I must be really bad since I hate all of them. Very funny.
26.9.08
Beckham Both Feet on the Ground

This is only the second sports autobiography I have read. I read Wayne Gretzky's a few times while in high school. Being the type of book this is, the review will be a little different then normal. I didn't borrow this book from the library with expectations of high literature or deep insights. It merely filled the void that I usually fill with Dan Brown types of books. It was reading for the pure enjoyment of reading.
The book is very readable; This probably largely due to efforts of the co-writer, Tom Watt. I don't expect an athlete who has little writing experience to be particularly skilled in the craft of writing. Beckham covers his life up until the point he signs with Real Madrid. The focus is on his soccer career, for obvious reasons, though his courtship and marriage to Posh Spice (Victoria) plays a significant role in the later chapters. David provided a some good details on his life growing up and how much of a factor soccer played in his life. One thing that stuck out to me, similar to Gretzky's autobiography, was that Beckham's father had played some organized soccer, like Gretzky's dad played some organized hockey. This connection shows the role a father's interest in an activity can influence their children.
I found Beckham shared his emotions about certain events and big games. He seemed to be trying to be open and not cover up the joy of winning a big game vs. the sadness of losing a big game. There is also the tension that developed between him and Alex Ferguson near the end of his Manchester United career. I felt he was pretty open about the emotions he felt during this period. The mixture of having a falling out with the coach and the slow realization that he would not play another game in Old Trafford.
Even with all the openness, the book still lacked some personality in the writing style. My memories of reading Gretzky's autobiography are very different from reading Beckham. While reading Gretzky's book, it seemed more like he was talking in his own voice. Whereas Beckham seemed to have too large of a filter between the mind and the page. Even though he was open about his emotions, they weren't as palpable I think they could have been. The rest of the book, while readable and generally pleasant, lacked that personal feel to it.
Overall, this book is a fun read. I think any soccer fan would love it. It seemed to be somewhat geared to female readers, judging from the number of pictures included with Beckham's shirt off (especially those found in the last group of pics). I also think this a good book to fill a gap between more demanding titles. It was almost relieving to read this after reading PJ O'Rourke. When compared to other athletes, Beckham does seem to be a class act, especially compared to A-Rod.
22.9.08
Scrap the Pledge

This isn't a major issue at the moment, though it has been in the recent past. The Pledge of Allegiance for the U.S. has been the center of significant controversy in recent years. Most of the controversy centers on the phrase Under God, which was added to the pledge in 1954. I consider this a minor issue, as the title for this post may suggest.
I remember reciting The Pledge throughout my school years. I was a good little American and recited everyday while in school. I have two reasons for at least reducing it's place in public life. (image - Students pledging to the flag in a former form of the salute, specifically the Bellamy salute)
First, The Pledge does absolutely nothing. Maybe some folks feel patriotic when they recite it, especially during time of war. To be honest, I never took it seriously growing up. It was just he first thing you did in your day at school. I think most kids who recite it have grown numb to any meaning that could be gained from The Pledge. It seems to me, that if The Pledge is so important, then we would want to reduce its use so that it doesn't become a meaningless series of words that tired school kids brainlessly repeat each morning. Basically, give The Pledge some real respect.
Second, I completely oppose compulsory recitation of The Pledge. That violates the very rights the words are meant to glorify in The Pledge. Forcing citizens to recite The Pledge sounds totalitarian and belongs in an Orwell novel, not American classrooms. Besides, what does it say about a nation where people feel that a Pledge of Allegiance is needed.
If we are to maintain a Pledge for the U.S., we need to have some changes. Take it out of the schools. This should only be used on rare occasions, like swearing in new citizens (where it serves a ceremonial purpose). We should change the wording of The Pledge as well. I certainly don't pledge allegiance to a flag. I don't mind having a flag as a symbol of our nation, but I don't swear to it. As much as I disagree and almost despise the man, Michael Moore actually has a good suggestion for new wording:
I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which we stand, one nation, part of one world, with liberty and justice for all.
It's not ideal, but I do think it's a place to start and I think it brings up some of the core issues that patriotism should be about.
I think that, improving the wording, reducing repetition, and providing The Pledge a proper ceremonial use, The Pledge will develop real meaning. That will lead more people to appreciate what it says and what it means. Just my thoughts.
15.9.08
Let Them In
I have yet to read the book, though it (Let Them In) and Mexifornia are both on my list of books to read. Let Them In hasn't arrived at the library and Mexifornia has been checked out everytime I've visited. Both books address immigration, especially immigration from Mexico. This is an important issue, considering Hispanics will greatly out number African-Americans* in the coming decades. It will be important for us as a nation to have the current understanding about the situation so that we can avoid the mistakes of the past and continue our progress toward truly being a melting pot of different cultures.
This clip from the Cato Institute with the author of Let Them In is the next best thing to reading the book, until I can get a hold of the book.
*Seriously we need another word besides African-Americans. I don't like hyphens, they detract from unity. We just need a cool sounding ethnic name that's not racist that works like Hispanic/Latino.
13.9.08
Election 2008
Reason Magazine did something for the 2004 election where they asked some libertarian thinkers how they planned to vote, how they voted in 2000 and they're most embarrassing vote. I liked the idea and decided to do my version for the 2008 election. Please add comments indicating your choices and explanations.
2008: Bob Barr; I'm not a Bob Barr fan in general, but I committed early in the election season to vote libertarian. My intention in voting libertarian is to put my vote behind the ideas I support and hope that in the future more minor parties can gain more support to challenge the current system. Jello Biafra described our country as "...a one party state masquerading as a two party state." I've decided that voting for expediency is pointless, because every election some how gets painted as being vitally important. If Ron Paul had made the ticket, voting Republican might be somewhat appealing.
2004: Ralph Nader; This was a throw away vote I admit, but I was in Utah and my vote didn't count anyway (not that it really counts in California right now). I couldn't stomach 4 more years of Bush, I felt the Iraq conflict was a mistake from the start; I didn't feel any real love for Kerry either. I maybe could have voted for Kerry if he'd had a different running mate. Edwards is a big turn off for me. I always felt he was trying to sell me something I didn't need; plus there were the comments about Cheney's lesbo daughter that I thought were pretty lame.
2000: George W. Bush; What was I thinking. I guess I felt I needed to be a good republican for some reason. I'm not so sure we can blame 9/11 on him. If Gore would have been in the White House, the same event would have taken place. The aftermath would have been different, although I doubt he would have kept us out of war entirely. I think Dem or Rep in office and we'd be in trouble somewhere when it comes to terrorism. The elected officials always have to look like they are doing something important. Bush didn't earn a second term, but unfortunately he's more telegenic than Gore and Kerry combined. It's the same reason I think that Obama will ultimately win in the end.
Most Embarrassing Vote: See above. That was the first time I got to vote; It probably should have turned me off to voting forever. As more of a kick in the pants, I was an absentee ballot from Florida. I do remember my mom telling me to vote Republican all the way down the ballot. I don't think I did. I probably only should have voted for president, since I was completely uninformed about any of the other candidates for the remaining offices.
I do have an observation about the current election, or at least the media's coverage of it. This may sound sacrilegious, but it's not intended to be so. It seems with the two candidates, the media is painting them as two different versions of Jesus from the Bible. It's true that you probably need a bit of a messiah-complex to be a viable candidate for president. It's almost like McCain being 'roughed-up' (tortured) is his version of Gethsemane where he suffered for our country. Obama on the other hand is being portrayed as the messiah making his triumphant return. You can listen to Dan Carlin's analysis here (it's an hour long, just FYI). Personally, I think we'll still get the same old song and dance no matter who gets into office. We don't seem to really have a political system where actually standing for something means getting re-elected.
12.9.08
PJ O'Rourke on the Wealth of Nations
I looked forward to reading this book. I've enjoyed PJ on TV and think he's pretty funny and does a good job supporting generally libertarian ideas. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I struggled with his latest book. I came the the conclusion that he writes the way I think, very disjointed. Unfortunately, we're not in sync. I think I was able to understand most of the point he was trying make as I read the book, but not much sunk in.
The main issue for me came from his little asides and random references. I got a lot of them, but there were a few that didn't click. I also found them to be disruptive as I read. There were a vast number of quotes from Adam Smith's book, but those became a little tiresome in places, although I think O'Rourke still did a fair job of addressing the quotes.
6.9.08
A New Reality Show: Wayne Allyn Root's $1,000,000 Challenge
Wayne Allyn Root has called Barack Obama out. According to Root, he graduated from the same class at Columbia, '83 poli sci/pre-law. Root does not remember Obama from his years at Columbia. Root is not accusing Obama about lying about attending, but that Obama did nothing while at Columbia. The $1,000,000 challenge pits Roots GPA against Obama's while at Columbia. Root claims to have earned B+/A- grades and a decent LSAT score, but was told not to even consider Harvard or any other top tier Law School. Obama got in to Harvard, and according to Root, it could not be because of Obama's abilities (or at least efforts in his under-grad). This is an interesting challenge, however rather meaningless.
Undergrad grades are one thing, but I don't even think they prove that much in the long-run. It does bring to mind the thing I've heard about Obama abstaining from important votes while in the Illinois state senate. I don't have the facts, so I can't really judge but if true that alone should disqualify him from being a viable candidate in the minds of most people. How can you be an agent for change if you do not participate in important decisions? Something to chew on. I wasn't planning on voting for Obama anyway. I get to throw my vote away with the Libertarian Party ticket, which does include Mr. Root in the VP slot.
If there are any takers for the challenge, please contact Wayne Allyn Root. As an aside, I didn't really like Tucker Carlson, but this interview I thought was pretty good. I have new found respect for Tucker.
3.9.08
The 'N' Word
Most of the books I read come from the list I keep and continually update with new tomes. I came across The 'N' Word while browsing my local library. With a title like that, I just picked it up and headed to the check-out kiosk. Since I'd never heard of the book, I was able to read it with an open mind. The book is a history of the use of the N word in the United States and of racism in general. Jabari Asim is the author. I enjoyed this book and am disappointed that it took me three weeks to finish it.
The structure of the book makes it easy to follow. Asim take the use of the word and divides the History of the U.S. into five time periods with several subchapters in each. This structure provides helps show the use and evolution of use of the N word. I really felt like I grew with the word. For each era, Asim provides ample storytelling to showcase how the word was used and who used it. He successfully destroys the myth that the the only users to the word are merely uneducated people from The South. Plenty of educated people from The North and The South took occasion to use the word. Along with the use of the word Asim demonstrates the racism that went with the word, even among American heroes. Many consider Jefferson and Lincoln as the great believers in equality in the U.S., but both held views that were not entirely consistent with that image.
The most striking chapters for me came when Asim brings the word into the modern era. Knowing the history of the word and better understanding the baggage associated with it make these chapters all the more meaningful. Asim makes the case against banning the use of the word entirely in these chapters. He shows how artists are able to use the power of the word to be ironic or to make certain social point. He cites Richard Pryor as being key in filling this role. Asim also suggests that African-Americans should not be concerned with whites who use the word behind closed doors. Not that he approves of the use of the word, but it's not something that can be policed. I get the sense that he sees such a pursuit as futile and maybe he believes the word will fall out of fashion eventually. He points to LBJ's use of the word behind closed doors, though he was also responsible to making sure some of the most important Civil Right legislation was passed. He's making the point that people realize they live in a culturally diverse world and they will behave accordingly, as long as there is accountability.
The only real weakness I found in the book came in a few of the chapters. The overall structure kept the thoughts consistent and on track, but there were times in the book when too many quotes were used causing some lack of cohesion on some thoughts. This wasn't a major problem, but certainly noticeable.
As I stated above, I enjoyed this book. I admit to having used the word, though most of the time has been to mock racism (mostly in my adult life). Fortunately, it hasn't been a major problem for me. Since reading the book I've been able to reflect on using that kind of language, even when not serious. I am certainly less inclined to use that kind of language or similar terms, thinking mostly of Fag/Faggot (Asim touches on slurs against homosexuals, but leaves those two out the the discussion for some odd reason). I will certainly be more conscious in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)