I picked this up on a whim at the library this morning, when I ventured out during a brief break in the grim, grey weather. I was in the mood for yet another detective novel (I’m a bit ashamed to admit that I read rather a lot of them), and I tend to like Swedish literature. There’s something very clear and elegant about it, when translated well, that fit with my mood today.

At any rate, apparently this was one of a series, which didn’t really impede my enjoyment, although the references to other cases were sometimes confusing. It’s also interesting that it was written by two people, which always seems a bit odd to me. How do two authors work together? Alternating chapters? Writing for specific characters? I can never figure it out.

Parts of this book read almost like a deposition, which sounds horribly dull, but actually isn’t. In fact, I rather enjoyed myself. The book dealt with a troubling mystery, and the deposition-style provided a number of absolutely excellent false herrings, so I found myself making all sorts of suppositions and assumptions which turned out to be totally wrong.

I really liked that one of the characters has an eidetic memory, which seems like it would be terribly useful in detective work. I like to read about people with interesting mental quirks, I guess. Or something. At any rate, the book tripped right along, moving smoothly through an assortment of scenes and events and keeping me on my toes, as a reader. I may pick up a few more from this series, since I enjoyed this one so much.

Demographics:

The Man on the Balcony, by Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö. Translated from the Swedish by Alain Blair. Published 1967, 180 pages. Fiction.

I have two words for this book: sour grapes.

I had forgotten how much I loathe political polemic. I’m sure that some people are really into this book, and that’s great for them, but I wasn’t. Into it. I mean.

Demographics:

The Assault on Reason, by Al Gore. Published 2007, 308 pages. Politics.

That’s it. Really. I have nothing else to say about this book.

So here’s a mystery picture, related to the top secret project I mentioned earlier. The first person to figure out what the heck is going on gets a brownie. (Guesses from people who are already aware of the top secret project obviously will not count.)

I’ve been following the story of a surgeon accused of basically killing a patient to harvest his organs with some interest. If you haven’t heard anything about the case, the New York Times has a decent article on it. Basically, the surgeon made some…interesting medical decisions which appear to have been designed to hasten the death of a disabled patient, after discussion about harvesting his organs for a cardiac death transplant (most transplants in the United States are performed after brain death, but cardiac death transplants are possible). It was clear that the patient was going to die anyway, so his ventilator was removed, with consent from his mother, and when he didn’t die immediately, drugs were prescribed. Depending on how you view the case, the drugs were given for comfort, or to try to speed the patient’s death. Either way, he still didn’t die immediately, and his organs turned out to be useless for donation.

This case intrigues me on a number of levels. For one thing, the surgeon hasn’t been convicted yet, so information may come out in the trial to justify his actions. Given that I’m not a medical professional, I am obviously not qualified to comment on the patient’s treatment. But it does raise the specter which organ transplant advocacy organizations have been fighting for years: the idea that people could be killed for their organs. Or simply that surgeons could be a bit, er, hasty.

I’m not surprised that this case is getting a lot of press, since it’s such an easy thing to write a story about. It’s kind of unfortunate, though, because I think it may scare some people off, making them decide they don’t want to donate their organs for fear of a case just like this. And that’s unfortunate, because I think that the bulk of organ harvests in the United States are perfectly legal and well within ethical guidelines. And organizations which promote organ donation here are probably incredibly frustrated that this case has become so high-profile.

The “donated” organs coming from China which have been linked with executed prisoners are far more sketchy, and should be a cause for serious concern, rather than an isolated and as-yet unproved accusation here in the US. And maybe people wouldn’t be turning to a very shady source for organs if we had a more organized donation system in the United States, say an “opt-out” system like they have in many countries. In an opt-out system, it is assumed that everyone consents to organ donation, and people must specifically request that they not be considered for donation if they are opposed to it.

I’m a fan of opt-out systems because I think that a lot of people would be perfectly ok with having their organs donated, but they haven’t explicitly stated that, and as a result their organs go to waste when they die. And these systems greatly increase the supply of organs, making it possible for more people to get them, and I happen to think that this is a good thing. For people who don’t want to donate, it’s generally easy to opt-out.
We aren’t allowed to sell our organs here in the United States, which I think is probably a good thing. We are allowed to freely give them to each other, bypassing transplant queues, which I think is also a good thing. But I think we could avoid awful cases like this one if we made organ donation a mainstream, assumed thing, like vaccinations. And maybe transplant surgeons wouldn’t be faced with situations like this if they knew that the organs their patients need were readily available.

I am curious to see how this case impacts the rate of organ donation in the United States; maybe there will be a decrease, maybe not. If we don’t notice a decline in confidence about organ donation, it will be a testimony to years of patient education on the part of donation advocates.

I had forgotten that I had ordered this book, on my Dexter binge. At any rate, my big plan for the day was to work on a top secret and soon to be revealed project, and then take a bike ride up to the library to return my books and pick up my new ones. Only first I had to finish this, and now it’s fizzling out (yes, I said fizzling), so I don’t want to risk getting my library books wet. And now I’m out of fresh reading material.

For those of you not familiar with the Dexter series, the books are about a serial killer with a heart, so to speak, who works in the crime lab for the Miami police department. His sister’s a cop, his girlfriend’s a…actually, I don’t think we know what Rita does, and Rita has two kids, Astor and Cody. And then there’s an assorted cast of supporting characters ranging from a media whoring captain to a few nasty people who are eliminated by Dexter. A rollicking good time for all, and a nice trashy read for a rainy day.

Anyway. This book gave me the sense that Lindsay is perhaps getting a bit bored with his creation, given that he added an elder god to the mix this time. Or maybe he was just flexing his creative spirit. At any rate, I think this book is weaker than the other Dexter books. It also kind of troubles me that Lindsay has turned Rita’s children into Dexter’s new proteges. I think that one lovable and ethical serial killer is enough; there’s something about the thought of him teaching the children that just sort of…doesn’t work for me.

I’m wondering if Lindsay has been pushed into a contract, now that the story has been adapted for Showtime, and maybe he’s being expected to churn out a book every few months to keep people into it. The Showtime series has diverged pretty radically from the books at this point, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.

Demographics:

Dexter in the Dark, by Jeff Lindsay. Published 2007, 303 pages. Fiction.

Leaping lizards! A discussion of the leap day, and why we have it.

A tale of two siblings, one legal, and one illegal.

The Svalbard Seed Vault is getting a lot of press these days. I don’t know about you, but when I hear the word “Svalbard,” I think of anthropomorphized polar bears in armor.

Note to self: when I murder someone, I probably shouldn’t blog about it.

1% of American adults are living behind bars. Which is, uhm, kind of awe inspiring and horrible.

Genetically engineered drought resistant crops could be a reality in the near future.

Snow is sexy, and backcountry snow sports are appealing…but also very dangerous.

Are Americans actually getting smart?

I read this article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday with some shock. Could it be that Americans have at least figured out that saving money is not just for silly people, but actually a really good idea? And if you can’t save money, you should at least pay down some debt?

The article, for those of you who didn’t click over to look at it, was saying that according to results of a recent survey, most Americans are not going to spend the tax “rebates” that were just approved in a ridiculous and totally insane economic stimulus bill passed by the House. (If you hadn’t guessed, I oppose the bill. But, yes, I’ll still take the money. And…use it to pay part of my quarterly taxes.) The goal of the bill is to get Americans to spend money by giving them some of their taxes back, and instead people claim that they are going to be totally wild and insane, and…save it. Only 18% of the people surveyed said that they would spend the money.

The proponents of the bill are naturally disappointed. I think that they were hoping that they could win over the people who are resistant by pointing to growth in the economy after the checks were disbursed, and honestly I expected to see a jump in consumer spending, because most Americans are in fact stupid and greedy, and they will gleefully spend “free money.”

But apparently I’m wrong, and so are the people who passed the bill. Instead, people are making the economically sound choice of either putting the money into savings or paying down their bills. Perhaps there is still hope for America, and the voice of reason is slowly infiltrating our society, snaking through the doorways and seeping through the carpets.

According to the article, 71% of respondents recognized that the economy isn’t doing so hot, and 61% percent recognized that we are in a recession. (Not, as Mr. Bush would have us think, “a little slowdown.”) We are riding the stagflation train at the moment, in my opinion, and I don’t think it takes too much intelligence to figure that out. And I think that explains the results of the survey, because people are waking up to their situations and trying to dig themselves out. Once of the places where this is really showing up is in food prices, which are skyrocketing so much that Purity actually has a sign over the milk case explaining why milk is suddenly so expensive.

And food prices are something that I think Americans notice. If the government really wants to keep us complacent about what’s going on in the economy, they should do something to control food prices. Oh, wait, they already are, they’re subsidizing farmers left and right.  Of course, it would also help if we were spending money on American grown food and American made products, if we really want to keep the economy from tanking. But I know that’s foolish talk.

This “stimulus package” is going to end up being a total mess, and I’ll bet that the government will spend more to implement it than they will get back. If the government was as smart as the people apparently are, it would skip the rebates and apply the money to the national debt.

Food Fight combines two of my favourite interests, war and food, in one awesome short film.

Single stream recycling in action! Complete with pictures. Yum, garbage.

Cheap food comes at a high cost, as this op-ed in the Charlottesville Weekly points out.

Alan Tanner has some sharp words about the war on drugs, and the civilian cost.

Paul Campos has written a graceful and searing editorial on the cruelty of fat hatred, and the cost of living in a cruel culture. Via Big Fat Blog.

South of the border is the way to go for cheap dental work these days.

In shocking news, deforestation is linked with climate change.

The rivers in China run with blood. Well, not actually, it’s pollution, but they still turned red.

So here’s the thing. I really do feel bad when I bag on a book someone has recommended to me. It’s not like I take vicious pleasure in dismantling books that people obviously love. But I think that honesty is important, and that’s why I’m going to say sorry Tristan, but this book blows chunder. That might not be what the New York Review of Books says, but the reviewer was probably thinking it. Or maybe he dismissed the sheer crappiness of this book as “complexity,” in a stubborn refusal to recognize the truth.

My first problem with the book is with the way it’s laid out. Right in the beginning, the character tells you that he is remembering events from his past. That’s cool. Lots of books do that. I’m down with a little reminiscence. But then, three pages into the book, he’s already casting his mind back even further, and by page 30, I am totally confused. I have no idea of what’s going on in the past, what’s going on in the present, and what’s even older, and this problem persists throughout the whole book.

This bugs me. I don’t like it when authors do cute things and try to create complex layers of an onion or some such nonsense. I’m fine with a book written in the present where the author occasionally passes his or her mind back, creating a few select flashbacks. I am not ok with flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks. It makes it incredibly difficult to follow or enjoy what is going on, as I am constantly in a state of tension, expecting yet another stupid flashback.

I am also not ok with authors who slide around issues instead of facing them directly, with secretive characters and dark allusions. Oh, I know, it’s “the refusal of the character to face his past,” and I think it’s crap. I believe I’ve said this about other books, but it’s such a good metaphor that I’ll use it again: this book reminded me of a bunch of high school girls talking about sex. Making allusions to make itself seem more experienced and knowing, the book hoped that the reader wouldn’t actually realize that it had no clue what it was talking about.

This book also felt very scattered and poorly organized. Perhaps this is because the character himself is that way, especially in the later part of the book, where he seems to go right off the deep end. He seems to have no sense of himself and the environments he’s in, and no awareness and perception of others. And he even admits this, making it all the more peculiar that he would become a detective, let alone a successful one. I know that this is Ishiguro’s way, as he is rather fond of setting up characters who end up being almost completely unhinged, but it doesn’t mean I always like it.

Finally, I just didn’t like the story. The whole plot with the kidnapping of his parents and the unraveling of this story was completely unbelievable to me. Now, I know that this is the point of fiction. It’s not necessarily supposed to be believable, and obviously I don’t have a problem with reading books that aren’t plausible. But this story felt like the fanciful imagination of a little kid, rather than an adult novel, and I was not impressed by it.  I mean, please, having his mother become the sex slave of a Chinese drug lord? It was just stupid.

The whole book was stupid. I don’t care that it got critical acclaim. I don’t have much respect for critics, and I don’t have much respect for bad books. Ishiguro can do better. I’ve seen it. This, on the other hand, is garbage.

Demographics:

When We Were Orphans, by Kazuo Ishiguro. Published 2000, 336 pages. Fiction.

Listening to the news yesterday afternoon, I was tickled pink to hear JPR talk about a food dear to my own heart: the tater tot. (Which apparently is known as the “tot” by hip young things?) The tater tot and I have a long and conflicted history, as is often the case with people and trashy food, and it was a pleasure to hear this Idaho native discussed with gravity and seriousness on the radio.

I remember one night, a friend of mine and I were hanging out, and feeling kind of down in the dumps, and we went to go wander around Harvest.

“Let’s get some tater tots,” I said.

She looked askance at me, being a health food kind of girl.

“Come on,” I said. “I haven’t had tater tots in years. It’s nostalgia food. Let’s get the biggest package of tater tots possible, and a big thing of ketchup, and get to it.”

She still looked a bit hesitant, but there in the frozen foods aisle, she started remembering all of her happy moments with the tater tot, and she reached into the case and grabbed a bag. Organic, of course. And we went home and heated them in my oven and piled them on a plate and it was delicious, with ketchup and salt and oily fingers.

I’ve never really eaten much packaged food, because it wasn’t around the house when I was a kid, so I never learned to be into it. I’m not sure where my tater tot fetish comes from. I mean, I do love potatoes, and that I will not deny. But the tater tots associated with school lunch were limp, sad looking things with little resemblance to the potato. Wherever I acquired my deep and abiding love of the tater tot, I doubt it’s going to go away any time soon, and really there are more harmful things to be into.

It’s funny, because I ignore whole aisles in the grocery store, since they are bedecked with packaged foods, and I really don’t eat packaged food. It’s not a holier than thou thing, I just…don’t. But I do have a few guilty pleasures, like tater tots, which I shyly confess to, only to learn that other people love them too.

These weak points include Geneva Cookies from Pepperidge Farm, which I have tried to replicate without success. I like the thin, crispy, almost spicy cookie, the rich chocolate, and the pecans. I dip them in my oolong tea. I just can’t get the cookie right at home, try as I might.

I also really like jalapeno poppers. I can’t explain it. It’s that gush of hot oily cream cheese, the light fluffy outer layer, the barely recognizable pepper. Is it my deep fried food fetish coming out? I’m not sure. Speaking of which, I also adore doughnuts. Which one can make at home, but it’s such a pain. Only I may be forced to make my own doughnuts if I want them, since no one up here makes decent ones. And Tings. Yes! Crunchy corn sticks!

It’s a comfort thing, I think. At some point something linked these foods with happiness in my mind, and when I’m feeling nostalgic, somehow they find their way to my plate, almost by magic. I also, of course, enjoy the upscale interpretations, like sweet potato tater tots I had once, and I really ought to experiment more to create my own versions.

Every now and then, I indulge my trashy fetishes, andI’m curious, gentle readers…what trashy/packaged foods do you secretly adore?

Modern life raises important questions, like…when should you talk to your children about sex and AIDS?

A community college delves into the snitching controversy.

Drug addicts in the UK will need to get treatment if they want social benefits. Sounds fair to me.

 An Iranian in Los Angeles says he’s in danger. Law enforcement isn’t so sure.

Music has no borders, which is why it’s awesome to see an American orchestra performing in North Korea.

Restaurants in Los Angeles are getting awfully loud…personally, I think it’s a global trend. Which is a pity, because I like to eat my food in peace, personally.