My 2010 Reading List

February 7, 2010 – 7:25 pm
by Adam Volle

“I cannot live without books.” – Thomas Jefferson

FICTION

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief, by Rick Riordan – The movie looks like a great deal of fun, but in general I’m a firm believer of reading the book first. So I will.

Up in the Air, by Walter Kim – Another book purchased simply because the previews for the movie greatly intrigue me.

Native Son, by Richard Wright – Because I like my reading lists to have some diversity and realized I didn’t have any great African-American novels on it. I love Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man and Ellison was connected with Wright, so I selected this to fill the gap.

War & Peace, by Leo Tolstoy – I’m probably being absurdly optimistic in purchasing this book and putting it on my reading list for this year; as anyone can tell you, it’s huge, and God knows the block of time it’ll require has plenty of other claims on it, including other books. Still, I’ve really wanted to read it ever since finishing The Death of Ivan Ilyich, and having it readily available is the first step, so just maybe…

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky – And buying Tolstoy made me think of Dostoevsky, whose The Brothers Karamazov I finally finished when I last visited Korea.

The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, by John Steinbeck – I’ve already read Grapes, but I did it back in high school, which really is more or less equivalent to having not read something at all (children are all Philistines; their souls have not yet developed). One of Steinbeck’s other novels ranks as an absolute favorite of mine, The Winter of Our Discontent, and one of the particularly proud moments of my time in college was when I had the honor of introducing my Creative Writing professor to it, who afterward declared it one of her all-time favorites as well.

The Angel’s Game, by Carlos Ruis Zafon – Zafon’s other novel, The Shadow of the Wind, is one of the most enjoyable books I read in ‘09. My wife’s already read this one and told me it’s darker, which disappointed her and somewhat disappoints me – Shadow was one of those books where you bounced in your bed at the ending, which is a rarity for me – but so it goes; no doubt it will still be, as Stephen King called Shadow, one gorgeous read.

The Baroque Trilogy (Quicksilver, The Confusion, The System of the World) and Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson – Apparently a force with which to be reckoned in science fiction, which accounts for why I haven’t heard of him. I’ve received a lot of recommendations from friends who are into the genre, though, and Snow Crash made TIME’s “100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century”, so I feel pretty confident these’ll be enjoyable.

The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman – I’ve always been curious about the His Dark Materials trilogy, a fantasy series that’s often referred to as the anti-Chronicles of Narnia. I’m not willing to blindly plump for all three, but I’m pretty sure the first installment is a self-contained story, like The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe.

The Magicians, by Lev Grossman – What if a bunch of today’s adults found out Hogwarts and Narnia were real? Sounds fun.

Supreme Courtship, by Christopher Buckley – On the strength of his Thank You For Smoking.

A Farewell to Arms and The Son Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway – I’d never actually read Hemingway until I picked up For Whom The Bell Tolls at the airport on my way to my honeymoon destination. I feel like such a fool.

This Side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald – Obviously I’m taking the opportunity to fill in a few shameful gaps in my reading experience.

Riding Lessons, by Sara Gruen – Because her Water For Elephants is utterly charming.

The Twilight Saga, by Stephenie Meyer – I consider it sort of a duty to read anything that gets as popular as these books. Plus my wife’s read them all and wants to be able to discuss them with me. Hey, who knows? I didn’t want to read the Harry Potter books, either.

Her Fearful Symmetry, by Audrey Niffenegger – On the strength of her first book, The Time Traveler’s Wife, which reminded its readers of how great science fiction can be when it’s not just left for geeks to write.

Everything by Edith Wharton – Since all of her novels are in the public domain now, Amazon asks only ninety-nine cents in return for all thirty-one of them. If you only read one, I recommend The Age of Innocence.

Between, Georgia, by Joshilyn Jakson – My mother’s recommendation. I honestly have no idea.

Being Written, by William Conescu – One of several impulse buys. A minor character in a book realizes his nature and struggles with the author to achieve greater prominence.

Persona Non Grata, by Ruth Downie – My trial installment for a light-hearted series in which an ancient Roman doctor and his slave girl solve mysteries.

Tipperary, by Frank Delaney – In preparation for my Kindle spree I walked about a Barnes & Noble, just letting covers leap out at me. My wife tells me this one did. I naturally no longer remember.

The Plot Against America, by Philip Roth – A tale set in an alternative history in which the Fascists gained political power in America prior to World War II. Why not?

NONFICTION

The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter – Assigned by my Old Testament professor at college, this is one of the books that spearheaded the (re-?)introduction of literary analysis of the Bible to universities in the last century. Obviously I’ve read it (got a “B” – Dr. Wallace wasn’t easy), but I’d like to read it again at a more leisurely pace. And maybe take notes this time.

The David Story: A Translation with Commentary, by Robert Alter – I’m actually still debating whether to purchase this one. My hesitation comes from how footnotes, which is half the reason to buy this book, are displayed on the Kindle: not in what I consider a friendly fashion. What you get is basically several pages of text followed by a page or two of footnotes covering the pages you just read, an obvious inconvenience. On the other hand, surely reading what is perhaps my favorite Biblical narrative in a translation with notes by my favorite Biblical analyst is worth a little inconvenience of format.

Foreskin’s Lament, by Shalom Auslander – A memoir from an author who has written only one other book to my knowledge, an anthology of short stories collectively entitled Beware of God, which was so side-splittingly hilarious and poignant I’ll probably be buying anything with his name on it for the foreseeable future.

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel…, by Israel Finkelstein – A survey of what modern archaeology has to say about the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their Biblical records.

Nothing to Envy, by Barbara Demick – Six North Korean refugees describe life beyond the DMZ, and how they escaped it. Being in such close proximity to what may be the most evil regime on this planet almost demands an interest in it, so I’ve always known that when I returned to Seoul I’d be bringing along more reading material about the DPRK.

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, by Dr. Robert “The Bible Geek” Price – A biblical scholar’s assessment of the four gospels’ authenticity and

On Writing, by Stephen King – The best book on writing fiction I’ve ever read, written by the writer’s writer. I owned a physical copy but gave it away.

Brotherhood of Warriors, by Douglas Century – A look into Israel’s special forces. Already read this one too, but I need it on hand for research.

BOOKS I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IF THEY WERE AVAILABLE ON THE KINDLE

Books by William Faulkner – Really? Nothing of his is available in an online edition? What’s up with that?

Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card – Sorry, Joe. I tried.


By Adam Volle | Posted in Culture, Education, Entertainment | Comments (0)

What Color Were Dinosaurs?

February 5, 2010 – 5:19 pm
by Joe Martin

This is just incredibly cool.

Dr. Prum and his colleagues took advantage of the fact that feathers contain pigment-loaded sacs called melanosomes. In 2009, they demonstrated that melanosomes survived for millions of years in fossil bird feathers. The shape and arrangement of melanosomes help produce the color of feathers, so the scientists were able to get clues about the color of fossil feathers from their melanosomes alone.

[...] Working with paleontologists at the Beijing Museum of Natural History and Peking University, the researchers began to study a 150-million-year-old species called Anchiornis huxleyi. The chicken-sized theropod was festooned with long feathers on its arms and legs.

The researchers removed 29 chips, each the size of a poppy seed, from across the dinosaur’s body. Mr. Vinther put the chips under a microscope and discovered melanosomes.

To figure out the colors of Anchiornis feathers, Mr. Vinther and his colleagues turned to Matthew Shawkey, a University of Akron biologist who has made detailed studies of melanosome patterns in living birds. Dr. Shawkey can accurately predict the color of feathers from melanosomes alone. The scientists used the same method to decipher Anchiornis’s color pattern.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Science | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Barney Frank Wants to Kill Fannie and Freddie?!?

January 22, 2010 – 1:15 pm
by Joe Martin

Be still my beating heart. No, wait. Start beating, my stilled heart. Barney Frank just recommended killing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“As I believe this committee will be recommending, abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their present form and coming up with a new whole system of housing finance [is in order],” House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D, Mass.) said at a hearing.

This is the same Congressman Frank that previously refused to believe that anything could possibly be wrong with Fannie and Freddie.

“These two entities–Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And this is the same Fannie and Freddie that the government is bailing out, with no limits whatsoever on the losses to the American taxpayer.

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday.

The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each.

Unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012 was “necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market,” the Treasury said. Fannie and Freddie purchase or guarantee most U.S. home mortgages and have run up huge losses stemming from the worst wave of defaults since the 1930s.

Of course, this is Barney Frank we’re talking about here. I shudder to think about what he has in mind to replace Fannie and Freddie. Whatever it is, be sure that you’ll be paying for it, not him. You’ll probably be paying a lot.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Government | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

The “bank tax” is unconstitutional and illegal

January 21, 2010 – 6:00 pm
by Joe Martin

I listen to the President’s Weekly Radio Address every week. It’s usually a painful process, since I almost always disagree with the President. (That’s been true for both President Bush and President Obama, in case you’re wondering.)

Last week’s address was particularly painful. It was almost scary to listen to. The President spoke quite passionately about his desire to tax big banks to pay for the assistance they’ve received over the past 2 years. This is part of what he had to say (emphasis added by me).

Much of the turmoil of this recession was caused by the irresponsibility of banks and financial institutions on Wall Street. These financial firms took huge, reckless risks in pursuit of short-term profits and soaring bonuses. They gambled with borrowed money, without enough oversight or regard for the consequences. And when they lost, they lost big. Little more than a year ago, many of the largest and oldest financial firms in the world teetered on the brink of collapse, overwhelmed by the consequences of their irresponsible decisions. This financial crisis nearly pulled the entire economy into a second Great Depression.

As a result, the American people – struggling in their own right – were placed in a deeply unfair and unsatisfying position. Even though these financial firms were largely facing a crisis of their own creation, their failure could have led to an even greater calamity for the country. That is why the previous administration started a program – the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP – to provide these financial institutions with funds to survive the turmoil they helped unleash. It was a distasteful but necessary thing to do.

Many originally feared that most of the $700 billion in TARP money would be lost. But when my administration came into office, we put in place rigorous rules for accountability and transparency, which cut the cost of the bailout dramatically. We have now recovered most of the money we provided to the banks. That’s good news, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s not good enough. We want the taxpayers’ money back, and we’re going to collect every dime.

That is why, this week, I proposed a new fee on major financial firms to compensate the American people for the extraordinary assistance they provided to the financial industry. And the fee would be in place until the American taxpayer is made whole.

Reading the President’s address now, it sounds bland and reasonable. But listening to it was a different experience. The President sounded angry and distinctly sounded like he wanted to punish the banks for ever daring to make trouble. He sounded like what he really wanted was to make the banks pay for the entire cost of the stimulus bill. I was deeply disturbed, as I listened to the speech, to the hear the President so angrily attacking and villianizing a specific industry.

Here’s the thing. Not all of the banks that received government help wanted government help. Some of them were strong-armed into accepting the help. The President’s new “fee” doesn’t account for that. Nor does it account for the fact that not all large banks even received help. Nor does it account for the fact that some banks were healthy throughout the crisis and had no rule in causing the crisis. No, the President’s “fee” taxes all banks equally, just for the sin of being big.

As I listened to the speech, I wondered if the plan was even Constitutional. As I said, it sounded like he really wanted to lay into the banking industry, to punish it. And the Constitution specifically forbids a “bill of attainder”. What’s that? It’s when Congress passes a bill declaring someone guilty of a crime — and punishing them — without giving that person the benefit of a trial. And the President’s language and tone sounded dangerously close to someone who wants to declare the entire banking industry guilty of “crimes against America” and then punish them.

It turns out, that I’m not the only person to think this is un-Constitutional. John Carney writes in The Business Insider Law Review that he’s recently concluded that the proposed bank tax is an illegal bill of attainder.

Read his full piece for a much better explanation of the concept of a “bill of attainder”, as well as some great examples. Here is his conclusion.

The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is unconstitutional on its face. It is as if the Obama administration had urged a tax called “The Fee That Violates Nonattainder Principles.” Assigning responsibility after the matter and levying penalties is reserved for the judicial branch that is restricted to using already existing laws and treating similarly situated people equally. The Obama administration wants to assign responsibility for the financial crisis and levy a fee, while exempting its favored automakers. This is exactly the sort of thing the Attainder Clause was put in place to prevent.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Law | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

Making your flex spending account a little less useful

January 20, 2010 – 10:02 pm
by Joe Martin

“Let me be clear. If you like the health plan you have, you can keep it.” President Obama has made this claim multiple times about healthcare reform. But it’s simply not true. Let me offer one small example.

My wife and I enjoy our Flex Spending Account. We put in enough money each year to cover the various drugs we’ll need to buy (both prescription and non-prescription), a new pair of glasses, and money to cover any other medical expenses we anticipate. Next year, I’m planning on putting in an extra $4000 for corrective laser eye surgery, so that I can finally stop wearing glasses. We like the plan we have.

Well, under the Senate healthcare bill, we’ll no longer have that plan.

Both the House and Senate bills include a change in the definition of a “qualified medical expense” that impacts reimbursements and withdrawals under all types of health care accounts (i.e., FSAs, HRAs, HSAs, and Archer MSAs). As of 2011, expenses incurred for over-the-counter (OTC) medications and products will no longer be eligible for payment or reimbursement from any of the health care accounts. The House bill definition appears to apply to all OTC medications. However, the Senate bill would still allow OTC medicines obtained with a prescription and insulin to be reimbursed or paid tax-free from the health care accounts.

The most significant change likely to be enacted is an annual limit on contributions made by employees to flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) for health care. Both the House and Senate versions of health reform legislation would limit contributions to no more than $2,500 annually. The limit would be indexed to inflation for future years. Under the House bill, these changes would not take effect until 2013. In the Senate bill, these changes would take effect in 2011.

If the current “reform” bills, I wouldn’t be able to buy OTC drugs — Sudafed, Mucinex, ibuprofen, Tylenol — tax free. If the “reform” bills pass, I wouldn’t be able to save tax free for corrective eye surgery. I would no longer have the plan I like.

It’s just one more broken promise from a president that’s building quite a pile of them. Apparently, “yes we can” act just like any other politician.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Healthcare, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

Why are voters angry about President Obama’s spending?

January 20, 2010 – 7:37 am
by Joe Martin

President George W. Bush was the biggest spending U.S. President since President Lyndon Baines Johnson. He “he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent.”

Voters were justifiably angry about this massive increase in government largesse. In reaction, they threw out the sitting political party and vote en-masse for the candidate who promised a return to responsibility, a turn away from reckless credit card fiscal policies and a return to fiscal discipline. Voters wanted government spending reined in and they were determined to get it. Both the 2006 Congressional elections and the 2008 Presidential election were about spending, to some degree.

So why are voters now so angry at President Barack Obama? Surely they don’t blame him for the high levels of government spending? Well, why shouldn’t they? Since taking office in January, 2009, he’s proposed massive amounts of new spending: a stimulus bill, a cap and trade energy bill, a massive expansion of healthcare, a “cash for clunkers” stimulus, a housing stimulus, and more. For voters weary of out of control spending, the Obama administration’s first year has looked remarkably like a left turn into an all-you-can-eat spending buffet.

But don’t believe me. Believe the Congressional Budget Office and the Washington Post, who put together this informative little graphic.

The Bush Deficits vs the Obama Deficits

Note the $400 billion line, that President Bush’s deficits barely managed to creep over. Note that President Obama’s deficits aren’t projected to get anywhere near this low a level over the next 10 years.

With all of the voter anger about President Bush’s deficit spending, why shouldn’t the voters be angry about President Obama’s much higher levels of spending? Voters don’t need to have a short-term memory to be first angry about President Bush’s spending and then angry about President Obama’s spending. They just need wide open eyes. Apparently, it’s President Obama and Congressional Democrats that have the short memory.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Government | Tagged , , , , | Comments (2)

The problem of government incentives

January 19, 2010 – 7:06 pm
by Joe Martin

White House Seeks CEOs’ Help – WSJ.com:

Mr. Gould said the group would talk about inspiring top performance from government employees. Then he explained that this inspiration would have to be done without much in the way of financial bonuses, threats of firing or promotions that leapfrogged the normal civil-service rules.

What’s left, exactly? Inspiring speeches? I don’t see that doing much to inspire a career bureaucrat in a secure job to suddenly do something new and disruptive.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Government | Tagged | Comments (0)

Feeding God’s sheep, by hook or by crook

December 21, 2009 – 6:42 pm
by Adam Volle

stealingpriest

ABOVE: Father Tim Jones of the Church of England. Used to be when you invited the pastor over for dinner, you didn’t have to count the silverware afterward.

The BBC informs us (in a story I am for some reason unable to link to – so go look it up) that a priest in Britain has told his flock “God’s love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich” – so if times are truly desperate, steal what you need from your local Wal-Mart.

Or any other big corporation, just so long as “they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses — knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.”


By Adam Volle | Posted in Biblical, Culture, Economics, Humor | Comments (1)

Al Mohler on the Amazon Kindle

December 9, 2009 – 6:49 pm
by Joe Martin

Do not think of the Kindle as replacing the book. Bury that thought. Bury it deep. Then go and hold a favorite book in your hand. Enjoy. Then pile 50 of your favorite books and carry them with you all day, through airports, onto airplanes, checking into hotels, sitting in meetings, reading in bed at night. You get the point. You sit (gloriously) in a library. You take a Kindle in your briefcase.

Well said, sir. Well said.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Whatever | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Senate Bill Will Increase Healthcare Premiums

December 4, 2009 – 2:51 pm
by Joe Martin

At the request of BlueCross BlueShield, Oliver Wyman did a study of the Senate health care bill. Unsurprisingly, this study estimates that the bill will cost consumers quite a bit more than the CBO estimated.

John Goodman summarized the findings this way:

Premiums for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own will go up 54%. Premiums for small businesses will go up 20%. Both numbers are over 5 years and both numbers exclude the impact of medical inflation.

I skimmed through the study and it looks pretty interesting. The study points out that reform won’t work unless everyone is forced to purchase insurance.

The key implication of our analysis is simple: For these types of insurance reforms to be successful and sustainable, it is imperative to get broad participation. Young and healthy people need to be part of the insurance pool, and people cannot defer buying insurance until they are sick or at high risk. This is true no matter who is paying the premiums—individuals, employers, or the government.

The study then goes on to indicate that the current bill likely will allow people to free-ride, with bad results. They’re basing their conclusions on several states’ experiments with healthcare reform.

  • New York and Vermont: Average premiums in the individual market today are about 60% higher than the national average

  • New Jersey: Reform caused much higher premiums forcing thousands of individuals to drop coverage. The individual market decreased from 157,000 people in 1993 to 88,000 in 2007

  • Maine: Individual market enrollment in Maine dropped from 90,000 to 41,000 between 1993 and 2007 following the state’s reforms.

Even in Massachusetts, there is evidence that individuals are selectively jumping in and out of the market when they need healthcare. Data from health insurers in Massachusetts indicate that the number of peopl ein the individual market with coverage of less than 12 months has doubled post reform. These individuals have a significantly higher claims to premium ration when compared to those who had coverage for more than 12 months but let it lapse or those that are active.

Without strong penalties, similar types of behavior are likely to emerge in the reformed individual market—resulting in significantly higher premiums for the insured.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the “reform” bills will just make American healthcare worse than it already is.


By Joe Martin | Posted in Economics, Healthcare | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (2)