Bad Bargains, Moral Bankruptcy and Negotiating with Blackmailers

Even though it's now pretty much a done deal and much of the relevant ground I've been over before, I'd like to comment a little on the tax plan that President Obama and the Republican leadership came up with. There are two major questions here. One is whether the deal in of itself is a good one; the second is whether it would have been better to have no deal at all than to have the one we ended up with. The answer to the first question, taking both the good and bad parts of the plan into consideration, is no. The answer to the second question is maybe, depending at least in part on how the passage of the tax plan ultimately affects several other key measures.

The centerpiece of the tax plan is the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As I have said before, there is no sense in extending the tax cuts for earners in the highest income bracket. They don't need the money, most of them won't spend it anyway but will save it (meaning it won't stimulate the economy), and allowing them to continue to pay lower taxes increase the budget deficit by a large amount (far more than many of the programs the conservatives want to cut). The assertion that higher taxes would hurt many small businesses is wrong, as few fall into this category (and many that do are law partnerships, private medical clinics and so forth), and in any case if a small business has a need for an additional employee, they aren't going to refrain from hiring one just because they are paying slightly more in taxes. The Republican refrain that no one should have their taxes raised in a recession is just a nonsensical sound bite, one which attempts to imply, aside from the questionable economic arguments mentioned above, that everyone is suffering equally and we don't want to see anyone hurt by more taxes, like someone who makes half a million dollars a year is really going to suffer because they have to pay twenty thousand dollars more in taxes. It's also worth reiterating that even had tax rates for the highest income bracket gone up, they would have still been under 40% (as compared to the current rate of a little over 35%), which is not very high compared either to other countries or past tax rates in the US.

However, as bad as the Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the relatively well-off is, this isn't the worst part of the tax plan. That "honor" has to go to the estate tax. The estate tax had also been cut temporarily, but without this bill it would have gone back to the old rate, which if I recall the numbers correctly was 55% on estates of more than US$1 million. But the Republicans insisted on cutting it drastically, making the rate 35% on individual estates of US$5 million, or US$10 million for married couples. This will benefit a very tiny percentage of Americans, and it won't even be the people who actually earned the money, but their heirs. I know if I was going to inherit $US2 million I wouldn't complain if I had to give up half of it. Sure, a million dollars may not be what it once was, but it's still a pretty decent sum, especially if you don't have to earn it yourself. So why on Earth should we do this tiny percentage of wealthy people's children a favor when it'll add substantially to the deficit? It's absurd. This once again shows that the Republicans really are the party of the rich, or at least of the selfish rich (quite a few wealthy people have said they should pay higher taxes, whether income or estate taxes).

Then there was the temporary payroll tax cut. Obama apparently supported this idea as a stimulus measure that would benefit a much wider segment of the population than the Republicans' cuts for the rich, but it has its problems too. The payroll tax pays for Social Security, which for the time being is in the black. But having made the cut, there is a danger the Republicans will try to make it permanent (by once again crying tax increase if the Democrats try to allow it to go back to the original rate, just as they've done this year with the income tax rates). If that happens, Social Security will not remain solvent for nearly as long as it would have, and the Republicans will have an excuse to try to cut or privatize it (when the best way to boost Social Security in the long term is to increase the payroll tax -- not by raising the rates, but by raising the ceiling, since it is currently only taken out of the first US$100,000 in salary). If this doesn't happen, fine. But if it does, the payroll tax cut will also turn out to be a big negative.

Perhaps the only significant positive in the deal is the extension of unemployment benefits. Allowing them to expire would leave a lot of people with no income at all, and despite right wing assertions to the contrary, most of them are not just freeloaders who won't go out and look for work (though of course there are some people like that), as most businesses simply aren't hiring. Giving those out of work some money to spend will also stimulate the economy (more than lower taxes for a few wealthy people will), besides allowing them to put food on the table.

I seem to recall that there are also a few tax incentives for alternative energy and things of that sort in the bill, though I don't know the specifics. If so, that's a good thing. But given its bad parts, I can't say that the deal sounds like a good one overall. If there were no other considerations, I'd say it'd be better to let everyone's taxes go back to the old rates, which at least would cut the deficit by a large amount (or rather keep it from getting bigger, as past budget projections have assumed that all the cuts would expire). It's worth noting that keeping income tax rates the same won't stimulate the economy either, as people aren't getting more money, just keeping the same amount as before. The only substantial stimulus will be from the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.

As I stated earlier, given that this deal was overall more bad than good, does that mean Obama and the Democrats would have been better off rejecting it in its entirety? If the only things at stake were what the tax plan itself covered, I would have said yes. I would certainly prefer not to sacrifice those who are living on unemployment benefits (as I implied in the previous paragraph, letting taxes go back to the old rates for everybody would not necessarily be a bad thing), but considering the long term problems that this deal may cause, problems that will eventually affect everyone, that might have been the better choice if they were the only people to be sacrificed to the Republicans' intransigence. But aside from blocking any tax deal that didn't favor the wealthy, the Republicans -- even the few supposedly more moderate ones -- had pledged to block all legislation in the Senate until the tax plan was passed. This meant that a number of very important measures were in danger of not getting through. When I started writing this just after the tax deal was passed, it was still not certain which of them would make it. Now votes have been taken on two of them, with a third due to voted on any time now.

The first of these measures was the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". This was something that should have been done a long time ago, and with the Pentagon having completed a study showing that repeal shouldn't cause any major problems, there was no longer any excuse for waiting, especially since the law would probably get overturned in the courts sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, there was still substantial Republican opposition, led by the increasingly erratic John McCain (even those who are disappointed in Obama's performance should be happy McCain didn't end up as US President), even though he once said he'd support repeal if the military leadership was in favor (apparently he has decided since that even if a majority of the military leadership, including the very top officials, are in favor, that isn't good enough; the entire leadership has to approve). But even worse, if the Republicans had continued to block all measures because of a lack of an agreement on taxes, repeal would have depended on the next Congress, where it would probably have failed. So one positive of the tax agreement was that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" has now been approved.

The second major measure was the Dream Act. This would have provided a path to citizenship for young people who were brought to the US illegally by their parents when they were children if they went to college or joined the military. To put this into perspective, many of these people were toddlers or preschoolers when they came to the US, so they have no memory of any other home. Some of them were not even aware until they were nearly grown that they weren't American citizens. And yet the vast majority of Republicans voted against this bill. One idiotic member of the House from Texas (Barton, if I recall correctly) made some statement about not "rewarding criminals". Only someone too stupid to understand the type of situation the bill covered, or, more likely, someone completely morally bankrupt, without the least shred of decency, could call someone who was brought to the US (the vast majority of them had no choice in the matter) as a child -- and as I said, in many cases at an age where they weren't even aware of what was happening -- a "criminal". Even calling their parents "criminals", while technically accurate, is a sign of perverted moral sense, as it seeks to put people who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the same category as murderers and rapists (not much different from 19th century England, where a father could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread for his children -- as if such a person was the same as a criminal who committed robbery and assault out of pure greed). But to call the children "criminals" is beyond disgusting.

Yet, unbelievably, the Dream Act didn't pass (actually it won a clear majority, but as usual, its Republican opponents were filibustering it, and there weren't quite enough votes to overcome the filibuster). Frankly, in my opinion, this is worse than if "don't ask, don't tell" hadn't been repealed. Gays in the military were being deprived of their careers, which is bad enough, but the young people covered by the Dream Act are in danger of losing their homes and getting deported to countries that in many cases they have little or no memory of. This is a terrible injustice, and Obama's agreeing to a bad bargain on taxes didn't avert it. So that's one more strike against the tax deal.

The third major measure is the ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Again, there is no reason not to pass this and many reasons to do so, not least of which is without ratification, there will no longer be an arms control agreement between the world's biggest nuclear powers. The agreement that has been signed is by pretty universal consensus among experts and US military leaders, a good one from the US's perspective. In a misguided attempt to win over Republican opponents, Obama even agreed to spend more on upgrading the US's nuclear arsenal (once again, when it comes to things like this, the deficit doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans). One laughable complaint is that under the treaty the US will have to cut more than the Russians, because it has more weapons to begin with. That's like a situation where two people are pointing guns at each other, and the one with ten shots on his gun (as compared to, say, seven for the other guy) is reluctant to agree that both reduce the number of bullets they have loaded to four each. Both sides can still kill each other many times over, so who cares? In any case, this seems to have a good chance of passing, which would be a point in favor of the tax plan which cleared the way for it.

Of course one big problem with judging the merits of Obama's deal with the Republicans by the success or failure of other measures is that essentially the Republicans (who ironically criticize anyone who negotiates with "terrorists") are being rewarded for committing blackmail. Like other such situations, such as kidnappings for ransom, whether or not it is ever wise to give in is debatable. However, if Obama was going to submit to Republican blackmail, he should at least have fought for a better deal. Either he should have gotten a better tax deal, or he should have asked for a commitment from the Republican leadership not to support filibusters on any of the above three measures. As it turns out, at least one and quite possibly two of them will pass anyway, but considering the importance of the one that didn't, and the fact that even those that did pass might well not have, a bargain with the Republicans that didn't include such a commitment was not a good deal. Some say the mere ability of Obama and the Republicans to come to an agreement on anything is a positive development is a good thing, and there is something to that argument. But if all their agreements favor the Republicans this much, it might be just as well to not to make one in the first place. If the arms treaty is ratified, that combined with the end of "don't ask, don't tell" might just barely make the whole thing worthwhile, but not by a large margin. We'll have to hope Obama learns to bargain harder once the new, more right-wing Congress comes in.

What I've Been Reading – 2010, Part 5

As I've gone through quite a few books since I last talked about what I've been reading, this time I'm only going to talk briefly about each book. I'm also skipping over some short stories and non-fiction I've read in the same period, even though much of it was good (e.g., Greg Egan's hard sci-fi short stories).

Fear of Flying by Erica Jong
This novel focusing on the theme of female sexual desire was a huge seller when it came out. It was notable for being the first well-known novel by a woman to talk about sex from the female perspective (books like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Fanny Hill were of course written by men). As one might expect, sex is the dominant topic, though a lot of it is fantasies. While there is a fair amount of actual sex, there isn't as much as one might think (there's probably at least as much – certainly more variety – in Dhalgren, which is not mainly about sex) and as Erica Jong herself points out in the forward, it's usually somewhat disappointing. The novel also briefly touches on a theme of Flaubert's Madame Bovary, namely the difficulty people have in conveying their real feelings with words. Another interesting point is that the narrator's life has many points in common with Erica Jong's own, making the novel semi-autobiographical.

Fanny Hill by John Cleland
Reading Fear of Flying reminded me that I had a copy of John Cleland's Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure that I had glanced at but not actually read, so I decided to read through it. This 19th century work is famous (okay, infamous) for its graphic depictions of sex, and its reputation in this regard is fairly well justified, though of course there are much more graphic descriptions out there nowadays. There is of course a lot of sex, though interestingly Fanny Hill is really more of a mistress to successive men than a sex worker who receives many customers. In certain ways Cleland succeeds in showing a certain sympathy for his female protagonist, at least for his time, though in other ways his work reflects a purely male and sometimes sexist perspective. Also, despite depicting positively, or at least not particularly negatively, a wide variety of sexual practices, including lesbian sex, group sex, and sado-masochism, there is an extremely venomous attack on gay male sex, reflecting the extreme homophobia of the times.

More Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber
The last two collections of stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Swords and Ice Magic and The Knight and Knave of Swords, are notable for being somewhat bleaker than previous stories (both Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser undergo significant suffering), being set mostly away from the city of Lankhmar (the main setting for many previous stories) and containing a few explicit depictions of sex (though sex was always clearly a major motivation for the characters, it wasn't explicitly depicted in earlier books – there was supposedly a sex scene in The Swords of Lankhmar which the publisher asked Leiber to cut out). Otherwise the stories are as entertaining as always.

Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress
A futuristic science fiction novel in which geneticists have found a way to modify the genes of embryos so that the children they grow into do not need sleep and become super-intelligent partly as a result. The obvious superiority of the Sleepless causes resentment and hatred among the rest of the population (the Sleepers), resulting in conflicts and eventually causing many of the Sleepless to flee to a separate sanctuary they have created, at first on Earth but later in near-Earth orbital space. The main theme of the novel is the question of balance between the rights of the individual and their obligations to the society, or, as Kress explained it, between an Ayn Rand-type philosophy (which she said she ultimately found to be neither workable nor morally admirable, a sentiment I completely agree with) and the more communal societies depicted by Ursula LeGuin. Though I'm dubious about certain parts of the premise (I don't think eliminating the need for sleep would have such a dramatic effect on people) and I disagree with the arguments against secession made in the last part of the novel, the novel is interesting and the point that Americans in particular often resent intelligence, if perhaps slightly exaggerated, is nevertheless well taken.

Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Only slightly less famous than its predecessor Alice in Wonderland, this cleverly told tale includes Carroll's famous poem "Jabberwocky" and a tale which is structured like an elaborate game of chess.

Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut
This is another brilliantly cynical novel from Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's style is unique and quite different from what I normally prefer, but he does it very well. It helps, of course, that I share a lot of his cynicism. I especially appreciate his mockery of things like patriotism, capitalism, and the type of history taught in schools. However, despite his liberal outlook, Vonnegut is not at all politically correct (not that that problematic term even existed at the time), so some liberals might have trouble with him as well (not me, however). Like a few of the other Vonnegut novels I've read, it's also metafictional, not only in that Kilgore Trout, one of the main characters (and a recurring character in a number of Vonnegut's novels), is a science fiction writer, but because Vonnegut himself appears in the novel.

Iron Council by China Mieville
This is the third of China Mieville's fantasy novels set in the fictional world of Bas-Lag. The most prominent power in Bas-Lag is the city of New Crobuzon, a huge, cosmopolitan and oppressive place a little like a more deadly fantasy version of Charles Dickens' London (Mieville's Bas-Lag novels are often characterized as steampunk, reflecting the type of technology prevalent in them). New Crobuzon was the setting of the first Bas-Lag novel, Perdido Street Station, and much of Iron Council is also set there (the second novel, The Scar, is set elsewhere, but New Crobuzon still plays a major role). The government of New Crobuzon, though supposedly a parliamentary democracy, is ruthless and authoritarian, and much of this novel focuses on resistance to it from dissident elements inside and outside the city, once again resembling somewhat the struggle of 19th century laboring classes against unfeeling bosses and rulers, including the major divisions among the dissident groups themselves, though here the authorities are more powerful and sinister (Mieville calls his world "an early industrial capitalist world of a fairly grubby, police statey kind"). While most of the main characters are human, Mieville's world contains a fantastic array of strange and often unpleasant creatures, though some are friendly or at least able to interact peacefully with humans (indeed, one of the main characters in Perdido Street Station is a khepri, a being with a human body but a head that resembles a giant insect). Even among the latter, there are some of extremely unusual appearance, thanks to New Crobuzon's punishment factories, which remake convicted criminals in bizarre and often unpleasant ways, such as making them part machine, attaching useless appendages to them, and so forth. The resulting creatures, called Remade, are looked down and discriminated against by everyone else, even the lower classes. There is also plenty of magic (here called thaumaturgy), which often takes nastily destructive forms. Another point that shouldn't really be worthy of note but still is somewhat unusual in much literature today is that two of the the main protagonists are gay (actually bisexual in one case), though this probably shouldn't surprise readers of the first book, in which the two chief protagonists are in a relationship which, though heterosexual, is even less conventional, as one is human and the other is khepri. I highly recommend the Bas-Lag novels, though with the caveat that Mieville doesn't seem to believe in truly happy endings; at best, the worst evils may be averted and some of the protagonists may survive after having won an incomplete victory over the various forces of evil.

The Red Queen by Margaret Drabble
Margaret Drabble's The Red Queen is a mix of historical and modern fiction, with a dash of metafiction thrown in. The first half of the book is narrated by Lady Hyegyong, an actual historical figure who was born in 18th century Korea. As a child, she was selected to be the bride of the Crown Prince, and she survived intrigues, scandals, and the execution of her husband at the hand of his own father to see her son and grandson take the throne. She wrote four memoirs of her life, which I unfortunately haven't read (in fact I hadn't heard of her before – I must confess that I know less of Korea's history than I do of most other countries in the region), but which sound fascinating. In The Red Queen, however, she is relating her fictional fifth memoir in modern times, even though (as she mentions several times) she is long dead. Thus she mixes her narrative of her youth with very modern interpretations of the events. The second part of the book focuses on the woman that Lady Hyegyong calls her "ghostly envoy", the modern doctor who is in a sense possessed by her, having become fascinated after reading a translation of her memoirs while on the way to Seoul for a conference (a fascination shared by Drabble herself, who in a sense is Lady Hyegyong's real "ghostly envoy"). This part of the book obviously doesn't contain events to compare with those in Lady Hyegyong's life, but nevertheless there is one fairly dramatic and unexpected (despite some foreshadowing) occurrence towards the end. Interestingly, both the protagonists consider themselves to be rationalists and thus not big believers in the supernatural, and yet one is dead and the other is watched over not only by the first but also by guardian spirits. Despite this supernatural element, the book focuses more on psychology and human relations as well as Korean culture, making it very much a modern novel. Drabble herself makes an appearance in the last few pages of this unusual but very readable book.

The Stand by Stephen King
The Stand is one of Stephen King's longest and most epic novels, though it is not as massive as his Dark Tower series (actually the only other work by him I've read). The basic premise of the book is similar to that of George Stewart's Earth Abides, in which a plague wipes out most of humanity (and apparently King has said Stewart's book was an inspiration), though they take the idea in completely different directions. Though the first part of the book reads like post-apocalyptic science fiction, the supernatural soon makes an appearance (unsurprising, given that it's Stephen King), and the book becomes an epic struggle between good and evil (King was also inspired by The Lord of the Rings, a big influence on both this book and the Dark Tower books). This makes it a bit hard to characterize in terms of genre; it is sci-fi, horror and fantasy all in one. The horror elements come mainly from the very unpleasant symptoms of the superflu early in the book, the massive number of corpses scattered around in the subsequent part, and the diabolically nasty antagonist in the last half, but they are not overwhelming, so the book is enjoyable enough for those who aren't big fans of horror (like me). Having read this and the Dark Tower series, I can tell that King listens to a lot of classic rock, as a number of different songs are referenced in both works and one of the protagonists in this one is a R&B-influenced rock singer; he's a fan of Richard Adams and Watership Down, which is mentioned in both works; he often uses his home state of Maine as a setting (parts of both works take place there, though relatively brief parts overall); and he likes creating links between his various works (there are a number of connections not only between these two books but also with other novels he's written). In some ways the book hangs together better than the Dark Tower, which is a bit unwieldy in places, though even here there are certain inconsistencies and implausible moments (the former perhaps increased by King's frequent revisions – in the paperback edition that I read, the date of the story was changed somewhat from that in the original edition). But it is certainly an entertaining read, and it is understandable that, as King notes in his forward to the revised edition of the first Dark Tower novel, The Stand is the favorite of many of his readers, with only the Dark Tower rivaling it in the passionate devotion of its fans.

Congratulations to Liu Xiaobo (and a comment on WikiLeaks)

As most people who follow the news should be aware, this year's Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, who is currently being imprisoned by his government. China's hysterical reaction to the award simply helps prove to everyone with sense that they are still an oppressive authoritarian regime. They call Liu a criminal, when everyone knows his "crime" was only to openly call for a more open and democratic society. They put his wife and other relatives and friends under house arrest and prevent a long list of dissidents and relatives of dissidents from leaving the country in an effort to ensure that none of them can go to the award ceremony to accept the prize on Liu's behalf. This has only ensured that this will be the first time since Nazi Germany prevented 1935 recipient Carl von Ossietzky from traveling to accept the prize that the prize will not actually be given out at the ceremony. In other words, China has just ensured that they will be compared to the Nazis -- not entirely inappropriate in this case.

The most absurd thing though has been China's efforts to prevent other nations from attending the award ceremony. The majority of those invited (44 out of 65) have ignored China's threats and blandishments and official accepted invitations, but a number of countries have actually gone along (of course China, having no compunctions about telling outright lies in the interest of propaganda, claims that "the vast majority" of nations will not attend. Most of the 18 countries other than China that have said they are not attending are other authoritarian states, though there are one or two exceptions, such as the Philippines. Of course some countries had excuses which seemingly are unrelated to China, but one has to be dubious about them (if I were a Filipino, for instance, I would be strongly criticizing my government's kowtowing to China, no matter what lame excuse they offer).

It is also interesting to note that China seems genuinely incapable of believing that a prominent group like the Nobel committee could act independently of the government of the country where it is based (Norway). This is further evidence of their blinkered authoritarian mindset. Just because they make sure that any significant groups in China are under the control of the government, or at least unable to act publicly in a way blatantly contrary to its policies, they assume that the situation must be the same in all countries. Even if a group seems completely independent of the government, they assume the government must control it behind the scenes, because that's what they do with Chinese "non-governmental" organizations and such. Therefore, they persist in blaming the Norwegian government for the Nobel committee's selection, even though the government was not involved (though they no doubt agree with it, if they are sensible).

A few people may point to the irony that as Liu is being awarded the Nobel, many democratic governments are relentlessly pursuing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for what many argue is an exercise of free speech. There is indeed a certain degree of irony here, but aside from the fact that bad behavior by some nations does not in the remotest degree excuse similar or worse behavior by others, there are certain differences between Liu and Assange. Many of the attacks on Assange do indeed strike me as illegitimate persecution (as for claiming he is the equivalent of people like Osama bin Laden, that is beyond ridiculous), and WikiLeaks has done much that is good (they won an award from Amnesty International for exposing extrajudicial killings in Kenya). The way governments have tried to block WikiLeaks and many companies have cut ties to it (often under government pressure) before it or Assange have been convicted of any crime also violates due process. I have seen little evidence that anyone has come to any physical harm because of WikiLeaks' release of classified US cables or other documents, and in many ways the US has been asking for something like this to happen by classifying huge numbers of documents as secret even when they don't need to be, and giving huge numbers of people top security clearance, as pointed out in this article and this one.

However, I have mixed feelings about the publication of communications which, if not private in the usual sense (if close to a million people are allowed to access them, they aren’t all that private), are nevertheless sensitive in certain ways, and could potentially cause harm, if only in the form of hurt feelings (not entirely insignificant when we are talking about foreign leaders). For one thing, foreign officials who are mentioned by name candidly speaking about their own or other governments are much less likely to speak honestly to US officials in the future. WikiLeaks, with the help of some of the mainstream media it works with, has made an effort to redact the names of many sources and agents, but some critics claim they haven't done a sufficient job and have exposed some people. It's true that they offered to cooperate with the US government in making redactions, but were refused. Nevertheless, it is better to err on the side of caution in a case like this, and it's not clear that WikiLeaks has done so. Then there's the excuse given for Assange's arrest, namely the sexual assault he is accused of in Sweden. I haven't heard enough of the supposed details to know what to make of this, but it seems the sex may have been consensual and there was no force involved, though he is accused of refusing to use a condom when asked to do so, which, while not as bad as what most people think of as sexual assault, is still not good (if it is true). In a nutshell, there is some room for argument about the morality of Assange's actions, while there is nothing remotely immoral about Liu's, not to mention the degree of repression in Liu's case, extending even to his family members and friends, is greater, at least at this point.

Finally, no matter how hypocritical Western governments may be sometimes, that is absolutely no excuse for China and similar regimes to behave even worse. For a country like China to point to abuses or human rights violations committed by Western democracies whenever its human rights record is criticized is like someone saying "See, you beat your dog, so it's okay for me to beat my children." In the end, China's treatment of people like Liu Xiaobo is indefensible, no matter how they try to change the subject. We can only hope that one day those in charge will realize that they can't control their people's minds completely. Perhaps the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo will help bring that day closer.

A Blog Post for the Sake of Making a Blog Post

For the past week or so, I've been thinking that I need to post something on my blog. Not so much because there was something specific I wanted to talk about (though there are always things to talk about), but simply because I have only made one post this month, and I'd like to be a bit more consistent (usually I manage three posts a month, occasionally only two or as many as four). But up until last week I was busy working on my paper on Taiwanese aboriginal songwriter BaLiwakes, which I presented at a conference that was held in Taidong last week celebrating the hundredth anniversary of his birth (I suppose I could just post the paper itself, but it's in Chinese and anyway I still plan to eventually start a blog devoted specifically to music, which would be a more appropriate place for it). Since returning from Taidong I have been occupied with several translation jobs. Actually it's not true that I didn't have anything to post about; I'd like to do at least a cursory survey of the many books I've read since my last post on my recent reading, but that would take too long. So here it is, the end of the month, and all I can do is this little place filling post.

I suppose I could comment on the recent elections in Taiwan (they took place this past weekend), but as my only other post this month was on election results (in the US in that case), I don't really want to talk about them at length. Still, in the absence of any other quick topic coming to mind, a brief overview of them can serve. The election was for the mayors of the major urban centers of Taiwan (Taipei, Xinbei City [as Taipei County is soon to be rather pointlessly renamed], Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung), city councilors in those locations, and neighborhood heads (in Taiwan the smallest administrative division is the li, which is essentially a neighborhood). The results were mixed, with the DPP winning only two of the big races as opposed to three for the ruling KMT, including losses by their two heavyweight candidates in Taipei and Xinbei, which despite generally leaning toward the KMT (particularly true of Taipei) were considered to potential DPP gains. On the other hand, their candidate in Taichung came closer than expected, and they won easily in Tainan and Kaohsiung (the latter was particularly a relief, as the KMT candidate had the gall to criticize the incumbent mayor for inviting the Dalai Lama and allowing a film about Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer to be shown at a city government-sponsored film festival). They also elected the same number of city councilors as the KMT (130) and actually received a substantially higher share of the popular vote.

Results were mixed in other ways. A number of the worst candidates in the city council races lost, but a fair number got in (in our area a candidate with known gang ties running as an independent took the third of three seats after a massive advertising campaign that exceeded those of all other candidates in the area). None of the Green party candidates for city council came close to winning, but on the plus side they got more votes than in the past, and our local Green party candidate managed 7.5% of the vote, not too bad considering unlike the above-mentioned gangster-type (or to a slightly lesser extent the KMT and DPP candidates) he didn't have billboards, campaign flags, banners or ads on buses all over the place. He actually got almost half as many votes as the KMT candidate squeezed out by the gang-connected independent candidate (the other winners being another KMT candidate and a DPP candidate) and far outdistanced the other independent candidate (who didn't advertise much either, though he had a few flags up). So while there's still probably a long way to go before Taiwan starts electing candidates with little money but real principles like those of the Green party and a few independent candidates (not the gang-connected ones, obviously), maybe it'll happen someday.

A final interesting point about these elections is that some, particularly in the DPP, believe that the shooting the day before the election of the son of former KMT leader Lien Chan may have influenced the results in the KMT's favor (Lien Shengwen was shot in the face while campaigning for a KMT candidate; he was not injured as seriously as might be expected but a bystander was killed). Whether this is true or not is hard to say for certain, but since the KMT has often claimed the pre-election shooting of then-President Chen Shuibian in 2004 influenced that election in his favor, it's not unreasonable for the DPP to make the same claim.

Looks like the above summary of the Taiwanese election will have to serve as the main theme of my second post for this month. Hopefully I can make up for my slacking next month, and also get in one or two posts that aren't related to elections (three in a row is a bit much).

2010 Election Recap

I've been intending to do a recap of the US election for the past couple of weeks, but I was too busy doing a paper on a completely different topic (the songs of a Taiwanese aboriginal songwriter named Baliwakes). It shouldn't surprise anyone that my general feeling about the election is one of disgust, similar to seeing Israel elect a Likud government or seeing La Pen come in second in a French presidential election. Not that the Democrats are all that great; a lot of them are blatantly self-interested and have taken foolish positions (such as opposing a public option or a carbon tax). But the Republican candidates were in almost every case clearly worse, at least in terms of their stated positions on key issues like the environment, budgetary policy, health care, and so forth, and in many places around the US people still elected them. The elections were widely seen as a referendum on Obama's policies (though exit polls shows votes didn't necessarily prefer the Republicans' policies by any significant margin) or his perceived failure to improve the economy. But his policies, while far from perfect, have not been that bad, though he sometimes compromised on their implementation so much that the results were mixed, and as for the economy, only the ignorant could have expected any president to turn it around completely in a space of two years, considering the state it was in when he was elected. But then the ignorant are unfortunately fairly numerous, in the US as elsewhere.

Still, this result was expected, and it could have been worse. Not only did the Republicans fail to win control of the Senate, but some of their most extreme candidates lost. O'Donnell was expected to lose (that even a sizable minority voted for her is bad enough) but Buck in Colorado, Angle in Nevada and Fiorina in California all were close or even ahead in pre-election polls. As bad as the overall results were, it's consoling to note that the candidates I specifically named in my previous post as ones who shouldn't be elected as senators were not actually elected. But even in the Senate, there were some bad results -- how Wisconsin voters could pick Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold is beyond me. And one or two of the winning Democrats aren't all that great either -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia took a gun to the carbon cap and trade bill in an ad, sucking up to both the NRA and the coal industry in one stroke (though the Republican would no doubt have been still worse).

In Texas, the results were even more overwhelmingly bad than they were nationwide. Not one of the candidates I voted for came even close to winning. I ended up voting for Bill White for governor, which I regret, not only because he lost by a substantial margin, but also because I still think in principle it's better to vote for the candidate you agree with most (in this case Deb Shafto) even if they have no chance of winning. At least the Green candidate for comptroller got over 5% of the vote, guaranteeing the Green Party a place on the ballot next time (I know this will not make all Democrats happy, as they think -- rightly in most cases -- that Greens will take votes from Democrats, but I think people should have as many choices as possible). For that matter, as I noted in my pre-election post, it would have been a great day if even one of the candidates I voted for won. In other words, that they all lost is what I expected.

California, as has happened in the past, showed a bizarre mix of relatively sensible votes and considerably less sensible ones. They rejected the Republican CEO candidates for senator and governor, as well as an attempt by oil interests to block implementation of a law addressing climate change, but they also foolishly rejected the legalization of marijuana (a drug that is overall less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco). They got rid of the ridiculous, gridlock-inducing requirement that budgets be passed by a two-thirds majority in the legislature, but added a new one requiring the same supermajority for adding new fees, which added to the same absurdly high bar that was already in place for increasing taxes proves that Californians, like other Americans, also like to vote for calorie-free chocolate cake (see the link to Kinsley's piece below).

Nationally, what remains to be seen is how Obama will deal with the constraints placed on him by the Republican control of the House and their bigger minority in the Senate. Considering the Republicans' record over the past two years, I'm not too optimistic about the chance of anything much good getting done. Their rhetoric since the election hasn't given me any more hope. For example, we've already had self-appointed tea bag Republican Senate leader Jim DeMint claim that the deficit can be cut without touching Social Security or defense, as "hundreds of billions of dollars" can be saved by cutting "waste" elsewhere. One has to wonder if he is knowingly spouting nonsense, has a very odd definition of waste, or is actually unaware of the real numbers in the budgets he's been voting on over the last six years (the total for all non-defense discretionary spending is only $530 billion dollars, so to save hundreds of billions out of that you'd have to cut nearly everything). But at the least I hope Obama can find ways to get it across to the public that the Republicans are the ones standing in the way of finding real solutions to problems, solutions that benefit the majority, not a privileged few.

Here are some interesting links from the past few weeks that relating closely or distantly to the American political situation:

U.S. is not greatest country ever by Michael Kinsley

I Still Love Obama. Love. Love. Love. by Curtis Sittenfeld

Mugged by the Moralizers by Paul Krugman

We Are All Juan Williams: Associating minorities with crime is irrational, unjust, and completely normal. by Shankar Vedantam

2010 Election

This particular election is looking downright disturbing at the moment. Even if fringe candidates like Sharron Angle, Ken Buck or worse yet Christine O'Donnell (just to name a few of the more extreme candidates for Senate – the House has even more of these types) don't actually win, the mere idea that they could come close makes me wonder about the basic sense of much of the electorate. That any sizable number of people could swallow some of the outrageous stances taken by some of these people is scary. Of course the campaigns have also featured some very negative campaigning. Both sides have been guilty here; much as I don't want to see Rand Paul win, for example, I don't support attacking him for joining an irreverent club in college (all religions should be open to mockery, including Christianity and Islam, and it certainly shouldn't be necessary to be a Christian to get elected – interestingly enough, Chris Matthews, part of the supposedly "left-wing" media, apparently asked Paul's opponent, Conway, some pointed questions to that effect). But for all the faults of the Democrats, given the attitude the Republicans have been displaying recently (particularly the rabid right-wingers), it'll be a disaster for the US – and, given America's still substantial power and influence, for the world as well – if the latter win control of Congress. [Incidentally, I came across a website that fact-checks statements by politicians in both major parties – though whether a particular statement is true is one thing; whether it's really important is another.]

Unfortunately there's little I can do about any of this now. All I can do is fill out my own ballot as best I can. Here again it's mostly a lost cause, as I'm stuck with voting in Texas, which is even more hopelessly conservative than most other states (though there are a few that are worse). I hope that may change in the future, but for at least the next few elections, the Republicans can be expected to dominate statewide races; in fact if the Democrats can avoid a sweep they'll have done well. Even my congressional district has been gerrymandered to be solidly Republican (at least in some other areas of Texas, Democrats can get elected to Congress or the state legislature). Nevertheless, I will vote just to show that not everyone is enamored of the usual conservative rhetoric that dominates the state. The following are my views of the major races on my ballot following a bit of research into the candidates and their views. I probably won't vote on all the local races since I don't have time to do enough research and I'm not familiar enough with local issues (better not to vote on particular race if you know nothing at all about the candidates than to vote in a blind partisan manner). But I believe that it's important that people make an effort to vote, including doing the necessary homework, even if their candidates don't have a chance of winning. Even casting a blank ballot (essentially voting "none of the above") is better than not voting at all.


US House of Representatives, District 32
Grier Raggio (D)
The Libertarian candidate, Myers, actually is fairly sensible on many points, but like all libertarians, he has an excessive faith in the free market and its ability to solve problems, so while his positions on drugs and subsidies to oil and coal companies are spot on, his position on health care, for instance, is completely backward. Raggio, the Democratic candidate, has good (though not always very detailed) positions on pretty much all the issues they were asked about (including health care, alternative energy, carbon emissions and immigration). Though he's less bold and forthright than Myers on some issues, overall his views accord best with my own. The incumbent, Sessions, on the other hand, has pretty much nothing going for him at all. So Raggio gets my vote.

Texas Governor
Bill White (D)
Deb Shafto (Grn)
Deb Shafto, the Green candidate, is in many ways the best. Certainly I like what she has to say on the Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire about renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the little she had space to say about education sounded good to, except maybe the part about longer school days. Her much longer responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire show that she's a serious candidate. I agree with the majority of her stances, including on the environment, energy, taxes, and the problems with the death penalty, so on the issues she comes out on top. On the other hand, Bill White, the Democrat, seems okay on most issues, and more importantly, he has a real chance to beat the incumbent Perry, who is hopelessly right-wing. So while I'd really like to vote for Shafto, I may end up going with White just in order to beat Perry. But certainly I'd urge anyone who for whatever reason didn't like White to give Shafto their vote.
Additional note: I looked up some accounts of the debate between the candidates, which Perry refused to attend (obviously he doesn't think the voters need to hear from him or get a chance to make any comparisons). Shafto's responses were the ones I agreed with most; White seemed overly cautious and unwilling to commit himself (he declined to rate Obama's performance, for example). The Libertarian, Glass, had some good one-liners, but she also showed that she's a extreme right-wing T bagger-type Libertarian, rather than the standard Libertarians who are at least anti-war and pro-legalization (of cannabis). She did say she'd sign a bill legalizing medical marijuana but didn't seem enthusiastic about it, while she's apparently rabidly anti-immigrant and absurdly said Obama was the "worst president ever". She also said Ayn Rand is her favorite philosopher. An obvious nut. But between Shafto and White, it's harder to decide than ever. If Perry weren't so terrible, I'd feel less hesitation about not voting for the candidate who has a chance to beat him. On the other hand, I also like the idea of voting for a candidate I really agree with on a lot of things, plus supporting a decent liberal third party (which the Libertarians clearly aren't). Still a toss up.

Texas Lieutenant Governor
Linda Chavez-Thompson (D)
Once again, the choice is between the Green candidate and the Democratic candidate. In this race it theoretically should be easier to choose the Green, Gonzales, as I have no particular reason to expect that the race will be as close as it will be for governor (most polls focus only on the governor's race, but one analysis I found said the incumbent Republican is heavily favored in this race). But judging from her responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, Chavez-Thompson is a strong candidate, while Gonzales seems to be the weakest of the Green candidates for statewide office. It doesn't help that his writing is poor. So with some reluctance (as a general principle, I'd really like to be able to vote for more Green candidates), I think I'll probably have to go with Chavez-Thompson in this race.

Texas Attorney General
Barbara Ann Radnofsky (D)
The Democrat, Radnofsky, gives decent responses on most issues, and while the Libertarian seems slightly better than the Republican incumbent, he's still a Libertarian (and his response to the Dallas Morning News question on EPA standards is typical Libertarian fringe nuttiness – whereas Radnofsky's response is excellent). So I definitely plan to vote Radnofsky in this race.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Edward Lindsay (Grn)
Since there's no Democrat in this race, I'll certainly vote for Lindsay, the Green. He doesn't talk much about the environment (of course the office he's running for doesn't really deal with environmental issues directly) but he seems okay (and when asked why he's running as a Green, he states that their platform, including promotion of a clean environment, accords with his philosophy), and perhaps more importantly, in the absence of a Democratic candidate, he's the Greens' best chance at getting 5% of the vote in a statewide race. If he does get that much, the Greens will have automatic ballot access in the next state election, rather than having to go through the petition process. As Texans (and Americans) need a good third party option in the future, I would urge all sensible Texas voters to give Lindsay their votes.

Texas Commissioner of General Land Office
Hector Uribe (D)
Uribe, the Democratic candidate, has some good things to say on land use, renewable energy, and conservation, so he gets my vote.

Texas Commissioner of Agriculture
Hank Gilbert (D)
Gilbert's emphasis on the importance of climate change is enough to win my support. The Libertarian seems somewhat better than the Republican incumbent (and I like his support for hemp cultivation), but not good enough to take a chance on.

Texas Railroad Commissioner
Jeff Weems (D)
Art Browning (Grn)
This one is another difficult choice. Again, all other things being equal, I'd prefer to vote for the Green candidate, as I'd like to see the Green party become a real force in US politics. Browning, the Green candidate, seems alright from his responses to the brief Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire and the information on the Texas Green Party website. Unfortunately, he didn't respond to the more extensive Dallas Morning News questionnaire, so I still don't know a lot about his views. Weems, the Democratic candidate, seems to know his stuff. His statement that he would "be outspoken in advocating an expansion of wind and solar power" and his strong statement on global warming are points in his favor. Also, he seems to have a good chance of winning (perhaps even a better one than White has). The Dallas Morning News was enthusiastic in their endorsement of him (not that I agree with them on all or even many of their endorsements), and his opponent is not an incumbent, the incumbent having lost in the primary. So at the moment I'm leaning toward Weems, though it's a tough call.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 3
Jim Sharp (D)
Even aside from the need to bring a little balance to a court that is all Republican, judging from his responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, Sharp, the Democrat (and a sitting Appeals Court judge), seems like a very solid candidate, so he gets my vote.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 5
Bill Moody (D)
The situation in this race is almost identical to the Place 3 race, except that the Democrat, Moody, is a district court judge; in any event, he looks like the best choice.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 9
Blake Bailey (D)
While the responses given by Bailey, the Democratic candidate in this race (and an attorney), are a little more abbreviated and thus slightly less convincing than those of the other Democrats running for Supreme Court, there's nothing particularly objectionable in his views. The Republican incumbent, on the other hand, when asked to name a judge she admires, named Antonin Scalia. So it's Bailey in this race.

Court Of Criminal Appeals, Pl. 2 & Pl. 5
These races have no Democratic (or Green) candidates, so the choice is between Libertarians and Republicans. I am generally wary of Libertarians, as some of them are simply far right "t bag" types, like their candidate for Texas governor or worse yet the Koch brothers. However, some of them emphasize the civil libery aspect of Libertarianism, and so are more palatable than most Republicans. These two strike me as more this type. Both of them have problems with the death penalty, and the one in the Pl. 5 race also makes a strong statement on the importance of mercy (though he does make some typical Libertarian comments about big government as well). The Republican candidates didn't reply to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, and the one running in Pl. 2 didn't even bother with the Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire. So if I vote at all in these races, it'll be for the Libertarians.

Court Of Criminal Appeals, Pl. 6
In this case there is a Democratic candidate, and the Libertarian didn't respond to either of the questionnaires, so he's out. The Democrat doesn't really give me all that much to go on as he – and the Republican as well – decline to answer the death penalty question on the (admittedly reasonable) grounds that they may hear death penalty questions, and neither acknowledges that the court is particularly "tough on crime" (though the Republican is more defensive about it). Still, the Democrat's remarks on mercy are good (the Republican's are okay but more vague) and his reasons for running as a Democrat sound good. I haven't decided if I'll vote on this one, but if I do it'll be for the Democrat.

State Board of Education, Dist. 12
This race is also between a Libertarian and a Republican. Both are somewhat critical of the current board. Neither is quite specific enough in their criticism to show exactly where they stand on some of the current board's more idiotic moves, though the Libertarian makes the point that the board should not try to casually overrule the work of educators and experts. The Republican does suggest that maybe the board should be made up of educators, which is not unreasonable. He is also less fond of the idea of charter schools (the Libertarian is a supporter), making the reasonable argument that it would make more sense to improve the regular public schools (though as charter schools do have some virtues, I have mixed feelings on this issue myself). So while this is an important race, I may simply abstain on this one, though I might go with the Libertarian.

Texas House, District 115
Not much of a choice here. No Democrats (or Greens) running, so we're left with a Libertarian and the Republican incumbent. The incumbent sounds pretty bad, as he supports Arizona's absurd immigration law and supports Texas' lax air pollution standards over the EPA's more stringent standards. The Libertarian didn't respond to the Dallas Morning News candidate questionnaire, so he's an unknown (though if he's a typical Libertarian, he'll be great on a few issues and nutty on a lot of others). Still, it's tempting to vote for him just as a vote against the incumbent.

These are all the races I'm likely to vote on, except for a few local referendums (basically alcohol sales should be legal, but city park land shouldn't be sold unless there are assurances it won't be turned into just another housing or shopping development). Frankly I'll be happy if even one or two of the people I vote for actually wins, but in any case I will have done my civic duty.

Gliese 581 g: A potentially habitable planet

One interesting news item at the end of last month was the announcement of the discovery of a planet in the habitable zone of a star other than the Sun. This was exciting news for many reasons, though not too surprisingly a lot of journalists (and even the discoverers themselves) went a little overboard in their descriptions of what had actually been found, and even when they didn't, many readers (judging from comments some made on the articles) weren't quite able to grasp all the details. Many other people (particularly those who didn't do more than glance at the articles and those who only saw the news mentioned on TV) no doubt ended up with a completely mistaken understanding of what had been found. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there are some people who think the astronomers actually found alien life or even an alien civilization. This is far from the case, though the discovery is an important milestone in the search for alien life nonetheless.

Gliese 581 is a red dwarf star located about 20 light years from our solar system. As interstellar distances go, this is not very far; the closest star other than the Sun is 4.2 light years away, while the center of the galaxy is about 25,000 light years away. In fact most of the stars that we can see in the sky without any optical aids are farther away than Gliese 581. We can't see Gliese 581 without a telescope, however, since, like all red dwarfs, it is very faint and cool (the closest star other than the Sun, Proxima Centauri, is also too faint to be seen by the naked eye).

In 2005, a planet was discovered around Gliese 581, and since then five more planets have been found, including this latest one, giving it the third most known planets of any star (the Sun being first). What makes this latest planet, designated Gliese 581 g, special is the fact that it orbits in the middle of the star's habitable zone. This refers to the distance from the star at which a planet might be expected to have surface temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius but below 100 degrees Celsius, and thus could potentially have liquid water on its surface. The habitable zone varies for each star, being closer in for small, cool stars like Gliese 581 than for stars like the Sun. Gliese 581 g orbits at a distance of 0.146 AU from Gliese 581. One AU (Astronomical Unit) is equal to the average distance between the Earth and the Sun, and so 0.146 AU is a distance of about 22 million kilometers. It takes Gilese 581 g only 37 days to orbit its star, compared with a little over 365 days for Earth and 88 days for Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun. Since it is so close to its star, one might think that it would be inside the habitable zone, making it too hot to support life, as Mercury and Venus (though only barely in the latter's case) are in our Solar System. But as noted, the habitable zone for Gliese 581 is much closer to the star than ours is to the Sun, since it is much cooler. In fact, another planet in the same system, Gliese 581 d, is 0.218 AU from the star and orbits in 67 days, still much less than Mercury, and yet is believed to be on the outer edge of the habitable zone (like Mars in our Solar System).

Though hundreds of planets have been discovered outside our solar system, only one previous discovery was clearly in the habitable zone of its star, the planet 55 Caceri f. However, this planet is a gas giant similar to Neptune or Saturn in our Solar System, and so as it is not thought to have a solid surface, it couldn't have liquid water or Earth-like life (on the other hand, if it has a large enough moon, the latter could have liquid water and life). Gliese 581 g is believed to be a “super-Earth”, a large rocky planet with a mass of 3 to 4 times that of Earth and a diameter of up to twice Earth's. So it is the first Earth-like planet that is situated right in the middle of its star's habitable zone (other than the Earth itself), and that's what makes the discovery exciting.

On the other hand, it is important to remember that there is a great deal that we don't know about this planet. Though it is in the habitable zone, we don't actually know that it even has water in any form, nor do we know if it has an atmosphere. This latter point is important, as an atmosphere is necessary to retain heat and bring the planet's surface temperature above the freezing point of water. This is also the case on Earth, as without the greenhouse effect caused by our atmosphere the planet would be permanently frozen. Given Gliese 581 g's large mass in comparison to Earth it seems probable that it should have an atmosphere, possible one thicker than Earth's, but we don't know this for certain.

Also worth noting is Gliese 581 g's rotation period. Since it is relatively close to its star, it is probably tidally locked, like the Moon is with respect to Earth, so that its day is equal to its year in length and one side of the planet is constantly turned towards the star (and the other side is always turned away). This means that one side of the planet would be very hot and the other side very cold, though an atmosphere (if there is one) would ameliorate this to some extent. So it would actually be the band around the planet on the edge between the day and night sides (the “twilight zone”, so to speak) that would have the greatest potential for life. On a planet this size, this would still be a fairly large area, but it's not quite the same as an entire planet that is habitable. (Though it has also occurred to me to wonder if the tidal lock might not be more like that of Mercury, which rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions about the sun, rather than a 1:1 lock; if so, the temperature extremes would be somewhat less. But perhaps the tides in this case make a 1:1 lock certain – I don't know the physics and math well enough to check this myself).

I should also point out that we haven't actually seen this planet, or for that matter the vast majority of other 500 or so known extrasolar planets. There are no pictures of it, even pictures showing it as a tiny dot. This is because it is so dim compared to its parent star that the light from the latter makes the planet invisible, even to our best telescopes. Only very large planets which orbit at a significant distance from their stars and yet are hot (and so emit a lot of infrared radiation) can actually be imaged directly. So how do we know the planet exists? As a planet orbits a star, its gravity tugs on the star, causing it to move towards or away from us. This causes a slight shift in the light of the star (due to the Doppler effect). Analysis of these shifts in the star's light, tiny though they are, allows astronomers to detect planets and even determine certain of their characteristics (such as mass, distance, and period of revolution) fairly precisely. Of course this takes repeated observations so that there is sufficient data. In fact recently another group of astronomers were unable to detect Gliese 581 g in their own analysis of the data, though apparently they only used one of the data sets that the discoverers use, and the latter have stated that both data sets are necessary to detect the planet with any reliability. But while we can still say the planet probably exists, this is a reminder of how little we actually know about it.

Of course given all the above caveats, it should be clear that we don't really know for certain that Gliese 581 g is habitable, even though it is in the habitable zone, much less whether it actually has life. It has the greatest potential for having some type of life of any planet we've discovered outside the Solar System – that's what everyone is excited about – but it doesn't necessarily have any life, let alone intelligent life (and even if it is habitable for life "as we know it", it might not be habitable for us -- at least without a lot of work). In fact, there are several places in our own Solar System other than Earth which are as likely to have life based on what we know now (namely Mars and Europa), though if we were able to confirm that Gliese 581 g had water and an atmosphere it would have to be considered a more likely candidate, at least for larger life forms (it's highly unlikely that Mars has any life larger than microbes, if that, and while Europa might have larger life forms, we know too little about how life gets started and evolves to be confident of this, since on Europa any life would have to have formed under the ice that covers the moon – unlike on a watery Gliese 581 g, where it could live on the surface).

Unfortunately it will be some time before we know anything more about Gliese 581 g, other than confirming its existence. To actually detect and analyze the planet's atmosphere, we would need better telescopes, such as the proposed Terrestrial Planet Finder. Unfortunately, this has so far been a victim of insufficient funding for NASA (yet another example of why NASA should be getting more money, as I have argued before). But another reason Gliese 581 g is significant is simply that it shows there are Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of stars other than the Sun, and so we can probably expect to find more. After all, there are more than a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and even within the relatively close range of 100 light years there are thousands (though such stars are only close in a relative sense; none of our current spacecraft can travel even a few light years in less than a few centuries). Many of these stars resemble the Sun much more closely than Gliese 581, which as noted above is relatively small, faint and cool, and so any planets they have in the habitable zone would not have the tidal locking problem. Even if Gliese 581 g doesn't have life, or if it only has very simple life, we now have to consider it more likely that there is a planet out there somewhere with more, and that we will find it eventually.

A Concise Manifesto for the "Tea" Party and Other Right-thinking People

Looking again at my previous manifesto, I realized it has a problem: too many words. It might be useful as a reference for leaders of our movement when they want to make speeches, but for most of our ground troops (and you are the ones who count; after all, we are a grassroots movement, no matter how many billionaires and big corporations secretly help fund us), it is unnecessary. To follow it all would require reading and something approaching thought. Reading and thinking is for liberal losers. Therefore, we present our concise manifesto, containing all the ideas most of us will ever need (and just about all the ideas that we can keep in our heads anyway).

Government=bad
Corporations/capitalism=good
Deficits=bad
Taxes=bad
Health care reform=socialism=evil
Health insurance companies=selfless
Social programs=bad
Defense spending=good
Global warming=hoax
Fossil fuel consumption=good
Alternative energy=pointless
Immigrants=bad
Gay marriage=evil
Constitution=flawless
Founding Fathers=godlike
Barack Obama=communist/fascist/Islamic/godless/un-American

A Manifesto for the "Tea" Party (and other Right-thinking people)

The government is not to be trusted. Government involvement in anything whatsoever is dangerous and should be prevented at all costs. Corporations, on the other hand, are trustworthy and should be left alone to do whatever they want without interference from the government, because free, unfettered capitalism is the American way. If a corporation does do something blatantly harmful to the public, then it is the government's fault.

The current US deficit is the greatest menace to the future of the United States ever seen. It is an unbearable burden that will bankrupt the nation and destroy its power forever. The only thing as bad as the deficit is taxes. So we should eliminate the deficit and cut taxes. Cutting taxes will help eliminate the deficit, because everyone knows that if companies and the rich have a few extra dollars, they aren't going to save it or pay it out in dividends, but are absolutely guaranteed to invest it or spend it in a way that will stimulate the economy, and stimulate it so much that government revenues will magically increase by the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to offset the tax cut. Spending by the government, on the other hand, never stimulates the economy. All money spent by the government goes into the Twilight Zone, not back into the economy.

The government should not be involved in health care, because it is untrustworthy and secretly wants to kill off all free-thinking Americans by putting them in front of death panels. Private health insurance companies, on the other hand, are perfectly trustworthy. They won't deny anyone coverage, unless they are a lost cause, or are too poor to pay for it. Likewise, America already has the world's best health system. You can ask all the wealthy foreigners who come here to take advantage of it. Their compatriots may have better life expectancies than the average American, but they have to stand in line for it. And who wants to live that long anyway if you have to live in a socialist country?

We believe in small government. The federal government should be shrunk down as small as possible and should be involved in as little as possible. The government shouldn't restrict businesses from making money any way they can, prevent oil companies from extracting oil from anywhere in US territory, tell coal companies they can't decapitate mountains and dump coal ash in rivers, or stop people from hunting or buying guns of any kind. It shouldn't be involved in education, funding art, or subsidizing unimportant energy industries like solar or wind (though it should keep giving huge tax breaks to oil companies so they'll drill more oil wells). We also believe in a strong defense, so we don't believe in cutting military spending, which in any case does not even make up quite half of total discretionary spending by the entire government. You can't have too many stealth bombers, nuclear weapons or missile defense systems. But other than maintaining a mighty military, the government should keep out of the people's lives, except to tap people's phones and check their library records in case they might be terrorists. And to make sure people don't smoke marijuana (regardless of whether their doctors recommend it), homosexuals don't marry, women don't get abortions, and scientists don't do stem cell research. And to search for, arrest, and deport illegal immigrants. And to spy on adherents of suspicious religions like Islam. Otherwise, we expect the government to leave everyone alone.

Global warming is a hoax, concocted by scientists, who are no more to be trusted than the government is. And anyway, the Earth is warming because of the sun, or volcanic activity, or some other natural cause. Or it would be, if it was warming, which it isn't. The only scientists that can be trusted are those who say that global warming is not being caused by humans (even though it's really a hoax). The word of these scientists should be accepted without question, at least as long as they are saying there is no anthropogenic global warming. If you learn of any such scientists (regardless of their actual field of expertise) beyond the few dozen we know about, be sure to send word.

Since global warming isn't real, there is no need to spend any money on less developed energy industries like solar power. Let other countries like China develop those industries; we don't want to have the government encouraging new ventures of that sort on the off chance it might generate jobs and make the US a leader in a growing field. It probably won't amount to anything anyway. Besides, we don't like or trust anything new. We'll just stick to good old fossil fuels. As mentioned above, we want oil companies to receive billion dollar tax breaks to drill for oil in our seas and wildlife preserves, and we don't want their hands tied by regulation. We're happy to take our chances with oil spills and exploding rigs as long as we can drill, baby, drill. Coal companies likewise should be allowed to extract coal any way they can. We aren't worried about any minor pollution from fossil fuel consumption; as long as our economy is strong, we don't mind living in a smoggy wasteland. And there are enough fossil fuels to last forever, or at least until most of us are dead, after which it'll be someone else's problem.

We believe that evolution is just a theory, and it should not be taught to children as if it were not questionable. The theory of intelligent design should be treated equally in biology classes, regardless of any shortage of so-called "evidence", which is the kind of thing those untrustworthy scientists are always going on and on about. By the way, if you can find any scientists (or anyone that can pretend to be scientists) who are willing to speak out for intelligent design, contact us immediately.

Illegal immigrants are a menace to our society, and should be treated like the criminal scum they are. Let's face it; sneaking into our country in search of a better life is a crime, just like murder, rape and assault. Anyway, illegal immigrants commit lots of those crimes too. Or at least so we hear, and since sounds like the sort of thing we'd expect of them, it must be true. But even if they are law-abiding, we don't want all these immigrants coming here; we were here first, and we don't want to share the country with any latecomers. In particular, the government should build a Great Wall of America from Texas to California to keep all the Mexican riffraff out of those states; after all, we robbed Mexico of that territory fair and square.

We believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution is a perfect, flawless document, because the Founding Fathers were perfect human beings and didn't make any mistakes. Look at that clever three-fifths rule for example. If you lived in a state with 100,000 free citizens and 500,000 slaves, the state would have as many representatives as a state with 400,000 free citizens. That means each of the free men would get have the equivalent of 4 votes in selecting members of the House of Representatives. Cool, huh? Not that we think slavery was good or anything. No, of course not. But a lot of the Founders had slaves, so it can't have been that bad either.... Anyway, the federal government should not do anything that was not spelled out in the Constitution, and we should interpret what is in there the way the Founders intended, which we can easily do because we can go back in history and read their minds. For example, when they wrote about a right to bear arms, they obviously meant that anyone who wanted to should be able to walk into a store and buy automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets. When they said that a citizen's freedom of speech may not be abridged, they clearly meant that corporations are people and their right to spend millions of dollars on elections cannot be restricted. They also meant that anyone should have the right to call the President a communist Islamic fascist, if the President is a liberal. The Founders would have thought it was okay to compare our current President to Hitler, because we know they would have disliked him too. But they did not mean that people could say anything critical about our military involvement in a foreign country or the conservative government that took us into it to save us from the possibility of our tough guy image being damaged. The Founders clearly would have held such criticism to be unpatriotic and borderline treason.

We also believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. They did not mean to create a separation of church and state when they wrote the First Amendment, only intending that the government should not favor one Christian denomination over another. The Founders were all devout Christians who would never have thought of questioning Jesus' divinity and were suspicious of Muslims, Jews and atheists. We can prove that the Founders were fundamentalist Christians (and that they were pro-business, anti-regulation capitalists) through a number of quotes that we found somewhere and have attached their names to (The Right's Library of Fake Quotes By Steve Rendall: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4053).

As mentioned above, we believe in the right to bear arms. And we're not talking muskets here. Assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, silencers and so forth are all obviously protected by the Second Amendment. Anyone who wants to should be able to get a gun, without any waiting period or licenses, even if they are foaming at the mouth and muttering about the people who are going to get it as they do so. What's more, they should be allowed to carry their guns, openly or concealed, anywhere they go. That way if someone starts shooting, everyone else can pull out their guns and start shooting too.

We firmly believe in judicial restraint. Judges should not legislate from the bench. They shouldn't try to protect people who might possibly be terrorists from torture. They shouldn't make any rulings unfavorable to business. They shouldn't try to protect the interests of minority groups if the majority decides to deny the latter their rights by democratic vote. If they want to declare corporations to be people, however, that's okay, since as explained above that's what the Founders intended.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and any attempt to allow same-sex couples to marry will completely destroy the family unit. The mere existence of same-sex marriage will cause heterosexual unions to disintegrate. Normal families will disappear. And as stated above, the courts should not defy the will of the people and give gay couples the right to marry. If the people of a state vote specifically to deny homosexuals the right to marry, the courts cannot go against that. It's just like segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. Everyone knows the courts had nothing to do with ending those things; they ended because the people of those states were against them. You can ask any of the older Southern members of our movement; they'll tell you they were all anti-segregation, because like the rest of us, they all love black people and all other minorities (except gays and Muslims).

The current US president is a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, and a fascist, and he is bent on destroying America. He wasn't even born in the US, so he is not legitimate. Sure, liberal liars claim that all their so-called "evidence" proves that none of these things are true, but why should we believe any "facts" if they come from liberals. We don't need any "evidence" supporting what we say about him, since we have plenty of rumors and innuendo, and that's good enough for us. In fact, we're beginning to think he might be the Anti-Christ. The fact that he is part black has absolutely nothing to do with our hatred of him, since, as stated above, we love black people (at least as long as they stick to suitable activities like rap and sports).

If you, like us, are a patriotic American who wants to take our country back from the tax-happy, anti-business, tree-hugging, gay-loving, peacenik hippie communist terrorist sympathizers, come to join our movement. Together, we can turn back the clock to a time when America was strong, corporations were unrestrained by regulations, taxes were low, we prayed to God in school, we weren't being overrun by illegal immigrants, homosexuals were considered mentally ill, everyone was a good White Anglo-Saxon Protestant or was kept safely locked away in a ghetto, and we felt free to blow any foreign country that gave us trouble to hell. Together, we can restore American greatness!

[Edited 2010/10/02]

I wonder, should I have more confidence in the ability of most people to see the blindingly obvious, or (if this should somehow end up being read by a significant number of people) should I expect people to be quoting from it with a straight face? Just in case, for anyone uncertain of my real opinions, I'd suggest that you read a few of the other entries in my blog.

What I've Been Reading – 2010, Part 4

Dhalgren by Samuel Delany

Last month I read Samuel R. Delany's novel Dhalgren, which is a very strange and yet fascinating work. Science Fiction – The Illustrated Encyclopedia characterized it as "perhaps the most difficult SF novel that has still sold in large numbers". While I have read a few other SF novels that I recall taking a similar amount of extra effort, such as J.G. Ballard's The Drowned World and Stanislaw Lem's Solaris (the latter in particular being well worth the effort), it’s certainly true that Dhalgren is not an easy read – not to mention the fact that it is considerably longer than most other novels, science fiction or not. It begins with a bizarre, dream-like sequence (indeed, later in the novel it's made clear that the protagonist half believes it to have been a dream), followed by the protagonist's entry into Bellona, the weird city that serves as the setting for the rest of the novel. Bellona has suffered an unexplained disaster that has caused most of its population to abandon it and prevents any radio or television signals from getting in or out. Most of the rest of the country has forgotten it, but it has attracted a number of free spirits, army deserters, and social misfits, who live there along with the remaining original inhabitants. But as eventually becomes clear, there is much more to the city's oddness than simply being half empty and inhabited by strange characters. Weird, impossible phenomena occur, like two moons appearing in the sky – and in different phases. Space and time themselves seem to be distorted, though to what degree is not always clear, due in part to the issues the protagonist from whose perspective we see things has.

The protagonist of the story is almost as strange as the city it takes place in. Though he remembers quite a bit of his past, he doesn't remember his name, or the names of his parents. After arriving in Bellona he gets the nickname Kid (or Kidd or the Kid), which is what he is known by through most of the novel. He wears only one sandal (later a boot), and his other foot is always bare. He has spent time in a mental institution and still seems to have some mental problems. At times he seems to hallucinate, and at other times he blacks out on the passage of time (to him it seems only a day has passed, while others tell him it's been several days). However, though he himself often questions his sanity, it is not always clear whether some of these problems really are in his own mind, or are caused by the city itself. For instance, early in the novel there are several instances where a door he remembers being on one side of a street seems to shift to the other side the next time he encounters it. It seems that this perception on Kid's part might be a hallucination, but later his friend Tak, who for the most part is one of the most clearheaded people in the city (despite his penchant for taking men who have just come to Bellona home and seducing them), tells Kid that he often finds that things in the city seem to have shifted around. Even Kid's problems regarding the passage of time may not be entirely in his head, as I'll explain below.

Soon after arriving in the city, Kid obtains a battered notebook which someone has filled with slightly disjointed observations. He starts using the blank left hand pages to write poems, which he is continually polishing and rewriting. He meets a girl named Lanya with whom he starts a relationship, and he spends a period of time working for a dysfunctional middle class family, with tragic results. He meets a famous visiting poet, and through him ends up having his poems published in a book, which becomes the most widely read book in town (in part because it's the only book to be published in the town, though also because many feel the poems capture the feel of Bellona). The book of poems is published by a man named Calkins who has a large house up in the better part of town. The somewhat mysterious Calkins (who we never actually see) is the publisher of the town’s newspaper, which he dates idiosyncratically (one day may be dated Tuesday, February 12, 1995, and the next might be Saturday, April 1, 1919).

Eventually Kid falls in with the scorpions, who are gangs of young people that wear a type of chain that, when turned on, create a light image of a creature like a scorpion, dragon, or spider that envelops the wearer. Though they have a rather dangerous reputation among the other residents, the scorpions are not quite as fearsome as they seem, for the most part living peacefully and communally in abandoned houses – though they do occasionally engage in violence. Kid forms a relationship with a young scorpion named Denny, with the two of them and Lanya forming a ménage à trios. As a side note, there is a lot of sex in this book. Though I've read one or two books that might have as much, I don't think I've read any that had quite so much variety, often described fairly graphically (Delany himself is supposedly bisexual, which I can well believe).

The first six sections of the book, covering the first 620 pages, are told in third person narration from Kid's point of view, and while certain passages, especially those reflecting Kid's notebook, are similar to stream of consciousness, for the most part the narrative is reasonably straightforward. The events occur and are described in an apparently linear fashion, though the events themselves are often strange and as mentioned there are occasional disjointed passages. The seventh and last section, covering the remaining 150 pages, is purportedly a typescript someone made from Kid's journal. It takes up more or less where the previous section left off, but as many of the pages in the notebook had come loose and the typescript was seemingly made from a bunch of pages that were somewhat out of sequence, with some missing, the episodes described are no longer in their proper order. As Kid used the margins of the notebook to add extra thoughts, this section is full of marginalia, usually but not always connected with the main text it appears beside. As the writing on the original pages often continued onto subsequent pages that were missing when the typescript was made, many passages are cut off in the middle of a line. Descriptions of some events are missing entirely, though we know they took place because of references elsewhere. In a few places Kid lapses into gibberish.

Finally, in this section it becomes clear that not only are the descriptions of events not in order, but time itself is out of joint. There are contradictory indications of the sequence of certain events, and ultimately the novel is circular. This is made obvious by events at the very end of the book. Without going into precise detail, I will describe one event which gave this away to me (though there had been other clues that I noticed when I looked back). When Kid enters the city at the beginning of the book, he encounters a group of girls leaving and talks to them briefly (though in the dark he doesn't see them clearly). One gives him a bizarre weapon called an orchid (made of seven blades curving forward from a wrist band) that he carries throughout much of the story. At the end of the story, a group of people, mostly male, leave the city and meet a girl going in. They have a conversation almost identical to that between Kid and the girls at the beginning. In flipping back to the latter to check this, I realized that the group of girls Kid meets going in are a group that are described as disappearing from the city in the last section of the book.

What's more, many of the passages that Kid reads out of the notebook that he gets at the beginning – passages that were already in the notebook when he first got it – appear word for word in the last section of the book. In other words, it seems as if Kid himself wrote the original passages in the notebook. The book begins in the middle of a sentence; "…to wound the autumnal city". It ends with "…I have come to…", and in one passage of gibberish in the last section of the novel the entire sentence ("I have come to to [sic] wound the 'autumnal city") appears. So the novel ends as it begins (as supposedly James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, which I haven't read, does), making a loop. Indeed, one critic has said it acts as a Moebius Strip.

Unsurprisingly, Dhalgren (which ultimately sold in the neighborhood of a million copies) elicited a wide range of opinions. Many critics both inside and outside the science fiction praised it highly, and it has received far more critical attention from people attempting to explain various aspects of it than the average science fiction book gets (comparable instead to the attention given to some of Ursula Le Guin's work, or the novels of Kurt Vonnegut). Others hated it, among them prominent writers like Philip K. Dick. Even its fans often admit to not understanding it; William Gibson wrote a forward to one edition in which he said: "I have never understood it. I have sometimes felt that I partially understood it, or that I was nearing the verge of understanding it... Dhalgren is not there to be finally understood. I believe its 'riddle' was never meant to be 'solved.'"

So would I recommend it? It depends entirely on the taste of the individual reader. Certainly those who dislike anything other than a straightforward tale, expect to have all mysteries (or even most of them) explained or have a problem with sex that is not heterosexual or monogamous would do well to steer clear. I personally found the book very intriguing and somewhat frustrating (I do generally prefer to have all the mysteries cleared up at the end of a book). I'm glad I read it, and I may read it again someday, but I wouldn’t want to read a lot books like it, certainly not on a regular basis. There's no doubt, however, that it's an unusual reading experience.


Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert

The next novel I read was a well-known classic, Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary. This novel superficially has very little in common with Dhalgren, but there are a few points in common. The most obvious is that they were both controversial, and sex was a primary reason for this. There are no graphic sex scenes in Madame Bovary, but she commits adultery, which was something of a taboo topic. What’s more, there is confusion, if only in the mind of Madame Bovary herself, between spiritual and physical ecstasy, resulting in accusations of blasphemy. In fact, Flaubert was prosecuted for "immorality" and "irreligion", though he was ultimately acquitted.

Madame Bovary is far from an admirable figure, and in fact there are no truly admirable characters in the novel, at least among the main characters. Madame Bovary is shallow and self-centered, and is unable to separate fantasy (as represented by the romantic novels she reads) from the reality of mundane everyday life. She believes she cannot be happy unless she is swept off her feet and carried off to exotic lands, and as a consequence she is almost constantly unhappy, except early in her affairs when she is able to convince herself that what is happening is like the stories she has read. In fact, as I read the novel, she made me think of Don Quixote, and later when reading the critical supplement at the end of the book I learned that several critics have made the same comparison. She is not delusional to the point of obvious mental illness like Don Quixote, but the result is nearly the same. She despises her husband because of his ordinariness and lack of competence, and while not unintelligent, she has no self-control, spending extravagantly to gratify her various impulses. She doesn't even truly care for her lovers, just for the way they can satisfy her desires.

Madame Bovary is not a cheerful book; it's full of not very lovable people, and the end is not a happy one, at least for most of the characters. But Flaubert's skill as a writer is what makes the book a classic, and while I can't claim to be able to fully appreciate his stylistic ability, especially in translation (that's not a criticism of the translator, just recognition of the inevitability of something being lost in translation, particularly in the case of a writer like Flaubert), there were many standout passages, making it obvious why many admire the book. Flaubert himself once wrote that "there is no such thing as a beautiful idea without beautiful form, and vice versa." He was said to constantly write and rewrite passages, searching for the perfect combination of words (in this, if nothing else, he is like Kid in Dhalgren). Despite this, he was cynical about the ability of words to really convey anything properly; in one passage in Madame Bovary explaining the inability of her lover to truly understand her, he says: "…no one can every express the exact measure of his needs, his conceptions or his sorrows, and human speech is like a cracked pot on which we beat out rhythms for bears to dance to when we are striving to make music that will wring tears from the stars." From the descriptions of him in the critical supplement, including ones by people who knew him personally like Emile Zola, Flaubert was a somewhat obsessive and occasionally contradictory character, but nonetheless widely admired, and Madame Bovary was the main foundation for much of that admiration.

Leiber, Cherryh and Moorcock

After reading two relatively "heavy" books in a row, I wanted some relatively light reading for a time. Accordingly I decided to return to Fritz Leiber's tales of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser by reading The Swords of Lankhmar, the first book included in the omnibus The Second Book of Lankhmar. As I have discussed Leiber's tales previously, I will just make a few observations here. One is that The Swords of Lankhmar is unusual in that it is a full novel rather than a collection of stories gathered in chronological order (internal chronology, that is). Also, though he is writing fantasy, Leiber makes a commendable effort to provide scientific explanations for fantastic things. When the Gray Mouser shrinks due to a magic potion, he leaves a puddle of slimy pink liquid on the ground, bordered by a gray powder, corresponding to the matter that he has lost from his flesh, clothing and weapons. Likewise, Fafhrd quite intelligently asks a female Ghoul (a human-like creature with flesh and organs that are entirely transparent, making them look like living skeletons) he meets and becomes romantically involved with how she can see, given that light passes straight through her eyes. Whether her explanation, or Leiber's explanation for the geology of the Sinking Land, is completely sound scientifically I couldn't say, but at least he makes the effort. The episode with Fafhrd and his Ghoul lover is also notable for Leiber's aside that the sight of them together was "one to touch the hearts of imaginative lovers and enemies of racial discrimination in all the many universes". And once again his heroes stand in contrast to characters like Conan in that they are less superhuman (though the way they are able to fight off a crowd of people out for their blood at the beginning of the novel is almost Conan-like); they are occasionally foolish, usually lustful and greedy, somewhat sexist (though unlike nearly all of Conan's lovers, their lovers are often a match for them, mentally and in the case of Fafhrd's Ghoul lover, even physically) and yet prone to generous impulses. All in all, they make a pleasant if not always politically correct diversion.

I followed this with C. J. Cherryh's novel Merchanter's Luck, a story set, like the other books of hers that I’ve read, in her Alliance-Union universe. This is a far future where humans have expanded into far into space, settling in space stations and eventually habitable worlds strung out among the stars, with their ties to Earth eventually loosening to the point that contact is minimal. The routes between the stars are traveled by merchant spacers who carry goods from station to station. Cherryh has written many books in this series, but the only ones I've read previously are the much longer Downbelow Station and Cyteen, plus the more distantly connected Chanur trilogy. Downbelow Station is an action-packed adventure tale featuring complicated political maneuvering, ending by creating the balance of power that serves as the background for many of the later tales. Cyteen takes place on the eponymous central planet of the somewhat fascistic Union, and is an interesting account of an attempt to replicate a genius, not only by creating a genetic clone, but also by recreating the environment and events of her childhood. The Chanur trilogy takes place in a more distant area of the galaxy inhabited by intelligent alien races. It centers on a ship which ends up taking on a refugee alien of a hitherto unknown race that calls itself “human”. This series is notable not only for creating believable alien races, but for making them the focus of the story (we only learn what the human thinks from the little he is able to convey as he slowly learns their language). Merchanter's Luck, which takes place soon after Downbelow Station and includes appearances by some of the characters of that novel, is less of an epic tale than any of the above, but is gripping nonetheless. It also has some psychological elements, as one of the two protagonists is a young man whose family were massacred when he was a boy, except for two others who died subsequently, leaving him the sole owner of a starship, often flying it completely alone when he is unable to find temporary crew, accompanied only by his ghosts and the voice of his cousin, programmed into the ship's computer. When he has the opportunity to take on a more trustworthy crew, his solitary habits and deep-seated distrust of others creates problems. The story is fairly short (around 200 pages) but fast-paced. Basically, it's an entertaining way to spend a few hours.

Next I read The Sailor on the Seas of Fate by Michael Moorcock, which is the second book (by internal chronology) of the Elric series. Elric is the rightful emperor of Melnibone, a land inhabited by race of beings similar to humans, but more powerful and almost completely lacking in human emotions like regret and compassion (they quite casually inflict very barbaric tortures, and rarely show any concern for others, even of their own race). Elric is exceptional in that he does feel such emotions to some degree. He is also an albino, and physically weak without special drugs. Despite this, he is a powerful sorcerer and a skilled swordsman. What's more, he wields an extremely powerful sword called Stormbringer. This black blade is semi-sentient and often seems to murmur to itself. It sucks the souls out of those it strikes, consuming them and transferring energy from their souls to Elric. However, it sometimes gets out of Elric's control, striking those he does not wish to strike, with tragic results.

In this novel, Elric has recently left Melnibone to travel in the human kingdoms, as he believes that understanding the up and coming human powers is necessary if the decadent, decaying realm of Melnibone is to have any chance of surviving, and also because his unusual (for a Melnibonean) ability to feel human emotions made him restless at home. When feeling hostile humans, he meets a mysterious ship that sails between worlds, on which he meets several individuals who, like he himself, are incarnations of a being known as the Eternal Champion. It seems that virtually all the heroes featured in Moorcock's fiction are incarnations of the Eternal Champion, despite superficial differences. In this book, Elric meets Erekose, Hawkmoon, and Corum, all of whom feature in other Moorcock novels (though other than Elric, the only one I’ve read any stories of is Corum, when someone lent them to me in high school – my impression at the time, accurate or not, was that they were grim and depressing). After facing a pair of beings that threaten all the worlds that they come from, Elric parts company with the others, and has further adventures in attempting to return to his own world, the last ending in misfortune.

As might be guessed with his sinister sword, his unpleasant antecedents, and his ill-starred life, Elric is a much grimmer hero than Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or Conan. There is no question he is a very memorable character, but his adventures are much bleaker and so not as much fun to read about. Also, while Moorcock's scope is broader than many other fantasy writers in that his tales of many different worlds are all in a sense tied together, his individual worlds don’t seem to be quite as detailed as those of Leiber and Howard, not to mention Tolkien (though to be fair, I haven’t read as many of his books – even in the case of the Elric stories, I’ve only read the first three books, all of which are on the short side). However, despite these downsides, anyone interested in fantasy should read at least some of the Elric stories, as they are sure to make an impression.