Thu - September 20, 2007
Can Hilary Make It?
Three years ago, during the last Presidential
election, I used to tell my die-hard Republican friends that if they didn't want
Hilary in 2008, they should elect Kerry in 2004.
Events may prove me right in that statement.
I'm no political analyst, and I really have no idea of her chances. But I think there are a few things going for her.
For one thing, she almost certainly masterminded Bill Clinton's bid for the White House and his 2-term tenure there. So that indicates, among other things, that she is one of the sharpest political minds of our time. It doesn't hurt that Bill himself is no slouch in that department (at least, when he's not chasing interns).
Second, I'm pretty sure that most people in this country are weary of Republican sleaze (I know I am!), and I'm betting that, barring any serious missteps on the part of the Democratic Party or the final nominee, a significant cross-over vote will propel the Democratic candidate into the White House. It's not a "can't miss," exactly, but it is a leg up. The Republican candidate will have to put as much distance between himself and the current White House as possible, and this will probably hobble him quite a bit.
Third, I think there is a nostalgia factor at work that favors Hilary. I'm sure many people remember the Clinton years fondly (in spite of "interngate") in contrast to what we're seeing now from our President and his band of rascals, and Hilary could use that to her advantage. Not overtly, but it could sure be telegraphed and suggested; many would respond to that.
Hilary is the most viable woman candidate ever to come on the scene, and the country may actually be ready for a woman president. So the timing is perhaps perfect.
Finally, if she gets the nod from the party, and particularly if she picks Obama as her running mate, she just may have an unbeatable team. Obama is probably every bit as astute as Hilary, and I'm pretty sure he is presidential timber in his own right, but he needs seasoning. Eight years as Veep would position him nicely for 2016.
I'm pretty sure it won't go the other way: Obama as candidate and Hilary as running mate. Should Obama be picked, I doubt he would ask her. But I doubt he'll beat her in the primaries in any case.
How do I feel about all this? I'm a lifelong Republican, but I'm about ready to switch, probably to independent. The Republicans have made their name and their party to stink. Even my die-hard friends, while not contemplating switching, have become a lot less vocal about their allegiance to the party. To them, Hilary is still Evil incarnate, probably. Not to me. I think I could vote for either her or Obama in the presidential race. Unless something unforeseen happens to change my thinking, I probably will.
It's early days yet. Front runners can and do fall by the wayside. But I think Hilary is tough-minded enough to make it out the other side.
It will be an interesting race to watch.
Events may prove me right in that statement.
I'm no political analyst, and I really have no idea of her chances. But I think there are a few things going for her.
For one thing, she almost certainly masterminded Bill Clinton's bid for the White House and his 2-term tenure there. So that indicates, among other things, that she is one of the sharpest political minds of our time. It doesn't hurt that Bill himself is no slouch in that department (at least, when he's not chasing interns).
Second, I'm pretty sure that most people in this country are weary of Republican sleaze (I know I am!), and I'm betting that, barring any serious missteps on the part of the Democratic Party or the final nominee, a significant cross-over vote will propel the Democratic candidate into the White House. It's not a "can't miss," exactly, but it is a leg up. The Republican candidate will have to put as much distance between himself and the current White House as possible, and this will probably hobble him quite a bit.
Third, I think there is a nostalgia factor at work that favors Hilary. I'm sure many people remember the Clinton years fondly (in spite of "interngate") in contrast to what we're seeing now from our President and his band of rascals, and Hilary could use that to her advantage. Not overtly, but it could sure be telegraphed and suggested; many would respond to that.
Hilary is the most viable woman candidate ever to come on the scene, and the country may actually be ready for a woman president. So the timing is perhaps perfect.
Finally, if she gets the nod from the party, and particularly if she picks Obama as her running mate, she just may have an unbeatable team. Obama is probably every bit as astute as Hilary, and I'm pretty sure he is presidential timber in his own right, but he needs seasoning. Eight years as Veep would position him nicely for 2016.
I'm pretty sure it won't go the other way: Obama as candidate and Hilary as running mate. Should Obama be picked, I doubt he would ask her. But I doubt he'll beat her in the primaries in any case.
How do I feel about all this? I'm a lifelong Republican, but I'm about ready to switch, probably to independent. The Republicans have made their name and their party to stink. Even my die-hard friends, while not contemplating switching, have become a lot less vocal about their allegiance to the party. To them, Hilary is still Evil incarnate, probably. Not to me. I think I could vote for either her or Obama in the presidential race. Unless something unforeseen happens to change my thinking, I probably will.
It's early days yet. Front runners can and do fall by the wayside. But I think Hilary is tough-minded enough to make it out the other side.
It will be an interesting race to watch.
Posted at 09:48 PM
Sun - September 16, 2007
Books and Authors
A favorite podcaster of mine recently did a
segment on his favorite books (some of which I share, by the way). That got me
thinking about what my favorites are and why.
One criterion for a favorite book for me is: is it a book I read again and again? That is: is the story so compelling or deep or gripping or ineffable that one reading won't do? Maybe even two or three won't do, for that matter. If the answer to that question is yes, then the book is undoubtedly qualified to be on my favorites list. So here is my list at the moment (it can change; not that any of these will ever be knocked off, but others may be added occasionally). A lot of these will be multiple books, as in a trilogy or series. But they form one story. (Note, the first two are all-time faves of mine and are at the top of the list deliberately, but after that, there is no particular order.)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (I consider this one of the great pieces of English literature, in fact)
Harry Potter Series (Now that the final book is out and we know the outcome, can anyone doubt this is also a great piece of literature?)
The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis (although it is couched as a children's story, it actually is an amazing work of Christian theology)
Jumper, by Steven Gould (a wonderful story of a boy who finds he is able to teleport instantly to any place he's been and can remember sufficiently. The sequel, Reflex, is also good, but doesn't quite yet make my faves list.)
The Poldark series by Winston Graham (now running to 13 volumes, this story of a small-gentry cornishman with mining interests remains a compelling and wonderful work of fiction. Both of my sons were named after characters in this series, so it clearly makes the favorite list. Fortunately for me, I had no daughters, because the feminine names in the story, while fine names, just would not go well with my last name...)
Cryptonomicon, by Neil Stevenson (a wonderful read that spans over half a century and encompasses an amazing cast of characters. Hard to pin down what it's about, but the theme is the importance of cryptography in the past and the near future. It has a couple of the funniest passages I've ever read. Other books by Stevenson, notably the Baroque Cycle, a trilogy running to almost 3000 pages, may someday make the list, but I've so far only read it once, so it doesn't quite make the cut. But it's probably only a matter of time).
The Honor Harrington Series by David Weber (I debated about this; there is no doubt that it would eventually qualify in any case, but the fact I read the entire series twice within about four months puts it over the edge. Weber is a science fiction author writing here in the "space opera" subgenre, and doing it brilliantly. I wrote previously about Weber and Honor Harrington, so see that piece for more info.)
The Outlander Series by Diana Gabaldon (This story of a time-traveling woman is at once fantasy and romance series, with a huge dollop of history and just plain fun.)
What about favorite authors? Well, obviously every one of the authors of the above works clearly qualifies, but in addition, I have a number of other authors that I watch for books from and pretty much buy and read without much second thought. I might (or might not) re-read any or all of their works, but I try not to miss anything by them. Most of them are mystery writers or else writer of thrillers. There are a few science fiction writers there also.
Robert A. Heinlein (probably the father of modern science fiction. In particular, "Citizen of the Galaxy" stands out as one of the most compelling of his "juvenile" books, but it's hard to pinpoint any single favorite. He was groundbreaking in virtually every book he wrote over a 50+ year career. The unfortunate exception was "I Will Fear No Evil," which should probably be avoided. Don't say I didn't warn you! But everything else is pretty fine.)
J. A. Jance (I love both the Beaumont and Brady series; not so crazy about the Walker Family series)
Elizabeth George (extremely erudite mystery writer, although her latest book is a bit of a bummer and I couldn't finish it. I do hope for better from her next time, so I'm not giving up!)
Lee Child (His Reacher books are simply amazing, and he knocks them out at a prodigious rate. An intelligent thriller series).
Sue Grafton (The alphabet series and protagonist Kinsey Milhone is pure gold. Next book is 'T', and is out in December; I can't wait!)
Nelson DeMille (absolutely amazing thriller writer and a cut above just about everybody else in the field)
Thomas Perry (another really compelling thriller writer. His Jane Whitefield series is, sadly, only five books long, but his stand-alones are also very good. And he promises more of Jane Whitefield eventually.)
John Sandford (This is a pseudonym, apparently. His Prey series is very good, and the Kidd series also quite wonderful. A couple of standalones are fine but not great. But I buy anything in the Prey or Kidd series, so he makes the cut.)
Harlan Coben (Writes some astoundingly twisty thrillers with paradoxical mysteries at the center. I have avoided his basketball talent scout series so far and concentrated on his standalones, which are all quite good.)
Isaac Asimov (one of the "big three" of science fiction, the others being Heinlein and Arthur C. Clark. Asimov makes the cut because of the great range and reach of his ideas. Both the robot stories and the Foundation stories resonate and echo in science fiction to this day. Asimov usually didn't show much emotional depth in his storytelling, but the above mentioned stories showed wonderful flashes of depth.)
David Baldacci (Another quite good thriller writer who seems to be moving into a series now. All of his books have been standalones until "The Collector", which followed "Camel Club" and included the same characters as protagonists. And ended with an obvious setup for a sequel.)
David Weber (makes both lists because virtually every non-Honor Harrington book he writes is eagerly sought after by me. He is amazingly prolific and is juggling about four series at once. Some of those I haven't delved into yet, but everything of his I've read I've liked and wanted more of. Weber is notable in that he works with a band of like-minded authors and co-authors many books with them. it's almost an author's guild, where collaborations abound. It will be interesting to watch this phenomenon in the future.)
I'm sure this list is not complete. But I have to wrap this up. Anything else I think of I will add in a later post.
One criterion for a favorite book for me is: is it a book I read again and again? That is: is the story so compelling or deep or gripping or ineffable that one reading won't do? Maybe even two or three won't do, for that matter. If the answer to that question is yes, then the book is undoubtedly qualified to be on my favorites list. So here is my list at the moment (it can change; not that any of these will ever be knocked off, but others may be added occasionally). A lot of these will be multiple books, as in a trilogy or series. But they form one story. (Note, the first two are all-time faves of mine and are at the top of the list deliberately, but after that, there is no particular order.)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (I consider this one of the great pieces of English literature, in fact)
Harry Potter Series (Now that the final book is out and we know the outcome, can anyone doubt this is also a great piece of literature?)
The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis (although it is couched as a children's story, it actually is an amazing work of Christian theology)
Jumper, by Steven Gould (a wonderful story of a boy who finds he is able to teleport instantly to any place he's been and can remember sufficiently. The sequel, Reflex, is also good, but doesn't quite yet make my faves list.)
The Poldark series by Winston Graham (now running to 13 volumes, this story of a small-gentry cornishman with mining interests remains a compelling and wonderful work of fiction. Both of my sons were named after characters in this series, so it clearly makes the favorite list. Fortunately for me, I had no daughters, because the feminine names in the story, while fine names, just would not go well with my last name...)
Cryptonomicon, by Neil Stevenson (a wonderful read that spans over half a century and encompasses an amazing cast of characters. Hard to pin down what it's about, but the theme is the importance of cryptography in the past and the near future. It has a couple of the funniest passages I've ever read. Other books by Stevenson, notably the Baroque Cycle, a trilogy running to almost 3000 pages, may someday make the list, but I've so far only read it once, so it doesn't quite make the cut. But it's probably only a matter of time).
The Honor Harrington Series by David Weber (I debated about this; there is no doubt that it would eventually qualify in any case, but the fact I read the entire series twice within about four months puts it over the edge. Weber is a science fiction author writing here in the "space opera" subgenre, and doing it brilliantly. I wrote previously about Weber and Honor Harrington, so see that piece for more info.)
The Outlander Series by Diana Gabaldon (This story of a time-traveling woman is at once fantasy and romance series, with a huge dollop of history and just plain fun.)
What about favorite authors? Well, obviously every one of the authors of the above works clearly qualifies, but in addition, I have a number of other authors that I watch for books from and pretty much buy and read without much second thought. I might (or might not) re-read any or all of their works, but I try not to miss anything by them. Most of them are mystery writers or else writer of thrillers. There are a few science fiction writers there also.
Robert A. Heinlein (probably the father of modern science fiction. In particular, "Citizen of the Galaxy" stands out as one of the most compelling of his "juvenile" books, but it's hard to pinpoint any single favorite. He was groundbreaking in virtually every book he wrote over a 50+ year career. The unfortunate exception was "I Will Fear No Evil," which should probably be avoided. Don't say I didn't warn you! But everything else is pretty fine.)
J. A. Jance (I love both the Beaumont and Brady series; not so crazy about the Walker Family series)
Elizabeth George (extremely erudite mystery writer, although her latest book is a bit of a bummer and I couldn't finish it. I do hope for better from her next time, so I'm not giving up!)
Lee Child (His Reacher books are simply amazing, and he knocks them out at a prodigious rate. An intelligent thriller series).
Sue Grafton (The alphabet series and protagonist Kinsey Milhone is pure gold. Next book is 'T', and is out in December; I can't wait!)
Nelson DeMille (absolutely amazing thriller writer and a cut above just about everybody else in the field)
Thomas Perry (another really compelling thriller writer. His Jane Whitefield series is, sadly, only five books long, but his stand-alones are also very good. And he promises more of Jane Whitefield eventually.)
John Sandford (This is a pseudonym, apparently. His Prey series is very good, and the Kidd series also quite wonderful. A couple of standalones are fine but not great. But I buy anything in the Prey or Kidd series, so he makes the cut.)
Harlan Coben (Writes some astoundingly twisty thrillers with paradoxical mysteries at the center. I have avoided his basketball talent scout series so far and concentrated on his standalones, which are all quite good.)
Isaac Asimov (one of the "big three" of science fiction, the others being Heinlein and Arthur C. Clark. Asimov makes the cut because of the great range and reach of his ideas. Both the robot stories and the Foundation stories resonate and echo in science fiction to this day. Asimov usually didn't show much emotional depth in his storytelling, but the above mentioned stories showed wonderful flashes of depth.)
David Baldacci (Another quite good thriller writer who seems to be moving into a series now. All of his books have been standalones until "The Collector", which followed "Camel Club" and included the same characters as protagonists. And ended with an obvious setup for a sequel.)
David Weber (makes both lists because virtually every non-Honor Harrington book he writes is eagerly sought after by me. He is amazingly prolific and is juggling about four series at once. Some of those I haven't delved into yet, but everything of his I've read I've liked and wanted more of. Weber is notable in that he works with a band of like-minded authors and co-authors many books with them. it's almost an author's guild, where collaborations abound. It will be interesting to watch this phenomenon in the future.)
I'm sure this list is not complete. But I have to wrap this up. Anything else I think of I will add in a later post.
Posted at 09:55 PM
Wed - July 25, 2007
Was I Right?
I received my copy of "Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows" on Saturday, July 21, about 11AM. I sat down to read it, and
finished about Sunday morning at 2:35 AM.
Wow! Just Wow! This book is certainly a worthy capper to the story, and just about everything I hoped for.
Now, there is no way I can talk about this without spoilers. If you don't want to be spoiled, STOP READING NOW! I'll put in a few line breaks to make it easy to avoid seeing any stuff you don't want to see. And if you haven't read the book already but are planning to, what on earth are you waiting around for?
OK, still with me? Good!
Allrighty. I see that my very last entry in this blog was in February, where I said that Harry was a type of Christ, and that therefore he would offer to die at Voldemort's hand to save his friends. And that he might or might not be resurrected, but that Harry's death would be the very thing that defeats Voldemort.
I think, on balance, that I got that part right. It sure didn't happen exactly as I imagined, but I would say it's so close that you might wonder whether I had an advance copy (I didn't, of course).
Somewhere between the last entry and the release of the book, I came across the idea that Harry himself was one of Voldemort's horcruxes. This is not my idea, I read it somewhere. But it made sense, and sure enough, that's exactly what transpired. In fact, it's the reason that Harry had to willingly offer himself to Voldemort, because that horcrux had to be destroyed. Irony most beautiful that Voldemort himself destroyed it! And fortunate for Harry that he didn't actually have to die at the same time (unless he wanted to).
Finally, Snape. What an absolutely wonderful outcome for that story! In my heart of hearts, I hoped that it would turn out that Snape was a "good guy" (although certainly damaged). But I have to say I didn't see how Rowling could bring that off. The end of book 6 (and even the beginning) seemed so unequivocal in portraying Snape as a traitor to Dumbledore that I admit I could see no way he could possibly be rehabilitated. But I was wrong (and I secretly hoped I was wrong). And I'm glad I was wrong. It was a perfectly stunning counterpoint to the main story.
If there is one criticism I have of the 7th book, it's this: I'm not sure that the epilogue really added that much to the story. I almost believe the story would be much stronger without the epilogue. But I might be wrong. I'm sure many people would prefer to see how Harry's later life played out.
In any case, it's a minor flaw, and not something that bothers me very much.
Rowling is a genius, and I will certainly be re-reading all 7 books many more times in the future.
Wow! Just Wow! This book is certainly a worthy capper to the story, and just about everything I hoped for.
Now, there is no way I can talk about this without spoilers. If you don't want to be spoiled, STOP READING NOW! I'll put in a few line breaks to make it easy to avoid seeing any stuff you don't want to see. And if you haven't read the book already but are planning to, what on earth are you waiting around for?
OK, still with me? Good!
Allrighty. I see that my very last entry in this blog was in February, where I said that Harry was a type of Christ, and that therefore he would offer to die at Voldemort's hand to save his friends. And that he might or might not be resurrected, but that Harry's death would be the very thing that defeats Voldemort.
I think, on balance, that I got that part right. It sure didn't happen exactly as I imagined, but I would say it's so close that you might wonder whether I had an advance copy (I didn't, of course).
Somewhere between the last entry and the release of the book, I came across the idea that Harry himself was one of Voldemort's horcruxes. This is not my idea, I read it somewhere. But it made sense, and sure enough, that's exactly what transpired. In fact, it's the reason that Harry had to willingly offer himself to Voldemort, because that horcrux had to be destroyed. Irony most beautiful that Voldemort himself destroyed it! And fortunate for Harry that he didn't actually have to die at the same time (unless he wanted to).
Finally, Snape. What an absolutely wonderful outcome for that story! In my heart of hearts, I hoped that it would turn out that Snape was a "good guy" (although certainly damaged). But I have to say I didn't see how Rowling could bring that off. The end of book 6 (and even the beginning) seemed so unequivocal in portraying Snape as a traitor to Dumbledore that I admit I could see no way he could possibly be rehabilitated. But I was wrong (and I secretly hoped I was wrong). And I'm glad I was wrong. It was a perfectly stunning counterpoint to the main story.
If there is one criticism I have of the 7th book, it's this: I'm not sure that the epilogue really added that much to the story. I almost believe the story would be much stronger without the epilogue. But I might be wrong. I'm sure many people would prefer to see how Harry's later life played out.
In any case, it's a minor flaw, and not something that bothers me very much.
Rowling is a genius, and I will certainly be re-reading all 7 books many more times in the future.
Posted at 10:10 PM Read More
Tue - February 13, 2007
Harry Potter as Type of Christ
So, the 7th Harry Potter book publication date
has been announced (July 21, 2007), and of course speculation is rife as to what
will happen in this final
installment.
As a Christian, I can't help noticing that in each of the first five books, Harry died (at least figuratively) and was "resurrected" each time. Each time, he was making a sacrifice either to uphold what in his mind was right or to save someone else. So it's not hard to see Harry as a stand-in for Christ, who died (and was subsequently resurrected) to save us all.
It's not as clear in the sixth book, but you might argue that he at least put his life on the line to save others. In any case, he came to grips with the notion that he was going to have to sacrifice any personal notion of a normal life in order to fulfill his destiny as the Boy Who Lived.
So we now come to the last book and the grand denouement of the series. While I claim no special knowledge of what will happen, I do have a guess I want to share. If you think reading this might spoil it for you, you should stop reading now.
Those of you who read the other books, and especially book 6 will remember that Harry at the end of that book finally started to come to grips with the fact that he had a mission to destroy Voldemort (and a personal vendetta against Snape), and the stakes were brought home to him particularly in the death of Dumbledore at the wand of Snape, whom Harry has never trusted. in any case.
Harry decides not to return to Hogwarts for his seventh year, but to devote himself to seeking out the remaining Horcruxes and destroying them, after which he will go after the remaining "soul" of Voldemort.
It's clear to me that Harry will not be alone in this quest. At the very least, Ron and Hermione will probably help (in fact, Dumbledore urged Harry to confide in them and seek their help). Probably some of the other members of the DA will also end up helping. In any case, I believe that Harry will die in the final battle with Voldemort. He will with this death, which will be a sacrifice to save one or more of his friends, finally defeat Voldemort, who will have no idea of the power of such a sacrifice of love will unleash against him, and Voldemort will finally himself die as a result.
It remains to be seen whether there will be a resurrection of Harry after this. I think this could go either way, but I suspect that he will really be dead and will not come back. On the other hand, the recurring theme of the Phoenix (a symbol of the resurrection) may indicate that Harry will be able to return from death triumphant over Voldemort.
Either way that goes, you can say that it's the final installment of Harry Potter as a Type of Christ.
I can hardly wait to find out whether I'm right...
As a Christian, I can't help noticing that in each of the first five books, Harry died (at least figuratively) and was "resurrected" each time. Each time, he was making a sacrifice either to uphold what in his mind was right or to save someone else. So it's not hard to see Harry as a stand-in for Christ, who died (and was subsequently resurrected) to save us all.
It's not as clear in the sixth book, but you might argue that he at least put his life on the line to save others. In any case, he came to grips with the notion that he was going to have to sacrifice any personal notion of a normal life in order to fulfill his destiny as the Boy Who Lived.
So we now come to the last book and the grand denouement of the series. While I claim no special knowledge of what will happen, I do have a guess I want to share. If you think reading this might spoil it for you, you should stop reading now.
Those of you who read the other books, and especially book 6 will remember that Harry at the end of that book finally started to come to grips with the fact that he had a mission to destroy Voldemort (and a personal vendetta against Snape), and the stakes were brought home to him particularly in the death of Dumbledore at the wand of Snape, whom Harry has never trusted. in any case.
Harry decides not to return to Hogwarts for his seventh year, but to devote himself to seeking out the remaining Horcruxes and destroying them, after which he will go after the remaining "soul" of Voldemort.
It's clear to me that Harry will not be alone in this quest. At the very least, Ron and Hermione will probably help (in fact, Dumbledore urged Harry to confide in them and seek their help). Probably some of the other members of the DA will also end up helping. In any case, I believe that Harry will die in the final battle with Voldemort. He will with this death, which will be a sacrifice to save one or more of his friends, finally defeat Voldemort, who will have no idea of the power of such a sacrifice of love will unleash against him, and Voldemort will finally himself die as a result.
It remains to be seen whether there will be a resurrection of Harry after this. I think this could go either way, but I suspect that he will really be dead and will not come back. On the other hand, the recurring theme of the Phoenix (a symbol of the resurrection) may indicate that Harry will be able to return from death triumphant over Voldemort.
Either way that goes, you can say that it's the final installment of Harry Potter as a Type of Christ.
I can hardly wait to find out whether I'm right...
Posted at 09:15 PM
Sat - January 6, 2007
For Your inconvenience...
Ever notice that whenever a company you do
business with says that they are doing (or not doing) something for your
convenience, it's usually not that
convenient.
Just another lie, like "the check is in the mail."
Just another lie, like "the check is in the mail."
Posted at 07:16 AM
Sat - November 25, 2006
Honor
I've been reading the Honor Harrington series of
books by David Weber, and I've really been loving them. Weber has crafted a
galaxy full of heroes and villains (and it's often surprising which is which).
I'm a longtime science fiction fan, and very much a fan of the subgenre known as
"space opera." Weber has laid claim to this subgenre and made it uniquely his
own private turf. Not only are the characters at once believable yet larger than
life, but Weber's grasp of politics, military history, military strategy and
tactics (and extrapolation of same into space naval battles) is nothing short of
brilliant. His writing is entertaining and also thought provoking. And the
stories he tells are gripping indeed. In fact, I stayed up till about 2:30 one
morning trying to finish one of the novels because I couldn't bear to put it
down (and couldn't sleep anyway when I
tried).
The eponymous heroine of the series is Honor Stephanie Harrington, a citizen of the Star Kingdom of Manticore and a space naval officer in Her Majesty's Navy. Manticore is a "Kingdom" ruled by a Queen and consisting of three habitable planets orbiting a binary star. The kingdom is rich out of proportion to its size owing to its free-trade capitalism, constitutional monarchy, and control of an important "wormhole" junction that forms the major trade route between Manticore and other star nations.
One incredibly refreshing circumstance of the series is that Honor is a woman, and that many of the naval officers are women. There is no "glass ceiling" in Manticore, and virtually no racial prejudice of any kind (except in some circles: there is an aristocracy in Manticore who have a tendency to feel superior to others). In fact, the Queen (named Elizabeth) is black. Early settlers of Manticore were drawn from a broad genetic mix of humanity, and the CEO (Roger Winton) of the colonial corporation was black. Events conspired to move the early colony toward a constitutional monarchy, and Roger Winton became the King, and his descendents ruled in an unbroken line for several generations up to the time of these stories. An interesting twist to the constitutional monarchy business is the constitutional requirement that the ruler marry a "commoner," which is clearly a way to insure that the ruler will always have sympathy with her non-aristocratic subjects, and also (not so incidentally) to avoid the inbreeding of the ruling families of European history.
Honor Harrington has just been promoted to Captain in the opening book of the series (On Basilisk Station), and ordered to Basilisk, and outpost solar system that Manticore laid claim to during the reign of Elizabeth's father (another Roger Winton). The rank is provisional; there is an evaluation that will result in her either becoming a "captain of the list," which sets her up for promotion to higher ranks, or else forever to be a captain of smaller vessels incapable of travel outside a star system. Of course, I won't give away how she does with this assignment, except to mention that, as there are at least 10 books following this first one, you can be sure she has an interesting career. Not always fun, safe, or comfortable, but certainly interesting.
Honor is the daughter of two doctors (her father was a naval physician, since retired to private practice), but set her heart early on a naval career. She is described as tall, severely beautiful (though she doesn't think so), with an oval face. She is brainy but has trouble with math, a brilliant tactician, and a black belt in a martial art call coup de vitesse. Also she is an expert marksman with both pulser guns and the antique chemical weapons, an expert swordswoman and therefore someone you don't want to get on the wrong side of.
One other circumstance of Honor Harrington's life: she has been "adopted" by a treecat, a six-limbed creature native to Sphinx (Honor's birth planet). As the name suggests, a treecat is somewhat feline, though evidently somewhat larger than our domestic cats on Earth. Adoptions between 'cats and humans are rare, but widespread enough that the adoption bond is sanctioned by law on Manticore and tolerated even in the Navy. The adoption bond is little understood by most citizens of Manticore, but confers on the adoptee some ability to read emotions of people around him or her. This is because treecats appear to be able to read emotions and transmit them to their adopted persons. The nature of the adoption bond is such that the treecat leaves his tribe and stays with his person, and a treecat whose person dies usually end up suiciding, even though the treecat's normal lifespan is two or three times longer than a human's (at least before the advent of "prolong," a medical technique of slowing the aging process, thus giving humans a three century lifespan). A human whose treecat dies usually doesn't suicide, but certainly has difficulty adjusting to the loss.
A couple of interesting points about language in the books. Whenever a female naval officer is speaking of another officer of unknown gender (as in the captain of an adversarial vessel), the gender pronouns used are "she" and "her," while when a male is speaking, he will use "he" and "him." As far as I can tell, Weber uses this device throughout the series. It's an interesting subtlety of language, and I can only presume that Weber's intention is to indicate a change in language usage to the choice of pronouns for an unknown person to be based on the gender of the speaker.
Another point that grates on me is Weber's almost universal insistence that he use the word "less" when he means "fewer." I counted only one time in all the books of his I read where he used "fewer" when it was called for. But he's otherwise such a good writer and yarn-spinner that I can forgive him this minor lapse.
The books are (I'm told; I don't know this firsthand) modeled after the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forrester. The war between Manticore and Haven is loosely modeled on the Napoleonic wars, with Manticore obviously a stand-in for England and Haven for France. An interesting bit of self-referential whimsy occurs at one point in one of the novels when Honor discovers the Hornblower books and finds she enjoys them immensely.
Weber is an exceedingly prolific writer. There are 11 books (so far) in the main series, and another four books of short stories by Weber and other military SF writers in the "Honorverse." Also there are two other "Honorverse" novels that take place in the same era and space as the Honor stories, but involve characters peripheral to the main series.
I hope there are more to come. They are simply delightful, and Honor is an amazingly compelling character.
More on Weber and Honor Harrington can be found in the Wikipedia article on David Weber.
The eponymous heroine of the series is Honor Stephanie Harrington, a citizen of the Star Kingdom of Manticore and a space naval officer in Her Majesty's Navy. Manticore is a "Kingdom" ruled by a Queen and consisting of three habitable planets orbiting a binary star. The kingdom is rich out of proportion to its size owing to its free-trade capitalism, constitutional monarchy, and control of an important "wormhole" junction that forms the major trade route between Manticore and other star nations.
One incredibly refreshing circumstance of the series is that Honor is a woman, and that many of the naval officers are women. There is no "glass ceiling" in Manticore, and virtually no racial prejudice of any kind (except in some circles: there is an aristocracy in Manticore who have a tendency to feel superior to others). In fact, the Queen (named Elizabeth) is black. Early settlers of Manticore were drawn from a broad genetic mix of humanity, and the CEO (Roger Winton) of the colonial corporation was black. Events conspired to move the early colony toward a constitutional monarchy, and Roger Winton became the King, and his descendents ruled in an unbroken line for several generations up to the time of these stories. An interesting twist to the constitutional monarchy business is the constitutional requirement that the ruler marry a "commoner," which is clearly a way to insure that the ruler will always have sympathy with her non-aristocratic subjects, and also (not so incidentally) to avoid the inbreeding of the ruling families of European history.
Honor Harrington has just been promoted to Captain in the opening book of the series (On Basilisk Station), and ordered to Basilisk, and outpost solar system that Manticore laid claim to during the reign of Elizabeth's father (another Roger Winton). The rank is provisional; there is an evaluation that will result in her either becoming a "captain of the list," which sets her up for promotion to higher ranks, or else forever to be a captain of smaller vessels incapable of travel outside a star system. Of course, I won't give away how she does with this assignment, except to mention that, as there are at least 10 books following this first one, you can be sure she has an interesting career. Not always fun, safe, or comfortable, but certainly interesting.
Honor is the daughter of two doctors (her father was a naval physician, since retired to private practice), but set her heart early on a naval career. She is described as tall, severely beautiful (though she doesn't think so), with an oval face. She is brainy but has trouble with math, a brilliant tactician, and a black belt in a martial art call coup de vitesse. Also she is an expert marksman with both pulser guns and the antique chemical weapons, an expert swordswoman and therefore someone you don't want to get on the wrong side of.
One other circumstance of Honor Harrington's life: she has been "adopted" by a treecat, a six-limbed creature native to Sphinx (Honor's birth planet). As the name suggests, a treecat is somewhat feline, though evidently somewhat larger than our domestic cats on Earth. Adoptions between 'cats and humans are rare, but widespread enough that the adoption bond is sanctioned by law on Manticore and tolerated even in the Navy. The adoption bond is little understood by most citizens of Manticore, but confers on the adoptee some ability to read emotions of people around him or her. This is because treecats appear to be able to read emotions and transmit them to their adopted persons. The nature of the adoption bond is such that the treecat leaves his tribe and stays with his person, and a treecat whose person dies usually end up suiciding, even though the treecat's normal lifespan is two or three times longer than a human's (at least before the advent of "prolong," a medical technique of slowing the aging process, thus giving humans a three century lifespan). A human whose treecat dies usually doesn't suicide, but certainly has difficulty adjusting to the loss.
A couple of interesting points about language in the books. Whenever a female naval officer is speaking of another officer of unknown gender (as in the captain of an adversarial vessel), the gender pronouns used are "she" and "her," while when a male is speaking, he will use "he" and "him." As far as I can tell, Weber uses this device throughout the series. It's an interesting subtlety of language, and I can only presume that Weber's intention is to indicate a change in language usage to the choice of pronouns for an unknown person to be based on the gender of the speaker.
Another point that grates on me is Weber's almost universal insistence that he use the word "less" when he means "fewer." I counted only one time in all the books of his I read where he used "fewer" when it was called for. But he's otherwise such a good writer and yarn-spinner that I can forgive him this minor lapse.
The books are (I'm told; I don't know this firsthand) modeled after the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forrester. The war between Manticore and Haven is loosely modeled on the Napoleonic wars, with Manticore obviously a stand-in for England and Haven for France. An interesting bit of self-referential whimsy occurs at one point in one of the novels when Honor discovers the Hornblower books and finds she enjoys them immensely.
Weber is an exceedingly prolific writer. There are 11 books (so far) in the main series, and another four books of short stories by Weber and other military SF writers in the "Honorverse." Also there are two other "Honorverse" novels that take place in the same era and space as the Honor stories, but involve characters peripheral to the main series.
I hope there are more to come. They are simply delightful, and Honor is an amazingly compelling character.
More on Weber and Honor Harrington can be found in the Wikipedia article on David Weber.
Posted at 09:56 PM
Thu - November 23, 2006
The God Question
Earlier this month, Time Magazine ran a cover
story entitled "God vs.
Science." The story featured a debate
between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, with Dawkins arguing against the
"God hypothesis" and Collins for.
This topic has been in the news more than usual lately. Dawkins recently published a new book, The God Delusion," which shows why he thinks God does not exist, and why religion has been a deleterious influence throughout human history. Also recently published is a book by Daniel Dennett entitled "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." Obviously, this book also comes down on the side of "no God." Finally, there is the recently published book by Christian Geneticist Francis Collins, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." I've only read the last of these three books so far (I'm still deciding whether to read Dawkins' or Dennett's books), but I have read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins, and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"" by Dennett, so I suppose I have some notion of where both of these men stand on this question.
As someone trained in physics (though not currently a practicing physicist) and as a Christian, I am of course very interested in this debate, and definitely excited by Collins' book and his advocacy for Christian belief while also understanding and practicing science. One of the most exciting notions set forth by Collins is that he believes in God (and in fact appears to be an Evangelical Christian), while also accepting the "theory" of evolution. This is a rare combination, especially in the US, and exciting to me because I have long thought that evolution is the best explanation we have for the origin of species, while also believing in God. In Evangelical circles, that's a pretty lonely position to be in, and so I'm delighted to find support for that position by one of the nation's premier scientists. I will have more to say about this conflict in a later post.
For now, I want to say why I believe the atheists are wrong. My argument owes a lot to Collins, and in turn to C.S. Lewis. If you don't want to be convinced, of course nothing I write (or that Collins or Lewis writes) will be able to convince you. That's exactly the nature of the problem, because it's an exercise in faith. I will only say that I think the atheistic position takes as much faith as the theistic one, and probably the atheists have to explain away more evidence than the theists do.
It comes down to this: each of us has, inside us, a notion of right and wrong. Although we are all self-centered, we are uncomfortable with that fact, and most of us want to be known for being generous and able to think of others. Now, I grant that many humans are monumentally selfish and appear to have no qualms about it. But the fact that the rest of us looking on think that the behavior of these individuals is despicable just proves the point I'm trying to make here: that humans have an inborn sense of right and wrong, and we are often uncomfortable with our bad behavior, especially if it is exposed.
Where does this sense come from? The atheists would have you believe that it's taught to us by our parents or by our culture. I grant you that many aspects of behavior are taught (or not), but I still think that there is something innate in us that is there to be taught. The thing is: this notion appears to be universal across cultures and throughout history.
I think this ability to be ashamed of our bad behavior is a signpost that points us to the existence of the Moral Law, and to the Lawgiver Himself. Atheists strain to find a way to explain this moral sense by evolutionary principles, but those explanations only go so far, and it turns out to be simpler (in the Occam's razor sense) to ascribe this sense to a Creator.
I'm not very eloquent in my argument, I'm afraid. Read the Time article, where (I think) Collins demolishes Dawkins even though Dawkins gets the last word. Better yet, read Collins' book, which is just about the most complete explanation of how belief in God makes sense and how such belief can coexist with acceptance of evolutionary theory. If you must, read the books by Dawkins and Dennett, but bear in mind that they are not automatically right because they argue from a scientific point of view. The fact is, science is great at finding explanations for physical phenomena, but it absolutely stinks at answering the big question of why we are here.
This topic has been in the news more than usual lately. Dawkins recently published a new book, The God Delusion," which shows why he thinks God does not exist, and why religion has been a deleterious influence throughout human history. Also recently published is a book by Daniel Dennett entitled "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." Obviously, this book also comes down on the side of "no God." Finally, there is the recently published book by Christian Geneticist Francis Collins, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." I've only read the last of these three books so far (I'm still deciding whether to read Dawkins' or Dennett's books), but I have read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins, and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"" by Dennett, so I suppose I have some notion of where both of these men stand on this question.
As someone trained in physics (though not currently a practicing physicist) and as a Christian, I am of course very interested in this debate, and definitely excited by Collins' book and his advocacy for Christian belief while also understanding and practicing science. One of the most exciting notions set forth by Collins is that he believes in God (and in fact appears to be an Evangelical Christian), while also accepting the "theory" of evolution. This is a rare combination, especially in the US, and exciting to me because I have long thought that evolution is the best explanation we have for the origin of species, while also believing in God. In Evangelical circles, that's a pretty lonely position to be in, and so I'm delighted to find support for that position by one of the nation's premier scientists. I will have more to say about this conflict in a later post.
For now, I want to say why I believe the atheists are wrong. My argument owes a lot to Collins, and in turn to C.S. Lewis. If you don't want to be convinced, of course nothing I write (or that Collins or Lewis writes) will be able to convince you. That's exactly the nature of the problem, because it's an exercise in faith. I will only say that I think the atheistic position takes as much faith as the theistic one, and probably the atheists have to explain away more evidence than the theists do.
It comes down to this: each of us has, inside us, a notion of right and wrong. Although we are all self-centered, we are uncomfortable with that fact, and most of us want to be known for being generous and able to think of others. Now, I grant that many humans are monumentally selfish and appear to have no qualms about it. But the fact that the rest of us looking on think that the behavior of these individuals is despicable just proves the point I'm trying to make here: that humans have an inborn sense of right and wrong, and we are often uncomfortable with our bad behavior, especially if it is exposed.
Where does this sense come from? The atheists would have you believe that it's taught to us by our parents or by our culture. I grant you that many aspects of behavior are taught (or not), but I still think that there is something innate in us that is there to be taught. The thing is: this notion appears to be universal across cultures and throughout history.
I think this ability to be ashamed of our bad behavior is a signpost that points us to the existence of the Moral Law, and to the Lawgiver Himself. Atheists strain to find a way to explain this moral sense by evolutionary principles, but those explanations only go so far, and it turns out to be simpler (in the Occam's razor sense) to ascribe this sense to a Creator.
I'm not very eloquent in my argument, I'm afraid. Read the Time article, where (I think) Collins demolishes Dawkins even though Dawkins gets the last word. Better yet, read Collins' book, which is just about the most complete explanation of how belief in God makes sense and how such belief can coexist with acceptance of evolutionary theory. If you must, read the books by Dawkins and Dennett, but bear in mind that they are not automatically right because they argue from a scientific point of view. The fact is, science is great at finding explanations for physical phenomena, but it absolutely stinks at answering the big question of why we are here.
Posted at 12:16 PM Read More
Sun - November 19, 2006
IF I did it...
OJ Simpson is back in the news. He's published a
book entitled "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened." Reportedly, the book has
earned him $3.5 million already.
My take on this: we already strongly suspected that he did it and that his acquittal was the worst form of miscarriage of justice. All this book does is confirm, for those with any lingering doubts, that he indeed did it.
The book and the Fox TV show is (how can I put this delicately in this family-friendly blog?) OJ flipping the bird to the entire American public. Buy and read this book if you want, but I won't be doing so.
The more honest title would have been: I Did It, and Here's How It Happened.
Update: the book has been canceled, as has the Fox News TV show featuring Simpson. Evidently the negative publicity was too much for advertisers. Also: Simpson has to give back the $3.5 million advance on the book. Apparently, some things are still too sleazy for Fox (which is a good thing...)
My take on this: we already strongly suspected that he did it and that his acquittal was the worst form of miscarriage of justice. All this book does is confirm, for those with any lingering doubts, that he indeed did it.
The book and the Fox TV show is (how can I put this delicately in this family-friendly blog?) OJ flipping the bird to the entire American public. Buy and read this book if you want, but I won't be doing so.
The more honest title would have been: I Did It, and Here's How It Happened.
Update: the book has been canceled, as has the Fox News TV show featuring Simpson. Evidently the negative publicity was too much for advertisers. Also: Simpson has to give back the $3.5 million advance on the book. Apparently, some things are still too sleazy for Fox (which is a good thing...)
Posted at 08:36 AM
Wed - November 8, 2006
Republicans get spanked
...and it's about
time.
Evidently, they've lost both the House and the Senate, and Rumsfield is out (finally!).
I wonder how many other heads are going to roll in the aftermath.
It's probably too early to start hoping that some of the more egregious laws and policies put in place by the Repubs are going to be reversed, but I hope (at least) that Bush and company might be called to account for some of the excesses.
And, finally: I have to ask: what did the Republicans expect? That they never would have to answer for the hubris they've displayed in the last 6 years? The only question was going to be whether it would be in this election or the next (or the one after that, perhaps?). The eventual reckoning, however, was inevitable.
Evidently, they've lost both the House and the Senate, and Rumsfield is out (finally!).
I wonder how many other heads are going to roll in the aftermath.
It's probably too early to start hoping that some of the more egregious laws and policies put in place by the Repubs are going to be reversed, but I hope (at least) that Bush and company might be called to account for some of the excesses.
And, finally: I have to ask: what did the Republicans expect? That they never would have to answer for the hubris they've displayed in the last 6 years? The only question was going to be whether it would be in this election or the next (or the one after that, perhaps?). The eventual reckoning, however, was inevitable.
Posted at 08:19 PM
Wed - October 11, 2006
As if we don't already have enough to worry about on the road...
The San Jose Mercury News is reporting
today that drivers using cell phones is the least of our worries. There is a
significant rise in the number of drivers who are using Blackberrys and instant
messaging on the road while
driving.
It's dangerous out there..
It's dangerous out there..
Posted at 06:57 AM
Sat - September 30, 2006
Trash
Has anyone else noticed this? Nearly every time I
go to the grocery store, just about every cart has trash left in it from the
previous user.
I don't mind the paper (leftover ads, etc.) But it really gets disgusting when it's clearly discards of something that someone else has clearly eaten from.
There sure are a lot of people here in California whose mothers never taught them to throw their own trash away.
I don't mind the paper (leftover ads, etc.) But it really gets disgusting when it's clearly discards of something that someone else has clearly eaten from.
There sure are a lot of people here in California whose mothers never taught them to throw their own trash away.
Posted at 09:23 PM
Thu - August 24, 2006
Pluto Demoted
All over the internet lately is the news that
astronomers have decided that Pluto, long known as the ninth planet of our Solar
System, is not really a planet, but only an
asteroid.
I was interested in astronomy at an early age, and learn about the Solar System probably as soon as I could read. So, after almost 50 years of believing that our Solar System has nine planets, it's a bit of a wrench to have to change my thinking to eight planets.
By the way: whatever became of planet X (the supposed tenth planet)? Oh, well, apparently everything beyond Neptune's orbit is just assorted rocks; no planets there...
I was interested in astronomy at an early age, and learn about the Solar System probably as soon as I could read. So, after almost 50 years of believing that our Solar System has nine planets, it's a bit of a wrench to have to change my thinking to eight planets.
By the way: whatever became of planet X (the supposed tenth planet)? Oh, well, apparently everything beyond Neptune's orbit is just assorted rocks; no planets there...
Posted at 09:48 PM
Sun - May 21, 2006
My New Ride...
I took delivery on a new Prius last Friday.
So far, I've driven it about 50 miles, and am getting about 45 mpg. That is 3 times the mileage I get in my Jeep Grand Cherokee. So I think I'm going to be happy with the performance.
It's a cool looking car with lots of high tech features, just the car for a gadget freak like me. I think I'm going to love this car.
So far, I've driven it about 50 miles, and am getting about 45 mpg. That is 3 times the mileage I get in my Jeep Grand Cherokee. So I think I'm going to be happy with the performance.
It's a cool looking car with lots of high tech features, just the car for a gadget freak like me. I think I'm going to love this car.
Posted at 08:44 AM
Fri - May 19, 2006
Da Vinci Code a Flop?
Review in San Jose Mercury News and a detailed
review by Fr. Roderick of the Catholic Insider (now Starquest Podcast Network)
seem to indicate that the movie is essentially the book with some pictures.
Seems to be very boring.
Posted at 11:00 PM
Mon - May 1, 2006
The Last Straw
Saturday, I went to get my weekly fill-up of gas.
My commute and the errands I do every week conspire to make this a weekly ritual
most of the time.
For the first time, the total was over $50. I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee; it has a 20 gallon tank and gets 15 MPG in commute driving. It gets about 21 on the open road, but I so seldom have it on the open road that, for all intents and purposes, I get 15 MPG.
I've been thinking for some time about getting a less gas-hungry car, and I've been interested in hybrids. A couple of friends have hybrids, and they seem to love them. In fact, I don't know anyone that has one that doesn't love the experience of owning it.
So the $50 fillup reinforced my decision to go test drive a Prius Saturday. I had to wait around a bit, but I got my chance to drive one, and I'm hooked. I paid a (refundable) deposit to get on the waiting list for one. I'm told that the list is about 100 people long, but that the wait should be between 1 and 2 months. I'm finding that wait to be difficult.
I was toying with the notion of keeping the Jeep for a spare car and for hauling large items as necessary. It has just under 100,000 miles on it and should be good for at least another 100,000, I'm told. But while the Jeep has been a fun car to drive, it's been a pain to maintain. In the 6.5 years I've had it, numerous items have gone wrong. Many of these were not covered even by the extended warranty (which, in any case, has now expired). For a while, it was $250 items that kept requiring attention. Lately they have become $500, $1000, and $2000 items. The machine is stable right now, and seems to be good, but I never know when the next thing will go out on it.
In contrast, the Camry my wife drives, which is an older car (about 9 years old as we speak) has had almost nothing substantial go wrong with it. I'm aware that a car that old may very well be ready to start showing signs of age and requiring repairs. On the other hand, it doesn't even have 70,000 miles on it yet, so I believe it has a lot of life left. It's the contrast between my experience with the Chrysler product and the Toyota that is telling.
So: I'm going to sell the Jeep when I get the Prius. It seems the only thing to do. I'm definitely lookiing forward to only having to gas up every other week, and only paying $35 for the fillup. Well, as long as prices stay at the current level, that is.
For the first time, the total was over $50. I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee; it has a 20 gallon tank and gets 15 MPG in commute driving. It gets about 21 on the open road, but I so seldom have it on the open road that, for all intents and purposes, I get 15 MPG.
I've been thinking for some time about getting a less gas-hungry car, and I've been interested in hybrids. A couple of friends have hybrids, and they seem to love them. In fact, I don't know anyone that has one that doesn't love the experience of owning it.
So the $50 fillup reinforced my decision to go test drive a Prius Saturday. I had to wait around a bit, but I got my chance to drive one, and I'm hooked. I paid a (refundable) deposit to get on the waiting list for one. I'm told that the list is about 100 people long, but that the wait should be between 1 and 2 months. I'm finding that wait to be difficult.
I was toying with the notion of keeping the Jeep for a spare car and for hauling large items as necessary. It has just under 100,000 miles on it and should be good for at least another 100,000, I'm told. But while the Jeep has been a fun car to drive, it's been a pain to maintain. In the 6.5 years I've had it, numerous items have gone wrong. Many of these were not covered even by the extended warranty (which, in any case, has now expired). For a while, it was $250 items that kept requiring attention. Lately they have become $500, $1000, and $2000 items. The machine is stable right now, and seems to be good, but I never know when the next thing will go out on it.
In contrast, the Camry my wife drives, which is an older car (about 9 years old as we speak) has had almost nothing substantial go wrong with it. I'm aware that a car that old may very well be ready to start showing signs of age and requiring repairs. On the other hand, it doesn't even have 70,000 miles on it yet, so I believe it has a lot of life left. It's the contrast between my experience with the Chrysler product and the Toyota that is telling.
So: I'm going to sell the Jeep when I get the Prius. It seems the only thing to do. I'm definitely lookiing forward to only having to gas up every other week, and only paying $35 for the fillup. Well, as long as prices stay at the current level, that is.
Posted at 08:04 PM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 20, 2007 09:56 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 20, 2007 09:56 PM