May 22, 2013

Review | Frozen in Time by Mitchell Zuckoff

Frozen in Time: An Epic Story of Survival and a Modern Quest for Lost Heroes of World War IIThere was a moment when reading Mitchell Zuckoff‘s latest book, Frozen in Time: An Epic Story of Survival and a Modern Quest for Lost Heroes of World War II, that I crossed over from a mildly interested reader to a rabid page turner. I’m pretty sure it was in the first chapter, if not the first couple pages.

Frozen in Time is, as its title only slightly exaggerates, an epic tale. Spanning from World War Two until the present, it is a work of non-fiction, to be sure, but no less gripping and exciting. Set in Greenland (and not the warm part, because there isn’t one), Zuckoff tells the story of the rescue of downed airmen during the winter of 1942. What begins as the search-and-rescue of a missing cargo plane soon becomes a fight for survival as a B-17 involved in the search slams into a glacier, stranding its nine passengers on the ice. A second daring rescue by a Grumman Duck amphibious plane results in another crash, and the nine airmen are forced to wait the winter out in the remains of their destroyed plane.

Heroic efforts by both rescuers and rescued are the subject of Zuckoff’s story. There are crevices, unstable glaciers, planes landing blind on the ice, hot wired radio equipment, frostbite, dog sled teams, hypothermia, fear of polar bears, and, always, snow. Snow, snow, and more snow. Taking place in the past and the present, Zuckoff weaves in a modern story about the efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard and North South Polar to find and recover the remains of the Grumman Duck lost during the rescue effort.

After reading Lost in Shangri-La last year, I was more than impressed that Zuckoff was able to raise his game. His dedication is admirable, as well. Asked by Lou Sapienza, head of North South Polar, if Jon Krakauer (the author of Into Thin Air) wouldn’t be a better choice to write the book, Zuckoff replies with natural aplomb: you haven’t got Krakauer; you’ve got me. However, it soon becomes clear that Zuckoff’s confidence is as much hope as it is faith as the expedition to recover the Grumman Duck hits financial setbacks and Zuckoff puts expenses for the trip–about which he is writing a book–on his credit card and then on a second mortgage to his home.

It’s an investment that pays off and in grand conclusion. A modern-day treasure hunt, not for gold, but for men lost in the greatest quest–to save their fellow-man–Frozen in Time is a fast and enjoyable read, full of suspense, mystery, tragedy, and victory. I can’t wait to see what Zuckoff will write next.

[Review previously published at Attack of the Books!]


Get the book from Amazon and start reading!

Review | The Emperor of all Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee

Emperor of all MaladiesIn the author’s note to The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, Siddhartha Mukherjee  notes that “Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases.” It anticipates Mukherjee’s history, a look at cancer starting in the ages and proceeding forward to the modern-day. It’s a 4,000 year history, and Mukherjee tells it well.

The tale, spun almost novel-like at points, includes doctors, chemists, children, victims, and survivors, each a story in its own weaving into the greater narrative about one of the greatest diseases to ravage our race and that has eluded cure or solution.

I owe a shout out to my good cousin Adam, but for whose gift to me of the book I might not have read it. It’s a fascinating medical history, but completely accessible to the lay reader.



Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter E.


Related articles

 

Review | Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber

200px-Debt_GraeberBy all accounts, anything written by David Graeber is about as far from typical “conservative” fare that you might expect to find featured on this site. Graeber is an anthropologist and anarchist, an early member of the Occupy Wall Stree movement. He’s so “out there” that even Yale decided not to renew his contract as an assistant professor in 2005.

If he’s too liberal for Yale, then…well, you know. Probably too liberal for me, too, right?

Or maybe not.  If just to understand why the leaders of the Occupy Movement believe what they do, it might be worth the effort to read what he has written.

I heard about Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years from, of all places, a science fiction blog review (and my apologies for not remembering which one). The review described how sordid and strange certain cultures were in how they dealt with debt. It intrigued me: cultures on our own planet as foreign and strange as something that might appear in Star Trek or some other fictionally created world.

The descriptions don’t disappoint. But the strange trading rituals and bizarre debt arrangements between tribes, families, and individuals of the Australian outback, the African savanna, or the American forests that Graeber describes in his look at the last 5,000 years are just prelude. As the language of debt conflates sin, morality and finance, we come to Graeber’s central question:

What, precisely, does it mean to say that our sense of morality and justice is reduced to the language of a business deal? What does it mean when we reduce moral obligations to debts? What changes when the one turns into the other? And how do we speak about them when our language has been so shaped by the market?

English: David Graeber on a boat at Fire Island.

English: David Graeber on a boat at Fire Island. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s a fascinating question, and it’s hard to not sympathize with the quandary that Graeber sees in the language that we have developed to talk about debt, our capital systems, and markets. Even so, Graeber’s conclusions make straw men out of the theories underlying the modern market economy, starting with Adam Smith, dismissing them with only short thrift.

This isn’t to say that Graeber doesn’t see a place for markets. It is capitalism, as means for power and form of slavery, that Graeber despises. “It is the secret scandal of capitalism that at no point has it been organized primarily around free labor.”  For example, the conquest of the Americas is integrally connected to mass slavery, in the forms of African slavery and debt peonage. Chinese contract laborers built the North American railroad system, while “coolies” from India built South African silver mines. Peasants of Russia and Poland were free landholders through the middle ages, only becoming serfs at the dawn of capitalism.

And so on. The choice between state and market is wrong, he says, and it’s domination of political ideology over the last centuries has “made it difficult to argue about anything else.”

Capitalism requires constant consumption and destruction, Graeber argues, and for that reason has always been created by warfare and conquest, rather than as a replacement for barter as we have generally accepted (see Adam Smith).  With less and less to consume, humanity is reaching its social and ecological limits.

Graeber’s conclusions are, to say the least, a rewriting of history as we’ve been taught, to say nothing of how we view markets and capital.

I would like, then, to end by putting in a good word for the non-industrious poor. At least they aren’t hurting anyone. Insofar as the time they are taking time off from work is being spent with friends and family, enjoying and caring for those they love, they’re probably improving the world more than we acknowledge.”

English: occupy wall street

English: occupy wall street (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s a rosy look at people who need not work to produce because they are free from debt, and in that sense, completely free. It sounds great…but it’s rosy, and ignores human nature’s desires to create and work.

Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years  is a monster of a book, difficult even, though always fascinating. While I do not agree with the extremities to which his conclusions take him, there is something to be said for the corruption created when capital and political power are conflated. Crony capitalism is a distortion of the free market, just as political interference in the market is a distortion.

At the very least, Debt measures up as an interesting anthropological history of cultures as disparate from my western world as Vulcans or Klingons are from us. More importantly, and more to the point why I recommend you read Debt, unlike cultures created for science fiction, they are real, and that in itself is worth the read.



Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter D.

C is for Comeback America by David Walker

unemployment-rate

The national unemployment rate.

Sometimes, I’m a cynic.

For example, I don’t trust that Democrats care as much about the Second Amendment and gun regulation, immigration reform, or gay marriage as they say (heck, I’m not even sure Republicans care as much as they say, either, but that’s another post). I think they’re, largely, cherry picking issues that they can use to pander to various demographic groups and distract from the relatively unexciting business of a slow economy which, by virtue of President Obama’s reelection, they own.  In spite of what political left may argue, little has improved in the economy since the election last year. Unemployment nationally still hovers between 7.9 and 7.7%, economic growth slowed at the end of last year, and personal income is down 2.2% this year.

So why aren’t we talking about economic growth and how to bring about an economic “comeback” for America?

A couple years back, I read an interesting book by David Walker, former Comptroller of the United States. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it, but I think it can add to the conversation on what needs to be addressed to move our country into a more competitive position than slow growth and stagnant personal incomes.


 

Comeback America

Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility by David M. Walker

As the former comptroller general of the United States, Walker knows a little about the fiscal workings of the modern federal government. For fifteen years, he served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Clinton to the Bushes, and had a unique opportunity to call into question the decisions that have lead to our current fiscal woes. And in Comeback America, he doesn’t hold back.  We are a great country, but we are putting ourselves in a difficult position:

We live in a great and resilient nation. For all of our problems, the United States remains a global superpower and a beacon of liberty for people around the world. We have much to be proud of and thankful for. But I am here to tell you that if we don’t find a way to get spending under control, we will put our nation’s economy and international standing at risk and bequeath to our children a world of severely diminished opportunities.

It’s not too late. But we had better act soon.

After opening the book with describing our current fiscal problems–looking at the America of 2030 if we continue our current trajectory, examining principles from our history, and spelling out the challenges that President Obama faced as he came into office–Walker lays out his recommendations in each major area of federal spending in the succeeding chapters.

Walker skips right over earmarks and discretionary spending, which account for only a very small percentage of our federal budget, and goes right to the heart of  the problem: entitlements, insufficient tax revenues, spending deficits, Defense Department inefficiency, and systemic problems. Each gets a chapter that provides context, history, and recommendations.

Beyond easy accessibility, perhaps the most important reason you should read this book is the lack of partisan taint. His approach, and recommendations, are nonpartisan, pragmatic, and worthy of consideration.  He

David Walker

approaches the problems with one consideration–what is right for America and Americans?

Walker calls for not only the reform of entitlements, review and oversight of inefficiencies in several–large–areas of government, and the reform of the tax code, but also for changes in our very elective processes and to the constitution. It isn’t enough to just change policies–we also need to change the systemic problems with how we got here and make it difficult to get here again.

In the end, Walker makes a compelling case for, in his words, not a “small government or a big government[,]” but an effective government–one that is fiscally responsible, focuses on the future, and looks out for the collective best interest of America and Americans rather than the narrow agendas of various special interests.

As one friend of mine has been known to observe–both parties are glad to spend, as long as it on the program that benefits its constituency. The right will spend on national security, and the left will spend on social programs. Both are spending, just not on the same thing. Indeed, fiscal responsibility is a claim that neither elected major national party can claim–at least not in recent memory or with any measure of integrity.

Despite the current difficulties, exacerbated by the pop of the housing bubble and the subsequent recession, America can “comeback.” Walker’s book is full of great ideas and suggestions to see that that happens. I recommend you pick up a copy soon. You might find yourself asking different questions of your elected representatives than their position on immigration. 


Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month long quest to post every day. Each day should match a corresponding letter of the alphabet. Today is C.

The Price of Politics is too high: Bob Woodward versus the White House

Several people have asked me about the Bob Woodward kerfuffle.

(I know. The irony. Congressional leaders and the President spend two years negotiating how to deal with the debt, can’t agree on a solution, resolve to on a 2% across the board cut called “sequestration” that almost no one understands–or represents accurately if they do–and people want to talk about a ‘he said/she said’ moment in American politics. Let’s be honest–it’s a lot closer to the school yard politics than the intricate and complex workings of the federal budget).

I just finished reading Woodward’s The Price of Politics, a history of this specific issue and how we got to this point. With that in mind, here are my two-bits.


 The Rub

The long and short of it is this: when President Obama couldn’t get Congressional Republicans in 2011 to agree to raise the debt limit and enact a tax hike to cover the increased debt, his staff–specifically Jack Lew and Rob Nabors–went to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and suggested sequester as a triggering mechanism. If a deal was not worked out by a certain date (March 1, 2013), then automatic cuts would happen. Reid liked the idea so much that he bent over in his chair and put his head between his legs like he was going to vomit. Seriously. (If my sarcasm it isn’t picking up, know that Reid was not a fan…)

No one thought it would fail. It was so bad that the other side will have to compromise, everyone thought.  Neither Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress and the President in the White House–assumed that no one would let sequestration happen.  Because the cuts were disproportionately high on defense spending, Democrats thought that Republicans would never let sequestration happen.  And Republicans thought that there was no way that the President would allow such broad, across-the-board cuts happen, either.

They we’re all of them deceived, if just by their own hubris.


 

So who is right? Woodward? Or the White House?

WoodwardThe simple answer is that, in a sense, both are right

First, Woodward is right that it was a White House, and by extension the President’s, idea to propose sequestration as a trigger if no agreement was reached.

Second, if we look only at the unknowable intentions of the President instead of what he actually did, then he is also correct–he never really intended sequester to happen without some kind of agreement on the budget. In other words, he looked at the consequences of sequester, thought that it would be so bad on the Republicans that Republicans would rather agree to tax hikes than sequester, and said–”Let’s do it.

If it’s easier to visualize, here’s how the Republican spin machine puts it…not entirely inaccurately.

The Adventures of Bob Woodward and the Obama Spin Machine


 

Americans are paying The Price of Politics

If you’ve got the time, and the energy, read Woodward’s The Price of Politics for the whole, long, nauseating story. If it doesn’t disabuse you of any trust you have in our elected officials ability to compromise, I don’t know what will.

The Price of Politics inexhaustibly details the negotiations over the summer of 2011 leading up to the debt crisis in early August of that year.   They began long before we heard about them in the press–months in advance, in fact–and included more than a few meetings between Vice President Biden, Rep. Eric Cantor, White House staff, Senators Kyl, Reid, Baucus, and McConnell, House Minority Leader Pelosi, and, at the center of it, President Obama and Speaker Boehner.

English: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanu...

English: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel looks at a newspaper in the Oval Office, as President Barack Obama talks on the phone April 24, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most of them end up looking inexperienced and unskilled in negotiation  especially the President, his staff, and, to some extent, Speaker Boehner. And why? Because  both sides fail to listen to the other and throughout  remain entrenched in partisan dogmas that prevent them from finding compromise. Crucial negotiations and conversations repeatedly took place over the phone or after media leaks, with offers from each side repeatedly ignoring what the other had told them was an unfeasible option for them. Republicans would not settle for a bargain that did not rein in entitlement spending and Democrats would not agree to cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. Democrats would not do a deal that didn’t include tax hikes and the end of the Bush tax cuts, but Republicans were unwilling to allow any new tax revenues except through tax reform.

Neither side would shift to a middle ground.

Early in the book, Woodward talks about the philosophy of the first White House Chief of Staff under President Obama, Rahm Emanuel. “F&#@ them! We have the votes.” With it, Democrats shoved healthcare reform through Congress rough shod and in spite of public opinion opposing it. When Republicans took back the House, the Obama White House never really learned how to compromise, but merely seemed to think that compromise meant talking with their opponents about what the White House insisted they do. No surprise, then, that Republicans could never really find a common ground with the White House. As Republicans often complained after being given yet another proposal that ignored their needs, “How are you, the White House, supposed to know what’s good for Republicans?”

Surprisingly, one of the few people who came across as the most flexible and able to make a deal was Vice President Biden. A character I have often thought of as a blowhard, gaff-prone Democratic operative often proved to be the person who could work with Republicans to find a feasible solution. Woodward often referred to him as a “McConnell whisperer” because of his relationship with the Senate Minority Leader and his ability to negotiate.

In the end though, as Woodward puts it, never has so much effort been made for so little result. The President won in being able to put off any more negotiation until after his reelection, and we ended up with a status quo result. Federal spending and revenues were left at the same place as before and on March 1–today–automatic across the board cuts amounting to 2% of the budget will go into effect at 11:59 PM.

What are our elected officials doing about it? Jetting across the country wasting valuable time telling the American people that it’s the other sides’ fault. No wonder no one trusts politicians.


 

 

For Lincoln’s birthday, a book recommendation: Crisis of the House Divided by Harry Jaffa

English: Abraham Lincoln - Photo taken in Feb....

English: Abraham Lincoln – Photo taken in Feb. 1860 by Mathew Brady. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today is Lincoln’s birthday. Might I suggest a book on the man who may have been our greatest president?


It might be said of Abraham Lincoln, born on this day in 1809, that if he had not existed, we would have needed to invent him. With very rare exception, no person in American political history has had such a lasting and permanent effect on the American psyche, revered with an awe usually reserved for the founding generation.

Whether it was his ability to turn a phrase, tell a story, or move men (and the nation) with the power of his words, Lincoln stands unique among American presidents. He stood astride one of the most tumultuous times of our nation’s history, perhaps as more than just the coincidental president when the crisis of the question of slavery divided our nation.

In his monograph on the Lincoln-Douglas debatesCrisis of the House DividedHarry Jaffa analyzes Lincoln’s political principles from his reentry into politics in 1854 to his Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas in 1858. His theory is intriguing: “had not Lincoln challenged Douglas in 1858, there would probably have been no subsequent crisis, or at least none of the same nature.” 

Cover of "Crisis of the House Divided: An...

Cover via Amazon

In other words, by taking on Douglas, and destroying him as the leader of a national political coalition, “dividing him from Republicans and the South,”  Lincoln consciously set the nation on a course that would constitutionally commit it to his view of national political responsibility, a view at odds with the South’s interest in maintaining slavery.

At the relatively young age of “fourscore” years, our nation still allowed the institution of slavery a place, leaving as yet unfulfilled the promises of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness[...]

What happened next was the deadliest conflict in American history, killing between 620,000 and 851,000 men in battle, to say nothing of civilian deaths. When it ended, the South lay in ruins, Lincoln was dead by an assassin’s bullet, and despite constitutional amendments ending slavery, decades more would pass before the children of slaves would begin to see the equality under the law that Lincoln believed was embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

What was it about the debates, and Lincoln’s political philosophy, that had the power to move the nation in such a dramatic, and violent, way?

The book is Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates by Harry Jaffa, and though it is over fifty years old, it remains a classic on the topic.  As you celebrate President’s Day, take a moment to learn a little more about how Lincoln steered our country and cemented his place in history, starting before he ever took on the mantle of the Presidency.

 

Review | HHhH by Laurent Binet

HHhH: A Novel

HHhH may be one of the most intriguing novels I have read in recent memory. Translated from French, its title is based on a German sentence: “Himmlers Hirn heisst Heydrich”, or “Himmler’s brain is called Heydrich”. It is the story of the 1942 attack in Prague on Reinhard Heydrich, one of the most dangerous men in the Hitler‘s inner circle, if not in all of Nazi Germany, and one of the main architects of the “Final Solution,” the Holocaust. Known variously as “the Butcher of Prague” by those who feared him and “the man with the iron heart” by Hitler, Heydrich was a dangerous, evil man.

But Binet’s novel, cleverly if awkwardly named, is something more, and something different. Perhaps the best way to describe it is to say that the novel is as much about Binet’s obsession with the attack, the Czech and Slovak heroes Jozef Gabćik and Jan Kubiš who carried it out, and its central villain, Heydrich himself. I have heard the writing of a novel described as requiring a certain level of insanity and obsession, and Binet demonstrates a level of intense scrutiny that could match this description.

Reinhard Heydrich shown as a SS-Gruppenführer ...

Reinhard Heydrich shown as a SS-Gruppenführer and General of the Police (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Almost pageant like, his unconventional style puts him in the middle of the book, a narrator that at times reminded me of the Chorus in the Prologue of Shakespeare’s Henry V, eager to be both in the scene and to describe it. Indeed, we move with him as he tells the story, quibbling over what details to include, what to exclude, how to tell the scene, and what were the characters really thinking. For, after all, the characters lived, were real, and the events described happened.

Strange and unconventional, but oddly gripping and thrilling, even as it ends tragic and triumphant. For the end of the story is not a secret–you can find the facts of the tale on Wikipedia. But the imagination with which Binet approaches his subject, the path his obsession takes, is worth hearing it told in his voice. “O for a Muse of fire[...]

(Review published previously at Attack of the Books!)