Paleofantasy

Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Says about Sex, Diet, and How We Live
© 2013 Marlene Zuk
328 pages

Despite its name, Paleofantasy is not a deliberate debunking of arguments for a ‘paleo diet’ and a paleo lifestyle.  Although Zuk does take aim at paleo proponents time and again, her argument approaches the same ideas from a different tack. Rather than assume that people ought to live the lifestyle our bodies evolved to expect, and then look for the science that informs that lifestyle, Zuk first asks:  what does biology tell us about the way our ancestors once lived, and can that information be used to help us today?  Subsequent chapters are a brief survey of the evolutionary heritage of our diet, our sex and childrearing practices, modes of exercise, and health.  The essential point of Paleofantasy is that evolution is an ongoing process: humanity is not a finished product, nor a monolithic species. What is true for some populations doesn’t necessarily hold for others.  Thus, studying the lifestyle of our ancestors isn’t particularly helpful, because they had different lifestyles depending on their local climate, and each made micro-adaptions in its own way.  Two populations of mountain-living people ,in Tibet and the Andres, both adapted to living in such thin air — but in two different evolutionary ways. Her message to those interested in paleo living is this: don’t get carried away.  By all means, don’t overeat and get in a lot of exercise — but do it because it makes sense now, not because the ancestors starved and were active.

Although the book will probably succeed in cooling the jets of the moderately interested, for more ardent practitioners, she will doubtless fall short, and not just because of defensiveness on readers’ part. A staple of paleo nutrition is that grains are of the agricultural devil. Zuk’s is response is to point out that look, we’ve evolved a gene that lets us process starch.  We’ve adapted! Evolution in action.  She does not, however, address the concern of anti-grain readers that while we can eat grain, we shouldn’t because of its insulin-spiking effects and the subsequent relationship with diabetes and obesity.  To borrow an example from her book, also used in Sean Carroll’s The Making of the Fittest: while there are snakes who can survive eating poisonous toads,  that doesn’t mean they should turn poisonous toads into the bedrock of their snake food-pyramid. Likewise, she doesn’t address the rationale that palo-fitness people use in pushing for short, intense workouts, namely that a high level of stress for a short time is better at building bone and muscle than a marginal level of stress done for long intervals.  She simply says “Hey, there are people who have adapted to running really long times.”

Paleofantasy doesn’t necessarily impress, but it does offer a moderating voice to those who can get carried away by the prospect of living like our ancestors to the point of going to bed with a Sounds of the Nighttime Forest CD playing, because that’s what our brains expect.

Related:
Antifragile, Nassim Nicholas Taleb (which includes a section on high-stress short-term exercise)
Wheat Belly, William Davis;  Good Calories Bad Calories, Gary Taubes (on the problems of the modern diet)
Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us Human, Richard Wrangham
Sex on Six Legs, Marlene Zuk.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

From History’s Shadow

Star Trek: From History’s Shadow
© 2013 Dayton Ward
388 pages
The geocentrists were right: Earth is the center of the universe. Or at least, it was in the 20th century, for how else can you explain how many extraterrestrials, time-traveling or otherwise, there were running around it?  One moment, the USS Enterprise was sailing merrily along, and the next — there were two aliens chasing one another in the cargo bay, both of whom had been living on mid-20th-century Earth for decades, one of whom wanted to destroy Earth’s civilization before it could destroy hers. The other was a Vulcan named Mestral, whose survey ship had crashed and who declined rescue after discovering I Love Lucy. As his goal of peaceful observation conflicted sharply with the other’s goal of triggering an Earth-shattering kaboom, they schemed and fought against one another amid the human space race until their feud ended with their somehow teleporting across space and through hundreds of years. Well, such things happen in the 23rd century, especially to Kirk.  
The story gets more complicated, and more fun, but it began in 1947, in a place called Roswell, when something crashed in the New Mexican desert. The government claimed it was a weather balloon, but rumors couldn’t help but escape that what crashed was an alien ship, and the military was hiding the truth from the public.  From History’s Shadow, set largely in the 20th century, tells the story of the United States’ response to encountering that alien life back in July ’47. As a secret security department devotes itself to investigating reports of UFOs,  they find much more than a series of stories to be debunked. Oh, there are false leads, all right — but then there are the crashed probes and series of mysterious incidents that reveal the truth: there are aliens on the planet, all right, and they’re not all from the same place. Some watch, some help, some sabotage — and there are seven humans serving a mysterious shadow organization from the future which is itself monitoring and countering the aliens.  Mid-20th century Earth is a cosmic meet-and-greet.  
From History’s Shadow is a fantastically fun Star Trek novel that plays with various conspiracy theories of the 20th century. Dayton Ward links several Star Trek episodes from various series into an integrated story, one appealing for its retro appeal think alt-historical fiction), and especially so because it functions as a standalone novel. (As much as I appreciate the integrated quality of the Treklit series these days, it’s a relief to find a novel that doen’t require three more for context!) Although readers will enjoy From History’s Shadow most if they’ve seen “Little Green Men” (DS9) and “Assignment: Earth”,   the episodes are not required reading.  Ward deserves high praise for how smoothly he fit together elements from The Original Series and Enterprise, and delivering a strong Trek novel that is largely told from the perspective of characters completely outside the usual cast of characters,  many being 20th century Americans. Considering how serious the Typhon Pact/Cold War in Space books have been, From History’s Shadow is a welcome easy read, a mystery-adventure alien conspiracy story of the space race, with a Star Trek twist. 
Related:
Star Trek: Department of Temporal Investigations, Christopher Bennett; Star Trek TNG: The Persistene of Memory, David Mack. Both of these take elements from a wide variety of Trek episodes and moves into a single, grand story. 
Assignment: Eternity, featuring Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln, the latter of whom is a major supporting character in From History’s Shadow
Roswell High, Melinda Metz, a series of YA books from the late ’90s and early ’00s about the alien children who survived the Roswell Incident and who live among humans in secret. It inspired a TV show with better characters (in part) but an inferior story: one episode called “The Summer of ’47”  tried to tell what happened.
Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Radicals for Capitalism

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement
© 2008 Brian Doherty
740 pages

Libertarianism has been in the news recently: Julian Assange referred to its rising wave in the Republican party as America’s best hope for halting the advance of the police state, and Chris Christie (governor of New Jersey and  rumored as a presidential contender in 2016) scoffed at it, causing a bit of a row between him and libertarian-leaning Senator Rand Paul.  American libertarianism is distinct in holding as sacred something the first libertarians regard as suspect: property. While historically, libertarianism was born out of  the left’s distrust for the state, authority, and coercive power — power created by property and the acquisition of wealth — American libertarianism is more a renaming of classical liberalism, of the idea that the government should stay out of the economy and out of people’s lives.  But this survey of American right-libertarianism is not limited to Adam Smith. It is is a work of economics, yes, but realm of thought covered here  delves into questions as old as philosophy: what is a person’s proper relationship with other people?  This expansive volume, which seeks to do for right-wing libertarianism what Russell Kirk did for conservatism in The Conservative Mind,  ranges from the mild, traditional F.A. Hayek to ranting ideologues who dream of being Nietzschean supermen.  Although most helpful in summarizing the contributions and sharing the lives of a wide range of individuals, many of whom history has forgotten entirely, its size may scare many off: at 740 pages, it’s no brief read.  The author, as a contributor to Reason magazine (“Free Minds and Free Markets”) is wholly sympathetic to his cause, of course, but his being a true believer doesn’t diminish the volume’s value:  there is a far wider variety of thought in right-libertarianism than one might expect and Doherty is helpful in analyzing the thoughts of conflicting individuals, discerning their shared beliefs and examining why they later came to oppose one another.  Sometimes the narrative wanders into the realm of the obscure, especially  when discussing economic esoterica, but Radicals largely lives up the the promise of being “freewheeling”.  This is not a question of editing: Radicals isn’t rough around the edges, only written with a deliberate breeziness that seems out of place with the topics being discussed. Referring to “bullshit arguments” and employing ‘natch’ for ‘naturally’  does not inspire confidence in the author’s seriousness.

Radicals for Capitalism briefs readers on the lives of scores of persons, some more significant than others. While Hayek, Ludwig van Mises, and Murray Rothbard are names which get a lot of traffic, ‘furies of liberty’ like Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane are probably unheard of outside the realm of libertarian historians. The great variety of forceful and opinionated personalities here are generally divided into two groups: economists and philosophers,with some mutual crossover  Whatever their focus, all emphasized the importance of property and the rights of the Individual as supreme. The basic ideas are not new, and Doherty accordingly begins with Enlightenment which birthed classical liberalism. Radicals is a history of how these ideas were fleshed out and expressed in the contexts of their time, as well as passed on to other generations.  The right-wing libertarian movement, judging by this account, seems to have crystallized around opposition to the New Deal. Most of the book’s action takes place in the middling decades of the 20th century, in which the American public became increasingly comfortable with the rising role of the state in their lives (through Social Security, conscription, federal involvement in mortgages, transportation, and food, etc).

 Although the libertarians here often worked together in opposition against the rise of the state, they were hardly monolithic. Some, like Hayek, wrote books debating economic policies, and engaged in weekend conferences and discussion groups (Mont Pelerin Society, Circle Bastiat) to study the problems they faced together, and articulate why they thought government policies ill-considered, others like the Foundation for Economic Education sought to educate the populace more directly, by mailing out pamphlets defending the free market.  Some wrote novels with libertarian themes (Rand,  Robert Heinlein), and still others — entertainingly — infiltrated the radical student left and tried to convert their energy into furthering the libertarian cause. This book was worth reading just for the idea of staid economists s getting high and then waxing poetic about the beauty of liberty — then ditching their suits for fatigue jackets and wandering into riots to fight the Man. (And then there are the many attempts of libertarians to buy islands and build their own nations, which read like a series of wacky Wile E. Coyote misadventures.) While men like Hayek and Mises advocated a marginal role (at best) for the government in economic matters for various reasons (government influence caused corruption, economies are too complex to plan efficiently or fairly, etc), others like Ayn Rand and Rothbard were libertarians for ideological reasons, to the point that Rand berated Mises for being a socialist because he didn’t condemn government economic involvement for the ‘right’ reasons. The infighting sapped their energy, but theirs is still a cause on the march: Reagan and Bush may have only given lip-service to it by the advocates’ standards, but lovers of the “freedom philosophy” were admitted in the court of presidential politics in the form of Milton Friedman and others Although the Libertarian Party (the history of which is chronicled here)  is not presently strong contender for national elections,  the 20th century produced influential libertarian think-tanks like the Cato Institute, and the growth of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street both demonstrate a rising popular contempt for the government’s constant intrusions into their lives and business policies.

Radicals for Capitalism is a book to be considered, if carefully. Doherty doesn’t write to convince:  the arguments for libertarian here are not aimed at the reader, but are presented for cross-comparison and examination.  Presumably, those willing to read seven hundred pages on a single subject are sympathetic to it to begin with. Those who are interested in learning about the philosophy will find the history worth their while, and be entertained by the unexpected antics of these personalities along the way. This mostly makes up for the grating effect of some of the thinkers featured, like the dazzlingly self-righteous Ayn Rand, who appears early and never seems go away. (Doherty doesn’t seem particularly sympathetic to her, despite the fixation.)   Rothbard is another mildly obnoxious star, asserting late in the book that children have no right to expect care from their parents, who are perfectly within their rights to let the little parasitic bastards starve.   I was personally impressed by the variety of thought and people featured within the book, and though it grew wearisome, the thoughtful contributions overcame the manic ones, and the book makes it easier to appreciate right-libertarianism as something more than a sinister tool of big business to free itself of restrictions. The men and women chronicled here came by their ideas honestly, they believed them sincerely, and they argued for them passionately. I would still avoid some of them at a dinner party in real life, but an age of bank bailouts and PRISM, even maniacs for liberty can sound sensible. The book would benefit from being a little less freewheeling, and it focuses more on free markets than on civil liberties.

If you want an idea of how across-the-spectrum the book is, RationalWiki’s article on Murray Rothbard is a kind of case study, and is much shorter at one page. (That’s Rational as in part of the modern skeptics movement, not rational as in linked to Reason magazine.)

Posted in history, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

This week at the library: economics, law, and the truth about living like cavemen

The previous week’s reads:  The Making of the Fittest, Sean B Carroll | Save the Males, Kathleen Parker | The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt

Dear readers:

This past week I read Trains and Lovers, a short novel in which four men and one woman recount stories of their lives’ great loves to one another. Because of the age of the characters, the stories run from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries. The stories tend toward happy endings, and impart the general idea that love at first sight happens, it makes us do irrational things, and is worth taking chances for.  The tales also incorporate travel into them,  either because people leave their homes behind in pursuit of romance, or because love takes them on unexpected metaphorical journeys.

I’m currently in the middle of Radicals for Capitalism, which I bought because it seemed interesting and was something of a value: 800 pages for $20?, retail?  I’d been hoping to learn more about men like F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard, whose names surface a lot in American libertarian writing.  They appeared earlier, but Radicals for Capitalism could carry the subtitle “Ayn Rand in Context”. There’s a distressing amount on her.  The chapter I’m on now is called “The Objectivist Crackup”, so maybe she’ll go away soon.  At work, A People’s History of the Supreme Courtis my lunch-time reading, and when my soul starts flat-lining from all of the economic policy, I’m enjoying Marlene Zuk’s Paleofantasy.  I have two more science books on order: Frans de Waal’s Good-Natured: the Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, because it was selling $1 used on Amazon and I justified buying it on that and the fact that I have no de Waal in my personal library.  I’m also expecting Two Sides of the Moon,  a collaborative memoir of the Space Right penned by cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the first man to walk in space, and David Scott, an astronaut who walked on the moon.  A friend lent me Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, which I plan on getting into as soon as I’ve wrapped up with Zuk.

Comments are still pending for Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish.

Well, happy reading!

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Righteous Mind

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion
© 2013 Jonathan Haidt
528 pages

The Righteous Mind begins with a question, seriously posed: why  can’t we all get along? To find the answer, Jonathan Haidt delves into the nature of morality, following the pursuit of it from philosophy to evolutionary psychology. Haidt produces three core ideas: one, David Hume was correct in positing that people are more intuitive than rational; two,  moral concerns don’t have a singular source, but fall along six separate axes,  each derived from our natural history, despite being couched in flourished religious and philosophical language; and finally, that morality is double-edged sword, binding us with one another as well as against others. Haidt’s work is impressive in its breadth, drawing on sources as diverse as Plato, Emile Durkheim, and E.O. Wilson, and in its delivery. Though he covers a lot of territory in a compact book, Haidt constantly works to keep readers aware of how all of the ideas discussed connect together.

The grand idea underlying all this is that morality is neither an objective truth that can be deduced via logic by anyone old enough to reason, nor is it completely subjective, an artifact of culture that is deposited into a blank slate of our infant minds. It is instead a product of evolution. Our instincts for morality are kin to our sense of taste:  there are different flavors of moral concern, and each of them played a part in our species’ development. The natural basis for morality is being eagerly explored by scientists like Frans de Waal, who has demonstrated how chimpanzees can empathize with one another, and sense when others are being treated unfairly.  Caring for one another is a mammalian strength, but there is more to morality than care and fairness. There are also senses of loyalty and deference to authority useful to tribes competing against other tribes, and a sense of ‘sanctity’ that buds off our natural feeling of disgust that keeps us away from unhealthy influences. Our instincts may be strengthened by rationalistic arguments or ritual, but neither can conceal their source,  nor operate independently from it.

Haidt sees our moral-political instincts as particularly far-developed as compared to other primates, though. Although alphas in chimpanzee troops do have a political role in mediating disputes, they are not kings: they do not command the tribe to go here or there, or make plans for its future well-being. Haidt believes natural selection has favored our ‘righteous’ (political-religious-moral) instincts in this regard  out of necessity, because for thousands of years we’ve had to regularly deal  with so many of our own numbers:  instincts which promoted order and cooperation were favored, and those populations which most exhibited them flourished, while populations that didn’t disappeared. Religion, too, played a powerful part. In Haidt’s view, we are not merely instinctive creatures who one day stumbled upon culture and started happily passing it down to the next generation like a good stick. We have evolved to be dependent on culture, and this is why religion is such a universal and powerful  trait of human kind.  Religion is first and foremost about morality and keeping the tribe together:  ideological religions like Christianity and Islam are fairly novel.  

These instincts are not part of the past; they are present, with us now.  Haidt examines US political parties by this six-taste model and concludes what while liberals depend strongly on the Care and Fairness feelings, and Libertarians are somewhat obsessively fixated on the Liberty-Oppression axis (which is a ‘new’ taste that developed fully after we’d become tool-users), conservatives draw marginally from each ‘taste’ equally across the spectrum.Like all products of evolution, our righteous instincts are a trade-off. A dog with long legs runs fast, but loses heat more quickly than a short-legged rival — and morality which evolved in the atmosphere of inter-population competition is all about Us vs. Them.  When we rally towards an ‘us’, we draw away from a ‘them’.  In light of that, Haidt ends the book by offering ways people of varying political opinions can argue more constructively. He first asks readers to keep in mind that people who disagree with us may simply be drawing on another set of instincts and beliefs:  you are not the center of the universe, and those who are different from you are not the Evil Villain set against you in some colorful psychodrama. We must labor to discern where people are coming from if we intend to communicate. Secondly, he draws on his own experience as an idealist-turned moderate to detail what liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can learn from one another: markets are magic, but not perfect — and if something isn’t  good for the beehive, it can’t be good for the bee.

The Righteous Mind is  astonishing:  the argument masterfully organized and sympathetically voiced from an author who distills a wide range of research from across the intellectual spectrum into a reflective, wise work.  This is very much recommended.

Related:

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

A Quick Book Survey

From the Broke and the Bookish:

1. The Book I’m Reading:
I’ve just started Paleofantasy by Marlene Zuk, which casts a critical eye toward arguments that we should live more like pre-agricultural man. I’ve read Zuk before, in Sex on Six Legs, about insects. At lunch I’m reading from A People’s History of the Supreme Court.

2. The Book I Just Finished:
 I last finished  Save the Males, by Kathleen Parker. I found it while looking for books on males and masculinity on Amazon, and it turned up while I was shelving recently returned books at the library. Obviously, Fate wanted me to read the book. I wasn’t too much impressed by it. Better luck next time, Fate.

3: The next book I want to read:
Power, Inc — the Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government, David Rothkopf.

4. The Last Book I Bought:
Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of American Libertarianism, Brian Doherty.

5. The Last Book I Was Given:

I haven’t gotten it yet, but will receive it next week: Lost Scriptures: Books That Didn’t Make It Into the New Testament, Bart Ehrman.

 

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Save the Males

Save the Males: Why Men Matter and Why Women Should Care
© 2008 Kathleen Parker
215 pages

It’s not a man’s world any more. Far from it, Kathleen Parker writes: in America, men have not only been dethroned but imprisoned by a culture hostile to them.  In Save the Males, Ms. Parker elaborates on the many ways in which the nature  and contributions of men are scorned, abused, and discouraged by the prevailing culture, influenced as it is by ‘third wave feminism’.  The first wave feminism gave women the vote, second wave got them careers and divorces, and the third wave made them porn stars.  Save the Males is less about men and more about the abuses of that third wave, which the author sees as not pro-women, but anti-male, and by virtue of the sexes’ interrelatedness, anti-human.  She raises a series of fair points, but the book’s focus is wobbly.

Parker doesn’t detail a campaign against men, but rather has a list of complaints about the various ways men are emasculated. Education is entirely girl-focused, she says:  boys are forced to spend all day listening to soft-spoken women and denied rambunctious games of tag at recess. Women can merrily abort babies without ever consulting the fellows who contributed to the cause, divorce and child custody laws are outright malevolent to the male sex, and then there’s porn!  It…puts pressure on them to perform, or something.  The list of attacks against men drifts into a list of ways society is degrading midway. As wretched as porn can be (and if you have doubts, read Chris Hedges’  Empire of Illusion),  the fact that it hurts men is somewhat tangential.  More thoughtful are her remarks about women in the military: despite the fact that women can push buttons as well as men, we have yet to civilize warfare, which — after plans go to hell —  is still an area where brute strength, testosterone-fueled ax-crazy risk-taking are needed.  The desperate, primal struggles which erupt in Afghanistan and Iraq need frenzied, mighty men to deal with them.  Even when women are tucked away into noncombat roles on the front,  the unpredictable nature of war means they’ll still get caught up in it — and that’s just not right. Regardless of our well-intentioned idealism, men and women at war are still men and women. Even if women weren’t so physically inferior to men, says Parker, injection of sexual tension into combat zones would suggest keeping the military from being feminized.  The tribal mentality that resurrects itself so mightily in combat will derail combat units’ effectiveness when the men start worrying about their ladies being shot and raped.  Given that the  US has recently done away with its barring women from combat roles, that tension is worth pondering.

I’m not particularly convinced by Save the Males that we of the beard are in great need of saving, though Parker does raise a lot of points worth thinking about — divorce, military policy, and to a degree, parenting. (Parker’s assertion that boys need men to teach them to be men, and girls need women to teach them to be women, and thus that test-tube babies born to single mothers are deprived of half of their necessary gender acculturation, is at first glance intriuging: I’d never considered the idea  that fathers teach boys how to act appropriately around women, and vice versa, but then I realized they don’t, really, at least not outside 1950s sitcoms.  And besides, who says we need to be taught to be men or women?  If there are authentic gender roles, shouldn’t they be as natural to us as breathing?)  These ideas deserve more serious consideration, however, than they find here, in a book which contains one chapter on nothing but how women worship their vaginas.


A book dedicated to men, with a woman on the cover, and which is mostly about women.  
Alrighty then.






Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Making of the Fittest

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution
304 pages
© 2006 Sean B. Carroll

Sean B. Carroll’s The Making of the Fittest examines the genetics of evolution, relating to readers not only how changes come about and are transmitted to the next generation, but how our genes demonstrate the passing of an evolutionary river out of Eden with the same surety that the flattened plains of the midwest testify to the passing of glaciers eons ago. After detailing the myriad ways in which genetics illuminates the inner workings and history of evolution, Carroll casts a critical eye against proponents of intelligent design and creationism.  In the stressful, chaotic world which all organisms inhabit, where circumstances and relations between prey and predator are in a state of constant flux, there is no room for grand designs:  only on-the-hoof and on-the-fly jury-rigging to respond to a given moment’s crisis will do. Making of the Fittest supplies readers with both broad principles (the evolutionary arms race, in which no species is ever the ‘perfected’ winner, only carrying temporary momentum in the battle for survival) and specific practices, like how complex organs are formed by cobbling together smaller ones.  Though a short-enough work, it seems more technical than many other works on biology, probably because it focuses on the nitty-gritty details of genetics: one chapter is called “The Everyday Math of Evolution”, and concerns mutation rates. Though of interest to general science readers, a little genetic refresher might be helpful before starting in.  

Posted in Reviews, science | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Teaser Tuesday (20 August)

It’s easy to be foolish, he thought. It’s dead simple, really. All you have to be is human and to allow yourself to do the human things, like fall in love with somebody when you know there’s no point and when you know, too, that it’s just going to make you unhappy. It’s better to be stoic — to be one of those people who manage to keep themselves to themselves, who manage to avoid letting go and becoming entangled in something they know from experience is going to cause unhappiness. Or is it?

p. 87, Trains and Lovers,  Alexander Maccoll Smith

Posted in General | Tagged | 3 Comments

This week at the library: genes, love on a moving train, and war

Dear readers:

This past week I finished two books on meaning and morality and a bit of natural history. I enjoyed Shubin’s Your Inner Fish, but de Botton’s work on religion and Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind were both extraordinary. Comments for it and Shubin will follow in the next few days. This week I’ll be wrapping up The Making of the Fittest, which examines the genetic evidence of evolution, and I’m supremely proud of myself for not having run away screaming when the author introduced  coefficients into the discussion.   For leisure reading, I’ve just started a novel called Trains and Lovers, wherin four strangers on a train ride in Britain from London to Glasgow share their stories with one another. I’m also entertaining the prospect of reading Stephen Ambrose’s Citizen Soldiers to scratch an itch for adventure, explosions, and excitement.  I think it’s been ten years since I last read Ambrose, in his Nothing Like it in the World: the Making of the Transcontinental Railroad.   I also have Betrayal, on how citizens betrayed the military, or how the military betrayed the country. Someone betrayed something, that much I know. (I’ve only gotten to the introduction.)

I recently found out that my university library still allows me to check out books despite being a graduate. I was so giddy to realize that enormous wealth of books was still open to me that I paid my alumni pledge early.  I’m planning my first visit ‘home’ in a couple of weeks, and already have a list of books to check out there. Turns out they have a lot of the authors whose works I’ve become interested in since graduating.  Actually, my copy of The Making of the Fittest is from my university library, checked out via interlibrary loan.  Checking them out personally will mean an excuse to revisit my old stomping grounds, harrumphing at whatever changes have transpired in my absence.

This Saturday I picked up Radicals for Capitalism: A History of American Libertarianism, the title of which caused the barista who checked me out to abruptly frown at me when she saw it. I can’t blame her: it has a chapter on Ayn Rand, which makes me feel positively dirty. But it’s an enormous book, and was offered at a low price, so I was seduced. I’m going to try refrain from reading it until I have something that will balance it out, like Power, Inc, or The Shock Doctrine: something to get my old progressive indignation fired up. 

Happy reading!

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | 3 Comments