So far so good. I especially enjoyed the chemistry between Suze and Jesse. "Fun" is the one word that comes to mind when I think of this series.So far so good. I especially enjoyed the chemistry between Suze and Jesse. "Fun" is the one word that comes to mind when I think of this series....more
Meg Cabot is a friend's favorite author which promoted me to grab this off the library shelf. I had no idea that this was the seventh installment (andMeg Cabot is a friend's favorite author which promoted me to grab this off the library shelf. I had no idea that this was the seventh installment (and first "adult" book) in the Mediator series. Yet even though I haven't read the other books, I enjoyed this immensely.
The characters and their chemistry were spot on and reminded me a lot of the Sookie Stackhouse Novels by Charlaine Harris.
A romantic comedy based around the supernatural, Remembrance is a fun read with fun, bad-ass albeit flawed characters that you look forward to meeting again in the next book.
Would definitely go back and read other books in this series and/or other books by this author.
5 stars despite the fact that this was long...way too long. It was comprehensive and seemed honest in its portrayal of our almost first Madam Presiden5 stars despite the fact that this was long...way too long. It was comprehensive and seemed honest in its portrayal of our almost first Madam President.
I really don't have the time to review this book properly so I will only say that Hillary Clinton is a fascinating woman who has lived a very public life but still remains somewhat of a mystery to most of us.
I voted for her in this election, however, I've never been a huge fan and this book seemed to provide some justification for my reservations.
I know many liberals are feeling dismay at the Trump presidency, but it is time to admit Hillary was not without her faults. In my opinion she should have never been the the liberal nomination. Yes, she has experience, yes, she is more qualified than Trump, and yes, I think she at least believes she has noble intentions. Unfortunately, she has terrible political instincts, surrounds herself with yes men/women, and suffers from a sort of political narcissism (believes that she is on the side of good, that the end justifies the means, and that she therefore doesn't owe anyone an explanation for anything.)
Don't get me wrong. I think she's an amazing woman who has many worthy accomplishments, just don't think she would have made a good leader. The lesser of two evils...maybe...probably...I just don't know....more
This was a random pick off the library shelf, an attempt to try something new.
At the time I had no ide3.5 bumped up to 4 because I'm feeling generous.
This was a random pick off the library shelf, an attempt to try something new.
At the time I had no idea it was a prequel to another very popular series, The Left Behind series.
It was okay in a Rosemary's Baby kind of way.
The writing was good enough and the characters were interesting enough. The book kind of ends without ending, which didn't make sense until I later read that this was a prequel.
I liked it enough to read the second book and/or try the Left Behind series.
I will add that I thought some of the commentary on religion, agnosticism, and atheism was insightful and thought provoking....more
I thought this was a very honest portrayal of Donald Trump, a man whose real talent is not his building expertise or his business acumen but instead hI thought this was a very honest portrayal of Donald Trump, a man whose real talent is not his building expertise or his business acumen but instead his ability to sell to himself.
Like Trump or hate him, it is impossible to deny his celebrity status. And it is this celebrity status that has ensured he remain a household name for decades.
After reading this book, I do feel as if I have a greater appreciation for Trump's appeal to so many Americans.
1. Those around him report he is an extremely positive person, claiming that even when he was worth less than nothing (-900 million according to some), he had this uncanny ability to stay positive.
2. He not only does what he wants, he's unapologetic about it...and if you don't like it you can go "f" yourself.
3. He represents not only having money and excess but also in reveling in it.
4. He is extremely loyal to those who support him and extremely viscous to those who don't.
5. He is a marketing genius who understands that perception is everything, but even more importantly perception can be manipulated (too easily, sometimes).
6. He says what he thinks even if he doesn't always mean what he says.
7. He's charismatic and a great entertainer.
8. He is the master of spin, inflating his successes and minimizing his failures.
9. He dares to be politically incorrect (and unapologetically so).
10. He's not a politician or part of the establishment.
Personally, I don't begrudge Trump his success or wealth. I don't care how many women he's slept with. I also don't care how inflated his self-worth is...(he has consistently claimed to be worth billions when most estimate his true worth is closer to millions). Because honestly, I don't think being rich or popular qualifies you to be the leader of the free world.
My concerns with Trump are many and were also highlighted in the narrative.
1. His sense of entitlement. This idea that he not only gets a free pass because of his wealth, but that he actually deserves it.
2. He is extremely vindictive in an almost childish way.
3. He has the attention span of a toddler. Something his critics claim has contributed to many of his business failures.
4. His absolute failures in business far outnumber his successes.
5. He believes his own bullshit. It's one thing to try and put spin on something, it's another to actually start to believe your own tall tales.
6. He really knows very little about the issues facing America, just like he knew very little about running a casino, or an airline, or a football team etc, etc, etc. But that didn't stop him.
7. Much of his "success" is the result of smoke and mirrors. While this makes for good entertainment, I'm not sure you can fake your way through running a country...and if you can...God help us.
8. He lacks real convictions. He's more interested in wealth and power than in principles.
9. He doesn't feel as if he should answer to anyone...certainly not the American people.
10. Despite what some believe, Trump has a long history of political ambitions and aspirations. This is just the first time that he's been taken seriously.
11. Money isn't everything, not on a basic individual level or a more global level. Integrity, ethics, an appreciation for the human experience, health, happiness, the ability to live our lives as we see fit. Sure money is a necessity, but it's not the end.
I could go on, but that's not the point of this review.
I once read that a little bit of narcissism is not only essential for success, but probably healthy. I agree. But Trump seems to have more than a little bit of narcissism. In fact, he possess an extraordinary amount of narcissism that prevents him from being reflective, a trait that any true great leader needs.
Bottom line: This was a fair book. Well researched and well sourced. O'Brien showed the many sides of Trump...not all of them necessarily bad.
This was the fourth of six books I committed to read prior to the election and the only 5 star so far, partly because I felt it was the most objective and well-rounded.
The third in a series of six books I've committed to read before the election, The Making of Donald Trump was written by David Cay Johnston, past winnThe third in a series of six books I've committed to read before the election, The Making of Donald Trump was written by David Cay Johnston, past winner of the Pulitzer.
A look into the myth behind the man, Johnston's portrayal of Trump raises serious questions about the Republican presidential candidate. A real-estate mogul turned reality TV star, Trump has polarized this year's Presidential election like no other. To some he represents the anti-politician, the anti-establishment, the anti-PC sentiment that is valued especially among those voters who fear that their "white working class America" is in jeopardy. One has to wonder exactly what "Make America Great Again" means to his base.
America has a long history of suspicion and distrust when it comes to our government. Politics has always been messy, and that is the beauty of democracy. Donald Trump, however, is something completely different, and I'm convinced it's that "different-ness" that has made his candidacy a frightening reality. He is applauded for speaking his mind, no matter that what he says is often poppycock. He is praised for his business acumen, despite many failed businesses and at least four bankruptcies in which he has profited from his failures while those around him has suffered. He accuses his critics of dishonesty, even as fact check after fact check demonstrates that he lies or mostly lies 70-80 percent of the time. He claims conspiracies all the while he is creating and/or perpetuating his own. He questions the Clinton Foundation, while his own foundation has been cited for shady behavior. He screams that the media is out to get him, even though if not but for the media and its excessive coverage of his three-ring-circus he would not be the Republican candidate. He criticizes his opponent's supposed mistreatment of her husband's mistresses and affairs even as he publicly denigrates women reducing them to their bra size, suggesting his own accusers must be lying because they are simply too ugly to be assaulted. He claims his opponent is running a smear campaign and refuses to talk issues, yet given a chance to talk issues he resorts to calling her a "nasty woman," "crooked Hillary," and "liar."
It's all so bizarre. We are all sitting here watching him say and do these things, yet after the fact he simply denies that's he's done/said them. And he's so adamant, you almost begin to question yourself.
Well according Johnston, this is nothing new. When caught and confronted, Trump has a history of going on the offensive. He also describes Trump as vindictive, petty, and full of himself. Yet his criticism of Trump goes beyond these character flaws. If you believe the case made in Johnston's book, Trump is also a criminal with a long history of ties to organized crime and a blatant disregard for the law.
I think what I found most disconcerting is that Trump's characterization of Hillary as crooked is ironically a self-portrait of himself. Interestingly, if you pay attention, whenever the media asks Trump or one of his representatives a question, rather than answer the question they somehow use it as an opportunity to attack Hillary, often in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.
From talking to Trump supporters, I think they think he is a self-made man, a simple man who relates to the average American, a non-politician who can create jobs and cut through the bureaucracy of government. Unfortunately, Trump is not self-made, he is not simple, he can not relate to the average American, and his success as a businessman has less to do with his ability to create and run companies and more to do with his ability to create and sell himself...The Donald. And he's a bully and a spoiled brat. Definitely a narcissist and possibly even a sociopath. I'm not really sure what kind of President he would make. I want to believe it would be a horrible one. After all, life is not a reality TV show. And if Trump runs America the same way he ran his casinos, we'll end up in bankruptcy.
And perhaps what is most upsetting to people like me is that a solid chunk of the American electorate actually thinks Trump not only can win...but should. Even if he is worth billions, which is debatable, how does that qualify him to lead America?
The book provides many detailed sources. I would enjoy reading the rebuttal to Johnston's claims as there is obviously some bias here. Sadly, I doubt the people who would benefit the most from reading this book will....more
One of my patients loaned this to me after we had a discussion about a similar book I was reading.
The central theme explored in Blink is the fact thatOne of my patients loaned this to me after we had a discussion about a similar book I was reading.
The central theme explored in Blink is the fact that many of the decisions we make are made subconsciously and rather quickly and sometimes to our advantage. He describes something referred to as "thin slicing," the ability to make accurate judgments based on small but surprisingly representative samples. He admits that thin slicing is most effective when we've been trained or hold an area of expertise.
This was a nice complement to Subliminal, the book I had recently finished, that looks at the how our unconscious influences our decisions. Subliminal tend to focus more on the drawbacks of being influenced by our unconscious, whereas Blink tends to emphasize the positive aspects....more
Reading this book was like watching a marathon of Jerry Springer episodes. I honestly feel dirty.
Sensational and outrageous are two words that come toReading this book was like watching a marathon of Jerry Springer episodes. I honestly feel dirty.
Sensational and outrageous are two words that come to mind.
Make no mistake, this is a book with a clear political agenda, written by the Right for the Right.
I had really hoped for so much more, like a serious and thorough look into the FBI investigation and its recommendation not to press charges. Instead what I got was a Clinton conspiracy theory.
Within the first fifteen pages of the book, Klein, who has written several books on the Clintons portraying them as the ultimate evil doers, suggests Hilary is an ugly, foul-mouthed, hot-headed, feminist who stays with her philandering playboy husband simply to advance her political ambitions. He even suggests that she is a lesbian engaged in a sexless lesbian affair with top aide Huma Abedin, his assertion based on the fact they seem to enjoy each others company and make each other laugh. It's absurd and actually offensive to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
But most importantly, according to Klein, Hillary is a liar and has been from the moment she appeared with her husband on the political scene, who once had the audacity and indecency to clerk for a law firm with Communist Party connections and who had represented the Black Panthers.
A combination of personal commentary woven into scenes that supposedly recreate private interactions that took place between various parties, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and top adviser Valerie Jarrett the narrative is often disjointed, contradictory, and generally unrealistic. The artistic license that Klein takes is appalling. Scene after scene, accusation after accusation. Yet not one footnote. Not one credible corroborating source. All hearsay...said a source who is a friend of a friend of a friend. Seriously?????
Klein's portrayal of the characters involved is nothing short of bizarre. Bill Clinton the aging, absent-minded husband who simply wants to live out his final years in peace and quiet with the occasional naked pool party at his bachelor pad, and ruthless Chelsea, a mini Hillary in the making who is hated by all. And if crooked Hillary's lesbianism, foul-mouth tantrums, and bullying of her husband's lovers aren't enough to convince you she isn't fit for office, we should all know that Clinton is covering several serious health conditions like hypothyroidism.
Oh and then there is the portrayal of Obama...a petty, vindictive, elitist who secretly hates Hillary and only endorses her after his attempts to convince Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren to run fail. That, and of course, Hillary's promise to find him a seat on the Supreme Court. Quote...The idea of looking cool in a black robe and becoming a justice of the Supreme Court intrigued Obama, said a White House source close to Jarrett...end of quote.
Who in the hell believes this crap???? Surely the same people who still believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist.
There's more, but I think you get the picture.
Now let's deal with the facts as given by Jame Comey himself:
1. Clinton used a personal email account to send and receive work-related emails, some which were classified at various levels. 2. As per James Comey, Clinton and her aides showed gross negligence in their handling of classified information. 3. However, intent of wrong doing could not be established despite a year long intensive non-partisan investigation. 4. That being the case his recommendation to the Justice Department, which remained free to act on its own, was that no charges should be brought against Clinton.
Not only are these facts not clearly relayed in a book that is supposed to be an investigation into the 33,000 emails, but instead we are presented with a bunch of inflammatory, nonsensical accusations lobbied against everyone from the Clintons, to the Obamas, to Elizabeth Warren and anyone associated with them. The only Democrat in this whole book who seems to be treated with some level of decency is Joe Biden, the man who let down the President by deciding not to run for President, even though his son on his dying bed begged him to run rather than see the crooked Clintons return to the White House.
What a piece of poppycock. It's bad enough that ignorance abounds in the American electorate. But to put out this rubbish and present it as fact does more to harm this country than the Clintons could every hope to.
Of course, the epilogue says it all. According to the author, America is in serious trouble. Gay marriage is legal...many Americans support the legalization of marijuana, police-not criminals-are the problem, the number of adults who identify as Christians is dropping while the number of Americans who identify as atheist, agnostic, or other is growing. Even worse, in less than thirty years non-Hipsanic whites will no longer make up a majority of Americans (oh my...say it ain't so, Gertrude...say it ain't so.) More than half the births to women under 30 are outside of the sacred institution of marriage that is no longer sacred thanks to the f-ing liberals and the average American woman now weighs the same as the average man of the 1960s, tatoos are no longer limited to manly and gruff sailors, men no longer wear ties to baseball games, and people are just plain rude.
And Klein's answer to this tragedy that has become the fall of American culture...Donald Trump....a man who has admitted to having three ways (after all...he told Stern...we're not babies here...who hasn't), who has bragged about his infidelities and attempts to seduce married women, who has bantered casually about sexually assaulting women because when you are famous you can do whatever you want, brags about not paying taxes claiming it makes him smart. Are you kidding me???? Then again, Trump does seem upset about the fact that women may be getting fatter and as far as I know, he doesn't have any tatoos.
So sad, since I really wanted to read an honest and unbiased critique of the investigation and its conclusions.
This is the second of six books I plan to read before voting this November. Next up is The Making of Donald Trump.
Let me start this review by first disclosing that generally speaking I...
1. identify as a liberal 2. tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories 3. thinLet me start this review by first disclosing that generally speaking I...
1. identify as a liberal 2. tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories 3. think the title Fox News is an oxymoron 4. believe that politicians and voters identifying with the two primary political parties have become so polarized that cherry picking and mental gymnastics make finding the "truth" feel like an exercise in futility 5. understand we all are driven and influenced by biases, often even when we think we are remaining open and neutral 6. have always disliked Trump as I see him as a narcissist at best and sociopath at worst 7. voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary 8. went out of my way to read this book critically
This short book and its contents could easily have been renamed "A Modern Witch Hunt." It is the first of six books I have committed to read prior to voting in Nov.
I'll be honest, until reading this book, I was only superficially aware of the accusations being made against Obama and Secretary Clinton. They (the allegations) were simply part of the never ending background noise that is Fox News (that as a rule I try to tune out) where feelings are valued over facts and any falsehood can be made to sound credible if you repeat it enough. But with the election fast approaching and the Republican candidate's fitness being constantly questioned even by the same party whose interests he is supposed to represent, Bengazi and the 33,000 thousand emails have become the rote response to any criticism.
Question #1: "How can you support a man who jokes about sexually assaulting women?"
Answer: "I can answer that in one word. Bengazi."
Question #2: "Is a man who, at 3 a.m. in the morning, encourages voters to seek out a sex tape simply to discredit a woman he has publicly referred to as 'Miss Piggy' and 'Miss Housekeeping' Presidential?"
Answer: "I can answer that in two words. 33,000 emails."
Question #3: "According to non-partisan agencies like politico or the Washington Post fact checking, it's estimated your candidate, who repeatedly calls his opponent crooked and a liar, is lying or mostly lying 70-80 percent of the time. What gives?"
Answer: "I can answer that in three words. Bengazi, 33,000 emails."
The author concludes that Bengazi (a terrorist attack in which four American's died) has been used by the Right (starting with Romney) to discredit Obama, the Obama administration, and Secretary Clinton by claiming that Obama was soft on terror, even sympathized with terrorists and that he purposely mischaracterized the attacks in an attempt to mislead the public at large. The accusations evolved over time to include:
1. Obama ordered a stand down which prevented troops from responding to the situation. 2. Obama offered no help or follow-up once he had been informed of the situation, thereby showing blatant indifference. 3. Secretary Clinton purposely ignored a request for improved security, a lack of foresight that left the diplomats in Bengazi vulnerable. 4. Secretary Clinton lied while testifying to the congressional committee in an attempt to save face. 5. Secretary Clinton and the White House then attempted to cover up the scandal.
The authors claim this was a politically motivated witch hunt meant to discredit Obama (up for re-election when the allegations were first made) and then Hilary Clinton (who would likely be a viable candidate for the 2016 election). And while the accusers' allegations lacked substance the frequency with which they were repeated sustained them even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I have tremendous disdain for Fox and the pseudo journalism it promotes. That said, I tried very hard to remain objective, reminding myself that although I don't particularly like the Fox News agenda or the way it goes about promoting it, scrutiny of our leadership and their actions is essential to any democracy. Let the accusations be made. But also let the truth be heard.
The problem is that the accusation is made. Repeatedly echoed dozens of times. However, when the accusation is proven to be false, the recant/or apology if there is one is made as low key as possible and then quickly forgotten so that all anyone who tunes in remembers is the accusation and not the fact that it was proven false.
My experience is that most voters shouting "Bengazi" are high on the outrage but low (or at least selective) on the facts.
The particular terrorist attack is one of many. It was tragic. Maybe increased security could have made a difference and ultimately, maybe Clinton in her role as Secretary of State bears some responsibility, even if far removed. That said the allegations made against Clinton and Obama are outrageous and nonsensical and clearly politically motivated. The partisan investigation wasn't interested in the unbiased truth. They were interested in discrediting their political opponents. Period.
Unfortunately, the people who should read this book never will as they are generally motivated by the same bias that allows them to so easily to accept the false or trumped up allegations to begin with. Most of us are not interested in challenging our beliefs and assumptions. We instead actively seek out confirmation to reaffirm them.
Next in the pile is "Guilty as Sin," a book written for the Right by the Right that explores the 33,000 deleted emails.
I'm not the biggest fan of hardboiled-esque crime mystery. I like my characters and stories with more emotional depth. Kinsey is juThis was all right.
I'm not the biggest fan of hardboiled-esque crime mystery. I like my characters and stories with more emotional depth. Kinsey is just too sterile, too tell-it-like-it-is (just the facts maam) to be really appealing to a reader like me. I'm more interested in what makes people tick then I am in their physical appearance or wardrobe, no matter how skillfully described. I also thought that many of the sex scenes/dialogue/innuendo were cringe worthy.
That said, the book is competently written even if not to my particular tastes, and based on the popularity of the series, it has strong appeals to fans of this style of mystery.
I am bound to read a few more, even if only out of curiosity. ...more
Second installment in the Elena Estes series is solid.
I think Elena's character has more depth in this particular, partly because we learn more about Second installment in the Elena Estes series is solid.
I think Elena's character has more depth in this particular, partly because we learn more about her past and thus her vulnerabilities. The romantic tension between her and Landry is also well played out.
Should enjoy this if you are a Hoag fan.
The only downside to Hoag's writing is that she often reuses some of the same devices between books and between series. For example, this is the second series in which the protagonist's best friend has been a stereotypical gay man.
Still, I love her ability to construct a good mystery that keeps you guessing, sometimes right up until the end. ...more
I love mysteries. I love horses, and I love Tami Hoag's style of writing, so it's no surprise I enjoyed the first installment of her Elena Estes' seriI love mysteries. I love horses, and I love Tami Hoag's style of writing, so it's no surprise I enjoyed the first installment of her Elena Estes' series.
Interestingly, the rough-around-the-edges, obnoxious protagonist of this series who is Elena Estes (and who seems to be hated by some of the more negative reviewers) doesn't normally appeal to me, but in this case I found it hard not to like the abrasive, flawed, once-respected now hated-by-everyone ex-cop.
I also like the use of first person/third person, which I felt worked well for this story.
Of particular interest, at least for me, was the look into the don't-ask-if-you-can't-afford world of big money, competitive Dressage and Eventing. Apparently, Hoag is an accomplished Dressage rider as is evident in the descriptions she gives.
Bottom line: I liked the story and its seemingly unlikable protagonist....more
If you're looking for additional answers or insight into why Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris brutally murdered and injured over 3 dozens classmates, I dIf you're looking for additional answers or insight into why Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris brutally murdered and injured over 3 dozens classmates, I doubt you'll find them here. I'm not sure we will ever completely solve the problem that is or produces a mass murderer.
However, if you're interested in the grieving process unique to the parent of a reviled killer, I doubt few books could compare.
To begin with, Klebold is a talented and articulate writer who is smart, thoughtful, and reflective and has spent years reading and researching books/journals/research, really anything that might help her to understand what happened with Dylan and why she and her husband (apparently even friends and family) were so completely clueless.
Losing a child to violence is unthinkable, but for parents like Sue Klebold the loss is three-fold. They not only lose their child, but the image they held of that child throughout his or her life is forever tainted if not completely obliterated. Finally, they lose a big part of themselves. From the moment Dylan became one of the infamous Columbine shooters, she ceased to exist as simply Sue Klebold, active community member, loving mother, and loyal wife. To too many, whether they blamed her or not, she would henceforth be known first and foremost as Dylan's mother.
And after reading this book, written 16 years after the tragedy, it is clear Dylan's death and his involvement in Columbine have both consumed, shaped, and ultimately defined her. There is no escaping his legacy. No amount of penance, activism, or community service, no number of Hail Mary's or I'm sorry's will ever redeem her because even if everyone else could forgive her for Dylan and what he did, deep down she will never forgive herself.
Though she claims the motivation for writing this book is to help others suffering from impaired "brain health," it is clearly so much more. She no sooner accepts the blame then she rejects it. Reasserts Dylan culpability and perhaps by default her own and then recants, providing explainations in the guise of understanding. This isn't a criticism. To even attempt to write this book shows a level of bravery and commitment to a noble cause that deserves recognition if only for the effort.
She doesn't know why Dylan did what he did. Her best guess, looking back, is that he suffered from mental illness, though she makes it clear, that the stigma that mentally ill people are innately more violent is untrue. Nevertheless, Dylan was suicidal and not functioning from the perspective of a healthy brain...of course, unless you're a neurobologist/neuropsychologist on the fringes of brain science, no matter how true, the theory is unsatisfying. One could argue that anyone who commits a crime of any magnitude (especially suicide) is suffering from a "sick brain," except within our current framework, that isn't very helpful. Maybe someday it will be.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying she is wrong, I'm just not sure she is right.
Whatever the reason(s), Dylan did a very terrible thing before killing himself, leaving behind a stunned and heartbroken family. If you believe Klebold's account, which I do, Dylan was a sweet, intelligent, and loving child, who grew up in a loving and supportive home with dedicated and involved parents.
She writes:
I know telling these stories here exposes me to further criticism. The thought fills me with fear, although there's no criticism of my parenting I have not already heard over the last sixteen years. I've heard that Tom and I were too lenient with Dylan, and that we were too restrictive. I've been told that our family's position on gun control caused Columbine; perhaps if Dylan had been habituated to guns, they would not have had the same mystique for him. People have asked me if we abused Dylan, if we permitted someone else to abuse him, if we ever hugged him, if we ever told him that he was loved.
Of course I look back skeptically on the decisions we made. Of course I have regrets, in particular about the clues I missed that Dylan was in danger of hurting himself and others. It is precisely because I missed them that I want to tell these stories, because whatever parenting decision Tom and I might have made, they were done thoughtfully and in good conscience, and to the best of our abilities. I tell these stories not to burnish my son's reputation, or our own as parents, But I do think it's important, especially for parents and teachers, to understand what Dylan was like.
Later she writes:
Much has been written about the need most people have, in the aftermath of a tragedy like Columbine, to assign blame. Whether it was the scale of the tragedy, or the senselessness, or a thousand other reasons I can think of, Columbine became--and remains--a lightning rod. People blamed video games, movies, music, bullying, access to guns, unarmed teachers, the absence of prayer in schools, secular humanism, psychiatric medication. Mostly, though, they blamed us.
Sue admits that had the tables been turned, she would have felt the same way, and as a result she questions and analyzes every parenting decision she ever made. I can't even imagine.
That said, just because she and her husband didn't recognize the signs didn't mean they weren't there. Sue admits that during Dylan's Junior year he was somewhat moody and withdrawn. Of course, she easily rationalizes his behavior away. After all, lots of teens are moody and withdrawn. Except there was more. Dylan, who had apparently never gotten into trouble, started having some. The most remarkable incident, when Dylan and Eric broke into a van and stole expensive equipment. Later, she learns from a teacher that Dylan has a submitted a particularly violent and disturbing paper, one that the teacher eventually shares with Dylan's counselor (in the paper, a man dressed in black kills the popular kids at school). Sue at one point asks Dylan to show her the paper, but accepts an excuse instead.
Neither Dylan's parents nor his teachers saw the paper, out of context of course, as being a sign that Dylan was capable of the violence he wrote about. And then no one knew about the suicidal thoughts he shared, often on random scraps of paper.
Both boys went through a Diversion program in which they were carefully monitored by professionals. Professionals, who when given the opportunity granted them early release, supposedly a rare thing. And although Dylan's mental health issues were never identified, Eric was seeing a psychiatrist.
Shockingly, there were other signs concerning Eric. For example, he had made a threat toward a mother of another student which she reported along with a link to his very offense and violent website. There was also evidence presented to the police that Eric was building pipe bombs. A warrant was drawn up but never taken before a judge.
Of course, hind sight is 20/20 and each individual incident taken by itself is concerning, but doesn't necessarily scream future mass murderer in the making.
Another interesting passage:
Was he evil? I've spent a lot of time wrestling with that question. In the end, I don't think he was. Most people believe suicide is choice, and violence if a choice; those things are under a person's control. Yet we know from talking to survivors of suicide attempts that their decision-making ability shifts in some way we don't well understand. In our conversation, psychologist and suicide researcher Dr. Matthew Nock at Harvard used a phrase I like very much: dysfunction in decision making. If suicide seems like the only way out of an existence so painful it has become intolerable, is that really an exercise of free will?
Of course, Dylan did not simply die by suicide. He committed murder; he killed people. We've all felt angry enough to fantasize about killing someone..."
I agree that free will is probably an illusion and that some brains probably do "work better" than other brains, and maybe at some point we will have some systematic way of measuring this "brain health" she talks about. What bothers me is her assertion (clearly she's reaching here) that "we've all felt angry enough to fantasize about killing someone..."
Ah, nope. Nada. Never. Sure, I've gotten so made I've felt like putting my fist through a wall but never, ever, ever, have I ever fantasized about hurting someone, let alone killing them. I can imagine a situation where I might hurt someone...say if my children were seriously threatened. But still. I recently read a good short story in which a character who is trying to protect her son says to the effect, I've always believed I could die for my son, but could I kill for him. It stopped me because I'm not sure I could.
Anyway, would like to end with another quote that I thought really summed up the book nicely. While the book does educate about needed vigilance when it comes to dealing with kids suffering from some sort of mental illness or even impaired brain health, this book is really about a mother learning how to preserve the image of the son she loved, while accepting the monstrous things he did.
I think often of watching Dylan do origami...I loved to make a cup of tea and sit quietly beside him...I'd always marvel at how something as straightforward as a piece of paper can be completely transformed with only a few creases, to become suddenly replete with new significance. Than I'd marvel at the finished form, the complex folds hidden and unknowable to me.
In many ways, that experience mirrored the one I would have after Columbine. I would have to turn what what I thought I knew about myself, my son, and my family inside out and around, watching as a boy became a monster, and then a boy again.
Bottom line: Good stuff for anyone who is curious about the broad human experience.
I recently finished "A Father's Story," another reflective piece written by Jeffrey Dahmer's father, in which Lionel tries to understand the reasons why his seemingly "normal" son evolves into a monster capable of the most hideous cruelties imaginable. I hate to say this is better, so instead I'll say it is more layered and ventures into greater depths.
I thought this was better than Stephen's previous collection of short stories. Having read Nightmares and Dreamscapes only just a few years back, it wI thought this was better than Stephen's previous collection of short stories. Having read Nightmares and Dreamscapes only just a few years back, it was fun to see the development in King's writing, proof that even the good can get better.
Of course, these stories were written at various times over the course of a decade.
This was a timely book to read given the political maelstrom has so often in the past and continues to characterize American politics where we see indThis was a timely book to read given the political maelstrom has so often in the past and continues to characterize American politics where we see individuals supporting, defending, and promoting their teams quarterback with a fervor that in most cases takes some pretty impressive mental gymnastics.
Think the decisions and choices you make are the result of careful scrutiny, reflection and logical deduction? ABSOLUTELY ...(insert mental drum roll please)(view spoiler)[NOT. Sorry. At least not most of the time (hide spoiler)].
Like it or not most of us are on automatic pilot way more than we realize, and that automatic pilot is highly influenced in ways that are often hidden to our conscious minds. And even when we believe we are making well-thought out, well-researched choices, the reality is we are hard pressed to escape our own biases and for good reason. Our brains can't possibly evaluate every shred of data it encounters. It must categorize, simplify, and even ad-lib as needed to keep us focused on what's important as determined by the unconscious. Our genetics, our life experiences, our environment are all affecting our brains, much of the time, in ways in which we are unaware. Scary, maybe. Enlightening, absolutely. After all, we can't possibly begin to address our innate biases unless we can admit they exist and then identify them.
Bottom line: Consciousness is a mystery that may only be superceded by the mysteries of the unconscious and our will isn't as free as we would imagine it to be.
In my opinion, this is a book everyone should read. Fascinating on so many levels, it will make you question the bases for every belief (and memory) you've ever held and how you got there to begin with. Good stuff....more
The third in the Oak Knoll series, I actually thought this was the best.
Hoag has a talent for creating angst and tragic characters. Nothing new here, The third in the Oak Knoll series, I actually thought this was the best.
Hoag has a talent for creating angst and tragic characters. Nothing new here, but then again something doesn't have to be new or different to be entertaining.
While occasionally cliche, I find her characters well-developed and likeable.
Bottom line: Solid mystery, heavy on the psychological suspense with just enough action to keep it moving....more
Decent second installment in the Oak Knoll series.
While this can be read as a stand alone, many of the characters and scenarios are continuations fromDecent second installment in the Oak Knoll series.
While this can be read as a stand alone, many of the characters and scenarios are continuations from the first novel.
As a whole, I really like Hoag's writing, which is competent and smooth. The characters in this series aren't as strong as some other series I've read, but they're good enough. What I really find compelling about her books is her efforts to explore through fiction the anatomy of a killer. Mysteries and who-done-its are fun, but they are more fun when they seriously address the why in a way that only fiction can. Hoag has obviously read her share of books by experts, which I think imparts her books with a level of authenticity that is often lagging in other similar reads.
Of course, as is often the case with this type of book, the coincidences abound, at times to the point of absurdity, but that's more a function of this genre than it is a deficiency in the writing. ...more
Written by Derf Backderf, My Friend Dahmer is a graphic novel which tells the story of an awkward and isolated teen who is secretly dealing with his hWritten by Derf Backderf, My Friend Dahmer is a graphic novel which tells the story of an awkward and isolated teen who is secretly dealing with his homosexuality and violent, perverse fantasies.
I bought this to read in conjunction with A Father's Story, Lionel Dahmer's (Jeff Dahmer's father's) thoughts and feeling on what went wrong with his son.
Not generally a fan of the graphic novel, I'm not sure I can rate this with respect to its artistic merits. As a recounting of Dahmer by someone who knew him as a teen and who apparently took some time to research Dahmer's past, it's an engaging read.
At times Backderf paints Dahmer as the unfortunate...almost innocent...victim of an unhappy childhood and oblivious and/or indifferent adults. At others he makes it quite clear that Dahmer was a selfish coward who thought of no one but himself and who therefore deserves no sympathy since he chose to do what he did.
Personally, I think the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world are a unique blend of nature and nurture. There is some evidence that sociopathy and psychopathy may be the result of some defect in the brain which prevents individuals from experiencing empathy and/or leaves them without a conscience. Add to that an unhappy childhood in which the individual is struggling with his sexuality while harboring a fascination with the macabre that somehow gets linked to his sexual desire and bingo...you get a serial killer.
While I think we can all agree that men like Dahmer need to be locked up, I'm not sure they are any more responsible for their selfishness and lack of conscience than someone who has a brain tumor or type I diabetes. And while a different environment may have helped, I'm increasingly convinced sociopaths and psychopaths are born not made . How that inability to empathize and lack of conscience plays out likely depends on environment, but to what extent, who really knows.
I recently finished a work of fiction titled Secrets to the Grave in which one of the characters is a troubled twelve year-old boy whom the author uses to explore the making of a murderer. It's definitely something worth pondering. I think we want to believe that nurture trumps all because then we as a society have a chance to intervene. We need to believe any soul can be saved. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can stop them, in part because by the time we know there is a problem the brains of these individuals are already damaged beyond repair. But the more I read, the more I have come to believe that men like Jeffrey Dahmer are solidified long before we can know something is wrong.
Bottom line: A very quick read that offers some interesting insights into a man who did monstrous things. ...more
My family doesn't quite get my affinity for the true crime genre. "Why do you like reading about murder?" my kids have asked on more than one occasionMy family doesn't quite get my affinity for the true crime genre. "Why do you like reading about murder?" my kids have asked on more than one occasion. Of course, what I explain, but what they don't quite understand, is my interest has nothing to do with the murder itself. I'm fascinated by why people do the things they do. I'm also intrigued by the ability of different parties to create completely different narratives about the same event.
Fooling others is often a conscious act that requires awareness and effort, while fooling ourselves seems virtually effortless.
In the first chapter of Deadly Little Secrets we learn a minister kills his wife. The remainder of the book is spent detailing the events leading up to the murder followed up by a description of how the killer almost gets away with his crime if only because no one wants to believe a man of God is capable of such a heinous act.
As a case study, this was a fascinating book on many levels. And unlike some true crime that simply recants the facts (the who, what, when and where), I felt Casey did a good job of exploring the why.
Each time I finish something like this I am left feeling unsettled because it occurs to me that all too often there is no such thing as THE TRUTH. The truth is whatever we want it to be. We (actually our brains) create a narrative that allows us to dismiss that which doesn't jive with our view of the world. What resonates as truth depends on our reference point.
Take this quote from the last paragraph of the book. The person speaking is the mother of the murdered woman who spent the better part of two years fighting to see the murderer was brought to justice. And even after her son-in-law is convicted, she must fight for custody of her granddaughters.
This has been the most difficult journey of our lives. Parents aren't supposed to survive their children. A wife isn't supposed to be murdered by her husband. And precious granddaughters aren't supposed to have their childhoods ripped from them. But I have witnessed God's love and grace in the most incredible way during these five years. You see love really does trump evil.
The person speaking is thanking God for his love and grace...but this is the same God who allowed her daughter to be murdered by said daughter's philandering husband. This is the same God who allowed her son-in-law to evade the law for too many years. This is the same God who allowed her grandchildren to be brainwashed by their paternal grandparents. Love really does trump evil...but Kari is dead? She loved her children and her family...actually, she professed to love her husband. How exactly did love trump evil? Because it got the last laugh? By whose litmus?
God didn't bring justice to this family. The family who refused to believe that Kari would kill herself along with those who investigated and prosecuted did. The whole thing is fascinating. Again and again events in this book demonstrated how we interpret what happens in a way that fits our ideas about the world. For example, Matt Baker killed his wife because he was evil...not because he was a sociopath who may not be capable of feeling empathy (possibly through no fault of his own). God's love and grace prevailed because, in the end, Matt Baker was convicted...not God's indifference allowed a mother to be killed and taken from her children in the first place. Matt Baker couldn't possibly of killed his wife because he was a man of God that had dedicated his life to helping others...not Matt was a sexual predator who just happened to look like a normal guy.
Another point of interest that often comes up in these types of books has to do with the fact that there are always warning signs. The people who do really bad things...they don't start off by murdering their wives. They generally escalate to murder. Matt Baker had a history of sexually assaulting women/sexually inappropriate behavior...yet few were willing to hold him accountable. After all, no one wanted to ruin this handsome young man's budding career as a minister and servant of God. Even Kari's own family excused sexually inappropriate behavior they had witnessed because no one wanted to "hurt" Kari. It's a common theme that plays out over and over again. And Kari turned a blind eye to multiple allegations about her husband's inappropriate behavior because, of course, his explanation--that these women misinterpreted his actions/words--fit her narrative that she had a loving and committed husband, who was also a man of God.
Bottom line: Good stuff for those interested in such things....more