Reflection on War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History 2500 to Today by Max Boot

               I had only heard bad things about Max Boot before I read this book, but I have gotta say that I was impressed. This is a very comprehensive history of the major technological advances in warfare over the last five hundred years and I learned a lot. It’s written very well. There are four large sections covering The Gunpowder Revolution, The First Industrial Revolution, The Second Industrial Revolution, and the Information Revolution. Each section is divided into three chapters, with each chapter focusing on a major battle, such as the attack of the Spanish Armada, the Battle of Tsushima, or Operation Desert Storm. Then, each section ends with a summary of the major changes to warfare. It’s great. Boot stresses that the most important technologies are not just those that deliver death to the enemy in the most efficient way, but also those that aid in transportation and information gathering/organization. Beyond that, he stresses that simply having the best technology is not enough- a state or a non-state actor needs to learn the best way of using that technology. Many times, a technology not used to its fullest potential is useless against an inferior technology that is.

               An important moral dilemma that comes up in the last two sections of the book is what to do with civilians. In World War 2, it had become the norm to use strategic bombing against civilian populations, such as the Battle of London, the Bombing of Dresden, and the Firebombing of Tokyo. Today, however, that is considered cruel and the United States seeks to avoid civilian casualties. I think that part of it is the type of wars the USA chooses to fight, which are not existential battles, but small, imperialistic operations against weak enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The author points out that in Iraq, “the coalition paid a price for the precise application of firepower made possible by the advent of “smart” munitions. Not having seen their cities turned intro rubble, Iraqis were much less ready than Germans or Japanese to accept foreign occupation. I think that war is evil, and in a twisted way of trying to mitigate its evil, the USA attempts to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. However, that means likely losing the war. Killing innocent people is a staple of war and is the way that many countries have won wars throughout history- by inflicting unjust and evil suffering on people who do not deserve it. Therefore, policymakers should rethink why they want to use war to achieve their political ends. If they are not willing to pay the price (losing any claim to their morality) they should not go to war. If they must go to war, they should not hold back and commit the evil acts. The half-measures the United States has taken end up just as bad because they draw war out into years-long fights, killing more civilians in total.

               Boot writes that, “the nature of war will always be determined by the interaction between warriors and their tools, not by the tools alone.” He points out that, “The way to gain a military advantage, therefore, is not necessarily to be the first to produce a new tool or weapon. Often it is to figure out better than anyone else how to utilize a widely available tool or weapon.” Those two statements sum up what seems like the main point of the book. Developing new technology is important, but even more so is being creative and thinking of the best ways to use it. Many inventors fail to market their ideas and die poor while many businessmen never invent anything but become rich from figuring out the best use of a new invention. So it goes with the military. It is crucial to plan for the next war and determine how to win battles and wars using new technology, not just to invent it. In that, the human element will continue to be the most important.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Syphilis was first spread to Italy during a French invasion in 1494, and now French call it the Italian Disease and Italians call it the French Disease.
• In World War Two, Ford Motors produces more army equipment alone than did Italy.
• During Operation Desert Storm, American men ages 20-30 were statistically safer fighting in Desert Storm than at home in the USA.
• The US Air Force has not produced an “ace” (a pilot with five or more aerial kills) since 1972, which shows how little dogfighting happens in modern warfare.

Reflection on The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis

               This book is great! I have not interacted with these stories since that mediocre movie came out and I didn’t even know how much I missed them. IT reminded me of my childhood and I really like the world that Lewis creates. He is clearly very Tolkeinesque, as there are motifs of Christianity and a love for nature that are major in both authors’ works. In The Lion, however, Lewis also breaks the fourth wall constantly, directed at his young readers, saying things like, “And now we come to one of the nastiest things in this story.” Lewis is also always warning his readers to, if they go into a wardrobe, not close the door behind them, obviously concerned about the safety of impressionable children.

               I think Lewis develops his male characters, Peter and Edmund, really well as foils to one another, yet the female characters seem less well developed, though Lucy is very likeable. I felt like Susan didn’t have any major attributes that stood out. I would say that the book is certainly of its time (the 1940s and 50s) in how it treats women and girls. On the other hand, it has a really nice view of being emotional, rejecting the idea that people should bottle things in. After one particularly difficult moment he writes, “I won’t say there wasn’t kissing and crying on both sides. But in Narnia no one thinks any worse of you for that.” This is a great book and I’m gonna read the whole series.

Reflexión sobre Mujeres y Poder por Mary Beard

               Este libro viene de dos discursos de la clasicista Mary Beard sobre las mujeres y como han tenido o experimentado el poder en la historia. Tiene muchas cosas interesantes para decir y es aún mejor para alguien con un interés en los clásicos. Ella tiene una perspectiva única en esas cosas. Dice que su “premisa fundamental es que nuestro modelo cultural y mental de persona poderosa sigue siendo irrevocablemente masculino, puesto que si cerramos los ojos y conjuramos la imagen de alguien que ocupa una presidencia o que ejerce la docencia, lo que la mayoría ve no es precisamente a una mujer.” Yo aprendí del libro que la Asamblea Consultativa de Arabia Saudi tiene un mayor porcentaje de mujeres que el congreso de los Estados Unidos. Ruanda también. No obstante, Beard anota que esto puede significar que en un país así, no es que las mujeres tienen mucho poder, sino que pueda ser que en esas asambleas no queda mucho poder. El libro es interesante y corto, algo bueno para mi para leer en español.

Reflection on Norse Mythology by Neil Gaiman

               This is a cool book that I picked up sort of randomly. The fantasy writer Neil Gaiman decided to do an interpretation of Norse mythology and called it Norse Mythology. It does the creation story, a few tales, and the story of Ragnarok, the twilight of the gods. It’s pretty short and not bad at all.

               I learned mostly just weird things about Norse myths. Like for example, the biggest mythological boat is Naglfar, the Death Ship, “made from the untrimmed fingernails of the dead.” Okay. Also, in one very convoluted adventure where Loki turned into a salmon, Thor caught him in his hand and squeezed hard, but more at the tail than the head, which is why salmon get narrower at the tail. Also, earthquakes are caused by Loki, who is currently tied up with a poisonous snake dripping venom on him. His wife catches the venom in a bowl, but sometimes has to turn to empty the bowl, letting a drop fall on Loki. He shudders, causing an earthquake. There’s plenty more little details like that and I thought they made for good reading.

The best part of the book is the writing style, which is pretty funny for the subject matter, which could have been treated in a very serious way. Instead, you find lines like this: “Thor looked interested. He had already broken a great many weapons over the years, normally by hitting things with them.” There’s a lot of sarcastic and funny lines like that. Overall, pretty good book.

Reflection on Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin

               This is an exciting book about the 2008 race for president mainly focused on Barack Obama and the Clintons. I had seen the movie and wanted to read the book, but I was disappointed to see that it was co-written by Mark Halperin, who is a sexual predator. The book is a good read though and fast-paced. However, the pacing becomes a problem because of how uneven it is. The book spends fourteen chapters on the Democratic Primary and then just three on the Republican Primary. That felt weird.

               A good quote from Bill Clinton that I think describes modern American politics pretty well is that, “Only a small percentage of what voters are looking for is whether any of this stuff is true. What they’re really looking for is to see, how is this person going to react?” It reminds me a lot of Trump, who is constantly in a state of scandal, but apparently reacts in a way that enough people like so that it doesn’t matter. It makes sense, because a reaction to adversity is a good test of how the person will react in the future and actually makes sense for a lot of jobs.

               Much of the general election section of the book focuses on Sarah Palin, who was picked as McCain’s VP after the news that they wanted Joe Lieberman leaked and was unpopular. She was vetted, but only in the sense that they made sure she wouldn’t say any crazy things or feel too pressured by the stress of the campaign. The team that actually did research into her past was only given a few days. The Katie Couric interview really messed her up and it seems like she never really came back from that, plus the SNL skits. There is also talk of McCain’s campaign suspension to deal with the economic crisis. While I am a registered Democrat, this struck me as an example of Democrats seeing the worst in people and turning something good into something that looks bad. McCain didn’t get the benefit of the doubt from the press and Senate Leader Harry Reid said “We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.” I guess there is some advantage in attacking like this, but it would be better for the country if we could be more earnest and see the best in people. It’s a small thing, but stuff like that means that now you can’t even do the right thing because everything is seen through a lens of cynicism. Can a modern day politician ever just do something good without the other side accusing him or her of doing some political plotting?

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Before LBJ, there had been no Southern presidents for a hundred years. Before Obama, every Democratic president since LBJ (and including him) was a white, southern male.
• Hillary Clinton was in millions of dollars of debt after the campaign, which probably explains why she needed to give those speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars at Goldman Sachs.

Reflexión sobre Bolívar por Indalecio Liévano Aguirre

               Esta biografía de Simón Bolívar ha sido el reto más grande de mis habilidades en español. El libro casi llega a 700 páginas y tuvo muchísimas palabras que eran nuevas para mi en el español. Algunas aprendí, algunas olvidé y otras salté. Yo leí este libro porque se dice que es el mejor libro de su vida y yo puedo decir al menos que es un libro muy completo, aunque me sentía que cubre muy rápido el fin de su vida. Me gustó el lenguaje que usa el autor, pero me parecía que él usa demasiadas citas de los personajes, cuales, aunque necesarias, son muy difíciles leer. Pero eso es más un problema personal.

               Simón Bolívar cuando era joven tuvo problemas con la autoridad y una admiración de Napoleón. El siempre tenía un sentido de su destino, supuestamente declarando frente las ruinas de Roma que iba a librar América del yugo español. Cuando empezó la revolución en Venezuela en 1810, Bolívar solo tenía 26 años. Como un criollo adinerado, Bolívar se unió con la revolución y se promocionó a coronel. No obstante, su suerte no era tan grande y él perdió Puerto Cabello en 1812. Este fue su primer encuentro con Francisco de Miranda, quién negó enviarle refuerzos. Poco después, Miranda (conocido como “el precursor” por su apoyo de independencia antes de Bolívar) firmó un acuerdo de capitulación con los españoles. Viendo eso como traición, Bolívar y otros oficiales jóvenes arrestaron a Miranda y le entregaron a los españoles. Aunque algunos ven esta acción como cuestionable moralmente, tiene mucha lógica para mí. Si uno quiere seguir con la revolución, hay que castigar o despedir los líderes que no quieren, y eso fuer una manera de hacerlo.

               Muy pronto, Bolívar ganaba influencia y poder como un caudillo que ganó a las ciudades de Mérida y Trujillo en Venezuela, donde le nombraron “el libertador”. El 15 de junio de 1813, Bolívar declaró “La Guerra a la Muerte”, diciendo que “españoles y canarios, contad con la muerte aun siendo indiferentes si no obráis activamente en obsequio de la libertad de América. Americanos, contad con la vida aun cuando seáis culpables.” La Guerra a La Muerte me recuerda del Gettysburg Address de Abraham Lincoln. En las dos declaraciones, lideres de un movimiento social cambió los lineamientos en que se luchaba una guerra. Para Bolívar, fue por mostrar que esta guerra esta en contra de los españoles, no solamente una revolución de las clases privilegiadas. Esto fue muy importante porque en ese momento los españoles estaban intentando ganar el apoyo de los indios, mestizos y esclavos en contra de los criollos que dirigían la revolución. En el Gettysburg Address, Lincoln hizo el mismo, declarando que el propósito de la Guerra Civil de Estados Unidos fue librar los esclavos, cambiando el motivo de la guerra para ser más favorable moralmente a su propio lado. Las dos declaraciones muestran la utilidad de usar política para avanzar los propósitos de uno en guerra. En agosto, Bolívar tomó a Caracas y al fin de 1813, Venezuela fue libre de españoles.

               En 1814, Bolívar entró a Bogotá, librándolo de otros rebeldes y planeaba ir a Cartagena para conquistar la ciudad libre que le oponía. Sin embargo, en 1815 decidió ir a Jamaica, una muy buena decisión. Viéndose como un punto de controversia, Bolívar decidió renunciar sus cargos mientras todos peleaban dentro del movimiento revolucionario. Esto tuvo efectos muy buenos para su carrera. Primero, dejó que el quedara una figura unificadora y no uno de un grupo grande de caudillos peleando para el poder e influencia. Segundo, evitó compartir el destino de Cartagena, que fue la ciudad a cuál llegó “el pacificador” Pablo Morillo, quién conquistó la ciudad con la armada y ejército más grande en la historia de Sudamérica hasta ese punto y ejecutó los lideres de la rebelión de Cartagena. Se pueden ver estatuas de ellos cerca el centro de convenciones hoy en Cartagena. Es un momento muy fuerte de la revolución, cuando España muestra de nuevo su poder después de haber resuelto la ocupación napoleónica. Me recuerda de la conquista de Nueva York en la Guerra Revolucionaria de Estados Unidos, aunque este hecho pasó muy tarde, ya con 5 años de revolución cumplidos.

               Hasta este punto, Simón Bolívar solo era uno de varios caudillos luchando en América. No fue el único ni el más influyente en América, ni los Andes, ni Colombia. Sin embargo, fue el único caudillo que ganó asistencia extranjera para sus esfuerzos. Después de un intento de algunos asesinarlo, Bolívar huyó a Haití, donde el presidente Petión acordó apoyarlo. En 1816, Bolívar llegó en Venezuela y empezó, con su asistencia haitiana, a cumplir con su promesa a Petión de librar los esclavos de América. Fue su apoyo de todos americanos, aún los que no eran criollos, que permitió Bolívar defenderse contra la rebelión de Manuel Piar, quién quería más derechos para mestizos en el nuevo régimen, y fue ejecutado por Bolívar, quien dijo “he derramado mi sangre”.

               Bolívar libró a Angostura en 1817 y decidió en 1819 proceder hasta Colombia (Nueva Granada), donde ganó la batalla de Boyaca, librando aún más territorio. En fines de 1820, Bolívar firmó un acuerdo con Morillo (quien solo poseía entonces Caracas y algunos más territorios en Venezuela) que dejó a Morillo volver a España y reconoció la independencia de Venezuela y Colombia. Miguel de la Torre quedaba con los restos de las fuerzas españolas, a cuales venció Bolívar en la batalla de Carabobo en 1821. En este punto de triunfo, se empezaron a ver diferencias grandes entre Bolívar, el libertador de Venezuela y Colombia, y Francisco de Paula Santander, el hombre de leyes que había ganado mucha influencia en Colombia. Santander quería que Colombia aprovechara de las riquezas de Venezuela, que se había conquistada, generalmente, con fuerzas colombianas. En lugar de eso, Bolívar convenció a Santander apropiar los fondos para un ejército libertador, que siguiera al Perú.

               Después de las batallas de Bomboná y Pichincha, Bolívar entró a Quito el 16 de junio de 1822. Seis días después de su entrada, Bolívar se encontró con Manuela Sáenz, el amor de su vida. Bolívar se había casado antes, cuando era joven, pero su esposa murió y Manuela lo captó. El autor escribe muy lindas palabras sobre su romance. En Perú, Bolívar reunió con José de San Martín en la Conferencia de Guayaquil, donde decidieron que Bolívar pudiera atacar los demás españoles que quedaban en Perú. Bolívar y San Martín tenían muchas diferencias. Esencialmente, Bolívar era un apoyador de una revolución social mientras San Martín solo quería una revolución política. San Martín quería mantener el poder de la clase criolla y Bolívar quería empoderar los pobres de América, especialmente los esclavos, los indios y los mestizos. No acordaron de nada. El acuerdo que quería Bolívar, “la unificación del hemisferio una alianza de los “pueblos”, … suponía el quebrantamiento de la tradicional primacía de las clases dominantes…” San Martín, un miembro y apoyador de las clases dominantes nunca habría dejado pasar eso. Sin embargo, Bolívar siguió a ganar los españoles en la batalla de Junín y su cercano amigo y general subordinado Sucre ganó a los españoles en Ayacucho en 1824, librando Perú, el último lugar de presencia española en América. Argentina, enfrentando muchos problemas internos, dejó de reclamar sus provincias del norte y Bolivia proclamó su independencia en 1825, nombrándose por su libertador.

               El autor anota que al momento de que Europa se estaba centralizándose, convirtiéndose de muchos países a pocos, América del Sur se estaba balcanizando, fracturando en muchos pedazos. El general Páez declaró que Venezuela saliera de la unión con Colombia y Santander envió a Bolívar a resolver el problema. Sin embargo, Bolívar traicionó los deseos de Santander y, en lugar de vencer Páez en el campo de batalla, trató de dar recompensa a él. A pesar de eso, Páez independizó a Venezuela, Y de Gran Colombia, solo quedaba una parte más pequeña. Fue en ese momento que Bolívar llamó a hacer un congreso constitucional para el estado que se llamaba “Nueva Granada”. Este episodio muestra una grave diferencia entre el joven Estados Unidos y si líder, George Washington, y el joven Gran Colombia y su líder, Simón Bolívar. Washington y el gobierno estadounidense lograron aplastar dos rebeliones en los días principales de la historia de su país, el Rebelión de Whiskey y el Rebelión de Shays. Lincoln ganó la Guerra Civil y no dejó salir el Sur de su país. Bolívar y su gobierno en Colombia no lograron controlar Perú, Ecuador y Venezuela. Menos de cien años después, también perdió el país moderno de Panamá.

El Congreso de Ocaña de 1828 fue un fracaso para Bolívar porque negó a las ideas constitucionales que Bolívar había implementado en Bolivia y fracasó su idea de formar una “Federación de los Andes”. Los delegados bolivarianos salieron del congreso y declararon a Bolívar su dictador. Sudamérica enfrentaba problemas gigantescos. Primero, la geografía y la falta de infraestructura hacían muy difíciles el comercio y la comunicación por medio de tierra. Segundo, la Revolución formó sin la institución que la guiara, un “congreso continental” como tenía los Estados Unidos, y a contrario, la revolución de Sudamérica fue dominada por caudillos que controlaban estrías y pedazos pequeños de tierra. Tercera, diferencias raciales y clasistas hacían que los criollos eran una minoría pequeña pero muy poderosa que celosamente guardaba su dinero y su poder. Cuarto, no había un sistema monetario continental, como hizo Hamilton en Estados Unidos, y nadie para hacerlo, dejando el continente fracturado económicamente. Aunque Bolívar era un maestro de la guerra y la logística, fue un fracaso en la política de ese continente y periodo tan fracturado. Después de haberse declarado dictador, algunos intentaron, y fracasaron, asesinarlo. A pesar de este fracaso, Bolívar vio que no tenía el poder que necesitaba. Estaba cansado.

Aunque su general Sucre ganó una guerra en contra de Perú para la ciudad de Guayaquil, Bolívar no podía controlar el país. Se renunció su puesto y urgía a su pueblo, el pueblo hispanoamericano que “permanezcáis unidos para que no seáis los asesinos de la patria y vuestros propios verdugos”. Con esas palabras, dejó la presidencia a Santander y empezaba hacia la costa, enfermo y débil de una vida corta, pero muy aventurada. En su camino, se enteró del asesinato de su amigo Sucre y gritaba “Dios excelso: se ha derramado la sangre del inocente Abel”. Poco después de haber enterado de eso, recibió una carta del mismo Sucre, despidiendo su amigo que no pudo ver en Bogotá, diciendo “Adiós, mi general; reciba usted por gaje de mi amistad las lágrimas que en este momento me hace verter la ausencia de usted.  Sea usted feliz y en todas partes cuente con los servicios y la gratitud de su más fiel amigo, Antonio José de Sucre. Hoy en día, el departamento colombiano de Bolívar queda al lado del departamento Sucre.

El 17 de diciembre de 1830, Simón Bolívar, el libertador de América, murió de tuberculosis en Santa Marta. Yo he visitado el sitio donde quedaba en sus últimos días y el sitio donde murió. La historia de él es una historia muy triste porque es una historia de idealismo y de sueños vencidos y no cumplidos. A pesar de haber ganado al enemigo externo, Bolívar se venció por enemigos internos. Es un cuento en que las fuerzas del mal ganaron en contra de las fuerzas de los pobres, de los pueblos y de los esclavos. Todavía vivimos en el mundo de los criollos que partieron a Hispanoamérica en sus pequeños reinados para regir sobre un pueblo pobre. Me gusta la cita que está en la contraportada del libro, que dice “la esclavitud es hija de las tinieblas, un pueblo ignorante es el instrumento ciego de su propia destrucción”.

Reflection on Fire and Blood by George R.R. Martin

               As Game of Thrones comes to a close, I had to pick up this book. Fire and Blood reads very differently from the A Song of Ice and Fire series; it is more like a history book than the novels that Martin usually writes. There’s actually a page in the front that says the book is written by Archmaester Gyldayn and transcribed by George R.R. Martin. I liked that. The book covers the period from Aegon’s Conquest until the end of the regency of Aegon III, about 140 years later and about 150 years before the events of A Game of Thrones.

               I learned some interesting things. For example, before Aegon conquered Westeros, House Hoare was the paramount house of the Iron Islands and they had conquered the Riverlands. There is also a potential explanation for how Daenarys’ three dragon eggs came into the possession of Magister Illyrio of Pentos. During the reign of King Jaeharys, three eggs are stolen and sold off somewhere in Essos. Martin writes, “’They may not hatch,’ Benifer said. ‘Not away from Drangonstone. The heat… it is known, some dragon eggs simply turn to stone.’
               ‘Then some spicemonger in Pentos will find himself possessed of three very costly stones.’ So that was a cool reference. There is also a mention of the dragon Vermax leaving a clutch of dragon eggs at Winterfell, meaning that there may be no end to the number of dragons who can be born, they just need to hatch somewhere. Heat is mentioned by the Maester Benifer, which might have had to do wtith Danaerys’ miracle. Septon Barth also claimed that dragons “change sex at need” being “as mutable as flame.” Another interesting moment as when Queen Alysanne attempted to bring her dragon Silverwing beyond the wall but the dragon refused. Did the dragon know what could happen north of the wall as would happen to Vysarion [sp?] so many years later? There’s also a funny little aside that says, “but his son Davos always said he died content, smiling at the rotting hands and feet that dangled in his tent like a string of onions,” a pretty clear reference to Davos Seaworth, The Onion Knight who served as Hand to Stannis Baratheon in ASOIAF.

               In sum, this was a good book and I guess it was worth GRRM writing it even if that meant more time not having released Winds of Winter. The book educates you about the Targaryens and the other houses they dealt with in their early years. I really enjoyed the parts about the “Dance of the Dragons” and thought it was a very good read.

Reflection on Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson Volume 3 by Robert Caro

               So this was the longest book I’ve ever read, and I have officially crossed the halfway point in Robert Caro’s series on Lyndon Johnson This book covers the period from 1949 (LBJ’s election to the Senate) to 1960 (his election to the Vice Presidency) but mainly focuses on the time up to 1957 (when LBJ passed a Civil Rights compromise bill that was the first Civil Rights bill passed by the Senate in over 80 years.

               The book begins with a pretty long history of the senate that could really be its own book, hitting around 200 pages. It’s interesting to see the growth and evolution of the institution, especially before and after the Civil War. Caro points out that the Senate really only worked during the time of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay (The Triumvirate), when Senators argued and convinced each other on the floor. With the Civil War, the Senate got a lot done under purely Republican rule, but when Democrats rejoined after the war, filibustering became a common way to hijack debate. The South similarly conquered the Senate by becoming a one-party region, so that Democrats would never face serious challenges and would achieve the crucial committee chairmanships through seniority, which was first established in 1845, when party caucuses took over appointments within the Senate. However, during this time the Senate became weaker, partly due to filibustering and partly due to the “Imperial Presidency” that began to grow steadily in power from the beginning of the 20^th century. When Theodore Roosevelt “took” the Panama Canal Zone. The Senate couldn’t keep up. Writes Caro, “During the decades since 1890, when the Senate had authorized a staff of three persons for its Foreign Relations Committee, the United States had become a global power, with interests in a hundred foreign countries. In 1939, the staff… was still three” and only one staff member was full-time.

               When Lyndon Johnson arrived in the Senate, the Senate floor had ceased to be the center of drama. By 1949, Senators would come to give a speech for the record, some business would be settled, and reporters would cycle in and out with no more than 2-3 Senators on the floor at a time except for on crucial bills. Lyndon Johnson chose to remain there, watching the Senate, observing, and learning. Johnson changed his attitude from his days in the House. In his early years as a Senator, he chose not to grab lapels and put his arms around Senators and be otherwise rough with them. Instead, he was mild-mannered in the way of the Senate. In his early years as a Senator, he had three major accomplishments that enhanced his reputation. First was a speech against civil rights legislation and defending the filibuster in 1949, which earned him the trust of the South, and most importantly, Richard Russell, who Johnson had correctly determined was the most powerful man in the Senate. He would soon cultivate Russell like he did Rayburn in the House. Then, he led the ambush against Leland Olds, who was considered to left-wing to head the Federal Power Commission, further bolstering Johnson’s standing with conservatives. Finally, he led the Korean War Preparedness Subcommittee (under the auspices of Russell’s Armed Forces Committee), which was modeled off of a similar committee formed in World War Two that brought fame to Harry Truman for cutting government waste. Johnson was not as successful as Truman, but he was successful at releasing reports that excited the media and got his name out there.

Johnson was famous for his colorful language. Here’s a quote from the book: A special interest group—organized labor in Texas, say—was never merely weak, it was “not much stronger than a popcorn fart.” In the Johnsonian lexicon, a House-Senate joint committee was not merely a meaningless legislative exercise; “Hell,” he would say, “a joint committee’s as useless as tits on a bull.” About a Republican senator expounding on NATO, he said, “He doesn’t know any more about NATO than an old maid does about fucking.” He would say that one man was “as wise as a tree full of owls,” that another was “as  busy as a man with one hoe and two rattlesnakes.” Glancing out the window of 231, he would say, “It’s raining as hard as a cat pissing on a flat rock.” Ridiculing a Republican senator who thought he was making a national reputation with his expertise on economics, he said, “Making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg. It may seem hot to you, but it never does to anyone else.”

I still do not like LBJ after this book. Even though he’s revealed to be on the side of Civil Rights, he is still racist by any modern standard or the standards of his time. In addition, he is a cruel husband. To quote a passage from the book: Johnson was driving, with Lady Bird in the front seat at the window and the friend sitting between them. Leaning over the front seat to ask a question, Busby saw that Johnson had his hand “under the woman’s skirt and was having a big time, right there in front of Lady Bird.” (Busby says that “Lady Bird didn’t say a word,” but “after a while” the woman “slapped his hand.”)

               Johnson would become the Senate Majority Whip in 1951. The position, like the Majority and Minority Leadership at the time, was weak. Senators were used to doing what they want and didn’t have bosses. It was not nearly as easy to control them as the Representatives of the House, as Senators were considered to be almost like ambassadors from their states. As Majority Whip, however, Johnson was very effective in his role, working on the behalf of individual senators to gain their support and trust. Johnson, throughout his time as Whip, worked on behalf of Richard Russell, and his loyalty paid off. In 1953, Johnsons became Senate Minority Leader (the Democrats had lost the Senate). How was it possible to rise to such a high post so quickly? Well it wasn’t such a high post until LBJ made it that way. While today, the Minority and Majority Leaders of the Senate are the leaders of the Senate, back then they had hardly any power at all. The last two Democratic Leaders were humiliated and Johnson was risking the same since he, like them, had very little leverage with which to sway Senators.  

               Johnson, however, changed the game. He wheeled and dealed and managed to convince, not force, Senators to give up certain positions in favor of others. Before anyone knew it, he had destroyed the seniority system, putting people into committees that he wanted them in. They would have him to thank, not the seniority system, putting them in his debt. He proved to be an excellent Leader as he tried to position himself between the liberals and conservatives of the Democratic Party. He was doing well, though the limits of his power and influence were shown in 1956, when he completely failed in his bid for the Democratic nomination for president to Adlai Stevenson, a liberal. Southerners, Richard Russell most of all, were desperate for a southerner to be president for the first time in over a hundred years. Russell had determined that LBJ had the best shot at doing that and southerners lined up to support him as he became the presumed nominee of the south in 1960. But before that, in 1957, Johnson was to face the most difficult legislative battle of his career- the 1957 Civil Rights bill.

               In 1940, only 2% of black people of voting age in the South cast votes. Through legal maneuvers and straight-up intimidation, it was completely impossible for blacks to vote in many states and districts, utterly destroying their political power in the 80 years after the end of Reconstruction. As a result, black people were largely moving to the Republican party in the 1950s, hurting Democrats in cities in the North (generally more liberal) who wanted to empower blacks to regain their votes. Southern Democrats, on the other hand, absolutely would not allow any attempt to do so and promised to filibuster. The situation was absolutely shameful and unamerican, yet every attempt to rectify it was defeated by southerners in the senate. However, with Lyndon Johnson as the Majority Leader in 1957, things changed.

               You’ve gotta understand that it was absolutely crucial to this fight that Richard Russell, the most powerful man in the South, had already decided he wanted Lyndon to be President. Speaking to a staffer, Russell once said of Johnson, “George, we’re going to get that man elected President. But we can never make him President unless the Senate first disposes of civil rights.” Russell was a tremendous racist, but he needed a way to get a southerner into a powerful office and he knew that northerners would oppose a southern opponent of civil rights for the Democratic nomination. By using his technique of listening to what people didn’t say, Johnson determined that southerners were very against the newly proposed civil rights legislation in 1957, with the exception of the voting rights clause. They hardly mentioned that in their statements of opposition. So Johnson used all of his legislative abilities to amend the bill to weaken it, so that it would only protect voting rights, which ended up being passable, as southerners were willing to follow Johnson since he had Russell’s support. The actual fight as portrayed in the book was kind of confusing but certainly an interesting look at the inner workings of the Senate.

               Something crucial I learned from reading about the civil rights fight of 1957 is why African Americans tend to vote Democrat today. In the 1950’s, as they were moving towards the Republican party, southern Democrats were clearly opposed to black people’s interests, yet Republicans, specifically President Eisenhower, did little to help them either. However, the movement to the Republicans was staunched by the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and would later be completely reversed when Johnson was President with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. It would end up being southern Whites who switched to the Republican Party at the end of the fight.

               In the end, this was a very good book and might be the best book of the series so far. It is the first one to end not with an election, but with a legislative fight, and the first to explore the fundamental conflict in who Johnson is. Is he a conservative, a reactionary, a racist? Or is he a liberal, a radical, a New-Dealer, a civil rights fighter? It would seem that this book reveals that while he was still a racist, who was fine with calling black people “niggers” or “nigras” to their face, he was also an idealist. He felt that blacks were inferior to whites. However, this was largely due to, in his opinion, their treatment by whites, and that they could be educated to be better. I would still call him a racist, but there is a clear difference between him and the other southern Senators of the time. The best quote of the book is when Caro writes, “Power, Lord Acton said, corrupts. Not always. What power always does is reveal.”

Reflection on American Sniper by Chris Kyle with Jim DeFelice and Scott McEwen

               American Sniper is the memoir of Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL who served in Iraq and set the record for most confirmed sniper kills by a US soldier. I saw the movie when it came out but I had neverread the book until I came across it on GoodReads and wanted to check it out. You could describe Kyle as a sort of stereotype of a military guy, and I don’t think he’d be offended by that. He loved to fight, enjoyed battle, and hated America’s enemies. He hated them very much. I found some parts of his memoir hard to believe (specifically a story of him taking down “one of the biggest drug dealers” in an American city more or less by accident) but in general it was really interesting and exciting. I liked that his wife contributed to it, so you get her side of the story as well.

               The relationship between Chris and his wife, Taya, is probably the biggest conflict of the book. He basically lets her know several times that she comes second to his SEAL buddies and he reenlists despite her wishes for him to come home to be with her and their children. His relationship with all of them suffers due to his time away in combat. He’s also very immature. He fights people constantly and at one point missed his kid’s birthday party because he was in court defending himself against charges of assault. His relationship with his wife became even more strained when he started communicating again with an old girlfriend. I found all of these examples to be really gross aspects of his personality.

               I’m not sure which Chris Kyle loved more: his country or violence. Whatever it is, they are both very high up there for him and he made a great soldier. I think the key points he makes throughout the book about the Iraq War is that first of all, the soldiers did not decide to go to war. He found it disgusting that people were protesting his platoon as they deployed, as they were the ones making the sacrifice, not the ones deciding. In addition, he points out that if we want to go to war, we need people like him. War isn’t pretty and attempts to sanitize it are futile. He explains how, from the soldier’s perspective, all the claims of civilian casualties are kind of ridiculous since it’s a war- lots of people are going to die. There’s no war in history where civilians don’t die and in Iraq, the US forces were held to a much higher standard (obviously) than the insurgents. While my opinions about the Iraq War are unchanged, I do feel more sympathy for those soldiers who fought in it and didn’t earn the love of their country like WWII soldiers did. In the end, the sacrifice is the same no matter what the war.

Reflection on Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World by Cal Newport

               I quit Instagram and Facebook when I started this book, which jumped the gun a little, but I don’t regret it. In the book, Newport lays out the case for a one-month digital detox to get you unhooked from your electronics. I think the book is good and if you are looking for motivation to quit your social networks, this is it. I don’t particularly like the writing style, which was very pop-economicsy if you know what I’m saying. Like Malcolm Gladwell. I’m just kind of sick of that style but whatever. I did learn that Amish people don’t reject all technology though. It’s actually that they try out each new one and decide thumbs-up or thumbs-down on it. For example, they have solar panels but not cars because cars are used to leave the community and solar panels are used to power it. Amish people are pretty successful in building their communities though, with 80-90 percent of young people choosing to stay after Rumspringa, their time away to experience the outside world. However, the author mentions that the Amish communities are pretty sexist in a very “traditional” kind of way. So that’s what I got from this book.

Reflection on Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? By William G. Dever

               I read this book shortly after finishing Who Wrote the Bible?, with “Bible” being a textual analysis of the Hebrew bible and “Who” being an archaeological analysis of the land of Israel to find evidence of who lived there in the 13^th-10^th centuries. I have to say that I liked “Bible” better because it was more readable, though this was a very thorough look at the latest in archaeology. I love that both books make common reference to the academic communities they work in and in this book, William Dever seemed obsessed with refuting this guy Finkelstein, which was pretty funny. It reminded me of Timmy Turner’s dad and “DINKELBERG!!!”

               I learned some pretty important facts in this book. For example, while people used to think that the Exodus occurred in the 15^th century B.C., scholars now believe it happened in the 13^th century, if there was an Exodus at all. Israelite peoples were potentially indigenous to the region, as the archaeological record does not show a big change in material culture between Canaanites and Israelites during that time period. Perhaps what occurred, according to Dever, is that the Israelites were a group of refugees, semi-nomadic peoples, and “social bandits” who fled to the hill country in Judea and Samaria, out of reach of the invasion of the Pharaoh Merneptah. A nomadic people called the “Shasu” are referenced several times in texts of that period in relation to their God “Yhw,” AKA “Yahweh.” Interestingly, this area would be basically the same as Midian, where Moses supposedly attained knowledge of Yahweh from the burning bush. So it seems like a group of people coalesced on the border of the wilderness near the Jordan River and formed a new social/ethnic group in the 13^th-12^th centuries B.C. They were urban dropouts, “Social bandits” (rebels/brigands in the countryside), refugees, and pastoral nomads.

               Despite this seeming like a random group of people, the Merneptah or Victory Stele of 1208 B.C. refers to Israel as an ethnic group, meaning that by the end of the 13^th century, this was not just a group of people, but a cohesive set of tribes believed to come from the same ancestor. Therefore, when they fled into the wilderness, they had already believed themselves to be one ethnic group, since it was Merneptah that they were fleeing.

               The author argues that some of these Israelites ended up in Egypt or worked as slaves in Israel for the Egyptian Pharaoh and told their story, truly of only a portion of the Israelites, as the story of all of them, inserted into the Pentateuch as the Priestly (P) text. Or at least that’s how I understand it. That explains the lack of a change in material culture- because most Israelites were already living in Israel when a Moses-like leader led the rest out of Egypt or out of Egyptian bondage. While this may seem to “disprove” the Exodus, it really shows that the story is more like Thanksgiving. Both celebrate a group of people that are not the whole people. Most Americans are not descended from the Pilgrims much like most Jews and Israelites were not descended from the Jews of Egypt. However, the story serves as a metaphor that is recognized by the entire people.

Reflection on How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States by Daniel Immerwahr

               Here’s a cool book that covers all the places that have bee “kind-of” in the United States throughout history. They include territories that later became states, like Illinois, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Hawaii, those that became independent countries, like the Philippines, and those that became something else, like Puerto Rico. It also talks about US military bases abroad, from Saudi Arabia to Japan.

               After the Louisiana Purchase, the next most important legal maneuver of the United States to add territory was the Guano Islands Act, which gave Americans the ability to claim any island that had guano on it, a type of bird poop very good for fertilizing farms. It created a legal framework to bring new land into the US domain without making it a state and also had strategic benefits years later, as those islands would become ideal for air bases. However, the United States’ decision to become an empire came late. It wasn’t fully enacted until the Spanish-American War at the end of the 18^th century, when colonialism was already in decline, and soon the colonies the US took would be repudiated, not in any legal way, but in the minds of American citizens, who refused to see their country as a colonial oppressor.

               I’m not really feeling like writing this all out, but despite record numbers of men volunteering for the US Army from the territories, places like Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico were exploited and the people were treated like second-class citizens, which they literally are in Puerto Rico to this day. This book is also a good look at the history of American foreign policy and recommendable to those interested in that sort of thing.

Reflection on Who Wrote the Bible? By Richard Elliott Friedman

               This was a cool book. It asks the titular question and goes into a literary analysis of the Old Testament, showing how different lines and phrases imply different authors, and explaining his hypotheses to the reader with references to archaeological evidence. It is very convincing, but that might be mainly because I knew so little about this stuff going in.

               The book covers the books in order, starting with the Pentateuch, showing that by separating the text into parts that refer to Yahweh and parts that use other names for God, you find that the text is actually at least two texts pushed together. Then, by separating another portion that deals greatly with law and priests by identifying key phrases, you can find another author. Friedman claims that his undergraduate students can learn to tell the authors apart in weeks. Basically, Friedman thinks that there were two versions of the bible that were combined when the Assyrian Empire conquered Israel, the northern Hebrew kingdom, in 722 BC and dispersed its people, who came from various Hebrew tribes that would later, due to this, be known as the lost tribes. Judah remained, and refugees flowed in, bringing their version of the Jewish origin story. He uses interesting observations to determine this. For example, the J version (mentions Yahweh) refers to the ark that housed the Ten Commandments several times, but E (the version from Israel) never mentions it at all. This makes sense because the ark was in Jerusalem, part of Judah, which wanted to emphasize its importance, while Israel would want to diminish it. He thinks that J was written in Judah between 848-722 BC and that E was written in Israel between 922-722 BC. It is interesting to read the examples the author gives of how you can split the text up and find two flood stories and several stories that are in one but not the other.

               Friedman’s book is especially captivating because he often tells tales of his own life as a biblical researcher, explaining how he and his mentors have come up with ideas, making the whole book a lot more relatable. He emphasizes that the Bible was the first attempt at writing history and that for it to be written or compiled by anyone other than Moses does not reduce its importance. After all, a faithful Jew would recognize that those who wrote it were doing so based on their own revelations from God.

Reflection on Salt: World’s history by Mark Kurlansky

               The history of salt reminded me of the book I read about oil by Daniel Yergin, however, while the commodity described by Yergin became much more important in the 19^th century, salt became much less importance due to the development of refrigeration and other preservation methods. What I mainly got from this book was the fun facts that are listed below. I guess it is also important to note that salt was an absolutely crucial thing to have for millennia until refrigeration was invented, reducing demand and when vacuum production of salt was developed, drastically increasing supply. Today, salt is so plentiful that the most common use is to throw it onto roads to keep them from freezing. In the USA, only 8 percent of salt is for food, 52 percent is for salting northern highways.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• The first recorded use of natural gas was in China in the year 200 AD, when it was discovered in deep salt mines and used for boiling brine.
• The word soldier comes from the same root as the word salt, as soldiers were paid in salt in ancient times.
• Anglo-Saxons called a saltworks a “wich,” so towns with “wich” in the name are likely sites of old saltworks or named after a town with saltworks.
• To begin pickling, you must make a brine. To know if the brine is salty enough, you can use the oldest method there is, test it by placing an egg into the brine. If the egg floats, you are ready to begin pickling.
• Butter, because it easily spoils in the sunlight, tends to be a northern food, while those in southern Europe and in other places closer to the equator used oil, often olive oil.
• Ketchup derives its name from an Indonesian sauce of fish and soy called “kecap ikan.” Salty sauces made with fish could be found all over the world throughout history as condiments, from Rome (where it was called “garum”) to Japan, where it became soy sauce.
• Hunters in New England in colonial times used to leave red herring along their trail to confuse wolves by the scent, forming the origin of the phrase “red herring.”
•