Fulfilling Edith Hamilton's prophecy: J.R.R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings

This article presupposes you’ve read The Lord of The Rings or at least seen the movies.

To the best of my memory I was taught to read from books written by two women. The first of these was Born Free by Joy Adamson and the second Mythology by Edith Hamilton. Adamson and Hamilton were both remarkable women and I will perhaps deal with them another day. I really just want to quote from Hamilton’s Mythology, published first in 1942 and still being re-published today. It might be the most popular guide to Greek and Roman Mythology out there, although Bullfinch’s might have something to say about that. It also has a short section at the end of the book on Norse mythology. Discussing the Elder Edda, which might very, very loosely be termed the Norse Bible, is this interesting, perhaps prophetic tidbit:

“The Elder Edda is much the more important of the two [eddas]. It is made up of separate poems, often about the same story, but never connected with each other. The material for a great epic is there, as great as the Iliad, perhaps even greater, but no poet came to work it over as Homer did the early stories which preceded the Iliad. There was no man of genius in the Northland to weld the poems into a whole and make it a thing of common beauty and power: no one even to discard the crude and the commonplace and cut out the childish and wearisome repetitions. There are lists of name in the Edda which sometimes run on unbroken for pages. Nevertheless the somber grandeur of the stories comes through in spite of the style. Perhaps no one should speak of ‘the style’ who cannot read ancient Norse; but all the translations are so alike in being singularly awkward and involved that one cannot but suspect the original of being responsible, at least in part. The poets of the Elder Edda seem to have had conceptions greater than their skill to put them into words. Many of the stories are splendid. There are none to equal them in Greek mythology, except those retold by the tragic poets. All the best Northern tales are tragic, about men and women who go steadfastly forward to meet death, often deliberately choose it, even plan it long beforehand. The only light in the darkness is heroism.”

Little did Hamilton seem to know as she wrote in the early 1940s, some linguistic genius, who did read ancient Norse and related languages, and was a renowned expert on Beowulf among other classics, was already writing such an epic. His name was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. His masterpieces, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring as well as the less celebrated prequel, The Silmarillion, tells the tale of ancient mythological civilizations clashing, drawing out from this Oxford philogist breathtaking knowledge of his great loves – Norse mythology, his native England and numerous languages.

That this was Tolkien’s aim is made clear by Tolkien himself: “I have tried to modernize the myths and make them credible.” He succeeded wildly, and although it seems little known by many of his hundreds of millions of fans, he has given longer life to traditions that would be much less known in the world today were it not for his work, even though most people will never crack a binding on either Edda to read his main source.

There are endless books (not to mention webpages) on Tolkien and his work, and, many are interesting, although I have not yet found one that I would say was both comprehensive and delightful. The closest I’ve found yet are the 1969 (soon after Tolkien became celebrated) Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings by a not so good fantasy writer but better editor named Lin Carter, who died 20 years ago, and, a series of books by Tolkien’s own son, Christopher, which chronicle the history of the writing of the epic stories. Carter’s work deals more with Tolkien’s sources and predecessors and the son’s work with Tolkien’s own development of the books themselves. I would recommend Carter’s short book if you have mild interest in Tolkien’s influence and the development of fantasy, or, sitting in a library and skimming the growing list of Christopher’s Tolkien’s works. They are deliberately ponderous and repetitious, in his effort to be complete in showing how his father wrote these works from the early 1900s and constantly revised them, but contain much fascinating information. They are extremely worthwhile, but only for a real fan. But, I must admit, I have not read all the books out there on Tolkien and there may be some gems I have missed. I would also recommend the works of Tom Shippey, who followed Tolkien in the same chair at Oxford and worked with him.

Instead of writing an even remotely comprehensive account about LOTR, I have two propositions, each subjective and unprovable, but strongly felt by me. One, that the Lord of the Rings is the “best” book of the 20th century (obviously not my idea; not only has he topped many such polls, but, Tom Shippey already wrote J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century, which makes the same point); but more so, two, the books are far deeper and operate on more levels than many fans suspect. Which reminds me of one of my favorite LOTR lines, spoken of Cirdan, the elf lord who waited by the Grey Havens to take home elves returning to the undying lands – “He saw farther and deeper than any in Middle-earth.” I have sometimes suspected that Cirdan was an avatar for Tolkien - not that he so intended -- seemingly sitting and watching the events of the Third Age of Middle Earth unfold, without participating, neither omniscient, nor ignorant, but more knowledgeable about what had and was going to transpire than any other of the wise.

I support my own two propositions as if they were one and break them down into arbitrary categories.

Popularity – Popularity does not itself make for a great work. The Harry Potter series, for example, is phenomenally popular, and I certainly enjoyed them, but there is no more historical or mythological depth to them than there is for Smurfs or Snuffleupagus. I cringe when they are mentioned in the same breath with Tolkien’s works, although they are both fantasy and deal with many of the same themes. I do not consider the Potter books great (although a lot of fun) unless you define it by popularity and financial success alone. Then it is the greatest, bar none, and we should probably forget Shakespeare too.

While popularity is not necessary for a book to be great, or, greatness automatic if it is popular, it certainly means something. People want to read it. And if people don't want to read it, it is much harder to call a book or author "the best." Tolkien’s works have been best sellers for nearly 50 years. They are read all over the world and in many different languages. They have spawned not only three of the most popular movies ever made, but inspired probably thousands of copycat novels, some bordering on plagiarism, by those who wanted to write their own tales of elves and dwarves. Not to mention, books commenting on Tolkien or his work have become a cottage industry. Help me with this, dear reader. Is there another 20th century author whose works have inspired so many others to write about him (note to idiots – Shakespeare and Dickens didn’t write in the 20th century)? Let me know. Maybe I’m missing someone. Perhaps we have to go back to Twain and Dickens to find any other modern author so seriously studied and written about. Anyway, I would hardly be alone in my belief that LOTR was the best book(s) of the last century, as poll after poll has shown Tolkien and his works in the English speaking world up at or near the top, even in this century.

LOTR has been rated in a number of polls as the best of various categories, particularly in the British Commonwealth. The London Times’ 50 greatest British authors since 1945 rated him sixth (although, other than George Orwell, I can’t fathom the top 5 – a poet, Philip Larkin, was first – critics know so little). Or take the Modern Library’s 100 best novels. It doesn't make the critic's list at all. But, LOTR is number 4 in the reader’s list. Since most books are written for readers, not critics, I take this as far more important. I snipped the following from Wikipedia, minus the links and footnotes:

“The Lord of the Rings became immensely popular in the 1960s and has remained so ever since, ranking as one of the most popular works of fiction of the 20th century, judged by both sales and reader survey. In the 2003 "Big Read" survey conducted by the BBC, The Lord of the Rings was found to be the "Nation's Best-loved Book". Australians voted The Lord of the Rings "My Favourite Book" in a 2004 survey conducted by the Australian ABC. In a 1999 poll of Amazon.com customers, The Lord of the Rings was judged to be their favourite "book of the millennium". In 2002 Tolkien was voted the 92nd "greatest Briton" in a poll conducted by the BBC, and in 2004 he was voted 35th in the SABC3's Great South Africans, the only person to appear in both lists. His popularity is not limited to the English-speaking world: in a 2004 poll inspired by the UK's "Big Read" survey, about 250,000 Germans found The Lord of the Rings to be their favourite work of literature.”

Probably one hundred and fifty million copies of LOTR have been sold since the early 1950s and another one hundred million copies of The Hobbit, making him either the first or second most read author ever before J.K. Rowlings (with modern populations and marketing, I wouldn’t know how to compare) – maybe Dickens has been read as much or more (and A Tale of Two Cities has sold more copies than even LOTR) but the numbers are comparable. Of course, none of this mentions the movies, seen by millions as well, and which gave the books a second life. As much as I enjoyed the movies, Peter Jackson could not bring into them some of the facets of the LOTR that make it so wonderful for me, as I discuss below.

Influence - If you go to the bookstore and flip through the fantasy aisle, you will be struck at how many publishers seek to use Tolkien’s name to puff their own artists ("The new Tolkien" – "The best since Tolkien" – "Tolkien’s heir") much like mystery writers are forever being compared with John LeCarre.

I am not suggesting that Tolkien invented the fantasy genre, or even what is commonly called "sword and sorcery." Far from it. He was writing out of a long tradition. He simply did it better than anyone else, fortified with his mastery of language and mythology. However, even his modernization of myth and attempt to make credible the Northern myths was not unique. For example, the multi-talented William Morris published The Well at the World’s End (1896) when Tolkien was a little boy. It deeply influenced him. One letter to his wife long before LOTR indicates he was attempting to write something along the lines of Morris’s work (indeed, Morris had a “Gandalf” and even a horse named “Silverfax,” just a shade away from Tolkien’s Shadowfax). Another legendary fantasy writer, Sir William Haggard Rider, wrote The Saga of Eric Brighteyes, a supercharged story which takes the best parts from Icelandic sagas and leaves the boring parts out. Tolkien acknowledged that Rider’s She had an influence on him. Rider and Morris are among my favorite writers of heroic fantasy and but two examples. In my opinion, though, there are few others worthy, and it is a genre that usually disappoints me, because the writing is neither drenched in history nor mythology, only the modern appearance of it, and often not even well written. Here’s my own very short list of the best works of “sword and sorcery,” which were not written by Tolkien:

- The Once and Future King ("TOAFK") by T. H. White. It can be found in a single volume, but has also been published as a trilogy. I recommend reading the first volume, The Sword and the Sorceror, in a solitary volume first, because of a wonderful chapter for some reason not included in the collection. And please do not read the posthumously published The Book of Merlin, which was god awful, and not in any real sense part of the story. Many years ago I thought TOAFK, based on the King Arthur legends, might be even better than Tolkien, but that was before I began to understood LOTR on some different levels. Although the TOAFK is well-known, and inspired a Disney film, I don’t believe it gets enough readership. Yet, in my opinion, it is almost to Harry Potter, what Longfellow is to Dr. Seuss.

- The Worm Ourobos by Eric Eddison. A riotous adventure story. The first 30 pages or so, until the Earthman gets to Mercury seemingly in a dream, should be browsed through and forgotten, just as the author then does. Eddison was a brilliant writer, and though the story is not mythologically based, it is so beautifully written, almost poetic prose, and so riveting a story, it is an exception to my general rule.

- The Face in the Frost by John Bellairs is an adult, but very light (and short) fantasy. It's hard to find and you may need to get it used. Very well done though, even if I would have preferred a different ending. When I lend it out I rarely get it back.

- Silverthorn, by John Myers Myers. This is one of my favorite historians (Western) and fiction writers who has somehow escaped great public notice. Silverthorn is a tour de force about a man who finds himself in the waters off of an island after a shipwreck and then in one historical or literary adventure after another. Again, I would have preferred a different ending, but it is so much fun guessing as to who the historical/literary figures are, that it will keep you rolling along. There are a number of websites that have made a project about figuring this out, because no one will know them all. You can just read it as a fun story though, even if you have no literary pretensions.

- The Arthurian Saga by Mary Stewart. Another King Arthur saga, it is totally different than White's books and you can read both with great pleasure. I have found I can read nothing else she wrote, although she is somewhat celebrated. But these books were sublime.

- Many works by William Haggard Rider, but if just one, then the aforementioned The Saga of Eric Brighteyes or The People of The Mist. Even before Edgar Rice Burroughs and his Tarzan, Rider specialized at taking English explorers and having them come upon adventure in lost African cities. Also great were She and King Solomon's Mines.

- Just about any of Robert Howard’s Conan the Barbarian stories or books or those of his puritan scourge, Soloman Kane (Howard is an author who I can credit this blog’s self-appointed critic-in-chief, Bear, with introducing me to when we were boys). The Schwarzenegger movies actually captured the spirit quite well, but Conan is fun and easy reading if you like the genre at all.

However, although he was working in a genre with predecessors, there can be no doubt that Tolkien’s influence has been greater than anyone else’s on fantasy or sword and sorcery writers. I can only think of one fantasy writer who may have close to having had similar influence to Tolkien, and that would be the short-lived Robert Howard, above mentioned, who had legions of followers. Still, when I think back on the fantasy novels I’ve seen on shelves for the past 30 years, there are far more who have followed or credit Tolkien than Howard (who, like Tolkien, actually created his own pseudo-world history, which he called the Hyperborian Age, loosely based on the ancient Europe, as was Middle Earth).

Critical reputation – One problem Tolkien faces, of course, is that some people and critics cannot see past fantasy and consider it a serious work of art. For some reason, painters can choose mythology or fantasy as their subject and no one has a problem with it. In fact, many of the greatest works of art have fantastic, legendary or mythological characters as their subject, but authors are not taken seriously if they indulge in it, at least not in modern times. Before Tolkien was famous, he was well known as a scholar in his own field. His 1936 essay/speech on Beowulf is still THE essay on that subject. He wrote therein as follows:

“Even to-day (despite the critics) you may find men not ignorant of tragic legend and history, who have heard of heroes and indeed seen them, who yet have been caught by the fascination of the worm. More than one poem in recent years (since Beowulf escaped somewhat from the dominion of the students of origins to the students of poetry) has been inspired by the dragon of Beowulf , but none that I know of by Ingeld son of Froda.”

I’m not a stuffy Oxford don, so, I can speak more frankly. Those who believe that great literature cannot be centered around fantasy figures are missing life’s great adventures. Fantasy is inspirational, whereas some of the more mundane characters of literature, however much great literary creations, just aren't. By the way, notice his reference to Froda. Sound familiar?

The dragon of The Hobbit is, of course, much inspired by Beowulf too. Just this decade has been found Tolkien’s own translation of Beowulf, complete with line by line notes, that I believe will be a great publishing success some day. Tolkien himself wrote “Beowulf is among my most valued sources.”

As many English professors don’t get fantasy, they don’t take LOTR seriously. But there are many, a growing number, who do and Tolkien scholarship has long been a serious endeavor for those who are not too smug or pretentious to read it. Scholarly titles are added each year. I’ve stopped trying to keep up because it would be taking up an entire new area of study.

Language – This is perhaps the essence of Tolkien’s work. At least, his work was for him a vehicle for his invented languages, languages based on his knowledge of Old English, Ancient Norse, Latin, etc. He was a world-class philologist or scholar of ancient texts. He was also benignly obsessed with his love of languages. Tolkien once wrote to his son, who had sent him some interesting historical tidbit, that he just couldn’t be that interested in history if the historical fact did not include something of linguistic merit. I too often find that knowing what words mean, or what place names mean, are the most interesting facets of history for me, although, unlike Tolkien, I find plenty of delight in history without it.

It is often said that Tolkien created several languages for LOTR, including two elvish, one dwarvish, the black speech of Mordor and the Common tongue spoken by seemingly all. This is a gross exaggeration in my opinion. He did create many words, alphabets, pronunciation guides and even grammar for some make-believe languages which are to some degree based on his own prolific knowledge of actual ancient languages, and which are, in some cases, quite beautiful. But, there is no actual lengthy work or even a real dictionary in any particular language. Perhaps, some enterprising artist will write one someday with the permission of the estate or when the copyright expires. Tolkien's books though, were about imaginary languages.

I hope I’m dead when new works of fiction based on Tolkien’s classic come out after the copyright expires, because it will hurt me to the core to see his great work raped and pillaged, even by generally good writers. If they are not as versed as he in the old languages, and have not mastered his archaic tone, plus, are brilliant writers themselves, they should not try. That whittles it down to pretty much nobody, but everyone from third graders to schlock adventure writers will jump in for sure - there's money to be made. Recently, Christopher Tolkien has released two works, one based on an uncompleted work of his father’s – The Children of Hurin, a tale which took place long before those of the Hobbit and LOTR, and based on The Silmarillion and unpublished works by his father. Just released is The Tale of Sigurd and Gudrun, a retelling of one of the great Northern Myths. I wonder how much is the father and how much of it is the son, although he is very careful to delineate in my experience, and I am not sure I can bear to read it. While Christopher is a gifted historian of his father, I am not sure critics should become co-authors and I might have preferred to read Tolkien’s unfinished, imperfect work. I should mention that Christopher is no kid – he’s 85 years old, a former Oxford scholar himself, and is suing New Line Cinema on behalf of the estate for 80 million pounds.

Nevertheless, Tolkien’s language play is a study in itself. The languages of Middle Earth are derived from Tolkien’s knowledge of Norse mythology and languages. Gandalf means “Magic” (or wand/staff) Elf.” His name, and the names of all the dwarves from The Hobbit come straight from a list in the Elder Edda. Incidentally in an earlier draft, the head dwarf of The Hobbit was Gandalf. Many of the riders of Rohan began their names with Eo-, and ancient English word (Eoh-) for a warhorse. Eowyn, for example, is an old English combination which could mean lover or joy of (war)horses. For LOTR fans, note that originally Tolkien thought it was she Aragon would love and possible marry, not Arwen. Eowyn’s brother, Eomer’s name comes straight out of Beowulf, as does Frodo (Froda), although he was originally written in as Bingo by Tolkien.

I am no master of Old English, but Orc is an Old English word for demon and is from Beowulf, Ent for Giant, Mordor from murder, Theoden a chief or leader, Saruman means man of skill or cunning. Edoras (the name for Theoden’s court) is from sheltering building and his golden hall, Meduseld, is also taken directly from Beowulf, and means ‘mead-hall’. Beorn means either warrior or, obviously, Bear. Hobbit was only recently found in an old and long list of names for little people, although Tolkien always said he invented it. No one thinks a man who delighted in taking his names straight from ancient literature as homage and an act of love would deny that particular one, particularly as it kept his books from initially being published in Germany, but he probably saw it and forgot. The list of words with real-world derivation seems endless and has been very well researched at this point. It would have been nice if the creator left us a full list, but such has not been reported.

Religion – Tolkien was a religious Catholic. The beginning of the universe and Middle Earth in The Silmarillion is a rewriting of Genesis. Tolkien’s Iluvatar or Eru is simply God, the Valar and Maia, his angels, cherubim, etc. Lin Carter, who I referred to above as one of the best authors about Tolkien’s great works, complained that there was not any religion among Tolkien’s people. I think he missed the point. Gandalf, Frodo and friends were the religion and the first three ages were the mythology – what existed in the world before the magic went out of it and the elves and magic returned to the West so that the Age of Man would begin. We have more evidence than my opinion. Gandalf, Tolkien wrote, was an incarnate angel. Frodo, who almost makes the ultimate sacrifice, and finally goes into the West, is clearly a Christ figure. As Stephen Greydanus points out in an excellent essay, Faith and Fantasy: Tolkien the Catholic, The Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson’s Film Trilogy, each of Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn undergoes a Christ-like “death” and “rebirth.” Tolkien called his own works not only religious, but "Catholic"; and, he also said he owed much of Galadriel’s character to Mother Mary.

Mythology – This is inseparable from the language. I have already pointed out how Tolkien took names from the Elder Edda. Gandalf is the most obvious mythological character, being not only an incarnate angel, but also made in the “Odinic wanderer” archetype (says Tolkien). Of course, he also said that he was based on a painting of the spirit of England – but he can be derived from all these things and come out whole. If you are unfamiliar with Odin, the father of the Norse Gods, he was wisest, although unlike the Greek Zeus, not strongest, sacrificed much, invented magic, cared about humans, wore a hat and wandered through the world of men as an old man with a staff. Hard to miss the connection. The dwarves, the elves, the dragon, Middle Earth itself, Mirkwood, and many other features of LOTR and The Hobbit are all based on beings or creations from Northern mythology (although dragons are certainly a worldwide phenomena). However, all is not Norse. There is a mixture with Christianity, as I’ve said earlier. Sauron, and his former master, Melkor, are plainly versions of Lucifer, not Loki, although there were some elements of him in The Simarilion.

Writing style – LOTR in particular is filled with great phrases in dialogue, poetry, songs, description and narration. Tolkien meant it to be serious sounding, although it has its comic moments, and for adults. It was deliberately written in an archaic fashion. Neither Hemingway nor other modern writers could make a dent in Tolkien’s classicism.

Yet, Tolkien was a great writer, and if his genre required certain archetypes, he was a great writer around them. LOTR is a magical web woven with words, if archaic in tone. Tolkien, who worked on The Oxford English Dictionary, edited a Middle English Dictionary, was the translator of a number of works, including, famously, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and was a master of so many languages, was ideally suited for his task. Perhaps he was the only one so suited. There are too many wonderful lines and images to even begin summoning them here with any hope of comprehensive representation, so I will satisfy myself with these few, starting with two conversations between Frodo and Gandalf:

‘What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!’
‘Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.’

Even better -

‘I wish it need not have happened in my time,’ said Frodo.
‘So do I,’ said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.’

More poetic are the lines burned on the inside of the great ring -

'Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for the Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.'

And this brief poem describing one of the stories' protaganists –

'All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost,
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.'

In LOTR, Bilbo wrote that last poem for his friend, Aragorn (who in an earlier version was also a hobbit), but, Tolkien could go back to Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice - “All that glisters is not gold.” But, it was not original to Shakespeare either and variations were at least as old as the 15th century. Go to http://everything2.com/title/All%2520that%2520glitters%2520is%2520not%2520gold for an historical commentary on this phrase.

Tragic theme – LOTR is tragedy, not comedy. Deep down, although the heroes are triumphant, it is about loss - the loss of the world Tolkien had known in his youth, the triumph of the combustion engine over fire, of cars and trains over horses, roads over paths. When Gandalf and the elves return to the West over the sea, it is the end of the age of folk magic and simple wisdom and the beginning of the age of man, science and technology. Perhaps, indeed, Saruman triumphs after all. For Tolkien it was a great loss. I believe he would have been thrilled with the music from the movies that did a great job of capturing his work on film, but particularly with the song “Into the West” played over the credits, written by composer, Howard Shore, co-written and hauntingly sung by Annie Lennox. I hope to have it played at my funeral (seriously).

The feeling of loss is well in keeping with the Norse tradition and brings us back to the last two sentences of the quote from Edith Hamilton we started with: “All the best Northern tales are tragic, about men and women who go steadfastly forward to meet death, often deliberately choose it, even plan it long beforehand. The only light in the darkness is heroism.”

The Hobbit was already out a few years before Hamilton wrote those words, but either she didn’t read it, or it wasn’t serious enough, being a children’s story, to let her understand who Tolkien was and what he was doing. I have no idea if she ever read LOTR, which came out in the 1950s long before she died. But Tolkien and Hamilton were on the same page and I think he fulfilled her prophecy.

(Blank) Ten List of Rulers

Boy, I've been arguing with people this week -- the value of the power of positive thinking (overstated), the pleasures of Spring (overrated) and the like. So, I'm feeling frivolous this week and so goes the blog. I called this my blank ten list instead of top ten list for good reasons. Depending on the criteria you use, Napoleon could be number 1. By another set of criteria, Cheops might be, or, even King Alfred of England. Although I wrote a similar, but very nominal list on February 4, 2009 here, the criteria I'm using is different here. Although many of the rulers made both cuts, this list is of those rulers whose stories most fascinated or interested me, and the choices are not meant in praise -- in fact, only one of these guys is truly admirable -- the rest - well, even if we judge them as men of their time, they were tyrants, even if they meant well or thought they were saving their people. Most were horrifying. Such as they are, here's the list.

10. Juan Carlos of Spain. Here in America we praise Washington for not becoming a king in America. Although he was the most popular figure in America, I disagree with the consensus that the evidence that the kingship could have really been his in a country made up of 13 sovereign states (the way they saw it at the time). In my humble opinion, his revolutionary peers were proud he did not seek to be king, but would have rebelled had he tried. But Juan Carlos of Spain was actually King in Spain, and had monarchial powers, had we wanted to keep them. Juan Carlos’ grandfather, Alphonse XIII, was the last King of Spain when he was deposed in 1931, soon before the outset of the Spanish Civil War. Francisco Franco took over at the end of the war and become dictator and then, nominally restoring the monarchy, all powerful regent until he died in 1975. He had named his successor, Juan Carlos, skipping a generation to appoint the member of the royal family who most supported him, and it was expected that JC would continue in the same authoritarian manner as he had. Apparently, though, he had been secretly conferring with democrats unbeknownst to Franco and had no such intention. He stunned the world by almost immediately instituting democratic reforms. Although JC is still technically Spain’s King (not to mention the historical title of King of Jerusalem), just a few years after he took over, the conversion to parliamentary democracy came, and JC was made titular King. This self abrogation of power is itself enough to make the list. But JC’s life has three other interesting features. Like much of European royalty today, he is descended from a who’s who of historical personages, including Queen Victoria, King Louis IV, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and Lorenzo the Magnificent. In 2000 he was almost assassinated by the same nut who almost killed Pope John Paul II a few years earlier. Why was that guy out of jail? The last interesting fact is not so pleasant. When he was 18 years old, he accidentally shot his younger brother dead. There were different stories as to how it happened, but nevertheless, although no one suspects murder, he killed his brother and that has to stick with you to the end of your days. Okay, I ruined the mood, didn’t I? Let’s move on.

9. Strange that a history crazed person such as myself would have two choices alive during my own life time on the list, but Idi Amin makes it too. Amin was dictator of Uganda throughout the 1970s after taking power in a coup -- as murderous as a snake and as crazy as a bedbug. Other than that, he was quite an impressive guy. Undoubtedly my favorite Idi Aminism is his declaring himself the King of Scotland and America as well as Conqueror of the British Empire. That’s just Daffy Duck crazy. He was quite large and before he became dictator was Uganda’s heavyweight champion. Never got his shot against Ali or Frazier, of course, and would have gotten his clock cleaned if he did, but, presuming it wasn't fixed, that’s not bad. The coup wasn’t his first power grab. In the late 60s he helped the prime minister oust the king and became commander of the armed forces. Perhaps he would have stayed that if the prime minister didn’t plot against him. Amin struck first. Of course, he promised to institute democratic process. What didn’t Amin do? He was responsible for the murder of perhaps hundreds of thousands of citizens, expelled Asians, bonded with Libya’s Gadaffi, who just missed this list, and publicly threatened Kenya and Israel. Kenya brought troops to the border, sending Amin scurrying for cover. When Uganda allowed a hijacked plane to land there, and Israelis remained the only hostages, it ended up the subject of the legendary Entebbe raid. Israel’s well planned attack left only one of their own soldier’s dead and only a few hostages, while dozens of Ugandan soldiers and all the hijackers met their fate. Things started to unravel for Amin. He became crazier and crazier. In 1978 he actually invaded another neighbor, Tanzania, which fought back and invaded Uganda. Amin fled, and though he tried to take over again years later, he died an exile in 2003.

8. Jump back a few thousand years to this Egyptian King, Psammetichus. I learned about this Pharaoh from one of my favorite history books – the first, as far as we know anyway, Herodotus’s Histories. Unlike some of the other characters in Herodotus, Psammetichus is not legendary, but was a ruler of Egypt for 54 years. According to Herodotus (but not more modern historians) he was one of twelve rulers of Egypt, and accidentally fulfilled a prophecy for uniting the empire by drinking from his bronze helmet the priest serving the twelve forgot to bring enough glasses. The other kings were shaken by this, but kindly decided not to kill him, and just banished him. He consulted an oracle, who told him that he would rule when he became allied with bronze men from the sea. Sure enough, Greeks showed up from the sea decked out in bronze and he went to meet them. This is all an approximation of the truth and Herodotus was not far off. Psammetichus did unite Egypt in the 7th century B.C. and freed them from the yoke of the Assyrians. He did bring Greeks into the empire, but possibly not in the way Herodotus stated, with the Greek warriors helped him take over. But my favorite Psammetichus stories are also from Herodotus and concern two experiments he did. The less interesting of them involved an experiment to discover the depth of the Nile by lowering a rope into it. The rope was reportedly thousands of fathoms long, but never reached the bottom. Herodotus learned much later that unbeknownst to Psammetichus, powerful underwater currents would prevent any rope from reaching the bottom. Of course, everything Herodotus told us about the Nile was pretty much wrong, and, although he was honest in saying when he thought the stories he heard were not true, he missed the boat on this one. The better story is his experiment to discover which were the first people on earth. He did this in a less than logical way (not that it really happened). He took two babies and had them raised by women whose tongues were cut out (one version of the story anyway). Whichever was the first word uttered would (naturally) prove which was the first language and the first people. The first word that came out was “Bekos,” a Phrygian word meaning bread. After that, the Egyptians believed the Phrygians to have preceded them in time on Earth. We have so much knowledge to thank Herodotus for, and these facts aren't among them. However, they did make, Psammetichus one of my favorite characters.

7. Peter Alexeyevich Romanov is the subject of a number of books, but Robert K. Massie’s Peter the Great is my all time favorite biography providing one of the most interesting and readable histories of Russia. Peter, raised by the Czar, was groomed from the beginning. When his father died, his forceful mother took over as Regent until Peter came of age and he still had to share with a brother, who was not healthy and soon died. When he did take over, he put his stamp on Russia for ever. But, the six foot eight inch Peter interested me for reasons other than his military success (eventually) and rule. He was a strange Czar who traveled for a year and a half incognito to try and raise European help against the Ottomans (unsuccessfully) and while there learned to build ships and cities, rushed home to put down one of many insurrections, had over a thousand of the rebels tortured and killed, gave Russia a Navy, forced his court to shave their beards and dress in a western style, was fascinated by and collected giants, including a huge French personal servant nicknamed Bourgeous, as well as dwarves, greatly expanded Russia’s territory to its staggering size, played huge mock battles with his toy navy, forced his wife to become a nun as well as his traitorous half sister, had his disloyal eldest son imprisoned and tortured to death, prevented Russians from becoming monks before they turned 50, had glorious St. Petersburg built and finally died at age 52 of bladder problems. His life spanned the 17th and 18th century, was filled with many successes and many personal disasters, and was not just “Great,” but fascinating.

6. As remarkable as Peter was, Attila the Hun, the leader of the Hun horde that ravaged Europe in the fifth century A.D. makes him look tepid in comparison.  Known as the Scourge of God, there are many rumors and legends about the great leader, but much of it is just speculation. The Huns left no texts and their language is unknown. A contemporary witness described Attila as small, broad man, large headed man with small eyes, a thin graying beard, flat nose and tanned skin. At least that was the report from a historian a couple of centuries later who had the report. The Hun’s originations are unknown and may have been a conglomerate of Asiatic tribes, including Turks, Goths and Alans, etc. Attila ruled on horseback, but that was the norm for the Huns, a nomadic horseback tribe that used the sword as well as the powerful composite bow. Attila’s name is Gothic German for Little Father, which sounds more like an appellation than a real name. He ruled from 434 through 453, the first half with his brother, whom he killed (probably). He and his men devastated the towns they plundered. They were rarely defeated in battle but finally defeated in modern day France by a collection of Gauls, Goths and Romans, but escaped intact to ravage Italy. Fortunately for Rome, Attila died the next year, probably only 47 years old. He appears to have choked to death on his own blood during a party and the cause of this is subject to more speculation. At one point, the Roman Emperor’s sister, Honoria, seeking to evade marriage to a Roman Senator, sent Attila her engagement ring, either proposing marriage to Attila or merely asking for his aid. He determined it was a proposal and tried to claim her. He never attacked either Rome or Constantinople, although he threatened them, and decimated large parts of Europe while doing so. Like many famous warrior-rulers of old, he had a famous sword, allegedly found by a shepherd boy, known as the Sword of God, or, Sword of the War God. It came to represent him. Though probably lost to history, it has been “found” more than once.

5. Writing about Adolf Hitler is always tricky. There are many people still alive who suffered from his outrages which involved much of the world, and Jews are, not surprisingly, especially sensitive about him. The loathing has led to a strange sort of prism through which Hitler must be politically viewd, and any suggestion that there was anything interesting, or not outright horrifying about him, is immediately rejected, and, the writer pilloried as a Hitler-lover or apologist. Even an open discussion of how many people died in the holocaust is cause for anger and accusations. However bad Hitler was, he was a force bar none in the world, rallying his country after their disastrous defeat in WWI, charming, bullying and terrorizing almost all of Europe in the run up to the war. He was seemingly invincible in his judgments early on, showed us the fallacy of appeasement at Munich, took the surrounding countries like Austria and Czechoslovakia without firing a shot by threats, tricks and intimidation, set off WWII by invading Poland, dominated and pummeled England, France and Russia for a while with little real assistance except from a distant Japan distracting America in the Pacific, before the wealth and power of America and Russia, together with the help of its other allies determined his and his country’s fate. His startling blue eyes, magnetic charisma, megalomaniacal personality, political superiority, animalistic violence, strange relationships with his mistress (and at the end, wife), Eva Braun, and his own niece, Geli, who was found dead in his apartment killed (by herself?) with his gun, bizarre superstitions, loyalty to many of those he favored, his understanding of mechanical warfare ahead of his peers, devotion to art and architecture, the overwhelming evil of the Holocaust, his driving of new technology and weaponry, and belief in his own powers were the sole wellspring of WWII, the greatest and most cataclysmic event in modern history, which has left its stamp on Western Civilization for over 60 years so far, and, likely well into the future. In destroying him, he made Churchill, Roosevelt and even the equally heinous Stalin, great. He was easy to hate and impossible to deny. The world's fascination with him has never dimmed.

4. Sargon of Akkad – It is amazing how much they know about Sargon, who some identify with the biblical figure, Nimrod, legendary founder of many great cities in Mesopotamia. However, as all of our information comes from texts some thousands of years old, much is legend mixed with fact, and the two cannot be unraveled. Sargon makes the list because he is arguably (hard to say) the first founder of a great empire well over four thousand years ago. He may also be the founder of Akkad, which sounds not so impressive unless you recognize how dominant the Akkadian empire was politically and linguistically for well over a millenium. About fifteen hundred years after Sargon's death, although still only the 8th century, B.C., a text, purportedly his autobiography, speaks of his birth in a way that might sound familiar – he was given birth to by a priestess from an unknown father, sealed in a basket of rushes and set adrift, to be rescued by a commoner. Along came a goddess who gave him her love and poof – he’s king. If it sounds vaguely like Moses, there are others who share this probably mythological Near and Middle Eastern beginning. Sargon was undoubtedly a great conqueror and established his rule over all of Mesopotamia (now, basically Iraq), parts of what is now Iran, the Northern parts of Arabia and then across the fertile crescent across Syria and into Lebanon on the Mediterranean coast. These were bitter, brutal times, when lives were ended in an instance, connected leashes lashed to the lips of slaves and horrendous slaughter commonplace. Yet Sargon managed to win battle after battle, expanding his city-state into an empire. He did not have the greatest empire by far, but first means something. He died in the 23rd century B.C., at least a thousand years before the Trojan War’s historical date and the birth of Abraham. He was, if nothing else, an early and major part of forces that would shape the world we know, possibly the inspiration for biblical characters and text, and certainly a hero to rulers in his area for many hundred of years. Sargon II, the great Assyrian ruler, took his name some fifteen hundred years later.

3. Who would we be if not for William the Conqueror? He was, in some senses, the founder of the Britain we know today, a mixture of French and Anglo-Saxon culture. His great victory in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings on England’s shore is still one of the most famous dates in history. Born around 1028 A.D., he was first known as William the Bastard, being the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy, but was named heir all the same when still just a boy. He had to fight to keep his title and would have certainly lost it to a host of usurpers if not for the support of Henry I of France, who then turned against him and tried to take Normandy from him too (although it was a French dependency). William gained in power and popularity. 1066 was a year that saw England on the defensive and in which it had four kings. Edward the Confessor, a mild man by the standards of the time was first but died in January of that year. Harold Godwinson was crowned King. William claimed that Edward had promised him the title during William’s visit to London, and that Harold, who he had rescued, fought with side by side and eventually knighted, promised him his allegiance (although perhaps by trickery). The Pope supported William, which quite important at the time. Harold first had to fight off his own brother who was allied with the Danish, a people who had controlled parts of Britain for a couple of hundred years (the Danelaw), and then rush to the Southern coast to fight William. But, it was too late. William had time to build forts and pick his spot for the fight. Although the forces were roughly equal in size, William had calvary, infantry and archers, while Harold was mostly limited to infantry. At first, Harold seemed to hold his own, but the effect of the arrows and the power of the horseback soldiers eventually wore his forces away, and after a day of battle, Harold and his other brothers fell. Still, England would not surrender and a very young Edgar Aetheling was named king. Although most folks think Hastings ended the Conqueror's bid, Aetheling did not surrender for about 8 years, and William had to fight to win. Once conquering though, he returned to Normandy and spent most of his life in France or having other adventures, battling his own family and neighbors as was the way of the time. He died during battle after a fall from a horse in 1078. Long before he died, however, his administration had changed Britain forever, Normandizing the language, at least of the ruling class, and transferring most of the land to his Norman kinsmen and followers. It was the last time England was successfully invaded. Had he failed, he would not be looked upon as a heroic figure today, but as another wannabe English conqueror, along with Napoleon and Hitler. But, no doubt, Britain would have been a more Germanic country and language, and the veils of history do not let us get a peak at what effect that would have had in the twentieth century.

2. Even I’m not sure why I like Sulla the Happy. He was as ambitious and awful as a Roman tyrant could be, but there’s something about him that was – happy? Perhaps it is just because he is so less famous than Caesar, who I never could stand. He came up under the consul Marius, a wealthy and powerful man during a time when Italy, completely under the tyrannical sway of Rome, was in constant upheaval – the rich and the poor, the aristocracy and the democrats were at constant odds. In 88 B.C., with Marius retired, Lucius Cornelius Sulla was made one of the consuls in order to battle a powerful opponent, Mithridates of Greece. One of Sulla’s adversaries managed to get the Assembly to bring back Marius in his stead. Sulla, originally a poorer member of the aristocracy, fled to the army, and with them at his back attacked Rome. Now Marius fled, and the man behind it, Sulpicius Rufus, betrayed by his slave, had his head fixed on a pole. Sulla treated the slave who helped him no better – he freed him to reward his services and then had him executed because he betrayed a Roman master. Sulla, now proconsul, went away to his war and Marius came back with an army. A ferocious melee occured – class warfare on a brutal, bloody scale. Sulla’s followers were slaughtered, among many others, and all of his assets seized. Marius was elected consul again, but died. Sulla made peace with Mithridates, and came back with fabulous riches, sending his adversaries fleeing, including a young Julius Caesar. He fought another war against the democrats and a terrible slaughter ensued. Sulla was made dictator and a reign of terror ensued against his enemies that makes the French Revolution look like a morality play. But, he ruled only two years as dictator, and after revolutionizing the laws so as to guarantee an aristocracy or monarchy (he hoped) forever, he retired. His enemies were all dead, and he could live without any fear. He had had a remarkable life in which he always seemed to win – his soldiers loved him, he had five wives and many mistresses, he was exceedingly well educated, filled his life with luxuries and riches, wrote his memoirs. He did not get to enjoy his retirement, but died the next year from a horrid ulcer too awful to describe in these genteel pages, and died hemorrhaging. I've read a few different versions of the epitaph he wrote for himself, and will not track down the truest version, but, according to Will Durant, who has my trust, he wrote “No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.” Few dictators have ruled who can say that honestly.

1. Charles XII of Sweden. I’ve written of this hero before in some depth here (June 28, 2008) and will be much briefer here. He was the ultimate swashbuckler – a King who led in battle, was almost astonishingly brave, took on more than he could chew, and eventually choked on it. But, what a fabulous ride. Riding out of his own country, he camped with his men, was their hero and fought beside them. He lived during the same era as Peter the Great. Both Voltaire and Franklin adjudged Charles the greater. Yet, if he was superior in valor and martial skills, Peter’s artillery and the size of Russia were more important and he won the Battle of Poltava, making his own legend forever. Although XII, who fled to the Ottomans, successfully gathered their aid, they temporarily defeated his nemesis, Peter barely escaped with his life and was able to bribe the Ottomans, saving his own neck. This infuriated XII, but there was nothing he could do about it. He finally made his way across Europe in a secret ride home with a few men and returned at last almost a beaten man to his own Sweden. Although the Great Northern War was forced upon him, he relied too much on his own personal greatness, usually a mistake in the end. Sweden was finally attacked within its own borders and forced to surrender much of its territory. He fought in over a hundred battles and almost always won. Had his initial charge at Poltava been successful, as it at first seemed it would, or the Ottomans not let Peter slip through their fingers later on, perhaps we never would have heard of Peter the Great and more would know of this great warrior-king. I will not attempt to review in this paragraph all the acts of personal heroism that make Charles so riveting, but refer you to my earlier post. At the close of that article I wrote – “As to who was greater, XII or Peter, I will offer only this suggestion. XII was more magnificent, but Peter was greater, as his achievements were many and lasting". Perhaps true, but when concentrating on my fascination with them, I can’t help elevating XII over Peter for this one time, at least, and give him the victory he probably deserved.

The conscience of Arlen Spector

Oh, Arlen, what will happen to your vaunted conscience? If your recent actions are the guide, I am worried for you. Not to mention the country.

What does it mean that Arlen Specter has jumped ship from the Republicans to the Democrats? The obvious point is that when Minnesota’s Al Franken senator is finally sworn in, and he will be, the Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority (making it even less likely that Senator Coleman will give up his challenge to that seat). There are already lots of blogs out there on the subject, but my spin is, I hope (I always hope) a little different.

The thought of Democrats and liberals gleefully rejoicing that they can do almost anything they want with our lives in terms of legislation is as repugnant to me as – well, if the Republicans and conservatives had this opportunity. It is bad for the country and bad for us as individuals. It will allow ideologues on the left to throw aside any pretense at moderation, literally jam ruinous governmental control, extremely high taxation, particularly in the future, and unconstitutional laws down our collective throat.

Although I had others reasons, this is one of the principle reasons that I wanted John McCain in the White House (the other being a long history of decrying spending). If there is one thing worse than one party control of the government, it is one party control with a filibuster proof majority. The electorate has spoken and now we are all in for it.

In case any of the readers of this pseudo-intellectual blog don’t understand the mechanics of this filibuster thingamajig, here it is in short. We have two legislative houses in our federal government. The house of representatives is one and the senate is the other. The house’s internal rules allow it to be controlled by a simple majority. 51% wins. The senate’s rules, however, allow 41 senators to block any legislation simply by refusing to end the debate (which is called filibustering). The only way to end a filibuster is by a cloture motion. If 60 senators vote to close debate, the legislation goes to an up and down vote with the majority winning just like in the other house. When one party has 60 senators, this is not difficult to do, as membership in congress is not a prescription for courage, wisdom or independence. They tend to vote with their party, particularly on procedural votes like cloture.

Very often, political movement exposes both parties to fair charges of hypocrisy. In fact, one might define politics as the art of disguising hypocrisy as policy. A few years ago, when the Republicans were still in control of government (but did not have a filibuster proof majority) they railed against Democratic use of that tool. Now, it is the Democrats who sought to avoid it. A pox on both of your houses.

I am almost always a fan of politicians jumping ship to the other party, or, better, when they become independent. While their own party reviles them for doing so, as if it were an athletic competition, the other party cheers them on. For me, any slap in the face of a political party is usually well deserved. However, as Arlen Specter’s doing so now comes with the destruction of the minority voice’s power to block legislation at this time, I am disappointed and concerned about it. You have to read my posts about the direction we are heading for the last 6 months or so to understand fully why I find this particularly worrisome, but let me say the party in power’s predilection to spend all the money we have, had and will ever have, in the mad hope that it will stimulate the economy, is a black hole from which I believe, if unchecked, our country, perhaps the world, will spend decades climbing out of. The fact that the quarterly gdp today showed another huge tumble while Obama and co. tell us things are starting to look up, just reinforces my beliefs that we are not just heading in the wrong direction, we have our foot on the accelerator. I say this not because I am a trained economist, but because I am not. Therefore, common sense and history can still be a guide. While the Republicans in power destroyed any claim they have had to being for lower spending, the Democrats have used this crisis to do so in an unprecedented and frightening way. It is as if they are bailing water in reverse, hauling it from outside a sinking ship and sloshing onto the deck.

Specter has been one of my favorite Senators since he apologized for his behavior in threatening Anita Hill during Judge Thomas’ hearings in 1991 (and just as an aside, yes, I believe Thomas made a few off color jokes, but, it shouldn’t have mattered at all or been brought up). Spector is one of the more reasonable and fair legislators in either house in my mind, which is why he was liked by the other side and disliked by the more ideological members in his own party. Republicans have been doubtful of him for years, and, clearly, they had reason to be. I remember one day watching C-Span and seeing him take the floor to explain to anyone watching that the political rule being used, which allowed the chairman of a committee to cut off amendments simply by making one of his own, even if it was as little a change as taking away or adding a comma. In other words, it was a ridiculous and unfair rule and he wanted us to know it. Of course, it was C-Span, so almost no one was watching, but it endeared him to me further and I thank him for caring. I actually tried to email him my appreciation and learned that you can’t contact the senators or congresspersons unless you are in their constituency. Figures. If you can’t vote for them they could care less what you have to say.

I am not one of those who will castigate Specter for changing parties, but, I am afraid that I fully expect him to act with even greater hypocrisy now than we can usually expect from politicians, which is saying quite a bit. While he would usually (not always) vote lockstep with his Republican party on procedural issues, as almost everyone else does, he will now have to do the opposite - vote with the Democrats in lockstep fashion if he wants to maintain their favor, and clearly he does. That will mean selling out on many a position that he would have said just a couple of days ago he believes in.

Ironically, Specter will find that he has more power but less personal freedom as a Democrat than as a Republican. Here’s why. While he was a Republican they had to be concerned that he would leave the party and drain their power even further. Thus, while many Republicans wanted to take the chairmanship of the judiciary committee away from him while they were in power, they couldn’t, because of the fear that he might bolt the party. That gave him leverage.

Now, of course, the Democrats will not be so handcuffed. His entire political career will be dependent on their largesse. Without them, he will not get Democratic primary victory. Without them, he will not have control of a committee (I understand he wants appropriations, making him one of the most powerful men in government). Without them, he is almost certainly a lame duck senator without any power.

Thus, Arlen Specter must not displease his handlers. He claims that he will not be an automatic 60th vote, but will continue to vote his conscience. We will see. It is at least doubtful that he can do so with a highly partisan issue and continue to get Democratic support. They will turn on him as they did with Joe Lieberman before they recognized that they could lose him to the right if they didn’t play ball.

Politically, of course, it was the right move for Specter. He was almost certainly done in Pennsylvania’s Republican Party and has to run as a Democrat to survive. Even if the conservatives regain power, it is not likely that they could do so before 2014 at best. By then, Spector will likely be retired (or worse - he will be well into his 80s).

For your viewing pleasure, watch the partisan sniping. No doubt it is the ideological right who chased Arlen out of their party just as the ideological left chased Joe Lieberman out for a while (he’s an independent now, but still in the Democratic caucus). Many of those who sniped at and castigated Lieberman for his “betrayal” in leaving the Democrats, supporting McCain and the Iraqi War, will find it delightful that Specter has switched sides. Those who found Lieberman’s doing so a sign of his healthy conscience and patriotism, will find those same qualities lacking in Specter, and visa versa Like I said, the hypocrisy is rampant on both sides, as usual. We cannot not expect less from politicians, who are, after all, in some cases, almost human.

I would have been much happier had Specter become an independent. It would have been a sign that he would actually act independently and according to conscience, which is what a congressperson or senator should do. There is no doubt in my mind either, as much as I have liked Specter, that this is a purely cynical and political act. Specter says that he doesn’t want to put his lengthy political career in the hands of Pennsylvania’s Republican primary (where he probably can’t win because his party is against him), but, completely hypocritically, he is fine about putting it in the hands of the Democratic primary (where he probably can win with party help). His claim to be willing to take on all comers there is a little silly as it has already been reported that the powers that be in Pennsylvania’s Democratic world intend to clear the decks for him.

If you doubt this was a hypocritical act, you can recall that Specter said almost a decade ago, when Jim Jeffords jumped ship, that he had the right, but doing so was bad for the country. In Jeffords case, it effected the power structure in the senate, but it did not result in one party rule. Guess his conscience has changed since then.

A filibuster proof majority is not run of the mill. We have to go back to the 70s for the last one, and that was during a less ideological and partisan time where the members did not always vote in lockstep fashion. Thus, in the "average" American’s lifetime (about 25 years), no party has had so much power. That should be scary, but the average American really doesn't look at these things very deeply, and probably takes no notice. For those on the left who think this is a good thing, careful what you wish for. You may just find that disaster is looming.

Make no mistake about it, we now have one party rule, no different than in other countries we mock for their tyrannical laws. It’s not just that the country has voted Democratic. It’s that the rules of our legislative branch have been sculpted over the years to make the two parties paramount. Now it will soon be just one party by those same rules. While the press goes on and on about the arbitrary benchmark of Obama's first one hundred days in office, this switch is much more meaningful.

But, Democrats and liberals should not gloat too much. They need only remember a few years ago when Republicans had a virtual lock on government, and got to greedy, too fat and too full of themselves, leading us to this pleasant day - with one party opposition for the party their ballyhooers were calling all but dead.

Is there hope for us? There is always a hope or two, however unforeseen, and I still do not look to the end of America, even if we have shot ourselves in the foot. Specter might make me feel better by actually voting as he did before, that is, without obsessive catering to one party or the other, even if he leans in one direction. Seeing how he has explained his defection by the usual hypocritical means, I do not have a lot of confidence in his doing so, whatever he says now. We will see how he reacts when he gets his first equivalent of a dead fish from Rahm Emanuel.

Who said it?

Okay, history fans, the game for this week is - who said it? I give you the quote and you guess. To make it more interesting for me, each quote had to come from my own library, which I love with the passion of a teenager and the fidelity of Lassie. To make it more interesting for you, in most cases, it won’t be that easy to guess and are aimed to surprise.

Quotes

1) “If all these people are convicted there will be too many to be punished with death. My hope is that they will send me full statements of every man’s case, that the most guilty may be marked as examples, and the less suffer long imprisonment under reprieves from time to time.”

2) “Should we ever have gained our Revolution if we had bound our hands by manacles of law, not only in the beginning but in any part of the revolutionary conflict? There are extreme cases where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation, and where the universal resource is a dictator or martial law.”

3) “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

4) “I have always had a clear conscience.”

5) “It is really the free world against the lying, cheating, hypocritical Russians."

6) "Tell him I long more than anything to learn how to do things wrong, how to create discrepancies, adaptations, changes to reality, so that it all becomes – well, lies if you like, but truer than literal truth.”

7) “The autocrat of Russia possesses more power than any other man in the earth; but he cannot stop a sneeze.”

8) “What I said, I said for fear of the fire. My voices have told me since that I did a very wicked thing in confessing that what I had done was not well done. They told that God, by Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, gave me to know the great pity of the treason that I consented to by making that abjuration and revocation to save my life, and that I was damning myself to save my life. If I should say that God had not sent me, I should damn myself. It is true that God has sent me.”

9) “The president was not a hero or a prophet. He was not even a philosopher; but a generously intentioned man, with many of the weaknesses of other human beings, and lacking that dominating intellectual equipment, which would have been necessary to cope with the subtle and dangerous spellbinders whom a tremendous clash of forces and personalities had brought to the top as triumphant masters in the swift game of give and take, face to face in council – a game of which he had no experience at all.”

10) “Horrible thoughts, you will say, to run in the mind of a virgin girl. I admit that; but do not forget that I have not invented these ideas, only exposed them.”

11) “A certain softness of fibre in civilized races, if it were to prove progressive, might mean the development of a cultured and refined people quite unable to hold it’s own in those conflicts through which any great race can ultimately march to victory.”

12) “What I saw would have been a dream if it hadn’t been a terrible reality. Rasputin, who half an hour before lay dying in the cellar, was running quickly across the snow-covered courtyard towards the iron gate which led to the street. . . . I couldn’t believe my eyes. But a harsh cry which broke the silence of the night persuaded me. ‘Felix! Felix! I will tell everything to the Empress!’ It was him, all right, Rasputin. In a few seconds, he would reach the iron gate. . . . I fired. The night echoed with the shot. I missed. I fired again. Again I missed. I raged at myself. Rasputin neared the gate. I bit with all my force the end of my left hand to force myself to concentrate and I fired a third time. The bullet hit him in the shoulders. He stopped. I fired a fourth time and hit him probably in the head. I ran up and kicked him as hard as I could with my boot in the temple. He fell into the snow, tried to rise, but he could only grind his teeth.

13) At this he fired and called me all the ill names, puppy etc., that he could think of. All I returned was I put him in mind of his passion, desired him to govern it, and keep his temper. This made his rage worse. . . .”

14) “That is part of the cursedness of a shotgun messenger’s life – the loneliness of it. He is like a sheep dog, feared by the flock and hated by the wolves. On the stage, he is a necessary evil. Passengers and driver alike regard him with aversion. Without him and his pestilential box their lives would be 90 per cent safer and they know it. The bad men, the rustlers—the stage robbers actual and potential – hate him. They hate him because he is a guardian of property, because he stands between them and their desires, because they will have to kill them to get their hands into the coveted box.”

15) “Long ago a very serious counselor called ‘Uncle Bill’ ordered me into boxing lessons at a New England summer camp called Robinson Crusoe. I was ten. I had good foot speed and my hand-to-eye coordination was sharp enough for me to play third base for the varsity baseball team. I was not afraid of baseballs thrown near my head, nor hard smashes cracked down to third. I’d played a few years of junior prep football and there I was swept end or ran hard off tackle without experiencing fright. I had scuffed a bit, as boys will scuff, but never before Uncle Bill and Robinson Crusoe had I boxed. As I was commanded into my first formal boxing match, dread abruptly dominated me. In a manner that never entered my play in other sports, I thought over and over: ‘Willickers. I can get seriously hurt.’”

16) “I am living here in a state of great anxiety and of the greatest physical fatigue. I have no friends of any sort and want none. I haven’t even time to eat as much as I should. So you must not bother me with additional worries, for I could not bear another thing.”

17) “Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just when one must kill a mad dog.”

18) “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”

19) “Just as the particular will acts unceasingly against the general will, so does the government continually exert itself against the sovereign. And the more this exertion increases, the more the constitution becomes corrupt, and, as in this case there is no distinct corporate will to resist the will of the prince and so to balance it, sooner or later it is inevitable that the prince will oppress the sovereign and break the social treaty. This is the inherent and inescapable defect which, from the birth of the political body, tends relentlessly to destroy it, just as the old age and death destroy the body of a man.”

20) “What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves – and I doubt you will do so – in order to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that, to you, values and principles are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.”

Answers

1) Thomas Jefferson. Was he talking about the death penalty for murderers? No. TJ wanted the death penalty for those violating economic restrictions. Whatever his virtues, he was our first and last tyrant.
2) Same guy. Same problem. Whether he was right or not that there are times a dictator might be called for, it wasn’t the right time and he certainly wasn’t the right guy. Okay, done with Jefferson. I promise.
3) Honest Abe Lincoln speaking his mind while campaigning. He hated slavery, and was personally kind to blacks, but his belief in the superiority of whites appeared to be genuine and certainly typical of his time.
4) Adolph Hitler. Good to know he could sleep nights.
5) Possibly the greatest and craziest chess player to ever live, Bobby Fischer, on his classic match up with Boris Spassky.
6) Vincent van Gogh. Makes sense if you think about his work.
7) One of my literary heroes, Mark Twain, who constantly surprises and inspires me.
8) Joan of Arc, recanting her confession. She had reason to fear the fire.
9) Maynard Keynes – possibly the most famous (not the best) economist of the 20th century, commenting on our overmatched President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference.
10) Sigmund Freund. These days he is considered a relic, his therapy largely repudiated, but he was very important step in an uptight world trying to understand sexuality, and among his work and letters are many gems I believe will be mined for a long time.
11) Teddy Roosevelt. To read him nowadays, we are surprised by his ethnocentricity/racism, even though he was probably progressive for his time. But if you get beyond that, he was often quite prescient, very decent, and one of the most competent presidents. Nor was he stayed by ideology or party politics when something needed to be done. Thus, he is one of my very favorite presidents.
12) Rasputin’s murder, as told by one of the conspirators, describes an amazing story of Rasputin’s tremendous will to live. First they poisoned him, and when he wouldn’t die, they shot him and pronounced him dead. After he jumped up, attacked them and made to escape, they shot him again at least twice more, kicked him in the head and beat him with a club. To get rid of the body, they slid him in under the ice. Remarkably, when he was found, it turned out his lungs were filled up with water. That means he was still alive when he went under and drowned. This account reads like a novel.
13) Reverend John Flamsteed, Britain’s first Royal Astronomer, describing a run in with his nemesis, Sir Isaac Newton. Not the Newton of the apple tree, is it?
14) Wyatt Earp describing the lot of a Wells, Fargo shotgun messenger.
15) Jack Dempsey describes his introduction into the sport that made his life.
16) Michaelangelo working at the Vatican, vents his frustrations in a letter to his brother.
17) Martin Luther was revolutionary, but not known for his tolerance for those who rebelled from him.
18) General William Sherman. He’d know.
19) Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Like all philosophers, sometimes he’s right and sometimes he’s nuts. But he had a great name, didn’t he? His words above are as true now in democracies as they were at the dawn of the revolutions.
20) I was going to let you guess, but you can Google almost anything these days. It’s a lecture from our friend, Osama bin Laden.

Death to pirates

I was talking to a young girl who is a senior in college about the pirates killed in the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips and said I was glad it ended that way. She's a nice girl who is graduating college and, not surprisingly, thinks we can save everybody, even pirates. She asked me if I wasn't being too harsh. I said "no" and meant it.

Until the pirates believe their chances of getting killed are substantially higher than their getting a ransom, this out of control industry will keep booming. This isn't a domestic kidnapping, or a one of a kind criminal act by an out of control person. This kind of piracy is about as lawless as you can get, and that includes international law, which is about as vague as you can get and still call it law. Nor is this a case of colonization where the indigent people are fighting back. These are pirates motoring hundreds of miles from their home, kidnapping sailors and tourists at the point of powerful weapons, and holding them for ransom in Somalia, many in the same area.

Like with terrorists, we can't be soft with these people. Yes, if I was the kidnapped person or it was someone I was close to I would want a ransom to be paid. But that would be because I was emotional and irrational about it, as I should be in that situation.

The ransoms paid over the last year or so to the Somalia pirates have been the catalyst and the seed money for their industry. It has been reported as over $150,000,000 in ransoms for 2008. Although a number of nations have banded together to take on the pirates, it has not been very effective. A true international blockade is necessary. The pirates cannot be subject to years of criminal defense. Justice has to be swifter than normal, particularly when a hostage is killed, even in a rescue attempt and even by the rescuer.

Don't get worried. I won't suggest lynching them at sea or torturing them, though, they probably deserve it. I do believe they should be tried as quickly as possible, have quick appeals and the punishment carried out. If we hesitate, we can look forward to keeping it going for way too long, as with the Iraq War and The War on Terror.

Unfortunately, many of the countries who are partaking in this group defense are allergic to the death penalty. I am too, usually. Although I believe some people deserve to die, I just don't believe juries are very capable of rendering a very impartial decision in murder cases and too many innocent people get convicted. However, this is the type of thing that must be done regardless. I would limit the death penalty to those who are caught in the act and where a hostage dies or is "seriously injured" in the mind of the jury, or other factors that make it particularly heinous.

Captain Phillips was rescued by men from the USS Bainbridge, a ship named after William Bainbridge, an American navy man of the late 18th and early 10th century. He was the captain of the Philadelphia, which was in the Tripoli harbor in 1803 during the First Barbary War. We fought that war in order to put an end to the pirate tactics of several Ottoman Empire satellites on the North African Coast. The Philadelphia got stuck on a shoal in the harbor and Bainbridge felt the smartest thing to do was to surrender and spare his men. They were captured and the men enslaved and several died. The officers were allowed the freedom of the city but, of course, were not free to leave.

In order to prevent the Pasha from using the ship (actually, they didn't have the expertise and were going to sell it) Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, Jr., diguised himself and his men on a captured ship and then got permission to tie itself along the stranded vessel. Just as their disguise was uncovered, they dashed unboard (actually, Decatur tripped and thus, was not first aboard). They set the ship on fire. Just as Decatur's father was the Philadelphia's first captain, he was the last to leave the deck. Horatio Nelson called it "the most bold and daring act of the age.” The Pope said it was the most important blow struck for Christaindom in centuries. Decatur became a national hero and even Francis Scott Key wrote a song for him which years later became the basis of the Star Spangled Banner.

But, the Pope may have exaggerated. The mission neither freed the hostages (who were beaten because of it) nor ended the war. Finally, William Eaton, a remarkable former soldier, spy and diplomat, who spoke many of the regional languages, got permission from Jefferson to do what he could to rescue the hostages. He went back to the Mediterranean for the purpose of either throwing such a scare into the Pasha he would give up, or, if necessary attack and destroy him. He organized an international army, mostly Arabs and Berbers, but also European adventurers and a few American military men. he dubbed himself the general, crossed with his army hundreds of desert miles through adventures that are deserving of books and movies, captured Derna with the help of a navy bombardment, setting up the Pasha’s frightened and useless brother, Hamet, as de facto ruler. He held the city against counter-attack, acted as his ruler and intended, if the Pasha did not surrender to march on Tripoli itself and crown Hamet King. The Pasha was frightened at what occurred and probably would have capitulated had not we shot ourselves in the foot by - and here's the moral - PAID A RANSOM.

Without Eaton’s knowledge, Jefferson's peace officer named Tobias Lear (from whom we know Washington's last words and who was a friend of Jeffersona and Madison) agreed to that America would pay $60,000 for the release of the prisoners. America did not want to pay tribute anymore, which was humiliating, but somehow thought that paying ransom was better. With the hostages freed and a treaty signed it might have appeared that Lear acted wisely. But Eaton knew better. As one of Eaton’s very few biographers, Samuel Edwards, records in Barbary General, Eaton wrote the following in final report:

“What have we gained by the war? What benefit has accrued to the United States by the suffering of the Philadelphia’s officers and men, six of whom died in captivity? What benefit has accrued to the United States by the death of two members of the Marine Corps who accompanied the Bey Hamet on his march to Derna? These dead, and the noble Europeans and Africans who joined hands with us in a noble enterprise – and who lost their lives in that effort – cry out from their shallow graves for justice.”

Like Decatur, Eaton became a national hero. He probably already deserved it if the public had the public been aware of the things he had accomplished. However, he pressed his case that a terrible mistake had been made and that we would find we needed to fight there again. He was completely right. Decatur himself went back after the War of 1812 ended in 1815. This time he went with overwhelming force and gave the Bey of Algiers a few hours to sign a treaty (with very little negotiating allowed), or pay the penalty. The Bey caved as sood did the rulers of Tunis and Tripoli, also capitulated. They even paid the Americans for their troubles and released both American and European prisoners. Still, it is probably that a little bombardment would have been a good idea. The next year an Anglo-Dutch flotilla did just this, bombarding Algiers until they reconfirmed the treaties and gave up their pirating.

Only force works with some people, and pirates are among them. As Eaton and Decatur knew, pirates are rarely dissuaded from their tasks without either scaring them to death or actually doing the job. This may again be something that America has to do almost alone. I hope we figure this out (and for goodness sakes, Obama and Clinton, please don't blame us for it).

If you are interested in more on Eaton and Decatur, two now largely forgotten heroes, check out my October 2nd, 2008 and December 10th, 2008 posts.

The dumbest thing I've ever written about - women's sexuality

I’m going to do it, jump right into the frying pan. This may be the single biggest mistake I’ve ever made and that includes the time I got out of my car and shut the door while it was still in drive. This might ruin my chances to run for Senator ever. It might prove to any uptight politically correct man or woman who reads this that – I am a bona fide, Neanderthal like – MISOGYNIST. But what is this blog for if not to share with you my most unpopular beliefs.

Now, it’s not true to my lights, but I really do know a few people who think I am a misogynist. When I say a few, that’s only including friends and family. I know why. When the differences between men and women comes up, my opinions aren't always politically correct, that's all. Nevertheless, I actually like women a lot (although I'm told that's not the issue (?)) and don't think women are inferior to men at all (although I've been told that I actually do). I have almost always had roughly as many women friends as men friends, at least since I graduated college anyway; even very close ones. I know I sound like the white guy who says some of my best friends are black, but some of my best friends are (or used to be) women.

No doubt, the last ten years or so, the frequency of contact with my female friends has definitely decreased. I don't have to be a scientist to notice that it has a lot to do with their having kids. I wasn’t involved in their kid’s world and it made me something less than a priority, and on a few occasions, pretty much close to zero priotity. That's life and you can't take it personally. Now, when my male friends had kids, they became busier, but that didn’t really decrease our contact to the same degree it did with female friends. But, it does seem to be a difference between men and women, and that interests me.

The fact that men and women have differences should be obvious – I mean, even other than the really obvious ones. Nevertheless, the prevailing politically correct mindset tells us that we are not supposed to notice or believe in differences between women and men, unless the difference is favors women (like the myth that women are stronger than men because they go through childbirth; it's not a myth that men get sleepier than women after sex, but, would we laugh at every mention of it if the reverse was true -- I don't think so). But the differences are still there as in days of old. For example, I personally know substantially more women than men who believe in ghosts or, possibly, far more women who will admit to it publicly. I haven't researched it much to see if that carries out across a broad spectrum of Americans, but, the differences where I have lived are large enough that I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. The few surveys I have seen were so divergent that I have trouble believing them, however, the women questioned did have something of a higher belief than men. Then again, so did more educated people. Probably, the percentage of people who believe in ghosts is so high, it might not amount to much.

Anyway, you can see why some people have called me a misogynist (not always women). I have been told I stereotype, which I really think is what they mean when they say "misogynist". I agree with them. I also stereotype men if what you mean by "stereotype" is that I believe there is nothing wrong with noticing differences between men and women or finding that interesting. There is a basis for these generalizations in that strange place we call the “real world”.

It does not mean, however, that I think all men or women are alike. Often I find when someone doesn’t like an opinion, they first overstate what was said, and then say it is an over-generalizing. I believe it is one of the most standard forms of false arguments, and for me, it prevents a real discussion, although I'm sure, like everyone, I have been guilty of it sometimes too. In my biased opinion, that is what some of my critics do, but, of course, they could just say I'm over-generalizing that too.

Before we get to the sex stuff, because that's the most interesting part, here’s one fairly innocuous example. Most guys I knew in New York didn’t like to dance very much – at least, not nearly as much as many women did. Now that I live in Virginia, I notice that women like to dance down here more than men too. Now, I have expressed that opinion on occasion and actually been told – “That’s not true; some guys like to dance. You are just generalizing”. Well, besides your wondering why I get into these arguments, of course I know there are guys who like to dance. But most guys I know don’t. I know women who don't like to dance too, but not so many. Now, don’t try asking these questions like this in a mixed group because I am telling you that some men will lie (and then tell you later – sorry, you know, the wife/girlfriend was listening. I've had that happen more than a few times in my life, even by some of the most politically correct men I know).

Maybe it’s not true in Greece or Saudi Arabia or other places either. I don't know. But, for the American male, it seems pretty much true. Here’s an interesting anecdotal fact. The best male dancer I know - the one all the girls want to see dance at parties - who seems to really enjoy it – he told me he really doesn’t like to do it very much – he is just pleasing his wife. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, the part I don’t understand is why some people take my opinions as a slight to women. As if I think women are inferior because they like to dance more than men.

Here’s another one, but this one's about sex. It has come up in conversations (for some reason, quite a few times) that many women in my age group have told me that they have lost interest in sex. Either they don’t want to have it anymore at all, or, they don’t care so much about it. Some have said to me that they like it well enough when it happens, but if they never have it again, that’s just fine. Of course, it’s not true for every woman. But, if it is true in general, it’s not an over-generalization. Now, I have to say that in speaking with women about this issue I find that if I say it (as opposed to a woman saying it), I am sometimes called a sexist or a misogynist, just to mention the nicer names (yes, I've also been called a man who wants women to be raped, bled, murdered and tortured, but that was by a close relative, so why go there?)

Now, I admit that I am generalizing about this from a relatively small sample, but, I do not think I am over-generalizing. There is a lot of evidence supporting it. For one thing, polls, surveys and scientific studies all seem to support this proposition overwhelmingly. Hell, even Oprah had a show on it recently and if that isn't authoritative in America, what is (I'm kidding, you Oprah haters our there, but she did do a show on it)? When surveys ask people if they had an extra hour would they prefer sex or sleep (sometimes other things), more men choose sex and more women choose sleep. A Canadian poll reconfirmed that this past year. A few years ago a U.S. poll showed that men chose sex first in that situation but women listed it ninth. Again, to ward off the naysayers, it doesn’t mean that this is always the case or that there aren’t those for whom it isn't the opposite. However, I can't help but notice that some take this suggestion as an insult to women and some folks just won’t believe it.

Now, here's where the differences get really interesting to me. It has always seemed to me that young women I knew had more of an interest in lesbianism than men I knew did in homosexuality. I was not unaware, of course, that the social taboos might just mean more women were going to acknowledge it than men. However, scientific studies seem to show that that the things that turn on men and women are quite different, and I don’t just mean being interested in the opposite sex.

Here’s a strange fact I learned from a fascinating New York Times Magazine article (1/25/09 - Bergner) from which I culled much of the sexual research I'm discussing). Technological marvels like MRI’s and genital measuring devices called plethysmographs now allow scientists to tell what cues arouse men and women. Men seem to be attracted to very specific things – if they are straight, watching women exercising, masturbating, having heterosexual sex or lesbian sex is a turn on. Even gay men seem to react to the same type of thing except, obviously, in reverse, they are physiologically aroused by men, rather than women.

But, women seemed to be physiologically aroused by any sex they see. It didn’t seem to matter who was on screen – a man and woman, two women, and whether having sex, or masturbating or even exercising. And, I'm not making this up, even watching monkeys having sex. And it didn’t matter if they were straight or lesbian. If you want to look it up, the experiment was by Meredith Chivers of King’s University in Kingston, Ontario.

Relax. She’s not suggesting that women secretly want to have sex with monkeys but she and other scientists are having trouble figuring it out why they get aroused. Even women sexologists admit that it is easy to understand male sexuality, but not women’s sexuality. I suppose that might be deemed insulting by some too, but you only have to read a little of this stuff to see it's the case. You can doubt Chivers’ finding, of course, but, according to her extensive review of the scientific literature, similar results have been found by other scientists over and over again.

Here’s another weird thing. In the same study, they also recorded the subjects own views of which scenes aroused them and compared them with their physiological reactions. Women seemed either to be lying or just didn’t know when they were being physiologically aroused. Chivers found that heterosexual women underreported their arousal during lesbian scenes, and even more so, homosexual scenes, and overreported when watching heterosexual sex. When lesbian women watched other lesbians they seemed to get it right, but they also underreported their arousal by watching heterosexual sex. Both women's groups severely underreported arousal while watching the monkeys. What’s going on? If you are a man reading this, you are probably just glad that women are turned on watching other women have sex, even if they won’t admit it. But monkeys? Frankly, wouldn't you have guessed it would have been the other way around on that one.

Now, I don't think the results are because women are more lustful than men. If anything, I think that the time period where they are about the same is a limited one, and otherwise men are more lustful, and there are studies which suggest that is the case. And it is definitely not because women are more "perverted" than men according to social mores. If women could read men's minds they would probably be really disgusted by us and no, I'm not just projecting.

A psychologist at CSU has also found an interesting result showing another sexual difference between men and women which relates to Chivers’ findings. It appears that the more highly sexed someone is (self reported), the more they follow the patterns Chivers found. That is, the more highly sexed a straight man is, the more he is aroused by women alone and the more highly sexed a gay man is, the more likely it is that he is focused on other men alone. However, the results for straight women show, the more highly sexed they were, the more they were aroused by men and other women too.

It seems possible that the differences in these studies were caused by cultural inhibitions. But, that theory might not pan out. Scientists have actually been able to locate the parts of the brain that are triggered by inhibition. A recent MRI study showed that those parts of the brain weren’t triggered when either men or women were aroused by pictures which were not socially acceptable. This would seem to go against the cultural explanation, although it is also possibly that the scientists just don't understand the brain chemistry well enough at this point.

Of course, sexologists have found other fascinating facts about the differences between men and woman, far too many to try to talk about here. Some of them seem obvious to me. It might not surprise you to learn that men seemed to get aroused just by increasing blood flow to their penis, like with Viagra, but women seem to need a psychological adjustment to get turned on. There is also some indication that increases in serotonin or anti-depression medication tends to increase female lust, but not male, which may show that the likelihood that women's arousal is more psychological than men's. Now, that would have been my guess in the first place (but, beware the political correctness police). However, testosterone treatments, primarily a male hormone, seems to work to increase either men or women's arousal, although cancer risks have limited the experimentation.

A study from a University in Wales recently confirmed that women actually find men in expensive cars more attractive than ones in less expensive cars. They found this by asking women to rate pictures of men in cars. Of course, they used the same guy in different cars in order to get their result. What's interesting is not just that they were more attracted to the nicer car, but actually thought the guy was nicer looking. They did not find the same results with men. The men cared about her face and figure. Women attracted to money and power and as shallow in their own way as men? Now, this should be obvious to people just by living in the world, and I'm glad to have this study on my side because I have been told that I'm out of my mind in believing it. Maybe people just like to argue.

Studies of rape fantasies might make you cringe a little. If you really want to infuriate the politically correct, discuss these scientific studies at a mixed party. Apparently, at least a third if not over half of women seemed to have had rape fantasies (from an article in The Journal of Sex Research), and about ten percent fairly frequently. However, and this is the tricky part, there is also evidence that suggests that some women not only get aroused when actually being sexually assaulted, and in rare cases, actually have had an orgasm during the assault. Rape fantasies are far from unknown, of course, but women who have them say they would not want to be raped and I believe it. However, sometimes physiological reactions trump psychological ones even when it makes us feel uncomfortable.

I feel safe to say that many, if not most men I know well, would not be offended if it was suggested that if they were powerless to stop a sexual assault by someone they were attracted to, they might become aroused. I feel just as safe to say most of the women I know would not be pleased by the idea. Some would be outraged. In fact, I really don’t recommend you discussing this at all with a women who doesn’t bring it up herself and, really, how often is that going to happen? If you are a woman and you are reading this I FEEL MY PERSONAL SAFETY REQUIRES ME TO REPEAT THAT I AM NOT SAYING THAT SOME WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT TO BE RAPED AND PLEASE DON’T HATE (OR INJURE) ME. Focus your wrath on the sexologists who do these studies.

The Archives of Sexual Behaviors is a treasure trove of completely politically unacceptable studies such as suggesting that women are more turned on by sex with strangers; that their desire is connected by their narcissistic desire to be wanted; that while looking at pornography straight men study women’s faces and bodies, but straight women study men’s faces and the women’s bodies; men are coercive about sex to feel power and control, but when women are, it's in order to feel a psychological connection and out of control at the same time. You can read abstracts and short previews of the articles in the Archives online. The Journal of Sex Research cannot be read online although you can view the contents there and order them. Am I crazy or is this stuff fun? When I was a psych major we studied rats. Interesting, but not so interesting.

Of course, because I would rather not bore you, I left out all the mundane and overly intellectual stuff you can read about in these journals too. But, there’s lots of titillating stuff there too. Have fun, but my advice, if you are a male, particularly a married one, keep the stuff you read there to yourself in mixed company. Leave the politically incorrect stuff to us bachelors, because husbands having to occasionally sleep on couches is not a myth either.