For starters, he is considered one of the masters of baseball writing. I picked up this book because there was some 1973 “I finally read Roger Angell.
For starters, he is considered one of the masters of baseball writing. I picked up this book because there was some 1973 “Ya Gotta Believe” Mets content.
I am tempted to use the cliche “they don’t make it like this anymore”, but that’s simply not true. There is some great baseball writing out there.
But what I can say is the hype is true. Angell is as good as any body who’s ever wrote about baseball. There’s an observational level where Angell isn’t just writing about sport, but he’s talking about American life.
Five Seasons is a collection of writings so some of it is very “general audience” timeless tales like the story of three Tigers fans, he wrote for the New Yorker; or the story of Steve Blass who inexplicably and seemingly overnight went from AllStar pitcher to not being able to throw a strike. Other pieces are just stadium travelogues.
For that, it is hard to recommend Angell to non baseball fans, though it is still worth looking up those classic New Yorker articles just to experience this great American writer.
For me, the players here are the ones I grew up with. It really hit me hard in the nostalgia.
Five Seasons was probably randomly picked,since it was published in 1977 and happened to collect 1972 through 1976 as they had just passed. But with retrospect, they are important seasons. The As and Reds dynasties are here, as well as the Orioles on the descent and the Yankees on the ascent.
It’s hard not to think of these if not as the last glory years of baseball, at least the transition years. So much change: Players Union, the first labor strike (over pension), the Designated Hitter, night baseball, and free agency. Angell even talks about the way baseball scouting has changed
Charlie O Finley is here. He of the Orange Baseballs, the Designated Runner, and the extra pay bonus for players who would grow a mustache. He would take the best team in baseball and break them up with his penny-pinching ways.
Some great moments too. The 1975 World Series as good as one ever played. Hank Aaron pursuing Babe Ruth’s record. The seemingly ageless Willie Mays finally getting old. Lou Brock, Nolan Ryan Joe Morgan. So many names, often up and coming, written as it happened. The greats and the now forgotten.
Angell captures everything with a wide angle lens. So not only is his take on the game good, but he catches the fans in the stands. The crack of the bat as well as the peanuts and crackerjack.
Baseball (and life) always changes. Angell wrestles with ideas such as the San Francisco Giants being bought by a Japanese company, baseball on tv being called by Howard Cosell, and the eternal fight between owners and players. Heck, we still fight over the Designated Hitter, and disparity between players and owners gets ever wider.
Because it is a collection, there is some repetition. I do think anyone who really loves the game and regularly reads sports books will enjoy it. Otherwise, it may be too gigantic of a task for those who might come to the subject half-heartedly. That said, Angel’s writing is easy to find and every American should check out one of his famous stories....more
White's hook here is he covers Truman's Whistle Stop campaign. It's solid reading for anyone who is involWhy, yes, I do read a lot about Harry Truman.
White's hook here is he covers Truman's Whistle Stop campaign. It's solid reading for anyone who is involved in or interested in election politics.
As we know, Truman was in dire straits heading into 1948. He had lost the backing of FDR's family, he was watching Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond defecting from the Democrats and taking supporters with them, and he was in a world where Stalin and the Communists were bullying Europe and Mao had taken over China. Also, the Republican nominee Thomas Dewey was very popular.
Truman decides to cross the country, first in an ostensibly "nonpartisan"Presidential Tour and then a campaign tour, the total taking in (as the book's title suggests) 31,000 miles and 352 speeches.
One of the reasons the tour was successful was the group behind his speeches. Like a modern day political" war room, except without the conveniences and stuck on an uncomfortable train, this group gave Truman the ammunition he needed.
Truman was not good at prepared speeches, but he was a dynamic speaker off the cuff. With a few bullet points, he was able to draw on this strength. His aides, for the first time in history, were crafting speeches which were tailored for the venue. Perhaps, it was local lore, perhaps, it was statistics that mattered to the particular population.
It is worth reading if you are interested in this stuff. Truman really reached people and worked hard to get voters, while Dewey stuck to standard script. Truman made strong calculated decisions, like attacking Congress instead of Dewey (but tying Dewey in as a Republican) and forcing their hand to make policy or do nothing.
Truman also bravely moves forward on civil rights, conceding that it was not worth the Dixiecrats' votes. It is truly something Truman believed in, though, and the country needed.
Truman spoke straight arguing the principles of liberalism, and he also would not let the Republicans "own" Patriotism. Modern day Democrat candidates would do well to read this book.
Truman also never gave up, despite the grueling schedule.
There's a lot here to digest. it is really an unique perspective of 1948, with a lot of personal interviews, letters, and insight. It is an academic book, but it is generally easy enough to read....more
I may be the rare Scalzi fan who didn't come to him from this book or his website. I enjoyed other books and since Old Man's War will be one of his caI may be the rare Scalzi fan who didn't come to him from this book or his website. I enjoyed other books and since Old Man's War will be one of his career defining moments, I figured I better read it.
Trying to be relatively spoilerless, but write a review, I will say the idea is great. It's just a classic idea, that nods to Heinlein and Card. In this case, the army is made of 75 year olds, and Scalzi writes a good logic around why that should be in a not-so-distant sci-fi future. Set up to ask as a classic sci-fi question: Would you do it?
Our narrator introduces us to this world, which I think is note perfect. Great characters and dialogue. Well-paced with action propelling the story. Good job of world building. Relatable and empathetic. It does to me what every good sci-fi story does, and is accessible for all readers.
I was a little biased in knowing that this book has continued well on into at least eight (?) books and stories. The book does a decent enough job of wrapping things up at the end, though I knew immediately I would continue on.
I want to refrain from spoilers, but I went in with high expectations. 15 years in, and the reputation just seems to grow. It is a classic of its time. That said, it really sucked me in. I am looking forward to the rest of the series....more
This was a gift. Now, most of my gifts are based on what's hot on the Nonfiction charts, and that's been generally books by Fox News Talking Heads latThis was a gift. Now, most of my gifts are based on what's hot on the Nonfiction charts, and that's been generally books by Fox News Talking Heads lately. So, this is undoubtedly, down my alley. I am a big fan of Matthews and read him before.
That said, I don't think I would have picked this up. Talking Head books generally are lightweight, and hasn't everything been said about the Kennedys?
I would have missed this, though. Matthews's book is quite good. He has an unique perspective which he filters the RFK biography through. For starters, he was as a young Catholic boy who watched and adored the Kennedys. He would work in Massachusetts politics with Tip O'Neil, so he knows the state politics and players from being in that next generation. Lastly, over the years, he has become close to the Kennedys. So, while this won't be the definitive word on RFK, it is quite worthy.
You likely know the story of the Kennedys, but JFK's success was precipitated by RFK doing all the grunt work (and being the bad guy), and JFK avoiding the fray. RFK sets on his own course, wanting to take down the mob and fight corruption; haunted a bit by a family alliance with Joe McCarty; and ultimately, near the end of his life, truly someone who sought to understand the struggles of the downtrodden and worked for noble causes.
Timing plays a big part in the RFK story (and ultimately his life). He is under his brother's shadow. LBJ and him are never friends, and RFK has to decide whether it is in his best interest to wait to run in 1972. When LBJ does not run in 1968, RFK has seen some liberal support be usurped by Eugene McCarthy. He gets in the race and it is a question who the young Democrats will support.
RFK would be a true hero of the left, friend of MLK and Cesar Chavez, and working to carry on the Kennedy legacy. He was betrayed by what was a life of wealth and prestige. We will forever contemplate what could have been.
This book covers all that and is easy to read, but succeeds in leaving the reader feeling like they know everything they need to know about RFK....more
Though tons of words have been written on the Smiths, this seems essential.
Besides, I am not sure you could consider Morrissey's autobiography non-ficThough tons of words have been written on the Smiths, this seems essential.
Besides, I am not sure you could consider Morrissey's autobiography non-fiction, so here we are.
This is pretty standard rock autobio. Conversational and breezy. Marr seems "aw shucks" as he recounts his life, marrying his teenage sweetheart and becoming one of the most influential guitarists of his generation.
Nothing wrong with that. His is an interesting story. Although he makes it sound like it was so simple, I gleam that he practiced his keyster off, and this story doesn't happen without Johnny putting in the work.
Pretty simple biography which recounts the England of his youth, getting involved in the local music and fashion scenes, up until he puts together the Smiths.
From there, it's a pretty basic bio which combines some of his inspiration and "behind the music" tales of recording, mixed with what he was feeling at the time. The kind of stuff Smiths fans will pore over.
Observers have noted Marr's weird post-Smiths career, but here, it follows a certain logic. He had known Matt Johnson since his teen years and they always planned to make music together. He plays with friends and heroes (The Kirsty MacColl bits are some of the best- along with him coming up with the name of her "Electric Landlady" album). He pursues a solo career, but finds he likes the feel of a band better, so he hitches up to Modest Mouse and the Cribs. He finally decides to really put his name out there, forming a band with the rhythm section of the band Haven, and playing music that recalls his glory days. Somewhere in there, he's responsible for discovering Oasis, as well.
It's a lengthy book, but it's a simple read. Smiths fans will enjoy it. He's interesting enough, though, if you are a fan of music bios, and have any interest in the band or the ear at all, it might be worth a read. For song-by-song analysis, you can do better, of course, but I would mark it essential for Smiths fans. I will probably thumb through it a few times over the coming years....more
I hadn’t really read Maureen Dowd but couldn’t resist the cover of this book.
There’s a lot of opinions out there about Dowd. One common take is that sI hadn’t really read Maureen Dowd but couldn’t resist the cover of this book.
There’s a lot of opinions out there about Dowd. One common take is that she’s no Molly Ivins. I suppose since their styles are similar and the field is thin, it’s inevitable. Anyway, I tend to disagree with the haters. I think Ivins would be glad to see a tradition carried on.
If Dowd was a middle aged white man, she would probably be treated like Christopher Hitchens, a lovable irascible character.
Dowd gets a lot of hate as well since she is critical of Dems like Obama and the Clintons, maybe even more than she is the Bushes and Trump.
I don’t really have a problem with this. There is the idea to unite behind your own but at the end of the day, you should be able to criticize your own as well. Dowd accurately assesses Obama as someone who hates politics and where do you begin with the Clintons? The Left loves Obama but how does one lionize someone who’s attitude to universal healthcare was ‘we will be happy with what we get’.
The book loses points in that is essentially that it is a collection of articles. I would suppose that you could probably find all this content online fairly easily.
To top of that, it doesn’t seem to be categorized in any particular order- theme or age. It jumps randomly back and forth.
That aside, there is a lot to like. It may be a few years before anyone wants to think about such things, but this will be an important chronicle in how Trump bested “better” candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.
Dowd throws in “guest” columns written by family members that probably weren’t necessary but shake things up.
The lengthy eulogy of George HW Bush really sold me on this book. It is essential reading on understanding President 41. For that matter, it tells you what you need to know about the relationship between 41 and 43, and why 43 might have governed like he did- a President who shunned his fathers’ advisors’ (and didn’t ask his father ‘s) advice. Instead, making bold moves encouraged by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
It is hard not to appreciate the elder Bush after reading the piece written by someone who had gotten close. At the end of the day, GHWB was interested in respecting the office most of all, and knew, government required real participation between both parties.
This book is a good read for political junkies and despite it being merely a collection of columns, the ‘caught in time’ aspect added to Dowd’s wit and insight sort of balances that out. ...more
Fierce Conversations has made its way into the conversation of Steven Covey, John C Maxwell and Ken Blanchard style self-improvement and business bookFierce Conversations has made its way into the conversation of Steven Covey, John C Maxwell and Ken Blanchard style self-improvement and business books.
It’s a good premise in that all relationships are series of conversations. Thus, we should have those fierce conversations. We should always be our genuine self and we should never take a conversation for granted.
All noble ideas that you may not need a book for, but Scott outlines ideas she says will work.
It is a popular book that is still “hopping” and in a 3rd edition. The new edition is essentially the same, if that matters. Some content got moved to different chapters and there’s a few cyber-era paragraphs but it’s largely the same book.
It is important stuff, of course, and though the subject is eternal, Scott is deserving of her fame. We should pursue Fierce (think Fierce Conversation as in Sasha Fierce not as in Crossfire) Conversations, and if you need help, Scott gives you the tools you need.
Tendencies to tiptoe around some subjects for a variety of reasons. This book will help you approach those topics. Our message can’t be lost nor can we speak without acknowledging our emotional “wake”.
There are the usual things you get in books like these. Scott spends a quite a bit of time telling you how great she is (something all self-helpers tend to do); her stories show a lap of luxury most would not relate to, and she probably gets people to draw out their stories to her because she’s not attached to the situation (a skill you would see from any bartender).
Still, it does a pretty good job in doing what it purports to do. ...more
They are fantastic. I am never impressed with music algorithm sites or the infamous Amazon suggestions,First, a word about Goodreads’ recommendations.
They are fantastic. I am never impressed with music algorithm sites or the infamous Amazon suggestions, but GR is uncanny. It nearly always seems that they know of a book I have bought or a writer a friend has recommended right as it happened. Top notch!
In any case, I am too old for this to happen much anymore but I was at a bookstore with an armful of books and the clerk got to talking and suggested I might like John Updike.
So here we are; and he is one of the great American writers, of course.
It is hard to review Rabbit Run. Updike is good with words but he over describes everything when I am someone who appreciates minimalism. Not my thing.
The other main point is that Rabbit Angstrom is a jerk. The protagonist is an a-hole and worse.
Yet he is not a Hubert Selby Jr book. He is not depraved or a monster. He’s just a d-bag. I am not particularly drawn to him. Indeed, post- # metoo he seems particularly disgusting. (I do know he’s become a type of character celebrated in certain pockets.)
Still, we all know Rabbit- he was the high school sports star who has had trouble adjusting since. In modern day, the Rabbits I know, are all to a man, Trump supporters who spend hours upon hours online. It’s an interesting phenomenon to be sure. More boring than boorish.
Updike does tell a great American story though. Certain scenes are fascinating, almost breathtaking (in a particularly different sense of the word). At times, it is repetitive, and never (to me, anyway) is Rabbit fully sympathetic.
It feels very true. It is as true of an American story as has been told? I suppose. It just isn’t my thing. I doubt that I would be tempted to try Updike again....more
This was a gift and it was a book that I had no intention of picking up.
That said, of course, I would read it.
You know the background. It was the hottThis was a gift and it was a book that I had no intention of picking up.
That said, of course, I would read it.
You know the background. It was the hottest book of last year. Possibly even a non-event until Trump took to Twitter to denounce it, in which case, sales soared from the publicity.
Wolff was able to get a birds eye view from a trusting President who likely felt any publicity was good publicity.
The book is based on a fact that we all suspected- Trumps campaign got out of hand. Like everything to date, he was more interested in improving his brand. The rollercoaster never stopped though and the best case scenario (accusing Hillary of stealing the election and launching a TV network) was replaced by the real scenario of living in the White House.
That Wolff is a liberal probably undercuts him some, but his story confirms what we have heard from others- Vince McMahons son in law who recounts a story of Trump thinking pro wrestling events were real and most damning- Apprentice producer Mark Burnett who said Trumps TV show “firing” decisions were so illogical that he had to “reverse engineer” shows to make it look like it made sense.
Insomuch as Trump hates this book, it actually is quite sympathetic to him. Trump seems to be someone who is very blunt and lacks certain skills and is in way over his head here.
That President Trump is also the same person that peddled Art of the Deal, the same person who headlined Wrestlemania, and the same person who was going to succeed Ross Perot by running for President with Oprah as his running mate- show that you don’t automatically get personal growth by becoming (or running for) President. It goes without saying, the skills and attitudes he has, also make him very attractive at certain times.
Wolfe’s book is largely about an administration based on being outsiders and how they have attempted to run the White House with limited related experience. Three camps form and vie for Trump’s attention.
One is Steve Bannon. While addressing his past, Wolff makes Bannon the most sympathetic character in the book. It has been my understanding that Bannon contributed much to Wolff’s book and maybe that colors the portrayal. Anyway, as someone who is intelligent and stick to his principles (as twisted as they might be), Bannon comes off as the hero of the book.
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, the son in law and daughter of the President are another camp. Whereas Trump as a businessman always surrounded himself with family, he has done the same upon taking the White House. Like the rest, they clearly out of the depths. Their goal is a Donald Trump who is Presidential and moderate.
The third camp is Reince Priebus and his camp of Republican Party regulars like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Their interests are with keeping the office within GOP hands.
These three groups fight over control, and in this case, that’s a loose term since Trump does what he wants.
You may have had a boss like Trump who is used to telling subordinates to do something without having any idea of the nuances. It is surely unfathomable to him that he can’t solve the centuries old issues in the Middle East.
Mike Pence (and for that matter, the cabinet) are largely absent- Wolff tends to treat them as nonentities though surely that is not totally true.
The Mooch appears briefly in the end. He certainly is memorable. Anthony Scarmucci is like a mini Trump without the charm and wits (as they are). He switches party alliances, is an annoying self-promoter, and a shady businessman. He is the most unlikely of White House staff, but given the situation, finds himself Director of Communications. Nikki Haley shows up in the epilogue. The Media (and perhaps Wolff) implied that she was having an affair with Trump. I didn’t pick that up, but it is clear her ambition is overwhelming.
Wolff has a conversational style which works well here. It is a very breezy style. Almost too breezy at a few moments that are too loose. I thought I might question his observations but they seem true. Indeed, I think that when a nonpartisan reading of Trump is finally written (probably when we all are dead)- it will look much like Wolff’s.
I know that you could probably look at any Fortune 500 Company and pick scenes where management look incompetent (“The Public is gonna love New Coke!”). That said, this doesn’t necessarily feel like a hatchet job. That the President likes fast food, early bed times, television and shuns the news are not particularly shocking facts. I also guess the early days of the Obama and Clinton White Houses were chaotic, but surely nothing like this.
Those looking for something deeper will be left wanting. That said, this was much better than I would have expected. As a document of Trump’s first 100 days and everything that came with that, this is pretty good....more
I’m a Midewstern New York Mets fan which generally draws questions.
Baseball has become a regional sport and being a fan of a long distance team makes I’m a Midewstern New York Mets fan which generally draws questions.
Baseball has become a regional sport and being a fan of a long distance team makes no sense.
It goes like this though, around 1984, two of the most gifted athletes of my generation joined the Mets- one a hitter (Daryl Strawberry) and one a 19 year old pitcher like no one else (Dwight Gooden). Occurring closely to this was the acquisition of two stars (Gary Carter, Keith Hernandez) to join them. In 1986, the Mets won the World Series. They were a great team again in 1988 but fell short and have yet to win another one since.
For starters, I was prime age (12) and baseball was a national game in some sorts with the Game of the Week, This Week in Baseball and any chance you got to watch the game, you took.
Ironically, baseball is very regional nowadays despite Fox and ESPN both having highly publicized games of the week and technology making it very easy to watch any and every game of every team.
Yet, where football has done quite well with this, and National teams have been the norm (Cowboys, Niners), and a new generation has grown up cheering for the Steelers, Patriots and Packers regardless of locale.
The NBA has even taken that further to be a players league. Fans now follow LeBron James or Steph Curry or Kevin Durant or Giannis, and not necessarily their current team.
So, through the years from WOR to MLB.TV, I have followed the Mets. That special Mets team was never able to go back to the top again. Years of mismanagement led to 1986 (a bunch of early draft picks) and arguably mismanagement has made the team the LOLMets of today’s Deadspin
An aura has been attached to the team because of this, as well as the drugs and personal issues that have derailed Gooden and Strawberry through the years.
Erik Sherman picked 14 of the most interesting players from that 86 team and met them and interviewed them.
Doc Gooden and Strawberry are here, of course, as well as fan favorite Mookie Wilson, Keith Hernandez, Wally Backman, loose cannon Lenny Dykstra, and “scum bunch”ers Danny Heep and Doug Sisk.
It’s a simple enough format which some classic baseball books have followed. To Sherman’s credit, it makes it a quite breezy book. Sherman knows the team well and he stays positive throughout. It never varies from being a love letter to the team. Even the crazy Dykstra gets a free pass. (Conversely, he probably wouldn’t have gotten the interviews he got without being supportive of the subject).
Unfortunately, it seems to keep that book at a certain level. Written in the internet age, there’s little surprise. Daryl and Doc have been chronicled extensively (an ESPN documentary in recent years was pretty high profile) and in a 24/7 news cycle, many Mets fans know about Backman and Dykstra’s progress.
It was logical to make each player their unique charter. However, it seems like each one runs a sequence of went to visit and asked these questions, then wished them well. Sherman has great questions but his incidental reporting seems limited to “his beautiful wife brought us lemonade” style comments. One feels the book might have been better served by just printing the Questions and Answers outright.
Even then, perhaps grouping chapters into topics might have gave it better flow. The last chapter focuses on the late Gary Carter and works well as each player shares their thoughts. Bouncing back and forth between voices would liven things up.
Trends do show up. Much has been made of how hard the 86 Mets partied. It gets played down here but the thread is that these guys loved baseball through and through. The other thread is that the Mets have passed on using these veterans to fill coaching and management vacancies.
All in all, as a Mets fan, this was a nice breezy nostalgic read, and I got to learn stuff about players I had not heard from in awhile. I also loved that Sherman did brief profiles on the players he could not fit in. ...more
I ran across this referenced on the internet and had to hunt it down.
I am a big fan of Pietruszka’s political books and given the subject matter, I haI ran across this referenced on the internet and had to hunt it down.
I am a big fan of Pietruszka’s political books and given the subject matter, I had to find this. It is out of print, but in 2019, that’s s pretty relative term. You can find anything.
Pietruszka might be best known as a chronicler of elections, but he is also a baseball historian. The level of detail in this book is intense, but at the same time, I know of no other book like this.
This book as the title suggests is a history of every organized major league. It is heaviest on the early years.
Some may think of Organized Baseball as an unfair monopoly that legally shuts out any competition. What is interesting is that it has been that way since the beginning!
It is difficult to picture baseball so young that the rules were in flux. In the description of various organizations, there is incomparable trivia such as the year, they tried 10 innings and 10 player lineups.
There is a level of detail here that probably no one would need, such as attendance lists at every Federal League organizational meeting.
It’s a small complaint as it is well worth the unique story Pietruszka has to tell. It is humorous to see where early baseball sprung up and that history might have planted teams in Covington, Kentucky, Altoona, Pennsylvania, Providence Rhode Island, Elizabeth, New Jersey, Rockford, Illinois, Troy, New York, Fort Wayne, Indiana and Keokuk, Iowa.
Baseball seemed to always try and put teams in smaller markets like Buffalo, Indianapolis and Newark, to name a few. It goes to show you need to have people to go to the game. In any case, baseball doesn’t have a modern day equivalent to The Green Bay Packers.
The National League squeezed out all competition, smartly making good decisions on alcohol and gambling, but also moving to be the only league worthy of being a true Major League. That the American League succeeded is all due to Ban Johnson. The National League and allied minor leagues (fearful of competition) had been always able to halt rivals. Johnson was driven to succeed almost obsessively. That helped him succeed as well as the fact the National League got stingy. He also played nice and tried to avoid same city competition with the NL until he could strategically do so.
Organized Baseball seemed to have the courts backing and so the Reserve Clause which said players could not leave the teams they were contracted with, was the rule for almost 100 years. That law seemed to favor baseball and that players who might try to jump were blacklisted means The Major Leagues never had competition.
The Federal League would be the biggest threat. After nearly 30 years of various unions and upstart leagues (or at least on paper and in the minds of ambitious would-be owners), it looked like they might succeed. Essentially coming up with the idea of free agency and able to lure some big names, they were truly a professional league. Often outdrawing their competition. It wasn’t so much that a third league meant diluted talent (though it did). The courts effectively closed the league when it said Baseball was exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. Eventually the weaker teams were gobbled up by the NL and AL, while the successful owners got a chance to buy into those two leagues.
Of note, The Mexican League invasion of the 1940s is fascinating and a bit obscure. The Pasquel Brothers were cousin to the Mexican President. It almost reads like a story out of a Banana Republic. The Pasquels threw enough money to lure 18 major leaguers. However, it ended up a nightmare where the League wanted to control every aspect of the players’ lives. It is interesting to note that several Negro League players played in El Liga, and certainly saw some positives in comparison to playing in the States. Organized Baseball banned the jumpers and the Americans who did jump sound almost like prisoners when they tell the press how “perfectly happy” they were. There is enough stuff here to make a movie, though it’s not a Hollywood ending as La Liga could not keep up with its ambitions.
Similarly, the Global League of 1969 would make a good movie (if it had a happy ending) Ambitious in scope to actually be a worldwide league (complete with Geisha Girls performing at "Halftime"), it’s a miracle that it actually launched, even for a couple of months.
Walter Dilbeck sounds like a larger than life character and a bit of a huckster. He would later try to partner with a disgraced Spiro Agnew to build a theme park. It ends up with both men claiming the other ripped him off.
Despite big offers to major leaguers and getting former commissioner Happy Chandler on board, the Global League sounded like a lot of hot n
That story ends with Japanese (and one American) baseball players trapped in Venezuela without money or resources, just lucky to get out of the country after appealing to the embassy, and Dilbeck in an Indiana jail
Though baseball doesn't have a credible threat in the 70s like the other three big sport, the book's epilogue finds the sport slowed by labor disputes. There is a talk of The Baseball League in 1989 with big names like sports agent Richard Moss and Bob Gibson. The League eventually draws Meshlam Riklis (now most known for GLOW wrestling and marrying Pia Zadora) and Donald Trump. Trump sees the league as viable with "a long term contract with a major television contract or a number of major networks." Once again, Organized Baseball moved to block the league (in this case signing huge deals with CBS and ESPN). As the book went to print, the League is still Moss's dream with Trump now out ("That's good for the group. You know his history.")
The book is dry in detail sometimes. Someone could take a few of these nuggets and make it a best seller. That said, I never found a book that tackled this subject and the level of detail is amazing.
Monday Morning choices is part of the excellently branded Monday Morning series which says all of the serious stuff we think about we should do so at Monday Morning choices is part of the excellently branded Monday Morning series which says all of the serious stuff we think about we should do so at the beginning of the week.
This works as a great forum for book club discussion. The chapters are super short so no worries about getting behind. There are discussion questions at the end.
There are good points. Essentially, we should care what people think (Dress for success) and not care what all people think (as Bill Shakespeare said “Haters doth going to hate”). He uses a term “enemy” which seems extreme, but it is a good eye opener that as a leader you most likely will have some people actively working against you.
Otherwise, the stuff here is pretty basic, but if you need that push “Get off your rump and do it”, you can find that push here. Other hot takes include “Read everyday” and “you are the company that you keep”. Some basic principles about not being a victim and to make productive choices. In 21st Century America, there are rarely clear life paths. You will not be given a mentor and you will not be given a road map. You need to venture forward yourself. No one will do it for you.
My concern is that this book is a bit “rah rah” and those who might be further along in their career or looking for something deeper won’t get as much out of this book due to lack of specifics.
Each chapter ends with a page-plus of inspirational quotes. That really isn’t my thing and seems like overkill especially in the internet age.
The positive of the book is that it uses a lot of anecdotes . There is a honesty that the best way to learn is to fail. That truth is here, of course, though my observation of corporate life is everyone would rather play safe than taking an unsure step.
There is the story of the day FedEx launched. The first day was 12 packages (and they had 14 planes). Fred Smith got a C on his paper where he explained his idea. No one could grasp an idea that you would route a package through Memphis that was going to Los Angeles from San Francisco. Pat Brown quoting War and Peace’s Count Rostov to Ronald Reagan. “Why, they’re shooting at me. Me who everyone loves”.
Overall, there is plenty of stuff here for the right audience and can be boosted by discussing with others. While I think most will find the stories memorable but the message lacking....more
The flaw of "campaign" books is that they are generally preaching to the converted, and just as likely,despite how bright the star (Sarah Palin, Ron PThe flaw of "campaign" books is that they are generally preaching to the converted, and just as likely,despite how bright the star (Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader), they aren't worth anything four years later since the environs are so different.
I don't really have a problem with that. I suspect every politician, from the ones that I mentioned to the blander pols like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty probably have put together books that make the reader feel good.
So Sanders book follows, though one suspects he figured that Hillary would be in the White House at this point. In a weird way, the ideas in his book will likely set the stage for whoever takes the Democratic nomination in 2020. Sanders did indeed move his party in unexpected ways.
Sanders book serves as two halves- one is a memoir of the campaign, the second a manifesto.
Both serve their topics well, though if you are not a Sanders fan, the returns may be limited.
Hearing the Sanders platform, it seems like it would be one that would capture the nation. Removed from the real world, it seems a logical path for which to campaign to the White House. That Bernie is a 70+ year old Jew from Vermont who has spent decades proudly proclaiming himself a ‘socialist’ may have been more than he could make up for.
True enough though, whoever picks up the torch (if not him), whether Biden, Booker or Warren or someone else, will probably be even further to the left than the views in this book.
Sanders covers a lot of issues, and even for the issues where I hear him hardest criticized, he has provided good answers. That said, a book does not really allow for a debate.
This will likely be a good enough book for supporters. If you fall short of diehard status, it is s pretty dense 400+ page book which betrays the notion that these books should be short and breezy.
Reading the book renewed the things I liked about Bernie, but the ideas never are able to remove themselves from the man. It is the rare book that will last past his sell by date, and will likely be the New Democratic playbook.
Politics aside, it is a bit dense for the reader. Sanders gets a bit too much in the weeds at times. In the days where everyone communicates in messages of 140 characters, it’s good that he does explain his views and plans, but for a casual reader, the book is a slog at times. ...more
Paul Collins is part of the movement of post-Y2K history books that exploded from Devil in the White City.
Like Erik Larson, Gary Krist and James SwanPaul Collins is part of the movement of post-Y2K history books that exploded from Devil in the White City.
Like Erik Larson, Gary Krist and James Swanson, Collins takes forgotten bits of history and crafts a yarn around it.
It starts with an interesting premise. A young woman’s body found at the bottom of a New York City well in the year of 1799. This was one of the first prominent murder trials of the new United States. Of interest, the defense features Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr on the same legal dream team.
Collins has the fortunate luck to write this right before Hamilton-mania. This ostensibly isn’t a book about Hamilton. However, there’s probably enough stuff here that is worthwhile for Hamilton (or Burr) completists.
Collins does a great job of describing 1800 New York. George Washington’s death looms over the city. There’s a lot of conversation around the public water utility which is relevant to those involved.
Some complained how Larson alternated his chapters (and Swanson gives in to stylistic changes for different chapters) in his most well known book. Still, one can’t help wonder if Collins would have been better served by doing something similar. The facts about the city are great but they are piled into the court narrative, which is already fairly dense.
It's hard to say exactly what is wrong with this book, but it feels lacking. The murder mystery is a suitable whodunit. Still, the best parts of the book are the tidbits on Burr (particularly) and Hamilton. There is also a peripheral character who would be more worthwhile than the couple of pages he does get. Those and the landscape of the city. Those are what I enjoyed the most.
The book just needs a different approach, and I am certainly nowhere near as talented as Collins, but it ultimately seems much less than the sum of its parts. The murder is a good hook for a story, but it ultimately is everything except the court trial that makes the compelling story....more
This was a gift but indeed it was spot on as I do enjoy reading about the Civil War and I like True Crime.
It is a neat idea and takes the premise thatThis was a gift but indeed it was spot on as I do enjoy reading about the Civil War and I like True Crime.
It is a neat idea and takes the premise that crime never stops. I was a bit worried since the title and cover are fairly nondescript and the author doesn’t have a large CV. Also the reviews are mixed at best.
That said, it was much better than one might be led to believe. It is very detailed with the author heavily using resources of that day.
True Crime these days is usually sensationalistic like serial killers. There’s plenty of murder here, but also counterfeiting, Andersonville and the assassination of Lincoln among other things.
So it goes from the notorious names like the Lincoln conspirators, Nathan Bedford Forest, Bloody Bill Anderson and William Quantrill, to Benjamin Butler and the legend of Sue Mundy to more obscure names.
The story of how certain individuals came to counterfeit (and help sink) Confederate money is a fascinating one. By causing inflation and chaos, it’s been said that Samual Upham hurt Dixie more than General McClellan ever did.
The plot to burn New York is another interesting war side note. As interesting as the bumbling, hare brained plot is that it almost succeeded if not for one easy mistake.
It is of note (though maybe not unrelated) the longer pieces are the least interesting. The author would likely have been better served by condensing some of the stories. 21 pages on Temperance Kelly, for example tells of an interesting murder case but becomes a tedious discussion of her court trial.
Again and again, I think Buhk puts in information because he can, but would be better served by brevity.
I saw none of the complaints that others did- his writing was fine and the copy I have was error-free. My biggest beef is that is so reliant on the newspapers of the time that it’s detailed, but bogs itself down. It’s not that it treats its subject as too lightweight but maybe not lightweight enough.
I would recommend it to someone who has a certain level of interest in the stories inside. Buhk is probably not served well by the fact I have read some excellent books in the last couple of years that cover a lot of ground in this book....more
Loading...
