Review of Don Winslow's The Power of the Dog

The Power of the Dog by Don Winslow
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a long book, but the length (as Jane Smiley writes about in 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel) is a promise, not a threat.

The action is quick, the tension is high and the conflict is believable. There are neither purely good guys, nor completely evil bad guys. It seems like Winslow covered everything from family to feigned friendship, from faith to agnosticism, from obsession to oppression.

The War on Drugs plays a major role in this novel, as does the U.S.'s use of that travesty and failure to maintain a large distance from Communist countries: in other words, to keep them from moving in right next door.

Winslow's characters are both likeable and not. Some, I wanted to side with initially, only to rethink my loyalty later. It really is a great ride through the psychology of trying to reach a goal that may be, when all is said and done, unobtainable: e.g. the War on Drugs. It's like a war against dirt, it is never-ending and demands constant vigilance (which, if truth be told, is a waste of time, i.e. dirt will win). I'm not making a judgment on drugs (or on dirt, for that matter), but on the ways in which the U.S. has "tried" to stop the flow of those drugs. Billions of dollars have been spent, and many of those billions have ended up in the pockets of the heads of the very drug cartels that were the targets of this fiasco called a war.

Winslow does an excellent job of presenting the history necessary to tell his story without dragging in so much as to make it a boring read. He uses what is necessary, leaves out what isn't.

At the very least, this novel has made me think about the U.S. relations with our neighbors to the south in North, Central and South America. Was the War on Drugs really just a way for the U.S. to keep Communists from moving in right next door? Did the U.S. supply anti-communist fighters, who also happened to be part of the huge flow of drugs into and money out of the U.S.? Will you read this book and wrestle with your own questions about these issues?

That's all I can suggest: read it.

View all my reviews

Get yourself a copy here:
The Power of the Dog (Vintage Crime/Black Lizard)

Free Speech is Illegal, Now?

Saw a rather disquieting thing this A.M. on Facebook and felt compelled to look into it because my bullshit meter was cranked all the way up and screaming.

The headline: "NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMA SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS FELONY,ARE YOU AWAKE YET AMERICA?"

I watched the video, in which the newscaster mentions the name of this LAW: H.R. 347.

So, here's what I found out:

• This is old "news" from 2011
• It was openly passed by the Senate
• It is not as bad as these guys are making it out to be
• It applies to certain areas at certain times

The following was found on ACLU's blog (you know if anyone is keeping an eye on this kind of thing, it is them, right?):

H.R. 347, the 'Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,' expanded the Secret Service's authority to regulate protests in and around areas where persons under Secret Service protection are located. It could be abused to interfere with lawful protest.

It could be doesn't mean it will be or that it has been. This is just another ploy to slander the President, just like the birth certificate fiasco. Anyway, it would be scary to lose the right to protest, but the President doesn't have that kind of dictatorial power. Another article on the ACLU blog, dated 8 March 2012, states: "The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment."  You should read the rest of that article, if you haven't already;  but a couple of important excerpts are called for:

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures. 

AND

H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

So, there really is not anything to get worked up about, is there? But, please, remember to check this kind of "IN SECRET," conspiracy theory stuff before scaring our pants off with it. Thank you in advance.

One of the first places I look when I even barely doubt the veracity of an issue is http://www.snopes.com. They discuss the origins of the fallacy in this way:

In February 2012, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent (as HR 247) approved by the House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 399-3; the bill was then signed into law by President Obama.

It is an update to 18 USc 1752 - Restricted Building and Grounds, from 1971.

Another excellent source to check these things out is FactCheck.org. Especially if it is political in nature.
Here is the pertinent article, relating to this blog-post.

Think About It

Freedom, Faith and Responsibility - Part 1

To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce.

— Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

Since we're coming up on the month of July, and that reminds me of revolutions, I want to think particularly about the events leading up to the American Revolution. There were people taking the freedom that they believed to be theirs by right and they were using that freedom to write pamphlets.

Today, we are witnessing the largest experiment in democracy that the world has ever seen—the internet. People can comment on just about every news item and if they can’t comment directly, they can save the article on any number of social bookmarking sites. This, is in effect saying to everyone else that this is the news that I think is worth reading.

The problem I have with the democratic, free speech of comments is that many of the comments are irrelevant, degrading to others, disrespectful and some are simply a waste of cyber-ink. But, to take the right to comment away would be worse than if it had never been granted in the first place. So, what is the solution?

Comments are not the only thing. Blogs, “tweets” and status updates on Facebook all share the same pros and cons. It is important to some people to be able to tell the entire world that they just relieved their bowels and are now going out for a night of wild partying. And the next day we get to hear about the hangover!

I know! I don’t have to read these things, but they are there. This is why comments are especially bothersome; one has to read through all the garbage to find one useful or even meaningful comment. People cannot refrain from replying to the first idiot commenter and so the stupidity soon begins to fly and before you know it there are pages and pages of worthless bantering about which President is to be blamed for the color of toilet paper in the bathroom of some backwater gas station. It is asinine and annoying and democratic!

NOTES:

1.     Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Ed. (New York: Continuum, 2000). 87