The Momentous Life of Arthur Ashe

I cannot remember the last time I started reading a book and enjoying it as much as I did, and then half way through the book I could barely continue on. Arthur Ashe did this to me in his autobiography. What happened really, I couldn't say, but I was all praise and looked forward to reading more and more, and then I couldn't wait to be done. Strange indeed.

The book started off great. Ashe gave us some insight into his world and into various aspects of his life that is not well known. He talked about his days as the captain of the American Davis Cup team, which was enlightening and revealing. He tells the intimate details of how, why and what happened when he discovered, as well as was discovered, to have aids. The opening chapter had me gripped to the seat as I was drawn in from the first few words. Amidst all this was Ashe's eloquence and ability to calmly and eloquently tell his story and impart who he was at the same time.

But then it became droll and boring. Ashe started talking about day to day stuff and imparting common conversations, thoughts and actions with too much importance. He would talk about going for a walk, or a talk he had with his daughter. He devoted several chapters to talking about various issues that didn't have anything to do with him but was more of a long winded explanation to help clarify a one sentence thought that he had. For example, he talked for almost a whole chapter about the likelihood of gay and lesbian athletes in various sports. Finally, as much as this seems touching, the letter at the end to his daughter sealed the deal and made this a mostly boring biography to read.

What we didn't see was his struggle with racism and segregation as he grew up in those troubled times of America. He talks a lot about segregation and racism as a retired tennis player, but he hardly goes into any detail about what ordeals he had to go through. This was the stuff that he could have gone into detail about and not only made his writing more interesting but helped raise awareness to what was and to hopefully will no longer be. Additionally, he didn't go into any detail about his own tennis career as a professional.

I wanted to see Ashe as a tennis player as well as his ordeals with the many surgeries he had that resulted in him contracting AIDS. But we don't get that. Instead we oftentimes get paragraph after paragraph of his day to day routine with AIDS. What pills he took, what he considered taking and so on.

What made his biography interesting in the first place was his stance on the black race and how they perceived themselves after slavery, segregation and slavery. He was truly a man beyond his time not only for black relations but for mankind's relationship with one another. For the first half of the book I would most certainly recommend to anyone as this is a very enlightening read. But the second half killed it and made it nothing more than average. Where was the biography part of autoBIOGRAPHY? I didn't find it, but I was still impressed with who Ashe was nonetheless.

3 stars.

Delta Force meets Navy SEALs

I had the distinct pleasure to read two memoirs from two different soldiers among our country’s most elite soldiers: Eric Haney, an operator in Delta Force, wrote Inside Delta Force (of which The Unit is based off of) and Chuck Pfarrer, an operator in the Navy SEALs, wrote Warrior Soul. What amazed me even more was that both accounts were extremely readable and engaging, hooking you in and not letting you go until there were no more pages to read. We were treated to an in depth description of the selection and training processes for both units, along with a smattering of the more publicized operations they went on. This is acceptable as well because, and you can bet on this, there were many, many missions that they probably went on that are still classified and can most certainly not be talked about in any way.

But in the ones that are talked about there is an amazing similarity between the two men's careers, not to mention between their respective parent organizations. The training for both are very similar and extremely arduous. Haney tells us of the forced marches over extremely rough terrain, using a map and some coordinates as the only guidance they had. The final test was a 40 mile forced hike, of which turned into 55 when Haney took a wrong turn - and still managed to beat everyone else - and didn't even guarantee that the would make the cut. 18 started that hike and all 18 finished it, but not all 18 passed the final interview with Charlie Beckwith. This of course granted them the distinct privilege to partake upon some even more arduous training and conditioning. One of the more unique facets of their training was the shooting house that they designed, in which to practice identifying friend and foe and clearing the room in a matter of 3 seconds. Such marksmanship is absolutely amazing, especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that oftentimes the terrorists were hiding behind a hostage and there were just mere inches to hit your target. And in order to solidify team confidence in one another and insure that this could be done in real life, their fellow operators were made to sit as the hostage in order to simulate a real life training.

This is all very similar to the Navy SEAL selection and training process as well. SEALs had to go through days and days of an extremely rigorous selection process that was designed to filter out the strong from the week, or I should say the more strong of will and heart, determination enough to push through the pain and suffering in order to accomplish their mission of passing selection. They were made to run the 5 miles to get their food, not to mention running the 5 miles back to training. They would be put into teams and made to carry boats and logs and if you dropped, at any time, the log than you had just dropped from the selection course. What made this even more difficult was that if one of your team dropped, then that meant the weight had to be held up by the rest of the team, which often resulted as the whole team dropping. This did much in solidifying that the team must succeed as one. Another example was sitting on the beach and letting the waves continue to bash on you as you each are holding the arms of the man next to you, forming one long line of men directly in the path of the wave. This was meant to remain this way until someone was forced to quit and volunteer to leave the selection course, sometimes the men were there for hours and when nobody quit they were excused. Selection is every bit is strenuous as Delta Force, with the accrual rate just as low. You were most certainly an elite if you were selected to either.

One interesting facet was that the SEALs had the same shooting house as Delta, which they called the Kill House, and ran along the same principals as Delta, right down to having your team members standing in as a live hostage. What I found as funny was that both believed that they were the best at clearing rooms based off of their respective training, and yet they trained the exact same way without knowing it (or perhaps upper management knew and thus the reason the training was so similar)!

Eventually they each went on missions. Pfarrer had traveled to the Latin American countries several times on various missions to either assist the rebels or the legitimate government. Haney of Delta Force was also used in this capacity. One particular mission that stuck out was the mission to use the legitimate government’s forces and aid them in ousting and destroying the rebel army. They hunted them down and Haney eventually sniped their leader, who turned out to be an American with the United States Army, one that was still in good standing with the army. Haney's take on what happened was that he and his fellow Delta Operator were used to kill their fellow soldier, who was in fact assisting the rebels on official US business. The CIA, according to Haney, was working both sides and eventually wanted the rebels snuffed out in order to not have the US's assistance of the rebels revealed.

Another interesting cross in their paths was that both had spent a good amount of time in war torn Beirut, Pfarrer spending a good deal more time there. Their paths crossed when Pfarrer was in Beirut at the time of the bombing of the US Marine Headquarters, and Haney was aiding the invasion of Grenada, both events of which were happening at the same time.

This was perhaps the most interesting thing involved around both of these elite units. That they were in and out of the same countries, doing the same operations as one another at different times. The two separate units of their respective organization are remarkably similar. Which is tougher or more elite? Hard to say, but I pity the country that these men are sent against. They are most certainly the best at what they do and hard pressed to find their equal.

Breaking Back by James Blake

This is a refreshing and inspirational story, one that leaves your mouth open as you witness and experience the challenges that Blake went through, as well as leave you with a smile and a pump of the fist as he slowly and steadily built himself back up. Most people would not overcome such devastating life experiences in such quick succession, at least not as well as he did. But this was what Blake did when, after he broke his neck, lost his father to cancer and came down with zoster, he was able to climb back in the rankings and do better than he had ever done before, winning two titles (he had only won one previous tournament in his career) and getting to the quarterfinals of the US Open, catapulting himself to a ranking of 23 from a low of 210 in 2005, then to 4th by the end of 2006 (with an additional 5 tournaments).

This is an up front and honest account of Blake's personal life, bringing the reader into a world that is hard to understand. We get to see some of the inner workings of the tour, as well as some of what tennis pros go through in their day to day life, but not too much.

This is, of course, not meant to be a day to day memoir of his experiences on the tennis court. Some may pick this up thinking they will get to read about tennis a lot more than is present, but this was never Blake's intention. After all, the subtitle of his book is "How I Lost Everything and Won Back My Life". So instead of a book crammed full with tennis thoughts on matches and other players, we get to witness through Blake's words what he went through, starting with where he came from and going through where he eventually got to at the end of 2006. It is clear that it was his father who played such a huge role in his life and this biography is an homage to him. Additionally, Blake reiterates how much of an impact his coach had on him through his philosophic style of coaching.

I think this is definitely the way to go, besides not straying from what he intended to write upon, and has helped paint a picture of himself that is sure to gain him many fans and inspire many more. His writing is easy and enjoyable and flows from beginning to end. I've always been a fan of Blake, even before I knew what had happened to him in 2004, and after reading Breaking Back I am an even bigger fan. I definitely recommend this book to any interested.

4 stars.

Run Your First Marathon by Grete Waitz

If you do a quick google search of Grete Waitz you will find a ton of information on such an accomplished runner. For this alone her book is worth considering. Her very first marathon she ever ran was a world record and she went on to win 9 NY City Marathons, as well as breaking the marathon world record another 4 times. Her wealth of knowledge is put to good use as she walks the runner through the experience from the ground up, moving from beginning training to after finishing, giving anecdotes and examples along the way.

I've ran in 6 marathon or longer races thus far and am still learning some of what she writes in this book. Reader beware, though, this book is for exactly what the title states, for runners looking to run their first marathon. A lot of the information given is very basic to runners who have ran this distance already, but to someone who never has ran 26.2 she touches on every aspect and allows the runner to become well informed in what they are getting into.

She briefly touches on two training schedules within the book. The first is for those readers who have ran very little at all. It sets them up and begins conditioning them to running, which in turn prepares them for the actual marathon training. So if you do run some then the training schedule number two is where you would begin. But it is very basic, kind of a run these miles on these days on this week. And she makes it clear that this book is not meant as a day by day guide to your training.

Instead she focuses on the stuff that is overlooked when researching and preparing for a marathon. She goes over running basics, such as form and speed and so on, as well as signs to prevent injury, motivation, and running gear among other information. But the most important chapter is Chapter 12: Marathon Nutrition and Hydration. Even if you have ran a marathon before this is a good chapter to read and refresh and/or educate yourself again. There is a good amount of base information that will probably go the farthest for any marathon hopeful in aiding them to the finish line. Additionally, the final chapter, The Race, is also very useful for the beginning runner because it goes over some of what you will feel, see and expect when you toe the line.

I wish I would have found Mrs. Waitz's book before I ran my fateful, yet ill prepared first marathon at San Francisco.

If you are a first time marathoner I would give this book a good read and set your goals on that marathon.

5 stars.

A False Christmas

There is a lot of nonsense that goes into creating a religion and making it a viable alternative to other religions already present. A myth and folklore needs to be created, a good and a bad side must be established, a ruler(s) needs to step to the forefront. And, of course, behind every good religion is a the organization that intends to benefit from establishing said religion. After all, religion, and thus God or gods, are man made, so who made them and why? It is along this line of thought that I have always viewed holidays. In the old world times when Catholicism was the only Christian religion there were a ton of holidays, all celebrating a saint's birthday. How you might ask does the church benefit? Why, they receive the thankful praise of the peasant class who is then given the right to not work, or perhaps it was one of the few days that it is acceptable to have sex with your wife. Small allowances went a long way in those days.

But today there are holidays that were not present as they are today, or they are much different. The main one is Christmas, or Christ Mass if you will. The nativity of Christ, a celebration of his birth into this world. A day of worship for our heavenly father in human form. But is it? And why would such a holiday be created in the first place?

To start you need to move back to the beginning of Christianity when it was a fledgling religion just getting on its feet after Constantine sanctioned it as the official religion of the Roman Empire. How, the church would ask itself, could we make more people worship God Almighty and Jesus Christ, and how could we gain more support? The answer was to take the power away from other pagan Gods, and in so doing convert their worshipers to Christianity.

This was done to Mithra, an ancient god of Zoroastrianism, and thus a Persian god. He was very popular and one of the more significant gods being worshiped within the Empire. To steal Mithra's worshipers and to make it easier for them to convert, the Pope decided to sanction the 25th of December as Jesus Christ's birthday. The significance? This just so happens to be the birthday of Mithra. Jesus was in fact, if he was ever born at all, born in April or May, but it was more convenient for the Church to mandate an official day for his birth, and why not on the day Mithra was born?

I would almost say that in doing so that Christians have been forever taught to break at least 3 of the 10 Commandments. Oh how un-Christian they are, and yet they don't even know it. If, in fact, the God is at all like he is in the Old Testament, then all of the worshipers who celebrate Christ Mass should go to Hell.

Commandment 1 states "You shall have no other gods before me". And some Christians may simply state that they don't have any other gods before their God, that in fact they worship the one and only (although if you interpret the 1st commandment it indicates that you can worship other gods, they just cannot be worshiped before him). In celebrating and making Christmas the most important holiday of the year they have, in effect, placed this as the height of their religious worship. Yet they are worshiping not God oir Jesus Christ, but rather Mithra, since it was Mithra who was born on this day and not Jesus Christ. Commandment 2 also loosely falls under this same train of thought, as Christians set up their trees, sing their songs in his glory, and go to mass to celebrate... Mithra, of course, and thus can be construed as "setting up an idol".

Then there is Commandment 3. "You shall not make wrongful use of of the name of your God." Which, of course, was the whole foundation and base for establishing Christ's birthday on the 25th, to use his name wrongly in order to usurp the power of a pagan god and convert his worshipers. How much more of a wrongful use could there be?

And finally there is Commandment 8. "Thou shalt not steal." This was the biggest and most obvious of the commandments that the church has broken. They outright stole the birthday of a rival god. How much more immoral can you be? How much more hypocritical could Christians be?

Over time these lines have been blurred and today most Christians don't have a clue that they are worshiping Mithra, and not Jesus Christ. The fact that time has blurred this does not absolve them of their ignorance. It does not give them the right to claim their religion is right and everyone else's religion is wrong. Christians cannot, in good faith, honestly celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ, because in so doing they break faith in 3 of the 10 commandments that their religion is based off of.

This is not to say that one cannot celebrate Christmas. I celebrate it with my family. We do not celebrate the birth of Christ. We celebrate having a joyous and full life in the company of our loved ones. We celebrate being able to spend another year together. Is this hypocritical? No, because we are celebrating something that is real and tangible, that is based off of what is right there before us. What we can see and feel.

We do not celebrate the false birthday of Christ and claim a holy right to that day. If we did we would be hypocritical.

Know your history.

Delta Force by Charlie Beckwith

The promise was always present, always ready to poke its head out and play peek-a-boo with the reader. Unfortunately it was never able to gain enough ground and become interesting to the readed. Beckwith's book can be broken down into three sections: Vietnam, Delta Initiation and Delta Organization.

The first section is a rather dull account of Beckwith's life in Vietnam. We get to see some of the details and descriptions of his exploits in Vietnam, but for the most part he doesn't really tell the reader much. The height of his Vietnam days are his rescue of a surrounded camp. Then it ends with Beckwith back in the States.

Section two drones on and on about how he was beating his head against a wall trying to get people within the army to recognize that there is a need for a Special Operations force such as Delta. We all know where this one ends, so no need for elaboration.

Section three is perhaps the most boring section. We finally get to see Delta Force come together. Will we get to hear about some of the details of their missions? No, in fact most of the latter half of the book is devoted to telling the day to day detail of what each officer and soldier was doing in order to maintain their training. So and so would wake up, blow up a wall, then do some running and push ups and then go and have a few beers. So and so would crunch the intel data and assess any threats, then he would brief the unit, and return to do some more data crunching before heading home early to get four hours of sleep, only to return the next day and start all over again. This could be interesting except for the fact that Beckwith does nothing but write about this for hundreds of pages. Finally, action, something to break up the monotony. We finally get to see a glimpse of Delta as it prepares to infiltrate Iran and free the hostages in the American Embassy. Some interesting detail here, but then it ends. Nothing really happened.

The book ends with nothing interesting being shared at all. If you discount the landing and subsequent take off in Iran then you are left with a Delta that did absolutely nothing except waste tax payer's dollars. Granted, Beckwith is still in the army, and perhaps they did do some missions that are still top secret and thus Beckwith couldn't talk about. Who really knows the circumstances? But not enough was talked about. Too much was talked about the set up and organization of Delta without showing what they could actually do.

Beckwith's writing is also quite horrible. Nothing about his writing made me want to read more. If you were to read it out loud I would imagine it would come out in a very monotone voice, with virtually no characterization. With Marcinko's Rogue Warrior you at least got to see and feel some of the action, to understand Marcinko's character and see it vividly within the words of his book. Not so here.

Because of the uniqueness of what Beckwith was writing on, as well as the fact that he might very well not have been able to write about other missions that could have been classified, I would give this an okay rating. I would certainly not recommend this book to others.

2.5 stars.

God Is Certainly Not Great

I picked this one up a while ago and have only just now been able to get around to reading it. Hitchens does a great job in portraying his position, does a great job in illustrating his position by using both his own personal experiences with his extensive travels as well as backing it up with irrefutable history that any "believer" cannot avoid acknowledging.

With God Is Not Great we see Hitchens move from the evils that religion brings along with it as well refuting the points that "believers" use to try and convince others of why their religion, above all others, is the true and correct religion. This last point was very interesting because Hitchens was able to point out various aspects of religions that are undeniably copied from other religions that were its predecessor. For example, Jesus was not born on Christmas, but it was convenient to use this holiday for several reasons. The first was in the Scandinavian countries the pagans celebrated this holiday of Saint Nick and gift giving and decided to usurp it to add credence to the belief in Jesus. Additionally, the 25th was specifically chosen because as the Christians were taking over the power struggle in the Middle East they wanted to ease some cultures into their transition and acceptance of Christianity, so they usurped a popular Mesopotamian God's birthday as Christ's own. Both do nothing more than make it easier for non-Christians to accept Christianity.

Another example Hitchens gives is his recounting of the Muslims plagiarism of the Old and New Testament in order to create their Koran. Or Joseph Smith plagiarising the New Testament when he dictated the Book of Mormon. These are obvious answers that any "believer" can find themselves. So how is it that their religion is the true and correct one when all it is is a plagiarism of other "revealed" religions?

But those are points on the false nature of religion, on the aspects of religion that are exploited upon, are used to pray on people's fears. Or the old casuistry of what do you have to lose? If he exists and you believe then you are safe, if he doesn't exist than you haven't lost anything in believing in him. Or praying on the fears of sinning will send you to rot in an eternal hell. Oh, and my favorite is when people claim that it is religion that holds our society together and not letting it fall into criminality and violence. Which begs the question, are they saying that if they didn't believe in God then they would rape, pillage and steal? Nonsense. Morals are not religion driven, they are innate.

Finally, Hitchens points more directly towards the hypocrisy of religion and how religion poisons everything. He says at one point: "The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre..." This was an aptly put observation, one that is glossed over when people praise their religion. If they actually read the holy book that their religion is based off of then they would be appalled at what their book promotes. Oh, but we follow the ways of the New Testament, not the Old Testament, some would say. Nonsense, you can't have one without the other because the New Testament was based off of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. Additionally, Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, so he did follow the Old Testament, and who are we to try and not follow the Old Testament when that was what he followed?

I could go on and on with the hypocrisy and ludicrous idea behind accepting any religion as a reality. I would like to point out that Hitchens does talk a good deal about other religions besides Christianity, which is a huge plus in order to understand where he is coming from. He may not write as well as Dawkins, but he went into more detail which adds a ton to his credibility.

5 stars.