Stuart Archer Cohen’s new novel is, to say the least, polarizing. His world view and philosophical outlook inform both the message and the tone of the book. So, needless to say, some readers are not going to be pleased with what they find between the covers. But, if you can put your firm and unwavering convictions aside and allow this tale of dictatorship and dissent to speak to you, you might actually enjoy the ride.
One way in which the book will not change some minds is through the hyper-realistic settings and events. When writing a cautionary tale about modern-day events and politics, most authors will either keep the narrative grounded firmly in the real world. Some, however, will make their point by taking real events and situations and exaggerating them to an almost absurd degree. The latter, while sometimes distracting, does not necessarily discredit the message within. 1984, A Brave New World, and Atlas Shrugged are just some examples of philosophical theses successfully encapsulated in a science-fiction or fantasy shell. The Army of the Republic may seem far fetched in some spots, and may occasionally overreach in others. But those perturbed by this might be better off reading a Clancy or Grisham paperback. Deep (and sometimes radical) beliefs occasionally need to be shouted from soap boxes bigger than the real world can currently afford us.
Cohen may not be successful in converting the unconvinced with his spectacular tale of ruthless corporate oligarchs, Blackwater reminiscent death squads, and radical underground movements. But he makes his argument loud, clear, and most importantly, highly entertaining.
Young adult novels have always had a dark side, so to speak; a sub-genre that eschews peer pressure and turbulent relationships for death, despair, and destruction. This is not a recent trend. For every Death Note you find today, you can find an equally disturbing Z for Zachariah. While much of today’s dark teen novels lean towards the supernatural, you will occasionally find one that ventures into more classical science fiction territory. Suzanne Collin’s newest YA novel, The Hunger Games, does so quite successfully. The setting is grim and oppressive, the characters are desperate and hopeless, and the specter of death hangs over every page. And every page will drag the reader eagerly to the next.
Strong and positive female leads are important in young adult novels, and The Hunger Games has the perfect hero in Katniss Everdeen. She is tough, resolute, intelligent, and able. Yet, she still struggles with the same confused feelings and emotions that young girls need to cope with, even when not fighting to the death in a government sponsored reality show/snuff film. As she struggles to survive the deadly prime-time death match she has been unfairly thrust into, she deal not only with these typical teenage dilemmas, but also greater issues concerning government, society, morality, and honor.
All of this might seem like a lot for one book to handle, but Hunger Gamesmanages to do so without coming off too preachy or instructional. Granted, the Hunger Games themselves (which are very reminiscent of previous books like Stephen King’sRunning Man, or Koushun Takami’s manga series Battle Royale), as well as the post-apocalyptic dictatorship Panem that holds the event, might not hold up under the scrutiny that hardcore science-fiction novels sometimes demand. But for a young adult science-fantasy novel like this, demanding one-hundred-percent social-political realism seems a tad unfair. What matters is that the characters and setting support the characters and subject matter, and manage to do so with the captivating suspense of any mainstream paperback thriller.
Beverly Garland, famous actress of classic sitcom and cult B-move fame, has died at the age of 82. Among her many films, Garland starred in the Peter Graves/Lee Van Cleef sci-fi fick It Conquered the World as Cleef's wife. "It Conquered the World" is one of the films written about in MONSTER RALLY. Beverly Garland will be both missed and remembered by everyone behind the scenes at Idea Men Productions.
The problem with selling the occasional used book online is that, on occasion, you will have to deal with an idiot. Most of these idiots contact you with rude emails because the package has not arrived as quickly as they would like, despite the inherent problems with the United States Postal Service. Often, when these idiots do contact you, they are demanding, authoritative, and irritating beyond belief.
Idiots like James from Tulsa, OK, who sent this message about a book ordered two weeks ago for just under $1:
I am about to leave negative feedback for non shipment of the mass murder book. Contact me ASAP or I will file a complaint with Ebay.
My problem, of course, is that I hate it when someone says ASAP to me. My response:
Your book was shipped two days after it was ordered. It was shipped via Media Mail, which can take several weeks to arrive. I will send you another shipment notice through Half.com in case you did not receive the last one. Please refrain from threatening action for not receiving items until you have allowed enough time for the item to be received.
James shot back with this:
I ordered almost 2 weeks ago and the notification I received today indicated that it was only shipped today. I am well versed in e-baying and I read all shipping and other details. I am not threating, I was simply stating that if there was not action on your part of the deal, I would take action. It obviously worked since you shipped it today.
And this:
Furthermore, the notification you sent me today said the longest it should take is 12 days. This is what I allowed for and then some before writing and asking for action. This is your "bad", not mine.
My reply:
Let me respond to your multiple messages ASAP.
Directly cut and pasted from Half.com:
'In general, items shipped via Media Mail should arrive in 2 - 9 days (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) from the time of shipping. It is our experience that Media Mail shipments may take as long as 30 days to arrive.Note that the USPS does not guarantee a specified delivery time for Media Mail and it may receive “deferred service.”'
But, since you are "well versed in e-baying" and "read all shipping and other details", you already knew about the above statement, easily found in the shipping section.
You are also correct that you were not, in fact, threatening. You were simply curt, accusatory, and somewhat rude. I can truly understand this, however, as I am well aware of the vast scams being run on the internet these days. As someone "well versed in e-baying" like you knows, there are nefarious criminals out there who make a fortune selling 99 cent paperback books online, then pocketing the change without ever delivering the promised goods. It is important to catch these fiends ASAP, and your well-timed message was merely meant to let the potential thief know that you were hip to the scam. If you had some other way of assuring yourself that I was not a con artist (such as nearly 400 positive feedbacks over the past three years), I have no doubt your initial communication would not have been as abrasive.
My "bad", as you put it, was not marking the item shipped when it was posted two weeks ago (the tracking information on the package will confirm the ship date). For not informing you ASAP of the immediate shipment of this 99 cent paperback, I must humbly and sincerely apologize.
If, for some reason, your package has not arrived by December 6, please be sure to let me know ASAP so that I may look into the matter. If needed, I will send you the tracking information ASAP so the current whereabouts of the package can be determined.
Those looking for quick lists of public domain resources meant for casual perusal and quick consumption will be in for a pleasant surprise. This is not just a guide on where to find public domain materials such as music, photos, and literary works. You will find that information within, but you will find much, much more besides.
Stephen Fishman, an experienced attorney in both government and private practice since 1979, provides all of the legal information that many readers might never have known they needed. Fishman goes into great detail about the history of public domain materials, the legalities of usage and ownership regarding such works, the loopholes to look for, and the pitfalls to avoid.
Other books from Nolo have successfully endeavored to communicate legal information to its readers in clear, simple language. The Public Domain achieves this goal as well, and will undoubtedly act as an indispensable reference to anyone seeking out legally obtainable works in the public domain.
Since everyone is jumping on the I Hate Michelle Bachmann bandwagon, I wanted to post this video that went live on The Huffington Post showing another glowing example of prideful ignorance injected into right-wing patriotism.
Never mind that the riots in question at the time had nothing to do with teenagers demanding bigger welfare payouts, but rather neighborhoods who felt that government sanctioned racial discrimination had become commonplace, the catalyst for which was the death of two suburban teens during a high speed police chase. Nobody can really feign shock and surprise anymore when politicians refuse to let facts interfere with a good campaign speech.
The most shocking part of Bachmann's rhetoric is that she seems to have little or no idea exactly how evil or stupid she sounds. "Only in France," she says with a self-indulgent chuckle that would make Rush Limbaugh proud, "could you have suburban youths rioting because welfare benefits aren't generous enough." Then she explains that they're really rioting because they are all watching alJazeeera on cable TV, and that this was all happening because France was letting the the Muslims come in and take over their culture.
You could spend hours reading into the racist, nationalist, xenophobic, bigoted, and downright ignorant origins of every word the woman forces out of her mouth. Especially about how France "had" a great culture, but they were losing it the Muslims who were refusing to assimilate into the culture. However, I'm going to take a moment to obsess over a little line that slips through the cracks somewhere between the rioting teens and "Not all cultures are equal."
My personal favorite is when she laughs at the absurdity of poor people complaining about not having any money, yet they still have cable television in their apartments. This is the kind of mental slight-of-hand that became real popular back in the late eighties, when it became common to dismiss the idea of poor people by listing the luxuries they had. Rush Limbaugh would spend hours complaining how people considered too poor to pay taxes could afford "luxuries" like air-condition, VCR's (yeah, that's how old this argument is) and even cable TV.
The next time someone complains to you about welfare recipients having dvd players or cable television, tell them to get a pen and paper.
Then tell them to make a column with the cost of a cheap second-hand dvd player, a used television, and the annual rental cost of basic cable.
Then tell them to make a second column with the estimated costs of rent, clothing, groceries (both food and necessities, like toiletries), medical bills, school supplies, and utilities for a family of four currently trying to struggle through hard times on welfare.
Then have him compare the number from the first column to the number from the second column.
A week ago, Minnesota Republican Michelle Bachmann was on Hardball with lovable psycho-boy Chris Matthews. When Chris challenged her on her recent statements about Barrack Obama being anti-American, she not only backed her original statement, but gleefully called for McCarthy reminiscentinvestigations into the patriotism of other office holders.
Reaction was swift, and thankfully, much of that reaction was outrage and disgust. Bachmann'sopponent in Minnesota, Elwyn Tinlenberg, received a sudden influx of nearly half a million dollars in donations the next day, while NRCC chairman Tom Cole thanked Bachmann for linking this year's Republican election races to one of the Right Wing's darkest moments in US history by pulling her campaign funds.
Apparently, Michelle Bachmann is not only stupid enough to think that calling for a new political witch hunt was a good call, she's also dumb enough to think that no one would notice if she denied having ever said what she was recording as saying on a major cable news channel.
With both sides calling her an out-and-out idiot, she quickly scrambled to release a recorded statement (good call on avoiding another interview, Michelle) that was neither a retraction, an apology, or even an acknowledgement of the trouble she'd gotten herself into.
What's more mind-boggling to me isn't the complete ambiguity of her statement, but rather the 'choice' she says Americans now face: "We could embrace Government as the answer to our problems, or we could choose Freedom and Liberty." Where do you start to tear this pseudo-intellectual crap apart? Do you start at the inference that or government isn't interesting in or capable of delivering Freedom or Liberty? How about the idea that government is to blame for all of our problems today, so the one thing we shouldn't do is expect it to set things straight? Am I the only person that could read this as a call to Anarchy? And exactly what the hell do Freedom and Liberty have to do with the problems that most Americans are facing today? A lot of people are in agreement that the humongous debacle that our economy has suddenly become can be blamed on a little too much Freedom being afforded to financial institutions over the past few decades. It was a very good call not to make this statement in an interview setting, as I have no doubt Bachmann would have been dumb enough to explain upon questioning that Freedom and Liberty is achieved by preventing the government from actually helping anybody struggle through the hard times that it's blatant mismanagement have caused.
(On a personal note, I find it exceedingly funny that the party Ayn Rand, who became a symbol for them because of her praise of cold rationalism and hatred of unintellectual emotion-based politics, now constantly races to emotional qualifiers like "I know what's in my heart" when cornered on the illogical stances they take. But that's me; I dig irony.)
This is the kind of stuff that drives the logical part of me to irrational degrees of anger and frustration. We live in a day and age where people are recorded with and with out their knowledge to a frightening degree on a daily basis, and these are just the average everyday people with no fear of media scrutiny.
And yet... and yet... not only do politicians repeatedly forget that when it comes to the media, the microphone is always on, they have this stubborn inability to realize that once they have said something on camera, it can be played back again later!
Granted, this attitude might have been more successful twenty years ago, when an adamant denial like the one Bachmann made would only be exposed if the interviewer later dug up the tape and played it, and even then it would be too late to have any real effect of the lie. But now, in the day and age of YouTube, streaming video, viral emails, and relentless bloggers, trying to pull this kind of day-to-day revisionism borders on being absurdly ignorant.
I'm not going to get into the whole Bush/Wristwatch nonsense, because it truly does sadden me, but the fact that side-by-side videos like these are popping up on a weekly basis exposes an underlying truth that we as a collective of people being governed and ruled by these people need to fess up to.
The truth, the honest truth, is that they've always lied like this. They've always treated the public with contempt and disdain, and have always acted on the belief that we never pay attention long enough to actually be aware of what they are really up to. And for the longest time, they've been right. The only reason we are catching up with them and their lies is that they haven't yet figured out how to adapt their way of life to the rapidly changing technology and the new world that is emerging from it.
And when they do, that's when we're really going to have to start watching our backs.
The similarities between The Penguin's (Burgess Meredith) opening comments in his debate against Batman (Adam West) are eerily reminiscent of John McCain's campaign and its chosen form of attack against Barack Obama.
For those who check up on me periodically, you might have noticed that I have not posted much in the past months. For this I apologize, as it is a crime for me to withhold my political savvy and brilliance from the rest of the world. This is doubly inexcuseable considering the complete and utter circus this election has become.
My excuse, however, is quite simple: I've been busy with other projects. The biggest of these projects, two books to be published by the end of the year, will be shamelessly promoted on this site when they become available, despite their having nothing to do with politics.
Then again, the focus of the books will be on horror films, and I will be the first to admit that some of the stuff I've been witnessing on the news and in the debates has truly scared the living shit out of me.
But, long story short: I'm back for awhile. I hope you missed me.
I live in Branchburg, New Jersey, just across the Delaware river from Easton, Pennsylvania. It is about a twenty minute drive to Bethlehem from my house, a drive that I often make.
Odds are that some of these people actually live near me.
I've got to blame Obama on this one. He knows who he is dealing with, and he knows how they think. He should have known better to actually utter the phrase "Spread the Wealth" within earshot of anyone, let alone camera crews.
That was all the McCain Campaign needed ramp up their "Liberals are Communists" paranoia. After all, "Spread the Wealth" sounds a lot like "Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor", right? And what could be more UnAmerican than that?
Now, to be perfectly fair to the American public as a whole, I will admit that this is not a tactic that will work across the board. On the contrary, you'd have to be either a complete idiot or a die-hard Republican to actually buy into the idea that Taxes equal Welfare. That's almost like claiming that your landlord demanding rent money is tantamount to Extortion.
Or, to be more blunt, it's a Big Fucking Lie.
Of course, the McCampaign has been throwing BFL's left and right since the race officially started, so tossing one more on the fire doesn't seem like a big deal. But it is almost mind-boggling how big the balls of the Republican Party are when they come right out and say that Taxes are anti-American, except when they do it.
What do informed, educated McCain supporters think of Obama's economic policies?
In the last debate, when racist and violent obscenities shouted during McCain/Palin rallies were brought up, McCain was expected by most logical people to condemn those attacks. Instead, he complained that there were t-shirts at Obama rallies that he thought were hurtful to him, and then went on to defend his supporters against some imagined/unvoiced attack against them as a whole.
It an easy yet transparent trick. If he condemns the idiots in his crowd, he is admitting that a percentage of his supporters are idiots. So instead, he paints a quick picture of his entire base as two-job-working hockey moms and patriotic military veterans, and acts outraged that anyone would dare cast aspersions on these fine Americans.
Meanwhile, realizing that the Ayers/Obama link is gaining little or no ground outside of Hannity's America, the GOP Noise Machine and McCain's Campaign are now lifting the bar by screaming out more recognizable catch-phrases, such as "Marxist" (which I challenge most people leveling the claim to properly define), "Anti-American" (In case you think Markist is that guy with the mustache that walks funny), and "Welfare" to describe any taxes under Obama's plan. The later will probably be the most effective, as the Republicans have spent the last couple of decades heaping fear, lies, and misinformation upon the general public to the point where just hearing the word Welfare evokes mental images of lazy minorities with seventeen illegitimate children cashing government checks and driving off in fur-lined Cadillacs to buy drugs with food stamps. Isn't it great to know that a portion of people on the far Right still see poor people through the filter of seventies exploitation flicks?
Stuart Archer Cohen’s new novel is, to say the least, polarizing. His world view and philosophical outlook inform both the message and the tone of the book. So, needless to say, some readers are not going to be pleased with what they find between the covers. But, if you can put your firm and unwavering convictions aside and allow this tale of dictatorship and dissent to speak to you, you might actually enjoy the ride.
