THEM

Before The Men Who Stare Goats, the was THEM. Jon Ronson has a knack for finding the quirky parts of the underground minds in our society. In the THEM, Ronson spends time with the kind of people who believe that there is a secret Jewish conspiracy to take over the world to form the New World Order. The groups differ greatly from the KKK to Islamists to just plain old folks. The conclusion of the book brings Ronson to a bizarre ceremony in northern California that may sound too weird to be true.

By far this has been one of the most fascinating books I have read in a long time. Not every chapter was riveting, but for the most part it had no trouble holding my attention. Learning how some of the nuttier factions of society. Chapter two was the highlight of the book. I'd heard reference to Ruby Ridge before, but honestly knew little besides the name. Ronson spends time with Rachel, the daughter of Randy Weaver, and gets her impression of the events that took place. He later meets up with Randy Weaver himself. In short you learn about a family that moved to the mountains of Idaho to escape the corruption of the world with the strange belief in the coming New World Order and that the government was out to get them. In the end, they paranoia played out in some of the ways they may have expected, but not for the reasons they would have supposed. The events left Randy's wife Vicky and son Sam dead and became a rallying cry and pilgrimage spot for the likes of Timothy McVeigh. Since the events at Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver has dropped his conspiracy view of the world, many believe it's because his wife was the driving force between those believes.

Ruby Ridge happened prior to the events at Waco, so for many Americans, it's less well known. It's true that the Weaver family and the Davidian Cult held many beliefs. In fact Ronson meets with Randy Weaver at the Davidian site, where it was being rebuilt. Weaver was like a Rock Star to the volunteers working at the site, even though he no longer held those extreme beliefs. What I found most fascinating was what actually lead up to the siege. Randy had been spending time with the local Aryan Nation group and he'd been approached by a federal marshall to spy of the group. He was chosen, because he was not committed to their cause. He spent time with them for the social aspect. He declined the offer. Unfortunately, before the request the same marshall had asked Randy to saw off a couple of shotguns, just below the legal limit. This allowed the government to push Randy's hand. He still refused, despite the threat of prosecution. He never showed up in court, and that's when the nightmare began.

Ronson also spends time with a KKK outfit called the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. This happens to be one Klan faction that was trying to build a more positive image. Less with hating blacks more loving the whites. The difference is subtle, but one factor with this group was the fact that they were making an effort to avoid the N-word, at least in public. The group was using personality tests up the wazzoo to help them to improve themselves and make a better impression publicly. Their buddies at another faction called the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan view this effort as the Klan as going soft, but the AK of the KKK are the ones that make the Jerry Springer appearances. As far as I'm concerned, they are essentially the same. Fascinating, but the same.

The concluding chapter of the book offers a view of the powerful, few are aware of. There's a place in northern California known as the Bohemain Grove where many leaders, government and business, go to talk about issues in the world. It's where George Bush Sr. learned that Cheney would be the running mate of his son in the coming 2000 election. It was merely reported that Bush learned the news while camping in northern California. That would be camping at the Bohemian Grove. Among conspiracy theorists, this is a satanic ritual and evidence of the New World Order. Ronson was able to sneak in attend. He did so with some help. A local lawyer took him in, so to speak.

Ronson learned about this event and decided to check it out, so he contacted one of the extremists he'd spoken to earlier in the book and invited him along. His name is Alex Jones. Alex Jones is one of the nuts similar to Randy Weaver and he hosts a radio show. He accepted the invitation. While planning the infiltration, Ronson learned of this lawyer, Rick, who'd snuck in several times before. Ronson contacted him and got his help. Rick's instructions were simple, just walk in and act like you belong. That's what Rick and Ronson did. Alex Jones on the other hand decided to sneak in with one of his buddies a little differently. All saw the same ritual, but they came away with different interpretations. Jones provided the typical nutcase explanations, while Ronson described a strange ceremony as nothing more than a Fraternity party for geezers.

What's most interesting about Bohemian Grove is not what takes place, it's how people view it. There's a population out there that see it as a satanic ceremony for world domination. The thing is it's not. There was a time when it was the most powerful people in the world and maybe a lot of influence came out of the meetings. Now the attendees are mostly older and the younger folks are avoiding these kinds of gatherings, because they see them as lame. So, at some point the amount of power wielded by the Bohemian Grove crowd will rhyme with zero.

The book is great and well written. I had a difficult time putting it down. I don't know why some people have such screwed up perceptions of the world. Some of it must be due to their upbringing. It's not unusual that children will see the world with a similar lens as their parents. They may or may not come through life with the same ideals, but the parents will have a significant impact on that world view. In the case of the extremists, they tend to live in tight communities and so getting contrary information is difficult. They're like a weird genetic mutation or something. Read the book and check out the clips below. Part of the book was filmed for a documentary, Ronson's other job. Alex Jones interpretation of the Bohemian Grove ritual is further down.

Bad Astronomy

Bad Astronomy is kind of a catch-all book for astronomical misconceptions and myths. Philip Plait, the author, sets out to set the record straight a number of issues regarding astronomy. While Plait is a scientist, a man with a PhD, he doesn't write like one. The writing carries the Bill Nye enthusiasm with the college professor knowledge. Plait was, at the time of the book, a professor at Sonoma College.

Bad Astronomy covers a wide range of topics from egg balancing to the moon hoax and several other things in between. As mentioned above, the book does not drip with geek-speak. It's a very down to earth, nearly conversational in nature. I especially like that I could share fact from the book fairly easily. What's the point of reading a book if you can't enlighten those around you.

It all started with chapter one and the myth of balaning eggs only at the Spring equinox. Apparently there's a myth, on I was unaware of, that eggs can only balance at this time of the year. There's supposed to be some gravitational effect. So, often school kids get roped into testing this theory. Of course somebody succeeds, thus perpetuating the myth. The problem is, there's nothing special about the time of year. Given the right patience a steady hand, and the right egg, you too can balance an egg...any time of the year. My wife, brother, sister and I put this to the test over the Thanksgiving holiday. It worked of course. We just had to use the right egg.

Plait goes into a few other misconceptions, most notably the rotation of draining water and the color of the sun. When you ask somebody if they know anything interesting about drains, they'll most likely refer to the Coriolis Effect. The main point here being that drains swirl the opposite way depending on which hemishpere your in (Counter-clockwise up north and Clockwise down south). The Coriolis Effect is too weak and sinks/toilets/bathtubs too small for the Coriolis Effect to have any noticable impact. It should be noted that there is potential impact, but very small. In fact you would likely need to let the water sit for a week* or so then drain the container one drop at a time. When in comes to toilets, the water swirls solely because of the jets in an effort to keep that porcelien shine from becoming too marred, if you know what I mean.

What color is the sky? Blue of course. But why? Well it's not really blue and in fact a lot of people know that. They'll even get the answer partially correct and refer to the pollutants in the air refracting the light. They are correct that it's something in the air, but it's not the pollutants, it's the air itself. When the photons enter the atmoshere, much of the color gets delfected by the molecules in the air. The Reds and Oranges are affected the most. The Violets and Indigoes are affecte the least. The Blues have just the right wavelength that they scatter everywhere, but still make it your eye. They make it to your eye from every direction under the sun which causes the sky to appear blue. So, then what color is the sun? It's white. Most people assume is yellow, because the only time they can look at it is at sunset when it appears yellow. If it were possible to look at the sun directly during the day, it would be white.

Then there's the moon hoax theory. I admit that I dabbled into that territory in the past. I never became one of THEM though. Plait deals with this subject quite well and shares solid evidence and explanation for the veracity of the moon landing. A favorite of the moon hoax nuts is the lack of stars in the still pictures. This is easily explained by the fact that the shutter speed on the camera was short due to the amount of sunlight and the light from the stars was not strong enough to show up in the pictures. Another issue centers around the flapping of the flag, like it's being blown in the wind. What they forget is that without the atmoshpere the flag is more likely to flap because the lack of wind resistence. Any movment affecting the flag would be more exagerated.

While I never became a believer of the moon hoax, I studied in seriously enough to give it fair consideration. In the end, the offcial and sceintific explanations won out for me. They made more sense to start with. The key was their simplicity. Believing in a staged moon landing took more imagination and more effort. How was this pulled off without a single insider blowing the lid? Why did Russia not challenge the veracity of the event if the hoax is so obvious, as the believers claim? On the technical side, the effort to make it look real seems it would cost as much, if not more, to pull it off. Several years ago I saw some footage from the moon landing that settled things permanently (though my conclusion was already pretty secure). The footage was of the moon rover driving around the moon and I noticed two important things. First, I could see stars in the picture. They were faint, but I could see them (only a few at that). That's the benefit of a moving picture I suppose. The other thing I noticed was a perfect rainbow of moon dust kicked up by the tires. There was not a speck of dust floating in the air, just as if they were driving in a perfect vacuum. Not something that's easily created here on Earth.

That's the long and short of Bad Astronomy. It's a worthwhile read, especially with somebody who has a budding interest in astronomy. I think it's a good read for anybody, just to become familiar with astronomical phenomena. It's best to educate yourself so you don't fall victim to stupid ideas like the moon hoax. Below is footage from Mythbusters with their testing of moon hoax claims.





* I've seen estimates range from 2 hours to 3 weeks. I figure a week is a good middle ground.

I.O.U.S.A. - 2

Ok, so we're not totally screwed. Things are not looking good, at least according to this book. The national debt is growing like Tiger Wood's list of 'lovers' and programs such and Medicare and Social Security are poised to squeeze out other programs as they begin to require more funding. I.O.U.S.A is not just a book though, it's also a movie. In fact it was a movie before it was a book. The book seeks to summarize the film, in less than 100 pages. In addition to the summary, the book includes interviews with many of the subject of the film. These folks come from all ends of the spectrum of politics. Most, but not all, see the mounting debt as 'the' issue of our time.

The emotion in the film makes it a far more effective communicator than the book. When David Walker, former Comptroller General, speaks he has a passion about the state of things. That's largely missing from the book. Granted, it's hard to capture that kind of thing in the written word, unless you're a great fiction writer. The advantage of the book is the fact that you can reference it and show people key points, hi-lite and take notes.

The best interviews, in my opinion come from David Walker (it's worth youtube-ing the guy as well), Ron Paul, Arthur Laffer, Paul Volcker and Paul O'Neil. This section is good just because you get more information from these folks than could be found in the film.

What I find interesting based on reading the book is potential dire situation we may be heading toward. In the next 30-40 years, the government will have severe difficulty meeting its obligations. The issues are Social Security and Medicare. Meeting them will be near impossible according to current trends, and that's if you eliminate every other federal service; thus the US government becomes a health care/retirement program. The likelihood of this actually happening is quite low. It just means that things will have to change so the balance sheets don't get all out of whack. That means either a cut in benefits, increase in taxes, reduction in other programs, or a combination of all three. What concerns me, after reading this book is the push toward public health-care, a la France.

I'm not against a way to provide health-care to those who struggle. I do think it has to be reasonable. Even if Obama states that the public option would be covered without needing additional tax funds. That may be true now, it may not be true in the future. I believe that when Social Security and Medicare were rolled out, they weren't expected to bring such a perceived burden looming over our heads or our children's heads. Reason had an interesting take on health-care. I know that this situation won't be the same for the 40 million uninsured, but it fits some:

It distresses me that when John Mackey expresses his point of view on health-care he gets crucified, virtually. If we're concerned about finding solutions to these problems, then we should be willing to look into as many realistic options as possible and find the best. I don't like the knee-jerk reaction that we need to turn to the government to solve our problems. There have to be creative ways to solve some of them ourselves. Imagine in auto insurance functioned like health insurance. Filling up with gas or getting an oil change would include a copay, not the actual price of the service. Imagine if each fill up were just $10 or $20. You think pollution is bad now? Granted that's an analogy that may not fit perfectly, but it's the kind of thinking that needs to be looked at. That said, here are some of Mackey's comments from Reason:

Back to the book. In short, I get the message that we need to be more conscious about what we expect from the government. Even when they try to do the right thing, they often get it wrong. It spans from programs to feel good laws, like these at Cracked.com. We're in this mess because people wanted to do the right thing and help others out. Maybe sometimes that's not really the right thing. Providing health care and social security may in the end not be in the country's best interest, over the long run. In a statement from Alexis de Tocqueville in his Memoir on Pauperism he said "It is necessary to do what is most useful for the receiver, not what pleases the giver".

In the end. the book was not near as inspiring as the film, but it's worth checking out, from the library (assuming you can't access the movie). A 30 minute cut of the movie can be found here. For some reason they had the embedding capability disabled.

I.O.U.S.A.

We're Screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Affluenza

If you ever begin to feel complacent in life and need a reason to feel guilty, just pick up Affluenza by John De Graaf*. It's not just a book, as it was a PBS documentary before the first edition was printed. I picked up the second edition guilt-free, since somebody gave it to my wife and I to read. We're just trying to make the authors proud. We may even see if we can share the wealth.

The book is not that guilt inducing, unless you have some serious problems. If you have those problems, you probably aren't likely to pick up the book. Even if that's the case, I think it's worth reading. The authors do a decent job of getting their message of decreasing consumption and unnecessary purchases without being overly preachy. The text was easy to follow, making the book easy to digest. Their facts seemed to be in order, though I do question their use of some of their data. It's not one thing in particular, but I perceive with books like this, it's easy to cherry-pick data to support the author's already established conclusions. While I don't have a specific instance, the tone of the book did fit that bill. It's not unusual, since this is not an academic book. It is worth noting. I think that the general conclusions and ideas in the book are reasonable and worth considering.

I liked that the book spent time referencing two other books I own, Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn and Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. Both books center around living simply or at least by minimizing the unnecessary distractions of stuff. Both are worth reading as well, though I would chose Your Money or Your Life first as it's the first personal finance book I've read that actually focuses on making real changes to spending habits. Affluenza pulls from these books effectively and provides a fair endorsement of them.

The one thing that bothered me about the book was their little survey to show how bad your affluenza was. And no, I did not score poorly. I landed in the second group of only being mildly infected. While the authors admit the survey was not scientific by any means, it was a little dorky. Some of the items included on the list didn't work for me, like whether you eat meat once a day, or if you've ever experienced road rage, or do you ignore the mpg of your car. Then there was the scoring system. You were scored out of 100, but there were 50 questions and each question counted as two point. Why not just make the scale 50 or score some questions as more if you aren't going to use the 50-point scale.

On the whole, the book is a good read, but I think that it might be worth it to find the documentary it's based on as well. I have not seen it, but a portion of it is shown below.

* The book as three authors: John De Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor. For space and sanity I will refer to De Graaf as the only author.

The Num3rati (Audiobook)

Stephen Bakers' book entitled The Num3rati is fascinating on many levels, and downright frightening on some others. I honestly don't know if I should be excited or petrified of the future. Baker has done to the world of data mining what Malcolm Gladwell did to blinking. The Num3rati, didn't sell near the number of books, I happened on it by accident. It's an interesting book for sure and it's worth the time invested to reap its contents (whether by reading or by listening). It falls into the same genre of Blink, Outliers, Freakonomics, and The Undercover Economist as it looks at some interesting facets of life in search of the hidden messages.

As I stated above, Baker takes on the task of data mining. In statistical terms, data mining is a bad thing. It's where people have a data-set an look for correlations, any correlation they can find. An example would be linking driving habits to the Zodiac.* In the case of The Num3rati, data mining refers to the collection of data by companies and governments to better understand a given population. The data is collected with a purpose and to answer specific questions, but the process is similar to mining for ore in the actual process of data collection.

Data collection is a key enterprise in the American business culture. We should all be familiar with the saying that "knowledge is power".** Companies expend Billions in better understanding their target populations. It's well worth it, especially when the data allows the company to more easily target their audience. Rather than use the shotgun approach on national TV (very expensive), they can use a sniper approach on specific shows and channels frequented by their targets.*** The ultimate goal is to get sellers and buyers together.

The data collection spans other areas as well. Baker spends a chapter dealing with internet dating, primarily Chemistry.com, which was started by love guru and Purdue professor Helen Fisher. To test out the validity of the algorithm, Baker and his wife set up profiles, just to see if they would get matched up with each other. After a few days, nothing happened. Baker then realized he'd set a parameter that excluded his wife's age group. With that correction, happily they showed up on each other's prospective lists.

Collecting data also comes with some very positive uses. The number-crunchers are finding ways to help people with medical problems. Patients with severe medical conditions can be "watched" by their doctors via electronic equipment that monitors their rhythms and patters of behavior. When the patter is broken unexpectedly, then doctors know that something may be amiss and can intervene immediately. It may be where a patient gets up to pee around a certain time each night.

The Num3rati covers many areas of life and showcases good and bad uses of the collected data. The book is certainly not ground-breaking by any stretch of the imagination, however the information is useful and puts many things into perspective when considering the technology of the day. I found the book worthwhile to read, though not necessarily to own. What is contained in the book will be out of date and it doesn't make a mark the way that Freakonomics did, at least not enough for a follow-up called Super-Num3rati. I definitely recommend it, because is is informative, but save the few bucks and pick it up at the library if you can.

* These are items that have no relationship (aside from the fact that Astrology is crap), but people have made claims that there is a real relationship due to identified correlations. Because the data was not collected for that express purpose and people were merely looking for correlations, it's no surprise they found one. The issue is that when you just mine data for correlations, you're bound to find something, but when the data was not collected in a way as to answer a specific question, the correlations have little meaning.

** Knowledge is not power, though knowledge put to use comes somewhat closer to that reality. All the knowledge in the world does little for you, even if you know about David Letterman's affairs.

*** Targets are a very good description after listening to this book. While Baker doesn't use the term himself, the description of the aims is quite clear. It might not be all bad, but it's certainly isn't all good.

The Sky Is Not the Limit

Neil De Grasse Tyson is the face of Astrophysics in America. He's also the author of several books about astronomy and the director on the Hayden Planetarium in New York City. On top of all that, he hosts Nova Science Now. The Sky Is Not the Limit is a memoir where Tyson chronicles his burgeoning interest in all thing astronomy as a kid to his rise to to a very prestigious position at the Hayden Planetarium.

For the most part, the book is pretty interesting and well written. Tyson certainly has a talent for writing and communicating scientific ideas to the lay person. The book is not heavy on science, but the science that is included is easily understood. Most of the book focuses on Tyson's experiences falling in love with science, Astronomy in particular.

The subtitle for the book is: Adventures of and Urban Astrophysicist. It's certainly an applicable title, as Tyson has lived pretty much his entire life in New York City. From that subtitle, I had wrongly assumed that he'd grown up in a poorer neighborhood. Shame on me for the assumption. As it turns out, Tyson grew up in a relatively well off family, not that he was swimming in cash. It was this upbringing that provided him with landmark experiences such as attending an Astronomy camp in New Mexico and joining an Astronomy Cruise while in high school. Tyson even relates some of his experiences with racial prejudice and the assumptions that a black student couldn't pursue Astrophysics.

As I mentioned, the book is interesting and enjoyable, although the first half of chapter one wasn't that exciting. I almost regretted picking out the book and even considered putting it down. It wasn't so much that it was horribly written, but more that the target audience appeared to be for the junior high age. While I still feel the book is appropriate for that age group, I found it to be reasonable for any age group. In fact, I would recommend this book to anybody, even if you're not interested in Astronomy. I think the book is inspiring and can encourage younger folks to pursue their interests and get passionate about something. I think it can even inspire older adults to renew forgotten interests (I still regret not taking that Astronomy class in college).

The coolest story comes from Tyson's experience applying for college. He'd applied to and been accepted to Cornell and Harvard. At that time, Carl Sagan was teaching at Cornell and invited Tyson to come for a campus visit. Sagan even offered to let Tyson stay at his house, in the event he had trouble getting home after the visit. That left and impression on Tyson and though he ultimately chose Harvard, he's endeavored to follow the example that Sagan provided in being personable with fans and students of Astronomy.

The long and short, it's a worthy read. It's the kind of book I'll encourage my kids to read when they hit junior high and they are trying to figure out what they are interested in.

Debt Cures They Don't Want You to Know About

Kevin Trudeau has had quite a TV career. He's sold Mega Memory and Coral Calcium. Both made him a ton of money, though the Coral Calcium got him in trouble with the FDA and the FTC. Surprisingly his Coral Calcium claims turned out to be very exaggerated. The FTC then banned him from selling products on TV. Thanks to the 1st amendment, Trudeau didn't have to go hungry for long. He became an author and began is series of various things "...they don't want you to know about."

Debt Cures They Don't Want You to Know About is the 4th book of the series (#5 is Recession Cures - Get Rich in Tough Times). It is also the first Trudeau book I've endeavored to read. I admit to having low expectations and I was not disappointed. I found several problems with Trudeau's book, though I was somewhat surprised that some of the advice was at least somewhat helpful. Other hints were not necessarily bad, but not really useful either. The key problem is the sales pitch selling the book. Below I will discuss what was bad and the areas that weren't horrible.

The book itself is extremely repetitive, especially the first 3-4 chapters. I felt I was reading the same paragraph over and over, just with different wording (it reminded me of The Secret). The book itself could have been reduced to 150 pages (it rings in at just over 300 pages) without missing anything. That's not saying it needed to be written in the first place. Most of the repetition focused on the credit card companies and the banks screwing the American people and keeping them in a revolving-door of debt. While there's a kernel of truth in that statement, it doesn't need to be repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over... On top of that, the repetition reinforces Trudeau's attitude with the intent to convince the reader "it's not your fault you are in debt". The following quote demonstrates the gist of the book:

"Most debt and credit books on the market today talk about how to cure debt by curbing

your spending and 'cutting out fat'. They make you think that it is something you did that

created the wild debt problem." - P.218

There's nothing like absolving yourself of all responsibility. Never-mind all the people who seem to be able to manage your money just fine. The quote is fitting as well, because there isn't a single strategy to help you learn to manage your money and really stay out of debt. Why would Trudeau want that? Readers might actually realize purchasing a book by Trudeau is a waste of money.

There is some actually useful advice in parts of the book. Just about all of it is how to get your APR reduced on your credit card. I'm sure a lot of people don't think that can change at all. I'm not confident that the reductions will be as drastic as dropping from say 25% to 5% like he claims, but it can't hurt to at least try. He even discusses the importance of paying off the balance each month. Unfortunately, he spends little time on that. Much of this chapter keeps the focus on how it's not your fault. In the end it's nothing new.

Trudeau spends quite a bit of time on strategies to eliminate debt. Almost none of which are realistic. I can't say for sure that they won't work, but the number of people who will qualify for the options will be miniscule, at the most. To use the strategies your debt will need to be 3+ years old, with no activity in that time; meaning you haven't paid on it in at least three years. The main strategy is to not acknowledge the debt as yours (Trudeau refers to it as alleged debt). You can also provide a statement of income and net-worth showing you have no money so they'll leave you alone. It might work. Trudeau suggest you have an accountant friend help you. (If you have a friend who is an accountant, sue him for letting you be so stupid with your money). Trudeau does provide an example in the appendix, but it's pretty pathetic.

The appendix is the worst I've seen for a finance book, hands down!!! What is in the appendix should have just been included in the text of the book. It's as if the appendix was added to try to drum up some fraction of credibility. It's a total of three pages, two of which are lame letters that are to be sent to your creditors stating you have no money (good luck on that). On the third page are the two financial documents. Both are correct, but pretty useless, even for their intended purpose. I would expect they would be worthless if you sent them to a creditor to show you have no money, again that might work. No where does he show you how to pay down debt from multiple sources.*

Trudeau's discussion of credit scores is half decent. The main problem again is the angle he takes. He explains the credit scores fairly accurately from what I can tell, but how he attributes the motives of the credit card companies is completely off the mark. I'm not saying the credit card companies/rating agencies are saints and that there isn't some trickery involved in what they do. The devious motives are over-stated. Unfortunately, Trudeau is mostly concerned that the credit card companies want folks with low scores because they can keep them in debt with high interest and high fees. He goes so far as to say they almost don't want people with good scores. I don't doubt that there is some truth to that. But, keep in mind that credit card companies are gambling, to a certain degree, on who will pay off their debt. If you are a greater risk, then they'll charge you more to be in debt to them to minimize their risk. They may hedge their bets greatly in their favor (possibly unfairly), so it pays to have good credit. Trudeau is noble enough to point this out. Again, it's nothing new, though the way Trudeau explains it, you'd think he's discovered Cold Fusion. Then again, I wouldn't put it past Trudeau to "discover" Cold Fusion.

At the end of the book there are two chapters about free money. Virtually all of it involves government programs.** Some of the programs may be worth looking into, but like the debt strategies, you might not qualify due to narrow requirements. They may be worth checking out. Just remember there's no such thing as Free Money. That you can take to the bank. In fact the chapter serves as a condensed version of the Matthew Lesko*** book as far as I'm concerned.

All in all, this book certainly does not live up to the hype. Plus, when you call, as is the Trudeau way, you'll be asked if you want to get his monthly newsletter with even more debt cures. The book certainly isn't ground breaking, though the way the infomercial puts it you can't find this stuff anywhere else. If you are in debt, you're better off finding a book that targets the area where you struggle. First, this book is too general to give any credence to anyone area. Plus, Trudeau's reputation also calls into question the validity of many of the strategies he offers. If you are looking for a good general finance book, I recommend something by Andrew Tobias, Ric Edelman, or even Suze Orman.**** When it comes to finance, I think you are better off going with somebody who has an established reputation versus somebody with a reputation for misleading his customers. BUYER BEWARE.

* If you have debt, pay on each item and apply any surplus to the debt with the highest interest rate. As debt gets paid off transfer all that surplus to the remaining debt with the highest interest rate. Repeat the process until all the debt has been paid off.

** This would be the libertarian's favorite section...to burn!!!!!!!!

*** Lesko is the dork with the suit covered in question marks as see here. He's like a deranged version of the riddler. See the video at the bottom of the page.

**** I wouldn't call Orman my favorite, but I think she has sound advice for the most part. One issue is that she sells some of the things she recommends which I find a conflict of interest. She also takes a more emotional view of money, so she'll likely appeal to women more than men.

Joe Wilson and the Rude Crew

With Joe Wilson, Serena Williams, and Kanye West all acting up, it made for an interesting week. I have to say that I found both Williams and West to be idiots for their behavior. Williams was the worst by far. Kanye wasn't too far behind, although his apology with Jay Leno was by far the most sincere celebrity apology I've ever seen. We'll see if it changes his behavior, because in my book he's still one of the most annoying celebrities.

I really want to talk about Mr. Wilson. Although his comment is considered rude by many, I liked it. He may have been incorrect in his assessment. From what I understand, the bill doesn't include provisions for illegal aliens. That would make Wilson incorrect, though I doubt illegal aliens would be turned away. We'll in effect pay for them as we do now. What I like is the spice Wilson added to congress. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Bush had been challenged like that? It reminds me of the british government where the Prime Minister has to answer to the parliament. Our presidents need to be challenged the same way. It's part show and entertainment in Britain, but I'd like to see the Congress and Senate face the president with criticism and cat-calls. I doubt Bush would have been re-elected if he had the face this kind of crowd.

Here's to you Joe Wilson. Just get the rest of your colleagues on board, then we're talking. This may be an area where Kanye is well suited.

Foucault's Pendulum

After several years of planning to read Umberto Eco, I finally picked up Foucault's Pendulum. I've heard it referred to as the thinking man's Da Vinci Code. Since Foucault's Pendulum came first, I'd much rather consider The Da Vinci Code as the idiots Foucault's Pendulum. There is a drastic difference between the two books, that's for sure.

First off, Foucault's Pendulum has much less action than a Dan Brown book. It also takes place over more than a 24 hour period. The most striking difference is the depth of the plot. Rather than be filled with a series of simple codes and and connections that unravel as the book progresses, Eco weaves a complex history and conspiracy that requires the reader to pay full attention.

Eco begins the book with the conspiracy alive and ready to expose itself. We see Causaubon enter a museum in Paris to find is friend Belbo who has informed Causaubon that The Plan is real. Eco quickly pulls the story into flashback and the majority of the book takes place in the past, a past that spans 10-15 years, or more. Causaubon is the main character we follow for the entirety of the book. He is a n expert on the Templar's and is drawn into a publisher to screen books about the templars. Eventually he and his friend Belbo begin to work up their own conspiracy regarding the Templars and other secret societies. In the end the made up conspiracy, known as The Plan, turns out to be a reality. Most of the book deals with the creation of The Plan, with little real action.

Overall I found the book enjoyable. It's not a book that should be read in small snippets, whichh unfortunately is how I read it. I took two months to actually read the whole book. The language is not difficult, but the themes and the history detailed in the book require the reader to pay attention in order to get full enjoyment. In contrast, The Da Vinci Code requires no such attention due to its simple nature. I would recommend this book to anybody who enjoys history for sure. Just make sure you have time to read it in large chunks.

Nessie?

Google Earth may have unearthed (unwatered???) the Loch Ness Monster. Just enter the coordinates 57°12'52.13"N, 4°34'14.16"W into the search for an amazing find (for the record I did just that and located the image on my own). Of course it's only amazing if your IQ is in the Forest Gump range. The said image is shown (I stole this copy from foxnews.com) and as you can see, it hardly looks like famous monster, unless it got exposed to some serious radiation resulting in deformation of the creature. My best guess is that his is a boat of some sort followed by a wake. The Lock Ness Monster's existence is already questionable for a myriad of reasons. The most notable reason being that Loch Ness can not supply the nutrition to support such a creature. It would be totally awesome if there were such a creature, that's for sure.

Captain Organic and the Wing Nuts - RANT

John Mackey should know when to keep his big mouth shut. Wasn't he aware that reasoned debate is banned in this country? Apparently he missed the memo. When it comes to health-care in this country, capitalism has failed and we need government needs to swoop in an fix things. To suggest otherwise is akin to treason and those who choose to breach the code must pay the price and unintelligent rambling attacks.

Mackey's article in the Wall Street Journal set off an IED of sorts in the liberal bloggosphere. Judging from the reactions printed in the Huffington Post, you'd thing Mackey had gone Imus on Obama. The Huffington Post is really just a sample of what has happened. What was Mackey's crime? He merely suggested an alternative to fixing health care using the government. His article isn't even negative, aside to referring to the government reforms as Obama-care*. He merely presents his view of the situation and how he thinks heath-care can be reformed and uses his personal business experience to back it up. It wasn't a rant from a nutcase just to bash Obama. He is making his case based on his EXPERIENCE and his political beliefs. That is not a crime. It should be commended by the very people who are trashing him and calling for boycotts of Whole Foods. At least there are some who can state their disagreements and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can understand that some disagree with the point of view presented by Mackey. I agree with his point of view. I am a believer in the free market. I believe it is the best place to weed out inefficiency over the long run. The free market is not perfect by any means and as many free market supporters have said before, bad things will happen. Bad things happen in nature, but that's part of living.

I don't have confidence in government to take care of me, because it can't it can't take care of me the way I can take care of myself. When there are problems like health-care, the default can't be to have the government to come in and fix things. I am open to a debate and fixing the problem with data and evidence. Unfortunately, many of these issues get turned to the Michael Moores and Rush Limbaughs of the world. I'd much rather the different perspectives present their viewpoint in an intelligent manner with data and sources, so it can be properly evaluated.

I think what irks me most about the reaction to Mackey's article is the level of unnecessary negativity. Mackey present a fair alternative that should be evaluated on its merits, not the knee-jerk reaction that ensued because he didn't support the public option. I find the reaction as bad as those making false claims about the public option (death panels). I start to wonder if anybody lives in reality when I hear what's going on.

I oppose the public option for several reasons and they are valid reasons. I get concerns about too much power going to the government. What happens when people decide that we need to have a real war on obesity because it cost too much money? Does that mean the government gets to invade people's lives to get the cost down? They can decide what you can eat, how much and when to exercise? That's extreme, but there are possibilities there. When Oregon instituted its seatbelt law, drivers would not be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. A fine would only occur when a person had committed another infraction. That last for one year before it was changed so that not wearing a seatbelt became its own offense. I fear that similar things can happen with government health-care. I think Dan Carlin presents a more articulate argument than I. It's mostly the second part of the 1-hour show, but it's a good listen (I suggest the whole show though).

Ultimately I was greatly disappointed in the reaction to John Mackey's article. I think it was a prime opportunity to debate merits. Public health-care should not be the only alternative that can be discussed. If there is a better way to meet the goals of the left using the market, they must be considered. In the end, isn't this just about helping people get the care they need? What is wrong with allowing the market to perform it function? I don't argue that health-care is a right. It is a right, not a guarantee. I have the right to get job, but I don't have that guarantee. If people care about the poor and want them to get health-care, use a charity or a non-profit.

* The reference to Obama-care came not from Mackey himself, but the editors of the WSJ who printed the article. Nowhere in the article is this term used and according to Mackey, he was simply responding with an alternative to the public option.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One last rant. Barney Frank is not my favorite politician. He got to hold one of the famous townhall meetings and somebody showed up who was passionate about the health-care issue. Rush Limbaugh sure has done his part in inspiring stupidity. My point is, Mr Frank handled this woman the way he should have. More people need to be treated like this when they visit from their fantasy world (just like those anti-vax people). I hated when people called Bush Hilter and I hate when it's used on Obama. It's like I said above, we need reasoned debate with data and evidence. I disagree with Frank's position, but fully endorse his reaction to the question. Here's the clip:

This Might Explain Sarah Palin

The US conducted 2400 nuclear tests which were performed in several states including New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Mississippi, and Alaska. The largest such test was performed in Alaska with a 5 Megaton bomb. The bomb was placed 5000 feet underground; you can see the results below. The radiation I'm sure leaked out affecting certain politicians from Alaskan wilderness. The largest ever nuclear test would be the Tsar bomb detonated by the Soviets at 57 Megatons. The first clip is from a video entitled Atomic Journeys. It's an awesome film, and by awesome I mean the destructive power is breath-taking and haunting. While some may feel the film celebrates the tests, I still found the film to be more cautionary. The footage of the Hiroshima devastation and the aftermath was important in the film. The second clip is the Tsar bomb.

What's Jenny McCarthy Been Up To Lately?

Well, she may not be a serial killer, but it seems she's been out racking up quite a body count with her anti-vax rhetoric. You can get your weekly update from the link above which takes you to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count website.

It tends to be a crap-shoot when it comes to celebrities and pet causes. Unfortunately many are grossly uninformed, but make a lot of noise like McCarthy. The interesting thing is McCarthy's son Evan may not even have Autism. Some medical experts have indicated that his seizures are indicative of Landau-Kleffner syndrome. Apparently seizures are not associated with Autism at all, which is what led to Evan's dianosis. On top of that, Evan is recovering and that is also something that does not happen with Autism.

Amanda Peet, a celebrity, does offer some celebrity balance to the autism-vaccine equation, but she's not quite as loud as McCarthy. Here's her PSA on the topic. You can also check out some facts on this blog I found.

Is the Honeymoon Over?

He's no Bush for sure, but does he transcend the politician stereotype? Not according to the folks over at Reason.

Pick the Perp

Ever wonder whether you'd be good at picking the guilty party out of a line up? Here's your chance. Pick the Perp is a website that tests your ability to ID the correct criminal. You have a one in five chance and I'm willing to be that you'll come away with a .200 batting average.

Glad this day came

I'm not trying to sound heartless, but I'm a little bit glad that Michael Jackson is dead. For the last 15 or so years he's been a near joke because of his antics and strange behavior. Tonight is the first time in a long time where I've seen honest reflection on his talents as a performer. In some ways I'd wished it had happened 15 years ago.

I distinctly remember riding the bus to school in 3rd grade when Thriller came out and the 5th graders playing the album on the bus to school in the morning. I also remember seeing the video for Billie Jean (at a friends house of course since my parents weren't up on the cable technology at that point). Then in 1986 I remember the excitement for the release of the album Bad and finally getting to watch the videos at my own house (my parents finally got with the times).

I've never considered myself a Michael Jackson fan per se. I like a lot of his songs and the man was a tremendous performer. I've only owned a copy of the album Thriller once, and that I got from Goodwill. It's a shame that his life turned into such a freak-show. I can't imagine how I would handle life if I'd been put in the public eye at a young age and if I'd had the talent he had. It's certainly a world where it's hard to stay grounded. It's sad that it took his death for the media to remember he was just another person.

In the end, maybe it's a good day. I don't see a lot of people crying, mostly folks remembering the days when Michael was larger than life and the focus was on his music and not his eccentricities. Unfortunately it might be the best thing to happen to his kids, if they aren't too screwed up already.

All in all, it's a good time to remember Michael Jackson's past and the joy his music brought, then move on. North Korea still wants to test some missiles and protesters are still fighting in Iran. As nice as Michael Jackson's music is, it's meaningless if we ignore the bigger picture.

Why do People Hate America?

Why do people hate America?  That's the question Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies try to answer in their book by that name.  This is by no means and easy question, unless you are George W Bush and think that people simply hate us for our freedom.  I don't expect that there aren't people who do hate us for our freedom, but I doubt that number is very big.

The book is not ground-breaking by any means.  I've heard many of the arguments before, in fact the book Banana contained plenty of reasons though it wasn't the purpose of the book.  The basic reasons deal with US intervention in global politics through CIA assassinations, wars, and other events to manipulate markets.  There's also the ever present American culture that has infiltrated almost every corner of the world via Mc Donald's and Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay films.  Together these two things build resentment for the US outside the country.  The citizens of other countries feel the cards are stacked against them politically and economically.  This political/economical war is put into action by a variety of ways.  Some of the most prominent are sanctions and war/assassination.

American culture pervades the world.  I haven't been outside the US, but I am aware I can find a McDonald's pretty much everywhere.  On top of that, there's our media that is exported.  This comes in the form of film and television.  Television is important to note, because all of the production costs are made in the sales to the US/Canadian markets, everything else is pure profit.  This allows the companies to sell American shows at a low rate undercutting the local programming.  Local shows have a more difficult time competing for airtime and ad revenue.  The locals slowly become americanized.

In the political/economic war that exists out the, the locals have virtually no control over what happens.  That's a tragedy, because in that state we all become pawns for other people.  When it comes to media and fast-food, I think it's a different story.  People become surrounded by a culture that is not their own and they begin to lose connection to the culture they were brought up in.  I think the first issue is certainly a no-brainer.  The second is a little more complicated.  Granted that people can't completely control the economic fortunes of their country and viewing shows from our country might be cheaper.  The simple fact is that nobody has really forced many of these nations to accept the Film/TV and fast-food and people can still vote with their dollars.  The exceptions would be places like Jamaica where our food is so subsidized that it's cheaper to import food from the US than to buy the local food.  The problem is that it weakens the local economy.

Overall I thought the book was interesting and not a waste of time.  I can't believe this is the best book on the subject.  I found that 211 pages is way too short to tackle the weighty issues that it attempts.  I found the facts lacking.  The authors share plenty of historical facts about our intervention in other nation's affairs.  I think that some statistics to support the claims about hatred regarding American media and the like would have been helpful.  I'd also like to see some data on the opinions held in the nations.  Without that data, the books amounts to what I call folk-wisdom.  I don't have the means to verify all the fact either, but it appears they got it wrong when it comes to Mohammed Modaddeq.  In the book the authors state he was killed by the CIA in the 1950's, but the man didn't die until 1967 at the age of 84.  I hope that the other facts are not as inaccurate, but this does affect some of the credibility of the authors somewhat.

Another issue I had with the book was that it used the TV show Alias and the famed wester Shane to serve as analogies for America.  The analogies may be fitting, but I've never seen a minute of Alias and I haven't seen Shane since I was ten (and I don't think I ever saw the whole movie either).  In a book of this nature and with the lofty goals, I'd rather have the facts and not toy with stupid TV shows and Films to advance the plot of the book.  I only think it's appropriate when the show directly correlates with the books mission.  I understood what the connection was supposed to be, but the execution was poor and provided insufficient meat.

The book does outline many of the issues well.  It fails to really present a better solution.  While identifying problems is important in working toward a solution, the book is barren when it comes to solutions.  I think it's even barren when it comes to the causes.  The authors the historical events well, but fail to provide the context very well.  On top of that, they fail to even attempt to offer any deeper insight into the "Whys".  I'd like to see more theories and analysis of why the US did something or acts a certain way in given situations.  With that there are no practical solutions either.  Granted the book is meant to be about why people hate us, but I think an alternative and a realistic way to get would be helpful and make the book more worthwhile.

Honestly, who's going to read this book besides me?  Nobody, at least not the people who should.  The title is not approachable and would likely turn off the folks who need to read it, or something like it.  I agree with the general premise that we in the US are responsible for much of the hostility we face from people of other nations.  I don't think this is the best book on the topic.  I don't know what else is out there, but I have to believe there's a better book that this one.

Don't Believe It

If you've ever wondered how lies become news, then you should read Don't Believe It by Alexandra Kitty.  As a freelance journalist, Kitty has written for many publications including Elle,QUill, and Critical Review.   She is also a co-author, with Robert Greenwald, of the book Outfoxed about Rupert Murdoch and his war on journalism.

In Don't Believe It, Kitty shares her insights on how to deconstruct the news.  This becomes even more important with the 24-hour news cycle and the massive amount of information through the myriad of technologies.  There was an age when the news could be trusted more, not necessarily because the reporters were more honest, but that they had the time to fact check and wait on a story.  In the current news cycle that's almost impossible, unless you don't mind getting scooped.  This is not some thing that is likely to change, so it is more important for news consumers to arm themselves with the skills to analyze news.

For the first part of the book, Kitty spends much of the time discussing relatively meaningless instances of bad reporting or outright lying.  There's the example of Greg Packer who managed to make his way into man-on-the-street reports.  He'd developed a hobby of getting in the news and had been quoted quite extensively.  He was discovered by Ann Coulter of all people.   Other cases involved things misquotes of famous people, often it was in an obituary and the source wasn't verified.  Relatively harmless in general.  I do think Kitty spends a little too much time on these particular issues, but they do easily illustrate the process that happens.

She moves on to the bigger fish for most of the book.  These include the Jayson Blaire's and Steven Glass' of the world along with the Susan Smith's of the world.  In some instances the people were innocently trying to cover something up, but the thing got blown out of proportion.  There was kid you accidentally hung his dog at the park, so he told his parents some bullies killed the dog.  He didn't want to get into trouble.  Once folks got wind of the story, there was a lot of outpouring of sympathy.  There's also the lady in Canada who was addicted to pills, but couldn't get a prescription, so she went to the police with a sob story about getting robbed and losing her precious meds.  This story blew up and people started sending her money for her kids college and so forth.

The issues become even more important when we get to the issue of war and WMDs in Iraq.  The whole world was sold a story and the news agencies didn't do enough to verify the veracity of the data.  Some of it was due to the lingering shock from 9/11 and the fear of appearing unpatriotic.  Few asked why are we going into Iraq if they have WMDs?  Why weren't they used on US troops during the invasion?  Oh yeah, there weren't any there.  By the time we got that figured out, we were knee deep.  It's the issues like these that really matter and makes it important to be vigilant in reading the news with a skeptical eye.

With each chapter, Kitty provides some tips on spotting news that's exaggerated or completely false.  The key is looking at the logic and content of a story.  When a reporter uses a lot of color and description, but is short on the facts, that's a red flag.  Either the author hasn't done the homework or things are made up.  The facts should fit together logically and have specificity.  In a story about the first gulf war, somebody volunteering in a Kuwaiti hospital told how the Iraqi soldiers came in and removed babies from incubators and stole them.  The witness left out important facts like were the babies thrown on the floor or gently set on the floor?  If the babies were gently set on the floor, why would the soldiers be so careful?  These missing facts should have been a red flag, because any normal witness would have noticed that act and made sure to describe it.

In another example of logical flaws happened in the murder of a man's wife.  While out on the town a man and his wife were shot.  The pregnant wife was shot in the head, while the man suffered a less serious wound in the abdomen.  The police reasoned that the shooter mistook the husband for a cop and wanted revenge or something.  But what is wrong with this picture?  Why would a gunman make sure his shot was dead on for a pregnant woman virtually ensuring she's incapacitated while leaving the man able to fight back.  A typical gunman would take out the more dangerous person first, in this case the husband, then worry about the pregnant wife.  As it turned out, the husband set the whole thing up to get rid of his wife.

In most cases, if the story sounds outrageous, it likely is.  Use occam's razor to parse the news.  Remove the emotional elements from every story, those are useless.  It's all about the facts.  We can't all be experts in every field, but we should be able to figure out when things don't seem right.  When that is the case, look it up or at least take the fact with a grain of salt until it pans out.

This was a terrific book.  I haven't read much about how to parse the news, but I found this book to be quite good.  I think Don't Believe It should be required reading, along with The Media Monopoly, for all students.  It's especially important for journalism and political students, but anybody who consumes news should read a book like this one.

Banana: The Fate of the Fruit that Changed the World

It's a little know fact that bananas are the single most popular fruit in the world.  More bananas are sold than apples and oranges combined.  Another little know fact is that most of us have only had one banana in their lifetime, genetically speaking.  We may have had multiple pieces of fruit, but we have been eating genetic clones the whole time.  A banana is not grown from seeds, at least no the ones that humans consume.  No, the bananas are grown by cutting the corm (root) of the tree and replanting it.

Why does all this matter?  It's all about evolution.  The banana we eat is the Cavendish.  It was selected as the main banana, because of its size, durability, and taste.  It does taste good doesn't it.  Oh yeah, there's another reason the cavendish was chosen, it was found to be resistant to Panama Disease.  Panama Disease is a soil borne fungus that attacks the root of the banana tree, eventually causing the leaves to collapse.  The tree ultimately dies.  The disease was discovered in 1876, which is also about the time the banana began to make its way into american markets.  The banana sold at that time was called the Gros Michel (aka the Big Mike).

Unfortunately, the Gros Michel was susceptible to Panama Disease.  It took 100 years before the Gros Michel was phased out of the market and replaced by the cavendish.  The Gros Michel had been the perfect banana.  It was sweeter than the cavendish, plus it was more durable.  No special transport needs were necessary, other than refrigeration.  The switch to the cavendish required the invention of the banana box.  As stated above, the cavendish was chosen because it was resistant to Panama Disease and of the other varieties, it most closely met the best attributes of the Gros Michel.

The problem now is the cavendish has lost its resistance to Panama Disease.  Because each banana is a clone of every other banana.  Panama Disease evolved, while the cavendish remained the same.  Panama Disease is not the only disease set to ravage the banana crops.  Fortunately at this time, the diseases are confined to Asia, but with today's mobility it's unlikely it will stay that way.

That's the chief take away from the book.  The author, Dan Koeppel also spends considerable amount of time showing the destruction in Central and South America.  Not just the physical destruction, most of it to combat Panama Disease.  Most significant came in the political involvement from the US.  Few were left untouched by the hand of the US government and the banana companies efforts to abuse the political powers in the region.  We are still living with the effects of the pursuit of banana profits.  Some things have changed, but not much.

The book is entertaining and pretty informative.  I've read some of Koeppel's other work when he's written for Mountain Bike magazine.  He's got a good sense of narrative and it comes across in the reading.  I don't think the book is for everybody, but I think that what is discussed in the book is important.  The banana industry is an example of conformity causing problems.  Because everything is the same, it more susceptible to disease and other problems.  Thus is the world in which we live.  I only wish there had been more pictures showing examples of the diseases and the major players in the banana industry.

Best of the Original Six

Brian McFarlane compiled a treasure trove of old time hockey stories for his book Best of the Original Six. McFralane includes stories from stars of the older era as well as names that are unfamiliar. This is definitely a book for the true hockey fan. While Tropic of Hockey could easily appeal to people who may not necessarily be hockey fans, Best of the Original Six is for hockey fans.

The book is organized into six chapters, one for each of the original six (Montreal Canadians, Toronto Maple Leafs, Detroit Redwings, Boston Bruins, New York Rangers and Chicago Blackhawks). There a couple of cases where a story comes up twice when two teams were heavily involved in the event, but for the most part the stories are original and largely specific to each team. McFarlane goes back into the 1930's and into the early 1970's, but stays within years of the original six.*

The stories are invigorating and exciting. McFarlane is a great storyteller and he has the benefit of having been around for many of the events he describes. That experience adds noticeable vividness to the stories. The best stories came with the section for the Montreal Canadians. The Canadians are the most successful franchise in terms of Stanley Cup victories** which provides a rich soil for exciting stories. Among my favorites are those involving the legend Maurice "Rocket" Richard. In one story, Richard spent all day moving furniture into his new house on game day. He was unsure of his ability to play that night; the coach was not particularly happy about it considering it was the playoffs. As it turns out, Richard scored a whopping 5 goals in the game.

The Detroit Redwings history came with a number of exciting stories. One story, which involved Redwings great Gordie Howe, actually occurred after Howe had moved to the WHA*** later in his professional career. While playing for the Houston Aeros with his sons Mark and Marty, a brawl broke out in a game. One son was pinned to the ice by a larger player for the other team. When one teammate skated over and instructed the player to "let him up", the larger player ignored him. Gordie Howe came over and gave the same instruction, but was met with a string of obscenities. Howe removed his glove and inserted his fingers into the fella's nostrils. The player responded immediately.

There are a number of similar stories that fill the pages and are all exciting, minus a few duds. While I liked the layout of the book, going through each team. The stories seemed random with not a great deal of order to them. Each story was a "sub chapter" of sorts and some appear to have been written in another publication and merely added to the book without any editing. Some sort of order to the stories along with some language to transition between stories would have made the book even better. I think leaving out a few stories and tying the rest together more cohesively would make the storytelling more meaningful. The book lacks a chronology reference, which would have been a nice addition to the book. McFarlane included some great pictures. I wish there could have been more, but what he includes is a good collection and he has shots of the most important players of the era; Rocket Richard, Booby Orr, and Gordie Howe.****

This is a great book for any hockey fan. I found it hard to put down and I recommend it to anybody interested in hockey history.

* Technically the original six era spans 25 years from about 1942-1967. 1942 represents the last year teams folded (the New York Americans being the last team to fold) and the league was left with six teams. In 1967 the NHL finally added six new teams (California Seals, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota North Stars, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, and St. Louis Blues). Three of which have since moved from their original city. Not all of the original six began with the start of the NHL, but there are the ones that were able to survive the financial difficulties of the Great Depression.

** In all the Canadians have won the Stanley Cup 24 times, nearly double second place Toronto with 13 victories.

*** Howe's career lasted 26 years in the NHL plus several years in the World Hockey Association, an attempt in the 1970's to compete with the NHL for fans. The WHA folded in 1979 and several of the teams moved into the NHL including the Wayne Gretzky's Edmonton Oilers.

**** The photos allow me to educate Ryan on his hockey history. He now knows Rocket Richard, Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe. So far Rocket Richard is his favorite, which is mainly because his nickname is Rocket and what kid doesn't like rockets. He even picks up the book to look at the picture of the Rocket.

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is authored by Anthony Lewis a two time pulitzer prize winner.  The book is subtitled as A Biography of the First Amendment.  Lewis takes the life of the First Amendment from its inception and how it's meaning has evolved from then down to the present.  The book is current and addresses issues through 2007 and the Iraq war.  Lewis demonstrates the value that the First Amendment in our society and the trial it has gone through during its existence.

The most powerful part of the book revolves around the original meaning of the first amendment and how it's changed over time.  What struck me most was the blatant attempts to circumvent the amendment so soon after it was implemented.  It is true that the meaning was nearly as wide as it is today.  Sedition laws were common, relatively speaking.  They have been enacted as recently as WWI with Woodrow Wilson.  In most case they were struck down shortly after being implemented.  One interesting case was with John Adams who had a sedition law put in place, largely to keep his VP, Thomas Jefferson, quiet.  The sedition laws made it illegal to criticize the president.  The Adams law lost out when Jefferson was elected and he had the law removed from the books.

Lewis continues with a number of court cases that changed how freedom of speech is viewed.  In some cases the same supreme court justice ruled differently on similar cases.  I didn't make it a point to memorize the cases, or I'd never finish the book.  The most interesting change was how libel came to be judged.  In the early times just stating something that was true, but negative could be ruled as libel.  Over time that interpretation lost it's hold and libel became something where the damages needed to be proven along with malicious intent.

I left the book appreciating the first amendment much more after seeing the road that it's followed and the opportunities that existed to send it down a different path.  What makes the amendment so important is that it protects what we don't necessarily like to hear.  It brings to mind my OB (Organizational Behavior) class from grad school.  One of the keys to effective meetings/decision-making was the inclusion of the devils advocate.  This was important to avoid groupthink.  What allowing these voices do for the public mind is to keep us honest the the same way I learned in the OB class.

If we only have one accepted opinion, then we can't earn anything new; we are also unable to truly defend our position, because we don't know how to view it through the skeptical lens that these rabble-rousers force us to.  When an idea is solid and reasonable, it will withstand criticism and dissent.  Where it is weak it will be made stronger.  We come into serious danger when we can't criticize or think critically about people and issues.  Next thing you know we're sending up a Space Shuttle with defective O-rings, metaphorically speaking.  The other good thing about the dissenters is that in general they aren't necessarily that off the rocker.  It's a new view that can lend to the larger society, though it takes time.

I guess I didn't cover the book that much, but it is worth the time.  It's a short book and I think that al should give it a read.  I really think the book would be ideal for a high-school government class.  The approach is simple enough and I think it can generate good discussion not just about the first amendment, but about the other parts of the bill of rights.