Month: November 2015

I just clicked over from CNN’s website – largely because I was curious as to what exactly occurred in Colorado Springs the other day. CNN International went to non-stop coverage of that “incident” Friday night, but I have to admit – after getting completely overloaded by coverage of the “situation” here in Brussels (let’s not forget the whole “BRUSSELS UNDER SIEGE” headline screaming from their front page) – I had the TV on Mute, because quite honestly, I’ve gotten sick of hearing a constant stream of empty coverage every time someone sneezes. I also might have been watching Sherlock on my laptop. Season 3 was awesome.

(We shall talk more about gun violence in the United States and what I’ve learned about it from being here in Brussels over the last 3 weeks later. Suffice it to say – and some will accuse me of confirmation bias – everything I have seen here leads me to believe that serious gun control measures are useless and a total distraction from actual problem solving. But we can discuss that later.)

No, my CNN perusing ultimately complimented another event I witnessed today, and so this entry will be about a different issue then Gun Control – but one that still gets people absolutely frothing at the mouth, ready to toss all kinds of terms your way.  Denier is one – one of the nicer ones, though almost religious in tone, don’t you think? (That should be our first warning – when something starts looking almost like a religion. And at that point, why not go with “Heretic”?)

And there is Delusional. Implies any questioning of things is indicative of mental illness. “Asshole” is one I’ve heard. Not so nice, but effective. And there is Ostrich – I guess because the suggestion is you have your head buried in the sand? That one is kind of funny, even if Ostriches don’t actually stick their heads in the sand. (It’s a common myth. They don’t stick their heads in the sand. If they did – we would see a lot of dead Ostriches everywhere, because they wouldn’t be able to fucking breath. There you go: fact of the day.)

Yup: we are going to wade in and discuss the topic of Climate Change.

Or, as I like to call it, “Chaos Theory.” Because in my view, something as big and giant and complex as the entire Earth ecosystem (which, by the way, is also influenced by external factors – i.e. solar winds, sunspots, all the other shit we see from space) is about as easy to predict as the outcome of rolling dice on an ice covered hill during a wind storm.

Chaos Theory is a term often used, but not entirely understood, so maybe we should start there. However, I’m not exactly an expert on this, so let’s take a quote from one of the pioneers of Chaos Theory – who, interestingly, was a meteorologist – Professor Edward Lorenz. Edward, a Connecticut native (yes!) who spent time at Harvard, Dartmouth, and MIT, and was therefore probably a Red Sox fan as well (yesss!) defined Chaos Theory and Chaos as one and the same (and I quote here):

Chaos: when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Hmmm. Sounds like a mind twister, right? Actually – it’s not nearly as complex as you might think: Chaos Theory says, in a nutshell, that small differences (or changes) in current conditions can lead to wildly divergent outcomes, and trying to predict those outcomes with any degree of assurance is a borderline useless endeavor. Even when we concede that many systems are what is called “deterministic” – i.e. their future state is fully determined by their current conditions – that doesn’t make them even remotely predictable; at least, not if you need 100% accuracy in your predictions. So if we accept Chaos at it’s essence, it means that at the end of the day, we know that Current Events determine the future – but what future exactly, we can’t and won’t know anytime soon. Think of it as the science of knowing that we don’t know.

So back to why I’m jumping in on Climate Change as subject for pontificating.

Two recent experiences, both Internet and Personal: The first was reading a John Sutter (everyone’s favorite bearded hipster!) column on CNN’s front page during my aforementioned visit, where he essentially alleges that Climate Change is a FORM OF TERRORISM!!! My caps there, not his. Catchy title, especially given recent events, right? Nicely done. Totally inflammatory and therefore kind of shady in my opinion, but hey – I clicked, and I am sure a lot of others did as well. His summary was, basically, that Climate Change – and the failure of the First World to have put a stop to it – was a form of genocidal terror visited upon third world countries. As if Idi Amin and Pol Pot and Agent Orange weren’t enough.We are such dicks, fellow First World Citizens.

And the second experience:  I just returned from downtown, intending to go wander the Christmas Market, and there was a semi-massive (okay – maybe 150 people tops) demonstrating by linking arms in a human chain, against Climate Change. Using bull horns, and shouting and chanting, and generally getting in my way, when all I wanted to do was find some goddamn French Fries and a Beer, for fuck’s sake. (I suppose I am still bitter about not getting either today – sorry). Anyway –  I only know what they were demonstrating about because they had some signs in English. I had not a fucking clue what they were chanting. Because it was in French.

(I did get that they were saying “1.5 celsius MAX!” – which I quickly realized comes back to one recent prediction: that if the Earth, on average, warms another 2 degrees Fahrenheit, we are screwed. But don’t forget: we are in Europe, so Metric System, which means 1.5 degrees C!!!! And then we are all dead. Well, shit.)

So obviously – and with the Climate Summit in Paris coming up this week – this is once again fodder for front page discussion and publicity.

Now before we go on – I should probably make my position known on this matter, so that no one starts to seethe while reading this or marks me for a slot in some future reeducation camp. If you ask me the question – do I believe that human beings have an impact on the climate? Well gee – let me think on that: in 2013, most estimates had Earth’s population at somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.13 Billion. Holy Fuck, that’s a lot of people.

That’s 7.13 Billion eating, consuming, wasting, and driving things around that burn fossil fuels.  So therefore, my answer is OF COURSE WE FUCKING DO.  You would have to be a prize idiot to think that we don’t: 7.13 Billion People burning things, throwing trash away, driving cars, having kids/more mouths to feed, and generating methane on a daily basis? Duh – it’s called logical deduction from common fucking sense.

So we do agree that Human’s have an impact, okay? But that’s not really the question you should ask me. The real question is: how much of an impact does humanity have? How bad is it? What, exactly, is human-driven Climate Change….changing? How many recent weather issues directly relate to a changing climate, one that we could prevent or failed to prevent in the past? For example – is the recent California drought caused by Human Beings?

(Unlikely – California is not known as the Golden State because of the Gold Rush in the 1800’s – it’s known as the Golden State because, from the sea, all that brown, dried out vegetation looked, well – golden. It seems far more likely that California’s long time status as one of the driest climates is due to location, the Pacific, and a ton of other factors we don’t fully comprehend, rather than the fact us 70’s and 80’s kids used a lot of Styrofoam McDonald’s containers, before they were banned.)

When it comes to the second, more important part of that question – the how are we impacting the climate –  my response is essentially: I don’t know.

And in my not-humble opinion, that’s the only sane answer: We don’t know. I don’t, you don’t – and apparently, neither do many of the Scientists currently studying the issue. Why do I assert that? Well, for one – you don’t need to have multiple Masters degrees in Meteorology, Geology, Cosmology, and on and on and on to take a step back and come to the following conclusion: the Earth is a seriously complex mechanism, and it seems almost common sense to conclude that, no, we don’t fully understand how it works, let alone what can send it completely sideways into Shitville, Population 7.13 Billion.

For two – forget about logical assumptions, we already have the evidence in hand backing up our assertion regarding Chaos theory, and the fact you just can’t predict this shit yet:  every prediction, so far, has been largely wrong. Let’s restate that: Scientists – experts on various fields of study that relate to portions of the Climate as a whole  – have been repeatedly wrong in their predictions. It’s almost as bad as preseason baseball predictions: you know how whichever team Sports Illustrated calls to win the Series that Fall can basically count on playing golf on October 1? Happens every year. It’s just like that: Scientists have been making multiple predictions on what Life In The Future (after the effects Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change) will be like –  for at least the last 40+ years. All the scenarios have been full of doom and gloom and dire warnings, with piles of dead people and no food and rotting polar bear carcasses drifting past a flooded New York City.  And almost all of them have been wrong.

Don’t believe me? Okay – here’s some predictions that have proven really, really off:

Peter Gunter – North Texas State University (now University of North Texas), on Earth Day, 1970: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Remember all those piles of dead famine victims in Moscow and Hong Kong back in early 2000? Yeah – me neither. Granted, this prediction was made in 1970. Maybe we’ve come a long way since then, in terms of our scientific understanding and modeling of the environment? Right? Maybe not:

Micheal Oppenheimer – in 1990, as Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, predicting life in 1995: “(The Greenhouse Effect would be) desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.”

I remember riots in Chicago in 1995. But I thought it was because the Bulls won another Championship.

And even more recent: in 2007, 2008 and finally tripling down in 2009, Al Gore avowed and affirmed his claim that the North Pole would be “Ice Free” by 2013, due to Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Cooling/Too Many Farting Cows. So if you like steak, you are part of the problem. Clearly.

Well – it’s 2015 – and the North Pole is still fucking freezing with a shit ton of ice everywhere. Actually, more ice, according to recent measurements. (Suggestion: always look askance at the guy making millions off selling Doomsday prevention tips, no matter what political party they belong to.)

I could keep going, since there’s a whole shit ton of these out there for fact checking, but you can do your own Google search to come up with more.

So what does this mean? What am I saying? Well – let me reiterate again: just because the Doomsday Predictions haven’t come true, does NOT mean I advocate that everyone just needs to chill out, buy another car, eat more steak, or entertain themselves by torching things that make interesting greenish flame, because everything is going to be fine. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. Of COURSE we have an impact on the environment, and it’s probably not a good one.

But what I *am* saying is – this bullshit doesn’t help. At all. In fact, I do think it makes things worse.

How so? Okay. Who here remembers Harold Camping? No? Okay – well, he was an American Evangelist who founded ‘Family Radio’ – which was probably as much fun to listen to as the name implies. Anyway – Mr. Camping got some coverage by issuing a proclamation in late 2010, which stated that, unequivocally, the world would end on May 21, 2011. The skies would rain fire and brimstone, and the saved would be swooped up to Heaven in the Rapture. Funny enough, I was actually at a Weezer show outside of RFK Stadium that day, and while I was pretty severely drunk, I do not recall anyone being sucked up into the sky. Mr. Camping was quick to back down, and stated that he has misinterpreted the data, and issued a new prediction of October 21, 2011, effectively throwing a bucket of water all over everyone’s Halloween plans. I had the greatest idea for a costume ever, and I gave it up. Because, well – the Rapture. But once again – nothing happened.

Of course – what ultimately occurred was nothing, except the utter and total collapse of Harold Camping’s ministry and business: the AM band that Family Radio broadcasted on is now probably occupied by a Salsa Station out of New Mexico. Because no one believed a fucking word he said anymore – even those who had bought in at first.

No – I am not trying to draw a parallel between scientists and an evangelical. (Though sometimes, I think I should.) The point is: the human brain, skeptic or otherwise, will always wonder and flirt with predictions of great importance. Such as the End of the Fucking World. I would bet that more than a few people watched the news that night, and thought “Whoa. Shit. I’m fucked if he’s right” But then it doesn’t happen, and those same people take a step back, and end up distancing themselves mentally and internally from the entire idea and lose interest. They laugh it off. Which they should have from the first place, since the Bible has very little mention of an actual End, but hey – who am I to lecture on this subject.

And that’s why we use the term “Crying Wolf” – because sooner or later, no one even listens when you cry out “WOLF!” anymore, and then the Wolf fucking eats you with zero interference, because people just don’t believe you anymore, or they’ve stopped giving a shit because you made them really sick of constant alarms.

So there’s one side of the riskiness of these predictions: sooner or later, people are going to get really tired. And deniers will hold them up as evidence that not a damn thing is wrong with the climate, and that we don’t need to change anything. Which, as we’ve stated, we both agree is a stupid approach to have.

But there’s more: while people will eventually get really tired of wild claims of Mad Max lifestyles in our future – for now, they still have pull: I witnessed 200 people holding up traffic and contributing to noise pollution for this very reason today. And for all the terrible predictions made 40 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago – there are more and more coming out every day, scaring the living shit out of people, and pushing us towards drastic changes with side effects that we may not even anticipate, let alone fully understand.

So there  you have another reason why this is bad: we agree that humans have an impact, and it’s probably not a good one, then we should probably be carefully and calmly studying that impact, to see how we can manage it, and try and find the best possible way to a better future. You ever consider that some courses of action have unintended or oblivious side effects? We’ve got plenty of those in Human History: from DDT, to the Great Leap Forward (intended to bring people into the 20th century, it actually killed a shit ton) to enacting Prohibition as cure for Society’s ills. All were bad choices. No – I don’t think Cap and Trade is going to lead to the rise of a new Al Capone in America – but I do think the lesson holds true: sometimes, decisions we make with the best of intentions end up fucking us sideways.

So there is your conclusion: these predictions – this expressed certainty – are intended to scare the shit out of everyone who doesn’t want to kill anyone for water, and are supposed to encourage rapid change for the sake of the environment, humanity, etc, etc. And articles like John Sutter’s on CNN are obviously supposed to guilt us all into buying better light bulbs before going out to hug a Polar Bear (try it). But really – I predict that they will do nothing more damage the cause, because the expressed hysteria, paired with the missed calls, will simply continuously firm up the opposition. This is not profound: when nightmare scenarios don’t come true, people lose interest.

And that’s in *addition* to my comments on Chaos Theory.

So, I say: for all the shit Micheal Crichton got when he wrote “State of Fear” – and yes, it seems in some cases, he cited some questionable stats – there was one thing he asserted, that in my opinion, is the most sane and logical approach to the subject of Climate Change: “Study the Problem and Fix It.” That’s a noble mantra, right there. Back off the hysteria, back off the prognosticators of doom: it turns people off, and it we want an actual solution, and viable change, you kind of need everyone on board.

No, I am no Environmentalist. I can barely get excited about anything other than baseball or classic cars, and I am not a joiner. I am suspicious by nature. And I also admit: when it comes to humanity’s immediate future, our longevity as a species – I personally find myself far more worried about the possibility of war spreading out from Syria and setting the whole region on fire, or Chinese and American interests colliding and resulting in a nuclear exchange, then I am of Continental Europe resembling the Sahara. Shit – I’m actually more fearful of an Asteroid or Comet impacting the planet, and seriously screwing things up for mankind, then I am of The Day After Tomorrow coming true.

But that *doesn’t* mean I don’t think we should be making changes, or seeking cleaner and newer ways of doing things. To me – that’s just common sense. I just want it to be the best course of action, and the sanest course of action, and not driven by the scientific equivalent of Harold Camping.

Climate Change would appear to be legit. It might be our fault. It might be fixable. So – Study the Problem and Fix it.

 

 

Let’s be honest: this would suck.

If you pay even the slightest intention to channels other than TMZ, ever since the Paris attacks, the Syrian Refugee Crisis has been sorta kinda dominating US political discourse. A bit. Slightly. Maybe you noticed.

Okay – so recent Political Discourse (oxymoron) in the U.S., judging from CNN, has been all about the issue of whether or not we, the United States, should admit any Syrian Refugees – with one side saying that allowing sanctuary is a strong representation of our national values, and the other side equating it to rolling out the welcome mat to ISIS. There is one reason why this has became such a hot-button issue, all of a sudden, and you already know it if you aren’t drunk all the time: one of the Paris attackers, heretofore only identified as M. al-Mahmod (somehow, I don’t think the first “M” is for “Monsieur”) appears to have returned to Europe after his little business trip to Syria by posing as a refugee, landing in a boat much like the above on the Greek island of Leros, probably posing as a sad and frightened man much like those in the picture. What an asshole.

This revelation supports a concern that most intelligence agencies in the U.S. and Europe have long feared: that ISIS, as charming and honorable as they are, will sneak  in operatives among the wet huddled masses coming ashore on Leros, Lesbos, and any other strangely named islands in Greece. Personally, I think they have – multiple times. One thing we should bear in mind for the next several years? ISIS doesn’t play fair, ISIS is sneaky. But we already knew that, right? Fuck them.

Onward: I have been watching the constant debate and soundbites on CNN (it’s one of two English channels I currently have – the other is BBC 2, and they tend to focus on cooking death matches and game shows that I can’t understand, since they revolve around British pop culture – and it is surprising how little British Pop Culture actually makes its way to the States) – as well as seeing a million different flippant, simplistic memes regarding this subject every time I go on Facebook. So after doing some thinking, I have decided to write on this subject, in an effort to guide my own thinking on the matter. But since this is such a massive issue, let’s break it down into the two main arguments, for and against, and see if we can’t figure out the sanest and most logical, consistent way through this whole issue:

(As will soon be known by reading my posts – I have a raging obsession with being consistent, and applying consistent logic to positions, versus contradictory and emotional reactions. I also have a habit of getting really irritated with observing completely contradictory opinions in other people. If you ever came into my bar and engaged me in a conversation on current events, you might recall a certain stare I would give when I was listening. This was because you were proposing two completely contradictory courses of action, and I found it really fucking annoying. This is one reason why – as Republican as I am on a lot of things – I kind of hate the current labels of Conservative and Liberal. I prefer to think of them as “Simplistic” and “Naively Simplistic.” We will discuss the dreaded “M” word later.)

Sorry – I get sidetracked easily. Anyway – here’s each point, in a nutshell:

First POV: Refusing entry to Syrian Immigrants and Refugees is Sane Security Policy, since ISIS is now demonstrating that they intend to sneak people in like wolves among the sheep:

Is this a serious concern? In a word(s): Yes for Europe, unlikely for the U.S. Because, Geography.

As espoused by The Trump in particular – and more eloquently elaborated on by Christie (but equally missing the point) – the concern is this: ISIS will use any opportunity to sneak radicals back into their home countries, avoiding the hassle of airports, security, and lost luggage, in order to carry out strikes and terror operations in front of the family back home. And the refugee stream is pretty accommodating when it comes to this objective: they come ashore with no passports, no documents to check, and what exactly are the Europeans going to do? Shove them back into the sea? It’s a clear humanitarian issue, for fucks sake, and so off they go to processing centers and housing locations. Anyone can get on a small rubber boat in North Africa, cross the Med, and claim to be anyone in order to receive a temporary travel document. ISIS operatives have already done this. Ergo: we shouldn’t open our doors to the Big Bad Wolf voluntarily, and we cannot be 100% sure that your average Syrian refugee isn’t actually an ISIS operative ready to strike.

Now – to be fair – we *are* already seeing this happen in Europe, as Monsieur M. Al-Mahmoud (“Guess my first name?) has demonstrated. Belgium has quite a few Syrian war vets, and they aren’t quite sure how they got back. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that, yes, ISIS would be thrilled to sneak operatives into the United States. In fact, they probably already have, and we will learn about it soon (but hopefully because of an FBI raid making the news, versus something much worse).

But when it comes to the question of admitting Syrian Refugees to the United States, this concern actually fades into the background. Why? Because this concern, this hypothetical, presupposes that the United States is geographically located somewhere in the vicinity of Italy or Greece, and is as easily acceptable. It’s based off the idea that any day now, residents of Nantucket are going to wake up to the sight of an armada of inflatable boats coming ashore in Miacomet, and damn it all to hell, the place smells like Aleppo Pepper for all time.

As we know, this is not happening, because it’s just not possible. If it did? My vote would be to grant immediate citizenship, because holy shit, you made it across the North Atlantic in a fucking rubber boat, and whoa, I’m impressed, and fuck it all, that deserves some sort of reward.

Put more succinctly: we are not Greece or Italy, and this is not how Syrian Refugees would be entering our country. They would arrive in an orderly process over after a period of borderline quarantine in Europe. Any Syrian Refugees arriving in the States would enter the United States through one of those wonderful places called – the Airport. Like JFK. Not Virginia Beach. And JFK is not a turnstile – any influx of this kind is going to have to get through U.S. Customs, Immigration and a whole thesaurus full of similar U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies. And this is *after* they’ve spent some time under the microscope in Europe.

And – we should also consider the timing here: these refugees are not boarding their flights in Aleppo or Damascus, and arriving in the United States after a few delightful hours (definitely not if United Airlines is flying them.) Rather, the overall plan for admission is to work with European authorities on who comes in and when. And it would not be overnight; on average (I have been told) it would be 6 months or more before they left Europe for the United States. Now, it is true that, in many many cases, these people possess none no documentation that firmly establishes that they aren’t anything other than an actual Refugee, versus ISIS Battalion #5’s greatest shot with a Kalishnikov. So in theory  – in theory – any one of them could be a dreaded sleeper agent, ready to strike.

But that’s unlikely, actually, and let’s think about why for a moment: if you are ISIS, and you have a Wolf you want to hide among the Sheep, and you also know that the entire Western Intelligence Apparatus is now awake and keeping an eye out for your little demon spawn – do you want to risk your op by having them under the watchful eye of authorities for something like 6 months before reaching the target? Doubtful. ISIS likes impact – ISIS likes news headlines – and not the kind that announce the arrest of terrorists or the interruption and prevention of an attack plot. They want their guys swarming out into Munich, Paris, Brussels (ah, Brussels Level 4 Security Alert! Gonna miss you when you are gone! ) doing maximum damage as quickly as possible. You do not want to subject your operatives to extended, months long scrutiny in hopes that we really are sleeping at the switch.

Add to this fact that the vast majority of Syrian Refugees are family units, single widowed mothers, and grand-parent types – not exactly viable candidates for commando types. So unless we think that the whole fucking family signed up as half a Platoon, this argument leaks in a lot of places.

AND – final point: no one has even stopped to consider what a potential benefit these refugees might be in the war on ISIS. These are natives who lived in these regions, who escaped on foot, who know people who joined up and the lay of the land – you think they are sympathetic to I Suck I Suck? Nope. If anything – they hate them more than even your average Parisian or Eagles of Death Metal fan (this guy) does. During the Cold War – our doors were open to immigrants and asylum seekers from the East Bloc for that very reason: because they brought with them a whole treasure trove of intelligence and details. Some were trivial details, until they got put into a larger picture, and then it was pure gold.

So I say: Security Risk? Mais Non. Potential Security and Intelligence Goldmine? Peut-etre.

Second POV: Not letting these refugees in betrays who we are as Americans – our history, our promise, our National Identity:

Yes – America is, by definition, a a land of immigrants and refugees, so this would be true. With a caveat.

For one – it is pretty easy to remember that we are a Nation of Immigrants from the get go (Despite a resurgence of those Memes of Native Americans from 150 years ago paired with ironic quotes about immigrants and illegal immigration, and how Americans themselves were the first illegal immigrant. It’s annoying and simplistic, and not particularly helpful to modern times, other than maybe making some people feel bad, which is always fun. History is a good guide, but it’s not a goddamn blueprint for the future, and you have fuck-all clue how Crazy Horse would have reacted in modern times, so quit putting those up. Thank you.)

And despite the discrimination that the Irish faced – or the Germans in WWI – or African Immigrants, or Mexicans, or on and on and on – we have a long history of bringing in new and interesting ethnic identities (yes, not all was voluntary, but let’s stick to the main scope of the argument) and eventually, slowly making them part of us. And this has given us strength, and allowed us to lead, without any of the baggage you see in other nations, with no excessive pull from familial heritage or even distant relations. (Case in point – did you know Herman Goering’s nephew flew B-17 Bomber missions in WWII, and served honorably? Werner Goering – check it out.)

The fact is, you would have a seriously hard time convincing me that the United States was only great because of WASP’s (like me) whose families have been here since 1600 (not like me). It’s not a Liberal or Conservative fact to acknowledge, it’s just a fact.  We are like a Mutt: for the last two centuries, our strongest genes have repeatedly won out over the weaker ones, resulting in a hybrid that contains the best of many different cultures, and is stronger and more durable for it. Want to know a reason why we’ve had 239 years of the same government, why we’ve had Presidential election disputes without seeing tanks or soldiers in the streets of DC? Because we really are damn good, that’s why: America is Exceptional, and Liberals can deal with it.  Even after all these years, we are new, we are a mutt, we are an amalgamation of, in many cases, the best of a lot of different cultures that have blended together to create a lot of good things. (Like General Tso’s chicken: you think General Tso’s personal chef created that fucking awesome hangover fighter on the eve of a battle in 1536, in a tent, somewhere near Mongolia? Fuck no: Try Chinese immigrants cooking in New York City sometime in the 1930’s. Don’t believe me? Fly to Shanghai and try and order it. Good luck.)

In short – there is no reason to think that Syrian Refugees won’t make great Americans, buy things, invent things, pay their taxes, start businesses that contribute to the tax base, or introduce some new awesome sauce to use on french fries or something.

But there’s the caveat: we need to make sure they become great AMERICANS. We can’t repeat Europe’s mistakes, or shit will go sideways.

No, I didn’t just get all “Walmart Righteous” on you. I’m speaking as an observer of European culture for some 30 years now, and as someone who lives right in the center of this latest round of legitimate concern and subject of CNN click-bait (my favorite so far this week – all caps: BRUSSELS UNDER SIEGE) And here’s what I’ve learned: if you bring in a large population of people – especially those fleeing from tragedy or war or strife – it’s absolutely vital to make sure you absorb them culturally into the population, and turn them into good citizens sharing the National identity. It’s not culturally supremacist – it’s actually one hell of an effective way to prevent a certain portion of your population doesn’t get all fundamentalist on you.

Consider Belgium, France, Brussels in particular, to narrow the scope. Right now, I am roughly 5 miles from Molenbeek, and only a couple of miles from Schaerbeek, which have been in the news recently as hotbeds of ISIS activity. And they are. Dude: the Belgians have something like 150 names of ISIS operatives on a list – they know who these people are – and yet, they can’t do anything until they break the law. Those 150 are actually quite happy, because they have sanctuary in those neighborhoods. How did this happen? Well, even though Europe opened it’s doors to a significant level of migration in the years after WWII, they did a shitty job of absorbing and involving these populations, probably because of, well…disinterest because of the effort? Latent racism? Some form of casual discrimination?

Whatever the reason – this lack of assimilation has fucked things up royally, and created a problem that has grown: as the threat of fundamentalism rose over the last 20 years, they chose to avoid dealing with it, fooling themselves into thinking they were practicing a belated form of tolerance. This mistake – and the mistakes that followed – are the reasons why we here in Brussels find ourselves on Day 5 of the highest security posture possible: the local and national governments have known for quite some time that they have a major problem – like I said, they have names – but reversing 40+ years of failed social policies is kinda hard. It wasn’t until Paris bled last week that (I’m hoping) they realized just how urgent the problem is: there’s quite literally Belgian Brussels, and Islamic Brussels, and you can’t make this go away overnight.

So simply put: the European practice of Multiculturalism – of opening some doors while keeping others closed, and tolerating the development of geographically specific cultures that, in most cases, share very little in common with modern secular Europe – are a recipe for fucking disaster. Multiculturalism, as defined by the Europeans, as practiced within a singular national body, is a total, abject failure. And it allows ISIS virtual bases, sanctuaries, deep inside “enemy territory”.

Now, multiculturalism is a favorite word of a lot of Liberals I know – and when you get down to it, its sort of a fluff word: taking the idea of America to the point of absurdity. It ultimately creates little pockets of cultures that don’t always reflect our National self image, that do not share modern values, and allows them to grow. In some cases? Like cancer. As we just discussed, this has been in practice in Europe, unofficially, for the last half century. And it has brought us to this point, and the moment of Paris on Friday the 13th. Multiculturalism is really enforced isolation disguised as respect, and societal problem-avoidance cloaked as tolerance.

If I take on any more points tonight – this will turn into a book, and at that point, I would ask myself why I didn’t just write it and try and publish it and make some money. Beer isn’t cheap here. So we will touch more on this issue later, when I’m not more interested in completing Season 2 of “Sherlock” on Netflix. .

But in summation: that’s what I mean when I say, in regards to the Syrian Refugees: “This isn’t the Enemy. But we can make it the Enemy.” These people don’t represent any sort of inherent, immediate security threat. But our decisions over the next several years – our cultural, political and societal decisions on how exactly we welcome these groups to our country – and any reluctance to impose the culture of the new host country, our American culture – can sure as hell send things sideways down the road.

We do need to keep the lamp lit for tired masses, yearning to be free, or who simply want a shot to make a pile of money without paying ridiculously high taxes – after all, this is what makes America kind of awesome. But we also need to understand the value of our own inherent national culture, how the American ideal (even if we haven’t gotten there yet) is still of such importance in this world – and impress it directly onto our new friends and neighbors.

The message must be: Welcome to America, here’s a hat with our flag on it. And some fireworks to set off on the 4th. Be American. Aspire to be the ideal picture of an American that we ourselves are still trying to attain: tolerant, modern, free, thoughtful. Appreciate your own heritage, but don’t assume you get to carry it all here with you. And don’t forget – the Old World, the place you came from, is now in the past. We don’t carry those things with us. English and Irish are neighbors. Germans and French hang out on weekends. And on and on and on.

So I say: open the doors – but let’s make the rules known. Bring these people in, away from danger, introduce them to the new world – don’t encourage the continuation of the old. Otherwise, we make the same mistakes Europe has been making for 50+ years, and the disaster will be one to deal with later. Don’t believe me? Go take a late night stroll in Molenbeek. Or however the fuck the Dutch spell it.