I’m having a bit of trouble concentrating today. Not an unusual state of affairs, but, today, it’s really bad due to the fact that I’m in the process of incorporating new habits into my life. So I leave you with a review of my already-published novel while I work on the new one. Disclaimer: the review was written by my old co-blogger. As with my own re-posts, it’s slightly edited.
Tale of The Tigers is a story of two college kids who fall in love. It’s about race and racism. It’s a time capsule of the early 90s. It looks at the dynamics of family relationships. It examines sex and sexuality. It reassesses sacred cows of the cult of the politically correct. It makes important statements about friendship, loyalty and trust.
Like her blog writing, Ms. Ochieng’s novel is chock full of subtleties. Her characters could’ve turned into cardboard cut-outs. Instead, the folks that inhabit Tale are flesh and blood people, full of admirable traits and painful weaknesses. The outline of the plot never devolves into a cliché romance. Thankfully, Baldilocks takes the story in unexpected directions. Tale studiously avoids telegraphing its punches, which makes for an exciting read.
Beyond these great things, for me the best part of the book is the fact that the story stays with you long after you’ve finished it. You’ll find yourself replaying sequences from the book in your mind. Moreover, you’ll catch yourself pondering the book’s themes long after you’ve put it down.
In short, Tale of The Tigers is a damn fine piece of work from a writer with a powerful voice.
This just in from The New York Times: Journalists are having trouble being objective about Donald Trump.
Here’s what the red, old lady had to say recently:
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
The author, media columnist Jim Rutenberg, apparently isn’t much of a reporter or has ignored significant evidence of media bias when he served as the lead reporter on the 2012 campaign and a White House correspondent.
Note: I am not an ardent supporter of Trump. Also, I realize that the readers of DaTechGuy are not surprised by The New York Times’s arrogance and ignorance. But it is noteworthy that Rutenberg actually puts his analysis in writing at http://ow.ly/IOQg3034Bsk
Noted plagiarist Fareed Zakaria made no bones about his attitude about Trump. He simply called the GOP presidential candidate a “bull****” artist on CNN and in The Washington Post.
In the neck-snapping underpinning for his “astute” analysis, Zakaria quoted a Princeton University professor who actually wrote an academic paper entitled, “On Bull****.”
In case you need a definition, a BS-er, “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all . . . except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.”
It seems to me that the definition applies to Zakaria and many of his fellow travelers in the media.
Christopher Harper, a longtime journalist with The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times, teaches media law. Read more at www.mediamashup.org
A note from DaTechGugy: I hope you enjoyed Christopher Harper’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Christopher Harper’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Chris’ post is the reason you did so. In case you missed it, his first piece was Budding reporters and politics. His second was Give terrorists what they deserve: anonymity.
Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month, we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.
Plus, of course, all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
We interupt my coverage of Amplify Choice and RedState to talk about a pet peeve. And remember Peeves make wonderful pets
One of the things you notice about Denver right away is all of the building going on. Housing prices are up and the city is making hotels the way the Duggars make babies. Given it’s size and location Denver is becoming magnet of tourism and one of the highlights of our visit was the Denver Zoo.
It’s a great destination which was very plain as DaWife and I walked by the parking areas I saw licence plates from California to North Dakota and of course there were likely plenty of people like us who had come by air and caught the Zoo in between the scheduled events that brought us here.
And that’s why when I saw this sign in the rain forest exhibit I found myself laughing out loud
For those of you who can’t read the print here is what it says:
Like a greenhouse, gases in our atmosphere capture the Sun’s energy and warm the Earth. We’ve increased greenhouse gasses, in part by burning fossil fuels and destroying forests. Many scientists believe the result will be global warming
With just a slightly warmer climate, ice aps may melt and drown coastal areas Rainfall patters could shift turning farmlands into deserts or floodplains
What can you do to help?
The United State’s is the world’s single largest producer of greenhouse gases. Conservation begins at home.
Walk, bike or carpool or take a bus whenever possible to reduce the greenhouse gases produced by automobiles.
When you buy your next car place fuel efficiency at the top f your list of options. Keep your car tuned.
Contact your local gas and electric company for tip on how to make your home and office more energy efficient.
Now in terms of global warming alarmism this sign is actually pretty tame, there is a lot of the use of the word “may” rather than “will”, you don’t see the BS 95% of scientists agree line. I suspect this is to help keep the return business of those like me who show up.
But if you look at the “What can I Do to Help?” list, it struck me that several items missing that came to mind at once, to wit:
There were a lot of people at the zoo with cell phones and mp3 players,and I couldn’t count the number of people with earbuds listening to said devices. All those devices need a steady stream of electricity which require a lot of greenhouse gases to produce.
They could have advised guests to not use these devices and not buy new ones. Yes, these devices are entertaining and provide communications and convenience, but what is that next the danger of turning farmlands into floodplains?
And of course there we’re plenty of people taking pictures both with their phone and with iPads, and Cameras. May of these pictures will end up on facebook, Instagram, twitter and various web pages like this one and will be shared worldwide in the cloud. All of these take a lot of greenhouse gas producing electricity and that doesn’t even begin to talk about the immense amount of electricity the servers that host all of this stuff uses.
They could have advised their guest to get off of the net and not take pictures to share. Yes the animals are delightful and would bring the zoo plenty of exposure but after all what is use of pictures like this
…if it means Rainfall patters might shift?
There were a lot of manufactured toys and stuffed animals in the place for sale. They were cute, they were cuddly and were prominently displayed for sale to all the wide eyed kids who came through the doors with their parents. All of them were only available at the zoo because of manufacturing and shipping that required the creation of an enormous amount of greenhouse gases.
They could have advised the kids and their parents to do without the toys, after all a lot of them were pretty expensive and the kids likely had others at home. Yes they were cute and cuddly and the sales provide a lot of revenue for the zoo, but what is that next to the danger of ice caps melting and drowning coastal areas?
Finally as I noted at the start, the parking lot was full of cars from all over the nation. All those cars, no matter how well tuned or fuel efficient burn gasoline. Furthermore Denver is a tourist destination with so many people flying in that they can’t build hotels fast enough to accommodate all the conventions not to mention the skiers in the winter. And according to the David Suzuki foundation aviation “accounts for four to nine per cent of the total climate change impact of human activity.”
That means that the very act of coming Denver in General and to the zoo in particular by air or car involves burning fossil fuels and destroying forests at an alarming rate! The very act that they are warning against.
So in the spirit of helping to promote the cause of conservation and saving the planet might I suggest the Denver Zoo remake that sign replacing the last three sentences of that sign with the following:
GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK!
Yes I know that it would mean laying off a lot of people and hoping people would pay to visit an online streaming site if they aren’t Denver natives but we’re got a planet to save, don’t we?