BIOGRAPHY – Page 6 – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

HISTORY’S PERSPECTIVE

Peter Baker’s “Days of Fire” offers a picture of George W. Bush’s administration that compares favorably and unfavorably with today’s American government.

Audio-book Review

By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)

Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House

By: Peter Baker

Narrated by Mark Deakins

PETER BAKER (AUTHOR, EMPLOYED BY NYTIMES, FORMER REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST)

Peter Baker’s “Days of Fire” offers a picture of George W. Bush’s administration that compares favorably and unfavorably with today’s American government.

The pain of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq remain raw for many Americans. Baker’s exploration of George Walker Bush’s administration offers historical information but perspective requires more time.

Baker’s book will not change minds about the success or failure of George W. Bush’s administration. It offers details to supporters and detractors of Bush’s tenure as 43^rd President.

GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., SON OF 41ST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)

DICK CHENEY (46TH V.P. OF U.S., FORMER U.S. SECY. OF DEFENSE)

Supporters will admire Bush’s tenacious spirit. Detractors will decry Bush’s obstinate belief in “experts”. Supporters will admire Cheney’s toughness in the face of unexpected problems. Detractors will vilify Cheney for not foreseeing consequences.

Baker shows Bush’s tenacity in following the lead of people hired to do a job. However, Baker infers Bush does not provide enough vetting or oversight of “experts” he hires. When vetting is done, Bush is shown to minimize serious concern about candidate’s faults. When “experts” are hired, Bush prizes loyalty over results in sticking with the chosen.

TRUMP & ROBERT REDFIELD, AN AMERICAN VIROLOGIST AND DIRECTOR OF CDC

There is also a loyalty demand with today’s American President, but it seems one-sided. Mr. Trump expects loyalty from subordinates but undermines associates who report to him. In contrast, George W. stood by Cheney through the worst years of the Iraq war.

Administration turnover is high in Trump’s administration. Too often, Trump chooses image over substance.

JAMES MATTIS (FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE)

For Trump, believing in one’s own judgement and being in charge take precedence over collaborative decision-making. The most recent evidence of this willful characteristic of President Trump is the resignation of General Mattis.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DEPARTURES

Baker shows Cheney as a tough-minded, defense oriented protector of American freedom. At the same time Baker reflects on Cheney’s five heart attacks, lack of respect for differing opinions, and single-minded pursuit of simple solutions for complicated problems. Baker suggests multiple heart attacks may have affected Cheney’s view of life. He suggests Cheney’s actions may have been compromised by medical conditions affecting his health. There are some (mostly Democrats) who question the state of Trump’s personal health and his actions.

Parenthetically, one might argue Trump views himself as protector of capitalist freedom. An apropos example is Trump’s single-minded pursuit of simple solutions for America’s trade deficit.

Baker leaves little doubt about President “W’s” role as decider. The same may be said of Trump, but their leadership success or failure will be based on history; not on today’s view of their actions and results.

LEADERSHIP SUCCESS OR FAILURE IS BASED ON HISTORY; NOT CURRENT CONCEPTION.

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice on October 26, 2020.

Barrett describes herself as a strict constructionist, not a legislator. History will determine the quality of Barrett’s appointment. As a Supreme Court justice, one must recognize it is up to Congress to clarify what they mean when they pass legislation.

Barrett’s appointment is today’s reality. Her decisions, just as Trump’s, Obama’s, and W’s actions, have tomorrows’ consequences. The appointment of Barrett needs the perspective of history; not the praise or condemnation of the present.

Barrett, like all high government leaders, brings her own life history of successes and failures. Cheney left a long public life to become CEO of Halliburton, a multi nation oil field services company. Returning to government opens Cheney to conflict of interest questions.

Baker notes that former associates of pre-VP Cheney feel he changed. Pre-VP Cheney was conservative but more open to others opinions and easier to get along with. (Some argue that Trump is not open to other’s opinions.) Pre-VP Cheney served in the Nixon, Ford, and George H. W. Bush administrations. He also served as a 5 time elected representative of the State of Wyoming.

Halliburton receives multi-million dollar contracts from the American government for support in Iraq. Cheney argues that no other American company had equal resource capability. Trump chooses to surround himself with people like Jared Kushner, Wilbur Ross, and Carl Icahn who have Cheney-like commercial conflicts of interest; not to mention hotel and real estate interests of President Trump himself.

JARED KUSHNER, WILBUR ROSS, CARL ICAHN, AND TRUMP’S SONS AND DAUGHTER–EXAMPLES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFLUENCE OF INTEREST

Baker raises the specter of heart attacks and Halliburton experience affecting Cheney’s personality, demeanor, and actions as Vice President of the United States. The author, like every human being, cannot know what he does not know. The same is true for Mr. Trump. Trump is healthy and highly intelligent because he says he is. As Socrates is believed to have said–“I know something that I know nothing.

Trump was a showman before he became President. Some suggest he remains a showman today. In today’s view, mage is substance to Mr. Trump.

Cheney was who he was before and after he became V.P. of the United States. Of course, age and experience changes everyone; only time and history will confirm or deny today’s opinions of the George W.’s and Trump’s administrations. Many details of Bush and Cheney’s lives are reported in Baker’s book. The data compilation offers color, if not insight, to Bush and Cheney’s characters. Today’s comments and actions of President Trump are equally colorful (in the worst sense of the term) but insight to his administration remains for history to determine.

Baker’s choice of details endears readers to Bush more than Cheney. Bush interactions with the public after 9/11; his bravado in flying to Iraq to meet with troops, and Baker’s description of Bush’s love for his dying 15-year-old Springer Spaniel, tug at a reader’s heart. Details of Cheney’s emotional life are limited to descriptive interactions with family. Baker describes Cheney’s experience with the twin tower terror, heart attacks, and affection for anyone other than family as fatalistically analyzed incidents.

Baker links Bush and Cheney’s early life experiences. He exposes different consequences of their linked experience. Both men are shown to be smart but Bush’s rebelliousness seems parentally sheltered while Cheney’s rebelliousness seems experience driven. Bush graduates from Yale and Harvard while Cheney flunks Yale, returns to work as a power lineman; returns to Yale, flunks again, and eventually graduates with BA and MA political science degrees from University of Wyoming.

BUSH AND TRUMP SHARE THE GOOD FORTUNE OF A LIFE OF PRIVILEGE

Bush’s silver spooned life is contrasted with Cheney’s stainless steel life. Bush’s parental-rebellion is contrasted with Cheney’s “who gives a damn”’ wilding. Because Bush and Cheney both attended Yale, they had some common experience but Bush graduated; Cheney did not. This detail reinforces the argument that Bush may have respected Cheney but felt more qualified to be the decider; not only by virtue of position but by virtue of accomplishment. Baker infers that possibility, particularly in the second term of Bush’s administration.

Cheney offers his resignation before the second election campaign. The decision to invade Iraq is perceived to be hugely influenced by Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. The mistaken intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is a potential re-election killer. Bush considers Cheney’s resignation but chooses not to accept.

Baker suggests that Bush moves away from Cheney toward the end of his first four years in office. Baker reports that some Cheney’ colleagues felt resignation was a Machiavellian-Cheney’ gesture to keep his position; others suggest it was a fall-on-his-sword move to protect the leader; a needed act to get Bush re-elected.

Internal conflicts in “W’s” administration show politics at its best and worst. When Bush pushes for a revision in the Medicare prescription plan for senior citizens, he is stonewalled by his own party on a vote for approval. Baker suggests passage was dead in the water until Bush tacitly agrees, with an Arizona Republican congressman (Trent Franks), to fight any attempt to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that supports women’s rights to abortion. The Medicare prescription plan barely passes, after the meeting.

Bush’s judgment is called into question when he tries to get Harriet Miers appointed to the Supreme Court. Bush believes Miers is qualified without fully vetting her background and education. Ms. Miers, though a lawyer, is shown to be ignorant of basic legal interpretations of practiced law. President Trump has had his share of judgement questions in his foolish twitter comments.

A QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP JUDGEMENT

Baker explores hard feelings between Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Condoleeszza Rice. Rumsfeld mentored Cheney but was dismissed by President Bush in his second term; in part, because of Abu Ghraib but largely because of pentagon and secret service chafing under Rumsfeld management style. Rice succeeds Colin Powell as Secretary of State in the second administration.

Bush felt Powell was not a team player and that he used the media to get around disagreements with Rumsfeld’s military defense decisions. Rice steers the State Department back to diplomacy from being an adjunct of defense. President Trump’s Attorney General is called out as “not a team player” but not for the same reason as Powell.

BOTH BUSH AND TRUMP ENDORSED TORTURE IN INTERROGATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Baker reflects on the “torture” memorandum approval by John Yoo, Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, during “W’s” first administration. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” were approved for the CIA by Bush with Yoo’s tortured legal reasoning. Dick Cheney insists torture saved lives after 9/11. Trump endorses water boarding as a justified torture of political prisoners.

Bush’s second term also replaces John Ashcroft with Alberto Gonzales as U. S. Attorney General. Baker infers the change is due to Ashcroft’s refusal to reverse a Justice Department ruling on a part of the Patriot Act regarding privacy. On the other hand, it could have been Ashcroft’s health. With Ashcroft’s refusal to sign Bush’s reaffirmation of the law, Bush chose to overrule Ashcroft and the Justice Department by Executive Order.

Baker shows how and why Americans have become so closely divided over Bush’s war on terror; his belief in democracy as a guarantee of freedom, and the inference that privacy is a privilege, not a right.

Though it is too soon to write an unbiased history of “W’s” time in office, Baker reports some interesting details about the George W. Bush’ years. Both Bush and Cheney survive the days of fire but Cheney appears more scarred than Bush at the end of Baker’s tale. America seems more divided today; not only in regard to the war on terror, but in more ways than realized during George W. Bush’s administration.

Image result for george walker bush cartoons

In Trump’s administration, the country seems as divided as it was in the Bush/Cheney years. But, of course, views of the Bush and Trump administration are without the perspective of history. History has hugely changed perceptions of Presidents Grant, Wilson, Eisenhower Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon since their deaths.

Some Presidents were considered better; some worse, when they were leaders. One wonders how the 22nd century will look at the George W. and Trump years.

AN AUTHOR’S SUICIDE

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Every Love Story is a Ghost Story: A Life of David Foster Wallace

By: D. T. Max

Narrated by: Malcolm Hillgartner

D. T. MAX (AUTHOR) The biographer of Wallace’s life, D. T. Max, works as a staff writer for “The New Yorker”.

Having read “Infinite Jest” several years ago, this reviewer has been mystified by praise given it by many writers, bibliophiles, and book-review’ publications; however, D. T. Max provides some clues to “Infinite Jest’s” seminal value as a new genre of fiction. “Every Love Story is a Ghost Story” explains the tragedy of David Foster Wallace’s life; i.e. his character, ambition, literary evolution, and 2008 death. This is a fascinating biography. Along with details of Wallace’s life, one is re-introduced to “Infinite Jest” and becomes more informed about why it is, and should be, highly regarded.

As reported in the New York Times: “…David Foster Wallace committed suicide in 2008 at the age of 46…” Jonathan Franzen said, Wallace ‘…was a Lifelong prisoner on the island of himself’.¹

Max shows Wallace to be a narcissist, particularly in his manic “feeling good” periods of life, but in Max’s review of Wallace’s family history, one is inclined to forgive the narcissism and appreciate the vulnerability of a young artist trying to find himself. (There is a suspicion that one is being seduced by a narcissist’s grand exit to make one feel Wallace’s fiction is greater than it really is but only time will be an adequate judge.)

D. T. Max, the author, works as a staff writer for “The New Yorker”. Dave Eggers, Tom Bissell, and Evan Wright (authors in their own right) say that Max delivers a history of Wallace that is ‘well researched’, ‘hugely disquieting’, and ‘indispensable’ in knowing Wallace and why he will be missed.²One is inclined to agree with all of the former but may question the last. One wonders if Wallace’s writing will be missed.

If one did not know anything about Wallace before, after listening to “Every Love Story is a Ghost Story”, the uninformed become well-informed. Wallace is a smart, well-educated, heterosexual that drives for literary success with a manic-depressive intensity that is played out in his writing and ended in his suicide.

Wallace’s life is celebrated by academic success, marked by drugs, unhealthy relationships, rehabilitation, and recidivism. At the very least, one is compelled by Max’s biography to give “Infinite Jest” another chance to impress. After re-reading “Infinite Jest”, discounting Wallace’s book may be more a fault of a reader (this critic) than the writer. (Just place computer mouse and press enter over “Infinite Jest” for review.)

¹Quote noted in goodreads from Franzen about Wallace.

²Comments summarized from blog entry by dtmax.com.

TSAR PUTIN?

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin

Written by: Steven Lee Myers

Narration by: Rene Ruiz

STEVEN LEE MYERS (DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON BUREAU, THE NEW YORK TIMES)

Steven Lee Myers, NYT’s reporter and author.

Steven Lee Myers has written a highly polished and informative biography but fails to convince one that Putin is a Tsar. Putin is more Richard Nixon than Catherine the Great. Putin, like Nixon, is smart and thin-skinned. Putin, like Nixon, makes personnel decisions based on loyalty, and views the world in real-politic terms.

Myers shows Putin comes from a family of Russian patriots with a grandfather and father that fought in Russian armies in different generations. Each lived during the Stalinist years of Gulags and terror but none rebelled against the power of Russia’s leadership.

Myers explains how Putin becomes interested in the KGB at the age of 16 and grooms himself for a life in the secret service. Putin’s KGB-influenced’ career-path is to become an attorney. He learns German and is assigned to East Germany in his first years as a KGB agent.

Myers explains how Putin’s steely disposition grows in East Germany, and later St Petersburg, Russia. Putin keeps a low profile but exhibits bravery, independence, and initiative when his country’s leaders are overwhelmed by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.

ANATOLY SOBCHAK AND VLADIMIR PUTIN (ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA)

Putin becomes the “go-to” guy for the Mayor of Leningrad (aka St. Petersburg). Putin’s relationship to the Mayor of Leningrad, Anatoly A. Sobchak, is founded on loyalty.

Sobchak is initially recognized as a representative of new Russia but the power of his position is diminished by the ineptitude of his administration. In spite of Sobchak’s mistakes, Myers shows that Putin stands by him. Loyalty is a characteristic of Putin that is expected of all who work with him. Eventually Sobchak is electorally defeated and Putin is left out of a job.

Putin’s relationship with the mayor of Leningrad reminds one of his support for Lukashenco, the President of Belarus, who illegally diverted a commercial airline to capture a government political dissident (Roman Protasevich).

Roman Protasevich (Belarusian journalist and political dissident.)

Alexander Lukashenko (President of Belarus)

In a televised June 4th, 2021 confession by Protasevich, Lukashenco embarrasses himself and his country with coerced praise by the Belarus President. This reminds one of Stalin’s show trials.

Russia is unlikely to return to hegemonic control of adjacent countries. Ethnic nationalism and desire for greater freedom are unquenchable thirsts. Ukraine, Georgia, and even Belarus, seem unlikely to rejoin Russia in a new Socialist Republic.

Russia is equally unlikely to be ruled by a Tsar again because its population is better educated; aware of the value of qualified freedom, insured by relative social stability, and security.

Russia will remain a major international power and influence in the world. Nuclear capability and cybernetics (particularly as a weapon of political and economic disruption) guarantees Russia’s position in world affairs.

Forcing Ukraine or Georgia to return to the Russian block is beyond the military strength of Russia’s Putin or his successors. Putin successfully destroyed Chechen resistance in Russia but only by severe repression within the Russian state’s border, mobilization of the press against Chenchen terrorism, and co-optation of a Chechen leader who is now a Putin’ mercenary in Ukraine. Reassembly of a form of the U. S. S. R. is only conceivable based on political accommodation based on economic influence or volitional federation. Neighboring countries can only be seduced, i.e., either by economics, or cybernetic influence. A majority vote of neighboring countries; not military dominion, will be the “modus vivendi” for Russian expansion.

But what about the Crimea. It is a part of the Ukraine.

An argument can be made that territory of the Crimea is not an exception. Millions of dollars were spent by Russia to modernize Crimea for the Olympics. Undoubtedly, a great deal of time was spent influencing Crimea’s population (which is ethnically 65% Russian). It is conceivable that a majority of the Crimea residents voted to become part of Russia.

Of course, this sets aside the truth of Crimea’s territorial and nationalist connection with Ukraine. One might argue this is analogous to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler used the excuse that ethnic Germans were being abused in the Sudetenland. In this view, Putin is no Tsar; i.e. he is more Stalinist accolade.

(To make Crimea the equivalent of the Sudetenland one might ask oneself if the majority in the Sudetenland were ethnic Germans, and was there a vote by Sudetenland residents.)

Undoubtedly, a great deal of time was spent influencing Crimea’s population. 65% of the Crimea’s population is ethnically Russian. It is not inconceivable that a majority of Crimea residents voted to become part of Russia

Myers cogently reveals the strengths and weaknesses of modern Russian rule. In a limited sense (limited by Myers’ independent research and fact checking), Myers’ corroborates the experience noted in William Browder’s book, “Red Notice”. Putin is certainly capable of undermining the influence or action of any person who chooses to challenge his authoritarianism.

WILLIAM FELIX BROWDER (AKA BILL BROWDER-CEP AND CO-FOUNDER OF HERMITAGE CAPTIAL MANAGEMENT, NOTED CRITIC OF PUTIN)

American-born British financier and political activist.

In spite of Putin’s great power, Myers shows there are chinks in his invincibility. Putin’s sly manipulation for re-election after Medvedev’s only term as President fails to quell the desire for freedom of Russian citizens. Just as Watergate exposed the hubris of Nixon, Putin will suffer from the sin of being a flawed human being. Putin, like Nixon, is a great patriot of his country but neither exhibit the inner moral compass that make good leaders great leaders. This is a reminder of the 45th American President who focused on the business of America; not its role as a beacon for freedom and equality of opportunity.

An odd article in the NYTs (4/6/22) notes America is perplexed by what Putin owns in order to punish him with confiscation or restriction of assets. Putin is a true believer in communism. His position and property are owned by the State. In one sense that makes Putin vulnerable because his money, power, and prestige is dependent on his government’ position. In another, his position insulates him from international economic sanction.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

Myers creates a convincing portrait of a man who is subject to the sins of most who rise to power. Putin believes he has become a god among men. He rationalizes his greed by thinking the fate of Russia’s re-ascendance lies in his hands. Even in the days of Stalinist governance, relationship to the leader was the sine ne quo of wealth and power. Putin carries on that tradition. Putin’s friends and associates from the KGB and his tenure in St. Petersburg are critical components of Putin’s control of the economy and government.

Putin is no Tsar but he could have been if education had not advanced society and freedom of expression had not entered the internet age.

MALCOLM X

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention

MALCOLM X
By Manning Marable

Narrated by G. Valmont Thomas

Malcolm X has been in the news lately. Some Malcom X’ papers have been found that seem to reveal a new vision of the man. However Manning Marable’s biography of Malcom X suggests the papers were never lost. Malcolm X’s life became an open book.

Driving to the office the other day, while waiting for a traffic light to change, a well-dressed youngish black man offers a newspaper titled “The Final Call” to anyone willing to make a donation to its publication. “The Final Call” is the official paper of the “Nation of Islam” (NOI) that covers news worthy events of black America and expounds the philosophy of Elijah Muhammad, the second leader of NOI, in the United States. Some suggest the founder of NOI, Wallace Fard Muhammad, was a con man who mysteriously disappeared in 1934.

After reading a couple of “The Final Call” papers, one can understand its appeal because it offers news about black experience in America. However, every edition has one page dedicated to the philosophy of the “Nation of Islam” as a religious movement. It states blacks and whites must have separate nations with their own governments, including dedicated land for Nation of Islam’ believers, qualified by the color of their skin.

NATION OF ISLAM — After reading a couple of “The Final Call” papers, one can understand its appeal because it offers news about black experience in America.

RELIGIOUS BELIEF — Acknowledging my personal skepticism about “organized religion”, the Nation of Islam has the same negative qualities of all organized religions; it makes claims of divine authority for humans that have the same failings of all humans; i.e. lust, and greed for money, power, and prestige.

“Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention” is an educational tour de force of the good and not so good aspects of the NOI movement in the United States. Acknowledging my personal skepticism about “organized religion”, the Nation of Islam has the same negative qualities of all organized religions; it makes claims of divine authority for humans that have the same failings of all humans, i.e. lust, and greed for money, power, and prestige.

Men like Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan offer a sense of pride and belief in oneself that every human being owns when they are born. But they, like all human beings, are not perfect. One can cast stones at Elijah Muhammad’s infidelity, Malcolm X’s incitement to riot, or Louis Farrakhan’s belief that a Black person can only be free in a Black nation, but what human being has not lusted for sex or coveted money, power, and prestige?

NATION OF ISLAM FOUNDER AND CURRENT LEADER (Elijah Muhammad left, and Louis Farrakhan center.) One can cast stones at Elijah Muhammad’s infidelity, Malcolm X’s incitement to riot, or Louis Farrakhan’s belief that a Black person can only be free in a Black nation but what human being has not lusted for sex or coveted money, power, and prestige?

MALCOLM X (1925-1965) Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965. In the last year of his life, he split from NOI because he did not believe America could be separate and equal for black and white Americans, i.e. he endeavored to make NOI political; not just religion-based, black organization.

Manning Marable, the author of this book, was (he died in April of 2011) a professor of African American Studies at Columbia University. This American historian, with the help of Alex Haley (author of “Roots” and “The Autobiography of Malcolm X”), has written this book to educate ignorant Americans on the NOI movement in the United States.

Though “Malcolm: A Life of Reinvention” is primarily about Malcolm Little’s (Malcolm X’s) life, it tells the history of the Nation of Islam and the rise of its current leader, Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr.

Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965. In the last year of his life, he split from NOI because he did not believe America could be separate and equal for black and white Americans, i.e. he endeavored to make NOI political, not just religion-based, black organization. This was a contradiction to the Nation of Islam leader’s teaching, which may have led to his assassination. Malcolm Little’s transition from uneducated hoodlum to Malcolm X, a self-educated political activist and religious leader, is a well told story in Marable’s book.

BARACK OBAMA QUOTE — With the election of Barack Obama, one is inclined to believe Malcolm X was on the right trail (the political power trail).

With the election of Barack Obama, one is inclined to believe Malcolm X was on the right trail (the political power trail) and Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam in the United States, was mistaken because he relegated the black movement to an extreme form of religion; akin to nationalism, that has the same social baggage carried by right-wing propagandists like George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi Party leader of the early 60s.

LOUIS FARRAKHAN MUHAMMAD, SR (1933-PRESENT) BECAME NOI LEADER 1978

GEORGE LINCOLN ROCKWELL (1918-1967) AMERICAN NAZI MOVEMENT LEADER

Louis Farrakhan Muhammad continues Elijah Muhammad’s message by insisting on NOI’s adherence to religious, economic, and political separation of black and white people. In a practical and bigoted sense, Rockwell and Farrakhan are allies in extremis.

Malcolm X is not a saint in this biography. He is shown to be a hoodlum in transition, but he touches the nerves and lives of black and white America. Malcolm X lives and dies in America’s effort to become a true land of the free, with equality of opportunity for all.

Malcolm X’s life story kindles fear and hope in a world populated by “all too human” human beings.

THE PRICE OF OBSESSION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Kid

Written by: Ben Bradlee, Jr.

Narration by: Dave Mallow

BEN BRADLEE, JR. (AUTHOR, WRITER-EDITOR FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE)

Nearly two-thirds of “The Kid” is about Ted Williams as an extraordinary ballplayer, fisherman, and sports spokesman; the remaining third details Williams’ failure as a husband and father. Ted Williams marries three times, and divorces three times; he philanders as a husband, and ignores the early lives of his three children; i.e. the first from wife number one; the two others from wife number three.

Ben Bradlee, Jr. pulls no punches in recounting parts of Williams’ life that Ted Williams would possibly regret; that is, if the psychological picture painted by Bradlee is correct. After finishing Bradlee’s book, one believes Williams would lament mistakes made in his family life. Williams’ drive for perfection and fragile self-confidence left little time for a wife’s needs, or a child’s parenting.

The price of Williams’ obsession for “being the best” is three divorces, an older daughter that rebels against convention, a son that feels entitled, and a daughter who idolizes, fears, and desires her father’s attention. All of Williams’ wives are beautiful but a handsome husband with a beautiful wife is shown by Bradlee’s story to be a small part of a happy marriage. Bradlee suggests infidelity, anger, and single-minded focus destined Ted Williams for divorce.

TED WILLIAMS & LOUIS KAUFMAN (MS. KAUFMAN DIED 1993)

Williams seems only able to maintain a relationship with a woman who tolerates his imperfections; not as a sycophant, but as an ally; i.e. a woman who complements his strengths and accepts his weaknesses. Only one woman, whom he does not marry, fulfills that description; i.e. his lifelong admirer, Louise Kaufman.

Bradlee exposes raw facts about Williams’ children. His oldest child, Bobby-Jo, is committed to a psychiatric ward for mental instability, is released, gets married, philanders, becomes an alcoholic, has two children, divorces, and is disowned by Williams.

BOBBY-JO WILLIAMS FERRELL AND HUSBAND MARK (TED WILLIAMS DAUGHTER FROM HIS FIRST MARRIAGE)

BOBBY-JO WILLIAMS FERRELL AND THEN HUSBAND MARK IN 2002. (As his first child, Bobby Jo, flirts with insanity, Williams provides financial support but very little personal attention. At the end of his life, Williams removes Bobby Jo from his will, except for a $200,000 life insurance annuity. )

Williams only boy, John-Henry, is characterized as a thief that steals his mother’s paintings, borrows money against Ted Williams’ name (without his knowledge), fails to pay it back, and lies about it. John-Henry trades on his father’s reputation as though he is entitled.

Bradlee tells a story of John-Henry’s selling Ted Williams’ signed memorabilia and then brag about his ability to forge his father’s name. Claudia, John-Henry’s sister, refuses to believe John-Henry forges their father’s signature. She chooses to make her own way in life by living abroad, learning French and German, and establishing her own identity without the influence of her father’s reputation.

CLAUDIA WILLIAMS (WROTE A MEMOIR-MY FATHER-ABOUT TED WILLIAMS)

Late in Williams’ life, Bradlee shows Williams expresses love for John-Henry and Claudia but, in the progress of their maturity, they assert their independence either in self-interested affection or rebellion. Fatherly influence in his children’s early life seems limited. William’s way of living life and his acquired wealth seem his most pronounced paternal influences.

Bradlee infers Williams had little time for his children until retired from baseball. Even then, professional fishing took the place of fatherhood; at least, until much later in Williams’ life. As an example of William’s love for his children, Bradlee notes Williams proudly attends a college graduation ceremony for his son and sheds prideful tears for John-Henry’s accomplishment. Later, it becomes known that John-Henry did not really graduate. He is 3 credits short; e.g. one of several deceptions by John-Henry that are forgiven or discounted by Williams.

Bradlee savages John-Henry’s reputation by inferring that, though he loves his father, he reeks of dishonesty, feels entitled by paternity, and tarnishes Ted Williams’ fame and name.

Bradlee’s biography of Ted Williams ends sadly with the picture of a ravaged legend that appears to have sacrificed too much to become the greatest hitter in baseball. Bradlee shows Ted Williams as a towering sports figure but a tiny, unimpressive husband and father.

EISENHOWER

The “Wall Street Journal” calls the Eisenhower monument, “Monumentally Mediocre”. Jean Smith’s interesting biography suggests otherwise.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Eisenhower in War and Peace

Written by: Jean Edward Smith

Narrated by: Paul Hecht

JEAN EDWARD SMITH (AUTHOR, JOHN MARSHALL PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT MARSHALL UNIVERSITY & PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO)

Jean Edward Smith’s biography of Dwight Eisenhower defines the meaning of political leadership. Smith does not show Eisenhower to be a great intellect or military genius. Smith suggests Eisenhower is similar to Ulysses Grant in having come from a modest family to rise to the office of President of the United States.

Like Grant, Eisenhower is shown to be a consummate leader who politically manages and develops people who understand how to get things done. Unlike Grant, Smith shows Eisenhower to be a better President than battlefield commander.

The newly revealed Eisenhower monument in Washington D.C. shows Eisenhower in command of others. It correctly infers Eisenhower is a leader who trusts others to be the best they can be. Eisenhower is not a doer but a manager of others who do.

Eisenhower leads Allied forces on D-Day by using the best battlefield generals of WWII. Smith implies–without the Allied generals’ experience in battle, Eisenhower would likely have failed on D-Day.

Smith notes that Eisenhower had minimal combat experience. The one time Eisenhower directly manages a battle is in Sicily. If it had not been for superior manpower and material, Smith argues Eisenhower would have been defeated. Smith goes on to suggest that British Field General Montgomery is unjustly scapegoated for Eisenhower’s Italian campaign mistakes.

FIELD MARSHAL BERNARD MONTGOMERY (1887-1976, ENGLISH FIELD MARSHAL THAT MATCHED WITS WITH GERMAN FIELD MARSHAL ERWIN ROMMEL)

Smith also notes Montgomery’s role in D-Day is unfairly characterized. Montgomery argues for concentrated forces at critical points in German defenses; while Eisenhower demands a broad frontal attack along the entire front. Eisenhower’s tactics, in some generals’ opinions, prolong the end of the war by six months; i.e. increasing the casualty count and stalling Montgomery’s advance on Omaha Beach.

However, Smith’s biography of Eisenhower shows that military successes and failures make him a perfect political leader.

Smith reveals an inner moral compass that defines Eisenhower’s beliefs and decisions. Eisenhower uses that moral compass to become Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in WWII; and later, President of the United States.

Smith infers, despite tactical failures as a battlefield commander, Eisenhower’s innate ability to get things done through other people make him one of the great twentieth century American Presidents.

EISENHOWER AND SOMERSBY — Eisenhower is no saint. His power as Allied forces’ general leads to the Somersby affair even as Eisenhower professes a deep need and affection for his wife, Mamie.

Smith offers a comprehensive picture of Eisenhower. Eisenhower is no moral saint. His power as Allied forces’ general leads to the Somersby affair even as Eisenhower professes a deep need and affection for his wife, Mamie.

Somersby appears to have been loved by Eisenhower, but she is unceremoniously dumped in a “Dear John” letter when Eisenhower is ordered back to the United States. On the one hand, Smith is showing Eisenhower is human; on the other, Smith is showing the perfidy of men in power positions.

Smith explains Eisenhower’s path to the presidency. A part of that trail is festooned with Eisenhower’s sense of duty, but it is also tainted by the power and glory of high office. Eisenhower is solicited by both Democratic and Republican parties. In the end, the Republican platform more closely adheres to Eisenhower’s belief in fiscal conservatism.

However, Smith shows Eisenhower to be a domestic social liberal. Eisenhower is no ideologue. The inner compass that directs Eisenhower’s life recognizes the cruelty of poverty, the shallowness of red-baiting exemplified by Joseph McCarthy, and the importance of patience when dealing with international and domestic affairs.

Eisenhower resists the hawkish tendencies of his Republican colleagues. He insists on withdrawal from the Korean conflict. Eisenhower abjures any suggestion that nuclear bombs should be used to attack American enemies. He forthrightly confronts Governor Faubus when the governor refuses to integrate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.

MOHAMMAD MOSADDEGH (1882-1967) — MOHAMMAD MOSADDEGH Though Eisenhower initially rejects a British assassination plot against Mosadegh in Iran, he changes his mind when he begins to believe oil availability is more important than one human life. (1882-1967)

On the other hand, Eisenhower succumbs to the machinations of his defense department and several covert plans to overthrow foreign governments. Though Eisenhower initially rejects a British assassination plot against Mossadegh in Iran, he changes his mind when he begins to believe oil availability is more important than one human life.

Though Mossadegh dies from natural causes, America supports a military junta that overthrows Iran’s government. Eisenhower’s support of the overthrow is based on British settlement of an Iranian oil agreement with Iran, and Iranian oil availability in the United States.

Eisenhower also mistakenly establishes the domino theory of communist infiltration. Though he refuses to support the French in Indochina, he believes the fall of Vietnam will expand communism in Southeast Asia. Eisenhower sets the table for Kennedy’s and Johnson’s mistakes in Vietnam.

Eisenhower is well-known for his opposition to the military/industrial complex growing in America. He insists on balancing the budget by reducing military expenditure. He reduces financing for American military forces while strengthening Air Force capability as a more modern military deterrent. Eisenhower faces down numerous military commanders that insist on expanding conventional forces that can intercede in foreign conflicts without employing weapons of mass destruction (an argument that is being made by today’s military establishment).

COMMUNIST DOMINO THEORY — Eisenhower mistakenly establishes the domino theory of communist infiltration.

recruiter — Eisenhower faces down numerous military commanders that insist on expanding conventional forces that can intercede in foreign conflicts without employing weapons of mass destruction (an argument that is being made by today’s military establishment).

Smith shows that Eisenhower refuses to balance the budget by cutting domestic programs that serve the poor and aged. Eisenhower presses unsuccessfully for increases in medical services for the American public (quite different from today’s Republican President).

Smith offers a balanced picture of Dwight Eisenhower. America benefited from Eisenhower’s political acumen. He may not rank with Washington and Lincoln, but he drew from an inner moral compass that makes human beings as good as they are capable of being.

In contrast to America’s current President, Eisenhower made one proud to be an American. (This review was written when Trump was President of the United States.)

BIRDS FLY SO WHY CAN’T I

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Wright Brothers

Written by: David McCullough

Narrated by: David McCullough

DAVID McCULLOUGH (TWO TIME PULIZER PRIZE WINNER)

“The Wright Brothers” must have wondered—Birds fly, so why can’t I? David McCullough writes and narrates a memoir of the Wright Brothers that perfectly turns wonder into reality. Orville and Wilbur Wright are the first to design, build, and fly an airplane that demonstrates human control of flight. They were not the first humans to fly, but they were the first to fly like birds; i.e. with nature and intent. Before the Wright brothers, flying is left to man’s faith in God and luck; after the Wright brothers, flying is firmly within the grasp of humanity.

Two farm boys are raised in a family of seven (a mother, father, sister, and two brothers). Neither Orville, or Wilbur are college educated. Both are born to a mother who graduates from Hartford College, as the top mathematician in her class; a woman who became a housewife to an ordained minister, and an example to her children. Through nature and nurture, Orville and Wilbur become the talk of Dayton, Ohio, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Paris, Washington DC, and, eventually, the wide world.

Wilbur is a student athlete and scholar in high school. He goes to Hartford College, like his mother, but (unlike his mother) never graduates. Orville is the younger of the two by 4 years. Orville never finishes high school. McCullough describes the boys as tinkerers with ambition and a burning desire to understand how birds fly. With extraordinary observational skill, hard work, and persistence, Orville and Wilbur observe birds in flight, build and tinker with flying machines, and meticulously repeat experiments in human flight.

WRIGHT BROTHERS' BICYCLE SHOP — WRIGHT BROTHERS’ BICYCLE SHOP

With income from a bicycle business they start in Dayton, Ohio, they begin designing their first glider. After completing their design, they make parts and assemble their air vehicles at the bicycle shop. They search for an area of the country that has the wind and landing characteristics they need to test their glider. They are invited to an area of North Carolina because of the wind and sand characteristics of the area. Their first flight is on October 5, 1900 near Kitty Hawk but it is flown more as a kite; without a pilot. After the first experiment, Wilbur takes flight as a pilot, while helpers tether the glider from the ground. These first flights lead the brothers back to the drawing board for control-feature re-design. WRIGHT UNPOWERED AIRCRAFT

The brothers return in 1901, with a new glider. The new design, allows the ribs of the wings to flex to allow adjustments in flight. They find the flexing refines control of the glider in their Dayton shop where the re-design and reassembly occur. They create a wind tunnel to help with a re-design of glider controls. They add a rear rudder to improve the steering capability of the flyer. At this point, McCullough explains that the brothers begin flying in earnest to improve their skill in maneuvering the glider. Orville and Wilbur realize earlier failures, by themselves and others, will be repeated by pilots without extensive experience with aircraft controls. McCullough reinforces the historic truth of the Wright brothers’ invention of the first airplane. Without the brother’s creative control features, airplanes would be too dangerous to fly.

WRIGHT'S 1903 FLYER ENGINE — WRIGHT’S 1903 FLYER ENGINE

CHARLES TAYLOR (1868-1956, DESIGNED THE FIRST ENGINE FOR THE WRIGHT BROTHER'S AIRPLANE) — CHARLES TAYLOR (1868-1956, DESIGNED THE FIRST ENGINE FOR THE WRIGHT BROTHER’S AIRPLANE)

Once the aerodynamics of flight are understood, the Wright brothers turn to the idea of a motor to complete their vision of human flight. Searching the nation for a light weight engine to power their glider, they find no engine fits the bill. By good fortune, the Wright brothers become friends with Charles Taylor. Taylor takes over management of their bicycle shop while they are refining their gliders. Taylor happens to be a master mechanic. He hand-builds an engine to power the first airplane motor by boring a block of aluminum for pistons to provide 12 horsepower to the Wright’s first airplane. On December 17, 1903, the first flight of a motorized airplane (an airplane with directional controls) takes place at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

WRIGHT'S 1903 FLYER — WRIGHT’S 1903 FLYER

McCullough notes that neither Orville or Wilbur ever marry. They are a close family, raised by a loving father who is often absent because of his Bishopric duties and a mother who surprises local residents with her ability to manage the household, repair broken tools, and raise such self-reliant children. The brother’s sister, Katharine Wright is the only child to graduate from college. She becomes the boy’s surrogate mother when their birth-mother is invalided in 1886 and dies in 1889. Katherine becomes the first woman to fly as a passenger with Wilbur in Paris.

WRIGHT BROTHERS FAMILY (COMPOSITE PHOTO, LEFT TO RIGHT-WILBUR, KATHARINE, SUSAN, LORIN, BISHOP MILTON, REUCHIN, AND ORVILLE)

KATHARINE WRIGHT (1874-1929, SISTER OF WILBUR AND ORVILLE WRIGHT)

THOMAS SELFRIDGE (1882-1908, PASSENGER ON 1908 PLANE CRASHED IN ORVILLE WRIGHT'S DEMONSTRATION OF FLIGHT TO THE AMERICAN ARMY) — THMAS SELFRIDGE (1882-198, PASSENGER ON 1908 PLANE CRASHED IN ORVILLE WRIGHT’S DEMONSTRATION OF FLIGHT TO THE AMERICAN ARMY)

In the many flights that Orville and Wilbur take, there are several crashes. The worst crash is when Orville is demonstrating their latest airplane to the Army. According to McCullough, the crash is caused by a mechanical failure that kills an Army Lieutenant as a passenger on Orville’s flight. Orville is nearly killed but is nursed back to health by Katharine.

In most of Orville’s and Wilbur’s flights, they fly separately to assure the continuation of their company should one or the other be killed. As fate would have it, Wilbur dies from typhoid in 1912. Orville lives until 1948. They created a company in 1909 that sold planes to the U. S. Army and a French syndicate. Orville sells the company in 1915 but stays involved in aeronautics for the remainder of his life. He became a member of the Board of Directors for NASA.

Several lawsuits were brought to challenge patents created by the Wright brothers on their airplane designs; none of the challenges succeeded. McCullough implies “The Wright Brothers” story is proof of the truth of the American Dream. With hard work, persistence, and intelligence, success is every American’s opportunity. In recent years, ghosts of past and present, challenge that belief. But, for white Americans in the early twentieth century, the dream is made real by McCullough’s entertaining and informative story about the Wright family.

LAUNCHING DRAGONS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

Written by: Ashlee Vance

Narrated by: Fred Sanders

Ashlee Vance writes about launching dragons in a biography of Elon Musk. Like the mythical fire breathing beast that destroys civilizations, Musk’s fire-breathing ambition levels two of the most powerful organizations in the world; e.g. the auto industry and government bureaucracy.

Tesla Motors is the first automobile manufacturer to receive a unanimous vote as the best car of the year. SpaceX is the first private rocket manufacturer to successfully transport satellites and cargo into space. The principal behind these extraordinary feats is Elon Musk, a combination of the fictional Tony Stark and a real Thomas Edison. Not since the 1920s has anyone successfully launched a new automobile manufacturer. Never in history has a private company launched rockets into space to service the international space station.

TESLA'S SpaceX RE-LAUNCH ROCKET — TESLA’S SpaceX RE-LAUNCH ROCKET

Vance shows that Musk has an optimistic vision of the future of America and the world. His willingness to risk everything for alternative energy sources, and reduction of carbon-based energy consumption are astounding in the recurrent era of capitalist greed. Musk’s focus is on transition from traditional industrial methods of production to technological innovation. His methodology is a combination of traditional cost-based negotiation, vertical business integration, and hard work. The methods are not new but Musk’s extraordinary intelligence and his personal commitment are reminiscent of great inventor/innovators in history.

ELON MUSK ROLLS THE DICE AGAIN BY PURCHASING SOLAR CITY, THE LARGEST SOLAR CONVERSION COMPANY IN THE U.S.

Vance clearly illustrates that Musk is not perfect but his story will eventually, if not now, be recorded as historically important. Musk exposes the lie of Trump’s vilification of immigrants. Musk is born as a South African who comes to America through Canada. He becomes an American job producer and manufacturer when both are sorely needed to revivify the, largely mythical, American dream. Musk gives America hope.

Musk faces many obstacles in his life; just as all humans do. One advantage for Musk is in being white; oh, and being blessed with a prodigious memory, extraordinary cognitive ability, and an immense drive to succeed. Musk relentlessly pursues what he believes in. Fortunately, Musk’s natural advantages work toward the best interests of humanity; i.e. a cleaner environment and exploration for colonization of other worlds.

DONALD TRUMP (REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. 2016) Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords is reminiscent of ignorant industrial luddites. Innovators like Musk pursue an opportune future while Trump and others pursue the mythology of the past. Both Musk’s and Trump’s errors are human, but their consequences are hugely different. Vance’s biography of Musk shows releasing dragons can benefit society. Trump’s dragons are only likely to harm society. In history, Musk will be remembered fondly; Trump will be recalled sadly.

NO JOKE

Treavor Noah knows what it is to be poor. Undoubtedly, Noah now knows what it is like to be rich. More importantly, it seems Noah has adopted his mother’s independence and, from his life experience, a superior perception of reality. “Born a Crime” is no joke.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com

Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood

Written by: Trevor Noah

Narrated by: Trevor Noah

TREAVOR NOAH (AUTHOR, HOST OF THE DAILY SHOW)

TREVOR NOAH (AUTHOR AND HOST OF “THE DAILY SHOW”

Trevor Noah’s “Born a Crime” is no joke.

Remembering when Trevor Noah took over the “Daily Show”, thoughts of a South African replacing an American, places one in two minds. One mind thinks how could a person not born in America understand the politics and culture of a country satirized by a TV show? Another mind thinks the “Daily Show” will become more culturally relevant with a commentator that satirizes more than just American culture.

JOHN STEWART (COMEDIAN, FORMER HOST OF THE DAILY SHOW)

JON STEWART (COMEDIAN AND FORMER HOST OF “THE DAILY SHOW.)

The answer to the first mind’s question is answered by the second mind’s conclusion. Personally, it is sad to have witnessed the loss of Jon Stewart’s insightful American commentary. However, Noah offers a perspective that is equally insightful; admittedly cringe worthy at times, but more universal.

TREVOR NOAH AND HIS FATHER

“Born a Crime” is testament to Noah’s cultural diversity and universal insight.

When Noah is born, he is “Born a Crime” because South African Apartheid made mixed conjugal relations a criminal offence. Noah’s father is a white Swiss entrepreneur and his mother is a black South African. They choose to have a son, though they never marry. Noah’s mother names her son Trevor because the name gives him the distinction of being neither African black, nor white but a citizen of the world.

Noah is a challenging son. He shows himself to be a hyperactive, non-violent, trouble-maker in his youth. He is born into poverty but raised by a mother who believes in a moral code of unshakable faith. In his youth, Noah defies most of his mother’s inner direction and strict, sometimes physically punishing, discipline. Retrospectively, Noah acknowledges how much his mother loved him, and how her fortitude presumably made him mentally tough, independent, and irreverently objective.

Noah’s story is a tribute to his mother. She inspires a listener to understand the importance of family, respect, love, and faith.

TREVOR NOAH (Back in the day's of delinquency)

As a youth, Noah steals, becomes a black-market maven, and juvenile delinquent.

His intelligence is used to organize a group of delinquents to make a living in a South African ghetto. He rationalizes his thievery as a game to outwit the local police and fellow miscreants in a dysfunctional culture born of the remnants of apartheid. He broadens rationalization of criminality by believing there is no harm; no foul for theft because of insurance company reimbursement of societies’ wealthy, the unfairness of Apartheid, and the reality of poverty and hunger.

Noah explains how black-markets develop and how it is difficult for poor people to escape its allure. It is the same circumstance that feeds drug cartels. Theft, like drugs, is a way of making a living in the ghetto. Both industries recruit the unemployed by offering jobs, potential wealth, and identity.

Noah notes that ghetto gangs are more in touch, supportive, and caring of the poor than the government. Gangs take care of their neighborhoods by being more involved, more considerate, and helpful when it comes to the needs of the poor. However, Noah fails to fully assess how the poor are victimized by gangs that prey on the same people they purportedly help. It is a blindness repeated in a vignette about a boy named Hitler.

An example of a “cringe worthy” observation by Noah is his explanation of his lead dancer in one of his schemes to make money in the ghetto. His little group of non-violent delinquents are hired to provide entertainment at a Jewish school in South Africa. Noah is the disc jockey. His star dance performer is a young black African named Hitler.

Noah implies that he is ignorant of Hitler’s atrocities in WWII. This is somewhat incredulous considering Noah’s intelligence.

In any case, Noah’s music heightens the excitement of his audience and he calls on Hitler to dance to the music; with a dance that includes a Hitlerian salute. Naturally, the room goes silent.

Noah gets into an argument with the person who hired his group. Noah suggests his ignorance led to a misunderstanding. He writes that when one considers the millions of black people murdered through Apartheid and slavery, Hitler is just a name given to the dancer by his mother. Black genocide and slavery is an ugly “cringe-worthy” excuse to justify Hitler’s murderous antisemitism. Putting the Hitler vignette aside, Noah’s story is a condemnation of discrimination in all forms.

Noah returns to the subject of his mother’s life with an explanation of her marriage to a black South African (Abel Shingange) who Noah describes as unconventionally handsome with a penchant for violence. He marries Noah’s mother and they have two children together. Noah is in grade school. Their life as a family lasts for over 17 tumultuous years.

The story of Noah’s mother reflects on global discrimination against women. His stepfather is shown to have been raised in a patriarchal family that emphasizes the superiority of men over women.

Women, in Abel Shingange’s life, are expected to bear children, be silent, cook and clean house, be dependent on their husbands, and respect males in all circumstances of life. Noah’s stepfather insists on that relationship in his newly formed family.

Noah’s mother comes from a completely different perspective. She is an independent soul who chose to have a child “Born a Crime” and who believed the only God is God and not man. Noah’s stepfather interprets her opinion and attitude as disrespect for his role as husband.

Noah’s mother is shot three times by his stepfather. Noah’s stepfather fired a bullet in her buttocks, her leg, and the back of her head. The government, presumably run by men, decides that the needs of two boys who remain in the home need the support of their father. Ironically, Noah notes that his stepfather rarely supported the children or family, and drank the profits of his labor. His mother had been the primary financial support of the family.

WALKING THE STREETS OF CAPETOWN SOUTH AFRICA

Noah’s stepfather is walking the streets of South Africa as a free man today. Surprisingly, Noah’s mother is alive. Through a miracle of circumstance or God, the bullet to the back of her head missed her brain.

Noah knows what it is to be poor. Undoubtedly, Noah now knows what it is like to be rich. More importantly, it seems Noah has adopted his mother’s independence and, from his life experience, a superior perception of reality. “Born a Crime” is no joke.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: