I have seen the new Star Trek movie twice, once on opening weekend and once, in IMAX, the following weekend. In short, I thought it was fantastic, and I would encourage everyone to see it. In this post, I will provide a rambling postmortem / braindump on what I thought worked, what I thought didn’t work, and a bit of the big picture. If you are interested in a more traditional review, you can find some aggregated reviews here, and I think this one most accurately reflects my feelings. Before I go any further though, I want to start with this short disclaimer:
This post contains spoilers. Do not read further if you have not seen the new Star Trek movie and you are planning on doing so (though at this point I have to ask: why are you waiting?).
The notion of the Great American Novel is deeply ingrained in American culture. The term “Great American Novel” simultaneously describes historic novels from American authors that accurately captured a time period of American culture and idealizes the goal of producing or discovering such a work oneself. Authors want to write it. Readers want to discover it. (Copyeditors want to copyedit it.)
Ironically, the books that might be labeled as the Great American Novel are typically books that many Americans have never read. If you consider yourself an avid reader (as I consider myself), and you reflexively felt a little bit of painful truth in that statement, then you may be interested in my proposed solution to this problem called “The Great American Novel Challenge.”
In short, the goal of this challenge is to read and review 13 novels you have previously not read. The novels must qualify as candidates for the title of the Great American Novel. After completing this challenge, you can claim with confidence that you have attempted to read the Great American Novel. There are 13 official rules for anyone wishing to participate in The Great American Novel Challenge:
Seek out the 13 novels you consider to be contenders for the title of the Great American Novel. This rule is intended to allow for a broad range of books while also picking a number with some significance for American culture: There were 13 original colonies that eventually became American states.
The authors of these books must be American. Because immigration is a huge part of American culture, this can include authors who immigrated to America and were American citizens for much of their lives.
Pick at most two books from any decade. Most lists of this sort will have serious clumping in the 1930′s or the 1960′s. This rule is intended to subvert that, at least partially. We’re seeking diversity!
Choose only one book per author. This rule is also intended to improve the diversity of the experience because America is a pretty darn diverse place.
Select only fictional novels. Do not pick histories, abriged summaries, biographies, poetry, manifestos, etc.
Choose only books you have not previously read. You can pick books that you were supposed to have read in high school, but you didn’t actually read or you can’t remember reading. (My own high school English teachers are probably flabbergasted at the thought of me starting a challenge like this.) The point here is to broaden your own experiences. Besides, the Great American Novel is really more of a search or a journey than a book or a thing.
Post a review on your blog on the 4th of every month from July 4, 2009 up to and including July 4, 2010. Thus, your first book review would be posted July 4, 2009. It would be followed by your second book review on August 4, 2009, your third book review on September 4, 2009, and so on. It seems like an appropriate timeline for finding the Great American Novel.
Do not disclose your list publicly; each book must be a surprise announced no more than one month ahead of time. Plus, this will give you the ability to allow your early selections to influence your later selections. Keep the goal in mind as you progress through the challenge and remember that you’ve only got thirteen selections to make.
Your posted review must explain how you feel the novel has contributed to American literature and culture. There are no length or formatting requirements for these reviews. In fact, this is the only real content requirement. I believe the Great American Novel is one that captures and explains a weird little piece of the American experience that all Americans notice, even if it is so tacit that we never speak about it. You may have your own definition or understanding of the Great American Novel, and that’s perfectly fine as long as you explain what it is and how you feel the book you chose fits or doesn’t fit it.
You must actually read the novel you choose. This is a pretty basic rule, and it is implied by the other rules. However, sometimes rules like this are stronger when you actually write them out. This is not high school. There is no test; there is no grade. If you choose to accept this challenge, then the only thing you have at stake is pride. Of course, Americans are a proud people from time to time.
Post a final review of your thirteen month experience searching for the Great American Novel no earlier than July 5, 2010 and no later than August 4, 2010. As a part of this review, try include a list of the books you wished you could have read during the challenge and why. Talk about what you learned and which books you would re-read. You may also wish to pick a single novel that you thinks is *the* Great American Novel.
If you post a book review on your blog on July 4, 2009, then you have formally accepted this challenge. Everyone will know if you don’t live up to it. If you accept this challenge, then your pride is on the line. Can you actually read thirteen candidate Great American Novels in thirteen months?
In one of the thirteen months of this challenge, you must break these rules. What can I say? Americans like to break rules. You get to pick which month and which rules, so be creative in how you choose to do it. Don’t forget to explain how you broke the rules and why.
Do not take this challenge lightly. Reading and reviewing 13 books in 13 months is not easy. Only 37% of Americans read more than 10 books per year. It may even be the case that one in four Americans don’t read at all. Do not be discouraged by these numbers! Take the challenge seriously, but set your goals high and see what happens! I believe the challenge will be extremely rewarding even if we all fail halfway through. If you leave a comment on this post or link to it with a trackback or pingback, then I will post a summary of all the participating blogs. Our posts will also encourage one another to keep reading, writing, and posting.
Finally, I would urge those of you wishing to participate in this challenge to spread the word. There’s more than a month before the challenge begins, so you have plenty of time to pick your first book, read it, and post a review on the 4th of July. The more people participating, the more likely we will all be able to complete the challenge.
Ah yes, summer. You know it’s arrived when you’re walking out to get the mail one sunny afternoon and you’re greeted by this:
Summer is here, and it’s time to breed more snakes!
I don’t consider myself all that afraid of snakes, bugs, and rodents. I tend to be rather surprised to see them, but they aren’t exactly terrifying. As a result, I thought I would go back to my apartment and get my camera to take some pictures of it. I also did what any good little caveman would do: I poked it with a stick to see what it would do.
Now, I know that virtually all species of snakes will leave you alone if you leave them alone, but this one didn’t have the coloring of a coral snake and I didn’t see a rattle on the end of its tail. (These two facts alone eliminate most of the dangerous snakes in North America.) So I thought, why not investigate?
Turns out the investigation was pretty boring. It let me poke it. It didn’t really move much. (Many snakes play dead when threatened.) I figured I should leave it be since it probably does more good than harm by eating various critters around my apartment. Besides, it’s a beautiful day outside! I’m sure the snake wants to enjoy the sunshine.
Of course, as soon as I got back inside I started trying to figure out what kind of snake it is. This led me to the North Carolina Online Snake Identification System. I put in everything I knew about it and got back the Eastern Hognose Snake as a result. Unfortunately, the pictures didn’t really match up well. I kept searching. Apparently, it could have also been a Mole Kingsnake, but once again, the pictures were just a little bit off.
That probably makes it sound much more horrifying than it should though. Copperheads rarely bite, and they seem to go out of their way to avoid confrontations with humans. They will even “fire a warning shot” by striking at you without biting if you really start to piss them off. They pose more of a threat to pets than to humans, which is good news for me and really bad news for all of my neighbors.
Although I don’t wish this particular snake harm, I did notify my apartment complex about the snake because there are a bunch of dogs in this area that would investigate it with their mouths. I have a feeling this sort of encounter would not end well. I’m not entirely sure what they will do about it. A single 1.5 to 2 foot long copperhead isn’t exactly an infestation.
Besides, sometimes nature just happens. Welcome to summer everyone!
Outliers: The Story of Success is the latest best-selling book by Malcom Gladwell, author of Blink. It describes the impact of culture, opportunity, and environment on the extraordinarily successful. For example, it provides an explanation for the success of Bill Gates, the Beatles, and Joe Flom. It also provides an explanation for the lack of extraordinary success of some for whom extraordinary success seemed likely. If you are interested, here’s a New Yorker article with a similar premise.
The premise of Outliers is that extreme success is driven more by opportunity than talent. This means that our cultural background can give us small advantages that accumulate almost like compound interest over the course of our lives. Gladwell argues that the typical understanding of outliers in society is wrong. He claims it is easier to believe that the Hollywood hero is heroic based on some inherent quality rather than hard work, seized opportunity, and a little bit of luck. He believes that inherent talent is emphatically not the real story of success.
In a very broad sense, I agree with Gladwell’s assessment of extreme success. Success looks more like Batman than Superman. For those who haven’t kept up on their comics, Batman was a human like everyone else on the planet, but he was wealthy (opportunity) and had a random tragic event shape the course of his life (luck). Then he dedicated himself to his craft (hard work) and became a superhero crime fighter. On the other hand, Superman was an alien from another planet who, quite simply, was more powerful than everyone else. Now, Superman clearly had to choose to be a superhero and he had to make sacrifices along the way, but his overpowering natural gifts represent the typical way people view those who have achieved extraordinary success.
Aside from this broad agreement, I take issue with the way that Gladwell defines success throughout the book. ‘Success’ is described as everything from making the championship game in a junior hockey league to being one of the 75 wealthiest humans to ever walk the face of the Earth. Sure, if you want to be a founding partner in one of the world’s top five law firms, you’re going to have to have a few lucky breaks along the way, but what if your definition of success is living the upper middle class American dream? It’s never clear just how far ‘beyond normal’ Gladwell believes his premise holds.
One great example that stretches the ‘beyond normal’ limit is Gladwell’s discussion of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) in the context opportunity over talent. KIPP schools are open-enrollment public schools for traditionally under-resourced urban areas. They are intense. Students at KIPP schools spend far more time working, learning, and doing homework than in traditional public schools. They have also had dramatically better results. Imagine that: If you work harder, you achieve more.
Gladwell argues that we can manufacture ‘success’ by paying attention to cultural legacies and understanding the importance of providing opportunity. This is where the book becomes transparently political. The thesis seems to evolve into a rainbow wonderland where we are all capable of extreme success. Of course, this all depends on what he really means by ‘success.’ It’s idiotic to think that we can all be professional athletes or one of the 75 wealthiest people ever. (Hint: there are more than 75 of us.) Not everyone will be lucky enough to fit all the background criteria and cultural landmarks necessary to have tons of opportunity staring them in the face. Some things cannot be controlled; some things, such as hard work and discipline, can be.
What the book really needs is a clarification of what Gladwell means by ‘success.’ Without this clarification, the book loses cohesion and it becomes unclear how broadly applicable the ideas described really are. In some stories, he clearly shows that hard work and discipline are necessary, but not sufficient, for extreme success (Bill Gates, Joe Flom). In other stories, he advocates that we can all achieve extreme success by simply manipulating our cultural environment (Korean Air, KIPP). In one story, he tells the story of Christopher Langan as someone who is apparently unsuccessful (or at least as someone who hasn’t lived up to his potential). These disparate stories make the book feel like more of a collection of anecdotes about different types of success than a single “story of success.”
All in all, it’s a very entertaining book, but I recommend reading it with a critical eye. It’s important to understand the definition of success for each story and to separate things that can be controlled from those that cannot be controlled.
Larry Lessig spoke at Google about his Change Congress movement on February 19th of this year. Although I respect Larry Lessig deeply for the incredible way that he articulates his concerns, I can’t agree with his approach to improving trust in the government and fighting corruption in Congress. Essentially, he believes that money engenders mistrust, even when it doesn’t actually affect policy decisions. He thinks we need to radically change the way funding for elections works in the government by making elections publicly funded. The goal of this is to reduce corruption in Congress by allowing the public to trust their politicians, or at least to eliminate a major barrier to trusting politicians. If you are interested, I have embedded the video below:
My primary problem with his view is best visible around the 49.5 minute mark, which is during the Q&A session after the presentation. The questioner asks about other forms of money influencing policy. Lessig’s response is essentially to say that other forms of money are acceptable so long as the direct tit-for-tat is eliminated. He claims that the change he desires isn’t as impossible as we might think. He is alright with money being spent to advocate for a political position so long as the money is not being used to bribe a particular politician. Essentially, he wants to remove any possibility that a politician will be paid for a political position.
This is an extraordinarily fine distinction to make simply because there are so many different forms of “payment.” He talks about politicians choosing a political position because a lobbiest would fund a swimming pool for them if they did. This is a relatively black and white case that almost everyone can agree is bad. However, what about a policy conference in Hawaii? Does the answer change if the conference is held in Lincoln, Nebraska? Certainly it should be legal for an organization to cover travel expenses to enable face-to-face discussions with legislators, but where do you draw the line? When does an important policy conference turn into a junket?
The problem is not just about trying to split hairs over what constitutes a direct payment to a candidate. There are so many other ways that money affects an election. Special interest groups can buy issue ads, which are effectively unregulated since all they have to do is pass the pathetic magic words test. Celebrities have a megaphone through which they can speak. How much money would it cost a random soccer mom from Iowa to match the impact of Oprah’s endorsement? Powerful CEOs, Union leaders, academics, and other non-politicians can sway an election by speaking, organizing rallies, putting together publicity events, and generally campaigning for their chosen politician. At what point does this “speech” count as “money?”
The money quote (pardon the pun) of his entire presentation is part of his answer to that same question (transcribed from his speech):
Until you focus on how this economy has changed in the last 12 years and realize that all we’re talking about is just getting us back to 40 years ago, like the balance of 40 years ago, then I think it’s not such an extraordinary, radical change.
Lawrence Lessig
Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States
Ahh, the balance of 40 years ago, when Richard Nixon had just been sworn into office. Truly, such is the picture of trust in the government. Perhaps I’m just taking advantage of a verbal miscue (though if you’ll listen to his talk, I don’t think I’m taking this out of context), but more broadly, has there ever been a time when any government was not, quite simply, just generally corrupt? These are human institutions with built-in human flaws.
Let me be clear, I agree with Lessig when he says that we can’t trust our politicians. I might even be convinced to support some form of public funding for elections. I simply disagree that public funding of elections will affect corruption in government in any revolutionary fashion. There are just too many ways that “money” can influence an election. I’ll paraphrase something I first heard years ago on an episode of The West Wing: “Money in politics is like water on cement; it finds every crack and crevice.”
Lessig seems to think there once was, or someday can be, a pristine political process untainted by “money in politics.” But that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the political process is and how it works.
Timothy Lee
Government, not money, is the problem. The whole point of politics is to apply one rule to a group of people who disagree about what to do. Of course the process is going to be corrupt; that’s the only possible outcome. The political elite always get better outcomes than the average citizen. So what is a better solution? If you can’t eliminate corruption in government, then you should limit government as much as possible. Limited government is the best, the only, way to reduce corruption in government.
Coach Dungy’s record speaks for itself. Tony Dungy retires with an overall record of 92-33 at Indianapolis, including the playoffs, which makes him the winningest head coach in Colts franchise history. The Colts made the playoffs every year under Dungy, and the Colts have won 12 games each of the last six years, which is an NFL record. In the seven years that he’s been there, the Colts have won 85 regular season games, which is just 1 game short of New England over that same time period.
Tony Dungy is also the winningest head coach in Tampa Bay franchise history with 54 wins. Starting from his position as head coach in Tampa Bay, he is the only coach since the AFL / NFL merger to take a team to the post season 10 straight years. He is the first head coach to defeat all 32 teams in the NFL, the first African American head coach to win a Superbowl, and only the third person to win Superbowls both as a player and as a head coach.
Those are just some of his football accomplishments, but anyone who has followed the Colts knows there’s much more to him than football. Coach Dungy has never been afraid to talk about his faith as a Christian. He has been active in prison ministries and in working with troubled youths. Dungy is well-known for having written Quiet Strength: The Principles, Practices, & Priorities of a Winning Life, which was a New York Times Best Seller. Quiet Strength describes how he became an elite head coach in a cutthroat league without compromising his ethics. It also dealt with his perseverance in the face of grief over his son James’ suicide in the fall of 2005.
In fact, the success of Quiet Strength may have contributed to his decision to retire at the age of 53. A big part of his reason for stepping down is his desire to make more of an impact off the field, much of which will likely be documented on his website. He has another book, titled Uncommon: Finding Your Path to Significance set to be released in February of this year. In his retirement speech, he eluded to his desire to spend more time with his family, which certainly also contributed to his decision. His son Eric is a junior in high school and will be visiting college campuses this fall, which has been postulated as another reason for his decision to retire.
Of course, for the Colts, the question remains: what next? The simple answer is that Jim Caldwell, who was announced as the next in line after the season last year, will be the new head coach. Bob Kravitz, who coves the Colts for the Indianapolis Star, believes that it was time for Dungy to go. I’m not sure I can quite get on board with that. I certainly support Dungy in his decision because it really is just that: his decision, but I simply can’t say that I would say the Colts are better off without him.
Kravitz’s argument boils down to two basic points: poor playoff performance and a “coddling, enabling, everything-is-all-right culture,” fostered by the Colts from top to bottom. To the first, I say that any winning record in the playoffs is a good record. Under Dungy, the Colts are 7 and 6 in the playoffs with one Superbowl. There are about 27 other teams in the league that would love to have a record like that. To the second, I say that Kravitz just doesn’t get it. The Colts culture isn’t a coddling or enabling culture at all. It’s just not the insane, thoughtless, cutthroat culture that can be found virtually everywhere else in the NFL. The Colts aren’t just about winning; they are about winning the right way.
If one were to take a national poll on the most important year in United States history, 1776 would easily be a top contender. Thomas Paine published Common Sense in January. Although not an American, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, which had (and continues to have) extraordinary influence on American financial history. The Continental Congress signed the The Declaration of Independence that summer. Perhaps most importantly, George Washington held together the young and inexperienced “rabble” that was the Continental Army throughout the course of that entire year and eventually through the conclusion of the war in 1783. This is the story told by David McCullough’s novel 1776.
Although 1776 is the first book by David McCullough that I have ventured to read, I had most certainly heard of the author before I began reading it. McCullough is one of the most decorated living historians in America, and I would be astonished if more than a few American readers haven’t heard of him. He has twice won the Pulitzer Prize and twice won the National Book Award. He has also received the highest honor bestowed to American civilians: the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
As a result of the author’s fame and previous success, I had extremely high expectations for 1776 in several areas. First, McCullough is known as a fastidious researcher, so I was expecting the book to provide details on the inner workings of the fledgling American Revolution. Second, McCullough is often praised as an exemplary story teller, and with the material he has to work with in the American revolution, I was expecting something amazing. Third, McCullough used many of his notes originally compiled in writing his biography of John Adams, so I was expecting much of the book to deal with the political relationship Washington maintained with the Continental Congress.
In regard to my first expectation, I was quite pleased with the details found throughout the novel. If anything, these details were the most redeeming aspect of the book to those who already know the story quite well. McCullough goes out of his way to drop some now-famous names of people who were at the time merely rising stars, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Aaron Burr. I was also quite pleased to see many misconceptions dispelled. For example, I grew up learning that the Hessians in the Battle of Trenton were drunk or hungover at the time of the attack. Of course, this has been dispelled in many accounts, as McCullough dispels it here, but it was through this book that I learned the truth of the matter stated plainly.
As to my second expectation, McCullough is certainly a master story teller. Even knowing this beforehand did not prepare me for the fluidity of the book. I was truly surprised at how easy to read it is. It flows so quickly and effortlessly that I found my self reading it in large chunks. One of the primary reasons that I even picked the book up was to find some respite from the large amount of technical reading I have been doing recently, and I am pleased to say that it did not disappoint in the least, even though I was already quite familiar with the major events of the year.
Lastly, I was expecting a focus on Washington’s political discourse with the Continental Congress over the course of the year. This expectation was simply not met. Although there is some discussion of this important relationship, it was certainly not a highlight of the book. Each discussion of the relationship feels unbalanced because the book does not introduce or develop most of the important characters in the Continental Congress. I was left wondering if that is due to the coverage it received in his biography of John Adams, which I will endeavor to read.
My one major disappointment with the book was the artificial framing of the subject. Although 1776 was an extremely important year, it was just one of eight years (1775-1783) that comprised the American Revolution. Quite a few important events are not covered by this book including the winter in Valley Forge, enlisting the aid of France, signing the Treaty of Paris, and George Washington stepping back into the role of a civilian. Perhaps feeling a bit cheated at the missing events was somewhat inevitable. The entirety of the American Revolution itself has been the subject of many books, so I can understand why McCullough would not want to plow the same field all over again. However, I have no doubt that his talents would have made the remaining years and events of the Revolution exceedingly enjoyable stories to read.
On the whole, I can heartily recommend 1776. Owing to its easily accessible nature, it is perhaps best geared towards the average American, but there are certainly details that may interest those more deeply involved in studying history.
I decided to read Franz Kafka’s The Trial after seeing it used by Dan Solove to describe the no-fly list. I knew very little about the book before reading it. I knew that it was about a man named Joseph K. who was arrested and then, despite his best efforts, completely unable to understand or control the resulting course of events. I also knew that it was one of the books that has motivated the term “Kafkaesque.” What I didn’t know was that it does all of these things in a “meta” sense as well, which has made the the book extraordinarily rich and entertaining to read.
What do I meant by my use of the word “meta” to describe The Trial? Anyone who has read Gödel, Escher, and Bach would probably understand what I mean if I re-phrased it by saying that The Trial is a Strange Loop. However, for those who haven’t read GEB, I will try to explain in more detail, particularly since this is the most delicious part of the book. The Trial was originally written in German, with which I have some experience, but I am not capable of reading a book at this level in German. Thus, it had to be translated. Every time I read a translated book I feel it tug at me a little: Am I really reading this as it was intended? This tugging adds a level of disorientation, which is really the entire point of The Trial.
Of course, Kafka wasn’t intending that everyone read a translated version of the book. In fact, Kafka may have never intended anyone to read the book. It was published posthumously and perhaps against his wishes. Now, there is perhaps some debate over whether or not there was a moral obligation to publish, but that debate is still going today. Thus, it is, in some sense, a book over which not even the author could exercise complete control.
Since it was published posthumously, it was never finished. There is an obviously incomplete chapter that simply ends. There are unfinished chapter fragments and deleted sections published as appendices in the printed version of the book that I read. In fact, literary scholars aren’t entirely sure about the order the chapters should appear. All of this only adds to the confusion and disorder that is depicted throughout the book.
If you haven’t read any of Kafka’s books, but you’re interested in learning a little bit about why Kafka is such an important author, then I would recommend The Trial as a good starting point. I enjoyed the “meta” aspects of the book, but there are certainly a lot of other themes that are enjoyable, including the role of women in the book, which was the biggest surprise for me. I won’t talk about it here though. You’ll have to discover it for yourself.
Ordinary Men by Christopher R. Browning is a book on Nazi Germany’s Reserve Police Battalion 101, which participated in the Holocaust. The primary discussion in the book is on how a group of ordinary, middle-aged Germans became mass murderers. He attempts to understand how this transformation took place, and he uses insights from the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison experiments. However, he is quick to point out in the forward of the book that “explaining is not excusing; understanding is not forgiving.”
The book was recommended to me by Lucas Layman after a discussion on the importance of the human element in computer security led to a discussion on the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison experiments. Certainly there are many elements of computer security and computer crime that can be better understood through studying human psychology. For example, the simple fact that as the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 were removed from direct participation (e.g. pulling the trigger themselves) to indirect participation (e.g. leading Jews to death trains) they were more easily able to cope with their actions psychologically. Similarly, computer crime is easily disassociated because of the impersonal nature of dealing with computers rather than humans. However, after reading the book my strongest reaction has been broader than just computer security.
When I was in high school I had to read quite a few books on the Holocaust. It seemed that every year we read a different book on the subject, and I tired quickly of the extremes that were pushed. Nazi Germany in general and Hitler in particular have become famous for being the most extreme extreme. This is perhaps best identified by Godwin’s Law.
Ordinary Men suffers from over-extremism to some extent as well. For example, Browning causally refers to the Holocaust as the “most extreme genocide in human history” without offering much in the way of proof or comparison. The number of Native Americans systematically killed by Europeans and the number of Russians killed by Stalin’s regime could each easily exceed the numbers of Jews killed by the Holocaust. The rate of killing in Rwanda could easily surpass the rate of killing in the Holocaust. The brutality of groups like the Khmer Rouge and leaders like Genghis Kahn could be argued to be greater than that found in the Holocaust. Is it even possible to classify something like the “most extreme genocide in history?”
My point is that our only reaction to events like these cannot be the emotional one; we must attempt to understand why and how these things happen so that we can learn from them. We aren’t good at rationalizing emotions, and we are rarely able to draw objective conclusions based on them. However, if we can take a look at some facts, then we may be able to learn important lessons. For example, before the brutality caused by Nazi Germany and in former Yugoslavia, we see extreme hyperinflation. Do we know anywhere else in the world where that is happening right now? I think so. This is something to be concerned about.
More generally security is a field that suffers from extremely emotional reactions. The air travel response to the September 11th attacks is a good example. How many of these responses have been the result of reason rather than emotion? How many of them have actually improved airport security? These are questions that we will probably continue to struggle with for years because of the highly charged emotional response most Americans have to the September 11th attacks.
On the whole though, Browning does a good job of ensuring that we don’t view the people of Reserve Police Battalion 101 as caricatures of themselves. As a result, there are many lessons to be learned from this book. The Holocaust should not be thought of as an abstract evil thing, but instead as a real consequence of human plans and actions. As Browning says, “Ultimately, the Holocaust took place because at the most basic level individual human beings killed other human beings in large numbers over an extended period of time.” The book offers an objective take on how ordinary people are capable of such a thing. I found it to be a very worthwhile read.
When the trades are made official July 9, the Pacers’ will add Rush, Hibbert, Ford, Nesterovic, Baston, Jack, and McRoberts, while they will part ways with O’Neal, Diogu, Bayless, and Jawai — indicating more Pacers will be on their way out in the near future.
When you look at it like that, you can start to compare some of the players on a position by position basis. Let’s start with Diogu and Rush. I think Rush has an amazing upside and would have gone higher in last year’s draft had he not had the ACL injury. I also think that he’s ready to play in the NBA right now. Diogu is another young, athletic player with a lot of upside, and I know a few people who are looking to see big things from him in the near future. Diogu is also a bit taller than Rush and is more of a forward than a 2-guard. Rush may be able to play both positions.
Advantage: Rush
Next let’s look at O’Neal and Hibbert. It’s hard to lose a six-time All Star that still has a lot left in the tank, but O’Neal has big contract that would limit the team’s ability to bring in new talent. The question here really is can Hibbert fill O’Neal’s shoes? I think Hibbert is a beast. I don’t think he’ll every be the player O’Neal was on offense, but he has a good chance at being better than O’Neal on defense. At 7’2″ Hibbert has a few inches on O’Neal and Hibbert’s shot blocking ability at Georgetown was something to behold. Although O’Neal is an excellent defender, I like Hibbert’s prospects in this area. If you compare the players straight-up, O’Neal wins. Still, I think the reason this is a “win” for the Pacers is that they were able to get rid of O’Neal’s contract.
Advantage: O’Neal
Last, let’s look at the point guards, Bayless and Ford. Bayless was predicted as a top 5 pick in the NBA draft, but fell all the way to 11th. It’s obvious that the Pacers are moving away from young potential and towards older, more mature proven talent, so I can see why they would be willing to trade Bayless to a team that wanted a top 5 talent at a bargain price. Of course, Ford is arguably also top 5 talent, but he has been plagued by injuries. It’s obvious that Ford has the skills to play the point guard position at a high level, and he has certainly lacked a consistent team environment throughout his NBA career. I think personally the only way to compare these players is to pick which you would rather have: a highly rated prospect or a injury-plagued proven talent. I think Ford’s injuries have been pretty fluky and I think that at the time they were both drafted Ford had the higher ceiling.
Advantage: Ford
Of course, that leaves the rest of the players in this deal. I think the Pacers picked up competent bench players in Nesterovic and Jack, but I don’t know anything about Baston or Jawai. I think McRoberts should have stayed at Duke for at least one more year to develop a finishing move in the paint and show some ability to avoid collapsing under pressure. Really, the rest of these players are not all that impressive nor are they the focus of the trades.
On the whole, I think the Pacers made out pretty well. I also think that the size and scope of the trades will be an excellent referendum on the quality of Pacers Head Coach Jim O’Brien. He has a bunch of pretty good players, which appear to have been selected just for his style of play and which have been touted as NBA-ready. If he can’t make serious improvements in the next year or two, expect him to be feeling the heat.
