Recent Recommend Reads

I haven't been around the blog much lately, partly because I've been reading some good books. You may find the following items interesting.

The book I finished last night was Nate Silver's, The Signal and the Noise. Citing examples from such diverse fields as climate science, baseball, Texas Hold 'Em and elections forecasting, Silver explains statistical analysis in an interesting, informative, and even entertaining way. The book is a bit long (500+ pages), so you probably won't read it in one sitting. But, if you're willing to take a bit of time each night over several nights, you're likely to learn quite a lot about gambling, earthquakes, and - yes - statistics.

Another book I finished a couple of weeks ago was, Damned Good Company, by Luis Granados. The author selected twenty pairs of contemporaneous historical figures - one secular versus one religious (i.e., Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryan) - and contrasted ways in which their views intersected, clashed, and influenced the world around them. I'm somewhat surprised this book hasn't gotten wider circulation because it is very well researched (over 1,100 endnotes) and is quite a good read. Granted, Granados doesn't write like Hitchens, but he's more readable than many other better-known authors. Perhaps that's a consequence of being published by The Humanist Press rather than Harper & Row.

The final book I'll mention, which I read after Granados' and before Silver's, is J.K. Rowling's debut in the world of adult fiction, The Casual Vacancy. Having read and enjoyed the entire Harry Potter series with my sons, I had to see how Rowling would handle adult literature. She did quite well, but don't take that to mean that The Casual Vacancy is anything like Harry Potter for grown-ups. Unlike the world of Hogwarts, most, if not all, of the characters in this book are not likable people, so it's likely that readers won't readily align themselves with any of them. It's not even easy to choose one to hate more than the others because they're all equally loathsome. Nevertheless, the story is engaging, especially for anyone who  is intrigued by politics, and one can't help wondering how the issue of the unexpectedly open seat on a small town's council will be resolved. I enjoyed the book, and I'll admit that the ending makes a tragic sort of sense; nevertheless, I wasn't satisfied with the way the final scene played out. If you want to know any more about that, you'll have to read the book and decide for yourself whether I've got that right or missed some profound meaning and symmetry. In my mind, the meaning and symmetry are almost, but not quite, there.

And that, dear friends, is some of what I've been doing lately. Have you read any of these books? If so, let me know what you think in the comments. Do you have any other books to recommend? Write a comment. I'm always open to suggestions.

The Last Testament: A Memoir by God

Authors: God & David Javerbaum
Publisher: Simon & Schuster 

Chapter One
1 And lo, YHWH aka Allah, having checked in on the third rock from the sun (aka Earth) and realized that it had been 1,400 years since his last written communication with humankind, decided recently that the time had come to reveal himself anew,
2 And to set the record straight on a few misunderstandings that some of his fervent followers have about him.
3 And so, YHWH aka Allah met with an agent at Simon & Schuster with whom he was pleased to arrive at mutually agreeable terms for the publication of a memoir.  He was also pleased to retain the services of an outstanding amanuensis, David Javerbaum, former head writer and executive producer of The Daily Show,
4 For lo, YHWH aka Allah believes Jon Stewart is one of the funniest comics working today, and wanted to include similarly humorous material in his memoir.
5 Having previously written prolifically in the Hebrew, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim scriptures, YHWH aka Allah limited his memoir to a brief (for him) 383 pages. Or, more likely, he is aware of the short attention spans of many 21st century readers.
6 Early in the book, YHWH aka Allah reveals that a) the first two human inhabitants in Eden were, in fact, Adam and Steve, and b) he planted all of the evidence supporting evolution. He asks, “Canst thou grasp the scope of my hoax, humanity? Can thy mortal minds absorb even a drop of the immense ocean constituting the thoroughness of thy punking?”
7 Verily, I say, woe to readers who expected YHWH aka Allah to reveal that he hates gays, and that the earth is 13.7 billion years old. Woe, indeed, to believers and nonbelievers alike, for YHWH aka Allah is more mysterious than even his followers imagined.
8 And he admits he has anger-management issues. As well as a sadistic streak.
9 Notwithstanding his sadism and anger-management issues, YHWH aka Allah has a sense of humor. In reviewing the Noahic Deluge, YHWH reveals his surprise at the following:
10 The flood took longer than he expected it would take,
11 Many people were better swimmers than he had reckoned they’d be, and
12 Human corpses are effective flotation devices.
13 These revelations underscore one of YHWH aka Allah’s most shocking confessions – he does not know everything.
14 YHWH aka Allah also reveals that he gets angry when Americans sing (incessantly, it seems), “God bless America.”  As he says, “Americans asking me for more blessings is like Tahitians asking me for sunnier days.” And lo, he has a valid point.
15 Behold: YHWH aka Allah loves sports, and even has favorite teams (the Cubs are not among them).  He nonetheless insists that he has never influenced the outcome of any game to determine a winner. His exact words are, “I do not intervene in sporting events . . . because … I care so deeply about the integrity of the game.”

Chapter Two
1 In his most poignant revelation of all, YHWH aka Allah reveals that Jesus’ sacrificial life and death were Jesus’ ideas, not his.  Before Jesus completed his self-appointed mission to rescue humankind from damnation, YHWH aka Allah considered Jesus to be the weaker of his two sons (Holy Ghost being the other one).
2 But lo, by the time Jesus ascended to heaven, YHWH aka Allah gained a new respect for the son he’d previously deemed too soft to be an effective deity. Yea, YHWH aka Allah admits without shame that he, like much of western civilization, is now Jesus-whipped.
3 YHWH aka Allah wrote briefly about Islam. He hesitated to say too much for, by his own admission, he “felt great apprehension concerning the writing of this section.”
4 Nevertheless, he dares to reveal the real reason Muhammad forbade anyone to make a likeness of his image.  Verily, in the interests of promoting book sales, I encourage thee to read the book for thyself if thou wantest to know the reason for that seemingly absurd prohibition.
5 Moving through the centuries, YHWH aka Allah reveals which of Martin Luther’s 95 theses are his favorites (sort of a Billboard Top 40) and which religions he admires (spoiler: Buddhism did not make the list).  I bid thee beware, atheists, agnostics and nonbelievers, for YHWH aka Allah warns thee to “start thinking about what thou mightest say to me on the infinitesimally off-chance that thou findest thyself standing before me. Yea, start thinking about it now, for if it ever does happen, I can promise thee this: it will be a short meeting.”
6 Thou hast been warned.
7 Suitably enough, YHWH aka Allah concludes his memoir with a day-by-day revelation of the End of the World,
8 Which is currently scheduled to occur on December 21, 2012. However, YHWH aka Allah emphasizes that Armageddon's date is open for negotiation should his memoirs sell as many copies as his previous publications.
9 Thou hast been warned.
10 Lo, with The Last Testament in hand, readers will be able to follow along each day as YHWH aka Allah brings brings about Armageddon.
11 Let’s just say St. John the Divine had no clue what he wrotest about.
12 But thou wilt - if thou buyest The Last Testament now. And if thou art looking for the perfect gift for the special people in thy life – consider buying copies for them too.
13 For lo, the world you save may be your own.
14 Thou hast been warned.

Chapter Three
The Last Testament is a light-hearted romp through many of the religious beliefs that are current today, particularly in the USA.  Believers of a conservative bent will likely find the book too irreverent for their tastes, but more liberal believers may enjoy it.  Nonbelievers will likely find it humorous, overall, but may find its length excessive.  I found the book dragged near the end, as I dutifully made my way through nearly twelve months (355 days) worth of end-times revelations.  In my view, the end-time predictions motif was not cohesive enough to sustain 355 disjointed one-liners. Generally speaking, though, the book was enjoyable. Readers who enjoy light, irreverent fare will like this book.  Readers who prefer deeper, more reflective discussions of religion and irreligion are less likely to find this book satisfying.

Thou hast been advised.

Book Note: Founding Faith

ed

Knowing my interests in history and church-state issues, a friend of mine recommend a book to me recently. I will share some thoughts about the book, Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty, in this post.

The author, Steven Waldman, a co-founder of Belief.Net, took a fairly evenhanded approach in his examination of

   
• the role of religion in the lives of several American Founding Fathers (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison),
   
• the role of religion in the American Revolution and the formation of the USA, and
   
• the role of politics in shaping the USA's fundamental legal documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Waldman's evidence led him to conclude:

   
• The five men underwent religious transformations throughout their lives. They didn't receive their youthful catechisms and tuck them away to be drawn upon as needed for future reference; they questioned religious precepts all of their lives and, in some cases, ended at positions strikingly different from those they'd held as young men.
   
• All five of them felt that some religion was necessary to protect the common folks from moral corruption and equip them to be good citizens; enlightened people could handle the truth about religious fables and live responsibly, but the common folks couldn't be trusted to do the same. Yes, the founding fathers were elitists (but you already knew that).
   
• All of them accepted the premise that the universe was created; this is not surprising when one remembers that their lifespans pre-dated the discoveries of Darwin and later scientists.
   
• None of them held beliefs that conservative Christians today would consider suitably Christian; today's Christian Right would excoriate the lot of them as heretics.
   
• None of them ever intended that the USA would be a theocratic Christian Nation. They were thoroughly committed to religious pluralism, equality and complete freedom of conscience.

Waldman, reminding us that these five men did not found the country alone, provides some fascinating insights into the negotiating processes that went into shaping the nation's founding documents, particularly the First Amendment. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were hammered out - word by word - by representatives from thirteen disparate states, and then sent to those states for ratification by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. Not only was it the will of most Founding Fathers that the USA be a religiously neutral, pluralistic nation, it was the will of many ordinary Americans.

Waldman also notes the importance of remembering that the founding generation could not imagine the ways in which their visions would be realized. For example, since most states did not develop public school systems until the middle and late 19th century, the founders would never have imagined wrangling over school prayer. I suggest that, rather than trying to imagine what Washington or Jefferson would think about such issues, contemporary Americans could better spend our time pondering how the Constitutional principle of pluralism, to take one example, can best be expressed in our contemporary context. The fact is, the USA is no longer the founders' country, it's ours. We need to respect the founders and be grateful for what they gave us, but it's now up to us to use the tools in our hands. Fortunately, for us, the founders gave us good ones, so let's use them wisely.

Near the end of the book, Waldman discusses what he sees as fallacies that contemporary Americans commit when discussing church-state issues. These are:

Conservative Fallacy 1: Most Founding Fathers were serious Christians
Conservative Fallacy 2: Separation of church and state is a 20th century invention of the courts
Conservative Fallacy 3: Advocates of separation are anti-religious

Liberal Fallacy 1: Most founding fathers were Deists or secular
Liberal Fallacy 2: The Constitution demanded strict separation of church and state throughout the land
Liberal Fallacy 3: Separation of church and state was designed mostly to protect religious minorities 

Common Fallacy 4: The founders figured this all out. (Many of them disagreed vehemently, even after the ink was dry, as we still do today, after the pages have yellowed).

In closing, I'll say that I enjoyed Waldman's book. I appreciated the care he took in delineating the theological evolutions of the five founders he examined. I also enjoyed his discussion of the political contexts of the revolution and formation of a new nation based on what were, at the time, radical beliefs and principles. His bias toward religious belief is evident at times, such as when he frames the thinking of the founders as "spiritual journeys," but this doesn't prevent him from reaching the right conclusion regarding the Christian Nation verbiage that today's religious right keeps hurling at our heads: it's bunk (my paraphrase). I can't help wondering, though, if his religious bias led him to downplay the influences of Deism and Enlightenment philosophy on the founders. His discussions of the religious and political contexts of the founders were thorough, but he did not discuss Enlightenment philosophy at all. While I'll concede that secularists may be prone to over-emphasizing the philosophical trends of that era and downplaying the theology, that shortcoming is not best countered by emphasizing the theological contexts at the expense of the philosophy. The theological and philosophical contexts both need to be examined critically and thoroughly if we are to have any hope of understanding the ideas and ideals that motivated America's founders. Notwithstanding this weakness, if you're interested in reading about the religious and political contexts of the American Revolution and early republic, you'll probably enjoy this book.

FUCK

Let me say, right from the start, that this post probably is not about what you think it's about. Don't blame me. Blame Christopher Fairman, the author of the book under discussion here.  Let me also say that, if you take a quick look at the title of Fairman's book (and miss, overlook or ignore the subtitle), you may be dismayed to discover that his book is not about what you might have thought it would be about either. Nevertheless, if you care at all about freedom of speech and ideas, this is a book you probably should read.

In this provocatively titled book, Fairman discusses the word "fuck" in great detail. He discusses the power of the word, much of which derives from its status as a taboo word and the object of word fetish. He discusses the word's etymology, linguistic and psycholinguistic contexts, its historical uses as a referent to sex and in other ways (as political speech, for example), and its inconsistent judicial status in American jurisprudence. His primary purpose in doing this is to encourage all who care about freedom of thought and speech to protect the use of all language in the formulation and transmission of ideas. Fairman says,

Whether you shout it in the street or whisper it in the bedroom, say it deliberately as a political protest or accidentally let it slip out, make a single fleeting reference or sing an expletive-laden rant, intend to be funny or downright foul, if you say "fuck," someone wants to silence you. We shouldn't passively watch as tiny coalitions with a webpage and a word fetish take some of our words away. When it's the government trying to cleanse your language, you should really worry. We shouldn't tolerate any part of our representative government mucking around in our words....

At issue isn't just protection for some entertainer's potty mouth. Words are ideas. If the government can control the words we say, it can also control what we think. Ultimately, my concern is for the preservation of our most basic liberty - a freedom of the mind (p.10).

Fairman's historical discussion of "fuck" begins with the observation that the word has systematically been excluded from most English dictionaries. He calls this "a deliberate attempt to cleanse the language of this word" (p.37). He also alerts readers that some of the urban legends about the origin of the word as an acronym (For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and Fornication Under Consent of the King) are false, and explains why this is so. Notwithstanding concerted attempts to wipe the word "fuck" clean out of the English language, the word has been resilient. He explains the reasons for this in a chapter devoted to linguistic and psycholinguistic analyses of the word. One reason for its longevity is its ability to be used in many ways - as a verb (in this case, often with a sexual meaning), an adverb or adjective (these uses are not usually sexual), as a noun (this could be a sexual meaning, but often is not), or simply as an interjection.

One of the evidences of the power of taboo, and the power of fuck as the object of both taboo and fetish, is the use of euphemisms (f-word, f*ck, etc.) in place of the word itself, a practice that Fairman derides as "silly" (p.57). "Fuck" as the object of taboo is in play when its use is avoided (by some) and when its use is deliberately intended (by others) to shock and/or offend; "fuck" as the object of fetish is in play when people have extremely negative emotional reactions to the term and seek to prohibit its use in all circumstances (pp.59-60). Fairman discusses examples of the fuck taboos and fetishes in TV, music, workplaces, classrooms and even courtrooms.

Since Fairman is a lawyer and professor of law, it's not surprising that much of his book deals with legal cases surrounding various uses of the word "fuck." The body of work devoted to legal parsings of this humble little word is quite large, varied and interesting. Not surprisingly, given the seemingly schizophrenic character of American society, the legal status of the word "fuck" is inconsistent, and, consequently, unclear. Sometimes it's obscenity, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's protected speech, sometimes it's not. Fairman contends that this state of uncertainty is not healthy for civic discourse. He bluntly concludes,

The future of fuck is clear. If we continue to allow the state to pick and choose the words we can use and the context in which we can use them, freedom is at stake.... Once that word is extinguished, gone are its literally hundreds of uses, hence hundreds of ideas.... Now you might think I'm an alarmist and that the First Amendment stands to prevent precisely what I foreshadow. But before you discount my fears, please remember: Fuck is being fucked in the shadow of the First Amendment. Neither a Commission nor a court nor a cop should have power over our ideas. To ensure freedom of the mind, fuck must be set free (p. 191).

Fairman's book is well-written, easily grasped and a worthwhile read for anyone with any interest at all in freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. As you've no doubt gathered by now, the book's provocative title was chosen deliberately, precisely because the word "fuck" is tremendously evocative and powerful. It was also chosen deliberately because it is a marginalized (perhaps even endangered) word. When words are marginalized and endangered, the marginalization and endangerment of ideas is not far behind. Freethinkers and freedom lovers can never, in good conscience, allow the intolerance, marginalization and extinction of words and ideas to go unchallenged. I, for one, am indebted to Christopher Fairman for speaking out for my right to fuck.

Creations & Conflicts

When I was a teen, I spent a number of Saturday evenings watching campy Frankenstein movies on TV. Strangely enough, I’d never actually read Mary Shelley’s classic book. I can now report that I’ve corrected that oversight and, in addition to having seen many (but certainly not all) of the Frankenstein movies, I've read the book that spawned the films. As I read Frankenstein, I was struck by some parallels and contrasts I saw between that story and the Genesis account of creation. As I sat down to write this post, I was also struck by a connection I perceived between Frankenstein, Genesis and the Conflict Model of family relationships (also often specified as a model of parent-child relationships), as elucidated by Steven Pinker.

I’ll begin by considering Frankenstein and Genesis. Obviously, Victor Frankenstein, the fictitious creator, is analogous to God, and the monster, the created being is analogous to humankind. Another analog exists between the relative appeal of Frankenstein/God and the created beings. Frankenstein is brilliant and well-loved, and God, of course, is perfect and lacks nothing. In contrast, Adam, Eve and the monster are all flawed beings who unwittingly offend their creators. As the Genesis story goes, Adam and Eve offend their creator when they disobey him; up to that point, the threesome got along just swell. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve learned, after the fact, that the only way to retain their creator’s favor was to obey him without fail. Victor Frankenstein’s monster offends his maker the moment his eyes blink open. The poor sod never had a chance to win his creator’s favor – Frankenstein was repelled by his creation at the instant he gave it life, a revulsion that he nursed and carried with him for the rest of his life. Yet another analog exists between the responses of the creators to their creations: God banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, cursing them to fend for themselves in a world that suddenly has been rendered harsh, and Frankenstein abandons the being he created to fend for himself in a strange world populated by people who treat him harshly.

There are, of course, some points at which the similarities break down. For example, Frankenstein never felt any affection for his creation; from the moment the monster opened his eyes and drew breath, Frankenstein sought to destroy him. At several points in the story, the monster begs Frankenstein to make some provisions for him. Finally, he begs for a mate, so that he will not have to spend his entire life alone. Having learned from his brutal experiences that no human being will ever accept him, the monster seeks a companion like himself with whom he can spend his life (similarly, after Adam fails to find a suitable companion in the animal kingdom, God creates Eve to be his companion). Frankenstein breaks down and promises to provide a female companion for the creature. Shortly afterwards, partway through the completion of the task he finds deeply repulsive, he reneges on his promise and destroys the female creature. Consequently, the monster is doomed to live in isolation until the day he dies. In the Frankenstein story, creator and creature will never be reconciled. In contrast, the Genesis story holds that God and humankind can be reconciled, but only at tremendous costs. The humans have to offer repeated animal sacrifices to atone for their wrongdoing and/or appease God’s wrath. (Jumping ahead several centuries - God eventually takes the pressure off the humans and offers the ultimate perfect sacrifice to himself.)

If you google “Frankenstein as cautionary tale,” you’ll find some interesting applications of Shelley’s tale. Some say that humans are cautioned not to “play God” by delving too deeply into scientific inquiries. Others say that it cautions people against judging others on the basis of appearances. Still others say that it’s a cautionary tale against bad parenting. On this view, Victor Frankenstein is, to say the least, a dead-beat dad. This last caution brings me to my final point of discussion, the Conflict Model of family relationships. Steven Pinker has popularized this view in some of his books. One writer summarizes this view thus:

Pinker points out that since a parent shares 50% of his or her genes with each offspring, in evolutionary terms the investment in each should be equal (all other things being equal). But if I am one of those offspring, I share only 50% of my genes with each sibling, but 100% of my genes with myself, so it is in my best interest to suppress parental investment in my siblings and to promote parental investment in myself. Pinker hypothesizes that this may lead to a child’s behavior that, indirectly, helps prevent or delay the parents having another child.

According to Pinker, this behavior is unconscious; it’s just something that’s built into animals’ genetic makeup. Thus, parents and children, and siblings, are always in conflict over the distribution of finite family resources. That being the case, they don’t always share the same goals. In fact, their goals often conflict.


It’s intriguing to look at the Frankenstein and Genesis stories in light of this theory. Victor Frankenstein’s goal was to avoid, then later destroy, his creature. He pursued his goals of glory and scientific accomplishment without giving any thought to the responsibilities that his success in creating a new life, indeed, a new form of life - a species - would entail. When confronted with his responsibility, he fled from it. The creature’s interest, initially, was to get Frankenstein to care for him, or to at least make some minimal provision for his comfort. When Frankenstein failed to do even that much, the creature then shifted his goal toward revenge. It goes without saying that when both parties in a conflict are hell-bent on destroying each other, there is little to no possibility that the parties will live happily ever after. (Spoiler alert: Frankenstein does not have a happy ending). Similarly, the Genesis story tells us that God created human beings for his glory, but humans are inclined to pursue interests of their own devising. Assuming that the creator/creature relationship is analogous to the parent/child relationship (the process by which parents create children is one of nature's wonders), Pinker's Conflict Model fits both the Frankenstein and the Genesis stories. Frankenstein and his monster pursue obvious cross-purposes throughout Shelley's book. Similarly, God and humans aim at contradictory ends in Genesis: God wants humans to be obedient; humans want to be independent. I'll push the theory's application a step farther and note that Cain's murder of Abel (recorded in Genesis) is sibling rivalry writ large, a tendency that is often seen in nature when stronger offspring kill their weaker siblings. All of this is in keeping with a scientific model positing that living beings, even humans in close relationships genetically and affectionately, act in their own self-interests far more often than not.

Genesis, one of the best-known pieces of religious literature in the world, has been around for millennia. Frankenstein, one of the best-known pieces of English literature in the world, has been around for a couple of centuries (it was published in 1818). The Conflict Model of family relationships is the literary and theoretical newcomer; its existence can be measured in decades. I find it fascinating that a contemporary scientific theory can be used to examine the interpersonal complexities portrayed in two pieces of literature rooted in vastly different cultures. I also find it interesting that longstanding literary insights into human nature comport well with contemporary scientific theories. Such reciprocity speaks well for the utility of both science and literature as methods of exploring our humanity and our world.

Comment: The Jungle

Upton Sinclair's aim in writing The Jungle was to call attention to the terrible plight of laborers in early 20th century America. His accomplishment was to call attention to the disgusting processes employed by an unregulated food industry to acquire livestock, slaughter it, can it and ship it to dinner tables across America. While Sinclair's initial readers didn't seem to grok the human costs of industrialization, they certainly understood the health risks posed by an unregulated food industry and demanded that the government take action to reduce, if not eliminate entirely, those risks. Sinclair's book did a lot of good, it just wasn't the good that he intended it to do. Sinclair summed up the situation well when he said, “I aimed for America’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”

The story (like Mario Puzo's The Godfather (was Puzo inspired by Sinclair?)) opens with a wedding reception. Sinclair uses this scene to introduce the reader to his characters and their culture. The bride and groom, their family members and various other attendees are Lithuanian immigrants who have arrived at the Chicago stockyards in pursuit of the American Dream. After the wedding feast, Sinclair follows his characters as they find jobs in the stockyards, purchase a home, have children, endure work slowdowns and unemployment, lose their home, health and loved ones, and slowly accept that the American Dream that drew them to this country was not going to be realized in their lives. Jurgis, the newlywed husband, begins the story with confidence and vigor, endures tragedy and hardship, leaves the stockyards to take up migrant farming, gets involved in petty crime and beggary, and only finds renewed hope when, at the end of the tale, he accepts and preaches the gospel of Communist socialism. Marija, a family member who emigrated with Jurgis, begins as a proud, hard-working woman and ends as a morphine-addicted prostitute. She doesn't find salvation in any ideology; like many other characters throughout the story, she simply resigns herself to her tragic fate. In Sinclair's capitalist jungle, there is only one way to redemption - and it's not Jesus Christ.

The Jungle, having inspired the reform and regulation of the American food industry, was a significant book in American history. Looking at what has transpired since its publication in 1906 (and recollecting that Sinclair's primary concern was to uplift the poor) and observing the plight of the American poor today, one can only wish that he had accomplished his primary mission more successfully. To cite just one example of how America's poor continue to suffer, nearly 48,000,000 (roughly 16%) of 303,824,640 people living in the USA in 2008 had no health insurance. This, in my view, is outrageous. I'm not convinced that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot do any better than this to promote the health of its citizens. I believe we have just lacked the political will and compassion to do so. Lack of decent health care services is not the only issue that matters to the poor (homelessness and absurdly low wages are just two of many others one can cite) but it is a critical one. Left unaddressed, particularly as baby boomers age, the human and financial costs of a dysfunctional health care system could cripple the American economy within 20 years (perhaps far less).

Speaking more broadly, it's time for us to recognize that the plight of the poor in America is not "their" problem or "someone else's" problem; it's our problem. It doesn't matter whether the issue is health care, education, obscene wage gaps or something else. Living in a society committed to equity entails sharing burdens as well as benefits. Upton Sinclair's jungle didn't disappear with the rotten cattle and swine of the past century; it's still with us. Our task is to tame it.

Book Comment: Starship Troopers

I recently read Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein. When I closed the book, I thought, "Meh. It was okay. I probably wouldn't have read it had it not been recommended by a friend, but it was a fair to middling read for me."

Given that response, I was rather surprised to learn this morning, as I prepared to write this post, that this book (initially published in 1959) has had a significant impact on technological developments in the US military, and

is on the reading lists of the United States Army, the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Navy. It is the only science fiction novel on the reading list at four of the five United States military academies.

Moreover, the book has influenced subsequent books, movies and even video games. Not bad for a tale that is, in my view, dry as a work of literature.

The things I found uninteresting about the book are a) the characters are too bland to describe, and b) the plot is dull. Call me plebeian, if you wish, but, when I read a novel, I expect to encounter characters that inspire emotional responses (they can be either negative or positive, but they should make me feel something) and a plot that drives ahead towards a resolution of some sort. I did not find either of those features in this book.

The things I found interesting about the book were the forays (and there were many of them) into political philosophy. To take one example, in the society of Starship Troopers, the right to vote is restricted to those citizens who completed at least two years of service in the military (active soldiers cannot vote). This restriction is based on the presumption that those who have so served will have been conditioned to consider the interests of society at large in making decisions that will affect the society. Is this philosophy elitist - only those who have proven themselves worthy can vote? Or is it fascist - only those who demonstrated their willingness to put the state before themselves can vote? I'm having some difficulty pinning this down, but that probably doesn't matter, as it's a view with which I disagree either way.

I haven't served in the military, but I can still see that my community's interests and my personal interests are not always at odds, nor can they always be neatly disentangled. Sometimes, in order to help myself and to reach my personal goals, I need to help my community meet its goals. If I were to vote in a purely selfish (and, ultimately, short-sighted) manner on taxes, for example, I would always vote for lower taxes, against bonds to fund schools and parks, etc., so that I could keep more of my money for myself. If I want to vote by taking a long-range view of my own interests (as well as my community's), however, I will vote to fund schools and parks (even though I will have to surrender more of my money to do so) because my community (and, ultimately, I too) will benefit by having higher quality facilities and services to offer its citizens. Moreover, there are times when I ought to be willing to sacrifice something for the good of others just because that's the right thing to do. So, even though I would not be allowed to vote in Starship Troopers Land, I'm pretty sure that I would be as capable of balancing my personal desires and my responsibilities to my community as any of the ex-soldiers in that land. Are all voters willing to find this balance? I doubt it. Still, I prefer to accept the risks involved in making the franchise more inclusive rather than accept the risks involved in restricting the franchise.

A more inclusive franchise will undoubtedly allow more voters who are selfish and uninformed have a say in communal matters, and the effects of their involvement will sometimes (perhaps often) be detrimental to both my community and me (the Bush era is all the proof I need of that). But, a more exclusive franchise based on the presumption that an elite group will act in the best interests of society at large frightens me even more (can anyone say AIG, or the Great Financial Meltdown of 2008?). A broad franchise may lead to societal ruin, but it may also contain within itself a self-correcting mechanism forced by the sheer range and multiplicity of interests that are always active in the process. In contrast, a narrow, elite franchise may lead to utopia, but, given the realities of human nature, it would just as (or more?) likely lead to oppression of the majority by an oligarchy. That's not a society in which I care to live. That old-time fascist elitism may have been good enough for Heinlein, but it's not good enough for me.

In closing, I'll note that many people revere Heinlein's works. I'll just say that, having read Starship Troopers, I'll have to agree to disagree agreeably with them about that.

Book Comment: Remembering Hypatia

Remembering Hypatia, by Brian Trent, was entertaining and easy to read, but I find it difficult to classify it as historical fiction. It is loosely based on an historical person and historical events, but that is where all semblances of historicity end. Upon finishing this book, it would be a grave error for the reader to assume that his or her understanding of Hypatia, the significance of Alexandria's famed library, or the religious and political currents that were current in the late fourth and early fifth centuries has been enhanced. That's okay. Reading does not always have to be for functional or informational purposes; it is an activity that one should do, whether occasionally or often, just for the sheer joy, pleasure and fun that reading can bring to one's life.

I appreciate this book's focus on an historical woman whose scholarly achievements have received far too little attention through the ages. I'm ashamed to say that I don't recall ever learning about Hypatia, or even hearing or reading her name, until I read Jennifer Hecht's fine book, Doubt (which I highly recommend to all readers who are looking for a book that is both historically sound and a pleasure to read). On the other hand, I disliked the fact that the characters were either Good Guys Wearing White Hats or Bad Guys Wearing Black Hats. I get frustrated, sometimes to the point of rage, when people of a particular faith tradition, and even those of no faith tradition, portray people who don't adhere to their particular beliefs as thoroughly amoral, immoral, opportunistic sleaze bags. Trent's lopsided portraits of his characters filled me with a strong desire to encounter people that seemed less like comic book heroes and more like human beings.

Having read this novelization of Hypatia's life, I may turn my attention to a more scholarly examination next time around. Michael Deakin's book looks like it may be a good place to start.

Book Review: The Philosopher's Apprentice

Author: James Morrow
Publisher: Harper Collins
ISBN: 978-0-06-135144-0

Londa Sabachthani is seventeen, brilliant and thoroughly amoral.

Mason Ambrose is a twenty-something philosopher who, on the occasion of his dissertation defense, has recently flushed his promising academic career down the toilet.

Londa’s mother, Edwina, believes that Mason is the perfect candidate to instruct her daughter in moral reasoning and she is willing to pay him handsomely to assume that responsibility.

Mason arrives at Edwina and Londa’s home, located on a lush tropical island, and quickly discovers that this apparent paradise is the setting for some deeply troubling mysteries. Nevertheless, he throws himself into the task of educating Londa via role play. As they work their way through the teachings of Kohlberg, Jesus Christ, the Stoics and others, Londa gradually develops her personal ethical system. She also becomes privy to Mason’s discoveries regarding the family’s secrets. What she learns changes her life and significantly affects her later actions.

Approximately ten years later, Londa is the head of a philanthropic organization that is set to launch an earth-changing charitable initiative. To Mason’s chagrin, she has adopted an end-justifies-the-means ethic by which she defends her plans to boldly commit several illegal acts in the cause of creating a tremendous social good. When her plans go awry, Londa and her mother pay tragic prices for Londa’s ambition.

Morrow’s tale explores a range of ethical theories and issues in an inventive, engaging manner. The dialogs and role plays between Londa and Mason are effective devices for transmitting what would have quickly become dry philosophical content had they been presented less creatively. The plot is filled with surprises that add fascinating, and always relevant, layers of mystery and complexity to the story. The characters are unique, to say the least. Sometimes they arouse the reader’s empathy and sometimes they infuriate the reader, just as real live acquaintances do every day. The story’s greatest weakness is that Edwina’s wealth, ambition and activities make her character seem more like a James Bond villain than a realistic person in a plausible real-world scenario. The story has a strange air of science fiction about it and seems to vacillate between fantasy and a novel set in a recognizable venue that explores familiar moral and social issues. All in all, The Philosopher’s Apprentice defies classification as literature of a particular fiction genre. It is not quite science fiction, it is not quite fantasy, it is not quite a romance novel – it is all of these things and more. It is also a stimulating, thought-provoking book that is worth reading if one enjoys fiction that rises far above the pulp level.

Chloe Liked Olivia

A Room of One's Own, published in 1929, is an expansion of two lectures that Virginia Woolf delivered at Newnham and Girton colleges on the topic of women and fiction. Woolf's overarching theme is that "a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction." She supports this assertion by examining the economic and social constraints under which women lived for centuries. In addition to discussing the lives and works of such notable authors as Jane Austen and Emily Bronte, Woolf examines the way women were generally portrayed in literature. Woolf's thoughts about this issue were prompted, so she reports, by reading the simple sentence, "Chloe liked Olivia." Woolf goes on to say,

I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends. There is an attempt in Diana of the Crossways. They are confidantes, of course, in Racine and the Greek tragedies. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Austen's day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex.

A little later on, Woolf says,

Suppose, for instance, that men were only represented in literature as the lovers of women, and were never the friends of men, soldiers, thinkers, dreamers; how few parts in the plays of Shakespeare could be allotted to them; how literature would suffer! We might perhaps have a good deal of Othello; and a good deal of Antony; but no Caesar, no Brutus, no Hamlet, no Lear, no Jaques - literature would be incredibly impoverished, as indeed literature is impoverished beyond our counting by the doors that have been shut upon women.

According to Woolf, not only were women proscribed from writing throughout much of human history - the literary roles they were alloted (by male authors) were rigidly constrained. Off the top of my head, I can think of two current fiction series that feature groups of women or female buddies: Lisa Scottoline highlights a female law firm in several books and James Patterson has a series that features a Women's Murder Club. If you're familiar with other female buddy fiction series (and you probably are), mention them in the comments.

Moving on from women's roles in literature, let's look briefly at women's roles in movies. Specifically, taking my cue from the ideas that Chloe liked Olivia, that Chloe and Olivia were friends who had interests other than romantic intrigue and child-rearing, I want to consider the "buddy movie."

The first buddy movie that I remember in any detail was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I had previously seen some of the Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis movies on TV reruns, but I can't recall anything about them except that Martin was the straight man and Lewis was the buffoon. In the years since Butch Cassidy hit the screens, I've seen countless other buddy movies, such as 48 Hours, the Lethal Weapon series (I believe there were 4 of them), The Odd Couple, Grumpy Old Men and Grumpier Old Men, The Last Boy Scout and Men in Black (I think there are 2 of these). As you've no doubt noticed, all of these movies feature men. Furthermore, you can probably name many others that I've omitted. As always, you may note them in the comments.

Now, let's look at female buddy movies: Thelma & Louise, Outrageous Fortune, Big Business, Fried Green Tomatoes and, if we're willing to enlarge the circle of buddies from two to three, perhaps 9 to 5, are the only ones that come to mind immediately. Of these, only Thelma & Louise is listed as one of Amazon's 25 Best Buddy Movies. Think about that. 25 movies. 24 of them feature male pairs. The last time I checked, men did not outnumber women 24 to 1. What is going on here? Do Hollywood writers believe that women are not friends with other women? Do they believe that women's friendships with other women are far less interesting than men's friendships with other men? Are moviegoers so uninterested in women that they prefer movies about men to such an outrageous degree? Why? As one who enjoys reading books and viewing movies about both men and women, I'm perplexed by the lack of attention that women continue to receive in film and literature. It's the 21^st century! By all means, let's continue exploring the multiple facets of men's lives. But, please, let's also start viewing women in roles other than wives, mothers and jealous lovers. I know for a fact that women make fabulous friends, and I, along with Virginia Woolf, want to read their stories.

Quick Comment: Not the End of the World

Author: Christopher Brookmyre
Publisher: Atlantic Monthly Press
ISBN: 0-87113-787-9

Steff Kennedy is an unlikely hero for an action thriller. One thing's for sure: he's no James Bond (nor even a Jason Bourne). Which is okay, because the villain in this piece, Rev. Luther St. John, is no Dr. No either. And author Christopher Brookmyre is no Ian Fleming.

I love a good thriller as much as the next person. There are many nights when I go to bed at 2 or 3 a.m. because I can't put down the book in my hands. There are many mornings when I arrive at work bleary-eyed and fuzzy-headed because I didn't put down the book in my hands until 2 or 3 a.m. the previous night. Not the End of the World did not live up to the publisher's promise (inscribed on the dust-jacket) that this book would "keep [me] furiously turning its pages." In fact, it took me nearly a week to plow through it, reading perhaps 75-80 pages at a time before finally calling it quits for the night.

What's wrong with this book? The plot for one thing. It reads like something that was inspired by some of the lesser James Bond films: a lunatic Christian evangelist schemes to bring America to God by causing a tidal wave to engulf Los Angeles and its environs at a time of his choosing. (Okay, this isn't the plot of Licence to Kill, but that Bond film does feature a villainous evangelist.) This dastardly plot is foiled, after some twists and turns, by an unlikely team comprised of a photographer, a porn star and a policeman. Maybe it would work on film - where it could be enhanced by special effects and beautiful people (I'm talking lots of effects and the most beautiful people on the planet) - but it misses the mark, badly, on paper.

What's wrong with this book? The characters for one thing. The villains are all religious kooks. The villains' disciples are all kooky religious dupes. The heroes are all atheists whose experiences with religion have been unremittingly negative. The primary villain, Rev. St. John - surprise, surprise - was raised by his sexually dysfunctional mother. The secondary hero, or heroine (is that term still acceptable?), porn star Madeleine Witherson, was - surprise, surprise - sexually abused by her father, who is - surprise, surprise - a hypocritical Republican in the United States Senate. And, just in case you haven't guessed it already, the hypocritical Republican Senator is a good friend of the right-wing religious fanatic villain, who is, in turn, a supporter of the Republican Senator. Good God! Brookmyre compounds his sin of religious stereotyping with that of political stereotyping! Did I miss Wal-Mart's three-for-one special on cardboard characters? Brookmyre obviously didn't.

I haven't read any other books by Brookmyre and, based on my experience with this one, I'm not likely to do so. My recommendation is that you avoid this book and read something else. It won't be the end of the world if you do so.

Quick Note: Bill of Wrongs

If you haven't read Molly Ivins' last book, Bill of Wrongs (which co-author Lou Dubose completed after her death), you need to do so. Now.

Ivins' longstanding opposition to the policies of George W. Bush is well known. In this book, she and Dubose complete the work they began in their earlier works, Shrub and Bushwhacked, and provide insights into the many ways that American freedoms have been deliberately eroded by the Bush administration. None of what Ivins and Dubose describe in this book is news. All of it has been documented elsewhere. Nevertheless, the compilation of these diverse stories into one tome is effective.

You're probably aware that, when President Bush speaks in public, his political handlers and security forces ensure that dissenters are herded into "Free Speech Zones," which are often located several blocks away from the event they are attending. Those who manage to avoid isolation in the zone are hustled away from the view of the president and the news cameras as soon as they are discovered. If they refuse to move, they are arrested. How is one identified as a dissenter? A T-shirt or lapel pin is usually all the evidence the Secret Service needs to justify hustling one away to the Free Speech Zone. If one refuses to be hustled away, the local police will hustle one to the nearest jail. Read the book for details.

So much for Freedom of Speech.

The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of the press. Tell that to the San Francisco reporter who, notwithstanding the fact that California has one of the strongest journalist shield laws in the USA, spent 199 days in jail for refusing to provide investigators with either the names of people who attended a protest or videotapes he had filmed at the rally. Read the book for details.

So much for Freedom of the Press.

The Bush Administration's Constitutional violations do not end at amendment number one. Federal agencies also have systematically and deliberately violated the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution thousands of times over the past eight years. Ivins and Dubose tell some of these stories in their book. Many other authors have done the same. Do a quick Amazon search of the term "patriot act" and check out some of the hits you get. Also, check out my review of Walter Brasch's book, Sinking the Ship of State. (Check out his book too. Warning: Brasch's book is published by a small press and has several editorial errors. Nevertheless, the substance of the material is good, if one is willing to overlook its stylistic shortcomings.)

I firmly believe that the upcoming federal election is one of the most important elections in American history. Ivins' book has reinforced that belief. The Republicans have taken this country down a dark and dangerous path throughout the past eight years. This election will be our opportunity to change course and start undoing the damage that Bush, Cheney and an untold number of "loyal Bushies" have done to the USA and the world at large. Read Ivins' book. Get mad. Then go do something about it. At the very least, vote for ABAR (anyone but a Republican) in the upcoming primaries, caucuses and elections!

Two Complementary Views of American Christianity

Several months ago, I reviewed Shopping for God, by James Twitchell. A few days ago, I read a book entitled, I Sold my Soul on eBay, by Hemant Mehta, which comes from a completely different perspective, yet covers much of the ground that Twitchell covered.



Twitchell's book was scholarly and Mehta's was personal. Twitchell examined questions about the relationship between Christianity and advertising in American culture. Mehta, who was raised in the Jain faith, explored personal questions about Christianity and the relationships between Christians and non-Christians in American culture. Mehta's book began with an experiment in which he allowed the highest eBay bidder to buy his time and church attendance. He posted an ongoing account of his visits on a web site, then decided to expand his study and publish his findings in a book. His book, which is published by a Christian publishing house, aims to help Christians understand how non-Christians see them, and to help Christians understand how they can speak more effectively with those who don't share their beliefs.

Both authors visited churches across the USA and interviewed numerous pastors and parishioners. They visited large churches, small churches, and 'tweener churches. They visited urban and suburban megachurches with multiple pastors and money to burn, and country churches that barely pay their bills and their pastors; if there is only enough money to meet one of these obligations, the bills get paid first.

Twitchell's book is well-written, but, since it is a scholarly work, it takes a bit of time to digest its contents. Mehta's book, an equally well-written personal narrative, is easily digested. In keeping with the styles and intentions of both authors, Twitchell's analyses and recommendations tend to focus on global communications issues, while Mehta's findings and suggestions focus primarily on personal and local communications strategies. Twitchell's book is richer in historical context than Mehta's book, but Mehta compensates for his lack of historicity by providing rich contextual insights. For example, Mehta records his emotional reactions to the rituals, worship choruses and scripture readings he encounters, as well as the questions that church rhetoric and practices raise for him. Twitchell, if he has any similar reactions and questions, does not record or address them at all.

Twitchell and Mehta both began their studies as non-Christians and they ended their studies in the same spiritual state. Both books offer interesting analyses of outsider views of the current state of American Christianity. If you read only one of these books, you'll be intellectually rewarded. If you read both of them, your understanding of American Christianity will be well-rounded and enriched.

Book Review: Soldier's Heart

Author: Elizabeth D. Samet
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
ISBN: 13: 978-0-374-18063-8; 10: 0-374-18063-6

It was slightly more than a decade ago that Elizabeth D. Samet graduated from an Ivy League university and accepted a position as a civilian faculty member at America’s oldest military academy, West Point. Her unusual position as a female civilian in an overwhelmingly masculine military environment has given her many opportunities to observe, participate in and think about contrasts.

The first contrast, which I’ve already mentioned, is that of gender. Dr. Samet is one just a few female faculty members at West Point. They are joined by a relatively small number of female cadets who enter the academy with the intention of serving as officers in the US military. Notwithstanding the fact that females have been attending the academy since 1976, West Point is not an easy place for women to live and work. Samet notes, “Women at West Point must make their way in a culture historically charged with machismo and fraternity (p. 100)” and, “Misogyny percolates beneath the surface of discussions about the ‘civilianizing’ or weakening of military culture (p. 99).” She speaks bluntly, but not bitterly, about the obstacles military women face both at the academy and in the military at large.

Another contrast that Samet deals with, particularly as an English professor, is that of the cultivation of physical fitness and toughness with the cultivation of intellect and introspection. Indeed, physical conditioning is a critical component of the academy’s program. The book is sprinkled with wry anecdotes in which Samet’s friends and family express surprise that cadets actually read serious literature, and that they often do so earnestly. Samet describes how many of her students embrace the reading of literature as an opportunity to let their imaginations roam freely – an experience not taken lightly in a military academy’s highly regimented environment – and to examine the connections between moral values and military exigencies. She also shares bits of correspondence she has exchanged with academy graduates as they continue to read and reflect on their field assignments. She says, “I relish the idea that ‘books are weapons.’ It is terminology sufficiently combative for someone teaching students who may very well find themselves at the violent margins of experience, and over the past several years I’ve come to understand the many ways in which books can serve as weapons: against boredom and loneliness, obviously; against fear and sorrow; but also against the more elusive evils of certitude and dogma” (p. 88).

A related contrast is that between the soldier who obeys without question and the one who thinks through and solves problems. She says, “The longer I teach at West Point, the more fascinated I become by parables of obedience…for they illuminate the inescapable tension between ‘knowing’ and ‘obeying’ within military culture and the fear of commanders that subordinates who know too much might choose not to obey” (p. 123). Even though the military requires unhesitating obedience in order to function efficiently, Samet suggests, “The American Army prides itself on the soldier’s ability to recognize immoral or unlawful orders” (p. 129). This ability is demonstrated in one graduate’s struggle, in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, to prompt the military to take steps to ensure that such events will be prevented in the future. Samet reports his passionate belief “in the necessary connection between a society’s values and the way in which it fights its wars” (p. 209). This belief was refined, in no small part, by his participation in Samet’s literature courses.

The final contrast that I will note, even though Samet’s examines several more that could be mentioned, is that between the West Point ethos before 9/11 and the ethos that has evolved since then. Samet says, “Before September 11, life at West Point had been – there’s no other word for it – peaceful” (p. 6). In those days, cadets anticipated that they would graduate and assume mundane posts in locales such as Germany or Korea. Nowadays, cadets are acutely aware that the odds are high that, upon graduation, they will be deployed to a war zone. This awareness has transformed the sobriety with which cadets undertake their studies. Indeed, some of the most touching scenes in the book are provided by the reflections of young army officers as they deal with the physical, psychological and moral realities of life on fields of battle.

“Soldier’s heart” is a term that military doctors sometimes use to refer to a condition that has been variously labeled “combat fatigue,” “shell shock,” and the currently vogue “post traumatic stress disorder.” In her beautifully rendered portrayal of the sensibilities, desires and fidelities of West Pointers, Samet fills the phrase with a far richer meaning. The young men and women who write stirring poetry and avidly recite Shakespeare in Samet’s classes are keenly aware of the responsibilities they will assume upon graduation. The faculty members, both military and civilian, are thoughtful, intelligent people who strive to balance commitments to a military culture steeped in violence and a democratic culture dedicated to the freedom of its citizens. Cadets and officers sacrifice much – their freedom, their comfort, their safety, their health, and often, their lives – to preserve and protect the lives and liberties of their fellow citizens. Samet does not take those sacrifices lightly. Indeed, this engrossing book is the means by which she expresses her gratitude and invites readers to join her in admiring the noble spirit that is the essence of the soldier’s heart.

Sneak Peek: The Daily Show & Philosophy

Some of you may have noticed, by glancing at my sidebar, that I'm currently reading The Daily Show and Philosophy. Those of you who are TDS fans, or those who are interested in the philosophy of language, communications and rhetoric, may enjoy this book. I'm currently reading a section that carries the provocative sub-title, Critical Thinking and the War on Bullshit. In light of the fact that President Bush will be delivering his final State of the Union address this evening, it may be helpful to consider distinctions between lies, bullshit and spin.

In a chapter that examines bullshit and political spin, Kimberly A. Blessing & Joseph J. Marren adopt Harry Frankfurt's (author of On Bullshit) position that, "In the case of a lie, the aim is to deceive people about what's true" (TDSAP, p. 142). What this means is that liars know what is true (or what they believe to be true), but want to lead their audiences to believe that something contrary to that state of affairs is actually the true state of affairs.

Blessing & Marren also agree with Frankfurt's position that "the bullshitter aims at deceiving the listener about what the bullshitter does or doesn't know, yet can succeed without actually going to the trouble of forming a belief either way" (TDSAP, p. 142). In their view, the bullshitter doesn't care, and doesn't need to care, one way or the other about what is true. Rather, the bullshitter's only interest is in selling his or her message to someone. He or she will say anything regardless of its truth value to promote whatever message is being sold. So, the difference between liars and bullshitters is in their stances toward the truth: liars must know the truth in order to compose their lies. Bullshitters do not face such a constraint.

Blessing & Marren part company with Frankfurt on the matter of spin. In an interview with Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, Frankfurt claimed that spin "is a form of bullshit" (TDSAP, p. 140). Blessing & Marren, contend to the contrary that, unlike bullshitters, spinners "must know what's true in order to spin it" (p. 142). They must start from something that they know is true, then proceed to "manipulat[e] a listener's opinion to persuade the listener that their spin is true" (TDSAP, p.142). So, spin is similar to lying in that it must take truth into consideration, and it is similar to bullshit in that it consists of twisting content to suit spinners' purposes. Hence, spin comprises a third category of falsehood, alongside of lies and bullshit.

Are people equally tolerant of all three of these forms of falsehood? More importantly, should people tolerate of all of them equally? Blessing & Marren contend that "Spinners are required to know what is and is not true and then try to color the (commonly known) facts; unlike liars, they don't try to use this knowledge to deceive us about what the facts are. Mere bullshitters would never even bother with the facts" TDPAS, p. 143). In my view, bullshit is the most dangerous of the three types of falsehood. Lies can be uncovered by fact-checking. Spin, being a version of truth, is often obvious and easily countered. In contrast to these, the bullshitters' lackadaisical attitude toward truth is pernicious, and it's often difficult to cut through their verbiage to ascertain which parts of their bullshit, if any, are true and which are false.

I'll conclude by referring back to my opening paragraph and reminding you that President Bush will be addressing the nation tonight. As you listen to him, amuse yourself by seeing if you can figure out how much of what he says is unvarnished truth, spin, lies or bullshit.

Book Review: The Final Curtain

Author: Judge W.O. “Chet” Dillard
Publisher: Outskirts Press, Inc.
ISBN: 978-1-4327-0443-8

Dillard writes from the unique vantage point of one who served for 45 years in the Mississippi state judicial system. This book is the third volume of Dillard’s account of pivotal civil rights events that took place in Mississippi, which may have been the most brutally oppressive of the Jim Crow states.

In The Final Curtain, Dillard focuses primarily on the legal proceedings related to the assassination of Medgar Edgars, the NAACP’s Mississippi field secretary, in 1963; the kidnappings and murders of three civil rights volunteers, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, in 1964; and the firebombing of Vernon Dahmer’s home, in 1966. Dillard’s discussion includes information about the FBI investigations of these crimes, the agency’s use of Mafia informants to gather information and his personal insights into judicial theory and practice. The latter half of the book presents of many of the source documents that Dillard used in his research.

Dillard’s experience and research cover an immensely important era in American history. In fact, two of the cases have been documented in dramatic Hollywood films, a fact that Dillard notes in his book. The Evers assassination and the subsequent investigation and multiples trials of Byron de la Beckwith were portrayed in Ghosts of Mississippi. The case of the three collegiate civil rights activists was the subject of an earlier film, Mississippi Burning. It is probably safe to say that the Dahmer case is the one with which the American public is the least familiar. To my knowledge, no film about it has been produced, nor has it been chronicled in print as widely as the other two events.

In addition to providing some information that may not have been widely available previously, Dillard’s account includes interesting reflections on legal theory and processes. Dillard acquired these insights throughout a long and honorable legal career and they are valuable. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the book is badly marred by discontinuity. The book lacks any sense of narrative and scans like a disjointed memoir rather than a cogent account of significant and fascinating events. Dillard flits from chapter to chapter across themes that are strung together by weak transitional paragraphs rather than topical coherence. On occasion, Dillard’s text refers to the appended materials, but, for the most part, they are simply tacked onto the end of the book for readers to sort through on their own. He could have strengthened his account immensely by organizing his materials more lucidly and by integrating findings from his source materials more directly into the text rather than appending them. These two shortcomings detract significantly from the book’s appeal.

Aficionados of civil rights history in general, and events in Mississippi in particular, may find Dillard’s account a useful adjunct to materials they already have on hand. My advice to most readers, however, is to bypass this book and read some better-written alternatives instead. One such option that I recommend is John Dittmer’s Local People, an outstanding history of Mississippi’s civil rights movement that is more comprehensive, coherent and satisfying than Judge Dillard’s account.

Book Review: Misquoting Jesus

Author: Bart D. Ehrman
Publisher: Harper Collins
ISBN: 978-0-06-085951-0

• Which form of the Lord’s Prayer did Jesus teach - the one in the gospel of Matthew or the one in the gospel of Luke?
• Did the original letters of 1Timothy and 1 John teach that Jesus was divine?
• Was Jesus calm on the night of his arrest or did he suffer intense mental anguish?
• Why are there thousands of discrepancies between biblical manuscripts?
• How does a reader determine whether the translation he or she holds in hand is textually accurate or has been translated to favor a particular theological slant?

These are the sorts of questions that textual critics strive to answer. As Bart Ehrman makes clear in this book, the answers to these questions have serious implications for the validity and reliability of numerous religious doctrines.

Ehrman takes his readers through a fascinating tour of the history of biblical transcription, translation, distribution and canonization. With regard to the latter, Ehrman discusses the various Christian ideologies that competed for supremacy in the Church’s first few centuries and the ways in which those conflicts were resolved. With regard to the former concerns, he notes various types of textual changes that have been made throughout 20 centuries of scriptural transmission. Some of these changes are accidental and include such items as punctuation errors, misspellings, transposed numerals and so on. Other changes are intentional, such as those in which scribes sought to ensure that the text adhered to what they believed were faithful interpretations, or to ensure that particular doctrinal and ideological positions were emphasized. Ehrman illustrates his points by examining closely several disputed texts. He also explains, as well as demonstrates, how several methods of textual criticism, such as comparisons with external contemporaneous documents, internal consistency throughout a gospel or epistle, and consideration of the authors’ (as well as scribes and translators’) purposes enable scholars to determine which manuscripts contain fewer or more flaws than others. The chapter on the social world in which biblical texts originated offers insights into how the scriptures were modified to address the roles of women within the church, and the changing relationships of the church to its Jewish heritage and its pagan context. Ehrman closes the book by noting that readers transform texts through interpretative behaviors of their own every time they read. Thus, there is a real sense in which no one ever gets back to the real, original meaning of any text. This is neither bad nor undesirable, it is a simply a process that all readers should take into consideration when they examine scriptures.

Readers who believe in the inerrancy (or the less rigid standard of infallibility) and divinely guided inspiration of scriptures may well find this book irreverent, perhaps even appalling. Readers who view the Bible as a compilation of literary texts composed by human beings likely will find Ehrman’s application of literary and textual methods of study to ancient texts insightful. I suspect that, whichever camp you fall into, once you’ve read Ehrman’s book, you will never read the Bible in quite the same way again.

Book Review: Distant Peaks

Author: Peter Len
Publisher: Millenial Mind Publishing
ISBN: 13: 978-1-58982-460-7; 10: 1-58982-460-1

Peter Len is a full-time American software engineer and sometime mountaineer who has scaled mountains in North America, Europe, Africa and South America. Distant Peaks, based upon journals he kept during those expeditions, is his account of those adventures.

Len’s first two climbs took place at Grand Teton, a magnificent mountain in the Rocky Mountain range in the United States. He was accompanied by his father, as well as other climbers and guides, on both of these occasions. Len was twenty years old during their first climb, which was, unfortunately, cut short because of bad weather. Len treasured the memory of that climb for many years, but was always disappointed that they had not successfully reached Teton’s summit. Thirteen years later, Len and his father decided to make another attempt to summit Grand Teton. This time, they both reached the peak successfully.

Three years after he reached the summit of Grand Teton, Len and a friend decided to try their hands at two famous European peaks: Mont Blanc and the Matterhorn. A couple of years later, Len and his friend traveled to Africa to test themselves on the peaks of on to Mt. Kenya, their highest attempt to that point. Len’s most recent climbing adventure took him to three mountains in South America: Cayambe, Cotapaxi and Chimaborazo. He reached the summits of all of these mountains except for Chimborazo. Once again, weather conditions compelled the climbers to cut short their adventure.

Len emphasizes that he is an ordinary guy, not a super-jock or extreme sports enthusiast. His simple message is that mountain climbing is something for which average people can prepare and at which they can succeed. He also emphasizes that the challenges of preparing for and enduring the climbs had beneficial effects on his character. The lessons he learned about his own physical, mental, emotional and psychological limits, the natural world and the ways in which groups take care of their members are lessons that have carried over into his everyday suburban life.

Throughout the book, Len discusses such mundane issues as blisters, altitude sickness, climbing techniques, equipment maintenance and menu planning. He also emphasizes the wisdom of always working with professional guides and travel agencies to plan and complete expeditions. He includes interesting historical and cultural tidbits about the places he visited and several dozen photos taken during the expeditions. I found the chapters about Africa and South America much more engaging than the earlier ones about the USA and Europe. It’s possible that Len simply took better notes as time passed. My impression, however, is that the extra details may have been due to enhanced sensitivity to regions with which he was completely unfamiliar before his climbs. In contrast, he had spent much time in the USA (of course) and Europe apart from his climbing adventures. Possibly, this familiarity led him to pay less attention to their unique cultural features. This is not to say that his descriptions of the beauties and attractions of Wyoming and France are lackluster. But the records of his observations and impressions in those areas differ from, and are less intriguing than, his accounts of Africa and South America.

Overall, Distant Peaks is an enjoyable read that should appeal to enthusiasts of climbing and other outdoor adventures.

Quickie Comment - The Canon

Author: Natalie Angier
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin
ISBN: 10: 0618242953; 13: 978-0618242955

I've finally finished plowing my way through The Canon. I purchased it a couple of weeks ago because I wanted to get a nice lay person’s overview of the current state of scientific research. Angier more or less provided that, but there were many points at which cutting through her dense verbiage to get to the substance of her material was akin to hacking through Amazonian jungle with a butter knife. Throughout the book, Angier seemed to pay more attention to being clever than to being clear.

To be fair, several sections of the book were very well done. Her chapters on thinking scientifically, probability and statistics, and evolutionary biology were engaging. If these are the only chapters you read, you will come away satisfied. When Angier forgoes verbal gymnastics and actually explains complex concepts in accessible ways, as she does most consistently in these sections, she excels. Unfortunately, throughout much of the rest of the book, she frequently forgoes accessible explanation in favor of witty wordplay. By the time I got to the final two chapters on geology and astronomy, my eyes were glazing over and my attention was fading quickly. I was tired of her cute metaphors. I was tired of her rude jabs at religion, jabs that neither enhanced nor advanced her arguments. And I was tired of the verbosity by which she relentlessly insisted on using a dozen multi-syllabic terms to express things that could have been stated in a half dozen short, plain words.

Natalie Angier is an intelligent science journalist who has a way with words. Unfortunately, as she demonstrates in The Canon, verbal skills and communicative skills are not necessarily equivalent or interchangeable. If you want to read an accessible book that covers much of the same ground as The Canon, do yourself a favor and buy Bill Bryson’s, A Short History of Nearly Everything instead of Angier’s book. Bryson’s book is nearly twice as long as Angier's, but you’ll only spend half as much time reading it. Bryson demonstrates, in a welcome contrast with Angier, that directness and clarity are always the trump cards in the communications game.

Book Review - Sinking the Ship of State

Author: Walter M. Brasch
Publisher: BookSurge Publishing
ISBN: 978-1-4196-6950-7

Walter M. Brasch, a professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, has followed George W. Bush’s career from his first presidential campaign in 2000 until the present day. Brasch has listened to the president’s speeches, observed his policy formation and political appointment processes, and been dumbfounded by the press’s widespread refusal, until recently, to criticize the president, his policies and his politics. Unlike many of his journalistic peers, Brasch has asked tough questions about George W. Bush for nearly a decade. Sinking the Ship of State is the impressive (and, at 436 pages, bulky) compendium of Brasch’s news and journal articles about the Bush campaigns and subsequent administrations from February 2000 through April 2007. These articles also contain stern words for news media that, through their superficial coverage of campaign politics and presidential pronouncements and policies, have been complicit in the many blunders of the Bush presidency.

The book, which is arranged chronologically, opens with pieces that chronicle the presidential campaign of 2000. Brasch skewers pundits who pretend that speculations regarding candidates’ primary rankings and their prospects for gaining ground in the next round of the race are more newsworthy than examination of candidates’ policy positions and promises. Also missing are examinations of what candidates’ campaign tactics may reveal about their characters. Brasch countered this tendency with his own insightful observations of such items throughout the 2000 and 2004 campaigns and elections.

Brasch’s analyses proceed through the disasters of 9-11, the Patriot Act and other un-Constitutional legislation, the selling and maintenance of an illegitimate war, irresponsible energy and environmental policies, domestic spying, failure to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 and 2006 elections and the accountability that was finally imposed upon the administration by the Democratic Congressional majority that was elected last year. Since that time, new revelations of the incompetence and political corruption of administrative branch departments have forced the Bush administration to assume a defensive posture that had not been compelled by either a complicit Republican Congress or a complacent national press for the previous six years.

Interspersed with the news accounts are updates regarding subsequent developments of the issues at hand. For example, one of Brasch’s articles, published in November 2005, about the Scooter Libby trial, is supplemented by an addendum describing President Bush’s 2007 commutation of Libby’s prison sentence. Such addendums helpfully remind readers of the ongoing nature of the events discussed throughout the book.

Political junkies will likely enjoy this book, which is a good summary of one writer’s view of a critical period in American history. I only wish that the author had included a subject index. One of the most appealing aspects of the book is the fact that it aggregates a series of “real-time” documents and lays them side-by-side, or end-to-end, as the case may be. It is fascinating to step back in time and relive events as they unfolded and to watch, with the benefit of hindsight, one man’s views as they form(ed). The dual nature of such a reading is engaging and thought provoking. Brasch’s writing is, in turns, witty, enraged, heartfelt and uncannily accurate and prescient. As Americans stand poised on the brink of yet another presidential election, Sinking the Ship of State offers insights into what can be expected in the coming campaigns. More importantly, it reminds us of the errors of our recent past, thereby giving us a tool by which we can begin shaping a better political future for our country. It is a timely book that deserves, perhaps even demands, a wide readership.