Pedro Paramo - Rulfo

Not having strayed far from the great novels of English literature, I ventured into what is believed to be one of the best novels of Spanish literature, “Pedro Paramo”, by Juan Rulfo.  Some literature buffs  make claims for this book to be one of the greatest novels of all time.   Not to be over critical, and perhaps the novel makes a stronger claim if read in Spanish (I read the English translation by Margarert Sayers Peden)  I see great creative talent and strong prose, but not sure the story itself, holds up in a fashion that would bring this book into contention with the very best.  

A journey, as most great novels are, into the past, of a mother’s dying wish for her son, to know her father, Pedro Paramo. The twist, either due to the magical incantations of a town full of aberrations, or more likely, the mental illness of her son,  Juan Preciado, who is perhaps schizophrenic, we journey back to the history of the Pedro Paramo’s town Comala, and learn about his violent past through the eyes of the characters in Juan’s dreams and delusions.  Juan, who is also the narrator, is also dead.  Not sure if that’s a spoiler, or a twist, but we are in fact, hearing the story, told by a ghost, which is either completely in line with the journey as it unfolds, or the ultimate twist of plot.  Again, it’s possible that some of the impact to this twist is lost in translation, I don’t want to detract from the genius of Rulfo for this literary construct which did, it is claimed, have a huge impact on Spanish literature.

I have asked some of my Spanish speaking friends about the impact this book has had on their lives, and apart from it being required reading in 12th grade Spanish, it’s about the same as high school required reading in English.  On par with “The Scarlet Letter”.  They remember the title, but not much of the story.  Other books, such as “Lord of the Flies” or “Heart of Darkness”, have had more impact.

So off Juan goes to the town of his father, Comala, to be boarded, guided, and buried, by the ghosts along his path.  What is revealed about his father, Pedro Paramo, is that he was a wicked man.  Godless, evil, selfish, and without any redemptive values whatsoever.  This is strange.  He is a crook, a killer, a rapist, and quite possibly a pedafile. Why a loving mother would ever want her beloved child to find, meet, or reconcile with an evil father is a mystery to me.   Ironically, I was drawn to this book by the initial paragraph that does indeed read, “Attention, great prose to follow”, with the opening of its first line,  “I came to Comala because I had been told that my father, a man named Pedro Paramo, lived there.  It was my mother who told me.”  Beautiful.  Then not much more to follow in the way of great prose.  So, I’m left in a quandary.  I don’t want to be overly critical.  Perhaps I need to read the book again.  It’s short enough, maybe a different translation, because I struggled with each page, in English.  And then once Rulfo begins the metaphysical stuff, it’s extremely difficult to follow.  The book is barely 120 pages, with close to 20 separate characters, all of which, including the narrator,  appear to be ghosts. 

And it is a journey, and most journeys, let alone great journeys, have to be of discovery, or redemption.  I find nothing revealing, redemptive, or remotely healing for a child to discover their father was a monster for which, having been revealed to him, he is buried, seemingly alive, for a time, until you realize he is dead.  The sins of the father, repaid, perhaps.

Certainly, it’s a brave book.  For Rulfo to have written it, I have no qualms. I think, perhaps, when he wrote it, it was merely an exercise in creativity.  Never meant to be anything more than a literary experiment.  For this, perhaps, he is due props.  I think, wrongfully, Spanish authors (such as Gabriel García Márquez)  who came later, strapped themselves to Rulfo’s boldness, to point to it as an apologetic for their own sense of creativity.  To me this is disingenuous and cowardly use of a so, so, book about a figure, not worth remembering.  The author, Juan Rulfo, should  be remembered, not the character, Pedro Paramo.  Which is not exactly how this worked out for Rulfo, but exactly how it worked out for Marquez.  That seems like a nice stroke of marketing. A couple of stars, tops, for this book.  Glad I read it, I will not revisit.

Cynical Theories and One Reason Not to Divide Our Country

Point #1. The narrative from the left is that liberals are definitely NOT pushing Critical Race Theory (CRT).  They do not want to teach it in schools and they do not want to force government mandates to include it in required sensitivity training. Informed liberals say it really is just an academic social theory that sits on a shelf and is occasionally dusted off by law students to write research papers.  This view from the left believes that the right is over inflating the impact that CRT should have on the country in regard to correcting the imbalance of social justice that clearly exists in the United States. The left believes that CRT is not something to fear...it’s just another cog in the hunt for social justice that is long overdue and that the right is using the fear of “cancel culture” to win votes and to push their racist agenda. 

Point #2. The narrative from the right, in this case the far right, Fox News and Trump supporters, is that CRT is radical and all encompassing. They believe the left is systemically pushing CRT and is hell bent on the complete annihilation of western institutions because they are indelibly corrupt with bias for those in power (white males) and that this is by design to favor white males because of their inherently biased institutions.  The goal is for white males to remain in power until their foundational institutions of privilege are torn down.  Again, that is what the Far Right believes CRT is all about and why they want to highlight it's content because they believe it infuriates and activates their base.

So those of us with a more rational bent, and in the center politically, are watching the radical left pull us into the abyss known as Marxism, and the radical right, clearly in favor of authoritarian Fascism, pull us in the other direction.  The clear take away is that both radical sides totally suck and both are bad directions for this country. If these radical extremes divide our country further, they will rip us apart.   I think it is important to examine both of these extremes that are causing the most harm and address those first.  White supremacy, on the right, is vile and clearly must go.  The corollary, on the radical left, that every white man is a racist, is just as racist a notion. Hypocrisy at its highest peak.   The cause of that hypocrisy and roots of that thinking are the academic origins of CRT.  As a consequence, those roots must be clearly examined.  To me it’s unfair to group vague notions of CRT, those who haven’t studied in, with its origins.  Those only in favor of social justice, most of us, thus are not to blame, and should not be blamed just for a casual favorable glance in it’s direction.  However, there is so much else involved, it can’t be left unsaid.  Let’s dive in.

So to start, admit, yeah, white supremacy is definitely a thing, it will unfortunately always exist because humans evolved to protect the home team. But as evolved humans we know that racism is a vile thing and we are not going to tolerate it within our country.  It needs to crawl back under the rock where it came from and never peek out again. Trump turned over that rock.  Now we must push that rock back in place.  On the other hand, Wokism is also a thing.  While not vile, in the sense that white supremist are morally wrong, those pushing the woke agenda are definitely on higher moral ground, however as mentioned, they are also wrong and also hypocrites. Thus they do not propose a clear or compelling argument.  Wokism is rife with it’s own brand of bias and social injustice.  The problem is that wokeism doesn’t stop until it eliminates freedoms so basic to human dignity, that one can only arrive at the conclusion that wokism is the new religion of the hypocrite. Other religions can now pick their heads back up.   How can clearly intelligent people become so backward in their search for something reasonable...social justice...and throw the baby out with the bath water?  This is a true social conundrum.

That’s a very long introduction, with little content from the book I just finished.  Cynical Theories, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.  The introduction I just wrote was necessary, to claim my independence from either side.  Although, alas, remaining impartial in this book review will be subjective and individual.  Those who read it will immediately cast me in one group or the other.  I hope not.  Cynical Theories is just a book.  I’m just a reader.   Everyone should read this book because it was written by centrist and intelligent liberals, not by the radical left or or the deplorable white supremist right. It attempts to decipher the rise of CRT from it’s safe harbor in legal academic scholarship through it’s creation of wokism in our free societies.  Ironically, within free societies, being the only environment, such thoughts could even muster... and how we came to the place in our country where simply saying something perceived as politically incorrect can cost you your job and all your friends.  I simply read the book...I don’t want to lose my job or my friends over it.  That is a real concern and it has caused me to be pensive to even write this book review. Which is clearly part of the canx culture.  If I can’t write a simple book review for fear of backlash I have been cancelled.  So I’m going to write about this book because I still live in the United States of America and we still have a viable constitution with a Bill of Rights.  And we haven’t started the book burning yet, at least not in District 12 where I live...

So this book is not just about CRT as it applies to the oppression of minorities in our Country it also addresses how every group of marginalized people use it’s tenants to claim institutionalized oppression at the hands of a westernized environment (political, economic, and social) that was created to keep the oppressed and those in power (white men) in power.  That’s the theory.   In this case, CRT, is referred to as “Theory” and can be equally applied to the oppression of black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community, as well as the disabled and those who are weight challenged. There are, seemingly, a lot of oppressed classes of people in our country, yet everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, can still buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks on a Sunday morning and still pay $5 for it.  And it doesn’t matter where you are.  You can live in Trump Country, deep in Florida, or in the heart of Bernie Sanders country, where Duncan Donuts still believes they make a better cup of coffee...when we all know they simply make better donuts.  Going to Duncan Donuts for the coffee is like saying you still go to Hooters for the chicken wings (or read Playboy Magazine for the articles--just to be edgy). Just to name two companies which seemingly benefit from the abject exploitation of women (Playboy and Hooters) that still seem to fare well in the US despite their obvious lack of wokism in the feminism department.  It’s a good place to consider hypocrisy.  Not the hypocrisy of Hooters or Playboy, but the hypocrisy of an outward, Puritan culture, with an inner lust for life...or something more basic.

So why this book?  I think this book was necessary because CRT as a theory has no scientific basis.  It’s a social theory.  There is no empirical data to support the institutional wide belief that western democracy, a construct of western values and ideas, can speak to why Rodney King was severely beaten 30 years ago or why George Floyd was choked to death last year.  Systemic racism is the rally cry but the criticism of that rally cry is not that racism doesn’t exist in the US.  It most certainly does…and it could be systemic in some circles.  The criticism is that the pantheon of Western culture is inherently racist and thus begets racism through all of it’s institutions which include philosophy, theology, language, literature, economics, governance, social structures, and most recently added, art.   Thus vigilance is required to root out the inherent bias at the most basic levels.  The most basic of those is the language itself.  The vigilant proponents of CRT search for subtle clues in language to make discoveries pertaining to its existence in the use of words that denote a power balance...or imbalance.  Specifically, who is in charge? And who is not in charge?  Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in any given logical construct?   Who is privileged and who is not privileged in the sentence?  I’ll admit, white privilege is difficult for white people to see.  It’s like breathing air.  We wake up and breathe.  Our privilege is invisible.  But that doesn’t mean we are not also oppressed by “our own” system.  For sure I do not worry about my physical safety when stopped by a highway police officer or when going for a run in the park.  It’s simply never something that has ever occurred to me.  But that doesn’t mean I’m not frustrated by western institutions.  Take any of them…  the DMV, the IRS, the fact that I do have to drive 55 mph and have to get my car inspected. The fact that I can’t shop at trade stores run by licensed union members…  HVAC being the strictest, but so to salon product distributors.  But the fact that I can’t pollute the environment or raise dangerous animals in the city (I’d like to own a Bengal Tiger -- who wouldn’t).  Or I can’t own harmless chicken birds without having to fight city hall for two years (that actually happened).   But I don’t feel like living in a society for the good of all, the oppression and frustration I feel, all day every day, when I don’t have the right paperwork at the DVM, or must fight City Hall for a permit, is a result of the color of my skin.  I do feel oppressed by the institutions of government.  Whatever you want to call that...it’s probably not PC anymore to say, as a white man, that I’ve been oppressed by “The Man”.  CRT will say, I am that Man.  But we all are oppressed by the rules of society.  That’s just a thing.  That’s not systemic racism.  If I’m a female, should I blame it on my gender?   If I’m gay or disabled should I blame it on my happenstance?   If I’m challenged by weight, is everyone out to get me? No generically, no. The institutions that strive to create fair treatment are oppressive simply because they set rules...and rules suck. They are equal opportunity oppressors of all who must abide by the rules.

Stepping beyond this book I now draw your attention to this recent article about paper being published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (The MET) in New York City…

https://hyperallergic.com/673046/what-every-sexual-assault-depicted-at-the-met-museum-tells-us-about-rape-culture/

Read this article and listen to the way the author of the published paper being interviewed talks about her subject. She is completely creating a fictional narrative out of thin air...she is speculating about something based on language research (in English) based on a subject (Art) that was done 500 years ago by artists who were not even speaking English.  In the first example they are from France, speaking French. She is essentially saying that there is a rape culture in the west because white people have glorified rape in their artwork for the past 500 years.  She does this by searching for words in the description of the art.  English words, from art from around the world.

I'm not an art historian but this definitely has me feeling like she is trying to rewrite history. A common theme these days. And OMG she is an art curator. So she is attacking her very own people.  I can just imagine the uproar at the museum...but they are not going to cancel her, for sure, she is one of them.  So they will listen to her and think deeply...maybe?  And a conspiracy will start...and it will add to the other theories.  This is really weird and a danger to cultures across the planet.  This is how you start to rewrite history if you are a nitwit. 

This is so disconcerting because these are obviously very intelligent people.  It's almost like they have intelligent minds that are so active they are searching to make connections...and their intelligent brains work over time and they invent these conspiracies. In this case, the conspiracy can't lead to any one piece of art, or any one museum doing something "bad" or without sensitivity.  It can only lead to finding something wrong with the larger hierarchy of "Things" as they are.   It's the system that is bad.  The system must be changed.  A system that has provided freedom and liberty from oppression for hundreds of years and brought the world out of the dark ages.

 Is there something wrong with the System--let’s call it democracy based on capitalism?  There are certainly things wrong in the system...and that will always be the case...but is there something inherently wrong with the system?  Is permissive Rape culture a product of Western Thought.  Im pretty sure, no I’m 100% confident that rape has always been illegal in western cultures. Recording of the culture is what makes it history, whether written in a book or painted as art, or cast into a statue.  This is the work this curator now attacks.  She is rewriting history.

This article helps me because it's a great example of applying Theory away from the thorniness of talking about Race, and seeing if it holds up. Of course rape is also a thorny topic...so I guess I run the risk of being labeled for pushing back a little.  But this can't hold up in the art world....it's just plain whacky. The posting of Art has to be done objectively...if it is done subjectively, and bias accompanies the work of art in the form of commentary (this is how you should interpret this artist work) is purely subjective.

The trouble with this theory, beyond the acceptable and laudable use of such a search to discover perspective from a thought experiment, is that it fails to meet the necessary test of reality.  People have to communicate.  Language is a very real and very necessary component of a functioning society.  Hidden meanings beyond the scope of intended communication belong in the cult of paranoia and false information theory.  Not mainstream, purposeful, dialogue between two parties.  As well as good journalism...hello?   Without language communication, society would consist of sniffing butts and biting ears.  To suggest power dynamics are egalitarian in the animal kingdom...without language entirely...really begins to strain the credulity of reason itself when understanding how CRT even became a thing.  The academics who came up with it seemed not educated in anything but their own feelings.  Which is a dangerous place to develop theories anyplace outside of the dark web. Particularly if these theories take root without merit.  Feelings are subjective.  I feel oppressed.  Feelings are different from fact. You are not a victim of a hate crime at the hands of an institution.  Individuals commit hate crimes not institutions.  Bad and racist cops are to blame for racist and discriminating behaviors.  Laws are put in place to punish the perpetrators not institutions. Permissive environments exist.  Those are to blame, not the institutions as they exist.  The institutions are fundamental good for society.

With radicals on the left pushing banners such as “Defund the Police” one has to wonder where it came from and why?   And, no, I don’t need to hear from the apologetics telling me, that’s not what they mean (see Point #1 above).  That is because I know what you will say, you will say, “What they really mean is that the cops shouldn’t be social workers”.  Except, no.  That’s what you believe, that’s not what purveyors of CRT actually believe.  They do mean, “Defund the Police”, as an institution.   And that’s exactly what the right fears.  So they are not wrong about CRT...they are simply wrong that that’s what everyone on the left actually believes. This is akin to the belief that everyone not supporting Trump is a closet Marxist.  Definitely not true.  In fact most on the Left are not Marxist, that title belongs only to radical clowns on the far left that haven’t read Animal Farm yet…

So perhaps that’s enough.  This is a long post.  There is so much more to the discussion.  Don’t label me a racist because I’m not woke.  Label me an American with grave concerns about the radicalism on both the left and the right.  CRT is not helpful as anything more than the notion of social injustice.  And a strong desire to make democracy and it’s tenets of justice and liberty for all prevail in a confusing world.

The Pentagon's Brain - Jacobsen

 Having finished the heavy tomb, “The Pentagon’s Brain”, written by Annie Jacobsen and subtitled “The Secret History of DARPA”, I have discovered that his book is less about DARPA and more about a dumb conspiracy theory where a profoundly successful government organization (there are not many of those) that exists as  the center for innovative excellent for the US Department of Defense is in reality an organization of unethical bunglers with nefarious intent, hell bent on world domination though the use of robots.  I normally save my stars for the end of my book review but has a little bit of history and a whole lot of fictional commentary.  I give it 2 stars and that’s generous.  I have to repeat, as an organization, DARPA is perhaps the most functional government organization in existence, principally because it stays above any political fray, is liked on both sides of the aisle, and exists not just to keep the United States advanced sufficiently ahead of our adversaries in science and technology, to avoid technological surprise (think Sputnik), but to better all of humanity (think the internet and GPS) through technical innovation.  Although DARPA is an agency of the Department of Defense, the advances in technologies coming out of DARPA, does not just kill people and break things or break international law or treaties.  DARPA researches everything.  So much technology, including munitions, but so many things in between that next new bomb, tank, satellite, or machine gun.  And yes, this does include robotics, but think self-driving cars instead of world dominating terminator machines that talk like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

At the beginning, when the Agency was established, Gen Eisenhower who was by then President was profoundly insightful with his warnings to the country about the perils of the military industrial complex.  These have always been keen words and words most American’s I know who work within this massive bureaucracy, take seriously.  Jacobsen uses these words not as a warning but as a spring board into the conspiracy.  However, the military industrial complex is not self-aware.  It is not, in the words of Black Sabbath, a collective where “General’s gather in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death construction”.  The author appears to think so, or she is delusional, or she is guessing—trying to make sense of something she doesn’t understand.   The US military industrial complex, let alone DARPA, is not a consortium of war pigs, as the basic tone of her writing would have the layman believe.    To be clear, Black Sabbath was protesting the War in Vietnam.  A fair criticism.  But to blame DARPA for the manifestations of war being, not just hell, but evil, is akin to believing in aliens.  Strangely, as I write this, yet another kook has come forward with a conspiracy theory about aliens.  Turns out I knew the guy.  I’ll save that commentary for another time.  It’s surprising that kook hasn’t brought DARPA into his fantasy.  He did work at DARPA for a few years.  Good thing Jacobsen didn’t know about that. Conspiracy theories need to focus on facts and physics and less on conspiracy and we would have more truth.  As it stands, Jacobsen is mostly conspiracy.  Believe one conspiracy not based on anything real, like facts or physics, and you might as well believe them all.

In the opening Chapter she gets something right.  And that’s about the only thing.  You can stop after the first chapter and you will know all you need to know about DARPA.  It is the culture of DARPA that makes it the world class organization of innovation that is the envy of any research engineer. The secret to DARPA’s success is the rotating over a hundred brilliant, high energy, PMs through their doorway, empowering them, funding them, and getting management out of their way.  They are empowered to move quickly, empowered to fail, and empowered to fail fast—yes, that a thing, and a good thing.  Fail often and fail fast.   And of course, the true objective of DARPA for the country is to avert strategic surprise, and she does say this…but that’s no secret, it’s in the DARPA mission statement.  What Jacobsen misses is that if each PM has 2 -3 concepts and 2 -3 programs going at the same time. That means at any given time there are 400-500 active programs going on at DARPA.  Over the course of several decades that means DARPA has done research into 10,000 or more major topics.  It’s probably double that. I have no way of knowing, nor did she, but the numbers hold up.  Sadly, she reports on a tiny few.  Less than a handful.  And she culls that handful into the few that shed a negative, and seemingly sinister light, on an organization attempting to predict the future in order to keep the United States ahead of our adversaries.  If DARPA gets credit for being the Pentagon’s Brain, that is where they rule, in technology.   Not, seemingly, as a nefarious puppet master, charting the course of our wars.  It is not the nightmare organization of Ozzy Osborne’s dreams.  There are no war pigs at DARPA, only researchers, technologists, engineers, and scientists of every sort.  Also, on the Org chart for the Pentagon, not reported in her book, but easily researched, DARPA tucks up as an Agency under OSD/R&E.  DARPA does not sit near the top of the Pentagon food chain.  They don’t even have a say in the Military Strategy of the United States.  As in, the Military Strategy of the United States, doesn’t even show up in their office for coordination.

Has DARPA invented things that do harm…yes.  As a necessary component of defense related work, DARPA builds technology that will kill people and break things.  The military is in the business of executing violence upon those who would do us harm.    The necessity of agent Orange to destroy foliage so that the electric fence observing the Ho Chi Minh trail, was perhaps a great travesty and tragedy, owing to a lot of uncertainty in how to prevail in a conflict that we probably shouldn’t have been a part of.  That’s the mistake of history, not a mistake of DARPA trying to respond to a warfighting requirement. Generally speaking, DARPA works outside of the acquisition process.  Building technology in advance of any requirement to do so.  That’s an uncertain area of acquisition.  But one that is necessary if innovation is the priority.  There is no conspiracy just because there is no requirement.  Jacobsen seems to think DARPA is coming up with nefarious things outside of the military’s requirement to do such things, thereby pinning the ugly nature of things that go bad, on some premeditated urge to do harm.  It’s wrong, it’s misleading, and it’s really insulting to the American’s who work for DARPA, pouring in their energy to be of value.

She reports on so few programs and she stretches the involvement that DARPA may have had specifically in the involvement of nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear policy.    Ironically, whereas DARPA might have had some involvement, at the end of the day, there but for the grace of God go us, the country has averted nuclear war.   Cooler heads, smarter heads, have always prevailed in our nuclear enterprise.  The admonishments of Dr. Strangelove, won the day.  That is our reality, not the crazy antics of the military general who unleashed the power of the atomic bomb.  Adults remain in charge. Adults, and not conspiracy theorists, should write the history papers.  Not misinformed journalists with an anti-war sentiment and certainly not Hollywood.

Jacobsen get’s the VELA Incident completely wrong.  Somehow she’s twisted the mystery of possible nuclear test in the deep southern hemisphere, observed from the on-orbit VELA Satellite in September, 1979 with actual exo-atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons which occurred, by both sides, during the Cuban Missile Crises in October, 1962.  Since most of her history is taken from the transcripts of interviews she did with senior officials, perhaps this is just someone’s faded memory.  I’d didn’t stop to look into this gaff any further.

She wildly speculates about technology that remains classified, she claims successful, but for those in the know, has failed.  Fail often and fail fast.  That's what you need to know about DARPA.  Sometimes technology doesn't work and those programs go away...they don't get handed over to the "Men-in-Black" to employ from the secret organizations.  Wink Wink, Nod Nod. (said with as much snarky sarcasm as I can muster).  Enough about that subject.

She seemingly believes the sole drive of DARPA is to build warfighting automatons...we do not want to help veterans who are amputees with robotic limbs, for instance, DARPA just builds a war machine.  The job is to build a sky net.  To fight wars with robots.  On the one hand, what’s wrong with that?  What’s wrong with trying to build systems that keep Americans from dying in our wars?  That seems far more noble than sinister.  What she fails to realize is that we already have robots that fight in our wars.  The big lie, has always been that, the USAF, for instance, is only interested in manned systems.  At least one CSAF and SECAF were fired for this ignorant belief (William Gates when SECDEF did the firing) Right or wrong, the USAF has been in the business of building unmanned systems since their inception in 1947.  Missiles, rockets, target drones, autopilot, satellites, and unmanned aircraft have been in the USAF inventory.  Sure DARPA has helped that along but it has been the USAF who brought this technology to the Department of Defense and the world, in a useful fashion.  Certainly, many times, DARPA had a role in early research, but so did other centers for technology.  The research labs at each of the services, the intel organizations, and of course external development at NASA, and major commercial companies doing engineering in areas such as Boeing, for instance, building commercial airliners it’s pretty evident that aircraft building expertise, can exist, well outside of DARPA’s hallways.   The Skunk Works at Lockheed Martin as a stellar example.  Without these industry research centers we would certainly be living in the technological dark ages, still.  And losing to our adversary’s…maybe.  In the case of China, without our advanced technology to steal, they would still be in the dark ages.

Finally, Jacobsen, had an annoying fixation on cost.  She reports cost in the year and current year dollars for the programs she discusses on almost every page. These cost numbers are tiny in comparison to the DoD budgets at the time, and exist for her to simply write an extra, irrelevant paragraph in every chapter, expanding her book, and the garbage it contains, into something that many, might deduce as well researched and factual.  Program budget numbers are probably the only factual thing she could obtain in her research and Freedom of Information requests.  The rest is conjecture at best and pure conspiracy theory at worst.  This book is fundamentally flawed.  It should never have reached best seller status. That merely builds its credibility and adds to the conspiracy theory we all should be dismissing as not true, except in the movies.  Too many inaccuracies for this book to be made into a movie…by any Hollywood director, short of Oliver Stone.  And I hope he’s too old to take on this kind of a project.  DARPA, as an organization, deserves credit and praise, not criticism of its science, and certainly not conspiracy.

Drawing conclusions and asking questions to suggest answers amount to full on manipulation at worst and or shoddy journalism at best.  DARPA deserves a better historian and a better recorded history.  I give her 2 stars for this crappy history, and that’s generous.