@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/15/08 -- Vol. 26, No. 33, Whole Number 1480
Table of Contents
Super-Inflation (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
Studying cosmology really blows my mind. We were watching a program about the Big Bang and about the early life of the universe. Just to boggle Evelyn's mind I explained to her that before the Super-Inflation a billion billion billion people could have lunch for less than a penny. That is pretty impressive all by itself, right? But we are talking soup, dessert, *and* a trip to the all-you-can-eat salad bar. [-mrl]
Call Me Kiva (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
Let us suppose you are a farmer in Botswana. You have a very small farm with some animals. You could live very nicely if you bred the animals you had and made a bigger farm. There is a problem, however. You get your water from a river that is a mile away. You carry it by hand. You cannot carry enough water for the animals you have now. How can you make your farm bigger? It is too far to dig an irrigation ditch. There is one thing you can do. You could dig a well. Some of your neighbors have wells and the water is down there. So you have a chance. But there is one problem. Digging a well would cost about $100. You don't have $100. If you could get a loan there is a good chance that you could pay back $100 with a bigger farm. So you are all set. But not really. There is a local bank that will lend you the $100. But you will have to pay them back $135. Or they will take your farm. That makes it a big risk. A bigger farm will be more profitable, but $135 is a lot for you to agree to pay back. It is a little scary. Also your neighbor's brother would be glad to lend you $100. Him you would have to pay back $400. No, that is not what you want to do either.
Instead, the banker tells you he will help you get a loan through the computer. If you go to http://www.kiva.org, you can apply for a loan there. You tell them who you are, what you want the money for, and get your picture taken to put on the Web. You probably could get a loan and you will have to pay back after a year $100. That's right. You have to pay back the same amount that you borrowed. This is a no-interest loan. But there is a catch. You also have to come to the computer periodically and report how your newly enlarged farm is doing. That is not so bad. It does not cost you anything. It is easy enough. But who is Kiva and why are they willing to lend you the money free of charge?
Well, that is a question I am prepared to answer. I am Kiva. I am lending you the money because I would like you to succeed, and I do want to read your reports. Kiva is not my real name, of course. My real name is Mark Leeper, and I live in a faraway place called Old Bridge, New Jersey. And I really am a swell guy. I think you have enough problems without me charging you interest. And I want the world to be a better place.
But how does all this work? How did I find out about you and
your farm? I went to the same website you did,
Of course there is always the possibility that your farm will
fail--by the way, are you still the farmer from Botswana?--and
you may not be able to pay back the money. Well in that case I
guess I will be out $100. What is Kiva's default rate? That
seems controversial. Someone claimed that Kiva's default rate is
less than 1%. So I am going into this with a mathematical
expectation of losing one dollar. Kiva says that their repayment
rate is closer to 99.85% so my expectation is more like losing 15
cents. But there may be inflation loses the way the dollar is
doing these days. I think I can risk that.
This whole idea is part of micro-finance. It is a new idea not
to lend millions or billions to governments to distribute to the
people fairly and honestly and with pure hearts. Believe it or
don't some people in government are less than totally honest.
That is how the United States government has to do it, giving
money to foreign government because they really cannot just give
the money to farmers in Botswana. The US Government probably
does not even know any farmers Botswana to give the money to.
This is a system to use the Internet to connect people like this
Mark Leeper guy (and what a guy he is!!!) to people who really
are farmers in Botswana.
I know what you are thinking. Yes, the terminology is a little
bothersome. If I loan $100, someone is calling that a "micro-
loan". It doesn't feel very micro to me. A loan of twelve
million dollars is called a "loan". I would say a loan of $100
is a loan while the twelve million dollars is a "humungoid loan".
But I swallow my pride. This is international finance.
By the way the government and the IRS does not consider this a
charity because you get our money back in the end. (It is like
with the carts at some grocery stores. Don't try claiming those
quarters either as an expense on your taxes.) I don't think
there is any tax advantage. Still, it is my kind of charity.
Nobody makes any money off of operating expenses. Nobody uses it
to save anybody's souls. Nobody buys any votes with it. It is
all payload. I loan $100 and the person gets $100. And I get to
see who is getting helped. I can even exchange email with the
borrowers who have to let you know who they are. You lenders
don't have to let them know who you are. You can be anonymous
like Lamont Cranston or John Beresford Tipton if you want. (Gad.
Whatever happened to John Beresford Tipton?) And if you don't
want to be anonymous let me know you lent someone in the Third
World some money and I will publish your name in the MT VOID.
Right now I plan to put in another couple of hundred and just not
take it out. I probably will make a bunch of $25 loans and as
the money gets repaid I will just keep re-loaning it out. I will
just keep the ball rolling.
By the way, the case history above is purely fiction. Those of
you who know me probably know I lied. I'm not loaning any money
at all to any farmers in Botswana. I just made that part up. I
don't even know any farmers in Botswana. I just did not want to
admit that I had just loaned $100 to a consortium of ladies in
Uganda to set up a vegetable stand and to buy chicken feed.
Well, now you know the truth.
This is a very different and new idea for how to help the Third
World. If you want to know more:
This is NBC's John Larson who made up a small video about his
interest in Kiva. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= FrLTM49Sjy4
This is the founders talking about how they came to found the
website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA4Fi11ycM
This is PBS's Frontline and their feature on Kiva
http://tinyurl.com/2jxbfp
(By the way, Evelyn too is a great guy or girl or person. This
is our nest egg I am using.) [-mrl]
THE ULTIMATE EGOIST--VOLUME 1: THE COMPLETE STORIES OF
THEODORE STURGEON edited by Paul Williams (copyright 1994, North
Atlantic Books, 387pp, $18.95, ISBN 1-55643-182-1) (book review by
Joe Karpierz):
So, many years ago I was wandering through some bookstore or
another and chanced upon THE ULTIMATE EGOIST. I saw that it was
the first volume in a long series that would eventually print in
book form all of Sturgeon's short fiction. I said to myself
"well, I always wanted to read more Sturgeon than I have", and
picked it up.
Little did I know that the series would be up to eleven volumes
as I write this review. I guess I'll end up reading more
Sturgeon than I ever have before. It seems there's a lot to look
forward to.
As most SF fans know, Theodore Sturgeon was one of the giants of
our field. He started his writing career back in the late 1930s
and early 1940s, writing spec pieces for the McClure Newspaper
Syndicate. His first known published story, "Heavy Insurance",
was published on July 16, 1938, and is included in this volume.
Most of his early stories were written to spec, and some drew
heavily on his experience as a seaman. Most of the stories
included in this volume are not of the genre; however, it is
clear that when he did write and publish SF, fantasy, and horror,
that those were his best works.
It's tough to talk about all the stories in this book--most of
them are non-descript, not very interesting, and obscure. They
are the works of an early writer; I couldn't possibly say
anything like "you can see where Sturgeon was headed with his
later writings, as this story or that story shows how would be
later developing the kinds of ideas he would later write about",
or some such nonsense, because I've not read much Sturgeon and
thus don't know much of his famous work. I have a few Sturgeon
books in the house, but I read them so long ago that their
stories are lost in the mists of time.
What I *can* do, however, is comment on a few of the genre
stories that are included in this volume. "It" may be his most
famous story from the early days, a predecessor to the Swamp
Thing and other stories of that nature. It is quite chilling, at
least taken in the context of its day, and quite nicely done.
"Bianca's Hands" is another good early piece, and it seems to
come from the mind of a fairly deranged man; the reader doesn't
see where it's heading, and when it gets there the reader will
probably be quite taken aback. "A God in a Garden" may be his
first genre story that had any impact. The title story may be
quite predictable in the end, but it is well done, telling the
story of a man who has such an ego he believes that if he thinks
something doesn't exist, it doesn't. There are two alien contact
stories of sorts, "Ether Breather" and "Butyl and the Breather"
(the latter of which is a sequel of the former), and they're just
okay.
I guess the thing about this book is that it is the beginning,
and for those who are curious about such things it will be
interesting. There is a nice section at the end called "Back
Words", which contain story notes about just about every story in
the volume.
If you're interested in Sturgeon's really early work, then by all
means find a copy of this book and read it. I suspect later
volumes in the collection will be much more interesting. [-jak]
Robert A. Heinlein, Political Documentaries, the Gulf of
Tonkin, and Eratosthenes (letter of comment by Taras Wolansky):
In response to the 02/08/08 issue of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky
writes:
I was taken aback by Joe Karpierz's confession that he is
familiar with Heinlein mostly in his years of decline, sans the
path-breaking stories and novels of the Forties and the thought-
provoking "juveniles" of the Fifties. Then again, I have run
into people who love the late Heinlein; I would defend JOB and TO
SAIL BEYOND THE SUNSET, myself.
The beginning of VARIABLE STAR is very Heinleinesque. Then,
around page 70 or so, it's like falling off a cliff: "You Are Now
Entering Robinson Country". I got disgusted and set the book
aside. I think Heinlein would have hated what Robinson did to
his manuscript.
By the way, it seems like some of the VARIABLE STAR manuscript
was recycled into Heinlein's 1957 CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY, in which
the protagonist becomes Rudbeck of Rudbeck instead of Conrad of
Conrad.
Quite right, "the political left is holding the high ground in
political documentaries". Conservative documentaries are made,
but they can't get distribution. In 2004, for example, the anti-
Bush documentary, FAHRENHEIT 9/11, played in over a thousand
theaters; but look at the s**tstorm that erupted when an anti-
Kerry documentary was scheduled to be aired on a few dozen TV
stations: http://tinyurl.com/4g4su
At best, even an honest documentary deals in anecdotal evidence.
For example, even though soldiers tend to be markedly
conservative in their political orientation, there are enough
left-wing soldiers to fill hundreds of documentaries.
It's untrue that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident "is now generally
acknowledged to have not involved Vietnamese participation at
all." I had always vaguely believed it was some kind of a hoax
when, a few years back, I was surprised to see a left-wing
academic in the New York Review of Books call it a "provocation".
According to Wikipedia, an American intelligence ship 28 miles
off the North Vietnamese coast (thus, 23 miles out of North
Vietnamese territorial waters as defined by North Vietnam) was
approached by three NV torpedo patrol boats. The Americans fired
some warning shots; the NV returned some non-warning shots; not
much damage on either side.
Finally, the discussion of Eratosthenes powerfully recalled to my
mind Carl Sagan walking through the cool, green-marbled halls of
the Library of Alexandria, browsing a few of the hundreds of
thousands of books forever lost to us. [-tw]
Mark responds:
I remember the incident you mention with the conservative
documentary. I would be less prone to call it an incident of
political bias as one in which bias was squelched.
Let me complete the story. Sinclair Broadcasting wanted to show
the documentary STOLEN HONOR from Red, White, and Blue
Productions. It was to be shown in October 2004 the month before
the national election. The film was essentially a diatribe
against John Kerry, timed to correspond with the Presidential
election.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0427901/
Sinclair Broadcasting wanted to show it, but also wanted to
provide equal time to counter the blatantly anti-Kerry message.
Kerry declined and Michael Moore offered for free to allow his
film FAHRENHEIT 9/11 be shown to balance the broadcast, but
Sinclair declined. Sinclair's own Washington Bureau Chief, Jon
Lieberman, condemned STOLEN HONOR saying, "It's biased political
propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election. For me,
it's not about right or left--it's about what's right or wrong in
news coverage this close to an election." Apparently Sinclair
did not like Lieberman expressing his opinion and fired him, but
then also cancelled the broadcast.
I would not call this incident as media bias, as you imply. It
was a question that Sinclair Broadcasting felt they could show
the documentary and not show obvious bias. But this incident
does not prove to me that conservative documentaries have any
distribution problems that liberal documentaries do not. I am
not sure that the road to release is any easier for liberal
documentaries. The difference seems to be one of production
quality and not political correctness. I would be as anxious to
see a conservative documentary as I was to see NO END IN SIGHT or
SICKO.
On the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, there seems to still be a lot of
controversy about what did happen. Perhaps I overstated the
consensus. [-mrl]
Medieval Knowledge (letter of comment by Steve Milton):
In response to the comments on Erathosthenes in the 02/08/08
issue of the MT VOID, Steve Milton writes:
If you want to get an idea of what was known or thought about by
a late 14th century Englishman, read the CANTERBURY TALES. For a
similar picture of an early 14th century Italian, read the DIVINE
COMEDY (which actually does have a few funny parts, although the
CANTERBURY TALES has a lot more)
In the CANTERBURY TALES ("The Monk's Tale") there is a reference
to sound travelling in waves. Also, "The Squire's Tale" could be
classified as science fiction. It involves a Mongol (member of
the Golden Horde, based upon the reference to the capital of
Serai which was near Volgagrad) who somehow came into possession
of a giant flying horse which is controlled by shifting levers.
In the DIVINE COMEDY ("Inferno") there is an explanation of
gravity reversing direction when you pass through the center of
the earth (which is where the Devil hangs out). In the
"Purgatory", there is a short discussion of evolution (presented
as devolution) where the great variety of flora and fauna in the
world is presented as mutation from the perfect living things
present in the Garden of Eden. [-sm]
Mark responds, "In history as with politics there are the issues
of what did they know, when did they know about it, and who knew
about it. But in Columbus's day, the intelligentsia knew the
earth was round and why it left a round circle shadow on the moon
during an eclipse." [-mrl]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
The newly formed afternoon discussion group at the library chose
SECOND GLANCE by Jodi Picoult (ISBN-13 978-0-743-45451-3, ISBN-10
0-743-45451-0) for February. This is apparently popular with
discussion groups, since the trade paperback has thirteen
"questions and topics for discussion" at the back. And for me,
the assumptions behind these were far more interesting and
thought-provoking that the book itself. WARNING--spoilers ahead.
The first question says, in part, "In what ways does this title
help us to understand that this book is not only about revisiting
the past, but also exploring what we thought we knew, what we may
have been mistaken about, and how things look different in
hindsight?" While it is true that one might claim certain themes
are obvious in a book, this seems to be a bit too specific. It's
one thing to ask how a book is about perceptions, but this is
really leading the witness.
"Ethan [a nine-year-old child in the book] struggles with the
painful knowledge that he will probably die young. But despite
this fact, Ethan seems to be very well adjusted--he has a sense of
wisdom that certainly transcends his age." Yes, Ethan is a really
remarkable kid--but he is not real. He is a character that
Picoult wrote that way, so the real discussion point to me is
whether Ethan seems believable as a character. (I am reminded of
Robert A. Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS. The society in that novel
has flogging for traffic offenses and a variety of other societal
changes. When one character asks another whether these are a good
idea, the second says, well of course--the society works well,
doesn't it? Well, yes, but that is because Heinlein wrote it that
way.)
"Were you surprised to find this [the actual existence of the
Vermont eugenics project] out? As you were reading the book, did
you ever suspect that this was, indeed a chapter in Vermont's
history? How does it change your view of this story to know that
thirty-three states actually enacted sterilization laws?" This
to me is the key question: it tells me who the target audience is
(and is not). Clearly, the phrasing indicates that it is assumed
that the reader did not know about the Vermont eugenics project
or the sterilization laws, and probably thought Picoult made it
up until they read the author's note at the end.
HICKORY, DICKORY, DEATH (a.k.a. HICKORY, DICKORY, DOCK) by Agatha
Christie (ISBN-13 978-0-425-17546-0, ISBN-10 0-425-17546-4) is
one of the more egregiously racist Agatha Christie books. Having
the action take place in a hostel for foreign students makes it
easy, of course. Christie seems to dislike Greeks in particular,
this being just one of several novels of hers with unsavory or at
least some questionable Greek characters (e.g., THE MYSTERY OF
THE BLUE TRAIN; POIROT LOSES A CLIENT; ONE, TWO, BUCKLE MY SHOE).
[-ecl]
Go to my home page
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
With or without religion, good people can behave
well and bad people can do evil; but for good
people to do evil; - that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg