Readings – Page 2 – notesfromnokomis

Smorgasbord

When a topic strikes my fancy, I start researching and writing. If I like the product, I publish; if I don’t, I don’t. Over the past few months, for a variety of reasons, I haven’t been happy with the results. But I have a few little ideas to get off my chest, so here goes.

1. In the last post, I asked you to ask me about the fourth-out rule. I’m pleased to report that at the next baseball game I attended, a friend approached and asked about the fourth-out rule. To say he was underwhelmed would overstate his level of interest in my explanation of the, admittedly, rarely utilized rule.

2. Our President loves mentioning good things. For instance, it was announced this week that our economy grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. That is great news and our President was quick to take credit for it. It also was recently reported that measles cases are at a 25-year high [1] and that pedestrian deaths from accidents are at a 28-year high.[2] It is difficult to see how President Trump could be at fault. But I’m not sure he deserves credit for the economy any more than he deserves blame for the increase in pedestrian deaths. The only thing we know for certain is that both things happened on his watch.[3]

3. Thursday night was a sports smorgasbord for me.

The Red Sox were playing and won. After winning the World Series last year, they are off to a poor start this season, with a record of only 11 and 15.

The Bruins, my favorite team when I lived in Boston, were playing the Blue Jackets, my favorite team now that I live in Columbus, in the NHL playoffs. The Bruins played with outstanding energy early and late to beat the Blue Jackets in overtime. It was a terrific game. There is nothing quite like the intensity of a close Stanley Cup game.

The NFL was hosting the first round of its draft in Nashville. Broadway looked even more crowded than usual. For the first time in recent memory, the Cleveland Browns did not have a selection in the top three. Because of a trade, they didn’t even have a pick in the first round.

The NFL draft engenders inane commentary. There is so much talking time to fill and so little of substance happening, that the commentators end up highlighting things that aren’t worthy. It’s one thing to mention that two tight ends were drafted from the same college team in the first round for the first time ever.[4] That is interesting and might even be significant. It is quite another thing to state “this is only the second time since 2004 that the second defensive player chosen by an NFC team after the third pick was a defensive lineman, who weighs less than 300 pounds.” The quote is from a text a friend sent me last night, which purportedly quoted a commentator. If the quote is real, I’m glad I missed it. If it’s not, well, it is a close facsimile to some of the things that are said during the draft.

4. Third, the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, was a massive government program that (in very short) dammed rivers in the Tennessee Valley and provided electricity to a part of the country that previously had little access. Question: when the project was completed, did the TVA provide the highest cost electricity in the country or the lowest cost?[5]

5. Forbes magazine provides much great information and commentary. I stopped subscribing years ago when I realized that publisher Steve Forbes was rabidly anti-attorney. (I recently re-subscribed to give him a second chance.) Forbes is avowedly determined to convince us of the volatility of great wealth – or something akin to that. Over a decade ago, I sent them a letter, which to their credit they published, chastising them for saying that great wealth is more likely earned than inherited. I pointed out that the prevalence of people in the Forbes 400 (of richest Americans) who inherited their wealth was orders of magnitude higher than of people who earned their wealth.

Well, Forbes is at it again. In their 3/31/19 issue, they had a headline “Few Silver Spoons” over a pie chart showing how the 195 new billionaires in world garnered their money. There are 2,153 billionaires in the world, of whom 56 inherited their wealth in the last year. That means that 56 of the new billionaires came from .00000076% of the people in the world. Meanwhile, the other 139 new billionaires came from the other 99.999934% of the world. I’d say the silver spoons are still holding their own, despite Forbes efforts to convince us otherwise.

6. In 2017, the average American over the age of 15 spent this many minutes per day (on average) doing the following:

512 sleeping

283 leisure (150 TV, 41 other/relaxing, 31 socializing, 17 sports, 16 reading, 16 games, and 12 computer)

275 working

99 housework (34 cooking, 30 cleaning/laundry, 35 other)

67 eating and drinking

44 taking care of children or other people

41 grooming

41 shopping

37 education

14 social/civic/religious

12 communication

15 other

I think I’m glad that, on average, we spend more time leisuring than working – those numbers are, of course, significantly affected by a person’s stage in life. I’m a bit concerned that we spend less time socializing or getting educated than we do grooming. Not that I want people to stop grooming.

[1] http://time.com/5577562/measles-highest-level-25-years/

[2] The Week, March 15, 2019, p. 14

[3] I have long believed that presidents and quarterbacks get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go poorly.

[4] T.J. Kockenson and Noah Fant, formerly of the Iowa Hawkeyes.

[5] The TVA provided the cheapest electricity in the country.

The Four is a great book

I recently read The Four, subtitled The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google by Scott Galloway. I heartily recommend it. It is informative, engaging, and at times humorous. The author is a professor at NYU, who founded Red Envelope and continues to work at L2, a digital strategy company that he also founded. Galloway is a noted crank, who delights in tweaking the powers behind various technology behemoths. He has an irreverent youtube video that predicts where Amazon will locate its second headquarters that is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3baKe4B3eyI

Instead of doing a straight review of the book, I’m going to highlight some of the factoids that struck my fancy. The book is full of them and various other insights that will reward your reading.

52% of US household have Amazon Prime.

Stores in high end malls have average sales of $800/s.f., which is a 57% increase from 2005. Stores at B and C grade malls have average sales of $374/s.f., an increase of 13% since 2005. Apple stores have average sales of $5,000/s.f.

The market cap of retail stores in the US totals $24 trillion, for telco companies $1.4 trillion, and for media companies $602 billion. I always appreciate factoids that provide scale. To wit: grocery stores have a market cap of $800 billion, more than Google, which itself is more than the eight biggest media companies combined.

Retail is a major employer; as of 2015 there were 3.4 million cashiers, 2.8 million sales people, and 1.2 million clerks. That’s almost 7.5 million people. Any technology that disrupts their employment will have profound consequences for the country.

Apple’s share of the smart phone market is 15%; its share of the profits from the smart phone market is 80%. The author believes that Apple is a luxury brand company, not a technology company.

Disney has 20 million customers per year at its various “worlds.” Apple averages a million customers per day at its stores. This is a stunning comparison – akin to the best of Harper’s Index.

Here’s another: 8% of children born into the bottom quintile of income attend college, 84% of children born into the top quintile do. I think money might have something to do with it.

On a typical day, one sixth of the people on Earth use Facebook.

At the time Instagram was sold to Facebook for $1 billion, it employed 19 people. It is now worth $50 billion.

Approximately one year ago, Google accounted for 60% of the growth in digital advertising, Facebook for 43% of the growth, and all others for negative 3%. Between them Google and Facebook account for just over 50% of digital advertising.

One sixth of the questions posed to Google on a given day have never been asked before.

Humans can recognize 1,500 people on sight.

The book is full of opinions and information that makes you think, including

the five factors that determine the success of a luxury brand
Facebook’s aversion to being called a media company
how the New York Times bungled making money from its content on the internet
the eight attributes of a company that can rival the scale and scope of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook
the eight companies most likely to join The Four to create The Five
the keys to personal and business success
attributes of an entrepreneur

Among the crazier ideas in the book is that Apple should use its cash hoard to start a college that would be free to students. Companies who hire the graduates would be charged a fee.

There is much more. Read the book. If you can’t or don’t want to, read a different book.

Bob Feller — Player / Writer

Two Fellers have played major league baseball. The most recent was Jack Feller, who caught for an inning in 1958 for the Detroit Tigers. He had a putout and did not bat. He is somewhat less well known than his namesake Bob Feller, who is in the Hall of Fame.

Bob Feller led the league in wins six times, in innings pitched five times, and in strikeouts seven times. Each of those accomplishments was in consecutive years if you don’t consider seasons missed while Feller took time off from baseball to serve in the Navy during WWII. Feller missed seasons when he was 23-26 years old, prime years for a baseball player. Even so, he won 266 games and struck out over 2,500 batters. Only three pitchers since 1900 have won more games while pitching fewer seasons.[1]

Feller threw three no-hitters, only two pitchers have thrown more.[2] Bob Feller was a fantastic pitcher, who well-deserves his plaque in Cooperstown. Based on the book Bob Feller’s Little Blue Book of Baseball Wisdom, he was not a fantastic baseball commentator.

The book contains a fair amount of Feller touting his considerable achievements. I have no problem with that. My sixth-grade teacher Mr. Gray used to say: if it’s the truth, it ain’t braggin’. When Feller writes “I threw 36 complete games in 1946,[3] the most complete games hurled in a single season since 1916,” I yell “fair.” But when he writes “I know that this ability came from all the farm work I did as a youth,” I scream “foul.” Many pitchers from Feller’s era grew up on farms; they didn’t throw 36 complete games. The book is full of similarly simplistic and unsubstantiated conclusions.

When Feller writes about loyalty, he describes a one-way street. He decries players for not having loyalty because they chase free-agent contracts. But he never mentions the teams. They show no more nor less loyalty than the players without attracting the opprobrium that Feller hurls at the players.

Feller believes that regular throwing is an important way, perhaps the only way (other than farm work), to build arm strength. I happen to agree with him, but along the way, he gratuitously chastises modern pitchers for not throwing batting practice. On the same topic, Feller offered the following non-sequitur: “In Japan, a pitcher starts his warm-up 100 feet from the catcher and comes closer. In the United States, the opposite is true: pitchers warm up about 10 to 15 feet in front of the mound and then make their way back to regulation distance as the warm-up intensifies.” Feller, who is not shy at any other time about his opinions, wrote nothing to indicate which approach is better or even whether they are the same.

Much of Feller’s writing is anecdotal. Not the end of the world really, but not particularly useful in support of broad conclusions. When talking about the importance of making contact, he referred to Nellie Fox, Johnny Pesky, and Bobby Doerr as “tough outs.” Perhaps they were — they didn’t strike out a lot. They were also middle infielders, who (in aggregate) were approximately league average hitters. That necessarily means that most players were tough outs.

The right field foul pole in Fenway is known as “Pesky’s Pole” because Pesky’s former teammate turned broadcaster Mel Parnell called it that. It’s not certain that any of the six home runs that Pesky hit at Fenway in his career were aided by the pole. Nevertheless, Feller wrote that Pesky “was known for his craft of being able to hit drives to right field that, by God, hooked around that little pole for home runs.” Feller knew about the name of the pole and, apparently, decided to create a myth instead of learning the real story.

Feller described Stan Spence as a “guy who could make you sick to your stomach because he came through in the clutch quite a bit.” Sure, maybe. Spence had his best seasons during WWII when Feller and many other good players were in the military. (Spence served the military as well, but he missed only one season.) In three of the five seasons that Feller and Spence both played approximately full time, Spence hit .240 or worse. He may have given Feller indigestion, but the rest of the league seems to have handled him just fine.

Here is a classic Feller conclusion: “Some call errors ‘lapses in judgment.’ I call it not knowing the fundamentals of the game.” Huh? I’m pretty sure neither applies with regularity. When a third baseman overthrows the first baseman, it has nothing to do with judgment or fundamentals. His conclusion doesn’t make sense and it isn’t supported by a single example.

Here’s one last gem, this time about Andy Pettitte: he “has a sensational pickoff move. He manages to get the runner caught in the open, about 15 paces off first base. He’s a darn good pitcher and a gamer, competitive and honest to a fault.” A standard pace is 30 inches. A lead of 15 paces is 37.5 feet, almost half way between the bases. I could pick off a guy with a lead like that. As for “honest to a fault,” there is no example, just a conclusion. I’m not even sure whether it’s good or bad; “honest” is good, but “to a fault” doesn’t sound good.

This book is a great example of an “expert” believing that because he is an expert, pretty much anything he says about his field of expertise is real and valuable. It isn’t. It rarely is. One of the great things about Bill James, the forefather of modern sports analysis is that he repeatedly admonishes people to believe him because of what he says, not because he is saying it. He wants people to test his conclusions, not simply to believe them. Testing Feller’s conclusions leads to a lot of failures. He was much better at playing the game than at explaining it. But don’t take my word for it, read the book and see for yourself.

[1] Christy Mathewson (373), Eddie Plank (326), and Lefty Grove (300).

[2] Nolan Ryan (7) and Sandy Koufax (4). Larry Corcoran and Cy Young each threw three no-hitters.

[3] In the history of MLB, a pitcher has had 43 or more complete games in a season 208 times. Only three times did it occur after 1900, Jack Chesbro threw 48 in 1903, Vic Willis threw 46 in 1902, and Joe McGinnity threw 43 in 1903.

Are you well-read?

It’s no surprise that I like to read or that I read a lot. So when Inc.com published an article entitled 30 Books You Need to Read to Earn ‘Well-Read’ Status, I was intrigued. Feel free to grade yourself at home and please report your findings.

Western Classics — Forced to choose four books to represent the western world, I’m sure I would produce a different list. But this one is pretty good. Note that Russia used to be part of the West, now it most definitely is part of the other.

The Odyssey – I’ve read an English translation. That’s one point. Give yourself two points if you read it in Homeric Greek. Maybe only Stephen will qualify.

A Tale of Two Cities – How did an Englishman capture the emotion of the French Revolution so well? Another point.

Pride & Prejudice – It was a long time ago and part of a class I took. Not the kind of thing I would read today, though it gives some insight into the English Victorian world. 3/3.

Anna Karenina – It is surprisingly good, though not as good as War and Peace, which is more readable than its length suggests. Again, I read the English translation. Russian readers get two points. 4/4.

Dystopia – Given my penchant for this topic while in college, I’m surprised I missed one. I will rectify that oversight. Adding Fahrenheit 451 to the list would enhance it.

1984 – It’s as good and almost as prescient as you’re heard. 5/5.

Brave New World – Also outstanding, also scary. 6/6.

The Handmaid’s Tale – I just ordered this from the library and will read it soon – after one of the 130 copies the library system has is returned. Quite a recommendation, every single copy is checked out. 6/7.

Science Fiction & Fantasy

Lord of the Rings – Of course I’ve read it — more than once. And the three movies were the best I’ve ever seen. Another friend named Steve stated at the time the movies were released that they were the best movies of all time – past, present, and future. 7/8 (9/10 if we count it as three books).

The Foundation series – This is a revolutionary series. The three law of robotics are cited today by scientists and scholars studying artificial intelligence. That’s pretty heady stuff for a novelist who wrote them over 50 years ago. 8/9 or 16/17 (I’ll stop that now).

Neuromancer – never read it, never heard of it. If someone recommends it, I’ll read it. 8/10.

Great American Novels

The Great Gatsby – It must be included, I guess, but I probably prefer This Side of Paradise. 9/11.

Bonfire of the Vanities – This is a terrible choice. Especially when you realize that the list doesn’t include anything by Mark Twain. The book isn’t horrible, especially if you’re into self-indulgence, but give me Huck Finn any day. Or Uncle Tom’s Cabin. 10/12.

The Grapes of Wrath – So good, so evocative. A true must read. 11/13.

Literary Heavy Hitters – Stuff only a masochist would read.

Ulysses – I’ve tried. I really have. The book remains on my bookshelf, taunting me. 11/14.

Infinite Jest – I haven’t tried. I don’t intend to. Twenty-five of the library’s 52 copies are available. Over 1000 pages of unconventional narrative is the stuff of literature classes, not my rarer-by-the-minute reading time. 11/15.

Gravity’s Rainbow – as unreadable and unenjoyable as Ulysses (and presumably Infinite Jest). I read it for a class. 12/16.

Popular Fiction – this is really not my bailiwick.

A Song of Ice and Fire series – People like the show, the books must be pretty fun. 12/17.

The Hunger Games – People like the movies, the books must be pretty good. 12/18.

Fifty Shades of Grey – Not on a dare. 12/19.

Immigrant Experience – From a US/UK perspective.

Interpreter of Maladies – I’ve heard it’s pretty good. 12/20.

Joy Luck Club – This strikes me as the type of book that most women have read and that most men haven’t. 12/21.

How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents – never heard of it. 12/22.

Non-Western Classics (Ancient) – This doesn’t bode well.

Ramayana – Never heard of it, which probably says more about me than the book. 12/23.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms – At least I’ve heard of it. 12/24. Remember to give yourself two points if you read it or Ramayana in the original language.

Non-Western Classics (Modern) – I would have liked to see something by Borges. He was a much more influential writer than the three listed.

One Hundred Years of Solitude – This is quite good. It’s been so long that I might reread it, which would fit in well with the theme of redundancy. 13/25.

To Live – Never heard of it. 13/26.

Things Fall Apart – Another must read, makes you think on both a global and a personal level. 14/27.

Satire – I’m not sure this warrants its own category.

Cat’s Cradle – I enjoyed this and every other book Kurt Vonnegut wrote. 15/28.

Catch-22 – I remember this as one of the funniest books I ever read. When I tried to reread it, it didn’t work as well. 16/29.

The Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy — Everybody I know who has read it has recommended it – to no avail. 16/30.

Overall I consider this a pretty good list, though I would certainly make a different one. But would take too long to proper consider all the books I’ve read and even longer to properly consider all the books I haven’t read.

Two things I like about the author:

She abandoned a career in law (I appreciate a kindred spirit), and
She concludes by stating that any self-respecting well-read person, never considered him or herself to be well-read.

My current read percentage is 50% plus one. I don’t consider that well-read. After finishing The Handmaid’s Tale, I will indisputably vault into the well-read stratosphere, losing my sense of self-respect at the same time I become insufferably smug about my well-readness. I await your scores and your recommendations.

Big History

I like learning and thinking about the big picture. I am more likely to read a book about the Byzantines than about a particular emperor, about the 20th century than about 1929 or 1968. Imagine my wonder upon encountering Big History.

I came to the subject obliquely. I found and read (in 2014) a book called This Fleeting World: a short history of humanity. The book was certainly big picture; it covered all of human history in under 100 pages, separated into three sections: the era of foragers, the agrarian era, and the modern era. If you don’t like names and dates, this is the history book for you. It was a good read, interesting, etc., but its real import (to me) was the introduction to author David Christian.

Christian is credited with coining the term “Big History.” The concept is simple: tell the story of the universe within the confines of single course, whether in high school or college. It’s audacious, fascinating, and (of necessity) multi-disciplinary.

Audacious is describing the history of the universe with four words: cosmos, earth, life, humanity, as Walter Alvarez does in his book A Most Improbable Journey. That is the simple progression, each succeeding concept impossible without whatever precedes it. Obviously, each word expresses much and needs significant explanation.

The typical view of history starts with 99.9% of the universe in the distant rear-view mirror. Most history starts with writing or artifacts and focuses exclusively on humans. Big history starts at the very beginning, which requires forays into chemistry and physics. Starting at the beginning reveals how lucky we are. We tend to think that what has happened was inevitable. But almost nothing is inevitable, instead history is contingent — agency and chance influence almost everything that happens.

The Goldilocks principle is alive and well. Gravity is just right. Any less or more and the Earth would be a very different planet. The Earth’s distance from the sun is just right. Any more or less and Earth would be a very different place. The moon is just right. Any bigger or smaller, farther away or closer, and the Earth would be a very different place.

Something I never thought about before, but which Alvarez and other Big History thinkers and writers focus on, is the creation of elements. Do you know where the elements come from? When the Big Bang occurred, the universe was approximately 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. So where did oxygen and iron and carbon come from?

The answer is the stars. Somewhere along the line, stars formed. Their heat synthesized new elements and when the stars died, the resulting explosions scattered those new elements about the universe. That’s when planets and other objects started forming. The universe remains mostly hydrogen and helium, but planets are whatever they are. Earth happens to be mostly oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron.

Big History uses chemistry and physics to explain what happened billions of years ago, introducing concepts like radiocarbon dating. It uses biology and geology to explain what has happened on Earth through the rise of (very) modern humans, introducing concepts like genetic analysis and mathematical modeling.

Another important Big History concept is “scale.” Alvarez conveys how much time has elapsed on Earth by stating that human history starts roughly 5,000 years ago and that Earth history starts roughly 5,000 million years ago. Much has happened without our intervention. Alas, our intervention is becoming increasingly decisive.[1]

Another way to think about Big History is to emphasize inflection points, moments of fundamental change. A source (which I didn’t write down, how embarrassing) separates history into eight inflection points. We have already (briefly) discussed five of them: the Big Bang, the formation of stars, the formation of elements, the formation of Earth, and the beginning of life on Earth. Once life began, it contingently increased in complexity, culminating in us.

The human span comprises the next three inflection points, pretty similar to those espoused by Christian in This Fleeting World. The transformative human-centered moments are:

When we started collective learning,
The farming revolution that allowed people to be able to do things other than grow or collect food, and
The modern revolution, which includes leveraging our efforts with efficient energy and the quickening pace of knowledge accumulation and transfer.[2]

Books have been and will be written about any one of these topics. The concept behind Big History is to encapsulate everything that has happened into one book or course so that we appreciate the giant movements and events. Much of the history studied and written today emphasizes a micro-event or a small niche of something or other. Big History is partially a reaction to this increasing specialization, but it is also much more. A branch of Big History (according to Alvarez) is little big history, where a writer focuses on the entire history of a particular feature of the human experience. For instance, Mark Kurlansky has written Salt and Cod, which concentrate exclusively on those two food items.

There is certainly room for books about specific events or people. Otherwise, we would be unable to accumulate and build on the knowledge accrued by others. But there is also great value in a broad big-picture approach to history and the world, and A Most Improbable Journey is a great introduction to Big History.

It won’t spoil anything for me to quote Alvarez’s last paragraph, “Almost 14 billion years of Cosmic history, more than 4.6 billion years of Earth and Life history, a couple of million years of Human history, all of it constrained by the laws of Nature but playing out in an entirely unpredictable way because of countless contingencies – this history has produced the human situation in which we live. We few, we fortunate few, are the ones who have inherited this world and this situation, and it’s our actions that will influence the next chapter in the unfolding journey of Big History.”

[1] Alvarez gives another (crazy) example of scale. He explains that the current humans on Earth will directly produce roughly one billion people. A billion is 10 to the 9th; approximately that many grains can be found in two handfuls of fine sand. But the current human population is capable of producing 10 to the 25th people — if all available eggs and sperm were used as efficiently as possible. In terms of sand, it would take ten Grand Canyons full to yield 10 to the 25th grains. That is a lot sand. Imagine if there were that many humans.

[2] What might the next inflection point be? Life on other planets? The emergence of artificial intelligence that supplants us? A new ice age? Any other ideas?

2017 Reading List

Today is the last day of 2017. I’m going to reprise a small chunk of it: my reading list. I read the 40 books listed below,[1] bringing my long-term average to 35.4 books per year. Not bad, though to be fair some of them were not that strenuous. One book this year was a graphic novel – a Ray Bradbury authorized version of Fahreneit 451 – all the flavor of the original with some really cool drawings. There were a couple[2] of volumes of poetry (Aronson, Bennett, Ossman), a few spy novels (Furst), some light fiction (Crighton, Marquez, Turow), and even an old favorite from my youth (George).

A Most Improbable Journey, a big history of our planet and ourselves	Alvarez
Ghost Child of the Atalanta Bloom	Aronson
The Sobbing School	Bennett
A Sovereign People	Berkin
Utopia for Realists	Bregman
Nomadland: Surviving America in the Twenty-first Century	Bruder
In Cold Blood	Capote
Airframe	Crighton
Younger Next Year — The Exercise Program	Crowley/Lodge
The Death and Life of the Great Lakes	Egan
The Experts’ Guide to 100 Things Everyone Should Know How to Do	Ettus
Ghost Empire	Fidler
The Strategy of Victory	Fleming
Dark Voyage	Furst
Blood of Victory	Furst
The Polish Officer	Furst
The Foreign Correspondent	Furst
My Side of the Mountain	George
The Teammates	Halberstam
Fahrenheit 451	Hamilton (Bradbury)
The Universe in a Nutshell	Hawking
Bill James Handbook 2017	James
Urban Survival Guide	Johnson
Moment of Battle — the twenty clashes that changed the world	Lacey/Murray
No One Writes to the Colonel	Marquez
Unlock the Hidden Job Market	Mathison/Finney
The American Spirit	McCullough
Make Your Bed — little things that can change your life	McRaven
Event Boundaries	Ossmann
Where the Water Goes — Life and death along the Colorado River	Owen
Hello, Is This Planet Earth (my view from the international space station)	Peake
Dream Land — the true tale of america’s opiate epidemic	Quinones
The Wayfarer’s Handbook — a field guide for the independent traveler	Rice
Glaxo	Ronsino
Bottom of the Ninth — Branch Rickey, Casey Stengel (Continental)	Shapiro
Survive — essential skills and tactics to get you out of anywhere — alive	Stroud
American Revolutions	Taylor
Pleading Guilty	Turow
Innocent	Turow
Medieval Europe	Wickham

But I also pushed myself a bit. I tackled a smorgasbord of nonfiction issues. A couple of books on water (Egan, Owen) highlight an increasingly important and potentially divisive issue. Baseball always gets some of my time (Halberstam, James, Shapiro). James gets extra (un-listworthy) time from me because I subscribe to his outstanding website: billjamesonline.com. As in most years, history wins the plurality – I am devoted to learning from the past; it’s easier than doing something in the present.

The Strategy of Victory by Fleming tells the tale of George Washington’s approach to warfare during the revolutionary war. It cogently explains Washington’s belief that the most important thing wasn’t to win, it was not to lose. And it trenchantly conveys that the war was a civil war, which I don’t think most Americans appreciate. In any event, they don’t understand the day-to-day consequences of not knowing whether your neighbor is your friend or your active enemy.

If you haven’t read In Cold Blood by Capote, you really should. It is among the very best of non-fiction writing, telling a classic (true) tale of senseless murder.

I highly recommend two books that capture current sad realities (Bruder and Quinones). The former tracks a group of retirees, who make the most of limited means by living in RVs. The latter describes how heroin is destroying lives and communities. The writing in both books is as good as the issues are timely. Reading them will help you better understand the on-going trials and tribulations of millions of Americans.

One book I cannot recommend is The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, even though he is a terrific “writer.”[3] The book is interesting, informative, and showcases Hawking’s brilliance. But it contains some pretty heavy science and math that significantly hampered my ability to understand, let alone enjoy, the ideas he put forth.

The next post will focus on one of the books that I have not mentioned yet.

Happy New Year.

[1] The books are listing in alphabetical order by author, just like the books on my bookshelves.

[2] You cannot convince me that “couple” refers only to two of something. For example, if you ask for a couple of M&Ms, you would likely be mightily disappointed if I handed you exactly two green ones.

[3] I put “writer” in quotes because (obviously) Hawking cannot write. Then again, few of us with the physical ability to do so write. Every word I have posted on this website has been the product of typing. Perhaps we should rid ourselves of words like “writer.”

Everyday Skills

I recently read a book that was written by 100 different experts and published in 2004. It’s titled The Experts’ Guide to 100 Things Everyone Should Know How to Do and it was created by Samantha Ettus. The cover of the book actually says “created by” Samantha Ettus. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen that before.

The book is separated into five sections: Morning Life, Work Life, Home Life, Weekend Life, and the Big Life. A different expert writes about each skill. The luminaries include Donald Trump on negotiating, Tucker Carlson on tying a bow tie, Suze Orman on saving money, Stephen Covey on managing your time, and Bobby Flay on barbequing, among many others.

The things associated with Morning Life that we should all know how to do are:

Sleep

Make a bed

Do push-up and sit-ups

Jog

Eat right

Make eggs

Brew coffee

Read a newspaper

Wash hair

Care for skin

Shave

Wash hands

Shine shoes

Tie a bow tie

Tie a Windsor knot

Tie a scarf

Drive a stick shift

I’m not sure what the last one has to do with morning life, but whatever. Of these 17 skills, I am proficient at 11, knowledgeable about two (jogging and eating right), and deficient at four. I don’t brew coffee, or drink it for that matter; I use an electric razor; and I have never tied a bow tie or a scarf, nor do I want to. Proficiency rating 65%. Overall I rate myself an A-.

Some of the essays are outstanding, some pretty plebeian, and some a bit strange. The “wash hair” expert thought it important to emphasize that shampoo should be poured onto hands or fingers, not directly onto hair. I can’t get the image of holding a giant bottle of shampoo above my head out of my head. Who would do that? Generally, I found it interesting to read about a commonplace activity, like washing hands, and learning the proper way to do it. I was probably correctly instructed as a child, I just don’t remember. In case you have forgotten too – wash your hands for as long as it takes to sing Happy Birthday twice.

Nineteen skills are associated with Work Life:

Manage your time

Organize

Handle a job interview

Ask for a raise or promotion

Give and receive a compliment

Negotiate

Shake hands

Make conversation

Remember names

Read body language

Listen

Improve your vocabulary

Speed-read

Make an educated guess

Tell a story

Conduct a background investigation

Deliver bad news

Apologize

Speak in public

Many of these skills are squishy, more difficult to assess than the Morning Life skills. I consider myself proficient at seven, knowledgeable about nine, and deficient at three – giving and receiving compliments (I receive so few), remembering names, and speed-reading. (I hope this doesn’t overly concern my business partners.) Most of my knowledgeable skills are easy to blame on the infrequency with which they occur, like conducting a background check or asking for a raise or promotion. Proficiency rating 37%. Overall I rate myself a C+.

Home Life comprises 17 skills:

Balance a checkbook

Save money

Understand a pet

Care for a houseplant

Prepare for a disaster

Shovel snow

Remove a stain

Do laundry

Iron a shirt

Sew a button

Pick produce

Buy fish

Paint a room

Hang a picture

Write a personal note

Make tea

Read aloud

Should I feel good about shining at Home Life? (I’m so domestic or is that domesticated.) I consider myself proficient at 13 of these skills, knowledgeable about removing a stain, picking produce, and buying fish, and deficient only at painting a room. Proficiency rating 76%. I’m giving myself a straight A. One unusual tip from the expert on doing laundry is to put clothes into the washing machine one at a time.

Weekend Life covers 23 skills:

Relax

Wash a car

Change a tire

Change oil

Mow a lawn

Fly a flag

Garden

Swing a golf club

Swim

Hit a tennis ball

Give a massage

Make a martini

Barbeque

Build a fire

Tell a joke

Be a gracious host

Be a good houseguest

Arrange flowers

Set a formal table

Uncork a wine bottle

Taste wine

Use chopsticks

Make a toast

This was extremely disappointing. I would have guessed I would shine at weekend skills, having attempted to turn my entire life into a weekend. I am proficient at seven skills, knowledgeable about eight, and deficient at eight. I’m so embarrassed that I can’t discuss these skills. Proficiency rating 30%. I should give myself an F on principle, but a D is probably more appropriate.

The last category is the Big Life, which also has 23 skills:

Breathe

Stay warm

Have good posture

Have a great smile

Flirt

Ask someone out

Kiss

Buy a diamond

Plan a wedding

Change a diaper

Hold a baby

Relocate

House-train a puppy

Create a family tree

Decorate a Christmas tree

Bake chocolate chip cookies

Give a gift

Wrap a present

Smile for a camera

Take a picture

Learn a foreign language

Plan a trip

Pack for a trip

This category contains a few items that aren’t relevant to a married man, so I’m going to take an incomplete on flirting and asking someone out. Of the remaining skills, I am proficient at ten, knowledgeable about nine and deficient at two – baking chocolate cookies and learning a foreign language. Proficiency rating 48%. Overall category grade is a solid B.

I avoided comments on many specific topics because some things are better left unsaid. I still can’t believe that my weakest category is Weekend Life. But I have no desire to change oil, mow a lawn, arrange flowers, set a formal table, or taste wine. So there really isn’t much room for improvement.

Overall, I was (approximately) proficient at 50%, knowledgeable at 30%, and deficient at 20%. I’m giving myself a solid B.

The overall rating of this post: TMI. And it could have been worse.

A Book Review: The Parties Versus the People

Mickey Edwards was a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma from 1977-1993. After losing in a primary, principally because of his involvement in the House banking scandal, Edwards journeyed to Cambridge, MA, where he taught at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Edwards (Our paths did not cross.)

I have no memory of him from his days in Congress. But he (apparently) saw and learned enough to pen an outstanding book: The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans. The overall theme of the book is that our political parties are private political clubs and that their influence should be minimized.

According to Edwards, Congress used to pass, even controversial, legislation with strong bipartisan support. Among examples he provided are:

The national highway system was created in 1956 by a vote of 388-19 in the House of Representatives and by a vote of 89-1 in the Senate. Our current POTUS has an infrastructure plan, perhaps it will garner the same support. (Surely I jest.)
In 1965, Medicare was created by a majority of both parties in house. Senate Republicans were split. But a considerable number of them supported the new legislation. That almost never happens now.
The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted in 1969 by a vote of 372-15 in the House of Representatives. Unbelievably, the vote in the Senate was unanimous.

Then (again, according to Edwards) came the Robert Bork hearings, which were highly and bitterly partisan. After that, party line votes became more routine, exacerbated by Newt Gingrich’s decision to change “the legislative focus from policy development to nonstop hyperpartisan politics.” p. 31.

Edwards provided many other examples of how partisan our national legislators have become. He attributes much of it to the party system, particularly the fact that we have essentially only two parties. He prescribed several steps to minimize the influence of the parties. I consider that a worthy and wholly quixotic goal.

Probably the most important step in the right direction would be to have open primaries. Currently the parties control who gets on the ballot; they would continue to exert considerable influence under an open primary system, but it would not be paramount. Under this plan, the top two vote getters in a primary would advance to the general election. This would likely lessen the tendency of liberal candidates to lean hard left and of conservative candidates to lean hard right during primaries

In the general election, both candidates would have to broaden their appeal to garner a majority. According to Edwards, “We must break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot by creating a new system of open integrated primaries.” p. 48.

He proposes the creation of independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions. The evils of gerrymandering are widely known and just as widely ignored by whichever party happens to control the districting process. Edwards stated that “The democratic ideal is to allow voters to select candidates, but partisan redistricting can produce the opposite result, allowing candidates to select their voters.” p. 65. Though it wasn’t a result of gerrymandering, I can’t help but think of Hillary Clinton deciding to live in New York. Though she had no ties to the state,[1] it was safely Democratic.

Edwards next proposed ways to reduce spending and to increase competition. The first is likely unconstitutional, but it sure would be helpful in reducing the influence of outside money. Edwards suggested that a candidate only be allowed to accept contributions from people who live in the candidate’s district. p. 80. Edwards also suggests that we allow all candidates a certain amount of free air time, though not newspaper advertising. He would also allow non-incumbents limited free mailing to minimize the incumbent’s franking privilege advantage.

Now comes a suggestion right out of an idealist’s handbook: establish nonpartisan congressional leadership. Edwards believes that partisanship has led to a party first, country second attitude. But – if the speaker’s role[2] was filled by someone outside of Congress, that person could oversee a “completely nonpartisan division of committees, guaranteeing a nonpartisan process for considering legislation on the House floor, and serving as a mediator to push the competing parties toward common ground and effective problem-solving.” That would be refreshing.

Given that it won’t happen, Edwards recommends better ways to vote for a speaker. Edwards suggests that at least one third of the signatures on a nomination must come from members of a different party.[3] Another option is to require that the speaker receive 60% of the votes cast, which almost guarantees a healthy dose of bipartisanship. Details would have to be worked out, but the originality and creativity of the suggestions is first-rate.

Edwards also believes that Congressional committees are too partisan. He states that “in theory, the committees exist to deliberate about the best solutions to major national problems; in reality, they exist to advance the partisan agenda of a temporary majority—or, for members of the minority, to block that agenda.” p.104. Edwards recommends that the Chair of a committee should be from the majority party and the Vice-chair from the minority party and that each should have the authority to bring bills forward and invite experts to testify.

Edwards would turn the rules committee into a true bipartisan traffic cop, by among other things, ensuring that any bill with 100 cosponsors would be brought to a vote. Other simple logistical measures would enhance collegiality by eliminating the trappings of partisanship. For instance, seating members by seniority, rather than by party, would bring members from opposing parties into regular contact. So would eliminating separate lecterns, cloak rooms, etc. The idea is to congregate leaders, not separate them.

These changes, and others that I have not mentioned, would not significantly alter the way Congress operates, just the way partisanship interferes with the way it operates. None of the suggestions Edwards makes would favor either current major party. They also wouldn’t help minor parties. But they would be good for the country because our leadership would almost necessarily be less strident and extreme.

[1] She grew up in Illinois and spent most of her adult life in Arkansas or Washington, D.C.

[2] Though not the constitutional speaker, who is third in line to the presidency.

[3] Here and throughout, I have skipped much of the material presented by Edwards. I can’t simply repeat the book. And I hope you will read it, so I can’t give away all of the good stuff.

American Exceptionalism

The current denizen of the White House is the most exceptional President in our country’s history. To be clear, I am using the primary definition of the word (unusual), not the secondary definition (unusually good). http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exceptional President Trump is uniquely devoid of political experience. He is unconcerned with being consistent, which might not be the worst thing. See Ralph Waldo Emerson, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” See also, Oscar Wilde, who said that “consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” President Trump was the star of a reality TV show, a presidential first. (Please let it be a last.)

President Trump is certainly the first president to play a feature role in a professional wrestling event. Here is a clip of Donald Trump beating and then shaving Vince McMahon. http://www.wwe.com/videos/playlists/donald-trump-greatest-wwe-moments [1] And, of course, President Trump makes extensive use of Twitter. Given that the 272-word Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches in American history, I believe Abraham Lincoln would have used Twitter extremely effectively.[2]

I could likely go on all day and half of the night. Instead, I will briefly explain that three recent events that we consider exceptional are not.

First event[3] is that President Trump appears unusually thin-skinned, especially for one so prolific at insulting others.[4] “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” comes to mind. But he is hardly our first President who prickled when insulted. In Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution, author Charles Rappleye writes that the first President “was particularly susceptible to the barbs directed his way.” According to Rappleye, “political attacks pierced straight to that dark core of [Washington’s] spirit which gave an air of gravitas to everything he did.”

This description unintentionally highlights a sharp contrast between our first and our current president. The former had gravitas from leading the army during the brutal War of Independence, which included risking the hangman’s noose for treason. Among the greatest challenges faced by Donald Trump was getting by on a $450,000 per month allowance as a condition for renewing his loans in the early 1990s. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/26/business/quick-who-d-have-trouble-living-on-450000-a-month.html President Trump’s gravitas appears more fabricated than earned.[5]

The second event is that Washington and Trump indisputably have one thing in common: each was depicted or described as headless by a political “commentator.” Kathy Griffin recently and infamously held up a fake decapitated head of Donald Trump. If you want to see it, here is the link. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40108959 Less well known is a broadside by Philip Freneau, which was written during the French Revolution and described the death of Washington and Supreme Court Justice James Wilson by guillotine. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-15-02-0125 [6] Even though Freneau worked as a translating clerk for the Department of State, he did not lose his job. His patron, Thomas Jefferson, at the time Washington’s Secretary of State, protected him.[7]

The third event is that there is broad consensus that the Russian government meddled in our most recent presidential election. The efficacy of that meddling remains unknown and may never be known – there is no control group – but there is little doubt that the Russians wanted to assist Donald Trump.

Intervention by a foreign government on behalf of a presidential candidate happened at least one other time in our country. Revolutionary France favored Republican Thomas Jefferson, who has ardently pro-France[8] to the pro-English Federalist John Adams. Despite considerable efforts, France was unable to help Jefferson win, though he did become his staunch rival’s Vice President. Although their opinions of each other softened through the years, at the time Adams and Jefferson were as friendly to one another as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now. Imagine if she were his Vice-president.

If our President is exceptional, so is our country. Below are a few examples. I’m sure there are many more.

Countries that have not officially adopted the metric system: Liberia, Myanmar, United States.

Countries that measure temperature according to the Fahrenheit scale: Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Palau, United States.

Countries that use the “MM/DD/YYYY” date format: Belize, Micronesia, United States.

Countries that had not adopted the Paris Accords: Nicaragua, Syria, United States.

Countries whose paper currency is all the same size and without distinguishing tactile features: United States.[9]

American Exceptionalism: not what you expecting.[10]

[1] A tribute to President Trump’s imagination is his embrace of the doctored WWE video, which shows him body slamming CNN. I found it hilarious, if not particularly presidential. http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/02/video-trump-body-slams-cnn-in-wwe-tweet/

[2] You can follow notesfromnokomis on Twitter @notefromnokomis. I just noticed that when I set it up in May 2015, I forgot an “s”. Rats. Now that I’m up to four followers, I should start tweeting more than once every 2.2 years.

[3] I would have preferred to use numbers, but doing that caused all sorts of unwanted formatting issues in Word Press.

[4] Rabbit holes everywhere. “Prolific” is used with various prepositions: 48% “in”, 10% “of”, 8% “with”, 6% “for”, 5% “at”, 4% “on”, 3% “during”, 2% “as”, and 1% each “from”, “throughout”, “since”, “over”, “inside”, “across”, “around”, “among” and “after”. The numbers do not add up to 100%. Don’t sue me, sue the source: https://lingohelp.me/preposition-after-adjective/prolific-in-of-with-for-at/.

[5] To be fair, Washington was not without affectations. For instance, he wore his army uniform to meetings of the Continental Congress prior to being named commander of the army to remind people of his military experience.

[6] I searched online, futilely, for a copy of the entire The Funeral Dirge of George Washington and James Wilson, King and Judge.

[7] Jefferson’s relationship with Freneau is rather well known. He gave Freneau a job as a translator, though Freneau’s French was less fluent than Jefferson’s, to provide an income so that Freneau could publish the rabidly anti-Federalist National Gazette. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-20-02-0374-0001

[8] Jefferson’s love for France led to the introduction of that most American of foods: the French fry. http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/08/are-french-fries-truly-french/ For that, I will always be most grateful.

[9] I’m not suggesting that we should adopt the metric system or the Paris Accords. I’m merely pointing out that by not doing so, we are unusual.

[10] According to Wikipedia, “American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from that of other nations.^[2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from the American Revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation”^[3] and developing the uniquely American ideology of “Americanism“, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”^[4] Second is the idea that the U.S. has a unique mission to transform the world. Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), that Americans have a duty to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Third is the sense that the United States’ history and mission gives it a superiority over other nations.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

ESPN’s World Fame 100

ESPN The Magazine recently published a list of the 100 most famous athletes in the world.[1] They surveyed many of their reporters around the world and then created a formula, which they did not share, based on “endorsements, social media following and Google search popularity.”[2] They call their list the “World Fame 100.”

Fourteen different “sports” are represented.[3] If you can guess them all, then you have been paying closer attention than I have. The runaway winner is soccer. Thirty-eight soccer players are in the top 100, including one woman. There were eight women on the list, from four different sports. Even naming the two sports with more than one woman would be impressive. Golf is not one of them. The other two sports are easier to guess because I already told you that one of them is soccer.

Does it make sense that 38% of the most famous athletes in the world are soccer players? It’s pretty impressive on one level – the worldwide level. But it doesn’t register true with me. Perhaps it’s because only five of them are known to me. I could have guessed on several others, given their names, but I only knew (for sure) that five of them were soccer players.

Below is the number of athletes on the list by sport:

Soccer 38

Basketball 14

Tennis 11

Golf 9

Football 8

Cricket 4

Auto racing 4

UFC 3

Swimming 2

Gymnastics 2

Boxing 2

Track 1

Table tennis 1

Badminton 1

It turns out that at least one track, table tennis, and badminton star is more famous than any baseball player or any (ice or field) hockey player. You can probably name the track star.[4]

Fame is fickle, actually the poetic way to say it is: Fame is a fickle food.[5] The same list next year might have a significantly different look.

The top five are representative of the overall list: Cristiano Ronaldo, LeBron James, Lionel Messi, Roger Federer, and Phil Mickelson. Two soccer players is 40%, similar to soccer’s overall 38%, then the next three biggest sports all have one each.

I knew 52 of the 100 on the list. The most famous athlete I didn’t know was Neymar at 6th. I would have guessed soccer or rap music, given the one name. But it would have been a guess. The other athletes in the top 20 that I didn’t know are cricketers Virat Kohli (13) and Mahendra Singh Dhoni (15). The lowest ranked athlete known to me is golfer Adam Scott (98).

It’s an eclectic list because it’s worldwide. If the list were comprised of the 100 most famous baseball players in America, there’s a good chance I would know them all. I would probably know the 100 most famous Ohio State athletes. Despite the fame and long-term excellence of the football team, the two most famous OSU athletes of all time are likely a golfer and a runner.[6]

In a sign of how the times are a-changing, two UFC fighters rank in the top 25: Ronda Rousey (16, the highest ranked woman in the world) and Conor McGregor (25). Meanwhile only two boxers made the list. The highest ranked boxer is Manny Pacquiao (59), a 40-year old welterweight. What in the name of Muhammad Ali is going on?

Here’s a question that I would like you to answer: how can the NFL, which has no foreign players to speak of put eight players on the list but baseball, which has professional leagues in many foreign countries has none? I’m serious. How is that possible? The following foreign countries have more than one player currently playing major league baseball: S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan,[7] Germany, Canada, Cuba, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico,[8] Australia, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuala.

All of these countries have some interest in MLB, yet not one player is among the 100 most famous athletes in the world. But Ma Long (71, table tennis) and Lin Dan (88, badminton) are on the list. And why not? Both sports are fun, accessible, and unquestionably within my definition of a sport.

Of the 14 sports on the list, only four consistently capture my attention: basketball, tennis, golf, and football. They account for 42% of the athletes listed. There’s a big world out there that I am missing. But if it’s full of soccer, UFC, and auto racing, then I’m comfortable right where I am.

[1] June 12, 2017 edition. The list contains only active athletes.

[2] Apparently ESPN is not a fan of the Oxford Comma. Vampire Weekend has an excellent song that mentions the Oxford Comma. https://www.google.com/search?q=vampire+weekend+oxford+comma&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS512US556&oq=vampire+weekend&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7129j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[3] For an explanation of the quotes around sports, see my post What is a Sport?, dated 2/2/17.

[4] Usain Bolt

[5] Emily Dickinson, Fame is a fickle food (1702).

[6] Jack Nicklaus and Jesse Owens

[7] Hopefully the government of China is not monitoring my blog.

[8] I think I wish they were a country though I’d have to study the issue more to be certain.