I've decided that the most effective way for me to talk about what I'm reading is to just act like I'm discussing what I have read with someone else. This means that anytime I write about a novel, the post may be subject to spoilers.
You have been warned.
My mom brought home this book called Ishmael from her college. The staff is looking to assign the book as a summer reading assignment, but some of the administrators were not sure if the book would be too dated.
I could tell immediately that this book is anything but dated. In all actuality, it is eerily current. Or rather, sheds light on the fact that the same environmental and population issues that we are considering a crisis now were also a crisis in 1992. And were also a crisis before 1992. As a "civilized" human society (or as Ishmael calls us: Takers) we have been aware of the problem but have chosen to ignore it because we are being told by Mother Nature that human beings do not need to live by the same standards as animals.
We have set ourselves apart from the wild with the false assumption that we we were "born to turn the world into a paradise, but tragically [we were] born flawed. And so [our] paradise has always been flawed by stupidity, greed, destructiveness, and shortisghtedness."
This book gives an extended discussion between the teacher Ishmael, who happens to be a gorilla, and his student. Presumably, the student represents me (the reader) in his ignorance and persistence in questioning. The student is me because he is learning at the same time as I am what Ishmael has to say. Which is a lot.
In the particular discussion that I am thinking of, Ishmael explains to his pupil about gaining knowledge through a system of trial and error. He explains that mankind learned how to fly when he discovered that there were certain laws which govern flying. The laws of aerodynamics working hand in hand with the law of gravity. Without this knowledge, a man could build the most beautiful flying machine but it will not fly if it is breaking the laws.
The pilot, full of dreams and not aware of these laws, will ignorantly throw himself and his craft off a tall cliff. For a long time, the man thinks that he is flying when in reality he is in an extended fall. He will only realize that he has not flown when he ceases to fly: ie- he crashes.
"Trial and error isn't a bad way to learn how to build an aircraft, but it can be a disastrous way to learn how to build a civilization."
endpost.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The War on Choice: Discussion 3- Conflicted *If you were directed here by my facebook...COMMENT
So I've gotten to the halfway point in The War on Choice...for the most part, what I have read has sat well with me.
That was up until a day or two ago when I came across a few passages concerning the right to abortion for people who are underage. I am seriously conflicted on this one.
I can completely understand the need for parental guidance on this issue, but I'm also not sure if requiring parental permission is crossing the line and infringing on the rights of the young woman who may be forced to bear the child. I am on the fence with this issue. To the point where I've been asking people about it all day, and haven't been able to get it off my mind.
A friend of mine brought up a really interesting point to me, saying that underage teens should actually be required to have their parents' permission to keep the baby. On the grounds that the parents would be the only financially stable people in the infant's life, and should therefore be able to choose whether or not they wish to support the new child...if the parents do not wish to support the child, they can choose to abort it. That argument actually brings up a lot of interesting points that I didn't think about until now. Like, if the pregnant minor is the one who wants to keep the child, but the parents don't, then who has the right to choose?
Whatever. The point being is that this friend of mine thinks the parents should be the deciders of whether their pregnant minor can keep the child or not. Using the above example...if that makes sense. Which it does in a roundabout way.
So people: what are your stances on this very important issue????? I really want to see how others view this topic *although I am not asking to be persuaded...simply asking for input*
Hop to it! Let's see some comments
endpost.
That was up until a day or two ago when I came across a few passages concerning the right to abortion for people who are underage. I am seriously conflicted on this one.
I can completely understand the need for parental guidance on this issue, but I'm also not sure if requiring parental permission is crossing the line and infringing on the rights of the young woman who may be forced to bear the child. I am on the fence with this issue. To the point where I've been asking people about it all day, and haven't been able to get it off my mind.
A friend of mine brought up a really interesting point to me, saying that underage teens should actually be required to have their parents' permission to keep the baby. On the grounds that the parents would be the only financially stable people in the infant's life, and should therefore be able to choose whether or not they wish to support the new child...if the parents do not wish to support the child, they can choose to abort it. That argument actually brings up a lot of interesting points that I didn't think about until now. Like, if the pregnant minor is the one who wants to keep the child, but the parents don't, then who has the right to choose?
Whatever. The point being is that this friend of mine thinks the parents should be the deciders of whether their pregnant minor can keep the child or not. Using the above example...if that makes sense. Which it does in a roundabout way.
So people: what are your stances on this very important issue????? I really want to see how others view this topic *although I am not asking to be persuaded...simply asking for input*
Hop to it! Let's see some comments
endpost.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The War On Choice: Discussion 2
Over the past couple of days, I've been trying to write down any interesting quotes, facts that I'm not sure about, and new information I have learned from The War on Choice.
I've been flying through the book and I'm already almost halfway done because I have enjoyed it so much.
Writing things down as I read them has helped me to absorb more information, or at least given me the opportunity to recall anything that I may have forgotten in my haste to move on to the next topic.
Below is one particular quote that I found to be of immense interest. The reason for this is that I am unsure of how much truth it holds, or whether or not the truth is being stretched here...
Read below::
"...in many religions, as I discuss below, the fetus is not considered a person until it has either "quickened'...or grown to viability-- the stage of which it could survive outside the woman's body."
When I mentioned earlier about my confusion over this statement, I was referencing the disbelief I have that this is the actual belief of any religion. As I understand it for many religions, or at least Catholicism, life begins at the moment of conception, not the moment of fertilization (I'm still not sure I even understand the difference between these two...) and not at quickening or viability stages. Quickening meaning when the mother begins to feel the child within the womb (ie- kicking) and viability is the stage at which the fetus can survive outside of the womb (primarily after the third trimester).
The quote above just seems ideally left-wing in a society that is almost completely right-wing where religion is concerned.
So, readers...wherever you are...if you can answer my questions: feel free. My main concern being which religions did Feldt mean in the above quote??
If I don't get a response, no worries- I'll answer the question for you.
Here's to next time!
endpost.
I've been flying through the book and I'm already almost halfway done because I have enjoyed it so much.
Writing things down as I read them has helped me to absorb more information, or at least given me the opportunity to recall anything that I may have forgotten in my haste to move on to the next topic.
Below is one particular quote that I found to be of immense interest. The reason for this is that I am unsure of how much truth it holds, or whether or not the truth is being stretched here...
Read below::
"...in many religions, as I discuss below, the fetus is not considered a person until it has either "quickened'...or grown to viability-- the stage of which it could survive outside the woman's body."
When I mentioned earlier about my confusion over this statement, I was referencing the disbelief I have that this is the actual belief of any religion. As I understand it for many religions, or at least Catholicism, life begins at the moment of conception, not the moment of fertilization (I'm still not sure I even understand the difference between these two...) and not at quickening or viability stages. Quickening meaning when the mother begins to feel the child within the womb (ie- kicking) and viability is the stage at which the fetus can survive outside of the womb (primarily after the third trimester).
The quote above just seems ideally left-wing in a society that is almost completely right-wing where religion is concerned.
So, readers...wherever you are...if you can answer my questions: feel free. My main concern being which religions did Feldt mean in the above quote??
If I don't get a response, no worries- I'll answer the question for you.
Here's to next time!
endpost.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The War On Choice: Day 1
So I've decided that in order to keep this blog more active, I will make posts about books I am reading AS I am reading them.
I'm not sure how well this will work, but I'm very bad at summarizing things after-the-fact. I feel like writing about my readings this way will give me less to think about and therefore, give me the chance to be more concise...
Today I started a book by Gloria Feldt entitled The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back
Off the bat, I am taken in with the stories and passionate writing-style of Gloria Feldt. I would actually like to do some research on her, and discover whether or not she is more one-sided than she would obviously like her readers to believe.
The reason I am reading this book is because I have decided to re-explore my feelings and opinions on feminism. In truth, I barely even have actual opinions on the issues. I feel strongly about a good many things, but I do so without the proper background knowledge. This lack of knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable and unsure of myself. Therefore, I am trying to be as wary as possible about this book (for now,at least) in order to keep a diplomatic opinion on the issues. As much as I would love to believe everything that Feldt has to say, I feel that in order to be true to feminism, I must be true to myself and not automatically eat up what others are providing. At least not without some research.
One strongly worded sentence written in the book's Intro by Sally Blackmun really really stood out for me.
"Since 1986, the wind has continued to blow ever harder-- with each new legislative erosion of the right to choose, each federal judge that President Bush has appointed, each attempt to give rights to the fetus at the expense of the woman carrying it."
This simple sentence helped me put into words my very basic feelings on abortion and the woman's right to choose. I have always felt confused and torn on the issue of abortion, instinctively wanting to protect the unborn. I am pro-choice and have always been such. That sentence has made me feel less confused and more sure of myself on this issue. On a very basic level, many issues concerning women's reproductive rights are as simple as this: the woman's absolute right to choose. No one can determine whose life holds more value, the mother or the child, but it is up to the mother to decide the fate of herself and her unborn. As sad as that is, it is the truth and the right.
Another very obvious point written in the book, something which has actually never even crossed my mind is the idea that mostly older men are the ones who are deciding what laws should be made concerning women and their bodies. This decision should be made by none but the individual woman. Not detached old men who make choices based on church falsities and propoganda. The book pointing this out to me really shed light on how terribly easy it is for a complete stranger to take my rights away from me. Someone who does not know me and does not care about me. These men do not care about the women they affect, nor do they give second thoughts to the unborn children they have set out to "save."
I strongly support the idea of adopting out unwanted children. But those who make it to adoption centers are the lucky few. Those who are actually adopted are even luckier. There is no lack of children on this earth, unwanted or no. Who can condone allowing for more?
That sounds callous.
That's why I need to keep reading....
hah.
endpost.
I'm not sure how well this will work, but I'm very bad at summarizing things after-the-fact. I feel like writing about my readings this way will give me less to think about and therefore, give me the chance to be more concise...
Today I started a book by Gloria Feldt entitled The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back
Off the bat, I am taken in with the stories and passionate writing-style of Gloria Feldt. I would actually like to do some research on her, and discover whether or not she is more one-sided than she would obviously like her readers to believe.
The reason I am reading this book is because I have decided to re-explore my feelings and opinions on feminism. In truth, I barely even have actual opinions on the issues. I feel strongly about a good many things, but I do so without the proper background knowledge. This lack of knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable and unsure of myself. Therefore, I am trying to be as wary as possible about this book (for now,at least) in order to keep a diplomatic opinion on the issues. As much as I would love to believe everything that Feldt has to say, I feel that in order to be true to feminism, I must be true to myself and not automatically eat up what others are providing. At least not without some research.
One strongly worded sentence written in the book's Intro by Sally Blackmun really really stood out for me.
"Since 1986, the wind has continued to blow ever harder-- with each new legislative erosion of the right to choose, each federal judge that President Bush has appointed, each attempt to give rights to the fetus at the expense of the woman carrying it."
This simple sentence helped me put into words my very basic feelings on abortion and the woman's right to choose. I have always felt confused and torn on the issue of abortion, instinctively wanting to protect the unborn. I am pro-choice and have always been such. That sentence has made me feel less confused and more sure of myself on this issue. On a very basic level, many issues concerning women's reproductive rights are as simple as this: the woman's absolute right to choose. No one can determine whose life holds more value, the mother or the child, but it is up to the mother to decide the fate of herself and her unborn. As sad as that is, it is the truth and the right.
Another very obvious point written in the book, something which has actually never even crossed my mind is the idea that mostly older men are the ones who are deciding what laws should be made concerning women and their bodies. This decision should be made by none but the individual woman. Not detached old men who make choices based on church falsities and propoganda. The book pointing this out to me really shed light on how terribly easy it is for a complete stranger to take my rights away from me. Someone who does not know me and does not care about me. These men do not care about the women they affect, nor do they give second thoughts to the unborn children they have set out to "save."
I strongly support the idea of adopting out unwanted children. But those who make it to adoption centers are the lucky few. Those who are actually adopted are even luckier. There is no lack of children on this earth, unwanted or no. Who can condone allowing for more?
That sounds callous.
That's why I need to keep reading....
hah.
endpost.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Invisible Monsters
Read this book if:
-You like sassySASSY people
-You like people who like themselves
-You love drama and soap operas
Do not read this book if:
-You don't like gay people
MOST DYNAMIC book of my life. Seriously. Weirdest, most bizarre characters in the best way possible. REad read read it (but only if you like or love any of the above!)
I forget the author. He wrote Fight Club. Chuck P.
endpost.
-You like sassySASSY people
-You like people who like themselves
-You love drama and soap operas
Do not read this book if:
-You don't like gay people
MOST DYNAMIC book of my life. Seriously. Weirdest, most bizarre characters in the best way possible. REad read read it (but only if you like or love any of the above!)
I forget the author. He wrote Fight Club. Chuck P.
endpost.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Fifth Sorceress
Biggest con about this book? The ridiculous amount of drama. Dare I say that I enjoyed (even loved) the book and sort of developed a hatred toward the author and his terrible writing style???? I do. Wow. Liberating.
Anyway, the book's storyline was almost on par with The Wayfarer's Redemption by Sara Douglass...which is a pretty huge deal for me in a great great way. However, if you don't appreciate violent sex and completely perverse characters, do not read this book. I'm not saying that it's anywhere near being A Clockwork Orange (which I suggest everyone do NOT read) but there are still some pretty harrowing scenes going on throughout the book.
Now, I was able to deal with the author's ridiculousness (sorry author!) but some of you may not be prepared to handle that either. If you hate seeing this sentence 20 times :: "What he saw next would change his life forever." and this sentence 73 times :: "He looked at Wigg with a look that left no room for argument (or even:: "Wigg looked at him with a look that left no room for argument." ... then I would highly suggest not reading this book.
If you can get over these things, as I did, then READ IT READ IT ABSOLUTELY READ IT. Who knows, maybe the next book in the series will show a great improvement in the author's writing? And so not only will you be reading a book, but also experience a life changing event in the realm of one author. I can't guarantee this though, since I haven't read the second book. But I will do!
So The Fifth Sorceress by Robert Newcomb will receive 3 1/2 stars from me (That's almost 4!)
endpost.
Anyway, the book's storyline was almost on par with The Wayfarer's Redemption by Sara Douglass...which is a pretty huge deal for me in a great great way. However, if you don't appreciate violent sex and completely perverse characters, do not read this book. I'm not saying that it's anywhere near being A Clockwork Orange (which I suggest everyone do NOT read) but there are still some pretty harrowing scenes going on throughout the book.
Now, I was able to deal with the author's ridiculousness (sorry author!) but some of you may not be prepared to handle that either. If you hate seeing this sentence 20 times :: "What he saw next would change his life forever." and this sentence 73 times :: "He looked at Wigg with a look that left no room for argument (or even:: "Wigg looked at him with a look that left no room for argument." ... then I would highly suggest not reading this book.
If you can get over these things, as I did, then READ IT READ IT ABSOLUTELY READ IT. Who knows, maybe the next book in the series will show a great improvement in the author's writing? And so not only will you be reading a book, but also experience a life changing event in the realm of one author. I can't guarantee this though, since I haven't read the second book. But I will do!
So The Fifth Sorceress by Robert Newcomb will receive 3 1/2 stars from me (That's almost 4!)
endpost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
