Warzala
DNF. This was utter nonsense.
“Some might consider Hitler to be an outsider. Some might consider Trump to be an outsider. Coincidence???”
“One historian said this guy reminded him of an authoritarian. For reasons. Even though he was never elected president, that means he was one.”
They don't produce any meaningful definitions of authoritarian or democracy. At some point, they argue that using propaganda is democratic, and bribing people is authoritarian. You can't just do this. You can't draw a gigantic circle around every political figure you've ever disliked and call it authoritarian.
I get that the purpose of the book is to argue that Trump is an authoritarian dictator, or whatever. In the opening pages of the book, it talks about the removal of Allende, an event that they don't mention was sponsored, endorsed, and created by the US. The US actively destroyed democracy in another country, causing a disaster, but in the minds of these authors, that's OK
The scary thing to them is that sometimes Trump doesn't like the New York Times. Get real.
Foresto Gumpu San
The first two thirds of this are outstanding. The last third is so awful that I had to plug my nose to get through it.
I was really looking forward to reading this. The title is so provocative and I was really excited to read a polemic about why someone would choose to stop trying to educate white people about racism. I think it's an interesting thing to think about, and I was really looking forward to hearing her opinions on it. That just isn't what this book is, though.
It is basically an introductory book about racism against black people in the UK. I think it was probably written for younger people or oblivious older white people. That's fine, but it's just not for someone looking for a an academic or higher level work.
I found it to be poorly cited as well. A lot of the statements that should be followed with some evidence is either lacking lacking, or using a secondary source (usually a newspaper article). It all seemed unnecessary as well, since I already believe that the UK has a racism problem. I already trusted in the premise so poorly evidenced arguments are just making it more difficult to stay with this book.
It didn't make me angry or anything, but it wasn't for me.
This is exactly what I like feminist horror filled with metaphors. It's a damn shame that one of the middle stories drags on for way too long and was an absolute punishment to finish
“Nixon was bombing civilians in Cambodia and Laos but he felt vewwy vewwy sad about it and those meanie leftist cowwege students made him feel afwaid.”
Real Prager U revisionist, American bias nonsense here that omits a ton of atrocities condoned and perpetrated by the United States. Puts all the blame for literally every terrible thing done in the world during the cold war on everyone but the US.
Just silly, quite frankly.
I've read a few books on animal intelligence, and I feel unconvinced. This book is not bad (certainly much better than Soul of an Octopus, a truly awful piece of garbage), but I think it makes two common mistakes. The first is anthropomorphizing animals. My favorite example is from jays “cheating on their partners” which requires a lot of intelligence of terms of not getting caught. Maybe they're just spreading their DNA? Maybe they just be sluts. There's no reason to think that the birds are trying not to “get caught” but the author imagines a soap opera where the birds are carefully crafting romantic trysts with one another, so bird smart.
Second is that the examples of intelligence are only impressive if you start from the assumption that the animals are dumb to begin with. If you start from the position of “evolution crafted this behavior for a very particular reason that we might not understand yet, but there is a reason.” If a crow solves a puzzle, is it consciously planning everything out and imagining a blueprint in its mind, or is this just following a evolutionary response to not starving to death?
In general, these books never really get past the initial hurdle of “what is intelligence?” You can make the definition as broad or narrow as you want just to say that anything or anyone is intelligent.
I love you, Chomsky, but this book is basically a random assortment of writings, some of which is amazing, but it's mostly disjointed.
I'm rating this a little bit higher for two reasons.
One, is that I wouldn't be surprised if open racists (conservatives) and fox-smile racists (liberals and democrats) tried to review bomb this for its pro-Palestinian liberation message.
Two, this reads like a prelude, and maybe Coates himself is unaware of this. He's beginning to consider the wide world of oppression and justice, and connecting the dots between different groups of colonized and segregated communities. He's starting to work on something this book and it feels like he's not quite there yet, but I feel hopeful that his next book will start to wrap a bow on it.
PS - Free Palestine. Don't stain your own soul by voting for apartheid and genocide
This was really difficult to finish, but ultimately I found it very satisfying, like running a marathon or having sex while drunk.
Not a bad book, but Ben Goldacre's Bad Science does everything better and more in depth.
A really great book that unfortunately repeats itself over and over again. It's beautifully written, but there's only so many times you can read “What if, like, flowers were the CEOs of the world, man...”
It's so hard to rate this book. On the one hand, I always really enjoy Stenger's writing. It is straight-to-the-point and cuts like a knife. On the other hand, the physics in here are definitely not easy, and I don't think he made it any easier.
Poor Scotty. Your worthless marriage and your desire for fat sacks of cash turned any good idea you had into the lamest of stories. You should have been as good as “Gatsby” all the time.
