Books

Just finished You Suck: A Love Story by a favorite author of mine, Christopher Moore. This was a follow up to his Bloodsucking Fiends which I also liked. However, Michelle found his other books to be much better.

I particularly loved this book as portions are written from the perspective of a high school angsty goth teen in San Fran (via diary entries). Witness:

OMFG-W00T! I have failed, left my duty undone, like so much dog poop on the gloaming sidewalk of the tragedy that is my life. Even as I sit here at the Metreon Starbucks, writing, the froth slaves seem to move like silver-eyed zombies and my nonfat, soy, Ameretto Mochaccino has gone as bitter snake bile.

It gets better.

After spending most of my recent reading time learning and reading magazines, I finally jumped back into fiction while on vacation. The book Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter inspired the movie Shooter with Mark Wahlberg. I loved both. Good, smart action.

The adaption was true to the book - and it was modernized quite well given it was written before 9/11, when everything supposedly changed. This was my first Stephen Hunter book but I think I'll be reading more. In particular, my friend Neil had recommended one with the provocative title Dirty White Boys.

Damon Linker's "The Idolatry of America" in the 23 April, 2008 The New Republic stunned me with a revelation I never considered. The rest of the article is interesting, but I have to first emphasize this:

Marsh makes his point with alarming ease, noting in one of his later chapters that although polls in early 2003 showed that an astonishing 87 percent of white evangelical Christians in the United States supported Bush's invasion of Iraq, "Christian leaders around the world--evangelical, orthodox, and liberal" expressed "dismay over the administration's case [for war]." Marsh quotes, to great effect, twenty-five of these critical statements, written by the leaders of Christian organizations from every corner of the globe, most of which the majority of American evangelicals have undoubtedly never seen or read. Regardless of one's position on the war, these pages of Marsh's book make a powerful and important point about the American evangelical difference: either the United States contains the only Christians capable of recognizing the fundamental compatibility between the moral message of Christianity and George W. Bush's foreign policy--or else evangelicalism in America has transformed itself into Republican Party propaganda.

The article is a review of Charles Marsh's Wayward Christian Soldiers: Freeing the Gospel from the Political Captivity. It raises many points I have considered and occasionally ranted about - one of which is whether the "conservative Christians" are capable of loving the Constitution and placing it first in their lives. Their very religion tells them not to.

Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, warned often against "the idolatry of America"--teach Christians that however much they may love their terrestrial homes, their families as well as their political communities, their true home lies elsewhere, in the next life, in eternal unity with Jesus Christ. They must always remember, in other words, that love for God comes first, conditioning, ordering, and limiting the scope and intensity of their other loves. For a devout Christian, then, patriotism can never be uncomplicated, never wholehearted.

I had never considered using the term "idolatry" though. I think it fits - especially when you consider the way these supposedly Christians prostrate themselves upon patriotic themes. Consider who Robertson was serving when he called for killing Chavez, Venezuela's President. Was he serving his God, or the geopolitical interests of his country? He might claim they coincide nicely, but let's ask some non-U.S. Christians to evaluate that argument.

Jeffrey Sachs was on the Diane Rehm Show (download mp3 file for your computer or personal listening device - 51 minutes).

The interview is well worth listening to. He addresses many of the world's problems and gets several difficult questions. I was impressed and will be looking for that book. In particular, I liked the way he talked about issues dealing with the Middle East and the way too many people blame Islam for the anger and violence there.

However, I had a lightbulb explode during a discussion that mentioned religion. One of the reasons I am horrified by the creationist attacks on science and why I strongly believe science must be taught to all students is because it guides how you respond to problems.

We face many problems in our future and Sachs rightly noted we need to use science to figure them out and solve them. I had this thought about a creationist response to problems: prayer. Imagine how many would still be killed and maimed annually if we used prayer rather than science to solve polio.

I have no problem with prayer - in fact, I believe it can be a force for good by reminding us of our interconnection and the need to care for others - but I do have a problem with a reliance upon it. Pray if you want, but act as well. Fortune favors the bold, eh?

This is a big deal because a stupid new documentary is coming out called Expelled and it makes a bunch of ludicrous allegations regarding supposedly persecuted creationists. Let's not forget that we are not telling them they cannot teach creationism, just that they cannot teach it in science class. Meanwhile, they are trying to bar science from science class.

At any rate, there is a funny story about the preview for this movie and who they let in to see it. For those who do not know, PZ Myers is a science blogger who rails against creationist attacks on science. I used to read him, but he posted too frequently and I gave up ... though I loved it when I followed it.

A hilarious, if barely far-fetched, romp through a modern company. I loved his previous book, Jennifer Government, which I had hoped was going to be made into a movie.

In Company, the protagonist is the newest hire in marketing for a large company. But no one appears to know what the company does - other than live in fear of "Senior Management." Senior Management is constantly reorganizing things.

At one point, sales reps are scrambling to convince their customers to order fewer products because they are afraid one rep got sacked for making too many commissions.

At Zephyr Holdings, no one has ever seen the CEO. The beautiful receptionist is paid twice as much as anybody else, but does no apparent work. One of the sales reps uses relationship books as sales manuals, and another is on the warpath because somebody stole his donut.

Quite a few laugh-out-loud moments. You need a break from a frustrating job? Read this puppy.

From Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen

If you're like most people, you think of yourself as having been born. But if you look at this notion carefully, you'll see that you have no immediate experience of having come into existence at all. Trace it back. Follow your memory. Do you remember coming into existence?

Of course you didn't begin at birth -- but when did you begin? At conception? When, exactly does conception take place? When the sperm first finds the egg?

But what about that sperm and egg? When did they begin? With your parents? And when did they begin? And their parents before them?

The truth is that you can't find "coming into being" as an event in actual experience. Everything involves what came before in its identity. It's dependent on earlier conditions which, in turn, are dependent on earlier conditions still, and so on as far back as we can trace or imagine. In other words, there's something very odd and contradictory and unsettling about this concept of "coming into being."

This book changed my life several years ago when I first read it. I started reading it on a roadtrip with Adam and was only a few chapters in when I dislocated my left knee for the second time, one or two games after returning from months of rehab from doing it the first time. Without the lessons of this book - without having learned to see the world in a different way - I would have been crushed.

I cannot recommend this book to others strongly enough. It is not about becoming a Buddhist (I am not one) - it is about seeing the world differently. It is about having a healthy mind. Read it and don't worry about the friggin cow on page 28 - most of us cannot see it. If not seeing the cow stops you from reading the book, you REALLY need to read the damn book.

I was janking around on IMDB the other day (Internet Movie Database, and no, I don't think janking is really a word, but I liked the sound of it) and I saw that Steven Soderbergh has a new project that goes by the name of "Jennifer Government."

I read the Max Barry book a few years ago and found it quite delightful. Looks like he has a Jennifer Government webpage and the book has its very own wikipedia entry.

It looks like it is fairly early in production but I'm looking forward to it. Put the book on your reading list before it is spoiled by the movie!

I was assigned Children at War by P.W. Singer for a class in October and did not expect to get into it. Yeah, poor little kids, fighting wars in Africa. Life sucks. How many of us are capable of reacting much differently? Our ability to care about problems in Africa is greatly surpassed by our ignorance of the continent.

Therefore, I was rather surprised at an engaging account of how children are forced into these conflicts, what it does to them, and the difficulties in stemming the tide. I was immediately drawn in when Singer discussed the technological aspects of child soldiers.

Historically, children were considered off limits in combat because they were our future and they could not operate weapons. Kids with clubs? Kids with bows? Swords? Muskets even? AK-47s? Yeah. Out of all of those, it was the automatic weapon that allowed kids to become soldiers. They can use guns.

Kids also have the advantage of not requiring money to fight. You want to draft adults into your militia? It is far easy to convince/coerce/force kids to fight for your cause than other adults. They are cheap. In areas with a lot of child soldiers, they are also plentiful. If they weren't, those areas wouldn't be known for child soldiers... This is circular logic, but true.

Many of the children have only known difficulty. They have suffered incredible pain and may not have any family. If they do have family, once they have been involved with a militia, they may be ashamed to return to the family because they have participated in atrocities. Despite the fact that they were forced or tricked into it, we all know how easy it is to make children blame themselves for actions that they should not be held responsible for (because there are countless movies that dwell on it, not because I am a sicko).

The problem itself is circular. Recently, I seem to remember reading that the Bush Administration has loosened restrictions on immigration for those who participated in such atrocities when they were forced to do it. This is difficult to ascertain, but we cannot refuse refuge to those who have been forced to commit atrocities.

This is a step forward, but the U.S. hasn't even started baby steps toward solving this problem. While the U.S. likes to claim it gives more foreign aid than any other government, it gives less as a percentage of GDP (measure of economic productivity) than any other industrialized country. Even then, the "aid" that we give is designed to benefit us as well. 70% of U.S. aid is spent on U.S. goods and services. Hardly the altruistic leader of the world.

The book was an eye opener. If you want to understand this problem, check it out. As with many problems, the solution often lies with education and development. The solutions are there, but it mostly means we have to act less selfishly and have compassion for others.

Kurt Vonnegut died today. Long live Kurt Vonnegut! He was on the Daily Show two years ago, you should watch that clip.

My favorite Vonnegut book was undoubtedly Timequake, probably followed by Galapagos. Breakfast of Champions was fun too, but odd. I remember being glad I read Slaughterhouse 5, but little else about it.

This is a discussion of Mark Leonard's book, "Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century." It comes after the United Arab Emirates announced they are converting their foreign-currency holdings from 2% Euros to 10% Euros. I expect to see more countries turning away from the dollar and to the Euro over the next couple of years.

I have long been skeptical of Europe's government policies in general. Though everyone craves job security, I think it is distinctly possible that Europe's labor friendly policies have hurt their economy and its ability to innovate. I had not read anything that seriously challenged my views of Europe until I read this book. It challenged many of my assumptions. That being said, I don't plan to investigate much further because I would have to learn more economics and I'm not going down that path just now.

Many have argued that the U.S. economy has been growing much faster than Europe's. Mark Leonard challenges this claim.

The truth is that this overall figure hides the fact that the growth in the US economy has been driven by a growing population rather than better economic performance. Population growth in the USA in the 1990s average 1.2 per cent a year compared with 0.5 per cent a year in the eurozone. This means that if you look at the average GDP per person, the US growth collapses to 2.1 per cent, narrowing the gap between the two continents to just 0.3 per cent. What is more, the EU's underperformance can b e explained by a single country, Germany, which has been struggling with the costs re-unification. This may be cheating, but if you take Germany out of the calculations, the gap between Europe and America actually disappeared, leaving Europe and the USA with identical figures.

Additionally, the numbers hide many important issues that impact the final tallies. U.S. economic indicators have some advantages due to fundamental differences between our societies.

• Cars rather than public transport: for example, Americans must buy cars because public transport is so lousy. The value of the cars is calculated in American GDP, but European public-transport systems are counted not at their value to passengers but as a cost to the government.
• The social costs of inequality. For example, Americans keep two million of their fellow citizens in jail: the cost of building the prisons and paying the jailers is also included in the GDP.
• Air conditioning and heating. America's more extreme climate - colder winters (save in Florida and California) and hotter summers (save in Washington, Oregon, and California) - means it must spend more on heating and cooling.

If you add all these 'sunk costs' into the mix, Gordon argues that although Western Europeans only work three-quarters as much as Americans, they get ninety per cent of the return, coupled with far more equal income distributions and lower poverty rates.

We read this book for a class I took and many argued that Europe simply cannot pass the U.S. As I listened the discussion, I pictured a similar debate in previous empires. Let's temporarily ignore the baggage with the word empire and focus on the fact that the U.S. is the strongest state in the world.

Will another state (or collection of states such as the European Union) surpass us? Is that how it usually works? Or does history suggest that the U.S. will encounter serious problems and fall behind the EU? Doesn't history suggest that when the second strongest state (or confederation) becomes the strongest not when they suddenly achieve greatness, but when the most powerful state screws up? In this situation, the second strongest state actually inherits the preeminent position rather than earning it.

Thus, I find the prospect of an EU dominated century a possibility. Especially with Americans that elect Bush to two terms and a Congress that remains cowed by the Executive Branch (less so than last year though I hope). I don't think China is interested in being a world power, they remain focused on regional issues.

The EU also has some good stuff going for it. Its economy is integrated and if you want to deal with them, you need to adhere to their rules. This is the essence of their power. Often called soft power, other states voluntarily make the changes the EU agrees upon without being forced to merely because they want to work with the EU.

This sortof leads me into my favorite quote from the book. It explains the power of the EU in ways that the U.S. cannot understand due to its reliance on force and threat. Such tactics follow naturally from a traditional understanding of how the world works. That understanding is incorrect.

The classical definition of a state is a body with a monopoly on legitimate force. ...

But Foucault shows us that this image of domestic politics is wrong. The real reason that societies do not collapse into chaos is that their citizens do not want them to. Order is not produced through hierarchy, but because a majority of people have a stake in preserving order. That is why people internalize the rules and police themselves. The key to order, therefore, is co-opting people - or countries, for that matter -- to uphold the rules themselves, rather than coercing them into submission.

This is also why we do not need religion to have morals.