I was killing some time this morning on Facebook while watching my Saturday morning dose of English soccer and found this ad on the right edge of the page:
Being more of a heathen and less of a Jesus shirt-wearing type (unless of course, Jack White's new band is, in fact, called Jesus), I clicked the thumbs down button. A dialogue window popped up asking why I didn't like the ad and I clicked on the 'offensive' option. Now, while I wasn't actually offended by the ad, I did think it was funny.
Immediately after clicking the 'okay' button, the Jesus shirt ad disappeared and was replaced with this ad:
They say, in comedy, timing is everything. Which is why the following sketch about a priest teaching safe sex in 1231 A.D. would be a whole lot funnier if not for this.
In a previous post about the inequities regarding the financing of the NCAA, I mentioned Title IX, which in its most broad definition is the legislation that requires schools to give equal opportunities for women to get an education through sports as they do for men.
A reader commented on Title IX in that post, saying:
Small correction - the biggest complaints about Title IX are that it very specifically denies equal rights and opportunities to boys.
I am aware of the myriad complaints regarding Title IX – I grew up in a household that wasn't exactly its biggest fan and have read more than my fair share of ESPN the Mag, SI and sports page articles over the last decade – but have come to the conclusion that nearly all arguments are just that: complaints.
A person could probably justifiably call Title IX discrimination against men, considering the statistics since its implementation show that while numbers in women's sports have grown, numbers in mens' sports have either stalled or shrunk.
However, when one looks at the unbelievably imbalanced numbers that the studies started out with -- both in terms of funding and ability for participation for women's sports -- one has to be crazy to think a rule unfair that attempts to level the playing field for an extremely underrepresented group (women) by limiting the extremely advantaged group's growth (men) when that advantage was never gained in an equal manner.
In order to think that there is an injustice to Title IX, one must believe that all things were once equal for both genders, both in opportunity and funding, and that womens' sports had somehow failed and does not now deserve this boost. In that case, said person would have to subscribe to a special kind of revisionist history.
I am very aware of the general reasons why most people don't like Title IX, a couple of the most popular I'll address here:
1) Because only women benefit from Title IX, men's sports that don't make a big profit often get reduced or cut in order to fund women's sports creating a new bias against men.
It is an unfortunate truth that sometimes in order to right a past wrong, some who are currently in the system might be negatively affected. However, when one looks at the serious inequities in access to education for women in the past, it is an extremely hard sell to say that men are somehow more victimized now by this legislation than women have historically been without it. Title IX may indeed favor women in seeking to level the educational playing field, but without it, women in unprofitable sports would not be given any of the opportunities at an education that men in unprofitable sports have always been guaranteed throughout the history of collegiate sports.
2) Women aren't generally as athletic as men and therefore not as entertaining to watch.
I'm not going to argue with that point. However, Title IX specifically applies to educational institutions and therefore, if a) a gender is discriminated against through sports, and b) sports can be the conduit through which education is achieved, then c) that gender will also be discriminated against in education. As far as professional women's sports go, I wish them the best, but since it is a money-driven business and not a public service, frankly it doesn't matter to me whether it succeeds or not.
It seems to me people who argue against Title IX forget its purpose, which is not to level the playing field in sports, but to level the playing field in education. If you feel that women are less deserving an education than men, then by all means, hope for Title IX's quick and painful demise.
Personally, being married to a brilliant and educated woman who fights every day for the underrepresented segments in society, I believe that any rule that gives women the same opportunities that have been inherently given to men is a strong step in a very just direction.
I had a discussion over the weekend regarding the importance of sports in society with two lifelong, rabid sports fans. The topic came up after a discussion of how the NCAA licenses the likeness of players in merchandising, charges millions for advertising, hundreds for a ticket to allow fans to see said student-athletes play in games (using just a few examples), while simultaneously putting restrictions on players' ability to make a dime from any of this (even money for food or books). In the end, the schools' athletic departments make a ton of money from high-income sports such as men's basketball and football, many of the coaches of these sports make hefty salaries and the NCAA makes more than half a billion in revenues – all the while, student-athletes have a rigorous class schedule, a rigorous practice schedule and the inability to use their own athletic talents to help themselves through school financially.
The NCAA itself touts that "there are more than 380,000 student-athletes and nearly all of them will go pro in something other than sports." According to a Hartford Group survey (it was astonishingly hard to find statistics on this), fewer than 1% of all student-athletes go forward to play professional sports. This means that, across the board, 342,000 student athletes are competing for three or four years of their lives in a sport with no pay, very few with scholarships and none of them with the hope of actually moving forward to play that sport and make any money from it to help pay student loans or other educational expenses.
Now, I understand that many of these sports don't make money and I'm also well aware how much some people love to complain about the absurdity of Title IX, which requires schools to *shutter* treat women's sports with the same fairness and equity as men's sports. I'm not denying the existence of these two factors, so let's go ahead and focus on two of the sports that do make an athletic department money: men's basketball and football.
The same survey found that less than 2% of student-athletes in just these sports go on to play at the professional level as well. The argument, therefore, can be made that while the athletes of these two sports rake in enough money for the NCAA to make a handsome profit and schools' athletic departments to make enough of a profit to keep other money-losing programs afloat and with many of the best programs paying their coaches high 6- and 7-figure salaries, that it certainly stands to reason that money can very well be allotted to help the money-making athletes themselves through their education, considering a staggering 98% of them won't ever be able to use these talents to help repay their college loans or other expenses after graduation when they are no longer subject to the eligibility of the NCAA.
Now, this post, believe it or not, isn't about the NCAA nor the inequities of college sports and not even the frivolity of sports themselves, as I am also a committed sports fan, especially college sports. Rather, this post is about the reactions I received from these two fans when I brought up these points and how these reactions are endemic within our society regarding the acceptance of the things that simply make us happy, however frivolous, and the willful ignorance of the things that might impede that happiness.
My overall argument was as follows: There is an obscene amount of money going to the NCAA, coaches, etc. that is generated solely by those who can never see a dime of it. And should a player attempt to make even enough money to help pay for food or books, the NCAA (which has hundreds of restrictions on students making any kind of profit or receiving any kind of monetary or in-kind assistance from any source) can deem that player ineligible, potentially even causing the school to rescind any scholarships which can lead to the inability to even get a college education. I made the case that there must be some way that all of this money flowing from sponsor to NCAA to school and back again can better be used to help the student-athletes get a good education, and more broadly help the school help those who aren't gifted athletes get a better education through general scholarships, grants and the like, considering a college's first and most important goal is supposed to be education.
Throughout this conversation, I was met with a hundred reasons why it was impossible to find a way to do any of this: Title IX was too expensive and a drain on athletic departments; coaches got money from donors specifically for coaches salaries and those donors wouldn't donate to the athletic department anymore if they couldn't decide where the money was going to go; that it's okay to sink money into athletic departments because it attracts students to that school when the team is good; this is America and you can spend whatever money you want where you want; and on and on and on.
Do I have an answer for any of these points? Actually, most of them were so absurd, I did. But regarding the ones that pertained to budgets, revenue flow, expenditures and the like, and possible ways to actually make these fixes a reality, I didn't. Without a business degree, a sports management degree or a lifetime spent analyzing ways to make collegiate sports profitable (and equitable), no, of course I don't. And neither did either one of them. But neither were short on reasons why it couldn't be done, which brought me to this conclusion: They simply didn't want it to be done.
These two fans who, combined, have spent the better of a half-century watching as many games as possible, reading as many sports pages as possible and studying as many statistics as possible are afraid that any of these changes might mess up the enjoyment of their entertainment. They want their sports when and how they want them and if anything stands a chance at impeding that, the immediate response is terror in the form of a hundred arguments that basically all came out as: 'It's too hard to change the way it is, so it's just the way it's gotta stay.'
Bullshit.
The NCAA found a way to wrangle the entire country's collegiate athletic programs into one organized entity; to put a business model around it; to market it to fans; to put it on TV; to sell advertising for massive revenues and then found a way to screw all of the students who create that revenue out of every last penny. Do you really think the NCAA, if given the right incentive and regulation, can't find a way to equitably return a portion of that money to its players to help in their education? If you still do, you're either in denial or you are incredibly stupid. I really hope for your sake, it's the latter. Otherwise, you're selfishly selling out a potentially equitable system because you can't live without your March Madness.
But the point of all of the aforementioned is that this specific example can be applied quite broadly to our government and society as a whole. Our leaders (and consequently their followers) speak out of one side of their mouth about being the best, most capable country on Earth, then talk about how things like a solvent social security system or making standardized health care work is too difficult; about how there's no money for domestic programs and infrastructure spending, but there's an endless supply to fund killing brown people in wars across the world.
We elected a president to change the world, but haven't stopped complaining about how he plans to do it. Most agree – and the statistics show – that we're pumping too many idiot kids out of our public schooling system (assuming they finish at all), yet we all whine about how teachers are already paid too much, and that schools shouldn't be asking for any more of our tax money. At home in Seattle, traffic sucks and public transit upgrades are a necessity but everyone involved has a hundred reasons why the other guy's idea can't work, so no one's going to do anything.
This idea of can't is surrounded by a culture of fear that things as we know them are going to change. We fear that if things get better for others, they may get worse for ourselves so we don't allow them that opportunity. This can start with something as simple as a love of college basketball, but it can seep quickly outward into the way we vote, the organizations we support or the way we run a business and treat our employees. That fear, given enough power, can quickly turn into exploitation and the cycle of inequality is given life anew once again.
Don't misunderstand my position on being able to enjoy simple things in life – I'm all for the joys of simple vanity. I drove three-and-a-half hours just to drink beer and watch basketball all weekend; I spend a lot of money on music and live shows; I'm a season ticket holder for the Seahawks; I've been a season ticket holder to the ballet and I certainly have more than my fair share of expensive tattoos. But I believe, very strongly, that all of these things can be enjoyed with a clear conscience when we find a way to make them equitable for all involved and I don't believe for even a second that we can't make that happen just because no one has found a way to do it yet. We need to make the decision to abandon the idea of can't once and for all, before all of the things we say we can't do never happen.
Is Joe the Plumber still trying to squeeze every last second out of his 15 minutes? I guess with the Republican party beating down his door for advice, why not wrench every last little drop of blood from the stone from under which he crawled?
Yeah, that's right, Samuel the unlicensed plumber, Middle-East policy expert, and all-around loud-mouthed moron is advising the Republican party about what the average American thinks about our current economic situation and proposed economic stimulus plan.
"Wurzelbacher opposes the stimulus and said he questioned why the government can’t just cut its bills like other people do."
That's genius! Why didn't I think of that? It's just like a family deciding to go without cable or dining out to save some money! Except in this case, we're talking about a completely broke family of 300 million, with $10 trillion in debt and no way to make money because we've free-traded (see: fucked) ourselves out of being able to produce anything the rest of the world wants. And if that wasn't good enough, now we've opened our wallets to find out that the money we thought we had left was really scraps of shit-laden toilet paper and the people we were stupid enough to vote into office the last 30 years are the ones who picked our pockets!
Yeah, Joe, I can see exactly what you mean, you fucking idiot.
If you can possibly stomach more of this knuckle-dragging swine, watch the videos here and here.
Take a good long look at this shoe statue. I kid you not: it is a monument praising the journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush a month or two ago in Iraq.
A group of orphans helped the artist build the fiberglass and copper statue at the orphanage with the hope that it will be a conversation piece to future generations about how Bush helped all of those poor kids become orphans.
Yesterday, Barack Obama addressed his staff and laid down some ideals before signing the first executive orders of his administration.
If you want to know what makes him different from anything we've seen before, watch the first 8 minutes of the video below where he lays out the expectations of ethical behavior for his staff as well as puts into effect the safeguards that will guarantee transparency within his administration.
In short: he took office on Tuesday and on Wednesday, the first thing he does is overhaul his own administration to better serve the people. Leadership by example. Observe:
President Obama. It just has a sweet sound to it, doesn't it?
Last night, Erika and I hosted a Move On.org inauguration viewing party at our house. We had about 40 people from our corner of Seattle attend, most of whom we had never met before. The turnout was much better than we expected and we really enjoyed being able to watch Obama get sworn in and give his inaugural address with so many other supporters in our neighborhood.
I don't really have much to say about the inauguration other than I believe his speech will go down as one of the greatest in modern history, on par with FDR's and Kennedy's. He explained the grim situation we are in as Americans, but gave a clear path to rise above it through sacrifice and service – not to the government – but to each other. I whole-heartedly believe that he will help guide us along that path to the best of his abilities and we will be a better nation for it.
If you haven't seen the address, check it out. This video, while not the one that was broadcast on the major networks and a bit on the shaky side, is free to the public (also as a download) courtesy the White House site, which has been redesigned to be a conduit of transparency and information far beyond anything it has been before. I'm looking forward to digging in and seeing what's beneath the shinier veneer.
You can also check out the following video in high quality on YouTube here.
Yesterday I posted a joke about the Bush Library I received from a friend in San Francisco. At the bottom were some links that I reposted as part of the text, but after watching one of them, an episode of the Bill Moyers Journal, I decided it was interesting enough to merit its own post.
The report is about political talk radio and right-wing media hosts and their rhetoric of anger, division and hate. After seeing how profoundly and transparently people were affected by this kind of speech by the McCain/Palin campaign this last election, I found it to be a very pertinent – and frightening – story.
I think it's very important for idealistic people to understand the other side of the argument. Unfortunately, the other side of the argument is far too often riddled with angry lies, unfounded accusations and violent speech. Click here to see what I mean.
Tell me this isn't some monumentally scary crap. I'm 29 years old and I wouldn't ride these freaky things. Someone missed the marketing boat on this one.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.
A video post is better than no post at all, right? Especially when it's a musical about gay marriage featuring Andy Richter, Allison Janney, Jack Black, the hot chick from Scrubs, the kinda hot chick from SNL five years ago, a tattooed Margaret Cho, Cal Naughton, Jr., the voice of Peggy Hill and, yes, even Doogie Howser. Holy awesomeness, Batman!
Thanks to Jenn for sending this one around! Enjoy!
It's been a long time since I've blogged (before the election, believe it or not) because my time has been tragically limited as of late, but even though it's past my bedtime -- yes I'm old -- I had to post this.
My wife was watching this as I was making dinner and it got my attention from the other room and kept it completely for the full four and a half minutes. At the end, all I could say was, "Damn."
Will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas wrote this and I've heard it's up for some awards, which doesn't shock me at all. I loved it. I hope you do too.
When the McPain campaign really started laying into Obama as though he really is a terrorist, I knew it was only a matter of time before their hateful rhetoric got out of hand. The mob mentality, you might be surprised to find out, doesn't account for critical thought much. So it's no surprise when, after hearing the same cock and bull story about Barack being a terrorist for weeks on end, those people who are inexplicably ass-over-teakettle for McCain started shouting catchy little campaign phrases like, "Kill him!" It's got a good little rhythm to it, doesn't it?
Think objectively for a moment, regardless of your political affiliation or preferences, about the last time you ever heard someone advocating for assassination of a presidential candidate at the other guy's campaign rally. Can't think of one? That's because the McSame campaign has hit an absolute new low with their negativity in this race, not only attacking "that one's" policies, but painting him in such a dangerous light that when the crowd gets out of hand (after being incited to such actions), McCain has to start talking his opponent up just so the crowd of idiots doesn't run out of the building with torches and pitch forks fixin' to hunt 'em down a terrorist who just happens to be running for President of the United States.
Am I the only one who sees this as the lost episode of the fucking Twilight Zone? Clearly I'm not alone:
When I heard the clip on the radio of the old lady freaking out that Obama was and A-Raaaab, then heard McCain say, "No ma'am, he's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about," I nearly swerved my car into oncoming traffic in an attempt to wash the stupid out of my ears.
First off, no, the campaign is not all about the fundamental issues on which you two disagree. You've made it a hate-filled, mudslinging campaign and have taken every pain to ignore the issues whenever possible.
Secondarily, I had to ask myself, 'Self, did he really answer, "He's an Arab" with "No, he's a decent family man," as if being Arab automatically makes you a bad person? Yes, he did.'
I thought for a few days I was the only one who noticed. It seems that wasn't the case:
I'm starting to feel like the longer I watch this train wreck of an election, the less informed I'll actually be come November 4th. By the time I make it to the polling booth, I'll just stand there drooling my McDonald's latte down the front of my shirt, wondering if that Nader chap is finally going to get lucky this year.
That's right, I'm going with my wife to see a tremendous actor (Josh Brolin) play a tremendously stupid human being (W.) in the feel good hit of the Fall on opening night. I imagine I'll have a few things to say over the weekend about it, so watch out for flinging poo.
In the meantime, since I just finished watching it myself, here is the John McCain interview with David Letterman from last night.
And here's the thing I got from watching this train wreck: I don't believe McCain's as stupid as he looks every time he gets caught defending all kinds of obvious lies and obviously bad decisions. Quite to the contrary, I think he's very smart (albeit, he might be losing some of it with age), so I certainly don't believe he's dumb enough to be in denial of anything.
I just think he's in a bad situation, he knows the boat is sinking and he's trying every last ditch effort to keep his head above water. I also don't think it's that he's a bad liar (because it's obvious he's lying), I just think he knows he's in so deep, he has to keep on wading through all the crap just so he can get to the end of it even if it's as ridiculous as this interview.
Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for the guy. When you sell your soul like he's done, you deserve whatever kind of nastiness floats your way.
The name of my blog comes from a legendary, seldom-told tale about life, love, prophecy, jealousy, anger, neuroses and a broken cookie. And it's 100% true. But I won't tell it here. Instead I plan to write about all of the aforementioned qualities of humanity and pretty much anything else that comes to mind. And on occasion, it might actually be interesting to someone other than myself, so stick around to find out. If you actually want to know something about me, the answers to the oft-asked questions are as follows: I'm a union commercial carpenter. Big buildings. Yes, I like it. A lot. I'm back in Seattle after being paroled from a 3-year-to-life sentence living in California. If you want to know more, take a trip over to my myspace page or look me up on Facebook. If you want to contact me by email, click here.
Want daily updates from I Got the Broken Cookie? Enter your email address below to get a daily update of new posts. No new posts and you won't get anything. It's easy!
What's an atheist doing reading the Bible? That's a darn good question. After having grown up in an extremely religious household and having been told my entire childhood what the Bible says by pulpit thumping, fire and brimstone, born-again evangelical preachers, I figured I'd do what many of the self-proclaimed believers I was surrounded by have likely never done: read it from cover to cover with a critical eye and form my own opinions about it. Personally, I've already found a pretty damn good book to live by. (Read below...) On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
A 19th-century British philosopher, Mill is the father of modern liberal thought and this book, first published in 1851, is an absolute masterpiece.
"Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects combined with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would admit of being considered irreligious or immoral?" A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present by Howard Zinn
This book gets right what all the public education history books got so wrong. It's American history not from the rich, white politicians' perspective, but from the reality of the masses of people who were subjugated and victimized by them. Kudos to my brother, Jeff, for having used it in his high school history classes. Both Zinn and Jeff's actions define true patriotism. Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer by Tracy Kidder
This book is about Dr. Paul Farmer, a Harvard medical doctor and anthropologist who has dedicated his life to the eradication of infectious diseases in the poorest parts of Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and other communities of extreme poverty around the world. This book has been the common book (required reading) for all freshmen at dozens - maybe even hundreds - of colleges and universities the nation over in recent years. I can't imagine too many books better than this one for every college student to read to begin what will hopefully be their real education. 1984 by George Orwell
An absolute literary classic that is absolutely chilling when read in the context of our current political climate. If it's been a while since you've read this - or if you never have - I strongly urge you to read it. I guarantee nearly every bookstore all across the country has at least one copy on its shelf for less than 10 bucks - well worth the investment of both money and time. A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah
A completely captivating book by a very profound and poetic writer about his experiences as a Sierra Leonean child soldier. UNICEF estimates that there are more than 300,000 boys and girls under the age of 18 involved in dozens of wars and violent conflicts, armed with machine guns, grenades and bombs. Beah was one of them at the age of 12 when his family was killed by rebels in his native town and his only options were to meet the same fate or fight for the government which was just as brutal and corrupt. The story he tells is at the same time heartbreaking and triumphant - a definite must-read.
while, student-athletes have a rigorous class schedule, a rigorous practice schedule and the inability to use their own athletic talents to help themselves through school financially.
Is Joe the Plumber still trying to squeeze every last second out of his 15 minutes? I guess with the Republican party beating down his door for advice, why not wrench every last little drop of blood from the stone from under which he crawled?
(Click for a bigger image of this trainwreck.)
What's an atheist doing reading the Bible? That's a darn good question. After having grown up in an extremely religious household and having been told my entire childhood what the Bible says by pulpit thumping, fire and brimstone, born-again evangelical preachers, I figured I'd do what many of the self-proclaimed believers I was surrounded by have likely never done: read it from cover to cover with a critical eye and form my own opinions about it. Personally, I've already found a pretty damn good book to live by. (Read below...)
A 19th-century British philosopher, Mill is the father of modern liberal thought and this book, first published in 1851, is an absolute masterpiece.
This book gets right what all the public education history books got so wrong. It's American history not from the rich, white politicians' perspective, but from the reality of the masses of people who were subjugated and victimized by them. Kudos to my brother, Jeff, for having used it in his high school history classes. Both Zinn and Jeff's actions define true patriotism.
This book is about Dr. Paul Farmer, a Harvard medical doctor and anthropologist who has dedicated his life to the eradication of infectious diseases in the poorest parts of Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and other communities of extreme poverty around the world. This book has been the common book (required reading) for all freshmen at dozens - maybe even hundreds - of colleges and universities the nation over in recent years. I can't imagine too many books better than this one for every college student to read to begin what will hopefully be their real education.
An absolute literary classic that is absolutely chilling when read in the context of our current political climate. If it's been a while since you've read this - or if you never have - I strongly urge you to read it. I guarantee nearly every bookstore all across the country has at least one copy on its shelf for less than 10 bucks - well worth the investment of both money and time.
A completely captivating book by a very profound and poetic writer about his experiences as a Sierra Leonean child soldier. UNICEF estimates that there are more than 300,000 boys and girls under the age of 18 involved in dozens of wars and violent conflicts, armed with machine guns, grenades and bombs. Beah was one of them at the age of 12 when his family was killed by rebels in his native town and his only options were to meet the same fate or fight for the government which was just as brutal and corrupt. The story he tells is at the same time heartbreaking and triumphant - a definite must-read.
