Category: VAULT Reviews

Ok, after months of reading this book on my bathroom breaks I have finally finished Cryptonomicon .  This book was wonderful.  If you are a tech minded programmer, network administrator, mathematician, a cryptanalyst, or a plain old computer nut; you will find yourself laughing out loud during parts of this book.  I loved Neal Stephenson’s writing style which often goes off on wild tangents, and long metaphors, that are as entertaining (and sometimes even more-so) the the plot itself. 

The book is basically short on plot and long on story. I found his “techy” descriptions as accurate as any I have every read in a fiction book.  While covering the life of the three main characters you will also run into such storied jems as how to eat Cap’n Crunch, why men wear beards, cards as a crypto-system, discovering what really turns married couples on, and many many more. Great story, great writing… great book.

C.S. Lewis has always been a talented writer.  His “Chronicles of Narnia” was one of the first book series I read.  His non-fiction literature stands as some of the best Christian material written in the last century. All of that said “Mere Christianity” is probably one of his best books. 

The purpose of the book is to introduce non-Christians into the most basic and fundamentals of Christian thought; what C.S. Lewis calls “Mere Christianity”, but the information given is as useful to Christians as non-Christians. It thoroughly and succinctly makes the case for natural law, the existence of God, Christian morality, and the “core” set of beliefs that make Christianity. Almost like a Christian version of “Book of Five Rings.” A book with significantly more wisdom than you would expect in its modest 228 pages.

Although I have read some of Charles Dickens other works; I had never read “A Tale of Two Cities.” My wife had bought the book some time ago and so it sat on our shelf waiting to be read. A classic sitting on my shelf that I had not read was too much of a farce for me to ignore. And so I began reading it in the mornings, on my way to work.

Maybe it was because I was so much younger when I read Dickens other work, but for some reason “Tale” touched me in a way that his other books did not. I do not believe that another author, since the time Shakespeare, has demonstrated such a mastery of the English language and a skill for story telling. “A Tale of Two Cities” read like bitter-sweat honey to my tongue. Sweat, because his words welled up emotions in me that I have not felt for a story in a very long time. Bitter, because my heart aches that I will never have the skill to write such words. How sad it is that very few books have the capacity to be like that. The following are some of my favorite quotes from the book.

The two stand in the fast-thinning throng of victims, but they speak as if they were alone. Eye to eye, voice to voice, hand to hand, heart to heart, these two children of the Universal Mother, else so wide apart and differing, have come together on the dark highway, to repair home together, and to rest in her bosom.

Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.

The great grindstone, Earth, had turned when Mr. Lorry looked out again, and the sum was red on the court-yard. But, the lesser grindstone stood alone there in the calm morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away.

A dram, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it.

His surname was Cruncher, and on the youthful occasion of his renouncing by proxy the works of darkness, in the easterly parish church of Hounsditch, he had received the added appellation of Jerry.

A Short History of the Future is book designed to give form to the utopia ideal of every liberal college professor I have ever had.  I bought the book on the dollar table at my college almost four years ago on a recommendation of one of my friends.  You would think I would know better. Some of the more interesting (ok, maybe not) concepts covered in the book are “Democratic Communism” (yes, the author was attempting to be serious) and “Absolute Relativism.”

The book covers in earnest a 210 year period starting in 1990 or so.  The version I read was actually the second edition.  The first addition was written, went to press, and was so ridiculously wrong in its predictions that they had to come out with a new addition (who’d a guessed the USSR would loose the cold war.)  Basic plot goes like this.  Take Marxist revolutionary theory, give it a 200 year time line, remove everything professors always ignore about communism (darn it, why is it that censorship, oppression, and removal of individual liberties always gets in the way of a good communist government.) That’s is the entire book.  It lacked originality, vision, and was overall just a bad book.

I am writing this review as nothing more than a warning.  It is not the worst collegiate literature I have ever read, but it can definitely claim its place with some of them.

This was one of the few good excerpts from “The Pursuit of Loneliness.”

…they (people) are seldom able to resist putting crucial power into the hands of administrators.

This is a violation of democracy’s first rule: never delegate authority upward. It’s a rule violated by liberals more than anyone else, since liberals are most uncomfortable with the demands of communal existence. Cooperation is so irksome to individualistic natures that they spend half of their political lives giving power to centralized governments and the other half fearing for their personal liberties, without ever considering the contradiction.

–Philip Slater

My recommendation is, don’t bother reading this book. I have just relayed the only redeemable paragraph of the entire work.

I just got finished reading Brave New World and am starting to formulate some thoughts about Aldous Huxley’s world. In addition to the book, last night was my Renew group meeting were we discussed the scripture for next weeks Roman Catholic Mass. It a great example of the cosmic order of things; both the book and the Bible readings covered much of the same material, only from a couple different directions.

Fundamentally I don’t believe that the dichotomy that œBrave New World sets up is the one that Aldous Huxley believed he set up. The author (in his intro and the comments from the re-release) talk about the trade-off between what he calls œreal emotion and social stability. The dichotomy that I saw was one of free will and social stability. While I agree to some extent that things like tragedy, bravery, and passion are not possible in a world without strife; without difficulty. Huxley goes on to promote the idea that the cause of social strife is from desire (an extension of popular eastern religious philosophies) and that by removing desire by providing absolute fulfillment of all of our desires; we can œshort out that loop. I call it a loop because desire (at least desire beyond our animal instinct level) is an emotion; thus emotion producing desire, producing strife, producing emotion etc. ad infinitum. I believe that Huxley is partially wrong. I believe the cause of social strife if free will. Ultimately the civilized people of œBrave New World were not lacking in emotions, or even desires. Through social engineering they effectively had their free will taken from them. In part this conclusion is reached by Huxley himself when (at the end of chapter 17) the Controller says to the savage, œ…you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.

This discussion ties into the scripture reading in that they discuss the place of God in human suffering. The point that was made in Renew is that God does not cause evil in the world, he allows evil to be done in the world. It is humans (and their ability to choose freely) that cause evil and suffering. If God was to remove all suffering from the world, he would (in effect) have to remove free will. Without free will, life has lost the intensity that makes it worth living. The passion with witch I pursued my wife gave me a greater love for her. The ability to choose which people I dated eventually gave me an intense respect for how wonderful my wife is but it also meant that I suffered though some really awful woman. Free will means the possibility of greater value in life, but it guarantees nothing. Experience, good and bad, is value. What would Shakespeare be without tragedy?

Ultimately, I guess my point is that free will is a gift. A great gift. Probably the greatest gift that has ever been given to mankind. But a gift of such value also has great consequences. For even if I choose to live a good and respectful life; free will means other people have the ability to NOT live such a life. Actions have consequences to more than just the person who makes a given decision. Its not fair, but the alternative is to live in a œBrave New World.

My first book review. “Give Me a Break : How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media…” by John Stossel

I realize that I’ve been less than consistent about book reviews. The problem stems from the fact that its more enjoyable to read a new book than to review an old book. Consider this my first book review. I have just finished reading John Stossel’s new book “Give me a Break.” I can honestly say that it is without a doubt the best political analysis book by a news commentator I have ever read. The Left has tried to portray Stossel (and his book) as a Conservative corporate sellout; and the Right has tried to portray him (and his book) as a Secular leftist nut. The truth is neither. John Stossel is a Libertarian in the truest sense of the word, and this book reflects those ideas.

Over the course of this fairly short book Mr. Stossel talks about his early years in news broadcasting, his move to network television, and his conversion from a consumer reporters to a philosophically consistent libertarian. He succinctly extrapolates his frustration with most Liberal media as well as the corporate bought Conservative establishment, and pushes basic Jeffersonian freedoms. Stossel’s writing style, though not as strong as his broadcast style, is good enough to easily convey his opinions with only a couple analytical weaknesses in the book as a whole. Each opinion is supported by the kind of example one would come to expect from an investigative reporter. Stossel has one of the strongest grasps of economics I have ever seen from a broadcast personality. That economic understanding shines throughout the book (the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman himself praises Stossel’s economic understanding.)

Even if you disagree with Stossel’s conclusions it is hard to ignore the arguments he make in “Give me a Break.” I would strongly encourage anyone who wants a “mainstream” understanding of libertarianism to read this book. It, more than any book I have read in recent memory, summarizes my personal beliefs (and our founding fathers beliefs) in the way government should work.