Boulder Book Club discussion

19 views
Book 31: House of Bush > Book 31: HoB,HoS

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Adam (new)

Adam | 115 comments Mod
Taking this as 'beach reading' on vacation...I wonder if that will shape my review?


message 2: by Caitlin (new)

Caitlin Mckenna | 1 comments This book tasted excellent, like pineapple and blue curacao...


message 3: by Williwaw (new)

Williwaw | 193 comments Mod
This has got to be some kind of record: Caitlin joins the BBC 15 hrs, 56 min ago. She posts her review two minutes later!

Let's see, 384 pages in 2 minutes: that's 192 pages per minute!!!

Not to mention that I had to look up curacao:

curacao

Welcome, Caitlin!


message 4: by Adam (new)

Adam | 115 comments Mod
Yeah, I finished on the beach...really interesting stuff, but I'll save my review for a bit to let other folks read etc!


message 5: by Gina (last edited Jan 15, 2013 04:00AM) (new)

Gina Sirois (gina_sirois) | 63 comments Mod
About 100 pages to go. I haven't gotten bored so far, which is amazing because it's mostly pages and pages of detailed history. but I feel like I'd need a chart of people, places and times to really feel confident that I've correctly received all the information.

There are also a lot of "but nothing ever has been proved" disclaimers (yes honesty is nice, but c'mon we're not likely to be impartial here - maybe leave out the super tenuous connections).

My main takeway so far is that the U.S. Govt is tacitly set up to foster corruption, and so politicians are corrupt. Also, intelligence agencies are a frightening subversive power, and the defense sector is a cashcow (I knew all that though). I would like a stronger/more nuanced focus on the way Arabs view the west.
But, so far, so good!


message 6: by Adam (new)

Adam | 115 comments Mod
Some rantings....

I finished this one, and am now reading 'Operation Trojan Horse' by John Keel -- a UFO book that I saw on Williwaw's reading list. They're actually both written in a similar style. A somewhat controversial statement is put forth by citing an 'expert', then followed by something like 'so, obviously, blah blah'.

In the case of HoB,HoS the author cites a lot of articles in the appendix (often his own magazine articles), but even then it seems like the facts are there, but the conclusions are somewhat dubious.

Same thing for the Keel book (he cites himself too). Though, Keel seems to be presenting a bit more of an unbiased view.

Anyway, what I really want to talk about is how much I've noticed my biases while reading these two books. I *do* want to believe the Bush was evil and complicit, so when Unger puts out his 'well, obviously, xxx follows' he often gets me nodding my head along with him. With the UFO stuff I'm starting from a pretty skeptical starting point and Keel is presenting both sides of the story -- way moreso than Unger. To be honest, I'm preferring Keel's style of journalism/reporting much more. Unger seems too sensationalist, even if probably truer!

Or, maybe I'm just still hungover from the election cycle...certainly we all have our own personal echo chambers where things resonate differently for different people. I wonder if it's somehow different for fiction vs non-fiction?


message 7: by Williwaw (new)

Williwaw | 193 comments Mod
bad bad bad

y'all are BAD!


back to top