Category: SOCIETY

NO WAY OUT

Gorbachev freed the Russian economy and Putin capitalized on that freedom. However, both reached beyond their grasp and damaged Russia’s standing in the world.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A History of Russia: From Peter the Great to Gorbachev

By: Mark Steinberg, The Great Courses

Narrated by: Mark Steinberg

Mark David Steinberg (History Professor at University of Illinois specializing in the cultural, intellectual, and social history of Russia.)

Professor Mark Steinberg’s history of Russia is an informative tour of Russian history that gives some context to the perplexing, contradictory, and murderous behavior of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Though Steinberg’s history focuses on Tsarist Russia, a little research reveals why Putin argues Ukraine is historically a part of Russia.

Russia is an ancient nation that reaches back to the year 862.

The northern and southern lands were combined in 882 by Prince Oleg of Novgorod upon the seizure of Kiev in what is today the capital of Ukraine. Kiev becomes the capital of the combined lands. Eastern Christian religion is adopted from the Byzantine Empire by Russia in 988. Upon the Mongol invasion in 1237-1240, Russia’s size diminishes, and Russia’s capital moves to Moscow.

The first leader to be titled Tsar of Russia is Ivan the Terrible in 1547.

Ivan IV (Called Ivan the Terrible’s visage is forensically reconstructed by Mikhail Gerasimov)

Ukraine emerges as a nation in the mid-18th century, but large portions of the country remain under the control of Russia.

It is not until 1991, that Ukraine’s independence is recognized by America, Poland, and Canada.

Steinberg’s history addresses the time of Peter the Great through Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. What one hears from the lectures is the vacillation of Russian leadership from Europeanization to de-Europeanization. The primary interest of non-aristocratic Russians is in the political principle of socialism.

Autocracy is a common thread in Steinberg’s history of Russia. However, beginning with Peter the Great, that thread is frayed by changes that modernize Russian government management of its citizens. It remains autocratic but recognizes the country is behind Europe in its economic and cultural improvement.

Tsar Peter the Great (As Tsar from 1682 to 1721, Pyotr I Alekseyevich leads Russia as a harsh autocrat with the goal of defeating Ottoman and Swedish control of the Sea of Azov and the Baltic.

Steinberg explains Peter the Great’s objective is to create a new Russia by replacing its traditionalist and medieval social and political systems with enlightened public policies. He plans to modernize Russia by promoting education and industrialization. His objective is to emulate and compete with European modernization. The Russian Academy of Science and Saint Petersburg State University are founded in 1724. Peter the Great creates a governing Senate in 1711 and other institutions to improve the administration of the Russian autocracy.

Peter the Great dies unexpectedly and fails to designate an heir to the throne. Succession founders for several years with little progress toward modernization until Catherine II becomes Catherine the Great, empress of Russia from 1762 to 1796.

Catherine the Great II (Born 1729, dies in 1796 at age 67.)

Catherine the Great marries the grandson of Peter the Great who died months after becoming Emperor of Russia. Catherine the Great is of the same mind as Peter the Great in modernizing Russia. New Russian cities, universities, and theatres are created by Catherine the Great. With the help of fellow nobles, Grigory Orlov and Grigory Potemkin, and Russia’s generals of that time, Russia expands their territory and continues its Europeanization. Western philosophers like Voltaire become friends of Catherine the Great.

After Catherine the Great, her son Tsar Paul I takes control of the Russian government. Steinberg characterizes Paul I as a despotic ineffectual leader who projects an authoritarian and patriarchal image and reverses many of the liberal policies initiated by Catherine the Great. He is assassinated by the elite guards of the Russian military and his son, Alexander I, becomes Tsar.

With the rise of education, Steinberg explains the creation of what is called the “intelligensia”, a class of younger Russians interested in social change. Some were largely self-educated like Vissarion Belinsky, the son of a rural physician and Nikolai Gogol, born into the Ukranian family gentry (a class below aristocracy). Others were from the aristocratic class like Alekasndr Pushkin.

From left to right, Belinsky, Gogol, Pushkin–associated with the Russian Intelligesia in the early and mid-19th century.

Alexander I (reigned 1801-1825) is described by Steinberg as a leader of two minds that on the one hand reestablishes many of the reforms of his grandmother, Catherine the Great.

On the other hand, Steinberg suggests Alexander I resists revolutionary movements that were roiling Europe during his reign. Alexander, I joins Britain in 1805 to defeat Napoleon Bonapart. Alexander switches sides and forms an alliance with Napoleon in the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807. However, in 1810, Alexander abandons Napoleon over disagreement on Polish territory. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 is a disaster for the French and Russia gains territory in Finland and Poland.

Nicholas I (Reign 1825-1855, Grandson of Catherine the Great.)

Serfdom is a troubling social problem in Russia that is acknowledged by Catherine the Great but not resolved until after an 1861 decree for abolition by Alexander II. Though Catherine and Allexander II are not related, it is Alexander II who initiates what Catherine the Great recognized as the iniquity of Russian inequality. Though it is many years before the reality of abolition of Serfdom is truly addressed, Alexander II is the first to begin its reversal. His predecessor, Nicholas I did nothing to eliminate serfdom and in fact tried to re-establish aristocratic privilege.

Mid-day meal for peasants in 1860s Russia

Inequality in Russia, just as is true in America, remains a work in progress. Steinberg offers more detail of Russia’s drive toward modernity, but the next great change is of course the revolution of 1917. Steinberg explains Russia’s growing interest in socialism and its conflict with patriarchal rule. He notes the two major factions that wished to change the course of Russian history. One is the Bolshevik movement. The other is the Menshevik movement. But, before we get to 1917, it seems the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war is important because of its relevance to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.

The last Tsar of Russia is Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II’s reign is from 1894 to 1917, after which his entire family is murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries.

A precursor to the 1917 revolution is the 1905 uprising of Russian citizens who are unhappy with Tsar Nicholas II’s leadership. Growing inflation, poverty and hunger, a defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, and widespread discontent lead to a revolt. A workers demonstration leads to “Bloody Sunday”. An estimated 1,000 to 4,000 Russian citizens are murdered by Russian soldiers.

Of particular interest is the loss of the Russo-Japanese war. Both Russia and Japan want warm-water ports in the Pacific Ocean. A port that served that purpose is on the Korean peninsula, either off Manchuria or Korea. Tsar Nicholas’s inept management and the superior military actions of the Japanese defeat Russia.

The relevance of that defeat is the position Putin has put the Russian government in with the invasion of Ukraine. The question is whether Ukraine will be as successful as Japan in defeating Russia. The west must ask itself whether they have a dog in this fight or let Ukraine bear the brunt of an unjust war.

Tsarist Russia is ripe for revolution. Unhappiness of the general population of Russia is fertile ground for Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov. A key difference between the two in creating committed followers, according to Steinberg, is that Lenin made joining his movement an exclusive opportunity based on the background of interested revolutionaries. In contrast, Martov allowed anyone interested the right to join his Mensheviks. To Steinberg, this is a key to the success of Lenin’s control of the revolution. The commitment of Lenin’s followers eventually took over the revolution. Though not suggested by Steinberg, one wonders if Martov’s Jewish religion might not have also contributed to Lenin’s success in taking over the revolution.

The exclusiveness of being a member of Lenin’s red party undoubtedly aided the ultimate success of the revolution because it required committed enforcers to rally the Russian people.

Steinberg explains Lenin clearly understood that authoritarian force would be required for communist’ socialism to succeed. The future of the revolution became dependent on a leader like Stalin who exemplified a party member that understood the importance of authoritarian command. The test of that truth comes in 1924 when Lenin dies from a brain hemorrhage.

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953, died at age 74, ruled Russia from 1929 to 1953.)

Authoritarian leadership, with its history of competent and incompetent Russian Tsars, is not new to the Russian people. With an improved education system in the 18th century, Steinberg explains even the intelligentsia accepted authoritarian rule. Adding to Russian’ acceptance of authoritarian rule is the belief that something had to change because life in Russia during Tsar Nicholas II’s rule is abysmal for the majority of Russian people.

Mikhail Gorbachev (1931-2022, died at age 91. Ruled the U.S.S.R. from 1985-1991 and served as President of Russia 1990-1991.)

Nearing the end of Steinberg’s lectures, the rise of glasnost with Mikhail Gorbachev is addressed. Between the death of Stalin and the rule of Gorbachev, 5 men ruled the U.S.S.R. Gorbachev wishes to keep the U.S.S.R. together but fails. His failure, in part, seems related to Steinberg’s history. Rather than glasnost, the U.S.S.R. seems to have needed a more authoritarian leader. Not in the sense of repression but in a demand to keep the U.S.S.R. together until the government’s effort at reform has time to be enacted. America had a civil war to prove it is one nation. That may have been a possibility with a more authoritarian Russian leader but that appears not to have been in the nature of Mikhail Gorbachev.

The U.S.S.R. dissolves in 1991. Since that dissolution, Russia has occupied some of the eastern territory of Ukraine and Crimea.

Though Steinberg does not fully address Vladimir Putin in his history of Russia, he sets the table for understanding why a reader/listener might think there is no way out for Vladimir Putin. The history Steinberg suggests Putin in one sense is the perfect transitional leader of the territorially reduced Russia. The firm hand of a secret police officer, with 16 years’ experience as a former KGB agent, and a position as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg’s seems an apt formula for success for a future President of Russia. Putin did well in his first years as President of Russia but seems to have made a career, if not life ending, error in his invasion of Ukraine.

Steinberg illustrates how Russia’s leaders range from enlightened to repressive managers of government. At different times in history, that management style served Russia’s economy and citizens, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. It is up to Russian citizens to decide which government actions and leaders best serves their needs.

From a western perspective, both Gorbachev and Putin served Russia well.

Gorbachev freed the Russian economy and Putin capitalized on that freedom. However, both reached beyond their grasp and damaged Russia’s standing in the world. With the invasion of Ukraine, Putin threatens Russia’s future. Today, there seems no way out for Putin. Russia without the countries that left the U.S.S.R. will never return without an economic incentive that can only be achieved with the advance of the Russian economy. If Russia wishes to be a successful socialist country, it needs a leader who cares about what the Russian people need, not what an authoritarian’ thinks.

RUSSIAN SHORT STORIES

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Complete Stories of Anton Chekhov. Vol 1

By: Anton Chekhov

Narrated by: Anthony Heald

Anton Chekhov in 1989 (Author, 1860-1904, physician and philanthropist.)

Most societies in the 1800s have variations of the same story. However, one recognizes there are societal remainders that carry through to modern times. Anton Chekhov’s short stories tell much of what is evident in today’s Russia just as stories of the wild west is in today’s America. In both Russian and American history (as well as most of the world), women are considered the inferiors of men. Children were generally seen as a burden until they could take responsibility for work that had to be done. Rarely did women work outside the home except as servants to families with means to pay for their work. In the 1800s, both Russia and America had a gap between the rich and poor.

Chekov’s first story is of a young woman who is characterized as beautiful, vivacious, and promiscuous.

She chooses or is seduced by a man who is not her husband. She is caught in an embrace with this man by her husband who berates her for her flirtations. The cuckolding suiter offers 100,000 rubles to allow the husband’s wife to divorce him and leave her husband to marry the alleged seducer. The husband agrees but at a price of 150,000 rubles. This is an example of two transgressions. One, a human being treated as property and two, a woman having a right to choose how she wishes to live her life. Just as in most of the world today, this Russian story shows women being treated as unequal to men.

Uneducated Americans and Russians in the 1800s took advantage of the environments in which they lived. One of Chekov’s stories addresses a peasant who removes a nut from a railroad track because he needed a weight for his fishing line. He is taken to court for removing the nut because there were incidents of derailment from peasants who took several nuts from railroad track bolts for not only a single fishing line but for nets used for the same purpose. American killing of bison for sport is a similar ignorance that reduced a major resource for food and protective clothing of native Americans.

Serfdom in Russian history is long and sustained as a social and economic reality.

What Chekov’s short stories tell listeners is that though there are similarities, there are differences. Serfdom never takes hold in America, but its consequence extends into the mid 19th century despite Czar Alexander’s decree to eliminate it and Catherine the Great’s effort to end it. Even with the Alexander’s decree, serfdom remains a law until 1861 with its true abolition only begun during Catherine’s reign. Of course, America’s tragic faults are black slavery and Indian displacement with consequences that extend into today’s century.

Because serfdom did not take hold in America, the growth of capitalism created economic opportunities not available in mid-19th century Russia.

American capitalism is a two-edged sword that undermines the ideals of equality by denying equal opportunity for all. An underclass exists in both Russia and America, but Russia’s underclass suffers from slower economic growth as well as discrimination.

Though economic growth is turbocharged by capitalism it creates an underclass based on easily identifiable racial, ethnic, and sexual differences.

Social position in Russia came through military experience and promotion, or in association with unique opportunities offered to peasants by wealthy landowners. Capitalism had little place in Chekov’s mid-19th century history of Russia. What mattered to Russian citizens is social hierarchy. This seems evident even in today’s Russian kleptocracy.

In almost every Chekov story, heavy drinking is a common part of Russian men’s, if not women’s, lives.

Reasons for the Russian tradition of drinking may be related to the economic, or socio/political environment but its tradition is evident in today’s Russia. Not that alcoholism is not a problem in America, but in Russia alcohol seems an ever-present libation in all political and social recollections of modern events.

Wealth grows as a societal leveling influence in America while Chekov shows wealth only reinforces societal separation in Russia.

He tells a story of a woman actress that makes more money than her husband. The husband sees that reversal as a challenge to his ability rather than a benefit to his family. The husband acts like a petulant child when his wife is awakened late in the night by his drunken arrival in which he rants about money needed to start a business that has little prospect of success.

As with all short stories of an era, there is much to be learned about a nation’s cultural roots. Most of Chekov’s stories in this first folio are well written and informative. One will find them entertaining and interesting, maybe even enlightening.

TRUTH IN FICTION

What is clear in “Waiting” is that misogyny is a multicultural reality.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Waiting

By: Ha Jin

Narrated by: Dick Hill

Ha Jin is the pen name of Jin Xuefei (born in 1956, a Chinese-American poet and novelist. Graduated from Brandeis University with an MA and PhD.)

Ha Jin’s book, “Waiting”, reminds one of our misogynistic world.

“Waiting” may be a true story or a mix of truth and fiction. The last chapter infers it is a part of Ha Jin’s life during Mao’s reign in the late 1960s as leader of China.

Ha Jin is the pen name of Jin Xuefei, a Chinese American poet and novelist. Jin’s father was a military officer in China. At 13, Jin joined the “People’s Liberation Army” during the Cultural Revolution in China. He left the army at nineteen to earn a bachelor’s degree in English at Heilongjiang University and a master’s degree in Anglo-American literature at another Chinese university. He went on to Brandies University to extend his education.

As is noted in the last chapter of “Waiting”, Ha Jin receives a scholarship to Brandeis University which is interestingly the author’s destination in America. He chooses to emigrate after Tiananmen Square’s Massacre in 1989. Of course, this is long after Mao’s cultural revolution between 1966 and the early 70s, i.e., the time of Ha Jin’s story in “Waiting” and the time of the author’s experience in the “People’s Liberation Army”.

The “People’s Liberation Army” was created as a teaching body for Mao Zedong Thought.

“Waiting” is about a 23-year-old nurse in the Peoples Liberation Army that falls in love with a doctor named Ha Jin, who is already married with a daughter who lives with her mother. The mother and daughter live in a village away from Ha Jin while he serves in Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Ha Jin may be viewed by a reader/listener as either a strong moral character or a weak “go along to get along” Maoist survivor.

Ha Jin either chooses or is compelled by the influence of the 23-year-old nurse to seek a divorce from his wife. Ha Jin takes 20 years of numerous appeals (the “Wait”) for the Chinese judicial system to finally approve the divorce.

During those 20 years, he and the nurse have no sexual relationship. In that time, the nurse is raped by a soldier who had befriended Ha Jin. The rape is unreported for the same reason many rapes are not reported today. The nurse does not believe the authorities will believe her story. The nurse tells Ha Jin of the rape. Ha Jin tries to convince her to tell the authorities. She refuses and Ha Jin reconciles himself to an understanding of her position and blames himself for what happened. As has been reported by other women who have been raped, the nurse feels guilt for the rape even though she said no and fought the rapist.

Ha Jin continues to pursue a divorce from his wife. His wife, despite Ha Jin’s numerous appeals for divorce, stands by her husband and cares for their daughter throughout the 20 years of their pending divorce. She finally agrees and Ha Jin is free to marry the nurse.

Ha Jin agrees to pay his ex-wife a monthly fee as a part of his obligation to her for their years of marriage. Ha Jin grows to love his daughter and wishes to help her succeed in life.

The nurse, at the time of marriage, is now in her early forties. She becomes pregnant and twin boys are born. The delivery is premature, but the boys are born healthy. Their fate is undisclosed. The relationship between the father and the nurse deteriorates for reasons that seem related to the hardship of the birth and a growing animosity of the nurse toward her husband.

The nurse suggests Ha Jin visit his ex-wife and daughter to see how they are doing. Ha Jin visits appears to realize he has made many mistakes in his life, not the least of which is the pursuit of a divorce and his failing marriage to the nurse.

The story ends with Ha Jin leaving China and becoming a professor at Brandies University in the United States. The listener is left to ponder which of these personalities, the husband, or the nurse and ex-wife are the strongest mental and physical humans in this battle of the sexes. At the very least, what is clear in “Waiting” is that misogyny is a multicultural reality.

ECONOMIC EVOLUTION

The demographics of life demand better care of the human population and the environment. Power, whether from individual wealth or ruling authority, needs to be refocused on service.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants

By: Robin Wall Kimmerer

Narrated by: Robin Wall Kimmerer

Robin Wall Kimmerer (Author, Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology, PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.)

Robin Wall Kimmerer’s “Braiding Sweetgrass” channels a movement for economic change around the world. Capitalism and socialism are evolving in similar ways to respond to the world’s ecological crises. Neither economic system is capable of dealing with the crises because of the governing weaknesses of their evolution. Capitalism, like socialism, is driven by human nature’s self-interests. With capitalism, unbridled self-interest views individual wealth as a measure of success. Socialism views unbridled power as a measure of success. Neither freedom of capitalism nor the power exercised in socialism will stop earths’ despoliation.

Kimmerer tries to convince listeners to recognize their self-interest is in caring for the ecology of earth and its environmental and human diversity.

This is not a new argument. Sir David Attenborough, Jonnie Hughes, Joseph Marshall III, Charles Mann, Barry Lopez and others make similar arguments. Even though they may be right, human’ interest in balancing ecology and diversity will only happen with governance that is neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist.

Kimmerer, as a scientist and descendent of the Potawatomi Indian nation, has dedicated her life to nurturing the earth with her education as a botanist. She reflects on her spiritual beliefs, historic values of her heritage, and her education to change the direction of earth’s despoilation. Attenborough and Hughes write about the importance of rewilding the world. Joseph Marshall III argues science offers the opportunity to rebalance the relationship between humanity and nature. Charles Mann recalls the history of William Vogt and Norman Borlaug with Vogt arguing for conservation while Borlaug argues for scientific research to deal with overpopulation and hunger. A more sanguine view is taken by Barry Lopez who simply catalogues and implies the demise of earth because of human habitation.

At times, Kimmerer’s solutions are too mystical and spiritual. Some of her tales will dispirit listeners. On the other hand, some of the mythology she writes about is entertaining, if not actionable.

The character of “Windigo” is a representation of the weakness of capitalism and its extremity that entails the growth of greed. Her tales of the creation of humanity reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of human nature.

What Kimmerer offers listener’s is contemplation, if not realistic solutions for earth’s despoilation.

What is wrong with capitalism and/or socialism that can be corrected to stop earth’s deterioration? It is in a middle way where money and power are not ends in themselves but tools for improvement. Service to all species of life is an objective that can only be achieved with money and power. A cultural shift is required to understand what can be done. There needs to be a shift from manufacturing and industrial growth to a service-based economy. With the advent of technology, particularly A.I. that shift is happening.

INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION ON A BAD DAY IN BEJING,, CHINA

Homelessness, hunger, disease, natural disasters, pollution, mental dysfunction, failing public education, racial and religious discrimination are all solvable problems in the world. Money and power are the tools that can be used to solve those problems, but it requires the will of governments to manage those tools to focus on service to society, not manufacture of things that do not conserve the environment. This is evident in the too-long story written by Kimmerer. There is an element of irony in her book because that is what her Indian heritage practiced hundreds of years ago. Indian tribes had no need for money, but their Chiefs used their power to care for land and its diversity that served their people’s needs.

Money has become synonymous with power in both capitalist and socialist economies.

Even Indian societies in America have adopted that reality with the building of Casinos. What is missing is how that power is being used. Kimmerer explains power should be used to serve the earth’s rebirth and the needs of all life. The obvious point is that without earth’s rebirth, human society ends. The future of the world is dependent on service, not manufacturing. The demographics of life demand better care of the human population and the environment. That job can be fulfilled with a reorientation of the world’s economic rewards and punishments. Power, whether from individual wealth or ruling authority, needs to be refocused on service.

NPR

Napoli does a good job explaining the history of what many consider an American national treasure. Of course, others argue NPR is no treasure, but a bastion of liberalism designed to undermine American conservatism.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Susan, Linda Nina & Cokie

By: Lisa Napoli

Narrated by: Lisa Napoli

Lisa Napoli (American Author, Journalist, Broadcaster & Speaker.)

Lisa Napoli introduces four women, Susan Stamberg, Linda Wertheimer, Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts with “Susan, Linda Nina & Cokie”. They are known as the “founding mothers of National Public Radio”. Napoli shows NPR did not succeed solely because of these four women but their contribution to its ultimate success appears unimpeachable.

Napoli shows how these four women reinforce the truth and necessity of sexual equality. Equal rights have not been achieved in America (or anywhere in the world), but its struggle for women is exemplified by Napoli’s story.

All four women represent a movement for equal rights in America.

N.P.R. is created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The first broadcast to garner a national reputation is “All Things Considered”. It is co-hosted by Robert Conley, an American newspaper, television and radio reporter. The first program director of “All Things Considered” is Linda Wertheimer.

Linda Wertheimer (American radio journalist and Wellesley College graduate, directed the first “All Things Considered” N.P.R. program.)

The co-host of that program is Susan Stamberg.

Susan Stamberg (American Radio Journalist on N.P.R. who co-hosted “All Things Considered” with Robert Conley.)

The two most recognizable names in Napoli’s history of NPR are Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts because of their widely distributed commentary in television and newsprint. Totenberg’s supreme court news and Roberts political commentary gave them greater visibility and recognition by the public.

The story of these four women shows how important equal rights are in the world. One may argue something is lost while something is gained by families raised by working mothers. On the one hand, it seems disingenuous for someone from a rich family like Cokie Roberts to be pro-life (noted in Napoli’s book) because they have the wealth to pay for care of their children. On the other hand, as a former latch-key kid, one realizes every life is a matter of luck and circumstance.

The story of these four women infers every person finds their way and should live in a world where they have an equal right to choose their path.

There is no logical reason to believe women, or any race or ethnicity should not have equal rights. Some people are born in wealth, some in poverty, and some of one race, religion, or ethnicity. In a perfect world, there would be equal opportunity for every human being. Napoli shows America is not perfect, but it strives to improve. That becomes clear in Napoli’s last chapters that show how NPR nearly goes bankrupt because of financial mismanagement.

As noted earlier, women are not the only reason for NPR’s growth and success. As with all corporations, NPR has a management group that guides small corporations interested in becoming large corporations. The programing and growth success of NPR is initiated by its first President, Donald Quayle. After Quayle, Frank Mankiewicz becomes President (1973-1977). Rapid expansion of NPR outstrips prudent financial management of NPR’s ballooning operational costs. What is initially recognized as a 1.5-million-dollar deficit balloons to 6 million dollars. Mankiewicz is a political science and journalism graduate who had a great sense of promotion but a poor sense of cost control. Napoli notes Hunter Thompson, in “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72” described Mankiewicz as a “rumpled little man who looked like a used-car salesman”.

Frank Mankiewicz, political and media insider, died Oct.23, 2014 at 90 years of age.

NPR is on the edge of bankruptcy when Douglas Bennet Jr. takes over the presidency, beginning in 1983 and ending in 1993.

Douglas J. Bennett Jr., President of NPR. Restored NPR’s financial stability and directed its further growth. Died June 10,2018, at the age of 79.

By 1983, NPR, through a donation system and prudent financial management, returns to solvency. Through a combination of dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors, and annual grants, NPR survives.

The elephant in the room is reserved for an epilogue in Napoli’s history of NPR. Napoli explains Nina Totenberg’s investigation of Clarence Thomas as he defends himself from his boorish behavior toward Anita Hill. Every rational human being recognizes Hill is sexually harassed by Thomas, but the tenor of those times was to ignore rather than vilify misogyny. With Biden as the chair of the committee to approve his nomination, Thomas becomes a Supreme Court justice. Totenberg and Thomas become famous, and Hill becomes a footnote in history.

Anita Hill as she appeared in the Clarence Thomas hearings for appointment to the Supreme Court in October 1991.

Napoli does a good job explaining the history of what many consider an American national treasure. Of course, others argue NPR is no treasure, but a bastion of liberalism designed to undermine American conservatism.

CARE ABOUT ME

Leadership that fails to understand and care for all citizens within its borders may last for some years but will ultimately fail. That is the point that is sorely missing in an earlier review of Ajami’s insightful history of the Middle East.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Dream Palace of the Arabs

By: Fouad Ajami

Narrated by: Qarie Marshall

Fouad Ajami (Author, Lebanese American, professor and writer on Middle Eastern issues.

Fouad Ajami’s book should be listened to more than once, particularly by those who have little understanding of Middle East culture. Earlier, “The Dream Palace of the Arabs” is unsatisfactorily reviewed.

After re-listening to Ajami’s book, a major point missed in the first review is Ajami’s poignant and tragic examples of Arab despair in the Middle East.

That despair is not about freedom but about care for traditions of the Middle East’s ancient and diverse cultures. The monumental discovery of oil roiled religious and ethnic differences in the Middle East. Foreign and local self-interests interfered with the peripatetic freedom of Arab cultures. Adding to that loss of freedom, the discovery of oil changed the relationship between rulers and the ruled.

Just as America is made of many races, ethnicities, and religions, it is the responsibility of government leaders to care for all its people.

In the 21st century, the Middle East has established borders even though they may not be of their citizens own choosing. The responsibility of leaders in any country is to care for their citizens. Government leaders that have recognized borders are responsible for the care of everyone within their country. When leaders fail to care about all people within their borders, they risk civil war. America has, at times, failed to care for all its citizens in its young historical life. However, those failures have not, at least not yet, led to national dissolution.

Lebanon’s Golden Age 1950-1970

Lebanon became one of the first 21st century Middle Eastern countries to realize a diverse society can be peaceful and prosperous with leaders that know how to care for all citizens within its borders. It is known as Lebanon’s “Golden Age” which lasted from the 1950s to the mid 1970s when a civil war began. When Lebanon’s leaders lost sight of the necessity of care for everyone, including Maronite Christians, Suni and Shia Muslims, and Druze within their borders, peace and prosperity declined. The same loss of care for others by leadership is true in all countries of the world made of different races, cultures, and religions.

Ajami notes Sadat is assassinated because he was seduced by American influence. That influence displaced Sadat’s care for all Egyptian citizens.

This is only partly America’s fault. Ultimately, it is a respective nations leader’s decision on how to care for their own citizens. Ajami notes Saddam Husein is abandoned by his army when America invaded Iraq because he did not care for all his people. It is the same failure that may occur in Syria and Iran if their leaders fail to learn the importance of caring about all of their citizens, not just those who believe what their leaders’ believe.

Nizar Qabbani (Syrian diplomat, poet, writer and publisher, became Syria’s National Poet.)

What makes the principle of “care about me” is clearly implied in Nizar Qabbani’s poem quoted in Adami’s book.

“Children of the Stones”

They stunned the world

With only stones in their hands.

They lit the lanterns, and came like good omens

They resisted, exploded and were martyred

And we remained ..polar bears

Heavily armored against heat (feelings)

They fought for us until they were killed

And we sat in or cafes like spitting oysters

One of us looking for business

One.. a new million

One.. a fourth wife

And breasts polished by civilization

One looking in London for a lofty palace

One working as

One seeking vengeance in bars

One, looking for a throne, an army a position of authority

Alas, O generation of treacheries

O Generation of deals

O generation of rubbish

Abraham Lincoln saved America just as great leaders in the Middle East may or may not save their countries.

Leadership that fails to understand and care for all citizens within its borders may last for some years but will ultimately fail. That is the point that is sorely missing in an earlier review of Ajami’s insightful history of the Middle East.

BROKEN

Laurel Snyder’s story is as interesting and satisfying in its end as in its beginning.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

My Jasper June

By: Laurel Snyder

Narrated by: Imani Parks

Laurel Snyder (American Author, Poet, writer of children’s books, and PBS commentator.)

“My Jasper June” is a beautifully rendered story of life by Laurel Snyder. Snyder shows different ways of coping with life’s broken parts. It takes place in Atlanta, Georgia, but it could be in Anywhere, America. It is a story of a 13-year-old girl, her friend, and her family. Every parent who has a teenage child will be entranced by Snyder’s tale.

Having lived long, older reader/listeners know every life has broken parts. We either recover from the broken parts or we lose our way.

Snyder’s novel of a family who loses a son from drowning may be at the extreme end of life’s broken parts, but every life is touched by loss and hardship.

Snyder shows how a mother, father, and daughter respond to a child’s loss in their family.

Snyder’s story explains a broken part in life is suffered individually. Being broken comes in many forms. It may be a death of a loved one, failure in work, failure as a mother-father-daughter-son, failure in intellect, failure in physical health, so on, and on. Every person is broken in their own way. Care for broken parts is often lost in a fog of grief and despair. That grief and despair only disappears with time, understanding, and action.

Snyder’s novel shows grief is ameliorated with acceptance and reworking of one’s perspective.

Snyder’s story is not just about a death in the family. There are many ways Snyder’s story resonates with its reader/listeners. The most significant is in ways of coping with broken parts of one’s life. Some run from problems, but as the boxer Joe Louis famously said, “You can run but you can’t hide.” Snyder shows healing from broken parts can only begin with being honest with yourself and those around you. Understand how you are broken and explain the broken parts to those who are important to you. Snyder shows with understanding of what is broken, plans can be made, and actions taken.

Snyder’s novel shows–only with honesty of explanation can one’s relationship with another be restored.

Laurel Snyder’s story is as interesting and satisfying in its end as in its beginning.

TRANQUILITY/ANXIETY

Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Breaking Bread with the Dead (A Reader’s Guide to a Tranquil Mind.)

By: Alan Jacobs

Narrated by: P.J. Ochlan

Alan Jacobs (Author, distinguished professor of the humanities at Baylor University, considered a Christian conservative by the media.)

Alan Jacobs offers an example of why book’ reader/listeners are “Breaking Bread with the Dead”. A personal reason for reading/listening to books is to acquire understanding of an author’s opinion. Of course, perceptions may be incorrect, but a book writer’s intended meaning, at the very least, makes a reader/listener think. Jacobs gives many examples of what past authors made him think. He explains how and why dead writers are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”.

In a short book, Jacobs notes knowledge of the past gives context and perspective to the present.

Dead authors add the dimension of a past that is either very like the present or very different. When a dead author’s beliefs are more like the present, it makes one think there may be something universal about their belief. At the least, a dead author’s beliefs help one understand the difference between the past and the present. Both circumstances offer what Jacobs suggests are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”. Belief either remains the same or modern life makes past beliefs unique to their time.

Renowned dead authors, or for that matter, insightful living authors make one realize how much they do not know.

Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety. In either case, it pays to seek understanding from both dead and living writers.

SOCIAL BRAIN

Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Gender and Our Brains (How New Neuroscience Explodes the Myths of the Male and Female Minds.)

By: Gina Rippon

Narrated by: Hannah Curtis

Gina Rippon (British Author, neurobiologist, received a PhD in physiological psychology, professor at Aston Brain Centre, Aston University in Birmingham, England.)

Gina Rippon develops an argument, reinforced by literature but indeterminant by science, that there is little intellectual or social difference between the sexes. Like white dominance of the western world, Rippon implies difference between the sexes has been institutionalized and biased by society.

Though Rippon does not reach back to fossil evidence of human beings, one might make a case for the beginning of biased human socialization in the discovery of homo habilis males and females that lived 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa. Ironically, “homo habilis” is Latin for “handy man”.

The vary choice of identification of the oldest known fossil is a reminder of the influence of socialization and gender discrimination by the actions and definitions of science researchers. ((Hardly a surprise when only 38% of the population of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics’ (STEM) bachelor’s degrees are held by women.)) Conceivably, in the beginning of history men dominated women because of inherent physical strength and a division of labor that set sexual bias for generations to come.

In “Gender and Our Brains”, Rippon is raising the chicken and egg paradox for the origin of male and female identity.

Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?

Having been raised by a mother with the only consistent father figure in the family being an older brother, this reviewer’s belief is as clouded as the conclusions reached by Rippon. There is as much evidence for being born as a chicken as an egg in the history of science and sociology. The conclusion one may draw from “Gender and Our Brains” is “let people choose to be whom and what they desire to be”.

Society should neither condemn nor deny a person’s sexual preference. Just as racial and ethnic minorities should not be discriminated against, neither should those who choose a sexual identity.

Societal acceptance and equality of opportunity should be the same for all. There is no justification for denial of equal rights and opportunities based on what one becomes as an individual whether one’s life is an inherent or learned difference. The only reason sexual identity is a controversial question is because societies lean toward a “we/them” mentality. Why should one care whether one identifies as male or female if they make a positive contribution to society. America is founded on the principles of equal treatment and opportunity for all, not just a white, largely male, majority.

Rippon’s conclusion is that human beings may or may not have a sexual identity when they are born. Science experiments and studies give no distinct answer to inherent sexual identity.

If sexual identity is inherent (which is neither proven or unproven by science), socialization is shown to influence sexual identities maturation and how men and women behave toward each other. Rippon argues if sexual identity is partly determined by socialization, then socialization is where equality of the sexes should and can be reinforced.

Rippon makes a convincing argument that there is minimal difference between men and women except in their role in human reproduction.

Many literary stories believe in the equality of the sexes. Rippon’s fundamental point is that all humans are born equal whether male, female, or other. Her inference is that the world needs to get over discrimination and promote equal rights and opportunity for all because any natural origin of sexual identity remains a scientifically indeterminant puzzle.

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

There must be no discrimination in society based on sex, race, religion, or ethnicity for equality of opportunity to evolve.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Mrs. Bridge

By: Evan S. Connell

Narrated by: Sally Darling

Evan S. Connell (American Novelist, 1924-2o13., died at age 88.)

Evan Connell captures a woman’s middle-class life in the twentieth century. “Mrs. Bridges” is a story of a twentieth century woman whose life begins in the middle-class and rises to the upper middle-class. She marries, has three children (one boy and two girls) with a husband who becomes a highly successful lawyer. Her son is characterized as moderately intelligent with two sisters, one sister characterized as smart and haughty and another quiet and reserved. The story is set in middle America.

In 1959, “Mrs. Bridge” received the National Book Award in fiction. The novel became a moderately successful movie, “Mr. and Mrs. Bridge”, starring Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward.

“Mrs. Bridge” will resonate with many women’s and men’s aspiration in America. It is a reminder of what it is like to be an American in a world ruled by white men, i.e., not women or people of color. “Mrs. Bridge” is a wife slowly becoming aware of an evolving society that is far from the ideals of equality of opportunity outlined by the 1868′ 14th Amendment.

The Bridge’s smart and haughty daughter graduates from high school, chooses not to attend college, and decides to move from the Midwest to New York. She moves to Greenwich Village and finds a job as a manager’s assistant while living a bohemian life that mystifies her mother.

The son chooses to go to college and appears on his way to becoming an engineer with a fascination for measurement and construction. He seems to have a plan to achieve his father’s success. However, he rebels in a different and similar way to his sister by dating girls who do not reflect the staid relationship of his parents. On the one hand, the son strives to emulate his father, on the other, he rejects the privileges of wealthy upper-class existence in white America.

The youngest daughter takes a different route to adulthood. She is the quiet one who never challenges her mother or father.

She turns to religion. Ironically, she abandons her religious obsession, marries a plumber’s son who drops out of college to take over his uncle’s business with the ambition of becoming a financial success like his new wife’s father. That goal is unrevealed in Connell’s story, but he shows their marriage is rocky, presumably because of their societal upbringing. The husband unjustifiably strikes his wife. He apologizes but Connell infers the reason for their conflicts is because of the different economic circumstances in which they were raised. The Bridge’s young daughter is accustomed to having housework done by servants while the plumber’s son is self-reliant and an ambitious doer. The story infers they stay together but it is an untold exploration of their remaining lives.

Nearing the end of this family’s story, Connell illustrates the growing boredom in Mrs. Bridges’ life.

The children grow away from her. She feels a sense of loss of purpose in life. Housework is now entirely done by servants. The children no longer listen to her or seek her advice. Her husband is consumed by his work. No one seems to need or care about her. The only solace seems to be in wealthy women friends who are experiencing a similar ennui. One of these upper-class women commits suicide. Mrs. Bridges suggests to her husband that she should see a psychiatrist for her growing depression. Her husband suggests that is nonsense and the idea is dropped.

The life of the Bridges family is disrupted by WWII. The son chooses to leave the university and enlist in the Army. The implication is that life goes on for the family as it had before, but the experience of war is only reinforcing the dynamics of their family’s socialization.

Self-interest permeates human life. In a capitalist culture, self-interest is measured by wealth.

One suspects some who have lived this twentieth century life see themselves in Connell’s story of the Bridges family. In socialist culture, self-interest is measured by power. In a communist culture, self-interest is a combination of wealth and power as evidenced by Russia’s and China’s rule in the 21st century.

The value of Connell’s “Mrs. Bridge” is in its dissection of American society, and not just of its time but of today.

Its story implies American wealth should not be a measure of human value. The gap between rich and poor is a measure of how far America is from the intent of the Constitution’s statement “all men are created equal”. Connell’s story infers the statement in the American Constitution should have been “all people are created equal”, not just men. In being created equal, the 14th Amendment stipulates all citizens are to have equal rights in pursuit of life, liberty, and property.

Connell masterfully shows the strength and weakness of American society. Its strength lies in freedom to exploit human self-interest. Its weakness is in believing wealth is a measure of human value.

The only way wealth can be considered a measure of human value is when all human beings have equal opportunity, as their interest and ability allow.

There must be no discrimination in society based on sex, race, religion, or ethnicity for equality of opportunity to evolve. That is aspirational in America, but whether equal opportunity can ever be achieved is problematic based on the nature of human beings.