I had reviewed my previous couple of posts and was gratified to see that the one on civility had gone to twenty-five comments, even though more than half were on Heinlein. I wasn’t all that surprised by that, since it must be an internet truism that any posting on the internet, given enough time, will work its way around to that topic. As an interesting data point, my spell checker built into Firefox will automatically flag a misspelling of R.A.H.’s last name.

I smiled at our good Sigaliris’s comment:

I think I’ve already said elsewhere that if I knew Lazarus Long personally, I’d have to kill him. Very carefully, to be sure, and most likely from a convenient rooftop with a sniper rifle, since, like Apophis on Stargate: SG-1, he seems to need lessons in how to die.

but it must have set my subconscious to work. I awoke in the early morning with the realization of what was wrong with Sigaliris’s plan.

Given the inescapable logic of Heinlein’s multiverse, Lazarus Long, with his superhuman senses and reflexes, would have spotted Sigaliris at the moment she pulled the trigger. Lazarus would have dodged and returned fire.

However, in the split-second before returning a killing shot, Lazarus would note that Sigaliris was a woman, and therefore instead of shooting our Good Author, would shoot a conveniently placed bit of stonework above Sigaliris, causing debris to render her temporarily unconscious.

This split-second decision will be narrated by five pages of Long’s internal monologue, ruminating on the role of women in combat, various assassins he had known during his life, the merits of chivalry and how this ideal had been applied over the centuries, and Kipling’s poem The Female of the Species.

Lazarus would then ascend to the rooftop to find Sigaliris woozily recovering from the knock on the head. A brief struggle would ensue, resulting in Sigaliris being soundly spanked by Lazarus Long.

Naturally – again, by the inescapable logic of Heinlein’s multiverse – Sigaliris would immediately fall in love with Lazarus, resulting in her marrying into Lazarus’s polyfamily, and birthing a multitude of uber-genius children sired by the other men and – through advanced genetic engineering – women of the group.

The story of how Sigaliris came to marry into the family will then become a much told tale for visitors to the polyfamily estate. The family sentient computer will cap the story by commenting that when she has time to grow a body and transfer to human form, then she is going to ‘take a shot at Lazarus’ too.

The musings below initiated the train of thought that led to the writing of my previous posting, the sermon entitled “Why No Fence?”.  So, I’ve posted this article to give some additional background on the sermon and it’s theological / philosophical perspective.  Also, I just recently learned that a dear friend of mine (that I’ve tried to contact several times over the last couple of years) passed away in June, 2007 – which makes this an appropriate time to reflect on this subject again.

Reading “George’s” “My Wife has Cancer Blog” (http://themywifehascancerblog.blogspot.com/) has been thought-provoking.  I often reflect on how cruel and heartless the world can be.  Yet, what is also true is that this world is filled with beauty, beauty which we often find in unexpected places, as George’s reflections show us.

Recently, I’ve thought a lot about the implications of Eternal Life.  Something which YHWH denied us after Adam and Eve (meaning “we”) ate of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”.

To me, what Eternal Life means is that time no longer matters.  For someone who has Eternal Life, no day is any more, or less, valuable than any other.  Such people are (in essence) immortal: they have infinite time to complete unfinished business, correct mistakes, or finish their “to do” list.  So, what value would any day (or century) have?  Could love and beauty exist in a world without time?  Many writers have thought on this…

Jonathan Swift in “Gulliver’s Travels” imagines an immortal race called the Struldbrugs.  But, they do not have eternal youth: their bodies eventually age to the point where every breath is torment – yet, they cannot die.  Immortality for a Struldbrug is a curse, not a gift.

In “Lord of The Rings”, J.R.R. Tolkien has a race with eternally youthful bodies: the elves.  Yet immortality is still a burden:  They are a people not quite in tune with the world, a “vision of the elder days living in the present”.  A people whose bodies do not age, but who have an inescapable sadness because they know that everything they build, everything they know, will eventually pass away – and they cannot stop it.  They are doomed to outlive everything they love.  They cannot escape from the past and live fully in the present.

Science Fiction author Robert H. Heinlein imagined immortality through technology.  In “Time Enough For Love” Lazarus Long is the oldest human: a man who is “rejuvenated” whenever old age afflicts him.  Yet, Lazarus tired of life.  Like the elves, Lazarus outlived everything he loved.  Heinlein also pointed out that our brains are not infinite: If we live long enough, like Lazarus, we run out of room for new memories.  Even if that weren’t a problem, our memories get cluttered and disorganized with age.  (Lazarus complains about hunting all morning for a book, only to realize he’d put it down a century ago.)  Through Lazarus we see that even with youthful bodies, our minds (and spirits) will still age. 

Heinlein’s Lazarus had his mind “washed” of old memories to make room for new ones, but then asks what good is immortality when memory no longer links you with who you once where?  Immortality is a burden for Lazarus because he outlives his youth, and because of the broken connection between his present and his past.

Mortality makes time precious: every day is a gift that cannot be recaptured.  The flip side of this is that we cannot go back and make different choices when things don’t turn out as we hoped.  We cannot choose to avoid the pain that is the inevitable result of the choice to love (…hence the title of Heinlein’s book).

In the end, we need to ask ourselves  whether it is worth it: to live a life like that of Lazarus, or the elves, or the Struldbrugs, or the timeless existence Adam and Eve had before they ate of the fruit.

What I believe is that the choice to eat of the fruit is what allowed Adam and Eve to choose to have a relationship with God.  This fruit represents the choice to have choices – an essential first step.  It is the choice we must make if we do not want to remain in endless existence as a creature without choices.  That tree’s fruit was the “escape hatch” – the First Choice – that enabled us to have the Second Choice – of whether to Love God (or not). 

So, while I am not eager to come to the end of my mortal existence, and know that the end will probably include pain and suffering, the tradeoff is that I have a life that is worth living.  A life where I can have a relationship with God. 

Genesis says to me that God gave us mortality because God wants a relationship with us, and knows what is best for us.  So, I know that our mortality, and that of those we love, is a gift, part of God’s plan.  Just like time, if our relationships were never-ending, they would have no value to us: love would have no value to us. 

This does not eliminate or even alleviate the pain and hardships of life, but knowing that mortality is necessary for love and life to have value, and that it is all part of God’s plan, gives me the strength I need to endure such things when they come, and the ability to appreciate and rejoice-in the beauty and love that are in this world.  Amen!

This has been weighing heavy on my mind lately: how could any red-blooded, thinking person—any American—honesty and sincerely believe that one ought to have a right to accept a living from his fellows without having earned it?  I might console myself with the thought this this is an extreme fringe view.  But as Half Sigma admits, “Government-provided healthcare for all citizens would be a form of th[is] inheritance dividend . . . .”  If our legislators—even despite us—push ahead with this huge entitlement program that will almost certainly be impossible to rescind, is there any logical stopping point before we vote ourselves an “inheritance dividend“?

Once again, Tocqueville warns us that economic feasibility is not the only test for doling out entitlements:

One might say that sovereigns in our time seek only to make great things with men.  I should want them to think a little more of making great men; to attach less value to the work and more to the worker, and to remember constantly that a nation cannot long remain strong when each man in it is individually weak, and that neither social forms nor political schemes have yet been found that can make a people energetic by composing it of pusillanimous and soft citizens.

. . . .

Nations of our day cannot have it that conditions within them are not equal; but it depends on them whether equality leads them to servitude or freedom, to enlightenment or barbarism, to prosperity or misery.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Univ. Chicago Press, 2002  (Mansfield and Winthrop, eds.) at 672, 676.

For Us, The Living, by Robert Heinlein

I think he’s actually being serious about this: Americans are so wealthy that we should be entitled to take an income for doing nothing at all, as a form of “inheritance” from our industrious predecessors.

He references it again in a recent post, in which he posits that “free” health care for all fits into this same model.

“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” Scifi guy Robert Heinlein said it. Or so says QuoteDaddy.com.

Having studied a little divinity and chuckled a few times myself, I am often fascinated to find out so and so studied to be a priest, a pastor, for piety or out of pacifism.

Some famous folks profess to having given thought to wearing a clerical collar. Charles Darwin and Sting, for example. Others had clerical parents, which led them most decidedly away from divinity. Friedrich Nietzsche, I’m looking at you.

So here’s a quick and dirty list of notable students of divinity (know of others? let me know):

Tommy Douglas — father of Canadian healthcare, “Greatest Canadian,” and ordained Baptist minister.

Martin Luther King Jr. — The doctor was a PhD in systematic theology from Boston University!

John Long — American rock climber went to Claremont School of Theology.

Gram Parsons — Ur-Creator of Alt-Country music — studied divinity at Harvard for a semester.

Albert Schweitzer — musician, medical humanitarian, Nobel Peace prize winner — Theology PhD from Tubingen.

Joseph Stalin — kicked out of a Georgian Orthodox seminary for not paying his tuition.

Rudy Wiebe — Western Canadian Mennonite writer — studied at Tubingen for a year.

Today is a day to remember the sacrifices of those who had died for one’s country. In the United States, November 11th has been designated as a day to reflect and celebrate the sacrifices of American Servicemen, while in the Commonwealth, Remembrance Day likewise commemorates the those who made the ultimate sacrifice. November 11th was selected because of a worthy anniversary: the end of the First World War, on November 11th, 1918, the conflict that had shocked the world so much, that many hoped that it would be the last.

Sadly, this never came to fruition, as humanity has continued their destructive streak across the century, and will likely to far into the future. In many ways, the trials of soldiers in the far future have provided some of the more interesting science fiction tales.

When thinking to military science fiction, the first book that often comes to my mind is Starship Troopers. Robert Heinlein’s masterpiece has the right tone and the right messages throughout about not only the plight of the soldier, but the responsibility and honor that veterans upheld because of their service. In one particularly early scene in the book, when Johnnie and Carl go to join the service, they are bluntly told that military service isn’t the romantic adventure that seemed to have been the perception. This doesn’t come too much as a surprise, as Heinlein himself was a Veteran, having graduated from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis in 1929, and served as an officer until 1934, when he was discharged. As the Second World War roared into the lives of Americans, Heinlein worked once again for the military as an aeronautical engineer, alongside two other notable science fiction authors, Isaac Asimov and L. Sprague de Camp. Starship Troopers realistically and in a relatable fashion, sums up the soldier’s experience in wartime, and demonstrates that Science Fiction can be used as allegory in a number of instances.

Another remarkable example of military science fiction is Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game and related books that take place during and after. Card’s character, Andrew ‘Ender’ Wiggen, a tactical prodigy and statistician, is a prime example of a soldier who has a varied experience with warfare – and a mixed legacy in the years following his and humanity’s successes over the Buggers at the end of the book – a nearly complete and utter destruction of the alien homeworld. Ender’s Game is brilliant in its use of characters – Ender proves himself in Battle School, where he uses unconventional tactics to ultimately succeed and demonstrate that he has a superior mind for this style of warfare. A second series of supposed tests are designed to prepare Ender for the invasion of the Bugger’s homeworld, only to find that there was no tests – his battles were real, and he was ultimately responsible for the destruction of an entire race. Ender’s story is an interesting one, compared to other soldiers, in that he never hit the front lines – rather, he was orchestrating the war from light-years away. Despite this, the war had a profound impact on Ender for his actions – a similarity that is shared with American soldiers who pilot UVAs, according to P.W. Singer in his book Wired for War.

The franchise that embodies warfare in space is Star Wars. Love it or hate various elements of it, I’ve been greatly impressed with the stories that have been told about the Grand Army of the Republic, through a couple of different sources. The first is the Clone Wars television series, for really emphasizing on the troopers who fought on the part of the Republic. However, the real person who deserves attention for the portrayal of the troopers is Karen Traviss, with her fantastic Republic Commando series. Traviss had quite a lot of experience with the military to draw upon. As a result, Traviss goes far more into the mentality and motives of the soldiers, bringing them far more into view as people, not merely clones. Even better, the events of Order 66 seem very relevant throughout, and Traviss works hard to not only ensure that their motives for following those orders are explained in a logical fashion, but as to the intentions of the soldiers entire existence. The Clones are in a unique position here – bred only for the purpose of war fighting. For them, they’re not volunteers, and they aren’t expected to live beyond the war – something that the TV series touches on a little bit as well.

While thinking of Traviss’s Star Wars books, another good look at war comes with her book City of Pearl and the follow-up novels in the Wess’Har Wars, which examines interstellar conflict over several systems and many thousands of years. Two of her races, the Wess’Har and the Isenj, have been at war over conflicting lifestyles – the Isenj are rapid colonizers, due to a high birthrate, and did so at the cost of their environment, while the Wess’Har believe heavily in the natural world and literally applied a scorched earth policy to planets that they felt were out of line – there’s a heavy environmental message here, but it does help to reinforce a point that theorist Carl von Clausewitz made, that Warfare is an extension of policy, and thus, fought on the terms of one’s society. The soldiers here are deeply affected by the conflict, as several are essentially immortal, because of a parasite that they had picked up, one that ensures their survival. The long term toll of warfare on these soldiers is an interesting one, and several are noted to have killed themselves (prior to the events in the books) because of the stresses associated with their condition.

When it comes to interstellar warfare, as well as the potential for long term and dedicated purpose, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War is another prime example of this sort of Science Fiction. This book, the first in a series (I have the follow up book, but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet), sees a world where old men and women are taken, because of their life’s experiences thus far, and had their minds transferred to a new, enhanced body. There are many similarities to Starship Troopers and The Forever War (another one that I have, but have yet to read), and Scalzi has an interesting take on the enhanced soldiers and their purpose. One argument in the novel is that these soldiers have been given an artificial lease on life – the best that they can do is to continue to fight. However, in this instance, they aren’t necessarily fighting for any particular cause, just the broad, overarching idea of ‘humanity’, as their citizenship on earth has been terminated by joining the fight in space. This somewhat bothered me, and a couple of the main characters, but highlights another, important aspect in warfare – soldiers, foot soldiers, are trained to fight for one another, to preserve their squad and fellow soldiers, and that message rings heavily through Old Man’s War.

Timothy Zahn has also addressed the idea of enhanced soldiers, through his books Cobra and Cobra Two, where a group of soldiers have been enhanced with a number of internal improvements – better skeletons, weapons, a sort of commando unit that are nearly unstoppable in urban combat on alien worlds. However, what really struck me with these books is that the focus is not necessarily on the fighting, but the lives of the soldiers afterwards – these soldiers, with permanent enhancements, had to adapt to civilian life where they were mistrusted and abused because of their abilities, enough to cause conflict in their homes and enough to force the entire Cobra population off world to better offerings.

Military Science Fiction has its share of veterans, and examines, as a whole, not just the cool elements of science fiction, such as powered armor, lasers, epic ship to ship combat and the like, but also the impact, and continued impact that warfare will have on those that are asked to do the fighting, for whatever reason. The concept is such a large one that it is interesting to find a number of different themes – all of which might be found with any given soldier in a real military – have essentially been separated out amongst a number of novels, and examined in depth. The overall message that can be taken from this is that the hopes following World War I were unrealistic, and that humanity will continue to fight – wars large and small will continue, and no doubt, that will continue when we reach the starts. However, it is important to remember the human cost of warfare, not just on society, but upon those who ask to serve their countries, or even worlds.

I saw the following section on my friend Roger’s LinkedIn page the other day:

Specialties

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Thank goodness I am a generalist. Comes with the (startup) territory.  However, I can only do only 13 of these things (including pitching manure).  Do I still qualify as a non-insect?

I just finished reading the original/uncut version of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert A. Heinlein. Like most times when I read something, I get all excited by it and then in the end, it’s just over. The book wrapped its self up neatly and closed. I think I better get back to reading books that come in series. I’ll take another suggestion from my mom I guess…

- Robert Heinlein

I recently re-read (well, listened to) the 1961 science fiction classic, Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. I read this while I was a teenager, but yeah, that was 20 years ago.

The main premise of the book is that there is a human man, Valentine Michael Smith (“Mike”), who ends up on Mars and is raised by Martians without the influence of humans. Eventually, he comes back to Earth, as kind of a Martian ambassador, and through him and his experiences we learn about Heinlein’s vision of a possible other race, another way of being, a way of thinking, and observations about humans and earth.

This book is classic for a lot of reasons, and those concepts keep it relevant and interesting today – and it is a very rational look at things. Sexuality, religion, politics, society. Some of it is amazing – this book has as one central plot line a megachurch run by the Fosterites (a church with weekly attendance of thousands, with music and all sorts of service for congregants and a casino and a bar and….), a movement that I associate with the 1980s, but Wikipedia tells me actually started during the time Heinlein was likely writing the book – the 1950s. To have this fledgling movement so clearly defined in a work of fiction, described by Heinlein, in a prescient way, so closely to what churches have actually become, is quite amazing to me. Though, in the book, Fosterism and later, the Church of All Worlds, have in their inner circle an element of sexuality that is fascinating and probably reflects and contradicts the air of muted or hidden sexuality in the ’50s.

I also like that Heinlein makes suppositions about humans. Mike, raised on Mars, has a different way of interacting in the world and a different set of abilities, like being able to control his body with his mind – slowing his heartbeat when necessary, losing or gaining weight, etc. He can also do much more than that, things like telepathy and moving objects with his mind – Heinlein is supposing, at least in the universe created for this book, that humans these abilities exist within humans and can be brought out with training.

What I like most about the book is the “water brother” relationship. On Mars, water is a scarce commodity, and sharing water with someone (like, drinking out of the same glass) is a ritual that signifies the beginning of an important relationship, becoming “water brothers.” This relationship is one of family, trust, unconditional love. You don’t enter into it lightly or without considering the consequences. You can’t lie to a water brother, you accept and support them, you defend them – these are all reflected, in some way, in the traditional and ideal relationship of marriage. Where it differs is that Heinlein takes this relationship, combined with his open discussions of sexuality, to the next logical step – that people who are in the same water brother family (“the nest”) share partners and there is a complete lack of possessiveness and jealousy. While the water-brother relationship is not necessarily sexual, and all water brothers in the same nest don’t necessarily pair up, there is an ease and acceptance of sexuality, and a separation of sex from the love relationship. How is that possible? Because within that family unit there is an underlying base of trust, reassurance, support, and love. Mike is very logical. If you think doing something will make you happy, you should do it. If you want to experiment, you should do it. You can see why many many free-love hippies from the ’60s love about this book. It’s fascinating. I like the logical-ness of it, the emphasis on self awareness and self-reflection. This is very much a part of my thought processes (particularly about open relationships), and I wonder how much this book influenced me in that direction when I was a teenager. I also see the trend of how this issue – a long for stability, love, closeness – is reflected in the books that I have been choosing and enjoying lately, such as a totally different and fascinating in its own way book that I also loved called the Likeness by Tana French.

A few final thoughts. Heinlein says through this book is that makes humans unique and not Martian or animal is their ability to laugh. Mike learns to laugh and makes the supposition that all laughter is based on tragedy, on misfortune, or in the language of the book, “wrongness.” I’m not sure how I feel about this, as I believe there is laughter that comes from delight and happiness.

And one small caveat about an otherwise glowing review of this book: there are a lot of sexist aspects, such as how male characters talk to and interact with female characters, and there is one blatantly sexist remark, where the main female character, Jill, says that everyone knows that in 9 out of 10 cases a woman does something to cause a rape. While readers should keep in mind that this was written in the ’50s, that’s really no excuse.

I am just starting this. My mom has been reccomending some pretty rad science fiction books lately and she hasn’t led me wrong yet. Thanks mom!

“Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthly assumptions) as color means to a blind man.”

-Robert H. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strangeland

In an ideological context, a grokked concept becomes part of the person who contributes to its evolution by improving the doctrine, perpetuating the myth, espousing the belief, adding detail to the social plan, refining the idea or proofing the theory.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a well, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

- Robert Heinlein

They didn’t want it good, they wanted it Wednesday.

- Robert Heinlein

This week I read some Robert Heinlein for the first (and undoubtedly the last) time. I had bought The Number of the Beast for OneMonkey about 9 nine years ago, largely for the Iron Maiden reference (a shared love of physics and Iron Maiden being what brought us together in the first place), and I knew OneMonkey hadn’t been keen on it, which is why I’d never got round to it myself. This illustrates the importance of reading reviews; there’s no review of this book on SFReader, and I’m not about to write one as I only read half an hour’s worth (and I only got that far because I had nothing else to read that lunchtime at work). However, if I’d read Dave Langford’s scathing review I could have saved myself even that brief pain.

I’ve commented before on the ability of well-known authors to get poor quality books published, but this one took the biscuit. Having never read anything else by Heinlein I don’t know what his usual style is (and maybe I’m missing some great classic sci-fi, but this has put me off him completely) but this novel seemed juvenile and read like the first draft of a silly story designed purely to entertain friends and family, full of laborious in-jokes and references that are lost on the casual reader. That kind of writing alienates new readers and smacks of arrogance: I’m already popular enough, I don’t need you.I’m never sure whether the publisher is cashing in, knowing that there’s enough of a fanbase that any old rubbish with the author’s name attached will sell, or whether it’s a fear of upsetting a star author by suggesting their latest attempt needs a little work.

Maybe this is a reminder that we should support authors who are less well known or just starting out. Buying, reviewing, or mentioning in a blog one book by a largely unknown author will make more of a difference to them than not buying, reviewing or mentioning in a blog one book by an established author. Not quite unknown, but probably less of a Name than Heinlein, I read the first chapter of a Jasper Fforde novel over lunch, and it looks promising (probably one for the Robert Rankin and/or Malcolm Pryce followers).

Sometimes it just happens and something articulates for you. And in this case the AFTERLIFE. This has something to do with the story of a human raised as a Martian who returns to Earth, together with the blackhole theory.

Thank you to Robert Heinlein for ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’. And Stephen Hawking for ‘Brief History of Time’ (also Errol Morris who made a great doc on it).

I believe in the afterlife. I believe there is a higher being. But suddenly heaven and hell is no longer a clear cut division, they’re levels. In the same way that the black hole is not exactly black our spirits are not exactly spirits.

When we die we get absorbed into the collective energy of those who have gone before us. Dead Monster is no longer Monster because she does not exist.

There is a dimension in the universe that we don’t see because we’re limited by our bodies. Hawking kept on investigating the blackhole because he couldn’t believe that if you drop an astronaut in the blackhole it will just disappear. He just couldn’t. And that’s how he figured out that the astronaut as we know it DID disappear but it comes back…as radiation.

The consciousness that we so hold in high regard is the one thing that every religion promises will remain after death. I’m not discounting the fact that there might be consciousness…but not of spirit or soul or anything individual. It’s impossible. Consciousness is still coming from the brain…which dies with us.

I think it’s more like particles moving together like the blackhole that collapses, sucking in that astronaut and eventually nuking it.

Am i going to be excommunicated now?

My two favorite quotes of the day:

“Having a free online ‘printing press’ doesn’t turn you into a journalist anymore than your laser printer did.”

and

“Citizen journalists are almost as good as citizen dentists.”

…both come from a funny little thing here about “saving journalism,” and while I don’t fully agree with the criticism of bloggers/blogging/bloggery, I do find it funny. Personally, an insecure girl in middle America who takes naughty photos of herself and writes online about her secret fantasies and finds that her medium is the internet, not verbal communication with the “real world,” is just as worthy of internetting as a licensed and certifiable hipster who writes about bands that have more novelty value than listenability. But everything is different for everyone and the world/the internet/reality is a big enough sandbox for all. If you read the internet, read what you read. If you write on the internet, write what you write. Journalism will live or die as it needs to.

Though that “citizen dentists” line is still hilarious to me, sorry.

You know, I pretty much slept through the entire balloon boy story today, but it sounds like it was really interesting for a few minutes. Like a childhood fantasy gone crraazzzy. For the kid, I mean. As a new story, it seems kind of annoying.

What Whoopi Goldberg, Harvey Weinstein, etc. are saying in their outrage over the arrest of Roman Polanski.

Oh, and following in the illustrious footsteps of Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and… Ben Affleck, the new Captain Kirk is Jack Ryan.

from here.

The best day of your life is the one on which you decide your life is your own.

No apologies or excuses.

No one to lean on, rely on, or blame.

The gift is yours — it is an amazing journey — and you alone are responsible for the quality of it.

This is the day your life really begins” [Bob Moawad].

I was sitting in the waiting area at my doctor’s office the other day, looking through a stack of magazines when I came across an issue of National Geographic Adventure. This travel magazine contains compelling stories of individuals hiking through, biking around, swimming across, climbing up and falling from some of the most magnificently beautiful locations in the world.

As I flipped through the pages of photographs of polar icebergs and mile high mountains, African plains and painted canyons I couldn’t help but feel inspired. Here were real live people living their dreams.  The envisioned destination made the journey — with all its grit and grime and long days of carrying heavy provisions and tomorrows with another round of training — worth it.

I wondered about the process. How do achievers do it?

How does one move from discovering the dream to analyzing their abilities to questioning their potential  . . . to taking the first step . . .  to moving full steam ahead?

What compels people to attempt what seems to be the impossible or difficult or just plain uncomfortable?

Why are some of us able to start the journey of a lifetime, while others spend a lifetime milling around the starting line?

First, I think achievers are willing to take responsibility for the quality of their lives. They refuse to sit around waiting for someone else to work a little hocus pocus voodoo magic on their behalf. The credo, “If it’s meant to be, it’s up to me” (Terri Gulick) must be branded on their soul.

Achievers know that today has the potential to be the best day ever and are willing to take steps to make it happen.

They are able to redefine what is impossible.  As Robert Heinlein said, “It is difficult to say what is impossible. For the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.”

Don’t let others define what is possible for you. Define it for yourself. One person’s impossibility is another’s chance of a lifetime. Obstacles can be road blocks or stepping stones. A reason to worry or a chance to explore. An opportunity to give it up or give it your all. The moment when you are forced to either throw in the towel or throw a long pass.

As Bill Cosby said, “Decide you want it more than you are afraid of it.”

The best day is the day you decide to go for it. Circle the date on your calendar. This is the day you win!

Whatever you are, be a good one!

Deanna

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” – Edward Abbey

“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” – Mark Twain

“Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.” – Henry Steele Commager

“A politician will do anything to keep his job — even become a patriot.” – William Randolph Hearst

“Love your country, but never trust its government.” – Robert Heinlein

“People who say they want freedom restoration, but do nothing to help get us there, are basically socialists; they want everyone else to do the work while they sit back and reap the benefits.” – Doug Kendall

“The ‘race card’ is being phased out of all playing card decks. It is being replaced with the “Is that all you’ve got?” card, to improve game play and functionality.” – Doug Kendall

“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that — however bloody — can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.” – Lysander Spooner

“If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State.” – Benjamin Tucker

“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom.” – Clarence Darrow

“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” – Max Stirner

“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” – Ayn Rand

“I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery or murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.” – Alexander Berkman

“Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” – H.L. Mencken

“Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” – H.L. Mencken

“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” – H.L. Mencken

“For the majority of people, liberty means only the system and the administrators they are used to.” – Albert Jay Nock

“Government: Causing more violence than it prevents since 10,000 B.C.” – unknown

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”  – George Washington

“I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty.” – H.L. Mencken

Dad didn’t bother with banks—just the money basket and the one next to it marked “UNCLE SAM,” the contents of which he bundled up and mailed to the government once a year. This caused the International Revenue Service considerable headache and once they sent a man to remonstrate with him.

First the man demanded, then he pleaded. “But, Dr. Russell, we know your background. You’ve no excuse for not keeping proper records.”

“But I do,” Dad told him. “Up here.” He tapped a finger to his forehead.

“The law requires written records.”

“Look again,” Dad advised him. “The law can’t even require a man to read and write. More coffee?”

The man tried to get Dad to pay by check or money order. Dad read him the fine print on a dollar bill, the part about “legal tender for all debts, public and private.”

In a despairing effort to get something out of the trip he asked dad please not to fill in the space marked “occupation” with “Spy.”

“Why not?”

“What? Why, because you aren’t—and it upsets people.”

“Have you checked with the F.B.I.?”

“Eh? No.”

“They probably wouldn’t answer. But you’ve been very polite. I’ll mark it ‘Unemployed Spy.’ Okay?”

The man almost forgot his briefcase. Nothing fazed Dad, he meant what he said, he wouldn’t argue and he never gave in. So when he told me I could go to the Moon but the means were up to me, he meant just that. I could go tomorrow—provided I could wangle a billet in a space ship.

[Robert Heinlein]

The whole principle is wrong. It’s like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can’t have steak.
– Robert Heinlein, The Man Who Sold the Moon (1949), on censorship

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

~ Robert Heinlein