Showing posts with label Books you should have already read. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books you should have already read. Show all posts

May 19, 2010

Who really Cares?

Economist Arthur Brooks wrote a must-read book on volunteerism. Who Really Cares.

Excerpt:
The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

…People living in conservative states volunteer more than people in liberal states. In 2003, the residents of the top five “Bush states” were 51 percent more likely to volunteer than those of the bottom five, and they volunteered an average of 12 percent more total hours each year. Residents of these Republican-leaning states volunteered more than twice as much for religious organizations, but also far more for secular causes. For example, they were more than twice as likely to volunteer to help the poor.

May 06, 2010

Time Travel

After warning us against contacting alien civilizations Stephen Hawkings says we can travel forward in time. Which is great considering we are now travelling in time...

I mean look at the clock. Now look again. Time has moved forward with you!

Okay, okay... What he is saying is that if you're on something that travels 98% the speed of light, time will pass slower. As Einstein theorized “as objects accelerate through space, the rate at which time passes for them slows down”. So a day on board the something would be equal to a year on Earth which will push them forward in time.

He goes onto say that travelling backwards in time is RIGHT OUT! Which is a good thing because of all the mess it could cause stopping new Time Travelers from going back and stopping Hitler...

As a Science Fiction junkie I always enjoy time travel speculation. My favorite essay on the subject was by Larry Niven: "The Theory and Practice of Time Travel" that appears in All the Myriad Ways.

This essay looks at the implications of time travel, particularly at the grandfather paradox:
"NIVEN'S LAW: IF THE UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE PERMITS THE POSSIBILITY OF TIME TRAVEL AND OF CHANGING THE PAST, THEN NO TIME MACHINE WILL BE INVENTED IN THAT UNIVERSE." Thus all possible time paradoxes are evaded.

He further challenges conceptions of time travel: "If time travel is so manifestly impossible, why does every good and bad science fiction writer want to write a new, fresh time travel story?"

My favorite TV series, Doctor Who. Is all about time travel and it avoids most of the pitfalls by just never delving into the paradox other then saying it is a paradox and just go with the flow.

Suspension of disbelief is a powerful thing.

April 15, 2010

The 10th Amdendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

March 05, 2010

Comic book Originals

Superman is arguably the most known comic book superhero. The iconic S and red cape has been around since that fateful day in 1938 by Siegel and Shuster.

Not really... You see they took their creation from Philip Wylie's pulp novel Gladiator. In that book our Hugo Danner had super strength, bullet proof skin and was able to leap tall buildings. He lived in a small farming community and pretended to be mild mannered to hide his secret identity and protect those loved ones.

DC Comics also has the Green Lantern which was a Creative Re-imagining of E.E. Smiths The Lensemen. Also, The Batman who's lineage is from Johnston McCulley's Zorro.

Not to say that DC comics has the lock on plagiarized characters. Marevel Comics X-men took from DC Comics The Doom Patrol quite a lot.

Also, Disney's Lion King has more then a passing resemblance to Kimba the White Lion.

Does it really matter? No, but I would say the source material deserves it's place in the sun.


December 31, 2009

Angel Time!

Anne Rice has a new book that peaked my interest: Angel Time

This got me wondering about named Angels. Using the bible as a source I was struck by the name scarcity. Five of these beings are named, two of which are fallen.

Gabriel: One of the best-known angels is a messenger of God. He appears in the Book of Daniel and in Luke’s Gospel. Gabriel appeared twice to the prophet Daniel. One of those appearances was to explain the meaning of a vision that he had experienced. (Dan. 8: 16) The second visit was to explain a prophecy that God had revealed to Daniel that he did not understand. (Dan. 9:21)

Gabriel had the privilege of announcing the future births of John the Baptist and Jesus. In Luke’s Gospel, the angel appeared to Zechariah to announce the coming birth of John the Baptist to his wife Elizabeth. (Luke 1: 5-19) Gabriel said this about himself: “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, who sent me to speak to you and tell you this good news.” (Luke 1: 19) The pregnancy was a miracle because Elizabeth bad been unable to bear children up to this point.

It was Gabriel who appeared to Mary. (Luke 1: 26-38) This is the revelation of another miracle, a virgin birth. The angel tells Mary that she has been blessed among women to mother the “Son of God”. He also informs her that her relative Elizabeth is also pregnant. “For there is nothing that God cannot do.” (Luke 1: 37)

Michael: The archangel. Jude describes him as “the chief angel”. (Jude 9) Jude was teaching that even Michael does not condemn the Devil, but leaves that to God. Revelation describes a war in Heaven with Michael leading his angels in a battle victory against Satan. The Devil is thrown out of Heaven and sent to earth. (Rev. 12: 7-9)

Michael is described in the Book of Daniel as “Israel’s guardian angel”. (Dan 10: 21) A prophecy regarding Michael’s role in the end times struggle against evil is revealed to Daniel. (Dan.12: 1)

Raphael: The angel Raphael is revealed in the Book of Tobit. God dispatches Raphael from Heaven to answer the prayers of two Jewish supplicants exiled in Ninevah. Through the work of this angel a blind Tobit is made to see and a young woman is given relief from an evil spirit that keeps killing her husbands. The happy ending is supplied when Tobit’s son marries the young woman. They live happily ever after and Raphael returns to Heaven after revealing his true identity and refusing the earthly rewards offered by Tobit.

Apollyon: Is the “angel in charge of the abyss”. (Rev. 9: 11) his name means “The Destroyer”. He has a Hebrew name also: Abaddon. This is not a good angel.

Satan: An angel but, a fallen one. Revelation 12: 9 describes his fall from Heaven. Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 3:6 that Satan was condemned because of pride. Satan appears before God as the accuser and meets with The Lord in the first chapter of Job. Satan’s job is to make trouble for us but his days are numbered as we see in Revelation.

There are hundreds of instances of unnamed angels appearing and working for God as messengers and warriors. Angels visited Lot in Sodom to warn him and protect him. (Genesis: 19) Angels protect God’s people, too. (Psalm 91: 11) Angels are created beings, (Psalm 148: 2-5) don’t marry, (Luke 20:34-36) and are created holy (Genesis 1: 31; Jude 6).

December 30, 2009

Moses, suposes...

First of all, there are fundamentalist who believe absolutely in the Biblical account of the Exodus as direct revelation from God to Moses. In the more scientific and historical schools of study, even without the above literalism, the Biblical account is sufficient as the basis for both a legal system and faith system.

Could one remain a faithful servant of God and also accept the possibility that Moses, as described in the Torah, may be as much legend as historical - perhaps more legendary. It's hard not to consider this as a theoretical possibility if only because of the existence of very responsible and academically sound schools of Biblical studies (Harvard), that suggest that the books of the Bible from the time of Genesis through the time of King David were redacted by David's court historian.

"Evidence" is a complicated term. I don't know of any scientific proof of Moses. However, if the "Habiru" mentioned in some historical records are in fact the Hebrews, the children of Israel, then there is some historical evidence.

If the Hebrews lived in Goshen or thereabouts, they would have been using Egyptian materials, equipment, etc., thus it would be difficult to prove a different people lived in Egypt. Furthermore, if there were evidence, I would expect a reluctance on the part of the Egyptians to offer opportunities for Jews to look for evidence of their existence in Egypt and their successful exodus.

Thanks to Rabbi Dov.

November 13, 2009

Sarah Palins best seller experpts

Drudge got a sneak peek of the Former Alaskan Governor and VP Nominees book today:

HER TURN!
Fri Nov 13 2009 07:27:12 ET

Going Rogue: An American Life
by Sarah Palin
Chapter Four; Section 8, pages 255-257

By the third week in September, a “Free Sarah” campaign was under way and the press at large was growing increasingly critical of the McCain camp’s decision to keep me, my family and friends back home, and my governor’s staff all bottled up. Meanwhile, the question of which news outlet would land the first interview was a big deal, as it always is with a major party candidate.

From the beginning, Nicolle [Wallace] pushed for Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News. The campaign’s general strategy involved coming out with a network anchor, someone they felt had treated John well on the trail thus far. My suggestion was that we be consistent with that strategy and start talking to outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. I really didn’t have a say in which press I was going to talk to, but for some reason Nicolle seemed compelled to get me on the Katie bandwagon.

“Katie really likes you,” she said to me one day. “she’s a working mom and admires you as a working mom. She has teenage daughter like you. She just relates to you,” Nicolle said. “believe me, I know her very well. I’ve worked with her.” Nicolle had left her gig at CBS just a few months earlier to hook up with the McCain campaign. I had to trust her experience, as she had dealt with national politics more than I had. But something always struck me as peculiar about the way she recalled her days in the White House, when she was speaking on behalf of President George W. Bush. She didn't have much to say that was positive about her former boss or the job in general. Whenever I wanted to give a shout-out to the White House’s homeland security efforts after 9/11, we were told we couldn’t do it. I didn’t know if that was Nicolle’s call.

Nicolle went on to explain that Katie really needed a career boost. “She just has such low self-esteem,” Nicolle said. She added that Katie was going through a tough time. “She just feels she can’t trust anybody.”

I was thinking, And this has to do with John McCain’s campaign how?

Nicolle said. “She wants you to like her.”

Hearing all that, I almost started to feel sorry for her. Katie had tried to make a bold move from lively morning gal to serious anchor, but the new assignment wasn’t going very well.

“You know what? We’ll schedule a segment with her,” Nicolle said. “If it doesn’t go well, if there’s no chemistry, we won’t do any others.”

Meanwhile, the media blackout continued. It got so bad that a couple of times I had a friend in Anchorage track down phone numbers for me, and then I snuck in calls to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and someone I thought was Larry Kudlow but turned out to be Neil Cavuto’s producer. I had a friend call Bill O’Reilly after I was inundated with supporters in Alaska asking why the campaign was “ignoring” his on-air requests for a McCain campaign interview. I had another friend scrambling to find Mark Levin’s number. Aboard the campaign plane I was within twenty-five feet of reporters for hours on end. Headquarters’ strategy was that I should not go to the back of the aircraft and talk to the press. At first this was subtle, but as the campaign wore on, Tracey or Tucker would call headquarters to request permission, and someone in DC would respond, “No! Absolutely not- block her if she tries to go back.”

October 18, 2009

101

O truant Muse, what shall be thy amends
For thy neglect of truth in beauty dyed?
Both truth and beauty on my love depends;
So dost thou too, and therein dignified.
Make answer, Muse: wilt thou not haply say
'Truth needs no colour, with his colour fix'd;
Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
But best is best, if never intermix'd?'
Because he needs no praise, wilt thou be dumb?
Excuse not silence so; for't lies in thee
To make him much outlive a gilded tomb,
And to be praised of ages yet to be.
Then do thy office, Muse; I teach thee how
To make him seem long hence as he shows now.

By William Shakespeare

September 23, 2009

The beginning of a school year is an appropriate time to question how our schools propose to teach our children.

Today's educators, observing widespread self-doubt and despair among the young, believe that the way to get a student to learn is to inflate his self-image. They believe that the curriculum should be designed, in the words of a resolution from the National Education Association, to "foster positive self-esteem."

There is indeed a lack of self-esteem among our students. The real tragedy, though, is that the educators' irrational view of "positive self-esteem" not only prevents a solution to this problem--but is itself the very cause.

Educators believe that self-esteem can be achieved by simply encouraging a child to "feel good" about himself. They continually exhort students to praise themselves--to praise themselves causelessly--by such means as chanting in class: "I am me and I am enough."

The objective reality of the child's life--the choices he makes, the thinking he engages in, the effort he exerts, the actions he takes--is disregarded. As one guidebook on self-esteem explains: "Children have the right to feel good about themselves exactly as they are. . . . A child's value is unconditional. Nothing the child does, says or chooses can change it."

Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you--by your choices, effort and actions--have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction--based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning--that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success.

Since it is only through rational thought and action that one develops the ability to cope with reality, self-esteem results from an individual's commitment to reason. A rational, productive person will possess self-esteem; a drug-addicted bum will not.

But in the view of our Dewey-inspired educators, logic is a "straitjacket." Students are taught by "progressive" educators that there are no rigid principles in life, and that emotion, not reason, is one's link to reality. Thus, if a child is somehow made to feel good about himself, he is good--irrespective of whether there exists any objective basis for that conclusion.

Of course this approach cannot work. A child who makes bad choices--who does not think but drifts in class, who shuts down his mind at the first sign of difficulty, who heads for the mall instead of exerting the effort that learning requires--will not acquire self-esteem. Constantly getting the answers wrong in class and feeling bewildered by the world outside, such a child experiences only uncertainty, helplessness and self-doubt.

How then will educators make him "feel good" about himself? By attempting to obliterate any facts that lead him to a negative estimate of himself. Accordingly, they teach him that there are never any wrong answers.

This is what gives rise to such nightmarish phenomena as inventive spelling, whereby a fourth-grader who spells "favorite" as "fffifit" is lauded by the teacher for expressing a "creative feeling." This viewpoint infects even the most objective of disciplines, mathematics. One educator explains the root of a girl's errors in mathematics: "She was trying to get these problems right. The alternative was to get them wrong. . . . So this is a situation within the win-lose world in which there's no way the child can feel good about the assignment."

Erase the concept of truth--these educators maintain--and a child will never discover that he is thinking or acting wrongly. If he is taught that anything he does is right because he feels it, he will always "feel good" about himself. For this reason a Minnesota Education Association's guide to self-esteem tells students: "Express your beliefs . . . as your point of view--not as the 'truth.'"

Today's child lacks self-esteem precisely because modern educators encourage him to dispense with his mind, and to indulge his feelings. Self-doubt is the inevitable result, as the child realizes that he lacks the tool by which to comprehend reality.

Yet, to solve the problem they themselves have created, educators propose to continue the same anti-reason, emotionalist approach to teaching.

There is certainly a crisis of self-esteem among America's students. But don't look to the modern pushers of pseudo self-esteem for the remedy. Their ideas are the disease.

thanks to Dr. Ghate

August 25, 2009

Define Normal

  • Main Entry: 1nor·mal
  • Pronunciation: \ˈnȯr-mÉ™l\
  • Function: adjective
  • Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
  • Date: circa 1696

1 : perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder :sane
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal silver phosphate> c : not associated <normal molecules> d :having a straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

July 21, 2009

The 14 Accepted Signs of Divinity

  • Vanquish evil
  • Provide a code of ethics
  • Heal the afflicted
  • Blight the crops
  • Convert the heathen
  • Call down the lightning
  • Corrupt the innocent
  • Eat the moon
  • Answer the phone before it rings
  • Be the Winslow

Highly amusing reading: Buck Godot: Zap Gun for Hire