Thomas

On The Road Part 2

Revisado: 02-19-22

This books seems to be part 2 to the on the road book because of neil Cassidy being a main character. it's part of the American library of hip for all its glory and pathetic aspects.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

I could not stop listening

Revisado: 02-06-20

I couldn't stop listening to this book. I've never heard of this case before and was riveted the details.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Oprah got it right, it's a great book

Revisado: 02-01-20

I know that there is some controversy about this book but at the end of the day, the book is a page turner. I had a hard time putting it down but felt dread at the prospect of continuing. I cared about the characters. I was interested to follow them on their journey which evoked all kinds of emotions – hope, sorrow, anger. Isn’t that what good literature is supposed to do? The book tells a story about a time and a place and a people that is important. But it’s not enough for a story to be important, a story needs a good storyteller. The author is that storyteller. I think the charges of cultural appropriation are nonsense, but even that is a sort of sign of our times. For the author try to give voice to victims of injustice only to be accused of profiting off their misery is a kind of grim afterward which rounds out the story and adds to its cultural significance.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

best book on personal security

Revisado: 11-07-19

if I have any criticisms of this book it's that the title is misleading. it's not so much a book about fear it's a book about personal security and predicting violence. the book is fascinating and Illuminating.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Nothing new here.

Revisado: 03-07-18

The advice here seems a bit paranoid and oversimplified. Like the advice to carry a pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition wherever it is legally allowed. Also a bunch of knives, para cord, lock picks, handcuff keys and a tactical pen. I can pick locks myself and I can testify that his advice on picking locks is very rudimentary. The advice on getting out of handcuffs, ropes, duct tape is nothing that you can’t see on you tube. The rest of the stuff is just him telling you to watch your back. He even gives the advice that you shouldn’t text with your phone because it requires you to lower your guard. That’s just paranoid. I’m not even going to finish this short book and I’ve put in for a refund. The book is a waste of time and I doubt this guy was ever in the CIA.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 6 personas

pro gun political book

Revisado: 07-02-16

Any additional comments?

It is hard to separate the story from the political message in this book. The political message seems to be that it is impossible to have a government which does not abuse the rights of the people unless the people are armed. Notice I wrote "government" instead of "democracy." That is because nothing in the book is done threw the democratic process by the pro gun side. Once guns are outlawed after a false flag, terrorist gun attack, the solution is to kill government agents and elected officials to disagree with the position of the author. In trying to think of what form of government the author might support, I've come up with the word "gunocracy." No "downside" to private gun ownership is even reviewed. All guns in the hands of the government are evil and all guns in the hands of private citizens are good.

The narration isn't that good. I'm glad that it is available on audiobook so something is better than nothing.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Added sound effects were a bit much

Revisado: 01-05-16

Would you listen to The Call of Cthulhu again? Why?

I have listened to it twice so far. It it only 1 hour and 20 minutes long.

What other book might you compare The Call of Cthulhu to and why?

not sure. An Edgar Allen Poe book maybe?

What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike?

There were all these extra sound effects that were supposed to be the sound of a scary alien or surreal horror screaming - I found it grating. The narrator was panting at points because he was scared or asthmatic or something. I appreciate the effort, but a straight reading might have been better. The sound effects were a bit distracting.

Any additional comments?

I got this audio book because it was slightly cheaper than other HP Lovecraft audiobooks. Still, one credit for 1 hour and 20 minutes? I'll just read the book next time and I'll get that from the library.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Remini shines a light on Scientology

Revisado: 11-04-15

If you could sum up Troublemaker in three words, what would they be?

Scientology doesn't work

What was one of the most memorable moments of Troublemaker?

The incident when Tom Cruise berates his servant because he can't find the cookie dough right under his nose, then puts rates himself, in grandiose fashion, under L. Ron Hubbard and next to the leader of Scientology in stature is a tale that will live forever in the annals of Scientology history.

What does Leah Remini bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

She is a sarcastic person. You might miss that if you didn't hear it in her voice. Audio book is much better for this reason.

If you were to make a film of this book, what would the tag line be?

An ex Scientology Celebrity speaks out.

Any additional comments?

They are several books on Scientology and I have read many of them. This book gives a unique perspective of a Scientology opinion leader and celebrity who details her account of Scientology's "red carpet" treatment which isn't as awesome as you would think. She also details Scientology's crazy obsession with Tom Cruise and how this has warped him.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Ehrenreich does not believe in a wild god.

Revisado: 06-10-14

Is there anything you would change about this book?

Ehrenreich states at the beginning of the book that she has never, nor will she ever write an autobiography, then she goes on to write an autobiography about herself. You learn all about her childhood, teen years, love affairs, etc. for the first part of her life. In a book about spiritual experiences and the quest for enlightenment, I didn't need to know, nor did I care to learn about Ehrenreich's childhood. The bits where Ehrenreich talks about her mystical experience are curious and the parts about her personal philosophy are interesting. Still she has NO answers and you have to wad threw oceans of autobiographical material to get to that.

What else would you have wanted to know about Barbara Ehrenreich’s life?

I would like to know how Ehrenreich can be a professional author and not know what "autobiography" means.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 8 personas

Good for some, but nothing new here.

Revisado: 12-29-13

Would you listen to The Moral Landscape again? Why?

I listened to it twice. It demands attention in some parts which I can't always give while listening.

Who was your favorite character and why?

Sam Harris. He is handsome genius.

What about Sam Harris’s performance did you like?

He is such strong man. He make me feel safe.

If you were to make a film of this book, what would the tag line be?

The Moral Landscape. You've seen these ideas before, but not from such a handsome, genius man.

Any additional comments?

Speaking as an atheist and a humanist there is much that I agree with in this book. Hence the four stars, what he says many need to hear. However, I didn't need to hear it, I don't know the difference between Harris' paradigm of ethics and humanism. I would have liked to hear more credit given to humanism. I would disagree that the paradigm is utilitarianism because Harris raises questions that lead me to think he would not always prefer the greatest good for the greatest number. I'm guessing he would allow many people to die before allowing his family to come to harm. That's just a guess though.

He states that a science of morality should be based in promotion of "human well being." Then he suggest that science and reason should be employed to answer questions of morality. So, "good" is what promotes "human well being." That is Harris' categorical imperative. How does he support this? By stating that "human well being" is the only topic of interest to humans. Although that's not really proof. That doesn't stop Harris from carrying on as if promotion of "human well being" has been proven to be a moral absolute.So this "absolute truth" is really just another "subjective truth." I guess I was put off by the level of certainty he had in asserting this. He could have just said, "I don't know, but this is my best guess - and a guess that benefits humanity anyway. So let's just go with this assumption." I would have respected that more. I can imagine many scenarios where "human well being" would not be "good." It all hinges on what kind of a universe we really live in. For instance, in a solipsistic universe the happiness of only myself matters. No point in giving to unicef if other people don't really exist. If god really does exist, then the divine will is the only good (Euthyphro argument aside). It has always been my position that in order to understand what is good, we need to know what kind of universe this is and why we are here. Harris seems to make assumptions about this as well. He seems to be going with the materialistic universe. It is fine to make these assumptions - just be honest about what they are - assumptions.

What really bugs me is that Harris does not believe in free will, he is a determinist. (I am also a determinist - I thought Harris' book on free will was brilliant). Therefore everything in the universe is predetermined or predestined. If this is the case, then wouldn't everything that happens be considered "good" as it conforms to the order of the universe. One could argue this would make the holocaust "good." Another might counter that if the holocaust was always supposed to happen, could not have possibly been avoided and had to happen just the way it did happen. Then in some sense, it is "good" because it is part of the order from which all life flows.

Maybe I'm thinking too hard about this. I would have liked it if Harris addressed these questions in the book.

Lastly, "moral relativism" gets a bad wrap in this book. Am I the only one who understands the purpose of moral relativism is to try to understand that a rational compassionate person will act differently in various moral environments? George Washington owned slaves, but this is mitigated by the morals of his time. A primitive tribesman raids villages and kills children, but "everybody else does it," and he could be a good man emerged in this system. The purpose of "moral relativism" never seemed to be a means to prove that "cult A sees promiscuity as an imperative, and cult B sees chastity as an imperative, " so therefore both are correct. I don't know why Harris goes after moral relativism in this book, I guess he just wanted to show that he was not in the pocket of pointy headed academics.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña