TsundokuSensei

Should frighten everyone. Terrifying.

Revisado: 05-06-24

I heard about this book when Annie Jacobsen was interviewed by Dan Carlin on Hardcore History Addendum. Dan doesn't review fiction, but this book, while fictional, is a plausible scenario for nuclear war that is based on the factual details of hundreds of interviews over many years. He found it so disturbing that he wanted to interview Jacobsen about it and share it with his listeners.

Jacobsen interviewed top scientists, generals and others in the military, and top civilians to determine the nuclear capabilities of various countries around the globe and what the response of the United States would be in the event of a nuclear attack.

The bottom line: nobody is prepared for a nuclear (or EMP) attack. Nobody. Every single nation is just wishing/hoping/praying that the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is enough of a deterrent to keep a nation from launching its nuclear missiles at each other. That has worked so far. Will it work forever?

Jacobsen envisions a scenario whereby [SPOILER ALERT] North Korea launches an unprovoked nuclear attack. Jacobsen details - and by "details" I mean it - what would happen second by second, minute by minute, as the people in the government, from the president down to the cabinet to the Joint Chiefs to STRATCOM, determine how to handle a preemptive nuclear attack.

The bottom line is that we, the United States, are completely unprepared for such a situation. Who could be prepared? When you have to determine whether or not you must retaliate with a nuclear strike that will likely kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people within a matter of minutes - potentially as few as six minutes - well, that is an unimaginable amount of pressure.

I found the book mostly gripping right up until the end.

I did have a few issues. 1) Annie Jacobsen is not a good narrator this material. Her voice does not have the gravitas that this subject needs. 2) There are too many adjectives. Not everything needs to be described as "massive" or whatever word she decides to use. This was worst in the first half of the book. I suppose there are only so many words to describe something burning as well. 3) While this story is backed up with factual assessments, the story itself is, of course, fictional. It's an example of how an unprovoked nuclear attack could play out. I found a few things hard to believe. For example, the fact that the Russian president simply wouldn't take a phone call because the US president was missing the SecDef hadn't been sworn in as president seemed to stretch the bounds of credibility. And the fact that the US president went missing at all seemed to be a contrived element. I get it: it adds to the confusion. But I think it would have been more realistic - and more terrifying - if the book had kept the president in play so that he arrived at Site R and was unable to convince the Russian president that the Minuteman III missiles heading toward Russia were not bound for Russia but rather for North Korea. The result would have been the same: full Russian nuclear attack on the United States. But that seems more likely than how it plays out in the book.

In any case, I can only say that this book opened my eyes to how easy it would be to start a nuclear war. One nuclear bomb in space functioning as an EMP would destroy American infrastructure. We would be completely incapacitated. And for the love of God, make some new ICBMs - something that can hit North Korea without having to fly directly over Russia!

I hope that our lawmakers and senior military members read this book and try to remedy some of these glaring holes in US defenses. But as for nuclear bombs themselves, I don't see how we will ever be rid of them. As long as there is the threat of rogue nations (Iran, North Korea, etc.) the superpowers like the United States and Russia will always have them. And even if these small rogue states could be prevented from having them, we all know that the US and Russia would never give theirs up - game theory tells us that would be an incomprehensibly stupid move.

Better hope and pray. It's better than nothing.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Premise collapses on shaky theology

Revisado: 04-24-24

I think I heard of Francis Spufford and this book on Justin Brierley’s new podcast series about the demise of the New Atheism and return of Christianity. I was intrigued enough to buy the book.

But what a disappointment it is. It has a few bright moments, but it ultimately undone by Spufford’s theology which is frankly not Biblical. Nowhere is the Biblical Jesus to be found here. Rather we get Spufford expounding on why Genesis is wrong, why, because Jesus never explicitly talked about homosexuality (or really any sexuality), then we can’t make judgments about it (never mind that Paul speaks about this elsewhere in the New Testament or that there are infinitely many things Jesus never spoke about - say felony home invasion - but we don’t just assume they are condoned on the basis of omission), or how “most” Christians don’t believe in hell. Where does he get these ideas? Jesus certainly seems to believe in hell. And almost every Christian I know does. I can only assume that Spufford, as a liberal Anglican married to an Anglican (woman) priest, has no clue what most Christians actually believe. He seems to believe, as Morpheus told Neo, whatever he wants to believe. There is nothing in here about WHY Jesus went to the cross other than it helps Spufford feel good and that he was probably forgiven for his sins…

…except Spufford doesn’t use the word sin. No. That’s too correct. He has to say, over and over again “HPtFtU” - an initialism he tries to pronounce like an acronym, over and over again. It was painful to listen to. He said it maybe 500 times.

What does “HPtFtU” mean? Human Propensity to F*** things Up.” Oooh. I think sin would have been better. Certainly better to listen to.

Which leads me to my next point: Spufford’s use of curse words is rather grating. It’s like a teenager on TikTok trying to sound edgy. It’s just embarrassing and he does it frequently.

Finally, why listen to a book where the author is a Christian who may or may not believe in God? He emphasizes over and over again how he feels like it is true. But he doesn’t know. And we can’t know. It’s all about the feels I guess. Natural theology is not Spufford’s wheelhouse. I’m sure Moses would have been surprised to know that he can’t really know God exists. I’m sure the disciples who saw the Risen Christ would be surprised to know that Spufford says they are mistaken: it’s impossible to know something like that. Sorry!

I cannot recommend this book. For those who are looking at Christianity, you won’t find it here. For those who are Christians, it’s not worth digging through the trash heap to find a couple of knickknacks. Save your money. And save your time.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

If I could sum up this book in one sentence...

Revisado: 04-13-24

...it would, as Arnold says, "F*$& Plan B." There is, of course, a lot more to the book than this, but that pretty much encapsulates Arnold's work ethic and how to go about chasing your dreams. There is no substitute for work, more work, and single-minded determination.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Some gems in here but a bit heavy handed.

Revisado: 12-09-23

First, the audiobook doesn't have a foreword by Pastor Adam Weber so that is misleading. I doubt I missed anything though. I don't want to be critical, but when I finished the book I looked up the church the author, Dan LaRock, attends and saw that the lead pastor is skinny jeans-wearing Adam Weber. I get it: that's sort of the cliche in evangelical non-denominational churches these days. Still, it made sense of how LaRock approached some of his grandpa's sermons in the book. Now, to the book itself.

The book consists of 15 messages delivered by the authors grandfather, C. Maxwell Brown, in the 1960s. The 15 messages are divided into 5 groups of 3 each - with the 5 groups loosely focused on the same topic by Dan LaRock. After each set of 3 messages, LaRock offers his own thoughts and insights on the 3 messages and then moves on to the next group. Brown had been a pastor for over 3 decades at that point, in the Dakotas and, when these messages were given, in Berkeley, California. The messages touch on things like recognizing God in our daily lives, to the truth of the Resurrection, to the racial strife in the 1960s.

It is some of these latter sermons that I found the most troubling. Brown's messages sound oddly out of place in 2023 because they could easily be construed as coming from the mouth of some pastor who cares more about "social justice" than the gospel. But I recognize that they are from a different time. However, LaRock, in his summary, seems oblivious to this. He even mentions drug dealing criminal George Floyd as some sort of martyr in his recap. I was appalled that anyone still believes that George Floyd is anything other than a criminal. LaRock perpetuating the George Floyd myth made me discount everything else he had to say.

In summary, I think there are some good messages here by C. Maxwell Brown. Perhaps a bit less gospel than I would prefer, but some good messages on the whole. LaRock's handling of them, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Don't misunderstand: the entire book is not "social justice" - in fact, it is really only touched on in perhaps one of the 5 sections. But LaRock's preachy summaries can be a bit distracting.

It is a good book but not a great one. The messages are good but not earth shatteringly so. I was searching for a book to give my Mom for Christmas but, alas, this is not it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

About 4 times as long as necessary

Revisado: 10-24-23

I wanted to like this book. I did. I am familiar with all of the points the author makes. The problem is that it takes her way too long to get to the point. This book could have been a lot shorter - but then it probably wouldn't have been as "book-ish" and would have sold fewer copies.

The author has segments of long, dry quotes that just won't mean anything to half the readers. And she has a bad habit of quoting people from Twitter or off of some random podcast. Why should I care what some random guy who 90% of the people reading this book have never heard of said on a podcast?

But the worst part is that you get through 90% of the book and realize that although she has described a bunch of problems, she hasn't presented any solutions. But never fear, dear reader: Carol Roth has dedicated the final chapter to ways that you can ensure that you do, in fact, own something! Or does she?

No, she does not. The advice is stuff that you probably could have picked up in about 100 other places in the book (e.g. own a house). Then there is other stuff: don't own devices that spy on you (e.g. Amazon's Echo aka Alexa). Buy land. Participate in local politics. Call your Representative. Protest if necessary. Don't use a Central Bank Digital Currency if it is created.

It was all a very big letdown for anyone expecting anything verging on secret sauce. Nope. Just common sense and a book that could have been a long blog post.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

About Oppenheimer But Still Relevant Today

Revisado: 05-13-23

Incredible portrait of a scientist who most Americans unfortunately know little about other than the fact he was "father of the atomic bomb." I read this book because it is the basis for Christopher Nolan's upcoming movie, "Oppenheimer." It was excellent. Not only is a full portrait of a complex man who helped shape the twentieth century, it is also an enduring lesson about the evils of government power and secrecy which we still need today, probably more than ever.

Before I get into the book, let me say that the narrator was tolerable. He had this odd way of speaking normally and then, when quoting someone, it sounded like he whispered or stood 10 feet away from the microphone. It was strange and a bit distracting at times. OK, now on to the book...

J. Robert Oppenheimer was a precocious intellectual with interest in everything from foreign languages (including Sanskrit) to poetry. But he took a liking to physics, earning his Ph.D. in Germany in the 1920s Weimar Republic when it was the center of the quantum revolution.

Brilliant but never spending enough time on any one particular topic to earn a Nobel Prize (though his papers probably led to 3 or 4 other people getting Nobel Prizes), he was nonetheless America's most respected physicist during the outbreak of World War II when he was already a legendary professor of physics at UC Berkeley.

Understanding the dangerous prospect that Germany be the first to develop this new uranium fission weapon that scientists had known was possible since the late 1930s, Oppenheimer set out to make sure he was the one leading the development of this new fission weapon from the American side. This led to his selection as project director at Los Alamos, New Mexico, Oppenheimer's chosen location for the research and testing side of the Manhattan Project.

Guiding and directing the most brilliant scientific minds America and the Allies had to offer, Oppenheimer successfully led the development of the first atomic bomb and it is test, the Trinity test, in July 1945. Two fully functional bombs were dropped on Japan just a few short weeks later and Oppenheimer's life would never be the same. The world would never be the same.

It was only a matter of weeks before Oppenheimer, and many others, realized what a Pandora's Box this had opened. It led, in vain, to Oppenheimer trying to get those in government to understand the necessity of keeping a lid on this new devastating technology by having an international regulatory regime that could keep the peace.

Alas, the US military machine - what President Eisenhower would later term the "military industrial complex" - was already out of control. And it would stop at nothing to destroy Robert Oppenheimer.

This all came to a tragic conclusion in 1954 when Oppenheimer's security clearance was up for renewal. While not accused of any crime, the warmongers in government knew that by having Oppenheimer's security clearance renewal denied they would be able to silence their harshest foe. This was the McCarthy "Red Scare" era when loud, anti-Communist government personnel, including elected officials, backed by an out-of-control and power-hungry FBI that makes today's FBI seem tame by comparison, would go to any lengths to silence their critics.

In a kangaroo court show Congressional "hearing" that was a trial in everything but name and lasted nearly a month, Oppenheimer was humiliated and forced to reckon with statements he made years earlier that had been captured by illegal wiretaps. He even had former colleagues like the physicist Edward Teller turn on him.

While not everyone turned on him and some, such as Albert Einstein, defended him vociferously, it was not enough. Oppenheimer's security clearance was denied.

Oppenheimer spent most of the rest of his life as director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. But never again did he wade into the political arena, deeming himself no good to anyone after the 1954 incident. In 1963, President Kennedy decided to award Oppenheimer the Enrico Fermi award as a recognition of his contributions to science - an unspoken way of showing remorse for the government's treatment of Oppenheimer - and it was awarded by President Johnson just a few weeks after Kennedy's assassination.

Oppenheimer, a lifelong smoker, died of throat cancer in February, 1967.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Overly pretentious

Revisado: 01-30-23

I was hoping this book would clear up some of the mystery from its companion novel, "The Passenger." And it does to some extent but not to my satisfaction. Which is probably what McCarthy intended all along. I still don't know who the missing passenger was from the submerged aircraft. And if it was actually even a real thing in the context of the novel. I'm assuming that either it was imagined by Bobby Western and/or it was a metaphor for something else - like Bobby's subconscious self. And the reason I lean toward the latter is because the subconscious figures prominently in "Stella Maris."

While I still wonder what, exactly, was "real" in "The Passenger," I get the impression that "Stella Maris" is essentially factual in terms of the story itself. The entire novel essentially consists of a dialogue between Alicia Western and her psychiatrist in a series of 7 or so meetings. After she checks herself into the Stella Maris asylum in Wisconsin, she and her psychiatrist have doctor/patient discussions which constitute almost the entire book.

The good: Alicia, gradually, opens up to the doctor about her life, the "hallucinations" as the doctor calls them (Alicia refuses to, insisting they are as real as anything else), and, eventually, her love for her brother Bobby. We get a good insight into Alicia, her mental torment, and also, indirectly, Bobby's torment since it is clear he had reciprocal feelings for his sister but was able to control them. The conversations can be interesting at times...

The bad:...but many times they are just overly pompous. For one, Alicia is a completely unlikable person. Her snide condescension is overwhelming. Also, nobody speaks the way she does. Not in an actual conversation. Of course, the conversation was probably honed over several years by McCarthy. It would have to be because nobody actually converses in this deep philosophical-speak that encompasses mathematics, philosophy of mind, music theory, Platonism, evolutionary biology, language, and other things tossed in to sound pretentious. Over and over we hear about Grothendieck, Godel, Wittgenstein, Dirac, Oppenheimer - yes, Oppenheimer over and over again as the doctor brings up Alicia and Bobby's father who worked on the Manhattan Project, wonder if, somehow, the guilt from this has driven the family mad.

I found Alicia's character to be completely unbelievable. I know that McCarthy was using her to make a point about all of the above (mathematics, philosophy, etc.) but to what end? What was he actually trying to say? Only mathematics is real? Seems like a far cry from the McCarthy of "The Road" or "Blood Meridian." I eventually concluded that maybe McCarthy has just spent too much time reading his pet philosophers - enough to put together long discussions on arcane and complex subjects, but not enough to formulate all of that into a coherent worldview.

In the end, while I think it was well-written for the most part (McCarthy overuses the word "atavistic" - a word like that can be used once in a great while, not multiple times in the same book, and McCarthy uses it every book) it just doesn't go anywhere. All of the tangents through mathematics and philosophy will leave most readers wondering what Alicia is talking about and why it matters. In the end, as it becomes clear to the reader (and the doctor) that Alicia is going to commit suicide and they are likely having their final conversation, you wonder what it was all for? Is there some lesson here? I don't know.

About the narration: it is well done with Julia Whelan doing the voice of Alicia and Edoardo Ballerini doing the voice of the psychiatrist as they dialogue. It was seamless, but I just don't like Julia Whelan's voice. I didn't like it in "The Passenger" and I don't like it here. She does a good job...but that voice is annoying. Maybe that's just me.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Not his best but has its moments.

Revisado: 01-20-23

I'm not really sure what to write for this review. I feel like reading the companion novel, "Stella Maris," might - might! - give me some more clarity on this one.

As always with McCarthy, the prose is superlative. Although it wouldn't be McCarthy if he didn't use the word "atavistic" at least once. I think he used it three times in this novel.

The novel's beginning doesn't make any sense until you are done. I went back to the very beginning at the end of the novel and it made more sense. As for the title, "The Passenger," well, it seems obvious at the beginning that it is referring to the so-called missing passenger from the submerged airplane where we first find Bobby Western completing a salvage dive. By the end of the novel, this mystery is all but forgotten and not at all resolved. If it was even a mystery to begin with, which I doubt.

It's hard to tell what is real and what is not in this novel. Alicia herself seems mostly real. Bobby's love for her, his sister, is really the foundation of the novel. But how many of Bobby's thoughts and actions are real. Or, for that matter, his conversations? Is any of this real? Or is it just imagined? I can't say. I think it is mostly real but some of it - such as living in the Idaho cabin for the winter - just seemed bizarre. That and living on the beach eating crabs down in Florida or South Carolina or wherever it was.

The highlight, not surprisingly, is the prose. The conversations are usually very interesting. The descriptions are vintage McCarthy. But it never does seem to truly lead anywhere. Just when I thought Bobby was going to commit suicide, it seems he ends up living out his days in Spain, just living out his days as his memory of his sister grows ever dimmer. Of course, it being assumed that, yes, he found his sister's violin and sold it for money. Yes, he eventually got the fake identity and left the country. But why was the government after him? For what? For his father working on the Manhattan Project? So many open questions, almost zero answers.

For that reason, I wanted to give it three stars. But because the writing is so good, I ended up giving it four. It was disappointing in many ways. Unresolved you might say. Perhaps "Stella Maris" will resolve some of the mystery, though I doubt it.

If this is your first Cormac McCarthy novel, I'm sorry. Start with "The Road." Read "Blood Meridian." Then, if you're feeling up to it, tackle this. It isn't either of those. The long wait from "The Road" to "The Passenger" is an unsatisfactory one, but still has those superlative moments that make me say that it was definitely not a waste of time.

The male narrator, MacLeod Andrews, is excellent. Julia Whelan, the female narrator, is not nearly as good. And that makes me hesitant to listen to "Stella Maris" since it appears to be mostly Julia Whelan. I will still listen but I hope it isn't too painful.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great book. Just not as great as Can't Hurt Me.

Revisado: 12-13-22

What more can possibly be said by David Goggins? Hasn't he conquered everything there is to conquer in this life? What more can he possibly do that warrants a book with a similar style as the first one?

Well, the fact that this book exists should tell you that Goggins still has challenges. He still has obstacles. He still gets after it. He still STAYS HARD!

That said, I'm surprised by the amount of 5 star (and 1 star) reviews here. "Can't Hurt Me" is the most inspirational book I've ever read. It's impossible to top that. And this one doesn't. That's not a knock on "Never Finished" - just an acknowledgement that the story in CHM was so incredible that nobody should expect this book to be superior.

I found a lot of gems in this book. And there are many moments of awe and inspiration (as well as a few true laugh out loud moments like when Goggins mentions that his "ass had turned to hamburger meat. It was seeping. And my taint was torn open" as one of the moments from the fantastic Moab 240 chapters which are the best part of the book).

Anyone who loved CHM is going to like NF. But it's not better by any means nobody should expect it to be. It's still inspirational but it won't be the repeat listener that CHM was, at least for me.

A few other notes: Adam Skolnick, the ghostwriter, again does the narration with he and Goggins having a "podcast" style format after each chapter and after each evolution. His narration is good and fits the material. All these people on here complaining that Goggins doesn't read the audiobook obviously didn't listen to CHM.

I do feel like the podcast and evolution segments were a little long in this audiobook. They could have been tightened up a little. Overall, the book was probably a bit too long. And while I enjoyed listening to the one podcast segment where Goggins interviews his mother, Jackie Gardner, it probably won't be a repeat listen segment for me.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Maybe I just don't get it.

Revisado: 09-26-22

Maybe I just don't get it. I don't get the hype about this - at all. Musashi's writings on "The Way" or "Strategy" are renowned among martial arts practitioners and, I have heard, those who study strategy, combat, etc. But for me there seems to be almost no practical use for 98% of this book. Most of it is quite directly dealing with how to fight with swords.

Written by a famed Japanese samurai, The Book of Five Rings is Musashi's attempt to convey the teaching of his school, the School of Two Swords, via the written word. I have to imagine this book makes a lot more sense if you are actually visualizing an instructor as he demonstrates many of the sword techniques described.

This isn't to say there aren't a few nuggets of wisdom. Of course there are. Some are extremely important and seem to be an emphasis of all high achievers, e.g., be better today than you were yesterday.

But those readers who are expecting another version of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" are likely to be disappointed. This book gets many five star reviews. Many martial arts practitioners swear by it. Perhaps I am just not the intended audience.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña