it's no secret that the intrawebs are full of crap. anyone and everyone can pretty much say what they want, read what they want and learn how they want. no finer example than that of the blogs.

i used to be a big fan of political blogs as to me they offered knowledge that was digestable and provided an instant gratification on topics i didn't have a clue about. in fact, once upon a time, i too dabbled in political rhetoric thinking anyone cared. they didn't and neither should you.

one shouldn't go into a discussion by beginning, "well blogger so and so said that..." unless you're talking about tony. quote away on that one. other than that, not much out there.

granted, they provide an unique starting point of discussion but should not be the end point to draw one's conclusion on. we can get into the whole thing about credibility of sources, selective interpretation, biases, outright lies, yada yada but that's beyond the scope. so i've given up on that project, mainly to spew rambling idoicies over here.

then, of course, there is books. the time honoured tradition of gaining knowledge as irrefutable source of truth. the library as the mecca of information on just about anything. books have been passed down from generation to generation, constantly refined, update, so forth, in the conquest of knowledge. can't go wrong with what you read in a book, right?

having said that, earlier i jumped on the intrawebs to find some supplementary reading material for a class dealing with islam and politics. this is where i came across this gem, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)by robert spencer. note that this author has the time to tie the crusades within this masterpiece. according to the writer, most scholarly work on the issue was written by left-wing academics and "apologists" of islam. his study is to counterbalance the politically correct biases of the left propagandist work. the westernized interpretations of islam attempt to reflect a religion of peace but according to mr. spencer, islam should be viewed as a dangerous hostile inherently opposed to anything non-muslim. this is the same author that in previous worked justified internment of japanese-americans during the second world war. the book, of course, is published under the best-selling P.I.G (politically incorrect guide) series.

now, i do not claim to have superb knowledge on islam as a religion or a political movement, which is why i was looking for material to begin with, but this sort published work claiming that crusades were a defensive strategy is repulsive. more so, if the author views the crusades in such a fashion, can anything else he writes be taken seriously or simply propaganda gearing towards the islamophobic segment of the population. its element cannot be denied since 9/11 but these sort of books do nothing more than stir a pot that's already boiling over. it really does no justice

several things left me pondering, why is this being published, who is this publisher to allow this and why are readers praising this as a masterpiece? the book as the source of truth and knowledge is becoming politicized and rather having people draw their own conclusions on the facts, it's giving the audience a perspective to adopt as the truth.

and this where my problem comes in, whereas the intrawebs are free of censorship and anything goes, the sacredness--if you call it that--of a published book should avoid this sort of blantant interpretations of history. although a topic like islam is a point of contention, revisionist historians announcing the crusades as a defense and then having their books being claimed as masterpieces to me is rather frightening.

and while this speaks of the current american political culture: the liberal vs conservative, blue state vs red state, republican vs democrat or however you want to call it, it's easy to see the polemics right across the board on just about anything debated in the states. this is seen through its appointment of the next cheif justice to who is to blame for the slow response to katrina.

however, pundits guising as scholars is a step too far. the slew of books written by the bill o'reillys, anne coulters, and michael moores all with their ideological viewpoints do nothing but hurt the audience. maybe the polarization of american politics leaves out the middle group but what you come away after watching fox news for a couple of hours is a country divided into two staunchly opposing views on just about everything. watch how their segments are framed and everything is presented in the name of being "fair & balanced": here's the left, why they are wrong and here is the right and why they are correct. brilliant over-generalized coverage of complex issues only complimented by these "politically incorrect" books by robert spencer. books such as this are not attempts to bridge the gap or create some co-operation as to how US foreign policy should operate but rather fuel "the clash of civilizations" argument both domestically and how the white house should act on the international stage.

essentially books such as robert spencer's promote islamophobia among those with limited knowledge on the subject. i doubt the majority of those who read spencer's book ever opened the Quran, let alone read anything by the so-called islamist "apologist" liberals. browsing the readers' reviews of the book left me in awe as to the level of hatred by those who claimed to read this book. equally puzzling is the popularity of the book, ranking in the top 20 among amazon's sales.

what i'm trying to say is without having to say is: american politics are fucked up, sabotaged by neo-conservative realists allied with newly energized right making its way into media channels really messing with the mind of your average american voter.

so america say it with me as we quote, ibi kaslik: we'll not live like this. they will try to bury us with false manifestoes, inscribe us in wars against false enemies but we'll sing songs about dying from loving the wrong cowboy and gospel; our bodies will burn in effigies of promise. i swear