I loved this book in my high school AP Euro class. I revisited it much later in my studies, and was dismayed to realize how lacking in proper research and citation it was. Manchester makes numerous bold claims without mentioning resources, many of which were directly contradicted by the more thoroughly-established works I was then reading. I had learned a lot of "facts" that turned out to be inaccurate, imprecise, or speculative.

I'll let others with more knowledge correct me, but my overall impression is that he was pushing sensational narratives rather than advancing historical knowledge.

> One Summer: America

I haven't heard of this and will take a look. Thanks for the recommendation.

It was common to run into not just politicians, but people working for state agencies or influential community members who were shockingly incompetent. While we did not know him, Leon Finney is a great example of the kind of wheeling and dealing I'm thinking of.

At the level we were familiar with, this wasn't a right/left paradigm (state bureaucrats are at least nominally non-partisan). It had more to do with which party had comfortable majorities, and thus offered safe career options. Our state senator is not an intelligent person. He votes along with whatever he's told to by party leadership, and struggles to articulate what's even at stake in the bills he discusses. All he knows is that if he toes the line, the party won't fund a primary challenger and he'll still have a job after the next election cycle.

The Warcraft mod was a little goofy, but as a younger kid who couldn't appreciate the hardcore competitive scene I liked the variety and silliness it brought.

I spent way too much time finding custom skins online to keep things interesting. Good times.

While this became a salient topic in the media during the proposed TMNT telescope construction, there's an angle to all this that has been lost in the national media. Some of the voices quoted as opposed to development tended to be the loudest, and in my opinion least reasonable, ones. These arguments tended to hinge on Native Hawaiian identity politics and cultural grievances - while there might be something there, such statements could come across as close-minded, and I think they mischaracterized the debate as about science and progress versus NIMBYism and indigenous rights.

The more legitimate concern has been the State of Hawai'i's general mismanagement of development on the mountain, and the failure of its relevant Board of Trustees to fulfill their contractual obligations. Many private/public construction projects in Hawai'i have the unfortunate tendency to turn into haphazard federal cash grabs: the exploding costs and years-behind-schedule rail system in Honolulu is a good example, and there's a fair argument to be made that the thirteen telescopes on Mauna Loa have followed a similar pattern. Some of these were legally supposed to have been cleaned up years ago.

As mentioned, I know people who've used some of the telescopes for research and I don't think many people in the islands question the value or substance of their work. I also personally prefer it to local government's addiction to developing tourism. At the same time, I think there's a fair debate that's less "we don't like scientists," and more "please clean up your old messes like you promised."

This is all tangential to TFA, and I doubt the current federal administration cares about it. I'll still be curious to see how this plays out. Pulling funding could hurt efforts to responsibly steward the site, which would be bad. At the same time, it could discourage the Board of Trustees from continuing to chase the next federal money hose opportunity in a questionably sustainable way.

In an ideal case, those involved will find a way to continue pursuing research, while those managing the site will pursue a more organized, transparent, and responsible development plan for the land in question.

There’s a lot to say about the crime factor, and it’s complicated. I will say that it’s common to miss it if you don’t happen to witness it. Streets that look quiet, well-developed, and peaceful will suddenly become violent and then go back to normal as if nothing happened.

I also lived on Drexel for a few years. A graduate student was shot and killed nearby while walking home. Another night we witnessed a drive-by shooting while eating dinner. I’ve got a number of crime-related stories after living here that range in severity from “funny-in-retrospect” to “somebody died.”

Something that still strikes me is how crimes can happen right outside homes without anyone noticing. The University Police have a daily email list of “serious” incidents that I check - I’ll often notice a carjacking or home invasion within 500 feet of where I was taking a nap on my couch.

It’s a great neighborhood with a lot going for it, which is maybe part of what makes the crime issue so hidden. It doesn’t look sketchy or violent until it suddenly is.