Tagged: reviews

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.

Agent K vs The Protagonist, A Joint Review of Men in Black and Tenet

I’m kinda loving my life right now. I recently rewatched Men in Black and just now finished Tenet. What do these two Science Fiction thrillers have in common, you ask? And is it true, Pete?

They both repeatedly make the point that the general mass of humanity doesn’t want to know how close the total mass of humanity is to annihilation at any given moment.

Who tells us this? And on whose authority?

Agent K and The Protagonist. Because they are the engines of hope.

Finally, are they right? Is it true? Is the world on the brink of annihilation and do people, generally, not want to know it?

Yes, with the caveat that “the brink of annihilation” can be taken to mean the whole enterprise OR simply one person’s death.

In other words, from the perspective set forth by Jesus’ Good Samaritan story, which includes the claim: “I am neighbor”, it doesn’t matter what happens to the world’s occupants once I am dead. What matters is that my ability to contribute to the world died. Here I mean to enlarge the defense of the concept of “not wanting to know” to include “because people, generally, also are not wanting to neighbor”.

Full-circle: Agent K and The Protagonist are certainly engines of hope for life, just as is the Good Samaritan. The key behavior among all three is proper action despite desperate circumstances.

The new question is, “Is there any reason to believe life extends beyond death?” And, if so, should we act according to that belief?

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?

Just Feel Like Doting On My Son and His Father

He’s down in the family room, riding a wooden rocking horse around the room. In his hand is a stuffed “stick” which is part of a marshmallow roasting stuffed toy. He doesn’t think it’s a stick, though. It is a rifle.

Oh. And don’t forget the Christmas tree and other seasonal decorations. And a giant grizzly bear, lovingly known as “Papa Bear”. And a toy helicopter that over 2 ft long!

Want to know how you too can reproduce this scene in 2025? It’s easy: no tv!

Happy Thanksgiving! And Merry Christmas!

I’m Terrified of Top Gun 3 and Heat 2

For the record, while my feeds are abuzz with Heat 2 casting news and resultant excitement, I am terrified. The reason I am terrified is that nothing in Heat says “sequel”. And the entire point of Heat is to capture at the premier level the modern “Cops and Robbers” game.

The world has changed and while a new “cops and robbers” game is surely possible, it cannot have any ties to a previous game. Like, “Nerd alert! Johnny Law here wants to use the rules from last game!” Also, Mann used the whole “bank’s money” line from Heat in Public Enemies already. A third delivery will make him truly a contender for “one trick pony”. Add to this that Blackhat and Ferrari, while adored by yours truly—especially Blackhat—were panned or ignored by general audiences. This means the train has left the station. Michael Mann’s star (he is my favorite direct and it does not pain me to say this) has fallen.

The path Mann should now follow is to become a film critic who harshly condemns every attempt at film (most are terrible these days) until he irritates the right director into producing something great and classic.

Re: TG3, I cannot say I have ever finished a movie thinking “I cannot wait for the sequel” more than Top Gun. Similarly, I cannot say that anyone I ever heard talk about TG:Maverick after the credits rolled said, “I cannot wait for the sequel.” The entire success of Maverick was “satisfaction of audience’s hyper-specific needs.” There is no chance of accomplishing the same feat again as our needs are met. We are fat and happy. As Papa once told me, the Ghanans, upon completion of a feast, lovingly rub their bellies and ponder, “Why did I get married?”

To both movies, I say, “No, no, no. Thank you but no thank you. Please take it away. I am full.”

It’s Not “Happy Veterans Day” Anymore

I say this because of two reasons. First, I saw a headline about a British, 100 yr old Vet who said plainly that his brother’s-in-arms sacrifices (WWII) were not worth it, looking back. I’m only 44 and I agree.

I didn’t see anything I would classify as true combat. I only knew about a few AF pilots and crew from my squadron that lost their lives or were injured while in OIF/OEF. But, if they ever were sound in theory, the whole “fight them now rather than later” or “fight them over there rather than back at home” concepts have been blown to shit now. I see now that the only defensible reason to fight and sacrifice has to be in the framework and timeline of “now”. “These people must be killed now.” “These buildings and capabilities must be destroyed now.” Put another way, the main feeling I had when I got back from Iraq remains: While I was over there trying to stop them, y’all let them in the back door here? WTF, Over?

Secondly, over the past couple of years, as covid restrictions and pandemic mentality lifted, my Ethiopian wife has seen more instances than she ever did between 2011 and now (met me in 2018) of me standing and receiving applause (and me applauding) upon being asked to stand at certain events which take a moment to honor Veterans or First Responders. As I learn more about my wife, which includes learning more and more about how little she knows or understands about America*, I can’t help but wonder (I will laugh in your face if you think there is value in me asking her directly) what goes on in her mind when she sees this exercise of up-and-down, wack-a-mole. If I was to give it my best shot, I’ll be damned if her thoughts go beyond, “Oh look! People are happy and clapping!” while her face uncontrollably forms a smile to match the group’s mood. I ask you to likewise look around America at the first-generation immigrants’ faces during these moments and see if they have a clue.

What to do? Who knows.

——

*Keep in mind, this is despite being married to yours truly. It is a significant feature of the uneducated to hold strongly to their uninformed beliefs through the barrage of all contrary experience.

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!

It’s Pilot vs. System, and I Hope Pilot

I try to make things simple for my mom (not because of anything other than her desire to cut through the crap) after any aircraft crashes—especially if they are of the kind of aircraft or type of flying that I do. As most of you would know, this simplified rationale was again needed due to some recent crashes out west.

My effort was, “As dark as it sounds, if you want to know my thoughts, I hope we learn that ‘pilot error’ was the cause. That’s far easier to live with than the idea that one day the helicopter is just going to kill me.” The reader can see in this dichotomy the split that every pilot learns from the start of pilot training. Crashes are either pilot error or mechanical. And 80% of crashes are pilot error according to the data. It also makes sense. And it also keeps aviation functioning. Why would anyone want to hop into or fly an aircraft that cannot perform its function reliably?

After chatting with a couple mechanics recently, I was reminded that they bear the heavy cross of “I sure hope it wasn’t mechanical”. This coheres with other offhand comments aircraft mechanics have uttered over my career, being, “That’s what I lose sleep over.” These mechanics do not want to find that some unfinished or inept work of theirs got people killed.

There is a sense which the pilot and mechanic can be said to be “of a kind” on crashes then. They (we) both want flawless aircraft and flawed (if only very infrequently) pilots. But this is not what I meant when I simplified things to my mom.

The reason for the post, the complex version of my thoughts on the matter, is as follows. It isn’t simply man vs. machine. Or even man and machine. It is man and system. Or man vs. system. I mean to draw out that if the aircraft had a mechanical problem which the pilot was unable to handle, the “problem” that now needs to be addressed is enormous and multi-tiered. It’s a question of quality of engineers, quality of materials, quality of parts, quality of QC, quality of maintenance program, quality of individual mechanic who performed the work, and quality of pilot who preflighted (which also includes his or her training and all of the people and processes involved there). Depending on the mechanical failure, there is also a possible new data set regarding deficient training for the pilot regarding Emergency Procedures. A, “I didn’t know what to do because we never saw that fail before.” So all that is what I mean by “system” in my “pilot vs. system” framing. This is to say, no, it’s not just “mechanical”. It’s actually a ding against the whole aviation system.

On the other hand, if the pilot caused the crash, then there is just one pilot who didn’t perform his simple task of perform the same number of landings as takeoffs. And that can happen to any pilot for a variety of reasons—though, being the best pilot ever (best of the best to be more clear), it naturally won’t happen to me.

In the end, the result is the same. I believe in the aviation system. And I believe that I should be the pilot which demonstrates how the system is truly remarkable. This is why, when considering pilot’s who crash have families and are possibly injuring passengers who have families etc, I can admit that it would *feel* good to attribute the crash to, essentially, “fate” or anyone else’s fault, the simple fact is and will always be that part of the motivation to be a pilot is the consequential nature of the job. If I didn’t believe in the system and my ability to lead it, I wouldn’t strap the aircraft on time and time again.

PS – Even the Huntington Beach one which YouTube seems to show was a pure part failure (‘system’ according to my point) can’t yet be chalked up to “system”. We do not yet know if the system failed or the pilot didn’t perform an adequate preflight and forms review etc.