No form of fiction tackles the difficult subject of religion more than science fiction. This might seem ironic to some, but science fiction has always been a good way tackle any subject, indirectly, because it gives the writer license to do whatever they want. I once heard Ray Bradbury say that he used the Mars landscape as a setting so often not because he believe in Martians but that he was lazy and didn't want to do any research. It was just easier to make things up. Like Bradbury, a sci-fi writer can write about your religion without you even knowing it. A writer can disguise a religious form of meditation in an alien religious group like the Bene Gesserit or Mentats in Frank Hebert's Dune. They can write about a messiah like Robert Heinlein did with his character, Valentinen Michael Smith, in his Stranger in a Strange Land. Millennialism and images of the devil are prominent themes in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. Star Trek did it, Star Wars did it with the Jedis, ... heck... the latest Battlestar Gallactica series is just a very long religious elegy. Every person that I know that is interested in religion also reads sci-fi.
Some consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein a sci-fi novel. The alternative title is the Modern Prometheus. Like the Greek Titan Prometheus, Dr. Frankenstein creates a new form of life. Prometheus created humanity from clay and was punished for it, while his modern namesake, created life from the body parts from grave robbing. The creation myth seems to be everywhere in sci-fi these days. Star Trek uses it with their android character Data and holographic character The Doctor where they confront their creators and fight for their rights as censured beings. The Cylons in Battlestar Gallactica rebel against their creators in what could be interpreted as a religious upheaval of the slave monotheists over their polytheistic creators. The movie director Ridley Scott is not foreign to the creation myth, not only is his latest film Prometheus but his heady take on Philip K. Dick's Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? (aka Blade Runner) is all about a rebelling group of androids seeking their creator. They are lead by Roy Batty (portrayed amazingly by actor Rutger Hauer) who seeks their creator so that they can remove the chip that prevents them from being immortal.
Scott's latest film, Prometheus, brings this to a new level. **spoiler alert** The so-called prequel to the Alien series gives us a married couple of scientists, Holloway and Shaw (who can't have children) searching for an alien species, called The Engineers, who they believe created humanity. So they cannot create life themselves but they are obsessed with their creators who are not god but an advanced species from a distant moon. The excursion is funded by an eccentric billionaire who never had a son of own. He created an android son with the name he intended for that his biological son, David, much to the dismay of his daughter who may be an android as well. The created is now, like the mythical Prometheus, the creator. Like the gods of Olympus, the Engineers want to punish us or probably destroy us for what reason, it is not explained. Shaw is also cast into the role of the creator. She is somehow impregnated and gives birth a day later to the xenomorph species from the original series. She freaks out and attempts to kill it ... again creator who is a destroyer and the created that creates. This film is full of plot holes, it is at times captivating and quite compelling but it is one of those films that you leave the theater thinking, "Did I miss something?". It is clear that Scott was trying to say something about the creation myth. What that is might be hiding somewhere in the fog of the 3D special effects or lost in one of the deep chasm plot holes.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
US President Reelections - Electoral Votes
Throughout American history, every president (except Woodrow Wilson) that has ever been reelected, has gotten more electoral votes the second time they were elected than their initial election.
The following Presidents have been reelected:
Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Munroe
Jackson
Lincoln
Grant
Cleveland * (non-consecutive)
McKinley
Wilson
FDR
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
G. W. Bush
The first was Washington in 1792. He was elected in 1789 with 69 electoral votes in '92, he received almost twice that with 132. Only 10 states voted in the '89 election so our most popular President is the one elected with the least amount of electoral votes.
Jefferson did double his electoral votes by getting 169 in 1804. In 1800, he received 73 which was a tie with Aaron Burr. The US House of Representative broke the tie giving Jefferson 10 and Burr only 4 with 2 abstaining.
Madison went 122 to 128, Munroe went 183 to 231, Jackson went 178 to 219 in 1832. Incumbents had it easy in the early days of our democracy. Then we have to go all the way to 1864 with Lincoln getting 212 over the 180 he received in 1860.
If the 19th century had a personality with rock start status, it was U. S. Grant and he was reelected with a whopping 286 electoral votes in 1872 which is 72 more than his first term. If you count Cleveland because his two terms were non-consecutive, he went from 219 to 277 in 1900. McKinley, our first 20th century president, went to 271 to 292 in 1900.
Wilson was reelected but barely. With the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 by a German U boat, his peaceful isolationism was ripe fodder for the hawks of opposing party. He was elected with 435 electoral votes in 1912 with the other three candidates only getting 96 votes combined. But when he was reelected he only received 277, only 23 more than his opponent Charles E. Hughes. We probably would have ended up joining the war in Europe much earlier than we did if Hughes had won.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected the first time, he went from 472 in 1932 to 523 in 1936. The following two terms the count did go down with 449 and 432 respectively.
Nixon went from 301 to a whopping 520 which was impressive, until you get to Reagan who went from 489 to 525 in 1984. The 1984 total is highest amount of electoral votes any candidate has received, so far, in American history. Bill Clinton went from 370 to 379 and George W. Bush (our first 21st century president) went from 271 to 286. I know some people still that say he was never elected but that is something for another day or another blog entry.
The reason I have found this so interesting that is that I realized today that if Obama does get reelected, it definitely will not be with more electoral votes than what he got in 2008 with 365. Obama's safe states are considered: CA, RI, VT, HI, ME, DE, MD, MI, MN, MA, NH, NJ, NY, WA, WI and DC. If my math is right that is 182 electoral votes. Romney's safe states are considered AL, AK, AZ, AR , GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, UT, WV, WY which (again with my math) is 117. With 239 electoral votes up for grabs (the swings states), Obama would have to get most of them to get more than the 365 he received in 2008. The polls currently show them to be very close. If Obama does get reelected, it looks like he is going for a Wilson reelection. When a president starts off their first term with such a high total like Wilson and Obama, it seems like it would be a difficult thing to do after four years in office.
The following Presidents have been reelected:
Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Munroe
Jackson
Lincoln
Grant
Cleveland * (non-consecutive)
McKinley
Wilson
FDR
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
G. W. Bush
The first was Washington in 1792. He was elected in 1789 with 69 electoral votes in '92, he received almost twice that with 132. Only 10 states voted in the '89 election so our most popular President is the one elected with the least amount of electoral votes.
Jefferson did double his electoral votes by getting 169 in 1804. In 1800, he received 73 which was a tie with Aaron Burr. The US House of Representative broke the tie giving Jefferson 10 and Burr only 4 with 2 abstaining.
Madison went 122 to 128, Munroe went 183 to 231, Jackson went 178 to 219 in 1832. Incumbents had it easy in the early days of our democracy. Then we have to go all the way to 1864 with Lincoln getting 212 over the 180 he received in 1860.
If the 19th century had a personality with rock start status, it was U. S. Grant and he was reelected with a whopping 286 electoral votes in 1872 which is 72 more than his first term. If you count Cleveland because his two terms were non-consecutive, he went from 219 to 277 in 1900. McKinley, our first 20th century president, went to 271 to 292 in 1900.
Wilson was reelected but barely. With the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 by a German U boat, his peaceful isolationism was ripe fodder for the hawks of opposing party. He was elected with 435 electoral votes in 1912 with the other three candidates only getting 96 votes combined. But when he was reelected he only received 277, only 23 more than his opponent Charles E. Hughes. We probably would have ended up joining the war in Europe much earlier than we did if Hughes had won.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected the first time, he went from 472 in 1932 to 523 in 1936. The following two terms the count did go down with 449 and 432 respectively.
Nixon went from 301 to a whopping 520 which was impressive, until you get to Reagan who went from 489 to 525 in 1984. The 1984 total is highest amount of electoral votes any candidate has received, so far, in American history. Bill Clinton went from 370 to 379 and George W. Bush (our first 21st century president) went from 271 to 286. I know some people still that say he was never elected but that is something for another day or another blog entry.
The reason I have found this so interesting that is that I realized today that if Obama does get reelected, it definitely will not be with more electoral votes than what he got in 2008 with 365. Obama's safe states are considered: CA, RI, VT, HI, ME, DE, MD, MI, MN, MA, NH, NJ, NY, WA, WI and DC. If my math is right that is 182 electoral votes. Romney's safe states are considered AL, AK, AZ, AR , GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, UT, WV, WY which (again with my math) is 117. With 239 electoral votes up for grabs (the swings states), Obama would have to get most of them to get more than the 365 he received in 2008. The polls currently show them to be very close. If Obama does get reelected, it looks like he is going for a Wilson reelection. When a president starts off their first term with such a high total like Wilson and Obama, it seems like it would be a difficult thing to do after four years in office.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Baseball Uniform Numbers
If you ever get a chance to attend a game at Yankee Stadium, one thing you will get to see, in addition to all the World Series and championship pennants hanging in the rafters, is all the retired uniform numbers. Baseball teams retire the uniform number of their stars in honor of the player who wore the number. One thing you will notice with the Yankees is that most of the numbers they have retired are single digit: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 among the others. Professional baseball teams didn't start wearing uniform numbers until the 1920's. In this era, players would wear the number of their batting order. The 1920's had the famous Yankee's Murderer's Row of Babe Ruth hitting 3rd (#3 on his uniform) and Lou Gehrig batting 4th (#4). In this era the backup catchers wore #9 and the five starting pitchers wore numbers 10 through 14. This practice became difficult to maintain because managers like to change the line-up throughout the season and fans come to identify a player with their numbers.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
CYA Culture
Imagine this scenario:
You are a professional baseball player on a team with some other incredibly talented athletes. A ball is hit through the middle where neither the short stop or second baseman can get to it. They try but with strained effort. Why don't they try harder? They knew if they got the ball, they'd never be able to make the play at first. So they don't try harder, because they feared making an error. As the ball goes past them, they point to each other with blame as the ball goes into the outfield. Talented athletes with some obvious flaws.
The ball continues into the outfield but the ball continues to roll past the center fielder. Why? He doesn't get the ball because he isn't sure he has the proper paperwork filed to cover himself. His manager hasn't approved his pursuing the ball. This isn't his problem. The other other fielders are busy on the phone with their lawyers to make sure that they are covered.
Okay, you got me, this is an absurd scenario. Clearly if a team acted in this manner, regardless of their talent, they would never win a game. Yet for many corporate offices this is the culture that exists. Covering yourself is king. Doing the right thing for the team, taking ownership of a situation even it would reflect badly on you, seems to be a thing of the past. You hear often about how our society is suffering from a crisis of leadership, but it seems deeper than that. A crisis of management is more like it. When we work in an environment where finger pointing is more likely than collaboration, where asking for help is a sign of weakness rather than strength, then not only the team loses, everyone does the fans, the franchise, the nation.
A few years ago, I found myself in a Providence bar talking/arguing about Max Weber and goal displacement with a couple of strangers. The conversation was so intense that I looked up and noticed the bar had been closed around us. I didn't know I was chatting with the owner. The general feeling was that organizations are bound to lose. Their goals are eventually displaced by a sense of self-preservation. If your organization's goal is to wipe our birth defects, what going to happen to your career, if your organization succeeds. You might lose your job and your career is in shambles. So your goal gets displaced with the goal of self-preservation. One has to wonder if the same can be said for individuals. Given a certain social environment or management style, do people preserve their own ass over the long term goal of their team? Umm ... you betcha! No biggie if you are a barista, but you are a surgeon, designing bridges, building bombs, or even supporting a database, you need to work in an environment where making an error is acceptable, admitting you made is safe and the team has your back. You don't fail as an individual you succeed as a team. If the ball goes through your legs into the outfield, you need to know your teammates will be getting the ball not lining up to blame you for the errors. That is the job of the fans in the bleachers.
You are a professional baseball player on a team with some other incredibly talented athletes. A ball is hit through the middle where neither the short stop or second baseman can get to it. They try but with strained effort. Why don't they try harder? They knew if they got the ball, they'd never be able to make the play at first. So they don't try harder, because they feared making an error. As the ball goes past them, they point to each other with blame as the ball goes into the outfield. Talented athletes with some obvious flaws.
The ball continues into the outfield but the ball continues to roll past the center fielder. Why? He doesn't get the ball because he isn't sure he has the proper paperwork filed to cover himself. His manager hasn't approved his pursuing the ball. This isn't his problem. The other other fielders are busy on the phone with their lawyers to make sure that they are covered.
Okay, you got me, this is an absurd scenario. Clearly if a team acted in this manner, regardless of their talent, they would never win a game. Yet for many corporate offices this is the culture that exists. Covering yourself is king. Doing the right thing for the team, taking ownership of a situation even it would reflect badly on you, seems to be a thing of the past. You hear often about how our society is suffering from a crisis of leadership, but it seems deeper than that. A crisis of management is more like it. When we work in an environment where finger pointing is more likely than collaboration, where asking for help is a sign of weakness rather than strength, then not only the team loses, everyone does the fans, the franchise, the nation.
A few years ago, I found myself in a Providence bar talking/arguing about Max Weber and goal displacement with a couple of strangers. The conversation was so intense that I looked up and noticed the bar had been closed around us. I didn't know I was chatting with the owner. The general feeling was that organizations are bound to lose. Their goals are eventually displaced by a sense of self-preservation. If your organization's goal is to wipe our birth defects, what going to happen to your career, if your organization succeeds. You might lose your job and your career is in shambles. So your goal gets displaced with the goal of self-preservation. One has to wonder if the same can be said for individuals. Given a certain social environment or management style, do people preserve their own ass over the long term goal of their team? Umm ... you betcha! No biggie if you are a barista, but you are a surgeon, designing bridges, building bombs, or even supporting a database, you need to work in an environment where making an error is acceptable, admitting you made is safe and the team has your back. You don't fail as an individual you succeed as a team. If the ball goes through your legs into the outfield, you need to know your teammates will be getting the ball not lining up to blame you for the errors. That is the job of the fans in the bleachers.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Sunnis and Shias
Back in the 2000's I remember hearing, possibly from comedian Bill Maher, how President Bush (42nd) didn't know the difference between the Shia and Sunni Islam. I don't know how true it was, but it made me shutter in embarrassment not only (for my President if it were true) but for myself because I didn't know either. Since I am not and never will be the leader of the free world, I got over it pretty quickly.
I always assumed that the schism was over something that happened a long time ago, I just never realized how long ago. When the Islamic Prophet Muhammad died in 620 C.E. the schism occurred over how succession would be handled. The Shia wanted succession to be based on an election by the caliphs (basically, the leaders of Islamic communities). The Sunnis wanted the succession to be handed down through the Prophets descendants. This would begin with his cousin and son-in-law Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. The two sects differ in a lot other ways since then.
A majority of all Muslims in the world are Sunnis (75 to 90%). Only about 15% are Shia. Other smaller sects are Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Quaranists, Yazdânism and the newest, the Nation of Islam.
A majority of all Muslims in the world are Sunnis (75 to 90%). Only about 15% are Shia. Other smaller sects are Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Quaranists, Yazdânism and the newest, the Nation of Islam.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Frampton's Guitar
As a rock n' roll fan, I was excited to learn that Peter Frampton's lost guitar (a custom Gibson Les Paul) was returned to him recently. This is the guitar that he played on the famous Frampton Comes Alive album from 1976. If my Junior High years were made into a movie, this album could be the soundtrack. You may remember this guitar from the album cover.
In 1980, while on tour in South America, the cargo plane carrying his guitar blew up on take-off on its way to the next gig in Panama. It was his favorite guitar. He had it since he played in Humble Pie at San Fransisco's Filmore West in 1970. The assumption was that it burned with the rest of the cargo.
A couple of years ago, it turned up on the Caribbean island, Curaçao. The guy who had it in his possession for many years brought it into a guitar shop to be repaired. The guitar was recognized by two guys who are much bigger fans than I am. They bought the guitar, repaired it and returned it to Frampton last month in Nashville after much effort involving customs and Curaçao's tourism bureau. Its authenticity was verified by the experts at Gibson. It is playable but does not play with its original quality. It was created in 1954; it is just a few years younger than Frampton.
In 1980, while on tour in South America, the cargo plane carrying his guitar blew up on take-off on its way to the next gig in Panama. It was his favorite guitar. He had it since he played in Humble Pie at San Fransisco's Filmore West in 1970. The assumption was that it burned with the rest of the cargo.
A couple of years ago, it turned up on the Caribbean island, Curaçao. The guy who had it in his possession for many years brought it into a guitar shop to be repaired. The guitar was recognized by two guys who are much bigger fans than I am. They bought the guitar, repaired it and returned it to Frampton last month in Nashville after much effort involving customs and Curaçao's tourism bureau. Its authenticity was verified by the experts at Gibson. It is playable but does not play with its original quality. It was created in 1954; it is just a few years younger than Frampton.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Renter's Revolt
History is so fascinating. I really kick myself that when I was kid, I hated it. It was the one subject in grade school I had no interest in. This might be one of the reasons that I blog about history so often because I know so little, therefore I learn a lot about it. It is not entirely my fault. It seems that almost every year in grade school we covered just about the same history: the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II. The most recent event we ever got to was the Korea War and we barely touched on that. At that point, the Korean War was 30 years old. We didn't come close to any current history like Watergate or the space race.
We often went from learning about the American Revolution and went right into the American Civil War covering little of what occurred between these two events. I was always more interested in the Revolutionary than the Civil War. I grew in the American Northeast, near many of the pivotal Revolutionary events, I wonder if that is why. I also wonder if they would have taught us more about the Industrial Revolution, I would have been more engaged.
The Anit-Rent War (or the Renter's Revolution) is one of those events that happened miles away from where I grew up in Rhode Island (among other places) that may have piqued my interest in history. Early in American history only land owners could vote. This may have made sense in an agrarian society where people owned large tracts of land and farmed them. But once the industrial revolutionary occurred, with factories requiring large amounts of people to work in small spaces, this didn't make a lot of sense. Change didn't happen because it didn't make sense, change happened because people saw the injustice and revolted.
In Providence, 12,000 workers (aka renters) had no vote while the 5,000 land owners could. The Rhode Island Suffrage Association was formed by Thomas Dorr, a Providence lawyer, the People's Party was formed and a constitution ratified by thousands. If I had only been taught more about how kick-ass "Little Rhody" was when I was a kid, with such awesome figures like Dorr and Roger Williams, I might not have been so down on my home state. Eventually, RI's elected governor, Samuel King, declared martial law and arrested Dorr. Dorr spent a year in jail. That's a year of hard labor and solitary confinement.
If you look at a list of RI governors now, you will see Dorr on the list as an extralegal governor. He never served as official governor. RI drew up their third state constitution, while Dorr was serving his time, in 1843. In it, universal white male suffrage was included. Not perfect, but an improvement. Progress comes in baby steps.
We often went from learning about the American Revolution and went right into the American Civil War covering little of what occurred between these two events. I was always more interested in the Revolutionary than the Civil War. I grew in the American Northeast, near many of the pivotal Revolutionary events, I wonder if that is why. I also wonder if they would have taught us more about the Industrial Revolution, I would have been more engaged.
The Anit-Rent War (or the Renter's Revolution) is one of those events that happened miles away from where I grew up in Rhode Island (among other places) that may have piqued my interest in history. Early in American history only land owners could vote. This may have made sense in an agrarian society where people owned large tracts of land and farmed them. But once the industrial revolutionary occurred, with factories requiring large amounts of people to work in small spaces, this didn't make a lot of sense. Change didn't happen because it didn't make sense, change happened because people saw the injustice and revolted.
In Providence, 12,000 workers (aka renters) had no vote while the 5,000 land owners could. The Rhode Island Suffrage Association was formed by Thomas Dorr, a Providence lawyer, the People's Party was formed and a constitution ratified by thousands. If I had only been taught more about how kick-ass "Little Rhody" was when I was a kid, with such awesome figures like Dorr and Roger Williams, I might not have been so down on my home state. Eventually, RI's elected governor, Samuel King, declared martial law and arrested Dorr. Dorr spent a year in jail. That's a year of hard labor and solitary confinement.
If you look at a list of RI governors now, you will see Dorr on the list as an extralegal governor. He never served as official governor. RI drew up their third state constitution, while Dorr was serving his time, in 1843. In it, universal white male suffrage was included. Not perfect, but an improvement. Progress comes in baby steps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)