How Soccer Explains the World

Review: Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization (Harper Perennial, 2004).

I enjoyed this book, probably because, like Foer, I like soccer. I learned something new about world soccerdom in each chapter. The title of the book, however, is a bit overstated. Since each chapter is related to the others only in the largest thematic ways, Foer fails to really present any kind of "theory" of globalization - in other words, the book lacks a central thesis. What he offers instead is a series of pastiches illuminating the impact of globalization upon soccer, and even to some extent the impact of soccer on globalization. The book probably succeeds more in provoking thought about globalization than in making any real explanations. I definitely think soccer proved a good choice for exploring the impact of globalization at the local level in a variety of locales. Since he focuses on club soccer more than international soccer, he can zoom in on the most local of rivalries and see how they have been changed by progress of globalization. Not all the chapters do this as well as some, however.

I was particaulrly intrigued by the inter-play between local (or national) rivalries/group identification within a global culture. One assumes that the world's sport operates simlarly wherever one might go. This might be true on the pitch, although we are all familiar with the different styles of soccer found in the various locales of world soccer. What we find, though, is that the cultural, economic, and political background of each locale affects the nature of the soccer in each locale. What drives a local rivalry in Glasgow, and how the clubs themselves treat it, is not even the same as close as London. Yet, there are some more global aspects to be found in a wider context, such as anti-semitism (although there is little of this outside Europe, so again we see the regional variation with a global culture). Likewise, when powerful economic or political forces get involved in football, the very nature of the game in that region can be affected, whether we are talking about the Brazilian diaspora or Italian catenaccio. And of course, soccer itself can play a political role, as was seen in the chapters on Serbia and Iran.

For me, this book followed nicely on Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch, whose insights into English hooliganism meshed well with several of Foer's chapters. As an insightful glimpse into the world of football, the book succeeded masterfully. As a sustained argument about globalization, however, it falls a little flat. This book essentially leaves it to the reader to draw some significant conclusions from these 10 case studies. It really demands deeper discussion than I can muster up here by myself. The publisher even provides a series of questions to provoke further discussion, many of which I would love to discuss with someone in the know.

RPC

Fever Pitch

Review: Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch (New York: Riverhead Books, 1992).

This book held the double attraction of being a football fan's memoir, and being specifically the memoir of an ARSENAL fan. Ever since I discovered club football, I have been an Arsenal fan, and while I cannot claim to be as fanatical as Hornby, I too find that I cannot relinquish my support of the Gunners.

I have to agree with the many blurbs I have read about this book that it is "a small classic", at least in the genre of sports memoirs, even though it is written by a fan, not a player. In many ways, the perspective of the fan makes it worth reading more, because Hornby uses the exploration of his Arsenal obsession as a window into more serious issues of football and life. His insights into the hooliganism of the 70s and 80s, culminating in the Hillsborough disaster, were interesting and enlightening. His explorations of his development as a person, through the experience, at the same time communal and individual, of football spectating were especially intriguing. One of my own personal theories of explanation for many of the problems of our modern world come down to our collective and personal immaturities, and I think Hornby's book sheds some light on this — it is an explanation of his own maturation process as seen through his obsession. Even though he does some serious maturing in both his personal life and his sporting life, in the end he still remains somewhat immature in his inability to relinquish his obsession, forcing even his closest friends to adapt their lives to his obsession. I would be hypocritical to cast this as too great failing, however, seeing how I suffer from the same, albeit in a much smaller degree since I may never see Arsenal play live in my lifetime, immaturity.

The book also gave me the opportunity to reflect on my own football obsession. For Hornby, it was his visit to Arsenal’s match against Stoke City that ignited his fire for football and Arsenal. For me, it was the 1990 World Cup, which I watched on the Spanish channel, which. I had played little league soccer, but like so many American youths, that hardly had an effect on me after I stopped playing. My personal interests in the world beyond America, the same interest which had also made me a bicycle racing fan starting with the 1987 Tour de France, hit head on with the spectacle of Italia ’90. This was all in the pre-Internet days of globalization, so my only chance to delve further into the world of international soccer was to find a trendy bookstore which carried European soccer magazines – not so easy in Phoenix, Arizona. I would try to guess when the next issue would be put on the shelf, usually guessing wrong once or twice in my enthusiasm. I read every word of those issues, most more than once, but what I liked most were the league tables in the back of the issue – which of course were hopelessly outdated by the time they got to me. It just so happened that Arsenal won the 1990-91 English First Division title, and that is probably how I became an Arsenal fan. I was also attracted to Barcelona, Milan, Ajax, and others (I figured I should have a favorite club in each country), particularly those clubs which had players from the countries I had seen on Spanish television. Somehow, the Arsenal fixation stuck. Not being English, and thus having no local club (I loved Hornby’s account of his experience watching Arsenal play at his “home” club, Reading), I was free to choose any club to support. I think the idea of a club whose name wasn’t particularly associated with a city (like Liverpool, or Manchester United, or Newcastle – boring!), also appealed to me for some reason. I was fortunate in my choice, I guess, since Arsenal have been one of the premier teams of the Premiership in the almost two decades I have been following them. I haven’t had to experience such things as relegation (OK, no Arsenal fan has had to experience that since 1913), fighting to avoid relegation, or floundering in mid-table mediocrity for years on end. I couldn’t have known that when I glommed on to them in 1991, though. I appreciated the opportunity that Hornby offered me to reflect on my own fanhood and maturity.

RPC

Blogging

OK. I have learned how difficult it can be to be a consistent blogger. I have been reading lots of stuff, although I have not made much progress on my Odyssey - Gilgamesh stares at me from my bookshelf every day - but I haven't had the inclination (the excuse of 'no time' is always a little lame, since we always have time for what is really important to us) to write about what I have been reading. That takes more mental energy than I am often willing to muster up. Sometimes, if we've read the same book, I have a good conversation with my wife about some of the things I've read, but I read a lot of stuff she doesn't, and while I could have a good conversation with another intellectual about the book, I don't know anyone else reading the same stuff or who has the time to try. As I near mid-life, I am finding a reading of Dante particularly relevant, and I've been able to discuss it a little with a colleague at work, but neither of has enough time to do it justice. Anyway, I suppose one of my New Years' Resolutions will be blogging more consistently.

RPC

Speculative Fiction

I have been reading a fair bit of fantasy and science fiction lately, something that I have generally avoided for many years. It's not that "speculative fiction" is not interesting to me, but rather that I question its quality and such a use of my time. The books that I have been reading have been helping me to think about the nature of "literature." I'm not trained in literary criticism at all, so I really struggle to differentiate real literature - what I consider to be things worth reading because they hold some value for the reader besides just passing the time in an entertaining way - from what I call "fluff fiction" - the literary equivalent of most popular television (only it takes longer to get through a book than a TV episode).

I think most people would agree that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series can be classified as literature, and I would even go so far as to classify it as a modern classic. It is a rich text, full of potential meaning and interpretation. If there is any book that could be held up as a standard by which to judge other speculative fiction, Tolkien may just be it, and indeed much fantasy literature has been little more than pale attempts at recreating Tolkien in their own (lesser) minds. This is the kind of fantasy fiction that I am not interested in. So, I have tried to focus my latest reading on some of the giants of modern speculative fiction - authors that seem to get a good amount of praise as authors by people who at least claim to be in a position to know such things.

The thing about Tolkien, despite the fact that he took it so seriously himself, is that the fantasy world in which his stories are set are not the real point, at least not for his readers. I read the books not to gaze into Tolkien's imagination as he describes a different world peopled by different sorts of beings, but rather as a tale of heroic goodness in the face of great evil - i.e. the story is about Frodo, not Middle Earth or even the Ring. His sources of inspiration (Beowulf, Arthurian legend, Norse mythology, etc.) are similar: the point of Beowulf is not to enter a world wherein such a monster as Grendel lives, but rather to recall the deeds of the heroic human Beowulf. By pondering Beowulf's deeds and fate, we should be reflecting on our own. The same is true for Frodo, or Samwise, or even Aragorn.

So, how do my recent forays into speculative fiction measure up?

• Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
• Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
• Ursula K. Le Guin, A Fisherman of the Inland Sea
• Ursula K. Le Guin, A Wizard of Earthsea
• Gene Wolfe, The Knight

I should say, first of all, that I enjoyed each of these books. I would say, however, that the least "literary" of the books, even though it was perhaps the most entertaining read of the bunch, was the Stephenson book. Not only was I a bit put off by the excessive language in the book, but I have also never been a real big fan of near-future cyberpunk kind of settings. Nevertheless, Snow Crash presented a futuristic, fallen-apart, America which was interesting, and accessible, enough for me to actually enjoy reading about. The main character, Hiro Protagonist, was the kind of heroic protagonist, a sword-fighting, motorcycle-riding, computer programmer, that I could connect with. This was a book that relied heavily upon its presentation of the author's vision of the world of the near future, introduced the reader to some intriguing ideas which had been percolating in the author's mind, but that contained only moderate explorations of the characters' development within the storyline. Basically, it was a fun adventure in a weird setting - the makings of good fluff fiction. However, the ideas that Stephenson plays around with are enough to remove this from the same shelf as the fluffiest fiction out there: What is the nature of language and communication? How is our increasingly computerized world affecting our use and understanding of language at the most basic levels? What is the true power of language, both in reception and production? Even, how has language use and meaning evolved over the centuries, going back to ancient Sumeria? So, it was not a total waste - not just "empty calories" as it were.

I'm going to lump Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and A Fisherman of the Inland Sea in essentially the same category. Both are science fiction - the first a novel, the latter a collection of stories, the last three of which are set in the same imaginative future. Both deal with the social implications of potential future technology. Dick wonders about the relationship between humans and androids which have become practically human themselves. In other words, what does it mean to be a human, or even 'alive' for that matter? I'm probably not really doing justice to this book, which I found quite thought-provoking, for the sake of time. Le Guin's three main stories in the collection deal with the ramifications of instantaneous travel, as opposed to what she calls Nearly As Fast As Light travel. The latter, of course, drawing upon relativity theory, has terrible social consequences, since the time it takes for the traveler to a distant planet is not the same as for those who remain stationary relative to the traveler. Le Guin posits some potential quirks associated with the development of what she calls "churten" technology - instantaneous space travel - although I think for her the opportunity to exercise her imagination in describing different cultures on different planets is at least as important as anything else, perhaps making this work less significant as science fiction and moving it more towards "literature" generally. She should be applauded, however, for considering the real implications of space travel, which are so conveniently over-rided or ignored in other imaginative universes (Star Wars or Star Trek, for example).

Le Guin's other book here held a greater potential trap for the fantasy writer, but she steered well clear of it. This is the first book in what is known as the Earthsea Cycle. She has imagined a new world which requires some description and explanation. It would be easy for her to be sucked into the kind of "world-building" approach I so fear from fantasy literature. The world she imagines is a world of archipelagos - no huge continents, just lots of small, medium and large landmasses (islands) scattered about. Each island has the potential for her to imagine a new and different people/culture, which she does, in fact. Yet, the background world in which she sets her story always remains in the background - it plays its proper role without ever dominating the story, which is always front and center. This is not a fantasy world for role-players that must be completely fleshed out to allow GMs to run their campaigns. The focus is on the story (and it is a good one), and on the development of the protagonist. Her main character is a young man who will become one of the greatest wizards of his world. Not only do we get the standard boy-to-man plot, but we also get the traditional fantasy quest plot, and yet there is nothing too traditional or stale about this plot-line. Indeed, the story is woven together so tightly it draws the reader in and won't let them back out until it is over. Now there is probably some classic literature out there which does both these plots better, or in richer fashion, (Who will ever improve on the quest plot which is the heart of Homer's Odyssey, for example?) but even they may not be written in such a fluid and attractive way.

Finally, Gene Wolfe's The Knight: This is a hard one to judge. I have noticed that this seems to be one of those love it or hate it kind of books. Some readers toss it aside in disgust after reading some or even all of it; others rave about it as one of the best books ever. One way that I could sympathize with the naysayers is in the confusion that Wolfe creates in his presentation. The story jumps forward sometimes without any warning, taking the reader a page or two to get their bearings back and figure out how we have moved ahead so far from the previous chapter. This is done sometimes through the main characters' forays into different worlds which run on different time scales. I wasn't bothered too much by the constant references to things the narrator (the first person main character) knows will happen in the future between the current point in the story and the author's own place and time; however, there are often rather oblique references made to people or places which are obviously meant to be obscure, but they only produce some confusion. Despite all this disorientation, the book moves along at a rather swift pace and because of that, the overall storyline is easy enough to follow. Some commentators have praised Wolfe for what he has done in taking stock characters and situations from traditional fantasy literature (going back at least to Arthurian legend) and putting a fresh spin on them. I can see some of that, and if I took the time I could probably identify more, especially if I was more familiar with those traditional figures of the genre. So, clearly, the book cannot be simply tossed aside as fluff fiction, and those who did not appreciate it were probably not real connoisseurs of literature. Having said that, though, I remain skeptical of how good this might be as literature. Granted, he doesn't overdo the world description, allowing it to take over the story, which is good and well done considering the multi-tiered world he is imagining, which is a bit foreign to us. Also granted, the story focuses on the character development of the protagonist. Like Le Guin's wizard above, Abel, the narrator and protagonist, is growing from boy to man and on a major quest (in more ways than one). Still, I don't know how much of the feeling of confusion comes from me just not reading carefully enough and how much just isn't even there to find no matter how hard I look or how many times I read it. How much would this book repay a re-reading? A good question. I think I could definitely benefit from some good discussion about this book with someone who was more of an expert in literary criticism or at least more experience in reading and thinking about speculative fiction.

Wresting and Wrangling

Review: Jack Monnett, Awakening to our Situation: Warnings from the Nephite Prophets (Nauvoo House Publishing, 2006).

To begin with, this is not a real review because to really do that I would have had to read this entire book, and I'm just not willing to waste that much of life. Two chapters was enough for me, and I am only devoting more of my time to write a review of this book as a public service, seeing as how almost all of the discussion on the Internet about this book is by fellow conspiracy theorists who are enthralled by this tripe.

Up front, I can also say that I am not really qualified to weigh in on the specifics of this book - modern American history is not my specialty. However, unlike the author of this book, my PhD is in historical research, and my profession involves teaching students how to conduct good research. From that perspective, I can tell you that if Dr. Monnett, PhD, submitted this book as work in one of my classes, he would be earning a D at best. He does practically everything I tell students NOT to do when doing research and writing it up. A few examples should suffice.

One of the last chapters of the book is about 9/11. After reminding us that "most ideas that challenge the status quo are not found in traditional radio and television news reports, newspapers, and news magazines", which must explain why he never really cites anything published by a reputable or academic publisher, he proceeds to explain what "really happened" on 9/11 through a series of questions and answers. I will quote a little:

What about the nineteen hijackers? Have they finally paid for their crimes?
We would have expected that the hijackers would have been quickly brought to justice and been sentenced. A year after the tragedy, Director of the FBI Robert Mueller told the nation that "We at this point definitely know the nineteen hijackers who were responsible" and implied that they would speedily be brought to justice.* Instead, today, we find them referred to in most writings as "alleged" hijackers because several have been found to be living (not burned up in plane crashes) and, of those interviewed, all have denied that they had anything to do with the hijackings and have shown plausible alibis. To date, even with various bits of circumstantial evidence found, no convictions have been made against any of them who are living.

But the planes were hijacked and flew into the World Trade Center, didn't they?
There are some inconsistencies in the reporting, but most researchers feel that the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers were the hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. One concern that has been raised is that hitting either tower with a difficult to maneuver plane such as a Boeing 767 would be particularly difficult for novice pilots. Another interesting aside is that each of the planes "had at least one passenger who was a senior official in Raytheon's division of Electronics Warfare" aboard which, for some, opens other possibilities.*

The chapter then continues on to question the reaction of the Air Force to the hijacking: it was too slow, and the reports afterward show some confusion and conflicting views. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is:

This all may sound quite confusing, but most researchers have come to the conclusion that any scrambling that may have been done by jet interceptors was not done with the intent of preventing the airliners from hitting their targets. Given the prescribed protocol and the nation's state of emergency, the only answer for the silent fighter jets appears to be willful complicity by those who were responsible for scrambling and intercepting the airplanes.

And now we have the crux of it all - a great big conspiracy to get us into war so that the secret combination trying to rule the world could make some more money.

Now, the two asterixes above are in place of the author's footnote markers. Notice the massive lack of documentation for anything that Monnett asserts. The first * is a citation for an article entitled "Playing the 9/11 Unity Card" which he says in his endnote was authored by the Associated Press on November 3, 2002. He follows this with a link to the nomoregames.net website, which turns out to be the creation of a fellow conspiracy theorist, who appears to be the actual author of the article. This guy, Morgan Reynolds, is another "PhD", this one in economics, who would thus appear to be unqualified to say anything definitive on the subject, particularly on the structural integrity of the twin towers, which is exactly what he does do in another article on his website. Whether he is qualified or not (I'm not saying you have to have a PhD in history to do good research, although one in engineering would be a useful accreditation for someone commenting on the structural integrity of the buildings), this is hardly the place to find your quote from the head of the FBI. There are more reliable sources for this kind of information, and as I teach my young research students, you want your evidence to be from as reliable a source as you can find.

Now we skip down through some pretty amazing, and undocumented, assertions until we finally come to his second source citation. This * refers us to David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. Olive Branch Press: Northampton, MA, 2004, p. 209. Now, I don't know anything about this book, but I can tell you a couple of things just from this citation information: The reference to the "new" Pearl Harbor must mean that he is another conspiracy theorist who belives that Pearl Harbor was all a conspiracy by FDR to get us into WWII (I have heard of this conspiracy theory before). I'll leave it to the WWII historians to debunk that myth (as I'm sure they already have). And what about this Olive Branch Press - I teach my budding researchers to look at the press to help determine the reliablity of a source. The best presses use a peer review process that ensures that other experts in the field agree that the work is based on sound research, even if they don't agree with its conclusions. The nice thing about the Internet is that you can usually learn something about these questionable presses right from their own websites, and sure enough, right on the front page of their website:

Our Mission

We endeavor to glorify and serve God, by educating, edifying and entertaining His people. We will do this by providing quality materials that help to develop a Biblical worldview. We desire to be used by God to draw non-believers into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and believers to a closer walk with Him.

Statement of Faith

We believe in one God, eternally manifested in three persons. We believe that the Bible alone is the standard for every area of life, and that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, is infallible, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. We believe that man is saved by grace alone, and that the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and His resurrection, allow us to enter into a personal relationship with God, the Creator.

I'm not quibbiling over their professions of faith. They have the right to assert whatever beliefs they want, and they have the right to publish whatever they want. My point is that this statement should hardly instill in us a sense of confidence in the impartiality of this particular work, the acceptance of its research standards by other researchers, or the reliablity of its conclusions, since clearly the point of any book from this publisher must be to convert people to their own "Biblical worldview". That's great for a Sunday School manual, but not if you want your research to be considered legitimate and reliable. This book by Griffin becomes Monnett's main source for his views of the 9/11 conspiracy (if all the ibid.'s at the end of the chapter are anything to go by).

The same could be said about Monnett's publisher, except that his publisher doesn't even have a website. We might well ask whether this book is being published out of some nut-job's basement - maybe even by Monnett himself. I note that you can't even buy it on Amazon, except through their used book sellers. On the author himself, I found this little blurb: "Jack D. Monnett holds degrees in education from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in the Historical Foundation of Education from the University of Utah." Whatever "Historical Foundation of Education" means, I'm guessing his PhD is from an Education department, not a history department. Hardly instills confidence in his ability to do historical research - again, not that he couldn't, just that all his credentials, which he flashes on the cover of his book, don't mean that he is qualified to do the research required for his book. Displaying one's credentials on the cover of a serious academic book is rarely reassuring, rather it suggests insecurity.

So much for Monnett's sources. I teach my research students that whenever you want to argue against some one, you need to present their side as fairly and completely as you can, so that you can say that you have accurately depicted their view and shown it to be lacking. Not only does Monnett fail to do this, but he doesn't even back up his own arguments with any hard evidence. This is D work at best.

Now let's look, just briefly, at his grammar. Hey, no one is perfect. (I'm sure I have a few booboos in this blog - but then I'm not asking a publisher to print this blog.). In my experience of grading papers, however, the ones with the most grammatical problems are usually the ones which demonstrate the shoddiest research as well. So, when Monnett writes, "But the planes were hijacked and flew into the World Trade Center, didn't they?", we must ask: Were the planes hijacked (presumably by the terrorists) or did they fly themselves (the planes 'were hijacked and flew' - subject of flew = planes, presumably by themselves since no other subject is offered)? He either needs to turn 'were hijacked' into an active verb with a clear subject who can both hijack and fly, or he can leave the passive voice, in which case he needs: the planes "were flown", again presumably by the hijackers. The 'they' at the end must refer to the planes, since no other subject was offered. By itself, this problem is minimal, but coupled with the lack of any hard evidence or reliable sources, it must force us to raise an eyebrow.

Now, on to my favorite aspect, which is the illogicality and hyperbole of conspiracy theorists. Follow along in the text with me. Now, I have not done much research into this 9/11 thing, but I did see it live on TV when it was happening (and note: it was the same on the every channel - that's one big media cabal!). So, my understanding was that the 19 hijackers were ON THE PLANES which crashed and burned. Thus, it comes as little surprise to me that these "alleged" (how about a source for that one, eh, Dr. Monnett?) hijackers that were interviewed had plausible alibis. The guys who did it killed thmselves in the act!! No wonder they're not getting the justice due to them - THEY'RE DEAD ALREADY! Now, I understand that Monnett is implying that they did not actually die in the crash - in fact it appears that he is suggesting that the planes did not actually crash into the WTC (one of the conspiracy theories from Steven Jones, see below, is that the towers collapsed from being blown up rather than crashed into). But didn't they convict the one guy who didn't get on the plane but was part of the conspiracy? And hey, let's be honest, this terrorist plot was clearly a conspiracy, and even a secret combination if you want. But he doesn't make that point, does he?

In the next paragraph, Monnett is almost willing to grant that AA Flt 11 was the one that crashed into the WTC. Um... there were only 4 hijacked planes that day, right? We ought to know their numbers... and we know what happened to all 4 - 2 crashed into the WTC, one crashed in PA, and one hit the Pentagon. Or am I misremembering? So "most researchers" (again, whoever they are - no citations) "feel" that this was the case. Good researchers don't "feel", they assert, argue, and provide some evidence. Even if it is hard to control a 767, these terrorists were at pilot training school, right? It might be tough, but how difficult is difficult? It would be nice to have a citation of a 767 pilot saying as much. Then I might accept it. Finally, there is a reference to "Raytheon's division of Electronics Warfare". I checked the index. This is apparently the only reference in the book - how about some explanation as to how this supports whatever contention he is alluding to (Monnett never comes right out and says what he wants to say or actually answers the question he poses). Raytheon is a defense contractor, so presumably they are part of Monnett's big secret combination out to rule the world (I feel like I'm watching Saturday morning cartoons here, sheesh).

Finally, Monnett's conclusions about the Air Force reaction to the 9/11 hijackings defy common sense. OK, the people involved were confused. No surprise there - this was a rather unprecedented attack on American soil. If people forgot to follow some of the regulations or weren't sure what to do, can we blame them? Likewise, we shouldn't be surprised if their after action reports display some confusion and inconsistencies either. No one knew what was going on. And the idea that jets needed to be scrambled to possibly shoot them down may be according to the book, but defies logic: yeah, they're going to shoot down 4 planes full of passengers to get these 19 terrorists - this is not how Americans operate. The biggest guffaw, though, is Monnett's assertion that "most researchers" don't think the jets that were scrambled were done to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. But, no one knew they were aiming at targets! The basic assumption with hijackers is that they want to make a political point, or something, and hold the passengers hostage until they get what they want. Again, these actions were unprecedented on American soil. No one was thinking,"We better keep these guys from hitting their targets." This is not grounds for discovering a conspiracy - this is normal human confusion at a bizarre situation. This all leads to my favorite line of all: "the only answer" is a conspiracy. The only answer?! I think I have already suggested a few other possible answers. I'm sure people who actually know something about all this could provide a few more. So, it is only "the only answer" in this conspiracy theorist's mind.

Now, I think that is enough on his research methods. Clearly the author has failed to grasp the basics of academic research, and so we must treat this book with the contempt we generally reserve for any amateur who thinks he is smarter than the professionals, simply because he wills it to be so, or has received special revelation that all the experts are not privy to. Again, I am not saying you have to be an expert or a PhD to do good research - but you do have to pay an initiation fee into the field by actually reading the primary sources and the best secondary sources (even if you are going to disgaree with them). Is that too much to ask, Dr. Monnett?

The book also includes a CD from the (in)famous Dr. Steven E. Jones. Jones is a Physicist, so maybe he is qualified to comment on the structural engineering of the buildings (actually, his specialty is nuclear fusion). I will simply refer you to the Internet at large if you want to learn more about this guy, but I will note that the Wikipedia (I know, not the greatest source, but I'm growing weary of talking about this book and writing this review) entry suggests that Jones has come in for the same kind of criticism that I am leveling at Dr. Monnett:

Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.^[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;^[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."^[21]

Now, let me just say before concluding that, yes, the Book of Mormon has much to teach us about the devastating effects of secret combinations. They are undoubtedly all around us in one form or another. But let me also just suggest that the probability of there being one great secret combination out to rule the world, and which has been steadily working towards this end for several generations, seems highly unlikely on the basis of the Book of Mormon evidence itself. Notice that once the Gadianton Robbers got into power, they started killing each other for that power. Yes, they want money; yes, they want power; but that applies to everyone in the group. And the idea that we don't know about this great conspiracy because it is, well, "a secret"? The Gadiantons and those in Jaredite times were unable to keep it a secret - evidenced by the fact that we can read about them in the book! Why assume that modern secret combinations are more adept at keeping the secret?

In conclusion, I warn everyone, and their neighbor, and their neighbor's dog, to steer clear of this kind of drivel masquerading as "academic research". Dr. Monnett, PhD, simply preys on his faithful but unwary readers by wresting the scriptures in service to his personal agenda, and wrangling the facts to fit his bizarre conspiracy theory. If you buy this nonsense, then I know a guy from Nigeria who wants to make you a very rich person - I'll hook you up for a 10% cut of the profits.

Velociraptor Quiz

I just couldn't resist... 9 second longer than my wife :)

I could survive for 60 seconds chained to a bunk bed with a velociraptor

Created by Bunk Beds Pedia

NYT Crossword, 1012

This will probably be my last crossword post. If you've been reading my posts for a while this will probably come as no surprise. My regular complaints about the puzzle have crystallized into some conclusions: These puzzle makers live in a different world than I do, which is fine, except that I'm not so interested in joining their world. It is a world that ranges too widely - from high and classic culture to modern fringe and pop culture - whatever it takes to fill in the blanks. Then their cluing becomes annoying because their real audience needs a challenge. That's fine, too - I'm just not interested in their project it seems. It takes me too long to do these puzzles, time that could be better spent on my own project. I've done these puzzles because of the learning experience, but I'm finding that what I am learning is not what I most want to learn, and the inefficiency entailed in learning some of this drivel is clearly not in my best interest. So, after today... adieu NYT Crossword Puzzle. I won't say it hasn't had its moments...

Georges who wrote "Life: A User's Manual" = PEREC (Apparently, he once wrote a novel without using a single 'e' - that's cool!)

Conductor ____ -Pekka Salonen = ESA (See: this in the same puzzle with Dr. Dre and Lil' Kim)

Worked (up) = HET (Just what I thought: hokey slang words - het means heat as in heated up)

Study of natural animal behavior patterns = ETHOLOGY (I never would guess that there was a word for this)

Lepidopterous movie monster = MOTHRA (I kept racking my brain for a "butterfly beast")

Reagan adviser Nofziger = LYN (His name was Franklyn, and he chose to go by 'Lyn"? And he's a guy?? What a kook - the short form of Franklyn (notice the lack of orthographic awareness in his parents) is Frank!! Duh! (or Fran if you're feeling a little femmy.))

The award for lamest clue in the puzzle:
Numbers, at times = DENTISTS (get it - one who 'numbs' - *GROAN*)

Runner-up:
Ceylon's capital? = SOFT C (No - it's Colombo. I hate these little playful clues)

NYT Crossword, 1005

This one was a killer puzzle. There's too much I didn't know to list it all, so I'll just hit the highlights:

• Seafood dishes = PAELLAS (Doesn't look that appetizing to me.)
• Lid attachment = LASH (?? - it must be referring to the eyelid)
• What "matar" means on an Indian menu = PEAS (Not a big Indian food fan - I don't curry the favor of curry.)
• Great Trek trekker = BOER (This one rang a bell once I got it.)
• Bygone P.M. with a palindromic name = UNU (U Nu, Who knew?)
• "Ville d'Avray" painter = COROT (Nothing stellar, but his stuff looks nice.)
• Home of the Cadillac Ranch = AMARILLO (You never know what Route 66 will throw at you.)
• Thomas Gray and others = ELEGISTS (He even has his own website!)
• Sport for rikishi = SUMO (Fat guys, uncomfortable underwear... what else can you say?)
• "Killer" program = APP (Nerd lingo that even I don't know!)
• Small birds, in British lingo = TOMTITS (short for Tom titmouse)
• Forerunner of the KGB = OGPU (The USSR was so good with acronyms, almost rivaled the USA)

Like I said... tons of stuff could be here, but this is the best of the lot.

Enuma Elish - The Epic of Creation

The Epic of Creation

Synopsis:

The beginning of the gods is Apsu, who mated with Tiamat to create the race of gods. From them eventually descended Anu and Ea, who learned how Apsu plotted the destruction of the gods because their noise kept him from rest. Ea caught Apsu, killed him, and built his house on top of him (so that the home of the gods was called Apsu). There, Marduk was born.

Marduk was a storm god, and he stirred up such confusion that Tiamat now plotted to destroy the race of the gods. She created an army of monsters and made Qingu the leader of her forces, by giving him the Tablet of Destinies. Both Anu and Ea tried to fight against Tiamat but were unable to win. Then Marduk offered to be the Hero of the gods and defeat Tiamat, in exchange for the kingship of the gods.

Marduk met Tiamat's army and challenged her to single combat. Marduk defeated her and gained the kingship of the gods. He then used the body of Tiamat to create the world, and the body of Qingu to cerate mankind to free the gods from their labors. The end of the tale proclaims the 50 name-titles that Marduk won.

Analysis:

The purpose of this poem is not actually to recount the creation of the world, but rather to explain how Marduk came to be ruler of heaven and earth. It centers the world on Babylon, the heart of Marduk's worship. Incidental to this is the account of Marduk creating the world and mankind. The role of men as slaves to the gods is explained most briefly. The overriding theme of the poem, as in so many Mesopotamian poems, is conflict and strife, or the quest for peace. That is what Marduk's victory over Tiamat brings: peace and order.

The principle of names as the power to bring chaos into order is present throughout. In the beginning, the poem notes, there were no names for things. By the end of the poem, Marduk has been given 50 name-titles which explain and grant his powers over heaven and earth.

Conflict arises early and often in this poem. Apsu cannot quell the noise of the gods he has created, so he plots to destroy them. Tiamat dissuades him, only to later turn on her own offspring and create monsters to attack them. Marduk himself is a storm god, controller of the winds, which are forces of chaos when unleashed. His foes are often described as raging out of control. It is only with Marduk's victory that peace and obedience are fully brought to pass.

The quest for power and kingship is the main source of conflict in the poem. Apsu is overthrown by Ea. Tiamat grants the Anu-power and Tablet of Destinies to Qingu in an attempt at matriarchal power, which fails against Marduk, who uses the war with Tiamat to become king of heaven himself. We should of course be reminded here of the stories of Ouranos, Cronos, and Zeus in Greek accounts of the origins of the gods.

NYT Crossword, 0928

I was going along so well, that I was really upset with myself for not being able to finish. It was like when you're cruising down the highway making great time and then whammo! road construction not only eats up all your gained time but adds on another hour. Ugh! I did put lots of question marks next to the clues - so let's see what kind of stretch they really were.

The Question marks:

• X out = OMIT (Now, I understand omit to be a passive form of forgetting, whereas to X something out suggests actively excluding. I suppose the definition is broad enough to encompass general non-inclusion, but I still think of this as synonymous with forgetting not excluding).
• Altercation = SETTO (OK, there was actually an entry for 'set to' and it does fit altercation, so I guess I have to give this one to the puzzler.)
• Battery part = TEST (I guess this is referring to a 'battery of tests', whereas I kept looking for some word shorter than anode or cathode. A little hokey in my opinion.)
• A large number = RAFTS (OK, so I was right - no one uses this anymore. I found the appropriate definitinon at Online Etymology.)
• Score just before victory, maybe = ADIN (Presumably 'ad in' - but I've never heard of this. Ah . . . it's a tennis term, short for 'advantage in'. Not a big tennis guy.)

Regular stuff:

• City near tel Aviv = LOD
• Vinegar: prefix = ACETO (I'm not convinced this is actually a 'prefix', but it is used with vinegar)
• Orbital point = APSIS (I so wanted 'focus', but this is more correct for the clue, so the puzzler wins.)
• W.W. II gun = STEN (I guess right but now I know it is a submachine gun of British make.)
• A leveret is a young one = HARE (This is the kind of educational stuff I'm looking for in a crossword.)
• Like some eggs or cloth = SHIRRED (Rex Parker didn't like this one, but it seems good, if obscure, to me.)
• City near Milan = LODI
• St. Louis' ______ Bridge = EADS (I hate these localized clues, and I think I've even driven on this bridge.)
• Rusty on the diamond = STAUB (Sounded vaguely familiar once I figured it out, a hold over from my baseball crazy youth, I suppose.)
• Utah's lily = SEGO (I've lived in Utah, but this one got me - it's not sage, huh?)
• Wahine's dance = HULA (I found you a video for this one.)
• Hops kiln = OAST
• Whine = PULE (I hate whiners!)

P.S.
The best clue was: Kind of difference, oxymoronically = SAME

P.P.S.
Second week in row: Mormons, initially = LDS

Anzu

Anzu
(Late Babylonian, First Millennium BC)

Rather than a commentary, I am going to re-write this story. In the re-write I hope that some of the most interesting features of this story come out. This is a rich text, epic in nature. It is unfortunate that so much has been lost, because the language of the Akkadian (even in translation) is powerful and evocative.

My re-telling:

This is the story of Ninurta and Anzu, which took place in the early days, before even the creation of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Ninurta (whose name was sometimes pronounced ‘Nimrod’) was the son of Ellil, the king of all populated lands and the head of the younger generation of gods known as the Igigi. Ninurta himself was sometimes called the champion of Ellil and was famous for his victories over Anzu and the bull-man inside the Sea. Mami, the great mother goddess, also cherished her son Ninurta.

Anzu, a lion-headed eagle, was the offspring of earth and water, created to serve Ellil. Ellil made him the guardian of his chamber door. While in his service, Anzu saw with envy the emblems of Ellil’s power, including the great Tablet of Destinies, which contained spells and instructions for religious rites. Anzu’s desire to usurp Ellil’s throne and his power to command the other gods grew until Anzu seized his chance one day while Ellil bathed. Anzu grabbed the Tablet of Destinies and fled into hiding.

When Ellil learned of Anzu’s treachery, he was dumb-founded. No longer could he lead the gods in the religious rituals contained on the tablet. It was the Tablet that had made him Ellil. As the gods debated amongst themselves and sought a solution, Ellil’s father, Anu, issued a decree promising a great reward for whoever should find Anzu and bring back the Tablet of Destinies. But everyone was afraid of Anzu now that he possessed this great knowledge. By the power of his words, he could turn his enemies into clay. First Adad, controller of the canals, declined the task. Then Gerra, the fire god, refused the offer. Next it was Shara, the son of Ishtar and known as the hero of Anu, who refused.

The great god of wisdom, Ea, offered to choose the god who would go up against Anzu. He called upon Mami, who had created the assembly of the gods, had made Anu king of heaven, and assigned to Ellil his power, for help. Ea offered to Mami the title “Mistress of All the Gods” if she would commission Ninurta for this task. She agreed and all the gods reverenced her, for their fears were now abated. Ninurta accepted the task from his mother, as well her instructions. He was commanded to use tricks and disguises to combat Anzu, relying upon fog and light to help him get at his foe.

Ninurta gathered his forces, known as the Seven of Battle, along with the power of the winds to face Anzu. Anzu roared like a lion, raged, and attempted to wield his new authority, challenging Ninurta, “Who are you to come up against me, who controls the Tablet of Destinies?” Ninurta declared himself the avenger of Ellil. The fog of war descended upon the mountain where they faced each other. As their forces engaged, Ninurta drew his bow and fired a shaft at Anzu, but he simply turned the arrow around with a spell from the Tablet of Destinies.

Ninurta entrusted a messenger to relay what he had seen to Ea. Ea sent back instructions: “Don’t let up; press your attack! Strip him of his feathers, and when he attempts his spell, seize him by the throat and slit it! Let the wind carry those stripped feathers to heaven as a sign of your victory.” And so Ninurta wore Anzu down, stripped him of his pinion feathers, and finally pierced his heart. Ninurta recovered the Tablet of Destinies, and the gods rejoiced.

Ninurta was slow to return to the assembly of the gods, tempted by the ruling power contained in the Tablet. Eventually, he did return and Ellil pronounced his praise of Ninurta: “You have made all foes kneel at the feet of your father. For that you shall have dominion over all.” Ellil granted unto Ninurta a host of name-titles by which he would exercise his power over all.

Commentary:

OK, a few notes: This is a story about power, particularly the power of words, especially as encapsulated in writing. It seems that it is the Tablet of Destinies which makes Ellil powerful; he governs by its authority. And the name Ellil seems to be a name-title - the Tablet grants him the Ellil-power. Ellil is rendered, essentially, speechless by the theft of the Tablet. After Anzu steals the Tablet, Ellil does not speak again until the Tablet is recovered by Ninurta. The power of the Tablet is recognized by all the gods, who are too afraid to challenge Anzu. Only an epic battle of strength between Ninurta and Anzu can restore the Tablet to Ellil. It would seem that following the recovery, Ninurta becomes the real ruler of the world, although Ellil remains nominally in charge. Let he who understands, understand.

The Reading Odyssey hiatus

This blog is starting to look like a crossword blog, and that is not my intention. I've been pretty busy reading for my classes lately (good stuff, too: Oedipus the King, Plato's Apology, and Antigone, as well as Josephine Tey's novel, The Daughter of Time.) But I want to get back to Mesopotamia... and soon! Look for a new post anon.

NYT Crossword, 0921

This was a hard puzzle, made so in part because of a few quirks of the puzzle. It seemed that there was an inordinate amount of proper names in this puzzle and some really tricky, as in 'trick', clues. I'm also just not a fan of 'common phrasal' answers of which there were several (like 'on a tear', 'end it', 'cash in', 'CD rates', 'true to' etc. OK, I didn't even get close to finishing this on my own.

The thematic answers are particularly educational this time, so I'll got through them. The theme was 'It's a Mystery', and 109-Across provided a helpful clue: Ones in charge of a case . . . or a literal hint to the eight other longest answers in this puzzle = LEAD DETECTIVES:

• School in Madison, NJ = DREW UNIVERSITY (reference = Nancy Drew. Family inside joke: "...A horrible Gorilla face!")
• "The Divine Comedy." for Dante = MAGNUM OPUS (reference = Magnum PI. We used to watch this pretty faithfully when I was a kid.)
• Don't believe it = FISH STORY (reference = Detective Phil Fish. From Barney Miller, played by Abe Vigoda. Got his own spin-off show for a while.)
  
• Track-and-field event = HAMMER THROW (reference = Mike Hammer. Crime novels by Mickey Spillane - I think I saw a TV version once, with Stacey Keach.)
• Dropped off = FELL ASLEEP (reference = Dr. Gideon Fell. Crime novels by John Dickson Carr. The name 'Dr. Fell' sounds familiar, but it's not ringing any concrete bells.)
• Pantry array = MASON JARS (reference = Perry Mason. This may have started out as novels, but I'm sure what most people remember is the TV show. Raymond Burry goodness.)
• Beloved figure in England = QUEEN MOTHER (reference = Ellery Queen. Eveyone who likes mystery stories has heard of him, but have they read him?)
• Card game played to 61 = SPADE CASINO (reference = Sam Spade. I'm sure everyone who reads or hears this name thinks Humphrey Bogart, not Dashiell Hammett.)

Other goodies in the puzzle:

• Poet whose last words were "Of course [God] will forgive me; that's his business." = HEINE
• ____ rancheros = HUEVOS (I know Latin and French, but not Spanish. And I don't eat breakfast at Mexican restaurants.)
• Classic theater name = RIALTO (I'm assuming it is referring to the one in L.A. But there is also one in Tucson.)
• Turned right = GEED (Say what? I noticed that the dictionary says this is of uncertain origin. Comforting.)
• "On Language" columnist = SAFIRE (How appropriate for the NYT crossword. This looks pretty interesting. Maybe I'll have to start reading this column.)
• City with the world's first telehone directory (1878) = NEW HAVEN (Useful to know for trivia games I guess.)
• The shakes = DTS (Now I know why I didn't know this.)
• Novelist who wrote "The Gravedigger's Daughter" = OATES
• Italy's Reggia di ___ (royal palace) = CASERTA (Ok, my Italian's not so good either. And I kept wanting something like 'palacio'. But in the end was rather historical, so I should have known it.)
• Quaint letter opener = TOSIR (Get it? 'To Sir.' I didn't. What kind of idiot opens a letter this way? I was looking for something akin to a pen knife.)
• Extremely pleasing, in slang = FABU (Who actually says this? That is just dumb!)
• Yemeni money = RIAL (I suppose every country has to have theirs. And dollar or pound was already used. Of course, this is just a version of the old Spanish real, I believe. And it is also used in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil, and Cambodia. The Brazil I can understand.)
• Loose overcoat = RAGLAN (The coat is described by the particular style of its sleeve. I found some pictures.)
• Letters on a brandy bottle = VSO (Means 'very superior old')
• Stewpots = OLLAS

Lastly, there is a fine line between clever and stupid. I'll let you be the judge (I have my own opinion about each - some clever, some stupid). Are these clever clues or stupid? Can you guess which one(s) I found stupid?

• Had work looming? = WOVE
• French subjects? = TENSES
• Cover many subjects? = REIGN

And a P.S. nod to:

The Mormons, initially = LDS

NYT Crossword, 0914

This was the hardest puzzle I've done in some time, but I was excited to finally figure out the puzzle theme all on my own - it was one of those 'put multiple letters in one square' things (in this case it was month abbreviations). I missed four squares, though. But halfway through I thought I would never finish it.


Native tongue of R&B singer Rihanna = BAJAN (I had to guess 'Fijan' - I know, dumb, but I had no clue. You can probably guess how much I like R&B, and based on the photos in Wikipedia, she dresses like a slut. So, double whammy for her! And one for me on the crossword puzzle :( Oh, and Bajan is short for Barbadian Creole).

Ear part = COB (OK, duh, after seeing it. I had 'ceb' because I got the down wrong, and I just wasn't thinking corn here.)

Prefix with sphere = ATMO (Again, the bad down gave me ATTO. I figured it was some funky geometry or metric term. I remain unconvinced that atmo- is really a 'prefix'. It is really just the first half of a compound word comprised of one Greek word (atmos = vapor) and one Latin word (sphere = well, sphere).)

Proust title character = SWANN (I'm just not very enamoured of modern literature. Still, I should probably know the titles of modern literary works at least. I have heard of his most famous work, translated either as In Search of Lost Time or Remembrance of Things Past.)

Sioux tribe member = OTO (How convenient, you can spell it with an -e or not. Crossworders have to love that! And they're related to the Winnebago - that's gotta be good for a clue sometime.)

State capital on the Colorado River = AUSTIN (Lame!!! I grew up in Arizona. I know where the Colorado River is. These Texans need to get their own name for a river that never even leaves Texas, and leave the name for the one which actually travels through Colorado. Sheesh! There are, in fact, Colorado Rivers in Colorado, Texas, Argentina, Costa Rica, and Chile.)

Langston Hughes poem = ITOO (As you can probably imagine, based on many of my other comments, I'm not into Langston Hughes poetry. I'm not really into any poetry besides Homer, but the older the poem, the more interested I may become. So, ol' Lanny H. here has a bit of time before getting on my interest list.)

___ Taylor, co-host of "Make Me a Supermodel" = NIKI (If I did watch TV, it certainly wouldn't be this kind of drivel! I actually guessed her name - how many names are there for your basic run-of-the-mill TV slut?)

Boils down = DECOCTS (You learn a new word everyday.)

Symptom of catarrh = HACK (OK, you learn a couple of new words every day.)

Samuel L. Jackson's character in "Pulp Fiction" = JULES (Clearly, this puzzle-maker and I have vastly different interests and tastes. No wonder it was so hard. I guess you can't always play a cool character like Mace Windu. Here's a tasty little titbit, though: 'According to the Guiness Book of World Records 2009 (released on 17th September 2008) he is the world's highest grossing actor, having earned $7.42 billion in 68 films.')

Wig = PERUKE (Boy, the new words just keep rolling in... and I'm only at the end of the acrosses.)

Basic travel path = ATOB (I kept asking, what the heck is a 'tob' or an 'atob'. Doh! A to B!! I often get stumped on the similar ABC in answer to a clue like 'Epitome of simplicity' or some such.)

First name in gossip = RONA (I'm not even interested in making a snide comment on this one. Moving on...)

Small African antelope = ORIBI (I don't think this guy is even in my National Geographic mammal books. But it's in Wikipedia!)

Polite disclaimer = NODEAR (How is this a 'disclaimer'? It's a stretch for the secondary definition on Webster's.)

White wine from Verona = SOAVE (I know where Verona is, does that count for anything?)

Design feature of many a viaduct = ARCH (I am happy to see that this word 'viaduct' is a modern derivation from the old 'aqueduct'. If they had just said 'aqueduct', I would have gotten it much more quickly.)

NYT, 0907

Once again, I messed up three squares, and two of them I really should have gotten.

The unknown:

Bass _____ = ALE (Not being a drinker myself....)

Indians play it = RAGA (Not an instrument, but to certain kinds of melodies. The clue seems meant to be overly obscure.)

Pollster Roper = ELMO (Apparently, annoying fuzzy puppets aren't the only place you'll find this name.)

Analyze = ASSAY (I always think of this word in terms of definitions 5 & 6, but there it is, def. #1)

"Who _____?" (song from Les Miz) = AMI (Wasn't that hard to figure out, since this is a common enough answer in crosswords, but what kind of idiot abbreviates Les Miserables to "Les Miz" - ugh! I thought it was some dumb band out there making a play on the name.)

Commentator Myers = DEEDEE (I thought DEEDEL didn't look right)

____ Thomas, the Soul Queen of New Orleans = IRMA (Catchy title, but soul music is definitely not my thing!)

Michael of "Caddyshack" = OKEEFE (I can just tell that this movie must be dumb, so I have never seen fit to waste the time to see it - watching paint dry might prove more worthwhile, frankly.)

Control surface on a plane's wing = ELEVON (Now there I feel like I have learned something useful.)

Lady of Brazil = SENHORA (I guess the Portuguese can't be the same as Spanish.)

Michigan College = ALMA (At least it's not the University of Michigan.)

Actor Jason of the Harry Potter films = ISAACS (Not having the slightest interst in seeing these... apparently he plays Lucius Malfoy)

"All _____" (Tomlin film) = OFME (80s comedy - enough said)

Musical matchmaker = YENTE (From Fiddler on the Roof - Great musical, but I couldn't remember her name.)


The questionable:

All: Prefix = OMN (Although technically the root of the Latin word omnis is 'omn', in English we use omni-, as in omnidirectional, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibus, etc. So, 'omn' is not a prefix to anything.)

You might not be able to stand this = PAT (From the common phrase 'stand pat'. Sorry - you lose! This is just a bad clue.)

Isolate = ENISLE (Ok, it is a word (I had my doubts), but it is a dumb word!)

Tube lineup = SKED (Short for Schedule? No. The short form would be 'sched.' You can't just make stuff up in crosswords!!!)

NYT Crossword, 0831

I got close again - missed three squares:

Colonial John = ALDEN (I figured it was Alden or Arden, and I guessed wrong!) crossed with
Stopping Place in a Carlo Levi title = EBOLI (Never even heard of Carlo Levi)

"_____ Mucho" (1944 #1 hit) = BESAME and
Maximum extent = HILT (a little misleading, since this is always a phrase: to the hilt) crossed with
Oscar winner Jannings and others = EMILS (First Oscar winner)

Other things I didn't know:

• Jobs for some underwriters, for short = IPOS (= initial public offerings - I'm not a big stock market fan)
• Humorist Sedaris = AMY (I have heard of her brother, David).
• Blasts from the past, briefly = NTESTS (Add this to A-Test or H-Test - why didn't they just come up with one standard designation?)
• "This Boy's Life" author Wolff = TOBIAS (Cool name.)
• "Pagliacci" clown = TONIO (Opera - it gets me every time.)
• Toastmaster General of old comedy = JESSEL (George Jessel did indeed declare himself Toastmaster General of the United States.)
• Hungarian playwright known for "Liliom" = MOLNAR (Ferenc Molnar wrote this basis for the muscial Carousel)
• Like a line, briefly = ONED (As in one dimensional - whose going to get that?)

One minor issue:
Home of the world's northernmost capital: abbr. = ICEL (Hokey. Is Icel. really an abbreviation for Iceland? I thought IS was the standard. You can't just abbreviate something wherever you want, especially crossing syllables. Although I guess people do that with Engl., but I still think that should be Eng.)

Review: Dumbing Us Down

John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. New Society Publishers, 1992.

John Gatto is an award-winning schoolteacher who has spoken and written extensively on what he perceives to be some of the major ills of our public schools. Of course, many people think there are a few small problems that should be fixed with their schools, but for some reason, most people seem satisfied enough with the system. Gatto believes that the system cannot be reformed and that the only solution is to scrap it and start over, and he offers some advice for how to do that too. Of course, we all know that he is fighting a losing battle. All the people who benefit, particularly financially, from the public school system will make sure that no serious reform ever happens. Look at No Child Left Behind. Sure no one seems to like it now, and many won’t admit that they liked it when it first came out, but everyone figured we needed something to fix our problems. But the problem, according to Gatto’s views in this book, is that that ‘reform’ simply further entrenched the teacher certification programs (reiterating that only people certifiably educated in a specific field should be teaching children regardless of their actual ability), imposed more rigid standards upon students, and never got to the heart of the problem, which is that schools have been created to supply us with networks that serve as false communities, letting us know that we are pseudo-members of something, but true members of nothing. For Gatto, the solution lies in families.

Now I was probably pre-disposed to appreciate and agree with Gatto’s views, especially since he praises homeschooling as a positive alternative to subjecting your child to the “system”. In reading the book, however, anyone should be able to get a sense of how his views have been shaped, not by some innate hatred of the system or by his own bad experiences in the system, but by his genuine love for his students. He sees, day after day, the harm that is done to the intellectual potential of many a young child. He recognizes the powerful forces (school and TV) which shape our children more than their home and family life.

My favorite essay is the “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher”, wherein he reveals what his real job as a public school teacher is: to create confusion in students minds, to instill an ever greater sense of class position in all, to sow the seeds of indifference in every student’s young mind, to make students emotionally and intellectually dependent upon others (their superiors) so that they come to feel that their own worth can only be determined by others (again, their superiors), and finally to constantly remind students that they cannot hide or find any time for themselves outside of society as a whole. In other words, he works everyday to train the perfect Wal-Mart associate, all at the tax-payer’s expense, instead of Wal-Mart’s.

I obviously think everyone should read this book, especially those who send their kids to public school, but I know that most people are either willfully ignorant of the problems of schools (since they look at themselves and say, “Hey, public school worked great for me and most importantly I’m perfectly normal and not a weirdo like those homeschoolers” – yeah, hooked onn foniks werked fer mee!) or prefer to let the “experts” – and peer pressure – make the most important decisions about their child’s intellectual, emotional and social well-being. Either that or they just need the free daycare while they go to work at Wal-Mart – and someday their kid will be just like them! I plan to use a lot of Gatto’s stuff when people challenge me on the home school issue. Hey, if you can logically refute Gatto, then I’ll be happy to listen to you – but good luck on that - I teach the results of this system everyday!

Review: Eastern Philosophy for Beginners

Jim Powell. Eastern Philosophy for Beginners (A Writers and Readers Documentary Comic Book). Illustrated by Joe Lee. Writers and Readers Publishing, 2000.

I needed a primer to help me better understand Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism for my world civilizations course. I had hoped that this "comic book" approach would be right at the level of myself and my students - since all I needed was the basics. I can honestly say that I learned quite a bit from this book, but I was also disappointed in how disjointed that new knowledge feels. This book could really benefit from a more systematic approach to teaching the concepts and principles of eastern philosophy. Having said that, I realize that this is just not the series for such an approach. The idea here was to present these 'foreign' ideas through a conversation that a neophyte like myself might have with one who knows, and with the major thinkers and writers from this tradition. The problem was that I couldn't halt the conversation to get further clarification on principles that the writer assumed I now understood based on what was provided. Sometimes these concepts suffered from the age-old problem of how one who has explored the deeper meanings of the ideas teaches the novice at a level that doesn't distort, but doesn't insist upon every nuance either. This is the same principle that explains why I have more trouble teaching the Early Middle Ages than the Roman Republic - I just know too much about the complexities of certain issues to be satisfied with a simplified explanation for my students. And then I only succeed in confusing. But admittedly, what I think it really reveals is a knowledge that is deep, but not quite deep enough - I know enough to understand the complexities, but not well enough to fully explicate those complexities simply. That may be the problem in this book too.

Other criticisms of the book are in the actual content. I might debate the real value of introducing in a page or so the many varieties that have developed within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Confucianism, but I can accept that as an author's choice when he wants to offer a wide survey within a limited space and do some justice to the complexities of his subject. My major gripe is the presence of a certain bias apparent within some of the political commentaries that accompany (Chinese in particular) certain modern philosophies. Whether you agree or disagree with the Chinese occupation of Tibet, this beginners book is hardly the place to discuss its inherent brutalities, especially since the intended audience is unlikely to know much about it, and thus the author is simply taking advantage of ignorance to brainwash, or perhaps predispose to your position would be a less harsh phrasing of this idea, the reader into your point of view.

The other problem I had with the book was the inclusion of sexually explicit discussion and images of some aspects of certain of these philosophies. References to sex are probably unavoidable in a proper discussion of these philosophies, but I don't think they need to be discussed in such graphic detail, especially this aspect is usually just one amongst many of the concepts associated with the philosophy. So, at the very least if you choose to, and I'm not necessarily trying to dissuade you from reading this book since it has some merit, be aware that just because it has a "comic book" style does not mean it is appropriate for children.

Review: Monk's Hood

I recently finished Book 3 of the Cadfael series. I don't think it was as good as the first two two books in the series, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. Part of this may be due to the lack of any real action in the book. The murder happens, so Cadfael investigates, overcomes some minor obstacles, and solves the case. I have to say also, that my first inclination of who the murderer was right, and I only wavered from that conviction for a short while during the book. What does 'happen' in this book is that we learn quite a bit more about Cadfael's past, since he encounters someone from that past. Character development is rarely very exciting, but it does make the series as a whole richer, so I'm not complaining.

The one thing to talk about this book, and I'm trying not to give too much of the book away as I do it, is Cadfael's intervention in justice. In the second book, Cadfael had taken a bit of the law into his own hands, but in the end, the workings of medieval justice were played out. In this book, Cadfael judges the murder, not necessarily excusable, but understandable, and the murderer to be undeserving of the penalty of the law (which would have been death, particularly given the premeditated nature of the murder). So, Cadfael essentially imposes his own punishment (or perhaps 'penance' would be a better word) on the murderer and lets him go. It's one thing to hide a suspect that you are convinced is innocent, and maybe even help him escape, as has happened in all the books thus far, but it is different when you are dealing with the proven guilty. The reader is supposed to feel good about this resolution because the murderer is indeed sincere in his repentance, and the good he can do will probably outweigh his evil deed, but we must conveniently forget that a man was murdered - perhaps not the best of men, but definitely far from the worst of men either.

This strikes me as the author imposing something of her own modern views of justice upon the story, rather than being true to her setting and characters. The author already has this problem with Cadfael the character anyway, as he always come off as a bit less than medieval, and a little too modern in his tolerant and unjudgemental attitude. One of the hallmarks of this series is its authentic medieval setting, but sometimes it feels as if we are following the story of a sympathetic detective from Scotland Yard who has been tossed through a time machine, rather than a former crusader and current monk. Peters is careful to keep him completely dedicated to his monatic vows, which I applaud as being wholly in keeping with the character as I understand him, and his experiences in the East certainly could have given anyone greater perspective on their world (although most who went on crusade, especially the first one, would hardly have changed their views about the world, but rather would have reinforced many of them from the experience). I'll be interested to see whether this trend continues in future books.

NYT Crossword, 0824

This was a pretty doable puzzle, although in the end I did miss one square (the M):

24A Teensy bit = ATOM
19D Subgenre of punk rock = EMO

I think the across is a little iffy, and although I have listend to some punk rock in my day, I have never heard of emo, so I apparently never experienced the 'emotive hardcore' scene of punk rock (a 90s thing, whereas my punk exposure is more 80s).

Most of the puzzle was pretty straightforward, but there were a few other questionable clues, along with the regular stuff I have never heard of.

• Agent Gold of "Entourage" = ARI (HBO show. The guy playing this part was Cupid from the old, and odd, TV show of the same name. I saw a few episodes of that, but I've never even heard of this show - just as well from what I can tell from the YouTube clips.)
• _____ in cat" = CAS (You know, the old 'C as in Cat'. This is just plain dumb. The blank is too misleading in my opinion. Maybe if the blank encompassed the 'in', or better: 'C ____ cat' = ASIN. That I could agree with.)
• Sequoyah, for one = CHEROKEE (I kept trying to make this into a Redwood tree, but I guess that would be sequoia.)
• "____ et manus" (M.I.T.'s motto) = MENS (I knew this one, I just wanted to highlight it because it is so appropriate for that engineering school (you don't always see that in school mottos): 'mind and hand'. There were a couple of Latin clues in this puzzle, which I appreciated.)
• Some corner stores = BODEGAS (Ah, that's what you call those little Mexican shops you see. I think this is a bad clue, though. Unless you live in some area where these are prominent, how are you going to know this? Maybe if they added something to indicate the Hispanic origins of the word.)
• Author mentioned in the Beatles' "I am the Walrus" = POE (Common crossword answer, but I've never seen this clued this way. I am only vaguely familiar with this song, so I had no idea that it referenced Poe. After reading the lyrics and a little about the background to the song, I can surely say that I won't be becoming any more familiar with this tripe - once you're famous musicians you sure can get away with a lot of crap in your lyrics.)
• Trillionth: prefix = PICO (I can just never keep these small SI prefixes straight. This one lies between nano- and femto-)
• "Death in Venice" and "Of Mice and Men" = NOVELLAS (My wife got this one. I didn't realize that "Of Mice and Men" was a novella and not just a plain novel. Of course, I'm not a big fan of Steinbeck anyway.)
• Experimented too much? = ODED (You mean the clue for this wasn't 'Just wrote a poem'? The problem with crosswords sometimes is their lack of punctuation or capitalization. I didn't even realize this was the shortened form of 'overdosed' until I looked up ODed in the dictionary. It was there, so I guess this clue was legit.)
• Court figure = TRIER (Say what? I guess I would be more miffed if the clue was "one who attempts", but better would have been 'German name for Treves'. Still, his definition was in the dictionary.)
• "Broom-___" = HILDA (This is a comic strip with an obvious play on the name Brunhilde.)
• Commerce treaty starting in 1947 = GATT (I had heard of this before, and got it in the puzzle, but I wanted to read a little more about it. It stands for General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.)
• "Oh, pooh!" = TISH (This puzzle had a bunch of these lame expression words (AHH, PUHLEASE, ERS, etc.). I think a better cue would have been something about the Hasidic celebration. Not that I would have gotten that either.)
• "Stupidest thing I ever heard!" = PUHLEASE (see previous note).
• Ottoman bigshot = AGA (This one is a regular crossword word, but I can never seem to remember it. What I never see is this used as the acronym for American Gas Association, American Gastroenterological Association, Association of Government Accountants, American Go Association, Arizona Golf Association, etc. (those two A's can make any American ___ Association, or even any Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas or Arizona Assocation). But instead we always get the Turkish title clue.)
• Bygone TV control: Abbr. = HOR (As opposed to VERT. Don't new fangled TVs have this adjustment?)
• "A Little Princess" heroine and others = SARAS (Never read this one.)
• "____ Wedding," Alan Alda film = BETSYS (You know, that guy never did anything good outside of MASH - one hit wonder kind of actor. Maybe Hawkeye was just like him, so it was easy. Or maybe he just had better writers on that show. Ever seen Sweet Liberty? Horrible! But he's still going...)
• "___ cried" (1962 hit) = SHE (Who the heck are Jay and the Americans? This was a 'hit'???)
• Black-eyed legume = COWPEA (No comment.)
• Comic Charles Nelson ____ = REILLY (It probably says it all that the clue had to provide 2 of his 3 names for us to get it. This guy must not have been that funny, since I've never heard of him :) )
• Bide-____ = AWEE (OK, after some Internet searching, I still don't really know what this is referring to. Is it the pet adoption people? Is it the Curtis Strange designed municipal golf course? Is it the California motel? Who knows (who cares?)?)
• Many-armed Hindu goddess = KALI (There are so many, how to keep track of them? My favorite is the elephant-head one. Isn't this the same cult as in the Beatles HELP!?) )
• Old actresses Claire and Balin = INAS (Now there's a name no one uses any more. Maybe it will make a comeback, once we're done with all these McKenzies, Madisons, and Brittanies.)

NYT Crossword, 0817

I have to say that I could not have gotten as close as I did (7 wrong squares) without the help of my wife. I liked the puzzle theme (movie titles minus the last letter), but found some of the puzzle (especially the top right corner) quite difficult. I've noticed that some of the crossword bloggers out there really like clever pop culture clues. I can't stand them. Rappers, TV actors, etc. ought to be banned from good puzzles. Apparently, from what I can tell, I'm part of one faction in the crossword world, but there is an opposing group who love the pop culture crap. I was glad to see that many of the toughies were challenging for Rex Parker as well.

Issues:
Another crossword pet peeve of mine: clues that could never be gotten until you fill in the crosswords - I think a good clue should be gettable just from the clue itself. Hence, I'm always annoyed by clues like "Direction", which could be ENE, ESE, WSW, ESE, NNE, etc... Today's irksome clues: 51A English 8-Down; 8D Latin 51-Across. Ugh!

26A Many a Turk = ANATOLIAN (OK, sure Turkey is mainly based in Anatolia, although Istanbul is not, and there are Turkish peoples scattered across other Central Asian countries, but Anatolian really should be used only for the original inhabitants of Anatolia, like the Hittites; even though they have lived in Anatolia for more than a millennium, I still think of Turks as Central Asian peoples. OK, perhaps the ancient historian is over thinking this one...)

The unknown:

• It surrounds a lens = UVEA (I kept wanting something related to a camera.)
• Oscar and Tony winner Mercedes = RUEHL (I haven't really seen anything that she's done.)
• Movie Adaptation of "L.A. Law"? = CALIFORNIA SUIT (This was one of the theme clues, but I had never even heard of the movie California Suite. Based on the synopsis, it isn't one I'll be seeing either.)
• 2000 title role for Richard Gere = DRT (Dr. T and the Women - another winner it looks like.)
• Former Voice of America Org. = USIA (Apparently the Unites States Information Agency is now defunct. I'm amazed that any bureaucratic office ever gets axed in our government, frankly.)
• Der Blaue Reiter artist = ARP (Herr Arp was not one of the big names of this short-lived artistic group. But he was famous enough in his own right. More interesting to me is that since he was Alsatian, and lived during the time when this area went back and forth between France and Germany, he went by Jean Arp when he spoke French and Hans Arp when he spoke German.)
• ____-jazz (music style) = AVANT (I'm not all that interested in anything related to jazz, and especially not weird breakoff versions of jazz.)
• George who was nicknamed "the man who owned Broadway" = COHAN (Interesting, and probably useful for crossword makers, that his name is not the traditional cohen with an 'e'.)
• 1985 Peter Yates-directed film = ELENI
• Handle, in archaeology = ANSA (I'm embarrassed to not have known this, since I have a read a fair amount of ancient archeology stuff. But honestly, I have never seen this term in any of my reading. The authors probably just use 'handle'.)
• Young salmon = SMOLT (I just couldn't get past the traditional young fish crossword answer: ROE)
• Writer Buchanan and others = EDNAS (Ah, a purveyor of what I call "fluff fiction". That explains all.)
• Strong cart = DRAY
• "Deliver Us from ____" (2003 film) = EVA (LL Cool J. The hip-hop version of The Taming of the Shrew. Enough said.)
• Keats's "The Eve of St. _______" = AGNES (Now, this is the kind of high culture that should be in a crossword. Of course, I didn't know this one, but I knew the movie A Hard Days Night. What can I say? I'm woefully uneducated!)
• Schreiber of "The Manchurian Candidate" = LIEV (Essentially a pop culture question, especially since his version is the remake.)
• Potty = DAFT (Desperately trying to obscure this word, the author went for British colloquialism)