Rating: 
Summary: A different and perhaps even better O'Rourke.
Review: P. J. O' Rourke as a "serious" essayist, confronting the crucial problems of our day? Yes. And he's good at it.
Earlier O' Rourke work has caused some dissension in my household because I woke my darling from her sleep with my laughter. Not this time. There aren't many laughs in this work and the few that exist are not side-splitters. His essay on Iwo Jima is a must-read.
This is simply not what we have come to expect from O' Rourke. I don't know if this is the exception or a "new" O' Rourke, but regardless, O' Rourke's perspective is interesting and his commentary insightful.
Jerry
Rating:
Summary: I Like the Places I Write About
Review: "I like the places I write about. I enjoy the people. I have had a good time where ever I've
gone, Iraq included. My subject in a way is pleasure. This is a book about pleasantness which is why I have dedicated it to Mike Kelly", so says PJ O'Rourke in his new book "Peace Kills: America's New Imperialism. Mike Kelly was the editor of "The Atlantic" until he was killed in an accident in Iraq. Mike Kelly is the kind of person you want as a friend, funny, irreverent, kind, a family man who adored his wife and children- sounds like P.J.O'Rourke as a matter of fact.
I have adored P. J. O'Rourke for several years. P.J. O'Rourke is an admitted Libertarian, as am I. P. J. lives in New England, he moved here after 9-11. He found the kind of simple life he wanted for his family and himself. but, he also has a home in the city, Washington, D.C. so he meet and greet old friends and do his job as a writer/reporter. P.J. also appears on NPR's "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" on a semi-regular basis. All in all a man to be admired.In this new book, he has put together some of his articles from "The Atlantic" and "The Wall Street Journal". He talks about the start of the Iraq War. He was in Kuwait and was awakened by his wife in the US who called to tell him the war had started. He finally arrives in Baghdad and as he visits one of Saddam's palaces he says "If a reason for invading Iraq was needed, felony interior decorating would have sufficed." Now, do you understand why I love this guy's wit? He goes on to discuss his visit to Kosovo and Israel after 9-11. But the largest portion of the book is devoted to Iraq and Kuwait. He bargains with a local for a case of beer starting at $20 and ended up paying $24.50. What a country! He concludes that we will never have Peace but we will have a war where we talk about our soldiers we can say "They are our Heroes". P.J. O'Rourke is never dull. I search for his articles in "The Atlantic" first- they are always informative, entertaining and irreverent. This is my kind of book. He doesn't clear up my confusion but then, it's mine, anyway. prisrob.
Rating: 
Summary: If peace kills, what does war do?
Review: George Orwell continues to be exactly right when he wrote that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. P.J. (and what kind of grown man would use those initials anyway?) is one many right-wingers who truly embody a steadfast refusal to let go of their ignorance and see reality for what it is.
This nation is suffering from a widespread ignorance in which a president has brought us lies, deception, incompetence, atrocities, and one economic disaster after another, yet he still gets to keep his job and have supporters like O'Rourke!
One of the main problems with O'Rourke's beliefs is that it is a self-defeating prophecy. The hypocrisy and ignorance of the Bush administration will only bring more terrorist threats against the U.S., which will lead to more time and money spent on military solutions instead of trying to find other ways that would require ingredients that many conservatives don't really have: intelligence, communication skills, and a respect for justice, equality, and understanding.
If O'Rourke thinks peace kills, how about he have to deal with his family being killed in a bombing strike and he lose his arms and legs like some U.S. soldiers have had to face? What would he have to say then? How much "fun" would that be? Usually, it seems that only a trauma like that could get a republican supporter to wake up from his political slumber since extremes seem to be the only thing conservatives understand.
Rating: 
Summary: When does Classic =cliche
Review: Have loved PJO since "RPR" was published in the 1989 but he is starting to become predictable . This will be the last PJ book I purchase without having a review of the contents first . A sad day , as the arrival of a new PJ O'rourke was something to relish .
Rating: 
Summary: This is the PJ we remember
Review: I own, or have at least read, nearly every book PJ O'Rourke has published, up to and including the original American Spectator "Enemies List." So it was disappointing to read "The CEO of the Sofa," which I considered a failed, if admirable, experiment. "Peace Kills," however, is much closer to the classic PJ his fans know and love, and a worthy successor to "Holidays in Hell" and "All the Trouble in the World."
Over the years, PJ's writing has come to rely less on the wisecrack and one-liner, and more on shrewd observation and memorable reporting. His chapters here on Israel and Egypt, especially, are both entertaining and insightful. But I've always thought PJ's greatest strength was his ability to see through and deflate the hypocrisy and BS of the Left. His brief chapter "Nobel Pretensions" and his reporting on Leftist demonstrations in Washington, D.C., are fine examples of this. (I have to note, though, that reporting on Leftist demonstrations in D.C. seems to be a staple of PJ's repertoire, and so this article may bear some similarities to ones you've seen before. But then, that's true of Leftist demonstrations, too.)
But PJ has more than one club in his golf bag, as his recounting of a trip to Iwo Jima shows. He can be funny, but he can also be moving, and sometimes almost poetic. And nearly always, of course, memorable and worth re-reading. This may not be PJ's Best Book Ever, but it's still a fine addition to the shelf. Fans will enjoy it, and people interesting in well-written and original viewpoints on the world's trouble spots will find it worth picking up.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I'd found 'Give War a Chance', 'Holiday's in Hell' and 'Eat the Rich' works of genius. Compared to his older work, this one is just sad. If you have any awareness of current events, then don't buy this book.
Rating:
Summary: Humorous Look at the World We Live In
Review: If you're looking for a knee-slapping, good time description of the world today, you should look somewhere else. Actually, I don't know where you could look, in light of the times. In any event, this is a funny, light and easy to read book that examines hot zones aroung the world with a lighter perspective. Oddly enough, the author makes quite a few valid points about the foundational aspects of conflict around the world. As Americans, it would be good for us to learn that we can't solve the world's problems with the fast-food approach that we find so satisfying to apply to other aspects of life. I especially enjoyed Mr. O'Rourke's descriptions of his interaction with common people in the Middle East, since it drives home the fact that most people just want to be left alone to make a decent living; without much regard for the politics of hatred that our leaders tend to focus upon.
Rating: 
Summary: Not His Best
Review: In this collection of essays, O'Rourke recounts his travels to such places as Iraq, Israel, and Egypt. As usual, he writes with a smirk and makes more than a few political jabs, but overall, this book is not as funny as most of O'Rourke's works. Probably the most entertaining essay is on the eclectic and often unintentionally ironic Washington, D.C. demonstrations. Overall, however, the book did not deliver the kind of high quality satire I have come to expect from O'Rourke. It was a quick and amusing read, to be sure, but it was one of his lesser books.
Rating:
Summary: Will you like it? Take this quick half-paragraph test.
Review: It's easy to find out if you'll like this book. Read the following half paragraph from the end of chapter one:
"But as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. When someone detonates a suicide bomb, that person does not have career prospects. And no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an air force."
If you think that's funny and on target, you'll like the book. If you fail to see the humor, or think he's off in the weeds on his opinions, try something else.
I've been reading P.J. since his early National Lampoon days, and I think this is as funny as anything he's done in a long time. It's certainly better than his last two efforts ("Eat the Rich" and "CEO of the Sofa"). It's more comparable to "Give War a Chance". I'm glad to see him regaining his edge.
Rating:
Summary: He seems blissful in his ignorance
Review: Mr. O'Rourke seems to have fallen into the same pitfall that has beset so many of his contemporaries and predecessors - he has begun to take himself seriously and even to believe that he knows what he is talking about. He has descended from the level of jaundiced, impartial observer to that of "pundit."
I detect more than a little thinly disguised pro-Israel, anti-Arab bias in some of his writings in this book. One example from page 107:
"But either way, the reality was that it had been almost thirty years since the last war between Egypt and Israel. Americans in my parents' generation were pretty mad at the Japs. They got over it. And by the 1970s they were driving Datsuns."
But how would the Americans have felt in the 1970s if the Japs were still occupying American land, expropriating American land on which to build settlements and branding any American who resisted a "terrorist?"
O'Rourke visits Israel, but doesn't seem to notice the daily sufferings of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. A lot more Egyptians remember the British-French-Israeli invasion of 1956 than do most ignorant Americans. And the Egyptians KNOW and remember who attacked who first in 1967.
In another place in his book, he even has Iraq invading Israel in 1967 and 1973. Casual ignorance or complicit myth-spinning? I don't know.
He used to be better.
|
