timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The I song list:

1. "I Discovered America"- Graham Parker

2. "I Don't Like Mondays"- Tori Amos

3. "I Feel Like A Bullet (in the Gun of Robert Ford)"- Elton John

4. "(I Never Loved) Eva Braun"- The Boomtown Rats

5. "I Think Its Going to Rain Today"- Randy Newman

6. "I Want to Learn a Love Song"- Harry Chapin

7. "I Will Move On Up A Little Higher"- Mahalia Jackson

8. "I'd Rather Go Blind"- Etta James

9. "I'm Gonna Soothe You"- Maria McKee

10. "I'm In Love With My Car"- Queen

11. "I'm Set Free"- The Velvet Underground

12. "I've Got A Feeling" - The Beatles

13. "I've Never Been to Me"- Charlene

14. "Idiot Wind"- Bob Dylan

15. "If I Could Hear My Mother Pray Again"- Mavis Staples

16. "If Not For You"- George Harrison

17. "If Stuart Could Talk"- The Dickies

18. "Imaginary Girl" The Silver Seas

19. "In the Neighborhood"- Tom Waits

20. "Is Anybody There?"- John Hiatt

 

[timschochet]

This has to be a trolling segue - blasting Chomsky and touting Uris in consecutive posts

Wasn't on purpose. The Haj was just next on my list.

 

[cstu]

Didn't know where to put this other than your thread, Tim:

This is the guy famous for the "first they came for the" quote:

In a 1935 sermon, Martin Niemöller described the Jews as “a highly gifted people which produces idea after idea for the benefit of the world, but whatever it takes up changes into poison, and all that it ever reaps is contempt and hatred.”

He said this after he had been arguing against Hitler that Jew be allowed to become Christians. Incredible and shows the level of bigotry back then even by 'good' people.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Tim - I'm avoiding Star Wars spoilers until Christmas (which as you know, is the traditional day for Jews to go to the movies and to chinese restaurants).

Can you certify that your thread will be spoiler free?

 

[cstu]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

You can be a liberal and still have common sense regarding economics. I consider myself a liberal and we believe almost the same exact things.

 

[Eminence]

I think Tim is the man.

 

[JHuber77]

I think Tim is the man.

Birds of the same feather flock together

 

[timschochet]

Tim - I'm avoiding Star Wars spoilers until Christmas (which as you know, is the traditional day for Jews to go to the movies and to chinese restaurants).

Can you certify that your thread will be spoiler free?

Yes.

 

[timschochet]

Didn't know where to put this other than your thread, Tim:

This is the guy famous for the "first they came for the" quote:

In a 1935 sermon, Martin Niemöller described the Jews as a highly gifted people which produces idea after idea for the benefit of the world, but whatever it takes up changes into poison, and all that it ever reaps is contempt and hatred.

He said this after he had been arguing against Hitler that Jew be allowed to become Christians. Incredible and shows the level of bigotry back then even by 'good' people.

Neimoller was an enthusiastic Nazi for years until the Comfessional Church arrests. Dietrich Bornhoeffer, on the other hand, was against Hitler from the beginning.

 

[timschochet]

I got a lot of trouble in the Bernie Sanders thread for suggesting that David Duke and Noam Chomsky were similar, two sides of the same coin. I expected that to go over like a lead balloon. Chomsky is highly respected by universities all over the world, a distinguished author, a highly polished intellectual mind. He has a professorship at a major university. David Duke is generally reviled by everyone outside of his small racist KKK and heo-Nazi circles.

Yet all of this proves only one thing to me: that radical extremism on the left is generally treated with far more respect than it is on the right. During their careers, there is nothing outrageous that Duke has said or written than is not matched by an equal amount of outrageousness by Chomsky. David Duke says blacks are inferior; Noam Chomsky says the United States is an evil country. David Duke says that Mexicans are more violent than white people; Chomsky says that white people are the world's mass murderers. Duke blames 9/11 on an Israeli conspiracy; Chomsky is open to that idea, and thinks that 9/11 and all acts of terrorism are justified against the United States, since we are the world's greatest terrorists.

Yet where Duke's comments, when mentioned at all, are correctly called racist, bigoted, idiotic, etc., Chomsky's comments, even his most outrageous ones, are called "thought-provoking" and "revolutionary."

This is nothing new. Joseph Stalin committed vile crimes as terrible as Adolf Hitler if not worse, yet for 60 years after World War II Communism continued to receive respectful treatment from universities, while Nazism was treated with the lack of respect it deserved. The argument made by countless intellectuals during the second half of the 20th century was that Stalin was simply an evil man, not representative of true Communism, which was a ideal system (perhaps too ideal for man's greed.) Can you imagine the response if historians had argued that Adolf Hitler was not representative of true Nazism?

 

[cstu]

I got a lot of trouble in the Bernie Sanders thread for suggesting that David Duke and Noam Chomsky were similar, two sides of the same coin. I expected that to go over like a lead balloon. Chomsky is highly respected by universities all over the world, a distinguished author, a highly polished intellectual mind. He has a professorship at a major university. David Duke is generally reviled by everyone outside of his small racist KKK and heo-Nazi circles.

Yet all of this proves only one thing to me: that radical extremism on the left is generally treated with far more respect than it is on the right. During their careers, there is nothing outrageous that Duke has said or written than is not matched by an equal amount of outrageousness by Chomsky. David Duke says blacks are inferior; Noam Chomsky says the United States is an evil country. David Duke says that Mexicans are more violent than white people; Chomsky says that white people are the world's mass murderers. Duke blames 9/11 on an Israeli conspiracy; Chomsky is open to that idea, and thinks that 9/11 and all acts of terrorism are justified against the United States, since we are the world's greatest terrorists.

Yet where Duke's comments, when mentioned at all, are correctly called racist, bigoted, idiotic, etc., Chomsky's comments, even his most outrageous ones, are called "thought-provoking" and "revolutionary."

This is nothing new. Joseph Stalin committed vile crimes as terrible as Adolf Hitler if not worse, yet for 60 years after World War II Communism continued to receive respectful treatment from universities, while Nazism was treated with the lack of respect it deserved. The argument made by countless intellectuals during the second half of the 20th century was that Stalin was simply an evil man, not representative of true Communism, which was a ideal system (perhaps too ideal for man's greed.) Can you imagine the response if historians had argued that Adolf Hitler was not representative of true Nazism?

I think you're misinterpreting Chomsky, or maybe I've missed the outrageous things he said. Chomsky condemns things that are wrong - whether we do them or someone else. I've never heard him say that 9/11 was justified, only that there are legitimate reasons why people would be so angry at the U.S. to do it.

 

[Dickies]

Tim,

How ugly is Carly Fiorina compared to this ?

A lot more ugly

Somewhat more ugly

About the same

Slightly less ugly

Thanks!

I don't think I have ever seen Tim like a post. You've done it!

 

[roadkill1292]

I think Tim is the man.

This is David Duke/Noam Chomsky irony right here. Tim, I'm not voting for you now.

 

[timschochet]

I think Tim is the man.

This is David Duke/Noam Chomsky irony right here. Tim, I'm not voting for you now.

Yeah pretty much.

 

[Jayrod]

This thread has risen a few notches since I last checked it out. Its like someone is lost in the deep levels of their own mind like Inception. I can't help but watch.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I've been accused around here lately of being a liberal. jon mx makes this accusation all the time. It's gotten louder, I suppose, because I am supporting Hillary Clinton this time around. So I've been thinking: am I a liberal? I certainly support a ton of "liberal" causes: climate change, racial inequity, gay marriage, reproductive rights. I like Obama's nuanced approach to foreign policy. I approve of the Iran deal. I believe in the safety net, and although I was opposed to Obamacare, I don't in retrospect think it's a terrible thing. I want liberal Supreme Court justices. I want amnesty for illegal immigrants living here and a far more open immigration system in general. I reject a lot of conservative memes, especially the claim that the media is liberally biased. And I despise the Tea Party, not because it's conservative but because I think it prefers ignorance over knowledge, and obstruction over cooperation.

And yet I believe in free trade. I reject the populist tirade from Bernie and Liz Warren against Wall Street and big banks. I generally support what the NSA is doing (though I'm not at all sure of this.) I believe that government regulations can impede business and the less red tape the better as a general rule. I believe the more government you have, the more incompetence you have (for instance, the LA school district wanted an iPad for every student, so they spent $2,000 per iPad, when the retail price was $600.) I'm very concerned about the national debt and believe growth is the way out of it. And the only way to achieve economic growth is for more free trade and less controls on big business.

So am I a liberal?

Not everybody fits neatly into one particular label. Good for you for thinking for yourself and not always towing one of the party's lines. Too many people do that.

 

[timschochet]

I think I've settled on Tim being an Elitist.

The next time you're near a tall building and you feel something warm dropping on your back, that will be my cigar ashes.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think I've settled on Tim being an Elitist.

The next time you're near a tall building and you feel something warm dropping on your back, that will be my cigar ashes.

Real elitists smoke cigars so fine that they produce no ash, just smoke. When the Bilderbergers get together they need no ashtrays for their after dinner cigars. One the other hand their meal leavings are a terrible mess. The leavings from a meal of gold foil wrapped fetuses is atrocious. I hear they also drink your dreams and mine.

 

[timschochet]

I think I've settled on Tim being an Elitist.

The next time you're near a tall building and you feel something warm dropping on your back, that will be my cigar ashes.

Real elitists smoke cigars so fine that they produce no ash, just smoke. When the Bilderbergers get together they need no ashtrays for their after dinner cigars. One the other hand their meal leavings are a terrible mess. The leavings from a meal of gold foil wrapped fetuses is atrocious. I hear they also drink your dreams and mine.

Gold foil wrapped...?That's pretty tasteless, even for a country farm boy.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think I've settled on Tim being an Elitist.

The next time you're near a tall building and you feel something warm dropping on your back, that will be my cigar ashes.

Real elitists smoke cigars so fine that they produce no ash, just smoke. When the Bilderbergers get together they need no ashtrays for their after dinner cigars. One the other hand their meal leavings are a terrible mess. The leavings from a meal of gold foil wrapped fetuses is atrocious. I hear they also drink your dreams and mine.

Gold foil wrapped...?That's pretty tasteless, even for a country farm boy.

Internet rumor from around 3 or 4 years ago, if memory serves.

 

[RCon]

By the way, your trusted establishment just pulled this stunt: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/16/congress-cybersecurity-information-sharing-cisa-spending-bill

And you wonder why people hate the establishment?

 

[timschochet]

By the way, your trusted establishment just pulled this stunt: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/16/congress-cybersecurity-information-sharing-cisa-spending-bill

And you wonder why people hate the establishment?

Congress has been pulling this kind of stunt for nearly 250 years: taking unpopular proposals and quietly sticking them at the end of long bills. That's what they do.

 

[timschochet]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

 

[RCon]

By the way, your trusted establishment just pulled this stunt: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/16/congress-cybersecurity-information-sharing-cisa-spending-bill

And you wonder why people hate the establishment?

Congress has been pulling this kind of stunt for nearly 250 years: taking unpopular proposals and quietly sticking them at the end of long bills. That's what they do.

I know, and I don't like it. A lot of other people don't either. When you wonder why people are unhappy with the establishment and business as usual, well, stuff like this is a big part of it.

 

[timschochet]

So I listened to Obama talk about Syria today and I'm more confused than ever.

At first he justified going after Assad because Assad has murdered his own people and "the US doesn't stand for that sort of thing." Now we might very well be a better nation if this were true, but I think we all know that it's not true, never has been true and we can't afford for it to be true. We stand for this sort of thing (a dictator who murders his own people, or other people) all the time. So why have we decided that we won't stand for it this time? No answer.

Obama went on to say that it's too late for Assad; he now has to be removed to restore any kind of order to the region. This was an interesting point and it may be true; who knows? He then named some Syrian minority groups I've never heard of whose interests must be protected in any new Syrian state. He then said that John Kerry was busy negotiating with Russia, Turkey, and Iran to possibly achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis, but one which would have to include Assad's removal.

And here I thought Russia and Iran wanted Assad to stay and Turkey's main interest was to weaken the Kurds. Or maybe not.

I'm befuddled. I have no idea if Obama is doing the right thing and no idea what to do if he's not doing the right thing. Listening to the Republican candidates last Tuesday, I don't think they understand this any better than I do. Probably less. We'll find out Saturday night if Hillary or Bernie or Martin have the answer. I doubt it.

 

[dschuler]

So I listened to Obama talk about Syria today and I'm more confused than ever.

At first he justified going after Assad because Assad has murdered his own people and "the US doesn't stand for that sort of thing." Now we might very well be a better nation if this were true, but I think we all know that it's not true, never has been true and we can't afford for it to be true. We stand for this sort of thing (a dictator who murders his own people, or other people) all the time. So why have we decided that we won't stand for it this time? No answer.

Obama went on to say that it's too late for Assad; he now has to be removed to restore any kind of order to the region. This was an interesting point and it may be true; who knows? He then named some Syrian minority groups I've never heard of whose interests must be protected in any new Syrian state. He then said that John Kerry was busy negotiating with Russia, Turkey, and Iran to possibly achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis, but one which would have to include Assad's removal.

And here I thought Russia and Iran wanted Assad to stay and Turkey's main interest was to weaken the Kurds. Or maybe not.

I'm befuddled. I have no idea if Obama is doing the right thing and no idea what to do if he's not doing the right thing. Listening to the Republican candidates last Tuesday, I don't think they understand this any better than I do. Probably less. We'll find out Saturday night if Hillary or Bernie or Martin have the answer. I doubt it.

The Republican candidates are a mess because they have historically been the party of peace until the 70s when the Neocons came in. Reagan fought off this new Necon party to win the 80s but his ideals were ultimately defeated with the Bush's Neocon approach. After the Second Bush's foreign policy failed, a grassroots movement was started by people like Ron Paul to become a party of peace once more. Meanwhile the Dems have historically been a party of nation building. It's in their DNA to play Robin Hood. However, the neocons had control of the RNC in 2008 and were pro war. The Dems countered with Obama who wanted to pull everyone out. The pull out was favored as a whole among the Dems. However, after this foreign policy has looked like another disaster in a much different way than Bush, Dems are going back to be more in line with their nation building approach. Now at this point in time, we have Republicans who are pro war, some that are isolationists, and some that sound like nation builders. We also have some Democrats staying with the 2008 Obama foreign policy view. We also have some who are pro war and nation builders as well after Obamas foreign policy failed. It's truly a mess and such a divided topic both outside and within both party lines. And the Middle East is in total chaos as the power moves through Russia and ISIS when it formerly went through the US, who was much more stable.

 

[timschochet]

I don't agree with every point, but I think that overall you just wrote a pretty reasonable summary. But I would add that none of these people, whatever side they're on, seem to know exactly how to apply those principles to Syria.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Noble effort and I think I know why some might think it ties into more recent events, but maybe a little too esoteric for us plebes?

 

[dschuler]

I don't agree with every point, but I think that overall you just wrote a pretty reasonable summary. But I would add that none of these people, whatever side they're on, seem to know exactly how to apply those principles to Syria.

Definitely. We are at a point in human history where we have never been before. Both the Russians and America have weapons so powerful it could wipe a state or middle eastern country flat. Hundreds of times more powerful than the Nuc dropped ~70 years ago before computers and technology to enrich uranium and other transuranic elements took off. That's the challenge. We have to respect each other, and ultimately compromise because we both have trump cards, no pun intended. So when people talk about no fly zones to Russian aircraft and just waltzing in and overthrowing Syria it's much more complicated. Add ISIS and all these rebels in the mix and it's even more confusing. The Middle East honestly feels like an extension of the Cold War. Part of it is backed by the Russians, part of it backed by the USA. At the end of the day, as long as the battles stay over there and a Nuc doesn't get dropped its good for both sides. But the common person just reads about the money spent or a terrorists attack and immediately assumed disaster.

 

[timschochet]

84. North and South

John Jakes

1982, 740 pages

Historical family saga

North and South is the first book of John Jakes' three volume Civil War saga. The saga tells the story of two wealthy American families; the Hazards, iron makers in Pennsylvania, and the Mains, rice planters in South Carolina, who become friends when a son from each family attends West Point in 1844. The first book concerns itself with the years from the Mexican-American War to Fort Sumter. The second book, Love and War, is about the Civil War itself. The third novel, Heaven and Hell concerns the aftermath of the war.

All three novels are worth reading, but only the first one was good enough to make my top 100 list. Essentially Jakes is attempting here to do for the civil war what Tolstoy did for the Russian War of 1812 with War and Peace, and what Herman Wouk did for World War II in his epic Winds of War/War and Remembrance series (reviewed later on.)He wants to tell us the story of the war in novel form, interspersing real life people with fictional characters of his own creation. The Mains and Hazards meet just about everybody famous in this war, from Lincoln to Davis to Lee to Jackson, etc. But what makes this novel work is that the fictional characters are interesting. It is a bit soapy (though not nearly as much as the dreadful TV show that was made from this novel)- there are heroes and villains on both sides.

What makes the first book to this series especially intriguing is that it presents good people, both northerners and southerners, who desperately do not to fight against each other but find themselves helplessly dragged into it by forces too powerful to stop. There is much historical insight here which is less clear in the non-fiction histories of the era. Which is why sometimes historical fiction is often more illuminating than the history itself.

Up next: A sweeping epic of the Raj...

 

[timschochet]

I should add that John Jakes is most famous for the 8 volume Kent Family Chronicles, which tells the story of an American family from 1774 to about 1895. Epic in scope, again filled with great drama and characters, it wasn't good enough to make my list but I still highly recommend it:

The *******

The Rebels

The Seekers

The Furies

The Titans

The Warriors

The Lawless

The Americans.

 

[krista4]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Oh no! I was really into it. I just don't comment because I only check the thread every few days and am always a bit behind on it.

 

[timschochet]

83. The Far Pavilions

M.M. Kaye

1978, 1000 pages

Historical epic fiction

The Far Pavilions is a sweeping epic novel that takes place in the late 19th century in the British Raj (what is now known as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and Afghanistan. The story features Ash, a British boy raised as a Hindu who later becomes a soldier but falls in love with an Indian princess. After rescuing her from being burned alive (Suttee) he accompanies a British expedition to Kabul (the 2nd Afghan War), which is surrounded and exterminated.

The novel explores the relationships between east and west, the British dealings with Hindus and Muslims in the Raj, and the Great Game (British against Russia in Afghanistan.) There are dozens of interesting characters, plot twists and action. Of particular interest to me is the description of the cesspool that is Afghanistan- the British mission there is doomed from the start. Very little has changed well over a century later.

The British colonial effort in India was a mixture of good and bad. This novel attempts to display both. It's a long historical novel worthy of the best works of Clavell, Uris, and Michener (and therefore right up my alley.)

Up next: Stephen King destroys a high school prom...

 

[msommer]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Oh no! I was really into it. I just don't comment because I only check the thread every few days and am always a bit behind on it.

I was learning a lot.

Don't be a quitter, Tim

 

[timschochet]

82. Carrie

Stephen King

1974, 199 pages

Horror

This was Stephen King's first novel, and it begins a 16 year period which I would call the "golden age" of Stephen King, during which nearly everything he wrote is worth reading, and a whole lot of it excellent. (It may or may not be a coincidence that King was either an alcoholic or drug addict throughout most of this period.) King himself is critical of Carrie; in a 1983 interview with Playboy he complains that there was "too much sturm und drang", which is similar to a criticism by Harlan Ellison, generally a King fan, but who wrote that the book was "too heavy." I disagree. My main problem with Carrie is that King relies too much on documentary type reports to tell his story- this works in some novels to a certain degree, but it's too frequent in Carrie. Also this novel lacks the depth of characters that one begins to find in King novels starting with The Shining.

But other than those minor points, Carrie is not only a great horror novel, it's a revolutionary one, because the essence of Stephen King's horror is never in the paranormal elements of his novels (in this case, Carrie's telekinetic abilities) but in the very real human interactions that fill up his stories: few novels describe high school bullying more accurately than this one. Few novels are able to capture the terrifying elements of religious mania, or the collectivist nature of high school relationships and social strata of a small town. It is these factors, and not Carrie's powers, that make this such a memorable work.

I included Stephen King on my list of 100 greatest Americans because I regard him as the Charles Dickens of late 20th century America. Carrie is therefore his Pickwick Papers, a coming out party that changed the nature of his genre. There will be more King novels to come on this list.

Next up: A spy thriller from the great Frederick Forsythe...

 

[timschochet]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Oh no! I was really into it. I just don't comment because I only check the thread every few days and am always a bit behind on it.

I was learning a lot.

Don't be a quitter, Tim

Like I said, it's a lot of work. I don't mind, if it brings about discussion. Let me think about it.

 

[John Bender]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Oh no! I was really into it. I just don't comment because I only check the thread every few days and am always a bit behind on it.

I was learning a lot.

Don't be a quitter, Tim

Like I said, it's a lot of work. I don't mind, if it brings about discussion. Let me think about it.

tim

I liked it too, but usually tune out here for the reasons I listed in the "trump supporter" thread. I'm sorry as I was one of the people who sort of helped be a catalyst for it.

 

[Doug B]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Oh no! I was really into it. I just don't comment because I only check the thread every few days and am always a bit behind on it.

I was learning a lot.

This. A lot of names and terms I'd heard of (Alger Hiss, "Checkers" speech) but of which I didn't really know the relevance. I got a little smarter reading through your McCarthy narratives.

 

[krista4]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to stop with the McCarthy era narrative. I haven't had too much feedback on it; I was hoping for some discussion, but it hasn't happened. It's a lot of work (I use books, but I don't cut and paste anything.) So since nobody's really interested...

Oh no! I was really into it. I just don't comment because I only check the thread every few days and am always a bit behind on it.

I was learning a lot.

Don't be a quitter, Tim

Like I said, it's a lot of work. I don't mind, if it brings about discussion. Let me think about it.

Apparently msommer and I do not qualify as "anyone."

 

[timschochet]

All right. I'll continue.

 

[hagmania]

Just read my first Rex Stout novel, started with Fer-De-Lance.

Nero Wolfe is a hoot.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

82. Carrie

Stephen King

1974, 199 pages

Horror

This was Stephen King's first novel, and it begins a 16 year period which I would call the "golden age" of Stephen King, during which nearly everything he wrote is worth reading, and a whole lot of it excellent. (It may or may not be a coincidence that King was either an alcoholic or drug addict throughout most of this period.) King himself is critical of Carrie; in a 1983 interview with Playboy he complains that there was "too much sturm und drang", which is similar to a criticism by Harlan Ellison, generally a King fan, but who wrote that the book was "too heavy." I disagree. My main problem with Carrie is that King relies too much on documentary type reports to tell his story- this works in some novels to a certain degree, but it's too frequent in Carrie. Also this novel lacks the depth of characters that one begins to find in King novels starting with The Shining.

But other than those minor points, Carrie is not only a great horror novel, it's a revolutionary one, because the essence of Stephen King's horror is never in the paranormal elements of his novels (in this case, Carrie's telekinetic abilities) but in the very real human interactions that fill up his stories: few novels describe high school bullying more accurately than this one. Few novels are able to capture the terrifying elements of religious mania, or the collectivist nature of high school relationships and social strata of a small town. It is these factors, and not Carrie's powers, that make this such a memorable work.

I included Stephen King on my list of 100 greatest Americans because I regard him as the Charles Dickens of late 20th century America. Carrie is therefore his Pickwick Papers, a coming out party that changed the nature of his genre. There will be more King novels to come on this list.

Next up: A spy thriller from the great Frederick Forsythe...

King's weird - he writes preteen kids and adults well, but every teenaged main character I can think of is just an archetype. Wasn't just "Carrie", either, but "Christine" too. And especially "Under The Dome" (written in the early aughts) where the kids spoke like they were in a "Valley Girls" ripoff movie from 1985.

 

[timschochet]

All right, back by popular demand:

The McCarthy era, continued

Late in the afternoon of February 20 a 3 bell quorum call sounded in the Senate, and Joe McCarthy strode out on the floor carrying the tan briefcase, now bulging. The Democrats had demanded evidence, and twice since his return to the capital he had assured newspapermen that if he couldn't come up with it, he would resign. Now he was going to give the Senate one of the wildest evening sessions in it's history. He had more than figures this time, though not much more. Lee from the FBI had provided him with photostatted copies of the 108 two year old dossiers prepared from State Department files for the House appropriations subcommittee. Of their subjects, only 40 still worked for the department. All had been subjected to a full field FBI investigation and cleared. Nevertheless, McCarthy stacked 81 obsolete dossiers on his desk and those of nearby senators and grandly announced that he penetrated "Truman's iron curtain of secrecy."

The next few minutes were awful. Shuffling the first folders, he said that he would identify them by number only. That in itself was suspicious- after all, anything said on the floor was privileged- but what followed was shocking. Spectators realized that McCarthy was looking at these dossiers for the first time. He had to pause before each, rifling through papers to see what it contained. Another man would have been embarrassed beyond endurance. Not McCarthy. He stood there almost 6 hours, carrying the absurd farce forward, shrugging heavily when the files baffled him but never yielding the floor.

Some of the cases had nothing to do with the State Department. Numbers 21 through 26 worked for the Voice of America, Number 12 had once been employed by the Department of Commerce; McCarthy blandly conceded that he had no idea "where he is today. I frankly do not know." Number 62 was "not important insofar as Communistic activities are concerned." Of number 40 he said, "I do not have much information on this except that there is nothing in this file to disprove that this man has Communist connections." Number 72 had the senator stumped. IT was significant, he lamely said, "in that it is the direct opposite of the cases I have been reading...I do not confuse this man of being a Communist. This individual was very highly recommended by several witnesses as a high type of man, a democratic American who...opposed Communism." (In addition, 72 had never worked for the State Department.) Astounded, Richard Rovere (a famous journalist present) asked. "Could anything but sheer lunacy lead a man discussion 81 Communists to say that one of the Communists was an important example because he was not a Communist?"

But McCarthy plodded on doggedly. Number 9 was the same as 77. Numbers 15, 27, 37, and 59 did not exist- they were just empty folders. Number 16, McCarthy said, with the tone of a man finding gold at last, was "one of the most dangerous espionage agents in the State Department!"

He wasn't of course. There wasn't a spy in the lot. But by inserting a phrase in a file here, deleting another there, and embellishing the whole performance with spurious investigative paraphernalia, he created an impression of subversion among those who read their newspapers by studying the comics first, the sports page net, and then glancing carelessly through the headlines- in other words the same type of people who 65 years later would believe whatever Donald Trump has to say. And it worked.

 

[krista4]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

They could have challenged him. I'll get to this more in a later post, but basically they were stunned and scared. The Alger Hiss case, and the Russians having nukes, had changed everything. If you stood up and challenged somebody who accused others of being Communist, you yourself were immediately under suspicion. Krista4 interrupts Senator McCarthy and says "this is ridiculous!" Well, maybe Krista4 is right. But why is she bothering to question this? Why is it so important to her? Pretty soon the FBI is investigating Krista4. Pretty soon constituents in Krista4's district are writing her angry letters calling for her resignation. Then you are shunned by your fellow Senators. Nobody will have anything to do with you.

There was an "us vs. them" mentality that was probably even stronger than in the days after 9/11, because Americans truly feared nuclear war. It took enormous bravery to speak out in those days, and most people, especially politicians, simply didn't have it. Still, there were those who did, and I'll get to them.

 

[jon_mx]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

They could have challenged him. I'll get to this more in a later post, but basically they were stunned and scared. The Alger Hiss case, and the Russians having nukes, had changed everything. If you stood up and challenged somebody who accused others of being Communist, you yourself were immediately under suspicion. Krista4 interrupts Senator McCarthy and says "this is ridiculous!" Well, maybe Krista4 is right. But why is she bothering to question this? Why is it so important to her? Pretty soon the FBI is investigating Krista4. Pretty soon constituents in Krista4's district are writing her angry letters calling for her resignation. Then you are shunned by your fellow Senators. Nobody will have anything to do with you.

There was an "us vs. them" mentality that was probably even stronger than in the days after 9/11, because Americans truly feared nuclear war. It took enormous bravery to speak out in those days, and most people, especially politicians, simply didn't have it. Still, there were those who did, and I'll get to them.

That is horrible. Almost like people who bring allegations against the Clintons get the IRS down their throats.

 

[krista4]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

They could have challenged him. I'll get to this more in a later post, but basically they were stunned and scared. The Alger Hiss case, and the Russians having nukes, had changed everything. If you stood up and challenged somebody who accused others of being Communist, you yourself were immediately under suspicion. Krista4 interrupts Senator McCarthy and says "this is ridiculous!" Well, maybe Krista4 is right. But why is she bothering to question this? Why is it so important to her? Pretty soon the FBI is investigating Krista4. Pretty soon constituents in Krista4's district are writing her angry letters calling for her resignation. Then you are shunned by your fellow Senators. Nobody will have anything to do with you.

There was an "us vs. them" mentality that was probably even stronger than in the days after 9/11, because Americans truly feared nuclear war. It took enormous bravery to speak out in those days, and most people, especially politicians, simply didn't have it. Still, there were those who did, and I'll get to them.

Good context - thanks! It's hard for me to put myself in that time and state of mind.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

They could have challenged him. I'll get to this more in a later post, but basically they were stunned and scared. The Alger Hiss case, and the Russians having nukes, had changed everything. If you stood up and challenged somebody who accused others of being Communist, you yourself were immediately under suspicion. Krista4 interrupts Senator McCarthy and says "this is ridiculous!" Well, maybe Krista4 is right. But why is she bothering to question this? Why is it so important to her? Pretty soon the FBI is investigating Krista4. Pretty soon constituents in Krista4's district are writing her angry letters calling for her resignation. Then you are shunned by your fellow Senators. Nobody will have anything to do with you. There was an "us vs. them" mentality that was probably even stronger than in the days after 9/11, because Americans truly feared nuclear war. It took enormous bravery to speak out in those days, and most people, especially politicians, simply didn't have it. Still, there were those who did, and I'll get to them.

That is horrible. Almost like people who bring allegations against the Clintons get the IRS down their throats.

I'm very glad you're reading the history jon. But you need to read a lot more of it; that will prevent you from making such terrible analogies.

 

[jon_mx]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

They could have challenged him. I'll get to this more in a later post, but basically they were stunned and scared. The Alger Hiss case, and the Russians having nukes, had changed everything. If you stood up and challenged somebody who accused others of being Communist, you yourself were immediately under suspicion. Krista4 interrupts Senator McCarthy and says "this is ridiculous!" Well, maybe Krista4 is right. But why is she bothering to question this? Why is it so important to her? Pretty soon the FBI is investigating Krista4. Pretty soon constituents in Krista4's district are writing her angry letters calling for her resignation. Then you are shunned by your fellow Senators. Nobody will have anything to do with you. There was an "us vs. them" mentality that was probably even stronger than in the days after 9/11, because Americans truly feared nuclear war. It took enormous bravery to speak out in those days, and most people, especially politicians, simply didn't have it. Still, there were those who did, and I'll get to them.

That is horrible. Almost like people who bring allegations against the Clintons get the IRS down their throats.

I'm very glad you're reading the history jon. But you need to read a lot more of it; that will prevent you from making such terrible analogies.

And you need to learn from history more and understand that people who abuse their power like Hillary has have zero business being president. Your total and complete admiration of her has blinded you to the reality of the kind of abuse of power she is capable of. Of course you will never be on her enemies list, but the hell she will create for the people who are will be on par with what you see are such horrors of the McCarthy era. You just have no empathy for these people who will be targeted.Despite your knowledge of history and how power has been abused, you are completely trusting of the increasing centralization of power in both the federal government and the executive branch. You naively trust Hillary not to abuse it, but yet you fear what someone like Trump might do. Once power is concentrated, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. The direction this country is going is dangerous. There is just way too much power being transferred to 1600 Pennselvania Ave and the ability to check it is long gone. Hillary knows what she can get away with and having that knowledge there is zero chance she will not take full advantage.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding this last bit, was there no one challenging him? I guess if he had the floor and didn't cede it, he could just blather on? I admit to knowing zero about the rules of this.

They could have challenged him. I'll get to this more in a later post, but basically they were stunned and scared. The Alger Hiss case, and the Russians having nukes, had changed everything. If you stood up and challenged somebody who accused others of being Communist, you yourself were immediately under suspicion. Krista4 interrupts Senator McCarthy and says "this is ridiculous!" Well, maybe Krista4 is right. But why is she bothering to question this? Why is it so important to her? Pretty soon the FBI is investigating Krista4. Pretty soon constituents in Krista4's district are writing her angry letters calling for her resignation. Then you are shunned by your fellow Senators. Nobody will have anything to do with you. There was an "us vs. them" mentality that was probably even stronger than in the days after 9/11, because Americans truly feared nuclear war. It took enormous bravery to speak out in those days, and most people, especially politicians, simply didn't have it. Still, there were those who did, and I'll get to them.

That is horrible. Almost like people who bring allegations against the Clintons get the IRS down their throats.

I'm very glad you're reading the history jon. But you need to read a lot more of it; that will prevent you from making such terrible analogies.

And you need to learn from history more and understand that people who abuse their power like Hillary has have zero business being president. Your total and complete admiration of her has blinded you to the reality of the kind of abuse of power she is capable of. Of course you will never be on her enemies list, but the hell she will create for the people who are will be on par with what you see are such horrors of the McCarthy era. You just have no empathy for these people who will be targeted.Despite your knowledge of history and how power has been abused, you are completely trusting of the increasing centralization of power in both the federal government and the executive branch. You naively trust Hillary not to abuse it, but yet you fear what someone like Trump might do. Once power is concentrated, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. The direction this country is going is dangerous. There is just way too much power being transferred to 1600 Pennselvania Ave and the ability to check it is long gone. Hillary knows what she can get away with and having that knowledge there is zero chance she will not take full advantage.

OK, let's put aside for the moment the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that Hillary, or any President other than Richard Nixon, has ever used the IRS to punish their political enemies. The fact that you make this comparison at all shows that either you haven't been reading what I have been posting, or you simply didn't understand it.

Neither of the two Presidents during the McCarthy era, Truman and Eisenhower, ever used their executive power to punish their opponents. McCarthy certainly didn't; as a Senator, he had no such power over the FBI. Nobody did other than J. Edgar Hoover, and Hoover had no particular reason to protect McCarthy. McCarthy himself was not the instigator of the era named after him; he was like a surfer who rode out the highest wave. It was a wave caused, not by excessive centralized government power, but by populism.

You and the Commish and Sinn Fein and Slapdash, though on opposite sides politically, all suffer from the same delusion that in this country the elites (establishment) control everything. But when the populist waves come around, they are as helpless as everyone else. That's why populism is so dangerous, whether from the right or left.

So stop talking about Hillary Clinton as if she had anything in common with the forces that led to the McCarthy era. You're just sounding ignorant, no offense.