The Shah And The Ayatollah Book

This book is a waste of trees and space, especially in the overcrowded North Asian country where it was given to me. It also disgraces the hardback book format.
I have no difficulty reading books with views that differ from mine, but I do not read stupid books.
The preface alone characterizes the 1980s and 1990s strife in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Balkans as the fault of ingrates who refused to accept the political boundaries given them by Western European Liberal Democracies.
Of course, being a journalist with a laughably uneducated audience, he would never use the term "liberal democracy," concerned that the use of the word "liberal" would make them uneasy, what with that term's derision on talk radio. So, he just says "democracy." It's incorrect, but let's not have our readers think too much, k?
This man still believes in the "America's about knowing what's best for yourself" ideal, and apparently earnestly.
Don't read this book. Not even as a joke. It's that bad.
Keep in mind I've not even gotten to the "substance" of the book.
Steyn argues that Muslims intrinsically advocate theocracy, as will their children. There may soon be more muslims than christians. This means that our children will all follow Wahhabic Islam, unless we act now. To avoid that, we need to stop being warm fuzzy multiculturalists.
No, seriously. This is the substance of the book.
*edit* aug 2011
I wonder how many of the people on this website recall or were aware of the controversy when we first had a Roman Catholic running for President, and how the exact same dumb arguments about the central flaws of multipurpose-culture-to-blame/inconvenient-poor-people/those-not-like-us keep coming up every couple decades.

I talked about this briefly on my blog, and ended up linked on his homepage for a couple days. I got so much fucking annoying harassment from his fans, all of whom were utter morons.

Wow. I didn't realize I had that kind of vitriol left in me.