Two comments:

1. Often neglected is that the native american groups in the area had already been weakened by epidemic disease. Mayflower found emptied villages and deserted areas. This was due to prior epidemic disease brought to new england area by cod fisherman and other sailors from europe who had already been there. So... mayflower not first there, and initial upper hand with natives was due to prior population wipe out by imported eurpean disease imports. These disease imports were not deliberate (unlike the later smallpox blanket deliberate WMD genocidal attacks), but did play a role in allowing colonists to have upper hand in dealing with local and regional native population.

2. Hard to say why the story should not be one of get whitey... europeans invaded land already occupied by others. stole their land. stole their food. killed them. Unless being moderate for moderate sake; gotta be even handed about all this... regardless of facts, truth, actual history... europeans were the bad guys; any and all hostile acts by native americans were in reaction to being invaded, stolen from, killed. Just because the story really is pretty one sided is no reason not to report it that way.

Amazing that in recounting about recent books on Spinoza, that the most important and cross-cutting is left out: "Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity 1650-1750" by Jonathan Israel, 2001.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199254567/ref=pd_sim_b_5/104-1769033-3131967?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

The spate of recent books on Spinoza seem to derive in part with this book, and it sounds like the recent authors owe a lot to it!!!

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away."

PK Dick

Armstrong is spewing her own subtle form of hatred in setting up the false equivalence between secularist and humanists on the one hand (supporting reality; arguing that religion is false and leads to bad outcomes), and religion supporters, even relatively liberal ones. There is no equivalence... atheists and secularists are not going around comitting mass murder and starting wars to force others to convert to their view. Only crusaders of alll religions do this. And yes, the Nazis (useed by religious right as supposed example of atheistic killers) used religion and were not secularists or atheists or humanists. Nor for that matter were communists... certainly used communism as a faith based belif system, and like most governments before and after them linked reliogion to nationalism to gain support for killing the other (sound familiar George W.).

Whether Confuscious, Moses, Buddha or Jesus... coming up with "do unto others..." is a wonderful golden rule... but has nothing to do with belief in god or following a religion. Atheists, Secularists and Humanists follow it to... I would submit more purely than theists for whom the need to follow it is just a form of bribery/extortion (hey if I follow the rule, I get rewarded in heaven). Instead of being a good unto itself.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, still remains."

and dont forget "Only the Dead Know Brooklyn" by Thomas Wolfe.

I refuse to defend Israel in this counter attack, they have been operationally and tactically incompetent and strategically foolish; and that their actions rise to war crimes even though defensive in intent. But Hezbollah's actions and intent are both war crimes. Their intent is destruction of all Israel. Their actions are to kill civilians and soldiers, anybody, by crossing internationally accepted bounadaries and initiating agressive war. And they do comingle not in uniform among civilians. All are war crimes. And everybody including the UN has said that Hezbollah is comingling with civilians, firing missiles from within civilian areas. Reports in both lebonese arab press (Star) and left leaning israeli press (Haaretz) about civilians getting killed when using hardened shelters taken over by hezbollah. The article contradicts itself repeatedly... opens with story of Hezbollah mingling with civilians; then says Hezbollah wouldn't trust civilians due to betrayal, then says it bullies its way into using civilian areas, then says it is too popular and too ubiquitous to be attacked without hitting civilians. I am so terribly sorry that the american reporter was not trusted to co-mingle with hezbollah fighers, but that just suggest they are less foolish than he. Meanwhile the lebonese and israelie and palestinian people suffer, even though the end game is known to all (two state solution; near 1967 border; split jerusalem; return to golan height demilitarized with early detection on both sides.).

One size does not fit all:

What would the history of the 13 colonies without the revoluton be. Probably similar to a free democratic society called Canada.

On the other hand, without resistance called WW II, Hitler would have had his final solution.

Gandhi was lucky his opponent was post-WW II Britain, and not the 19th century version (or Hitler).

-Steve

I am constantly amazed at the subtle racism of some progressive. Yes Krugman and Rich have opposed Bushism from the pages of the gray lady. So has Bob Herbert. But I guess he does not count... hmmm wonder why? Perhaps we should ask one of those lefty blogger who visited Bush the other week. Hmmm.... what do they all have in common. Ahhh... it does not matter. Nothing important here... let's just talk among ourselves about how progressive and smart we all are... then wonder why we lose elections... Just ask Mark Green. sigh and alas.

of course I meant bloggers who met with CLINTON

Curious about people's reaction to Heroes after two episodes.

So far quite good, and better than expected.

see John Carpenter's movie "They Live" for the best movie take on this same theme.

Reagan era, republican yuppie scum are actually aliens out to destroy us.

Most people are just sheep.

Working class hero tries to save the day.

leme