Picky: How American Children Became the Fussiest Eaters in History

By: Helen Zoe Veit
Published: 2026
304 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

Stop me if you've heard this one… Up until the beginning of the 20th century we never ever did this one thing, and then starting in the 20th century attitudes and culture gradually changed until now, this very new thing, that basically never existed historically, is accepted as a fact of life.

For this go-around it's children being picky about food. The whole concept only began to emerge in the 1930s and back then it was just used to identify something that needed to be corrected. Like lying, swearing, or truancy, it wasn't until after World War II that the modern "something we have to work around" usage started to solidify.

This book is the story of why things changed and what we can do to reverse that change.

What authorial biases should I be aware of?

This is not a disinterested academic overview of things. Veit thinks that pickiness is a bad thing, that it's tied to consumption of "junk food", obesity, and a general culture of overconsuming food. The 19th-century child eating raw oysters and organ meats could be considered the hero of the story, the entire edifice of modern food dysfunction is the dragon, and the 21st-century child who eats nothing but hyperpalatable, low-nutrition snacks, and then is too full for normal meals is the princess in need of saving.

Who should read this book?

I think people who have picky kids and worry about whether that's a problem would definitely benefit from reading this book.

I enjoyed it because I'm always fascinated by the strange transitions of modernity. Should you fall into that bucket you'll probably enjoy it as well.

What does the book have to say about the future?

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court

By: Sarah Isgur
Published: 2026
416 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

A deep dive into the Roberts Court, with a historical framing of the Court as a whole. Two main themes run through the book.

First, while people want to evaluate the Court on the single axis of liberal vs. conservative, there is a second, perhaps more important axis that tracks the institutionalism of the justices—respect for precedent, maintaining the legitimacy of the Court, congressional deference, etc. Once you consider both axes, rather than a 6–3, Republican vs. Democratic Court, you get a 3–3–3 Court. Composed of (in Isgur's words):

1- The Deciders: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett
2- The Conservative Honey Badgers: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch
3- The Lonely Liberals: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Second, there's the idea of the Supreme Court as the Last Branch Standing, by which she means that it's the only branch of government that would be recognizable to the Founders. Which also means it's the one branch of government trying to hold a constitutional line. This is not a comment on Originalism or Textualism, this is a comment on the fact that the executive Branch has accumulated an enormous amount of power, while, conversely, the legislative branch does barely any legislation. As a consequence, much of what the Court does is designed as subtle encouragement for Congress to take back some of its power.

What authorial biases should I be aware of?

1. Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog) by: Jerome K. Jerome

2. Something to Do with Paying Attention by: David Foster Wallace

3. The Leopard by: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

4. Rendezvous With Rama by: Arthur C. Clarke

Against the Machine: On the Unmaking of Humanity

By: Paul Kingsnorth
Published: 2025
368 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

Before Kingsnorth can tell you how to be against the Machine, he first sets out to define it. The Machine is multi-faceted, but Kingsnorth distills it down into four S's: Science, The Self, Sex, and the Screen. To take a position "against the Machine" he urges a return to the four P's: People, Place, Prayer, and the Past. But before you grasp this simple heuristic too firmly, it turns out that not all P's are good, and not all S's are bad. He is opposed to progress, particularly as it reduces everything to the parameterized, portable, plannable, and ultimately purchasable. On the other side, he is attempting to carve out a path to salvation, through a return to Christian values, a settledness that comes from having a place and community, and a sacredness that comes from connecting with the natural world.

What authorial biases should I be aware of?

Kingsnorth has huge biases. He's an ex-environmental activist who converted to Orthodox Christianity. He's spent decades opposing globalization, technocratic progress, and materialism. It's not true to say that he opposes all progress, but he certainly thinks that progress has gone from something we do, to something that is done to us—the Machine of the title, which turns everything (nature, people, culture, pleasure) into raw material that needs to serve ever more productive ends.

As such he makes no pretense at being balanced. And that's part of the book's value. This is a steelman of the anti-progress argument and a powerful rhetorical broadside against the technological miasma we're currently wading through.

Who should read this book?

I think those who would benefit most from this book probably won't read it. And those who will read it, might end up being too radicalized. I personally think that Kingsnorth is pointing in the correct direction, but as a practical matter we can't all duplicate Kingsnorth's life in rural Ireland, growing our own food and fuel, while making a living as a writer. To be fair that's not how he sees things playing out, but he still has a tendency to lump all of progress into one negative whole, without much effort to identify things that might have been useful.

What does the book have to say about the future?

He doesn't think we're going to overthrow the Machine, or even deflect it very much. He's urging people to outlast it in the same way that Irish monasteries kept the light of knowledge alive during the Dark Ages.

Specific thoughts: What exactly is the "Machine"?

A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy

By: Nathan Thrall
Published: 2023
272 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

The book operates on three levels:

First, the book spends quite a bit of time giving you Abed's history: his youth, his participation in the Palestinian resistance, his marriages, the associated family dynamics, etc.

Second, there's the actual "day" from the title. Abed's desperate search for his son after he was involved in a horrific bus accident, and the various difficulties presented by Israeli control (checkpoints, different passes, separate roads, etc.)

Third, there's everything beyond Abed and the "day". Including the backstory on how the roads were routed, the walls were built, and the rules implemented by the Israelis. The book also contains histories on dozens of characters, including Abed's many loves, an Israeli colonel who designed the wall, ultra-Orthodox volunteer rescuers, and Israeli settlers living in the area. I found the story of Huda Dahbour, who works as a physician with a UNRWA mobile clinic, to be particularly interesting. She also has a child involved in the wreck, and has to deal with a tragedy that's depressing for both its similarity to and differences from Abed's.

Taken all together, it's a level of tragedy, complexity, poverty, and culture that's hard to process for someone living in relative ease on the other side of the world.

What authorial biases should I be aware of?

The book is clearly centered on the Palestinian side of things, and it's obvious that Thrall largely views the Israelis as being immoral, unjust, and using their greater power to impose ridiculous restrictions. That said, he does offer sympathetic accounts of some Israelis, but most of his sympathy is reserved for the Palestinians.

Who should read this book?

Plagues Upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History

By: Kyle Harper
Published: 2021
704 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

A comprehensive historical overview of the never-ending war between humanity and disease. From its earliest days all the way down to the COVID-19 pandemic. With a specific focus on what he calls the "paradox of progress": every new advance creates new opportunities for diseases. But it's not just us driving diseases, they're driving us as well. Efforts to mitigate the negative effects of these pathogens are scattered throughout our history, our civilization and our genes.

What authorial biases should I be aware of?

None that you'd really be surprised by. He explicitly takes a very global view of humanity's disease burden, knowing that the story of European diseases like smallpox and the plague have already received plenty of attention. (Which is not to say he ignores them. Merely that he locates them as just one among many.)

Who should read this book?

I think everyone should be more aware of the potential dangers of pandemics, and the monstrous impact plagues have had on the development of humanity and civilization, and this book does a fantastic job with the second part, but it has less to offer on future danger than I hoped. Speaking of which:

What does the book have to say about the future?

Harper definitely takes the stand that our long war against diseases is far from over, and there is a lot of great discussion about how pathogens evolve alongside us, changing tactics as we change our environment. But there's almost no discussion (none that I really remember) of the danger of bioengineered pathogens, which felt like a significant oversight.

Specific thoughts: Two things which continue to baffle me

Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigations into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis

By: Annie Jacobsen
Published: 2017
544 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

An exhaustive history of the government's attempts to systematize and weaponize paranormal abilities. It also covers the broader paranormal research landscape, with lots of discussion of Uri Geller.

What authorial biases should I be aware of?

Jacobsen claims to be approaching the subject as a neutral observer, but I got a strong "I want to believe" vibe from the book. Her approach appears to assume what it claims to be investigating. The overarching question of the book is: "Why did the government spend so much time and effort on these areas if there's nothing there?"

As one example of bias, I grew up reading Carl Sagan, and in his telling the appearance of Uri Geller on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson was the smoking gun. Carson went to great lengths to make sure that Geller couldn't influence the demonstration, and, what do you know? Geller failed to bend any spoons. I read about this when I was a teenager and it has loomed large in my memory ever since, so I was very interested to see how Jacobsen would handle it. She devotes one sentence to it:

Geller was nervous, he said, having recently been unable to demonstrate psychokinesis on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show.

I'm sure I'm reflecting my own biases with this focus, but if she was truly being a neutral observer, I would have expected Geller's Carson appearance to have gotten several pages.

Who should read this book?

...

1. Black Easter by: James Blish

2. The Day After Judgment by: James Blish

3. Into the Storm by: Larry Correia

4. A Prisoner's Cinema by: Justin Lee