Lauren > Recent Status Updates

Not really loving the stylistic decision to tell the historical fiction part in a bunch of disjointed snippets instead of devoting a sizable chunk of time to an individual narrative. I feel like I got way more out of The Devil's Arithmetic and other such books because they gave you enough time to settle into the emotions of each of the historical fiction scenes.

OK, this book has now forced me to take the extraordinary step of defending Michelle Bachmann. I get that Ventura is trying to trash all of the 2012 Republican candidates, but there is so stinking much you could trash Bachmann for. Taking care of a lot of foster kids is emphatically NOT one of them, unless there was some allegation of mistreatment (which I assume would have been mentioned if there was).

Thank goodness for CliffsNotes and SparkNotes! Reading this book is kind of like the inverse of reading Shakespeare. With Shakespeare, I couldn't understand the language, but I could understand the import of the actions. Here, I can understand the language... reasonably well, but the actions that take place are darn near meaningless to me unless someone explains the historical context.

It's hysterical to see how 19th century America was seen by foreigners. To paraphrase, "No, sorry gentlemen, I would normally let you, but you can't have a duel at the station; we're running 20 minutes late. Why don't you just fight on the train instead? I'll help!"

OK, call me immature, but I still wind up giggling when I see the name of the volcano the protagonists are supposed to climb into. Mt. Sneffels sounds like Mt. Snuffles. Such a cute name for a volcano! <3

Unlike most other books, this one effectively has an expiration date, and since by rule I almost never remove a book from my to-read list, I am forced to have this one jump the queue. Although frankly, it would have come up soon regardless. There were only a couple before it.

I largely agreed with Chapter 3, though I do have to note the irony that it's usually not social welfare programs' liberal progenitors who usually are in favor of things like the drug testing and asset tests to get access to the programs. It's usually the self-proclaimed defenders of liberty, who seem to be convinced that punishing people off the rolls is a good strategy.

I was enjoying chapter 2 up until the last few pages. I try to refrain from talking about studies purporting to show liberals are smarter than conservatives, buddy. I expect conservatives to do the same in reverse if they want me to pay attention.

Found it! It was hidden in the couch cushions. Back to reading.

A "rural Pennsylvania town known for its flower and mushroom farms"? I wonder if she grew up in Kennett Square.

Finally hit a point where Hayek is flat-out wrong. According to him, good policy has benefits that can't be predicted for any particular person or group. The problem is such policy does not exist. Any policy creates winners and losers who can be predicted reliably. To take just one example that he says is a permissible, when you build a road somewhere, I can already tell you the businesses in the area will benefit.

RED TRUTH AND BLUE TRUTH!!!!! Has someone at Pew played Umineko??

Intro was a little confusing with a lot of timeline hopping, but I think I'm largely following for the moment.

The past two chapters were a little disconcerting. One because of how the author treated her interviewee, and the other because of how the scientist the chapter centered on treated his experimental subjects. I'm sensing a pattern.

I don't like some of the language used in this book, but the worst offense is actually a quote from someone else.

I'm actually reading this book because I can't remember whether or not I've already read it. The way I see it, the easiest way to put the question to rest is to read it now.

"Money itself was not considered the problem, because ultimately money has significance only to the extent that others agree to accept it in exchange for goods or services or behaviors. And in the new American Republic, it was inconceivable that power could be purchased with money." Gore's pretending the Founders lived in a magical land where bribery didn't exist.

Thus far, what I'm gathering is that this book has a very interesting thesis statement and a mildly interesting point. However, a major problem so far is that the two do not match.

Quick pro-tip for Gore: stay on the topic of your chapter. Sleazy as DeLay's tactics in Texas were, they have nothing to do with the politics of fear.

Waseda' School of International Liberal Studies was mentioned! That's where I studied my junior year! I'm so happy...

I agree with Claire - foot binding is not an ideal way to start off a novel. *grimace*