More Books Reviewed
Last month, I reviewed some old books I have read recently. These are too old for a contemporary review. However, I think that I should review them anyway to give a perspective. So here goes.
Guns, Germs, and Steel
Jared Diamond
This is the intelligentsia book of 1997. It essentially is a history of the human race, as he puts it.
He provides a broad theory about how Europeans came to dominate the world. Said it was not due to superior values, but to a whole host of other factors, largely determined upon geography, and the reactions to geographical situations. Which is what drives things like technological development, agriculture, diseases, etc. So they were in a position to basically overrun the Americas (which is essentially European north of Mexico - and south of Brazil), Australia, and a few other areas. Since I do not have this book with me, I am not going into the details. He said he wrote this to prove that racial characteristics do not matter when it comes into the development of civilizations. Which is an odd point to prove in 1997, by which time every single credible social scientist rejected any racialist theories whatsoever - it would have been more apporpriate to give this as a motive in, say, 1920.
Mostly, this is true, but values do come into play. Otherwise, the world would have been overrun by the Chinese - they had a stronger material culture in 1492 (as well as pretty much the same diseases as them Europeans). Or, why didn't Arabs overrun the world, either? While not the dominant factor, this is definetely a (relatively) not-unimportant factor in the race to force one's civilization on the world. And like-it-or-not, World Civilization is the extension of Western Civilization.
This guy later wrote a book about the origin of God - i.e., man invented him. Unfortunately, athiesm is intellectually dishonest - it is totally impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being - although there are many an athiest who were not raised in a religious home, so they didn't think about that. Like a friend of mine from college, also named Erik. He was an athiest - but he never thought about whether a god existed or not. Instead, he had his own seperate religion - who tenents were Husky Football, Mariners Baseball, and Sonics Basketball. The way these teams have been playing lately, I think his gods have failed him, and he needs to seek out a new faith.
The Immense Journey
Loren Eiseley
As long as we are on the subject of intellectual fads, I will next explain one that was around 1/2 century ago.
How I came unto this book is actually more interesting than the book itself. There is this 90 year-old dude who one headed a professional association (for claims). He met this woman 1/2 his age (a co-worker of mine) at some anniversary event (he was president of it way back in 1949!). Being a man, he keeps sending her these things. One of these was this book, which he thought she would benefit from.
However, this book is pretty much worthless. Actually, I didn't read much of it - it is unreadable. One reviewer noted "once in a long while the reviewwe comes across an unpretentious book which is such a delight he feels like going into the street and buttonholing passers-by into sharing his pleasure..." Actually, if a man came up to me on the street to "share his pleasure..." I would give him a good ass-kicking (as pretty much everyone reviewing books in 1957 were men). Especially when presented with such doggerel.
I shall briefly go into the subject matter. This is about how man evolved from apes. And he presents this as literature. Yes - he actually believes men evolved from apes. Not even credible Darwinists believe that - they believe that men evolved from an earlier primate, and so did the ape. But then again, many a Christian believes that man evolved in seven days (and some try to use science to prove it).
The thing is, no one was there to watch how men developed. Everything is on speculation. What is presented as a scientific law really isn't. Scientific laws are such things that are extremely obvious (but in an earlier era were speculation) - like the fact the earth is round, or that Mr. HIV is responsible for AIDS, or that things are made up of atoms, or that gravity is a force.
The thing is, we weren't there to watch us develop. All we have is erosion and the fossil record. For all we know, we could have come from giant clam - as the Tlingit believe, or a lake the size of Walden Pond, as some Indians in Nevada believe. To present this as absolute fact - as opposed to a theory - is pure arrogance. Yet interestingly, the way evolution is taught in high schools, the pattern does match that of Genesis - thus indicating real originality.
Of course, he harkens back to some classic Darwinean techniques to reiterate his Darwinism. I shall quote
Actually, that last sentence was added by me - because it should have been there.
I looked up the author on Wikipedia. Fortunately, he died three decades ago. So no more crap is coming from his pen. It says he was an early environmentalist. If this is so, it explains what is wrong with the environmental movement.
This is the kind of garbage that was produced from this, the "greatest generation." While they knew how to win wars, they had the worst taste of any generation in American history. This is the generation that thought the song "How much is that Doggie in the Window" constituted high culture. This is the generation that bought all that abstract art that people threw all over buildings (before those in charge of building interiors actually put real art back in them). This is the generation who though Lawrence Welk was god, and Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett were saints. This is the generation that watered down the mainline churches, to make them "palatable", so much so that leftist kukoos could shift the focus away from religion in the next generation. Their political heros were Jacobi and Eisenhower - politicians who despised the ideas of their own party.
Probably we can speculate that after a hard day's writing, Loren Eiseley got together with "the boys" and spent their evenings denouncing evil rock-and-roll while listening to their worthless "smooth jazz". Then he and Cole Porter probably got together and sodomized one another repeatedly. This book sure reads this way.
Century of Struggle
Eleanor Flexnor
This book was originally written about the same time - 1959. However, there was a subsequent edition - 1975 - after Women's Lib came into play, so the author essentially slapped on a contemporary chapter, since the situation of feminism changed dramatically (to see Hollywood's attitude on feminism half-a-century ago, watch the movie "The Great Race", c. 1958).
First, I shall mention how I came upon this book. It is quite interesting. I found it it the Safeway bargain bin - for $1.00. Since it is history, and something I do not know, I figured I could part with a buck. It is listed under women's studies - back when women's studies specialists wrote about credible things, not about man-hatred, or lesbianism, or witchcraft, or applied Marxism, or things that do not belong under scholarly endeavors.
In any case, I lost it, 1 1/2 years ago, outside a Top Foods. So I thought I would never see it again. Then, I saw this book again, about two months ago, in another Safeway's bargain bin. For $1.00. Talk about coincidences! For all I know, it could be the very same exact book that I lost! So I bought it (again), and kinda finished where I left off.
So what is this book about? It focuses on the women's movement's effort to get women the right to vote. Before the first wave feminism, c. 1848-1924, not only could women not vote, they couldn't even own property. So that misfortune needed to be remedied. However, the author, who may not recognize the importance of property, did not focus on that, but focused on the suffrage movement.
There is a myth that women wanted to vote so as to outlaw war. That really was not the purpose of the suffrage movement. Their real goal in getting the right to vote was to outlaw booze. And that explains why the liquor interests so opposed their efforts. Notice that the suffrage amendment and the prohibition amendment passed at the same time. It was the Women's Christian Temperance Union, a bigoted organization (duh!), which led the initial drive to get chicks to vote. Some women suffragettes, for whom voting was an end to itself, did not like this, and actually tried to prevent their officers from entering their state! (like Oregon).
Notice that ten years after women got the right to vote, it was women who led the drive to overturn prohibition. So much for the original goals of the suffragettes!
Curiously, the later edition brought up the modern feminist movement (up to that time), which apparently spent it's force sometime around 1998 (when all the prominent feminists defended a rapist, sexually-harrassing president, Bill Clinton - while ignoring an even stronger supporter, a governor, Mike Lowry, probably because he is butt-ugly). While the first wave was about getting chicks to vote, the second was to get women into the professions - from which they were largely excluded before 1970 (yet ironically, the conservative movement put women into prominent roles before then, and succeeded quite well). I shall write about this later, but you had lots of college educated women who didn't want to be secretaries - and knew from the antiwar movement how to protest their way to doing something they could be quite competent at.
Which explains the push to get the ERA passed, which was introduced at the tail end of the first wave of feminism (1924) and was finally forced into the spotlight in 1970. Of course, when it was defeated - due largely to the efforts of an extradinary woman - the feminists had pushed the women's movement to it's very extreme - total and complete equality - and had nowhere to go. So when women had reached as far as they could in institutional environments - that was possible for someone in their age group to reach (how many 30 year-old CEO's are there?) - the movement lost its steam, and deflated. Then the stupid, doctrinaire socialists took over, and took away whatever credibility was left.
Of course, I am getting way off the subject of my review. The author does a good job of trying to be honest in explaining her subject matter, and bring her story to a favorable light. There might be more historical review since 1975, but I think that if you want to know about first wave feminism, this is the perfect book to introduce someone to it.
Michael Grant
The Ancient Greeks
It took me a long time to read this book. And I still really didn't learn anything.
A history of the Greeks before the golden age. Unfortunately, poorly written for it's audience. Either a. the audience knows all this stuff already and doesn't need this book, or b. the audience hasn't a clue about ancient Greece, and needs a primer.
Historians who write summary histories about stuff that has been long out there need to read David McCullough's 1776. Not for the facts, but to figure how to write a history that the average person can read. If they all do that, they will sell a lot more books, and people will have a better knowledge of history.
Joe DiMaggio
A Hero's Life
Richard Ben Cramer
This is a biography about a baseball player. A really good baseball player. Curiously, it begins eight years ago - at his last public appearance, the weekend after I moved out on my own, for good, entering this current stage of my life. This also I got from the Safeway bargain bin - for $1.00 - which indicates to me that people do not appreciate good books.
This is written as biographies should be written. Admirably (unless it's Hitler or Stalin), but critically. Of course, the subject never wants the hero mask ripped off their face, so they refuse any and all interviews and contact with the author. So the author has to dig through tons of evidence, and eventually gets enough material to write a complete life.
A summary of his life is as follows: Joe was born, played a lot of good baseball, banged Marilyn, sold his autograph, and died. At least as the author presents it. He almost totally ignores the years 1962 - 1989, when Joe actually did a lot (he was Mr. Coffee!). A balance biography should outline all parts of one's life, even if it was not so exciting.
Supposedly, a lesson of this book is - have some friends, otherwise you will die in the hands of creepy lawyers who try to exploit you on your deathbed. Which the author said Joe alienated all his friends because was paronoid about money (then again, he could have assigned Henry Kissinger as an executor of his estate - he was friendly with him). The lawyer - who only appears at the last chapter of the book - got so incensed with his portrait, that he wrote another, probably self-serving biography of Joe, also. Of course, an author whose job it is to present a whole picture of a subject (albeit while trying to dig up some dirt) is going to be much more credible than the "best friend" of the subject who writes a self-serving response to the original author.
One interesting note about Joe's life - he had mob connections, just like everyone who originated from his part of Italy. So he got some "packages" - suitcases with money - to "hold" for a time being - which his friend gave to several other friends to "hold". This presents a problem is said friend suffers from an occupational hazard for that industry - murder - and the friends end up holding the bag, err, suitcases. They kinda have to figure out a way to integrate this now, and get involved in a sticky situation. It would be interesting to see what Joe did with the money.
One other lesson from this book - celebrity is bad for parenting. Joe Jr. became a major drug addict because daddy wasn't around. That is because daddy was too busy running around doing celebrity things - like hanging around other celebrities all the time, or banging other women, or going to this or that event. Kids are for decoration for many a celebrity. And we hear or many a child who ends up becoming big problems.
Final lesson, baseball is about greed. Why else do multimillionaires demand a few hundred to put their signature on something? Of course, the fans often turn around and sell such an item, so there is probably some fairness to their actions.
Is this book worth reading? If you like baseball, maybe. If you like biography, maybe. It just depends on your perspective.
Yea! Final Book!
American Sphinx
The character of Thomas Jefferson
Joseph Ellis
Every single idealist and ideologue likes to claim Thomas Jefferson as their own. They like to point to some aspect of their own belief system, and claim how Thomas Jefferson, one of the premier founding American ideologists, would be just like them had he lived today.
Unfortunately, that is because Thomas Jefferson got his ideas for his time and place. And he really would not fit into any contemporary mold.
First, a bit about his life. All historians today have to bring up the name Sally Hemmings. That is because everyone asks "Did Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, well, you know..." That is because our sex-drenched society, those who only think about politics around election season, cannot think about anything else when it comes to Jefferson. Especially for rumors that have been around for 200 years, spread by his political enemies. Truth be told, several historians seem to indicate that Thomas Jefferson had the sexual drive of seaweed. Not only is there no hard evidence that he did Sally, there is no hard evidence that he did Maria Cosway, some married woman he chased around Paris for a month, either (pardon the pun). For some bizzare reason, he only "preferrd her company." While it is possible that he did help conceive some of Sally's kids, as indicated by DNA evidence, there is a possibility that those kids were also the product of Thomas's half-wit brother. The thing is that Thomas Jefferson probably did not have the skills to even successfully seduce a prostitute.
In any case, sex was not Thomas' secret obsession, it was shopping. Had Thomas lived today, he probably would have taken his money and gotten an operation in Sweden. Or Trinidad, Colorado. He loved to shop. And spend money. So much so that historians are now beginning to focus on the fact that he was a major spendthrift, and was in such debt when he died - despite being bailed out twice by governments (there's some hypocracy for you!) - that there was still debt after everything, including Monticello and the slaves, was auctioned off.
So why was he an "American Sphinx"? That is because people try to apply his ideas to their own ideological values. FDR famously said that he was using "Hamiltonian methods to pursue Jeffersonian goals." Or something to that effect. However, Thomas Jefferson really did not have any sympathy toward the downtrodden - he detested cities, where they lived. His favorability toward the masses had to do with American conditions at that time - where every man had a family on their own freehold - which usually was quite large (over 160 acres).
Yes, he founded the Democratic party. Acutally, it is much more complicated than that. He founded a Republican party - which split into two in 1828 (eventually, the Democrats and the Whigs). Yes, he made statements about how good revolutions were. I think he thought so because they cleanse all institutions - which he really didn't like. Which explains his antipathy toward religion. Yes, he favored states over central governments - because aristocrats like him could more easily control Virginia than the whole federal apparatus.
Truth-be-told, Thomas Jefferson's belief system was nothing more of the leave-me-alone coalition. He wanted to be left alone of all institutions. Not only govement, but religion and commerce also. He probably favored autarchy. We certainly know why he didn't like merchants - he was in debt to them (but he certainly liked what they gave that pack rat in return). Of course his belief system never extended to his slaves, or any blacks, for that matter. A nation of small farmers would be in no position to send anyone to bother him. And being far away from crowds, he could easily defend his "little mountain" should anyone come in a revolutionary mob and overtake him (he could arm his slaves, as slaveholders did at times during the 18th century).
If we look at Thomas Jefferson from this light, we can easily understand that he was no sphinx, but some dude who wanted to get away from everything.
Guns, Germs, and Steel
Jared Diamond
This is the intelligentsia book of 1997. It essentially is a history of the human race, as he puts it.
He provides a broad theory about how Europeans came to dominate the world. Said it was not due to superior values, but to a whole host of other factors, largely determined upon geography, and the reactions to geographical situations. Which is what drives things like technological development, agriculture, diseases, etc. So they were in a position to basically overrun the Americas (which is essentially European north of Mexico - and south of Brazil), Australia, and a few other areas. Since I do not have this book with me, I am not going into the details. He said he wrote this to prove that racial characteristics do not matter when it comes into the development of civilizations. Which is an odd point to prove in 1997, by which time every single credible social scientist rejected any racialist theories whatsoever - it would have been more apporpriate to give this as a motive in, say, 1920.
Mostly, this is true, but values do come into play. Otherwise, the world would have been overrun by the Chinese - they had a stronger material culture in 1492 (as well as pretty much the same diseases as them Europeans). Or, why didn't Arabs overrun the world, either? While not the dominant factor, this is definetely a (relatively) not-unimportant factor in the race to force one's civilization on the world. And like-it-or-not, World Civilization is the extension of Western Civilization.
This guy later wrote a book about the origin of God - i.e., man invented him. Unfortunately, athiesm is intellectually dishonest - it is totally impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being - although there are many an athiest who were not raised in a religious home, so they didn't think about that. Like a friend of mine from college, also named Erik. He was an athiest - but he never thought about whether a god existed or not. Instead, he had his own seperate religion - who tenents were Husky Football, Mariners Baseball, and Sonics Basketball. The way these teams have been playing lately, I think his gods have failed him, and he needs to seek out a new faith.
The Immense Journey
Loren Eiseley
As long as we are on the subject of intellectual fads, I will next explain one that was around 1/2 century ago.
How I came unto this book is actually more interesting than the book itself. There is this 90 year-old dude who one headed a professional association (for claims). He met this woman 1/2 his age (a co-worker of mine) at some anniversary event (he was president of it way back in 1949!). Being a man, he keeps sending her these things. One of these was this book, which he thought she would benefit from.
However, this book is pretty much worthless. Actually, I didn't read much of it - it is unreadable. One reviewer noted "once in a long while the reviewwe comes across an unpretentious book which is such a delight he feels like going into the street and buttonholing passers-by into sharing his pleasure..." Actually, if a man came up to me on the street to "share his pleasure..." I would give him a good ass-kicking (as pretty much everyone reviewing books in 1957 were men). Especially when presented with such doggerel.
I shall briefly go into the subject matter. This is about how man evolved from apes. And he presents this as literature. Yes - he actually believes men evolved from apes. Not even credible Darwinists believe that - they believe that men evolved from an earlier primate, and so did the ape. But then again, many a Christian believes that man evolved in seven days (and some try to use science to prove it).
The thing is, no one was there to watch how men developed. Everything is on speculation. What is presented as a scientific law really isn't. Scientific laws are such things that are extremely obvious (but in an earlier era were speculation) - like the fact the earth is round, or that Mr. HIV is responsible for AIDS, or that things are made up of atoms, or that gravity is a force.
The thing is, we weren't there to watch us develop. All we have is erosion and the fossil record. For all we know, we could have come from giant clam - as the Tlingit believe, or a lake the size of Walden Pond, as some Indians in Nevada believe. To present this as absolute fact - as opposed to a theory - is pure arrogance. Yet interestingly, the way evolution is taught in high schools, the pattern does match that of Genesis - thus indicating real originality.
Of course, he harkens back to some classic Darwinean techniques to reiterate his Darwinism. I shall quote
A little later, an amazing development takes place in the human ofspring (as opposed to that of apes). In the first year of life its (sic) brain trebles in size. In this peculiar leap, unlike anything we know in the animal world [hey - I though dolphins were smarter than we!], which gives to man his uniquely human qualities. When the leap fails, as in those rare instances where the brain does not grow, microcephaly, "pinheadedness," is the result, and the child is then an idiot. Which explains me, the author of this book.
Actually, that last sentence was added by me - because it should have been there.
I looked up the author on Wikipedia. Fortunately, he died three decades ago. So no more crap is coming from his pen. It says he was an early environmentalist. If this is so, it explains what is wrong with the environmental movement.
This is the kind of garbage that was produced from this, the "greatest generation." While they knew how to win wars, they had the worst taste of any generation in American history. This is the generation that thought the song "How much is that Doggie in the Window" constituted high culture. This is the generation that bought all that abstract art that people threw all over buildings (before those in charge of building interiors actually put real art back in them). This is the generation who though Lawrence Welk was god, and Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett were saints. This is the generation that watered down the mainline churches, to make them "palatable", so much so that leftist kukoos could shift the focus away from religion in the next generation. Their political heros were Jacobi and Eisenhower - politicians who despised the ideas of their own party.
Probably we can speculate that after a hard day's writing, Loren Eiseley got together with "the boys" and spent their evenings denouncing evil rock-and-roll while listening to their worthless "smooth jazz". Then he and Cole Porter probably got together and sodomized one another repeatedly. This book sure reads this way.
Century of Struggle
Eleanor Flexnor
This book was originally written about the same time - 1959. However, there was a subsequent edition - 1975 - after Women's Lib came into play, so the author essentially slapped on a contemporary chapter, since the situation of feminism changed dramatically (to see Hollywood's attitude on feminism half-a-century ago, watch the movie "The Great Race", c. 1958).
First, I shall mention how I came upon this book. It is quite interesting. I found it it the Safeway bargain bin - for $1.00. Since it is history, and something I do not know, I figured I could part with a buck. It is listed under women's studies - back when women's studies specialists wrote about credible things, not about man-hatred, or lesbianism, or witchcraft, or applied Marxism, or things that do not belong under scholarly endeavors.
In any case, I lost it, 1 1/2 years ago, outside a Top Foods. So I thought I would never see it again. Then, I saw this book again, about two months ago, in another Safeway's bargain bin. For $1.00. Talk about coincidences! For all I know, it could be the very same exact book that I lost! So I bought it (again), and kinda finished where I left off.
So what is this book about? It focuses on the women's movement's effort to get women the right to vote. Before the first wave feminism, c. 1848-1924, not only could women not vote, they couldn't even own property. So that misfortune needed to be remedied. However, the author, who may not recognize the importance of property, did not focus on that, but focused on the suffrage movement.
There is a myth that women wanted to vote so as to outlaw war. That really was not the purpose of the suffrage movement. Their real goal in getting the right to vote was to outlaw booze. And that explains why the liquor interests so opposed their efforts. Notice that the suffrage amendment and the prohibition amendment passed at the same time. It was the Women's Christian Temperance Union, a bigoted organization (duh!), which led the initial drive to get chicks to vote. Some women suffragettes, for whom voting was an end to itself, did not like this, and actually tried to prevent their officers from entering their state! (like Oregon).
Notice that ten years after women got the right to vote, it was women who led the drive to overturn prohibition. So much for the original goals of the suffragettes!
Curiously, the later edition brought up the modern feminist movement (up to that time), which apparently spent it's force sometime around 1998 (when all the prominent feminists defended a rapist, sexually-harrassing president, Bill Clinton - while ignoring an even stronger supporter, a governor, Mike Lowry, probably because he is butt-ugly). While the first wave was about getting chicks to vote, the second was to get women into the professions - from which they were largely excluded before 1970 (yet ironically, the conservative movement put women into prominent roles before then, and succeeded quite well). I shall write about this later, but you had lots of college educated women who didn't want to be secretaries - and knew from the antiwar movement how to protest their way to doing something they could be quite competent at.
Which explains the push to get the ERA passed, which was introduced at the tail end of the first wave of feminism (1924) and was finally forced into the spotlight in 1970. Of course, when it was defeated - due largely to the efforts of an extradinary woman - the feminists had pushed the women's movement to it's very extreme - total and complete equality - and had nowhere to go. So when women had reached as far as they could in institutional environments - that was possible for someone in their age group to reach (how many 30 year-old CEO's are there?) - the movement lost its steam, and deflated. Then the stupid, doctrinaire socialists took over, and took away whatever credibility was left.
Of course, I am getting way off the subject of my review. The author does a good job of trying to be honest in explaining her subject matter, and bring her story to a favorable light. There might be more historical review since 1975, but I think that if you want to know about first wave feminism, this is the perfect book to introduce someone to it.
Michael Grant
The Ancient Greeks
It took me a long time to read this book. And I still really didn't learn anything.
A history of the Greeks before the golden age. Unfortunately, poorly written for it's audience. Either a. the audience knows all this stuff already and doesn't need this book, or b. the audience hasn't a clue about ancient Greece, and needs a primer.
Historians who write summary histories about stuff that has been long out there need to read David McCullough's 1776. Not for the facts, but to figure how to write a history that the average person can read. If they all do that, they will sell a lot more books, and people will have a better knowledge of history.
Joe DiMaggio
A Hero's Life
Richard Ben Cramer
This is a biography about a baseball player. A really good baseball player. Curiously, it begins eight years ago - at his last public appearance, the weekend after I moved out on my own, for good, entering this current stage of my life. This also I got from the Safeway bargain bin - for $1.00 - which indicates to me that people do not appreciate good books.
This is written as biographies should be written. Admirably (unless it's Hitler or Stalin), but critically. Of course, the subject never wants the hero mask ripped off their face, so they refuse any and all interviews and contact with the author. So the author has to dig through tons of evidence, and eventually gets enough material to write a complete life.
A summary of his life is as follows: Joe was born, played a lot of good baseball, banged Marilyn, sold his autograph, and died. At least as the author presents it. He almost totally ignores the years 1962 - 1989, when Joe actually did a lot (he was Mr. Coffee!). A balance biography should outline all parts of one's life, even if it was not so exciting.
Supposedly, a lesson of this book is - have some friends, otherwise you will die in the hands of creepy lawyers who try to exploit you on your deathbed. Which the author said Joe alienated all his friends because was paronoid about money (then again, he could have assigned Henry Kissinger as an executor of his estate - he was friendly with him). The lawyer - who only appears at the last chapter of the book - got so incensed with his portrait, that he wrote another, probably self-serving biography of Joe, also. Of course, an author whose job it is to present a whole picture of a subject (albeit while trying to dig up some dirt) is going to be much more credible than the "best friend" of the subject who writes a self-serving response to the original author.
One interesting note about Joe's life - he had mob connections, just like everyone who originated from his part of Italy. So he got some "packages" - suitcases with money - to "hold" for a time being - which his friend gave to several other friends to "hold". This presents a problem is said friend suffers from an occupational hazard for that industry - murder - and the friends end up holding the bag, err, suitcases. They kinda have to figure out a way to integrate this now, and get involved in a sticky situation. It would be interesting to see what Joe did with the money.
One other lesson from this book - celebrity is bad for parenting. Joe Jr. became a major drug addict because daddy wasn't around. That is because daddy was too busy running around doing celebrity things - like hanging around other celebrities all the time, or banging other women, or going to this or that event. Kids are for decoration for many a celebrity. And we hear or many a child who ends up becoming big problems.
Final lesson, baseball is about greed. Why else do multimillionaires demand a few hundred to put their signature on something? Of course, the fans often turn around and sell such an item, so there is probably some fairness to their actions.
Is this book worth reading? If you like baseball, maybe. If you like biography, maybe. It just depends on your perspective.
Yea! Final Book!
American Sphinx
The character of Thomas Jefferson
Joseph Ellis
Every single idealist and ideologue likes to claim Thomas Jefferson as their own. They like to point to some aspect of their own belief system, and claim how Thomas Jefferson, one of the premier founding American ideologists, would be just like them had he lived today.
Unfortunately, that is because Thomas Jefferson got his ideas for his time and place. And he really would not fit into any contemporary mold.
First, a bit about his life. All historians today have to bring up the name Sally Hemmings. That is because everyone asks "Did Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, well, you know..." That is because our sex-drenched society, those who only think about politics around election season, cannot think about anything else when it comes to Jefferson. Especially for rumors that have been around for 200 years, spread by his political enemies. Truth be told, several historians seem to indicate that Thomas Jefferson had the sexual drive of seaweed. Not only is there no hard evidence that he did Sally, there is no hard evidence that he did Maria Cosway, some married woman he chased around Paris for a month, either (pardon the pun). For some bizzare reason, he only "preferrd her company." While it is possible that he did help conceive some of Sally's kids, as indicated by DNA evidence, there is a possibility that those kids were also the product of Thomas's half-wit brother. The thing is that Thomas Jefferson probably did not have the skills to even successfully seduce a prostitute.
In any case, sex was not Thomas' secret obsession, it was shopping. Had Thomas lived today, he probably would have taken his money and gotten an operation in Sweden. Or Trinidad, Colorado. He loved to shop. And spend money. So much so that historians are now beginning to focus on the fact that he was a major spendthrift, and was in such debt when he died - despite being bailed out twice by governments (there's some hypocracy for you!) - that there was still debt after everything, including Monticello and the slaves, was auctioned off.
So why was he an "American Sphinx"? That is because people try to apply his ideas to their own ideological values. FDR famously said that he was using "Hamiltonian methods to pursue Jeffersonian goals." Or something to that effect. However, Thomas Jefferson really did not have any sympathy toward the downtrodden - he detested cities, where they lived. His favorability toward the masses had to do with American conditions at that time - where every man had a family on their own freehold - which usually was quite large (over 160 acres).
Yes, he founded the Democratic party. Acutally, it is much more complicated than that. He founded a Republican party - which split into two in 1828 (eventually, the Democrats and the Whigs). Yes, he made statements about how good revolutions were. I think he thought so because they cleanse all institutions - which he really didn't like. Which explains his antipathy toward religion. Yes, he favored states over central governments - because aristocrats like him could more easily control Virginia than the whole federal apparatus.
Truth-be-told, Thomas Jefferson's belief system was nothing more of the leave-me-alone coalition. He wanted to be left alone of all institutions. Not only govement, but religion and commerce also. He probably favored autarchy. We certainly know why he didn't like merchants - he was in debt to them (but he certainly liked what they gave that pack rat in return). Of course his belief system never extended to his slaves, or any blacks, for that matter. A nation of small farmers would be in no position to send anyone to bother him. And being far away from crowds, he could easily defend his "little mountain" should anyone come in a revolutionary mob and overtake him (he could arm his slaves, as slaveholders did at times during the 18th century).
If we look at Thomas Jefferson from this light, we can easily understand that he was no sphinx, but some dude who wanted to get away from everything.
posted by EricMatthew at 9:05 PM
<< Home