One of my favorite childhood series was Douglas Adams' hilarious satire "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Besides the uproarious storyline and sublime wisdom mottled throughout, Adams manages to capture many of the nonsensical aspects of every day life in a way that really puts things in perspective. One of the characters, the aptly named "Wonko the Sane" at one point remarks: "It seemed to me, that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include a set of detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilization in which I could live and stay sane." Adams' observation that instructions such as "Hold stick near center of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth. Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion," could signal the decline of Western civilization now seem strangely prescient.

Trial lawyers, of course, have brought us such extremely important warnings as "Caution, Contents Hot" on McDonald's Coffee; "Do not insert curling iron into any bodily orifice;" even "CAUTION! - Do not swallow nails. May cause irritation!" Warning labels, despite often being so obvious as to be insulting, are mostly a defense mechanism for corporations to stave off lawsuits. The real problems begin when, like Douglas Adams pointed out, manufacturers need to assume that their customers are really imbeciles. Do American Airlines peanuts need "Instructions: open packet, eat nuts?" If you enjoy doing your own gardening and are enterprising enough to buy your own chainsaw, must you be told "Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands or genitals?" Does a packet of gum need to remind you that you should "Put one or two pieces into your mouth and chew?"

Are we, as a society, really becoming so stupid that these sorts of instructions are necessary (or worse, helpful)? The answer, at least in California, is "yes, increasingly, we are."

On May 12, 2006, Alameda Superior Court judge Robert Freedman struck down California's high school exit exam clearing the way for 46,700 seniors who were unable to pass the test to receive a high school diploma anyway. The exit exam, designed to test students at an 8th grade proficiency in math and a 9th grade proficiency in English had been postponed from going into effect since 2004 due to low passing rates. The plaintiffs in the case, 10 students who failed to pass the exit exam, argued that the exam discriminates against poor students and those who are learning English. You mean an English exam discriminates against those who don't know English? Does a driving exam similarly discriminate against those who can't drive?

Judge Freedman remarked that to deny diplomas to students who have otherwise completed high school coursework but haven't passed the exit exam would subject them to "the emotional toll attendant to the resulting disadvantages and stigma." In other words, a California high school diploma is more of a certificate of attendance than any certification of achievement. Of course, if "emotional toll" is now the criteria for judicial intervention, perhaps the assignment of grades should now be ruled unconstitutional as well as it's clear that the "emotional toll attendant" to the receipt of an "F" would result in disadvantages and stigma. Perhaps California diplomas should now come with their own warning label: "The contents herein are not indicative of any measurable intelligence."

Instead of teaching to the highest common denominator, identifying talent, and encouraging excellence in students, the public education system is increasingly doing precisely the opposite. By postponing exit exams due to low passing rates, reducing the required level of proficiency for a graduating senior to 8th grade math, and then finally throwing out the exam as discriminatory, we are effectively surrendering any expectation of performance from our children and society. Rather than demanding the highest scholastic aptitude as the only way to effectively advance in an increasingly competitive global market, we cater to the lowest common denominator. We are more concerned that sophomoric students who fail to grasp the basic concepts of a secondary education not suffer "resulting disadvantages and stigma," then we are that our schools will produce the next generation of global leaders.

If we continue to lower the bar and squander the talent of our brightest to appease the fragile self-esteem of our dimmest, we really might as well surrender and start designing a whole host of new instructions and warning labels. Perhaps your next toilet brush should read "Do not use for personal hygiene," or your thermometer should say "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally." Wait, sadly those warnings already exist. Perhaps if we continue this "race to the bottom," we'll still be designing stupid warnings, we'll simply be writing them in Chinese.

In 1998 Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor of political science and former member of the National Security Council, wrote "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," in which he outlines the inevitable "clash" occurring between Western civilization and other "emerging" civilizations, most notably Islam. Huntington's controversial theory posits that "the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural." As if to prove the cultural divide that Huntington outlines, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this week wrote an 18 page handwritten letter to the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad's letter, according to Iran, was meant to "establish a dialog" and find "new ways" to resolve differences by analyzing "the roots of the problems" with the West. The letter was the first direct communication between Iran and the United States, albeit only unidirectionally, since Iran's Islamic revolution of 1979. President Bush quickly dismissed the letter as "not answering the main question that the world is asking... 'When will you get rid of your nuclear program?'" Although the letter is hardly the "diplomatic opening" that the Iranians are claiming, it is a remarkable window into Islamic cultural thinking regarding the West that is worth examining closely.

Near the beginning of the letter, Mr. Ahmadinejad writes "Mr. President, You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can [American actions in Iraq] be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness." This style and tone is echoed throughout the entire letter in which the Iranian president constantly lectures Pres. Bush as a teacher would to a student, framing the lecture in a religious perspective that is clearly aimed at a Christian, yet only underscores the religious beliefs of its writer. He continues "According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets." The Koran recognizes Jesus and Moses as monotheistic prophets of the one God who preceded Mohammad. As such, Ahmadinejad tries to draw religious kinship with Bush trying to propound a sense of guilt over what he views as errant policies that go against religious teachings.

Besides the insular perspective on global issues, the letter discusses some rather interesting views on subjects both current and historical. The Iranian president repeatedly references (both directly and indirectly) a number of wacky conspiracy theories. He writes "9/11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services or their extensive infiltration?" In this he is referring to widely spread rumors throughout the Middle East of Israeli Mossad involvement in planning the attacks. Clearly in his attempts to bring "death to America," Ossama bin-Laden took some time out of his vitriolic hatred of Israel to stop and ask them for planning and logistical support.

Israel, of course, receives a fair amount of attention in the letter as well. He writes "Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel... Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times." Apparently Mr. Ahmadinejad is not very familiar with American history either. He continues "Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist... try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel... I tell them to study the history of WWI and II... After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed... Let us assume that these events are true... does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a State?"

In a few sentences Ahmadinejad challenges any legitimacy of Jews in the land of Israel and then claims that even "if" -- hypothetically -- the holocaust did take place, it still wouldn't justify a Jewish state. He then claims that "Millions of indigenous people were made refugees." Without going into why Palestinian Arabs are hardly "indigenous" to Israel, even the Palestinians themselves have only claimed up to 700,000 original refugees. Not only were there never "millions" of displaced refugees, the 700,000 or so Arabs who fled Palestine during the Arab armies attack of the nascent State of Israel, is approximately equal to the 700,000 or so Jews who were expelled from Arab counties (including Iran) and later resettled in Israel.

The Iranian letter closes by saying "Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God... My question for you is: Do you not want to join them?"

This letter shows that George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are not simply a product of different cultures, rather that their entire basis for critical analysis and decision making are based on diametrically opposite belief systems. United States foreign policy is based on the politics of the parties that win national elections. Iranian foreign policy seems based on an anointed belief of divine justice and monopoly on eternal truth. While Iranian beliefs were limited mostly to an unfortunate and repressed domestic population, the medieval thinking of the ruling Mullah's could be contained and waited out. Unfortunately, with time quickly running out before the clerics develop an "Islamic nuclear capability," we can hardly afford to wait much longer or as Ahmadinejad says in his letter we might just soon "hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of Liberalism and Western style democracy."

There may yet be time to disprove Huntington's thesis on the "Clash of Civilizations," however allowing a nuclear bomb into the hands of someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can only hasten it.

After an all too short tropical vacation in the Caribbean, this column and its author are back. As I wiled away the week, watching the impossibly turquoise water lap at the fine white sandy beaches of San Salvador, I could not help but wonder "what life would be like if it were run by Club Med?"

Every morning would begin with a dilemma: Wake up early and catch the morning SCUBA boat or sleep in and try to catch a late breakfast by the beach?

Your house could only be built within a few yards of the water and remarkable ocean views would be mandated by law.

Everywhere you go others would smile in greeting and staff would be waiting to cheerily offer their services solely to improve your day.

Luxurious meals would be awaiting your every hunger, offering bountiful variety and favorite staples to tempt any mood. You'd never have to cook in advance, nor clean afterwards. Of course everything would be "all you can eat" and all drinks would always be included.

Every day would offer the possibility of an afternoon nap. Not sleepy? No problem.  Tennis courts, sail boats, kayaks, or archery lessons await your arrival instead.

Evenings would always include an after-dinner show, followed by dancing or a moonlit walk on the beach.

There would be no traffic save the occasional catamaran hurrying off to catch a regatta.

Political parties take note, there are some winning ideas here!

Sadly, real-life can never be like Club Med, however Club Med is increasingly taking on aspects of real-life.

Those of you who have visited one of the illustrious French organization's quaint tropical villages will probably remember a myriad of customs and traditions designed to make guests interact with one another. After all, it wouldn't be "Club Med" without the strange line dancing known as "Crazy Signs." Meals would always offer the promise of new friendships as strangers were necessarily seated together and introduced by effervescent "Gentil Organisateurs" (GO's). You would never know when your poolside slumber might be interrupted by a plastic spider dangling from the fishing pole of an animator provocateur simply out for a laugh. Disturbingly, many of these things that made Club Med the social experience that it was are now only fading memories.

A number of years ago while on vacation in the Turks and Caicos islands I found myself alone at lunch as I had returned late from a dive trip. I was seated at a table that included members of the Paris Opera Ballet company. After some interesting conversation about a lifestyle very different than my own, we all left the restaurant and proceeded to an afternoon trapeze lesson. What sounds seemingly bizarre by the standards of mundane corporate America seemed perfectly normal by Club Med standards.

Club Med has since abandoned many of the hokey yet beloved traditions of its past in favor of a more exclusive and luxurious persona. Many vacationers, Americans in particular, have been demanding more privacy, more luxury, and less forced interaction in their vacations. Reacting to market forces and the wishes of its customers, the organization is refurbishing its villages and offering previously unheard of amenities such as wireless Internet and flat screen televisions.

As we increasingly pack ourselves into denser and denser urban living, are we subconsciously turning away our neighbors and spurning social interaction? Is our over-stimulated modern lifestyle paradoxically causing a retreat into ourselves and yearning for privacy?

Greater than one in eight Americans now live behind private walls in gated communities, as chronicled in "Behi nd the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America". As Americans continue their hundred year long trend towards greater urbanization, we are finding that we can only afford to live in smaller and smaller spaces in ever denser developments. Gone are many of the homesteads of the rural West. Gone are many of the ranch houses and villas that used to be common outside of the largest of cities. Instead we are seeing the growth of tract-home communities with back yards the size of our parents' porch. Luxury condominiums and town homes have become the new status symbol of the young urban professional replacing the "land dreams" of previous generations.

Much like our home lives are ever more separated from one another, so too are we demanding of our vacations. Instead of desiring the company of friendly strangers to share in the celebration of leisure, we view our own privacy as paramount and company as bothersome. In desiring the imperturbation of solitude however, we lose one of the simple joys of life: the frivolity and shared experience with those around us. Not only do we lose out on sharing some of the happiest moments of our lives, we also lose the perspective of others' opinions and backgrounds. Without each other's interaction we forget that strangers once meant fascination rather then trepidation.

I, for one, would like to see the old Club Med return and with it a renewed desire to meet and learn from those around us. Every day life could use a little "Club Med" in it instead of endless political-correctness and fear of offense. Our society could use a little bit more intermingling and animation and a little less of fences and suburban fortresses. After all, wouldn't it be boring if by secluding ourselves we never have the chance to converse with a prima-ballerina?

"Enjoy life. Slow down. Kick back. Relax now. Let our minds drift away, a time to rest or a time to play..."