en-US Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:11:12 -0800 60 144 41 /images/layout/goodreads_logo_144.jpg Friend1409105045 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:11:12 -0800 Review6589352862 Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:46:01 -0700 /review/show/6589352862 Rhonda gave 3 stars to Pericles (Kindle Edition) by William Shakespeare
bookshelves: drama-and-plays
I read this in a group, which included several scholars, and appreciative amateurs. Few of us had ever heard of Gower and almost none of us had read anything by him, but here he was making pronouncements, a narrator, if you will. The part was adequate, but no one was impressed. I can say with certainly that the first two acts were troublesome. OK, I thought they were rather terrible. The general consensus is that Shakespeare didn't write the first two, but it seemed fairly clear where he started. While I believed for a while that this play has no redemption, it reminded me of the French ballads of courtly love from as far back as the 11th century. It was making little or no real sense, in that there were holes a truck could pass through in the plot, but Shakespeare did a decent job of writing his way out of things and we managed to forget that a woman, assumed dead, thrown overboard in a caulked casket, could scarcely be alive very long, but was instead washed up on the beach. In the end, the women liked it, the men were glad that Shakespeare improved the writing. For my part, I was glad that the end wasn't nearly as bad as the beginning and included some superlative dialogue. I would give it more than 3 stars, but some of it was just bad. ]]> ReadStatus8037142644 Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:16:06 -0700 /review/show/6507864135 Rhonda finished reading Caesar and Cleopatra by George Bernard Shaw
]]> ReadStatus7930767256 Wed, 15 May 2024 11:49:18 -0700 /review/show/6507864135 Rhonda is currently reading Caesar and Cleopatra by George Bernard Shaw
]]> Comment273740977 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 18:43:19 -0700 /review/show/6322222068 Rhonda's review of Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America
by Heather Cox Richardson

Dave wrote: "Wow. Had to stop after you defined fascism as socialism. They鈥檙e not the same. Most of this is factually incorrect, just faulty interpretations of historical events."
I did not say that fascism and socialism were the same. I said that Hitler's Nazi party were socialists, which is included in the actual meaning of NAZI: National Socialism. As for the rest, since you do not apparently know what NAZI means, and that it is a left political group rather than right, I am not surprised that we disagree on anything else about this book. ]]> Comment273167551 Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:24:27 -0700 /topic/show/22766031-week-1-kolumkilli---dry-weather Rhonda made a comment in the Classics and the Western Canon group:

Tamara wrote: "I'm wondering if this also extends to his relationship with Rosa. He isn't sensitive to her needs and doesn't seem connected to her. Does he perceive all bonds--even a bond with his wife--as a threat to his independence?"

The author wrote, The history of the centuries in this valley is the history of an independent man who grapples barehanded with a spectre which bears a new and ever newer name.
He also writes about how the issue of freedom is a relatively new one and, especially in this case, I think an illusory one. From the beginning, one sees that Bjartur as a man insistent on a delusion which makes him feel less about pretty much everything, including his wife. It is significant that the first word that we hear him say is, No. It seems to be a revelation of his character.
Santayana said, The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it. It appears to me that Bjartur is unwilling to love anything beyond what he believes is his freedom. He says that his name is supposed to mean bright, but perhaps his odyssey is always ironic. ]]> Review6322222068 Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:55:12 -0700 /review/show/6322222068 Rhonda gave 1 star to Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America (Hardcover) by Heather Cox Richardson
A dear friend of mine was excited that I read this book and she graciously sent it to me. I immediately began perusing the introduction and I read it carefully. In fact, I read it twice and made notes, wondering whether I was reading it quite right. While it is true that I am politically a conservative, I was determined to give it a fair shot and, in doing so, I promise to not complain that things should be another way. Politics is, alas, a great deal about opinion and how we feel that others are trying to erase our ability to live as we like. However, and I regard this with trepidation, this book appears to be trying to convince the reader that some of us have inadvertently fallen under the spell of a nefarious overlord. Unfortunately, the parallels she uses appear to be either weak or just plain incorrect.
America is at a crossroads, I agree. But first, we have never been a democracy, but a republic and there is a distinct difference, one which I ought not to have to explain. I think that the crossroads we face is from a group of people who are interested in establishing a one world government, eliminating the middle class in America and essentially controlling every facet of the lifestyle of citizens. This is being done by ensuring that the central government is strong enough to dictate the way citizens live to the states. The US Constitution is based on not only the precept that we receive our rights from God and not men or law, but it also has its amendments which explain what rights citizens have and protection against the central government from taking those rights away. I don't like others controlling my life and I have studied the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and great books such as The Federalist Papers thoroughly.
The idea that Republicans are Nazis is ridiculous. In the first place, Nazis were socialists. Hitler knew his party was in serious competition with the communists in Germany. He burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on the communists in order to extol the virtues of Nazis. Further, the Nazi party required a strong central government, just like the communists. Hitler, in fact, promoted his local police to work at a national rather than local level because he required strong central government. He then, essentially, adopted Roehm's paramilitary group, popularly known as the Brown Shirts, because they wore a uniform of that color which were purchased from the Italians. They and other groups became the stand-ins for the local police and essentially established Nazi rule. Hitler had Roehm killed and took over the Brown Thugs. You can look up The Night of the Long Knives.
I mention all this for one reason: we have had four years of the person Richardson fears will suck the life from our country. Not only did he not design or actually do any of the things that Hitler did, including any effort at establishing the central government as being dictatorial, but he was insistent on handing the rights back to the states. Hence, I wish to state once, and hope I never have to hear it again, wherever the leftist ideology that came from which compared Nazi Germany to a presidential reign of Donald Trump, let's just send it back into Never-Neverland. Best example of this being true: the overthrow of Roe versus Wade did not ban abortions, but only sent this back to the states.

On to other issues, Richardson would like us to believe that the issue of slavery had to do with a bunch of white supremacists tromping on black people's rights. Let us put aside the entire argument about black people owning slaves as well as the people who first sold Africans into the slave trade. The issue of slavery was a huge stumbling point in the ratification of the US Constitution. Some wished to maintain that slavery should be abolished completely, but, and primarily the Southern states, maintained that they would not have a government dictate how their economy should work. It was almost the breaking point, and a compromise was made and the Constitution was ratified.

Now there has been too much written about the South for me to make many assertions without intricate argument. but I will say that the economy of the South was at its peak in 1838. There is no doubt at all that the slave economy was dying and worn out soil had pushed the crops, primarily cotton, south and west. Virginia had its lingering plantations, but tobacco was a difficult crop and became a poor crop for the South because it wore the soil out. But maybe one in 15 people in the South owned slaves. Most large plantations had everyone in the family out working in order to prosper, but the great issue is that most people did not own slaves. So the question I have often asked is, if the Civil War was about slavery, what were the people who didn't own slaves fighting for?
Now before you become irate and start telling me about how bad the Southern attitude was towards the Negro, I am old enough to remember that on our trips to Florida, there was a prominent hotel in North Carolina which stated in large letters that it was for colored people. I remember seeing colored water fountains and I was horrified. I remember that there were places, when I was a bit older, that black people could not go. I thought it was a joke, but it was very real. The reason I say this is that I understand that rednecks didn't think that black people measured up, to be polite. It had been explained to me, when I was young, that people each had their place. At my grandfather's country club, which happened to be in Pittsburgh, rather than Selma, the black males cleaned our golf shoes and the black women served our food. I say this because, even though we didn't walk around with a whip, the people in the North were every bit as racist as Southerners were, but probably not as vicious. I think that the great majority of people through the middle of the 20th century didn't wish to allow black people to have the rights of white people.

I regret having to say such things because I promised I wouldn't accuse Richardson of ethnic bias, but the issue seems to me that she is just wrong about trying to make conservatives into nasty people who hated black people and plotted against the middle class. It's nonsense. Anyone who has studied American history at the college level knows that there were lots of nasty people, many of whom became wealthy on the backs of others. It is often said that Carnegie created so many projects so that he could purchase a clean conscience, but I digress.

On to the Roosevelt era, the one which wanted to pack the Supreme Court, by the way, and I am no fan of Franklin Roosevelt. I did notice how Richardson never mentioned that he turned away a boatload of Jews, refusing to allow them to land in America. Antisemitism? Oh that's only for conservatives, isn't it? It is true that there was a large contingent of people in this country who were pro-German. In fact, German was the most popular language taught in schools from the early part of the 20th century. Germans were industrious and hardworking people who got caught up in the war that began in the middle of the 19th century, when Britain and France would try and overcome other countries. One need only look to Great Britain's history and why they have so many curry shops in London these days.

The Treaty of Versailles left Germany broken and incapable of making much out of itself. I won't bore you with the stories of inflation, but I first saw the word "billion" associated with the mark in post war Germany. Sad, but in punishing Germany, European countries wanted to ensure it was painful. It was painful, but the new democratic government in Germany fell apart, didn't it? And Europe laughed at them and it created the very fertile field for a demagogue like Hitler. BTW, I recall a bunch of liberal British who thought that Hitler was doing a great job for a few years. I doubt that many people liked the Jews, and no one came to their defense when the Nuremberg Laws took away their citizenship. No one will say it today, but no one liked the Jews very much, historically. Russia and Poland were good to them for a while, but anyway....I had someone tell me that all the pictures in Gaza were all faked and it was the fault of the Jews anyway...and this was a confirmed liberal.
Anyway, The New Deal did absolutely nothing to get the US out of the Great Depression. Did you know that only ten years before, the Congress had considered passing a law which outlawed poverty? The reason was that people, at least on paper, were making too much money. It wasn't the rich just being greedy, but anyone with any money whatsoever was buying stocks which kept going up! The middle class was a great part of this.
I wish I could go on and talk about all the other nefarious criminals that Richardson associates with conservatives. You read this book and you might just forget that there were people like Clinton or Obama in the White House. She talks about he Great Society of Lyndon Johnson like he was some sort of miracle worker and modern-day saint: he wasn't and anyone who has not read Thomas Sowell on the subject should immediately do so.

All in all, I didn't hate this book. I admired her zeal in being able to write it although it hurts me to think anyone would believe a word of it. I think it's a terrible lie, all the way from avoiding the effects of turning against Godly behavior, something stated clearly by George Washington in his First Inaugural Address, to the references to Archie Bunker as a model for conservatives. Frankly, compared to the Democrat presidents, I think Richard Nixon was a great man. Yeah, he broke into a minor Democrat headquarters, but he understood that we had to support Israel against the onslaught of Antisemitism. ]]> ReadStatus7704835632 Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:39:42 -0700 /review/show/6331282625 Rhonda started reading Independent People by Halld贸r Laxness
]]> ReadStatus7683863773 Sat, 09 Mar 2024 20:30:58 -0800 /review/show/6331282625 Rhonda wants to read Independent People by Halld贸r Laxness
]]> Review6322222068 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 11:27:24 -0800 /review/show/6322222068 Rhonda gave 1 star to Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America (Hardcover) by Heather Cox Richardson
A dear friend of mine was excited that I read this book and she graciously sent it to me. I immediately began perusing the introduction and I read it carefully. In fact, I read it twice and made notes, wondering whether I was reading it quite right. While it is true that I am politically a conservative, I was determined to give it a fair shot and, in doing so, I promise to not complain that things should be another way. Politics is, alas, a great deal about opinion and how we feel that others are trying to erase our ability to live as we like. However, and I regard this with trepidation, this book appears to be trying to convince the reader that some of us have inadvertently fallen under the spell of a nefarious overlord. Unfortunately, the parallels she uses appear to be either weak or just plain incorrect.
America is at a crossroads, I agree. But first, we have never been a democracy, but a republic and there is a distinct difference, one which I ought not to have to explain. I think that the crossroads we face is from a group of people who are interested in establishing a one world government, eliminating the middle class in America and essentially controlling every facet of the lifestyle of citizens. This is being done by ensuring that the central government is strong enough to dictate the way citizens live to the states. The US Constitution is based on not only the precept that we receive our rights from God and not men or law, but it also has its amendments which explain what rights citizens have and protection against the central government from taking those rights away. I don't like others controlling my life and I have studied the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and great books such as The Federalist Papers thoroughly.
The idea that Republicans are Nazis is ridiculous. In the first place, Nazis were socialists. Hitler knew his party was in serious competition with the communists in Germany. He burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on the communists in order to extol the virtues of Nazis. Further, the Nazi party required a strong central government, just like the communists. Hitler, in fact, promoted his local police to work at a national rather than local level because he required strong central government. He then, essentially, adopted Roehm's paramilitary group, popularly known as the Brown Shirts, because they wore a uniform of that color which were purchased from the Italians. They and other groups became the stand-ins for the local police and essentially established Nazi rule. Hitler had Roehm killed and took over the Brown Thugs. You can look up The Night of the Long Knives.
I mention all this for one reason: we have had four years of the person Richardson fears will suck the life from our country. Not only did he not design or actually do any of the things that Hitler did, including any effort at establishing the central government as being dictatorial, but he was insistent on handing the rights back to the states. Hence, I wish to state once, and hope I never have to hear it again, wherever the leftist ideology that came from which compared Nazi Germany to a presidential reign of Donald Trump, let's just send it back into Never-Neverland. Best example of this being true: the overthrow of Roe versus Wade did not ban abortions, but only sent this back to the states.

On to other issues, Richardson would like us to believe that the issue of slavery had to do with a bunch of white supremacists tromping on black people's rights. Let us put aside the entire argument about black people owning slaves as well as the people who first sold Africans into the slave trade. The issue of slavery was a huge stumbling point in the ratification of the US Constitution. Some wished to maintain that slavery should be abolished completely, but, and primarily the Southern states, maintained that they would not have a government dictate how their economy should work. It was almost the breaking point, and a compromise was made and the Constitution was ratified.

Now there has been too much written about the South for me to make many assertions without intricate argument. but I will say that the economy of the South was at its peak in 1838. There is no doubt at all that the slave economy was dying and worn out soil had pushed the crops, primarily cotton, south and west. Virginia had its lingering plantations, but tobacco was a difficult crop and became a poor crop for the South because it wore the soil out. But maybe one in 15 people in the South owned slaves. Most large plantations had everyone in the family out working in order to prosper, but the great issue is that most people did not own slaves. So the question I have often asked is, if the Civil War was about slavery, what were the people who didn't own slaves fighting for?
Now before you become irate and start telling me about how bad the Southern attitude was towards the Negro, I am old enough to remember that on our trips to Florida, there was a prominent hotel in North Carolina which stated in large letters that it was for colored people. I remember seeing colored water fountains and I was horrified. I remember that there were places, when I was a bit older, that black people could not go. I thought it was a joke, but it was very real. The reason I say this is that I understand that rednecks didn't think that black people measured up, to be polite. It had been explained to me, when I was young, that people each had their place. At my grandfather's country club, which happened to be in Pittsburgh, rather than Selma, the black males cleaned our golf shoes and the black women served our food. I say this because, even though we didn't walk around with a whip, the people in the North were every bit as racist as Southerners were, but probably not as vicious. I think that the great majority of people through the middle of the 20th century didn't wish to allow black people to have the rights of white people.

I regret having to say such things because I promised I wouldn't accuse Richardson of ethnic bias, but the issue seems to me that she is just wrong about trying to make conservatives into nasty people who hated black people and plotted against the middle class. It's nonsense. Anyone who has studied American history at the college level knows that there were lots of nasty people, many of whom became wealthy on the backs of others. It is often said that Carnegie created so many projects so that he could purchase a clean conscience, but I digress.

On to the Roosevelt era, the one which wanted to pack the Supreme Court, by the way, and I am no fan of Franklin Roosevelt. I did notice how Richardson never mentioned that he turned away a boatload of Jews, refusing to allow them to land in America. Antisemitism? Oh that's only for conservatives, isn't it? It is true that there was a large contingent of people in this country who were pro-German. In fact, German was the most popular language taught in schools from the early part of the 20th century. Germans were industrious and hardworking people who got caught up in the war that began in the middle of the 19th century, when Britain and France would try and overcome other countries. One need only look to Great Britain's history and why they have so many curry shops in London these days.

The Treaty of Versailles left Germany broken and incapable of making much out of itself. I won't bore you with the stories of inflation, but I first saw the word "billion" associated with the mark in post war Germany. Sad, but in punishing Germany, European countries wanted to ensure it was painful. It was painful, but the new democratic government in Germany fell apart, didn't it? And Europe laughed at them and it created the very fertile field for a demagogue like Hitler. BTW, I recall a bunch of liberal British who thought that Hitler was doing a great job for a few years. I doubt that many people liked the Jews, and no one came to their defense when the Nuremberg Laws took away their citizenship. No one will say it today, but no one liked the Jews very much, historically. Russia and Poland were good to them for a while, but anyway....I had someone tell me that all the pictures in Gaza were all faked and it was the fault of the Jews anyway...and this was a confirmed liberal.
Anyway, The New Deal did absolutely nothing to get the US out of the Great Depression. Did you know that only ten years before, the Congress had considered passing a law which outlawed poverty? The reason was that people, at least on paper, were making too much money. It wasn't the rich just being greedy, but anyone with any money whatsoever was buying stocks which kept going up! The middle class was a great part of this.
I wish I could go on and talk about all the other nefarious criminals that Richardson associates with conservatives. You read this book and you might just forget that there were people like Clinton or Obama in the White House. She talks about he Great Society of Lyndon Johnson like he was some sort of miracle worker and modern-day saint: he wasn't and anyone who has not read Thomas Sowell on the subject should immediately do so.

All in all, I didn't hate this book. I admired her zeal in being able to write it although it hurts me to think anyone would believe a word of it. I think it's a terrible lie, all the way from avoiding the effects of turning against Godly behavior, something stated clearly by George Washington in his First Inaugural Address, to the references to Archie Bunker as a model for conservatives. Frankly, compared to the Democrat presidents, I think Richard Nixon was a great man. Yeah, he broke into a minor Democrat headquarters, but he understood that we had to support Israel against the onslaught of Antisemitism. ]]>