Out Come the Wolves

The fifth of seven books in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, Wolves of the Calla, is not dissimilar to the fourth book in that it does not move the ka-tet much closer to the conclusion of their journey by the book's end. However, the story it tells is compelling and I was rarely irritated in the course of this long novel. The plot has our travelers stopping in a small community to help them fight a mysterious bunch of marauders that sweep into their hamlet every twenty odd years and steal half the children--these invaders are the literal wolves of the title. We also are reminded of some of the less savory aspects of the characters that are the heroes of this series, and have to recognize that, in their own way, they too are wolves.

King paints a convincing landscape and makes good use of a local dialect to help establish a sense of place. Also, I found having previously read 'Salem's Lot was an advantage in this book, as a character from that novel makes a return appearance. I am told that other characters from other King works also find their way back into this series, but since I haven't read him exhaustively, I can't say for sure. I can understand on one level why Tower fans might be disappointed with this entry, as it is essentially another pit stop (or even a stalling maneuver), but why argue with it when it's perfectly enjoyable? The Tower will be here soon enough.

Remarkable

Kerouac's first novel is a remarkable read. It is expansive and insightful, full of character and memorable moments and writing. It is quite different from On the Road, less pulsingly energetic, but with a lot of pathos and integrity. It simply gets better and better the further you read, and by the end Kerouac seems to have really found his voice. There isn't a lot of plot to speak of, but by the time you've finished you have a full picture of a family in all its blooming glory and grieving.

While I haven't done a comprehensive review, I think I'm safe saying that I haven't read a better book this year. I'm looking forward to reading more Kerouac in 2008; he is among the most distinctive and important writers in the American tradition.

The Eyes of Dumbness

The Eyes of Darkness is much like other recently reviewed Dean Koontz novels--an unmitigated bomb. I know it's a cliche to say that you are rooting for the bad guys in a bad movie or book, but, man, I was really rooting for the bad guys. The Koontz formula has worn completely thin, and I feel nothing but revulsion for his characters. There is a character named Eliot Stryker in this book.

One quick point about the plot: it revolves around a child being held in a government detention center that has amazing psychic and telekinetic powers. He can move thousands of pounds with his mind, make guns not work, and communicate over thousands of miles. And he needs his mom to come and rescue him from the armed guards that keep an eye on him. The whole book is moot because he could obviously just leave any time he wanted. God I hated this book.

And the Tower is Closer

The Dark Tower series continues moving forward with a very different fourth volume, Wizard and Glass. I was somewhat put off by the telling of this story; almost this entire book is a flashback to Roland's youth. Though the Tower is closer, it's not much closer by the time this one is over. I understand the compulsion to fill out some of Roland's backstory, but I wonder if knowing this level of detail is truly necessary and useful. I think it has worked to the series advantage to have Roland be mysterious and unfathomable--he is after all from a world that is very different from Earth, and it makes sense that he would be emotionally alien.

To a lesser extent, I was annoyed that the book is so filled with 'thou' and 'ye' and 'aye'. Supposedly this represents part of dialect that is commonly used out in the hinterlands where the action takes place, but it just brought to mind bad period fiction to me. Still, if you've read this far, you're committed to the series, and I don't want to make it sound like I hated Wizard and Glass. There is plenty to enjoy, and it's strengths are some of the same as earlier volumes in the series. But I hope we can put this episode behind us now, and that King will move toward the climax without more tangential stories.

Dostoevsky Redux

I read Notes from the Underground when I was in high school and it was a real touchstone for me. It spoke to me directly, and recognized the peculiar pleasure we take in misery in a truthful way. I would still put it on the shortlist of novels that are essential reading. So for a long time I've been meaning to work back around to Dostoevsky's other works, particularly the long books that he is known for. And I'm happy to report that I am finally doing that. Of course, the book I'm talking about here is not one of his more famous long books, though it is a rewarding and fascinating read. Dostoevsky's characters, even in these shorter works (in a relative sense; these are closer to novellas than short stories) have a wonderful sense of urgency and are driven toward their inexplicable but emphatic actions by feelings over which they have no mastery, and often very little comprehension. The Double and White Nights are highlights, but there really are no low-lights in this volume. Dostoevsky's literature is probably the most cogent argument for conservatism around, emphasizing that people often intentionally act against their own interests and that reason holds little sway. In a world populated with these characters, it is impossible to see an enlightened society develop. But Dosoevsky also has a sly sense of humor and absurdity, and it's not uncommon to find yourself smiling as you read.

Reading the classic Russian writers always makes me think of dark spicy beer or strong black coffee. It's thick and should be consumed slowly and is best in the winter. Not something you'd enjoy on the beach, but at the right time, deeply satisfying.

The Mask

For the record I finished another grotesque parody of a suspense novel by Dean Koontz, this one called The Mask. It was written using the Owen West pseudonym, which Koontz seemed to use for his particularly noxious volumes.

The story involves...ah, it's not worth the effort. Just stay away from this poison.

Dear MLB

Why is it, Major Leage Baseball, that you go out of your way to insist that I do not become more than a casual fan of your product? I like baseball, truly I do, and I want to be a fan. I played quite a bit when I was a kid, and was a hardcore fan from the ages of about 9 to 14 or so. When I lived in Arizona, the Diamondback games were broadcast on over the air television, allowing me to see a good number of them and become a genuine fan of the team representing my new metro area. I realize that's an unusual arrangement, and I understand that you normally make more money when you sell it to a cable channel instead. Hey, that's fine. I know you want to make money. But I will let you know that after I started watching the D-Backs on TV, it caused me to attend probably in the neighborhood of a dozen games or so in person per year and spend my money in your tax-payer funded ballpark.

So now I live in Washington, DC, and I thought it might be nice to become a fan of my new local team, the Washington Nationals. Even though they're not very good, I like to support the hometown guys. Of course, they're not on over the air TV regularly. I tell you though, it would sure be nice if you'd put an occasional game on the WB or something. It's awful hard to get into a team when you've never even heard of any the players, and its asking quite a bit for me to seek out games on the radio. As a result, I made it to one game last year. It was fine, but I wasn't clear on the context of the game. I didn't know who the regular starters were, didn't know the pitcher, and didn't have much an idea how the Nats season was shaping up to at that point. I'm not particularly bitter about this, I just want to you know that I'd like to be a fan, but I won't work for it. You're going to have to make it easy for me.

But, I am bitter about the National League playoffs this year. The D-Backs, a team that I still cheer for, were in the playoffs, as you know. Hey, I was excited! This was a good reason for me to tune in! And you put the games on TBS. Really? This is Major League Baseball, that can't get enough interest from a network for its playoffs? I don't get cable for a couple of reasons: one, it's expensive, and while I'm not destitute, TV is not a necessity; two, if I had cable, I would spend all my time watching TV, and I want to avoid that. So not having cable not only means that I can't closely follow my hometown team, but it also means that I cannot watch any of the National League playoffs prior to the World Series, along with the first series on the American League side. I hear the D-Backs played in a half dozen or so post-season games this year. I'd have liked to watch those. I'd like to be fan, if you'd only let me.

What is the Dark Tower?

Having recently finished the third book in the Dark Tower series, The Wasteleands, I want to make some informal, but English major-y, comments on the series thus far.

What is the Dark Tower? It is rare that there is such an obvious symbol in a decent book. Clearly, the Tower is supposed to stand for something, just like the whale in Moby-Dick has easily observable symbolic value (I am not comparing these two works, mind you). Yet, the meaning of the Tower has not yet been delineated, leaving readers to project their favorite subjects onto the Tower. And that's precisely what I am prepared to do.

But before getting to the Tower, I want to spend a moment on the characters. I have an idea that the Tower draws out certain characteristics in the individuals under its sway. Of course, everyone and everything in Mid-World is in one way or another "a servant of the Tower". Specifically what I am talking about is the duality that is accentuated in all the characters with which we are familiar:

Roland: on one hand he is the Arthurian knight, invincable, inhuman, and driven by incomprehensible forces and willing to sacrifice anyone in order to reach the Tower. Yet Roland is also the healer and teacher. He risks his life for those he has "drawn" into Mid-World, and though he is the informal leader of the group, he also knows he is a pawn in the Tower's game.

Eddie: in Eddie's case, there is the Eddie of before and after. Before his drawing, he is a heroin addict, but he is also imprisoned by his past, unable to escape the shadow of his failure brother. After his drawing, Eddie is able to come into his own, to find his stregth and talent.

Susannah: the most obvious case. She is literally two people trapped in the same body, one a 1960s civil rights activist, one a psychopath.

Jake: is in a way both dead and alive. Understanding and confronting his duality is Jake's major narrative arc in the first three books of the series.

So I think in part of the Tower is about duality and separation; this can be set against the concept of "ka-tet", or a fate that brings certain groups together, another reoccurring theme. But what do we really know about the Tower? Of course, we can see that Freud would suggest that the Tower is phallic, and I would add that it is supposed to be surrounded by a field of roses, also potent sexual symbols. However, the book is not heavy on sexual tension (though it does contain some sex scenes) and I think it would be difficult to go much further down that road. We know that everything serves the Tower in a way, even to the extent that plantlife tends to lean toward the Tower and compasses point to it.

I think one area worth exploring might be the Tower's relationship with technology. Those that have read The Stand already have some insight into King's thought on what technology does to society. Mid-World is filled with the husks of its high technology past. Some machines still work profitably, but there are others that are unexpectedly malevolent or ominous, including the strange train in this volume that is slowly going insane after hundreds of years of being worshiped by ignorant dwellers of a burnt out city, living in abandoned missile silos. It's not clear what happened to Mid-World, but it seems like some kind of very large scale nuclear war may have demolished the world. The technology that remains is sometimes useful, but almost always dangerous, too.

It's also the case the Mid-World is somehow expanding. The old maps show a much smaller world than the one that now exists. A journey that used to take a year, now takes 20. I would add that this might build on the theme that the Tower is a force that separates us and makes it more difficult to interact. Time is also unpredicable in Mid-World, and it seems likely that we will eventually learn that the Tower has some connection to the way people experience space and time, and may in fact be capable of being a doorway to other worlds.

This is all just speculation--the sort of thing I might think about before falling asleep at night. But I will say that The Wastelands is the most engaging of the books in this series thus far. It is far from perfect and I do not believe the Dark Tower to be King's best work, but I am relatively engrossed all the same. And if you're read T.S. Eliot, there are some inside jokes in this volume for you. I will show you fear in a handful of dust. I like that quote.

Do you know what will kill us? Global dimming, that's what.

For a long time I've had a sort of implicit optimism that humanity will eventually figure shit out and we'll more or less be okay, but that for the time being, things were seriously screwed up. Over the last year or so though, I've started having a nagging voice in my head suggesting that, in fact, we have passed some kind point of no return, and that environmental catastrophe is essentially a foregone conclusion, with no amount of changing behavior able to stop it. Recently, I learned that the nagging voice is correct. NOVA taught me about global dimming:

...Fossil fuel use, as well as producing greenhouse gases, creates other by-products. These by-products are also pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, soot, and ash. These pollutants however, also change the properties of clouds.
Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective. More of the sun’s heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.
This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming...

...Global Dimming is hiding the true power of Global Warming
The above impacts of global dimming have led to fears that global dimming has been hiding the true power of global warming.
Currently, most climate change models predict a 5 degrees increase in temperature over the next century, which is already considered extremely grave. However, global dimming has led to an underestimation of the power of global warming.

Addressing global dimming only will lead to massive global warming
Global dimming can be dealt with by cleaning up emissions.
However, if global dimming problems are only addressed, then the effects of global warming will increase even more. This may be what happened to Europe in 2003.
In Europe, various measures have been taken in recent years to clean up the emissions to reduce pollutants that create smog and other problems, but without reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in parallel. This seems to have had a few effects:
This may have already lessened the severity of droughts and failed rains in the Sahel.
However, it seems that it may have caused, or contributed to, the European heat wave in 2003 that killed thousands in France, saw forest fires in Portugal, and caused many other problems throughout the continent.
The documentary noted that the impacts of addressing global dimming only would increase global warming more rapidly. Irreversible damage would be only about 30 years away. Global level impacts would include:
The melting of ice in Greenland, which would lead to more rising sea levels. This in turn would impact many of our major world cities
Drying tropical rain forests would increase the risk of burning. This would release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further increasing global warming effects. (Some countries have pushed for using “carbon sinks” to count as part of their emission targets. This has already been controversial because these store carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere when burnt. Global dimming worries increase these concerns even more.)
These and other effects could combine to lead to an increase of 10 degrees centigrade in temperature over the next 100 years, not the standard 5 degrees which most models currently predict.
This would be a more rapid warming than any other time in history, the documentary noted. With such an increase,
Vegetation will die off even more quickly
Soil erosion will increase and food production will fail
A Sahara type of climate could be possible in places such as England, while other parts of the world would fare even worse.
Such an increase in temperature would also release one of the biggest stores of greenhouse gases on earth, methane hydrate, currently contained at the bottom of the earth’s oceans and known to destabilize with warming. This gas is eight times stronger than carbon dioxide in its greenhouse effect. As the documentary also added, due to the sheer amounts that would be released, by this time, whatever we would try to curb emissions, it would be too late.
“This is not a prediction,” the documentary said, “it is a warning of what will happen if we clean up the pollution while doing nothing about greenhouse gases.”

Good God, we're through.

Huxley Con't

Huxley's Those Barren Leaves is my second installment of the Huxley Week blog posts. It is never that is very similar to the earlier blogged about Antic Hay. It concerns a group of self-absorbed rich folk that fancy themselves artists and intellectuals. Mrs. Aldwinkle operates a sort of second class salon where this groups gathers. Huxley, like in Antic Hay, proceeds to show the true colors of the denizens of the salon, bringing out their hubris, pettiness, and vanity. It's not a bad novel by any stretch, but it doesn't feel like it has much vitality either. I praised Antic Hay because I felt Huxley was starting to draw some sympathetic characters along with his insightful "novel of ideas". Those Barren Leaves feels like a step backward from that. As usual, there are plenty of ideas in this novel, but we never know much about any characters really, and there are several that its difficult to even tell them apart. As in any Huxley book, this one has its moments, but they are far too few and far between.

Also, the cover the book is one of the most gimmicky book covers ever. As you can see, the tree is barren, but the back cover contains the foliage that would have gone on the tree. A caption on the back tells you to stare at the foliage for 30 seconds, then turn the book over and see the afterimage on the barren tree. It's like the thing you used to see on Perkins kids menus, where you stare at the American flag in yellow, green, and black and then look at white space to see the flag in the actual colors. Unbearably silly for the cover of a supposedly serious book.

Huxley Week

Did you know (and I bet you didn't) that all of Huxley's essays are available in a six-volume set, dutifully called, Complete Essays. I took the liberty of reading the first of these volumes, and I have to say, it's not for the casual fan. The first volume encompasses the years 1920-1925 and all the essays are more or less in the range of two to three pages in length. The book is split into four parts: art, music, politics, and travel. The first two sections are by far the longest, and for me, the most painful. I am not disinterested in either subject, but Huxley is deeply devoted to covering the contemporary scene in such a way that it makes for often trying reading, 80 years after the fact. And I am going to take back the first half of my "I am not disinterested" statement. I am, after all, disinterested in classical music, which is the only sort of music Huxley cares to talk about. He speaks of jazz with contempt.


The last portions of the book are more enjoyable, but it is still difficult to recommend them. Huxley has always been clever with his words (what else would he be clever with?) but there is little modern-day relevance to these writings. He has no insight into World War One, though it is somewhat interesting to read of the "uneasy peace" that he describes, knowing that World War Two is coming down the pike. The articles included in Complete Essays Vol 1were mostly pieces for Vanity Fair, a now defunct magazine called On the Margins, or the Westminster Gazette and the lack of substantial length really prevents Huxley from getting a good grip on a subject. The travel essays are reprinted from an early book of his called Along the Road.


It is an expensive and time-consuming book, recommended only for those who have a fanatical obsession with reading Huxley, such as I have had over the last few months.

Whispers

Well, I finished another book by Dean Koontz. Whispers, according the afterword, is the first book that Koontz did not write in "total obscurity". Evidently it sold fairly well and allowed Koontz to go on to the prominent position on bestseller lists he now enjoys. I have no idea why this book would breakthrough. It is exactly like his previous efforts: scant characterization and very little suspense, and a wealth of bad writing. Also, its longer than a normal Koontz book, coming in around 500 pages. It's actually a little stupider than usual--you can guess what the big plot twist is around page 100, while the main characters don't suspect it until 400 or so. It also suffers from his inability to write any kind of satisfying ending. Just like earlier novels, the villain is killed and two pages later the book is over. There is very little to recommend this book, and I believe my familiarity with Koontz is now truly starting to breed contempt.

Dark Tower Con't

The Drawing of the Three continues Stephen King's Dark Tower series. If the first book served as our introduction to the Gunslinger, this volume lets us meet the supporting characters, the three that are "drawn" into the gunslinger's world from our own. The opening of the book is startling, as events happen quite quickly and irrevocably. However, soon after the events of the first few pages, the book settles into a pattern that is fairy predicable. Drawing of the Three isn't really a dull book, but it feels like a placeholder until King can start in the bulk of the story. I don't mind a lot of build up in a novel, but I wonder if maybe the first two books of the series should have been combined.

That said, the new characters aren't bad. I'm just a little disappointed that this series hasn't gotten off the ground much yet. Perhaps my expectations are set too high, but supposedly this series is King's masterpiece, and I'm impatient for the narrative to take shape. I'd feel much more at ease recommending some of his stand alone books over the Dark Tower at this juncture.

Clearance Granted

Photo not available in the rather limited search I'm willing to undertake.

Peter Benchley's Q Clearance is a shockingly entertaining book. In this volume he shows himself to be a much for versatile and funny writer than I ever would have suspected from reading his more famous novels, particularly Jaws. Evidently, Benchley worked for a time as a speechwriter to President Lyndon Johnson, and draws on that experience to fashion a plot regarding a mid-level bureaucrat in the White House who suddenly finds himself getting a lot more attention from the president than he ever bargained for.

I'm sure that part of the reason I enjoyed the book so much is because it takes place in the political world of Washington and is pretty insidery--there is some humor that maybe wouldn't be as funny to someone unfamiliar with the bizarre workings of the political process. Still, Benchley's main character, Tim Burnham is likable though vaguely incompetent and morally cloudy. Benchley's language is sharp and clever, and he is spot-on observant of the vanity and self-importance of Washington culture. Where did this side of Benchley come from? His prior novels were often filled with wooden dialog and unbelievable plots. This is the sort of novel he should have been writing throughout his career. It is certainly a diamond in what is often a rough bibliography. The ending is bit soft; the loose ends are not tied up with quite the satisfaction you might like, but the book is still a winner. Q Clearance is of course now out of print, but definitely worth a few bucks if you come across it in a used bookstore.

Still Playing Catch-Up

Apparently I am incapable of ever just writing a few posts to get caught up and will be perpetually trying to remember the plots of these books well after I finished them. Anyway, I'm not going to say much here. This was originally written under the Owen West pseudonym and I found out after I bought it that is actually a novelization of an early eighties horror film. Yeah, that's right, this is a book that's based on the movie. You can definitely tell when you read it. I guess Dean Koontz was pretty hard up in 1981.

Get Ready for Craziness, Arizona!

The following article is from Congress Daily and says that AZ House Appropriations Committee Chairman Russell "Four Fingered" Pearce may be running for Congress!! As a lover of right-wing extremists, I am more than a little pleased with this announcement. Imagine, Jeff Flake wasn't crazy enough for his taste! This will be one to watch.

POLITICAL ROUNDUP

Immigration Foe Pearce Explores Bid Against Flake

Republican state Rep. Russell Pearce has announced the formation of a committee to explore a bid for the seat held by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., the Associated Press reported. Pearce, author of several Arizona immigration laws, said he agrees with Flake about 80 percent of the time, but that he sharply disagrees with him on immigration, particularly on Flake's support for comprehensive immigration legislation this year. "What needs to be done is resources, enforce the law. We don't need immigration reform. That's just the code word for amnesty," Pearce said. Flake said if Pearce challenges him next year, he looks forward to what he is sure will be a "spirited campaign."

New Series

I've started a new series, Stephen King's Dark Tower books. The first of the books, The Gunslinger, is by far the thinnest of the volumes. It's just over 300 pages, whereas the last editions are over twice that size. It differs substantially from King's other writing, in that we know virtually nothing of the main character's inner life. We observe his action and are usually given no explanations or motivations: sometimes the gunslinger acts with kindness, other times with sudden brutality. The world he inhabits is clearly some variation of our own, but the book offers no clues to whether this is some kind of post-apocalyptic future or weird dream or alternate reality. King more or less pulls this off in this volume, but I think he's going to have to be more forthcoming rather quickly if he hopes to hold my attention over subsequent books. The gunslinger chases the man in black. Why, and what he'll do when and if he catches him, remain something of a mystery.

I am partial to the style of writing. It's more modern and less sentimental that King's usual novels. According to my edition's afterword, it took 12 years to write the first book, which came out in 1981. If I have my facts straight, the last volume appeared only a year or two ago. I'm looking forward to working through a series that I expect will be more rewarding than the Left Behind novels that I recently completed.

In order to try to make myself look smart, I resort to reading classics

Dostoevsky's Poor People is a very quick read, particularly when you consider that some of his more famous works will be the thickest books on your shelf. Years ago, in high school, I was amazed when I read Notes from the Underground, and have always wanted to come back for more of Dostoevsky's cannon. This is his first novel, and I will say it does not pack the punch of NFTU, but is nonetheless a fine and absorbing read. It is an epistolary novel, following the letters of two Russians, one young woman and an aging older man. It is something of a challenge to read between the lines of their letters and find their true meaning, and see their actual struggle. Maybe a good starting point for someone like me, who is not entirely familiar with Dostoevsky and wants to ease my feet into the water, before getting caught up in The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov, or Crime and Punishment. I'm looking forward to tackling some of these books in the not too distant future.

DK is the new Shakespeare

Just kidding. But The Voice of the Night is no more or less annoying than other Koontz novels, which seems to be the sort of thing I always find myself saying about Koontz. One book is as nondescript as the next, I guess.

This one involves a popular teenager who is also a murderer, and his not popular friend, who does not believe the popular teen is a murderer, then eventually comes to the obvious conclusion that he is, then must try to stop him. Also involves nominal love story. This is another one that Koontz wrote under a pseudonym and later re-released, so clearly it's not his strongest work. On the bright side, I read this at the beach and it seemed entirely appropriate.

And FYI, if anyone back home actually reads this non-sense that I write here, remember I will be back on Friday, so don't go out of town or something. Stick around and hang out with me!

It is Finished

As it says on the spine of this penultimate volume of the Left Behind series, it is now officially finished. I have read the 16 books that comprise this amazing mess; into your hands I commend my spirit, Father.

I don't have much to add to previous comments, except to say that this book is more of the same. It feels very much like something that was tacked-on to the series to make a few more dollars--many of the central characters from previous books show up only on the margins of this one. It's impossible to get into the plot without delving into pre-millennialist theology, something which I'm in no mood to do at the moment. The entire second half of this series managed to attain a fever pitch of religious hatred, paranoia, ignorance, and poor writing and characterization. This book continue that tradition, and serves I suppose as a representative and appropriate finale, in a sense.

I'm taking a break from right-wing religious fiction for a while, but I do intend to eventually get back around to critical reactions to this series; I know there are at least a few academic volumes out there on the topic. And of course I've yet to play the already legendary videogame.

You're coming, out of your shell!

Continuing my Huxley streak, not long ago I finished Antic Hay. It is the best Huxley book I've read outside of Brave New World. Here is a novel that is similar to his other early work, in that is it satirical and full of irony, but that establishes character and emotion more adequately than other early work.

We follow the exploits of a young teacher who has the idea of inflatable pants for people who sit at desks all day. We also spend time with a group of bohemian artists in London, an eclectic and interesting bunch. Huxley has really stepped forward with this novel, sacrificing none of his edge in terms of exploring philosophical concepts, but marrying this with much more solid characterization. Funny, to be sure, but moving and enduring in a sense that Chrome Yellow is not. Similar to a longer form of his short stories. A virtuoso performance. A novel of ideas and of people. What more do you want?

One criticism I will offer: Huxley seems to have trouble writing about people who are not part of his own social class (upper crust, to be sure). The perception of his work is sharp, but doesn't really extend beyond this group. While it is not easy to immediately identify with his characters, after some exposure you come to appreciate them.

I read books

It's been a while since I rapped at ya, as one of my favorite Onion columnists likes to say. And so it has, but that doesn't mean I've stopped reading books. I'll try to catch up on my lame opining soon. Today I offer I few sentences on The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson.

This is one of the best books I've read this year. It is light reading, but not to be taken lightly. It is multi-disciplinary, but doesn't lack focus. Johnson knows both how to turn a pretty phrase and how to compile his considerable knowledge of history, biology, and psychology in a readable and addicting way. The Ghost Map is non-fiction, but could easily have been a novel instead, given the interesting characters and structure of events.

The book chronicles an outbreak of cholera in London in 1854 (I think I correctly remember the year) which was particularly virulent. An entire neighborhood was afflicted in the course of a matter of days with no one really having a clear idea how cholera traveled, or how to combat the disease. Johnson covers the epidemic from the microbial level, as he tracks with astonishing cunning the course of the disease virtually from person to person; on the human level, as he pictures entire families suffering together in their homes, soon to become their final resting place; and the city-wide level, as he sees London as an organic whole. At the time of the outbreak, London was a city of two million, an unheard of number of people living together. At the time, individuals did not really have the tools or capacity to see themselves from a bird's eye view. Johnson follows closely two individuals: one a preeminent doctor trying to get the establishment to accept his view that cholera was a water-borne disease, and another a clergyman, who was close enough to the population to have unique insight into how the neighborhood operated.

Additionally, in the first half of the book, on almost every page there is some remarkable bit of knowledge about societies. Did you know that at one prior to the domestication of animals, the lactose intolerance was the default position for humans? I didn't. Or that those that can hold their alcohol have been naturally selected over time, due to the virtues of alcohol as an antibacterial agent? I was deeply intrigued by this stuff.

The second half of the book hits many of the same points as the first, making for some duplicative chapters, but I'm not going to hold that against Johnson. In the last chapter, he tries to make the leap from the London cholera outbreak of 1854 to such diverse topics as how the internet is changing society, and why we might have less to fear from terrorists releasing a biological agent into the population that we might now imagine. I'm not sure how right all his conclusions are, but I admire his willingness to try to apply the lessons of the past to a modern environment. The book is now out in paperback, and once you start it, it will be finished in a matter of days, if not hours.

Huxley's Short Stories and More Koontz

Defying Gravity has graciously helped me to learn how to put pictures with posts (I'm still getting used to computers) and so I offer her many thanks.

Huxley's short stories strike much the same tone as the earlier mentioned Chrome Yellow. They mostly about affluent people who simultaneously want to be accepted by their peers because of their artistic or intellectual qualities, but also feel disgust for society and the world at large. They know the world is hollow, but want to live in it anyway. It's certainly a common feeling and easy to identify with.

The stories have a strange way to being mostly lighthearted affairs, and then suddenly and without warning offering deadly serious insights into death or loneliness. There are at least half a dozen in the volume that are top shelf and deserve to be read and remembered more than they are. "Little Archimedes" is a standout, among others.

As far as I can tell, this collection is the only way to get ahold of Huxley's stories, so there are no alternatives with which I can compare it. Unfortunately there is no introduction or commentary on the stories, but given the available options I consider this book to have been a good purchase.

Also recently completely was another Koontz novel, The Key to Midnight. Originally published in 1979 under a pen name, Koontz re-wrote it and it was re-issued in the 1990s under his name. It is better than the last couple I have read by him, and I get the feeling that his newer work is a real improvement over his early stuff, so I think the re-write probably did the book a lot of good. It's a sort international mystery spy story, involving Russian KGB operatives and hypnosis and false memories, etc, etc. Pretty common Koontzian elements. It mostly takes place in Japan and features a ridiculous love story as well. It's completely unremarkable, which is actually about the nicest thing I've said about a Koontz book. A more or less straight ahead thriller, but hard to see how someone would get famous writing books like this.

Words on the Rapture

A few days ago I finished The Rapture, the grueling third and final prequel to the Left Behind series of novels. This is now my third post on these books, so without going into much detail, I will say again that each and every volume is deficient in almost any conceivable way. Bad writing? Check. Poor characterization? Check. Unbearably preachy? Check. Offering no insight into philosophical or theological issues? Big check. Portraying God as a monstrous, abusive father? Again, enormous check.

There were a couple of passages so offensive that I made a note so I could reproduce them here. From page 199 of my version (the following is a scene that takes place after the rapture, when God's faithful have been transported to heaven):

"Irene did not even have to listen to learn the simple song. It was as if the words and the melody had been written on her heart. The great multitude, led by the angel choir, blended beautiful voices, drawing Irene to her feet and causing her to raise her chin. And with a dramatic, crystal-clear soprano she had never heard--and certainly never produced--she raised her hands high and joined the triumphant, majestic multitude, singing, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.

"Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!"

Okay, I'm not entirely sure if this is a direct quote from Revelations, from some other text, or if LaHaye/Jenkins are just making this stuff up, but this is supposed to be the very first song the elect will sing in paradise. Really? In heaven, this is the sort of thing people are saying? Giving thanks for God's revenge on the harlot? This is deranged.

Example two is another scene in heaven, from page 316 (not 3:16):

"Irene shrugged. 'We have new minds and bodies, but we have memories. Maybe in a million or so years we'll be completely free of our humanness.'

Raymie laughed. 'We already are.'

'I know.'"

In case it's not clear, they are celebrating being free of their "humanness". Now that they're in heaven they can develop into the robotic non-entity praise machines that God always intended they should be, until Adam went and ruined the whole plan. Can you imagine a more childish and depressing vision of eternity? I know Jesus exhorts us to have the faith of a child, and there is a sense in that statement--to see with innocence and trust. But there is also a time for the putting away of childish things, and a time to see the complexity in the world instead of denying it. Somebody should tell these authors they are old enough to get out of the nursery and into the sanctuary.

Transformers

Regarding Transformers, let me just say that if you are a fan of movies that disappoint, you will not be disappointed!

Benchley Shows His Sensitive Side

A couple days back I finished The Girl of the Sea of Cortez by Peter Benchley, the novelist famous for writing Jaws. I have long felt that Jaws the film is quite a bit better than Jaws the book. The movie is full of strange quirks and interesting characters, that come across as stock in the novel. There are also some additional, unappealing subplots in the book that are left out of the movie, to good effect. Anyway, Benchley followed up Jaws (his first novel) with two more ocean related yarns: The Deep and The Island. Both of those were nearly unbearable. Finally we come to The Girl of the Sea of Cortez. As you may be able to tell from the title, this is a novel of different sort than Benchley's others.

A brief description of the plot: a native girl, Paloma, living on an island in the Sea of Cortez spends much of her time snorkel diving off a seamount near her village. She is the only person who knows of the seamount's location. It was shown to her by her now deceased father, who was an outsider on the island. From her father she learned an attitude of respect for the sea; she learned to enjoy the sea, but also to harbor what is essentially a conservationist viewpoint. Others on the island, including her fisherman brother, see the sea as an adversary, from which sustenance must be taken. They live on the water, but not in the water. Naturally, her brother eventually discovers the seamount, along with the sea-life that is abundant there and wants to fish the area, creating a confrontation with Paloma.

The novel is a serious and admirable departure from Benchley's earlier work. I understand that Benchley felt a certain amount of guilt for the rest of his life after writing Jaws, because of the fear that novel created toward sharks. It seems he is trying to make up for some of that here. Unfortunately, I don't think you can really call Girl a success. Though not as sensational as his earlier novels, Girl still suffers from characters that are poorly drawn, only now there is not even plot to drive the story forward. Instead we have a very slow read without much in the way of an emotional payoff. There is also some magical realist type of writing going on at the climax that does not seem to fit with one of the novel's major themes, namely that animals need to be respected but not anthropomorphized. It is difficult to reconcile the conclusion with the bulk of the novel; it is almost a direct contradiction.

At any rate, I do give Benchley credit for leaving behind the formula that he used to create an enormous bestseller. No doubt his publisher had doubts about this book. My suspicion is that Girl probably did not sell all that well and that is one reason why Benchley found himself returning to the "monsters of the sea" prescription in some of his later books. A for effort, C- for execution in The Girl of the Sea of Cortez.

Saturday Morning Thoughts on Two Novels

Last week I finished two novels of very different stripes. I'll give short reviews of both here as I enjoy some Saturday morning coffee. I'm up very early today (for me, for a Saturday) and not even hung over, which I think deserves a mention.

First is Aldous Huxley's first novel, Crome Yellow. Crome was an unexpected turn for me. The only other Huxley I had read was the classic Brave New World back in my college days, and a book of his mostly mediocre poems. Crome is quite dissimilar from that wonderful novel, but in some ways you can find early indicators of the direction Huxley is heading. The book doesn't have much a plot to speak of--a group of rich folks in England spend a few weeks lounging about their rural mansion, known as Chrome Yellow. It's very talky. Huxley in seems to simply find settings to pair his characters together so they can have a discussion and flesh out whatever philosophical ideas Huxley is kicking around at the moment. That sounds derisive, but I don't really mean it that way. The novel is not a mature work, but it has its moments of both hilarity (Huxley can be funny!) and of strange gravity.

My favorite moment comes toward the end, when the main character Denis finds a notebook that a minor character is often seem scribbling in. On the front of the notebook is printed "private" and there is some admonishment not to open it. Denis naturally opens it anyway and finds some drawn pictures and words written about himself that portray him in a deeply negative light. He is dumbfounded not because this character doesn't like him, but because he never imagined she was sophisticated enough to form any critical opinions whatsoever. He spends to remainder of the novel amazed that everyone in the world has an interior life, that they are a universe unto themselves. That synopsis really doesn't do it justice--it's both comic and moving in the book.

Chrome clocks in right around 140 pages and is a quick read. It's even still in print somehow, which I was shocked to discover.

The other, less satisfying book, was The Face of Fear by Dean Koontz. The sad fact is that I will be reviewing quite a bit of Koontz in this space because, even though I detest him, I still read him. I'm crazy like that. I'll be brief.

The Face of Fear is in all ways typical Koontz. The title is actually the best part of the novel, since it is not precisely what it seems. The face in question is not a human face, but face as in a side of a mountain or other object which a person may climb. The plot involves a psychic who foresees a murder. The murderer then comes to kill the psychic so he won't be identified. Murderer traps psychic in a building late at night and psychic has to try to climb down the outside of the building to escape. Oh yeah, and the psychic also used to be a professional mountain climber and had a terrible fall and now is utterly petrified of climbing. Do you suppose he will be able to overcome his fear and escape the murderous brute?

The novel is absolute trash. To boot, it is remarkably like Koontz's previous novel, The Vision, which also featured a psychic who foresees a killer in action and then must confront the killer. Neither is recommended. I hate stories or movies about psychics, since there are never any ground rules about how the psychic ability works and the author or screenwriter can use it in whatever ridiculous way the plot requires. I mean, vampires are silly, but at least we know what we're in for; daylight, a stake through the heart, and sometimes garlic or a cross can keep them at bay. Psychics have no rules attached to their power. I'm not sure I can think of a movie that I've ever enjoyed that featured psychics prominently. I guess The Gift was alright. I don't think Minority Report can truly be counted. Somebody help me out here.

Why Koontz persists in being a mega-seller despite his awful prose and plodding stories is one of the great mysteries of our time. But in my effort to read what the people read, I will be continuing in this long, hard slog through some of the most tedious novels known to man. And continuing to bitch about on this blog.

The Regime

I've already written a post on the dumbfounding "Left Behind" series a few months back, but I am going to take the opportunity to briefly return to the topic now, since it is something I have devoted a considerable amount of time to reading and trying to understand.

I have finished the 12 book series proper, but the authors have seen fit to write three prequels as well as one additional sequel. As any number of commentators on Amazon will tell you, this is a fairly transparent scheme to keep milking the cash cow they've created. Nonetheless, I've read the first of the two prequels, having recently finished The Regime. I think it's a curious title, considering that the first thing that comes to mind when I consider the phrase "the regime" is the current administration. I don't think I'm alone on that. Anyway, the regime in question is evidently not the Bush presidency, but the regime of Nicolae Carpathia, the anti-Christ of the later books. However, Nicolae has not yet risen to power, so I'm not sure where they get off with the title.

The book came out in 2006, a time when political conventional wisdom was quite different than when the bulk of the books were published (1996-2004). Part of Nicolae's schick is that he claims to stand for peace and hate violence and he calls for global cooperation and internationalism. Making this person the anti-Christ makes political sense (for right-wingers, I mean) in the 2001-2004 timeframe, because Bush was at that time saying pretty much the exact same thing: "those calling for global cooperation are working against the interests of the United States. Only I, the one who dares confront evil head on, can be trusted to protect you, not those weak ones who want non-violent solutions." Now of course, the field is reversed. Bush has been shown to be a power-mad, war mongering imperialist, while those of us who timidly suggested that unilateral invasion of other countries is not morally right look quite a lot better than a few years back. The point of this whole exercise is to say that the book immediately feels dated because of its allegiance to a Bush-like foreign policy, which only a troglodyte could now support.

The prequels seem to be a showcase mainly for the "true believer" sort of characters to try to convert those that are not strident enough or orthodox enough in their faith. There are some marvelous scenes, such as when true believer Irene goes to the nursing home to try to make her husband's senile parents give up their life-long faith in order to accept the born again creed that she promulgates. Or take the scene where Irene (before she becomes a born again Christian) has a series of religious conversations with some other mother at a park. This other mother gives Irene a gospel tract, which though Irene pretends she doesn't care, she is secretly thrilled and rushing to get home and read this awesome piece of life-changing literature. I gather it is supposed to be inspirational, encouraging believers to preach the word to all nations, as it were. However, I think you would have to be delusional in order to see it as anything other than comic.

I still hold out hope that one day I might be able to write a thesis on the politics of the books, which are truly unpleasant, but I won't delve further into the topic now. Suffice it to say that The Regime is just as odious, and in some ways more so, than any other novel in the series. The popularity of these books is a black mark on those who try to defend Christianity as an intellectually serious set of beliefs.

Dance of Death

One thing that is inevitable if I am going to post more book review-type items, is that I must reveal the truly terrible reading habits I have. Though I am a fairly prolific reader, much of the material I consume is not exactly of high literary value, or full of insightful wisdom. I won't go into all the details, but I employ an arcane and complex system of deciding which books to read, and in what order to read them. I have so much invested in this system that I feel I must continue down this path, even though it ultimately leads to madness, and on the way to madness, leads to me reading a lot of books that are frankly, a waste of time.

The above preface is going to be true for a lot of the books I will discuss in this space, but I now want to make an argument that it is not true for today's book. The book in question is Danse Macabre by Stephen King. King is an author that gets a lot of grief, unfairly in my opinion. Of course, he is enormously popular (I think probably the best selling author in the US, over the course of his career). You can buy his novels in supermarkets or in airport lounges. And almost everybody who reads recreationally has read something by him at some time. Even if I believed his books weren't very good, the fact that he gets people who are not normally readers to pick up a book would be plenty of defense by itself for King. Except that, in addition to that, I actually do think that King is pretty good.

King sometimes lacks discipline and has page count can soar well above what is strictly necessary. However, compared to other superstar authors, his books contain well-drawn characters and contain often exquisite wordplay. And as someone who is infatuated with the horror genre, his novels have the ability to give me goosebumps better than anyone else I've read. The Stand may well one day be regarded as a classic. Cujo is a model of lean efficiency without any resorting to supernatural events. And his stories excel in creating brightness and hidden horror of small towns; they burst with a blend of nostalgia and realism that I find winning.

But, to change directions again, Danse Macabre is a departure from any of King's other work. First, you will notice it is non-fiction. It is King's effort to evaluate the horror genre from 1950 to 1980 or so. He talks casually, but intelligently, about radio, television, films, and books. He talks about the archetypes of the genre, talks about how our fears are manifested in it, the roots of the horror story, and what some of his favorites are. It is not a book for the casual horror fan, since it delves at length into these topics, but I was enthralled. King has done his homework and produced a book that is essential for horror fans. The argument for how horror fiction can represent societal fears (be they political, cultural, economic, or something more primative yet) is of course not original to King, but he has layed it out more clearly than any other writer I've encountered.

The book is like an enjoyable, long talk with a knowledgable friend. Danse Macabre, the Dance of Death, has always occupied a place in human psyche. Here is a good primer for understanding the strange ways it has been expressed; here is a window into a part of ourselves we are afraid to see.

The GWB Center for Presidents Who Can't Read Good

I learned from this morning's Hotline that Karl Rove may be tasked with running President Bush's presidential library once it is completed. I ask you what kind of non-biased information is Karl Rove likely to include in his duty as library administrator? One can only imagine. Here's the link to the short and rather vague story:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/6/17/big-hitters-steer-bush-legacy-plan.html

("What is this...a center for ants!?!?" I like to imagine W saying that line.)

Homework Assignment

The invaluable Max Sawicky (he of Maxspeak! fame) has an insightful article posted at TPM Cafe about what goals the left should be pursuing electorally and practically, with an eye especially on ending the war, the sooner the better. Recommended reading:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jun/10/hows_your_romance

A Return at Long Last

Predictably, the posting schedule here has been, shall we say, erratic, at best. But I'm ready to make another go at semi-regular updates, provided I can think of things to mention or rip off from some other site.

Today I thought I would take the relatively easy route of talking about a book I recently read, something which maybe I'll do more frequently, because at least that's more interesting than what's on CNN. The potboiler I had in mind was Tom Daschle's book, Like No Other Time. I am one of the seven people who bothered to read this one. Normally I wouldn't pick up a book by a politician because, well come on. They're horrible; badly written, full of meaningless, non-offensive, uplifting rhetoric, and having little to no original insight into any problem facing the nation. Daschle's isn't appreciably different from a normal politician's book, but it is particularly interesting to me because of my interest in SD politics. So I bite the bullet on this one.

It came out in 2003, when Daschle was still in the Senate, a serious drawback. If it was written after his defeat, then maybe he could have afforded a few more risky remarks. The subtitle is something like "the 107th Congress and How it Changed America Forever." This is of course hyperbole, but it is true that the years 2000-2002 were politically turbulent. Among the events covered in the book are the 2000 election, Jim Jeffords switching of parties (and the change in control of the Senate that resulted), 9/11, the anthrax attacks on Daschle's office, the build up to the Iraq War, and the disasterous outcome of the 2002 elections for the Democrats. So there's plenty of material for the book to cover.

As I mentioned, Daschle isn't really free to talk about these subjects due to the fact that he's still in office and up for re-election the year after this book was published. The heat that the book generates comes simply from learning a bit more about his personal relations with other members of the Senate and from understanding what 9/11 and the anthrax attacks looked like from his POV while they were occurring. The 9/11 chapter is interesting, but doesn't really say anything new about the attacks. However, the anthrax chapter is easily the best part of the book. While I knew that anthrax had been sent to Daschle's office not long after 9/11, I hadn't realized how serious that event had really been. Reading the chapter made me understand how lucky his staff were that none of them were killed. There were postal service mail carriers who died from just handling similar anthrax letters; some Daschle staffers were exposed to amounts of anthrax that were hundreds of times larger than a potentially lethal dose, yet in the end there were no fatalities from his office. This chapter is riveting at times and enlarged my understanding and appreciation of the importance of this event.

The book is at its weakest in the closing chapters, when meakly defending the Democrats vote in favor of authorization of the war, yet trying to be critical of the handling. It is full of the sort of vacillation that I've come to expect from Democrats on this issue, and not convincing. I expect that if Daschle were writing this now, out of office and a few years removed from the decision to go to war, he would be much harsher on himself and others who made that terrible vote.

In the end the book was worthwhile to me only because of my particular interest in SD politics, and I can understand why it was never widely read nationwide. It is more or less what you would expect--overly cautious, in much the same way that Senator Daschle was too often overly cautious during his time as party leader.

Anna Nicole Smith

As the song says:

I don't want to die a cartoon/
in a cartoon graveyard.

So it goes.

There are plenty of others who have done more elequoent elegiacs than this one will be, but I felt I had to at least mention the passing of Kurt Vonnegut.

Vonnegut is of course the author of Slaughterhouse-Five, among other novels. I first read S-5 when I was a senior in high school. A friend had given me a copy and recommended it right before he left for college, and he mentioned something about space aliens and time-travel. The book left a deep and permanent mark on me. It is one of a handful of books that changed the way I think about the world. It remains my stock answer to the inanswerable question: what is your favorite book? The book is a diamond, constructed of short, hard sentences. The structural integrity is unimpeachable.

Vonnegut has more clarity, empathy, and humor than almost any writer you'll come across. He is both a cynic and a humanitarian; a moral innocent and a wizened old crank. He tried to warn the world about its insane impulses but was able to find joy in the strangeness of human interaction. He will be missed more than I can express. I'll leave you with some quotes from the old man:

• Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.

• Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.

• I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.

• If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.

• True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.

• One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.

• 1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them.

• Like so many Americans, she was trying to construct a life that made sense from things she found in gift shops.

• (talking about when he tells his wife he's going out to buy an envelope) Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.

• I remembered The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon, which I had read in its entirety the night before. The Fourteenth Book is entitled, "What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?" It doesn't take long to read The Fourteenth Book. It consists of one word and a period.This is it:"Nothing."

• The visitor from outer space made a serious study of Christianity, to learn, if he could, why Christians found it so easy to be cruel. He concluded that at least part of the trouble was slipshod storytelling in the New Testament. He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low.But the Gospels actually taught this:Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected. So it goes.

This could go on forever, so I'll just try to pick an appropriate one to end with:

• The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments just that way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.

Book Review

Over the weekend I finished Foxes in the Henhouse by Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. I don't have the book in front of me right now, so this review will have to be off of memory--sorry if there are no quotations at the ready.

FITH clocks in at right around 350 pages, making it an entirely manageable length, and the writing style is straightforward and easy to understand. It's a more or less typical, moderate Democrat screed against the Bush administration and the Republican control of Congress for the past few years previous to the elections of 2006. It is not a scholarly work, though Jarding is a sometimes lecturer at Harvard University.

The critisim that is both easiest to make and most cutting is that the book has all the faults you would expect from something written by a moderate Democrat. The authors are perfectly willing to lambast the Republican party all day (for good reason, of course) but any criticism of Democrats is muted and strictly limited to strategy. To Jarding and Saunders, the Democrats stand for all that is good and holy. In reality, though the Democrats have not held political power for a few years, they certainly deserve their share of the credit and blame for the state of affairs in our country. To steal a quote from Chomsky, Democrats are the less reactionary of the two business parties.

Don't expect this kind of commentary to come up. Instead, what you will find is a blueprint for a way the authors believe the Democrats can be competitive in traditionally "conservative" states. The book relies heavily on the experience of Jarding and Saunders running Mark Warner's successful gubernatorial campaign in Virginia and tries to extend the straties employed there to all states. I'd suggest there are two main points the book tries to stress: first, Democrats must not write off large parts of the country (like the South) from the get-go. Second, Democrats can compete in these areas provided they speak in economic terms and are respectful of the local culture, even if they are not actively members of that culture.

To the first point: I agree and disagree. Howard Dean's 50 state stategy is good politics, and there should be an effort to have some form of an active party in every area. It is a part of long term planning that is necessary and long overdue. But I don't think it's something that is going to be paying dividends for a while yet. In the short term, especially in presidential politics, I tend to agree more with Tom Schall's Whistling Past Dixie. Schall suggests that it does not make sense to actively campaign in the South at this time for Democrats. The South is a region of the US that is least likely to vote for Democrats; in the long term ideological struggle, the South is likely to be the last region to come around. It makes much more sense to try to win in the Southwest states like New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. Gore won New Mexico in 2000, and Kerry was in striking distance in 2004. Resources should go to those states first. That does not mean, though, that Democratic candiates for offices more down-ballot cannot run vibrant and successful campaigns in Southern states, too. But the low hanging fruit should be the first fruit the party goes after.

As to the second point: of course. But it's easy to say that candidates should speak to the people where they live, and a lot harder to do it. I think all candidates naturally do this, some better than others. If you campaign in a state that has a lot of hunters, your candidate will try not to offend hunters. That's not exactly a revelation. And then there's the old canard about how Democrats need to focus on economic issues to draw attention away from social issues. Democratic strategists have been saying this for a thousand years and candidates have been trying it. Sometimes it works and sometimes not--and there are a lot of variables involved. But it's definately not a cure-all. There are plenty of red-staters who will vote against gay marriage and abortion and live with lower wages and reduced government services, even though to outside observers it seems irrational and there is simply nothing to be done about it.

So I guess I wouldn't go so far as to recommend the book. It doesn't really tell the full truth about modern politics, and the tactical advice is more or less old hat. There are some good statistics (the abortion rate has gone up 25% during the Bush presidency? Whoa!) and the authors are occasionally funny, but on the whole the parts don't really add up to much. A note of personal interest: Jarding is originally from South Dakota and touches on the 2004 Daschle race several times, an area of personal interest for me.

What won't business object to?

I have now spent two consecutive days at separate conferences concerning the state of the competitiveness of US Capital Markets. I already knew this, but is there anything the business community won't complain about? At today's conference I imagined a scenario where the government gave each business in the US a million dollars (in addition to the subsidies already granted to business) and the business community complains that they didn't receive two million dollars.

They desperately want to "rethink" Sarbanes-Oxley (or SOX, as I have come to know it). After all, there aren't any problems in business anymore. They're all honest now. Also, corporate revenue now constitutes 8% of GDP, as opposed to the 4-6% of GDP it has been for the last 4 decades or so. Yeah, things are tough.

Everyone Hates a Heretic

Ok, for once I'm on the same page as religous nutballs who say that the Discovery Channel documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is more or less nonsense. That is no doubt true. But I love any occasion that makes ministers say things like, "I don't think they offer any insights into truth. Theories have come and gone. So-called evidence has come and gone," (Rev. Richard Rinearson of First United Methodist Church) or "It's a hypothesis and speculation," (Rev. Joe Holzhauser of Holy Trinity Catholic Parish). Both of those quotes from the Huron Plainsman of Huron, South Dakota. It's a hypothesis and speculation, says the minister! So-called evidence! Not like their line of work, where everything is based on facts and reason and intellecual clarity!

I would also draw your attention to an article in the Aberdeen American News (Aberdeen South Dakota) making the case that Jesus was not a socialist. Martin Albl, the author, concedes that Jesus lived communily and he and his believers did not own private property, but concludes that Jesus was not a socialist, because John Paul II was not a socialist. No comment necessary.

Another Two-Fer

At the risk of repeating myself, I am applauding Tom Vilsack's decision to get out of the presidential race good and early. Similar to the Biden post of yore, I think Vilsack didn't offer much and his leaving the contest is ultimately a good thing. Richardson is clearly the democratic candidate with executive experience who is more desirable. I had a chance to hear Gov. Vilsack speak at one point last year and cannot say he was too dynamic. I do, however, understand that he bothered to write a bunch of detailed position papers on a variety of subjects in an effort to win the so-called "ideas primary". Well, good for Gov. Vilsack, I guess, but how naive would you have to be to really think that having good ideas has anything to do with winning an election in America? That said, Gov. Vilsack is from Iowa, and it would be nice if somebody could get in and monkeywrench the Iowa caucuses a bit to give later primaries more weight. Nobody would have taken a Vilsack win in Iowa all that seriously, and it would have decreased the overall influence of Iowans on the presidential race, which I think everyone can agree is a noble goal.

With that out of the way, I wanted to use this space to flesh out a couple of bare bones thoughts that have been bouncing around after reading Sara's posts at Orcinus about the power (or lack thereof) of protesting and the concept of Liberal Pride parades. I agree with much of her sentiment and recommendations when it comes to protesting, but I'm a little taken aback by the idea of a liberal pride parade. You should go to the site and read it yourself, but let me give a short description: essentially she says that having annual liberal pride parades or picnics or get togethers of some kind is a good way to build community and have a nice time and remind everyone in the community that liberals are present and active. I understand these goals and they seem reasonable, but to call these events liberal pride parades brings some interesting conotations. Maybe I'm just being semantic, but to think of liberals (and I often think of myself as a liberal for the sake of political shorthand) in these terms says something about the mindset of the liberal community.

The gay pride parades which these events would be modeled on had the effect of forcing communities to acknowledge the presence of homosexuals in addition to having an organizational effect on the gay community. But are there really communities that do not know that liberals exist in their midst? Maybe in some small towns across the country that is the case, including many places in South Dakota, my home state. But more interestingly, does being a liberal mean that we are, and always will be, part of a minority that must fight to even be acknowledged? After all, liberals are not starting from zero. There are many members of the US House of Representatives and a even a couple in the Senate who are able to be elected even though they are obviously liberal, and may even say so publically.

Perhaps what I am trying to get at is that liberals are already an established part of the American community. Though they have not been in power for some time, the fact that a liberal could be in power is not completely unimaginable. Being a liberal is a far cry from being an atheist, or a Marxist, or a homosexual in this country. It's not the same as being publically shunned and completely cut off from the centers of power. And there have been times when liberals have largely run things for long periods of time, just as the conservatives have up to the last election. What is lacking in Sara's post is the admission that liberals have not been all that different from conservatives when they have wielded power. Acting like we're an oppressed minority may make us feel good in the sense that we think we didn't help cause all the chaos and misery of the world, but the truth is that we did. Genuinely oppressed minorities can use a pride parade to change the paradigm, but this is a paradigm we helped make.

So getting better organized is fine for liberals and certainly for the left in general. Heaven knows we are not always an organized bunch. But I want to see organization for serious change. Picnics to help elect another democratic congressman are not going to change things--let's quit trying to feel good about ourselves, and start trying to do good around the world.

Speaking Frankly

As those who follow politics may know, the US House of Representatives is currently debating a non-binding resolution opposing the president's "surge" plan for Iraq. Each representative is allowed five minutes to say their piece, resulting in droning speeches long into the night. They've been at it all week, and I believe they are scheduled to finish up tonight. The speeches, Democratic and Republican alike, are, naturally, completely unbearable. Just excrement. What an incredible, masturbatory excerise this is. It's classic Washingtonian hot air--an effort that will have zero effect on what actually happens in Iraq, solely done for political postuering. I can only imagine what kind of Kafkaesque nightmare it must be for the House staff who are required to actually be present for the entire spectacle. But as dishonest and worthless as the Democrats are, the Republicans are absolutely breathtaking.

To wit, last night, as I showered, I flipped on C-SPAN radio for something to occupy my mind. Trent Franks, republican from the 2nd distict of Arizona, was giving his speech. All the usual nonsense was there--if we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here; democrats are Neville Chamberlain-like appeasers; etc. But then he, uh, dropped the bomb, so to speak: do the democrats not remember, he asked, the horrors of world war II? Have they forgotten the Nazi atrocities, the dropping of atomic bombs?

Excuse me? Maybe I'm getting my history mixed up here, but I think there's only one country in the history of the world that's ever used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. And this nefarious country used that weapon on civilian populations in circumstances which historians have come to view as very probably unnecessary. Representative Franks may be closer to the mark with his comments that he knows, though. The nature of US policy may once again see us using unconscionable weaponry for purposes that are less than altruistic, though somehow I don't think that's the point Franks was trying to drive home.

Two Topics for the Price of One!

Luckily there is no statute of limitations on how long I can wait before posting on a subject and this blog is not exactly CNN when it comes to breaking news. So, though it is old news, I am going to go ahead and have my say on Joe Biden's ridiculous comments vis a vis Barack Obama. First off, it's not hard to call his words dumb; they certainly are. Lots of things Joe Biden says over the next few months will be dumb, though most will not get the attention that these brought. Second, I think he was fairly clearly trying to pay Obama a compliment, and I don't want to overanalyze his syntax in an effort to parse down to his true meaning. Third, and lastly, I hope this incident spurs Biden to drop out of the race. Perhaps you are thinking now, "Wait a moment, didn't he just claim that Biden's remarks really weren't that big of a deal? Why is he saying Biden should drop out?" Well reader, here is the answer: Biden should never have run in the first place, and I'll hop on any transgression in order to push him out of the field. He neither has a realistic chance of winning, nor does he bring any sort new ideas into the debate. All he does is hog up time. Some no-chance candidates, Kucinich being the best example, bring certain ideas into the debate that would not be present without that candidate. It's good that Kucinich is there to say we should have a Department of Peace and single-payer universal health insurance (though I am holding out hope that maybe a mainstream candidate will also endorse that position). Other candidates, like Biden or Chris Dodd, are not substantially different from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards and are not valuable additions to the dialogue. They just have a lot of vanity and will be making meaningful debate more difficult for the people who will actually get the nomination. Joe Biden: Drop Out.

For a brief encore, I wanted to touch on Jimmy Carter's recent book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. I freely admit that I am no Middle East scholar and not fit to debate every point of the book, but I do want to say that I believe it is a positive step forward that this book has been getting attention, and I hope that it can help to focus on the substance of the struggle in the Holy Land. Many Americans know there is some kind of intractable feud between Israel and the Palestinians, but they don't know anything about the actual points of disagreement. The book makes clear that both sides have acted without good faith, but also drives home the point that Israel is ultimately the one with the power to change the situation--a power they have instead chosen to use in order to keep the Palestinians occupied and oppressed. A short perusal of criticism of the book seems to indicate to me that there are objections over possibly copyrighted maps that were reproduced in the book, improper footnoting, and the like. Obviously these should be corrected in future editions, but these sorts of complaints are tangential at best when it comes to breaking down the book's thesis. I believe that the history and argumentation are essentially correct, and in some cases do not go far enough.

A personal anecdote about the book: having dinner with an extremely intelligent Jewish couple with whom I am friends, and this book came up. I had not yet read it, and didn't feel I could defend something I did not know about, so I didn't really reply, but one of my friends came right out and called Carter an anti-Semite and claimed the book was full of untruths. She had not read the book at that point either. Let me say for the record that I do not believe Carter is an anti-Semite and that this sort of criticism is largely propaganda from reflexively pro-Israel sources. Chances are that the person saying this has no idea what they are talking about.

Desecration

It comes as a surprise to my friends when they learn that I have been reading the Tim LaHaye/Jerry Jenkins series of End Times novels known as the Left Behind series. This is surprising, mainly, because I don't have any religious fealty, and because I fancy myself a sort of artsy-fartsy literature loving intellectual. Typical fans are deeply religious and not usually very sophisticated in their choice of reading material. The series has grabbed my attention though, because it is somehow astonishingly popular and it reveals quite a bit about the mindset of the far-right religious automoton. In 2001, the volume that came out was the best-selling book of the year. And I believe that most of them have reached the #1 spot on the bestseller lists, though they have tappered off in popularity in recent years.

You can get some basic criticism of the books just by visiting the amazon.com webpage, and I agree with much of the negative commentary that is leveled at the series there. While Left Behind has its rote defenders, even many fundamentalist Christians take issue with the quality of the writing and the shallow character development. But as you might imagine, the politics of the books are where the real rancid quality emerges. Early on in the series (and I should mention, I have not yet finished them all--I'm on number 9 currently), I found more or less the kind of politics that I thought I would--anti-abortion, extreme antipathy toward any kind of global governing effort and arms control deals, distrust of the media, and suspicion of the overly educated. There are some truly hilarious sequences, as when Rayford Steele, one of our heroes, begs Hattie Durham (those names!) not to have an abortion, even as God kills millions around the globe, Old Testament style.

But as the series has trudged toward its pre-ordained conclusion, the authors have begun to insert their characters into violent situations whereby they must confront and kill non-believers. They do this with extreme prejudice, and with nary a thought as to what Jesus would have them do. This has really come to the fore in book 9, Desecration. The believers arm themselves and face off with the forces of the Antichrist with bullets flying and with God giving his flock his protection, even as they pull the trigger on hapless Global Community peacekeepers. I'm not foolish enough to expect a warm and fuzzy resolution, where everyone solves their problems peaceably and forms a functional society, but I am caught off-guard by complete lack of reflection by the authors/characters on the meaning and consequences of their violent turn. I suppose that since God behaves like a child in the book, it would be too much to ask for the characters to do otherwise.

Still, I am troubled that there are those who get a sense of joy or satisfaction by seeing unbelievers killed. There is a segment of the population that literally believes this is what is going to happen, and finally they will be able to take their revenge. In fact, there are those who might want to use this type of literature to encourage believers to start taking revenge, regardless of the status of the second coming. Though I haven't played the video game based on the series, the reviews seem to indicate that more of the same is in store in that department, perhaps even to a greater degree. It may seem paranoid, but those of us who do not desire the creation of a theocratic state need to keep close tabs on propaganda like the Left Behind series, and be sure to air our objections vocally, espcially since these books appear to have substantial crossover appeal.

Media Frenzy

I haven't come to expect great things from the media when covering enormous war protests, but the coverage of the local Fox station last Saturday was downright infuriating. I've heard estimates ranging from the "tens of thousands" to around 100,000 of how many antiwar protesters attended the event. During the march, I'd venture that I saw roughly 30 pro-war protesters. I'm sure I didn't see every pro-war person who showed up. I'll be charitable and imagine there were 100. That puts it at about a 1000:1 ratio.

How do you suppose Fox 5 treated the situation? With both sides getting equal coverage on the local news, of course.

Additionally, I am disappointed with the organizers of the march for putting Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Jane Fonda at the front of the line. These people are not the leaders of the antiwar movement. It's fine if they want to join the protest, but we shouldn't be creating any special places for them. Naturally, Fonda's presence became a major issue in the coverage of the protest as well, taking attention away from where everyone who was actually trying to draw coverage to, you know, the war.

Late Post

For whatever reason, I couldn't post this when I originally wrote it:

As you may know, an antiwar protest is scheduled in Washington, DC for tomorrow [now passed]. Supposedly it will be the largest since the days leading up to the war. Since I happen to live in the city where this protest is being planned, I am conviently able to attend. I haven't been to a protest since 2003, when I attended the antiwar protest in Phoenix, along with about 6,000 other individuals. For Phoenix, not a hotbed of political activism, that is a huge number. Also, on that same day there were over 100,000 protesters in New York and half a million in London, as well as thousands in cities around the nation and the world.

I don't have many illusions concerning how this will suddenly convince our representatives in Congress that the war has been a moral disaster and must be ended ASAP. However, the thing I learned from the previous protest is that the goal is not necessarily only influencing policy. You hope it might do that, and certainly the direct action of the '60s and '70s played some role in ending the war in Vietnam, but even if it has absolutely no effect (like in 2003), it does let the protesters know that they are not alone and isolated. It was easy to feel like you were the only person in the world who thought the United States shouldn't go around invading nations on a whim back in 2003, but after attending the protest, I knew there were thousands of people in my community who thought like I did. They were normal, churchgoing folk, for the most part. Yeah, some college kids (as I was) and some Black Bloc radicals, but mostly just doughy moms and dads and grandparents who thought maybe we shouldn't be dropping bombs on people for no discernable reason, and putting the lives of our own children at risk to do it.

So I'm looking forward to getting out and doing a little chanting, even if it doens't result in immediate policy changes, because the solidarity you feel lets you know there are still a few people who aren't nuts. And who knows, with the war growing increasingly unpopular, perhaps displays like this will matter more. You can always hope. If you're in the area, come out and join us.