Okay, sorry about the extreme layoff time, but I got into a bit of a funk where I didn’t feel like writing about anything. Plus, the summer is a bad time to think of interesting things to write about in terms of TV and politics. Of course, there are so many political blogs that my two cents doesn’t usually count for much, but I like to say what I can now and again. But no politics for today.
Today, we discuss Lost. We are now five episodes into season two and we have many new questions to go along with most of our old ones. Obviously we now know what is in the hatch, but what is the significance of the timer, what material was lost when Desmond spliced the training film back together, where did Desmond run off to, and of course, who exactly are the others? Things will get answered over time, but now we have to figure out who is going to get killed in the next episode.
Jack – our main protagonist who has a large backstory that hasn’t been fully answered yet. He’s safe.
Kate – principle female character who also has a large, unanswered backstory. There is also the love triangle between her, Jack, and Sawyer. She’s safe.
Sawyer – Sawyer is the easy kill, much like Boone was last season. His backstory has no significant loose threads. He’s also wounded and clearly sick. But I think they’re going to keep the triangle alive. He’s also offered as the red herring. 25% death chance.
Claire – If you kill her, you kill the baby and there are too many questions surrounding the demon baby (as Mrs. X likes to call him). Safe.
Charlie – Charlie has not delved back into his heroin addiction and that would seem to be a big plot bit. However, he has no outstanding backstory left and he’s been relegated to a minor role in the show so far. 30% death chance.
Locke – Our spiritual leader if you will. He knows too much and we haven’t learned enough about his past. Safe.
Sayid – He’s useful to have on so he can explain anything technical. He’s also one of the few bits of color on the show. Yet his backstory is at a safe point. Only his relationship with Shannon keeps him in current storylines. 25% death chance.
Hurley – We don’t know about the time Hurley spent in the mental institution and we just had exposure to new aspects of his life. He also is the only character that provides a significant amount of comic relief. 10% death chance.
Jin – Jin has taken major strides as a developed character and there is depth remaining in his backstory. Yet he remains someone who puts himself in harm’s way a lot and if he was lost, the story wouldn’t suffer much. 30% death chance.
Sun – Sun remains completely unused as a character. She helps Jack with medical stuff and she grows food, but other than that, she isn’t used much. Her death would propel Jin and Michael’s story much more. There is also a rumor that the death is a woman. 50% death chance.
Michael – A significant portion of this season is going to be about getting Walt back. Michael is at the heart of that and I think he and Locke are going to be the primary drivers of this season. 5% death chance.
Shannon – Killing her would throw Boone out of the picture in terms of flashbacks. But she is the one that seems to be able to see Walt’s projections. He clearly has a connection to her, by his choice of her to take care of Vincent. There have also been rumors that she and Sayid start getting it on. 15% death chance.
Rose – Rose was just picked back up into the cast and with the reunion with Bernard, we would lose a storyline chance. 5% death chance.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
The Dark Blue Vs. The Light Blue
Things are becoming a bit strange in the United States of Canada. With the 2006 elections coming up and the Democratic Party desperate for any kind of pick up, you would think they would be fully formed on the attack against Jesusland: gas prices are up, people are getting frustrated with the War in Iraq, and Republicans are getting lapse and corrupt (or more corrupt than your average politician). Instead, we are seeing the beginnings of a major civil war.
On Monday, Markos Zuniga, operator of the left wing site Daily Kos, announced a new initiative where he would take on and destroy the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). For those of you not familiar with them, the DLC a center-left group that tries to push the party more towards the mainstream middle of the road voters. They are most famous for launching Bill Clinton up to national prominence, from which he was able to win the presidency. Most of the prominent members are mid-western and southern politicians such as Evan Bayh and Mark Warner. Hillary Clinton has recently been cozying up to them as well as an attempt to move her image more to the political center. Kos’ complaint is that the DLC is moving more to the right and might as well be Republican for all he’s concerned. So, in his mind at least, this is a purification of the party during the lean times so that the Democrats will be unified for the 2006 elections.
On the surface, this might seem like the amusing rantings of one person, but the danger for Democrats is quite real. Kos has announced that the formal unveiling of the war will begin on Labor Day and he has apparently kept quite mum about the tactics and methods. The danger is who is backing him. Kos almost certainly wouldn’t have been so outspoken about this unless he had the backing of organizations like MoveOn.org and the like. That means he has money behind him and money will summon named people. It could even attract DNC chairman Howard Dean, whom, I imagine, doesn’t like seeing a second group that might challenge his position of power.
Whatever the plan, I don’t expect Kos to win the war. He has come up short on most of his escapades before and the DLC is well financed. But the attack will probably result in the loss of money combating each side while the Republicans just sit back and wait to see who emerges from the fray.
The only good things that may come out of this is that one side may become so disgusted with each other that they leave the Democratic Party and form a new party. That might allow the centrist factions to take over and form a legitimate middle of the road party that would appeal to people like me.
The other good thing is that the site Little Green Footballs has been posting photoshoped images of Kos’ head on Dr. Evil’s body with various amusing quotes. Quite funny actually.
On Monday, Markos Zuniga, operator of the left wing site Daily Kos, announced a new initiative where he would take on and destroy the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). For those of you not familiar with them, the DLC a center-left group that tries to push the party more towards the mainstream middle of the road voters. They are most famous for launching Bill Clinton up to national prominence, from which he was able to win the presidency. Most of the prominent members are mid-western and southern politicians such as Evan Bayh and Mark Warner. Hillary Clinton has recently been cozying up to them as well as an attempt to move her image more to the political center. Kos’ complaint is that the DLC is moving more to the right and might as well be Republican for all he’s concerned. So, in his mind at least, this is a purification of the party during the lean times so that the Democrats will be unified for the 2006 elections.
On the surface, this might seem like the amusing rantings of one person, but the danger for Democrats is quite real. Kos has announced that the formal unveiling of the war will begin on Labor Day and he has apparently kept quite mum about the tactics and methods. The danger is who is backing him. Kos almost certainly wouldn’t have been so outspoken about this unless he had the backing of organizations like MoveOn.org and the like. That means he has money behind him and money will summon named people. It could even attract DNC chairman Howard Dean, whom, I imagine, doesn’t like seeing a second group that might challenge his position of power.
Whatever the plan, I don’t expect Kos to win the war. He has come up short on most of his escapades before and the DLC is well financed. But the attack will probably result in the loss of money combating each side while the Republicans just sit back and wait to see who emerges from the fray.
The only good things that may come out of this is that one side may become so disgusted with each other that they leave the Democratic Party and form a new party. That might allow the centrist factions to take over and form a legitimate middle of the road party that would appeal to people like me.
The other good thing is that the site Little Green Footballs has been posting photoshoped images of Kos’ head on Dr. Evil’s body with various amusing quotes. Quite funny actually.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
2006 Senate Considerations
I know its way too early for this, but the recent election around here got me thinking about the Republican’s desire to win the supermajority in the Senate. So I looked at who was up for reelection and who would be vulnerable. The answers are very interesting.
Democrats are defending 18 seats to the 15 being defended by Republicans (this count assumes Jim Jeffords to be with the Democratic Party). As in all Senate elections, a number of seats are safe and some are in trouble. I’ll stick with the possible ones to avoid useless clutter:
1) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring. His seat will probably go to the Democrats so there is no real race here unless the GOP decides to waste a lot of money for principle’s sake.
2) Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Mr. Chaffee is a Democrat in Republican clothing. This is the only reason why he’ll probably win reelection. The Democrats are throwing people at him, but his family is still very popular in Rhode Island. I think they would have a better chance to let him win easily and then convince him to switch parties.
3) George Allen (R-VA). If the Democratic governor (Mark Warner) were running, Mr. Allen would be a lot of hot water, but Mr. Warner is gearing up for the 2008 Presidential race and isn’t wasting money. Mr. Allen should be able to survive other opponents.
4) Rick Santorum (R-PA). This is the first real trouble spot. Pennsylvania is moderate to liberal and Santorum is very conservative. He’s also going to be going up against a very popular Democrat. The only thing that could save him is if he gets Arlen Specter to seriously campaign for him and Mr. Specter is still recovering from cancer treatment. I seriously expect a party switch here.
5) Bill Nelson (D-FL). If Mr. Nelson were going up against Jeb Bush, the contest would be over. But the leading candidate for the GOP is Katherine Harris (yes, that Katherine Harris) so the race falls back into 50-50 range. This will be a very bloody fight and will probably require personal visits by President Bush to take this seat.
6) Mike De(s)wine (R-OH). Dewine could have won reelection easily, but he torqued off conservatives in Ohio with his membership in the gang of 14. He will be forced to spend money fending off more conservative primary candidates. If he survives that, he will do better because it appears that the Democrats are just going to throw Fingerhut forward again. But if the Democrats can find a stronger candidate and Dewine suffers badly in the primaries, the seat could be free to steal.
7) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The GOP has vowed to go after this relatively weak freshman senator, but they’ve been unable to grab a strong candidate. Stabenow will probably retain the seat unless labor openly revolts, which is unlikely.
8) Herb Kohl (D-WI). Normally this wouldn’t even be a contest, but former governor and HHS secretary, Tommy Thomson may try for this seat. If he does, the race moves to a toss up due to Thomson’s still high popularity in Wisconsin.
9) Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd has not committed as to whether he will run again and he is getting up there in years. If he chooses to run, he’ll probably win reelection, but if the seat is free this is a seat that could easily become Republican.
10) Ben Nelson (D-NE). Nelson treads a very careful line not to tick off his conservative constituents. But the Nebraska Republicans have not been able to coalesce around a strong candidate. If Nelson makes a wrong move or the GOP pulls a strong candidate out of it’s hat, this seat could switch.
11) Kent Conrad (D-ND). Conrad is quite popular but his state is very red. If things get too sour in Washington with the Democratic Party and the Republicans find a strong candidate, they might be able to take this seat.
12) Mark Dayton (D-MN). Dayton is not running and the Minnesota Democratic party has been bleeding badly every since the death of Paul Wellstone. The Republicans will make a strong push for this seat in a blue state and could win it if the Democrats don’t get their act together. Nominating Al Franken probably would not be best move in that direction (yes, he has mentioned running for the seat).
13) Conrad Burns (R-MT). Burns was almost taken down in 2000 and the Democrats have made serious inroads in Montana. However, his 2000 challenger has decided not to run against him and he is a little more prepared this time. Burns will probably survive with room to spare.
There has been idle talk about serious challenges to Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI), but neither candidate is seen as being in any kind of trouble. If the Republicans want to make more inroads towards the 60 seats, they can’t lose anyone besides Santorum, whom I think is a dead man walking. If they only lose this seat, I believe they can pick up several more seats. Minnesota, Florida, and Nebraska are strong possibilities, while Wisconsin and West Virginia are longer shots. But, I would be very surprised if the Republicans picked up all of these. If, somehow, the GOP did secure all these for 59 seats, I would expect some serious plums to be dangled for a Democrat to turn. Most of the focus would probably be directed at a southern Democrat, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA) or Mark Pryor (D-AR). But if Joe Lieberman (D-CT) receives too much flak from within his own party for the nomination this year, some cautious overtures may be made in his direction as well.
Democrats are defending 18 seats to the 15 being defended by Republicans (this count assumes Jim Jeffords to be with the Democratic Party). As in all Senate elections, a number of seats are safe and some are in trouble. I’ll stick with the possible ones to avoid useless clutter:
1) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring. His seat will probably go to the Democrats so there is no real race here unless the GOP decides to waste a lot of money for principle’s sake.
2) Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Mr. Chaffee is a Democrat in Republican clothing. This is the only reason why he’ll probably win reelection. The Democrats are throwing people at him, but his family is still very popular in Rhode Island. I think they would have a better chance to let him win easily and then convince him to switch parties.
3) George Allen (R-VA). If the Democratic governor (Mark Warner) were running, Mr. Allen would be a lot of hot water, but Mr. Warner is gearing up for the 2008 Presidential race and isn’t wasting money. Mr. Allen should be able to survive other opponents.
4) Rick Santorum (R-PA). This is the first real trouble spot. Pennsylvania is moderate to liberal and Santorum is very conservative. He’s also going to be going up against a very popular Democrat. The only thing that could save him is if he gets Arlen Specter to seriously campaign for him and Mr. Specter is still recovering from cancer treatment. I seriously expect a party switch here.
5) Bill Nelson (D-FL). If Mr. Nelson were going up against Jeb Bush, the contest would be over. But the leading candidate for the GOP is Katherine Harris (yes, that Katherine Harris) so the race falls back into 50-50 range. This will be a very bloody fight and will probably require personal visits by President Bush to take this seat.
6) Mike De(s)wine (R-OH). Dewine could have won reelection easily, but he torqued off conservatives in Ohio with his membership in the gang of 14. He will be forced to spend money fending off more conservative primary candidates. If he survives that, he will do better because it appears that the Democrats are just going to throw Fingerhut forward again. But if the Democrats can find a stronger candidate and Dewine suffers badly in the primaries, the seat could be free to steal.
7) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The GOP has vowed to go after this relatively weak freshman senator, but they’ve been unable to grab a strong candidate. Stabenow will probably retain the seat unless labor openly revolts, which is unlikely.
8) Herb Kohl (D-WI). Normally this wouldn’t even be a contest, but former governor and HHS secretary, Tommy Thomson may try for this seat. If he does, the race moves to a toss up due to Thomson’s still high popularity in Wisconsin.
9) Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd has not committed as to whether he will run again and he is getting up there in years. If he chooses to run, he’ll probably win reelection, but if the seat is free this is a seat that could easily become Republican.
10) Ben Nelson (D-NE). Nelson treads a very careful line not to tick off his conservative constituents. But the Nebraska Republicans have not been able to coalesce around a strong candidate. If Nelson makes a wrong move or the GOP pulls a strong candidate out of it’s hat, this seat could switch.
11) Kent Conrad (D-ND). Conrad is quite popular but his state is very red. If things get too sour in Washington with the Democratic Party and the Republicans find a strong candidate, they might be able to take this seat.
12) Mark Dayton (D-MN). Dayton is not running and the Minnesota Democratic party has been bleeding badly every since the death of Paul Wellstone. The Republicans will make a strong push for this seat in a blue state and could win it if the Democrats don’t get their act together. Nominating Al Franken probably would not be best move in that direction (yes, he has mentioned running for the seat).
13) Conrad Burns (R-MT). Burns was almost taken down in 2000 and the Democrats have made serious inroads in Montana. However, his 2000 challenger has decided not to run against him and he is a little more prepared this time. Burns will probably survive with room to spare.
There has been idle talk about serious challenges to Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI), but neither candidate is seen as being in any kind of trouble. If the Republicans want to make more inroads towards the 60 seats, they can’t lose anyone besides Santorum, whom I think is a dead man walking. If they only lose this seat, I believe they can pick up several more seats. Minnesota, Florida, and Nebraska are strong possibilities, while Wisconsin and West Virginia are longer shots. But, I would be very surprised if the Republicans picked up all of these. If, somehow, the GOP did secure all these for 59 seats, I would expect some serious plums to be dangled for a Democrat to turn. Most of the focus would probably be directed at a southern Democrat, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA) or Mark Pryor (D-AR). But if Joe Lieberman (D-CT) receives too much flak from within his own party for the nomination this year, some cautious overtures may be made in his direction as well.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Good or Bad Thing?
So last night I got a new congressperson. Ms. Schmidt (R) narrowly defeated Mr. Hackett (D) in a race that is sure to ping on a couple of radar screens. The vote was close with Ms. Schmidt beating Mr. Hackett by about 3,500 votes out of about 112,000 cast (51.6 - 48.4). In the past 30 years, only one Democrat has ever won an election for the second district of Ohio and Mr. Portman (the previous representative) consistently throttled his token opponents with upwards of 70% of the vote.
So, should Ohio Democrats be encouraged by their good standing? Well, yes and no. Yes it was a good run and I think the Democrats have a very good chance to recapture the governorship in 2006, especially if they nominate Coleman, but with as many circumstances working in the Democrats' favor, they could have won this race.
First, turnout was only about 20%. Low turnout will almost always work in the minority's favor, since it only brings out the die hards and political junkies. To remain with the minority party in a heavy majority district usually means you've got a bit of a fire in the belly for your party.
Second, there were almost no other issues on the ballots. There were three school levies on various ballots in our region, but I'm not sure if all three were in District 2. I know that my ballot only covered the congressional race. So that reduces the normal turnout and you revert back to point one.
Third, the attitude of the candidates. After winning the nomination, Mr. Hackett immediately started going door to door and getting his name out. Ms. Schmidt, on the other hand, flew to Washington to meet with Speaker Hassert and have a few gladhanding sessions. She did come back and campaign, but in a very reserved and impersonal way. I know that turned me off immediately.
Fourth, the DNC did a fairly good job of tying Ms. Schmidt to the Taft administration. Governor Taft is currently under investigation concerning a scam involving speculative coin buying with government employee pension money and its also just been disclosed that he spent upwards of $50,000 for golf trips and a few other frivolities. Put simply, Bob Taft's name is close to mud right now (approval ratings are somewhere between 12-20%).
Fifth, there are still a lot of people around here who would have either refused to vote for Ms. Schmidt simply because she's a woman or only voted for Mr. Hackett because he's an Iraqi War veteran. On the surface it does seem a bit transposed from the usual stereotypes.
Given all these considerations, I think Mr. Hackett could have won. Perhaps he would have if he'd had a little more time to get his message out. Either way, in 2006 I expect Mr. Hackett to get renominated for the office, assuming he doesn't turn his eye towards something more local and powerful. I also expect the Democrats to pour a little more money into this district next time around.
So, should Ohio Democrats be encouraged by their good standing? Well, yes and no. Yes it was a good run and I think the Democrats have a very good chance to recapture the governorship in 2006, especially if they nominate Coleman, but with as many circumstances working in the Democrats' favor, they could have won this race.
First, turnout was only about 20%. Low turnout will almost always work in the minority's favor, since it only brings out the die hards and political junkies. To remain with the minority party in a heavy majority district usually means you've got a bit of a fire in the belly for your party.
Second, there were almost no other issues on the ballots. There were three school levies on various ballots in our region, but I'm not sure if all three were in District 2. I know that my ballot only covered the congressional race. So that reduces the normal turnout and you revert back to point one.
Third, the attitude of the candidates. After winning the nomination, Mr. Hackett immediately started going door to door and getting his name out. Ms. Schmidt, on the other hand, flew to Washington to meet with Speaker Hassert and have a few gladhanding sessions. She did come back and campaign, but in a very reserved and impersonal way. I know that turned me off immediately.
Fourth, the DNC did a fairly good job of tying Ms. Schmidt to the Taft administration. Governor Taft is currently under investigation concerning a scam involving speculative coin buying with government employee pension money and its also just been disclosed that he spent upwards of $50,000 for golf trips and a few other frivolities. Put simply, Bob Taft's name is close to mud right now (approval ratings are somewhere between 12-20%).
Fifth, there are still a lot of people around here who would have either refused to vote for Ms. Schmidt simply because she's a woman or only voted for Mr. Hackett because he's an Iraqi War veteran. On the surface it does seem a bit transposed from the usual stereotypes.
Given all these considerations, I think Mr. Hackett could have won. Perhaps he would have if he'd had a little more time to get his message out. Either way, in 2006 I expect Mr. Hackett to get renominated for the office, assuming he doesn't turn his eye towards something more local and powerful. I also expect the Democrats to pour a little more money into this district next time around.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
The Seven Horcruxes
Okay, I’m still in a bit of a Harry Potter mindset so I thought I would discuss my own personal theories on the Horcrux Quest (catchy possible title for Book 7). First, we must identify the seven horcruxes of Voldemort:
1) Voldemort himself (needs to keep a portion of his soul in his own body)
2) The Riddle Diary – destroyed
3) Marvolo’s Ring – destroyed
4) Slytheren’s Locket – Missing due to R.A.B
5) Hufflepuff’s Cup – Whereabouts unknown
6) Nagini – Not confirmed, but highly probable
7) Item unknown
So there are five horcruxes still to be destroyed, one being Voldemort himself. Nagini never strays far from Voldemort so those two will be coupled in a final fight. That leaves the locket, the cup and the mystery 7th.
The locket could be wrapped up easily depending on how Rowling spins it. Most theories concerning R. A. B. are that he is Regulus Black, brother of Sirius. If this is true, then it should be noted that when the group was cleaning 12 Grimmauld Place at the beginning of OotP, a golden locket was discovered that could not be opened. It is possible that this is the horcrux locket. So what happened to it? Well, either Kreatcher absconded with it and kept it hidden, or Mundungus Fletcher stole it and sold it. I lean more towards Kreature taking it. Now, how long it will take before Harry realizes this is anyone’s guess. 12 Grimmauld Place could even be exposed now that its secret keeper is dead.
Hufflepuff’s cup will be more of a generic search. I expect this portion will take up a little more of the book with perhaps Harry learning about the 7th horcrux along the way. One of the most prominent theories is that Harry is the 7th horcrux and that he may have to die to destroy Voldemort. My theory is a little varied on this. I think the horcrux is specifically located within Harry’s scar. All of Harry’s connections with Voldemort have focused around the scar, leading me to believe that that is the source of the connection. So, does that mean Harry has to die? Not necessarily. There was discussion of possibly removing Harry’s scar when he was left with the Dursley’s but Dumbledore thought it best to let Harry keep it. He may have suspected its nature and chose to let Harry keep it and its powers.
1) Voldemort himself (needs to keep a portion of his soul in his own body)
2) The Riddle Diary – destroyed
3) Marvolo’s Ring – destroyed
4) Slytheren’s Locket – Missing due to R.A.B
5) Hufflepuff’s Cup – Whereabouts unknown
6) Nagini – Not confirmed, but highly probable
7) Item unknown
So there are five horcruxes still to be destroyed, one being Voldemort himself. Nagini never strays far from Voldemort so those two will be coupled in a final fight. That leaves the locket, the cup and the mystery 7th.
The locket could be wrapped up easily depending on how Rowling spins it. Most theories concerning R. A. B. are that he is Regulus Black, brother of Sirius. If this is true, then it should be noted that when the group was cleaning 12 Grimmauld Place at the beginning of OotP, a golden locket was discovered that could not be opened. It is possible that this is the horcrux locket. So what happened to it? Well, either Kreatcher absconded with it and kept it hidden, or Mundungus Fletcher stole it and sold it. I lean more towards Kreature taking it. Now, how long it will take before Harry realizes this is anyone’s guess. 12 Grimmauld Place could even be exposed now that its secret keeper is dead.
Hufflepuff’s cup will be more of a generic search. I expect this portion will take up a little more of the book with perhaps Harry learning about the 7th horcrux along the way. One of the most prominent theories is that Harry is the 7th horcrux and that he may have to die to destroy Voldemort. My theory is a little varied on this. I think the horcrux is specifically located within Harry’s scar. All of Harry’s connections with Voldemort have focused around the scar, leading me to believe that that is the source of the connection. So, does that mean Harry has to die? Not necessarily. There was discussion of possibly removing Harry’s scar when he was left with the Dursley’s but Dumbledore thought it best to let Harry keep it. He may have suspected its nature and chose to let Harry keep it and its powers.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
HBP Thoughts with Spoilers
So, I have finished HBP. Interesting I would say. Given that most of you who read this, have already read the book, I’ll not worry about divulging spoilers. However, if you haven’t and are planning to, I would advise you to skip this post.
In general, I liked it. I would say that Rowling was a little less subtle and misdirecting than she has been in previous books. About the only big mystery to reveal was why Malfoy was in the room of requirement so much. Actually, it felt like a bit of a let down to find out that Harry was right and that Malfoy was behind the two attacks, although they were rather crude attempts to attack Dumbledore. Once Malfoy had Dumbledore pinned, it became quite obvious to me that Snape was the one who would actually do the deed.
I also have to give Mrs. X due props. Despite her last post before the book came out, she actually did correctly guess who the Half Blood Prince would be. She was dissuaded through a very convincing article that she read and an interview with Ms. Rowling. But, keeping her original theory as back-up, she was proven right and my hat’s off to her.
The thing that struck me in a rather amusing fashion was Rowling’s idea for the Horcruxes allowing for Voldemort’s near immortality. I was actually familiar with this idea, although not in this detailed fashion. A few years ago, a friend of mine loaned me a book called Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart. It was set in Ancient China and in it there was an evil tyrant who had learned from an ancient sorcerer how to remove his heart and store it away from his body. This made him immortal and unable to be killed unless his heart was found and destroyed. I don’t know if this has backing in other Chinese legends or if Rowling was even aware of this when she put the Horcrux into HBP. But it gave me a little chuckle.
I think the part that saddened me the most was the way the book ended in terms of the situation between Harry and Ginny. I’m actually quite a sappy romantic, plus we’ve been waiting for Harry to get to this point pretty much from CoS so it’s depressing that our payoff is so short. Once can only hope that Book seven allows for a proper reunification. Worst comes to worst, I’ll write my own book eight so I can feel satisfied.
Mrs. X and I are quite sure that Book seven will be quite out of format and may even eclipse OotP in length. I think it’ll be a good story, although I’m a little afraid of a Reichenbach Falls ending. For those of you unsure what that means, see The Final Problem by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I just feel like that would be a bit of a cop out. However, I’m beginning to wonder if Voldemort will actually be killed at all. Yes, he will cease to exist by the end of the book, I’m sure, but I’m not necessarily sure it’ll be as simple as just killing him. Dumbledore warned Voldemort that there are worse things than death and I wonder if Voldemort may suffer one of those things.
I also believe that although the trio will attempt to pursue the quest by themselves, they will be joined by members of the Order and also by certain select members of Dumbledore’s Army. Why do I think that? Let’s be honest: will it feel satisfying in any way if anyone but Neville takes down Bellatrix? Vengeance must be parceled out correctly, although I would find it most entertaining if it was Hermione who took down Snape. In the same way, Harry must face Voldemort alone. It is the only way.
In general, I liked it. I would say that Rowling was a little less subtle and misdirecting than she has been in previous books. About the only big mystery to reveal was why Malfoy was in the room of requirement so much. Actually, it felt like a bit of a let down to find out that Harry was right and that Malfoy was behind the two attacks, although they were rather crude attempts to attack Dumbledore. Once Malfoy had Dumbledore pinned, it became quite obvious to me that Snape was the one who would actually do the deed.
I also have to give Mrs. X due props. Despite her last post before the book came out, she actually did correctly guess who the Half Blood Prince would be. She was dissuaded through a very convincing article that she read and an interview with Ms. Rowling. But, keeping her original theory as back-up, she was proven right and my hat’s off to her.
The thing that struck me in a rather amusing fashion was Rowling’s idea for the Horcruxes allowing for Voldemort’s near immortality. I was actually familiar with this idea, although not in this detailed fashion. A few years ago, a friend of mine loaned me a book called Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart. It was set in Ancient China and in it there was an evil tyrant who had learned from an ancient sorcerer how to remove his heart and store it away from his body. This made him immortal and unable to be killed unless his heart was found and destroyed. I don’t know if this has backing in other Chinese legends or if Rowling was even aware of this when she put the Horcrux into HBP. But it gave me a little chuckle.
I think the part that saddened me the most was the way the book ended in terms of the situation between Harry and Ginny. I’m actually quite a sappy romantic, plus we’ve been waiting for Harry to get to this point pretty much from CoS so it’s depressing that our payoff is so short. Once can only hope that Book seven allows for a proper reunification. Worst comes to worst, I’ll write my own book eight so I can feel satisfied.
Mrs. X and I are quite sure that Book seven will be quite out of format and may even eclipse OotP in length. I think it’ll be a good story, although I’m a little afraid of a Reichenbach Falls ending. For those of you unsure what that means, see The Final Problem by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I just feel like that would be a bit of a cop out. However, I’m beginning to wonder if Voldemort will actually be killed at all. Yes, he will cease to exist by the end of the book, I’m sure, but I’m not necessarily sure it’ll be as simple as just killing him. Dumbledore warned Voldemort that there are worse things than death and I wonder if Voldemort may suffer one of those things.
I also believe that although the trio will attempt to pursue the quest by themselves, they will be joined by members of the Order and also by certain select members of Dumbledore’s Army. Why do I think that? Let’s be honest: will it feel satisfying in any way if anyone but Neville takes down Bellatrix? Vengeance must be parceled out correctly, although I would find it most entertaining if it was Hermione who took down Snape. In the same way, Harry must face Voldemort alone. It is the only way.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
London is Falling Down
So the city of London gets the Olympic games for 2012 and someone sets off some very morbid fireworks. Details are still sketchy obviously. Initial death toll is 33 but I imagine that more people will die of their wounds later. Mrs. X has a rather poignant thought on her new site, a thought that I had honestly forgotten about when it was initially made.
I'd say the principle difference between the way London will react to this and the way Madrid reacted is experience. London has had problems with the IRA doing things like this before, although not to this scale. But I imagine this will give them a leg up on getting this cleaned up, finding out who is responsible, and bringing said persons to justice. Londoners also recently reelected their government which will preach a message of staying the course. We'll see.
Right now its best to stick with the major news sites although Instapundit does have a bunch of links to various sites that are reporting on different aspects of the attack.
I'd say the principle difference between the way London will react to this and the way Madrid reacted is experience. London has had problems with the IRA doing things like this before, although not to this scale. But I imagine this will give them a leg up on getting this cleaned up, finding out who is responsible, and bringing said persons to justice. Londoners also recently reelected their government which will preach a message of staying the course. We'll see.
Right now its best to stick with the major news sites although Instapundit does have a bunch of links to various sites that are reporting on different aspects of the attack.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
War on the Horizon
Yes, I know we are already at war, but something big is pinging on the horizon and I think it may pop relatively soon. This comes mostly from two stories that haven't been either in the news or around the blogosphere much lately. They are the shakiness of the Syrian regime and Israel's planned pull out of Gaza.
First, to Syria. Syria actually has been in the news a bunch lately because they were forced out of Lebanon, although they still have intelligence operatives there, and because we've been playing Whack-A-Terrorist on the Syrian border for the past couple of months. Syria is actually a very poor country with very few natural resources. Poverty, the loss of a major trading partner in Baathist Iraq, and the loss of rich territory to exploit in Lebanon lead to a dissatisfied populace. Then throw on an army that isn't doing much and the importation of a bunch of Iraqi Baathist who now don't have too much to do. All this leads to lots of opportunities for someone in the military or an Iraqi Baathist to think that he can do a better job running the country and *poof* coup. The best way for a dictator to avoid that fate is to start a war and encourage rampant nationalism.
This is where the Israeli pullout of Gaza comes in. Israel is scheduled to dismantled a whole bunch of settlements in Gaza and a couple in the West Bank and turn the governing of these territories over to the Palestinians. Except that the settlers who live there are mostly very religious, to the point of militism. They have promised to fight the government tooth and nail rather than leave their homes. This could actually evolve into a serious climate of potential civil war. With the Israeli government distracted Hamas, now emerging as a major party in Palestinian politics, calls for armed resistance to drive out the settlers who won't leave. The Israeli government then balks at having its citizens attacked, in the wrong or not, and fights back. Syria then seizes the initiative and sends in the army from the north to relieve their Muslim brothers in need. Whether or not Jordan and Egypt get involved is questionable. The Egyptian government needs a distraction but they still remember the spanking they got in 1967. Jordan's king is fairly pro-West, but a huge offense on his border might force him to side against Israel, at least in name.
So, would Syria and the other Arabs do this while the US is in the region? Possibly. We're tied up pretty well in Iraq and if AQ flares something in Iraq, or Iran threatens to move its armies through Iraq to aid its ally Syria, we could be pinned down completely and unable to respond. Iran could need to distract its populace as well depending on how the scheduled elections are turning out.
Possible? Maybe not immediately, but all the potentials are there. All it takes is one critical flash point, like the death of Abbas or something else which would allow Hamas to seize the microphone.
And the result? Victory for Israel, but at a nasty cost. Israel's nose got bloodied in 1973 and I think this could be even worse. Desperation house to house fighting, suicide attacks coupled with legitimate army maneuvers. Complete occupation of the West Bank and even the possible destruction of Damascus may be involved. Unfortunately that leaves another war on the horizon. The Arabs pull back and lick their wounds while Israel holds a territorial neutral zone around it, much like the Warsaw Pact nations were between the Soviet Union and NATO.
Maybe it won't happen and I'm reading too much into things. But I think I see buzzards on the horizon.
First, to Syria. Syria actually has been in the news a bunch lately because they were forced out of Lebanon, although they still have intelligence operatives there, and because we've been playing Whack-A-Terrorist on the Syrian border for the past couple of months. Syria is actually a very poor country with very few natural resources. Poverty, the loss of a major trading partner in Baathist Iraq, and the loss of rich territory to exploit in Lebanon lead to a dissatisfied populace. Then throw on an army that isn't doing much and the importation of a bunch of Iraqi Baathist who now don't have too much to do. All this leads to lots of opportunities for someone in the military or an Iraqi Baathist to think that he can do a better job running the country and *poof* coup. The best way for a dictator to avoid that fate is to start a war and encourage rampant nationalism.
This is where the Israeli pullout of Gaza comes in. Israel is scheduled to dismantled a whole bunch of settlements in Gaza and a couple in the West Bank and turn the governing of these territories over to the Palestinians. Except that the settlers who live there are mostly very religious, to the point of militism. They have promised to fight the government tooth and nail rather than leave their homes. This could actually evolve into a serious climate of potential civil war. With the Israeli government distracted Hamas, now emerging as a major party in Palestinian politics, calls for armed resistance to drive out the settlers who won't leave. The Israeli government then balks at having its citizens attacked, in the wrong or not, and fights back. Syria then seizes the initiative and sends in the army from the north to relieve their Muslim brothers in need. Whether or not Jordan and Egypt get involved is questionable. The Egyptian government needs a distraction but they still remember the spanking they got in 1967. Jordan's king is fairly pro-West, but a huge offense on his border might force him to side against Israel, at least in name.
So, would Syria and the other Arabs do this while the US is in the region? Possibly. We're tied up pretty well in Iraq and if AQ flares something in Iraq, or Iran threatens to move its armies through Iraq to aid its ally Syria, we could be pinned down completely and unable to respond. Iran could need to distract its populace as well depending on how the scheduled elections are turning out.
Possible? Maybe not immediately, but all the potentials are there. All it takes is one critical flash point, like the death of Abbas or something else which would allow Hamas to seize the microphone.
And the result? Victory for Israel, but at a nasty cost. Israel's nose got bloodied in 1973 and I think this could be even worse. Desperation house to house fighting, suicide attacks coupled with legitimate army maneuvers. Complete occupation of the West Bank and even the possible destruction of Damascus may be involved. Unfortunately that leaves another war on the horizon. The Arabs pull back and lick their wounds while Israel holds a territorial neutral zone around it, much like the Warsaw Pact nations were between the Soviet Union and NATO.
Maybe it won't happen and I'm reading too much into things. But I think I see buzzards on the horizon.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Deep Throat Unmasked
So, after all these years, we finally know who Deep Throat is. I find it rather amusing that he actually ended up looking like the actor who played him in All the President’s Men. As an aside, the movie wasn’t that great, but I think I was looking for more details about what happened after the story broke ala Oliver Stone’s Nixon.
Anyway, this revelation comes in a very haphazard manner and with very interesting timing. Deep Throat, and the whole Watergate mythology that has grown up over the years, has immortalized the “inside anonymous source.” Recently with the whole Newsweek Koran flushing retraction, the sanctity of the anonymous source has taken quite a beating. In fact, the blogosphere in general has been forcing mainstream media to shy away from the insider with an axe to grind.
For the most part, I suspect the rest of the week will be a reveling by the mainstream media of the Watergate era. It’s a reminder of when they were kings and had complete control of the establishment. Their ego has taken a severe beating in the past few years with the combination of scandals that have been unearthed, from the Eason Jordan incident to the Dan Rather memo incident.
The great irony in this whole thing is that Deep Throat didn’t actually give Woodward and Bernstein anything. He confirmed facts the duo already had, gave them encouragement when they were unsure, and nudged them down helpful avenues. Yet he has been built up as this great mythological figure that everyone reporter feels he must have. Woodward and Bernstein actually uncovered the story with good old-fashioned hard-nosed investigative journalism. A talent that has been noticeably lost on reporters of today who are too obsessed with the quick story that brings down the house.
It’s also amusing to note that if Nixon had simply promoted Mr. Felt to FBI Director, as most of the FBI insiders thought he should be, we would probably never have heard of Deep Throat. As a result, Woodward and Bernstein might have been much slower about breaking their story, or completely done in by a couple of mistakes they made along the way. Either way, Nixon might have been allowed to stay in office to complete his full term that would have meant that Ford wasn’t carrying the Nixon pardon baggage. Relieved of this burden, Ford might have had enough in him to defeat Carter in the 1976 election. Without the baggage, Reagan might have decided to work with Ford rather than oppose him. Ford would probably have snapped Reagan up to lock in California’s electoral votes and would have pushed him over the top against Carter. Most people forget that Carter only narrowly beat Ford by a couple of states. From then on we take a number of different avenues. Of course, this also assumes that Nixon would have chosen Ford to replace the disgraced Spiro Agnew. If he wasn’t worried about his own image as much, Nixon might have opted for someone other than the squeaky-clean Ford. So many avenues, so little time.
Anyway, this revelation comes in a very haphazard manner and with very interesting timing. Deep Throat, and the whole Watergate mythology that has grown up over the years, has immortalized the “inside anonymous source.” Recently with the whole Newsweek Koran flushing retraction, the sanctity of the anonymous source has taken quite a beating. In fact, the blogosphere in general has been forcing mainstream media to shy away from the insider with an axe to grind.
For the most part, I suspect the rest of the week will be a reveling by the mainstream media of the Watergate era. It’s a reminder of when they were kings and had complete control of the establishment. Their ego has taken a severe beating in the past few years with the combination of scandals that have been unearthed, from the Eason Jordan incident to the Dan Rather memo incident.
The great irony in this whole thing is that Deep Throat didn’t actually give Woodward and Bernstein anything. He confirmed facts the duo already had, gave them encouragement when they were unsure, and nudged them down helpful avenues. Yet he has been built up as this great mythological figure that everyone reporter feels he must have. Woodward and Bernstein actually uncovered the story with good old-fashioned hard-nosed investigative journalism. A talent that has been noticeably lost on reporters of today who are too obsessed with the quick story that brings down the house.
It’s also amusing to note that if Nixon had simply promoted Mr. Felt to FBI Director, as most of the FBI insiders thought he should be, we would probably never have heard of Deep Throat. As a result, Woodward and Bernstein might have been much slower about breaking their story, or completely done in by a couple of mistakes they made along the way. Either way, Nixon might have been allowed to stay in office to complete his full term that would have meant that Ford wasn’t carrying the Nixon pardon baggage. Relieved of this burden, Ford might have had enough in him to defeat Carter in the 1976 election. Without the baggage, Reagan might have decided to work with Ford rather than oppose him. Ford would probably have snapped Reagan up to lock in California’s electoral votes and would have pushed him over the top against Carter. Most people forget that Carter only narrowly beat Ford by a couple of states. From then on we take a number of different avenues. Of course, this also assumes that Nixon would have chosen Ford to replace the disgraced Spiro Agnew. If he wasn’t worried about his own image as much, Nixon might have opted for someone other than the squeaky-clean Ford. So many avenues, so little time.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Slow Periods
So what's going on in the world right now? Not too much of real interest. Yes we're still at war and meanwhile the French told Chirac and the rest of the EU to go shove it, but really its been very quiet. Even in the X household, its been pretty quiet. Mrs. X got a new car last weekend and we spent this weekend dressing up the house and visiting with Mrs. X's mom, but that's about it. Excitement seems to be at a premium right about now.
Meanwhile, the book continues to move forward, albeit somewhat slowly. Working in the Peloponnesian War was getting a bit bogged down, so I took a short break and have gone back to examine the Joseph angle. I think I can definitely work through enough evidence that the Pharaoh who started the oppression was Sesostris III, making the Pharaoh of the Exodus Amenemhet IV, but I've hit a small snag with the start of things. Amenemhet I (founder of the 12th dynasty) began his reign a few years after Joseph came to court according to the current breakdown in chronology. So, either some of the numbers assigned to the various Pharaohs are wrong, or Joseph actually started before the 12th dynasty really got going. Then there is the whole reconciling thing with the 4th dynasty, but I'm not going to worry about that for the moment.
Still confidence is high and progress is being made. I have a total of eight chapters in various states of editing, although only one is anywhere near close to being ready. Plod along, get new information and work hard is all I can do.
Meanwhile, the book continues to move forward, albeit somewhat slowly. Working in the Peloponnesian War was getting a bit bogged down, so I took a short break and have gone back to examine the Joseph angle. I think I can definitely work through enough evidence that the Pharaoh who started the oppression was Sesostris III, making the Pharaoh of the Exodus Amenemhet IV, but I've hit a small snag with the start of things. Amenemhet I (founder of the 12th dynasty) began his reign a few years after Joseph came to court according to the current breakdown in chronology. So, either some of the numbers assigned to the various Pharaohs are wrong, or Joseph actually started before the 12th dynasty really got going. Then there is the whole reconciling thing with the 4th dynasty, but I'm not going to worry about that for the moment.
Still confidence is high and progress is being made. I have a total of eight chapters in various states of editing, although only one is anywhere near close to being ready. Plod along, get new information and work hard is all I can do.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Revenge of Lucas
So Mrs. X and I saw Episode III last night. It was good. It certainly was the best of the prequel trilogy. I’d have to see it again before if I could decide whether or not it was better than Return of the Jedi. So right now, it’s hovering between 3 and 4 on my rating of the 6.
Good things:
* The good things about the movie included a much better repartee between Anakin and Obi-
wan.
* There was a lot more of the dry humor that flavored the original trilogy.
* The lightsaber duels were quite impressive.
* Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor put the full force of their acting abilities into their roles
and steal most scenes they are in.
* Yoda was a much more three-dimensional character, both in terms of the effects and his
dialogue.
Bad things:
* The overall dialogue still stinks. In a movie driven for nearly an hour by political intrigue, the
simplistic dialogue renders many actors wooden.
* The chemistry between Anakin and Padme was very forced. A shame since both have shown
to be very good actors in other movies, but neither seem to be able to struggle out of the bad
dialogue and lack of direction that Lucas gives them.
* Padme is severely underused as a character and then given a very weak death, out of line with
the way she was developed in the first two movies.
* Sloppy answers to existing questions. Lucas answered most of the questions people felt
needed to be answered, but several of them were very rushed and to the point. Further
development of these should have been explored.
I’d still recommend it to see, although not necessarily in the theater Mrs. X and I went to. It was old and the sound wasn’t that great, but we expected that since it only cost us $4 to see it. The worst though was the audience. A few rows back of us was a kid maybe 4 years old who was very fussy and shouldn’t have been in there at all. There were other people, including the couple sitting next to us, who kept running commentary throughout the movie and that was highly distracting. Lower price also seems to invite lower class.
Good things:
* The good things about the movie included a much better repartee between Anakin and Obi-
wan.
* There was a lot more of the dry humor that flavored the original trilogy.
* The lightsaber duels were quite impressive.
* Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor put the full force of their acting abilities into their roles
and steal most scenes they are in.
* Yoda was a much more three-dimensional character, both in terms of the effects and his
dialogue.
Bad things:
* The overall dialogue still stinks. In a movie driven for nearly an hour by political intrigue, the
simplistic dialogue renders many actors wooden.
* The chemistry between Anakin and Padme was very forced. A shame since both have shown
to be very good actors in other movies, but neither seem to be able to struggle out of the bad
dialogue and lack of direction that Lucas gives them.
* Padme is severely underused as a character and then given a very weak death, out of line with
the way she was developed in the first two movies.
* Sloppy answers to existing questions. Lucas answered most of the questions people felt
needed to be answered, but several of them were very rushed and to the point. Further
development of these should have been explored.
I’d still recommend it to see, although not necessarily in the theater Mrs. X and I went to. It was old and the sound wasn’t that great, but we expected that since it only cost us $4 to see it. The worst though was the audience. A few rows back of us was a kid maybe 4 years old who was very fussy and shouldn’t have been in there at all. There were other people, including the couple sitting next to us, who kept running commentary throughout the movie and that was highly distracting. Lower price also seems to invite lower class.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Blood in the Snow?
Things are getting interesting with our neighbors to the North. The Prime Minister just lost a non-binding “no confidence” vote 153-150. While the Liberals are free to ignore this, it does weaken their position in the eyes of the public even more. Mr. Martin has to explain to the public why he is not scheduling elections when he has clearly lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The head of the Conservatives does have the option of petitioning the Governor-General to dissolve the government and appoint an acting Prime Minister, but unless he can secure a binding resolution, its unlikely the Governor-General will make that step.
For those of you who haven’t been fully following this story, the Liberals are in some hot water concerning an investigation into a kickback scheme involving federal judges. The Liberals then slapped on a publication ban to try and control the outflow of information. But, news got out through a couple of American bloggers and then quickly spread through the Canadian mainstream. Full back-story details are best read at Captain’s Quarters, which provided the original leak in the first place.
Ordinarily this wouldn’t even really ping that high except for one very prominent factor. The current government is primarily a coalition between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. Bloc Quebecois has gotten really pissed off by the whole issue and been talking about secession again. If Ottawa continues to bumble, Quebec could throw enough Bloc Quebecois members into the mix that they are able to put a secession initiative before the people of Quebec as they did in the 90’s. If Quebec passes the resolution, all of Canada could break apart. The fact that the West doesn’t like Ontario very much is not a well-kept secret. Spurred by Quebec’s departure, the West could pull its support as well. It’s also somewhat debatable as to how loyal the Maritimes would be to Ontario without a common border.
All of this is raw speculation based on the worst-case scenario, but it is a possibility. From this we then speculate as to whether Ontario would sit by and just take the dissolution of Canada, or if they would move to reunite the country by force.
So where would the US stand in the whole mix? Obviously chaos up North would spell trouble for us, but greed might trump that fear. Its no secret that the Republicans aren’t fond of the way Ontario runs things. Certain factions within the party would love a chance to offer protection for Western Canada with the hope of assimilating that portion into the US. Logging and oil companies would be made very happy by this move. Fueled by the possible intake of more “red state” voters, Democrats might then push to offer the same protections to the Maritimes, which are closer to New England in ideology to balance everything out. So a giant monster consumes the edges, leaving the center.
Again, this is a rather long shot in terms of possibility, but there is always a chance when there is this much tension in the system.
For those of you who haven’t been fully following this story, the Liberals are in some hot water concerning an investigation into a kickback scheme involving federal judges. The Liberals then slapped on a publication ban to try and control the outflow of information. But, news got out through a couple of American bloggers and then quickly spread through the Canadian mainstream. Full back-story details are best read at Captain’s Quarters, which provided the original leak in the first place.
Ordinarily this wouldn’t even really ping that high except for one very prominent factor. The current government is primarily a coalition between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. Bloc Quebecois has gotten really pissed off by the whole issue and been talking about secession again. If Ottawa continues to bumble, Quebec could throw enough Bloc Quebecois members into the mix that they are able to put a secession initiative before the people of Quebec as they did in the 90’s. If Quebec passes the resolution, all of Canada could break apart. The fact that the West doesn’t like Ontario very much is not a well-kept secret. Spurred by Quebec’s departure, the West could pull its support as well. It’s also somewhat debatable as to how loyal the Maritimes would be to Ontario without a common border.
All of this is raw speculation based on the worst-case scenario, but it is a possibility. From this we then speculate as to whether Ontario would sit by and just take the dissolution of Canada, or if they would move to reunite the country by force.
So where would the US stand in the whole mix? Obviously chaos up North would spell trouble for us, but greed might trump that fear. Its no secret that the Republicans aren’t fond of the way Ontario runs things. Certain factions within the party would love a chance to offer protection for Western Canada with the hope of assimilating that portion into the US. Logging and oil companies would be made very happy by this move. Fueled by the possible intake of more “red state” voters, Democrats might then push to offer the same protections to the Maritimes, which are closer to New England in ideology to balance everything out. So a giant monster consumes the edges, leaving the center.
Again, this is a rather long shot in terms of possibility, but there is always a chance when there is this much tension in the system.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Science likes to pass itself off as being very flexible and will constantly amend its theories whenever new discoveries are made. In some cases this is true, but in other cases, science is as stiff necked about certain theories as a church is about dogma.
A prime example is the nature of the dinosaur debate. This debate is still evolving but the paleontologists held very rigid in their theories for many years. I had books growing up in the 80’s that were indistinguishable from books in the 50’s. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded, slow-witted creatures. Tyrannosaurus Rex stood completely upright on his hind legs. The primary sauropod was the brontosaurus. Brachiosaurus had to stand in water to support its weight. Etcetera, etcetera.
It wasn’t until the late 80’s when Robert Bakker published his book, The Dinosaur Heresies, challenging these theories. Many of these theories were picked up by Michael Creighton and incorporated into Jurassic Park. With the success of that series, the public started paying enough attention that people began to change their minds and science was actually forced to consider new theories and has made them into the new gospel.
I mention this example because I’ve been reading some articles that argue that the Big Bang theory is wrong, but science is resisting change. Apparently some of the key tenants of Big Bang have been disproved relatively recently. Doppler Shift is incorrect around certain key galaxies. The overall age of bodies such as the moon and Mars have been vastly overestimated. According to the Big Bang model, the galaxy is supposed to be electrically neutral and it has recently found to be not.
In its place is a theory of electric plasma strings that disperse matter throughout the universe. I don’t know the full nature of the theory except that it takes certain key elements first proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky in the 1950’s. I don’t quite buy all of his theories (he believes the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter and caused the disasters of biblical era by closely passing Earth before settling into a stable orbit) but it does make for interesting reading. It also teaches one to challenge the orthodoxy of science. Question and agitate
A prime example is the nature of the dinosaur debate. This debate is still evolving but the paleontologists held very rigid in their theories for many years. I had books growing up in the 80’s that were indistinguishable from books in the 50’s. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded, slow-witted creatures. Tyrannosaurus Rex stood completely upright on his hind legs. The primary sauropod was the brontosaurus. Brachiosaurus had to stand in water to support its weight. Etcetera, etcetera.
It wasn’t until the late 80’s when Robert Bakker published his book, The Dinosaur Heresies, challenging these theories. Many of these theories were picked up by Michael Creighton and incorporated into Jurassic Park. With the success of that series, the public started paying enough attention that people began to change their minds and science was actually forced to consider new theories and has made them into the new gospel.
I mention this example because I’ve been reading some articles that argue that the Big Bang theory is wrong, but science is resisting change. Apparently some of the key tenants of Big Bang have been disproved relatively recently. Doppler Shift is incorrect around certain key galaxies. The overall age of bodies such as the moon and Mars have been vastly overestimated. According to the Big Bang model, the galaxy is supposed to be electrically neutral and it has recently found to be not.
In its place is a theory of electric plasma strings that disperse matter throughout the universe. I don’t know the full nature of the theory except that it takes certain key elements first proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky in the 1950’s. I don’t quite buy all of his theories (he believes the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter and caused the disasters of biblical era by closely passing Earth before settling into a stable orbit) but it does make for interesting reading. It also teaches one to challenge the orthodoxy of science. Question and agitate
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Operation Zebra
Powerline wrote an article yesterday about the troubles of a history professor at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIU-C). Apparently he is in trouble for giving his class an optional reading assignment of an article about the Zebra Murders. I was rather unfamiliar with this string of murders so I followed the link and read the article the teacher had given to his class.
In 1972 in San Francisco a group of young black men, who were all members of the Nation of Islam, formed a group called the Death Angels. This group believed that the white race had been formed by a mad black experimenter 3,000 years ago to be slaves to the black race and that they would earn points in heaven for killing white people. A bit like the Islamic fundamentalists we’re fighting now. The case got its nickname from the band on the radio used by the police during their operation against the killers.
The Death Angels targeted mostly elderly men and women. Most of their victims were savagely beaten prior to being killed. One of their first victims was an elderly woman who was beaten and sexually abused before they cut off her head with a machete. There was no real pattern to the crimes, just that the victims were white and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Police stepped up patrols and arrests in traditional black neighborhoods fanning racial tensions between residents and police. Several prominent black leaders of the day were to be found in San Francisco arguing that the police presence was only because the victims were white and that it was another example of oppression against blacks in the area. These may be true, but the leaders also expressed no remorse for the slaying of innocent people, alienating many white leaders.
Eventually, police captured one member of the gang in 1974. He quickly broke and confessed, implicating many of the other members of the gang. The Nation of Islam paid for their defense but all the members captured were sent to jail. Most were eligible for parole in 2002 although I am unaware if any were actually released.
I am rather confused as to what objections other faculty members have as to students learning about this crime spree. Understanding problems of the past is key towards working to prevent them from happening in the future.
In 1972 in San Francisco a group of young black men, who were all members of the Nation of Islam, formed a group called the Death Angels. This group believed that the white race had been formed by a mad black experimenter 3,000 years ago to be slaves to the black race and that they would earn points in heaven for killing white people. A bit like the Islamic fundamentalists we’re fighting now. The case got its nickname from the band on the radio used by the police during their operation against the killers.
The Death Angels targeted mostly elderly men and women. Most of their victims were savagely beaten prior to being killed. One of their first victims was an elderly woman who was beaten and sexually abused before they cut off her head with a machete. There was no real pattern to the crimes, just that the victims were white and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Police stepped up patrols and arrests in traditional black neighborhoods fanning racial tensions between residents and police. Several prominent black leaders of the day were to be found in San Francisco arguing that the police presence was only because the victims were white and that it was another example of oppression against blacks in the area. These may be true, but the leaders also expressed no remorse for the slaying of innocent people, alienating many white leaders.
Eventually, police captured one member of the gang in 1974. He quickly broke and confessed, implicating many of the other members of the gang. The Nation of Islam paid for their defense but all the members captured were sent to jail. Most were eligible for parole in 2002 although I am unaware if any were actually released.
I am rather confused as to what objections other faculty members have as to students learning about this crime spree. Understanding problems of the past is key towards working to prevent them from happening in the future.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
HP Conspiracies
Sorry about the long delay. This past was a bit hectic here at work and I never quite got around to chatting about the new pope or anything else of interest. So, we'll have a gay old time today discussing fun stuff.
Towards the end of last week I ventured back to Mugglenet after a hiatus. No real news had popped out about either the GoF movie or the HBP book. While I was surfing around, I found a new editorial column had gone up called The Underground Lake. Its actually a well thought out column that looks at various points and explanations of future events in the Harry Potter series. Probably his most interesting post was a recap of what's referred to as Vold War I, the first war against Voldemort that lasted from 1970 to Voldemort's fall in 1981. Most interesting in that was his recap and speculation as to what happened between Voldemort's assault on Godric's Hollow and Harry's arrival at Privett Drive.
His recap is as follows (I'll go ahead and include his theories with the known facts): Voldemort, operating on half of the prophesy decides that Harry Potter is the real threat and not Neville Longbottom. However, to be safe, he dispatches the Lestranges to watch the Longbottom residence while he concentrates his assault on the Potters. Peter Pettigrew brings word to Voldemort that he is the secret keeper for the Potters. Voldemort then goes to Godric's Hollow, taking Peter with him in case it might be a trap. Peter waits outside while Voldemort bursts in. He kills James quickly, having been caught off guard. Lily runs to protect Harry. When she won't remove herself, Voldemort kills her. He then tries to kill Harry, but thanks to his mother's charm, the spell rebounds and expels the spirit of Voldemort from his body. Peter quickly learns that something has gone wrong and goes inside. He sees the body of Voldemort and Harry, still alive and probably crying from his scar. Peter panics. He grabs Voldemort's wand and flees the house, probably destroying it first to cover up the evidence that he was ever there.
Peter knows Sirius will come by in the next day or so to check up on Lily and James. He then flees to Lucius Malfoy and discloses what happened. Malfoy realizes that with the disappearance of Voldemort, the principle power of the Death Eaters will be broken. They could try to put someone else in power, but none of them is as strong as Voldemort. Malfoy then cooks up a plan. He tells Peter to make himself known and let Sirius track him down. Malfoy will speed things up by sending out a rumor that Voldemort was destroyed while trying to kill Harry. He notifies the Junior Minister of Magical Catastrophes, Cornelius Fudge, that Sirius Black will be chasing down Peter Pettigrew and that Peter will engineer his own "death". Fudge will arrest Black and accuse him of being Voldemort's strongest supporter. Fudge will then be vaulted into the highest levels of political circles and in position to compete with Barty Crouch for Minister of Magic. Fudge isn't a Death Eater but he certainly is complicit with Malfoy, certainly enough to advance himself politically. We can see a parallel with Percy Weasley and the blindness his ambition is causing.
So Fudge is waiting when Sirius tracks Peter down. Peter blows the street leaving his finger (and presumably his wand, having stashed Voldemort's away in a safe place) behind. Fudge immediately arrests Sirius and may have even hit him with a powerful cheering charm to make him laugh maniacally. Sirius is then quickly handed over to Barty Crouch who tosses him into Azkaban without trial. Malfoy uses his political connections with Fudge and other ministers to shield himself during the Ministry crackdown on the Death Eaters.
Meanwhile, news reaches the Lestranges of Voldemort's downfall. Unaware of the full nature of their assignment, they torture Frank and Alice Longbottom, thinking they may have information on what happened. When they get nothing out of them, they torture them to insanity. The gang is caught shortly afterward and dispatched to Azkaban until Barty Crouch Jr. escapes with aid from his parents.
An interesting theory and one that could very well be true. Only Fudge's complicity with Malfoy is unknown. But given his closeness to Malfoy throughout the period of peace between Vold War I and II and his stonewalling at the beginning of Vold War II, it would be somewhat surprising to learn that Fudge is as naive as we are initially led to believe.
If you're curious about other theories posed, be sure to check out some of his other articles. They're quite interesting.
Towards the end of last week I ventured back to Mugglenet after a hiatus. No real news had popped out about either the GoF movie or the HBP book. While I was surfing around, I found a new editorial column had gone up called The Underground Lake. Its actually a well thought out column that looks at various points and explanations of future events in the Harry Potter series. Probably his most interesting post was a recap of what's referred to as Vold War I, the first war against Voldemort that lasted from 1970 to Voldemort's fall in 1981. Most interesting in that was his recap and speculation as to what happened between Voldemort's assault on Godric's Hollow and Harry's arrival at Privett Drive.
His recap is as follows (I'll go ahead and include his theories with the known facts): Voldemort, operating on half of the prophesy decides that Harry Potter is the real threat and not Neville Longbottom. However, to be safe, he dispatches the Lestranges to watch the Longbottom residence while he concentrates his assault on the Potters. Peter Pettigrew brings word to Voldemort that he is the secret keeper for the Potters. Voldemort then goes to Godric's Hollow, taking Peter with him in case it might be a trap. Peter waits outside while Voldemort bursts in. He kills James quickly, having been caught off guard. Lily runs to protect Harry. When she won't remove herself, Voldemort kills her. He then tries to kill Harry, but thanks to his mother's charm, the spell rebounds and expels the spirit of Voldemort from his body. Peter quickly learns that something has gone wrong and goes inside. He sees the body of Voldemort and Harry, still alive and probably crying from his scar. Peter panics. He grabs Voldemort's wand and flees the house, probably destroying it first to cover up the evidence that he was ever there.
Peter knows Sirius will come by in the next day or so to check up on Lily and James. He then flees to Lucius Malfoy and discloses what happened. Malfoy realizes that with the disappearance of Voldemort, the principle power of the Death Eaters will be broken. They could try to put someone else in power, but none of them is as strong as Voldemort. Malfoy then cooks up a plan. He tells Peter to make himself known and let Sirius track him down. Malfoy will speed things up by sending out a rumor that Voldemort was destroyed while trying to kill Harry. He notifies the Junior Minister of Magical Catastrophes, Cornelius Fudge, that Sirius Black will be chasing down Peter Pettigrew and that Peter will engineer his own "death". Fudge will arrest Black and accuse him of being Voldemort's strongest supporter. Fudge will then be vaulted into the highest levels of political circles and in position to compete with Barty Crouch for Minister of Magic. Fudge isn't a Death Eater but he certainly is complicit with Malfoy, certainly enough to advance himself politically. We can see a parallel with Percy Weasley and the blindness his ambition is causing.
So Fudge is waiting when Sirius tracks Peter down. Peter blows the street leaving his finger (and presumably his wand, having stashed Voldemort's away in a safe place) behind. Fudge immediately arrests Sirius and may have even hit him with a powerful cheering charm to make him laugh maniacally. Sirius is then quickly handed over to Barty Crouch who tosses him into Azkaban without trial. Malfoy uses his political connections with Fudge and other ministers to shield himself during the Ministry crackdown on the Death Eaters.
Meanwhile, news reaches the Lestranges of Voldemort's downfall. Unaware of the full nature of their assignment, they torture Frank and Alice Longbottom, thinking they may have information on what happened. When they get nothing out of them, they torture them to insanity. The gang is caught shortly afterward and dispatched to Azkaban until Barty Crouch Jr. escapes with aid from his parents.
An interesting theory and one that could very well be true. Only Fudge's complicity with Malfoy is unknown. But given his closeness to Malfoy throughout the period of peace between Vold War I and II and his stonewalling at the beginning of Vold War II, it would be somewhat surprising to learn that Fudge is as naive as we are initially led to believe.
If you're curious about other theories posed, be sure to check out some of his other articles. They're quite interesting.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
History Under Revision
Have you ever wondered just how much of the history you read actually happened? Mrs. X has a book that I’ve been meaning to read called Lies My Teacher Told Me. It covers various points of history that have been glossed over/revised/truncated by our history books. This has popped in my mind because some of the conservative blogs to which I frequent like citing instances where people claim they were either for or against the war from the beginning when the public record actually shows them being on the other side of the fence.
Revision can come as simple as via the sin of omission. For example, did you know that the Vatican did not recognize the state of Israel until 1994, but was the only government in the world to officially recognize the government of the Confederate States of America? Obviously Rome doesn’t like to be reminded of the sins of her past, just like the rest of us (Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee anyone?). But without knowing the whole story, things get lost and crucial historical facts are obscured.
Another major aspect of historical revision comes through developing hypotheses about the past and sticking with that despite evidence to the contrary. Example: textbooks tell of the great campaign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III where he captured the great city of Kadesh on the plain of Meggido. Except that if you read Thutmose’s description of the geography of the campaign and compare it to that of Meggido, you realize that there is no way that the battle could have ever been fought there. The mistake came from a hypothesis formed about the translation of the text of the campaign in the early twentieth century and then archeologists sticking with that hypothesis despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I’ve been reading a number of theories that speculate that Thutmose actually conducted the battle around Jerusalem and may have even been King Shishak who raided the Temple during Rehoboam’s reign. But this theory would screw up the Egyptian timeline and isn’t readily discussed in historical circles.
The whole point is to never truly assume that you know anything about history just based off a textbook you read in school. One must read multiple sources, the closer to the time period, the better. Histories and chronologies written after the fact are biased based on the agenda (deliberate or not) of the author. Vigilance and study are the only ways of knowing the true history of ourselves and then we must apply it forward so that we can truly learn from the mistakes of the past.
Revision can come as simple as via the sin of omission. For example, did you know that the Vatican did not recognize the state of Israel until 1994, but was the only government in the world to officially recognize the government of the Confederate States of America? Obviously Rome doesn’t like to be reminded of the sins of her past, just like the rest of us (Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee anyone?). But without knowing the whole story, things get lost and crucial historical facts are obscured.
Another major aspect of historical revision comes through developing hypotheses about the past and sticking with that despite evidence to the contrary. Example: textbooks tell of the great campaign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III where he captured the great city of Kadesh on the plain of Meggido. Except that if you read Thutmose’s description of the geography of the campaign and compare it to that of Meggido, you realize that there is no way that the battle could have ever been fought there. The mistake came from a hypothesis formed about the translation of the text of the campaign in the early twentieth century and then archeologists sticking with that hypothesis despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I’ve been reading a number of theories that speculate that Thutmose actually conducted the battle around Jerusalem and may have even been King Shishak who raided the Temple during Rehoboam’s reign. But this theory would screw up the Egyptian timeline and isn’t readily discussed in historical circles.
The whole point is to never truly assume that you know anything about history just based off a textbook you read in school. One must read multiple sources, the closer to the time period, the better. Histories and chronologies written after the fact are biased based on the agenda (deliberate or not) of the author. Vigilance and study are the only ways of knowing the true history of ourselves and then we must apply it forward so that we can truly learn from the mistakes of the past.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Brain Teaser
Here's a fun little teaser to wrap your brain around:
Three men are staying overnight for a conference. They check into a hotel and are told that the room is $30 a night. The men pool and give the front desk $10 each. After they check in, the guy working the front desk realizes that the hotel is running a special for the conference and the room is only $25 a night. He gives $5 to the bellhop and tells him to take it to the room with the three men. The bellhop realizes that he won’t be able to divide the $5 between three men and pockets $2. He knocks on the door and tells the men the hotel was running a discount and he gives them $1 each.
In summary, the three men paid $9 each for the room and the bellhop stole $2 for a total of $29. Where did the extra dollar go from the original $30 spent by the men?
Three men are staying overnight for a conference. They check into a hotel and are told that the room is $30 a night. The men pool and give the front desk $10 each. After they check in, the guy working the front desk realizes that the hotel is running a special for the conference and the room is only $25 a night. He gives $5 to the bellhop and tells him to take it to the room with the three men. The bellhop realizes that he won’t be able to divide the $5 between three men and pockets $2. He knocks on the door and tells the men the hotel was running a discount and he gives them $1 each.
In summary, the three men paid $9 each for the room and the bellhop stole $2 for a total of $29. Where did the extra dollar go from the original $30 spent by the men?
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Heute Europa, Morgen Das Weld
For your ultimate world conquering pleasure, this wonderfully nationalistic song from Cabaret. You may adapt is necessary to suit your particular needs:
The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The branch of the linden is leafy and green
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper:
"Arise, arise,”
Tomorrow belongs to me.
O Fatherland, Fatherland
Show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come when the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs
Tomorrow belongs
Tomorrow belongs to me.
Probably the worst is just how annoyingly catchy this song is. I've found myself humming it at random times ever since I first heard it a few days ago. Thus, I must find an equally annoying song to get stuck in my head to drive this one out.
The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The branch of the linden is leafy and green
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper:
"Arise, arise,”
Tomorrow belongs to me.
O Fatherland, Fatherland
Show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come when the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs
Tomorrow belongs
Tomorrow belongs to me.
Probably the worst is just how annoyingly catchy this song is. I've found myself humming it at random times ever since I first heard it a few days ago. Thus, I must find an equally annoying song to get stuck in my head to drive this one out.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Checkmate
So in the fourth game I played in the last two weeks with a friend at work, I finally won a game of chess. My first three games were all lost on account of complete idiocy by me. In fact, the second game I played, I was up in material and in a good attack position when I made two or three bad moves in a row that allowed my opponent to take my advantage and advance one of his pawns unopposed to the back rank and regain his queen. But I won today so hooray me.
Concerning Lost, we finally had the promised death of one of the fourteen primary cast members in the form of Boone. But, in true TV style, it was coupled with the birth of Claire’s baby. Boone himself is no great loss as his plots were somewhat redundant and only echoed that of Locke or someone else. In other words, he was expendable and the writers showed him the door.
The remaining previews indicate that we’ll be going through another stretch of reruns (Mrs. X says that they’re supposed to be a clip show coming up) and then the grand finale where we may see a rebellion against Locke. He may be the only one who understands the island, but his lack of communication about it has rendered him a marked man in the eyes of certain tribe members. Jack is out for his blood as will Shannon (so by proxy, might Saayid).
West Wing was pretty predictable and even more boring than I thought it would be. Santos gives the big speech that gathers everyone to him while the remaining three candidates look on in stunned disbelief. Then to top it all off, Leo is picked to be Vice-President less than a year removed from a massive heart attack (smacks of Dick Cheney). Meanwhile, CJ may be heading for prison for exposing military secrets to the press.
If Vinick (Alan Alda) wins, the entire show will have to be revamped with a new cast. If Santos wins, then you get to keep Josh, Leo, Donna, and maybe even Will. Donna will either be kept on as Josh’s love interest or be hired into the staff (my pick would be press secretary). Will’s a little harder since he and Josh don’t really see eye to eye and he was Russell’s man for quite a long time. But around half the cast will be allowed to stick around.
For this reason and several others, I fully believe that Santos will win the election. Everyone keeps saying that Santos can’t win so we get a more Bartlett like feel from him. We’ve also had far more character development with Santos than we’ve had with Vinick. Of course, there’s always the writers’ natural bias of knowing how to write likable Democrat and nasty Republican. Either way, I’m very curious as to how long Wells will continue to deny that Santos is going to win, even though all the evidence points toward a Democratic victory.
Concerning Lost, we finally had the promised death of one of the fourteen primary cast members in the form of Boone. But, in true TV style, it was coupled with the birth of Claire’s baby. Boone himself is no great loss as his plots were somewhat redundant and only echoed that of Locke or someone else. In other words, he was expendable and the writers showed him the door.
The remaining previews indicate that we’ll be going through another stretch of reruns (Mrs. X says that they’re supposed to be a clip show coming up) and then the grand finale where we may see a rebellion against Locke. He may be the only one who understands the island, but his lack of communication about it has rendered him a marked man in the eyes of certain tribe members. Jack is out for his blood as will Shannon (so by proxy, might Saayid).
West Wing was pretty predictable and even more boring than I thought it would be. Santos gives the big speech that gathers everyone to him while the remaining three candidates look on in stunned disbelief. Then to top it all off, Leo is picked to be Vice-President less than a year removed from a massive heart attack (smacks of Dick Cheney). Meanwhile, CJ may be heading for prison for exposing military secrets to the press.
If Vinick (Alan Alda) wins, the entire show will have to be revamped with a new cast. If Santos wins, then you get to keep Josh, Leo, Donna, and maybe even Will. Donna will either be kept on as Josh’s love interest or be hired into the staff (my pick would be press secretary). Will’s a little harder since he and Josh don’t really see eye to eye and he was Russell’s man for quite a long time. But around half the cast will be allowed to stick around.
For this reason and several others, I fully believe that Santos will win the election. Everyone keeps saying that Santos can’t win so we get a more Bartlett like feel from him. We’ve also had far more character development with Santos than we’ve had with Vinick. Of course, there’s always the writers’ natural bias of knowing how to write likable Democrat and nasty Republican. Either way, I’m very curious as to how long Wells will continue to deny that Santos is going to win, even though all the evidence points toward a Democratic victory.
Monday, April 04, 2005
End Times Hysteria
A couple of months ago, Mrs. X and I were flipping through and we caught a History's Mysteries program that had originally aired in 1999 dealing with end times prophesies. It was rather amusing just because it was so pointed towards the hysteria of the world coming to an end in 2000.
However, it did mention something of which I was unfamiliar. It was the so-called "Prophesies of St. Malachy (Malachi)." According to legend, Malachy was an Irish bishop who lived in the middle of the 12th century. He went to Rome to have a meeting with the pope and while there, fell into a deep trance. When he woke, he had a vision of more than 100 popes to come in the future. He wrote down his descriptions, which were mostly 4 word phrases, and gave the scroll to the pope. The scroll was lost for nearly 400 years when it turned up again in a search of the Vatican archives.
Much debate has been centered on the authenticity of such "prophesies" but they have been eerily applicable to each pope for the most part. With the death of John Paul II, who was referred to as De labore Solis, or Labor of the Sun we move on to the second to last pope on the list - Gloria olivae or Glory of the Olive. After this, the only one mentioned is one called Peter the Roman, who is supposed to be pope during the tribulation.
Now, this may all be a great deal of hogwash. But, I believe we will be seeing a huge surge in doomsday cultists in the next 7 years. Consider this, the average reign of a pope is around 6 or 7 years. That takes us up to 2012, the same year that several Native American tribe's calendars end at. If we get additional developments out of the Middle East that seem to spin in ways similar to the unfulfilled prophesies of Ezekiel and Isaiah, then I would definitely watch the news for stories of people sitting on hills waiting for the world to end. Of course, it didn't happen in 1994 or 2000 so I wouldn't go about planning my life around the end of the world.
However, it did mention something of which I was unfamiliar. It was the so-called "Prophesies of St. Malachy (Malachi)." According to legend, Malachy was an Irish bishop who lived in the middle of the 12th century. He went to Rome to have a meeting with the pope and while there, fell into a deep trance. When he woke, he had a vision of more than 100 popes to come in the future. He wrote down his descriptions, which were mostly 4 word phrases, and gave the scroll to the pope. The scroll was lost for nearly 400 years when it turned up again in a search of the Vatican archives.
Much debate has been centered on the authenticity of such "prophesies" but they have been eerily applicable to each pope for the most part. With the death of John Paul II, who was referred to as De labore Solis, or Labor of the Sun we move on to the second to last pope on the list - Gloria olivae or Glory of the Olive. After this, the only one mentioned is one called Peter the Roman, who is supposed to be pope during the tribulation.
Now, this may all be a great deal of hogwash. But, I believe we will be seeing a huge surge in doomsday cultists in the next 7 years. Consider this, the average reign of a pope is around 6 or 7 years. That takes us up to 2012, the same year that several Native American tribe's calendars end at. If we get additional developments out of the Middle East that seem to spin in ways similar to the unfulfilled prophesies of Ezekiel and Isaiah, then I would definitely watch the news for stories of people sitting on hills waiting for the world to end. Of course, it didn't happen in 1994 or 2000 so I wouldn't go about planning my life around the end of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
