Still alive - plus, some interesting books to consider reading

The past few weeks have been pretty tumultuous over here for a number of reasons, primarily moving to a new house, poverty (relatively speaking, of course), and having no internet (!!!!), but now I’m back with a very important message, namely: I want to let you all know what books I think are worthwhile. After all, the implication of being well-read (i.e. showing interest in books) is almost as good as actually being well-read. So here are a few good books I’d read, or at least sample if I had the time.

1)”Dave Barry’s Money Secrets - Like: Why is There A Giant Eyeball on the Dollar?”

I admit, I’m actually sort of reading this one, and it makes me laugh a lot. Hydralisk, this is one you should find on tape/CD if you can. It will help you shift some paradigms and revolutionize outside the box, or something like that.

2) “Obama Nation” by Jerome Corsi

When I first ran into this one at the book store, I got a little excited - “A well-researched, non-gushing book about Barack Obama?! How much is this? I’ll take 2.” I skimmed the preface, and thought it seemed pretty even-keeled and objective (and for the record, the author is not a Republican, but a Constitutionalist). However, when I checked out what wikipedia, the bastion of e-truth, had to say, my faith was shaken - apparently Corsi has taken some liberties with the facts, or else just drawn conclusions many didn’t want to hear (or, more likely, something in the middle). So anyway, I’m a little more skeptical of the book. However, it is on The New York Times bestsellers list, and, like so many people in this country, I take the New York Times more seriously than a lot of things. It can do no wrong. Ever. Seriously, though, I’m intrigued to hear what Corsi has to say about Chairman Barack’s supposed cult of personality.

3) “The Definitive Guide to Stuff White People Like” by Christian Lander

Another book I happily bumped into at the store the other day. Flipping through it, I was surprised at how many people the author and I both seem to know Lander has a great way of poking fun at white people (or, as one of my white co-workers candidly pointed out, a certain subset of white people: the college-educated, left-leaning ones), and I admire his ability to do so in a way that is simultaneously incisive and good-humored.

Also, you can check out the official website, stuffwhitepeoplelike.com.

Finally, some thoughtful analysis of Obama the President, not Obama the Phenomenon

I ran across this timely article from The Economist (Feb. 14th, 2008) discussing the possible ramifications of electing President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama. It’s not Obama-bashing, but instead offers some thoughts on the substance of Barack Obama’s candidacy. This is not to say that candidates’ presidential offerings are reducible to mere policy positions, for, as the article rightly notes:

“[Obama] has persuaded huge numbers of people around the world to reconsider politics in an optimistic way. To many Americans, a black man who eschews both racial politics and the conservative-liberal divide is a chance to heal the country’s two deepest divisions. To many foreigners, he represents an idealistic version of America—the hope of a more benevolent superpower.”

In regards to the effect of Obama’s character, the article continues:

“His immediate effect on international relations could be dramatic: a black president, partly brought up in a Muslim country, would transform America’s image. And his youthful optimism could work at home too. After the bitterness of the Bush years, America needs a dose of unity: Mr Obama has a rare ability to deliver it. And the power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.”

As far as his policies go, however, The Economist makes the case that:

“Obama’s voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.”

Regarding the limitations of character, the article continues:

“And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president’s second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so.” (emphasis added)

The article concludes:

“None of this is to take away from Mr Obama’s achievement—or to imply that he could not rise to the challenges of the job in hand. But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have. For America’s sake (and the world’s), that bar should now be raised—or all kinds of brutal disappointment could follow.”

Ron Paul’s softer, more persuasive side

The only times I’ve seen Ron Paul on TV have been in debates, where invariably he’s riled up about something and usually drawing the ridicule of his fellow debaters. These clips from an interview with John Stossel, however, reveal a calmer, more convincing side of Ron Paul. In them, I think he makes some good arguments for smaller, less restrictive government with which I agree (in other clips not featured here, however, he presents what I consider to be a foolish foreign policy).

Part 1

Part 2

Bryce’s Book Club, Part 1

In between my current work as a well-paid gofer, I’ve been starting a lot of good books lately (someday, I may even finish one). I’ve been giving the most attention to Rewriting History by Dick Morris, a long-time political advisor to the Clintons. It is a very interesting glimpse into Hillary Clinton behind the facade. Interestingly, even though Morris parted ways with the Clintons years ago and is no big fan of the Hillary movement, his book is not dripping with venom. Morris’ writing reflects measured fairness and keen observation, which speaks to his credibility in an industry where most pundits cannot bear to hide their vitriolic disdain for their favorite villains. This book actually reminds me of another famous exposé of a powerful public figure who was revered yet shrouded in mystery: Dr. Li Zhisui’s The Private Life of Chairman Mao. An unusual and imperfect comparison, I know, but there it is.

One thing that I was not expecting when I began reading this book was to actually feel some pity for Hillary, not pity for the role of victimized career-woman and devoted mother which she tries to project, but pity for the creature she has become in the course of her political career. Unfortunately, politics tends to be dirty, dirty business, and while I do think Hillary Clinton has rolled in the mud quite willingly, it nevertheless saddens me that the political arena is such that she and so many people like her feel that to do so is the only way to succeed.

You Don’t Kick a Dead Dog

Notwithstanding all the points of policy and history on which the Republican candidates differ, they all seem to be united in at least one area: their disdain for Mitt Romney. Naturally, a public figure will always have views and actions which someone dislikes, but Romney seems to attract an inordinate amount of criticism, some of it smug and mean-spirited (à la McCain or Huckabee in Saturday’s debate), from all the candidates. For the record, I don’t know who I’m going to vote for, but Romney is certainly a contender in my book. Romney continues to receive jabs and cheap shots - such as Huckabee’s use of the classic Mormon smear about Satan and Jesus, or the apparently irresistible urge by the candidates (or even the moderator, Charles Gibson, last night, who I’d call likable but, like so many people in the media, partial to the political left) - to scandalize Romney’s record on abortion when they need to score a few quick and easy points, and this after he’s clearly and repeatedly explained himself on the issue, I think satisfactorily. I’m not saying that Romney’s the absolute perfect candidate, and everyone else is garbage, but I do think that the attacks he seems to be receiving from all sides indicate that he is viewed as a strong and viable presidential nominee and a real political threat. On my LDS mission in northern Virginia, I became acquainted with the phrase “you don’t kick a dead dog”, which I learned in reference to the criticism the Church receives (but appropriately pays little heed to), and basically means that an adversary only attacks those parties deemed to be real threats. I think this phrase is applicable in Romney’s case too - not because he happens to be Mormon, but because he is viewed as a threat by certain people. As a side note, I think the same can be said for the vocally anti-religious, such as Hitchens and Dawkins - religion presents a worldview which opposes and threatens their own. But that’s a topic for another time