Peter Hodges

October 17, 2157

“Daddy!” Rose and Tomas shouted in unison as I entered our apartment.  I smiled and tried to hug both of them close to me.  They were as different as night and day.  Rose shared her mother’s fair complexion and blonde hair, with crystal-blue eyes and high cheekbones.  When she reached puberty, she was going to have to carry a stick to beat the all of her would-be suitors off.  Tomas, on the other hand, took more after me.  He had a slightly olive complexion, dark, curling hair, and penetrating hazel eyes.  He had his mother’s high cheekbones rather than my own round race, but it gave his gaze an intensity that a four year old shouldn’t have had.  Everything that he did was serious, even when he played the outrageous games that his older sister made up.

Tamra was in the kitchen, preparing a much more sumptuous dinner that what we would have had on Earth.  Here, on Europa, with a need for a self-sustaining ecology, we had an excess of plant life producing foodstuffs.  There was no calorie limit, and a family could have as much as they could pay for without having to resort to black market food peddlers.
Continue Reading »

Do I sense a terrible trend here?

Two Montana democrats have introduced an amendment in the Senate that would keep the forthcoming Real ID from being used for employment verification.

Yay!  *waves flag* 

Let’s back up for a second.  What is Real ID? 

Simply put, it is a set of requirements put forth by the Federal Government that require a state-issued driver’s license to meet a series of standards.  You can find the requirements here.  (Let the PDF load, then search for REAL ID.)  The requirements in themselves seem pretty innocent, until you get to this part:

Under the REAL ID act, DHS is authorized to promulgate regulations to determine whether States driver’s license standards are in compliance with the REAL ID act.

Hmm…suddenly we have the Federal Government telling states what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable ID in exchange for welfare services.  This also seems pretty simple on the surface; states can give Washington a big middle finger and go about their merry way with almost no consequences, until you see how the law is actually written:

(b) States that do not certify their intent to comply with the REAL ID Act and implementing regulations or that do not submit a compliance plan acceptable to the Secretary are not eligible for grants under the Program. Driver’s license or identification cards issued by States that do not comply with REAL ID may not be used to verify identity under this Title except under conditions approved by the Secretary. [Reference, Section 306(b)]

If you go further in the law, as written, you can see that CNet is reporting this exactly right:

The Real ID Act says that, starting on May 11, 2008, Americans will need a federally-approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. States must conduct checks of their citizens’ identification papers, and driver’s licenses may have to be reissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements. (States that agree in advance to abide by the rules have until 2013 to comply.)

Last time I checked, you can’t even require me to have a driver’s license, much less a Federal ID card.  At least some states have given the government a big yuck fou…among my favorite is the language included in this resolution from the state of Utah:

WHEREAS, the REAL ID Act is determined by the Utah State House of Representatives to be in opposition to the Jeffersonian principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government.   [Lines 71-73]

It is quite frankly ludicrous that any government, whether local, state, or federal needs a database of ID cards to “manage” their population.  A driver’s license and social security card is bad enough, but to take the next step and require this is akin to living in East Germany at the height of the Cold War.  I already shudder every time a TSA official asks for my driver’s license before I can step barefooted through a metal detector.  Security should be carefully balanced by its opposite–liberty.  The more security a society has, the less freedom individuals have.  We pay a price for our way of life; we have to decide what price we are willing to pay as a society.  At what point do the myriad frustrations of travel restrictions, violations of privacy, and increasing bureaucracy become too much for the American people?  For me, it is already too much.

I would say our biggest challenge is not the “war” on terrorism, but the war that we’re waging against our way of life.  We have too many over-protective folks who have a siege mentality.  They would have us wall off our borders, catalogue every citizen by some type of biometric data, and then use the increased presence of law enforcement to “guarantee” their safety.  While this infrastructure may be put in place with the best of intentions, the tools are now there for a tyrant to sieze.  This silent, undeclared war on our people was started under the watchwords of security and peace, but the way it will be won (and not by us) is by the collective attitude of apathy.  Quite frankly, I am more concerned about the consequences of the apathy of our people than I am about attacks from Al Qaeda. 

The opening shots have been fired by the Bush administration and rubberstamped by our congress.  I hope someone other than me noticed.

I’m currently reading an alternate history book called What If? In this book, military historians speculate on what might have happened if things had gone differently in major battles throughout history.

I have to admit, I’m intrigued by the premise. I’m generally a fan of alternate history fiction (currently classified as a sub-genre of sci-fi), but rarely do I get to see it treated so rigorously by experts in the field. It got me thinking, though…what could we come up with here out of a given historical situation?

So given a scenario that I will outline below, I’d like to see what you guys would come up with for possible outcomes. There is no right or wrong answer; I’m interested only in ideas. You can submit your ideas either through the comments section or via email. If the emails are good enough, I might cut and paste them into the comments section of this thread unless you ask me specifically not to in the SUBJECT of your email. With no further ado, here is your What If? scenario:

What if President John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated?

John Varley is strongly channeling Robert A. Heinlein’s Rocketship Galileo in this story of four college kids, a charming socially inept savant, and a washed up former astronaut. Instead of a trip to the moon, the book focuses on a journey to Mars in a hastily assembled space ship driven by a untested technology.

Varley sets the stage about fifty years in the future when America is faced with the fact that the Chinese are going to be the first country to put men and women on Mars, beating the American expedition by at least a week. Mix a little bit of intrigue, a dash of character history, a few statements on social class, and imminent danger to the American expedition, and you have the impetus for a death-defying and barely credible journey to the red planet.

It’s okay that it’s barely credible. After all, Varley writes in the tradition of young adult science fiction, with the only distinction being that he uses adult sensibilities about sexuality and language. Make no mistake, because this is still a coming-of-age story that prizes hard work, studiousness, and clever solutions in its characters. This book is designed to appeal to all of us who cut our teeth on the early Heinleins, providing just a bit more meat for the adults we’ve now become.

Varley pays a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the grand master by inserting lines of Heinlein dialogue throughout the novel, even at times using the title(s) of some of his short stories. Pay special attention to the dialogue or you might miss all of them.

This is certainly worth the purchase price, if only to see how adroitly Varley manages his tribute. The story in itself is nothing to write home about, but the style is certainly evocative of Heinlein and memories of lazy summer afternoons spent reading and day-dreaming of humanity’s future in space.

I had heard rave reviews about Jack Campbell’s The Lost Fleet series, so I decided to take a look at the first book in the trilogy to see if it intrigued me enough to finish the series.  I was pleasantly surprised to find a well-woven tale of action and humanity centered around the character of Captain Jack Geary.  Geary was alive in the opening shots of the war; his attention to duty during battle enabled a convoy of civilian ships to escape a nasty battle.  Unfortunately, his ship was destroyed.  He drifted in suspended animation for one hudred years while the war raged on without him…until he was picked up by a heavily outnumbered Alliance fleet struggling to make their way home from deep within enemy territory.  When he awakens, he finds that his actions have been made the stuff of legend and some of the men and women in the fleet regard him as an a gift from their “ancestors” to help them return home.

Geary wrestles with his status as a living legend while trying to mold the disparate elements of personality and tactics into a coherent whole.  Because of the heavy cost of the war, the officers under Geary’s command lack the training and discipline that was the rule nearly a hundred years before.  With no choice but to assume the mantle of duty, Geary reluctantly embraces his status as a legend to train and re-equip his fleet into a weapon that can stand against the enemy and eventually bring all of them home.

The book reads like one part David Weber to two parts David Drake.  The science of combat at relativistic speeds is impeccably written and unbelievably tense.  The tactical considerations of fighting a battle front several billion kilometers across are handled with hard scientific solutions and ingenius manuever.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, this book was my “lunch” book, and it is with great reluctance that I would quit reading and go back to the office to finish out the day.

I can offer no higher praise than to say that I will be purchasing the remaining books in this series to find out what happens to Captain “Black” Jack Geary and his fleet.

It’s Anthony Mendoza’s first day with his crew. As they survey the tug construction floor, will Anthony’s new methods of motivation work with his rough and tough subordinates?

“Privateer - Chapter Four, Part Two”
Story by Peter Hodges
Dramatic Reading: Kate Baker
Music: “Los Alamos Traffic” & “Overpopulation” by Flopsy

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Poor

Geraldine writes:

I can’t believe you think this is a bad idea, Pete. It seems to me that anything that would help these people have a better quality of life would be desirable. If we can reward them for making intelligent life choices, then this conditions them to makes those choices in the absence of reward. I hate to be a proponent of human conditioning, but in this case, everyone wins.

You mean everyone loses. Unfortunately, the conditioning that you speak of has a nasty tendency to backfire. What happens when you remove the financial support that these people have come to depend on? Do they continue to make responsible life choices when they could be better served by working those extra hours or taking a little bit of time for themselves? This is likely going to be a zero-sum game in the end.

Nina writes:

Of course you hate this, Pete. You want to keep your elitist upper middle class boot heel on the necks of the poor. Your only concession is to make your wasteful lifestyle available to those in the lower classes by waving a free education in front of them. What if they don’t want your lifestyle of excess? How many of those same people have the background to succeed?

Give me a second to remove my steel-toed Boots of Oppression (+1) from the necks of the downtrodden. *rolls eyes* From your comment, I hope you’re not implying that the poor are any less capable than those that are more fortunate? Let’s put it this way, in simple terms that even a liberal like yourself can understand. I want to help people help themselves. I’m not going to do anything for them, but I will pay to enable them to do things for themselves. If you want to take Geraldine’s conditioning example, I could see that making people work for the things that bring them to a higher standard of living could have real benefit–i.e. you’re training them to be productive members of society. If they choose to not take advantage of such a program, or if they attempt it and don’t put the requisite effort into it, then that is their fault. I’ve done my part (and more) as a responsible citizen.

Cheney

Bob writes:

Come on, Pete. You know as well as I do that secrets have to be protected. Cheney is the mastermind behind all of Bush’s plans for the last seven years. He knows what he’s doing.

This kind of blind obedience to party and dogma is the reason why our nation will eventually fail. I consider myself moderate to conservative, and yet I don’t blindly give obesiance to the current administration. They have done more things wrong than any administration since Jimmy Carter’s. Clinton may have given rocket technology to the Chinese, but at least he didn’t push the Patriot Act. I’m afraid that it is time for a change. I’m hoping the GOP puts someone up who can repair the damage Bush & Co. have done, but I’m thinking that the American people will do something radically stupid and elect Hillary or one of her ilk.

Hestera writes:

I don’t understand you, Pete. First you’re all “hey I have guns let’s party” and now you’re like “Cheney sucks”. Make up your mind, will you? Just when I’ve decided that your political views are awful, you come out with something like your article about Cheney.

Like I said above, I am loyal to the idea of our Republic, and to the people of this land. It so happens that my ideology more-or-less aligns with certain things from bothparties, so it shouldn’t surprise you that I free with criticism and snark.

Kate’s Article on Video Game Addiction

Bonnie writes:

Kate, you do not suffer in silence. I am currently enduring a divorce from a man who will not pay attention to me, our toddler, or our cat. His addiction is Everquest II. When I told him that it was me or the game, he said that he’ll help me move out. I was crushed. Nothing is real to him anymore except the game. He goes to work, but I suspect that he plays even while he’s there. He eats fast food on the way home. We never do anything as a family. When I cancelled the internet to get his attention, he told me to take care of the internet bill and went to Starbuck’s with his laptop.

Bonnie, you have my sincere regrets about your situation. There is no excuse for his behavior. I am reluctant to classify constant MMO playing as addiction, simply because there is usually a deeper psychological issue present that acts as an enabler. I wish you the best of luck as you try to rebuild your life and I hope that you can find happiness or reconciliation in the future.

Podcast

I’m just going to do a montage of comments below. By the numbers, the feedback is 81% positive, 4% unsure, 15% critical/negative. (Three hundred eighty-nine total respondents.)

“Great voice work! I wish I sounded half as good as you guys.” - Hector
“Terrific! I love the story so far.” - Michylle
“Can you speed up the update cycle to twice per week?” - Thomas T.
“You capture the desperate future of Earth so well: Megacorporations are the rule and governments are secondary.” - TunnelRat
“Strongly reminiscent of Heinlein.” - Julie
“Your evocative images of family life and marital conflict ring true to life. Well done.” - Terry
“Kate’s voice is super-sexy and under utilized for humdrum science fiction.” - Alyssa
“The voice over work is better than many professional audio books I’ve read.” - Jake and Nat
“Kate should come read me to sleep every night. I would sleep like a baby.” - Brenda
“The podcasts always make my Wednesday morning subway mix. Thanks, guys!” - TravelingMan
“Boring, derivative, and overtly preachy–science fiction by amateurs is worse than poetry by teenagers.” - Grendel