Tagged: books

Reading Log 12.18.2025

It’s been since September 20th that I posted an updated reading log. These six make it seem like I barely made time for my hobby. I can’t explain it, but except for last hitch, I have been reading as normal.

****

George MacDonald is just fantastic. And any book that includes dialect spelling is fantastic. So be sure to check out his Heather and Snow.

****

The Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics section was exceedingly worthy. Most importantly, the name (Nichomachean) derives either from Aristotle’s father or son. I say Aristotle wrote down what his father taught him. Be that as it may, the lucidity of the ethics are remarkable. Here’s one example for ya. You know how we always hear the BIPOC and BIPOC-infatuated leaders talking about “equity” these days? They throw out some idea like “equity, not equality”, right? Then they proceed to explain the most unequal thing in the most confusing way, right?

Well Aristotle (or his dad) used the word equity in the following way. He said there is the universal law, say, “Do not steal.” Then there is the nuances of the law, to include all the particulars, like, stealing a lot is obviously different than stealing a little. Aristotle (or his dad) uses the word equity to describe the nuanced consequences of the application of the law. In other words, the difference between going to jail and simply giving the stolen good back to the owner was equity. My example is correct in principle, not particulars. No matter how fine the law cuts it, there is gray in between—this is equity to Aristotle.

Here I don’t mean to applaud the idea of equity in Nichomachean Ethics, but to draw out for you that over two thousand years ago one man wrote clearly and it appears the best we can do today is worse.

****

Does everyone understand that George Washington was British? Did you know that Mount Vernon was so-named because George’s older brother, Lawrence, served in the British Fleet under one Admiral Vernon whom he so loved that he named his property after him? Has everyone slept outside in the cold with savages nearby, allies mostly, but likely enemies too? As holy writ declares, “We are but dust,” compared to this great man. You could read and re-read Washington Irving’s biography and never be worse for it.

****

I found this 600 page Justice League America collection of comics at the library. The series came out in the 97-98 time period. They were fun. Who doesn’t love the dynamic between Batman and Superman? And now I know more about Martian Manhunter too. The end of Justice League Snyder Cut always bothered me. But not anymore.

****

How many times do I have to write about the moooslims? One more I guess. That’s what the Song of Roland is about. French Christian Knights vs saracens. I read the long epic poem, supposedly a first of its kind—its kind being nationalistic or patriotic poem—in two days. I go so deep when I read that I don’t recommend this to anyone similarly talented. I mean, for a day or two, I thought I saw everywhere the mooslims were invading our lands.

****

What can I say about finishing the two volume Reporting Vietnam set? Couple things. First, the French had colonies in Vietnam before WW2. (Maybe earlier too.) But the point is that France took such a beating in WW2, geographically situated as they were, that the Allies decided to help them rebuild after the war. That is where America enters Vietnam—what is so wrong about helping French rebuild their colonies?

Second, during WW2, Ho Chi Minh gained power because he wanted all the foreigners out—Japan and France (later America etc). It will be forever debated if he was a communist at heart or just used communism as a timely tool.

Third, I used to think it cool to baldly state, “We lost Vietnam.” I remember even daring my helicopter instructor pilot who fought heroically in Vietnam to admit it, which he did unreservedly, probably for the millionth time to POS’s like me. I will never say this or allow someone else to say it ever again. The US did not lose Vietnam. The South Vietnamese lost. We fought, we left. We did not lose. Losing a war is terrible. Never lose a war. Anyone who says anything to me about America that sounds like they want it to lose a war now gets verbally reprimanded at the highest socially acceptable level. Every person alive should want their country to win any war it engages, at nearly any cost, rather than suffer loss. We did not lose Vietnam.

In addition to having the above new things to say about ‘Nam, I want to share two images that now adorn my house. First, this hangs in my garage.

My gentle wife took days to notice and when she did, she asked, “Isn’t that a bad word?” in reference to the kids growing up with it in view. What a great question. How would you answer her?

Secondly, this is now the backdrop to my beloved piano.

I teach the kids to repeat after me, clockwise from the top, right first, then left, “Nelson (Nelson), Robert (Robert), Miguel (Miguel), Ho (Ho), George (George), Ghandi (Ghandi).” And I ask you, what do these men have in common? Why would I, Eagle Scout, USAF Pilot, Baptist, and Thanksgiving-and-Christmas-working first responder have Ho Chi Minh on my wall, my mind, and my children’s minds?

Hint: the key to life on earth as an American is the Vietnam War. There’s a reason for the current confusion. And it has nothing to do with events of the day or what you consume daily; it has everything to do with what you have never read. Both the reason you have never read it (or been required to—nothing conspiracy theory here—just general shame and incompetent teachers) and the history you will discover upon reading it are relevant.

Does Finishing A Book Ever Make You Sad?

I have been reading the two volume set of Reporting Vietnam since March 19 of this year. That’s 8 months. Today I will finish the set.

I am sad.

I already have Reporting World War II waiting in the wings, another two volume set. And I am very excited about that one, given how profoundly this one affected me. But that excitement does not override the sadness.

It feels weird to be sad about finishing a book. I think this is because there are obviously so many others. Maybe it is sad because it’s not the book that is concluded, but the conversation. Yeah. I like that.

What is better, after all, than a good conversation?

Democrats Need A Hunger Strike

During these best and worst of times, I’ve been reading Life of George Washington by Washington Irving in Three Volumes, Vol. 1. I’m near the end, having just finished chapter XXXIV of XLII. Like any Gen X or older lay readers, I have most of the broad strokes down, but have been pleasantly surprised to learn more details about our nation’s founder and founding.

Of particular note in the last chapter were Washington’s new roles both within the American colonies and between the colonies and England. For example, in extant letters, we read that GW himself maintained the logic that there needn’t be more (second, third, fourth etc.) appeals for relief to the King, as “from our sovereign there can be but one appeal.” (Plain meaning: one monarchical rejection means war, assuming there exists the will to achieve the appeal’s purpose.)

Moreover, I found the following description of the colonists resolve concerning their boycott of British goods rather provocative, “The rich were growing poor, and the poor were without employ; yet the spirit of the people was unbroken.” Actually making sacrifices to achieve political ends seems confined to some romantic past, no?

Always a fan of the underdog (I truly believe people should declare what they want and work to obtain it), I can’t help but see in this observation of sacrifice a path forward for Democrats. The “given” of what I am here proposing is that Democrats are city-folk, and MAGA is rural. (Or at least that is what the map shows.) Furthermore, rural means food-producers, and city means food-consumers.

Do Democrats truly want to make a dent against MAGA as social meeja would have us believe? Then I say Democrats need a hunger strike. Bring rural MAGA and their orange-Jesus savior to their knees! Make MAGA’s grain silos reek with the odor of unwanted produce! Wrap MAGA in the stench that guns and bibles cannot release! Democrats, now is your time! The path is proven! The choice is clear! Hunger Strike! Hunger Strike! Hunger Strike!

The Proper Way to Speak To Your Father

From George MacDonald’s Heather and Snow.

“Am I not your own blood daughter? Where would I be with a father that didn’t keep his word? And what less could I do than help any man to keep his word? If a breach for something other than the family’s truth opened through me, my life would flee from me. What would you have me tell the boy’s mother? I don’t want to expose the folly of him, but if you think it’s necessary, I’ll go to her this morning.”

On Higher Education

I read and I read and I read.

It’s lovely.

But even I have doubts as to what exactly to do with all the knowledge. I am not interested in being a college professor. There was a time when I could almost imagine working hard and becoming an Indiana Jones-style biblical archaeologist (yes, kids, there are archeologists and they really do have dangerous/exciting experiences depending on the types of finds).

But that mood passed.

I ate with an old professor and we briefly discussed the pros and cons of re-engaging formal education. I wasn’t sold that the pros outweighed the cons. Specifically, every part of actual biblical training and academics is losing ground to the soft skills of Christian counseling and other versions of underwater basket weaving. Why join a dying breed? There simply is no demand from the public for an educated pastor. So the degree has to be for teaching or research, and the field is near exhaustion.

This brings me to the catalyst for this post. Check this endnote out. It is from Fr. John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 5 “Probing the Authenticity of the Parables”. I have been reading his Marginal Jew books since 2001 (24+ years). I think in the beginning I used them against Christianity as I questioned the Faith, but over time they actually have become some of my favorite books on Christianity-ish, outside of the inspired canon.

All of those listed titles, articles, books etc. are about just one (1) parable. I have been in churches for probably 25+ years and I don’t think I could list that many individuals who have commented (informedly or free-association style) on any one (1) parable. Fr. Meier, on the other hand, read three pages’ worth of scholarly commentary. (And in at least two languages.) Talk about putting me in my place.

I take it all back. I do not read. I do not read. I do not read. And I have no business ever lofting an opinion about anything into the air.

In the end, Fr. Meier and his impossible bibliographies (1) arms me for rhetorical battle with the loudmouth ‘educated’ nonbelievers that I sometimes run into and (2) keeps Christianity larger than life.

I think my favorite title from those listed is, “Excuses, Excuses: The Parable of the Banquet (Luke 14:15-24) within the Larger Context of Luke.” Funny guy.

Also, not that Meier loves its conclusions, but he did reference it enough that it sounded kinda like a definitive work so I did pickup a used copy of Snodgrass’s Stories With Intent—a 900+ page comprehensive look at the generally eloquent parables. I have to admit I haven’t been this excited to read such a book in many years. So add that to Meier’s effects: inspirational.

The Less Committed Noah, A Review of “The Coming Wave” by Mustafa Suleyman

To recap, I admitted to myself some months ago that I knew nothing about AI. I also doubted that anyone uttering the sounds, “A-I” (“It’s an acronym”, taught Kamala), knew much more than me. This belief was bolstered and informed by my nearly-techie brother’s share that his bosses advocated the use of the phrase wherever possible during meetings with clients as it perked people up. In other words, AI is trending. (There is nothing new in this confession of mine.)

The first book I decided to read was Melanie Mitchell’s Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.

I then asked a friend for any recommendation he might have, and that is how I ended up reading Suleyman’s book.

To be clear: there is no need to read this book. It is not earth shattering. It will not change your life. It truly does not have much by way of content. A Toastmaster friend once told excitable me, in an effort to dissuade me from buying his book, that these days books are little different than business cards. That is about right for Coming Wave.

But I did read it and consider it and this is my blog so I am going to share my thoughts.

Maybe because I have been reading a bunch of ‘evolution of physics’ books, I read “wave” in the title and pictured (and was intrigued by) the wave in lightwave. Maybe it was because I have already asserted that AI is merely man’s newfound ability to sense electricity with greater refinement than ever before that I didn’t see “water” wave. Whatever the reason, I was totally taken aback by Suleyman’s opening alignment with Noah. It’s actually shocking. Seriously, consider it. There is a man, who by all accounts is ‘successful’, and he chose to warn the world of cataclysmic disaster.

What?

Perhaps it was my background in Biblical Studies that clouded my thinking. But the end of the Deluge account in Genesis includes the Rainbow and the promise to never flood “the world” again. This leaves two choices available to authors. First, believe the Bible story and live a peace-filled life. Second, totally miss the conclusion of the Bible story and with astounding boldness, still identify yourself with the main character in some bastardized version of the story.

But what do I know? I’m often told it is better to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So I read on.

Suleyman opens the book with a Glossary, much like post-graduate work requires. But unlike post-graduate work, no editors or friends told him that his definitions are nebulous. Take “Waves” for example.

“The global diffusion or proliferation of a generation of technology anchored in a new general-purpose technology.”

Global, generation of technology, anchored, and general-purpose technology all need to now be defined.

Another term (pessimism aversion) includes the word elites. What exactly is an elite? My best guess is the intro-extro couple from Susan Cain’s Quiet who can’t decide on how to seat guests at their parties. (Throw pillows and a bar with top chairs was the solution, if I recall.)

All this might seem too detailed and in the weeds, but I assure you of my earnestness. What exactly is the threat? Why don’t I feel it? How come when I hear “pessimism aversion” I think, “Does he mean hope?”

I’ve talked about how unappealing it is for politicians to constantly hedge their positions elsewhere on this blog. Well, Suleyman cannot but hedge. His warning, so laughable, is always immediately followed by, “But it is also possible that it only rains the exactly perfect amount.”

Fourteen chapters, two hundred eighty-eight pages worth of Noahic warning, immediately hedged.

Again, Noah didn’t hedge. This commitment is one major reason Noah is timeless. Suleyman, on the other hand, will not be remembered. His wave will not form—regardless of his book’s grand clarion call for containment (and central planning at a level red blooded Americans will never tolerate).

Moving on to “new to me”.

I have to admit that Suleyman did introduce a few topics that Mitchell left out of her more focused general audience primer. Synthetic Biology, according to Suleyman, is a hand-in-hand technological advancement. Think Arnold building Arnold.

Suleyman also introduces the concept that, running with the Terminator theme, Arnold won’t care about nation-state boundaries (which Suleyman defines, abhorrently, as “collective fiction resting on the belief of everyone concerned”). The example of this coming hellscape (the “warning” before the hedge) being, ta da, Hamas. Or, maybe a good analogy are the fringe groups in the NW part of America which seem to always be trying to separate statutorily from anyone who can say “sanctuary city” with a straight face.

Then again, it is possible that AI actually ushers in more rainbows and the first ever unicorns. You just never know.

To be honest, and this is the end, Suleyman’s main problem is he cannot (nor can anyone it seems) meaningfully define AI. Melanie Mitchell essentially teaches us how AI works, but Suleyman doesn’t mean that AI. His warning is about the coming AI. You know, the one that really is going to put an end to the Anthropocene and all the blood-pumping bipedal organisms with opposable thumbs and large frontal cortexes.

My final takeaway, the one I sent to the recommending friend, is: Either (A) AI programmers like Suleyman are trying to suggest the coming AI is concretely analogous to handing nuclear bombs to the homeless or (B) they don’t mean that.

If (A), then right now we must immediately issue a call to arms and begin a first of its kind unceasing kinetic war against them. If (B), then there is no coming wave.

Reading Log 8.6.25

I used to have a several t-shirts which had authors’ faces on them. James Fenimore Cooper was one of them. I just like his books. They feel historical, even though I know they are fiction. If you are open to testing the waters, I’d start with Last of the Mohicans, but eventually Afloat and Ashore should be read.

I will write a proper book review of Suleyman’s The Coming Wave soon. (It’s about AI.) Just know that he opens by expressly saying that he means to call to mind Noah with the word “wave”. Oooo. Scary.

Poems are what they are. Some are fun. Some are painful to get through. Holmes obviously wrote with great ability. But that didn’t mean his poems are all tier one.

Volume 1 of Reporting Vietnam (and what I have read of Vol 2) will change your life. These should be required reading for all American highschoolers. In short, Ho Chi Minh first entered the political scene in a big way in WWII by insisting Vietnam should be independent. Then in an interview in 1962 he said it will take maybe 10 years for America to give up. In 1973, before a full 10 years, America withdrew. Consider these facts. Ask: Why did America oppose Ho? I am of the firm opinion that in the future, it will be common knowledge among American History buffs that Vietnam was the true turning point in American History. Everything occurring today (in politics) goes back to that war. To be clear: The lesson I will distill to my own progeny is the following. “Ho wanted something and achieved it. Why did America even try to stop him? Oh, I know. Communism. Well, ‘F$&* Communism’. Communism makes people lose their minds. Why? It’s not to be feared. No idea is. And hug any Vietnam veterans that you meet. Also, America has no duty to help any country out of some sort of compassion. We now have Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (hopefully not Ukraine) as proof that the task of “helping” is impossible. People have to help themselves. America should do what we want precisely because we want to do it. Period.”

Aeschylus’ poems are fantastic. They are timeless too. Read and re-read.

Those essays in Volume 10 (final volume) of Gateway to the Great Books are exceedingly worthy. Of special note is JS Mill and Voltaire. Emerson is a great contrast to Mill. John Dewey is a must-read for anyone in Education—but unfortunately he will never be read by the uneducated. Sad.

Finally, the Vicar of Wakefield. This is a book that “moralizes”. Do you even know what that means? It means to use a story to teach how to act. Our culture, nearly every member, regardless of gender ;), does not believe in teaching morality. So you will not likely see the value of this book. I even doubt that my kids will understand it. But we’ll find out together when they’re old enough. Not the best book. But a good one on how to find happiness during unhappy circumstances.

“Had I Known”, The Game

I have all sorts of analogies for why I read—current favorite is, “Books are the map of life; find yourself.” But when I read something totally new—Vietnam War history in this case—I find myself continually considering, “Wow. Had I known this earlier in life, I would’ve…” and then a fun imagination game plays out.

How about you? What information have you read which forced you to play the game, “Had I known…”?

I just ordered a “F%#* Communism” flag, probably for ceiling of garage, because of my reading. (The one created by Paul Krassner and John Francis Putnam in ‘63.) I share this so y’all won’t think I only read for its mental fitness.

It was mentioned (as a sign, not a flag) in an article about the “defoliation” AF squadron whose classically AF Pilot wit-filled motto was, “Only YOU Can Prevent Forests.”

I can hear you now. “Why?” And, “Don’t you have toddlers?”

Because as much delight as this game provides, I don’t want my kids to play it regarding such a pivotal war.

Seriously though, do comment below with any instances that have initiated the “Had I Known” game in your mind.

“Bare All” vs. “For All”, A Joint Review of The Return by Uberto Pasolini and Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning by Christopher McQuarrie

I have always longed to be absolutely open-minded when it came to art. At an early age I was aware there were art critics who could find and explain beauty and power and relevance in art that I generally found unappealing. “What do they see?” was my question. This was followed closely by, “Will I ever see it?”

Ralph Fiennes has a full frontal nude shot in Mr. Pasolini’s telling of “The Odyssey.” I really want to understand why. My guess and how I understood it was it provides fodder for reviews like this one. He gave me the line, “Like Ralph Fiennes’ bold nude scene, Pasolini’s film presents Homer’s epic as nakedly as ever. It’s a ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ retelling.

Then I would add, “Unfortunately, whatever he was aiming for, it hits more like a Cliff’s Notes summary of the definitive epic than a masterful adaptation. The poem is more than the naked delivery of facts because beauty, power, and relevance demand more.”

Tom Cruise, on the other hand—while still baring much epidermis—does not bare all in Mr. McQuarrie’s latest and final(?) Mission Impossible installment. Why not? There are probably many reasons. Surely near the top is his desire to make a movie which will entertain every living human on Planet Earth, now and forevermore.

We all already knew China was important to him (ref: Taiwan flag removal on leather jacket in TG2). He released this one in Tokyo, I gather. So there’s that. But we’d be fooling ourselves if we thought only in terms of round eye and slant eye. He wants all of us.

For me, there is a blandness that necessarily accompanies this approach to universal art. It is best captured by how jokes, to be funny, must remain particular. “A priest, a nun, and a monk walk into a bar” works. “One religious man, one religious woman, another variation of a religious man walk into a workspace” does not work.

So when art is made, for me, the same applies. There is a requirement for creating something that ensures there is some level of audience guaranteed to understand it, but if you worry too much about this and try to be certain that everyone will understand and not be offended etc, then you lose the point.

To this I will add and conclude that what TC and McQ made is beyond this attempt at universality. They aimed so high and are such capable men that they achieved something truly remarkable. I mean that I believe they fulfilled their goal. It’s not a perfect movie. But it is a movie that every living human being on Planet Earth will enjoy, now and forevermore.

Reading Log 5.18.25

****

Ben Franklin is a remarkable man. Plenty of little nuggets throughout, but the overall sense is probably no one was adapted to his time better than BF.

****

Too much of my life has included the cultural icons, “The X-Men”. So it only made sense to get their original comics. They do not disappoint. The main, concrete benefit is the movies are more enjoyable. Coming in close second—the first comics can be rough around the edges and highly “experimental” or very “willing to take chances and then adjust”. So besides the inherent story that resonates so well with coming-of-age, we find an example of how to pursue your passion.

****

Locke and Hume are worth reading, but I can confess that their ideas are so foundational for our society that they only pack a punch if you have the uncommon ability to imagine what life was like before them.

****

Jordan Peterson loves Brothers Karamazov. Ooh. So sexy sounding, no? It’s one of those “tells you more about him than the book” claims. I mention it because I read this book years ago precisely because it was one of the greats. So don’t take this as a bash of JP. Instead, take it as a DUH! THE BOOK IS GREAT! YOU NEED TO READ IT! shameless promotion.