Book Review of the Day: While in Pennsylvania, I managed to finish Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman. It's based on a BBC miniseries that Gaiman also wrote, which I haven't seen, but, given the BBC's track record, I'm sure is positively atrocious.

The good news is, the book isn't. It's dark humor done well--sort of Douglas Adams meets Lewis Carroll meets Edgar Allen Poe.

The plot's pretty typical British fare--an everyman gets caught up in a world he doesn't really understand, but is far more interesting than his real life. He spends all his time wanting to get back, while a bigger story happens around him. In this case, the world he doesn't understand is right under his nose--the world of the people we don't see who live around, above, and below London. It's populated by strange and sundry characters--you get the idea.

It really is dark, and it really is fun, which makes for an interesting sweet-and-sour combination. As in most of these types of books, you never really care about the viewpoint character, but the people who surround him are every bit as well-drawn and interesting as you'd hope they'd be, and I did come to care about a couple of them quite a bit.

Overall, if the Poe-Adams-Carroll comparison appeals to you, check this one out. If not, you'll probably want to find something else.

Obscure Movie Review of the Day: Pumping Iron

This 1976 documentary was fairly entertaining. It's funny now, to watch it in context. The Lou vs. Arnold competition seems quaint in the light of everything that's happened to both of them since them. But just watching the documentary leaves out two of the most important things.

Fortunately, this is the age of DVDs, and both of the important things are addressed in the nifty extra features.

The first one is the historical context of the piece. When you're watching the auditorium full of screaming fans cheering at the competition, it's hard to remember that that bunch of people represented like nearly all the fans of the sport in the whole world. Weightlifting wasn't accepted as a sport then--the guys who did it were either seen as insecure kids who had been beat up a lot, or freakish, self-obsessed monsters.

This film was an attempt to bring that to the masses--almost a propaganda piece.

Which makes the second important thing all the more interesting--that half the "story" in it is a lie. They would make things up on the spot, or shoot extra things, or otherwise attempt to make the film more interesting. Arnold tells stories he heard once, from somebody somewhere, as if they happened to them. They have Lou's father, who never really had any interest in Lou's career, play a sort of Burgess Meredith character, pushing him harder, yelling at him, giving him advice. They say his father retired from the police force to focus full time on his son's career.

All of this is intermixed with true interesting stuff, like Lou's struggle with hearing problems.

When viewed in this light, I think the film is amazing. And it did it's job--you just have to look at how much of your hard earned money you've paid out in gym memberships--whether you go or not--to see that.

Instructing Vs. Teaching: Mo wrote in to respond to my last post on censorship. It was actually a comment of Prof. Vu's that got to her:

"Suppose, for example, that a man 'teaches' that racial minorities are subhuman, explains in detail how to make a bomb and then encourages his listeners to plant the bombs in places where minorities gather. It makes no sense to say that this activity is 'protected' while a woman baring her breast is not."

To start with - that man can "teach" people whatever he wants about minorities and bombs... First Amendment, free speech, blah blah blah. Should he be able to? Absolutely. What he teaches makes my blood boil, but living in a truly free society means that freedoms I have to express my beliefs and opinions should be the exact same freedoms given to the people who make my blood absolutely boil. However, this isn't what got me steamed about what Prof Vu said....

To encourage someone to plant bombs in places where minorities gather is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue from teaching someone about how to build bombs and/or how racial minorities are subhuman. Encouraging someone to plant a bomb is a call to criminal action - something that is NOT protected because you're not "teaching" someone anything. You are trying to get someone to DO something illegal. I don't know all the legal terms for it, but that borders on "inciting a riot" or "aiding and abetting" or something. If a listener takes the message to heart and DOES end up planting a bomb, the messenger is just as guilty as the listener.

For example, let's say I told you that I was mad at someone, and during that same conversation I mention that there's a knife in the drawer. If you then took that knowledge of the knife and my anger at someone and then ended up killing that person, I am not guilty of the murder because I never told you or encouraged you in any way to kill that person. HOWEVER, if, during that same conversation, I encourage you to kill the person I'm mad at, I would DEFINITELY be guilty of the murder. Simply saying "there's a knife in the drawer" isn't what would have caused my guilt - I was merely providing information. Saying "I'm mad at _____" isn't what would have caused my guilt because, again, I was providing information. Those two pieces of information are (relatively) innocuous because it would take a logical (or, in this case, illogical) leap from you to go out an kill the person I was mad at with the knife in the drawer. It's the call to action - me saying "You should kill _______ with that knife in the drawer because I'm mad at him/her" - that would have led to my conviction because I'm taking those two innocuous statements and making the (il)logical leap of what you should do with that information for you. Providing people with information and then encouraging those people use that information to commit a crime IS NOT protected speech.

I think that's a valid point. The example used probably does cross another important line--for lack of better terms, I'll call it "Instructing vs. Teaching." If your words encourage evil, they're protected. If they cause evil, like if I gave an order to someone who worked for me to do something bad, then they're not.

Simply because the order involved some teaching ("Here's how to work a gun. Go shoot that man with it.") doesn't pull it under the protected umbrella of what I call "teaching." For semantics sake I'll call such teaching "instruction," and say it's part of the order rather than educational or political.

Another Problem With Insurance:I've never been a big fan of insurance, so this article drew a smile from me.

Seems that a bunch of politicians in Thailand are avoiding paying hotel costs by checking themselves in to hospitals overnight. And the insurance companies don't think they should have to pay the costs.

This is probably my silliest link today.

And while you're at it: Take a shot at shutting off the internet.

Getting to Know Me:
'Complete Psycho' PLEASE VOTE!!!


What Type of Lunatic are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

You have a lot going for you, but most people will
only remember you for one thing, and a lot of
them will try to copy it. They'll all suck at
it, though. Besides, you've got better stuff.


What band from the 80s are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

You are Amanda


Which one of Joyce's Friends are you
brought to you by Quizilla
You are most like Sydney Bristow from Alias. You
have that secret agent edge. Your smart and
quickminded. Even in the hardest of pressure
you can keep a level head.


Which SuperChick Are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

What Finding Nemo Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

You are smart and sexy!


Which Ultimate Beautiful Woman are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
You came from the future. You have wisdom beyond
your age and are always thinking ahead. A
favorite poem of yours is "Autumn" by
Emily Dickinson. You have strenth and
independence. Intelligence and creativity are
your strong points and you always try your
best. Your heart shines through hatred and
always discovers truth. Often you are found
looking ahead and wondering what put us on this
Earth. Your heart is in the right place, but
don't let your wisdom shine through fun. Your
worrying can often prevent you from finding
friends, but your nice and caring spirit makes
up for it. Wisdom is your soul.


Where did you come from when you were born?
brought to you by Quizilla

You are Mario. You're pretty good-all-around.
You're most of the time the hero, and you don't
get too hung up in it...just try and let others
get a little spot-light too, k? (plz rate)


What Nintendo Charater are You? (pics)
brought to you by Quizilla

Bichos: My short story "Bichos" is up for critique this week at Critters. If you're signed up, check it out and shoot me a crit.

Those Who Can, Do; Those Who Can't, Teach: While I was gone, Prof. Vu responded to my comments on his cenorship post.

His argument is basically that "teaching is a form of doing" and "doing things can teach people" and therefore my distinction is arbitrary.

In order for that to make any sense, though, I would have had to argue that ALL doing is wrong. I didn't. There are lots of things you can "do" on TV that nobody should be able to stop you from doing, and one of them is teach whatever you want (It's the old all Fords are cars, but not all cars are Fords).

My argument was that teaching should, in every circumstance, be protected, in exactly the same way it is protected on the street (ie except in cases of slander and libel and such).

And, contrawise, public broadcast channels should be held to the same decency standards as public places.

What I'm arguing is teaching people to do something wrong isn't the same as doing the wrong thing.

He says, "But in all seriousness, teaching is an act, and one that can have serious consequences. Suppose, for example, that a man 'teaches' that racial minorities are subhuman, explains in detail how to make a bomb and then encourages his listeners to plant the bombs in places where minorities gather. It makes no sense to say that this activity is 'protected' while a woman baring her breast is not."

I say it does make sense, absolutely and completely. Because, as horrible as it is, if we start placing limits on people's ability to teach that racial minorities are subhuman, then we've opened up the door for placing limits on people teaching other "immoral" things like "Questioning the government is good" and "Dissent from popular opinion" a generation from now.

People must be free to hold evil beliefs and advocate illegal acts. Advocating crime or evil or whatever is not the same thing as enacting evil. The line may be razor thin but it's vital, because it is the difference between Orwellian thought control and a free society.

He says, "If we set about deciding what can be banned and what can't be banned without sort of neutral principle (assuming such a neutral principle can even exist), we are left to the rather arbitrary standards of our own prejudices."

What I'm arguing for is a neutral principle. That principle is, if you can't do it in a public place, you can't do it on TV. Why should my naughty bits, which I would be arrested for exposing to children in a park, suddenly become okay to show just because network executives, a producer, a director, lighting people, camera people, and a whole bevy of others have conspired to carry the image to millions of children across the country?

Again, this doesn't necessarily apply to private cable channels, which are not publicly accessible. Those are like private clubs and residences.

But public broadcast channels should be held to the same decency standards as public places. Simply because it's a broadcast media doesn't automatically transform every wave of transmission into a form of "expression" that's covered by the first amendment.

Doing can make a statement--shooting President Bush would make a heck of a statement, but it really wouldn't fall under first amendment protection.

That's why the "appropriateness" has to be decided independently of the morality of the piece. And that distinction isn't that hard to figure out--we figure it out in public places, so we'll be able to figure it out on the airwaves.

School Magazine Fundraisers: When my brother-in-law, who's still in high school, asked us if we wanted to buy a magazine to help him raise money for something or other, the first magazines I looked for were Sci-Fi and Fantasy, as you'd probably expect. None were on there.

Now I come across this story. Now, granted, this story is probably setting of four-alarm bells on everybody's "How To Read The News" meter, but just in case, here's the response from Asimov's.

The story in question is apparently "Tammy Pendant" by Chris Beckett. There's a review of that story, and the rest of the magazine, over at Tangent.

Deep Space Nine: While in PA, I saw Star Trek: Deep Space Nine for the first time. Does Quark remind anybody else of Sam from The Apprentice?