This book is one of Simenon's psychological thrillers unrelated to his world famous Maigret detective stories. It is an amazing book both in its writing and in its story. Frank is an eighteen year old son of a prostitute coming of age in an unknown country in occupied Europe. He is morally bankrupt - murdering people without forethought or regret, inflicting emotional pain on women when they are desperately in love with him and emotionally torturing anyone who comes in contact with his life.
WARNING SPOILERS BELOW
The first half of the book relates Frank's exploits: the night he kills an army officer just for his pistol, the multiple times he screws the prostitutes in his mother's whore house and leaves them longing for some emotional output from him, the night he arranges for Sissy, his young virgin girlfriend, to be raped by Kromer and the night he kills the woman who brought him up as a child when his mother was absent just to steal a watch collection that she had.
All of this eventually catches up with him and one of the sections of the occupation authorities arrests him, and the second half of the book relates the story of his slow psychological breakdown and decay as he is held and tortured in a school converted to a prison.
This is a thoroughly 'entertaining' and well written book. I highly recommend that you read it.
8.26.2006
8.20.2006
"We Are Hizbullah"
Let me point some things out about these placards. First, how big is the woman in the forefront's mouth, amazing. Second, there's a placard that says, "support a caliphate." Which means that one should support a Pan-Islamic/Pan-Arab regime focussed on Sunni Islam to take over the Middle East. This is something that this is really deserving of our support. Third, we have the previously mentioned "We are all Hizbullah" poster shamelessly using injured innocents to promote an agenda that is very far removed from peace. These people make me sick.
13. The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr
Nasr's main argument is that intertwined with the general anti-Americanism and anti-Israelism of the Arabs and Iranians is a deep seated rivalry between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.
For background, after the death of the Moslem prophet Mohammad two sects of Islam began to take shape: the Sunnis and the Shi'as. The main difference between the two is that the Sunnis believe that after Mohammad Islam should be governed by caretaker Caliphs who do nothing more than insure that Koran is implemented throughout Islamic life; while the Shi'as believe that after Mohamad's death his sons and relatives took over the administration and execution of Islam and that they continued to interpret Islam as it applied to the world. Most Shi'as believe that after Mohamad there were twelve Imams (prophets or relatives of Mohamad) who presided over their religon and they believe that the twelfth Imam disappeared before he died and will reappear in the future when Mohamad is about to return to earth. Sunnis believe in the Caliphate structure and believe that there were a number of important Caliphs after Mohamads death. The concept of Caliphs has been somewhat subordinated in today's world.
The bitterness between the two sects began immediatly after Mohamad's death but became more fierce in about 700 CE when the Shi'a Imam Hussein was on his way to what is now Saudi Arabia to claim the Caliphate but was ambushed by an army of Sunnis who killed him in Karbala in what is now Iraq.
Since then there has been a bitter divide between Sunnis and Shi'as.
Nasr believes that there is a great divide between Sunnis and Shi'as that explains much of the dynamic of current Middle East affairs. He argues that after the revolution in Iran when Khomeini was trying to export his Islamic republic to Saudi Arabia, the Arabs countered Khomeini's Shi'a ideology by promoting fundamental Sunni ideology instead. So, Saudi Arabia financed the nuclear bomb in Sunni Pakistan, supported the Taliban in formerly Sunni Afghanestan, supported (or simply did not criticize) Sunni led Iraq and tried to isolate Shi'a led Syria. The Saudi Arabian strategy led to somewhat out of control fundamentalist regimes throughout the Middle East and the current 'civil war' in Iraq.
In the mean time, Nasr argues, Iran, which is the largest Shi'a nation in the world, understood that it had lost the battle with the Saudis and focused its energies internally. Nasr claims that today Iran is ascendant, it is culturally the most vibrant country of the Middle East, it is politically the most democratic and it is intellectually the most advanced. Furthermore, Iran is now surrounded by Shi'a dominated Iraq which is being assailed by a Sunni onslaught and Shi'a dominated Afghanestan which is finding its way in the world. Nasr argues that the real battle in the middle east will be between the Sunnis and the Shi'as as they fight for influence over Iraq and Afghanestan and, to a lesser extent, Syria and Lebanon. He almost suggests that the anti-western rhetoric and actions of the Islamic fundamentalists is a by product of the greater Sunni-Shi'a war.
I personally don't believe in this great divide theory for a variety of reasons. First, the author provides little in support of his argument. He conceeds at the beginning of the book that it is a book of "big ideas" written for a mass audience so he will not be providing much support for his ideas which is okay, except that if he really wants me to buy into his arguments then I need the support. Second, there are a number of cases where his theory breaks down in real life. For example, based on his theory, Sunni Hamas should not be working with Shi'a Hezbollah - but they work very closely with each other.
This is an interesting and educational book and provides a different perspective of what is going on and even though I don't agree with all of the author's arguments, I recommend that you read it.
For background, after the death of the Moslem prophet Mohammad two sects of Islam began to take shape: the Sunnis and the Shi'as. The main difference between the two is that the Sunnis believe that after Mohammad Islam should be governed by caretaker Caliphs who do nothing more than insure that Koran is implemented throughout Islamic life; while the Shi'as believe that after Mohamad's death his sons and relatives took over the administration and execution of Islam and that they continued to interpret Islam as it applied to the world. Most Shi'as believe that after Mohamad there were twelve Imams (prophets or relatives of Mohamad) who presided over their religon and they believe that the twelfth Imam disappeared before he died and will reappear in the future when Mohamad is about to return to earth. Sunnis believe in the Caliphate structure and believe that there were a number of important Caliphs after Mohamads death. The concept of Caliphs has been somewhat subordinated in today's world.
The bitterness between the two sects began immediatly after Mohamad's death but became more fierce in about 700 CE when the Shi'a Imam Hussein was on his way to what is now Saudi Arabia to claim the Caliphate but was ambushed by an army of Sunnis who killed him in Karbala in what is now Iraq.
Since then there has been a bitter divide between Sunnis and Shi'as.
Nasr believes that there is a great divide between Sunnis and Shi'as that explains much of the dynamic of current Middle East affairs. He argues that after the revolution in Iran when Khomeini was trying to export his Islamic republic to Saudi Arabia, the Arabs countered Khomeini's Shi'a ideology by promoting fundamental Sunni ideology instead. So, Saudi Arabia financed the nuclear bomb in Sunni Pakistan, supported the Taliban in formerly Sunni Afghanestan, supported (or simply did not criticize) Sunni led Iraq and tried to isolate Shi'a led Syria. The Saudi Arabian strategy led to somewhat out of control fundamentalist regimes throughout the Middle East and the current 'civil war' in Iraq.
In the mean time, Nasr argues, Iran, which is the largest Shi'a nation in the world, understood that it had lost the battle with the Saudis and focused its energies internally. Nasr claims that today Iran is ascendant, it is culturally the most vibrant country of the Middle East, it is politically the most democratic and it is intellectually the most advanced. Furthermore, Iran is now surrounded by Shi'a dominated Iraq which is being assailed by a Sunni onslaught and Shi'a dominated Afghanestan which is finding its way in the world. Nasr argues that the real battle in the middle east will be between the Sunnis and the Shi'as as they fight for influence over Iraq and Afghanestan and, to a lesser extent, Syria and Lebanon. He almost suggests that the anti-western rhetoric and actions of the Islamic fundamentalists is a by product of the greater Sunni-Shi'a war.
I personally don't believe in this great divide theory for a variety of reasons. First, the author provides little in support of his argument. He conceeds at the beginning of the book that it is a book of "big ideas" written for a mass audience so he will not be providing much support for his ideas which is okay, except that if he really wants me to buy into his arguments then I need the support. Second, there are a number of cases where his theory breaks down in real life. For example, based on his theory, Sunni Hamas should not be working with Shi'a Hezbollah - but they work very closely with each other.
This is an interesting and educational book and provides a different perspective of what is going on and even though I don't agree with all of the author's arguments, I recommend that you read it.
8.18.2006
The French Committment
The Financial Times reported the following:
France has said it will command the UN force, but on Thursday announced it would send just 200 engineers immediately to help with the deployment of Lebanese army forces in southern Lebanon.
They have also said that they might provide naval support.
Nice.
France has said it will command the UN force, but on Thursday announced it would send just 200 engineers immediately to help with the deployment of Lebanese army forces in southern Lebanon.
They have also said that they might provide naval support.
Nice.
Israel, Lebanon and the Idiot Bush
When the latest war between Israel and Lebanon began I said (and I have witnesses) that America should pursue one of two strategies: either they should come down hard on the Israeli's immediatly after the conflict began and make them stop or they should let Israeli move forward unchecked and allow them to destroy Hezballah.
Bush and the idiot Rice did neither. Instead they let the conflict go on for a few weeks, Israel did not emerge as the victor and it did not manage to destroy Hezballah. The result of this policy is that the one thing that was going well in the Middle East, Lebanon, is now a disaster on a similar scale as Iraq.
By virtue of the fact that Israel did not achive its objectives, Hezballah has emerged victorious and is now the effective ruler of southern Lebanon and Lebanon is no longer a real country. This is reinforced by the deal that the Lebanese government has struck with Hezballah "allowing" them to keep their weapons so long as they don't show them off to the world. Hezballah's victory has undermined the legitimacy and power of the elected moderate and largely secular Lebanese government. Finally, the investigation into Rafik Harriri's assasination has all but ended in failure.
Bush's policy results in a loss for Israel, a victory for Hezballah and, most importantly, a victory for Hezballah's backer, Iran.
Seperately, I want to draw your attention to a couple of funny or ironic things that I saw during this conflict.
First, when I was looking over the pictures of the anti-war protests in London, I saw a bunch of pasty yellow toothed English people carrying sings that read, "we are Hezbollah." What does that mean? We are a bunch of people who launch missiles with the sole aim of killing Israeli civilians? We are a bunch of people who use innocent Lebanese villagers as human shields to launch these missiles? We are a bunch of people who receive arms and money from Iran? I am sick and tired of the panzys who don't understand the gravity of what is going on in the Middle East.
Second, after the war ended and after the French had committed to the UN peacekeeping force that will be going into Southern Lebanon, the French leadership come out and state that they will not provide any soldiers until Hezballah has been disarmed. Who is supposed to disarm them - the good for nothing Lebanese military or perhaps some mysterious alien force? This French request is so disingenuous that I cannot find words to describe it.
Bush and the idiot Rice did neither. Instead they let the conflict go on for a few weeks, Israel did not emerge as the victor and it did not manage to destroy Hezballah. The result of this policy is that the one thing that was going well in the Middle East, Lebanon, is now a disaster on a similar scale as Iraq.
By virtue of the fact that Israel did not achive its objectives, Hezballah has emerged victorious and is now the effective ruler of southern Lebanon and Lebanon is no longer a real country. This is reinforced by the deal that the Lebanese government has struck with Hezballah "allowing" them to keep their weapons so long as they don't show them off to the world. Hezballah's victory has undermined the legitimacy and power of the elected moderate and largely secular Lebanese government. Finally, the investigation into Rafik Harriri's assasination has all but ended in failure.
Bush's policy results in a loss for Israel, a victory for Hezballah and, most importantly, a victory for Hezballah's backer, Iran.
Seperately, I want to draw your attention to a couple of funny or ironic things that I saw during this conflict.
First, when I was looking over the pictures of the anti-war protests in London, I saw a bunch of pasty yellow toothed English people carrying sings that read, "we are Hezbollah." What does that mean? We are a bunch of people who launch missiles with the sole aim of killing Israeli civilians? We are a bunch of people who use innocent Lebanese villagers as human shields to launch these missiles? We are a bunch of people who receive arms and money from Iran? I am sick and tired of the panzys who don't understand the gravity of what is going on in the Middle East.
Second, after the war ended and after the French had committed to the UN peacekeeping force that will be going into Southern Lebanon, the French leadership come out and state that they will not provide any soldiers until Hezballah has been disarmed. Who is supposed to disarm them - the good for nothing Lebanese military or perhaps some mysterious alien force? This French request is so disingenuous that I cannot find words to describe it.
8.12.2006
12. The Chinese Bell Murders by Robert Van Gulik
A highly entertaining detective story. Written in the 1920s by a Dutch diplomat living in China but set in an unknown period in ancient China, this, and other stories in the series, follow Judge Dee as he solves crimes in the town of Poo-Yang. Judge Dee is the head of the local tribunal and seems to also serve as the head detective of the local police force. The Judge and his four loyal servants solve the Half Moon Street rape-murder, the case of the dishonest buddhist temple and the long running dispute between the Lin and Liang families. I highly recomend that you read this.
8.05.2006
Landis
This morning Landis' "B" sample test results confirmed that there was a lot of testosterone in his system after his amazing ride on Stage 17 of this year's Tour.
While it is possible that one of the four excuses that Landis and his handlers have given over the past week is reasonable, I doubt it.
When this news first broke a lot of experts and reporters questioned why Landis would have taken testosterone because, in an endurance sport like the Tour de France, testosterone doesn't do you a lot of good.
What these people missed, however, is that after breaking on the final climb of Stage 16 and losing minutes to his chief rivals, Landis was desperate to do something. He was dehydrated, suffering from a sore hip and he didn't have a lot of energy. He needed the kind of pick me up that a healthy dose of testosterone would give an athelete.
My theory is that, out of desperation, Landis took a bunch of testosterone and it worked better than he expected. He came out for Stage 17 and he crushed his competitors. At the beginning of the stage he was over 8 minutes behind the leader, at the end of the stage he was just 30 seconds behind the leader. In two days, Landis lost the race and won it back.
My other theory is that someone either working on Landis staff (like a cook or something) or one of the technicians at the French drug testing lab spiked his food or his sample with testosterone.
While it is possible that one of the four excuses that Landis and his handlers have given over the past week is reasonable, I doubt it.
When this news first broke a lot of experts and reporters questioned why Landis would have taken testosterone because, in an endurance sport like the Tour de France, testosterone doesn't do you a lot of good.
What these people missed, however, is that after breaking on the final climb of Stage 16 and losing minutes to his chief rivals, Landis was desperate to do something. He was dehydrated, suffering from a sore hip and he didn't have a lot of energy. He needed the kind of pick me up that a healthy dose of testosterone would give an athelete.
My theory is that, out of desperation, Landis took a bunch of testosterone and it worked better than he expected. He came out for Stage 17 and he crushed his competitors. At the beginning of the stage he was over 8 minutes behind the leader, at the end of the stage he was just 30 seconds behind the leader. In two days, Landis lost the race and won it back.
My other theory is that someone either working on Landis staff (like a cook or something) or one of the technicians at the French drug testing lab spiked his food or his sample with testosterone.
11. Death at La Fenice by Donna Leon
This is the second Loen book that I have read and once again I found it to be a light and enjoyable mystery. The story revolves around her ususal protagonist, Commissario Guido Bruneti of the Venice Police, as he finds his way around the mystery and pulls a surprising resolution out of the bag.
There were some annoying elements about the book: the tenderness that this hard boiled detective feels for his wife, the hurt that he feels because his teenage son is behaving as teenagers should and the repeated references to how hard it is to be a lesbian in Italy (two of the characters in the book are lesbians). But they were not annoying enough to overwhelm the quality of the book.
There were some annoying elements about the book: the tenderness that this hard boiled detective feels for his wife, the hurt that he feels because his teenage son is behaving as teenagers should and the repeated references to how hard it is to be a lesbian in Italy (two of the characters in the book are lesbians). But they were not annoying enough to overwhelm the quality of the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)