Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy by Alex S. Jones

"the nation's traditional news organizations are being transformed into tabloid news organizations..." (p. 51)

Published in 2009.

Alex S. Jones is a journalist who has just about seen it all: he has owned and managed a paper, he has written features, he won a Pulitzer Prize, he has taught journalism, he has done radio journalism and he has written several books. He knows of what he writes.

In Losing the News, Jones is concerned about the evolution of news gathering services (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) from expensive investigative work to nonsense tabloid stuff (this week it is Tiger Woods - thanks to serious news organizations I know more than I've ever wanted to know about his wife, his doctor, etc. - but just go out and try to get some solid info about the health care debate!)

He bemoans a number of trends, including the synergy type news that ABC, NBC & CBS do to promote new books, movies or shows. He is concerned that the "iron core" of news is being ignored and is shrinking because it is hard to produce and can be costly. By iron core he means the serious analysis news (not opinion pieces) and investigative journalism that the public can trust. He is also unhappy (but not enough, in my opinion) at advocacy "gotcha" journalism that undermines the public's faith.

He includes a nice history of journalism in America and plenty of first-hand examples from his own family's experiences. His analysis of technological trends is spot-on and ties in neatly with the analysis in the book Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson. At the end of the book he offers some interesting predictions about where news is heading.

I rate this book 4 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Losing the News.

The Covenant of the Flame by David Morrell

I'm a huge Morrell fan but this one was just paint by numbers

Originally published in 1991.

No one writes books about a little guy vs. a vast conspiracy better than David Morrell. Morrell is one of the few authors that I will snatch up when I come across a new (or "new to me") title.

The Covenant of the Flame tries to go for that "on the run" feel that Morrell usually establishes, but it just comes off as more of a "paint by the numbers" effort. The DaVinci Code covers similar material but the The Covenant of the Flame is the more plausible and older of the two. That being said, Covenant still just doesn't have "it."

This is not a bad book per se and I certainly would encourage readers to read other Morrell books such as Extreme Denial and Desperate Measures to get a feel for what this author is truly capable of.

I rate this book 3 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: The Covenant of the Flame by David Morrell.

Reviewed on December 22, 2009.

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks

One of the most interesting and profound books I've read this year

Published in 2006 by Basic Books.

I'm a high school teacher that founded and sponsored the local Key Club (secular volunteer organization) at my high school for 7 years. My wife has been a professional volunteer coordinator for more than 15 years, in both religious and secular settings. There is nothing in these statistics that contradict our personal experiences.

So, what does Brooks say in Who Really Cares? "The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to the logic, is a form of charity. Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not voluntary sacrifice by individuals." (p. 20)

Brooks marshals a horde of facts to prove the point that the more politically liberal the individual, the community, the state, the country or the continent, the less likely that the individual, community, state, country or continent will be to donate to private charity in any form. Meaning, if a state voted for Bush in 2004, it generally gave more than a state that went for Kerry. The United States gives light years more to private charity than the nanny state European Union.

Why?

Generally speaking, it's because the general mindset is that there should be a government program to take care of that. This attitude affects volunteerism rates, monetary giving and even in-kind donations like giving blood or donating items to Goodwill. They are even more likely to give back extra change when the cashier makes a mistake.

Brooks breaks it down by income levels, religious affiliation, political party affiliation and even by race. The most determining factor is political affiliation and one party is way more religious than the other one so Republicans, specifically Conservative Republicans who go to church on a regular basis are far more likely to give money, time or in-kind goods than anyone else. Religious Democrats give more than any other sort of Democrat and more than many types of Republicans. The most generous of all? Working poor Conservatives - the old Reagan Democrats. Ironically, welfare payments suppress giving. People who were formerly working poor gave less when they accepted welfare, even if their income levels were comparable.

Brooks is quick to note that these are trends, not absolutes. There are religious conservatives who do not give and ultra-liberal, ultra-secularists that give plenty. But, his data does show certain trends.

Why?

"For many people, the desire to donate other people's money displaces the act of giving one's own. People who favor government income redistribution are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not...For many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks; but people who value economic freedom, and this bridle against forced income redistribution, are more charitable." (p.55)

Brooks backs it up with 23 pages of data in an appendix and a healthy set of endnotes.

I rate this book 5 stars out of 5.

Reviewed on December 22, 2009.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks

Five Cities That Ruled the World: How Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London and New York Shaped Global History by Douglas Wilson

Wow! What a Stinker!

Published in 2009 by Thomas Nelson

When I saw this title I was thrilled to pick this book up. I am a high school history teacher that loves classical history. I was eager to see what someone had to say about these 5 world class cities.

What I got was a poorly written mishmash of ideas that sort of worked themselves into some kind of theme that sort of held together to make a vague point from time to time. In other words, it read like one of my high school student's research papers.

I am a fan of Thomas Nelson publishing - they are a religious publisher that generally holds themselves to high standards. This book, however, makes me doubt my previous impression. Five Cities has a clever premise, an interesting cover but has no real substance and is full of too much supposition and theory rather than solid history.

What do I mean?

To be specific, on pages 8-9 he asserts that the Phoenicians, as part of a trade alliance with King Solomon, set across the Indian and Pacific Oceans (colonizing Polynesia along the way - and ignoring the fact that the Phoenicians preferred to hug the coastline when they sailed) to trade with and establish mines in Central and South America. They also created the Incan and Olmec civilizations. Also, they colonized Massachusetts. Really? Sure - just completely ignore DNA testing, decades of research and just go back to the old long-discredited theory that the Mayans must have really been a lost tribe of Israel because there's no way an Indian could have conceived of a city or a pyramid. He is asserting that only Middle Easterners could've imagined pyramids, despite the fact that every inhabited continent but Australia had pyramids structures of some sort.

I should have stopped right there, but I didn't. I finished the whole thing, mostly for the same reasons that people gawk at car accidents - I had to see how bad it really was.

The Jerusalem chapter is extraordinarily weak because it does not focus on Jerusalem's role as a cradle for 3 of the world's 5 largest religions. Rather, it focuses on the New Jerusalem mentioned in the Book of Revelations. Using an end of the world version of Jerusalem to explain why Jerusalem WAS important is poor logic at best and disingenuous at worst.

The exception to the rule that the Jerusalem chapter is very poor is the section on the Crusades (pp. 28-32). It was quite good.

When he moves on to Athens, he quotes Homer as though he were a trusted historian, not a storyteller (p. 46). He also mis-tells the story of Athena's birth (p.49). Hephaestus did not "attack" Zeus - he split his head open at the request of Zeus (he had a horrible headache and felt like something was trying to push out of his head). Literally, a splitting headache!

The Parthenon - the most famous ancient temple
in Athens, Greece

If Lord Elgin were alive today he could easily sue for libel (p.77). Lord Elgin rescued the art of the Parthenon in the 19th century by buying as much as he could - it was for sale on the open market - and sending it to London to be preserved. He "stole" them to save them, not because he was a thief but because the 19th century Greeks did not value their own heritage. If, on the other hand, he wanted to discuss why the British Museum does not return them to Athens, he would've had a better argument.

For reasons unknown he mostly skips over the Persian destruction of Athens and how the city re-built itself and instead gives a half-hearted history of the Peloponnesian War (Sparta vs. Athens).

The section on Rome struck me as neither great nor poor, which is a victory of sorts.

The London chapter assumes that the reader knows a lot about the struggle for religious liberty in Britain and Scotland and that one understands their Civil War - mighty big assumptions to make. As a result, it made for confusing reading for me (fairly well versed in the issues) and would be a mish-mash for most readers.

He also mis-attributes the George Bernard Shaw quote "England and America are two countries separated by a common language" to Winston Churchill. (p. 151)

The New York chapter is actually sort of bland, an anti-climax when compared to cities that had actual physical empires. He has a nice turn of phrase when he notes that when Dutch New Amsterdam became New York in 1664 "the first course of the American melting pot was served." (p. 158) However, we also have an inexplicable section on baseball (pages 168-171) that goes with nothing else in particular. There is not an over-arching sports theme in the book, just an orphan section on baseball...

Victor Davis Hanson (A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War) and Bernard Lewis (Islam: The Religion and the People), both fine authors and historians, are quoted extensively throughout the book, a fact that must be a source of professional embarrassment for both of them. Do yourself a favor, read Hanson and Lewis and skip this one entirely.

I rate this book 1 star out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Five Cities that Ruled the World.

Reviewed on December 22, 2009.

***EDIT August 9, 2020***
Please note: Today I came across information about other writings of Douglas Wilson that I am not comfortable with. He espouses a seriously warped view of American slavery and of women's rights. I do not endorse those views.

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks

I reluctantly started this one and finished it enthusiastically

Originally published in 2006 by Crown.

A friend from work had World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War on his desk and said I should read it.

Zombies!? No thanks!

I've avoided all of the Twilight books and the other undead/monster books. He pitched it by saying it was fictional (of course!) but modeled after the very real work of Studs Terkel, The Good War: An Oral History of World War II. For those that don't know, Terkel interviewed hundreds of people about World War II and arranged their interviews into a narrative of sorts that told the history of the war.

Well, that wasn't much of a selling point either because I never really got into Studs Terkel very much, so this was strike two. But, I took it home and started reading.

Max Brooks

The first 20-30 pages are boring but they do set up the rest of the book by introducing the concept of zombies, how they came to be, what they are capable of and what stops them. Once we get to the Battle of Yonkers this book hits its stride and really hums along.

There are recurring characters but the four that struck me the most were the Japanese gardener and the computer geek, the Chinese submarine and the dog handler. The dog handler struck me as the most "human" story of the bunch because of the unabashed affection and bond between dog and handler. I was actually moved to tears about this fictional story about a man and his dachshund/beagle mix - partially because I had one and he described its feisty, independent, loving a good fight personality (yes, that little dog was sure that she was put on this earth to rule ALL dogs), and partially because they survived.

Well, there it is - I went from reluctant reader to nearly crying about what I was reading. That's why I'm giving it 5 stars out of 5.

By the way - so much better than the movie - and so very different! Basically, they only share zombies and a title.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: World War Z.

Reviewed on December 23, 2009.

Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way (audiobook) by Bruce Campbell

I laughed my way through this audiobook!

Published by Eastmoor Media in 2005.

Performed by Bruce Campbell and his actor friends.

Duration: 6 hours, 17 minutes.

Unabridged.

I picked up and looked at the book version of Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way several times and never quite decided to pick it up. But, I quickly snapped up the audiobook version because of this quote from the back cover from Bruce Campbell:

"...the prospects of doing a 'regular" audio adaptation weren't very appealing. But then a few things dawned on me:
1. I'm the lead character of the book.
2. As an actor by trade, I could play the part.
3. I'm knee deep in actor pals, why not record the book like a radio play?" 

At that point I was sold.

The story revolves around Bruce Campbell's attempt to move from being a B movie legend to a real A-list movie star. He gets his chance in "Let's Make Love", a Richard Gere/Rene Zelwegger romantic comedy directed by Mike Nichols. Of course, Bruce is hopelessly starstruck and out of his element as he messes the whole thing up - but that's where all the fun starts!

Bruce Campbell

This is a funny, offbeat story that goes off of the deep end but still drug me there laughing all the way. From Richard Gere learning how to fistfight (and absolutely loving it!) to Bruce Campbell holding off the FBI alongside two of his biggest fans in a running gun battle, I loved it!

Is it silly! Yes?!

Is it stupid! Of course!

It's offbeat, ridiculous, over the top and gloriously entertaining.

Highly recommended.

This audiobook can be found on Amazon.com here: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way.

I rate this audiobook 5 stars out of 5

Reviewed December 26, 2009.

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus by Timothy Paul Jones

An Enjoyable Counter-Argument

Published in 2007 by IVP Books.

Timothy Paul Jones' Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus is a reasoned, polite yet firm response to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, a best-selling book that disputes the authenticity of the New Testament by noting that there have been numerous errors in translation and copying over the years, especially in the first 200-300 years of the Christian movement.

Jones starts by addressing Ehrman's criticisms directly. He acknowledges that there have indeed been a great number of errors, most in spelling, some in grammar and some were simple re-copying of lines of text or skipping a line of text. He notes that while there are a lot of them, most make no difference, such as my use of commas and other punctuation in this sentence - if I had left them out, the meaning of the text would not have changed. To use an example of my own from English, they might be as simple as using the word "house" rather than "home" in a sentence - a different word but not a different meaning.

This addresses more than 90% of Ehrman's citations of error, which makes me wonder why Ehrman brought them up to begin with...

Timothy Paul Jones

Ehrman asserts that the 4 gospels have had many different names over the centuries ("A wide variety of titles") as an argument against their authenticity. True enough, agrees Jones, but they've only had slightly different names, such as "The Gospel According to Mark" or "The Book of Mark." The authors' names have been attached to the same texts no matter where they've been discovered in the former Roman Empire. (pages 97-100)

Jones discusses how the early church determined which books were canon and which were not, addresses Ehrman's determination that none of the 4 Gospels could have been written by "illiterate" men such as Peter and John. Ehrman never considers that Peter and John would have had access to scribes, despite the fact that Paul refers to a scribe writing for him while he as in jail awaiting a hearing with Caesar and he ignores the fact that Matthew the tax collector turned disciple would have had to have been literate. Luke the physician would have probably been literate or he could have used the same scribes that Paul used since they were clearly companions.

I found this to be an enjoyable, polite response to Ehrman.

Highly recommended. 5 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Misquoting Truth.

Reviewed on December 26, 2009