Europe is warning us!

[mr friendly guy]

Oh crap, I just realized that the author of this is Victor Davis Hanson.

You know, the "historian" (I'll never understand how he got his degree - well, I do, but the implications are less than good for Stanford) who also claims that the USA is directly comparable to Greek city democracies and that is why they will win the war against terror.

And who also wrote one of the most idiotic books about Greek warfare I had ever seen.

Ok I will have to ask. What has Greek city states got to do with the war against terror? He is not channelling the 300 or something?

[Thanas]

Hanson is a guy who believes that, in essence, the best soldier is a farmer-citizen. AKA the Greek model. He also believes that the USA, with its (according to him) tradition of farming and democratic values, is the (only) heir to Ancient Greece, and especially Athens. Thus, the USA = Athens and due to superior value system, they will win the war.


The War Nerd, though often wrong, wrote a devestating polemic against Hanson's works, which I will repost here:

Victor Davis Hanson has been writing the same thing for years now: cheerleading for the Iraq War spiced up with classical military history. Doesn’t matter whether he’s writing a 400-page book or a 1000-word column for National Review Online, Hanson uses the same formula. And it’s sure worked out well for him. Hanson’s got his fans convinced that Socrates himself would volunteer for duty in Fallujah, if only he didn’t have to drink that damn goblet of hemlock.

Now Hanson’s newest project, A War Like No Other, drags one of my heroes, the great Greek military historian Thucydides, into his seedy propaganda campaign. A War Like No Other is Hanson’s retelling of Thucydides’ great story of the Peloponnesian War, the grim 30-year struggle between Athens and Sparta. That’s a pretty conceited project, even for Hanson. After all, this is Thucydides we’re talking about, a genius who practically invented the genre of military history. Hanson retelling Thucydides’ story is like Penny Marshall trying to remake “Raging Bull.”

But this book is even more confused than most of Hanson’s work. It doesn’t make sense at any level, from sentence to overall argument. What’s weird is that nobody seems to have noticed. I’ve read a lot of reviews of this book from big papers like the New York Times and they all treat Hanson like he’s beyond criticism. Seems all you have to do is sound like a professor and fill up pages and everybody thinks you’re the Xenophon of Fresno.

If these reviewers had actually taken a good close look at Hanson’s writing, they could not have taken this book seriously. One of my favorite boners is Hanson’s reference to “the madcap killing on the island of Corcyra.” “Madcap,” huh? That must’ve been the only madcap massacre I ever heard of—a real laugh riot. Maybe Benny Hill was doing the beheading that day. Of course, Hanson doesn’t mean “madcap,” he means something like “mad.” But he’s too vain to check his work, and his publisher must have given the copy editors the word not to offend the great VDH by quibbling about his diction.

Some of the other mistakes are on a whole different scale. Take the title, A War Like No Other. If Hanson believes that the Peloponnesian War was really so unique, why does he spend his first chapters making far-fetched connections between that war and every other war in history? If he wanted his title to reflect what he actually argues, Hanson should have called this book A War Like Nearly Every Other, Especially Iraq.

Yeah, Iraq—that war haunts this book, but the writing is so sloppy you can never be sure exactly what the link between the Peloponnesian War and our self-inflicted Iraq disaster is supposed to be. Hanson is fairly clear on one thing: ancient Athens equals contemporary America. But even though he says this over and over, it never really makes sense. This is typical of Hanson’s work —the more often he says something, the more confusing and contradictory it becomes. He claims 9/11 was “our Peloponnesian War.” But it wasn’t: 9/11 didn’t trigger a lethal plague, didn’t kill a huge chunk of our population, didn’t cause the fall of our country, and didn’t involve naval war, sieges, pitched battle, or in fact any of the strategies of the Peloponnesian War. The only similarity I can see is that they were both bad scenes, man. Real bummers.

And it gets worse. Take this gem: “We [Americans], like the Athenians, are all-powerful, but insecure, professedly pacifist yet nearly always in some sort of conflict, often more desirous of being liked than being respected, and proud of our arts and letters even as we are more adept at war.”

Have a good long look at that sentence and you’ll notice that every single bit of it is false. For starters, Athens wasn’t “all-powerful”—they lost the war. And neither is the U.S., as the Iraqi insurgents remind us every day. And America isn’t “insecure.” In fact, we’re not nearly insecure enough. If we’d been a little more insecure, we might have opted out of the war.

Next Hanson calls Athens and the U.S. “professedly pacifist.” Sez who? When did America ever call itself pacifist? I’d cancel my citizenship if we ever did that. For that matter, when did ancient Athens ever put on a peace sign? Just because they had beards doesn’t mean they were hippies. The Athenians were proud of their ability to go from civilian to military mode in a hurry. That’s why they made statues of Athena with her armor half-on, half-off: to remind everybody they could play it rough or nice.

Then comes that bit about how we and the Athenians want to be “liked rather than respected.” I don’t have a clue what that means. My high-school counselor used to talk like that, which is why nobody ever listened to him.

Hanson ends with the most ridiculous claim of all: America and Athens are “proud of our arts and letters even as we are more adept at war.” Well, uh, no. I can’t believe a classics professor actually wrote that. For one thing, Athenian infantry wasn’t very good. The Thebans and Spartans were better, as Hanson himself says several times in this book. But more important, here’s a little list of ancient Athenians who are generally considered pretty darn good at “arts and letters”—Plato, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Euripides, Demosthenes, Lysias, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aristotle … I admit I had to look some of those names up, and I’m not saying I read them—just know their names and a little about their reps. But then I don’t put on airs about being an expert on ancient Greece. The fact that Hanson gets away with saying this is as clear an argument as any against the tenure system in our universities.

He keeps dropping hints that Athens equals America and the Peloponnesian War equals us in Iraq, but here again there are huge logical problems mainstream reviewers don’t even notice. For starters, how does this fit into the Hanson project of using ancient Greece to make Iraq look good? If Athens equals America, as Hanson keeps saying, then we’ve got a problem: Athens lost. So if Hanson’s neocon readers buy the parallel, they should be wetting their pants and preparing to convert to Islam.

There’s just no way Thucydides’ story can be spun as a happy tale. It was a bad war for nearly everybody—except the Persians, who sat on the sidelines giggling and feeding money to keep the carnage going. (Sound familiar? Anyone for Basra?) Here’s the truth about that war: the Greeks died at each others’ hands in nasty ways, locked inside plague-ridden cities or speared like frogs as they tried to squirm out of sinking triremes. Athens was bankrupted. A bunch of macho homosexual Spartans, sort of like SF leather boys with red cloaks, collaborated with the Persians to bring down the coolest city-state ever. How can you spin that as something we can apply to the war in Iraq?

The key fact about the ancient Athenians is that they weren’t like us—at all. I admit, Hanson has a quote from Thucydides himself claiming that “human nature is unchanging across time and space and thus predictable.” Well, Thucydides was wrong. We worship those Athenians—and they deserve it—but face it, they said and did a lot of stuff that was just plain wrong.

One thing historians have learned in the two-and-a-half-thousand years since Thucydides wrote is that people change deeply from one time and place to another. That’s why no modern military historian with a conscience would peddle the old notion that there’s a standard-issue “human nature” that applies to Genghis Khan and Woody Allen. And the differences are central to our problems in Iraq. Take the question of killing civilians in towns that resist attack. No ancient army had a problem wiping out the whole male population of sacked cities and divvying up the females for use or sale.

For better or for worse, modern armies just can’t do that any more. We kill lots of civilians, but if possible we do it from 30,000 feet, and we have to make it seem like we didn’t mean to do it. So when we’re facing urban guerrilla war, we can’t do what the ancients did—wipe out the place, kill every one of ’em.

That’s why you don’t hear too much about urban guerrillas before the 20th century: before then urban guerrilla warfare as a strategy was civic suicide. We’re squeamish, and those classical dudes weren’t. If you doubt that, try reading the commemorative plaques Assyrian kings put up outside conquered cities. There’s one I remember—wish I could forget—that brags about how the king “flayed all the chief men of the town alive.” We don’t have that option. Not even Cheney really thinks we can just nuke Fallujah. I’m sure he daydreams about it, but it never gets “translated into policy,” as they say in D.C.

To hide the ancient Greeks’ downright weirdness, Hanson avoids mentioning all their rough edges, their weird religion, their hobby of buggering boys, their Wahhabite take on women’s place. Everything about them was alien. For example, you know where they kept their coins? In their mouths. Yuk.

The grimmest joke in the book is that there really is one parallel that holds up when you compare the Peloponnesian War to America’s military history. You bet there is. But here’s the kicker: it’s the one connection Hanson would never, ever allow into print. I’m talking about the creepy way that our Iraq disaster resembles the Athenian invasion of Sicily. When Hanson says, describing the preparations for the expedition to Syracuse, that the Athenians’ “ntelligence about the nature of Sicilian warfare, and the resources of the enemies was either flawed or nonexistent,” you can’t help thinking of Bremer, Perle, the “cakewalk,” and the WMDs. When Hanson talks about how the Persians sat back and watched their enemies to the west bleed each other, you can’t help thinking about the way Iran helped draw us into Iraq by feeding the suckers at the Bush administration fake intel via Chalabi. Then they settled down patiently to watch. And they enjoyed every minute of the war, cheering when we blasted Saddam’s guys and cheering even harder when the insurgents started blasting our troops—with the help of new IED designs straight out of Tehran. When Hanson talks about the way the Persians just reabsorbed the Greek colonies in Asia Minor after the Peloponnesian War had drained the whole Hellenic world of power, you can’t help but imagine the way all of Shia Iraq will be smoothly absorbed into a Greater Iran when we face facts and cut and run.

And that brings us back to the big question: what did Hanson think he was doing with this book? If I gave him any credit for subtlety, I’d almost wonder if he’d changed sides—because if this book makes any sense, it’s as a bitter satire, with Thucydides’ gloomy story of Greeks slaughtering each other to the benefit of their Persian enemy as an allegory for our Fools’ Crusade in Iraq.

But Hanson is not a subtle guy, so that’s not what’s going on. This book is just a point on the graph of Hanson’s decline. It shows him in the late stages of a wild ego trip, getting more and more thoughtless as he starts believing his own press. The whole book stinks of vanity, from the idea of thinking you could improve on Thucydides to the careless writing, the sleazy connections between alien cultures, and the big blind spot at the center of it all. Hanson has become so sure that the ancient Greeks are with him and the neocons that he can’t see how Thucydides’ story silently condemns our Iraq adventure. If only we could resurrect the real Thucydides and commission him to do a history of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Now that would be worth reading. But I don’t think Victor Davis Hanson would enjoy it.

...which is why I really have to wonder about Standford's reputation if this guy is allowed to hold credentials from there.

[kaeneth]

Why does it appear that American conservative "intellectuals" seem to wallow gigantic generalisations and utter ignorance?....

Politics.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/repub ... gious.aspx (89% white, 49% of this attend Church once a week)

Conservatives need to make 4 things true (more or less):
1) Christianity is purely a good thing. A large fraction of their political base believes this.
2) American Exceptional-ism. A large fraction of their political base is convinced America is Right and everyone else is Wrong.
3) Having a large army so we can beat other people up is important. A large fraction of their base feels the need to be the strongest kid on the block.
4) Unrestrained Capitalism is Good. The people that donate to their campaigns believe this and do their best to encourage it.

Unfortunately, you cannot make those 4 things true without generalizing and ignoring reality. You cannot admit any of those 4 things are false without slitting your throat in most Red states. The intellectual conservatives covered by the media, selling books, etc....are selling the same thing as the politicians because it is what is proven to make them money. They may even be stupid enough to genuinely believe all 4 of things things are true. Unfortunately, only #2 & #3 that can be argued with some merit. #1 & #4 requires being stupid, massive generalizations, and/or ignorant.

[kaeneth]

Hanson is a guy who believes that, in essence, the best soldier is a farmer-citizen. AKA the Greek model. He also believes that the USA, with its (according to him) tradition of farming and democratic values, is the (only) heir to Ancient Greece, and especially Athens. Thus, the USA = Athens and due to superior value system, they will win the war.

....

He does know Athens got its ass kicked by Sparta, right? And that Democracy was counterproductive to winning the war?

Edit: Oh, that article covers that particular one. I missed it. My bad. >.>

[Surlethe]

Why does it appear that American conservative "intellectuals" seem to wallow gigantic generalisations and utter ignorance? It's not like the reality of the situation is hidden away in some secret EU database.

Selection bias. The conservative intellectuals who make silly generalizations are the ones who get all the press because that's what the conservative movement wants to hear. They're also subject to the same echo chamber effect; if Hanson gets all of his information about Europe from the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (because he trusts them) then he'll naturally reach this sort of conclusion.

Henceforth why I would like to dickstab Victor Davis Hanson. So any woman who he tries to woo is safe from his madness. Unless the woman is also Batfuck Insane.

Shut the fuck up until you have something to say.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ok, have my response up, giving it a final proof and then e-mailing it to the bastard.

Rome — If Americans think fuel and food prices are high, they should try Europe, where both can be nearly double those in the United States, while salaries are often lower.

Italy, like most of the now-broke southern-European countries, is desperate to privatize bloated public-owned utilities. Politicians are trying to curb pensions and encourage the private sector to hire workers and buy equipment, as a way of attracting wary northern Europeans, acting in loco parentis, to lend such perpetual adolescents more bailout money.

So let us begin this farce of yours by your first assertion about lower wages in Europe vs the US. Something that, like everything else in your article, you seem to provide no proof or evidence with.
Well surprise surprise, some quick researching finds that in an area where it really matters, Minimum wage, the US falls behind virtually every European nation.

In theory, Italians accept that they are going to have to be a lot more like the Germans, and less like the Irish, Portuguese, and Spaniards. In reality, they may end up like the Greeks, who are still striking and occasionally rioting because too few foreigners wish to continue subsidizing their socialist paradise. Red graffiti on Italian streets still speak of socialist solidarity, while Italian politicians talk capitalism to foreign lenders.

The European Union, like the 19th-century Congress of Vienna, can point to one achievement: a general absence of war in Western Europe for more than 60 years. Otherwise, almost all the socialist promises of an equality of result are imploding before Europeans’ eyes.

The higher taxes go, the more people cheat on them, and the less revenue comes in. There are sometimes two prices in Italy (and elsewhere in Europe) — the official price that the unwary pay, which includes a high value-added tax, and the negotiated, under-the-table, tax-free price that the haggling shopper obtains.

You, like all conservatives, have this fixation on taxes. That somehow higher taxes are bad and of course the higher the taxes the more they hurt business. Well after yet more "research" I once again find your assertion false. Those times associated with the largest economic booms have actually come at the points when the US taxes have been at their highest.



In the 1920s, in the 1950s and the boom of the 90s all came in periods with massive Tax INCREASES. A government runs on the income of taxes, without this income a govt is forced to borrow more and more. This is econ101 for most people.

Europe is essentially defenseless, as governments further trim defense budgets to keep their shrinking spread-the-wealth entitlements alive. The French and British — the continent’s two premier military powers — have been trying for nearly three months to defeat Moammar Qaddafi’s ragtag nation of less than 7 million, itself rent by civil war. The descendants of Wellington and Napoleon so far seem no match for Qaddafi and the Taliban. Both nations will soon be leaving Afghanistan in frustration.

So more baseless assertions without proof or evidence? Let us make a few things clear...

Europe is a nation far smaller then America with an entire different outlook on the world. Unlike the US, they rarely have the urge to impose their will on other countries like... Oh say Iraq, and as such do not need the bloated oversized military we do. Far from being "defenseless" they have one of the most modern armies next to America. Size, despite what you may think, is not the beginning and end of all fighting forces.

As for 'Britain and France' "failing to defeat Moammar Qaddafi’s" The role of the UN in Libya has been from the start one of keeping a No Fly Zone as well as targeted airstrikes on Libyan forces. To state that their role is to "defeat" Qaddafi isn't just false, but an outright lie. More to the point, Qaddafi's air force is all but destroyed now and his ability to counter attack rebel forces has been all but nullified. if anything the effectiveness of the airstrikes speaks volumes about the battle readiness of European countries, not their lack of fighting capacity.

Subsidized wind and solar power have not led to much of an increase in European supplies of electricity, but have helped make power bills soar. Highly taxed gas runs about $10 a gallon, ensuring tiny cars and dependence on mass transit. Central planners love the resulting state-subsidized, high-density European apartment living, without garages, back yards, or third bedrooms. Yet the Japanese tsunami and accompanying nuclear contamination have reminded European governments that their similarly fragile models of highly urbanized, highly concentrated living make them equally vulnerable to such disasters.

Ah, another golden corner stone of the Right Belief, that alternative energy will destroy the world.
Once again, some very simple research at a very easy to fid place: http://www.energy.eu/ shows that the average energy costs for much of the US is lower then the costs in the US.

Like taxes, the Right has this fixation with renewable Energy. Why is it bad to NOT want to use oil and coal? You are always saying how relying on foreign oil is hurtful to America? Would not Wind and Solar help with that? Would not Electric and smaller cars reduce our need for oil as well? how is this a bad thing? Aside from the assertion that 10$ a Gallon gas is a gross distortion, could it be because so much of that is going to pay for social services? If I knew I would get Free Health Care for life, I would gladly pay 10$ a gallon as opposed to the 300$ a month I currently pay in medical insurance. Europe is looking better and better.

Popular culture may praise the use of the subway and train, but about every minute or two, some government grandee in a motorized entourage rushes through the streets as an escort of horn-blaring police forces traffic off to the side. A European technocratic class in limousines that runs government bureaus and international organizations — the class that includes the disgraced former International Monetary Fund chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn — live like 18th-century aristocrats at Versailles as they mouth socialist platitudes.

So this is your great counter argument to mass transit? That Rich people and billionaires don't use it? Is that all you have for us? When was the last time you saw a US Billionaire using a Bus? And in either case, how is this an indictment of the European transit system? The European transit system is the most advanced in the World. You can buy a ticket in the UK and ride all the way into Greece if you so choose, passing borders and countries for a single cheap price. Try doing that with an airplane in the US and see how much it costs you.

Throughout Western Europe, a subordinate class of unassimilated North African, sub-Saharan African, and Pakistani immigrants hawk wares and do menial labor — and are increasingly despised by Europeans as times get rougher. A growing proportion of the working class is getting fed up that the welfare state means sky-high fuel and food costs, small and expensive apartments, and limited disposable income for the masses — but lots of aristocratic perks for the technocrats who oversee the redistributive mess. The notion of a large and esteemed class of self-made, independent-thinking business people and empowered upper-middle-class entrepreneurs is a concept that seems foreign, if not downright subversive.

You know I am curious, if Europe is such a horrible place, if it is on the brink of disaster, it does make one wonder why people are so desperate to go there. Don't you think? More to the point, you yet again toss out something as fact without any evidence. Mainly that the working class are getting "fed up" with, what you call, high prices. Well let me think, while there has indeed been many protests in Europe, they always seem to be protesting CUTS to social spending, not the costs of their programs. Indeed I can not think of a single time any populace in Europe has spoken in anger words to the effect of "The taxes that give us free health care, pension plans, unemployment insurance and good schools are just UNBEARABLY High!"

At this point it makes me wonder indeed, where you even get your information for Europe. Just what are your sources?

An acknowledged despair now seems to permeate Western Europe. A glorious past is associated with tourist dollars, not appreciation of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Majestic churches are more moneymaking museums and tourist stops than honored hallmarks of past culture and current faith. Christendom often helped to preserve humanity through horrific crises, but you would never learn that from the average cynical European, who appears either indifferent to or apologetic about both his religion and the hallowed European origins of Western civilization, responsible for much of what is good in the world today.

Goodness where to begin here? As always you seem to have your "facts" such as they are utterly backwards. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment where both periods of enhanced scientific exploration in Europe, they were times when Europe moved BEYOND the restrictions of the church and explored int areas that had been considered as taboo by centuries of rule under the Churches at the time. Also, What does it say about Christianity in general that it is on a constant decline in Europe, the place where it was at it's strongest for nearly 1500 years? Also what does it say that these places are maintained and funded with, what is evidently, evil tourist money? If no one uses them, if they are "forgotten" why not tear down the buildings? The fact that Europe spends a great deal of money preserving it's past speaks much more highly of it.

And as for the assertion ""Christendom often helped to preserve humanity through horrific crises,"" Do you mean where it helped caused the downfall of Rome which lead to the Dark ages? Or how it "helped humanity" by stifling scientific exploration for centuries? Imprisoning people like Galileo and so many others? You do know that the church was responable for these small little things called the Inquisition and the Crusades as well? Hardly a bastion of "what is good in the world today."

All this European turmoil raises a paradox. If dispirited Europeans are conceding that something is terribly wrong with their half-century-long experiment with socialism, unassimilated immigrants, cultural apologies, defense cuts, and post-nationalism, why in the world is the Obama administration intent on adopting what Europeans are rejecting?

Well here we are at the end of things, and let us have a little wrap up. You have thus far laid out:
A Europe where it is over taxed and on the brink of collapses, which it isn't.
A Europe which is undefended and weak before the nations of the world, which it is far from.
A Europe where renewable energy and mass transit are causing untold damage, which they aren't.
And a Europe where they have forgotten and neglected their past, which they haven't.

The more I find out about Europe, the REAL Europe, well, all I have to say is that if Obama is following them as a model, he has my vote.

[Big Phil]

The European Union, like the 19th-century Congress of Vienna, can point to one achievement: a general absence of war in Western Europe for more than 60 years.

This is too good. Does anyone else want to shoot this to ribbons, or should I?

Feel free, I about lost interest when he told me that the christian church saved western Europe.

When did I say the christian church saved western Europe? Or are you mixing up vendettas?

Besides which, the point of emphasis is not the Congress of Vienna, but the lack of a major war in Europe (Western, Eastern or Southern) since the end of the Second World War. Or did you forget that France, Germany, Spain, and England (historical rivals) have been best buds since 1945?

[Chirios]

When did I say the christian church saved western Europe? Or are you mixing up vendettas?

Besides which, the point of emphasis is not the Congress of Vienna, but the lack of a major war in Europe (Western, Eastern or Southern) since the end of the Second World War. Or did you forget that France, Germany, Spain, and England (historical rivals) have been best buds since 1945?

He wasn't talking about you, he was talking about the author of the piece. And there hasn't been any war between Western European nations but the extent to which the EU is responsible for that is debatable. People forget that after 1945 those nations were allied to protect themselves against the USSR, that coupled with the slow collapse of their empires removed any incentive for these nations to go to war with one another.

Nations tend to go to war when there is an identifiable interest in going to war. Personally, I believe that even had the EU never formed Western Europe would have remained roughly as peaceful as it is now.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the precursors to the EU- the agreements among the Western European nations that created economic and political ties in the 1950s and 1960s, like the EEC... I think those played a substantial role, by creating a Europe which had incentives that favored peace over war and mutual support over mutual rivalry. But you're probably right, Chirios; the EU is the result of a region where there are few reasons to go to war, not the cause.

On a side note, do we know if Hanson has actually visited Europe?

[Bakustra]

When did I say the christian church saved western Europe? Or are you mixing up vendettas?

Besides which, the point of emphasis is not the Congress of Vienna, but the lack of a major war in Europe (Western, Eastern or Southern) since the end of the Second World War. Or did you forget that France, Germany, Spain, and England (historical rivals) have been best buds since 1945?

The point is to denounce the EU by comparing it to something widely considered to be a disaster and suggesting that it's been a failure otherwise (because of socialism the conception of socialism that the American right and center hold). You're distorting the actual sentence by removing it from context and taking away the meaning it has in the article. I don't see why you're doing this.

[Thanas]

Feel free, I about lost interest when he told me that the christian church saved western Europe.

When did I say the christian church saved western Europe? Or are you mixing up vendettas?

I am talking about Hanson.

However, you better provide proof for vendetta right now or you will be modded.

[Big Phil]

Feel free, I about lost interest when he told me that the christian church saved western Europe.

When did I say the christian church saved western Europe? Or are you mixing up vendettas?

I am talking about Hanson.

However, you better provide proof for vendetta right now or you will be modded.

Don't get pissy... you clearly have a vendetta with Hanson. I just wasn't sure if you were talking about me or him.

[Thanas]

I've got a vendetta with Hanson? That is ironic, considering that you might just as well attack me of having a vendetta with anybody whose methodology I consider questionable.

Nice dodge, though.

[K. A. Pital]

Vendetta with Hanson? The man is a clinical idiot who thinks Congress of Vienna = no war in Europe for 60 years. And he stuffed so much bullshit in just a few paragraphs that my eyes hurt.

Any person with half a brain would not be happy with that guy's claims. That's like saying we all here have a vendetta with Phelps.

[someone_else]

Italy, like most of the now-broke southern-European countries, is desperate to privatize bloated public-owned utilities.

For the record, in Italy all attempts to privatize pubblic-owned utilities ended with creating more or less private monopolies with big red flashing FUCK YOU! to the customers and to any semblance of competition and free-market. Telecom for example still owns all the telephone lines even if theoretically it is now private. Trenitalia (train company) owns all the train lines, which means it can decide who goes and who does not go (and is actively killing off the few self-made entrepreneurs that tried to make some kind competition, although with discretion).
Enel (power company) still owns the lines, and various gas companies own the pipes of different parts of Italy.
Yeah, you can choose a "virtual provider" (one that does not have any line/pipe), but then he has to pay for the usage of the lines/pipes to the line owner, so how is that supposed to be cheaper anyway?
The attempts to privatize potable water in a few small regions have so far resulted in massive (300%) increases in payments for nothing or nearly nothing in return as far as quality of the service. Heh, no competition dumbass. Market logic does not apply on some areas.

Politicians are trying to curb pensions and encourage the private sector to hire workers and buy equipment,

Partly true. While they managed to have around half the pensions locked at 500 euros a month (good luck trying to pay rent/bills while also eating with that), they did jack shit to encourage private sector. Other than building industry, by indebitating the state. One wonders why the hell do we need a fuckload of new houses/offices, but anyway.

In theory, Italians accept that they are going to have to be a lot more like the Germans, and less like the Irish, Portuguese, and Spaniards. In reality, they may end up like the Greeks, who are still striking and occasionally rioting because too few foreigners wish to continue subsidizing their socialist paradise.

Good until the bolded part. We, just like the Greeks, will have to strike and riot to throw in hell the current (and in case of Italy, people that was in charge for 15 or so years) political class and place someone new, hopefully better.

Red graffiti on Italian streets still speak of socialist solidarity, while Italian politicians talk capitalism to foreign lenders.

Dunno what this guy saw (or made up, given how he is wanking over the idea), but what I see on graffiti is at best anarchic/hardcore communist nonsense that has practically no support whatsoever from the people. Emo, teenage stuff like "I love X" or "A and B always together" or rapper-like shit is much more common, anyway.
The likely explanation is that anyone so dumb to make a graffiti is too dumb to think about politics with a rational mind (if at all).

While "italian politicians" have yet to say anything resembling capitalism to foreign leaders (as far as I know), other than promising Sarkozy that we will build the nuclear plants paying french companies. The bulk of foreign relations in the last years were about Berlusconi making comedy shows and annoying other leaders over his personal shit (like say, his trials and the "communist judges that persecute him"), nuking what little Italy's foreigh reputation had before.

The higher taxes go, the more people cheat on them, and the less revenue comes in. There are sometimes two prices in Italy (and elsewhere in Europe) — the official price that the unwary pay, which includes a high value-added tax, and the negotiated, under-the-table, tax-free price that the haggling shopper obtains.

Correction, you usually have to ask specifically to the seller/bartender/private shop owner pay the "high value-added tax", otherwise you never pay it. When you are dealing with plumbers/electricians/similar jobs you have to pull out a weapon to have them add such tax.
Big companies like supermarkets or car sellers have no choice and always make you pay the tax.

We should start taxing the property, not the revenue. That's what fucked us sideways until now. You can fake the revenue without so much issues (and 38% or so of our population does so), but you cannot fake what you own.

Subsidized wind and solar power have not led to much of an increase in European supplies of electricity, but have helped make power bills soar.

This is true in Italy, where there is no coherent plan. Germany is going *much* better.

Highly taxed gas runs about $10 a gallon, ensuring tiny cars and dependence on mass transit.

hahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahaha. You mean more efficient cars? or Bi-fuel cars that also run on LPG or methane (I've seen 3 fucking hummers at the LPG pump with me and at least 2 refilling their methane tank). As for mass transit it sucks so much balls that people celebrates when a train arrives in time.
Smaller cars are necessary since we have lots of places where cities and streets weren't planned with BIG cars in mind (yeah, stuff dating back to before the car's invention).
Plenty of youtube videos about imported american cars and pickips getting stuck in european cities/roads.

Central planners love the resulting state-subsidized, high-density European apartment living, without garages, back yards, or third bedrooms.

EUROPE = SOVIET RUSSIA!!!!! OMFG.
Last time I checked where I live, the only thing lacking from most of such newly-constructed "high-density European apartment living" was at most the back yard. Those had a common garden though (=communist = EVIL). Garages are ALWAYS present in new homes. ALWAYS.
It's the older buildings of the city that lack garages and gardens since they were built after the second world war and cars weren't exactly widespread at the times.
What the hell is a "central planner" in Europe anyway?

Yet the Japanese tsunami and accompanying nuclear contamination have reminded European governments that their similarly fragile models of highly urbanized, highly concentrated living make them equally vulnerable to such disasters.

Someone explain how a tsunami would form in Europe (asteroid impact?), also we don't have to deal with tornadoes and that's why we can do relatively packed cities. We did for millenia and the civilization hasn't yet crashed.

Majestic churches are more moneymaking museums and tourist stops than honored hallmarks of past culture and current faith. Christendom often helped to preserve humanity through horrific crises,

No, wait, are you defending the Roman Church? An organization that in the past would have burned all Christian-ripoff-churces as heretics? Let's not forget this detail.

--------------------------------------------------------
I want to send him an e-mail too like Crossroads did, but where do I find an address?

[TC Pilot]

Hanson is a guy who believes that, in essence, the best soldier is a farmer-citizen. AKA the Greek model. He also believes that the USA, with its (according to him) tradition of farming and democratic values, is the (only) heir to Ancient Greece, and especially Athens. Thus, the USA = Athens and due to superior value system, they will win the war.

Heh, I recall his name popping up several times in a series of lectures I was listening to on ancient battles not too long ago by a one Dr. Garrett Fagan where he basically tore his "Western civilization's unique way of war" thesis to shreds in that damning yet ever-polite academic way: "the evidence would not seem to suggest his interpretation," "it is not clear how this conclusion can be drawn," and phrasing of that sort.

Unfortunate that he would be writing a book on the The Peloponnesian War. Donald Kagan recently published a condensed version of his previous multi-volume account. I imagine it would be amusing to compare the differences. Kagan too makes some reference (albiet in passing) to more modern events, though, if my memory serves me correctly, alluding more to the intensity and violence rather than some grand allegory. Funnily enough, he actually wrote a review of Kagan's multi-volume history, and even at that early point was throwing out modern analogies, like using the term "progressive Lebanonization" (JSTOR is acting up on me, so I can't view the whole thing at the moment) Interestingly, one review of Hanson's own work claims he was offered $500,000 by the publisher to write it.

...which is why I really have to wonder about Standford's reputation if this guy is allowed to hold credentials from there.

The sheer volume of works written by him (to say nothing of the many articles I found on JSTOR, both by him and reviewing his works) suggest he's managed to embed himself into academia and then struck gold and jumped to pop history in the last decade or so thanks to Carnage and Culture, which would appear to be a thinly-veiled ideological polemic. Just look at this tidbit from a review I found in the Journal of Military History:

"Hanson's icon-smashing explanation is that shock infantry units in possession of advanced weaponry and equipment, well trained, highly motivated, and largely voluntary, have proved to be unbeatable."

Emphasis mine. And more:

"Throughout the book the reader stumbles across gems of information that repeatedly challenge the short-sighted contemporary view of history, make you rethink things you thought you knew, and shift the political perspective back toward the reasonable - historical truth triumphs over political correctness."

Compared with this from a journal titled Arion:

"[The book], as the ring of its alliterative title suggests and the author admits, is not a scholarly work of original history....That reader will also meet far too many statements that should have the benefit of documentation to assess their accuracy or, from the author's view, to qualify their generality. The eighteen-page colection of citations gathered in "For Further Reading" is no substitute for such documentation, since a mass of biographical references doesn't tell us how carefully the author has sifted and used his sources. A work of such wide-ranging temporal synthesis really ought to provide some minimal evidence for the precision of its generalizations. Hanson not only omits this substantiation, his single procedural comment that "generalization...is indispensable in the writing of history" steers the reader away from the serious compromises that face a general historian."

[Phantasee]

I don't know why everyone thinks people don't avoid VATs when they can. It used to be very common around here, even when we had just 7% GST, and while it's gone down in Alberta (between GST reduced to 5% and some crackdowns), the HST change in BC has led to even more work and sales being done in cash to avoid GST. When we were in Italy in 2006 we had a few of the smaller shops offer to give us a "discount" if we payed in cash, which we understood to be similar to what went on here.

[mr friendly guy]

[quote="Thanas"]Hanson is a guy who believes that, in essence, the best soldier is a farmer-citizen. AKA the Greek model. He also believes that the USA, with its (according to him) tradition of farming and democratic values, is the (only) heir to Ancient Greece, and especially Athens. Thus, the USA = Athens and due to superior value system, they will win the war.


So how did he explain Athen's defeat in the Peloponnesian War ( I notice in your link he actually wrote a book on it).

[Thanas]

Heh, I recall his name popping up several times in a series of lectures I was listening to on ancient battles not too long ago by a one Dr. Garrett Fagan where he basically tore his "Western civilization's unique way of war" thesis to shreds in that damning yet ever-polite academic way: "the evidence would not seem to suggest his interpretation," "it is not clear how this conclusion can be drawn," and phrasing of that sort.

Yes. Fagan is actually a very well-credited expert in the field as well. What I have read of him was excellent. One can always quibble about details, but he is a really, really solid author.

And I had pretty much the same reaction when reading Hanson's dissertation.

Unfortunate that he would be writing a book on the The Peloponnesian War. Donald Kagan recently published a condensed version of his previous multi-volume account. I imagine it would be amusing to compare the differences. Kagan too makes some reference (albiet in passing) to more modern events, though, if my memory serves me correctly, alluding more to the intensity and violence rather than some grand allegory. Funnily enough, he actually wrote a review of Kagan's multi-volume history, and even at that early point was throwing out modern analogies, like using the term "progressive Lebanonization" (JSTOR is acting up on me, so I can't view the whole thing at the moment) Interestingly, one review of Hanson's own work claims he was offered $500,000 by the publisher to write it.

Kagan actually seems to be part of the problem. While he is a good scholar, he holds and promotes the views of his son Frederick Kagan, who of course is the famous neocon. In that way, Kagan seems to have started the neocon view which eventually of course produced Hanson.

[Chirios]

Hanson is a guy who believes that, in essence, the best soldier is a farmer-citizen. AKA the Greek model. He also believes that the USA, with its (according to him) tradition of farming and democratic values, is the (only) heir to Ancient Greece, and especially Athens. Thus, the USA = Athens and due to superior value system, they will win the war.


So how did he explain Athen's defeat in the Peloponnesian War ( I notice in your link he actually wrote a book on it).

By pretending, in the same book, that Athen's won the Peloponnesian War.