Twelve Black Code Monkeys

Me and my wife decided to take a quick stroll around the neighborhood today since it is an unseasonably warm 65 degrees on this leapyear day. There’s a small park in our neighborhood which we go to far too seldomly, and this proved a nice place to relax and take a few pictures. I thought I’d post a few here:

Not having studies early American history since briefly in high school, my familiarity with Benjamin Franklin consisted mainly of a couple of facts. One is that Franklin is on the $100 bill, and the second was his “discovery” of electricity via the famous experiment with a kite and a key. I wonder how many other Americans have a similarly superficial knowledge. I would contend all of us would benefit from getting a clear picture of this very influential founding father.

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, by Walter Isaacson has generally had very favorable reviews from readers and critics alike and I would not disagree with them, although I don’t presume to be expert enough in historical matters of early America to comment on its accuracy. But it does seem like a fairly detailed account of Franklin’s life from the time he was 16 till his death at the age of 84.

Isaacson describes a man whose characteristics are not only likeable by most of us, but so familiar that one could easily imagine this man in today’s world. That’s not to say that Franklin would not be considered extraordinary even by today’s standards. His skill in diplomacy, rational thought, science, statesmanship, management, and many other areas would characterize him as a dynamic and multifaceted person by most. Among the items that impressed me greatly were the following:

Although Franklin initially looked down on blacks or rather black slaves as thieves, he very quickly changed his opinion upon seeing a classroom where black children were learning and started aided these schools monetarily. His opinion became that slavery itself made the individual (whoever they were) into less of a person, and became one of the most strident early abolitionists. Unlike those who wrote theoretically about slavery being an evil but who still maintained their own (Jefferson is one quick example), Franklin put his money where his mouth was.

Franklin never belonged to a specific faith, but especially late in life would sometimes evoke god as the creator of things in trying to promote humility. His view of the divine however, was pragmatic and rational, and he took the opinion that it was useless to bother his mind with questions about the details of scripture – even such a major one as to whether Jesus was divine – when there was no way to prove this. Instead he boiled all religions into the common denominator of “do good to others.”

His scientific thoughts and experiments were of course very impressive, and all of this was amazing for a man who was self-taught, of humble beginnings. He was indeed, the first Heratio Alger story, and assuredly Alger used the example of Franklin to model his stories.

Since Franklin’s death, his image has increased and decreased in status as those who were his antithesis gained stature and influence. David Brook’s Bobos in Paradise explains this long struggle between Franklin’s rational, practical Bourgeois, and the romantic Bohemian characterized by Keats and so many others. Admittedly Franklin does seem to embody the bourgeois stereotypes almost to an extreme, and yet I come away from this book with nothing but admiration. Perhaps because I’m not overtly passionate about most issues myself. Some people prefer a polite and rational argument to passionate entreaties, screaming, or other dramatics. Not everyone has to embody both rationalism and passion, and few can pull that off, so why not have prime examples of the most effective in both of these?

I actually listened to this as an audio book download from Audible.com. It was an abridged version, but even so was over 7 hours. I’m sure the book or unabridged version would go into a great deal more detail but it’s hard to know how helpful that added detail is, especially as an introduction to a topic that one has little knowledge of to begin with..

Salt, by Mark Kurlansky, is a fascinating book about the history of, you guessed it, Salt. It’s amazing how something we take for granted because it is so cheap and on every table, whether at someone’s home or at a restaurant. It is given away for free at fast food restaurants, and is in copious supply in our vast oceans that take up most of the surface area of the planet. Yet Salt was not always taken for granted. Kurlansky talks about how for thousands of years it was a vital resource that played into economics, politics, wars, technological progress, and culture in general.

Kurlansky is incredibly thorough in his accounting of the story of Salt. However, at points the level of detail gets a bit too deep for me. Like other nonfiction books that treat a subject with lots of history, sometimes the relentless listing of people and places, and events get overwhelming. Salt also seems to jump around relentlessly both geographically and chronologically. I still found it very
interesting, just a bit bewildering at points! One thing that Kurlansky recounts which I think could have been left out is his recounting of recipes that somehow involve salt as an ingredient. These recipes go back thousands of years and they are sometimes fascinating, but they are all quoted from their original sources and thus use somewhat archaic language and ingredients that most would be unfamiliar with today. A few of these might have been good to spice things up, but Kurlansky probably includes a couple dozen or so of these!

All in all, it was a decent read, but one that I fear many may put down after a while or at least have to skim through. I actually listened to this book on Audible.com. The narration, by Scott Brick, was affective and kept my attention throughout most of the reading despite some of the problems with the subject matter as expressed above.

Reading probably the 500th or so article on low carb recently, I saw that word again. “Fad.” This is the word that critics have used to describe low-carb for some time now, and it has been picked up by the media. Here’s how Dictionary.com defines the word:

“A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.”

Not all that helpful, but the basic meaning seems to be something that is popular for a “brief” time. So, with that in mind, let’s examine whether this label is being used accurately.

Popularity: are low carb plans popular right now? Anyone not living in a cave would have to agree they are. A recent survey indicates that 11% of Americans are currently on a low-carb diet and an additional 20% are reportedly likely to go on one in the next two years.

“Brief period”: how exactly do you define a “brief period”? It’s hard to say, really, right? It depends on what you are comparing it with. But the first condition, I would think, is that it must have a beginning and an end, by which to actually measure the period. Since the popularity of low carb plans has only been growing, there is no end point with which to measure its current popularity. Therefore, how can we label it as a fad? The answer seems to be that those labeling it are basically predicting that its popularity will end within a “brief period” so that it can then be proven as a “fad.” But by definition it can’t really be called this until its period of popularity is over.

Was the low-fat movement labeled a fad? Perhaps it was by some of its critics in the low-carb group when referring to the push by the food industry to deliver almost every conceivable product in a low-fat form. However, no nutritionist, dietician, or medical authority (many of them are still recommending such diets when asked what their preference is) has labeled low-fat as a “fad” and neither has the media picked up on such a label. So let’s look at some history.

Although this is fairly well known in some circles of low-carb advocates, what is rarely reported in the press or admitted by critics is that Dr. Atkins did not invent the low-carb diet, although he is certainly rightly credited as its modern day champion. First off, if one looks at the anthropological record, it is evident that our ancient ancestors probably ate a low-carb diet consisting primarily of animals with a few wild plants mixed in. This is of course, pre-agricultural. In more recent times, the first mention on record of a specifically low-carb regime was apparently in a booklet called “Letter on Corpulence.” This was penned in 1860 by a famous undertaker William Banting who used himself as a guinea pig and found the most effective method of losing weight to be cutting starches and sweets. Banting, incidentally, lived to be 82, which is well beyond the average life expectancy of the time. This piece on Banting and the subsequent work done after his Letter show that such plans were not at all new.

Anecdotally, I should say, I have learned that before the 1980’s, when many people wished to diet, it was not the fat or protein that they would give up, but rather the starches. My own mother, who became an avid-low-fatter in the 80’s still had the habit of removing the buns from her hamburger in an effort to maintain her weight, such was the popular understanding of things that had conditioned her from before the more recent era of low-fat dieting.

Some will criticize Banting or others and say that the more recent our information is, the more accurate, given the progress of science. To these people I have two responses. Firstly, I am not trying to prove or disprove here anything about the efficacy of low-carb dieting, I am simply trying to show that “fad” is a misleading, loaded, and simply INCORRECT word to describe low-carb diets. Secondly, science often has to reassess things that it previously assumed to be true. The most recent glaring and relevant example would be that of trans fats. In the early 1900’s, the process of hydrogenating oils was created and margarine’s and shortening became extremely popular as a substitute for natural oils and fats. Even into the 1990’s (and perhaps into the current century by those hopelessly behind the times) medical authorities and dieticians and nutritionists were still recommending that people use the trans-fat-filled margarines because they were lower in fat than natural oils like olive oil. However more and more studies have been coming out showing a direct and undeniable link between trans fat consumption and heart disease risk, one that is much more evident even than the one between heart disease risk and saturated fat, the type of fat that has been the major scapegoad of most of the medical/nutritionist community, at least until very recently. The FDA finally last year adopted the recommendation that NO level of trans fats was safe and will finally be mandating trans fat conent inclusion on nutritional labels, although not until 2006. As recent studies have indicated, the notion that low-carb diets are “dangerous” as has been the party line of most dieticians, nutritionists, and medical authorities over the last 30 years since Atkins more recently popularized low-carb dieting, is being eroded, and there is now evidence that it is at least as beneficial but probably a lot more effective in terms of both health and weight loss than its low-fat competition.

So, why is “fad” still used when the much more accurate less loaded phrase of “recently popular” is available? Perhaps it is used because “fad” is more colorful and better for use as hyperbole in rhetoric. Perhaps this is what critics and those who could care less about accuracy and facts have resorted to in a battle that has been increasingly been won by their low-carb nemesis.

I just read an article by Anthony Calpo of theOmnivore.com(site no longer available), where he discusses the Atkins coroner’s report debacle, which I’ve talked about earlier. This is one of the best pieces I’ve so far read about it not just because it is very coherent and convincing, but it is extremely thorough! Calpo not only talks about the PCRM and their links to PETA which many by now are familiar, but also talks about the Nebraska doctor Richard Fleming you got the report from the NY Medical examiner in the first place and then passed it onto the PCRM. I had read he was a low-fat advocate, and thus likely critic of low-carb, and that he had written at least one book. What I did not know, but what Calpo discusses at length, concerns a study that Fleming handled that was unique in showing a benefit of low-fat to low-carb in terms of both weight loss and cholesterol number improvement. Unfortunately there seem to be serious questions with how exactly Fleming conducted the study. Many of the conventions of peer-reviewed studies were simply not included in it, including a citing of nurses and technicians who helped conduct the study, in addition to who funded the study. The claim was that one hundred people participated in the study, which would make it the biggest of its kind. Such studies are extremely expensive to conduct and so must have had major money backing it, if it indeed is even real. Apparently Gary Taubes even suggested that Flemming might have faked the study entirely! Taubes is the science writer that got the ball rolling when he penned “What if it’s all been a Big Fat Lie” about how low-carb diets had gotten a bum rap and how there was actually good science behind them. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I won’t convict Fleming myself, but I hardly find it surprising that a doctor closely tied with the PCRM is being accused of deception.

Various people have been criticizing low-carb eating for decades, even including myself up until a few years ago when I started reading more about it. I thought I would try to convey a few of the most obvious points that might help some of those critics to understand that it’s not all about eating pork rinds and steak, and that it would be more productive for them to join the movement so that they could help meld it with their own concerns in mind, rather than simply attack it as 100% bad.

First off, this is not geared towards the total extremists of any kind. Those who have little patience for other people’s views might as well stop reading now because you already “know” the truth. If, however, you are willing to consider that you don’t know everything and you might even be wrong in some of your current assumptions, I invite you to read on, and, if you have anything constructive to say, critical or not, to add your own voice to the debate.

Many of the critics of low-carb eating are old-school dieticians and nutritionists, and other health “experts” or “authorities” who have not kept up with, or are unwilling to recognize the validity of many of the recent studies that vindicate it. These critics have been preaching low-fat or moderate-fat eating for many, many years, and so their reputations are to some extent on the line. If they were to all of a sudden back low-carb, they probably fear, perhaps rightly so, that people would completely stop trusting them. I for one, though, trust much more in someone who has discovered and admits to being wrong and that they can actually change their opinion rather than someone who is so stuck as to be resistant to admitting that they were ever wrong about anything despite the facts staring them in the face.

Critics often assert that there is “overwhelming evidence” that decreasing fat intake makes one healthier. While this may be true to a limited extent, it does not account for varying the amount of carbs in the diet. There is no study that proves or even hints at a possibility that eating low-fat/high-carb is somehow healthier (or even more effective at losing weight) than eating an opposite high-fat/low-carb diet. Rather, fat simply became the red herring scapegoat and it still the enemy in many of our minds. We’ve been brainwashed to the extent that fat has to be bad. If one looks objectively at the studies that the critics use to bolster their case, it’s very easy to poke holes in them because they start with a premise or assumption that fat is bad and that is what they are out to prove. Yet, the critics speak with the “authority” that only a true-believer has, and their confidence both comes from, and perpetuates, the feeling of many people that they are right. Say something enough times and forcibly enough, as sociologists have pointed out, and people start believing it as pure fact.

Double standards abound. The critics are very selective, of course, in terms of which studies they choose to site. Those that don’t serve their cause, of course, that muddy the water or even hurt their cause, are ignored. But this isn’t politics or economics, but rather “science;” the science of nutrition. Or is it? When critics do acknowledge the more recent studies which specifically take into account low-carb, and show they are superior to or at the very least similar to low-fat diets in their health and weight-loss benefits, the overwhelming qualification tacked onto the end of this admittance is that these studies are still too “short-term.” They have only been going for a year or two at the longest, and so this doesn’t allow enough time to definitively say whether they are proven healthy in the long run. This seems perfectly logical until one brings up a couple of points. First is the double standard. When low-fat started gaining steam in the 1970’s and 80’s, were any of these same critics saying anything similar about low-fat? Were they demanding studies that specifically compared low-fat to higher-fat diets before they would suggest people using them? No, because it seemed logical to many that “fat made you fat” and so there was very little resistance to the growing push towards low-fat eating. That push was as much an economic and political one imposed by government agencies than it was a scientific one. Secondly, if eating a certain way actually improves one’s health over a one-year period, as these recent studies have indicated, does it really make much sense that over a longer period of time one’s health will start to deteriorate? Of course anything’s possible and no one can be sure without studies proving it, but it just doesn’t make much sense to me. The critics, in other words, seem to be incredibly conservative when trying to judge low-carb, whereas they gave low-fat a pass without really much analysis. In other words, double standard.

The critics use stereotypes. Most people know the stereotypes of low-carb dieting, but unfortunately for a huge chunk of the population, that’s all they know. The media propagate these stereotypes and then even those who decide to do low-carb diets often buy into these stereotypes thus making them self-fulfilling! I’m talking about the idea that low-carb is about eating steak and butter and pork rinds and heavy cream, and nothing else. For once and all, that is not what low-carb is about! Yes, you can eat these things on a low-carb plan, but that doesn’t mean that you have to, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you have to eat them to the exclusion of everything else! Just as low-carb diets can be “abused” by people who either don’t understand them (probably because they’ve been fed these stereotypes constantly), so can any diet. One could eat nothing but low-fat candies and cookies, and would still theoretically be eating “low-fat.”

Unfortunately it seems few people like to actually read. Critics don’t seem to have the knowledge that belies having actually read any of the low-carb books out there cover to cover. If they did, they could not contend as they often do, that the plans are “extreme” or unhealthy. Neither do many people who have started these plans because they have seen them talked about on TV or at the office water cooler. I know some people like this and they just don’t have the patience to learn why such plans are healthy, but moreover how do them in the most healthy way – with lots of veggies, fruits, organic/free-range/wild/raw/grass-fed animal products, but few processed low-carb junk like low-carb candies, bread, etc. I would challenge critics to actually read a few low-carb books from cover to cover, not just looking for the words “steak” and “cheese” but just as prevalent “broccoli” and “berries.”

The idea that I hear so often from critics in the media is about how “getting rid of carbs” also decreases needed nutrients. Of course this is misinformation, perhaps even disinformation. For one, no low-carb diet encourages eliminating carbs from the diet completely. The strictest of them, Atkins, limits one to 20 grams of carbs (minus fiber) during its strictest phase which lasts all of the first two weeks. After this, carbs can be increased to any level that allows one to lose weight at a very slow pace. Because many vegetables contain loads of fiber, which can be subtracted because it doesn’t get metabolized, their “effective” or “net” carb count is pretty low. For example, a cup of broccoli has so much fiber that its net amount of carbs is only a single gram! So one could theoretically eat 20 cups worth of broccoli (or a similarly fibrous veggie) per day on the strictest phase of the strictest low-carb plan out there without breaking one’s daily limit! Why, then, must people consume bread and potatoes, which contain comparatively little fiber compared to the amount of carbs that they contain? Do bread, pasta, potatoes have some special nutrients that are vital to health that one can’t get from the hundreds of different kinds of much lower-carb fruits and veggies that are available? If so, after three and a half years of abstaining from these items I should be pretty sick, yet I’m exceedingly healthy. Most people who go on low-carb diets are coming from the “Standard American Diet” which is full of highly refined carbs. So they are ditching that processed hamburger bun for a side veggie or salad. Can someone tell me why this is worse? Critics will say that while it may not be worse, it’s not as good as it could be if they also ditched the burger. But that’s not the choice here. People have already tried low-fat veggie burgers or the like and for the most part found them so lacking in taste that they could not tolerate them for very long. Instead of the critics saying “all or nothing” how about them at least admitting that low-carb has some benefits to the way the average person eats in the U.S.?

There are also those that are “balance” chanters. This group is perhaps not committed to either the low-carb camp or the low-fat camp, and chant “balance” and “moderation.” This is a very attractive idea for many of us who think extremists are rude, close-minded clods, or for those who are sick of various camps yelling at each other that their kind of eating is better than their opponents. There isn’t anything wrong with the idea of “balance” except that if there is something truly unhealthy for you, wouldn’t it be better to avoid it altogether? Why does one have to balance the positive and negative, in order to come out just at a big fat zero? Wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on eating things one knows are good? What does “in moderation” mean anyway? Does it mean that we don’t eat cheese fries and donuts at every meal but only every few days? Or does it mean once a week? My point is that “moderation” seems to have a different definition depending on the food you are talking about, the more horrible it is deemed the smaller a “moderate” amount becomes, and even then people disagree on how bad certain foods are for you. Moderation, in other words, is in the eye of the beholder, and thus, to me, a pretty useless term. Common sense, of course, dictates that we shouldn’t eat 10 lbs of food at a sitting, and not eat an entire meal of cake and pie, but other than these extreme and obvious no no’s, it really depends on the individual. Does it really make sense to be eating good AND bad foods constantly just because “balance” somehow appeals to our ideals of “fairness” more than adopting a specific ideal of what we think is healthy? I can hear the naysayers already. How “boring” life would be if we weren’t able to eat something “bad” once in a while. People who were concerned with health for a long, long time, were derisively termed “health food nuts” but to me, even if someone is committed to low-fat, at least they are doing so ostensibly because they care about their health enough to want to eat foods that they believe are optimal to them. The “balance” people are really taking no stand at all. They are fence-sitters; cynics who want to keep all their options open and don’t have the will to actually give anything up because it might deprive them of some “fun.” That’s fine as a personal decision; I don’t begrudge them that choice. But I dislike when people espouse this (just as I dislike when people espouse any eating plans) as something others should adopt because someone has come to the conclusion that it is the best plan for them, and thus should be the only choice for us all.

I have a final suggestion for critics of low-carb. Instead of sitting on high horses and calling out that the sky is falling, trying yet to smear low-carb because some people do it in an unhealthy way, why not recognize that there are many of use who do it in a much more healthy way, and actually try to promote this “healthier low-carb” way of eating as opposed to dismissing all-low carb out of hand as bad. Stop trying to win a debate and actually try to promote the health of the public by doing something effective. There are people who have long ago given up on low-fat and even “balanced” approaches because they didn’t work for them, and are now low-carbing, and you can help to steer them towards a method of low-carbing that fits closest with your ideals. You may have to give up some ideals like that carbs in and of themselves are absolutely necessary in and of themselves (they obviously aren’t as millions of people have existed healthfully without their help), and concentrate your efforts on suggesting which carbs people should concentrate on, given their limited allotment on low-carb regimes. In other words, become campaigners not for bread and potatoes and orange juice, but for bok choy, garlic, spinach, broccoli, eggplant, zucchini, nuts, seeds, red peppers, berries, melons, and all the myriad other low-carb/high-fiber fruits and veggies that deliver the biggest bang for the buck (the greatest number of vitamins, minerals, photochemicals, fiber, and antioxidants for each gram of carb). If you feel strongly that saturated fat is a problem (I for one again see know definitive proof of this especially within a low-carb diet), then by all means suggest low-carbers eat lots of fish and and lean meats, chicken, etc. Many of us do this already, of course, but the self-fulfilling stereotype makes new dieters convinced that they must eat either steak or pork as their choice of protein. I guarantee you, you will win many more adherents and people will trust your point of view much more if instead of constantly attacking, you choose to help those jumping onto the low-carb bandwagon to understand that there are other things to eat besides steak and low-carb candies, something you yourselves have helped to convince people of!

Bill Bryson is a favorite of mine, having written a bunch of books that are in the genre “travel narrative.” Bryson’s wit and insight not just about travel but life in general, is amazing. But just as wonderful is his voice. Luckily, most of his books he narrates himself with his half Midwestern half Brittish accent. This description doesn’t do it justice; of course, you really have to hear it. It’s not like an affected Brittish accent taken on by some (the head of my high school comes to mind), but just an odd intonation that alerts one to the fact that Bryson probably hasn’t spend his whole life in the U.S. In fact, he moved the U.K. when he was in his early 20’s and settled down there. Back in the mid-1990’s, I believe, he decided to come back to his native country and settled in a small town in New Hampshire with his family. Unfortunately it looks like we’ve lost him again as he has moved back to his adopted homeland.

Recently when I was on Audible.com’s site, looking through new books, I noticed “A Short History of Nearly Everything” in non-abridged format! I was ecstatic. The length was a full 19 hours. Back in July when I saw Bill Bryson had a new book out and it was available for download on Audible, I jumped at it, despite the fact that it was an abridged version. At over 6 hours, it was still a decent length. Now with a non-abridged version available, I felt compelled to snatch it up. Silly me I assumed that Bryson narrated this unabridged version; after all, he’s narrated all of his other books available on Audible. The narrator, Richard Matthews is British, but doesn’t have nearly the pacing and intonation that make Bryson such a pleasure to listen to. Nevertheless, you can still hear Bryson’s voice sometimes through the words if you try. At over 19 hours, there’s of course a lot more detail – mainly a bit fuller explanations and technical details of the science, which can be helpful if there are areas that are hard to grasp without examples, etc.

I would have to say that “History” is one of those books where I find the abridged version slightly better than the unabridged. One could probably say this about many poorly written books that drone on and on and could be actually improved by an abridgement. But this isn’t the reason that I prefer the abridged version, of course, it’s the narration! Matthews narration is by no means bad, but it is the difference between good narration and wonderful. It’s hard to explain, but Bryson’s voice, pacing, intonation, etc. is just so distinct and of course his actual voice reflects that which actually wrote the words down to begin with. Somehow I felt like I learned and remembered more from the abridged version than from the unabridged. Part of this may have to do with the content and that the unabridged version simply fills in some of the details that the abridged version leaves out but still purveys in a general sense that can be understood.

I have also come to the conclusion that in some cases for non-fiction books, less is actually more. When a certain historical event is covered, that’s one thing, but a broad accounting of events throughout history begins to get overwhelming after a while and even with the best of authors can start to feel like a mere log of events and persons. I’m sure the more one is already familiar with the events and people the less this is the case. I have read a lot of science history, so much of this was familiar, but Bryson’s book is tour de force of science, including almost all sciences you can imagine. Kind of a Cosmos of the 21st Century. A nice thing about the unabridged version that I didn’t notice in the abridged (although perhaps I just overlooked it) was that Bryson quotes a lot of other science writers, which gives one recommendations for further reading in most areas of science.

For those who like reading about science or even who just like Bryson, I would still recommend the unabridged version, but I think it should be read in addition to the abridged version, not instead.

A quick reminder for those of you out there who like to read this blog. Blog City, the hosting company I use to create and maintain my blog, has a very helpful feature that I’ve included that lets one “subscribe” to a blog. I’ve placed this on the left side of my page under the calendar – at least that’s where it is right now. If you type in your email address and then hit the button titled “>> >>” you will be updated every time I post a new entry. I thought I would mention it specifically because currently the number of subscribers are pretty minimal compared to what I see in my traffic reports, so I think perhaps a lot of folks just don’t know it’s there or don’t know what it is.

A couple of words about this: I get tons of email myself, both spam and mailing lists, and actual persona email, so I know some people’s resistance to signing up for things where one might be signing on for potentially more spam! From everything I have seen, Blog City is extremely responsible in trying to combat spam and would never sell email addresses. I myself can’t even see who has subscribed, that’s how serious they are about preventing spam! Also, I know that you can unsubscribe as easily as you can subscribe, as I’ve unsubscribed from a few blogs that I felt were starting to spew stuff that I had no interest in.

So please, for those of you who read this blog on any kind of regular basis, let me know by subscribing so that I don’t feel like I’m just, as my grandfather used to say “talking to the wall!”

With an all-star “dream-team” ensemble cast, Glengarry Glen Ross is an actor’s film. They movie is all dialog, being based off of David Mammet’s Pulitzer-winning play. The film actually comes off more like a play with only a couple major locales. The dialogue, of course, is scorching, transfixing, and rich, all at the same time. The story plays off of themes of morality, honesty, masculinity, worth, and self-worth. The film makes one think, laugh, and cringe, and does it all without one car chase, explosion, or gun shot.The story covers a pathetic real estate office, Premiere Properties, which is struggling to make sales. Kevin Spacey plays the young office manager, John Williamson, who is estranged from his salesmen because he does not sell and because he is responsible for giving (or as the case may be NOT giving) the all-important leads, or contacts for the salesmen to call. These leads play a central roll in the story to the point where they become either the holy grail (when they are the premier, high-quality ones they are red and wrapped like a present) or the garbage the men are forced to shovel in a seemingly futile attempt to make a sale. A brief appearance by the headquarters’ top salesman, Blake, played by Alec Baldwin, leaves the salesmen and the viewer with an impression that lasts us the rest of the movie. He berates and belittles the men in a pissing contest that threatens their jobs if they don’t perform. A contest will determine who in the office will win a new car and who will be fired. If things were not desperate enough, this pushes the mood over the edge. Whereas the salesman have already made a bargain with the devil and sold their souls by lying to their potential customers, this new turn of events have made the men contemplate much more morally repugnant actions.

The other salesmen include Roma, played by Al Pacino, the most successful salesmen and the one who seems to have the most respect for his fellows – although one can’t fail to wonder whether this respect is due to the additional confidence of being successful rather than genuine respect. Ed Harris plays Dave Moss, a younger salesman who talks a great game but is just as lacking as the others in confidence and morals. Alan Arkin is George Aaronow, probably the epitome of low self-confidence. He blames himself for not being able to close anything, whereas the others only blame the poor leads. And finally, the central figure, and premier performance, belongs to Jack Lemmon as Shelley Levene, an old-dog salesman who’s on a “bad streak” and whose desperation is added to by a sick daughter. Because of this, we feel for him even as we despise how he tries to bilk innocent people out of their money with deception. Lemmon exquisitely portrays to us how someone in such a position could stoop to whatever level necessary, and still have us commiserate.

Artisan Home Entertainment has really put some great attention into this 2-disc special edition. For one thing, it contains both a widescreen (2.35:1) anamorphic version with as well as a full-frame version. The transfer is, to my eyes, quite good, even if on a standard 27” TV monitor. Everything looks extremely sharp, with excellent black levels, and good colors. As far as audio is concerned, the movie have been remastered into Dolby Digital 5.1. It also contains an additional Dolby Surround 2.0 track and a French DD 2.0. The widescreen version also has a DTS version. As mentioned, the film is dialogue-driven, so most of this added capacity is not used for the most part. However, there is the relentless subway and rain that provide a bleak urban sound texture, and of course there is the soundtrack that provides an extra jazz-infused melancholy. English and Spanish subtitles are also included as well as English Closed Captioning.

The DVD has quite an array of bonus features, although apparently some important ones that were on the laserdisc edition are missing. First there is a commentary by James Foley, but it is not a true commentary track per se, only one that covers certain scenes that are of interest to him. They total to all of about 25 minutes, and the transition from scene to scene is somewhat sudden and the commentary not all that illuminating, more just rambling. The laserdisc contained a full-length commentary track by Foley, but perhaps Artisan could not get the rights from Pioneer or did not want to pay for it. Another “commentary track” includes Cinematographer Juan Ruiz Anchia, actors Alec Baldwin and Alan Arkin, and production designer Jane Mursky. This one is much longer than the second, but again is not the standard full-length that covers the entire movie, but rather one that jumps from scene to scene. These tracks are on Disc 2, which contains the full-frame version of the movie. Each of the commentators have something to contribute, but felt Baldwin’s and Mursky’s to be the most informative and entertaining. The other track of great interest that was on the laserdisc but missing here as well is one by Jack Lemmon, which is one of only two that he did before his death a couple of years ago. There is actually a featurette called “Magic Time: A Tribute to Jack Lemmon” which includes snippets of interviews of Lemmon’s son, Peter Gallagher, Foley, and a number of others who worked with Lemmon. They recount stories and feelings about Lemmon, but it sometimes comes off as sucking up and the harsh lighting on some of the interviewees is distracting. Another featurette, “ABC - Always Be Closing” which is a bit more interesting, as it gives interviews with real salesmen in addition to cast and crew showing how they used such information for giving an accurate picture of the profession. “J. Roy: New and Used Furniture” is an old student film documentary which depicts salesmen training for a flea market in a run-down town. It’s a somewhat depressing look at the salesman’s life. There’s also a clip from The Charlie Rose Show with Jack Lemmon talking about this movie and finally a clip from Inside the Actors Studio with Kevin Spacey. Oh yes, and there’s also the cast & crew bios and production notes.

It has taken way too long for Glengarry Glen Ross to come out on DVD and Artisan has done a pretty good job of bringing it to us. The performances are wonderful; the story is transfixing. The transfer is very nice and Artisan has provided many different viewing and listening options. As far as the bonus features are concerned, they are a mixed bag. There are quite a few, which is nice, but too many of them lack quality and seem to have been thrown in just to add to the list of supplemental features. Although some people will like all of them, I for one would rather have seen resources go to making fewer supplemental features with better quality. Despite this, I would still recommend the disc wholeheartedly.

The notorious Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), who leaked the private medical records of diet guru Dr. Robert C. Atkins, finally released a statement about the recent criticism from many camps regarding their actions, and talk of lawsuits and criminal investigations.

The statement is an example of the slipperiness to which those familiar with PCRM have become accustomed. Somehow becauce these were not autopsy reports per se but rather “brief notes from an external inspection,” it somehow makes it perfectly ok to disseminate these private records?

Because Atkins publicized his own good health while he was alive to validate his diet, but then opted (or rather his wife opted) not to release further records, this somehow gives PCRM the right to make these records public? Somehow I don’t believe a court will see it that way.

I’m especially amazed by this segway:

“Recently, a physician sent PCRM a copy of some medical examiner’s notes related to Dr. Atkins’ death…Reporters picked up on the story; they wondered whether the Atkins organization had distorted Atkins’ health profile in order to make the diet appear safe…Although PCRM had not requested or received the report from the medical examiner, we became the principal media contact about it.”

Media Contact? You’ve got to be kidding me! Did the media just come to the conclusion that PCRM had this information out of the blue? The media, PCRM seems to be saying, is psychic. No, PCRM gave these records to the media. Of course they can’t seem to come out and say this because they are by nature a deceptive organization. From this press release PCRM makes out as if they played little role in the whole matter. They were simply acting as an innocent, even passive “contact.”

At least they finally come clean at the end of the piece when they say:

“If the new revelations about Dr. Atkins’ cardiac problems end the charade that fatty, high-cholesterol foods can give us an “extraordinarily healthy cardiovascular system” and have no health consequences—and if the emergence of the truth can prevent further deaths and illnesses—then the public health may have been served at last.”

In other words, the bottom line is that to them the end (discrediting the Atkins diet) justifies any means. The Atkins diet after all promotes the consumption of animal products, which the PCRM by definition is against in any way whatsoever. Their position is that every one of us should be eating vegan diet where no meat, dairy, eggs, or fish are consumed. It doesn’t even matter to them if these things are obtained in a humane way. To them, simply the act of using animals as food is inhumane. This “ends justify the means” mindset is the same one that extremists the world over have adopted in their crusades. Veronica Atkins, Dr. Atkins’ widow, recently called PCRM the “vegetarian Taliban.” Although this is very loaded and over the top, somehow I’m starting to see links in that they are both extremist groups where the end always justify whatever means necessary. Top-ranking officers of PCRM have likened those who kill animals for food to Nazis killing people in concentration camps, so somehow the retort by Atkins’ widow does not seem altogether out of place…