On Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski

Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski is aimed toward cisgender women in heterosexual relationships. It is an educational book about women, female anatomy, mental health, and sex. Turns out, there are a lot of things your middle school sex ed teacher doesn't tell you. 

This book was really great and empowering. Like all things in life, every experience is deeply personal and people bring worries, thoughts, etc to sexual experiences just as often as they do to a meeting. Either way, it heavily impacts behavior and satisfaction. I learned a lot about anatomy, too, and I feel kind of disappointed nobody told me some of this stuff earlier. It would have been nice. But, I’m glad I know it now, for myself. It’s exciting to be part of a paradigm shift in feminism at large- a movement away from comparison to conventional, cisgender men as the baseline for performance in all aspects of life and toward a firm understanding and appreciation that conventional cisgender women will never operate like a man because we’re different. And it’s great that we’re different. 

The author elaborates on some of the sexual tropes of each conventional gender stereotype; women are not less sexual than men, they’re more sensitive. Performance in the bedroom is affected by the same old quality of life issues women deal with every day that drag down self esteem, self compassion, and mindfulness. It’s a reminder that, again, like many things in life, satisfaction is something people have to choose and work through every day.  The main points of the book are that partners should listen to each others words, because the body and the brain aren't always in sync; that women have a completely different understanding of sexual pleasure, even though male and female bodies are "the same parts, organized in different ways,"; we should all be deliberate about the language we use to describe the female experience.

Thanks, Jeremy and Taylor for the recommendation.

On Nickel & Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

 Placeholder. Very excited to have finished another book!

On Swamp Peddlers by Jason Vuic

 Placeholder because I did finish it before End of Year!

On Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner

I've been a bit behind on blogging but happy to get back to it. 

Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner was a change of pace from the other books I've been reading. I bought it in Bishop, CA, the biggest town East of the Sierra Nevadas with a population of almost 4,000 (nearing my high school population of 4,500). I visited Bishop to see my sister, who was living there for several months. Photos at the bottom, because it's a really special place. Anyway, there are these special pools in the mountains (video below) that are actually wells which flow into the Owens River. The wells ensure continuous flow of water on the Owens River which benefits water access for the LADWP not only for consumption but for power production. So, you see "Property of Los Angeles Division of Water and Power" signs all over this tiny town. It makes you wonder...

It all began in the 1870s, when LA had a population of nearly 9,000. William Mulholland, a self-taught civil engineer, ended up building one of the greatest aqueducts of all time with water wars, economic devastation, agricultural dynasties, and soil destruction in between. Cadillac Desert started with the LADWP, but was a larger conversation on water development as an industry. The book tells a riveting story, even more exciting because of its verity. What is crazy about this book is the mind-boggling power that came from water ownership and access. Additionally, the downfall of the Bureau of Reclamation from helping the "small" farmer to being a blank check for huge farm operations coincidentally owned by railroads and oil companies. It was a time of immense wealth, monopolies, and huge public spending. It gave me a new perspective on Teddy Roosevelt and was a reminder of how influential the Red Scare was: "Roosevelt was a trust-buster, but only because he feared that unfettered capitalism could breed socialism," (p.107) which is kind of funny to think about today.

The book focuses on the damming of pretty much every great American river; every great salmon run, every source of glacial water, every naturally stunning water body, for the usage of a few. It was an insane time of construction and wealth, but for only a few and with damaging consequences for years to come. 

The LADWP and Bureau of Reclamation manufactured neighborhood suspicion to force entire towns out of a valley for dams. "No one knew when his neighbor would be approached and persuaded to sell out; no one knew when the city would move to condemn; no one knew when the armed guards who patrolled the aqueduct would receive order to shoot to kill," (p.123). It was a disgusting display of government power used for greed and deception. Eventually, there was war. People bombed the aqueduct in desperation. The relic of the water theft by LA for agricultural syndicates lives on in Bishop. The signs of LADWP ownership are everywhere. 

What was even crazier about all this work just to get even more money to these huge syndicates was that we had so much agricultural production that the federal government *paid* them to get rid of the excess. Taxpayers in LA disproportionately shouldered the burden of expense for the construction of an aqueduct which would only indirectly benefit them, if at all, and taxpayers at large nationally paid for unwarranted dams at the expense of a healthy fishing industry, entire towns, tribal nations, and more.

Reisner puts it perfectly: "The astonishing thing...about the whole era was that people just went out and built it, built anything, without knowing exactly how to do it or whether it could even be done," (p.203). 

The book really gave me perspective on the West and water scarcity, which was novel. Thanks to Bishop, CA for showing me the beauty of the Owens River Valley.

Artesian wells heading into the Owens River for LADWP

20 min outside Bishop, CA

The outskirts of Bishop, CA, on a run

On Arbitrary Lines by Nolan Gray

Writing this review a couple months behind...

Author M. Nolan Gray comes on strong with his initial introduction of zoning as a "stodgy rule book" that runs contrary to our "national ethos," (p.1). I appreciated that much of Arbitrary Lines reinforced the things I feel- that zoning restrictions as they stand are actually bad for the environment and confusing. The book overall addresses a valid issue, that there is no way government (or any other entity) can reasonably protect individual investments and freeze a neighborhood in time, unless it has a special designation. While this makes sense in isolation, the reality of today is that density for density's sake is not enough. We must also provide adequate public facilities to our residents. It is always important to take every book, and its financial backer, with a grain of salt. The author of the book is trained by a Libertarian-leaning think tank. But, I appreciate the free-market perspective as something different, but not polarizing. Additionally, I think Gray really only addresses single-family zoning, not necessarily all the things like setbacks, clearance for fire, etc. that are good for society as a whole.

The most compelling argument Gray makes is that, if we are going to address zoning, we should address actual quality of life issues like "noise, smells, smoke, or traffic," (p.139). It is also apparent to me that the State of Florida needs to improve our comprehensive planning process, like the good old days of Governor Bob Graham.

Thanks to YIMBY for getting this book together. This was our first book club book. 

Some additional notes: 

On first read, I really liked the homevoter hypothesis from Nolan Gray, that "a mixture of rapid inflation and generous federal tax policy" cemented the desire of homeowners to oppose any new construction which would lower their home values (p.64). Now, after reading The Color of Law, I have more context for the racial and social lead-up to the Red Scare-era "Own-Your-Home" means patriotism mindset. 

One of the arguments made by Gray that stuck with me was the idea that cities make a country rich. Often, people treat cities and density as a blight with loads of negative externalities. But, they are a hub for culture, diversity, economic vibrancy, and labor. 

On diversity and zoning, Gray cited some hard-hitting numbers, "Simply allowing apartments on a block - rare in most zoned cities - is associated with a 5.77 percent increase in the local Hispanic population and a 3.35 percent increase in the local Black population," (p.89). I do wonder how such a study could have been conducted and over what time frame. Nevertheless, Gray makes a compelling argument that zoning reinforces segregation that many people in housing space see as thinly veiled racism. However, re-reading this information I think it actually reinforces the thesis of the Color of Law, which asserts that the segregation we see and live today was deliberate de jure, not de facto. 

On Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein

 Color of Law was fantastic introduction to a history of US government-sponsored segregation. The thesis of the book is that "today's residential segregation...is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States," (Preface, p.VIII). 

The author, Richard Rothstein doesn't spend time arguing the morality of such laws, but rather the *unconstitutionality* of them. To me, that's what makes this book unique. Its evidence is so clear and its focus on legality leaves no room for moral judgements or sensitivities. The book plainly proves that the federal government played an active and illegal role in segregating our society on a purely racial basis. What is new about this book is its focus on the thirteenth amendment to our Constitution, which abolished slavery but additionally asked Congress to "pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States." This is where it gets interesting as the interpretation of housing discrimination as a badge of slavery could be argued, but Rothstein asserts that the discrimination we see today is a relic of the widely-agreed upon subjugation of African people and African-Americans. 

A note for context, integration between races had largely begun in the 19th century. Segregation picked up in 1880 when, after Reconstruction, President Rutherford B Hayes removed federal troops from the South, who had been there to protect African Americans (p.39), a first sign of diminished commitment to African Americans.

I think, at this point in society, many people have at least heard of "redlining," a practice where banks would mark certain areas where African Americans lived in red to ensure no financial assistance was given. What isn't always discussed is the active role the federal government took in creating, promoting, and enforcing this practice. The Federal Housing Authority, created and endorsed segregation where it did not otherwise exist. An example of the painful irony: "Rosewood Courts, Austin's Eastside project for African Americans, was built on land obtained by condemning Emancipation Park, the site of an annual festival to commemorate the abolition of slavery," (p.24). Through its housing policy, "the federal government [had] in effect been planting the seeds of Jim Crow practices throughout the region under the guise of 'respecting local attitudes," (p.37). This is what we see today as thinly-veiled racism through NIMBYism.

So many of the feelings around housing and racial justice today were justified by this book. The American Concrete Institute promoted highways to President Truman as a way to remove slums, which were created by other federal housing policy. Around 1917 (Red Scare), the US Department of Labor sent out "Own-Your-Own-Home" pamphlets implying it was a patriotic duty to invest in a single family home. The things we see today which still damage black communities were rooted in deliberate and explicit policy.

Rothstein also popped my FDR bubble. Apparently, Sec. of Commerce Herbert Hoover worked with a Frederick Law Olmsted Jr affiliate, VP Calvin Coolidge, and president of the American Construction Council, FDR. The group created explicit manuals which were later used by the Federal Housing Authority, realtors, banks, etc. to enforce specific segregation laws. Realtors went so far as to hire black people to walk on the sidewalks to scare white people into selling low, so that realtors could sell high to black families (p.95). This practice was called blockbusting. Further, "once African Americans were pushed into the Eastside...services declined." School boards relocated good schools into white neighborhoods and relocated existing schools that were integrated into black-only neighborhoods: "it constructed a new high school for African American students near a glue factory and city dump, far from white area," (p.133). Once again, it's further proof that government officials, police, realtors, and land use practitioners all need to meaningfully reckon with the shameful history each profession bears in regard to race relations.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in a history of racial policy in the US. It is comprehensive in its documentation and forward looking.

Other notes:

Morally strong" "under our constitutional system, government has not merely the option but the responsibility to resist racially discriminatory views, even when- especially when- a majority holds them," (p.216). 

Central Florida got a shoutout: "The Orlando suburb of Apopka adopted an ordinance banning blacks from living on the north side of the railroad tracks and whites from living on the south side...until 1968," (p.47).

The fact remains the same today as it did then: far-right white men are the most violent population in our country. Citing a series of firebombings in Chicago in 1919, "policemen at the scene refused to arrest the attacker. Subsequent battles between whites and blacks left thirty-eight dead (twenty three of whom were African American)," (p.144).  

As a sidenote reflection on the state of livable wages and workers rights in our country, the author had an interesting footnote on p.181 explaining that factory jobs were no better than service jobs are in principle, but it was the unionization of factory jobs which allowed those workers to enter into the middle class. 

Something unique about this book is the entire chapter on potential solutions and the subsequent FAQ, both of which I liked. One creative suggestion was that Congress could use our tax code to effectively penalize suburbs which are not taking steps toward integration through mortgage rates. I am not sure that this is the answer, but I like the idea of using tax code to get creative. 

On Freakonomics

This was a fun read. This is part of my economics mini-series of reading. Freakonomics was a good read because it was a lot of socioeconomic trends. This post is a placeholder for a more thought out review. Written 7/12/22..whoops!

The book reviewed informational disadvantages (p.73)

Funny right now - p.76 in reference to the success of civil rights and feminist movements, "It has become so unfashionable to discriminate against certain groups that all but the most insensitive people take pains to at least appear fair minded, at least in public,"

"We associate truth with convenience," (p.86) quote from John Kenneth Galbraith. 

The chapter about abortion and crime, Chapter 4, explained how through the 1980s and 1990s, crime struck the country. "Between 1980 and 2000,  there was a fifteenfold increase in the number of people sent to prison on drug charges," and many other sentences were longer than typically directed (p.121). Between years of philosophical explanations of why crime began to decrease, abortion's legalization caught up. About 20 years after abortion became legal, crime in America decreased. People who are able to plan for their families and create a safe, healthy environment for a child are far less likely to produce a child who commits crime than one who does not have access to family planning services. 

On Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama is an excellent read. Former President Obama is lucid in his vision of America- and it's the same one we all want. Obama writes earnestly of his life and about political issues of the time, 2008. I really only remember Obama's re-election campaign, since I was 9 years old his first time around. There are threads in Audacity of Hope which acknowledge the partisan breakdown of the 60s-80s and makes me even more grateful to have read Stayin Alive. 

Obama's measured tone in framing his political disagreements really demonstrates what a different political world we are in today. Obama reviews his political beliefs on major issues of 2008: family, labor, war, and political division. It is almost funny to think now what the division must have been like in 2008 and to consider where we are today. "Perhaps more than any other time in our recent history, we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans," and, shortly thereafter, "That isn't to say that I know exactly how to do it," (p.9). And so it continues. That humility comes through so clearly in his writing.

Obama deftly recognizes that phrase we hear so commonly now- that we are so much more polarized than before- before, even if you disagreed, you could get a drink together after Legislative Session. While this is, as a matter of fact, true, Obama touches on the fact that the issues back then and the people fighting for them were not always fighting for their own livelihoods. And, so, compartmentalizing wasn't too difficult. He also acknowledges that asking for money from people who have a lot of it necessitates spending more time among wealth and less among the majority. But yet, he is unshakably grounded in his faith in America.

Obama exemplifies something I've always said: being a politician really means being an eternal optimist.

Obama's writing is as inspiring as his speaking, so here are a couple of quotes: 

"Americans are willing to compete with the world. We work harder than the people of any other wealthy nation. We are willing to tolerate more economic instability and are willing to take more personal risks to get ahead. But we can only compete if our government makes the investments that give us a fighting chance- and if we know that our families have some net beneath which they cannot fall. That's a bargain with the American people worth making." (p.187).

"No one is exempt from the call to find common ground," (p.68). 

"There is a constant danger, in the cacophony of voices, that a politician loses his moral bearings and finds himself entirely steered by the winds of public opinion," (p.65).

Kind of a Georgist quote about Hamilton: "Hamilton understood that only through liberation of capital from local landed interests could America tap into its most powerful resource- name the energy and enterprise of the American people," (p.151).

A quote from President Kennedy: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich," (p.314). 

On Progress and Poverty by Henry George

Progress and Poverty, by Henry George, was incredibly forward thinking for its time, 1879. Pre-car, internet, World War I and World War II, Henry George approached many modern topics in his book on inequality. It's crazy to think that great thinkers like Jose Marti and FDR praised him and even Alfred Russell Wallace ranked Poverty and Progress above his own work, Origin of Species, for best book of the century. He was so popular he beat Teddy Roosevelt in a race for Mayor of New York City. And now, we don't even hear about the guy. During his time, Henry George was remarkably relevant, but his ideas still hold weight today. 

Fundamentally, Henry George shifted my perspective on the origin of capital (labor) and how property values actually increase with more neighbors. It took me awhile to understand George's baseline that capital and wages come from labor, not the other way around. Without labor, there is no revenue to pay wages. When simplifying the scenario, a farmer would labor in their fields to produce wages (food) and capital (revenue from selling any extra). This line of logic is actually, ironically, how our country ended up funding farmers in the midwest so many loans in the 80s, they couldn't pay them back when receiving diminishing returns on the soil. 

On the point of labor, George asserts that more labor, assuming no exploitation, means higher wages for people. Obviously, in the system as we know it, there are charges for what he calls "rent," using the property. George insists though, that charging money for the value of land without labor is essentially exploitation. Further, the baseline argument of this book is that, without a land value tax, greed will always cause famine, regardless of what the Earth can give us: 

"When we reflect upon the great fertility of Hindostan, it is amazing to consider the frequency of famine. It is evidently not owing to any sterility of soil or climate; the evil must be traced to some political cause, and it requires but little penetration to discover it in the avarice and extortion of various governments," (p.96).

With the same line of logic as the wages, George also rips Malthusian theory apart by saying that, for every mouth there are two hands. More people should mean more food, not less. Evidently this has been true, but the limit of environmental resources is real today. Back then, land was never ending. 

What I really appreciate about the idea of the land value tax is that it's anti-speculation. As a Floridian, I, at first, thought it could be used to prevent speculation and sprawl. George states "the destruction of speculative land values would tend to diffuse population where it is too dense and to concentrate it where it is too sparse;" (p.361) however, implementing this from a land use perspective sounds like endless suburban sprawl. It seems like the land value tax could be used as a mechanism to say "if you have it, use it!" Again, putting this into the context of time, I hear where he's coming from. But, he has a point that land speculation is a dangerous practice for our entire economy:

"Land speculation is the true cause of industrial depression...In each period of industrial activity land values have steadily risen, culminating in speculation which carried them up in great jumps. This has invariably been followed by a [recession]." (p.217)

On the value of neighbors, George pontificates on the fact that, a single home and lot in the middle of nowhere has little value. Once more people come with their businesses, services, and community, you have built value. This, intrinsically, is why cities are valuable places to live. So valuable he says that: "you may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota to the wealth of the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion; but among its public buildings will be an almshouse." (p.239).

The land value tax, though it makes sense in theory and for this time period, has one tremendous flaw: it assumes government is an effective service provider that will redistribute wealth properly and fairly. Frankly, George may be astonished at the complex systems we have today just to get people some food. 

The book tries to address inequality and injustices in the way wealth is distributed. George goes so far at the end to tie the land value tax heavily to freedom and God. Land value tax says that the current system of property taxes punishes people for improving land, where we should incentivize it by taxing the land underneath two lots next to each other the same. By freeing workers of the burden of creating rent and then paying rent to landowners, the land value tax would redistribute wealth in such a way that poverty could be eliminated, assuming government can correctly implement this, and that true progress only comes the closer we get to equality. "Between democratic ideas and aristocratic adjustments of society there is an irreconcilable conflict," (p.442). 

Overall, George was incredible at reframing ideas which I implicitly believed such as wages coming from capital. He treated this book like a mathematical proof, disproving current notions step by step. I really enjoyed reading this book. It challenged me and was kind of fun to read old political economy. Unfortunately, I don't think the land value tax would work here, but I like where he was headed. 

Thanks, Jeremy, for this book!

On Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country by William Greider

This book took me a long time to read, but in the scheme of things, I zoomed through 900 pages! Overall, William Greider surprised me with how progressive the writing was. It seems like wealth gaps are a primary source of economic inefficiency. P.371, referring to the 1929-30 Recession, “by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify reinvestment of their capital accumulations." This was fundamentally the explanation for why Reaganomics never worked, but I appreciated the technical viewpoint coming from an expert. 

I loved the story of the how the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was created between FDR and Marriner Eccles. “It is only fair you should know that formidable opposition has developed,’ Roosevelt said, ‘However, I don’t give a damn. That opposition is coming from the boys whom I am not following,” (p.378.) We need more bold leadership. One of the lessons I learned from this book is that technocratic leadership is not always the best. “These analysts were said to be rational and disinterested in a way that democratic politics was not,” (p.651), and yet, the political pressures relayed by representations from the real economy were valid, real experiences of the Fed’s policymaking decisions. It is always important to consider technical, economic, 'hard data' in policymaking but, fundamentally our policymakers must be responsive to American's concerns. Politics has more of a place in policymaking than I fully realized. 

To beat inflation, Volcker wanted wages to fall, just like the case right now with the Fed. But, as cited by a steelworker, “what’s happened in this economy is that higher wages have been busted down, everyone pushed down to a lower wage, even a minimum wage. Yeah there are people back to work, but what kind of money are they making?” p.721. Suicides were high. “Organized labor never really recovered from the recession,” (p.722). This was also a fundamental switch between parties where labor lost ground in the Democratic Party. This was discussed heavily in Stayin' Alive. Politically, Democrats now supported the Fed, Republicans returned to a semblance of populism and were far from a balanced budget, in fact, created a tremendous deficit and were unknowingly relying on Keynesian economics to kickstart the economy while preaching monetarism. Reagan deliberately fused nationalism and capitalism and basically was technically totally off base in economic policy. 

Further, while inflation occurred, homeownership was an effective way to redistribute wealth from creditors to debtors due to the loss of value in real dollars of loans and mortgages. As inflation was curbed, the millions of middle class families who had been able to afford a home were now in deeper debt than they had signed up for. (p.679).

While the Fed seems technocratic and unfazed, their constituency is just different than everyone else's. The Fed's constituency, at this time, was not Americans, savings & loans, or small banks, but panicky bondholders. “In effect, the national government’s management of the economy was being guided by the self-interest commentaries from a few hundred thousand financial experts in Wall Street,” (p.631), aka, the bond market. Ultimately, “what was good for this affluent minority of citizens, of course, might or might not be good for the rest of the country,” (p.452)...it wasn't. We ended up concentrating money in the hands of the wealthy. 

I learned a lot from this book but do wish the author explained more of the basics of economics. There really are a lot of parallels between now and the 1980s. Hopefully this time, working Americans come out on top. Thanks, Jeremy, for the recommendation!

On Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk

Body Keeps the Score, by Bessel van der Kolk will probably be the last book (for now) of my foray into what I intended to be healthcare but ended up being mostly psychiatry. I have learned a lot about the practice and myself. This book is focused on traumatic stress: what it is, who can have it, how it affects people, and how to heal. Psychiatry has been an interesting topic to learn about because much of it is intuitive and relatable, but intricately related physiological health, too. This book touched on ACEs, which I read about in The Deepest Well and very briefly on pharmaceutical drugs. It was interesting to frame the context of the author's disappointment that EEGs had sort of gained popularity until pharmacology became a powerful market force...thanks Arthur Sackler. Van der Kolk even cited examples of LEGOs in pediatrician's offices printed with "Risperdal" on them. The author made it clear he preferred not to support medication where unnecessary. 

Understanding trauma: the root cause of a lot trauma is the sense of immobilization- a lack of self-efficacy and empowerment. Then, "when a circuit fires repeatedly, it can become a default setting" (p.71). This recipe for shut-down or hyperarousal reduces quality of life and can remove a layer of protective action that comes with feeling worthy of defense. Furthermore, many traumatic experiences are not processed because of a lack of a sense of safety. "Being able to feel safe with other people is probably the single most important aspect of mental health," (p.96). 

This is particularly true during childhood, where one study showed "the more secure the attachment, the less painkiller was needed," (p.142) for kids in physical pain. "Receiving a sympathetic response cushions infants (and adults) against extreme levels of frightened arousal. But if your caregivers ignore your needs, or resent your very existence, you learn to anticipate rejection and withdrawal...and your body is likely to remain in a state of high alert," (p.145). I also learned about child development and how separation from mothers at birth can have epigenetic implications to tend towards "impulsivity, aggression, sensation seeking, suicide attempts, and severe depression," (p.185). Furthermore, that sense of danger, emotionally or physically, leaves adults "likely to have a childlike part living inside...that is frozen in time, still holding fast to this kind of self-loathing and denial," (p.332) making it even harder to heal. 

The author spent a significant piece of the book explaining different therapies: experimental drugs like MDMA; Internal Family Systems Therapy, EMDR, neurofeedback, theater as therapy, and how dreams really process trauma. It was fascinating to learn how the brain and the mind can be so different. 

Overall, I really liked this book. It was empowering and engaging to read. Thank you to my fiancee and a future psychiatrist, Josh, for this recommendation.

On Empire of Pain by Patrick Radden

This book was so good I read the afterword. Empire of Pain by Patrick Radden chronicles the eccentricities and lives of the Sackler Family. I also really enjoyed how modern this issue is. Most of the nonfiction I read takes place before I was born, so this was amazing to read about the relationship with the Trump Administration so recently and to see, through my job, Orange County's settlements with big pharma for the opioid crisis. One of the more fun parts of reading this book was putting the timeline into perspective. The Sacklers lived through the Red Scare, which Robert Moses, of Power Broker, participated in. They eventually moved into a mansion on Long Island, which Moses probably built the road around. And the guy who they dealt with at the Met, Rorimer, worked under Moses. Additionally, they directly profited off of the widespread depression and anxiety of youth and rural people during the 1970s anti-union rhetoric described in Stayin' Alive through the innovative marketing of Valium. 

As immigrants in New York, there was heavy pressure from their family to become doctors. Arthur, Raymond, and Mortimer Sackler obliged, all becoming psychiatrists and experimenting in the Creedmoor asylum. Arthur Sackler was pretty much the patriarch of his family, leading the biological experimentation and paying for his brothers' medical school.

At the end of World War II, chemical companies were mass producing drugs and Arthur Sackler had a model to follow. Arthur revolutionized drug advertising directly to doctors and produced studies which they cited. The Sacklers held a few fundamental beliefs which exonerated them, in their minds, of any wrongdoing: 1) doctors could do no harm 2) abuse of drugs was the abuser's fault.

Something kind of interesting about this family is the cognitive dissonance between giving and cruelty. Their socialistic roots ingrained a desire to give, but their gifts 1) included complex stipulations about how their names would be used and 2) the gifts were only available because of their greed. Similarly, I did not realize that most schools like Harvard and NYU had maximums for Jews and that many workplaces did not hire Jews. This further complicates the character of these individuals. They made a point to hire people who could not get hired elsewhere. 

1960 is where Arthur really began the scheme of producing one drug at Purdue Frederick, advertising it through McAdams, and legitimizing it through the medical journal he owned, Medical Tribune. He created fake competition, in the advertising market as well as drugs (Librium vs. Valium). The Sacklers made their first fortune off of Valium, "the mostly widely consumed- and most widely abused- prescription drug in the world," (p.75). 

Character-wise, Arthur Sackler and his brothers seem to have resembled many wealthy people who came before them. Like Addison Mizner from a previous book, Arthur collected art vociferously. "You put your name on something it is not charity, it's philanthropy. You get something for it. If you want your name on it, it's a business deal," - Michael Sonnenreich, Arthur's attorney (p.86). "What philanthropy really buys is immortality," (p.115). It was clear the Sacklers were in it for fame and celebrity on their terms. 

Arthur Sackler set the stage for what was to come with OxyContin, developing the mechanisms and future of medicine advertising. Arthur died first, but his brothers, Raymond and Mortimer were taking care of the family business. Mortimer was a traveler who dealt with the international business, Mundipharma, and acquired a pharmaceutical company in London called Napp. Napp developed what would become MS Contin in the late 1970s. Once again, to put this into perspective for the mood in America, Stayin Alive highlighted the depression of this time, making it ripe for drug abuse. Mortimer brought MS Contin to America without applying for FDA permission, getting people illegally hooked. Even when the FDA did get involved, Purdue paid them off. The FDA allowed, for the first time, what were effectively advertising statements on drug warnings. Meanwhile, Purdue began the decades-long campaign of de-stigmatizing pain. They hired doctors to speak at symposiums, sent salespeople directly to doctor's offices, and obscured any traces of culpability. 

The second generation of Sacklers were even more greedy. As the patent for MS Contin was running out, Purdue actually turned on itself and said MS Contin did not work, people must use OxyContin. They knew how powerful this drug is, but "confirmed that the intention was to expand the use of OxyContin...to chronic non-malignant pain" (p.208). The FDA was derelict in their duty to regulate these drugs; the Revolving Door was real. After the FDA approved OxyContin in nearly record time, the individual who facilitated this approval got a job at Purdue making $400,000 in his first year. 

Their sales team targeted rural areas and areas where there was a higher number of worker's compensation claims. Knowing what they were in for, they hired Eric Holder, Rudy Giuliani, and Mary Jo White for their lawyer team, headed by Howard Udell. Jay McCloskey, the individual who first raised alarms about OxyContin, got hired at Purdue. Even James Comey was involved. Then-Senator Joe Biden raised the alarms on the opioid crisis. Mike Pence, as governor of Indiana in 2016, signed a law for mandatory minimums for any street level dealers. Mike Bloomberg was a family friend. It all runs so deep. In 2003, our own Orlando Sentinel's Doris Bloodsworth published an in-depth series about OxyContin. According to Purdue Staff, "83% of patients who were admitted to substance abuse treatment centers had started using opioids by swallowing them," (p.352). 

"Between 1994 and 2015, the quota of oxycodone that the DEA permitted to be legally manufactured was raised thirty-six times," (p.413). Further, they were working with the Trump administration: "A decision had been made at high levels of the Trump administration that this matter would be resolved quickly and with a soft touch," (p.479). The evidence against the Sacklers is so damning, it's insane. This leads us to where we are today. Tomorrow, April 26, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners is accepting a settlement from TEVA, Allergan, and CVS for their role in the opioid crisis in Orange County. 

Overall, this book really showed me how evil people can be. It read like a true crime novel and condemned the Sacklers for good. I think this might be one of the best books I'll read all year. Thank you, Jeremy!

On Girls & Sex by Peggy Orenstein

Once again, pretty sure this is the most I've read (for fun) in years. Sad to say but happy it's happening!

This week, I finished Girls & Sex by Peggy Orenstein. This book was OK. I think it could have used a trigger warning. Ultimately, as a woman, it reinforced my own life experiences, so there wasn't too much new information for me. It was no surprise that abstinence-only education had negative impacts on sexual health for all genders and sexual orientations and that the best way to keep kids safe and away from other risky behavior in general is to give them all the information. I think this book is probably best to be read by young boys and young girls. 

The book aims to address deficiencies in sexual education for women, including the new trend of young women to 'reclaim' their sexuality by participating in pornography. This topic is tricky because how can someone tell the 'empowered' person that their experience is untrue? It is difficult to touch this without coming off as, frankly, kind of supercilious. The author has a good point though, "those performers [who are empowered by sexualization] still work within a system that, for the most part, demands women look and present their bodies in a particular way," (p.25). Further, is it empowerment if, instead of your body being an object it is a product? Fundamentally, I agree that it can't be true empowerment. Engaging in sexual content creation has clear limits on physical and sexual health and is probably negative for women long-term. 

The book did identify things that subconsciously objectify and normalize violence against women. "In the study of behaviors in popular porn, nearly 90% of 304 random scenes contained physical aggression toward women, while close to half contained verbal humiliation...More insidiously, women would sometimes initially resist abuse, begging their partners to stop; when that didn't happen, they acquiesced and began to enjoy" it, no matter how hurtful it was (p.31). This is so horrible. We can't blame young men who see this and are taught that women want this, or young women who see this and feel like that's what men want and are taught they must toe the line between being sexy but not a slut; wanting it but not too much; and without any guidance. Many young girls are not taught how to have a voice, particularly in a sexual context. It is overwhelmingly common for girls to participate in oral sex "to avoid conflict," (p.48). 

Here are a few salient quotes:

"[Women] learn that sex is a performance rather than a felt experience," (p.3)

"Fully half the girls had experienced something along a spectrum of coercion to rape," (p.5)

Referring to advertisements, "as a man, he used his body; as a woman, she displayed it," (p.13). 

Overall, the book was 4/5. I wish there was more of a plan to get better sex education in schools and at home. I also think it could have covered lesbian and gender-nonconforming relationships more. Even progressive parents have a hard time discussing this issue. It's taboo for all of us, but our kids' health depends on the conversation. Thanks to my brother, Jeremy, for the recommendation.

On Bubble in the Sun by Christopher Knowlton

Pleased with myself to have finished another book in March! This is probably the most I've read in years.

I'll be honest- I didn't love this book. Bubble in the Sun is about the Florida land boom of the 1920s. It examines the ambitions and eccentricities of all of Florida's major developers in the 1920s, focusing on 4: Henry Flagler, Carl Fisher, Addison Mizner, George Merrick. Primarily it asserts that the Florida land boom helped precipitate the Great Depression. I struggle with this topic (development) as a whole- I'm an environmentalist and want to protect Florida at all costs, but without development I would never have known its beauty. I suppose that's kind of selfish, but I can understand where Flagler was coming from when he first arrived in Miami. Florida started as a place to heal and we've been the 'Florida Man' of the US since Carl Fisher arrived. Even Charles Ponzi, of Ponzi Schemes, came here. 

So, here we are now in Bubble in the Sun: "Florida in the 1870s remained...an undeveloped wilderness of dense pinewoods, impassable palmetto jungle, and tangled mangrove swamps...the vast interior was largely unexplored...the state could accurately be described as America's last frontier," (p.13).  In 1885- "Palm Beach had three houses, two families living in two of them," (p.35) right around the time of Guy Bradley. The book discussed the hunting of egrets and herons by tourists - just like what Guy Bradley was addressing as the first FWC officer. I dislike the Manifest Destiny-style phrasing of development here because it implies that development is civilization, that nature is something to be conquered, and that its development was inevitable. The complexity of our ecosystems commands respect; nature will never be conquered; and we can protect our land. I appreciated the sparse acknowledgements of ecological destruction and natural disaster, but he could have done more. This was a frustration I had throughout the book, as the author seemed to come from the Manifest Destiny philosophy which I fundamentally take issue with. There were chapters like "Trail Blazers" which glorified the process of blowing up our foundational limestone and displacing the Seminoles and a strong focus on the quirky nature of the characters instead of their ruthless greed. From the get-go, "The Everglades were already the site of rancorous battles over land use," (p.47). 

One part of reading this book that made it more interesting was my prior understanding of the history of Florida and one of my favorite books, the Murder of Guy Bradley. It was also interesting to read that characters like Al Smith and Robert Moses from a previous book, The Power Broker, also appeared in Florida at this time. The author added a global context citing the Teapot Dome Scandal, Hitler's writing of Mein Kampf, and Benito Mussolini's facism (p.224). 

Another issue I had with the book was how little it discussed the workers who actually built Florida. I did like the brief history fun fact on Dana A. Dorsey, a black carpenter who was one of Florida's first black millionaires. When Carl Fisher began building Miami Beach, no black people were allowed to drive in Miami Beach. The law was rescinded in 1918 because white tourists wanted to have black chauffeurs. (p.66). The restrictions against buying property or frequenting the hotels often applied to Jews and black people- unless, of course, the Jews ran successful corporations. Additionally, "Florida would boast the shameful distinction of leading the nation in the ratio of lynchings per capita" (p.99). Further, the Tamiami Trail was built by slave labor through convict leasing and there were "convict trustees" who were rewarded if they shot any convict who attempted to escape (p.117). Absolutely appalling. Furthermore, during and after the 1924 Hurricane, the farming towns like Moore Haven and Belle Glade were almost fully overlooked in infrastructure repair and "1,800 to 2,500 mostly black Bahamian and Haitian farmworkers" drowned (p.258). The du Pont family built the St Joe Paper Mill- still polluting black communities in the Panhandle. 

I will say Henry Flagler seemed like the nicest one of all the developers. He seemed to genuinely love Florida and wanted to build it out. That being said, he came as a railroad and oil magnate and took advantage of our system which promoted railroads. He claimed "eight thousand acres for every mile of track that he laid, he temporarily seized control of two million acres of land at no additional cost," (p.22). While the federal government caught wind of this and reduced his acreage to 210,000 Flagler wasn't innocent in his land speculation. Frank Shutts moved to Orlando in the late 1890s and moved to Miami in 1903 to start the first paper in Miami, now the Miami Herald. He was Flagler's railroad lawyer and facilitated the first land swaps here. His firm, Shutts and Bowen, still facilitates some of the most wetland destruction in the state. Furthermore, Flagler made villages for his black workers one example being the now known Overtown in Miami, promoting segregation. 

Now we welcome Addison Mizner to Florida from New York in 1918 who called himself the "greatest cathedral looter in the world" (p.51). Mizner was integral in popularizing Spanish and Mediterranean architecture in Florida. He seemed to be a quirky guy - kind of absent-minded and unfocused, very friendly, and liked to host. Then, we have George Merrick, the man who built Coral Gables as a premier planned development and turned Florida into "a subdivision civilization," (p.88). He was aspirational and bankrupted the City while scamming out-of-towners. Finally, we meet Carl Fisher, a 'new money' clown from Indiana whose boat racing stunts and flagrant disregard for the law eventually brought characters like Al Capone to Florida. There was minimal financial regulation at the time as people leveraged mortgages and traded land as though they were stock options. Florida was well known as the state that ignored Prohibition Laws, and was effectively a Las Vegas of the time. 

It was cool to see the names that originated our counties and distinguished places- Willis Polk, Napoleon Broward, Henry Flagler, Addison Mizner, Carl Fisher (Fisher Island), Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were friends, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, David Fairchild, William Jennings Bryan, Baron Collier, Coleman du Pont, J.C. Penney, Harvey S. Firestone, William Vanderbilt, Al Smith (former Governor of NY), John W. Martin, George Sebring, Joseph Young, Paris Singer, Edward Ball, and Eddie Rickenbacker. 

Many of these developers bought their land and homes prior to even seeing them in person, just like the people they sold to. On the Tamiami Trail, "speculation began immediately on the largely wet and once worthless land on either side of the road and canal," (p.116). "[Florida] was an easy state for man to ruin, and he has ruined it with ruthless efficiency," (p.121). So many people from out of state were getting scammed, Ohio passed laws preventing Florida real estate firms from obtaining licenses to operate there (p.186). Developers ran Florida then and they run Florida now. One said "no piece of land, no place in the world, is worth more than it can earn, developed to its highest and best use," (p.165). We literally have statutes which reflect the right of development to a piece of lands highest and best use. Governor at the time asked for responsible reporting and not what was effectively 'fake news.' 

Anyway, after several years of land speculation and selling worthless lots to out-of-state individuals, land ran out and the Florida land boom died out in 1929. "Housing is the business cycle," and as the Florida economy busted, it brought the national stock market with it. It must be acknowledged that many of the power players in the Florida land boom were power players in the national stock market. When they began losing money in Florida, stock market instability set in. For context, the "top 5% of the country held 90%. of the wealth," (p.275). "Sugar-growing interests and the cattle ranchers soon displaced the development community" in political clout (p.310) now we have all three. Ending the book with a quote by Walter Fuller, one of the principal auctioneers and sellers of property, "We just ran out of suckers...We became the suckers," (p.316). "Florida... made money for those who had money," (p.193).

And yet, even those who facilitated the boom and bust, the organized scam and speculation, still came out ok. They may have been battered but, for example, after George Merrick lost his entire fortune at Coral Gables and brought his lot owners with him, he was appointed to the Dade County Planning Commission. He actively supported the creation of Everglades National Park, but he was too little too late in my book.

Overall, this book was just ok. Thank you Goodreads for the recommendation. 

On The Deepest Well by Dr. Nadine Burke Harris

The Deepest Well by Dr. Nadine Burke Harris opened my eyes to a new world of information and a new layer of understanding. This book focuses on the way adverse childhood experiences, ACEs, affect biological outcomes. Dr. Burke Harris is excellent at illustrating technical topics in a logical, easy-to-follow way. This book was a great read because it was intuitive. It relates the stress in our everyday lives to an understanding *how* the mood works. "Once you understand how your body and brain are primed to react in certain situations, you can start to be proactive about how you approach things," (p.226). I felt like I got a much deeper understanding of myself through reading this book. 

One of the most shocking facts was "a person with four or more ACEs was twice as likely to develop heart disease and cancer and three and a half times as lack to develop COPD as a person with zero ACEs" (p.46). 

The most salient example of how helpful regular screening of ACEs could be is the example of the many young kids who get prescribed ADHD medicine. The student may act out in class or have a short attention span. Instead of only prescribing medicine, which, of course, has its place, screening for at-home issues can get to the root of a chemical imbalance or inappropriate stress response. Instead of 'zombifying' our kids, giving them therapy and a strong 'buffer' individual in their lives could allow them reset mentally and get back on track hormonally. I learned a lot about the importance of a loving caregiver and a solid support network. So many times, people's trauma makes them shut their loved ones out. But letting them in actually heals. 

One of the most amazing things is the effect exercise, meditation, healthy eating, healthy relationships, and sleeping can have on our lives biochemically. "Even in areas much better off than Bayview, toxic stress was essentially invisible to the health-care system...toxic stress is an unseen epidemic affecting every single community," (p.98). She reflects: "I was worried that the issue was being framed as a 'poor-people problem' or a 'black-and-brown problem" (p.165). "We can't treat what we refuse to see," (p.180).  Burke Harris emphasizes that ACEs exist in rural white communities, immigrant communities, African American communities, and Native American communities. In an effort to bring light to the disproportionate effects all major issues have on impoverished communities, I could see how people could isolate affluent communities that may look like they have it all together but are also suffering. 

The end was triumphant and emotional, begging all of us to find the courage to address our own pain so that we may protect and love others. Read more about ACEs here. Thank you to Sue Foreman for this recommendation!

On Stayin Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class

Stayin Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class is written by Jefferson Cowie. The book chronicles the power of unions and collective bargaining through historical fact and cultural relevance. Cowie began by providing context for previous union power during the 30s, under the post-war union boom where they became "immense and effective bulwarks" in the political process (p.36). This membership is what I typically thinks of as unions- coal workers, mine workers, hard industry, generally white and male. What this book explained is that, yes, those individuals are the backbone of American unions. But as industry is outsourced, the backbone of America is increasingly immigrants, non-white individuals, and farm workers who did not achieve the same political potency as their white male counterparts. This is important because still today we see ramifications of the way politicians in the 70s saw the political significance of white male workers as a voting bloc. I hate to see this in a purely political sense, as I much prefer policy, but it is interesting to see the way messaging then and now has stayed consistent and left certain "blocs" out of the narrative. 

This book provided excellent context for me, as a young person, to understand current union relations in the US of A. Missing out on the real life experience of the 30s boom and the 70s bust of union power, this book provided tremendous insight. Another interesting aspect of this book is the inspirational and aspirational nature of various union's most popular (but not always most effective) leaders. Those who were young, outspoken, with a new vision, and willing to "stand up to the man" were those who won and were subsequently targeted and even killed by union leadership. In a powerful example of union asks Gary Bryner, leader of a strike in Lordstown, OH, said "They just want to be treated with dignity...That's not asking a hell of a lot," (p.61). Bryner is right. Unfortunately it seems like so many Americans fundamentally want to believe in the system we have; they want to have hope. But they just keep getting let down.

Documenting the booms and busts of union power, Cowie moves to the Table Grape Industry Strike in Delano, California. After five years of strikes, "the union now had contracts with nearly the entire California table grape industry," (p.62).  While this success was fantastic, union workers then had to understand "how to function as a union rather than a social movement" (p.62). This distinction is important because we still see disappointing failures and conflations of movements with actual policy movement. In demonstrating the solidarity for table grape workers seen nationally, one Chicana describes an experience in which she asked two young white men to support the boycott who turned around to show "giant United Auto Workers emblems" on their jackets and said "We're all for you. We're all for you." (p.64). This solidarity gave me chills. But, of course, the biggest challenge and failure, was "finding stability and lasting institutional presence for the insurgent power of the social movement," (p.64).

Relevant to today's social movements is the quote, "We all knew how to go out there and raise all kinds of hell and all that, but administration? We didn't have that kind of experience," (p.65). I think this is where the delicate balance between revolutionary/novel and jaded/experienced must be struck. Consistently, our social movements with great potential fail due to poor administration. 

As George Wallace began dividing and attracting white male union workers who were losing their social standing, the breakaway from the Democratic Party began. "Wallace drew together the segregationist South with anti-liberal northerners fearful of blacks moving into their neighborhoods, questioning the protests and the urban riots, and feeling, above all, simply forgotten," (p.100).

Nixon capitalized on this division, explaining that his team knew that they did not and would not deliver for the actual working class. So they targeted their emotions. "It was in workers and the labor leadership- the traditional backbone of New Deal politics-  that new faith and renewal could be found for the Republican Party," (p.157). "There may not even be consensus on what 'moral and spiritual values ought to be,' Nixon confessed, 'but they agree that you ought to have some,'" (p.158). On the same note, "the appearance of action...was at least as important, if not more so, than the reality of it...Nixon said 'everybody here now [needs] to start thinking politically, instead of worrying about running things well," (p.181). "In many ways, the blue-collar strategy offered the worst type of identity politics- place of pride but place without economic substance," (p.201). Fundamentally, people's emotions and feelings of being forgotten dictated their voting patterns: "The blue collar worker will be progressive as long as it is not progress for everyone but himself," (p.101).

Moving into the cultural analysis of this book, Nixon co-opted Merle Haggard and country music for his politics. The politics of the masculine man are foundational in country music. "Country music...had become valuable cultural territory in the decade's national political wars," (p.211). "Few have adequately explored the failure of the Left to create an alternative cultural synthesis that could appeal to the white working class," (p.225). I really loved the emphasis on music and cinema this book. It builds a really holistic cultural analysis. This is funny because musicians from Jerry Garcia to Merle Haggard listened to each other's music and seemed to like it. Which makes sense because I love both. The interesting theme in this as well is the prevailing conviction that the 70s hippie protests had the right idea - no one really wanted to go to war - but "the protestors' methods were wrong," (p.225). The political and financial implications of what was popular impacted Merle Haggard's musical liberty to make songs he liked. Many artists in the subgenre "outlaw country" from Willie Nelson to Johnny Cash distinguished between 'real country' and 'Nashville country.' This was an interesting overlap between my personal love of country music and the political-financial exploitation of it

On the note of the “right” way to protest, "animal metaphors served to separate 'the behavior of the discontented poor (striking, rioting, looting, boycotting) from the conditions that shape their discontent'" to invalidate their methods of expression. "History teaches us that a thin line connects the orderly and the disorderly, but the animal metaphor transmutes that thin line into...a crevice that separates 'us' from 'them'" (p276). This tactic has been used in recent Black Lives Matter protests as well.

Back to music - As the war raged on and the hippie generation lost hope, rock and roll diverged from its folky and blues roots into cultural liberation with psychedelic and progressive rock. Music was no longer grounded in tradition or hard work but escapism with drugs or into the woods. The 1970s was, frankly, a morally bankrupt time for all. Young people moved to disco and hard drugs and working class identity was at an all time low as racial and religious identity moved further and further apart. The drugs, street racing, and crime were "merely an escape from the dreary existential suicide of the work-a-day world," (p.426).

This part of the book was interesting too because we know history repeats itself as it pertains especially to political messaging on young, idealistic, educated, “liberal elite”. After all, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan was directly taken from Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign. Today, people in my generation are riddled with mental health disorders and want to escape. As we face a war in Ukraine and climate change reports getting worse and worse, I can't blame them. Additionally, there was an interesting, very personal reason to hate the 'liberated woman' - "it threatens the basis on which their own marital bargains are built," (p.312). The family values reaction wasn't always religious, it was personal. For context, "This happened all while the nation was facing both an energy criss and debating national labor law reform legislation" while 'limousine liberals' were asking for rights that everyone felt they already had. (p.324). 

Further, moving into the economic strife struck by stagflation, workers lost any real power to negotiate with businesses as they symbolically gained political clout with Republicans, while losing roots to class. As the idea of the welfare state became an evil but also a social safety net, the New Deal coalition was really lost. In 1978, "business achieved virtual domination of the legislative process by the end of the decade" (p.286). Another sad quote, "the side which attempts to play fair and follow the rules is going to end up the loser," (p.292). Racially, the "burden of integration would fall disproportionately on the poor of both races," and "class is America's dirty little secret, pervasive and persistent, yet rarely confronted in public policy," (p.306). In addition to the cultural changes, racial strife, economic insecurity, struck the country at all classes. "Working class women suffered a double dose of the hidden injuries. 'As white people who haven't made it, we are living proof of the American lie and we hate ourselves for it," (p.309). And black and queer women feel this triple and quadruple. And then, feminism was dominated by white middle class women, disconnected from the poor women of color in union. 

Again on the culture, the cinema of this time is shockingly violent with those portrayed as white working class saying they want to and are killing hippies. They talk about acting "black and the money rolls in. Set fire to the cities, burn a few buildings..you get money and jobs...fourty-two percent of all liberals are queer," (p.239). Frankly, I almost didn't want to include this quote because it was so shocking. Everyone hates the counter culture. Again shocking, Nixon literally said "'strong societies,' like Russia, 'Goddamn, they root em' out," (p.248). Also had an interesting analysis about the characters in Jaws - the educated scientist who came in from out of town, the working class old-timer who failed, and the prevailing working class father, "the patriarchal strong man who has finally risen to the occasion," (p.259). As a result of all of this cultural change, McGovern, who was undeniably providing material gains for labor, lost the election. Nixon was right. And, of course, the PATCO strike and Reagan's response was the nail in the coffin for labor. 

We had come to a point where business had so much power that employers knew "that if that day of reckoning eventually arrives, the price of settling up will be cheap," (p.362). United Auto Workers Union President Douglas Fraser said, "I would rather sit with the rural poor, the desperate children of urban blight, the victims of racism, and working people seeking a better life tan with those whose religion is the status quo, whose goal is profit, and whose hearts are cold," (p.372). "What is called sound finance is very often what mirrors the needs of the respectably affluent," (p.377). 

Quoting Ted Kennedy at the 1980 Democratic Convention, one of my favorite speakers in one of my favorite speeches, "Our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman," (p.386). Of course, having framed this speech with the context provided by the book, I can see now why the 1980 election was a miserable failure for Democrats. 

In closing the book, "whatever working-class identity might emerge from the postmodern, global age… will have to be less abut consumption and more about democracy...it will have to be more inclusive in conception… than previous incarnations," (461). Reflecting on the political implications of the complete breakdown of a temporary yet salient moment of class solidarity, America's greatness has always been fueled by the working class and their zeal for a better life.  Hope is a fundamentally human characteristic. Politics hurts- Nixon and Reagan exploited this while Democrats failed in messaging (again). Anyway, this book was a fantastic and holistic exploration of political clout in the 70s and I loved it. 

Big thanks to my brother, Jeremy, for recommending this excellent book. 

On Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens

 Proud to have finished another book this January. Impressed by the last fiction book, I picked up Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens. 

While this book had fewer salient quotes, it was a riveting read and kept me up at night. Where the Crawdads Sing details the traumatic life of main character Kya, through loss no child should go through, particularly because she did not lose so much as she was left. The book is beautifully written with exquisite description. My favorite part of the book was the descriptions of nature. While reading, I found myself particularly mindful of all the birds I saw. 

This book also reminds the reader of the importance of an inner child, and how it is shaped. With so much pain so early on, Kya acts sheepish and bizarre, further isolating her from society. The plot becomes intertwined with young love, making things a bit complicated. However, I found her relationship with one of the young boys touching and, towards the end, disappointing. 

Overall, I really liked this book and would recommend it. The writing is illustrative with an interesting plot that can touch anyone. However, I always find myself a little bit unfulfilled at the end of a fiction book. Not always sure what I am looking for that would fix that. Maybe I just don't like it when books end!

Thank you to my good friend Taylor for the recommendation!

On The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs

Happy to have finished my first book of 2022: The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 

This book was a little different than I expected. I thought it would interact more actively with Robert Moses as a City Administrator, which I was excited for after finishing the Moses book. It was more about proper planning theory for a city. As with all non-fiction books, I hope to have some sort of applicability to my own life. This goal was limited in chances of accomplishment because a book based in New York City will have a hard time relating to Orlando, a city of much less density. However, I learned a lot and definitely found myself thinking about the book in my day-to-day walks/bike rides. The book provided excellent overarching perspectives on mixed uses, financing of buildings, government processes, and flaws in the planning profession. 

In a moment of humility and as someone who regularly derides car centric planning, I do want to give credence to Jacobs's statement: "the destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" (p12). Additionally, I would like to clarify that, for those who may have heard me rant about roads, trucking is, arguably, the most important industry in the US that must be protected. I think having fewer single passenger vehicles on the road would improve supply-chain efficiency by reducing likelihood of truckers to get caught in traffic jams, have a hard time transporting urban freight, and the like. 

A lot of the development we see today, at least in Central Florida, tends to be suburban sprawl and single family homes. Sprawl in this context refers to the unrestricted growth of spread out development, which consumes high quantities of land. In a criticism of modern suburban sprawl "the promised seclusion becomes a crowded settlement...". In seeking privacy or nature, we tend to actually destroy quite a bit of it. "It is silly to try to deny the fact that we Americans are a city people, living in a city economy- and in the process of denying this lose all the true countryside of metropolitan areas too, as we have been steadily losing it at about 3000 acres a day for the past ten years," (p.234). 

This is a harsh quote, but valid: "It is no accident that we Americans, probably the world's champion sentimentalizers about nature, are at one and the same time probably the world's most voracious and disrespectful destroyers of wild and rural countryside...each day, several thousand more acres of our countryside are eaten by bulldozers, covered by pavement, dotted with suburbanites who have killed the thing they thought they came to find. Our irreplaceable heritage of Grade I agricultural land is sacrificed for highways or supermarket parking lots as ruthlessly and unthinkingly as the trees in the woodlands are uprooted, the streams and rivers polluted and the air itself filled with the gasoline exhausts required in this great national efforts to cozy up with a fictionalized nature," (p.475). Particularly in Central Florida, it is disappointing to say the least, that our diseased citrus groves were sold to pavement and concrete instead of invested in to nurture the soil and build our local food system.

Furthermore, "High densities of dwellings and overcrowding of dwellings are often confused. High densities mean large numbers of dwellings per acre of land. Overcrowding means too many people in a dwelling for the number of rooms in contains," (p.219) I think this is an important point still missed today. When we talk about increasing density in a neighborhood, it does not mean a 10 story apartment building in the middle of a low density neighborhood, but things like duplexes, townhomes, row houses, and other creative ways to create gentle density.

On this note, one of the most interesting parts of this book for me was about financing. When I drive through newly built neighborhoods, I always think about how sad it is that everything is a chain and wonder why. Jacobs answered that question and highlighted the importance of financing in building a city. New buildings are more expensive, so only large chains or companies can afford the rent. Thus highlighting the importance of maintaining old buildings. 

Also understanding how blacklisting, similar to redlining, has systematically created slums commercially by swearing off of lending in certain areas. Apparently, at the time of writing, "New York's average dwelling density is 55 units per net residential acre," (p.218). This is good perspective and I'd really like to know the same metric for Orlando, but could not find it online. This is also interesting because, from what I've read, though many many people want greater walkability in their communities, single family homes and other low density residential uses are built due to financing safety. Single family homes seem to be a 'sure-sell' of sorts, so they are safe for financing construction.

She goes on to explain primary and secondary functions. With all of my urbanism and the new year, I've made it a goal to try to do as many trips under 4 miles without a car as possible. Last week, I walked 0.8 miles to dinner. The walk was along one of the most busy roads in Orlando, but it's busy for cars and filled with office buildings. After 5pm, it was scary to walk alone at night because it was completely vacant. Secondary uses, like restaurants could have been more intermingled in a way that would attract people after 5pm, improve safety, and bolster the local economy. 

Jane Jacobs effectively highlighted the need for diversity on our city streets- economically, by demographic, commercially, and housing diversity. We need people who stay in neighborhoods *by choice* in order to effectively unslum or improve a neighborhood, but also people who will turn over. Having too much of either creates stagnation or failure. 

Jacobs says the most important thing for local governments to mix uses is to permit it where possible. Right now, we don't do that. "Flourishing diversity anywhere in a city means the mingling of high-yield, middling-yield, low-yield, and no-yield enterprises," (p.201). "The point of cities is multiplicity of choice...[which] depend[s] also on immense concentrations of people," (p.359). 

As we consider ways to improve walkability locally, it is good to note that "the closing of streets for pedestrian use, being almost always accompanied by compensating provisions for vehicles is not attrition but reorganization of traffic," (p.381). 

After reading this book, I find myself even more aware of the importance of sidewalks- their width and primarily, their visibility. If there are public spaces without safety, they will not be used. With sidewalks too small and density too low to have any sort of frequent visibility from housing, there is little reason to expect safety on a sidewalk at night. Safety is "kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls" by the people watching the sidewalk (p.35). "Without effective eyes to see, does a light cast light? Not for practical purposes," (p.46). This point was novel, but may be flawed in reality due to things like the bystander effect. 

Describing the culture in truly dense areas, the art of the acquaintance on the street which is intimate enough that those neighbors will defend you but not so intimate that one loses privacy. This translated interestingly to how much information is known about those who receive welfare and how this dehumanizes them. I must say, the more I learn about our welfare system, the more I want to take a page of Michael Tanner's "Inclusive Economy" and rethink our welfare system in a more libertarian way- less government. Give people their basic needs, as they deserve, and don't dehumanize them with systematic mistrust only to ask why giving people a shelter without the authority to take care of it leads to failure. 

Referring to the Board of Estimate, "the eight rulers who sit behind the raised bench (we cannot call them servants of the people as the conventions of government have it, for servants would know more of their masters' affairs)," (p.432). Reveals anti-political sentiment but also appreciate the pity she gives for navigation of such an incredibly complex system. "Persons of hope, energy, and initiative who enter in the service of [government] almost have to become uncaring and resigned, for the sake of their self-preservation," (p.439). People must "work inductively, reasoning from particulars to general, rather than the reverse," (p.469) I think this is a responsible and reasonable approach to governance. 

Overall, this was a great book, though a bit dry. It was sometimes hard to get through when it focused so heavily on New York, as someone who has only been there once or twice. However, it was insightful as to systems, planning theory, community building, and financing structures.