51. Fair Ball

Fair Ball - Bob Costas

I had to take a short road trip a few days ago and threw this book into the CD player for the ride. I am glad I did. Bob Costas would get my vote for Major League Baseball commissioner. I like the way he thinks.

This book was not a bunch of baseball stories turning ballplayers into larger than life heros. This book discussed what Bob would do to fix some of the problems with MLB as he sees it. Well, as he saw it in 2000 anyway.

I liked it. I think his ideas for revenue sharing were sound, though the owners will never go for it without twisting their arms. I think his ideas concerning salary caps were sound, though the players union will never go for it without twisting their arms. Maybe if, like he says, both sides thought of the game rather than themselves it would work.

His comments about realignment were great. Some of the crackpot ideas are just ridiculous. Especially the radical realignment into strict geographical regions. I hate it. I am glad he sees it the same way. Realign into two fifteen team leagues with five per division...Houston moves to the AL West. I get it. I like it.

I love his comments on the wild card playoff spot. I hate it too. It takes so much away from the pennant races in each division. I love the idea of winning each of the three divisions to get into the playoffs with the number one team getting a bye in the first series. All the teams would be busting butt to be that number one team all year long.

As far as the DH? Yeah, there was a time for it. That time has passed. Lose the chump and make the pitchers hit. It adds so much to the strategy of the games. That is what baseball is all about.

He also said something that made a lot of sense concerning a great team compared to a crappy team. It comes down to the same result of a seven game series ending 4-3. If a crappy team adds all the wins after splitting 4-3 all year long you will end up with 60 something wins. Bad teams do that.  If a great team does the opposite and wins 4 of each 7 game series it will end up with 60 something losses. Prescisely what a great team ends up with, 90-100 wins. So, the difference in the best and worst teams comes down to winning or losing ONE game in each series all year long....and that is why the baseball season needs so many games to figure out who really is the best. That is also why the wild card should be eliminated. It allows chump teams a second chance with no risk. Silliness.

I love baseball!

49. 100 Quotations To Make You Think

100 Quotations to Make You Think - Wolfgang Riebe

Really, it is. It is 100 quotes. Did they all make me think? No. Have I heard them before? A few. Mostly they are new to me.

One that I liked and it made me think...

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

That one made me think. It was also one of the shortest in the little book, but it made me think more than any of the others.

What did I conclude at the end of the massive pondering I undertook? Well, it really depends on what kind of tree they are planting as to whether I agree with the quote or not. There, think about that.  :-)

48. Rules For Patriots

Rules For Patriots - Matt Kibbe

Supposed to be modeled as a response to Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals...put out by Freedomworks...a Tea Party group.

Eh. It left a lot to be desired and has taken a good idea and made it into a political organization that becomes so big that it means nothing any longer. Too many differing opinions and compromises to bring in others lead to watering down the message.

I used to agree with Freedomworks much more than I do now. Not because I have changed my views, because they have changed themselves to include more "issues" and then I have more to disagree with than I did before.

What makes a patriot? When did patriot become synonymous with falling in line with all the political agenda crap of a single party? Puhleeeeaase.

46. From October to Brest-Litovsk

From October to Brest-Litovsk - Leon Trotsky

Trotsky was a Russian Marxist revolutionary who was instrumental in the Russian Revolution and afterward. He was a Soviet politician and the first leader of the Red Army.

He wrote this book about the Russian Revolution. It was very interesting to hear the story from the point of view of the revolutionary.

It was not exciting. It was downright boring at times, but those periods were fleeting. Overall it was a decent read that added a little understanding to my history database hidden deep in my brain.  :-)

44. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki - US Army Corps of Engineers, Manhattan District

I wish I could call this science fiction or dystopian or even an alternate history. Sadly, the events were real.

This book was an assessment of the effects of the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It reads much like a battle damage assessment. It is very "scientific" in the way things are reported and how the findings are translated.

Then, at the end of the book, is a great first hand account of a man who witnessed the bombing and the aftermath. Talk about a change of direction. Wow. It went from statistics and distances from x....to emotion and opinion. It changed from the effects on concrete or metal frame buildings at carrying distances from ground zero to how people were in a dazed and bewildered state of confusion and unable to gather themselves together to for any kind of rescue efforts.

As for myself...I hate nuclear weapons and find them useless. I hope this type of assessment never needs to be done again.

28. How to Read Literature Like a Professor

Hot to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading Between the Lines - Thomas C. Foster

I was really hoping to enjoy this book more and to learn a lot more than I did. I picked up a few tips and hints, but nothing like I had envisioned before picking up this book. The biggest thing I learned was that even at a professorial level you are still limited by your own experiences and your own memory as to how you are going to translate or interpret literature. Everyone will see things differently. The same person at different times will see different things.

What is the point then? Mostly it is to get past the emotional reader level as the only reaction to a book. That will always be a prime reason for me to read. I like how a book can repulse me or make me smile. Those are emotional reactions. But this book tries to explain why I get those reactions on more than just a feel good or bad level.

It was interesting to read about the different topics the author wanted to discuss. There were chapters called: Every Trip Is a Quest (Except When It's Not), If It's Square, It's a Sonnet, When in Doubt, It's from Shakespeare..., ...Or the Bible, It's Greek to Me, It's More Than Just Rain or Snow, Is That a Symbol, It's All About Sex..., ...Except Sex, and so on. Each one of them showed how an author uses little tricks of the trade to relate his story back to something you have seen before in order to elicit a given response.

There were some highlighted one line tidbits throughout the book that explained a lot:
"The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge."
"Ghosts and vampires are never only about ghosts and vampires."
"There is no such thing a wholly original work of literature."
"It's never just rain."
"Flight is freedom."
"Irony trumps everything."
"When writers send characters south, it's so they can run amok."

You know what really pissed me off about this book though? I was hoping to learn from it. I was hoping to garner some kind of secrets from the inner sanctum. I was hoping to get a peak into the workers of a secret society, if only for a second. I went in with high expectations and even higher hopes...until page three. Yep, page THREE!

The first example the author used to explain something he wanted his reader to understand...the one he found to be the perfect example to go first...was this...
"I always begin with the greatest quest novel of the last century: Thomas Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 (1965)."
As you may remember from my review about two weeks ago concerning The Crying of Lot 49...I didn't like that book. So, this man told me on page three that he was one of those pretentious asses that is going to turn crap into something significant because it is so beyond anything of it's kind...blah blah. From that moment I knew I was not going to get what I was looking for and hoped to pick up a little thing here or there that I could use. I did that. But, overall the book ended up solving nothing and leaving a ton of stuff open to whatever the reader wanted it to be.

Is that a symbol for something? It can be if it symbolizes something to you. It is whatever it is for whomever wants it to be whatever they want it to be. Yackity yack yack yack. I think I will just stick to enjoying a book and not analyzing it through the eyes of Plato or Shakespeare. I am perfectly happy being one of the ignorant masses that will never be a snobbish member of the elite academia. Whatever.

I am glad I didn't pay for this one.

27. Pastor Dad

Pastor Dad: Scriptural Insights on Fatherhood - Mark Driscoll
This is a free e-book that began life as a sermon given by Pastor Mark Driscoll in Seattle.

You can read it on line or download a pdf file here.

I downloaded it and read it on my kindle.

The description of the book says:
"Every dad is a pastor. The important thing is that he is caring for his flock well. This book by Pastor Mark Driscoll looks at the ways that a father can raise his children well."

The things this little book covered as far as what a father should be and what his biblical duties are are quite correct. I agree with him and think that biblically defined fatherhood has declined and it has had serious repercussions in our society. So, I utterly agree with the premise of this book.

That being said, I didn't like some of the "all or nothing" extreme examples left me turned off. An example of what I mean? At the end of a long explanation of what the church can do to change the way men look at fatherhood. What is the result they are looking for? "We can point them to Proverbs, by which they will become wise men who think about the joy of playing with their grandkids one day rather than being yet another dirty old man sitting in the corner of some dingy strip club by himself on Christmas Day."

What is my problem with that? It assumes you will either be a wonderful biblical dad, or you will be a sleazy lonely pervert. I ran into those kind of extremes a few different times in the writing. I disagree with that. I don't think those kinds of statements help make a point. It just leaves room for people to discount the good points made because it used bad examples.

The little book was great and full of good biblical advice for fathers.

(FYI...I am not advocating for nor do I know enough to form an opinion on; Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church, The Resurgence or The Acts 29 Network. That stuff might be wonderful. It could also be the next big flop due to the normal failures of churches and movements in our society. I have no idea.)

20. Four Weeks in the Trenches

Four Weeks in the Trenches: The War Story of a Violinist - Fritz Kreisler

This was an outstanding and quick read. It was only fifty pages, but it was fantastic.

The story is an autobiographical account of Mr. Kreisler's experience as a member of the Imperial Austrian Army fighting against the Russians on the eastern front in 1914.

The book sticks to the first hand experiences of the author. It does not elaborate on political themes. I really enjoyed that. Nothing but the guts of the front line and a recollection of this one man's experience.

One of the insights that I found interesting was this: Mr. Kreisler says that as time passed in the trenches and you could see the enemy faces through field glasses (binoculars) that the hatred faded. When it is one army fighting against another it is done with hatred in the heart. As time went on and he "got to know" the other side, the hatred diminished and it became more like a sporting event that both sides wanted to win. He even went as far as to say that when a member of the other side was taken down that he felt a sadness for the loss experienced by the other side. That was a very interesting perspective.

I loved this little read.

15. Downsizing the Federal Government

Downsizing the Federal Government - Chris Edwards

Here is a book full of awesome ideas to fix problems our country is having. I love most of them and have for quite some time. I have voted for people who promoted these ideas for decades now. The problem is that those people wither failed to follow through or were blocked in their efforts. That does not mean I will change. I still vote this way.

Chris Edwards is an economist who works with the Cato Institute. That is a Washington DC think tank along the lines of the Brookings Institute and Heritage Foundation. The big difference is that Cato is not liberal or conservative. They are a mixture of both. They are pro free markets and also anti war with liberty being a huge factor. They are libertarian if you had to put a label on them. You can keep your Democrats and Republican die hard garbage. Neither party is right or does what they say they will do. I will vote with the guy who is closest to doing what Cato stands for every time, and that has been from different parties all my life.

I have been reading articles and content on the website Downsizing the Federal Government for years. The site is an offshoot of the same ideas displayed in the book. You don't have to read the book if you don't want. You can go the website and see the same ideas in a different format. You won't see as much depth or explanation, but maybe it is enough to get you to want to learn more.

There is a free ebook version of this book on that site. I had downloaded it a long time ago. This is exactly why having that free kindle is awesome. I just loaded it on that little gadget and took it with me when I went places. I was never going to sit in front of a computer and read this and I would not spend the money to buy a new print version when I have a stack of other printed books sitting here waiting to be read. So, the kindle allowed me to read this book.

I think it is awesome! I love these ideas. I totally believe that most of what Mr. Edwards say is absolutely the best course of action.

I found it funny when he was busting chops of politicians in the book. He slammed Newt Gingrich and George Bush a few times because they were supposed to be budget watching smaller government proponents and both did exactly the opposite when they got into a position to make a difference. I liked that.

He didn't slam Democrats much. Why? He explains that it is because they don't say they are going to make government smaller and therefore can not fail to live up to that expectation. He just plain old disagrees with their philosophy of what government is and should be doing...just like I do. He did give a few Democrats some props though. He mentioned a few that actually did push a limited government agenda. He mentioned Paul Douglas, an Illinois Senator from 1949-1967, who was a harsh critic of government waste while also a champion for civil rights. Another guy was William Proxmire, Senator from Wisconsin from 1957-1989, the inventor of the "golden fleece" award for the biggest tax-payer ripoffs each month.

Anyway, promoting the ideas are what this book is really about. Stuff like cutting Defense, Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Labor and many other departments where there is wasteful, duplicated or obsolete programs. He is a proponent of privatization of much of what the federal government controls.

He suggests we sell assets; make discretionary spending cuts; make entitlement spending cuts (don't freak out, it is not what you are told by the fear-monger people); make 10 year budget plans; hammer waste and then hammer is some more; attack government fraud and abuse; erase duplicate programs across different agencies; eliminate obsolete, ineffective and chronically mismanaged programs; reform government bureaucracy; enact Congressional term limits; reign in the special interest spending and lobbying; eliminate corporate welfare; deal with economically damaging programs; freedom limiting programs; socially damaging programs; environmentally damaging programs; correct the size and scope of federal grants for all kinds of things; privatizing stand-alone businesses such as postal services and passenger rail services; privatizing infrastructure; tax reform!; budget process reforms; and so on and so on....

Mr. Edwards goes into specific examples of each category he brings up. He explains why he has his opinion and what he would do to fix a problem. If you want to see those details you will undoubtedly have to read the book, or at least the website.

I loved it.

10. Constitutionalism And The Rule Of Law In America

Constitutionalism And The Rule Of Law In America - Herman Belz

Probably the dryest read I have ever finished.

7. The Enlightened Bracketologist: The Final Four of Everything

The Enlightened Bracketologist: The Final Four of Everything - Mark Reiter and Richard Sandomir

This book shows me the most awesome idea I have seen in a long time. What is your favorite movie? What is your favorite restaurant? What is your favorite anything? This book shows a way to reach a definitive, once-and-for-all answer to all of those questions.

"What is enlightenment?

Better question: What is Bracketology?

Bracketology is a way of seeing the world so that we can become more enlightened- about what we like, favor, prefer, abhor, or abjure. It is a system that helps us make clearer and cleaner decisions about what is good, better, best in our world."

"Bracketology- the practice of parsing people, places and things into discrete one-on-one match ups to determine which of the two is superior or preferable- works because it is simple."

I had this book on the counter when friends came over this weekend. We made some brackets to figure out "what sucks the most" just for fun. It really was fun going match up for match up and figuring out why a hangnail sucks more than running out of gas, or vice-versa. Between the tree of us we came up with different answers to what sucks the most. There winners were terrorists, cancer and the IRS freezing your bank accounts. The process of reaching those conclusions from the beginning 32 sucky things was a lot of fun.

Later I took that a step further knowing I was going to be blogging about this book. I created a single elimination bracket of 128 books I liked. What would be my favorite book when they are all pitted in head-to-head?

There were some very tough decisions along the way. There were also some no brainers. It is easy to say "Slaughterhouse 5" beats "Logan's Run". It is not so easy when "The Great Gatsby" and "Into The Wild" meet in the sweet 16. That was one of the hardest decisions. I went with "Into The Wild" after much thought. I still wrestle with that one.

"Darkness At Noon" beat out "Shutter Island" then lost the next round to "The Kite Runner", which in turn lost in the following round to "Lolita". Any one of those four is an outstanding book. It stinks to have to eliminate any of them at all, but something had to win.

I had fun doing this bracket. The overall winner? For me, at this time, it was "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I have no regrets in that book winning. It was great. Along the way it took down two outstanding books about Vietnam. "The Short-Timers" and "The Things They Carried". Both amazing books in themselves.

I am including a copy of this bracket below for your perusal. I am sure yours would be different. Go for it. I would love to see what happens with others doing the same.

You can get your own brackets here? http://www.printyourbrackets.com/

4. Liberty And Property

Liberty And Property - Ludwig von Mises

Austrian economics and capitalism duke it out with socialism and statism. I loved this book! This was originally a lecture given by von Mises in October 1958 at Princeton University. Some adjustments of thought must be made in that socialism has progressed far beyond the Soviet model, but it is essentially the same principles as far as economics are concerned.

Some parts I found very interesting:

"...the liquidation of all dissenters is the condition that will bring us what the communists call freedom."

"The admirers of the Soviet system tell us again and again that freedom is not the supreme good. It is "not worth having," if it implies poverty. To sacrifice it in order to attain wealth for the masses, is in their eyes fully justified. But for a few unruly individualsists who cannot adjust themselves to the ways of regular fellows, all people in Russia are perfectly happy. We may leave it undecided whether this happiness was also shared by the millions of Ukrainian peasants who died from starvation, by the inmates of the forced labor camps, and by the Marxian leaders who were purged. But we cannot pass over the fact that the standard of living was incomparably higher in the free countries of the West than the communist East.. In giving away liberty as the price to be paid for the acquisition of prosperity, the Russians made a poor bargain. They now have neither the one nor the other."

"As far as individuals have the opportunity to choose, they are free; if they are forced by violence or threat of violence to surrender to the terms of an exchange, no matter how they feel about it, they lack freedom."

"As regards the social apparatus of repression and coercion, the government, there cannot be any question of freedom. Government is essentially the negation of liberty. It is the recourse to violence or threat of violence in order to make all people obey the orders of the government, whether they like it or not. As far as the government's jurisdiction extends, there is coercion, not freedom. Government is a necessary institution, the means to make a social system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin. Government is not, as some people say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistance possible. But it is the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging. Whatever a government does it is ultimately supported by the actions of armed constables. If the government operates a school or a hospital, the funds required are collected as taxes, i.e., by payments exacted from the citizens...we may call government the most beneficial human institution. But the fact remains that government is repression not freedom."

"The socialists must admit there cannot be any freedom under a socialist system. But they try to obliterate the difference between the servile state and economic freedom by denying that there is any freedom in the mutual exchange of commodities and services on the market. Every market exchange is, in the words of a school of pro-socialist lawyers, “a coercion over other people’s liberty.” There is, in their eyes, no difference worth mentioning between a man’s paying a tax or a fine imposed by a magistrate, or his buying a newspaper or admission to a movie. In each of these cases the man is subject to governing power. He’s not free, for, as professor Hale says, a man’s freedom means “the absence of any obstacle to his use of material goods.” This means: I am not free, because a woman who has knitted a sweater, perhaps as a birthday present for her husband, puts an obstacle to my using it. I myself am restricting all other people’s freedom because I object to their using my toothbrush. In doing this I am, according to this doctrine, exercising private governing power, which is analogous to public government power, the powers that the government exercises in imprisoning a man in Sing Sing.

Those expounding this amazing doctrine consistently conclude that liberty is nowhere to be found. They assert that what they call economic pressures do not essentially differ from the pressures the masters practice with regard to their slaves. They reject what they call private governmental power, but they don’t object to the restriction of liberty by public government power. They want to concentrate all what they call restrictions of liberty in the hands of the government. They attack the institution of private property and the laws that, as they say, stand “ready to enforce property rights—that is, to deny liberty to anyone to act in a way which violates them.”"

"The self‑styled champions of the common man are still guided by the obsolete idea that a policy that favors the debtors at the expense of the creditors is very beneficial to the majority of the people. Their inability to comprehend the essential characteristics itself also in their failure to see the obvious fact that those whom they feign to aid are creditors in their capacity as savers, policy holders, and owners of bonds"

3. How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must): The World According To Ann Coulter - Ann Coulter

I started reading this book quite some time ago. I would read a chapter and do something else. I would pick it up again and read a little every few days. That means it took longer than normal to actually finish this book, but it is finally complete.

The book itself and the specific subjects discussed are dated. This book was published in 2004, before the second Bush election.

What I find with Ms. Coulter is that I agree with what she has to say, but I do not think her method of delivery is going to do anything but make liberals mad and get a select group of conservatives as cheerleaders. I am sure that is the purpose. Maybe she started out hoping to change some minds, but I don't see it working using the tactics she employs.

Who else is in this category? Limbaugh. Matthews. Hannity. Colbert. Beck. Maher. Krugman. Savage. Olbermann. There are so many. Yap yap yap...and the only people listening are the ones that already agree. Ya'll keep on yapping. At least you are worth a chuckle here and there.

78. God's Politics

God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It

"Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and solely pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?

God's Politics offers a clari... more »on call to make both our religious communities and our government more accountable to key values of the prophetic religious tradition -- that is, make them pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-equality, and pro-family (without making scapegoats of single mothers or gays). Our biblical faith and religious traditions simply do not allow us as a nation to continue to ignore the poor and marginalized, deny racial justice, tolerate the ravages of war, or turn away from the human rights of those made in the image of God. These are the values of love and justice, reconciliation, and community that Jesus taught and that are at the core of what many of us believe, Christian or not. Jim Wallis inspires us to hold our political leaders and policies accountable by integrating our deepest moral convictions into our nation's public life."

The author of this book is self-proclaimed as a "progressive" and "prophetic". He discusses many subjects in this book that make total sense. He also falls into many stereotypical fallacies that perpetuate the rhetoric that makes the left-right divide deeper with every passing election.

This book was written after the 2004 Presidential election. Bush just defeated John Kerry. Needless to say, the author was definitely not a Bush fan. This book is a Bush basher from the very start. It bashes him for wars, for neglecting the poor, for trying to kill women, etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Bush fan. I voted for Kerry in the 2004 election. I just think that the piling on from all leftist fronts was ridiculous, just as the righties did to Clinton in the 90s.

So, despite my agreeing with some of Mr Wallis' suggestions and on how to find bipartisan common ground, I think this book is just a tool. I think Mr. Wallis is a tool. I think both fall into the "useful idiot" category.

Why do I think that? In a 2004 context I would be able to buy into his arguments. In a 2011 context we have seen much more from the "progressives". 2008 was a game changer. The 111th Congress and the Obama administration could have pursed any course of action they wished. They could have checked all the boxes on the progressive wish list. They could have been the progressive fairy godmother. But, they chose not to even address many of the issues discussed by Mr. Wallis in this book. Poverty, racism, and a long list of those holy grail leftist issues could have been addressed...but they were ignored. They were not truly the goals of progressives despite all the smoke blowing rhetoric they love to spew about being so caring. It was and continues to be lies...just like the right is lying.

Next thing...if Mr. Wallis is looking to include faith into the political conversation coming from the left...as he says numerous times (prophetic politics)...then why is the left making efforts at every possible opportunity to eliminate all references to religion, faith, or God from anything public? This contradiction is blatant. Don't tell me. Show me! The progressives do show me, despite what this book is touting as truth.

The next issue...Mr. Wallis likes to say things like the right-GOP-conservatives (whatever) do not care about the poor. I hear this kind of BS a lot. It is stupid. The reason they say this is because the right does not support government programs to care for every aspect of people's lives. That does not mean they want to starve everyones grandmothers. Government is not the solution to everything. Especially when this book is trying to say that Jesus himself would want us to make government programs that care for everyone...and we should do that by following a party of progressives that are openly hostile toward Jesus? Do what Jesus would do, but don't do it BECAUSE Jesus would do it? Do it because it is right, but don't give God the glory...or even a mention. That makes no sense and is nothing more than manipulation.

So, for those reasons, despite my agreement with some of the writer's goals, I think this book SUCKED. It is just more political pandering and manipulation from a different angle. I would not have known that in 2005. Today it is glaringly obvious. Have a nice day.

77. The Resolution For Men

The Resolution For men - Stephen Kendrick

If you want to know what this book was about you should see the movie "Courageous". This is a companion to that movie.

If you want to know what it meant to me personally while reading, well, you will have to be ready for a long and meaningful discussion. There is no way to blog about such stuff. Not for me anyway.

74. Why We Suck

Why We Suck: A Feel Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid - Dr. Denis Leary

What a pissa! This dude cracks me up.

This book reminds me of conversations with Billy and Brian Skidmore or many other friends from Long Island.

It is what it is.

73. Long Time Leaving

Long Time Leaving: Dispatches From Up South - Roy Blount Jr.

A liberal southern democrat who has lived in Massachusetts and New York compares where he came from with where he is. It is kind of funny at times. It rambles on and on at others.

I loved the comparisons of people's viewpoints and ways of life.

Blount lost me about half way through when he started these long dialogue discussions between William Faulkner, Shakespeare and Mark Twain. He didn't get me back when he spoke of Ray Charles or other singers. I totally lost interest for that whole section of the book. It was probably about half.

But, overall he had me chuckling.

I have heard Roy Blount Jr somewhere before. I did this one on audio and read by the author. I know that voice. I wonder from where.

68. Are Women Human?

Are Women Human? - Dorothy L. Sayers

Like the front cover says, this is a book of: "Penetrating, sensible, and witty essays on the role of women in society". It really was outstanding.

This book is about the rights of women. The essays contained in the book were written in the 1930s. It was a very different world then. It is not about being pro-feminism. It is about the rights of women as human beings. Human beings with exactly the same rights as every other human being, male or female. Ms. Sayers uses common sense to reach her conclusions. She also says a number of times that she does not agree with "aggressive feminism" as a tactic. She thinks the humanization of women is what we should pursue. I love her approach.

She breaks down the fight for women's rights in a way I have not seen before. She fights for the individual. "What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person"

When discussing why women should be allowed to attend classical universities like Oxford and the resistance she encountered in her own education, she says:

"...the cry went up at once: "Why would women want to know about Aristotle?" The answer is NOT that all women would be the better knowing about Aristotle...but simply: "What women want as a class is irrelevant. I want to know about Aristotle."

Later she discusses another little inequality:

"We are asked: "Why do you want to go around in trousers? They are extremely unbecoming to most of you. You only do it to copy the men." To this we may very properly reply "It is true that they are unbecoming. Even on men they are remarkably unattractive. But, as you men have discovered for yourselves, they are comfortable, they do not get in the way of one's activities like skirts and they protect the wearer from draughts about the ankles. As a human being, I like comfort and dislike draughts. If trousers do not attract you, so much the worse; for the moment I do not want to attract you. I want to enjoy myself as a human being."

And then later she is discussing women in the workplace and how the response is usually that a woman's place, and work, are in the home. She says:

"Let us accept the idea that women should stick to their own jobs- the jobs they did so well in the good old days before they started talking about votes and women's rights. Let us return to the middle ages...It is a formidable list of jobs: the whole of the spinning industry, the whole of the dyeing industry, the whole of the weaving industry. The whole catering industry...the whole of the nation's brewing and distilling. All the preserving, pickling and bolling industry, all the bacon-curing. And (since in those days a man was often absent from the home for months together on war or business) a very large share in the management of landed estates. Here are the women's jobs- and what has become of them? They are all being handled by men. It is all very well to say that a woman's place is in the home- but modern civilization has taken all these pleasant and profitable activities out of the home, where the women looked after them, and handed them over to big industry, to be directed and organized by men at the head of large factories. Even the dairy maid in her simple bonnet has been replaced by a male mechanic in charge of a mechanical milking plant."

She goes on to say that the new way is much more efficient and makes a better product, but that there is no "work" left like it used to be. That, and that the home is now much smaller than the castles and plantations of the past.



Dorothy L. Sayers

61. The Ten Things You Can't Say In America

The Ten Things You Can't Say In America - Larry Elder

Larry Elder wrote this book over ten years ago. He was (and may still be, I don't know) a Libertarian radio talk show host in southern California at the time. The things he says you can't say, well, some of them have and are being said since that time. So, this book is a little dated, but the arguments he made are still valid and very well executed in the text.

What are the ten things that you could not say in America?

Blacks are more racist than whites.
White condescension is more damaging than white racism.
There is no health-care crisis.
We are losing the war on drugs.
Republicans and Democrats are the same beast with different rhetoric.
Gun control advocates have blood on their hands.
Illegitimacy is America's greatest problem.
The welfare state is our national narcotic.
There is no glass ceiling.
There is a real, widespread and destructive left wing media bias.

He made good arguments for each of his points. Granted, they are Libertarian arguments and therefore will blame a lot on government. I don't disagree with him in a lot of those areas.

This was an interesting book that would have been far more interesting ten years ago. Although, at that time I may have looked at it as more of a fringe wacko type book than something more mainstream that it has become today. Libertarians have come a long way since then.

60. Why The Left Hates America

Why The Left Hates America: Exposing The Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness - Daniel J. Flynn

I read the following description of this book and was intrigued. Is the left wing of American politics that jacked? Why? I must know! I must read this book and learn something about the the Left's opposing political beliefs.

""The American flag stands for hatred, warmongering, and imperialism." — "Our free-market system is responsible for killing and oppressing millions of people." — "This country breeds racists and sexists." — Is America really that bad? It is if you accept the lies and propaganda from the anti-American Left in our own country. This dismal, distorted view of the greatest, freest nation in history comes from a Left who would rather idolize Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro than honor George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who burn down businesses and destroy property to protest free markets, and who fight alongside radical terrorists rather than against them. They trample the Constitution while hiding behind the First Amendment, and their idea of displaying the American flag is setting it on fire and parading it through the streets. Yes, this is a Left comprised of people who truly hate their country, and they will stop at nothing to tear her down—smashing our liberty in the process.



Why the Left Hates America punches a hole right through the thin veneer of political correctness that has long protected these anti-Americans—exposing their rotting, vacuous core. Author and commentator Daniel J. Flynn digs deep into the American Left and reveals why they blame every bad deed in the world on the United States, while ignoring her myriad contributions.

This book cogently points out that, of course, all Americans have the right to speak their minds. But, all too often, the actions by the anti-American Left become destructive and anarchistic. You need not look any further than the explosive 1999 World Trade Organization "protests" in Seattle, campus book burnings, or even John Walker Lindh to see that factions on the Left are the worst perpetrators of anti-Americanism. And what may be most shocking is that many of these anti-Americans are at the same time teachers, professors, journalists, news reporters, and even judges and politicians.
Probing and controversial—without devolving into jingoism—this book proves once and for all that what you see in the news and learn in school is often tainted by the anti-American Left, and it shows you what you can do to keep them at bay."

What I learned is that the left this guy is talking about is not the main stream liberal Democrat politician. He is talking about an extreme fringe element. This book is written to have the reader believe that ALL liberals are what he is describing here.

I found this book to be more like pouring gasoline on a fire than teaching. I did not like what he had to say. It was interesting, but not for the reasons that I had wanted to read it in the first place. Disappointing, yet interesting.