Idiot America
Well I finally finished reading Charlie Pierce’s Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. Life got in the way of my reading schedule and in spite of how good the book was I had a hard time fitting it into my schedule.After the first introductory chapters Pierce really got in stride and set aside much of the humor in favor of just a realistic portrayal of several different examples of America surrendering to emotion and what feels right rather than what actually was right. Whether it’s a dinosaur museum with saddles on the dinosaurs so they would be Biblically correct, a room full of terrorism experts whose opinion on Iraq was completely ignored because it didn’t fit the politics, an Island in Alaska that is literally disappearing because of global warming, a Supreme Court Justice referencing a fictitious T.V. character as evidence to support his position on torture, etc, etc, Pierce shows that somehow we’ve gotten things all screwed up. We’ve been mistaking religion for science, science for politics, and politics for entertainment.
This book really hit a nerve with me because I like to look at all issues objectively. I try to look at both sides of the issue before I take position. And even once I take a position I try stay flexible enough to change that position if more evidence arises. Lately I’ve been in a few internet and email discussions about politics and in every case the hardest people to have a rational discussion with were those that had put things in the wrong order. Just like in any conversation you have o at least agree on which language we are going to speak. You can’t have a science discussion is one party wants to use the language of religion, on the language of politics and the other the language of science. It would be just as hard if the three parties were speaking French German and Japanese. Yet time and time again you see exactly these arguments being made. Pierce effectively demonstrates the problem with this type of reasoning.
The scariest parts of the book are when experts in a certain field are called in for initial consultation and then quickly ignored when their advice conflicts with the conclusion that they had already made. The most dramatic example of this was when Al Qaeda experts we asked to provide justification for invading Iraq and they told the Pentagon that Iraq would be the wrong target. They were dismissed and their opinion was not sought again.
My biggest criticism with the book was that it did have a strong liberal slant. Much of this was unavoidable since any critique of government would be dominated by the party that is in charge. Although I do believe that the Republicans have been most guilty of forcing the evidence to fit their pre-drawn conclusion there is also plenty of blame to throw around. I can think of several examples of politicians on the other side of the aisle making similar errors in reasoning, many times on the same issues that Pierce describes. Anytime an author comes across overly sympathetic for one side and overly critical of the other he looses a little bit of credibility in my opinion. To be fair he did criticize some liberals, Jesse Jackson for instance, but the bulk of the criticism was at conservatives. I would have also liked for him to have examined the cult of the celebrety. Jenny McCarthy is a prime example. Her autism activism is seriously diverting attention away from those who really do know what they're talking about and peolpe are dying becasue of it.
I’d recommend this book to anybody who wants to better understand some of the flawed decision making that goes on in our country. Parts of it will have you laughing, parts will have you crying, and parts will have you fuming made. And sometimes all this happens in the same paragraph.
The War on Expertise
In the last decade or so there has been a carefully orchestrated attack on expertise. Little by little those who knew what they were talking about were marginalized. If a graduate degree holder gives his opinion on an issue well within the scope of his training he is called an elitist. In school board hearings we are told that “Somebody has to stand up to these experts”Rather than cast our vote for the candidate we think is the most qualified we’ve been encouraged to vote for the candidate we’d most like to sit down and have a beer with. As if being down home and an “Ordinary Joe” is a qualification for higher office. Scientists who know what they are talking about are marginalized simple because they are experts. Doctors are accused of being tools of “big pharma” and patients are turning to modern day witch doctors and celebrities for their advice. Never before in our history has being an expert been viewed as a liability. It’s as if the jocks of the world gained power and decided that the geeks and the nerds didn’t deserve to participate because they knew too much. We used to be a meritocracy. People who worked to be expert in their fields gained higher positions and more respect. Now we label them elitist and marginalize their advice as if their expertise itself disqualifies them.
I just started reading Charlie Pierce’s Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. When we check books out form the library they give us a little receipt that is roughly 3”x5” that tell us when the book is due. I typically use the same receipt as a bookmark as I read. Victoria has taken to tearing little pieces of the receipt off and using these scraps to mark the interesting parts of the book. Up until know I’ve avoided this technique. But I’m already had to mark several passages of this book and I’m only a few chapters in. I may need to get more scraps of paper because my bookmark is getting really small already.
Pierce is really funny. But you can tell that his humor is his coping mechanism. He’s upset. He’s seriously bothered at the tremendous steps our country has been taking backwards in the last few decades. He makes you laugh with the way he describes the situation before us but the laughter is followed shortly by shame for having taken it so lightly. Because, sadly, he’s right.
In our world where everybody has a blog and everybody is an expert, nobody is. The views of Stephen Hawking are put on an equal footing with any crank on the internet who claims that the world is flat. The view of a hysterical mother are promoted on Oprah as if her discoveries have completely overturned science and the doctors who really understand the disease are only allowed to ask questions from the crowd. We treat everybody’s equal right to have an opinion as if it means that all opinions stand on equal footing. Not true at all. Some opinions deserve to die so that those based on fact and evidence can live on.
Pierce describes our awakening from this state as if describing the first glimpse of lucidity after a hangover wears off:
"This is that moment in the hangover in which you discover that your keys are in your hat, the cat is in the sink, and you attempted late the previous night to make stew out of a pot holder. Things are in the wrong place. Religion is in the box where science used to be. Politics is on the shelf where you thought you left science the previous afternoon. Entertainment seems to have been knocked over and spilled on everything. " (p.30)
Pardon my pessimism, but I think his description is a bit premature. I feel like most of America is still hung-over and quite a few are still enjoying the party and not even thinking about the consequences yet. I’ll give a complete review when I’ve read the whole book. So far Idiot America has been a hilarious yet humbling read.
God’s Problem
Bart Ehrman is a biblical textural researcher. He makes a living researching the original texts that we have used to compile the Bible in its current form. I’ve read many of his books. Perhaps his best is Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed on this blog a few years ago. Ehrman quite convincingly showed that many of the doctrines that some Christian’s cling to are mistranslations and sometimes not even in the original texts. The book reads not as a direct criticism of faith in general but as a caution not to get too hung up on the wording of a certain passage that may have been drastically different or even non-existent in the original texts. I really enjoyed this book. Ehrman was in his element and speaking from his wealth of experience studying the original texts of the Bible, particularly the New Testament.In the last few years, thanks to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code and the discovery and preservation of the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, Ehrman has written other popular books that focused again on the original texts of the New Testament. I also enjoyed both of these books. They were right up Ehrman alley. In his book about the DaVinci Code he was able to shed light on what the texts actually claimed and not just how Dan Brown distorted them to tell his story. Other rebuttals of The DaVinci Code fell flat in comparison to Ehrman’s book. The others just came across as angry Christian apologetics rather than well thought out logical responses.
Ehrman was also one of the best choices to write a book about the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot since he was active on the team that studied and translated the recently recovered codex. I found his detailed personal account of what it took to translate and preserve this codex absolutely fascinating.
So with his history of very enjoyable books I was somewhat disappointed with God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. Here Ehrman strays from strictly examining the texts and reporting what they say or don’t say. The book reads as a scholar who used to have faith but lost it. The cathartic story of his loss of faith is moving, but it’s a vastly different theme than his previous books. And in the long run I just didn’t care. It doesn’t matter to me if you are a man of faith or an atheist. You’re personal response to the information you convey should be irrelevant to the facts. Although I sympathize, his continual personal stories grew more than a little tiring. I felt that most of the book was an explanation to his family about why he no longer considers himself a Christian.The rest of the book goes into graphic detail about how nasty, selfish and down right mean the God of the Old Testament appears in the texts. Although I agree with most of the analyses and statements he made I just didn’t feel like he was saying much, if anything, new. There are plenty of recent books that handle just this topic. Perhaps if I had read God’s Problem before I’d read The God Delusion or The End of Faith I would have a different opinion. Ehrman is better qualified to criticize than either Dawkins or Harris. Besides these two that I have read there are several others including the very mean spirited God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.
In this flood of what can fairly be called evangelical atheist books God’s Problem just seems to be needless repetition. I look forward to reading future Ehrman books as long as he focuses on what he does best and doesn’t get to preachy.
Angels and Demons
As most of my readers will know, I really enjoy exploring issues of science, politics and religion. I particularly enjoy looking into where they overlap. Some of the best books I have read are on exactly this subject. Whether fiction or non-fiction I enjoy seeing how different characters balance these sometimes conflicting priorities in their lives.
With this in mind I was really apprehensive about Ron Howard’s film adaptation of Dan Brown’s book Angels and Demons. The book was very well done and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It seemed that each and every character in the book had a slightly different way of balancing science and religion in their lives. New details that were revealed in the process of the story unfolding forced these characters to have to reevaluate their decisions. How each of those characters responded to this problem was what gave depth and reality to the book. It was a very cerebral book.As many others have pointed out, Brown does take a very liberal interpretation of what he refers to as facts. As he did in The DaVinci Code and all of his books he frequently twists the facts a little to make the codes and mysteries in his story work. I don’t really have a problem with this as long as he doesn’t claim that those details are facts. Brown does claim that those details are facts and it gets the church and others outraged and just draws publicity to the book. I enjoyed his books as fiction and something to provoke thought and further research but they are fiction so I’m not going to get too hung up on those details.
Anyway, I was apprehensive about seeing the movie because I really was unimpressed with Howard’s interpretation of The Davinci Code. Now I’m not one of those who gets all upset just because every detail and nuance of a book that takes days to read isn’t spelled out in a two hour movie. I understand the differences and the strengths of both mediums and I enjoy them both. Although I typically enjoy reading the book better than the movie I have seen a few movie versions that I enjoyed even better than the books. Jurassic Park and Contact are the first two that come to mind.
I just thought that Howard left out far too much of Angels and Demons. The depth of each character in the book was defined by how they responded to their internal conflict regarding the balance of science and religion. The movie avoided this conflict completely with most characters and only hinted at it with one or two. Sure the chase through Rome to find the killer was a good action story but without the internal struggles of the main characters you didn’t understand or even care why the chase was important. One of the main characters in the book was a prominent scientist who you suspected may have even been the one behind the murders was left out of the movie all together. His internal struggle and ultimately his decision to assist the church was one of the more dramatic character conflicts in the book. I have no idea why he was wholesale written out of the movie as well as nearly all of the other character’s internal struggles.
In the movie and in the book you really grow to love one character who comes across very likable and reasonable. At the end of the book his positive attributes are rewarded. However in the movie adaptation this character does not get the same reward. I can see no reason at all to make this change in the movie. It would have cost no extra film time and would have been a nice way to reward a likable character.
I've seen a few book to movie conversions where I liked the movie much better. This just wasn't one of them. I wish I’d have waited for the DVD.
The Marilyn Manson Effect.
When I was a kid there was a big stink about a book that made it to the shelves of the library at school. Judy Bloom, who was famous for writing books targeted at fourth graders, had decided to branch out and write a book targeted at post-pubescent teens. Parents protested and got the book pulled off of the shelves. The local news and the local papers all interviewed the parents who felt victorious for getting this book banned. They felt like they had been handed an overwhelming victory.So what was the end result? Well it wasn’t quite what they had expected. You see the local grocery store sold the same book in paperback and quite a few kids in school went out and bought it. I remember one boy reading a copy at recess that had clearly been handed down quite a few times. I’ll confess, I read it just to see what the fuss was all about. By protesting and getting the book banned from the school they freely gave the book more prime-time publicity than the publishing company would have ever been able to afford without it. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, however if the boycotts and protests had been deliberate stunts perpetrated by the publisher I doubt if they could have achieved better results. If those “concerned parents” had just put up with it the mediocre book would have faded into obscurity.
I’m not a big fan of Catcher in the Rye. I wouldn’t call the book a waste of time, but I just could never see what all the hoopla was all about. I read it a few years ago in a book group I was in. During the post reading discussion I was the only one that didn’t really care for the book. Although they wouldn’t come out an admit it, I have a sneaky suspicion that the same thing was happening again. Take away the controversy and you’re left with a mediocre piece of work that wouldn’t have made any impact on society.
I think the Harry Potter books have benefited quite a bit form this same phenomenon. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the books. I just don’t think they would have risen to such prominence quite so quickly without all the Bible-Thumpers complaining about witchcraft in our schools.
I read a comment on facebook were someone called this the “Marilyn Manson Effect”. If you take away all the controversy and hype Brian Warner would still be making slurpies at the 7-11. Have you listened to his “music”? He’s a talentless hack who’s only real skill is an ability to convince kids that he’s cool by upsetting their parents. Again if the parent hadn’t gotten so upset about him he would have had to go get a real job somewhere.
I’ve been tip-toeing around a current issue that has hit the news so as to not give it any publicity that it doesn’t deserve. My point is that sometimes it’s much better to just put up with something you disagree with. Protesting, boycotting and getting all upset about it will just give it more attention than it deserves.
Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.
Colin Powell
The Poisonwood Bible
When Victoria recommended that I read a book that her book group was reading I confess to being a little hesitant. You see the book is on Oprah’s suggested reading list. Of the few books that I’ve read from the Oprah list I wouldn’t recommend any of them. But the more I heard Victoria sing the praises of The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver I decided to read it based on her glowing reviews and ignore Oprah all together. I’m very glad that I did.The Poisonwood Bible is the story of a mother and her four daughters who are carted off to the Belgian Congo in the early 60s by the fanatical patriarch of the family. The story has a very interesting perspective. Most books are written either in first or third person. Kingsolver used a combination. The story is told first person but the narrator rotates pretty evenly among the five women in story. I found this approach to be very engaging. You grew to understand the motives and feelings of each of the characters much better than had the story been told in third person or from just one of the perspectives. Even with characters that I didn’t really identify I somewhat felt that I could understand why they reacted the way they did because of the authors unique approach.
The different perspective also allows the story to explore several different themes concurrently. Only to touch on a few: the loss of faith in the face of tragedy, overcoming handicaps, poverty v. wealth, ethnocentrism, the appeal of communism in the third world, the role of women, etc. Each of these themes and more are covered in great detail.
The story jumped around a bunch in time. Multiple flashbacks and back histories made the story unfold not quite chronologically. You had to pay attention to keep up. In the hands of a lesser author the multiple flashbacks would have been very awkward. However, Kingsolver made the transitions beautifully and told the story with much more feeling than a truly linear timeline would have given.
She did not waste a sing word in this entire book. Every sentence, ever word and even the punctuation is clearly thought out and serves a role. Whether it is a metaphor to foreshadow future events, a misplaced idiom, or just a quick poem that leads you to better understand the mind of one of the characters, every mark in the book serves a purpose.
Her brilliant use of several different languages to tell the story also gives a richness and a depth to the people of the Congo. Much is made about the fact that several different meanings can be inferred by just slight differences in pronunciation of the Congolese words. These differences in meaning exaggerate the ultimate futility of the father’s quest to bring Jesus to the savages and also add a new determination to a handicapped child whose nickname has an insulting and also a noble interpretation.
The family is from Bethlehem, Georgia. Even that detail was not casually assigned. The metaphor of a going to Africa and bringing “Christ out of Bethlehem” was brilliant. I live about 20 miles from Bethlehem Georgia. The historical references to places and events in Georgia we appealing to me. Being personally familiar them it created an interesting juxtaposition with the much more foreign descriptions of Africa.
The book is historical fiction. None of the main characters actually existed. However the political events in Africa of the 60s are described perfectly. If only for the political history this book is well worth the read. But it is so much more than just a history book.
I’ve heard of people dismissing this book out of hand simply because some of the characters are sympathetic to Communism. To them I encourage to put your presuppositions aside as I did. Read the book. Yes there are some comments in the book that are sympathetic to Communism. Kingsolver brilliantly explains why the promises on Communism would appeal to a people without a penny in their pocket, and even look on pockets themselves as a luxury.
Each of the five women who tell this story turns out dramatically different. Some I identified with and others I didn’t but Kingsolver’s style helped me understand each one. I will not forget the lessons I’ve learned and the fundamental questions that this book has caused me to re-ask myself.
