DB1089

Everything about this is great, except for the elephant in the room...

Revisado: 02-13-25

Fantastic overview of how vaping developed and was woven into American culture. Did you know that the prototype for what became Juul ended up as a highly popular cannabis vape (the Pax)? Did you know that the Juul device was created by the same designed who made the SodaStream machine? (If you have one, take a closer look...it's very well designed.)

Did you know that cigarettes are addictive and bad for you? Of course you did! You've been bombarded with that information for the past 4 decades. Did you know that the FDA makes zero distinction between cigarettes and vapes? Likely, but it worse, as vaporizing devices come in flavors. Kids like flavors! (That is common sense, let's not question it; and please, can we set aside the fact that adults like them to? We can? Awesome! Now we can jump to hasty conclusions and regulatory nightmares that are ineffective and regulate risky choices for adults who can and should be able to make them.)

Ahem, the elephant in the room here is that the "vaping wars" had *nothing* to do with vaping. Vaping may or may not be unhealthy. It is almost certain that it is healthier than smoking (it's mentioned in the podcast: the UK has made a *huge* push to convert smokers to vapers; not mentioned: you can find vape shops in UK hospitals). The elephant is nicotine and whether or not it is harmful, simply because it is addictive. And *highly* addictive at that. The US Government doesn't want it's citizen's addicted. Because addiction itself is harmful!

Really? I can't remember where I read this, but here is a peanut to soothe the elephant: we really, on a fundamental level, do not understand addiction. There is evidence that it *can* be positive. Do you volunteer and do so consistently, even when you are having a bad day? Keep doing it, but let the FDA know...especially if you take a few drags of a vape pen to help calm you down after your good deed.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

This book will change your life

Revisado: 02-08-25

It's a simple story of a farm boy who becomes an English professor, but it's themes and meaning run much deeper. The basic premise is that even an unremarkable life is worth living (and that's hard to miss, as it's stated in question form in the text). But the story runs much deeper. Stoner knows who he is and what he wants;l. He is continually frustrated but outcomes that fall short of his ambitions: the death of a dear friend in war, a loveless marriage, the sabotaging of his loving relationship with his daughter by his (what we would now term "mentally ill") wife, his desire for friendship with an academic who becomes his nemesis, an affair with a student that brings him to the brink of professional ruin, and an early death in which he understands his solitude. Throughout the text, Stoner copes Forrest-Gump like without any hint of existential crisis, save for a brief passage where he ponders whether life is worth living. He's forgotten at the texts opening, but the craft with which this tale is told should serve as a reminder to every ingredient member of the human race that life has its ups and down and that its meaning lies elsewhere. Stoner wants connection, but seems unaware of the lives he has truly touched, for better and, yes, sometimes for worse.

I reread this book at least once a year as a reminder that things are never a a bad as we imagine them to be.

Pitch perfect narration, "tempest in a teapot" controversy because a key villain is handicapped, and enough crappy behavior from female characters that I've seen at least one feminist declare they could not "get through" the work. Embrace the former, please, as the sense of tone and character is outstanding and this is my favorite format to enjoy the work. if your post-1960's politics get in the...well, you other options, but you also missed the point. To appreciate this story, you have to be able to get over yourself. Reading it actually helps one do so.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Not for newbies, but the most a-political podcast on Scotus I've found so far

Revisado: 02-02-25

If you don't know what "per curium" or "stare decisis" mean without looking them up, then know this podcast is going to use technical terms without defining them. It's likely designed for law students, and those who have a solid foundation in prominent and current cases before the Court; as there is often reference to such cases without further explanation.

For the crossover part of anyone reading this who plays video games, this podcast comes across like the "Soulsbourne" experience. The term refers to a series or video games that have such a steep initial learning curve (particularly in combat) that the full potential of your experience with the game can be ruined as you give up in frustration before you "get good." if you hang in there, you might learn something...even if you needed Google to figure it out.

I listened to "Double Negatives" and was delighted by the implied game of "Clue" that seems to be scattered among the episodes, as some opinions are not signed by their authors. ("It was Kavanaugh on the basketball court consulting the ghost of Scalia!") The episode itself refers to current President Trump's assurance to the American public that, for a set time, at least, the currently held ban on TikTok is "unenforceable." That is true only if you use leaps of logic that you almost have to be enrolled in Stanford Law School to understand. Curiously, the titular case is about 2 minutes of the hour plus podcast.

But the handling of this and other Trumpy matters is where this podcast *really* shines. We don't get the cases unfolding with a heavy helping of the smugness or feigned irony I hear in most other SCOTUS podcasts that lean left. And in place of that liberal bias that I really feel upsets a full appreciation of what is going on, there is something much more usefull: the acknowledgement that Trump is a politician, not a constitutional scholar, and that his brand of politics is coming at the court like a wrecking ball. And I don't mean this in the sense that Trump doesn't get the Court's role in our system of checks and balances...rather, that his first week in office has set his agenda on a collision course with the Highest Court in the Land. It's refreshing to hear "we are going to hear more about this..." instead of...hey, chose your favorite pejorative for our duly elected President and throw in some contempt for good measure. The hosts of this podcast certainly have their own political points of view, but do a fantastic job of maintaining focus on more relevant matters.

Tldr; steep learning curve, worth it if you put in some extra work, as unbiased as any SCOTUS podcast I've found so far.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A non-comprehensive deep cut on Adam's Presiency

Revisado: 09-22-24

if you want a well-rounded account, you've got David McCullough. Here you will get a clear and concise portrait of a Presidency that lacked precedent, involved a ton of backstabbing, and brought us to the brink of war with France, which was deftly averted by Adams' diplomacy.

This is a slice of political life from before the turn of the 19th century, and it is very well researched and told. A modern reader might raise an eyebrow with the references to January 6. 2020, as the author seems to take care from avoiding the pitfall of presentism until the bell lap (it's in the epilogue). But hey...the New York times wants to paint Adam's and Kamala Harris as peers because both were Vice Presidents, and falls all over itself suggesting democracy was saved when Harris became the nominee, despite some very apparent messiness behind the scenes. This author tells the tale of messiness during Adams' reign, and does it remarkably well. Highly recommended for anyone who likes a tale full of intrigue, but doesn't have 30+ hours for it to unfold.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

David Lynch must be this author's spirit animal

Revisado: 08-06-24

Fantastic premise, somewhat mysterious execution in ways that are good and bad. Author sometimes uses a lot of descriptive words where developing a better sense of character would help move the plot along. Without spoiling anything, main character is a vet who was taken captive and tortured...but this book has almost nothing to say about war or humanity. Come again? Oh...there is judgement of the human race, but it's tepid and predictable. There is a monster in this story, and it isn't scary. The TV series probably does it better...but props to the author for coming up with the work. My lack of excitement over the execution may just be a matter of taste, after all.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A classlc

Revisado: 08-04-24

This work stands bead and shoulders above the many other fine works by author David Halberstam. Someone once told me: "There are two things that will change your life: the books you read and the people you meet." This book is an exemplar of the first part of that wisdom. Cannot recommend highly enough.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Underrated Blume

Revisado: 07-16-24

Reads like a gender-swapped version of "Then Again Maybe I Won't" where a loving supporting family guides the main character's journey without her being aware of it. This is peak Second Wave Feminist Blume, with the passage about a teacher openly discussing masturbation that appears in the documentary about the author. Blume's 13 year old seems hopelessly naive today, but reflects a loss of innocence that comes from changing norms (for comparison's sake, remember that the "cash me outside" girl was around that age). Ultimately a story of self-acceptance and testing boundaries to get a better sense of who you are.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Achievement unloockef!

Revisado: 07-14-24

This work is as long as the Old Testament, and has about as much mystery surrounding it. Loosely based on "Hamlet," it's a story about a short piece of media (called a "cartridge") that is so entertaining that viewers cannot do anything else once exposed to it, causing death. This work had a long, rambling narrative that is almost impossible to decipher due to the many digressions, exhaustingly long cast of characters, and a plot that is extremely non-linear. Did I forget to mention the footnotes? This audiobook is a fantastic way to experience the work, as its narrator nails a dizzying array of accents, affects, and attitudes and the footnotes are conveniently delivered with a brief into and bell sound when concluded. The only criticism I have of this work is that it is so dense that it *will* escape your comprehension. Since it's author knows how to write in a more common, accessible style, as witnessed by his nonfiction work, one can only assume the inaccessibility is a feature, not a bug.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

A libertarians nightmare!

Revisado: 06-01-24

When Haidt published "The Righteous Mind," there was a lot of handwringing on the left because he expressed compassion and respect for those on the right of America's political spectrum. Anyone who lost sleep because they felt Haidt was s turncoat with his "conservatives have a valid point of view" should find this work to be a healing balm.

it's provocative, but also derivative; a sign of its time more than a highly original take on the problems today's youth experience. Why are young people undergoing a mental health "crisis?" it's the phones! And social media! And lack of government oversight (online only)!

Attacks of this book miss the mark. The New York times calls it "argument from ignorance" (quoting Haidt out of context: "If it isn't the phones and social media, then what is to blame?"). Both seem to miss an important variable: the rapidly changing norms surrounding mental health that didn't exist two decades ago. (To wit: if you are over thirty, did you have a classmate who identified as a different gender than the one he or she was born into? Did my sentence even make sense because I didn't use the pronoun "they" in singular form?)

Despite what I take to he a pretty glaring flaw in Haidt's premise, his conclusions are solid. We need more human contact, fewer "likes" and a thicker skin (at every age, really). "Touch grass." is a modern day *insult* online. But if isn't the kind you smoke, it will improve your mental health.

My chief complaint with the work (other than the fact that it isn't read by its author due to his vocal problems...he's great in the works he has narrated) is that it envisions a society where the government is to blame for social isolation (per it's 1980's-era "we are falling behind every emerging economy, without the important distinction that slave labor is fact of life in many of them, and the concept of "equal opportunity" doesn't exist in the ones that don't have it)...but...the solution to phones and social media poisoning the well of our children's formative years is....wait for it...government policy!!!

That argument is an insult to each and every parent, who ought to have more say in how their child is raised than "the experts." We just stumbled through Covid following them, after all. To paraphrase Bill Maher at his snarkiest: "How did that work out for us???" Haidt doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea that policy can fix what is inherently a rocky time, smartphone or no. Even if he's correct, he's coming down way too hard on one side of a key issue in the culture wars, and doesn't seem to be aware of it.

That said...liberals, rejoice! A very smart man with some extremely great ideas has *not* went Benedict Arnold on you. This book reads like other classic liberal tomes written twenty years prior (Juilet Schor's "The Overworked American" is probably the best example): a problem that reasonable people from both sides can agree upon is identified and discussed in a way that alienates no one, then you get to the final chapter, which has a solution that is perfect in it's unachievability and will never happen. Or, perhaps it will...

...but I titled my review "A Libertarian's Nightmare" for a reason. The government is great at waging war and delivering mail (and has really stumbled on both lately). I wouldn't want it raising my child without my input. I can't be the only one.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

And to think...

Revisado: 02-11-24

...I almost thought I was going to make it through my years on this planet without hearing Barbra Steisand's opinion of the Chernobyl disaster. Thanks to her excessively long (48 hours in audiobook format) and "let me tell you how I really feel" tendencies, I can now check this one of my bucket list.

Some complaints: she does actor Mandy Patinkin dirty. Calling him "just a character actor" and revealing things he allegedly said to her in a private conversation that reflect poorly on his character. OK...so he's just a "character actor." He's not a star, like you, Barbra, but your opinion of him is way too low. He created one of the most memorable characters from "The Princess Bride." And gave this highly-quotable movie a great read on one of it's most quotable lines. Why was it necessary to make him look bad? Probably because he doesn't like you, or at least didn't when he was on set starring opposite you in "Yentl." More on that later.

Another complaint: the side of Barbra's personality that shines through is her obsessive need to control everything, so that people aren't allowed not to like her. Early on, she makes one theme of this book clear: when people say nice things about me, that's the "truth." When they point to the glaring flaws in her personality, those are "lies." They do not know the "real her," after all. One suspects that Barbra is also afflicted with this blindsight.

Here is some evidence to back that claim up: author Pat Conroy, who has one of the best ears for natural dialog of any author ever, turns in a first draft of his screenplay adaptation of his novel "The Prince of Tides." Barbra sends it back, telling him, "that's not how people speak." OK. so maybe she's never read "The Great Santini." She was probably busy working on fretting over her image.

But, I gave this work five stars because it absolutely deserves it. It is a very detailed and well-told (if excessively overlong) chronicle of her rise to stardom, which will leave anyone with a love for irony deeply satisfied at how freely she gives criticism without being able to take it.

She wears her liberal politics on her sleeve, but the question: what have you done to make the world a better place while standing on your soapbox lingers heavily through all 2860+ minutes of this work. She tells you that she is a champion of women's rights, for example. But, it becomes pretty clear that she's more a champion of Barbra's rights; after all, it is clear to everyone but her that she wasn't nominated for the "best director" for "Yentl" because of sexism. Steven Spielberg called the film "the best directorial debut since "Citizen Kane," and yet somehow it is AWOL from every list of the greatest films ever made, which usually begins with "Kane."

More on her politics: they are one note, repetitive, liberal to the point of snobbery, and, were it not for her massive talent, they would alienate a large part of her fan base. (Brett Kavanagh's childhood friend, who is a true conservative, loves her. He's got a lot of company.) Barbra seems to believe that if we just held her views and values on everything, then the world would be a more harmonious and peaceful place. Well...a lot of her views, though progressive, are, to be frank, bigoted. She hates Trump (surprise!). Yet talks about him through the lens of kindness, tolerance, and compassion. OK...he fails those three random criteria (in your view). Can you think of anyone else who fits that description?

This probably reads like a negative review. it's not. You get a picture of her that, using the idiom "warts and all" is more warts than all. It's fascinating. She is a massive talent, in addition to being a deeply flawed human being...like most people, without the massive talent part. I picked this up thinking I would hate every minute and not finish it. About two hours in, for lack of a better term, I found myself sucked into the "Barbraverse." It could use an edit. The approximate 6 hours on "Funny Girl," her breakthrough hit, seems warrented; the approximate 5 hours she spends on "Yentl" seems excessive. But you leave with a very intimate portrait of a celebrity that shows you how hard it is to be famous.

p.s. She's kept a low profile lately, and my biggest concern (aside from her spending almost no time discussing her flops) was that she would not address "The Streisand Effect," which takes her namesake after she filed a lawsuit when a photographer published a picture from outside her Malibu mansion (along with many other famous residences, only a handful of which were attached to their famous owners). Prior to the lawsuit, exactly 6 people had downloaded this image. Once it was filed, over 400,000 did so (and you can currently see it on the Wikipedia page dedicated to "The Streisand Effect"). I was overjoyed when she addressed the controversy, but she comes across as unnecessarily defensive; noting that the information shared, which is available to the public to anyone with a web browser and had been prior to the publication of the photo, was an invasion of her privacy. She lost her lawsuit and was ordered to pay the photographer's legal fees. This shows another important side of her--ignoring her misunderstanding of how privacy laws work--she enjoys fame and seems to particularly enjoy how her elevated platform allows her to share her personal opinions (or "the truth"), but does not enjoy the downside of fame: being recognized wherever you go, having fans interrupt you mid-meal to ask for a selfie with her, and, most important, being judged or criticized, especially when her understanding is incorrect.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña