That's interesting...

I's on Edjukashun - Loyola, Texas Textbooks & Wal-Mart<a>

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Monday, July 5, 2010

Fatter than ever

OK, these maps (from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, via Treehugger.com) are just astonishing. The top map shows America's state-by-state obesity rate in 1991. Not one American state had an adult obesity rate of greater than 20%. Some states had an obesity rate of less than 10%. (There are no records from three states, those shown in white.)

The bottom map shows the most recent data on adult obesity. Now, only one state has a rate of less than 20% (that's Colorado, at 19.1%). More than two-thirds of our states have an adult obesity rate of greater than 25% - and eight of them have rates above 30%. Mississippi, the fattest state in the Union, has an obesity rate of 33.8%. More than two-thirds of Mississippi adults are overweight.

What is going on here? After all, we're not talking about the days of our grandparents (or the contrast would be even greater). We're fatter - far fatter - than we were even in the 1990's - and the obesity rate back then was certainly nothing to be proud of. I don't get it. Are we really eating more junk food now than we were in the 1990's? Are we really getting even less exercise? It's hard to imagine that this is all that's going on.

After all, we've had television almost universally in America since the 1960's (almost 90% of American households had a TV in 1960). As a child, I spent my Saturdays pretty well glued to the TV, making myself half sick from staring at the screen for hour after hour. We didn't have computers back then, but we certainly had TV. (And since the obesity rate is highest among the poor, it's hard to imagine that computers are the problem.) And junk food? That's nothing particularly new, either. Has our junk food addiction really changed appreciably from the 1990's? That's hard to imagine, too.

OK, obviously I'd prefer to find a magic bullet here. I'd like to see us identify a chemical, some food additive or artificial ingredient, that's causing these soaring rates of obesity, because that would be an easy fix. As a skeptic, I know that we always want to find simple answers - and I know how very easy it is to believe what we really want to believe. We look for simple answers, when we should be looking for the truth. So I'm not going to jump to any firm conclusions about this.

But it's still hard to believe that our lifestyles have changed that much since the 1990's, don't you think? That wasn't ancient times, for Jebus' sake. Americans didn't walk everywhere, laboring in the fields, tending their crops by hand. We were Cheeto-munching couch potatoes in the 1990's, too, I assure you. Do you really think we had more discipline back then? I don't think so. So why have we become even fatter as a nation than we were then? What has changed? What is continuing to change? After all, this trend certainly hasn't stopped. (Adult obesity rates increased in 28 states over the past year.)

I'll tell you one thing: personal discipline isn't going to solve this problem. Oh, sure, if you're really disciplined and determined, you can probably solve your own personal weight problem. It won't be easy, but it can be done if you really stick with it. But it's only the rare person who's that disciplined and determined, and even then, it seldom lasts long. No, a nationwide problem like this requires deliberate government policies. There's a reason for this explosion in obesity. We need to find that reason - or those reasons - and we need to attack the problem as a society.

I don't know the solution. As I say, there probably isn't a magic bullet. However, it would greatly help if our government policies didn't actually contribute to the problem. Our government subsidizes the worst kinds of food, so that our cheapest food is also the most fattening and the least healthy. Well, farm subsidies are based on political power, not science, not even common sense. For example, we subsidize the domestic sugar industry, which not only keeps sugar cheap but also damages the economies of our neighbors in the Caribbean, some of the poorest nations on the planet. Yeah, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth keeps the poorest from competing, just to keep big corporations happy!

Republican businessmen and farmers talk a lot about the magic of the marketplace and the benefits of competition, but it's generally just talk. When it comes to their own pocketbooks, they insist on their God-given right to suck at the government teat. Yeah, government welfare is pure and beautiful when the money comes to you, isn't it? Try to change farm policy and you'll have every rural senator in the nation - from both parties - screaming bloody murder. Well, that's just because their constituents demand it. (And since the number of senators doesn't vary by population, rural states have far more political power than they should.)

Would this solve the problem? Of course not. But it would help, or at least not make the problem worse. Right now, the poorest Americans are also the fattest, and part of that is because the cheapest food is the most fattening and the least healthy. And that's the kind of food we serve in our schools, too - partly because it's cheap and partly because corporations who make money selling junk food have a lot of political power. Ketchup as a vegetable, anyone? Oh, now that's a healthy meal!

(image from Wikipedia Commons)

Personally, I doubt if most obesity-prevention programs will work, but we have to try them. And more importantly, we need to examine the results. Throw out what doesn't work, or what isn't cost effective, and concentrate on what does.

Also, I'm skeptical about PE in schools. All too often, it doesn't encourage activity people can - or will - continue as adults. (And at worst, it just encourages the passive watching of televised sports.) I'd rather see free-form recess than organized PE. And to combat obesity, I'd rather concentrate on strict nutritional standards for school lunches and vending machines. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm certainly no expert. Again, we need careful scientific investigations of everything we do. Find out what really works, not just what has the most popular (or corporate) support.

Personally, I think that encouraging gardening might help, too. For me, at least, I like to eat what I grow myself. I rarely buy vegetables in the grocery store, because they just don't sound good (not compared to all the junk food available, anyway). But if I grow it myself, I eat it and I like it. OK, this isn't going to solve the obesity epidemic, but it might help. Try it yourself, if you can.

But again, we need smarter policies at the federal level. Here's an interesting argument about attacking the problem from a supply side, rather than the demand side. I already talked about this, but it bears repeating.

Because current market incentives, imposed by the government, encourage factory production of protein and mass production of high fructose corn syrup, we have (surprise) super-cheap, mass-produced chicken, pork, beef, and sweet treats.

Changing those policies won’t be easy, because there’s a vast industry — much of it now geared to export — that has grown fat on those policies.

Companies like Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods and Archer Daniels Midland have grown fat on our current system of subsidies. So have our fast food chains. So have our food manufacturers. ...

Because we subsidize exports of grain, sugar and protein, African, Asian and South American markets can’t develop. And because we subsidize for export, we can’t either.

The answer to the obesity epidemic lies in changing our production incentives. Take the price supports off mass produced grain and feed, give them to small local truck farms and sustainable production methods. Then export expertise, which is more valuable than corn syrup anyway.

Can we do this? Yes. Will we? No, probably not. But let's keep trying. I become increasingly pessimistic the older I get, but it's cowardly to give up. And it's lazy to stop trying to make a difference. (If you don't vote, you should be ashamed of yourself! I mean it. No excuses are sufficient. Vote, damn it!)

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Homeopathy and Star Trek

Gobbledygook is fine in fantasy and science fiction - at least on television or in the movies, where plausibility isn't a serious consideration anyway. But don't allow yourself to be fooled in real-life, just because some explanation seems sciency or includes real words like "proton" or "quantum."

A scam artist must seem sincere and even likable, or he's not going to be successful. It's a requirement for that kind of con. And whether these people are just trying to fool you or are also fooling themselves, you don't want to be that kind of fool. They're peddling fantasy, nothing more.

If you want a simple explanation of homeopathy, without all that nonsense gobbledygook, you might try this comic book. Can't get much simpler than that, right? And when it comes to information, simple - understandable - is good.

"Slow Train to Arcturus" by Eric Flint and Dave Freer

Eric Flint has been one of my favorite authors since his first SF novel, Mother of Demons, in 1997. I like his optimistic attitude and I love his characters, who tend to be very likable people. It's easy to care what happens to them. Plus, his heroes aren't supermen who single-handedly solve every problem that comes their way. Instead, it's usually teamwork - a bunch of appealing characters working together - that wins out in the end. And finally, his villains aren't supermen, either, and sometimes they're not even all that villainous, just wrong.

At his best, Flint's novels are superbly entertaining. But sadly, he's been rather hit or miss lately. The thing is, he's been very prolific, apparently writing several books at the same time, with many different collaborators. I really think he's overextended himself. Too many of his recent books are just... OK. Yes, they're entertaining, but nothing special. And since special is what I expect from him, it's always disappointing when I don't get it.

Dave Freer has been a frequent collaborator with Flint, first with Rats, Bats, and Vats, a humorous and very entertaining SF novel - and the sequel, The Rats, the Bats, and the Ugly, which was even more fun - and with fantasy like The Shadow of the Lion (also co-authored by Mercedes Lackey). He was also the sole author of A Mankind Witch, set in the same fantasy world as the latter novel, which was lots of fun.

Given all that, I guess I was a bit disappointed with Slow Train to Arcturus. It was an entertaining read, certainly, but it wasn't one of their best efforts. Still, it wasn't bad, either. Generation ships used to be a staple of science fiction, and I was very glad to see a new take on that (with separate "pods" for different - mostly pretty bizarre - human cultures). As the huge generation ship passes near a distant solar system, aliens send a ship to check it out. But after an initial, disastrous encounter with Aryan survivalists, one surviving alien must make his way through other pods filled with strange humans in order to get home again.

So what's not to like? Yeah, it was entertaining. And I should note that I especially liked the end of the book. But Flint has done far better aliens than this. In fact, these hardly seem very alien at all. I never did get a feel for the main alien character, not even so much as to imagine what he looked like. (He was not just humanoid, but remarkably human-like, apparently.) But the aliens seemed to be just an excuse to show all the weird varieties of human beings. That was disappointing.

The human characters were fine, but again, nothing really special. OK, I did like Howard, who struggles mightily with his fundamentalist Christian upbringing, but Lani never did seem realistic - and her nudist matriarchy was just ridiculous. That said, I enjoyed the way the story went, especially towards the end of it.

I certainly don't want to give you the wrong idea, because the book was fun. But I know that these two authors can do much better. That did make it disappointing.

******
I want to briefly mention another recent read, "Act One," a 2009 novella by Nancy Kress nominated for both the Hugo and Nebula Awards. It's really a great story, with some superb characters. Like many of her SF stories, it concerns genetic engineering, and the issues aren't simple.

For now, at least, it's freely available online, so I don't think I'll go into details. But I highly recommend it. As it turns out, this story did not win the Nebula Award (the Hugo Awards haven't been decided yet), and I haven't read the story which did (it's "The Women of Nell Gwynne's" by Kage Baker). But if that's better than this one, I really need to get a copy!

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Is this what happened to America?

(The Far Left Side)

Friday, July 2, 2010

Backyard farmer

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Manny Howard

OK, this is funny, but there's more truth to it than you might think. The past four or five years, I've been growing fruit in my backyard - apples, apricots, pears, peaches, nectarines, plums, pluots, cherries, gooseberries, currants, raspberries, strawberries, and grapes - and I think it would have been cheaper just to buy fruit, especially since I give most of it away.

And that's even considering my labor to be free. Let me tell you, it's been a lot of work. I figured that you could just plant a fruit tree and then pick the fruit when it ripened. What could be easier than that? Ha! There is always work I need to do, and I'm always behind in it.

True, I haven't cut off any fingers, but maybe that's because I rarely use power tools. (I'm usually scratched, cut, or otherwise dinged up in some way or another.) And although I haven't beaten any rabbits to death, one did die of heat stroke after I chased it around my yard for awhile one hot and humid day. Yeah, it was him or me. (Luckily, I wasn't the one wearing a fur coat.)

I must admit that my fruit tends to be much better tasting than what I can buy in the grocery store. But after growing my own, I'm just astonished at how cheap fruit and vegetables really are. I really don't understand how they do it....

Anyway, as long as I'm on the subject, let me give any prospective fruit-growers here a few tips. Note that this is my experience in Lincoln, Nebraska. Your results in other locations may vary, depending on your climate and different insect and disease problems. But I've found that some fruit is a lot easier and less time-consuming to grow than others.

Rhubarb - sort of an honorary fruit, I guess - is by far the easiest thing I grow. Heck, it was here when I bought the house 25 years ago, and I've never done anything but pick it. But it's way too sour to eat fresh, so I just give it all away. (I don't cook, or not much.)

My black raspberries have been pretty easy, too. The birds planted them - actually, they planted one raspberry, which soon grew to two long rows - and they need pruning a couple of times a year, but that's about it. Squirrels generally leave them alone, and although the birds love them, there's usually enough for all of us. (Mulberries would be the same way, but I've actually had trouble growing them.)

Strawberries and grapes are almost as easy. They need care - pruning the grapevines and managing the strawberry patch - only once a year, and I never have to spray them for anything (your mileage may vary). However, they must be netted when they start to get ripe or the birds will get the whole crop. And although the squirrels never bother my grapes, I've had to set up an electric wire (which I rub with strawberry juice) to keep them out of my strawberries.

Currants and gooseberries are both very easy, and they'll grow in places that don't get much sun. In fact, here in Nebraska, they really need some shade. The currants don't need spraying, but they must be netted to keep the birds out (luckily, currants don't have thorns), while one annual spray of Bt keeps the worms out of my gooseberries, and the birds and squirrels don't bother them at all.

The currants are even easy to pick, since they grow in bunches, like grapes, and they all ripen at the same time. (The gooseberries, which are low to the ground and very thorny, are easily the worst fruit to pick, as far as I'm concerned.) Unfortunately, they're both better suited for cooking than to eat fresh. I do like the Poorman variety of gooseberry - they're very tasty when almost ripe - and the Black Velvet variety isn't bad, either. But for fresh-eating, most of my gooseberries are too sour when green and too bland when ripe. (They all make great pie, though!)

Then we get to the tree fruits. Unfortunately, they generally need a lot of spraying - in fact, more than they get from me. Invading insects and diseases from all over the world keep up a never-ending assault on them. They also need a lot of work pruning and training the branches, at least when you're trying to keep them small (since I'm just a backyard fruit-grower, I've crowded everything severely).

And every bird and mammal in the world will seemingly be after your fruit. Birds will peck holes in one fruit after another, if they can't eat the whole thing. Squirrels will gorge on them and carry off everything they can. (My squirrels even like little green - and very sour - apples. They'll completely strip a small tree months before the apples get ripe, if you let them.)

It's really a lot of work. From spring through fall, I seem to be working in the yard almost constantly, and I rarely get caught up. Heck, even picking the fruit is a lot of work. Really! Since my mother was in the hospital last week, I'm even further behind than usual. So this blog has taken the short end of the stick, for now. OK, time to get to work.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Five to four

Ed Stein's comments:

The New York Times noted that in the four months the Supreme Court has debated overturning the Chicago gun ban, 10,000 Americans have died as a result of gun violence. In another bold foray into judicial activism, the Roberts Five has imposed its preferences on the Constitution, blithely ignoring half of the Second Amendment. The full amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” How does an unaffiliated bunch of armed citizens, packing whatever weaponry they can get their hands on, constitute a well-regulated militia? Well, never mind, the originalists on the Court have decided to ignore the original text in this case and apply only the second half of the amendment, concocting an individual right where none clearly and plainly exists.

I’ll be the first to admit that localized gun control laws don’t work particularly well, mainly because it’s far to easy, say in Chicago, to leave the city and purchase an arsenal elsewhere. The NRA, along with its allies in Congress and in local governments, has been spectacularly effective in preventing a rational system of gun control to take root in this country, and the result is a nation awash in gun violence. Worse, as the available weaponry becomes more and more sophisticated and lethal, police are losing the arms race to criminals, who find it far too easy to acquire whatever they want.

None of this seems to matter to this court, which has an agenda and will find a way to bend the meaning of the Constitution to suit its liking. Let’s see, it’s taken me about four hours to draw this cartoon and write this blog. That means about fourteen people died from gunshot wounds while I was sitting at my desk. What a country!

I'll just point out that, even in the rare cases where the Roberts Court does something right, the decision is usually 5-4. In recent decades, the GOP has packed the Supreme Court with four members who are just completely batshit crazy. The swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a right-wing conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan, and he's all too ready to listen to the far-right fanatics. Unlike them, he doesn't seem to be a complete lunatic, but he doesn't stand against them very often.

This is how close we are to losing America. This court has already overturned precedent and decided that multinational corporations are just like people. Even freedom of speech has limits, but apparently not gun ownership. And we're just that close to losing freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Yes, that close to putting the Christian Taliban in power in America.

This is an activist court to end all activist courts. Forget the right-wing propaganda. This court thinks nothing of overturning Congressional laws and even overturning its own long-standing precedent. And all they'd need is just one more loony. Get the Republicans back in power to appoint just one more right-wing fanatic and it's all over - for a generation, at least. It's that close.

And now that multinational corporations can spend all they want to elect their own president, the odds aren't good. They've already got Fox "News" pushing far-right propaganda day and night. And the entire Republican Party is determined to slow or stop this economic recovery, no matter how badly that will harm America, just to get back into power again. (Hmm,... isn't that treason, to deliberately harm your own country?)

You think George W. Bush was bad? Just wait until you see the lunatic they'll nominate next time.

Relax and enjoy it

From the Huffington Post, via Jerry Coyne (HuffPo is too loony, in certain respects, for me to want to direct you there), comes this radio interview with Sharron Angle, Republican candidate (NV) for U.S. Senate, in which she describes rape and incest as all part of God's plan:

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

I'm sure that's comforting to rape victims, knowing that Angle thinks their suffering is actually a good thing, all part of God's plan. (I suppose that preventing a rape would be helping Satan, then?)

Actually, I'd say that shows why we shouldn't allow people to force their own religious beliefs on the rest of us. Angle's weird religious views would be no problem at all if she didn't try to legislate them. She can believe any loony thing she wants, personally. What she can't do - or, rather, what she shouldn't be able to do - is force her own beliefs on other people.

But that's exactly what she intends. So how is that any different than the Taliban?

PS. I also like the comment from Deen:

If your God’s plan includes rape and incest, then I want nothing to do with your God, or you.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Doomsday Bunkers

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Doomsday Bunkers

Shades of the 1950's, huh? (Except for the zombies, I guess.) OK, you're too young for this, I'm sure. But when I was in grade school, there were always big piles of Civil Defense pamphlets at every school function, urging Americans to build bomb shelters. Well, we didn't have Fox "News" back then. Nice to see this stuff privatized, isn't it? (Next up, Social Security.)

These days, so many people seem to be eagerly awaiting the collapse of civilization. It's funny, isn't it? (Well, it's funny provided they have no political power. If the Republicans take power again, it will just be scary.) I suppose it's great fun stocking up on guns and non-hybrid seeds, just waiting for the hordes of starving children to stagger into your killing fields.

Of course, if you're one of the elite in these fancy doomsday bunkers, you can wait out the carnage and emerge, well-fed, into a cleansed world, ready to take your rightful place as the new aristocracy. (Surely a year will be long enough for the radiation to die down and the mutant plagues to run their course, won't it?) I wonder how they plan to split up the world? Draw straws? Hey, with any luck, they'll have two worlds to divide between them.

This is just the modern version of gathering on a hilltop, waiting for the world to end with the Second Coming of Jesus. Unfortunately, we still have that type, too. What's with this eager anticipation for the end of the world? Heck, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 40% of Americans think that Jesus will return sometime in the next 40 years. No wonder they're not worried about global warming or the energy crisis! Sorry, people, but Jesus died a long time ago, and he ain't coming back. We human beings must fix our own problems.

And hiding away in a bunker or a survivalist camp is not going to help, nor is praying for the end of the world. Hello, are there any sane people left in America?

Smart career move?

(photo by Master Sgt. Jerry Morrison, via Wikipedia)

Did General Stanley A. McChrystal want to be fired? Was it all a clever plot? That's what David Brin suggests:

Why, then, has nobody in the mass media even considered the simplest hypothesis --

-- that McChrystal did it all on purpose? ...

Consider the Liddy-North Effect, named for convicted criminals G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, whose conspiratorial efforts to undermine lawful government should have ensured perpetual infamy, but who instead went straight from prison to cushy roles as ranting hatchetmen in an oligarchy-subsidized punditry. What these men proved is that, unless you are caught eviscerating small animals or children on video, there is nothing -- no misbehavior -- that will prevent a prominent and macho critic of democrats from getting a paid gig on Fox News or Venom Radio. Indeed, the more choleric, insulting and pyrotechnically disrespectful the behavior, the more likely you will get a plum slot.

Hence, it is with no lack of grudging respect that I predict this fellow will slip comfortably into whatever retirement engagement he has lined up, and we will see his face and hear his voice for the next 20 years, reading whatever talking points are put in front of him, whining - like Ollie North - about his Martyrdom at the hands of cursed liberals.

Hey, you gotta hand it to a tactician, who -- upon approaching inevitable retirement -- maps out the perfect campaign to optimize his results, forcing the hand of his boss, creating a situation where the president has no option at all, but to fire a “fighting general” and send him on his strategically planned way.

What do you think? Will McChrystal reappear in a lucrative gig on Fox News? Will he write bestsellers or get his own talk radio show? Was all this a plan to make loads of money, never mind what it would cost our country? Brin discusses the evidence and makes it all seem very plausible. And although he doesn't mention Sarah Palin, her leap from being a half-term governor to multimillionaire quitter might have been persuasive, too. But right now, it's all just speculation.

Incidentally, here's another interesting section of Brin's post:

...McChrystal's antipathy for democrats is not universal among his peers. Indeed, I have long made a strong case that the US Officer Corps should be considered among the top victims of the insanity known as Neoconservatism. That movement’s relentless war against every reservoir of sagacity and expertise - its one consistent program - has extended far beyond Tea Party populism, the War on Science, and the campaign to demolish and disable the US Civil Service (with effects we now see in the Gulf of Mexico). It also featured the most outrageous meddling by politicians in military affairs - for political reasons - that we have seen since the Vietnam War.

The harm done by the neocons to the military, and especially the US Army is well-documented; when Bill Clinton left office, every Army and Marine brigade was deemed by military auditors to be “fully combat ready.” After George Bush was done, the number of “war ready” brigades was precisely zero. And though the conversion of our land forces from supremely potent battlefield dominators to bedraggled counter insurgency swat-teams went uncriticized on the right, it contributed to desperate worry among the top members of the Officer Corps. Well, most of them.

But the rational members of the U.S. officer corps stay out of politics, so by and large, we citizens haven't heard any "desperate worry" about political meddling - and we probably won't. Besides, in the public mind, the GOP is firmly linked with supporting our military, just because that's their reputation (erroneous though it might be). The Democrats are just the reverse. When Barack Obama increased funding for the military, the Republican Party claimed that he was cutting military spending. And although the evidence was clear, the uninformed general public seemed to buy the lie, just because it fit with that long-term mental image.

The right-wing may be terrible at governing, hopeless at science, and embarrassingly bad with economics, but they seem to be very good at politics.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Gomer

(Louie "Terror Baby" Gohmert)

Sometimes I wonder if the entire Republican Party isn't just a big practical joke being played on the American people. Have they always been this crazy?

Here's Gomer - excuse me, Rep. Louie Gohmert (from Texas, naturally) - explaining on the floor of the House of Representatives a diabolical terrorist plot: sneaking young pregnant women into America so they can give birth on American soil, then raising the kid to be a terrorist and send him back to our country in 20 or 30 years!

Heh, heh. I trust I don't have to explain how batshit crazy this is. No doubt it was meant as support for Rand Paul's wacko idea of repealing the 14th Amendment (and also, I suppose, as a nod to the even loonier birthers, who refuse to accept a black man as legitimately President of the United States). But how stupid must we Americans be to keep electing dim-bulbs like this? Gohmert is supposed to be a leader in our country, not some homeless guy wearing a tinfoil hat who rants about conspiracies as he's digging through a dumpster.

How could any elected official get away with saying something this insane without immediately losing any chance at reelection? What has happened to our country that the crazies have taken over the GOP with hardly any repercussions at all?

And then we've got Jonathan Chait cheering us up with stuff like this:

If economic conditions remain terrible, it's likely that the Republican Party will regain power. 9% unemployment would give even a radioactive figure like Sarah Palin a decent chance to win the presidency, and a double-dip recession would give her a very strong chance of success. This means there's a significant chance that by 2013 the country will be governed by a Republican Party that makes the Bush-era version appear benign by comparison.

Good luck getting to sleep tonight!

Dara O'Briain

Saturday, June 26, 2010

"Hidden in Sight" by Julie E. Czerneda

Hidden in Sight is the final volume of Julie E. Czerneda's Web Shifters space opera trilogy. Like the other two, Beholder's Eye and Changing Vision, it's a complete story in itself, though the books do need to be read in order.

I read this book while sitting in a hospital all week, so there were plenty of interruptions, and my mind wasn't entirely on the story. But it was a good book for that. Since it's so very long (nearly 500 pages in my paperback copy), I'd been delaying starting it. That's one of the problems with books this big. It takes a real effort to start them. But needing to wait at the hospital gave me the incentive I needed. And since it's the third volume in a trilogy, I already knew most of the characters. So concentration wasn't essential.

In fact, there really wasn't much new at all in Hidden in Sight. Esen, the young (600-year-old) shapechanger, is a delight, as always. And her human companion, Paul, is loyal, caring, and fiercely determined to keep her safe. Czerneda always does a superb job creating characters you care about, and this book is filled with them. But again, we've met most of them before.

As shown in the previous book, Paul and Esen have made a new life running a trading company on Minas XII, their real identities - and Esen's real nature - carefully hidden. Now, though, attacks on their home and business put them on the run. Meanwhile, someone is mining Picco's Moon, where Ersh lived, and is killing Tumblers who get too close.

One thing I like about Czerneda is that her villains tend to be understandable. In fact, often they're not really villains at all, just people doing what they think is right. And her heroes recognize that. That doesn't make the danger any less, but it opens up new opportunities for solutions. It's an intelligent way of thinking, and IMHO, far more plausible than super-villains, serial killers, and the like.

Likewise, her aliens tend to do things for alien reasons. If you understand them, you can understand their actions. They may not be right, they may not be admirable, but there are still reasons. It makes her books seem more plausible to me (even books about 600-year-old shapechangers). And there's a basically optimistic attitude to her novels that I really like.

Once I actually started Hidden in Sight, I had no trouble sticking with it. But I wonder if 500 pages was really necessary. Czerneda can't seem to write short novels, and I think this one is the longest of all. It's really kind of ridiculous, especially as the third volume in a trilogy. And as I say, there's not much that's new here (note that they were even on the run in the previous book, though the circumstances weren't identical). However, we do learn something new about shapeshifters, and the story seems to be a fitting end to the trilogy.

Do I seem to be damning with faint praise? I don't mean to. But I loved Beholder's Eye. And Changing Vision was also lots of fun, while adding a bit to the story. This one is sort of... more of the same. If you liked the previous books, you'll like this one, but it probably won't have the same impact. It's a fitting conclusion, but not something you really need to read (although I did love the very end of the book).

PS. I read the previous two books in the trilogy before I started this blog, so you won't find the reviews here. But you might check out my post on Czerneda's Species Imperative trilogy. I really am impressed with her writing ability. Her characters are great, and so are her aliens.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Rand Paul and the Fourteenth Amendment

Rand Paul, Tea Party hero and candidate for U.S. Senate (R - KY), has become more cautious lately, after that initial debacle about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Worried about "gotcha" questions from the mainstream media (like "what newspapers and magazines do you read?"), Paul has been avoiding direct answers about his extremist political views. And like Sharron Angle in Nevada, he's been granting extended interviews only to right-wing media, where he's guaranteed softball questions.

Nevertheless, Paul's opinions are so extremely radical, he's having a hard time hiding them completely. Recently, he suggested amending the U.S. Constitution to remove the 14th Amendment guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in America. The idea is to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, even when those children are born in this country.

Now think about that. Think about what kind of country we want. Rand Paul's America would be one with a permanent underclass of non-citizens. Obviously, this would not deter most illegal immigrants, if it deterred any at all. But their children would not be citizens, and their children's children would not be citizens. We'd be creating a permanent underclass in this country - an underclass of Americans in all but name who constantly feared discovery and expulsion.

Think about it. What kind of society would this create? Instead of "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," we'd have a nation of two separate populations, one entitled to liberty and justice and one not. And the fact that this underclass would be almost entirely Hispanic would make it even worse. We'd have a government-sanctioned racial division of America for the first time since the end of segregation and worse than anything since the end of slavery. Is that the kind of America you want? I certainly don't!

And how would we enforce this? Could you really prove that your parents were American citizens, especially if that depended on whether or not their parents were citizens, and their grand-parents before that? Almost inevitably, it would become a matter of national identity cards and other favorites of authoritarian regimes (and the corruption that would come along with them). Meanwhile, who would really have to prove their citizenship, as a practical matter? Yup, Hispanic Americans. I don't know if my German and Irish ancestors were here legally or not, but I wouldn't be needing to demonstrate that, would I? Only Hispanic Americans would need to worry about proving their citizenship.

Racists are in favor of proposals like this, because they're terrified that white men are losing their privileged position in this country. You wouldn't see this concern about illegal immigration if they were Englishmen, Germans, or Swedes. Obviously, this hysteria has erupted now because of the symbolism of our first black president. (The "birther" mania is another symptom of that.)

But it's far too late for that now. Like it or not, we're a diverse nation and we're getting more diverse all the time. Trying to legislate an upper class will only destroy what America stands for. We're far better off teaching all children what it means to be an American - and that it has nothing to do with the color of your skin, what language you speak at home, or your holiday traditions. Bigotry has a long, sad history in this country, but it is fundamentally un-American.

PS. Due to a family emergency, posting is likely to be a rather light this week. And next week, I might need to be catching up on other chores. So please bear with me.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Orwell Diaries

(Orwell's press card photo, 1933, via Wikipedia)

I hate to publicize a competitor, but did you know that George Orwell has a blog? Here's the start of his post last Thursday:

The French have surrendered. This could be foreseen from last night’s broadcast and in fact should have been foreseeable when they failed to defend Paris, the one place where it might have been possible to stop the German tanks. Strategically all turns on the French fleet, of which there is no news yet…

Considerable excitement today over the French surrender, and people everywhere to be heard discussing it. Usual line, “Thank God we’ve got a navy”. A Scottish private, with medals of the last war, partly drunk, making a patriotic speech in a carriage in the Underground, which the other passengers seemed rather to like. Such a rush on evening papers that I had to make four attempts before getting one.

OK, as you might have guessed, these are actually posts from George Orwell's diary, 70 years ago to the day. That one was originally written June 17, 1940. It's a neat idea, isn't it? Each "blog post" is that day's diary entry. It's as if you were reading about these events in real-time. And, obviously, it's a fascinating period of time.

Many of the "posts" right now concern worries about a possible German invasion of Great Britain. Think we have problems now? That must have been absolutely terrifying. But the British held up under the strain. Indeed, it was perhaps their finest hour. (Winston Churchill's "This was their finest hour" speech was delivered to Parliament the following day, June 18, 1940.)

Here you can follow along and relive those events of 70 years ago with George Orwell.

It is impossible even yet to decide what to do in the case of German conquest of England. The one thing I will not do is to clear out, at any rate not further than Ireland, supposing that to be feasible. If the fleet is intact and it appears that the war is to be continued from America and the Dominions, then one must remain alive if possible, if necessary in the concentration camp. If the U.S.A is going to submit to conquest as well, there is nothing for it but to die fighting, but one must above all die fighting and have the satisfaction of killing somebody else first.

We must remember that it's in times like this that nations either rise to the challenge or falter and fail. Do we live in difficult times? Well, this is nothing like World War II or even the Great Depression. So, can we show even half the courage our ancestors did? Or have we become timid little people, gullible, frightened of shadows, and easily led by demagogues?

We've certainly failed to show much courage or common sense so far, in the first decade of the 21st Century. Can we recover our nerve now? I guess we'll see. Given the current teabagger lunacy, the anti-immigrant hysteria, the "birther" idiocy - and, just basically, Fox "News" making money hand over fist - I can't say that I'm optimistic. But I hope I'm wrong.

USA Board of Ophthalmological Freedom

USA Board of Ophthalmological Freedom

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Day 62

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Day 62 - The Strife Aquatic

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes