I know, I know, I pronounced the anathema on Stephen King after the gruesome experience of reading his 1,000-page doorstopper, The Dome. So why am I posting about his latest book, Full Dark, No Stars? Let me explain.

To begin with, Full Dark, No Stars isn’t a novel. It’s a collection of four novellas. And while it’s true that bad writing can make even a 2,000-word short story seem interminable, I figured that reading King’s latest wouldn’t actually put me through a literary near-death experience. Besides, I have decent memories of some of his earlier novellas, e.g. “The Library Policeman.” Then too, as the proud owner of a Kindle I could obtain Full Dark, No Stars for a paltry sum. So I took the plunge.

I read three of the novellas over a period of about four days and was not terribly impressed. They weren’t hideously bad, like The Dome, just pedestrian and rather labored. Oh, King pours on the gore—in “1922,” a Nebraska farmer dumps his murdered wife’s body down a disused well and tops it off with the carcass of a cow—but I got the feeling that he was just going through the motions. In “Big Driver,” the protagonist is a writer. On the whole I’m not a big fan of writers writing about fictional writers, though Philip Roth has been known to turn that trick rather smartly. The best of the three was “A Good Marriage,” in which a happily married wife finds out that her beloved husband of more than 25 years is a serial killer. It had more energy than the other two—King seemed more engaged with this story—but it still didn’t quite come together for me. Near miss.

Then, a couple or three days later, I read the fourth story. And you know what? It rocked and it rolled.

“Fair Extension” happens to be the shortest story in Full Dark, No Stars and it’s the only one with a definite element of the supernatural. Are you up for a deal with the Devil? This one comes with a vicious twist indeed. I would even go so far as to say that it’s vintage Stephen King. “Fair Extension” put me in mind of the way King used to write back in the day—you know, in Carrie, The Shining, The Stand. I liked this story a lot. It left me with the glad thought that King might have a few more worthwhile stories left to tell. (And if I were him, I think I’d try to tell them at novella length.)

So as heartless as it was, I finished “Fair Extension” with a smile on my face. But here’s the odd thing. “Fair Extension” isn’t the last story in the book. It’s the third story. Why I skipped over it, I can’t really explain. Just a whim? Perhaps a psychic twinkle? Or maybe the subconscious influence of the Illuminati? Whatever. All I know for sure is that if I’d read the stories in order, Full Dark, No Stars wouldn’t have worked for me. So yeah, go buy it for your Kindle or get it when it comes out in paperback. It’s worth that much for “Fair Extension” and “A Good Marriage,” and hey, maybe you’ll like the other two better than I did. Recommended with an asterisk.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:55 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The editors of National Review Online have made out a case for US intervention in Libya.  It’s a cogent analysis that takes account of everything, except for one key fact.

I agree with much of what they have to say. It’s quite true that Moammar Qaddafi is a murderous tyrant, a friend and sponsor of terrorists and an enemy of our country. Libya, America and the world would all be far better off without him. Also spricht Realpolitik.

Unfortunately, NRO’s analysis is based on a false premise, i.e. that the United States has a commander-in-chief capable of making a tough call on Libya. His Radiant Magnificence…excuse me, President Obama…has pretty conclusively demonstrated that he’s one of those people who can never quite arrive at a decision. Confronted with a crisis, his natural instinct is to talk, dither, unload the responsibility elsewhere or kick the can down the road. All rhetoric, no reality—that, alas, defines the character of the man we chose in 2008 to lead this country.  If he’s the change we’ve been waiting for, America really is in trouble.

It should be noted that the NRO editorial appeared before the UN Security Council proclaimed a no-fly zone over Libya. This phony-baloney measure comes far too late, has no teeth and will do little or nothing to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebels. But just watch Obama try to use it to show that he is too a decisive chief executive!

The NRO editors put me in mind of a woman who, having become entangled in a destructive relationship with a no-good guy, goes on hoping that he’ll change—perhaps even that she can change him. But as we all know, people don’t change. Where Barack Obama is concerned, what you see is, unfortunately, exactly what you get. Perhaps he can be badgered and shamed into adopting the policy that NRO desires. But if you ask me, no good can come of a risky military operation that is ordered and directed by a poltroon. A harsh judgment on Obama? Maybe so—but how would you feel about it if your son or daughter was being committed to combat by this guy?

Posted by tmg110 at 8:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Posted by tmg110 at 8:42 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 17 March 2011 8:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In an earlier post, I expressed some skepticism that if the United States intervened in the Libyan uprising, we’d earn the thanks of the Arab people. As our experiences in Iraq have shown, Arabs tend to be ingrates. And indeed, it’s a damning comment on all human nature that we’re often inclined to resent the people who’ve done us great favors.

Well, here’s some evidence that tends to reinforce my doubts about the wisdom of riding to the rescue of the Libyan rebels. This is Clifford D. May, writing for National Review Online:

A friend, I’ll call him Mohamed, has been keeping closely in touch with people inside Libya, and he’s been kind enough to send me updates. In a note last week, he quoted one of his brothers, who told him that Moammar Qaddafi “is savagely waging a war against an entire nation… Years ago, a suicide bomber struck in a pizzeria and the entire West was up in arms. Libyans are being killed by the thousands with heavy and deadly weapons…and the West is silent.”

 

Mohamed then added that “to Libyans” it has “become obvious” why the U.S. is not intervening: “It is about oil, paranoia, and racism against Arabs and Muslims.”

 

I was chagrined and said so to my friend. Americans have paid a high price in blood and treasure attempting to rescue Arabs and Muslims from tyrants—in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to cite a few examples. These efforts have brought more vilification than praise, more resentment than gratitude. And now the reason we’re not intervening in Libya is because we are paranoiac racists coveting Libya’s oil?

Posted by tmg110 at 7:54 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 17 March 2011 8:23 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Today’s vocabulary challenge: summarize the presidency of His Glorious Clemency…excuse me, of Barack Obama…in one word.

My choice: supine.

That’s the word that popped into my head this morning as I surveyed (a) the latest news and (b) our chief executive’s actions—or rather, his inaction. Taking action is obviously not this president’s most notable distinguishing characteristic.

The most glaring example of Obama’s lackadaisical approach to, er, leadership is surely his handling of the crisis in Libya. Really, he seems chagrined by the whole business: What, you mean that the world community actually expects me to do something about this? Whatever! So the President made some pro forma comments to the effect that Moammar Qaddafi’s behavior is “unacceptable,” that he has “lost his legitimacy,” that he has to go, etc. Obama even went so far as to observe that “time is running out” for the tyrant. And then he did…nothing.

Now, as I’ve noted in previous posts, doing nothing about Libya is a defensible policy.  But Obama hasn’t really adopted that policy. Instead, he talks tough—well, tough for him—but then does nothing to give weight to his words. One can easily imagine the scorn with which Colonel Qaddafi and his pals in Venezuela, North Korea and Iran regard the President of the United States. And if they conclude from Obama’s behavior that that America is a feeble enemy and a false friend, who could blame them?

Posted by tmg110 at 8:49 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

When the history of the Great Japanese Earthquake is written, the performance of the media will make sorry reading.

Despite a total lack of facts concerning the risks of radiation exposure, the media have whipped up a worldwide frenzy of fear over the damage that was done to some of Japan’s nuclear reactors by the quake and tsunami that struck over the weekend. At a time when hundreds of thousands of people face the possibility of death from injuries, exposure, malnutrition and epidemic disease, the media is focusing the world’s attention on a largely spurious crisis. See here, for example.

As far as anyone knows at this point, there has been not one single case of radiation sickness diagnosed among people living in the vicinity of the damaged reactors. Let me repeat that: Not one single case of radiation sickness has been diagnosed. Nor have dangerously elevated levels of radiation been detected anywhere around the reactors. At the very worst, such radioactive materials as have been released into the environment may cause long-term health problems in a very small number of people, e.g. a slightly increased risk of developing certain cancers.

The situation remains serious, of course, and there is always the possibility that it could take a sharp turn for the worse. But unless it does, the media should spend less time spreading fear and more time on reporting the rest of this terrible story.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:34 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Palestinian terrorists slit the throats of three Jewish children, and the Muslim world cheers.

Actually the followers of the religion of peace (as George W. Bush so charitably dubbed it) massacred most of a Jewish family: 36-year-old Udi Fogel, his 35-year-old wife, Ruth, and three of their children: 11-year-old Yoav, 4-year-old Elad, and Hadas, their 3-month-old baby.

A three-month-old baby. Think about that for a moment. No doubt the killer whispered “God is great” as he drew his blade across the baby’s throat.

We’ve been here before, of course. In the black time of the Holocaust, Germans killed Jews—Jewish infants, even—in much the same way. But what of the people who greet these things with satisfaction and approval? At National Review Online, Andy McCarthy tries to explain the mind-set of people who could celebrate such a heinous deed:

It is a natural response, if you are a monster. If you have been reared in a culture that worships suicide bombers, that dehumanizes Jews as the children of monkeys and pigs, and that insists Israel is not merely the enemy but does not have a right to exist. And these positions, it bears emphasizing, do not represent some fringe Islam of al-Qaeda terrorists who have purportedly hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion. This is mainstream Islam, the sorts of things you would hear in a classroom at al-Azhar University or a television show on al-Jazeera—the place where, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, people turn for “real news,” the place where Muslim Brotherhood guru Yusuf Qaradawi lionizes suicide bombers in his popular weekly program, Sharia and Life.

This is all too true, as far as it goes. But who can explain what happened to the Fogel family—who can really explain it? Perhaps we’d be well advised to take the explanations of such people as Yusuf Qaradawi at face value.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:07 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In the news report cited in my last post, there is talk of “elevated levels” of radiation being emitted from one of Japan’s damaged nuclear reactors. But just what does “elevated” mean?

Here are some hard facts and numbers bearing on the subject of radiation sickness. A radiation dose of 100 rem (roentgen equivalent in man—a standard exposure measurement) over a period of less than a week would cause radiation sickness in half of people exposed. Some 50% of people exposed to 450 rem over a period of a day or two would die within 30 days. A dose of 1,500 rem would kill nearly everybody exposed within 10 days.

Radiation sickness damages internal organs, especially the circulatory system. Its symptoms include internal and external hemorrhaging, immune system damage, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, ulcers, hair loss, sterility, miscarriages, thyroid gland damage, fever, and liver damage. Death from radiation sickness is usually caused by damage to blood cells and the circulatory system. Radiation sickness can also cause fatal complications in persons with other injuries, or cause death from minor diseases because of damage to the immune system.

See here for more information on radiation effects.

Obviously, if there had already been a widespread, catastrophic release of radioactive matter from one of those damaged reactors—sufficient, say to deliver a dose of 300-500 rem over a short period of time—the effects would be showing up now. Hundreds if not thousands of people would be exhibiting the symptoms of radiation sickness. Clearly, this hasn’t happened so far. The situation is serious, no doubt about it. But let’s see what happens before we succumb to a psychological meltdown.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:11 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

It’s interesting to note how quickly the coverage of the Japanese earthquake has come to focus on the damage it caused to a couple of nuclear power plants.

The reports I’ve seen so far lead me to suppose that the final body count may exceed 100,000. And out of this dismaying total, how many will have died from radiation poisoning? Probably none—for despite the hysterical squealing of the news media, it appears that no large-scale release of radiation has occurred. I’m not minimizing the seriousness of the situation. Two reactors were badly damaged, and one of them seems to have suffered a partial meltdown. So there’s certainly cause for concern. But the catastrophe so long predicted if a massive earthquake were to strike in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant just didn’t happen.

This should be no surprise. Contrary to the fear-mongering propaganda of anti-nuclear environmentalists and other Luddites, nuclear power plants are built to withstand just such extreme events as the Japanese earthquake. And in this case they seem to have done so, albeit with considerable damage and some release of radiation. But in the sad chronicle of this disaster, the part played by reactor damage will constitute but a footnote.

During Hurricane Katrina—and more recently during the Gulf oil spill—the news media magnified the horrors of the situation beyond all rational bounds. This makes me very skeptical indeed of their handling of the Japanese earthquake story, and particularly of the way in which they’re presenting the nuclear power segment of the story. Is this the end of the world? I’m not taking the media’s word for it.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:08 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

And here's a photo of Lexi with her other biggest fan (her sister Kelly):

Posted by tmg110 at 9:01 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink