A Harry Bosch novel with a large dose of Bosch's half-brother, Mickey
Haller. As always, Michael Connelly grabs my attention and doesn't let
go until the very last page. Can't say enough good things about him.
Here, Harry has obtained his private investigator license, so he's
joining the ranks of Marlowe, Archer, Cole, and Millhone, going down the
mean streets, the best man in his world, and a good enough man for any world.
Even the book's title sounds one that Chandler might have used. And the
initial premise recalls The Big Sleep: Bosch is summoned to the
mansion of an aged tycoon!
His gig is slightly different, though: the tycoon has a long-lost
biological son, product of a late-1940's dalliance with a Mexican girl.
Sensing his mortality, the tycoon now wishes to make things right, as
best he can, by hiring Harry to locate the kid. And Harry is warned that
people who would prefer that the heir not be found might resort
to some nasty behavior to obstruct him.
That's one plot thread. In the other, Harry is volunteering his
detective services to the city of San Fernando PD. San Fernando is a
mere 2.37 square miles in area, completely surrounded by Los Angeles,
mostly Hispanic population.
Harry has linked together previously-unconnected rape cases to discover
their common perpetrator, who the cops have dubbed the "Screen Cutter".
The villain seems confident in his ability to perform his crime without
getting caught. Which, of course, puts Harry's teeth on edge.
Technically, Harry's not supposed to use SFPD resources in his
private investigation. Of course, he does anyway.
■ Pun Salad housekeeping update: I've changed the "Archive" section
over there on your right. It used to be a table of monthly links,
each taking you to the posts made in the specified month.
After nearly 13 years of blogging, it had expanded into around 150 links, and looked
a little unwieldly.
So now, it's just a yearly list; clicking a year should take you to
a calendar page for that year. From there you can either click a
month (which will get you to the posts for that month), or a day
(which—duh—will get you to the posts for that day.
I'm not sure if anyone will find it useful, but I think it looks a
little better. Most importantly, I had some fun coding it all up.
And now on with our regularly scheduled programming…
■ After a couple nonsense verses, the Proverbialist returns to form
with the straightforward Proverbs
18:22:
22 He who finds a wife finds what is good
and receives favor from the Lord.
Fact check: True. (At least with implicit appropriate disclaimers to satisfy
religious skeptics.)
Political debate in the modern world is impossible without memorizing a list of euphemisms, and there is no shortage of public opprobrium for those who talk about certain topics without using them. In addition to the many euphemisms that are accepted by virtually everybody, the political left has its own set of euphemisms associated with political correctness, while the political right has its own set linked to patriotic correctness. Euphemisms tend to serve as signals of political-tribal membership, but also as means to convince ambivalent voters to support one policy or the other. Violating the other political tribe’s euphemisms can even help a candidate get elected President. This post explores why people use euphemisms in political debate and whether that effort is worthwhile.
It's a good look at a couple of mechanisms: (1) the "euphemism
treadmill" whereby words/phrases introduced to replace offensive
terms,
over time become offensive themselves; (2) the "cacophemism cliff"
where more-offensive words and phrases are introduced to
replace relatively innocuous ones, but then become (relatively)
inoffensive themselves.
Note: The discussion uses immigration terminology for an example, and
reflects Nowrasteh's own biases on that issue. That's regrettable,
because the topic is important and could use an even-handed treatment.
That's what the grumps over at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) are saying today. "By our estimate, a combination of tax cuts, sequester relief, and other changes would increase deficits to $1.05 trillion by 2019 and $1.1 trillion by 2020," the CRFB found (emphases in original). "Tax cuts and sequester relief alone would be enough to bring back trillion-dollar deficits by 2019, and tax cuts by themselves would bring them back by 2020."
Well, euphemism-free until he quotes someone else. "Sequester
relief" means: undoing the legislation that mandates that government spending
grow less rapidly than it would otherwise. [And—sigh—often that
less-rapid growth gets
inaccurately cacophemized as "spending cuts".]
I’m cynical about students. The vast majority are philistines. I’m
cynical about teachers. The vast majority are uninspiring. I’m
cynical about “deciders”—the school officials who control what
students study. The vast majority think they’ve done their job as
long as students comply.
Those who search their memory will find noble exceptions to these sad rules. I have known plenty of eager students and passionate educators, and a few wise deciders. Still, my 40 years in the education industry leave no doubt that they are hopelessly outnumbered. Meritorious education survives but does not thrive.
Much more at the link. I plan on getting my hands on this book.
Consider President Trump’s momentous (though for now mostly
symbolic) announcement that the United States will recognize
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Before you can debate whether
this was a good move, you must acknowledge one glaring fact that the
chatterers want to ignore or downplay: It’s true. Jerusalem is the
capital of Israel. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, convenes there.
Israelis call it their capital for the same reason they claim two
plus two equals four. It’s just true.
What makes the decision controversial is that everyone had agreed to pretend it wasn’t the capital in order to protect “the peace process.”
Talking about euphemisms, "peace process" is right up there. Who
could be against it?!
■ But as Power Line's John Hinderaker notes: The
“Peace Process” Ended Long Ago. That hasn't stopped the drumbeat
from the Usual Media Suspects (Al-Jazeera, CBS, CNN, Time, …) to
bemoan that Trump has killed it.
I, like John, favor the 1000-word response from
Michael
P. Ramirez:
Which ought to be, not “Who’s worse?” but “How can we make society
better?” That will not be accomplished by deflecting accusations
into an inquiry into the behavior of the accuser -- but nor will it
be accomplished by allowing flagrant hypocrisy to pass unremarked.
Allowing brazen hypocrites to demand social sanction (but only for
others) does not uphold important principles; it destroys them. Both
sides come to view principles merely as useful weapons -- and soon,
they find that they are not useful even as weapons. As economist
Garett Jones recently told me, “Two wrongs don’t make a right … but
three wrongs make a social norm.” And “Do as I say, not as I do” is
not a principle that any decent society should endorse.
… but, increasingly, that seems to be the prevailing mode of
discourse these days.
Disclaimers:
Unquoted opinions expressed herein are solely those of the
blogger.
Pun Salad is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates
Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a
means for the blogger to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.