A World War ("We're all gonna die") and Prohibition ("We wanna get fucked up") has a way of changing priorities.
Bigamy is totally where it's at. I mean, who wouldn't want a husband and a wife?
We are still trapped in the Fin de siecle insanity that usually follows the end of a century.
550 days and a wakeup or two.
And, Phelix, I'd rather have a wife and a family, but hey you do what works for you.
the book sounds like comments from the Stranger about the hippies (free thinking agents of change), socialists and various other agents of change who are no longer in fashion
in truth lack of strong real politics is what is wrong in America
and is why we are going to be ruled by dictators chosen by the army and the wealthy class
of course, we will be very amusing and amused by all the tra la la ... on our way to the camps
Haliburton has a contract for about 600 million and is building very self contained camp site on many bases, of which there are hundreds, for 5,000 people each
the American Gulag is ready - and who will go to the camps and when is the only question
oh, my, forgot, the issue of the day is some half assed tra la la about bigamy ... and this from educated middle class people
in formerly revolutionary Seattle ... the American Soviet ... no longer
no mention of the red scare, the palmer raids, the smashing of organized labor, the rise of the klan, immigration restriction, etc?
the socialist party was crushed, debs was arrested and permanently disenfranchised for opposing the war and had to run for president from jail, the whole country veered right, and you're blaming it on teenagers not properly rebelling against their parents?
Eh. By 1925, the world had had a taste of what Bolshevism really meant. Given all that blood and ickiness, it was a way better choice to go out and have group sex.
Sounds like the Reagan years vs. the Clinton years to me: 85 to 95.
It's all in there, Trevor. (There's a whole chapter on the Red Scare.)
But the teenage ennui seems separate.
You would have finished the book already if you did not silently mouth the words as you read.
When Dan Savage wrote this in Oct. 2002 he was saying that the death of children in the Iraq war was acceptable.
\"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people.\\\"
So why don\\\'t we apportion Dan Savage his fair share of the carnage in Iraq? Let\\\'s arbitrarily assign him responsibility for the death of, say, an eight year old Iraqi girl. That sounds about right doesn\\\'t it? That still leaves 649,999 dead Iraqis to be apportioned out to Bush and the neo-cons and other war supporters.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).