Another book: Farther Than Any Man

Doing a lot of reading during Covid, but still have a lot of catching up to do here. This one I read about two years ago...

Farther Than Any Man
The Rise and Fall of Captain James Cook

by M. Dugard.

There have been many books written about Captain James Cook, but this is my first look at the life and times of Cook. It's an interesting perspective of an American writer's coverage of the life of British explorer Captain James Cook. I was hoping for a read as riveting as Lansing's Endurance - the story of Ernest Shackleton's big Antarctic adventure. Not really the same thing, but no less intriguing.

At first I was put off by the idea that an non-British author wrote the book, but maybe the result is a more honest, less worshipping account. That is my guess; I can't really say for sure, since I haven't read any other works on Cook (other than grade school history and Wikipedia).

He started out as the son of a farmer - James Cook Sr. - a farm foreman of a wealthy man's large farm in northern England near the North Sea. It was a decent life, very comfortable for a person of the lower class. The owner of the farm paid for his schooling, and then he spent some time working in a shop in a fishing village. From there he started a career in the merchant fleet, and worked his way up to first mate, and was earmarked to captain his first ship at age 26. 

But the lure of the Royal Navy was irresistible, so just as he was about to make the big time (and be set for life), he quit the merchant fleet and enlisted with the Royal Navy as an able seaman. However, because of his years of experience in the merchant fleet, his capability, knowledge, physical size and self-confidence, he rose through the ranks quickly. To his great disadvantage, his position in the British class system meant that there was a limit - he could never become an officer. That just never happened in the Royal Navy.

Cook became a master's mate in just a month. Aboard HMS Eagle, he served under a Captain Palliser, who just happened to come from the same area as Cook in the north of England. Palliser saw that Cook was trained as a surveyor and cartographer, and was promoted to Warrant Officer, and soon after that to Master - the highest possible rank of an enlisted man in the RN.

But Cook didn't stop there; he was thrust into large events, and served aboard HMS Pembroke to fight the French in Quebec - where he mapped the St. Lawrence in preparation for the attack on Quebec City. While under threat from French guns, he provided the maps needed for the sneak attack at the Plains of Abraham - and even gave suggestions to General Wolfe. He returned to England a hero, and was given the task of mapping the island of Newfoundland, and after that came the perfect opportunity.

First command was HMS Grenville, in which he surveyed and mapped the island of Newfoundland over the course of 5 summers. So accurate and complete, the map was used commonly until after World War 2.

Cook had a handful of allies and rivals, including:

Palliser - Royal Navy captain during the seven-years war, War of the Austrian Succession and the American War of Independence, and later governor of Newfoundland. A very important ally for Cook.

Sandwich - politically powerful long-time supporter of Cook - twice First Lord of the Admiralty. Arranged a commission for Cook as First Lieutenant. Another key ally.

Banks - a rival of Cook - aristocrat, scientist, playboy, president of the Royal Society for decades - wanted to lead Endeavour’s first mission as a civilian, with authority over Captain Cook, but did not get the authority he wanted.

Dalrymple - a rival of Cook - Fellow of the Royal Society, and writer/geographer for the Admiralty - wanted to have authority over Cook as well, but was refused.

Cook’s second command was Endeavour - he supervised the refitting and provisioning for the entire time it took. The ship was in excellent shape, well provisioned, and well crewed. Cook was a technically excellent captain, and a benevolent leader, rarely resorting to corporal punishment. On the first voyage, Cook and crew in Endeavour sailed to discover the “unknown southern land” and to view the transit of Venus across the sun on 3/4 June 1769 from Tahiti in the southern hemisphere.

The Venus transit part of the expedition was a success, and while searching for the “unknown land”, he surveyed New Zealand in great detail. Conditions were unfavorable in the quest to determine if Tasmania was part of the “unknown land” and they had to sail north around Australia. Another victory was the absence of scurvy due to the provisioning of fruit and sauerkraut. Unfortunately, some 30 crew died of malaria and dysentery during maintenance and provisioning lay-overs in the West Indies.

Cook’s second voyage (on Resolution) was intended to sail as far south as possible to find the “unknown southern land” that many in the Royal Society thought must exist. On this voyage, he discovered the South Sandwich islands, which he named after his supporter - he did his best to go as far south as possible to discover what lay down there. Unfortunately he picked the wrong latitudes to try - he made quite an effort, sailing as far south as the ship could bear (on two occasions), but had to quit the effort or lose the ship to pack ice.

Cook’s third and final voyage took place after his fame had gotten the best of him. While for the first voyages he took great interest in the preparations undertaken on the ships, for the third voyage, he was quite lax in that area, paying more attention to his social status. The result was a poorly prepared (and leaky!) ship that had to stop more than once for repairs. His temperament had also changed by the third voyage - while earlier, he was very interested in the welfare of his crew (one of the first Royal Navy captains to completely eliminate scurvy on a long voyage), now he was less interested in the crew’s welfare, and far more interested in achieving goals, and topping his previous two highly successful voyages. He became short with the crew, and grew quick to temper, lashing out at them (literally), where he rarely did before.

Cook died on the last mission, while attempting to force his will on the Hawaiian natives when a shore-party sortie went sour. His men had superior weapons of course, but were overwhelmed. He was killed, his body taken, and his hands returned the next day - he was cannibalized. In a variety of ways, he lost focus on this voyage, and paid the ultimate price. A very unsuitable ending for such a great and accomplished man. 

Dugard’s book is what the title says - the rise and fall of Cook, and that is what happened. It was a terribly good read; highly recommended if you’re interested in this period in history.

8/10

Book: What Paul Meant

Looks like I have some catching up to do...
So here are my thoughts on a book I read a couple of years ago...

What Paul Meant

by Garry Wills

Known by some as the “bad news man” and by Nietzsche as the anti-Christ, he was neither. In fact, his letters were written closer to the time of Christ than any of the Gospels, which were written three decades later. And on this basis, Willis criticizes The Acts written by St. Luke, at the expense of Paul’s older writings; in fact he spends much effort throughout the book in refuting Luke. Willis provides 11 chapters of commentary:

In Paul and the Risen Jesus, Willis reminds us that “Christ” is not a surname, but rather a Greek word for “Messiah” which explains the interchanging of the terms “Jesus Christ” and “Jesus Messiah” in his writings. Paul’s famous encounter with the risen Jesus was not a conversion, since there was no such thing as a “Christian” at that time; before and after the event, he was a Jew. And Paul’s description of his encounter with Christ is better described in his own words than in Luke’s - there are many versions, and Paul’s own must be the correct one. So no blinding light, and no Ananias...

In Paul and the Pre-Resurrection Jesus, Willis tells us that Paul’s nature before his encounter with Christ is also better described in his own words than in Luke’s. He explains that the differences between Paul’s version of events and Luke’s can be explained by how history was passed on in the occupied lands - mostly orally. He also stresses that Paul’s message might better reflect the message of Christ than any other account because his were written first. While there are key differences between what Paul says and what is attributed to Jesus, Paul completely nails the main message of “loving your neighbor” - the new law, if you will.

In Paul on the Road, Paul is described as a heroic traveler, and a tent maker - his method of supporting himself in some of his travels. Wills comments that Paul reaches all but the highest in society (for the most part they have no interest) and the lowest in society (which confuses me). Perhaps that means that the poorest lived hand-to-mouth, and didn’t have time to stop to worship, or spend time in synagogues talking? He also tells us of Paul’s scholarly and eloquent command of language, and how he wields it expertly - with a firm grasp of logical arguing styles...

In Paul and Peter, he explains that some of the relationship between Paul and Peter as described by Luke seems contrived. Luke downplays their quarrel in Antioch, and seems to need to link Paul’s missions to a central Jerusalem authority or focus.

In Paul and Women, Wills reminds us that Paul had many “sisters” that he relied on during his missions, and recognized some as prophets. Some cite Paul as being a misogynist, but it doesn’t ring true at all when taking into account all of his writings. 

In Paul and the Troubled Gatherings, Wills shows us some of the problems he dealt with in starting and maintaining the gatherings of believers across the lands of the Mediterranean. In Corinth, there were wealthy and poor believers, and “brothers” (Jewish and Gentile ‘Christians’) who had serious disagreements about the Jewish laws being followed to a ‘T’. In Rome, he dealt with a pre-existing population of believers and their problems in dealing with the rest of the Jewish population there- resulting in the banishment of the Jews from the city. Paul tells the Roman Gentile brothers that they cannot sever their ties with the Jewish brothers.

In Paul and Jews, Wills reminds us that both Paul and Jesus were both Jews, and did not “convert” to anything else - they were Jews. There have been people who paint Paul as an anti-semite. Far from being anti-semitic, Paul was a Jew. Did Paul say that the Jews killed Jesus? Yes, but they also killed other prophets as well; nothing new there. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish scripture. He founded no new religion, and Paul preached no new religion. There was no New Testament - there was just the Jewish Bible.

In Paul and Jerusalem, he reminds us that the Gospels were written by Jews outside of Jerusalem; indeed, outside of Judea / Israel altogether. Luke’s writings in The Acts paints a picture of a central authority in Jerusalem, that didn’t actually exist. And again, he suggests that Paul’s writings should trump the other Gospels in areas where there is inconsistency.

In Paul and Rome, he reminds us of Paul’s apparent Roman citizenship - in fact, Paul doesn’t even mention it anywhere in his writings. Wills uses Paul's writings to show that he wasn’t a Roman citizen, but doesn’t account for the possibility that he just didn’t want to mention it, or that he could have been stripped of citizenship. The relevance is that he goes to great lengths to show that a Roman citizen could not be crucified by Roman law. He also shows us just how involved the Jewish and Gentile brothers in Rome and Corinth were involved in turning over their brothers to the authorities. It seems quite likely that both Paul and Peter were executed in this manner - being first betrayed by their own. He uses Tacitus and Clement to back up these ideas.

In Misreading Paul, Wills addresses several misreadings. First, the idea that Paul was a misogynist, using 1 Timothy 1.12 (I forbid a woman to teach); he counters with Titus 2.4 (Older women should teach the younger). Note that these are both pseudo-Pauline writings, i.e., the may or may not have actually been written by Paul; there is uncertainty. Also touches on some of the more confusing parts of Romans, where he seems to be talking about his own sins, but is actually a series of diatribe exchanges meant to resonate with both Jewish and Gentile brothers on how they have both failed God; that neither can reproach the other. He also points out that religion appropriated the legacy of both Jesus and Paul- because they both opposed it - they both were on the side of the poor, and saw through the rich.

In Translating Paul, Wills explains that the term ‘Christian’ was coined by pagans in their opposition to Christianity (Pliny, Tacitus, Lucian). The concept of conversion is revisited - Paul was not converted, nor did he ask Gentiles to convert to either Judaism or Christianity; he simply delivered the message.

Well researched and well thought-out. I give it a solid 8/10.

New Order and Gregory Peck

Has anyone ever noticed that the cover art from the 1980's New Order album Low-Life look a lot like a scene from the movie Twelve O'Clock High where Gregory Peck cracks under pressure?
Here's the album cover and the scene side-by-side:

Well, it's pretty close, eh?

Seven characteristics are in an uncultivated person, and seven in a learned one

A golem

On a totally unrelated web search, I stumbled upon the term "golem" in some white paper. Inappropriate usage (why confuse your reader with unfamiliar terminology?? - don't get me started!!). Anyway, I initially thought "Gollum" but decided to look into it anyway.

Psalm 139:16 mentions the term golem - my unformed body. Means my light form, raw material, connoting the unfinished human being before God's eyes. The Mishnah (in the Hebrew bible) also relates the characteristics of an "unformed" person (dumb, helpless, uncultivated) as compared to a fully formed, learned, cultivated person.

A learned person:
(1) does not begin speaking before one who is greater than
      he in wisdom or in years
(2) does not interrupt the words of his fellow
(3) does not answer impetuously
(4) questions with relevance to the subject and replies accurately
(5) discusses first things first and last things last
(6) about something he has not heard he says, “I have not heard”
(7) acknowledges the truth.

Characteristics that we could all stand to adopt?

Another disappointing Heinlein book

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Robert A. Heinlein

I waited a long time to read this book, and I was a little disappointed. I guess if many people say that it is one of the best science fiction books ever, how can you live up to that? This is my 3rd Heinlein book, and I’d say that it falls in the middle between Starship Troopers (very good) and Stranger in a Strange Land (quite disappointing). I could identify with all the characters in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but it was less a sci-fi book than it was a political revolution thriller, with a sci-fi back-drop. Now that’s not completely fair, since one of the main characters was an intelligent computer, but it was mostly about revolution.

As a book written in the early 1960’s (and read in 2016), Heinlein did a decent job of predicting the future. He correctly predicts that China is a major player in the future (not the case in the 1960s). He also predicts artificial intelligence nicely, and his description of living life on the moon was very accurate and believable.

He also seems to see that software would be important in computing, but missed the decreasing size and importance of hardware - that would have been tough to guess.

All of the tech - like space suits and pressure domes under the surface - made sense, and so did the ability of lunar inhabitants to modify laser drills into weapons. Spaceships orbiting, orbital dynamics and trajectory were all well thought out.

Forgivably, he did get a few things wrong - he came up with this idea that being in space (or on the moon) for any amount of time physiologically changed your body forever, meaning that you could not return to Earth (but maybe he needed that for the story).

Disappointingly though, he got communications all wrong - telephone sets, cables and a central office will apparently always be needed; didn’t foresee anything like cell phones (certainly walkie-talkies were around in the 60’s; that could have been a hint). And newspapers were still a thing for the latest news, however, that may have been tough to guess in the 60s.

He also dreamed up social structures that were unique to the moon - where there were too many men and not enough women. The result was complex sharing marriages with multiple women and multiple (and more) men.

The story plodded along for a long while detailing the progress of the revolution. It wasn’t until the final 50 pages (of 300) where the action got intense. After that, it was quite good.

However, I think I’m done with Heinlein. Well, at least for the foreseeable future...

5/10

Throwing a baseball

Growing up as a kid, nobody ever taught me to throw a baseball. I just learned by trial and error. In fact, everything I knew about baseball up until I was over 40, was learned by observation and trial and error. Well, there was the time when I asked Bob Allisat how to hit a fast pitch, and he told me to keep my feet together and step into the pitch as the pitcher threw the ball. He was mostly right, and it helped a lot. That's about it, though.

I learned from watching friends, and watching baseball on TV. I did have a certain amount of natural ability - I was a fast runner, which helped me overcome my many mistakes in fielding and my lack of knowledge of positioning. But I learned these things too, by watching friends, competitors and the Montreal Expos. Watching pro outfielders (especially Andre the Hawk Dawson, perhaps my fave player ever) cured me of throwing side-arm from the outfield. Watching other fielders taught me to communicate verbally with other fielders while tracking down fly balls and grounders.

But I didn't really understand the game until I was over 40 and started coaching my own kids (and other people's kids). At first, I was an assistant coach, and learned a heck of a lot from John, Warren, Pat and Rob. After two years, I could teach stuff that I didn't know two years earlier. Tons of stuff. Being strictly an outfielder, I knew very little about the infield. In fact, I had no idea how to play any of the positions. Not really. Two years later, I could teach them. The most important thing I learned was the "ready position" - that's 50% of it right there. Knowing what to do THAT PLAY, based on the number of outs, and where the base runners are. That's another 25% right there. 75% of the way to being a good infielder right off the bat (pun intended).

I then watched pitching coaches teach pitching to my kids - and learned a lot from both Dave and Warren. A whole lot. Now I can take a kid, show him a few things, and turn him into a pitcher. At least a relief pitcher. (Assuming he has some basic throwing skills already- which is not always the case.) Which takes me to throwing a ball.

As I said, I had some natural ability, a strong arm and some not totally bad technique. (Stopped throwing side-arm before high school.) There's more throwing than a strong arm, though. In fact, while arm strength is 50% of it, technique is everything else. You use your whole body - including your legs - to throw a ball. I see youth pitchers using only their arms, and doing well. I can only imagine how much better they could do if they would just use some proper technique. Eric, I'm talking to you.

Now have a look at this picture. This is Nomar Garciaparra, who was a big star shortstop for the Boston Red Sox in the 1990s and early 2000s. Here, with the Cubs, while tossing the ball in the infield, he shows us one of the most important aspects of throwing a ball. A proper wind up. I'm not talking about the complicated pitcher's windup like in the way cool image below, but rather just a simple start to a basic throw. Like tossing the ball from shortstop to first base between innings, warming up before the game, tossing a ball with a pal, etc.

Football guys will do something similar, but will cradle that ball (like it was a football) with hand facing upwards. Incorrect for baseball. An extended arm with the hand (and ball) facing down is the correct way to start your throwing motion. Many good athletes can throw just fine (results-wise) not doing this. But like anything else, using proper technique will improve your game no matter how well you're doing with improper technique. If you're throwing accurately 90% of the time with poor technique, you'll get closer to 100% using proper technique.

More importantly though, a kid throwing accurately 50% of the time or less, using improper technique, will dramatically improve accuracy (and velocity) using proper technique. If you're not starting your throwing motion like that, do it, and see the difference. And even more importantly, get your kid to start his throwing motion like this. It matters, and it will definitely make a difference.

The skewing of the Political Specrum

I have been saying to my conservative friends - those who insist that they are just a bit right of center - that their views are skewed. Their perspective is distorted.  I'm talking about folks in the US who think that communism and socialism are the same thing (completely incorrect), and folks in Canada who think that liberalism and socialism are the same thing (equally incorrect).

For a while I was mystified by this obviously flawed perception - I mean, okay there are a lot of dummies out there, but for the most part, conservative people that I know personally aren't dummies, in fact many are quite smart.  So how do you explain a smart person being unable to tell the difference between two very different things? I mean socialism and communism are about as similar as sliced bread and a car battery. How can a smart person not see that?

I struggled with this for some time until about a year ago (or two?) I was engaged in a discussion on io9 or Quora with an American Republican who kept using the term "leftists" when describing people, and the 'leftist media' etc. I objected to the latter, but the former got me thinking. Clearly, there are few if any "leftists" in America. I mean the US Communist Party is and has been poison since the McCarthy era, and I wasn't aware of any actual official socialist parties in the US. So I asked him to please list some "leftist" organizations currently active in America. His answer threw me for a loop - he listed no fewer than 50 of them.

Well, the list contained the names of 50+ organizations. But they were all civil rights organizations like the NAACP, Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, National Voting Rights Institute, and many others. Egad!! Those are what he thought were "leftist" organizations? Then I had a eureka moment: It's all about perspective.
Have a look at this image:

On the left, we have the political left; on the right, the political right. Anyone who attended a single class of political science (or has ever strayed from the sports or funnies in a newspaper) will tell you that on the extreme left is communism (some would insist that we say 'ideal communism' but that's only a theoretical thing), and on the extreme right is fascism or nazism.

In a normal (or perhaps theoretical) world, we could map out where the American and Canadian political parties lay on this grid:

For the most part, they all tend toward the center, some being more left, others being more right, some more authoritarian, some less. I hope nobody is insulted by this map; I think it's fair from the perspective of the reasonable person, whatever their political leanings may be. Now to be honest, I really don't understand the Greens, so I just put them there for no reason. They actually don't interest me that much. Sorry.

So back to perspective. First, I have to say that I don't think there are many moderate conservatives or republicans anymore. Most of them have gone to the far right. This is a generalization of course- and while someone like Mitt Romney may actually be a moderate Republican, he has been soundly rejected by his party (and not just once), and does not represent mainstream Republican thinking today. Most Republicans are ideologically far to the right of Mr. Romney. So this movement to the right in and of itself affects the perspective of most Republicans - their position on the grid affects how they see others. I am focusing on the US Republicans here, but exactly the same can be said about Canadian Conservatives- at least the former Harper administration. The graph below illustrates what I mean:

For me, this explains a lot of things. How can a sane and intelligent person see different things, and think they're the same? By looking at them from a great distance.   From the far right, commies, socialists and dems look the same - so do those Canadian libs. They're all a bunch of "leftists"...

It's like looking at the Rocky Mountains from downtown Calgary. There are a whole lot of mountains over there, and they all look pretty much the same. Some a bit taller, some less so. Most are gray-green, lots have white at the top. And they're all way over there. They're all a bunch of "mountains"...