Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

A good many don't know this, but Christmas is my favorite holiday. I sing carols all year long. Most of the music I own is Christmas music. I think of what I can make to give and to whom through-out the year. And when the tree is finally, socially, allowed to be put up, I will sit in a darkened room, in the quiet solitude and and watch it.

The lights blur and twinkle. The ornaments shine. And a calm joy fills me.

I remember Christmases past and the events, foods, and gifts fade. The Spirit of it remains. I remember the joy, the friends and family, the connection. I remember being loved.

In December, Christianity celebrates the Month of Christ: Christmas. In it they make a show of loving, of caring, of whitewashing their souls in the Season.

And for me, even with all the frustrations, aggravations and problems associated with the holidays, I wouldn't trade it for the world.

So, please, allow me to wish you a Merry Christmas. May the joy and light of the Season see you through the coming year. Bless you all.

I Still Wait For Santa

My dear friends, I am no longer a youth wide-eyed and letter writing. The magic has faded as I know the magician. No longer does Santa come to visit me at my house. No longer do I waited with baited breath, straining to hear the tale-tale sounds of Santa Claus visiting. No mysterious presents appear beneath my tree.

I have known the meanings of the symbols and trappings of the season since childhood. I learned the customs of several cultures. And I don't think the trappings, symbols or myths detract one bit from the purpose of the season. They add to it and give it flavor.

And knowing Santa as I do, I still wait for him. I feel the hope within my chest as Christmas approaches that this year he'll come again. This year the magic will return and I'll wake to the joys of Christmas morn as I once did in childhood.

You might say that this is but wishful thinking, or stupidity upon my part. It might be. I choose to think of it as hope in things greater, things unexplained, in possibilities and dreams. I choose to hope for the magic of innocence and the beauty therein.

And so I will keep waiting for Santa. One day, he will come again. I hope he will find me ready and waiting.

Merry Christmas.

Book Review: The Soprano Sorceress

Title: The Soprano Sorceress
Series: The Spellsong Cycle
Author: L. E. Modesitt, Jr.
Publisher: TOR
ISPN: 0-812-54559-1

This was my second time reading this book. I recall my first time, about ten years ago, reading being a fast paced romp. I wish I could say the same on this read through. Instead I found myself growing agitated at the protagonist and putting off reading as it became a chore. But let's start at the beginning.

At its most basic the story is that a music professor from our world is yanked into a world where magic is music based and due to her immense training she is the most powerful sorceress there. So we have a fish-out-of-water, boy-meets-world scenario going. Okay, now we get complicated. The protagonist, Anna Marshall, is a heart-broken divorcee who also just recently buried her eldest daughter. Upon being transported to the new world she recoils at the politics and situations she has been thrust into, even more so at the medieval worldview at pertains to woman's role which is to say subservient and of less apparent worth. Anna is trapped in the new world and so begins plotting her survival and winds up saving a nation from invasion[1] on two fronts. In doing so she forces her worldview upon her new world; women are equal, central formalized education (at least for the elite), accounting, germ theory, et cetera.

One problem, the main one, I found on this reading was that it was more a vitriolic lecture on the chauvinism of men as a gender. At almost every turn Anna blames men for power games, politics, war and violence. She outright lectures supporting characters in exposition that seems more like the author lecturing the reader. She treats almost everyone as if they are intellectually inferior and morally. And yet in the end she was guilty of every crime she laid at the feet of men. I found her to be an overly judgmental female chauvinist and an “ugly American”.[2]

Oddly, I still like the story, however I don’t like the telling of it.  One person I discussed this book with offered some interesting opinions; one in particular was worth looking into: that the story was promoting feminism[3]. So I went to L. E. Modesitt’s website, via a quick web search, and he had a blog post on the subject. He seemed a little befuddled that his portrayal of a woman in a book “which depicts a woman in a fantasy world fighting against situations such as [the one Anna finds herself in], it’s called by some feminist propaganda or ultra-feminist[4].“[5] However, I don’t think it’s so much her actions that give the novel a ultra-feminist bent, I think it is more her thoughts that tip the scales towards ultra-feminism. 

Numerous times, it appeared to me that Anna thought that women were socially better than men. But in the end she was just as bad… So yes it is a feminist, quasi-ultra-feminist novel.[6]

It occurs to me that I’m harping on the subject, so I’ll draw to a close. It’s a good enough story, but it can be a trying read.

---

[1] Okay technically she stops one invasion and one incursion or occupation.

[2] “an American in a foreign country whose behavior is offensive to the people of that country” – definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster.com

[3] “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” – definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster.com

[4] “Ultra-feminism is like feminism but with the belief that women are better than men.” – definition courtesy of Urban Dictionary.com

[5] Modesitt, L.E., “Feminist Propaganda?”, http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2011/04/22/feminist-propaganda/, Paragraph 4, Retrieved: April 16, 2014

[6] I’d give examples to support my ideas. But I didn’t take notes while reading and finding specific examples for a review of a book and not an analysis just isn’t worth the extra effort.

Logic

Every so often I have a problem with logic[1]. My problem is people citing logic, without understanding logic. It has become like a mantra: “Be logical,” “Logic tells us,” et cetera.  Sadly, the people who do so say logic when they mean “I think”, not necessarily acknowledging the other side except to dismiss it out of hand.

So what then is logic? Logic is nothing more than a tool. It is an aid to assist in finding the best solution for a given problem. The simplest form of this is a basic if-then statement. If your PIN is correct, then the ATM will grant access to your accounts. In some cases this can be an oversimplification, but I’m ignoring that. I’m great that way.

Before I go further, I will say I am not fully versed in Logic. I don’t know all its listed pitfalls (called[2] fallacies) save a few: Reductio ad Hitlerum (reduced to Hitler) and Reductio ad absurdum (reduced to absurdity). I don’t know its myriad of types and forms. In fact you could probably fill a thimble with what I do know about it. There, I’ve said it. Now accept me as an authority[3] on the matter and lets keep going. Okay?

An example I once heard of a logic problem presented to a computer. (I haven’t researched to see if this story is true in any way, so take it with a grain of salt.) The computer was asked to determine which was the better choice: a watch five minutes off, or a “broken”[4] watch.  The computer returned that the broken watch was the correct choice as it was correct twice a day, whereas the other was never correct. For me at least, this was the wrong answer. Strictly speaking both watches are right all the time, just not necessarily where you’re standing on the globe. I know that’s a quippy response, and I’m keeping it, but it’s still true. So there has to be restrictions, or assumptions and givens[5], to guide the decision and the course of logic. In this case it would be assumed that the watches would be analog, as a broken digital watch would render the argument moot. Assumed that we would only consider time related to one locale.  It would be given that there are two watches. This is getting verbose, and annoying. So moving on.

Anyway, the goal is to get the argument as close to a black-and-white question, an either-or answer. Right or wrong. On or off.  In the watch question the computer went for the best choice, which it (or the programmers) took to mean the most correct. What happens, however, when the best choice is taken to mean the one that serves the user most adequately. Then the answer would be reversed; the right choice would be the watch that is five minutes off as it would be consistent and the user would be able to tell the approximate time all day. The broken watch, while still right twice a day, cannot tell the user when it is right. So then which is the right choice, consistent or correct? I would say consistent based off of usefulness alone.

So what does this rambling monologue have to do with my problem with logic?[6] Basically, uh… huh, I guess it’s not with logic, but the people claiming to use it and demanding that you do too, all without themselves knowing how to use it.  So come on people, be logical, learn to use logic.[7]

---

[1] I can hear the snarky remarks from here, thank you.

[2] One in the same really, but reductio ad hitlerum is a specific vein of reductio ad absurdum. It boils down to, “if Hitler did it, it is evil.” i.e. – “Hitler liked abstract art, therefore abstract art is Nazi art.”

[3] This is probably an example of the fallacy of false authority or something.

[4] I put broken in quotes, well, because we’re talking logic here and I wanted to cover my bases as some people can be real sticklers for detail and wordplay. So here we define broken as “non-functioning, but whole and intact; a drained battery”.

[5] An “assumption” is something that is not necessarily true, but will be treated as such for the argument. A “given” is something that is true.

[6] Again with the snarky comments! What’s WRONG with you? ;-)

[7] See what I did there? I did something that ticks me off when other people do it. Aren’t I delightfully hypocritical?

Scripture Study: Amalickiah's Corrupt Corporate Ladder

While I was reading the Book of Mormon I came upon the story of Amalickiah and his rise to power. Something tickled my fancy and I saw not just the story, but the steps the villain used. So I wrote them down.

Some context: the Book of Mormon is the scriptural history of the peoples of the Americas. Two groups, the Nephites and Lamanites, arrived together as one group, split and became enemies. The Nephites worshiped God and Christ. The Lamanites did not. At this point in their history (Alma 47) a man, one Amalickiah, sought to be established king over the Nephites. When he failed peacfully, he tried forcefully and was chased from the nation, along with his followers. They fled to the Lamanite nation, ingratiated themselves to the king, and became an army. Amalickiah by plot and treachery rose to command the armies, killed the king, married the queen, and declared war on the Nephites.

The method he used I call:

Amalikiah's Corrupt Corporate Ladder  (Alma 47)
1) Ingratiate yourself to the powerful. (verse 3)
2) Be a hypocrite, but don't get caught. (4)
3) Have a plan, don't give up on it. (11-12)
4) Don't be obvious, use subterfuge. Sometimes the result is better if you wait. (18)
5) Don't do your own dirty work; you might get caught. (18, 22-26)
6) Destroy all non-ally witnesses. (24-26)
7) Play the crowd at first and afterward they're yours. (27)
8) 'Blind virtue' (ie: loyalty, knee-jerk reactions) can be used to your advantage. (28-30)
9) Move quickly to consolidate your hold on power. (31-35)

I see this included as a type of warning. The wicked and corrupt will do anything at any price to get what they want.

Conversely, I thought that the list isn't far from what a moral person would need to do to get ahead either - although it would need to be untwisted. So I gave that a try, haven't put it to use though.

1) Network.
2) Be Honest, Straightforward and True.
3) Have a plan, don't give up on it.
4) Subtlety and Patience, not necessarily a bad thing.
5) If you wouldn't do it, don't order someone else to.
6) Delegate.
7) Convince the crowd.
8) Use but don't abuse 'blind virtues'.
9) Move quickly to consolidate power.

This second list could use some improvement. Thanks.