I'd just like to state my view on economics - essentially, both laissez-faire capitalism and communism are unrealistic and extremely far from ideal for today's society since they rely on the 19th century industrial economy, a far different beast than the economy of today.
also, from Chesterton and Friends:
Protestant apostates turn away from Christ because their lives have become intolerably (perhaps inevitably) absurd. Catholic apostates turn away from Christ because they want to have more or different sex.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Thursday, November 16, 2006
sci fi stuff
This is ripped from a livejournal of an anime podcaster, who doesn't actually reveal her last name in the podcast (it's on her livejournal, and she linked to a livejournal project she did in show notes... I'm not a stalker, honest!) check it out if you are a geek, scalled n inja consultants.
This is a list of the 50 most significant science fiction/fantasy novels, 1953-2002, according to the Science Fiction Book Club. Bold the ones you've read, strike-out the ones you hated, italicize those you started but never finished and put an asterisk beside the ones you loved.
1. The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien*
2. The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov*
3. Dune, Frank Herbert
4. Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein*
5. A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
6. Neuromancer, William Gibson
7. Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
8. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick
9. The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
10. Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
11. The Book of the New Sun, Gene Wolfe
12. A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
13. The Caves of Steel, Isaac Asimov
14. Children of the Atom, Wilmar Shiras
15. Cities in Flight, James Blish
16. The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett
17. Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison
18. Deathbird Stories, Harlan Ellison
19. The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester
20. Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delany
21. Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey
22. Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
23. The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson
24. The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
25. Gateway, Frederik Pohl
26. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J.K. Rowling
27. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams*
28. I Am Legend, Richard Matheson
29. Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
30. The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
31. Little, Big, John Crowley
32. Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny********
33. The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick
34. Mission of Gravity, Hal Clement
35. More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
36. The Rediscovery of Man, Cordwainer Smith
37. On the Beach, Nevil Shute
38. Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
39. Ringworld, Larry Niven
40. Rogue Moon, Algis Budrys
41. The Silmarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien
42. Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut*
43. Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson
44. Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner
45. The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester********
46. Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
47. Stormbringer, Michael Moorcock
48. The Sword of Shannara, Terry Brooks
49. Timescape, Gregory Benford
50. To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer
This is a list of the 50 most significant science fiction/fantasy novels, 1953-2002, according to the Science Fiction Book Club. Bold the ones you've read, strike-out the ones you hated, italicize those you started but never finished and put an asterisk beside the ones you loved.
1. The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien*
2. The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov*
3. Dune, Frank Herbert
4. Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein*
5. A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
6. Neuromancer, William Gibson
7. Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
8. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick
9. The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
10. Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
11. The Book of the New Sun, Gene Wolfe
12. A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
13. The Caves of Steel, Isaac Asimov
14. Children of the Atom, Wilmar Shiras
15. Cities in Flight, James Blish
16. The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett
17. Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison
18. Deathbird Stories, Harlan Ellison
19. The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester
20. Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delany
21. Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey
22. Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
23. The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson
24. The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
25. Gateway, Frederik Pohl
26. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J.K. Rowling
27. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams*
28. I Am Legend, Richard Matheson
29. Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
30. The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
31. Little, Big, John Crowley
32. Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny********
33. The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick
34. Mission of Gravity, Hal Clement
35. More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
36. The Rediscovery of Man, Cordwainer Smith
37. On the Beach, Nevil Shute
38. Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
39. Ringworld, Larry Niven
40. Rogue Moon, Algis Budrys
41. The Silmarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien
42. Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut*
43. Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson
44. Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner
45. The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester********
46. Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
47. Stormbringer, Michael Moorcock
49. Timescape, Gregory Benford
50. To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Art of Life
I am feelin' down and I don't know why.
Partly, I think, it's because I feel like I'm wasting time - doing shit that doesn't matter (like this) instead of having a good time.
Which delusion and vanity, of course, to believe really that everyone I know is out partying all the time.
Partly, I think, it's because I have no girlfriend or romantic interests, have no idea who would be if I did have one, not even sure if I want one.
Partly, it's because of my massive size - I'm probably about 10 pounsd overweight. If not more.
Partly, it's cause I really need to get my ass in gear in school - nose to the grindstone and all that.
Mostly, though, it's because I'm a late developer and so I get hormones now about 2 years after everyone else. Whoop de fucking doo.
[/emo]
Vanity, Vanity, All is Vanities; there is nothing new under the Sun.
Also with regards to the "show notes" below I'd like to say that, although I didn't save them, my notes for the final episode are much happier than those for ep. 24, since the character who died in ep. 24 comes back in ep. 26.
And I know it's deus ex machina the way he comes back, but I don't give a shit, because I actually care about those characters.
Partly, I think, it's because I feel like I'm wasting time - doing shit that doesn't matter (like this) instead of having a good time.
Which delusion and vanity, of course, to believe really that everyone I know is out partying all the time.
Partly, I think, it's because I have no girlfriend or romantic interests, have no idea who would be if I did have one, not even sure if I want one.
Partly, it's because of my massive size - I'm probably about 10 pounsd overweight. If not more.
Partly, it's cause I really need to get my ass in gear in school - nose to the grindstone and all that.
Mostly, though, it's because I'm a late developer and so I get hormones now about 2 years after everyone else. Whoop de fucking doo.
[/emo]
Vanity, Vanity, All is Vanities; there is nothing new under the Sun.
Also with regards to the "show notes" below I'd like to say that, although I didn't save them, my notes for the final episode are much happier than those for ep. 24, since the character who died in ep. 24 comes back in ep. 26.
And I know it's deus ex machina the way he comes back, but I don't give a shit, because I actually care about those characters.
Why President Bush Should Not Be Impeached
Lately, in the Democratic zeitgeist, there has emerged the notion that, should the Democrats win control of the House / Senate in two days' time, they should being a movement to impeach the President. House Majority Leader Pelosi has received heavy criticism for her stance that impeachment is "off the table." However, she is correct. It is my firm belief that impeachment would be a mistake and almost treasonous.
That's not to say I support President Bush - I don't. He is, in my opinion, not a good President, not just for what he's done, but for what he represents, and what his party represents. And I definitely support the Democrats, and it's my fervent hope that they win the midterm elections on Tuesday.
But the fact of the matter is, impeachment would be wrong. Why? Because, according to the Constitution, impeachment is to be reserved for those accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors". And whatever you believe Bush to have done, it is almost irrational to believe that he has committed either high crimes or misdemeanors, or even, to use the words of Barbara Jordan from the Nixon impeachment, subverted the Constitution (well, at least not more so than any other politician).
The primary argument I have seen is that Bush lied to get us in to war. This may or may not be true - the fact of the matter is we really have no idea whether he did, and if he did, of what magnitude the indisrection was - and it does indeed matter, for a minor distortion is almost inevitable. Other arguments pertain to wiretapping and other vaunted violations of human rights - but for the most part these are imaginary or are, at least arguably, legal - arguably at least to the extent where the President believed he was within his rights to violate them, and probably arguable to the point of being a question that really has no clear answer. It would be immoral and entirely political to prosecute the President on this point.
Indeed, it is my contention that any attempt to impeach the President would be founded almost wholly on politics, and the ability or lack thereof of an impeaching party to bring through an impeachment attempt - whatever flimsy justifications are layered to disgusise it.
And it is precisely this sort of disregard for the laws and tradition of the Republic which must be avoided at all costs.
The Republic essentially depends on the shared delusion that the people, not force of arms, are the true source of power in the republic. When respect for the laws fades, that is when the republic dies - when personal and political power matters more than the good of the nation.
That's when the Roman Republic began to fall into empire - when they lost respect for tradition and instead gathered political and military power to themselves.
Not only would impeachment erode the structure of America and make the nation even more about political power, it would also set the stage immediately for extreme partisan clash - for an awesome (in the most original sense of the word) battle between two two antithetical viewpoints.
The Democrats gave me recently the best sign I have seen for our country's future - when Al Gore, in 2000, stepped down from contention for Presidency rather than prolong the struggle for power - when, rather than shutting down the country for his own personal reasons, he submitted so that the country could survive. I hope that they don't give me the worst as well.
That's not to say I support President Bush - I don't. He is, in my opinion, not a good President, not just for what he's done, but for what he represents, and what his party represents. And I definitely support the Democrats, and it's my fervent hope that they win the midterm elections on Tuesday.
But the fact of the matter is, impeachment would be wrong. Why? Because, according to the Constitution, impeachment is to be reserved for those accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors". And whatever you believe Bush to have done, it is almost irrational to believe that he has committed either high crimes or misdemeanors, or even, to use the words of Barbara Jordan from the Nixon impeachment, subverted the Constitution (well, at least not more so than any other politician).
The primary argument I have seen is that Bush lied to get us in to war. This may or may not be true - the fact of the matter is we really have no idea whether he did, and if he did, of what magnitude the indisrection was - and it does indeed matter, for a minor distortion is almost inevitable. Other arguments pertain to wiretapping and other vaunted violations of human rights - but for the most part these are imaginary or are, at least arguably, legal - arguably at least to the extent where the President believed he was within his rights to violate them, and probably arguable to the point of being a question that really has no clear answer. It would be immoral and entirely political to prosecute the President on this point.
Indeed, it is my contention that any attempt to impeach the President would be founded almost wholly on politics, and the ability or lack thereof of an impeaching party to bring through an impeachment attempt - whatever flimsy justifications are layered to disgusise it.
And it is precisely this sort of disregard for the laws and tradition of the Republic which must be avoided at all costs.
The Republic essentially depends on the shared delusion that the people, not force of arms, are the true source of power in the republic. When respect for the laws fades, that is when the republic dies - when personal and political power matters more than the good of the nation.
That's when the Roman Republic began to fall into empire - when they lost respect for tradition and instead gathered political and military power to themselves.
Not only would impeachment erode the structure of America and make the nation even more about political power, it would also set the stage immediately for extreme partisan clash - for an awesome (in the most original sense of the word) battle between two two antithetical viewpoints.
The Democrats gave me recently the best sign I have seen for our country's future - when Al Gore, in 2000, stepped down from contention for Presidency rather than prolong the struggle for power - when, rather than shutting down the country for his own personal reasons, he submitted so that the country could survive. I hope that they don't give me the worst as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)