Thursday, June 30, 2005

State of Fear by Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton's latest novel created quite a stir among environmentalist groups when it was released last year. In the guise of a fictional story, Crichton unleashes a scathing condemnation of those who demand that mankind alter his lifestyle to forestall a threat (global warming) that has not even been proven to be caused by man, if it is indeed happening at all. The book's title, State of Fear, speaks to the alarmist and hyperbolic rhetoric some environmentalist groups use to raise money and effect social change.

As a narrative, State of Fear is nothing special, but as a good old-fashioned polemic, it is hugely successful. Crichton raises many interesting scientific objections to the conventional global warming theory; objections that you never hear amid the media drumbeat for the Kyoto treaty. I did not know, for example, that the ice caps of Greenland are actually growing, or that the interior of Antarctica is cooling, or that the world's mean temperature declined from 1940-1970 (when, according to greenhouse gas theory, it should have been rising), or that current world temperatures are just now returning to the levels of medieval times, or that the America of 2005 is no warmer than the America of the 1930s.

The plot takes a while to get going, and once it does, it is not particularly engrossing. The Earth Liberation Front (which is a real eco-terrorist organization) is plotting to artifically create natural disasters such as tsunamis, breaking ice shelfs, and freak lightning storms to coincide with a worldwide conference on the dangers of global warming. A globe-trotting intelligence analyst from MIT must stop the eco-terrorist cells before they can strike. Along the way, he must put up with mindless Hollywood actors and well-meaning environmentalist activists. And that's about it. The plot is secondary to Crichton's overall purpose of discrediting environmentalist conventional wisdom; although, I must say, his insights into the vicissitudes of the female mind are not be missed.

One of Crichton's strongest points is that global climate has never been static; the earth has been cooling and warming and changing for thousands of years. The only difference from today is that ancient man didn't have Greenpeace around to tell him how disastrous these climate changes would supposedly be. Global climate shifts are not unprecedented, but man's ability to measure them is. It is this increased awareness of climate fluctuations, not the fluctuations themselves, Crichton concludes, that is the main cause of the current global warming hysteria.

Crichton concludes State of Fear with an essay on why politicized science is so dangerous. He points to the now-discredited theory of eugenics, which held tremendous sway among the intellectual and political elites of the world during the early twentieth century. Back then, pseudo-science led to the suffering of untold millions. Who is to say it can't happen again?

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

War of the Worlds

Ohhh, so that's why they didn't want anybody reviewing it before it was released!

I had high expectations for this one. I have read the classic novel twice, both times marvelling at how well the story has aged in the 107 years since it was written by science fiction pioneer H. G. Wells. And Spielberg's and Cruise's last collaboration, the superb Minority Report, is one of my all-time favorites.

But even with this abundance of talent and source material, War of the Worlds is very, very disappointing. In keeping with the book (which has one of the best opening paragraphs I've ever read), the opening is suitably ominous, but after the initial mayhem, we are left to watch characters we don't care about flee from one doomed town to the next. Most of the characters are so annoying that I found myself rooting for the aliens half the time. I don't think that was the effect Spielberg was going for.

Tom Cruise, who in real life plays a weirdo, is a divorced dad in New Jersey who has custody of his two obnoxious kids for the weekend. Suddenly freak lightning storms and massive power outages bring the entire city to halt. Enormous pits form in the middle of intersections, and otherworldly tripods emerge, zapping everyone in their path, and generally wreaking havoc. So far, so good. But then Cruise and crew run for it, and his kids compete as to who can be the most grating. The teenage son won hands down, and I nearly applauded when the aliens appeared to kill him about halfway through the movie. But even that cold comfort was stolen from me in the end.

Tim Robbins reprises his ongoing role as a crazy loner, but he doesn't do much besides mutter (and eventually shout) incoherently. Thankfully, his screen time is short. If only the same could be said about the two brats, it might have been a different movie.

Except for the completely unnecessary dysfunctional family storyline, Spielberg's retelling is actually pretty faithful to Wells' original, which leads me to suspect that the story just doesn't translate well onto the screen. Despite a valiant effort, the film simply cannot compare to the book's pervasive creepiness and suspense. Stick with the original.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

A Clear Choice

President Bush just finished his televised speech on Iraq. The speech was designed to shore up flagging public support for the war, and to remind Americans why winning in Iraq is so important to our security.

While it's difficult for me to know for sure (how some people can change their minds every month on the most momentous issue of our time is unfathomable to me), I think Bush did what he set out to do. His delivery was straightforward, and his manner genuine. No doubt the Bush-hating Left will erupt with rage because the President dared to (correctly) reiterate that the only real hope to win the war on terrorism is to fundamentally transform the conditions that give rise to radicalism in the first place. For all their whining about addressing the "root causes" of terrorism, leftists seem strangely unwilling to support a war that seeks to do just that.

President Bush's tribute to the troops was classy, genuine, and deeply moving. Contrast that respect with the defamatory rhetoric eminating almost daily from the Dick Durbin wing of the Democratic party. It's no wonder why our soldiers are so overwhelmingly supportive of their commander-in-chief, and so distrustful of his opportunistic political opponents.

The terrorists know what is at stake in Iraq; Americans must know as well. No matter what one's feelings about the justifications used to launch the Iraq war, there is no denying that Iraq is now the central front of the global war on terrorism. Our strategic focus should be on victory, not on a quick, artificial timeline for retreat.

Did You Know?

That Germany has some of the most restrictive stem cell research laws in the Western world? I didn't know that either, until I heard Congressman Mike Pence thoughtfully lay out his reasons for opposing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. His main point: If Germany--a nation that knows all too well the dangers of medical experimentation unmoored from morality--has deep misgivings about destroying life in the name of protecting life, shouldn't we as well?

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Supreme Court to Homeowners: Drop Dead

The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force homeowners to make way for private developers has been met with widespread outrage, as well it should. The court's four liberals (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens, and joined by the feckless Kennedy) so broadly defined the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment as to render it essentially meaningless. The effects of this decision will reverberate for years to come, as governments desperate for tax revenues collude with big development firms to steal private property. Time was when such sweeping power was strictly limited by a little thing called the Constitution. That time has now passed, thanks to an out-of-control, unaccountable bloc of liberals on the Supreme Court.

The loser in all of this is, of course, the individual homeowner, who cannot possibly wield the legal and political resources necessary to combat the combined might of government and big business. Once again, liberal statists on the court have shown that when private property rights conflict with government's power to coerce, the government always takes precedence. This stands the founders' original intent of a limited government completely on its head. As Clarence Thomas noted in a scathing dissent, “Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.”

There are many paths to tyranny, but to undermine the sovereignty of private property for government purposes is surely one of the quickest.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Deception Point by Dan Brown

Whatever their historical or literary shortcomings, the novels of Dan Brown are the defintion of "page-turner." Unfailingly, Brown's tightly woven plots compel the reader to keep reading, often at the expense of more pressing duties, like sleep.

Deception Point is no exception, although it stumbles just a bit in the final chapters, as the plot's latent implausibility becomes more and more difficult to ignore. The book is set during a heated presidential campaign, in which the slithering Republican challenger (thankfully, the book is otherwise apolitical) repeatedly blasts the incumbent over the many failures of NASA. Desperate for any good news, NASA suddenly claims to have found a meteorite, encased deep in the Arctic ice. The Republican candidate's estranged daughter, an intelligence analyst, is sent by the President to independently verify the meteorite's startling contents: clear evidence of extraterrestial life.

But, of course, not all is as it seems. Brown skillfully blends the thrill of scientific discovery with the more sordid realities of politics as he throws twist after twist at the reader. As in all of Brown's works, the true identity of the protagonist remains hidden until the very end, and when the truth is finally revealed, it is genuinely surprising. The finale is somewhat pat, but this is just a minor blight on an otherwise suspenseful and well-told tale.

Angels and Demons, the lesser known prequel to The Da Vinci Code, remains Brown's best novel, by far.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

A Party Unhinged

I'm sure by now you've heard all about Senator Dick Durbin's remarks and the ensuing hubbub they caused. You know, when he compared our troops at Gitmo to the administrators of the Nazi death camps (death toll: six million) and the Soviet gulags (death toll: 15-30 million) and the Cambodian killing fields (death toll: two million). Never mind that the death toll at Gitmo is, um, zero. You should also forget that captured al-Qaida training manuals instruct their members, if they are ever held in American custody, to allege torture and, interestingly, mistreatment of the Koran. Now why would al-Qaida think of that? Because they know that some segments of the media and large swaths of the Democratic Party will then take up their cause. After all, "US Senator Calls US Troops 'Nazis'" looks way better in the Arab media than when bin Laden says the same thing. Thank you, Senator Durbin.

So what tortures are the poor misunderstood jihadists at Gitmo enduring? Prepare yourself. They are being subjected to such horrors as overly loud Christina Aguilera music, air conditioners being left on too long, infrequent access to gourmet chefs, satirical puppet shows, and scantily clad female interrogators. Now, I can sympathize with the Christina Aguilera bit, but come on, does any of this sound in any way comparable to the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, Soviets, and Khmer Rouge?

It does if you're a Democrat. One reason why Durbin's remarks didn't really register with me at first is because I've spent way too much time on leftist websites the last few years; that "American troops are Nazis" stuff is conventional wisdom there. But when the second-ranking Democrat in the United States Senate says it, you know you're seeing a party that has become completely unhinged.

Oh, but don't get them wrong, the Democrats still support those jack-booted Nazi thugs, er, I mean, our brave men and women in uniform. Yeah, whatever. The only good to come out of these outrageous remarks is that the lie that the Democratic Party supports our troops can finally be laid to rest once and for all.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Batman Begins

Batman has always been my favorite superhero. I never was much of a comic book reader, but growing up, I loved the Batman cartoon (5:30 every weekday!). What made Batman so appealing to me was that, strictly speaking (and believe me, ten-year-old boys spend alot of time thinking about these things), he was not really a superhero at all. He couldn't leap tall buildings in a single bound, or shoot spider webs from his wrists, or spontaneously sprout razor-sharp claws. Instead, he had to use his wits, his very mortal strength, and his cool gadgets to battle evildoers.

Bruce Wayne's thirst for vengeance also set him apart from the nerdy Spiderman and the righteous Superman. Batman was a troubled soul, driven by a dark, deeply personal memories of his parents' murder. For a comic book character, that is pretty deep stuff.

Unfortunately, the most recent Batman movies have neglected this more subtle portrait of the Dark Knight in favor of a cartoonish Caped Crusader who lightheartedly quips one-liners much more than he broods over his parents' deaths. Thankfully, the latest entry in the series, Batman Begins, takes itself much more seriously. The result is a far more satisfying and absorbing film.

As the name suggests, Batman Begins expounds on what led a super-rich orphan to dress up in a bat costume and terrorize criminals. The moral quandry of working outside the law to enforce vigilante justice is dealt with here, but never fully resolved (nor should it be). Gotham City is a rough, corrupt place, and director Christopher Nolan captures it in all its gothic splendor.

The performancs are very strong. Christian Bale plays Bruce Wayne/Batman, and he brings a somber, introspective tone to the role. Liam Neeson, who must be one of the world's most accomplished sword fighers by now, plays a shadowy figure who trains the wandering Wayne in the arts of vigilante crime-fighting. Katie Holmes, who in real life plays the happiest woman on the face of earth, is the damsel in distress.

Fear is the central theme of the movie. Batman Begins contains many horror movie elements, with the delightful twist that the traditional roles have been reversed. It is now the villians who walk down the long, deserted hallways, calling out in vain for their silenced henchmen when suddenly they are snatched away by an unseen adversary. The action scenes are kinetic and deliberately obscure, designed to show only the most fleeting of glimpses of Batman as he terrorizes some thug.

Amid all the darkness and suspense, the movie has its lighter moments as well. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and the faithful Alfred (Michael Caine) provide plenty of humor. Not all of the quips work, but most of them do.

The plot is long and complex, for a comic book movie. Suffice to say there is no shortage of bad guys. The movie is surprisingly epic in length, but the good kind of epic where you don't realize how long you have sat until the final credits roll and you look at your watch. The audience enthusiastically applauded at the end, which is a rare sight at theaters these days. The ending leaves open the possibility of yet another sequel, which I expect will be greatly anticipated.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward

Plan of Attack mainly covers the time frame of November 2001, when the 1990s war plan for Iraq first underwent revision, to the first few days of the war, in March 2003.

I'm not sure why the "Bush LIED!!!!" crowd so heartily endorsed this book, because there is virtually nothing in it to support their claims. Neither is there any evidence that Bush and Cheney launched the war to enrich Halliburton or any other corporation. The book is filled with interesting and occasionally revealing anecdotes, but nothing truly earth-shattering. Powell was obviously Woodward's main source, but Bush and Rumsfeld are the only two main players who agreed to be interview on the record for the book.

This account is quite different in tone to Woodward's previous book, the overwhelmingly pro-Bush Bush at War. There is a sense of foreboding in Woodward's writing, as he tells of how the Bush adminstration did indeed plan extensively for post-war Iraq, but unfortunately it planned for worst-case contigencies that never happened.

Former DCI Tenet has probably the most embarrassing moment in the book, as he infamously tells a skeptical Bush that the WMD case against Iraq is a "slam dunk." From Woodward's account, it seems to me that the WMD intelligence failure was the result of a perfect storm of faulty-yet-reasonable assumptions, neglected human intelligence work, a reluctance to underestimate a threat in the aftermath of 9/11, and a tendency by the analysts to be "clear" in their assessments, even if being clear meant being wrong. Interestingly, there is nothing in Plan of Attack to suggest that the administration sought to influence or intimidate the CIA in any way.

Bush's grasp of the consequences of the war is occasionally questioned by the author and his subjects alike, sometimes implicitly, sometimes not. Bush-haters will find vindication in this. What they will not find, however, is an administration that hid its motives from the public. What was said in private strategy meetings about the rationale for the war was what was said in public press conferences. There were no conspiracies to grab Iraq's oil or fool the public. In fact, at one point, Bush orders his entire national security team to refrain from "stretching" to make their case. Once the war begins, Bush displays a similar concern about Iraqi civilian casualties, and directs General Franks to do all he can to minimize them.

I doubt this book will change very many minds one way or the other. Both sides can find things to support whatever political position they already hold. I recommend this book for those who want the most thorough and penetrating history thus far of the lead-up to the Iraq war, but political partisans on the left would be better served going elsewhere to prove their accusations, if indeed they can be proved.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Amnesty International's Most Wanted List

Much has been written on Amnesty International's recent characterization of Gitmo as the "gulag of our times." It was an absurd and hyperbolic charge, of course, but as vitriolic attacks on America go, it was not especially remarkable; listen to Air America or al-Jazeera for five minutes and you are likely to hear far worse.

But the ensuing media furor masked an even more outageous and outlandish Amnesty comment, one that shows just how ludicrous and irresponsible the so-called "human rights" organization has become. In a press release, Amnesty International called on foreign governments to arrest US government officials who traveled overseas. I kid you not. This extract was taken straight from the Amnesty website:

If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.

Without even giving the reader time to recover from either the fits of laughter or screams of rage that this inane press release evokes, Amnesty then helpfully put out the all-points-bulletin for Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Gonzalez, and a host of other US government and military officials. No word yet on whether Amnesty will issue similar arrest warrants for all the third-world despots who are greeted with open arms at the UN and capitals around the world.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Prepare to be Outraged

When imaging what the future World Trade Center Memorial will one day look like, one probably envisions an elegant, sobering, emotionally moving tribute to the victims of that terrible day, and to the heroes who gave their lives trying to save them. Perhaps it would include a message of gratitude to the soldiers who, while the wreckage in New York still smoldered, courageously fought half a world away to punish those responsible for the attacks.

But rather than the memorial being about, oh, I don't know, the 9/11 attacks, visitors to the memorial will instead be subjected to such relevant topics as Native American genocide and the history of cross-burnings in the South. The memorial project has been hijacked by the far left, and they are perverting the memorial to sastify their own sick anti-American obsessions. As Debra Burlingame (the sister of one of the pilots killed on 9/11, and a member of the memorial board of directors) revealed yesterday, the memorial may focus more on Abu Ghraib than it does on the firefighters who ran up the stairs when everyone else was running down.

The driving force behind this PC-monstrosity is the International Freedom Center, whose founder, Tom Bernstein, recently filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the all the poor misunderstood jihadists currently in American custody. If that wasn't outrageous enough, take a look at some other influential figures directly involved with the IFC:

• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the worldwide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

The Left's fundamental disdain for America continues. Thirty years ago, they showed this disdain by spitting on returning war veterans; they show it today by desecrating the memories of American heroes and turning our nation's darkest day into yet another occasion for their favorite pastime, America-bashing.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Bidding Europe Adieu

About a month ago I wrote that if France rejected the EU constitution, it would throw the continent into political turmoil and uncertainty. Well, lo and behold, it looks like I was right. The aftermath of the constitution's resounding defeat at the hands of French and Dutch voters has all but killed the project, and not a moment too soon.

The EU constitution was so large and cumbersome that it virtually guaranteed its own demise. Any document that long is bound to contain something to offend everyone, which explains why the French feared it would impose "Anglo-Saxon liberalism" (i.e., free market reforms) on them, while the British regard the constitution as the embodiment of socialistic French statism. The Dutch, who are deeply fearful of their growing Muslim population, overwhelmingly rejected the constitution, largely due to concerns that it would remove what little immigration barriers remain in place. The British have suspended their referendum, although polls show that they still want to get in on the fun of destroying the dreams of the Europhiles.

And so the constitution is all but dead. Three cheers for that. But Europe still faces monumental challenges: stagnated economic growth, aging populations, soaring unemployment, unsustainable entitlement spending, cultural drift, and out-of-control immigration. If any of this sounds familiar, it should; it is the Democratic blueprint for the future of America.

Oh, sure, they don't put it that way. Rather, they talk of the need for a European-style "social safety net" that all "enlightened countries" already have, as if committing civilizational suicide is the very definition of "enlightened." But as the New York Times' David Brooks notes, much of what currently ails Europe is a direct result of decades of the same policies that Democrats want to implement here at home:

Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism.

Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security. And yet far from thriving, continental Europe has endured a lost decade of relative decline.

Right now, Europeans seem to look to the future with more fear than hope. As Anatole Kaletsky noted in The Times of London, in continental Europe "unemployment has been stuck between 8 and 11 percent since 1991 and growth has reached 3 percent only once in those 14 years."

The Western European standard of living is about a third lower than the American standard of living, and it's sliding. European output per capita is less than that of 46 of the 50 American states and about on par with Arkansas. There is little prospect of robust growth returning any time soon.

Once it was plausible to argue that the European quality of life made up for the economic underperformance, but those arguments look more and more strained, in part because demographic trends make even the current conditions unsustainable. Europe's population is aging and shrinking. By 2040, the European median age will be around 50. Nearly a third of the population will be over 65. Public spending on retirees will have to grow by a third, sending Europe into a vicious spiral of higher taxes and less growth.

Over the last few decades, American liberals have lauded the German model or the Swedish model or the European model. But these models are not flexible enough for the modern world. They encourage people to cling fiercely to entitlements their nation cannot afford. And far from breeding a confident, progressive outlook, they breed a reactionary fear of the future that comes in left- and right-wing varieties - a defensiveness, a tendency to lash out ferociously at anybody who proposes fundamental reform or at any group, like immigrants, that alters the fabric of life.

This is the chief problem with the welfare state, which has nothing to do with the success or efficiency of any individual program. The liberal project of the postwar era has bred a stultifying conservatism, a fear of dynamic flexibility, a greater concern for guarding what exists than for creating what doesn't.

That's a truth that applies just as much on this side of the pond.


I would add only one other contributing factor to Europe's drastic and seemingly unstoppable decline: extreme secular humanism (not surprisingly, another trademark of modern leftist thinking). Europe is now a post-Christian society, beholden to an anti-belief system that defines itself not by what it is for, but by what it is against. As a basis for social order, secular humanism is unsustainable, because it is fundamentally empty. This nebulous ideology cannot provide any meaning beyond this current world, and I expect that disillusioned Europeans will increasingly turn away from secular humanism, and turn toward Islam instead. This trend will take decades to fully develop, but by mid-century, Europe as it has been historically known will be no more.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Cinderella Man

Starring the consistently great Russell Crowe and directed by the accomplished Opie Taylor, Cinderella Man tells the story of James J. Braddock, an Irish prizefighter who went from champion to loser and back again during the 1920s and '30s. It is a compelling and deeply moving tale, expertly designed to elicit a strong emotional response from the audience. In this, it is overwhelmingly successful. Sure, we know that Braddock will somehow beat all the odds and reclaim his title (indeed, if Crowe's character had lost the final bout, the theaters owners might have had a riot on their hands--that's how much the audience was rooting for him), but the uncertain life Braddock and his beloved family endured during the darkest days of the Great Depression makes for gripping, empathetic viewing. The performances are very well-done, and the fight scenes are thrilling. I would not be surprised to see this film nominated for several Oscars. Richie Cunningham has done it again!

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Sunstorm by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter

Sunstorm, the new sequel to 2004's entertaining Time's Eye, is a less focused, less satisfying book than its predecessor. Whereas Time's Eye was more of a counterfactual history novel than pure sci-fi, Sunstorm goes to the other extreme, inundating the reader with torrents of scientific jargon. That is fine, so long as there is some substance behind the science. But in Sunstorm, Clarke and Baxter (probably just Baxter, I don't think Clarke does much writing anymore) the tantalizing mysteries of Time's Eye are either dropped entirely or explained away with only a few short paragraphs. I expected much more.

The plot shows promise, even if it never fully delivers. In the year 2037, Earth is buffeted by an immense solar flare that fries electronics and disrupts wireless communications. The sunstorm is more of a nuisance than a threat, but soon an eccentric (is there any other kind?) genius discovers that an even bigger sunstorm is brewing, one that will vaporize the oceans, rip away Earth's atmosphere, and end all life on the planet. Humanity, led by the United States and the Eurasion Union (the authors are nothing if not optimistic), springs into action and contructs an enormous shield in space. The orbiting wall, acting as a sort of artificial eclipse, is designed to block the solar eruption. After five years of technological setbacks and triumphs, the earth is saved, though still severely damaged by the sunstorm.

More interesting, and frustratingly underdeveloped, is the source of the sun's suddenly erratic behavior. The same mysterious aliens who ripped up the fabric of time itself in Time's Eye are at work again; thousands of years ago, while mankind was constructing pyramids and other monuments to the sun, this alien race, called the Firstborn, eyed the upstart humans with suspicion and fear. From their solar system dozens of light-years away, the Firstborn launched a huge Jupiter-like planet straight into Sol, knowing that within two thousand years it would trigger a sunstorm that would exterminate the human virus that threatened to spread across the stars and consume precious resources.

Two mainstays of Clarke's work, dreamy-eyed humanism and overt hostility to religion, are once again prominent in Sunstorm. The story's characters can be broken up into three categories: powerful women, homosexual men, and religious fanatics. This is not so much offensive as amusing; in their heavy-handed effort to show their politically correct credentials, Clarke and Baxter have become caricatures of themselves. Normally, Clarke's deficiencies as a social commentator are more than made up by his ability to evoke a sense of wonder with huge, grandiose ideas. The lackluster Sunstorm does not meet that test.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

"The passions of a revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses."
--Alexander Hamilton, August 12, 1795

In this magesterial new biography, historian Ron Chernow vividly captures the life and times of America's most brilliant and controversial founder. From the Caribbean tropics to Yorktown to Wall Street, Chernow paints the portrait of a man of unsurpassed insight and cognitive abilities, yet whose personal and public life were marred by severe lapses in judgment. Hamilton is perhaps the least appreciated and most misunderstood of all the founders, which is due in part to the circumstances of his death. Hamilton's tragically early death at the hands of Aaron Burr allowed his enemies--chiefly Thomas Jefferson and John Adams--to smear his reputation and distort his historical standing. This book--in addition to being a meticulously detailed and definitive work--sets out to correct some of the more persistent myths about Hamilton's eventful but brief life.

Born out of wedlock on the tiny Caribbean island of St. Nevis in 1755, young Alexander's childhood was a harsh and brutal experience that forever gave him a dim view of human nature. He was only a teenager when his mother died, leaving him orphaned. He would spend the rest of his life trying to compensate for his lowly birth. This feverish work ethic propelled him to excel, but it also steered him into his most egregious mistakes, including his final duel with Burr.

In the aftermath of a devastating hurricane that swept through the West Indies, Hamilton, then only sixteen, wrote a gloomy, apocalyptic soliloquy for the local newspaper. The piece struck a chord among the island's influential merchant class, and local businessmen set up a subscription that would send the young writer to America to be educated. Hamilton arrived in New York harbor in 1773, and enrolled in King's College (now Columbia). He would never again set foot on the island of his birth, nor did he ever express a desire to.

Hamilton had arrived at a momentous and tumultuous time in American history, the eve of the revolution. Anti-British sentiment was running high, and talk of a rebellion against royal authority was in the air. Hamilton, while still a college student, wrote several influential pamphlets urging revolution as the only way to safeguard liberty. When fighting broke out in 1775, the twenty-year-old Hamilton rushed to enlist, earning a commission as an artillery captain. He had long viewed war as the only avenue to glory and greatness.

It was not long before General Washington noticed the immensely gifted artillery captain. At age twenty-one, Hamilton became, in effect, Washington's chief of staff, an appointment that was to forever change his destiny and put him at the forefront of the struggle to first secure American independence, and then to forge a new nation. It was the beginning of one of the most important and enduring political partnerships in American history.

Through the long years of war, Hamilton became Washington's eyes, ears, and chief spokesman, as he routinely used his broad authority to give orders to generals twice his age. He was Washington's most able aid, and the venerable general--always a superb judge of talent--relied on him heavily.

Even during the chaos and confusion of the revolution, Hamilton was already looking ahead and envisioning what a unified and vibrant United States might look like. Perhaps because he was an immigrant, and thus unencumbered by the fierce state loyalties that threatened to cripple the union, he always took a broader, more nationalistic view than most of his compatriots, who were fighting for state first, nation second. After American independence had been secured, this strongly centralized vision of future governance opened Hamilton up to charges that he was an advocate of a monarchy, despite the fact that he had perhaps done more to win the revolution than anyone save Washington himself.

Following the revolution, Hamilton, not yet thirty, served a brief stint in the Confederation Congress, the sole branch of national government allowed under the debilitating Articles of Confederation. Seeing the national government forced to beg for handouts from the stingy state legislatures only reinforced Hamilton's goal for a strong cental government that had the power to tax. Disgusted and disillusioned, he resigned from Congress in 1784 to pursue a law career in New York.

As with everything else he tried during his eventful life, Hamilton excelled in the courtroom, astounding allies and enemies alike with his eloquent, spontaneous bursts of oratory. Hamilton's powers of persuasion and logic were hailed as being even more impressive than those of Aaron Burr, another prominent New York lawyer.

When a convention was called to revise the feckless and ineffective Articles of Confederation, Hamilton was an obvious choice to be a part of the New York delegation, although the staunchly anti-federalist governor, George Clinton, made sure Hamilton was outnumbered by pro-Articles cronies. At the Constitution, Hamilton proposed some ideas that struck some (most notably James Madison) as being faintly monarchial, which would come to plague his career years later. Although Hamilton had deep misgivings about the finished draft, he immediately and unequivocably devoted himself to doing everything in his considerable power to ensure its ratification by the states. He saw the Constitution, though flawed, as the only thing that could prevent disunion and civil war.

The grandest result of this seemingly superhuman effort (he would churn out essays at the rate of five or six a week, all the while maintaining his demanding legal practice) was The Federalist Papers, a collaborative effort between Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay. Hamilton wrote a large majority of the essays, defending the proposed Constitution with such skill that it is difficult to believe that only five years later, he would be accused by his political enemies of seeking to supplant the Constitution with a British-style monarchy.

Somehow during the time Hamilton was achieving military renown and legal fame, he also managed to become the nation's foremost authority in finance and economics. When President Washington appointed him to be the nation's first treasury secretary, he lost no time in launching a bold and controversial program of financial reforms. With customary verve, he literally overwhelmed his Congressional opponents (who were led by his erstwhile political partner, James Madison) with an avalanche of reports, proposals, and data. So sweeping and historically far-reaching were Hamilton's ideas that Chernow calls him "the father of the federal government."

But Hamilton's plan for restoring public credit and assuming state debts was not without fierce opposition. Influential Virginians, led by Washington's own Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, were alarmed at the direction in which Hamilton was leading the nascent republic. Sensing a renewed threat to American liberty, the Jeffersonians began lashing out at the Washington administration, with the most vitriolic attacks aimed squarely at the foreign-born Hamilton, who was seen as the epitome of all that was wrong with the federal government. The same awesome brilliance that inspired such fervent devotion among Hamilton's Federalists was what provoked such fear and outright paranoia among Jeffersonians. It was the beginnings of the two-party system of American politics, and it was a period of such ferocious partisan warfare that actual fighting often broke out.

The most polarizing issue of all was the French Revolution, which by the mid-1790s had taken a ghastly turn. To Jefferson, the bloody reign of the guillotine was a necessary, even welcome precursor to the spreading of liberty around the world. To Hamilton, it was a realization of his worst fears: Perpetual revolution giving way to anarchy, violence, and eventual tyranny. Where Jefferson saw a painful purification of the human spirit, Hamilton saw only the very darkest consequences of human passions gone unchecked. Unlike Jefferson, who was something of an utopian dreamer during this time of his life, Hamilton always sought a balance between public order and private liberty. The two had to be carefully balanced, he believed, or one would inevitably destroy the other.

It was during this time of internecine political conflict, even as his enemies hurled the most vicious insults at him and when he should have been most on his guard, that Hamilton committed the most inexplicable and damaging mistake of his career, giving ample fodder to his foes for years to come. He became ensnared in an adulterous affair with one Maria Reynolds, a twenty-three year old married woman. By this time, the thirty-eight year old Hamilton had been married to the former Eliza Schuyler for over a decade; he was already the father of six. As he later admitted, he was so consumed by his lust that he was unable to perceive the danger in which he was placing himself. As the affair continued for over a year, and as Maria and her husband James continued to extort increasingly large sums from Hamilton in exchange for keeping the affair hidden, the magnitude of his mistake only slowly began to dawn on him. He broke off the affair and stopped the blackmail payments, but it was far too late; within three years, the entire country would know of the illicit liason. None could have been more devastated than the faithful Eliza.

After the end of the Washington administration and the revelation of his adultery, Hamilton's political decline was ensured. With his influence waning and his relationship with President John Adams--which was never warm to begin with--souring, Hamilton turned to his long-neglected family for emotional support. He built a new family home to the north of the city. He christened it The Grange, in honor of the noble estate of his Scottish ancestors.

But Hamilton had little time to savor this rediscovered familial bliss. In 1801, his oldest and most talented son, nineteen-year-old Philip, was killed in a duel fought to defend his father's honor against slanderous charges of corruption. Hamilton had had no prior knowledge of the impending duel, and his beloved son's death hurt him more deeply than any poltical attack ever could. Hamilton's final years were shrouded in gloom and grief, as one family tragedy hit after another.

It was during these years of sorrow that Hamilton returned to the ardent Christian faith that he had mostly abandoned as he reached manhood. While attending the Episcipalian King's College, Hamilton had been a devout and faithful student, kneeling twice daily for prayers and memorizing scripture regularly. But the horrors of war and the cynicism of politcs had slackened his faith and made him suspicious of organized religion. He had espoused a mild form of Deism, but he always viewed Christianity as an essential base for social stability. In his final years, beset by tragedy and grief, Hamilton returned to the religious fervor of his youth, much to the joy of the longsuffering Eliza, who was a devout churchgoer her entire life.

After the painful aftermath of the Reynolds affair, Hamilton and Eliza drew closer together than ever before, as Hamilton did all he could to atone for his past sins. Their love was deepened by mutual tragedy, and by their shared faith in God.

Hamilton had not completely withdrawn from politics, but his remaining limited involvement was to cost him his life. In 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr, a longtime political rival of Hamilton's, was a bitter, vengeful man, lashing out at anyone who dared speak against his "honor." Because of numerous political misteps, Burr's career was effectively over, and President Jefferson was not expected to ask him to serve another term as vice president. Seeking someone to blame for his sudden misfortune, Burr settled on Hamilton, because of deragatory comments Hamilton had supposedly made of Burr during a private dinner party several months previously. Burr demanded an apology, and Hamilton, not knowing quite what to apologize for, refused. The feud escalated, and Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel in the summer of 1804.

Hamilton was against dueling in principle, but he feared that if he refused to participate, any future political comeback would be impossible. Because Hamilton often viewed America's fate to be entertwined with his own, he truly regarded the duel as a question of patriotism, not just honor. Without his family's knowledge, he met Burr on the dueling grounds in New Jersey. Hamilton had told several people beforehand that he would not shoot Burr, no matter the circumstances.

Burr had no such inhibitions. On Wednesday morning, July 11, 1804, the Vice President of the United States shot the former Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton was rushed back to New York for medical care, but there was little hope that he might survive the wound. For the next thirty-one hours, Hamilton clung to life as a parade of friends, family, and collegues filed past his deathbed. It was a scene of nearly inexpressible sorrow. Poor Eliza was nearly frantic with grief. To comfort her, Hamilton kept intoning the one refrain he knew would soothe her trouble spirit about all others: "Remember, my Eliza, you are a Christian."

A close friend of Hamilton's, Reverend John Mason, was summoned to his bedside. Grasping his hand, Hamilton rolled his eyes heavenward, and exclaimed with fervor, "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." He died peacefully at age forty-nine.

Eliza, now widowed with seven children, found a letter from her beloved husband at home, to be read only in the event of his death. Hamilton had written it only days before his fateful, secret duel. After poignantly expressing his undying love for her and their children, Hamilton wrote:

The consolation of religion, my beloved, can alone support you and these you have a right to enjoy. Fly to the bosom of your God and be comforted. With my last idea, I shall cherish the sweet hope of meeting you in a better world.

Chernow closes his deeply moving account of this most improbable founding father by giving a brief overview of the remainder of Eliza's life, who outlived her husband by over half a century and survived to the eve of the Civil War that Hamilton had so feared would come. She dedicated her life to charitable work, and to clearing her husband's name from the baseless accusations that followed him, even in death. She was not entirely successful, but in this masterful work, Chernow does just that, and for that he should be commended. Hamilton, though flawed, was a truly great man, a giant of American history, and it is only fitting that his biography should approach greatness itself.