Web-log | Versor Books

Fictional Cartography 101

Written by Versor on March 11, 2013 · Leave a Comment

Some of you may know that I have a passing interest in fictional cartography. That is to say, I make random doodles on paper and declare them to be faraway or fantastical places.

Perhaps someday I shall make a time-lapsed video of this process, but in the present, I have only scans at each stage. In this case, I am drawing a map of the continent of Cavahir in the world of Auriel, a fantastical realm and the setting for an open-world RP (“role-play”; more accurately in this context, a collaboratively written story) on the Star Wars: Exodus role-playing forum, of which I am a member.

Stage 1: Source
Usually, I just make up the map off the top of my head. But sometimes, I have a good reason for doing this. I have a rough draft of a map for The Chimaera Regiment, the novel you keep hearing about that never seems to be finished (it’s not vaporware, I swear). That map requires some precise calculations based on how long it takes characters to reach places. No, things do not move at the speed of plot… or at least, they don’t only move at the speed of plot.

But in this case, as I have mentioned, the source is a fictional world devised by several members of the aforementioned forum. Which means they came up with a map for it, too. Which means that I’m not the creative force here, just the muscle. The aching, cringing muscle in my hand that wants to kill me for causing it so much pain.

At any rate, there is an original map, primarily a rough outline:

That map is based on these two maps, with some additions. I did make a map of the original continent (Cavahir), before the additions, but obviously, the additions made that obsolete.

Stage 2: Dotmap
Stage 1 gave me a lot of information to work with. Stage 2 is the process of getting that information into a usable space. So first, I have to decide on a series of important locations on the map – the westernmost edge, certain points and dips and curves, islands, lakes, mountain ranges, mountain passes, river deltas, and so on. Then, I use the original map and photo editing software (in this case, GIMP) to figure out the exact placement of those locations, as if on a Cartesian plane.

I might change my methods in the future (if I start making a lot of maps for other people, for example), but this time, I got coordinates in inches. GIMP puts (0,0) at the top left, though, so proper Cartesian coordinates would make all my Y values negative. But I digress.

Then I take those coordinates and, once I’ve calculated the ratio between original and destination (in this case, 1:1.55 to put it on a piece of 8.5×11 paper), I calculate the new coordinates for my map.

What you see here are, from left to right, location, original coordinates, and new coordinates (with Y adjusted to put the bottom of the map at the bottom of the paper). The third pair of columns are the remainders from the new X and Y coordinates when those coordinates are converted into 1/16 inch increments – that way, I don’t have to do the math in my head while I’m trying to plot important map locations.

When I’m done with that, I plot said map locations.

It’s probably tough to see at this size, but you can click on the image to see it at full resolution. You may notice that I have labeled a large number of the dots on my dotmap; this is so I don’t confuse these with the main outline of my continent.

Naturally, this does lend itself to handy Connect-the-Dots versions, which is great for all the kids out there aspiring to be fictional cartographers.

Stage 3: Outline
With the dotmap down and prepared, we begin our map itself with Stage 3: the rough outline. At this stage, I make sure all of my coastline is present and accounted for, including any nooks, crannies, islands, isles, and tiny spits of land that barely deserve to be called a sandbar. Sometimes, I also add a few titles at this stage, if only to take up white space left by the scale of the map.

And now you can begin to see the continent taking shape. But there’s so much left to do!

Stage 4: Interior Sketch
Once I have the coastlines finished, it’s time to move on to Stage 4, wherein I settle in my mountains…

… rivers…

… and forests.

It may look like it has everything, and it could technically be called an accurate map now. But it isn’t finished.

Stage 5: Coastline Cleanup
Despite its title, Stage 5 has nothing to do with oil spills or litter duty. This is where I take the rough outline from Stage 3 and turn that coastline into something pretty. This part of the process is in the running for most tedious, because waves don’t draw themselves next to the shallows around my coasts. And islands make this even more hand-numbingly dull.

But it is starting to look better now. I also threw in a chasm for good measure.

Stage 6: Mountain Shading
At this stage, I move back to the interior and I make my mountains three-dimensional (as well as any chasms or cliffs I might have). That means adjusting the shape of each mountain (so they’re not a long series of ugly little downward-facing angles) and adding shadows to each mountain. You may also notice the addition of one more river and a few more trees, which should have been on there already.

It may surprise you to learn that this is not in the running for “most tedious task.” By comparison to Stage 7, this is almost a delight.

Stage 7: Tree Shading
You see all those trees on that map? You see how many there are?

Boom. Shaded.

And now my hand hurts.

Stage 8: Miscellany
This is the final stage. It’s mostly unnecessary, as far as the map is concerned. But it’s fun, and it makes the map look cooler, so I usually do it. This is the part where I add a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with any particular locations on the map. I finish up the titles…

… and I add things like ships…

… monsters…

… and a compass.

I’ve also been known to add a whale or two in my time, but it’s not as relevant to Auriel.

Stage 9: Completion
This is the last and final step. Here, I use photo-editing software to clean up the image, erase smudges, straighten up the disorderly, and, on occasion, add a little color. But that last one is pretty rare.

And thus, we have the final version of the map of Cavahir and surrounding lands, in the world of Auriel.

To be honest, I think the original might have looked better, in terms of visual quality, but I’m not disappointed in this one. There’s also a version with regions and capitals labeled, but keep in mind that those, above all else, are subject to change.

Work, Money, and Financial Distribution

Written by Versor on March 10, 2013 · Leave a Comment

[pb_vidembed title=”” caption=”” url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM” type=”yt” w=”480″ h=”385″]

The above video focuses on one point: there is an unequal distribution of wealth in these United States of America. Now, granted, it disguises that point as three separate graphs (the ideal, the perceived, and the actual distributions of wealth), but the primary point is to spread awareness about the situation.

I will grant a few important concessions to the above video: First, it tries very hard to remain politically neutral. It emphasizes that Republicans and Democrats alike think that the ideal distribution of wealth would spread the dollars a little more evenly than they are now. It does not use terms like “unfair,” which immediately smack of entitlement issues. It admits the economic shortcomings of socialism. It does not push a particular legislation, example, or ideology as the solution to this issue, but merely highlights the issue’s existence.

But there are a few shortcomings in this video, too. Even in its attempts to remain neutral, biases still slide through. There are quotation marks around “dreaded” in describing socialism; this disassociation with the original quote (supposing there were one) implies disagreement with the original speaker, suggesting a left-leaning political view. A right-leaning political view would have left the quotation marks out, implying agreement with the sentiment that socialism is “dreaded.” A truly neutral view would have left the adjective out altogether.

Furthermore, there is a certain amount of emphasis on the term “Republican,” by both word order and verbal accent, that suggests the maker of the video found it important to emphasize Republican agreement with the ideal distribution; this tends to happen when the maker of a video knows s/he is opposed to a group that s/he must convince, and this awareness drives a wedge even as it attempts to build a bridge. A truly neutral view would have said, “Remember: 92% of people agreed with this ideal distribution, regardless of their political perspective.” At least, that’s about as neutral as you can get while making a video about wealth distribution.

There is a hint of agreement with the Occupy Wall Street movement, when the video discusses the enormous wealth of the 1%, and that, too, will drive a wedge between the video’s message and its intended audience. The people who don’t already agree with wealth redistribution also don’t like the Occupy Wall Street movement, and associating yourself with it – even tangentially – is not going to do you any favors. Democrats, in general, support higher taxation and higher entitlements, which is precisely what the Occupiers sought, whereas Republicans tend to oppose that sort of budget, and thereby oppose the Occupiers. If you start suggesting that the Occupiers were right, you’re going to lose most of your audience right there. Better not to mention them at all.

Now, let’s move on to the meat of this issue: the fairness of current wealth distribution. The above video acknowledges that some of the top 20% work harder, and therefore earn more, than lower brackets, but questions whether the CEO works over 300 times as hard as his/her average employee. This highlights precisely why so many Americans are uncomfortable with the current distribution of wealth in these United States: there is an extremely common belief that there is a direct relationship between hard work and money.

Why is that? Well, in the industrial era, it was completely true. The harder you worked, the more you earned, and the more people noticed you, so the more you got promoted. When you got promoted, you got more work and more money. Plus, it’s part of the standard “American dream.” You show up, you work hard, maybe 60-80+ hours of work each week, and sooner or later, you’re going to get rewarded with a cush, highly paid position, like the CEO or the Chairman of the Board. Classic movies and TV shows and books talk constantly about how the wealthy worked hard to get where they are, and you’ve got to work hard, too. (Although, really, we should have seen through that one, because that’s always indicated to be at least a little false through the course of the story – even as far back as Dickens’ Hard Times, in which Josiah Bounderby is shown a fraud for all his claims of being a self-made man.)

Whatever the source, this notion runs rampant among the working class. Perhaps it was an invention of the ruling class to keep the working class working and the ruling class ruling – but I suspect it was less devious than that. It’s not exactly a false notion, after all – if you work harder, you tend to get paid more and get more promotions. But even if you’re the hardest worker in your company, that doesn’t guarantee you’ll become CEO – and even if you become CEO, that doesn’t guarantee you’ll be in the top 10%, much less the top 1%, of American earners and owners. Why? Because work does not equal wealth.

Somewhere along the line, somebody figured out that economic principles can be manipulated. It’s not illegal, despite the connotations of the word “manipulate,” and it’s debatably not even wrong. Instead of working hard, as they say, some people started working smart. They know economics, and they use economics to get money into their own pockets instead of someone else’s. This is where trading on the stock market, managing hedge funds, and controlling investment portfolios becomes far more important than “working hard.” By using economic principles to predict where money will be, you can get your hand into that cookie jar before the cookies even show up; that’s an overly simplistic expression of it, but it’s effectively accurate.

The above video made an important point on this topic, but I’m not sure they realized it: the bottom 50% of Americans own less than 0.5% of all investments, which means that they’re not investing. The reason the top 1% owns 50% of the investments? They’re investing. They did that “hard work makes money” thing for a while, and when they had a little capital saved up, they invested it, and they invested it well. That made them more money, which they invested some more, until suddenly, they own everything and they look like jerks for not giving it away for free.

There’s another reason the rich are rich and the poor are not. Why do you suppose the poor and middle classes are “working hard” but not making money? Is it because the rich are evil? Those dastardly villains, twirling their handlebar mustaches ‘neath their top hats while they smack street urchins with diamond-topped canes! Right?

Wrong. The poor and middle classes are not making money because they’re spending the vast majority of their money paying off debts. Credit card debt, new car debt, new house debt, student loan debt – you name the debt, they’ve got it. Because there’s one other thing that the rich do with their money: they offer it to people who don’t have any. Now, consider for a moment that rich people are rich, so they know how to make money, and they generally don’t do things that don’t provide any return on investment. Loans always make more money in the long run. Not sometimes, not only if you make minimum payments, but always. And poor and middle class people are borrowing for everything from a new lawnmower to a new car to a house they couldn’t afford if they worked for the next eighty years, much less only twenty or thirty. And they’re paying through the nose to keep it that way.

Most folks, by the time they finish a car payment, decide to upgrade to a new car, so they get a new car payment. They finish paying off their house, so they do a little remodeling and put in a room over the garage. And I would comment about what they do when they finish paying off their credit cards if any of them ever did that.

“But– but– but!” you will say, “Everyone knows you need to have good credit!” Maybe. Maybe you need to have good credit. But you can have good credit for a lot less than $10,000 of credit card debt earning interest every month.

But at the end of the day, when you get a loan, you lose money. Loans are for when you need money today to set up something that will be worth more tomorrow, like an education or a house in a good community. A car loses value; certainly other, smaller products do, too. It never makes sense to borrow money to lose it. And yet the poor and middle classes do that every day.

And then they complain that the people they’re losing money to have their money.

The distribution of wealth in America is very unequal. Inequitable. But unfair? Hardly. People are poor because of the choices they make; by making different choices, by saving and spending rather than borrowing and losing, they could develop the capital they need to start investing. And by investing well, they can redistribute the wealth in America legally, equitably–and fairly.

To Be Meta, or Not to Be Meta

Written by Versor on February 24, 2013 · 2 Comments

In 1979, Douglas Hofstadter wrote a book entitled Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, popularizing the term “meta” in its most common modern usage, i.e., self-referential. People, on television and in high schools and colleges everywhere, often talk about “being meta” or “going meta.”

To “go meta” is to take an argument, discussion, conversation, or debate to a deeper (i.e., self-referential) level, such as, “This ‘blog post is such a bore.” To “be meta” is to approach all aspects of life with a view to stepping back and examining them as integral parts in a larger whole. One might enjoy a particular episode of a particular television series, for example, but if one were being meta, one would then examine that episode as merely one small piece of the much larger whole, that is, the entire series.

Going meta is largely irrelevant to me. I want to discuss being meta, because it is an increasingly popular mental style in today’s American culture. People enjoy having their minds twisted in knots at the pleasure of the twister. The film “Inception” is the perfect example of this. In fairness, it’s not a new activity – see the original “Total Recall,” for example – and it’s not worthless. It is, in fact, quite fun to take a mental joyride through someone else’s playground.

But the question is, is “being meta” as philosophical and transcendent as many people make it seem? Does it improve the human condition? Are we better off for it?

Let’s face it: what does being meta actually accomplish? At the end of the day, being meta is simply looking at a complex system and declaring it to be complex. And I’ll grant that it’s a relatively uncommon position in the history of philosophy – most fiction, non-fiction, philosophy, psychology, medicine, invention, and industry seek to simplify the system, so that they can provide solutions to particular problems. It’s a side effect of the scientific method – ceteris paribus, Latin for “with other things being equal.” You have to control and eliminate as many variables as possible, so that you can test, analyze, and correct single variables at a time. And so that approach has been applied to any activity which endeavors to describe the human condition and to indicate a preferential method of surviving it.

So being meta takes a step back from the idea of ceteris paribus, and wants us to recognize and remember that the other things are not equal, and may in fact never have been so. Every single variable is part of an equation so large that it cannot be simplified. Being meta, in short, (and to reference a brief discussion I had earlier on this blog) directly opposes the hypothesis of Asimov’s Foundation series. That is, Hari Seldon (the champion of psychohistory) creates a simpler model which approximates the behavior of human civilization; in Prelude to Foundation, he wonders whether this is even possible, because it might be that the universe, or even just human civilization, cannot be simplified any further than it already is. While, for the sake of science fiction, Asimov embraced the “what if?” of success, being meta declares that human civilization/the universe/the human condition cannot be so simplified.

And in general, I’m inclined to agree. I don’t think psychohistory could be possible, even with the best psychological and mathematical minds from all time working on the problem. The universe already is the simplest model for its own behavior.

At the same time, there are strong benefits from addressing particular problems individually. The holistic medicines of the far east have some measures of success, but when it comes to efficiency and reliability at eliminating an infection, it’s hard to beat broad-spectrum antibiotics. Considering the human condition as a whole, especially in light of our sinful plight and God’s divine intervention, can be extremely useful – but describing the habitual differences between effective, wise, happy, successful people and their ineffective, foolish, sad, failure-ridden counterparts can help someone with self-control and motivation to become more effective, wise, happy, and successful.

That’s not to say that Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People will take someone from the pits of depression to the contented plateau of healthy joy. But neither will pointing out, say, that the pits of depression are simply a small part of the human condition, or that one’s presence in them is due primarily to a misunderstanding of the complexity of the system. In fact, I’d argue that being meta to depressed persons is more likely to make them more depressed than it is to heal whatever darkens their souls.

Let me be clear: I enjoy when things are self-referential. I enjoy intertextualism. I enjoy “Easter eggs” and references to the fourth wall. I do not, however, enjoy when an author takes a wrecking ball to the fourth wall, then picks up the pieces and beats the audience over the head with them. That’s simply a case of an author believing himself to be so superior to his readership that he must berate them into acquiescence. It doesn’t help him or his case, and it certainly does not help his readers.

It has been suggested that there are two kinds of books – those designed to divert, and those designed to support. Entertainment and “self-help.” Books, apparently, attempt to provide escapism, either in the form of a story (true or not) or in the form of suggested behavior. I would argue vehemently that this is a very short-sighted view of books in general, but I’ll come back to that. More importantly, some suggest that the solution is to be meta – that is, to step back and realize the situation, the desired escapism, and the cause of it all, and to address the system in its complexity, instead of trying to simplify it.

And with that, I disagree.

In part, it’s because I think there is more to books than mere escapism. There is Truth in books (or at least, in some books). They address the human condition, not by pointing out how complex it is (because everyone who has lived already knows that), but by showing us who we are and how we act, and questioning whether we should act the way we do. All without being “meta.”

Really, I think I object to this because being meta is no different. If your mindset/belief system is that all books are escapism of some sort, some kind of diversion or entertainment, then so is being meta. Stepping back and examining the complexity of the system does not, in and of itself, make it more feasible to operate within the system. It simply diverts your attention from the hardship of your situation by letting you say, “Look how complex this whole system is! No wonder I have so much trouble.” Given enough time, it will fail as completely as any other diversion, any entertainment, any behavioral pattern, in an attempt to better yourself.

People tend to enjoy being meta because they think it expands their minds. They think it makes them wise to acknowledge how small they are. They think that acting like Socrates is somehow original or productive. They watch a movie like “Inception” and they walk out thinking that they’re smarter than they were going into it, that they gained something by being confused, tricked, and manipulated.

There is an inherent assumption that looking at the universe reveals the face of God. That may or may not be true. But looking at the “big picture” is not the only way to look at the universe. There is at least as much to be learned by examining a single cog as by examining the whole clock – and verily, I doubt that examining the clock would serve you at all to understand it if you knew nothing of its cogs.

Is it possible to look at a complex system and address it as such? Yes. Is it helpful to step back and examine it as a whole, instead of cutting out variables that aren’t really staying equal? Yes. Is there a deeper solution to the human condition than a set of behavioral patterns and delightful diversions? Yes.

Does doing those things, and then saying that you’ve done them, make you superior to those who do them implicitly, subtly, and without comment? No.

I don’t like being meta because people who are meta tend to spend all their time focusing on being meta without providing any actual solutions to actual problems. So, paraphrasing Jeff Winger, “Stop taking everything we do and shoving it up its own ass.” Sometimes, attempting to improve the human condition is more important than pointing out that the human condition is in a bad way.

Jimmy Carter & the Religious Oppression of Women

Written by Versor on January 23, 2013 · 1 Comment

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter recently wrote an opinion piece characterizing his frustration with the religious establishment (Christian and otherwise) regarding the fair (or rather, unfair) treatment of women in society. I have quoted that article here, with no modifications, so you can read it before I begin.

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

Advertisement

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices – as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy – and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: “The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world’s major faiths share.

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place – and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence – than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

OBSERVER

Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.

Read more: https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html#ixzz2Im6CF8eP

Let me start with what the former President got right.

The cessation of abuse. Any continent, country, state, county, city, suburb, community, or household which perpetuates the abuse–physical, sexual, verbal, mental, social, or spiritual–of women should cease and desist immediately. This includes things which the former President mentioned in his article: genital mutilation, rape, restriction of basic health care to save lives, slavery, and human trafficking. It also includes things that the former President did not mention: sex-selective abortions (most often used to eliminate female children), for example. But I digress.
Equal education. I think you would be hard-pressed to provide evidence of unequal education for women in these United States, a nation in which the disparity between higher-educated men and women greatly favors the female sex, even when it comes to disparity of success within an institution. But certainly unequal education for women happens in other countries, and in those countries, it should be stopped.
Equal employment. I think women ought to be offered equal employment and equal consideration for employment in any secular job or career, provided that they have equal qualifications, experience, and ability in every respect. If this equality is not already happening in this country, then it should.
Equal pay. I think women ought to be offered equal benefits, both financial and otherwise, for an equal position… again, provided that they have equal qualifications, experience, ability, and performance in that position.

Now, let us examine several of former President Carter’s other points, and see how he is… inaccurate.

He has a frail grasp of ecclesiastical history. Notably, he claims that women served as priests and bishops. (Their service as Romans 16" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016&version=NASB" target="_blank">deacons, apostles, Acts 18" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2018&version=NASB" target="_blank">teachers, and Acts 21" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21&version=NASB" target="_blank">prophets is documented well enough, although I should note that the modern definition of “deacon” is altered slightly from “fellow worker” or “servant of the LORD,” as determined by 1 Timothy 3" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NASB" target="_blank">the writings of Paul to Timothy.) In the early Church, women would never have had positions of high authority, such as priests, and especially not as bishops (the “overseers” mentioned in the above-linked letter to Timothy). Furthermore, if they did have such positions, (1) why were they not present in those offices by the 4th century, when President Carter suggests that an exclusive group of men twisted Scripture to serve themselves and subject women, and (2) why would Paul’s very obvious requirements for the office of bishop need to be “twisted” in this case? Regardless, President Carter neither understands the Church in the Book of Acts, nor the Church of the 4th century, nor the concerns and goals of either.
He makes a fallacious equivocation. President Carter does not declare it outright, but he suggests that a lack of free contraceptives and abortion is roughly equivalent to subjugating women to strict modesty laws, genital mutilation, unprosecuted rape, and more. He writes, “At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.” I must give him credit: he does not say that they are outright equal violations, but he does say that they are along the same continuum, the same spectrum, and are caused by the same belief. The implication is, of course, that if we do not pay for birth control, we may as well rape, abuse, and enslave women, because the only difference is time.
He does not understand the difference between “authoritatively subordinate” and “objectively inferior.” He does not hesitate to declare this; any suggestion that women are subordinate to the authority of their husbands, as well as to the male authority in the Church (pastor, priest, bishop, patriarch, pope), is to claim them as inferior, less than human, and roughly equivalent to property. This is simply untrue. Jesus, Mark 14" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14&version=NASB" target="_blank">the Christ, John 3" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=NASB" target="_blank">the only begotten Son of God, John 1" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=NASB" target="_blank">humbled Himself to become flesh, Matthew 26" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26&version=NASB" target="_blank">submitted Himself Mark 14" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14&version=NASB" target="_blank">to the will Luke 22" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=NASB" target="_blank">of God, Matthew 27" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NASB" target="_blank">even Mark 15" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+15&version=NASB" target="_blank">unto Luke 23" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+23&version=NASB" target="_blank">death John 19" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=NASB" target="_blank">on a cross. He certainly submitted to the authority of God the Father, making Him authoritatively subordinate. But John 5" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5&version=NASB" target="_blank">we know that He is not unequal with the Father, but rather Philippians 2" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2&version=NASB" target="_blank">He is equal. So he cannot be objectively inferior. And how is this relationship–subordinate but equal–classified? 1 Corinthians 11" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+11&version=NASB" target="_blank">Exactly as the relationship between man and woman.
President Carter thinks school-based education is better for society than home-based education. This is a minor point, but if an educated woman betters society by sending her children to school, why is it that this notion does not line up with education statistics? Unless, of course, the “betterment of society” is not caused by a stronger, more thorough education. Which makes very little sense, in context.

Feel free to disagree with me and my analysis, but unlike President Carter has suggested, I did not pick and choose my verses, but provided them in context for you to peruse at your leisure–not to mention that Bibles are widely available in almost every bookstore, and can be found for free in hotel dresser-drawers throughout the nation, as well as in apps for smart phones, and online. Finding the context is easy enough.

To be honest, that President Carter holds this position is no surprise to me, and in the long run, it is of little consequence. The Jimmy Carter presidency is widely regarded, by Republicans and Democrats alike, as one of the worst presidencies in recent memory. Its most memorable moment may have involved a swamp rabbit.

What is, perhaps, most surprising about this entire article… is that it was published in an Australian newspaper. How weird is that?

Foundation Compilation

Written by Versor on January 16, 2013 · Leave a Comment

Foundation by Isaac Asimov

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Asimov’s work is excellent, as always. He has the ability to condense important information into a small space, to introduce characters quickly and efficiently, to present scientific concepts with ease, and to lead the reader on whatever twists and turns he wishes. This makes one of his most famous books entertaining, at least, and delightful, at best.

There is not much I can say about the skill with which he writes this book. But I will mention why I downgraded the book from five stars to four.

First, the structure. In his style, he writes in sections, which separate the book nicely – but seeing as I complained about the chapter enumeration in McDevitt’s work, and that enumeration is almost identical here, it would be incongruous for me not to mention my displeasure with it in this case. On the other hand, Asimov’s publisher, whether it was a modern choice or not, has done a good job of making the pages clean and the chapter breaks clear, whereas McDevitt’s pages seemed cluttered, and the chapter breaks random.

The second issue was something brought to my attention by an old associate. Now, let me preface this by noting that I have no problem with authors trying to convey important messages through their work; if they don’t, there’s not a whole lot of point to the work to begin with. An author has to talk about the human experience, or political problems, or religious questions, or philosophy, or history, or something, anything, other than “Bob and Sally had an adventure.” It only makes sense.

But with that being said, it can get a little… overbearing. In “Foundation,” the overbearing part is the pacifism. “Violence is the last resort of the incompetent,” characters quip throughout the book. Every crisis, every situation, every challenge is resolved with completely non-violent means (or at least, no means involving direct violence; starting a kingdom-wide religious riot probably resulted in a little bit of violence). In fact, the whole point of the book is not the cleverness of psychohistory (which was heavily involved in “Prelude to Foundation”), nor is it technology, or even really the challenges of rescuing knowledge and science as civilization devolves at the end of an era. It’s mostly about how peaceful means are more effective than violent means – inventing religions, manipulating economies, and playing politics are all more ethical behavior than fighting a war (even defensively).

What was most frustrating was that the last two sections of the book proved this to me. The penultimate section did not even deal with a Seldon crisis; its only purpose was to lay the groundwork for the final section (i.e., “There are traders, and they trade stuff.”). And the final section does not bring us full circle to the first section of the book; it does not connect back with Seldon’s initial appearance; and it does not close an overarching story from beginning to end. It does bring us back to the Empire, but only as an unexpected twist. One of the defining characteristics of Seldon crises is the appearance of Seldon with sage advice, which did not occur in the final section of the book.

In short, the reason I downgraded this otherwise-excellent book from five stars to four is that it struck me, not as a cohesive unit with constant theme and strong message, but as a collection of short stories, each of which tried to say, “Peaceful coercion is better than violent coercion, even if the peaceful behavior is traditionally unethical.”

View all my reviews