31 down, 19 to go

THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI

by Pierre Boulle

(Rating: 4 stars; objectionable material in book: a main character is alcoholic, considerable and diverse violence, censored obscenities and uncensored racial slurs.)

(Important note: the book ends differently from the film The Bridge on the River Kwai.)


Plot Synopsis

“...the combination of individual characteristics which contributed to Colonel Nicholson’s personality (sense of duty, observance of ritual, obsession with discipline, and love of the job well done)...could not be better described than by the single word snobbery.”

The story begins with the British Army Colonel Nicholson’s battalion in captivity in Siam, forced to build a railroad bridge over the Kwai River which separates Malaysia from the rest of Asia. The Japanese need it built within six months so they can continue advancing into the continent. Colonel Saito, the Japanese commander of the project, is overwhelmed by the task. He drinks heavily and abuses the prisoners to relieve his frustration. He thus comes into conflict with Nicholson, who insists upon Saito obeying the Geneva conventions. Nicholson's men take advantage of the conflict to sabotage the construction as much as possible.

Nicholson has no power over Saito, but is a far stronger man. (It's hard to win a battle of wills if you're a alcoholic, I suppose.) Even after vicious beatings, underfeeding, and solitary confinement, Nicholson demands Saito respect his battalion’s rights as POWs. Eventually Saito caves in, and lets Nicholson direct his soldiers’ work. In response, he stops the sabotage and makes his men build the bridge right, making it a masterpiece of its time and place (and more useful to the Japanese – a fact Colonel Nicholson doesn’t mind in the least).

Meanwhile, a three-man sabotage team from the British “Plastics and Destruction Co., Ltd.” (based on "Force 136," the Southeast Asian branch of the British Special Operation Executive) heads out to destroy this bridge. They find the bridge and prepare explosive charges, which they will set off on the day the bridge is opened to traffic. The charges are placed on the piles of the bridge, slightly below water level. The saboteurs put their least experienced member, a young engineer named Joyce, in charge of detonating the main charge. Joyce, who spent his adult life trying to redesign a bridge girder so it would use less metal, loses his mind and becomes obsessed with “DESTRUCTION.”

And then the River Kwai’s water level goes down a couple feet, exposing the charges to view.

MY OPINIONS ON THE BOOK

The Bridge Over the River Kwai is best at suspense. (Which is why my plot synopsis is left incomplete.) The ending of the story is perfectly consistent with the book yet unforeseeable. It is also rather disturbing.

However, the two main characters, Col. Nicholson and Joyce, are a little unbelievable. I doubt there are that many colonels who would switch allegiance, aid in the downfall of their nation’s forces, and deliberately thwart said nation’s military, simply because of their devotion to duty and good workmanship, and I would expect Joyce had something in his life more important than redesigning a bridge girder, something which would have kept him from losing his mind.

Anyway, both Nicholson and Joyce lose their minds, and instead devote themselves to their work – Nicholson to building a good bridge, Joyce to blowing up the bridge. In Joyce’s case it’s a reaction to a feeling of futility (who wants to spend his life redesigning one single kind of bridge girder?) and in Nicholson’s case it’s a desire to make a name for himself. Neither have any other purpose to their work. And therefore they both end badly.

To borrow an idea from EegahInc...

I will end this with a quote from the Catechism.

The sign of man's familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden. There he lives "to till it and keep it". Work is not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

Follow that and you won't suffer Nicholson's fate. Or Joyce's.

(I promise.)

Guest Post: "Dune" by H.L. Crawdad

DUNE

Author: Frank Herbert

A science-fiction novel; first published in 1965.

(Rating: 5 Stars; objectionable material in book: use of drugs, sexual themes including homosexuality, extensive violence, pyschology that conflicts with Catholic teaching)


PLOT SUMMARY

It's Muhammad with laser guns! Seriously, even I couldn't escape the conclusion that Dune is based upon the emergence of Islam. However, instead of the Angel Gabriel, however, a series of supernatural coincidences, skillfully-planned military campaigns, and daring deeds makes the son of a duke, Paul Atriedes, leader of a fierce, tough band of desert men, the Fremen, sworn to spread their religion across the galaxy and turn mankind upside down (or spill its collective guts). The story is enhanced by lots of drug abuse and combat.

CHATTERING ABOUT THE BOOK

A little detail on Frank Herbert. He published this book in 1963, about the time LSD and similar hallucinogens were discovered and began to be produced. He also used them.

This accounts for the major role that "melange" and various other drugs have in the story. The purpose of these drugs is to get into the subconscious, non-rational core of mankind; Paul's success in doing so gives him the power to see into the future, although not completely.

Paul, as you may have guessed, is not a very pious sort. He is driven by a "terrible purpose" of unknown origin, not by anything resembling love of God. Yet this "terrible purpose" seems to have godlike control over the events of this world; past, present, and future. Over the course of the book, it becomes obvious that most of the major characters were unconsciously preparing for the "messiah." Despite this unseen influence, Paul gets to choose what he does; up to the very end he knows he can be killed and defeated. Free will, of course, is necessary in any story, especially fantasies like Dune; without free will, most stories would be dull as instruction manuals.

One thing that impressed me about Dune was its "world-building." It may seem unbelievable, but swords and laser guns coexist in Dune. Herbert pulls this off by inventing "shields," a kind of force-field that, when shot with a laser, destroys both the shield-wearer and the laser-wielder in a nuclear reaction. The shields only let slow-moving substances pass through; it is therefore necessary to gradually pass a blade through this invisible wall to kill your enemy. This explanation also gives Herbert an opportunity to describe some very interesting sword fights.

With all the other cool gadgets and talents featured in the book, Herbert gives a more-or-less believable explanation, and remains consistent. The organizations of Dune, such as the feudal government and the Bene Genesserit (an all-female combination of the KGB, a pyschological institute, and an order of nuns) are also developed well.

(A parenthesis: Unlike a certain, larger fantasy, known for its huge appendices, Dune has only 40 pages of explanatory material at the back; however, only the glossary is actually necessary for enjoying the book. In fairness, the unnamed fantasy doesn't require you to read the appendices either. I strongly recommend reading the glossary first, referring to it when necessary, then reading the other appendices once you feel like it.)

However, I have to say my favorite part of Dune is the villain, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. A very fat, disturbingly homosexual, subtly wise, and Machiavellian man, the Baron is a perfect embodiment of evil, and an interesting character to boot. His interactions with his two nephews and advisors are tense and disturbingly revealing of the Baron's true character. Best of all, he suffers a grimly humorous demise, which I naturally will not spoil by describing.

Unfortunately, the dialogue - especially that of the 'good' characters - tends to have annoying pyschological talk, necessary to the plot but grating to the mind. Herbert also feels the need to add some damned awful free verse to the book - again, the verse makes sense in the plot line but rubs me the wrong way.

(Another parenthesis: Herbert refers to a drug-music combination called "semuta," a sort of super-sedative that creates "sustained ecstasy." This drug-music idea, oddly enough, always reminds me of Jefferson Airplane.)

It's a weird book in many ways, and has reams of morally repugnant events scattered throughout. However, the plot is both exciting and believable, and the main antagonist is an especially interesting character, thus making Dune a very enjoyable book. If you are into science fiction or like to read long fantasies, I definitely recommend Dune.

H. L. Crawdad is a freelance columnist whose articles have appeared in the Mobile Register, the Houston Chronicle, The San Antonio-Express-News and other newspapers throughout the Southern US. He has 1 wife and approximately 59 children, all of whom have moved out. In May of 2007, he received the Mudball Award, given by the Library of Congress to honor talent among crustacean writers, for his short story "The Shell of an Idea." This essay was never before published, and is copyrighted ©2007, H. L. Crawdad & Works.

18 down, 32 to go

2001: A Space Odyssey

By Arthur C. Clarke

Let me first elucidate one basic principle of my literary work, namely:

That genre known as science fiction, containing as a main feature of its plot the changes wrought in man's life by technological advances, whether those of man or those of nonhuman, ahuman, or superhuman beings, is cool. Particularly those books of the genre which feature swordsmen, enormously fat noblemen, lasers, lots of war and explosions, giant bugs, or good monks.

2001 features none of the above, except an explosion at the very end. However, it still is very good.

I have never watched the film version of 2001, but the preface states both book and film have the same plot. Anyway, I'll recount it and mention some issues about the book.

1. The Basic Plot
2. Question one: What are these Star-Beings?
3. Question two: Is HAL possible?
4. Question three: Where's God?

1.

THE BASIC PLOT

It begins with a monolith, a rock with the dimensions 1:4:9. This strange thing appears in an ape-tribe's backyard and turns them into men. Then it disappears.

It returns again - on the moon. Man has been on the moon for a long time, and in 2001 has made a moon trip just an expensive business flight - like riding the old Concorde. Some men are even born in space. But it is in 2001 that the US finds the monolith, named TMA-1. As soon as sunlight touches it, it lets out a huge electromagnetic screech, which scientists decide is a signal to an extraterrestrial race. So, the space ship Discovery sets out with five crewmen to find the position it's signaling to. Scientists have deduced one of Saturn's moons hold something odd on them, and that something has to do with the monolith.

Fast-forward some. Two men, David Bowman and Frank Poole, and the sentient robot HAL are closing in on Saturn, with all the other men in suspended-animation. The radio antenna that communicates with earth suddenly stops operating. Poole fixes it, but it malfunctions again. When Poole trys to fix it, he gets killed in an "accident." Things get worse, until Bowman figures out the problem - namely, HAL. He overcomes HAL and continues to Saturn.

At Saturn, Bowman now heads off to Japetus, one of Saturn's moon. He manages the touchdown, finds a second monolith - and falls into it. After a confusing faster-than-light trip, he ends up transformed into a strange, spiritual being. He has now become a Star-Child.

These Star-Children mastered travel through space to the extent where they simply ignore all distances; they have also found areas beyond time in which they reside. They are extremely intelligent, and seek (for their own purposes) to change any forms of life they can into thinking creatures. They are the ones behind the monoliths, the ones who started the human race. They can project power by will alone, and one of the first things Bowman does as a Star-Child is just that.

Question 1

What are the Star-Children? They seem quite confusingly like angels. They are not governed by time or space, live in a non-physical body, and meddle often with men. However, their purposes are ambiguous, unlike both angels and devils. I never figured out why they do what they do - out of malice (making animals discontent is key to their methods) or out of charity. And if they were angels, would they, not God, have given men human souls (for ensoulment is the Christian term for what happens in the beginning of the story)?

Question 2

HAL, the robot, thinks. This is an enigma I can't break, all the more so because no definition of thought is given. The "Turing test" is instead used to define whether a robot thinks or not. The British logician Alan Turing said that if a man converses a long time with a machine, but cannot distinguish between the machine's answers and those a man might give, then the machine is thinking. The problem here is, as the Britannica Encyclopedia comments: "any evidence for original thought can be denied on the grounds that it ultimately was programmed into the computer." So, no matter how smart HAL was, he could only do what his programming told him.

We, on the other hand, can create original thoughts. Except I have never seen it done. Every idea I have invented or heard of has its origins in a couple other ideas, which have their origins in some more ideas, and....overall, I suspect there hasn't been a genuinely original thought since Adam. Maybe there's no thinking at all, and it's all programmed into us by others..........but you don't need to think to have a will: you just have to have the ability to answer yes or no, not be forced into it by a program or mechanical process. Or is that thinking? I'm stuck.

Question 3

Does God turn up in here? Two statements will suffice: a)if He did, Arthur C. Clarke would be very miffed, and b) where do you suppose the Star-Children come from?


=====================================


Overall, I give this 5 stars. Even if I have to read it again, I'm glad I read it.

And maybe I did think in order to write this sketchy review. But could a robot with infinite memory and infinite processing capabilities have produced this review instead of me?

17 down, 33 to go

Babbitt

by Sinclair Lewis


I read Babbitt in about 24 hours. You mind as well know that about it. However, it's a great book, worthy of a long read

George F. Babbitt, of the fictional city of Zenith, is a real-estate agent in the 1920's, and a blandly weird character. He tends to put obvious contradictions in his speech, like this comment he makes on the news:

"And we got no business interfering with the Irish or with any other foreign government. Keep our hands strictly off. And there's another well-authenticated rumor from Russia that Lenin is dead. That's fine. It's beyond me why we don't just step in there and kick those Bolshevik cusses out.*"

By the third time Babbitt contradicts himself, it's not so much funny as annoying.

Rather worse is his morality. "He serenely believed that the one purpose of the real-estate business was to make money for George F. Babbitt," and as a result overprices his lots. He views any form of charity work as an opening-wedge for Socialism (which he fears more than Satan, God, or death). He views religion as a business designed to train business men who won't cheat, and brings to his city a preacher who saves souls at ten dollars apiece. He wastes most of his money on luxuries, is obsessed with his car, and tends to neglect his wife Myra and children Verona, Ted, and Tinka. And he never thinks about any issue: he picks up whatever position his social set has, whether on free verse, immigration, or adultery.

Not surprisingly, he is dissatisfied with his life.

But, of course, he doesn't touch his moral life. He never asks himself, "Why am I here?" He never says a word on the purpose of life. Instead, he tries everything but self-examination. He gets into politics (where he does well), society (where he does less well), and wandering off into the wilderness (where he does lousy). He then loses control of himself when his best friend Paul Riesing (also dissatisfied with his life) gets jailed for shooting his wife.

Babbitt committs adultery and lives a double life for a while. He tries, but fails, to become a political radical. Ultimately, he gives it all up - nothing he found is worth the bother of getting it, and besides, he likes being a shallow little...Babbitt.



Babbitt is interesting because Babbitt is extremely familiar. He is the incarnation of the Flesh (as in 'the world, the flesh, the devil). He shows all the vices - greed, hypocrisy, laziness, lukewarmness - that people normally suffer when left to their own lights. And he fails to get rid of them, because even when he appears to sacrifice popularity to make a principled stand, he really is just trying to please himself. But by his continual selfishness, he is doomed to doing nothing he wants to do (as he tells his son Ted at the end of the book).

And all I have left to say is: Five stars.






*As a matter of fact, "interventionists" from many countries, including the USA, tried to prevent the Red Army from gaining control of Russia in 1918-20. They had little effect. But we did try!

Guest Post: "The War That Wasn't" by H.L. Crawdad

Dear readers of this blog,

H. L. Crawdad, an Arachno-syndicalist turned writer and good friend of mine, offered to post a book review on The Third World War on my blog. As it would save me a lot of non-renewable brain cells, I accepted, deciding it couldn’t possibly bother you readers. Then I decided it wasn’t fair to pop writing of unknown quality at you without warning. So I read Crawdad’s essay, and found it quite as good as what I regularly write. So I could rest easy again. Enjoy!

Histor the Wise




The War That Wasn’t

“The Third World War” is a fictional book about a war in 1985. But, whoever wrote it – apparently someone named General Sir John Hackettetal – is convinced that it happened. He is so convinced of his truth, he fabricates evidence for it. One example: the first chapter of the book cites a history of the U.S. Cavalry written in 1986, some eight years after the publication of the book itself. Perhaps time runs different in England, where “The Third World War” was written.

The plot is as unlikely as the evidence. Two nations – the USA and Russia – are at war, and apparently they don’t like each other. Why they hate each other Hackettetal never tells us. So from the beginning, there is no motive provided for anyone’s actions. However, the mistake would be pardonable, IF THE FIGHTING ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE EITHER IN RUSSIA OR THE USA! Instead, the countries (which, for some odd reason, have the nicknames “First World” and “Warsaw Pact” – the latter being a romantic name for a lady crawdad) pay other countries, primarily in Africa and the Middle East, to fight each other with imported weapons and suchlike. Three important countries are South Africa (which the US used to like), Iran (which the USA likes) and Yugoslavia (undecided).

Russia seems to be winning at the beginning, since its African countries are beating South Africa and they have countries close to the USA – specifically Jamaica and Cuba. The US only has Iran (sort-of close by Russia), Western Germany (right by East Germany, which Russia actually owns), and somewhere else, I forget where. France is on both sides, and England is on the USA’s side but doesn’t want to fight anybody. Then England changes its mind, just in time so that Russia can invade Yugoslavia. The USA invades Yugoslavia back and blows up three (3) Russian tanks.

They then call it a victory.

The Russians, however, are worried. After the Second World War (which really happened), they conquered Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and East Germany, but now those countries want to rebel. The Russians decide to keep them from rebelling by conquering some more countries. They also have a big argument about military organization, revolving around whether lieutenants should think or not. I say let them think; it can’t hurt.

Anyway, they invade West Germany, trying to get all the way to the Dutch coastline and the tip of France. Apparently France and Russia have an understanding. Fortunately, they don’t get that far, and the Poles rebel. In retaliation for this traitorous rebellion, the Russians fire a nuclear missile at Birmingham, England. The Americans fire another missile at Minsk, in the Ukraine. Then a bunch of Russian officials try to kill each other, somebody lets Ukraine and Poland free, and Russia collapses. America wins and Hackettetal starts talking about riots in the English countryside. That anticlimax is the finest part of the book, from a literary standpoint. I do not read from a literary standpoint.

The writing style is very complex and boring. It reminds me of when I was owned by an editor of encyclopedias. He would sit at work reading the Encyclopedia Americana out loud, and I would crouch in his office aquarium and long for death. However, the book did talk about tanks and armored cars and bombs and chemical weapons, which I find rather interesting. There was an exciting bit about Russians sneaking into an airbase in Germany and shooting people. Unfortunately, an equal and opposite effect was achieved by the bit on television during the war. (Apparently wars are a good way to make Western movies popular.) Then it has a bunch of appendices. I didn’t bother to read them. If they were worth reading, why weren’t they in the main part instead of the appendix section?

I don’t want to be mean to General Sir John Hackettetal. (Especially since he probably gets teased about his name and all). Most history books – and I have read many – are boring. A fictional history book would probably be even more boring than usual. But this one actually makes a good bedtime book, as the quote below shows:

“In NORTHAG, British experimentation was proceeding on lines closely related to the new concept now under discussion in Germany, with light anti-tank defenses exploiting the possibility of ATGW deployed far forward. The system of frontier defense thus created, with counter-penetration forces deployed in further depth, was beginning to be thought of , by many British and some German officers, as a possible replacement for, or at least a modification of, the full doctrine of ‘forward defence’, however the term was interpreted, which had hitherto prevailed. It was still largely experimental, but over several years of continuous exercises it had been showing considerable promise.”

The Third World War shall never again leave my nightstand.

H. L. Crawdad is a freelance columnist whose articles have appeared in the Mobile Register, the Houston Chronicle, The San Antonio-Express-News and other newspapers throughout the Southern US. He has 1 wife and approximately 59 children, all of whom have moved out. This essay was never before published, and is copyrighted ©2007, H. L. Crawdad & Works.

Histor's Fantasy

JANUARY 1 2100
USA DETACHMENT AT FORT SEVENTYSEVEN
NORTHERN AUSTRALIA
TENNANT CREEK DEFENSE SECTOR
AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC
AFTER ACTION REPORT ON MARK 43 BIS (BEAM IMPULSE SHIELD) "FIDDLER"

ICA FORCES LAUNCHED UNPROVOKED UVBW (ULTRA VIOLET BEAM WEAPON) ATTACK UPON USA DETACHMENT

THE MARK 102 UNIVERSAL RADIATION DETECTOR ACTIVATED "FIDDLER" 0.0012 SECONDS BEFORE UVBW STRUCK USA HQ

"FIDDLER" PROTECTED SECTIONS OF USA HQ RECEIVED DIRECT UV RADIATION

NO DAMAGE SUFFERED...

(excerpt from an after-action report released by the US Army.)

Australia, along with Chile and western China, is a global hotspot, for much the same reason the Middle East was 150 years ago. The laser weapons every science fiction writer praises have come into being. Nevertheless, 7 out of 8 soldiers are killed as they were in 2007: by hot lead and explosives. New technology allows one to know every inch of the Earth's surface without actually going there. Yet food, drink, houses, and business are essentially the same as they were in 2007.

2100: THE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TRUE STORY
The Table of Contents:

1. Religion


2. Politics


3. Science


4. And next?

Section 1: Religion

Despite being scheduled for elimination hundreds of years ago, it still bosses us around.

Christianity is still prominent in 2100 - not much of a surprise. Islam is also strong - more of a surprise. Paganism - despite loud cries of "it can't happen on this planet!" all over the place - is a dangerous force in what once were Christian and Muslim heartlands. New England, Ireland, and Mesopotamia are more than 60 percent pagan, and a Pagan elite leads resistance against Brazilian attempts to control the whole of South America. Hinduism has held out in Eastern India, despite its mid-century shift to Muslim/Christian religion. Judaism has (inexplicably) retained control of Palestine, but has a weird split-personality problem as certain aspects of its doctrine grow "Christianized."

Speaking of Christianizing, miraculous progress has been made in ecumenism, and 94 percent of Christians profess unity with the Roman Catholic Church. However, no less than 13 different rites occupy the United States alone, and the rest of the Christian world has a rather confusing multiplicity of practices, devotions, regulation, and Masses. For instance, the only things Sino-Oriental Rite masses have in common with New English (i.e. eastern USA) masses are the Eucharistic rite and the Kiss of Peace.

Eastern Orthodoxy attained union with Rome in 2039, but was exterminated in 2049 by the House of Islam in Europe (HIE) despite a rather quixotic attempt by the Louisianan National Guard to hold Constantinople for the Patriarch. The Guards' only victory is that "brave as a Cajun" is an international compliment.

Islam's great strength is owed to the Caliph Ali da'Qat, who in 2011 announced himself the Servant of Muhammad sent to reunite Islam and spread it across the world. Within twenty years his Caliphate of Muhammad ruled all the land between Galway, Johannesburg, Brisbane, and Vladivostok, and held the Pacific Northwest. Only Israel held out, a "pimple on Muhammad's nose" as Ali put it. He split the empire into three parts - the African Caliphate, the House of Islam in Europe, and the Islamic Caliphate of the Orient. After his death, however, Christians, Buddhists and Pagans rebelled, and Islam retreated from its major gains.

Paganism rose like the phoenix from the ashes of Christian, Muslim, and Chinese secularism. It helped bring down China's defenses against the Caliph Ali, and became the religion of the Latin American elite. The Pagan Revolution in New England and Texas (PRNET) attempted to conquer North America in the Second Civil War, but failed. Ireland became base for a Pagan Independence Movement which gave the HIE a serious run for its money in 2069-2080 (the Decade's War). And the Sumerian Liberators briefly controlled the world's oil supply until the discovery of GEE in 2050 made oil superfluous. Most American pagans have undergone "reconstruction" and are starting to grow lukewarm. In Europe, South America, China, and the Middle East, it urges rebellion against the powers over it - Christian, Jewish, and Muslim alike.

Religious map of world, 2100

Section 2: Politics

"Hey," [Professor Singums] said, "let's have two or three huge empires - simpler than 199 sovereign nations, isn't it?" - "The Wise Men Talk Politics," an essay by R. R. Mands (AD 2002-2091).

The USA - despite doing its best to destroy itself between 2020 and 2050 - remains a world power. No longer a superpower, it is nevertheless the most feared of the "Christian Powers" (the United African Republic, the USA, the State of China, and Brazil). It renders support to Israel (from sheer force of habit; the UAR gave decisive backing to the country in 2045-2060, when America could not help it), the Vatican, and the Australian Republic (fighting to regain the continent from the ICA) and does not notice occasional "goodwill visits" by de facto Crusaders to contested areas abroad. Mexico is now a part of America, having been made a United Commonwealth in 2080. Its border region of Chihuahua sent a crusade to Africa in 2088, but it hasn't come back yet.

Brazil was the first South American nation to eliminate its drug cartels in 2033, by using what became known, chauvinistically, as "Russian Diplomacy:" legalizing cartels, then mass assassination of their leaders. A continent-wide crime wave followed, in which Brazil gained control of most of the Pacific Coast and exterminated 90 percent of the drug trade. However, the Caribbean and Venezuela had an outbreak of Pagan rulers, who to this day seek to undermine Brazil. Brazil gained international prominence in the meantime, and is closely tied to the State of China.

The State of China was the first territory lost to the Muslim world. It controls the eastern third of China, while various Pagan, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim warlords fight for the rest. Americans, Africans, and Australians are strictly banned from dealing with these warlords. To the south of China, predominantly Christian populations are ruled by the Caliphate, while Hindus have a quasi-state granted them by Sultan Ali. However, North Africa, Western Asia, and Europe is still Muslim-ruled.

The Three Muslim Powers are far richer combined than any other nation, but their armies are inferior in quality to South African and American soldiers, and they have received many humiliating defeats at their hands. Their disregard for casualties alone prevents the weakening of their military position. The ICA is the strongest, both due to its size (Jordan to Western Australia) and possession of GEE extractors in Australia. The African Caliphate is in a continual war with the United African Republic, limiting its wealth and opportunity for growth. The HIE has Pagan and Christian rebels and a border with Christian Siberians, but it still has the opportunity to grow filthy rich - something of which the ICA is not ignorant.

North Germany contains the only significant resistance to the HIE. A 'shadow state,' strong enough to thwart HIE attempts to ban religious practice in public, controls Hamburg and the north part of the land between the Rhine and Elbe. Britain, primarily Christian, is independent, owing to an American invasion in 2065. The British complained about "American Colonialism" loudly, but they preferred it to attacks from Irish pagans. Various Pagan gangs on the Continent make the life of HIE policemen and soldiers a headache, but have little ability to do otherwise.

Sub-Saharan Africa united to defend itself against Sultan Ali, and in 2040 destroyed Muslim power outside of Muslim-majority regions. Since then, it has exported GEE and fought the African Caliphate and not much else.

Section 3: Science

Or, why things are weirder nowadays

Geo-Electric Energy is now the chief energy source in the world, after Australian miners discovered a way to 'drain' naturally occurring electric currents in the earth's crust. Similar currents were discovered in South Africa, the Great Plains of America, western China, and Chile. The electric currents, cheaply drawn and seemingly incapable of depletion, are now used by the whole developed world, and are exported in huge storage-battery filled ships. Not all was smiles and eco-friendliness, however - Russia, the Middle East, and Venezuela all disintegrated, and still are a mess.

Other than computers having the ability to actually deal with people (i.e. efficiently check out your groceries, drive your car while you nap, and criticize your writing style), digital technology has paused.

Satellites have withstood 88 years of total neglect in space and are now being reused. However, the Universal Ground Locator, which stores information on every location on the Earth's surface, land and water, has replaced GPS. The great migration into space everyone has been expecting hasn't happened yet.

Tanks, ships, and cars now use luminophobic paneling, which naturally moves away from sunlight. LP on the bottom of the vehicles causes them to float above the ground, and UV/IR lights make them capable of nighttime operation. UV Beam Weapons (UVBW) now occupy the slot cruise missiles and rockets held, with the disadvantage that they cannot affect anything smaller than an ATV. As a result, infantry armed with grenade launchers (having small rifles mounted underneath them) still rule the battlefield. The ICA is desperately working to create lightwarp shields to makes its aircraft UVBW-proof. However, the US has beaten them to it, as the after action report quoted shows.

Section 4: What Next?

Many people in America claim that 2101 will mark the end of time (due to a prophecy by a Japanese translator around the turn of the century), but it doesn't change anyone's behavior. The Muslim Century, by Haourin al-Jakarta rather glumly predicts that "Islam has lost its opportunity for success, and the world will be abandoned to the desolation of the Christian religion." Parai Jana expects the same thing to happen to Christianity in her book, Until the End of Time? However, Pope Gregory XVIII evinced no despair as he announced on Christmas of 2099, "Our mission for the next century is to bring the Crescent in union with the Cross." The failure of the Council of Ali (the ICA's legislative body) to protest this surely has significance.

The end of Histor's Fantasy. No doubt everything above is unlikely. Then again, the fall of Rome, the rise of Muhammad, and the death of Communism were very unlikely in their time as well.

Did this prophecy scare you? Excite you? Bore you out of your skin? The comments box awaits.

In the year 2100:

Australia will be the source of 50 percent of the world's energy.

"Brave as a Cajun" will become part of the American idiom.

And paganism will be a rival of Islam and Christianity.

More on Saturday.

NOW OPEN:

THE CHURCH OF JUMBUCK

"A TRULY UNIQUE AND AFFIRMING RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE...IF ANY CHURCH IS NOT A WACKY CULT OF CHARISMA, IT’S REV. ARIES' CHURCH."

- The New York Times Religious Supplement, January 11, 2007

Too many of us experience an emptiness in our lives, a lack of something. We seek to fill it with food, drink, money, hobbies, work, warfare, loving, service, philosophy, society...but we are not filled. What can fill it?

Sheep. To be exact, Jumbucks.

Indeed, jumbucks are the only means by which we can sate ourselves - and not by eating them. Herding them, trimming them for wool, keeping them as pets; all these things give true peace, true ontology. No moral affirmation is possible without a wholehearted dedication to jumbucks.

Therefore, the Church of Jumbuck (Herded by the Rev. Ovis Aries) seeks freedom from Spanish-Inquisiton-stile doctrines, (unlike A CERTAIN CHURCH WE COULD NAME!), unconverted swagmen, and doctrinalism. We have only one interest: to ensure that the moral affirmation of jumbucks (Australian jumbucks, may we remind you) be embraced by all humankind.

Endorsements:

“I had some unfortunate experiences in my past life, but this Church has been a transformative, holistic religious experience, for which I am quite thankful.”

- The Jolly Swagman

“We are considering an intellectual-property rights suit.”

- Chancery office, Transformation Church of Dallas, TX

“This church is a necessary insight into grass and religion. If I weren’t an atheist, I’d join it.”

- Richard Dawkins

“Grass? What's this about grass?”

- Anonymous goat

“If you’ll pardon me saying, it’s a bit sinister...”

- [real name of Histor the Wise]

“It perfectly demonstrates the aphorism incorrectly attributed to me – which, by the by, I wish I had said.”

- G. K. Chesterton

“I should have stayed up in the Catskills...”

- Rip van Winkle

"Maybe I won't rack you guys yet."

- Cardinal Ximenez of Spain

“Transcendent!”

- Rev. J. H. Hornblower, pastor of True Life Baptist Church, St. Paul, Minnesota

Tea and Coffee

Of all things that are spiritually opposite, tea and coffee are foremost in the class of edible things. Indeed, the world can be split into Tea-Drinkers and Coffee-Drinkers, much as Europe was split into Catholic and Protestant. Yet they are disturbingly similar.

Tea is a ritual drink, in direct contrast to Coffee. Look no further than the three countries best known for drinking tea to prove this. Japan makes a small worship-service of coffee. China, whence Tea originally came, does the same. England made a meal based upon tea. But did the Americans (the chief consumers of Coffee) make a ritual of it? No. To them it was a habit and a habit alone, like cigarettes. The extraterrestrial plotters of Starbucks had to come along and make it a ritual. (Contemptible cappuchino-swingers!).

Arrogance and Militance are the opposite vices vices of Tea and Coffee. Teacups are usually held by, one finger. This finger (usually the index finger) is pointed by the tyrant at his victims and subordinates, by the informer at the guilty man, by the scolder to the scoldee. It subtly reminds us of the Gesture Which We Do Not Make in Traffic. In short, Tea is held by a contemptuous finger, which smears but will not fight. Coffee is not so. It requires a warlike fist to hold its mug. Indeed, a coffee mug makes an excellent brass-knuckles (ceramic knuckles, that is.) The fist also holds the club with which peasants and cavemen, but also knights and kings, fought. Coffee is not ingorant of this; it demands a warlike salute from its drinker; not infrequently it punches him in the mouth. Or did until Star- but you understand me.

Yet Tea and Coffee are one. They are not sufficient in themselves, for no drink is an island. They require the same hot water, the same osmosis, the same filter paper. And even in the cup they are insufficient. They require sugar.

Promised for Next Week...

"Coffee and Tea: A Comparative Meditation."

Expect it on Saturday, January 13.

Saddam Hussein and the Death Penalty

Saddam Hussein and the Death Penalty

As you already know, Saddam Hussein has been executed. The Vatican's representatives have "decried" the execution. However, I think that Hussein's death was moral according to Church teaching.

Let me say first that the men who spoke for the Vatican, Fr. Lombardi and Cardinal Martino, are not protected by the guarantee of infallibility. Their condemnation of the death penalty does not override the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II called the "sure norm" for teaching the Faith. The Catechism says:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

The paragraph above summarizes the requirements for a just execution. To wit:

1. The person executed must be proven guilty of the crime for which he is executed.
2. His responsibility for the crime must be proved.
3. He must be executed by a legitimate authority.
4. The authority must be certain that he poses a threat to human lives, and
5. All non-lethal means of punishment must be certainly inadequate in protecting human lives.

Saddam Hussein's guilt and responsibility for the crime has not been doubted. If Hussein's execution is wrong, it is because the authority that executed him is not legitimate, or Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat, or because non-lethal means suffice to prevent Hussein from causing harm.

The authority that had him executed is the current Iraqi government, set up by the US in 2003. A government set up by an invader is rather questionable in its legitimacy. However, if it is not legitimate, who is the legitimate authority? The various militias and terrorist groups in Iraq? The Hussein government itself? Furthermore, it is recognized as the government of Iraq by the non-Muslim world, unlike the two mentioned above. So, it seems only the current government in Iraq is legitimate.

Does Saddam pose a threat to human lives. This is best answered by asking: what if Saddam Hussein escaped from prison? He would certainly try to regain power. Would he succeed? Possibly. Should he succeed in gaining power, would he commit reprisals like those he committed while in power? Probably. In other words, he poses a threat to human life.

Finally, would non-lethal means suffice to prevent Hussein from being executed? There are three non-lethal means possible: life imprisonment outside Iraq, banishment from Iraq, and imprisonment within Iraq. Imprisonment outside Iraq would require Iraq to turn Hussein over to someone else - probably the USA, or else the UN. However, this would deny Iraq's sovereignty, as one mark of sovereignty is the ability to punish public enemies by oneself. Banishment from Iraq would not contradict Iraq's sovereignty. But in the modern world, full of high-speed communications and transportation, banishment from an area is nearly impossible. Imprisonment in Iraq would not be sufficient protection. The country is in civil war at this time - his prison could change hands suddenly and quickly. Thus, non-lethal methods would be insufficient protection.

In summary, I think that Saddam's execution was moral. It was conducted by a legitimate authority against a man who still threatened Iraq, and was the only sufficient means of protection. It therefore conforms to the Church's teaching on the death penalty.

Histor