Dated and politically incorrect, but still a fun read
583829
Plucked from the dusty depths this weekend was Iceberg, a very early Dirk Pitt adventure by Clive Cussler. Notable for marking the transition to a more complex story line and a larger cast of characters than The Mediterranean Caper, it's also the only Dirk Pitt novel not to feature one of my favourite literary sidekicks, Al Giordino.

What immediately struck me about the novel (and I realize it was published in 1975), is how extremely dated and politically incorrect it is, almost to the point of parody. Dirk's attitude towards women is atrociously sexist, with a few comments directed towards Admiral Sandecker's secretary that actually left me gaping. In addition, there's an extended subplot where Dirk pretends to be a mincing, prancing, lisping homosexual that hits on just about every flamboyant, over-the-top, gay stereotype. What's most perplexing about it all is the fact that a character who is revealed as transsexual in the last few chapters comes across very well, and is granted a significant amount of dignity and respect.

Social issues aside, this was a fun book. The ruse that Dirk pulls to commandeer the Coast Guard boat is played out perfectly, with some real moments of tension. The exploration of the burned-out hull of the luxury yacht, trapped as it is inside an iceberg, is creepy and claustrophobic. In terms of heroics, I'm not sure there's a scene in any of the subsequent novels that can compare with a brutally injured Dirk Pitt making his way across the frozen tundra, with only a homemade compass to guide his way. Also, as much as Cussler is know for his crazy climaxes, complete with elaborate settings and frantic action, the attempted assassinations and underground battles at Disneyland are a notch above his usual work.

There are some nice twists and turns to the book, with mistaken identities, betrayals, and double-crosses galore. It takes a while before the entire diabolical scheme is revealed, but even if it's a bit too elaborate to be entirely realistic, it's ambitious and exciting. I was a bit shocked by the brutal violence, which is more extreme than I can remember in any other Cussler novel, but it does set up that heroic tundra trek that I mentioned previously.

While it may not be the best Dirk Pitt novel, it's still a Dirk Pitt novel - and that always makes for a good read.
4439713
Engaging, funny, quick read.  I enjoyed it, but it's pretty dated at this point.  Not sure anyone under, say, 25 or so would get into it.  A world where a newsroom still runs on typewriters and email is this newfangled invention that only a privileged few are trusted with?  Nah, that's totally non-believable.  ;-p
2536492
Not so many years ago, very few people had ever heard the phrase "politically correct," let alone any horror stories about politically correct leftist college professors and students trashing the canon and burning labryses on the lawns of white, unapologetically heterosexual and capitalist men who bravely persist at reading Shakespeare. Recently, though, political correctness has become so well-known and such a stigma that even people who in any other context would be seen as members of the PC thought police routinely proclaim themselves politically incorrect--often in the course of taking positions that have remarkably little to do with politics, correct or not. The problem with all of this is that political correctness is largely a myth, as John K. Wilson argues in this aptly titled book.
One component of the myth of political correctness is that all people on the left are entirely lacking in humor or any sense of proportion, particularly about themselves and their politics. According to the popular mythology, someone who is PC can be identified by his or her habitually grim expression and belief that saying "pet" rather than "animal companion" is a crime equal to, say, disemboweling live puppies. Wilson shows the irony of this, as the term "politically correct" originated on the left as humor, "used sarcastically among leftists to criticize themselves for taking radical doctrines to absurd extremes." In addition, The Myth of Political Correctness never takes itself too seriously and is at times very funny.
Wilson looks at many of the widely told stories about political correctness, countering them with the solid documentation of facts that tends to be missing from the internet forwards you've all been reading, and exposing distortions and outright lies in the versions you've probably heard told by people like Dinesh D'Souza, William Bennett, and George Will. The book also contains a great many valuable statistics disproving common beliefs, such as that, due to affirmative action, qualified white men can no longer get jobs.
In addition to retelling -- and refuting -- the standard repertoire of stories about leftist political correctness (my favorite is the one where it was reported that a professor had been driven from his department by politically correct colleagues for saying something they didn't like, but really the guy was still in his job and the only problems he had experienced as a result of what he said was that some people were annoyed with him and didn't talk to him in the hall anymore), Wilson gives (well documented) examples of much more grievous behavior by the Right. These are included throughout the book, though they are especially concentrated in the second chapter, "Conservative Correctness."
I don't mean to suggest that the entire book is one anecdote after another. There are a lot of them in the book, but interspersed with excellent analysis of the ways that the myth of political correctness has been used specifically against higher education, reasons for the myth's acceptance, and reasons for the left's inability to answer accusations against itself. Wilson is not afraid to critique specific programs, such as affirmative action, or the left in general, and does so very sensibly.
The Myth of Political Correctness is worth reading cover to cover, but each chapter also stands on its own for those who are interested in a particular issue but don't have time to read the whole book (which, for the record, is not that long and goes pretty quickly).  This book really should be required reading for all of you who want to declare yourselves rebels against political correctness. Chances are, you wouldn't want to spend time with most of the people who made sure you know about it and dislike it (unless of course you are a member of the Rick Santorum-Trent Lott fan club).
1881348
I would like to point out that this is basically a reprinting of the original book written by Ms. Lefebure from 1955.  As such, it needs to be read with the understanding that events and ideas were different otherwise certain chapters read rather, well, dated.

The book is good enough.  I enjoyed it once I got into it, but Lefebure's style of writing is more chatty and gossipy rather than sticking entirely to facts.  It's almost more interpretation and her own ideas at times rather than actual cases.  That's not to say it's a bad book.  There are plenty of gripping moments, you just need to get through the author's high opinion of her boss and her own abilities and her occasional snarkiness toward certain people and cases to get there.  She does also manage to be humorous which is good because the subject material, though not strictly depressing, does get a bit heavy at times (I'm looking at you, chapter in defense of hangings - yeah, you read that right).

Other times I was plowing along just fine and realized, quite suddenly, I was really into a chapter to discover it was over and I wanted to know more about a case.  Occasionally Lefebure is cagey with the details when you don't want her to be.  There's a balancing act that never quite balances with the finished product, which is probably due to the period of time in which it was written and the fact that we're getting a reprint of the original with this new edition.  Good, not great, but entertaining if you can get past the multitude of abbreviations, nicknames, and generally off hand style in which it was written. It does give you a sense of life during the London Blitz to a point, which is perhaps the best part of the whole book.

Note: Free copy received from Harper via Goodreads First Reads for an honest review.
3981179
It a politically incorrect book by any measure. However it serves as a snapshot of the times. This was the culture of the times, it is a lesson .
2426080
This book is a great family adventure and has an engaging plot but is very dated in its portrayal of race, gender roles and treatment of the environment/animals.
989780
I grew up in the 70s, and the book pretty much nails the culture back then. The reviewers crying racism are laughable.

I've probably read this book about 10 times over the years. A really great read.
3956113
I'd be willing to bet that a modern reader unfamiliar with this very funny book would be far into it before suspecting that its author is not contemporary. Although it was written in 1889, it is still just as amusing today because apparently people have not changed even after all these years. They still behave in much the same ridiculous and predictable ways, making them fit subjects for farcical satire.

This is a travel guide, of sorts, of a boating trip down the Thames river. The author does provide factual information about the history of the villages and towns along the way, but all that is secondary to the rambling accounts of the mishaps of the three men, and of the people they meet and the people they remember in their stories to each other, and of the adventures of their dog.

The many people you read about will sound familiar to you, with all their infuriating idiosyncrasies, which become funny when only slightly exaggerated and having to do with somebody else. I particularly appreciated the portrait of a man who always insists he is best qualified to do any bit of skilled work, but his efforts consist of telling others what to do while he criticizes their efforts. And then when the task is completed, he claims full credit. I know this guy well; he once directed me while I tiled a floor and then told everyone what a good job he had done.

Only one aspect of human behavior not typical of the modern era (at least not in England, or America) is portrayed by the discovery of the body of a woman dead by suicide who was rejected by her Victorian peers because she had borne a baby out of wedlock. This incident is unsettling and strangely out of place with the tone of the rest of the book. But it does serve to illustrate to us that maybe some human behaviors do change, and for the better.

This book reminds me very much of "A Walk in the Woods" by Bill Bryson, a modern humor and travel book. If you liked that one, you will like this one.
1969880
I bought the book on a whim and enjoyed the read, but it was more dated than I thought it would be.
3491693
This book brought back many memories of pop culture events from the past that I recall reading about at the time.  The information about the locations is interesting as are the extra little details provided.

However, I was put off my the very large number of typos (Raiders of the Los (sic) Ark;  the Louis/Schmeling fight was in 1938, not 1948 to name just 2).  It makes you wonder how accurate the book is if simple details like this are wrong.

Still, it is a fun read.
2137826
Nearly fifty years after its first publication and many of the issues raised in the late Irving Wallace's "The Seven Minutes" are still as pertinent as ever(even more so in the age of the Internet I would argue!).
The Seven Minutes, alludes to a long banned book about the thoughts of an unnamed woman as she approaches orgasm- in which she fantasises about having sex with a variety of  historical figures, Christ, George Washington- and compares them to her unnamed partner. Said book after its republication by a respected publishing house is accused of corrupting and depraving a college boy to commit rape. Attorney Michael Barrett and his partner Abe Zelkin are retained by the publisher to fight the charge of obscenity.
I should declare my prejudice here- as an I am an artist and aspiring author I pretty much am inclined to  side with the book no matter how "filthy" it is declared to be.
Although not a fan of US President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower as a rule, something he said , quoted in the book has always stayed with me- "don't join the bookburners!".(be they Nazis, Soviet style Communists, fundamentalists of either Catholic, Orthodox or morr recently Islamist hue).
So what IS obscene- and totally without redeeming social merit?My personal favourite is the late US Supreme COurt Justice Potter Stewart- "I can't define it but by golly I know it when I see it!"
 My advice is that if something offends your moral or religious (or even political -pace conservative "shock jock" talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage- the latter thankfully banned from entry to the Uk a few years back), then DON'T watch or listen to it!

Terry
3223890
The extreme conservative movement in American politics is the sole reason for my buying, and reading, this book. With that written, I am very confused by the forces that caused my curiosity. The book seemed to be dated, as a  political book written in 1971 should be; it also seemed to be written to an audience known by the author.

How this book came to be the BoogieMan of 2009 to the present is beyond me. There are some rules that the author lays down, but this is not a how-to book to destroy "America". I can see why the President took some of the advice from the book in his efforts as an organizer ( a term that has recently lost its meaning in the current political climate.). There are some valid points by the author in terms of how to make a change in the lives of poor people. Is it a call to communism? NO. Is it subversive? NO. Hell, it isn't even that radical.

Dealing with the political climate of today, I think the most relevant " rule" is number 7.

  " A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."  p. 128

The invoking of Alinsky tactics, and the various word plays, as being part of a playbook for today's progressive/liberal/Democratic Party has gone on too long. It is a drag.

I think the book is a good read for history and political science students. There are some good quotes from a variety of sources, and the book shows a generational divide during a time of great change in American history. But if you are a Leftwing nutjob looking for a playbook, you will be disappointed. If you are a Rightwing nutjob looking for the enemies playbook, you will be disappointed.

But, if you think you already know what the book says because you use " Alinsky has taught you well" as a response to an argument, then you may not be disappointed. You will find some things in the book that will conform to prejudice. In this book context is everything. Taken out of context, much of the work can be twisted.
3434966
One obvious critique of this book is not the fault of the author.  In short, the topics that it covers are extremely dated.  Mr. Asay would be well-served to produce a current book, as many of these cartoons have lost their punch because the issues are no longer on the table.

My other complaint about the book needs to be established under the notion that I am a rather staunch conservative, particularly as it relates to moral issues.  So, I ultimately agree with many of the points that Asay tries to make.

However, I found his approach to be rather arrogant and disheartening on occasion, even when I totally agreed with his ideology.  I find it discouraging when we resort to name-calling and finger-pointing, regardless of whose side we're defending.

Of course, many will claim that I'm missing the point of political cartoons.  And if you think that political cartoonists have the right and even responsibility to make statements as insulting as possible, then you will appreciate Asay's approach.

However, I have read hundreds of political cartoons over the years that have made their point with wit and intelligence, which Mr. Asay is capable of doing as demonstrated in a number of his cartoons.  I just wish that he had captured that spirit of intelligent disputation and critique throughout the entire body of work.

This book will probably make some conservatives hoot and holler with glee.  But I suspect that more thoughtful readers, conservative or liberal, should look elsewhere for a better (and more current) commentary on the issues of the day.
548757
Dated but still has teeth.

P.J. O'Rourke goes after the ridiculousness that is the federal government with his trademark irreverent style in this 1991 book. Some of the commentary is dated (lots of talk about the forgettable 1988 presidential election with Republican George H.W. Bush going against Democrat Michael Dukakis. Also, the first one I voted in) but some of it is incredibly relevant. For example, the story of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) looking into the mystery of suddenly accelerating Audis 1n 1986 was reminiscent of the same problem with Toyotas that filled the news channels in 2009 and 2010.

Perhaps O'Rourke's most famous line comes from this book: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." (pg. xvii in the preface) This sentiment is pretty typical of the book as a whole and one that I generally agree with. O'Rourke talks with former advisors to presidents, shadows a congressman, talks with lobbyists, bureaucrats, policeman, people who live in atrocious government "projects" built for the poor to live in, and more.

O'Rourke notes on page 36: "It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money." And, O'Rourke proceeds to show the reader how and makes a solid case for a smaller, leaner government. He also explains how it got to be such a mess.

There are times when he fails to make his case. For me, the chapter on agriculture ("Agricultural Policy: How to Tell Your A-- From This Particular Hole in the Ground") was a nice lesson on overlapping government programs that seem absurd. For example, he bemoans the fact that there are so many government interventions that the marketplace is not really a factor in agricultural policy. That is true enough, but he negates his own argument on page 148 when he notes that "Cheap plentiful food is the precondition for human advancement. When there isn't enough food, everybody has to spend all of his time getting fed and nobody has a minute to invent law, architecture or big clubs to hit cave bears on the head with...we wouldn't grow food, we'd be food." O'Rourke seems to miss (or ignore) that the convoluted system of price supports, payments to keep fields idle and grants have the practical result of keeping plenty of extra food being produced and more than enough producers on hand. That way, if there is a massive drought (like the drought of 2012) there is plenty of food to make up for it. Because it is deals with food, the system is rigged to encourage over-production. Could it be more efficient? Sure. Could it be done smarter? Sure. But, O'Rourke fails to make his case that it should not be done at all.

O'Rourke's look into anti-poverty programs demonstrate that they were not working and that poverty is not easily solved and "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money." (pg. 128) If nothing else, this chapters reveals that O'Rourke is not simply a know-it-all. He knows that he does not know how to "fix" poverty and that government is certainly no doing a good job of it, either.

This is an entertaining read, even if you don't agree with all of his conclusions. I started this book one day when I misplaced the book I had been reading. In just a couple of pages I knew had to finish this one first. Entertaining, often profane, never boring.
4505990
This book is VERY dated. Most of it is more of a history lesson than anything, which is actually pretty interesting. Dr. Bradley makes lots of references to when Father's weren't allowed in the delivery rooms, which was apparently very common up until the 70s. he also makes lots of references that are actually pretty funny- like how ladies sitting cross legged on the floor isn't very 'lady like' but she should b/c it helps stretch her muscles? He also dedicates a whole (large) chapter to episiotomies, and how great they are :/ ... yeah.

Besides the obviously very outdated social (and sometimes medical) aspects of the book, he makes some great points about the similarities between birthing women and wild/domesticated animals, and a lot of it makes sense.  I wouldnt read this book as the ONLY book you and your partner read, but its good as a 'supplement' to what you are already reading.
350963
As a huge fan of the PBS series involving Jeeves and Wooster, I think some of the critics are taking the Wodehouse stories a little too seriously.

Yes, the Reggie Pepper portion of the book was inferior and could be deleted as far as I'm concerned, but reading the Jeeves/Wooster text was a delightful experience. Aside from the situational comedy, I thoroughly enjoyed the language, upmarket swearing, crazy names/nicknames and found more than a few instances of chortle-inducing verbiage.

Dated and downright silly at times...certainly, but how can anyone dislike "0ne of the most pronounced fatheads that ever pulled on a set of gent's underwear" or someone being "knee-deep in bouillon" or "rocked like a jelly in a high wind." Throw in some ridiculous antics and brainless assertions and you can cheer yourself right up on a winter's eve.
3955251
The book reflects the times when the book was published