What Doug Thinks

Review: Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West

2012-02-06T14:15:00.001-05:00

Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac McCarthy

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

What more can possibly be said about Cormac McCarthy and Blood Meridian, arguably his masterpiece?

It's worthy of every bit of praise heaped upon it and more. You know you've read something extraordinary when comparisons to Conrad, Faulkner, Melville, Poe and Dante all seem inadequate.

McCarthy has four great gifts that make Blood Meridian, as well as his other Westerns, lyric and memorable:

-- He knows how to start a book / introduce a protagonist. Until now, I had considered "The Old Man And The Sea" to have the greatest first 250 words ever penned. Blood Meridian took that crown with its immediate impression upon the reader of exactly who The Kid is, what this book was going to be like, and the Sargasso Sea of language that one swims throughout its 350 pages.

-- He has absolutely mastered hubris and nemesis. You know, going in, things are not going to turn out well for any of McCarthy's main characters. It's in the twists and turns that takes one to the final answering that makes Cormac McCarthy such a joy to read.

-- His command of English is humbling. His sentences are every English teacher's nightmare-cum-epiphany. How one can write run-on sentences with little semblance to generally accepted rules of syntax, grammar and punctuation, and manage to paint so vivid and complete a scene, simply defies description. It must be experienced, and in experiencing it, one is simultaneously stunned and satisfied.

-- He knows how to end a book. Every plot thread is sewn up tight at the end of Blood Meridian; and yet, you simply don't want it to be over.

I found myself dreaming the scenes of this book several nights in a row, shortly after having read each of its perfect-for-nightstand chapters. I cannot remember the last book that accomplished that task so readily or commonly.

One thing is clear: I must read everything else he has written. McCarthy has won me over completely.

View all my reviews

Review: Some Girls: My Life in a Harem

2012-01-20T09:03:00.001-05:00

Some Girls: My Life in a Harem by Jillian Lauren

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

As the title states, at 18 years old, Jillian Lauren took a job as one a Brunei prince's concubines in the early 1990s.

This memoir is generally about her two trips to Brunei, and the time between trips and the events that led to her decision to go back. Interspersed throughout are details of life events that brought her to those events.

I'll give Jillian Lauren one thing: She's honest about herself, which is rare enough a trait.

If anything, she's a little too quick to criticize herself, a little too hard on herself. That's not to say much of what she did in her early life was admirable; that's not to suggest that she clearly wishes a number of things had gone differently than they did, and she knows her decisions were the reason things worked out the way they did.

It is to say that I'm not sure Lauren -- nor many of those criticizing this book -- are willing to accept that we are also biological creatures, and sometimes the ways we act, especially when we are young and inexperienced, are guided by instinct, even when we know, somewhere in the back of our minds, it won't end well.

I have known (in several senses) a number of strippers and prostitutes over the years, and it's my experience that their formative years were, in aggregate, usually similar to Lauren's. The way they think about sex work, love and relationships are usually the same. The pathology that runs through Lauren's life I have heard, with different details, time and time again.

I think that's the primary reason for the poor reviews of this book: If you haven't been in the life, or (in my case) been around it, it's difficult to understand. It rightly sounds awful.

There are a lot of small charges on your soul to get in to the game, and a huge balloon payment when you leave. That's the real message in Lauren's book: She earned all that money, jewels, clothes and gifts. If anything, she may have paid more than she got out.

Arguably, Lauren might not have been able to have the good life she enjoys now without the harem experience. She never says it in so many words, but I believe it to be true.

Occasionally, her prose is overwrought. I suspect that's par for the course when anyone examines his life; we're given to poetic interpretations of the inexplicable.

As it is largely written from memory, one can assume there are some omissions, errors and exaggerations. But on the whole, Lauren is an exceptional writer, and her book is a breeze to read; again, almost perfect nightstand reading.

One of the better books I've read in a while, and I recommend it as wholeheartedly as it was written.

View all my reviews

Review: 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created

2012-01-12T08:41:00.001-05:00

1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created by Charles C. Mann

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

An absolutely fascinating read of the real impact of Christopher Columbus and the search for a western passage to the East Indies.

Namely, it's what Mann calls the "homogenocene" -- that is, the cross-introduction of flora and fauna across continents that had been separated for millions of years.

Be it the potatoes and corn that lessened the impact of mass European and Chinese famines; the mosquitoes and blood diseases that were the driving forces behind African slavery in the New World; or the global demand that has changed landscapes in unanticipated ways in unwitting places, the real story of the discovery of the Americas lies in the effective return to a single continent, at least in the biological sense, argues Mann.

He makes his points exceptionally well and in significant detail. However, unlike some books, which pile fact upon fact in monotone, Mann's exceptional prowess with prose makes reading this book more like taking on an exceptionally long magazine or Sunday newspaper article.

Some quick notes:

-- Check your political sensitivities and fourth-grade history at the door. Mann gives both sides of the Columbus debate fair audience, but doesn't come down on either side. Rather, he relates the facts -- as told largely by Europeans, but also by Americans -- as best we know them. On those occasions where he offers a judgement, it is almost always, "It was a different time and a different world, applying today's mores isn't appropriate for context."

-- Prepare to learn things. Tucked away every half-dozen pages or so was something I did not know, and I'm no dummy.

-- I wouldn't exactly call this night stand reading. That's how I read it, and it was doable, but the chapter length and organization is really more slated to purposeful consumption. In other words, plan a week's worth of afternoon readings to get best results.

What a joy to read and what a fascinating read at that. It's convinced me I need to read 1491, Mann's book about the Americas before Columbus.

View all my reviews

Review: Gulliver's Travels

2011-12-21T06:32:00.001-05:00

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Sometimes, you can just feel the smug oozing from a printed page. It's especially bad when you know the author believes himself superior to at least the target of his derision, if not his entire audience.

That's certainly the case with Jonathan Swift in general and Gulliver's Travels, specifically.

Mind you, the people Swift was lampooning deserved it. That even today people call this a child's tale bears out exactly the points Swift was making with it. But that doesn't make this any easier to read.

As plodding and wordy as any other work of its time; a bit heavy-handed with devices; overall, just a chore to read. Or, in today's vernacular, obvious troll is obvious.

View all my reviews

Review: Breakfast of Champions

2011-12-21T06:20:00.001-05:00

Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Memo to self: Any time an author states in the prologue that he's trying to act like a cranky old woman but lacks her grace, stop reading right there and then and move on to another book.

In the technical sense, this is a masterpiece of syntax and diction. But it's also self-indulgent, childish nonsense in the aesthetic sense. Kilgore Trout is just another version of Holden Caufield and every bit as annoying.

I spent 99 cents on the Kindle version and it's safe to say, I got my money's worth. Couldn't get past the first 10 pages.

View all my reviews

Review: My Secret Garden

2011-11-27T11:46:00.001-05:00

My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Recommended to me by a (male) friend of a (female) friend. His basic premise was, if I want to be good in bed, I need to understand women's fantasies.

It's not surprising at all that this book receives such mixed reviews. Some of the fantasies contained within it are beyond the pale. The vast majority center on a few recurring themes: submission / force; lesbianism / bisexuality; bestiality; interracial sex; exhibitionism; sex with strangers.

That's racy stuff, even by today's standards. Imagine how shocking it was in 1973, when this work was first published.

Friday's belief, restated several times throughout the book, is that most women fantasize, even if they don't readily recognize their thoughts as fantasy, and that fantasies are by and large healthy, especially since they need not necessarily be acted upon.

She believes that fantasies are largely a way for most women to reconcile their desire with the conditioning she's received, from Day 1, of how a "lady" behaves -- conditioning that includes tacit instructions of how a "good girl" should act.

In other words, a woman may privately enjoys the thought of being taken by a stranger in a dark hallway, or imagine her husband is another woman while they're having sex. Such thoughts are really just a way to explore the full range of her sexuality safely; if anything, acting out such thoughts can be counterproductive, as reality often falls well short of imagination.

I can see where some might worry that a man reads these fantasies and thinks that being a great lover means forcing women to have sex with dogs or getting them to screw every friend they have, male and female alike.

I can also see how the frankness of a lot of these fantasies can intimidate men and women alike. While times are different now, to some degree we still don't expect complete sexual candor from women, and it's still easy to label a sexual free spirit a slut or a whore, and have that mean something.

Nancy Friday

As Friday put it, it's disapproval that motivates most women; that is, most women, even today, are far more concerned about, and responsive toward, gossip and backstabbing, than they are to praise. "Real Housewives," TMZ and countless other examples proving out the point.

So while I recognize the danger that this work poses, almost 40 years later, to social norms and order, I'm on Friday's side of this fence.

The sharing of these fantasies is a good thing, because it dispels a lot of misinformation men (or, at least, me) believe about women's sexuality, starting first and foremost with the idea that the average woman doesn't fantasize, or that a "satisfied" woman has no need for fantasy.

Some of them were quite entertaining, to put it politely. The majority were simply curious or interesting. I didn't find any of them upsetting or patently offensive, but I might have felt differently about that had a few of these fantasies been related to me personally by a lover.

I suppose the thing I take away most from this is that erotica -- either that we form on our own or we consume from others -- doesn't create deviants. If anything, erotica helps us better define our boundaries and have comfort with our total sexual selves.

Or, again, as Friday put it, "guilt" is what we feel when we know we've done something wrong and don't need anyone else to tell us that; "shame" is what we feel when we know we haven't done anything wrong, but everyone else won't accept.

I doubt this work will rid many women of the shame of being honest about their sexuality, but none should feel any guilt at all about reading and appreciating, in full, this book.

View all my reviews

Review: The Definitive Book of Body Language

2011-11-11T12:35:00.001-05:00

The Definitive Book of Body Language by Barbara Pease

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Absolutely amazing, comprehensive and insightful information about how we communicate with nonverbal body cues.

Posited as a guide to assist salespeople, managers and others who rely on their communications skills to perform their jobs -- but also full of information for deciphering courtship body language -- I came away from this book with much of what I imagined about body language proven, a few misconceptions cleared up, and a wealth of new knowledge.

There's so much here that hoping to get it all to sink in at once is fruitless. It's a book that I see myself reading over several times, both to refresh what I've learned, to pick up details I missed the first time, and to focus on improving my nonverbal communication in several steps.

First step, supplied entirely from this book: I'll never again sit down while waiting, and I'll always stand with my hands behind my back or with my thumbs hooked in my pockets / waistband. Those two things convey confidence and value, say the authors, and just tinkering with it definitely filled me with those feelings as I stood that way.

I'll definitely retain this book in my library.

Some quick notes:

* If you're sensitive to talk about sex roles / differences between the sexes, you're not going to like this book. Not one bit. The authors (a husband-and-wife team) make it clear that as much as we might tout equality, there are simple physiological and innate psychological differences that affect how we relate to one another.

* The book is organized in short chapters, each focusing on a given part of the body or specific circumstances: Stance, office layout, eyes, courtship, legs, etc. Each chapter is short, concise and full of useful information.

* The authors make several factual claims -- for example, about how a given behavior was formed in our ancestors, or (again) differences between the sexes -- without directly citing evidence; some of this can come off as spurious. (In fairness, there is a reference section at the end that cites well over 100 sources.)

* The authors often note where the interpretation of body language differs between cultures. This is especially notable for hand and head gestures, which are noted at the start of the book.

* There's some cross-selling of the couple's other books within this text. It's not obtrusive, however, and I'm half of the mind to go ahead and read more of what they have to say (were it not for my already ludicrous backlog of unread books).

* The authors greatly enjoy puns. Their humor can run just a bit uncouth. Again, hypersensitive people are probably best off not reading this book.

View all my reviews

Review: Travels in Siberia

2011-10-29T09:53:00.001-04:00

Travels in Siberia by Ian Frazier

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

First, full disclosure: I've not traveled extensively, and I am new to the travelogue genre. So my experience may be inadequate to fully appreciate this book.

At the same time, my dream is to someday take the Trans-Siberian Railway from Moscow to Vladivostok, so that was my interest in this book.

General impressions from "Travels In Siberia":

* Ian Frazier has a knack for writing history, as well as describing places and people. When he sticks to those themes, he's an excellent writer.

* Frazier does himself no favors when he describes his journeys (he visited Russia five times). At least, I'd never go anyplace with him.

He comes off as a weak-willed whiner who should have know better. Of his own admission, he knows that Siberia is not festooned with five-star hotels and four-star restaurants.

He's also intimately aware of the stereotypical Russian as fatalist, fearful of authority and generally indifferent to others, but he still manages to complain whenever anything goes (inevitably) wrong or against his will, at the same time he does little to nothing to insist on things going his way.

A perfect example is his desire to see prison camps. He doesn't manage it until his fourth trip, and even then he only sees one, which washes the taste from his mouth fairly effectively.

* His fussiness aside, Frazier does paint Siberia as a great place to visit.

* The basic picture he paints of Siberia: Swampy. Rife with bugs. Strewn with trash. A little rough-and-tumble. Basically divided into two parts: western, which has large cities containing many amenities; eastern, which has few cities, little infrastructure of worth (and of that it does possess, most is crumbling).

* Frazier repeats often that women in Siberia are implausibly beautiful.

* He took very few photographs, which seems a serious omission, especially when talking about the people he has met. He prefers to make sketches of places, he explains, which would have been fine had he possessed artistic skills superior to a 12-year-old's.

* Frazier traveled Siberia alone all five times, for months at a time, in spite of having a wife and children. His wife probably deserves sainthood.

Overall, Travels In Siberia was an enjoyable read, again save those circumstances when Frazier stuck to the history, cities and people he met along the way.

The strongest takeaway, for me, was to not attempt to drive across it, as he did on his third and fourth trips. Albeit his failure to follow through on obtaining a reliable vehicle, and his fawning deference to his guide, were the cause of most of his car troubles.

I'm glad I read this book, and it was a breezy read, with chapter lengths perfect for nightstand reading. Had Frazier revealed more of the place -- namely, via photographs -- and less of himself, I would have rated this book far better.

View all my reviews

Augusta Local Election, Nov. 8, 2011: Bilodeau, Emery And Side Note

2011-10-23T13:14:00.002-04:00

There are two contested at-large city council seats seats in the Augusta municipal election of Nov. 8, 2011. Jeff Bilodeau and Corey Vose are angling for one of them; Dan Emery and David Smith, the other.

I plan to vote for Bilodeau and Emery.

Both come on recommendation of others whom I respect. I don't know either personally -- or, if I do and just can't remember having met them, that's pretty much the same as not knowing them.

I do know that Bilodeau has been working hard on his campaign and has at least the tacit support of Ward 3 councilor and longtime local politician Pat Paradis, which is enough for me to vote for the guy.

That's not to say Vose, who is chairman of the city's planning board, hasn't also been working hard and isn't a fine choice. Although his campaign signs are unreadable, leading me to question his judgement in general. (I admit that's a pretty vacuous basis on which to judge the man. But if that's the best public face he can put on himself, that's not good.)

Emery is a friend of a friend and I know, as a result, he's devoted himself to the city's improvement, especially downtown. Besides, he lives within a stone's throw of my house, so if he starts doing dumb things, I won't hesitate to go ahead and toss one. Or several.

David Smith has plenty of local experience, too. He's on the Greater Augusta Utilities District board of directors, he's chief pilot over at Maine Instrument Flight, and he's got no strikes against him as near as I can see. I wouldn't mind a bit if he wound up winning that seat.

So once again, we're in the fortunate position of winding up with good people in local government, whatever the outcome of the vote.

All other races in the city are uncontested, so I won't get into them, except to say that every unopposed candidate is a veteran of local politics and a fine choice.

I will take this opportunity to note: The first candidate that says we need half as many cops and twice as much garbage collection will always have my vote.

Augusta, ME Sample Ballot Ward 1 Nov. 8, 2011

Augusta, ME Sample Ballot Ward 2 Nov. 8, 2011

Augusta, ME Sample Ballot Ward 3 Nov. 8, 2011

Augusta, ME Sample Ballot Ward 4 Nov. 8, 2011

Question 2, Augusta Referendum, Nov. 8, 2011: Gilbert School Improvements

2011-10-23T11:21:00.000-04:00

Question 2 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Augusta citywide referendum:

Do you favor a $355,980 bond issue for the repair, renovation and improvements to Gilbert School in the city?

What a "yes" vote means: Sylvio J. Gilbert Elementary School gets handicapped accessibility improvements, a new alarm system, and replacement windows.

What a "no" vote means: Those things probably don't happen.

How I'm voting: Yes.

Why I'm voting that way: It's not surprising the school needs some updates and upgrades, given it's getting to be close to 50 years old. Lord knows, I'm getting close to that, too, and I could sure use some replacement parts.

Full disclosure: I am a 1977 graduate of Gilbert, and I have friends who send kids there. So in that sense, maybe I'm not the most impartial observer.

On the other side of that coin, if you want to put me completely off my lunch and into full rant, asking my opinion about any government's track record on building maintenance, and coupling that to the half-witted, pandering mess we call education policy, is a pretty effective strategy. So in that sense, I'm even less of a voice of reason.

That said, this one's pretty much a no-brainer. A kid in a wheelchair or with other motor skill impediments ought to be able to get back and forth in the place. And while Cummings Avenue isn't exactly a rough-and-tumble neighborhood, I'd prefer that the burglar and fire alarms go off when required.

Finally, I'd bet a dollar to doughnuts we'll see any money spent on better widows back in fuel savings, pretty quickly.
Augusta, ME Sample Ballot Citywide Referendum Nov. 8, 2011

Question 1, Augusta Referendum, Nov. 8, 2011: Fix East Side Streets

2011-10-22T09:36:00.000-04:00

Question 1 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Augusta citywide referendum:

Do you favor a $1,125,000 bond issue for the improvement of city streets, sidewalks and related facilities throughout the Cony Circle tax increment financing district in the city?

What a "yes" vote means: We'll spend $1.1 million to fix streets and sidewalks in the area around Whipper's Pizza, out to Patterson and Pearl streets.

What a "no" vote means: Probably the work won't be done.

How I'm voting: Yes.

Why I'm voting that way: If recent headlines prove anything, it's that this particular stretch of the woods is a hazardous place to be; better public ways will make things safer. And there aren't many streets in this town that don't need resurfacing, this area included. Besides, this is the sort of thing we're supposed to borrow money to do.

Work area proposed by Question 1 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Augusta ballot. Map from Google Maps.

It seems like the city and state are never going to get Bangor Street right, so you could be forgiven for thinking, "To Hell with it, I'm done throwing good money after bad, let the thing go fallow."

That, however, presumes that traffic volume in that neighborhood is going to get better -- it ain't -- and that pedestrian safety isn't important -- which certainly isn't the case, especially in that area.

The city says this work is basically going to be a wash because we set up a tax increment financing district in the area to pay for these types of improvement.

I'll take umbrage with that claim on a number of levels, from the principle (we shouldn't be giving tax breaks to commercial interests, regardless of what ostensible good it does) to the practical (OK, so we earmarked dollars to a specific purpose; that just means it's money we can't spend on other things we need).

But that's something of a red herring in the larger scheme. Point is:

the roadwork is needed;
it's the sort of thing we ought to borrow money to do;
the length of the borrowing (city says 15 years, newspaper says 20; it's 6 of one, half-dozen of another) is appropriate; and
The overall expense of the debt over that time is in line with the rate of inflation (around 3 percent), which makes debt service nearly zero in real terms. (That is, the money we spend to do this now is more valuable than it will be in 15-20 years. So if we simply saved the money and do the project 15-20 years from now, it will cost the same. Thus, let's do it now.)

So, I fail to see any downside to this project, unless the argument is that there are more pressing road needs (probably true) and the city lacks the ability to borrow enough money to meet those needs (not true in the financial sense; probably true in the political sense). Or, that the work isn't necessary (again, not true from what I see).

Augusta, ME Sample Ballot Citywide Referendum Nov. 8, 2011

Question 4, Nov. 8, 2011: A Reasonable Amendment

2011-10-21T13:54:00.000-04:00

Question 4 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Maine referendum:

Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to change the years of redistricting the Maine Legislature, congressional districts and county commissioner districts after 2013 from 2023 and every 10th year thereafter to 2021 and every 10th year thereafter?

What voting "yes" means: Redistricting for state and federal offices would take place one year after the decennial federal census. County offices would be added to the constitution (it's handled by law right now) and be done on the same redistricting date. It also clarifies some deadlines for redistricting.

What voting "no" means: We'll continue to redistrict three years after the census, and county redistricting would still be managed by statute.

How I am voting: Yes.

Why I am voting that way: This is largely a procedural move that ties the event of redistricting more closely to the data source we use to redistrict.

Normally I don't like to mess with the state constitution. It's a framework, not a floor plan; that is, the constitution basically creates the walls of the house in which we all live; the details of how we go about living there shouldn't be carved in stone.

This is a case of making the constitution better. All it does is move up by two years the date on which redistricting takes place. Back in the 19th century, a two-year delay from the date of the federal census made sense; it took time to compile and distribute data back then. Here in the age of instant communication and supercomputing, that delay isn't necessary.

Better yet, the amendment holds the Legislature's feet to the fire, giving clear deadlines before the courts step in and handle redistricting, should there be dithering.

Nov 8, 2011 Maine Referendums Citizens Guide

Questions 2 and 3, Nov. 8, 2011: End The Sweetheart Deals

2011-10-21T13:30:00.001-04:00

Question 2 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Maine referendum:

Do you want to allow a slot machine facility at a harness racing track in Biddeford or another community within 25 miles of Scarborough Downs, subject to local approval, and at a harness racing track in Washington County, with part of the profits from these facilities going to support specific state and local programs?

Question 3 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Maine referendum:

Do you want to allow a casino with table games and slot machines in Lewiston, with part of the profits going to support specific state and local programs?

What voting "yes" means: We'll have a new racino in Biddeford (Question 2) and a racino / casino in Lewiston (Question 3). A new harness racing track would be authorized for someplace in Washington County; by law, it, too, would be able to become a racino once it's up and running.

What voting "no" means: We'll only have the one racino we have now, in Bangor, and the soon-to-be-built casino in Oxford.

How I'm voing: No on both questions.

Why I am voting that way: The appropriate gambling establishment law should be one that creates reasonable criteria for anyone to start a racino / casino. These sweetheart deals need to stop.

While it's complete nonsense, I can understand why Maine's Indian tribes feel that this is a racist state. A lot of money and effort was spent putting the boots to their effort to open a casino, but at the same time, the Bangor racino was a shoo-in.

At the time, a reasonable person could have justified that with, "there's a big difference between some slot machines that help preserve harness racing and Foxwoods North."

In fact, that argument was waged, often, by people who should have known better. Because anyone who understands anything about human nature and the political process knows that once the dam is breached, the waters pour forth.

That's certainly the case with racinos / casinos in Maine. No sooner did we turn away the Penobscots / Passamaquoddys, than we wound up with some bunch of investors in western Maine getting cart blanche to build the same exact thing.

"Jobs," we were told. "Jobs, jobs, jobs." In this day and age, "what about the jobs?" has replaced "what about the children?" as the thought-terminating cliche of choice. It's insulting, cheap, disrespectful. The problem with casinos in Maine aren't the casinos themselves. It's the outright pandering used to sell them.

Let's not turn this into a dissertation on semantics. Rather, let's cut through the crap and make the point: Maine is now a place that has private gaming interests. There's no further justification in not having more.

So what we need are reasonable rules that level the playing field for all.

As in, if you aren't a crook, and you have the financial and professional resources, and you don't open it up next to a church or a school, then go ahead and build a casino. No further vote needed.

That's what it's come to here in Maine, and that's the law I'm waiting to vote upon. But the way things work now, monied interests that can work the system and get their initiatives on the ballot wind up virtually assured of getting tens of millions of dollars in profit per year.

Why can't everyone get a shot? Like, say, the state's Indian tribes?
Nov 8, 2011 Maine Referendums Citizens Guide

Question 1, Nov. 8, 2011: Solutions Shouldn't Seek Problems

2011-10-20T14:55:00.000-04:00

Question 1 on the Nov. 8, 2011 Maine statewide referendum ballot:

Do you want to reject the section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 that requires new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election?

What does a "yes" vote do? It repeals a new law that requires voters to register two days before an election.

What does a "no" vote do? It retains the new law.

How I'm voting: Yes.

Why am I voting that way? Because this is a classic example of everything that's wrong with government, and the state's Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves that this, their greatest accomplishment in the last legislative session, is a restriction on fundamental liberty.

Charlie Summers,
Maine's secretary of state

You couldn't have missed the brouhaha over this bill if you were paying any attention to Maine politics in recent months. Republicans, flush with victory last November and gunning to put the screws to the Democrats and keep things that way, decided that widespread voter fraud must have played some part in their previous foibles.

Yup. GOP failures have little to do with bad ideas (on the rare occasion when a party member can form a cogent sentence), inept leadership, self-sabotage or a general world view that's execrable to most people living south of Brunswick. Republican fortunes, according to Republicans themselves, were in large part due to stuffed ballot boxes.

Now, the direct and conjectural evidence that bears out the total nonsense of such a claim is manifest. To the extent that even Charlie Summers, the Republican secretary of state who undertook to prove that liberals were circumventing the election process with mass voting-day registrations, could only come up one case of a non-citzen voting in Maine.

Far be it for me to point out that we pissed valuable time and treasure down a pipe investigating a conspiracy theory formulated within the top ranks of the majority party. I would never think myself the person to note that Summers' "it could happen" is the kind of reasoning that leads to children and the elderly being sexually molested at airports by rent-a-cops who routinely fail to detect weapons in carry-on luggage.

No, it would be entirely wrong of me to note that the proudest moment for Real Americans® was to needlessly restrict fundamental liberty.

Charlie Webster,
Maine GOP chairman

(In fact, I would have to be a real jackass to say that using college kids and Canadians as hobgoblins was as inept a ploy as I would expect from Maine's GOP. Seriously, pot-smoking young adults and beer-guzzling hockey fanatics? You just described everybody living on a dirt road in this state. That's your constituency, Maine GOP! You can't make the people who vote for you into the bad guys!

But don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of hipsters or Canadians, either. Had the GOP simply suggested deporting them all, they'd have my vote. As I've long said, we've militarized the wrong border.)

In all seriousness, this voter registration law is a solution seeking a problem. It's the child of small minds that seek to blame others for the GOP's longstanding failure to connect with voters. And the great shame in it is that Republicans -- especially conservatives, such as the Tea Party types -- believe themselves the protectors of traditional, small-government, pro-liberty principles.

Of course, this nation has a long history of enfranchising only landed lords, of poll taxes and the outright purchasing of votes, by all political shades. So maybe, in that sense, the registration law is in context and apropos.

But until the GOP can prove to me we need this law, I'd just as soon do the job they ought to be doing, and muck out the statute stalls. Since this is the freshest load atop the manure pile, it deserves the pitchfork.

Nov 8, 2011 Maine Referendums Citizens Guide

Review: The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security

2011-10-10T20:57:00.001-04:00

The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security by Kevin D. Mitnick

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

The problem with this book is its age and the limited scope of the exploits Kevin Mitnick discusses.

Almost every (usually fictional) exploit that Mitnick describes involves exploiting large organizations -- places where there are clear heirarchies, overlapping departmental responsibilities and integrated networks.

Also, a significant amount of what he discusses involves phone phreaking; given that was how he cut his teeth in the social engineering game, it's not surprising.

But when you read an example that involves dialing in to a Nortel DMS-100, you know you're reading dated material. Sure, some companies still use 30-year-old telephone switches, and PBX is still a highly exploitable technology. But an update to 21st century tech is sorely wanted here.

Generally speaking, every example Mitnick provides for a successful social engineering attack comes down to three basic steps:

* Get a name and title on someone in a large company.

* Call a low-level employee on the telephone, masquerading as that person, and ask for some information that lines up the target.

* Call the target, repeat the information given by the low-level employee, get the target to compromise the system.

Sure, this can work -- if you target large enough an operation. But what about small companies? Or individuals? Or non-corporate espionage? They go largely unaddressed.

Mitnick briefly discusses identity theft, and his favored strategy is Dumpster diving. Which, again, is becoming increasingly less relevant as paper becomes less relevant, at least for smaller organizations / individuals.

He also gives very little attention to face-to-face exploits, claiming that they're largely too risky. But by the same token, his constant refrain is that the successful social engineer is first charming and personable. I guess I miss where that would only be true of the average crook when he's on the phone.

Finally, when discussing how one goes about protecting against social engineers, Mitnick almost always suggests restrictive rules and punishments, suggesting that the average employee responds appropriately to such inconveniences if it's made plain to him the importance of not screwing up. That's spoken like someone who's never supervised an employee in his life.

People want autonomy, challenges and proof their work means something. Thus, he should discuss a reward-centered approach that says, "we trust you to protect your work product, we publicly recognize and reward vigilance, and we find ways to enable you to do what you need to do to get work done, in ways that ensure our information remains secure."

I don't mean to suggest that Mitnick's book is of no relevance today. His basic points -- that human nature is to help others, we can all sympathize with the poor sot who's in a jam and needs our help, and what seems innocuous to the average employee is often the information that gets a social engineer's foot in the door -- are well-taken and will always be pertinent to security.

But times have changed. This book, unfortunately, hasn't.

Finally, I got the Kindle version of this book, and not enough attention was paid to cleaning up the text during the conversion; punctuation, capitalization and other miscellaneous errors are rampant.

Also, the surfeit of sidebars — which usually explain a technical term, or give a quick tip on how to avoid an exploit — weren’t carefully placed; sometimes, they interrupt paragraphs of the main text.

View all my reviews

Review: Women

2011-10-07T17:34:00.001-04:00

Women by Charles Bukowski

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Bukowski's writing has a staccato, simplistic characteristic that takes a bit of getting used to, but once you're used to it, his prose becomes an absolute joy to read -- even as you're reading the narrative of a fairly despicable antihero.

Henry Chinaski is a drunk and a womanizer. He has little ambition beyond having as much rough sex with as many young women as he can manage. And it is in laying himself that bare, as it were -- the totally unapologetic tone Bukowski takes in painting his protagonist -- that draws the reader in.

Sensitive types won't like the lecherous Chinaski one bit. They'll wail about the weak, vacuous, shallow women who fall into his bed. They'll recoil at Bukowski's portrayal of rough, animal sex that is Chinaski's desire, and even more at his base indifference to the feelings of the women in his life.

To be certain, Bukowski's summation of the life of a sexually predatory famous person rings of significant truth; one need merely look to any recent sex scandal and see players whose parts fit nicely into Women's outline.

But there's a deeper truth in the character Bukowski has built over several novels. He is us. He muddles through where that's needed, he wallows in juvenile filth when he can, and he cloys the same way almost any man would in similar circumstances.

Women is a fun-house mirror, distorting grotesquely the picture that is any of us.

View all my reviews

Review: A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism

2011-09-22T16:37:00.001-04:00

A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism by Daniel Byman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Byman's book is primarily a critical history of Israel's struggles against Fatah, Hamas, Hizzbollah (aka Hezbollah), the PLO and its offshoot organizations, and its shifting relationship with the Palestinian Authority.

His primary conclusions:

* Israel is tactically proficient and excellent at counterterrorism. But its internal and external politics make its strategic approach a rudderless mess.

* Israel's most successful counterterrorism methods are targeted killings, disproportionate responses (especially economic pressure and the destruction of local resources), the West Bank security fence and involving partners / proxies in the fight. Again, political realities on the world and local stages limit the ability to use these measures.

* Israel's best hope for long-term stability are strong neighbor states that can crack down on extremists without appearing to be collaborators. That's limited by internal politics and Israel's own favored strategy of targeting foreign governments to punish attacks launched from their territory.

* Hamas and Hizzbollah are creations of Israel's lack of strategic foresight or comprehensive plan for dealing with terrorists.

* Long-term survival necessitates a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority, but that's nearly impossible to achieve given public opinion.

* Israel's refusal to strongly respond to Jewish terrorism, and its hamstringing of the Palestinian Authority's security forces, are unjustifiable duplicities.

* Not all of Israel's enemies are terrorists alone -- several are effectively legitimate governments. Even among the bomb-tossing ilk, such groups are usually united only in their dislike of Israel, and are as dangerous to each other as the IDF is to them all.

Overall, I found Byman's treatment of the intensive complexities of Middle East peace to be even-handed, well-researched and compelling.

He possesses no magic bullet for ending terrorism. If anything, his primary point is that it can't be ended, merely managed.

He both laments that fact that Israel is often unfairly painted as the villain, and takes them to task for manifest failures that lead to repeated mistakes.

His message on direct action is clear: Successfully dealing with terrorists requires a willingness to engage and negotiate with moderate elements, the necessity of recruiting informants / local partners, an exceptionally adept intelligence apparatus (such as Shin Bet), openness and willingness to engage the media in order to spin counterterrorist measures in the most favorable light, willingness to accept casualties; the will to respond severely to attacks; and clear goals of what constitutes not necessarily victory, but an acceptable level of security.

Easier said than done, Byman admits. But it is refreshing to hear an informed, moderate and academic consideration of the problems.

Israel isn't perfect, and it's not always right. And terrorists aren't all bloodthirsty savages, nor are they freedom fighters. There can be a political solution -- there must be -- but only if Israel adopts a more even hand, especially in terms of helping to reinforce legitimate peace partners, of which Byman cites the Palestinian Authority's current leadership.

All in all, an extremely insightful read that helps the casual observer both understand how we came to the current state of affairs in Israel, plus a framework for America and the rest of the world to engage in sensible counterterrorism.

View all my reviews

Review: Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974-1980

2011-08-27T07:12:00.003-04:00

Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974-1980 by Laura Kalman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

What's most startling in Laura Kalman's "Right Star Rising" is how similar America of the last few years resembles America of the 1970s.

Begin with a seminal event that fundamentally changes the nation's perceptions and values; the 9/11 terrorist attacks or Richard Nixon's resignation.

Next, staff the White House with a relatively weak personality -- a consummate insider -- whose presidency is largely portrayed and viewed as bumbling, and whose fatal flaw is leaning too heavily on his advisers. In fact, make sure both those presidents use the same people in critical staff roles (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George H. W. Bush, etc.) In the 1970s, that's Gerald Ford; in 2000s, George W. Bush.

Run against that president a Democrat with limited Washington, DC political experience and represent him as a needed breath of fresh air; a departure from politics as usual. Ensure said candidate makes promises he cannot hope to deliver. Thus produce Barack Obama in 2008, or Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Once that "change" candidate takes office, present him with a series of low hurdles that he ends up barreling through. Have him give uninspired, pedantic press conferences; ensure he seldom takes a firm stand on anything, but trust that whatever he says or does, it will come off as foundering at best and irrational folly at worse.

In spite of this, make sure that president does accomplish some important / impressive things, and even give him a legitimate chance to win reelection, due to facing what appears to be a revived right wing of the GOP.

To complete the process, ensure that most of the challenges America faces are fundamentally the same at both times: skyrocketing energy costs, stagnant economies, threats of inflation, a shift in public perception about America's world standing, job losses to other nations, a massive social program (1970s: school busing; 2000s, health care) that is of itself largely meaningless, but is transformed into a synecdoche for the overt abuse of federal power.

The startling parallels between America of now and 40 years ago are what sell Kalman's central premise: That the emergence of the Tea Party, and the "new" right -- religious, anti-government, xenophobic, jingoistic -- is largely the product of the Ford and Carter presidencies.

The primary difference is that in Kalman's view, the defection of traditional Democrat stalwarts -- southern Democrats, wealthy Jews, intellectuals -- that created the "neoconservative" movement championed by the likes of William F. Buckley Jr. was fundamental to driving even more support away from the kind of Republicanism embodied in Dwight Eisenhower to the erstwhile unrealistic prospect of a Ronald Reagan presidency.

Today, the Republican party has no champions of reason to intimidate blue-collar types; talk radio and blogs have reduced debate to sloganeering and fear-mongering. Then, again, there are practically no viable Democratic mouthpieces at all; at least, when measured in terms of actually paying their bills.

There are times in "Right Star Rising" that Kalman's professed liberalism leaks through the narrative, leading one to wonder if she's relating a fact or expressing a regret. But for the most part, her treatment of the people and events of 1970s America are fair, even-handed and often quite insightful. This work is heavily annotated and unquestionably well-researched.

More important, Kalman makes her sale.

Chapters were a bit long for nightstand reading, and in all honesty, when I saw the small typeface and large word count, I worried I was assigned to a long time of slow, painful reading. But Kalman's prose is, if not breezy, quite easy to consume; and the topic matter was of great interest to me, so admittedly my motivations may cloud my perceptions of how hard this was to read.

That said, all in all, an excellent overview of the post-Watergate political landscape and a reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

View all my reviews

Review: Free: The Future of a Radical Price

2011-08-05T11:09:00.002-04:00

Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Reading Free: The Future of a Radical Price reminded me, in many ways, of The Grand Design.

To understand the universe on the quantum level, you have to embrace understandings and facts that seem ludicrous at human scales. That is, that we have free will; that things cannot be in the same place at the same time; that time progresses at one speed and forward only, are all convenient and explicit truths for our day-to-day existence. But at the subatomic level, that's not how things work; not at all.

Anderson's arguments about Free -- that is, gratis and libre -- are presented in the same sense, if not quite as well or explicitly.

Free does a fine job of explaining the mechanics of how things can be free on the Web: namely, per-unit / per-user costs are so low, they might as well be considered nothing.

He also does a good job of explaining the obvious money-making models applied successfully so far: advertising, freemium (basic service is free; premium service costs money) and non-monetary / indirect recompense, such as an increase in reputation / marketing of ancillary products, such as concerts and merchandise for musicians or speaking engagements and consultations for professionals.

Probably the most valuable lesson Anderson's book provides is that in the information economy, copies cost nothing.

Certainly, the physical cost of the copy is so close to nothing, it might as well be nothing; but Anderson also suggests that the lost "opportunity cost" of not selling that record or book or software is significantly overstated, since there's a good chance they wouldn't have been purchased in the first place, and that the auxiliary benefits of spreading a product far and wide outweigh the loss from sales.

Speaking as someone who has pirated content he probably would have purchased if he couldn't get it for free, I'd call that argument, on its face, pretty spurious.

But it makes perfect sense in view of the base assertion that digital content is going to be stolen, because it's so easy and the costs / consequences are virtually zero. So don't put all your effort into preventing theft (but don't make it completely easy, either); put most of your effort into monetizing your soon-to-be-widespread content.

The reason I can't give Anderson full credit here is because for someone who so consistently and readily acknowledges that there's two groups of understanding when it comes to Free -- the over-30 crowd, which can't break free of the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" model; and the under-30 crowd, which can't understand copyright or intellectual property to save its life -- he sure does a poor job of satiating each others' curiosity.

It's one thing to relate the obvious, which is about half of Anderson's book. It's another to provide real-life examples of how Free is being monetized, which Anderson does via several sidebars.

What this book lacks is what it needed most: its own version of M-theory, to explain how and why Free is the only model that makes sense here. That is, he went about presenting the information all wrong.

It should have been less anecdotal and more theoretical proof. Had Free set out with a statement of the "rules of the digital economy," then proceeded to address those rules in order with interlocking and supporting truths, a much more useful book would have been produced.

As it is, Free tells us what we already know, and does little to predict what comes next. It suffices as an introduction to the idea of the economics of the 21st century, but it's no road map.

View all my reviews

Cleaning Up My Facebook Friend List

2011-08-04T16:51:00.006-04:00

Occasionally, I clean up my Facebook friends list, removing people with whom I am not communicating on a regular basis.

My Wall is open to everyone to read. So is the vast majority of my personal information. I also accept messages from anyone. That's because I'm not so naive as to assume the things I say on Facebook are in any way private, my contact information is published far and wide, and I want to be easy to contact one-on-one.

Basically, being my Facebook friend lets you comment on the things I post, see photos in which I have been tagged and chat with me, on those rare occasions when I turn on Facebook chat.

Also, removing people from my friends list removes them from my News Feed.

I'm not everyone's cup of tea. And truth be told, not everyone is mine. That I have removed someone from my friends list doesn't mean I think he's a bad person. It means we're not talking, or we're just not compatible. That's not a bad thing.

Also, because of the way Facebook works, it's possible for my friends to see information about other friends -- photos of their kids, status updates, etc. -- those other friends might not want strangers to see.

True, my security-conscious friends could tinker with their privacy settings to get that part right, or not publish sensitive things on the Internet in the first place, but that's not a realistic option or expectation. So I should shoulder some of the burden here and not expose my friends to people I might not actually know very well.

So, here's how I determine whom I maintain as a Facebook friend. These are very general guidelines. I reserve the right to be entirely arbitrary about who is a Facebook friend and how I use these guidelines.

I like my friends. Again, I'm not everyone's cup of tea, and they're not mine. Sometimes, people are oil and water. That doesn't make either of them a bad person. It just means they're not good company.
I know my friends IRL. That is, we've met in the flesh somehow. If we haven't met, we can start out following each other on Twitter, then move to Facebook if the connection is solid. Most of the people I follow, and who follow me, on Twitter I have not met face-to-face. That venue is far more appropriate for casual acquaintances, I find.
My friends and I talk on a regular basis. If we're not commenting on each other's statuses and posts on a fairly regular basis, we're not "friends."
It's possible for this to be a one-way street; either I am doing all the commenting on what my friend says, or only my friend comments on what I say. (That is, there will be cases where I "hide" someone in my news feed, but we converse through what I post; and vice-versa.)
My friends are interesting, open-minded, intelligent and fair. So we don't actually need to talk, provided my friend is not boring, or at least doesn't say wildly sophomoric, inane or otherwise intellectually offensive things as a rule.
Protip: If someone gets all his news from Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart, but insists upon opining on politics, he's probably going to wind up getting cut.
Along those lines ...
My friends are pleasant. Everybody bitches once in a while; everybody has good days and bad days. And hey, I'm the last person on Earth who's going to be offended by snark, profanity or an occasional diatribe. But I don't like negative people IRL, so I'm not going to endure them on Facebook.
I also have a zero-tolerance policy toward feuding on Facebook, and approach it the same way the police approach domestic violence: If the primary aggressor is obvious, he's unfriended. If it is mutual combat, both are unfriended. And even if my friends insist they aren't bothered by the conflict, it's not up to them to choose whether I prosecute; they violated the sanctity of my Facebook experience.
My friends aren't one-trick ponies. Many of my friends are rightfully proud of their children. Many of them are die-hard Patriots fans. Many of them are very spiritual. Several of them are hard-working business owners. They should talk about these things, and I am very glad to talk with them about those things. But if a friend is a broken record, I'm probably going to grow tired of hearing it.
My friends actually log on once in a while. If a friend has clearly abandoned Facebook, I'll remove him.
My friends are responsible Facebook users. They don't spread hoaxes, they don't click "OMG this daughter was caught by her father doing WHAT?" virus links, they don't take stupid quizzes that invoke my name, they don't post dumb shit on my Wall, they realize "see who's stalking you" applications are a scam, they don't invite me to events I cannot possibly attend, they do not solicit me to like causes I clearly do not like. (Or, at the very least, they ask me for my opinion before inviting me to join a cause.)
My family are my friends. As in, you can't unfriend family in real life, so you can't unfriend them on Facebook. Fortunately, that's not an issue, since I love my family.

One more note here: I have a terrible memory for names and faces. This is a severe shortcoming, and it's my problem entirely.

To compensate, usually I will accept a friend request from someone who I think I have met IRL. (It helps if we have some mutual Facebook friends, so that I can better place the person requesting friendship.)

I'll ride that out for a while, and if the friendship meets most of the criteria I've described here, then we are, indeed, friends. If not, we'll call it good.

In other words, I am happy to rekindle old friendships; to let bygones be bygones; to build stronger friendships; etc. But I prefer to concentrate such efforts on people who are actual friends. Or, as Jimmy Kimmel put it, people I would loan $5.

Again, these aren't hard-and-fast rules. Anyone can see most of what I am doing on Facebook.

I simply want to reserve the ability to talk to me, and peoples' presence in my News Feed, and access to my friends' information, to those people I consider actual friends, and not merely people I once knew, kinda know now, or who are collecting as many "friends" as they can.

In closing, let me assure you that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you cut me as a Facebook friend, it's no hard feelings from me. I had it coming, probably, or at the very least, you're probably better off without me around. Again, that's not a bad thing; not at all.

Review: The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore

2011-08-01T16:10:00.004-04:00

The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore by Benjamin Hale

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If Dave Eggers was a chimpanzee, he would be Bruno Littlemore, and A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius would have been The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore.

Eggers isn't a chimp, but his memoir is a steaming pile of monkey shit: pretentious, overwrought, self-indulgent, unpalatable in certain places and patently offensive in others.

The same's true of Bruno Littlemore and his autobiography.

The difference being that because Bruno's a fictional character, and a talking chimpanzee at that, it's OK for him to take himself way too seriously, to employ his arrogant and obnoxious personality to a self-serving and largely fanciful autobiography, and to divert into asides and soliloquies that detract from the story to make some vain, vapid point.

Make no mistake: Bruno Littlemore may rightly not consider himself truly a chimpanzee nor, in spite of being able to speak and read, fully human, but he embodies many of the worst aspects of primates. His memoir is -- as Megan, my local Barnes & Noble employee who recommended this book to me, said -- "not for the easily offended."

Profanity, rape, physical violence, defecation, domestic violence, bestiality and a host of other "adult themes" are present here.

Simply put, you need to be prepared to sympathize with an almost entirely unsympathetic character. Plucked from a zoo and admittedly forced, through circumstances not of his choosing, between the world of apes and men, Bruno's story ought to inspire sympathy and compassion. And yes, there are moments when you most decidedly feel for the guy.

But a lot of the appeal of this book is enjoying the justifications Bruno proffers in justifying what would, for most humans, have seemed obvious hubris.

And here is where Benjamin Hale manages to break from the arrogantly annoying Eggers mode. The genius of his first-person narrative is that Bruno didn't know better at the time, and we can believe it to be so.

Eggers is a jackass; Bruno is learning how to be human. When Eggers launches into a 10-page examination of some sophomoric nuance, when "I was acting like a dick" would have sufficed, it's enough to make one quit his book altogether. When Bruno goes off on a tangent about the foibles of humanity, or his understanding of where he went wrong, he's every bit as self-serving and ludicrous as Eggers; but at least Bruno has an excuse. He's trying to figure out what it means to be human. Eggers should have figured that out during kindergarten, like the rest of us.

Hale's story of the chimp who would desperately desire to be human, even as he curses most of those who make that possible, is an exceptionally entertaining read. Exercising the discipline to put it down on the nightstand and go to sleep was often difficult.

Rarely does fiction so completely skewer an entire literary trend -- audacious autobiographies from unsympathetic characters -- with its own sword. Well worth the read, but again, be prepared to hate that you love this antihero.

View all my reviews

Review: The Grand Design

2011-07-23T23:19:00.003-04:00

The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

tl;dr: Don't feed the trolls. Even if you make the impossible-to-fathom almost completely comprehensible.

Let's face it: M-theory is way above most people's heads, and definitely mine.

Just trying to make some of its most basic concepts understandable is beyond daunting. For example, common sense tells us that nothing can be everywhere at once; but on the quantum level, particles are.

It is getting past our inability to comprehend the seeming absurdity of such things, and see past the sense we make of the physical world we experience, that is at the heart of The Grand Design.

The first part of the book establishes the idea that any belief system that is borne out by testing is legitimate (i.e., model-dependent views). In other words, whatever actually works is valid, even if it makes no common sense.

The authors then spend a significant amount of effort explaining current quantum theory, with an eye toward explaining the fundamental particles and why scientists believe them to exist.

This serves as stage to approach the point, in the last 30 or so pages: Do we need God to have intelligent design?

Of course, their answer is no; extremely elegant laws of the Universe serve quite well enough.

For example, while our knowledge of gravity is incomplete, what we do know about it lets us know that we can create something (the Universe) from nothing (the Big Bang).

The authors argue that what we consider inconceivable / the hand of God is either a limitation of our ability to compute an outcome, due to the volume of information that needs to be processed, or our applying the wrong model when viewing an outcome.

Which seems reasonable enough a point to make; I'm just not sure why the authors would bother making it.

At some point, no matter how smart he is, a person reaches the limit of his understanding of such things. (If that wasn't the case, we'd have our unified theory of everything already.)

Consequently, he has to accept certain things on faith, or accept simply not knowing. And it's clearly not human nature for most people to throw up their hands and say, "I don't know, and that's OK."

So mankind has -- throughout recorded history, at least -- either invented answers that seemed to work at the time, or took on faith that those models worked.

My point is that you can't make people fathom things they cannot understand, and you cannot get most people to release their faith in views that match what they want to be true, even when evidence overwhelmingly refutes those views.

So I'm not sure for whom this book was written. If I take it in the context of an interesting primer on M-theory, it definitely works; but why drag God into it? And if it's meant to target agnostics, why does it take so long to delve into the ultimate point, and do so without hardly mentioning God until the final two chapters?

I know the authors are smart and wise enough to not bother with the anti-intellectual circus of arguing with true believers about the existence of God. After all, nothing is more tiresome or fruitless.

Perhaps I'm hypersensitive of that very point: If someone can't fathom the folly of gods and miracles, I can't change his mind; he's come to those conclusions for good reason. Namely, he's incapable or unwilling to understand a model that better predicts the truth.

In reminding me of just how limited my own ability to grasp the true nature of the Universe, at least, this book excelled. While most of it made sense, some of it still soared right past me.

I can accept that on its face. Most, including those to whom this book is ostensibly addressed, will insist on inventing answers that fit their models, rather than the other way around. That this worthwhile book is ostensibly aimed at them seems a shame and a waste.

View all my reviews

Review: Perilous Fight: America's Intrepid War with Britain on the High Seas, 1812-1815

2011-07-16T11:11:00.002-04:00

Perilous Fight: America's Intrepid War with Britain on the High Seas, 1812-1815 by Stephen Budiansky

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Delivers exactly what it promised: A fairly comprehensive history of America's nascent Navy, and the politics and tactics behind the naval campaigns of the War of 1812.

Budiansky has strong skills for writing about actions but has an even better pen for plowing through the myriad behind-the-scenes maneuvering and personalities involved in the politics -- literal and figurative -- of the naval service.

The book almost exclusively concentrates on the American side of the war, and short-changes a full accounting of English reaction to the war in progress or motivations for peace. (He does cover them, just not as completely as the American side).

Remarkably short shrift is given to the Great Lakes, which is astounding given the vital role the Navy played in preventing the disastrous Canadian campaigns from completely unraveling. What should have been half the book, if it were written with an eye toward giving equal weight to the importance of the naval effort, is effectively reduced to a few pages.

It was an enjoyable read on the whole, if somewhat incomplete.

View all my reviews

Go East, Lost Man

2011-07-07T11:55:00.001-04:00

Having had the good fortune to grow up under the tutelage of one of Maine's leading sportsmen -- a.k.a. Dad -- I've never much feared being lost in the Maine woods.

In large part, that's because I know there's very little wildlife in Maine that will harm me, and provided I don't act stupidly, the few things that might -- bears and rabid animals, basically -- won't. (Bears: Don't keep food in your campsite [store it well away from where you sleep], and steer clear of cubs. Rabid animals: If a wild mammal doesn't run away from you / act defensively, avoid it, because there's a good chance it's rabid. All wild animals fear you much more than you need to fear them.)

I've also seen most of the Maine woods, so I know that for most of this state, it's impossible to walk 10 miles in a straight line without crossing a paved road.

So I get a little annoyed when I read advice about being lost in the Maine woods, since becoming "unlost" shouldn't take more than 12 hours, if you remain calm. (Which, of course, is the tricky part.)

Forthwith, Doug's Handy Guide To Not Being Lost In The Maine Woods:

Walk east. (That is, toward the Sun in the morning, away from the Sun in the evening. The exact heading isn't all that crucial; generally, east.) Keep walking until you reach a stream, building, road or the coast. One of the those things will eventually come up, almost certainly within a few miles.
If you reach an occupied building, ask for help from the occupants.
If you reach a paved road, stop. A vehicle will be by soon enough; flag it down.
If you reach a graded road, I would suggest you stop; a vehicle will eventually come down it, too, but it may be a while.
If you prefer not to wait, or if you reach a dirt road, head east / south down the road; that direction most likely leads to a paved road, but if not, you can go back to Step 1.
If you reach a stream, walk downstream. You will soon enough come to a road or the coast.
If you reach the coast, you will probably see a house or lobster pot buoys. If you see a house, go to it and ask for help. If you see buoys, wait for a lobsterman to come by and hail him. If you see neither, walk south (the Sun over your left shoulder in the morning, your right shoulder in the afternoon) until you see one or the other.

Yeah, it's literally that simple.

That said, here's basic advice for making it easy to find you / spending a few nights in the Maine woods, if you don't choose to walk your way out:

Never go in the woods alone. Or, if you must go alone, make sure someone knows where you are going and when you expect to be back.
Always carry a pocket knife and a way to start a fire (a disposable lighter is probably good enough). So long as you can start a fire, you can survive the Maine woods at any time of year.
If you're not going to walk out of the woods, get a fire going immediately. The act of finding wood, building and starting the fire will give you purpose and help calm you. And once you're warm, you'll feel better.
You can never have enough firewood. Dry, non-rotted stuff on the ground is best, followed by dead branches on hardwood trees. Seriously, pretty much all your time lost should be spent gathering firewood. It will keep your spirits up, and you don't want to run out.
Your priorities, in order: Start a fire. If you're wet, dry your clothes. Build a basic shelter (just getting together a huge pile of leaves / pine boughs to cover yourself at night is enough). Find water.After that, gather firewood.
If you're going to stay put, consider getting to the highest ground nearby, which makes you easier to spot from the air. But whatever you do, stay put if you're not going to walk out. Especially if your vehicle is nearby, since that's where the searchers will start looking for you.
You won't need food; you're not going to be gone that long. You may need water if you're waiting it out, since it may be a few days before you're found. But this is Maine; you can't walk more than a little while east without hitting a stream.
While it would be nice to boil / purify open water, the risk of getting giardia / cryptosporidium from most Maine waters is relatively low (PDF). You'll be seriously weakened within a few days if you don't drink water, so it's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other if you do get a parasite.

Review: At Home: A Short History of Private Life

2011-07-02T08:46:00.005-04:00

At Home: A Short History of Private Life by Bill Bryson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Using his home to discuss, as is Bill Bryson's wont, just about everything (see A Short History of Nearly Everything), was a clever device. And Bryson does, indeed, comb through piles of seemingly unrelated facts and minutiae in this book.

For me, at least, the device didn't work to make many of the facts stick. Certainly, I have a better appreciation of what life was like in Britain through the last 400 or so years; certainly, I was exposed to any number of useful bits of information about science, architecture, politics, health, nature, etc. thanks to this book.

But with so many names and so much detail, retention is nonexistent. You never really hit a "my eyes glaze over" moment with this book; it's breezy and conversational enough. It's more a case that it's a giant Jenga stack of information, each bit being of interest only to the extent that it supports the overall effort. And thus, each piece as eminently forgettable as the last, save the off piece that sticks out precariously from the rest.

I'm certainly not sorry for having read this book -- it's almost perfect nightstand reading -- and I'd give serious thought to putting it into the "to-reread" stack. But "comprehensive" doesn't quite do it justice.

View all my reviews