The Explainer

Rating:
Summary: Trivia
Review: Great. Yet another trivia book. Do yourself a favor and pick up the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy instead. It contains real knowledge, not a bunch of random facts thrown together by one person.

Rating:
Summary: A fun and informative read
Review: I read this all the way through, which I suppose is a statement about how well it's written and edited. It's a splendid example of how good writing, good editing and some excellent research can lead to a felicitous read. The people at Slate did themselves proud as they swam between the shallows of the sound byte and the depths of the essay. Let's say that what we have here--and what is increasingly seen in the print and Internet media (including this review)--is something we might call the mini-essay, between five hundred and a thousand words--that is, longer than the buzz on TV but shorter than an article from Harper's or The Atlantic Monthly.

Here's an example of the clear, effective writing with just a touch of panache that characterizes this modest volume. The writers are discussing how and why Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves (something Justice Scalia ought to do in the case before the court involving his good buddy Dick Chaney): "Since Supreme Court justices tend to be well off, and since lawyers often marry lawyers and beget more lawyers, money and family come up the most as reasons for recusal." (p. 172) In the next paragraph, we are given the probable reason that Scalia is not recusing himself: "In general justices are loath to recuse themselves from cases because it opens the way for a tie. When that happens, the lower court decision is affirmed by default." Hmm, maybe we can predict if a justice, leaning a certain way, is likely to recuse himself by looking at how the lower court ruled.

It is this kind of additional insight into the question at hand that lifts the people at Slate above some other "explainers" that I have read. Here's another nice example from the double-edged question, "How Does the US Mint Make Money?" It makes it two ways, the authors slyly explain. First it manufactures the actual coins, which is one way of "making" money; and then it makes money by putting the coins into circulation, which is another way of "making" money since the banks have to pay for them. But the zinger is what economists aptly call "escheatment" (a word Slate doesn't use here). Simply put, escheatment is the profit the government gains from all the coins and bills that are lost or destroyed. For the loser that money just disappears. For the government that money is money it got paid for, and unless the coins or bills are found, it is money that it never has to redeem. Banks issuing digital credit cards also benefit from escheatment when the cards or lost or destroyed before being emptied. Traditionally, escheatment refers to governments benefitting from people who die without heirs.

I was startled to read that the US Mint "estimates that in the first two and a half years [of the commemorative quarters program with states featured on the quarters]...it bagged nearly $3-billion in revenue off quarters alone." (p. 215)

Naturally, I can find some wee fault with this book. In explaining how to spell "Osama" and why authorities can differ, the authors determined that "the Al-Qaida leader Romanized his name as Usama." However they don't give his preference on the Romanized spelling of Al-Qaida. I found myself beginning with Al-Qaida moving on to Al-Qaeda, and now write Al Qaeda. As the authors quip: "Can't we call the whole thing off?"

More at fault though is their answer to the first question in the book, "Can You Break Even Playing Slots?" Their answer is a "in the long run" no. My answer (the correct answer of course!) is that if you select only progressive slots that are now paying a premium (an "overlay," as the gamblers term it), you can not only break even in the long run, but are almost certain to be ahead in the long run. The catch here is that the machines are seldom in the overlay mode, and one would have to spend a tremendous amount to time traipsing through the casinos looking for the few progressives that have gone critical. Their conclusion that "conservative moralist William Bennett," who was the focus of the mini-essay, prevaricated when he contradicted a report that he lost $8-million at the slots, is no doubt essentially correct.

The larger chapter headings are called, "Bad Ideas," "The Criminal Mind," "Death,"..., "Conspiracy Theories," "Where Things Come From," and other juicy topics. Some of the more intriguing questions under the general headings are, "Did Saddam Impose a Mustache Mandate?"; "Do TV Talk Show Hosts Get Paid?"; "Do You Own the Movie Rights to Your Life?" etc. I'll give you the short answer to that last one: no.

The topics, as you'll see, are topical; usually something in the news justifies Slate's interest in taking the trouble to broaden our understanding. Since there are six topics to each of 28 general headings, there are (grabbing my calculator) 168 questions in all.

Bottom line: like a box of chocolates or a bag of Fritos: betcha can't just read one.

Rating:
Summary: A fun and informative read
Review: I read this all the way through, which I suppose is a statement about how well it's written and edited. It's a splendid example of how good writing, good editing and some excellent research can lead to a felicitous read. The people at Slate did themselves proud as they swam between the shallows of the sound byte and the depths of the essay. Let's say that what we have here--and what is increasingly seen in the print and Internet media (including this review)--is something we might call the mini-essay, between five hundred and a thousand words--that is, longer than the buzz on TV but shorter than an article from Harper's or The Atlantic Monthly.

Here's an example of the clear, effective writing with just a touch of panache that characterizes this modest volume. The writers are discussing how and why Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves (something Justice Scalia ought to do in the case before the court involving his good buddy Dick Chaney): "Since Supreme Court justices tend to be well off, and since lawyers often marry lawyers and beget more lawyers, money and family come up the most as reasons for recusal." (p. 172) In the next paragraph, we are given the probable reason that Scalia is not recusing himself: "In general justices are loath to recuse themselves from cases because it opens the way for a tie. When that happens, the lower court decision is affirmed by default." Hmm, maybe we can predict if a justice, leaning a certain way, is likely to recuse himself by looking at how the lower court ruled.

It is this kind of additional insight into the question at hand that lifts the people at Slate above some other "explainers" that I have read. Here's another nice example from the double-edged question, "How Does the US Mint Make Money?" It makes it two ways, the authors slyly explain. First it manufactures the actual coins, which is one way of "making" money; and then it makes money by putting the coins into circulation, which is another way of "making" money since the banks have to pay for them. But the zinger is what economists aptly call "escheatment" (a word Slate doesn't use here). Simply put, escheatment is the profit the government gains from all the coins and bills that are lost or destroyed. For the loser that money just disappears. For the government that money is money it got paid for, and unless the coins or bills are found, it is money that it never has to redeem. Banks issuing digital credit cards also benefit from escheatment when the cards or lost or destroyed before being emptied. Traditionally, escheatment refers to governments benefitting from people who die without heirs.

I was startled to read that the US Mint "estimates that in the first two and a half years [of the commemorative quarters program with states featured on the quarters]...it bagged nearly $3-billion in revenue off quarters alone." (p. 215)

Naturally, I can find some wee fault with this book. In explaining how to spell "Osama" and why authorities can differ, the authors determined that "the Al-Qaida leader Romanized his name as Usama." However they don't give his preference on the Romanized spelling of Al-Qaida. I found myself beginning with Al-Qaida moving on to Al-Qaeda, and now write Al Qaeda. As the authors quip: "Can't we call the whole thing off?"

More at fault though is their answer to the first question in the book, "Can You Break Even Playing Slots?" Their answer is a "in the long run" no. My answer (the correct answer of course!) is that if you select only progressive slots that are now paying a premium (an "overlay," as the gamblers term it), you can not only break even in the long run, but are almost certain to be ahead in the long run. The catch here is that the machines are seldom in the overlay mode, and one would have to spend a tremendous amount to time traipsing through the casinos looking for the few progressives that have gone critical. Their conclusion that "conservative moralist William Bennett," who was the focus of the mini-essay, prevaricated when he contradicted a report that he lost $8-million at the slots, is no doubt essentially correct.

The larger chapter headings are called, "Bad Ideas," "The Criminal Mind," "Death,"..., "Conspiracy Theories," "Where Things Come From," and other juicy topics. Some of the more intriguing questions under the general headings are, "Did Saddam Impose a Mustache Mandate?"; "Do TV Talk Show Hosts Get Paid?"; "Do You Own the Movie Rights to Your Life?" etc. I'll give you the short answer to that last one: no.

The topics, as you'll see, are topical; usually something in the news justifies Slate's interest in taking the trouble to broaden our understanding. Since there are six topics to each of 28 general headings, there are (grabbing my calculator) 168 questions in all.

Bottom line: like a box of chocolates or a bag of Fritos: betcha can't just read one.

Rating:
Summary: Trivia
Review: The Explainer is a regular feature of the online magazine, Slate. It answers questions you have about the current news, such as what is a spiderhole and how did it get its name? Or how do you pronounce Abu Ghraib? These questions and their answers aren't in the book, but you can find them in the archives of Slate.

The book compiles some of the more intriguing questions from the past few years, such as Could Bill Clinton become president again? (The short answer is yes, but don't hold your breath.) Who can be buried at Arlington Cemetery? What happens if you don't answer the census questionnaire?

Slate's reporters, in response to reader questions and often their own curiosity, find experts in the appropriate field and ask the question. They make the expert explain the answer until they understand it, then write a short column explaining the answer to their readers. In this way, we learn how to pronounce Niger, how to become a weapons inspector, and what is Ovaltine, anyway.

The Explainer is a compact book that is fun to read in small doses or all at once. The explanations are only about a page or two each and clustered into about two dozen short chapters such as Dining Out, Medicine, Flight, and Death. Although I usually read the Explainer online, I thought I'd catch a few that I'd missed. Either I missed a lot of these explanations or I have a really poor memory. Regardless, I enjoyed reading these Explainer columns and look forward to more Slate publications.

(My favorite Slate feature is Bushisms.)

Rating:
Summary: If you wanted to know, but were too afraid too ask
Review: The premise of this book is great: The news (print, TV, magazine, and internet) puts out stories with assumed facts in there, yet most people don't know the basis for these facts, since there is just too much information out there for everyone to know. For example, one always hears about some great blizzard, and that 5 inches of snow was layed down. If you are like me, you have heard this, or something similar, many, many times, and you know what it means, but yet you have no idea exactly how they figured out that 12 inches of snow fell last night. Well, this book answers that question.

Another great example is the essay on how corking a bat helps a batter. One not only learns how a bat is corked and how it helps the batter's performance, but you also learn that a corked bat would probably DECREASE the distance of Sammy Sosa's hits. (This has to do with the physics equation p=mv, momentum = mass x velocity. Since a corked bat weighs less than an uncorked one, the momentum for a corked bat, assuming the same velocity for both, will be less than for an uncorked one.)

If you like trivia books, this is definitely a keeper; if you don't like the normal run-of-the-mill trivia books, you will probably like this one, since it isn't your standard question and answer book that lays out the facts without any cultural/political/real-life relevance. Who doesn't want to know what happens to your social security number when you die. Is it retired, or recycled? Read the book, and you'll find out.

Rating:
Summary: If you wanted to know, but were too afraid too ask
Review: The premise of this book is great: The news (print, TV, magazine, and internet) puts out stories with assumed facts in there, yet most people don't know the basis for these facts, since there is just too much information out there for everyone to know. For example, one always hears about some great blizzard, and that 5 inches of snow was layed down. If you are like me, you have heard this, or something similar, many, many times, and you know what it means, but yet you have no idea exactly how they figured out that 12 inches of snow fell last night. Well, this book answers that question.

Another great example is the essay on how corking a bat helps a batter. One not only learns how a bat is corked and how it helps the batter's performance, but you also learn that a corked bat would probably DECREASE the distance of Sammy Sosa's hits. (This has to do with the physics equation p=mv, momentum = mass x velocity. Since a corked bat weighs less than an uncorked one, the momentum for a corked bat, assuming the same velocity for both, will be less than for an uncorked one.)

If you like trivia books, this is definitely a keeper; if you don't like the normal run-of-the-mill trivia books, you will probably like this one, since it isn't your standard question and answer book that lays out the facts without any cultural/political/real-life relevance. Who doesn't want to know what happens to your social security number when you die. Is it retired, or recycled? Read the book, and you'll find out.

Rating:
Summary: The Explainer by Curbs et al.
Review: This book covers practically every uncommon phenomenon known
to humankind. For instance, the authors explain how to slow down lava in a volcano. The traceability of cell phones by tower records is described in technical detail.

Recess appointments by government officials are explained as to their timing and cause. The contents of this work would provide good conversation at any party or informal social gathering. For this reason alone, the volume is worth the price of admission.