Shaolin Wookie

Non-story

Revisado: 12-27-22

In the attempt to humanize cannibalism, DeAngelis abandoned the basic schematics of a story. Not all books have a point to get across, but all good books do at least have a plot. I failed to find a plot here. It wasn’t edgy. It was sentimental. Introducing characters only to kill them means the reader can’t invest anything in the characters he/she encounters. They are nothing but nameless graves in the end. Or in this case, the contents of a chamber pot.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Beyond a cartoon

Revisado: 06-03-17

This oral history of former Soviets, The willing and the unwilling, goes beyond the summaries and cartoons we often get in history. From the mouths of the willing we hear defiant loyalty, cultish devotion, and no recognition that the 10s of millions of dead who cannot tell their stories were not worth the trouble of brutalizing Russia into imperial poverty and slavery. From the unwilling? Well, there are some; though, admittedly, most of them are already dead.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Good History

Revisado: 05-09-17

This is a really good look at American involvement in the Spanish Civil War; but as a precaution, be sure to bring your logical sieve to strain out the inherent leftist bias of the author. He is clearly on the side of the communists, and he skips lightly over the original seizure of property by "liberals" (he means, violent, murderous communist thieves who stole public and private property, killed and caused the owners to flee, etc., which provoked the violent fascist reaction). As in most commie/fascist wars, there are no good guys, so it's hard to spot an upside for this silly war. But all in all, the book was entertaining, and it's a warning to Americans today who are watching the rise of socialist "liberals" provoking conflict and. Nationalizing industry. The communists must be repelled, but in crushing the scoundrels, the reactive powers must not become rival monsters.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

He never defines free will

Revisado: 04-18-17

I was expecting more, based on what I've heard about this book. I suppose this isn't Sam's fault. But as he began to speak about "freedom," Sam was all over the map. He never actually defined what he was critiquing. No consistent definition of freedom is possible except -- the absence of coercion by other acting humans, where "coercion" is defined as acts of aggression against person or property by third parties. He instead defines free will as intentional self-determination: one's ability to predetermine one's actions like a god or self-determinist. If one cannot do this, then one cannot also "not" do it. And hence, his argument is self-refuting not because he's right, but because he is woefully deficient in definitions. Once this definition as "absence of coercion, etc." is accepted because it can be pinpointed to empirical reality, then the framework of this book is pedestrian in content and outline. It is sophistry on the whole, with particular bits of true scientific information. It is terrible when it turns to politics and justice. He never defines these terms either.

Once again--Sam's scientism is to fault for logical inconsistency. "Define your terms" is an exhortation that vitiates nearly every book he writes.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 3 personas