The air must be pretty thin up there

(Tim Eagan)

President Obama at the 2014 White House Correspondents' Dinner

President Obama always does a great job at these - I wonder who writes his jokes - but this was particularly funny, I thought. I mean, how can you not like this:

Noting that he had traveled to Asia recently, Obama said: "The lengths we have to go to get CNN coverage these days. I think they're still searching for their table."

The president saved his sharpest jabs for another cable news network. "The Koch brothers bought a table here tonight, but as usual they used a shadowy right-wing organization as a front. Hello, Fox News!"

He added: "Let's face it, Fox. You'll miss me when I'm gone. It will be harder to convince the American people that Hillary was born in Kenya."

Joel McHale was the headliner, and he had a few funny jokes, but Obama was better. Well, see for yourself.

Oh, and Obama's cartoon about the conservative bromance for Vladimir Putin? That was also hilarious. David Horsey had a similar one, so maybe that's where they got it?

(David Horsey)

Dear believer

Great video, isn't it?

The Myth of Persecution

This interview with Candida Moss, author of The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom, is absolutely fascinating, not just because of its insight into early Christian history, but because she brings it into the present day, too.

Note how Bill O'Reilly's 'war on Christmas' is basically the same thing. Christians claim that they're under attack because that makes them gather together in defense, but also because it justifies any kind of attack they want to make. After all, they're just defending themselves, right?

As Moss explains, this persecution mentality is useful. But I suspect, too, that it's fun - at least, it's fun for believers to think this way when it isn't actually true. You may have a humdrum life in reality, but in your imagination, you're actually a warrior for Jesus, fighting Satan, under constant attack by evil forces. What fun, huh?

How Jesus became God

This is an interview by Terry Gross on National Public Radio of Bart D. Ehrman, who's just published a new book called How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.

It is, of course, a very careful interview, though that won't assuage NPR's right-wing critics in the slightest. Just interviewing Ehrman at all is probably making them furious. But I thought it was fascinating.

I haven't read his latest book, though I certainly enjoyed two of his previous books (see my reviews here). Ehrman is a former evangelical Christian turned atheist (Gross calls him an agnostic, which is probably another attempt to mollify believers) when he learned too much about the history of the Bible.

But Prof. Ehrman does believe that Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. That's the view of most Bible scholars - certainly, most Christian Bible scholars - but not all. (And I'm not sure we can call it a consensus, anyway, because they're all over the place in what they do believe about him.)

The four Gospels which made it into the Bible (there were many others - even more diverse - which didn't) were written at various times after Jesus supposedly died on the cross, all written anonymously by highly educated Greek-speakers (Jesus and his poor, illiterate disciples would have spoken Aramaic) by people who didn't even claim to have met the man themselves.

And they show a steady progression of adding to the story, from the earliest Gospel of 'Mark,' for their own purposes. Even the Gospel of Mark had a new ending tacked on later, because the first one - or the earliest that we know about, at least - was so unsatisfying to later Christian believers. (To my mind, it ended exactly like you'd expect fiction to end, and certainly not like history!)

But as I say, Ehrman does believe in a historical Jesus, and he's careful to say that he makes no claims in the book about the divinity of Jesus or the reality of a resurrection. He says he considers those things to be religion, not history. Maybe that's even true, I don't know.

Still, there's a reason why his increasing knowledge of Biblical history turned him into an atheist, and his comments here should make anyone think (though they won't, of course - not in all cases).

5 stupid things about noetics

"I can't help but think of noetics as being in the same category as things like spirit science, or homeopathy, or alternative medicine - as something that allows people to make some coin off of credulous marks in exchange for doing absolutely nothing to actually help them."

Hmm,... did someone mention the National Day of Prayer? :)

National Day of Prayer Reason

Here's a post by James C. Nelson, a retired justice of the Montana Supreme Court (yeah, that hotbed of radical atheism/socialism/anarchism, Montana), which I'll excerpt below:

Congress has proclaimed that the first Thursday in May – May 1, this year – be set aside as a National Day of Prayer. There will be prayer breakfasts and similar events conspicuously attended by elected officials, politicians and sectarian persona.

But, should Congress and state officials be promoting prayer at all? According to the Constitution, no! ...

Importantly, there is not one mention of God, Jesus, Christ, Christianity or prayer in the religion clauses. There are only two references to “religion” in the Constitution – one in the First Amendment and another in Article VI banning any religious test for public office.

Indeed, the “Christian Nation” concept first came into existence during the Civil War – largely conceived and perpetuated by Northern ministers who, when the war was going badly, announced that the Union Army’s defeats were God’s punishment for ignoring God in the Constitution. But, when the tide of war shifted, these same ministers then proclaimed that God was rewarding the spiritually upright side of the conflict. Thus, America being founded as a “Christian Nation” is fiction. Worse than that, it is exactly contrary to what the framers were trying to negate in the First Amendment.

So, besides violating the principle of separation of church and state, what’s wrong with a national (or state) day of prayer? First, Americans don’t need a congressional proclamation to tell them to pray; they already have a personal, constitutional right to pray – or not to pray – as they (not the government) see fit.

Second, government is not permitted to be in the business of telling people whether to pray, when to pray or who to pray to.

Third, the National Day of Prayer has become a vehicle for spreading religious misinformation and fundamentalist Christian doctrine under the aegis of the government – again precisely what the framers were seeking to prohibit.

Feel free to pray or not pray today – not in response to a congressional proclamation but because you have a constitutional right to do either. But, if you choose to pray, you may want to ask that our elected officials begin to honor the letter and spirit of the First Amendment and respect the separation of church and state.

After all, each previously swore an oath to do just that.

Today is also the National Day of Reason (even here in Nebraska), May Day, and International Workers' Day, but you can spend the day praying if you want. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. As Justice Nelson says, you don't need a government to tell you whether to pray, when to pray, or who to pray to. Do you?

Politicians, of course, tend to be cowards. It's the rare politician who'll stand up against something like this - well, the rare successful politician, at least. But in a democracy, we get the kind of leaders we deserve.

The Bible, Pt. 28: Leviticus, Chapter 25-27

OK, it's been awhile, but I'm finally finishing Leviticus. This post, of course, follows directly from Pt. 27 as I continue to read the Christian Bible, King James version. The entire series can be found here.

Chapter 25:

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.

3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

5 That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

...

7 And for thy cattle, and for the beast that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be meat.

We're continuing with God's commandments, supposedly told to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and yeah, there's a lot of them. Here, he demands a 'sabbath' for the land.

Note that this isn't just a command that cropland be left fallow for one year out of seven, but that all land shall be left fallow in the same year. Later in this chapter, God promises that he'll greatly increase yields in the sixth year, so that there will be plenty of food to tide them over the sabbath year. (Note that this would be very easy to test - evidence for God that all could see.)

Otherwise, it appears that they can still butcher and eat their livestock. (And certainly, God won't do without his blood sacrifices and burnt offerings for a whole year! God doesn't like fruits and vegetables much, so those are OK.)

8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.

9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.

10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

After seven cycles of this - 49 years - the following year shall be the jubilee. Note that, just like the 49th year, the land is to remain fallow in the 50th year, too. (I hope the yields are really big that 48th year! Again, this is something which could be demonstrated, if that were true.)

But in addition, every man gets his possessions returned, and every man is returned to his family. What does that mean? God explains further:

13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.

...

15 According to the number of years after the jubile thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:

16 According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.

...

23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

This is God's land, so it can't be sold, but only leased - sublet, actually. The year of the jubilee, everything - or nearly everything - goes back to the original owner. (Well, not the original owner, because that would be the Canaanite they stole the land from in the first place.) Obviously, the price can vary, depending on how many years remain until the next jubilee, but God owns all the land, so no one can actually sell it.

24 And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

25 If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.

26 And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it;

27 Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession.

28 But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubile: and in the jubile it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession.

So you don't own the land, but you do possess it. If you sell away some of your possession, you or your family can always redeem it, once you come up with the money. But in any case, it will return to your family during the year of the jubilee.

29 And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year may he redeem it.

30 And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be established for ever to him that bought it throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the jubile.

31 But the houses of the villages which have no wall round about them shall be counted as the fields of the country: they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubile.

32 Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.

33 And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubile: for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel.

There's an exception to this - and an exception to the exception. A house in a walled city, if not redeemed in one year, is the buyer's forever. It doesn't return to the original owner during the jubilee,... unless that original owner is a Levite (one of the 12 tribes of Israel), in which case it does return to him.

And if the city isn't walled - if it's just a small village, in other words - then the houses are just like any other possession and will be returned to the original owner during the jubilee.

9 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:

41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.

42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

Note that this contradicts what God commanded in Exodus (Chapter 21), at least in part. You can buy a Hebrew slave (and later in this chapter it's clear a Hebrew can sell himself, at least), but they must go free after seven years.

However, if he has a wife and children, they don't go free. So he must choose to either abandon his family or stay with them as a slave forever, with him and his family passed down as property from generation to generation.

Confused? Never mind, God has the obvious solution:

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

You see, all these pesky rules only apply to Hebrew slaves. If you buy foreign slaves, you don't have to worry about any of that. If they're not Hebrews, you can own them forever, beat them all you like, and pass them down to your heirs just like any other possession.

Well, no, actually. Every other possession must be returned at the jubilee. But not slaves, not unless they're of the Hebrew people. Because God doesn't give a crap about any of them. He's the tribal god of the Jews and only the Jews. What you do with other people is none of his concern.

Hmm,... I wonder when he changed his mind about all that, don't you?

55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

OK, this explains it, don't you think? The 'children of Israel' are already slaves - they're God's slaves. Just like you can't buy God's land, you can't buy his slaves, either. You can rent them for awhile, they can be your possessions, but it's God who actually owns them.

And God values his property, at least to some extent. After all, he expects to get some value from them. Who else is going to keep supplying him with blood and burnt offerings? Certainly not the worshipers of the other gods.

You can kill your own livestock, if you wish, but your neighbor will be unhappy if you kill his. This is the same thing. God owns the Hebrews. He has no problem killing them whenever he wants, for even the most petty of reasons (like burning the wrong incense when worshiping him), but he doesn't want anyone else to kill them. They're his property, after all.

Other people? He doesn't give a crap about anyone else. Do whatever you like to them. If they're not his property, why should he care?

Chapter 26:

3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;

4 Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.

5 And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.

6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

Notice anything missing here? Yeah, there's no promise of an afterlife, is there? In fact, so far, there's not been one hint of an afterlife in the Bible (not one hint of Satan, either, but that's another matter).

God is talking entirely about this life. You'll still die, but if you do exactly what God wants, he'll make it a good life, with plenty of food, safety for your family, and death for your enemies.

And if you don't?

4 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:

16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

If you don't, then God will make you suffer. But only in this life. Again, there's not one hint of an afterlife here. There's no Hell. Hell hasn't been invented yet. God just threatens his people with a short, difficult life, if they disobey him. Well, what would you do to your slaves if they didn't obey?

Note that God spends 25 verses telling the Hebrews what he'll do to them if they disobey (including "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat"), but only 9 verses explaining what he'll do for them if they follow his commandments. Funny, huh?

But don't worry, he still needs slaves:

40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;

41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

If the Hebrews disobey, God will humble them until they come crawling back. They just have to remember who's boss. Everyone else? God doesn't care about them - not yet, at least.

Note how, conveniently, the priests have an explanation for everything. If things go well for the Hebrews, it's all because of God's help. If things go badly, it's all because God is punishing them - not necessarily for what they did, but because of what some other Hebrews did. (For some reason, God doesn't seem capable of punishing only the guilty. Odd, huh?)

But I really have to wonder what Christians think when they read this stuff. It's supposed to be their god, too, these days, isn't it? Of course, most of them don't read the Bible - not the whole thing, certainly. And they're faith-based, so they can probably rationalize away anything they don't want to believe, huh?

Chapter 27:

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation.

3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

8 But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I think it's how you can get out of temple service ('singular vow'?). If you're pledged to the temple - perhaps even as a baby - or you've made a pledge yourself, this is how much it will cost to get out of it again. (Note that women are valued far less than men at every age. Well, what did you expect? This is the Bible.)

That's just a guess, though, and this might be about taxes, instead, I don't know. The chapter continues with instructions on how to estimate the value of animals, land, and other property, which can also be redeemed (again, from the temple?):

9 And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that any man giveth of such unto the LORD shall be holy.

10 He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.

...

14 And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand.

15 And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his.

16 And if a man shall sanctify unto the LORD some part of a field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.

17 If he sanctify his field from the year of jubile, according to thy estimation it shall stand.

18 But if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated from thy estimation.

I just don't know what this chapter is all about. Maybe it is about taxes, rather than getting out of temple service, because note the following:

28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Yeah, no devoted thing, "both of man and beast," may be redeemed, but must be put to death, instead. That's human sacrifice, isn't it?

There are still clues in the Bible that God used to command human sacrifice, and this seems to be one of them. As religious beliefs changed, the ancient Hebrews were able to substitute lambs for their first-born male children, and eventually, human sacrifice seems to have been written out of the old stories.

But not entirely. They seem to have missed a few spots. In this case, is it just about animals and slaves 'devoted' to God as a sacrifice? Or does it also include anyone pledged to temple service? I don't know, but I suspect that the former explanation is correct. Hebrews pledged to temple service could buy their way out, but if you were a slave given as a sacrifice, you were dead meat.

At any rate, one thing I am sure about is that I'm very happy to be done with Leviticus,... finally! This chapter hasn't been much fun at all. I'm hoping that things will pick up in Numbers, though. I guess we'll see.

___
Note: You can find links to this entire series here.

"A Madness of Angels" by Kate Griffin

(cover image from Amazon.com)

I've been reading a lot of urban fantasy lately - Ben Aaronovitch, Benedict Jacka, Jim Butcher, among others. But A Madness of Angels (2009) by Kate Griffin (the pen name of Catherine Webb, who writes young adult fantasies under her real name) still managed to be quite unique.

Partly, that's due to the lush, descriptive language of the book. 450 pages long, this is a lot more detailed than most of the urban fantasies I've read. There's a good reason for that - it actually fits with the story - and the book kept my interest very well. What can I say? It works.

I wasn't too surprised. I picked up this book because of a review by a friend of mine, Tony Williams. An author himself - and a good one - he almost always favors shorter books, quicker reads. So when he liked it, despite its length, I had to take notice.

But the plot is different enough, too, from the usual. (One of my pet peeves with fantasy is the widespread lack of imagination among fantasy authors.) Two years after his murder - by magic - sorcerer Matthew Swift has returned to life. But he's not alone in his body.

"Life is magic." The idea here is that life itself creates magic, just by living. Swift is an urban sorcerer, someone who can get so caught up in the rhythms of the city that he risks getting lost in it. Yes, this is another fantasy set in London, and by another author who seems to love the city.

Who killed Matthew Swift, and who killed so many others in the two years he's been dead? And who brought him back? In a sense, this isn't just a fantasy, but a mystery, too.

I loved it, and since it's the first of a series, I've already ordered the sequel. I must admit to being skeptical that the sequels can be as good as this book - the whole idea won't be new anymore - but I'm anxious to find out.

Thanks, Tony, for the recommendation!

___
Note: My other book reviews are here.

"The Lost Fleet: Dauntless" by Jack Campbell

(cover image from Amazon.com)

The Lost Fleet: Dauntless (2006) by Jack Campbell is the first in his Lost Fleet series, and I'm not sure how I've missed it until now. I've certainly seen it often enough, but I guess it just didn't sound appealing until a trusted friend recommended it.

But I'm not sure why that is. A quote on the cover says, "A rousing adventure. . . the kind of hero Hornblower fans will love!" And I'm a huge fan of Horatio Hornblower.

I'm a fan of military science fiction, too. At least,... it's kind of a guilty pleasure, admittedly, since I rarely take it seriously, but I still find it fun. This is a little different from the typical military SF I read, though.

First, the story: John "Black Jack" Geary had become the great hero of his people in the century since he'd lost his life early in the war in a heroic rear-guard action. Only, it turned out he wasn't dead, just in suspended animation until their fleet stumbled upon his survival pod.

When the book begins, that fleet has suffered a crushing defeat, and Geary ends up in command of the remnants, facing a surrender-or-die ultimatum. Of course, you know that neither of those things is going to happen, but escape is the only chance they have. And they're far from home, deep in enemy territory.

At first, I wasn't sure if I was going to like this book, mostly because it's all told from Geary's point of view. The other characters are minor, at best. Typically, I like military fiction with lots of appealing characters - well, I like fiction in general with lots of appealing characters - so this was a bit different.

Geary faces not just opposition within the fleet, but his own doubts, as well. Some of his people think that he's the legend come back to life, destined to pull off miracle after miracle, but others doubt that he's even qualified to lead (most of his service life has been spent in suspended animation) or that there's anywhere to lead the fleet. And at least one of them fears that he's the legend - or that he thinks he is.

All this was interesting, but it took awhile before the book really grabbed me. But grab me it did, and I've already ordered the sequels. Still, there's another way that this book is atypical for military SF, and that's that it actually has something to say. It's actually thought-provoking.

Geary's service was pre-war and at the very beginning of the war. But the century of brutal war since then has changed his people and the fleet itself. No one else in his command really recognizes this, because they've grown up in it. And it takes awhile for Geary to recognize the changes, too.

These days, in a time when many politicians envisage a never-ending 'war on terror,' when we're told that torturing prisoners of war is just how we 'baptize terrorists,' when people who won't be doing the fighting and dying themselves can't wait to start the next war, this is a worthwhile theme to explore in science fiction, don't you think?

Also, most military science fiction seems to disparage democracy, apparently preferring a hereditary aristocracy, instead. That's how it seems to me, at least. Now, maybe an authoritarian outlook should be expected in people who write military fiction, I don't know. Certainly, the military itself isn't a democracy, and can't be.

But Geary's society does seem to be a democracy, and not a hopelessly inept or corrupt one. (Admittedly, we don't learn that much about it.) And the only civilian politician in the fleet isn't a fool or a coward. She doesn't like Geary much, but she's got good reason to distrust him. A legendary hero come back to life, if he could pull off another miracle, would have the kind of influence on a war-weary population that could indeed endanger their democracy.

So, although this book didn't immediately grab me, it was certainly interesting enough to keep reading. And as I did, I became more and more impressed as well as being increasingly entertained. I don't know how I missed this series previously, but I really hope the next books are as good as this one was.

___
Note: My other book reviews are here.

"Spheres of Influence" by Ryk E. Spoor

(cover image from Amazon.com)

Spheres of Influence (2013) by Ryk E. Spoor is the sequel, though definitely not the conclusion, to his Grand Central Arena. I enjoyed the first book, though I had some problems with it, and I enjoyed this one even more.

Mostly, I think, that's because I knew what to expect this time. I mean, I already knew - and accepted - that the book wouldn't be entirely to my taste in fiction. So I wasn't disappointed. I knew what I was getting, so... I guess I felt free to enjoy the parts I did like.

Fiction, after all, is inherently subjective. My taste in fiction isn't necessarily yours, and I can't expect every author to write to my tastes. So, can I criticize a book for not being exactly what I want in fiction? Well,... what else is there? Besides, the parts I liked were very much to my taste. That's probably why I enjoyed the book, don't you think?

Grand Central Arena introduced us to an incredible artifact where every technological species in the galaxy - once it has discovered FTL flight - ends up. "Arena" is the right word for it, because species compete for influence, prestige, and power, and humanity is very much the new kid on the block and a huge underdog.

Now, I'm a sucker for aliens - the more the better - and I love the idea behind this series. It's ridiculously implausible, sure, but so what? I can accept pretty much anything as the premise in a science fiction novel, though I insist that the story follow along plausibly from there. If you can't, what are you doing reading science fiction? :)

Furthermore, I love seeing human beings standing up for other underdogs - alien underdogs - making friends where that's possible, and then kicking butt where arrogant butts really need to be kicked. It's great fun. Fantasy, sure. But it's still lots of fun.

Those things are very definitely to my taste. Superheroes are not, and neither are super-villains. (I never liked comic books much, even as a kid.) I criticized the characterization in the first book, and this one doubles-down on that. But it's probably more fair to say that it's just a matter of taste.

Spheres of Influence introduces a new character who's even more of a superhero than those in the first book. And it seems to introduce one or two new super-villains, too. Now, we see almost nothing of the latter characters, so I can't say much about them, so far. I'm not entirely happy at where that seems to be going. But we'll see.

The superheroes? Well, that's definitely not to my taste. But, as I say, I knew what I was getting into this time. So it didn't bother me. I just enjoyed the story (and I did enjoy the story).

Let me just add that I find it wildly implausible that people could create what are basically superheroes in the first place, but if we could do that, why couldn't alien species which are far, far more advanced than human beings?

And that point in the book where human politics took center stage? I would have been on the other side in that debate. It's not just that I don't want to read about superheroes, but I don't want even a superhero deciding everything for the human race, either. So in some respects, this book rubbed me the wrong way.

The remarkable thing is probably that I enjoyed it as much as I did. I didn't really take it seriously (but you don't take comic books seriously, either, do you?) and just had fun. I knew that parts of the book weren't going to be to my taste, so I didn't let it bother me.

Hmm,... I said I didn't take it seriously, but there is one theme in the book which has the potential to be thought-provoking, and that's the whole issue of living with AI. Can AI be people? And whatever your answer to that, can we live together in peace?

Maybe we'll see more of that in the next book, and maybe not. I wouldn't expect much but entertainment from this series. But it is entertaining, and I'll definitely be continuing with the story whenever the next volume is published.

___
Note: My other book reviews are here.

Fukushima health effects in America?

Nice job checking out these claims, isn't it? Sadly, you can't trust the news media to do any fact-checking at all. Journalism these days is just reporting what some guy says - and the wilder the claim, the better.

I've said it before, but this is why you look for the scientific consensus. Even if these were valid studies, they would have to be confirmed by other researchers before being taken seriously. Instead, they got a lot of attention - which was exactly what these anti-nuclear activists and the media both wanted - while apparently being a complete load of crap.

Wasn't the Fukushima nuclear disaster bad enough without making up stuff about it?

"Broken Homes" by Ben Aaronovitch

(cover image from Amazon.com)

Broken Homes (2013) is the fourth book in Ben Aaronovitch's Peter Grant (Rivers of London) series. It's been a few weeks since I read it, and I don't have too much to say about it. (There's a connection between those two facts, but I'm not sure which is the cause and which the effect - maybe some of both in each?)

If you've read the first three books - and you do need to read this series in order - you'll know what to expect. (If not, read my reviews of them.) That's not a bad thing, since the series has been very entertaining. Even the shocking surprise at the end of this book is reminiscent of the first book in the series.

But I worry where this series might be going. Mostly - almost entirely - that's because I dislike recurring super-villains. I don't particularly like villains at all, but I positively hate recurring super-villains. That's just personal taste,... but so is everything else I say about a book. :)

Still, who knows? Certainly not me. Clearly, the author doesn't mind surprising his readers, so I really have no idea if that's where he's going or not.

As I've said before, I like Peter Grant's scientific, evidence-based approach to magic, so I'd really like to see more of that. This is fantasy, of course, but he approaches magic like a scientist. That doesn't seem to the traditional way magic has been studied, so I'd love to seem more results from that.

But that's more than enough of speculating about the future of this series, isn't it? This book was very entertaining, with a shocking surprise or two. If you enjoyed the first three books, you'll enjoy this one. As for the fifth book, we'll just have to wait and see.

___
Note: My other book reviews - including comments on the other books in this series - are here.

A rising tide lifts all boats

(Tim Eagan)

Actually, in economics, a rising tide does lift all boats. But you don't get that rising tide by giving more and more to the 1% until their cup runneth over.

If the 99% are doing well, the 1% will be doing even better. But the reverse isn't true. Of course, the 1% own the media and most politicians, and they've got plenty of money for propaganda, which is why there's even a debate about it.

Cliven Bundy and the end of racism

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

A welfare rancher complaining about welfare? This just gets better and better worse and worse, doesn't it? I mean, at first I had to laugh, but then I realized just how bad it really is. (Note that this is a follow-up to earlier videos this week - here and here.)

This, too, is the result of the Republican Party's notorious 'Southern strategy' of deliberately wooing white racists. Is it so surprising that racists have other loony ideas, too?

Note that the five Republicans on the Supreme Court have completely gutted the Voting Rights Act because, like other white Republicans, they've decided that racism is over. Yeah, surprise, surprise - the political party built on the strategy of deliberately wooing white racists has decided that racism is over.

Affirmative action? Not necessary, say right-wing white people, because racism is over. No matter what that Kenyan in the White House thinks, huh?

(Note that this latest Supreme Court decision doesn't actually ban affirmative action, since the question was whether or not a state could ban race as a factor in college admissions. Legally, that's a different question, and one of the Democrats on the Court, Stephen Breyer, actually sided with the Republicans this time, though he wrote a separate opinion about why.)

Is racism over? Heh, heh. You have to laugh out loud at even hearing the question, don't you? How could anyone be dumb enough to think otherwise? But for a lily-white Republican Party, especially one built from the remains of the segregationist Dixiecrats,... well, they're faith-based, so there's nothing too crazy for them to believe when they really, really want to believe it.

Oddly enough, Republican politicians are backing off on their fervent support of Bundy after these latest remarks. But why? I'm serious. Why? Is racism more problematic than domestic terrorism? Wouldn't you think that both would be problematic?

Of course, these guys were carrying guns, so they must be the good guys, huh? After all, you don't dare piss off the NRA.

Is that it? Don't ask me. I struggle to understand the mindset of these people, anyway.

...

Oh, OK. Here's the reason:

The controversy marks another major headache for establishment Republicans working to build better relationships with blacks and Hispanics — crucial voting blocs that have increasingly supported Democrats in recent elections. The GOP is in the midst of a messaging tour aimed at reintroducing the party to minority voters, including lawmaker visits to minority neighborhoods and to historically black colleges. ...

The rancher is the latest in a series of figures — including rock singer Ted Nugent and “Duck Dynasty” reality show star Phil Robertson — who made controversial racial remarks after being championed by conservatives. Republican operatives acknowledge that those associations have damaged the party’s attempts to rebrand itself.

Republican politicians and right-wing political pundits want votes, that's all. If they could woo racists to get those votes, that's what they'd do - and did. If they could keep their base happy by championing domestic terrorists like Bundy and his supporters, they'd eagerly do so.

But they've been losing younger voters and, especially, minority voters, and they're desperate to get a least a few of those votes, too. If blatant racism weren't a problem with those demographics, they'd be fine with blatant racism. But as it is, they'd prefer to keep the dog whistle less obvious.

I suppose that makes sense, yet... how in the world could you even imagine voting for a politician who supported Cliven Bundy in the first place? If you were that gullible and that loony, would racism really be the final straw? Really?

Sola Scriptura

This is great, isn't it?

Religion starts with the idea that it already knows everything, and that ancient myths can't possibly be wrong. Therefore, the investigation of reality is always a threat to them.

If that investigation backs up what they already believe, it's unnecessary. And if it doesn't, as is almost always the case, it must be ignored, suppressed, denied, or rationalized away - usually in that order.

This is the problem with faith-based thinking, and that applies as much to the Catholic Church - indeed, to all religion - as to Protestant denominations. (Indeed, the Protestant Reformation led to the end of the Dark Ages, although that was not because it was any less faith-based, but just because it broke the monopoly power of the Catholic Church.)

Grazed and confused + free lawnmowing service

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Of course, this is a followup to Monday's episode. Clearly, Sean Hannity was angry that Jon Stewart had laughed at him, so he decided to give the comic even more fodder. Heh, heh. Great, isn't it?

Now, Stewart ended this very well - remarkably well, in fact. That second clip was superb! And normally, I don't even watch the "Moment of Zen" stuff at the very end of the show. But I saw this and just had to post it:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Yeah, these people aren't domestic terrorists. They're just providing a free lawnmower service (otherwise known as over-grazing public land without even bothering to pay the limited fees involved).

The broads must be crazy

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Funny, isn't it? Why the double-standard? Some of this is just politics, sure. But mostly, it's just unconscious assumptions based on what we've grown up to expect is normal.

Men and women alike absorb these assumptions from childhood. Unless you really think about it, you probably won't even notice them. Why assume that grandchildren will affect Hillary Clinton's political career, when it had zero effect for Mitt Romney or any other man? That assumption is sexist, even if our nation is sexist enough that it will have an effect. (Our media are, after all, already making a big deal about it.)

Our very language perpetuates stereotypes. 'Pussy' and 'dick' are both negative connotations, but they mean very different things - and it's not a coincidence which is which. That's why I never describe courage as having 'balls.' Women have at least as much courage as men, although even women may think they shouldn't show it.

And speaking of courage, note that, if men got pregnant, there would be zero controversy about birth control. That would be absolutely inconceivable. But because it's just women who get pregnant, that's 'God's will,' right? It's their own fault, anyway, for having sex. (Even women often think that women - other women, at least - shouldn't be having sex - not without some kind of punishment, at least.)

Sexism is like racism - we've made great progress, but we've got a long way to go. To progress further, we must recognize the problem, so I applaud Jon Stewart here.

Well, this will certainly make Deepak Chopra's life a lot easier, huh?

New Age Bullshit Generator

Namaste. Do you want to sell a New Age product and/or service? Tired of coming up with meaningless copy for your starry-eyed customers? Want to join the ranks of bestselling self-help authors? We can help.

Just click and the truth will manifest

Click the Reionize electrons button at the top of the page to generate a full page of New Age poppycock.

It works, too, although I value my readers far too much to inflict the result on you. If you're curious, try it out yourself.

In a blog post, Seb Pearce explains further why he created this:

A while back, I was on a philosophy debate binge. Watching Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens annihilate their opponents with precision and wit is my idea of a good night in [mine, too], and YouTube’s “related videos” are a deep, dark rabbithole.

I stumbled upon two debates involving Deepak Chopra: one alongside possible alien Jean Houston against Sam Harris and Michael Shermer called Does God Have A Future? and one against Richard Dawkins at the Dangerous Ideas festival. I had never seen Chopra speak before, and I was only familiar with his name from cheesy-looking self-help titles. As I watched the debate, his childish behaviour and smugness amazed me. He constantly interrupted and talked over the others, usually to make cheap shots or have the last word instead of making a sound argument. He got weirdly defensive when Harris pointed out that nobody at the debate was qualified to talk about quantum physics — quantum is one of his favourite buzzwords — and boasted that he was the most qualified one there because he’s an MD(!). It’s clear the man isn’t used to being challenged.

The thing that really impressed me, though, was his command of the vocabulary of woo (short for woo-woo for those not in the skeptic scene). This word is a blanket term for pseudoscience, New Age thinking, dubious alternative medicine and other things that reek of the heady fumes of snake oil. ...

As I sat there listening to the debates, I thought to myself, “This all sounds like random sequences of buzzwords. I bet I could write code to generate it.” It seemed like not only a fun side project, but a great way to prove how easy it is to make hogwash that looks compelling. It might help show that it’s the language games and emotions that lure people into this stuff. I started scribbling down any words I could think of that evoked a feeling of bullshit: quantum, growth, matrix, path, potential, flowering…

And thus the New Age Bullshit Generator was born.

He really did do a great job with this. Try it out. This random bullshit generator sounds just like much of the 'real' woo I've heard.

Apocalypse Cow - welfare ranchers and shoe-spiracies

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

I know I keep saying this, but every time I think these right-wing loons have gotten as crazy as they can get, they get even worse. If this guy were black, they'd be calling him a welfare cheat. Well, that's exactly what he is.

Ranchers like him pay far less than they should for grazing rights - far less than they would on private land, certainly. And look at how he's abused that. The land shouldn't look like that, even out west, although those people undoubtedly think it looks normal.

But he'd be a welfare rancher even if he were paying those low fees. He's not, and he hasn't been for twenty years! And this isn't some poor guy. He owes more than a million dollars in unpaid grazing fees. So why hasn't he been thrown in jail long before now?

Yet, these militia loons are heroes to the right-wing? Have they forgotten the Oklahoma City bombing already? These are domestic terrorists, and like all fanatics, they don't care about anyone else - even their own wives and children, apparently.

Now you might think there's no connection between those videos and the following two, but I'd disagree. I think that crazy connects them. I think that faith-based thinking connects them. Certainly, Fox 'News' connects them.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

This is what happens when you lose connection to reality, and the right-wing has definitely lost that connection.