Golf for Dummies

I'm taking up golf. This was a great guide - Gary McCord is funny and doesn't take things too seriously; however, I was sometimes a bit put off by his self-deprecation as it made me question his "street cred."

Liberal Poetry

Instead of rendering a comprehensive opinion about "Deciding the Next Decider," by Calvin Trillin, I'll list the pros and cons.

Pros:
- It leans liberal
- It rhymes
- It's pretty funny
- It's educational (!)
- It's a pretty accurate representation of the election

Cons:
- Many of the songs are set to fairly unknown melodies (well, unknown to me at least)
- Sometimes the diction was unclear because specific words had to be used to fit the rhyme scheme
- Sometimes it was a bit boring
- Many times you have to have extensive background information to pick up on the allusions

Favorite Quote:
"Mitt Romney's Song:
Yes, Mitt's so slick of speech and slick of garb, he
Reminds us all of Ken, of Ken and Barbie -
So quick to shed his moderate regalia,
He may, like Ken, be lacking genitalia."

Veil of Roses

Meh. The entertainment value was relatively high; it held my attention at the airports and throughout the plane rides, so it served its purpose.

HATED the ending. Talk about anticlimactic.

Child 44

Soooooo, I loved it. Child 44, by Tom Rob Smith, was captivating, gripping, intriguing, and apparently well researched. I feel like I shouldn't have loved it though... It was Dan Brown-esque (there is a central plot, but random chapters are devoted to past events/different characters in order to fill in the gaps in the reader's information). I can't shake the feeling that that isn't a very good way to write, especially when the author relies almost entirely on this technique to convey the important information. It's just too much...

But as I said, I really did love it from an entertainment point of view. And I REALLY liked the main character. You should read it.

Monkeys

As far as history texts go, The Scopes Trial: A Brief History in Documents, by Jeffrey P. Moran, was quite tolerable. While it was incredibly dry at times, the book had some really great qualities: the structure was easy to follow, the commentary was helpful, and the pictures were appropriately placed to break up the monotony of the text.

I genuinely enjoyed reading the court transcripts of Clarence Darrow's defense arguments; the judge effectively took away his weapons by prohibiting ALL of the evidence compiled for the defense, yet Darrow still managed to kick ass using pure improvisational strategy.

Favorite Quotes:
"Darrow broke Bryan's heart under the pitiless Tennessee sun."

Stewart: "What is the purpose of this examination?"
Bryan: "To cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentlemen have no other purpose than ridiculing every Christian who believes in the Bible."
Darrow: "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States and you know it, and that is all."

Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging

This book reminds me: I hate teenage girls.

Letters from a Putz

"Letters from a Nut" sucked. There were some funny parts, but most of the time it was just stupid. I also feel like if the author truly sent those letters (ie. this was real), then he was being kind of an asshole - why would you inconvenience businesses this way? The poor guys who had to search a bathroom/the hotel garbage for a tooth that wasn't there probably did not appreciate being sent on a treasureless treasure hunt. This book is a waste of time - books can be funny and pointless and brilliant anyway, but this one wasn't: it was bland and pointless.

He'll Getcha with the Title

"More Sex is Safer Sex" by Steven Landsburg was interesting: he presented a number of different solutions to very complex problems, he addressed some captivating topics, and used math, logic, and rational analysis to prove his points. Here is my problem: his reasoning, deductions, and lines of thought are infallible - everything makes sense. Until the very end of his argument. Everything is in order, everything is scrupulously analyzed and dissected, and everything leads directly to a logical conclusion. But the conclusion isn't right. I still cannot fathom how the argument falls apart at the very end, even though every single detail makes 100% sense. I guess his assumptions are incorrect... So it goes.