Sunday, May 3, 2009

Interesting that all your excerpts are from the "inside flap". Let me don't need to actually read the book right? You can tell hate monger

No, I did not read the entire book. But I did read enough of the book to surmise the view of Mark Steyn in his book. Although some may think my opinion is based on insufficiently conclusive evidence because I did not read the book cover to cover, I have read enough of his book coupled with columns and articles that he has written, and coupled with many interviews to which I have listened or have read over the years, to know, derived from that viewpoint, the way Mark Steyn thinks, and will write, as well as his humor.

Just this morning I was listening to panel discussion, in which Mark Steyn gave his view of multiculturism, it was classical Mark Steyn, and he was expressing views with which I very strongly disagree.

Here also is a couple of quotes with which I disagree:

“… Let me put it in a slightly bigger nutshell: much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries.”

“… With respect to Francis Fukuyama, it’s not the end of history; it’s the end of the world as we know it. Whether we like what replaces it depends on whether America can summon the will to shape at least part of the emerging world. If not, then it’s also the end of the American moment, and the dawn of the new Dark Ages (if darkness can dawn): a planet on which much of the map is re-primitivized.”

“So this is a doomsday book with a twist: an apocalyptic scenario that can best be avoided not by more government but by less - - by government returning to the citizenry the primal responsibilities it’ taken from them in the modern era.”

I agree to an extent with the latter statement, a “…scenario that can best be avoided not by more government but by less - - by government returning to the citizenry the primal responsibilities it’ taken from them in the modern era.” I believe the people have a significant obligation to steer this country down the road toward world peace and avoid the calamity of hate, violence, and war.

I disagree with the former statements because, in my view, he is manipulating fear to coerce others to view the world as he views it.. He did not need to use the hyperbole.


“When Osama bin Laden made his observation about people being attracted to the strong horse rather than the weak horse, it was partly a perception issue. You can be, technically, the strong horse – plenty of tanks and bombs and nukes and whatnot – but, if you’re seen as too feeble ever to deploy them, you’ll be kitted out for the weak-horse suit.”

I disagree because Mark Steyn, George W. Bush, and others, including members of my family, seem not to believe that “talking is better than killing”; they are not even willing to give it a chance.

I agree that the planet is in peril if we do not heed the warning signs, but we do not share this life with ourselves alone. A unified people of the world community need to take the appropriate action, not “America Alone.”

It’s not that I don’t enjoy reading Mark Steyn, and on occasion savoring his humor. Although I am in agreement in some of the points he makes, I simply disagree with him on most issues. I agree there are certain dangers and that we live in a dangerous world, we always have.

I do read and listen to Mark Steyn precisely because his views are contrary to mine, which he presents in a logical and articulate way. A view that helps my own view have legs or die on the vine.

I have crafted a general response to other negative comments made on my blog.