The Engineering Student and the Frog

A handsome and wealthy prince ran afoul of a witch, who promptly turned him into a frog.  What do these witches have against princes anyhow?

The frog hopped onto a college campus and hid under the bushes by the Quad.  He called out to a female student, “Hey, if you kiss me, I will turn into a handsome prince.”  The young lady looked at him thoughtfully, picked him up, and took him to her dorm.  Then she went to class.

When she came back from class, the frog said again, “Young lady, if you kiss me, I really will turn into a handsome prince, and we can go to the Homecoming Dance together.”  The lady looked at him again, gave him some food she had pinched form the Biology department, put him in an aquarium she had bought at the thrift store, and went out to the library to study.  She finally got back from studying at midnight and went to sleep.

The next morning she woke up and the frog spoke again.  “My dear beautiful young lady,” he said in his best flattering voice, “I hate to say this, but you don’t appear to have much of a social life.  If you would just kiss me, I will turn into a handsome prince and be yours forever.”

The young lady looked at him, picked him up, thought for a while, put him back in the aquarium, and said, “Oh, I am sorry, you don’t understand.  I am an ENGINEERING student.  I don’t have time for a boyfriend.  But a talking frog is kind of cool.”

Maybe I Should Just Send It Back

I recently received a new bathroom scale.  It was defective from the manufacturer.

The old bathroom scale always said “180″ when I stepped on it.  The new bathroom scale says “188,” so something must be wrong with it.

My wife doesn’t like what it says to her either.

I am an engineer and I fix things, so…

The Mrs. says I need to fix this thing.  She doesn’t usually nag me about fixing things around the house, but she says  “no more donuts” until I get that bathroom scale recalibrated so it says “180″ again.

Maybe I should just send the darn thing back.

The Consequences of Having Women in Combat

When you are playing a strategy game, it is important to look at the features of the position, and consider what your opponents or teammates might do.  For example, in Settlers of Cataan, you want to place your settlements in a good location, and place your roads going in a good direction, so your opponents don’t cut you off.  In chess, you want to bring your pieces to squares where they work with your other pieces, and where they strike at the opponent’s weakness.  You should never make a move in isolation.

When it comes to government, similar rules apply.  Before making or changing a policy, you need to consider its effect on already existing policies.  One decision, mixed with already existing decisions, can have unintended consequences.

Last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that from now on, women would be allowed in combat positions in the armed forces.  The line between combat and non-combat positions has been blurring in the past few years, so this decision is no surprise.  However, there is a consequence of this decision that may be a surprise.

In the 1970s, President Nixon ended the draft.  However, in 1980, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we thought we might eventually need a draft again, so President Carter re-instated Selective Service registration for young men.  Most of my male readers know all about this.

When you have a law, there will always be lawsuits.  So naturally, there was a court case that challenged the constitutionality of Selective Service registration, because it was for men only.  The case was Rostker vs. Goldberg (1981), and the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that male-only draft registration was constitutional.  They reasoned that the purpose of the draft was to raise a combat force, and women were not allowed in combat roles in the armed forces.  Therefore it made sense to draft only men.

Now that women ARE permitted in combat positions, the reasoning behind this Supreme Court case no longer applies.  After all, if women can do anything in the armed forces that men can do, they should also be subject to the draft, right?  In fact, there is a petition on the White House website that argues that for the sake of gender equality, women must now be subject to the draft.  It reads:

With the decision of the Secretary of Defense to end the “combat exclusion,” women are now eligible for combat roles in the military. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg, that the requirement for males–and only males–to sign up for Selective Service was constitutional precisely because women were excluded from serving in front line combat units.

That exclusion no longer exists–to ensure a just and equal society the Obama administration must implement Selective Service registration for women when they reach the age of 18, as well as require all women under the age of 30 to register for Selective Service as well–under the same penalties for non-compliance that apply to men.

This is an important issue for fairness and equality.

Now I don’t expect that this will reach the 100,000 vote threshold any time soon.  Most conservatives believe the slippery slope is leading this way, but they will not sign it because they don’t think that women should be drafted.  Most liberals will not sign it because they don’t think that anyone should be drafted.  And even if this petition gets to 100,000 signatures, Barack Obama won’t want to consider it because he doesn’t want Sasha and Malia to be drafted.

But logically, this petition is consistent.  Secretary Panetta has, unintentionally (or perhaps not), opened up a can of worms.  It is only a matter of time before the consequences of his decision work themselves out.

It could be amusing to watch all the young women who voted for Obama because of free birth control find themselves registering for the draft.  If that was the only effect of this decision, it would be pure entertainment.

However, there is the question of what my daughters (and my friends’ daughters) would do.  As members of the Presbyterian Church in America, our church has made a statement against women in combat, so my daughters should be entitled to Conscientious Objector status.  However, the Obama administration has tried to limit religious freedom in other areas.  For example, they have argued that private business owners cannot exercise their pro-life convictions when it comes to choosing an insurance plan, and that Catholic colleges and ministries, because they are not actual churches, have to cover birth control, regardless of their religious convictions.  So they might argue against Conscientious Objector status for women who simply believe that warfare is a man’s job.

In that case, I could see some of the kindest and gentlest young ladies I know transformed into 60′s style anti-draft protesters.  Except that they will have fewer drugs.  And a better vocabulary.  And better music.  And, we hope, a large number of their middle-aged dads backing them.

Are We There Yet? A Review of The Hobbit

[Warning: This will contain spoilers.  If you haven't read The Hobbit, you just might be a troll, and since trolls are not part of my target audience, I will assume that the reader has read The Hobbit.]

If you want an entertaining action movie that is epically long, has some good special effects, and slightly resembles a book that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about a hobbit, you will like this movie, and the two that will follow it.

If you want a book that is faithful to Tolkien, you will enjoy parts of this movie, but you will grind your teeth during some of the scenes, and the longer you think about it, the worse the movie will seem.

So how does Peter Jackson get Tolkien wrong?  Allow me to rant a bit.

1.  The Hobbit is not The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings is a 3 part (technically 6 part) epic story that runs about 1100 pages.  It covers a full year and the characters travel through most of Middle Earth, including all of the major civilizations.  There are 3 major battles involving thousands on each side, and multiple other fights.  Additionally, the action in the story is part of a very long history.  This story is suitable for the 3 part epic treatment that Peter Jackson gave it.

In contrast, The Hobbit is a much simpler adventure story.  Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, is called to join a small company  of dwarves and a wizard on a mission to kill a dragon.   The action proceeds in pretty much a straight line, with a simple plot.  The history of Middle Earth is not well developed, and it is not as important to the story as it develops.  It is hard to figure out how this story merits 3 separate movies.

2.  The Backstory Sometimes Dominates the Real Story

To make this small book into 3 separate movies, Peter Jackson fills in the space in ways that are both good and bad.  On the good side, he gives the backstory of Thorin the dwarf, showing the rise of Smaug the dragon, and the battle that gave him the name “Oakenshield”.  He also shows the White Council and some of their deliberations concerning Dol Goldur.  It was also good to show a little bit of Radagast, because he did help Gandalf from a distance, though this is way overdone.

However, he lets the history of Middle Earth overshadow the story he is trying to tell.  Azog, the Orc wounded by Thorin at the gates of Moria, comes back into the story where he doesn’t belong.  And  the Ring is simply a ring of invisibility in The Hobbit.  It is not until later, in The Lord of the Rings, that its powers increase.

3.  Dwarves and Hobbits are not Ninjas

One major way that Peter Jackson get the story wrong is that fighting dominates the story.  In the book, the trolls overpower the dwarves quickly (as do the goblins later on), and they are rescued by Gandalf.  In the movie, there is a long struggle.  Also, goblins do not appear in the book until the company reaches the Misty Mountains.

When Peter Jackson’s dwarves do fight, they are like ninjas, taking out hundreds of goblins and showing amazing acrobatic skills.  Even Bilbo uses Sting quite a lot.  The actual dwarves of  Tolkien’s world did a lot less fighting, and while they were stout warriors, they were not superheroes.  If the unnecessary fighting was removed, the movie could have been reduced to two parts, and the dialogue could have been improved.

4  Goblins are not Orcs, and their cave was all wrong

This movie treats the goblins as if they were the Uruk-Hai of Saruman.  But goblins in The Hobbit were not like that.  They were evil bullies, but they shunned the light and would never attack by day, so their range was limited.

Their cave was all wrong too.  Tolkien’s goblins made tunnels in their caves, not flimsy footbridges that would never be able to support the weight of the goblin-king.  Oh, and the goblin-king reminded me of Fat Albert with a mean streak.

5.  The geography of Middle Earth is exaggerated

In this part of the story, the company is taking the East Road.  In Tolkien’s Middle Earth, this road had been used for trade in better times.  In Jackson’s Middle Earth, this road is often a very precarious foot path.  Overall, there are way too many crags, cliffs, and steep ledges.  This is particularly wrong when the company is treed by the goblins.  The danger to the company is from the fire, the Goblins, and the wolves, not from the cliff.

6.  Finally, Radagast is almost as annoying as Jar Jar Binks

Putting Radagast in the story is fine.  He has an off-stage role that is important to the main action.  But in the book, the Company never meets Radagast.  He lives many miles away, at the edge of Mirkwood, and Tolkien makes it clear that Radagast did not like to travel.  Secondly, Radagast did NOT have a bunny-driven chariot, or bird-poop on his head.  Thirdly, there is no evidence that he was affected by mushrooms and made into a total flake.  If he appears more in the sequels, he has the potential to become even more annoying.

None of the above criticisms will keep me from seeing the next two movies.  The movie is entertaining, full of action, and visually appealing.  It just isn’t very faithful to Tolkien.

The…World’s…Slowest…Computer

My blog stats for the year came in, and my publishing record has been quite lame.  It is not because there is nothing to write about.  It is not for lack of ideas.  It is not even because of a lack of time.

No, the main reason that I haven’t been writing much is that I have … the… worlds… slowest… computer.

Don’t cry for me.  The computer is about 10 years old, and it just isn’t up to loading all the widgets and gizmos that are on a modern website.

How bad is it?  A typical session at the computer might go like this…

Login to Facebook.

[While page is loading, de-junk the computer desk.]

Read stuff.  Hey, someone linked to an article I want to read.  Click on the article.

[Go make the bed. Put laundry away too, while the page is loading.]

Go look at a news site.  Click on it.

[Didn't the Mrs. want me to change a light bulb?  I bet I can do that while the page loads.]

Click on an article on the news site.

[While it is loading, go repair the dryer.]

Go to chess.com.

[While it is loading, change the oil in the car.  Solve Fermat's last Theorem too.]

Make my moves.

[Between each move, do those stretching exercises the doctor told me I should do.]

Log off, because it is time for bed.

The good news is that a new computer is on the way.  Then this dinosaur  be relegated to word processing, some old games, and perhaps some other software that will be too old to run on the new computer.

But sometimes it is not all bad to have… The … World’s … Slowest… Computer…

The Problems of Senator Menendez

The news has come in that Senator Robert Menendez, D-NJ, had an unpaid 18 year old intern working for him, who was an illegal alien.  Even more astonishing, the fellow, who was 18 years old, was also a documented sex offender.

You can read the whole article here:

I am tempted to go on a rant about how terrible Senator Menendez is, and how he should resign now, so Chris Christie can appoint a replacement.  Much as I would like that to happen, that is not what I am going to do.  Someone else can do that better.  Besides, the senator, whatever his other faults, is probably just an average doofus by Washington, DC standards.  So I will just offer a few calm thoughts on the matter.

1.  I am all for teenagers working, and at 18, this teenager was old enough to vote.  That is, he would be able to vote if he was a citizen.  But according to the article, he had “worked on immigration issues” for the senator.  At age 18, shouldn’t he be making coffee in the senator’s office, or maybe filing, or helping the Senator’s staffers figure out how to use the latest electronic gadgets?

Either the kid was really bright, or the Senator had terrible personnel policies.  I bet on the second option.

2.  Any private company, before hiring a person, has to prove that the person is eligible to work in the USA.  Companies can get into big trouble for hiring ineligible workers.  My company’s application has “are you eligible to work in the US” as one of the first questions.  How did the senator’s screening process not reveal that this fellow was on a visitor visa and not eligible to work in this country?

3.  Were there no American citizens available to become interns for the Senator?  In early 2012, if I remember right, there were thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters who were just finishing their protests.  The Senator could have easily found one of those people, who was an unemployed college graduate with a Political Science degree, and given him a job as an intern.  He probably could have found a New Jersey resident in the bunch, and it could have helped the kid.

Is being an intern for a Senator now a job that Americans won’t do now?

4.  How does a person get to be a registered sex offender, and also get to stay in the country for 2 more years?

Is sex offending also a job that Americans won’t do?

5.  Finally, I know a young man who got a summer job as a school custodian, cleaning up the school and preparing it for the next school year.  Even though he never went near an actual student, he was required to have a drug test and a criminal background check, which included a check for sexual offenses.

Shouldn’t congressional interns, who just might be exposed to sensitive information, have some level of screening before they take the job?

6.  I said above that I will not pick on Senator Menendez.  However, this episode does reveal something about him.  It reveals that he is not capable of running his own office in accordance with the laws of this country.  Most companies bigger than a lawn care service do a better job than him.

When Senators like him (and the other 99 of them) tell us their great ideas for how they want to run this country, we should treat them with considerable skepticism.  Most of them are not super smart.

That is why our Founding Fathers designed the Federal government to have limited powers, with lots of checks and balances.

The Man I Haven’t Met (Or, Why Obama Should Lose)

I understand that the polls have been favoring Obama lately.  That might have something to do with his minions’ insistence that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes for 10 years, or that he caused a woman to die from cancer, or that he nominated for VP a man who pushes wheelchair-bound grandmothers of of cliffs.  Negative ads work, at least for a while, even if they are totally false.  Of course, once you have accused your opponents of murder, tax fraud, and causing cancer, you might run out of shockingly bad things to say by October.

But I think Obama will lose, possibly in a landslide, and here is why.

I know a fellow who is a small businessman, and who hates Ronald Reagan.  He also hates George W. Bush, and he voted for Obama in 2008, because he said we needed a huge change.  He will be voting for Romney this time around.  He hates Obama’s lawless approach to immigration, and he hates the ridiculous requirements that the Obama administration has put on his business.  He also doesn’t like incumbents.

I know another fellow who is as far left as I am to the right.  He also hates Bush and Reagan, and he was gung ho for Obama in 2008.  This year, he is just not enthusiastic about politics at all.

I know another fellow who was thoroughly pro Obama in 2008.  He will vote for Obama in 2012, but only because he has no where else to go.  He said once that if he were giving Obama a grade, it would be a C-.  Perhaps now that the campaign is in full swing, he is getting more enthusiastic, but then again, maybe not.

Anyhow, I have talked politics with a good number of people.  I have met McCain supporters who will vote for Romney, with varying levels of enthusiasm.  I have met Obama supporters who will vote for him again (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), and Obama 2008 supporters who will be backing Romney in 2012.

I have not met a single person who has said, “You know, I voted against Obama in 2008, but he has actually done a pretty good job, so I expect to vote for him in 2012.”  Not a single one.

This tells me that, whatever the polls say right now, they will say something different in November.

Given the number of people that I know, and how many people have changed their mind, or their level of enthusiasm,  I have to believe that Obama will get about 48% of the vote this time around, compared to 53% last time around.  Those numbers should lead to an Electoral College victory for Romney.