Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Ender's Game: Literary Analysis

Ender's Game is a science fiction novel by Orson Scott Card and is one of the very few books to win both Hugo and Nebula awards, science fiction's highest honors, for Best Novel. It is the story of child prodigy Ender Wiggin in 22nd century North Carolina, who lives with his distant parents, his dear sister Valentine, and his sadistic brother Peter. The novel opens movingly: “I've watched through his eyes, I've listened through his ears, and I tell you he's the one.” Humanity faces the threat of a technologically advanced alien civilization that has already attacked twice, and the Earth leadership desperately seeks a person with the skill and innate ability to lead Earth's forces to victory. In Ender Wiggin, they see that person. Colonel Graff, who says that unique first line, is the book's most mercurial character. A fat, slovenly bureaucrat in some respects, he possesses a keen military mind and a ruthless sense of what must be done to win final and ultimate victory in the war that humanity faces. It is his manipulation that turns Ender Wiggin into a precisely-tuned instrument of destruction, who in the end, is able to save humanity. The question Card leaves us with is: was it the right thing to do?

Early in the book, Peter Wiggin terrorizes his younger siblings, inflicting physical violence and even threatening to kill them. Peter is cruel and manipulative by nature, and this naturally led to his oppression of Ender and Valentine. He especially hates Ender because Peter was tested and rejected for Battle School while, at the outset of the book, Ender still wears his “monitor,” and is apparently destined for Battle School. After Ender leaves Earth to go to Battle School, the conflict continues to a lesser extent between Peter and Valentine. Peter draws Valentine into his scheme to gain power in the world. He and she pretend to be the ideologues Lock and Demosthenes. Locke's persona is reasoned and wise, while Demosthenes is inflammatory and indulges in demagoguery. They are meant to be perfect opposites. Peter takes Loke, Valentine writes Demosthenes. Essentially, they each are taking positions that conflict with their real beliefs. Through their close partnership, they begin to understand more about each other and Peter's animosity is curbed somewhat. However, Valentine knows that if Ender returns to Earth after his victory over the Buggers, Peter will use him to his own ends. She uses Demosthenes to assure that Ender can never return to Earth, and she leaves Earth on a colony ship to join him. So the conflict is resolved only when the aggressors are separated by lightyears.

The Human war with the Buggers is the overarching conflict in the story. The Buggers are a powerful alien race that attacked Earth twice sometime before the story began. They were repulsed by the space-fleets of Earth, but only because of the dumb luck of Mazer Rackham. Since the “second invasion,” humanity has concentrated its energies on preparing for a possible third invasion. Humanity is under a Hegemony and the IF (International Fleet) builds spaceships with ever-increasing speed and firepower. However, humans on earth believe that the fleet is massing in the solar system, when in fact each ship is sent to attack the Bugger home-worlds as soon as it is built and crewed. The IF has instituted the Battle School, an orbital base devoted to training prodigious children to be the leaders and commanders of the fleet en route to destroy the Buggers. Ender Wiggin is selected to attend Battle School. He overcomes the trials of battle school and is sent to Command School. There he is trained by Mazer Rackham himself, and begins to practice using the “Simulator,” a virtual command interface. He is aided by his “jeesh,” his friends and allies from Battle School. Unbeknownst to him, the battle “simulations” are actually the real battles against the Buggers. He wins most of them handily. On the final trial, however, he decides to use his weapons against the Bugger planet itself, employing a suicidal strategy. He is succesful, and the planet is destroyed, along with nearly all his forces. Rackham reveals to him that he just fought the real battle and has defeated and destroyed the Buggers.

Before Ender enters battle school, Stilson, a boy at school, terrorizes him for being a “Third”--a third child born to his parents under a special dispensation, at a time when there are strict population controls placed on the population. One day Ender's “monitor,” a device the IF uses to observe him and decide his fitness for Battle School, is removed. Stilson, seeing that Ender is now unmonitored by watchful adults, approaches him with a group of cohorts planning to cause pain. Ender determines that he must take the gloves off. He thinks that only a complete victory would dissuade the bullies from further attacks. When Stilson attacks him, Ender's response is swift and very painful. Stilson is vanquished and, the author implies, actually dies. Later, at battle school, Ender makes an enemy of Bonzo Madrid, a much older boy who commands Ender's army. Bonzo treats Ender nastily, and Ender embarrasses him by defying his orders to never fire his weapon, and firing critical shots that win a battle with another army. Ender is later transferred to another army and has further scuffles with Bonzo. Their conflict culminates when Bonzo confronts Ender in the showers. Ender decides that, as before, a direct confrontation is necessary. He destroys Bonzo, later finding out that he killed him as well.

All the conflicts in the book are set against the backdrop of humanity's protracted war with the Buggers, which forms the overarching story line. The first lesser conflict is Peter Wiggin's infliction of pain on his younger siblings. Ending this conflict becomes a major motivation for Ender and Valentine. Ender's fight with Stilson is his final test, and the moment in the book when he is most defenseless. It is his response here that finally tells Colonel Graff, the commander of Battle School, that Ender is strong enough to lead. As Ender goes through Battle School and proves his stellar abilities, it is his seeming indispensability in the Bugger Wars that provokes Bonzo's hatred and jealousy. Before their last encounter, Ender's older friend Dink shouts, “Don't hurt him, Bonzo! We need him!” This only inflames Bonzo further, reminding him, as Card points out, that he is largely a nonentity to other people, while Ender is the perceived savior of humanity from the Buggers. In a sense, the antagonists Peter and Stilson and Bonzo were hindrances that prevented Ender from addressing the major conflict: the war with the Buggers.

Ender's time in the “simulator” at Command School is the climax of the story, specifically the final “test” set by his teacher Mazer Rackham: he must lead the human forces, outnumbered 1000 to 1, to victory against a massive Bugger fleet around their home planet. Prior to the battle, Mazer tells Ender that the upcoming battle will be the final simulation; if he wins, he will graduate from Command School. Ender is dismayed when he sees the enormity of the fleet he is tasked to destroy. He thinks it is an impossible cheat by Rackham, and decides that he will use all his forces in a near-suicidal attack on the Bugger planet itself. This mirrors an incident earlier in the book, Ender's last battle at Battle School, where Ender and Dragon Army beat not one but two armies in the battle room by using similar techniques. Ender's spiraling, unpredictable attack leads to grievous losses, but it also brings the awesome destructive power of Ender's weapons to bear on the Bugger planet. He destroys the planet. Ender thinks he has won by cheating, but the celebration of the observers sent to watch his final battle tells him otherwise. Finally, in the book's revelatory moment, Rackham reveals to him that he has just destroyed the Buggers—the “simulator” was no simulator at all. In fact, it was a tactical command center of the entire Earth space armada. He tells Ender that Earth needed a commander with the compassion to fully understand his enemy, but with the ruthlessness to destroy him. Ender had the compassion, but not the ruthlessness, and thus his true purpose was hidden from him. Ender concludes that a complete understanding of one's enemy will lead irrevocably to loving them. Ender's victory, then, is the climax of the story, though he did not know it at the time.

The questions Card leaves unanswered are uniformly intentional. Ender's Game is not a thrilling science fiction story, but rather a novel about the human condition and the consequences of thoughts and actions. Was Graff's manipulation of Ender justifiable? Was Ender's eventual act of destruction the right thing to do? Did the Buggers deserve to die? These are the questions Card leaves us with, and they are questions with answers that may make us rethink our preconceptions about human actions, the military mind, and the prospect of nonhuman intelligent life in the universe. Ender's Game, however, does not succeed because it is a great philosophical work. It succeeds because it is a novel that describes otherworldly events with a human heart. Like the best experiences in life, the events in Ender's Game do not just happen. They break down and change and build up the characters who experience them. In a world where fiction is so often idealized and unrealistic, Ender's Game is, conversely, a harshly realistic novel set in one possible future.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

In Which I Am Seduced by the Specter of a Corporate Image

To relate this tale, I must begin almost a year ago, when I decided that my 1 GB Creative Zen Nano was a completely inadequate MP3 player and should be replaced. (To be honest, this thought had been percolating for some time.) However, I was prejudiced against the best-selling MP3 player: the iPod. I thought its functions could be duplicated for much less money, though with much less panache, by a cheaper model. I leaned toward another Creative: my sticking point was WiFi access, and their wireless-enabled Zen X-Fi seemed attractive.

I was still weighing the pros and cons of the X-Fi when I learned from a friend that an acquaintance of his had a refurbished 8 GB Apple iPod Touch which he wanted to get rid of. I learned that said acquaintance found himself in deep debt only a week after purchasing the iPod (this upstanding citizen had to pay compensation for vandalism.) I impetuously traded one hundred and eighty of my moneys for this iPod, sight unseen. We exchanged check and iPod in front of my friend's house, while my friend's (wry) mother made some comment about drug deals.

I noted with dismay the heavily-scratched metal rear surface of the iPod. However, once I brought it home and plugged it in, it worked well and continues to do so today. There were a few small niggles: the WiFi works everywhere but here at home, the storage capacity now seems prohibitive, and the software hasn't been completely bug-free. Overall, however, I am very satisfied with my purchase, even though I paid sixty dollars more for this refurbished iPod than I would have for a new Zen X-Fi of the same storage capacity.

So you could call it accidental, my inculcation into the Cult of Apple. It was probably a few months afterward that I started lusting after a MacBook. (Clear your mind of any negative associations with the words "cult" and "lust." Most human technology is so heart-breakingly unreliable and pitifully mediocre that any adoration for and lust after these items is painfully short-lived, laughable, and undeserving of any association with the Seven Deadly Sins.) For the uninitiated, the MacBook is Apple's cheapest laptop. I wanted the aluminum one, which was two and a half pounds lighter than my beastly Acer, and approximately a third as thick. It was also more than twice as expensive.

I am not a fanatic. I will concede that looking at the MacBook next to its humbler HP step-cousins, I saw the discrepancies: for about 2/3 of the money, an HP laptop would have a much larger hard drive and more memory to work with. But (and it is a very large, even obese but) it would also come with Windows Vista, the worst iteration of the most maddening operating system from the most annoying company on the planet.

The twin-pronged question that filled my head was: Do the advantages of the Mac (no viruses, infinitely better operating system, instant good karma) outweigh the disadvantages (high price, mediocre raw stats, and being labeled as an artsy snob?)

Since I'm now blogging on my aluminum Macbook, you can see that I answered that question with a resounding "Yes!" and backed up that assertion with my pocketbook.

The answer to the question is, as I see it, simple. When one buys a Mac, one is buying a lifestyle. Apple must have the best corporate images and the most devotees of any company in the world. Their stock, I should mention, has more than doubled since the recession began. And the Mac lifestyle is not like the PC lifestyle. We can see this clearly from, if nothing else, Apple's completely insufferable "I'm a Mac" ads which feature young, hip, Mac-user Justin Long in tight jeans and Converse and bespectacled, doughy, PC-user John Hodgman in a brown suit.

Apple is a luxury brand, and any price-comparisons between Macs and PCs should reflect this. Even though an everyman's laptop might have more RAM and hard drive space than my MacBook for less money, a "luxury" PC like a Sony Vaio costs just as much as a Mac--and it still has Windows Vista.

An interesting note: since I bought my iPod and began to seriously consider purchasing an MacBook, this dilemma has been mere rationalization for me. I had already made up my mind, I was just trying to convince myself that it was more rational than emotional. It worked, I bought a MacBook. This would suggest that Apple lust grows with time, like the common or garden variety of lust. Once I saw the clean curves and mouthwatering functionality of an iPod, I was not satisfied until I laid my hands on the much larger graceful aluminum lines of the MacBook.

I am happy with my MacBook so far. In fact, I can't think of a single fault at the moment, although certainly a few will occur to me as I grow used to it. I have transferred my computing life to it almost seamlessly and I'm glad I did.

I was seduced by clean metal lines, Steve Jobs, aluminum, Snow Leopard, and the Myriad font.

I was seduced by the carefully projected image of a vast company, the holographic cover girl wrapped around the gigantic, ugly furnace of corporatism.

I am truly an American.




Friday, August 7, 2009

Two tidbits

My new favorite source for worldwide news is Foreign Policy magazine; especially two of its recent articles which challenge the conventional wisdom and strike me as wise--all too rare a quality. See what you make of them.

Myth #1: "Conditions in Africa are Medieval."

FP's response: read the whole, enlightening article here.

Myth #2: "Power is shifting from West to East." (America and Europe are losing power to Asia.)

FP's response: read the article here.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

E-books, the Kindle, and the future of the library

The modern lending library is a co-op of sorts. In my town, a group of literate people got together and decided that the town needed a library. They each contributed a few books, and these sparse tomes were housed in somebody's basement. New people joined, contributed their own books, and read others. The library grew. A hundred years hence, it is a collection of thousands of books in a sterile, white-walled, green-carpeted building with a staff of ten. What will it be in another century?

The printing press appears to be on its way out. Amazon's Kindle was introduced a few years ago, and quickly embraced by the literary elite. The Kindle, however, has massive flaws. Even after a price cut, the cheapest model is still $300. It uses E-ink technology which is expensive but, unlike an LED screen, is not backlit. The Kindle can only be stocked with ebooks from Amazon's Kindle store, which has about 300,000 titles--78,000 less than the amount of books published in the US and the UK in 2006. In other words, this is a tiny drop in the bucket of books that have been published even in the last decade, a tiny mote in the dust bunny the size of Hoover Dam that is the amount of books published since the invention of the printing press in approximately 1436.

Furthermore, a cursory glance of the "Kindle store" will reveal that, although most NYT bestsellers and many significant books are available, many of the bestselling books in history are not. The Harry Potter series, for example, which has sold half as many copies in 12 years as the Holy Qur'an has in its entire history, is absent.

The Kindle is undeniably groundbreaking, despite its flaws. Two competitors, Sony and Barnes & Noble (competing for the first time in their respective histories) have produced or shortly will produce e-readers, with larger libraries, lower prices, and less restrictions than Amazon's Kindle. The fact is, the printed book is no the way out, but I'm not willing to jump on board yet. I'm an admitted technophile, but every now and again staring at glowing rectangles gets old and I have to escape into what solace a printed book can offer. I do not look forward to the day when, to read the books I love, convenience will mandate that I leave my printed books behind.

I will miss going to Borders and browsing for hours. I will miss my job at the library, which will be made ineffably obsolete in the next half-century. I will miss the fresh, foresty, virginal smell of a new book, the crispness of its pages, and the salacious pleasure of reading it for the first time, and many times hereafter. I will miss the joy--yes, joy--of recommending a book to someone, lending them a ratty copy, and then basking in satisfaction when he or she loves it. With Card's Ender's Game, I did something very perilous. I recommended to someone a book I had not read myself. He read and loved it, I read and loved it. My brother read and loved it. By the end of it, I had read eight more books (the sequels) and no less than everyone in our school had read Ender's Game. With books made up of bytes instead of paper, this sort of sharing is not possible. No sensible publisher will relax DRM (Digital Rights Management) rules to allow customers to lend books to each other. Brick-and-mortar publishers can't dictate what customers do with their books after they buy them, but cyberspace-based ones can reach into your computer and delete anything and everything it wants to if you don't toe the line.

Don't take my word for it, though. Recently, Amazon remotely deleted copies of the Harry Potter series and Orwell's 1984 from customers' Kindles, and refunded them. The books had been placed on Amazon's Kindle store illegally, but even so: if they can do it for legitimate reasons, they can do it whenever they want. Barnes & Noble, however much it wants to, can't send ninjas to break into your house and take your copy of What to Expect When You're Expecting that you lent to a friend "in the family way."

There is a inherent difference between the version of the latest bestseller on Barnes & Noble's burgeoning shelves and the electronic one on Amazon's Kindle store. There are a finite number of copies of the paper version, and they cost a certain amount of money to make. There are an infinite number of copies of the Kindle version, as many as there is demand for and no more, and they cost an infitesimal amount to produce. This means that consumers pay less, that bookstores will never be overstocked, but it also undermines the entire thesis--and here I return, five paragraphs hence, to the subject of my first paragraph--of the modern lending library.

A public library is not a building or a collection of books, but a social contract between people saying, in effect: "We will each contribue x% of our income to fund this library, which will buy books and other materials, hire staff, and provide premises where we can all enjoy these items for free." That, at least, is how libraries started out. Now, they are publically funded and so taxpayers pay for their library whether they use it or not. A book that a library buys is put on the shelf, and patron after patron after patron can read it. Electronic books cannot be put on a shelf, and with DRM only one person can own them, not a consortium. A library could buy one e-book, someone could download and read it...and it would be "used up" and disappear into cyberspatial oblivion.

So, whither the library--or rather, will the library whither?

Not to act like an action film director, but to find out you'll have to wait till the sequel: "The Future of Libraries Redux," "The Future of Libraries is Back," "The Future of Libraries Reloaded," or "The Future of Libraries II." The title is still under consideration.

Till next time,

Sola Gratia

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Israel, Iran's Nukes, and Lots of Help from the Obama Administration

So, VP Joe Biden says it's okay for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. "We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they're existentially threatened," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "The Week" on Monday the 6th.

Joe might want to check back with his boss. Here's Obama, when asked one day later if his administration had given a "green light" for such an attack: "Absolutely not." The problem of Iranian nukes would be resolved, he said, through diplomatic channels.

Joe Biden is in the right of it. Israel is a sovereign nation and old enough to make its own decisions. Biden didn't really give them the "green light;" he acknowledged that they could do what they darn well pleased. Obama, on the other hand, says that the problem must be resolved through diplomatic channels. Iran, even under Ahmadinejad, isn't stupid enough to challenge the U.S. directly by bombing U.S. interests in Iraq or Afghanistan. If, God forbid, they do get the bomb--which Mossad chief Meir Dagan said might happen by 2014--then they may well attempt to wipe Israel off the map.

In other words, this doesn't affect the U.S. directly except insofar as it changes the political balance in the Middle East. I hope Israel won't do anything rash that might lead to a larger Middle-Eastern war, but here's the clincher: Iran stands virtually alone. The rest of the Muslim East is separated from them by ethnic, linguistic, and cultural barriers. Even ultra-conservative, ultra-Muslim Saudi Arabia has, after negotiations, reportedly allowed Israeli jets to fly over Saudi airspace in an attack on Iran. Even the Saudis don't want a nuclear Iran, and see what needs to be done. Why doesn't Obama?

This is all assuming that Khamenei's theocracy in Iran triumphs in Iran, and that his puppet Ahmadinejad isn't forced to give in. This may or may not happen. The shooting death of protester Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, caught on video and apparently perpetrated by Iranian security forces, has become iconic in the same way as the grainy footage of the lone protester in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square. A prominent group of Iranian Shi'ite clerics in the city of Qom have called the election invalid. We don't know what the future holds, but if Mousavi triumphs the whole question of attacking Iran might become moot. We can only hope.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Rain on the 4th

It's raining on the 4th of July.
Heavy clouds cover the leaden sky.
The ponds fill, the trees weep,
And water from my eaves does seep.

I cannot remember an instance or a time
When on the anniversary of that day sublime
-When the brave Founders threw off the yoke of a tyrant-
That the heavens saw fit to release such a torrent.

But I am still young, and can only remember a few
Fourths of July, out of two hundred thirty-three that have made their adieux.
Perhaps wind and rain have dampened the festivities
At many anniversaries of this, our nation's nativity.

The mood of the sky should not dull our celebration
Or, God forbid, turn it into sober lamentation.
Because even if the fireworks are sodden and the barbecue won't start
Those things are not what this Day is about, at its heart.

"Independence!" was the cry that on this day rang
When America had tasted enough of oppression's tang.
You will agree, I'm sure, that it wouldn't have made much sense
Had they cried instead, "Fireworks! Buy one and get one for 99 cents!"

The rain now ceases, the drops have stopped.
And in the east, blue sky the leaden cloud has cropped.
In fact, a ray of sun now sets ablaze
The crystalline drops that on the grass were glazed.

The fireworks now will soon commence.
Adding to the smoke of Dad's grill their heady incense.
But let us not forget, amidst the festive conflagration,
The fire that drove, impelled, and fueled this nation.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Friendship: An Incomplete Diagnosis

I spent last week at Patrick Henry College in Virginia, attending a journalism camp. I'll try not to be prolix. Suffice to say that it was amazing. In fact, I wish it lasted another week. I definitely learned a lot about journalism, but that, I think, was secondary.

For years, believe it or not, I tried to convince myself that I was an introvert. It's just not true. I am content alone, surely, but I could not stand extended periods without contact with my fellow man. This is reflected in the two times I took the Meyers-Briggs personality test. I took it first in the spring of 2008, and found that was an ISTJ. Frankly, I cheated. It's fairly easy to engineer tests like that, if they're straightforward, to show what you want them to show.

The second time I took it, I wasn't even aware that it was a personality test, per se. It was on some kind of job site, so I figured it was some sort of job suitability test. Not really knowing where the questions were leading, I didn't second-guess them. And so I got a different, probably more accurate result. I am now, apparently, an ESTJ. If you're familiar with the Meyers-Briggs test, you will know that the only difference between those two results is that in the first I stood for Introverted, and in the second E stood for Extroverted. So I either became an extrovert in the course of not more than a year, or I have been one all along.

People used to laugh when I insisted that I was an introvert. My teacher (an ESTJ) just shook her head mutely, smiling. Apparently it was obvious to everyone but me that I was an extrovert. Someone, put simply, who loves being around people, but more importantly just loves people.

Why bother analyzing my personality? Partly because this is my blog and I can do whatever I want, but mostly because I believe it explains why I enjoyed camp so much. The learning was great, the counselors were wise beyond their years, and fun. But the people--the people! Call me a hopeless romantic, but I think that few things are worth more than friends. Of course I can't say much in that regard after knowing someone for only a week or two, but I think that some of the people I met at Patrick Henry might fall under that category.

Part of the Facebook-ization of our generation is that the term "friend" is devalued to mean people you met once and didn't hate. As it happens, I'm already "friends" on Facebook with most of the cool people I met at camp. Time will tell if those interesting, appealing people will become real friends of mine. I suspect that some will and some won't, because that's the way the life is: rarely as amazing as our wildest dreams, or as awful as our worst nightmares.

Since returning from camp, two people have told me that they enjoyed camp at first but now dislike it in varying degrees. The primary reason? It doesn't build lasting friendships. "I hate camp," said one. "Why is it fun to be placed in a strange environment where you don't know anyone? And how are you supposed to make 'lasting' friendships with people in 1 week!?"

My friend has a point. Friendship is built in person. Facebook can connect people, as it has connected a large majority of the people I knew at camp. But it is not a magic potion. It cannot nurture the conditions in which lasting friendship arises. That is up to the people themselves. If a friendship was not rooted and growing before it was "Facebooked," chances are it just won't last. So the question remains: Did the people I met at camp never pass beyond the level of acquaintance, or did they, by virtue of time and work and laughter shared, become true friends?

To use a journalistic simile, was my relationship with each of these people like a hard news story, with a great lede and nut graf that then fades into "details in descending order of importance?" Or was it a feature story, where the facts are laid out in a story with a coherent structure and a firm conclusion, that can last for pages in a newspaper--or even a lifetime? If the former, I suspect whatever connection we had will simply...fade away. If the latter, perhaps God has a plan with more scope for our friendships.

Several times during the process of writing this post, I've considered just deleting it and starting over. I was originally just going to write a dry summary of what happened at camp. This isn't it. I suspect that if you care about what I did at camp, I've already bored you with the details. And I've put too much time into this to delete it now, so here it is. I'll be honest: I don't know why I chose to write about friendship. It's just been on my mind lately. When it all comes down to it, there are more important things than politics and journalism and computers, my usual topics, and friendship is one of them.

I'll leave you with two quotes about the nature of friendship. You may decide which you agree with, and if you're feeling Freudian, which one you think I believe is true.

"Friends, in my experience, are like ladies' fashions. They come and go with the seasons, and are rarely of such stout stuff as bears repeated wearing." --Stephanie Barron

"Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods." --Aristotle

~Moses


Monday, June 15, 2009

It is more important to serve God and to save your soul than to see your political party take power.

I have talked before about the fundamental disconnect between Christianity and the United States, and the failure of some Christians and some conservatives to see the difference between the two. There are people, including some of my friends and relatives, who believe that being a conservative Republican is just as important as being a Christian, that tax hikes are as detestable as gay clergymen. Rod Dreher has a phenomenal post about this, stating in much better language than I could ever manage, why this is a blatantly wrong, and indeed dangerous, belief.

I urge you all to read the entire piece, but I'll excerpt the choicest bits below. Rod Dreher, as most of you know, is my favorite blogger and political philosopher or all time. He usually makes good sense and unlike most pundits, he writes from a purely Christian perspective rather than a conservative-Christian one. Here, he shines.

If you read my book, you may recall my telling the story of sitting in a wine bar in Dallas one fine afternoon, engaging in conversation with some older liberals. They were nice enough, but at one point, started talking about how much good would be done in the world if a terrorist drove a truck bomb into Prestonwood Baptist Church. They were joking, in a way, but they also weren't. It was clear from the context of the conversation that they didn't really want to see a truck bomb driven into the church (just as conservative magazine editors don't really think Obama is a left-wing Nazi), but deep down, they derive a certain primitive emotional satisfaction in thinking of their opponents as being unredeemably bad. Worse, even, than it is reasonable to think that they are. Where does that lead? Among other places, it leads to the loss of our own souls.

Now, I don't mean to be read as saying that we cannot say the truth because the truth could hurt someone. I don't know how else to describe late-term abortion except in maximalist terms. If the dismemberment of an unborn child inside her mother's womb --as the abortionist LeRoy Carhart describes his own his own work here -- is not evil, then what is? Farther up the spectrum, the refusal of some media outlets to report on Islamic extremism, or to mention the color of an at-large crime suspect's skin, on the theory that releasing that important and relevant information might lead some people to illogical and anti-social conclusions, is plainly rubbish. The trick is to work hard to think through our own biases and emotions, and always to keep watch on our own minds, tongues and consciences, so that we speak the truth that is, not the truth that suits us emotionally, or that suits the people who buy what we're selling.

This is not a phenomenon exclusively of the right, or the left. It's the way it is with us human beings, especially when we live in an emotivist culture driven by a news media that profits from reducing every issue to a clash of irreconcilable opposites. It seems that if you are the sort of person who looks for wisdom, enlightenment and guidance in public affairs, there are fewer and fewer places and people to which you can turn. It is useful to get that learned, so that you can more ardently seek out those worth listening to amid the meaningless partisan din.

It is more important to serve God and to save your soul than to see your political party take power.

Again, I urge you to read the whole article and watch the video clip (Eric Liddell's sermon from Chariots of Fire, quoting Isaiah 40).

This might be the last Mosings post for a week or two. I will be at a journalism camp at Patrick Henry College in Virginia from the 21st to the 27th of this month, and I don't know if I'll get any blogging done before or during. However, when I get back I'll be sure to blog about the experience, and if I'm motivated here are some posts you can expect from Mosings during the rest of the summer.

1. Urbanism vs. Agrarianism: which, if either, is more conducive to a productive, Christ-centered society.

2. Book Review: Patrick O'Brian's 20-volume Aubrey/Maturin series. I'm almost done!!

3. Small houses vs. big ones: Which make more harmonious, beautiful and useful homes?

Until the next post, Sola Gratia

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Why are European Right-wing parties cleaning up?

Anne Applebaum at Slate has an interesting article about Europe, and the stunning triumph of right-wing parties and defeat of left-wing parties in the recent elections for the European parliament. These are not national elections, but instead elections for the European Parliament, situated in Brussels, Belgium under the umbrella of the European Union. Applebaum says that the power that this parliament has quietly attained contrasts with the falling vote turn-out. The average turnout in the whole EU reached 43%, a substantial fall from the last European election. In Britain, which had a 35% turnout, the ruling Labour party had its worst electoral performance since 1910--when it was a dissolute fringe party. The anti-EU UKIP and BNP (UK Independence and British Nationalist parties, respectively) won victories, but overall it was a Tory landslide, and a reminder to the increasingly-feeble PM Gordon Brown that his turn is coming up. No less than five Cabinet ministers have quit in the last week.

Silvio Berlusconi's, Angela Merkel's, and Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing governments in Italy, Germany, and France both receieved positive reinforcement from the election, while the socialists in Spain, Britain, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and elsewhere were hammered.

Putting Labour on the Left and Berlusconi on the Right aside (Labour is embattled almost beyond belief, and Berlusconi controls much of the media in Italy...which helps in elections) the Right still won staggering victories. Why?

Applebaum doesn't say this explicitly, but it's clear that the right-wingers in Europe are different from those here. Fighting two wars, American conservatives have spent the last decade focused on national security, with trade-offs being made with personal liberty (the Patriot Act) and small government (Bush's deficits were almost as staggering as Obama's) while right-wingers in Europe have been free to concentrate on fighting socialist spending excesses. In short, Bush was quite liberal fiscally--Rush Limbaugh would agree with me on that--but unlike in Europe, the profligate spenders were replaced in November by new profligate spenders. As Daniel Hannan, MEP (Member of European Parliament) for South-east England, would say: "You can't borrow your way out of debt or spend your way out of a recession." The recent EU election results show that the Europeans, at any rate, have rejected the profligate spending of the Left-wing parties in favor of something more responsible. Hopefully America can follow their example before our country is as bankrupt as Brown's Britain.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Lazy Days of Summer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Am I Still a Red-Meat Conservative?

It's been oddly gray and cloudy the last two days, but I doubt it has much to do with Obama's pick to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Sonia Sotomayor (So-toe-my-YORE) is probably headed for easy confirmation, despite a rather average record on the bench and some troubling comments she has made. Apparently, 60% of her rulings on the Court of Appeals bench have been overturned by higher courts, which seems very high. However, I have no idea what the average is, so I can't tell you if that's a real minus. However, does it denote someone who should be on the nation's highest court, from which there is no appeal? I read an interesting piece with interviews with fellow judges, clerks, and lawyers who had argued cases in front of Sotomayor, and their verdict was not as positive as one would expect. She sometimes argues with lawyers, gives hasty opinions, and is nasty in general on the court. She does not seem to like hearing arguments she disagrees with. On the other hand, she has carefully-written, comprehensible, and precedent-based opinions, and by all accounts absolutely pwns the oral arguments.


Sotomayor has never heard an abortion-related case, and her views on abortion can only be assumed, which might cause the pro-choice partisans some anxiety. However, I ask you: a liberal (if not leftist) female judge of Puerto-Rican ancestry who grew up in a single-parent household after her father died in a Bronx public-housing project. What would you expect her view on abortion to be? I dare you to count the stereotypes in that last sentence, but as far as I know most of them are true. However, I guess the question that might make Planned Parenthood is: how much DOES she support abortion? Hillary Clinton has been moving distinctly rightwards on the issue, to the point of saying that the ideal number of abortions was zero, and that it was imperative that Americans unite to move toward that number. Sotomayor's religion is, to me, unknown, but I'd guess Catholic. Catholicism strictly forbids abortion, so who knows? 

The main bones that commentators have to pick with Sotomayor are several troubling comments she has made, in speeches and in print. For example, she wrote in an essay that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Rush Limbaugh called this "reverse racism." Rush, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism. Racism is racism, and this is rather bald-faced. Politico has an interesting discussion about this. Slate Magazine, however, says that in the context of the rest of the speech, Sotomayor was merely musing on how one's ethnic and family background affects your decision-making process. Still, it sounds like the remarks Larry Summers, the Dean of Harvard, made when he suggested that maybe, just maybe, there was a natural gap between men and women in scientific and mathematical achievement. He was fired in disgrace, but Sotomayor is a Hispanic woman so obviously she's entitled to say things like that. Uh-huh. 

Her other, more telling boo-boo:



This is more distressing. You may say: Well, what's wrong with that? That's because the courts have moved very far away from their original Constitutional mandate of interpreting the law, and truly more liberal courts have been doing so for years: that's how abortion and gay marriage became legal. Clearly, Sotomayor is of this school. Frankly, I have great contempt for them, just as I hate historical and Biblical revisionists who try to fog the truth to further their own agenda. 

Most commentators think Sotomayor is headed for a fairly easy confirmation, because the Republicans are a minority huddling behind the last stockade with their tails between their legs and because she didn't shoot anyone and is a woman. 

-- 

It's summer! And this day, the second day of work on this post and the third of summer vacation, has been absolutely gorgeous; balmy and warm and delightful. I love it. I'm really not bored: I've been playing computer games, reading, and mindlessly web-surfing. It's the reading part I get the most pleasure out of, however. I'm on Book 15 of a 20 book series, as most of you know: the Master and Commander series ( also known as the Aubreyad), which is simply delightful. 

--

I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh, and frankly, I still think he makes sense. However, during the waning years of the Bush administration and especially since I read Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher, I've moved away from the part of conservatism that he represents. I know longer find "Liberal hunting permits" and jokes about Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein) all that funny. This is slightly awkward since my dad (and, it must be confessed, most of the people with whom I discuss politics) are rabid Republicans. Have I moved to "the Left?" Absolutely not! It would still take a huge amount of soul-searching to get me to vote for a Democratic candidate even if he/she mirrored my views more closely than a Republican one. I think, instead, that I've moved from a booyah, America-worshipping, give-'em-both-barrels self-congratulatory unthinking set of beliefs to something deeper. I now believe that the modern Republican party is not the voice of true conservatism, and that capitalism has been mistaken for conservatism for many voters. Some Republican policies now seem absurd to me, like corporation-cozy government regulations that hurt small businesses, resistance to tax not because the government should be smaller and less thirsty but because we should have more money, and opposition to birth control (don't get me started on this: frankly, my view is that if a condom prevents an abortion, then go for it. Sexual immorality only wounds. Abortion is murder.) 

I think this move away from Rush Limbaugh (I still enjoy listening to him) has parallelled my move toward a deeper faith: at some point, one realizes that some Republican policies are as greedy and worshipful of Mammon as some Democratic policies are depraved and worshipful of the body. Both extremes distract from Christ, and so both are hindrances on our journeys toward Him. To many Americans, country and Christ go hand in hand. They need to remember that America is not the world's panacea, and that in the end it will pass away and anyone who was deluded into thinking that America-worship and Christ-worship are the same thing will be, to use a singularly American crudity, caught with their pants down. 

I don't know why I hid that confession (not, indeed a confession of wrong. More along the lines of St. Augustine's Confession: a confession of truth) at the end of this post, but I did. I hope everyone is having a great summer.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Revelling in Revelations

The Dokime Academy class New Testament Survey, in which we read, discussed, and were tested on every book in the latter part of the Bible, is finished as of today. Today, the students took the final test on the book of Revelations. 


I am ashamed to say that our discussion of Revelations was the first time I had studied it carefully, and what an amazing book I found it to be! The fantastic imagery, the science-fiction plot, and the dripping symbolism were zapped into sharp relief by the fact that everything in that book is going to happen.

So, as a science-fiction fan, I admit that Revelations is the best science-fiction work of all time, and the only true one. I had to fight, while I was reading the book, the urge to conceive of every development as a plot twist in some Passion of the Christ-like epic--which I planned, in my arrogance, on developing. However, the story is a scriptwriter's nightmare and, well, there's a rather large and devoted fan base out there who might take issue with me if I made a sub-par movie out of it. And any movie, made by fallen human hands, would be sub-par, even based on such literally divine material. I can imagine the headlines "MASSIVE BUDGET OVERRUNS AS BRATRUD TRIES TO ADAPT REVELATIONS." It sounds almost as probable as "MAN SUFFERS REPETITIVE STRESS INJURY WHILE DRAINING OCEAN WITH THIMBLE." 

All in all, I think I'll leave the book alone. I'd never get studio backing, and it just wouldn't work as an Indie flick. Plus, what would be the point? We will all experience this story. We will all live it out. Because it is the conclusion, the massive summer blockbuster conclusion, to a sixty-six book series with billions of ardent fans through the centuries. A series that tells a story that defines everything about who we are, where we live, and where we're going. 

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Five Most Interesting Sites on teh Interwebz

I spend a ridiculous time trolling around the Internet. Most of it, however, is spent in a fairly small pool of sites. My most visited sites, according to my web browser, are: Facebook, CNN, YouTube, Slate Magazine, Yahoo Mail, icanhascheezburger.com, the Drudge Report, Project Playlist, and the web-comic XKCD, which lately replaced TIME Magazine. This reveals some interesting things about me: I read Slate more than I check my email. I think some of this is due to the fact that I really don't get that many emails, and another part is due to the fact that Yahoo Mail refuses to remain logged in for me; every time I close the tab, it logs out. Not to mention that Slate is almost infinitely interesting despite the obtuse leftward slant. I am, apparently, a news junkie. 


But the sites I visit most are not necessarily the most interesting. So, without further ado, Sola Gratia's Five Most Interesting Websites. Disclaimer: these all have little or no user-generated content. Thus, YouTube and Facebook are ruled out.

 5. The Gawker family of sites. 

Gawker itself is actually rather dull: a collection of wacky and sometimes idiotic artists and their workings. Jezebel is a mere celeb-gossip site, Kotaku is a geeky, quirky, video game site, and Deadspin is a lame sports site. So, half of these eight related sites are boring. However, the other four make up for them with interest. i09 is a science-fiction blog, more devoted to movies than books, but still interesting and probably the best place to check out endless galleries of promo pics from the upcoming, awesome-looking Star Trek movie.  Jalopnik is a unique site in my experience: a red-blooded car enthusiast site, but written from a techie, 21st century, Gen X perspective that I  find quite refreshing. Most car mags are written by middle-aged people who love high-buck performance cars and minivans and SUVs and crossovers. Jalopnik is written by impoverished twenty-somethings who like sporty subcompacts and smaller, more efficient cars. Nothing against Motor Trend, but I sympathize with the latter group. Gizmodo is a gadget website, full of the latest computers and hardware. The best place on the web to explore the netbook craze, or a huge new windmill being put up outside Hanover. Lifehacker, however, is the best. Everything from Windows 7 screenshots to reviews of the latest Ubuntu distro to Star Trek desktop icons. I love it. 


4. The Drudge Report. 

Matt Drudge's one-man-show is very bare and nineties, but conversely very slick. It has, I must admit, more news than CNN--and often scoops the larger organizations. This is the ultimate news junkie site, and the best place on the web to learn disturbing things like the rise of Conficker, the world's most sophisticated botnet (Windows users: check your Windows automatic update settings. If it's turned off and you didn't turn it off, you have this virus) or the disturbing story of a man who greeted President Obama in Mexico City and died a week later of swine flu. Icky, yeah, but also interesting and not on CNN yet. Thanks, Matt Drudge. 


3. Wikipedia

I'm fudging a little bit. Wikipedia is, in fact, somewhat user-generated. However, a vast majority of the content is written by dedicated Wikipedians and not ordinary joes like you or I. Sure, I have contributed a few small articles and removed some glaring faults, but I am largely an observer. An observer to what? Web history 1.0, Lesson 1. Along with profit-based giants like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, eBay, and etc., there are people on the web who have a more idealistic approach. The "open-source" phenomenon--freely accessible code, editable content, and few or no fees, began almost as soon as the web did, with Linus Torvalds' Linux program--which now has almost infinite varieties (like the rather cool but flawed Ubuntu linux OS I tried to install a few weeks ago.) Wikipedia is part of this phenomenon. Some people have serious fears about Wikipedia and its mob-rule approach to the encyclopedia, but I have found it to be staggeringly informative on subjects that people aren't very divided about. There is an absolute wealth of information on Wikipedia, and when taken with a grain of salt it can be infinitely interesting and--dare I say it--educational. It is so wickedly interesting and multifarious that I find myself drawn by those innocent little blue links from Hurricane Ismael to the Zimmerwald Conference in seven clicks of the mouse. Each article in between was vast, informative, and probably hotly contested in the backstage "talk" page where members fight it out about what should be included in a page about shipping containers, Vladimir Lenin, or a socialist conference in 1915. 


2. Free Rice

Donate rice to charity by testing your vocabulary: only in the web 2.0 world would such a thing be possible. Find the right definition of impecunious from four choices, and ten grains of rice will be donated to feed impoverished people around the world, supported by ad revenue. And not just vocabulary: FreeRice has English grammar, foreign language, famous art, chemistry, and mathematics sections. It's an infinite time-waster. Why? Because it's interesting.


1. Slate Magazine. 

Less liberal than the odious Daily Kos and Hufington Post, Slate is also much more interesting, fair-minded, and idealistic. Think of it as the New York Times, except with real journalism, big-name writers, and honest coverage. Sure, many of the articles are way too quirky for it to be a 100% serious web journal like Credenda/Agenda, but it is quite informative and relevant. For example, right now I could learn why Glenn Beck is the "hot new mob leader of 2009" in a shockingly biased but surprisingly affectionate article, or read an article about the widespread indignation after agents of a British tabloid offered $400,000 to buy the 8-year-old star of Slumdog Millionaire--and then made it into a huge news story when her parents didn't immediately say no, or read about the liberal hand-wringing item du jour--the Bush torture memos that Obama released. All in all, my favorite source for web editorials--and quite interesting too. 


Honorable mentionXKCD for being the best webcomic--and narrative on web culture--in existence. 

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

"This Means War"

With Taliban forces only 87 miles fom Islamabad and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, I thought I'd discuss something happier...like the fact that China has 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls. Why? Some horrific disease that strikes girls in childhood? 


Well, yes, in a way. In fact, these missing girls were never given a chance of life outside the womb. Ultrasound technology revealed to their parents that they were of the "undesirable" sex, and because of China's One Child Policy, they are not given the chance of life outside the womb. They are aborted. More than 30 million lives snuffed out in 20 years, because their parents cannot abide a girl child and their government mandates only one child per family. 

This is a disgrace. This is sexicide. 

And worse, according to Rod Dreher, it means war. 

What will the Chinese governmnent do with these surplus young men? Just take a guess. 

"For the sake of stability, the Chinese government in the future will have to find some way to channel all that masculine aggression and frustration outward. Not good for the rest of us. Just another fruit of abortion. How is it, exactly, that feminists here maintain their unqualified support for abortion rights when abortion is used to carry out a holocaust of baby girls abroad?"


Thursday, April 9, 2009

He is not here, He has risen.


It's Easter once again. I've always wondered why Easter is not celebrated like Christmas is in the U.S. You'd think a holiday at the advent of spring would be more natural than one in the dead of winter. On deeper reflection, I've decided that Easter is simply too "Christian" to be widely celebrated outside of religious circles. Let me explain. 

There are many people who believe that, if Jesus actually existed, he was merely a Gandhi-like figure who founded a Jewish sect in the first century A.D. They have no problem with this "historical Jesus" being born in Bethlehem. They have no problem with His birth in a stable, or the shepherds and the wise men. The angel choir? Well, that can be smoothed over. But Easter is a different story. Within three days, we go from Good Friday on which Christ was crucified, to Ressurection Sunday upon which he did what no man has ever done: He raised from the dead. He took our sins with him to the grave, and left them there. This is deeply uncomfortable to secular people. Man can't rise from the dead, they say. They are technically correct. Man can't rise from the dead. But when a man is God and Man in one, it is no problem at all. Easter, not Christmas, is the crux of the Christian story, and it is Easter that has been shunned by secular America. Even the efforts to make Easter another commercial holiday have been sporadic and pitiful. The Easter Bunny really has nothing on good ol' Saint Nick. 

But the world is free to celebrate when they wish. Christians, however, will celebrate the anniversary of the ultimate sacrifice, the climax of Dei Incarnatione, that washed our sins away. Happy Easter! 

The little stream sings
in the crease of the hill. 
It is the water of life. It knows
nothing of death, nothing. 
And this is the morning 
of Christ's ressurection. 
The tomb is empty. There is 
no death. Death is our illusion, 
our wish to belong only
to ourselves, which is our freedom
to kill one another. 
From this sleep may we too 
rise, as out of the dark grave.

--Wendell Berry 

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Music Review: No Line on the Horizon--U2


U2 and its bastard offspring Coldplay are now rivals to the the Biggest Band in the World. This is not the actual biggest band title being contended—Earth, Wind, & Fire would have something to say about a quartet winning that award. Nor is it about record sales. It is about some mathematical median between “biggest” and “best.” So, Rihana and Fall Out Boy might make more money than Norah Jones and the Fleet Foxes, but the latter are simply classier, longer-lasting, and...well, better 


The untrained listener hearing U2 and Coldplay back to back would be justly confused. Coldplay is quite simply a U2 cover band. Even my brother and I, seasoned U2 fans, were confused when first we heard Coldplay's smash hit single "Viva La Vida." "Is that Bono?" I remember asking hopefully. But no. In fact, Coldplay is a British band and Viva La Vida was produced by Brian Eno and scored a 72/100 on Metacritic. Contrast that with U2, which is a British band, and No Line on the Horizon, which was produced by Brian Eno and scored 72/100 on Metacritic...

Listen to Viva La Vida and No Line on the Horizon, U2's future megasmash back to back, and you'll know what I mean. The majestic palace-rock motifs, the drawn-out musicality, the soaring tenors (smooth, laid-back, and modern for Chris Martin, aka Mr. Gwyneth Paltrow; rough, passionate, and almost funky for Bono). 

You can't blame Martin and Coldplay for aping their heroic forebears. After all, U2 has won more Grammys than any other band in history, and sold more albums too--145 million of them. Some critics (mostly young Turks at Slate and the ilk) dismissed U2's latest offering, making snide plays on the title. "For this band, the line on the horizon is growing ever clearer." Nothing makes me madder than yuppie condescension, especially of demonstrable greatness, so I'll just go break a few 2 by 4s and be right back.....

...There, that's better. Anyway, I bought No Line with fingers crossed. I had heard the first single, the precocious, funky "Get On Your Boots" and I was a little apprehensive. I was a little underwhelmed at first listen. "No Line" itself was a great song, but "Moment of Surrender" dragged onnn and onnn and none of the other songs held my attention. Since then, I've listened to it quite a few times, and I love it. The lyricism, the melody, the practiced excellence of a band that was formed in...oh, wow, 1977. The year Star Wars came out. And here they are with a big, bold, sure-hit of an album. So, what exactly is on it? 

(01): No Line on the Horizon. The title track is beautiful. Classic U2, possibly my favorite overall. Lyrics: "I know a girl, she's like the sea...one day she's still the next she swells." 

(02): Magnificent. A classic power-ballad. The beginning is a little electronic, until The Edge's familiar guitar kicks in. The descending electro-thing after the first line and repeated throughout the song gives it focus. Lyrics: the kind U2 gets panned for--too Christian to ignore. EVERY secular review of U2's music has as a con Bono's "lyrical preachiness." Well, they can complain, but I think it's really refreshing. "Only love can leave such a mark...From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise....Justify till we die, you and I will magnify/ The Magnificent." 

(03): Moment of Surrender. Earnest piano and organ in the background just make this song last longer. Calm musically, rigorous vocally--a ballad with all that that entails. Not my favorite, but undeniably good. Lyrics: "It's not if I believe in love/ If love believes in me....At the moment of surrender/of vision over visibility." 

(04): Unknown Caller. It gets off to a slow start, but comes surging in with Bono's plaintive cry of "Sunshine, sunshine." The tintinnabulation of The Edge's guitar is particularly poignant, the rough Celtic harmony particularly sweet and fleeting. Lyrics: "Oh, oh, escape yourself and gravity/Hear me, cease to speak that I may speak/Shush now." It ends, once again, with plaintive organ. 

(05):  I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight. My favorite beginning. An echoing guitar solo. Then Bono starts and goes into a jarring falsetto immediately. The beginning jars; it's tentative before it coalesces fully. But when it does, with Bono's "Baby, baby, baby," . But even here, Bono's "preachiness" comes through. There's a tantalizing hint of deep cello that I wish would have been more fully expanded. Lyrics: "How can you stand next to the truth and not see it?/ A change of heart comes slow/It's not a hill, it's a mountain/As you start the climb/Do you believe me, or are you doubting/ We're gonna make it all the way to the light.....The right to appear ridiculous is something I hold dear." 

(06): Get On Your Boots. I didn't like this song at first, then I liked it, and now I'm edging back to not liking it again. It's undeniably funky and pretty cool, but it doesn't fit in with the rest of what must be called a fairly introspective album. The brazen beat and muddled electronic effects of Boots ruin a decent song that would have been more at home on their earlier, more electronic (and widely panned) album "Pop." Lyrics: "The future needs a big kiss...Satan loves a bomb scare...Laughter is eternity if Joy is real...Get on your boots/ sexy boots." 

(07): Stand Up Comedy. A great song, again with Edge's solemn guitar and rough Celtic harmony. Lyrics: "I can stand up for hope, faith, love...stop helping God across the road like a little old lady....Josephine be careful of small men with big ideas." Josephine refers to Napoleon's empress. 

(08): FEZ - Being Born. This album really does have alot of electronic garnishments, but they rarely seem overdone. This song has few lyrics, but those that are there are powerful. Lyrics: "Head first, then foot, then heart sets sail." 

(09): White as Snow. Begins with solo piano and a little electronic zip. Then the Edge cuts in with an acoustic as Bono talks about the lamb being as white as snow. Beautiful and ghostly. Lyrics: "Once I knew there was a love divine/Then came a time when I thought it knew me not/Who can forgive where forgiveness is not/Only the lamb is white as snow." 

(10): Breathe. A brash, beautiful song. It starts out flawed, but gets better as Bono's overdubbed voices reaches high as he sings "These days are better than that." Lyrics: "Breathe now/yeah, yeah/ We are people borne of sound/The songs are in our eyes/Gonna wear them like a crown." 

(11): Cedars of Lebanon. A sad, slow, ballad. Plaintive and spare. Lyrics: "Choose your enemies carefully, 'cause they will definite you. Make them interesting 'cause in some ways they will mind you. They're not there in the beginning, but when your story ends. Gonna last with you longer than your friend. 

In conclusion, a beautiful album from the masters of great rock music. Expect more music reviews in the future.