I don't know how many of you have heard of the Zeitgeist Movement, but I have heard people laud it as the greatest thing ever.
The first movie is based on embarrassinglybad research, in my opinion, but that was mostly in regards to history and religion. Apparently, that first movie was a sort of lead-in to the second (big surprise!), which is a sort of advert for some form of Utopian society.
I must admit to not watching either movie myself, as simply reading a summary of the ideas presented therein was enough to convince me that it was a waste of time. I haven't payed much attention to Zeitgeist except to shake my head when I heard one of it's fanatics parroting its talking points.
I'm no economist, however, but I fortunately stumbled upon Stefan Molyneux's critique of the most recent movie, and found it fairly entertaining and quite reasonable. Peter Joseph, spokesperson and, I think, founder, (cult-leader?) of the whole business responded in kind, in an apparently reasonable, yet suspiciously unconvincing manner (perhaps to be expected from one defending themselves).
I've linked to both videos to give you an opportunity to judge for yourselves. (Try not to fall asleep during the second one)
You can watch (listen to) Peter Joseph's response here:
I finally had a reason to dig up Andrew Lang's Homer and the Study of Greek when I was asked if I was familiar with him.
In the past, I would have said 'Isn't that the Fairy Tale Book Guy, where all of the books are a different color?' But this time, I had the good fortune of having read his opinions on Greek, and was able to sound a bit more scholarly than I usually am.
When I found that essay online (instead of in my textbook where I had originally read it) I was doubly fortunate to find piles of his work online, and excavating that pile for nuggets of good reading has occupied a small amount of my time which wasn't devoted to video games or watching football.
Sadly, I'm doing this review for free. If Barnes & Noble want to send me a designer cover for my nook, I will accept it. Until then, this is how I think of my nook:
As I am only an honorary geek, I'm not going into the specs. I don't like those pesky details. However, I love pretty much everything about this ereader. I love the size and weight, for starters. I have actually damaged my neck joints in the past from lugging around Tom Clancy paperbacks. Cross my heart. (This is why our sensible ancestors published larger books in multiple volumes. I have an Everyman edition of The Three Musketeers from c.1908, and the two slim hardbacks are delightful. Unlike the special editions the thickness and weight of cinder blocks that Barnes & Noble publishes.*)
The design of the nook is not merely easy to use, it's addictive. It's fun to turn the pages with the buttons on the sides, and it's fun to add bookmarks and then go back to them. And yes, I have finished reading several whole books on mine. I don't just punch shiny buttons, honestly.
Now I am not really any booksellers target demographic because I prefer dead authors to living ones. (Except Adrian Plass. And Mel Gilden.) So most books that I want to own are either public domain or will be in the next few years. This works great for an ereader- I can download free electronic stacks of books that would smother me in the non-electronic world. So, for me, the selection available is almost perfect. If I just wanted to keep up with the latest bestsellers, I'd be paying less than for physical books, but I'd still be paying out.
One thing I'll have to report on later is the interaction of the nook with the Barnes & Noble website. See, you have to get access to wifi to register the nook at the B &N site, only after which you can download free screen savers and such. I live in Possum Crossing, so there are very few wifi sites in my neighborhood. But I am eager to get rid of the default screen saver, consisting of those creepy writer pictures that Barnes & Noble uses on its shopping bags and to decorate the cafes.
Husband: That looks like Erma Bombeck on your nook. Except... it's a guy. An old guy who looks like Erma Bombeck.
Me: That's Kurt Vonnegut.
So no real drawbacks, and unlimited bookworm bliss is about how I'd sum up.
*Now Barnes & Noble won't want to send me any freebies. Now you know how committed I am to bringing my readers the unvarnished truth.
I've recently discovered the BBC Program Churches: How to Read Them. In one part, the host, Richard Taylor, mentions that there is a lot of cryptic animal sculpture and art in medieval churches that can be better understood with a trip to medieval 'bestiaries'. These are medieval books about animals, filled with allegorical stories, fables and myths about animals to help teach us important lessons.
Fortunately for me, a quick search turned up The Medieval Bestiary, a valuable and extensive online resource filled with these stories, image galleries, and even links to original manuscripts.
These bestiaries naturally bring to my mind these Character Sketches, published by the IBLP; neither is very concerned with actual science, but as animal-based life lessons, have some value.
The artwork is likewise entertaining, though apparently, medieval artists didn't always have National Geographic photos of exotic creatures to work from, so their interpretations of animals are wonderfully bonkers.
To my mind, these stories are wonderful, and can still be useful tools for education, but while doing so, it's incredibly important to point out that these stories are almost entirely fictional, and should encourage further research, into both actual science, and ancient history.
Now that sufficient time has elapsed since the announcement of a new contributor, and anticipation has reached it's highest pitch, I feel it is time to emerge from the shadows and introduce myself. Hi. I am "Portia", and I will be posting here from time to time, as other factors allow- which means so much time will elapse between my posts that you will forget my very existence. Then you will be blindsided by huge, dense posts that will cause your eyes to glaze over.
Stay tuned for Jane Austen, a nook review, and stuff about robots.
Here is a great piece on some of the different metaphysical assumptions made by varying camps of libertarians. This explains somewhat why, given that their language appears common, the ideas contained therein are not.
