The Old Man: Book Review

Thomas Perry's The Old Man: Why We Love Spy Thrillers

I just finished reading Thomas Perry’s “The Old Man”. The only comparison I have for this book is the TV show on Hulu. It’s why I decided to read this book in the first place. I’m glad I did. Now I’m familiar with this author who I didn’t know anything about before. The Old Man doesn’t exactly go by one name. This holds true in the show as well. It’s kind of his M.O. to use fake identities until he gets burned, then start on another. First he is Dan Chase, then Peter Caldwell, followed by Hank Dixon and eventually takes on the identity of a Canadian citizen named Alan Spencer.

All identities have backstories and passports. This is a guy who knows how to evade notice. It’s the character that draws us into the story. He is 60 years old and owns 2 large dogs. Perry never gets around to describing their breed, except to say some think they’re a cross between a Labrador and a poodle. He calls them “80 pound beasts” at one point. We’re to assume they’re well trained to listen for danger and protect their master. Dan Chase is an accomplished man who pays attention to detail. He’s trained his dogs well. Described in the first chapter of the book, thieves break into the home of Mr. Chase. The dogs pounce and subdue the intruder while Dan kills him. From here the story really begins.

We find out that Mr. Chase is a man on the run because of an incident in Libya almost 30 years ago. I wont spoil it, but it’s the thread that the whole story hangs on. In the long tradition of bad ass covert case officers, this one is mostly different because of the age of the spy. He’s 60 and in shape. The TV show makes you think the plot is convoluted. It’s not. It’s quite simple and follows a linear timeline. About the only flashback is at the beginning to set up the plot. Otherwise, we follow the Old Man through Chicago, California, Toronto and then Libya.

His love interest is a 40-year-old divorced mother from Chicago who follows him into the identity swapping, covert world of running from the US government. He rented a room from her using the name Peter Caldwell and she fell for him. She has a little backstory of her own that makes hiding from the law a comfortable fit.

I checked on the author’s website to see if he had a series devoted to the character. Sadly it’s a one off. I wonder if he will write another one with the success of the TV show. I’ll try not to go into detail about the show because it’s not even remotely the same. Another character that carried over from the book to the show was this military contractor named “Julian”. He’s a black farmer from Jonesborough, Arkansas who gets the assignment to go after the Old Man. He’s irritated with the scope of the investigation and becomes disillusioned with the whole process. He’s a likeable symbol of a man fighting an internal battle on the morality of what he does. If this Old Man character doesn’t get another book, I’d start a new series with Julian.

Julian is in the TV show but doesn’t have the same story. I bought the book to understand the show better. Don’t do that. It won’t help. The TV show has a lot of layers that have only been hinted at. I thought a fuller reading of the book would answer my questions, but no. Especially since Thomas Perry only wrote one book, these are two different stories. The writers of the show cut and pasted the main character and two others, gave them different histories and located them in different parts of the country. This isn’t a problem. Books often get made into movies with little or no connection to the original novel.

 Characters drive stories and when you’ve got a likable character, you tell more stories. Spy novels with international intrigue never get old. We keep reading them, authors keep writing them. From Mitch Rapp to Jason Bourne, it's the danger and violence we love.

I like that Dan Chase (The Old Man) is over 55. Is that because I’m getting older myself and associate with the type? Never you mind that!

I’ve thought about what it is that makes the character so compelling. To me it’s the unassuming nature of a guy with gray hair and a pleasant demeanor. No one expects him to defend those in his orbit with such raw, cold violence. In one instance, the Old Man and his girlfriend hitch a ride with 2 young men who only stopped because they saw the woman. It’s clear almost immediately that the men have bad intentions toward her and don’t think the Old Man can do anything about it. He tries to diffuse the situation by telling them he’s uncomfortable and their threats are inappropriate. He beats them up quickly, and roughly, when they keep commenting on his age and lack of sexual prowess. You can feel the false bravado of the young men right until Chase smacks the driver with a pistol.

He’s a man who’d rather walk away and change identity than get into a scrape. But when he’s confronted with it, he leaps into action. His age suggests he’s more patient with people and gives them a break when other, younger agents, might not. It’s an important part of the story which I’ll only hint at. The Old Man needs someone in the US government to believe he is the good guy.

It's a story about putting the past right and trying to overcome mistakes. It’s a universally appealing sentiment. Who doesn’t want to fix something from the past that’s created an untenable situation in the present? If not an untenable situation, a lot of us would want to make a different decision or take another path. We never get to. But with a lot of money and two 80 pound beasts, you just might.

 

 

Justice Run 2024

 

The Justice Run 2024: The Short Version

I spent the weekend in Fort Worth. I signed up for the Justice Run for the 3^rd Year in a row. Officially it’s a run along the Trinity River Corridor. Unofficially, it’s a fund raiser for victims of sex trafficking in its 4^th year. The run gets bigger every year and the cause becomes more essential, as the number of kids trafficked increases exponentially. I'm happy to join the fight.

My marathon turned into a half marathon quickly.

The race is always on Saturday and this year was no different. I took off work on Friday and drove to my brother’s home outside of Fort Worth. My mom came along as well. My brother took me to the church on Friday afternoon so I could pick up my race packet. They included tank tops this year, which worked out well because of the heat. Mine was too big. Fortunately, I’d prepared and brought one from home to wear instead. The temperature at the start was in the low 60’s. A little warm for a marathon, but at least it wasn’t delayed because of rain. Last year was wet and sloppy and we started later to allow the water to absorb into the ground. About the only nice part of running through a wet park, is the lack of pedestrians getting in the way.

This time the park was packed. That meant strollers and bicyclists.

I knew the temperatures were going to climb once the sun came out. The two previous days I made an effort to drink a lot of water for hydration. I don’t think it’s the heat that did me in though. Whatever it was, I burned out around the 11 mile mark and coasted in at the half way point. Sometimes preparation is a waste of time. I’ve always thought the most important thing about preparing for a marathon is getting the miles in. The diet and energy stuff is a close second, but it’s anyone’s guess how you’ll feel in the moment.

It turns out this day wasn’t my day. I didn’t have enough in the tank. My pistons weren't firing. My thermostat was in danger zone. My metaphors are wearing thin. For whatever reason I couldn’t finish. It’s more accurate to say I didn’t want to finish after feeling spent so early. My lack of energy after the first lap was an indication that the last half was going to involve mostly walking. That’s why I called it. The thought of walking 13 miles with an occasional short jog was too painful to consider.

I did manage to meet a wonderful woman who ran with me for the first 8 miles or so. We talked about everything from travel to politics. She caught up to me a mile or so in and we ran side by side and chatted. We kept a similar pace. Any faster and I wouldn’t have had the breath to talk for very long. She attends Mercy Culture, the church that sponsors the run, and filled in some details about the leadership. Normally I’m in my own world when I’m jogging. Thankfully, her conversation made the early part of the run enjoyable.

The route was roughly the same as last year. The organizers moved the event further down the river by a few hundred yards. It allowed them to set up on a flat, dry parking lot with a spot for vendors inside a warehouse. Apparently, it’s the location they’ve tried to get for the last 3 years. This year they made it a reality. They’re getting better at organizing the run as well. I heard one person complain that he had to find a vendor with water bottles once he’d finished the race. Normally you’re handed a water once you cross the finish line. But there was plenty of water all around, you just needed to go get it. For a small race I don’t think that’s the worst criticism.

The mission of the Justice Run is to raise money for victims of sex trafficking. Mercy Culture Church is trying to build residences to house women and children who’ve been rescued from the trade. Apparently, the neighborhood community (nearby) opposes having the residences built there. But the land belongs to the church; it’s a question of zoning. Does the current zoning law cover the church or not? The building is on hold until the political stuff is sorted out. Sex trafficking is one of those ugly, under the radar type of crimes that take place in astonishing numbers. It’s a ministry whose time has come. I’m proud to support them.

As for the rest of the day, my brother grilled steaks for the family. It’s a tradition now in its 3^rd year. I run, he cooks. Ostensibly a celebration of a grueling marathon, this year we had to amend it slightly. No one wanted to miss the steaks because I didn’t finish the race. We joked about cutting mine in half.

 Whatever happened in the race, any excuse to be with family and grill out is OK with me.

National Sovereignty and Trade Policy: New Directions

 

Is Free Trade Dead? National Sovereignty and Trump Economics

How important is a country’s trade deficit? Are countries just large markets made up of consumers, or are do they have interests' outside of economics?

I had a teacher who liked to talk about how deficits in trade were meaningless. “Does Walmart buy goods from you? No? so you have a trade deficit with Walmart.”

Big Deals

This was how trade deficits were explained to me in my economics class. They’d started calling it Global Economics by the time I was in grad school. “Macro Economics” had gone the way of the gold standard. His point was that some countries buy and some sell, we all specialize in a mature market based economy. Trade deficits aren't a big deal.

My question to him should have been “Aren’t a big deal to whom?” If you sell whisky or cars or beef, it’s a very big deal when you can’t sell into a foreign market. Especially if other industries, like retail, are able to buy shipping container loads of electronics and shoes.

With a country like China we buy more than we sell. Partly because they keep their currency artificially low and partly because our goods are significantly more expensive.

My professor was focused on America’s balance sheet. Since China isn’t the only country we trade with, we make it up by selling to others. Most of our trade is with Canada and Mexico. Both are significantly larger trading partners because of their proximity. Let’s not forget the rest of South America, Europe and Asia. But we do have a massive trade imbalance. Oil is the culprit. We buy a lot instead of producing it here, a mistake for sure. But that’s an article for another day.

Ricardo’s Influence on Trade

The existing framework for international trade is based on the David Ricardo model. If your knowledge of trade theory is a little rusty, here is a quick summary. Countries should trade what they’re good at in exchange for what they aren’t good at. This is all theoretical so bear with me.

Countries with an abundance of grapes will become adept at making wine. Countries with tech industries will become adept at making microchips and smart phones. These countries will trade with each other and focus on what they do best. Both will have a comparative advantage; wine countries shouldn’t try to make microchips and tech countries shouldn’t grow grapes.

 It’s a dramatic oversimplification but it gives us a starting point. The model falls apart when you introduce quotas, tariffs or subsidies. The free traders have tried to get everyone on level field of play by introducing global rules in their game. But it’s like agreeing to play football with multiple sets of rules. Countries can’t agree to exactly the same game because their internal politics are vastly different. And they all have special industries to protect. For some it’s agriculture and for others it’s manufacturing. Add to that, the unions with their own demands.

Tariffs Make a Comeback

But the basic structure of free trade involves removing barriers like tariffs to increase the overall amount of trade. But what if countries ignore the rules or subvert the process?

There isn’t a great mechanism for settling disputes but there is one. The WTO (World Trade Organization) has courts to hear cases between nations. But it takes years and is often unsatisfactory for both countries.

 I don’t hear politicians talking optimistically about free trade anymore. It’s no secret that manufacturing in particular, has taken a beating. Partly this is the fault of the unions. They negotiated sweet deals in past with the auto makers. You can’t blame them for getting the best deal possible, but the legacy costs hurt the auto manufacturers. They also started moving their manufacturing overseas to save on labor. Also, the rest of the world started selling great cars in the U.S. putting further pressure on our industries.

 A lot of the complaints that President Trump has about trade is the lack of transparency in foreign markets, particular China. His thinking goes like this, ‘we open our markets, why can’t you?’ Trump and Peter Navarro (trade advisor) made sure to put a hefty tariff on China for their unfair trade practices like technology transfers (Intellectual Property theft) from US companies. Those tariffs are still in place.

National Sovereignty Economics

It's hard to make an economic case for tariffs. It’s just a tax on foreign goods. The consumer pays it anyway. But Trump isn’t just punishing foreigners, he’s trying to keep industries at home and maybe bring a few back that have left. He’s concerned more for American jobs than cheap consumer goods. The downside is that countries will retaliate with tariffs of their own on our products and services.

But is it really as damaging as we’re told? Liberal economists make it seem like the tit for tat on tariffs will necessarily lead to war. It feels to me like there is a similar historical parallel with the Soviet Union and President Reagan. He bankrupted the Soviets by spending heavily on defense and forcing them to keep pace. Moscow couldn’t afford it. It didn't lead to war.

 What if we invest in our own industries, produce our own oil, grow our own crops and promote American companies abroad?

 China won’t easily find another consumer driven economy to replace what they’ve lost with the Americans. They can’t afford to keep up.

There are probably a hundred things wrong with that example, but Trump thinks in terms of national sovereignty first and economics second. He believes that a strong America is the best thing for the world. For all the criticism he gets about being a bully on the international stage, he does want fair trade. That’s how I read it at least. I’d rather have someone who puts America first. A lot of our leaders are completely owned by international interests. Their trade policies are not significantly different. Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992, was a critic of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). But he finished a distant 3^rd. The free trade skeptics haven’t had a standard bearer until Trump. Whether you like his tariffs or hate them, Americans need to start having the debate again.

Conclusion

Walmart has certainly benefited from lower trade barriers in the last 30 years. That’s a good thing. Most of us have a trade deficit with Walmart. Individuals can run those deficits forever, but countries need to balance their accounts at some point. Countries are more than just markets, they’re sovereign nations with cultures and religions and notions of progress. We have (or had) a thriving middle class and an upwardly mobile citizenry.

 Does America have the capacity to defend itself if attacked?

That takes a lot of industry to convert to tanks and ships and weapons. This isn’t a big deal until you’re suddenly forced into a war footing.

China has been America’s Walmart for too long. What we don’t get from China we get from other countries. That’s called leverage. They have leverage on us. If you can’t make enough to supply the domestic market, you’re in trouble. Trade can be a liberalizing force between nations, but when it’s uneven it can be dangerous. It’s time to put American industries first again.

Does Anyone Buy Books at Stores Anymore?

 

Shopping for Books and Reminiscing About the Old Way

Looking for books used to be fun, but there’s hardly any reason to go to the bookstore anymore. Of course I read digital copies too. They can be bought quickly and downloaded to a phone in seconds. But I like to hold the book, see the ink on the page and scribble notes in the margins. Our eyes get too much screen time as it is. I’m making an effort to buy more physical books again.

A New Era

I went looking for a copy of A Moveable Feast the other day. Hoping for a discount paperback, I shuffled into Barnes and Noble. It’s been a long time since I’ve purchased anything there. Used to be they had a section for $5 dollar books in a bin. Most were just hardcover copies of whichever Danielle Steele novel was popular years before, a lot James Patterson too. I could always find classics for cheap and in hardcover. Not that I need a hardcover, but it’s nice if you can find it. The bins are gone though. Instead we get racks of calendars, pens, penlights, bookmarks, phone chargers and other reading adjacent knickknacks. Often it's tchotchkes with no relation to the printed word (see above pic). I’m sure the margins are better on booklights than cheap paperbacks. 

I didn’t see any of those lap cushions with the flat wooden top for couch reading but I’m sure they were around.

B&N has a music side too. I realize this isn’t new. I’ve poked my head in a few times in the last few years, but I didn’t imagine they got rid of so much of what made it great. Instead of a messy, bustling place full of families it’s become a minimalist version of itself. Neat shelves with sharp white font letters on dark green backgrounds advertise the genres while large posters of the classics (Ulysses, Homer, The Grapes of Wrath) populate the walls. You can still hear the café blender whirring on occasion. They’ve taken out half the tables so the sound of wooden chairs being slid into place isn’t as frequent either.

A Former Life

The grit is starting to set in the way it does with old stores. The floor tile has gone from white to off-white and the carpets are threadbare in well-tread spots.  

 They haven’t overhauled the way Radio Shack did years ago. Radio Shack saw that consumer electronics were going the way of waterbeds and cassette tapes, there was less interest every day. They tried to stop the bleeding by reimagining their mall stores. They managed a funny Super Bowl ad in 2014 about their 80’s image. In the end it wasn’t enough. Borders, my favorite, went bankrupt in 2010 as well. There wasn’t anything special about Borders but I like the location here in Tulsa. I spent time doing homework a few nights per week in the café.

There was always a group of D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) gamers occupying a corner of the same café. I wanted to complain about the noise but how could I? It’s not let any of us were paying customers. I never bought anything but tea either. Borders never sold much as far as I could tell. I’m starting to see the problem.

Although closer geographically, it always felt like a ‘us too’ version of Barnes & Noble. They decided on Seattle’s Best coffee instead of the superior Starbucks. No one picks Seattle’s Best over Starbucks unless you can’t get Starbucks.

Once digital readers hit the market in 2007, Borders said enough. I’m not sure it was this reason alone but it was clear by this point they couldn’t compete with yet another slap in the face from Amazon. First they offered books for a fraction of the price, then they digitized the experience. Although Books A Million (BAM!) never had one either and they’re still around. Amazon’s Kindle captured the market and only B&N created their own line of e-readers. I have one lying around somewhere. It wasn’t the fancy color one that loaded the page correctly every time either. The black letters were hard to see on the hazy yellow backdrop. The buttons weren’t responsive either. I’d finish a page and hit the button to turn, nothing would happen. I tried again, nothing. Then I mashed it hard and it jumped 20 pages ahead. This happened frequently and I eventually gave up on it, tossing it in the drawer next to my Borders café punch card.

An Unexpected Turn

It's no secret what happened to the book sellers across the country. It’s the same thing that happened to Radio Shack, Circuit City and Toys R Us. Amazon took them out to the pasture like an old mare with a broken leg and put a bullet in them. Online shopping is what we wanted and it’s what we got. Besides, even B&N has an online option. It’s probably where all their $5 books are if they still even exist. It feels like Barnes & Noble is on in the twilight of its operation. I don’t pretend to know what their financials are, but I can’t imagine they’re selling enough in the stores to stay viable. Maybe they’re killing it online, enough to save the stores. If so, it doesn’t make sense to keep the stores afloat. You’d think a handful of warehouses would work better.  

If you grew up in the 90’s you assumed the mega book stores would grind the small sellers into the ground and ruin their business. Nothing typifies this better than "You’ve Got Mail" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. That movie pulled a clever trick on us. It pretended to side with the ‘mom & pop’ seller (Ryan) while actually softening the corporate view (Hanks). But the business dynamics turned out to be something different. Big stores did put small ones out, but also the internet and ecommerce happened. It opened the door for big stores to be dragged out to the pasture in the same way the mom & pops were.

 I’m partial to Barnes & Noble. I worked there one Christmas season for extra money. They bought a large space at the local mall and punched out a wall for access inside and out. We seemed to be marking down older titles constantly and filling every empty space with book displays. The busyness eventually waned when January came around, but it never needed a music section or a Pokémon rack.

Conclusion

But times change and companies do what they must. I’m reminded of a quote from a character in Hemingway’s bull fighting classic The Sun Also Rises.

“How’d you go bankrupt?”

“Two ways, gradually, then suddenly”

I imagine the “slowly” part of bankruptcy is what you see coming, fewer customers and similar competitors. The “suddenly” part is what you don’t see, eCommerce and e-readers. I hope people keep going to book stores but I wouldn’t blame them if they didn’t. Will we miss them when they’re gone?

I did eventually find that copy of A Moveable Feast in paperback. At nearly $20 bucks I thought better of it and walked away. I’m sure Amazon has a copy for less.