Reading: But only the rIght stuff

By David Faucheux

While channel surfing, I caught an interview on "The Jim Engster Show" produced by NPR-affiliate WRKF. The guest during the first segment was Senior Executive Vice-President of the Orlando Magic NBA team, Pat Williams. This father of an amazing 19 children and author of 40 books was appearing to discuss his latest book, Read for Your Life.

Being of a slightly library-turn-of-mind--not as much as in the past, but enough--I tuned in. I learned that the majority of people once they graduate from high school never again crack open a book, that 85% of books are bought by women, and that Williams recommends people read an hour a day. He said that people spend 4 hours a day watching television and would do better turning it off for those 28 hours. (I had heard 7 hours a day but maybe those are older stats.) He advocates the reading of nonfiction because he feels that the reader gets most from being instructed or educated. He said that for those who simply will either read fiction or nothing, fiction was the better alternative! I read a mixture of genre fiction and nonfiction. Perhaps, I should look at my 2006 book list and tabulate my reading into various categories. I blogged this for 2005.

The idea that nonfiction is of possibly more value harkens back to something I read in the book, Readers Advisory Service in the Public Library (2nd ed. ALA 1997) by Joyce G. Saricks and Nancy Brown. In the chapter discussing the history of readers advisory services, the authors point out that reader advisors tried to direct readers, especially younger readers, to "the good books" meaning the classics, the nonfiction and away from trash.

Here is an extract from Williams's Web site:

Are you a reader? If not, Pat Williams wants you to know it is not only critical to become one, but also that it’s never too late to start. This is the heart of the advice and inspiration he offers in his most recent book, Read for Your Life (HCI Books – $14.95 – June 2007) by Pat Williams with Peggy Matthews Rose. Motivated by the comments and questions of so many who’ve heard Williams speak passionately on the topic of reading, the authors spent more than two years researching and writing a manuscript that looks at books from every conceivable angle. Do we all need to read? Williams and Matthews Rose believe the answer is a resounding yes—and their book offers ample evidence to back up their claim. Williams, whose personal fascination with reading began in the book-forested home of his youth, discovered their magical influence thanks to a copy of Pop Warner’s Book for Boys, given to him by his dad, Jim Williams.

Though just a lad of seven at the time he first read this book, Williams is convinced it changed the course of his life. “Its lessons for young athletes became foundational for me and continue to influence me—my concepts and beliefs regarding teamwork, sportsmanship, winning, leadership, and more—to this very day,” Williams said. What answers are you looking for? Williams encourages you to look for them in books, and to make sure you give time and space to reading every day of your life. Read for Your Life delivers some startling statistics on the future books face unless we dig in now and give them the place of honor they deserve in our lives. Be a part of the solution, the authors encourage. Imagine getting to know famous historical figures or even contemporary world influencers—people either long gone from the world stage or too high up to reach. You can do it, in the pages of a book. You can learn a trade, find advice for dealing with almost anything from your teenagers to your career to your car, or even take a trip to Never Land—all in the pages of a book. Read one today!

I know he'd like one book I am reading now, Paul Stoltz's Adversity Advantage whose co-author, Eric Weihenmayer, has climbed the seven tallest peaks on the 7 continents placing this blind achiever in a unique part of the climbing fraternity. He mightn't like as much my reading The Passion of Artemisia, a fictionalized portrait of a 17th-century Italian artist.

IMAGINE That!

Doc in a Box

By David Faucheux

Recently I have had a medical adventure that reminded me of two adventures in the past. These adventures cause me to wonder if having a computerized AI acting as a doctor mightn't be a bettor approach than a human.

I was doing some urological research, yes, I know, ick--but, in any case I found an excellent web site for a doctor practicing on Long Island. The information appeared to be current, well-presented, and easy-to-understand. Amazingly, there was even an email button so that one could email the physician. I did, received what appeared to be a friendly, curious response within the hour.

This response invited me to call. It did not say when to call, and thinking that perhaps, it might not be a good idea to call that night, I sent an email clarifying my question.

I sent another email 3 days later. A week after that, I left a message. The following morning, June 25, I did receive a call from the doctor. He was interesting, young-sounding, but had this abrupt--even rude--manner that I found very off-putting. I had one last question and he said he had to go and immediately went. No offer to email further, to call again. I am not sure if this was because he realized I was not a physician, I had not claimed to be one. No stipulations were put on who could email and why. Or was it an MD/Ph.D.'s thoughtlessness to a nobody? Were I a student at Cornell where he holds a faculty position, I'd have put the PC-pretensions of the Ivy-league to the test and called him and the medical school on this behavior.--Not very affirming.

Another MD/Ph.D. annoyed me. This was in 1985. A geneticist connected with my then Houston-based ophthalmologist wanted to study our family because he suspected the eye condition was x-chromosome-related. During the summer of 1985, he and a professor from Tulane University came and they took blood from many family members and relatives. I remember feeling like a dehumanized specimen, of no personal value, just a supplier of interesting genotype material. I recall the pictures they took and the female prof telling me to be quiet as the geneticist was talking. Hello. If she liked him so much, she should have studied his blood, not mine. Last year, I actually emailed the geneticist. To say that the responses were blunt and brief would be to understate things. Were I to be able to travel back in time, I'd have passed on that summer day in 1985.

I feel used and exploited and wonder if anything they found out went into a medical treatment modality that made life better for someone and also then enriched them all. I had heard that a California man sued because he felt that he should receive some compensation from the people who became rich using his genetic material. The enlightened California courts did not see it that way--he got nothing! That would be especially troubling in my case as I live on an amount that puts me near the poverty line. I am working on changing that, but Louisiana is what it is. I'll have to move, I suspect.

The third medical experience was bizarre. I had read a fascinating book about bipolar spectrum disorder written by a person associated with Johns Hopkins. I decided to contact him and say how I had enjoyed the book. His voice sounded dead, lifeless, and like he simply couldn't have cared less that I had bothered to find his number and attempted to say thanks. This was when long distance was not flat rate either.

An artificial intelligence might at least be programmed with the semblance of manners. It wouldn't have to feel sympathy or concern, but only pretend to. It's like I once told a friend, physicians don't need to be sorry they have kept us waiting more than an hour to see them, they need merely to pretend to be and convince us of same. A noted talk show host said once that if he was ever kept waiting more than ten minutes, he found another doctor. I suspect celebrities get a better standard of care than the rank-and-file. After all, they can afford it. I'd settle for a 30 minute or less wait. My time is valuable, too! I think it is.

IMAGINE That!

Seeing topographically in a museum

By David Faucheux

A high point of my May 1997 trip to New York City was a visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. But it was paradoxically the lowest point on that same trip. This is because while strolling amid the largest collection of art the world has yet seen, I was limited to touching only a few small pieces--soap stone carvings, a small, carved lime wood Medieval German altar piece, a gauntlet from a suit of armor, an Egyptian scarab, a bronze reproduction of Virtue overcoming Vice (one of the figures had the most elegantly sculpted back), the marble foot from a Greek statue, and a piece of mummy case.

This sounds like a lot, I realize. But the museum is stuffed with works of art from the entire world covering over 50 centuries. I did manage to sort of touch a Rodin statue, a bronze on the roof, The Shades, I think its name was. The guard was not terribly pleased; but like my friend, Diane, said, "Birds shit on it, what can he do to hurt it!" Like Queen Victoria, the guard was not amused. I didn't care. Guard shmard, get a life. I was so cross that I could not examine the Byzantine art they were featuring that month, and that after I had brought several Braille copies of the Byzantine brochure that I had scanned and translated for them. Ingratitude???

A Japanese company has developed a 3D device with a haptic glove that could let people examine rare museum exhibits. According to a news account:

"The system can also translate real-world objects into virtual representations. Two cameras image the items in 3D so that they can be displayed on the screen.

"A connected computer then processes the 3D image to generate a tactile representation of the object."

I'm ready for that haptic glove. Bring it on.

IMAGINE That!