Category Archives: Reviews

U.S. Nuclear Deterrence: The Cold War and Colorado’s Nuclear Weapons Factory

Posted on by

Coming-Soon_RFB2_Front_Cvr_300x450pxWe are excited to announce a new book by Farrel Hobbs titled, “U.S. Nuclear Deterrence: The Cold War and Colorado’s Nuclear Weapons Factory,” arriving at Amazon.com by Sept. 15, 2018.

In an extensively researched account seasoned with secrecy and espionage, Hobbs traces the emergence of nuclear technology through the development and testing of the first atomic weapons. Initially intended to crush the WWII Axis powers in Western Europe, atomic weapons were first deployed in the Pacific Ocean theater. But post-WWII events brought an unexpected change in tensions among the Western Allies and U.S.-Soviet relations, in particular.

In late 1948 massive numbers of Soviet tanks and armed forces lined up in Eastern Europe facing a diminished and war-wearied Allied defenses. Stalin continued to amass combat forces and materiel that the Soviet military had prepared for a World War III.

Stalin had been planning this offensive as he fought alongside Allied Forces during World War II. He was waiting for the moment that his increasingly powerful armies could sweep through Western Europe and initiate his visionary communist world domination. Continue reading →

Archeology Takes Courage

Posted on by

book coverIt’s a shame to miss the story behind science. With The Lost City of the Monkey God: A True Story you don’t have to – the book offers a fascinating tale of discovery.

Since the first Europeans set foot in the Americas, they chased rumors of “lost” cities of gold. The first third of his book, Douglas Preston recounts an amazing group of, generally, con-artists claiming to have found the Monkey God City in an inaccessible jungle, and would rich donors just give them more money to prove it. These characters make for fun reading.

But there are real ruins in Honduras, and the Monkey God City legend is a conglomeration of real places. Space age technology and changing politics in Honduras enabled a scientific team to take up the search. Deadly snakes, deadly insects, drug cartels, dense jungle, and sucking mud all provide a thrilling backdrop to the expedition. Continue reading →

Running Out of Badjectives

Posted on by

Michael Wolff’s latest literary offering, Fire and Fury, Inside the Trump White House, hits bookstores this week, and looks to be a best-seller.  Whether it should make the NYT list in the fiction or non-fiction category will probably depend on one’s political affiliation, but whatever the source of review the book will certainly carry the adjective “controversial” in front of it.  Nothing assures a book’s success like controversy, and coming from the pen (keyboard?) of Wolff, whose reputation for historical accuracy will never be confused with that of, say, David McCullough, this work is on pace to sell millions.  Which begs a question.

Ever since Donald Trump first appeared in the public eye, descriptions of his behavior have exhausted the list of synonyms for “bad”.  He is widely acknowledged to have exaggerated his business acumen, cheated on his wives, stiffed his contractors and suppliers, personally attacked every critic with vitriol and immediacy, bullied other men, verbally and physically harassed women, and pretty much lied about all of it.  And that was before he ran for President.  Since he has been in office, he has done nothing but double down on these character flaws.  He has tried to intimidate the press, bad-mouthed judges, embarrassed and emasculated (sorry, Betsy D and Ms. Chao, Nielsen and Haley) his cabinet, alienated our allies, provoked our enemies – I could go on, but you get the idea.

The question I would pose is:  How much more Trump dirt can possibly be found between the covers of Wolff’s exposé than what we have already had sprayed in our faces?  Does anyone think that Wolff, from his spot on the White House couch, has managed to gather any tidbits of scandalous gossip that Robert Mueller, with his hundreds of FBI agents and his bottomless subpoena power, has overlooked?  Or that anything he can offer his readers about Trump’s vindictiveness and immaturity can equal the revealing content of the President’s own Tweets?

Even if every sentence of Fire and Fury is absolutely true, It is not likely to tell us anything about Donald Trump that we haven’t already figured out.  I don’t need to pony up $29.95 to be privy to the knowledge that our President is narcissistic, ignorant, duplicitous, nefarious, cold-blooded, inarticulate, thin-skinned, juvenile, lascivious, add-your-own-badjective-here.  Unfortunately I, and pretty much every other citizen of the world, already have that information.

Michael Wolff will likely get rich from this book, wherever Barnes and Noble decides to shelve it.  But if Wolff wants to interest me in a tell-all Trump tome it had better reveal an impeachable offense by page 5.  Otherwise, no sale.  I have seen all the dirt on Trump I can stand.

Book Review:  Concrete Economics, by Stephen S. Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong

Posted on by

This isn’t a normal book review, because I’m not going to plug this book.  More the opposite, actually.

Concrete Economics is in most respects a traditional work in that field.  For openers it is literally a cure for insomnia.  I read at night before bed – in bed – a practice most sleep experts say is likely to ruin your nocturnal regimen, and I have had more than a few nights “ruined” by the likes of Michael Lewis and Oliver Sachs.  After a few pages of Cohen and DeLong I was usually more than ready to turn out the light.  At 170 pages, this tome that should have been a one-sitting read for me took nearly a month to finish.  Even by the standards of the Drear Science, this book was a slog.

The authors’ style is heavy with one paragraph sentences, multi-syllable words and overly formal vernacular.  For example: “The East Asian Economies were eager to build up their manufacturing capacity and capability, and our ideologically motivated redesign of the American economy told us that we didn’t really care, because we didn’t really want those sectors.”  Did I mention the mixed metaphors?  “Alexander Hamilton: the only individual who may have been more than the tip of the spearhead of the heavy shaft of an already-thrown, near-consensus view on pragmatic economic policy.”  I nearly fell asleep typing that.

The book came highly touted by Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and oracle of Progressive economics, so I expected to disagree with much if not all of the content.  I was (mostly) wrong.

Lost style points aside, the authors make a fair case that some economic planning by the Federal government is essential to the success of the Republic (italics mine, certainly not Krugman’s).  Early on they discuss the formative post-Revolutionary policies of Hamilton, who pushed the fledgling US government to assume the colonies’ war debt, establish a central bank and, most crucially, pass a series of tariffs designed to protect America’s emerging manufacturing sector.  The only way the country could gain real economic independence, argued Hamilton, was to industrialize. The plan worked well.  US makers were soon thriving and the tariffs protecting them were the government’s main source of revenue until the advent of the income tax.

Hamilton’s protective tariff model was adopted by Japan and, later, China as those countries struggled to join the Industrial Revolution.  Contemporary fans include our current president, who would also appreciate the authors’ use of words like “huger.”  I think they meant, “more bigly.” Continue reading →

Lukewarming

Posted on by

The subtitle of this cleverly titled book is “The New Climate Science That Changes Everything.” Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger have done themselves proud with a book that should make climate change “Deniers” more comfortable (except, of course, that there are those who want to criminally prosecute them). Those who believe there is a pending climatic disaster will be less comfortable reading the book. The best way for me to begin this combination commentary and review is to quote from the back cover. “In Lukewarming, two environmental scientists explain the science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: climate change is real, and partially man-made, but it is becoming obvious that more warming has been forecast than will occur, with some of the catastrophic impacts implausible or impossible. Global warming is more lukewarm than hot. This fresh analysis is an invaluable source for those looking to be more informed about global warming and the data behind it.” Continue reading →

Hail, Caesar!

Posted on by

This is a first for this website as a review and commentary about a movie. The main characters of the movie are Josh Brolin (the “Hollywood Fixer”) and George Clooney as Baird Whitlock (the intellectually-shallow movie star). (Clooney does an excellent job of portraying an actor who speaks lines with passion while not really understanding what the lines might mean.) Other characters in the Joel and Ethan Coen production include Channing Tatum and Scarlet Johnansson. The movie is mostly a spoof of 1950s Hollywood productions, including one that mimics an Ester Williams movie titled Million Dollar Mermaid. Another is a song and dance movie that has strong homosexual innuendo featuring Tatum as one of several sailors. All of that was moderately interesting, but my main interest was in the theme that many Hollywood writers were Communists.

The main story of the movie is that Whitlock, who is playing Caesar, is kidnapped by Hollywood writers who call themselves a “Study Group” and “The Future.” The script of the movie explains that Whitlock is allowed to mingle with his kidnappers. There is a bit of foreshadowing when one of the kidnappers calls his dog Engels (Friedrick Engels collaborated with Karl Marx). As Whitlock is being served finger sandwiches and photographed for the group’s newsletter he has to listen to a character spouting difficult to understand economic theory. A spokesperson then explains to Whitlock that the movie studio “.  .  .is a pure instrument of Capitalism.” “And so Baird Whitlock found himself in the hands of Communists.” Whitlock is told, “.  .  .until quite recently our study group had a narrow focus. We concentrated on getting Communist content into motion pictures.” There is a scene where someone is sorting what must have been Party membership cards signed by Gus Hall, a leader of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

The House Un-American Activities Committee (which included Representative Richard Nixon) held highly publicized hearings searching for Communists in Hollywood in the late 1940s. A frequent assessment by the entertainment industry and news media in the years to follow charged that many actors and writers had their reputations unfairly smeared and their work blackballed because of accusations that they were Communists. The movie suggests the Coen brothers believe the accusations had a factual basis. The movie even includes a night scene where Tatum is rowed by his comrades to a rendezvous with a Soviet submarine. Tatum jumps aboard the sub as one of his mates calls out, “Comrade, We salute you! You are going to Moscow to become a Soviet Man and help forge the future. We stay behind, continuing in our disguise as capitalist handmaidens.”

My wife and I watched the movie on cable and agreed that we were pleased we hadn’t paid to see it when it was in theatres. Watching the movie was less entertaining than reading the script and thinking about what I wanted to write.