One of my all-time favorite authors (sci-fi or not), David Drake, recently chatted with military sci-fi blog Black Five. While many people mentally link military sci-fi with political Conservatism (and do so with good reason), I am acutally quite a huge fan of the genre. Drake's Hammer's Slammers series, in particular, is a brilliant example of the genre - Drake consciously avoids polemics about right- versus left-wing politics in the books, focusing mainly on them men who have to do the dirty work and the effects that war has on them.
Of course, Drake himself spent two years in Vietnam with the Blackhorse, a U.S. armored regiment - an experience which led directly to his creation of Hammer's Slammers, and of which he is obviously very proud.
Below are the first three parts - if you view the videos at YouTube, you can find the rest of the parts pretty easily.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
...and it's bye-bye McCain.
Since the right-wingers seem to be so proud of having 'god' on their side, perhaps they should start praying - since it's about all they have left.
Friday, October 3, 2008
'Gotcha Journalism' my ass...
Watching the McCain / Palin interview the other day, when McCain made his derisive comment about 'gotcha' journalism, I couldn't help but wonder when the Republican party became such a pack of whiny crybabies. Probably when their poll numbers began to crater after America correctly identified Sarah Palin as the drooling monotonous sycophant that she is.
Of course the Republicans are writing it all off to the infamous 'liberal media elite' and this concept of 'gotcha' journalism. What Palin has been subjected to is not 'gotcha journalism'. Asking her to defend her position on the Khitomer Accords - and then dumping on her as she flails about trying to come up with one...now that would be 'gotcha journalism'. (I'd actually like to see someone try that on her, actually.)
No - what Palin has been subjected to is fair, directed questioning. Her inability to deal with these confrontations says more about her than it does about the media, and the Republican party would be better served by dealing with it than bitching about it. What makes them think she'll be treated any better by foreign leadership? If she can't handle the press, I'd say the Republican ticket has some serious issues to consider.
It's fair to say that Palin didn't cut her own throat last night facing off against Joe Biden, but she didn't exactly inspire confidence either - and as much as I'd like to say this was a break-even contest, it wasn't - not according to every reliable poll, at any rate. I've seen opinion breakdowns giving Biden margins ranging from 15% to 65%.
So - whining isn't a game-winning strategy for McPalin. I'm curious to see what they try next.
Of course the Republicans are writing it all off to the infamous 'liberal media elite' and this concept of 'gotcha' journalism. What Palin has been subjected to is not 'gotcha journalism'. Asking her to defend her position on the Khitomer Accords - and then dumping on her as she flails about trying to come up with one...now that would be 'gotcha journalism'. (I'd actually like to see someone try that on her, actually.)
No - what Palin has been subjected to is fair, directed questioning. Her inability to deal with these confrontations says more about her than it does about the media, and the Republican party would be better served by dealing with it than bitching about it. What makes them think she'll be treated any better by foreign leadership? If she can't handle the press, I'd say the Republican ticket has some serious issues to consider.
It's fair to say that Palin didn't cut her own throat last night facing off against Joe Biden, but she didn't exactly inspire confidence either - and as much as I'd like to say this was a break-even contest, it wasn't - not according to every reliable poll, at any rate. I've seen opinion breakdowns giving Biden margins ranging from 15% to 65%.
So - whining isn't a game-winning strategy for McPalin. I'm curious to see what they try next.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Why I'm an Atheist - in 10 minutes
I've got ten minutes left on the clock before I head to Circuit City and pick up Iron Man on DVD, and I thought I'd use this time for something constructive - namely, interject yet another voice into the debate between religion vs. non-belief.
I know, this is exactly the kind of blog post that has cast the entire activity of blogging as an act of outright narcissism. And I'm not going to argue against that. Then again, maybe I should have called this post 'Why I'm such a goddamn narcissist.'
That said, I have been challenged on my lack of belief on occasion, usually by my mother, wife, or other people who know me well enough to ask me to question my lack of beliefs. Which always makes me wonder, why am I being asked to defend my lack of beliefs? Shouldn't the onus of proof be on those asking for it? I ask for no proof of no God. I ask for proof of a God. There's a vast difference there which is amazingly unapparent to those believers I find myself challenged by.
Do I require proof of no Thor from Christians before I accept their lack of belief in Thor? Of course not. Such proof is a.) impossible and b.) unnecessary.
So - a couple weeks back I was challenged on my referring to myself as an 'atheist'. 'Are you really an atheist?' Was the question? I knew what the inquirer was getting at, and so I conceded that no, nobody can be absolutely certain of the non-existence of God.
But I do like Richard Dawkins' 'scale' of belief, which runs 1-7 with 'Absolute Belief' on one end and 'Absolute non-Belief' on the other. Nobody can truly, logically profess 'Absolute non-Belief', for reasons I've just described. But - one can be reasonably certain, or at least certain enough to decide to live one's life as if God doesn't exist. And that's how I choose to live my life.
Time.
Not bad for ten minutes, I'd say...
I know, this is exactly the kind of blog post that has cast the entire activity of blogging as an act of outright narcissism. And I'm not going to argue against that. Then again, maybe I should have called this post 'Why I'm such a goddamn narcissist.'
That said, I have been challenged on my lack of belief on occasion, usually by my mother, wife, or other people who know me well enough to ask me to question my lack of beliefs. Which always makes me wonder, why am I being asked to defend my lack of beliefs? Shouldn't the onus of proof be on those asking for it? I ask for no proof of no God. I ask for proof of a God. There's a vast difference there which is amazingly unapparent to those believers I find myself challenged by.
Do I require proof of no Thor from Christians before I accept their lack of belief in Thor? Of course not. Such proof is a.) impossible and b.) unnecessary.
So - a couple weeks back I was challenged on my referring to myself as an 'atheist'. 'Are you really an atheist?' Was the question? I knew what the inquirer was getting at, and so I conceded that no, nobody can be absolutely certain of the non-existence of God.
But I do like Richard Dawkins' 'scale' of belief, which runs 1-7 with 'Absolute Belief' on one end and 'Absolute non-Belief' on the other. Nobody can truly, logically profess 'Absolute non-Belief', for reasons I've just described. But - one can be reasonably certain, or at least certain enough to decide to live one's life as if God doesn't exist. And that's how I choose to live my life.
Time.
Not bad for ten minutes, I'd say...
Mad as hell
When I hear all the bickering going on about the Bailout Bill, I know I'm not the only one reminded of this classic film moment...obvious reference, but no less true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
