Book Log 2010 #7: The Paris Vendetta by Steve Berry

This latest installment in the Cotton Malone series has our intrepid State Department agent turned bookseller on the trail of a lost treasure amassed by Napoleon. Also looking for it is a French plutocrat who is forming a cartel of Europe's richest people, with an eye towards manipulating financial markets for the group's personal gain. I'm still not quite sure if there's supposed to be a connection between the two, other than showing the leader's avarice.

This clash also involves Henrik Thorvaldsen, Malone's benefactor, as the leader of the cartel is also indirectly responsible for the death of his son (which Malone witnessed but was unable to stop). Thorvaldsen involves himself with the group as well, ostensibly to help Malone, but really to avenge his son's death.

While still not as good as his earliest books, this entry in the series is less dopey than some of the more recent ones. There is one major event that will shake up the series, and I like that Berry had the guts to do it, though it is offset by the potential addition of some younger characters who are pretty annoying.

Bottom line, it's worth reading if you've stuck with the series, but that's about it.

Book Log 2010 #6: The Anarchist by John Smolens


Amid the rising tide of anarchism, a Buffalo dock worker named Moses Hyde must help catch a band of anarchists who may or may not be involved with the assassination of President William McKinley. The assassin, Leon Czolgosz, clearly has anarchist beliefs, but is perhaps a little delusional as to his role in the movement (he sees the killing as a way to get close to leader Emma Goldman, whom he has never met).

This doesn't really matter to the Pinkertons and other security agents, who see the killing as evidence of a coming revolution. Hyde has to help them catch Czolgosz, and quickly, both to save himself and his girlfriend, a Russian prostitute who is also seen as a potential anarchist.

I like that someone is plumbing this era for historical fiction - so much of it centers around wars - and I enjoyed the story well enough. Much of the "evidence" that puts Hyde and his girlfriend in jeopardy is coincidental, and I did feel after a while that it was cropping up as a way to goose the action. It's not perfect, but it was worth the read.

I expect most guys going into fatherhood shared the same thoughts that I had at this point last year - mostly variations on "What the hell have I gotten myself into?" - and it was amusing to look at the recap post I wrote last year, if just for the recurring theme of feeling ill-prepared.

Funny thing is, a year out, I don't think I'm any more prepared. I'm certainly more experienced, both in the day-to-day skills (diapering, etc.) and in interpreting the various cries and expressions that mark hunger, boredom, sleepiness, and so on. But I've never quite shook the feeling that there are any number of things out there I am just nor prepared to handle.

But I am beginning to think that that feeling never really goes away. I just need to master it and keep a level head while trying to figure out what to do. Thankfully, the (not so) little guy hasn't thrown us too many curveballs. He eats well, sleeps well, and will happily play whenever there's an inanimate object to grab (or put in his mouth).

What has gone away is the "what have I done?" feeling. I'd like to think that all prospective parents have that selfish part of their brain that kicks in, reminding them that they've traded sleeping in, eating out and romantic getaways for early mornings, Hot Pockets and car trips punctuated by frequent potty breaks. I know I had my moment with this.

I soon enough learned, though, that there's an irreplaceable joy in all the moments, little and big, joy that's different from what's I'd previously experienced. I never quire thought I'd be goofy about a first tooth, or those first gurgly sounds that lead to a voice, or the first time the kid was able to put his foot in his mouth. But I am, and I can truly say that whatever lingering doubts I had about becoming a parent and loving a child are long gone. I look forward to seeing the boy when he wakes up, when I get home from work, when I put him to bed, and in all the moments in between. I can't say I look forward to some of the things that are coming - I have to teach him how to go the bathroom? - but I know that I will finds things to love even about the times that I may dread.

Happy birthday, Joe.

Book Log 2010 #5: Knives at Dawn by Andrew Friedman

Very enjoyable look at what goes into being a competition in the Bocuse d'Or, probably the preeminent cooking competition in the world. The book follows the US entrant for the 2008 competition, who faced many of the obstacles of previous US competitors (lack of time and focus on the competition), but also had the (sometimes) benefit of a new support system championed by some legendary chefs. Very much worth the read if you're into food and/or food competition.

Book Log 2010 #4: The Book of Air and Shadows by Michael Gruber

Decent thriller about an intellectual property lawyer who gets sucked into the hunt for a missing Shakespeare play, nothing special but not horrible, either. Found the parts where the lawyer was writing less enjoyable, though perhaps an accurate portrayal of a lawyer trying to sound more philosophical than he really is. Interesting side characters, especially a pair of booksellers' assistants who wind up on the trail of the missing play as well.

Lentorama 2010 Extra: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 41: John XXIII (1958-63)

John's election as pope was a bit of surprise, at least to him. He arrived at the conclave with a return train ticket to Venice. His choice of John as a name surprised many, as no pope had used the name for 500 years after the last man to use it was widely considered an antipope (a status John confirmed).

John was intended to be a short-term pope serving in the wake of the 19 year pontificate of Pius XII. But John quickly proved that he was going to make his mark when he called the Second Vatican Council. Detailing the impact of this council is beyond the scope of this post; suffice it to say that the Council opened up most aspects of the church to increase participation of and understanding by the laity. Its findings, and the spirit in which they would be implemented, led to a great struggle that continues today between liberalizing forces who want to use Vatican II to strip the church of many of its authoritarian trappings, and reactionary forces who see Vatican II as a threat to orthodoxy and the primary teachings of the church (most notable in this camp are John Paul II and Benedict XVI). This is a trite summation of Vatican II and its aftermath, admittedly.

John's term of office would be cut short when he lost his battle with stomach cancer. His positive nature and obvious concern for average Catholics led to his being called Good Pope John, though as of 2000 he is also the Blessed Pope John, as he was elevated to this last stop before sainthood.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 40: Pius XI (1922-39)

Pius' election was a bit of a surprise, as he was more focused on scholarship and research, with relatively little experience serving in positions more common among candidates for pope (he did serve as a papal nuncio to Poland and as archbishop of Milan).

Pius managed to settle the question of the church's landholdings in Rome when he signed the Lateran Treaty with Italy in 1929. This gave the pope control of Vatican City, making him the absolute ruler of the world's smallest independent state.

Pius also used his intellectual gifts in further writing and teaching on social issues, mostly in line with the writings of Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum. In all of his work in social areas, Pius focused on the moral aspects of social welfare, which continued the tendency to support the working poor. Pius believed in an economic policy favoring cooperation and solidarity, principles that were found in much of his writing on the topic. He did not particularly support and one form of government, arguing that as long as religious practice wasn't impeded, the particular form of government was not an issue. That being said, at the end of his reign he argued forcefully against communism and National Socialism. He was also an opponent of Mussolini, and he founded the feast of Christ the King to counter Il Duce's growing dictatorship.

He was somewhat less accepting when it came to relations within the church, as he maintained a strict orthodoxy. His acceptance of modern theological thought only came if it squared with church teaching, and his focus on ecumenism was strictly with bringing back those churches that were in close agreement with Catholic theology, happily ignoring the less compatible Protestant sects.

Pius undertook a number of diplomatic missions outside of Italy, including the signing of various concordats, work with Mexico, Spain and the Soviet Union to combat a rise in the murder of priests, and writings specifically condemning racism. He was also a strong supporter of scientific research.

Pius would suffer two heart attacks in November 1938, and would see his health steadily decline in the following months. He died in February 1939 after a third heart attack.

(OK, not sure how this worked, but I seem to have hit 40 days on the day after the end of Lent. I also appear to be one day short, as when I worked this out I should have ended with a pope from the latter half of the 20th century. Why do these things never quite work out for me?)

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 39: Leo XIII (1878-1903)

Leo is the third-longest serving pope in history, behind his predecessor Pius IX and John Paul II. He was also the oldest pope, dying in office at the age of 93. But as a young man of 24 he made a big splash in Vatican circles with a scholarly work on papal judgments, and upon meeting Gregory XVI he was made a papal prelate, even though Leo was not yet ordained. Once that was taken care of Leo began to serve in various posts, serving as the administrator of two papal provinces before being named papal nuncio to Belgium. He then served a tumultuous term as archbishop of Perugia, where he fought losing battles against the ascendent Italian state, which confiscated church property, taxed churches and took over Catholic schools.

Leo would return to Rome in 1877, when he named camerlengo, or chamberlain, of the church, the main administrative post in the church. He would serve in this post for less than a year, as he was quickly elected pope after the death of Piux IX.

One of Leo's first undertakings as pope was to bring together the conservative church with the modern, and increasingly secular, outside world. He especially focused on the relationship between the church and the growing numbers of the poor, who were more anti-clerical and more likely to support socialism. His skill as a diplomat helped normalize relations between the church - which was still reeling from losing control of the Papal States to the new Italian state - and most of the European powers (he still had issued with Italy, where anti-clerical sentiment still ran high).

Leo's greatest work may have been in his contributions to Catholic social thought, as he authored a number of documents trying to reconcile church teachings with modern political and economic theory. His encyclical Rerum Novarum was a landmark in the church's social teachings, discussing the relationship between labor and capital, the flaws of both communism and unfettered capitalism, and support for private property. While not radical, it did represent Leo's growing concern for the working poor, and served as the foundation for future church policy.

Upon his death, Leo was buried at St. John Lateran, making him the last pope not to be buried at St. Paul's.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 38: Gregory XVI (1831-46)

Gregrory, a Benedictine monk, gained early notice for his philosophical and theological works, leading to a variety of jobs ranging from being vicar-general of his order to brokering a peace deal between Armenia and the Ottomans to amending an agreement with the Dutch to protect Catholic Walloons. His election to the papacy was a surprise, coming after the leading candidate was vetoed by the king of Spain and a deadlock between the next two leading candidates. Gregory would be the last pope elected who was not a bishop at the time of election.

During his long reign, Gregory proved to be against any hint of modernization or liberalism, backing royalists and republican encroachments on the Papal States. He even went to far as to oppose railroads and gas lighting, seeing them as ways the middle class could expand business, make more money, and thus gain more power that would likely support further modernism. Not surprisingly, the combination of political unrest and reactionary thought did not sit well with the locals, and insurrection in and around the Papal States was a constant threat.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 37: Pius VI (1775-99)

Pius started out as an auditor and secretary in the Vatican heirarchy, and would become a priest in his early 40s. As Vatican treasurer he was one of the few men to then to actually administer finances carefully. This led to a plan where those who wanted looser purse strings to convince Clement XIV to make Pius a cardinal-priest in one of Rome's churches.

This worked, at least until Clement XIV died. The conclave that followed took over four months to elect a successor, as there was no clear favorite given the divisions within the College of Cardinals. There were two large factions, each defined by their support or opposition to the suppression of the Jesuits. Both factions had smaller sub-factions based on the strength of their belief and nationality. There were also no favored candidates, which allowed early voting to shift among a number of cardinals.

As the months passed, it became clearer that no candidate squarely in either bloc would get elected. A pair of French cardinals struck upon Pius as the most likely candidate to be approved by enough cardinals to get the votes needed, and after much negotiation - including a pledge by Pius to ratify the suppression of the Jesuits - Pius was elected.

Pius started out by initiating a number of reforms, both financial and agricultural, aimed at improving the standing of both the Vatican and Rome (ironic given that he would develop a reputation for spending lavishly on family and on civic improvements that did little to help average Romans). He would also become involved in a crisis involving the Germanic churches and their desire for more independence from Rome. He would visit Vienna in the hopes of reversing that sentiment, but failed. On the issue that allowed his election, the suppression of the Jesuits, Pius took a moderate road, upholding the suppression but not furthering it, leading both sides to be disappointed.

But it was events in France that had the most lasting impact on Pius. The French Revolution saw the confiscation of church property and a general backlash against the church and clerics generally. French Republican troops under Napoleon would invade Italy in 1796, and after short-lived peace the following year the French would enter Rome unopposed in 1798. Pius refused to renounce his authority over the Papal States, and was arrested.

His captivity would see him taken on a six month trek through Italy and France, and he died just six weeks after being settled in Valence. He would not be buried until 1800, as Napoleon sought to gain political advantage by having Pius buried in Rome. That wouldn't happen until 1802, and Pius would finally get to join the popes buried in St. Peter's when his remains were moved there in 1949.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 36: Benedict XIII (1724-30)

Benedict was the third and last member of the Orsini family to become pope, although he fought fairly hard to avoid the office, only accepting it after seeing how damaging it would be if the conclave were reopened.

Benedict, like so many popes before him, wanted to end the lavish lifestyles that many clerics enjoyed, and like most (if not all) of those popes, he was not particularly successful. Part of the problem is that Benedict was not much of an administrator, and left many of those duties to Cardinal Niccolo Coscia. Coscia, for his part, would have fit in nicely with many of today's financial leaders, as he was more than happy to cook the books to his own advantage (and, similar to today, to a near collapse of organizational finances).

Still, Benedict's reign did have some long-lasting consequences. For instance, he was the pope that lifted Urban VIII's ban on smoking. More importantly (to the church at any rate), he ordained a large number of bishops, who in turn ordained a large number of local bishops, to the point where over 90 percent of today's bishops can trace the line of their office to those bishops ordained by Benedict.

Benedict also had one long-lasting impact on Rome, as it was during his term of office that the Spanish Steps were completed. So if you're a bishop who likes to stop and have a smoke near one of Rome's greatest tourist spots, you have Benedict to thank.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 35: Clement X (1670-6)

Prior to becoming pope, Clement had a long career with varied responsibilities, from serving as nuncio to Rome to serving as the Vatican's exchequer to overseeing the works that protected Ravenna from flooding by the Po River. He was made a cardinal late in life by his predecessor, who predicted that Clement would be the next pope.

And that came to pass, though perhaps not in the way expected. The conclave that elected Clement was deadlocked between three candidates, none of whom could get enough votes away from the other two to win. The conclave dragged on for months, and finally the three camps agreed to elect an older cardinal, who would reign for a short period and allow each of the three to prepare for the conclave after that pope's death.

Urban was nearly 80 when elected, and he tried to pass on it, claiming it was too much of a job for someone of his age, but he would eventually give in. Once pope, he made an arrangement that would help both him as pope and help to keep his family name alive (as all but one of the men in his family had entered the church). He arranged a marriage between a man in a family he was close to and the sole heiress to his family's fortune and name. Once done, he made an uncle of the man a cardinal, and assigned to him the duties that Urban could not carry out due to his age, which would expand over the six years of Urban's reign.

It's hard to pin down the one or two most important events during Urban's term in office, as nothing really stands out. He did establish an independent see in Canada to further the success of missionaries there, and he set off a yearlong dispute with various cardinals and ambassadors when he tried to decree a new tax on goods entering Rome, but did not exclude goods being sent to Rome for cardinals or ambassadors.

Urban would die of complications from gout at age 86. And, perhaps fittingly, none of the three cardinals who were deadlocked in the conclave that elected Urban would be chosen to succeed him (or succeed any pope, for that matter).

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 34: Urban VIII (1623-44)

While you can't really sum up 20 years of rule in two items, there are two things that stand out about Urban's two decades in office:

1. He was the last pope to expand the territories of the Papal States by force. In the course of doing this, he created a Vatican arsenal, and looted the Pantheon of bronze for use in making cannons (as well as for the famed canopy in St. Peter's).

2. He was the pope that summoned Galileo to Rome to recant his belief in heliocentrism. The irony here is that Urban and Galileo had been friendly.

Of course, there were a number of other things that went on during Urban's term of office. He protected Jesuit missions in the new world while opening up Asian mission work to orders other than the Jesuits. He practiced nepotism on a grand scale, enriching his family quite a bit. He patronized the arts significantly. And he made smoking tobacco punishable by excommunication, which just seems like something you'd do because you're the pope and can get away with it.

One other thing Urban did a great job of during his reign was make enemies. This was mostly due to the burgeoning Vatican debt, which more than doubled during his term of office. This debt crippled the papacy, as interest payments took up roughly 80 percent of the Vatican's income. This unpopularity survived his death, most notably in the conclave, where a leading candidate who was allied with Urban's family was passed over for the man who would become Innocent X.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 33: Marcellus II (1555)

Marcellus was the last pope to use his birth name as his papal name; perhaps his 22 day reign is seen as a jinx on the practice. He was almost elected in the conclave of 1550, but after leaving the conclave due to illness and having the Germans opposed to him, he was passed over.

His election five years later during Lent resulted in a low-key investiture, though the stresses of the conclave and of the papal duties during Holy Week quickly took their toll on Marcellus. He tried to work through them, but was not able to overcome the initial rigors that came with being elected pope, cutting short what some felt would be a promising pontificate given Marcellus' reputation for integrity.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 32: Adrian VI (1522-3)

Adrian is the only Dutch pope, and was the last non-Italian pope until John Paul II. Early in his career he was tutor to future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who would be influential in landing Adrian a variety of posts, mainly in Spain.

Adrian was elected pope as a compromise candidate for the cardinals who were divided pro- and anti-Medici. Some feared that Adrian would favor Charles given their relationship, while others were afraid that Adrian would move the papal court to Spain, but Adrian set out to rule impartially and with a reforming bent.

Not that he had much success, given his ignorance of how the papacy worked and of Rome in general. He never got the support he needed to get a handle on indulgences and other dispensations that earned the papacy money, and his willingness to admit that the Curia had a role to play in the rise of Martin Luther and the Reformation was not something other cardinals wanted to admit. His somewhat surprising death barely a year into his papcy likely spared Adrian from a frustrating tenure.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 31: Alexander VI: 1492-1503)

If you've ever heard someone make a disparaging reference to the Borgia popes, you can thank Alexander. He started out in the church with a rapid rise through the ranks, thanks to his uncle, Calixtus III. He would serve in a variety of curial appointments under five popes, gaining great wealth. This came in handy during the conclave of 1492, as there was heavy use of bribery by the leading candidates, which included Borgia and members of the Sforza and della Rovere families.

While Alexander started off by improving administration, he would soon drag the papacy to new depths. He fathered four children, and made life in the papal court increasingly sumptuous while the people of Rome grew poorer. He would also add a dozen new cardinals, many of whom were members of his family or related to friends or, in one case, a mistress.

Alexander's political double dealing would lead to a French invasion of Italy, culminating in the French entering Rome in 1494. The various Italian states, with help from Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, would fight to drive them out, but in the process weakened his own position. He would turn to confiscating property from nobles based on trumped up charges, but would face opposition from several fronts - powerful Roman families, the reformer Savonarola, and even Alexander's own son, Cesare. He would engage in further military adventures in Italy, aligning again with France, and at one point he left his daughter Lucrezia as regent over the Holy See while he oversaw the fighting.

As time moved on, Alexander's machinations would help to increase Borgia power, as he changed sides as best fit his needs and used confiscations to fund his plans. This continued right up to his death, an incredibly gruesome affair that started with a fever and then continued to skin discoloration and bleeding profusely from places where blood should never profuse. Alexander's body, already badly damaged from his illness, decomposed quickly and bloated significantly. Johann Burchard, the papal master of ceremonies, recounted that he had to jump on Alexander's body to fit it into its coffin. The body was then refused entry into St. Peter's, with the mass only occurring there after papal staff forced the issue. The mass was sparsely attended, and afterward the body was laid to rest in the Spanish national church in Rome rather than in St. Peter's.

Alexander's reign wasn't all bad - he was a patron of the arts and architecture, and he was much more tolerant of Jews than previous popes - but his plotting and personal failings have left his as the poster child for dissolute popes.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 30: Eugene IV (1431-47)

An Augustinian monk, he was made bishop of Siena by his uncle, Gregory XII. The Sienese objected to a "foreigner" as their bishop, so Eugene went and worked for his uncle, moving up the curial ladder to become a trusted assistant of Martin V, whom he succeeded as pope. It didn't hurt his chances that he vowed in writing to give the cardinals half of the revenue of the church and consult them on all important matters.

Eugene would spend a major portion of his term - roughly a decade - out of Rome due to an invasion of the Papal States in one of the many wars that plagued north and central Italy. When not dealing with actual fighting, Eugene fought with the Council of Basel, a reform-minded body that argued the precedence of councils over the pope. Eugene would form his own council at Ferrara that would excommunicate the members of the council at Basel. The council at Basel would in turn declare Eugene was no longer pope, and help get the antipope Felix V to power (such as it was, he was not widely recognized as pope). This would all sort itself out along the same timeline as the actual fighting, with Eugene finally returning to Rome as superior to the councils.

On a personal note, Eugene was fairly troubled by all the strife, wishing on at least on occasion that he'd never left the monastery. Given events, he's probably not the only one.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 29: Gregory XI (1370-8)

Gregory is best known for moving the papal court back to Rome, motivated by Catherine of Siena's and her arguments for moving it back. He would be rewarded for his return by dying the following year, after which the Western Schism occurred and we had popes in both Rome and Avignon. Gregory is also the last recognized French pope, which seems like a slap in the face even if it is somewhat understandable.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 28: Clement V (1305-14)

Clement's election came at a time of great rivalry between the Italian and French cardinals, and the selection of Clement (who was French but not a cardinal) suggested that he was a compromise choice who would be expected to maintain some level of neutrality during his reign.

Such expectations were not met, as Clement started off on a pro-French foot by forcing his coronation to take place in Lyon (where his brother was archbishop) rather than in Italy. Once pope, he then created nine new French cardinals. From here on out, Clement pretty much did whatever he could to benefit France.

This would ultimately lead Clement to move the papal court from Rome to Avignon, claiming Rome was too unsettled given the political situation there. While Avignon wasn't technically part of France, the move clearly put the papacy in the French sphere of influence.

The other major event of Clement's papacy was the suppression of the Knights Templar, whose growing power and wealth was a constant source of concern for secular rulers - like the king of France. While Clement was not able to get the Templars convicted of heresy by an ecclesiastical council, he still banned them and allowed the French king to appropriate much of their property and money.

Hard to understand why people don't like the French, isn't it?

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 27: John XXI (1276-7)

John holds a couple of distinctions, as he is the only Portuguese pope and the only physician made pope. John spent much of his adult life as an academic and counselor to the king of Portugal, moving into a clerical role after becoming the physician of Pope Gregory X.

After being elected pope, one of John's first acts was to change the rules of election to loosen up the restriction that limited cardinals' movement during conclave and reduced the amount of food and wine given to them if things went too long. He had great plans for reuniting with the Eastern church and launching a crusade, but was frustrated by the ambitions of cardinal Giovanni Orsini (who would succeed him as pope).

He would die only 8 months into his papacy, as a wing he had added on to his palace for use in research and writing collapsed while he was inside, killing him, making him the only pope to die from an actual accident. That's probably one first he'd have been happy to pass on.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 26: Honorius III (1216-1227)

Facing violence within Italy, a potential invasion of Tatars, and a potential schism, the cardinals in Rome after the death of Innocent III appointed two of their number to choose the new pope. They came up with Honorius, who looked to be an easy choice as he was a Roman and had a reputation for kindness. It didn't hurt that he was also once tutor to soon-to-be Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II.

The main event of Honorius' papacy was the Fifth Crusade, which he planned to have start in 1217. A troubled start led Honorius to believe that the only man who could lead the crusade was Frederick, who was pledged to go but kept finding ways to not go. Frederick finally started to make serious preparations in 1227, but Honorius died before Frederick finally left.

Honorius was able to do something of lasting value by giving papal approval to the Dominican, Franciscan and Carmelite orders during his term of office. He was also in favor of greater training for clergy, and even refused to approve the appointment of a couple due to shortcomings in theology and general literacy, which seem like important areas for clergy to excel.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 25: Adrian IV (1154-59)

The only English pope, he worked his way up the Vatican ladder when, after being rejected admission to an English monastery, he became a canon in France and later gained the eye of Eugene III due to his interest in reform. Named the cardinal archbishop of Albano, the future Adrian would then go on to serve as a papal legate to Scandinavia.

He returned to Rome shortly before the death of Anastasius IV, and was elected to the office after Anastasius' death, shortly after which he placed the city of Rome under an interdict in order to quell the disruption of an anti-papacy faction of nobles.

During his tenure, Adrian attempted an alliance with the Byzantines, who had invaded Sicily and beaten back the Norman nobles in charge of the island. The hope was that this would lead to the end of the Great Schism that separated the churches of Rome and Byzantium. But internal squabbling among the Byzantines allowed the Normans to rally, and Adrian was reluctant to give up his temporal power in order to heal the rift, just as the Byzantines weren't about to let their church be ruled by someone so far away.

After this, Adrian incurred the wrath of Frederick Barbarossa, who was given a misinterpretation of a letter sent by Adrian. Barbarossa thought the pope was giving him land and thus confirming that he was superior to Barbarossa. The pope tried to correct and say he was merely referring to Barbarossa's coronation, but that didn't placate Barbarossa, and as their rift was widening Adrian died, supposedly by choking on a fly that was in his wine.

Adrian also set the tone for centuries of Irish antipathy towards the English when he supposedly issued a bull allowing the King of England to invade and take Rome so that the Celtic church could be brought under Roman rule and so the savages of the island could be civilized. Future decisions on England and Ireland would be based at least partially on this "donation," allowing Adrian to screw over the Irish centuries after he died. You can imagine o one will be raising a pint to Adrian tomorrow.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 24: Lucius II (1144-45)

During a run of popes who would have great influence over the way the church was run and its place among European powers, Lucius II stands out as not being particularly memorable. He appears to have been a weak ruler, as a dispute with a noble over the duties owed the Vatican by a vassal spread into the reformation of the Roman Senate (which he had dissolved) and further intrigue by the family of a former antipope.

Lucius was attempting to fight his enemies and gain some order when he was hit by a rock during a battle, suffering a wound that would eventually kill him, leaving history to remember him in a not so favorable light.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 23: Nicholas II (1059-61)

A short but important reign, as the election of Nicholas marked the end of the count of Tusculum's influence over the papacy. Nicholas was elected by a group of cardinals who opposed the count's choice, Antipope Benedict X, and Nicholas was able to take control of the See of Rome after allying with the Normans, who got land and titles in Italy in return for their support.

The election of Nicholas by cardinals was also significant as it led Nicholas to suggest this as a permanent reform. This would cause some conflict between later popes and the Holy Roman Emperor, but it would become the standard method of electing popes, continuing today.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millenia of Pointy Hats

Day 22: Benedict IX (1032-44; 1045-46)

Remember that list of the 10 worse popes I mentioned? We may have our chart-topper here.

Benedict was the son of the count of Tusculum and nephew to two other popes. He became pope (thanks to his father) by the time he was 20 (though some sources suggest he was in his pre-teens).

Benedict had few, if any, qualifications for being pope. His lifestyle certainly didn't suggest his suitability for the office, as noted by Pope Victor III when he wrote of Benedict, "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."

This didn't go unnoticed, and Benedict was forced out of Rome twice during the first decade of his rule, leading to the appointment of Silvester III as pope. Benedict would depose him, but would later decide to marry and thus sold off the papacy to a relative, who became Gregory VI. Benedict, regretting this decision, returned to Rome and retook the throne - even though Gregory was still recognized as the pope. Silvester also took this opportunity to remind people of his claim to the papacy, which he had maintained since being deposed.

At this point Emperor Henry III intervened, calling a council that declared Benedict and Silvester deposed and sought the resignation of Gregory, which he gave. The new pope, Clement II, died in 1047, leading Benedict - who never accepted his deposition - to take one more stab at being pope. He was driven out by German forces, failed to appear before the new pope on charges of simony, and was excommunicated. He would fade away at that point, having had three separate runs as pope, all of them marked by chaos and dissolution.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 21: Gregory V (996-999)

The first German pope, Gregory was presented as a candidate for the papacy by Otto III, his cousin. One of Gregory's first act as pope? Crowning Otto III Holy Roman Emperor. Very convenient.

Too convenient for some, as for much of his short reign Gregory had to contend with an antipope elected by the Roman nobility. Having a cousin as emperor worked out for Gregory, as Otto invaded Rome and captured the antipope, cutting off various part of his face before sending him to a monastery to live out his days. Which wound up being longer - by more than a decade - than Gregory got, as he died unexpectedly (and perhaps suspiciously) in his late 20s.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 20: Sergius III (904-911)

If you were to compile a list of the ten worst popes, Sergius III would easily make the cut, if not compete for the top spot.

Sergius' election kicks of a period of the papacy often referred to a the "rule of the harlots" or the "pornocracy" (the church uses the less misogynistic Saeculum obscurum, "the dark age"). The popes in this period (which spans most of the 200 years after Sergius' election) were beholden to the counts of Tusculum and in many cases was a member of the family. The influence of the family women is where the harlot/porn references come in.

Most of the records from Sergius' term in office were destroyed by opponents of the faction he supported, so most of the information about Sergius comes from his enemies, which probably explains some of the more scandalous accusations (such as his fathering a future pope with a mistress and his ordering the killings of Pope Leo V and Antipope Christopher). He did invalidate most of what Formosus did, including the ordination of several bishops, requiring them to be reordained. Confusion may have reigned more than Sergius during his time in office.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 19: Formosus (891-896)

Hard to skip a guy who was exhumed and tried posthumously - possibly twice.

The postmortem judgment(s?) came from an incident where an earlier pope, John VIII, charged Formosus with a variety of crimes after Formosus fled the papal court in 872. Refusing to return to Rome to face the charges, Formosus was excommunicated, only to be reinstated by the next pope who, had he not done this, could have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

The reign of Pope Formosus brought as much political intrigue as his life before, mostly involving the crowns of France and the Holy Roman Empire. Formosus died in 89, and the following year a new pope decided to exhume Formosus and put him on trial for the charges levied by John VIII in what came to be known as the Cadaver Synod.

The body was dressed in papal robes and seated, and after deliberations it was (not surprisingly) found that Formosus was not a valid pope. Pretty much everything he did was repealed, and the corpse was stripped of its robes, had the three fingers Formosus used to bless people removed, and thrown in the Tiber. A monk would later retrieve the body, which was later reburied at St. Peter's. It's believed that a later pope, Sergius III, put Formosus on trial again, found him guilty again, and beheaded the corpse for good measure. There are several people who argue this didn't happen, but it's easy to believe of Sergius, as we'll see later.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millenia of Pointy Hats

Day 18: Sergius II (844-847)

After the death of Gregory IV, Sergius was elected pope, which would have been great if another man, John, hadn't been selected by public acclimation. Supporters of Sergius managed to hold the throne for him, but had him consecrated without the approval of the Holy Roman Emperor (so much for getting rid of the Byzantine approval). Troops were sent to Rome, but Sergius avoided a sacking through negotiation and giving the crown of Louis to the leader of the troops, who was also the emperor's son.

Of course, it may have been better if Sergius stayed in exile. During his brief tenure simony became the favored method of paying for building projects, and at one point the Saracens invaded the city and sacked a number of churches. It's at this point that he died, proving again that timing is everything.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 16: Leo III (795-816)

While some, if not most popes chafed under having to be approved by the Byzantine emperor before taking office, it doesn't seem like a problem when the flow of power started going the other way in a tradition/requirement started by Leo.

It was Leo who, on Christmas day in the year 800 crowned Charlemange the emperor of Rome, formalizing the future arrangement where the leader of the Holy Roman Empire would be crowned by the pope in return for pledging to defend the church. This would be in place for a good 600 years, until the ceremony moved to Germany.

Leo almost didn't get to do this, as he was driven out of Rome for a time by a group loyal to the previous pope that wanted a more patrician candidate to take office. Leo took back the papacy with the help of Charlemange, setting the stage for what was to come.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millenia of Pointy Hats

Day 15: Sisinnius (708)

Sorry for the fascination with short-reigning popes, but it's hard not to be interested in a guy whose term of office (three weeks) is shorter than the amount of time the job was open before he took it (three months).

Not surprisingly, there's not a great deal to talk about here. Sisinnus was apparently so gout ridden that he had trouble feeding himself, never mind moving around. This seems like something the College of Cardinals would take into consideration.

In those three weeks he apparently manages to things worth noting: he consecrated a bishop for Corsica and started to make plans to reinforce the walls of Rome (one source suggests this was done due to various threats from the exarch of Ravenna (who is apparently quite the pain in the ass), the Lombards and the Saracens. Those threats alone might be enough to do you in, never mind the gout.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millenia of Pointy Hats

Day 14: John V (685-686)

Remember how I mentioned last time that there was a time when popes had to be approved by the Byzantine emperor before they could be consecrated? Well, that ended with John V, thanks to the decision by Constantine IV to end the practice. John V was the first of a string of 10 popes to come from the east, so it could just be that Constantine felt that there was enough Byzantine influence in the process without requiring confirmation on top of things.

Not surprisingly, relations between Rome and Byzantium improved during John's short reign. His death sparked a brief conflict over succession, as the clergy and the military had different ideas on who should be elected. Stalemate ensued, leading the election of Conon, who was neither group's first choice.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 13: Severinus (640)

Severinus was elected during a time when the popes had to be confirmed by the Byzantine emperor. While this wasn't usually a big deal, the emperor at the time, Heraclius, refused to confirm Severinus until he signed off on a document about the nature of Jesus that didn't square with Rome's idea. Severinus refused to sign, at which point the Byzantine exarch (more or less a governor) in Ravenna sent people to Rome to sack the Lateran Palace and force Severinus to sign.

Severinus, learning of this, managed to keep the hordes out of the palace for three days, but they eventually got in and started packing up its contents. Even so, Severinus still refused to sign the document. Papal legates in Byzantium finally convinced Heraclius to confirm Severinus as pope, thanks to a combination of the emperor's declining health and persistent badgering.

Not that Severinus had much time to enjoy the office, as he died within a year of finally taking over the See of Rome.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 12: Gregory I (590-604)

The first monk to become pope, Gregory earned quite a few titles - Doctor of the Church, Latin Father, saint - thanks to his skills as a diplomat, theologian, writer and caretaker for poor Romans, who were helped by his almsgiving. He's best known to the average person today for music, as the Gregorian chants, the earliest organization and recording of sacred music, was attributed to him.

Not that he had anything to do with it. The entire enterprise seems to take hold in the 9th century, with the attribution to Gregory a fabrication. If nothing else, it likely helped the system gain acceptance, though it doesn't really explain how it made a popular comeback in 1994. And I'm sure his estate didn't get any of the royalties, which is more the pity.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 11: Silverius (536-537)

Silverius is the first son of a pope to become pope, as his dad, Pope Hormisdas, took orders after Silverius was born. This would not become the model for future father-son duos.

As for his actual reign, the most notable thing is that he was deposed by the Byzantine general Belisarius, charging that Silverius was passing information to the Goths. True or not, Silverius was busted down to monk and left Rome, going to Constantinople to get the backing of the Byzantine emperor, Justinian I. That didn't work out so well, as when he was sent back to Rome Belisarius managed to have him exiled to an island off the Italian coast, where he would later die.

For all that, Silverius managed to become a saint, though apparently by public acclimation rather than the more formal way. I didn't know you could do that. I should start my campaign now.

Book Log 2010 #3: The Survivor's Club by Ben Sherwood

If you ever wondered what it would take to survive a catastrophe or how some people survive an illness that is typically terminal, this book looks to provide some answers. Looking at a mix of specific cases and research, Sherwood looks to pinpoint the abilities and traits that allow some people to thrive and survive where others do not.

While I think it's an interesting topic, I did find the book a little unfocused. It's clear there are certain things that help people survive - positive outlook, paying attention to one's surroundings, etc. - and I'd have preferred it if the book was more organized around these.

However, I do think the looser organization will help drive people to the website to get more information. There's also a test to get one's survivor profile, though you need a serial number from the book jacket to take it (not sure what happens when you take the test using a library copy; sorry to anyone who's tried to take it using the copy I read!).

Anyway, it's OK. More of an airport book than anything else.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 10 - Hilarius (461-468)

I mentioned Leo I in the last post, and he'd seem like the obvious choice for this century. He served as pope for 21 years, solidified Roman primacy among churches with an edict from the emperor, ended heresies, was named a Doctor of the Church, and became the first pope to be called "the Great." A lot going on, and a pivotal time for the church. So how do you follow that up?

If you're Hilarius, who prior to becoming pope worked with Leo, you continue your predecesor's work without drawing too much attention to yourself. A game plan that works as well today as it did back then. Hilarius continued to work on issues in Gaul and heresies, and got several buildings completed. So not the most exciting run, but sensible given who was in his job before him.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 9 - Zosimus (417-418)

Zosimus is the only pope in this half-century to not have his name used by another pope. There's the first Innocent, Celestine, Boniface and Leo, all of which were repeated later, in some cases several times. But there remains only one Zosimus. Why is that?

Turns out that Sozimus was probably a bit to belligerent to serve effectively, as he inserted himself in situations in Gaul and Africa that didn't end well (or end at all - Leo had to solve one the problems, and he didn't start as pope until the 440s). Zosimus was either highly suggestible or not that bright, as he seemed to take the side of whomever he was talking to at the time. This was most notable in his acceptance of supporters of the Pelagianic heresy (who argued that original sin didn't taint human nature).

He also banned clerics from taverns, a move that you think would get him blackballed from sainthood. But Zosimus is officially St. Zosimus, sort of an early ecclesiastical George W. Bush who didn't let intellectual shortcomings get in the way of the top job.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 8: Liberius (352-366)

Liberius is the earliest serving pope who isn't a saint, at least to Western Catholics. I was curious how he didn't make the cut while everyone else before him - many with little to no surviving information about their lives or term as pope - did.

As with most of these early popes, there's not a lot of detail as to his term. One major item was his stand against the emperor regarding Athanasius, a noted theologian who argued against Arianism. The emperor wanted all the bishops to sign a condemnation of Athanasius, and Liberius was among a small group that refused. For their trouble, the emperor (Constantius II) exiled the non-signers to Thrace. This led to the appointment of an antipope, Felix II, who would be deposed by the Roman people when Liberius was finally allowed to return to Rome. All in all an interesting story, but not enough to get sainted.

What probably doesn't help Liberius is that he wasn't smart enough to get martyred, or at least have someone spread the idea that he was martyred. Another example of the benefits of good PR.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 7 - St. Sylvester I (314-355)

Not surprisingly, for a pope with such a long reign (the 8th longest to date), quite a bit happened to the church during Sylvester's tenure. The Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, putting to rest (for the moment) the fear of persecution. Many of the great churches of Rome - including St. John's Lateran and the first St. Peter's - were built. And the first Council of Nicaea was held, marking the first attempt to bring some uniformity to Christian worship and practice.

And yet, we have little idea of how involved Sylvester was with any of this. Legends abound regarding Sylvester's relationship with Constantine, but most of the documentation on this is apparently fraudulent (from the Donation of Constantine on down). He must have had a hand in the building of churches, but we don't know how much. And he didn't even attend the council, sending his legates instead (though he would approve of the council's actions afterwards).

Some of this can be chalked up to the intervention of years, but you'd think someone who served at a time like this would have a better paper trail.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 6: St. Sixtus II (257-258)

There are two major facts I could figure out about this Sixtus - he reconciled with orthodox churches in Asia and Africa after a dispute over re-baptizing heretics threatened to end relations completely, and he was martyred by beheading during the persecutions of the Roman emperor Valerian. Care to guess which one caught my eye?

(It also appears that this Sixtus was often confused with a writer and philosopher of the same name, though that's not so interesting.)

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 5: St. Pontius (230-235)

Pontius is the first pope where we have exact dates for holding office, thanks to some unknown scribe who wrote about third century clerics. It was during this period that the schism started by Hippolytus (who you may remember from the last entry) was closed, thanks in large part to Hippolytus seeking - and getting - reconciliation with the Roman church.

Not that there was much time to celebrate, as not long after this the emperor decided to exile a number of churchmen - Pontius and Hippolytus included - to Sardinia. Pontius abdicated before going away, and eventually died due to the exertions from working in the mines. He is also joined to Hippolytus by feast date, which makes me think that things worked out pretty well for Hippolytus, going from potential anitpope to saint like that.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 4: Pope Zephyrinus (199-217)

You don't have to dig too far into the lives of the popes to find that they all weren't loved, or particularly suited for the job. Zephyrinus may be the first in the series of such popes, as contemporary writers seem pretty well united in the belief that he was too simple and too weak for the job. Many pointed to his deacon, Callixtus (who would succeed him as pope), as the real power.

With that in mind, it's no surprise that what little we know about his term as pope is negative. For starters, conditions for Christians under Roman rule grew steadily worse, until emperor Septimus Severus formally started persecuting them again (particularly converts). It also appears that Zephyrinus helped spur the first schism in the church, when he was unable to properly counter the teachings of a priest named Hippolytus regarding the unified nature of the Holy Trinity. Callixtus would inherit the problem, which grew to the point where Hippolytus is considered by some to be the first antipope.

What Zephyrinus does have in common with many of the early popes is that he is sainted, probably because of his martyrdom, of which we know nothing. Based on his performance, it's really the only way he'd get sainted.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 3: St. Telesphorus (126-137, give or take a year on both ends)

Again, we don't have many facts about Telesphorus outside of him being Greek and having served as pope during the reigns of the Roman emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Traditionally, he's credited with popularizing midnight mass at Christmas, celebrating Easter on Sunday, the seven week period of Lent, and the singing of the Gloria at the start of mass. That seems like a lot for one guy.

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

Day 2: Pope Anacletus or Cletus (77-88 or 80-92)

The third pope, the most we know about Anacletus is that we don't know if he is also Pope Cletus. The church and most historical sources consider them to be the same person, while some other sources continue to list two separate people. There were two feast days, which were merged into one in the early 1960s. It's all very confusing and required some level of papal intervention to get things as relatively clean as they are now.

As with most of the early popes, not much is known about him, as you might tell from the two different periods attributed to his pontificate. He is traditionally thought to be Roman and responsible for the division of Rome into parishes. He's also believed to have been martyred, though how isn't explained.

There is a religious order in the US called the Anacletians, who (ironically) don't believe that the pope is in charge of the Catholic church. This somehow relates back to the Old Catholic movement and the Syraic Orthodox Church, and leaves them in some sort of semi-legal status with Rome. I cannot even begin to pretend that I understand how it all works.

I was on my way home last night, and got to thinking about yesterday's post and possible topics on Lenten posting. It then occurred to me that we've had just over 2000 years of popes, and that divides nicely into a 40 day period, leading to...

Lentorama 2010: Two Millennia of Pointy Hats

The idea being I'll talk about someone who was pope for each 50 year segment of the office. This being day one, we start at the beginning of the first century AD, which pretty much gives us one option.

Day 1: St. Peter (circa 30-64 or 67)

For a guy who was an apostle and saint, there's a fair bit of confusion about Peter's role as the first pope. Or if he was even pope at all; doing a Google search on the topic will return a plethora of pages arguing both sides at various levels of hysteria.

We also don't know much about what Peter did while in Rome. The sources we do have were mostly written well after Peter's death, which could easily allow tradition to become fact.

And, of course, the actual title pope wasn't used in reference to the Bishop of Rome until much later, though that's the least of Peter's problems.

Obviously, this is a sensitive topic for the Catholic hierarchy, as without Peter being pope (or some sort of pope-like substance) the whole idea of the papacy being an unbroken line of leadership starting with Jesus goes away. This undermines the current leadership, and the next thing you know we're all Presbyterians or something.

Not surprisingly, it's not a topic that comes up in Sunday school, and I can't say I'd really ever considered it until now. I can say that I have a hard time caring either way.

Lent kicks of tomorrow, which usually sees me do two things around these parts:

1. Solicit ideas for what to give up, and

2. Run the Lentorama, a 40 day posting festival of things Catholic.

This year, I'm doing neither.

I've pretty much determined that I'm going to do what I did last year and give up unnecessary use of escalators and elevators. It's on the minor side, but if nothing else it'll give me a little extra workout. I suppose I'll pair that with not going to the vending machine in the basement of the building where I work, seems like a good pairing.

As for Lentorama, I have no good ideas and didn't even finish last year's edition (so much for Lenten discipline). So I think I'll take a pass this year, unless inspiration strikes in the next 24 hours. Sorry to both of you who were looking forward to that.

Book Log 2010 #2: The Devil's Company by David Liss

Boxer turned private eye Benjamin Weaver is back, involved this time in intrigue involving the British East India Company. His client, rather than hiring him for work, blackmails him into the job by putting several friend and family members at risk of debtor's prison. Weaver's work sees him involved in the various intrigues, financial and otherwise, that are the usual stock in trade of the series, though there's more of an international flavor here, not surprisingly. There's also a female character introduced who may prove to be Weaver's match - both professionally and personally.

As always an excellent historical novel, with the period detail we've come to expect. There's also a little plot movement back towards Weaver's personal life and interactions with London's Jewish community, which are also welcome. Very much worth the read.

Book Log 2010 #1: Hitler's War by Harry Turtledove

Turtledove's latest multi-volume reimagining of history involves World War II, which in this case starts much earlier, and without the appeasement that helped the Germans establish themselves in Austria and Czechoslovakia before actual fighting commenced.

As usual, the book covers multiple plot lines - I can think of at least seven - with the story unfolding across Europe and Asia. It avoids the narrative repetition that made Give Me Back My Legions! tedious, but is perhaps a little sprawling. The variety of plot lines waters down the personalities and stunts the growth of the more promising story arcs. I worry a bit that some of the people and events of the first book will be well forgotten by the time the second book comes out.

Even with the sprawl problem the book is still fairly entertaining, certainly enough for World War II buffs or alt history nerds.

The special election for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat is Tuesday, and I think I speak for a good many Bay Staters when I say it's not a moment too soon. What started out as a quiet little vote has blossomed into a full-on race, with a level of national attention not often seen in Massachusetts. If the "quality" of third-party ads is the same elsewhere as what we've been subjected to the past couple of weeks, then I feel very lucky that we are most often an afterthought.

The fact that this is a race can mostly be laid at the feet of the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley. She's run an incredibly underwhelming campaign; due to its short duration, she's mostly skipped public campaign events, preferring to meet local Democratic leaders, who she counted on to spread the word. She combined this with the typical front-runner tactic of not engaging her opponents - at least until the polls made it clear she needed to. She's been running ads, been in a debate or two, and has made public appearances with important supporters (including Vicki Kennedy, and Presidents Clinton and Obama).

This has all been in the hopes of stopping the apparent momentum of the Republican candidate, state senator Scott Brown. His campaign hasn't been particularly spectacular - he wants to change Washington and end business as usual, surprise - but he has been able to tap into a disdain with government (federal and state) with this fairly generic message. He's also been positioning himself as more of an independent thinker, which I don't buy. I think he's taking a page from the Mitt Romney playbook by moving more towards the center and ignoring places where he didn't (for example, he's countered questions about support of reproductive rights by forgetting about an amendment he wrote and sending his daughters out as proxies on the issue).

(UPDATE: The folks at fivethirtyeight.com have a post up calling Brown a liberal Republican. They're probably right. So maybe I just don't like the way he's handled that one issue during the campaign.)

There is a third candidate - Joseph Kennedy (no relation), a libertarian running as an independent. He benefited from Coakley's demand that all candidates on the ballot be in any debate, but is unlikely to draw many votes, and certainly not as many as Coakley would like.

In trying to sort out who to vote for, one of the things that most bothers me is that I know very little about what Scott Brown has done or stands for, outside of the most general notions. He's said very little about his time in the state senate, and the only thing I really know about possible Senate plans is that he wants to be the 41st vote against health care reform. I think his campaign is best summed up in his ad refuting negative ads about him - it debuted the same day as the negative ads, and makes no specific reference to them. As much as I don't like negative advertising, it makes me more curious when the response is something that seems like it was taped in Decemeber.

Conversely, I feel like I have a decent handle on Coakley's past and what she'd do in Washington. While that knowledge is certainly what's turning some people against her, it's something. And while I'm not 100 percent in tune with her positions, I'm certainly closer to her than Brown, so Blogalicious endorses Martha Coakley for the US Senate. If nothing else, it gives us two years to find someone we'd really like.

Book Log 2009 #60: Everything But the Squeal by John Barlow

Barlow, an Englishman who now lives in the Spanish region of Galicia, takes a year to live out his ultimate porcine fantasy: eating dishes made with every part of the pig, snout to trotters to tail and everything in between. This is often a solitary pursuit, as Barlow's wife (a native Gailician) is, improbably for Spain, a vegetarian (though she does nibble the occasional piece of iberico ham).

This quest takes Barlow all over this northwestern part of Spain, from festivals that focus on specific pork dishes to remove settlements where his meals happen almost by accident. At each stop we get an idea of what life is like among the Galicians, a subculture trying to cling to its traditional ways and proud of its (likely inflated) Celtic heritage.

There's plenty of pig talk, but it's easily as much a travelogue about Galicia as it is a food book. There are discussions of eminent Galicians (such as Fidel Castro, whose father moved the family to Cuba) and the ways in which Galicia is distinct from the other regions of Spain. It's all entertaining, but from the book jacket you'd expect the book to really be about the food. It's worth the read, just expect that not everything in the book is about pigs.

Book Log 2009 #59: Drunkard by Neil Steinberg

I was introduced to Steinberg's witty prose by his compendium of college pranks, If At All Possible, Involve a Cow and his work about the unsuccessful, Complete and Utter Failure (both highly recommended). His day job as a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times saw him often write about home and family.

That domestic life took a sudden turn when he, fairly well soused, hit his wife. It turns out that Steinberg had enjoyed a comfortable, if excessive, relationship with alcohol for years, one which often put strain on his marriage but which hadn't previously turned to violence. After a night in jail and facing charges, Steinberg found himself forced into rehab to avoid more jail time.

The bulk of the book follows his road to sobriety, which encounters more than a couple of pot holes and a variety of stops to get soused. Steinberg is brutally honest about his feelings towards his rehab program and fellow patients, the applicability of Alcoholics Anonymous to someone who doesn't believe in a higher power, and how much he enjoys booze.

That last point seems to be his biggest problem. The way he explains it, drinking was something that helped make Steinberg bigger than himself. Once he joined the Sun-Times, drinking entered the realm of cherished journalistic tradition, putting him in the footsteps of Mike Royko. Kicking booze become more than just overcoming an addiction; it required a complete change of outlook.

People looking for the sort of overwrought confessional that seems common for this sort of book will be disappointed. Steinberg doesn't pull punches but neither does he overly dramatize things. His story is remarkable in its ordinariness, a descent that could easily apply to anyone. Well worth the read.

Book Log 2009 #58: Pygmy by Chuck Pahlaniuk

The title character of Pahlaniuk's 10th novel is a smallish high schooler from an unnamed foreign country who is ostensibly sent to the US as an exchange student. He is really here to participate in Operation Havoc, as are a number of other "exchange students" from his country. They are all sent to the same nameless American location, which is where Pahlaniuk starts to have fun, going after the more mockable aspects of American culture at full throttle.

Two things slow this down. The first is the highly broken English of the contact reports that make up the chapters of the book. It does allow for some humorous wordplay, but I found it very hard to deal with in the early going. The other are dispatches that provide insight into Pygmy's training, which involves being taken from one's parents at a very early age and heavy doses of brainwashing.

I'm not sure this book worked as well in practice as the idea did in theory. It's pretty relentless in its satire, but in a way that can get tiring, especially when the language is suffering from multiple compound fractures. There's also a cartoonish quality to the action that makes it hard to take seriously. I suppose that could be part of the point, but there's enough going on here to make it difficult to determine. I can't say that I'd recommend it, but I can't say I wouldn't, either.

Book Log 2009 #57: The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan

Starting with the familiar question of what to have for dinner, Pollan follows what he sees as the three main ways people feed themselves today: industrial farming, organic (or "organic") farming, and hunting/gathering. In each way, he examines how each foodway shapes the way we live, from the profusion of corn products in prepared foods to the ways in which companies promote "organic" food that hardly seems worthy of the label.

The dilemma is not only figuring out what to eat, but figuring out what is best to eat when balancing out all concerns. The industrial process results in cheap and plentiful food that doesn't quite nourish the body (or the soul), while more intensive processes may result in food that is better tasting and more nutritious (but at a price). He even questions being an omnivore at all, spending a little time considering vegetarianism (including a longish discourse on the ethics of eating other animals, which confirms that I am an incorrigible speciesist).

I like the approach of this book better than that of Fast Food Nation and its ilk, as it's less sensationalistic and more thoughtful about the impacts of every choice we make regarding food. It's also often a fun read, as Pollan gets to visit farms, hunt for game and mushrooms, and meet some very interesting people. Highly recommended.

Book Log 2009 #56: Stone's Fall by Iain Pears

If you've got the time to settle in to a 500-plus page mystery whose solution is unveiled by moving backwards into the 19th century, then this book is highly recommended. Industrialist John Stone is found dead, presumably from a fall out of a second story window. This doesn't quite add up for his widow, and combined with an unusual bequest in Stone's will, she hires a reporter to investigate. The reporter's story leads to the story of a British agent, which then leads back to Stone's own story.

Pears like to play with time and perspective, and this set up allows him to show his skill. He layers on the period detail, but never at the expense of the characters or the mystery (in fact, they help to develop Stone's widow, who comes to be the book's main character). Very much worth the read.

Book Log 2009 #55: The Reader by Bernhard Schlink

Known for its Oscar-nominated film adaptation starring Kate Winslet, this book tells the story of a teenaged boy in postwar Germany and his older lover, a tram operator with a past that comes back to haunt her - in more ways than one.

I suppose I liked the book, but it's pretty gloomy, so be forewarned.

Book Log 2009 #54: Cover Her Face by P. D. James

This is the first in the series of Adam Dalgliesh mysteries, and I have to say that while reading it I was reminded more than once of The Moonstone. Not so much for plot similarities - though both involve crimes committed in an English country house - but for those conventions that The Moonstone set for future mystery novels, many of which are present.

What is missing to some extent is the bumbling local cop, as Dalgliesh is on the scene pretty early. There's little hint in this book of the cop he'll become - there is a reference to the loss of his wife and child, but not of his poetry - and for most of the book he's more or less a minor character, only taking his rightful place when it's time to reveal the killer.

By then, though, I'd lost interest and never finished the book. Probably not the best sign that I bailed out right at the point where I should care the most. Also, as it was written in 1962 there are occasional moments that date things (references to the recent war and such), but that's really just a distraction rather than a reason to not read the book. The overall dullness of the case? That's a reason not to read the book, unless you want to read the whole series, in which case you're pretty much stuck.

Book Log 2009 #53: Swindled by Bee Wilson

A really interesting history of fraudulent food, from doctored wine in ancient Rome to fake eggs made in China. At each stop along the way, Wilson does a fantastic job of describing how food was tampered with and how people and governments reacted at the time (suffice it to say that governments, until very recently, did very little).

It's a great mirror on our own food production, and how the obvious cheats of the past have morphed into the variety of additives that get into our food today. Well worth a read if you're into this sort of thing.

Book Log 2009 #52: The Sword of the Lady by S. M. Stirling

A continuation of the series set in a post-change US where electricity and combustion don't really work anymore. It's typical of the series, perhaps a little better in that things move along more and there's a bit less of the fantasy-type stuff (or perhaps the same amount, just used at points in the book where it makes more sense). I am curious how - or even if - this is going to wrap in one book, as it took two books to get from Oregon to Nantucket. But I do look forward to finding out, which is something.

Book Log 2009 #51: Don't Go There by Peter Greenberg

The travel editor for NBC, this book is a compendium of the places worth avoiding when planning your next vacation. I tried reading it straight through, which I'd not recommend. It's better used if you have a destination in mind and want to see if it's overly polluted, crime-ridden or subject to catastrophic weather. For that I think the book would be fine.

Book Log 2009 #50: Give Me Back My Legions! by Harry Turtledove

Rather than dabbling in alt-history, this book is fictionalized account of the Battle of Teutoberg Forest, starting a few years before the battle and ending a short time afterwards. I think I'd have preferred an alt-history take, as this straight history was quite repetitive, as we'd be reminded every chapter or so that the main German character really doesn't like the Romans, and the main Roman character trusts the main German character even though all the other Romans tell him not to.

There's surprisingly little going on outside of this set-up, and the final battle provides relief mostly by signaling that the book is almost over. I get the sense that Turtledove has more ideas than time to write them, resulting in works primarily written to meet a deadline. I'd have preferred he didn't write this at all and spent more time improving The Man With the Iron Heart.

I did not write about the BU men's hockey team at all last season, for fear of jinxing what turned out to be an historic run. Over the course of the season, they set a new mark for wins and won every title that they played for, from the season-opening Icebreaker to the national championship. They entered this season with high expectations and the top spot in the Hockey East preseason coaches' poll.

And it's all gone downhill from there. In a way, a letdown was inevitable, as 40 percent of last year's scoring came from players who have since moved on. But the quality of the incoming class, coupled with a season of solid goaltending during the title run, combined to mask the problems that are now apparent. Inexperience, lack of fundamentals, a sophomore slump in net, the reasons behind the team's collapse are myriad. After tonight's loss to RPI, the team's record stands at 4-9-3. They are currently in 9th place in Hockey East, meaning if the season ended today the Icedogs season would end today.

(There is a bit of a comparison here to the BU football team, which made the NCAA tournament in 2003 and 2004, after which all of the best players graduated and the team cratered, winning 5 games over the next three seasons before being shut down. Not that the hockey team is in danger of being shuttered, just that there's a similarity.)

Anyway, this got me thinking. What's the mark for futility for a college hockey team in the season following a national title win? Looking at total wins, the worst five follow-up seasons to a national title are:

1993-4 Maine, 6-29-1
1954-5 RPI, 9-11-2
1972-3 BU, 11-17-1
1963-4 North Dakota, 12-11-2
1989-90 Harvard, 13-14-1

The Maine season is a bit of an outlier, as they had to forfeit 21 games that season for using an ineligible player. If we were to go by their original performance, you'd sub in the 1964-5 Michigan team that went 13-12-1 as the fifth-worst season.

In terms of winning percentage, we have:

1993-94 Maine, .180
1972-3 BU, .396
1976-7 Minnesota, .440
1954-5 RPI, .454
1989-90 Harvard, .482

Interestingly, every other championship team went at least .500 the year after they won the title (and Maine would have if they had a better grasp of NCAA compliance). So the rule is that teams generally play well the season after winning a national title, which makes a fair bit of sense.

Where does that put the current crop of Terriers? In terms of total wins, they'd have to put forth an impressively bad performance to not win seven games this season. You'd like to think they'll win at least 10. Twelve? Well...

For winning percentage, they are currently at .344, so if they keep doing what they're doing, they will succeed in putting together the worst (non-forfeit) post-title season in NCAA history. Surpassing a record they already hold. Faaaaaaaantastic.

Oh for three in my guesses, and I can't say I mind at all.

Playing England to open will be tough, no doubt. But once the chance to play South Africa went by the boards, any of the other seven teams would present a significant challenge. It's a better draw than getting Brazil or Germany, but not by much. But given England's tendency to land in the Group of Death (or at least the Group of Agonizing Pain), karma looked to be running against the US.

But then Algeria and Slovenia wound up in the group, and things improved considerably. Both have short World Cup resumes and were among the lower FIFA ranked teams in their respective pots. Like I said yesterday, neither team is exactly a pushover, but playing them makes going through to the round of 16 more likely than if we'd drawn, say, Cote D'Ivoire and Portugal.

Speaking of those teams, I'd mentioned both as teams in a potential Group of Death (well, I'd picked Greece but mentioned Portugal as a close runner-up), along with Brazil. And guess which three teams wound up in the same group? Ladies and gentlemen, your Group of Death. Just with North Korea as your fourth rather than us. Thank God.

Now we just have six months to figure out how to pull a repeat of 1950 on the English.

OK, World Cup draw starting in a couple of minutes. My prediction for the US group: The Netherlands, Paraguay and Serbia. Well, as much of a prediction as you can make for a random draw.

The draw for the 2010 World Cup is tomorrow. Each of the 8 groups in pool play will be populated by four teams drawn in semi-random fashion. The teams are divided into four pots: one for host South Africa and the 7 qualifiers who finished highest in FIFA's October rankings, one for all the teams from Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF (the US's confederation), one for teams from Africa and South America, and one for the remaining European qualifiers.

(There's some controversy over the pots, as the use of the FIFA rankings alone - which don't include November's playoff games and don't take into account past World Cup performance, which was used in the past - led France to fall from the first pot to the fourth. Some see a conspiracy to punish the French, and they may not be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time with this Cup that FIFA has changed rules on the fly, as they made late changes that wound up pitting France against Ireland in the first place.)

So with that set up, what's the best the US can hope for?

Pot 1: South Africa: As hosts they get to be seeded, but on rankings alone they'd never make it into this pot (they were 85th in the October rankings; the only qualifier ranked lower was North Korea at 91). They missed the 2002 World Cup, and some people wonder if they'd have qualified for 2010 if they had to play their way in. Even with the expected bump from playing in front of home crowds, they'd be the team to get here. Honorable mention goes to Argentina, who does have world player of the year Lionel Messi, but also has him (and the rest of the squad) being coached by Maradona, whose coaching skills can charitably be called uneven.

Pot 3: Algeria: They've not made the World Cup since 1986, making them the least experienced team in the pot. On the down side, they are currently at their highest ranking ever, so they may have enough skill to make up for the inexperience.

Pot 4: Slovakia or Slovenia: Slovakia is in their first World Cup as an independent country, while Slovenia was a qualified by surprising Russia in their playoff. Neither is exactly a pushover, but the rest of the teams promise a tougher road. An article over on ESPN.com suggested any team beginning with 's' would work here, but I'm not so sure. Both Switzerland and Serbia won their qualifying groups, and the Swiss are ranked 18th. Serbia did have a lousy 2006 World Cup, for what that's worth.

Now that we have the dream bracket, what would be the US's Group of Death?

Pot 1: Brazil: Avoiding Brazil for as long as possible is a good strategy for getting deep into the tournament. Having them in your pool automatically means you have three teams playing for one place. Of course, if you don't get Brazil you could just get Germany or Spain or Italy (or England or the Netherlands for that matter). Simply put, if you don't get South Africa from this pot the team you do get from here is likely to be a challenge. It's just a question of how big a challenge you want.

Pot 3: Cote D'Ivoire: They're much more than Didier Drogba, as their entire roster is made up of European club players. They're the deepest team in the pot, and they get to play on their home continent.

Pot 4: Greece: It's a hard pick here given the strength of teams like Denmark and Portugal (even with their difficult qualifying experience). But I went with Greece as their style of play will wear down and frustrate teams. I suppose France might be a problem, too, but their qualifying path was nearly as chaotic as Argentina's (moreso at the end), so they may be ripe for the plucking. Plus, I kind of want to draw them in the hopes of getting some Irish-American justice.

The bottom line for the US, and really for most of the teams in their pot, is that the way the pots were filled none of them are going to have an easy time getting through to the knockout stages. Given that many of the teams are lower-ranked there's an argument that that's the way it should be. On the other hand, consider this: the US is 14th in the FIFA rankings. There's a chance their group will include the teams ranked first, fifth, and 11th, while Slovakia, ranked 34th, could get a group with the teams ranked 37th, 84th and 86th. Granted, the US could also get two of those teams, but I still don't think one ranked pot and three geographically assigned pots was the best way to go. Unless you're a European team.

We're a week away from the primaries for the special election to fill the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy. Time to sort out who you should vote for!

On the Democratic side, we start with Mike Capuano, who is currently in his sixth term as the Congressman from the historic 8th district (former Reps include JFK, Tip O'Neill, and Joseph "Joe 4 Oil" Kennedy II). He's got the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and has worked the hardest to claim the Kennedy mantle by pushing his liberal credentials. His TV ads have focused mostly on war-related issues, even though it's more of an "it's the economy, stupid" kind of time.

He has a number of union endorsements, most notably the Massachusetts Teachers Association. His individual endorsements are kind of a mixed bag, with the most notable names being former governor Mike Dukakis and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Even with his experience and endorsements, he's stuck in second place in most polls.

The person he's trailing is Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts attorney general. She announced her candidacy scant days after Kennedy's funeral, and while there was some undercurrent of it being too soon, the quick announcement apaprently helped her get clear of the field that was still forming. That, plus strong name recognition and favorable ratings, allowed her to build a large early lead in polling, giving her time to raise money and plan. Opponents used this time to cut into her lead, but she's still holding on to a decent cushion and forwarding a message squarely focused on financial and health care issues. It also probably helps that she's the only woman in the race; she's not playing gender politics per se, but it's an obvious difference that connects her to approximately half of the voters in a way the other candidates can't match.

She's endorsed by a variety of unions and politicians, as well as groups like MassEquality and the Massachusetts Police Association (helps to be a former prosecutor). She also has a fair number of state politicians in her corner, including the state senate president and majority leaders from both the state senate and General Court (our quaint name for the House).

Social entrepraneur Alan Khazei is one of the two non-politicians in the race. He's the founder of City Year, a well-known AmeriCorps program, and was pretty well involved in the public service bill named for Kennedy. His vision for service finds room for both the private and public sector, and he's got experience working with folks in both arenas.

What he doesn't have is name recognition, and while he's been somewhat successful in raising money, he's not really made much headway. He does have one TV ad, whose theme is cleaning up Washington. It involves him holding a diaper (I assume it's full). He also doesn't have many endorsements, but the ones he does have are bigger names - Teddy's nephew Max Kennedy, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Presidential candidate Wes Clark, and, most surprisingly, the Boston Globe. (Although perhaps not that surprisingly, as every piece I've read about him there has been effusive with praise for his thoughtful approach to political questions).

The other non-politician is Steve Pagliuca, a former manager at Bain Capital, where he worked for once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pagliuca is using his personal fortune to bankroll his candidacy, and he's used TV ads early and often. Their progression has at least been sensible, starting with "getting to know you" ads, moving on to spots casting his liberal political cred, and then to more specific issue ads (like Coakley, focusing on the economy and health care). He's also a minority owner of the Celtics, which he's mentioned but not harped on, to his credit.

I can't find any endorsements for him on his web site, though there is a link where individuals can sign up to endorse him.

While there's something to be said for the experience of Capuano and Coakley, I have to admit I love an underdog and think it's about time we started sending non-politicans to Washington, which is why Blogalicious endorses Alan Khazei in the Democratic primary.

For the Republicans, there are two choices. Scott Brown is one of five Republicans in the state senate, and is seen as a rising star in the state party (inasmuch as they can have one, given the low GOP numbers in elected positions). That being said, he's only the third-best known person in his family, as his wife, Gail Huff, is a local TV news reporter, and his daughter, Ayla, plays basketball for BC and was a semi-finalist on season 5 of American Idol. He's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, enough that I wouldn't call him a RINO though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would.

One of those people is his opponent, Jack E. Robinson, entrepraneur and occasional Republican candidate. He ran against Kennedy in 2000, losing pretty badly (a fair amount of the GOP vote went to the Libertarian candidate), and has since run for Secretary of the Commonwealth and the US House, losing both contests badly.

Robinson's political views are varied, as he combines fiscal conservatism with social views from across the spectrum (he's for gay marriage and thinks that public transportation should be federally funded and free to use; odd stances for someone who's called Brown a RINO in radio ads). The state party doesn't care for him, as they challenged the signatures he collected to get on the primary ballot (or at least threatened to, I can't find confirmation that they actually did).

As much as I'd enjoy the theater of Robinson winning, I'm opting for experience here as Blogalicious endorses Scott Brown for the GOP primary and eventual whipping at the hands of the Democratic winner.

Book Log 2009 #49: The Beckham Experiment by Grant Wahl

Touted as the signing that would single-handedly bring the MLS into the hearts and minds of Americans, David Beckham's deal with the Los Angeles Galaxy never lived up to its inflated promise, and Walh explores the reasons why this occurred, from Beckham's physical fitness to play to his uneasy relationship with teammates to the overly-slick handling by 19 Entertainment and Simon Fuller.

From the beginning, it's clear that Beckham's arrival in the US is about more than soccer, as his signing seems to be as contingent on his wife's ability to score TV deals as it is about the game. Further complicating things are the people that surround Beckham and the demands they put on the team, which eventually lead to a de facto takeover by 19 Entertainment and long time Beckham friend Terry Byrne. This leads to some disastrous decision making and the eventual firing of team GM Alexi Lalas, who had little to no actual control over the team.

Compounding things was Beckham's increasingly frosty relationship with teammates, specifically Landon Donovan, whose notoriously thin skin only made each perceived slight that much worse. They would patch things up after a fashion, but only in time to see Beckham sign a deal that would have him play with AC Milan during the Italian season, making him a part-time MLS player.

As interesting as the details are, the most intriguing question of the book is just how much the Beckham Experiment was controlled by Beckham himself. Did he know and direct the changes with the Galaxy, or did things happen with him staying in a state of blissful ignorance? Both options raise questions, and Wahl does a good job of exploring them and only drawing conclusions where the information allows.

A must read for soccer fans.

Book Log 2009 #48: A Spectacle of Corruption by David Liss

Benjamin Weaver, the boxer turned investigator who debuted in A Conspiracy of Paper, returns in this book to explain his involvement in the murder of a laborer, which is actually a small part of a larger struggle between the Whigs and Tories on the eve of the first Parliamentary election of King George's reign. Throw in an appearance by the Jacobites - who want to overthrow George and put James III in - and you have an engrossing tale of 18th century politics, business and social life.

Weaver's attempts to clear his name and find the actual killer only get him in deeper with parties on all three sides of the larger plot - and put him at danger of being killed himself by any one of the three. The difficulties that Weaver faces in untangling things is clearly felt, and it drew me in more deeply than the average historical mystery.

A worthy successor to a great first novel.

Book Log 2009 #47: The Arms Maker of Berlin by Dan Fesperman

A scholar on Nazi Germany with an interest in the short-lived White Rose resistance movement has to find files about the group for which a colleague died (possibly murdered) that shed light on the White Rose resistance movement and its potential ties to an elderly German industrialist. Along the way, the scholar teams up with a woman whose single-minded determination to find the same information leads to questions about her past and how well she can be trusted.

The book is split between the modern day search and World War II-era Germany, the latter following the industrialist during his younger - and apparently more radical - days. The two come together at the end of the book and its shocking conclusion, though I found some of the conclusions fairly easy to guess as things went along.

It's a different twist to World War II espionage stories, especially with the involvement of the White Rose, whose fight against Hitler isn't well known in the US. I also appreciated the way that the drudgery of academic research is portrayed, given how easily documents seem to turn up in similar works. Worth a look.

Book Log 2009 #46: K Blows Top by Peter Carlson

Highlighting one of the more bizarre moments of US-Soviet relations, K Blows Top recounts the 1959 visit to the US by Nikita Khrushchev. The trip, the result of a mistaken negotiating ploy , was as much farce as diplomacy, with nearly each day punctuated by an emotional outburst by the Soviet premier. It made for great theater (and newspaper copy) then, and it makes for entertaining reading now.

The only drawback to the book, and it's somewhat minimal, is the suggestion from the cover and jacket that the story of the trip intertwines with several of the biggest names of the day. There are appearances by the likes of Sinatra and Monroe, but the most notable brush with celebrity came from Shirley MacLaine, who met Khrushchev when he stopped in to see some of Can-Can being filmed. It's not a real problem, but I do think the blurbs over promise.

Certainly worthwhile for people interested in the 1950s or US-Soviet relations, with the expectation that it's on the lighter side.