{::'KayCeeS::}

Girl Rabbit Love

I love ALL of you guys/gals

Paramore, "Hard Times" This is millenial pop, but this is the best of it, a real band that has intricate arrangements. Go out on a limb and get their album, "After Laughter", if you don't believe me.

Talk about a brutal book. I have four dogs, and just thinking about it makes me see red. What was my first serious book? I don't know for sure: what I do remember is my freshman high school English teacher, Mr. Bazzett. He was awesome, and i thank him for initiating me into the literary spectrum. All of a sudden, I could have an OPINION! That's a kind of transformative moment in a young teenager's life....

We used to listen to his music opening up the restaurant.... Brew Espresso, turn it on.... Sad.

What I see is the East rising, and the West in a furious and not-anytime-soon fall from dominance. What I see is Russia and China building for the future, and lending aid and support to their strategic allies (i.e. Iran). You want to advocate a certain transformative idea like "democracy is currently coming", and that's fine, because I get it, what you're doing, I do. And the number is a mistake. Obviously. Next time, slow down to the billions, it will make more sense.

Yah, I haven't read the third Passage book yet... again, i fear that it won't live up to my expectations... and I think that's what you're saying? Dan Simmons perplexes me. On one hand, he's a great writer. On the other hand, I think he's written a lot of mediocre stuff. I've tried to read some of his other books, but the only one I've ever finished is "Hyperion". So there's that. And I've only watched the first episode of "The Terror", so... Well, Dune.... I think you should give the Frank Herbert Sequels another shot. They're all interesting, but his son's books that continue the series are CRAP. Don't read those. I read NK Jemison's first trilogy, "The Inheritance Trilogy", and I respect her chops, but I didn't really like it that much. I try to differentiate: she's got the skills, just not my thing.

My bad!

"The Night Market" by Jonathan Moore If you like genre-bending types of crime novels, then I highly recommend this whole series of trilogy books: "A Poison Artist", "The Dark Room", and "The Night Market", all set in San Francisco and loosely connected. Each book is a little different from the others in terms of what it leans toward (horror, classic hard-boiled, and sci-fi), but all are still crime/procedurals, very tightly written with well developed characters and a great sense of atmosphere. Brother, with your name and avatar: please tell us what books did not disappoint!

I bolded and underlined your mistake. Otherwise... K. I get all of what you say. All I see is, two former client states, stretching their wings to fly....

"Chasm City" A Space Opera Novel by Alastair Reynolds "Chasm City" is truly bonkers. I don't mean that it has an experimental structure, or crazy over-the-top prose, or even that it goes out of its way to upturn the proverbial apple cart. What I mean is that, although it is most certainly space opera, it is also just as equally weird fiction. There is a pervasive disquiet that permeates each page of this novel, almost as if you can feel the dark, cold of the spacial void permeating from each and every word. I'm sure others have said this, but it's like if China Mieville had decided to write a mainstream-ish sci-fi novel instead of "Perdido Street Station". Chasm City itself is in many ways the main character of this novel; it is such an unusual place, such a transformed and twisted version of its past self (which, without getting into details, will make sense if you read the novel), that it's very existence is a kind of pan-mirror reflecting the odysseys of the characters themselves. Reynolds is such an ambitious writer that it can take your breath away, but he is also a purveyor and unfurler of a startingly, unexpected intimacy, and the tug-of-war between these two facets really reveals a novelist who, while certainly working with familiar space opera tropes, also has a style uniquely his own. "Chasm City" is part of Reynolds' "Revelation Space" Universe, but it is also stand alone. You don't have to have read any of the other novels to jump into this one. I highly recommend it, especially if you like your space-opera sci-fi tilting towards the bizarre side." Any literature is game, my friend. I was actually named after Vonnegut, no lie, straight truth. I didn't know it, until I was in college and I read "Cat's Cradle" and I happened to mention it to my parents how much i loved this motherf'er. LOVE Hyperion. Haven't read any of the other ones, I was kind of scared they wouldn't be as good (stupid, i know). Speaking of Dan Simmons, anyone watching "The Terror" on AMC? Maybe not "morons".... But We are in accord. Dune is required reading for anybody, much like Moby Dick, or any classic novel you can name.

"Q" If you're into historical fiction, then put this on your shortlist- set in 16th century Reformation Europe and dealing with the times around Martin Luther, and it's just really stunning in its depth, breadth, scope, but also intimacy of character. Written by four italian writers, published under a pseudonym, and the four writer thing is actually a strength, where 90% of the time i think it would be a contrived kind of thing. No matter what your faith, this is a worthy book. Reminds me in some ways of Umberto Eco.

Honestly, this was when I first thought, "wha....?" The rest is history, of course. You can't unfake faking data, amirite?

I don't think I've actually read "Women". But I have a... mixed relationship with Bukowski. Not because of literary merit. In a very personal way. But I think that's the point, right? Thanks for posting.

To quote one of my favorite rappers: "That's the anthem, homie, I'm off the Grid, and you can't control me..." That's what I think when I listen to Zappa.

First of all, I reference the bolded parts of your statement. I forgive you for being a total !@#$. But, okay, let's talk about the rest. What was the "Korean War"? What it really was, is we INVADED KOREA, because we wanted a foothold against Communist Russia. That's obvious. So, imagine, if China, for example, invaded Canada around Vancouver. To get a foothold against us. Imagine what you would do? Imagine what ALL of US what do? The reality is: North Korea is no threat at all. Because, as I've said in another post, we could wipe them off the face of the planet in thirty minutes. Do you not think the leaders of North Korea know this? I mean, do you honestly think they've survived for 60 years against our CIA by being morons? Propagandha overtakes the best of us. Steel yourself, and force yourself to find as many independent sources as possible to make the most informed decision possible. That's me being a total !@#$, by the way.

Yes, tell me about a night-time satellite picture which shows that the people within it are malnourished. I mean, c'mon. Like we give a F about malnourished people! This is my point.

"City of Tiny Lights" This is the kind of book that the 21st century has deliberately forgotten how to write. It's a serrated sucker-punch but in the best kind of way, like its cutting filet mignon with its fist. I highly recommend it, even though it's the kind of book that will get put down because it bristles at the seams and does not deign to slip n' slide into your comfort zone.

I will take that, thank you for responding! I feared no one would at all! As a side note, I'm curious about your numerical theory of idiots, as in, how do you differentiate between sequential idiots? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but surely, even if you don't have an established framework of idiocy, it might behoove someone of your nature to brainstorm about such an universal framework of idiocy? Just spitballin' here.

I don't have a f'in clue if I would or not. I'm so far removed from North Korea, they might as well be an alien species. Propaganda goes both ways. We here take our "info" from US media sources. Do you honestly think that a media controlled by our corporate/govermental structure gives us objective info about countries we are currently trying to imperialize? If so, I've got a bridge in Arizona to sell you. My advice: Bookmark as many different news sources from around the world as you can, and then compare the information that they distribute. That's the only way to actually come to an understanding of world politics, because we are just one part of it.

Very interesting! You are making me think about this for a moment.... <<thinking>> Okay, two main things: 1) I don't think DPRK gives a F about the Korean War treaty. I think they give a F about pushing the US off as long as they can. Because, obviously, their neighbors are, let's be honest now (in terms of the future), the two most powerful countries on the planet. So this whole "denuclearize" thing is obviously a long-established gambit that they would never do unless it OBVIOUSLY benefit DPRK. But that leads me to your whole "nebulous" thang.... I don't disagree. It would make sense, right? I mean, wouldn't it benefit us if we had a convenient "enemy" in a strategic part of the world? Which would force us to move our military into the South China Sea? So I see your whole thought structure, I think, and I don't explicitly disagree. Moves with moves. 2) Why do you think Iran is just gonna give their religious leaders? We tried in what, 2011, and it **** the bed. Meanwhile, they're literally going about their business. You're gonna have to be more specific about this one.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Well, here's the thing: Russia and China have been careful to not officially ally themselves with North Korea. Because duh. But both of those countries have a border with North Korea. So obviously, that's a serious national security issue for both Russia and China, no matter what. "If" North Korea is offering to denuclearize, it will probably be something like Iran: with serious economic/trade considerations that will enable them to engage in the world economy without sacrificising their way of life. In other words: Russia and China are "vouching" for North Korea, because both of those countries have certain assurances/deals/understandings with North Korea which now allows North Korea to deal . And we, as the US, can't ignore this because we certainly can't ignore anything Russia or China does. That would be my hypothesis, anyway. I have no illusion that it's the total truth, but I think it's a very reasonable theory.

North Korea developed their nuclear program as a deterrent. They want to do their own thing without interference. There is no way in hell they will actually shoot off a nuke against any country. Because they would be obliterated within the hour. You don't think they know that? They've insulated themselves from the West's attempts to coup d'etat for the last 60 years, and what, you think that's just stupid luck? Of course not. With an active nuclear program, it gives them the ability to negotiate the best possible relationships with whatever countries. Not too difficult to understand.