World, Writing, Wealth discussion

There is now less than one year until the 2020 US election. Unfortunately for the sanity of man, this means that the full on Insanity of US party politics is going to ramp up to psyche destroying levels of What the Fuckery.

When a conscientious voter finds him/herself standing at the gates of the Hell of Politicians (close cousin to the Hell of Wind and Ghosts), what is (s)he to do? We stare out at circles of the damned being tortured by SJWs, Incels, TERFs, Party loyalists, Trolls, Russian Bots, Maga Hatters, and all manner of mass media gaslighters. We set our jaws and prepare to wade into the melee, in order to do our duty to the Republic. Yet how can we save our sanity?

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to preserve my psyche is to embrace the Insanity. To this end, I am challenging myself to find and read one book per month from now until Election Day. Each of these books must dive headlong into the craziness that is American politics. Each of these twelve authors will serve as a Virgil to my Dante, guiding me through the hellish circles of this election. From each of you I ask for book recommendations, and I invite you to join the challenge. Perhaps with Momus and Thalia granting us the boon of their grace we can endure the campaigns, and emerge from the underworld with our minds intact.

For my first guide into the Inferno I have picked Hunter S. Thompson . I'll be reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. Gonzo, we need you.

Good luck with the endeavor, J.! If embracing the insanity gonna keep you sane, so be it

May I suggest The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion? This is one of those books that changed the way I saw and understood the world. One of the best books I have read in a very long time. How much better the world would be if we all read this book and learned from it. The book explains why we have the views we have and what surprised me the most is that genes have a lot to do with it. We are born with a strong potential to vote the way we do, even if we are brought up in a household that votes differently than we do. The book deals with a lot of other subjects also, like religion, identity and morality.

If you are only going to read one book this year, let it be this book!

Sometimes I listen to the BBC World Service if I wake up during the night. So many countries are dividing into opposing factions, demonstrating, rejecting former stable governments with strife and uncertainty in their place. Whatever persuasions people follow there seems to be a lack of tolerance or understanding of opposing views. Is the world disintegrating? How many young people/students vote or aim to improve life? There seems to be too much negativity and a distinct lack of making a positive difference.

Anne wrote: "... Is the world disintegrating? ..."

Sometimes feels this way. The air of romanticism and possibility of global peace and concord that was around somewhere at the turn of the century is long gone and gave way to radicalism, disagreement and confrontation with the feeling that the end of the world is nigh.
Or maybe we are too influenced by sensationalizing trend of modern media -:)

Anne wrote: "Sometimes I listen to the BBC World Service if I wake up during the night. So many countries are dividing into opposing factions, demonstrating, rejecting former stable governments with strife and ..."

First, give the BBC a rest. Spending a lot of time listening to MSNBC with British accents can't be good for you. For late night listening, I recommend Coast to Coast AM. No matter how bad your life is going, the callers on C2C will make you feel much better about yourself.

As for the world, there are certainly issues of concern, but I think the main driver is the rate of change. Consider how much our lives have changed over just the last ten years. Can you think of any other decade with changes as large, that didn't experience chaos?

Ok nothing stays the same but I am looking for optimism that morality, good values and decency may come back in vogue. Perhaps people are too used to getting instant gratification and can't see beyond themselves. Heard at a talk on Monday saying that frustration is often the result of our own expectations!

PS In reply to Philip commenting on the British elections - thank goodness it is only a few weeks and no longer.

Well, my book (The Internet President: None of the Above) is complete fiction, but it's satire that's more in line with the realities of what's been going on in politics.

A non-politician legally changes their name to None of the Above and runs for president. He ends up with a reality TV show and let's just say there enough parallels to real life that I have a "Fact Versus Fiction" section, including an update with more similar events that happened since the book was released.

One of the craziest similar events was how there were Russians messing with the election in my book. It was such a minor point when I wrote that part of the novel. Funny how context can change things when you take 4 years to write a book.

So maybe it's the kind of election insanity you're looking for.

I read 1984 recently, and I'm sure that's a common choice too.

I've started Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. I admit to a fondness for Hunter's writing style, though there is no way I could have kept up with his lifestyle.

https://youtu.be/cQCFdcEXknc

The introduction by Matt Taibbi offered an interesting view into the minds of modern political reporters. Taibbi asserts that many reporters model themselves on Thompson in Fear and Loathing. Consequently, they view the candidates as heros and villains, whom they must champion or defeat. I couldn't help but think about the media's treatment of Trump and Hillary, when I read that. Mr. Taibbi was recently on JRE.

https://youtu.be/2GJaLAIM1Ho

J. wrote: "I've started Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. I admit to a fondness for Hunter's writing style, though there is no way I could have kept up with his lifestyle.

https://..."

I actually used Matt Taibbi's reporting in Rolling Stone for a lot of the details in my chapter "Rigged." He's one of the best voices out there for what's going on that the mainstream media mostly downplays. We're surrounded by bread and circuses to distract us from the important stuff.

I'm about halfway through Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and Thompson's penchant for mixing fact and fiction is screwing with me. Several times I have searched the internet for news articles, in attempts to figure out whether a story was real or not. As an example, I offer the Ibogaine rumor:

https://youtu.be/qXRiNppihus

Adding this to the previously mentioned hero worship of Thompson by the media, I find myself doubting every report. Is Trump importing English Sudafed, because it is a stronger upper? How many candidates are Russian assets? Did Bob Dole get Bernie Sanders addicted to Viagra at a Congressional mixer? The only thing of which I am sure is that whatever the answers are, Rachel Maddow will screaming and crying that the Russians did it to prop up Trump.

May I suggest Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign. It is a look into what happened when she lost the 2016 election. It is both very interesting and a bit lost in of itself. Well worth reading.

Papaphilly wrote: "May I suggest Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign. It is a look into what happened when she lost the 2016 election. It is both very interesting and a bit lost in of ..."

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I finished Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 a little while ago. After digesting, I feel somewhat conflicted. Thompson's voice is as strong as ever, and his dialogues offer an interesting interpretation of the 1972 Presidential election. However, I feel that many of his antics have had a negative effect on the state of journalistic ethics.

I laughed at the mess that Hunter made of the Sunshine Express. Further, when I consider that Thompson was present for the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, I can relate to his animosity towards the Party's Old Guard. My problem is that when I add Matt Taibbi's comments about the press corps' love affair with this book, I see in it a seed of our current "fake news" cycle. Journalists have taken a page from Thompson by picking heros and villains, but most of the current crop of newsies are nowhere near Thompson's competency. Thus we got the "Steele Dossier" saga. They want to be the gate keepers who heroically save us from ourselves, but what we need is fact based reporting, sans editorial parading as news.

On a side note, Thompson described the desire by the electorate to be left alone, as part of the dark side of the American soul. He saw it as racist and ignorant. In 1972, he had a point, but I think that he overstated it. At the time, getting back to the "good old days" certainly had racist overtones, yet turning back the clock is different from wanting to be left alone.

Next up is The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Thanks to Thorkell for recommending The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

I'm about a third of the way into this book, and I'm concerned that it may be a dangerous book for me. Please bear with me. I despise the philosophy of Ayn Rand, because it fails on two major points. First, the morality of Randian Materialism is absolutely repugnant. Rand had an affair with her male secretary. Then when the secretary's marriage fell apart, Rand blamed them for not being mature enough. Second, Rand's economic theory relies on rational actors. I have pointed out many times that people don't make rational decisions, they rationalize the decisions which they have already made so rational actors are a fiction. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion espouses a theory of moral psychology which posits the rational mind is a minor player which rides along and merely rationalizes the decisions made by the older emotional/reflexive brain. Ergo, morality is a rationalization made to explain one's decisions. Like blaming a couples immaturity for the problems caused by the affair which you started. Or buying something out of mere desire, and convincing yourself that you saved money because it was on sale. As you can see, the danger to me is that this one slots very neatly into my confirmation bias. It is too easy for me to buy it.

If all the market players were rational, we would not have the huge bubbles and collapses. The inability to get good market information probably doesn't help, and the individual's delusion that he is better than everyone else is also a contribution to failing. Of course, some are. Warren Buffett has clearly better investment knowledge than most, but that is also as much due to hard work and analysis, which seems less interesting for most.

Ian wrote: "If all the market players were rational, we would not have the huge bubbles and collapses. The inability to get good market information probably doesn't help, and the individual's delusion that he ..."

Warren Buffett is an interesting data point. He is an outlier, but if humans make rational decisions he shouldn't be. He has a better than average ability to gauge market viability of a product, but he isn't perfect. The bulk of his work is determining the actual value of a company, and deciding if the market has over or undervalued said company. The information he uses is publicly available and the math is straight forward, but most people don't do this. Why?

You suggest a lack of interest in research and drudgery on the part of most investors. I suspect that Haidt would say that most people are just making the same uninformed emotional decisions that underpins their morality, then rationalizing the reasons. For both of you the difference between Buffett and others is Buffett's willingness to do the work. Haidt would say that Buffett is wired to be more systematic, and less emotional. Under Haidt's model of morality this has significant repercussions for his morality.

What do you think is Buffett wired differently than the rest of us?

J. wrote: "What do you think is Buffett wired differently than the rest of us? ..."

He is different because he can push the pile on his own word. That has to be taken into account when he speaks.

Ian wrote: "If all the market players were rational, we would not have the huge bubbles and collapses. The inability to get good market information probably doesn't help, and the individual's delusion that he ..."

I would dispute this claim.

Chaotic systems will naturally have wild swings.

One point about Buffet is that he started small, but he still put in the work. I would suggest he is not so much wired differently, other than perhaps all people who excel. The one thing they have is a determination to get there, and that determination means they get the necessary work done.

Graeme, I would argue that while chaotic systems have their ups and downs, rational behaviour would ameliorate them. Again, using Buffet as an example, just because the market has tumbled dramatically, he does not sell; rather he buys. If everyone behaved like that the swings would be less dramatic and much less real wealth would be destroyed.

Ian wrote: "I would argue that while chaotic systems have their ups and downs, rational behaviour would ameliorate them. Again, using Buffet as an example, just because the market has tumbled dramatically, he does not sell; rather he buys. If everyone behaved like that the swings would be less dramatic and much less real wealth would be destroyed ..."

A hypothesis - do you have a way to test this?

I think that would be very difficult to test because to do so, you have to persuade a lot of investors to do it. Actually, quite a few do, but identifying them and getting them to confess to it is another matter. The problem with investing is too many people fall into the trap of doing what everyone else is doing. They can't bring themselves to act like a buffer, and the problem is made worse by the fact that a lot of of crashes involve a lot of stupidity/fraud from company managers, and if you do not know enough, and most individuals do not, fear or greed makes them give the market positive feedback as opposed to the desired negative feedback.

I finished The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

I'm conflicted by it. As I stated before, it fits neatly into my confirmation bias which forces me to try to dismantle it. There are parts that seem weak to me. Parts such as attacking Utilitarianism and Deontology by citing studies which suggest that Jeremy Bentham was autistic and Immanuel Kant had a brain tumor. Diagnosing the dead in order to support your thesis strikes me as onanistic. However, the citations check out and the thesis seems logically valid.

Strangely, one of the most interesting things about this book are the reviews. Check them out. People either love or hate this book. There are very few three star reviews. Further, most of the high ratings seem to be from conservatives, and most of the low ratings seem to be from libs. This is bizarre, for a book whose author repeatedly claims to be a Leftie, and I think that it actually supports his comments about teams.

I cannot say for certain that the author's position is entirely correct, but it has been on my mind a lot since reading it. It has me evaluating morality and humanity in new ways, and for that reason I recommend it.

Next up is Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends. Nothing like taking a deep dive into the swamp to make you feel a deep love of humanity.

J. wrote: "I finished The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

I'm conflicted by it. As I stated before, it fits neatly into my confirmation bias which forces..."

Interesting.

J. wrote: "I cannot say for certain that the author's position is entirely correct, but it has been on my mind a lot since reading it. It has me evaluating morality and humanity in new ways, and for that reason I recommend it. ..."

Whether you agree with the premise or not, it has you thinking.

on several occasions, Graeme has noted that we live in a plutocracy. The problem with this critique is that plutocrats are usually in some way productive, but these people produce nothing. They are pure vulture capitalists, which makes this a kleptocracy.

I've waded through most of Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, and I feel a deep seated need to put a lot of people against a wall. Now, I'm about to dive into the Trump years. I hurt.

I finished Secret Empires a while back. It is an infuriating book which left me with a deep desire to lay some politicians to waste. I'm pretty sure that following that path would get me put on a list, so I sought a counterpoint. What I came up with was a collection of speeches by David McCullough titled The American Spirit: Who We Are and What We Stand For.

J. wrote: "I finished Secret Empires a while back. It is an infuriating book which left me with a deep desire to lay some politicians to waste. I'm pretty sure that following that path would get me put on a l..."

I read McCollugh's book and it was amazing.

The American Spirit: Who We Are and What We Stand For helped me rally from the darkness of Secret Empires. I think that I'll add another book of speeches to the list. (Recommendations would be welcome.)

In multiple speeches he cited JFK and his speeches, even quoting JFK's speech at Rice which started the moon race.

https://youtu.be/TuW4oGKzVKc

McCullough seems fascinated with the ability of a charismatic president to rally and focus the power of the US to great ends. I found myself thinking about Frank Herbert, who said that charismatics should come with a warning label, "Warning: May be dangerous to your health." McCullough is right that with charismatic leadership we can do anything. And Herbert is also right that with charismatic leadership we can do anything.

I'm curious about the depths of media manipulation, so Matt Taibbi is making a return to the list with Hate Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another.

Hate Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another is a collection of essays cum chapters which were originally published online. Consequently, it is an easy book to read a chapter at a time, or even out of order, without losing the major threads. Taibbi is surprisingly comfortable laying out how the media abandoned all but the facade of journalistic ethics in pursuit of profits and the esteem of future historians. (Cuz Trump is Hitler) Taibbi also makes some interesting observations about Trump. I really liked his comparison of Trump to a heel in wrestling.

Where I think that Taibbi falls short is in his assessment of just how bad of a candidate HRC was. For example, he downplayed how bad Clinton's private server was, but there are people in prison for much less.

After reading this book, I can't watch or read the news without smelling BS.

Next up is a recommendation from Papaphilly. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign is a view from "inside Hillary Clinton's doomed campaign."

Papaphilly wrote: "May I suggest Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign. It is a look into what happened when she lost the 2016 election. It is both very interesting and a bit lost in of ..."

Thank you for the recommendation.

I found the book to be even handed, but I have two points of contention with the authors. First, my stomach turned when I read a description of HRC as a "modest Midwestern Methodist." The turn of phrase brought to mind this moment: https://youtu.be/6DXDU48RHLU. Second, referring to her email server scandal as an "unforced error" is a disservice to the public trust in that the existence of the server and her use of it were massive violations of the public trust. Further, her deletion of emails from that server was spoliation of evidence. At the least, she should have been disbarred for that.

Does anybody have any thoughts?

J. wrote: "Does anybody have any thoughts?.."

I'm aware of that video (even though I can't access that specific instance from Australia) and she does not shower herself with glory in that one.

As for the server. I'm sure that every major intelligence service in the world has a full copy of it on file, and everything that passed through it will be known to everyone who has the capability to access those copies.

I'm sorry that the link doesn't work for you. I was unable to find a source, other than CBS, for the raw footage.

For those who are unable to access the footage and who are unfamiliar with the incident, in 2011 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was giving an interview to CBS news when she received word of Qaddafi's capture and murder. Her reaction was to say, "We came, we saw, he died!" She then laughed.

Qaddafi's was a violent dictator, and had been a major sponsor of terrorism in the 1980's. However, after the US invasion of Iraq he was far more accommodating of the West. HRC was the loudest voice pushing for intervention and regime change in Libya. US air power changed the course of the Libyan civil war, and doomed his regime. The aftermath is well documented.

When, without a trial, Qaddafi was held down, and a sword was shoved up his rectum, she thought that the appropriate reaction of America's top diplomat was to make a joke by paraphrasing Caesar. "Modest Midwestern Methodist."

"We came, we saw, we left one hell of a mess," might be a better comment. Interesting that she compares herself with GJC, who was one of the biggest mass murderers in history, and he did it all to gain personal wealth. After looting France and mass killing the residents, he not only paid off his personal humungous debts, and his soldiers, but came back hugely rich, then killed the Res Publica. What a model for HRC.

J. wrote: "I found the book to be even handed, but I have two points of contention with the authors. First, my stomach turned when I read a description of HRC as a "modest Midwestern Methodist." The turn of phrase brought to mind this moment: https://youtu.be/6DXDU48RHLU. Second, referring to her email server scandal as an "unforced error" is a disservice to the public trust in that the existence of the server and her use of it were massive violations of the public trust. Further, her deletion of emails from that server was spoliation of evidence. At the least, she should have been disbarred for that.

Does anybody have any thoughts?..."

I am no Hillary fan by any definition, but it was an unforced error because everyone assumed that she did something wrong even if there was nothing to hide. I am the first to say I think it is fishy, but nothing and I mean nothing has turned up saying she hid anything. You have to remember that there are two parts to the emails, the ones she sent and the ones she received. The ones she sent can be found in the future if someone else turns them over and the ones she received may be harder to find, but they exist. Even if there is nothing there, the damage was done by her own self-inflicted stupidity. That was the unforced part. It hurt her by her own hand.

I do not remember the "modest Midwestern Methodist" description and what it referred too.

Papaphilly,

Again, thanks for the recommendation. It was very informative. Since reading it, I've been watching election news more closely, looking for now familiar names like Robby Mook.

I agree that nobody forced her to do it. My contention is that the phrasing under sells the seriousness of what she did. I'm linking an article from Reuters that explains her failure.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate...

Simply maintaining the material on the server was a gross violation of her security agreement. As someone with decades of experience in government she well knew that allowing any State Department materials or related discussion to exist on her unsecured device was a clear usurpation of procedure. She, in her arrogance and entitlement, did it so that she wouldn't have to deal with annoying rules and protocols.

As part of my job I have to deal with ITAR. If I were to allow a single document to leave the site, my employment would be terminated; any potential future employer would be advised of my actions; and the FBI would investigate. I've had conversations with several friends who, as military personnel, had to deal with classified information. Their opinion was that if they had done anything even remotely like what HRC did, they would at best been fined, dishonorably discharged, and likely imprisoned. HRC got told that she screwed up.

You did not comment on spoliation. Do you see that as a valid issue?

The quote is part of a paragraph comparing HRC to Obama during her preparations for the campaign. It appears in chapter one, on page five of my copy.

"Obama had been relentlessly superb at telling voters why he was running for president and giving them a window into how he would govern. He was confident, cocky even, about his vision. Hillary, a modest, midwestern Methodist with a love of minutiae, was unshakably focused on the trees rather than the forest. This campaign would test the A student's ability to adapt-to subordinate her nature to her need to win."

As a foreigner, my view is security only works if all rules are followed without exception. (Even then, there will be leaks through foreign efforts.) But as soon as one person decides to "do their own thing", the security goes out the window and there is ane easier opportunity for the opposition.

J. wrote: "She, in her arrogance and entitlement, did it so that she wouldn't have to deal with annoying rules and protocols.

As part of my job I have to deal with ITAR. If I were to allow a single document to leave the site, my employment would be terminated; any potential future employer would be advised of my actions; and the FBI would investigate. I've had conversations with several friends who, as military personnel, had to deal with classified information. Their opinion was that if they had done anything even remotely like what HRC did, they would at best been fined, dishonorably discharged, and likely imprisoned. HRC got told that she screwed up.

You did not comment on spoliation. Do you see that as a valid issue?..."

I am not down counting what she did. As I noted, I find it fishy too, but nothing has been charged and no proof has been brought forward to promote charges. I am not disagreeing that she was let off easy, but it happened and charging her now is useless unless there is something really warranted. At this level of politics, sometimes it is easier to let them go and not let them return to play again. she is finished. Remember, Trump ran with it, hard. "lock her up" was chanted constantly during the campaign. that had to have hurt.

The Clintons are only rivaled for paranoia by one other politician and that one was Nixon.

For the Midwestern Methodist, I get his point. It is a bit of a misnomer because she was brash, but it also points out the entire problem for her, she could not articulate why she should be President. She loved the minutia and not the 30 sound bit.

As for spoilage, I absolutely think it is important. Once again, you cannot take what amounts to a mistake or innocent deletion and turn it into a Federal case because you think she did something wrong. If something truly serious turns up at a later date, she may be very well into massive trouble. If she is lying, it can come out because there are at least two people on each email. that may be whats comes back to bite her.

I agree that no charges will be brought, and the bulk of Americans believe that as well. Why would they believe otherwise, when they can see how corruption has been made legal for the elites, but not for us? That belief is a problem because it breeds resentment. When the plebs resent the privilege of the patricians you get demagogues and burning cities.

I recently read Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. This is the most disappointing book so far. The author constantly refers to articles and studies, but doesn't bother to add a bibliography or even footnotes. Consequently, though I agree with many positions presented in the book, Hitchens' Razor applies.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

An IT take on email and I have been a system Admin for email servers including highly classified military and government ones.

Email is complex it requires IT skill to set up and maintain a server. The system admin of email servers does all the manipulation sets all the connections and rules and has unfettered access to what's in anyone's email mailbox. Albeit all this activity leaves log traces. Email admins do not get paid much in comparison to the bosses who's email they maintain.

For a classified email to have been placed on the server would require someone to send it. This is the infringement not the location that it is sent to, unless someone (Tech skill required) bulk loaded emails onto the server which requires a source server to be accessed

So, as far as I know HRC is not an email sys admin and I have never seen a corporate boss or politician take responsibility for the systems their department or organisation uses. They do not understand how it works or how it's managed let alone pay anybody well enough to do it right.

The criminal act is anyone who sent a classified email to an unclassified address. Those domains .gov, .org .com, etc. have different treatment rules. Normally government systems have firewalls and processes as well as email server rules to prevent classified emails from being sent to external unclassified addresses. Hilary probably has to have her emails printed out by her staff (Not unusual in senior execs) I doubt she ever looked at the email's source header and footers to see where it cane from how it was classified or what it's legal status was.

This is not an excuse for accountability or responsibility but if she did not send the classified info or manage the server then she has no criminal liability. Everyone in government that sent a classified email outside the security wall is guilty and should not have done it and if they saw someone else doing it they should have reported it

I'm closing in on the end of Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.

I would like to know what you think about when you are done.

I've finished Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose. My personal take is complicated by two separate books that try to exist on the same pages.

The first book is the experience of a father who, despite his position and resources, is helpless in the face of his son's agonizing death. The accounts which I have read routinely describe Beau Biden as a good and honorable man, so I can sympathize with the loss of a father who is powerless to save a son who has surpassed the father's hopes for him. This is the part which allows me to most identify with Joe Biden. I can appreciate his gratitude to his staff for keeping him busy, to the Secret Service for their efforts in maintaining his family's privacy, and to Obama for his understanding and kindness. I can empathize with Biden's difficulty in dealing with a sorrow which he had to keep private. And I can sympathize with the rage he felt when a liberal rag reported that Joe Biden had started the rumor that Beau had begged Joe to run for President from Beau's death bed. This is the humanizing part of the work, and I feel that it is the most redeeming thing that I have read concerning Joe. My only real issue with this part is my internal conflict between wanting more, and feeling a need to respect his privacy in an extraordinarily sensitive matter.

The second book is the sort of self aggrandizing slop that triggers my cynicism. Going by this book, Joe and Obama were the best of friends, who agreed on almost everything. Joe was fighting Putin and cleaning up corruption in Ukraine. He was also working to build a healthy middle class in a secure Central America. And don't forget his work in keeping TARP uncorrupted! He begs his opponents to bring up his work on the 1994 Crime Bill. (Don't worry Joe, Trump will.) And he even humble brags on his dad, who when asked by little Joe why two men had just affectionately embraced on a street corner said, "They love each other." (Amazingly progressive for the 1950's)

My cynicism was triggered so hard that I started reading bad motives into family details. For instance, the Bidens routinely spend Thanksgiving on Martha's Vineyard. The practice began after Beau and Hunter's mother and infant sister were killed in a car crash. Joe was conflicted about which set of grandparents to spend the holiday with, and a member of his staff suggested going to Martha's Vineyard with just his sons as a third option. In the book Biden describes the family traditions they created around this regular trip at length. My cynicism triggered on a statement that the house they stayed in, while he was VP, was loaned by a friend. What friend owns a house on Martha's Vineyard that is big enough to accommodate three generations of the Bidens and their Secret Service security attachment? How close is this friend?

Then there is Hunter. He extols Hunter's virtue. I get that a father doesn't want to speak ill of his son, but Hunter isn't a saint. He is the sort of dude who knocks up a side chick while dating his brother's widow. https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2019...

The one interesting bit in the political part is his explanation of why he felt that he should run for President. He writes about how he would fight for the middle class, the silent majority which had suffered greatly under current economic woes. He writes about how he would speak to the pain of parents who found themselves explaining to their kids that they had to move because they were losing the house. When reading this I realized that he understands why Trump broke HRC's "blue wall". He has given himself a valid route to the Oval Office, but has he used it in his campaign?

There are dozens of tangents that can be tied to this book, but I think that I've touched on the major points. What do y'all think?

Is it worth reading?

It never rises to the importance of The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, nor does it possess the quotability or entertainment value of Teddy Roosevelt's autobiography. Its only real value is as a stained glass window into the mind of the current presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.

If you are trying to gather as much information as possible on the candidates, and you can acquire a copy for free (or very cheaply), then it is a useful source from which to gauge Biden's potential strengths and vulnerabilities. Otherwise skip it.