2018/09/27

Feral Cat Lounging Poolside


A History of the World in 6 Glasses

A History of the World in 6 GlassesA History of the World in 6 Glasses by Tom Standage
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

An interesting and fun look at world history through six drinks: beer, wine, spirits, coffee, tea, and Coca-cola, and how each drink impacted and reflect the era in which it was the dominant beverage. Lots of great tidbits about each drink, like:

*how the earliest civilizations used beer as basically liquid bread
*how many of the traditions we have for sharing drinks together go back thousands of years to the beginnings of the earliest civilizations
*how the Chinese tried valiantly to protect the secret of growing tea and how it came to spread around the world

A great read for anyone who loves history but who is interested in a new perspective instead of the usually examination of individuals, events or ideologies.

View all my reviews

Eight Flavors: The Untold Story of American Cuisine

Eight Flavors: The Untold Story of American CuisineEight Flavors: The Untold Story of American Cuisine by Sarah Lohman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Part cookbook, part history, and part travelogue, this is an interesting look at how different flavors have influence American food from before the founding of the country to the present. As the title states, Lohman examines how eight different items (black pepper, vanilla, chili powder, curry powder, soy sauce, garlic, MSG, and sriracha) came to be used and influence the foods that Americans love. She uses historical and modern recipes, from Martha Washington's Black Pepper Cookies to Thai omelets with sriracha, to demonstrate how the flavors have been used and so the reader can try them out themselves, if so inclined. She describes her visits to places where the spices are grown, describes the ebbs and flows of the public's taste for these items and delves into the science behind questions like "does MSG cause headaches?"

The book works better as a print book than an audio book, if you are trying to decide on a format. If you want to try the recipes, you'd rather have them printed out, I'm sure, and if you don't, then it isn't terribly interesting listening to someone read a recipe (and there are a good many recipes in the book).

View all my reviews

"How can we negotiate with a state that wants to kill us?"

While the US is having its current drama about events that may or may not have happened at a high school party 30+ years ago, an actual important drama is brewing and being ignored.

“We’re accumulating risk in the Middle East by not getting at Iran’s proliferation,” [Brian Hook, the State Department's special representative for Iran] said. “There is something brazen about this missile behaviour, they’re not even hiding it. This sort of escalation is deeply concerning..."

"The Iranians have to decide are they a nation state or a revolution,” [The Saudi foreign minister] said, underlining that Iran had diverted virtually all its additional revenues from the removal of sanctions into its regional agenda, including support for the Houthi rebellion.

“If a missile is launched at Saudi Arabia and UAE what will be reaction be and how will we be defended?” said UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al Otaiba.

Maybe we could ask if the government can spend a few minutes considering this when they get done with their he-said, she-said partisan argument?

UAE ambassador asks how allies will defend country from Iran's missiles

Fake Brakes

The National has a report about a conference about counterfeit goods being sold, including dangerous auto parts: Brake pads 'made of grass' among the counterfeit car parts putting UAE drivers at risk.

The story is suitably informing and scary, but I wanted to see a picture of these brake pads, which unfortunately isn't provided in the story. In trying to find a photo elsewhere, I discovered what might be an even more interesting fact: There is a website dedicated to the automotive brake industry, The Brake Report. And, what might be the best part, according to their about page, they are the "leading digital platform dedicated to the global automotive and commercial vehicle brake segments", which seems to imply that there are multiple digital platforms dedicated to the global automotive and commercial vehicle brake segments.

Truly, we live in an age of wonders.

2018/09/26

UAE Media vs. US Media

I thought that it is interesting how The National and Gulf News are covering President Trump's speech to the UN as compared to what I saw my friends in the US had posted about it. So I looked at some of the major US new sources pages. The American media is downplaying the importance of the speech as compared to the media here, and the Americans are playing up the laughter of some of the delegates.

Draw what conclusions you want from these:






The Elements of Style

The Elements of StyleThe Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr.
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

This book is evil. You don't have to believe me. Read a professional linguist's opinion: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf

I hate this book more than any other book I've ever read.

I had a history professor who was an ardent fan of this book. When I turned in my first paper in the class, he complained that I used the passive voice too often. Since I actually like to read about linguistics as a hobby and know what the passive voice is, I analyzed my paper and found only five passive verbs in the six page paper, which didn't seem like an excessive amount.

But I figured it is his class and I should do what is asked of me. So for my next paper I only used the passive voice once (for a sentence like "He was born in 1843 in Midland, Texas." or some such thing). The paper came back marked "You use the passive voice too much."

OK, I thought, that is crazy, but still, it is his class, I'll humor him. The next paper had zero instances of the passive voice. I wrote awkward and non-standard sentences like "The voters of Alabama elected him governor." and "His mother gave birth to him in 1878."

The paper came back marked "You use the passive voice too much." This was completely baffling. So I ask him to please point out any instance of the passive voice. Instead, he gave me an assignment to read this book before my next paper was due.

It turned out, that like Strunk and White, he didn't actually know what the passive voice was or why it was bad. This book does tell writers to not use the passive voice, but some of the examples they give aren't in the passive voice. And, like most of the rest of the rules in the book, they frequently violate their own rules throughout the book.


View all my reviews

Death by Black Hole

Death by Black HoleDeath by Black Hole by Neil deGrasse Tyson
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I wanted to like this book. I love reading popular science books. Up to the point where I read this book, Neil DeGrasse Tyson had seemed interesting and amusing when I saw him being interviewed. I should note that this isn't really an original book, but instead a collection of previously published essays, but that didn't bother me either, as I have enjoyed several of those.

But then, as I read the book, I kept coming across errors or, if I'm being more generous in some cases, over-simplifications or badly written or confusing passages. You can say that a lot of them don't matter (like saying that that the names of the days of the week come from the seven "planetes" (wonderers) that the Greek knew about. Except that in English, it is more complicated than that. Sunday is obviously from the Sun. Monday is from the Moon. Tuesday is from Tyr, a Norse god. Wednesday is from Woden, a Norse God. Thursday is from Thor, as Norse god. Friday is from Frieda, a Norse godess. Saturday is from Saturn. So, three out of seven.

Or when his "proof" that you should avoid gamma rays is The Hulk: ("Gamma rays are the sort of radiation you should avoid. Want proof? Just remember how the comic strip character 'The Hulk' became big, green, and ugly.") That is proof?

Another frustrating thing to me is his frequent correction of misunderstandings, where he is taking something literally that is not meant to be taken as literal, and then basking in his intelligence as he corrects those who are misunderstanding the world.

Like saying "those who say 'What goes up must come down!' are misinformed" because the escape velocity of the Earth is 11 km/sec.

Or "A compass points north" (because it points south too, dummies!).

Or "days get longer in the summer and shorter in the winter" (because summer doesn't officially start until the longest day of year, and really, I think that this is a cheat, since most people say "days are longer is summer", not get longer).

Or "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" (because it is only exactly east and west twice a year).

It is as if someone so smart doesn't understand that people speak in conversational shorthand. These statements are all true in the sense in which people use them in everyday conversation.

An example of the writing problems are sentences like "Isaac Newton passed white light through a prism to produce the now-familiar spectrum of seven colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet, which he personally named. (Feel free to call them Roy G. Biv.)" I don't know how else to read that but that he is saying that Newton either named these seven colors or that he named violet, which is ridiculous. It turns out that he means that Newton decided that the spectrum was made up of these seven colors (because of 7 musical notes and 7 days of the week) and the first to apply the Latin word spectrum to that range of colors.

Or when he repeats the easily disproven notion that most dust is made up of human skin.

Or that he thinks Al Magest is Arabic for "The Greatest" (Akbar is "greatest" in Arabic).

Or the sentence "At this time in the life of a cloud, astrophysicists can only gesticulate what happens next." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The biggest problems come when he writes about history or religion, which he plainly knows very little about. It becomes clear late in the book what the problem is. He has apparently been taught that the "Conflict Thesis" (i.e. that religion and science are in conflict, always have been, and always will be) is the correct interpretation the world. More about why that is wrong in a minute, but first, lets look at his misunderstandings of history.

First, somewhat ironically if you actually know the history, his recounting that Board of Longitude's sought for a chronometer to determine longitude. Actually the scientists on the board hated Harrison's chronometer and avoided giving him the prize money that he had earned, because they wanted a scientific method of determining the measurement, not a device from a simple mechanic. So here we have a scientist praising scientists for seeking for something that they didn't look for and didn't want, because he believes that scientist are seekers after truth, so they must be motivated out of goodness, when the opposite was what really happened.

Or that Galileo's observations in support of the heliocentric model "shook Christendom" (in case you don't know, it wasn't the extremely religious clergy who disliked heliocentrism, it was the Aristotelians scholars - it wasn't the fact that the theory contradicted the Bible, it was that it contradicted Aristotle). The church didn't really care about what he was doing, because Christianity isn't based on astronomical facts. Galileo was allowed to teach heliocentrism to his students and the first book he wrote on the subject was widely praised. It was only later when he got involved in religion and insulting the pope, and when he insulted those who pointed out the scientific problems* with the theory that he got into trouble.

Or when he says "The Bible says the stars don't change" despite the most famous star (the Bethlehem star) in the Bible is famous because a) it was a new star and b) it "went on before them" (i.e. it moved and the wise men followed it). I'd be interested to see what he is talking about. I looked up every verse in the Bible that mentions stars and couldn't find one verse about them not moving.

He says that we have "no record of anybody in all of Europe recording" the 1054 supernova, because the Church denied that such things could happen (i.e. new stars). First, the claim that no European recorded the event is disputed. But even if it is so, other supernovae in the Middle Ages where recorded in Europe, so what this one being missed says about the Christianity and the Church isn't clear. He wants it to prove that Christianity was holding back science. That seems more than a bit of a stretch. Plus, he says that "Middle Eastern astronomers" wrote about, but the only citation that I can find is to one Nestorian Christian doctor who blamed a plague on the event.

Tyson clearly believes that the Conflict Thesis is correct. He quotes approvingly from Andrew D. White's book "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896). The problem is that no serious historian of science thinks that White's book is good history or that the Conflict Thesis is correct. For example, White's book is the primary source of the belief that people believed in a flat Earth before Columbus. He included as many stories, dubious or not, in the book as he could find it helped promote his ideology.

Needless to say, if you only look for evidence that proves you are right and don't care if the evidence is true, you will find plenty of evidence to support you. Stephen Jay Gould perhaps best explained when he noted "White's and Draper's [the other great instigator of the thesis] accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and use the same myths to support their narrative". It is frankly bizarre that a person of his intellect is still relying on a book more than 100 years old for his information.

I have to say reading this book, with its many errors and biases has soured me on Tyson. And when I see him opening his series Cosmos with the Giorano Bruno story as if he was burned at the stake for his scientific inquiries, it is clear that nothing since this book was written has changed.

*The biggest problem with the theory, at that time, was that there was no measurable parallax with the stars. This meant that the stars would have had to be unbelievably far away (for the understanding of the universe at that time). It wasn't until the 19th Century that measurements were precise enough to overcome this problem.

View all my reviews

The Light Between Oceans

The Light Between OceansThe Light Between Oceans by M.L. Stedman
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

There is a lot of good about this book. For large sections, it is beautifully written. At times it is genuinely moving. The main characters are interesting and the author does a good job of explaining their motivations.

The part I love the most about this book is the way that the author captures the lives of men and women who endure hardships and risk their lives to make everyone else's lives possible (in this case, lighthouse keepers, but the same could be said of many neglected professions).

And then, everything is ruined when...

Spoilers below

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

The couple steal a baby, and from the point of view of the book, you are clearly supposed to feel sympathetic to these people despite this horrible act. It would be one thing if the book told how these two were driven to commit this crime and explained their motivation (which it does). But that isn't all. Everything in the book is trying to drive you to feel like they are the heroes of the situation. From that point on, the book is morally repulsive.

The much more minor problem, it seems to me, is the piling up of coincidences that make the plot possible. After a while they became too much for me, but in another novel that didn't have the other problem I'd probably been willing to overlook them.

Two stars for the writing and the focus on the forgotten.

View all my reviews

Back to Our Future

Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now--Our Culture, Our Politics, Our EverythingBack to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now--Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything by David Sirota
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

As someone whose formative years (13-22) occurred during the 80s, I was really looking forward to this book. It was chosen by my book club, but think that I would have picked it anyway, as its topic is so interesting to me.

However, when I read the book, I was very disappointed. It really isn't a history of the 80s at all, nor is it about the time period from 1980-1989. The author is quite liberal, and the whole point of the book is to make his points about politics, some of which I agree with (presidents have too much power, the US has become too militaristic), and some I don't (republicans are evil). He tries to show how pop culture illustrates and reinforces these points.

I'm not going to argue for or against his political positions. My problem with the book is that the author makes frequent factual mistakes about these pop culture references.

For example, he says that the name of the robotic character on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-81) was Twiggy. It was Twiki. You might say this is a small point, but a simple visit to Wikipedia would have pointed it out.

He claims that culture only started to view "government is evil or incompetent" in the 80s with movies like First Blood. Hardly. This view was quite common in films of 60s and especially 70s (e.g. Jaws, the mayor refuses to close the beaches). Nearly all CIA agents or local law enforcement in films of that era were walking evil.

He approvingly quotes the Baltimore Sun as saying that Family Ties was about "rejecting the counterculture of the 1960s and embracing the wealth and power that came to define the ’80s". This is so wrong. The show (created by an ex-hippie) was about the reversal of the normal generation gap, with the parents as the focus. But audiences loved the kids, especially Michael J. Fox, so the shows focus changed. But the writers still made Fox's character and his opinions the butt of most of the jokes, and the parents' views were never mocked in the same way. President Reagan loved the show and offered to appear on it; the writers and creator hated him and refused to include him. (http://www.museum.tv/eotv/familyties.htm)

He says that the marketing of the 50s generation as a concept was new to the 80s. What about Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, American Graffiti, the novels of S.E. Hinton or Sha Na Na?

He says that Animal House is a celebration of 50s values. Has he ever seen the movie?

He says that Witness is about the contrast of the dangers of the racially diverse inner-city contrasted with the virtues of the all white Amish community. For the record, Witness had three villians, two were white and one was black.

He claims that Superman was fighting feminism in Superman II, because one of the villains was emblematic of women's empowerment.

He claims that prior to the album An Innocent Man, Billy Joel was a folk singer.

He claims that during the 1992 presidental election, Saturday Night Live was "quite literally, satirizing [Bill Clinton] as a tie-dyed hippie". You can see this skit for yourself here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQdDi.... It seems obvious that the point is that this is how Bush sees Clinton and Bush is being mocked for doing so.

He says that "Since the 1980s, our politics have focused solely on the president, and both parties have vested more and more power in the executive branch...", which is true, as far as it goes, but this process started long before the 80s. The term "imperial presidency" was first used in the 60s, and the increasing power of the presidency in comparison to the other branches has been ongoing since at least World War I, if not longer.

He says that militarism has increased because of the "martial messaging [that] was aided and abetted by Hollywood hits such as An Officer and a Gentleman, Stripes, and Spies Like Us". I have no idea how one can say that Stripes is a pro-military movie. Spies Like Us isn't about the military, but spies. An Officer and a Gentleman is, I'd argue, pretty well-balanced about the good and the bad of military life.

He says that the self-improvement genre started in the 1982 with M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled. Hardly. De Tocqueville noted the American penchant for self-improvement. The biggest self-improvement book of all time is probably How to Win Friends and Influence People, from 1936. The 70s were filled with pop-psychology books like I'm Ok, You're Ok, as well as programs like EST that were so ubiquitous that they were being mocked in movies like North Dallas Forty.

He says that He-Man and Star Wars are militaristic. That is nuts.

He claims that Andre the Giant was a "lumbering Eastern Bloc monster". He was French.

He says that "the wild-eyed Egyptian cult" of Young Sherlock Holmes is an example of Islamophobia. This cult is lead by a white Englishman and worships a pre-Islamic deity.

He says that in the Star Trek films of the 80s , the Klingons are Arab effigies. I literally have no idea what he is talking about. I've been a ST fan since 1973, and I've never heard anyone ever suggest an Arab-Klingon connection. The only other time I have seen this argument made was at the satire page of Landover Baptist Church.

He says that the view of Magic Johnson was one of an "angry, showy-but-undisciplined, overtalented-but-underachieving" player. Magic Johnson angry? What is this guy talking about?

This book reminded me of a Ann Coulter book. If you already share the author's opinions, you'll probably like it. If not, then it will only make you think that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

View all my reviews

How Not to Be a Boy

How Not To Be a BoyHow Not To Be a Boy by Robert Webb
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

As an American, I only really knew of Webb from the shows Peep Show and That Mitchell and Webb Look. If you haven't ever seen any of him and his comedy partner David Mitchell, do yourself a favor and run out and do so. But you are probably only interested in this book if you already know who he is.

Apparently in the UK he is known to be a prominent online political activist, and this book is pretty full of his ideological beliefs (atheism, left Labour and ardent feminism) and how that has helped him deal with the problems that he faced growing up. Which is fine for me, I actually enjoy hearing about how and why people think the way they do, especially those who have different opinions than me. But in the marketing for the book, there is no warning that you are going to get all that dumped on you, so some might find that off-putting. And, if for example, he was an MRA or a Christian, I think that you would have gotten a bit more a sense that that was coming in the description.

The parts about feminism are not really interesting, especially not if you have done any reading in this area already. If you really want to read about feminist theory, there are better places than this. Webb's philosophy boils down to "If it is bad, that is the patriarchy" (or 'The Trick', as he calls it). Logically it would seem to me that something that is responsible for everything is meaningless, but your mileage may vary. He quotes approvingly from scholars like Cordelia Fine, but doesn't really seem to have done much research or seriously anyone who disagrees with him.

The parts about his life, the struggles to deal with his parents' stormy marriage and divorce, his father's abuse, his mother's death and his learning to be a man and not a boy are by far the best part of the book. Webb reads the material himself and does a very good job.

Overall I enjoyed the book and felt like I learned about Webb's life, which would be the point of an autobiography. So three stars overall

View all my reviews

A Man Called Ove

A Man Called OveA Man Called Ove by Fredrik Backman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Picture a recent widower, already a difficult and cantakerous man, struggling with this new stage of his life. He is angry and bitter at life and God for what has happened and deeply damaged by a tragic family history. More comfortable with cars, tools, lawn care than people. Unemployed and alone, he struggles for purpose in life. He sees respect for rules and order falling by the wayside as he watches over his community. He worries that his neighborhood is decaying. He struggles with the new rules of society, calling minorities by rude and outdated terms. But a young woman from a distant culture helps him reconnect with the world around him. He meets a young man that he helps guide onto the path to manhood, teaching him about tools; rough, honest talk; and responsibility. He is dealing with a life-threatening medical condition, but he still risks his life to protect the community, and at his death is mourned by a large and diverse group, and he leaves his beloved old car to a neighbor.

You have to admit it, Gran Torino is a great movie.

Now, let's talk about A Man Called Ove.

Picture a recent widower, already a difficult and cantakerous man, struggling with this new stage of his life...

OK, they aren't completely identical stories, and I've smoothed over some of the similarities to make them fit, but there are a lot of themes that are shared between the two.

But I whole-heartedly recommend this book to others.

View all my reviews