getting down with the lupine

Watership Down is a story with which I am have finished. I cannot believe that any middle schooler might have been called to read this. My word! Not only is it, well, cruel in some places, but the religious sects, ideals, and rabbits placeing others under arrest is just nuts. I can see a few things in the thoughts behind it, but this is no exodus of history. This isn't Old Rabbit Testiment nor WWII flight, but rather flight of fancy with odd choices.

Hazel should not have been used as a boy's name.

The writing style is simple enough, almost like an improved me on my rough draft ... dialogue, then fill in the backdrop later. I mean this in that you could subtract the "blades of grass delicately whispering ..." and still get the feel for the land and the trials and death of the rabbits. I suppose that I might suggest either a mature middle-schooler to read it, but they'd have to find the first bit interesting, otherwise, they'd put it down and never read anymore. In the middle of it, while their trip is full of danger and learning, you wonder, "why?" I almost interrupted my own reading with a Princess Bride moment, "Who kills Humperdink?" Alas, I'll finish it soon.

I found some interesting sites on the novel, including a researcher trying to find in Hampshire (Great Britain), the areas noted in the book. The paperback version I am reading has a sad little blurred map that is unreadable. For those who read some or all of the Lord of the Rings, it's about like that. The mountains around Mordor about as tall as the lowercase m on 12 point font. Thanks for the barely useful map Tolkein!

Fans of Watership Down have drawn some much better maps that make sense. The time frame seems unclear until you read that it spans weeks. I thought at first that the rabbits were traveling in days, but the text is ambigious in parts. The author, trying to stay true to rabbit thought, denies time and remarks dawn, dusk noon, night, and midnight.

My next assignment, John McCain biography, as it seems, presently that it will be Hillary Clinton (boo -- hiss) vs John McCain for 2008.

Smashes, Thrashes, and Hits? (nope, that's KISS)

I have read a transcript of President Bush's October 25th speech. His main speech was okay, I remark only on a few points, most of which were with the question-answer period after the speech.
........
A brilliant statement: "I do not question their patriotism; I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this world is." He made this regarding democrats. The statement is just about perfect.
----
And this is a big issue in the campaign. Security of the country is an issue, just like taxes are an issue. If you raise taxes, it will hurt the economy. If you don't extend the tax cuts, if you don't make them -- in other words, if you let the tax cuts expire, it will be a tax increase on the American people.. Take the child tax credit. If it is not made permanent -- in other words, if it expires -- and you've got a family of four sitting around the breakfast table, the taxpayers can be sure that their taxes will go up by $2,000: $500 for that child, $500 for the one right there; $500 for this one and $500 for that one.

That is a tax increase. And taking $2,000 out of the pockets of the working people will make it harder to sustain economic growth. So the two issues I see in the campaign can be boiled down to who best to protect this country and who best to keep taxes low.
That's what the referendum's about.
....
Oi! Okay, he lost on that one with the rambling, not really clearly conveying cut taxes to rich to increase spending. This fell flatter than Reagan's "This is not a regressive tax" speech, which clearly was detailing a regressive tax; in that it was a tax inversely proportional to income, which is the definition of a regressive tax. Oh well, he tried.
-----
I think the coming election is a referendum on these two things: which party has got the plan that will enable our economy to continue to grow and which party has a plan to protect the American people.
....
On this I might suggest that parties are not red and green only. I cannot believe that all republicans side with, "Stay the course+ and give tax cuts to stimulate economy." I can't believe that all democrats stick with, "Get 'em out of there now and tax the rich heavily!" I think the reality lies somewhere between. The problem now is that the congress and senate agreed to enter Iraq on false pretenses; no matter to what degree they knew and are now being fed fear of moving out. Lies and fear, sad that people use them (regardless of party).
----
-- the ultimate accountability rests with me. That's the ultimate. If you're asking about accountability, it rests right here. That's what the 2004 campaign was about, you know. If people are unhappy about it, look right to the president.
....
I haven't seen to much of the accountability for anyone in government. This sadly is a series of words like Jabberwocky, seemingly making a statement, but nothing is really stated at all.
-----
As a matter of fact, the benchmarks will make it more likely we win. Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we lose.
Now, I'm giving the speech -- you're asking me why I'm giving this speech today -- because there's -- I think I owe an explanation to the American people and will continue to make explanations. The people need to know that we have a plan for victory.
....
"We need to know that we have a plan for victory." That's nice. What is it? Would you care to share it with us? I didn't think you would. I put this with the republicans' arguemtns that the democrats have no solutions that they will voice.
----
And I know it's incumbent upon our government, and others who enjoy the blessings of liberty, to help those moderates succeed. Because otherwise we're looking at the potential of this kind of world, a world in which radical forms of Islam compete for power; a world in which moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the innocent; a world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West; a world in which Iran has a nuclear weapon.
.....
Here's my radical idea: stop supporting, protecting, and taking money from oil lobbies. Make oil companies accountable for price gouging and monopolies. Make America foreign oil independant in 5 or fewer years. Permanently illegalize fuel inefficient vehicles for general consumer use. Make non-oil burning public transportation a reality.
-----
They will support the war as long as they see a path to victory
....
Agreed. I think that most people don't see a path to victory. When the government understands that, it will either have to fess up to the plans for "what are we doing" or confess that there are ideas on post-it notes, but nothing beyond that.
-----
And we will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear.
…
Later on, Bush remarked, “We're making it clear that America's patience is not unlimited”
----
We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the face of advancing coalition forces.
….
This was planned to disband the army of the Hussein regime and yet, he didn’t know they would melt away. Okay, sorry, this was a poor statement to make.


Now then, overall, I think he did an alright job of defending his points, but lacked details to convince most people. He had a broken record on "end-zone dancing" and "benchmarks". At one point in his speech, it wasn't clear if he understood benchmarks. I think, for whatever reason, the question broke up his line of thinking, leaving him stumbling over his words. I think it was no worse or better than any other discussion, although he did better speaking this time. He has no doubt that republicans will retain control, but his constiuents are not so sure.

+ "Stay the course" has been purged as it conveyed a static ideal, though that wasn't the implication. A common myth regarding taxes is that democrats always want to tax the snot out of the rich. As most of the congress and senate are rich, that really isn't realistic to believe they they would seek to lose money. Another myth about tax cuts is that it always stimulates the economy. Whereas tax cuts and shelters enable individuals and companies to put money offshore, out of the country, that doesn't do squat for American economy. Like so much of the law, the tax code is like a cartoon contraption. Rather than set a mouse trap, Tom puts together a series of 30 parts to smash Jerry with a safe. Making the tax code more elaborate doesn't ensure improvement or success. It does make it more complicated and with more parts, more areas for error.

KISS -- keep it simple, stupid