Search
Search results
Pope Francis: Untying the Knots: The Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism
Book
For the past two years Pope Francis has enchanted and bewildered the world in equal measure with his...
OK K.O.! Lakewood Plaza Turbo
Games and Entertainment
App
Become a hero with K.O. and use super radical moves to battle the evil Lord Boxman in OK, K.O.!...
Tell Me More: Stories about the 12 Hardest Things I'm Learning to Say
Book
A warm, insightful look at the twelve phrases that strengthen and sustain our relationships, from...
women mind and body
Mendel's Ladder: A Grimdark Scifi Epic
10.0
Rate It
Book
Outlast. Outgrow. Outlive. In the ashes of Earth, evolution is the ultimate weapon. Inspired by...
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire in Books
Oct 22, 2018
Why do I have a feeling that the guy who wrote this just went on a rant and decided to put that whole rant into one giant ass book?
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Being You Is Great, I Wish I Could Be You More Often by Quelle Chris
4.5
Rate It
Album Watch
Quelle Chris fucks with himself. Most of the time. Honestly, it might depend on when and where you...
hip-hop
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Oct 22, 2020
Sacha Baron Cohen is back as his alter-ego Borat who once again brings plenty of laughs and biting commentary in his wake.
The film opens with Borat in a labor camp as the government was not pleased with how Kazakhstan was not pleased with how they came off in the prior film. He is given a chance at redemption and asked to deliver a gift to the U.S. in order to gain favor for the ruler of the country.
Borat goes home before embarking on his trip and finds his family no accepts him save for his daughter Sandra (Irina Novak). Since women are treated worse than animals in their culture Borat is dismissive of her and heads to America to complete his mission.
Naturally things do not go as planned such as being recognized which forces him to take on various disguises. If anyone has ever seen Cohen at work before they know what is coming as various outrageous comedic scenarios are setup and then conducted in front of unsuspecting real people who are unusually candid.
While interviews of famous people are often how he operates; there are multiple instances from shops to social clubs and offices where the scenarios unfold. No matter how shocking and outrageous the scenario; people let their guards day and say some really shocking things and give their reactions unconcerned with the camera no matter how bad they come off.
Cohen reportedly had to wear a bullet proof vest at times during the making of the film as he goes into some real hotspots involving armed and radical individuals as well as Conservative hotspots in order to complete a scenario.
The humor can be very crude and shocking to the point of jaw dropping; but it is very well setup and executed and the fact that so many of the people involved have no idea they are part of a bit and their unfiltered reactions and comments shock and entertain.
The fact that regardless of his persons from Ali-G to Borat and Bruno as well as those he introduced on Who is America; shows that Cohen is truly able to alter himself and become the various characters he portrays so completely that they continue to fool some very high-ranking individuals into taking part in on camera interviews and let their guards down to give unfiltered responses.
Irina Novak is a real surprise as she is a perfect match for Cohen and she immerses herself so fully in the character that she matches Cohen perfectly no matter how outrageous the scenario and even pulls off some amazing segments by herself.
While the film does drag a slight bit towards the end, the number of jokes and the very biting political and social commentary will make the film a very controversial and for many funny film that fans of Cohen and the first film will not want to miss.
The film opens with Borat in a labor camp as the government was not pleased with how Kazakhstan was not pleased with how they came off in the prior film. He is given a chance at redemption and asked to deliver a gift to the U.S. in order to gain favor for the ruler of the country.
Borat goes home before embarking on his trip and finds his family no accepts him save for his daughter Sandra (Irina Novak). Since women are treated worse than animals in their culture Borat is dismissive of her and heads to America to complete his mission.
Naturally things do not go as planned such as being recognized which forces him to take on various disguises. If anyone has ever seen Cohen at work before they know what is coming as various outrageous comedic scenarios are setup and then conducted in front of unsuspecting real people who are unusually candid.
While interviews of famous people are often how he operates; there are multiple instances from shops to social clubs and offices where the scenarios unfold. No matter how shocking and outrageous the scenario; people let their guards day and say some really shocking things and give their reactions unconcerned with the camera no matter how bad they come off.
Cohen reportedly had to wear a bullet proof vest at times during the making of the film as he goes into some real hotspots involving armed and radical individuals as well as Conservative hotspots in order to complete a scenario.
The humor can be very crude and shocking to the point of jaw dropping; but it is very well setup and executed and the fact that so many of the people involved have no idea they are part of a bit and their unfiltered reactions and comments shock and entertain.
The fact that regardless of his persons from Ali-G to Borat and Bruno as well as those he introduced on Who is America; shows that Cohen is truly able to alter himself and become the various characters he portrays so completely that they continue to fool some very high-ranking individuals into taking part in on camera interviews and let their guards down to give unfiltered responses.
Irina Novak is a real surprise as she is a perfect match for Cohen and she immerses herself so fully in the character that she matches Cohen perfectly no matter how outrageous the scenario and even pulls off some amazing segments by herself.
While the film does drag a slight bit towards the end, the number of jokes and the very biting political and social commentary will make the film a very controversial and for many funny film that fans of Cohen and the first film will not want to miss.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Favorite Sister in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Fell flat for me
The reality TV show Goal Diggers is supposed to buck the trend of most reality TV, with a focus on the radical notion that it is about women putting other women first. It even features unmarried, childless (for the most part), successful women. But, is that really the case? It sure seems like everyone on Diggers is fake and lying. There's Brett, 27, the youngest of the group, who is running her business, SPOKE, which focuses on helping women in Morocco. Her sister, Kelly is the newest addition, and she runs the business with Brett and is a mom to her teenage daughter, Layla. There's also Jen, who oversees her vegan empire; Lauren, creator of a dating website; and Stephanie, a successful author. None of these women really like each other after several seasons of the show. Even so, the producers never expected it all to end in murder.
I have some conflicted and confused emotions about this book. It took me over a week to read, which is forever in my world (I finished three other books in the meantime, to put it in perspective). You know how your Kindle tells you the percentage left to read? I swear that number never changed, it felt like such slow going, and I considered giving up several times. I really only kept reading because of a big reveal that happened on page one (literally) and then the rest of the book spends its time going back in time explaining what happened. I was mildly curious enough to find out what went down. The novel keeps you wondering just enough even if you don't like the characters.
Because, wow, these characters are really despicable. I can get past it in most books, and I thought maybe I'd like Brett for a while, but this self-centered group really took the cake. I am not a reality TV person, especially Real Housewives, so maybe that's part of why this one wasn't for me? I found the in-fighting, petty catfights, and personal drama to just be over-the-top. It's sad, because at times, I found a real wit and depth to the book, but for the most part it just dragged on. And on.
And again, some of this just may be because I'm not a reality TV gal. I really like Knoll's writing, I just couldn't get a handle on the tone. Funny? Serious? Both? What was it aiming for? Did it all just go over my head? I caught that it was trying for some really meaningful social commentary about feminism, weight, race, and so much more, but then it would get lost in two women fighting over platform heels.
There were some good twists at the end, but overall, this one fell flat for me, including the final ending. I felt like I slogged through it, and I just didn't enjoy the characters. Perhaps I missed the overall point or meaning. Many others have enjoyed it, so you may find it's more suited for you than it was for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
I have some conflicted and confused emotions about this book. It took me over a week to read, which is forever in my world (I finished three other books in the meantime, to put it in perspective). You know how your Kindle tells you the percentage left to read? I swear that number never changed, it felt like such slow going, and I considered giving up several times. I really only kept reading because of a big reveal that happened on page one (literally) and then the rest of the book spends its time going back in time explaining what happened. I was mildly curious enough to find out what went down. The novel keeps you wondering just enough even if you don't like the characters.
Because, wow, these characters are really despicable. I can get past it in most books, and I thought maybe I'd like Brett for a while, but this self-centered group really took the cake. I am not a reality TV person, especially Real Housewives, so maybe that's part of why this one wasn't for me? I found the in-fighting, petty catfights, and personal drama to just be over-the-top. It's sad, because at times, I found a real wit and depth to the book, but for the most part it just dragged on. And on.
And again, some of this just may be because I'm not a reality TV gal. I really like Knoll's writing, I just couldn't get a handle on the tone. Funny? Serious? Both? What was it aiming for? Did it all just go over my head? I caught that it was trying for some really meaningful social commentary about feminism, weight, race, and so much more, but then it would get lost in two women fighting over platform heels.
There were some good twists at the end, but overall, this one fell flat for me, including the final ending. I felt like I slogged through it, and I just didn't enjoy the characters. Perhaps I missed the overall point or meaning. Many others have enjoyed it, so you may find it's more suited for you than it was for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Vectornator Pro
Productivity and Photo & Video
App
Vectornator Pro is the best professional vector graphic software that allows you to create...