Conservative Book Talk

Have you ever tried to lose weight? More than a few pounds? It takes more than a special diet as Irvin Cobb discovered. Cobb thought that he was just “big boned” and that his size was genetic. His family always filled out in their thirties….

Cobb recounts the true and humorous story of his attempts to reign in his weight. Cobb wasn’t a lazy glutton. He just had a sedentary lifestyle and a special relationship with his food. He and his food had a special bond he told himself. (The bond was more obvious to everyone else.) Interestingly, Cobb describes the various self-delusions that he went through to convince himself that he wasn’t overweight.

• The suit didn’t fit anymore cause it was cheap and shrunk.
• The weight gain was a family trait.
• He wasn’t fat, just well developed.

But, lest you think that this short work was boring, it was anything but that. Cobb eventually went to several doctors who were apparently quacks. Only a quack would call him obese. Cobb went to the gym and the steam room. He tried running. He tried everything but changing his eating habits.

His mealtimes were sacred.

It wasn’t until an obviously obese friend and he both got on scales together that his self-delusion started to crack. When Cobb realized that he was only a couple of pounds shy of the man he always viewed as obese, reality struck.

Eventually, Cobb owned up to his obesity and decided to solve the problem. He read every book on the subject and found that each generation of doctors and dieticians had a different philosophy. Some said that meat was evil. Other that you should avoid starch. Still others said to eat starch and meat to excess. In the end, they only agreed on one point: boiled spinach was acceptable.

You will empathize with Cobb, well I did anyway. Let’s just be perfectly clear: I have never EVER had to take One Third Off, but I have to be careful. I have also found that Cobb’s solution is correct. The only solution to drop 10lbs or 1/3 your body weight is the same regardless of who you are: eat less, eat healthy and exercise. Gag. None of it is fun, but then life isn’t about having fun.

You can hit the above picture and buy it from Amazon (and support the site) or you can do like me: free audio or free text.

Tags: book, diets, fat, Irvin Cobb, Matt Gardenghi, obese, Personal Development, weight, weight loss

Heinlein’s Orphans of the Sky is at once trivial and epic, mundane and surreal. Originally published in 1941 in two-parts in the magazine Astounding Science Fiction, it is (so I learned through internet research) a “godfather” of the SF genre. By this, I mean that it introduced plot elements that were later used by dozens of SF authors. Actually, I had never heard of Heinlein before reading this book, but I have since learned that he is an “old master” of science fiction literature. His work has been emulated and many of his books seem to have been re-printed in the last decade for new generations of readers.

But, is he really as great as all that? In Orphans of the Sky I found stuff to be loved and hated. It is cleanly written in a tight style that I really admired. However, the Biblical references, in the history of the fictional civilization, could be taken as positive or negative. The most disturbing thing in the book (at least for me) was the violence. The main weapons used by these space-age natives are knives, and throwing is the best way to launch them at their target—being animal, people or “Muties” (mutants). As you can imagine, this leads to some painful results and Heinlein gives just enough gory details to make one squirm. (I would not say he is ever over-grotesque, but it is definitely not for the weak of stomach.) Even more alarming is the way women are treated in the fictional civilization. Female abuse is hinted at at least two times, and the male-chauvinist attitude of the main characters (who all happen to be men) is clearly seen. (From what I understand, Heinlein was trying to create a civilization complete with its own history, beliefs and social structure, so perhaps this treatment of women—and the other negatives—can be excused on these terms. Regardless, they made me feel uncomfortable enough to mention them.)

The plot is too layered and twisted to lay it all out here, but I think an introduction is at least needed. The storyline follows a certain Hugh Hoyland and his adventures aboard “The Ship”—a place that at first seems to be a strange planet, but then is slowly revealed to be an actual space ship. The socio-structure is made up of Commoners, Scientists and the Captain. There are similarities between this book and Lois Lowry’s The Giver (in case you have ever read that modern classic). Also living on the Ship are the outcast Muties, supposedly deformed because of sin (though the scientific explanation is shown to be radiation.) The humans superstitiously fear the Muties (and any children born with deformities—who are done away with in the “Converter”), and hunt them for sport as well as for necessity. The Muties are even more “native” then the humans and live a semi-united, yet cannibalistic, existence. (I theorize that their social ills might have sprung from the way they were forced to live by the more domineering humans.)

Hugh becomes a slave to a powerful, two-headed “gangster lord” Mutie named Jim-Joe, and is forced to look at the world through different eyes. In fact, his whole world is turned upside-down as he gains new knowledge about the world around him (thanks to the amusing Joe-Jim, who decides to instruct the young man). Reading and learning are celebrated as a means to overcome racism, and important lessons are shown on overcoming differences to achieve a common a goal.

I need to add a warning about language and a stray mention of sex to my content list. These two things and the violence make this a book suitable for mature audiences only. Taken with a grain of salt, you may be able to enjoy this book, but then again, it may just leave you with a bad taste in your mouth. I do not think I would read it again, but it did give me some food for thought. It would definitely be an interesting book for a literary discussion!

Robert Heinlein was an excellent author and his earlier works are “generally” acceptable, but his later works were not. At some point, Heinlein began to add explicit material and prolific language. Just be aware of this before you read Heinlein. - Matt Gardenghi

Now, maybe you have heard of Krakatoa, but I had never heard of it before I read this book. And, even if I had heard of it, I wouldn’t have chosen to read a book about a volcano: even the largest volcano ever observed (two larger previous volcanoes have no written records). Sorry, I just wasn’t that interested in vulcanology. Someone gave this book as a Christmas present and so I read it. And I enjoyed it. (the ironies of life….)

So, why should you even be interested in a book about a volcano that literally blew itself completely off the face of the earth on August 27, 1883? Quite a few reasons actually.

To begin with, let’s consider the quality of writing. Winchester has a background in geology and has repeatedly been a New York Times best seller. He has the depth of knowledge and skill to make obscure history fun. For example, I once read his book The Professor and the Madman which covers the writing of the English Oxford Dictionary. He turned the story of a dictionary into a page turner without destroying the facts. Winchester has the ability to find the fascinating points in a story and then to turn them into readable books. (Geology has always been my least favorite science. Winchester made it interesting again.) It is actually a pleasure to read his work.

Next, Krakatoa doesn’t simply cover the eruption, rather it covers the recorded history before the eruption and then follows the history after the eruption. There is a chapter on the precolonial period of Sumatra and Java and several chapters on the colonial life and politics. Very interesting reading. One would almost forget that this book was about a volcano.

A third reason is the social implications of Krakatoa. Because the world had just been networked via telegraph a few short years prior to Krakatoa’s eruption, for the first time a global audience could watch the events of a tragedy unfold in real time. This sudden rapidity of news caused great fear and panic around the world. People asked if the world was about to end? More intriguingly, Java and Sumatra were moderately Muslim in their beliefs before the eruption. After the massive loss of life and property combined with the harsh treatment by their Dutch masters the stage was set for a nationalistic rebellion fueled by radical Islam. The result has been to make those areas the most radical Islamic nations today outside the Middle East.

Sadly, the one objectionable part is the entirety of chapter three. In this chapter, Winchester goes beyond discussing the geography from an evolutionary standpoint to actually portraying hero worship of Alfred Russell Wallace. In Winchester’s mind, Wallace was greater than Darwin but earned the title of “Darwin’s Moon.” Winchester heaps praise on Wallace and others for bringing the world out of religious darkness into the godless light of science. I have never actually read someone who worshiped evolutionists to this degree before. Still, it is the only problematic chapter in this book.

I can understand why you might not be fascinated at the subject matter, but like all well written histories, the subject doesn’t matter when it is handled by a master story-teller. Winchester is just that: a master craftsman at work. This book is well researched and well documented. There aren’t any flaws to poke at in this book.

This book also has implications for the current debate on global warming. After Krakatoa exploded, the temperature around the entire globe dropped by several degrees for a decade or longer. That would have the global temperature recovering about 1900. Modern “climatologists” claim that the temperature has risen 1-2 degrees celsius over the last century. Now taking into account the temperature drop shortly before 1900, could we be seeing a return to the temperature levels pre-Krakatoa? Even if we aren’t, if a single volcano (admittedly a large one) can affect the temperature so greatly, why should I assume that human produced carbon is the great Satan of modern society?

I had never heard of Krakatoa before I read this book. Had you ever heard of it?