mojave_wolf (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mojave_wolf) wrote,@ 2007-07-06 21:57:00 |
|
With venom, beauty and love . . .
Books reviews, politics and possibly brief surreally weird thoughts if have energy after the others.
Interesting that people keep saying "Hillary can't win." The most recent Newsweek had a poll. All 3 of the top dems beat every republican put up against them (Guliani,Romney, McCain, Thompson). All of them beat Romney by double digits. Hillary fared best of any against Guliani, iirc. Obama did best against McCain, where Hillary did worst. Thompson may be the republican standard bearer, and I admit his acting ability concerns me, but they all beat him handily, as well. This is good news. It should be pointed out that Hillary consistently got 50% or better. So much for all the suggestions that her negatives are too high and that she can't top the 50% threshold. And it should be noted that she, alone of everyone running in either party, has already had the full negative blast, hit-me-with-your-best-shot attacks thrown at her (tho even the basic, "we know you're a phony and dammit, you're a mormon!" attacks seem to be hurting Romney badly already) Tho of course the same article that discussed the poll discussed . . . whether Hillary could win or get a majority of voters given her high negatives. ::bangs head:: Given that *any* well-known dem is beating *any* republican, mostly at the high end or beyond the margin of error, perhaps we should just try to figure out which candidate we want and figure they'll win just fine if they have a decent campaign?
Hugely annoyed at the coverage of the Republican spin machine comparing Bush pardoning Libby to Clinton pardoning, well, anyone. Okay guys, here goes: Clinton never pardoned anyone who could have got him or anyone close to him in trouble. Neither has any President not named Bush. (Bush Sr. did it for six guys in Iran/Contra) In the Federalist Papers, which most conservatives are fond of, or say they are, it was suggested that Presidents who pardoned people in cases involving *them* should be impeached. But the LA Times and pretty much everyone I've heard other than Olberman and the night DJ's on KGO in San Francisco cover the comparisoms like it is a fair case; the Times actually covered this like it was the right point and the Clintons were big hypocrites for criticizing this pardon. My true level of anger shall not be voiced so I don't get a visit from the Gestapo who are there to protect our (and my!) freedom.
Speaking of, did anyone ever hear the US called "the Homeland" before 9/11? I didn't. Does anyone else think "Hitler/Nazi/Stalin/Soviets" every time they hear that?
Book reviews, mostly The Sixth Extinction by Terry Glavin but also finally finished Maledicte, Tooth and Claw w/positive comments on Nightingale's Lament (in progress) and negative ones on "The Case for Hillary Clinton" --the negativity is about the book, not her . . . As mentioned when I was only partway through, The Sixth Extinction is a beautifully written, lyrical book. See my last nonfic reviews for a sample, from the opening chapter, "Valley of the Black Pig" (tho the title of the closing chapter is just as evocative -- "The Singing Tree of Chungliyimti", and in the middle there is "The Last Giants in the River of the Black Dragon").
Most of the first half of the book is concerned with the lost of wild land and species. The second half is mostly concerned with the loss of human cultures, languages and domestic plants/food crops. In "An Apple is a kind of Rose", one may be dismayed to learn of "patent-protected 'terminator' seeds that produce plants that kill their own seeds or refuse to grow at all unless sprayed with one of the company's herbicides." One may find oneself agreeing with Richard Manning that the great agribusiness revolution of the 1960's is "the worst thing that has ever happened on the planet",that solved (some) local problems only by exchanging them for unprecedented, global-scale problems."
Despite the author's optimistic view, by the time I got to the finish, I saw it more as an ode to things passing away than as an optimistic work showing how humanity is working to save things. Yes, many humans are. More are working to enrich themselves however possible, and those w/the most power and least actual need to enrich themselves are doing this in the worst possible way.
As bad as the Soviets were for the environment, and they sound bad, the current Russian administration (and all the "business" interests that have taken over since the Soviet Union ended) I have now developed a deep and abiding hatred for.
Likewise, large agribusiness corporations. First, I used to dislike them and view them as the enemy, and sometimes hated them in the past, but I had not paid attention in too long and had forgotten how much I hate them. And all the legal systems and governments that support them, such as in the Canadian case where Monosanto sued the farmer because their genmod canola had contaminated his canola and his crop was now covered by their patent. Rather than do as any decent, sane, sensible, not-needing-to-be-slaughtered, even-vaguely-giving-a-shit-about-the-ide
The destruction of animal and plant species, and the sheer number of things decimated to feed us and give us room to expand, is too painful for me to recount. But I have to take issue w/Glavin when it comes to his support for sustainable local whaling cultures. He dismisses the argument that whales are too intelligent for us to hunt them as irrational. I suppose one could make the argument that whales are predators of a sort, too, and animals in nature kill and eat each other w/out regard for intelligence, and many of them would eat us. He doesn't make this argument, tho. He basically just treats the idea of whale intelligence as loopy. Pissed me off tremendously. As for me? One kind of whaling I would support -- individual people getting in the water w/flippers and spear gun to hunt orca. I'd be all for that. No large groups, unless they were hunting large groups of orca. One human w/flippers and spear gun, one killer whale. At least on an experimental basis, this could work. I agree w/Glavin that in losing cultures and languages, we are losing entire modes of thought that could wind up being useful in the same way as varieties of potatoes proved useful in bringing that crop back after the potato famine, but some types of culture are simply best moved on from. Tho I have more sympathy for the Norse & Inuit whaling cultures than I do for most hunters or any factory farmers, and had he made an different sort of argument for them, while I wouldn't have agreed, I'd have been more receptive.
In general, though, I loved this book so incredibly much. I learned about all sorts of mammals, birds and fish that I had previously known nothing (or little) of. Brings the beauty of the natural world to life as much as being immersed in a movie of it. Proves the lie to the popular conservative contention that most environmentalists are city dwellers who are out of touch w/the natural world. One of the most important and best things I've read this year.
On a less positive note, "The case for Hillary Clinton" by Susan Estrich. Now, while I agree w/most of the progressive critics of Hillary about her negatives, I disagree w/them very much as to whether Obama and Edwards have fewer or less bad negatives (for the most part, they're the same negatives, tho there are differences here and there). I'm on record as having a mild preference for Hillary among those three at this point. But this book? At times, I wondered if it was a stealth effort to hurt Clinton. At other times, I wondered if working at Fox has fucked up Estrich's head, cause I used to like her. But when she says stuff like Kerry lost because he ran too liberal a campaign? Or didn't play to middle america enough? If she's serious, this is why the democrats can't campaign to save their lives -- they have a mental gear set on "stupid" when it comes to evaluating election results and trends. When Estrich says, speaking as a democrat who thinks the Kerry and Gore campaigns were too liberal for *her*, that she fears cancer, not fundamentalists? OMG. I've been in the hospital for cancer. I was told I would probably die of cancer (when I was 19; I've been fine for a long time now). Members of my family have died of cancer. Friends of mine have had or now have cancer. And I'm way more scared of the fundies. They can (and are) fucking up the whole world on a level way worse than cancer ever could unless it became as contagious as the common cold. And they can hurt the world and its cultures in ways cancer couldn't, even then. When Estrich says she doesn't hate Bush and the neocons, she hates Osama bin Laden? All I can do is scream and point at who has done far, far more damage to the world at large and, for that matter, to the United States, if you're going to be purely provincial in your view of things. (not to mention? bin Laden is a fundamentalist. There's a cognitive dissonance going on here, or she's trying to appeal to very conservative people who'd probably rather cut off their hands than vote for Hillary and the whole book is a waste, not sure which). I didn't get very far in this book. Then again, maybe this is the sort of thinking that will appeal to a certain audience, which definitely isn't me.
Much more happily, "Tooth and Claw" by Jo Walton is adorable. Satirical, yes, a biting indictment of hypocrisy and human evil even tho all the characters are dragons living like Victorian era humans. But? So cute at the same time. The whole dragon thing adds nicely to what would have been a great story regardless. Am told it owes a great deal to Anthony Trollope. I intend to read him at some point.
And . . . "Maledicte" by Lane Robins . . . reading this was like having dangerously wicked sex on lush midnight black faux fur in the middle of a snow-covered woods. Sort of. Until it gets to the heartbreakingly sad part. Which tells you nothing about the plot. Umm, the lead is an awesomely compelling character. The writing is beyond wonderful. Somewhat standard revenge plot, if you take out the supernatural elements and the particular temperments, situations and ways of acting, but then so was Hamlet. Except this isn't sexist, as one could argue was Hamlet's sole flaw. Rather dark. Best jump rope jingle since "one, two Freddy's coming for you" . . .
I have written this twice elsewhere, but while I haven't finished Nightingale's Lament yet, it seems easily the best of the Nightside series thus far, and I must love a book which mentions the Sisters of the Immaculate Chainsaw and contains the line "I hoped I hadn't wet myself. I hate it when that happens."
Too tired for further writing, now. Will hopefully later write about this being the 40th anniversary of the summer of love, which if nothing else is a great chance to think about the legacy of the 60's and the year that gave us the first two albums of The Doors and Jimi Hendrix, and Sgt Pepper's, and Surrealistic Pillow, and the label debut of Joplin w/Big Brother and the Holding Company, and . . . (for those of you wondering, no, I'm NOT old enough to remember this, but you get a nice feel for it just from watching some movies from the period, or reading the 40th anniversary rolling stone, and oh wow the music . . . )
And other things.
Books reviews, politics and possibly brief surreally weird thoughts if have energy after the others.
Interesting that people keep saying "Hillary can't win." The most recent Newsweek had a poll. All 3 of the top dems beat every republican put up against them (Guliani,Romney, McCain, Thompson). All of them beat Romney by double digits. Hillary fared best of any against Guliani, iirc. Obama did best against McCain, where Hillary did worst. Thompson may be the republican standard bearer, and I admit his acting ability concerns me, but they all beat him handily, as well. This is good news. It should be pointed out that Hillary consistently got 50% or better. So much for all the suggestions that her negatives are too high and that she can't top the 50% threshold. And it should be noted that she, alone of everyone running in either party, has already had the full negative blast, hit-me-with-your-best-shot attacks thrown at her (tho even the basic, "we know you're a phony and dammit, you're a mormon!" attacks seem to be hurting Romney badly already) Tho of course the same article that discussed the poll discussed . . . whether Hillary could win or get a majority of voters given her high negatives. ::bangs head:: Given that *any* well-known dem is beating *any* republican, mostly at the high end or beyond the margin of error, perhaps we should just try to figure out which candidate we want and figure they'll win just fine if they have a decent campaign?
Hugely annoyed at the coverage of the Republican spin machine comparing Bush pardoning Libby to Clinton pardoning, well, anyone. Okay guys, here goes: Clinton never pardoned anyone who could have got him or anyone close to him in trouble. Neither has any President not named Bush. (Bush Sr. did it for six guys in Iran/Contra) In the Federalist Papers, which most conservatives are fond of, or say they are, it was suggested that Presidents who pardoned people in cases involving *them* should be impeached. But the LA Times and pretty much everyone I've heard other than Olberman and the night DJ's on KGO in San Francisco cover the comparisoms like it is a fair case; the Times actually covered this like it was the right point and the Clintons were big hypocrites for criticizing this pardon. My true level of anger shall not be voiced so I don't get a visit from the Gestapo who are there to protect our (and my!) freedom.
Speaking of, did anyone ever hear the US called "the Homeland" before 9/11? I didn't. Does anyone else think "Hitler/Nazi/Stalin/Soviets" every time they hear that?
Book reviews, mostly The Sixth Extinction by Terry Glavin but also finally finished Maledicte, Tooth and Claw w/positive comments on Nightingale's Lament (in progress) and negative ones on "The Case for Hillary Clinton" --the negativity is about the book, not her . . . As mentioned when I was only partway through, The Sixth Extinction is a beautifully written, lyrical book. See my last nonfic reviews for a sample, from the opening chapter, "Valley of the Black Pig" (tho the title of the closing chapter is just as evocative -- "The Singing Tree of Chungliyimti", and in the middle there is "The Last Giants in the River of the Black Dragon").
Most of the first half of the book is concerned with the lost of wild land and species. The second half is mostly concerned with the loss of human cultures, languages and domestic plants/food crops. In "An Apple is a kind of Rose", one may be dismayed to learn of "patent-protected 'terminator' seeds that produce plants that kill their own seeds or refuse to grow at all unless sprayed with one of the company's herbicides." One may find oneself agreeing with Richard Manning that the great agribusiness revolution of the 1960's is "the worst thing that has ever happened on the planet",that solved (some) local problems only by exchanging them for unprecedented, global-scale problems."
Despite the author's optimistic view, by the time I got to the finish, I saw it more as an ode to things passing away than as an optimistic work showing how humanity is working to save things. Yes, many humans are. More are working to enrich themselves however possible, and those w/the most power and least actual need to enrich themselves are doing this in the worst possible way.
As bad as the Soviets were for the environment, and they sound bad, the current Russian administration (and all the "business" interests that have taken over since the Soviet Union ended) I have now developed a deep and abiding hatred for.
Likewise, large agribusiness corporations. First, I used to dislike them and view them as the enemy, and sometimes hated them in the past, but I had not paid attention in too long and had forgotten how much I hate them. And all the legal systems and governments that support them, such as in the Canadian case where Monosanto sued the farmer because their genmod canola had contaminated his canola and his crop was now covered by their patent. Rather than do as any decent, sane, sensible, not-needing-to-be-slaughtered, even-vaguely-giving-a-shit-about-the-ide
The destruction of animal and plant species, and the sheer number of things decimated to feed us and give us room to expand, is too painful for me to recount. But I have to take issue w/Glavin when it comes to his support for sustainable local whaling cultures. He dismisses the argument that whales are too intelligent for us to hunt them as irrational. I suppose one could make the argument that whales are predators of a sort, too, and animals in nature kill and eat each other w/out regard for intelligence, and many of them would eat us. He doesn't make this argument, tho. He basically just treats the idea of whale intelligence as loopy. Pissed me off tremendously. As for me? One kind of whaling I would support -- individual people getting in the water w/flippers and spear gun to hunt orca. I'd be all for that. No large groups, unless they were hunting large groups of orca. One human w/flippers and spear gun, one killer whale. At least on an experimental basis, this could work. I agree w/Glavin that in losing cultures and languages, we are losing entire modes of thought that could wind up being useful in the same way as varieties of potatoes proved useful in bringing that crop back after the potato famine, but some types of culture are simply best moved on from. Tho I have more sympathy for the Norse & Inuit whaling cultures than I do for most hunters or any factory farmers, and had he made an different sort of argument for them, while I wouldn't have agreed, I'd have been more receptive.
In general, though, I loved this book so incredibly much. I learned about all sorts of mammals, birds and fish that I had previously known nothing (or little) of. Brings the beauty of the natural world to life as much as being immersed in a movie of it. Proves the lie to the popular conservative contention that most environmentalists are city dwellers who are out of touch w/the natural world. One of the most important and best things I've read this year.
On a less positive note, "The case for Hillary Clinton" by Susan Estrich. Now, while I agree w/most of the progressive critics of Hillary about her negatives, I disagree w/them very much as to whether Obama and Edwards have fewer or less bad negatives (for the most part, they're the same negatives, tho there are differences here and there). I'm on record as having a mild preference for Hillary among those three at this point. But this book? At times, I wondered if it was a stealth effort to hurt Clinton. At other times, I wondered if working at Fox has fucked up Estrich's head, cause I used to like her. But when she says stuff like Kerry lost because he ran too liberal a campaign? Or didn't play to middle america enough? If she's serious, this is why the democrats can't campaign to save their lives -- they have a mental gear set on "stupid" when it comes to evaluating election results and trends. When Estrich says, speaking as a democrat who thinks the Kerry and Gore campaigns were too liberal for *her*, that she fears cancer, not fundamentalists? OMG. I've been in the hospital for cancer. I was told I would probably die of cancer (when I was 19; I've been fine for a long time now). Members of my family have died of cancer. Friends of mine have had or now have cancer. And I'm way more scared of the fundies. They can (and are) fucking up the whole world on a level way worse than cancer ever could unless it became as contagious as the common cold. And they can hurt the world and its cultures in ways cancer couldn't, even then. When Estrich says she doesn't hate Bush and the neocons, she hates Osama bin Laden? All I can do is scream and point at who has done far, far more damage to the world at large and, for that matter, to the United States, if you're going to be purely provincial in your view of things. (not to mention? bin Laden is a fundamentalist. There's a cognitive dissonance going on here, or she's trying to appeal to very conservative people who'd probably rather cut off their hands than vote for Hillary and the whole book is a waste, not sure which). I didn't get very far in this book. Then again, maybe this is the sort of thinking that will appeal to a certain audience, which definitely isn't me.
Much more happily, "Tooth and Claw" by Jo Walton is adorable. Satirical, yes, a biting indictment of hypocrisy and human evil even tho all the characters are dragons living like Victorian era humans. But? So cute at the same time. The whole dragon thing adds nicely to what would have been a great story regardless. Am told it owes a great deal to Anthony Trollope. I intend to read him at some point.
And . . . "Maledicte" by Lane Robins . . . reading this was like having dangerously wicked sex on lush midnight black faux fur in the middle of a snow-covered woods. Sort of. Until it gets to the heartbreakingly sad part. Which tells you nothing about the plot. Umm, the lead is an awesomely compelling character. The writing is beyond wonderful. Somewhat standard revenge plot, if you take out the supernatural elements and the particular temperments, situations and ways of acting, but then so was Hamlet. Except this isn't sexist, as one could argue was Hamlet's sole flaw. Rather dark. Best jump rope jingle since "one, two Freddy's coming for you" . . .
I have written this twice elsewhere, but while I haven't finished Nightingale's Lament yet, it seems easily the best of the Nightside series thus far, and I must love a book which mentions the Sisters of the Immaculate Chainsaw and contains the line "I hoped I hadn't wet myself. I hate it when that happens."
Too tired for further writing, now. Will hopefully later write about this being the 40th anniversary of the summer of love, which if nothing else is a great chance to think about the legacy of the 60's and the year that gave us the first two albums of The Doors and Jimi Hendrix, and Sgt Pepper's, and Surrealistic Pillow, and the label debut of Joplin w/Big Brother and the Holding Company, and . . . (for those of you wondering, no, I'm NOT old enough to remember this, but you get a nice feel for it just from watching some movies from the period, or reading the 40th anniversary rolling stone, and oh wow the music . . . )
And other things.
