Words Words Words

David Crystal shows that he is an expert in the English language. He has knowledge of the intricate details of words, while also knowing his audience well. He describes the intricacies of English words in clear understandable language.

It contains sections describing where words come from, how they change, and how they fall away in usage. (And in some cases, seemingly come back from the grave.) English is a melting pot of many different languages, with an Anglo-Saxon base. However, even some common words come from languages outside this base. Some of the oddities of the language can be traced back to attempts to formalize rules, or make things easier. (For example, "love" is spelled with an "o" because it was difficult to distinguish between u and v.)

I found the etymological analysis to be especially intriguing. Words evolve over time, some broadening or narrowing their scope, others adopting a more positive of negative meaning. Some words like "bling" can pop out of nowhere, become wildly adopted, and in the process be shunned by their original rapper coiners. Others such as wireless seem to die (in favor of radio), only to roar back to life (as mobile phones and the like.) To truly understand words, you need to know what they mean at the given point in time.

English also has a great system for coining new words out of already-existing parts, or through commonization of proper nouns. As long as the audience understands the speaker, communication is working. Jargon is great when used among specialized audiences. However, when used among common folk it hinders understanding. Similarly many other usages can be appropriate in some cases, but not in other. (However, outside forces inflicting "political correct" language often just transfer the negative view to other seemlingly benign words.)

Words words words is a short book with many words in it (and a cover to inspire budding gymnasts.) It titles each chapter with a "word" word, and even goes on to cover scrabble, text messaging and the internet. It is well worth the effort. And if it really inspires you to seek out more, there are a multitude of sources to keep you going.

Hamburgers

In the past few weeks I've eaten more hamburgers than I've had in a while. However, all are not created equal.

In N Out is still the best burger joint around. The cheeseburgers are tasty, filling, and relatively cheap. The menu is also refreshing. You have hamburger, cheeseburger, double, fries, drinks and shakes. And that's about it. With a burger, they ask if you want onions or not. There are also many other "options" you can add if you want. (Grilled Cheese is popular with the kids.) However, by default, you get something good.

Five guys is almost as good as In N Out. However, they have a huge menu - and no shakes. They also have many toppings to pick from. The kids complained that they expected other things on their burgers and hotdogs instead of just ketchup. They did have a pile of peanuts to munch on while waiting. The cheeseburger was almost comparable to In N out; however, it did cost about twice as much. And the stress of picking the many toppings was a downer.

McDonalds was just plain gross. I tried a McDouble. Ugghh. The kids gave me their cheeseburgers after taking a bite. Yuck. The cheese tasted fake. The burger was a flat thin thing, and the toppings were watery and not much more than a pickle and ketchup. And I felt sick after eating it. It was only a buck, but not worth it. They did however have yummy mango-pineapple smoothies for a one dollar promo price. Not bad. They tasted fruity rather than the sickening syrup taste you often get with pre-fab smoothies. (It actually comes close to jamba juice quality. wow!)

The Aeneid of Virgil

I had always thought if the Aeneid as simply a Roman rip-off of the Odyssey. That might still be true. However, these lectures help show the importance it has on its own. It has endured as one of the most studied Latin texts, and thus is useful in understanding many subsequent literary works. It also was written at a time when many Greek sources were available, and thus has additional clues about the Trojan war that are not available today. And perhaps of greatest importance, it is useful for understanding the Roman psyche.

Virgil composed the Aeneid in the time of Augustus Caesar, and used it as chance to showcase the current Roman view of themselves. The adventures of Aeneas can be easily compared with those of the Greeks in the Odyssey and Iliad. The differences showcase different worldviews that the Romans had of themselves vs. the Greeks. The Romans saw themselves as "rulers" who came from elsewhere to adopt good points of others' cultures and rule over them. Loyalty to the state was important.

The lectures here start with a general Roman historical background, then go through the Aeneid,providing a summary of each section before it is discussed. This provides a quick introduction to the Aeneid, as well as background to understanding it. Events such as "funeral games" are explained in the context of their day to help with the interpretation of the work. Historical tidbits (like the fact that Virgil thought it was unfinished and wanted it destroyed) are also intriguing. Now I just need to learn enough Latin to slog through the original.

Fumble Rules

Fumblerules: A Lighthearted Guide to Grammar and Good Usage
In Fumble Rules, Safire tries to be "smart" by creating grammar rules that are described in the bad grammar that they purport to fight. Unfortunately, this approach backfires, often making the rules difficult to comprehend. When the rules are easy to comprehend, however, it also backfires, showing that the rule is not really critical to understanding.

Perhaps this can be taken with a grain of salt, as he acknowledges that these are primarily for formal writing, rather than more informal text. (But who really writes readable formal writing these days? It seems to be either legalese mumble jumble, or informal prose.) Even the rules themselves come with a myriad of exceptions. It looks like the strict grammarian is doomed in this democratic English language.

How to Learn Any Language

Farber starts this book with an engaging history of his languaphillia. He fell in love with learning Latin - until he got to the grammar. That led him to learn Chinese, which he finally got to speak with WWII soldiers. Eventually he added more and more languages to his repertoire. He went through phases of intense language acquisition, and others of specific language avoidance. In this book, he attempts to give us the help that he wished he would have known before.

His primary bit of advice is "work". He cautions that no "learn-quick" shortcuts can be used to truly grasp a language. Instead, he recommends that you avail yourself of all resources available - grammars, dictionaries, dialogs, phrase books, etc. He outlines a basic approach:
1) Start with a grammar book, and slog through the first 5 lessons.
2) Get a newspaper in the target language, and pick the top article, making flashcards for every word you don't know (whether it is in your dictionary or not)
3) Continue studying the vocabulary and grammar along with other related tools.

He also stresses working on native-level pronunciation, even if you don't fully get it.

The approach is no easy way to learn a language, however, it does provide a balance between the "fun" parts of language acquisition and the "tedium." In the end, their is no substitute for work.

Also of interest, he provides some background on various languages and how easy they are for English speakers to learn. Some seemingly exotic languages like Indonesian are among the easiest to learn. Others like Finnish are more difficult to learn. As English speakers we actually have it somewhat difficult as many people are trying to learn our language. However, people can still be impressed by the effort to truly engage in learning other languages.

Q & A (Slumdog Millionaire)

A kid from the slums wins a billion rupees on a game show. The game show's producers don't want to pay out so soon and thus they seek to dig up dirt on him to declare him a cheat. Luckily, an attorney shows up to take him out. He shares his entire story with her, and eventually gets his money. It turns out, he just happened to have life events that led him to know the answers to the questions.

It all seems like a pretty good story. The "life events" are even spun out well - he doesn't just happen to experience a key historical event, but it just happens that some aspect of his experience relates to the question. (He happens to live with a cricket nut, and thus knows the answers to the cricket questions.)

The catch, however, is that the events are just a little too "exceptional". He manages to work for espionage agents, movie stars, hit men, and others that seem a little too far fetched.

The story paints a bleak picture of life in the Indian slums. However, in spite of it, it shows optimism in the spate of adversity. (The "pessimistic" running away from seemingly bad events often ends up being positive in the long run.) Alas, the extremeness of the events and forced melodrama (A gun fight with the game show host?) distract from the story.

Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language

The authors take an "Oxford English Dictionary" look at explaining meanings of words and rooting out misconceptions. If someone has the audacity to insist that "data" should only be plural, just point them here to show that it has been acceptable as a singular for a long time. And that word that supposedly came from an an acronym or certain historical event? Well, it had been used long time before the event. Oops!

One prescient observation is that English is constantly changing, with new words being added, and acceptable usages changing. What is acceptable is determined by common usage. Many of the "quirks" of the language are caused by people successfully inflicting reforms of the language. (There seem to be a lot of first "latinizations" of words, leading to awkward spellings, as well as plenty of feaux-French pronunciations.) Some grammar "rules", like avoiding split infinitives and terminal prepositions are exposed as truly bogus attempts to Latinate a non-Latin language. American English is also shown to be in many cases more "conservative" than British English, adhering to structure that has since changed on the island.

It all makes for a great read, and amble evidence to through at an annoying editor or teacher that disrespects your attempts at innovative language.

From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese History

From Yao to Mao: 5000 Years of Chinese History (The Great Courses Lectures)

This is an 18 hour course on the history of China. It is a great rapid-fire introduction to Chinese History. However, it is difficult to keep all the names and dynasties straight. The lecturer spends some time covering the west's interaction with China. However, the focus is primarily on China as seen through their own eyes, not as seen by western eyes. Thus, it does't get bogged down in some important "western" encounters.

Bruce Lee, My Brother

This is a light movie on the early life of Bruce Lee, before he went to the United States and got famous. Bruce Lee is portrayed a lanky, nerdy kid who grey up in rough circumstances and has a propensity for mischief. The portrayals of growing up in war-time and early post-war Hong Kong make the movie interesting. (The British are portrayed as 'corruptible' overlords, who often step in the lives of the Chinese only when convenient for themselves. The Chinese officials, are portrayed even worse, as those willing to get advantage no matter who is in power.)

It has some dramatic "fight" scenes, and conflicts over girls. However, Bruce Lee seems to almost "magically" become a good fighter. It is hard to see his "evolution" in the story. I wanted to see a little more of is life immediately after he left for the US. Of course, by then, his brother would not have been around to document it.

Avatar

Great special effects. Pedestrian dialog. Lame Plot. James Cameron did a great job creating the Avatar world. The story, alas, was just an excuse for us to see the world he created. I guess you need some drama and cliches to keep interest.

If You Are The One 2

This comedy includes a "divorce" ceremony and a "trial" marriage where a couple attempt to test their devotion by acting as if they were "invalids" or long-married couples that no longer have the passion. The divorce ceremony is really funny. The rest of the movie tends to drag on.

Space Battleship Yamamoto

This was a really long film about a post-apocalyptic earth. Radiation is so bad that people can hardly go outside without protective gear. And to make it worse their are aliens trying to blow things up. Luckily, earthlings have some powerful weapons. They eventually decide to try going out to space in hopes of some anti-radiation things. They end up seeing a girl. Or something like that.

I fell asleep during a section of it. There are special effects. There is action and suspense. And there is lame dialog. There isn't a whole lot of excitement. I can't seem to find the link on Amazon (just a bunch of links to the Anime and Manga.) Perhaps it will never make it to the United States.

Secret

Secret starts out as a gentle romance. It seems to be the story of the "new boy" choosing between two girls. However, just past the halfway point it takes a fantasy twist, and the first part of the movie is shown to be different than expected, with one girl actually being from 20 years in the past. Whenever she plays a piano piece she launches in to the future, and only the first person that she sees can see her. When she plays it again really fast, she goes back to the past. Unfortunately, this piano room (and the building) will be torn down on the last day of class.

Jay Chou plays the new boy (also Jay), who is an excellent piano player and the son of a school official. Some of the best scenes in the movie are of piano playing, with rapid one-handed tunes, and even voyages inside the piano.

The "science fiction" elements of the movie, however, get downright confusing. Where did this come from? Where did she go? How does she die, but then not die? How was she writing a message to him? And what happened to the janitor? If you simply disregard the numerous logic holes, it does make for a touching well-made movie. (Though the "playing the piano fast as the wrecking ball hits" scene is a little corny. And it makes for all sorts of logic holes. If he is stuck in the past, does that mean he will end see himself being born in a few years?

Jay Chou works well in this movie as an aloof boy who has strong feelings, but just doesn't express them. The other actors seem to do a more conventional "acting" job. However, it is all well done, even if it feels more western than Taiwanese. Though the scenery will make you want to visit Taiwan.

Shaolin

Jackie Chan is a baker who doesn't play much a of role in this movie until the end. Then, when we is attacked by dozens of bad guys, the kids instruct him to "make noodles" or "kneed bread" and low and behold, those are just the right moves to defeat the bad ones.

The rest of the movie centers around a martial arts Buddhist monastery and some warlords. Most of it was "dark" and I had a tough time following who was doing what. (I thought a guy had died in a previous scene, then in the next scene he would come out and do something else.) The whole point of the plot seems to be nothing more than setting up of marital arts fights, and those are fairly few and far between. The "warlords" seem to be fighting over who-knows-what, but in the end, a foreigner can just come in and blow them all up. There is also the story of redemption as one warlord decides to become a monk after his daughter dies. It seems as if they went grabbing for all the plot elements they could find to through in to one movie.

The brief Jackie Chan "baker" part is alas one of the best parts of the movie. (I knew who couldn't go through a movie without putting on some moves.) That is not saying much.

Out of Mao's Shadow

The author thinks China is a corrupt oppressor, or just very good at doing what needs to be done to stay in power. He tells a few fairly unrelated stories that he develops for maximum emotional impact. One describes a documentary filmmaker who made a film about a girl that was killed for her "Anti-communist" beliefs. She had originally been a staunch communist. However, after Mao cracked down on criticism (that he had encouraged in the 100 flowers campaign, she refused to recant her criticisms.) In prison she wrote with her own blood. (Yes this sounds dramatic, yet they later let her recopy using a pen...)

Another story describes labor protesters who uncovered corruption as wealthy party hacks managed to get rich with privatization of state-run enterprises. The party successfully employed divide-and-conquer to give the workers just enough of what they wanted (including some sacrificial lambs) to quell the protests.

There are also stories of the cultural revolution, homeowners that lose their houses due to development (carried out by one of the richest people in China), the great leap forward, press censorship and the one-child policy.

After reading this, you can't help put feel the Chinese people are brutally oppressed, and that the communist party is an expert about doing what needs to be done to stay in power. (The communists co-opted the workers to destroy the landowners, then turned around and took over the land-owner role.)

However, with carefully selected anecdotes, you could probably do the same for any other country.

At the end he provides cases of daring civil-rights lawyers and their attempts to actually use the law to overpower the party bosses. (It is often the shame factor that leads to the desired results rather than the actual lawsuit itself.)

In the end, he presents the communist party as essentially a continuation of the previous dynasties. Rulers pretty much expect to rule by fiat, with the only real checks on power being their superiors. In the scheme of things, the communist party may actually be more of a "democracy" than previous dynasties. However, this "democratic" approach to power may also open it to greater corruption (since their hold on power is more tenuous.)

Since the author is a reporter, the press gets a large amount of coverage, and the rights of a free press are of the highest importance. However, he does note that the most successful independent newspapers also devote a huge amount of space to soccer and celebrities. Hmmm. Party fluff vs. celebrity fluff. Does it even matter?

History of Ancient Sparta

A History of Ancient Sparta: Valor, Virtue, and Devotion in the Greek Golden Age, 7 Cds [Complete & Unabridged Audio Work]
Sparta never seems to get the credit of Athens. Sure, there are plenty of Spartan sports teams, but you don't have colleges in towns called "Sparta". Spartans are more the Republicans of Greek history. They survived for a while, were conservative, and had a great military. However, Athens is what gave us all the intellectual basis for our modern democracy. (Ok, so a lot of the Athenian culture came from Sparta, but, hey, at least Athens made some cool stories.)

These lectures provide some nice background of Sparta. They were truly the "jocks" of the ancient world. They exercised like crazy, and were well-prepared to take on any foe. However, their preferred method of engagement was to intimidate the enemies and let them peacefully leave. (Rather than the then common custom of slaughter.) When were well respected, especially in childbirth. Unfit human "specimens" were discarded so that only the strongest continued to propagate.

For some reason, however, the Spartan's began to die out. And eventually, they fell by the wayside. It makes for an enchanting history, though the records are alas, somewhat lacking, especially compared to their neighbors form Athens.

Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology

Frauds, Myths, & Mysteries Science & Pseudoscience in Archaeology 4th EDITION
These lectures provide a fairly balanced approach to "mysteries" and pseudo-discoveries in archaeology. She does a good job of presenting why science thinks some "stories" are false, yet still admits that there are still plenty of unknowns.

However, she is not afraid to come down hard on people that seem to show intentional ignorance of facts that they know. (Many "popular" writers and alien conspiracy theorists would fall in to this group.)

She spends some time covering Atlantis - which she sees as one of Plato's morality tales that somehow got twisted in its interpretation. Early residents of America were given a balanced treatment. The land bridge hypothesis seems fairly clear, but there are a lot of unknowns regarding various sites. There may have been other people that made it to America before Columbus. However, there is minimal proof for any other than the Vikings. (And for the Vikings there is another mystery of a Minnesota rune-stone.)

Stonehenge and Easter Island provide additional mysteries. Some studies have shown that they are possible. But there are still questions of "why?"

All in all, it is a good look at mysteries and frauds from the past and present, as well as an analysis of how science works and some of the deficiencies of scientific analysis.

Obama vs. Osama

With only one letter different there was bound to be an Osama vs. Obama conflict. It seems almost fitting that the "warmongering" president wasn't able to catch him, but the new conciliatory, Islam-friendly president was.

Now what?

For some radicals out there, bin Laden is now a martyr - all the more reason to fight against the west.

For others, he is not really dead. The US never release photos, so it might not have happened. The real Osama is still alive. They may even claim the US is just using the supposed "raid" as a cover up for the deaths of some innocents. (However, it is difficult to see what tactical advantage the US would have of planting a story like that now - perhaps close to an election you could see it, but now it would be all but forgotten.)

To some, they may hear the story of his "opulent" and decide that he was not the best leader. This may lead some to seek a more conciliatory arrangement with the west, while others may see him as not going far enough in  his extremism, thus begging a more belligerent stance.


And then there is the whole Pakistan thing. These Navy Seals were, after all, conducting a raid on Pakistani soil. They get a black eye from everyone - the west thinks they are slack for letting the terrorist mastermind live there. The "anti-west" are upset that they let the US conduct the operation there.

What will happen?  Who knows. However, with the underlying unrest in the middle east, there is likely to be abundant change. Unfortunately, the change will probably not be what the United States would like to see. Sure, they may see democracies. However, democracies in the middle east tend to not vote for the people that the US likes. (Look at how the west sponsored the overthrow of the Iranian democracy.) 

Popular governments may actually enact policies to utilize the oil riches for long-term benefit, rather than let a few run off with immense wealth.  They could decide that the Arab world will resume the intellectual pedestal that it held a millennium ago, proving a conservative religion can provide a better base for advanced intellectual inquiry. Or they could just let a new despot come in to power.

Perhaps the one thing that the bin Laden action did prove is that the US military is capable of carrying out covert assassination plots. This should give any future terrorist mastermind pause before releasing his face on videos.

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance -- and Why They Fall

In Day of Empire, Amy Chua discusses defines hyperpowers and posits that it is only through tolerance that a single power can rise to dominate the world. However, it is often this very tolerance that begins to sow the seeds of the empire's fall. Through history, the mechanism of the "conquest" and definition of "tolerance" has changed, yet the successful empires all tend to be much more tolerant than their neighbors. Ancient Rome allowed any free male to become a citizen. It also left the conquered people to continue worshiping their own gods. However, Romans observed a cultural hierarchy. They esteemed Greek culture, and brought their deities into the Roman pantheon. Others were treated as barbarians and not respected. This limited tolerance helped lead to dissension. Other ancient empires also tended to succeed by being more tolerant than others. (However, they would also be ruthless in those that would not submit to their rule.)
In the modern era, Spain rose to power in part by tolerating the Jews and Muslims in their territory. They helped provide the capital to grow the kingdom and inspire the unification and voyages of exploration. However, by the time riches were coming back from the new world, Spain had been casting out its very bankers, leaving it a near bankrupt kingdom dependent on the American gold for its very survival. How might things have been different if Spain remained tolerant? Would the Aztecs and Incas been incorporated as part of the Spanish kingdom, making one of the most widespread global empires?
The Dutch were able to rise to power in the wake of Spain's fall. The Netherlands welcomed religious dissenters of all kinds. It was a capitalist heaven where anybody eager to make a buck was welcome to try. They were able to create a vast maritime network that rivaled any of the day, despite being a fraction of the size of other entities. They had a far-flung empire, yet they rarely tried to "Hollandize" the natives. (While there are huge numbers of Spanish and English speaking populations in the former colonies, the Dutch presence is isolated to a few a pockets, and those are mostly Dutch descendants.)
Britain was next in line after the Dutch. They had both the economic and military power. They would also waffle on the tolerance, often giving a degree of self rule to the colonies, but also attempting to "civilize" the natives. After Scotland bankrupted itself in failed Panamanian speculation, England brought her in the fold through tolerance and acceptance. Scots were integrated into society and hold high offices in the government. Alas, for Ireland, Catholicism proved to be too much to tolerate and could not be easily integrated. Throughout the world, the Britons thought of themselves as more civilized than their subjects. When they let their subjects retain their culture, these same subjects would respect the crown and often even aspire to adopt many aspects of the their rulers. However, when Britain would attempt to force behaviors on the subjects, insurrection and revolutions would break out. Even colonies of seemingly British subjects (like America) rebelled.
Modern powers of today have also used tolerance to come to power. The USSR tolerated the many different ethnic groups and treated everyone equal. (Then it fell as the cronyism dominated.) In China, a melting pot of many different cultures has assimilated into one "Han Chinese" population. Despite having many different spoken languages and different origins, people think of themselves as one people. The non-Han population is also tolerated (provided they respect the dictates of the country.) Indians speak multiple languages, have multiple religions and span multiple ethnic groups, yet they all live together in one big democracy. They struggle with tolerance, living well together at times, while falling victim to religious intolerance at other times. Europe is perhaps the first fully economic empire. Any country can join by meeting the appropriate economic targets. The economies are integrated and free travel and working from other member countries is tolerated. Brexit is even trying to concept of a free exit. However, despite this toleration, there is a marked intolerance of foreign foreigners (especially Muslims). They are often relegated to poor ghettos where they do not assimilate into the European culture.
Today, the United States is the primary hyperpower. On the military stage, there is no country that comes close. Economically, it continues to dominate. Much of the dominance comes on the heals of immigrants. Google was cofounded by an immigrant. Apple was cofounded by the child of an immigrant. Venture capitalism as we know it had immigrant routes. Many of the patents and innovations come from immigrants. Allowing people to come to the country and obtain citizenship is one of the most powerful forces for economic growth. However, the openness to immigrants also leads to xenophobia among those already here. They see the newcomers come and take the good jobs that they feel are rightly theirs. This could be the seeds of the destruction of the "hyperpower" as we know it.
5/7/2011, 9/5/2017

Empires of the World: A Language History of the World

The rise and fall of languages is often correlated with the rise and fall of empires; however, there are some interesting empires. Amaric was spoken by a large powerless group, yet it became a lingua-franca in the ancient middle east. On the other hand, the rise of Arabic was closely aligned with the rise of the Muslim empire. (However, it was primarily adopted in regions that already spoke Semitic languages.)

The stories of Chinese and Egyptian both have similar histories. Since they both had "pictographic" script rather than a phonetic alphabet, they were able to endure much longer than other languages. Even as the language was undergoing phonetic shift, the pictures could be the same. (Both sets of images that served as the impetus for neighbors to create their own phonetic alphabets.) They also both had fairly dense populations in a well-defined area.

The case of Sanskrit is much different. It spread throughout northern India, and its influence and Hindu religion were spread throughout south India. (Even though the languages were very different, they had a number of Sanskrit lone words.) The further influence was felt throughout southeast Asia, with strong language influence. (Including adoption of local alphabets based on the Devanagari script.)

Other languages have had varying "imperial" fates. Russia carved out a fast area. However, the Russian army tended to be very Russian, and a degree of autonomy was given to subject states. Many of the states dropped Russian once given independence. (However, in sparsely populated Siberia, Russian has maintained its strength.)

European imperial languages seemed to gain the most strength if they had colonizers attached. The "revolutions" in places such as the Americas were often lead by descendants of the original colonizers, rather than the earlier inhabitants.

There are also cases of people that build "empires" yet end up adopting the language of the people they conquer. (The Francs in Europe are a case in point, even though they sacked the Roman empire, they adopted the Latin language. However, they took this language to England, and eventually succumbed to the native tongue - though a plague may have helped out.)

This book is large and dense with many other details of languages. Some areas are extremely interesting. However, it can take a long time to plow through. There is also significant material overlap between this and the author's much more readable Last Lingua Franca.

Pathfinder

Pathfinder starts with two seemingly unrelated threads that eventually come together in the end. (This seems to be Card's new favorite device.) At first, there are a few subtle clues as to the relationship of the stories, however, it is not until the tail-end of the book that it finally becomes clear what had happened. (I still could see a couple possibilities for the main character's father.)

The main story takes place on a distant world with a calendar that counts backwards for 11 millenia. The people live within a "wall fold", an area surrounded by an impenetrable invisible wall that makes people crazy when they approach it. The world that the main characters inhabit is fairly advanced, but low-tech.

We meet the main character (Rigg) as he is out trapping with his father. He has some special ability to follow "paths" around. One day, he receives a special mission after his father is hit by a tree. (He later discovers this mission is to find his sister.) On his way, he encounters his childhood friend's brother doing a risky river crossing. He attempts to save him, but as he is doing it, time slows down, and an ancient man gets in his way. The kid dies, his friend blames him and he becomes a fugitive. However, people talk the mob down and eventually the friend is blamed for not watching carefully and kicked out of house.

They somehow manage to quickly resolve their differences and set out on the adventure. They happen to meet up with a burly boarding house owner who becomes their companion. They discover that Rig is a potential heir to the thrown (only there is now a 'peoples revolution' that has replaced the monarchy. (And the monarchy, a few generations earlier had been declared a matriarchy)

They run in to numerous people. Nobody comes across clearly as a friend or an enemy. (And some perceived friends turn out to be enemies and vise versa.) Rigg's sister has the ability to "slow time" and appear invisible. His friend has the ability to "quicken time" and allow people to go back in time. Together, they have an ability to trace paths back in time. If other people see them do that, they often become a source of a saint or a legend.

The time travel experience is different than typical time travel views - and quite confusion. Time travelers can go back and change events. But they have already done it. They can also go back and take things from the past into the future (and potentially the other way around.) However, time travel is space-dependent. (They end up in the same space.)

Even more confusing is the way that they suddenly develop their talents. The intermediate steps seem to be sketchy, and despite explanation their "growth" in the talents is still sketchy.

The "other" story deals with a colonization mission sent out from earth. The ship is commanded by a human along with some humanoid "expendables". The earth is in dire straits after being hit by a space object, and the colonizers are seen as the best approach for the maintenance of the human race. This ship was to go through a "time fold" in order to make it quickly to the inhabitable planet. In the process, the ship gets split in to 19 versions of itself, and travels backwards in time 11 millenia. They then cause a mass extinction event and seed the planet with earth life.

These stories come together in the end, with a "satisfying" conclusion that still leads plenty of threads open for future sequels.

Ancient Empires Before Alexander 3

This is the final episode of great empires. These empires are of the "much more well known" variety. This is primarily about the Persia and Carthage and a few of their "pretenders". Carthage is perhaps the most fascinating because so little is known of them. They set up a great empire, and were doing great when they just happened to fall on the bad side of Rome. What would have happened if Hannibal had sacked Rome?

The Persians are more historically known. However some of their compatriots are equally mysterious. And the life of Persia that we know tends to be very Greek-centric (since it is the Greek records that we have today.) Again, it begs the question of what we are missing in the history that we know today.

The Vertical Farm

I read a recent article about an "internal" farm over in Europe and was hoping to find out more in this book. Unfortunately, all I got was a bit of Utopian Urban Justice. The author thinks that "vertical farms" will appear in blighted urban areas, providing abundant well-paying jobs, and driving up real estate values. Oh, and by the way, they will also help feed the world.

The vertical farms will also be architectural wonders (like the apple store on 5th avenue) and people will clamor for one in their neighborhood. They would provide high quality, tasty vegetables for the local neighborhood. The government would provide the seed money to get the research off the ground, but then they would magically appear. Since all pests are controlled, there will be no need for pesticides. They will save most of their water, and even be a depository for treated waste-water.

It is all find and dandy, except for a few major gaping holes:
1) Why would they chose to go in the middle of an urban area? These are in essence vegatable factories. The big suburban office parks seem like the logical locations. After all, those areas are cheaper, and provide for easier trucking.
2) Economies of scale. If a small 1-acre "21st-century greenhouse" can provide food for a neighborhood, why not make a huge monstrosity of a building? Then the produce can be trucked all around.
3) If these are all they are cracked up to be, entrepreneurs would be starting them up. Money is money. Oh they wont make money? Well, why bother? Since they are envisioned to be "totally organic" that should make it even easier to turn a profit.
4) Pest control is to be carried out by keeping the environment totally pure. But quality of the produce is to be enhanced by "stressing" them enough to produce enough taste and beneficial compounds. A few problems here. Can we really have a totally sterile environment? And do we want to? The issue of waste processing could also cause public concerns. "Outside" organic farmers could easily mount a smear campaign comparing "wholesome" outside produce to sterile produce grown with sewage.
5) Workers. Why are these expected to be nice jobs? Even if a vertical farm overcomes obstacles to create an urban farm, labor will be an issue. A conventional farm may get migrants working for a small fraction of what the urban workers would demand. The urban workers could more easily unionize and further drive up the labor cost. That's nice for them, but not so nice for the farm trying to compete with others. Could the system change? Sure. However, it will most likely be the established farms that finally decide the smaller transport costs and image can compensate for the extra urban labor costs.

As to the actual biological and chemical processes, this book doesn't have much to say. Waste can be treated. Water can saved. Solar power can be used to provide light to help "power" the plants. (Hmm, reductionism. Weren't we already supposed to have chemical vitamin compounds that eliminated the need for food?) The sterile environment and decontamination room keeps out pests. The devil is in the details. Unfortunately, the details are not this book's forte.

Ancient Empires Before Alexander 1

These lectures cover the early empires - primarily in Mesopotamia. These are the ones that are less well known, yet quite intriguing. Empires such as Ur 3 and early Babylonia had interesting histories. Some tried to create a very centralized economy, with everything planned out from the top. This eventually fell apart when unexpected events occurred. Others tried a confederated approach. This had its problems when the vassals started squabbling. The ancient history of these empires makes them even more fascinating. Bureaucracy and government systems similar to what we have today were developed 3000-4000 years ago. Could there have been things even older that we just don't know about?

This first set of lectures seem to be the most lively of the series. The opening discusses the actual definition of "empire." It comes down to "things that we call empires are empires". I guess we know it when we see it. The question of why is also posed. Often it comes down to a larger-than-life personality.

The lectures do a good job of presenting a narrative, even when one is hard to come by. After all, we are dependent for the most part on clay tablets and building inscriptions. Ancient "CD-Roms" would be totally inaccessible. How many ancient civilizations are we totally missing?

The Rape of Nanking: the Forgotten Holocaust of World War II

This is a confused book. It alternates between semi-objective narrative and propaganda. It argues that Japan should be hung out to dry for very bad behavior during World War II, yet it criticizes the excessive castigation of "good" Nazis after the war. It is also finds a way to interject numerous sordid accounts of Japanese mistreatment of the Chinese.

It really want to make you think that the Japanese behavior in Nanking was bad, bad, bad. In that it succeeds. However, it also left me with the impression that it was just a few bad apples that were responsible for most of the bad things. The role of the "foreign safety zone" members was also somewhat confusing. If the Japanese were so bad, why did they continue to respect the foreigners?

At times the book attempts to provide a narrative of the fall of Nanking. However, this only occupies a brief portion of the book. Most of the "narrative" portion contains simple anecdotes and other accounts that accentuate the "badness", but don't really tell a story. Stories of "human experiments" are told briefly - but lack some of the data from the similar Nazi experiments.

The end of the book seeks vengeance. "Japan must pay!" is the rallying cry. The propensity of some Japanese to deny that the atrocities ever occurred is seen as a big problem. However, it is acknowledged that a lot of this is due to the political situation - Chinese leadership "absolved" the Japanese of responsibility. (Perhaps they have learned the benefits of forgiving and "moving on".) Perhaps the Japanese feel that, after being nuked, they had suffered a significant "retribution" for their activities. (After all, it was the respect for "Japan" over self that could be traced as the root of all these issues.)

The author sought to create awareness of the Nanking massacre. This she managed to do. The Germans did a great job of recording their exploits and later flogging themselves for their bad behavior. The Japanese managed to do neither. Thus, their misbehaviors are less well known. Their victims seem to accept this. C'est la vie.