It's Fundamental

If you want good summer reading...

2007-05-30T13:24:00.000+03:00

I've been meaning for too long to do a review of two of my favorite authors. The problem has been that every time I start I start going through each and every book they've written, the post gets too long, and I have to go make dinner. I am working on them and will post them sometime in the coming weeks. In the meantime, go pick up anything by Guy Gavriel Kay (except the Fionavar Tapestry books, I just never got into those) and absolutely anything by Neal Stephenson. Kay moves faster, Stephenson is deeper, and either will put you into one of those "oh-my-goodness-I've-been-reading-for-four-hours-and-didn't-even-notice" type trances. I went on a cruise down Carribbean way and spent the whole time (minus half a day for visiting Mayan ruins) reading two Stephenson books, and counted it time very well spent.

I Just Love Baseball

2007-04-17T11:46:00.000+03:00

So my girlfriend asks me the other night "How do you calculate games back in the baseball standings?" I give the standard, "well, if they've played the same number of games you just subtract the lower ranked team's win total from that of the higher ranked team" answer. Then, feeling smart and ready to flex my sports-fan chops, I started giving basic guidelines for determining the answer when the teams have played different numbers of games. It worked great, she accepted the answer and I got to move on and lay out the infield fly rule next.

Fast forward to this morning.

I'm looking at the standings after the O's comeback win in Tampa last night and something is nagging at me. It's not the standings themselves: "Baltimore" is above "NY Yankees" so all is right with the force there. I look around a bit and realize that the subconcious calculator and fact-checker is sending up chi-squared signals as it can't justify some of the "GB" (games back) numbers in the standings. See, there's been some kooky weather going around the Midwest and up the East Coast and a lot of teams have missed a lot of games. Two and a half weeks into the season and we have some remarkable games played deltas going on. Take a look at the AL Central where as of this morning, Cleveland is in first place with a 6-3 mark in 9 games played. Kansas City is sporting a 3-10 record in last place after 13 games played (and they were just rained out in Charm City on Sunday preventing the O's from going for a 4-game sweep)(Heh). Between those two bookends are Detroit (8-5), Minnesota (7-5) and the ChiSox (5-6) who have played 13, 12 and 11 games respectively. Despite the games played differential, the Indians and their 66.7% win rate are tied for first place with the Tigers and their 61.5% win rate. Again: the Tigers have a winning percentage 5.2% behind the Indians and yet are zero games behind in the standings. The mental alarm was going nuts for a good reason: I suddenly couldn't figure out the GB situation.

Now, I've been certain that I know how to do this calculation for years, decades even. I add in the half games here and subtract the losses there and I always came up with a good number. Well, almost always, I actually remember (after some soul-searching) just shrugging, blaming lack of coffee, and moving on to the box scores without a second thought when I've failed to produce a mental GB number to match the newspaper standings in prior seasons. It seems that I've been deluding myself, lying to myself, claiming credit for a skill I distinctly lack. I'm shattered, to be honest, and can't live with the situation. I need an answer, I need to retroactively fix this. To the interwebs!

My first find was a blag called Reinke Faces Life. This authoritative looking source showed me why I couldn't do this calculation mentally when it gave the answer (courtesy of the University of Toronto Mathematics Department) as: GB=-(w+L)/2 + √((w+L)^2 – 4wL + 4Wl/2). I'm good at math, really I am, but I don't solve modified quadratic equations in my head. I just don't. Of course, this makes me feel better about getting close but not quite right on my calculations earlier: that's hard stuff, not something I can be expected to do like some sort of particularly geeky party trick, particularly as the answer is completely useless for my fantasy team(s).

Relieved I sit back, relax, and curse as the mental alarm goes off again. I'd let my guard down and looked at the AL West (curse you, AL West! You produce things like 10:30pm EST first-pitches, a team named "the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" and A-Rod!). Seattle is in first with a 5-3 mark in 8 games (yeah, 8). Texas at 5-7 is in last (behind the LAAofA and Oakland, both at 6-7). A microsecond before glancing at the GB column my stupid brain reported that the LAAofA and the A's are 1.5 games back and Texas is 2 games back. I laughed ruefully at my presumption and looked at the actual numbers on ESPN.

They matched.

Now I know that I didn't run two quadratics in my head in less than a second without trying. Suddenly, in a flash of intuitive brilliance, it hit me: those damn Canucks screwed me! They're sitting around their University of Toronto Math Lab Bar and Grille giggling insanely and drinking Molson as I blindly accept their bloody complicated quadratic formula instead of the less complicated (and, coincidently, accurate) GB = ((WinsA-WinsB) + (LossesB-LossesA)) / 2. Yeah, that's it, two bits of substraction, one little addition, and then halve the product. Easily done by the subconcious. Just what I've been doing for decades without ever thinking about it. Stupid Sparky...

Lessons learned:
1. Don't trust people from Toronto or those who choose to live there;
2. Don't trust blags or the interweb without fact-checking every damn thing first;
3. Do trust my intuition and wait until coffee before wallowing in self-doubt;
4. The Yankees are in fourth place regardless of which formula you use, and that's always a good thing.

Editorial Rhetoric

2007-02-27T18:08:00.000+02:00

It’s time for a break from books and a slide into the editorial pages of the nations great (and not-so great) newspapers. The Washington Post recently began publishing a remarkably useful tool for newshounds such as myself. They’ve got a new blog by the name of The Editorialist, put together by a fella named Rob Anderson. He goes around and collects links and quick summaries of editorials/columns from the papers, then puts ‘em all in one place, sorted by topic. Updated at least once a day, I’m loving it!

Today he linked to an editorial piece in the Salt Lake Tribune. Titled Simple reform: Flat income tax rate likely would favor the wealthy, this piece discusses the likelihood of the Utah legislature passing a flat income tax rate to replace the “progressive” rate currently in place. It is rather typical of editorials on this topic and, unfortunately, displays a very clear bias on the issue and uses sneaky arguments to make the point. It begins:

“The Legislature seems to be headed toward an income-tax "reform" that would replace the system of deductions and individual exemptions with one of credits based on federal filing status or itemized deductions and personal exemptions. It also would impose a flat 5 percent tax rate. At this writing, that's about all we know. But philosophically, it's enough.”

Now it could be just me, but it seems like one would be better off learning all the details about something as notoriously complex as tax policy before going on the record with specific criticisms. In addition, stating that you don’t need to know the facts because your argument rests solely on “philosophical” merit strikes me as a different way of saying that you’ve got nothing but hot air behind it (particularly since the philosophy in question is never laid out). I’m all in favor of philosophical arguments and justifications but prefer those that operate hand-in-hand with reality rather than independently thereof. I guess what I’m trying to say is, no, that’s not “enough”, “philosophically” or otherwise. That statement, that “But philosophically, it’s enough” statement states quite simply that the editor(s) who wrote this cannot conceive of any justification for a flat tax on incomes and that any details of the plan are irrelevant in the face of a philosophical objection. Sorry, guys, but that’s just not the way things work.

The authors didn’t lay out their philosophy, but even this short editorial has enough snide remarks and implications to allow speculation. Take, for example, this one: “Any system that imposes a flat tax rate is likely to favor the wealthiest taxpayers.” It’s interesting that, despite the assertion that “philosophically, it’s enough”, the editors choose to caveat their disapproval with the weak “is likely to” here. The opening paragraph is supposed to be hard-hitting and to attract interest, sure, but it shouldn’t assert facts that later statements like this deny. As for the statement’s substance (such as it is), here we have an example of an appeal to justice, a kind of logical fallacy. The editors provide no evidence that a flat tax will favor “the rich,” they simply assert it and hope that no one challenges them. A flat tax may be less expensive for “the rich” than the current system (I won’t speak to this until I see the details of the plan) but one could make a very valid argument that the “progressive tax” favors those in the lowest tax brackets. Is it a favor to “the rich” to try and create a tax code that favors no group?

The editors follow that one up with this bit of rhetorical slight of hand: “The U.S. economy is concentrating ever more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. That would suggest that a disinterested policymaker would make the tax system more progressive, not less.” Translation: “only someone with an unfair bias or a terminal case of stupidity could disagree with a ‘progressive’ tax system.” They don’t say why the relative concentrations of wealth are a good or bad thing nor why someone with nothing to gain or lose would favor an even more “progressive” system, they just present a reference to some statistics, then use this to somehow prove that the world ought to be different. The editors believe very strongly in “progressive” tax rates, we can see that clearly. They don’t, however, clearly make a logical case for their moralizations.

Just wait, there’s more: “Gov. Jon Huntsman and his legislative allies call this tax "reform" because it will be simpler and because they say it will encourage economic development...simplicity and equity are not the same thing. The rich man can more easily afford to pay 7 percent on his second $100,000 than the poor man can afford to pay 5 percent on his second $10,000.” Last I checked, equity has more to do with impartiality than it does with social engineering. The editors have, in this one little bit, tried to ridicule the idea that the legislature is working towards reform by putting it in quotation marks, and used extreme examples and generalizations to create an emotional basis for opposing the flat tax proposal. We can argue over whether or not a tax code that encourages economic development and is easy for citizens to understand would be a reform, but not until we have the full set of facts. Their concept of “rich” may need some fine-tuning, too. I just learned that undergraduate tuition at George Washington University is over $30,000 per year (not counting room, board and fees). A “rich” household making $150,000/year with two or three kids in school might very well find that extra 2% tax rate much more onerous than a single high-school dropout making $20,000/year while living in her parents’ basement. Statements like these add nothing to the public discourse on the topic of taxation policy. They muddy the waters, stir up emotions, disguise facts and nuance, and encourage others to fabricate arguments out of thin air. Not what I’d want from my newspaper editors, that’s for sure.

One more doozy before I sign off: “Besides, an educated work force or infrastructure or quality of life are probably more important to most businesses than the tax rate.” There we go with the prevarications again (“probably”). So much for “it’s enough”, eh? I have no idea what business owners and managers find appealing, I admit it. I’m willing to bet, though, that so many businesses are incorporated in the great state of Delaware not because of the fabulous schools, wonderful scenery, regular maintenance of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and pristine air quality (despite I-95 and the NJ Turnpike), but rather because of favorable policies, tax and otherwise, set up by DE to attract them. I’d be curious to see what the Salt Lake Journal thinks of those.

“Nope, this looks like tax "reform" for the rich” they say in an editorial that looks like “propaganda for the masses.”

Up Late With The Night Watch

2007-02-15T17:54:00.000+02:00

Night Watch
By: Sergei Lukyanenko
Translation By: Andrew Bromfield
Publisher: Miramax Books (Hyperion)(2006)
ISBN: 1401359795

For once I’m writing about a book immediately after finishing (immediately, in this case, being three hours). The woman I adore picked this fun read up recently and recommended it to me. I devoured the 455-page book in two days as new English-language literature is scarce in Bucharest.

Night Watch is, first and foremost, a Russian novel. It’s a little sci-fi, mostly fantasy with some horror and a lot of mystery mixed in, but from start to finish it is very Russian. Lukyanenko fills the book with endless twists and turns, conspiracies, betrayal, and a grim expectation that everything will turn out adequately, maybe, but if it doesn’t, enh, that’s fate. Set in present-day Moscow, the novel follows the adventures of a mid-level operative of the local branch of the “Night Watch”, the forces of Light. Apparently creatures with supernatural powers unconsciously choose either Light or Dark as their powers manifest. For centuries the two camps opposed each other actively and fought long and bloody wars around the world for the right to shape the future of humankind. The conflict being too destructive, eventually the two sides signed an uneasy truce that regulates the behavior of all involved. Thus were formed the Night Watch (Good forces who patrol the world under cover of darkness, seeking out those who break the treaty), and the Day Watch (Evil, though self-centered may be a better description, forces who patrol the world by day, doing the same).

As black and white as the premise seems, Lukyanenko spends the whole novel (and presumably the two to follow) exploring the grey areas that exist even within that stark delineation of action and morality. This approach is nothing new: see George R.R. Martin, The Once and Future King, and countless other classics for other examinations of might vs. right, ends vs. means, and codes of conduct vs. reality. What Lukyanenko does well, however, is hint at grey areas that don’t exist but perhaps should. Despite the dark psychological questions in play, this is a thriller of a book and there are plenty of action scenes and stirring plot twists to keep the reader on his or her toes.

I enjoyed this book very much. It is quite readable and quick to get through, despite its density. It is broken down into three connected but distinct sections and story lines, preventing plot-fatigue and avoiding bogging down. My only real issue with it is that the plot twists and conspiracies, the complications that are the hallmark of Russian literature, didn’t grab me. They seemed to appear out of nowhere, to be revealed, analyzed, agonized over and resolved in 10 pages. By the third section it was just a matter of when the mysteries would appear, not if. I’m used to seeing these things hinted at throughout a book, allowing the drama, unease and suspense to build, but that just didn’t happen in this case. It is a shame as the book is extraordinarily well-suited for such tension, but not a critical flaw by any means.

Overall the book was fun and thought-provoking. It’s not the kind of thing to read on a cruise, but in you’re traveling or snowed in this month give it a shot and you won’t be disappointed. I’m actually guessing that the next volume in this trilogy will be even more interesting, but they haven’t been translated and released quite yet (Day Watch is scheduled for release on 21 March 2007 and Dusk Watch on 6 June 2007). I will grab copies as soon as I can, that you can bet on.

For another look at this book, visit “Simon’s Book Blog”, but be aware that he delves much further into the plot than I choose to.

Coming up (No, really, they are!):
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman

Technorati Tags: Book reviews book reviews Sparky reading Night Watch Sergei Lukyanenko Witting Russia

M-Dub Gonna Knit Ya

2007-02-06T09:40:00.000+02:00

The Knitting Answer Book
By: Margaret Radcliffe
Publisher: Storey Publishing (2005)
ISBN: 1580175996 (paperback: alk. paper)

Truth in advertising exists! The sub-title to The Knitting Answer Book reads: “Solutions to Every Problem You’ll Ever Face. Answers to Every Question You’ll Ever Ask.” I can’t speak to the future, but in my (admittedly very limited) past experience with hand-knitting, Margaret Radcliffe’s Answer Book did indeed answer every question I asked and sorted me through every problem I faced. Even better, I was able to consult it: in Bucharest, in the basement at my Dad’s house at 0200 hrs, all over my Mom’s house at all hours of the day and night, while sitting in the Red Carpet Club at the C Gates at Dulles, repeatedly through an IAD-MUC flight on United, and at countless other times over the last year or so. The point being, of course, that this little tome is eminently portable, even for a guy who doesn’t carry a dedicated knitting bag or purse. It lived very happily in the outer pockets of my backpack and jacket with no fuss. Roughly the length and width of my hand and weighing in at about 14 ounces, the book is pint-sized technical support for a knitter.

Now, I’m not a knitter. I’ve knit one complete project and will probably do a few more just ‘cause it’s relaxing and productive and because the woman I adore is rather into the whole yarn and needles thing. I still look at her rubbing some sticks together with string mixed in, see something useful emerge, and consider it a moderately benign form of black magic. That’s why The Knitting Answer Book has been such a find. It covers, clearly and concisely, all the basics of the craft. The illustrations leave little room for confusion and the text is light yet substantive.

For example: I needed to figure out which cast-on to use and…OK, let’s start at the absolute beginning. I needed to figure out what ‘CO 64, join in rnd’ might refer to. I looked it up, nodded sagely, picked up the needles and yarn, looked at them, set them down, picked up the book again and looked up “Casting On”. I then read the section, nodded sagely, set it down, picked up the needles and yarn, looked at them, set them down, picked up the book again and looked up “best cast-on for socks”. Read, nodded sagely, picked up needles/yarn, wrapped yarn around left hand, wiggled stick with right, paused regularly to count, cursed periodically, eventually reached 64, realized that while I had a nice long-tail cast-on (looked it up again to verify, nodded sagely), it did not appear to be “in rnd”. Looked up “rnd”, then “round”, then “casting-on in the round”, then “joining cast-ons”, read all of the above, nodded sagely, set down book, fetched aspirin to soothe soreness in neck from excessive nodding, picked up sticks and string, and joined the ends of my long-tail cast-on into a circle. Looked up “celebrating victory”, found no suggestions, decided my confidence level was high enough at this point to improvise, took two shots of Jack Daniels, grilled steak over coal, ate said steak, sat down again, picked up needles and string, realized I had several hundred rows to go just for the first sock, along with such mysterious procedures as “instep gussets”, “heel flaps” and “toe decreases”. Counted toes, realized I didn’t have enough to handle all the decreases that the pattern called for and looked up “using black magic to conserve body parts”. After a long session of reading, I pretty much determined that knitting is straightforward if you follow directions, don’t worry about Satanic influences too much, and don’t consume Jack Daniels early in the process. I also learned that there are two camps of knitters, English and Continental, whose relationship is roughly reminiscent of the East Coast and West Coast rap clans. Bought gun, renamed self “M-Dub” for increased street cred, and eventually knit two rather nice wool socks. Word.

Answers were available to the most basic and, eventually, more advanced questions I came up with. They were well-indexed, laid out in a sensible manner, and made sense even to a beer-guzzling, fumble-fingered lunkhead like me. When I ran into problems (read: badly screwed up and didn’t notice at the time), the book helped me solve them. When I didn’t have the right tools, it helped me improvise. It was a life-saver and is, in large part, responsible for the successful completion of my project. I strongly recommend it for starting and intermediate knitters, as well as advanced ones who like a little reassurance. Portable, inexpensive and oh-so-comprehensive, this book is a winner.

Coming up:
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The Knitting Answer Book Margaret Radcliffe Witting Knitting 4-ply Katie

The God Delusion

2007-02-05T15:13:00.000+02:00

The God Delusion
By: Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin (2006)
ISBN: 0618680004 (hardcover)

I find it somewhat apt that my first review after a long and not entirely voluntary hiatus is one of the most divisive works of the last several years. I’m jumping back into the water (thanks to a gentle prod from my new favorite reader), but seem to have chosen the shark tank to re-acclimatize in. I would request that you read on, even if you are predisposed to deep-six this book at first sight. Regardless of your beliefs, the arguments in the book are worth reading, pondering, and systematically accepting or refuting as you are able. Beliefs are strengthened and tempered through discussion and debate, not by avoiding alternatives due to strength of conviction or unwillingness to be disturbed. My bottom line, here offered up front, is that this book is well worth buying and reading for anyone, anywhere, any time. ‘Nuf said.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, was already well-known for his writings on evolution, secularism and humanism, particularly The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins states that The God Delusion is an attempt to move beyond simply making the case for evolution, for science, for reason into the realm of proselytizing for atheism. Make no mistake: this book is written for the purpose of converting the reader. It is also written, I suspect, in such a way as to provoke strong reactions, generate controversy, and attract media attention and visibility as a result. These characteristics are by no means faults, in my mind, and do lend a certain ‘readability’ to what would likely be a dry, pedantic tome if written by anyone other than Dawkins. I do not intend to address the validity of Dawkins’ beliefs and arguments as a whole, though I will comment when I see interesting or problematic points. Suffice it to say that I favor a rational, scientific approach to all questions and believe that Western societies have long prevented such a public discussion on issues pertaining to God and His/Her/Its existence. That said, on to the book!

You will not be bored reading this book, I can offer a 100% guarantee on that. You may spend much of your time in the throes of righteous indignation, in self-congratulatory back-patting, in increasingly deep thought, or even in confusion, but you will not be bored.

Dawkins begins with a powerful first chapter. He clearly distinguishes between theists (those who believe in a supernatural power that takes a hand in human affairs), deists (those who believe in a supernatural power unconcerned with human affairs), pantheists (those who use “God” as a synonym for the laws of Nature or the Universe), and atheists (those who do not believe in God). Dawkins shows a great deal of respect for the latter two categories, and dedicates most of this book to refuting the first two. In what is one of the fundamental memes of this book, he quotes Albert Einstein as saying: “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever…I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. That is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.” Regarding the deists and theists, Dawkins again reveals his intent and quotes H.L. Mencken: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Religious belief does not mean theism. Religious views deserve no more and no less respect than views on any other subject.

Dawkins says that he “shall not go out of [his] way to offend” which could be a true statement if one does not regard condescension and ‘rationaler’-than-thou speeches as being offensive. This attitude is what turns me off the most about the book. Dawkins is a brilliant man with very strong convictions, buttressed almost flawlessly with scientific, philosophical, statistical and logical proofs, and he is not reticent to point this out (over and over again). Even those who agree with him in part or in whole must get tired of the constant “I’m smarter than you” attitude found within the pages. The fact that Dawkins is brilliant and does tend to present flawless arguments only mitigates my irritation at being talked down to. After a few chapters, though, I guess I got used to it and even began laughing at it as I was never tempted to set the book down.

The remainder of the book is laid out in a logical and straightforward manner. Dawkins lays out the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and in its many variations. He examines the arguments that support the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and the various disciplines. He then proceeds to refute those arguments in a chapter charmingly titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” (and before you accuse him of prevarication for the “Almost”, he justifies that choice of words both in context of his arguments and of logic). Having basically covered the argument/counter-argument portion of the book, Dawkins takes a fascinating look at the basis of religion and morality, psychologically, spiritually, and as a function of environment and evolution. This section is very impressive in my mind, presenting a consolidated series of arguments I was unfamiliar with and weaving them into the whole subject of the book. This is the end of the arguments about the logical underpinnings of God and deism/theism.

With Chapter 7, Dawkins really strays from the “shall not strive to offend” statement above. In provocative, strident language he delves into the perceived hypocrisy over most mainstream religion, particularly the notions of God changing with the times and church determination of which parts of the Bible are fact or fiction, parable or law, outmoded or still applicable. Chapter 8 is his answer to the questions “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” and you’d better believe that he justifies his hostility as thoroughly as he justifies any of his other arguments. Chapter 9 delves into the links, real and perceived, between religion (including both cults and mainstream branches) and the psychological/physical/emotional/intellectual abuse of children. None of these three chapters are likely to please even the casual-churchgoer, so if you don’t feel like facing a wave of hostility, then feel free to skip from the end of Chapter 6 to the last chapter.

Chapter 10 offers a provocative look at what roles religion fills in human society, and whether it is valuable for that purpose regardless of the rationality of religious belief. In his words, Dawkins tries to figure out if religion “fills a much needed gap” in the world. His thoughts are not quite what one would expect and are worth reading.

In the end The God Delusion is a highly provocative and confrontational piece of work. It contains excellent arguments and is the most thought-provoking piece of non-fiction I’ve read in quite some time. It should end up on the must-read lists for anyone even vaguely interested in philosophy, theology, sociology, anthropology, or the current socio-political landscapes of the world.

Coming up:
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Knitting Answer Book by Margaret Radcliffe
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The God Delusion Richard Dawkins Witting Atheism Theology

What to read this summer?

2006-08-17T16:14:00.000+03:00

OK, so summer's almost over, but David Ignatius of the Washington Post asked that question of the readers and got a bunch of good answers, some that surprise me, and a couple I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Here's the Q&A, take a look! (Free Registration may be required)

Technorati Tags: Book reviews author reading WaPost Ignatius recs

The Active Roster as of 16 August 2006

2006-08-16T17:41:00.000+03:00

NEW ADDITIONS TO THE LIST

A Woman of Egypt
By: Jehan el Sadat
Publisher: Pocket (15 July 1990)
ISBN: 0671729969

The widow of former Egyptian Presiden Anwar Sadat wrote a compelling auto-biography detailing her life before, with, and after Sadat’s assassination. She is a strong, assertive woman and an advocate for women’s rights in Egypt and the greater Middle East. I read this book years ago and just swiped it off my dad’s shelves during my weekend visit in order to check it out again. I remember it being a moving and inspirational story. I’m not generally into those, so I’m not sure why I remember it so fondly, but I do.

Elementary Logic Revised Edition
By: Willard Van Orman Quine
Publisher: Harvard University Press (16 February 2005)
ISBN: 0674244516

The opposite of the “Introduction to Epistemology” below, this one jumps into excruciatingly complex language right off the bat, and the author seems to delight in using obscure or proaisic examples, further complicating the matter.

It is a book • It is educational • (I am reading slowly • I am reading the book)
~ I have complaints
~ (~ it is confusing • ~ it is fun)

I probably screwed that up, but I’m trying here!

STILL READING SINCE LAST TIME

The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism
By: Hernando de Soto and June Abbott

Still going strong on this one.

Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction
By: Robert Audi

Slower going lately as I haven’t been reliably doing my morning reading.

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading A Woman of Egypt Jehan Sadat Egypt Epistemology reading Hernando de Soto

(the general and) THE JAGUAR

2006-08-16T17:15:00.001+03:00

The General and The Jaguar
By: Eileen Welsome
Publisher: Little, Brown (2 June 2006)
ISBN: 0316715999

I finished this one up over the weekend, in much less time than I thought it would take. This entertaining history is quite a fast read, which can be good and/or bad. My straight up recommendation is to give this book a shot if you spot it at the store: if you’re a reader you can power through it on a trans-Atlantic flight or a weekend on the beach. Even if you don’t have much time, it’ll only take a week or so to digest if you can find an hour a day for it. Either way you’ll have fun and learn about a little known slice of American history, one that contains some intriguing parallels to what’s happening today in the world.

Eileen Welsome has the knack for turning history into a story, which is a good thing. She does this by introducing you to the figures involved, major and minor, through their own words from letters, diaries, interviews, books and such, which is a good thing. She avoids speculating about motives for the most part, and doesn’t give in to the urge to put thoughts in their heads or words in their mouths, which is a good thing. She goes into details of key events, never neglecting to include temporal and event context, which is good. She gives the story a broader context to play in as well, occasionally discussing the build up to the First War To End All Wars in Europe, which is both useful and good. In the end, Ms. Welsome has published a history both cogent and timely (I love that phrase), both educational and rather entertaining, which is obviously all to the good.

On the other hand…

Ms. Welsome devotes so much effort to introducing all the various personalities present in Columbus, NM before and during Pancho Villa’s inflammatory raid that a reader will rapidly be piled under the names of hotel guests, farmers, store owners, and cavalry officers, which is not a good thing. She gives us just enough backstory and follow-up on each of the personalities that I, for one, started to get interested in a number of them, but few receive the in-depth coverage I hoped to see given their introductions, which was not so good. She goes into great detail about environmental/social/political situations in camps, in town, in Mexico, for the Army, for Villa, but only once in a while, giving shapshots and not an evolving picture, which is not good. Overall she is prone to giving great detail about people, places, events, and environments at random times, then returning to her surface level story-telling for stretches, making for a very uneven understanding on the part of the reader, which is far from satisfying.

I would have liked to see less personal detail in some places, particularly with regards to victims of the raid and other bit players, in favor of more attention to the primary figures. Woodrow Wilson is a distant figure, but one who plays heavily in what happens. General Pershing doesn’t even appear until halfway through the book, despite his titular credit and photo on the dust jacket. Pancho Villa receives a romantic treatment in many ways (though Ms. Welsome does not shy away from reporting his dark side honestly and objectively) and is quite obviously the focus of the book. Her coverage of him, his actions and his impact on Mexico is comprhensive and should be duplicated for Pershing, at the very least.

The biggest gap, in my mind, is the post-Villa wrap-up. I didn’t get a feel for how this episode impacted the US or Mexico in the longer run (if it did). Ms. Welsome includes a “What Happened To Them?” section about many of the characters and the town of Columbus, a nice touch, but it is a very limited picture indeed.

In the end, this book suffers from a lack of depth but, to be honest, that lack is far from fatal. The book is eminently readable, objective, and focused. Would I like more from it? Sure. Am I fair in that request? Not entirely. Would I recommend it despite my personal irritation? Absolutely.

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The General and the Jaguar Eileen Welsome Bill and Olga Witting Pancho Villa

Away from home

2006-08-14T15:47:00.000+03:00

I'm up in NoVA to see my Dad and Olga off to the airport this afternoon.

In the meantime I finished up The General and The Jaguar on Saturday. General Pershing made his first appearance on page 164, just fyi. Look for more on this one later, and I'll try to figure out what to add to the Active Roster while I'm driving home this afternoon.

Editorial Cartoon Redux

2006-08-10T17:23:00.000+03:00

Seems like I'm not the only one lamenting the lack of originality in editorial cartoons. Rex Babin of the Sacramento Bee went ahead and turned his sketch pad on his fellow artists a couple of days ago. Way to go, Rex!

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Mel Sparky reading cartoons Babin editorial hezbollah

What's On Tap?

2006-08-08T22:08:00.000+03:00

I'm in a bit of a lull right now. I don't want to go through all of my favorite older books right off the bat, so I'm saving most of those for when work gets hectic and interferes with my reading outside of the restroom. I'll try and resist putting up any more books I've actually read before, at least for a week or so. Until then, I've got three going right now; two from the Big Shipment and one a gift:

The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism
By: Hernando de Soto and June Abbott

The book that essentially ruined the Shining Path guerillas. Hernando de Soto (the economist, not the explorer) and the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD) in Lima essentially transformed the country over the period of 20 years solely through ideas and policy. I'm about 70 pages into this updated edition of the original and am learning more than I ever thought I'd want to know about legal and extralegal property rights in urban Perú. The strange thing is that this book has uncovered in me a heretofore concealed interest in Peruvian real-estate practices and policies. I know, I'm as surprised as you are, but I'm making the most of it! Anyway, I haven't gotten too far into the meat of the thing yet, but it's my primary focus right now and is sitting on my bedside table except when it's sitting on my porch with a beer.

The General And The Jaguar
By: Eileen Welsome

My father, step-mom and grandmother gave me this book when they braved I-95 and visited me a couple of weeks ago. I do have the best families ever: I haven't gotten a lousy gift pretty much since I learned to read (thanks, Dad and Olga!). The basic subject of the book is supposed to be the General Pershing vs. Pancho Villa campaigns. I'm about 50 pages in and General Pershing has yet to make an appearance, but I'm learning a lot about Mexican history between 1900 and 1914. I actually get confused and think I'm reading The Other Path occasionally when I'm in this one as the root causes of the series of Mexican Revolutions in the early 20th Century closely mirror the issues in Perú covered by Mr. de Soto (is that proper? Anyone familiar with Spanish language naming and reference conventions, please let me know how to refer to him in that context). Ms. Welsome, an accomplished historienne, has put together a very readable and entertaining story so far and I'm enjoying it. The General and The Jaguar lives in my car right now, and I read it over lunch, during work breaks, while I'm stuck in the Midtown Tunnel, and whenever I go out these days. This book has a great cover, so google it (or click on the link) and take a look.

Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction
By: Robert Audi

The problem I have with "An Introduction to XXXXX" books is that they always try to present the subject in the most accessible vocabulary possible. That's nice if you're writing a book for popular consumption, but no one can possibly believe that the populace is suddenly going to discover a craving for Epistemology. I'm going to have to use the Greek language vocabulary eventually, and reading a whole book that avoids the Greek as much as possible, well, that's just confusing. I'm going to have to create my own definition list I guess. This is rather dense, at least at the start, and the author is patiently beating every introductory idea into the reader's head with a dead horse, so I'm making slow progress (20 pages or so?). I've taken to reading this between about 0530 hrs and 0630 when I stop to get ready for work. For some reason I'm more patient (or less willing to expend the energy needed to be frustrated) first thing in the morning. I'm taking notes in the book [gasp!] and have to re-sharpen my pencil entirely too often.

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Epistemology Sparky reading The General and the Jaguar Hernando de Soto Eileen Welsome Bill and Olga Witting Pancho Villa

A week for Larry McMurtry and the Lonesome Dove series

2006-08-07T17:20:00.000+03:00

Lonesome Dove
Publisher: Pocket (December 15, 1988)
ISBN: 067168390X

Streets of Laredo
Publisher: Pocket (November 1, 1995)
ISBN: 0671537466

Dead Man's Walk
Publisher: Pocket (June 1, 1996)
ISBN: 0671001167

Comanche Moon
Publisher: Pocket (June 1, 1998)
ISBN: 0671020641

(The series is presented in order of publication above. The chronological order of the narrative is: Dead Man's Walk, Comanche Moon, Lonesome Dove, Streets of Laredo. I am undecided as to the proper order to read them in, but more on that below.)

Larry McMurtry is a mainstay of modern American literature, author of a half-dozen classics. A number of his books have been turned into highly successful films (The Last Picture Show, Terms of Endearment, among others), Lonesome Dove won him a Pulitzer Prize and turned into a TV miniseries starring Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones (winning 6 Emmys), and he himself won an Academy Award and Golden Globe Award as the co-writer of the screenplay for Brokeback Mountain. I regard the four-book Lonesome Dove series as just about his best work, and include it as a series among the best novels I’ve ever read, irrespective of genre. Ignore the fact that they are historical novels set in the American West during the second half of the 19th Century as you don’t need to be a fan of Westerns to love these books (though I am a fan of Westerns, for the record).

I picked up fresh (used) copies of Lonesome Dove, as well as Comanche Moon and Streets of Laredo in my book buying binge 10 days ago and read the series in chronological order for the first time; I’d read the four novels in order of publication the first time through. It had been years since I’d read them all. I had the feeling that I was reading something fresh, but at the same time I was encountering old friends again. The series totals about 2,800 pages but I burned through them in about six days, staying up late, reading on the beach, and getting my house guest for the weekend hooked on Burnout: Revenge so I could read while he blew up cars for a few hours on Saturday afternoon in lieu of a nap. I was, in a word, happy.

I’m not going to get into the plot hardly at all. The story is important and beautifully told, but it is the characters, the setting, and the tone that make this series destined to become a classic. McMurtry follows two primary characters (Augustus McCrae and Woodrow Call) and a host of secondary characters of varying importance and staying power through about 50 years of life. You’ll find love and gunfights, cowboys and Indians, heroes and villains, school marms and whores, deaths and births, humor and tears sufficient to satisfy any reader. Don’t confuse these books with your John Wayne movies, though (disclaimer: I love John Wayne movies), or with Louis L’Amour’s countless stories and novels (disclaimer: I love Louis L’Amour’s stories and novels): McMurtry has a style all his own.

In your traditional Westerns, be they books or movies, you follow the story of archetypes: white hats and black hats, spirited young ladies, evil ranchers, defenseless townspeople, all set against a stunning backdrop of Western countryside. Even the “shades of grey” examples (such as Unforgiven, The Searchers, or The Magnificent Seven né Shichinin no Samurai), still focus on the traditional ‘big picture’ elements of the traditional Western: honor, duty, love, hate, doing “what needs to be done”, and self-reliance. Clint Eastwood strives against a failing body and declining skills, but he faces a prototypical foe with the help of the doomed comrade and goofy youngster. John Wayne goes out to rescue his niece under the cloud of his blatant racism against Indians and the complex issues involved, but the story elements are fairly standard for a John Ford masterpiece. The Magnificent Seven defend a small town from evil banditos and go from fighting for money to fighting for a cause, men with checkered backgrounds getting a final chance to balance the books, but it’s still a bunch of cowboys fighting Mexican bandits and winning the girl in the end. I want to reiterate that I love that genre, and think that “traditional” Westerns are a valuable source of ideas and entertainment. The contrast with them, though, it what makes the Lonesome Dove series so stunning.

In one of the few commonalities with the rest of the genre, McMurtry describes the Great Plains and Texas with passion and accuracy, giving you broad sweeping horizons and the smallest details in turn. He respects the land and loves the land, but makes sure to show that it can be ugly as well as beautiful, deadly as well as fertile. A good Western includes the West as a primary character, and these books are good Westerns.

The unique part of the Lonesome Dove series is the descriptions and characters. Rarely is one moved by any of the “big picture” ideals above, and rarely does McMurtry touch on them specifically. Characters spend more time talking about the behavior and personality of pigs, for example, than they do discussing honor and duty. Honor is not really an issue, and duty is either taken for granted or shirked, depending on the character and situation. McMurtry takes us inside the heads of countless individuals, giving each a distinct flavor and thought process. It’s this that makes the series so good, and the books superior by far to a screen interpretation. You learn so much about the folks in the story: mostly uneducated, some Indians, some Mexican, some white. There are rich and poor, bold and meek (and most trend closer to meek), young and old, and each one’s thoughts and actions are a result of their situation and background. The conflicts between individuals and groups are so obvious and even predictable in a tragic way once McMurtry lets you inside their minds for a few minutes. I wish I could better describe how unique the experience is, but you’ll just have to see for yourself.

Characters come and go, in part because McMurtry shows no hesitation in killing them off (regardles of whether they are large or small), but you get to know them all as much as they deserve. The bitter, difficult life on the frontier gets driven home time after time with hard-fought victories that don’t matter much at all in the grand scheme of things, people who die due to the smallest of mistakes, or just bad luck. Animals are treated harshly (he documents the retreat and disappearance of the buffalo through the novels, so gently you hardly notice), as they were out there. The Indians are portrayed as noble savages or as barbarians at the gate: they are treated as individuals, just like all the other characters. Their struggle for primacy and then just survival isn’t offered as a parable, or as a lesson, it just happens and you feel badly about it for a time. Don’t expect climactic battles and a stirring climax to the books, that’s not how they work or how life works. There are lots of battles and lots of climaxes, but in the end life goes on. The bad fades just like the good, sometimes tomorrow comes to you, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s always there for someone else.

The nearest equivalent series I’ve seen is probably the John Sandford Lucas Davenport series of detective novels. Both authors conjure up the gritty feel, the attention to detail, the day-to-day life emphasis, and the scorn for big picture ideals discussed above. McMurtry, though, is writing for a different audience and for a different reason, and far surpasses Sandford’s books in terms of objective quality. (Disclaimer: I love the Sandford Prey series and read them constantly)

In the end, I can’t recommend these novels highly enough. They rank alongside the works of Guy Gavriel Kay, Pat Conroy, and Robert Heinlein as the most complete, entertaining, thought- and emotion-provoking books I’ve had the pleasure to read. If you only read five novels a year, make these four of them.

As a final note, remember that the published order of books is different from the chronology of the series (see top). No matter what order you read in, you’ll find disconnects. I believe that Lonesome Dove (1st published, 3rd chronologically) was originally intended to stand alone, or just with Comanche Moon (2nd published, 4th and last chronologically). It is the source of most of the inconsistencies you’ll find (and there are a fair number, none major, most having to do with timing of events, but some that will irritate you for a bit as you go). At this point I’d say do it in chronological order, but bear in mind that the first that way, Dead Man’s Walk, is my least favorite of the bunch. I like it, but it doesn’t resonate with me as much as the others for some reason. The series is much like a wave: the shallower rise leading the way with Dead Man’s Walk, the building wall of energy and motion in Comanche Moon, the frothing, crashing and peaking of Lonesome Dove, and the surge and ebb of Streets of Laredo. No matter what order you read in, just read them and enjoy them. Authors like McMurtry are all too rare, and books like these are rarer still.

Technorati Tags: Books reviews Larry McMurtry Sparky reading Lonesome Dove

New books!

2006-08-04T14:33:00.000+03:00

I'll be moving soon, so I tried to cut my book buying back because they're such a pain in the patootie to pack. My plan worked well for about six weeks until last Friday. Then, the dam just broke. Online retailers, the used book store, I just went into an orgy of book buying. 16 new books total. The ones I bought in person are now mostly read, but I'm very excited about the 10 coming by mail:

The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism
By: Hernando De Soto, June Abbott

The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
By: Hernando De Soto

Elementary Logic: Revised Edition
By: W. V. Quine

Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction
By: Robert Audi

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition
By: Ayn Rand, et al

The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill
By: Jeremy Bentham

The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview
By: Thomas S. Kuhn, et al

The Principles of Morals and Legislation
By: Jeremy Bentham

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
By: Thomas S. Kuhn

Conjectures and Refutations
By: Karl R. Popper

This is quite possible the best week ever for me mail-wise. I'm waiting on 10 books and my Washington Redskins Season Tickets. Whee!

Hmm, that picture looks familiar...

2006-08-03T22:45:00.000+03:00

It's not just books at It's Fundamental! Here's a look at editorial cartoons for ya.

I'm a big fan of editorial cartoons. Tom Toles can reduce me to tears some mornings, and Herblock's passing almost did the same. My problem with them, as with so much of today's media, is that originality is sadly lacking. Here's a few examples:

-Fidel Castro gets sick, goes in for surgery and hands over power to his brother Raul who hasn't been seen since. Seems like great fodder for the cartoons, right? Absolutely! Tons of editorial cartoonists jumped on the opportunity. Here's the first bunch I spotted (all linked from Daryl Cagle's pro cartoonist emporium on MSNBC; one of my favorite places to visit):
Bill Day
Brookins
Wright
Ramirez
Bagley
Benson
Deering

Even a Bulgarian artist is chiming in:
Christo

Oooh, and here's a Canadian!
MacKay

That's 9 artists over two days. I'm sure there's no copy-catting going on, but isn't it a little weird that they could come up with only two ideas for how to represent this (there are more similar, some combining the two genres). The "US watching and waiting" theme is dull, but appropriate and timely. The other one, though, isn't even particularly meaningful. I mean, we know Mr. Castro is old. We know he's sick. We know he really can't keep going much longer. That's not an insightful thought on the situation, it's not a particularly meaningful approach to it, and it's certainly not unique. If I work in a field like that, I've gotta figure that the first two or three ideas that pop into my head are probably gonna be used other places. Most folks don't read many papers, so that's the justification for this appalling lack of originality I guess, but I must say: cartoonists, you disappoint me!

Thank goodness for Doug Marlette...

(For more examples of this unfortunate phenomenon, look at the number of "syringe puncturing bicyclist's tire" cartoons there are, or the "Hezbollah using Mel Gibson as weapon against Israeli troops" knee slappers)

Dying to Understand

2006-08-03T20:58:00.000+03:00

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
Robert A. Pape
Published by Random House, 2005
ISBN 1400063175 Hardcover
ISBN 0812973380 Paperback

This is another book that’s only been out a year or so, though the author did publish a monologue on the subject in 2003 in the American Political Science Review. Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago (Go Maroons!), has put together one of the most comprehensive studies of the causes of suicide terrorism. If you’ve ever uttered the phrase "They hate us for our freedoms!", "Islamofascists!" or anything along the lines of "They blow themselves up because they have nothing to live for!" then this book might do your slogan-embracing little mind some good. Here are a few of the teasers from the dust jacket, just to get you warmed up:

"FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.
FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka – a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern.
FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies – including the United States – have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective."

I was skeptical going in, but Prof. Pape makes a convincing case. He has had Chicago grad students combing reports the world over and compiling as much information about each and every suicide terrorist as is possible. Nowhere else have I seen a discussion of this topic backed by such comprehensive data. Even the respected experts on today’s terrorists such as Steve Sloan, Bruce Hoffman and Rohan Gunaratna, have not tackled the question of why suicide terrorism persists with such vigor and such resources. Prof. Sloan has spoken at length over the years about his desire for a comprehensive database of terrorism, and uses the question of how to design one as a standard puzzle for his classes. A terrorism database is far larger than a suicide terrorism database, but Prof. Pape and the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism have achieved at least a small part of Prof. Sloan's dream.

The book is broken down into three major parts. The first discusses the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Here, Prof. Pape discusses the widely accepted premise that terrorism in general, and suicide terrorism specifically, are weapons used by the weak against the strong. He points out that suicide terrorism occurs in campaigns, not isolated incidents, and so the threat of continued suicide attacks is as effective a weapon as the attacks themselves. His second major point in this section, and the most relevant, is that suicide terrorism campaigns occur only against democracies, or reasonable facsimiles thereof. India, the US, Israel, modern Russia, France, terrorists have realized that autocratic states are not susceptible to the kinds of fears and pressures that democracies feel, and thus choose other methods to attack them (see the USSR in Afghanistan compared with the US/NATO in Afghanistan and democratic Russia in Chechnya). Finally, Prof. Pape offers proof that suicide terrorism pays. Those who use it tend to get what they want and, if they do not, they tend to abandon the tactic. [As a topical aside, I’m applying his thoughts to the current situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah was a regular user of suicide terrorists in the past, but have not chosen to go down that road (yet) in the current round of hostilities. Why? My take is that they are capable of damaging Israel using more conventional rockets and guerilla warfare; they feel that Israel is being led by emotion and the military, not democratic principles in this case, and they feel that Israel’s invasion of Southern Lebanon will result in Israel being perceived as the bad guy. Why spoil that through suicide terrorism?]

Moving on, Prof. Pape looks at the social logic of suicide terrorism. This section features in depth examinations of groups such as the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), the Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. Each study is meticulously researched and emphasizes not just the group dynamics, but the operational context of each group. The most important part of Section II, though, is the thorough categorization and analysis of the common and dissimilar factors surrounding each suicide terrorist campaign. Prof. Pape determines that nationalism and "national liberation" from occupation perceived or real, are the wellsprings of suicide terrorism, rather than religion. Religion plays a role, but it is secondary to the nationalist side. He also shows that up until now, terrorist campaigns are not a "spiral" of death, as commonly portrayed by frustrated foreign ministers and media experts, but logical and linear military campaigns with specific motivations and goals. A corollary argument, again well documented, is that these groups (of all creeds) do not seek world domination, no matter what the PR says: they have mostly local goals.

Finally, Prof. Pape presents his data on the individual logic of suicide terrorism. He discusses suicide as a societal phenomenon, drawing heavily on Émile Durkheim’s seminal theories on the topic. He combines the accepted theories on individual logic for suicide with the data available on who suicide terrorists were and what motivated them to choose that course of action. The results are somewhat surprising: the majority of suicide terrorists were not maladjusted, depressed, fanatical teenaged loners, but rather people with a strong connection to their society, with secular and political motivations that fall firmly in the "altruistic" category of suicides. They tend to be from the middle class, in their 20s, and well educated. Hezbollah suicide bombers during the 1982-86 campaign, for example, were Christians or Communists/Socialists (and thus prone to atheism) 92% of the time, and only 8% Islamist. He shows his demographic data, broken out admirably by group, conflict and opponent, and finishes with a detailed look at three specific cases: Mohammed Atta from the Al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September 2001, a young woman named Dhanu of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and Saeed Hotari who blew up a Tel Aviv disco in June of 2001 at the behest of Hamas.

Professor Pape, in his recommendations, accepts that the United States is involved in the Middle East and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. He advocates combating suicide terrorism in two ways. The first is military and diplomatic action against existing terrorist groups, eliminating or marginalizing as many of their members as possible. The second recommendation is to prevent a new generation of terrorists from appearing by slowly reducing our contributions to the conditions that spawn them. This means withdrawing our military from the region as much as possible, particularly the very visible elements of the armed forces. We must encourage and support local solutions to the problems and work through alliances and proxies rather than directly. The question of Israel is one for which he has no concrete solution, though US support for Israel (our proxy occupation of Jerusalem) is a prime cause for terrorism in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In the end, this book seems to prove that terrorists, specifically suicide terrorists, are both more complex and more easily understood than most people like to believe. Politicians, the media, academics and the military take comfort in describing terrorists as being completely foreign, people we don’t understand and could never understand. As in all wars, we try to de-humanize our opponents. In reality, though, the groups studied are working for goals we can all associate with: freedom from oppression, freedom from foreign rule, and national identity. It is not particularly pleasant to realize that suicide bombers are not that different from any of us, but it is a realization that we must all come to if we are to have a hope of slipping out of the crosshairs of these groups. Criminals and murderers they may be, but while we can and must condemn their means, we must also accept that we can understand their goals, and perhaps even sympathize with their plight to a certain extent.

Puck Math

2006-08-01T21:36:00.000+03:00

The Physics of Hockey
Alain Haché
Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002
ISBN 0801870712

I’ll admit it, I’m a bit of a math geek. I’ll also admit that I’m a bit of a sports geek. One look at the URL you’re at now should confirm that. One brief visit to the parent site of this blog, WashingtonHockey, will confirm that I don’t have the slightest shame about combining the two interests either. If I spot a chance to include a bit of regression analysis, or some economic theory to a hockey story, well, my day is made. Imagine my excitement, then, when my lovely girlfriend’s father sends me a book as a gift. Getting any book is a treat, but when it’s got the words "Physics" and "Hockey" both in the title, well, I almost made an honest woman out of her just to show him my appreciation!

Since I’m being honest here, I’ll flat out say that if you don’t like either physics or hockey you’ll hate the book. If you like hockey but can’t tell sin θ from Sins of the Father, you’ll struggle (unless you’re a young, hockey playing Canadian male in which case you’ll be glad to know that your chance of making it to the NHL is about 1 in 6,000). If you like physics but can’t tell a check from a Slovak, it’ll be interesting but nothing spectacular (unless you’re a young, non-hockey playing Canadian male in which case you need to consider the odds of making an NHL-equivalent salary if you stick with physics as a career). If you like both, though, this is a treat, and this review is for you.

You know physics, and you know hockey, so you’ve got a good understanding of the shooting motion. The wind-up, the swing, the release, the curvature of the stick, that’s all familiar. This book, however, explains all the motions and interactions involved in the process and there’s more than you might think. The same goes for goalie positioning, skating, accuracy, checking, and player quality. You can see how the author determines that Ray Bourque’s window of opportunity for a goal on a slapper from just inside the blue line, through traffic, with a screened goalie in a partial butterfly was 0.3° (aperture from 70 feet using Δθx = 2arctan (Δx/2d) as the determining formula for horizontal margin of error). Speaking of the butterfly, Haché uses Felix Potvin and Patrick Roy to demonstrate why that particular stance is so popular, while choosing Marty Brodeur for reaction times. He explains salaries as a function of probability, not relative or absolute quality (though I’d like to see him address that now that we’ve got a cap). Bobby Hull is the model in the discussion of shot selection in the crease. Jaromir Jagr shows off his skating power. The list goes on and on and on.

This book lives on my bedside table, with occasional forays to the bathroom bookshelf. I don’t pick it up every day, or even every week, but I never go very long without re-reading a chapter. I don’t play hockey, but I love to apply this kind of knowledge of physics to day to day activities, be it carrying things or playing golf. If you’ve got a puck-crazy friend who did pretty well in high school physics, get ‘em this book, they really don’t need yet another collection of crazy quotes from the penalty box.

Note: I am disappointed that, with all the academic vigor and attention to mathematical accuracy the author devotes, he described Mark Recchi giving "110% at every shift." That’s blatantly impossible. Dale Hunter, sure, but Recchi never gave more than 102% when I’ve seen him…

My Battle Of Algiers is just that

2006-08-01T19:58:00.000+03:00

My Battle Of Algiers: A Memoir
Ted Morgan
Published by Collins, 31 January 2006
ISBN 0060852240

I received a dated pre-release copy of Ted Morgan’s My Battle Of Algiers as a free bonus when I recently dropped $20.00 at the local used book store. Intrigued and delighted by a Free Bonus Book I picked it up and raced through it before even touching the other four in the bag; Mr. McMurtry’s westerns and Mr. Kierkegaard’s laboured prose could wait a few more days. I finished the 270-page work in little more than an afternoon on the beach; despite the serious subject matter and attention to detail the book never drags and never bogs down.

Mr. Morgan’s memoir starts with his reasons for publication (more on that preface later), followed by what I consider to be the most important part of the book from an American perspective: the Introduction. Titled “A Child’s History of Algeria”, it is actually a 25 page, concise, incisive, comprehensive introduction to colonial Algeria from a sometimes-French, sometimes-Algerian, sometimes-objective mix of perspectives that somehow never gets confusing. Skimming briefly through the centuries in a page or two, Mr. Morgan seems eager to run through the history, damn the context style, until 29 April, 1827 when the slap of a fly whisk against the cheek of French consul Pierre Duval brings him to a sudden halt. From this point on, Mr. Morgan dances through the following 130 years, briefly pulling key events, people and ideas out of the crowd of history for us to see, then turning to the next with hardly a pause, keeping the swirl of events intact without ever losing the beat. His pace slows as the situation grows ever more complex after the Second World War, eventually coming to a deliberate halt in October of 1956 when France hijacked a plane carrying four leaders of the rebellious Front de Libération Nationale (FLN – National Liberation Front of Algeria, the main rebel group in Algeria). Wistfully and with the air of fatalism pervading the memoir, Mr. Morgan sets aside his historian’s pen and turns to his own story. In his words, “It was at this point, in the fall of 1956, that Algeria entered my life.”

With the body of the memoir we see Mr. Morgan’s intentions in writing and publishing. He made it clear in the preface, but I’d forgotten those three pages halfway through the marvelous introduction. Mr. Morgan plainly sees parallels between the French colonial history in Algeria and the U.S. occupation of Iraq, between the FLN and the Iraqi resistence groups, between the brutal behavior of the French paras and Légion Étrangère, and the behavior of American and British Soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo. Make no mistake, this book is intended as a glimpse into the pit and seems to serve as a sort of confessional for the author (he beat a captive to death early in his tour while trying to get information). It is a protest and a warning, one man’s wake-up call to the reader. It was, unfortunately, not particularly successful in my case.

Mr. Morgan tells much of the story as a first-person account of life as a young French officer in the bleds of Algeria and the teeming streets of Algiers and the country collapses into chaos. He intersperses the narrative with occasional anecdotes, additional context, or brief paragraphs describing the greater impact of events. In this way he confines himself to an intensely personal account, and not one I find particularly convincing as a political lesson. He offers example after example of the brutality of the French troops, colons, and government while treating the FLN with kid gloves. I do not question the justice of the Algerian rebels, but jus ad bellum does not give either side a pass on jus in bello, nor does the lack of one justify the lack of the other. What struck me most vividly from his account is the casual brutality on both sides, the glimpses behind the scenes at some of the demonized and iconized figures of the conflict, and the view of Algiers as a city trying to carry on business as usual while engulfed in bitter, bloody strife. His personal experiences do not lend themselves to making wide-reaching geo-political judgements, but they do offer a rarely seen glimpse of the details, the day-to-day insanity of a city engulfed by guerilla warfare against a foreign occupier.

I recommend this book rather strongly, particularly for those who are sick and tired of big-picture coverage of Iraq and broad histories of prior wars. You will learn something, and you will enjoy doing so.

Mr. Morgan, né Sanche de Gramont, is a noted biographer and the only French citizen to win a Pulitzer (he took the name "Ted Morgan" later when he received his American citizenship). When drafted he returned to France from Worcester, MA where he worked as a fledgling journalist for the Worcester Telegram. Mr. Morgan went through the hierarchy of French military schooling, eventually receiving his 2nd Lieuenant’s bars and a billet in Algeria upon graduation in the fall of 1956.