This book is a comparative survey of the differences between Western Christendom and Middle Eastern Islam with the avowed objective of reaching some kind of a conclusion about the state of the world today and how we got here.
The book fails on two counts. First, the author tries to answer questions, such as why Middle Eastern scientific development stalled in the 1500s just as the same was getting started in Renaissance Europe, that people dedicate their entire lives trying to answer in just a few pages.
Second, the author never tells us what he thinks has gone wrong. He concludes the book by writing about what various historians believe has gone wrong.
The sixth chapter dealing with the history and significance of secular governments was most interesting. In this chapter Lewis points out that in Islam the church is the state and there is no history of conflict between church and state, whereas in Christianity there has always been a conflicted relationship between church and state that eventually led to the western secular governments of today.
Not a great book.
5.24.2005
8. The Persian Sphinx: Amir Abbas Hoveyda and the Riddle of the Iranian Revolution by Abbas Milani
Since 1925, when the Pahlavi dynasty began, the Shah of Iran has asserted that he has the constitutional right to appoint the prime minister. And since the two Shahs since 1925 were both a little insane the prime minister's office was an annual revolving door. Until, that is, the mid 1960s when Hoveyda was appointed prime minister and served the country for 12 years.
This story is the biography of one of the great men of Iranian politics. He came to power, tried to foment as much change as he could while operating under the constraints of the monarch and was brutally executed by Khomeini's men in 1979.
It is a very well researched and written biography and I would recommend it, even to you infidels.
This story is the biography of one of the great men of Iranian politics. He came to power, tried to foment as much change as he could while operating under the constraints of the monarch and was brutally executed by Khomeini's men in 1979.
It is a very well researched and written biography and I would recommend it, even to you infidels.
5.14.2005
Taxi Fascist
When it comes to cabs I am the most tyrannical guy you've ever met. I think that the London black cabs are what all cabs in the world should strive for. They are comfortable, always clean, rarely smelly and, since the drivers are all owner operators and make a lot, they always know where they are going.
New York, however, is the antithesis of London. The cabs are uncomfortable, they tell you that they can take 5 passengers but you really can't fit 4 people on the rear bench seat and the front seat is often occupied by the driver's junk, there is practically no leg room and the cabs often stink.
The problem with NY cabs is really well exemplified in the fight that went on between the mayor and the cab companies a few years ago when the mayor was forcing them to install air conditioning for the back seats. In a city with summer time temperatures in the 90s and an almost constant sticky humidity you would think that air conditioning would be a no brainier. Wrong. The cab companies fought it tooth and nail but were finally forced to cave.
Toronto cabs are worse than NY. At least NY cabs generally know where they are going. In Toronto you have to give them directions to even the most central locations.
I was recently in Florence and found that I could appreciate the cab system there. Like in London there are specific customer friendly standards for the cabs (pictured). All of the drivers are owner operators and I never had to give directions to any of them even though my hotel was a little out of the way. The cab ordering system there was the coolest. Instead of telephoning for a cab, you simply press a button on a credit card approval like device which spits out a small piece of paper with the eta of your taxi and the taxi number.
New York, however, is the antithesis of London. The cabs are uncomfortable, they tell you that they can take 5 passengers but you really can't fit 4 people on the rear bench seat and the front seat is often occupied by the driver's junk, there is practically no leg room and the cabs often stink.
The problem with NY cabs is really well exemplified in the fight that went on between the mayor and the cab companies a few years ago when the mayor was forcing them to install air conditioning for the back seats. In a city with summer time temperatures in the 90s and an almost constant sticky humidity you would think that air conditioning would be a no brainier. Wrong. The cab companies fought it tooth and nail but were finally forced to cave.
Toronto cabs are worse than NY. At least NY cabs generally know where they are going. In Toronto you have to give them directions to even the most central locations.
I was recently in Florence and found that I could appreciate the cab system there. Like in London there are specific customer friendly standards for the cabs (pictured). All of the drivers are owner operators and I never had to give directions to any of them even though my hotel was a little out of the way. The cab ordering system there was the coolest. Instead of telephoning for a cab, you simply press a button on a credit card approval like device which spits out a small piece of paper with the eta of your taxi and the taxi number.
7. An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson
The bottom line is that this is an entertaining and informative read about the North African campaign in WWII.
But it has its problems. First, in one of the early chapters the author writes that it would be too cumbersome to cite every reference that he has used so he does away with footnotes and suggests that his impressive bibliography should suffice. I think that that is wrong. Second, it is written too much like a story and too little like a history book. For example, at one point the author writes that Eisenhower's stomach was churning with anxiety as he headed towards the front. How could anyone possibly know this? In the absence of footnotes we will never know.
My criticisms only serve as minor annoyances to a generally good book.
But it has its problems. First, in one of the early chapters the author writes that it would be too cumbersome to cite every reference that he has used so he does away with footnotes and suggests that his impressive bibliography should suffice. I think that that is wrong. Second, it is written too much like a story and too little like a history book. For example, at one point the author writes that Eisenhower's stomach was churning with anxiety as he headed towards the front. How could anyone possibly know this? In the absence of footnotes we will never know.
My criticisms only serve as minor annoyances to a generally good book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)