Friday, August 30, 2013

Faith over facts on Bullshit Mountain



Faith-based people don't change very much, do they? The truth of their beliefs doesn't really matter, since they're going to believe them, anyway.

I posted a video clip of that Reza Aslan interview a month ago, so I wanted to post this follow-up. But also, I was struck by how similar to those ancient Christians Fox 'News' is today.

Of course, for Fox, the bottom line is money - even more than political influence. But still, facts mean nothing. Reality means nothing. What's important is what they want to believe - and what they want you to believe, too.

They'll use facts if the facts back them up. But the facts rarely back them up, so what are they going to do? They certainly won't change their mind! No, they'll just believe anyway,... and either deny the facts, or lie about them, or make up new 'facts.'

This is faith-based thinking. This is believing what you want to believe, and not really caring if it's actually true. This is Bullshit Mountain.

How evangelists sound to atheists



This is from the Atheist Experience TV show, episode #505, June 17, 2007, with Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker.

It wasn't original with them, of course. It was created by James Huger. You can read the whole thing at his website, if you want.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Narendra Dabholkar - the death of a skeptic


From the New York Times:
For nearly three decades, an earnest man named Narendra Dabholkar traveled from village to village in India, waging a personal war against the spirit world.

If a holy man had electrified the public with his miracles, Dr. Dabholkar, a former physician, would duplicate the miracles and explain, step by step, how they were performed. If a sorcerer had amassed a fortune treating infertility, he would arrange a sting operation to unmask the man as a fraud. His goal was to drive a scientist’s skepticism into the heart of India, a country still teeming with gurus, babas, astrologers, godmen and other mystical entrepreneurs.

That mission ended Tuesday, when two men ran up behind Dr. Dabholkar, 67, as he crossed a bridge, shot him at point-blank range, then jumped onto a motorbike and disappeared into the traffic coursing through this city.

Dr. Dabholkar’s killing is the latest episode in a millenniums-old wrestling match between traditionalists and reformers in India. When detectives began putting together a list of Dr. Dabholkar’s enemies, they found that it was long. He had received threats from Hindu far-right groups, been beaten by followers of angry gurus and challenged by councils upholding archaic caste laws. His home state, Maharashtra, was considering legislation he had promoted for 14 years, banning a list of practices like animal sacrifice, the magical treatment of snake bites and the sale of magic stones.

That wrestling match - between science and superstition, between skeptics and true believers, between evidence-based and faith-based thinking - continues everywhere in the world, but a skeptic doesn't risk his life here in America.

Well, all the more reason to recognize the bravery and the sacrifices of people like Dr. Dabholkar then.

And what do his opponents think?
“Instead of dying of old age, or by surgery, which causes a lot of suffering, the death Mr. Dabholkar got today was a blessing from God,” the leader, a former hypnotherapist now known as His Holiness Dr. Jayant Athavale, wrote in an editorial in the organization’s publication, Sanatan Prabhat.

'God' had nothing to do with it. Narendra Dabholkar was murdered by human beings.

Funny how 'God' is so impotent he can't do anything by himself, isn't it? Well, maybe that's not so surprising, given that he can't even demonstrate his own existence.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

This is what racism looks like


From Cowgirl Up:
This is what racism looks like.

Racism is the utter lack of compassion it takes to see a mother grieving for a boy and afraid for her own sons, and think, “Wow, that would be really easy to tweak in Photoshop to make her look stupid. Wouldn’t that be funny?”

Racism is dehumanizing. Racism robs this woman of her individuality, her humanity, and her gender. “And ain’t I a woman?” This mother ain’t a woman to “The Patriot Nation.” She’s an object to be ridiculed for mistakes she never made; mistakes, in fact, that someone intentionally added to a photo of her for the purpose of mocking her grief and fear.

Racism is someone in front of his computer whose face twists into the same mask of disgust we see in grainy old black and white films of the KKK burning schoolhouses and churches, and instead of a racial slur spilling from his curled-back lips, he sneers, “Sheeple,” or “Socialists,” or “Obamanation,” and he clicks “like” and “share” on this photo because there’s no little switch in his brain to say: “Is this right to do to a human being?” No. The filter turns off when his hate is triggered by this image. And the really scary thing is, that missing filter means he’s also missing the ability to honestly ask himself, “Am I responding this way because of this woman’s race?”

This is also what courage looks like, over there on the left.

This wasn't just to mock this woman, or even black people in general, though it was all of that. This was also to push a political narrative against Barack Obama.

How much of that was racism and how much crazy right-wing partisanship? Well, they go hand in hand, don't they?

Click on the image to enlarge it, if necessary. This was racism and right-wing political ideology and a deliberate lie, all rolled into one (as they so often are). I won't call you a racist for opposing Barack Obama. But I will call you a racist for shrugging off this kind of racism, for political purposes.

Republicans have been using racism for decades. They deliberately wooed white racists with their notorious 'Southern strategy,' because political power meant more to them than doing what was right. It still does, not even close.

If you're willing to shrug that off, then you're probably willing to overlook this, too. Oh, sure, you'll deplore the whole thing when the truth comes out, but only because the truth was discovered. You've seen the racist stuff being passed around. You probably get emails all the time. It make you wince, but you don't really care, do you? Whatever works, right?

Ron Paul deliberately sought support from white supremacists. His racist newsletters gave him both political support and money, and he made a point of wooing white supremacists. His supporters shrug that off. Oh, he really didn't mean it, right? They just don't care. If it works, it works.

This is what racism looks like. If you're willing to use racism for your own benefit, you're a racist. If there's a difference, it's immaterial, at least to me. I don't care if you really mean it or if you're just using racism for your own advantage. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same thing.

And if you're willing to just shrug if off, that's pretty much the same thing, too. Don't try to pretend there's a difference, because it's all ugly.

Replaying Fallout: New Vegas

Looking west towards Mojave Outpost

Yes, just seven months after I finished the main quest in Fallout: New Vegas, I'm back playing the game again. It's just that much fun! (You can read my earlier thoughts about it here.)

It's not that I don't have many, many other games to play. But I just couldn't resist. At first, I thought I'd load up a saved game and try one of the DLC I'd skipped. (Since this game wasn't new, I could buy the "Ultimate Edition," which came complete with all the previously-released downloadable content. Note that the game is dirt cheap these days, especially when it goes on sale at Steam or GamersGate.)

But pretty soon, I just decided to start the whole game all over again. And I'm having a blast! I'm not doing things too differently, but some. I started the first game on Easy difficulty, but I'm on Normal now, right from the start (and I'm not noticing much difference.)

The first time, I focused on Guns as my weapon skill, but I'm using both Guns and Energy Weapons this time. My skill level isn't very high with either, since I'm splitting skill points between them. But that hasn't been a problem, either.

Ranger Station Charlie

And right from the start, I've been finding things I missed the first time. OK, they're just small locations, mostly, but they're still fun. Of course, I know what to expect from the main quests, but I can still do things differently, if I want.

For example, the first time I needed to find Primm a new sheriff, I just reprogrammed their robot to do that. It was quick and easy, and it seemed to work just fine. But the other options offer a lot more gameplay. So, this time, I tried them all before making my decision.

It's funny - if a bit embarrassing - but I was such a bad shot at the start of my first game that I apparently didn't kill anyone when I was helping Goodsprings fight off the Powder Gangers. So the Powder Gangers didn't hate me, and we just ignored each other for the rest of the game.

This time, I did much better, so we were enemies right from the start. And since, this time, I needed to talk to an ex-sheriff at the NCR Correctional Facility, to see if I'd want to hire him as Primm's sheriff, that opened up a whole new area for me.

But sure, most of this has been a replay of what's still fresh in my mind. But it's been fun, anyway. You know, there's a lot of Skyrim I haven't even touched,... but I just couldn't get interested - not even when I tried with a different character. But Fallout: New Vegas is just my kind of game, I guess.

East Las Vegas looks a little sad these days

Most likely, after my character level rises a bit, I'll try some of that DLC. The only one I've played is Old World Blues, and it was just massive. That was a whole game in itself (and you couldn't leave until you finished the quest). But if I want something new, there's a lot more DLC I haven't even touched.

I did take a brief look at Dead Money, but that one didn't appeal to me much. Well, you can't take any equipment inside - or out, I think. And I'm such a scavenger that loot is a big part of this game, for me. Old World Blues gave me some great weapons, but I don't suppose I'll want to play that one again, not yet. But Honest Hearts and Lonesome Road both look interesting.

But I'm a long way from that - my character has just reached level 10 - and who knows how long I'll want to play this, given that I've spent more than 200 hours (228 hours, to be precise) in the game already! And I have a lot of games I want to play.

There's never enough time for everything, is there?

Saturday, August 24, 2013

What America is all about


The New Mexico Supreme Court this week ruled that a wedding photographer had violated state law by refusing to serve a lesbian couple. TPM has the details here.

The owners of the photography studio argued that their actions were justified as freedom of religion. The high court disagreed. You can read the whole decision here, if you wish.

But I wanted to quote just a brief passage from Justice Richard C. Bosson's concurrence:
On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

Nice, isn't it? This really needs to be more widely understood.

You are "free to think, to say, to believe" as you wish. Absolutely. But we don't live as isolated hermits, each on our own mountaintop. We're social animals. We live together. We survive or not, thrive or not, in groups.

And these days, we live in an advanced society with very diverse people. America, in particular, has thrived on that diversity. That freedom of religion these people are using as their argument was established as a way for diverse people to live together in peace. It was specifically designed as an instrument of tolerance, not intolerance.

You can believe whatever you want, but this is about your conduct, not your beliefs. It's not your business to demand that everyone else follow your own religious beliefs. In fact, that would be turning freedom of religion upside down. Again, freedom of religion is about tolerance, not intolerance.

You can believe that lesbians are going to 'Hell,' if you wish. But that shouldn't influence your conduct towards them. This is a diverse nation. Other people believe differently than you do. So feel free to run your own life, but don't try to run theirs.

If you want to operate a business, you need to treat your customers equally. Fairly. Look at it as the price you pay for civilization. After all, you'll benefit, too. Your neighbors may not like bigots, but you'll still be able to buy the goods and services you need, yourself.

This deserves repeating:
In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world.

If we've learned anything from history, it should be this. As an American myself, I find it embarrassing that any of us would think otherwise.

Heck of a job, Republicans!


My brother sent me this link from TPM:
A significant chunk of Louisiana Republicans evidently believe that President Barack Obama is to blame for the poor response to the hurricane that ravaged their state more than three years before he took office.

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government's post-Katrina blunders.

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame.

Bush was criticized heavily when he did not immediately return to Washington from his vacation in Texas after the storm had reached landfall. The government was also slow to provide relief aid and Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), admitted in a televised interview that he learned that many of the storm's victims at the New Orleans Convention Center were without food and water well after the situation had been reported in the press.

Brown's handling of the response ultimately led to his resignation, but Bush offered an infamous endorsement of the FEMA chief only days before he stepped down.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," Bush said.

Yes, more Louisiana Republicans blame Barack Obama for our government's response to Hurricane Katrina - more than three years before he took office - than blame George W. Bush. Incredible, isn't it?

And a whopping 44% can't make up their mind whether Obama or Bush are more to blame!

Now, if this were anywhere else in the country, I'd assume that these Republicans simply didn't have a clue what Hurricane Katrina was. But this is Louisiana! They certainly haven't forgotten Hurricane Katrina down there!

But I guess, if there's a black man to blame for anything, they're going to blame the black man, huh? Is there any other explanation? Other than Republicans being completely insane, I mean?

PS. Here's the poll. Apparently, younger voters (ages 18-45) blame George W. Bush more than Barack Obama by nearly two to one (although a whopping 50% don't know who's more to blame).

But Republicans age 65 and older blame Obama more than Bush - for something that happened more than three years before he became president - by 42% to 24%. That's got to be from the lingering racism of those old Dixiecrats, wouldn't you say?

PPS. Here's another poll from the same time period. But while the first was just Louisiana Republicans, this one polls all Louisiana voters. I think the contrast is interesting. Even in such a red state as this, in a formerly Confederate state in the Deep South, Barack Obama has a 41% approval rating (vs 28% for Republican Governor Bobby Jindal).

Of course, 37% of the state is African-American and/or Hispanic. And I think that everything, pretty much, is about race in Louisiana. If you look further down the poll, you can see huge racial disparities in the response to just about every question.

(One big exception, oddly enough, is in background checks for all gun sales. 85% of African Americans support that, but so do 72% of white Louisiana voters and 72% of "other." So, of course, there's not the slightest chance of actually getting that accomplished, is there?)

Friday, August 23, 2013

The miracle tree, weeping tears



Yeah, and I'm weeping tears, too, I'm laughing so hard. You know, only religious belief could make ordinary people this batshit crazy.

OK, it's probably more sad than funny, but this is aphid excrement, people! How could you not laugh at that?

Still on this urban fantasy kick

(cover image from Amazon.com)

I'm still on this urban fantasy kick, I guess. I start a book while I'm waiting for my mom (I've been driving her where she needs to go this summer), and when I get home, I don't want to stop reading.

Anyway, both of these books are sequels to series I started a month ago. Cursed (2012) by Benedict Jacka is the second in his Alex Verus series. It was just as fun as the first, Fated, though there's really nothing new to it.

This time, it's not only his friend - and brand-new apprentice - Luna who's in trouble, but also the giant spider, Arachne, one of the few remaining magical creatures in the world. And again, the Light mages in his world prove to be as dangerous, and seemingly as unethical, as the Dark.

There's really nothing new here. Even the minor characters are pretty nearly identical to those in Fated (with a few exceptions, by necessity), and there's really no advancement in the overall situation. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed it. I still like the main character, and I'm not bored with the setting (yet). But I'm not sure how long that will continue.

That's the problem with series fiction. Even when it's just fantasy, an author needs to have something new to say. The setting, after all, is only fresh in the first book (and when it comes to fantasy, often not even then). I can't read the same book over and over again, yet if the author changes too much, he risks losing what made the idea fun in the first place.

Cursed was great, don't get me wrong. But somehow, I feel like I shouldn't have enjoyed it as much as I did. It's almost too similar to the first book.


Whispers Underground (2012) by Ben Aaronovitch, the third book in his Peter Grant series, does a better job at this. (See my reviews of the first two books here.) Not too much changes - less than between the first two books - but enough.

This time, Constable Grant is helping to investigate a stabbing, and ends up on a long jaunt through the London sewers. Of course, there's magic involved. (The cover of the book says, "The perfect blend of CSI and Harry Potter," which I thought was pretty funny,... and fairly accurate, too.)

Now, we'd seen most of these characters before (except for the suspects, of course), but Aaronovitch seems to be adding new people to the series in every book. And not only are relationships developing, but so is the whole magical situation.

Part of this is undoubtedly that Peter Grant is just an apprentice mage. So the series (so far, at least) has been showing his development both as a police detective and as a magic-wielder. But part of it is also that Grant has a scientific mind. He asks questions and, when he doesn't get an answer, he runs experiments.

At the same time, magic seems to be increasing in the world. No one knows why. So the series seems to progress. I don't know where it's going, but it does seem to be going somewhere.

The plot of this particular book is,... well, unbelievable, even for fantasy. But that doesn't seem very important. The main character, Peter Grant, just gets more likable all the time. And his friends are very appealing, too.

This is the freshest, the most original, fantasy series I've read in awhile. Much as I've been enjoying the previous series by Benedict Jacka, this one really seems special. True, I had some problems with Moon Over Soho, the second book in the series. But I can't say the same with this one. I highly recommend it (but make sure you read the series in order of publication).

PS. Here are a couple of quotes from the book, just showing the humor and the writing style of it:
According to Frank if you evacuate one of the families from a block, all the others will want to know why they weren't evacuated, too. But if you go and evacuate everyone as a precaution, then a good quarter will refuse to leave their flats on principle. Plus, if you evacuate them you become responsible for finding them a safe haven and keeping them fed and watered. (Page 127)
I often forget how good a driver Nightingale is, especially in the Jag. He insinuates himself through traffic like a tiger padding through a jungle, or at least how I imagine a tiger pads through a jungle. For all I know the damned things swagger through the forest like rottweilers at a poodle show. (Page 172)

___
Note: You can find my other book reviews here.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Liberal Fox News


Here's another one from Daily Kos:
This seems a bit far afield, even in the Kremlinology business: A conservative group is bitterly complaining that Fox News shifting generic Fox word-sayer Megyn Kelly to a more prominent timeslot is a Fox News plot to advance their pro-homosexual agenda.
But America's Survival, Inc. (ASI), which bills itself as a "public policy organization," said that replacing Hannity with Kelly would be a jump-the-shark moment for the conservative cable news channel. "Pushing Sean Hannity out of the 9:00 p.m. slot, to make way for pro-homosexual advocate Megyn Kelly, is another sign of the channel's left-ward drift and decline," ASI President Cliff Kincaid said in a press release, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

These people are yours, Fox News. You broke em, you bought em. Good luck with that.

For the record, I bill myself as a "public policy organization" as well. My public policy is that America should perhaps be hearing a bit less from the dumb people, and a bit more from the smarter people. I realize this has roughly the same chances of success as attempting to revive one of the stuffed birds in a natural history museum, but there you go.

Yeah, and after firing Glenn Beck, too! It's scary how far to the left Fox 'News' is moving, isn't it? :)


Of course, Megyn Kelly isn't liberal, not even slightly. But there is a grain of truth to this, don't you think?

The business model at Fox 'News' has always been old white men (their target demographic) combined with young, hot women who agree with everything those old men say. For the most part, these women have been nearly indistinguishable - young, blonde, gorgeous (again, to appeal to the old men who watch the show).

But Megyn Kelly is no dummy. She's stood out from the army of blonde clones in part by occasionally - never more than occasionally - taking a stance which differed from the accepted wisdom on Fox. And she is, of course, very, very hot.

She's also younger than the old men she's supplanting. And whether right-wingers want to believe it or not, we do progress in this country. You get few people supporting racial segregation these days - not publicly, at least - and even fewer supporting slavery. And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" very quickly went from becoming the timidly-liberal position to the conservative position. Progress.

I doubt if Kelly is really a " pro-homosexual advocate," and she's certainly not liberal, but I doubt if she's as big a Neanderthal as Sean Hannity. Certainly, she's a whole lot smarter than he is. And that scares the real loons, like America's Survival, Inc.

Well, you can never be fanatic enough for the fanatics, can you? We saw that during the French Revolution, on the left, and we're seeing it in the Republican Party today, on the right.

But Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are in this to make money. Yes, they're old white men with a far-right political ideology, but money still comes first for them. There's no question about that. And the Fox 'News' audience is dying off. Their average veiwer is more than 65 years old. (How much older? No one knows, because pollsters only track "65 and older.")

Despite the complaints of America's Survival, Megyn Kelly still appeals to the old white men who currently watch Fox. But she's got a lot better chance of attracting younger viewers, too, than the monochrome Sean Hannity.

I'm sure she won't rock the boat too far. She's much too smart for that. But she's clearly determined to stand out from the younger blondes Fox keeps hiring. She's not going to do that on looks alone. She's hot, but no hotter than all the rest of them.

And when it comes to gay rights, even right-wingers are coming to see that they're losing,... badly. Attitudes are changing remarkably quickly, and although they won't like it, the Republican Party will change along with the rest of the country (dragging its feet, kicking and screaming, all the way).

Fanatics may not see that, and Republican leaders have filled the party with fanatics. But Fox 'News' executives are in this to make money, and they won't let ideology stand in their way. I wouldn't be surprised to see Fox lead the rest of the Republican Party on this issue. After all, where are their viewers going to go? (And what did David Frum say? "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we're discovering that we work for Fox.")

We've already seen Fox 'News' and the Republican Party pay lip service to racial equality, while also pushing racism as hard as they can. The GOP base, filled with the Dixiecrats wooed to the party by its notorious 'Southern strategy,' understands this to be a necessary nod to 'political correctness.' That doesn't make them less racist.

Likewise, if the GOP starts changing its mind on gay rights, it's likely to be only lip service - certainly, at first. The real fanatics won't like it, but where are they going to go?

Voter fraud

From Daily Kos:
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R), currently seen as a serious challenger to Gov. Hickenlooper, has been on a crusade to end the plague of fraudulent voting by noncitizens.

Today's Denver Post reports that Gessler had given Boulder County DA Stan Garnett a list of 17 noncitizens voting in Boulder County. But yesterday,
... Garnett's office found that all 17 people were citizens and were able to easily verify their status ...

So. Final results of Gessler's investigation for Boulder county? That would be ... ZERO.

This won't matter. Gessler's supporters are faith-based, not evidence-based, and it's an article of faith among Republicans that they're losing elections because of voter fraud. After all, it couldn't be because they've gone completely batshit crazy, could it?

The Bush Administration spent eight years desperately searching for voter fraud - even firing federal prosecutors who were more concerned with real crime - and they came up with nothing.

Of course, 'voter fraud' is also a convenient excuse for voter suppression. Not every state is like Texas, which freely admits to discriminating against Democrats. No, in most states, Republicans want to pretend to have noble motives for discrimination and voter suppression.

You'd have to be crazy to believe them, but 'crazy' is their target demographic.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

"Marianne, the Magus, and the Manticore" by Sheri S. Tepper

(cover image from Amazon.com)

Marianne, the Magus, and the Manticore (1985) by Sheri S. Tepper is the first in a fantasy trilogy (though this story is complete in itself) which has been out of print for awhile and very hard to find. Lucky for me, a friend found the whole trilogy and sent it to me when she finished it. (Thanks, Kate!)

You see, I'd been wanting these books, because I have other friends, whose tastes tend to match my own, who've recommended them. And I'm a fan of Sheri Tepper, anyway. Grass and The Gate to Women's Country are my favorite Tepper books, but I've enjoyed nearly everything I've read by her.

Tepper writes from a very pronounced feminist perspective. In fact, I feel I would have known the author of this book even if her name hadn't been on the cover. Now, I don't want an author's philosophy to get in the way of the story, even when I agree with it (as I generally do in Tepper's case). But Tepper usually - not always - avoids that. She can hit us over the head sometimes, but she still tells a good story (as she does here).

Marianne is a young woman who's been victimized by her half-brother since her parents died. He tried to rape her when she was just 13, he continues to have full control over her inheritance, and, as it turns out, he's been attacking her with magic for years. Marianne resists, passively.

It's easy to sympathize with Marianne, but I had a harder time actually liking her. She is such a victim. She won't stand up for herself, she's timid beyond belief, and while that's understandable, it's not particularly likable.

She's such a victim that even the good guy in the book sees her, at least in part, as sexual prey. That guy is much older than her, too, which seems a bit creepy. It's not that Marianne is a child, since she's 25 when the book begins. But she seems so much younger. Emotionally, she still seems 13.

And given that this guy also looks just like her half-brother - indeed, he's some kind of relative, since they're all part of an apparently inbred clan - well, that's rather creepy, too. None of this is truly disturbing - it's not that bad - but it did seem a bit creepy.

As it turns out, magic exists. And Marianne's half-brother takes orders from a powerful mage, a woman, who casts Marianne into a magical world, a very bleak world, without even her memories. Marianne survives, passively.

To this point, I was still wondering if I really liked Marianne - or really liked the book, in fact. True, the magic realm is very imaginative. I did enjoy that. But as I say, Marianne was such a victim that it was easier to sympathize with her than really like her.

Well, by the end of the book, Marianne is no longer a victim. Indeed, she becomes rather scary. It takes awhile, but eventually she gets angry - and I mean angry! Her solution to this situation is rather disturbing in itself.

I really liked the ending. I could understand her anger, and it was plausible (given the fantasy premise, of course) that her anger would finally explode like this. Finally, she's no longer a victim! But with this much anger, she could very definitely turn into a villain, herself. Has she?

I doubt if that's where this trilogy is going, but I have to wonder. I liked Marianne a lot more once she got angry enough to stop being a victim. But I'm still not sure I really like her, given the results of that anger. And I'm not entirely sure I like the man who fought to rescue her, either. It's something to think about.

I did like the book, and I'll be reading the sequel eventually.

___
Note: My other book reviews, including others by Sheri Tepper, are here.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

TV journalism


Note: Sorry, guys, I couldn't get this to fit well in my columns, not without completely degrading the image (not sure why, but I'm no expert on this stuff). If you can't read it, please click on the link or on the image itself.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The Act of Killing


This may be on the Comedy Channel, but there's nothing funny about it. It is, however, informative, fascinating, and... rather disturbing. (I'm talking about the interview, not the documentary, which I haven't seen, but certainly sounds more than just "rather" disturbing.)

This is not something we should forget. So I thought I'd post the extended interview here.



Sunday, August 11, 2013

Light completely stopped for a full minute


This just blows my mind:
The fastest thing in the universe has come to a complete stop for a record-breaking minute. At full pelt, light would travel about 18 million kilometres in that time – that's more than 20 round trips to the moon.

"One minute is extremely, extremely long," says Thomas Krauss at the University of St Andrews, UK. "This is indeed a major milestone." ...

While light normally travels at just under 300 million metres per second in a vacuum, physicists managed to slow it down to just 17 metres per second in 1999 and then halt it completely two years later, though only for a fraction of a second. Earlier this year, researchers kept it still for 16 seconds using cold atoms.

Isn't that just incredible? Stopping light at all, let alone for a whole minute? And they don't think they've reached the limit yet, either.

I remember reading science fiction about this concept, though even then they just slowed light, rather than stopping it completely (admittedly, for much longer periods of time). But it's not just fiction, now. It's real.

OK, OK, light gets slowed down in a prism (as in the photo above), too. Indeed, I think it slows down when moving through any medium - even air - as the light-speed limit is when light moves through a vacuum. Still, this is pretty neat stuff, don't you think?

Innocent students turned away from Obama speech


From Daily Kos:
The rightwing echo chamber reverberates with the sound of outrage:
FreedomWorks: Obama Bars College Republicans from Speech, Labels Them Security Threat

Town Hall: College Republicans Deemed Security Threat at Obama Speech

The Blaze: College Republicans Say They Weren't Allowed Into Obama's Speech Because They Were Deemed a Security Threat

OK, anyone want to guess what happens next? Yep.

The National Review rehashed the story today in the form of an interview with one of the "victims": Courtney Scott, Treasurer of the Missouri College Republicans. In the course of doing so they accidentally blundered into a bit of reporting.

Bad move.
At about 3:40 p.m., an individual, whom Scott believes to have been a police officer because of his clothing, which included a hat emblazoned with the letters "PD," stopped the group short of the gymnasium where Obama was scheduled to speak. He told them that they would not be able to proceed further. The group showed him their tickets, but the man said the doors had already closed and that they could not be let in. The tickets stated that the doors opened at 1:45 p.m. and did not state when the doors were scheduled to close. President Obama was scheduled to begin speaking at 4:00.

Emphasis mine. I realize that if you are a College Republican you are hoping to matriculate into a world where the rules do not apply to you - but strolling to the vicinity of the entrance with less than 20 minutes to go and then whining because the Secret Service won't unlock the doors for you? Surely some things are simply beyond the bounds of reason, even for conservatives.

To their credit, The Blaze updated its original post with a statement from the Secret Service (though not one which really addressed the issue here), but those other websites did not. And the comments at all of them demonstrate how clueless their readers really are.

This had nothing to do with being College Republicans,... except for the whining afterwards. That, I'm afraid, is all too typical.

Thinning the herd