it is time to bury his ideals as well. Politics42197@blogcritics.org Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:25:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/08/040526.php Tom DonelsonHe was not quite five feet and hampered with a hunchback. Throughout his young life, he would be affected by constant headaches and frail health, yet his theories proved prophetic. This colorful individual became one of America's most proficient geopolitical theorists. Even General MacArthur had his staff read his books. His name was Homer Lea. Journalist Clare Boothe Luce met with Colonel Charles Willoughby a month before Pearl Harbor. Colonel Willoughby detailed the possible Japanese game plan against the Philippines, Luce asked, "You're not giving away military secrets?" Willoughby replied that he was quoting the military gospel according to Homer Lea. Unfamiliar with Lea, she asked for more information. Willoughby described Lea as a "self appointed general" who predicated a war between America and Japan. Born in 1876, Homer Lea's frail health kept him from finishing his career at West Point and his subsequent attempts to join the military was thwarted by his health problems. Despite these setbacks, Lea turned his attention to China, a nation in turmoil. Manchu Emperor Kwang Hus acknowledged China need for reform but others led by Dowager Empress Tzh-hsi wanted to force all foreigners out. Conflict reigned throughout China. Allied with a secret society known as the Boxers to Westerners, the Empress led a coup that ended Hus reign after 100 days. The Boxer Rebellion, backed by the Imperial force, targeted European and American trading centers and the Boxers attacked Chinese Christians converts as well for converting to foreign ideas. Lea traveled to China and joined the Chinese reformists. Lea understood that he was entering the stage of great world changes and as young man; he felt ready to make a difference. Lea viewed the world at a cataclysm with Russia, Britain, France, Germany and Japan set to collide with one another in a conflict that the United States could not avoid. Lea's adventure in China began the process of formulating his own theories on upcoming events in the Pacific and throughout the world. He visited Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines on his way to China. During these visits, he studied the landscape and began formulating possible military scenarios along the Pacific Rim. With the Chinese, Lea played the role of little general. He marched into Peking with the European and American forces as the leader of the reformist Chinese forces allied with the Western forces. Lea, dressed in lavish golden uniforms of General, became a celebrity among the Western press. His forces pursued the retreating Imperial forces but they fared poorly against Imperial forces and he found himself a hunted man with a price on his head. After the Boxer's rebellion, the Empress was left in power by the Western powers, albeit with limited power. The Western powers were not necessarily interested in a strong or united China. As for Lea, he left China. After his first campaign in China ended in failure, he fled to Japan, where he met the leading figure of China Budding Republican movement, Sun Yat-sen. Homer Lea talked Sun Yat-sen into allowing him to be his chief military chief advisor. Among his first duties was raising money and he began the process of raising the funds to further Sun Yat-sen's cause. Lea, working Chinese émigrés, became the perfect fundraiser as he appeared throughout both North America and Europe raising funds for the cause. His reputation grew among enthralled Western audiences and with funds in hand, he returned back to China. He commanded the 2nd Army Division but his efforts to help install the Republican government fell short. He fled and with frail health adding to his woe, he went back to California to recover. History took a new twist and the ventures of Lea continued. He continued his interest in the Chinese Republican movement but he took intense interest in the result of the Russo-Japanese. Japanese victory in the war convinced Lea of Japanese threat to our interest and China. It was here that Lea the military adventurer became Lea the geopolitical thinker. Through his own travel in the Pacific, he knew of America's weakness in the Pacific and he began to formulate serious theories that would eventually encompass the entire world. Lea wrote his first book, The Valor of Ignorance, which detailed the possibility of war between Japan and United States. The title was a direct slap to United States diplomatic corps and their blindness to the threat that swirled around them. The book was not well received in the states but some just as Douglas MacArthur found the book impressive. MacArthur wanted it to be compulsory reading at West Point but it was placed on the optional list. While much of the American establishment rejected Lea's theories, the Japanese audience loved it. Valor of Ignorance sold 84,000 copies in Japan and this book became compulsory reading for Japanese cadets. (Irony is that Lea used the proceed to help Sun Yat-sen cause. Japanese had no interest in any movement that would unite or strengthen China. Their support of Lea's book provided Sun Yat-sen with resources for the fight ahead.)Another important person who read the book and took it thesis seriously was British army field marshal Lord Frederick Roberts. Roberts was concern about a coming clash with Germany and just as many Americans rejected a possible conflict with Japan, there was many in Britain rejecting the possibility of a clash between Germany and Britain. Roberts asked Lea to review Europe political landscape and Lea obliged. Lea visited Germany and just as he became an expert on Japanese way of thinking during his stay in Japan, he developed an understanding of the German mindset as well. In his book, The Day of the Saxon, he dissected the German expansionism and the theories behind it. Lea felt that that Germany and Britain were rushing into a Titanic struggle of biblical proportions. Lea predicated Germany would seek a greater Reich including Austria and place puppet governments in Low Countries. Germany original strategy in World War One included maneuvering through Holland and Belgium, both neutral countries at the onset of war. (The plans were modified to move through just Belgium but Germany had plans to violate other countries neutralities in their quest to defeat France.) Lea's thesis challenged Great Britain defense strategy of depending upon Sea Power by warning that Britain needed a larger land force. Britain could not just depend upon other land European powers to defend their own vital interest. Lea also noted Germany and Japanese obsession with national supremacy and racial purity. And he studied Russia own role in the world and decided that Russia would seek to rule both Europe and Asia. At the time of Lea's death, he was writing his third book, The Swarming of the Slav. Lea left for China in the autumn of 1911 when he heard of Sun Yat-sen attempt to bring a revolutionary government in China. Lea, suffering from frail heath, traveled to China and lived long enough to see Sun Yat-sen victory as a new year ushered in 1912. Within months after Sun Yat-sen victory, Lea suffered from a massive stroke and shortly afterwards, he died. Lea proved to be a one of America most original geopolitical thinker. While many American isolationist or pacifists rejected him, others saw original theories that could not be dismissed out of hands. German geopolitical theories Karl Haushofer, who later consulted with Adolf Hitler, read his book, The Day of the Saxon, and key Japanese figures digested Valor of Ignorance. While many American policymakers remained blind to serious thinking about foreign affairs, many future adversaries understood clearly his theories. Valor of Ignorance stated the obvious, maximum military preparedness ensured a nation's survival. In 1910, Sun Yat-sen gave Lea permission to negotiate a Sino-Anglo-Saxon alliance with the British and American governments. Sun Yat-sen wanted the Chinese Republican to be allied with the two leading democracies of the world at the time. The alliance was never formulated and an opportunity to cement an relationship between a Republican China and the West failed to materialize. What Lea provided in his writings was description of a world in transition and the need to prepare for it. Lea felt concerned about Japan and Germany single-minded obsession with their own superiority and need of expansionism. He clearly understood that Germany would eventually collide with Britain and Japan would move south to clash with the United States. A decade before the communist revolution, Lea foresaw Russia ambitions to becoming the leading Eurasia power. This was similar to the foresight of the French writer Alex Tocqueville in his book, Democracy in America. Like Lea, Tocqueville viewed Russia as a natural rival to the United States. Tocqueville observed Russia exhibiting opposite qualities of the United States. Whereas Americans preferred decentralization and freedom, Russians were comfortable with autocratic rule. Lea looked at Russia land mass and concluded that Russia grab for power was inevitable. Some in Germany viewed Russia as a serious rival and World War I may have easily been considered a preventative war by Germany to ensure its own dominance over Europe before Russia was powerful enough to challenge Germany. While a shot in the Balkans may have started the war, Germany had a strategic plan mapped out for the war.Lea was skeptical of the United States adjusting its policy and preparing for the inevitable conflicts he foresaw. Many of the intellectuals of his day dismissed the diminutive writer. David Starr of Stanford declared Lea a charlatan and portrayed Lea "ambitious little romancer trying to make the most of his short life, limited physique and boundless imagination." In Germany, Karl Haushofer read Lea and produced his own geopolitical theories after the First World War. While Haushofer advised Hitler before the Second World War and his son worked with the Nazis regime, Haushofer own theories lacked the racial component of many of his German colleagues. He considered Hitler invasion of Russia as mistake and viewed Russia as natural ally in his grand strategy of developing a landmass power to counter the ascendancy of the "Anglo-Saxon" rule. Haushofer spent years in Japan as a Germany attaché and was familiar with the Japanese culture. He spoke Japanese, Chinese and Russian fluently. When Hitler formed his grand alliance with Tokyo, he was merely following Haushofer advice. Haushofer served in World War I and like many returning German soldiers, he felt betrayed by Germany defeat. Haushofer theory began with the idea that the German state needed living space or "Lebensraum." Haushofer felt the best way to obtain this was to develop an alliance with the Soviet Union and add Japan as a maritime component to his land based alliances. This alliance would confront the Anglo-Saxons led by Great Britain and the United States. The Nazis would twist his theory with a racial component but Haushofer nationalistic theories had a logical warlike quality. Like General Roberts, British parliamentarian Sir Halford Mackinder viewed Haushofer vision as a threat that needed to deal with. Mackinder discussed the importance of seeing the world not just through narrow vision of Europe but the world as a whole. In his book, The Geographic Pivot of History, Mackinder discussed the importance of Geography in viewing international politics. Mackinder concluded that Britain needed to view the threat of a land power dominating the Eurasia continent seriously. Mackinder understood that to control the Eurasia landmass meant controlling the world. Like Lea, Mackinder warned of a land power rising to challenge Britain. In his day, it was Germany. Why care about these men? Simple, their thinking still is important, even if the nations involved are different. In advent of the recent Iraq war, we saw French statesmen attempt to build a European Union not just independent of the United States but as a rival to the United States. A France-Germany led European Union allied with Russia would be similar to Karl Haushofer vision of a land mass competitor to the United States led Anglosphere. France feared that its own unique welfare state may not be able to compete with the Anglosphere nations by its self and the control of the European Union not only allows the French to maintain its own welfare state but dominate a significant portion of Europe with the help of Germany. A France led European Union would allow France to be a major player on the world scene. The European Union was and still is France attempt to restrict any Anglosphere influence within Europe and outside.As for China, it has adopted capitalism as an economic model but it is still an autocratic society. Homer Lea hoped for a Republican China but the present China is far from that goal. Lea's own lobbying effort for an alliance with the young Chinese Republic and the West fell on deaf ears. Today, China has replaced Japan as the expansionary power competing with the Anglosphere in the Pacific Rim. As I have mention in previous blogs, it is not an automatic assumption that China would end up an enemy to the United States and a dream of Chinese Republic is partially being realized- in Taiwan. The major goal of the United States is to follow up on Homer Lea vision and find a way to export the political freedom of Taiwan to the mainland. A unified democratic China will not pose the same threat to our interest or peace than an Autocratic nationalistic China could or will. As for Homer Lea, he was a rebel that spoke truth to America but was ignored. Unknown to many Americans today, Lea understood the world that was evolving at the turn of the 20th century and much of what he discussed still has validity today. Politics41972@blogcritics.org Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:05:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/01/171848.php Tom DonelsonIn a previous article, I discussed Hector Bywater and his foresight. This column now reviews his book, The Great Pacific War: A History of the American-Japanese Campaign of 1931-33. Bywater used an unusual method to make his point; he created a fictional historical account of an imaginable war between Japan and the United States. The real war that would occur sixteen years after the publication of his book resembled the fictional account in an eerily similar fashion. The book does have weakness and much of them are related to the time period that it was written in. The world was a totally different place than it would be just a decade and half later. The world in 1925 still saw the British as the leading world power and the fledging Weimar Republic was running Germany, while the Bolsheviks were still consolidating their power in Russia. Japan was one of the world's leading naval powers and the United States retreated behind an isolationist policy. So Bywater's own vision in 1925 deleted the Germany factor from his calculations. However, he understood the Japanese potential and comprehended Japanese geo-political moves. Bywater's expertise was in naval technology, and his book details the naval strategy under consideration by both sides. He anticipated moves and countermoves that proved prophetically similar to the real strategy used by both sides in the Pacific war of 1941. Bywater understood that Japan's weakness was being a nation with very few natural resources and her policies after World War I were pursued to make Japan no longer dependent upon others. This policy of autarky could only occur through military campaigns. Japanese intervention into China was done in part to acquire resources needed to build up its own industries. In Bywaters' novel, a military autocracy controlled Japan. He described these men thusly: "...feudal spirits still burn beneath a veneer of Western Civilization." This certainly represented the real life autocrats and military chieftains who would lead Japan into war.The goal of the original Washington Naval Conference in 1921 was to limit the building of capital ships, and the ratio appeared to favor both the United States and Great Britain. The reality was that ratio actually favored Japan since their navy resided primary in the Pacific, whereas both Great Britain and the United States had two oceans to protect. To show this point more forcefully, Bywater depicted the Japanese damaging the Panama Canal with a "suicide passenger ship" exploding in the Canal Zone. While no one could actually prove that the passenger ship explosion was not accidental, Bywater's point was that the timing made it suspicious. This foreshadowed later acts of suicide attacks by Japanese fighter pilots at the end of the Second World War. Bywater details an unorthodox war within the conventional war and with the Canal damaged, the American Atlantic fleet had to go around Cape Horn to reach the Pacific. The advantages resided with the Japanese since the United States had to fight with the fleet available in the Pacific arena at the beginning of the war with no reinforcements immediately available. At the beginning of World War II, the Japanese had similar advantages, as their Navy was more powerful in the Pacific arena. The US having failed to build up its military after World War I, the weakened American Navy had to fight a war on two oceans. The Atlantic fleet was involved in fighting the battle of the Atlantic as German submarines threatened shipping lanes and the ability of the United States to supply Great Britain and its own forces in the European theaters. In Bywater's novel, the Japanese attacked American-held Guam as well as the Philippines. This crippled the US Navy's ability to counterattack. In the real war, the Japanese used similar strategies and Bywater's novel details a combination of air and naval battles that would be similar to the real thing. He even concluded his book with an American air raid over Toyko at the end of his fictional war. The only difference was that his fictional raid was a peaceful demonstration to the Japanese that they could no longer win the war; whereas the Americans ended the real war with two atomic bombs.By using the novel format, Bywater attempted to reach a larger audience. Other authors, such as Michael Crichton in his most recent book detailing the scientific debate on global warming, have used this technique. The novel approach allows the author some leeway to detail important ideas while being entertaining at the same time. In Bywater's day, novels had the potential to reach a larger audience.Bywater's writings have major points that need to be considered today. The first one is that the United States was a Pacific power as oppose to just a European power. In the 1920s, much of the American diplomats' thinking looked east to Europe. While World War I fixated a whole generation of diplomats upon the European continent, the war was a global one with implications beyond Europe.For Americans, the Spanish-American War turned America into a world power that extended to the Pacific. The war, as short as it was, was fought not just in Cuba, but also outside Manila. And most Americans today remain ignorant of the nearly four-year insurgency in the Philippines that cost more American lives than the actual war that garnered the possession in the first place. During the last election, much of the debate centered on repairing relations with France and Germany that were damaged during the Iraq War. This showed today's diplomatic fixation with Europe nearly a century after the First World War and the failure of many of these diplomats and politicians to see the world anew. Bywater did see the world through a different lens by imagining the possibility of a major Pacific war between Japan and the United States. What the present administration has set in motion is the development of new alliances and the realization that the world has changed. Europe is presently in decline, in particular the older portion of Western Europe, and it is Asia that is in ascendancy. India and China are prepared for bigger roles in the world. Bywater began to prepare Americans for a new world that included an alliance with Great Britain, another great naval power. In the early part of the 20th century, Great Britain faced various options including a closer relation with the United States to maintain its own power. Both countries were natural sea powers with a similar heritage, and this formed the basis of a special relation that is still in effect today.Another point that Bywater remind us of is to "think outside the square." Today, much of the world remains in flux. In the 1990s, much of the foreign policy establishments ignored the possibility of the present war on terror and the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist war against western modernity. One of the few intellectuals who saw the possibility was Samuel Huntington. His book, Clash of Civilizations, detailed the possibility of western conflicts with Islamic fundamentalists and China. The Bush administration has begun to design a new foreign policy to reflect the new realities, but there is still much to be done and debated. China's threat against Taiwan and her challenging of American power in the Pacific arena are similar to Japanese moves between the two World Wars. Japan, using bases grabbed from Germany in the First World War, began to design a strategic plan to confront their most likely opponent - the United States. China's build-up of her navy and air force, as well as threats against Taiwan, represents similar movements. This is not to say that a Chinese-American conflict is possible or inevitable, but it is a possibility that can't escape American policymakers. Nor can American policymakers ignore how Iran's manufacture of their version of an atomic bomb will change the balance of power in the Middle East. Hector Bywater was one of those unique journalists who saw a world different from his colleagues and designed a scenario that proved prophetic. There was a similar debate in the '20s and the '30s about America's role in the world. When Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations was defeated, an old fashioned isolationism replaced it. Voices in the wilderness in both the United States and England were ignored. General Billy Mitchell warned the American military that air power would trump naval power in sea warfare and was court martialed as a result. Many diplomats, including former Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt, rejected Bywater's thesis since the distances would make such a war unwinnable. Not only did Bywater believe that this war was probable, but also that it was winnable. Meanwhile, Winston Churchill risked his political fortunes to warn his fellow British of the coming German threat and was ignored until it was too late.Bywater correctly assumed that American industrial power would prove decisive and the use of the military strategy of island-hopping would allow the United States to gain the upper hand. Where Bywater did make a serious mistake was to assume that both sides would be equally harmed by the war. After the Second World War, Japan lay prostrated and the United States became one of the two super powers. Diplomats are affected by their past, and this narrows the worldview of those responsible for designing new policies. Many of the diplomats of Bywater's day remembered the carnage that destroyed an entire generation in the trenches of France. They didn't want to see a repeat of this, but they were blind to the threats that faced them in both the Pacific and in Europe. In the 1990s, diplomats were just as blind to the threats that faced them after the end of the cold war. The past may shape the future, but it may blind diplomats to the present as well. Books41674@blogcritics.org Sun, 1 Jan 2006 17:18:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/01/105914.php Tom DonelsonAs the 19th century came to a close, Great Britain stood as the premier country in the world. The century was labeled "Pax Britannica" and the world experienced nearly a century of peace from a major European conflict. The Napoleonic wars were but a distant memory and peace and prosperity appeared universally. For the average European and American, paradise was being ushered in and the world future never appeared brighter.For many British statesmen, certain realities began to sink in. Both Germany and the United States were outstripping Great Britain's industrial output, German military power threatened to dominate the European mainland, and her Navy threatened the Royal Navy's monopoly over the sea lanes. In a recent piece for National Review, John O' Sullivan wrote, "At this early stage of imperial decline, Britain had three grand strategic options: the imperial, the European and the Atlantic." Of the imperial option, O'Sullivan continued, "Imperial consolidation was the most obvious solution. If her far flung possessions- comprising a quarter of the world- could be transformed into a single political economic unit, Britain would remain a global hegemon." The imperial option originated by British statesman Joseph Chamberlain was essentially the modern day Anglosphere without the United States. Chamberlain's vision began with the premise that many in the colonies as well as numerous citizens of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand viewed themselves as Britons abroad. In both World Wars, a large number of colonials volunteered for duty. Nearly ten percent of New Zealand's population served overseas in the first Great War and nearly three million Indians chose to fight for King and Empire in the Second World War. For various reasons, this vision failed to take hold. The first is that many in the colonies preferred a nationalist route and were not keen on the idea of being absorbed into a Greater Britain. The second was that many of these nations did not want to surrender their control of trade and tariffs policy to each other or to Britain. London wanted to maintain the general free trade policy that served Britain well while other nations wanted some protection for their embryonic industries. The final drawback was racial, for as John O' Sullivan observed, "For an imperial federation in a democratic age would have meant the political dominance of India." Racial attitude of the days prevented the possibility of India dominating a federation of the English-speaking people, for Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and even Britons themselves were not ready for Indian leadership.The second option was the European option, which meant that England would tolerate German domination of the continent as part of an informal Protestant alliance of Imperial Germany, Great Britain and the United States. Some thinkers of the age promoted the idea that Germany, the United States and Great Britain were natural allies. The idea did have some basis. Kaiser Wilhelm was related to Queen Victoria and a significant number of Americans had German blood as part of their heritage. Such a union would have provided "...the basis for a European Federation along the line of the present European Union," according to John O' Sullivan. Maybe World War I and all of its ugly aftermath could have been prevented had this alliance come to fruition. The problem with this scenario was twofold. The first was that Great Britain would have to abandon their centuries-old policy of refusing to allow any one power to dominate the European landscape. The second problem was that Germany would have to give up competing with England outside of the European continent. The Kaiser did the exact opposite when he built a first class Navy to compete with Britain over the seven seas. When the Kaiser began his Naval buildup, the British viewed this a threat over their own dominion. Britain allied herself instead with France for "Entente Cordiale" and the stage was set for the Great War. The last option, the Atlantic option, became the policy by necessity. The Great War weakened Great Britain as a world power and only with United States participation could Britain remain a leader in world affairs. The First World War brought both of these nations together in a formal alliance. In the early 1920s, Great Britain abandoned its alliance with Japan to side with the United States in the Washington Naval Conference. The problem that arose immediately was that of the United States' lack of readiness to resume a world role. In the aftermath of World War I, Woodrow Wilson hoped that a Democratic League of Nations would provide the basis of a Democratic alliance to preserve the peace. This floundered when the United States Senate refused to go along with American participation in the League. The first two decades of the 20th century saw America becoming a player upon the world scene. The Spanish-American War resulted in an American empire in the Pacific. President Theodore Roosevelt's build-up of American naval strength, as well as his involvement in brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese war, positioned America among the elites of the world. The problem was that domestically, Americans were not yet ready to take on such a role, and despite the pride of the average American in their country, there were limits to what Americans wanted to be involved in.Woodrow Wilson kept America out of the Great War during the first three years of the European carnage, and there was universal agreement among Americans that the Europeans could just kill each other off. For many German-Americans and Irish-Americans, there was no love lost for the Allies and Wilson campaigned in 1916 as the "President who kept our boys out of war."The following year saw German resumption of unlimited warfare on the seas and American involvement on the Allies' side. After the war, there was universal repulsion of the carnage produced in the First World War and isolationism from European affairs became the policy. In the '20s, the United States was not ready politically to take the next logical step. World War II forced the Atlantic option upon the United States once again and it was World War II that saw Great Britain pass the baton to the United States as the new world leader. The original plan called for an alliance of equals or at least one with Britain in charge of the special relations. The reality of World War II made that idea moot and the United States become head of the Anglo world. World War II essentially united both the imperial option of Chamberlain with the Atlantic option of Winston Churchill.Churchill had the foresight to understand the need for the alliance. In Britain's darkest hours, Churchill looked for ways to entice the United States to join the war. Even after Pearl Harbor, there was general agreement between both Britain and the United States that war against Germany took precedence over the war in the Pacific. During the war, Australia Prime Minister John Curtain wrote, "Without any inhibition of any kind I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free from any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom."The beginning of the Anglosphere appeared and the Cold War began the process of uniting the various options under one strategic outlook. Stalin's action after the war prevented a repeat of the aftermath of the First World War as the United States no longer could afford to retreat behind fortress America. After the First World War, the relative strength of Great Britain and France gave American policy makers options, but after the Second World War, those options no longer existed. With her empire dissipating and financial resources drained from war, Britain no longer had the political or military strength to lead. With France a defeated power and Germany prostrated, the United States had no real ally to hold off the Soviet Empire that was quickly developing. The United States was the lone super-power that could provide the counterweight to resist the Soviet challenge. The formation of NATO provided the basis of a European alliance led by the United States. Under the American nuclear umbrella, the Europeans developed new civil societies and provided a bulwark against the Soviet Empire on the European continent. The collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991 opened up a new world and new possibilities. O' Sullivan observed, "The totalitarian epoch begins to seem a diversion from more persistent international trends. These include the rise of India and China, the relative decline of Europe, the spread of free trade and globalization, and the emergence of the United States as global hegemon- the policeman, banker and consumer of last resort."O'Sullivan notes, "Judged against the longer timescale, the most significant event of the 20th century was transfer of this unique world authority from the British Empire to the American Republic." In reviewing the past, we can now design the policy of the future.The passing of the baton from Great Britain to America was not a self-conscious policy but a logical progression of events. At critical moments in the past century, British and American statesmen chose to cooperate with each other while disavowing themselves of different options. What made this alliance work was the common heritage of both nations. As John O' Sullivan observed, "Because their common heritage of liberal democratic ideas - expressed in the 1941 Atlantic Charter - made such cooperation easier, more fruitful, and even natural." Joseph Chamberlain's original vision is now becoming a reality. Combining the Atlantic option of an American alliance with Great Britain with the emergence of Chamberlain's original imperial design has the potential of changing the world for the better. The Anglosphere is the combination of both factions. The Atlantic unification provides the Anglosphere with both the political and military muscle to enforce the peace and provide the impetus to the spread of freedom. The independence of India and the coming war on terror provides the basis for the reformation of the imperial design in a loose-fitting alliance that will see India becoming an integral part of the Anglosphere. The next step for American policymakers is to pursue these changes. John O' Sullivan concludes, "Building a new coalition of the English-Speaking peoples - one that includes India as well as "white dominions" in a post-racist age and that persuades the British themselves not to abandon their own Atlantic option for a narrow Europeanism - is the next task." Politics41665@blogcritics.org Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:59:14 EST