?

Log in

BTRIPP's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in BTRIPP's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Friday, December 2nd, 2016
2:07 pm
Wow ... Did I *REALLY* not mention this stuff in here???
I guess I just assumed that this data was ending up in this stream as well ... but looking back over the past six months, nope. I don't know what's going on in my head that that isn't happening, but that is truly and deeply weird. I mentioned some updates on this back in September, but there seems to have been "radio silence" since. Dang.

Anyway ... the longtime project of getting an index done for all my book reviews is finished, and is up and functional at the following:

Index by Author

Index by Title

While this may not mean squat to you, or anybody else in the world, it's a huge thing for me, as this is a project that's been on the back burner for the better part of a decade. While I'd like to have it searchable and slick (I poked around at ways of having the spreadsheet with the data available, but couldn't get to a point where it would be nicely integrated into my site), it's out there and organized, and fairly easy to check out info on.

I also see that I haven't posted anything about the review books since APRIL ... when I had the 2013 and 2012 books done. I have since put out FIVE additional volumes. HOW COULD I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THIS???

I'm shocked. Really ... this is quite disturbing to me, as on a basic gut level, I'd just assumed every time I got one of these books out, I got a note up here ... but I guess not - just Facebook (where nobody sees nuthin' that's not been paid to be seen).

Anyway, rather that slapping up a whole bunch of individual covers with links going off to their specific pages, I've snagged a grab of the main page with all the books listed (including two that are still "in production", but I needed someplace to point the links from the index at). C'mon ... check 'em out:





Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Thursday, December 1st, 2016
12:58 pm
I really wish he hadn't told me that ...
OK, so I play one quick-pick on each of the big multi-state games each draw (which is two bucks on one, one buck on the other, twice a week), for a whopping "gambling budget" of $6/week. Frankly, this is a pretty decent hedge against suicide as there are four opportunities each week for my life to get a lot better, so that provides me a slight glimmer of hope amid the toilet-flush spiral into doom that my life has become.

However, since the odds are so astronomical on these, and I'm not picking any particular numbers, I generally ignore the results for like 3 months, until the pile of tickets (which I carry around in my pocket) starts to be cumbersome ... generally every 3 months or so. At that point I'll go over to the 7-11 and run them through the scanner.

Over time, I will eventually hit pretty close to the stated odds on the games ... not much, but better than the proverbial kick in the teeth. Again, I'm "buying hope" here.

A few weeks back, I took my tickets in to scan, and found that one of them was worth $500 ... pretty sweet! Unfortunately, none of the lottery vendors around here keeps that much out of the safe at any given time, so I went another couple of weeks before cashing it in (I eventually had the 7-11 guys set up a time for me to come in, when they'd have that much held out for me).

All, happy-happy-joy-joy, right?

Well ...

The guy paying off my ticket asked if I knew what the numbers were ... which I didn't. It turns out that getting a $500 win means that one has missed having a "winning" winning ticket by ONE number. One number. Yep, I was that close to "WINNING THE LOTTERY".

Which, of course, feels like a big "HAH-HAH" from the universe ... with the emotional impact not being "ooh, I have five hundred bucks that I didn't have before" (well, that I guess I did have before, but doled it out $6/week playing the games over a bit over a year and a half) but "you LOST again, sucker!" (sort of something like this).

Another "kick me" sign on Brendan's back ... another grind of the universe's boot heel ...


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Wednesday, November 30th, 2016
10:47 am
Calls you out by name ...
This past summer I was very excited to have gotten a ticket to see Bob Mould in concert. As much as I'd gone out to see bands “back in the day”, there are some glaring gaps in acts that I really liked that I'd never gotten to experience live (and none of us are getting any younger). Bob Mould was one of these, as I'd never caught Hüsker Dü when they were together and had “just missed” Mould several times over the years. It also didn't help that I had long since disconnected from any media that would let me know about upcoming shows (one year I only found out about a new years eve gig in town the week after it happened). Oddly, I'd caught his old bandmate, Grant Hart, a number of times when he was through town, but never Bob. Fortunately, things conspired to get the info in front of me in time to score a ticket (I think I bought it four months in advance!), and I got to cross that off my “bucket list”. I mention this stuff here as I ended up buying Bob Mould's See a Little Light: The Trail of Rage and Melody in the run-up to that show, and eventually got around to reading it about a month back.

Now, I'd been a fan for, quite literally, decades, but was surprised to find that a lot that I thought I “knew” about Mould was skewed at best. I am, of course, assuming that the timeline and events put out in this book are accurate, and my take on this was off … but I was somewhat chagrined to find that my mental data on him and his bands was so substantially erroneous. I've been trying to wrap my mind around this diverging, and can only come up with the fact I wasn't plugged into much “rock media” for the past couple of decades, and so what I “knew” came from bits and pieces here and there, notes on albums (I have nearly all of Mould's discography at this point), and “rumor mill” stuff (like the wife of an old drinking buddy who had supposedly lived in the same dorm as Hüsker Dü at one point).

As mentioned above, I finished reading this a month or so back (I've not been able to triage any time for getting out to write reviews for quite a while), so the details have gotten a little hazy for me, and, unfortunately, there are only a couple of little bookmarks in here, one of which flags a place where I have no clue what I was wanting to go back to. Bummer. This means you're only going to be getting the broad strokes here … although with an autobiography like this, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Frankly, Mould sorts of sets it up for this approach in his approach to the book. In the Preface he writes (following noting “how integrated my personal and professional lives had finally become”):
... writing this book was an emotionally taxing process. Even though my life and work have been on public display for many years, I have always been a very private person. My desire for privacy has often bordered on secrecy. The thought of revealing certain aspects of my personal life was hard to reconcile. As time progressed, I found myself losing track of certain memories. It felt like it was time to assemble the key pieces into a narrative. Instead of telling individual anecdotes (the typical memoir), I'm telling my story in order – and by doing so, I can see the patterns. In a way, I'm finally making sense of my life.
One wonders how much of what the finished book is comes via the efforts of Mould's co-author, Michael Azerrad, a music journalist with a couple of other well-regarded books out there … and what sort of process was involved in the three years it took for this to get done (coming out in 2011). Speaking of “coming out” (nice segue, eh?), one of the more surprising (to me) parts of this is “the gay stuff” … of which there is quite a lot. One of the things he had been keeping secret for a long time was his sexual orientation … this based on both the somewhat homophobic vibe of the early punk scene, and having grown up in a very hostile environment for gays (he tells the story of a guy he knew who had returned to their old home town and ended up being gruesomely murdered). I had recalled that he had been “outed” by a magazine at some point (in the early 1990's), but had always heard that it was a “political” outing that caught Mould by surprise, but in reading this that doesn't seem to be exactly the case (and it was in Spin, rather than in the gay press, as I'd previously thought). He notes that he was very focused on writing gender-neutral lyrics for most of his albums, to not have this become an issue for some listeners. He certainly got over that by 2009, when his Life and Times solo album featured some songs which are fairly clearly written from a gay context.

Frankly, not being much familiar with gay subjects, it was fascinating (if in a somewhat voyeuristic mode) looking in on his various relationships, and his coming to grips with being a gay public figure. In the course of the telling, he does take the reader into a lot of places that they might not ever have had occasion to go (such as the clothing-optional resort where he and his boyfriend are getting thrown out of in the opening story).

The other thing which was surprising (and this I had no inkling of), was his time with WCW – the wrestling operation. Mould had grown up a big wrestling fan, and was somewhat involved in it in his teens (some of Hüsker Dü's tour managers were from that world). Somewhat out of the blue, he got hired as a “creative consultant” in the fall of 1999, and was pretty much 24/7 with that (traveling constantly) until the spring of 2000, when the team he was part of got replaced by the WCW management. He called this his “dream job” … which is interesting for a rock star (whose regular job is the “dream job” of many) to say.

Another thread throughout the book is the subject of “substances”. Hüsker Dü had dissolved in a booze-and-drug-induced haze, and eventually Mould got cleaned up … primarily on his own. As I managed to get 30+ years of sobriety without A.A. (where I have since ended up trying to go for the “sanity” part that I sort of missed back when I got physically sober), I found his story on this of interest … especially as it had some remarkably direct parallels with my own experience … here's a key bit of this, about when he stopped drinking in 1986:
It was a vivid and sudden realization: I had to catch myself and stop this addiction before it escalated any further. I was twenty-five years old and I said to myself, I've had a drink every day for twelve years. If I keep this up, I will not make it to thirty. I was a high-functioning alcoholic. I had scotch in my desk drawer, started drinking straight from the bottle at 2 PM, and could still complete a full day's work. It's great to be a high-functioning alcoholic – I could drink a fifth of scotch and drive just fine. It didn't interfere with my work, so why wouldn't I do it? No one ever pointed out the problem to me. … There was no program, no AA, no handbook … I did no twelve-step program and had no counseling. It was an act of sheer will-power, a testament to my ability to scare myself straight. … That was it. I haven't had a drink since.
This is not a popular theme around the 12-step crowd, as it's a rare individual who can get and stay sober without the structure and support of a program, and I've even had AA folks question if I were really an alcoholic for getting sober without them, despite a rather indicative history (and I'm guessing they'd ask the same about Mould).

Anyway, aside from these themes, most of the book is what you'd expect … tales from the road, tales from the recording studio, drama within bands, despicable “industry” folks, and a good deal of name-checking. Needless to say, this could have gotten quite ugly about the break-up of Hüsker Dü, but I think Mould deliberately pulled his punches there. He describes Grant Hart's descent into heroin addiction, and Greg Norton's fading interest in the music (and how he and Grant ended up re-recording Norton's bass parts on several songs on 1987's Warehouse: Songs And Stories), as well as issues with the label. If anything, the music parts reflect that “telling my story in order” idea here – which, while essentially structuring the book, somewhat makes the telling dry – with scenario after scenario being looked at, but without any point other than recording the facts. This is not to say that the writing is particularly “dry”, as there are some great descriptions of places and processes involved, like this bit on the recording of one of my favorites of Mould's albums, 1990's Black Sheets of Rain, at The Power Station in NYC:
I piled on so many layers of electric guitars that it felt almost claustrophobic. Then in the final mix stage, Steve Boyer and I enhanced the drums – already thick and huge from recording in Studio A, a cavernous wooden room with a churchlike peaked ceiling – with samples that made them sound colossal. Every part of the sound spectrum was saturated to maximum capacity.
While not being a substantial part of the book, in places here and there lyrics are quoted and discussed, which is probably more interesting to a long-time fan such as myself than to the casual reader. Another aspect here is how Mould acted as business manager in several phases of his career, and that is also an interesting look at dynamics of the music business that don't often get a strong light shined on them (especially when he'd hired a manager, who ended up screwing him out of his publishing rights for a couple of albums, exchanged for tour-support money from the label).

Is See A Little Light a read for the non-fan? I don't know. Bob Mould's music has been “significant” in my life for over thirty years, so it's somewhat integral to who I am … making it hard to look at this with an uninvolved eye. It is, as noted above, a window into a lot of areas that one might not be otherwise privy to, from the gay lifestyle, to the wrestling business, to the music industry details. These are all interesting, and could provide enough hook for somebody who wasn't as familiar with the author's music to enjoy the book anyway.

The hardcover edition that I have has been out since 2011, with the paperback appearing a couple of years later (I don't know if there was any update between those). It appears that the hardcover is currently out of print, so is only available in the aftermarket, but you can get a “very good” copy for under two bucks (plus shipping). The on-line big boys have the paperback at only 10% off of cover, which suggests that its still selling fairly well, so you might be able to find it at your local brick-and-mortar, if you wanted to go that route. Again, this is a great read for the right fan base, but might be too narrowly-focused for the “general reader” … but I suspect you'll know which side of that line you fall!


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Tuesday, November 15th, 2016
10:35 am
Saling away ...
Sometimes I'm not sure how a book got into my to-be-read piles, especially it it's been lingering in there for quite a while. This is one of those. Frankly, I'd thought, when encountering this when looking for the “next” book, that it was something that I'd picked up at an author event a few years back, but when I got into it, I noticed a barcode sticker over the actual barcode on the back, indicating that it was likely a dollar store find instead. Oh, well.

Needless to say, Philip Delves Broughton's The Art of the Sale: Learning from the Masters About the Business of Life had been in that not-being-read purgatory for as long as it had for that whole “sales” thing … I've never been good at sales, not having the sort of psyche needed to take endless rejection, so when I have read “sales books”, it's been sort of a latter-day “cod liver oil” for me, something to take because I need it, not that I really want it.

However, it turns out that this is a delightful book … sort of a string of mini-biographies of a wide array of people who sell, and how these examples illustrate core truths about selling. I realize that this sounds counter-intuitive, given my antipathy toward “teaching stories”, but these aren't “dancing around the subject”, just addressing it from real-world examples. I have to admit that I took a peek at the Amazon reviews before launching into this and there were quite a number of people who were being bitchy about this not being “sales manual” – which is, basically, what I was dreading getting into.

The genesis of this book was the author's previous (about his mid-life attending Harvard's business school) ... and how he was shocked to find there was nothing about sales in most MBA programs, and how his professors suggested he “take a two-week evening program somewhere” if he wanted to study sales (oddly, I got a similar response when I wanted to study typography as part of my art major in college). He notes that there are two general schools of thought on sales, on one hand the “Dale Carnegie” side which sees sales as a path to success open to all, and the “Death of a Salesman” side which holds sales to be a soul-crushing hell. The stories here don't end up on either extreme, but float around in the real-life zone between.

The book starts with a memory of the author (who was born to English ex-pats) at age 12 in Morocco where his parents went shopping for rugs in the bazaar. Unlike many, his family was up to the process, and he fondly recalls the event. This sets up the tale of his visiting a Moroccan named Majid, who has become famous … “He is known to interior decorators, collectors, and antiques dealers the world over, and yet he started out a street hawker.” … Majid grew up in a family of traders and artisans, and he learned how to size up buyers and sellers early on. There's a bit in here of him selling a carpet to a Texan, who wanted “the very best”, which Majid understood meant “the most expensive” – had he interpreted that as “the finest” he would have wasted his time selling the wrong rug. The initial take-away the author presents here is: “Accurately perceiving the motivations of a customer then, is just as important as understanding what product they want.” … before going into a discussion of some research on “declarative knowledge” in sales.

The next chapter starts with a look at Tony Sullivan, a TV infomercial host, known for his pitches for the Smart Mop, among many other products. As a child, his father placed gambling machines in pubs, etc., and would sometimes send Sullivan out to do collections … then one summer he was helping to sell t-shirts at a festival, and encountered a guy that was selling something called a “Washmatic”, and moving unit after unit with a highly animated pitch. Sullivan was fascinated, and after a while convinced the other fellow to let him learn the business. He apparently was a natural, and began selling all sorts of products at various events around the U.K., eventually making a break into TV by moving to the U.S., and selling the Smart Mop to and then on the Home Shopping Network. Interestingly, for coming from a “hucksterism” environment, he is very adamant on only selling stuff he, essentially, believes in, saying “if a product doesn't work, or people don't think they're getting value, they can destroy your reputation online”. He also isn't “always on”, noting that he needs to take a product home, use it, think about it, and take a considerable amount of time to come up with a pitch. Broughton says:
Stories serve two purposes in sales. They enable a salesperson to sell to a customer, and they enable salespeople to sell themselves on the value of their work. A good story works in three stages, which resemble those of the sales process itself. … These are the same stages Aristotle prescribed for tragedy in the Poetics: an inciting incident, a climactic struggle, and, finally, a resolution.
The chapter then switches over to discussing Las Vegas hotelier Steve Wynn, who was highly impressed with another hotel's efforts to provide over-the-top service for his family while on vacation. His enthusiasm about this, told to the other hotel chain's chairman, started his outreach to Wynn employees with a system called “storytelling” that encourages staff to create service that's worthy of being told as a story. This then moves to a bit about P.T. Barnum, and then a look at an anonymous jewelry salesman who had gone to work at Cartier (getting the job after having spent nearly all his savings on Cartier products that he subtly produced at the interview), and developed into “a keen reader of people's underlying fears and wants”, much like the skills exhibited by Majid.

The next chapter starts off with a look at the nature of sales, from the general elements true across all settings (“At its most basic and technical, selling is about understanding a customer's needs and delivering a product to meet them.”), then into various types of sales, and some research that showed how fundamentally different the aspects of the sale (motivation, aptitude, etc.) were in the different sorts of settings. This is followed by the work of Robert McMurry, who “helped establish a unique position for the study of sales, somewhere between economics and psychology”, and listed various “levels” of sales, from the simple to the very complex, and characteristics of successful salespersons, but with the “single most important trait” being “the wooing instinct”, which is found in those with “a compulsive need to win and hold the affection of others” … whose behaviors are unsettling close to the dynamics found in psychopaths. He then shifts to a consideration of the insurance industry, but focusing on this in Japan, and a woman (rare in the upper echelons of Japanese business), Mrs. Shibata, who is the top salesperson at Dai-ichi Life, having worked her way up from nothing. This looks at the dynamics of that industry, then flips back into some more research on the psychology of sales, then into some more examples of insurance salespeople, and thence to skipping through car sales, pharmaceutical sales (whose sales force is largely staffed by ex-cheerleaders), and funeral service sales. The chapter ends with a bit of a profile of the legendary Ron Popeil (one of whose daughters was a classmate of mine in high school) which introduces a bit on “ethical questions”.

Speaking of which, the book now moves to a look at “cultish” sales environments, starting with Apple, whose devotees' blind allegiance has always irritated me (especially for grossly over-priced products), this then goes to a look at some books comparing sales and religion, a look at “utopian groups” which then leads to the world of network marketing. This then shifts to a more philosophical stance, looking at optimism and pessimism and confidence and fear … ending up with a recommendation of a stance of “cheerful realism”. There are a vast number of figures name-checked here, generally with a story that then either sets up or illustrates some piece of research, making it hard to cherry-pick items for the review.

The next chapter is “Leveling”, about how sales allow people to rise up from nothing if they have the right mix of dedication and skills. The first story here is of a black lady, Madam C.J. Walker, who made a fortune in hair care products … which leads into looks at Estée Lauder and Mary Kay Ash. There was a particularly arch bit in here, discussing the prejudices many have against salespeople:
Managers are dependent on them, but fear their power, which seems an uncontrollable, Dionysian force, overwhelming to those in the neater world of financial spreadsheets and strategic plans.
The chapter concludes with an extensive description of a Mexican contractor called “Memo” who has an interesting quote: “once you have built something from scratch, you know you can do it anywhere, anytime again”.

What follows is a relatively brief chapter on the Art world, with several figures in assorted levels of that arena (which involves a whole other set of dynamics, skills, and psychology). Subsequent chapters relate illustrations from the author's experiences around preparing for his marriage, software and technology sales, and the business of selling jet liners. Again, there are a lot of names, companies, products, and the contexts in which those operate … all interesting enough, but not as notable as the longer looks at key figures. Another bit, returning to the genesis of the author's look at sales, stood out here:
If nothing else, selling is an endless confrontation with truth, the truth about yourself and about others. It is raw and uncomfortable and personally exposing in a way other business functions rarely are. This hard truth may help explain why business schools, which prefer to paint a less brutal vision of business life, are so loath to teach it.
As noted up top, I quite enjoyed reading The Art of the Sale, although parts of it were decidedly uncomfortable for me (I'm totally the wrong personality type to succeed at this – reflected in how much I related to the line “If they felt lost or purposeless they could not sell”). It's not a “sales manual”, but it is has a plethora of information that would help anybody “wrap their head around” the world of sales.

The paperback of this is still in print (as one might hope as it's only been out a couple of years), but the hardcover (which I guess I found at the dollar store), can be had in “like new” condition from the new/used guys online for as little as a penny plus shipping. While this won't be of interest to everybody, if you've ever wondered about sales, thought about sales, or been faced with the necessity of actually doing sales, you're likely to find something worthwhile in this. If nothing else, it's quite an enjoyable read … especially for a “business book”!


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Monday, November 14th, 2016
10:22 pm
Mission Implausible ...
I had, obviously, lost track of Dick Hoagland quite a while back. I'd been following his EnterpriseMission.com web site through the 90's, but even when I reviewed his Monuments of Mars six and half years ago, I was wondering “what happened” to him, and he'd sort of dropped off my radar. I'd picked up Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA by him and Mike Bara a few years back, but only got around to reading it last month (it kept getting passed over due to being nearly 600 pages). If you're unfamiliar with Hoagland, he's the guy who glommed onto “the face on Mars” and ran with it. I don't really want to re-hash a lot of the stuff from my previous review, however, but there's a lot about this book which has pretty much the same issues I had with the earlier one.

Getting ready to write this, I popped over to his site, and was surprised to find that he's updated it over the past couple of years (it had been static for so long, I never got over there unless I was looking to background something on “hyperdimensional physics”), plus having developed a new radio show. One interesting thing there was coverage of China's lunar lander program, which I'd, frankly, missed when it happened a couple of years back.

Now, Hoagland is “an acquired taste”, and is easy for most folks to brush off as an obsessed eccentric. Honestly, he brings this on himself, “leading with his chin”, as it were, with picture after picture after picture of extremely ambiguous stuff on the Moon or Mars which he claims “clearly” shows artificiality. I have been following this guy's material for what at this point is decades, and I have yet to see a picture from, for instance, the Moon where the “structures” he insists are self-evident in these grainy, digitally processed images, are even vaguely suggested. Not a single shot of the “lunar domes”, which take up a lot of this (and are the focus of his info on the Chinese mission on his site) looks to me as anything other than random “noise”. And, like Fox Mulder, I do “want to believe”, but time after time what he's pitching as being in these pictures are less convincing than seeing Jimmy Durante in a cloud formation. Oh, and as an editorial note, a lot of Dark Mission is set up as a 3rd person presentation with Hoagland being a character in the telling, rather than being the “speaker”, and those “Hoagland found ...” bits get irritating fast – unless, of course, Mike Bara was the primary author of this.

However …

I really hate that this evidently arose from his measurements of angles of stuff in the “Cydonia” area on Mars. There are a couple of numbers that come out of this which keep appearing (especially the latitude of 19.5°) in various energetic phenomena across the solar system. This led him to develop/uncover a “hyperdimensional/torsion physics” which is both the subject of quite a lot of Russian research, and goes (according to this book) back to James Clerk Maxwell's original equations, which reflect his argument that “the only way to solve certain problems in physics was to account for some phenomena as 3D 'reflections' of objects existing in higher spatial dimensions”, but this “scalar” component was, after Maxwell's death, stripped out of his original equations by Oliver Heaviside, resulting with the “normal space” classic Maxwell equations which underlie much of modern physics. I have found this material fascinating, and I suspect that Hoagland has stumbled onto something that is quite important, but he goes back to it so frequently, it's like finding “hidden Mickeys” at Disney World … albeit even more so.

As one might guess, a nearly-600-page book (set in fairly small type), has a massive amount of detail crammed in, and I'd love to go on-and-on about the physics stuff, but it would take way too much space to give it justice in even the broad strokes, so I'm just going to note my enthusiasm for that material, and suggest that if it sounds like something you might find of equal interest (check out the bits on his site to get a sense of it), pick up the books … you can focus on those parts without having to swallow the rest.

And the rest is a lot to swallow. As should not be surprising given the sub-title, this book is largely a history of NASA … but not so much in the mundane, this mission did this, that mission did that, mode, but a “way over the edge” version which tracks the space program back to the early days. Now, pretty much everybody knows that the US and USSR were is a race to see how many German rocket scientists they could sweep up in the final days of the Third Reich, and that we ended up with Wernher von Braun (and some of his assistants) who was the leading light of NASA in the post-war years. Hoagland puts forth information that suggests that not only was von Braun an enthusiastic Nazi (in contact with the top echelons the Reich), but he was somewhat of an unrepentant Nazi, even after being mainstreamed in the US. There was also a very strong Masonic element involved. Now, I've never quite understood the paranoia around the Masons … while I've never been personally involved, both my maternal grandfather and my father-in-law were 33rd Degree Masons, and I never saw anything creepy in either family related to that (well, unless you count the very large and garish “logo” flower arrangement that the Eastern Star organization sent to my mother-in-law's funeral). Hoagland, however, does the cable-ready “oooh – Secret Society!” thing here, and notes how many NASA administrators and astronauts were quite active Masons (and, I will admit, some of the material here – astronauts posing in official photos symbolically exhibiting their Masonic rings, and having Masonic organizational flags being included in their personal effects brought with them to the Moon ... which is sort of suggested by the obviously photoshopped cover image – is awfully suggestive of more than just individual expressions of "Masonic pride"). And, of course there is Jack Parsons, a devotee of Aleister Crowley, and O.T.O. member, whose work with Theodore von Karman in developing rockets, is used by Hoagland to paint the senior scientist with the same occult brush (although I was unable to dig up anything more than just the JPL connection).

So, Hoagland feels that there is a Nazi/Mason/Occult (he even presents an “organizational chart” for this) theme to NASA, and constantly returns to “ritual timing” of various elements in the program. I would normally dismiss this, but the timing/orientation of key events (at least as Hoagland describes them) does seem to hew to a very specific line … a line that seems to be rooted in ancient Egyptian religion. This goes down a rather convoluted rabbit-hole, but, like much in Hoagland's world, there's just enough “real stuff” that keeps one from totally saying he's simply nuts. In this case, there is a lot of “symbolic” elements in the naming, iconography, etc. of NASA programs that relate to the Osiris/Isis/Horus deity matrix, and Hoagland keeps pointing to “ritual alignments” time/location-wise that are quite suggestive that this sort of thing could be happening. He even identifies a key Egyptian scientist who was brought in for the Apollo program, and suggests that he is the one setting out the plans for those enactments. Again, there is a lot here that sounds like so much hooey, especially the “lion”/sphinx stuff (mainly on Mars), as well as the rather convoluted “evidence” of Sirius or some star of Orion's belt being above/below/on a horizon at a particular time. There's a lot in the genre of “more ancient cultures than generally accepted” that I totally believe (like the Giza Sphinx aligning to an event that happened several thousand years prior to when Zahi Hawass and the like would hold to be possible), but deciding, when less-obvious pictures of “the face” came in, that it was “half-lion, half-man” (which Hoagland enthusiastically does here) is more than a bit “out there”.

The other main theme here is the “conspiracy to hide stuff” which, while certainly plausible given the track record that Hoagland outlines of endless promises of releases, only to be followed by evidently intentionally degraded images, or no images at all (or even, at one point, an order to destroy all existing images from a program). Why would NASA do this? I guess it goes back to the notorious “Brookings report”, which noted that much turmoil could be expected were the public to hear that we had contacted or found evidence of extraterrestrial cultures/races, which included quotes such as “How might such information, under what circumstances be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends?” and:
While face-to-face meetings with it will not occur within the next twenty years (unless its technology is more advanced than ours, qualifying it to visit Earth), artifacts left at some point in time by these life forms might possibly be discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus.
Hoagland, perhaps more than anybody, believes that we have evidence of these sorts of artifacts (and, again, as much as I might like to see indisputable proof of this, the vast majority of the photos require a very active imagination to “see” what Hoagland and his associates “see” in them). However, the concept that the overriding “model” for both NASA and other space programs is that were evidence of ETs made public, that human society would break down into chaos, is at least a point to explain a lot of what Hoagland notes would otherwise have to be due to massive incompetence in the handling of space imaging.

As noted, Dark Mission is a very long book in fairly small type, and ends up a quite a slog through a lot of theorizing that isn't necessarily all that “evidence based” – but that's my call on the evidence, the authors here certainly seem to have a much lower bar for what's “convincing proof”. There is also a good deal of paranoia exhibited in these pages, again, perhaps not erroneous, as Hoagland has certainly made himself a target of at least ridicule by the “mundane explanation” forces, and if even a third of what he's raising here is true, there must be a substantial conspiracy to keep the “official line” being the only one that gets serious consideration (but, as we've seen in the 2016 election cycle, the press is perfectly capable of defending an orthodoxy in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, if stonewalling against that evidence suits their agenda).

Can I recommend this book? Probably not. I'd suggest you dig through the EnterpriseMission.com web site first to get a sense of where Hoagland is coming from, and if you want to delve deeply into the more paranoid and conspiratorially-inclined aspects of that, then this book's for you. If not, you've been spared a very long strange read. I really wish that Hoagland (or somebody) would do a solid look at the hyperdimensional/tetrahedral/torsion physics that was separate from all the “oh, look, it's a pyramid … oh, look, it's a robot head … oh, look, it's a city!” stuff and put that out as a sane, serious book. Needless to say, despite having some very interesting material covered, this is not that.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Sunday, November 13th, 2016
5:13 pm
Something I put up on FB this morning ... figured I'd share with y'all ...
Dear Mr. Trump ...

NO.

Please, do NOT even suggest Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court.

Yes, it would be amusing to see the Left's heads explode if that happened, but you would also lose a lot of your secular support.

I realize that you "owe" the Christian Fundamentalists some influence after they finally managed to get their butts out of the pews and into the voting booth this time around ... but isn't Mike Pence enough?

The Republican Party lost me once over a Fundy from Indiana (see: Quayle, Dan) being "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency (when Bush Sr. was saddled with him, I became a card-carrying Libertarian) ... and here we are again. The difference is that Pence is a political pro, having experience and skills in that arena that you've never had to develop ... so I'm not as angry about his being your V.P., you need what he brings to the table.

However, Cruz comes out of an extreme religious environment that is every bit as dangerous as the Taliban. He may be brilliant, but he's also beholden to a philosophy that is NOT what America's about: Dominionism (https://goo.gl/YvjhmZ). There is no way that a faith-first fundamentalist should EVER be on the Supreme Court.

What America needs now is more "Thomas Paines", voices from the same Enlightenment awakening that created this country. Find people like THAT to put on the Court ... not some Christian version of Mullah Omar.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Friday, November 11th, 2016
11:44 am
Well ...
Some mighty interesting things happening these past couple of weeks, eh?

First of all, the Cubs won the World Series. The Cubs won the World Series. ... I'm still trying to wrap my head around that factoid. One would think that, for as long as I've been a Cubs fan, I'd be giddy, elated, and irritatingly celebratory. But, strangely, no. Not that I'm not happy about it ... it's just that part of me is still waiting for it to go wrong somehow. All through this season, I've declined my well-earned spot "on the bandwagon", insisting that I was not going to believe that it was true until the last out was made in the last game ... and the Cubs certainly dragged that out, with the opponent's tying run on base, and being a walk-off homer away from an extra-inning loss at the end. There are parts of me that are still not believing that we got an inning/game/Series/curse-ending double play in that situation rather than the other outcome. Things might have been different had the bats surged and the Cubbies were coasting with something like a 10-2 lead into the late innings of Game 7, but that being a nail-biter ending to a game which was a nail-biter ending to the Series triggered all those "oh, no ... here it comes again" Cub fan reflexes, and they've not quite worked their way out of my system. I'm guessing they eventually will, and I'll go out and get one of those cool shirts with the trophy sporting a small, subtle (yet brilliant) "W" flag as one of the pennants!

Speaking of long-time connections ... while I've not been active in the Party for a while, I used to be an officer with the Libertarian Party of Chicago, and have at least followed their efforts on the web over the years with some interest. Try to imagine my surprise to see, in the Sunday paper just before the election, the Chicago Tribune endorsing the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson (see the pic there ==> for proof, click for a bigger image) for President! I'm not sure how much good it did in the election (Johnson got 4% in Illinois, compared to 3% nationwide, so there's that), but in terms of visibility and plausibility for 3rd party runs, it was massive. It also helped that neither Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein looked like representatives of the "loony wings" of their respective parties ... and there are certainly doozies out there in both cases (not that this is any different than the Republicans or Democrats, of course).

And, finally ... against all (MSM-promulgated) odds, we avoided having yet another vile Alinsky1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 devotee getting to destroy America from the Oval Office. As long-time readers of this space will no doubt realize, I've hated the Klintons forever, and, honestly, can not understand how anybody could have considered Hitlery as an even vaguely acceptable candidate for the Presidency. All the "it's time for a woman" BS sounds pretty hollow in reflection of how horribly Sarah Palin was treated by the Left ... hard to believe that you're just looking for a vagina in the big chair after that ... clearly, what the Left wants is an anti-American Progressive tool of the Globalists in power, and they'll play any form of "identity politics" to make that happen (seriously, if B.O. wasn't half Black, he'd never have been considered for anything higher than the state house position he held before being "hand picked" - with his GOP opponent getting torpedoed by classic Chicago dirty politics - for the U.S. Senate). Of course, "identity politics" is how the Left keeps in business, because if anybody looked at the content of their programs, they'd run screaming, but pushing "the First Black President", "the First Woman President", "the First (fill in your favorite divisive label here) President", they get the mindless sheep to bleat in unison that they'd really like that. One of my deepest disappointments with the Presidency of G.W. Bush was that he never "unleashed the hounds" on the Klintons ... who were largely responsible for 9/11 happening (they "erected the wall" between the foreign intelligence agencies, CIA, NSA, DIA, etc., and the domestic law enforcement agencies that could actually have "boots on the ground" here - with the intent of enabling their treasonous dealings with the Chinese and others to go on without any repercussions - which led to the info on the hijackers being "siloed" away from the FBI until they had actually "committed a crime" - other than "conspiracy" - which pretty much didn't happen until they slit the throats of the flight attendants and broke into the cockpits of those planes ... a little too late to do anything about it). Needless to say, I'm really hoping that the new administration is not going to make the same mistake.

While I'm extremely happy that we are not looking at another Alinsky Klinton administration, I am still quite wary of Trump. He's no Ron or Rand Paul (either of whom I'd far prefer as President), and has, frankly, identified more often as a Democrat over his life. Of course, the current Democratic Party looks more like an outgrowth of the Frankfurt School and the culmination of the Cloward-Piven Strategy than anything that Harry Truman, JFK, or LBJ would recognize, but the similarities of Trump to, say, Walter Mondale in terms of "political axis", is disturbing. It's great that he's not Hitlery, but I'm not holding out too much hope that he'll be "another Reagan".

Anyway, other stuff's been happening (none of it particularly good, so I've spared you my whining), but those are the more notable items ...


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Wednesday, October 19th, 2016
11:23 am
The previous post is "friends only" ... here's why:
If you would like to read the previous post, please contact me to be "friended".

Why is this?Collapse )
Tuesday, October 18th, 2016
10:04 am
Baseball has been berry berry bad* ...
I've been a Cubs fan for a long time. In fact, for about a decade, I was a season ticket holder, first on the weekend package, and then the weekend-and-nights package once they got the lights in at Wrigley. When I first got my tickets, they were $5 a pop - making two seats for two days on a weekend a whopping $20 ... such a deal! I'm not sure exactly what the years were, but I got them as early as the 1986 season (after I quit drinking - I could never afford it when I was drinking ... those ballpark beers are expensive, and I'd have one per inning back in the day), and certainly before 1988 when the lights went in, and had them as late as 1996, as I used to bring Daughter #1 out with me in her car seat when she was a baby, and she was born in late 1995 (I'm pretty sure 1996 would have been my last year ... getting married messed up my Cubs deal, as not only - once the girlfriend became The Wife she strangely suddenly lost all interest in going to Wrigley - did I not have a "date", but all my old {drinking} buddies had been run off as well).

I find myself studiously keeping at "arm's length" from the current post-season run (I've said "I'll believe it after the last out of the last game of the World Series"!), having had my heart broken so many times by the Cubs ... and I keep hearing myself saying "well, at least they've won one more game than they did in the last NLCS" - which I sure hope isn't "prophetic".

The thing with the Cubs is that their hopelessness is generational, heck, the last time they were in the World Series was over 70 years ago ... and it's been 108 years since they won (I'm guessing that there are no still breathing Cubs fans who were around for that). I moved back to Chicago in 3rd Grade, just in time to switch my budding baseball loyalties from the Mets to the Cubs, and have 1969 happen a year later (when the Cubs, who had been leading all year, had a massive collapse in September and lost the division to the Mets). I was like 12 years old at the time and had been collecting "all things Cubs" all summer (I'd be that kid who would be breathlessly waiting for the next "poster" in the sports pages of the Trib), and their failing to make the playoffs hit me hard. Heck, it probably warped me for life, as I always expect things to "go to hell in a handbasket" no matter how good they might seem at any given time.

Anyway, given my long history with the Cubs, I find it sad that my prime emotional reaction is something like out of the opening of Springsteen's Born In The USA lyrics:

Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up
... come to think of it, as far as the World Series is concerned this is pretty much (that team on the south side doesn't count - I was one of those really wishing they'd have moved to Florida) "a dead man's town" ... and my "hitting the ground" was 1969. So, on an emotional basis, I'm wondering when the Baseball Gods are going to start kicking me in the ribs again.

Just thought I'd share ...


Visit the BTRIPP home page!





* with apologies to Chico Escuela
Monday, October 17th, 2016
12:46 pm
OK, so you're getting this one ...
Yeah, I wrote about wanting to make LJ my "main channel" again, but it's so vague if people are seeing stuff here, that it's always easier (especially in the "couple of sentences" length - when I see the input box here, part of my brain starts thinking in terms of 2,000-3,000 words ala my reviews) to just punch that out over on FB.

However, I was going to bitch about something that I'm pretty sure nobody over there would give a damn about (OK, so probably nobody here does either), so you're getting it instead.

This has to do with paranoia, self-doubt, and an entire ocean of professional frustration (I can HEAR YOU clicking off this screen!) ... but it's just going to fester in my head if I don't get it spewed out in some form.

I had a handful of books that I had requested from some publishers this summer, which resulted in replies saying they'd be happy to send out the books when they were ready, which made me assume that my mailing info had gotten onto a list that would result in said books showing up here in due time (and, given that two of those were about the upcoming election - from authors that I've reviewed numerous times previously - "due time" was about a month or so back), and waited. And waited. And wondered WTF had happened.

If these books had been less "topical", I probably would have poked the responding promo department types to ask if the books were coming ... but since we're in the last few weeks before the election, I'm pretty much "over" the concept of reading books on Mr. Trump. This is too bad, as I was quite eagerly anticipating getting both of those read & reviewed by this point.

So, I'm feeling "left out".

I also had a bit of a confrontation with a fellow who has been intermittently doling out some career advice to me this weekend, when he was "suggesting" that if there is no audience for my books, why do I insist on still producing them. This dove-tailed into the missing review copies, as WHY would a publisher bother sending me a review copy if I have "no audience"? I'm just a useless sack of shit looking to scam free books, right? So, of course the books aren't getting sent to me. I'm BAD. I'm USELESS. I might as well be DEAD, as that would improve conditions for everybody involved.

I really hate what a massive pile of failure my life has played out as.

Sucks to be me.

I really ought to do something to rectify that situation.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Sunday, October 16th, 2016
9:14 am
The right side of the airwaves ...
I don't “do radio”, so Rush Limbaugh isn't on my radar the way he could be. I found his TV show back in the Klinton years amusing, but since he's been “audio only”, I've not heard him in ages. I did, however, find Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One on the dollar store shelves a couple of years back, and it's been sitting in my “to be read” piles since. A few weeks ago I was looking for the next book to slot into my active reading rotation, and noticed that the author of this was the same Zev Chafets that wrote that Roger Ailes bio that I reviewed last month, which I'd enjoyed, so figured I'd have a go at this.

I have to admit, going in, that the little bookmarks that I put into what I'm reading (and are generally a good indicator of my engagement with a book) are few and far between here. As quotable as Rush may be on his show, the story of his life is considerably less so (or at least from my take on it). This volume is more a straight biography of the man than a celebration of his material, so focuses more on his trials and tribulations (and, to some extent “feet of clay”), than being a rah-rah session for “dittoheads”.

There was, however, quite a lot of stuff in here that I didn't know about the man, that I might very well have were I a “regular listener”, first and foremost of which is the factoid that he has been, for quite a long time, for all intents and purposes deaf. I'm guessing that this is something that his on-going audience knows, but it was somewhat of a shock to read, as it hadn't filtered down to me, despite being a regular consumer of on-line conservative punditry. Go figure.

The other piece of this that I found somewhat odd was that, until late in his career, Limbaugh was not particularly political. The book describes how his father (and other relatives) were, but not Rush. His goal, from a quite early age, was to succeed in radio, and he didn't become the conservative icon that he is until that had become the key element to “his shtick” on-air … which does lead one to wonder just how dedicated to the doctrine he is (a question that at least gets danced around a bit here).

It's not that he didn't have any interest in conservative political thought, there is a touching bit here regarding (one of my childhood heroes) William F. Buckley and National Review:
… Limbaugh had once read a book by Buckley that he had found in his father's library, and he sometimes watched Firing Line. Rush even did a very funny imitation of Buckley's mellifluous, multisyllabic English. But it wasn't until Limbaugh began doing political satire full-time that he actually began reading National Review on a regular basis.
      “I thought you had to be invited to read it,” he said in an emotional broadcast on the day Buckley died. “I thought there was a select group of people that were entitled to be a part of that. I'd never seen it on a newsstand. I had never seen it anywhere at anybody's house.
That's a clear view of how far from the political bubble he had lived (as I'd been a subscriber to N.R. all my teen years!), and he thought the only way to get the magazine was to contact it and ask to be allowed to subscribe. His moving to the nationally syndicated show changed that, and he was soon invited into WFB's inner circle – Buckley was evidently a fan, and eventually he became something of a father figure to Rush.

Having at one point aspired to a career in radio myself, much of Rush's early employment arc was rather painful to read. He went from being a high-school DJ to a brief stint in college, to assorted small stations in secondary markets, and a predictable string of firings … that just being the nature of the business. For a while he'd stepped away from radio and went to work for the marketing department of the Kansas City Royals, where he ended up forging a somewhat improbable lifetime friendship with Royals star George Brett. While with the Royals, Rush went through two marriages, and by the time he was fired, “shock radio” was starting to fill the airwaves. Larry Lujack (of WLS in Chicago), Don Imus, and Howard Stern were pioneering this niche, as well as (on the West Coast), Morton Downey Jr. … who was caustic enough to get fired just at the right time. Rush was hired by a guy who'd worked at a station he'd previously been at to replace Downey on the Sacramento station where he'd been based … on the theory that Rush would be edgy, but not as inflammatory. Of course, Limbaugh's new-found conservative voice made the California liberals nuts, and that drove his ratings. This got the attention of Ed McLaughlin, former head of ABC radio, who worked a deal to get Rush out of his Sacramento contract and on the air in New York in 1988, and two months later his syndicated national program debuted with fifty-six stations. Chafets notes what drove his success: “His innovation was to bring top-40 radio's energy to political issues …” and “A lot of what makes Limbaugh's show fun is his irreverence toward subjects that conservatives discuss, in public, with extreme reverence or not at all.”, and almost immediately Rush was making serious money. However, he remained an outsider. What he wanted most in life was to be accepted into the “media world”, to be “one of them”, but because of the ultra-leftist orientation of the New York media environment, he was – despite his extreme success – mocked and exiled by the foot-soldiers of the Progressive culture wars … and on some level the acceptance he had from the likes of Bill Buckley and other conservative icons (including Ronald Regan) still wasn't enough to salve that hurt.

Like in the Ailes book, Chafets weaves his experiences in working on the book throughout. He notes that many of Rush's family and friends were quite hesitant to talk with him – with at least one being convinced that if he talked to this guy from the New York Times, he was sure to be depicted as some Neanderthal and/or idiot … and at one point he mentions a question he'd put to Rush about his (massive) contract: “… it sounded to him like a hostile question, a Democrat question …”, so the distrust of everything on the Left was pretty ingrained. This makes his exultation at the demise of the laughable Leftist “Air America” more understandable:
Less than two years after {Air America's} grand launch it filed for bankruptcy protection. Limbaugh celebrated the fall, calling Air America, “an embarrassing, blithering, total bomb-out of a failure.” Liberals, he said, can't compete in the open marketplace of ideas, because they don't really want to spell out what they actually believe. “There's no hiding on talk radio,” he said, “When your ideas sound stupid, it's out there to be exposed for one and all …”
Chafets has a very insightful look at the matrix in which Rush operates, in terms of the media establishments, and although it's a couple of paragraphs, I figured it was to-the-point enough to include here:
      If Limbaugh had been all bombast, his act wouldn't have lasted long. But he proved to be not just a great broadcaster but a very astute media critic. He realized that the mainstream media's greatest vulnerability was high-handed obtuseness. News organizations acted as though their biases and interests – financial, political, and personal – were invisible to the public. Limbaugh pointed out, in the clearest possible way, that the Emperor's clothes were all tailored in the same shop, according to the same specifications, and he let his listeners in on why and how.
      This was embarrassing, of course. Journalists like to think of themselves as independent thinkers and speakers of “truth to power.” In fact, they work for big organizations and, like organization people everywhere, they toe the company line. To soften this reality, editors and reporters are almost uniformly recruited from a pool of like-minded people. They don't need to be explicitly told what to cover or how, any more than the Pope needs to send out memos to his cardinals about abortion. Here and there you can find editors and reporters with a certain degree of independence, but they are rare. As for editorial writers, they have all the latitude of West Point cadets.
While the lock-step march of the Leftist MSM, and their political allies, presents an often insurmountable challenge to non-“Progressive” politicians (cf. the hugely skewed moderation of the Trump-Clinton debates), it did nothing but make Rush money. In fact, the Obama regime opted to “run against Rush”, all but coronating him as head of the Republican Party … which was not happy news for the actual head of the RNC at the time. While Rush took to this with a gusto, the Leftist media was in full assault mode, trying to belittle and dismiss Rush (while still insisting that he was “the Boss” of the party). This eventually got quite ugly with attacks on Limbaugh for his addiction to pain pills (that he eventually beat), as only the Left can “do ugly”.

This book came out in 2010, so it only got into the ramp-up of the last election cycle, but there is quite a bit about how Rush was playing in that (he “won” a Gallup poll of who was the most trustworthy conservative voice). There are also parts on his family life, a good deal on the above-mentioned challenges with his hearing (he has a call-taker that's a former court reporter, so she can transcribe what's being said by callers in real-time onto his monitor), and other assorted issues (his dalliance with the NFL – that got sabotaged by the usual suspects making the predictable and unjustified claims of “racism”).

Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One is still in print in the paperback edition, so you might be able to find it in brick-and-mortar book stores that don't discriminate against conservative voices (there are a lot of liberals who will throw a hissy fit at the very sight of Rush's visage on the cover, their panties suddenly twisting into sanity-reducing knots), but otherwise the on-line big boys have it … and the used guys have “like new” copies of the hardcover going for as little as a penny (plus shipping). If you're interested in Rush, the conservative movement, or in broadcasting in general, you'll likely find something worthwhile in this.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Saturday, October 15th, 2016
11:57 am
"You can't handle the truth!", or something ...
I'm a big fan of CreateSpace, and use it for putting out annual collections of print versions of these reviews, among other projects, but (as a former “real” publisher), I realize that there's a bit of a stigma about books coming out from that channel, as they're not “vetted”, and pretty much anybody with a PC can put out their scribblings there. I have, generally speaking, pooh-poohed much of this, but having Brien Foerster's Lost Ancient Technology Of Peru And Bolivia in hand, I can see where much of that criticism is coming from.

Now, some would take issue with the subject here, but I specifically bought the book (at full retail, no less) because I was interested in that … but I'm shocked at the lack of editing and design exhibited here. Frankly, I wish that people like the author of this would hire people like me to do editing and lay-out for their books. At various points in reading this I was wondering if he was using one of those voice-to-Kindle programs (as there were a couple of places where sound-alike words appeared, such as “services” appearing instead of the clearly-intended “surfaces” - something that would not have resulted from keyboard input, even with an over-eager spellcheck program running), and at other points wondering if this had been cobbled together via cut-and-paste from a web site (as the text occasionally refers to images that weren't there, or weren't in the “location” indicated). I also suspect that this had been generated for Kindle first and then converted to print – something that would explain the otherwise mystifying (and extremely irritating) lack of page numbers. Aside from these issues, there were also at least a dozen egregious typos that should have been caught by a spellcheck (such as stray extra letters in the middle of common words), as well as “editorial/style” issues of apparently randomly using assorted variations of the spelling on culture or site names. Again, the vast majority of these issues would have been solved by a once-over by an actual editor.

While the subject matter here is fascinating, this is largely a “picture book”, with nearly every page having some image from either the author's explorations at the sites in South America, or pictures obtained from the web (which the author – obviously acclimated to the habitually more “grey area” IP conventions of the Internet – assumes were copyright free because he got them from “free file sharing sites”). I will give Foerster this, however … he's certainly not soaking the readers, as this 200+ page 8.5x11” book is priced at only $9.95, which means he's barely making a profit (a whopping 30¢) on “expanded distribution” bookstore sales, and only clearing two bucks and change via Amazon … I guess if you want professional editing and lay-out you gotta pay more.

Anyway … that bit of kvetching over … to the book itself.

I have been fascinated by the theories of the many authors in the “vanished ancient culture” niche, John Anthony West, Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Robert Schoch, Charles Hapgood, Rand Flem-Ath, and others, and this is certainly in that stream – if not theoretically so, at least in presenting a lot of architectural artifacts as being best explained by it. As devoted readers of this space (there are some, aren't there?) know, I've been down to Peru a couple of times, and have been to a few of the sites covered here, so I've seen first-hand some of the amazing stonework that's down there, but nowhere near the extraordinary things that Foerster shows throughout this volume. A prime example is that cover picture, which is looking down a perfectly drilled-out tube cut through extremely hard rock. Today, we'd probably have to use a specially lubricated diamond-tipped corer to replicate this … when the “official timeline” advocates claim these were made (i.e. by the Inca), there was nothing available that would have been able to make that, or any of the assorted inverted corners carved into andesite, basalt, and granite stones in the more megalithic construction phases.

One of the things I don't believe I'd encountered previously that the author injects several places through the book is the “Mohs scale”, which is a ranking of hardness of materials (based on what can scratch what), and most of these megalithic stones are in the 6-7 range on that scale … which is telling when you notice that steel is only a 4-4.5 on that scale, with materials like copper, brass, and bronze (that were typical of Incan tools) being only around a 3 … not likely to be able to be able to make much of an impression at all on these building materials, let alone carve the very complex formations clearly evident at these sites.

And, this, of course, doesn't even begin to address how some of these massive megalithic sites, such as Sachsayhuaman (which I have visited), had blocks, nearly the size of a house and weighing hundreds of tons, that were transported from quarries some 35 miles away to the site – at a time when there were no suitable trees in the region that could be used for rollers (if that was even possible with stones that size). One of the most fascinating things here (that I'd likewise not previously encountered) was the concept of “previous ages” of the Hanan Pacha and the Uran Pacha (leading to our current Ukan Pacha, which is when the Inca were building), which, respectively, did the carving of living rock, and the building with megalithic forms. Using these three modes, Foerster is able to analyze the building phases of most of the ruins he visits, identifying the fairly evident different construction elements that are frequently seen one on top of the other.

Of course, one has to be willing to accept the possibility that there was an advanced global culture that existed more that twelve thousand years ago, which left its mark in very ancient, highly precise and/or massive constructions that can still be found in places like Peru and Bolivia, as well as examples such as the Osireion at Abydos in Egypt, or the thousand-ton megaliths found at the Baalbek complex in Lebanon. This culture would have thrived before the end of the last ice age, and was destroyed in a world-wide catastrophe likely caused by a major “solar proton event” with accompanying coronal mass ejection.

The author doesn't get too deep into that particular line of thought (the originators of the Hanan-Uran-Ukan Pacha model have some serious woo-woo in there – claiming that gravity was less in the distant past, etc.), but it is, in its broad strokes, quite a plausible frame for noting the different construction styles encountered. As impressive a culture that the Inca were (much of the terracing, etc. seen all over the region were indisputably Incan engineering projects), they had nothing that could produce the sort of stone work that is seen all over the place (and identified as Uran Pacha construction). There is also the theory that these ancient cultures had a technology for making stone “soft” so that it could be easily carved, and then re-solidified – which, as bizarre as it may sound, would go a long way to explaining the “how” of some of the amazing walls in Cuzco and elsewhere.

Once setting up a basis (to varying extents) of these theories, Foerster walks the reader through a couple of dozen sites across Peru and Bolivia, most of which he has visited, some he's just reporting via others' accounts. In a number of the pictures (and, again, this is very much a “picture book”, as most pages are at least a third dedicated to an image, and there are lots of pages with just a picture and caption) an engineer by the name of Chris Dunn is shown measuring surfaces, checking angles, and determining geophysical alignments … he has a couple of books out based on his research in Egypt, as this has only been out a couple of years, I wonder if he's working on a volume dealing with the “Incan” ruins.

They eventually end up at Tiwanaku and Puma Punku (familiar to all who watch the History Channel on cable), and, to their credit, don't launch into the whole “ancient alien” thing about it being a spaceport or something ... but they do note that it, like many of the other sites discussed, does appear to have been violently destroyed at some point in the distant past – in a way that would be hard to explain by the technology of the past couple of thousand years being involved.

Is Lost Ancient Technology Of Peru And Bolivia good book? That depends. I really love this “ancient advanced culture” genre, and do appreciate that the author only dips his toe into “the deep end” of that niche. His photos (and those he appropriates), although all B&W, are mostly quite illuminating, and he generally does a good job of putting them in context … however, the “editing” thing comes up here as well, there's one point (I'd mention the page numbers, but there aren't any) where he repeats the same image on facing pages, as well as sticking in a 2/3rds-page-large image of the cover of his Machu Picchu book twice when discussing that site (I'm hardly one to talk about pimping out one's books, but, really, an “other books by the author” page in the back would have sufficed), which, needless to say, does not add anything to the information content.

Of course, as noted above, he has this very reasonably priced, so the deficiencies in the editing and design of the book (which would be a weekend project for somebody who “does books” to fix) are easier to let slide than if it came at a heftier cost. It's a shame, however, as most of what is wrong with this could easily be rectified. Of course, as a “book guy” and editor, the stuff that I found irritating here might fly totally under the radar for most readers. I suspect that (the egregious typos aside) the Kindle version reads a lot better, as I'm guessing that this project started on that side of the digital/deadtree divide. Because of the way this was published, I'm not sure you'd have much luck finding it in bookstores (although he mentions that it's available in the gift stores near a number of the sites), so the $9.95 cover price through the on-line big boys looks like your best bet (there are copies kicking around the used channels, but with shipping they'd be more than free shipping “retail”). Aside from the numerous editorial caveats expressed above, I quite enjoyed reading/viewing this, but, then again, in general I've “been there, done that, got the t-shirt”, so my enthusiasm for it might be on the high side due to familiarity/interest. As Dennis Miller would have it, “your mileage may vary”, but it's something that's likely worth looking into if you share my appreciation of the subject.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Saturday, October 8th, 2016
1:16 pm
... if I sang out of tune
The publishing biz can be pretty brutal. I got this book at the dollar store … which is, of course, not in and of itself unusual … but it's quite a decent read, and is out-of-print (in the hardcover, at least) a mere 3 years after its release. Sure, I'm happy that this means that I got it for a buck, but this is one of those that I would have thought might well have a better run (it is still available in a paperback edition, however).

Anyway, I didn't expect that I was going to much like Carlin Flora's Friendfluence: The Surprising Ways Friends Make Us Who We Are, but the way the info here is presented won me over. I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't end up with a whole lot of little bookmark slips in this (and the ones that are here are at the beginning and end of the book), so I'm going to be probably doing “broad strokes” over most of this.

As I noted in the above, I found the structure of the book one of the most appealing things here … the author (a former Features Editor for Psychology Today) starts out with a section trying to define friendship, then moves into “Finding and Making Friends”, and then to a series of chapters looking at friendship dynamics at various ages, from kindergarten on up, before switching to a consideration of “bad company”, and the evolving domain of digital friendship. What could have been an overly touchy-feely presentation flows logically through these chapters, and builds on each stage.

Now, looking through this, one of the challenges I have is that there's lots of rapid-fire examples in most of the chapters, which make it a bit difficult to grab some “summary” sense … however, an on-going theme here is, not surprisingly, how friendship differs from family relationships, which expresses itself on many levels, from the legal (a patient may have only a friend for support, but hospital rules might only allow relatives to visit in certain situations), to organizational (taking time off to grieve the loss of a friend is likely to be more difficult to arrange that that of a relative), to dynamic (especially among siblings).

The author includes some autobiographical information here as well, such as how she encountered her BFF – a Peruvian gal, who showed up at her dorm room looking for her roommate, and they totally clicked. This sets up a look at theories of friend connection, starting with the “proximity theory” where those you come into contact with frequently have a better chance of becoming friends. I found this spin on that of interest:
But also familiarity breeds positivity. Called the “mere-exposure effect,” it's a phenomenon that is widely documented: Just seeing someone over and over can make you like him or her more. It's probably because familiarity feels good to brains that would rather process stimuli using worn-in neural pathways than forging new ones.”
She injects an interesting factoid from some research here, that “You'll give off a better first impression … if your name is easy to pronounce.” – which is likely due to similar “brain preferences”. She rattles through a number of other settings which lead to friend formation … shared activities, major life events (the new mom finding other new moms to hang with), etc., before turning to Dale Carnegie and his (still applicable) tactics, which are then contrasted with people who have diseases which make things, such as reading facial expressions, difficult.

Unsurprisingly, Flora checks in with the well-known work of Robin Dunbar, and extracts a very good brief over-view of his work:
The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, Ph.D., discovered that the size of a primate's brain is correlated with the size of the social group within which its species typically lives. The magic number for humans – extrapolated from our average brain size – is 150.
      More specifically, Dunbar conceives of the number 150 as embedded with a number of layers. “In effect we have five intimate friends. Fifteen close friends, 50 good friends, 150 friends,” Dunbar says. “The 15 layer has long been know in social psychology as the 'sympathy group' (those whose death tomorrow would seriously upset you). Beyond 150, we have acquaintances, and here they are more often asymmetric (I know who you are, but you don't necessarily know who I am). The 1,500 layer seems to equate to the number of faces we can put names to.”
She adds an interesting bit to this:
Another team more recently found a correlation between the size of the amygdala, a brain region that processes emotional stimuli, and both the size and complexity of a person's social network.
I found this fascinating, as the amygdala is usually described as the part of the brain that creates reactions like jumping back from a rope because it might be (i.e. looks like) a snake.

This takes us to the “childhood friends” chapter … with has several thematic sub-sections (again making it tough to summarize). I guess what I'll do is drop in some quotes that catch my eye flipping through these parts (where I didn't drop in bookmarks). Here's one:
Many childhood friendships dissolve, leaving behind just a few fuzzy memories; others … lend a steady beat of continuity to life. Whether or not you're still in touch with your old pals – or even can recall them clearly – they surely helped shape you, for better or for worse.
She then runs through some examples, and media expressions of childhood friendships, from Charlie Brown to Harry Potter. I also found this bit of interest:
Friendships sprout much earlier than you might think. A one-year-old who has the chance to interact regularly with other little ones will indeed choose favorite playmates – first friends. Toddler buddies frolic in more complex ways than do non-friends. They might engage in pretend play … which requires more cognitive skills than tag or other literal pursuits.
It's also notable that gender is a major differentiating element in patterns of friendship – although the author doesn't particularly wander into the minefield of “nature vs. nurture” in that – and it seems that the gender differences are largely permanent (albeit expressing differently at various ages and in divergent contexts), and later parts of the book take a look at ways that individuals might try to improve, and/or enrich, these dynamics. Flora presents a wide array of sample situations here, from kids who were together for ethnic support (i.e. being the only Iranians in their school), to ones who gravitated around common interests (gamers, jocks, fashion fanatics, etc.). A data point that comes in here is “A Harris Interactive survey of Americans ages eight to twenty-four revealed that 94 percent had a close friend.”, so this does seem to be something fairly hard-wired.

I rather liked her chapter title for the look at the teen years: Friendship in Adolescence: Confidants and Partners in Crime … again, there are a lot of stories fleshing this out, but there are little gems of data (or near-data) such as:
As an adult, you still need to feel that your friends reflect your identity (or your desired identity), but that drive was probably more urgent when you were an adolescent. … In fact, to the average thirteen-year-old, friends are just as emotionally supportive as parents, and to seventeen-year-olds, they are more so.
As this suggests, the influence of parents, while not non-existent, is, by the mid-teens sort of a “background noise” for the kids whose emotional context is far more set by their friend group. Unfortunately, this means if you've not steered your children towards a positive set of kids, you may have blown it … as peer pressure is likely to trump anything you're going to be able to bring to the table, and this can easily (at the prodding of the worse kids) spiral into dangerous behaviors.

The author breaks down a lot of dynamics in various settings, and I found this bit of interest:
A key difference between middle school and high school emerges as late adolescents form romantic attachments, which sometimes take precedence over friendships. Still, it's all a continuum: The skills kids use to keep up their same-sex friendships are further developed through their romantic ties.
And, of course, as the years build up, the patterns shift from assorted types of groups, into pairs, and networks of pairs.

The “perks of friendship” chapter goes into a lot of psychological/sociological (many researchers are name-checked, but most get dealt with “in passing” rather than in any particular detail) dynamics on how friendships work among adults … including some very interesting material about the friendship of Matisse and Picasso (and later Renoir & Monet, and Gauguin & van Gogh). She examines a fairly wide array of situations (with stories which illustrate same), and breaks down the functions of friendship in these, but there isn't much that I found that would be useful to add here.

Flora is back to the “dark side of friendship” next, and she sort of frames this chapter with:
Since friends are powerful influences in your life, they can just as easily have negative effects as positive ones, especially if they are not right for you, or if the dynamic between the two of you is unhealthy.
She notes some recent investigative work which suggests that van Gogh did not cut off his own ear (as is the usual story), but lost it in a sword fight with his long-time associate Gauguin, as an extreme illustration of this. Much of what she discusses in this section is gender-based, with significantly different patterns of behavior being prevalent on either side of that divide … although there's quite a bit that's displayed universally (or, at least among the negative friend relationships) … and brings in examples of numerous studies on the details.

This is followed by her consideration of on-line friendships … which leads off with a heart-breaking story of a couple of gals who were both dealing with serious health issues (one with cancer, one with an immune system defect), who became best friends on line, although they lived on other sides of the planet (California and Australia). Somehow they never moved out of the on-line modality, and when one of them stopped responding (assumed dead), the remaining friend had no way of contacting anybody to get any information. It's a sad tale, but also somewhat cautionary (I must admit that I have “pixel people” who I'd be hard pressed to find “IRL” since I only know them by their on-line personas) for those who “live on-line”. The author does point out some research that indicates that, despite the ability to have thousands and thousands of web “friends”, most folks start to get overwhelmed if they try to keep up regular, on-going, active virtual relationships with more that the “Dunbar number” of 150 contacts. I guess biology beats out technology when it comes to our interpersonal relationships. She also looks at the generational gap, from those of us who remember pre-web communications, to those younger folks who have always been digital … and the attitudes that these differing realities engender. She has some quotes from literary critic William Deresiewicz on the subject of on-line relations, of which I found this particularly arch (speaking of his Facebook “friends”): “They're simulacra of my friends, little dehydrated packets of images and information, no more my friends than a set of baseball cards is the New York Mets.” She later quotes some other researchers who note the somewhat disturbing factoid that: “the eating, drinking, and smoking of our friends who live hundreds of miles away appear to have as much influence as the habits of our friends who live next door”.

There are some interesting things in the final chapter, such as a study from Gallup that identifies eight “vital roles” that are likely to be in one's friend group. These are “Builders”, Champions”, “Collaborators”, “Companions”, “Connectors”, “Energizers”, “Mind Openers”, and “Navigators” … a model intriguing enough that I may have to pick up that book at some point. Here the author also looks at studies and stories on loneliness, and how being friendless causes a whole raft of physical and psychological ills. At the end of this chapter she does a very nice wrap-up, with advice for nearly each stage and situation … but it's a couple of paragraphs, and I guess I'm just going to leave it to you to find it instead of throwing in an overly big blockquote at the end of this review.

If you are interested in checking Friendfluence out, as noted up top, it's still available in the paperback edition (so might be at your local bookstore), but the on-line new/used guys have “like new” copies of the hardcover (which is what I found at the dollar store) for a penny (plus shipping), which means that it is an easy option. I quite enjoyed this, and found it (despite being heavier on the “stories” than on the “research”) full of educational items.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Wednesday, October 5th, 2016
11:54 pm
The previous post is "friends only" ... here's why:
If you would like to read the previous post, please contact me to be "friended".

Why is this?Collapse )
Sunday, October 2nd, 2016
8:16 pm
The previous post is "friends only" ... here's why:
If you would like to read the previous post, please contact me to be "friended".

Why is this?Collapse )
Saturday, October 1st, 2016
10:23 am
No cure for meaninglessness ...
This book came to me via the LibraryThing.com “Early Reviewer” program. As I've noted previously, it is a somewhat rare occasion that books from LTER are actually early, but this is one of those cases – as this is not due to be released until January 2017, four months hence. I must admit that it always makes me feel like “one of the cool kids” (often quite a stretch for a “bookish” person!) to get an ARC (advance review copy) of a yet-to-be-released title, but there are some challenges. First of all, it's “standard procedure” that one should not kvetch too much about internal issues with the book, since things are frequently still in flux and not quite how they're going to be when the book gets released into the wild (I've seen some that were missing all graphics, for instance), but I thought I'd mention one thing here – there are fairly extensive endnotes, but they're not connected to the location in the text as yet … which created a bit of a disjointed experience (I was reading them en masse after finishing each chapter) … the reader of the finished version is likely to have a much richer experience, as they'll be able to catch the background info as they work through the book (yeah, I'm bitching, but it's sort of to compliment the author for the level of citation).

I must admit, I had been very excited about Emily Esfahani Smith's The Power of Meaning: Crafting a Life That Matters when I started into it, as she sets up the book with material on her family's Sufi ties. As long-time readers of this space know, I've read quite a lot of Sufi material over the years (probably over 50 titles by Idries Shah and related authors), so was enthused that this might have been in that tradition. While I'm sure that, to some extent, this is informed by the author's roots in that area, it's not emerging from it to any significant extent. Smith has a degree in psychology, and “writes about culture, relationships, and psychology” for such notable publications as the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times, and the tone (and to some extent, the focus) here is what you'd expect for something targeting those sorts of audiences.

The book's main chapters are “The Meaning Crisis”, “Belonging”, “Purpose”, “Storytelling”, “Transcendence”, “Growth”, and “Cultures of Meaning”, with the middle group of those being “the four pillars” of meaning (plus “Growth” tacked on, I suppose). The author's investigation of Meaning seems to have begun in the realms of psychology (and philosophy), but quickly branches out to look at how these elements operate in the lives of what she describes as remarkable individuals:
Some of their stories are ordinary. Others are extraordinary. But as I followed these seekers on their journeys, I found that their lives all had some important qualities in common, offering an insight that the research is now confirming: there are sources of meaning all around us, and by tapping into them, we can all lead richer and more satisfying lives – and help others do the same.
Much of the book is anchored by stories of these folks, and, frankly, while some are quite iconic for the points being made, most were just sort of “meh”, for me. Of course, I'm not much of a “story” aficionado, so I'm always trying to figure out what the point is when approached from those angles, and in a lot of cases here I was “getting” less than a “people person” (or fiction fan) might have.

In the areas where she's not talking about people, she's name-checking like crazy, and mashing together philosophy, psychology, and other disciplines to get to some destination. She uses an appearance of comedian Louis C.K. on the Conan O'Brien show to tie together threads of Tolstoy, Camus, and Sartre … I don't know if she started there (it was unclear if the comic cited these writers) but she says he “described coming into contact with something like Sartre's nausea, Camus's absurd, and Tolstoy's horror” … which gives her a pivot to bounce around between the three, only to flip into The Little Prince. In the opening chapter, she is often introducing a different “character” (be that a famous writer or “a twelve-year-old boy with cancer”) every paragraph or so. Again, I'm a cynical curmudgeon, so I may be an outlier here, but I very quickly got to the “don't care!” zone through this.

In discussing some previous studies of meaning (a philosophers' book in the 30's, and Life magazine's research in the 60's) she gets to what frames her thesis:
… Yet there were some themes that emerged again and again. When people explain what makes their lives meaningful, they describe connecting to and bonding with other people in positive ways. They discuss finding something worthwhile to do with their time. They mention creating narratives that bring order to life and help them understand themselves and the world. They talk about mystical experiences and self-loss.
      As I conducted my research for this book these four themes came up again and again in my conversations with people living meaningful lives and those still searching for meaning. These categories were also present in the definitions of a meaningful life … that meaning arises from our relationships to others, having a mission tied to contributing to society, making sense of our experiences and who we are through narrative, and connecting to something bigger than the self. …
The “Belonging” chapter starts with the story about a small island off the Virginia coast, where the locals have pretty much their own culture – certainly their own accent – and looks at one fellow who left there, but still visits frequently. This then shifts into a look at the changing theories of infant and child care, and how one researcher, René Spitz, shifted things from a non-contact model to one that emphasized a lot of physical interaction (much of the casework being done in orphanages). From here she moves to looking at loneliness, and there's some interesting figures here:
… About 20 percent of people consider loneliness a “major source of unhappiness in their lives” and one third of Americans 45 and older say they are lonely. In 1985, when the General Social Survey asked Americans how many people they'd discussed important matters with over the last six months, the most common response was three. When the survey was given again in 2004, the most common response was zero.
It's not a big jump to examining suicide from there, and she quotes numerous studies that indicated “people are more likely to kill themselves when they were alienated from their communities”, and the odd factoid that “wealthy countries have higher suicide rates than poor ones, and that their inhabitants are less likely to consider their lives meaningful”. This eventually meanders into a longish tale about the Society for Creative Anachronism (think “ren faire” if you're not familiar with the SCA), and various dynamics in it, including dealing with a suicidally depressed member. Of all the stories in the book, the one that struck me the most was that of a guy who buys a newspaper from the same vendor every morning in New York, and they always had a bit of a conversation, which eventually builds into a connection. One day, the guy only had big bills, but the vendor didn't have change – and he said to pay for it the next day – but the guy insisted he should pay, went into a store, bought something just to get change, and paid the vendor. This chilled their relationship, as the guy rejected the kindness, and pulled the exchange down to a simple transaction. This leads into the author discussing other studies of rejection, and how some people devalue others' work (doctors and hospital cleaners).

The second “pillar” is Purpose. This starts out with a story about a zookeeper in Detroit, moves to a story of a drug dealer in New York (who turns his life around in prison, and now runs a fitness company based on his jailhouse workouts), and into the story of an Indian photographer doing a series of major works based on the Hindu deities, which then veers into a look at the movie Good Will Hunting, which is part of a riff on Kant:
      Though living with purpose may make us happier and more determined, a purpose-driven person is ultimately concerned not with these personal benefits but with making the world a better place. … That idea was expressed forcefully by the eighteenth-century German thinker Immanuel Kant. … To Kant, the question is not what makes you happy. The question is how to do your duty, how to best contribute ...
This leads into a look at current research at places like the Yale School of Management and Wharton: “Adam Grant, a Wharton School of Business professor … points out that those who consistently rate their jobs as meaningful have something in common: they see their jobs as a way to help others.”

Next comes “Storytelling”. This starts with a horrific tale of a teenage girl getting hit by a car, and having severe neurological damage … the payoff on the story is the whole trauma center staff coming in to introduce themselves to the girl … for their benefit because only about 1 in 10 with these sorts of injuries survive, and having the example “keeps them coming back to work”. One thing I actually dropped a bookmark on here was part of a story-telling event/site called The Moth, and this comment from their Artistic Director is pretty sharp:
The most moving stories … are rooted in vulnerability, but they are not too emotionally raw. The stories should come … “from scars and not wounds.” They should have settled into the storyteller's mind so that he or she can reflect back on the experience and pull out its meaning.
Smith goes on to define this “pillar” a bit more coherently than the others with:
      Our storytelling impulse emerges from a deep-seated need all humans share: the need to make sense of the world. We have a primal desire to impose order on disorder – to find the signal in the noise. We see faces in the clouds, hear footsteps in the rustling of leaves, and detect conspiracies in unrelated events. We are constantly taking pieces of information and adding a layer of meaning to them; we couldn't function otherwise. Stories help us make sense of the world and our place in it, and understand why things happen the way they do.
She goes on to talk about a semi-pro football player who breaks his spine, how college fund-raisers who used personal stories raised more money, the life of a Cuban refugee, and ends up discussing the book/movie Life of Pi (which should have come with a “spoiler warning”).

The final “pillar” is “Transcendence” and, interestingly, she starts this off with a story of a visit to the McDonald Observatory in Texas, which moves into a lot of scientific space info, and then into ancient beliefs about the cosmos. This was pretty good at describing where she was going here:
You might expect the insignificance we feel in the face of this knowledge to highlight the absurdity and meaninglessness of our lives. But it in fact does the opposite. The abject humility we experience when we realize that we are nothing but tiny flecks in a vast and incomprehensible universe paradoxically fills us with a deep and powerful sense of meaning. A brush with mystery – whether underneath the stars, before a gorgeous work of art, during a religious ritual, or in a hospital delivery room – can transform us.
She goes off into the work of William James (The Varieties of Religious Experience) who was a great fan of nitrous oxide to “stimulate the mystical consciousness” (maaaaan ...), and offers up his four qualities of this, being passive, transient, ineffable, and noetic (imparting knowledge or wisdom). She digs up an “expert on transcendence” from the University of Pennsylvania (I assume there have to be some out there … although I doubt he's on the Wharton faculty), and tracks down some researchers doing actual empirical studies into stuff like “awe”. This leads into story of some guy who decided that he really wasn't interested in finance, and ran off to a monastery in Burma, where the author details, over several pages, the predictable whining of the Western seeker who is disappointed to find that traditional spiritual training centers don't sport the comforts of a Four Seasons hotel. He nevertheless sticks to it and eventually gets to a point where he claims he's “seen so clearly what an illusion the self is”. She bounces off this story into an interesting (but brief) look at some researchers investigating what's happening in the brains of meditators via SPECT (single photon emission compound tomography), which I've seen covered in other books previously.

This next goes into a story of Jeff Ashby, who was inspired at age 6 by one of the early NASA manned flights, and who eventually made it into space at age 45. The thrust here (heh) is on how, once his life-long dream had been achieved, he looked for “bigger issues” … which then flips back into a look at John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club, and how he got into Transcendentalism via the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson. This then leads off to a review of assorted “transcendent” experiences, including those generated by hallucinogens (with mention of some research studies), and a story about a cancer patient using these to smooth the transition out of this life.

The “Growth” chapter isn't one of the “pillars” that Smith lists, but gets about as many pages devoted to it. This starts with a rambling story of some of the people involved in a group called “The Dinner Party”, which is set up for young adults who have lost close loved ones. This is all pretty predictable but for the quote from one of them: “That's what nihilism is for”, which, of course, appealed to my sensibilities. This then rolls into a story of a Vet suffering from PTSD who ended up killing somebody in a drunk-driving episode, and, in dealing with this, forms a group called Dryhooch to provide places where vets can hang out together without booze. This leads to tales of other folks who have survived traumatic experiences and “grown” from them … including some research on how there's quite a range of how resilient individuals can be, which may have a substantial genetic component.

The penultimate chapter is “Culture of Meaning”, which starts with the story of a church in Seattle that does a late-night service involving chanting a 4th-century ritual, which has been a counter-culture fave for decades. The author quotes dozens of attendees' passionate comments about the program, but doesn't offer much concrete about it (no researchers had wires stuck in the audience, evidently). Smith uses this chapter to try to support her “four pillars” model, and runs through a bunch of different groups, organizations, companies, etc. that are “cultures of meaning” and tries to map them onto her framework. Frankly, I thought the connection was pretty weak across the board here, but if you're the type that gets entranced by the sort of stories that make up much of the book, you may be sufficiently enthused at this point that you'll be totally on board with whatever Smith's pitching. Me, not so much.

However, the book somewhat redeems itself in the “Conclusion”, which – while brief – takes a fascinating look at death and suicide. It starts with a rather arch quote: “Death … poses a grave challenge to the ability lead a meaningful life.”, and the search for “a meaning that cannot be annulled by death.” The core story here focuses on researcher William Brietbart (with Sloan Kettering) … who discusses working with the AIDS community, considers the work of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and the movement for legalization of assisted suicide. He found that:
those who desired a hastened death reported feelings of meaninglessness, depression, and hopelessness. They were living in an “existential vacuum”.
… Brietbart knew he could treat depression … but he was stumped when it came to treating meaninglessness.
Unfortunately, what he ended up developing (a multi-session group therapy approach) was specifically targeted to the terminal cancer patients with whom he worked, and not a generally applicable approach for the rest of us. The book (somewhat predictably) ends with a meander through the story of Viktor Frankl, before coming up with the “big reveal”:
Love, of course, is at the center of the meaningful life. Love cuts through each of the pillars of meaning and comes up again and again in the stories of those I have written about.
I wonder if the author has an appreciation of how empty and pointless that sounds to somebody struggling with suicidal depression. Needless to say, that's a throw-the-book-across-the-room mic drop ending (especially following the rest of that chapter).

Obviously, The Power of Meaning was not “my sort of book” … I don't care for “teaching stories” in general, and all these tales of people in various situations were frequently just blah-blah-blah to me. But, that's me, and I realize that a lot of people live for this stuff. If you like to read about “remarkable individuals” (and not in the 4th Way sense), you'll no doubt like this far more than I did. Again, I had high hopes for this when it started, and if it had concentrated more on the research, psychology, and philosophy (& Sufi thought), and not on these folks that the reader is supposed to have an empathetic reaction to (I always feel like I'm being “played” when authors try to get me to feel instead of think), I would have likely been raving about it by this point. But no.

As noted up top, this is not coming out until January, so you've got a few months to wait if you're wanting to pick up a copy. You can, of course, pre-order from the on-line big boys (who have it at a bit over a third off of cover price), so you'll have it as soon as it ships. I just wish I could have been more enthusiastic about this.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Friday, September 30th, 2016
10:40 am
Must be crazy ...
This is another book that got suggested to me at a DBSA meeting, much like the Kay Jamison book I reviewed a few months back. I certainly liked Ruby Wax's Sane New World: A User's Guide to the Normal-Crazy Mind a lot more … but that is likely because the tone of this is much less oppressive – reflecting, no doubt Wax's background in acting/comedy (primarily in the UK, although hailing from Evanston, IL), as opposed to the other author's psychology roots. Wax, who had suffered from depression and related conditions for most of her life, responded to the dwindling of her performance career by going back to school, and ending up with a Masters from Oxford in “mindfulness-based cognitive therapy”, so she has the chops to really get into the subject here.

While the book does spend a lot of (entertaining) verbiage dealing with specifics of Wax's life, it's not specifically autobiographical, and is in five parts, each (confusingly) containing a differently-named chapter from the name of the “part” (so what's on the Contents page isn't what's up top on the individual pages – go figure – must be the “crazy” manifesting), each containing assorted thematic sub-sections … including her various “my story” bits. Since these are ambiguously titled, I'm just going to give a description: the first part covers the sorts of neuroses that pretty much impact everybody to some extent, the second part's chapter is called “Depression – Broken Brains”, so deals with the more damaged among us, the next part looks at “neuroscience”, which is followed by an overview of mindfulness, and finished with “the manual”, which has (as one might expect) suggested exercises, homework assignments, handy forms, and other useful information.

Rather than trying to summarize all this, I'm going to mainly go with the parts I dropped in bookmarks for – some of which are more for their humor or out-of-the-box approach than being specifically “pithy” as to the actual arc of the book. This starts with the following from the sub-section “The Fix of Happiness”:
… There are some lucky people who feel they experience happiness when they gaze at a cloud or walk on the beach, but the rest of us get that special tingly buzz only when we've bought, won, achieved, hooked, or booked something. Then our own brains give us a bit of dopamine, which makes us feel good. We don't need substances; we are our own drug dealer.
      The problem is, the hit of happiness usually lasts as long as a cigarette, so we have to continually search for the next fix. It's as though as a species we had no brakes, just breakdowns. …
She goes from this to defining her version of Maslow's hierarchy which takes fourteen steps to go from food/water to “Meeting Oprah” (with five steps of increasingly posh air travel in the mix). Did I mention that there's an awful lot of great stuff in here (and much of it's a hoot)? Because I feel guilty flipping through to get to my next little paper slip … but we don't want this review being 20,000 words, do we? Some of these are informative (in the Johnny Carson-esque “I did not know that.” mode), such as:
If you watch a face it will tell you everything. For instance, you cannot fake a smile. There is a muscle under the eye called the periocular that will not become active if you aren't genuinely smiling. The mouth is easy to upturn but if you don't find something funny, that periocular muscle just doesn't move; your eyes are dead as a trout's.
Again, this is a complex mix of what Wax knows from grad school, and what she knows from being saddled with psychological issues … here's a very telling one coming from the latter type of expertise (moving from a discussion of sadness/unhappiness pinned to a particular quote from Hamlet):
      Depression is a whole other beast; it is not situation appropriate. Here's something you get absolutely free with this illness: a real sense of shame; it comes with the package. And you feel such extreme shame because you think, “I'm not being carpet-bombed, I don't have anything to complain about.” Your thoughts become so punishing for your selfishness – like bombs, incoming over Dresden – so loud, so relentless you get not one voice but about a hundred thousand abusive voices; like if the devil had Tourette's. Depression doesn't care if you're famous, if you live in a mud hut, or what culture you come from, it just loves everyone.
(While I really like that bit, it is slightly incoherent – but I'm considering that it's coming from something of a “performance art” place rather that “outtakes from my thesis” on the author's part. A tidbit which does sound like it's from the latter category is: “The World Economic Forum estimates that the global cost of mental illness will be about $16 trillion by 2030.”, and that as many as 1 in 4 people suffer from some degree of clinical depression.) In this section she comes up with what I thought was a great suggestion (actually DBSA is quite a bit like this) following a rant about finding a “buddy” who understands that “you are not making it up and you are not a self-indulgent, self-obsessed narcissist who's looking for pity or an excuse not to show up at work or school”:
Alcoholics Anonymous has a system where you call your buddy when you feel you want a drink and they will talk you down. Why can't we have meeting places like in AA, where they all get together for their twelve-step thing and have cigarettes and cookies? How did they organize these get-togethers so well? They have meeting places on every corner of every block; more places than there are Starbucks. How did they figure all this out? Why can't we do that?
Oddly (given my interest in the subject), I didn't drop a single bookmark in the central “neuroscience” chapter. This is not due to it being lacking … in fact, Wax does a remarkable job of presenting a quite detailed look at brain biology, function, and the like in fifty-some-odd pages. It's more that this has such a “fire hose” of information that it would be hard to sufficiently cherry-pick factoids to give you and adequate sense of what's in there. I did note one thing right at the end of the section, which I thought was important:
… I just want to bring your attention to how misguided we are in insisting the external world is exactly as we see it. Much of what you see out there is manufactured by your brain, painted in like computer-generated graphics in a movie; only a very small part of the inputs to your occipital lobe comes directly from the external world. The rest comes from internal memory stores and other processes. …
The next part of the book is about “mindfulness”, which is where this all is heading. She backgrounds this initially with her own experiences, and then discusses the history of the discipline. This approach started in 1979 with Dr. John Kabat-Zinn, who created a method to use with patients whose pain was too chronic to remedy, those who were given the diagnosis of “You're going to have to live with this.” Obviously, there's a disconnect between physical and emotion pain, and it was a group of researchers (John Teasdale, Zindel Segal, and the professor Wax studied with, Mark Williams) who took Kabat-Zinn's work and applied it to psychology, developing MBCT (mindfulness-based cognitive therapy). I am currently undergoing a course of therapy related to this, and found it amusing that something we were working on this very morning (for managing depression/panic related emotions) is essentially covered in this section as a coping structure with the acronym RAIN – Recognition, Acceptance, Investigation, Nonidentification … along with some suggested exercises.

When she gets around to addressing stress, there's this which stood out to me:
… Thanks to our ever-speedier culture, most of our lives are now lived in a state of hyperarousal, and almost everything out there seems scary. We're in a constant downpour of adrenaline and cortisol, muscle tension, high blood pressure, and lack of oxygen to the brain – all of which can make us very, very ill. Notice when you feel the beginning of stress; closely explore where it is in your body, the size, the edges, the sensations. Notice how your breathing and your posture change. Notice if your mind starts to kick in with suggestions to get coffee, cigarettes, or tranquilizers. You don't have to suppress the thoughts or the feelings of fear, anger, or hurt but recognize that they are the dandruff of a flaky mind.
The “mindfulness” chapter closes with a fairly lengthy section on “Facts About Mindfulness”, which, while interesting in terms of all the multitudinous conditions and studies she cites, almost approaches “snake oil” territory with the feeling that it “cures what ails ya” no matter what the issue. Or that might just be me being a cynical old coot. The last part of the book is “The Manual” if you're going by the chapter/page headings, or “Alternative Suggestions for Peace of Mind” if you're looking at the Contents, which is more the second of these than what you might expect from the shorter one. A significant portion of this is taken up with looking at Cognitive Behavior Therapy (which she then contrasts with MBCT – claiming the latter is twice as effective), with some other stuff thrown in. I rather liked her framing this part, which I've shortened somewhat:
      If mindfulness isn't for you, I'm going to suggest some alternative practices to help you deal with everything from life's little hiccups to the gale force ten, brain-shattering breakdowns.
      The important thing is that you find something to anchor you when the winds of “shit happens” get rough. So many people I know don't have an antidote for life's turbulent weather and suffer because of it. … Dissatisfaction is part of the deal of living because simple existence is full of contradictions; we want individuality, to stand out from the crowd, yet we want to be part of a tribe. We're driven and busy and yet we want peace. And, worst of all, we want things to stay the same despite the fact that everything changes (that's the ultimate bummer). … Impermanence is the law of the universe – no can do. Even if you rage through the night, before you finish reading this sentence, billions of your cells have died and been reborn. Because we have consciousness, we suffer about the fact we suffer, and this second arrow of suffering is constructed in our brains. But if our brain can create this pain, it can also create happiness.
OK, so I'm not so convinced about that last point, but the rest is pretty much on-target. Sane New World is relatively new (the hardcover came out in 2013, this paperback edition a year later), and (as a “#1 UK Bestseller”) is very likely to be available from brick & mortar book vendors who carry self-help and/or psychology titles. The on-line big boys, of course, have it … and the new/used vendors have “good” copies for as little as a penny, and “like new” for a couple of bucks (plus shipping). I quite enjoyed this, and found it both entertaining and informative, and figure it should be a “must read” for most folks (that's 1 in 4, remember) struggling with depression, and a worthwhile thing to get into for everybody else.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Saturday, September 24th, 2016
12:17 pm
(sigh) ... "first annual 59th" ...
I hate it when my birthday shows up in the middle of a major depressive cycle.

I don't really want to go anywhere, or do anything.

Nothing sounds "fun" ... and I certainly don't want to insist than my family have to hang out with me.

Heck, and given our financial situation ... I would sure rather have The Wife pay the AT&T bill so the phone and internet stay on than having them taking me out to dinner.

Which I probably will only vaguely enjoy.

This morning I "treated" myself to a McDonald's Big Breakfast ... which is a pretty pitiful self-indulgence, but in my budget quite the splurge.

I talked with a "career counselor" this morning who was encouraging me to double or triple my asking hourly/annual rate. I noted that I was "aware" that I should be "worth" the sort of numbers that he was suggesting, but I frequently had to fight (or simply not take assignments) because they would only give me a quarter of my usual rate (an 8th of what he was suggesting). Where are these jobs?

Needless to say, this all just reinforces my feeling of having ZERO value in this world.

Which, of course, makes the whole concept of stacking up birthdays seem pretty damn pointless.

Feeling damned, doomed, desperate ... and abysmally depressed.

The concept of a "happy" birthday at this point is about as plausible as Little Green Men riding unicorns out of a spaceship to deliver a billion dollar lottery check.

Sucks. To. Be. Me.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Monday, September 19th, 2016
12:37 pm
Fair & Balanced ...
Here's another score from the Dollar Store … I was on the way back up from dropping my daughter at college, and stopped at an exit on the south end of Kankakee (where they had the trifecta of a Dollar Tree, a Walmart, and a Speedway with gas a buck a gallon cheaper than it would be in Chicago), and found this, and another interesting title, on the shelf down there. As I've noted elsewhere, the way that these get into that channel always makes it worthwhile to check every place, because there's no way of predicting which stores get which books.

Regular readers of this space will appreciate that I'm certainly in the “Ailes camp” as far as anti-Left sentiment is concerned, so I was really hoping that Zev Chafets' Roger Ailes: Off Camera would be a sympathetic look at the phenom who invented Fox News. I had a concern, as right up front in the author's info is the flagship of Leftist misinformation, the New York Times, but fortunately, this book is about as straight-forward without spin as one might hope.

If one were looking for the broadest of the broad strokes for what this book is about, one could do worse than this snippet from the Preface:
… Ailes is not another working-class stiff who got ahead through hard work and the power of positive thinking. For fifty years, he has navigated the waters of show business, national politics, and big-time media. He taught Dick Nixon new tricks, stepped in as Reagan's emergency debate coach when the Great Communicator needed help communicating, and held George H.W. Bush's hand all the way to the White House. He more or less invented modern political consulting and made a small fortune along the way. When he left politics, he talked his way into the number one job at CNBC and then convinced Rupert Murdoch to gamble a billion dollars give or take, on an idea and a handshake. The gamble become Fox News, one of the most lucrative and influential news organizations on the planet. …

Roger Ailes has his admirers, some of them surprising, and his detractors – entire organizations dedicated to discrediting him and all his works. I talked to a great many people on both sides.
While this is a biography (and so starts with a lot of family stories, school stories, etc.), it's also framed a bit with Chafets' search for the story. Key of the factors from Ailes' childhood is his hemophilia, a recurring issue in his youth, but something of a non-factor in the story here. More lingering was the damage done to his legs when hit by a car in second grade, and perhaps more developmentally important, was his father “throwing him out” once he graduated high school … he ended up going to Ohio University (“it was cheap, it had a reputation as a party school, and he could get in with less than stellar grades”), but found himself “homeless” soon after (“when he came home for Christmas break, he found his house sold and his belongings discarded” – his mother having run off with a guy she'd met at a convention).

At several points in the book Chafets “gets involved with the story”, and when Ailes talks about missing an old friend who'd he'd lost track of decades previously, the author looks him up, finds him living in New York (teaching acting), and connects the two. This ends up providing him with a lot of “good material” from Ailes' early years, and lets him stick in info about Ailes' time in the early 70's when when he was producing theater (including winning three Obies for The Hot l Baltimore).

The book really picks up at the end of Ailes' college years – he managed to take a run of shows on the campus radio station (he'd majored in TV) and make a pitch to a Cleveland TV station to be a segment producer on a new “daytime variety show” they were developing, featuring soon-to-be the famed Mike Douglas. The main producer (who would later be tapped at Fox) asked Ailes to come in with a hundred show ideas, which he did and he was hired on the spot. That was 1961. In 1967 his producer left to do Dick Cavett's show, and Ailes got the executive producer slot on The Mike Douglas Show. I don't know if the author was trying to “humanize” Ailes in the eyes of his more rabid detractors, but he spends a lot of time featuring stories of Ailes bringing Black icons to the airwaves at the time … Muhammad Ali, MLK Jr., Dick Gregory, Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, and even Malcolm X … the latter connection coming in handy many years later in proving to hostile elements in the Congressional Black Caucus that he didn't just have a “sudden interest” in civil rights.

One of the guests on the show was Richard Nixon, who was traveling around the country trying to build support for his 1968 run. He and Ailes (who was only in his 20's at the time), had a chance to talk, and Ailes convinced Nixon that TV had to be a key part in a campaign. He was called into New York to meet with Nixon's media team, which grilled him for four hours … before offering him the job of producing Nixon's TV presence – which he took, infuriating Mike Douglas. Once Nixon was elected, Ailes was being frozen out by the White House staff, and in 1969 he left D.C. to move to New York and start his own company. This period he spent producing plays, documentaries, TV shows, and even tried to get a conservative news service (funded by Joseph Coors) off the ground.

In 1980 he was approached by Al D'Amato to help him oust Jacob Javitz from his Senate seat … he succeeded, and became something of a GOP power-broker, working on numerous campaigns, and winning most. One of the interesting things that comes up here is that he really had very little interest in the substance of the politics, just getting the candidates elected … “it was always a matter of sizing up the opponent, finding his weaknesses, or turning his strengths against him”. In 1984 he was called in by the Reagan campaign to help with preparation for the second debate with Mondale. Under his coaching Reagan came up with the classic line reversing the “age issue” where he stated “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.”. In 1988 he handled Bush's media, including the classic spots with Dukakis looking silly in a tank … but by the end of that, he was getting sick of the political work. He did some minor consulting on the 1992 campaign, but was pretty much out of the game at that point.

He was, however, producing a lot more TV, including the Tom Snyder show which was the precursor to the Letterman show on NBC. In 1991, he connected with Rush Limbaugh, and developed a TV version of Rush's phenomenally popular radio program – which ran for four years. Rush was quoted as describing some key coaching he got from Ailes:
“Roger told me that he had detected in me a common fault that newcomers to TV make when being interviewed by mainstream journalists. He said, 'Rush, they don't care what you think. Don't try to persuade them of anything. Don't try to change their mind. They are not asking you questions to learn anything. So don't look at this as an opportunity to enlighten them. Whatever they ask, just say whatever you want to say.'”
(Which is, if I recall correctly from setting up media tours in my PR agency days, pretty good advice for most interview situations!) Limbaugh eventually wanted out (he disliked all the extra stuff needed to get a TV show done), but it had gotten the attention of the management (and ownership – Jack Welch of G.E.) of CNBC, and they reached out to Ailes to run the channel. This was good for all involved, as Ailes doubled the asset value in two years. Many familiar Fox News faces (Neil Cavuto among them) were on board there. There was a management change above CNBC, and Ailes was faced with reporting to somebody he didn't care to work with, so he left. Rupert Murdoch was waiting … he had an idea for a more conservative cable news voice, and presented the idea to Ailes, asking if it was doable … Ailes assured him that it was, but could cost a billion dollars to launch. And, so Fox News was born … and more than eighty CNBC people followed Ailes into the new venture.

There's a middle section here with a lot of details about personnel development at Fox News, with some familiar names, some less so, some building up individuals (Bill O'Reilly, Shep Smith), some getting rid of others (Jim Cramer, Paula Zahn). Lots of names, lots of scenarios … too much to try to cherry-pick examples here. This is followed by a bit about Ailes' personal life in upstate New York, and the (very liberal) community he lives in there. The narrative then switches back to Fox, and how hated it is by the Left – and regularly smeared by them. One quote I thought was worth bringing in was this bit by Ailes in response to some of the vitriol being hurled at Fox:
“The first rule of media bias is selection,” Ailes says. “Most of the media bullshit you about who they are. We don't. We're not programming to conservatives, we're just not eliminating their point of view.”
This is prefaced by a story that Ailes tells about meeting a Liberal at a cocktail party who complains about Fox News coverage:
Ailes asks him if he is satisfied with what he sees on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and PBS. The man says he is very satisfied. “Well,” says Ailes, “if they all have the same take and we have a different take, why does that bother you? The last two guys who succeeded in lining up the media on one side were Hitler and Stalin.”
In support of these points Chafets brings in a very interesting mix of quotes … from Chris Matthews admitting to the Liberal stance of Walter Cronkite (who openly mocked Barry Goldwater during his 1964 campaign), to the New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane admitting that there's a “culture of like minds” that “share a kind of political and cultural progressivism” that taints nearly every word hitting their pages. The bias in most of the media creates what amounts to hostile work environments for anybody not part of the leftist hive-mind, which the author notes enables Ailes to “scoop up most of the really good conservative talent”. Chafets notes that Fox also hires a lot of overt liberals to provide counter-point to these conservatives … probably having more of these than all the leftist media outlets together have non-lefty voices.

An interesting thing that's pulled in here is UCLA Poly-sci professor Tim Groseclose's PQ (political quotient), which measures how political viewpoints range on a scale from 0-100. The data is based on the rankings of Lefty group “Americans for Democratic Action”, so the higher the number, the more leftist the stance (the vile Nancy Pelosi is close to 100, the current execrable POTUS is around 88). The “average voter” is right about 50 on the scale. The MSM network shows were all up around 65, while Fox was at 40 … however, most damningly: “Professor Groseclose puts the PQ of the average political reporter for a mainstream organization at 95 … and that's the “echo chamber” that drives political news – everybody (but Fox) being on the extreme Left end of the spectrum, leading the liberals to think something like an 80 would be “middle of the road” and Fox is way off to the right!

There's a chapter that largely deals with how Ailes manages the day-to-day news cycle at Fox, then a chapter about his hiring, firing, and people management (including some of the odd connections that he has with people not in Fox's camp), followed by a chapter looking at race and religion, noting Ailes' efforts to boost Black and Latino involvement in the organization. I found this illustrative, however, of his basic philosophy (especially vs. the pandering on the Left):
Racial identity politics are not Ailes's “thing.” He belongs to a generation that was raised in a time and place where forward-thinking people accepted MLK's famous exhortation to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, as the gold standard for racial aspiration. In Ailes's America, everyone would share Middle American, middle-class values and blend into a single national culture. He sees the celebration of racial differences as balkanizing. “Every month is something else,” he said, “I'm waiting for Lithuanian Midget Month. ...”
Chafets then takes a look at how Ailes gets along with his famous boss, Rupert Murdoch, and starts this off with a story about how when he called Murdoch's office to try to schedule an interview for the book, he was surprised to get a call back from Murdoch within 15 minutes (Chafets, assuming he'd get a time penciled in some weeks later, had nothing prepared, so just had Murdoch chat about Ailes – he's obviously a big fan of his hire). In this chapter he also looks at how Ailes runs the show from a financial basis, noting that he's totally self-taught in business. One quote I found amusing was how Ailes is very leery of getting the “next big thing”, especially with technology, and he's quoted as saying:
Let CNN buy the new stuff and test it out, and when the technology is right I'll come in like a ton of bricks. … When I see that the Framistan is working, we'll get one. Hell, we'll get two. But in the meantime, let CNN waste their money.
The last few chapters are largely adding perspective on different fronts, including how the current POTUS has called Ailes “the most powerful man in America”, and how his administration tried very hard to keep Fox out of the White House press pool (to their credit, all the other major news organizations stood up for Fox). There's talk of how ultra-Left organization Media Matters considers Ailes one of it's two “Great Satans” (Rush Limbaugh being the other), and how they are constantly trying to cause trouble for Fox. There's a bit about his young son (Ailes started a family very late in life), and how he's handling being a dad in his 70's, with other family reminiscences. The book closes with a look at election night 2012, which reinforces some of the previous bits about how Ailes, for all his success as a political consultant and political broadcaster, really isn't a “political junkie”, caring a whole lot about getting the message out and not so much about the actual “stuff” involved.

Roger Ailes: Off Camera is a fascinating read, and is something that I think anybody with an interest in politics (especially if you're not a Leftist), or broadcasting, would find quite interesting. I can't tell if this is currently in print or not … Amazon lists the hardcover at full retail, but notes that it won't ship for a couple of months. The copy I got at the dollar store was the paperback, but the new/used guys have the hardcover available for 1¢ in “like new” condition, so that's probably your best bet if you want to snag a copy.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



Saturday, September 17th, 2016
3:33 pm
Useful and Transcendent ...
This was yet another Dollar Store find. I noticed that it had an unusually large number of reviews over on LibraryThing.com, and took a look and discovered that it had been an “Early Reviewers” selection back when it came out. I'm not sure if I requested it then, but it's interesting to get an LTER book via the dollar store channel six years later.

Kevin Starr's Golden Gate: The Life and Times of America's Greatest Bridge is an interesting little book. Its author is a history professor at USC, and is a former “state librarian of California”, who has a dozen or so books out, mostly about California, and the majority of those in a 7-part series Americans and the California Dream. So, he's no “carpetbagger” when it comes to things iconic about California,

The book could be seen as a series of inter-linked essays, as each chapter is focused on one aspect, and could almost be free-standing. These are “Bridge” (introductory material), “Icon”, “Site”, “Vision”, “Politics”, “Money”, “Design”, “Construction”, “City”, “Suicide” and “Art” … each (obviously) taking a look at these varied aspects of the Golden Gate Bridge.

As regular readers of my reviews know, I typically will put in little slips of paper to note places where I feel good “example passages” are to give some flavor of the original in these scribblings. While I quite enjoyed the read, and found the material very interesting, I only ended up with three of these bookmarks stuck in here, and all of those in the first 10% of the book … not sure why at this juncture, but I do find it somewhat surprising. I guess I'm going to be winging it for most of this.

The first of these was right at the start … and I was wondering if the whole book was going to be as “florid” as this part of the introductory paragraph:
… Like the Parthenon, the Golden Gate Bridge seems Platonic in its perfection, as if the harmonies and resolutions of creation as understood by mathematics and abstract thought have been effortlessly materialized through engineering design. Although the result of engineering and art, the Golden Gate Bridge seems to be a natural, even inevitable, entity as well, like the final movement of Beethoven's Ninth. In its American context, taken historically, the Bridge aligns itself with the thoughts of Jonathan Edwards, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and other transcendentalists in presenting an icon of transcendence: a defiance of time pointing to more elusive realities. Were Edwards, Emerson, or the Swedish theologian Emanuel Swedenborg, a mystic thinker of great importance to the formation of American thought, alive today, they would no doubt see in the Golden Gate Bridge a fusion of material and trans-material forces, held in delicate equipoise.
Needless to say, the book does not continue in this mode (how could it?), but it sets things out in a modality that is hardly the standard “let's take a look at this piece of engineering” or “ain't that a cool landmark?” tones that might be expected in a book about a bridge. However, Starr isn't quite done with the “highfalutin” verbiage, as later in the “Bridge” chapter he adds:
From an iconic perspective, the Golden Gate Bridge offers a West Coast counterpart to the Statue of Liberty, announcing, in terms of American Art Deco, American achievement and the higher purposes of American culture. And it does this with its own element of historical narrative, subtly contained in the Art Deco stylization of its towers played off against repetitive cables descending into a reversed arch against an interplay of city, sea, and sky. …
Again, the book starts out in a philosophical mode, and in the “Icon” chapter, these issues are tied to historical antecedents (both conceptually and bridge-wise), and assorted poetry (including one that gets the rather “purple” description of being “elliptical and elusive, modeled on the vatic Ur-Poem of the twentieth century, fully cognizant of the perils and terrors of modern life”!). He notes here that:
The American Society of Civil Engineers ranks the Golden Gate Bridge as one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World, along with such other choices as the Channel Tunnel, the Empire State Building, and the Panama Canal.
Which is followed by an interesting name-check of the authors of the original “seven wonders” (in the ancient world), which were “Greek historian Herodotus and the poet-scholar Callimachus of the Library of Alexandria” (I don't believe the latter had ever made it onto my radar). The last thing that I flagged was the introductory paragraph for the “Site” chapter … which, if memory serves, is pretty much when Starr buckled in and started to actually write about the bridge, in its various aspects … but I figured I'd throw it in here for you:
The Golden Gate Bridge serves as the focal point and organizing principle of a fusion of nature and history that is at once a matter of geography and public art. In the perceptions of those encountering it, the Bridge and its site reflect eons of geological time and a shorter period of human association. As drama, then, the Bridge celebrates that interaction of nature, technology, and social purpose that created Native American, Spanish, Mexican, American, and ultimately global California across centuries of human development.
While the preceding might seem a bit over-blown, it does introduce a number of themes brought up in the “Site” chapter, including the geological development of the San Francisco Bay through the exploration of the region my mariners going back to the 16th century. However, it was not until the mid-18th century that the Bay was discovered. This was due to the narrowness of the Golden Gate itself, which “acted as a funnel and stabilizer for fog”, which meant that unless a ship was running right up the coast (a hazardous venture), the passage would be virtually impossible to see. In fact, it wasn't “discovered” until a group of Spanish soldiers in 1769, exploring the coastline to the south, crested a ridge and “beheld a great inland sea stretching north, south,and east as far as the eye could see”, and it wasn't until the fall of 1775 that a ship ended up sailing into the Bay, and only in 1776 was the first permanent settlement established. When gold was discovered in the region 70 years later, everything changed, and the urban San Francisco swarmed up and over the hills.

In the “Vision” chapter, Starr traces the ultimate concept of the bridge to “El Camino Real – the Royal Highway, the King's Highway” of the Spanish, which “linked the twenty-one missions founded between 1769 and 1823 at intervals of a day's march”, which ended up having a bit of a hiccup at the Golden Gate, requiring either a very long circumnavigating of the Bay, or ferrying across the strait. He suggests that, after 1937: “the Golden Gate Bridge completed the vision of Spanish Franciscan missionaries of an Alta California unified by one Royal Highway”. In the 19th century, there was a lot of interest in getting something built there, especially from railroad concerns, who found themselves having to re-route trains through the central valley, or ferrying across the channel. With the popularization of automotive transportation, the ferry business became a huge operation, and a major bottle-neck, with commuters having to wait in lines hours long to get their turn on the ferries. It's also in this chapter that some key players in the bridge's development are introduced, including San Francisco city engineer Michael O'Shaughnessy, and Chicago-based bridge engineer, Joseph Baerman Strauss (another Chicago connection in the story is that of Daniel Burnham, who had developed a “Burnham Plan” for San Francisco, delivered just before the 1906 quake/fire that destroyed much of the existing city … in their haste to rebuild, even less of his plan got built there than was the case in Chicago).

One of the interesting aspects of the bridge is that it was a local development, and managed by a local board, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District. The “Politics” chapter goes through the extremely convoluted pathway it took to make this happen (it was structured to take advantage of existing legislation “authorizing multi-county irrigation districts empowered to issue bonds, raise money, construct irrigation projects, and administer ongoing irrigation programs”). There were numerous interests both supporting and opposing the bridge, and from its initial approval in 1923, there were on-going lawsuits and challenges. These were still going on when the stock market crashed and the Depression started, and even though the project won what should have been a “final” vote (carrying by a 3-1 margin), more lawsuits were launched at it. In the “Money” chapter, the details on the financing are looked at, noting the influence of banker Amadeo Peter Giannini, who founded the Bank of Italy (in the Italian areas of S.F.), later to become Bank of America and the Transamerica Corp.. His backing of the bridge (agreeing to purchase the first offering of bonds) gave it a key boost in the wake of “the fire” and amid the Depression.

There's more dirt being dished in the “Design” chapter, as it appears that Strauss' initial design was quite uninspiring, Most of the “heavy lifting” in terms of the mathematical calculations necessary to build the largest bridge in the world, were coming out from the pencils of Charles Alton Ellis, a professor of structural and bridge engineering at University of Illinois … although he was later all but erased from the project by Strauss (who liked having the credit to his firm) … in cooperation with engineers Leon Moisseiff, Othmar Hermann Amman (who had designed the George Washington Bridge in New York), and Charles Derleth, Jr., along with geology professor Andrew Lawson (who was key in certifying the stability of the bases of the bridge's pylons). Two architects were largely responsible for the Deco “look” of the bridge, John Eberson and Irving Morrow, neither of whom had any background in bridges, the former making his name in theater houses, the latter being a “thought leader” in the architectural community. This chapter also dips its toe into Pythagorean theory, and discussions of some of the extreme technical challenges faced by the design team. One fascinating point discussed here was about the bridge's “International Orange” color … it was not necessarily an intentional choice, but was the color of the lead-based primer used to protect the components of the bridge as it was being built. Despite numerous other suggestions being put forward from everybody from the Navy to some of the engineers, the orange-red seemed to have “compatibility as far as the site and atmospherics were concerned”, helped make the bridge more visible in foggy conditions, and ended up as the iconic hue it has become.

The “Construction” chapter is fascinating, as there are elements involved that I never suspected … such as the cables needing to be spun from 0.196” wire on site, with carriages holding the spinning mechanisms moving 640ft/min. When there were 452 wires spun, they were banded into hexagonal strands, which were the put into groups of 64, and six circular hydraulic jacks compressed these into a single cable. Pretty amazing. One notable thing here is that Strauss established a hard-hat requirement, soon to be an archetypal element of construction sites, and set up a safety net, which saved many workers. In the “City” chapter, more construction factors are covered, including the shocking news that the bridge might have been destroyed (much like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940) in a violent windstorm with 69mph gusts in December of 1951 … the report noted that had the winds kept up another half-hour, the bridge likely would have failed … this led to an update “which increased the torsional rigidity of the Bridge by a factor of thirty-five”, completed in 1954. Similarly grim is the “Suicide” chapter, which notes that the Golden Gate Bridge is the second “most popular” place on the planet (behind a volcano in Japan – go figure) for folks to kill themselves. Starr goes into a lot of statistics here, both on numbers of deaths, and the tech issues (velocity achieved on the way down to the water, etc.) involved, all of which I think I'll spare you (although the paragraph with the “chum for sharks” comment was very tempting). This is filled with demographic info (85% of jumpers are locals, for instance), and touching stories about notes, interventions, and even a movie (The Bridge) about these suicides. The final chapter, “Art”, is (predictably), an over-view of how the iconic structure has manifested in photography, painting, film/video, and popular media.

As noted, Golden Gate was quite an engaging read, and I think most folks would find it of interest. It's still in print in a paperback edition, but the hardcover I found at the dollar store is in the new/used channels with “like new” copies going for as little as a penny (plus shipping), so it can be added to your library quite reasonably if it sounds like something you'd like to have.


Visit the BTRIPP home page!



[ << Previous 20 ]
BTRIPP.COM   About LiveJournal.com