Lilla argues that the Democratic Party went down a blind alley after Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980. American liberals enjoyed about 40 years of success following a political vision articulated by Franklin Roosevelt. The idea of America presented by FDR and his successors, such as Kennedy and Johnson, was one of all American citizens working together to overcome adversity. This vision perfectly suited the Great Depression and World War II, and complemented the Civil Rights Movement. That vision was supplanted by Reagan's libertarian view of an America made up of independent individuals achieving success without help from anyone else. That vision of America better suited a time of economic prosperity and America's brief status as the world's only super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Rather than articulate a new vision of collective action, American liberals perused identity politics. In identity politics the crucial factor is not what unifies people as Americans, it is the uncontrollable factors of birth that make people different from each other. Lilla describes this as the opposite of politics. Identity politics is about marches and rallies that make people feel proud of their unique group. Real politics is about doing the no-fun work of running for county commission seats and school boards and convincing people who are different than you that it is in both your interests to work together for the common good.
One the most appealing ideas of liberalism is the fact that it is about expanding the circle. Through out history liberals have worked to bring more groups into the circle while conservatives work to make the circle smaller. The United States began as a democracy where only land owning adult white males could vote. Over time that circle was expanded to include all white men, then men regardless of race, then all women. The conservative impulse is to exclude, to shrink the circle back down to just white people, just Christians, just men, just my family, and then the ultimate nadir of Trumpism: just me.
Identity politics is about creating new circles within the big circle. The Democratic Party seems like less of a unified party and more like the Women's Party, the African American Party, the Immigrant Party, and the LGBT Party which occasionally caucus together but do not have the same agenda. The obvious counter-argument to this is to argue that the Civil Rights and the Women's Rights movements were identity movements, but they were also about securing equal rights as American citizens.
Many pro-identity politics critics have dismissed Liila's argument because he is a white male and therefore unqualified to speak to issues affecting women and minorities. While that is a correct analysis of Lilla's identity, it assumes the truth of identity politics in order to defend identity politics. I do not believe Lilla is actually saying anything about any group within the world of identity politics, he is saying that all the groups need to get past self absorption and return to collective action for the good of all citizens.
The most optimistic development to come out of the Trump catastrophe is that more liberals are realizing they have to do the hard work of local and state politics to push back against the Republican machine that has allowed unqualified extremist candidates to get elected to local and national office. It is a lot easier to take a day off from work, make a clever sign, and march in a parade, but parades do not win local elections.
Impeachment is not an anti-Trump screed, nor is it a dry dissertation on Constitutional law. Sunstein's book is an engaging exploration of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution, what the framers of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote it and how it has been interpreted over the years.
Having just rebelled against a monarchy, many of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention were apposed to any sort of executive leader. As a compromise a system was created to remove the President from office, but the system had to be difficult enough that impeachment did not become a tool of partisan fighting. Which is not to say that it has not been used for that purpose, see the Clinton impeachment. Policy disagreement, general incompetence, and being a public embarrassment to the nation are not grounds for impeachment. Some actual crimes committed by the President do not rise to the level of impeachment, but some actions that are not legally crimes can qualify as impeachable offenses. The author also explores the 25th amendment, which added another way of removing the President from office based on incapacity, and in turn raised many more questions.
Although the name Trump is never mentioned in the book, the timeliness of its subject causes the current President to loom of the discussion. It increasingly appears that within the next few years we will witness another impeachment proceeding with more merit behind it than the last one. I recommend this book as an excellent and very readable overview of the history and legal thought behind impeachment and why it must not be invoked frivolously but must be invoked when there is just cause.
The Final Dossier was written to be read only after watching the recent revival of the TV series. If you haven't watched the show there are massive spoilers in the book and the book will not make much sense. Given that the TV series did not make a lot of sense, that is saying a lot. The book is much shorter than the Secret History of Twin Peaks and more focused.
The book fills in details about some characters from the old series that did not appear in the new series, such as Donna Hayward, Harry Truman, and Annie Blackburn. It explains how some characters came to be in the situations they were in, such as Dr. Jacoby and Audrey Horne. It also deals with some of the fallout from the bizarre events of the finale.
There are sections in which Agent Preston, the narrator of the dossier, speculates about characters like Major Briggs and Phillip Jeffries. If these sections don't match up with your interpretations of the plot, you don't have to accept them as canon, they are only Agent Preston's speculations. There are several revelations that did not match up with my head canon at all, but Lynch and Frost have made it very clear that Twin Peaks is about the mysteries, not about the solution. Anyone's interpretation is as valid as anyone else's, even if some interpretations are more coherent than others.
Is it possible to admire a book and be disgusted by it at the same time? The stores in this collection by 19th century French author Jules Barbey d'Aurevilly feature wicked amoral women who drive men to adultery, crime, and despair. The stories are all narrated by men, usually relating their story of sin and regret to a younger man. It would be easy to dismiss Barbey d'Aurevilly as a misogynist, but he describes his "she-devils" in such enraptured detail that it is hard to believe he does not secretly admire them. In most cases the women are so wicked that they come across as caricatures, but the stories are so well told that you can almost forgive the misogyny. Reading these stories you genuinely feel transported to a 19th century French salon where an elderly gentleman sips his wine and tells you the story of the unforgettable beauty who lead him astray.
A group of scientists and military types race to uncover the pieces of a giant alien robot buried on Earth thousands of years in the past. The novel is reminiscent of The Martian in the sense that it is almost entirely dialogue driven, and the plot is propelled by various successes and setbacks in the project. The story is told in the form of short interviews between the main characters and a mysterious shadowy figure who is the mastermind behind the project.
If you enjoyed The Martian you will likely enjoy this as well. It is science fiction as thriller, not exactly literary.
Years ago, back when Neil Gaiman was still writing Sandman, I can recall reading a magazine interview in which he was asked if there was in any superhero character at DC or Marvel he would like to write. He replied that he felt he had a great Thor story to tell but that Marvel would never give him the creative freedom he would need to tell it. When I saw that Gaiman had written a book called Norse Mythology with a big hammer on the cover, my first thought was that he had finally written his Thor story.
Instead what we have is a straight ahead retelling of some of the key Norse myths. Sort of an Edith Hamilton's Mythology for the Norse gods. This is clearly a topic that Gaiman is passionate about, and his description of Ragnarok is the highlight of the book, but these are stories that have been told many times. In his introduction, Gaiman laments all the lost Norse tales that did not survive into modern times. I wish Gaiman had taken it upon himself to reinvent those lost stories rather than retell the known ones. All the stories were made up by somebody at sometime, why not tell new stories of Odin and Loki and the others?
Chronicle Vol. 2 starts with the origins of life on Draenor and continues through the Second War and the Alliance Expedition. Like anything to do with Draenor, the most interesting parts are about the arakkoa and the least interesting are the orcs, so of course the book is mostly about the orcs. The orcs are divided into dozens of clans with names like the Rotten Teeth and the Mad Dogs. They revere nature and violence, although not in that order. They are forced to invade Azeroth after utterly ruining their native world.
This last detail reflects a disturbing pattern in World of Warcraft. In chapter after chapter, every noble and beautiful thing eventually gets corrupted, everything gets ruined. We see this with individuals, races, factions, nations, even entire planets. It makes me wonder what the game designers ultimate endgame plan for WOW is. Is it just a series of small victories against a backdrop of inevitable failure?
I do not need a fantasy game to remind me that we live in a world where the forces of greed, ignorance, and cruelty are growing stronger every day. It is easy to be cynical and say the entropic plot of WOW is realistic. I choose to believe that society as a whole is capable of progressing as long as compassion and knowledge are valued above immediate self interest. It is a hard sell, but worth it in the long term.
Downbelow Station brings the politics of European colonialism into an interplanetary setting. The Earth Company (a private colonial firm similar to the East India Company) dominates the inhabitants of humanity’s space colonies as Earth remains the only source of food and supplies. But then Pell’s World, the first new Earth-like planet, is discovered and suddenly the colonies no longer need Earth, but earth still needs the colonies. The colonies declare themselves an independent Union and the Company begins to mass its space fleet to capture Pell’s World and re-establish dominance.
As part of the larger context of colonial issues, Cherryh also brings the plight of indigenous natives into the story. Pell’s World was presumed to be uninhabited when the colonists began to exploit it, but the political situation becomes even more problematic when it is discovered that a simple culture exists among the primate like inhabitants known as the Hisa.
The narrative of Downbelow Station is focused on the inhabitants of the space station that orbits Pell’s World, which they refer to as Downbelow. Stationmaster Angelo Konstatin is forced to deal with one crisis after another, including crowds of refugees, merchant shippers forming their own alliance, and belligerent Company officers. The other main character is Captain Signy Mallory, the commander of the Company ship Norway. Mallory is as arrogant as any of the captains, but Company tactics force her to reconsider her loyalties.
Downbelow Station is the definitive space station novel. It is a classic space opera and a past winner of the Hugo and Nebula Awards for Best Novel. It is the first book in a series called the Company Wars. Fans of military Science Fiction authors like David Weber and Elizabeth Moon as well as fans of more sociological Science Fiction like that of Kim Stanley Robinson and Ursula Le Guin should enjoy this book.
It is often pointed out that when US Presidents leave office they look like they have aged far more than the 4 or 8 years that have passed. When Jon Stewart left the Daily Show he looked like he had aged at least 30 years instead of 16. This book suggest to me that what really aged Stewart was having to go on camera after every new national tragedy and try to say something encouraging and uplifting. As much as I would like to watch Stewart's take on the Trump administration, this man has earned his retirement.
The book is done in the same style as Shales and Miller's 'Live From New York' about Saturday Night Live, consisting almost entirely of interview snippets with past cast and crew of the show. Unlike SNL, the Daily Show does not have a long gossipy history of drugs and backstage fighting. There are a few stories in the book from disgruntled ex-staff, but most everyone who ever worked at the Daily Show appears to have loved it, and even the disgruntled admit Stewart deserves credit for what he accomplished.
The most interesting parts of the book are about the process. Not just how the individual episodes were made, but how Stewart took a show with a frat boy comedy mentality and turned it into the most influential piece of political satire in the history of television. He essentially created a new TV format that is being perpetuated by half a dozen other shows.
The larger mystery of the Lumberjanes begins to unfold as a blizzard strikes in the middle of summer and a monster hunter appears with ties to the camp's past. Also, one of the girls has a passive aggressive snit when a boy tries to participate in the adventure.
Lost Dogs is a brutal minimalist story about a simple man who loses everything to violence. The art is done in a very rough brush stroke style; white, black, and red the only colors. The main character looks like a cross between Popeye and Bluto. It is a bit reminiscent of the first Sin City collection, but with far cruder art.
Two of the campers go on a "picnic" with implied lesbian overtones but end up falling through a hole in an outhouse into a lost world of dinosaurs and have an adventure with an old lady werebear. Meanwhile the other girls try and fail to earn badges for mundane activities like cake decorating and scrapbooking.
"Army of Demons"
"Army of Demons, who?"
"Army of Demons who want to enslave humanity."
The discovery of a time travel key allows the creators to reveal the ominous source of the keys' power, and show the adventures of the previous generation of key keepers and how their reckless use of the keys lead to all the current problems.
The creators introduce new keys at a breakneck pace, and continue to ratchet up the tension as Zack becomes increasingly desperate to find the Omega Key. One issue is done partially in a style derived from Bill Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes series.
It is telling that the real horror of vol. 3 is not the battle between the kids and the army of animated shadows, it is their mother's increasing alcoholism and loss of self control. There is a lot more potential horror in psychological deterioration and domestic violence than in regular old monsters.