Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

The Right Galaxy for the Right Movie (REVIEW)

The Mandalorian and Grogu
Directed by Jon Favreau

My rating: 3¾ of 5 stars

My step-daughter gifted me the ticket. She knows I am a fan of old-school Star Wars and figured I'd appreciate the excuse to go. She was right. To be honest, after The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, I have felt like Disney Star Wars has something to prove to me. The good news is that I just needed a good seat so they could show me the proof.

Favreau and Filoni earned real goodwill with the first two seasons of The Mandalorian on Disney+. They took a franchise that had lost its footing and reminded everyone what Star Wars could feel like when the people making it cared about character. Season three was uneven. The show spread itself thin and lost the intimacy that made the early episodes work. But the foundation they built was solid. I walked in with that history in mind.

The movie delivers. However, if you read the critical reception, you'd think that was somehow a problem.

The complaints run together after a while. Too simple. Low stakes. Doesn't advance the larger story. My answer to each: that was the design. This film wasn't built to carry franchise weight. It was built to spend two hours with characters audiences already love and give those characters something worth doing. Judging it against The Empire Strikes Back is like penalizing a relief pitcher for not throwing nine innings. He came in, threw strikes, and did the job he was asked to do.

The sequel trilogy is worth a brief detour, because the contrast matters. Those three films were genuinely trying to move the story forward, to land a forty-year franchise, to satisfy an impossible set of competing demands. Together they felt like a franchise committee that couldn't agree on a direction. The seams showed badly. The Mandalorian & Grogu carries none of that. It knows what it is.

Pedro Pascal plays Din Djarin with the same constrained warmth that made the first two seasons work. Favreau pushed him further here, and the physicality shows. Where Din Djarin operates from stillness and economy, the Hutt Twins fill every room they're in. Jabba's cousins, massive and imperious, they operate from a palace on Nal Hutta with the casual cruelty of people who have never once doubted their own importance. Their scheme is a double-cross layered inside a favor. They send Mando to rescue Rotta while planning to have him deliver the boy straight into a trap. When that unravels, they don't rage. They pivot to humiliation, forcing Din's helmet off in front of his captors because they know exactly what it costs him. It's a deliberate act, and it hits harder knowing that Season 3 was largely about Din redeeming himself for a previous helmet removal. That's smart villain writing. They're not just obstacles. They understand their enemy well enough to hurt him in the right place.

Favreau built the entire film for the largest available screen, designing shots using an Apple Vision Pro app that simulated the full IMAX aspect ratio on set. It shows. AT-ATs on an ice planet. A gladiator pit on Nal Hutta. Over half the film expands to fill the IMAX frame, and those are the sequences that justify the trip to the theater. Then there's Sigourney Weaver. She plays Colonel Ward, a former Rebel Alliance fighter pilot now operating inside the New Republic, and she hadn't even watched the show before Favreau called. She watched it, fell in love with it, and signed on. That matters. Weaver built her career on the best science fiction has produced: Alien, Avatar, Galaxy Quest. Serious actors don't attach themselves to projects they don't believe in. Favreau knew exactly what her presence would signal. When someone with that résumé shows up in your Star Wars movie, it tells the audience that the people making it are trying to get things right.

The part that stayed with me came in the second act, when Mando is poisoned, and Grogu takes over.

Three seasons of television, four if you count The Book of Boba Fett, built on one dynamic: the Mandalorian protects the child. Din Djarin finds Grogu, loses him, gets him back, and spends most of the series putting himself between that small green creature and everything trying to harm him. Then Mando takes a wound from a Dragonsnake and tells Grogu to leave. Grogu doesn't. He stays behind, hides his father, and goes looking for a remedy on his own, finding it through a stranger willing to help. When the roles reverse, and Grogu has to show up, to act, to refuse the order to go, the film earns something no plot mechanic could manufacture. Favreau and Filoni built toward that moment across two seasons. The movie is where it lands.

Grogu's growth doesn't feel sudden. It feels accumulated. He's been learning slowly over years of storytelling. The second act isn't a twist. It's a recognition. You're watching a character arrive somewhere he's been heading for a long time.

There's something familiar in that feeling. Pride mixed with surprise when someone you've watched grow up handles a hard moment without being asked. The relationship between Din Djarin and Grogu has always been built on a sense of parenthood more than anything else. When Grogu refuses to leave, you recognize something true: you don't raise someone and then get to be surprised when they show up.

Any parent watching that second act knows exactly what Favreau is reaching for. You spend years being the one who protects. Then the child grows into someone who protects back. Judge a thing for what it set out to do. That's always been my rule. But this film reminded me it applies to people too. Not an accident. That's the whole point of raising someone.

Is The Mandalorian & Grogu a great film? No. The plot is thin in places, but it doesn't pretend otherwise. However, it's a solid one. The bar was a summer movie that rewards years of investment in these characters. It clears that bar.

For most of the critics who've piled on, that wasn't enough. I think they were judging the wrong thing.

The Mandalorian & Grogu set out to make you care about two characters you already loved, earn a moment of real growth, and send you back into the summer heat feeling like it was worth your afternoon. This blog has always been about showing up: for the people you love, for the stories worth telling, for the moments that matter even when nobody's keeping score. Grogu showed up for his father when it counted. That's the whole point.

Read more of my reviews.

Sunday, April 13, 2025

Washing Clothes, Reading History, and Rethinking the Constitution (REVIEW)

The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783–1789
by Joseph J. Ellis

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

When I moved from Boise to Syracuse, I figured I'd run into a few bumps, unpacking chaos, hunting down new grocery stores, and learning to live with colder, wetter weather. What I didn't see coming was life without a washer and dryer. My trusty electric dryer, after years of faithfully tumbling load after load, turned out to be useless in a place that runs almost entirely on natural gas. Now it's stuck in a storage unit across town, probably wondering what it did to deserve exile, which is how, one Saturday, I ended up at the local laundromat—basket of dirty clothes in hand and a faint whiff of nostalgia in the air.

After jockeying for a dryer and realizing I'd forgotten both my Bounce sheets and my earbuds (rookie mistake), I did what any self-respecting person without a podcast would do: I wandered around the laundromat. That's when I stumbled upon a weathered Little Free Library tucked beside the soda machine. Most of the offerings were exactly what you'd expect: Go Dog Go!, a few romance novels missing their covers, and Chicken Soup for the Cat Lover's Soul. But sandwiched between them was something unexpected: The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution by Joseph J. Ellis. I have no idea if someone meant to leave it there or if a cat lover just happened to be into the Founding Fathers, but I grabbed it. As my clothes tumbled around me, I found myself drawn into a story about revolution and the struggle to keep a country together when everything's falling apart.

In The Quartet, Ellis turns his considerable talents to the underexplored period between the end of the Revolutionary War and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a stretch of time often glossed over in high school textbooks. His thesis is simple but profound: that the actual founding of the United States as a unified nation happened not in 1776, but between 1783 and 1789. And it wasn't the result of some grand inevitability, but of the determined efforts of four key figures, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, who understood that liberty without structure was a recipe for collapse.

I studied The Federalist Papers and read Ketcham's The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates in college and have always considered myself fairly well-versed in the mechanics of the Constitutional Convention. I'll admit, I've tried dropping "Publius" into regular conversation a few times. Most people have no clue what I'm talking about. My friends just look at me like I dropped some random professor name at a cookout.

Ellis's book hit me differently, though. It felt messy and urgent in a way history books usually don't. No sanitized founding fathers nonsense. Just these guys scrambling around, making deals, staying up too late arguing about whether any of this would actually work. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay: they weren't just standing around making grand speeches in some stuffy Philadelphia room. They were making deals, twisting arms, probably losing sleep, and doing whatever it took to convince a bunch of stubborn states to actually stick together instead of going their separate ways.

Ellis doesn't present these men as statues in a park. They're human: brilliant, flawed, and sometimes just plain stubborn, wrestling with the chaos of post-war America. Washington's steady presence and self-control become political weapons in their own right. Hamilton brings sharp financial thinking and a gift for verbal fireworks to the push for federal authority. Madison, the grinder of the group, is everywhere: crafting the Virginia Plan, pounding out the Federalist Papers, and shaping the Constitution's bones. And Jay, who usually gets the least fanfare, turns out to be the glue guy, quietly brokering peace, building trust, and lending the whole project legitimacy.

The unnerving part? It all feels too familiar. The stuff Ellis writes about sounds way too familiar. Political gridlock, sketchy alliances, everyone freaking out about big government taking over. You could swap out a few names and publish these stories in today's news. Yeah, people yell louder now (thanks, internet), but we're still having the exact same arguments: Should states call their own shots or should Washington be in charge? Do we go with what sounds good or what actually works? It's the same old fight between big ideas and the ugly reality of trying to run anything. Ellis doesn't sugarcoat it: our system wasn't built for speed or comfort. It was built for haggling, horse-trading, and keeping the whole messy thing from collapsing.

In the long run (and this was probably Madison's most creative insight), the multiple ambiguities embedded in the Constitution made it an inherently "living" document. For it was designed not to offer clear answers…but instead to provide a political arena in which arguments about those contested issues could continue in a deliberate fashion. (Ellis, p.174)

The whole idea that the Constitution wasn't supposed to be some set-in-stone rule book really hits different these days. Madison and the others knew people would keep arguing about what it all means, and that was the point. They built the argument on purpose. Which feels relevant when every big issue we face comes down to how you read the thing and whether anyone's willing to actually talk to people they disagree with.

What I loved about Ellis's book is how straightforward it is. Ellis cuts through the heroic glow that usually surrounds the Constitution's origin story and shows us the mess underneath. This wasn't the nation locking arms in perfect agreement. It was a bruising campaign waged by a stubborn minority convinced the American experiment needed sturdier bones if it was going to make it. On paper, the Articles of Confederation had a certain nobility. In practice, they left the country broke, politically unsteady, ignored on the world stage, and hanging together by a thread. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay saw what plenty of others didn't want to admit: the revolution hadn't tied up the story with a neat bow. It had kicked off a brand-new chapter, one that promised to be just as messy as the last.

Ellis walks us through the Philadelphia Convention, the state ratification battles, and the artful persuasion that made unity possible. He brings a historian's rigor to the narrative but writes with the accessibility of someone who wants his work to be read on park benches, in coffee shops, and yes, even in laundromats. His focus on character-driven storytelling makes the political feel personal, which is a good reminder that it always has been.

Reading this book while I was dealing with my own move and starting over made me think about how much work it takes to build anything that's going to last. Whether you're trying to make a new place feel like home, fit into a community, or keep a whole country from falling apart. Moving to a new city and starting over in a dozen different ways, I felt an unexpected connection to the story of four men trying to stitch together a brand-new country from a jumble of states that didn't always trust (or even like) each other. The whole thing reminded me that reinventing anything, whether it's a country or just yourself, takes more than big ideas. You need patience. You need to stick with it when things get messy. And you have to be willing to face some truths that make you squirm a little.

What Ellis really gets at in The Quartet is the idea of second chances. Not just for America back then, but for what America could be, or can be again. He shows how those founding principles we all learned about in school are only as strong as the people willing to fight for them. And honestly, given how chaotic our politics feel right now, there is something reassuring about reading how messy things were back then, too. The United States made it through that chaos, so perhaps we can figure out the current moment as well. Ultimately, it simply takes people willing to do the actual work instead of just yelling at each other.

If you come across The Quartet somewhere, maybe at one of those Little Free Libraries or on a shelf at your bookstore, pick it up. You'll walk away with more than just some historical facts. You might even remember why any of this stuff matters in the first place.

Read more of my reviews

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

"That Would Be Great"

Bridging Generations at Work with Pop Culture—and a Movie Lunch

There's a moment in every professional's life when they drop a perfectly timed pop culture reference into a meeting… and it lands with a thud. Blank stares. Polite smiles. Someone typing under the table (probably Googling what you just said). That moment happened to me for what felt like the hundredth time when I made a crack about a TPS report and "channeling my inner Lumbergh." Crickets. That's when I realized: my pop culture isn't their pop culture.

Like many professionals of my generation, I've carried certain cultural touchstones with me throughout my career. One of my most well-worn references has long been the 1999 cult classic Office Space. It's a workplace satire so spot-on, it feels like a documentary. Over the years, I've sprinkled quotes from it into emails, used it to lighten the mood in tense meetings, and joked about red staplers and smashing a temperamental printer à la the movie's infamous slo-mo baseball bat scene.

But my team, filled with bright, capable, mostly Millennial and Gen Z colleagues, often didn't follow. To them, Office Space is a vaguely familiar title, a meme source at best, not the formative workplace gospel it was for Gen X and older Millennials. They didn't know about flair. They'd never met Milton. They certainly didn't grasp the life-affirming joy of a good case of "not gonna work here anymore."

After yet another one of my Office Space references fell flat, one of my managers offered a helpful and slightly daring suggestion: why not turn one of our monthly team meetings into a lunch gathering and screen the movie? I decided it was time. We scheduled a (long) lunch hour, invited everyone to brown bag it, and turned our conference room into a makeshift movie theater. No slides, no updates, no agendas, just some popcorn, shared laughs, and 90 minutes of pure late-'90s corporate catharsis. It was a simple shift, but it created space for something we didn't know we needed: a communal pause, a cultural reset, and a little bit of fun in the middle of a workday.

And something unexpected happened.

They loved it. They laughed. They exchanged "ohhhh, now I get it" glances during scenes they'd heard me reference countless times. More importantly, it became a shared experience. We started speaking the same language, not just mine, not just theirs, but something in between. It broke down barriers. Suddenly, jokes landed. Google Chat channels lit up with GIFs of Lumbergh and his coffee mug. We even started referring to standard daily and weekly reports as "TPS" reports.

But beyond the inside jokes, it created a subtle but powerful shift. We found common ground in a place none of us expected: a 25-year-old movie about cubicle life. It sparked conversations about how workplaces have changed (and how much they haven't), what autonomy and burnout look like across generations, and how humor can be a survival tool in any era of work.

I don't expect Office Space to become a required part of onboarding. And I still make a conscious effort to engage with the pop culture that resonates with my team today (yes, I know who Olivia Rodrigo is, and no, I don't fully get TikTok). But sharing that piece of my own cultural foundation helped me show up as a more human version of "the boss." And it helped my team see me as more than just the person who schedules meetings and signs off on budgets.

A few weeks later, I decided to leave my job and try something new. But I'm glad we had that lunch. Watching everyone crack up over terrible movie quotes and argue about whether the special effects were actually good reminded me of why I liked working with these people in the first place.

If you catch yourself making some reference you think everyone will get, maybe don't assume they will. Ask if they've seen it. Better yet, watch it together sometime. You might be surprised by what you learn about each other. You might just find that a little bit of nostalgia served with popcorn can go a long way in building trust, camaraderie, and even a few inside jokes that live on long after you've moved on.

And if they still don't get it?

Well, at least you tried. And that would be grreeeeat.

Review

Office Space
directed by Mike Judge

My rating 4½ of 5 stars

In the grand pantheon of movies about work, Office Space exists in a perfect little cubicle of its own, where fluorescent lights hum, printers jam for sport, and the scent of burnt coffee hovers permanently in the breakroom. Directed by Mike Judge (yes, the Beavis and Butt-Head guy, but stay with me), this 1999 sleeper hit manages to turn the beige banality of office life into something surreal, absurd, and ultimately cathartic. The premise is simple: a burned-out programmer starts ignoring all the rules and somehow gets promoted for it. But beneath that surface-level rebellion lies a sharp, weirdly comforting look at how modern work quietly gnaws away at the soul.

Ron Livingston plays Peter Gibbons, a man so beaten down by memos, traffic, and middle management that even his therapist gives up on him (okay, technically it’s a hypnotherapist who dies mid-session, but you get the idea). I’ve liked Livingston before he ever showed up in HBO’s Band of Brothers as Captain Lewis Nixon, a performance layered with understated depth and a heavy pour of scotch. He played Nixon like a guy who’s seen too much and says too little, which, now that I think of it, isn’t a bad description of Peter Gibbons either. In Office Space, Livingston’s dry delivery and quiet exasperation make him the perfect everyman for a world where showing up five minutes late can trigger a full-scale HR intervention. He’s not flashy, and that’s exactly why he works both as a character and as a stand-in for all of us who’ve ever contemplated setting our inboxes on fire.

But the real evil in this movie isn't any person - it's the TPS report. You know, the one with the cover sheet that everyone keeps forgetting, and then eight different managers have to send you emails about it. The absurdity of this detail struck a familiar chord with me and probably will for anyone who’s spent time navigating a sea of weekly status updates, productivity dashboards, or systems that require a password change every 11 days. I once wrote about my nostalgia for green-bar paper and fixed-pitch fonts on this very blog (here, for the curious). Those old green-bar computer printouts were ugly as hell, but at least they were honest about it. Now we spend half our time making reports look pretty instead of making sure they actually say something useful. Office Space nailed that - it's not just that there's too much paperwork, it's that none of it has anything to do with getting actual work done. And when Peter decides to opt out, it feels, for a brief, glorious moment, like he’s achieved workplace nirvana.

Of course, no discussion of Office Space would be complete without Milton the stapler-obsessed, softly mumbling tragic hero played to perfection by Stephen Root. Or the Bobs, those interchangeable consultants with MBA smugness and bad intentions. Or the printer, whose ultimate fate remains one of the most satisfying acts of vigilante justice ever captured on film. Judge populates this universe with characters so exaggerated they shouldn’t feel real, but somehow do. Maybe because we’ve met them. Perhaps because we’ve been them.

Office Space bombed when it first came out, but then everybody started watching it on DVD and quoting it at work. Now you can't say the word 'flair' without someone doing that whole Jennifer Aniston voice thing. The movie came out twenty-five years ago, but I swear I've worked at that exact office. Different company names, but the same awkward meetings and bizarre office traditions that somehow make perfect sense at the time. Corporate culture has evolved (sort of), but the core truth remains: people want their work to mean something, or at the very least, not to actively erode their will to live.

In short, if you’ve ever wanted to do a slow-motion beatdown of a malfunctioning printer in a field while Still by Geto Boys plays in the background, this one’s for you.

Read more of my reviews.

Monday, July 4, 2022

Liberty in Three Acts: My Fourth of July Tradition

There are fireworks, there are flags, and there's always something grilling on the Fourth of July, but for me, Independence Day wouldn't feel complete without a familiar duo of movie musicals, now made into a trio. Each year, like clockwork, I settle in for a binge that spans the centuries of American spirit and song: 1776, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and now, Hamilton.

It all starts with 1776, the spirited (and yes, dramatized) story of the Continental Congress and their march toward independence. I first saw the film in college, but its roots in my heart go back even further to 1976, when I was in middle school, and the country was awash in stars, stripes, and a very particular kind of patriotic fervor.

Living in Pennsylvania in 1976, I was surrounded by history, not just the kind in textbooks, but the kind etched into buildings, monuments, and local pride. That year, our social studies lessons were laser-focused on the Revolution. We didn’t just learn about 1776; we practically lived it. Our classroom projects involved hand-drawing the Declaration of Independence on parchment-style paper. We staged mock debates about taxation and liberty. Field trips took us to Independence Hall and Valley Forge, places that felt suddenly alive with meaning.

And it wasn't just school. The Bicentennial bled into pop culture and everyday life. Cereal boxes had red-white-and-blue logos. Gas stations handed out commemorative coins. ABC aired "Schoolhouse Rock" segments that made civics catchy, and I still remember the thrill of seeing the Liberty Bell featured in commercials and TV specials. Everywhere you turned, there was this sense that America was not just looking back, but trying to understand itself in real time.

That summer, parades were filled with fife and drum corps and colonial reenactors in full regalia. I remember feeling that I was witnessing something big, like history had its own gravity and I was standing in its pull. That Bicentennial year didn't just make me aware of America's founding; it made me curious. It made me care. And when I eventually discovered 1776 in college, it gave all those half-formed impressions a voice, a cast, and a score.

While no historian would recommend the film as a primary source, 1776 brought the story of independence to life. It showed me that history isn't made by marble statues, but by flawed, passionate people wrangling over ideals in hot rooms. Watching it each Fourth of July has become my own secular ritual, less barbecue, more parchment and powdered wigs. Even now, every time I hear the opening drumbeat and that call for "a resolution for independence," I'm that Bicentennial kid again, filled with curiosity, awe, and patriotic pride.

Then there's Yankee Doodle Dandy. Sure, it's a full-throated piece of WWII-era propaganda, but that's not all it is. In its own way, it's a tribute to a very American kind of optimism, the kind that sings and taps and waves a flag without irony. James Cagney's George M. Cohan is a showman's showman, full of brash energy and patriotic fervor. And somehow, despite the bombast, it always hits the right tone for the day. It's a celebration of performance and pride, and it reminds me that love of country doesn't have to be loud or naive it can be knowing, complex, and deeply felt.

That’s part of what keeps me coming back to it year after year. But I think the deeper reason has more to do with how musical theater, in all its forms, became a language of connection in my life, first through my mom, and later, through my daughters.

My affection for musical theater didn't just materialize on one Independence Day. It was passed down, the way the best traditions are. My mom was the one who first gave me an appreciation for musicals. She loved the genre not just the catchy tunes and elaborate staging, but the way music could tell a story straight to your soul. While her talent for performance didn't quite reach me (though it clearly resurfaced a generation later in Faith), I did my part in high school by working behind the scenes with the stage crew. Painting sets, running lights, helping with props, I may not have been center stage, but I was there in the wings, soaking up the energy, the teamwork, the transformation of a bare auditorium into a world of its own.

That experience, paired with a college course I took on the history of musical theater, helped me see the genre as more than just entertainment. Musicals, at their best, don't just reflect culture; they help define it. They distill big ideas into melody, character, and story. And in America, perhaps more than anywhere else, the musical has evolved as a uniquely democratic art form: built on collaboration, born from diverse influences, and often focused on who gets to tell the story of "us." That context helped me place Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1776, and Hamilton not just as three shows I love but as touchstones of how Americans have chosen to remember, reimagine, and reclaim their history. 

Editor's Note: Here's a link to a post where I've written more about how these three films work together as a musical portrait of American identity.


Faith at the Hollywood Pantages
in December 2017 for Hamilton.
It was with this deeper appreciation for the form that I later found myself sharing these same passions with Faith. She's always been a theater kid through and through, with a deep appreciation for not just the story being told, but how it's told. So it was no surprise when she was captivated by Hamilton. Like so many in her generation, she was swept up by the phenomenon, listening to the cast album on repeat, quoting lyrics in everyday conversation, diving deep into the lives of the Founding Fathers. She knew every word, every harmony, every historical reference. Her passion was infectious, and soon I was listening too, hearing echoes of the same stories I'd grown up loving but now pulsing with a fresh, urgent rhythm.

That Christmas in 2017, "Santa" delivered something extraordinary: two tickets to see the touring production of Hamilton in Los Angeles. She hadn't expected to actually get to see it live. The show was a cultural phenomenon, and seats were hard to come by. So when she unwrapped that gift, the look on her face, part disbelief, part pure joy, was a highlight of the holiday season and of fatherhood.

And then there was the afternoon itself. Sitting next to her in the darkened theater, watching the story unfold not just in song but in movement, light, and staging, it was electric. Even though she knew the entire score by heart, seeing each song brought to life within the book's full framework gave her a deeper understanding of the story and its historical context. The choreography, the way scenes transitioned, the layering of narrative- she was fully immersed. And so was I.

Truth be told, I wasn't expecting Hamilton to hit me the way it did. Lin-Manuel Miranda's reimagining of the Founders, filtered through hip-hop, R&B, and unapologetic modernity, struck a chord I didn't know needed striking. It captured the ambition, contradiction, and grit of early America in a way that felt new and yet deeply familiar. It spoke to both our nation's promise and its imperfections. And that night, sharing the experience with Faith, I felt the beautiful convergence of our shared passions for history, for storytelling, for truth told in harmony and rhythm.

So when Disney+ released the original cast recording, it wasn't even a question. Hamilton joined the July 4th lineup without hesitation.

Now, every Fourth, I travel through time from 1776's congressional chambers, to Cagney's Vaudeville stage, and finally to the turntables and duels of Hamilton. It's a deeply personal tradition, stitched together from family, history, and a little Broadway sparkle. What began as a childhood fascination with the Bicentennial has evolved into a kind of secular ritual of its own, less about fireworks and more about reflection. A quiet act of remembrance, through song and story, of who we were, who we are, and who we still might become.

Each film reminds me that the American story isn't finished; it's still being shaped, sung, and rewritten by each generation.

It's a small tradition, but it connects me to family, to history, and to the imperfect, ongoing story of America itself.

Sunday, March 1, 2020

The Vanishing Center: What The Right Answer Still Gets Right (REVIEW)

The Right Answer: How We Can Unify Our Divided Nation
by John K. Delaney

My rating: 3½ of 5 stars

In December 2019, a friend gave me The Right Answer by John K. Delaney as a holiday gift. At the time, I was vaguely aware of Delaney as the first Democrat to enter the 2020 presidential race, but I hadn’t paid him much attention. The field was crowded with louder voices, flashier platforms, and sharper ideological lines. The gift felt like a gesture of quiet hopefulness, offering not just a book, but an invitation to consider what politics might look like if we chose construction over conflict. By the time I sat down to write this, Delaney’s campaign had long since ended. He suspended his bid in January 2020, before a single vote was cast. And yet, the book lingers not as campaign literature, but as a thoughtful reflection on what our politics might be if we made more space for decency, data, and the discipline of governing.

I read The Right Answer that winter, noting passages that spoke to the civic impulses I still believe in: common ground, mutual responsibility, the hard but necessary work of listening. Delaney’s vision, laid out in earnest and unvarnished prose, wasn’t revolutionary, and that was precisely the point.

Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland and successful entrepreneur, brought a rare combination of business acumen and policy pragmatism to the national stage. Before entering politics, he co-founded two publicly traded companies focused on healthcare finance and lending to underserved communities, ventures that reflected his interest in both innovation and equity. Elected to Congress in 2012, he represented Maryland’s 6th District for three terms, earning a reputation as a pro-business Democrat who valued bipartisanship and data-driven legislation. His 2020 presidential bid was an extension of that philosophy: a campaign rooted in optimism, civility, and practical solutions, which he called “facts over fury.” He stood, in many ways, as the last echo of a brand of politics that once thrived in both parties but now seems dangerously close to extinction.

None of Delaney’s campaign was designed to set Twitter ablaze. All of it was grounded in the belief that Americans still wanted their government to function.

But The Right Answer arrived and was largely ignored at a time when the political center was already disintegrating. In the 2020 Democratic primaries, Delaney's moderation felt out of sync with a party energized by sweeping structural reforms and ideological purity. His voice was steady, not soaring; his appeal was to voters’ practical instincts, not their tribal loyalties.

Looking back, it’s clear Delaney wasn’t just running for office; he was submitting a kind of civic preservation report. His book reads like a blueprint for a governing philosophy built on what used to be bedrock: compromise, incremental progress, mutual respect. It now feels like a dispatch from a version of American politics we are dangerously close to forgetting altogether.

The erosion of the political center isn’t just about polls or party labels; it’s a slow unthreading of the civic fabric. We trade in the deliberative processes of governance for the dopamine hits of outrage. What once lived in Rotary halls and town meetings now festers in comment threads and curated feeds. The incentives are all wrong: media algorithms reward extremity, primary systems punish moderation, and fundraising emails raise more when they vilify than when they unify.

This isn't a plea for false balance or nostalgic centrism but a recognition that without a stable center, democracy cannot hold. The center is where the work gets done: where laws are negotiated, budgets are passed, and citizens feel heard rather than herded. It’s where humility still has a seat at the table, and where policy is shaped not by purity tests but by lived experience. When we lose that space, we don’t just lose consensus, we lose the conditions necessary for pluralism to survive.

And so The Right Answer stays with me not as a relic of a failed campaign, but as a reminder of what we still risk losing: the belief that governance is possible without vilification, that policy can be more than theater, that democracy is slow, communal, and if we’re lucky, boring. But if the center fades at the top, it still flickers below. It’s in church basements, PTA meetings, Rotary clubs, volunteer fire departments, and union halls, places where Americans still come together not as partisans, but as neighbors.

Reviving the center doesn’t begin in think tanks or TV studios; it begins with regular people doing regular things with civic intent. Democrats and Republicans alike can help breathe life into the center by simply showing up: for school board elections, for community listening sessions, for city council public comment. We ask harder questions of our political leaders about real solutions, not slogans, and support candidates who are willing to risk a primary loss to preserve their integrity. We reward bridge-building over brand-building and remember that pluralism isn’t a liability, it’s the heart of the American promise. The work ahead is ours. Civic strength doesn’t trickle down from elite circles; it bubbles up from participation, trust, and collective effort. The center doesn’t have to be mushy; it can be muscular, rooted in values, powered by engagement, and carried forward by people who understand that compromise is not capitulation, but courage.

I don’t know if John Delaney would have made a great president. But I do know he wrote a book full of humility and resolve, and I’m grateful someone thought to give it to me. Like reading real history or sorting laundry by hand, the work of democracy is quiet, deliberate, and unfashionable. But it’s still worth doing.

View all my reviews

Friday, November 29, 2019

This Year I am Thankful for an Empty Nest...and Zombieland

For the first time in my fifty-odd years, I celebrated Thanksgiving without my kids, without the comfort of my parents, or my siblings and their extended families. Here, at last, the dreaded empty nest... 

I won't be alone per se, but I also won't have what I have come to see as a "normal" Rockwell-esque Thanksgiving. But I did have some time to prepare for this eventuality...

Freedom From Want by Norman Rockwell
Rockwell's Freedom from Want ©1943
My original plan, let's call it Plan A, for dealing with no one being home this year called for taking an extended Thanksgiving break from work, flying to the East Coast, and spending the holiday with my parents, sisters, and their families, and my son and his girlfriend. I'd have still missed my two girls who were off doing other things (one with her fiancé and the other with her mother), but still, I had hoped it would be one of those old-fashioned family get-togethers filled with great food, fun games, and the occasional family angst (that always comes when everyone is brought together in such close proximity).

You know, all the elements that make for cherished memories...

As is often the case, real life got in the way of my best-laid plans. The first SNAFU was financial. With my youngest a sophomore at a wonderful(ly expensive) private liberal arts college and my oldest getting married in the Spring, rubbing enough nickels together to pay for a transcontinental Thanksgiving flight would mean adding to my credit card debt. If I am being completely honest, I would have done it, but it wasn't the right thing. However, the second Horseman of the Apocalypse, work, reared its ugly head. Unexpectedly, my boss went on a lengthy medical leave. This meant cutting what I had planned to be a ten-day trip down to just four (and traveling on two of the busiest and most expensive days of the year). Before the last two horsemen appeared, as much as I longed for that Rockwell-esque holiday, I decided to reassess Plan A - it just wasn't in the cards this year.

I started to think of ways to spend my time differently this year; let's call this Plan B... Four days off work, no real responsibilities, and a very strong desire to avoid Black Friday at all costs. Meaning I could spend four days hiking around Southern California, footloose and fancy-free. Maybe my long-delayed hike of the La Jolla Canyon Loop in Ventura County or the Backbone Trail near Malibu. However, a quick peek showed that Southern California's last couple of fires and the follow-on rainy seasons had resulted in many trail closures in the Santa Monica Mountains.  Thinking less grandiose, living in the foothills means plenty of hikes much closer to home. My decision was made; I planned to strike out and hike the 'Glendale trifecta' (the Verdugo Mountain Peaks, Cherry Canyon-Cerro Negro Loop, and Mt. Lukens Loop). About twenty-five to thirty miles of mostly quiet hiking in my backyard. Ace the Wonder Dog and I were set for our very own Thanksgiving #optoutside adventure...

Alas, Plan B was dashed by Mother Nature. A series of Pacific storms decided to race down the California Coast, making this year's holiday one of the coldest and wettest Thanksgiving weekends in Los Angeles in the past 15 years. While the cold would have been manageable, washed-out and muddy trails (and a twenty-pound Scottish Terrier/Schnauzer), don't mix...

On to Plan C... a scaled-down, traditional Thanksgiving dinner, maybe a movie, and some much-needed rest. A wonderful lazy, long weekend...As those of you who have ever prepared a "traditional" family Thanksgiving know, just the food prep and cooking is an all-day affair (I even started the night before), not to mention the dreaded dishes! So much for relaxing!

But slave away in the kitchen, I did (but I got to watch Zombieland while cooking). The menu was mostly my Mom's traditional recipes, with a couple of my own additions. Everything was delicious, if I do say so myself. But even with my efforts to cut all the recipes in half, there were still tons of leftovers - but I'll return to food later... I can hear you, gentle reader asking a question... "Zombieland, why on earth watch Zombieland as a Thanksgiving movie?!" My answer was, "Why not?"

But really, I generally avoid horror movies, almost like I would a zombie-inducing plague. That said, a few days before, I stumbled upon a really well-written (and positive) review of the Zombieland sequel Zombieland: Double Tap. The author raved about how funny the sequel was (and how much they enjoyed the parody-esque original). The review was so gushing I decided to see the new movie over my newly freed-up long weekend. But before going to see Double Tap, I naturally decided I needed to watch the original movie first...hence my cooking companion for the day.

Review

directed by Ruben Fleischer

My rating: 3¾ of 5 stars

Let me say what a treat this 2009 movie was to watch. Clearly, my disdain for horror movies has been misplaced, at least for comedy/horror/romance movies. Like most really good movies, everything starts with the script. Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick's story is wry, witty, and has snappy dialog (the kind I narrate in my head during "real" conversations!). The story here is coupled with quick pacing and interesting visual overlays, including the '31 Rules' and Zombie Kill of the Week cuts by director Ruben Fleischer (in his feature directorial debut). His direction seamlessly ties excellent performances by the cast (Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Woody Harrelson, and Abigail Breslin) into one funny (not-so-scary) little (81-minute) horror/comedy film that one professional reviewer called a "balls-out entertaining movie." The blood and gore are there, but not so overwhelming, and certainly not just for blood and gore's sake (which is probably why I like this movie - did I mention it was entertaining?).

The comedic timing of the actors and human relationship story elements make up for some questionable decisions the characters make (seriously, in a world infested with fast-moving, light and noise-sensitive, flesh-eating zombies, why would you turn on all the lights and music at an amusement park?!). But this is a horror/comedy, after all... I thoroughly enjoyed the production, the "surprise" cameo in the middle of the movie, and the slow-mo gory scenes, which were really fun.

Completely not what I had expected..with a name like Zombieland!! It changed my mind completely about this sub-genre of horror films, and I'd rank it up there with some of my other favorite screwball comedies like Kelly's Heroes, Big Trouble in Little ChinaThe Great Race, and Dr. Strangelove. So, bring on Shaun of the Dead and Warm Bodies!

I know, I know, this probably sounds like a terrible Thanksgiving to the more extroverted personality types in my family, the ones who thrive on social activity (you know who you are!), but an excellent dinner, a funny movie, and time to myself, really worked for me..but next year I will finish those hikes, or at least head back East for a Plan A vacation!

To that end, this year, I am grateful not only for my family and the blessings of years of special holiday memories but also for some serious time to decompress and hang out alone (with some canine companionship). No real expectations, no responsibilities, and no worries (well, at least not many). I'm also thankful for Zombieland and the broadening of my movie genre palate.


Epilogue - 'Twas the Night After Thanksgiving...

I mentioned the food earlier; despite dropping from a 23/24 pound turkey to a 15-pound bird this year, there were still plenty of leftovers. But most importantly, the turkey carcass. With extra time on my hands (with few family obligations), I decided to try my hand at one of my Mom's old favorites, Turkey Carcass Soup. All of (or perhaps any of) my culinary skills are largely due to my Mom (thank you, I love you), so in an effort to get as many family recipes documented as possible, here is my take on her original recipe:

Turkey Carcass and Vegetable Soup

Ingredients

1 turkey carcass
4 quarts water
2lbs little (baby) potatoes (halved or quartered)
16oz baby carrots, diced
4-6 stalks of celery, chopped
2 14.5oz cans of diced tomatoes (I prefer the ones seasoned with basil, garlic, & oregano)
1 10oz bag of frozen peas
1 10oz bag of frozen corn
48oz turkey bone broth (chicken stock can be substituted in a pinch) - optional
1 tablespoon of garlic salt
1½ tablespoons of onion powder (you can substitute 1 large diced onion)
Simmering the carcass
1 tablespoon of Worcestershire sauce
1½ teaspoons of kosher salt
1 teaspoon of dried parsley flakes
1 teaspoon of dried basil
1 bay leaf
½ teaspoon of granulated garlic
¼ teaspoon of cracked black pepper
¼ teaspoon of paprika
¼ teaspoon of poultry seasoning
1 pinch of dried thyme

Directions
  1. Place the turkey carcass (I also included the turkey wings) in a large stockpot and add the water; bring to a boil, reduce heat to a simmer, cover the pot, and cook the turkey frame until the remaining meat falls off the bones (at least 1 hour, but even better if it can simmer overnight).
  2. Use a wire strainer to remove the turkey carcass bones and separate the meat. 
  3. Chop the meat (and look for small bones, especially ribs).
  4. Strain the broth through a mesh strainer into a clean soup pot and add the chopped turkey (sans bones) back into the broth. Depending on the length of time you simmered the carcass (and your personal preference for the liquidity of your soup, you may want to add the turkey bone broth at this time. Bring the mix to a boil, then reduce the heat to a simmer.
  5. Stir in the potatoes, carrots, celery, tomatoes, Worcestershire sauce, and dry seasonings and simmer for an additional 30 minutes.
  6. Add the frozen corn and peas, then simmer for a final 30 minutes (until all the vegetables are tender).
  7. Remove the bay leaf, and the soup is ready to serve.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

A Fierce Glory: Antietam (REVIEW)


A Fierce Glory: Antietam--The Desperate Battle That Saved Lincoln and Doomed Slavery
by Justin Martin

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

There’s something uniquely American about standing on a Civil War battlefield and trying to make sense of what happened there. The ground itself holds secrets: subtle rises and depressions that meant life or death to the men who fought over them, stone walls and creek beds that became the hinge points of history. I’ve walked many of these fields over the years, from Gettysburg to Manassas to Lookout Mountain, but Antietam feels different. Maybe it’s because September 17, 1862, remains our nation’s bloodiest single day. Maybe it’s because the battle’s outcome was so consequential yet so uncertain. Or maybe it’s because Antietam represents something uniquely American: a moment when individual choices, political courage, military hesitation, and desperate gambles combined to reshape the nation's entire trajectory.

Justin Martin frames the whole thing in his author’s note with a line that cuts right to it: “Had its outcome been different, there would have been no Gettysburg.” That single sentence, blunt and irrefutable, is the spine of the book. Everything else flows from it.

A Fierce Glory captures this quality better than any Antietam book I’ve read. Rather than delivering another tactical military history focused on troop movements and regimental positions, Martin weaves together the human stories of individuals touched by the battle: Abraham Lincoln in the White House, Clara Barton on the battlefield, Robert E. Lee’s audacious strategic gamble, and Alexander Gardner’s revolutionary war photography. It reads less like a military study and more like a meditation on how ordinary people, thrust into extraordinary circumstances, can alter the course of history.

More Than a Battle

Martin’s central thesis is embedded in his subtitle: Antietam was “The Desperate Battle That Saved Lincoln and Doomed Slavery.” This framing immediately lifts the book beyond conventional battlefield studies. Yes, Martin covers the fighting: the desperate struggle at Burnside’s Bridge, the horrific carnage at Bloody Lane, the missed opportunities that allowed Lee’s army to escape. But he’s more interested in how twelve hours of combat rippled through American politics and society.

He explains his approach directly in the author’s note: “I’ve chosen to tell this story in a different way, avoiding minutely detailed descriptions of troop movements (a standard feature of so many battle accounts) in favor of rendering a larger picture.” It works. The book shows how Antietam became a turning point not just militarily, but politically, medically, technologically, and morally.

Lincoln needed a Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation from a position of strength rather than desperation. Secretary of State Seward had urged exactly that caution in July 1862, warning that without a battlefield win, Lincoln’s edict might be viewed as, in Seward’s own words, “our last shriek on the retreat.” So, Lincoln folded a two-page handwritten draft into a pigeonhole in his White House desk and waited. Army Medical Director Jonathan Letterman used Antietam to debut the three-tiered battlefield evacuation system (dressing station, field hospital, general hospital) that is still in use today. Alexander Gardner’s photographs of corpse-strewn Bloody Lane ended romantic notions about the glory of combat in a way no newspaper account could.

That last piece deserves its own moment. When Gardner’s images went on display at Mathew Brady’s gallery in Manhattan, visitors climbed the stairs in droves to peer into the stereoscopes. What greeted them, as Martin describes it, was “astonishing, like nothing they had ever seen on the pages of Harper’s. Here were dead soldiers in full 3-D, rendered with stunning clarity.” The New York Times observed that Brady had “brought bodies and laid them in our door-yards.” Martin sees the moment clearly: a cultural line crossed, with no going back. “So, this is what war looks like,” he writes. “So, this then is what is happening on those faraway fields.”

The approach puts Martin in the same territory as James Burke’s late-70s mini-series Connections, which is right up my alley. Burke’s thesis was that you cannot consider the development of any element of the modern world in isolation, that interconnected events drive history. Martin’s narrative works from the same premise. The battle becomes a case study in leadership under pressure, necessity as the mother of invention, and in how a single day’s fighting could determine whether America would emerge from its greatest crisis as one nation or two.

Lincoln at the Center

Lincoln at Antietam - October 1862
Martin’s most significant contribution may be how thoroughly he integrates Lincoln into the Antietam narrative. Too many battle histories treat Lincoln as a distant figure waiting for telegraphed reports. Martin shows how deeply the president was involved in every aspect of the Maryland Campaign, and how much was riding on it personally.

This was a man carrying enormous private grief alongside the weight of a nation at war. As Martin puts it, Lincoln’s daily commute from the Soldiers’ Home cottage to the White House was a refuge from “excruciating personal grief, the recent loss of their son, Willie.” He’d slipped the Emancipation Proclamation draft into a desk drawer and was waiting for his reluctant general to deliver the military win that would give the document credibility. Everything depended on what happened in a valley in Western Maryland on a September day.

Martin portrays Lincoln summoning the political acumen necessary to transform a tactical draw into a strategic victory. The Emancipation Proclamation emerges not as an inevitable moral pronouncement but as a calculated political gamble by a leader who understood that the war’s meaning would be determined as much by presidential proclamations as by battlefield victories. Martin calls it Lincoln’s “last card.”

This focus on Lincoln’s political genius helps explain why Antietam, rather than Gettysburg, deserves recognition as the war’s true turning point. As Martin argues: “Antietam was a more critical battle than Gettysburg. Yes, Gettysburg receives more glory…. However, the case for Antietam is simple and irrefutable. Had its outcome been different, there would have been no Gettysburg.” Confederate victory in Maryland might well have ended the war on Southern terms, inviting European recognition of the Confederacy and allowing a Democrat-controlled Congress to negotiate a settlement with slavery intact. The stakes in September 1862 were nothing less than the survival of the United States as a single nation.

The Human Cost

Martin never loses sight of what made all of it possible. His portraits of individual soldiers are where the book earns its keep.

The book opens with Lieutenant John Mead Gould of the 10th Maine, who fought at Antietam and spent the rest of his life trying to make sense of it. In a matter of minutes at the battle’s opening, a quarter of his regiment (seventy-one of two hundred seventy-seven men) went down. The field was shrouded in smoke. The air, in Martin’s description, “swam thick with projectiles.” General Mansfield stumbled past Gould “with his coat flapping open to reveal a crimson bloom spreading across his abdomen.” Gould helped him from the field. The general died soon after. As Gould would recall for the rest of his life: “how mighty easy it was to get killed or wounded that day.”

The Burnside Bridge scene is equally vivid. On one side: twelve thousand five hundred Union soldiers under a general who, Martin suggests, was “simply paralyzed.” On the other: a small force of Georgia farm boys who had converted “the steep bluffs on their side into a formidable natural stronghold.” Among them were elite sharpshooters hiding in the branches of elms and sycamores or kneeling behind farmers’ bales of hay on the bluffs above. The math was brutal: a twelve-foot-wide bridge, enough to squeeze maybe five soldiers shoulder to shoulder, funneling an army into what Martin calls “a narrow chute” under withering fire.

The Bloody Lane section doesn’t dwell on gore, but it doesn’t look away either. Martin’s description is spare: “In the road, the Confederate dead were so thickly strewn that it was hard to discern any of the ground beneath them. Forever after, the sunken road would be known as the Bloody Lane.”

The medical scenes round out the picture. Letterman’s reforms weren’t theoretical work; they were responses to immediate human suffering, hammered out in the weeks before the battle and tested under fire. At previous engagements, the wounded had often been left to regimental musicians and civilian teamsters who, under battle duress, frequently “drank the medicinal spirits—or simply bolted.” After Shiloh, thousands of wounded lay untended for days, peach blossoms fluttering down to cover them. Letterman wasn’t going to let that happen at Antietam. Clara Barton wasn’t, either. She arrived at a farmhouse aid station in a canvas-covered wagon loaded with bandages, bread, wine, chloroform, and lanterns, and got to work removing a minie ball from a soldier’s cheek with her pocketknife. No credentials required. “In such a state of emergency, any help was welcome, no questions asked.”

Contemporary Resonance

A Fierce Glory arrives at an unusually charged moment. Martin published it in September 2018, with the midterm elections six weeks away and the country more divided than it had been in a generation. His portrait of a nation on the brink, torn by fundamental disagreements about identity, values, and the role of government, doesn’t require much imagination to place against the current backdrop.

The parallels aren’t perfect, and Martin is too good a historian to force artificial connections between 1862 and today. But his portrayal of Lincoln’s patient political maneuvering, his willingness to wait for the right moment to act decisively while looking like weakness to critics, carries obvious weight for anyone watching the current spectacle in Washington and wondering whether steady, principled leadership still has a place in it.

There’s also something specific about this particular autumn that makes the book resonate. The 2018 midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on the soul of the country, not so different in structure from what Lincoln was navigating in the fall of 1862. Martin reminds us that the Confederates timed their Maryland invasion deliberately, hoping a Union defeat would sweep anti-war Democrats into Congress and force a negotiated settlement. Politics and the battlefield were inseparable then. Martin’s book doesn’t offer easy comfort, but it does offer something more useful: evidence that the republic has survived this kind of fracture before, when the right people made the right choices at the right moment.

Minor Criticisms

A Fierce Glory isn’t perfect. Readers seeking detailed tactical analysis may find the approach occasionally frustrating. For that level of military detail, D. Scott Hartwig’s comprehensive two-volume treatment, To Antietam Creek and I Dread the Thought of the Place, remains unmatched. The maps in Martin’s book, while adequate, pale next to Hartwig’s detailed battlefield cartography.

Martin’s writing style, while generally engaging, occasionally drifts toward the novelistic. His technique of getting inside characters’ heads, imagining what Lincoln was thinking as he waited for battle reports, or what Lee felt as he realized his invasion had failed, is dramatically effective but historically speculative. In his own author’s note, Martin acknowledges this directly, flagging certain passages as “battle is informed speculation.” That honesty helps.

These are minor quibbles. Martin is a narrative nonfiction writer by background, and he has the storyteller’s instinct for finding the human drama in historical events without sacrificing rigor. Hartwig provides the tactical foundation that serious students of the battle require; Martin builds the interpretive superstructure that helps general readers understand why Antietam mattered beyond the immediate military consequences. The two approaches complement each other. Hartwig gives you the facts. Martin tells you what they mean.

A Different Kind of Civil War Book

A Fierce Glory stands apart in the crowded field of Civil War literature because Martin grasped that Antietam’s importance extends far beyond military history. This is a book about how democracies survive existential crises, how individual choices can have generational consequences, and how the meaning of historical events often becomes clear only in retrospect.

Martin has written the kind of Civil War book that might actually change minds. It’s accessible enough for general readers and sophisticated enough for serious students of the period. Sweeping in scope and intimate in detail, politically sharp and humanly compelling. It doesn’t just tell you what occurred on that terrible September day. It makes you feel why it still matters.

Standing on the Antietam battlefield, I can still feel the weight of what happened there. Martin’s book sharpens that feeling. In an era when American democracy again faces serious challenges, it’s a reminder that the work of preserving our ideals will never be finished. Each generation has to take it up anew.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in Civil War history, Lincoln scholarship, or the broader question of how democratic societies navigate existential crises.

I visited the Antietam battlefield with my son this past June, during a cross-country road trip that wound through Little Bighorn, Mount Rushmore, and a genuinely strange afternoon at a circus museum in Wisconsin. That visit is the subject of a companion post: “When History and Present Collide.”


Sunday, October 15, 2017

The Imperial Cruise (REVIEW)

The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War 

by James Bradley


My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Some lessons arrive early and stay with you for the rest of your reading life. Mine came from a professor named Keith Nelson, who taught history at the University of California and co-authored a slim but formidable book called Why War? Ideology, Theory, and History with Spencer C. Olin. The book came out in 1979, and it did something most undergraduate courses never bother with: it taught me to read the historian before I read the history.

Nelson and Olin’s argument is easy to state, but it changes everything once you’ve absorbed it. Historians aren’t neutral. They carry ideologies: conservative, liberal, or radical. Those ideologies generate theories, and those theories determine which questions get asked, which evidence gets elevated, and which conclusions feel inevitable before a word has been written. Most historians aren’t fully conscious of this. The ones who are rarely admit it. Dr. Nelson taught me to find it anyway: to look past the argument being made and ask what the author had to believe before they could make it.

I thought about Dr. Nelson a lot while reading James Bradley’s The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War.

---

What Bradley wrote instead is a verdict in search of a trial.

As an undergraduate at UC Irvine in the late 1980s, Dr. Nelson taught me to do one thing before anything else: identify the ideological framework an author brings to the evidence, because that framework will determine everything that follows. Applied to The Imperial Cruise, that framework surfaces almost immediately. The villains are not simply flawed men making consequential decisions. They are the American ruling class, driven by a racial supremacist ideology, wielding state power in service of imperial ambition. That framing is recognizably Marxian: a dominant class, an ideological superstructure that justifies its dominance, a state apparatus that does its bidding. Bradley never uses that vocabulary. He doesn’t have to. The structure of his argument carries it.

That habit — reading the historian before reading the history — was also what drove me to the scholarly literature once I finished the book. Something felt wrong with Bradley’s method, not just his conclusions, and I wanted to see how trained historians had received it. I wasn’t surprised by what I found.

The tell is his use of the word “Aryan.” He applies it relentlessly and strategically, building a case that Roosevelt and the political elite around him were not merely products of their era’s racial attitudes. They were architects of a white supremacist project. And here is where the book crosses from argument into manipulation: Bradley deploys “Aryan” with the deliberate intent of drawing a through-line between turn-of-the-century American imperialism and Nazi Germany. Historian William Tilchin, writing in the Theodore Roosevelt Association Journal, identified the tactic directly, calling Bradley’s constant use of “American Aryan” obviously designed to suggest that historical American racism was on par with Nazism (Tilchin 39). Jonathan Tobin, writing in Commentary, described the book as representing a new and especially low chapter in ideological American historiography (Tobin 26).

None of this means the underlying history is false. American imperialism in the Philippines was, at times, brutal. The death toll from the Filipino-American War runs into the hundreds of thousands. Roosevelt’s racial views shaped his diplomacy in ways that deserve serious examination. The question isn’t whether the grievances are real. The question is whether the analysis is honest. And that’s where Nelson & Olin’s framework cuts deepest: when an ideology drives the evidence rather than the other way around, even legitimate grievances get buried under the weight of a predetermined conclusion.

---

The most troubling part of the book is how Bradley uses his primary sources.

There’s a specific problem any careful reader will notice: the blurring of source and interpretation. Primary source material flows into Bradley’s own voice without clear demarcation. You find yourself reading what you believe is a direct quotation from Roosevelt or a period document, and then you realize — sometimes pages later — that you’ve been reading Bradley’s characterization all along, with no signal that the transition happened.

Tilchin documented this at the mechanical level. Quotations end without being marked as ending. In one full chapter, more than twenty-five consecutive endnotes don’t correspond to the note numbers they’re linked to. In one instance, Bradley invokes “one historian” to support a significant claim, names no one, and provides no citation.

That last example is worth sitting with. Attributing an argument to an unnamed historian isn’t an oversight. It’s a rhetorical device. It asserts the authority of scholarly consensus while deliberately withholding the evidence that would allow a reader to evaluate it. Dr. Nelson would have recognized that move immediately. It’s exactly the kind of covert theoretical operation his book was designed to expose.

Bradley’s most sweeping claims, including the Aryan argument at the book’s center, are made with almost no direct quotation at all. The evidentiary weight rests on assertion and framing, not documentation.

---

What makes all of this more significant is that the pattern doesn’t start with The Imperial Cruise.

Bradley’s first book, Flags of Our Fathers, built its entire emotional and commercial foundation on a personal narrative: his father was one of the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima in the iconic 1945 photograph. The book became a bestseller and was adapted into a Clint Eastwood film. In 2016, the Marine Corps completed an investigation confirming that John Bradley was not in the famous photograph. He had raised an earlier, smaller flag. The man in the iconic image was someone else entirely. You can extend Bradley the grace of noting that this was a pre-existing historical misidentification, not something he fabricated. But the kind of rigorous primary-source research Flags of Our Fathers claimed to represent might have found the discrepancy before it became the foundational premise of a bestselling book.

His follow-up, Flyboys, drew pointed criticism from Naval History Magazine, which found it riddled with errors and offered a concise description of Bradley’s research method: his technique, the reviewer wrote, seems to have been to find the most startling book on a subject, then borrow heavily from it. Find the most dramatic source. Borrow heavily. Assert confidently. That’s the throughline across all three books, and it reaches its most developed form in The Imperial Cruise.

---

Here’s what I keep coming back to.

Nelson and Olin weren’t arguing that ideological historians are bad historians. They were arguing that hidden ideology is dangerous because it can’t be evaluated, challenged, or corrected. A scholar who argues openly from a radical framework does something intellectually honest: here is my premise, here is my theory, now test it against the evidence. Even when you disagree with the conclusion. What Bradley does is different. He presents polemic as investigation. He frames advocacy as discovery. He gives you a book that looks like history and reads like a closing argument.

The frustrating part is that the real history underneath it matters. The Taft-Katsura Memorandum deserves more attention than it gets. The American imperial project in the Philippines deserves reexamination. Roosevelt’s racial worldview and its diplomatic consequences deserve serious scrutiny. These are not invented grievances. They’re the foundation of a book worth writing.

Bradley chose to write a different book. One where the verdict came first, and the evidence was arranged around it.

Dr. Nelson taught me to recognize that move. I was twenty-two years old at the time, and I’ve never stopped using it.

View all my book reviews.

---

Works Cited

Bradley, James. The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War. Little, Brown and Company, 2009.

Nelson, Keith L., and Spencer C. Olin. Why War? Ideology, Theory, and History. University of California Press, 1979.

Tilchin, William N. “James Bradley’s ‘The Imperial Cruise’ is an Outrage, Pure and Simple.” Theodore Roosevelt Association Journal, vol. XXXI, no. 4, Fall 2010, pp. 39-45.

Tobin, Jonathan S. “Smearing Theodore Roosevelt.” Commentary, March 2010, pp. 26-29.


Sunday, May 1, 2016

Angels, Demons, and the Question I Wasn’t Expecting

I came across my old GoodReads review of Angels and Demons recently. I wrote it in the summer of 2008, and reading it now, I barely recognize the guy who wrote it. Not because the opinions are wrong, but because the review contains nothing. Plot summary, a few complaints about the ending, and a rating. It tells you nothing about why I was reading that book, or what that summer was like.

That summer, I was coaching baseball and going to church. Neither was something I would have predicted for myself.

The baseball part had a natural explanation. My son Ted was playing, and I'm the kind of dad who can't just watch. I'd just taken over as president of Crescenta Valley Little League, which meant fielding long, accusatory emails about whether a ten-year-old played three innings or four. If you've spent any time around youth baseball, you know the drill. The kids are having a blast. The adults are treating a recreational game like Game 7 of the World Series. I was spending so much time managing the adult chaos that I didn't always stop to appreciate what I was actually watching: Ted developing into a real player, game by game, summer by summer. I was keeping score in the wrong column.

The church part was harder to explain.

My parents raised me in the Catholic tradition, though not the daily Mass, every Sunday kind. We went when we went. I never had the full sacramental program run on me, but the Church was still part of the scenery growing up: the liturgy, the ceremony, the sense that something old and serious was happening at the altar. I absorbed more of it than I realized. I just never had a tight grip on any of it, so there wasn't much to walk away from.

What drew me in that summer wasn't a crisis of faith. It was a pastor named Dave Roberts at Montrose Church, just down the road. My kids were in youth groups on Sunday mornings, and rather than sit in the parking lot for an hour, I'd started going to the services. Roberts had been there since 1988. What he'd built was something I didn't expect: the congregation was filled with families I knew from the kids' school, Boy Scouts, and Little League. His sermons weren't just scripture. They were history lessons. What was happening in the Roman Empire when Paul was writing his letters. What the political situation in Jerusalem meant for the people reading the Gospels. He preached context. He made the ancient text feel like a living document.

I found myself looking forward to Sundays in a way I hadn't since I was a kid.

So that's where I was that Fourth of July weekend: spirituality stirred back to something approaching consciousness, history on my mind, managing an All-Star baseball tournament in hundred-degree heat, and refereeing adult nonsense. That's when I picked up Dan Brown's Angels and Demons.

I'd been told it was similar to The Da Vinci Code, which I hadn't read yet. What I hadn't been told was how directly it would walk into the question I'd been quietly turning over for months.

The premise: someone murders a physicist-priest at CERN named Leonardo Vetra. He and his daughter, Vittoria, also a scientist, had been creating antimatter and simulating the conditions of the Big Bang. Vetra's purpose wasn't ambition. He believed that if he could reproduce the moment of creation, he could offer physical evidence of God's existence. Science, in his view, wasn't the enemy of faith. It was a road that led to the same place.

Robert Langdon gets called in, and what follows is a frantic race through Rome and Vatican City chasing a stolen antimatter canister and a string of ritualistic murders tied to the ancient Illuminati. Brown does plot mechanics the way a good pitcher throws heat: fast, relentless, hard to put down. The first 450 pages are genuinely fun. What makes them work isn't just the pacing. It's history. Brown wraps his story around the Illuminati, the Vatican, and Bernini's Rome. He uses historical context the way Roberts used it in his sermons: not as decoration but as what makes the story matter. A different kind of pulpit, but the same instinct.

The last 50 pages are another matter. The story collapses under its own contrivances, wrapping up loose ends in a rush of melodrama that Brown's editors should have sent back for a rewrite. There's also a plot hole that drove me a little crazy. In a world where you can triangulate the signal from a wireless video camera, the canister's location shouldn't be much of a mystery. But I'm a science fiction reader by habit, so suspending disbelief is a professional skill. The weak ending doesn't ruin what came before. It just means the book fell short of what it could have been.

But I kept coming back to Vetra's idea. The scientist-priest who believed the same truth could be approached from two directions.

Growing up around the Catholic tradition, even loosely, the relationship between science and faith carried a particular weight. The Church has a complicated history there. Galileo is the most obvious example, though far from the only one. The faith I grew up around asks for trust in things unseen and unprovable. That's not incompatible with how science works at its edges, but the two don't always sit comfortably together. Roberts had been quietly suggesting something else: that the tension between faith and evidence isn't a contradiction to resolve, but a conversation to keep going. He'd probably like Vetra.

Vetra, a fictional creation in a thriller built around secret societies and ticking antimatter bombs, was trying to hold that conversation. He just blew up in the middle of it.

I'm not sure that was an accident on Brown's part, though he isn't the most theologically subtle writer around. What he understood, well enough to keep me up past midnight on a holiday weekend, is that the God question doesn't go away. It keeps showing up where you don't expect it. In a church parking lot in Montrose. In a book you grab on a whim. In the middle of a baseball season.

That last one lands differently now. Ted's junior year of college baseball just ended with an injury. I've been here before. Back in 2009, I watched a line drive catch him in the knee during the championship game at the Babe Ruth Regional tournament up in Eureka. We drove home the long way that trip, through the redwoods, and I remember standing among those trees thinking that they'd been growing since before baseball was invented and would be standing long after both of us were gone. The game shrinks to its proper size in a redwood forest. It didn't make the loss hurt less. It just put it somewhere you could carry it.

I've been thinking about the summer of 2008 more than usual these past few weeks. The Little League all-stars run. The car rides home. I was so busy managing adult egos that summer that I didn't always appreciate what I was watching. Five years later, I'd be standing in a high school stadium watching him launch a three-run homer in the seventh inning to win a Pacific League title. I didn't know any of that was coming. You never do. You don't ask the God question about the small things until the small things are gone.

Ted's got one more year. I don't know how it ends. But the Cubs look like they might be real contenders this year, which is its own kind of theology. And I keep coming back to Brown and Roberts, two people who share nothing except the instinct to use history to make the present feel like it matters. That's not a small thing when you're sitting in the spring of 2016 trying to figure out what you believe, and why, and what all of it was for.


My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Angels & Demons is an effective and engaging page-turner that introduces Harvard professor Robert Langdon as he races through Rome and Vatican City to prevent a catastrophe involving stolen antimatter, Illuminati murders, and ancient secret societies. The story takes a while to find its footing, with the first 50 or so pages heavy on exposition, but once it picks up speed, the intricate, fast-paced plot makes it nearly impossible to put down. The novel isn't deep literature, but it succeeds as a fun and easy read. The ending stumbles, but see my original GoodReads review for more of a plot synopsis review...