In this day and age, the exciting tales of spying between the United States and the Soviet Union have given way to fighting terrorism instead. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, many authors are reluctant to explore these untold stories, which could include a wealth of breath-taking action.
Brad Thor, however, tackles the subject full-on in his series about former Navy SEAL Scot Harvath. Harvath is now part of a super-secret organization that takes on the anti-terror jobs that the CIA and other government organizations won't do. In Thor's world, the government just isn't getting it done, and thus these people are there to take care of the free world in their places.
I haven't followed this series before, but Full Black is the 10th book in it, and I would assume the previous books are much like this one, at least in tone. It's set in the current day, with the same type of history as the real world has. Only the names have changed. There were terrorist attacks on 9/11 in New York City. While the names have changed, the world hasn't. Basically, pseudo-Bush was president for eight years, and now pseudo-Obama is president. The previous president would do whatever it takes to keep America safe. The current president is softer and more likely to want to negotiate (hence this super-secret agency).
Anyway, my review of Full Black is up on Curled Up With a Good Book now, and you can check it out.
From the review:
Scot Harvath is a fomer Navy SEAL and former Secret Service agent who has been recruited to join a secret group of ex-spies and other military operatives to do the jobs that the CIA won't to combat radical Islamic terrorism. They take on missions that are so sensitive that they aren't just classified; they don't exist. This time, Harvath and his team are tasked with infiltrating a terrorist cell in Sweden to find out what major attacks the network is planning. Meanwhile, a foreign wet works team attempts to kill movie producer Larry Salomon, who is working on a documentary that will expose one of the world's richest men (James Standing) as the man who will take down America and plunge it into chaos. Good thing that Salomon is buddies with another ex-Special Forces guy who is able to help him. Can Harvath stop the inevitable wave of attacks that will be sparked across the United States?
The problem is, and the reason for this doesn't really come out in my review because the editor understandably omitted when I got a little bit personal, I basically agree with Thor about a lot of things that he says in this book. Yet the way Thor presents his viewpoints in the novel drag it to a screeching halt every time the book threatens to start getting good again.
I like my politics in political books. Or at least illustrated by events in a novel. I don't want the characters to start spouting off political theories when I want to see them stop the bad guy.
Check out the review for the rest of my thoughts on the book, though. I did ultimately enjoy the book. Just not as much as I really wanted to.
Yet that's what one former Education Secretary is proposing for Britain. Lord Baker, who was Education Secretary under Thatcher and designed the National Curriculum, is advocating that History classes stop teaching children about the Holocaust. But it's not because he doesn't think that the kids can handle something that horrifying.
No, it's because it is supposedly giving kids a bad view of Germany. Yes, present-day Germany. Because, you know, kids are too stupid to separate modern Germany from the horrors of Hitler and Nazism.
This all appeared in an article in the Telegraph. I have checked for recent mentions of Lord Baker in the news, and this was the most recent article, so it doesn't appear that he's recanted or changed his mind or anything.
Actually, the idea about children is not totally off-base, though I don't believe that kids are "stupid." However, depending on how young they are, they are impressionable, and if the subject is not taught right, then it is possible to tar Germany in total with that brush. That shouldn't be a reason to stop teaching it, though. That should be a reason to improve the teaching of it, and History in general.
From what I understand, the teaching of History in school is not in a good state, and I think that needs to be improved. This is actually the part of Baker's statements that I agree with, which is that German history shouldn't be taught at the expense of British history. He's quoted as saying "Why I’ve got a thing against the Holocaust and all of that is I think you study your own history first," and "I'm sure that German children are not studying the British Civil War, right?" Yes, British kids should have a good basic understanding of British history, just like American kids should have a good understanding of American history (which sadly, as a whole, they don't).
The problem is that this is not enough, in my view. Kids should understand their whole country, but they should also understand how the world works, and how it worked in the past. The Holocaust is such a huge thing, a worldwide horror, that I don't think it can just be dismissed. As James Smith, chairman of the Holocaust Centre, is quoted as saying in the article, "The period of the Nazis was not just a blip in German history; the Holocaust was a Europe-wide crime." It affected not just Germany, but all of Europe. And its ramifications have been felt worldwide, including in the troubles that plague the Middle East to this day (yes, I do realize that there is much more than that, but it's certainly in there).
I don't want kids to have no inkling that something like this happened within the last 100 years unless they happen to catch a special on the History Channel. I don't want "Never Forget" to turn into "Well, we don't want people thinking *bad* things about Germany, so we'll just ignore this."
I did like one other thing that was in this article. Baker's suggestions come during a time when a committee has been formed to overhaul the current curriculum. One of the suggestions is that History be compulsory until age 16 instead of the current 14. I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope they implement it.
History is such an important subject, and while I don't think people need to study it to the microscopic level that historians do, I do believe a basic knowledge of History is essential to anybody's education. It requires teachers that make it interesting rather than a chore, engaging rather than boring. We don't always get those, but I'm sure they are out there. In my schooling, I only had a couple of teachers who really made it come to life. Thankfully, I was already hooked even on my own, so I was able to get past all of that. I wish I could say the same for others.
I realize that you can't teach everything about History, even if you do raise the age where compulsory History-studying ends. Something as big, as world-effecting as the Holocaust? There's no way that this should be ignored.
Those of you who know me know that I'm a huge World War II buff, having read numerous books on the subject. In fact, I remember having read every book on World War II in the Wilson Elementary School library by 3rd grade and wondering where I was going to find more to feed my hunger (Public library? What is this thing you speak of?).
That hasn't gone away as I've grown older. In fact, while my interests have branched out to a huge swath of history, I still love me a good World War II book, especially if it's about something I didn't know a lot about.
Thus comes David Sears' new book, Pacific Air. This book is all about the naval aviation aspect of the war in the Pacific Ocean against the Japanese. It talks about the pilots, the aircraft, the trials and tribulations as well as the triumphs of these flyboys. The other good thing about the book is that it's not totally American-centric. Sears does examine the life of a Japanese pilot as well, adding a fresh perspective to the whole thing.
It's a very good book, and one I'm glad I read. My review has now been posted on Curled Up With a Good Book.
From the review:
Students of World War II know that a large part of the war in the Pacific Ocean against the Japanese consisted of huge carrier battles, where enemy ships never saw each other and the war took place among the planes in the sky. These planes were based on aircraft carriers and the war was a back-and-forth battle between these planes to try and sink the enemy carriers before your own were sunk. Pacific Air by David Sears examines the war from the viewpoint of these pilots, and it's a great read.
Sears begins with the aircraft themselves, detailing how before the war, Grumman became one of the mainstays for the building of naval aircraft. He talks about the flight tests, the strengths and weaknesses of some of the first planes to fly off the assembly line. It is important to get a basic understanding regarding what these pilots were actually flying. However, while the first chapter starts with the reaction of the factory higher-ups when the attack on Pearl Harbor was announced (they were opening a new plant on the same day), and the second tells us about the first naval pilot casualties as they attempt to land in Hawaii and were shot at by panicked ground gunners, this does not make a riveting story for those readers just beginning the book.
Yes, the beginning of the book is really slow, but it definitely picks up and becomes an interesting read.
I give it a big thumbs up, though you pretty much do have to have an interest in World War II or it may not have the same effect that it had on me.
I don't know if I'm going to be doing another blog before Christmas Day, so I figured I'd do this one now.
I am very thankful for my wife and family who love me. I'm thankful to have a group of such wonderful friends, whether I've ever met you or not. I forget that sometimes, and still do miss having any immediate friends in Vancouver (I'm slowly working on that). But I have to realize that there are still plenty of people out there who love me.
I had a lovely evening with two very good friends last night, and it's always a highlight of my Christmas trip home. But some of you I've never even met, but I still feel close to you.
This time of year always makes me nostalgic, like I'm sure it does everyone. Remembering Christmases past and future (or imagining the future ones, anyway). It's in this spirit that I want to wish you all a truly merry Christmas and all the best in the new year as well.
I shared this song on Facebook yesterday, but I want to share it with all of you too. It's my favourite Manneheim Steamroller Christmas song, their rendition of "Silent Night." It's truly beautiful, and I remember the first Christmas that I spent far away from home, after I had moved to Seattle. The song moved me to tears. It still gets me too.
To all of you, either family, friends, regular readers of the blog who don't otherwise know me, or if you just stumble by, I hope you a great holiday.
Many people in this world do not have a great self-image, suffer from self-doubt, and all of that good stuff. While I don't believe in the "self-esteem movement" that basically indoctrinates kids to not worry about striving to be their best (but that's a whole other argument), I do believe that it's valuable to have a good opinion of yourself.
I've suffered from this for a long while, and it's been hard sometimes to bring myself out of these self-induced funks (which may be one of the things behind the writing ones I referenced on Saturday), but I am slowly getting better. It's hard work sometimes building that self-confidence that what you do is valuable, or that people actually like you for what you are.
It's these types of feelings that have led to recent posts in the last few months, such as "Companionable Silence," "The Limits of Sympathy," and "Reading Minds." Those posts stemmed from an outward expression of these self-doubts, wondering what your friends are "really" thinking rather than just taking them at face value.
It's a vicious cycle that can very possibly make you miserable. It's also a tough habit to break, no matter how much you've talked about it before.
Let me give you a recent example.
There was an instance in the past couple of weeks that I want to share. It involves something that I sometimes have felt internally that I haven't helped enough with, though the person involved keeps assuring me that I'm doing fine. Recently, due to other circumstances, I started doing a bit more. The person involved said later "I think it's awesome that you're helping with [fill in the blank]. I really appreciate it and it's made doing it a lot more fun." (not an exact quote, and I'm not saying what it was so as to not reveal who I'm talking about. This person will recognize it if they read it, however).
This person has always been open and direct with me. If there's a problem, it's stated. Yet my very first thought when hearing that was "that's a veiled slam at me not helping on this earlier, isn't it?" Thankfully, because of our history together, I very quickly dismissed that and took that to be the compliment and gratitude that it was. But it says something that my first thought went in that direction.
The other reason that I know this wasn't a veiled shot at me is because this person doesn't allow me to get down on myself, often asking why I said something when I do ("oh, that was my fault." "Why would you say that? It just happened."). So there's no reason that this person would have some kind of hidden meaning behind the words. They know what effect that would have on me.
I like to believe I'm getting better about these things, though I do have my stumbles. While I sometimes don't feel I'm doing as good of a job as I would like, I am doing things that I would not have done a few years ago (like putting myself out there on podcasts, for example). As those posts I shared above indicate, I don't always succeed, but the fact that I'm recognizing the issue is, I think, a good thing.
Then again, the trick is to avoid getting into the self-recrimination trap about self-recriminations. That would be a loop that's almost impossible to get out of it. Getting down on myself because I get down on myself so often?
Yet, funnily enough, that does happen on occasion too. It's like somebody saying "Stop apologizing!" and you say "sorry about that." Yeah, I'm apologizing for apologizing too much. That's helpful.
I think it's always a good thing to examine yourself and see if there are areas of improvement that you can implement. You just have to be constructive about it and actually work on improving that area, or accepting the fact that you are who you are, and that part will never change.
Either way, self-examination: good. Self-recrimination: bad.
(I didn't plan on this being a promotional link-fest, but I feel those posts illustrate things perfectly).
I've been a fan of J.A. Jance mysteries, with J.P. Beaumont as the detective, for a while now. I first came onto the Beaumont series because they take place in Seattle, and so it was cool to hear about things that I already kind of knew. Jance's writing is what kept me reading, of course. I haven't read all of the Beaumont books, but I have read all the recent ones, and they are excellent reads for the mystery fans.
Jance's latest book is Betrayal of Trust, a book that starts out seeming like it was about political corruption (or at least something to do with politics) and political families with skeletons. It quickly turns into a page-turner about the trials and tribulations of growing up.
Regular readers of this blog may remember that I wrote briefly about this book back in October. It was my post about story beginnings, and how typically authors are encouraged to grab the reader on the first page and keep a grip on them. Betrayal of Trust doesn't do that, though. Its first six pages drag on and on and on and...well, you get the idea. Anyway, all that aside, it's an excellent book, and my review of it has now been posted to Curled Up With a Good Book.
Beaumont and his "new" wife Melanie (this book apparently takes place about three years after Long Time Gone, the novel in which they met) are officers of Washington State's "Special Homicide Investigation Team" (yes, they get the joke about the acronym a lot), a unit created and run by the state Attorney General. Beaumont and Mel are called in to investigate a video message sent to the grandson of the governor's husband who has been living in the governor's mansion. In the video, a young girl takes part in a “choking game" that turns all too real. In trying to track down the victim and determine whether the young boy is involved, Beaumont and Mel find themselves unwinding a sticky web of adolescence gone wrong.
The mystery is pretty cool, with lots of twists and turns that will keep you guessing.
It's our last episode of the year, and we've got a real winner for you.
The Christmas Season is upon us, and what better way to celebrate than by giving? I talk to Denise Lauritano, co-chair of the UBC Community United Way Campaign. She stepped in at the last second when our originally scheduled interview fell through, and not only agreed to do it, but was quite enthusiastic about it too. It was amazing, because I knew her back when she worked at a different position at UBC, before she left to go somewhere else where it was in the middle of nowhere. So when I thought of doing the United Way and looked at the page to see who I might talk to, seeing her name there was a wonderful surprise! I didn't even know she had come back.
Jenny and I also have a great discussion on e-textbooks and whether they are the future of post-secondary course materials. Don't worry. It's not all for the college crowd, though, as we do talk about e-books in general as well, and some of the e-textbook stuff is certainly applicable to you Kindle readers! And Nook, and...well, e-readers in general.
There are a lot of laughs in this episode. I think you'll enjoy it. You can find it here.
Also, don't forget that if you want to subscribe to us, you can find us on iTunes! But if you don't want to use iTunes, you can subscribe to us in any blog reader by using this address.
It's been one of those writing funks that are just incredibly hard to get out of. I realize that it's December 17, and I have only posted once this month, and that was a bi-weekly podcast notification post.
I'm not sure what the problem is right now, but I just haven't had the wheels turning in my head, and I've been so easily distracted that it's annoying. It also really pisses me off that these "blogging updates" have become so frequent over the last few months. They always say that to write, you just have to sit down and do it. That's really half the battle. Sure, what you write initially may be crap, but just getting the juices flowing again is the most important thing. You can always edit later. Or just throw it out and write something else.
I do most of my writing on weekend mornings, and I have managed to bang out a couple of book reviews over the last little while. I'm pretty much caught up, though there are three books that are older that I haven't reviewed yet. I've caught up on the recent books I've read. Even that has changed, though. I used to review everything I read. Now I only review books that I received from Curled Up With a Good Book.
There have been a few things that I thought would be worth posting about recently, news stories that struck me as interesting, but I sit down, stare at the keyboard, and say "eh, maybe not."
I avoid New Year's resolutions like the plague, but I am resolving to myself that I am going to be better at doing this. Hopefully better quality, but definitely better timeliness. I look back at this blog, over 700 posts, and I remember the idealism I started with. "I'm going to post every day" I said. "They're going to be interesting and worth reading!" I said.
That has tapered off (the timeliness, hopefully not the worth), and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Blogging every day isn't necessary. I used to think that it was the only way to keep readers interested and subscribed. That if I took days off at a time, these people would drop away. I know that's not the case now, but it's still in the back of my mind. You blogging friends of mine, who manage to keep the readership despite posting very infrequently, I admit I get a little envious sometimes. It shows you've made a connection with people, something that transcends time.
Anyway, that all sounds a little self-pitying, so I'll stop that now.
Let me just say that I will be posting more in the next little while, and I am going to do my best to keep it up. I have made promises like this before, both to you and myself, and they've fallen through. So I'm not going to promise that it will all happen. I do promise to re-dedicate myself to it, and to do my best to get this blog back up to where it was before.
I've got a podcast post going up later today, a book review tomorrow, and maybe some things that will be of interest to other readers who aren't interested in podcasts or book reviews.
I do plan to blog on my travels next week as well. At least, I hope so.
Until then, stay tuned, and stick around. I hope you do it voluntarily.
It's our one-year anniversary! Yes, the podcast is one year old, and we're celebrating with what I think is a great episode. What makes it so great? Because in addition to your usual awesome hosts, we also have an interview with Carl Leggo, from the Language & Literacy Education department at UBC. He's a fascinating guy that I've known almost since I started at UBC 13 years ago (has it really been that long?). I haven't had the opportunity to work directly with him, but he's always interesting to talk to. So we thought we'd get him on the show! It was a fun interview to do, and I hope you have as much fun with it as I did. Dawnie, I think you might really like this one.
Jenny and I also talk about the podcast itself and how it's changed over the last year, as well as bringing back former co-host Sharon to talk about what she's been up to.
You can find the episode here. Let us know what you think!
If you're in the mood for crime thrillers with a twist, you can't go wrong with Lee Child's "Jack Reacher" novels. Reacher is a drifter, a former Army Military Police officer who was discharged for some unknown reason and has since been travelling around the country, getting involved with other people's problems.
In The Affair, the 16th Reacher novel, we finally discover why he was discharged from the Army. This novel flashes back to 1997, as Child has Reacher constantly reminding us. He comments often about how security arrangements and other things aren't as stringent as they became after 9/11. After a lackluster Worth Dying For and an awesome 61 Hours, Child is back on form. I've read the first three novels and then these last three, and The Affair is the best of the bunch.
"Jack Reacher is a drifter and a problem-solver, moving from place to place and helping those who need help, either with his quick intelligence or his right hook. The Affair tells of what started Reacher on his long road, way back in 1997. He's an Army Military Police officer, sent down to Carter Crossing, Mississippi, where a woman has been murdered, potentially by one of the soldiers stationed at the Army base there. Reacher is there to mingle with the townspeople as another officer investigates on the base itself. The murder may have drastic political implications where the cover-up is sometimes worse than the crime. Reacher gets involved with the beautiful local sheriff, and the affair may be affecting Reacher's thinking—and might end up getting him killed."
This is a book that I couldn't put down, though I was able to force myself to when it was time for bed. It was a close call, though.
The short chapters usually bother me, but in this case they kept the rollicking pace of the book going, adding to that "just a few more pages" feeling.
This book is simply awesome, and a must-read for any crime thriller fan.
"to remove bound water or hydrogen and oxygen from (a chemical compound) in the proportion in which they form water"
"Not so fast!" says the EU officials! "That's not true at all!"
That's the only thing I can take from the latest insanity from the EU. While countries are falling deeper and deeper into debt, as other countries in the Union have to bail out the poorer ones due to financial mismanagement, this is what they're dealing with?
Yes, EU bureaucrats are prohibiting producers of bottled water from saying that their product can help prevent dehydration. That drinking water will not help a body that is lacking water and other fluids.
Sure, they try to wrap it up in weird claims that really make no sense. The justifications are almost as ludicrous as the prohibition itself.
"Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
No, they're not implying there's something special about bottled water. They're stating the obvious fact that drinking water is a good thing! It's not like they're saying that they are the *only* thing that prevents dehydration. If they were making that claim, I'd be right there with the bureaucrats, with the pitchforks and 2-hour lunches. But they're not!
Denying that bottled water can help re-hydrate a body is just insane.
That's not the only claim that was made, however.
"A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control."
This statement makes no sense to me. If you can explain it, then please do so. Drinking water can't "subsequently control" reduced water content?
Can you believe that people who defy this ban can get up to two years in prison? Seriously?
It's no wonder that the EU is spiraling down in flames.
Remember, these are the same bureaucrats who said that bananas and cucumbers shouldn't bend too much. They didn't outright ban bananas with too much curvature (that was the myth, that they were banned), but they did make some vague law about how much a banana can bend. Cucumbers too.
Will this turn out to be one of those myths too? The Telegraph article quotes a lot of people and experts, so I'm thinking this is actually true.
If it is true, the level of stupidity is just stultifying.
Have you seen those weird looking squiggly black designs on ads, magazines, or some other form of print? You know the ones I mean.
Those little things can actually contain a great deal of information, and in this week's episode of Down the Hall, Jenny and I discuss the use of these codes in Education. Appropriately titled "QRacking the Code," we talk about the tons of things you can do with them. And while our discussion is (mostly) limited to Education, if you have a smartphone with a code reader, you will be able to see a lot of cool things by scanning them.
This doesn't keep us from talking about other things in the process of the discussion, though, including my book reviews.
I also talk to John Egan, instructor for one of the courses in the Master of Educational Technology program. We discuss his course, "Learning Technologies: Selection, Design & Application" and how it came about. There's a wealth of great information about the course, but also about learning technologies in general.
We also nerd out a bit in the introduction, with a brief Walking Dead mention and one A Song of Ice and Fire reference as well.
What can beat all of that?
If you listen and comment in the next 30 minutes, you could even win an EPLT snuggie (snuggie not included).
In addition to our bi-weekly podcast (I'll be doing a post about this week's episode tomorrow, probably), I also appeared on the latest episode of the Indie & Mojo show, Episode 13. Some of you know that I do video game blogs and am part of the community over at Game Informer. The site has spawned many community podcasts from various members, and one of them (one of the ones I listen to religiously now, and that was even before they asked me to be on) is the Indie & Mojo show. It's two guys talking about video games and Game Informer and other pop culture type stuff.
You can listen to the episode in the player below, or go to the site and download it if you want to take it with you.
We talk Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, how people don't read emails, and the controversy over review scores (which is mainly caused by people paying more attention to scores than to the reviews themselves), and lots more.
Just one thing I would like to add before you listen to it. Unfortunately, I made my first mistake less than 2 minutes into the podcast. When I say that we script our intros for Down the Hall because they "would sound terrible otherwise," I should have added that this is totally because of me and my inability to ad-lib something like that. I'm sure Jenny could do it easily. In fact, I know she can, because we tried it, and my inability to do it is why we script it.
That was supposed to be self-deprecating, but I left off that part so it sounded like I was dissing both of us. So, apologies, Jenny!
And I can't believe I talked about our podcast but neglected to say the name. It's "Down the Hall" (I really need to work on this advertising thing). You all know that, of course.
Anyway, it was a fun show to do, and I hope it sounds that way too.
I'm a big CSI fan (Las Vegas version only), though I haven't actually watched much of the last season yet (not to mention this season). What can I say? I'm behind.
The great thing about novels is that you can get inside the characters' heads, which you can't always do on a television series. The bad thing about tie-in novels is that they can't make any major changes or revelations to the characters, as they have to leave that to the television show.
CSI novels can be hit or miss in that respect, but Jeff Mariotte's The Burning Season is actually pretty good for that. The problem is almost everywhere else, though the stories (there are three) Mariotte tells are actually kind of interesting.
"Three separate crimes need to be solved by the intrepid Las Vegas nightshift CSIs. A fire in a small resort town of Mount Charleston, near Las Vegas, results in almost the entire subdivision being burned to the ground, as well as the deaths of six firefighters. There is the attempted roadside bombing of the head of a major cable news network[Dennis Daniels], a network beset by large protests outside of the building and numerous death threats against the owner. Finally, a dog has taken a severed hand underneath the front porch of a suburban home. Retrieving the hand will lead Ray Langston into the dark underbelly of the illegal immigrant community."
As you can see, the book is rather political. The problem is that Mariotte tries so hard to not offend anyone that he makes the story almost unbelievable. I'm sorry, but "moderates" do not inspire the outrage that Mariotte shows in this novel. Not to mention the fact that Daniels' views are fairly left of center, though not too extreme, so even that attempt at "even-handedness" isn't that effective. The ostensible "bad guys" are two right-wing groups: one that's just Conservative and one that's very extreme.
I'll let you read the rest of the review to get my thoughts on the book itself. It's definitely a decent CSI book, and if you agree with the politics, it might even be more so for you. You won't go wrong reading this one if you're a CSI fan, but there are much better ones out there (like Mariotte's own Brass in Pocket)
It's "common knowledge" that if you're known mainly for showing off your skin, you must be an idiot, right? When all you're doing is appealing to man's baser instincts, that must mean your looks are the only avenue by which you can succeed in life.
Of course, anybody who can actually form a rational thought knows that this isn't true. But is that perception still there? If you see an attractive woman showing off as much skin as possible (or even an attractive man), what's the first thing that crosses your mind? Besides your wife's withering glare if you happen to be with her?
Of course, with a question this important, you know there's been a recent study about it, this one by researchers at the University of Maryland. And you know that the UK Daily Mail has reported on it. Yes, the study shows that the more flesh you bare, the less others regard you as intelligent. This applied to both men and women in the study (unfortunately, the burning question of whether this applies to sexy bloggers was *not* answered in this study).
(I think this guy has a brain - ladies, would you like to try and find out?
The "bang your head on the table because it's so obvious" quote of the article:
"Research suggests that when men see a woman wearing very little they focus on her body and less on her mind." Gee, you think? Maybe if she puts glasses on with that bikini, it would be different?
I was all set to insult and mock this article, and this study, but then I read it a bit further, and I've decided that I won't necessarily be doing that.
Or at least I won't be doing just that. According to the study, humans have two different aspects of the mind: "agency" and "experience." "Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions." The more skin you show, the more people perceive you as being on the "experience" side of the scale rather than the "agency." In other words, you feel that you are extremely hot but you can't do anything about it (Ok, I'm paraphrasing).
The researchers claim that this changes our view of objectification, because people without clothes are just seen as another part of the mind. I can see the new pick-up lines now: "Hey babe, I don't see you as a sexual object. I'm just thinking of your experience" (maybe they could have used a different word for that?).
So is this true, or are these just wussy words to justify what we already know to be true? When people see an attractive person in front of them with very little clothing on, they tend to focus on the physical aspect of that person rather than the mental. I'm not saying that your mind doesn't move on to other things after that first thought, of course, though the abundance of skin may make it hard to concentrate on anything else.
Another thing in this study is that it doesn't seem to take into account the setting. If you go to the beach, do you look around you and think "wow, what a bunch of dolts? Um, I mean, Experiencers?" No, of course not. The study does mention clothing and the workplace, though.
"It translated that wearing little clothes in an environment like the office can have a negative impact because it can imply a lack of competence and leadership.
Professor Gray said: 'Those who are characterised in terms of their bodies to be seen as more reactive and emotional, traits that may also serve to work against career advancement.'"
Is that true? I suppose it may be, though I would think the person's actual demonstrated competence would have more to say about that, unless perhaps we're talking about an environment where we're mostly cogs in a machine and promotion is based more on perception than actual ability. Also, I'm not an attractive woman wearing skimpy outfits to the office (at least not usually), so maybe I'm ill-suited to make that conclusion.
Ultimately, this study seems to be on the "did our tax money go to this obvious question?" type of study. While I do believe the "agency/experience" dichotomy of the mind is somewhat interesting, the study just seems to confirm what we already know. Not that attractive people are dumb. But that it may not be the best idea to wear a bikini to the office.
At least not on your first day.
The study did see an upside to wearing little clothing (besides being cool in the Summer): you appear to be more vulnerable and sensitive.
"Professor Gray said: 'Others appear to be less inclined to harm people with bare skin and more inclined to protect them.
'In one experiment, people viewing male subjects with their shirts off were less inclined to give those subjects uncomfortable electric shocks than when the men had their shirts on.'"
All right, that's it. No more shirts to the office. I've had way too many shocks already.
Did you like watching films in class when you were in school? They were the highlight of my day, whether it was because the movie was interesting or because it gave me time to sleep.
In this episode of Down the Hall (nicely titled "Duck and Cover," for those of you who remember growing up with those civil defense films), Jenny and I talk about media studies in K-12 education. It's a pretty lively discussion with lots of laughs and memories, as well as talking about the state of media studies in today's schools.
Also, Jenny talks to Teresa Milden, from the Vancouver School Board, about Gifted Education. There's some great information in there, and it's not just Vancouver-specific.
This episode also forced me to finally watch the Walking Dead, to prepare for the coming Zombie Apocalypse. Thanks, Jen.
I'm always a sucker for History books regarding a period I know little to nothing about. My "to read" list of books is so long, however, that I don't actively seek them out that often. I'd be overloaded.
That's one cool thing about reviewing for Curled Up With a Good Book. The editor gets books from publishers and has a list of these books available for reviewers. If I happen to find an interesting-sounding book on the list that covers a period I'm interested in, I snap it up.
It can make for a tall "to read" pile, though.
The latest example of a successful find using this method is Nancy Marie Brown's The Abacus and the Cross: The Story of the Pope Who Brought the Light of Science to the Dark Ages (believe me, I won't be typing all of that again). It's a great history of a period that I know nothing about. It's also a scientific history, and a biography of a man named Gerbert who later became Pope Sylvester II. All rolled into one! How can you go wrong with that?
Brown is a science author, but she's changed hats slightly to take on a historical biography. It's still very heavily-oriented toward the Math, though. Enough so that it might turn you off. Sticking with it bears fruit, though, if you're interested in the time period right around 1000 AD.
She also manages to put some historical myths to rest as well.
"First thing, she puts to rest the common impression that people throughout the Christian world mortally feared the coming of the year 1000 as the time when Christ would return and the Apocalypse would ensue. While some feared that, the impression that this was widespread does not appear to be true. She opens the book discussing this; instead of dealing with this coming calamity, Pope Sylvester is instead writing a letter about the best method of finding the area of a triangle.
In writing Gerbert's biography, Brown also attempts to dispel the notion that the Dark Ages were completely overrun by superstition and ignorance. Religious institutions housed scholars who explored the world of mathematics and science, including Gerbert's creation of the abacus. There were interactions between the Islamic and Christian worlds, so Gerbert and others were exposed to many ancient works of mathematics and science housed in Baghdad and other repositories."
The book is a solid biography and well worth reading for those so inclined.
What do you think of when you hear the word "lurk?" Does it give you the willies as you imagine some dark stranger hiding out in your house? Or do you think of somebody who reads, but doesn't post, to a discussion forum? People who read discussion forums but don't bother to contribute to them are called "lurkers."
Yesterday I was in a discussion where somebody used the term "lurker" to mean the latter, to be a member of a site but not actually contribute to it, at least right away. He said that she would be "lurking" on the site. It made a couple of the women in the discussion uncomfortable, and a mini-discussion about the word started. I came out and said that, having been on the Internet almost since its inception, the word "lurker" doesn't mean anything bad to me, unless the context of that use demands it, of course. If somebody tells me that an evil-looking guy is hanging around the school lurking in the corner, then obviously that's bad.
But just the word itself? Especially used in the context which it's been used for the Internet for years?
It just struck me as odd.
I was even told by one of the women that "if you were a woman, you'd understand."
That may be, but I don't think so. Who knows? Maybe I would.
So I'd like to throw this out there to all of you.
Is the word "lurking" a bad thing, in and of itself? With all context removed? (Even though I think the context was plain anyway)
Now, if you've never heard of the Internet "lurking" definition, then your opinion may be skewed. I'd still like to hear your viewpoint, though.
It's weird how we can be completely blind-sided sometimes, discovering the weird permutations of something that we've been doing or saying for years.
(edited to clarify that I'm mainly talking about the *word* "lurk," not the act of lurking in general. Sorry for the confusion!)
There are already tons of books out there about the US presence in Iraq, from the war to what happened after the invasion was successful. I'm sure there will be many more.
Many of them are either for or against the invasion, though there are some books that are just accounts of a certain situation there.
Those are the most enjoyable, I think.
I just read and reviewed on of those books, Dick Camp's Battle for the City of the Dead. It tells the story of the month-long battle with the Sadr Militia in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, in August 2004. There are no politics in this book whatsoever. The closest it comes is frustration with the rules of engagement, when Militia snipers were using mosques as sniper points because they knew the Americans couldn't fire back out of respect for religious sensibilities.
This is a straightforward "what happened, day to day" account of the battle, and it's a marvelous book.
"In 2004, the Iraqi government was in disarray. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the US military were at odds about how to end the violence partially caused by the disbanding of the Iraqi army after the end of the invasion. Disgruntled ex-soldiers were looking for ways to strike back, and religious leaders clamored for resistance to the "occupation force." Muqtada al-Sadr used this chaos to make a power play from his Najaf base, a holy Shiite city with the Golden Dome mosque and massive, ancient cemetery. The US military was brought in to shut him down."
Camp is a retired Marine, so his respect for all of those involved in the battle comes through greatly.
I'll let you read the review for the rest, but all I can say is that if you have any interest in the military happenings in Iraq, then this is a great book for you.
Check out the review, and let me know what you think.
In any fiction writing, and probably any writing period, it's very important to get the reader hooked on the first page, or even the first line.
One of the panels I went to at V-Con this year was called "First Page Idol," where audience members were supposed to bring the first page of their story/novel and the panel would critique it, emphasizing the importance of that first page.
The panelists for this one were Marcie Tentchoff, Phoebe Kitanidis, Brian Hades, Ian Alexander Martin, and Stephanie Johanson, and it was a really interesting panel (though it turned into a "first line" panel because of various factors that I mention in my V-Con report). We eventually did a bit of a contest where we came up with a first line, presented it, and the panel said whether or not they would continue reading a story that began that way.
As an unpublished writer, I have wrestled with this for quite a while. As a reader, I have often wondered whether this was a universal truth or not.
Why do I ask that?
Because in too many books I have been reading lately, authors whose books I truly enjoy seem to be failing at this aspect of writing. Sometimes I'm reading the beginning of a book and I stop and think to myself whether I would continue reading this if I wasn't already familiar with the author's work. I know, or at least have faith, that the book is going to be good (though I know even the best authors have clunkers) so I forgive the fact that the beginning really isn't that interesting. Media tie-ins also get somewhat of a pass, because their audience is already built in, at least a little bit. That doesn't mean that all Star Trek books (to name one franchise) are good, or even well-written, but it does mean that we're more likely to carry on before giving up on the book.
The book that really sparked my thinking about this, however, is the book I just started today: Betrayal of Trust by J.A. Jance. It's the latest J.P. Beaumont mystery.
Here's the first paragraph:
"I was sitting on the window seat of our penthouse unit in Belltown Terrace when Mel came back from her run. Dripping with sweat, she nodded briefly on her way to the shower and left me in peace with my coffee cup and the online version of the New York Times crossword. Since it was Monday, I finished it within minutes and turned my attention to the spectacular Olympic Mountains view to the west."
Jance then goes on for six whole pages describing Beaumont and Mel's personal living arrangement, their coffee-making, the fact that they have separate bathrooms. She then gets them to the Special Homicide Investigation Team (yes, the running joke is that the group is named S.H.I.T.) and continues for another page or two talking about their working arrangement, before they're finally called into the chief's office and sent down to Olympia (the series takes place in Seattle) to investigate something. We get another couple of pages about Beaumont's drive down there, though at least he also spends some time wondering about the secrecy involved in this particular case.
(Keep in mind that, of course, the quality is a subjective thing, so you may not feel that this is a failure)
If I were a new reader to this series, and if this wasn't a book that I had chosen off of the "To be reviewed" list for Curled Up With a Good Book, I would probably have put this book down. As a regular reader of the series (or at least the last couple of books), it was nice to get a bit of a refresher on who Mel was and that sort of thing. But a new reader? I would have been bored silly. In fact, I was bored silly; I just knew that it would be getting better, because I'm a fan of Jance's. Sure, the book may turn out to be terrible, but I'm willing to give Jance that benefit of the doubt, that it most likely will be at least good, if not great.
There are always new readers to a series, however, or to a particular author if that author doesn't write series. The author should always be trying to attract new readers, I would think.
My question is, then, are "established" authors given more of a pass on this "make the first sentence/paragraph/page grab the reader" requirement of writing? As a reader, are you more willing to give somebody that benefit of the doubt if you are either a fan of their work, or at least you know that the author has numerous other books under his/her belt? What about first-time authors? If you find a first book by an author, are you more likely to give up on it sooner if the beginning of the book/story hasn't grabbed you?
I'd also love to hear from any authors who are reading this post. What are your thoughts on this subject?
As a Jance fan, I really want to give Betrayal of Trust the benefit of the doubt and hope that this isn't a bad sign. I've read quite a few books from established authors and authors I'm a fan of, and many of those books have recovered from a poor beginning.
I'm hoping Jance is the same way. I will, of course, give the book a totally fair review.
With the increase in the number of social media platforms, and with the urge to spread ourselves over as many of them as possible to get our words out to the largest group of people, it sometimes feels like overload. Not an overload of information, but an overload of time and effort, checking the various venues where we hang out to see if somebody has responded to our work. It also has that effect on the reader too, especially if you're following somebody who's on all these different platforms. Where is it best to respond?
Dawn, a friend of mine who often comments on this blog (and vice versa), recently went through a rather frightening experience with an unknown man potentially trying to abduct her, that also has turned into a good lesson in safety for all of us. She posted what happened, as well as what it has taught her, on her blog. She wants to share her insights with the rest of us, and I think it's a very valuable (not to mention gutsy, re-living it in order to write about it, and then share it publicly) post, and I encourage you to go read it when I'm done here (or, if you promise to come back, you can go read it now...but you'd better stick to that promise! I'll be watching.).
It's a powerful post, as well as being filled with great advice and information.
The night it happened, I happened to be on Facebook when she posted it in her status (another cosmic "coincidence", Dawnie? Since I very rarely see FB status updates?) and was one of the many commenters going back and forth talking about it, advising, or just being there for her.
Since I had already been there on Facebook, the "what happened" part of Dawn's post was already known to me, but the rest of it (the life lessons that can be derived from her experience, following your instincts, etc) was new. So I read the post and greatly enjoyed doing so (Dawn's blog is well-worth following). I wanted to respond, leave a comment.
However, I was reading it on my phone, and responding to Blogger blogs (and blogs in general, I think) can be pretty irritating on the device. I told myself I'd respond later, when I was on my computer.
Then I was browsing the Google+ app on my phone, and saw that she had posted the link there as well. She, like many bloggers, posts the link to the various social media avenues that she inhabits (Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and feel free to tell me where else if I'm missing anything). We sometimes, especially on Twitter, have communities that don't overlap with our other communities, and we want to make sure these people see our work as well. I'm the same way.
Since I was already there, I decided to leave a comment on her Google+ entry.
Then it hit me. If I respond there, is there any point in responding on her actual blog? She's already seen my comment. I can't think that my comment on her blog would be any different, though I would like to think, if I did decide to leave one, that I wouldn't copy and paste.
This started me thinking about blogging in general, and how spread out we are, not just as bloggers, but as readers as well. Yes, as mentioned above, our communities in the various social networks can be different, but there is a lot of overlap there. I'm "friends" with Dawn on Facebook, she's in my Google+ circles, we follow each other on Twitter. I subscribe to her blog too (though I haven't looked at my Reader in a while). That's four different places where I can find her stuff, not to mention actually being there on Facebook immediately after it happened.
Where is it appropriate to comment? Should we be consistent, or comment wherever we happen to be when we stumble across a post?
This is mostly a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is "it's up to you." There is no right answer.
But it does bring to mind how thinly we can be spread sometimes. As a blogger, you have to be keeping an eye on all of these various social networks, or you'll miss a response. Most of us are already doing that, so it's pretty automatic, but it can still feel strange carrying on different conversations in different places. This is especially true if somebody comments in more than one area!
I don't get enough response to be confused, but I can see where higher-traffic bloggers might. I think that if I ever get that kind of traffic, I'd have to wrap my head around it before I became proficient at it.
It's not really a question that I need an answer to. It was just a thought process sparked by what happened this weekend. Something I thought I would explore and see if anybody shares similar thoughts. Even if you're not a blogger, do you find this to be true as a reader?
Sometimes you make sacrifices in a marriage. Say there's somewhere she really wants to go but that you don't really want to? Within reason, you go with her anyway (unless you can convince her to take one of her friends).
Do you have access to free books from a review site, knowing that you have to review them if you pick them? Doesn't matter. If a book comes up on the list from an author that she really likes, you ask for it. Even if it's something that you don't normally like to read.
Ok, I exaggerate, just a little. My wife would be upset if she knew that I asked for something that I didn't think I would enjoy, just so I could get a free book for her. But there have been times where there has been a book that's come up, and I've been interested in trying the series anyway, and so I get it.
Sometimes you get lucky.
That's the long-way round of saying that Loren D. Estelman is one of those authors, and I've now read two of his books. I really enjoyed The Left-Handed Dollar, enough that I knew I would get the next book if it came up on the list.
And so it has.
Infernal Angels is the next Amos Walker book written by Estelman, and while it's not quite as good as the previous book, it's well-worth a read. I love the noir aspects of the novel, even though it's based in the modern days. It's typical gumshoe detective fare, but Estelman's prose and dialogue is what makes it excellent.
My review has posted on Curled Up With a Good Book.
It all starts with a late-night quest for coffee. Walker's out of it and goes to the local Walgreens for some more. A cop friend who's staking out the store gives him a tip on some stolen cable converter boxes, which seems like a quick and easy way for Walker to bring in some money. Little does he know that said boxes will soon involve him with the seedier side of Detroit as well as become a national security issue. It also brings in some old friends. The next time Walker runs out of coffee, he may just go back to bed.
I love Walker as a character, and if I ever catch up on my backlog of books, I'll start plowing through my wife's copies of Estelman's previous books. This is a wonderful series, and Infernal Angels is a great book.
Your eyes do not deceive you. You didn't have too much to drink at last night's party and are waking up to find something so unimaginable that you want to start drinking again. You are not in some parallel universe where somebody finally follows through on something they promised to do almost three months ago.
Ok, that last is true, except that you're not in the Bizarro universe or anything.
Before I tell you our tale of woe, let me introduce this concept to our new readers, including someone whose name I will not divulge (so she can deny it later, once she's read this, of course). We are counting down the list of the one-hit wonders of the 2000s, song by song, and making hilarious fun of them. For the most part.
(Note: That last sentence applied to both the "hilarious" and the "making fun" part of that statement.)
We here at One-Hit Wonder Inc have been taking an unscheduled hiatus since our previous episode, just when it was time to end the show! There is one episode left in the One-Hit Wonders of the 2000s, but certain things came up that had to be taken care of before we could finish.
Actually, we were basically all out partying while he fixed everything up (idle hands are the devil's stepchildren! Or...something like that). But the ladies in the office occasionally stopped by to make sure he had some downtime.
They certainly look like happy employees, don't they?
Anyway, we're back, for the final episode of the One-Hit Wonders of the 2000s!
As usual, you can find the list I'm taking these from here.
And you know what? I don't care if you go look ahead, because this is the last episode. In fact, I care about that as much as this guy cares about getting the chicks.
And here we go! 1) The Ting Tings: "That's Not My Name" (#39) (August 8, 2009)
Making videos on the cheap! Lack of sets definitely helps the budget, doesn't it?
Hey lady, did you ever consider maybe wearing a name tag? Or being more clear regarding what your name actually is? I know I hate being called Stacey, or Rachel, or Jenny.
Then again, that might be preferable to my real name, Mr. Mxyzptlk
Something tells me they're not following her for the stolen money.
It's just a hunch, though.
That's kind of low, though. Using your feminine wiles to get the gas station attendant to come out and look at your car. Especially because it's already a full-service gas station!
Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.
Don't worry, guys. She's into handcuffs.
I actually kind of like this song, and not just for the obvious reasons (where was the music world before videos?). It's one of the few recent pop songs that I can see myself actually not turning off if it came onto the radio.
Other songs, of course, make me want to do this.
Explode with good music, I mean! You didn't think I was going to get icky or anything, did you?
We couldn't end the year without at least some rap, could we? That would be like having a burger without the meat!
Wait, that came out wrong. It would actually be like having a burger *with* the meat.
Because it would be heavenly if we had no rap in our final episode.
Still, beggars can't be choosers. You can't always get what you want (but do we REALLY need this?). You take what comes to you. When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade.
4) Breaking Benjamin: "I Will Not Bow" (#40) (September 19, 2009)
(I'll refrain from making an Obama joke here)
It's good to get a little rock and roll in the list, right before it ends! This is a palette cleanser after the last song. Ok, some of you may not think so, but I do.
Other than rent for the empty penthouse suite, and the usual money spent for their equipment, it's nice that they made the video on the cheap.
It lets them put the rest of their money into their clothes and tats!
I didn't realize I knew this song until it started playing. Then, of course, it was obvious!
It's too bad the message of the song is so blatantly wrong, because the song itself (musically, anyway) is truly awesome to listen to. It really gets you into the groove, which I guess is its point.
I don't think we'll ever see any political accordion music.
(and yes, I do realize the point they're making with that imagery. I just don't care)
6) Michael Franti & Spearhead (featuring Cherine Anderson): "Say Hey (I Love You)" (#18) (October 17, 2009)
Now *this* is an awesome song! A perfect blend of very sweet lyrics and catchy music that just gets you dancing in your seat.
(There is no truth to the rumour that this song made me have to buy a new chair)
In fact, I can't really joke about it, except that I hope I never get a barber like the guy at 2:42 in the video. Save your dancing for your own time! I don't want random razor cuts in my hair!
Unless it will get the ladies after me. Then go ahead and dance, brother!!!
7) Ester Dean: "Drop it Low" (#38) (October 31, 2009)
Featuring Chris Brown? Uh oh.
Oh no! Autotune!!!!!! I guess, this being the last episode and everything, we have to revisit every horror that we've experienced over the last 31 episodes.
It just won't die!
Just say to myself. I can do this. I can do this. I will not let it drive me crazy...
And we end 31 long weeks (if you don't count the hiatus) with a #1 song!!!! How fitting.
It's such a sweet song, too, though the video starts becoming quite surreal very quickly. That's ok, though. The guy adds a bit or normality to the whole thing.
Until the toys come to life, tie him up, and put him in the closet, that is.
Because you know they want this guy to take over the world.
He's worth more unopened, though that might inhibit his becoming emperor.
And there you have it! Much delayed, but we have finally come to the end of the one-hit wonders of the 2000s. It's been a long, arduous journey.
Yes, I did make the interns carry my suitcases. Hair care products weigh a ton!
Anyway, it's been a journey through horrible music, but some good stuff as well. I hope you've enjoyed these as much as we at One-Hit Wonders Inc have. To you newcomers, I encourage you to go through the archives and see what you've been missing!
I hope you'll still like me after doing that.
What's next for us here at the company? I don't know. We'll be thinking of re-inventing ourselves in some way. After we pay our tax debt to society.
I hope this guy's our cellmate.
But we'll be back one of these days. With something creative! And inspired! And, probably, bad. Though whether that will be the subject or the writing, I'll let you be the judge.
In the meantime, now that this is finally over, it's time for me to engage in my other passion.
I can come knock down your world record domino setup next. I charge good rates!
