Boy Friends by Michael Pedersen

Its a memoir of lost friends. The friends who came for a short period or the one who stayed for the lifetime. But it focuses on the celebration and memories of those friends rather being an account of loss, and how much pain it causes.

The loss is there but it has been portrayed as a journey. The question, how long a pain of losing a loved one lasts, doesn't have an answer but we don't love people by measuring them on a scale of longing. Even when sometimes it is lurking behind the joyous moments, pain stays, and does come back.

Solution is, if we're looking for one, not to fight it but to cherish.

Love

Porn by Polly Barton

I stopped after the introductory chapter which I generally don't do, and make a point that I see it till the end.

However, in this case I made an exception because this was not what I expected it to be. As a rule of thumb I avoid looking up the books or writers if I pick a book, and same was the case here.

The book is based on a discussion with people about their porn consumption, and how do they look at porn. My only reservation was that this group of people come from the writer's close circle which takes the objectivity of the discussion out of the whole narrative. The writer is not a specialist on this topic which provides a lot of freedom to interpret the discussions, and can go top down logic.

To all those books left unread!

Love

Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas

Winner takes all sounds like a cliche from a casino until you realise that it is true to its core.

The book is about how a certain level of wealth motivates the people to move into philanthropy without realising the wider aspects of their wealth accumulation. The historical theory of wealth redistribution which promised that the wealth on top goes down to everyone in the chain has been proven phenomenally wrong. It is not just the inequality that it causes in the society, it also brings the absurd ideas of philanthropy in the heads of the ultra-rich who end up with a notion of knowing and doing the right thing for the humanity. To top it up the misplaced idea of helping the humanity with technology seems like a perfect excuse to keep doing what makes money for you.

The idea of improving productivity never ends up in improvement of wages or the living conditions of the people who are working for these businesses. Additionally, harming the environment, creating chaos in societal structures, raising inequality, bad working culture, and tax evasion etc take it from bad to worse.

Taking is something which is inherent to human nature but taking all is what causes the problems which begin when one doesn't realise how it is taken, and where to stop taking. Where one justifies all the taking in the name of any suitable adjective at hand. This builds a whole ecosystem for inequality where everyone with money bends the rules, deprive others, and claims privilege.

But why does this happen that even the people who started from a humble background end up being part of this elite club? There is no one answer but broadly the lust for wealth, power, and misplaced sense of accomplishment/entitlement compounded by inability of challenging the status quo is the recipe for it.

Philanthropy is defined as the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes. So, next time when a billionaire says philanthropy, take a closer look at the causes it supports, what they propose to do, and what might have caused those causes in the first place.

Peace

American Carnage by Fred Guttenberg

This tries to bust the myths attached to gun control efforts in US. It goes point by point to highlight why all those myths (legal or otherwise) don't stand a chance in front of a fair scrutiny.

The book is rather short on narrative but does't have much chance to move anything because the most important factor which it is struggling against is the business of selling guns. The whole idea of lobbying in favour of gun rights and ease of availability should be called a charade in the name of business. But that is how the business works, right? It is a mad race to sale rather than thinking about after effects of goods sold.

Another failure of the book is that it goes a lot soft on the gun rights. It proposes a framework of background verifications and exclusion of assault weapons from civilian reach while it misses the main point of why any gun is lethal irrespective of its firing capacity. And that point is that how a gun takes the humanity out of these attacks and killing spree. It does point out that the idea of owning a gun can strike someone as an equalizer but can't tell equal to what.

It actually ends up sounding like that people who are sane enough or trained enough should have the right to own a gun but this thought befuddles the idea of why anyone in a civil society should have a gun. It should be the duty of police and other forces to maintain the law and order in a society and not just another person with a gun.

There is no political will to counter the gun arguments in US, and it is going to stay for a real long time.

Peace

First You Write a Sentence. by Joe Moran

After a book on debate comes the book on writing :) 

The main question is why anyone writes? What does anyone has to tell that others are keen to read?

Reading is the most isolated activity (not counting group readings) which happens in the mutual absence of the two major stakeholders, the writer and the reader. Which makes it a bit closed activity where one need to break an obligation of presence. It is a one way dialogue between two people which is open to interpretations or abandonment from either side.

Given that the human attention span is short what does a writer need to keep a reader hooked, and here the author mostly addresses this question from personal experience. And it is important to know because you may have the best thing in the world to tell someone but what if people don't pay attention because you don't write/express it well enough. Or you have the worst things to say but your deliverance prowess gets you the all the eyes, ears and minds.

And never forget your grammar. Most important part is that a good writing is rewriting.

One can't become a writer by reading a book but the inspiration to record your thoughts in a neat way can come from anywhere with a little guidance. So, even if you're planning to never publish - write something.

Love

Unworthy Republic by Claudio Saunt

There are books which make cause anger, pain, and a sense of absurdity of our thinking.

Anger because the sense of entitlement that make you think that you can do whatever you want to do as long as you have the power on your side. Even if it means to blind yourself to the extreme suffering or others.

Pain because the unnecessary loss of lives which could have not ended prematurely, and the remaining lives which were lived as lost, uprooted, and sad.

Absurdity because your greed not only stopped you from seeing what was inhuman but also gave you the courage to present this is as a favour to larger humanity without the consent of people who lost everything. An idea that you justify on your own terms while disguising it in the name of law, class, race, superiority and what not.

This is a document which records the greed of colonisers who had vested interests in terminating people and the civilians who pounced on the misery of fellow humans to get the smallest benefits out of it. This was not the first time, and this will not be the last.

If we don't have a reason to kill others, we'll invent one.

Peace

Win Every Argument by Mehdi Hasan

This one has what you can read in any other book on debating and arguments but the main difference is the anecdotes here. You get to watch a good debate but many at times you don't know what goes behind the scenes which is why the anecdotes are so important.

The most common myth is that a side with the facts and truth wins. You can have all the truth in the world until you put it out there in a way that people recognise and empathise with it. This is where the debating skills come into the picture. Debates are considered as a healthy sign on of a good society where the thoughts are argued. An argumentative culture is important because it provides for an environment which is good but this comes with its own pitfalls when you witness that a discussion in favour of right gets lost because the other one was represented better/differently.

A debate can reach a solution based on words, and avoid a lot of action which can potentially go wrong. But be careful when you see a debate, and remember the difference between a debate and a monologue.

Peace