Maximum City

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD.

Henceforth, these NONFICTION book reports will be a time-saving device. You need not read entire books anymore. Read these condensed versions instead. You'll have that much more time for your own blog.

Today I read "Maximum City Bombay Lost and Found" by Suketu Mehta, published in 2004.

The author is a fiction writer and journalist who grew up in Bombay and Jackson Heights, New York. He discusses in intimate detail, the culture of Bombay, a city of 14 million people. Mehta also examines the lives of several Bombayites living in extreme situations, including an organized-crime detective and "mob" members, a strip club dancer and a club patron, a partial transsexual, and a Jain. He graphically depicts the activities of people living in the Bombay slums, and his own reasons for moving back and forth between India and New York.

He writes, "It's a good enough reason to go back: because your family misses you. It's the reason I've gone back, been pulled back, again and again...What I found in most of my Bombay characters was freedom. The pursuit of life unencumbered by minutiae. Most of them don't pay taxes, don't fill out forms. They don't stay in one place or in one relationship long enough to build up assets... Surviving in a modern country involves dealing with an immense amount of paper. He who can stay on top of the paper wins."

Mehta is torn between a city, New York, in a country with modern conveniences (but with paperwork and financial worries) and a city, Bombay, where his family lives (but with the stresses of simple survival-- its poor or nonexistent sanitation, and rampant corruption that obstructs the attainment of even basic services, such as water and electricity.)

The extreme contrasts were interesting.

A parody for you

Here is another comedy bit

No Cow Left Behind

by Kenneth Remsen, a school principal in Vermont.

Get in Line for "No Cow Left Behind"

As a principal facing the task of figuring out all the complexities of
the No Child Left Behind legislation and its impact on education, I have
decided that there is a strong belief that testing students is the answer to
bringing about improvements in student performance. Since testing seems
to be a cornerstone to improving performance, I don't understand why this
principle isn't applied to other businesses that are not performing up
to expectations.

I was thinking about the problem of falling milk prices and wondering
why testing cows wouldn't be effective in bringing up prices since testing
students is going to bring up test scores. The federal government
should mandate testing all cows every year starting at age 2. Now, I know that
it will take time out of the farmers' necessary work to do this testing
every year and that it may be necessary to spend inordinate amounts of money
on the testing equipment, but that should not distract us from what must
be done. I'm sure there are plenty of statistics to show what good milk
producing performance looks like and the characteristics of cows that
achieve this level of performance. It should, therefore, be easy to
figure out the characteristics necessary to meet this standard.

We will begin our testing by finding out which cows now meet the
standard, which almost meet the standard, which meet the standard with honors and which show little evidence of achievement. Points will be assigned in
each category and it will be necessary to achieve a certain average score.
If this score is not achieved, the Department of Agriculture will send in
experts to give advice for improvement. If improvements do not occur
over a couple of years, the state will take over your farm or even force you
to sell.

Now, I'm sure farms have a mix of cows in the barn but it is important
to remember that every cow can meet the standard. There should be no
exceptions and no excuses. I don't want to hear about the cows that just came to
the barn from the farm down the road that didn't provide the proper
nutrition or a proper living environment. All cows need to meet the standard.

Another key factor will be the placement of a highly qualified farmer
in each barn. I know many of you have been farming for many years but it
will be necessary for all farmers to become certified. This will mean some
more paperwork and testing on your knowledge of cows, but in the end this
will lead to the benefit of all. It will also be necessary to allow barn
choice for the cows. If cows are not meeting the standard on certain farms,
they will be allowed to go to the barn of their choice. Transportation might
become an issue but it is critical that cows be allowed to leave their
low-performing barns. This will force low-performing farms to meet the
standard or else they will simply go out of business. Some small farms
will probably go out of business as a result of this new legislation. Simply
put, the cost per cow is too high. As taxpayers, we cannot be expected to
foot the bill to subsidize farms with dairy compacts. Even though no one
really knows what the ideal cost is to keep cows content, the Legislature will
set a cost per cow. Expenditures too far above this cost will be penalized.
Since everyone knows that there are economies of scale, small farms
will probably be forced to close and those cows will merge into larger
farms.

Some farmers may be upset that I proclaim to know what is best for
these cows but I certainly consider myself capable of making these
recommendations. I grew up next to a farm and I drink milk. I hope you
will consider this advice in the spirit it is given and I hope you will
agree that the "No Cow Left Behind" legislation may not be best for a small
state like Vermont.

Safe Harbor, A Murder in Nantucket

Today I read "Safe Harbor" by Brian McDonald, published in 2006.

It was the story of Thomas Toolan III's murder of Elizabeth ("Beth") Lochtefeld in October of 2004. I was a little annoyed by the book's sloppy editing-- a few typos and repetition of information. I was also a little disappointed that the author's writing ended after Toolan was arrested. He offers no information on how Toolan was punished. Nevertheless, the book gave a detailed account of the incident, as well as a double biography-- of the killer and victim. Both people were New Yorkers.

The killer (Tom) had been an alcoholic since high school. His usual haunts were Dublin House (a New York City bar) and the New York Athletic Club (a fancy shmancy gym for investment bankers). Before his relationship with Beth, he had had a few other relationships with women in which he was a jealous, abusive liar. He wore nothing but high-class clothing, albeit worn out, trying to give the impression of wealth. However, it appears that he was unemployed for about two years before the murder. He had worked in the past at an investment bank for a very few years.

The victim (Beth) had moved to Nantucket six months before her death. She had had a mid-life crisis of sorts, having retired on the proceeds she collected from having sold her wildly successful business; the sale prompted by her burnout from workaholism for fifteen years. She had been an expediter-- a party that facilitates the paperwork required to do construction in New York. She had been studying aikido (a martial art) and was, at 44 years old, still looking for a lifelong mate. It was unclear why she couldn't find a permanent significant other-- she was pretty, fit, brainy, well-traveled, very social, oh, and have I mentioned, rich? (Parenthetical note: the author avoids all mention of sex-- that could have been one reason for Beth's loneliness).

An acquaintance of Beth's had innocently set up Tom and Beth, even though she was aware of Tom's sordid past. Beth was so desperate for a man, she rationalized away his lies and abusive behavior for a few weeks. Finally, Beth told him she was breaking it off with him. He wouldn't accept that.

In the end, Tom flew to Nantucket, bought a fishing knife, and walked straight into Beth's rented cottage and killed her. Sadly, her aikido skills at the time were insufficient to fend him off and save herself.

Sad story, that.

WITSEC

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD.

Henceforth, these NONFICTION book reports will be a time-saving device. You need not read entire books anymore. Read these condensed versions instead. You'll have that much more time for your own blog.

Today I read "WITSEC" by Pete Early and Gerald Shur, published in 2002.

WITSEC stands for "Witness Security" and is generically known as the Federal witness protection program. It was founded by Gerald Shur in the early 1970's.

The majority of people given new identities and relocated by the program are career criminals-- members of organized crime, but some are innocent people who happened to see things they weren't meant to see.

WITSEC personnel are U.S. Marshals. At the start, different government agencies in law enforcement were possessive of their powers and information, so they viewed each other as rivals, but Shur got them to cooperate. He revolutionized law enforcement by starting a computer database that cross-referenced data on criminals.

Shur estimated that ten witnesses per year would seek to enter the program. However, By the beginning of 1970, upwards of fifty witnesses desired to join, even though the program is a last resort.

If a witness chooses not to testify against his fellow criminals, he will go to jail for a very long time. If chooses to testify and is not protected, he will be killed by the people against whom he testifies. It is not only this star witness who must be protected, but his family or whomever might be harmed by the witnesses' enemies.

When, say, a Mafioso is about to be caught for the usual crimes, the first canary to sing is usually the one who cuts the best deal with prosecutors. Of course, there is resentment from the public that a criminal is going unpunished, and that, indirectly American taxpayers are footing the bill to provide him and his family with a new life, but Shur argues that the number of criminals put away far exceeds the number of criminals who are rewarded with WITSEC protection.

It is psychologically stressful for the witness to turn against his friends, and many times, be separated from more distant family members. He and his immediate family must change their name, get new all identity documents, move from their place of residence while escorted by a Marshal (a bodyguard), find a new job, and cut off ALL communications with anyone who knew them in their former lives.

In the beginning, the Marshals harbored resentment at having to babysit criminals, some of whom were chronic complainers. Other federal law enforcement agencies viewed the Marshals as inferior, because there were no standards for getting hired as one. They were all political appointees-- provisionals. Eventually, standards were set. After much tooth-pulling, Shur got the minimal resources he needed to start WITSEC. He was under pressure to prove it was a necessary program. Fortunately, Shur installed competent people. There were problems, but Shur persisted, having a strong passion to make the program work. Luckily, the program got favorable publicity from newspapers and Reader's Digest in 1972.

There were isolated incidents of unanticipated situations. An ex-husband who had not entered WITSEC was unaware that his ex-wife, who had found another mate (the testifying witness/criminal), was being protected by WITSEC, as were her children. He desired to see the children (they were also his), but was not allowed, because that would blow his ex-wife's cover. If someone from her old neighborhood found out that he (who still lived in her old neighborhood) was visiting the children, she, her new mate, or the children might be kidnapped or killed.

There were a number of cases in which a witness entered WITSEC but then returned to a life of crime and had to be sent to prison. Had he not been in the program, he would not have committed any further crimes, because he would have been doing hard time.

WITSEC enjoyed its best years under Howard Safir from the late 1970's through 1989. He restructured and energized the agency.

Irony struck when, in 1991, Shur and his wife were thought to be in danger. An executive of the Medellin drug cartel in Colombia was caught by American federal law enforcement and an address book was found on him with Shur's name in it. As a precaution, Shur and his wife went into hiding, forced to experience what a WITSEC participant goes through. As is common, they became attached to their individual protector-- she was like one of the family. However, people in WITSEC were advised to maintain their professional relationships-- guard and guarded. The guarded have no privacy.

Shur recollects: "In the early days of the program, witnesses were dumped in motels, given a hundred bucks, and told to wait there until the local U.S. marshal sent one of his deputies to 'help' them... they simply weren't a priority. After Safir arrived, things got significantly better, but there were still problems... there were misunderstandings and there were still long delays in getting documents..."

Unfortunately, after Safir resigned in 1989, the Marshals' morale and program quality dropped to a level lower than when the program started, due to high turnover of WITSEC directors. Sadly, the directors were political appointees who didn't know what they were doing. I do not know what the current state of WITSEC is.

Mike's Third Grade Dictation Test

NEW FEATURE: COMEDY

Whenever I come across a snippet of comedy, I will share it with you, dear readers.

Henceforth, these comedy snippets will be a time-saving device. You need not read entire blogs anymore. Read only the best excerpts instead. You'll have that much more time for your own blog.

Here is the first gem Mike's Third Grade Dictation Test

Friday, July 09, 2004

Remember those writing tests you used to have to take in elementary school? I speak of the ones where the teacher would read about ten sentences (one at a time), and you'd have to write down each sentence.

For example, she might say, "The dog can't fit in the car, so someone will have to watch him when we go on vacation." Simple sentences and they just want to make sure you have basic writing skills.

My third grade teacher, Mrs. Swanek was an old miserable little woman. She gave us a lot of these tests. When she was absent, her daughter, Miss Swanek, would often be the substitute. She wasn't the smartest lady in the world, if you know what I mean. She wasn't all there, if you know what I mean. She was half off the cover price, if you know what I mean. She was kind of retarded, if you know what I mean.

So one day she was giving us this test. Sentences 1 through 5 were standard sentences. Nothing out of the ordinary. Then question Number Six came and changed my world forever. I remember to this day that it was Number Six.

Here was sentence Number Six:

6. Go shake Dick and wake him up.

Giggles ensue. I'm kind of surprised now that we understood the hilarity in that sentence. All of the sentences were repeated once during the test, so again, Miss Swanek said, "Go shake Dick and wake him up." Someone (one of the boys) said, "Can you repeat that?"

Go shake Dick and wake him up.

Someone else raises their hand. "Can you repeat that again?"

Go shake Dick and wake him up.

We finally moved on to number 7. At the end of the test, Miss Swanek asked, "Do you need me to repeat any of the sentences?"

Two boys immediately said, "Number Six."

Go shake Dick and wake him up.

Then another asked.

Go shake Dick and wake him up.

She never really caught on. But she was thinking we were a bunch of idiots. It was probably the easiest sentence on the test. She started to get kind of condescending and upset that we couldn't grasp this one simple sentence.

Go shake Dick and wake him up.

Finally, little Jessica Henderson said, "You don't have to keep saying it. They're just being disgusting."

I don't think Miss Swanek knew what was disgusting about it. But man, that was some funny shit. Sometimes I miss third grade.

Go shake Dick and wake him up.

Deadly Scholarship

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD.

Henceforth, these NONFICTION book reports will be a time-saving device. You need not read entire books anymore. Read these condensed versions instead. You'll have that much more time for your own blog.

Today I read "Deadly Scholarship" by Edwin Chen, published in 1995.

In 1985, Lu Gang, loner, exam high-scorer from a family of peasant farmers in China, arrived in America to start his graduate school career at the University of Iowa.

As a physics PhD candidate, he became increasingly frustrated with the elitism at the school. The finals straws came in 1991 when he perceived he was receiving unfair treatment with regard to defense of his dissertation, and his failure to be nominated for a certain physics award.

A fellow student, Shan Linhua, also Chinese, presented a better quality dissertation, was nominated for, and won the said award. Lu Gang complained bitterly and persistently to the University administration about the award.

In three days' time, Gang was granted a gun license in summer of 1991. He bought two guns over the next few months. By late October, his attempts to resolve the award issue in his favor were going nowhere. You can guess what happened next. On November 1, 1991, he went on a shooting rampage, killing the rival student and the professors and administrators whom he thought had wronged him, and wounding an innocent by-standing secretary, paralyzing her from the neck down; six people in all. Then he killed himself.

As a result, gun-control laws in Iowa were stiffened to include a five-day waiting period and background check. It is unknown whether such measures would have prevented the above tragedy, but there have been no killing sprees at the University since.

Kidnapped in Yemen

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD.

Henceforth, these NONFICTION book reports will be a time-saving device. You need not read entire books anymore. Read these condensed versions instead. You'll have that much more time for your own blog.

Today I read "Kidnapped in Yemen" by Mary Quin, published in 2005.

Mary Quin, citizen of both New Zealand (her birthplace) and the United States (her residence), was an executive at Xerox who enjoyed travel. She knew it was risky to vacation in Yemen, but being an adventuress, she went there anyway. Her tour group was kidnapped by approximately eighteen terrorists while traveling in a caravan in the middle of the desert.

The approximately sixteen tourist-hostages were treated well for a while (about one day), until the Yemeni government sent armed officers to rescue them. Quin later theorized that this was an opportunity for the government to kill the fanatical Muslim kidnapper-terrorists, and at the same time, show the world they cared about the tourists, who were from Great Britain, Australia and the United States.

The government claimed the lead kidnapper had threatened to kill the hostages if numerous political demands were not met. The main demand was to release jailed prisoners who were accused of plotting terror attacks in Yemen. When the kidnappers saw the rescuers approaching, they engaged them in a firefight.

Amid a hail of bullets from both sides, a terrorist put an AK-47 in Quin's back. Miraculously, he was hit by a bullet, but she was not. He went down. She had no clue what to do, but decided to try to wrest the gun from his hands. Still alive, he gripped it tightly. She stood on his head and succeeded in pulling it away from him. She had no experience using such a weapon, so after some yards walking in the sand toward she knew not where, she dropped it. She climbed over a wall, and luckily, into the vicinity of the rescuers.

Four of the hostages were killed by terrorist bullets. Two others were wounded. A few terrorists died or were taken into custody. Most fled. Quin was questioned by the FBI and Scotland Yard.

Quin's instinctive survival skills allowed her to emerge from this traumatic experience without any physical injury. She came home, and went back to work. However, it changed her life. The fact that life is short, actually sunk in for Quin. It was not just an idle cliche anymore. Her high-level job became trivial, considering she had cheated death.

From out of the blue, a stranger emailed her and said he wanted to meet her. They met and later, she moved in with him. She became fascinated with how and why the kidnapping occurred. She did extensive research. She quit her job and became a political activist for Muslim women.

She returned to Yemen and met with government officials, the prisoners accused of the terrorist plotting, and even a Muslim cleric with terrorist ties. Her information-gathering allowed her to obtain closure on the kidnapping incident.

She now lives in Anchorage, Alaska with her partner and his two daughters.