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
Sat - April 22, 2006
24
I am really behind the times, but last night I
finished watching season one of the hit TV show "24".
All I can say is "wow!" This show is a pure adrenaline rush, from start to finish. More twists than Lombard Street. And so addictive that one of my friends calls it "the crack cocaine of TV shows."
The premise is that the season, consisting of 24 episodes, shows 24 consecutive hours of a single day in real time. So there are no flashbacks. The action moves around among about 5 different character groups and transitions are often done by showing several of the situations in small windows on the screen and then cutting to one of them.
The situation is that a director cum field operator of the "Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU)" in Los Angeles, Jack Bauer, is targeted by a group of terrorists who want to assassinate a presidential candidate and pin the blame on Jack. In order to gain control of Jack, they kidnap his daughter and then his wife and hold them hostage. It becomes clear early on that someone in Jack's own organization is working on behalf of the terrorists, so Jack doesn't know whom he can trust.
The show is exquisitely plotted. The writing is taut and the acting is believable and gripping. The situation, while perhaps a bit contrived in some respects, is largely amenable to suspension of disbelief.
Not that it's perfect. Some of the twists are just a bit too overdone, like the main character who develops amnesia, and another main character who survives an accident in which she is in a car that rolls off an embankment and explodes. She is apparently thrown clear and has nothing more than a bump on her head. No concussion, broken bones, or even singe marks.
The show has become famous for killing off main characters. This seems to be a new trend, because "Lost" is doing it too, and perhaps other shows as well. Viewers do not have any assurance that any of the main characters (with the possible exception of Jack Bauer himself) will survive. This appears to add to the drama, of course. I had the misfortune of reading a spoiler one of the main characters who would die in the first season (I won't give it away here; if you really want to know, it's probably not hard to find out online somewhere).
The other thing to mention is that this is a violent show. The body count is high; I think at least someone is killed about every episode, and sometimes more than one. If you do not like graphic violence, this show will not be your cup of tea. The show is high drama, and the mysteries are both impenetrable and well thought out. It's an intriguing show. But gun battles and car wrecks and murders are the lingua franca of the show. Consider yourself warned.
I've got season 2 of 24 queued up on my Netflix account, right after season 1 of Alias, another show that I've had recommended.
All I can say is "wow!" This show is a pure adrenaline rush, from start to finish. More twists than Lombard Street. And so addictive that one of my friends calls it "the crack cocaine of TV shows."
The premise is that the season, consisting of 24 episodes, shows 24 consecutive hours of a single day in real time. So there are no flashbacks. The action moves around among about 5 different character groups and transitions are often done by showing several of the situations in small windows on the screen and then cutting to one of them.
The situation is that a director cum field operator of the "Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU)" in Los Angeles, Jack Bauer, is targeted by a group of terrorists who want to assassinate a presidential candidate and pin the blame on Jack. In order to gain control of Jack, they kidnap his daughter and then his wife and hold them hostage. It becomes clear early on that someone in Jack's own organization is working on behalf of the terrorists, so Jack doesn't know whom he can trust.
The show is exquisitely plotted. The writing is taut and the acting is believable and gripping. The situation, while perhaps a bit contrived in some respects, is largely amenable to suspension of disbelief.
Not that it's perfect. Some of the twists are just a bit too overdone, like the main character who develops amnesia, and another main character who survives an accident in which she is in a car that rolls off an embankment and explodes. She is apparently thrown clear and has nothing more than a bump on her head. No concussion, broken bones, or even singe marks.
The show has become famous for killing off main characters. This seems to be a new trend, because "Lost" is doing it too, and perhaps other shows as well. Viewers do not have any assurance that any of the main characters (with the possible exception of Jack Bauer himself) will survive. This appears to add to the drama, of course. I had the misfortune of reading a spoiler one of the main characters who would die in the first season (I won't give it away here; if you really want to know, it's probably not hard to find out online somewhere).
The other thing to mention is that this is a violent show. The body count is high; I think at least someone is killed about every episode, and sometimes more than one. If you do not like graphic violence, this show will not be your cup of tea. The show is high drama, and the mysteries are both impenetrable and well thought out. It's an intriguing show. But gun battles and car wrecks and murders are the lingua franca of the show. Consider yourself warned.
I've got season 2 of 24 queued up on my Netflix account, right after season 1 of Alias, another show that I've had recommended.
Posted at 12:40 PM
Sat - April 15, 2006
Lost in "Lost"
I've recently become a fan of the "Lost" TV show.
I watch it ad-free by downloading it from the iTunes Music (and TV)
Store.
This is an amazing show. The premise is that about 45 survivors of a plane crash wash up on the shores of a mysterious island, and while waiting to get rescued try to survive and explore the island.
It's pretty difficult to explain how this show works. There are numerous mysteries about the island. Where is it? Who are the "Others" (other inhabitants of the island whose purposes appear murky and who steal children and some adults from the survivor camp)? What is the purpose of the bunker the fuselage survivors found the first season? Why are some of the survivors apparently healed of otherwise incurable diseases? Who does the food drops and how? Why does it appear that there are so many direct connections among the survivors (many of them interacted before getting on the plane from Sydney)? What do the numbers mean?
If you haven't watched the show, most of these questions won't mean much. The big question is: how did the survivors survive a crash that should have killed them all instantly? There seems to be a purpose for them being brought to the island, but it's not clear what that purpose is, or whose it is.
Whatever the resolution to the mysteries, the show does work on a number of levels. It seems to be an almost perfect metaphor for the human condition. Many of the survivors arrive with huge loads of psychological baggage, and even though the island existence seems to give them another chance to get life right, few of them appear to take advantage. Some who appear to do so are: Eko, Rose, Locke, Hurley, Shannon, Boone, Jin. Some who seem to be unable to escape their past patterns are Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Sayid. The jury is still out on Charlie, Claire, Ana Lucia, Sun and Libby. (In fact, there is some evidence that Libby is one of the "Others" who has infiltrated the group; this is still to be confirmed or disproved, though).
Of course, the obvious level that the show works on is the simple story of a group of castaways that are trying to survive on a (mostly) deserted island long enough to get rescued. They cooperate in building a raft for 4 of the survivors to attempt to find help in the hope that the whole group will be rescued. This doesn't work, but it's a valiant effort. They mostly cooperate in gathering food and building shelter.
There are two main thrusts to the story. One is telling the story of some of the survivors in a series of flashbacks, so we get to see what kind of people they are and even what led to them getting on the Oceanic Flight 815 from Sydney to Los Angeles. The other thrust is the mysteries of the island itself, and how the survivors try to learn what is going on. These elements weave together into a fabric that is seamless. It keeps millions of viewers coming back for more, and numerous podcasts, blogs and forums have sprung up to discuss the show and ponder the mysteries. Just do a Google search on "Lost" and you will find them.
My favorite podcast about Lost is The Generally Speaking Lost Podcast. But there are others out there also, and they are all good (at least by reputation; I don't have time to listen to them all...).
The writers and producers of the show keep insisting that there is a non-fantastic explanation for everything that happens on the show. Many people have advanced various theories like time-travel, or that it's just the dying dream of one of the survivors. These and other theories have been debunked either directly by the writers themselves, and/or by internal evidence of the show itself. And in a couple of cases, some of the theories are directly addressed in the script, and dismissed. In particular, the recent episode "Dave" pretty thoroughly dismisses the notion that one of the characters is dreaming the whole thing. One of the theories advanced is that the characters have died and are in purgatory. Interesting idea, but not only does this theory not fit all the facts, the producers have said that that is not the explanation.
If it is a dream, it's a shared dream among a group of people who are able to interact with each other. One of the best theories I've heard is that the survivors are actually psychically linked in an unconscious state a la Matrix. I am not sure that fits all the facts we've seen, but it fits many more than the purgatory theory. The purpose might be therapy of some kind, and the "Others" are the therapists. People who "die" on the island are actually pulled from the therapy session by whoever is supervising it, either because they are cured (as in Shannon's or Boone's cases) or because they are not responding properly as in the cases of some of the survivors "taken" by the "Others".
I like this theory, but it does not fit everything we know either. There is Danielle Rousseau, for example, who doesn't seem to fit this theory. And, of course, it's a bit fantastic, as I know of no actual way this could happen with current technology. The producers are adamant that there is a simple non-fantastic explanation for everything.
It may take us years to find out the answer, though, since it appears that the show is popular enough to go on for several seasons. Already it appears that we are being prepped for the introduction of new characters for season 3 next Fall.
I just hope that the producers let us have the explanation before we get tired of waiting for it.
This is an amazing show. The premise is that about 45 survivors of a plane crash wash up on the shores of a mysterious island, and while waiting to get rescued try to survive and explore the island.
It's pretty difficult to explain how this show works. There are numerous mysteries about the island. Where is it? Who are the "Others" (other inhabitants of the island whose purposes appear murky and who steal children and some adults from the survivor camp)? What is the purpose of the bunker the fuselage survivors found the first season? Why are some of the survivors apparently healed of otherwise incurable diseases? Who does the food drops and how? Why does it appear that there are so many direct connections among the survivors (many of them interacted before getting on the plane from Sydney)? What do the numbers mean?
If you haven't watched the show, most of these questions won't mean much. The big question is: how did the survivors survive a crash that should have killed them all instantly? There seems to be a purpose for them being brought to the island, but it's not clear what that purpose is, or whose it is.
Whatever the resolution to the mysteries, the show does work on a number of levels. It seems to be an almost perfect metaphor for the human condition. Many of the survivors arrive with huge loads of psychological baggage, and even though the island existence seems to give them another chance to get life right, few of them appear to take advantage. Some who appear to do so are: Eko, Rose, Locke, Hurley, Shannon, Boone, Jin. Some who seem to be unable to escape their past patterns are Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Sayid. The jury is still out on Charlie, Claire, Ana Lucia, Sun and Libby. (In fact, there is some evidence that Libby is one of the "Others" who has infiltrated the group; this is still to be confirmed or disproved, though).
Of course, the obvious level that the show works on is the simple story of a group of castaways that are trying to survive on a (mostly) deserted island long enough to get rescued. They cooperate in building a raft for 4 of the survivors to attempt to find help in the hope that the whole group will be rescued. This doesn't work, but it's a valiant effort. They mostly cooperate in gathering food and building shelter.
There are two main thrusts to the story. One is telling the story of some of the survivors in a series of flashbacks, so we get to see what kind of people they are and even what led to them getting on the Oceanic Flight 815 from Sydney to Los Angeles. The other thrust is the mysteries of the island itself, and how the survivors try to learn what is going on. These elements weave together into a fabric that is seamless. It keeps millions of viewers coming back for more, and numerous podcasts, blogs and forums have sprung up to discuss the show and ponder the mysteries. Just do a Google search on "Lost" and you will find them.
My favorite podcast about Lost is The Generally Speaking Lost Podcast. But there are others out there also, and they are all good (at least by reputation; I don't have time to listen to them all...).
The writers and producers of the show keep insisting that there is a non-fantastic explanation for everything that happens on the show. Many people have advanced various theories like time-travel, or that it's just the dying dream of one of the survivors. These and other theories have been debunked either directly by the writers themselves, and/or by internal evidence of the show itself. And in a couple of cases, some of the theories are directly addressed in the script, and dismissed. In particular, the recent episode "Dave" pretty thoroughly dismisses the notion that one of the characters is dreaming the whole thing. One of the theories advanced is that the characters have died and are in purgatory. Interesting idea, but not only does this theory not fit all the facts, the producers have said that that is not the explanation.
If it is a dream, it's a shared dream among a group of people who are able to interact with each other. One of the best theories I've heard is that the survivors are actually psychically linked in an unconscious state a la Matrix. I am not sure that fits all the facts we've seen, but it fits many more than the purgatory theory. The purpose might be therapy of some kind, and the "Others" are the therapists. People who "die" on the island are actually pulled from the therapy session by whoever is supervising it, either because they are cured (as in Shannon's or Boone's cases) or because they are not responding properly as in the cases of some of the survivors "taken" by the "Others".
I like this theory, but it does not fit everything we know either. There is Danielle Rousseau, for example, who doesn't seem to fit this theory. And, of course, it's a bit fantastic, as I know of no actual way this could happen with current technology. The producers are adamant that there is a simple non-fantastic explanation for everything.
It may take us years to find out the answer, though, since it appears that the show is popular enough to go on for several seasons. Already it appears that we are being prepped for the introduction of new characters for season 3 next Fall.
I just hope that the producers let us have the explanation before we get tired of waiting for it.
Posted at 04:40 PM
Wed - April 5, 2006
The Power of Prayer
Last week, a CNN
article pointed to a study of whether prayer had any effect on heart
patients. The conclusion was that prayer had no effect, except that patients who
knew they were being prayed for fared slightly worse than patients not prayed
for and patients who were being prayed for without knowing
it.
As someone trained in science and as a Christian, I have a few thoughts about this so-called study.
One of the questions I have about this study, right off is: how did the investigators know that the control group were not being prayed for? How could anyone insure such a thing? Because one small group I'm in regularly prays for friends and loved ones of members of the group, and those being prayed for might or might not know that such prayer was being offered on their behalf. I'd like to hope and believe that more people in this country and around the world have people who pray for them than you might imagine. It's just not something an investigator would be able to find out about.
Second: the Bible is clear that a prayer for the sick must be offered in faith (James 5:15). I hardly think that anyone who lends himself to such a study by participating in such a prayer is really offering a prayer in faith. Rather, it's the sort of arrogance of inquiry that God has gone on record in the over and over again as hating and punishing. See Luke 1:18-20 for one example.
If you believe in God who answers prayer, as I do, you know that that God prizes faith in Himself. The spirit of scientific inquiry is good for getting at the truth of how the physical universe works, but it has long been clear to me that it is emphatically not good at getting at spiritual truth.
So, I won't be swayed to disbelief by the results of this wrong-headed study, and I will go on praying for friends and loved ones who need it anyway. I can tell stories of answers to prayer that seem nothing short of miraculous.
Finally, let me say that the real purpose of prayer is not to ask God for things or healing or anything else. The real purpose is to get in touch with God and in tune with His will. And anyone who approaches prayer on that basis will certainly be answered, sometimes even in the petitions he brings.
Every prayer is answered. Sometimes the answer is "Yes". Sometimes the answer is "No." And sometimes the answer is "Wait." But all are answered.
As someone trained in science and as a Christian, I have a few thoughts about this so-called study.
One of the questions I have about this study, right off is: how did the investigators know that the control group were not being prayed for? How could anyone insure such a thing? Because one small group I'm in regularly prays for friends and loved ones of members of the group, and those being prayed for might or might not know that such prayer was being offered on their behalf. I'd like to hope and believe that more people in this country and around the world have people who pray for them than you might imagine. It's just not something an investigator would be able to find out about.
Second: the Bible is clear that a prayer for the sick must be offered in faith (James 5:15). I hardly think that anyone who lends himself to such a study by participating in such a prayer is really offering a prayer in faith. Rather, it's the sort of arrogance of inquiry that God has gone on record in the over and over again as hating and punishing. See Luke 1:18-20 for one example.
If you believe in God who answers prayer, as I do, you know that that God prizes faith in Himself. The spirit of scientific inquiry is good for getting at the truth of how the physical universe works, but it has long been clear to me that it is emphatically not good at getting at spiritual truth.
So, I won't be swayed to disbelief by the results of this wrong-headed study, and I will go on praying for friends and loved ones who need it anyway. I can tell stories of answers to prayer that seem nothing short of miraculous.
Finally, let me say that the real purpose of prayer is not to ask God for things or healing or anything else. The real purpose is to get in touch with God and in tune with His will. And anyone who approaches prayer on that basis will certainly be answered, sometimes even in the petitions he brings.
Every prayer is answered. Sometimes the answer is "Yes". Sometimes the answer is "No." And sometimes the answer is "Wait." But all are answered.
Posted at 08:55 PM Read More
Tue - March 21, 2006
Vindicated!
On Dec 17, 2005, I blogged about my LA
parking ticket, received unbeknownst to me on my birthday, October 11,
2005. Some birthday present!
The problem was and is: I was not in LA on that day, nor was my wife. And nor was the car in question, which is my wife's Camry.
I first got the notice of delinquency for the fine in November. This, of course, was the first I knew about the ticket at all. The notice I received said the car was a white Toyota with my license number and a May expiration. Pay attention to these facts.
To this day I have not seen a copy of the original citation, which is the city's entire case against me.
I took pictures of the car showing my license plates (part of the citation was for not properly displaying both plates) and that the color was not white. I sent a statement that neither I, my wife, or the car in question was in Los Angeles on the day in question and requested an administrative review. You must go through this step in order to fight a ticket. It's unlikely to change anything, as the people who do this sort of review are not paid by the City to find you not guilty. Not surprisingly, the citation was held to be "substantially" valid.
The next step was to request a hearing, which could either be in person or by written declaration. I could not attend in person, as it's 400 miles from where I live and work, and I had just started a new job so I could not take time off easily. So I got my wife's boss and administrator to both sign statements that she was at work all day that day. I really lucked out, because I celebrated my birthday by going to see the movie "Serenity" on that day, and I could still print out a copy of the Fandango ticket, which indicated that I would have been in the theatre in San Jose at the time this citation was issued. Not proof, but surely very suggestive. And I once again submitted pictures of the car. I wrote a statement of the facts I had possession of, and bundled all that with a check for the amount of the citation (which I had to post as bail), and waited. And waited. And waited. It's now just over three months after submitting all that stuff, and I finally got a letter from the Parking Violations Bureau of the City of Los Angeles.
The contents were the hearing officer's explanation of why I am not liable for this citation. He states that the car cited was a white PONTIAC, with expired tags, and renewable in November. And he noted that the pictures of my car show it to be a metallic beige Toyota, with the plates as cited, and with current registration, and registration due in May. Since I didn't have the original ticket, I did not know there were so many discrepancies between my vehicle and the citation. In fact, the notice of delinquency listed a white Toyota, with registration due in May (which is correct, except for the color). So: someone in that Parking Violations Bureau fudged the citation, and the administrative reviewer (same person, perhaps?) ignored the obvious discrepancies between my evidence and that in the citation. Which tells me exactly what kind of operation the LA City Parking Violations Bureau is.
Fortunately, the hearing officer considered the evidence more carefully and found in my favor.
I'm a happy man. I beat City Hall!
One final comment: This is one of only two tickets I've ever gotten in 40+ years of driving. The other one was a citation for driving solo in a carpool lane. I elected to fight that one, and I also won that fight as well. So I'm two for two. Hope that's the last; I might not be so lucky a third time....
The problem was and is: I was not in LA on that day, nor was my wife. And nor was the car in question, which is my wife's Camry.
I first got the notice of delinquency for the fine in November. This, of course, was the first I knew about the ticket at all. The notice I received said the car was a white Toyota with my license number and a May expiration. Pay attention to these facts.
To this day I have not seen a copy of the original citation, which is the city's entire case against me.
I took pictures of the car showing my license plates (part of the citation was for not properly displaying both plates) and that the color was not white. I sent a statement that neither I, my wife, or the car in question was in Los Angeles on the day in question and requested an administrative review. You must go through this step in order to fight a ticket. It's unlikely to change anything, as the people who do this sort of review are not paid by the City to find you not guilty. Not surprisingly, the citation was held to be "substantially" valid.
The next step was to request a hearing, which could either be in person or by written declaration. I could not attend in person, as it's 400 miles from where I live and work, and I had just started a new job so I could not take time off easily. So I got my wife's boss and administrator to both sign statements that she was at work all day that day. I really lucked out, because I celebrated my birthday by going to see the movie "Serenity" on that day, and I could still print out a copy of the Fandango ticket, which indicated that I would have been in the theatre in San Jose at the time this citation was issued. Not proof, but surely very suggestive. And I once again submitted pictures of the car. I wrote a statement of the facts I had possession of, and bundled all that with a check for the amount of the citation (which I had to post as bail), and waited. And waited. And waited. It's now just over three months after submitting all that stuff, and I finally got a letter from the Parking Violations Bureau of the City of Los Angeles.
The contents were the hearing officer's explanation of why I am not liable for this citation. He states that the car cited was a white PONTIAC, with expired tags, and renewable in November. And he noted that the pictures of my car show it to be a metallic beige Toyota, with the plates as cited, and with current registration, and registration due in May. Since I didn't have the original ticket, I did not know there were so many discrepancies between my vehicle and the citation. In fact, the notice of delinquency listed a white Toyota, with registration due in May (which is correct, except for the color). So: someone in that Parking Violations Bureau fudged the citation, and the administrative reviewer (same person, perhaps?) ignored the obvious discrepancies between my evidence and that in the citation. Which tells me exactly what kind of operation the LA City Parking Violations Bureau is.
Fortunately, the hearing officer considered the evidence more carefully and found in my favor.
I'm a happy man. I beat City Hall!
One final comment: This is one of only two tickets I've ever gotten in 40+ years of driving. The other one was a citation for driving solo in a carpool lane. I elected to fight that one, and I also won that fight as well. So I'm two for two. Hope that's the last; I might not be so lucky a third time....
Posted at 09:15 PM Read More
Sat - March 11, 2006
Long Hiatus...
Sorry about the long hiatus for this Blog. I have
been busy: I started a new job last Thanksgiving week, and the burdens of
ramping up and establishing my niche at a new company took a toll. Also, I got
interested in the TV show Lost (I'm all caught up now....), and I've been
tutoring my son in physics, so I've had little time or energy to think about
posting here.
I may be moving over to using Apple's iWeb to publish this blog. I have not had a chance to explore the capabilities yet, but if I can figure out a good and easy way to transition over, I will. That will mean that the URL for the blog will change, but I will publish the changed URL if and when. We'll have to see.
Stay tuned....
I may be moving over to using Apple's iWeb to publish this blog. I have not had a chance to explore the capabilities yet, but if I can figure out a good and easy way to transition over, I will. That will mean that the URL for the blog will change, but I will publish the changed URL if and when. We'll have to see.
Stay tuned....
Posted at 12:44 PM
Port Deal is Dead
I note from the newspaper headlines today that
the "Port Deal" (that is, the deal whereby a Dubai company will take over the
operation of 6 American shipping ports) is
dead.
You can say what you want about this: that the company in question is exemplary, the country in questions (UAE) is an ally, that we should not paint all Arab countries as terrorists and should encourage our allies by providing equal opportunity for them. All true, but....
What were they thinking to let this deal get to this point in the first place? In spite of Bush's power grabs and rhetoric, he is not a dictator, and this is not a dictatorship (edging closer all the time, but thankfully, not there yet). And how stuff plays in Peoria still matters in this country.
Congress is vulnerable, and I think many representatives have woken up to the fact that there's an election soon, and this deal is political poison for them. Good! If there is no other way to force Congress to have enough spine to stand up to Bush and Co, an election seems to focus their attention wonderfully.
You can say what you want about this: that the company in question is exemplary, the country in questions (UAE) is an ally, that we should not paint all Arab countries as terrorists and should encourage our allies by providing equal opportunity for them. All true, but....
What were they thinking to let this deal get to this point in the first place? In spite of Bush's power grabs and rhetoric, he is not a dictator, and this is not a dictatorship (edging closer all the time, but thankfully, not there yet). And how stuff plays in Peoria still matters in this country.
Congress is vulnerable, and I think many representatives have woken up to the fact that there's an election soon, and this deal is political poison for them. Good! If there is no other way to force Congress to have enough spine to stand up to Bush and Co, an election seems to focus their attention wonderfully.
Posted at 12:35 PM
Christ the Lord
I've enjoyed Anne Rice's work: the Vampire novels
and the Witch novels. I had a great deal of respect for her historical accuracy
and her storytelling ability. I never thought of her as a particularly devout
person; there was obviously some Christian influence (Catholic, it turns out) in
her life.
So it was with some trepidation that I bought her latest book: Christ the Lord (Out of Egypt). A book that purported to be written in first person from Jesus' point of view as a child. I feared that there would be some sour note struck. It's either very arrogant or very naive of an author to presume to put words in the mouth of such a central but mysterious figure in human history.
I need not have worried. There were no sour notes struck. Anne Rice got it right (or as right as humanly possible at 2000 year's remove). The book poses and answers the question: how did Jesus live as a child; how did He come to know Who He was; how did His family deal with him? What would a human child without sin be like?
While I might quibble about particular events (some events from the Apocrypha are described in the narrative), on the whole this is an incredibly uplifting book. Even if you think Jesus was not the God-Man that Christians believe Him to be, you will definitely find food for thought here.
It turns out that Rice was, for many years, a lapsed Catholic who came back to faith in 1998 or thereabouts, and set out to write about the Jesus of the Gospels.
Highly recommended.
So it was with some trepidation that I bought her latest book: Christ the Lord (Out of Egypt). A book that purported to be written in first person from Jesus' point of view as a child. I feared that there would be some sour note struck. It's either very arrogant or very naive of an author to presume to put words in the mouth of such a central but mysterious figure in human history.
I need not have worried. There were no sour notes struck. Anne Rice got it right (or as right as humanly possible at 2000 year's remove). The book poses and answers the question: how did Jesus live as a child; how did He come to know Who He was; how did His family deal with him? What would a human child without sin be like?
While I might quibble about particular events (some events from the Apocrypha are described in the narrative), on the whole this is an incredibly uplifting book. Even if you think Jesus was not the God-Man that Christians believe Him to be, you will definitely find food for thought here.
It turns out that Rice was, for many years, a lapsed Catholic who came back to faith in 1998 or thereabouts, and set out to write about the Jesus of the Gospels.
Highly recommended.
Posted at 12:19 PM Read More
Wed - December 21, 2005
Suda Fed
My son has an allergy/inner ear problem that
requires that he take frequent doses of Claritin D, an over-the-counter medicine
that contains Pseudoephedrine, a decongestant. Since pseudoephedrine can be used
as feedstock in making methamphetamine, many states, including California, have
enacted laws to limit the amount of any OTC drug containing pseudoephedrine that
can be purchased at any one time. Currently in California, the store stocks of
such medications are kept behind the counter and must be asked for. The apparent
limit is one package containing 30 pills at a
time.
Most of the time, though, when I ask to purchase two boxes, I'm allowed to buy them by having the clerk ring them up separately. I haven't pushed this, but I wonder how many "separate" purchases I would be allowed to obtain in this manner? Three? Four?
In any case, say I could buy three at any one visit to a store. Where I live, there are several stores that sell this stuff within a few (< 3) miles of my house. If I were intent on obtaining pseudoephedrine for a meth lab (I assure you I am not), it would be not too hard to hit every store in the neighborhood, buying as many as each allowed.
OK, on second thought: I have no idea how much of this feedstock a meth lab would need. I also suppose that frequent visits to stores to buy the stuff might raise a flag in a conscientious pharmacist's mind. So maybe this law works as designed.
And perhaps I'm allowed to buy more than one because my age and demeanor make it appear unlikely that I'm stocking a lab. Perhaps a younger, more nervous-looking man would only be allowed to buy one box at a time.
But on the face of it: a law this easily circumvented seems silly. Better to make the stuff prescription only, I'm thinking.
Most of the time, though, when I ask to purchase two boxes, I'm allowed to buy them by having the clerk ring them up separately. I haven't pushed this, but I wonder how many "separate" purchases I would be allowed to obtain in this manner? Three? Four?
In any case, say I could buy three at any one visit to a store. Where I live, there are several stores that sell this stuff within a few (< 3) miles of my house. If I were intent on obtaining pseudoephedrine for a meth lab (I assure you I am not), it would be not too hard to hit every store in the neighborhood, buying as many as each allowed.
OK, on second thought: I have no idea how much of this feedstock a meth lab would need. I also suppose that frequent visits to stores to buy the stuff might raise a flag in a conscientious pharmacist's mind. So maybe this law works as designed.
And perhaps I'm allowed to buy more than one because my age and demeanor make it appear unlikely that I'm stocking a lab. Perhaps a younger, more nervous-looking man would only be allowed to buy one box at a time.
But on the face of it: a law this easily circumvented seems silly. Better to make the stuff prescription only, I'm thinking.
Posted at 08:47 PM
Sun - December 18, 2005
Christmas Tree
I went out today to get my Christmas Tree for the
year. If you look at the date, you'll notice that it's exactly one week before
Christmas. That has been (for good or ill) my pattern over a number of years:
get the tree about one week before Christmas. I know that the "normal" pattern
is to put up the tree the Saturday after Thanksgiving, but I don't follow that.
I simply do not want a dead tree in my house for an entire month or more. Two
weeks is about all I can stand.
Here in San Jose, it usually has been raining about the time I go get the tree. That means it's muddy and sloppy on the lot. This does not make tree-hunting a joyous occasion, let me tell you. Today, not only had it been raining for most of the last 2 days, but it started pouring about the time my son and I were tying the think on top of the Jeep. I'm sure we looked comical trying to keep the rope out of the mud, trying to untangle it and tie the tree down while being pelted by raindrops.
Of course, when we got home, the tree was too wet to bring into the house, so it's sitting in the entryway outside, drying off (we fervently hope).
Then there's the cost of the thing. $60 for a 6-7 foot Noble Fir. Yow! I like trees; I love the smell, and I have long felt that, if we were going to have a tree, it should be a "real" (albeit dead) one. I've been a bit of a purist about that. But every year I go through this, and when it comes time to pay for the thing, the little calculator in my head informs me that a $150 fake tree would more than pay for itself in three years, and will probably last at least 6 or more years with care. A little pine-scented freshener would make the illusion complete, for an amortized savings of at least $25 a year for a tree that lasts 6 years. This gets more tempting each year I go through this.
Lest you think I'm a Scrooge, I'm not. I love Christmas. I love finding the right gift to get my loved ones. I love spending a reasonable amount of money (and I love having enough to feel I can spend it this way). I even like cruising the malls at Christmastime, provided I can manage to park. I can manage the crowds, in small doses. I do a lot of shopping online these days, which helps keep me sane. I love decorations, wrapping presents, Christmas music, the special foods and traditions. The whole ball of wax, as it were. But always I try to keep in mind the reason I do this: all of it is a symbol of the love of God who sent His Son into a dark world to bring His light to men.
I think the symbolism won't suffer because we replace a dead tree with a fake one. Possibly. Probably.
Here in San Jose, it usually has been raining about the time I go get the tree. That means it's muddy and sloppy on the lot. This does not make tree-hunting a joyous occasion, let me tell you. Today, not only had it been raining for most of the last 2 days, but it started pouring about the time my son and I were tying the think on top of the Jeep. I'm sure we looked comical trying to keep the rope out of the mud, trying to untangle it and tie the tree down while being pelted by raindrops.
Of course, when we got home, the tree was too wet to bring into the house, so it's sitting in the entryway outside, drying off (we fervently hope).
Then there's the cost of the thing. $60 for a 6-7 foot Noble Fir. Yow! I like trees; I love the smell, and I have long felt that, if we were going to have a tree, it should be a "real" (albeit dead) one. I've been a bit of a purist about that. But every year I go through this, and when it comes time to pay for the thing, the little calculator in my head informs me that a $150 fake tree would more than pay for itself in three years, and will probably last at least 6 or more years with care. A little pine-scented freshener would make the illusion complete, for an amortized savings of at least $25 a year for a tree that lasts 6 years. This gets more tempting each year I go through this.
Lest you think I'm a Scrooge, I'm not. I love Christmas. I love finding the right gift to get my loved ones. I love spending a reasonable amount of money (and I love having enough to feel I can spend it this way). I even like cruising the malls at Christmastime, provided I can manage to park. I can manage the crowds, in small doses. I do a lot of shopping online these days, which helps keep me sane. I love decorations, wrapping presents, Christmas music, the special foods and traditions. The whole ball of wax, as it were. But always I try to keep in mind the reason I do this: all of it is a symbol of the love of God who sent His Son into a dark world to bring His light to men.
I think the symbolism won't suffer because we replace a dead tree with a fake one. Possibly. Probably.
Posted at 08:03 PM
Sat - December 17, 2005
Parking Ticket
A few weeks ago, I received a "Notice of
Delinquent Parking Violation" from the Parking Violations Bureau of Los Angeles,
CA. This was the first I had known I had received a parking ticket in LA, since
I live in San Jose, some 400 miles North of LA. I was not in LA at the date and
time of the original citation, nor in fact at any recent time. Nor was my wife
there. In particular, the automobile in question (a 1997 Toyota Camry XLE) was
not in LA then or at any other time in the 8 years we've owned the
car.
The date of the apparent violation is October 11, 2005. On that date my wife, who is the primary driver of that vehicle, used it to drive to her job at San Jose City College. She usually arrives at work at 7:30; she usually leaves work after 5:00 PM. The time of the citation (2:43 PM), she was teaching one of her classes, and the car was (we presume) sitting in the staff parking lot at San Jose City College. I can, of course, only presume that, since it she had parked it there in the morning and it was still waiting for her to drive home in that evening. I think it's a physical impossibility for someone to have gotten that car to LA in time to park it on Pico Blvd. long enough to run the meter down and then get it back so my wife could use it to drive home.
The big mystery is how my car in San Jose became the subject of a parking violation in Los Angeles. One large clue is that there were two citations issued: one for the parking itself, and another for "Display of Plates." The citation is not any more specific, but I suppose it may mean that the car that was cited wasn't showing any plates at all. In which case, the officer perhaps wrote the vehicle identification number down and used that to look up the vehicle in the DMV records. All it would take is a single error in transcription to get the wrong car. If the officer notes the car is a white Toyota, and the DMV record for the (incorrect) VIN he supplies to the DMV database comes back as a Toyota, the officer might well think he got the correct vehicle.
The next big mystery is how to fight this erroneous citation. The first step is to request an administrative review of the citation. This simply means: they look at the citation and see whether it correctly describes the vehicle according to the DMV records. Unfortunately, this step did not fix things for me, DMV description and the citing officer's description appear to have matched close enough (though: my car is not white, but the citation describes it as a white Toyota). I suspect that the administrative review process is pretty rough, as there almost certainly is little incentive to find in favor of the defendant in cases like this.
The next step, which I'm about to embark on, is a request for a hearing. The hearing can be in person or by written declaration. I will be requesting a hearing by written declaration as soon as I can collect the necessary evidence that I am not the person nor is my car the car they cited. The burden of proof appears to be on me (never mind the U.S. Constitution, I guess), and the standard of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence." The city's evidence is the citation itself. I have to overwhelm that with my evidence: that I was not in LA at the time cited, nor was my wife. That we had possession of the vehicle in question in San Jose at the time, etc. I think I can produce sufficient evidence of those facts. Whether it will convince the hearing officer is an open question. One of the prerequisites to requesting a hearing is that you have to pay the outstanding fine. At that point, the City has your money, and has virtually no incentive to find in a defendant's favor whatever the facts. So I hope to win this round, but I don't necessarily expect to.
But I'm going to fight it. If I have to hand them money under this legalized extortion scheme, I am darn well going to make them work for it!
If the hearing goes against me, there is an appeal process. I hope I won't have to use that, but I will if I have to. 'Cause, darnit! I want to make them work for that money....
The date of the apparent violation is October 11, 2005. On that date my wife, who is the primary driver of that vehicle, used it to drive to her job at San Jose City College. She usually arrives at work at 7:30; she usually leaves work after 5:00 PM. The time of the citation (2:43 PM), she was teaching one of her classes, and the car was (we presume) sitting in the staff parking lot at San Jose City College. I can, of course, only presume that, since it she had parked it there in the morning and it was still waiting for her to drive home in that evening. I think it's a physical impossibility for someone to have gotten that car to LA in time to park it on Pico Blvd. long enough to run the meter down and then get it back so my wife could use it to drive home.
The big mystery is how my car in San Jose became the subject of a parking violation in Los Angeles. One large clue is that there were two citations issued: one for the parking itself, and another for "Display of Plates." The citation is not any more specific, but I suppose it may mean that the car that was cited wasn't showing any plates at all. In which case, the officer perhaps wrote the vehicle identification number down and used that to look up the vehicle in the DMV records. All it would take is a single error in transcription to get the wrong car. If the officer notes the car is a white Toyota, and the DMV record for the (incorrect) VIN he supplies to the DMV database comes back as a Toyota, the officer might well think he got the correct vehicle.
The next big mystery is how to fight this erroneous citation. The first step is to request an administrative review of the citation. This simply means: they look at the citation and see whether it correctly describes the vehicle according to the DMV records. Unfortunately, this step did not fix things for me, DMV description and the citing officer's description appear to have matched close enough (though: my car is not white, but the citation describes it as a white Toyota). I suspect that the administrative review process is pretty rough, as there almost certainly is little incentive to find in favor of the defendant in cases like this.
The next step, which I'm about to embark on, is a request for a hearing. The hearing can be in person or by written declaration. I will be requesting a hearing by written declaration as soon as I can collect the necessary evidence that I am not the person nor is my car the car they cited. The burden of proof appears to be on me (never mind the U.S. Constitution, I guess), and the standard of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence." The city's evidence is the citation itself. I have to overwhelm that with my evidence: that I was not in LA at the time cited, nor was my wife. That we had possession of the vehicle in question in San Jose at the time, etc. I think I can produce sufficient evidence of those facts. Whether it will convince the hearing officer is an open question. One of the prerequisites to requesting a hearing is that you have to pay the outstanding fine. At that point, the City has your money, and has virtually no incentive to find in a defendant's favor whatever the facts. So I hope to win this round, but I don't necessarily expect to.
But I'm going to fight it. If I have to hand them money under this legalized extortion scheme, I am darn well going to make them work for it!
If the hearing goes against me, there is an appeal process. I hope I won't have to use that, but I will if I have to. 'Cause, darnit! I want to make them work for that money....
Posted at 09:52 PM
Mon - December 5, 2005
My iPod bit the dust...
My 3G iPod gave up the ghost today. It's over a
year old and out of warranty. I don't have AppleCare for the thing, so getting
it fixed would probably be a significant fraction of the price of a new one.
Since I want one of the new iPods with video capability anyway, I probably won't
try to fix the old one.
Meanwhile, my trusty 1G iPod still works! I hooked up up this morning, and it wanted a firmware upgrade that I had already downloaded. I plugged it into the power source and charged it up today. Tonight , I plugged it into my Mac and downloaded 3 podcasts that were waiting, and I'm in business. I have way too much music and podcasts to fit on the old 5 Gig machine, but for listening to podcasts and Christmas music, I guess it'll do until I can afford a new machine.
My best guess for what's wrong is that the disk drive is trashed. It's been slow on downloads from the Mac, and I could hear the disk seeking back and forth, which is never a good sign. It limped along, though, until this morning. Oh, well....
Meanwhile, my trusty 1G iPod still works! I hooked up up this morning, and it wanted a firmware upgrade that I had already downloaded. I plugged it into the power source and charged it up today. Tonight , I plugged it into my Mac and downloaded 3 podcasts that were waiting, and I'm in business. I have way too much music and podcasts to fit on the old 5 Gig machine, but for listening to podcasts and Christmas music, I guess it'll do until I can afford a new machine.
My best guess for what's wrong is that the disk drive is trashed. It's been slow on downloads from the Mac, and I could hear the disk seeking back and forth, which is never a good sign. It limped along, though, until this morning. Oh, well....
Posted at 08:56 PM
Fri - November 11, 2005
Has Sony Killed the CD?
The internet was abuzz this past week with news
that new DRM (Digital Rights Management) software on Sony music CDs contained a
rootkit, a piece of software that modifies the kernel of the OS running on the
computer to disallow certain operations normally allowed, like copying. The
problem with this, aside from the arrogance and customer unfriendliness of
surreptitiously modifying the customer's property, is that the rootkit opens a
machine infected with it to attacks by virus writers. The rootkit makes it
possible to place files on the hard disk that are invisible to the user and
therefore not removable. And, in fact, the first exploitation of the Sony
rootkit has already happened in the
wild.
Compounding the injury Sony perpetrated on its customers is the insult that Sony maintained for 10 days a public attitude that this was no big deal. Some people who attempted to remove the rootkit with some removal tools provided by Sony discovered that their CD players were no longer accessible, and the only cure for that was to reformat the disk and reinstall the OS. While Windows users are used to having to do that, I can't believe that they would look kindly at any company that forces them to have to do so.
Since I'm a Mac user, I figured I didn't have to worry too much about this. The other reason I don't have to worry is that I don't buy CDs any more. But it turns out Mac users do have to worry about this. So, if you buy a CD, insert it into your Mac, and get a window requesting your password so new software can be installed, beware!
My son also uses a Mac. He called to ask me about the rootkit story. After I filled him in, he said he would never buy another CD. Any CD, regardless of whether it was a Sony disk or not.
It's perilous to extrapolate from a sample of one or two, but I have to wonder: will other people have this same reaction? CD sales have been dwindling, due to a number of factors. Will this be the final straw that forces enough people to find other ways to buy (or at least obtain) music. Are CDs dead?
Time will tell.
Compounding the injury Sony perpetrated on its customers is the insult that Sony maintained for 10 days a public attitude that this was no big deal. Some people who attempted to remove the rootkit with some removal tools provided by Sony discovered that their CD players were no longer accessible, and the only cure for that was to reformat the disk and reinstall the OS. While Windows users are used to having to do that, I can't believe that they would look kindly at any company that forces them to have to do so.
Since I'm a Mac user, I figured I didn't have to worry too much about this. The other reason I don't have to worry is that I don't buy CDs any more. But it turns out Mac users do have to worry about this. So, if you buy a CD, insert it into your Mac, and get a window requesting your password so new software can be installed, beware!
My son also uses a Mac. He called to ask me about the rootkit story. After I filled him in, he said he would never buy another CD. Any CD, regardless of whether it was a Sony disk or not.
It's perilous to extrapolate from a sample of one or two, but I have to wonder: will other people have this same reaction? CD sales have been dwindling, due to a number of factors. Will this be the final straw that forces enough people to find other ways to buy (or at least obtain) music. Are CDs dead?
Time will tell.
Posted at 07:46 PM
Fri - October 21, 2005
Kepler's Rules
I blogged
here a few weeks ago that Kepler's, one of the SF Bay Area's premier
bookstores, closed its doors abruptly on August 31.
Kepler's has apparently re-opened with a little help from its friends. It still might be temporary, but for the moment, it's in operation.
This is certainly wonderful news....
Kepler's has apparently re-opened with a little help from its friends. It still might be temporary, but for the moment, it's in operation.
This is certainly wonderful news....
Posted at 11:01 AM
Would someone please tell me...
...why I keep getting emails (usually from an
Asian country like Korea) with no subject line and
no
message?
Presumably this is SPAM of some sort, but it seems pretty useless even from the point of view of the spammer, since there is no advert or any way to respond (presuming the recipient wanted to respond, which I don't, of course).
This is just weird. Anyone else seeing this happen?
message?
Presumably this is SPAM of some sort, but it seems pretty useless even from the point of view of the spammer, since there is no advert or any way to respond (presuming the recipient wanted to respond, which I don't, of course).
This is just weird. Anyone else seeing this happen?
Posted at 10:53 AM
Tue - October 4, 2005
Music Download Biz Gets Reeeeally Interesting...
First, we've had Warner execs jawboning
about tiered pricing for iTunes tracks and, essentially, saying that the music
companies want a cut of iPod sales (come
again?).
Jobs is in the catbird seat on this one. I would be very surprised if Warner actually pulls its music from iTunes, the single most popular music download store, bigger than the rest of the players combined by 3X. Warner would be foolish to refuse to play ball with Apple.
Now comes the news that Microsoft ended talks with 4 music labels because the labels want too much in royalties.
Hmmmm, do you sense a shift here? I sure do...
Jobs is in the catbird seat on this one. I would be very surprised if Warner actually pulls its music from iTunes, the single most popular music download store, bigger than the rest of the players combined by 3X. Warner would be foolish to refuse to play ball with Apple.
Now comes the news that Microsoft ended talks with 4 music labels because the labels want too much in royalties.
Hmmmm, do you sense a shift here? I sure do...
Posted at 06:04 PM
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Published On: Sep 20, 2007 09:56 PM
Published On: Sep 20, 2007 09:56 PM